Mode I fracture toughness estimation of wood by DCB test

© All Rights Reserved

44 views

Mode I fracture toughness estimation of wood by DCB test

© All Rights Reserved

- A cohesive finite element formulation for modelling fracture and delamination in solids
- Fracture Toughness Testing_twi
- 10.1.1.36
- sdarticle
- Will Ritter Thesis
- Fracture Mechanics
- Modeling Discon XFEM
- Impact_test and Fracture Test
- Fatigue White Paper
- 5229-5245
- Wang - Industrial Challenges for Thin Wafer Manufacturing
- 18 NickelMaragingSteel EngineeringProperties 4419
- Numerical and Experimental Analysis of the Directional Stability on Crack Propagation Under Biaxial Stresses
- Does notch sensibility exist in environmentally assisted cracking (EAC)?
- Master Thesis
- 8463-26908-1-PB
- Aircraft performance data requirements
- ACI 224R
- crack growth
- azu_etd_10159_sip1_m

You are on page 1of 9

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

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

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

Nomenclature

GI

GIc

x

y

a

B

H

I

Ex

Ey

Gxy

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

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

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

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

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]:

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

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

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

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

6Pl

Ex BH 2

13

CS

ex

6l

P Ex BH 2

14

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.

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

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

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

2109

specimen in which unstable crack propagation is induced.

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

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

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

obtained by the dierent analysis methods.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[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).

- A cohesive finite element formulation for modelling fracture and delamination in solidsUploaded byarkan1976
- Fracture Toughness Testing_twiUploaded bySergio Munhos
- 10.1.1.36Uploaded bySudipta Biswas
- sdarticleUploaded bykazitani_nabil
- Will Ritter ThesisUploaded byganesh_withucad
- Fracture MechanicsUploaded bymanish kumardnr
- Modeling Discon XFEMUploaded byHarish Lambadi
- Impact_test and Fracture TestUploaded byMinh Tam Cao
- Fatigue White PaperUploaded byDavid Raj
- 5229-5245Uploaded byLuis Alberto HM
- Wang - Industrial Challenges for Thin Wafer ManufacturingUploaded byrini44f
- 18 NickelMaragingSteel EngineeringProperties 4419Uploaded byfedaqui
- Numerical and Experimental Analysis of the Directional Stability on Crack Propagation Under Biaxial StressesUploaded byAPRIL_SNOW
- Does notch sensibility exist in environmentally assisted cracking (EAC)?Uploaded byMona Awad
- Master ThesisUploaded byJose Luis
- 8463-26908-1-PBUploaded by_Asylum_
- Aircraft performance data requirementsUploaded byherawanadif
- ACI 224RUploaded byarwin dela cruz
- crack growthUploaded byvhgaitan
- azu_etd_10159_sip1_mUploaded byRachel Bush
- SF Condition_Assessment of Steel StructureUploaded byTharach Janesuapasaeree
- JRC steel embrittlem cold hollow.pdfUploaded byroldoguido
- Addison 2018Uploaded bymankari.kamal.18022963
- Nu Cuoi Nuoc AnhUploaded byBui Tat Thanh
- Statistical Failure Analysis of Brittle Coatings by Spherical Indentation Theory and ExperimentUploaded byArun Kumar
- Chapter 3 EngUploaded byDuyên Trịnh Đức
- TiAlN Fracture toughness.pdfUploaded bySanjeeb Sinha
- Final-Luxor-2015FFSPresentation.pdfUploaded byElkin Paba
- Correlation Be Tj and Cv nUploaded byAndrea Caldera
- STP 559 - (1974) Fracture Toughness and Slow-Stable Cracking.pdfUploaded byjacquess

- 56 Assessing Adhesive Bond Failures - Mixed-Mode Bond Failures ExplainedUploaded byrajauae2008
- 21284997Uploaded byJorge Vieira
- EN 15629 (2008)Uploaded byberto2008
- ERP ComparaisonUploaded byJorge Vieira
- Technical Data Sheet for HSL-3 Heavy Duty Anchor Technical Information ASSET DOC 2331111Uploaded byJorge Vieira
- Aalco-Metals-Ltd_Aluminium-Alloy-5083-0-H111-Sheet-and-Plate_149.pdfUploaded byНикола Колаковић
- Oral CommunicationUploaded byJorge Vieira
- De Bonding on Command of Adhesive JointsUploaded byJorge Vieira
- JAST_2011_Campilho_Strength Improvement of Adhesively-Bonded Joints UsingUploaded byJorge Vieira
- White Paper - Choosing and Using a Structural AdhesiveUploaded byJorge Vieira
- Flexão Numa VigaUploaded byJorge Vieira
- pptUploaded bySatya Sharon
- PME35-NUploaded byJorge Vieira

- AE331 Lab ManualUploaded byRahul Goud
- IFEM.Ch30Uploaded byBlond Mecinaj
- MAK205_Chapter5fewUploaded byJimmy Caesario Denata
- Introduction to Machine Design_EDITEDUploaded byVenkatesh Gangadhar
- Failure-analysis-of-a-leak-off-oil-pipe-from-injection-valves-of-an-off-shore-operating-diesel-engine_2007_Engineering-Failure-Analysis.pdfUploaded byAPI
- Chapter 1 Stress and Strain PDFUploaded bysanthiyaperemel
- Magnetism FundamentalsUploaded byexfmln
- 03main_06_06Uploaded byemregnes
- CN-01Uploaded byKaizer
- MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF CLASS F FLY AND BOTTOM ASH MIXTURES FOR EMBANKMENT APPLICATIONUploaded byAgung Pramu Aji
- Recent Advances and Applications of Statistical Associating Fluid TheoryUploaded byMario Ricardo Urdaneta Parra
- nozzles&diffusersUploaded byajythestar
- Materi I - Kestabilan Konformasi ProteinUploaded byAdi Suwandi
- 1570 (Part V)Uploaded byKaushik Sengupta
- Balance of Linear and Angular MomentumUploaded byAscanio Barbosa
- NuHeat AR500 Datasheet 2 2014Uploaded bypaul Arcos
- FEA-Inlet Separator & Scrubber Process Data Sheet ADA Rev. B0Uploaded byddaalayamoct313024
- Arm a Paper 117Uploaded byAhmet Hamdi Deliormanlı
- 10bUploaded byadnandj
- Best Solver for Impact ProblemsUploaded byprincedrdo
- CDO CALCUploaded byJeric Farin
- retrfUploaded byPunam Yadav
- Electro Beam Lithography and x Ray LithographyUploaded byRia Rushin Joseph
- Silco Phobe H-1022Uploaded byPongthip Pesachpinankul
- R.C Hollow Beam Under Pure Torsion.pdfUploaded bysitehab
- Three Point Bending TestUploaded bySapthagiri Sura
- Vapor PressureUploaded byKoteswara Rao
- -Dassault Systemes Inc. Modeling Fracture and Failure With AbaqusUploaded byHichem Sof
- assignment on compound semiconductorUploaded byMdMorshedulHaque
- LIM_Polymer Characterization.pptUploaded byGerald Lim

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.