Compares XFEM with its coupled methods to predict fracture outcomes in adhesive joints, indicating method selection depends on specific objectives.
As the core load-transfer medium in bonded structures, the adhesive layer critically governs overall reliability, with Mode I fracture representing its dominant failure mechanism under tensile loading. This study systematically compares the eXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM) and its two coupled variants—the XFEM-Cohesive Zone Model (CZM) and XFEM-Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)—in simulating Mode I fractures of adhesive joints. Key comparisons include predictions of stress distribution, load-transfer evolution, and crack propagation paths, all validated through Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) simulations and experiments. Results show that standard XFEM accurately predicts initial stiffness (error < 8%) but overestimates peak load by 10.7%. XFEM-CZM maintains errors below 8% for both stiffness and peak load, while XFEM-VCCT achieves exceptional peak-load accuracy (error < 1%) but overestimates stiffness. In crack evolution, standard XFEM yields an idealized propagation path, whereas the coupled methods reveal a distinct three-stage process. Stress/strain fields in standard XFEM remain stable during propagation, while the coupled approaches exhibit interfacial irregularities before crack arrival, followed by tip concentration and band-like transfer during stable growth. Each method offers distinct advantages, underscoring that selection should align with specific research objectives and modeling requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: