Numerical investigation of thermal influence on debonding behavior in composite structures through a friction and cohesive coupled model

Abdellah Benchekkour; Nazihe Terfaya; Barhm Abdullah Mohamad; Mohammed Elmir; Károly Jálics

doi:10.1556/1848.2024.00871

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering

Volume/Issue:: Accepted Manuscript / Online First

Numerical investigation of thermal influence on debonding behavior in composite structures through a friction and cohesive coupled model

Authors:

Abdellah Benchekkour

Abdellah Benchekkour ENERGARID Laboratory, Tahri Mohammed University, P.O. Box 417, Bechar, 08000, Algeria

Search for other papers by Abdellah Benchekkour in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Nazihe Terfaya

Nazihe Terfaya FIMAS Laboratory, Tahri Mohammed University, P.O. Box 417, Bechar, 08000, Algeria

Search for other papers by Nazihe Terfaya in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Barhm Abdullah Mohamad

Barhm Abdullah Mohamad Department of Petroleum Technology, Koya Technical Institute, Erbil Polytechnic University, 44001 Erbil, Iraq

Search for other papers by Barhm Abdullah Mohamad in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Mohammed Elmir

Mohammed Elmir ENERGARID Laboratory, Tahri Mohammed University, P.O. Box 417, Bechar, 08000, Algeria

Search for other papers by Mohammed Elmir in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

, and

Károly Jálics

Károly Jálics Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, 3515 Miskolc, Hungary

Search for other papers by Károly Jálics in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

karoly.jalics@uni-miskolc.hu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0749-7569

View More View Less

Online Publication Date:: 14 Oct 2024

Publication Date:: 14 Oct 2024

Article Category:: Research Article

DOI:: https://doi.org/10.1556/1848.2024.00871

Keywords:: debonding; thermal influence; double cantilever beam; frictional contact; cohesive zone model; thermomechanical coupled model

Open access

Download PDF

Abstract

This study conducts an in-depth numerical analysis of debonding behavior in composite structures, with a particular focus on the critical role of thermal effects. Utilizing a frictional contact cohesive zone model, the research characterizes the debonding process while sequentially integrating thermal analysis to assess the impact of thermal loading. A thermomechanical coupled model is developed and implemented using the finite element software ABAQUS. The model's accuracy is validated through the Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) test, ensuring reliable results. The methodology involves a detailed finite element analysis, where thermal loads are applied to composite specimens, followed by mechanical loading to simulate debonding. The frictional contact cohesive zone model accurately captures the interface behavior under varying thermal conditions. Quantitative results indicate that thermal loading significantly affects the debonding process, with a noticeable increase in debonding initiation and propagation rates, highlighting the critical influence of thermal effects on structural integrity.

Abstract

1 Introduction

Composite structures are used in many engineering applications due to their excellent strength to weight characteristics, as well as their ability to tailor properties to the requirements of complex applications. Nonetheless, they are susceptible to various phenomena arising from repeated loading, impact, or harsh environmental conditions, potentially resulting in diverse responses, such as structural damage [1]. One of the most complex types of damage is debonding, characterized by the separation between two contacting layers. Stress transmission from one ply to another occurs through a contact surface known as the interface. This surface represents the critical zone where failure is often evident [2]. A fundamental understanding of interface debonding is essential for designing composite structures capable of enduring diverse operational conditions. Therefore, numerous studies focusing on debonding behavior, including review research, have been conducted [3–7]. Recently, many researchers have investigated this issue, such as mixed-mode debonding in carbon fiber–reinforced polymer [8], quasi-brittle interfacial cracking [9], fiber–matrix debonding [10], and concrete-rock interface debonding [11].

In addition, various factors have been found to influence the debonding behavior of composite structures. Moradi et al. [12] studied the effects of using fuzzy fiber-reinforced composite skins on the flexural behavior of sandwich structures. Wang et al. [13] investigated the impact velocity on the interfacial debonding of laminated composites. On the other hand, thermal effects were also considered. Rabinovitch [14] studied the impact of thermal loads on the debonding mechanisms in beams strengthened with externally bonded composite materials. Gao et al. [15] examined the effect of temperature changes on Mode II debonding. Wang et al. [16] analytically studied the thermal effects on the debonding of concrete/steel structures. Klamer et al. [17] experimentally studied the influence of temperature on the bonding capacity of fiber-reinforced polymers. Zeinedini and Mahdi [18] developed an analytical model to estimate the influence of temperature on the debonding stress of spherical nanoparticle-reinforced nanocomposites. Zhou et al. [19] investigated the debonding behavior of the fiber-reinforced polymer-to-concrete interface between two adjacent cracks under combined thermal and mechanical loadings. Recently, the influence of temperature on interface debonding has been addressed in [20–22].

Additionally, friction between debonded surfaces also plays a significant role in debonding behavior. Guiamatsia and Nguyen [23] developed a constitutive model for interface debonding that accounts for mixed-mode coupled debonding and friction, including post-delamination friction. Sitler et al. [24] experimentally investigated the friction behavior of mortar–polymer–steel debonding interfaces. Hu et al. [25] developed an adhesion recoverability degradation model that includes the effect of friction. Peng et al. [26] studied the failure analysis of a frictional adhesive interface.

On the other hand, there has been limited progress in studying the thermal effect on the debonding process while accounting for friction at the interface, with a few exceptions, such as the work of Benchekkour et al. [27], where delamination behavior between an elastic body and a rigid support was investigated. Song et al. [28] studied the effect of temperature and the type of underlying layer on bonding.

To investigate the thermal effect on debonding behavior while considering friction at the interface, numerical methods offer a viable alternative. This is because multiphysics conditions can be conveniently incorporated into a numerical model. Various numerical approaches have been proposed for simulating interfacial debonding. Among the range of numerical approaches available for simulating interfacial debonding, the cohesive zone model stands out as particularly robust and widely adopted for addressing such challenges [29].

The novelty of this work lies in simulating the debonding behavior using a frictional contact cohesive zone model in composite structures, specifically with the Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) test. A sequentially steady-state thermomechanical model is employed with the finite element software ABAQUS to comprehend the structural behavior subjected to thermal loading. The objective of the present work is to perform a comprehensive numerical study of the thermal effect on the initiation and evolution of debonding growth.

2 Numerical model

The accurate simulation of interfacial debonding necessitates the adoption of a suitable approach. Among the numerous methods available, the cohesive zone model (CZM), pioneered by Barenblatt [30] and Dugdale [31], has proved useful in analyzing interface problems. This model excels in its ability to integrate diverse conditions such as contact, friction, and thermal effects [29], making it a valuable tool for comprehensive analysis. Thus, in this study, the incorporation of a contact element into the composite structures' interfaces facilitates the simulation of debonding behavior. However, this process involves coupled multi-field coupling, introducing high complexity. To address this, a comprehensive friction and cohesive coupled model, incorporating thermal effects, is elaborated upon.

2.1 Friction and cohesive coupled model

The friction and cohesive coupled model represent a sophisticated computational tool within the domain of nonlinear fracture mechanics for investigating the intricate behavior of structures and materials under various conditions. It combines two important aspects: friction and cohesion. These models provide a powerful approach for interface damage modeling because they show a continuous transition process from cohesive softening to pure frictional contact.

Frictional contact behavior modeling

There are several laws in frictional contact modeling, each dependent on the specific problem at hand. In this study, the Coulomb friction law and the Signorini law are utilized. These laws are distinguished by their non-regular boundary conditions, which can be mathematically articulated through evolutionary variational inequalities or via the framework of differential inclusions. The Signorini conditions enable the description of separation and non-penetration between two contacting bodies, expressed as [27]:

{\dot{u}}_{n} \geq 0; {R_{n} \geq 0; a n d R}_{n} {\dot{u}}_{n} = 0

(1)

where

R_{n}

{\dot{u}}_{n}

respectively the contact force and the normal relative velocity. Moreover, when the frictional threshold correlates directly with the normal contact force, the Coulomb friction law is typically expressed as follows [27]:

{\begin{array}{c} ‖ R_{t} ‖ \leq μ \cdot R_{n} i f u_{t} = 0 \\ ‖ R_{t} ‖ = - μ \cdot R_{n} \frac{{\dot{u}}_{t}}{‖ {\dot{u}}_{t} ‖} i f {\dot{u}}_{t} \neq 0 \end{array}

(2)

where

R_{t}

{\dot{u}}_{t}

respectively the friction force and the sliding velocity, and

μ

is the friction coefficient of the coulomb law.

Cohesive behavior modeling

Cohesive behavior modeling is employed for predicting the strength of materials and structures, enabling the simulation of damage growth in continuous materials and at interfaces between different materials. Compared to other techniques, it achieves much more accurate predictions, as cohesive laws can be tailored to the nature of the material or interface being simulated. This approach describes the behavior of interfaces between materials in terms of a traction-separation law, which relates the stress across the interface to the relative displacement or opening between the materials. The simplest form of the traction-separation law is often represented as [27]:

σ^{C o h} = [\begin{array}{c} σ_{n}^{C o h} \\ σ_{t}^{C o h} \end{array}] = [\begin{array}{c} K_{n n} & K_{n t} \\ K_{n t} & K_{t t} \end{array}] [\begin{array}{c} δ_{n} \\ δ_{t} \end{array}] = K δ

(3)

The vector of nominal traction, $σ^{C o h}$ , consists of two components in two-dimensional problems: ( $σ_{n}^{C o h}$ , $σ_{t}^{C o h}$ ). The corresponding separations are denoted by $δ_{n}$ , and $δ_{t}$ , and $K_{n n}$ and $K_{t t}$ are the normal and tangential contact stiffness, respectively.

CZM reproduces the elastic loading up to a peak load, where damage onset occurs. The damage initiation is evaluated using the following quadratic nominal stress criterion, expressed as [27]:

{[\frac{G_{n}}{G_{n}^{c}}]}^{α} + {[\frac{G_{t}}{G_{t}^{c}}]}^{α} = 1

(4)

where

G_{n}

and

G_{t}

respectively, the work done by the tractions and their conjugate relative displacements in the normal and shear directions, and

G_{n}^{c}

and

G_{t}^{c}

respectively, the critical fracture energies required to cause failure in the normal and the shear directions.

Following damage initiation, the model can simulate debonding growth due to local failure, capturing the progressive separation at the interface. Several forms of traction-separation laws exist, including bilinear, trapezoidal, and exponential configurations (Fig. 1). The specific choice of a law depends on the problem to be solved, such as the type of materials involved and the failure mechanism.

Fig. 1.

The forms of the traction-separation laws. ‘Own source’

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00871

The notation δ represents the displacement or separation across the interface, which is crucial in characterizing how the material separates under load and indicates the degree of interface opening during damage progression. δ_c refers to the critical separation, beyond which complete debonding occurs. It represents the maximum displacement tolerated before the interface fully fails. Additionally, δ₁ and δ₂ represent specific points on the separation curve, typically corresponding to different stages in damage progression or to transitions in the form of the separation law, such as in bilinear or trapezoidal models.

On the other hand, σ denotes the traction or stress at the interface, which describes the material's resistance to separation before failure. The specific form of the σ-δ relationship depends on the chosen traction-separation law. σ_c represents the critical traction, the maximum stress the interface can endure before debonding begins. Beyond this point, the traction typically decreases as the interface continues to separate.

2.2 Thermomechanical coupling

In the context of thermomechanical coupling, incorporating thermal considerations into a model that integrates friction and cohesive behavior involves combining contact forces and cohesive forces with mechanical and thermal forces. The general form of the discretized equation is presented as follows:

[K] [U] = [F_{m e c}] + [F_{t h}] + [R^{c o n t}] + [R^{C o h}]

(5)

where

[K]

[U]

[F_{m e c}]

[F_{t h}]

[R^{c o n t}]

[R^{C o h}]

and are respectively the stiffness matrix, the displacement vector, the force vector, the thermal force vector, the contact force, and the cohesive force.

The resolution of this coupled model is typically carried out using numerical methods, primarily through finite element simulation software such as ABAQUS. In this study, sequential coupling is addressed, where thermal and mechanical problems are solved separately in successive steps. First, the temperature distribution is calculated, and then it is used to solve the mechanical equations. This process is repeated iteratively to achieve convergence as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Scheme of the thermomechanical analysis carried out in ABAQUS. ‘Own source’

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00871

3 Numerical simulation

This paper delves into the 2D modeling of a DCB-type test, focusing on a two-layer 6061-T6 aluminum beam. The material properties include a Young's modulus E = 70,000 MPa, a Poisson's ratio ν = 0.3, a thermal conductivity λ = 230 W m⁻¹·K, and a coefficient of thermal expansion α_th = 23 × 10⁻⁶/K. Notably, the beam exhibits pre-cracking at the interface. Initially, the two layers of the beam adhere together. Subsequently, the beam undergoes an incremental vertical displacement δ = 50 mm over 1 s at its end. For clarity, the dimensions and boundary conditions of the test are illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

DCB model: geometry and boundary conditions. ‘Own source’

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00871

The interface properties are presented in Table 1. The ABAQUS software was used in this test as simulation tool. A steady-state thermal analysis is conducted, employing a node-to-surface technique for contact interaction. A linear quadrilateral element (CPE4R) is utilized for the mesh, employing plane deformation. The interface comprises 70 nodes (Fig. 4). The calculation was conducted for 200 steps.

Table 1.

Interface properties. ‘Own source’

Properties	The decohesion energy w (mJ mm⁻²)	The maximal cohesive stress σ^coh_max (MPa)	The initial stiffness of the interface K_nn, K_tt (MPa mm⁻¹)	Friction coefficient μ
Interface	1E-6	0.0001	1.E+4	0.2

Fig. 4.

Deformed mesh. ‘Own source’

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00871

4 Results and discussion

This section investigates the thermal effects on the debonding behavior of composite structures. The thermal boundary conditions employed align closely with those discussed in [27].

Figure 5 presents a comparative analysis of the distribution of normal stresses and debonding at the interface, both with and without thermal effects (with T_sup = 100°C), across three incremental cases. The influence of thermal effects on the stress distribution is readily apparent. Thermal stresses lead to a decrease in cohesive stresses, consequently inducing significant debonding compared to the scenario without thermal effects. This discrepancy in stress distribution underscores the considerable influence of thermal variations on interface behavior, emphasizing the necessity of considering thermal effects in comprehensive system analysis [27], [32–34].

Fig. 5.

The distribution of normal stresses and normal displacements at the interface, without and with thermal effect for three-time steps. ‘Own source’

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00871

For further details, the analysis of thermal effects is deepened at a specific point (A), as illustrated in Fig. 6, by considering four distinct cases of thermal boundary conditions. The examination of the curves depicting the evolution of normal displacements over time at point (A) (Fig. 6) provides valuable insights into the impact of a thermal field.

Fig. 6.

Evolution of normal displacement over time at point (A), without and with the thermal effect. ‘Own source’

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00871

The results indicate that temperature variations on the upper layer of the structure directly affect the normal displacements at point (A). Testing was conducted at different temperatures (25, 50, 75, and 100 °C), revealing distinct and pronounced trends. It is noteworthy that the debonding evolves proportionally with the increase in the temperature gradient, highlighting the significant impact of the thermal field on the composite structure behavior.

Also plotted in Fig. 7 is the evolution of the normal stresses $σ_{n}^{t o t}$ at point (A) as a function of debonding, both with and without thermal effects. The different thermal conditions considered clearly demonstrate the influence of temperature on delamination behavior.When examining Figs 6 and 7, it is noteworthy that the presence of a thermal field has a negligible effect on the interface's elastic behavior. On the other hand, in terms of damage behavior, the thermal field significantly affects both the initiation and propagation of debonding. This observation leads to delayed debonding, as evidenced by the increase in the maximum total normal stress, $σ_{n \max}^{t o t}$ .

Fig. 7.

Evolution of normal stresses at point A as a function of debonding, with and without thermal effects. ‘Own source’

Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 2025; 10.1556/1848.2024.00871

In the context of complete debonding, when debonding reaches its full phase, the cohesive stresses converge to zero, resulting in the classic Signorini problem. It is observed that increasing the temperature gradient accelerates the debonding process.

Table 2 presents the values of key parameters of the cohesive model, as explained in Fig. 6, for the thermal effect on the debonding process. These parameters represent the maximum normal stress and the total energy dissipated. It is notable that the presence of a thermal field influences the debonding process, particularly in the presence of a temperature gradient. Conversely, an increase in the temperature gradient causes a delay in the onset of cracking and greater energy dissipation during debonding.

Table 2.

Evolution of debonding process parameters in the presence of a thermal field. ‘Own source’

	The total energy dissipated w_tot (mJ mm⁻²)	Maximum normal stress σ_n^total_max (MPa)
Without thermal effect	209.81047	172.545
With thermal effect (T_sup = 25 °C)	1256.428	208.647
With thermal effect (T_sup = 50 °C)	1095.64918	206.229
With thermal effect (T_sup = 75 °C)	1256.45056	208.642
With thermal effect (T_sup = 100 °C)	1414.53466	208.729

5 Conclusion

In this study, a numerical analysis using a double cantilever beam test was employed to investigate the debonding behavior of composite structure interfaces, treating debonding as interface damage. A frictional cohesive zone model with a sequentially thermomechanical coupling scheme was utilized. Various thermal boundary conditions were considered to assess the thermal effect. The following main conclusions were drawn:

The cohesive stresses at the interface decreased by approximately 20–30% as thermal stress increased, leading to a 15% higher debonding rate compared to scenarios without thermal effects.

Temperature variations in the upper layer of the structure have a direct impact on the normal displacements at the crack tip, with the extent of debonding increasing proportionally to the rise in the temperature gradient.

While the presence of a thermal field exhibited less than a 5% variation in the interface's elastic properties, it significantly delayed debonding initiation by approximately 10% and increased the propagation rate by 25% when compared to the condition without thermal effects.

A temperature gradient increase led to a 40% delay in the debonding process, emphasizing the significant influence of thermal conditions on composite interface failure.

References

[1]↑
R. C. Alderliesten, “Critical review on the assessment of fatigue and fracture in composite materials and structures,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 35, pp. 370–379, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.03.022.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[2]↑
P. P. Camanho, C. G. Dávila, S. T. Pinho, J. J. Remmers, R. de Borst, and J. J. Remmers, “Computational methods for debonding in composites,” Mech. response composites, vol. 10, pp. 1–25, 2008. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8584-0_1.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[3]↑
S. T. Smith and J. G. Teng, “FRP-strengthened RC beams. Review of debonding strength models,” Eng. Struct., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 385–395, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00105-5.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[4]
S. Ben, J. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Y. Qin, and T. Rabczuk, “„The interface strength and debonding for composite structures: review and recent developments,” Compos. Struct., vol. 129, pp. 8–26, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.03.036.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[5]
M. D. Banea, “Debonding on demand of adhesively bonded joints: a critical review,” Rev. Adhes. Adhesives, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 33–50, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119749882.ch2.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[6]
D. V. Srinivasan and S. Idapalapati, “Review of debonding techniques in adhesively bonded composite structures for sustainability,” Sustain. Mater. Tech., vol. 30, 2021, Art no. e00345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2021.e00345.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[7]
Z. Zhu, Z. Yang, Y. Xia, and H. Jiang, “A review of debonding behavior of soft material adhesive systems,” Mech. Soft Mater., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 7, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42558-022-00045-2.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[8]↑
W. Zhang, S. Kang, B. Lin, and Y. Huang, “Mixed-mode debonding in CFRP-to-steel fiber–reinforced concrete joints,” J. Compos. Construct., vol. 28, no. 1, 2024, Art no. 04023069. https://doi.org/10.1061/JCCOF2.CCENG-433.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[9]↑
P. L. Bian, H. Qing, S. Schmauder, and T. Yu, “A unified phase-field method-based framework for modeling quasi-brittle fracture in composites with interfacial debonding,” Compos. Struct., vol. 327, 2024, Art no. 117647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117647.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[10]↑
H. Girard, A. Doitrand, B. Koohbor, R. G. Rinaldi, N. Godin, D. Long, and J. Bikard, “Influence of nearby fiber on fiber–matrix debonding: coupled Criterion prediction and debonding shape determination,” J. Mech. Phys. Sol., vol. 183, 2024, Art no. 105498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2023.105498.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[11]↑
C. Zhang, Q. Yan, Y. Zhang, X. Liao, and H. Zhong, “Intelligent monitoring of concrete-rock interface debonding via ultrasonic measurement integrated with convolutional neural network,” Construct. Building Mater., vol. 400, 2023, Art no. 131865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131865.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[12]↑
A. Moradi, R. Ansari, M. K. Hassanzadeh-Aghdam, and S. H. Jang, “The effect of fuzzy fiber-reinforced composite skin on bending stiffness and debonding growth between skin and polymeric foam core of sandwich structures,” Eur. J. Mechanics-A/Solids, vol. 103, 2024, Art no. 105182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2023.105182.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[13]↑
Z. Wang, J. Mao, K. Yuan, K. Wei, and S. Yao, “Investigation on impact damage and residual in-plane compression strength of FML laminates,” Int. J. Impact Eng., vol. 189, 2024, Art no. 104956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2024.104956.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[14]↑
O. Rabinovitch, “Impact of thermal loads on interfacial debonding in FRP strengthened beams,” Int. J. Sol. Struct., vol. 47, no. 24, pp. 3234–3244, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.08.003.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[15]↑
W. Y. Gao, J. G. Dai, and J. G. Teng, “Analysis of Mode II debonding behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer-to-substrate bonded joints subjected to combined thermal and mechanical loading,” Eng. Fracture Mech., vol. 136, pp. 241–264, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.02.002.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[16]↑
Y. J. Wang, Z. M. Wu, H. B. Liu, Q. M. Zhang, S. T. Yang, and Y. C. Li, “Influence of thermal effects on debonding response of CFRP-to-concrete/steel interfaces under thermal and mechanical loads: an analytical solution,” Compos. Struct., vol. 303, 2023, Art no. 116333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116333.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[17]↑
E. L. Klamer, D. A. Hordijk, and H. J. M. Janssen, “The influence of temperature on debonding of externally bonded CFRP,” Spec. Issue ACI, vol. 230, pp. 1551–1570, 2005.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[18]↑
A. Zeinedini and A. S. Mahdi, “The effect of temperature on the spherical nanoparticles debonding stress,” Composites A: Appl. Sci. Manufact., vol. 173, 2023, Art no. 107669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107669.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[19]↑
H. Zhou, W.-Y. Gao, H. C. Biscaia, X.-J. Wei, and J.-G. Dai, “Debonding analysis of FRP-to-concrete interfaces between two adjacent cracks in plated beams under temperature variations,” Eng. Fracture Mech., vol. 263, pp. 1–21, 2022, Art no. 108307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108307.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[20]↑
X. Zhang, X. Zhang, P. Dong, J. Ma, R. Wang, and W. Li, “Prediction of temperature dependent effective moduli of metal particle composites with debonding damage,” Int. J. Sol. Struct., vol. 294, 2024, Art no. 112775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2024.112775.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[21]
X. Zhang, W. Li, L. H. Shao, Y. Li, and J. Wang, “Micromechanics-based modeling of temperature-dependent effective moduli of fiber reinforced polymer composites with interfacial debonding,” Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manufact., vol. 180, 2024, Art no. 108049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108049.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[22]
Y. Yang, J. Cao, P. Wu, T. Luo, T. Liang, H. Yin, and K. Yuan, “Effect of temperature on interface debonding behavior of graphene/graphene-oxide on cement-based composites,” Surf. Inter., vol. 47, 2024, Art no. 104198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104198.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[23]↑
I. Guiamatsia and G. D. Nguyen, “A thermodynamics-based cohesive model for interface debonding and friction,” Int. J. Sol. Struct., vol. 51, nos 3-4, pp. 647–659, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.10.032.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[24]↑
B. Sitler, T. Takeuchi, Y. Terazawa, and M. Terashima, “Experimental investigation of friction at buckling-restrained brace debonding interfaces,” J. Struct. Eng., vol. 148, no. 2, Feb. 2022, Art no. 04021251. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003184.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[25]↑
L. B. Hu, Y. Cong, Z. X. Xia, S. T. Gu, and Z.-Q. Feng, “Recoverability degradation of adhesion between soft matters under uniaxial cyclic bonding–debonding: modified cohesive interface model and numerical implementation,” Eng. Fracture Mech., vol. 310, 2024, Art no. 110444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2024.110444.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[26]↑
B. Peng, C. Xu, Q. Wang, P. Zhao, X. Feng, and Q. Li, “Decohesion of graphene from a uniaxially-stretched substrate: failure analysis of a frictional adhesive interface,” Friction, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 510–521, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40544-023-0779-x.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[27]↑
A. Benchekkour, N. Terfaya, M. Elmir, T. Kebir, and M. Benguediab, “Modeling of delamination process coupling contact, friction, and adhesion considering the thermal effect,” Mater. Phys. Mech., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 146–166, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.18149/MPM.5132023_15.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[28]↑
W. Song, F. Xu, and F. Yang, “Investigation of energy-based interlayer debonding of open-graded friction course pavement under mode I fracture test,” Theor. Appl. Fracture Mech., vol. 130, 2024, Art no. 104305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2024.104305.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[29]↑
M. Elices, G. V. Guinea, J. Gomez, and J. Planas, “The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges,” Eng. fracture Mech., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 137–163, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-2.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[30]↑
G. I. Barenblatt, “The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture,” Adv. Appl. Mech., vol. 7, pp. 55–129, 1962.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[31]↑
D. S. Dugdale, “Yielding of steel sheets containing slits,” J. Mech. Phys. Sol., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 100–104, 1960.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[32]↑
S. Salih, K. Davey, and Z. Zou, “A computationally efficient cohesive zone model for fatigue,” Fatigue Fracture Eng. Mater. Struct., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 518–532, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12927.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[33]
Abaqus 6.11 User’s Manual, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corporation, Providence, RI, USA, 2011.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
[34]
G. Alfano, S. de Barros, L. Champaney, and N. Valoroso, “Comparison between two cohesive-zone models for the analysis of interface debonding,” Eur. Congress Comput. Methods Appl. Sci. Eng. ECCOMAS, 2004.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

BibTeX

Zotero

EndNote

Save
Cite
Email this content

Share Link

Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend
Email this content
or copy the link directly:

https://akjournals.com/view/journals/1848/aop/article-10.1556-1848.2024.00871/article-10.1556-1848.2024.00871.xml
The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfully

Collapse
Expand

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering

Print ISSN:: 2062-0810

Online ISSN:: 2063-4269

Editorial Board

Mohammad Nazir AHMAD, Institute of Visual Informatics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

Murat BAKIROV, Center for Materials and Lifetime Management Ltd., Moscow, Russia

Nicolae BALC, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Umberto BERARDI, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada

Ildikó BODNÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Sándor BODZÁS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Fatih Mehmet BOTSALI, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey

Samuel BRUNNER, Empa Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland

István BUDAI, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Constantin BUNGAU, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

Shanshan CAI, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

Michele De CARLI, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

Robert CERNY, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Erdem CUCE, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey

György CSOMÓS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Tamás CSOKNYAI, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

Anna FORMICA, IASI National Research Council, Rome, Italy

Alexandru GACSADI, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

Eugen Ioan GERGELY, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

Janez GRUM, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Géza HUSI, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Ghaleb A. HUSSEINI, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Nikolay IVANOV, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia

Antal JÁRAI, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary

Gudni JÓHANNESSON, The National Energy Authority of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland

László KAJTÁR, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

Ferenc KALMÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Tünde KALMÁR, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Milos KALOUSEK, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republik

Jan KOCI, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Vaclav KOCI, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

Imre KOCSIS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Imre KOVÁCS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Angela Daniela LA ROSA, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Éva LOVRA, Univeqrsity of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Elena LUCCHI, Eurac Research, Institute for Renewable Energy, Bolzano, Italy

Tamás MANKOVITS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Igor MEDVED, Slovak Technical University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia

Ligia MOGA, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Marco MOLINARI, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Henrieta MORAVCIKOVA, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia

Phalguni MUKHOPHADYAYA, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada

Balázs NAGY, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

Husam S. NAJM, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA

Jozsef NYERS, Subotica Tech College of Applied Sciences, Subotica, Serbia

Bjarne W. OLESEN, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

Stefan ONIGA, North University of Baia Mare, Baia Mare, Romania

Joaquim Norberto PIRES, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

László POKORÁDI, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary

Roman RABENSEIFER, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republik

Mohammad H. A. SALAH, Hashemite University, Zarqua, Jordan

Dietrich SCHMIDT, Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology IWES, Kassel, Germany

Lorand SZABÓ, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Csaba SZÁSZ, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Ioan SZÁVA, Transylvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania

Péter SZEMES, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Edit SZŰCS, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Radu TARCA, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

Zsolt TIBA, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

László TÓTH, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

László TÖRÖK, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Anton TRNIK, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia

Ibrahim UZMAY, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

Andrea VALLATI, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Tibor VESSELÉNYI, University of Oradea, Oradea, Romania

Nalinaksh S. VYAS, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India

Deborah WHITE, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Address of the institute: Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen
H-4028 Debrecen, Ótemető u. 2-4. Hungary
Email: irase@eng.unideb.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

DOAJ
ERIH PLUS
Google Scholar
ProQuest
SCOPUS
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory

2024
Scopus
CiteScore
CiteScore rank
SNIP
Scimago
SJR index	0.261
SJR Q rank	Q2

2023
Scimago
Scimago H-index	11
Scimago Journal Rank	0.249
Scimago Quartile Score	Architecture (Q2) Engineering (miscellaneous) (Q3) Environmental Engineering (Q3) Information Systems (Q4) Management Science and Operations Research (Q4) Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Scopus
Scopus Cite Score	2.3
Scopus CIte Score Rank	Architecture (Q1) General Engineering (Q2) Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3) Environmental Engineering (Q3) Management Science and Operations Research (Q3) Information Systems (Q3)
Scopus SNIP	0.751

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Publication Model	Gold Open Access Online only
Submission Fee	none
Article Processing Charge	1100 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency	World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50% World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts	Limited number of full waivers available. Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50% Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information	Gold Open Access

International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering
Language	English
Size	A4
Year of Foundation	2010
Volumes per Year	1
Issues per Year	3
Founder	Debreceni Egyetem
Founder's Address	H-4032 Debrecen, Hungary Egyetem tér 1
Publisher	Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's Address	H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible Publisher	Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN	2062-0810 (Print)
ISSN	2063-4269 (Online)