DCB TEST FOR THE INTERLAMINAR FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF COMPOSITES

Anthony J. Paris
1
and Joshua D. Gunderson
2

(1) Mechanical Engineering, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK 99508
(2) Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725

Introduction

The most widely used method of determining mode I
interlaminar fracture toughness of a composite material is
the double cantilever beam (DCB) test [1-4]. The method is
based in linear-elastic fracture mechanics theory [5-9] and
calculates G
I
using the crack length as well as the applied
load, load point displacement, and initial specimen width.
Rice [10] exhibited the J-integral. Begley and Landes [11]
demonstrated an experimental method to evaluate J
I
and
discussed both numerical and analytical solutions to the
J-integral. It has been shown that the J-integral and the use
of the critical value J
IC
as a fracture criterion are broadly
applicable to geometric and material nonlinear behavior.
An analytical closed form solution of the J-integral for the
DCB test with small displacements and rotations was
presented by Paris et al. [12], where it was shown to require
only two parameters, the applied load and the beam angle,
in addition to the initial specimen width. Nilsson [13]
presented a J-integral analysis of the DCB test that is
applicable to a more -generalized loading condition.
Gunderson et al. [14] showed that for small displacements
and rotations of the loading points the J-integral produces
experimental results similar to the Griffith method.
Motivation for using the J-integral for the DCB test comes
from the problematic cost, accuracy, and rate of acquisition
inherent in crack length measurement, as well as the desire
to use a more robust method based in elastic-plastic fracture
mechanics theory. The present work will apply the large
displacement J
I
theory and verify the theory experimentally.

a0 = 55 mm
b =25.4 mm
h =4.3 mm
L =200 mm
a0
L
P
P
Piano
Hinges
h
b

Fig. 1. Undeformed DCB specimen.
Theory

Fig. 1 shows the undeformed DCB specimen where a
0
is the
original crack length, b is the specimen width, h is the
thickness of the specimen, L is total length, and P is the
applied load. Fig. 2 shows the deformed DCB specimen
with the test parameters including the applied load P, the
load point displacement and the opening angle .

Fig. 2. Deformed DCB specimen.

Fig. 3. End block correction factor parameters.

Energy Release Rate G. The recommended large
displacement energy release rate G equation [1] is
( ) N
F
a b
P
G
I
cor
2
3
A +
=
o
,
where the compliance offset
cor
A is found by plotting the
delamination length vs. the cube root of compliance C,
where ( )
3
1
3
1
PN
C
o
= , and finding the value at which a least
squares fit line intersects the ordinate. Fig. 3 shows the
geometry of DCB end blocks, where L' is the distance in the
axial direction from the center of the loading pin to edge of
the loading block and t is distance in the transverse direction
from the beam middle surface to the center of the loading
pin. The two correction factors are
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
2
2
2
3
10
3
1
a
t
a
F
o o

2
2
2 3
35
9
1
8
9
1 |
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
'
|
.
|

\
|
'
=
a a
t
a
L
a
L
N
o o
.
An alternate method for calculating G
I
is the compliance
method [1, 4] which yields
a
C
b
P
G
d
d
2
2
=
,
where the compliance P C o =
.

J-integral. The J-integral [10, 11], when applied to the large
displacement DCB specimen [12-14], yields
( ) 2 sin
2
u
b
P
J
I
= .
Experiment

The object of the experiment was to compare G
IC
and J
IC

results for five identical specimens where displacements are
considered large. The specimens were prepared in
accordance with the specifications in the standard (ASTM
D5528-01). The composite material was LTM24ST on
7725 glass manufactured using an autoclave process with a
curing temperature of 79.4 C. DCB specimens were tested
in tension at a rate of 5 mm/min, transducers measured the
beam angle, applied load, and load point displacement, and
digital video recorded crack length.

Results

Fig. 4 shows G and J vs. delamination length for specimen
5. The average values of G
IC
and J
IC
were
2
m kJ 740 . 0
2
m kJ 0358 . 0 and
2
m kJ 743 . 0
2
m kJ 0367 . 0 . The
average difference between G
IC
and J
IC
was % 45 . 0
% 645 . 0 . No significant r-curve effect was observed. The
results for both G
IC
and J
IC
agree well with the compliance
method. It was found for the series of tests that the average
value of G
IC
was
2
m kJ 696 . 0
2
m kJ 0285 . 0 and for J
IC

was
2
m kJ 706 . 0
2
m kJ 0253 . 0 . The average difference
between G
IC
and J
IC
was % 44 . 1 % 679 . 0 . These standard
deviations compare favorably with those given in the
standard [1] as being typical. Furthermore, these values
indicate that the variance between specimens, while
relatively small, is still greater than the variance between
G
IC
and J
IC
.

Conclusions

A large displacement DCB interlaminar fracture toughness
test using the J-integral was developed and compared with
the ASTM standard method. The J-integral method
removes the need to acquire visual measurements of the
delamination length and avoids problems associated with
locating the crack tip and crack tunneling. Also avoided are
the correction factors which account for deviation from
linear beam theory including geometric nonlinearity
associated with large deformation and root rotation. As a
corollary, costly equipment such as a traveling microscope
and the software required to automate it are replaced with
inexpensive transducers. The J-integral large displacement
DCB method allows for an instantaneous calculation of J
I

applicable to a variety of material systems and is able to
accommodate significant plasticity at the crack tip provided
that a contour may pass through material experiencing only
elastic deformation. Perhaps most importantly, the method
reduces the time and cost of interlaminar fracture toughness
testing while the five tests carried out in the present work
show no significant difference between the results.


Fig.4. G and J vs. delamination length for specimen 5.

References

1. D5528-01 (2008) Standard test method for mode I interlaminar
fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix
composites. Annual Book of ASTM Standards 15.03.
2. Williams J .G. (1987) Large displacements and end block effects in
the DCB interlaminar test in modes I and II. J ournal of Composite
Materials 21:330-347.
3. Williams J .G. (1989) The fracture mechanics of delamination tests.
J ournal of Strain Analysis 24(4):207-214.
4. Hashemi S., Kinloch A.J ., Williams J .G. (1989) Corrections needed
in double-cantilever beam tests for assessing the interlaminar failure
of fibre-composites. J ournal of Materials Science Letters 8:125-129
5. Griffith A.A. (1920) The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
221(21):163-198.
6. Irwin G.R. (1948) Fracture dynamics. In: Fracturing of Metals
seminar, Chicago, October 1947. American Society for Metals,
Cleveland, pp 147-166.
7. Irwin G.R., Kies J .A. (1952) Fracturing and fracture dynamics.
Welding Research Supplement 31(2):95-100.
8. Irwin G.R., Kies J .A. (1954) Critical energy rate analysis of fracture
strength. The Welding J ournal 33(4):193-198.
9. Orowan E. (1950) Fundamentals of brittle behavior in metals. In:
Murray W M (ed) Fatigue and fracture of metals: Symposium held at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, J une 1950. The
Technology Press of The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
J ohn Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, pp 139-167.
10. Rice J .R. (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate
analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J ournal of
Applied Mechanics 35:379-386.
11. Begley J.A., Landes J .D. (1972) The J integral as a fracture criterion.
In: Fracture Toughness Proceedings of the 1971 National
Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM STP 514.
American Society of Testing and Materials, 1972:1-20.
12. Paris A.J ., et al. (1988) Instantaneous evaluation of J and C*.
International J ournal of Fracture 38(1):19-21.
13. Nilsson F. (2006) Large displacement aspects on fracture testing with
double cantilever beam specimens. International Journal of Fracture,
139:305-311.
14. Gunderson J .D., Brueck, J .F., Paris A.J . (2007) Alternative test
method for interlaminar fracture toughness of composites.
International J ournal of Fracture, 143(3):273-276.