Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

Mode I fracture toughness estimation of wood by DCB test

Hiroshi Yoshihara *, Takuji Kawamura
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Shimane University, Nishikawazu-cho 1060, Matsue, Shimane 690-8504, Japan
Received 25 August 2005; received in revised form 26 October 2005; accepted 2 December 2005

Abstract
The mode I fracture toughness of wood obtained by the double cantilever beam (DCB) test was analyzed by six conventional analysis
methods: two methods based on elementary beam theory, Williamss correction method, modied beam theory method, and two compliance calibration methods. In addition to these methods, the compliance combination method, which was originally proposed by the
author for obtaining the mode II fracture toughness by the end notched exure (ENF) test, was applied to the DCB test. In the compliance combination method, the strain at a certain point of the cracked portion of the specimen was measured, as was the loading-line
displacement and critical load for crack propagation. Similarly to the mode II fracture toughness analysis for wood by the ENF test, the
compliance combination method is more advantageous in practice than the other ones examined here in that the fracture toughness can
be determined by the DCB fracture test alone without requiring separate tests, which should be conducted in the modied beam theory
and compliance calibration methods.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Wood; B. Fracture toughness; DCB test

1. Introduction
Of the three independent fracture modes, the crack
opening mode (mode I) is regarded as more important than
the in-plane shear mode (mode II) and out-plane shear
mode (mode III) because the mode I fracture toughness
is usually smaller than those of mode II and mode III
and so the fracture is easily initiated and propagated under
the mode I loading condition. As for solid wood, there
have been various studies on the mode I fracture behavior
even the last ve years [19].
Among the various test methods for determining the
mode I fracture toughness, the double cantilever beam
(DCB) test is simpler and more practical than the other
methods, and its testing procedure is standardized for carbon ber reinforced plastics (CFRP) in Japanese Industrial
Standards (JIS) [10]. Because of its simplicity and practicality, the DCB test is promising as a standardized method for

Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 852 32 6508; fax: +81 852 32 6123.
E-mail address: yosihara@riko.shimane-u.ac.jp (H. Yoshihara).

1359-835X/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.12.001

determining the mode I fracture toughness of wood in the

future. In the DCB loading, however, the exure behavior
of cantilever portions often deviates from that described by
elementary beam theory, which is fundamental in determining the fracture toughness by the DCB test.
In the conventional DCB fracture test, the loadloading
line displacement relation and critical load for crack propagation are measured, but the loadloading line displacement relation often deviates from elementary beam
theory. To correct the deviation, separate tests are usually
required independently of the fracture test. Nevertheless, it
is inconvenient to conduct separate tests for obtaining the
fracture toughness, thus hindering the establishment of a
practical method for measuring the mode I fracture toughness of wood by the DCB test. This obstacle may be
reduced by measuring the loadlongitudinal strain relation
at a certain point of the specimen. When this relation is
measured simultaneously with the loadloading line displacement relation and critical load for crack propagation,
the fracture toughness can be obtained by the fracture test
alone while correcting the deviation from elementary beam
theory. It was suggested that this data reduction method,

2106

H. Yoshihara, T. Kawamura / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

Nomenclature
GI
GIc
x
y
a
B
H
I
Ex
Ey
Gxy

energy release rate

fracture toughness
distance along the specimen from the loading
point beneath the cracked portion
transverse deection of the specimen
crack length
crack/specimen width
thickness of the cracked portion
second moment of cross-sectional area in the
cracked portion of the specimen
Youngs modulus in the long axis direction
Youngs modulus in the direction of thickness
shear modulus

named the compliance combination method, is eective

for measuring the mode II and mode III fracture toughnesses of wood by the end-notched exure (ENF) test
[1114]. The compliance combination method is thought
to be applicable for analyzing the mode I fracture toughness by the DCB test while correcting the deviation from
elementary beam theory.
In this research, a DCB test on western hemlock specimens was conducted and fracture toughness was analyzed
by the following seven methods: two methods based on elementary beam theory, two methods based on modied
beam theory, two compliance calibration methods, and
the compliance combination method. A comparison of
the results showed which method is appropriate and
practical for analyzing the mode I fracture toughness of
wood.
2. Double cantilever beam test analysis
A DCB specimen is prepared by cutting a crack along
the neutral axis to a rectangular bar, and the crack length
a is dened as the distance between the loading line and
crack tip. As shown in Fig. 1, when the load P is applied
to the upper and lower cantilever portion of the specimen
in opposite directions to each other, the loading-line compliance CL is derived by elementary beam theory as
follows:

P
Pc
d
ex

applied load
critical load for crack propagation
loading-line displacement
longitudinal strain at a certain point in the
cracked portion
CL
loading-line compliance
v
correction factor by Williamss correction
theory
a0 and a1 coecients obtained by the calibrated CLa
relation by Kageyama et al.
C0, C1, C2, and C3 coecients obtained by the calibrated CLa relation by Davidson et al.
CS
loadlongitudinal strain compliance

By substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (2), Youngs modulus is

eliminated and the energy release rate is represented as
GI

3P 2 C L
2Ba

The methods for obtaining the energy release rates obtained by Eqs. (2) and (3) are dened as those by elementary beam theory methods I and II, respectively. For
obtaining the fracture toughness by the elementary beam
theory method I, Youngs modulus Ex should be determined by separate tests conducted independently of the
DCB fracture tests, whereas the fracture toughness can
be determined by the fracture test alone when using the elementary beam theory II.
The loading-line displacement often deviates from Eq.
(1) because of the deformation around the crack tip, which
is not taken into account in elementary beam theory, and
there are several modications of Eq. (1) that consider
the inuence of crack tip deformation based on the elastic
foundation models [1519] and cohesive zone models [20
22]. Among them, Williamss modication is simple and
is known as the modied beam theory. Because of the
crack tip deformation, the cracked portion behaves like a
beam with a longer cantilever with the length of a + vH,
so the loading-line compliance is derived as follows [1619]:
CL

8a vH
Ex BH 3

CL

d
8a

P Ex BH 3

where d is the loading-line displacement, Ex is Youngs

modulus in the long axis direction, B is the width of the
specimen, and H is the height of the cantilever portion of
the specimen. Therefore, the mode I energy release rate,
GI, is given as
GI

P 2 @C L
12P 2 a2


2B @a
E x B2 H 3

where v is the factor for correcting the cantilever beam end.

When the value of a/H is large enough, the inuence of
transverse shear deformation in the cantilever portion can
be ignored, so v can be derived from Eq. (4) by the following two ways, which are similar to those in deriving the correction factor for mode II fracture toughness [12,14]. One
is based on the elastic foundation model proposed by
Williams. According to his model, the correction factor
v is directly given by the elastic constants of the beam as
[1618]:

H. Yoshihara, T. Kawamura / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

2107

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of double cantilever beam (DCB) test. L and T represent the longitudinal and tangential directions, respectively.

"


2 )#1=2
 (
1
Ex
C
v
32
13k Gxy
1C

where Gxy is the shear modulus, k is the shear stress distribution constant for correcting the deection caused by the
shearing force, and it is derived as 0.85 for the DCB specimen. The coecient C is represented as follows:

1=2
Ex E y
C
6
kGxy
where Ey is Youngs modulus in the depth direction. Another way is the transformation of Eq. (4). When the actual
crack length a and Youngs modulus Ex are known prior to
the fracture test, v can be obtained as
1=3

C L E x B
a
7
v

H
2
When the correction factor v is determined, the energy
release rate is obtained as follows:
GI

12P 2 a vH
E x B2 H 3

The energy release rates obtained by substituting Youngs

modulus Ex and the value of v derived by Eqs. (5) and
(7) into Eq. (8) are dened as those by Williamss correction method and modied beam theory method, respectively. In these methods, the values of Ex and v should be
determined by separate tests independently of the fracture
tests.
Considering the deviation of the CLa relation from elementary beam theory, this CLa relation is often obtained
by calibration. This method is known as the compliance
calibration method. There are several equations for calibrating the CLa relation. Kageyama et al. proposed a calibration equation based on the relation represented by Eq.
(4) as follows [23]:
a
1=3
a0 a1 BC L
9
2H
where a0 and a1 are the coecients determined by the compliance calibration. Thus, the energy release rate is derived
as follows:

GI

3P 2
2=3
BC L
4B2 H a1

10

Similarly, the CLa relation can be approximated to a

third-order polynomial equation as follows:
C L C 0 C 1 a C 2 a2 C 3 a3

11

The values of C0, C1, C2, and C3 are also determined by the
compliance calibration. Originally, this formulation was
proposed by Davidson et al. for approximating the CLa
relation obtained by the three-point ENF (3-ENF) test
[2426], and Eq. (4) indicates that this formulation is applicable for the CLa relation obtained by the DCB test.
From Eq. (11), GI is given as
GI


P2 
C 1 2C 2 a 3C 3 a2
2B

12

The fracture toughnesses obtained by Eqs. (10) and (12) are

dened as those by Kageyamas calibration method and
Davidsons calibration method, respectively. These compliance calibration methods are thought to be eective in
that the error caused by the estimation of crack length
can be reduced [23], and the method proposed by Kageyama et al. is standardized for analyzing the mode I fracture
toughness of CFRP in the JIS [10].
The alternative approach is to measure the longitudinal
strain at a certain point of the specimen as well as measure
the loading-line displacement, and is called the compliance combination method. Originally, this method was
proposed for obtaining a relation between the fracture
toughness and crack length (R-curve) of wood in the mode
II loading condition from the four-point ENF (4-ENF)
fracture testing data alone without observing the crack
propagation [11]. Later, it was suggested that this method
is eective to measure the mode II and mode III fracture
toughnesses while correcting the deviation between the
experimental result and elementary beam theory in the
3-ENF and 4-ENF tests [1214]. It is thought that this
method is applicable for obtaining the mode I fracture
toughness by the DCB test. When the longitudinal strain
of the top surface of a specimen ex is measured at a point
located at x = l as shown in Fig. 1, it is derived by beam
theory independently of the crack length as follows:

2108

ex

H. Yoshihara, T. Kawamura / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

6Pl
Ex BH 2

13

When the loadstrain compliance is dened as CS, it is represented as

CS

ex
6l

P Ex BH 2

14

From Eqs. (4) and (14), a + vH is written as follows:


1=3
3Hl C L

a vH
15
4 CS
By substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (8), the energy release rate
is derived as follows:

1=3
3P 2 C L 3Hl C L
GI

16
4 CS
2B
In determining the fracture toughness by Eqs. (8), (10) and
(12), separate tests for determining the elastic constants Ex,
Ey, and Gxy consisting of the correction factor v, the value
of a1, and C1, C2, and C3, respectively, are required. As
mentioned above, it is inconvenient to conduct the separate
tests independently of the fracture tests. Additionally,
wood is so heterogeneous that the elastic constants are often unique to each specimen. Hence, there is a concern that
the fracture toughness cannot be obtained appropriately
when using the elastic constants obtained by separate tests.
In contrast, Eq. (16) shows that the fracture toughness can
be directly determined by the DCB fracture test alone.
Additionally, the error caused by the estimation of crack
length can be reduced when using Eq. (16) because this
equation does not contain the crack length explicitly in it.

and modied beam theory methods by Eq. (8), Youngs

modulus Ex is required and it should be measured by separate tests independently of the fracture tests. Additionally,
the correction factor v, which consists of the elastic constants Ex, Ey, and Gxy as represented by Eq. (5), is required
when determining the fracture toughness by Williamss correction method. These elastic constants were measured by
compression tests.
A short-column specimen whose dimensions were
40 mm 20 mm 20 mm was prepared from the lumber
mentioned above. When measuring Ex and Ey, the long
axis of the specimen was coincided with the longitudinal
and tangential directions of wood, respectively, whereas
when measuring Gxy, the long axis was inclined at 45 to
the grain direction in the longitudinaltangential plane.
Strain gauges were bonded at the centers of longitudinal
tangential planes, and compression load was applied along
the long axis of the specimen at the crosshead speed of
1 mm/min. From the stressstrain relation in the loading
direction, Youngs moduli Ex and Ey were obtained. As
for the 45 inclined specimen, Youngs modulus in the
loading direction E45 was obtained from the stressstrain
relation in the loading direction. The strain in the direction
perpendicular to the loading axis was simultaneously measured, and Poissons ratio m45 was obtained as well as
Youngs modulus E45. The shear modulus Gxy was determined from the following equation [19,27,28]:
Gxy

E45
21 m45

17

Five specimens were used for each compression test.

3.3. DCB tests

3. Experiment
3.1. Materials
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla Sarg.) lumber,
with a density of 0.49 0.01 g/cm3 at 12% moisture content (MC) and eight or nine annual rings per 10 mm radial
length was considered. The annual rings were at enough
to ignore their curvature. This lumber had no defects such
as knots and grain distortions so the specimens cut from it
could be regarded as small and clear. The lumber was
stored for about one year in a room at a constant 20 C
and 65% relative humidity before the test, and was conrmed to be in the air-dried condition. These conditions
were maintained throughout the tests. The equilibrium
MC condition was approximately 12%. Youngs modulus
in the longitudinal direction, which corresponds to Ex,
was 15.0 0.5 GPa.
3.2. Compression tests for determining the Williamss
correction factor v
In obtaining the fracture toughnesses by the elementary
beam theory method I by Eq. (2) and Williamss correction

All of the specimens were cut from the lumber mentioned above so that they were side matched into the initial
dimensions of 15 mm (radial direction) 15 mm (tangential direction) 315 mm (longitudinal direction). The crack
was produced along the longitudinal direction in the longitudinaltangential plane, which is so-called TL system. The
crack was rst cut with a band saw (thickness = 1 mm),
and then it was extended 1 mm ahead of the crack tip using
a razor blade so that the crack length would be as that
mentioned below. After cutting the crack, the loading
blocks of western hemlock with the dimensions of 30 mm
in length, 30 mm in height, and 15 mm in thickness were
bonded by epoxy resin on the upper and lower cantilever
portions opposite to each other as shown in Fig. 1. Crack
length, which was dened as the distance from the line of
load application to the crack tip, varied from 90 to
210 mm at an interval of 30 mm. Load was applied to the
specimen by pins through universal joints at a crosshead
speed of 5 mm/min until the load markedly decreased.
The total testing time was about 10 min. Five specimens
were used for one testing condition.
The loading-line displacement d was measured by the
crosshead travel since it was conrmed that the machine

H. Yoshihara, T. Kawamura / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

compliance was small enough to be ignored [19], whereas

the longitudinal strain ex was measured by a strain gauge
(gauge length = 2 mm; FLA-2-11, Tokyo Sokki Co.,
Tokyo) bonded at the midpoint between the loading line
and crack tip on the top cantilever portion (l = a/2). In
the cantilever portion, the longitudinal strain is maximum
at the crack tip (l = a). Nevertheless, there was a concern
that the stressstrain behavior deviates from that predicted
by beam theory in the region near the crack tip. To avoid
the anomalous stressstrain eld, the strain measuring
location was determined. The loading-line compliance CL
and the loadlongitudinal strain compliance CS were
obtained from the linear portions of Pd and Pex relations, respectively. As shown in Fig. 2, the critical load
for crack propagation Pc was dened as that at the intersection point between the loadloading line displacement
curve and straight line with 5% increase of compliance
[12,13,19,24,25,29]. The CLa relation was regressed into
Eqs. (9) and (11) by the method of least squares, and the
obtained parameters a0, a1, C0, C1, C2, and C3 were used
to compute the fracture toughnesses by Eqs. (10) and (12).
In measuring the fracture toughness, there are two issues
additionally denoted here. One is the corrections caused by
the large displacement and loading block eect. These corrections are conducted based on corrected beam theory
[3032]. According to corrected beam theory, the energy
release rate is derived as follows:
GI

3P d
F

2Ba vH N

18

where F and N are the correction factors for the large displacement and nite displacement of loading block, respectively. When the deformation is large and large loading
blocks are used, these correction factors should be taken
into account. In this experiment, however, the deformation
seemed to be relatively small and the ranges of F, N, and
F/N were as 0.9790.985, 0.9750.981, and 0.9951.000,
respectively. The inuence of these factors was so small
that the analysis results by corrected beam theory were
close to those without correcting the large displacement

Fig. 2. Denition of the critical load Pc.

2109

Fig. 3. Example of loadloading line displacement relation of the

specimen in which unstable crack propagation is induced.

and loading block eect. Therefore, the inuence of these

factors was ignored. Another is the R-curve behavior.
According to beam theory, the crack always propagates
stably in the DCB test, so the mode I R-curve can be obtained theoretically. Nevertheless, the load sometimes decreased drastically after inducing the nonlinearity in the
Pd diagram as shown by Fig. 3. This phenomenon suggests that the crack propagated unstably immediately after
propagating stably for a certain length. Because of the difculty in measuring the R-curve under a wide range of
crack lengths, the analysis conducted here was limited to
that of initiation fracture toughness. Since Morel et al.
measured the R-curve of wood by DCB and tapered
DCB (TDCB) tests [7,8], the test conditions adopted here
might not be appropriate for obtaining the R-curve.
Further research should be undertaken on the R-curve
behavior under the DCB test.
3.4. Data reduction methods
As mentioned, the fracture toughness was analyzed by
the following seven methods: elementary beam theory I
and II, Williamss correction, modied beam theory,
Kageyamas and Davidsons calibration, and compliance
combination methods. The values of fracture toughness
obtained by these dierent analysis methods were compared with each other.
In the elementary beam theory method I, the initiation
fracture toughness GIc was calculated by substituting
Youngs modulus obtained by the compression tests Ex,
critical load Pc, and initial crack length a into Eq. (2),
whereas it was obtained by substituting Pc, a, and CL into
Eq. (3) in the elementary beam theory method II. In Williamss correction and modied beam theory methods,
GIc was obtained by substituting Ex, Pc, a, and v into Eq.
(8). In this substitution, the value of v was determined by
Eq. (5) in Williamss correction method, whereas it was
determined by Eq. (7) in the modied beam theory method.

2110

H. Yoshihara, T. Kawamura / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

In Kageyamas calibration method, the value of GIc was

calculated by substituting Pc, CL, and a1 into Eq. (10),
whereas it was obtained by substituting Pc, C1, C2, and
C3 into Eq. (12) in Davidsons calibration method. In the
compliance combination method, GIc was obtained by
substituting Pc, CL, and CS into Eq. (16).

Table 1
Elastic constants obtained by the compression tests
Ex (GPa)

Ey (GPa)

Gxy (GPa)

15.0 0.5

0.45 0.09

0.87 0.12

Results are averages SD.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Correction factors and initiation fracture toughnesses
obtained by the dierent analysis methods
Fig. 4 shows typical examples of the loadloading line
displacement and loadlongitudinal strain relations. Similar to the trends obtained by mode II and mode III ENF
tests [1114], the loadloading line displacement curve is
nonlinear because of the fracture process zone development
and crack propagation, whereas the loadlongitudinal
strain curve remains linear during the test because the
crack propagates without inducing the material nonlinearity in the specimen. This indicates that the fracture toughness can be obtained based on the theory of linear fracture
mechanics.
By the compression tests, Youngs moduli in the length
and depth directions Ex and Ey, and shear modulus Gxy
were obtained as Table 1. By substituting these moduli into
Eqs. (5) and (7), the values of correction factor v are determined. From Kageyamas calibration method, v is approximately given by the transformation of Eq. (9) as
v 2a0

19

From the compliance combination method, v can be determined by Eq. (15). Fig. 5 shows the comparison of v calculated by the correction methods except the elementary
beam theory methods I and II in which v = 0 and Davidsons calibration method in which v cannot be explicitly
contained. This gure indicates that the values of v
obtained by the modied beam theory and compliance
combination methods are larger than those obtained by
Williamss correction and Kageyamas calibration

Fig. 5. Relation between Williamss correction factor and crack length

obtained by the dierent analysis methods.

methods. This tendency is commonly found in the results

of 3-ENF tests of spruce and western hemlock, but it is less
signicant than that in the three-point bend ENF (3-ENF)
test. In the 3-ENF tests, the values of v obtained by the
modied beam theory and compliance combination methods were six times larger than that obtained by Williamss
correction method [12,14].
Fig. 6 shows the comparison of a/2H(BCL)1/3 relations
obtained by the experimental data and Kageyamas calibration method, and that of CLa relations obtained by
the experimental data and Davidsons calibration method.
This gure suggests that the a/2H(BCL)1/3 and CLa
relations are appropriately expressed by each compliance
calibration method.

Fig. 4. Typical examples of loadloading line displacement and loadlongitudinal strain relations.

H. Yoshihara, T. Kawamura / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

2111

Fig. 6. Comparisons of a/2H(BCL)1/3 and CLa relations derived by Kageyamas and Davidsons calibration methods, respectively, with the
experimental data.

Fig. 8 shows the comparisons of initiation fracture

toughness GIc and coecient of variation obtained by each
analysis method. The values of GIc obtained by the elementary beam theory methods I and II are markedly dierent
from each other because the crack length is not corrected.
In contrast, the values of GIc obtained by the other ve
methods agree with each other and they are in between
those obtained by the elementary beam theory methods I
and II except for that obtained by Davidsons calibration
method when the crack length is 90 mm. The coecients
of variations are close to each other when the crack length
is 180 or 210 mm. Nevertheless, it is dicult to determine
whether the methods can reduce the fracture toughness
variation properly.
4.2. Comparison of analysis methods
Fig. 7. Comparison of loadlongitudinal strain compliance CS obtained
by the experimental data and beam theory.

Fig. 7 shows the comparison of loadlongitudinal strain

compliance CS obtained by the experiment and beam theory. In this gure, the location for measuring the strain,
which corresponds to x = l, is normalized by the breadth
and height of the cantilever portion as l/BH2, and the
CSl/BH2 relation is demonstrated. In addition to the
experimental results, the CSl/BH2 relation is obtained by
substituting Ex = 15.0 GPa into Eq. (14), which is based
on beam theory. In the 4-ENF tests for obtaining the mode
II fracture toughness, the compliance combination method
was not eective when the longitudinal strain was measured at the cracked portion because of the deviation of
the loadlongitudinal strain relation from beam theory
[11]. Since the strain was measured at the cracked portion
in the DCB test, there was a concern that the loadstrain
relation deviates from that predicted by beam theory. This
gure, however, shows that the experimental data agree
with beam theory.

A comparison of the fracture toughnesses reveals the

following issues.
Because of the discrepancy between the fracture toughnesses obtained by the elementary beam theory methods,
it is inadequate to analyze the fracture toughness based
on elementary beam theory, so some correction should be
introduced in elementary beam theory for obtaining the
appropriate fracture toughness. In Williamss correction
and modied beam theory methods, it is inconvenient that
separate tests should be conducted for determining the
elastic moduli, which consist of the correction factor v.
In the compliance calibration methods, there are two drawbacks as follows. One is that the compliance calibration
should be undertaken using multiple specimens as conducted here. In the ENF test, it is possible to obtain the calibrated relation between the loading-line compliance and
crack length for each specimen by shifting the specimen
on the supports [12,14,26], but this technique cannot be
used for the DCB test because of its loading system.
Another drawback is that the fracture toughness obtained
by Davidsons calibration method is markedly larger than
the others when the crack length is 90 mm. In the 3-ENF

2112

H. Yoshihara, T. Kawamura / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

Fig. 8. Comparisons of initiation fracture toughness GIc and coecient of variation obtained by the dierent analysis methods.

tests, it is commonly found that the fracture toughness

obtained by Davidsons calibration method is estimated
as larger than those obtained by the other methods [14],
so there is a concern that the fracture toughness is inuenced by the calibration equation. As described in the previous papers [12,14], the compliance combination method
has a drawback that the longitudinal strain at a certain
point of cracked portion should be measured as well as
the critical load for crack propagation and loading-line displacement. Nevertheless, the fracture toughness can be
determined by the DCB fracture test alone without requiring any separate tests while correcting the deviation of
deection behavior from elementary beam theory, and
the value of fracture toughness can be regarded as close
to those obtained by the modied beam theory and compliance calibration methods. When considering the practical
operation in measuring the mode I fracture toughness by
the DCB test, the compliance combination method is a
promising means as well as that in the ENF test for measuring the mode II and mode III fracture toughnesses
[1114].
5. Conclusion
Using specimens of western hemlock, DCB tests were
conducted and the validity of the data analysis methods
for determining the fracture toughness was examined. Fracture toughnesses were determined by seven methods: two
methods based on elementary beam theory, Williamss correction method, modied beam theory method, two compliance calibration methods, and the compliance combination
method. In the compliance combination method, the strain
at the midpoint between the loading line and crack tip on
the top cantilever portion was measured, as was the loading-line displacement and critical load for crack propagation. The validity of the methods presented here was
examined by comparing the results with each other.

Among the seven analysis methods examined here, the

compliance combination method is advantageous over
the other six ones because the fracture toughness is determined accurately by the DCB fracture test alone without
requiring separate tests, so it is very simple and convenient
in practical analysis. Hence, this method is a promising
means for analyzing the mode I fracture toughness of wood
as well as for analyzing the mode II and mode III fracture
toughnesses.
References
[1] Reiterer A, Tschegg S. The inuence of moisture content on the
mode I fracture behaviour of sprucewood. J Mater Sci 2002;37:
448791.
[2] Vasic S, Smith I, Landis E. Fracture zone characterization. Micromechanical study. Wood Fiber Sci 2003;34:4256.
[3] Reiterer A, Sinn G, Stanzl-Tschegg SE. Fracture characteristics of
dierent wood species under mode I loading perpendicular to the
grain. Mater Sci Engrg A 2002;332:2936.
[4] Vasic S, Smith I. Bridging crack model for fracture of spruce. Engrg
Fract Mech 2002;69:74560.
[5] Vasic S, Smith I. Contactcrack problem with friction in spruce. Holz
Roh- Werkst 2003;61:1826.
[6] Smith I, Vasic S. Fracture behaviour of softwood. Mech Mater
2003;35:80315.
[7] Morel S, Bouchaud E, Schmittbuhl J, Valentin G. R-curve behavior
and roughness development of fracture surfaces. Int J Fract
2002;114:30725.
[8] Morel S, Bouchaud E, Schmittbuhl J. Inuence of the specimen
geometry on R-curve behavior and roughening of fracture surfaces.
Int J Fract 2003;121:2342.
[9] Morel S, Dourado N, Valentin G, Morais J. Wood: a quasibrittle
material R-curve behavior and peak load evaluation. Int J Fract
2005;131:385400.
[10] Japanese Industrial Standard. Testing method for interlaminar
fracture toughness of carbon bre reinforced plastics JIS K7086-93.
Japanese Standards Association, Tokyo; 1998.
[11] Yoshihara H. Mode II R-curve of wood measured by 4-ENF test.
Engrg Fract Mech 2004;71:206577.
[12] Yoshihara H. Mode II initiation fracture toughness evaluation of
wood by 3-ENF test. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65:2198207.

H. Yoshihara, T. Kawamura / Composites: Part A 37 (2006) 21052113

[13] Yoshihara H. Examination of the 4-ENF test for measuring the mode
III R-curve of wood. Engrg Fract Mech 2006;73:4263.
[14] Yoshihara H. Inuence of crack length on the measurement of mode
II initiation fracture toughness of wood by three-point bend endnotched exure (3ENF) test. Trans Jpn Soc Mech Eng A [in
Japanese], in press.
[15] Sasaki H, Walsh PF. Cleavage fracture toughness of woodepoxy
resin bond system. J Soc Mater Sci Jpn 1977;26:4539 [in Japanese].
[16] Williams JG. On the calculation of energy release rates for cracked
laminates. Int J Fract 1988;36:10119.
[17] Williams JG. The fracture mechanics of delamination tests. J Strain
Anal 1989;24:20714.
[18] Hashemi S, Kinloch AJ, Williams JG. The analysis of interlaminar
fracture in uniaxial bre-polymer composites. Proc Roy Soc A 1999;
427:17399.
[19] Adams DF, Carlsson LA, Pipes RB. Experimental characterization
of advanced composite materials. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press;
2003.
[20] Williams JG, Hadavinia H. Analytical solutions for cohesive zone
models. J Mech Phys Solids 2002;50:80925.
[21] Blackman BRK, Hadavinia H, Kinloch AJ, Williams JG. The use of
a cohesive zone model to study the fracture of bre composites and
adhesively-bonded joints. Int J Fract 2003;119:2546.
[22] de Moura MFSF, Pereira AB, de Morais AB. Inuence of intralaminar cracking on the apparent interlaminar mode I fracture toughness
of cross-ply laminates. Fatigue Fract Engrg Mater Struct 2004;27:
75966.
[23] Kageyama K, Chou TW. Analytical compliance method for Mode I
interlaminar fracture toughness testing of composites. Composites
1987;18:3939.

2113

[24] Davidson BD, Altonen CS, Polaha JJ. Eect of stacking sequence on
delamination toughness and delamination growth behavior in composite end-notched exure specimens. ASTM STP 1274 1996:
393413.
[25] Polaha JJ, Davidson BD, Hudson RC, Pieracci A. Eects of mode
ratio, ply orientation and precracking on the delamination toughness
of a laminated composite. J Reinforced Plast Compos 1996;15(2):
14173.
[26] Schuecker C, Davidson BD. Evaluation of the accuracy of the fourpoint bend end-notched exure test for mode II delamination
toughness determination. Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:213746.
[27] Kon T. The comparative study upon the modulus of rigidity of wood
by the methods of compression and torsion. Bull Engrg Hokkaido
Univ 1948;1:14456 [in Japanese].
[28] Yoshihara H, Ohta M. Measurement of the shear moduli of wood by
the torsion of a rectangular bar. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 1992;4:392
400.
[29] Hojo M, Kageyama K, Tanaka K. Prestandardization study on mode
I interlaminar fracture toughness test for CFRP in Japan. Composites 1995;26:24355.
[30] Brunner AJ, Blackman BRK, Davies P. Mode I delamination. In:
Moore DR, Pavan A, Williams JG, editors. Fracture mechanics
testing methods for polymers adhesives and composites (ESIS
Publication 28). Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2001. p. 277305.
[31] ISO. Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness, GIC, of unidirectional bre-reinforced polymer matrix composites. 2001. ISO 15024.
[32] Brunner AJ, Blackman BRK, Williams JG. Calculating a damage
parameter and bridging stress from GIC delamination tests on bre
composites. Compos Sci Technol, in press (online available).