This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Evaluation of the plate twist test to characterize mode III

fracture of sandwich panels with a face/core interface crack
A. Hernández-Pérez a,⇑, F. Avilés a, L.A. Carlsson b
a
Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, A.C. Unidad de Materiales, Calle 43 # 130, Col. Chuburná de Hidalgo, C.P. 97200 Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico
b
Department of Ocean and Mechanical Engineering, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sandwich panels with a face/core interface edge crack loaded in torsion have been ana-
Received 10 September 2012 lyzed using finite element analysis (FEA) and experimental testing to characterize mode
Received in revised form 20 February 2013 III delamination propagation. Symmetric sandwich panels with steel face sheets bonded
Accepted 11 March 2013
to a high density (H250) PVC foam core were considered. The test specimens were square
Available online 27 March 2013
plates of side length of 90 mm with 3 mm thick face sheets and core thicknesses of 3, 12
and 25.4 mm supported at two corners and loaded in torsion by application of transverse
Keywords:
loads at two diagonally opposite corners. The energy release rate (G) was determined from
Sandwich structures
Finite element analysis
stress intensity factors calculated from the crack flank displacements. The results show
Fracture mechanics dominant mode III crack loading. The mode III component of the energy release rate (GIII)
Debond failure mode was nearly uniform along the central region of the crack front and mode II contribution was
Experimental mechanics only significant near the load introduction and support pins. The measured and calculated
compliance for the sandwich panels examined agreed reasonable. The fracture toughness
(Gc) determined from measured critical loads and the compliance calibration method
was 119 ± 27 J/m2.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Delamination is a common failure mechanism for laminated composites and sandwich structures. The delamination
toughness is generally characterized by the critical value of the dominant stress intensity factor or the energy release rate
[1,2]. The toughness of the interface depends on the fracture mode, which can be mode I (opening), mode II (sliding), mode
III (tearing) or mixed mode [1,2]. To characterize mode I toughness of a face/core debond in a sandwich structure, the sand-
wich double cantilever beam (DCB) or the tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimens are typically used [3–5]. Both specimens
produce a dominant mode I loading. The mode II toughness of a face/core interface crack in a sandwich panel has been deter-
mined using the cracked sandwich beam (CSB) specimen [6]. Recently, the mixed mode bending (MMB) specimen [7] has
been redesigned to measure the mixed mode toughness of a face/core debond in a sandwich beam [8]. For a sandwich struc-
ture, however, there is no test method for characterization of the mode III face/core interface toughness (GIIIC). Mode III frac-
ture of monolithic composite laminates, however, has been approached by several test methods, such as the split cantilever
beam (SCB), the cracked rail shear (CRS) and the edge crack torsion (ECT) specimens [9–11]. Among those, the ECT specimen
[11] has emerged as the most accepted test procedure to measure GIIIC. The ECT test employs an edge-cracked rectangular
composite specimen loaded in torsion. The original ECT specimen proposed by Lee [11] for laminated composites is
89 mm long, 38 mm wide and 4.7 mm thick. FEA conducted on the ECT composite specimen shows that the crack loading
is dominated by mode III, although there exists some mode II loading near the load application and support locations [12,13].

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 999 9428330; fax: +52 999 9398100.
E-mail address: hepadrian@gmail.com (A. Hernández-Pérez).

0013-7944/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.03.014
 Author's personal copy

42 A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55

Nomenclature

a crack length
A side length of the panel
B side length of the panel
C panel compliance
Ca apparent compliance
Ccal compliance determined from the calibration test
E elastic modulus
Ec, Ef elastic modulus of the core and face sheet
E1, E2 elastic modulus of the material above and below the crack front
G total energy release rate
GAVE energy release rate averaged along the crack front
Gc fracture toughness
GExp
c experimentally measured fracture toughness
GI, GII, GIII mode I, II and III components of the energy release rate
GFEA
III mode III energy release rate calculated by FEA
hc core thickness
hf face sheet thickness
I parameter required for the compliance calibration method
K complex stress intensity factor
K1, K2 amplitudes of the complex stress intensity factor in mode I and II
KI, KII, KIII mode I, II and III components of the stress intensity factor
L distance between supports
m parameter required for the compliance calibration method
P point load
Pcr critical load
r radial distance
w0 applied transverse displacement
x, y, z Cartesian coordinate axes
b Dundurs’ parameter
d transverse deflection
dI, dII, dIII opening, sliding and tearing relative displacements of the crack flanks
dx, dy, dz displacements in the x, y and z directions
Da discrete small length increment
e oscillatory index
j elastic parameter
l shear elastic modulus
lc, lf shear elastic modulus of the core and face sheet
l1, l2 shear elastic modulus of the material above and below the crack front
m Poisson’s ratio
mc, mf Poisson’s ratio of the core and face sheet
m1, m2 Poisson’s ratio of the material above and below the crack front
rzz normal (out-of-plane) stress
syz, sxz transverse shear stresses in the yz and xz planes
ASTM American society for testing and materials
CRS cracked rail shear
CSB cracked sandwich beam
CSPT cracked sandwich plate twist
DCB double cantilever beam
ECT edge crack torsion
FEA finite element analysis
MMB mixed mode bending
PVC poly-vinyl chloride
SCB split cantilever beam
TSD tilted sandwich debond

Mode III face/core interface fracture of sandwich panels, however, has not been explored. Mode III loading of layered
materials has been identified at delaminations at edges, corners and cuts and should be considered in any decohesion criteria
of those layered materials [14,15]. Mode III fracture is also important for sandwich structures loaded in torsion and/or bend-
ing, such as rotor blades for helicopters and wind turbine blades. Therefore, mode III loading of a face/core debond in sand-
wich panels should be explored. The cracked sandwich plate twist (CSPT) specimen proposed herein is inspired by Lee’s
 Author's personal copy

A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55 43

Fig. 1. Schematic of the cracked sandwich plate twist (CSPT) specimen.

composite ECT specimen [11]. The CSPT consists of a sandwich panel with an edge crack in the form of a face/core debond,
Fig. 1. The specimen is loaded in torsion by application of transverse forces at two diagonally opposite corners and pin sup-
ported at the other two corners. In order to determine the crack front loading in the CSPT specimen, finite element analysis
(FEA) is conducted. The ability of the CSPT specimen to characterize mode III fracture in sandwich panels is examined
experimentally.

2. Fracture mechanics analysis

2.1. Computation of stress intensity factors and energy release rate

Because the crack in the CSPT specimen is located between dissimilar materials (a stiff face sheet and a soft core), deter-
mination of the stress intensity factors (K) and energy release rate (G) requires a stress or displacement solution for a bima-
terial crack. For modes I and II crack loading we will here utilize the solution for a crack between dissimilar isotropic solids,
Fig. 2, reported by Suo [16]. Suo analyzed the in-plane and anti-plane fields of a crack between two different solids. For a
crack between two isotropic materials the stresses at a distance r from the crack tip are given by [16,17],

Kr ie
rzz þ isyz ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1aÞ
2pr

K
III
sxz ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð1bÞ
2pr

Fig. 2. Schematic of a cracked element showing the relative displacements of its cracked surfaces at initially coincident (duplicated) nodes.
 Author's personal copy

44 A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55

where rzz is the normal (out-of-plane) stress, syz and sxz are the transverse
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi shear stresses in the yz and xz planes, see Fig. 1. K
in Eq. (1a) is a complex stress intensity factor (K = K1 + iK2, with i ¼ 1) whereas KIII is the mode III stress intensity factor. e
is the ‘‘oscillatory index’’ which arises from the elastic dissimilarity of the two materials, given by [16,17],
 
1 1b
e¼ ln ð2Þ
2p 1þb
where b is a parameter defined by Dundurs as [18],
l1 ðj2  1Þ  l2 ðj1  1Þ
b¼ ð3Þ
l1 ðj2 þ 1Þ þ l2 ðj1 þ 1Þ
subscripts 1 and 2 here represent the materials above and below the crack front and l is the shear modulus, ji = 3  4mi for
plane strain, ji = (3  mi)/(1 + mi) for plane stress and m is Poisson’s ratio. It is noticed in Eq. (1b) that the mode III shear stress
sxz is not oscillatory. The crack flank displacements at a distance r behind the crack tip are given by [16],
 pffiffiffi
1 1 4K r r ie
dI þ idII ¼ þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð4aÞ
E1 E2 2pð1 þ 2ieÞ cosh pe

 rffiffiffiffiffi
1 1 2r
dIII ¼ þ K III ð4bÞ
l1 l2 p
where dI, dII and dIII are the opening, sliding (in-plane shear) and tearing (out-plane shear) relative displacements of the crack
surfaces, respectively, shown in Fig. 2. E1 and E2 are the elastic moduli of the materials above and below the crack front.
He and Hutchinson [19] pointed out that the oscillation represented by the index e corresponds to a non-physical inter-
penetration of the crack flanks and suggest taking e = 0 in the fracture analysis, see also Tvergaard and Hutchinson [14] and
Hutchinson and Suo [17]. With e = 0, Eqs. (4) may be used to extract the stress intensity factors, i.e.,
rffiffiffiffiffi
E1 E2 p
KI ¼ dI ð5aÞ
E1 þ E2 8r
rffiffiffiffiffi
E1 E2 p
K II ¼ dII ð5bÞ
E1 þ E2 8r
rffiffiffiffiffi
l1 l2 p
K III ¼ d ð5cÞ
l1 þ l2 2r III
Tvergaard and Hutchinson [14] and Jensen et al. [15] suggested that the components of the energy release rate, G, can be
obtained if the oscillatory index is set to zero (either exactly or approximate). For this case,
 
1 1  m21 1  m22 2
GI ¼ þ KI ð6aÞ
2 E1 E2
 
1 1  m21 1  m22 2
GII ¼ þ K II ð6bÞ
2 E1 E2
 
1 1 1
GIII ¼ þ K 2III ð6cÞ
4 l1 l2
with,
G ¼ GI þ GII þ GIII ð7Þ

2.2. Finite element analysis

In order to investigate the crack front loading for the CSPT specimen, three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA)
was performed using SOLID45 and SOLID95 elements in ANSYS 11.0 [20]. SOLID45 is an eight-node brick element with three
translational degrees of freedom at each node and linear displacement interpolation. SOLID95 is a 20-node brick element
with three translational degrees of freedom at each node and quadratic displacement interpolation. SOLID45 was used for
the regions away from the crack front whereas SOLID95 was used in the vicinity of the crack front, in order to better capture
the steep strain gradients. The sandwich panels modeled utilized the loading configuration shown in Fig. 1 and dimensions
according to the test plan to be specified. The baseline panels were square with a side length of 90 mm and 3 mm thick steel
face sheets bonded to a 12 mm thick foam core. The elastic modulus of the steel face sheets was Ef = 180 GPa and Poisson’s
ratio was mf = 0.30. For the core, the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio were Ec = 250 MPa and mc = 0.32.
 Author's personal copy

A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55 45

The specific representation of loading and support conditions was guided by previous FEA and testing of torsion loading of
uncracked sandwich panels [21,22]. A transverse displacement of 1 mm (w0 = 1 mm) was imposed over areas of 2  2 mm at
two diagonally opposite corners located at the top face sheet, whereas the nodes to corresponding to the support regions of
2  2 mm near the corners of the bottom face sheet were constrained to have zero transverse displacements (dz = 0), see
Fig. 3a. The 2  2 mm regions of load introduction and support were represented by coupled nodes in the transverse direc-
tion [22]. One node for each support region was fixed in the in-plane directions (dx = dy = 0) to avoid free body motion. All
models considered an overhang (extended area outside the loading box) of 2 mm per side in agreement with the tests con-
ducted. The compliance (C) was determined by dividing the applied deflection (w0) by the sum of the nodal reaction forces
for the two contact regions, i.e., C = w0/P. For some cases, compressive loads of magnitude P/2 were applied to two opposite
corners.
The global element size was 2  2  1 mm and mesh refinements were initially conducted in the vicinity of the crack
front in order to obtain accurate and convergent predictions of the fracture parameters. This meshing strategy yielded a
size-graded mesh with elements of 120  120  2000 lm near the crack tip region, see Fig. 3b. The face/core debond plane
was modeled by double unconnected nodes with identical locations for the face sheet and core. In order to prevent interpen-
etration between the upper and bottom crack surfaces, frictionless rigid–rigid contact pairs were utilized over the cracked
area. Target elements (TARGE170) were overlaid on the solid elements which model the face sheet (considered as penetrat-
ing surface). Contact elements (CONTA173 or CONTA174) were attached to the solid elements of the core (considered as the
deformable surface). Target and contact elements were used as four-node and eight-node quadrilateral plane elements for
SOLID45 and SOLID95 elements, respectively.
From Eqs. (5) and (6) it is observed that evaluation of Ki and Gi (i = I, II or III) at a distance r from the crack tip requires
knowledge of the elastic properties of the materials above (face sheet) and below (core) the interface, and the relative dis-
placements of the crack flanks dI, dII and dIII. Here, FEA is used to determine the crack flank displacements using initially coin-
cident duplicate nodes located at a small distance Da from the crack front (Da = 120 lm), Fig. 2. In order to adapt the

Fig. 3. Finite element model of the CSPT specimen with a crack at the top face/core interface. (a) Global model and (b) crack front close up.
 Author's personal copy

46 A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55

elasticity solution of Section 2.1 to the finite element formulation of our problem, the variable r is substituted by Da in Eq. (5)
and the subscripts 1 and 2 are substituted for ‘‘f’’ (face sheet) and ‘‘c’’ (core), which yields,
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ef Ec p
KI ¼ dI ð8aÞ
Ef þ Ec 8Da
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ef Ec p
K II ¼ dII ð8bÞ
Ef þ Ec 8Da
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
lf lc p
K III ¼ d ð8cÞ
lf þ lc 2Da III
The stress intensity factors and energy release rate components were calculated from Eqs. (8) and (6) using the crack flank
displacements obtained by FEA. In this way, the components Gi (i = I, II, III) and G were obtained for each node along the crack
front providing distributions of Gi(x) and G(x). An average energy release rate is calculated from the distribution of G(x) as,
Z L
1
GAVE ¼ GðxÞdx ð9Þ
L 0

where G(x) represents G as function of the position x along the crack front. GAVE was used in FEA to obtain the total energy
release rate.

3. Experimental

3.1. Materials and test specimens

Square sandwich panels with 90 mm of side length (A = B = 90 mm), Fig. 1, were manufactured with 3 mm thick steel face
sheets bonded to 3, 12 and 25.4 mm thick poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) foam core (H250 from DIAB [23]) using a Derakane

Fig. 4. Test loading procedure for the CSPT specimen.

Fig. 5. Compliance calibration procedure for the CSPT specimen.

 Author's personal copy

A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55 47

Momentum 470-300 Epoxy vinylester resin [24]. These specimens will be denoted as steel/H250. The range of core thick-
nesses allows assessment of the effect of the asymmetry of the crack front location with respect to the panel midplane
on the load–displacement response and the distribution of the energy release rate components. Relatively thick steel face
sheets were chosen in order to minimize indentation deformation and promote linear load–displacement response in the
CSPT specimen. Poisson’s ratio (m) of the steel face sheets was taken as 0.3 [25] and its elastic modulus (E) was measured
as 180 GPa by conducting tension tests according to ASTM standard E8 [26]. The H250 PVC foam core has a density of
250 kg/m3, m = 0.32 and E = 250 MPa [23]. The specimen loaded length L is 86 mm, Fig. 1, which yields an overhang of
2 mm per side, following recommendations by Browning et al. [27] on minimizing the overhang for ECT tests. Prior to bond-
ing, the steel face sheets surfaces in contact with the core were sanded with 120 grit sandpaper and cleaned with acetone.
Vinylester adhesive was applied using a paintbrush over the contact surfaces of the face sheets and core. The debond was
defined by inserting a 150 lm thick Teflon film between the core and the upper face sheet. Pressure (50 kPa) was applied
to the flat surfaces of the face sheets by strong spring loaded clamps. After cure of the adhesive (48 h), the adhesive layer
thickness (290 lm) was measured using an optical microscope. Preliminary testing revealed that only one fracture test
per specimen is possible. To enable testing of specimens with a range of crack lengths, specimens were manufactured with
a range of initial crack lengths (a = 9, 18, 27, 36 and 45 mm). Three replicate specimens were prepared for the sandwich
panels with core thicknesses hc = 3 and 25.4 mm with a crack length of a/B = 0.1. For the specimen with hc = 12 mm, three
replicate specimens were prepared for crack lengths of a/B = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5.
The CSPT specimens were tested as shown in Fig. 4. Testing was conducted in a universal testing machine, Shimadzu AGI-
100 with load cells of capacities of 5 and 100 kN at a cross head speed of 2 mm/min. The load cell of 5 kN was employed for
specimens with hc = 3 and 12 mm whereas the load cell of 100 kN was used for specimens with hc = 25.4 mm. Testing was
conducted in displacement control until crack propagation was observed, identified by a sudden load drop accompanied by
an audible sound.
The specimen compliance (C) was determined from the inverse slope of the load–displacement graph, i.e., C = d/P. In order to
account for fixture and load cell compliance, and pin indentation, the actual specimen compliance (C) needs to be corrected,
C ¼ C a  C cal ð10Þ
where Ca is the apparent compliance (measured during the CSPT test) and Ccal is the compliance determined from a calibra-
tion test. Ccal refers to the displacement of the fixture, load cell deformation, and pin indentation, which do not contribute to
the anticlastic bending of the panel. In this calibration test, the sandwich panel is compressed at two diagonally opposite
corners by loading and support pins which for this test are aligned [28], Fig. 5. The calibration test was conducted at a slow
rate of 0.5 mm/min (given the rapid load increase) until a displacement of 1 mm was reached. During the calibration test a
slight deviation from linearity in the P-d response was observed around P = 1 kN due to the increase in the pin-to-face sheet
contact, and the P–d curve continued with a slightly increased linear slope afterwards. The slope in the 1–2 kN force range
was used herein to calculate Ccal since the critical loads occurred in this range.

3.2. Data reduction method

The fracture toughness (GC) was determined using Lee’s original data reduction method for the ECT test of laminated com-
posites [11]. This compliance calibration (CC) method consists of plotting 1/C versus the normalized crack length (a/B) which
should provide a straight line. The linear equation obtained from fitting the data points relates the compliance to the crack
length as [11],
1  h a i
¼I 1m ð11Þ
C B
The parameter I represents the intercept of the linear fit with the 1/C axis and the product mI represents the slope of the line.
Similar to the composite ECT specimen [11], assumption of uniform crack extension yields,

P2 dC
G¼ ð12Þ
2L da
where L is the length of the crack front (Fig. 1). Combining Eqs. (11) and (12) yields,

mCP 2
G¼  
ð13Þ
2LB 1  m Ba

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Energy release rate and mode mixity

In order to investigate the convergence of the energy release rate components (GI, GII, GIII) the near-tip element size Da,
Fig. 2, was varied between 100 and 160 lm. The average of each G component was calculated from Eq. (9) at an applied load
 Author's personal copy

48 A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55

Fig. 6. Energy release rate components for steel/H250 CSPT specimen using different near crack tip element sizes (P = 2.57 kN).

of P = 2.57 kN (which corresponds to the average critical load measured). The specimen for the convergence analysis is a
square panel with side length (B) of 90 mm, 3 mm thick steel face sheets, 12 mm thick H250 PVC core, and a crack length
a/B = 0.1. The results in Fig. 6 shows that the values of GI, GII and GIII remain practically constant at 1.0, 12.2 and 95.5 J/
m2 (respectively) for the range of element sizes examined. These results indicate converged FEA results. An element size
of Da = 120 lm was hence chosen for all subsequent FEA results reported herein.
To investigate the crack loading in the CSPT specimen, the G components were plotted along the crack front. Fig. 7 shows
the distribution of the energy release rate components normalized with the square of the applied load (Gi/P2, i = I, II, III) along
the crack front for steel/H250 CSPT specimens with core thicknesses hc = 3, 12 and 25.4 mm and a crack length a/B = 0.1. In
these figures, x = 0 corresponds to the point of load application whereas x/L = 1 corresponds to the pin support location,
Figs. 1 and 3a. For the specimen with the thinnest core, hc = 3 mm, Fig. 7a, there is practically zero mode I crack loading
(GI) along the crack front. GII is maximum near the locations of the load introduction and support pins, and assumes values
close to zero at the mid-section of the crack front (0.4 6 x/L 6 0.6). On the other hand, GIII is always larger than GI and GII and
fairly uniform near the center of the crack front, 0.30 6 x/L 6 0.76. This situation is similar to that observed in monolithic
composite ECT specimens [12,13,29]. Mode II loading may be attributed to the concentrated transverse loads resulting in
bending moments in addition to the desired twisting moment [22].
For the specimen with hc = 12 mm (Fig. 7b), GI is practically zero along the crack front while GII is maximum near the
point of load application. The magnitude of GII, however, is much less than that of GIII. GIII is dominant over the entire
crack front also for the 12 mm thick core, but decreases towards the specimen edges (x/L = 0 and 1). The GII and GIII dis-
tributions for the specimen with a 12 mm thick core (Fig. 7b) are qualitatively similar to those for the specimen with a
3 mm thick core (Fig. 7a). For a specimen with a 25.4 mm thick core (Fig. 7c), however, the distribution of GIII becomes
skewed with a maximum close to the point of load introduction and decreasing as the support location is approached.
The skewed distribution may be due to the crack plane being offset 12.7 mm (half of the core thickness) from the panel
midplane (through the thickness) yielding non-uniform distributions of shear stresses at the crack front. The distributions
of GI and GII are qualitatively close to those for the 12 mm thick core shown in Fig. 7b. Comparing the magnitudes of
GIII for the specimens with 3, 12 and 25.4 mm thick cores in Fig. 7 reveals that thinner specimens have higher energy
release rate and should require less load to propagate the crack than thicker specimens. Also, thinner specimens present
a more uniform distribution of GIII and testing specimens with a core of thickness of 25.4 mm or more is not
recommended.
To examine the influence of crack length on the components of the energy release rate, a CSPT specimen with a 12 mm
thick core was selected for FEA at crack lengths of a/B = 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5. Fig. 8 shows that GI is close to zero along the entire
crack front for all crack lengths, confirming that mode I contribution is negligible for this specimen. GII is maximum near to
the points of load introduction and support (x/L = 0 and x/L = 1) and vanishes at the mid-section of the crack front (x/L = 0.5).
GIII is always larger than GII showing the dominance of mode III in this specimen. The distribution of GIII depends only slightly
on the crack length (Fig. 8), and for all crack lengths GIII is maximum near the center of the crack front (x/L = 0.5) and
minimum at the panel edges. At the location where GIII is maximum GI and GII are close to or equal to zero. Based on these
results it seems clear that initiation of crack growth would occur in the center where a pure mode III state of crack loading
exists.
Therefore, the FEA results presented in this section indicate that the CSPT specimens with 90 mm side length, a foam
core thickness of hc 6 12 mm and steel face sheet thickness of hf = 3 mm provide a dominant mode III loading at
 Author's personal copy

A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55 49

Fig. 7. Components of the energy release rate along the crack front for the steel/H250 CSPT specimen. (a) hc = 3 mm, (b) hc = 12 mm, and (c) hc = 25.4 mm.

the crack front with a reasonably uniform distribution. Longer crack lengths (a/B > 0.1) promote a more uniform
distribution of GIII.
 Author's personal copy

50 A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55

Fig. 8. Components of G along the crack front normalized by the total G for the steel/H250 CSPT specimen at different crack lengths. (a) a/B = 0.1, (b) a/
B = 0.3, and (c) a/B = 0.5.

4.2. Experimental results

Fig. 9 shows representative load–displacement curves for steel/H250 CSPT specimens. The sudden drop in load for the
specimens with hc = 3 and 12 mm at the end of each P-d graph is due to debond growth, which was frequently accompanied
 Author's personal copy

A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55 51

Fig. 9. Representative load–cross head displacement curves of the steel/H250 CSPT specimen with different core thicknesses.

Table 1
Compliance and critical load for steel/H250 CSPT specimens with different core thickness.
hf = 3 mm, A = B = 90 mm and a/B = 0.1.

hc (mm) C (lm/N) Pcr (kN)

3 0.51 ± 0.02 1.82 ± 0.03
12 0.34 ± 0.01 2.57 ± 0.26
25.4 0.29 ± 0.01 N/A

Fig. 10. Representative load–cross head displacement curves of steel/H250 CSPT specimens with a 12 mm thick core and different crack lengths.

Fig. 11. Photograph of the separated core and face sheet sides of a steel/H250 CSPT specimen with a/B = 0.5 and hc = 12 mm.
 Author's personal copy

52 A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55

by an audible sound. It was observed that only one crack increment per specimen is possible, which is consistent with the
results reported for the laminated composite ECT specimens [30]. This behavior is associated with unstable crack growth.
The critical load at onset of crack growth is marked by a solid dot. The specimens with hc = 3 and 12 mm display a linear
P–d behavior until crack propagation. On the other hand, the specimen with hc = 25.4 mm shows a nonlinear softening re-
sponse. A specimen with a thick core requires higher loads to extend the crack than one with a thin core (consistent with
the results in Fig. 7). The nonlinear behavior may be associated with nonlinear shear response of the core. For the specimen
with core thickness of 25.4 mm the critical load for crack propagation was not used because the deviation from linearity, see
Fig. 9. Table 1 lists average values of corrected compliance and critical load for the successfully tested steel/H250 sandwich
panels.
Based on the favorable results for specimens with hc = 12 mm, further testing of a series of steel/H250 CSPT specimens
was conducted. The load–displacement curves for these specimens are shown in Fig. 10. All specimens show linear P–d re-
sponses for the crack lengths examined. The critical load, Pcr, is identified where P reaches a maximum value and then sud-
denly drops. The compliance increases and the critical load decreases as the crack length increases.
To allow examination of the mechanisms of failure, the steel face sheet on the debond side on selected specimens was
fully separated from the core by continuing loading until full debonding of the face and core occurred. Fig. 11 shows a pho-
tograph of the fracture surfaces on the core and face sheet sides for a steel/H250 CSPT specimen with a/B = 0.5. It is noticed
that debonding occurred as an interfacial failure between the steel face and the adhesive layer, since the vinylester resin re-
mained attached to the PVC foam. Both fracture surfaces are very smooth.

4.3. Fracture toughness evaluation

Fig. 12 shows measured and predicted compliance versus crack length plots for steel/H250 specimens with hc = 12 mm.
Overall, the predictions agree reasonably with the measured data although FEA tends to overestimate the compliance. This is

Fig. 12. Measured and predicted compliance versus crack length for steel/H250 CSPT specimen with hc = 12 mm.

Fig. 13. Inverse compliance against normalized crack length for steel/H250 CSPT specimens (hc = 12 mm).
 Author's personal copy

A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55 53

Fig. 14. Fracture toughness versus crack length for steel/H250 CSPT specimen (hc = 12 mm).

Fig. 15. Fracture toughness versus crack length determined from the experimental compliance calibration method (CC) and FEA for the steel/H250 CSPT
specimen (hc = 12 mm).

most likely due to overestimation of the indentation deformation at the contact loading and support points by FEA, as also
observed in FEA of uncracked sandwich panels and monolithic laminated composite ECT specimens [21,30].
Application of the compliance calibration method based on Eq. (13) requires a linear fit of the inverse compliance vs. crack
length as shown in Fig. 13 for the CSPT test specimens with hc = 12 mm. The slope and intercept, Im = 2.46 and I = 3.185 N/
lm, were obtained from the linear fit. The parameter m required for calculation of Gc (Eq. (13)) is m = Im/I = 0.772.
The fracture toughness was calculated from Eq. (13) using the measured critical load and compliance of each specimen
and the parameter m = 0.772. Fig. 14 shows the experimentally determined debond toughness values (Gc) for the steel/H250
panels plotted versus crack length. Data for fifteen test specimens is included in the plot (three replicate specimens). The
value of Gc ranged between 76 and 167 J/m2 with an average of 119 J/m2 and a standard deviation of 27 J/m2. As seen from
this figure, considering the (substantial) experimental scatter, Gc seems to be relatively insensitive to the crack length. In our
case the crack propagated at the face sheet/adhesive interface, see Fig. 11. The bond between a foam core and a steel face
sheet provided by a vinylester resin is generally weak [31]. Apparently, the steel/vinylester interface is weaker than the viny-
lester/foam interface. The peel fracture energy, Gc, for a similar system (steel/epoxy) is of the order of 20–50 J/m2 [32,33],
which is about one third of the mode III Gc value found here. The fracture energy for peel loading is generally less than in
shear [34].
The fracture toughness Gc was also determined using the measured fracture load (Pcr) substituted into the expression for
the FEA-generated average G, Eq. (9). This procedure was repeated for each test specimen. Fig. 15 shows Gc versus crack
length determined from the experimental compliance calibration procedure and FEA for the steel/H250 CSPT specimen.
The two methods to determine Gc agree reasonably.
The question whether the measured fracture toughness represents GIIIC requires some further elaboration. Fig. 16 displays
distributions of GIII along the crack front calculated from FEA ðGFEAIII Þ at the experimentally measured critical load, P = Pcr, for
the specimens with a 12 mm thick core at crack lengths a/B = 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5, together with an horizontal line representing
the experimentally measured fracture toughness ðGExp c Þ. It is clear that the maximum value of GIII is close to the experimental
fracture toughness for these cases, which suggests viability on the ECT test as a mode III test for sandwich panels.
 Author's personal copy

54 A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55

Fig. 16. Distribution of GIII along crack front at the experimentally measured critical load (Pcr) for steel/H250 CSPT specimen with 12 mm thick core. (a) a/
B = 0.1, (b) a/B = 0.3, and (c) a/B = 0.5.

5. Conclusions

A sandwich debond fracture test specimen for characterization of mode III face/core debond fracture, here called the
‘‘cracked sandwich plate twist’’ (CSPT), was examined herein. The CSPT is a sandwich plate specimen with an edge crack,
loaded in torsion by applying two transverse loads at two diagonally opposite corners and pin supported at the other two
 Author's personal copy

A. Hernández-Pérez et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 104 (2013) 41–55 55

corners. The crack loading was found to be highly dominated by mode III, and at the location where GIII displayed maximum
(near the center of the crack front) GI and GII vanished. Specimens with thinner cores (hc = 12 mm) and longer crack lengths
displayed more uniform distributions of GIII. Thinner specimens have higher magnitude of energy release rate and therefore
require less load to propagate the crack than thicker specimens, which was confirmed experimentally. Thus, CSPT specimens
with a thin core (hc 6 12 mm), long crack length (a/B > 0.1), and sufficiently thick and stiff face sheets to prevent pin inden-
tation are recommended for face/core mode III fracture characterization of sandwich specimens using the CSPT test.
The specific CSPT specimens experimentally examined here were square (90 mm) panels with 3 mm thick steel face
sheets adhesively bonded to a 12 mm thick PVC foam core with a vinylester resin. The average measured fracture toughness
was 119 ± 27 J/m2. Examination of fully debonded specimens revealed very smooth fracture surfaces and interfacial failure
between the steel face sheet and the adhesive layer. Compliance and energy release rate calculations by FEA were in good
agreement with experimental measurements. Experimentally determined fracture toughness values (Gc) were in good agree-
ment with GIII calculated from FEA at the measured critical load. Hence, the CSPT specimen appears as a viable specimen to
characterize mode III fracture of sandwich plates with a face/core debond.

Acknowledgments

Adrián Hernández wishes to acknowledge the financial support of his PhD scholarship (CVU = 206596) from CONACYT
Mexico. We would also like to thank Dr James Ratcliffe of NASA Langley Research Center who provided insightful comments.
Communications with Prof. John W. Hutchinson of Harvard University, Prof. Barry Davidson of Syracuse University and Prof.
George A. Kardomateas of Georgia Institute of Technology are also greatly acknowledged. Assistance of Alejandro May (CICY)
with testing is also acknowledged.

References

[1] Anderson TL. Fracture mechanics. 3rd ed. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press; 2005.
[2] Davies P. Review of standard procedures for delamination resistance testing. In: Sridharan S, editor. Delamination behavior of composites. Boca Raton
(FL): Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press; 2008. p. 65–86.
[3] Carlsson LA, Kardomateas GA. Structural and failure mechanics of sandwich composites. New York: Springer; 2011.
[4] Prasad S, Carlsson LA. Debonding and crack kinking in foam core sandwich beams I: analysis of fracture specimens. Engng Fract Mech 1994;47:813–24.
[5] Li X, Carlsson LA. The tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimen for face/core interface fracture characterization. J Sandw Struct Mater 1999;1:60–75.
[6] Carlsson LA, Sendlein LS, Merry SL. Characterization of face sheet/core shear fracture of composite sandwich beam. J Compos Mater 1991;25:101–16.
[7] Reeder JR, Crews Jr JH. Mixed mode bending method for delamination testing. AIAA J 1990;28:1270–6.
[8] Quisipitupa A, Berggreen C, Carlsson LA. On the analysis of a mixed mode bending sandwich specimen for debond fracture characterization. Engng
Fract Mech 2009;76:594–613.
[9] Donaldson SL, Mode III. Interlaminar fracture characterization of composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 1988;32:225–49.
[10] Becht G, Gillespie JW. Design and analysis of the cracked rail shear specimen for mode III interlaminar fracture. Compos Sci Technol 1988;31:143–57.
[11] Lee SM. An edge crack torsion method for mode III delamination fracture testing. J Compos Technol Res 1993;15:193–201.
[12] Li J, Lee SM, Lee EW, O’Brien TK. Evaluation of edge crack torsion (ECT) test for mode III interlaminar fracture toughness of laminated composites. J
Compos Technol Res 1997;19:174–83.
[13] Ratcliffe JG. Characterization of the edge crack torsion (ECT) test for mode III fracture toughness measurement of laminated composites. NASA/TM-
2004-213269. Hampton (VA): National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 2004.
[14] Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW. Mode III effects on interface delamination. J Mech Phys Solids 2008;56:215–29.
[15] Jensen HM, Hutchinson JW, Kim KS. Decohesion of a cut prestressed film on a substrate. Int J Solids Struct 1990;26:1099–114.
[16] Sou Z. Singularities, interfaces and cracks in dissimilar anisotropic media. Proc Roy Soc London 1990;A427:331–58.
[17] Hutchinson JW, Suo Z. Mixed mode cracking in layered materials. Adv Appl Mech 1992;29:63–191.
[18] Dundurs J. Edge-bonded dissimilar orthogonal wedges under normal and shear loading. J Appl Mech 1969;36:650–2.
[19] He MY, Hutchinson JW. Kinking of a crack out of an interface. J Appl Mech 1989;56:270–8.
[20] ANSYS 11. Users manual. Houston (PA): Swanson analysis systems; 2007.
[21] Avilés F, Carlsson LA, Browning G, Millay K. Investigation of the sandwich plate twist test. Exp Mech 2009;49:813–22.
[22] Hernández-Pérez A, Avilés F, Carlsson LA. First-order shear deformation analysis of the sandwich plate twist specimen. J Sandw Struct Mater
2012;14:229–45.
[23] DIAB Divinicell. Technical data sheet. De Soto (TX): Divinicell international. <www.diabgroup.com>; 2011.
[24] Ashland composite polymers. Technical data sheet for Derakane momentum 470-300 epoxy vinyl ester resin. Columbus (OH): Ashland.
<www.derakane.com>; 2004.
[25] Kaw AK. Mechanics of composite materials. 2nd ed. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press; 2006.
[26] ASTM Standard E8M. Standard test methods for tension of metallic materials. West Conshohocken (PA): American Society for Testing and Materials;
2004.
[27] Browning G, Carlsson LA, Ratcliffe JG. Redesign of the ECT test for mode III delamination testing. Part I: finite element analysis. J Compos Mater
2010;44:1867–81.
[28] Avilés F, Couoh-Solís F, Carlsson LA, Hernández-Pérez A, May-Pat A. Experimental determination of torsion and shear properties of sandwich panels
and laminated composites by the plate twist test. Compos Struct 2011;93:1923–8.
[29] de Morais AB, Pereira AB, de Moura MFSF, Magalhães AG. Mode III interlaminar fracture of carbon/epoxy laminates using the edge crack torsion test
(ECT) test. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69:670–6.
[30] Browning G, Carlsson LA, Ratcliffe JG. Modification of the edge crack torsion specimen for mode III delamination testing. Part II – experimental study. J
Compos Mater 2011;45:2633–40.
[31] Seyhan AT, Tanoglu M, Schulte K. Tensile mechanical behavior and fracture toughness of MWCNT and DWCNT modified vinyl-ester/polyester hybrid
nanocomposite produced by 3-roll milling. Mater Sci Engng A – Struct 2009;523:85–92.
[32] Kanerva M, Saarela O. X-ray diffraction and fracture based analysis of residual stresses in stainless steel–epoxy interfaces with electropolishing and
acid etching substrate treatments. Int J Adhes Adhes 2012;39:60–7.
[33] Bracho-Troconis CB, Shanahan MER. Adhesion and crosslinking in epoxy resin/steel assemblies. J Adhesion 1998;65:187–205.
[34] Liechti KM, Chai YS. Asymmetric shielding in interfacial fracture under in-plane shear. J Appl Mech 1992;59:295–305.