International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Delamination behavior analysis of steel/polymer/steel high-strength

laminated sheets in a V-die bending test
Hyeonil Park a, Se-Jong Kim a, Jinwoo Lee a, Ji Hoon Kim b, Daeyong Kim a,∗
a
Materials Deformation Department, Korea Institute of Materials Science, 797 Changwondaero, Changwon, Gyeongnam 515508, Republic of Korea
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University, 2 Busandaehak-ro 63beon-gil, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Steel/polymer/steel laminated sheets were fabricated by inserting three types of adhesive layers between two 590-
Laminated sheet MPa grade high-strength steel sheets. V-die bending tests of the laminated sheets were conducted and the results
V-bending test showed that the delamination behaviors depended on the inserted adhesive type. To investigate the mechanical
Delamination behavior
behaviors of the adhesive layers, delamination tests for each adhesive layer along normal and shear directions
Cohesive zone model
were performed. Based on the results of the delamination tests, an inverse parameter characterization using an
iterative finite element simulation with interface elements was successfully conducted to characterize the cohesive
properties for mixed-mode bilinear cohesive zone model that clearly described the measured load–displacement
curves. The results of the V-die bending tests were predicted through simulations using the characterized cohesive
properties; the delamination patterns, punch force drop, and entire level of punch force agreed well with the
experimental results. Delamination mechanisms were deduced based on parametric studies conducted to elucidate
the direct effect of cohesive properties on delamination.

1. Introduction coelastic characteristic render them applicable to form VDSs. Natural- or

In recent years, with increasing global environmental issues, vari-
ous attempts are being conducted to reduce vehicle weights and cope
with stringent fuel economy standards [1]. The most practical meth-
ods are substituting conventional steel sheets with lightweight mate-
rial sheets or reducing the thickness of steel sheets. However, these
approaches lead to irrationalities in natural frequency matching, re-
sulting in increased noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), which di-
rectly affect the ride quality [2]. Therefore, it is important to develop
effective approaches for reducing vehicle weight and NVH reduction
simultaneously. One such method is to utilize three-layered sandwich
sheets laminated with metal/polymer/metal for achieving weight sav-
ings over corresponding solid metal sheets of the same thickness. The
laminated sheets can be classified into two general types depending on
their major application purpose, namely weight reduction or vibration
damping. The former has a thick low-density polymer core with nor-
mally 40%–60% of the total thickness whereas the latter has a thin vis-
coelastic polymer core, which is generally less than 20% of the total
thickness [3,4]. The metal/polymer/metal laminated sheets for vibra-
tion damping are called vibration-damping sheets (VDSs), sound dead-
ening sheets, or quiet sheets [5]. Various polymeric adhesives relying on
the formation of intermolecular forces between the adherend and adhe-
sive are generally utilized for metal-to-metal bonding [6], and their vis-
synthetic-rubber-based adhesives are particularly well known for their
high flexibility. However, they have low shear strength and low stiffness,
resulting in a rather low loss modulus [7]. Moreover, except for silicone
adhesives, which have high temperature resistance, these rubber-based
adhesives are generally restricted to temperatures in the range of 66 °C–
93 °C [8]. However, silicone adhesives are not suitable for the sheet
laminate bonding that requires a large bonding area because of their
high cost. Other polymeric adhesives that can be used for VDS include
acrylic-, epoxy-, polyurethane-, polyethylene-, and polyvinyl-based ad-
hesives [9]. Their viscoelastic characteristics achieve the conversion of
mechanical vibration energy caused by elastic deformation into thermal
energy [10]. This conversion is affected by several design properties:
thickness, material properties of the base sheet and adhesive layer, glass
transition temperature of the adhesive layer, and operating properties
like frequency and temperature [11]. Many VDS manufacturers utilize
the appropriate type of polymeric adhesive considering their environ-
mental resistance, curing time, and elevated temperature properties, in
addition to the above-mentioned design properties, and also consider
surface preparation of the sheet adherend and economic feasibility be-
cause of the need to bond large areas of two metal sheets [12,13].
The concept of using the vibration-damping properties of a viscoelas-
tic adhesive layer is based on several studies on the damping prop-
erties of constrained viscoelastic layers performed by Kerwin [14] in

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: daeyong@kims.re.kr (D. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105430
Received 5 September 2019; Received in revised form 27 December 2019; Accepted 9 January 2020
Available online 13 January 2020
0020-7403/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
the sound and vibration research field several decades ago. Gould and
Shore [15] first patented a vibration-damping structure by inserting a
viscoelastic material between two sheets, and Shinozaki et al. [16] sub-
sequently proposed a vibration-damping sandwich sheet. Ejima and
Honda [17] analyzed the effect of adhesive shear strength on VDS forma-
bility, demonstrating that the formability generally improved as the ad-
hesive layer shear strength increased. Hiroshi et al. [18] studied the de-
velopment of VDSs for automotive application. Kitamura et al. [19] and
Ichihara et al. [20] patented the application of VDSs to vibration-
sensitive components in automotive bodies (e.g., oil pan, wheel hous-
ing, and dashboard). The forming behavior of a VDS is significantly dif-
ferent from that of solid metal sheets; therefore, to better understand
the deformation mechanism of a VDS, the characteristics of inserted
polymeric adhesive layer should be investigated. Generally, laminate
bonding through adhesives is being widely utilized to join composite
adherends [21]. Various techniques for analyzing the adhesive layer
have been developed and improved over the last decade; the cohesive
zone model (CZM) implemented with interface elements is increasingly
used to describe the mechanical behavior of the ductile adhesive layer
[22–24]. The CZM is defined by the traction–separation law, which rep-
resents the constitutive behavior of interfacial bonding traction (T) as
function of the separation (𝛿) between two bonded points, with respect
to the loading direction (i.e., normal, shear, mixed). Several T–𝛿 laws
such as the bilinear, trapezoidal, and exponential laws, with respect to
the shape of the law were developed, and the selection of the appropri-
ate T–𝛿 law depends on the purpose or experimental conditions. Gener-
ally, three test methods, namely the double cantilever beam [25], end
notched flexure [26], and mixed-mode bending [27] tests standardized
by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) are the best
known methods to evaluate the adhesive characteristics under normal
(mode I), shear (mode II), and mixed modes, which constitute the most
common loading conditions. Direct approaches were proposed for ob-
taining the T–𝛿 law in mode I [28], mode II [29], and mixed modes
[30] based on the load–displacement curve and monitoring the crack
opening displacement at the crack tip in the three tests. However, they
were originally designed to evaluate the energy release rate of composite
adherends based on the calculation of the elastic energy, which allows
only elastic deformation during the tests; therefore, they are not suitable
for a VDS comprising thin metal sheets and adhesive layers. Currently,
no appropriate test standard is available for evaluating thin adhesive
layers inserted in VDSs; therefore, the ASTM T-peel [31] and single-lap
joint tests [32] are commonly used to evaluate the normal and shear
characteristics of the adhesive layer [33,34]. Then, based on the test
results, the inverse identification method that assumes the T–𝛿 law and
the respective parameters are determined by fitting the numerical and
experimental load–displacement curves using an optimization strategy
is generally utilized [35,36].
Moreover, as a VDS is a type of sheet metal material, many stud-
ies have been conducted to apply typical sheet metal processes such as
stretching, drawing, and bending. In particular, the bending of a VDS
shows two interesting behaviors that are not observed in the bending of
solid metal sheets owing to the effect of the inserted adhesive layer. The
first is the curling that occurs on the sidewall of the bent sheet during
bending. The bending curvatures of the upper and lower sheets differ
during bending so that a shear stress develops in the adhesive layer
along the length of the sheets; this induces bending moments in both
sheets, resulting in a curl on the sidewall. Yoshida [37] investigated the
deformation behavior of a VDS during a V-die bending tests and reported
the bending-induced large transverse shear deformation of the adhesive
layer, leading to the curl; this is a geometrical imperfection in the bent
sheets, the so-called gull wing, and in some extreme cases, it causes de-
lamination of the sheet. Makinouchi et al. [38] used a three-layer model
to simulate the bending process, and the results showed that generation
of the curl defects occurred at the bent flange. Kim and Thomson [39] re-
vealed the delamination mechanism of a VDS in four-point bending; it
involved shear failure in the adhesive or a combination of shear failure
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
and void growth in tension generated by transverse stresses resulting
from the outward buckling of one sheet. Huang and Leu [40] also simu-
lated the bending process of steel/polymer/steel laminated sheets using
an elastomer–plastic material, and their calculation demonstrates that
curling of the sheet at the bent flange is caused by concentrated shear de-
formation in the adhesive layer. Corona and Eisenhour [41] investigated
the bending characteristics of a VDS in a wiping die using experimental
and numerical approaches. Their study demonstrated that curling is ab-
sent when the stiffness is zero as the sheets bend independently, but in-
creases rapidly with stiffness until it reaches a maximum. Takiguchi and
Yoshida experimentally and numerically analyzed the effect of various
variables (i.e., length of the die span, forming speed, temperature, and
thickness of the adherend and adhesive) on curling of the bent sheet and
transverse shear deformation of the adhesive layer during V-die bend-
ing of a VDS; the following conclusions were drawn from their studies.
In air bending, a longer die span caused a smaller shear strain of the
adhesive layer, whereas an apparent curl is found in the case of a short
die span [42]. The large transverse shear deformation of the adhesive
layer and curling are successfully suppressed with high-speed forming
at a low temperature, as the deformation resistance of the adhesive resin
becomes higher under such a forming condition [43,44]. Curling of the
bent sheet in the adhesive layer increases with the increasing thickness
of the adherend and adhesive. The transverse shear deformation of the
adhesive layer increases with the increasing thickness of the adherend
and decreasing thickness of the adhesive layer [45]. The second is a
change in the amount of springback due to the viscoelastic properties
of the adhesive layer. Yin et al. [46] demonstrated that springback de-
creases with a decreasing punch/die clearance and die radius as well
as an increasing punch depth. Liu and Wang [47] developed a new an-
alytical model for analyzing the springback behavior of a VDS, and its
predictions showed good agreement with the experimental data. Corona
and Eisenhour [41] showed that the springback changed somewhat with
time after bending because the adhesive layer between the two sheets
is viscoelastic. Li et al. [34] developed a nonlinear viscoelastic material
model analyzing for the adhesive layer, and numerical simulations with
the developed material model accurately predicted the final shape after
bending and springback in V-die bending. Their study found that the
springback of a solid sheet is smaller than that of a VDS; moreover, a
higher forming speed causes a smaller springback, the amount of spring-
back decreases with time over a period, and a larger thickness of the ad-
hesive layer causes a smaller springback. Most of the studies discussed
above carried out V-die bending standardized by ASTM [48]. It is a par-
ticularly important bending process having several advantages, such as
the wide range of product sizes, design advantages for obtaining the
desired bending angle, and reasonable setup time [49–52]. Thus, vari-
ous studies involving V-die bending of small products were performed
for lab-scale research on sheet metal forming. During the V-die bending
process, a sheet laid over a V-shaped die is bent as the V-shaped punch
is inserted into the die, resulting in tensile stress and compressive stress
on the outer and inner surface of the bent sheet, respectively. The V-die
bending process consists of two distinct stages, namely air bending and
bottoming (as coining). In the former stage, the sheet is bent while main-
taining contact with the punch nose and two die corners (i.e., three-point
bending). In terms of VDS bending, this is very important stage where in-
terfacial slip, curling, or delamination mostly occurs. In the latter stage,
the bent sheet is pressed between the punch and die side walls to the
maximum extent possible; the punch force increases rapidly so that the
undefined state of curvature is forcibly removed and the bending angle
approaches the die angle. When the punch is removed, elastic recovery
(i.e., springback and spring-go) of the bent sheet occurs wherein residual
stresses are in equilibrium.
Many researchers have performed comprehensive studies focusing
on the forming behavior of a VDS affected by the inserted adhesive
layer in the bending process mentioned above in the past decade or two
[3,53–57]. Various studies on the bending of a VDS have been completed
and the mechanism is well established; however, a systematic analy-
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
Table 1
Mechanical properties of the DP590 steel sheets.
Sheet rolling direction Young’s modulus (GPa) Yield stress (MPa)
RD 210.3 351.4
DD 209.3 348.3
TD 210.5 351.6
sis regarding the effect of the cohesive properties of the adhesive layer
inserted into the VDS on curling or delamination during bending has
not been performed until date. In addition, no attempt has been made
to fabricate vibration damping steel sheet (VDSS) using high-strength
steel sheets. Therefore, in this study, to fabricate high-strength VDSS,
590-MPa grade dual-phase (DP590) steel sheets were utilized as the
base sheets. DP590 steel sheets are widely used for fabricating auto-
motive components owing to their extremely beneficial combination of
high strength and ductility; hence, many studies have comprehensively
analyzed the properties of DP590 and its applications [58,59]. When
searching for the appropriate adhesive to bond them, interesting delam-
ination phenomena depending on the adhesive type were observed in
the V-die bending test of the prototype VDSS bonded using three kinds
of ductile adhesives with damping properties, supplied by a manufac-
turer of sound damping sheets.
The aim of this study was to analyze the direct effect of the co-
hesive properties of the adhesive layers on their delamination behav-
iors depending on types of adhesive layers inserted in the 590-MPa
grade VDSS prototypes during the V-die bending tests. The mixed-mode
bilinear CZM offering simple and straightforward physical interpreta-
tions was utilized to simulate the mechanical behavior of the adhesive
layers. Normal and shear delamination tests were conducted to eval-
uate the mechanical behaviors of the adhesive layers, and an inverse
identification method linked with an optimization program was used
to establish the CZM. Three different delamination patterns depend-
ing on the types of adhesive layers were predicted through numerical
simulations performed with the characterized cohesive properties; we
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
Fig. 1. Experimental setup used for uniax-
ial tensile tests: (a) testing apparatus and (b)
shape of the specimen.
Ultimate tensile stress (MPa) Uniform elongation (%) Total elongation (%) Lankford value r
649.8 19.2 27.5 0.88
639.2 19.0 27.4 0.97
655.9 19.0 27.4 1.11
Fig. 2. Cross-sections of the bonding ar-
eas in the VDSSs having (a) acrylic-based,
(b) polyethylene-based, and (c) polyethylene
epoxy-based adhesive layers.
compared not only the delamination patterns but also the punch force
drop and entire punch force level during the simulations and experi-
ments. In addition, the delamination mechanism of the VDSS was in-
vestigated based on parametric studies, which were conducted to un-
derstand in detail the effects of the cohesive properties on the delam-
ination behavior. Moreover, this procedure will serve as a guideline
for choosing a high-strength VDSS with a suitable adhesive layer to
achieve the desired bending process from the manufacturer’s point of
view.
2. Experimental procedures
2.1. Materials
The base sheets of the VDSSs used in this study were dual-phase (DP)
590-MPa grade high-strength steel sheets, which had a ferrite matrix
containing martensite as the second phase and a thickness of 0.7 mm.
To investigate the mechanical properties of the DP590 steel sheets along
the rolling direction (RD), diagonal direction (DD), and transverse di-
rection (TD), uniaxial tensile tests were carried out on ASTM-E8 stan-
dard specimens with a 10-ton capacity universal testing machine (UTM)
equipped with a 2D digital image correlation system, as shown in Fig. 1.
The strain determined from the digital images was linked with the load
data measured by the load cell. The test speed was set to 0.05 mm/s
considering quasi-static deformation. The uniaxial anisotropic proper-
ties were evaluated using the Lankford (r) value, which is the slope of
the linear approximation between the width strain (𝜀x ) and thickness
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
Fig. 3. Comparison of the mechanical properties of the base sheet and VDSSs: (a) engineering stress–strain curve (RD) and (b) true strain variation (RD) with respect
to the adhesive layer.
strain (𝜀z ) of a specimen subjected to uniaxial tension. Here, by employ-
ing the plastic incompressibility condition (𝜀x + 𝜀y + 𝜀z = 0), 𝜀z was
determined from 𝜀x and longitudinal strain (𝜀y ). The measured proper-
ties are presented in Table 1.
DP 590 steel sheets with dimensions of 300 mm × 300 mm were pre-
pared to fabricate the VDSSs with three different types of adhesive lay-
ers: acrylic-based (ACRY), polyethylene-based (PE), and polyethylene
epoxy-based (PEE) layers. Because the adhesion between the adhesive
layer and steel sheet is influenced by the surface conditions of the steel
sheet, the following surface treatment was performed. The surfaces of
the steel sheets were polished with sandpaper, washed with water, and
cleaned with acetone. After this preprocessing step, the VDSSs were fab-
ricated by inserting each adhesive layer between two steel sheets with
dimensions of 300 mm × 300 mm and passing the specimens through
rollers. The specimens were then cured at 100 °C for 30 min. The thick-
ness of the inserted adhesive layers was measured via optical microscopy
of the bonded section, as shown in Fig. 2.
Uniaxial tensile tests along the RD of the three types of VDSSs, and
the results were compared with those of the base sheet. Fig. 3 shows the
measured flow curves and strain variations in the width and longitudinal
directions. Differences in the mechanical properties between the base
sheet and VDSSs were not significant.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
Fig. 4. Experimental setup used for the V-die
bending test: (a) testing machine and (b) shape
of the specimen before and after tests.
2.2. V-die bending tests
Fig. 4(a) shows the apparatus used for the V-die bending tests in this
study. The tests were performed using a 10-ton capacity UTM equipped
with V-bending tools and the punch force and stroke values were output
from the load cell and UTM, respectively. In addition, a camera was used
to record the delamination behaviors during the V-die bending test in
real time. The punch stroke was controlled at a constant crosshead speed
of 0.1 mm/s. During the V-die bending process, the specimen laid over
a V-shaped die was bent as the V-shaped punch was inserted into the
die. The shapes of the specimens before and after the tests are shown
in Fig. 4(b). To investigate the delamination behavior, the length of the
specimen used was thrice the length of the die span to intentionally
induce delamination [42].
The test for each condition was repeated five times. Fig. 5 shows
the typical punch force–stroke curves obtained from the V-die bending
tests performed in this study. Initially, preliminary tests were performed
on single-layer and bilayer base sheets without the adhesive layer. The
preliminary tests were simulated to verify the results, and the simula-
tion results were in good agreement with the experimental results. The
behavior of a doubled-thickness sheet was predicted only through sim-
ulation. Next, tests for the three types of VDSSs with different adhesive
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
Table 2
V-die bending behaviors under various sheet conditions.
Initial slope (N/mm)
Single layer 63.1 ± 2.17
Bilayer 135.8 ± 1.91
Doubled thickness (simulation) 543.4
VDSS (ACRY) 158.3 ± 0.92
VDSS (PE) 389.1 ± 11.01
VDSS (PEE) 275.3 ± 5.76
Fig. 5. Punch force–stroke curves for the single-layer, bilayer, and doubled-
thickness sheets and the three types of VDSSs.
layers were conducted, and the results were compared with the punch
force–stroke curves of the single-layer base sheet, bilayer base sheet,
and doubled-thickness sheet. The punch force levels of the VDSSs were
in between those of the bilayer base sheet and doubled-thickness sheet,
depending on the material properties of the adhesive layer, unless de-
lamination occurred. Within this range, a low punch force indicated that
the adhesive layer could not sufficiently restrain the two sheets. The
lower punch forces of the VDSSs compared to the doubled-thickness
sheet may be good in terms of the forming process if the delamination
does not occur. When delamination occurred, the punch force of the
VDSSs dropped and became equal to that of the bilayer base sheet upon
complete delamination. Table 2 lists the important values, namely the
initial slope, maximum punch force, and initial delamination stroke ob-
tained from the V-die bending tests. The maximum punch force was de-
fined as the highest point before a sharp increase in load occurred after
an approximately 10 mm punch stroke because of perfect die contact.
Fig. 6 shows the recorded different delamination patterns depend-
ing on the type of the adhesive layer. The VDSS with the ACRY adhe-
sive layer showed a slip with a lower punch force level compared to the
others from the beginning, and complete delamination occurred at an
approximately 7 mm punch stroke. The VDSS with the PE adhesive layer
showed a two-step delamination with two load drop points. It was ini-
tially delaminated at an approximately 6 mm punch stroke with a curl,
and the delamination progressed gradually until complete delamination
was achieved at an approximately 10 mm punch stroke. For the VDSS
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
Maximum punch force (N) Initial delamination stroke (mm)
87.8 ± 3.65 –
169.1 ± 0.42 –
393.3 –
276.3 ± 8.61 6.93±0.27
324.4 ± 8.19 5.32±0.4
361.2 ± 10.29 –
with the PEE adhesive layer, a slight curl occurred close to the end of
the test, but delamination that visibly affected the punch force–stroke
curve was not observed.
2.3. Normal and shear delamination tests
In this study, two simple delamination tests were performed with a
2-ton capacity UTM to investigate the mechanical behavior of adhesive
layers in the normal and shear directions, as shown in Fig. 7. The U-peel
test was designed based on the ASTM T-peel test [31] to evaluate the
normal characteristics, and the ASTM single-lap joint test was performed
to evaluate the shear characteristics. The bonding area of the two spec-
imens was set to 25 mm × 30 mm, and the displacement was measured
using a 40 mm gauge length with a laser extensometer. Moreover, duc-
tile polymer adhesives basically have viscoelastic characteristics, which
are known to affect their mechanical behavior, and several previous
studies have recently been conducted to analyze their mechanical prop-
erties [60,61]. In this study, because the focus was on obtaining an in-
tuitive understanding of the effect of the cohesive properties of these
adhesive materials on delamination, the viscoelastic properties were ig-
nored. Therefore, to consider viscoelastic effects at the same level, the
separation rate used in the normal and shear delamination tests was set
in a range similar to that of V-die bending test, based on the preliminary
simulation. The utilized test speed was 0.01 mm/s. Further work is nec-
essary to consider the effect of the viscoelastic characteristics included
in the mechanical behavior of the three adhesive layers investigated in
this study. Fig. 8 shows the load–displacement curves obtained from the
delamination tests.
3. Simulation procedures
3.1. Modeling of DP590 steel sheet
To describe the anisotropic plastic behavior of the DP590 steel
sheets, the following Yld91 criterion based on a linear transformation
of the stress tensor proposed by Barlat et al. was adopted [62]:
𝑚 𝑚 𝑚
Φ = ||𝑆1 − 𝑆2 || + ||𝑆2 − 𝑆3 || + ||𝑆3 − 𝑆1 || = 2𝜎 𝑚 (1)
where 𝜎̄ is the effective stress and the exponent m is 6 for steel with a
body-centered-cubic structure. S1 , S2 , and S3 are the principal values of
the isotropic effective stress tensor S obtained from the linear transfor-
mation L associated with the Cauchy deviatoric stress 𝜎:
𝑆=𝐿∶𝜎 (2)
Fig. 6. Delamination patterns of VDSSs: (a)
ACRY, (b) PE and (c) PEE adhesive layers.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Fig. 7. Delamination tests: (a) U-peel test and (b) single-lap joint test.

Fig. 8. Experimental load–displacement

curves: (a) U-peel test and (b) single-lap
joint test.

The anisotropy constants of the Yld91 criterion were obtained using Table 3
the linear transformation operator L: Material constants of the DP590 steel sheets.

Anisotropy C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
⎡𝑐2+ 𝑐3 −𝑐3 −𝑐2 0 0 0 ⎤
constants 0.973 1.061 1.011 1.0 1.0 1.010
⎢ −𝑐3 𝑐3 + 𝑐1 −𝑐1 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ Hardening H (MPa) 𝜀0 n
1 ⎢ −𝑐2 −𝑐1 𝑐1 + 𝑐2 0 0 0 ⎥ constants 1184.37 0.007 0.2353
𝐿= (3)
3⎢ 0 0 0 3𝑐4 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 3𝑐5 0 ⎥⎥
⎢
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 3𝑐6 ⎦
Table 3. The Swift model considering isotropic hardening was used to
Here, c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 , c5 , and c6 are the anisotropy material con- fit the experimental data as follows [65]:
stants. Because constants c4 and c5 cannot be evaluated for sheet metal,
𝜎 = 𝐻 ( 𝜀 0 + 𝜀) 𝑛 (5)
the isotropic condition value of 1.0 is commonly adopted, assuming
isotropic through-thickness of the sheet for simplicity [63,64]. The re- where H is a material constant, 𝜀0 is a pre-strain-like material constant,
maining anisotropy material constants were determined from the exper- and n is the strain-hardening exponent. The material constants are listed
imentally measured r-values in the RD, DD, and TD. The constants were in Table 3.
determined based on the minimization of an error function that eval-
uates the difference between the predicted and experimental r-values.
The objective error function can be expressed as follows: 3.2. Modeling of adhesive layer
( )2
∑ 𝑟𝜃 In this study, the CZM with interface elements was utilized to sim-
𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = exp − 1 , (4) ulate the thin adhesive layer. A constitutive equation of the CZM was
𝑟𝜃
used to relate the relative displacement between two opposing associ-
exp
where r𝜃 and 𝑟𝜃 denote the predicted and experimental values in the ated points, called separation (𝛿), to the bonding force per unit area,
direction defined by the angle (𝜃) along the RD of the sheet; solving this called traction (T), and this relationship is called the T–𝛿 law. The area
error function provides the four anisotropy material constants listed in under the T–𝛿 law is equal to the critical energy release rate (Gc ). The
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Table 4
Ductile adhesive material properties deter-
mined in a previous study [71].

AV138 2015 7888

EI (MPa) 4890 1850 1890

EII (MPa) 1560 560 710
𝑇𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 (MPa) 39.45 21.63 28.60
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑇𝐼𝐼 (MPa) 30.2 17.9 20.0
𝐺𝐼𝑐 (N/mm) 0.20 0.43 1.18
𝑐
𝐺𝐼𝐼 (N/mm) 0.38 4.70 8.72
CZLI (mm) 0.62 1.70 2.73
CZLII (mm) 0.65 8.21 15.48

The expressions for 𝛿 I and 𝛿 II with respect to 𝛿 m are obtained by

introducing Eq. (9) into Eq. (8) as follows:

𝛿 𝛽𝛿𝑚
𝛿𝐼 = √ 𝑚 , 𝛿𝐼𝐼 = √ (11)
1 + 𝛽2 1 + 𝛽2

By introducing Eq. (10) into Eq. (7), the critical mixed-mode sepa-
ration (𝛿𝑚𝑐 ) can be derived as follows:
√
1 + 𝛽2
Fig. 9. Typical bilinear mixed-mode T–𝛿 law [67]. 𝛿𝑚𝑐 = 𝛿𝐼𝑐 𝛿𝐼𝐼
𝑐
(12)
(𝛿𝐼𝐼 )2 + (𝛽𝛿𝐼𝑐 )2
𝑐

When 𝛿 m exceeds 𝛿𝑚𝑐 , damage propagation proceeds to 𝛿𝑚𝑓 , according

main purpose of the current study was to investigate the physical be-
to the energy-based criterion with the following restriction in relation
havior of the thin adhesive interlayer inserted in the VDSS; therefore,
to the current energy release rate (G) and critical energy release rate
the bilinear T–𝛿 law was used to physically interpret the behaviors of
(Gc ) required to cause perfect failure:
these adhesive layers because of its convenience. In most adhesive struc-
tural applications to which the CZM can be applied, damage initiation 𝐺 ≤ 𝐺𝑐 (13)
and propagation steps are a combination of mode I and mode II defor-
where Gc is given by
mations. Hence, the mixed-mode criterion, which can deal with mixed-
mode loading, is required. The typical bilinear mixed-mode T–𝛿 law is 𝛿𝑓
𝐺𝑐 = 𝑇 (𝛿)𝑑𝛿 (14)
shown in Fig. 9. The front part from the initial zero T till maximum ∫0
(Tmax ) is based on the damage initiation criterion, and an initial stiffness
The power law linear criterion for damage propagation, which is the
(K) holds between the two opposing associated points. 𝛿 c is the critical
most widely used criterion owing to its simplicity and convenience for
separation at Tmax . When 𝛿 exceeds 𝛿 c , damage propagation proceeds
physical interpretation, was utilized as follows:
according to the energy-based criterion first proposed by Griffith [66], ( ) ( )
and the initial elastic behavior disappears. Finally, reaching the final 𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝐼𝐼
𝑐 + 𝑐 =1 (15)
separation (𝛿 f ) causes perfect failure between the two opposing associ- 𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝐼𝐼
ated points with no T.
Because GI and GII are the areas under the T–𝛿 law, they can be
Damage initiation is simply determined by comparing the T compo-
expressed as
nents with Tmax , which is the maximum allowable traction under mixed-
mode loading [22]. Note that damage initiation does not refer to the 𝑇𝐼max 𝛿𝐼𝑓 max 𝛿 𝑓
𝑇𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼
actual damage, but it refers to the moment immediately before dam- 𝐺𝐼 = , 𝐺𝐼𝐼 = (16)
2 2
age occurs. The quadratic mixed-mode criterion of damage initiation is
given as follows: Moreover, they can be rearranged by introducing Eqs. (6) and
( )2 ( ) (10) into (15) as follows:
𝑇𝐼 𝑇𝐼𝐼 2
+ =1 (6)
𝑇𝐼max 𝑇𝐼𝐼
max 𝛿𝑚𝑓 𝛿𝑚𝑐 𝛽 2 𝛿𝑚𝑓 𝛿𝑚𝑐
𝐺𝐼 = 𝐾𝐼 , 𝐺𝐼𝐼 = 𝐾𝐼𝐼 (17)
The traction is given by the relationship between K and 𝛿, as follows: 2(1 + 𝛽 2 ) 2(1 + 𝛽 2 )

Eq. (14) can be rearranged by introducing Eq. (16) as follows:

𝑇𝑖 = 𝐾𝑖 𝛿𝑖 (7) ( ) ( 𝑓 )
𝛿𝑚𝑓 𝛿𝑚𝑐 𝐾𝐼 𝛿𝑚 𝛿𝑚𝑐 𝛽 2 𝐾𝐼𝐼
where subscript i represents each mode (I and II); the mixed-mode cri- + =1 (18)
2(1 + 𝛽 2 ) 𝐺𝐼𝑐 𝑐
2(1 + 𝛽 2 ) 𝐺𝐼𝐼
terion of damage initiation, which has the 𝛿 form, can be obtained by
introducing Eq. (6) into Eq. (5), as follows: Eventually, the final mixed-mode separation (𝛿𝑚𝑓 ) can be derived as
( )2 ( ) follows:
𝛿𝐼 𝛿𝐼𝐼 2
+ =1 (8) [( ) ( 2 )]
𝛿𝐼𝑐 𝑐
𝛿𝐼𝐼 2(1 + 𝛽 2 ) 𝐾𝐼 𝛽 𝐾𝐼𝐼
𝛿𝑚𝑓 = 𝑐 𝑐 + 𝑐 (19)
𝛿𝑚 𝐺𝐼 𝐺𝐼𝐼
The mixed-mode separation (𝛿 m ) is defined as follows:
√
3.3. Finite element modeling
𝛿𝑚 = 𝛿𝐼2 + 𝛿𝐼𝐼
2 (9)
If 𝛿 I is not zero, the mode mixity 𝛽 can be written as Finite element (FE) simulations were conducted using the commer-
𝛿 cial software package LS-DYNA, version R10 [68], with a dynamic im-
𝛽 = 𝐼𝐼 (10) plicit solver. The specimen consisted of the base sheets and adhesive
𝛿𝐼
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
Fig. 10. FE meshes of the V-die bending test.
layer, and the base sheets were meshed into eight-node hexahedral solid
elements, while the adhesive layer between the two base sheets was
simulated with eight-node 3D interface elements. These interface ele-
ments are commonly known for their mesh-dependent characteristics.
To perform delamination analysis considering accurate energy dissipa-
tion, Turon et al. [69]stated that at least three elements should be guar-
anteed in the cohesive zone length (CZL); this is the inherent distance
from the crack tip to the point where the maximum traction is attained.
Thus, it is desirable to know the CZL beforehand to ensure numerical ac-
curacy, while minimizing computational costs. The CZL for orthotropic
materials in mode I and mode II is simply estimated using the material
properties as follows [67,70]:
𝐺𝐼𝑐 𝑐
𝐺𝐼𝐼
𝐶𝑍 𝐿𝐼 = 𝐸𝐼 , 𝐶𝑍 𝐿𝐼𝐼 = 𝐸𝐼𝐼 (20)
(𝑇𝐼max )2 max )2
(𝑇𝐼𝐼
where EI and EII are the equivalent elastic moduli of the adhesive ma-
terial in mode I and mode II, respectively. Because the detailed mate-
rial properties of adhesives used in this study were unknown, the prop-
erties of these three ductile adhesives determined in previous works
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
were considered to determine the interface element size: brittle epoxy
Araldite AV138, ductile epoxy Araldite 2015, and high-strength and
ductile polyurethane Sikaforce 7888 [71]. Their material properties and
estimated CZL values are listed in Table 4. The results indicated that
minimum mesh sizes for mode I and mode II of less than 0.57 mm
and 2.7 mm are necessary to ensure at least three elements on the CZL.
Therefore, interface element sizes of 0.35 mm and 0.25 mm, which were
sufficiently smaller than the estimated minimum element size, were uti-
lized for examining normal and shear delamination and performing V-
die bending tests, respectively.
The base sheets and adhesive layers were modeled
using the MAT_BARLAT_ANISOTROPIC_PLAST-ICITY and
MAT_COHESIVE_MIXED_MODE material cards implemented in LS-
DYNA. Fig. 10 shows the FE mesh used in the V-die bending test
simulation. The half model was used for the V-die bending simula-
tion to save calculation time. Nodes on the symmetry plane were
constrained in terms of their x translations, and y and z rotations.
The punch and die were treated as a rigid body, and Belytschko-Tsay
four-node quadrilateral shell elements were used for meshing them.
The punch was meshed with 600 elements, and the die was meshed
with 1160 elements having a mesh size of 1.0 mm × 1.0 mm. The
corner regions of the punch and die were finely split into 10 elements in
the x-direction. The base sheets were discretized into 32,400 elements,
each measuring 0.25 mm × 0.25 mm × 0.14 mm. A surface-to-surface
contact method was applied to handle the contact between the punch,
die, and specimen. The friction coefficient was set to 0.1 assuming
conventional friction conditions for sheet metal forming [72]. The
displacement of the punch was controlled in the z-direction to bend the
specimen, while the die was fixed.
Fig. 11(a) and (b) shows the FE meshes used to model the U-peel
test and single-lap joint test simulations, respectively. Each U-shaped
part used in the U-peel test was discretized into 36,068 elements, each
with dimensions of 0.35 mm × 0.35 mm × 0.35 mm. Each sheet part
used in the single-lap joint test was also divided into 45,795 elements
with dimensions of 0.35 mm × 0.35 mm × 0.25 mm. The upper edge
nodes in both simulations were moved along the z-direction until mesh
Fig. 11. FE meshes used in the delamination
tests: (a) U-peel test and (b) single-lap joint test.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
Fig. 12. Flowchart of iterative method.
deletion of the adhesive layer occurred, whereas their lower edge nodes
were fixed.
The iterative method was performed using the commercial software
LS-OPT, which can be linked with LS-DYNA, and the flow chart of the
method is shown in Fig. 12. A polynomial meta-model- based optimiza-
Fig. 13. Initial guessed and final characterized T–𝛿 laws: (a) mode I and (b) mode II.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
tion process was carried out, and the sequence with the domain reduc-
tion method was selected for this process. The D-optimal design crite-
rion was adopted in the optimization process as this is the recommended
point-selection scheme for the polynomial meta-model [73]. A detailed
explanation of the optimization algorithm in LS-OPT can be found in
the article by Stander et al. [74].
The objective variables were the maximum traction (Tmax ), initial
stiffness (K), and critical energy release rate (Gc ) in mode I and mode II,
which can determine the bilinear mixed-mode T–𝛿 law. Initial guesses
for the objective variables were extracted from the experimental load
(P)–displacement (d) curves of Fig. 8 through the following procedure.
In the P–d curves, if T was calculated by dividing P by the bonding area
and d was assumed as 𝛿, temporary T–𝛿 curves were obtained. In the
delamination tests, because delamination of the bonding area did not
occur at one time and gradually progressed from the outside to the inside
via the deformation of the base sheets, these temporary curves could not
reflect Tmax and K; however, the integrated areas under the curves were
expected to represent the initial guessed 𝐺Ic and 𝐺𝐼𝐼 𝐶 . Then, if d when
the maximum P value was reached in the P–d curve was regarded as the
final separation (𝛿 f ), the initial guessed Tmax could be obtained using
Eq. (16). Regarding KI , Moura et al. [75] verified that 106 N/mm3 was
suitable to avoid potential convergence problems and interpenetration;
thus, 106 N/mm3 was utilized as the initial guessed KI . In case of KII ,
the initial slope of the temporary T–𝛿 curve was considered the initial
guessed KII .
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Identification of cohesive properties
The initial guessed and final characterized T–𝛿 laws in mode I and
mode II are shown in Fig. 13. The difference between these laws for the
most ductile PEE layer in mode II was noticeable. Although the PEE layer
had a long softening region, the displacement when the maximum load
was reached in the load–displacement curve was regarded as the ini-
tial final separation (𝛿 f ), resulting in the underestimated initial stiffness.
The predicted load (P)–displacement (d) curves of the U-peel and single-
lap joint tests using the initial guessed and final characterized T–𝛿 laws
were compared with the experimental results, as shown in Fig. 14(a)
and (b). Overall, the predicted P–d curves using the final characterized
T–𝛿 laws followed the experimental curves better than those obtained
using the initial guessed T–𝛿 laws. However, the long softening region
in the shear delamination test for the PEE layer could not be predicted
well owing to the shape limitations of the bilinear model. Typically, us-
ing a trapezoidal law having a stress plateau region to characterize a
ductile adhesive can achieve higher accuracy [76]. The final character-
ized CZM parameters of mode I and mode II are listed in Table 5. In
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Fig. 14. Experimental and predicted load–displacement curves: (a) normal and (b) shear.

Table 5 addition, Fig. 15 shows the bilinear mixed-mode surface of ACRY, PE,
CZM parameters of the three types of ad- and PEE layers plotted using the final characterized T–𝛿 laws of mode
hesive layers. 𝑐
I and mode II. The mixed-mode ratio (m) is defined as the ratio of 𝐺𝐼𝐼
𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
and the total critical energy release rate (𝑚 = 𝐺𝐼𝐼 ∕(𝐺𝐼 + 𝐺𝐼𝐼 )).
ACRY PE PEE

KI (N/mm3 ) 500 95 830 4.2. Mesh size convergence

KII (N/mm3 ) 10 92.5 122
𝑇𝐼max (MPa) 5.00 1.90 8.30
To verify the mesh size convergence, sensitivity simulations of the
𝑇IImax (MPa) 2.5 11.1 12.2
𝐺𝐼𝑐 (N/mm) 0.41 0.44 1.02 normal and shear delamination tests with respect to the three types of
𝐺II𝑐 (N/mm) 0.31 0.67 3.11 adhesives were carried out by increasing the size of the interface ele-
ments ranging between 0.1 mm and 6 mm. The corresponding load–

Fig. 15. Bilinear mixed-mode surfaces: (a) ACRY, (b)

PE, and (c) PEE.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
Fig. 16. Load–displacement curves obtained at different mesh lengths of interface elements: (a) ACRY normal, (b) ACRY shear, (c) PE normal, (d) PE shear, (e) PEE
normal, and (f) PEE shear.
displacement curves are shown in Fig. 16. The degree of convergence
based on a mesh size of 0.1 mm was quantitatively evaluated using the
mean-square error as follows:
( )2
1∑ 𝐼exp − 𝐼𝑠𝑖𝑚
𝑀𝑆𝐸(%) = × 100
𝑛 𝐼exp
The evaluated degree of convergence is shown in Fig. 17, and the
mesh sensitivity in the normal delamination test was higher than that
observed in the shear delamination test; this can be attributed to the
long CZLII , observed for the ductile adhesives mentioned in Table 4.
The results indicated that a mesh length of less than 1.0 mm is neces-
sary to obtain converged solutions under all conditions; therefore, mesh
lengths of 0.35 mm and 0.25 mm for the two delamination tests and
V-die bending test were found to be sufficient.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
4.3. Delamination behavior
The results of the V-die bending tests were predicted in the simula-
tion using the final characterized T–𝛿 laws of mode I and mode II con-
taining the bilinear mixed-mode criterion. The experimental and simu-
lated delamination behaviors were comprehensively compared, includ-
(21)
ing the punch force–stroke curves and delamination patterns. The input
T–𝛿 laws of mode I and mode II are shown in Fig. 18(a), and (b) to
compare the punch force–stroke curves obtained through simulations
against the experimental results. Fig. 19 compares the experimental and
simulated delamination propagation linked with the punch force–stroke
curves. All the simulation results are in good agreement with the exper-
imental ones.
Figs. 20 and 21 compare the predicted mode I (𝛿 I ) and mode II (𝛿 II )
separations of the three adhesive layers with respect to the punch stroke
for better understanding of their delamination behaviors during the V-
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
Fig. 18. Prediction of V-die bending test results with respect to the three types of adhesive layers: (a) input T–𝛿 laws and (b) comparison of punch force–stroke
curves obtained from the experiments and simulations.
die bending test. Commonly, across the region from the center (0 mm)
of the punch to approximately 15 mm, the shear stress was concentrated
between the two base sheets via the difference in bending curvatures.
Then, 𝛿 II , the interfacial slip, started from the concentrated region of the
shear stress. When the mode II energy dissipation caused by interfacial
slip exceeds the mode II critical energy release rate (𝐺𝐼𝐼 𝑐 ), delamina-
tion occurs along the shear direction, and it is defined as slip-induced
delamination. Here, the slip-induced delamination causes moment, and
delamination occurs along the normal direction when the mode I en-
ergy dissipation caused by the moment exceeds the mode I critical en-
ergy release rate (𝐺𝐼𝑐 ). This delamination type is defined as curl-induced
delamination. These two types of delamination patterns work in com-
bination, and the dominant delamination pattern changes depending
on the cohesive properties of the adhesive layer. The ACRY adhesive
layer showed that the highest 𝛿 II started from the concentrated region
of shear stress and it gradually propagated over the whole area owing
to its lower KII , which induced complete delamination at an approxi-
mately 7 mm punch stroke. Here, the increase in 𝛿 I was not significant
compared to 𝛿 II until complete delamination occurred, and this means
slip-induced delamination was dominant. In the PE adhesive layer, 𝛿 II
started from the concentrated region but could not sufficiently propa-
gate to nearby regions owing to its higher KII , which caused a high mo-
ment. This caused a sharp increase in 𝛿 I when slip-induced delamination
locally occurred at an approximately 6 mm punch stroke, resulting in
complete delamination at an approximately 11 mm punch stroke. This
means the curl-induced delamination was dominant. The PEE adhesive
layer had a sufficiently larger Gc than the amount of energy dissipation,
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
Fig. 17. Degree of convergence for mesh
lengths of interface elements: (a) normal and
(b) shear.
with no delamination. However, its KII was not enough to completely
constrain the two sheets, and some 𝛿 II occurred.
4.4. Effect of cohesive properties on the delamination behavior
To comprehensively analyze the independent effects of the cohesive
properties in mode I and II—maximum traction (Tmax ), initial stiffness
(K), and critical energy release rate (Gc )—on the delamination behav-
ior, a parametric study was carried out; the various conditions used for
this study are listed in Table 6. The conditions were based on the prop-
erties of the PE adhesive layer, which showed a two-step delamination.
The mode II properties were varied and mode I properties were fixed in
some cases, and vice versa in other cases. In these analyses, the critical
separation (𝛿 c ) and softening slope of the T–𝛿 law inevitably depended
on the varying conditions and affected the delamination behavior. The
utilized T–𝛿 laws, punch force–stroke curves, and delamination patterns
are shown in parts (a), (b), and (c), respectively, of Figs. 22–27.
4.4.1. Effect of maximum traction
To investigate the effect of maximum traction (Tmax ) on the delam-
ination behavior, simulations were carried out for cases 1–5, where K
and Gc were fixed and Tmax was varied. The delamination patterns were
compared at an approximately 10 mm punch stroke before a sharp in-
crease in load occurred. Fig. 22 shows the results of varying 𝑇𝐼𝐼
max . Case
1 had the highest Tmax in both directions, whereas 𝑇𝐼𝐼 max decreased for
cases 2 and 3. Overall, the punch force level gradually decreased with
a decreasing 𝑇𝐼𝐼
max . In case 1, slip-induced delamination occurred in the
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Fig. 19. Comparison of the experimental

and simulated delamination propagation
linked with the punch force–stroke curves
between the experiment and simulation:
(a) ACRY, (b) PE, and (c) PEE.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Fig. 20. Mode II separation distribution: (a) contours in 5.5 mm punch stroke and (b) plots with respect to punch stroke.

Fig. 21. Mode I separation distribution: (a) contours in 5.5 mm punch stroke and (b) plots with respect to punch stroke.

concentrated region of shear stress at an approximately 8 mm punch
stroke, which caused a moment and curl-induced delamination. The
punch force did not decrease below 200 N (see the punch force of bilayer
base sheets in Fig. 5), indicating that the layer was not completely de-
laminated until the end of the test. In case 2, curl-induced delamination
creased. Moreover, because the softening slope of the T–𝛿 law gradually
lowered from case 1 to case 3, the punch force drop became smoother
as delamination progressed.
Fig. 23 shows the results of cases 4 and 5 for when 𝑇𝐼max was de-
creased from case 1 whereas 𝑇𝐼𝐼 max was fixed. The initiation of local

occurred more quickly than in case 1 at an approximately 6 mm punch
stroke, and complete delamination did not occur until the end of the
test. Case 3, with the lowest 𝑇𝐼𝐼max , showed the fastest slip-induced de-
lamination initiation at an approximately 4 mm punch stroke, resulting
in complete delamination. These results were caused by the decrease
in the mode II critical separation (𝛿𝐼𝐼 𝑐 ) when 𝑇 max was gradually de-
𝐼𝐼
slip-induced delamination was the same as in case 1, and the punch
force level after 8 mm gradually decreased with the decreasing 𝑇𝐼max .
𝑐 ) decreased when 𝑇 max gradu-
Because the mode I critical separation (𝛿𝐼𝐼 𝐼
ally decreased, although the initiation of slip-induced delamination was
the same as in case 1, propagation of curl-induced delamination was
quicker. Complete delamination did not occur until the end. As shown
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Fig. 22. Effect of 𝑇𝐼𝐼

max
: (a) input T–𝛿 laws, (b) punch force–stroke curves, and (c) delamination patterns.

Fig. 23. Effect of 𝑇𝐼max : (a) input T–𝛿 laws, (b) punch force–stroke curves, and (c) delamination patterns.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Table 6
CZM parameters with respect to 13 cases.

Case KI (N/mm3 ) KII (N/mm3 ) 𝑻 max

𝑰
(MPa) 𝑻 max
𝑰𝑰
(MPa) 𝑮𝒄𝑰 (N/mm) 𝑮𝒄𝑰 𝑰 (N/mm)
max
T 1 25 40 5 8 0.5 0.8
2 25 40 5 6 0.5 0.8
3 25 40 5 4 0.5 0.8
4 25 40 3.5 8 0.5 0.8
5 25 40 2 8 0.5 0.8
K 6 25 66.67 5 8 0.5 0.8
7 25 200 5 8 0.5 0.8
8 41.67 80 5 8 0.5 0.8
9 125 80 5 8 0.5 0.8
Gc 10 25 40 5 8 0.5 1.2
11 25 40 5 8 0.5 1.6
12 25 40 2 8 0.35 0.8
13 25 40 2 8 0.2 0.8

Fig. 24. Effect of KII : (a) input T–𝛿 laws, (b) punch force–stroke curves, and (c) delamination patterns.

in Fig. 23(c), the crack tip opening displacement in the normal direction delamination point gradually advanced from an approximately 8 mm
gradually increased from cases 1 to 5, because the mode I final separa- to a 4 mm punch stroke, but complete delamination did not occur until
tion (𝛿𝐼𝑓 ) gradually increased as 𝑇𝐼max decreased. the end of the test. Moreover, because the softening slope of the T–𝛿
law gradually lowered from cases 1 to 7, the punch force drop became
smoother during delamination.
4.4.2. Effect of initial stiffness
Fig. 25 shows the results of cases 8 and 9 when KI increased from
To investigate the effect of the initial stiffness (K) on delamination
case 1 whereas the KII was fixed. The increase in KI at the same 𝑇𝐼max and
behavior, simulations were carried out for cases 6–9, where Tmax and
𝐺𝐼𝑐 decreased the mode I critical separation (𝛿𝐼𝑐 ), leading to faster soft-
Gc were fixed and K was varied. The delamination patterns were com-
ening and thereby making the adhesive sheet vulnerable to curl-induced
pared at an approximately 10 mm punch stroke before a sharp increase
delamination. Although the initiation of the local slip-induced delami-
in load occurred. Fig. 24 shows the results of cases 6 and 7 when KII
nation was the same as in case 1, the local curl-induced delamination
increased from case 1 whereas the KI was fixed. Because an increase in
propagated quickly, as shown in Fig. 25(c); this gradually decreased the
KII strongly constrained the two base sheets in the mode II direction, the
punch force level after 8 mm. Eventually, complete delamination oc-
initial punch force level became more like the single-layered sheet with
curred in case 9.
doubled thickness (see the punch force of the doubled-thickness sheet in
Fig. 5). However, the increase in the KII at the same 𝑇𝐼𝐼max and 𝐺 𝑐 caused
𝐼𝐼
a decrease in the mode II critical separation (𝛿𝐼𝐼𝑐 ), leading to faster soft- 4.4.3. Effect of critical energy release rate
ening, thus making the layer vulnerable to slip-induced delamination oc- To investigate the effect of the critical energy release rate (Gc )
curring in the concentrated region of shear stress. Eventually, the initial on delamination, simulations were carried out for cases 10–13, where
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430

Fig. 25. Effect of KI : (a) input T–𝛿 laws, (b) punch force–stroke curves, and (c) delamination patterns.

𝑐
Fig. 26. Effect of 𝐺𝐼𝐼 : (a) input T–𝛿 laws, (b) punch force–stroke curves and (c) delamination patterns.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
Fig. 27. Effect of 𝐺𝐼𝑐 : (a) input T–𝛿 laws, (b) punch force–stroke curves, and (c) delamination patterns.
Tmax and K were fixed and Gc was varied. The delamination patterns
𝑐 were compared at an approximately 10 mm punch
with respect to 𝐺𝐼𝐼
stroke before a sharp increase in load occurred; however, the delami-
nation patterns with respect to 𝐺𝐼𝑐 were compared at an approximately
9 mm punch stroke before complete delamination occurred in case 13.
Fig. 26 shows the results of cases 10 and 11 when 𝐺𝐼𝐼 𝑐 increased from
case 1 and 𝐺𝐼𝑐 was fixed. As 𝐺𝐼𝐼𝑐 increased, the initiation of slip-induced
delamination at the concentrated region of shear stress was gradually
delayed. Case 11 showed no delamination because its 𝐺𝐼𝐼 𝑐 was higher
than the mode II energy dissipation caused by interfacial slip.
Fig. 27 shows the results of cases 12 and 13 when 𝐺𝐼𝑐 decreased from
case 5 and 𝐺𝐼𝐼𝑐 was fixed. As 𝐺 𝑐 decreased, the local curl-induced delam-
𝐼
ination propagated quickly, as shown in Fig. 27(c); eventually, complete
delamination occurred, similar to that when KI was increased. However,
the effect of KI on the delamination point was related to advancing the
mode I critical separation (𝛿𝐼𝑐 ), whereas 𝐺𝐼𝑐 more directly affected the
delamination point.
5. Conclusion
In this study, three interesting and different delamination behaviors
were observed in V-die bending tests of 590-MPa grade high-strength
VDSSs depending on the types of adhesive layers. The basic mechanical
properties of the base sheets were evaluated; to investigate the char-
acteristics of the three types of adhesive layers, normal and shear de-
lamination tests were performed. Based on the results of the delamina-
tion tests, an inverse parameter characterization method using an itera-
tive FE simulation with interface elements was successfully conducted to
identify the mixed-mode bilinear CZM properties that clearly matched
the measured adhesive load–displacement curves. The V-die bending
test results were predicted through the FE simulation using the char-
acterized properties; the delamination patterns, punch force drop, and
entire punch force level observed in the simulations and experiments
matched well.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
Additionally, the delamination mechanisms that can occur during
the V-die bending test were successfully revealed based on parametric
studies, which were conducted to better understand the direct effect of
the cohesive characteristics of the adhesive layers on their delamina-
tion behavior. The following conclusions were drawn from the revealed
delamination mechanisms in the parametric studies:
• When the mode II energy dissipation caused by interfacial slip ex-
𝑐 ), slip-induced de-
ceeds the mode II critical energy release rate (𝐺𝐼𝐼
lamination occurs and causes a moment. Here, curl-induced delam-
ination occurs when the mode I energy dissipation caused by the
moment exceeds the mode I critical energy release rate (𝐺𝐼𝑐 ). These
two types of delamination patterns work in combination, and the
dominant delamination pattern changes depending on the cohesive
properties of the adhesive layers.
• K has the following two opposite effects on delamination. If Gc is
sufficiently larger than the amount of energy dissipation, a higher
K strongly constrains the two opposing associated points and sup-
presses separation. However, when Gc is smaller than the amount
of energy dissipation, a higher K causes the energy dissipation to
quickly exceed Gc , thus accelerating delamination. In particular, an
increase in 𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑐 generates a higher moment, which leads to a higher
level of curling.
Data availability statement
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot
be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hyeonil Park: Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writ-
ing - original draft. Se-Jong Kim: Resources. Jinwoo Lee: Formal anal-
ysis. Ji Hoon Kim: Methodology. Daeyong Kim: Methodology, Super-
vision, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgments
This study was financially supported by the Fundamental Research
Program of the Korea Institute of Materials Science (PNK6000) and
Industrial Technology Innovation Program (10063579) funded by the
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Republic of Korea.
References
[1] European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2019/631 setting CO2 emission
performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles
(vans) in the EU. 2019.
[2] Zheng LF, Wang T, Li GX. Vibration and noise analysis of heavy-duty trucks based
on powertrain lightweighting. J Vibroeng 2017;19:4573–90.
[3] Hayashi H, Nakagawa T. Recent trends in sheet metals and their formability in man-
ufacturing automotive panels. J Mater Process Technol 1994;46:455–87.
[4] Kim J-K, Yu T. Forming and failure behaviour of coated, laminated and sandwiched
sheet metals: a review. J Mater Process Technol 1997;63:33–42.
[5] Niwa T, Shimizu Y. Vibration damping materials and soundproofing structures using
such damping materials. J Acoust Soc Am 1992;92:626.
[6] Kah P, Suoranta R, Martikainen J, Magnus C. Techniques for joining dissimilar ma-
terials : metals and polymers. Rev Adv Mater Sci 2014;36:152–64.
[7] Chung DDL. Review: materials for vibration damping. J Mater Sci 2001;36:5733–7.
[8] Ebnesajjad S. Handbook of adhesive and surface preparation - characteristics of ad-
hesive materials. Elsevier Inc.; 2011.
[9] Rao MD. Recent applications of viscoelastic damping for noise control in automobiles
and commercial airplanes. J Sound Vib 2003;262:457–74.
[10] Ungar EE, Sturz DH, Hal Amick C. Vibration control design of high technology fa-
cilities. Sound and Vibration 1990;24:20–7.
[11] Chen YS, Hsu TJ, Chen SI. Vibration damping characteristics of laminated steel sheet.
Metall Trans A 1991;22:653–6.
[12] Lee LH. Adhesives and sealants for severe environments. Int J Adhes Adhes
1987;7:81–91.
[13] Kuczmaszewski J. Fundamentals of metal-metal adhesive joint design. Lublin Uni-
versity of Technology; 2006.
[14] Kerwin EM Jr. Damping of flexural waves by a constrained viscoelastic layer. J
Acoust Soc Am 1959;31:952–62.
[15] Gould L.H., Shore B. Vibration damping in sheet metal structures. United States
Patent Number: 3071217, 1963.
[16] Shinozaki M., Matsumoto Y., Aoyagi Y., Kojima K. Vibration damping composite
laminate. United States Patent Number: 4678707, 1987.
[17] Ejima M, Honda T. Influence of bonding strength on formability of vibration damp-
ing steel sheet. Tetsu to Hagane-Journal of The Iron and Steel Institute of Japan
1986;72:1621.
[18] Hiroshi E, Miizuo E, Yoshimasa Z. The development of vibration damping steel sheet
for automotive use. SAE Technical Paper 1989;890708:11.
[19] Kitamura S., Okumura T., Yoshio Tadokoro, Hiroo Toya. Vibration-damping mate-
rial. United States Patent Number: 4883717, 1989.
[20] Ichihara S., Yano K., Niwa T., Ishiwa S. Vibration damping body and method for
fabricating same. United States Patent Number: 5489180, 1996.
[21] Tan W, Naya F, Yang L, Chang T, Falzon BG, Zhan L, et al. The role of interfacial
properties on the intralaminar and interlaminar damage behaviour of unidirectional
composite laminates: experimental characterization and multiscale modelling. Com-
pos Part B 2018;138:206–21.
[22] Camanho PP, Davila CG, De Moura MF. Numerical simulation of mixed-mode pro-
gressive delamination in composite materials. J Compos Mater 2003;37:1415–38.
[23] De Moura MFSF, Gonçalves JPM, Chousal JAG, Campilho RDSG. Cohesive and con-
tinuum mixed-mode damage models applied to the simulation of the mechanical
behaviour of bonded joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 2008;28:419–26.
[24] Noorman DC. Cohesive zone modelling in adhesively bonded joints. Delft University
of Technology; 2014.
[25] ASTM Standard D5528-13 Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. ASTM Int
2013.
[26] ASTM Standard D7905/D7905M-19e1 Standard test method for determination of the
mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer
matrix composites. ASTM Int 2019.
[27] ASTM Standard D6671/D6671M-19 Standard test method for mixed mode I-mode
II interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber reinforced polymer matrix
composites. ASTM Int 2019.
[28] Dias GF, De Moura MFSF, Chousal JAG, Xavier J. Cohesive laws of composite bonded
joints under mode I loading. Compos Struct 2013;106:646–52.
[29] Fernandes RMRP, Chousal JAG, De Moura MFSF, Xavier J. Determination of co-
hesive laws of composite bonded joints under mode II loading. Compos Part B
2013;52:269–74.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
[30] Khoramishad H, Hamzenejad M, Ashofteh RS. Characterizing cohesive zone model
using a mixed-mode direct method. Eng Fract Mech 2016;153:175–89.
[31] ASTM Standard D1876-08(2015)e1 Standard test method for peel resistance of ad-
hesives (T-Peel test). ASTM Int 2015.
[32] ASTM Standard D1002-10(2019) Standard test method for apparent shear strength
of single-lap-joint adhesively bonded metal specimens by tension loading (Metal–
to-Metal). ASTM Int 2019.
[33] Wang Y, Chen J, Tang B-T. Finite element analysis for delamination of laminated
vibration damping steel sheet. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 2007;17:455–60.
[34] Li H, Chen J, Yang J. Experimental and numerical investigation of laminated steel
sheet in V-bending process considering nonlinear visco-elasticity of polymer layer.
J Mater Process Technol 2012;212:36–45.
[35] Hassan M, Ali A, Ilyas M, Hussain G, Haq I. Experimental and numerical simula-
tion of steel/steel (St/St) interface in bi-layer sheet metal. Int J Light Mater Manuf
2019;2:89–96.
[36] Kukreja G, Narayanan RG. Forming of adhesive-bonded sandwich sheets with a rub-
ber pad. Metall Mater Trans A 2019;50:2155–68.
[37] Yoshida M. Press formability of vibration-damping sheet. J Jpn Soc Technol Plast
1985;26:394–9.
[38] Makinouchi A, Ogawa H, Hashimoto K. Finite element simulation of bending process
of steel-plastic laminate sheets. Studies in Applied Mechanics 1987;15:221–30.
[39] Kim JK, Thomson PF. Separation behaviour of sheet steel laminate during forming.
J Mater Process Technol 1990;22:147–61.
[40] Huang YM, Leu DK. Finite-element simulation of the bending process of
steel/polymer/steel laminate sheets. J Mater Process Technol 1995;52:319–37.
[41] Corona E, Eisenhour T. Wiping die bending of laminated steel. Int J Mech Sci
2007;49:392–403.
[42] Takiguchi M, Yoshida F. Plastic bending of adhesive-bonded sheet metals. J Mater
Process Technol 2001;113:743–8.
[43] Takiguchi M, Yoshida F. Effect of forming speed on plastic bending of adhesively
bonded sheet metals. JSME Int J Ser A 2004;47:47–53.
[44] Takiguchi M, Yoshida T, Yoshida F. Effects of temperature and forming speed
on plastic bending of adhesively bonded sheet metals. Int J Mod Phys B
2008;22:6253–8.
[45] Takiguchi M, Yoshida T, Funaki M, Yoshida F. Effects of thicknesses of sheet and
adhesive layer on plastic-bending of adhesively bonded sheet metals. Key Eng Mater
2013;535:381–4.
[46] Yin S, Mason J, Schmid S, Corona E. Bending and springback of laminated steel.
In: JSME/ASME International Conference on Materials and Processing. The Japan
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2002. p. 159–63.
[47] Liu L, Wang J. Modeling springback of metal-polymer-metal laminates. J Manuf Sci
Eng 2004;126:599–604.
[48] ASTM standard E290-14. Standard test methods for bend testing of material for
ductility. ASTM Int 2014.
[49] Tan Z, Persson B, Magnusson C. An empiric model for controlling springback in V-die
bending of sheet metals. J Mater Process Technol 1992;34:449–55.
[50] Huang YM, Leu DK. Effects of process variables on V-die bending process of steel
sheet. Int J Mech Sci 1998;40:631–50.
[51] Forcellese A, Fratini L, Gabrielli F, Micari F. The evaluation of springback in 3D
stamping and coining processes. J Mater Process Technol 1998;80:108–12.
[52] Thipprakmas S. Finite element analysis of punch height effect on V-bending angle.
Mater Des 2010;31:1593–8.
[53] Kim JK, Thomson PF. Forming behaviour of sheet steel laminate. J Mater Process
Technol 1990;22:45–64.
[54] Kleiner M, Hellinger V. New possibilities for improved bending of vibration damping
laminated sheets. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 1999;48:217–20.
[55] Yao H, Chen CC, Liu SD, Li KP, Du C, Zhang L. Laminated steel form-
ing modeling techniques and experimental verifications. SAE Technical Paper
2003;2003-01–0689.
[56] Engel B, Buhl J. Metal forming of vibration-damping composite sheets. Steel Res Int
2011;82:626–31.
[57] Harhash M, Gilbert RR, Hartmann S, Palkowski H. Experimental characterization,
analytical and numerical investigations of metal/polymer/metal sandwich compos-
ites–Part 2: free bending. Compos Struct 2020;232:111421.
[58] Song JH, Huh H. Failure characterization of spot welds under combined axial–shear
loading conditions. Int J Mech Sci 2011;53:513–25.
[59] Cai Z, Diao K, Wu X, Wan M. Constitutive modeling of evolving plasticity in high
strength steel sheets. Int J Mech Sci 2016;107:43–57.
[60] Angelidi M, Vassilopoulos AP, Keller T. Ductility, recovery and strain rate depen-
dency of an acrylic structural adhesive. Constr Build Mater 2017;140:184–93.
[61] Angelidi M, Vassilopoulos AP, Keller T. Displacement rate and structural effects on
Poisson ratio of a ductile structural adhesive in tension and compression. Int J Adhes
Adhes 2017;78:13–22.
[62] Barlat F, Lege DJ, Brem JC. A six-component yield function for anisotropic materials.
Int J Plast 1991;7:693–712.
[63] Wu PD, Jain M, Savoie J, Macewen SR, Tuğcu P, Neale KW. Evaluation of anisotropic
yield functions for aluminum sheets. Int J Plast 2003;19:121–38.
[64] Khalfallah A, Alves JL, Oliveira MC, Menezes LF. Influence of the characteristics of
the experimental data set used to identify anisotropy parameters. Simul Model Pract
Theory 2015;53:15–44.
[65] Swift H. Plastic instability under plane stress. J Mech Phys Solids 1952;1:1–18.
[66] Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philosophical transactions
of the royal society of london 1921;221:163–98.
[67] Harper PW, Hallett SR. Cohesive zone length in numerical simulations of composite
delamination. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75:4774–92.
[68] Livermore Software Technology Corp. LS-Dyna, User’s Manual 2016.
H. Park, S.-J. Kim and J. Lee et al.
[69] Turon A, Davila CG, Camanho PP, Costa J. An engineering solution for mesh size
effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech
2007;74:1665–82.
[70] Soto A, González E V, Maimí P, Turon A, Sainz de Aja JR, de la Escalera FM. Cohe-
sive zone length of orthotropic materials undergoing delamination. Eng Fract Mech
2016;159:174–88.
[71] Campilho RDSG, Fernandes TAB. Comparative evaluation of single-lap joints bonded
with different adhesives by cohesive zone modelling. Procedia Eng 2015;114:102–9.
[72] Kim C, Lee J, Barlat F, Lee M-G. Frictional behaviors of a mild steel and a
TRIP780 steel under a wide range of contact stress and sliding speed. J Tribol
2014;136:21606.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 173 (2020) 105430
[73] Redhe M, Forsberg J, Jansson T, Marklund PO, Nilsson L. Using the response surface
methodology and the D-optimality criterion in crashworthiness related problems.
Struct Multidiscip Optim 2002;24:185–94.
[74] Stander N, Roux W, Basudhar A, Eggleston T, Goel T, Craig K. LS-OPT user’s manu-
al–a design optimization and probabilistic analysis tool for the engineering analyst.
Livermore, CA: Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2015.
[75] De Moura MFSF, Gonçalves JPM, Marques AT, De Castro PMST. Prediction of com-
pressive strength of carbon-epoxy laminates containing delamination by using a
mixed-mode damage model. Compos Struct 2000;50:151–7.
[76] Pinto AMG, Magalhães AG, Campilho RDSG, De Moura MFSF, Baptista APM, Mag-
alhães AG, et al. Single-lap joints of similar and dissimilar adherends bonded with
an acrylic adhesive. J Adhes 2009;85:351–76.