ESTIMATION OF MODE I AND MODE II FRACTURE TOUGHNESS OF CARBON/EPOXY COMPOSITE

SUBMITTED BY ARJUN RADHAKRISHNAN

_______________ ABSTRACT The fracture toughness for mode II loadings and I are estimated for a carbon/epoxy composite. Mode I toughness was estimated using Double Cantilever Bending test while the mode II toughness was estimated using End Split Loading test. The load and displacement are monitored electronically while the crack length is recorded after visual observation for both tests. The data is utilized to estimate fracture toughness in mode II and I for ELS and DCB tests, respectively. The axial modulus is estimated from mode I data. The mode I fracture toughness shows a mean of 0.165 and 0.175 kJ/m2 for initiation and propagation, respectively. A mean of 0.81 kJ/m2 is obtained as mode II fracture toughness. The results seem to be consistent with available literature. _______________ INTRODUCTION The life of a composite part can be affected drastically by presence of delamination and inservice growth. Delamination effectively is a crack and hence can be characterized by fracture mechanics of the material. Fracture mechanic is study of crack and its growth and helps in estimating the life of a material with inherent crack. The presence of high loads can lead to initiation of a crack due to poor transverse strengths, while the growth of the crack is controlled by the materials inter-laminar fracture toughness. There are three basic crack loading modes, which are1, as shown in fig 1: 1. MODE I Opening mode 2. MODE II Sliding/Shear mode 3. MODE III Tearing mode

Figure 1 Mode of Fracture1

The combination of the three basic modal fracture toughness can be utilized to analyse complex crack loading on structures. The critical condition for growth of a crack is determined by the energy release rate. The critical energy release rate (ERR) is defined as the amount of energy consumed by the crack front to propagate per unit area and is denoted by symbol Gc. When a crack grows the strain energy stored in the material is released but for this the bonds must be broken and the required bond energy is to be supplied to the material. According to the energy balance approach developed by Griffith, the simple condition for crack growth is that the rate of energy released should be sufficient to satisfy the sum of rate of strain (negative) and surface energy (positive). The strain energy of associated with a crack is proportional to square of the crack length, while the surface energy is directly proportional to the crack length. The quadratic relation of the strain energy would be prominent after a critical crack length, ac as indicated in the fig 2. Beyond this crack length no additional external would be required for the

2 crack to grow resulting in a catastrophic failure of the material. But if the crack length is below the critical length then energy is to be supplied by external forces for the propagation of the crack. This energy approach is known as Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) and it has yielded acceptable results for composite fracture analyses. Hence the condition for crack growth is G Gc.

Figure 2 Energy Vs. Crack Lengths2

Although experimental results agree with LEFM, it does not account for the various fracture mechanisms in composites that are unlike isotropic materials. Of the mechanisms the most evident in inter-laminar fracture is fiber bridging. Currently there are tests for pure and mixed mode II and I crack loading. A test for pure mode III crack loading is still under research and is largely due to inability to design a proper specimen. It is also stated that mode III fracture toughness is greater than either mode II or I, hence in a practical case the fracture process would be controlled largely by mode II and I fracture toughness. Double cantilever bending test is the most commonly used test for pure mode I crack loading. The specimen used for the test is as shown in fig 3. The loading can be transmitted either using end-blocks or piano hinges. In the fig shown the specimen shown has end-blocks to transmit the forces. The specimen is manufactured with an initial delamination by using PTFE inserts. The specimen dimensions are as specified by the standards. Since the delamination present is a manufactured one, it is possible that the PTFE layer could be resin rich resulting in inaccurate fracture data. The specimen is therefore pre-cracked using a low loading rate. A Charged Couple Device (CCD) camera is used to observe the crack growth.

Figure 3 Double Cantilever Bending Test1

Due to large displacements and tilting of the end-blocks the effective length of the beam is shorter which is accounted for by the correction factor, F. The metal end-blocks on the specimen can lead to stiffening of the specimen as whole. The correction factor, N, corrects the compliance and accounts for the stiffening effect of the end-blocks. The double cantilever specimen utilizes the analogue of cantilever beam bending to estimate the formula. Unlike an ideal cantilever beam, the DCB specimen experiences end rotation, which can lead to an

apparent difference in the crack length. The crack length is corrected for by utilizing correction factor.

Figure 4 End Loaded Split test1

The End Loaded Split testing is a common test for mode II fracture toughness but has not yet been standardized3. The specimen utilized is manufactured similar to the DCB specimen, but with only one end-block, while the other side is free, as shown in fig. The loading is applied as shown in fig 4. The friction between the surfaces can considerably affect the crack growth so a smooth surface or a pencil lead can be utilized to reduce it. There are issues on the variation in results with thickness, hence standardization is still undertaken. The specimen is loaded on mode II to pre-crack it and then unloaded. The loading is applied again and crack growth is studied in a similar manner as mode I testing. The effect of pre-cracking on mode II fracture toughness is also of concern for standardization. A summary of different test methods and standards for three modes are given in table 1.
Table 1 Summary of Fracture Tests

MODE Mode I Mode II Mode III Mixed mode I/II

TEST Double Cantilever test (DCB) End Loaded Split (ELS) Three-point loaded End Notched Flexure (ENF) Edge Cracked Torsion test (ECT) Fixed Ratio Mixed Mode (FRMM) Mixed Mode Bend

STANDARD JIS K7086, ASTM D5528 Yet to be standardized JIS K7086 Under development by ASTM Yet to be standardized ASTM D6671

OBJECTIVES 1. DCB test is to be done on two specimens of carbon/epoxy uni-directional composite for mode I crack loading. 2. ELS test is to be done on two specimens of carbon/epoxy uni-directional composite for mode II crack loading. 3. The specimens are to be pre-cracked in the corresponding modes. 4. The load, displacement and crack lengths are to be recorded for both DCB and ELS tests. 5. The correction factors F, N and are to be calculated for all the specimens. 6. The axial modulus of the material is to be calculated from DCB test. 7. The Energy Release Rate (ERR) is to be calculated and ERR vs. crack length is to be plotted for all the specimens. 8. The observation and inference of the tests are to be noted.

4 PROCEDURE The specimens are manufactured using MTM 44-1 HTS 12K pre-preg. The nominal dimensions for the DCB and ELS specimens are tabulated in table 2.
Table 2 Nominal Dimensions

DIMENSIONS CURRENT TEST ASTM STANDARDS

LENGTH (mm) 150 >125

WIDTH (mm) 20 20 25

THICKNESS (mm) 3 3-5

The specimen is manufactured along with an initial delamination by using a PTFE insert of length greater than 50 mm. The PTFE insert is placed at the mid-plane of the composite specimen. Metal end-blocks are fixed on to the specimen using adhesives. The specimen is painted silver at the edge plane and a scale is marked on the edge. The scale is made of 1mm markings and the silver paint helps in increasing the visibility of these markings. The crack length is the distance from the loading point to the crack tip as shown in fig 3.
Table 3 Definitions of Terms

TERMS GIC and GIIC a P B h L l1 and l2 F, N and 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

DEFINITON Critical Energy Release Rates for mode I and II, respectively Crack Length Displacement Load Width of the specimen Half thickness of specimen Length of specimen As shown in fig Correction factors As shown in table

Double Cantilever Bending Test4: The specimens are loaded on the jigs as shown in fig 5. The end-blocks transmit the load from the machine to the specimen. The specimen is to be loaded at a loading rate of 5 mm/min till the first drop in load is noticed. This is known as pre-cracking and is used to remove the probable effect of a resin rich area over the PTFE affecting the testing. The specimen is to be unloaded then at the same rate till the crack closes. The load is to be applied again at a loading rate of 5 mm/min. Observe the crack propagation and a buzzer is to be used to log the load and displacement at every 1 mm of crack length. For redundancy the displacement is to be recorded in a table manually for every 1 mm of crack length. The loading is stopped at a crack length of 90 mm. The specimen has to be unloaded and removed from the jig. The test is to be done for two specimens. The data recorded is to be used to calculate the correction factors F and N for the various displacements according to the formula tabulated in table 4 and 5. The compliance, C, is calculated and corrected using N. Plot (C/N) 1/3 vs. crack length, a. Estimate the correction factor and axial modulus, E11, from the x-intercept and the slope, respectively. Calculate the

ERR for the DCB, GIC specimens using the formula tabulated in table. Plot ERR, GIC vs. crack length, a. Note down the observations and the inference of the test.

Figure 5 DCB testing rig

End Loaded Split Test: The specimens are fixed on to the jig as shown in fig 6. The specimen is to be pre-cracked similar to the DCB test but in mode II loading. The crack propagation is in the same plane as that of the loading hence noticing the crack can be an issue. Hence as a precaution the clamping for the pre-cracking is to be kept at about 60 mm from the loading point. The loading rate for pre-cracking is to be kept at 5 mm/min.

Figure 6 ELS testing rig

Unload the specimen completely and then apply the loading again at a rate of 5 mm/min. Observe the crack propagation and buzzer is to be used for recording the load and displacement for the crack lengths visible. The shift in markings on the edge is to be noticed as a marker for crack propagation. Load the specimen till a crack length of 90 mm and then unload. The specimen is removed. The test is conducted for two specimens. Calculate the correction factor, F, for the various displacements. The average of the axial modulus calculated from the mode I test is to be calculated. The correction factor is 0.42 times the average correction factor obtained for mode I tests. Calculate ERR for mode II, GIIC using the formula in table 4 and 5. Plot ERR, GIIC vs. crack length, a. Note down the observations and inference of the test.
Table 4 Formula for Fracture testing5

DCB GIC GIIC F N h

3 2( + ) -

ELS 9 ! + 4 ! ! !!
!

! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! X-intercept of (C/N) 1/3 vs. a plot 0.42 times mode I value

Table 5 Formula for various constants5

CONSTANTS 1

DCB 3/10 (3/20)

ELS 15 + 50

+ 63
!

2 3 4 5 9

3/2 1 8 1 ! / 9/35
!

9/4 36

! ! ! ! !!! ! !!! ! ! !!(! ! )! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !

! 1 + 3 ! 1 + 3 ) 3( ! 1 + 3 4 1 + 3( )!

35

3 1 + 8 /

35 + 70 ! 1 + 3

! !

+ 63

RESULT The loads vs. displacement for all the three specimens are plotted for loading. The unloading data is not utilized since it was not done with precision. The corrected compliance vs. crack length is plotted to obtain the axial modulus and correction for the crack length due to end

rotation at large displacements. The resistance curves for both mode II and I are plotted and the initiation and propagation values are tabulated. The coefficient of variation is tabulated for the mode I propagation and axial modulus. Load vs. Displacement curves

Figure 7 Load curve for Mode I test

Figure 8 Load curve for mode II test

8 Corrected compliance vs. Crack length

Figure 9 Corrected compliance vs. crack length

Fracture Resistance curves for Mode I and II

Figure 10 Resistance curve - mode I

Figure 11 Resistance curve - mode II

Fracture Toughness
Table 6 Mode I data

DCB Specimen number 1 2

GIC (kJ/m2) Initiation Propagation VIS MAX NL Mean COV % 0.17 0.21 0.13 0.19 6.2 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.16 3.8

h (mm) 10.31 13.68

E11 (GPa) Mean COV % 9.7 14

0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99

115.32 133.61

Table 7 Mode II data

ELS Specimen number Initiation 1 2 DISCUSSION 0.44 0.538

GIIC (kJ/m2) Mean 0.739 0.895 Propagation COV % 20.91 16.55

The load vs. displacement for mode I specimens indicates that specimen 1 exhibited a fracture toughness slightly greater that specimen 2 because of the area under the curve as shown in fig 7. The linear region of the load curve for both the specimens where super-imposed, as seen in fig 7. The drop in load occurs with increasing displacement and is attributed to the growth of the crack. Specimen 1 shows a propagation value 18 % more than 2 and a mean visual value of 21 % more. The fracture toughness on the basis non-linearity indicates the same value of 0.13 kJ/m2. As shown in fig 10, it can be seen that the mode I facture toughness almost constant which is consistent with the conservation of a stable crack growth. The current test result is consistent with literature6 that shows a variation of 0.15 to 0.25 kJ/m2. The axial modulus obtained from the mode I test where 115 and 133 GPa for specimen 1 and 2, respectively. The coefficient variation suggests the specimen 1 axial modulus is more reliable. The initiation value being almost 20% lesser for both specimens in mode I might be the result of the pre-cracking, which might have led to an initial stressed area near the tip, hence a lower energy release rate would have been enough. It is worth noting that the correction factors F and N where almost constant between specimens and where independent of the crack length. The correction factor for the end rotation where quite high, with an average of 12 mm indicating that the rotation effects are large enough to correct. The reduced data is tabulated in table 6. The mode II tests have not yet been standardized, but ELS and ENF are among one of the most widely used tests in the industry. The trends exhibited by both the specimens are quite different, with specimen 1 showing a reduced area under the curve compared to the specimen 1, as shown in fig 8. Specimen 2 shows greater than 20% increase in initiation and propagation facture toughness. The resistance curve, as shown in fig 11, exhibited is not constant, while specimen 1 shows a constant increase in fracture toughness with crack; specimen 2 shows peak fracture toughness at crack length of 75 mm and then drops to a constant value till crack length of 90 mm. The visual observation of the crack growth during the test suggested an unstable growth. This is can be attributed to two factors one is the frictional force between the two crack surfaces, while the other is fiber bridging. The mean initiation fracture toughness is almost 40% less than the mean propagation fracture toughness. The pre-cracking might have contributed to this discrepancy. It might also suggest that the actual fracture toughness might be the initiation value. This conclusion is due to the fact that pre-cracking removes the effect if excess resin along with

10 removing initial fibre bridging. The increase fracture toughness as crack length increases might be due to the effect of fiber bridging as suggested earlier. The difference is trend between might have been due to the inconsistent recording of crack length ascribed to the poor visualization of the crack front. The initiation value of mode II fracture toughness seems to be consistent with the literature6, but the propagation value seems to be overestimated by about 47 and 79 % for specimen 1 and 2, respectively. The reduced data is tabulated in table 7. CONCLUSION The mode II and I fracture toughness where estimated and a mean of 0.6 and 0.16 kJ/m2. The result is quite consistent with the existent literature. The mode I exhibit a stable fracture growth while the mode II loading showed certain discrepancies in the resistance curves. The discrepancy was attributed to improper recording of crack growth and fiber bridging. The mode I fracture toughness and the initiation values of mode II fracture toughness where consistent with available literature. While the propagation values seems to have over-estimated the mode II fracture toughness. The mean axial modulus estimated as 124 GPa and is consistent with flexural modulus of the carbon/epoxy composites. REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Hodgkinson, J. M. (ed.) (2000) Mechanical Testing of Advanced Fiber Composites. Cambridge, Woodhead. Wang, C. H. (1996) Introduction to Fracture Mechanics. Adams, D. (2011) Mixed Mode Fracture Toughness of Composites. [Online] Available from: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/mixed-mode-fracture-toughness-of-composites. ASTM. (2007) ASTM D5528 Standard Test Method for Mode I Inter-laminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite. [Online]. ASTM. Report number: 1. Available from:http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5528.htm. Hashemi, S., Kinloch, A. J. & Williams, J. G. (1990) The Analysis of Interlaminar Fracture in Uniaxial Fibre-Polymer Composites. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.A.Mathematical and Physical Sciences.427 (1872), 173-199. Davies, P., Moulin, C., Kausch, H. H. & Fischer, M. (1990) Measurement of GIc and GIIc in carbon/epoxy composites. Composites Science and Technology. 39 (3), 193-205.