PSI - Issue 39

M.R.M. Aliha et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 39 (2022) 393–402 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000–000

401

9

Fig. 8 . (a) Crack growth under pure mode II (α = 44.5 o ) , (b) Crack initiation in the first element of adhesive, (c) Crack propagation through the adhesive elements, (d) Formation of a delamination at the interface, and (e) Delamination propagation at the interface.

4.3. Comparison of the crack growth paths simulated via MTS criterion and XFE method Figure 9 shows a comparison of crack growth paths in the analysed BI-SBB samples obtained using the MTS with XFE methods subjected to pure mode II loading. It can be seen that in general, both methods suggest similar mode II fracture trajectories for the BI-SBB specimen (i.e. the crack propagation kink towards the loading point (adhesive interface)). However, the XFE method shows a steeper slope than the path obtained from the MTS criterion.

Fig. 9. Comparison of crack growth paths obtained using the MTS with XFE method for the BI-SBB specimen subjected to pure mode II ( α = 44.5 o ) loading.

5. Conclusions In the current study, first, the advantages of the BI-SBB specimen against traditional ones were discussed. Then the FE model of BI-SBB specimen was investigated based on the J-integral method and it was concluded that for each crack inclination angle (α), the fracture initiation direction (θ 0 ) varies in a narrow range depending on the adherent