Composites Science and Technology 43 (1992) 49-54

C "

Evaluation of Mode-I interlaminar fracture toughness for fiber-reinforced composite materials

Lin Ye* Department of Engineering Mechanics, Xian Jiaotong University, Xian, Shaanxi 710049, People's Republic of China
(Received 6 June 1990; revised version received 29 August 1990; accepted 4 October 1990) The basis for the characterization of interlaminar crack growth in composite materials is discussed. Mode-I interlaminar crack growth in a unidirectional T300/634.DDS carbon-fiber/epoxy composite was studied. A simple model is proposed to estimate the orthotropic correction factor of the stress-intensity factor for the DCB interlaminar fracture mode. It was found that, for composite materials (involving thermoset and thermoplastic composites), the interrelationship between the interlaminar fracture toughnesses G~c and K~c can be correlated on the basis of linear-elastic-fracture mechanics, although the special interlaminar-fracture mechanisms can disturb the relationship.

Keywords: interlaminar fracture, fracture toughness, CFRP, thermoplastic

matrix

1 INTRODUCTION
A major obstacle to efficient application of fiber-reinforced composite materials is their tendency to delaminate. Delamination is the most predominant and life-limiting failure mechanism in composite structures. A knowledge of delamination growth behavior is thus essential for materials development, for selection, and for design and life-prediction studies. Consequently, characterization of improved delamination resistance and, in turn, more damage-tolerant composite structures, has been a major goal of materials-development activities. 1 A popular approach 2-5 to the characterization of delamination growth has been through the application of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), which enable the critical energy release rate or fracture energy, Go, to be deduced. However, from fracture mechanics another well-known parameter, namely, the critical stress-intensity factor, Kc, is commonly utilized.
* Present address: Institut ftir Verbundwerkstoffe GmbH, University of Kaiserslautern, Erwin-Schr6dinger-Str., Postfach 3049, 6750 Kaiserslautern, FRG.

Composites Science and Technology 0266-3538/91/$03.50 (~ 1991 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.
49

Both parameters are used to measure fracture resistance in engineering materials. From the classical linear-fracture mechanics for isotropically homogeneous materials, the strain-energy release rate, G, and the stress intensity factor, K, could be related. The interrelation between G and K is one essential basis of LEFM. More importantly, if K or G is known, the other parameter can be estimated. However, the precise relationship between the strain energyrelease rate, G, and the stress intensity factor, K, for a heterogeneous system such as a fiberreinforced composite, is not known and cannot easily be obtained analytically.6,7 Hence some researchers believe that the estimation of one of the parameters when the other is known is not straightforward for composite materials and may be questionable.8 The primary objective of this work is to study the validity of the orthotropic fracture model developed by Sih and his co-workers9'1 for the characterization of interlaminar delamination growth in fiber-reinforced composite materials. In addition, the common DCB test method is used to investigate the Mode-I interlaminar fracture behavior in a carbon-fiber/epoxy composite system. On the basis of the results, together with some others from the open

50

Lin Ye

literature, the interrelationship between G and K is assessed.

2 MATERIAL A N D TESTING ~2 The material used was a (O16) unidirectional T300/934.DDS carbon-fiber epoxy composite. The panel was prepared by a compressionmolding technique. The specimens were cut from the panel along the fiber direction. The detailed geometry is shown in Fig. 1. A sharp knife and a blunt wedge were used carefully to make a 'natural' crack in the midplane of the specimens with an initial length of 30 mm. The hinged end tabs were used for gripping the specimens during testing.
,20rnm ~.~ Hinge Crack ~ ~ . 2.Smm

Fig. 3. Stress field around crack tip in an orthotropic solid.

interlaminar crack tip, both sides of the specimens were coated with typewriter correction fluid. The 'actual' interlaminar crack length in the test specimen was obtained by averaging crack lengths on both sides.

3 ORTHOTROPIC FRACTURE MODEL The orthotropic fracture model was formulated by Sih et al. 9'1 for a generally anisotropic material in which the direction of crack propagation is coplanar with the original crack. For this case, the system is frequently referred to as 'orthotropic' and the stress field in the vicinity of a Mode I crack tip (Fig. 3) is expressed as:

Fibre direction

23Cmm

Fig. 1. DCB specimen dimensions.

o- 2Vy

K~ Re(Fo(0,/z~,/~2))

(i, j = 1, 2) (1)

All tests were conducted on an MTS-880100KN servohydraulic test machine in stroke control. The crosshead speed was maintained at 2 mm/min. An X - Y plotter was attached to the MTS machine to record the load-deflection response. A typical load-deflection response is shown in Fig. 2. To monitor the position of the

where K~ is defined as the stress-intensity factor, E~ are the complex functions of 0 (the angle between the radius vector and the direction of the crack plane), and the complex parameters,/tl and /~2, are the roots determined from the characteristic equation:
all/~ 4 + (2a12 +

a66)/z2 + a22 = 0

(2)

80

70 6o A 50

~
y~"

- -

Loading
Unloading

~- 40
3O 2O 10

-_

Opening displacement ( mm ) 1~. 2. Typical load-deflection response from DCB testing.

Evaluation of Mode-I interlaminar fracture toughness

51

where a 0 are the elastic compliances relative to the crack-plane system. For plane stress, we have: an a22 ~

release rate G~ can be determined from eqn (5) and vice versa.

1 E11 a12 ---1 E22 1

a23

v12 E11 v23 E22 (3)

4 DCB INTERLAMINAR-FRACTURE MODEL

The most common specimen geometries for the characterization of Mode-I interlaminar crack growth have been the double-cantilever-beam (DCB) specimen loaded by applying symmetrical opening tensile forces at the ends of the beams (Fig. 4). For the DCB geometries, the stressintensity factor, K, is given by: 15
Pa K=H-B--

1
a33

a~

= G12

E33

and, for plane strain, we have:

a~ = a o - a'2aj---2 (i, j = 1, 2, 6) a33

(4)

It is a common understanding among researchers with an accepted view that the stress-intensity factor can be used to characterize the brittle fracture in metals and other isotropic engineering materials. Hence, many studies have been undertaken to evaluate the stress-intensity factor for isotropic solids with various geometries. H However, owing to their mathematical complexity, there are only a few solutions for the stress-intensity factor for orthotropic solids. Some researchers found that the stress-intensity factors for orthotropic materials are identical to those for isotropic ones, ~2a3 except for a small modification of the orthotropic correction factor. This modification accounts for the interaction between the principal material orientation and the crack extension, as well as the external boundaries of the specimens. Recognizing the importance of this, Konish 14 investigated a group of mid-plane symmetrical fiber-composite laminates with different lay-up, thickness, and ply-material properties. The results indicated that the orthotropic correction factor corresponding to the orthotropic homogeneous material models is normally within the range of 1.0-l-10% and can actually be negligible in some cases. In the case of coplanar crack extension, the stress-intensity factor, Kx can be related to the strain-energy-release rate, G~. The interrelationship between KI and G~ forms one essential basis of LEFM. In an analysis of virtual crack extension, the relation between G~ and K~ is:9
g~a"a22)l/2~(a22~l/2q - 2a~q-a66/l'2 (5) Gx= "\ 2 / [\a11/ 2a11 J

(3.26+2.828 h)

(6)

where H is the orthotropic correction factor and equal to unity for an isotropic material body. On the other hand, the global energy release rate, G, for a crack to extend can be evaluated directly from the derivation of the strain energy contained in the specimen and the work performed by the external loads,~6 which frequently is referred to as the 'compliance' method: p2 0C G=2--B a-~ (7)

where C is the compliance (the reverse of the stiffness) of the specimen, given by:

6 P

(8)

where ~ is the displacement corresponding to a load P. If the crack front is remote from the constrained end of the cantilever beam and the crack length, a, is sufficiently long compared with h, the value of the compliance, C, is given from

I~B-i

tP

for the plane-stress condition. Hence, once the stress-intensity factor Kt is known, the energy-

Fig. 4. DCB interlaminar fracture model.

52

Lin Ye
5 D A T A ANALYSIS A N D DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
(9) The elastic properties of the unidirectional T300/634.DDS composite are given in Table 1. (10)
Table 1. Elastic properties of "1"300/634- DDS composite En(GPa) E22(GPa) G,2(GPa) 133 7.7 4.2 v12 0.33

simple beam theory by: 2 6 C2a 3 ---

3EllI

and I = Bh3/12. We thus have: 8a 3 C- - -

EnBh 3

where EI~ is the longitudinal modulus, and I is the moment of inertia of the beam cross-section. Hence, from eqns (7) and (10), we have: G = 12PZa 2

EnBZh 3

(11) In order to evaluate G~c by the 'compliance' method (eqn (7)), a plot of C against crack length, a, was first constructed. The plot of C against a was then curve-fitted by using the method proposed by Hashemi et al. 17 and differentiated. Then, from a knowledge of the values of the critical load, Pc, and the differential dC/da at a given crack length, the interlaminar fracture toughness, G~c, at any crack length was evaluated by using eqn (7). The values of G~c so determined for a typical load-displacement trace as shown in Fig. 2 are given in Table 2. The critical fracture toughnesses, K~c, evaluated from eqn (13) are also listed in the table. For comparison, the values of Kg, evaluated from eqn (12), are also included in the table. It can be seen that the evaluation of the critical fracture toughness from eqn (12), i.e. by not taking account of the orthotropic correction factor, will lead to an overestimate of gtc.

For isotropic materials, E n - - E. From linearelastic-fracture mechanics, we have:

Pa K = V G E = 3.464 Bh3/--S

(12)

By comparison with eqn (6), it can be shown that the two solutions of the stress-intensity factor are almost identical if the crack length, a, is sufficiently long compared with h. It is actually more practical to use the solution of eqn (6) when the crack length is short. However, for the orthotropic materials, we have: K G

/a a \-1/4//a \1/2
n 22 22

2a|2 + a66)-1/4

v-i-r-)

ea l =3.464-~{-~n
-1-

(alla2z)-'/'((a22) 1'2 \ 2 / \\an~

(13)

2aE + a66~-'/4} 2all / )

By comparison with eqn (12), it can be shown that the orthotropic correction factor for the orthotropic DCB specimen is:
n=

(alla22]-l/4((a22) 1/2 2a1_2+ a66) -''4

+ 2a1~ / (14)

Table 2. Values of the fncture toughnesses K~, Gk for 1300/634. DDS composite material

a (ram) 30.0 40.0 44.8 51.5 62-3 73.9 85.3 95.0 average
1

K, (MPaV~) 1.54 1.63 1.79 1-98 2-07 1.91 1.77 1.89 1-82

K~ (MPaV~) 5-56 5.87 6.45 7.14 7.48 6-90 6.37 6.84 6.58

Gk (kJ/m 2) 0.69 0.61 0.69 0.77 0.76 0.60 0-49 0.53 0-64

It may be expected that the orthotropic correction factor for the DCB model will be highly dependent on material properties and may be far from unity. For example, the orthotropic correction factor for the T300/634.DDS carbonfiber/epoxy composite to be discussed later is as low as 0.277. Hence it is very important to consider the effect of the orthotropic factor when the stress-intensity factor is used to characterize the interlaminar fracture of composite materials.

E---~o=\ 2 / \\a,,/

2g,

Evaluation of Mode-I interlaminar fracture toughness

Table 3. Relationship between Kk and C~c

53

Materials T300/634 DDS APC-28 AS4/PEEK ~s

H 0.277 0-304 0"33~s 0"276

K~c (MPa;~/-m) 2.2 5.85 5"2 Is 4"35

Kg Gtc GIcEo/K~ (MPa~/-m) kJ/mz 8.0 19.25s

--

GIeEo/K~2

0.8 1.98
1"9 is

1.68 0.64 0"875is 1"156

0-127 0-059

The italic superscript numerals refer to the data from the respective references.

In Table 3 are shown the average interlaminar fracture toughnesses, K~c, KI*, and G~ for the T300/634.DDs composite for all tests. In order to discuss the relationship between K~c and Gxc, some data from the open literature 8,xs are also included. The orthotropic correction factor for the A S 4 / P E E K composite determined by the present model is slightly smaller than that determined by using a path-independent J integraP s in combination with stress analysis from finite elements. According to linear-elasticfracture mechanics, G~Eo/K2c should approach unity. However, as reported by many researchers, a significant amount of fiber-bundle bridging behind the crack tip was observed during crack growth in the T300/634-DDS composite. This important fracture mechanism may disturb the basic assumptions in the formulation of eqn (5), i.e. the material is homogeneous and orthotropic, and a single crack grows in a similar manner. The materials under consideration are inherently heterogeneous. It has been reported ~9 that there exists a process zone where extensive matrix deformation and matrix-cracking occur during crack extension. The fiber bridging can often lead to fracture of fibers. All these special fracture mechanisms for the interlaminar fracture of composite materials may contribute to disturbance in the relationship between G~ and Kic. It can be seen that G~cEo/K2 really approaches unity for the A S 4 / P E E K composite. But, for the other two composites, APC-2 and T300/634.DDS, the correlation is not very good. It could be expected that one reason for this would be the special interlaminar fracture mechanisms mentioned above for each material system. Another reason may be the theoretical errors of the present model. All of these need further identification.

6 CONCLUSIONS The mode-I interlaminar-fracture behavior of a T300/634.DDS carbon-fiber/epoxy composite has been investigated. An attempt has also been made to assess the interrelationship between K~c and G~. On the basis of the results, the following conclusions may be drawn. (1) Application of fracture mechanics to interlaminar crack growth in fiber reinforced composite materials and the characterization of interlaminar fracture toughness with the DCB model are on a sound footing. (2) The interrelationship between K~c and G~c for composite materials discussed here (involving thermoset and thermoplastic composites) can be explained on the basis of linear-elastic-fracture mechanics. (3) Care should be taken when the stress intensity factor solutions for isotropic materials are used to estimate those of orthotropic solids, since the results may be misleading.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to Professor Yong-Qiu Jiang and Professor Ya-Peng Shen for encouragement during this study.

REFERENCES 1. Sela, N. and Ishai, O., Interlaminar fracture toughness

2. Devitt, D. F., Schapery, R. A. & Bradley, W. L., A method for determining Mode I delamination fracture toughness of elastic and viscoelastic composite materials. J. Compos. Mater., 14 (1980) 270-84.

review. Composites, 20 (1989) 423-35.

and toughening of laminated composite materials: a

54

Lin Ye Chapter 2. 11. Sih, G. C., Handbook of Stress-Intensity Factors for Researchers and Engineers, Institute of Fracture and Solids Mechanics, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, USA, 1973. 12. Ellis, C. D. & Harris, B., The effect of specimen and testing variables on the fracture of some fibre-reinforced epoxy resins. J. Compos. Mater. 7 (1973) 76-88. 13. Dharan, C. K., Fracture mechanics of composite materials. J. Engng Mater. Technol., 100 (1978), 233-47. 14. Konish, H. J., Jr., Mode I stress-intensity factors for symmetrically-cracked orthotropic strips. In Fracture Mechanics of Composites (ASTM STP 593), ed. G. P. Sendeckyj. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1975, pp. 99-116. 15. Srawley, J. E. & Oross, B., Stress-intensity factors for crack-line-loaded edge-crack specimens, NASA TN03820, 1967, pp. 1-19. 16. Brock, D., Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, 1978. 17. Hashemi, S., Kinioch, A. J. & Williams, J. G., Corrections needed in double-cantilever beam tests for assessing the interlaminar failure of fiber-composites. J. Mater. Sci. Letters, 8 (1989), 125-9. 18. Hine, P. J., Brew, B., Duckett, R. A. & Ward, I. M., The fracture behavior of carbon-fiber-reinforced poly(ether etherketone), Compos. Sci. & Technol., 33 (1988) 35-71. 19. Bradley, W. L. & Cohen, R. N. Matrix deformation and fracture in graphite-reinforced epoxies. In Delamination and Debonding of Materials (ASTM STP 876), ed. W. S. Johnson. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1983, pp. 389-410.

3. Wilkins, D. J., Eisenmann, J. R., Camin, R. A., Margolis, W. S. & Benson, R. A., Characterizing delamination growth in graphite-epoxy. In Damage in Composite Materials (ASTM STP 775), ed. K. L. Reifsnider, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1982, pp. 168-83. 4. Whitney, J. M., Browning, C. E. & Hoogesteden, W., A double-cantilever-beam test for characterizing Mode I delamination of composite materials. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 1 (1982) 297-313. 5. Ramkumar, R. & Whitcomb, J. D., Characterizing Mode I and mixed-mode delamination growth in T300/5208 graphite/epoxy. In Delamination and Debonding of Materials (ASTM STP 876), ed. W. S. Johnson. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1985, pp. 315-35. 6. Sih, G. C., Hilton, P. D., Badaliance, R., Shenberger, P. S. & Villareal, G., Fracture mechanics of fibrous composites. In Analysis of Test Methods for High Modulus Fibers and Composites. ASTM STP 521. ed. J. M. Whitney, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1973, pp. 98-132. 7. Sih, G. C., Fracture mechanics of composite materials. In Proceedings of First USA-USSR Symposium on Fracture of Composite Materials. ed G. C. Sih and V. P. Tamuzs. Sijthoff & Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, 1979, pp. 111-130. 8. Newaz, G. M., On the validity of orthotropic fracture model for advanced thermoplastic composites. Engng Fract. Mech. 29 (1988) 31-9. 9. Sih, G. C., Paris, P. C. & Irwin, G. R., On cracks in rectilinearly anisotropic bodies. Int. J. Fract. Mech. 1 (1965) 189-203. 10. Sih, G. C. & Liebowitz, H., Mathematical theories of brittle fracture. In Fracture--An Advanced Treatise: II, ed. H. Liebowitz. Academic Press, New Yorl~, 1968,