International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives

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

Numerical analysis of the dynamic behaviour of adhesive joints: A review

L.D.C. Ramalho a, *, Isidro J. Sánchez-Arce a, Diogo C. Gonçalves a, J. Belinha a, b,
R.D.S.G. Campilho a, b
a
INEGI, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal
b
School of Engineering, Polytechnic of Porto, ISEP-IPP, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 431, 4200-072, Porto, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Adhesive joints are being increasingly used in various industries, including the automotive or the wind turbines
Adhesive joints industries. Such increasing interest is a direct result of its high structural efficiency and also the product of its
Dynamic behaviour related scientific research. Therefore, the state-of-the-art on adhesive joints is significantly expanding. The
Failure
current work aims to discuss the most recent works dedicated to the numerical analysis of the dynamic behaviour
Fatigue
of adhesive joints. Dynamic behaviour was divided into three separate fields: fatigue, variable strain rate and
Impact
Modal analysis impact, and modal analysis. It was found that Cohesive Zone Models are a popular approach to study fatigue,
variable strain rates and impact. Additionally, the available literature focused on fatigue and impact is more
extensive than the one focused on modal analysis. Overall, it was found that the available research on the nu­
merical analysis of the dynamic behaviour of adhesive joints is increasing at a solid rate, and many geometrical
and material variations have been tested numerically. With this review designers and researchers of adhesive
joints should be able to choose the most suitable numerical technique for their specific dynamic analysis.

1. Introduction
Due to environmental restrictions, which are increasingly tighter,
various transport industries seek lightweight materials, such as
aluminium and composites. One the other hand, these industries
frequently use different materials in the different parts that have to be
joined. Under these conditions, adhesives offer some advantages over
other joining methods. The behaviour of adhesive joints in static or
quasi-static loading rates has been extensively studied over the years as
several reviews show [1,2]. However, their behaviour in dynamic
loading conditions has been studied less extensively. This occurs
because dynamic analysis is more complex than static analysis, partic­
ularly impact problems which require explicit integration. In recent
years, this trend is changing, as the applications of adhesive joints in­
crease and their behaviour during fatigue and impact require further
studies to develop better applications. Consequentially, the modal
behaviour of adhesive joints also needs to be studied to ensure that their
working conditions are outside the resonant frequencies and to assess
their damping capabilities.
This work aims to provide an extensive review of the most recent
works dedicated to the numerical dynamic analysis of adhesive joints.
Dynamic analysis was divided into three main fields in this work,
namely: fatigue, discussed in Section 2; variable strain rate and impact,
discussed in Section 3; and Modal Analysis, discussed in Section 5. There
are several numerical approaches that can be used to analyse each dy­
namic problem. Continuum mechanics constitute the simplest approach,
they allow the calculation of stresses and strains, being important to
identify critical areas. The stress and/or strain determined using a
continuum mechanics approach can also be used to predictions the life,
in fatigue, or strength, in impact, of joints. However, since adhesive
joints generally have stress singularities at the adhesive/adherent in­
terfaces these predictions can be mesh dependent. In fatigue, fracture
mechanics can also be used. With this approach, it is possible to deter­
mine crack growth and predict the life of joints. This approach is not
affected by the singularity at the adhesive/adherent interface, but it
normally requires an initial crack. Damage mechanics is another
possible approach, and it has been used in numerical analysis of impact.
This approach is similar to the continuum mechanics approach, but the
regions of the joint subjected to higher stresses/strains are progressively
degraded, according to a material law, decreasing their ability to carry
load, and in extreme cases leading to failure. The main drawback of this
approach is the same as the continuum mechanics drawback, the stress
singularity at the adhesive/adherent interfaces. CZM is a popular
approach in both fatigue and impact, combining continuum mechanics

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lramalho@inegi.up.pt (L.D.C. Ramalho), job@isep.ipp.pt (J. Belinha), rds@isep.ipp.pt (R.D.S.G. Campilho).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2022.103219
Received 3 June 2022; Accepted 15 June 2022
Available online 22 June 2022
0143-7496/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
and fracture mechanics concepts. This approach is not affected by the
stress singularity at the adhesive/adherent interfaces, but some cohesive
properties are dependent on the thickness of the adhesive layer, which
can increase the amount of characterization tests needed. Since modal
analysis is an eigenvalue problem, it differs from the other two. In modal
analysis, the eigenvalues are the natural frequencies, and the eigen­
vectors are the mode shapes. A detailed discussion regarding the current
state-of-the-art of each topic is presented in Section 5. The conclusions,
in Section 6, present a general overview of all the fields of dynamic
analysis covered by this review.
2. Fatigue
The use of numerical methods to study fatigue in adhesive joints can
be traced back to the 1970s, as shows the work of Mostovoy and Ripling
[3]. Since then, this field has gathered considerable interest and many
scientific reports and papers regarding the subject have been published.
The 2013 review by Pascoe et al. [4] provides a good summary of many
of the most significant works published between the first works of the
1970s and 2013. Thus, the present review will mostly focus on works
published after 2013, with a few exceptions. Now, for fracture numerical
analysis of adhesive joints, three different approaches can be identified:
continuum mechanics, fracture mechanics and CZM.
2.1. Continuum mechanics
Using continuum mechanics to study fatigue problems numerically is
the simplest approach. Therefore, it can be useful to perform first esti­
mations, but for works requiring more precision fracture mechanics or
CZM are generally used. The continuum mechanics approach consists of
estimating fatigue life base on the stresses and/or strains in adhesive,
joints without considering any damage evolution or crack propagation
criterion. Continuum mechanics can also be useful just to determine the
regions of the joint that have the highest stress concentrations, or to
observe how the stresses and strains are distributed along the joint.
Continuum mechanics criteria are most commonly used for metals.
However, some authors have also used them for adhesive joints, but they
are not as common as CZM. There is a myriad of models to predict fa­
tigue life, of which some only consider stress or strain, while others
consider both or energy. Esmaeili et al. [5] performed an extensive
comparison of several models, namely the Smith-Watson-Topper (SWT)
model [6], the Kandil, Brown and Miller (KBM) model [7], the Glinka
model [8], the Fatemi–Socie model [9], the Crossland model [10] and
the Jahed–Varvani model [11]. The authors tested these models in
bolted and bonded-bolted DLJ, considering the fatigue criteria in the
aluminium adherents. Overall, the Crossland model, which is a
stress-based model, presented the life predictions closer to the experi­
mental life, as can be observed in Fig. 1. It was also found that increasing
Fig. 1. Predicted fatigue life with several models against the experimental fatigue life for bolted (a) and bonded-bolted (b) specimens with tightening torque equals
to 5 Nm [5].
2
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
the bolt preload increased the joint’s life and the bonded-bolted joints
have a longer life than the bolted joints.
The SWT model was also used by Shahani et al. [12] to predict the
fatigue life of single lap joints (SLJ), but in this work the fatigue criterion
was considered in both the adherents and the adhesive. The authors
calibrated the model parameters using common SLJ and then used those
parameters to predict the fatigue life of multi-material SLJ with several
different adherent thicknesses. The predictions showed a maximum
error of 25% for a load level of 60% of the static failure load. The pre­
dictions were always lower than the experimental life, which is rec­
ommended for safe design. Pereira et al. [13] used the Morrow’s
modified Manson-Coffin (MMC) and the SWT models to predict the fa­
tigue life of welded-bonded SLJ. An important aspect of this work is that,
for the fatigue criteria, the stress and strain fields were considered,
instead of a single critical point. Using either model, the life predictions
were close to the experimental values, but the SWT presented better
predictions.
Wu et al. [14] proposed a combined approach, using continuum
mechanics to determine crack initiation and fracture mechanics to
determine fatigue crack growth after initiation. The initiation criterion
was based on the strain in critical places using the
Manson-Coffin-Basquin model (MCB), and the crack propagation crite­
rion is discussed in Section 2.2. The authors used this model to predict
the life of SLJ with different overlap lengths and fillets, as well as joints
with and without gaps. These predictions compared well to the experi­
mental strength and showed that, for shorter overlap lengths, it can take
more cycles to initiate the crack than to grow it until failure.
In addition to those models, Theories of Critical Distance (TCD) can
also be used. This classification was first proposed by Taylor [15], who
identified several models that tried to predict fatigue life and static
strength based on the stress at a fixed critical distance, hence the name.
Castro Sousa et al. [16] proposed the use of a TCD to determine the
fatigue life of Arcan joints. In the proposed approach, the critical point
was determined as the point in the adhesive mid-thickness plane where
the maximum principal stress is highest. The parameter used to deter­
mine failure was a modified version of the effective stress that takes into
account the hydrostatic stress. To estimate these parameters, experi­
ments to Arcan joints under pure mode I and pure mode II loading were
performed to obtain an S–N curve, and then linear elastic numerical
simulations were performed to relate that curve to the effective stress at
the critical point, getting a σe-N curve. The σe-N curve, obtained based on
the pure mode I and pure mode II experiments, related well with the
experimental fatigue life of Arcan joints under mixed mode loading at
45◦ . Castro Sousa et al. [17] later adapted this approach to predict the
fatigue life of SLJ with two different overlap lengths and adherent
thicknesses, achieving good predictions for all the tested joints, as shown
in Fig. 2. However, to predict the life of SLJ a parameter M (which did
not seem to change significantly for the joints tested) was introduced,
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the fatigue life predictions using M = 0.424 (a) and M = 0.99 (b), where I, II and III are joints with different geometric parameters [17].
but more extensive testing was considered necessary, with different
adhesives, adherents, and geometric parameters, to determine how this
parameter is affected by these geometrical variations.
Schneider et al. [18] used a TCD based on the effective stress to
predict the fatigue life of SLJ and Scarf Joints (SJ) at different temper­
atures ranging from − 35 ◦ C to 80 ◦ C. These predictions were based on
the S–N curves of SJ with different angles and Thick Adherent Shear Test
(TAST). With the SLJ fatigue life predictions it was shown that the
critical distance increases as the temperature increases. For all tested
joints it was also observed that their life decreases with increases in
temperature. This study was further expanded by Beber et al. [19],
which compared the predictions obtained using different material
models for the adhesive, namely von-Mises, linear Drucker-Prager and
linear-elastic. It was found that the life predictions were closer to the
experimental life when an elastic-plastic material model was used. Be­
tween the different models, the Drucker-Prager model provided the best
prediction for the SLJ, and the von Mises criterion provided the best
prediction for the SJ with a 56.6◦ angle. Later, Beber et al. [20] used the
TCD with an elastic-plastic material model to predict the life of SLJ.
Initially, the critical parameters were obtained by performing bulk
experimental tests of the adhesive notched with different notch lengths
and locations. Afterwards, with the aid of numerical simulations the
intersection of the equivalent stress of those differently notched speci­
mens was determined. This data the used to predict the fatigue life of SLJ
with the same adhesive. These predictions showed some variation, albeit
small, depending on which bulk specimen was used as a reference to
make them. However, the predictions were similar to the experimental
life of the SLJ.
2.2. Fracture mechanics
Fracture mechanics are ideal to calculate fatigue life based on the
fatigue crack growth, since they are focused on studying cracks. Fatigue
crack growth can be generally determined using the Stress Intensity
Factor (SIF) [21] or its energy equivalent, the Strain Energy Release Rate
(SERR) [22].
The SERR is more commonly used that SIF, and there are several
ways to determine the SERR. Chen et al. [23] determined the fatigue life
of U-joints by calculating the SERR using the J-integral with the aid of
the Finite Element Method (FEM) and relating it to the SERR of SLJ and
T-peel joints. The predictions were slightly over the experimental life in
the high-cycle region, but very close in the low-cycle region. Later, Chen
et al. [24] also used the SERR to predict the fatigue crack growth. This
was done by performing an extensive experimental investigation of
Compact Mixed Mode specimens, under several mode-mixities, from
pure mode I to pure mode II. Then, the experimental investigation was
combined with numerical simulations, to allow the characterization of
the fatigue crack growth behaviour using an adaptation of Paris’ law
3
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
that takes into account the mode mixity. After determining the param­
eters of this Paris’ law, it was possible to estimate the fatigue life of SLJ.
The disadvantage of this approach is that it does not consider crack
initiation, which can be a considerable part of the fatigue life. The
previously mentioned work of Wu et al. [14] was able to address this
issue by using a combination of fracture mechanics and continuum
mechanics, as discussed in the previous section. Fig. 3 shows that, for the
shorter overlap, the initiation life is more relevant than the crack growth
life, while for the longer overlap the crack growth life is more relevant.
In 2021, Wu et al. [25] also used the J-integral to determine the SERR of
bonded-riveted joints. With this calculation, it was found that, as the
crack propagates in the adhesive and it gets closer to the rivet, the SERR
decreases. On the other hand, in an adhesively bonded joint the SERR
always increases as the crack propagates.
Another way to determine the SERR is using the Virtual Crack
Closure Technique (VCCT), as performed by Pascoe et al. [26]. These
authors experimentally and numerically tested the effects of the adhe­
sive thickness in Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) tests under mode I fa­
tigue loading. Using the VCCT to calculate the SERR, it was observed
that, as the crack grows, the SERR decreases for a constant imposed
displacement. Moreover, the adhesive thickness did not affect the SERR
values in a significant way. The numerical model also showed that the
plastic zone increases with the adhesive thickness, which in turn in­
creases the dissipated plastic energy, but this effect decreases as the
adhesive thickness increases.
The SIF is less commonly used than the SERR, since it is more diffi­
cult to calculate. However, Lai and Pan [27] used the SIF to predict the
life of SLJ with multi-material adherents and an initial crack, where the
SIF was directly obtained from Abaqus®. The predictions were under the
experimentally observed life of the joints. Also using Abaqus®, Samaei
et al. [28] studied the SIF in bolted and bonded-bolted SLJ with different
bolt preloads and an initial crack in the bolt hole. It was shown that
increasing the preload and using the bonded-bolted joints resulted in
lower SIF, even as the crack propagates. This was proposed as the reason
why longer lives were observed experimentally for the bonded-bolted
joints with the highest bolt preload.
Another possibility in fracture mechanics is the used of the Gener­
alized Stress intensity Factor (GSIF), also known as Intensity of Singular
Stress Fields (ISSF). The ISSF allows the study of the singularities arising
from sharp multi-material corners, which are observed in many adhesive
joints, such as SLJ, as studied by Tang et al. [29]. In their work, it was
shown that the fatigue crack initiation of SLJ with thick adhesive layers
occurred at around the same ISSF range, for two different adhesive
thicknesses, as seen in Fig. 4. This finding indicates that, when using the
ISSF to determine fatigue life, the ISSF is independent from the adhesive
thickness, but a wider range of adhesive thicknesses would have to be
tested to assess the universality of this finding.
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
Fig. 3. Comparison of the fatigue life predictions for a joint with a 5 mm (a) and a 25.4 mm overlap (b) [14].
Fig. 4. Number of cycles to crack initiation against the ISSF for SLJ with two
different adhesive thicknesses [29].
2.3. Cohesive Zone Models
The review about static strength prediction of adhesive joints by
Ramalho et al. [1] showed that CZM were the most commonly used
approach to predict joint strength. Regarding fatigue life predictions, the
same is shown to be true. CZM are a hybrid technique based on the
introduction of special purpose (cohesive elements) in the models at
specified fracture paths to promote automatic and self-similar fatigue
damage growth. With this purpose, this technique uses continuum me­
chanics and fracture mechanics concepts. Continuum mechanics is used
to initiate damage in un-cracked structures, while crack propagation is
based on fracture concepts, typically with Paris-like laws, Thus, CZM
actually uses concepts from the approaches of Sections 2.1 and 2.2 to
provide a more efficient solution. CZM define a cohesive law that relates
a certain stress and displacement with damage, which goes from 0 (un­
damaged) to 1 (complete failure). As damage increases the mechanical
properties of the material decrease. There are several types of cohesive
law that can be used, classified according to their shape, but the most
commonly used is the triangular law, since it is implemented on com­
mercial FEM software, such as Abaqus®. However, the triangular law is
not the most appropriate for significantly ductile materials, as many
modern adhesives are. To simulate fatigue behaviour of adhesive joints
using CZM, a cycle jumping strategy is usually employed. This approach
consists of applying a constant load to the joint and consider that the
joint was subjected to a given number of cycles with that load and
degrading the mechanical properties accordingly. Alternatively, each
cycle can be simulated individually. However, since this is a very
computationally heavy approach, it is not often seen.
A comparison between different cohesive law shapes was performed
by Costa et al. [30], who used CZM to predict the fatigue life of DCB
degraded by humidity. The authors concluded that the trapezoidal law
was the most appropriate for the two adhesives tested, which was
4
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
expected on account of their ductility. The predictions were good for all
humidity conditions, but they were made only for the joints used to
calibrate the model.
In some works, triangular CZM have been used to determine the
fatigue life of joints used to estimate the cohesive parameters, such as
DCB and End-Notched Flexure (ENF). This type of study is important to
ensure that the cohesive parameters have been correctly determined.
Ebadi-Rajoli et al. [31] used triangular CZM to predict the fatigue crack
growth rate of DCB, ENF and mixed mode bending (MMB) joints with
composite adherents, achieving results comparable to the experimen­
tally obtained Paris’ law curve. Akhavan-Safar et al. [32] also used
triangular CZM in pure mode I DCB test, and Monteiro et al. [33] and
Akhavan-Safar et al. [34] in pure mode II conditions with ENF speci­
mens. Additionally, Rocha et al. [35] used the same type of cohesive law
in mixed-mode loading conditions, using SLB tests.
De Moura and Gonçalves [36] used triangular CZM to simulate the
fatigue crack growth of a DCB joint, using a modified Paris law, pro­
posed by Pirondi and Moroni [37], to degrade the cohesive elements as
fatigue accumulates. This model was not compared against experimental
results, but the purely numerical study was able to correctly identify the
effect of different load ratios and modified Paris’ law parameters. Higher
load ratios and lower Paris’ law parameters lead to a longer fatigue life.
The same authors applied a similar model to mode II fatigue loading and
tested it on ENF joints [38], achieving similar conclusions. Later, the
authors extended this approach to mixed-mode loading conditions [39]
using Single-Leg Bending (SLB) joints. This model was shown to
compare well with the Paris Law used as the input, when considering the
crack growth per number of cycles. Moreira et al. [40], and de Moura
and Moreira [41], later used this model to predict the fatigue life of
several composite bonded repairs, namely Single and Double Strap
Joints (SSJ and DSJ), one and two stepped joints, and SJ. It was
concluded that the one-stepped joint had the shortest life, because it
developed considerable early damage, while the SJ with a reinforcement
offered the best fatigue life. However, it is important to note that these
results are purely numerical.
Hosseini-Toudeshky et al. [42] performed a comparison between
CZM and an approach based on the VCCT to evaluate the fatigue crack
growth in an adhesive joint under mixed mode loading. Their work
showed that the VCCT and CZM predicted a similar crack evolution, but
the CZM was 240 times faster computationally. These predictions were
not compared to experiments, but Khoramishad et al. [43] performed
that comparison with SLJ and laminated doublers in bending, achieving
a good correlation between the predicted fatigue life and the experi­
mental fatigue life. Belnoue et al. [44] determined the fatigue life of DLJ
with different adhesive thicknesses by using cohesive elements at the
adherent/adhesive interface, achieving good predictions. Ibrahim et al.
[45] used triangular CZM to predict the fatigue crack growth rate of SLJ.
These authors predicted the crack size after 2000 cycles and 4000 cycles
with good accuracy, i.e., a 5.2% error in the first case and a 4.6% error in
the second case.
CZM have also been used in several works to assess the crack
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
retardation effects of several solutions. Floros and Tserpes [46] inves­
tigated the crack retardation effect of introducing bolts into composite
adhesive joints using triangular CZM. The numerical solution showed
that the bonded-bolted joints are damaged faster, i.e., in fewer cycles,
until damage reaches the bolted zone, which slows down the damage.
This effect can be observed in Fig. 5. The overall results showed that the
bonded/bolted joints have slower damage propagation than the bonded
joints. Tserpes and Floros [47] also tested this model against experi­
mental values for adhesively bonded joints, showing that the crack
growth predicted by the model was similar to the experimentally
observed crack growth. Sachse et al. [48] introduced rivetless nut plates
into adhesive joints to assess their crack growth retardation abilities in
fatigue. The adhesive was modelled using a trapezoidal CZM, due to the
adhesive’s ductility. The numerical results showed that the crack growth
rate was reduced by the rivetless nut plate, which was in accordance
with the experimental results for the three different load levels tested.
Later, Sachse et al. [49] also investigated the crack-arrest capabilities of
bonded-pin joints and bonded-bolted joints. For the bonded-pin joints
the numerical model predicted a crack growth similar to the experi­
ments, showing that the rivetless nut plates had stronger crack-arrest
effect than the pin. Regarding the bonded-bolted joints, when the
bolts had no preload, the numerical model predicted a crack growth
similar to the experiments. However, if the bolt was preloaded, some
corrections were needed to achieve a crack growth similar to the ex­
periments, namely considering the effects of the compression introduced
by the bolt and the friction. Compared to the rivetless nut plates,
introducing a bolt with a preload had similar crack arrest properties, but
using bolts with no preload resulting in a significantly worse
performance.
Triangular CZM have also been used to predict the fatigue life of
components used commercial products, not just idealised joints. An
example is the work of Zuo et al. [50], which studied the fatigue life of
wind turbine blades using a continuum damage model for the blade
components and a triangular CZM for the adhesive joining the blade
components. It was found that damage initiated firstly in the blade
components and later in the adhesive, causing debonding. Both types of
damage initiated around the same region of the blade and the adhesive
damage was mainly caused by shear stresses, although there was also a
significant amount of peel stress. Hosseini-Toudeshky et al. [51] also
used triangular CZM to study the fatigue life of another wind turbine
component, i.e. the blade root joint. In that work, a CZM was used to
assess damage evolution after an overloading event. This initial event
caused a damage of up to 8% of the joint height, which after a month of
cyclic loading would grow to 40% of the joint height.
A unique approach in this field was recently proposed by Lyathakula
and Yuan [52], who combined Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and a
triangular CZM to predict the fatigue life of adhesive joints. This model
was tested in three different types of joints: SLJ, Laminated Doublers in
Bending (LDB) and Tapered SLJ (TSLJ). First, the ANN was trained using
FEM simulations with the CZM, mapping the damage to the principal
strain at the adhesive. Then, three successive modules were used for the
Fig. 5. Predicted fatigue crack growth in the adhesive layer of bonded and bonded-bolted joints [46].
5
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
probabilistic life predictions: first the Fatigue Damage Growth (FDG)
simulator, then the Uncertainty Quantification (UQ), and finally the
confidence bounds of the fatigue life prediction. The first module uses
the mapping to simulate the FDG in the adhesive; the second module
employs Bayesian inference to calibrate the fatigue model parameters by
quantifying uncertainties in the parameters using experimental data;
and the final module uses those parameter samples in the FDG simulator
and attributes a confidence interval for each parameter sample. The
model was successfully validated by calibrating the parameters using
SLJ experiments and then performing life predictions for the LDB, using
the previously determined parameters. The predictions of the LDB seen
in Fig. 6 agree well with the experimental data. Two other validation
tests were successfully performed but are not described here for the sake
of brevity.
3. Variable strain rate and impact
Impact is a field that has been gaining interest in recent years due to
the increased use of adhesive joints in transportation industries. The
review of Machado et al. [53] presents a good summary of the numerical
modelling of adhesive joints under impact until 2016. Therefore, the
current review will focus mainly on works published after that year,
with occasional exceptions, to avoid repetition. Some of the works
considered in this section are not dealing with impact, instead they deal
with variable strain-rate (non-static) loading conditions, which involve
dynamic behaviour and also require explicit numerical integration. Due
to the small number of such works, they do not have a dedicated section
and are included here. Currently, variable strain rate and impact studies
can be divided into three different categories: continuum mechanics,
damage mechanics and CZM.
3.1. Continuum mechanics
Continuum mechanics are mainly used to assess the stresses and
strains of adhesive joints. However, some authors also perform strength
predictions based on that data. Performing strength predictions with this
approach presents a significant difficulty, which is the singularity arising
from the interface corners present in most adhesive joints. However,
predictions with this approach are easier to program and can provide
good results. Unlike static load conditions, under impact loading the
stress propagates as a wave, which leads to several local stress peaks
along the adhesive. This peculiarity is discussed and demonstrated in
several continuum mechanics works where a stress analysis is performed
[54–56], and it can be visualized in Fig. 7. However, failure still usually
occurs at the overlap ends in SLJ and similar joints because the overall
peak stress still occurs in that region, this can also be observed in Fig. 7.
Boling and Dongyun [57] performed a stress analysis of SLJ with
different adherents using a 3D Finite Element Analysis (FEA) consid­
ering linear-elasticity. The joints always used the same adhesive, but
three different adherent combinations were studied, namely
composite-composite (CC), composite-aluminium (CA) and
L.D.C. Ramalho et al. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219

Fig. 6. Life prediction for the SLJ (a) and the LDB (b) [52].

more vulnerable to the heat than the sandwich adherent used.

Furthermore, the degradation of mechanical properties due to the heat
had a significant effect on the stress curves. In 2020, Shim et al. [62]
developed a model that takes into account temperature and
rate-dependent material behaviour. In this work, the authors tested SLJ
at several loading and temperature conditions and then compared the
experimental results with the results from the numerical model. It was
shown that increasing the strain rate leads to a higher joint strength,
while the inverse happens when the temperature is increased. The fail­
ure strength predictions made using a strain-based criterion correlated
well with the experimental failure strength for a wide range of strain
rates.

3.2. Damage mechanics

Damage mechanics can be used in to predict the impact strength of

adhesive joints, but it is not as popular as CZM. This technique allows the
simulation of progressive material degradation and ultimate failure
Fig. 7. Stress propagation in the adhesive of a SLJ [56].
through an arbitrary path, unlike CZM, which only allow damage in the
predefined cohesive elements.
composite-titanium (CT). The results showed that the CA and CT joints
Gollins et al. designed a joint to predominately be under mode I
promoted higher stress concentrations and an asymmetric stress distri­
loading and tested it under impact experimentally [63] and numerically
bution at the adhesive mid-thickness line, which explains the experi­
[64]. The developed damage model was able to accurately predict the
mentally observed lower strength of those joints. Quaglini et al. [58]
impact strength when compared to the experimental results for several
numerically tested glass plates with point fixings considering two
different impact velocities and two different adhesives. The comparison
different joining methods, i.e. adhesives and bolts. The work was mainly
with quasi-static loading found that, under impact loading, the joints
focused on the stress, and it showed that the bolts induced large stress
were able to absorb more energy and support higher loads. The differ­
concentrations in the glass, which did not occur when adhesives were
ence in energy absorbed is particularly high as is shown in Fig. 9. Yildiz
used.
et al. [65] used a damage model to observe the strain rate effect on the
The stress singularities observed at the interface corners of adhesive
energy absorbed by an adhesive joint subjected to a shockwave impact.
joints can be mitigated. Valès et al. [59] compared the effects of different
It was found that the energy absorbed was more significant for
adhesive/adherent corner geometries on the reduction of stress singu­
quasi-static loads than for impact loads.
larities. This was done by comparing the stresses in the adhesive, near
A damage model was used by Boling and Dongyun [66] to study the
the interface, of joints with: a straight corner, an inside taper, a cham­
behaviour of composite-titanium SLJ. A 3D analysis was considered, and
fered beak, and a filleted beak. The FEA considered linear-elastic ma­
the damage model was only used for the composite adherents, while the
terial behaviour and plane stress. It showed that the inside taper
adhesive and the titanium used an elastic-plastic material model with no
removed the stress peaks at overlap ends, but created other peaks before
damage. A comparison of the numerical and experimental transverse
it, being overall not very beneficial; while both the chamfered beak and
strains showed a good correlation. Numerically, different adhesive
the filleted beak removed the stress peaks without introducing new ones.
thicknesses were tested, showing that peak compressive and tensile
The differences between the configurations can be visualized in Fig. 8.
stresses decrease as thickness increases. A similar effect was also found
Using a similar FEA, they studied an Arcan specimen, with additional
for overlap length increases. The obtained results also showed that it is
details and experimental tests in Ref. [60]. In summary, this work
important to account for the material properties’ strain rate dependency
showed that the mass of the impactor has a significant influence on the
in impact cases, since otherwise significantly different results will be
stability of the stresses, with lighter weights a significant oscillation was
obtained. Bedon et al. [67] tested an adhesively bonded square hollow
observed, which was also confirmed experimentally.
glass column under different impact velocities. As in the work of Boling
The effect of temperature on the mechanical response of adhesive
and Dongyun [66], the damage model was not applied to the adhesive,
joints is also a field of interest. Rizk et al. [61] developed a 3D ther­
instead it was applied to the glass adherents. The numerical compressive
momechanical model where a DLJ was subjected to heat and then
stress was similar to the one observed experimentally for the different
impacted. The developed model showed that the adhesive was much
impact velocities when considering initially undamaged columns.

6
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
Fig. 8. Stress in the adhesive near the upper interface at the instant with the highest shear stress for the inside taper (a), chamfered beak (b), filleted beak (c) and
filleted beak with a shoulder thickness (d) [59].
Fig. 9. Comparison between the energy absorbed by a joint under static and
impact loading conditions [64].
However, if the columns were initially damaged the numerical model
overestimated the stress, mainly due to the simplifications in modelling
the initial damage.
This type of damage model was also applied recently to a bonded
automotive structure by Hou et al. [68], testing it with two different
joining methods, i.e. adhesive bonding and riveting. The tested structure
was a single hat-shaped T-joint, and the difference between the two
joining methods was observed to be minimal, through experiments and
numerical results, in terms of energy absorbed and peak load, for various
impact velocities. The numerical time-load curves of both joining
methods were also similar to the experiments, but with a small over
7
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
prediction of the peak load, as shown in Fig. 10.
3.3. Cohesive Zone Models
As was observed for fatigue, in Section 2, and static loading condi­
tions, in Ref. [1], CZM are also the most commonly used method to
determine the strength of adhesive joints under impact. Under impact,
CZM are used in a similar manner to static loading, but many of the
properties used to define the cohesive law are strain rate dependent.
Thus, the characterization tests have to be performed at different strain
rates, and the properties determined with static tests are usually not
applicable to impact. Due to this strain rate dependence, it is important
to note how the CZM properties are determined how they are modelled.
Regarding the experimental tests, as in quasi-static characterization
experiments, to determine the mode I dynamic properties DCB are
usually used and to determine mode II properties, ENF tests are the most
commonly adopted. The only difference is the strain rate at which the
tests are performed. Most authors perform tests at two different loading
velocities and then perform a logarithmic extrapolation to obtain the
properties at the numerical model’s velocity, meaning that the proper­
ties will then remain the same throughout the complete simulation.
Some examples of such experimental trials and subsequent numerical
models can be found in references [69–73], meaning that the properties
will then remain the same throughout the whole simulation. However,
some authors have adopted a more complex approach, where a loga­
rithmic law is defined and the cohesive properties are updated at each
time-step according to the current strain rate, examples of this are found
in Refs. [74,75]. Generally, the only CZM properties that are affected by
the strain rate are tn and ts, which tend to increase with strain rate in­
creases, while GIc, GIIc, E and G do not change with strain rate [69–73].
Numerical investigations into joints used to characterize adhesives
are also important, to validate the characterization. Nunes et al. [76]
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
Fig. 10. Time-load response of the adhesively bonded (a) and the riveted (b)automotive structure [68].
numerically tested DCB and ENF specimens at several low displacement
rates, i.e. 150, 15 and 1.5 mm/s, to assess how the strain rate changes
with time and as the crack grows. It was found that, for the ENF test, the
strain rate remained stable for the test range generally used to determine
GIIc. However, for the DCB it was shown that the strain rate decreases as
the crack propagates for a constant displacement rate, which was also
found by the numerical and experimental investigation of Borges et al.
[77] and Nunes et al. [78], this is also displayed in Fig. 11. Thus, Nunes
et al. [78] used that knowledge to develop a model where the strain rate
was constant at the crack tip. This goal was achieved by having a vari­
able displacement rate. This numerical model then served as a basis for
an experimental test with a constant strain rate and variable displace­
ment rate.
Lißner et al. [79,80] developed a trapezoidal CZM capable of taking
into account the load-rate and adhesive thickness. The experiments used
to characterize the cohesive law showed an increase in dissipated en­
ergy, in mode I, mode II and mixed-mode loading, with adhesive
thickness increases. However, the maximum stress did not increase,
which was verified for high rate (3 m/s), medium rate (10 mm/s) and
quasi-static loadings. The comparison between load rates shows that the
peak stress tends to increase with the rate increase, in all loading modes,
while the energy dissipation decreases, also in all loading modes. Later,
Lißner et al. [81] tested multi-material joints, made with titanium and a
CFRP, under three different loading conditions: mode I, using a DCB test,
mode II, using an ENF test, and mixed-mode, using a SLB test. The
experimental results showed a decrease in strength for all loading con­
ditions when a high-rate load is applied (4 m/s), as opposed to a
quasi-static load. However, while in quasi-static loading failure was
cohesive, in high-rate loading this was not verified for the DCB and SLB
experiments where failure occurred in the composite substrate. The
strength predictions, using the CZM of reference [80] for the adhesive
layer, proved to be accurate for all types of loading. Lißner et al. [82]
also tested the same type of joints, but using single material adherents
(titanium). Using the same CZM and the CZM parameters from Ref. [80],
the joint strength was over-predicted by 16%–20% in high rate loading.
By recalibrating the CZM parameters, the authors were able to find a
better agreement with the experimental results.
1 1
Fig. 11. Strain rate variation for a 150 mm/s test speed and a 15 s−
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
Under impact, SLJ are also one of the most commonly studied types
of joints. Araújo et al. [83] employed a triangular CZM to evaluate the
load bearing capabilities of composite SLJ under impact. They used
cohesive elements for the whole adhesive and for a small region of the
adherent near the interface, to simulate delamination. The maximum
load predicted by the numerical model was similar to the experimental
one. However, the triangular cohesive law was not able to take into
account the adhesive’s plasticity and, as a result, the P-δ curves were not
similar. Another interesting finding of this work, that was verified
experimentally and numerically, was that under impact the joints sus­
tained a higher load before failing, when compared to quasi-static
loading. Jia et al. [74] also used triangular CZM to evaluate the same
type of joint. The CZM used considered the variable strain rate observed
in impact situations, and this strain rate dependency and its calibration
were performed with numerical and experimental tests to DCB, ENF and
TAST specimens. The strength predictions of the composite SLJ were
similar to the experimental strength when using the strain rate depen­
dent cohesive parameters. The TAST specimens were also tested
numerically and experimentally under different temperatures in
Ref. [84], with good a correlation between the numerical and experi­
mental results for the different temperatures and impact speeds. How­
ever, the model was only verified against the experiments used to
calibrate it. Liu et al. [85] experimentally tested SLJ under low strain
rates and used a numerical model with 2D cohesive elements with a
triangular law. The authors determined the adhesive properties using
quasi-static experiments and showed that using them for low strain rates
still resulted in good strength predictions. A comparison between three
different adhesives, ranging from brittle to strong and very ductile, was
performed by Valente et al. [69] on SLJ with steel adherents, using
triangular CZM. A comparison with experimental work showed that this
model was able to predict the maximum load of the joints with a slight
overestimation, but the displacement at that load level was severely
underpredicted, whose difference was justified with the experimental
conditions. In the same work, a comparison between a 3D and a 2D
plane strain model was performed showing no significant difference
between them. Furthermore, a purely numerical comparison between
different adherents showed that using less stiff adherents results in a
strain rate (a), and a 15 mm/s test speed and a 10 s− strain rate [78].
8
L.D.C. Ramalho et al. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219

decrease of the maximum load for all three adhesives, but an increase of and not for the SERR. Dos Reis et al. [88] numerically and experimen­
the displacement at maximum load. In a later work [70], the same au­ tally studied SLJ with a graded adhesive, stiffer in the middle and more
thors used the same model to test, solely numerically, different flexible at the ends, using a triangular CZM. The results showed that the
geometrical configurations such as: an outer chamfer, an inner chamfer joint strength was not significantly affected by grading the adhesive, as
and an adhesive fillet. Overall, the adhesive fillet showed to be the most shown in Fig. 13, but the energy absorbed was greater with the graded
advantageous configuration to improve the maximum load the most for adhesive, when compared to using a non-graded stiff or a non-graded
all three adhesives, as it can be seen in Fig. 12. flexible adhesive. This behaviour contrasts with the quasi-static obser­
Ledford and May [86] compared two different modelling approaches vations, where the graded adhesive improved the joint strength and the
of a DLJ tested in a Split-Hopkinson Tension Bar. In both models, the energy absorbed. The authors justified this difference with
author used CZM for the adhesive and continuum elements for the ad­ shockwave-like stress propagation under impact conditions, resulting in
herents and bolts. The joints were bonded-bolted with composite and several stress peaks in the adhesive along the overlap.
aluminium adherents. In one model only the specimen was simulated, Sandwich panels are a composite material of interest and, recently,
while in the other the whole test setup was simulated. The comparison two numerical and experimental works have used these materials as the
between these models showed that the later model reduced oscillations adherents of adhesive joints. Khosravani et al. [89] experimentally and
in the force-displacement curves. numerically tested T-joints with sandwich adherents, which had a
Due to the stress concentrations found at the overlap ends of SLJ,
some authors proposed the use of graded adhesives, or mixed adhesive
joints, to achieve a more uniform stress distribution. Machado et al. [87]
used CZM on mixed adhesive SLJ, with a strong and brittle adhesive at
the centre of the overlap and a flexible adhesive at the overlap ends. Two
different adhesives were tested for each region. A comparison between a
2D plane strain model and a 3D model, both with cohesive elements
simulating the adhesives, showed no significant difference. A mesh de­
pendency study also showed that CZM are mesh independent under
impact loads, which is also a well-documented behaviour under
quasi-static loads. The strength predictions under impact were over­
estimated compared to the experimental data. However, for joints
bonded with a single adhesive, these overestimations were not signifi­
cant. Numerically a strength increase was predicted for the
mixed-adhesive joints, when compared to the single adhesive joints with
the flexible adhesives, but this was not verified experimentally. These Fig. 13. Joint strength, where a low cure temperature resulted in a stiff ad­
discrepancies were associated to the strain dependency of the material hesive, a high cure temperature resulted in a ductile adhesive and the graded
properties, which was only accounted for the tensile and shear strength cure resulted in an adhesive with graded properties [88].

Fig. 12. Strength prediction (Pm) and displacement at that load (δPm) for different outer chamfer angles (α) (a), inner chamfer angles (β) (b) and adhesive fillet angles
(θ) (c) [70].

9
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
honeycomb core. The numerical model was 3D and used cohesive ele­
ments with a triangular law for the adhesive and shell elements for the
sandwich structure. This model was used to predict the joint strength
under a strain rate of about 5000 s− 1. This prediction was below the
experimental strength but not by a large amount. Caliskan and Apalak
[90] studied adhesively bonded T-joints made of foam-aluminium
sandwich panels adherents. The foam was modelled considering
hyperelasticity and a damage model, while the aluminium was modelled
as elastic-plastic, and the adhesive was modelled with a triangular CZM.
Two different aluminium and foams were tested. It was found that using
a denser foam resulted in higher forces, for the same impact energy, and
the more ductile aluminium absorbed more energy by deforming plas­
tically. A good agreement between the experimental and numerical re­
sults was found.
Hybrid joints, jointed with multiple joining methods, are also an
object of interest under impact conditions. Chen et al. [91] experimen­
tally and numerically tested riveted/bonded composite SLJ used in the
automotive industry under three different transverse impact loads of
2.27 m/s, 2.53 m/s and 2.77 m/s. The comparison between rive­
ted/bonded SLJ and riveted SLJ showed that the later were stronger
under impact. However, in the tests both types of joints had the same
total thickness, which in the riveted/bonded joints meant that the
thickness of the adherent was reduced, due to the thickness of the ad­
hesive. The numerical model used CZM for the adhesive and continuum
damage models for the titanium rivets and the composite substrates. The
force-displacement predictions compared well with the
force-displacement observed experimentally for both joint types and the
different load rates.
The work of Silva et al. [92] presented a use of CZM in real world
applications. A triangular CZM was used to predict the life of SLJ with
different adhesive thicknesses and of an adhesively bonded automotive
structure. The numerical test showed a small difference in the maximum
load between the two adhesive thicknesses tested, with the thinnest
being the strongest, but the difference was higher in the experimental
results. The automotive structure simulations were able to predict the
strength with minimal deviation from the experiments, but the energy
absorbed showed a larger difference between experimental and nu­
merical results.
4. Modal analysis
The accurate prediction of natural vibration frequencies and corre­
sponding mode shapes is highly relevant to ensure that the working
conditions of adhesive joints are outside the natural frequencies, which
could lead to premature failures. Furthermore, adhesives have damping
properties, reinforcing the importance of these investigations. The 2011
review of He [2] has a section dedicated to modal analysis, but it is not
very extensive. This review aims at presenting a more complete picture
of the current state of the investigation of modal analysis in adhesive
joints.
The first works focused on the modal analysis of adhesive joints
consisted of analytical models, being the works of Saito and Tani [93],
and Rao and Crocker [94], for SLJ, and the work of Miles and Reinhald
[95], for two metal layers bonded with an adhesive, some of the earliest
research studies. Unlike the two previously mentioned loading cases, in
modal analysis analytical models are still commonly used, as attested by
several recent works developing new analytical models, which are
frequently validated by FEA. Almitani and Othman [96] proposed an
analytical model for SLJ and DLJ, which was validated by FEA. The work
of Challita et al. [97] is another example of an analytical model vali­
dated by a FEA, but this model is applicable to SLJ with voids. The
natural frequencies predicted by both methods were similar. Wang et al.
[98] validated an analytical model to calculate the stress under a har­
monic load against a FEA for DLJ. This model predicted the natural
frequencies similarly to the FEA, but the stresses of the analytical model
were slightly higher. Recently, in 2021, Sindi et al. [99] studied DLJ
10
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
with a functionally graded adhesive, which was validated against a FEA
that predicted the natural frequencies similarly to the analytical model.
In this work, the authors also compared aluminium and steel adherents
and found that using aluminium adherents, which are softer but less
dense, resulted in higher natural frequencies. Vazirir and
Nayeb-Hashemi [100] validated the model for composite repair patches
against a FEA and experiments. The FEA and the analytical model were
in good agreement with the experiments.
These analytical models are generally faster than a FEA. However,
they are not as versatile and a given model is only applicable to a
restricted set of joints, while a FEA, or another discretization technique,
is applicable to any joint. The Finite Difference Method (FDM) was used
by Rao and Zhou [101] to perform a modal analysis of Tubular Lap
Joints (TLJ). The effects of several parameters were tested. A decrease in
the natural frequencies was observed with increases to the adhesive
thickness. Also, increasing the temperature also decreases the fre­
quencies because the joint becomes softer. Yaman and Sansveren [102]
numerically and experimentally tested composite SLJ, SSJ and DSJ, with
several geometric variations. The FEA correlated well with the experi­
ments for the different joint configurations. It was also shown that fibre
orientation angle and adherent thickness have a significant effect on the
natural frequencies, increasing them as they increase. On the other
hand, the damping ratio improves with decreases in adherent thickness
and increases in overlap length. For DSJ, a similar improvement in
damping due to the overlap length was also observed by Gorrepati and
Rao [103]. Additionally, it was observed that natural frequencies in­
crease slightly with the increase of the overlap length and the decrease
of the adhesive thickness.
Ahmad Basri et al. [104] used experiments and a FEA to determine
the natural frequencies of a composite structure made of a hat and a
plate that were adhesively-bonded. Initially, the hat and plate were
tested separately, and the FEA predictions of the natural frequency
showed a maximum error of 11%. Afterwards, the model was updated
based on the original test and the error was reduced to a maximum of
4%. Then, the complete structure was tested, and a parametric study was
performed to assess the influence of several parameters of the numerical
model. The natural frequencies of the structure were predicted with a
maximum error of 3% when using the adjusted parameters. The mode
shapes of the structure predicted by the FEA were also similar to the
mode shapes measured experimentally, as shown in Fig. 14.
Apalak at al [105] tested the effect on the natural frequencies of
several geometrical and mechanical variations to a L-shaped corner
joint. This task was performed only numerically using a 3D FEA. The
authors found that changes to the adhesive mechanical properties,
namely the Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and density, did not alter
the natural frequencies in a significant manner. The same was also
observed when the adhesive thickness was varied. Oppositely, changes
to the geometry of the adherents had a significant effect on the natural
frequencies, which increased for higher thicknesses and decreased for
shorter joint lengths. The natural frequencies also increased with longer
support lengths, but not as significantly. Based on the obtained data, an
ANN was trained, and a genetic algorithm was used to predict the op­
timum joint dimensions, which maximized the natural frequency.
Bidyadhar and Mishra also studied this type of joint [106], corrobo­
rating the findings of Apalak et al. Additionally, different adherents
were tested, finding that stiffer adherents exhibit higher natural fre­
quencies, and also that corner angles do not significantly influence the
natural frequencies. ANN were also used by Gunes et al. [107,108] for
SLJ with graded adherents. The ANN was trained using data from FEA by
varying mechanical and geometrical properties. It was found that
decreasing the joint width below 50 mm significantly increased the
natural frequencies, but widths above 50 mm did not visibly change the
natural frequencies. Furthermore, changes to the adhesive mechanical
and geometrical properties resulted in negligible changes to the natural
frequencies. The most significant effect on the natural frequencies was
due to the property gradation of the adherents and their thickness,
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
Fig. 14. Vibration mode shapes of the structure tested in Ref. [104].
producing higher natural frequencies.
He and Oyadiji [109] and He [110] studied the effects on the natural
frequencies of the adhesive mechanical properties using a FEA, showing
that changes to the Poisson’s ratio generally do not significantly alter the
natural frequencies. The same was also observed for realistic changes to
the Young’s modulus, but when using very low Young’s modulus, below
1 GPa, the natural frequencies significantly changed, as can be observed
in Fig. 15. Kaya et al. [111] observed, with a FEA, that in SLJ thicker
adhesive layers lead to decreases in the natural frequencies. However,
this increase was not significant. Damm et al. [112] studied with a FEA
the modal response of an adhesively bonded light signal system with a
tubular joint and compared it to a welded one. The authors tested two
different adhesives, which showed a relevant difference in terms of
natural frequencies, with the stiffest adhesive having slightly higher
natural frequencies. The welded joint also resulted in slightly higher
natural frequencies when compared to the bonded joint, but the differ­
ence was not significant. It was also found that a thicker adhesive layer
and a less stiff adhesive leads to more damping, which is beneficial.
Additionally, simulations with different overlap lengths showed that
they have a small influence on the damping characteristics. Finally, the
authors tested an observation tower, with multiple bonded areas,
Fig. 15. Changes to the natural frequencies due to adhesive’s Young’s
modulus [109].
11
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
reaching similar conclusions.
Wang et al. [113] used a layerwise FEM to perform the modal
analysis of a SLJ and a Step-Lap Joint (S-LJ). The natural frequencies
predicted for the SLJ were compared to the natural frequencies pre­
dicted by Gunes et al. [107] using a standard FEM, achieving similar
predictions, thus validating their layerwise FEM. Then, a parametric
study was performed for the S-LJ, whose main conclusions were: the
adhesive thickness does not significantly change the natural frequencies,
but it increases damping; and increasing the overlap length leads to
higher natural frequencies and damping. The FEA of Ko et al. [114] also
reached similar conclusions regarding the overlap length effects on the
natural frequencies of SLJ.
Several joining methods were tested by Van Belle et al. [115]
experimentally and numerically for SLJ. It was found that, for the ad­
hesive joints, the natural frequencies predicted by the numerical method
were similar to the experimental ones. Du and Lu [116] studied the
change to the modal behaviour of SLJ with dissimilar adherents due to
fatigue. Their experiments showed a decrease in the natural frequencies
as the fatigue cycles increased. Experiments with aluminium beams, the
adherent material, also showed that this decrease was due to the ad­
hesive layer, since the natural frequencies of the beams remained almost
the same even after more than a million cycles. The numerical model for
the undamaged joint predicted natural frequencies similar to the ex­
periments. However, for the damaged joints a significant reduction to
the adhesive stiffness, over 99%, or bonded area, around 80%, was
required to achieve similar frequencies to the ones observed experi­
mentally. Such a significant decrease was not observed in any of the
works referenced in Section 2. He [117] predicted the first 20 natural
frequencies of a SLJ using a FEA. The authors compared their results to
experiments for two different joint widths, achieving a maximum error
of 26.88% for one of the modes. Lin and Ko [118] were able to determine
the natural frequencies of an adhesively bonded layered plate using a
FEA. It was shown that an increase in plate thickness results in increases
to the natural frequencies, which was expected considering that it in­
creases the overall stiffness of the joint.
5. Discussion
5.1. Fatigue
The period covered by this review shows that CZM are the most used
method to numerically study fatigue in adhesive joints. Such observa­
tion can be justified by the fact that CZM are able to accurately predict
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
crack initiation and crack propagation, translating into accurate life
predictions. Another significant advantage of CZM is their mesh inde­
pendence, which is not always verified with the other alternatives, i.e.,
continuum or fracture mechanics, due to the stress singularities arising
at the adhesive/adherent interfaces. However, CZM also have some
limitations, such as need for more characterization tests. In turn, these
tests are also adhesive thickness dependent, due to the constraining ef­
fects of the adherents on the adhesive layer. This phenomenon is well
documented in static analysis [1], but in fatigue more research is
required. Considering that the constraining effects are still present in
fatigue, it is expected that CZM parameters are also dependent on the
adhesive thickness in fatigue analysis. Continuum mechanics is not able
to predict crack propagation, and fracture mechanics cannot predict
crack initiation. Considering that, the approach proposed by Wu et al.
[14] could be an important advancement. Wu et al. approach, which
combines fracture and continuum mechanics, enables the prediction of
both crack propagation and crack initiation. Even though the life pre­
dictions with this approach were accurate, there was no mesh inde­
pendence study, so it is not clear if this approach can have that problem
and further research is needed. ANN could also be a major investigation
focus and the work of Lyathakula and Yuan [52] showed promising
results. This type of approach could rely on the enormous amount of
experimental and numerical data published in this field to perform life
predictions.
Regardless of the numerical method, a lack of works focused on short
cracks is noticeable. In metals it has been shown that short crack growth
is an aspect to consider when performing fatigue analysis. This behav­
iour was first observed by Pearson et al. [119] for aluminium alloys.
Short cracks have been defined as cracks of the size of the material’s
microstructure [120]. At this scale it was observed that cracks propagate
faster than what is predicted by traditional fatigue theory, such as Paris’
law. Moreover, at this scale cracks also propagate at stress intensities
ranges below the threshold [121]. The main explanation for this phe­
nomenon is a smaller crack closure effect on short cracks [122]. To date,
to the authors’ best knowledge, this phenomenon is yet to be numeri­
cally studied in adhesive joints. In the future, more works devoted to this
subject are required to determine if this phenomenon also occurs in
adhesives and, if so, to which degree. The work of Pitt et al. [123]
proposes the use of a formulation alternative to the Paris’ law, namely
the Hartman-Schijve, which, in metals, unifies the crack growth
behaviour of short and long cracks. However, this approach was not
applied to short cracks in adhesive joints.
5.2. Variable strain rate and impact
Continuum mechanics can be useful to obtain stresses and strains
under variable strain rate and impact loadings, showing a significant
difference from the stress distributions observed in static loading con­
ditions. Here the stress propagates as a wave, creating several local
peaks in the adhesive, while in static loading conditions the only stress
peaks in the adhesive are located at the overlap ends. However, con­
tinuum mechanics are of limited used to perform strength predictions
under impact loading conditions, while using CZM or damage mechanics
is more advisable.
Damage mechanics can be useful to determine joint strength. How­
ever, the existence of stress/strain singularities, albeit not as severe as in
static loading conditions, is a limiting factor since stress/strain are used
to determine material degradation. This can explain the smaller amount
of works using damage mechanics when compared to the ones using
CZM.
As in fatigue, in impact CZM are also the most popular numerical
approach. This occurs due to similar reasons, particularly their mesh
independence, which is not always verified when using continuum or
damage mechanics due to the stress singularities in the adhesive/
adherent interfaces (even though these singularities are not as severe as
in static loading, because of the wave-like way the stress propagates in
12
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
impact loading). While in static loading conditions the effects of
changing the adhesive thickness on the cohesive properties are well
documented, namely an increase in GIc, GIIc and ts, and a decrease in tn
with adhesive thickness increases [1], under variable strain rate and
impact loads few works exist. Lißner et al. [80] showed variation on the
cohesive parameters with adhesive thickness changes in variable strain
rate loading conditions. However, since these effects are still under­
studied, in the future it would be important to verify if adhesive thick­
ness changes also affect the cohesive properties, since this is a major
limitation of CZM in static loading conditions. Another pertinent aspect
relating to CZM that is understudied at the moment is the use of different
cohesive laws. While under static loading conditions there is extensive
literature comparing different cohesive laws, in impact loading condi­
tions the overwhelming majority of works use triangular cohesive laws,
with some exceptions, such as the work of Machado et al. [87], using
trapezoidal laws. Given that triangular laws are less appropriate for
ductile adhesives, it would be important to increase the amount of
research devoted to other laws, especially when considering that these
adhesives are commonly used.
5.3. Modal analysis
Contrary to fatigue and impact, in modal analysis analytical studies
are still common. Even so, as was demonstrated in Section 4, many
analytical models proposed in recent years were validated against nu­
merical models. This shows that numerical models are currently taken as
the standard to which other analysis methods are compared to. Addi­
tionally, the works that compared experimental results to numerical
results also showed the accuracy of these models regarding the predicted
natural frequencies.
A significant amount of the research dealing with modal analysis is
focused on parametric studies. This is useful to determine how material
and geometric parameter changes affect the natural frequencies and
mode shapes. Regardless of the type of joint, it is evident, from these
studies, that the mechanical properties of the adhesive have a small
influence on the natural frequencies of the joints. This is explained by
the fact that the adhesive layer corresponds to a small fraction of the
joint’s volume and weight, since adhesive layers are, generally, signifi­
cantly thinner than the adherents. It follows that changes to the me­
chanical properties of the adherents have a significant effect on the
natural frequencies of the joint. The effects of geometric parameter
changes seem to follow this rule: changes that increase the ratio of ad­
hesive volume/adherent volume tend to decrease the natural fre­
quencies, while the inverse results in natural frequency increases.
Additionally, increasing the overlap area, in joints like the SLJ, also
tends to lead to increases in the natural frequencies.
Compared to other joining methods, adhesive offers an advantage
where vibration problems are concerned, their damping, since most
adhesives are viscoelastic. In this case, increasing the adhesive thickness
and the overlap length tends to increase the modal loss factor. However,
since increasing the adhesive thickness also leads to decreases in the
natural frequencies, an analysis of these two factors is always needed for
a given application, to determine the optimal adhesive thickness.
The use of ANN in modal analysis is promising. This technique can be
used in parametric studies to obtain the optimal parameter combination.
Instead of testing each parameter individually, as is common in tradi­
tional parametric studies. This could be particularly useful to determine
the optimal adhesive thickness, since increasing it increases the damp­
ing, but decreases the natural frequencies.
6. Conclusion
Overall, the present review shows that, in recent years, there is a
significant amount of research devoted to the numerical study of the
dynamic behaviour of adhesive joints. However, when compared to
static loading conditions, as seen in the review of Ramalho et al. [1], the
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
numerical study of adhesive joints under dynamic conditions is not as
well developed, but the increasing number of research articles in recent
years is encouraging and shows that this is a field of study with
increasing interest. In this work, the dynamics behaviour of adhesive
joints was divided into three loading cases, whose conclusions can be
drawn:
- For fatigue there is a previous review by Pascoe et al. [4], which
shows that until 2013 there was a good amount of research, but the
current review shows that, since then, this field has significantly
expanded. In this field, the most commonly used numerical approach
is CZM, particularly CZM with triangular cohesive laws. The variety
of joint geometries analysed, from the very common SLJ to wind
turbine root joints, shows the versatility of numerical methods.
- Regarding variable strain rate and impact, the 2018 review of
Machado et al. [53] presented the most significant works in the
impact field up to 2016. The current review shows that, in this field,
CZM also proved to be the most common numerical approach, being
triangular CZM the most popular. It was shown that the correct
characterization of materials is essential for the accuracy of the nu­
merical simulations, since the adhesives’ mechanical properties
show significant variation due to strain rate. The use of mechanical
properties determined with quasi-static tests leads to inaccurate re­
sults. In impact conditions, the stress in adhesive joints propagates as
a wave, which creates several local peaks. This feature means that
solutions to reduce the peak stresses at the overlap ends of adhesive
joints, like using graded adhesives, are not as advantageous as in
quasi-static conditions. From the analysed, works it can be concluded
that joint strength under impact conditions is higher than under
quasi-static conditions.
- Numerical modal analysis of adhesive joints was briefly covered by
the 2011 review of He [2]. The current work provides a more com­
plete analysis, also including more recent works that were not
available at the time. Modifying adhesive properties do not seem to
significantly alter the resonant frequencies, since the adhesive
seldom contributes to the overall stiffness of the joints, due to the
adherents being in general much stiffer that the adhesive. However,
adhesives possess damping properties, which are beneficial. This
field is not as widely studied as the other two. Nonetheless, resonant
frequencies and damping are an important part of dynamic analysis
and should be more studied.
In all loading cases described, numerical work is generally performed
with the FEM, with the exception of a FDM work in the modal analysis
section. This contrasts with the static analysis of adhesive joints, as
shown in the review of Ramalho et al. [1]. In the static analysis other
numerical methods have been employed, namely the eXtended FEM
(XFEM) and various meshless methods, including Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics (SPH) and the Radial Point Interpolation Method
(RPIM). Future works devoted to the dynamic analysis of adhesive joints
could make use of these alternative numerical methods to assess their
viability in these loading conditions. They could be especially useful for
problems involving crack propagation, since they do not require
remeshing which can be computationally expensive.
Acknowledgement
The authors truly acknowledge the funding provided by Ministério
da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior – Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia (Portugal), under project funding MIT-EXPL/ISF/0084/
2017, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028351 and SFRH/BD/147628/2019.
Additionally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of Project
NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000022 – SciTech – Science and Technology
for Competitive and Sustainable Industries, co-financed by Programa
Operacional Regional do Norte (NORTE2020), through Fundo Europeu
de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER).
13
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
References
[1] Ramalho LDC, Campilho RDSG, Belinha J, da Silva LFM. Static strength
prediction of adhesive joints: a review. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2020;96:102451.
[2] He X. A review of finite element analysis of adhesively bonded joints. Int J
Adhesion Adhes 2011;31(4):248–64.
[3] Mostovoy S, Ripling EJ. Flaw tolerance of a number of commercial and
experimental adhesives. Adhes.Sci.and Tech. 1975;9:513–62.
[4] Pascoe JA, Alderliesten RC, Benedictus R. Methods for the prediction of fatigue
delamination growth in composites and adhesive bonds - a critical review. Eng
Fract Mech 2013;112(113):72–96.
[5] Esmaeili F, Zehsaz M, Chakherlou TN, Barzegar S. Fatigue life estimation of
double lap simple bolted and hybrid (bolted/bonded) joints using several
multiaxial fatigue criteria. Mater Des 2015;67:583–95.
[6] Smith P, Topper KN, Watson TH. A stress–strain function for the fatigue of metals
(stress-strain function for metal fatigue including mean stress effect). J Mater
1970;5(January 1970):767–78.
[7] Kandil FA, Brown MW, Miller KJ. Biaxial low-cycle fatigue failure of 316 stainless
steel at elevated temperatures. United Kingdom: Metals Society; 1982.
[8] Glinka G, Shen G, Plumtree A. A multiaxial fatigue strain energy density
parameter related to the critical fracture plane. Fatig Fract Eng Mater Struct
1995;18(1):37–46.
[9] Fatemi A, Socie DF. A critical plane approach to multiaxial fatigue damage
including out-of-phase loading. Fatig Fract Eng Mater Struct 1988;11(3):149–65.
[10] Crossland B. Effect of large hydrostatic pressures on the torsional fatigue strength
of an alloy steel. In: Proceedings of the international conference on fatigue of
metals; 1956. p. 138–49.
[11] Farahani A, Varvani. A new energy-critical plane parameter for fatigue life
assessment of various metallic materials subjected to in-phase and out-of-phase
multiaxial fatigue loading conditions. Int J Fatig 2000;22:295–305.
[12] Shahani AR, Pourhosseini SM. The effect of adherent thickness on fatigue life of
adhesively bonded joints. Fatig Fract Eng Mater Struct 2019;42(2):561–71.
[13] Pereira AM, Ferreira JAM, Antunes FV, Bártolo PJ. Assessment of the fatigue life
of aluminium spot-welded and weld-bonded joints. J Adhes Sci Technol 2014;28
(14–15):1432–50.
[14] Wu G, et al. Experimental and numerical evaluations on the effects of adhesive
fillet, overlap length and unbonded area in adhesive-bonded joints. Fatig Fract
Eng Mater Struct 2020;43(10):2298–311.
[15] Taylor D. The theory of critical distances. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75(7):1696–705.
[16] Castro Sousa F, Akhavan-Safar A, Rakesh G, da Silva LFM. Fatigue life estimation
of adhesive joints at different mode mixities. 00 J Adhes 2020:1–23. 00.
[17] Sousa FC, Akhavan-Safar A, Goyal R, da Silva LFM. Fatigue life estimation of
single lap adhesive joints using a critical distance criterion: an equivalent notch
approach. Mech Mater 2021;153(July 2020):103670.
[18] Schneider B, Beber VC, Brede M. Estimation of the lifetime of bonded joints under
cyclic loads at different temperatures. J Adhes 2016;92(7–9):795–817.
[19] Beber VC, Fernandes PHE, Schneider B, Brede M, Mayer B. Fatigue lifetime
prediction of adhesively bonded joints: an investigation of the influence of
material model and multiaxiality. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2017;78(August):240–7.
[20] Beber VC, Schneider B, Brede M. Efficient critical distance approach to predict the
fatigue lifetime of structural adhesive joints. Eng Fract Mech 2019;214(March):
365–77.
[21] Irwin GR. Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a
plate. J Appl Mech 1957;24(September):351–69.
[22] Griffith AA, Eng M. VI. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos Trans
R Soc Lond - Ser A Contain Pap a Math or Phys Character Jan. 1920;221
(582–593):163 LP–198.
[23] Chen Q, Guo H, Avery K, Su X, Kang H. Fatigue performance and life estimation of
automotive adhesive joints using a fracture mechanics approach. Eng Fract Mech
2017;172:73–89.
[24] Chen Q, Guo H, Avery K, Kang H, Su X. Mixed-mode fatigue crack growth and life
prediction of an automotive adhesive bonding system. Eng Fract Mech 2018;189:
439–50.
[25] Wu G, et al. Fatigue behaviors and mechanism-based life evaluation on SPR-
bonded aluminum joint. Int J Fatig 2021;142(June 2020):105948.
[26] Pascoe JA, Zavatta N, Troiani E, Alderliesten RC. The effect of bond-line thickness
on fatigue crack growth rate in adhesively bonded joints. Eng Fract Mech 2020;
229(February):106959.
[27] Lai WJ, Pan J. Stress intensity factor solutions for adhesive-bonded lap-shear
specimens of magnesium and steel sheets with and without kinked cracks for
fatigue life estimations. Eng Fract Mech 2014;131:454–70.
[28] Samaei M, Zehsaz M, Chakherlou TN. Experimental and numerical study of
fatigue crack growth of aluminum alloy 2024-T3 single lap simple bolted and
hybrid (adhesive/bolted) joints. Eng Fail Anal 2016;59:253–68.
[29] Tang JH, Sridhar I, Srikanth N. Static and fatigue failure analysis of adhesively
bonded thick composite single lap joints. Compos Sci Technol 2013;86:18–25.
[30] Costa M, Viana G, Créac’hcadec R, da Silva LFM, Campilho RDSG. A cohesive
zone element for mode I modelling of adhesives degraded by humidity and
fatigue. Int J Fatig 2018;112(March):173–82.
[31] Ebadi-Rajoli J, Akhavan-Safar A, Hosseini-Toudeshky H, da Silva LFM.
Progressive damage modeling of composite materials subjected to mixed mode
cyclic loading using cohesive zone model. Mech Mater 2020;143(January):
103322.
[32] Akhavan-Safar A, Monteiro J, Carbas R, Marques E, Goyal R, da Silva LFM.
Tensile fatigue life prediction of adhesively bonded structures based on CZM
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
technique and a modified degradation approach. Proc IME G J Aero Eng 2020;
234(13):1988–99.
[33] Monteiro J, et al. Mode II modeling of adhesive materials degraded by fatigue
loading using cohesive zone elements. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2019;103(April):
102253.
[34] Akhavan-Safar A, Monteiro J, Carbas R, Marques E, Goyal RK, da Silva L.
A modified degradation technique for fatigue life assessment of adhesive
materials subjected to cyclic shear loads. Proc IME C J Mech Eng Sci 2021;235(3):
550–9.
[35] Rocha AVM, et al. Numerical analysis of mixed-mode fatigue crack growth of
adhesive joints using CZM. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2020;106(December 2019):
102493.
[36] De Moura MFSF, Gonçalves JPM. Cohesive zone model for high-cycle fatigue of
adhesively bonded joints under mode i loading. Int J Solid Struct 2014;51(5):
1123–31.
[37] Pirondi A, Moroni F. A progressive damage model for the prediction of fatigue
crack growth in bonded joints. J Adhes 2010;86(5–6):501–21.
[38] De Moura MFSF, Gonçalves JPM. Development of a cohesive zone model for
fatigue/fracture characterization of composite bonded joints under mode II
loading. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2014;54:224–30.
[39] de Moura MFSF, Gonçalves JPM. Cohesive zone model for high-cycle fatigue of
composite bonded joints under mixed-mode I+II loading. Eng Fract Mech 2015;
140:31–42.
[40] Moreira RDF, de Moura MFSF, Silva FGA, Ramírez FMG, Silva FDR. Numerical
comparison of several composite bonded repairs under fatigue loading. Compos
Struct 2020;243(March):112250.
[41] de Moura MFSF, Moreira RDF. Fatigue analysis of composite bonded repairs.
J Adhes Sci Technol 2017;31(19–20):2164–79.
[42] Hosseini-Toudeshky H, Sheibanian F, Ovesy HR, Goodarzi MS. Prediction of
interlaminar fatigue damages in adhesively bonded joints using mixed-mode
strain based cohesive zone modeling. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2020;106(April
2019):102480.
[43] Khoramishad H, Crocombe AD, Katnam KB, Ashcroft IA. Predicting fatigue
damage in adhesively bonded joints using a cohesive zone model. Int J Fatig
2010;32(7):1146–58.
[44] Belnoue JPH, Giannis S, Dawson M, Hallett SR. Cohesive/adhesive failure
interaction in ductile adhesive joints Part II: quasi-static and fatigue analysis of
double lap-joint specimens subjected to through-thickness compressive loading.
Int J Adhesion Adhes 2016;68:369–78.
[45] Ibrahim GR, Albarbar A, Brethee KF. Progressive failure mechanism of laminated
composites under fatigue loading. J Compos Mater 2021;55(1):137–44.
[46] Floros I, Tserpes K. Numerical simulation of quasi-static and fatigue debonding
growth in adhesively bonded composite joints containing bolts as crack stoppers.
00 J Adhes 2019:1–23. 00.
[47] Tserpes K, Floros I. Fatigue crack growth simulation in adhesively bonded
composite joints. Fatig Fract Eng Mater Struct 2019;42(7):1430–40.
[48] Sachse R, Pickett AK, Essig W, Middendorf P. Experimental and numerical
investigation of the influence of rivetless nut plate joints on fatigue crack growth
in adhesively bonded composite joints. Int J Fatig 2017;105:262–75.
[49] Sachse R, Pickett AK, Middendorf P. Analysis of crack-arrest design features for
adhesively bonded composite joints: an experimental and numerical study.
Compos Struct 2021;274(July):114301.
[50] Zuo Y, Montesano J, Singh CV. Assessing progressive failure in long wind turbine
blades under quasi-static and cyclic loads. Renew Energy 2018;119:754–66.
[51] Hosseini-Toudeshky H, Jahanmardi M, Goodarzi MS. Progressive debonding
analysis of composite blade root joint of wind turbines under fatigue loading.
Compos Struct 2015;120:417–27.
[52] Lyathakula KR, Yuan F-G. A probabilistic fatigue life prediction for adhesively
bonded joints via ANNs-based hybrid model. xxxx Int J Fatig 2021:106352.
[53] Machado JJM, Marques EAS, da Silva LFM. Adhesives and adhesive joints under
impact loadings: an overview. J Adhes 2018;94(6):421–52.
[54] Jalali S, Ayatollahi MR, Akhavan-Safar A, da Silva LFM. Effects of impact fatigue
on residual static strength of adhesively bonded joints. Proc IME J Mater Des Appl
2021;235(7):1519–31.
[55] Yildiz S, Andreopoulos Y, Delale F, Smail A. Adhesively bonded joints under
quasi-static and shock-wave loadings. Int J Impact Eng 2020;143(September
2019):103613.
[56] Xu Y, Ke Y, Ma X. Finite element analysis of stress wave propagation in adhesive
joints under low speed impact tensile loadings. Macromol Theory Simul 2021;30
(1):1–11.
[57] He B, Ge D. Dynamic strength of adhesively bonded composite joints with similar
and dissimilar assembled adherends. J Reinforc Plast Compos 2017;36(23):
1683–92.
[58] Quaglini V, Cattaneo S, Biolzi L. Numerical assessment of laminated cantilevered
glass plates with point fixings. Glass Struct. Engg. 2020;5(2):187–204.
[59] Valès B, Marguet S, Créachcadec R, Sohier L, Ferrero JF, Navarro P. Numerical
study of the local behaviour of adhesive bonds under dynamic loading. J Adhes
Sci Technol 2016;30(12):1319–39.
[60] Valès B, Marguet S, Créac’hcadec R, Sohier L, Ferrero JF, Navarro P.
Experimental & numerical study of the Tensile/Compression-Shear Arcan test
under dynamic loading. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2017;78(June):135–47.
[61] Rizk G, et al. Durability of composite assemblies under extreme conditions:
thermomechanical damage prediction of a double-lap bonded composite
assembly subject to impact and high temperature. Compos Struct 2019;213
(January):58–70.
14
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
[62] Shim W, et al. Simulating rate- and temperature-dependent behaviors of
adhesives using a nonlinear viscoelastic model. Mech Mater 2020;147(April).
[63] Gollins K, Elvin N, Delale F. Characterization of adhesive joints under high-speed
normal impact: Part I – experimental studies. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2020;98
(December 2019):102529.
[64] Gollins K, Elvin N, Delale F. Characterization of adhesive joints under high-speed
normal impact: Part II – numerical studies. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2020;98:
102530.
[65] Yildiz S, Andreopoulos Y, Delale F. Mode I characterization of toughened epoxy
adhesive joints under shock-wave loading. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2019;90
(February):71–87.
[66] Boling H, Dongyun G. Dynamic analysis of single-lap, adhesively bonded
composite-titanium joints subjected to solid projectile impact. J Adhes Sci
Technol 2018;32(11):1176–99.
[67] Bedon C, Kalamar R, Eliášová M. Low velocity impact performance investigation
on square hollow glass columns via full-scale experiments and Finite Element
analyses. Compos Struct 2017;182(September):311–25.
[68] Hou W, Xu X, Sang L, Tong L. Failure of single hat-shaped thin-walled tubular
composite T-joints under impact loading. Thin-Walled Struct 2020;154(April):
106815.
[69] Valente JPA, Campilho RDSG, Marques EAS, Machado JJM, da Silva LFM.
Adhesive joint analysis under tensile impact loads by cohesive zone modelling.
Compos Struct 2019;222(January):110894.
[70] Valente JPA, Campilho RDSG, Marques EAS, Machado JJM, da Silva LFM.
Geometrical optimization of adhesive joints under tensile impact loads using
cohesive zone modelling. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2020;97(November 2019):
102492.
[71] Li Y, Yang Y, Li J, Wang B, Liao Y. Experimental-numerical analysis of failure of
adhesively bonded lap joints under transverse impact and different temperatures.
Int J Impact Eng 2020;140(October 2019):103541.
[72] Peres LMC, et al. Geometry and adhesive optimization of single-lap adhesive
joints under impact. J Adhes 2022;98(6):677–703.
[73] Silva AFMV, Peres LMC, Campilho RDSG, Rocha RJB, Silva FJG. Cohesive zone
parametric analysis in the tensile impact strength of tubular adhesive joints. Proc
IME E J Process Mech Eng 2022:095440892210882.
[74] Jia Z, Yuan G, Feng X, Zou Y. Numerical study on the mechanical behavior of a
polyurethane adhesive under high strain rate. Compos B Eng 2019;158
(September 2018):131–40.
[75] Yang Z, Zhu Z, Xia Y, Yang F, Sun Y, Jiang H. Modified cohesive zone model for
soft adhesive layer considering rate dependence of intrinsic fracture energy. Eng
Fract Mech 2021;258(September):108089.
[76] Nunes PDP, et al. Numerical assessment of strain rate in an adhesive layer
throughout double cantilever beam and end notch flexure tests. Proc IME E J
Process Mech Eng 2020;234(5):415–25.
[77] Borges CSP, et al. A strain rate dependent cohesive zone element for mode I
modeling of the fracture behavior of adhesives. Proc IME J Mater Des Appl 2020;
234(4):610–21.
[78] Nunes PDP, Marques EAS, Carbas RJC, Akhavan-Safar A, da Silva LFM. DCB tests
at constant strain rate using crash-resistant epoxy adhesives: a numerical and
experimental approach. Proc Inst Mech Eng - Part D J Automob Eng 2020:1–9.
2020.
[79] Lißner M, Alabort E, Cui H, Pellegrino A, Petrinic N. On the rate dependent
behaviour of epoxy adhesive joints: experimental characterisation and modelling
of mode I failure. Compos Struct 2018;189(September 2017):286–303.
[80] Lißner M, Alabort E, Cui H, Rito R, Blackman BRK, Petrinic N. Experimental
characterisation and numerical modelling of the influence of bondline thickness,
loading rate, and deformation mode on the response of ductile adhesive
interfaces. J Mech Phys Solid 2019;130:349–69.
[81] Lißner M, et al. Multi-material adhesively bonded structures: characterisation and
modelling of their rate-dependent performance. Compos B Eng 2020;195(March):
108077.
[82] Lißner M, Alabort E, Erice B, Cui H, Blackman BRK, Petrinic N. On the dynamic
response of adhesively bonded structures. Int J Impact Eng 2020;138(June 2019):
103479.
[83] Araújo HAM, Machado JJM, Marques EAS, da Silva LFM. Dynamic behaviour of
composite adhesive joints for the automotive industry. Compos Struct 2017;171:
549–61.
[84] Jia Z, Yuan G, Feng X, Zou Y, Yu J. Shear properties of polyurethane ductile
adhesive at low temperatures under high strain rate conditions. Compos B Eng
2019;156(July 2018):292–302.
[85] Liu PF, Peng XQ, Guo ZY, Leng JX, Jiao L. Viscoelastic bilinear cohesive model
and parameter identification for failure analysis of adhesive composite joints.
Compos Struct 2019;224(May):111016.
[86] Ledford N, May M. Modeling of multimaterial hybrid joints under high-rate
loading. Proc IME E J Process Mech Eng 2020;234(5):446–53.
[87] Machado JJM, Marques EAS, Silva MRG, da Silva LFM. Numerical study of impact
behaviour of mixed adhesive single lap joints for the automotive industry. Int J
Adhesion Adhes 2018;84(February):92–100.
[88] dos Reis M, Carbas R, Marques E, da Silva L. Functionally graded adhesive joints
under impact loads. Proc Inst Mech Eng - Part D J Automob Eng 2021;235(13):
3270–81.
[89] Khosravani MR, Anders D, Weinberg K. Influence of strain rate on fracture
behavior of sandwich composite T-joints. Eur J Mech Solid 2019;78(April):
103821.
[90] Caliskan U, Apalak MK. Low speed impact behaviour of adhesively bonded foam-
core sandwich T-joints. J Adhes Sci Technol 2019;33(3):217–42.
L.D.C. Ramalho et al.
[91] Chen C, Sun C, Han X, Hu D, Zhou J, Guan Z. The structural response of the
thermoplastic composite joint subjected to out-of-plane loading. Int J Impact Eng
2020;145(August):103691.
[92] Silva NDD, Machado JJM, Marques EAS, Moreira PMGP, da Silva LFM.
Experimental and numerical study of the dynamic response of an adhesively
bonded automotive structure. Proc Inst Mech Eng - Part D J Automob Eng 2020;
234(14):3385–97.
[93] Saito H, Tani H. Vibrations of bonded beams with a single lap adhesive joint.
J Sound Vib 1984;92(2):299–309.
[94] Rao MD, Crocker MJ. Analytical and experimental study of the vibration of
bonded beams with a lap joint. J.of Vibrat.and Acoustics,Trasactior 1990;112(4):
444–51.
[95] Miles RN, Reinhall PG. An analytical model for the vibration of laminated beams
including the effects of both shear and thickness deformation in the adhesive
layer. J.of Vibrat.and Acoustics,Trasactior 1986;108(1):56–64.
[96] Almitani KH, Othman R. Analytical solution of the harmonic response of visco-
elastic adhesively bonded single-lap and double-lap joints. Int J Adhesion Adhes
2016;71:55–65.
[97] Challita G. Analytical study of the dynamic behavior of a voided adhesively
bonded lap joint under axial harmonic load. Int J Solid Struct 2018;141–142:
183–94.
[98] Wang S, Guo Q, Xie Z. Extended analytical model for interfacial stresses of
double-lap joints under harmonic loads. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2019;91(February):
23–35.
[99] Sindi SA, Othman R, Almitani KH. Theoretical solution for the axial vibration of
functionally graded double-lap adhesive joints. Math Mech Solid 2021;26(6):
823–42.
[100] Vaziri A, Nayeb-Hashemi H. Dynamic response of a repaired composite beam with
an adhesively bonded patch under a harmonic peeling load. Int J Adhesion Adhes
2006;26(5):314–24.
[101] Rao MD, Zhou H. Vibration and damping of A bonded tubular lap joint. J Sound
Vib 1994;178(5):577–90.
[102] Yaman M, Şansveren MF. Numerical and experimental vibration analysis of
different types of adhesively bonded joints. Structures 2021;34(June):368–80.
[103] Gorrepati KM, Rao MD. Analysis of modal parameters of adhesively bonded
double-strap joints by the modal strain energy method. J.of Vibrat.and Acoustics,
Trasactior 1996;118(1):28–35.
[104] Ahmad Basri AB, Chae DW, Lee H. Investigation of the dynamic characteristics of
a carbon-fiber-reinforced epoxy with adhesive-jointed structure. Compos Struct
2020;247(May):112499.
[105] Apalak MK, Ekici R, Yildirim M. Optimal design of an adhesively-bonded corner
joint with single support based on the free vibration analysis. J Adhes Sci Technol
2006;20(13):1507–28.
15
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 118 (2022) 103219
[106] Bidyadhar A, Mishra PK. Modelling and prediction of free vibration response of
adhesive bonded corner joint structures. Structures 2021;29(May 2020):185–98.
[107] Gunes R, Apalak MK, Yildirim M. The free vibration analysis and optimal design
of an adhesively bonded functionally graded single lap joint. Int J Mech Sci 2007;
49(4):479–99.
[108] Gunes R, Kemal Apalak M, Yildirim M, Ozkes I. Free vibration analysis of
adhesively bonded single lap joints with wide and narrow functionally graded
plates. Compos Struct 2010;92(1):1–17.
[109] He X, Oyadiji SO. Influence of adhesive characteristics on the transverse free
vibration of single lap-jointed cantilevered beams. J Mater Process Technol 2001;
119(1–3):366–73.
[110] He X. Finite element analysis of torsional free vibration of adhesively bonded
single-lap joints. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2014;48:59–66.
[111] Kaya A, Tekelioğlu MS, Findik F. Effects of various parameters on dynamic
characteristics in adhesively bonded joints. Mater Lett 2004;58(27):3451–6.
[112] Damm J, Ummenhofer T, Albiez M. Influence of damping properties of adhesively
bonded joints on the dynamic behaviour of steel structures: numerical
investigations. 00 J Adhes 2020:1–29. 00.
[113] Wang S, Li Y, Xie Z. Free vibration analysis of adhesively bonded lap joints
through layerwise finite element. Compos Struct 2019;223(May):110943.
[114] Ko TC, Lin CC, Chu RC. Vibration of bonded laminated lap-joint plates using
adhesive interface elements. J Sound Vib 1995;184(4):567–83.
[115] Van Belle L, et al. Experimental validation of numerical structural dynamic
models for metal plate joining techniques. JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control
2018;24(15):3348–69.
[116] Du Y, Shi L. Effect of vibration fatigue on modal properties of single lap adhesive
joints. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2014;53:72–9.
[117] He X. Numerical and experimental investigations of the dynamic response of
bonded beams with a single-lap joint. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2012;37:79–85.
[118] Lin CC, Ko TC. Free vibration of bonded plates. Comput Struct 1997;64(1–4):
441–52.
[119] Pearson S. Initiation of fatigue cracks in commercial aluminium alloys and the
subsequent propagation of very short cracks. Eng Fract Mech 1975;7(2):235–47.
[120] Hutař P, et al. Short fatigue crack behaviour under low cycle fatigue regime. Int J
Fatig 2017;103:207–15.
[121] Rao KTV, Yu W, Ritchie RO. On the behavior of small fatigue cracks in
commercial aluminum-lithium alloys. Eng Fract Mech 1988;31(4):623–35.
[122] Lados DA, Apelian D, Paris PC, Donald JK. Closure mechanisms in Al-Si-Mg cast
alloys and long-crack to small-crack corrections. Int J Fatig 2005;27(10–12):
1463–72.
[123] Pitt S, Jones R, Peng D. Characterization of the durability of adhesive bonds. Fatig
Fract Eng Mater Struct 2012;35(11):998–1006.