@@luizgustavodelimapreviero4895 happy to hear that. Thanks for your interest.

Thanks a bunch Dear doctor Asghar. Warm welcome to you.

I really appreciate Dear Professor. I am waiting for it.

Thanks for your interest.

As I said in the video, this is the simplest method that only needs stress-stress curve of the adhesive layer. However, if you need to obtain more accurate result you have to do some other tests like DCB or ENF to get fracture energies on modes I and II, respectively.

Thanks a lot

Thank you for your interest. I apologize if I didn't fully understand your question. From what I gather, you're asking about the relationship between stress, overlap length (X axis), and shear stress in a joint. In this context, we can consider the stress acting along the overlap length as shear stress, while the stress acting perpendicular to it (along the Y axis) can be considered as peel stress. It's important to note that this type of joint experiences both shear and peel stresses, with shear stress being the dominant factor. To further explore the effects of peel stress, you can simulate other joint geometries, such as a butt joint. This will allow you to observe and analyze the peeling effects more prominently and understand how they influence the joint behavior.

Many thanks!

Thanks for your interest.

Thanks a lot Dear Alaa

Thank you for your insightful question. As you mentioned, in this case, S22 represents the peel stress. When it comes to shear stress, we cannot consider any Sii stress form as shear stress. Sii always represents the perpendicular stress in the ith axis. Shear stress always requires two individual axes to determine it properly. One axis indicates the applied plane, and the other indicates the stress direction. Therefore, in this 2D problem, S12 is the shear stress, not S11.

I sincerely appreciate your generous support. Thank you, Dr.

Any individual model has its own condition but sure I will.

Nu is considered to be an elastic property. It's not an highly effective parameter. If you don't know the exact amount you can consider it among 0.3 to 0.4 for adhesive layer.

In this case, the adhesive shows a ductile behavior and this approach can predict final load very well. It should be useful in brittle adhesives as well. The main condition here is that you have got a cohesive failure in the bond line not an adhesive failure.

@@atakhabaz3607 i had 99% of damage, should i play around with G values? because im getting too big values for load and disp also can i contact you for more help?

Dear Safa, sorry I couldn't get your point. Could you please ask your question more clear and/or with details.

In some cases element deletation doesn't work. However, you can check SDEG(the damage parameter) in your contour results and you can consider damage for elements with SDEG more than 0.98.

@@atakhabaz3607 so if I specify the max degradation equal to 0.98 in my mesh control, so the distorted element could be deleted?

@@AlisherAshirbekov the thing that you mentioned is something else. It's the input value for your simulation that indicates the deletation should start when D is 0.98. However, sometimes Abaqus doesn't show the elements deletation. In those cases, you would better to check D parameter from you counter results. And consider If the damage parameter D exceeds 0.98 for specific elements, you can consider those elements to have failed. You can check the D parameter using SDEG.

Thanks for your interest. Sure. Just send an email to: khabaz65@gmail.com

Hi MONO, Since I don't have detailed information about your simulation, I can only guess some probable mistakes. Please check the following: 1. You need to change either the initial stiffness or the Young's modulus in the normal and shear modes. 2. You are not allowed to mesh the bonded line with more than one element in the thickness direction. 3. You are not allowed to change the maximum traction because this parameter is more important than the G value. 4. Maybe you have experienced adhesive failure in your experiments. If so, the interface region is weaker than the adhesive layer itself, which introduces an error in your simulation.

@@atakhabaz3607 Thank you, Dr. Ata. I recalculated Young's modulus, my mesh is alos one element thick, Rest I have left all the default value. We simulate two conditions, one at room temperature and second at higer temperature. So now, my simulation runs, the cohesive elements starts to vanish, but then it stops with an error ..."THE SOLUTION APPEARS TO BE DIVERGING. CONVERGENCE IS JUDGED UNLIKELY." Thank you once again. Regards

Thank you for your interest. Actually here we also used the triangular or bilinear CZM. this triangular damage model indicates using 3 individual parameters of 1. initial slop (or elastic Props), 2. the maximum amount of traction (Sy), and 3. the area under the triangle traction-separation diagram (Energy at failure).

@@atakhabaz3607 then I Can do thé same to get parameetrs. Thank you so much

@@atakhabaz3607 Hi I am working on DCB test , I made all steps but when I compare the RF at the reference point I find thant FEM force is so high compared with experimental force. I don't find the source of problem, Do you have any idea please.

@@imendebbabi8071 I think you have got the science border. But according to my experience it can be due to some reasons. 1. You maybe use a brittle adhesive in experiment. (If you use Araldite2011,then it was cured in room temperature maybe). 2. The domenant fracture area in DCB test is adhesive.

I mean Adhesive failure not cohesive.