International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365

A three-dimensional finite element model for stress analysis of

adhesive joints
J.P.M. Gonc-alves, M.F.S.F. de Moura*, P.M.S.T. de Castro
#
Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica e Gestao
* Industrial, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias,
4200-465 Porto, Portugal
Accepted 29 April 2002

Abstract

This paper presents a new model for three-dimensional finite element analysis of adhesive joints. The model considers geometric
and material nonlinearities and uses solid brick elements as well as specially developed interface elements. The interface elements
allow the calculation of stresses at the adherend–adhesive interfaces. The application of the model to a single-lap joint is presented.
The results of a linear elastic analysis highlight the three-dimensional nature of the stresses and stress concentrations at interfaces.
The influence of material nonlinearities on the behavior of the joint is also discussed.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: C. Stress analysis; Adhesive joints; Interface finite elements

1. Introduction performed linear analysis, and modeled the adhesive

Adhesive bonding is being increasingly used in
structural applications. The characteristics of adhesive
joints make them attractive in industries such as
aeronautics, automotive and civil engineering. When
compared to mechanically fastened joints, adhesive
joints have the advantages of having less sources of
stress concentrations, more uniform distribution of
load, and better fatigue properties.
The increased application of adhesive joints was
accompanied by the development of mathematical
models to analyze the behavior of those joints. Both
analytical and numerical models have been developed.
Analytical models such as the classical work by Goland
and Reissner [1] usually involve some simplifying
assumptions. However, some of those models yield
closed-form solutions.
Among the numerical models, the finite element
method has been extensively used. The single-lap joint
has been used in most of the studies due to its simplicity
and practical application. One of the first finite element
analyses of a single-lap joint was published by Wooley
and Carver [2]. They used plane stress elements,
*Corresponding author. Fax: +351-2220-59125.
E-mail address: mfmoura@fe.up.pt (M.F.S.F. de Moura).
layer with two rows of elements, thus obtaining the
stress variation across the adhesive thickness. Many
other two-dimensional models of single-lap joints
followed this work. Similar linear analyses were done
by Guess et al. [3]. They used a more refined mesh,
which allowed them to identify significant stress
gradients across the adhesive thickness. Harrison and
Harrison [4] did a simplified analysis in which they
considered rigid adherends and studied the adhesive
deformations. Adams and Peppiatt [5] used plane strain
triangular elements to model a single-lap joint and
considered the adhesive layer to have either a square
edge or a spew fillet.
Two-dimensional models that incorporate nonlinea-
rities were also developed. Cooper and Sawyer [6]
considered geometric nonlinearities in their model. A
similar analysis was performed by Tsai and Morton [7].
Harris and Adams [8] incorporated material and
geometric nonlinearities in their analysis. They used
triangular and quadrangular plane strain elements and
modeled the spew fillet at the end of the adhesive layer.
Several special elements to model the behavior of the
adhesive layer were developed. Barker and Hatt [9]
published one of the earlier works in this area. They
developed a four-node element for two-dimensional
analysis that behaves like a spring with normal and

0143-7496/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 7 4 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 5 - 5
358 J.P.M. Gonc-alves et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365
shear stiffnesses, which are dependent on the thickness
of the adhesive layer. Carpenter [10] developed a simple
element that considered the adhesive with no thickness.
Later, the same author [11] developed another element
that considers the adhesive thickness and a linear
variation of the displacement field across it. Carpenter
and Barsoum [12] developed two specific elements that
incorporate some assumptions used in several analytical
studies. These elements can be used with two-dimen-
sional plane stress or plane strain elements, as well as
with shell or beam elements. Rao et al. [13] developed a
six-node isoparametric element similar to the one
presented in [9]. Yadagiri et al. [14] modified that
element to include longitudinal normal stresses and
viscoleastic analyses. Lin and Lin [15] introduced an
element that represents both the adhesive layer and the
adherends and that is based on Timoshenko’s beam
theory. Reddy and Roy [16, 17] developed a special
element for geometric and material nonlinear analyses.
All the finite element analyses referred to above are
two-dimensional. However, even for a simple adhesive
joint such as the single-lap joint, stresses are of three-
dimensional nature. This was investigated by Tsai and
Morton [18] who performed three-dimensional linear
elastic finite element analysis of a single-lap joint in
which boundary conditions account for the geometric
nonlinear effects. These authors showed that three-
dimensional regions exist in the specimen. They showed
that the adherend and adhesive stress distributions in
the overlap, near the free surface, are quite different
from those occuring in the interior. Pandey and
Narasimhan [19] also contributed to the identification
of the three-dimensional nature of stresses in adhesively
bonded single-lap joints by performing three-dimen-
sional viscoplastic analysis considering material and
geometric nonlinearities.
Special elements that model the adhesive layer were
also developed for three-dimensional analyses. Edlund
and Klarbring [20] developed an element for geometric
nonlinear analysis. They assumed that the adhesive layer
is of negligible thickness and has linear elastic behavior.
Andruet et al. [21] developed a model for three-
dimensional analysis of adhesive joints based on shell
and solid elements. The shell elements are used to model
the adherends and the adhesive layer is modeled as a
solid element with offset nodes in the mid-planes of the
adherends. The element formulation includes geometric
nonlinearities, and thermal and moisture effects.
In addition to considering the three-dimensional
nature of adhesive joints, the calculation of accurate
stresses at the adherend–adhesive interfaces is of
primary concern. The failure of adhesive joints usually
occurs in the adhesive (cohesive failure) or at the
adherend–adhesive interfaces (adhesive failure). More-
over, cohesive failure usually occurs near the adherend–
adhesive interface. However, conventional finite
elements based on displacements do not satisfy the
continuity of the stress vector at the interfaces. Cheikh
et al. [22] proposed a technique, based on the finite
element method formulated in terms of displacements
that enables stress conditions to be imposed. They used
two-dimensional analysis and applied their technique in
the study of the stress distributions at the adherend–
adhesive interfaces.
In this paper, a new model for three-dimensional finite
element analysis of adhesive joints is presented. The
model considers the stress variation across the adhesive
thickness as well as geometric and material nonlinea-
rities. Adherends and adhesive are represented by solid
brick elements and the interfaces are modeled by special
interface elements. Interface elements are included in
order to allow the calculation of stresses at the
adherend–adhesive interfaces. The application of the
model to a single-lap joint is presented. The results
highlight the three-dimensional nature of the stresses
and the influence of material nonlinearities on the
behavior of the joint.
2. Interface finite element
An interface finite element for three-dimensional
analysis has been previously developed [23, 24]. It
consists of 18 nodes distributed in two faces as shown
in Fig. 1. The element has zero thickness and is
compatible with 27 node isoparametric hexahedral
elements available in the ABAQUSs software [25]. Its
formulation can be viewed as a contact problem as
detailed below.
2.1. Theory
The equilibrium equations of a structural problem
involving contact can be formulated as the minimization
of the potential energy subjected to certain kinematic
constraints. Considering the variational method and
using the penalty function method, the potential energy
16
15
17
7
14
18 6
10 8 13
11 9 5
1 12 4
2
3
Fig. 1. The interface element.
 J.P.M. Gonc-alves et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365 359

can be written as or, including the differentiation of (2)

" #
e Xd X
d
pðUÞ
% ¼ pðUÞ þ ½GðUÞ&2 ; ð1Þ T T
2 Kþe C k nk nk C k U ¼ F ' e g k C k nk ð10Þ
k¼1 k¼1
where
or
pðUÞ ¼ 12UT KU ' UT F; ð2Þ
½K þ Kr &U ¼ F þ Fr ð11Þ
pðUÞ being the functional of a structural problem
without constraints, pðUÞ the functional of a structural in which
%
problem with kinematic constraint, U the displacement X
d

vector, K the stiffness matrix, F the nodal forces, Kr ¼ e Ck nk nTk CTk ; ð12Þ
GðUÞ ¼ 0 the kinematic constraint, and e the penalty k¼1

parameter. X
d
The kinematic constraint for a pair (k) of homologous Fr ¼ 'e g k C k nk : ð13Þ
points is [26, 27] k¼1

ðU2i ' U1j Þ ( nk þ gk ¼ 0; ð3Þ It can be stated that Kr and Fr represent the
contribution of the constraints to the global problem.
where U2i ; U1j are the displacement vectors of two Thus, the interface finite element formulation is the
homologous points (i and j) belonging to the two determination of its contribution to the global problem
contacting bodies (1 and 2), nk the unit vector normal to by matrices Kr and Fr :
the contact surface, and gk the initial distance in the
normal direction n between two homologous points (i 2.2. Stresses at the interfaces
and j) belonging to the two contacting bodies.
The equilibrium state is obtained from the minimiza- Contrary to continuum elements where stress–strain
tion of Eq. (1) relative to the displacement field (U). It relationships are used, interface elements are governed
can be shown that, when e approaches infinity, the by stress-relative displacements relationships. The
minimization of the functional pðUÞ
% produces a better vector of relative displacements between two
approximation of GðUÞ ¼ 0: The vectors U2i and U1j can homologous points can be obtained from the displace-
be written ments fields associated with the element faces (top and
U2i ¼ eTi U; ð4Þ bottom)
8 9 8 9 8 9
< ds >
> = > < us >
= < us >
> =
U2j ¼ eTj U; ð5Þ d ¼ dt ¼ ut ' ut ; ð14Þ
: >
> ; > : > ; : >
> ;
where ei and ej are the three columns of the identity dn un top un bot
matrix that allow the calculation of the displacement
where s and t represent the tangential directions and n
vector of the homologous points i and j; respectively.
the normal direction. The displacements in the local
Eq. (3) can be rewritten as
directions (normal and tangential to the contact surface)
ðCTk UÞ ( nk þ gk ¼ 0; ð6Þ can be obtained from the generalized displacements
doing
where 8 9 8 9
< us >
> = <u>
> =
CTk ¼ eTi ' eTj : ð7Þ T
ut ¼ h v ; ð15Þ
: >
> ; : >
> ;
Considering the total number of constraints (d), the un w
functional for the problem being treated can be obtained
as where
h ¼ ½Vs ; Vt ; Vn &: ð16Þ
pðUÞ
% ¼ pðUÞ
Vs ; Vt and Vn are the unit vectors of the local directions
eXd
þ ½ððCTk UÞ ( nk þ gk ÞT ððCTk UÞ ( nk þ gk Þ&: ð8Þ (see Fig. 2) and are obtained from
2 k¼1 8 9
> qx >
>
> >
Minimizing this equation leads to > qx >
> >
>
< qy >
> =
dpðUÞ
% ¼ dpðUÞ Vx ¼ ; ð17Þ
>
> qx >
X
d > >
> >
>
> >
þe ½UT Ck nk nTk CTk þ gk nTk CTk &dU ¼ 0 ð9Þ : qz >
> ;
k¼1 qx
360 J.P.M. Gonc-alves et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365

η units are N/m3 and they represent the penalty parameter

Vn
6 introduced by the user. These parameters have to be
carefully chosen in order to obtain a good performance
7 Vt
5 of the model. As small values induce large interpenetra-
8 tions incompatible with the physical reality while large
9 Vs
4 ξ values produce numerical problems, the optimum inter-
face stiffnesses are the largest values that do not produce
2 3
1 numerical problems.
Fig. 2. Local directions (x; Z) and unit vectors (Vs ; Vt ; Vn ).

3. Model of a single-lap joint

8 9
> qx > The model of a single-lap joint is presented in this
>
> >
>
>
> qZ >
> section. The joint considered is represented in Fig. 3.
>
> >
< qy >
= The mechanical properties of the adherends and
VZ ¼ ð18Þ adhesive are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The
>
> qZ >
>
>
> >
> geometry and boundary conditions of the model are
>
> qz >
> >
: >
; shown in Fig. 4. The model represents only half of the
qZ joint due to the longitudinal symmetry. A detail of the
in the following way: mesh used is given in Fig. 5. The mesh consists of 2720
Vx solid elements of 20 nodes (reference C3D20 [25]), 1360
Vs ¼ ; ð19Þ solid elements of 27 nodes (reference C3D27 [25]), and
jVx j
544 interface elements. The interface elements are placed
Vx ) VZ at the adherends–adhesive interfaces. The solid elements
Vn ¼ ; ð20Þ
jVx j jVZ j adjacent to the interfaces have 27 nodes and the
remaining are 20 node solid elements. Each adherend
Vt ¼ Vn ) Vs : ð21Þ is modeled with four layers of elements across its
The stresses at interfaces are obtained from the thickness and the adhesive is represented by three layers
relative displacements and are given by of elements.
Two different analyses were performed using
tsn ¼ ks ds ; the above model. Linear elastic and elasto-plastic
ttn ¼ kt dt ; ð22Þ
Table 1
snn ¼ kn dn : Mechanical properties of adherend
Eq. (22) can be written in matrix form E (MPa) n smax (MPa) emax (%)
r ¼ Dd; ð23Þ 62,088 0.30 124.1 14.0
where
2 3
ks 0 0
6 7
D¼40 kt 0 5: ð24Þ Table 2
Mechanical properties of adhesive
0 0 kn
E (MPa) n s0:2 (MPa) smax (MPa) emax (%)
The parameters ks and kt are the shear interface
437.4 0.38 12.7 15.0 11.3
stiffnesses and kn is the normal interface stiffness. Their

Adhesive

Adherend 1.5
0.25
Adherend 1.5

25 87.5 12.5 87.5

Fig. 3. Single-lap joint with dimensions in mm.

 J.P.M. Gonc-alves et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365
C D
A
Fig. 4. Geometry and boundary conditions of the model.
Fig. 5. Detail of finite element mesh.
material models were considered for the adhesive and
adherends. Geometric nonlinearity was considered in all
analyses.
3.1. Linear elastic materials
A finite element analysis was performed considering
an applied static force of 1.8 kN. The stress distributions
at the middle of the adhesive thickness are presented
in Fig. 6. Each graph in Fig. 6 represents the long-
itudinal distribution of a normalized stress component
along the overlap length in several longitudinal planes
(planes z=constant in Fig. 4). The average shear stress
at the adhesive is used to normalize the stress
components.
In Fig. 6(a), the sxx normal stress component is
plotted. Its maximum value occurs close to the ends of
the overlap, at the longitudinal plane that is nearest to
the symmetry plane (z ¼ 0:176 mm). The sxx distribu-
tion is almost constant across the joint width but
decreases significantly near the edge (z ¼ 12:324 mm).
That effect is also verified for the syy and szz
components shown in Figs. 6(b) and (c), respectively.
The syy stresses at the ends of the overlap and in the
361
B x
plane closer to the longitudinal symmetry plane are
higher than the other stress components. The sxx and szz
stresses are of the same order of magnitude.
Fig. 6(d) shows the distribution of the shear stress txy :
This stress distribution does not change significantly
across the joint width, which means that this stress
component is less sensitive to the three-dimensional
effects. The stress txz ; presented in Fig. 6(e) is zero at the
longitudinal symmetry plane. For other planes, there are
peaks near the ends of the overlap. These peaks are
increasingly higher for longitudinal planes closer to the
joint edges. The stress tyz ; shown in Fig. 6(f), is also zero
at the longitudinal symmetry plane and the peak
increases with the z coordinate. It should be noted that
the three-dimensional effect for the two last stress
components (txz and tyz ) is present across all the joint’s
width. This is contrary to what happens with the normal
stress components where the three-dimensional effect is
only present near the edges.
The stresses at the interfaces were also studied.
Figs. 7(a)–(c) show the stresses at the upper interface
(y ¼ 0:125 mm). It must be noted that the stresses are
plotted along longitudinal planes that are different from
the ones considered in Fig. 6. This happens because the
integration points of the interface element coincide with
the pairs of homologous nodes. This is due to the
Newton–Cotes integration scheme used, which has been
shown to have the better performance concerning stress
oscillations [24].
As observed for the normal stress components in the
middle of the adhesive layer, the normal stress syy at the
interface is almost constant across the joint width, but
decreases near the edges. In Fig. 7(a) it can be seen that
the maximum stress syy occurs at the end of the overlap
(point D in Fig. 4) and at the symmetry plane
(z ¼ 0 mm). As it can be seen in Fig. 7(b), the shear
stress txy has a similar behavior. It must be noted that
these two stress components have peak values that are
much higher than the ones in the middle of the adhesive
layer. The shear stress tyz at the interface and in the
362 J.P.M. Gonc-alves et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365

1.5 3

2.5 z = 0.176 mm
z = 0.176 mm
z = 6.426 mm z = 6.426 mm
1 2
z = 10.761 mm z = 10.761 mm
z = 11.719 mm 1.5 z = 11.719 mm

σyy /τ average
σxx/τ average

z = 12.324 mm z = 12.324 mm
0.5 1

0.5

0 0
_0.5

_ 0.5 _1

(a) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 (b) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x (mm)

1.5 2.5

z = 0.176 mm z = 0.176 mm
z = 6.426 mm z = 6.426 mm
1 2
z = 10.761 mm z = 10.761 mm
z = 11.719 mm z = 11.719 mm
xy average
σzz /τ average

z = 12.324 mm z = 12.324 mm
0.5 1.5
τ /τ

0 1

_0.5 0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(c) x (mm) (d) x (mm)

0.06 0.8
z = 0.176 mm z = 0.176 mm
z = 6.426 mm 0.6 z = 6.426 mm
0.04
z = 10.761 mm z = 10.761 mm
z = 11.719 mm 0.4 z = 11.719 mm
0.02 z = 12.324 mm z = 12.324 mm
0.2
τ yz /τ average
τxz /τ average

0 0
_0.2
_0.02
_0.4
_0.04
_0.6

_0.06 _0.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(e) x (mm) (f) x (mm)

Fig. 6. (a) Normalized stress sxx at the middle of the adhesive thickness. (b) Normalized stress syy at the middle of the adhesive thickness. (c)
Normalized stress szz at the middle of the adhesive thickness. (d) Normalized stress txy at the middle of the adhesive thickness. (e) Normalized stress
txz at the middle of the adhesive thickness. (f) Normalized stress tyz at the middle of the adhesive thickness.

middle of the adhesive layers (see Figs. 6(f) and 7(c))
have similar distributions.
3.2. Elasto-plastic materials
Taking into consideration the elasto-plastic materials’
behavior, a material and geometric nonlinear finite
element analysis was performed considering an applied
static force of 2.9 kN. A different yield criterion was
used for each material. The Von Mises yield criterion
was used for the adherends, and the Raghava et al. [28]
parabolic criteria was used for the adhesive. This
criterion can be written as
ðs1 ' s2 Þ2 þ ðs2 ' s3 Þ2 þ ðs3 ' s1 Þ2
þ 2ðjsc j ' st Þðs1 þ s2 þ s3 Þ ¼ 2jsc jst ; ð25Þ
 J.P.M. Gonc-alves et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365 363

12 8

10 7 z = 0 mm
z = 0 mm
z = 6.25 mm z = 6.25 mm
8 6
z = 10.156 mm z = 10.156 mm
z = 11.719 mm 5 z = 11.719 mm
6

τxy /τ average
yy average

z = 12.5 mm z = 12.5 mm
4 4
σ /τ

2 3

0 2

_2 1

_4 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(a) x (mm) (b) x (mm)

0.8
z = 0 mm
0.6 z = 6.25 mm
z = 10.156 mm
0.4
z = 11.719 mm
z = 12.5 mm
0.2
τ yz /τ average

0
_0.2

_0.4

_0.6

_0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(c) x (mm)

Fig. 7. (a) Normalized stress syy at the interface y ¼ 0:125 mm. (b) Normalized stress txy at the interface y ¼ 0:125 mm. (c) Normalized stress tyz at
the interface y ¼ 0:125 mm.

where s1 ; s2 and s3 are the principal stresses, and sc and
st are the compression and tensile strengths, respec-
tively. In this criterion, a ratio of 1.3 between the
compression and tensile strengths was assumed. The
progressive plastification of the materials was analyzed
at several stages of the loading history. In Figs. 8(a) and
(b) a schematic representation of the plastic zones in the
adhesive layer is presented for two different load levels.
The gray element faces show that at least some of the
integration points closer to those faces have plastified.
In Fig. 8(a) it can be seen that the plastification starts at
the ends of the adhesive layer (points A and D in Fig. 4).
Fig. 8(b) shows that the plastification grows toward the
longitudinal symmetry plane and across the adhesive
thickness.
The maximum normalized stresses syy and txy at the
upper interface (y ¼ 0:125 mm) for different load levels
are presented in Fig. 9. It can be stated that the peak
normalized stresses decrease as the applied load
increases. Also, for the higher load levels the peak
normalized stresses shift from the symmetry plane to the
free edge.
In Figs. 10(a) and (b), the normalized stresses syy and
txy at the upper interface (y ¼ 0:125 mm) and obtained
at the maximum load (P ¼ 2:9 kN) are presented. The
peak value of the normalized stress syy varies between
1.8 kN (z ¼ 0:0 mm) and 3.8 kN (z ¼ 12:5 mm) and an
almost constant behavior is observed for the txy
normalized stress. As expected, a general decrease of
stress levels is observed relative to the linear case (see
Figs. 7(a) and (b)).
4. Conclusions
A new three-dimensional finite element model for
studying the behavior of adhesive joints is presented.
The model includes an interface element previously
developed that is compatible with brick solid elements
from the ABAQUSs software. The main objective was
to calculate the stresses at the interfaces between
adherends and adhesive, which are considered critical
regions in these structures. An application to single-
lap joints was performed considering two different
364 J.P.M. Gonc-alves et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365

σyy/τ average
_2 z = 0 mm
z = 6.25 mm
z = 10.156 mm
_4 z = 11.719 mm
z = 12.5 mm
_6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(a) x (mm)

z = 0 mm
3 z = 6.25 mm
z = 10.156 mm
z = 11.719 mm
τxy /τ average 2 z = 12.5 mm

Fig. 8. Simplified representation of the adhesive plastic zone for (a) _1

P ¼ 1:2 kN, (b) P ¼ 2:1 kN.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(b) x (mm)

12 Fig. 10. (a) Normalized stress syy at the interface y ¼ 0:125 mm for
P ¼ 2:9 kN. (b) Normalized stress txy at the interface y ¼ 0:125 mm for
Max (σ /τ ) P ¼ 2:9 kN.
10 yy average
Max (τ /τ )
Max (normalized stress)

xy average

8
much higher than at the middle of the adhesive layer.
6 This can explain why the interfaces are critical regions
regarding adhesive joints failure.
4 The analysis with elasto-plastic materials’ behavior
z = 10.938 mm
z = 12.5 mm

z = 12.5 mm

was performed in order to include a more general

z = 0 mm

z = 0 mm

z = 0 mm

z = 0 mm

z = 0 mm

z = 0 mm

z = 0 mm

2 situation. In this case, a general decrease of the

0
0.6
Fig. 9. Change of the maximum value of normalized stresses syy and
txy at the interface y ¼ 0:125 mm.
approaches: linear elastic and elasto-plastic materials’
behavior.
In the linear elastic case, the three-dimensional nature
of the stresses is demonstrated. This strongly suggests
that the bi-dimensional models must be carefully used in
the strength prediction of adhesive joints. It was also
observed that the peak stresses at the interfaces are
normalized stresses at interfaces as the load grows was
observed. As expected, the plastification induces a
1.2 2.1 2.4 2.9
decrease of the stress concentrations in the critical
P (kN) regions.
In future work, this model will be used to predict the
strength of adhesive joints. For that, the interface
elements must include a specific damage model to
simulate damage initiation and propagation and their
influence in the global structural behavior.
Acknowledgements
This paper was finalized in the context of FCT project
EME 35975/99 (POCTI/43525/EME/2000-ERDF).
 J.P.M. Gonc-alves et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22 (2002) 357–365 365

References [19] Pandey PC, Narasimhan S. Comput Struct 2001;79:769.

[20] Edlund U, Klarbring A. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
[1] Goland M, Reissner E. J Appl Mech 1944;66:A17. 1992;96:329.
[2] Wooley GR, Carver DR. J Aircr 1971;8:817. [21] Andruet RH, Dillard DA, Holzer SM. Int J Adhes Adhes
[3] Guess TR, Allred RE, Gerstle FP. J Test Eval 1977;5:84. 2001;21:17.
[4] Harrison NL, Harrison WJ. J Adhes 1972;3:195. [22] Cheikh M, Coorevits P, Loredo A. Int J Adhes Adhes
[5] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. J Strain Anal 1974;9:185. 2001;21:249.
[6] Cooper PA, Sawyer JW. Report No. TP-1507, NASA, 1979. [23] De Moura MFSF, Gonc-alves JPM, Marques AT, De Castro
[7] Tsai MY, Morton J. Int J Solids Struct 1994;31:2537. PMST. J Compos Mater 1997;31:1462.
[8] Harris JA, Adams RD. Int J Adhes Adhes 1984;4:65. [24] Gonc-alves JPM, De Moura MFSF, De Castro PMST, Marques
[9] Barker RM, Hatt F. AIAA J 1973;11:1650. AT. Eng Computations: Int J Comput-Aided Eng Software
[10] Carpenter WC. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1973;6:450. 2000;17:28.
[11] Carpenter WC. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1980;15:1659. [25] ABAQUS User’s Manual, Version 5.6. Pawtucket: Hibbitt,
[12] Carpenter WC, Barsoum R. J Adhes 1989;30:25. Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., 1996.
[13] Rao BN, Rao VK, Yadagiri S. Fibre Sci Technol 1982;17:77. [26] Papadopoulos P, Taylor RL. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
[14] Yadagiri S, Reddy CP, Reddy TS. Comput Struct 1987;27:445. 1992;94:373.
[15] Lin CC, Lin YS. Int J Solids Struct 1993;30:1679. [27] Nour-Omid B, Wriggers P. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
[16] Reddy JN, Roy S. Int J Non-Linear Mech 1988;23:97. 1986;54:131.
[17] Roy S, Reddy JN. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1988;26:2531. [28] Raghava RS, Cadell RM, Yeh GS. J Mater Sci 1973;8:225.
[18] Tsai MY, Morton J. J Strain Anal 1994;29(1):137.