MODIFIED SINGLE-LEG BENDING TEST FOR MIXED-MODE I/II INTERLAMINAR FRACTURE IN COMPOSITES

Andrs Szekrnyes*, Jzsef Uj**

*Ph.D. Student, Department of Applied Mechanics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics Budapest, PoB 11, H-1521, Hungary Phone: +36 1 463 1170, e-mail: szeki@mm.bme.hu **Associate Professor, Department of Applied Mechanics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics Budapest , PoB 11, H-1521, Hungary Phone: +36 1 463 2228, e-mail: uj@mm.bme.hu

__________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT
In this work the over-leg bending (OLB) specimen was developed for mixed-mode I/II delamination characterization in composites. The traditional single-leg bending (SLB) specimen was modified by introducing the load eccentrically between the two supports. The modified configuration was analyzed by using linear beam theories. The theory of transverse shear, Winkler-Pasternak type elastic foundation, Saint Venant effect and crack tip shear deformation is incorporated in the analysis. Also, experiments were carried out on glass/polyester unidirectional specimens. Comparison between the results of analysis and experiment showed very good agreement. In some points of view the traditional SLB and OLB coupons were compared to each other, their advantages and drawbacks are highlighted. The newly developed OLB setup is relatively easy to perform and crack propagation may be simply investigated under displacement control.
Keywords: Delamination, Beam theory, Mode-mixity, Fracture toughness, Over-Leg bending, Single-leg bending

__________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction
The interlaminar fracture tests have important role in the design and development of composite structures. Usually, these tests are performed by using the mode-I double-cantilever beam (DCB) [1], mode-II end-notched flexure (ENF) [2] and mixed-mode I/II delamination specimens. While the two formers are well-understood tests, considering mixed-mode I/II specimens there are competing methods in the literature. The standard mixed-mode bending (MMB) [3,4,5] is the most universal, however it is widely accepted mainly for testing of unidirectional coupons. In addition it requires a complex fixture, steel hinged tabs and complex beam-theory based reduction technique. In some cases, for example in angle-ply or multidirectional MMB specimens, discrepancies between manufactured and predicted bending stiffnesses may give misleading results. Hence other types of mixed-mode configurations were developed by the researchers [5,6]. One of them is the single-leg bending (SLB), which was proposed by Yoon and Hong [7] as a modified ENF test, however an earlier paper on a similar type of delamination specimen was published by Russel and Street [8]. Davidson et al. performed extensive theoretical and experimental works using SLB coupons [9]-[12]. This type of specimen was also investigated by Polaha et al. [13] and Pieracci et al. [14]. Later the SLB test was modified by Tracy et al. and the single-leg four point bend (SLFPB) geometry was introduced [15]. The mixed-mode flexure (MMF) is quite similar to the SLB test. It is also a common setup for mixed-mode testing [16], [17]. In the current study we developed another alternative: the over-leg bending (OLB) specimen. The original idea is based on the mode-II over-notched flexure (ONF) test [18], which is the modification of the ENF specimen. The only difference between them is that in the ONF setup the load is introduced eccentrically between the two supports. In general the fracture specimens are treated as slender beams. There are several analytical models, which are based on beam and plate models. The solution by Reeder and Crews [3], or Ozdil and Carlsson [4] is based on the elastic foundation model by Williams [19], which is essentially related to the mode-I DCB specimen. On the other hand these models did not provide improved
1

solution for the mode-II component of the energy release rate. Later, Bruno and Greco [20] introduced a refined plate model, which considered the interaction between bending and shear, which was proved to contribute only to the mode-I component. Hence, the mode-II component was not improved. This void was addressed by Wang and Qiao [21], who presented an improved solution for the mode-II ENF specimen. Improved solution may be obtained for the energy release rate of composite beams by using a finite element [FE] approach. In this respect the works by Bao et al. [22] and Wang and Williams [23] are noteworthy. A beam theory-based analytical model was presented also by the present authors [24] and comparison was made between some of the existing delamination models [25]. As a continuation of these works the novel OLB configuration is analyzed based on linear beam theories and experiments. A comparative study is made between the OLB and the traditional SLB configurations. Finally there is some discussion on the obtained results. L z y x h h a 2L h a h 2L P b y s z x P b

(a) Single-Leg Bending specimen (SLB)

(b) Over-Leg Bending specimen (OLB)

Fig. 1. Single-leg bending (a) and over-leg bending (b) coupons for interlaminar fracture.

2. Beam theory-based analysis

The mixed mode delamination coupons are shown in Fig. 1. The fracture properties of the specimens were calculated based on previous works. The equations incorporate Saint Venant effect [25], [26], transverse shear analysis [24], Winkler-Pasternak-type elastic foundation [25] and crack tip shear deformation analysis [21]. Thus, the compliance of the SLB specimen shown in Fig. 1a becomes: C
SLB

7 a 3 + 2 L3 1 3a 2 = + 4bh 2 E11 8bh 3 E11

E11 2 E11 2 a3 h h + + 0.43 [ 0 . 98 3 G 8bh E11 a G13 a 13

1 2

E11 G ] + 13
3

E11 4 a + 2L a3 h h + + + 3.68 [ 3 . 32 3 8bhkG13 8bh E11 a E 33 a

E11 2 h E + 1.36 a 33

E11 4 E ]. 33

(1) The mixed-mode energy release rate can be obtained by differentiating Eq. (1) with respect to the crack length. Mode-mixity analysis [24], [25] results in the following individual mode components: G ISLB E11 4 12 P 2 a 2 h h = + + 0.31 [ 1 0 . 55 2 3 16b h E11 a E 33 a h E11 h + 0.32 + 0.1 a G 13 a
1 2 2 1 2

E11 2 E + 33

(2)

E11 G ], 13

2 9P 2 a 2 h E11 h E11 SLB G II = + 0.048 [1 + 0.218 (3) 2 3 ] , 16b h E11 a G13 a G13 where in Eqs. (1)-(3) a is the crack length, L is the half span length, b is the specimen width, h is half of the specimen thickness, k=5/6 is the shear correction factor, E11 is the flexural moduli, E33 is the through-thickness moduli, G13 is the shear moduli of the material and P is the external force required for crack initiation/propagation. The compliance of the OLB specimen (Fig. 1b) based on similar considerations is: Ls ( s 4 L) s[4 L(2 L s ) sc] s 2c3 a aL aL2 C OLB = [ 1 8 16 32 ]+ + + + + 16 + 3 2 2 3 3 c c c c 8bh E11 L 8bhkG13 L2

E11 4 s 2c3 h h + + 3.68 [ 3 . 32 3 2 8bh E11 L c E 33 c

2 s c h E11 h [0.98 + + 0.43 3 2 c G 8bh E11 L 13 c The components of the energy release rate are: 2 3 1 1

E11 2 h E + 1.36 c 33

E11 4 E ]+ 33 E11 2 G . 13
1

(4)

E11 1 3s 2 c 2 2 2 G ] + 13 4bh E11 L

2

G IOLB

4 12 P 2 s 2 c 2 h E11 h = + 0.31 [1 + 0.55 2 3 2 16b h E11 L c E 33 c

E11 2 E 33 E11 G ], 13
2

h E11 h + 0.32 + 0.1 c G13 c

1 2 2 2

1 2

(5)

E11 2 E11 9P s c h h OLB G II [ 1 0 . 218 0 . 048 (6) = + + ] , 16b 2 h 3 E11 L2 c c G13 G13 where s is the position of the applied load from the left side of the specimen (see Fig. 1b) and c=2L-a is the length of the uncracked part. The total fracture energy (GI/II=GI+GII) can be calculated by summing Eqs. (2-3) and (5-6). The mixed mode-ratio (GI/GII) can be computed for both specimens.

3. Experiments and data reduction

The unidirectional ([0]14) E-glass/polyester specimens with nominal thickness of 2h=6 mm, width of b=20 mm, and fiber-volume fraction of Vf=43% were manufactured in a special pressure tool. A great advantage of this material is the transparency, which facilitates the visual observation of the crack initiation/propagation, i.e. the crack length may be measured accurately based on visual observations. The flexural modulus was determined from a three-point bending test using six uncracked specimens. The experiment resulted in E11=33 GPa, the additional properties were predicted using simple rule of mixture: E33=7.2 GPa, G13=3 GPa and 13=0.27. The fixtures for the SLB and OLB geometries are shown in Fig. 2. Initiation tests were carried out for both the SLB and OLB specimens. The difference between the SLB and OLB tests is that in the former load introduction is centered between the two supports. The tests were carried out using an Amsler testing machine under displacement control, load-deflection data was measured, the latter was monitored by the dial gauge, shown in Figs. 2a and 2b. The full span length was 2L=151 mm. The position of the external load was s=47.5 mm in the case of the OLB setup. In the case of the SLB test specimens with initial crack lengths from 20 to 75 mm with 5 mm increment were prepared (0.26La0.93L). For the OLB test the crack length range from 55 to 115 mm with 5 mm increment was investigated (0.73La1.52L), in this case propagation tests using six specimens with a=50 mm initial crack length were also performed. The contact regions above the supports were slightly roughened in order to prevent longitudinal sliding. Two methods were used for data reduction: beam theory-based approach described in Section

2 and the compliance calibration (CC) method [4], [5]. In the case of the SLB test the experimental compliance values were fit by the following polynomial expression in the form of: C SLB = C 01 + ma 3 , (7) where C01 and m were found by using least square fitting. The compliance of the OLB specimen may be written as: C OLB = C 02 + n(a 2 L) 3 . (8) which may be explained by the fact that the simple beam theory (first term of Eq. (4)) results in a similar polynomial. The coefficients C02 and n were determined by least square fitting. The fracture energy was calculated by the following equation [23], [24]: P 2 dC G I / II = . (9) 2b da
Dial gauge measuring the specimen displacement

specimen

(a) SLB

support

(b) OLB

Fig. 2. The SLB (a) and OLB (b) configurations for mixed-mode I/II interlaminar fracture testing.

600

(a)
a=20 mm a=30 mm a=40 mm a=50 mm a=60 mm a=70 mm

(b)
600

450 Load - P [N]

450 Load - P [N]

300

300

150

150

a=60 mm a=70 mm a=80 mm a=90 mm a=100 mm a=110 mm

2 3 Displacement [mm]

8 12 Displacement [mm]

16

20

Fig. 3. Load-displacement traces up to fracture, SLB test (a), OLB test (b).

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Initiation tests Fig. 3 shows the load-displacement curves recorded up to fracture initiation. Each curve is typically linear, but the two tests produce quite distinct results. During the OLB test both the critical force and displacement increases with increasing crack length. In addition reaching the crack length of a=100 mm it seems that the specimens suffer from large displacements, in spite of this the model and experiment agree well. The ranges of the applied load are essentially the same in both tests, but it should be kept in mind that the crack length ranges are different. The SLB test indicates the critical load reaches the maximum value if the crack length is minimized (Fig. 3a). The results of the OLB are in sharp contrast with these, i.e. the critical load increases with the initial crack length. (a)
Strain energy release rate - GI/II [J/m ]
Experiment Third order polynomial fitting Beam theory, Eq. (1)
-3

(b)
2

32 Compliance - C [mm/N]x10

700

645 J/m 602 J/m

24

525

16
R =0.9986
2

GI/IIC - CC method - [1] GI/II - Beam theory - [2] GI, Eq. (2) - [3] GII, Eq. (3) - [4]

350

175
a+bx+cx +dx
2 3

Polynomial fit[1] Polynomial fit[2] Polynomial fit[3] Polynomial fit[4]

16

32

48

64

80

16

32

48

64

80

Crack length - a [mm]

Crack length - a [mm]

Fig. 4. Experimental and analytical compliance curves (a) and strain energy release rate against the crack length (b), SLB test.

The compliance curves determined based in initiation tests are illustrated in Fig. 5a. The advanced beam model [Eq. (1)] of the SLB coupon slightly overpredicts the experimental points, however the overpredictions are not significant. The OLB setup produce somewhat unusual compliance curves (Fig. 5a). In this case the characteristic distance is the length of the uncracked region (c).
(a)
Strain energy release rate - GI/II [J/m ]
2

(b)
760
715 J/m 650 J/m
2 2

34 Compliance - C [mm/N]x10
R =0.9885
-3
2

28

570

GI/IIC - CC method - [1] GI/II, Beam theory - [2] GI, Eq. (5) - [3] GII, Eq. (6) - [4]

22
Experiment Third orderpolynomial fitting Beam theory, Eq. (4)

380

16

190
a+bx+cx +dx
2 3

10 30

45

60

75

90

105

0 40

Polynomial fit[1] Polynomial fit[2] Polynomial fit[3] Polynomial fit[4]

56

72

88

104

120

Uncracked length - 2L-a [mm]

Crack length - a [mm]

Fig. 5. Experimental and analytical compliance curves (a) and strain energy release rate against the crack length (b), OLB test.

Overall, the correlation between the model and experiment is as good as it is in the case of the SLB specimen. The values of the initiation energy release rate are plotted in Figs. 4b and 5b. In the case of the SLB samples (Fig. 4a) the CC method results in a 645 J/m2 plateau value, while beam equation predicts 602 J/m2 for the same quantity (7% difference). The results show opposite trends in the case of the OLB specimen (Fig. 5a), i.e. the beam model overpredicts the experiments. The steady-state values are similar to those, determined from the SLB tests, i.e. the CC method reports 650 J/m2, while the beam theory gives a 715 J/m2 value for this quantity (9% difference). (a)
900

(b)
24 Critical displacement [mm]
SLB specimen - Experiment SLB specimen - Beam analysis OLB specimen - Experiment OLB specimen - Beam analysis

675 Critical load [N]

SLB specimen OLB specimen

18

450

12

225

24

48

72

96

120

24

48

72

96

120

Crack length - a [mm]

Crack length - a [mm]

Fig. 6. The values of the critical load (a) and displacement (b) against the crack length.

In Fig. 6 we demonstrate the values of the critical load and displacement with respect to crack initiation. The load values (Fig. 6a) follow a hyperbolic trend if we look at the results by the SLB test. In contrast, the load increases with the crack length in the case of the OLB specimen (Fig. 6a). Finally, the critical displacements exhibit a parabolic character in both the presented specimens (Fig. 6b). Previous works reported similar results using MMF specimens. The only difference between the MMF and SLB configurations is the distinct thicknesses above the left support. Albertsen et al. [16] reported GI/II,init=145 J/m2 initiation and GI/II,ss=330 J/m2 mean propagation values for carbon-fiber reinforced MMF specimens. In the work of and Korjakin et al. [17] the relevant quantities were GI/II,init=456 J/m2 and GI/II,ss=525 J/m2 for glass/epoxy MMF specimens. The current results are similar to those previously published on similar systems, however the different values may be explained by the fact that the different materials behave differently under mixed-mode condition. 4.2 Propagation tests Under the current geometrical parameters and material properties the SLB specimens were not suitable for propagation tests. At shorter crack lengths (a=20-45 mm) sudden jumps (15-30 mm) in crack advance frequently occurred. The remaining interval (until the point of load introduction) was insufficient for studying crack propagation. Hence, the OLB test was used as a candidate to examine mixed-mode crack propagation. The compliance curves of each six specimens were essentially the same as those, determined through initiation test (refer to Fig. 5a). The load-displacement curves of six specimens are depicted in Fig. 7a. The range of the applied load is eventually the same as recorded during initiation tests (refer to Fig. 3b). The crack initiation always occurred at P=170-180 N. The propagation R-curves for one specimen are plotted in Fig. 7b. Based on the results by six specimens the curves show that the value at which steady-state crack propagation occurred is about 1090 J/m2 according to CC method and 1160 J/m2 according to beam equations. This involves 6% difference between the results of beam theory and CC method. Note that fiber-bridging was observed during testing, however the former difference can not be attributed fully to this phenomen due to the relatively small displacements before the crack tip region. On the other hand the same trends were obtained based on OLB initiation tests, where the effect of fiber-bridging on the strain energy release rate were eliminated. The phenomen was investigated elsewhere experimentally and numerically [16,27]. The extension of the fiber-bridging was only mild in each specimen.
6

For comparison Tracy et al. [15] determined similar propagation R-curves with 1500 J/m2 and 1750 J/m2 plateau values using the proposed SFPLB configuration with carbon/epoxy samples to those, shown in Fig. 7b. Beam theory-based equations were used for data reduction in their study. (a)
Strain energy release rate - GI/II [J/m ]
800
2

(b)
1400
1090 J/m (average value for six specimens)
2

600

1050

Load [N]

a0=55 mm

400

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen Specimen Specimen Specimen 3 4 5 6

700
Specimen 1, Experiment, G I/IIC (1) Specimen 1, Beam theory, G I/II (2) Fit1, b*log(x-a) Fit2, b*log(x-a)

200
Crack initiation

350

10 15 Displacement - [mm]

20

25

0 40

54

68

82

96

110

Crack length - a [mm]

Fig. 7. Load-displacement traces from OLB propagation tests

5. Conclusions
Under the current geometry and material the traditional SLB configuration was suitable only to investigate initiation events. An over-leg bending (OLB) delamination specimen is proposed in the current work, which seems to be a useful tool to evaluate mixed-mode crack propagation. In the OLB test the crack propagation can be easily controlled. Initiation tests were performed utilizing the SLB and OLB setups and it was found that the beam theory solution agrees well with the experiments in both cases. The two tests produce values within 1% (645 J/m2 against 650 J/m2) difference. Propagation R-curves using the new configuration were determined based on two reduction schemes and good agreement with less than 6% difference (1090 J/m2 against 1160 J/m2) was found. This indicates that linear beam theories can be applied for data reduction.

Acknowledgements
This research work was supported by the fund OTKA T037324. We wish to thank Tonny Nyman for providing Ref. [7] and to Barry D. Davidson for providing Refs. [10], [11], [13] and [14]. The first author is grateful to his father for manufacturing the experimental tools.

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] A.B. de Morais, M.F. de Moura, A.T. Marques, P.T. de Castro: Mode-I interlaminar fracture of carbon/epoxy cross-ply composites. Composites Science and Technology, 62 (2002), 679686. Z. Yang, C.T. Sun: Interlaminar fracture toughness of a graphite/epoxy multidirectional composite. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 122 (2000), 428-433. J.R. Reeder, J.R Crews: Mixed-mode bending method for delamination testing. AIAA Journal, 28 (1990), 1270-1276. F. Ozdil, L.A. Carlsson: Beam analysis of angle-ply laminate mixed-mode bending specimens. Composites Science and Technology, 59 (1999), 937-945. F. Ducept, D. Gamby, P. Davies: A mixed-mode failure criterion derived from tests of symmertic and asymmetric specimens. Composites Science and Technology, 59 (1999), 609619. Z. Suo: Delamination specimens for orthotropic materials. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 57 (1990), 627-634.

[7] [8]

[9] [10] [11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

S.H. Yoon, C.S. Hong: Modified end notched flexure specimen for mixed mode interlaminar fracture in laminated composites. International Journal of Fracture, 43 (1990), R3-R9. A.J. Russel, K.N. Street: Moisture and temperature effects on the mixed-mode delamination fracture of unidirectional graphite/epoxy. Delamination and debonding of materials, edited by W.S. Johnson, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, ASTM STP 876 (1985), 349-370. B.D. Davidson, R. Krger, M. Knig: Three-dimensional analysis of center-delaminated unidirectional and multidirectional single-leg bending specimens. Composites Science and Technology, 54 (1995), 385-394. B.D. Davidson, V. Sundararaman: A single leg bending test for interfacial fracture toughness determination. International Journal of Fracture, 78 (1996), 193-210. B.D. Davidson, P.L. Fariello, R.C. Hudson, V. Sundararaman: Accuracy assessment of the singular-field-based mode-mix decomposition procedure for the prediction of delamination. Composite Materials: Testing and Design, Thirteenth Volume, ASTM STP 1242 (1997), 109128. B.D. Davidson, K.L. Koudela: Influence of the mode mix of precracking on the delamination toughness of laminated composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 18 (1999), 1408-1414. J.J. Polaha, B.D. Davidson, R.C. Hudson, A. Pieracci: Effects of mode ratio, ply orientation and precracking on the delamination toughness of a laminated composite. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 15 (1996), 141-173. A. Pieracci, B.D. Davidson, V. Sundararaman: Nonlinear analyses of homogeneous, symetrically delaminated single leg bending specimens. Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 20 (1998), 170-178. G.D. Tracy, P. Feraboli, K.T. Kedward: A new mixed mode test for carbon/epoxy composite systems. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 34 (2003), 1125-1131. H. Albertsen, J. Ivens, P. Peters, M. Wevers, I. Verpoest: Interlaminar fracture toughness of CFRP influenced by fiber surface treatment: Part 1. Experimental results. Composites Science and Technology, 54 (1995), 133-145. A. Korjakin, R. Rikards, F.-G. Buchholz, H. Wang, A.K. Bledzki, A. Kessler: Comparative study of interlaminar fracture toughness of GFRP with different fiber surface treatments. Polymer Composites, 19 (1998), 793-806. W.-X. Wang, Y. Takao, M. Nakata: Effects of friction on the measurement of the mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of composite laminates. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Composite Materials, San Diego, California, USA, July 14-18, 2003. J.G. Williams: End corrections for orthotropic DCB specimens. Composites Science and Technology, 35 (1989), 367-376. D. Bruno, F. Greco: Mixed mode delamination in plates: a refined approach. International Journal of Solids and Structures 38 (2001), 9149-9177. J. Wang, P. Qiao: Novel beam analysis of the end notched flexure specimen for mode-II fracture. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 71 (2004), 219-231. G. Bao, S. Ho, Z. Suo, B. Fan: The role of material orthotropy in fracture specimens for composites. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 29 (1992), 1105-1116. Y. Wang, J.G. Williams: Corrections for mode II fracture toughness specimens of composite materials. Composites Science and Technology, 43 (1992), 251-256. A. Szekrnyes, J. Uj: Beam and finite element analysis of quasi-unidirectional SLB and ELS specimens. Composites Science and Technology, 64 (2004), 2393-2406. A. Szekrnyes, J. Uj: Comparison of some improved solutions for mixed-mode composite delamination coupons. Composite Structures (2005) (in press). R. Olsson: A simplified improved beam analysis of the DCB specimen. Composites Science and Technology, 43 (1992), 329-338. V. Tamuzs, S. Tarasovs, U. Vilks: Progressive delamination and fiber bridging modelling in double cantilever beam composite specimen. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 68 (2001), 513525.