In this work we develop a complete analytical solution for a double cantilever beam (DCB) where the arms are modelled as Timoshenko beams and a bi-linear cohesive-zone model (CZM) is embedded at the interface. The solution is given for two types of DCB ; one with prescribed rotations (with steady-state crack propagation) and one with prescribed displacement (where the crack propagation is not steady state). Because the CZM is bi- linear, the analytical solutions are given separately in three phases, namely (i) linear- elastic behaviour before crack propagation, (ii) damage growth before crack propagation and (iii) crack propagation. These solutions are then used to derive the solutions for the case when the interface is linear-elastic with brittle failure (i.e. no damage growth before crack propagation) and the case with infinitely stiff interface with brittle failure (corresponding to linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) solutions). If the DCB arms are shear-deformable, our solution correctly captures the fact that they will rotate at the crack tip and in front of it even if the interface is infinitely stiff. Expressions defining the distribution of contact tractions at the interface, as well as shear forces, bending moments and cross-sectional rotations of the arms, at and in front of the crack tip are derived for a linear-elastic interface with brittle failure and in the LEFM limit. For a DCB with prescribed displacement in the LEFM limit we also derive a closed-form expression for the critical energy release rate, Gc. This formula, compared to the so-called ‘standard beam theory’ formula based on the assumptions that the DCB arms are clamped at the crack tip (and also used in standards for determining fracture toughness in mode-I delamination), has an additional term which takes into account the rotation at the crack tip. Additionally, we provide all the mentioned analytical solutions for the case when the shear stiffness of the arms is infinitely high, which corresponds to Euler–Bernoulli beam theory. In the numerical examples we compare results for Euler–Beronulli and Timoshenko beam theory and analyse the influence of the CZM parameters.