Delamination Growth in Composites under

Fatigue Loading

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,

op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben,

voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,

in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 22 october 2013 om 10:00 uur

door

Rafiullah KHAN

Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, North West Frontier Province University of

Engineering & Technology Peshawar, Pakistan

geboren te Tajazai, Pakistan

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:

Prof.dr.ir. R. Benedictus

Dr.ir. R.C. Alderliesten, copromotor

Samenstelling promotiecommissie:

Rector Magnificus, Voorzitter

Prof. dr. ir. R. Benedictus, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor

Dr. ir. R.C. Alderliesten, Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor

Prof. dr. R. Curran, Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof.dr.ir. R. Marissen, Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof.dr.ir. K. van Breugel, Technische Universiteit Delft

Prof.dr. W. van Paepegem, Universiteit Gent

Dr. C. Rans, Carleton University

ISBN: 978-90-88917-15-8

Copyright © 2013 by Rafiullah khan

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author.

Printed in The Netherlands

 Dedicated to
my Teachers, Family and Friends
 SUMMARY
Delamination Growth in Composites under Fatigue Loading
By

Rafiullah Khan
Fiber reinforced composites are attractive for aerospace applications due to high specific
strength and stiffness. Their use has been gradually increased to 50% by weight of the aircraft
over past decades. As a consequence, modern aircraft utilize composites in the primary
structures like wing skin and fuselage. The use of composites in primary structures has
increased the need for reliable strength assessment methodologies.

Composites are inherent to various damage types of which delamination is the most severe
type of damage. Delaminations may grow due to fatigue resulting in the stress redistribution
and potentially leading to structural failure, thus making fatigue an important design concern.

Damage tolerance of aircraft structures is a key aspect in maintenance and safety of aircraft.
For damage tolerant design of structures, the development of accurate delamination growth
assessment tools is necessary.

Delamination growth is affected by both cyclic and monotonic part of the fatigue load cycle.
The effect of monotonic part is known as stress ratio (ratio of minimum to maximum cyclic
stress) effect on delamination growth, and it has been extensively studied in the literature.
Chapter 2 provides a detailed review of the literature concerning the stress ratio effect on
delamination growth.

The literature review shows that previous studies empirically relate delamination growth to a
driving force parameter that seems not based on physical mechanisms. Studies are present
where mechanisms of delamination growth have been investigated; however there is a lack of
efforts to link these quantitatively to delamination growth models.

The objective of this thesis is the development of a mechanistic model for delamination
growth that is based on the observed delamination mechanisms and the effects of monotonic
and cyclic loadings in fatigue. The thesis is based on the hypothesis that both monotonic and
cyclic loading affect fracture surface formation, which can be used for delamination growth
characterization. The secondary objective of the thesis is the characterization of fracture
surfaces for the effect of monotonic and cyclic loading. To limit the scope, delamination
growth under mode I fatigue has been investigated in the thesis.

The approach of the thesis is experimental. Delamination growth is characterized

experimentally both on macroscopic and microscopic levels, as described in chapter 3.
Fatigue tests were performed on double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens to investigate
delamination growth behavior under different stress ratios. Specimens were made from cured
laminates of M30SC/DT120 carbon/epoxy prepregs. Crack closure during delamination
growth was investigated using a clip gauge extensometer. The effect of fiber bridging was
investigated by cutting bridging fibers during delamination growth experiments. Microscopy
of the fracture surfaces was performed using scanning electron microscopy. Width tapered
DCB (WTDCB) specimens were used for the delamination growth tests under fatigue with
constant monotonic and cyclic load during delamination extension.

Results of the fatigue tests and microscopy are presented in chapter 4. The delamination
growth rate has been related to the strain energy release rate (SERR). The SERR range has
been defined such that it resembles the correct analogous to the stress intensity factor (SIF)
range. For constant SERR range, the delamination growth rate is higher for higher stress
ratios. Crack closure was observed to occur for the lowest stress ratio applied in the tests.

Fractographic analysis of the fracture surfaces revealed broken fibers, loose fibers, hackles
and striations. The striations and hackles on the fracture surfaces of WTDCB specimens were
quantitatively analyzed for different combinations of monotonic load and cyclic load
amplitudes. It was observed that striation spacing increased with monotonic and cyclic load.
The hackle length increased with monotonic load, but decreased with the cyclic load
amplitude.

Crack closure and fiber bridging marginally explain the stress ratio effect on delamination
growth, as discussed in chapter 5. Crack closure increases the effective minimum load at
crack tip at the lower stress ratio only. This results in higher effective stress ratio at the crack
tip. In this case, the SERR range was corrected for crack closure. By plotting delamination
growth rate against corrected SERR range, the data shifted to the region with higher stress
ratios. To illustrate the effect of crack closure in 3D representation, delamination growth rate
was plotted against SERR range and maximum SERR. It was observed that the data corrected
for crack closure shifted to the higher stress ratio region, while remaining on the same crack
resistance surface.

It was further observed that fiber bridging decreases the delamination growth rate. The stress
ratio remains the same. It was observed that fiber bridging affects both minimum and
maximum loads during fatigue resulting in same stress ratio as without fiber bridging. In a 3D
representation of delamination growth rate versus SERR range and maximum SERR, the data
was observed to shift to the lower delamination growth rate region due to fiber bridging.

The experimental results showed that delamination growth is not a unique function of SERR
range, but also depend on the stress ratio. This implies that delamination growth depends on
both cyclic and monotonic loads. A two parameter model for delamination growth was
developed based on the observation of the effect of cyclic and monotonic load on the fracture
surfaces. Chapter 6 describes the mechanism of delamination growth and the development of
the mechanistic two parameter model for delamination growth prediction. The two parameter
components in the model are superimposed rather than multiplied in agreement with the
superposition of the effects of cyclic and monotonic loads observed with microscopic features
on the fracture surfaces. The two parameter model for delamination growth represents a crack
resistance surface for the material in the 3D coordinates of delamination growth rate versus
SERR range and maximum SERR.
The model has been implemented using data from the delamination growth experiments. The
surface fitting tool of the commercial software MATLAB was used to obtain the equation. To
validate the model, experimental data was taken from the literature. The predictions with the
model and the reported experimental observations were observed to be in good agreement.

The current model is different from previous models in that the relation between delamination
growth and correlating parameters is no longer a simple fit of the experimental data by
regression. The fit is rather an educated fit based on the observed contribution of monotonic
and cyclic load components on fracture mechanisms. The two parameters in the model are
superimposed to describe contribution of the load components. In previous two parameter
models the terms were multiplied without justification using the physics of delamination
growth.

The conclusions of the thesis are summarized in chapter 8. It can be concluded that the effect
of monotonic load on delamination growth is not fully explained by crack closure and fiber
bridging. The delamination growth should be characterized using both monotonic and cyclic
load components. These load components affects delamination growth at microscopic level
independent of one another. The two parameter terms in the model are added in conjunction
to the superposition of the effects of these parameters on microscopic features. It is
concluded that the model can be extended to the delamination growth in different modes of
fracture.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Nomenclature .................................................................................................... xiii

Abbreviations ................................................................................................... xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2 Literature review.............................................................................. 7

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Classification of the investigations ................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Effect of stress ratio on mode I fatigue delamination growth................................. 8

2.2.2 Effect of stress ratio on mode II fatigue delamination growth ............................. 15

2.2.3 Effect of stress ratio on mode III fatigue delamination growth ............................ 20

2.2.4 Effect of stress ratio on mixed fatigue delamination growth ................................ 21

2.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 3 Experiments and data evaluation ................................................. 31

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 31

3.2 Effect of stress ratio on mode I delamination growth.................................................... 31

3.3 Crack closure effect on mode I delamination growth .................................................... 36

3.4 Effect of fiber bridging on mode I delamination growth ............................................... 37

3.5 Effect of width tapered DCB configuration ................................................................... 42

3.6 Microscopy of mode I fatigue delamination growth ..................................................... 45

Chapter 4 Experimental results ...................................................................... 51

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 51

4.2 Mode I fatigue delamination growth ............................................................................ 51

4.2.1 Effect of stress ratio on mode I fatigue delamination growth.............................. 51

 4.2.2 Crack closure effect on mode I fatigue delamination growth .............................. 54

4.2.3 Effect of fiber bridging on mode I fatigue delamination growth ......................... 57

4.2.4 Mode I fatigue delamination growth in WTDCB specimens .............................. 61

4.3 Microscopy results ........................................................................................................ 64

4.3.1 SEM Examination of fracture surfaces for the effect of stress ratio .................... 64

4.3.2 Roughness measurements of fracture surfaces using LCSM................................ 66

4.3.3 In-situ SEM examination of the DCB specimen edges during monotonic loading
....................................................................................................................................... 67

4.3.4 SEM examination of the edges of the DCB specimens after fatigue tests .......... 69

4.3.5 Discussion of the SEM examination for the stress ratio effect ............................ 71

4.3.6 SEM examination of the fracture surfaces of WTDCB specimens .................... 72

4.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 80

Chapter 5 Effect of crack closure and fiber bridging on mode I fatigue

delamination growth ......................................................................................... 83

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 83

5.2 Effect of crack closure on mode I fatigue delamination growth .................................. 83

5.3 Effect of fiber bridging on mode I fatigue delamination growth .................................. 87

5.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 92

Chapter 6 Two parameter model for delamination growth......................... 95

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 95

6.2 Mechanism of delamination growth ............................................................................. 96

6.2.1 Hackle formation during matrix decohesion ....................................................... 97

6.2.2 Striation formation during fiber matrix decohesion ............................................. 99

6.3 Monotonic and cyclic load contribution related to fractographic features ............. 100

6.4 Development of two-parameter model principle ....................................................... 101

6.4.1 Relation of hackle geometry with cyclic and monotonic loading ................... 103

x
 6.4.2 Relation of striation spacing with cyclic and monotonic loading ................... 106

6.4.3 Macroscopic delamination growth ....................................................................107

6.5 Implementation of the model ....................................................................................... 114

6.6 Verification of the model with data sets from the literature ........................................122

6.6.1 Verification with data from Hojo‟s work ........................................................... 122

6.6.2 Verification with data from Bathias work .......................................................... 127

6.6.2 Verification with data from Mall‟s work ............................................................ 131

6.7 Discussion of the model ............................................................................................... 135

Chapter 7 Discussion ...................................................................................... 139

7.1 Aspects related to general delamination characterization............................................ 139

7.1.1 Opening modes ...................................................................................................140

7.1.2 Monotonic and cyclic load contributions............................................................ 144

7.1.3 Ply orientations ...................................................................................................145

7.2 Delamination growth experiments ............................................................................... 147

7.2.1 Selection of experiment and specimen ................................................................ 147

7.2.2 Considering fiber bridging ................................................................................... 148

7.3 Fractographic evaluation.............................................................................................. 149

7.4 Characterization of delamination ................................................................................. 150

7.4.1 Similitude principles ........................................................................................... 150

7.4.2 Plotting delamination resistance data .................................................................151

7.4.3 Boundaries of crack resistance surface in mode I delamination growth ............ 151

7.4.4 Effects of crack closure and fiber bridging on delamination growth ................. 152

7.5 Mechanistic model for delamination ........................................................................... 153

7.6 Contribution of the present work to the stress ratio effect evaluation ......................... 154

7.7 Future prospects ........................................................................................................... 155

xi
Chapter 8 Conclusions ................................................................................... 161

8.1 Characterization of delamination growth ....................................................................161

8.2 Effect of crack closure and fiber bridging on delamination growth ............................ 161

8.3 Fractographic observations .......................................................................................... 161

8.4 Mechanistic model for delamination growth ............................................................... 162

Appendix A Strain energy release rate. ....................................................... 163

A.1 Strain energy release rate ............................................................................................ 163

A.2 Derivation of strain energy release rate range ΔGs .................................................... 164

A.3 Strain energy release rate range in case of crack closure............................................ 165

Appendix B Fatigue delamination growth tests results. ............................. 167

B.1 Effect of stress ratio on delamination growth rate ...................................................... 167

B.2 Crack closure tests.......................................................................................................169

B.3 Fatigue delamination growth tests for fiber bridging effect investigation .................. 171

B.4 Delamination growth tests under constant Gmax and constant ΔGs using width tapered
DCB specimens................................................................................................................... 176

Appendix C Microscopy results .................................................................... 187

C.1 Hackles ........................................................................................................................ 187

C.2 Striations ..................................................................................................................... 200

Samenvatting ................................................................................................... 209

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... 213

Curriculum vitae ............................................................................................ 215

List of Publications .......................................................................................... 217

xii
 NOMENCLATURE

Symbol Description Unit

A Power law constant [-]

a Delamination length [mm]

ac Cutting thread position [mm]

Δa Delamination extension [mm]

B Plate width [m]

b Width of double cantilever beam specimen [mm]

C Compliance [m/N]

Co Compliance offset [-]

da/dN Delamination growth rate [m/cycle]

E1 Longitudinal Young‟s modulus [GPa]

E2 Transverse Young‟s modulus [GPa]

Gcloase SERR at crack closure [J/m2]

Gmax Maximum SERR [J/m2]

Gmin Minimum SERR [J/m2]

ΔG Arithmetic SERR range [J/m2]

ΔGs SERR range [J/m2]

ΔGeff SERR range corrected for crack closure [J/m2]

ΔGI SERR range under mode I [J/m2]

ΔGII SERR range under mode II [J/m2]

Gmax Maximum SERR [J/m2]

GImax Maximum SERR under Mode I [J/m2]

GIImax Maximum SERR under Mode II [J/m2]

GIIImax Maximum SERR under Mode III [J/m2]

xiii
ΔGTmax Total maximum SERR under mix mode [J/m2]

GImin Minimum SERR under Mode I [J/m2]

GIImin Minimum SERR under Mode II [J/m2]

GIIImin Minimum SERR under Mode III [J/m2]

Gth Threshold SERR [J/m2]

GIth Threshold SERR under Mode I [J/m2]

G IIth Threshold SERR under Mode II [J/m2]

Gc Critical SERR [J/m2]

GIc Critical SERR under Mode I [J/m2]

GIIc Critical SERR under Mode II [J/m2]

Kmax Maximum SIF [MPa.m1/2]

KImax Maximum SIF under Mode I [MPa.m1/2]

KIImin Minimum SIF under Mode II [MPa.m1/2]

Kth Threshold SIF [MPa.m1/2]

KIth Threshold SIF under Mode I [MPa.m1/2]

KIIth Threshold SIF under Mode II [MPa.m1/2]

Kc Critical SIF [MPa.m1/2]

KIIc Critical SIF under Mode II [MPa.m1/2]

ΔK SIF range [MPa.m1/2]

KIc Critical SIF under Mode I [MPa.m1/2]

ΔKI SIF range under Mode I [MPa.m1/2]

ΔKII SIF range under Mode II [MPa.m1/2]

ΔKeq Equivalent stress intensity factor range [MPa.m1/2]

k Taper of WTDCB specimen [-]

L Hackle length [mm]

N Number of cycles [-]

P Load [N]

xiv
R Stress ratio [-]

s Striation space [mm]

Sl Compliance of fully open crack [m/N]

Sm Compliance of segment [m/N]

σ Stress [Pa]

δ Displacement [mm]

γ Stress ratio parameter [-]

υ12 Poison‟s ratio for 12 plane [-]

∏ Potential energy [J]

xv
 ABBREVIATIONS

COD Crack opening displacement

DCB Double cantilever Beam

FBG Fiber bragg grating

LCSM Laser confocal scanning microscope

LEFM Linear elastic fracture mechanics

SEM Scanning electron microscope

SERR Strain energy release rate

SIF Stress intensity factor

UD Unidirectional

WTDCB Width taper double cantilever beam

 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Fiber reinforced polymer composites are attractive for aerospace applications because of their
exceptional strength and stiffness-to-density ratios. Aerospace industries use composites to
lower weight of aircraft structures to increase their fuel efficiency. The composite components
used in military and commercial aircrafts are horizontal and vertical stabilizers, wing skins,
fin boxes, flaps, spoilers, doors, elevator elements, rudders and other parts [1].
Initially composites were used only in secondary aircraft structures and its use was limited to
about 2% by weight of the aircraft [2]. However with improved material and knowledge,
composites are now being adopted in primary aircraft structures. Modern aircrafts like the
Boeing 787 and the Airbus A 350 have wing skins and fuselage made of composites. The
weight percentage of composites in these aircrafts is 50-53 respectively with an increased fuel
efficiency of 20-23% compared to similar sized aircraft utilizing aluminium [3-4].

(a)
Introduction

(b)

Figure 1.1: Illustration of use of composites in Boeing 787 [5] (a) and A 350 [6] (b)
The use of composites in primary aerospace structures has increased the need for a higher
reliable design. Composites are inherent to various damage types including fiber breakage,
delamination and micro cracking in the matrix. The occurrence of damage in composite
structures can never be entirely avoided. The structures should be deigned to function safely
despite the presence of damage, a concept known as damage tolerance [7]. The damage
tolerance analysis of a composite structure is based on the initial damage size, damage growth
and residual strength of the structure after damage growth [8].
Delamination is the most severe type of all types of damages. The strength and stiffness of
composite structures reduce due to delamination, potentially leading to structural failure [9].
The causes of delamination are bad layups of plies during manufacturing, low velocity impact
of tools during assembling and service, overstressing or fatigue. Fatigue is a major cause of
delamination growth in composite structures, making it a primary design concern. For the
adoption of damage tolerance design approaches in primary composite structures in aerospace
applications, the development of accurate fatigue delamination growth assessment tools is
necessary.
The delamination growth under fatigue loading should be described using known load cases.
Adopting similitude principles this implies that delamination data is needed for isolated cases
(mode I and mode II) in relation to the driving forces that come from the applied load. In
fatigue this is known to be the cyclic part and the monotonic part of the load cycle. This has
been extensively investigated and reported in the literature [10-14], but what seems
remarkable that most of these studies empirically relate the delamination growth to a driving
force parameter that seems not based on physical mechanisms. Some only use the monotonic
load as reference (using maximum strain energy release rate (SERR), Gmax) [11-12], others
use the cyclic portion (SERR range, ∆G) [15-16] and all relate the different curves to the
effect of the stress ratio. At some point people realise that both monotonic and cyclic load

2
 Chapter 1

contribute and they propose two-parameter models [10, 17], but the formulation seems to lack
the substantiation from physical mechanisms.
The motivation to this research is that damage tolerance can only be addressed well if the
physics in damage characterization and prediction are well acknowledged.
The hypothesis for the research presented in this thesis is that the damage growth is described
by both the cyclic and the monotonic part of the load cycles, but in a coherent way and
substantiated with the microscopic delamination mechanisms. This hypothesis implies that
any combination of monotonic and cyclic load yields a growth rate characteristic for the
interface, where depending on the representation (3D graph, 2D graph) the stress ratio effect
should be attributed to that characteristics resistance.
The primary objectives of the thesis are
 Analysis of the mechanism behind the effects of monotonic and cyclic loading in
delamination growth.
 Development of a mechanistic model for assessing delamination growth in composites
under different stress ratios.
According to the above hypothesis, it means that the microscopic mechanisms should be
characterized in order to attribute the delamination formation to either the monotonic or the
cyclic load, or a combination of the two load components.
As a consequence, the secondary objective of the thesis is the characterization of fracture
surfaces for the effect of monotonic and cyclic loading.
The role of crack closure and fiber bridging have been reported in the literature for the stress
ratio effect [18] or the monotonic load effect on delamination growth. These mechanisms are
also addressed in the thesis in context of the above hypothesis.
The approach of the thesis is experimental. The delamination growth is characterized both at
macroscopic and microscopic levels. On macroscopic level, fatigue experiments are
performed to characterize delamination growth rates under varying monotonic and cyclic
loadings to generate data sets for model implementation. The mechanism of crack closure and
fiber bridging are investigated for the explanation of the monotonic loading effect on
delamination growth. On microscopic level, the fracture surfaces under different monotonic
and cyclic loadings have been analyzed for the mechanism of delamination growth. The
delamination growth rate under different monotonic and cyclic loadings is linked to the
microscopic feature formation for the development of a mechanistic model.
To keep the focus, the thesis is limited to mode I fatigue delamination growth. Single
composite systems have been used in the experiments. The fatigue experiments are performed
under pure tension at room temperature and atmospheric pressure conditions.
Next chapter is review of the literature studies covering investigations of the stress ratio effect
on delamination growth. The review covers delamination growth under all fracture modes.
Prominent literature studies are discussed in detail. Chapter 3 describes the experiments
performed for generating data sets for modeling delamination growth. Two main experimental
programs were performed. First is the characterization of delamination growth and second is

3
Introduction

the microscopy of fracture surfaces. Chapter 4 presents experimental results. In this chapter,
observations of the fatigue experiments, delamination growth rates versus SERR data sets and
microscopy results are presented. Chapter 5 presents analysis of the crack closure and fiber
bridging and their role in the effect of stress ratio on delamination growth. In chapter 6, a two-
parameter mechanistic model is developed for the delamination growth under fatigue. The
model has been implemented using experimental results and validated using case studies from
the literature. Chapter 7 is the discussion about the contribution of the developed model and
its significance over previous models. Chapter 8 presents the conclusion of this thesis.

References
1. Muzamdar, S.K., Composites manufacturing : materials, product, and process engineering,
CRC Press LLC. 2001.

2. Quiter, A., Composites in Aerospace Applications, IHS ESDU, USA. www.ihsesdu.com.

3. Airbus information, A350 XWB: SHAPING EFFICIENCY. www.airbus.com, 2012.

4. Hale J., Boeing 787, from the Ground Up. QTR_4,06, AERO, www.Boeing.com.

5. FREISSINET S., www.1001crash.com, 2011.

6. McConnell V. P., Past is prologue for composite repair. www.reinforcedplastics.com, 2011.

7. Sierakowski, R.L. and G.M. Newaz, Damage Tolerance in Advanced Composites. 1995:
Technomic Publishing Company.

8. Rodi R., The residual strength failure sequence in fiber metal laminates, PhD Thesis. 2012,
Aerospace Faculty Tu Delft Nederland.

9. Harris, B., Fatigue in composites. CRC Press, Washington DC.

10. Hojo M., Tanaka K., Gustafson C-G., Hayashi R., Effect of stress ratio on near-threshold
propagation of delamination fatigue cracks in unidirectional CFRP. Compos Sci Technol,
1987. 29: p. 19.

11. Mall S., Ramamurthy G., Rezaizdeh M. A. , Stress Ratio Effect on Cyclic Debonding in
Adhesively Bonded Composite Joints. Composite Structures, 1987. 8: p. 15.

12. Martin R. H., Murri B., Characterization of Mode I and Mode II Delamiantion Growth and
Thresholds in AS4/PEEK Composites. Composite Materials: Testing and Design (Ninth
Volume), ASTM STP 1059, S. P. Garbo, Ed., ASTM Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 251-270, 1990.

13. Russel A.J., Street K. N,, The Effect of Matrix Toughness on Delamination: Static and fatigue
Fracture under Mode II Shear Loading of Graphite Fiber Composites. Toughened
Composites, ASTM STP 937, N. J. Johnson, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia,1987, pp-275-294, 1987.

14. Sutton A.S., Fatigue Crack Propagation in an Epoxy Polymer. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 1974. 6: p. 8.

4
 Chapter 1

15. Gustafson C.G, Hojo M., Delamination fatigue crack-growth in unidirectional graphite epoxy
laminates. journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composite, 1987. 6(1): p. 16.

16. M. Beghini L..B., P. Forte., Experimental investigation on the influence of crack front to fiber
orientation on fatigue delamination growth rate under mode II. Composite Scince and
Technology, 2006. 66: p. 7.

17. Jia J, D.J., Study of load ratio for mode-I fatigue fracture of wood–FRP–bonded interfaces.
Journal of Composite Materials, 2004. 38(14): p. 30.

18. Ritchie R.O., Mechanisms of Fatigue Crack Propagation in Metals, Ceramics and
Composites: Role of Crack Tip Shielding. Material Sience and Engineering, 1988. A103: p.
15-28.

5
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Abstract
In this chapter review of the previous studies on fatigue stress ratio effect on delamination
growth in composites is presented. This chapter provides a basis for the motivation of the
research presented in the thesis by pointing gap in the investigations. The previous studies
have been classified according to fracture modes. Prominent studies are discussed in detail.

2.1 Introduction
Delamination and delamination growth under fatigue loading are of concern in composite
structures. The strength and the stiffness of composite structures reduce due to delamination,
which can lead to loss of structural integrity and potentially failure of the structure. In order to
increase the fatigue life and reliability of composite structures, researchers have extensively
investigated the delamination growth in composites under fatigue in past few decades [1-19].
The delamination grows under different modes of fatigue loadings namely, mode I (tensile),
mode II (shear), mode III (transverse shear) or combination of these, as shown in figure 2.1.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2.1: Modes of opening (a) mode I /tensile mode (b) mode II /shear mode (c) mode III/
transverse shear mode
Under all modes of fatigue, the monotonic and cyclic loads, both are known to affect the
delamination growth behavior. If the applied stress range is used for the delamination growth
rate characterization, Smax (maximum stress), Smin (minimum stress), Smean (mean stress) or the
stress ratio (ratio of minimum to maximum stress, figure 2.2), is left to describe the effect of
monotonic loading. In the presentations of damage growth against stress range ∆S, strain
energy release rate (SERR) range ∆G or stress intensity factor (SIF) range ∆K, the stress ratio
is known to affect the curves with higher stress ratios at the left side and lower stress ratios at
the right side of the plot. The stress ratio effect is characterized by an increase in delamination
growth rate with increasing stress ratio for the same cyclic load range.
In order to implement the effect of stress ratio in delamination growth prediction models, the
understanding of the effect is required. Many researchers dedicated their research in this
regard [1-2, 4-5, 11, 20-38]. The previous studies cover the investigation of the effect for
Literature Review

different modes of fracture, different materials and environments. Various delamination

growth models have been proposed by researchers for the delamination growth prediction.
Some studies also investigate the mechanism for the effect of stress ratio.
This chapter presents a comprehensive review of the leading investigations on stress ratio
effect in delamination growth. Section 2.2 classifies the investigations. Section 2.3 is a
general discussion of the investigations. The conclusions of the review are presented in
section 2.4.

Figure 2.2: Definition of the fatigue stress cycle

2.2 Classification of the investigations

The previous investigations have been classified according to fracture modes i.e. mode I,
mode II, mode III and combination of these. The investigations for each mode have been
listed in tables accordingly in the following sections. These tables list the author, material
system and the proposed model for delamination growth prediction.
2.2.1 Effect of stress ratio on mode I fatigue delamination growth
The delamination grows under mode I fatigue under tension loading. The crack is closed
under mode I compression, resulting in no delamination growth. The range of stress ratio for
delamination growth under mode I is illustrated in figure 2.3 by plotting stress amplitude Sa
against Sm. The stress ratio range for delamination growth is -∞<R<1. In the tension-
compression region i.e. -∞<R<0, the delamination grows only in the tension part of the
fatigue cycle with effective stress ratio R=0.

8
 Chapter 2

Figure 2.3: Illustration of the relation between stress ratio R, the stress amplitude Sa and the
mean stress Sm for mode I
The previous studies of the stress ratio effect on mode I fatigue delamination have generally
focused on the characterization of material behavior. Table 2.1 lists the previous studies. The
prominent investigations are discussed in depth in the following paragraphs.
Bathias et.al [2] investigated the effect of stress ratio on mode I delamination growth in
Brochier/1452 laminates. The material was tested under three different stress ratios equal to
0.01, 0.4 and 0.5 respectively. The delamination growth rate was related to the range of SERR
ΔG defined as Gmax - Gmin. For same ΔG, the delamination growth was higher for higher stress
ratio. A model was proposed for delamination growth prediction in terms of ΔG as given in
table 2.1.
The model proposed by Bathias is stress ratio specific. For each stress ratio, the parameters of
the model should be determined through experiments. The use of ΔG can mislead the
investigation of the stress ratio effect. Rans et al. [39] demonstrated that ΔG is a similitude of
the combination of cyclic load amplitude and mean cyclic load. The stress ratio effect is not
correctly represented due to specific combination of the two loadings in ΔG formulation .The
use of ΔG results in an inconsistent stress ratio effect presentation for different materials as
given in table 2.2. The fracture surfaces were analyzed for stress ratio effect in the study.
Striation marks have been reported at the lowest stress ratio.

9
Literature Review

Table 2.1: Overview of literature on the effect of stress ratio effect in mode I fatigue
delamination growth

Validation data
Author Material system Delamination growth model Reference
stress ratio range

Bathias C. Brochier 𝑑𝑎
= 𝐴𝛥𝐺 𝑛 0.01, 0.4 and 0.5 [2]
et al. fabric/1452 𝑑𝑁
Hojo M. T300/914, 𝑑𝑎 𝑛 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5 and
= 𝐴 ∆𝐾𝑒𝑞 [5]
et. al T300/#2500 𝑑𝑁 0.7

Hojo M. T300/914, 𝑑𝑎 𝑛
= 𝐴 ∆𝐾𝑒𝑞 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5 [24]
et. al T300/#2500 𝑑𝑁

FiberT300,T800/
Hojo M. 𝑑𝑎 𝑛
Matrix 3601, = 𝐴 ∆𝐾𝑒𝑞 0.2 and 0.5 [27]
et. al 𝑑𝑁
#3631

Hojo M. alumina fiber/ 𝑑𝑎 𝑛

= 𝐴 ∆𝐾𝑒𝑞 0.1 and 0.5 [32]
et. al bisphenol 𝑑𝑁

Mall S. et. T300/5208 𝑑𝑎

= 𝐴𝛥𝐺 𝑛 0.1, 0.5 and 0.75 [20]
al adhesive EC 3445 𝑑𝑁

Gustafson 𝑑𝑎
T300/914C = 𝐴𝛥𝐺 𝑛 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 [4]
C.G. et. al 𝑑𝑁

𝐷1
Martin R. 𝐺𝑡𝑕
da 1−
𝐵 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
H. and AS4/PEEK =A 𝐺max 𝐷2 0.1 and 0.5 [25]
dN 𝐺
Murri B. 1 − 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐺𝑐

Atodaria E-glass p
da 1-γ γ
D. R. et. fabric/fiberite =B ∆ G . G 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 [30]
dN average
al 977-3

Dalmas
and E-glass/ES 70 No model proposed 0.01 and 0.3 [40]
Laksimi

𝑑𝑎 𝑚
Jia J. et al. wood-FRP = 𝐵∆𝐺𝑒𝑞 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 [34]
𝑑𝑁

Khan R.
M30SC/DT120 No model proposed 0.15, 0.35 and 0.5 [19]
et. al

10
 Chapter 2

Table 2.2: Effect of increasing stress ratio on delamination growth with using ΔG as
correlating parameter
Author Material system Effect on da/dN Reference

Hojo M. T300/914, No effect [5]

Hojo M. T300/#2500 Decrease [5]

Bathias C. Brochier fabric/1452 Increase [2]

Mall S. T300/5208, adhesive EC 3445 No effect [20]

Khan R. M30SC/DT120 Decrease [19]

The approach of ΔG = Gmax - Gmin was followed by other researchers for delamination growth
characterization. Mall [20] investigated the effect of stress ratio on debonding of T300/5208-
EC3445, adherend-adhesive system under mode I fatigue. After comparing the results of the
debond growth rates versus Gmax and ΔG, Mall observed that the data collapses on a single
curve in case of ΔG. The ΔG was thus proposed as the controlling parameter for the debond
growth rate. An equation similar to Bathias was proposed for the prediction of fatigue
debonding.
Gustafson [4] compared stress ratio effect on mode I delamination growth in T300/914C
laminates using Gmax and ΔG as correlating parameters. The results were similar to Mall, i.e.
the delamination growth rates under different stress ratios collapsed on a single curve in case
of ΔG. A delamination growth prediction model was proposed in terms of ΔG. In this study
crack closure was investigated. The crack closure was observed for the tests under stress ratio
equal to 0.1. For this test, the SERR range was corrected for the crack closure using ΔGeff =
Gmax - Gop, where Gop was determined from load at crack opening in the fatigue cycle. The
source of crack closure was not investigated in the study.
Hojo [5] investigated the stress ratio effect on mode I delamination growth in T300/914 and
T300/#2500 laminates. Test results were compared using Gmax, ΔG and ΔK as correlating
parameters. In case of ΔG, the stress ratio effect was negligible in the power law region for
T300/914 laminates, while a small dependency was observed in the threshold region. For
T300/#2500 laminates, the stress ratio dependency was obvious for all three correlating
parameters i.e. Gmax, ΔG and ΔK. In order to merge different stress ratio curves into a single
curve, Hojo proposed a correlating parameter ΔKeq that was defined as:

−𝛾 𝛾
∆𝐾𝑒𝑞 = ∆𝐾 1 − 𝑅 = ∆𝐾 1−𝛾 𝐾𝑚𝑎𝑥 (2.1)

Where γ (0 ≤ γ ≤ 1) is an empirical parameter used to account for the relative contribution of

cyclic stress and maximum stress in the delamination growth. The γ was determined by
plotting ΔK against the stress ratio parameter (1-R) at given delamination growth rates as
shown in figure 2.4 and fitting a straight line to a selected curve using equation
11
Literature Review

𝛾
∆𝐾 = ∆𝐾0 1 − 𝑅 (2.2)

Where ∆K0 is the SIF extrapolated to R=0 at a given delamination growth rate.

Figure 2.4: Plotting ΔK versus (1-R) for various delamination growth rates [5]
By examining test data sets from literature, it was observed that the value of γ is not unique
for different delamination growth rates. In different literature studies, different γ values has
been reported which implies that γ is not a material constant [41]. The consequence of a
variable γ is that the delamination growth rates under different stress ratios only merge at the
specific delamination growth rate that was used for γ evaluation. In another study undertaken
by Hojo et al. [27], this discrepancy became obvious that is illustrated by figure 2.5. The
figure shows the delamination growth versus ΔKeq for T300/#3601 and T800/#3631. For
T300/#3601, different stress ratio curves come closer only at the lowest delamination growth
rates because it was used for γ calculation. At higher delamination growth rates, the effect is
present and distinct curves exist for different stress ratios.
Hojo proposed the following empirical model for delamination growth prediction in terms of
ΔKeq

𝑑𝑎 𝑛
= 𝐴 𝛥𝐾𝑒𝑞 (2.3)
𝑑𝑁

Where A and n are the power law parameters.

12
 Chapter 2

Figure 2.5: Crack growth rate versus ΔKeq for T300/#3601 and T800/#3631 at various stress
ratios [27]
The equation 2.3 is two-parameter empirical model in terms of Kmax and ΔK. These two
parameters are multiplied in the study, however no physical mechanism has been devised for
this multiplication.
In his study, Hojo observed crack closure in fatigue test under lowest stress ratio i.e. 0.1. The
source of crack closure was not investigated. The value of ΔK was corrected for crack closure,
which shifted test data to higher stress ratio region in da/dN versus ΔK plot.
Hojo adopted approach of ΔKeq in other studies [24, 27, 32]. In [24], Hojo investigated the
effect of air and water environment on mode I delamination growth under different stress
ratios. In [27], effect of the matrix resin growth was investigated. Test specimens were made
from T300/3601, T300/3631, T800/3601 and T800/3601 prepregs. In [32], the effect of
temperature was investigated. The tests were performed at room temperature and at a
temperature equal to 77 K. In all of the above studies, Hojo proposed equation 2.3 for the
prediction of mode I delamination growth under different stress ratios.
Jia [34] investigated the stress ratio effect in wood/fiber reinforce polymer laminates under
mode I fatigue. Jia extended Hojo‟s approach of ΔKeq, to SERR. An equivalent SERR range
ΔGeq was proposed as correlating parameter. Following model was proposed for the
delamination growth:

13
Literature Review

𝑑𝑎 𝑚
= 𝐵 𝛥𝐺𝑒𝑞 (2.4)
𝑑𝑁

where B and m are the power law parameters that depend on the material.
Three formulation of ΔGeq were compared by fitting the experimental data under different
stress ratios. These formulation were

1−𝛾 𝛾
∆𝐺𝑒𝑞 = ∆𝐺 𝐺𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 (2.5)
1−𝛾 𝛾
∆𝐺𝑒𝑞 = ∆𝐺 𝐺𝑚𝑖𝑛 (2.6)

∆𝐺𝑒𝑞 = 𝛥𝐺/ (1 − 𝑅) 1−𝛾 (2.7)

In above equations Gmean and Gmin are the mean and minimum SERR. The ΔG =Gmax - Gmin
and γ is the material parameter, representing contribution of the loading parameters in
delamination growth. The value of γ was different in each of the above equation. Based on the
maximum value of the coefficient of determination for equation 2.5, Jia defined ΔGeq
according to equation 2.5. Jia model for delamination growth rate is empirical. The study
lacks the link between model and physical mechanism of delamination growth.
Atodaria et al. [30] proposed a two parameter model for the prediction of mode I delamination
growth at various stress ratios using the SERR approach. The proposed model is given by the
following equation

𝑑𝑎 1−𝛾 𝛾 𝑝
=𝐵 ∆ 𝐺 . 𝐺 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
(2.8)
𝑑𝑁

Where B, γ and p, are the equation parameters determined by iterations to best fit the
experimental data. The γ indicates the relative influence of √Gaverage and Δ√G on
delamination growth rate.
The Δ√G=√Gmax-√Gmin and √Gaverage was defined as
𝐺 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑤 1/𝑤
𝐺 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
= 1/𝑛 𝐺 𝑡𝑕
𝐺 (2.9)

In the above equation n is the number of divisions of the fatigue cycle between Kmax and Kth
(Figure 2.6 [30]), w is the weighting factor that was based on the hypothesis that in each
fatigue cycle the crack grows in a slow but progressive manner as the stress increase from
minimum to maximum. The growth is lower at lower stresses and higher at higher stresses in
a given cycle due to which the SERR at each division should be weighted differently. The w
was calculated by iterations to best fit the experimental data.

14
 Chapter 2

The model proposed by Atodaria requires five equation parameters to be determined by

iteration to best fit the experimental data. In his study, Atodaria didn‟t provided physical
evidence for the progressive crack growth in a fatigue cycle.

Figure 2.6: Division of a fatigue cycle in n equal divisions for calculating the weight average
SIF [30]
2.2.2 Effect of stress ratio on mode II fatigue delamination growth
The mechanism of delamination growth under mode II fatigue is different from mode I. In
mode II, there is no crack closure effect, the delamination grows under both positive and
negative values of the stress ratio and the growth is affected by the shear friction of the
fracture surfaces that result in cusp and roller formation on the fracture surfaces [42]. The
effect of stress ratio in mode II is also different from mode I [43]. Using several case studies
of mode II delamination growth from the literature, Rans et al. [39] demonstrated that the
effect of the stress ratio become negligibly small when the delamination growth rate is
correlated SERR range defined as ΔGs= (√Gmax-√Gmin)2. In mode I, a significant stress ratio
effect was observed for ΔGs.
The relation of stress ratio and cyclic load amplitude is illustrated in figure 2.7 for the mode II
fatigue delamination growth. The delamination growth behaviour is same on the two sides of
the symmetry line (R=-1) as shown in the figure.
The previous studies of the stress ratio effect on mode II delamination growth are listed in
table 2.3. The prominent investigations are discussed in the following paragraphs.

15
Literature Review

Figure 2.7: Illustration of the relation between stress ratio R, the stress amplitude Sa and the
mean stress Sm for mode II
Russel and Street [21] investigated the stress ratio effect on mode II fatigue delamination
growth in different material systems as mentioned in table 2.3. Two stress ratios, 0 and -1,
were used in the fatigue tests. The delamination growth was characterized using ΔGII as the
correlating parameter that was defined as ΔGII = Gmax for R=0 and ΔGII =Gmax + Gmin for R= -
1. For the same ΔGII, the delamination growth was higher for R= -1 in all materials tested.
Russel and Street have explicitly taken ΔGII as the similitude for the cyclic load as shown by
figure 2.8. The figure shows the load cycles and the corresponding SERR cycles under the
stress ratios 0 and -1.

Figure 2.8: Relation between cyclic load and cyclic SERR for R=0 and R= -1, the + and –
signs refer to the shear direction [21]
The approach of ΔG was followed by other researchers in a similar way to Russel and Street.
Mall [22] investigated mode II stress ratio effect in debonding of T300/5208/EC3445. The

16
 Chapter 2

specimens were tested under two stress ratios equal to -1 and 0.1. The delamination growth
rate was higher for R= -1 test for the same ΔG.
Matsubara [35] investigated mode II delamination growth in unidirectional tape and satin-
woven fabric laminates under different stress ratios. The SERR range was used as correlating
parameter. The SERR range was defined by following equation:
𝛥𝐺𝑠 = 𝐺𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 (1 − 𝑅)2 (2.10)
The above definition is analogous to the range of SIF ΔK=Kmax - Kmin. Equation 2.10 can be
written in terms of Gmax and Gmin as
𝛥𝐺𝑠 = ( 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺𝑚𝑖𝑛 )2 (2.11)
For some case studies, Rans [39] reported that using ΔGs, the stress ratio effect for mode II
becomes negligibly small. However in his study, Matsubara observed significant stress ratio
effect for T300/5208/EC3445 .The delamination growth curves were distinct for each stress
ratio.
Tanaka and Tanaka [41] investigated mode II delamination growth behaviour under different
stress ratios in T300H/3631 laminates. They proposed an empirical model for the prediction
of delamination growth that characterizes the effect of stress ratio by developing empirical
relations for the Paris equation exponent. The model is given by the following equation

𝑑𝑎 𝑛
= 𝑉𝐿 𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 /𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑐 (2.12)
𝑑𝑁

Where VL is the delamination growth rate at threshold, n is the Paris equation parameter and
KIIC is the critical SIF. The n was defined by the following equation

𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑉𝐻 /𝑉𝐿
𝑛 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔 (2.13)
1−𝑅 𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑐 /∆𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑡 𝑕

Where VH is the critical delamination growth rate and ∆KIIth is the range of SIF at threshold.
The main assumption in the derivation of equation 2.12 was that the ΔKIIth is constant
regardless of the stress ratio. This assumption was based on the experimental observation in
the study where the delamination growth curves converged at a delamination growth equal to
1e-9 m per cycles as shown in figure 2.9a. Figure 2.9b is a schematic representation of
delamination growth rate under different stress ratios showing the convergence of the
different curves at ΔKth.
In Tanaka‟s model, the assumption of unique ΔKth for different stress ratios cannot be
generalized for all materials. There are cases in the literature where ΔKth has different values
at the threshold delamination growth rate. This imply that the curves for different stress ratios
either do not converge to a single ΔKth or converges at multiple values of ΔKth. Matsuda [29]
conducted mode II delamination growth tests on T800H/3900-2 and observed that the value of
ΔKth was not unique for different stress ratios as shown in figure 2.10. The dotted and the
solid lines in the figure represent the tests under room temperature, while the markers
represent the tests performed at a temperature equal to 77K. From the figure, it is evident that

17
Literature Review

the value of ΔKth is different for both types of tests under different temperatures. The above
examination implies that Tanaka‟s model can‟t be generalized for all material types.
Table 2.3: Overview of the literature on the stress ratio effect in mode II fatigue
delamination growth
Validation data
Author Material system Delamination growth model Reference
stress ratio range
AS1/3501-
Russel 6,AS4/2220-3, 𝑑𝑎 𝑛
= 𝐴 𝛥𝐺 -1 and 0 [21]
and Street C6000/F155, 𝑑𝑁
AS4/Apc2

Mall S. et T300/5208,adhesive 𝑑𝑎 𝑛
= 𝐴 𝛥𝐺 -1 and 0.1 [22]
al. EC 3445 𝑑𝑁
𝐷1
𝐺𝑡𝑕
da 1−
Martin 𝐵 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
AS4/PEEK =A 𝐺max 𝐷2 0.1 and 0.5 [25]
and Murri dN 𝐺
1 − 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐺𝑐
-1,-0.5, 0, 0.14,
Gambone
AS4/3501-6 No model proposed 0.25, 0.33, 0.4 [26]
L.
and 0.5

Lin C. T. carbon fiber

and Kao reinforced No model proposed 0.1 and 0.5 [11]
P. W aluminium laminate
Tanaka
𝑑𝑎 𝑛
-1,-0.5, 0.2, 0.5
and T300H/3631 = 𝑉𝐿 𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 /𝐾𝐼𝐼𝑐 [41]
𝑑𝑁 and 0.5
Tanaka

Matsuda T800H/3900-2 𝑑𝑎 𝑛 0.1 and 0.5 [29]

= 𝐴 𝛥𝐾
S. et al. 𝑑𝑁

alumina fiber/
Hojo M. bisphenol 𝑑𝑎 𝑛
= 𝐴 𝛥𝐾 0.1 and 0.5 [32]
et al. 𝑑𝑁

Unidirectional tape
Matsubara and satin-woven 𝑑𝑎 𝑛
-1,-0.5, 0.1, and
= 𝐴 𝛥𝐺 [35]
G. et al. fabric,T-Glass, E- 𝑑𝑁 0.5
glass
Kawashita
IM7/8552 No model proposed 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 [36]
L. F. et al.
Allegri G. 𝑑𝑎 2𝑏/(1−𝑅 2 )
IM7/ 8552 = 𝐶 𝐺𝐼𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 /𝐺𝐼𝐼𝑐 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 [37]
et al. 𝑑𝑁
Anderson 𝑑𝑎 ∆𝐾−∆𝐾𝑡𝑕 𝑏
J.
* =𝐶 * [33]
𝑑𝑁 𝐾𝑐 −𝐾𝑚

*Theoretical approach

18
 Chapter 2

(a) (b)

Figure 2.9: Crack propagation rate versus ΔKII under different stress ratios [41],(a)
Experimental data (b), Schematic representation [41]

Figure 2.10: Relation between crack propagation rate and stress intensity range ΔKII for
T800H/3900-2 at room temperature and 77 K [29]
Anderson [33] developed an empirical model for the prediction of delamination growth. The
model implicitly includes the stress ratio effect by modifying the correlating parameter of the
Paris equation for the effect. The model was represented by the following equation

𝑑𝑎 ∆𝐾−∆𝐾𝑡𝑕 𝑏
=𝐶 (2.14)
𝑑𝑁 𝐾𝑐 −𝐾𝑚

Where C and b are power law parameters, Kc is the fracture toughness for a given loading
mode, Km is the mean applied SIF, and ΔKth is the threshold SIF range.
Anderson implicitly linked the empirical model to the damage formation ahead of
delamination crack tip. It was assumed that the damage formation is a function of cyclic and
monotonic load. Literature studies [5, 29, 41] were used for the validation of the developed

19
Literature Review

model. He reported a reasonable agreement between the model prediction and the
experimental data of the listed references however, Allegri [37] recently examined the model
and pointed its discrepancy in delamination prediction for some material systems.
2.2.3. Effect of stress ratio on mode III fatigue delamination growth
The fatigue delamination growth under mode III (transverse shearing) has been investigated
less compared to mode I and II. The relation of stress ratio, Sa and Sm in mode III is same to
the mode II.
The effect of the stress ratio in mode III delamination growth was investigated by Donaldson
et al. [23] in AS4/3502 laminates. Donaldson also used Gmax and ΔG = Gmax - Gmin for
characterizing mode III fatigue delamination growth.
The stress ratio effect in mode III rate resembles to mode II when Gmax is used as the
correlating parameter. Figure 2.11 shows comparison of the stress ratio effect on mode III and
mode II delamination growths using Gmax as correlating parameter. The curves for different
stress ratios are converged at higher delamination rates. Donaldson proposed the Paris
equation in terms of Gmax for the prediction of delamination growth rate under mode III.

(a)

20
 Chapter 2

(b)

Figure 2.11: (a) Delamination growth rate versus GIIImax under mode III [23] (b)
Delamination growth rate versus GIImax/Gc under mode II [37]
2.2.4 Effect of stress ratio on mixed mode (I+II) fatigue delamination growth
In mixed mode (I + II) delamination, the individual modes can contribute from 0-100%. The
stress ratio affects the delamination growth in mode I and mode II differently as mentioned in
the previous sections. The mode ratio (GI/GII) is thus an important parameter to analyze the
stress ratio effect in case of mixed mode delamination growth. The literature studies [1, 4, 20]
have generally used crack lap shear (CLS) specimens for characterization of the mixed mode
delamination growth under different stress ratios. The mode ratio changes with delamination
extension in CLS specimens. The analysis of stress ratio effect is complicated due to varying
mode ratio in CLS specimens. Table 2.4 lists the previous studies reporting the stress ratio
effect in mixed mode delamination growth.
Mall et al. [20] investigated mixed mode delamination growth under different stress ratios in
T300/5208, adhesive EC 3445. The mode ratio was 0.03-0.38 in the fatigue tests. The results
were correlated to GTmax= GImax+GIImax and ΔGT = (ΔGImax- ΔGImin) + (ΔGIImax- ΔGIImin). The
difference between delamination growth rates under different stress ratios was reduced in case
of ΔGT as compared to GTmax, due to which Mall proposed that ΔGT is the controlling
parameter for the delamination growth. The stress ratio effect analyses become more
complex using ΔGT due to mixing the effects of monotonic and cyclic loadings and individual
mode contributions in the mixed mode.
Gustafson et al. [4] investigated the stress ratio effect on mixed mode delamination growth in
T300/914C material system. The mode ratio for the tests was 0.366-0.446. Similar to Mall,
Gustafson also proposed ΔGT as the correlating parameter for delamination growth
characterization.

21
Literature Review

Table 2.4: overview of literature on the stress ratio effect in mixed mode (I+II) fatigue
delamination growth
Validation
Delamination growth data stress Mode ratio Reference
Author Material system
model ratio range
range

0.01, 0.1,
Mall S. et T300/5208,adhesive 𝑑𝑎 𝑛
= 𝐴 ∆𝐺𝐼 + ∆𝐺𝐼𝐼 0.5 and 0.03-0.38 [20]
al. EC 3445 𝑑𝑁
0.75

Gustafson 𝑑𝑎 𝑛
0.1, 0.3
T300/914C = 𝐴 ∆𝐺𝐼 + ∆𝐺𝐼𝐼 0.366-0.446 [4]
C.G. et. al 𝑑𝑁 and 0.5
𝑑𝑎
Schön * = 𝐷∆𝐺𝑟𝑛 * 0-1 [31]
𝑑𝑁

* Theoretical approach was used

Schön [31] developed an empirical model for prediction of the mixed mode fatigue
delamination growth under different stress ratios. The model was based on the assumption
that the threshold SERR ΔGr,th is independent of the stress ratio. In the model, the stress ratio
is represented by a parameter Q that is equal to R when -1 ≤ R ≤1 and 1/R when |R|>1.
Schön proposed the following equation for delamination growth prediction

𝑑𝑎
= 𝐷∆𝐺𝑟𝑛 (2.15)
𝑑𝑁

Where D and n are equation parameters. The effect of stress ratio was included in the model
by modifying the exponent n of equation 2.15 as

𝑑𝑎 𝑑𝑎
𝑙𝑜𝑔 −𝑙𝑜𝑔
𝑑𝑁 𝑡𝑕 𝑑𝑁 𝑐
𝑛 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔 (2.16)
∆𝐺𝑟 ,𝑡𝑕 −𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,𝑐 1−𝑄 2

Where Gmax,c is the critical energy release rate, (da/dN)c is the critical delamination growth
rate and (da/dN)th is the threshold delamination growth rate. In equation 2.15, the parameter
D was defined as:

𝑑𝑎
𝑑𝑁 𝑡𝑕
𝐷= 𝑛 (2.17)
∆𝐺𝑟 ,𝑡𝑕

Schön validated the model using literature studies [21, 25, 27, 41].
In Schön‟s model, the assumption of taking ΔGr,th independent of the stress ratio cannot be
generalized for all materials. Russel and Street [21] observed an effect of stress ratio on ΔGth

22
 Chapter 2

in AS1/3501-6, AS4/2220-3, C6000/F155 and AS4/Apc2 composites in mode II delamination

growth. Similarly, Mall [22] observed the effect of stress ratio on ΔGth in T300/5208,
adhesive EC 3445 under mode II. Hojo [5] and Bathias [2] observed a stress ratio effect on
ΔGth in T300/#2500 and Brochier-fabric/1452 respectively in mode I delamination growth.
The literature survey shows that the previous studies for the mixed mode stress ratio effect
lack the approach to separate the effects coming from individual modes contributions. The
individual modes have different mechanism of delamination growth and the stress ratio affect
the delamination growth differently in each mode. The analysis of the stress ratio effect is
thus more complex in mixed mode than the single mode delamination growth.

2.3 Discussion
The stress ratio effect on fatigue delamination growth has been extensively studied in the
literature. Due to complex nature of the delamination phenomenon, there is a lack of
understanding about characterizing the effect. The common thing in the previous studies is the
use of such correlating parameter in delamination growth models that eliminate stress ratio
effect. It can be stated from the literature survey, that the researchers generally believed that
stress ratio has no physical effect on delamination growth mechanism and the apparent effect
in delamination growth characterization can be eliminated by using a proper correlating
parameter. For this purpose, the delamination growth data was correlated to ΔK, ΔG, ΔGs,
Kmax and Gmax. Paris equations were proposed as delamination growth models in terms of one
of the above parameter.
The above parameters affect the delamination growth analysis in different ways. The use of
SIF for delamination growth characterization is not appropriate. In composites, the
complexity of the stress field at delamination tip at an interface of two potentially dissimilar
materials/layers makes the evaluation of SIF difficult. Alternatively, researchers adopted the
approach of SERR which is easily determined for composites. In general the SERR, as a
correlating parameter, is either used as Gmax or the SERR range ∆G=Gmax-Gmin. For
delamination growth under fatigue, the Gmax fails to include the effect of the ∆G, related to the
minimum load in the applied load cycle. The ∆G has been adopted as analogous to the ∆K,
which is incorrect as mentioned in section 2.2.2. The correct analogous of the ∆K in terms of
SERR is ΔGs (equation 2.11), that gives same results to ∆K. The behavior of delamination
growth with increasing stress ratio was analyzed using ΔGs for the literature studies. These
results were compared with ΔK. The observations are presented in table 2.5. The table shows
that delamination growth behavior is similar with increasing stress ratio for both parameters.
The effective stress ratio at the crack tip in mode I is influenced by crack shielding
mechanisms. Crack closure due to plasticity or surface roughness, fiber bridging or ligament
bridging shields crack tip in some materials [44]. The cyclic loading at the crack tip is
affected due to crack shielding, that also change the effective stress ratio. Literature survey
reveals that few studies investigated crack closure. Hojo et al. [5] and Gustafson et al. [4]
conducted tests to determine the crack closure effect in mode I fatigue delamination growth.
Crack closure was observed at lower stress ratios in both studies. In Hojo‟s study, ∆K was
corrected for crack closure that increased the effective stress ratio. Gustafson used ∆G in his
investigation and the results were corrected for crack closure effect.
23
Literature Review

Table 2.5: Effect of increasing stress ratio on delamination growth using ΔGs and ΔK as
correlating parameters
Effect on da/dN at constant Effect on da/dN at constant
Material Reference
2
ΔGs=(√Gmax-√Gmin) ΔK

T300/914, Increase Increase [5]

T300/#2500 Increase Increase [5]

Brochier fabric/1452 Increase Increase [2]

T300/5208,
Increase Increase [20]
adhesive EC 3445

M30SC/DT120 Increase Increase [37]

The observed crack closure in the above studies was small to fully explain the stress ratio
effect in a same way as it explains stress ratio effect in metal fatigue growth [45-46]. The
difference in the behavior of metal crack and delamination with respect to crack closure may
be attributed to the source of crack closure in these two types of material systems. The
previous studies lack the investigation of the source of crack closure in delamination growth.
In general, the previous delamination growth models are either empirically developed or lacks
the link between fracture mechanisms and delamination growth. In some mode I delamination
growth studies, the mechanism for the effect of stress ratio was investigated using SEM
(scanning electron microscopy) as discussed in section 2.2.2. Bathias and Laksimi [2]
observed striations on the fracture surfaces in lower stress ratio tests. Hojo et al. [5] observed
that the fatigue fracture surface features at higher stress ratios resembles to the mode I static
fracture features.
The fatigue delamination growth depends on both monotonic and cyclic part of the fatigue
cycle [47]. This implies that at micro level, the fracture surface is accordingly affected by
these two components of the fatigue load cycle. The previous studies generally investigated
stress ratio effect on fracture mechanisms using double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens. As
stress ratio is the ratio of minimum to maximum cyclic load, the delamination growth and
fracture surface does not change due to stress ratio, rather it changes due to change in
monotonic and cyclic loads. In a fatigue tests using DCB specimen (no matter displacement
control or load control), stress ratio remains constant, however monotonic and cyclic load
changes with delamination extension. This implies that resulting fracture surface topology
does not remain constant at a specific stress ratio throughout delamination length in DCB

24
 Chapter 2

specimens. The study of the fracture surface for the effect of monotonic and cyclic load is
thus improper using DCB specimens.
The mechanism of mode II delamination growth has been investigated in some previous
studies. The delamination growth models developed in the previous studies were empirically
developed without linking to the micromechanism of the mode II delamination growth.
Tanaka and Tanaka [41] investigated the delamination tip and the fracture surfaces under
different mode II stress ratios. The delamination tip was different in positive stress ratio test
than the negative stress ratio tests as shown in figure 2.12. For the positive stress ratios, the
main crack was accompanied by small microcracks that were caused by principle normal
stresses at an angle of 450 to the fiber direction in the plies. In case of negative stress ratios
the main crack propagates along a zigzagging path due to principle stress reversal causing X-
shaped microcracks. Tanaka also reported a remarkable difference between the fracture
surfaces under positive and negative stress ratios. The pitch of river markings was much
smaller for negative stress ratios than positive stress ratios.
The above discussion shows that the stress ratio has an influence on the fracture mechanisms
for the mode I and mode II delamination growths. Practically this influence is the result of the
effects of monotonic and cyclic loads. Efforts should be thus focused to study effect of these
loadings on the micromechanisms.
In the previous studies, empirical two-parameter models have been proposed for delamination
growth that either implicitly or explicitly characterize the stress ratio effect on delamination
growth. The use of two-parameter models for fatigue delamination growth characterization is
more appropriate than using single parameter model, because the fatigue spectrum is fully
described by any two parameters of Gmax, Gmin, Gmean ∆Gs and R. For empirical two-parameter
models in literature, the number of equation parameters is more than single parameter models.
Atodaria‟s [30] model need five constants that should be determined from experimental data
fitting. Hojo‟s [5] model need four constants. The number of equation constants can be
reduced by developing mechanistic two-parameter models.

Figure 2.12: SEM micrograph of mode II fatigue crack under (a) R=0.2 (b) R=-1 [41]

2.4 Conclusions
Significant number of studies has been dedicated to the investigation of the stress ratio effect
on delamination growth. From the literature survey following conclusions are drawn:

25
Literature Review

1. The use of SERR approach is appropriate for the analysis of fatigue delamination
growth, however to get full analogy with SIF and avoid misinterpreting the results,
SERR range should be defined as ΔGs = (√Gmax-√Gmin)2.
2. Crack closure and its role in stress ratio effect has been investigated less in the
delamination growth under mode I. Crack closure has been observed under lower
stress ratios in some studies. The literature lacks the investigation of the crack closure
effect using SERR approach.
3. The previous studies lack to investigate role of fiber bridging in the stress ratio effect.
4. The fracture surfaces depend on both monotonic and cyclic loading. In previous
investigations, efforts are generally focused on effect of stress ratio on the fracture
surfaces.
5. The previous delamination growth models (both single parameter and two-parameter)
are empirical. The effect of stress ratio is included by modifying the equation
parameters or the equation constants.

References
1. George L. Roderick, Richard A. Everett, Jr, John H. Crews, Jr, Cyclic Debonding of
Unidirectional Composite Bonded to Aluminum Sheet for Constant Amplitude
Loading. NASA Technical Note TN D-8126, 1976.
2. Bathias C., Laksimi A., Delamination threshold and Loading Effect in Fiber Glass
Epoxy Composite. Delamination and Debonding of Materials, ASTM STP
Philadelphia. p. 10, 1985.
3. Ramkumar R.L., Whitcomb J.D., Characterization of mode I and mixed mode
delamination growth in T300/5208 graphite/epoxy. Delamination and debonding of
Materials, . ASTM STP, 1985. 876: p. 20.
4. Gustafson C.G., Hojo M., Delamination fatigue crack-growth in unidirectional
graphite epoxy laminates. journal of Reinforced Plastics and composite, 1987. 6(1): p.
16.
5. Hojo M., Tanaka K., Gustafson C-G., Hayashi R., Effect of stress ratio on near-
threshold propagation of delamination fatigue cracks in unidirectional CFRP.
Compos Sci Technol, 1987. 29: p. 19.
6. Russel A.J., Micromechanisms of Interlaminar Fracture and Fatigue. Polymer
Composites, 1987. 8(5).
7. Bruce R., Trethwey Jr, John W. Gillepsie and Lief A. Carlsson, Mode II Cyclic
Delamination Growth. Journal of Composite Materials, 1988. 22.
8. Dahlen C., Springer G.S., Delamination growth in composite under cyclic loads.
Journal of Composite Materials, 1994. 28(8): p. 52.
9. Kao C. T., Lin P. W., Effect of fiber bridging on the fatigue crack propagation in
carbon fiber-reinforced aluminum laminates. Materials Science and Engineering,
1995. 190: p. 8.

26
 Chapter 2

10. Benzeggagh M. L., Kenane M., , Measurement of mixed mode delamination fracture
toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed mode bending
apparatus. composite Scince and Technology, 1996. 56(4): p. 10.
11. Lin C. T., Kao P. W. , Fatigue delamination growth in carbon fiber reinforced
aluminium laminates. Composites, 1996. 27.
12. Kenane M., Benzeggagh, M.L., Mixed mode delamination fracture toughness of
unidirectional glass/epoxy composites under fatigue loading. Composite Science and
Technology, 1997. 57(5): p. 28.
13. Asp L. E., Sjogren A., Greenhalgh E.S., delamination growth and threshold in
carbon/epoxy composite under fatigue loading. Journal of Composite Technology and
Research, 2001. 23(2): p. 13.
14. Moris G. E., Determining fracture directions and fracture origons on failed
graphite/epoxy surfaces, in non destructive evaluation and flaw criticality in
composite materials, ASTM STP 696, 1979, P.274.
15. Johanesson T., Sjoblom P., Selden R., The detailed structure of delamination fracture
surfaces in graphite/epoxy laminates,. Journal of Material Sience 1984. 19.
16. Villaverde N.B., Variable mix mode delamination under fatigue conditions. 2004,
universitat de Girona.
17. Alderliesten R.C, Fatigue Crack Propagation and Delamination Growth in Glare,
PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2005.
18. Shivakumar K., Chen H., Abali F., Le D., Davis C., A total fatigue life model for mode
I delaminated composite laminates. International Journal of Fatigue, 2006. 28: p. 33-
42.
19. Khan R., Rans C. D., Benedictus R., Effect of stress ratio on delamination growth
behaviour in unidirectional carbon/epoxy under Mode I fatigue loading, in ICCM.
2009: Eidenburgh, UK.
20. Mall S., Ramamurthy G., Rezaizdeh M. A. , Stress Ratio Effect on Cyclic Debonding
in Adhesively Bonded Composite Joints. Composite Structures, 1987. 8: p. 15.
21. Russel, A.j., Street K. N, The Effect of Matrix Toughness on Delamination: Static and
fatigue Fracture under Mode II Shear Loading of Graphite Fiber Composites.
Toughened Composites, ASTM STP 937, N. J. Johnson, Ed., American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,1987, pp-275-294, 1987.
22. Mall S., Kochhar N. K., Characterization of Debond Growth Mechanism in
Adhesively Bonded Composites under Mode II Static and Fatigue Loadings.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1988. 31(5): p. 747-758.
23. Donaldson S.L., Mall S., Delamination Growth in Graphite/Epoxy Composites
Subjected to Cyclic Mode III Loading. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,
1989. 8.

27
Literature Review

24. Hojo M., Tanaka K., Gustafson C-G., Hayashi R., Fracture Mechanics for
Delamination fatigue Crack Propagation in CFRP in Air and Water. Key Engineering
Materials 1989. 37: p. 149-160.
25. Martin R. H., Murri B., Characterization of Mode I and Mode II Delamiantion
Growth and Thresholds in AS4/PEEK Composites. Composite Materials: Testing and
Design (Ninth Volume), ASTM STP 1059, S. P. Garbo, Ed., ASTM Philadelphia,
1990, pp. 251-270, 1990.
26. Gambone L. R., The effect of R-ratio on the mode II fatigue delamination growth of
Unidirectional Carbon/Epoxy. Master Thesis, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver Canada, 1991.
27. Hojo M., Ochiai S., Gustafson C-G, Tanaka K., Effect of Matrix Resin on
Delamination Fatigue Crack Growth in CFRP Laminates. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 1994. 49(1) p. pp. 35-47.
28. Hojo M., Matsuda S., Ochiai S., Delamination fatigue crack growth in CFRP
laminates under mode I and II loadings-effect of mesoscopic structure on fracture
mechanism. In: Proceedings of international conference on fatigue of composites; p.
15–26., 1997: p. 15-26.
29. Matsuda S., Hojo M., Ochiai S., Mesoscopic Fracture Mechanism of Mode II
Delamination Fatigue Crack Propagation in Interlayer-Toughened CFRP. Japan
Society of Mechanical Engineers International Journal, 1997. 40(4).
30. Atodaria D.R, Putatunda SK, Mallick PK, Delamination growth behaviour of a fabric
reinforced laminated composite under mode I loading. J Eng Mater Technol 1999.
121(3): p. 6.
31. Schön J., A model of fatigue delamination in composites. Composite Science and
Technology, 2000. 60: p. 553-558.
32. Hojo M, Matsuda S., Fiedler B., Kawada T., Moriya K., Ochiai S., Aoyama H.,
Mode I and II delamination fatigue crack growth behavior of alumina fiber/epoxy
laminates in liquid nitrogen. International Journal of Fatigue, 2002. 24: p. 109-118.
33. Anderson J., Hojo M., Ochiai S., Empirical Model for stress ratio effect on fatigue
delamination growth rate in composite laminates. International Journal of fatigue,
2004. 26(6): p. 7.
34. Jia J, D.J., Study of load ratio for mode-I fatigue fracture of wood–FRP–bonded
interfaces. Journal of Composite Materials, 2004. 38(14): p. 30.
35. Matsubara G., One H., Tanaka K., Mode II fatigue crack growth from delamination in
unidirectional tape and satin woven fabric lamiantes of high strength GFRP.
International Journal of Fatigue, 2006. 28: p. pp. 1177-1186.
36. Kawashita L.F. , Jones M.I., Trask R.S., Hallett S.R. , Wisnom M.R. . Static and
Ftaigue Delamination from Disconitnuous Plies- Experimental and Numerical
Investigations. in ICCM. 2009. Eidenberg UK.

28
 Chapter 2

37. Allegri G., Jones M. I., Wisnom M. R., Hallet S. .R, A new semi-empirical model for
stress ratio effect on mode II fatigue delamination growth. Composites: Part A, 2011.
42: p. 8.
38. Gornet L., and Ijaz H., High Cycle Fatigue Damage Model for Delamination Crack
Growth in CF/Epoxy Composite Laminates. International Journal of Damage
Mechanics, 2011. 20.
39. Rans C. D., Alderliesten R., Benedictus R., Misinterpreting the results: How
similitude can improve our understanding of fatigue delamination growth Composite
Science and Technology, 2011. 71 p. 230–238.
40. D. Dalmas, A. Laksimi, On the method of determination of strain energy release rate
during fatigue delamiantion in composite material. Applied Composite Materials,
1999. 6(327): p. 13.
41. Tanaka H., Tanaka, K., Stress ratio effect on mode II propagation of interlaminar
fatigue cracks in graphite/epoxy composites. composite materials: fatgue and fracture
6, ASTM STP 1285, 1997: p. 16.
42. Heautling F., F.H., Nordbakke M., Morolo H., Paulisch D., Czarne cki J.,,
Microfractographic analysis of the delamination growth in fatigue loaded carbon-
fiber/thermoset matrix composites. mat.-wiss.und Werkstofftechnik. 1998. 29: p. 239-
253.
43. Knehans R., Steinbrech R. W., Journal of material Science lett. 1 (1982) 327.
44. Ritchie, R.O., Mechanisms of Fatigue Crack Propagation in Metals, Ceramics and
Composites: Role of Crack Tip Shielding. Material Sience and Engineering, 1988.
A103: p. 15-28.
45. Mai Y. W., Hakeem M. I., Journal of Material Science 19 (1984) 501.
46. Hu X. Z., Mai Y. W., Mode I delamination and fiberbridging in carbon-fiber/epoxy
composites with and without PVAL coating. Composite Science and Technology,
1993. 46 (2): p. 147-156.
47. Hwang W., Han K.S., Interlaminar Frcature Behaviour and fiber bridging of
glass/epoxy Composite Under Mode I Static and Cyclic Loadings. Journal of
Composite Materials, 1989. 23.

29
 CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTS AND DATA EVALUATION
Abstract
This chapter describes the experiments performed to investigate mode I delamination growth.
These experiments formed the basis for the development of a model described in this thesis.
The chapter describes the tests, specimens, and measurement techniques used in the
experiments.

3.1 Introduction
To investigate the delamination behavior in mode I fatigue loading in relation to the applied
stress ratio, various experiments were performed. The base line test data set was generated by
fatigue testing double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens. The data set was used to relate to
the typical data presented in the literature and to investigate the stress ratio effect for different
formulations of the correlating parameter in terms of strain energy release rate (SERR).
Subsequently, similar tests were performed for the effect of fiber bridging and crack closure
on delamination growth. The DCB specimens were substituted by width tapered double
cantilever beam (WTDCB) specimens to exclusively address the effect of monotonic load in
the fatigue cycle.

This chapter provides an overview of all tests, describing the test setup, procedure, specimen
configuration, and measurement techniques. The experiments to generate the baseline data set
are discussed in section 3.2. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 describe the experiments to investigate the
role of crack closure and fiber bridging in relation to the stress ratio effect respectively. The
experiments using the WTDCB specimens are discussed in section 3.5 which is followed by
the microscopy in section 3.6.

3.2 Effect of stress ratio on mode I delamination growth

3.2.1 Objective

The objective of the baseline fatigue experiments on DCB specimen was twofold: first to
provide a data set to quantify the effect of stress ratio, and second to investigate and discuss
the appropriate formulation of the correlating parameters, ∆G and ∆Gs, as defined in chapter
2.

3.2.2 Test specimens

In the fatigue experiments, DCB specimens were tested according to ASTM 5528 [1]. This
standard has been formulated initially to test the mode I fracture toughness in composite
laminates, but has also been adopted in the past decades by various authors [2-5] to
investigate the fatigue delamination resistance. With the use of DCB specimens under load or
Experiments and Data Evaluation

displacement control in mode I fatigue test, the driving force for delamination growth
continuously varies with the delamination extension due to loss of flexural stiffness. The DCB
specimens thus have an advantage of easy test control, minimizing test setup time and
resulting in continuous driving force versus delamination growth curves.
The specimens were made of carbon/epoxy prepreg, M30SC/DT120, supplied by Delta-Tech
S.p.A Italy. Elastic properties of the cured material are given in table 3.1. A panel was made
by stacking 28 plies of the prepreg in a unidirectional layup. During the stacking process, a
Teflon insert of 12.7 µm thickness and 40 mm width was placed at the edge of the panel
between the 14th and 15th ply (at laminate mid plane) to act as initial delamination. The panel
was cured in an autoclave at a pressure of 6 bars and curing temperature of 1200C. The cure
cycle of the laminate, which was recommended by the material supplier, is illustrated in
figure 3.1.
Table 3.1: Elastic properties of cured M30SC/DT120 prepreg [6]
Longitudinal elastic modulus (GPa), E1 150

Transverse elastic modulus (GPa) , E2 7

In plane Poison ratio, ʋ12 0.29

Fiber weight fraction (%) 66

140 7

120 6
Temperature [C0]

100 5
Pressure [Bars]
80 4
Temperature
60 3
Pressure
40 2

20 1

0 0
0 50 100 150 200
Time [minutes]

Figure 3.1: Cure cycle of M30SC/DT120

After curing, the panel was ultrasonically scanned for imperfections. DCB specimens of 20
mm width were cut from the defect free portions of the panel. The edges of the specimens
were polished to remove machining marks. Aluminum tabs were bonded to the specimens in
order to facilitate its fastening with hinges. One edge of each specimen was painted with a
thin white correction fluid to enhance delamination tip visualization. A strip of millimeter
paper with grid size of 1 mm x 1 mm was pasted to the edge of the specimen for delamination
length measurements. It was estimated that the millimeter paper has an error of 1% per

32
 Chapter 3

millimeter. The geometry and the DCB specimen‟s image are shown in figures 3.2 and 3.3
respectively.

Screwed hole Aluminium tab

15

Starter Artificial delamination 4.6±0.15

20 20

150

Figure 3.2: Geometry of a DCB specimen [dimensions in mm]

Aluminium tab

Millimeter
scale

Figure 3.3: Image of a typical DCB specimen

3.2.3 Test matrix, test setup and procedure

In total, 6 specimens were fatigue tested under different stress ratios as shown in the test
matrix given in table 3.2. The Test matrix lists specimen name, maximum applied SERR
Gmax, applied stress ratio and test material. The SERR was calculated from the load on the
specimen, its compliance, specimen width and the delamination length at regular intervals
during the fatigue tests. The load on the specimen was decreased as delamination grew under
constant displacement tests. As a result the values of Gmax were also decreased as given in
table 3.2.

The specimens were tested in the 10 kN hydraulic MTS fatigue test machine at a frequency of
3 Hz. The displacement range of the machine was 50 mm. The specimens were mounted in
the machine clamps using a pair of splitable hinges. The hinge has a removable pin that acts
as a joint for its plates. One hinge plate was attached to the specimen through bolts and the
other plate was clamped in the machine. Figure 3.4 shows the image of a DCB specimen and
splitable hinges assembly.

33
Experiments and Data Evaluation

Table 3.2: Test matrix of baseline delamination growth tests at different stress ratios

Stress ratio
Specimen Gmax [J/m2]* Material, layup
(R)
197.5, 193, 182.5, 181.4, 178.5, 176.5,
162.6, 164.2, 162.7, 159.7, 154, 144.6,
DCB 1 144.9, 147.5, 142.3, 142.7, 146.7, 134,
0.12
132.9, 128.5
252.1, 233.8, 224.2, 217.7, 212.8, 208.8,
DCB 2 205.5, 202.7, 198.1, 194.4, 188.8, 184.5, 0.17
181, 178.2, 175.8, 172.2, 169.7
(251.6, 219.5, 213.5, 200, 196, 190, 187,
181.1, 179.2, 177, 174.8, 173.7, 172.5,
166.2, 160.9, 159.8, 157.7, 156.7, 154.6)

DCB 3 (267.4, 254.8, 245.7, 242.4, 239, 236.8, 0.34

232, 228, 225.8, 218.2, 218.1, 216.1, 207.6,
204.4, 198.1, 196, 192.9, 192.8, 188.8,
183.7, 182.7, 179.7, 176.7, 172.7, 170.7,
169.7, 168.7)
(287.3, 285.2, 276.6, 270.3, 261.9, 247.6, M30SC/DT120,[0]28
245.6, 233.6, 225.8, 218, 210.5, 203, 193.8,
188.1)
(237.1, 230.1, 226.6, 218.6, 207.3, 205.1,
200.7, 192, 186.6, 183.4, 182.3, 177, 176,
DCB 4 173.9, 171.9, 168.8)
0.46

(261.5, 244.8, 241.8, 232.8, 238.9, 228.2,

223.2, 217.6, 216.4, 211.1, 202.3, 204.4,
201.2, 203.7, 198.6, 196.7)
265, 238.6, 225.8, 206.8, 195.1, 201.8,
193.1, 186, 183, 179.9, 180, 180.8, 176.2,
DCB 5 171.6, 171.1, 170.8, 167.2, 167.1, 161.1, 0.19
160.9, 160.8, 159.9, 159, 158.2, 156.2,
161.4
240.7, 218.8, 199.9, 186.9, 182.1, 176.8,
DCB 6 168.3, 162.2, 156.7, 154, 150, 146.6, 144
0.16

*The values in the parenthesis represent the set of applied Gmax in a single test on the
specimen

Removable DCB Specimen

hinge pin

Tab

Splitable hinge Millimeter paper

plates scale strip

Figure 3.4: Image showing a DCB specimen and hinge assembly

34
 Chapter 3

The fatigue tests were performed under displacement control, i.e. under constant maximum
and minimum actuator displacements. The displacement control was preferred over load
control, because cyclic load automatically decrease in displacement control as delamination
extends. Thus the SERR and delamination growth rate decreases as the fatigue test progress.
On the other hand, under load control, the SERR and delamination growth of DCB specimen
increases with delamination extension, making the tests control difficult. The specimen may
fail catastrophically in this technique as the critical fracture load drops to the level of
maximum applied fatigue load during the test.

In fatigue tests at higher stress ratios, the value of SERR range was smaller at the start of the
tests, which decreased further with delamination extension, resulting in slow growth rates.
The time between delamination measurements was also increased due to smaller delamination
extension rates. The applied actuator displacements were increased after delamination
extension in R=0.34 and 0.46 tests, to increase the delamination growth rate to avoid longer
test time.

3.2.4 Measurement and observations

The load, displacement and the number of cycles were recorded with the MTS controller
software during the fatigue tests. The data was used for determination of the SERR. The
SERR was calculated using the compliance technique. The relation for the SERR G is given
by [1]
𝑃 2 𝑑𝐶
𝐺 = 2𝑏 𝑑𝑎 (3.1)

Where P, a, C and b are the load, delamination length, compliance and specimen width
respectively.

The compliance C is given by the following equation:

𝛿
𝐶=𝑃 (3.2)

Where δ is the crack opening displacement.

The delamination length was monitored using a camera connected to a computer system. The
fatigue test was stopped at the maximum displacement after certain number of cycles and
image of the delamination tip was taken. The delamination length was measured from the
images using the attached millimeter scale. The delamination growth rate was determined
from the recorded data sets of the delamination length versus number of cycles using the
incremental polynomial method [7]. The method involves fitting a second-order polynomial
to sets of (2n + 1) successive data points, where n is usually 1, 2, 3, or 4. In this study, the
value of n was equal to 2.

35
Experiments and Data Evaluation

3.3 Crack closure effect on Mode I delamination growth

3.3.1 Objective

The objective of the crack closure investigation was to determine its effect on the applied
stress ratio under mode I fatigue delamination growth.

3.3.2 Test specimens, test matrix, setup and procedure

DCB specimens were used for the investigation of crack closure. The specimens were cut
from a panel that was manufactured according to the procedure described in section 3.2.2.
The specimen‟s material was M30SC/DT120. The geometry is shown in figure 3.2.

In total, 3 specimens were fatigue tested at stress ratios R= 0.15, 0.32 and 0.49 respectively.
The test matrix is given in table 3.3. The fatigue test procedure has been described in section
3.2.3. The crack closure was investigated in the tests under R=0.15 and 0.32 only, because for
higher stress ratios the presence of crack closure was considered less likely [8].

Table 3.3: Test matrix for the investigation of crack closure effect

Specimen Gmax [J/m2] Stress ratio (R) Material, layup

159.2, 159, 155.3, 152.8,
149.5, 146.6, 145.6, 137.5,
136.2, 134.2, 132.7, 127.1,
DCB CC 1 125.8, 123.4, 121.4, 120.7,
0.49
119.8, 118, 117.4, 114.5,
113.2, 109.3, 109
242.6, 189.6, 174.6, 165.5,
158.3, 154, 150, 148.2, 139, M30SC/DT120,[0]28
DCB CC 2 135.2, 129.1, 126.9, 120.1,
0.15
119.2, 114.8, 113
203.6, 171.5, 157.7, 152.4,
148.2, 145.4, 142.2, 139.6,
138.6, 136.2, 135.2, 133.8,
DCB CC 3 133.5, 131, 129, 128, 126.6,
0.32
125.4, 123.8, 120.5, 119,
118

The load at the cack closure was measured after interrupting the fatigue tests after
delamination extensions. A clip gauge extensometer was mounted on the DCB specimen
using an elastic rubber band. The extensometer was used for the measurement of the crack
opening displacement (COD). The assembly of the extensometer and specimen is shown in
figure 3.5.

For the crack closure measurements, the specimen was quasi statically loaded to a value of
80% of the load at static fracture and then unloaded to zero. The load and COD were recorded
by the MTS machine controller. A compliance curve of the unloading part of the static test
was obtained from the data as shown in figure 3.6. Crack tip closure load was determined by
identifying the instance of first non-linearilty in unloading compliance by compliance offset
technique [7].

36
 Chapter 3

Rubber band Split hinge plate

DCB Specimen

Clip gauge
extensometer

Figure 3.5: Extensometer and DCB specimen assembly

0.5

0.4
COD [mm]

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40
Load [N]

Figure 3.6: Compliance curve of DCB CC 2

The SERR range was corrected for crack closure after measurement of the crack closure
loads. The equation for the corrected SERR range ΔGeff is given as;
2
∆𝐺𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒 (3.3)

Where Gclose is the SERR calculated using load at crack clsoure.

3.4 Effect of fiber bridging on mode I delamination growth

3.4.1Objective

The objective of investigating fiber bridging was to determine its effect on the stress ratio at
the crack tip.

37
Experiments and Data Evaluation

3.4.2 Test specimens, test matrix, test setup and procedure

The effect of fiber bridging was investigated by comparing the results of two sets of mode I
fatigue delamination tests. In the first set, fiber bridging had an active role while in the second
set the bridging fibers were cut to eliminate their effect.

The test specimens were cut from a panel made of M30SC/DT120. The panel was
manufactured according to the same procedure as described in section 3.2.2. The panel was
made by stacking 40 prepreg plies in unidirectional layup. A Teflon film having thickness of
12.7 µm was placed between 20th and 21st plies (mid plane of the laminate) during stacking in
order to induce a starter delamination. The geometry of the specimen is shown in figure 3.2,
except for the fact that the thickness of the present specimens was equal to 6.4±0.2 mm.

In total, 8 specimens were fatigue tested at different stress ratios as illustrated by the test
matrix in table 3.4. Some specimens in the test matrix were tested for more than one stress
ratios as illustrated in the table. The procedure for the tests, where fibers were not cut, was the
same as described in section 3.2.3.

In the second set of tests that was intended to get delamination growth behavior without fiber
bridging, the bridging fibers were cut each time a small delamination increment was obtained
under fatigue. However, the bridging fibers cannot be cut completely until the very crack tip,
because the diameter of the cutting thread prohibits moving beyond the location where the
COD becomes smaller than the diameter near the crack tip. Due to this reason the fatigue tests
in the current set were performed in two parts, part (a) and part (b). In part (a) the load
behavior with cutting thread position was determined. In part (b), the results of part (a) were
used to correct the measured fatigue loads. In the following paragraphs the procedure for the
part (a) and part (b) is described in detail. Note that the second set of tests will be labeled as
„without fiber bridging‟ for convenience reasons. One should keep in mind that the fibres
could not be cut until the very crack tip with the available techniques.

In part (a), the specimen was fatigue tested under a specific stress ratio and a delamination
extension of about 10 mm was obtained. The fatigue test was then stopped and the specimen
was held open in the MTS machine. Stepwise fiber cutting was applied in this 10 mm region
with a cutting step length of about 1 mm. The fibers were cut by a glass fiber thread having a
diameter of approximately 0.1 mm. This size was selected after several cutting trials with
other sizes. The threads with smaller sizes failed, while for larger thread diameter, cutting was
not possible sufficiently close to the delamination tip due to the small COD. With the thread
size of 0.1 mm diameter, cutting was possible up-to 3-5 mm behind the delamination tip. The
thread was fixed in a jig saw frame and slowly moved from the open end of DCB specimen
towards delamination tip to cut fibers as illustrated in figure 3.7. The load and the cutting
thread position were recorded during this stepwise fiber cutting after each step. Figure 3.8
shows load versus cutting thread position for specimen FB 1 tested under R= 0.15. A trend
line was fitted to through measured data using power equation as shown in the figure 3.8.

In part (b), the fatigue test was started using the same specimen and stress ratio as used in the
part (a). After delamination extension of about 1 mm, the fatigue test was stopped and the

38
 Chapter 3

bridging fibers in this region were cut by the cutting thread. The load, cutting thread position
and delamination length were recorded at this instance. Since cutting was only possible up-to
5 mm behind the crack tip, the load on the specimen in case all fibers could be cut was
calculated using equation:

𝑎 𝑚
𝑃𝑎 = 𝑃𝑎𝑐 (3.4)
𝑎𝑐

Where Pa is the specimen load after all fiber are hypothetically cut, Pac and ac are the load and
last thread position in fiber cutting respectively, a is the total delamination length and m is the
power law exponent from figure 3.8. The definitions of ac and a, are illustrated in figure 3.9.
During part (b) test on specimen FB 1, the load before fiber cutting, load (Pac) after fiber
cutting, load (Pa) in case all fiber till the crack tip are hypothetically cut and cutting thread
position ac are plotted against delamination length in figure 3.10. The SERR during the
fatigue test was calculated using equation:

𝑃𝑎 2 𝑑𝐶
𝐺= (3.5)
2𝑏 𝑑𝑎

Where the compliance C was calculated using equation:

𝛿
𝐶=𝑃 (3.6)
𝑎

The delamination growth rate was determined using the same procedure described in section
3.2.4. The results of part (b) are analyzed with fatigue tests where fibers were not cut in
chapter 4 and 5 respectively.

Note that the procedure of two tests (part a. and part b.), described above was repeated for
each specimen used to investigate delamination behavior after fiber cutting. The plot of load
versus cutting thread position for these specimens is presented in chapter 4. This resulted in
different m values for each specimen that was used in equations 3.4-3.6 for the test data
analysis for these specimens.

DCB Specimen

Cutting thread

Figure 3.7: Image showing a DCB specimen during cutting of bridging fibers

39
Experiments and Data Evaluation

Table 3.4: Test matrix for the investigation of fiber bridging effect

Fiber
Specimen Gmax [J/m2] R Material, layup
cutting
319, 283.4, 271.8, 272, 265.4, 230.6, 221.7, 216.6,
218.2, 219.3, 212.3, 199.2, 309.9, 267, 255.9, 251,
FB 1 225.2, 213.6, 204.9, 201.3, 196.9, 187.5, 183.3,
178.4, 167.3
255.7, 214.2, 201.6, 187.3, 187.1, 169.3, 160.7,
FB 2 160.2, 157.3, 154.9, 143.1, 129.8
326.7, 248.1, 227.1, 220, 211.7, 198.7, 213.3, 215,
FB 3 208.4, 197.4, 186.9, 180.7, 178, 174.3, 164, 162.7, 0.15
156.1
171, 219.2, 212.9, 213.2, 214.6, 218.3, 222, 221.7,
FB 4 253.9, 245, 272.4, 319.4, 329.9 Yes
329.9, 319.4,
355.1, 303.9, 284.1, 258.7, 240.6, 231.1, 224.7,
FB 7 224.4, 223.5, 219.5, 212, 210, 206, 201.4, 200.8
268.9, 241.3, 233.9, 228.2, 225.4, 220.6, 218.7,
FB 2 213, 211.9, 202.6, 201.7, 191
355.7, 303.8, 289.2, 276.9, 276.4, 270.3, 253.4,
FB 8 252.9, 249.4, 230.2, 223.3, 216.6 0.5
354.2, 324.5, 322.5, 291.5, 279.2, 277.7, 263.7,
FB 3 262.4, 260, 258.3, 260.2, 222.6
243.5, 233.3, 230.2, 228.8, , 218.6, 217.2, 216,
FB 7 215.2, 212.8, 211.4, 203.7, 194.6, 193.1, 185.6,
176.5,
243.5, 213.1, 203.5, 202.7, 200.7, 197, 194.8, M30SC/DT120,[0]40
FB 3 187.9, 184, 179.3, 178.4, 171, 168.4, 159.8, 142 0.15
231.7, 225.9, 219, 217.4, 214.6, 214, 213.4, 211.8,
204.8, 208.3, 205.4, 193, 190.5, 150.1, 141.3,
FB 6 111.8,
109.2
316.1, 270.2, 265.3, 253.8, 239.6, 230.1, 228.9,
226.4, 226, 222.4, 221, 218.5, 218.9, 214.7, 214.3,
FB 6 204.7, 171.9, 163.3, 153.7, 131.2, 130.5

263.6, 239.2, 233.1, 2245.7, 233.9, 231.1, 227.9, No

228.4, 209.7, 206, 205.7, 202.6, 201.7, 194.1,
FB 7 193.4, 189.1

329.6, 309, 308.3, 305.3, 301.3, 298.6, 298.1,

295.5, 294.7, 293.1, 292.7, 284, 282.6, 273, 270,
0.5
FB 8 243.5,

254.7, 239.4, , 226.7, 223.5, 222.8, 220.5, 216.6,

216.5, 213.4, 209.9, 209.4, 206.6, 200, 197.8, 194,
FB 5 184

40
 Chapter 3

140

130

120
Load [N] y = 6.4358x-0.928
110

100
a=0.052 m
90

80
0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055
Cutting thread position, ac, [m]

Figure 3.8: Load versus cutting thread position in the part (a) test, Specimen FB 1

Figure 3.9: Definition of the cutting thread position used to describe load reduction during
cutting

41
Experiments and Data Evaluation

0.041
Load before fiber cutting
190
Load (Pac) after fiber cutting 0.04

Load (Pa) calculated using equation 3.4

Cutting thred position, ac [m]

0.039
170
Cutting thred position during test
0.038
Load [N]

150
0.037
Fiber Cutting Fatigue test
130 0.036

0.035
110
0.034

90 0.033
0.038 0.039 0.04 0.041 0.042 0.043 0.044 0.045 0.046
Delamination length, a [m]

Figure 3.10: Load and cutting thread position versus delamination length in part (b) test,
Specimen FB 1

3.5 Effect of width tapered DCB configuration

3.5.1 Objective

WTDCB specimens were used:

 To characterize delamination growth under fatigue loading while keeping either the
monotonic or cyclic load constant.
 To develop fracture surfaces for studying effects of monotonic and cyclic loadings on
the surfaces independent of one another

3.5.2 Test specimens

The specimen‟s material was M30SC/DT120. The panel was manufactured according to the
procedure described in section 3.2.2. Fifty prepreg plies were stacked in unidirectional layup
for the panel manufacturing. Teflon film of thickness equal to 12.7 µm was placed between
25th and 26th plies (mid plane of laminate) during stacking to induce starter delamination. The
curing of the panel was performed in a similar way as described in section 3.2.2. The
specimens were cut from the panel in DECKEL FP 4NC milling machine at the Delft
Aerospace laboratory. The geometry of the WTDCB specimen is shown in figure 3.11.

42
 Chapter 3

Delamination tip

Figure 3.11: Geometry of WTDCB specimen [dimensions in mm]

Aluminum tabs were attached to the specimens. The tapered edge of the specimen was
painted with thin correction fluid to enhance crack tip visualization. A millimeter paper scale
having grid size of 1 mm x 1 mm was attached to the painted edge. The estimated error of the
paper scale was 1%. Figure 3.12 shows an image of a WTDCB specimen prepared for the
tests.
Aluminium tab

Figure 3.12: Image of a WTDCB specimen

3.5.3 Test matrix, test setup and procedure

In total, 4 WTDCB were tested as described in the test matrix in table 3.5. WTDCB 1 was
tested four times under different Gmax in each test. The SERR range ∆Gs was varied in each
test as given in the table. WTDCB 2, 3 and 4 were tested under constant ∆Gs with varying
Gmax as given in the table.

The fatigue test setup was same as described in section 3.2.3. The tests were performed using
force control at a frequency of 3 Hz. In fatigue tests, Gmax, ∆Gs and delamination growth rate
remains constant under constant load. The test was interrupted for taking the images of the
specimen for delamination length measurement. An average of 4 delamination length readings
was made after delamination extension of 0.5 mm for each specific loading given in table 3.5.
The loading was changed after delamination extended for 2 mm approximately.

43
Experiments and Data Evaluation

Table 3.5: Test matrix for mode I delamination growth in WTDCB specimens

Specimen Gmax [J/m2] ∆Gs [J/m2] Material, Layup

178.8, 171, 156, 148,
223
126, 119.1
148.9, 141.4, 134,
208.4 126.5, 119, 111,
104.2, 96.7, 89.3
141.1, 133.7, 126.3,
200.7 118.8, 111.4, 103.9,
WTDCB 1 96.5, 89.1, 81.6
133.8, 126.4, 118.9,
193.3 111.3, 103.9, 96.4,
89.2 M30SC/DT120,[0]50
126.1, 118.8, 111.3,
185.6
103.9, 96.4, 89, 81.6

133.6 81.6, 74.2, 66.8

95, 107, 129.7, 150, 174, 200,

WTDCB 2 85.3
228.6, 254

147.6, 181.7, 195.4, 205.4,

WTDCB 3 94.7
244.26, 277.78

104.1, 155.4, 177.9, 204.6,

WTDCB 4 66.6
248.5, 269.7, 290.8

Ideally, the delamination growth rate in WTDCB specimens is constant in constant load tests.
However, fiber bridging decreases the growth rate. In this study, fiber bridging was observed
during delamination growth. The fiber bridging changes Gmax and constant ∆Gs during
delamination growth. Therefore, the bridging fibers were cut during the fatigue tests using the
same technique as explained in section 4.2.3.

The delamination length was determined from the images of the specimen taken during
delamination growth. From figure 3.11, the delamination length a can be related to the
position of the delamination tip on the taper edge by the following equation:

𝑎 = 60 + 𝑑 cos 𝜃 (3.7)

Where d is the delamination tip position on the taper edge and 𝜃 is the taper edge angle as
shown in figure 3.11.

The SERR was calculated using the compliance technique. For a WTDCB specimen, The
SERR is given by following equation [10]:
𝑑𝐶
𝐺 = 𝑘𝑃2 𝑑(𝑎 2 ) (3.8)

44
 Chapter 3

Where k is the taper of the WTDCB specimen and equal to3 for the specimens in the current
investigations, P is the load and C is the compliance of the specimen. For a WTDCB
specimen, the SERR is independent of delamination length. The SERR is thus only a function
of P. Equation 3.8 can be written as:

𝐺 = 𝑞𝑃2 (3.9)

Where q is constant in the above equation.

The SERR range ∆Gs for the WTDCB was calculated using the following equation:

∆𝐺𝑠 = 𝑞(𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑃𝑚𝑖 𝑛 )2 (3.10)

where Pmax and Pmin are the maximum and minimum cyclic loads respectively. The ∆Gs given
by the above equation is equivalent to ∆Gs in equation 2.11 in section 2.2.2.

3.6 Microscopy of mode I fatigue delamination growth

3.6.1 Objective

The microscopy of the fracture surfaces under was performed to investigate mechanism of
mode I fatigue delamination growth for developing a mechanistic model.

3.6.2 Test specimens and test setup

Four types of SEM studies were performed. These were

(1) SEM examination of fracture surfaces after fatigue tests on DCB specimens under
different stress ratios
(2) In-situ SEM investigation of the damage zone development ahead of delamination tip
during monotonic loading of DCB specimens
(3) SEM characterization of the damage zone ahead of delamination tip on DCB
specimen‟s edges after fatigue tests
(4) SEM examination of fracture surface of the WTDCB specimens after fatigue tests

The procedures for the above studies are described in detail in the following sections.

3.6.2.1 SEM examination of fracture surfaces after fatigue tests on DCB specimens under
different stress ratios

SEM examination of the fracture surfaces of the DCB was performed to investigate he effect
of stress ratio. The cantilever sides of the specimens were fully separated after fatigue tests.
Samples having length 8-10 mm were cut out from the sides of the DCB specimens for SEM
examinations. Figure 3.13 schematically illustrate cutting SEM samples (image given in the
figure) from DCB specimen.

45
Experiments and Data Evaluation

Figure 3.13: Schematic illustration of cutting sample from DCB specimen and image of
samples for SEM examination (delamination growth direction is from left to right of the
figure)

Three specimens DCB 1, DCB 2 and DCB 3, tested under R=0.12, 0.34 and 0.46 respectively
(illustrated in table 3.2) were examined in SEM. The SEM samples were gold sputtered for
130 seconds to avoid static charging in SEM due to the non-conductive nature of the material.
The samples were examined in a JOEL SEM at the Delft Aerospace Structural & Materials
laboratory. The excitation voltage during SEM was 5 kV. After SEM examinations, the
roughness of the fracture surfaces was measured in OLYMPUS LEXT laser confocal electron
microscope at the same laboratory.

3.6.2.2 In-situ SEM investigation of damage zone development ahead of delamination tip in
DCB specimens under monotonic load

The objective of the In-situ SEM examination of damage zone development was to investigate
the effect of monotonic loading on the development of microscopic cracks ahead of
delamination tip. In this study, the edge of a DCB specimen was examined with SEM during
the application of quasi static loading.

The geometry of the test specimen is illustrated in figure 3.14. The specimens were made
from M30SC/DT120 prepreg according to the procedure described in section 3.2.2. The edges
of the specimen were polished with diamond paste having sized grits equal to 0.6, 0.3 and 0.1
µm successively. After polishing, the edges were gold sputtered to avoid static charging
during SEM.

46
 Chapter 3

Figure 3.14: Geometry of DCB specimen for in-situ SEM analysis [dimensions in mm]

One specimen was tested in the current program. The test matrix is given in table 3.6. The test
was performed at the Dutch Aerospace laboratory NLR, in Marknesse. The specimen was
loaded by a micro tester that was mounted inside the SEM. The delamination tip on the
specimen‟s edge was examined in SEM after each 5 N load step. The delamination growth
started at a load level equal to 35 N.
Table 3.6: Test matrix for in-situ SEM investigation

Delamination length
Specimen Fmax [N]
[mm]

DCB IS 01 25 35

3.6.2.3 SEM investigation of damage zone ahead of delamination tips in DCB specimens after
fatigue testing

The objective of the SEM investigation of the damage zone ahead of delamination tip was to
investigate the effect of cyclic and monotonic loading on the microcrack evolution in damage
zones.

DCB specimens were manufactured from M30SC/DT120 prepreg according to the procedure
described in section 3.2.2. The geometry of the specimen is shown in figure 3.2. The edges of

47
Experiments and Data Evaluation

the specimens were polished with diamond paste having sized grits equal to 0.6 and 0.1 µm
successively.
In total, 5 specimens were fatigue tested and examined in SEM as presented in test matrix in
table 3.7. The fatigue test procedure was similar as described in section 3.2.3. The fatigue test
was stopped after delamination extended though 5 mm. After the test, the specimen was held
open under maximum cyclic load. A prismatic steel wedge was inserted to keep the specimen
open after the test. The geometry of the wedge insert is shown in figure 3.15. This technique
was adopted to ensure that microcracks are open and visible when inspected in SEM. The
edges of the DCB specimens were gold sputtered to avoid static charging during SEM.

Table 3.7: Test matrix for SEM investigation of damage zones ahead of delamination
tip

Delamination length
Specimen Gmax [J/m2] ∆Gs [J/m2] R
[mm]

In-situ SEM 01 27 81.01 20.25 0.4

In-situ SEM 02 26 79.63 19.91 0.4

In-situ SEM 03 26 79.63 19.91 0.4

In-situ SEM 04 27 81.01 20.25 0.4

In-situ SEM 05 33 84.37 54.17 0.15

Figure 3.15: Geometry of steel wedge that was inserted in the open DCB specimens
[dimensions in mm]

48
 Chapter 3

3.6.2.4 SEM Examination of the fracture surface of the WTDCB specimens

The objective of SEM examination WTDCB specimens was to investigate the effects of
cyclic and monotonic load on the fracture surface. Samples were cut out for SEM analysis
from the WTDCB specimens after the fatigue tests. Figure 3.16 schematically describes the
region of WTDCB specimen, where SEM sample (image shown in the figure) was cut out.
The samples were prepared for SEM analysis according to the procedure described in section
3.6.2.2. The geometry of the observed microscopic features was analyzed by IRFAN VIEW
software.

Figure 3.16: Illustration of cutting sample from WTDCB specimen for SEM
examination (delamination growth direction is from left to right of the image)

References
1. Standard Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites, ASTM D5528-01. 2007
2. Bathias C., Laksimi A., Delamination threshold and Loading Effect in Fiber Glass
Epoxy Composite. Delamination and Debonding of Materials, ASTM STP
Philadelphia. p. 10, 1985.
3. Mall S., Kochhar N. K., Characterization of Debond Growth Mechanism in
Adhesively Bonded Composites under Mode II Static and Fatigue Loadings.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1988. 31(5): p. 747-758.
4. Russel, A.J., Street, K.N., Predicting interlaminar fatigue crack growth rates in
compressively loaded laminates. Composite Materials: Fatgue and Fracture II, ASTM
STP 1012, 1989..
5. Hojo M., Matsuda S., Ochiai S., Delamination fatigue crack growth in CFRP
laminates under mode I and II loadings-effect of mesoscopic structure on fracture
mechanism. In: Proceedings of international conference on fatigue of composites; p.
15–26., 1997: p. 15-26.
6. Rodi R., The residual strength failure sequence in fiber metal laminates, PhD Thesis.
2012, Aerospace Faculty TU Delft Nederland.
7. Mall S., Ramamurthy G., Rezaizdeh M. A. , Stress Ratio Effect on Cyclic Debonding
in Adhesively Bonded Composite Joints. Composite Structures, 1987. 8: p. 15.

49
Experiments and Data Evaluation

8. Gustafson, C.G., Hojo, M., Delamination fatigue crack-growth in unidirectional

graphite epoxy laminates. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composite, 1987. 6(1):
p. 16.
9. Ritchie, R.O., Mechanisms of Fatigue Crack Propagation in Metals, Ceramics and
Composites: Role of Crack Tip Shielding. Material Science and Engineering, 1988.
A103: p. 15-28.
10. Hwang W., Han K.S.,, Interlaminar Frcature Behavior and fiber bridging of
glass/epoxy Composite Under Mode I Static and Cyclic Loadings. Journal of
Composite Materials, 1989. 23.

50
 CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Abstract
The experimental results are presented in this chapter. These results have been used for the
development and validation of a mechanistic model for the mode I fatigue delamination
growth.

4.1 Introduction
The results of the experiments explained in the previous chapter are presented. These results
will be used in later chapters to explain different mechanisms in mode I fatigue delamination
growth and for the development and validation of a mechanistic model. The results of the
fatigue tests are presented in section 4.2. The results in this section include the comparison of
the mode I delamination growth under various stress ratios using ∆G and ∆Gs as correlating
parameters. The results of the tests of crack closure, fiber bridging and tests using width
tapered double cantilever beam (WTDCB) specimens are also presented in section 4.2. The
microscopy results are presented in section 4.3. Section 4.4 is the general discussion of the
results presented in this chapter.

4.2 Mode I fatigue delamination growth

4.2.1 Effect of stress ratio on delamination growth using different correlating parameters

This section presents the results of the comparison of stress ratio effect on delamination
growth using two different definitions of the strain energy release rate (SERR) range, ∆G and
∆Gs, given by the following equations respectively

∆𝐺 = 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺𝑚𝑖𝑛 (4.1)

2
∆𝐺𝑠 = 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺𝑚𝑖𝑛 (4.2)

The comparison is made using the results of the experiments discussed in section 3.2 of the
previous chapter. These experiments were performed by fatigue testing double cantilever
beam (DCB) specimens under various stress ratios. The delamination length is plotted against
the number of cycles for the fatigue test under R=0.34 in figure 4.1. The data set in the figure
was used for the calculation of delamination growth rates by incremental polynomial
technique, as discussed in section 3.2.4. The calculated delamination growth rates are plotted
against delamination length in figure 4.2. The figure shows that the delamination growth rate
decreases with increase in delamination length due to load drop in the constant displacement
fatigue test. The results of the other specimens of table 3.2 are presented in appendix B.
Experimental Results

The delamination growth per number of cycles, da/dN, for different stress ratios is plotted
against ∆Gs in figure 4.3. The delamination growth curves are distinct for each stress ratio as
shown in this figure. For the same value of ∆Gs, the delamination growth rate is higher for
the higher stress ratio, which implies a higher mean stress. Such results are compatible with
the use of the stress intensity factor (SIF) range ∆K as the correlating parameter for the
characterization of delamination growth as observed by Hojo et al. [1].

42
Delamination length, a

40
38
[mm]

36
34
32
30
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Cycles, N

Figure 4.1: Delamination length versus number of cycles for the tests at R=0.34, Specimen
DCB 3

1.40E-06

1.20E-06
Delamination growth rate

1.00E-06
[m/cycle]

8.00E-07

6.00E-07

4.00E-07

2.00E-07

0.00E+00
34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Delamination length [mm]

Figure 4.2: Delamination growth rate versus delamination length at R=0.34, Specimen DCB
3

52
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.3: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs under different stress ratios

Figure 4.4 plots delamination growth rates against ∆G. There is no clear distinction in the
delamination growth curves for different stress ratios in the figure. For same value of ∆G, the
delamination growth rate is higher for stress ratio R=0.12 than the higher stress ratio R=0.17,
implying a decrease of delamination growth rate with increasing mean stress.

The results indicate that using ∆Gs correctly represent the stress ratio or the mean stress effect
on delamination growth as compared to ∆G. For the same range of SERR, the delamination
growth rate increases with increasing stress ratio for ∆Gs.

Crack closure is generally considered as the mechanism that explains stress ratio effect in
metal crack growth [2]. Crack closure increases effective stress ratio at crack tip due to early
closing of the tip due to plasticity, roughness or oxides at the fracture surface. In the present
study it was hypothesized that crack closure causes stress ratio effect in delamination growth.
Crack closure was investigated experimentally in the present study. The results of the crack
closure investigations are presented in the next section.

53
Experimental Results

Figure 4.4: Delamination growth rate versus ∆G under different stress ratio

4.2.2 Crack closure effect in mode I fatigue delamination growth

This section presents the results of the crack closure experiments discussed in section 3.3 of
the previous chapter. Crack closure was investigated to explain stress ratio effect similarly to
crack closure effect in metal fatigue crack growth.

The delamination length versus number of cycles for different fatigue tests for crack closure
investigations is presented in appendix B. The delamination growth rates were calculated
from these data sets in a similar way as discussed in section 4.2.1. The delamination growth
rate is plotted against the delamination length in appendix B.

The crack closure load was determined by identifying instance of non-linearity in the
unloading compliance using compliance offset technique as given in ASTM E 647 [3]. The
load at 2 % of the compliance curve was taken as the load at crack closure. The compliance
offset Co was calculated using following equation:
𝑆𝑙 −𝑆𝑚
𝐶𝑜 = 100 (4.3)
𝑆𝑙

Where Sl is the compliance of fully open crack and Sm is the compliance of the curve
segments as shown in figure 4.5. The m=1, 2, 3 … etc.

54
 Chapter 4

The average load of the data segments shown in figure 4.5 was plotted against corresponding
compliance offset Co (determined by equation 4.3) in figure 4.6. The crack closure load was
equal to the load at 2% compliance offset as shown in the figure.

Crack closure load was determined for the two stress ratios R=0.15 and 0.32 at three different
delamination lengths. Figure 4.7 shows the crack closure load versus the delamination length
for the two stress ratios. The figure shows that the crack closure load has no clear trend for
R=0.15, while it decreases with delamination length for R=0.32.

0.5

0.4 S2
COD [mm]

0.3

0.2 S3

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40
Load [N]

Figure 4.5: Unloading compliance curve for DCB CC 2 (S is the compliance of the
segments)

Figure 4.6: Determination of closure load in DCB CC2 using the compliance offset
technique

55
Experimental Results

24
22

Closure load [N]

20
18
16
14
12
10
30 40 50 60
Delamination length [mm]
Figure 4.7: Crack closure load versus delamination length for different stress ratios

The SERR Gclose at closure was calculated using equation 3.1 in previous chapter by
substituting the load at closure. Figure 4.8 shows the plot of Gclose versus delamination length
under the two stress ratios. The error bars in the figure were calculated using 2% error in the
load cell reading and it represents the maximum and minimum error in the load readings.

Figure 4.8 shows that Gclose has no clear trend with the delamination length for R=0.15. The
range of Gclose is 5.1-6.1 J per m2 in a delamination length span of 13 mm. The value of Gclose
for R=0.32 slightly decreases with the delamination length, as shown in figure 4.8. The value
of crack closure load was less than the minimum load in fatigue test under this stress ratio,
implying no crack closure was occurring during the fatigue test. As mentioned earlier, the
crack closure instance for the two tests was determined by statically decreasing load to zero,
the crack closure is actually not taking place during fatigue delamination growth for R=0.32.
In case of R=0.15, the crack closure load was higher than minimum load during the fatigue
test, implying a crack closure effect. The SERR range Gs, was corrected for this stress ratio by
substituting the average value of Gclose=5.6 J per m2 in equation 3.2.

The delamination growth rates for different stress ratios are plotted against the corrected ∆Gs
in figure 4.9. The delamination growth behavior with the stress ratio is similar to the test
results presented in the last section. For the same ∆Gs, the delamination growth rate is higher
for the higher stress ratio. The crack closure has shifted the delamination growth curve for
R=0.15 to the left of the figure 4.9 by decreasing the SERR range. At higher delamination
growth rates, the crack closure effect on ∆Gs is slightly less than at lower delamination
growth rates as shown.
8

6
Gclose [J/m2]

0
20 30 40 50 60
Delamination length [mm]

Figure 4.8: SERR at crack closure versus delamination length for different stress ratios

56
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.9: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs for various stress ratios with and without
crack closure corrected ∆Gs

4.2.3 Effect of fiber bridging on mode I fatigue delamination growth

The results of fiber bridging effect experiments are presented in this section. The effect of
fiber bridging was determined by comparing the results of two sets of tests, i.e. the
delamination growth tests with fiber bridging and the tests with no fiber bridging. The results
of delamination length versus number of cycles and delamination growth rate versus
delamination length for the tests are presented in appendix B.

The delamination growth rates are plotted against ∆Gs for the tests with fiber bridging in
figure 4.10. The delamination growth rate for the same ∆Gs is higher for the higher stress
ratio. The data for each stress ratio falls in distinct regions in the figure, however the scatter is
higher in each case. The high scatter may be attributed to the variations of specimens and test
setup as the data belongs to multiple specimens and tests as given in test matrix in table 3.4.

57
Experimental Results

Figure 4.10: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs for the fatigue tests without cutting fibers,
in specimens FB 3, FB 5, FB 6, FB 7and FB 8

In the second set of tests, the resistance of the bridging fibers was removed by cutting fibers
after each 1 mm delamination extension under fatigue. As discussed in section 3.4 of the
previous chapter, cutting all the bridging fibers was not possible. The procedure of calculating
the loads in case of all fibers are cut has been explained in section 3.4.

The specimen loads are plotted against cutting thread position for different tests in figures
4.11. Power equations were fitted to the data in the figures to determine the exponent m in
equation 3.4. A power equation was preferred for data fitting because it gave the highest
values of coefficient of determination R2. Equation 3.4 was used for the calculation of the
maximum and minimum loads during the fatigue tests. Figure 4.12 shows the observed loads
during fatigue test and the loads that were corrected using equation 3.3, at different
delamination lengths for specimen FB 4. The corrected loads were used for the calculation of
the SERR.

58
 Chapter 4

85

80

75

Load [N]
70 y = 2.8997x-1.145
a=0.068 m
65

60

55

50
0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
(a)
Cutting thread position, ac [m]

145

140
y = 12.112x-0.775
135
load [N]

a=0.055 mm
130

125

120

115
0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055
(b) Cutting thread position,ac [m]

165

160
y = 20.168x-0.618
155
load [N]

150 a=0.045 m
145

140

135
0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
(c)
Cutting thread position,ac [m]

59
Experimental Results

72
71
y = 14.105x-0.512
70

load [N]
69
68
67
a=0.052 m
66
65
0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055

(d) Cutting thread position, ac [m]

Figure 4.11: Load versus cutting thread position for DCB specimens (a) FB 4(b) FB 6(c) FB
7 (d) FB 8

120
100 Fobserved
80
Load [N]

60
40 Fcorrected
20
0
50 52 54 56
Delamination length, a[mm]

Figure 4.12: Comparison of the observed and corrected loads in DCB specimen FB 4

The delamination growth rate is plotted against ∆Gs in figure 4.13 for the tests with no fiber
bridging. The figure shows that, for the same ∆Gs, the delamination growth rate is higher for
the higher stress ratio, a trend similar to the test results presented in the previous sections. The
order of difference between delamination rates at different stress ratios is same to figure 4.10.
The fatigue test data presented in figures 4.10 and 4.13 for fiber bridging and no fiber
bridging is combined in a single figure in chapter 5 and will further discussed there.

60
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.13: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs for cutting fibers tests in DCB specimens,
FB 1, FB 4, FB 6 and FB 7

4.2.4 Mode I fatigue delamination growth in WTDCB specimens

In this section the results of the experiments described in section 3.5 are presented. In these
experiments, WTDCB specimens were fatigue tested under constant Gmax with varying ∆Gs
and vice versa.

The result of delamination length versus the number of cycles for WTDCB 1 is shown in
figure 4.14. The delamination length was measured at regular intervals during the fatigue
tests under each specific loading. This data was used for the calculation of the delamination
growth rates. The delamination growth rate between two adjacent data points in figure 4.14
was calculated using point-to-point method by the following equation:
𝑑𝑎 ∆𝑎
= ∆𝑁 (4.4)
𝑑𝑁

Where ∆a is the delamination extension and ∆N is the number of cycles in which the
extension takes place.

Figure 4.15 shows the delamination growth rates versus delamination length for loadings for
the WTDCB 1. Detailed results for other specimens are presented in appendix B.

61
Experimental Results

0.098
Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=141.1
0.096

Delamination length, a [m]

Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=126.3

0.094 Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=118.8

0.092

0.09

0.088
0 500 1000 1500
Cycles, N

Figure 4.14: Delamination lengths versus number of cycles for the fatigue test of specimen
WTDCB 1, [SERR units are J/m2]

For the constant Gmax tests, the delamination growth rate is plotted against ∆Gs in figure 4.16.
The figure shows that for the same ∆Gs, the delamination growth rate is higher for higher
Gmax. The results are thus compatible to the fatigue tests performed under constant stress
ratios.

The delamination growth rate under constant ∆Gs and variable Gmax is plotted against ∆Gs in
figure 4.17. The delamination growth curves under constant ∆Gs are vertical lines as shown
in the figure. In figure 4.18, the delamination growth rate is plotted against Gmax.
Delamination growth rate, da/dN

Gmax=200.7,
1.00E-05 ∆Gs=141.1

Gmax=200.7,
[m/cycle]

∆Gs=126.3
1.00E-06
Gmax=200.7,
∆Gs=118.8
1.00E-07

1.00E-08
0.085 0.09 0.095 0.1

Delamination length, a [m]

Figure 4.15: Delamination growth rates versus delamination for the fatigue test of specimen
WTDCB 1, [SERR units are J/m2]

62
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.16: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs for the fatigue tests under constant Gmax
using WTDCB 1 specimen

Figure 4.17: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs for WTDCB 2, WTDCB 3 and WTDCB 4

63
Experimental Results

Figure 4.18: Delamination growth rate versus Gmax for WTDCB 2, WTDCB 3 and WTDCB
4

4.3 Microscopy results

The results of the experiments for microscopic analysis are presented in this section. The
results of the following microscopic investigations are given.

 SEM examination of the fracture surfaces for the effect of stress ratio
 Roughness measurements of the fracture surfaces by laser confocal scanning
microscope (LCSM)
 In-situ SEM examination of DCB specimen edge
 SEM examination of the edges of the DCB specimens after fatigue tests
 SEM examination of fracture surfaces of WTDCB specimen

4.3.1 SEM examination of the fracture surfaces for the effect of stress ratio

The results of the SEM examination of the fracture surfaces for the effect of stress ratio are
presented in this section. The fracture surfaces for the three stress ratios 0.12, 0.34 and 0.46,
comprises fiber imprints in matrix, loose fibers, broken fibers and hackles. No striations were
observed on the fiber imprints in this study.

The loose fibers on the surfaces were in the form of single fibers and fiber bundles. No
obvious difference was observed in number of loose fiber for different stress ratios. Figure
4.19 shows SEM images with loose fibers for R=0.12, 0.34 and 0.46 respectively. The
presence of loose fibers indicates active fiber bridging during delamination growth.

64
 Chapter 4

The fracture surfaces contain broken fibers as shown in figure 4.20. Some of the broken fibers
remained partially embedded in the matrix. The broken fibers are remains of the bridging
fibers broken due to delamination extension. The bridging and the broken fibers forms debris
on the fracture surfaces and induces roughness crack closure.

Hackles were observed in the matrix between adjacent fibers imprints. Apparently, no
difference between the hackle geometries was observed for various stress ratios. Figure 4.21
shows hackles for stress ratios 0.12, 0.34 and 0.46 respectively.

The above results show that no obvious difference was observed in the microscopic features
due to effect of stress ratio. However, some literature reported stress ratio effect on the
microfeatures. Bathias et al. [4] and Hojo et al. [1] have performed similar investigations and
reported difference in the fractographic features for various stress ratios as discussed in
section 2.3 of chapter 2 in this thesis.

(a) (b) (C)

L
o
a
d
at
cr
a
ck
cl
Figureo 4.19: Loose fibers on the fracture surfaces for the R= 0.12, DCB 1(a) R=0.34, DCB 3
s (b) and R=0.46, DCB 4(c), arrows indicates growth direction
ur
e Broken fibers

Figure 4.20: Broken fibers on the fracture surface of DCB 4, R=0.46

65
Experimental Results

Hackles

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4.21: Hackles on fracture surfaces for R= 0.12, DCB 1(a) R=0.34, DCB 3 (b) and, R=
0.46, DCB 4(c)

4.3.2 Roughness measurements of the fracture surfaces by laser confocal scanning

microscope (LCSM)

Fracture surface roughness is a measure of the texture of the surface. It is quantified by the
vertical deviations of a real surface from its ideal form i.e. perfectly smooth surface. The
measurement of surface roughness in this study was considered important for analysis of the
roughness induced crack closure during delamination growth under various stress ratios.

The roughness was measured by laser confocal scanning microscope (LCSM) in this study.
The results are presented in figure 4.22. In this figure, the mean roughness values are plotted
against the distance of the measurement point from sample‟s edges. The roughness values for
different stress ratios are within a range of 1-4 µm. The values for the three stress ratios
overlaps each other in this range as shown in the figure, implying that the roughness of the
fracture surfaces is approximately same for the three stress ratios.

66
 Chapter 4

5
R=0.12
4.5
R=0.34
4
R=0.46
d
3.5
Mean roughness [µm]

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
d [mm]

Figure 4.22: Mean roughness values of the fracture surfaces under different stress ratios in
DCB 1, DCB 3 and DCB 4

4.3.3 In-situ SEM examination of the DCB specimen edges during monotonic loading

The effect of monotonic loading on the damage zone ahead of the delamination crack tip of a
DCB specimen was investigated using in-situ SEM. The specimen was loaded stepwise by
micro-tester inside the SEM.

After every 5 N increments in the load, a SEM image of the crack was taken. The
delamination started to grow when the load became higher than 35 N. Seven SEM images
were taken during loading. There was no obvious difference between these images. No micro
cracking (cracks in the matrix layer between adjacent plies) was observed during loading up
to 35 N. Figure 4.23 shows the SEM image of the specimen‟s edge under 35 N loading.

The delamination started to grow without any prior indication when the load level crossed 35
N. After 1 mm extension in delamination, SEM image of the crack tip was taken at new
location as shown in figure 4.24.

67
Experimental Results

Figure 4.23: SEM image of specimen DCBIS 1 edge at 35 N, magnification X300

68
 Chapter 4

Figure 4.24: SEM image of specimen DCBIS 1 edge after delamination growth,
magnification X300

Figure 4.24 shows two damage types in the vicinity of the delamination tip. These damage
types are microcracks in the matrix layer and disbonding of the fibers and matrix layer. The
microcracks form hackles on the fracture surfaces after delamination growth while the fiber
disbonding may become the origin of fiber bridging. It should be noted that the microcracks
were only observed after they were fully developed.

The objective of this study was to observe stepwise evolution of the microcracks during
application of monotonic loading at delamination tip. The results show that the technique is
not effective. The delamination grows without any prior indication with no microcracks
during application of the load.

4.3.4 SEM examination of the edges of the DCB specimens after fatigue tests

This section presents the results of the SEM investigations on the edges of the DCB
specimens tested under fatigue. The experimental technique for the tests was described in
section 3.6.2.3. The SEM image of the delamination tip at the DCB specimen‟s edge is shown
in figure 4.25. From the figure, it is evident that the delamination locally follows a zigzag path
around the global delamination plane. The delamination growth causes disbonding of several

69
Experimental Results

fibers at the top and bottom of the delamination plane as shown in the figure. The disbonding
of the fibers causes fiber bridging after delamination extension.

Bridging fibers

Figure 4.25: SEM image of the delamination tip, Specimen In-situ 3, magnification X110

Microcracks were observed ahead of crack tip as shown in figure 4.26. The microcracks are
approximately parallel to the delamination plane indicating dominant mode I load.

The objective of the study was to investigate difference between microcrack densities ahead
of the delamination tip under different fatigue loading conditions. The technique is however
not effective as the microcracks was only observed once in the SEM image during this
investigation. The microcracks are formed in the matrix between adjacent fibers of the same
ply which remains hidden in most cases by the fibers at the surface and not observable by
SEM.

70
 Chapter 4

Delamination tip

Microcracks

Figure 4.26: SEM images of the delamination tip, Specimen In-situ 4, (a) magnification
X600 (b) magnification X2300

4.3.5 Discussion of the SEM examination for the stress ratio effect

The last four sections have discussed the results of the microscopic investigations of the stress
ratio effect on delamination growth. In the first section on microscopy, an approach is
discussed similar to the previous studies [1, 4], in which apparent differences are related to the
stress ratio effect. In the present study the test samples were compared on the basis of
different stress ratios, however no obvious difference was observed. The possible reason is the
use of DCB specimen. In DCB specimens, the monotonic and cyclic loadings continuously
change during fatigue delamination growth in the constant stress ratio tests. Fractographic
features are developed under the influence of both monotonic and cyclic load. Detail
discussion of the effect of these loadings will be presented in section 4.3.6 of this chapter.
Specific combinations of monotonic and cyclic loadings in the DCB specimens under
different stress ratios can form identical features, making fracture surfaces similar under
different stress ratios.

For the same cyclic stress, the monotonic load is higher at higher stress ratio. It was
hypothesized that for same cyclic load, the higher stress ratio generate denser damage zone
i.e. more microcracks ahead of delamination tip.

71
Experimental Results

In order to test the above hypothesis, the in-situ SEM investigation of the delamination tip and
the SEM examination of delamination tip at DCB specimen‟s edges after fatigue tests were
performed.

Efforts were made to quantify the stress ratio effect by keeping the cyclic load constant while
changing the monotonic loading. In the first attempt, the cyclic load was kept zero and the
monotonic load was increased from zero to the load at fracture, however no change in the
damage zone was observed before delamination growth started.

The results of the SEM investigations of the crack tip on DCB edges showed that the
microcrack density, that was assumed to be different under different loadings, could not be
quantified because the microcracks remain hidden in most instances by the fibers and matrix
at the specimen‟s edge.

Due to failure of the above two techniques, experiments were performed using WTDCB
specimens. The advantage of the WTDCB specimen over DCB is that the fracture surfaces
can be created under constant monotonic and constant cyclic loading as compared to DCB
specimens. The next section presents the results of the SEM investigations of the WTDCB
specimens.

4.3.6 SEM examination of the fracture surfaces of WTDCB specimens after fatigue tests

The objective of the SEM examination of WTDCB specimen‟s fracture surfaces was to
determine the effect of monotonic and cyclic load components on the fractographic features.
Two types of tests were performed using WTDCB specimens. In the first type, Gmax was kept
constant while ∆Gs was varied during delamination growth. In the other, ∆Gs was kept
constant while varying Gmax. SEM examination of the fracture surfaces revealed that the
surfaces consist of hackles and striations.

Hackles were observed in the matrix between two adjacent fiber imprints on the fracture
surface. Figure 4.27 shows hackles on fracture surface of WTDCB 3. Hackle length for a
specific loading was taken as the average of 10-12 hackles over a fracture surface length ~100
µm. It was observed that the average hackle length is a function of Gmax and ∆Gs. Average
hackle length for the specimens WTDCB 2, WTDCB 3 and WTDCB 4 is plotted against
normalized Gmax i.e. Gmax/Gc, in figure 4.28. The error bars in the figure represents the
standard deviation of the hackle lengths in a data set from 10-12 hackles. SEM images of the
WTDCB specimens under different Gmax values are given in appendix C. Hackle lengths
increases with an approximately linear trend until Gmax becomes equal to about 0.65Gc, as
shown in figure 4.28. A kink type increase was observed at Gmax values higher than 0.65Gc.
Hackle lengths become more non-uniform at Gmax higher than 0.65 Gc which is evident from
the large error bars in the figure.

72
 Chapter 4

Hackles

Fiber imprints

Hackle length

Figure 4.27: SEM image showing hackles on the fracture surface of WTDCB 3

18
Average hackle length [µm]

16
14 ΔGs =66.6 J/m2
12 ΔGs =85.3 J/m2
10
8
6
4
ΔGs =94.3 J/m2
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Gmax/Gc

Figure 4.28: Hackle lengths versus normalized Gmax at various constant ∆Gs [J/m2] for
specimens WTDCB 2, WTDCB 3 and WTDCB 4

For same Gmax, average hackle lengths seem to decrease with ∆Gs as shown in figure 4.29,
however from this data set no final conclusion can be drawn. The error bars in figure 4.29
represent standard deviation in the measurements based on data set of 10 hackles. As
illustrated in figure 4.28 for ∆Gs=66.6 J/m2, 85.3 J/m2 and 94.3 J/m2, for same Gmax hackle
length seems such that l 85.3 > l 66.6 > l 94.3. Thus from figures 4.28 and 4.29, the hackle length
may be increasing, decreasing or constant with ∆Gs. further discussion about hackle length
variation with ∆Gs will be presented in chapter 6.

The relation between hackle length per number of cycles and Gmax/Gc, ∆Gs was obtained by
adding trend lines to the data. Linear and power equations are shown for the data trend in
figure 4.30. Both linear and power functions show approximately same fitting efficiency for

73
Experimental Results

the experimental data, however in the coming chapters, the delamination growth rate is
correlated to SERR with power equations, the power equation will be used for the analysis of
the hackles and striations.

Average hackle length [µm] 7

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
100 120 140 160 180 200

∆Gs [J/m2]

Figure 4.29: Hackle length versus ∆Gs at constant Gmax=223 [J/m2] for specimen WTDCB 1

5.5 L= 6.532Gmax/Gc + 0.3176

5

4.5
Hackle length / cycle [µm]

3.5 L= 6.4377Gmax/Gc 0.8643

2.5

1.5

1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(a) Gmax/Gc

74
 Chapter 4

4.5

Hackle length/cycle [µm]

L= -0.0233∆Gs + 6.9123

3.5

L= 611.56∆Gs1.04
2.5

2
(b) 100 120 140 160 180 200

∆Gs [J/m2]

Figure 4.30: Relation between hackle length/cycle versus (a) Gmax/Gc, specimens WTDCB 2,
WTDCB 3 and WTDCB 4 (b) ∆Gs, specimen WTDCB 1

The observed hackles form patterns of saw teeth like structures in the matrix between the
adjacent fiber imprints. Based on previous investigations [5], it can be assumed that for such
hackle shapes, the mating surface also have mating hackle patterns with opposite orientations
of flanks to the delamination plane. The formation of such hackle patterns will be further
discussed in section 6.2.1 in chapter 6 of this thesis.

The effect of ∆Gs on the hackle‟s top flank and bottom flank angles (defined in figure 4.31)
with the delamination plane was examined by measuring these angles at different ∆Gs under
constant Gmax. The hackle‟s top flank angle at different constant Gmax is plotted against ∆Gs in
figure 4.32. The error bars in the figure represents the standard deviation of the hackle flank
angles in a data set from 10 hackles. The mean value of the hackle‟s top flank angle ranges
100-350. The bottom flank angle is plotted in figure 4.33. The range of the hackle‟s bottom
flank angle is 400-1400. The trend of top and bottom flank angles with increasing ∆Gs is not
clear from the figures. However it can be assumed based on the decreasing trend of the hackle
length with ∆Gs (figure 4.29) that these angles increases with ∆Gs, that result in shorter hackle
lengths.

75
Experimental Results

Figure 4.31: SEM image of the fracture surface showing hackles between adjacent fiber
imprints, specimen DCB 3(a). Schematic illustration of hackle geometry, (b)

76
 Chapter 4

60

Hackle top flank Angle [0]

50

40

30

20

10

0
80 130 180 230
∆Gs [J/m2]

Figure 4.32: Hackle top flank angle versus ∆Gs, specimen WTDCB 1

200
Hackle bottom flank Angle[0]

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
80 130 180 230

∆Gs [J/m2]

Figure 4.33: Hackle's bottom flank angle versus ∆Gs, specimen WTDCB 1
Striations were observed in the fiber imprints on the fracture surfaces. Figure 4.34 shows
typical striations on the fracture surface of WTDCB 1. It was observed that the striation
spacing varies with Gmax and ∆GS. The error bars in figure 4.34 represents the standard
deviation of the striation space in a data set from 10 striations. For constant ∆GS, the striation
spacing increases with Gmax as shown in figure 4.35. The SEM images of the fracture
surfaces showing striations at different Gmax are given in appendix C.

For constant Gmax, the striation spacing increases with ∆Gs as shown in figure 4.36. The error
bars in the figure represents the standard deviation of the striation space in a data set from 10
striations. Appendix C shows the SEM images at different ∆Gs under constant Gmax. The
relation of striation space per number of cycles with Gmax and ∆Gs was determined by fitting
trend lines to the data as shown in figure 4.37. Power and linear equations were used to
correlate striation space with Gmax and ∆Gs as shown in the figure. The power equation will be
further used in chapter 6 for the analysis of striation space for the derivation of delamination

77
Experimental Results

growth model. The higher exponent of the power equation in case of ∆Gs indicates that the
striation spacing is more sensitive to ∆Gs as compared to Gmax.

Striations

Striation space

Figure 4.34: SEM image of fracture surface of WTDCB 1 showing striations in fiber
imprint, magnification X8000

3
∆Gs=66.6
Srtiation spacing [µm]

2.5 J/m2

1.5
∆Gs =85.3
J/m2
1

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Gmax /Gc

Figure 4.35: Striation spacing versus normalized Gmax at different constant ∆Gs, specimens
WTDCB 2 and WTDCB 4

78
 Chapter 4

2
1.8
1.6

Strtiation spacing [µm]

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
100 120 140 160 180 200

ΔGs [J/m2]

Figure 4.36: Striation spacing versus ∆Gs at constant Gmax=223 J/m2, specimen WTDCB 1

1.4

1.2
Striation spacing/cycle [µm]

1
s = 0.0126∆Gs - 1.2223
0.8

0.6

0.4

s = 5e-08∆Gs3.2378
0.2

0
100 120 140 160 180 200

∆Gs [J/m2]
(a)

79
Experimental Results

2.5

Striation spacing/cycle [µm]

2
s = 3.639Gmax/Gc - 0.8324

1.5

0.5 s = 3.0957Gmax /Gc 1.7211

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(b) Gmax/Gc[J/m2]

Figure 4.37: Power equations used to describe striation spacing versus ∆Gs, specimen
WTDCB 1 (a) and versus Gmax, specimens WTDCB 2 and WTDCB 4 (b)

4.4 Discussion
The results of the experiments to study the stress ratio effect on mode I delamination growth
have been presented in this chapter. With using ∆Gs in presenting several experimental
results, a consistent increase in delamination growth rate due to increasing stress ratio was
observed as compared to ∆G. The results are compatible with the use of ∆K for the
presentation of delamination growth in other studies [1].

Several mechanisms were investigated for the explanation of the stress ratio effect. Crack
closure was observed to occur at lower stress ratios only and it decreases the effective SERR
range. The SERR at crack closure was approximately constant with the delamination length.
Such observations have been reported by Hojo et al. [1] for the delamination growth in 914 C
laminates.

Using the crack closure corrected ∆Gs, the results of plotting delamination growth rates
against ∆Gs under various stress ratios shows that crack closur partially explains the effect.
Crack closure shifts the constant stress ratio curves to the left in delamination growth rates
versus ∆Gs plots, i.e. to the higher stress ratio region.

Fiber bridging was investigated by comparing results of the experiments with fiber bridging
and with no fiber bridging. The results have shown that fiber bridging decreases the
delamination growth rates. The degree of difference between various stress ratio curves
remains approximately the same.

80
 Chapter 4

The results of the above three experimental programs have shown that delamination growth
rates increases with increasing stress ratios for the same ∆Gs, which is partially explained by
crack closure effect while the effect of fiber bridging on delamination growth versus ∆Gs
curves is negligible as fiber bridging changes both delamination rate and ∆Gs. From these
results it was concluded that the stress ratio effect should be explained from micolevel
delamination growth.

The fatigue loading comprises monotonic and cyclic loading. For the same cyclic loading, the
monotonic load is higher for higher stress ratio, which physically affects the delamination
growth. If the delamination growth rates are plotted in a 3D coordinate system, comprising
da/dN, Gmax and ∆Gs, the data forms a surface including constant stress ratio curves.

The tests on DCB specimens can be performed only under constant stress ratio. The cyclic
and monotonic load continuously changes with delamination growth. The microscopic
features on the fracture surfaces depend on both monotonic and cyclic loadings, thus the
microscopy of DCB specimens is inconvenient for studying stress ratio effect.

WTDCB specimens were used to investigate effect of Gmax, ∆Gs independent of one another.
In WTDCB, the Gmax, ∆Gs and R can be kept constant, thus separation of the effects of cyclic
and monotonic loading is easy.

Microscopy of WTDCB specimens have shown that the hackle length increases with Gmax at
constant ∆Gs, and decreases with ∆Gs at constant Gmax. Striation spacing increases with both
∆Gs and Gmax.

References
1. Hojo M., Tanaka K., Gustafson C-G., Hayashi R., Effect of stress ratio on near-
threshold propagation of delamination fatigue cracks in unidirectional CFRP.
Compos Science Technology, 1987. 29: p. 19.
2. Elber W., The significance of Crack Closure. ASTM STP 486, Philadelphia., 1971: p.
230-242.
3. ASTM E 647 (2000), Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack
Growth Rates, Annual Book of ASTM standards ASTM Philadelphia.
4. Bathias C., Laksimi A., Delamination threshold and Loading Effect in Fiber Glass
Epoxy Composite. Delamination and Debonding of Materials, ASTM STP
Philadelphia. p. 10, 1985.
5. Moris G. E., Determining fracture directions and fracture origons on failed
graphite/epoxy surfaces. Nondestructive Evaluation and Flaw Criticality for
Composite, ASTM D-30, 1979.

81
 CHAPTER 5
EFFECT OF CRACK CLOSURE AND FIBER
BRIDGING ON MODE I FATIGUE
DELAMINATION GROWTH
Abstract
This chapter discusses crack closure and fiber bridging as possible mechanisms having an
effect on mode I fatigue delamination growth. Both mechanisms are considered to shield the
crack tip. The significance of these mechanisms in the effect of stress ratio is discussed using
the experimental results.

5.1 Introduction
The understanding of mechanisms of delamination growth is necessary for development of a
mechanistic model for delamination growth prediction. After analyzing the mechanisms, the
contribution of each mechanism can be determined and mechanistic model can be developed
for the delamination growth.
Crack shielding is generally observed in metal crack growth and delamination growth in
composites under fatigue. Crack shielding is caused by several sources. Ritchie [1] has listed
five mechanisms that cause crack tip shielding in bulk materials and composites, as shown
schematically in figure 5.1. Due to crack shielding the effective stresses on the crack tip are
reduced and crack growth rate is decreased.
Crack closure and fiber bridging are known crack shielding mechanisms in delamination
growth in fiber reinforced composites. In this chapter these mechanisms have been analyzed
for their role in the stress ratio effect. In the next section, crack closure and its role in stress
ratio effect has been discussed. In section 5.3, fiber bridging effect has been discussed. The
conclusions of the analysis are presented in section 5.4.

5.2 Effect of crack closure on mode I fatigue delamination growth

Crack closure has been long known to affect the crack growth in metals under fatigue loading.
The sources of crack closure in metals are plasticity, roughness and oxidation induced closure
[2].
In metal fatigue crack growth, crack closure is considered to explain the stress ratio effect. In
the presentation of crack growth rates versus stress intensity factor (SIF) range, when crack
closure effect is taken out of SIF range equation (5.1), different stress ratio curves collapses
onto a single curve.
∆𝐾𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝐾𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐾𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒 (5.1)
Effect of Crack Closure and Fiber Bridging on Mode I Fatigue Delamination Growth

Where Kmax and Kclose in equation 5.1 are SIF calculated using fatigue loads at maximum and
crack closure.

Figure 5.1: Effect of crack tip shielding on the driving force and crack growth rate under
monotonic and fatigue loading [1]
In the present study crack closure was experimentally investigated for the explanation of the
stress ratio effect on mode I delamination growth under fatigue. The details of the experiment
have been presented in chapter 3.
The delamination growth was analyzed using the strain energy release rate (SERR) range
approach defined by ∆Gs. The effective ∆Gs was calculated using equation 3.4. The results of
delamination growth versus SERR range for the crack closure tests have been shown in
section 4.2.2.

84
 Chapter 5

Crack closure was only positively observed for the fatigue tests for R=0.15. The correction
for the observed crack closure decreased the effective SERR range and shifted the crack
resistance curve for the above stress ratio to the higher stress ratio region in figure 4.9.
Crack closure increased the effective stress ratio at the crack tip from R=0.15 to R=0.21. As
mentioned in chapter 4, the crack resistance curves for different stress ratios belong to a single
crack growth resistance surface in the 3D coordinates of da/dN versus Gmax and ∆Geff. Crack
closure correction shifts the crack resistance curve from one stress ratio to another on the
same crack resistance surface. The shifting of the crack resistance curve due to crack closure
correction is illustrated in figure 5.2. The da/dN is plotted against Gmax versus ∆Geff for
R=0.15, 0.32, 0.49 and 0.21. The projection of the delamination growth rates on Gmax and
∆Geff plane in the figure represents the constant stress ratio lines. The red arrows indicate
shifting of the data points from one constant stress ratio to another due to crack closure
correction.
In figure 5.3, the crack resistance surface is plotted for the material using two-parameter
model given by equation 6.20. The procedure for the two-parameter model development will
be explained in next chapter. The crack closure correction shifts the data on the same
resistance surface as illustrated in figure 5.3, implying that crack closure does not change the
material inherent resistance to the delamination growth.
The above discussion proves that crack closure affects delamination growth rates at lower
stress ratios. The effective stress ratio at the crack tip is increased due to crack closure;
however the effect of stress ratio is only marginally explained by crack closure as compared
to metal crack growth under fatigue. The difference of the crack closure effect in metals and
composites is attributed to the source of crack closure in these materials. Plasticity induced
closure is more common in metals [2]. Additional sources of closure like oxidation and
roughness induced closure may be also present in metals. On the other hand plasticity induced
closure is less likely in composite due to thin layers of matrix resin between plies. In present
study fracture surfaces were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and no
trace of plasticity was observed in the epoxy resin. The closure in the present study comes
from surface roughness caused by matrix and fiber debris, loose fibers and broken fibers.
Few literature studies investigated the role of crack closure in delamination growth. Gustafson
et al. [4] investigated crack closure effect in carbon/epoxy composites. The SERR was used
for the analysis of the delamination growth under different stress ratios. The SERR range ∆G
was defined as
∆𝐺 = 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺𝑚𝑖𝑛 (5.2)
where Gmax and Gmin are maximum and minimum SERR.
Gustafson corrected ∆G for the crack closure effect. Different stress ratio curves collapsed to
a narrow scatter band due to crack closure correction. The use of ∆G for the analysis of
delamination growth can however mislead the investigation due to mixing monotonic and
cyclic load effects.
Fiber bridging was experimentally investigated in the present study for the stress ratio effect
explanation. Fiber bridging has been described in literature to change the stress ratio in

85
Effect of Crack Closure and Fiber Bridging on Mode I Fatigue Delamination Growth

delamination growth [1]. Next section discusses investigation of fiber bridging effect and its
role in the effect of stress ratio on mode I fatigue delamination growth.

Figure 5.2: Delamination growth rate versus Gmax and ∆Geff under different stress ratios with
the crack closure correction for R=0.15

86
 Chapter 5

Figure 5.3: Delamination growth resistance surface fitted to the data from figure 5.2

5.3 Effect of Fiber bridging on mode I fatigue delamination growth

This section discusses the role of fiber bridging in the stress ratio effect in mode I fatigue
delamination growth. As discussed in the last section that crack closure marginally explains
stress ratio effect, it was hypothesized that some other mechanism, in addition to the crack
closure, is contributing in the effect. Fiber bridging is a crack tip shielding mechanism that
occurs due to bridging of the mating fracture surfaces by fibers in the delamination plane.
Fiber bridging is generally observed during mode I delamination of unidirectional laminates
[5]. It originates from nesting of fibers of the adjacent plies in delamination plane. According
to Johnson and Manalgiri [5], nesting is common in unidirectional lay-up where fibers
migrates due to pressure/temperature cure cycle. Fiber bridging increases the fracture
toughness of the laminates as the delamination extends. Figure 5.4 shows image of fiber
bridging in a width tapered DCB (WTDCB) specimen during delamination growth under
mode I fatigue.

87
Effect of Crack Closure and Fiber Bridging on Mode I Fatigue Delamination Growth

Bridging fibers

Figure 5.4: Fiber bridging in specimen WTDCB 1 under mode I loading

The effect of fiber bridging on fracture toughness has been extensively investigated in the
literature. The effect has been experimentally determined using techniques of crack wake saw
cut [6-7], comparing results of coated fibers and uncoated fibers laminates [8] and fiber bragg
grating (FBG) sensors [9]. In the saw cut techniques, the fiber bridging effect is determined
by comparing the results of the tests on specimens having active fiber bridging and specimens
in which fibers in the crack wake were cut using s saw.
In the second techniques the fibers in the delamination plane are coated to reduce bridging.
The effect of fiber bridging is then determined by comparing test results with uncoated fiber
specimens. In FBG technique, fiber bridging effect is determined using optical fiber sensors.
These sensors are embedded in the composite laminates just above delamination plane to
measure the bridging tractions during the tests (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5: Photograph of a DCB specimen showing delamination and fiber bridging [9]
The effect of fiber bridging on mode I fatigue delamination growth has been investigated less
as compared to the static fracture properties. Hwang and Han [10] used the WTDCB
specimens for the investigation of the effect of fiber bridging on the interlaminar fracture
behavior of glass fiber/epoxy laminates under static and cyclic loadings. For WTDCB
specimens, the critical SERR and the delamination growth rate remain constant under
constant applied load. However, in the presence of fiber bridging, the critical SERR increases

88
 Chapter 5

as delamination grows while the delamination growth rate decreases. Hwang and Han
determined the effect of fiber bridging on the critical SERR and delamination growth rate in
WTDCB specimens by observation of the critical SERR and delamination growth rate
deviation from constant values.
In the current study, the effect of fiber bridging is determined by performing two sets of mode
I fatigue delamination tests on DCB specimens as described in section 3.4.2. In one set of
tests, fiber bridging was allowed to affect delamination growth. In the second set of tests,
fiber bridging resistance was removed by fiber cutting in the delamination wake using a saw.
The delamination growth results of the two types of tests have been shown in figures 4.10 and
4.13 in section 4.2.3 of the previous chapter. The delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs for the
cut fiber tests and uncut fiber tests are combined in figure 5.6. From the figure, it is evident
that the stress ratio remains constant for the two set of tests. Fiber cutting however increases
the delamination growth rate by increasing the applied ∆Gs on the crack tip.

Figure 5.6: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs for tests with and without fiber bridging
To illustrate the effect of fiber cutting on the ∆Gs, stress ratio and delamination growth rate,
the delamination growth rate is plotted against Gmax and ∆Gs in figure 5.7. The projection of
the delamination growth rates on the Gmax and ∆Gs plane in the figure represents the constant
stress ratio curves. It can be seen from the figure that the stress ratio does not change in the
cutting fiber test. The values of Gmax, ∆Gs and delamination growth rate da/dN have been
increased in the test, as the figure illustrate.

89
Effect of Crack Closure and Fiber Bridging on Mode I Fatigue Delamination Growth

Figure 5.7: Delamination growth rate versus Gmax and ∆Gs for tests with and without fiber
bridging
Similar to crack closure, fiber bridging does not change material inherent resistance to
delamination growth. This was observed by plotting delamination resistance surface in 3D
coordinate according to two-parameter model for the material as given by equation 6.20. The
procedure for two-parameter model is described in section 6.5 in next chapter. By comparing
experimental data for fiber cutting experiments and no-cutting experiments, both data sets fall
on the same resistance surface as shown in figure 5.8.

90
 Chapter 5

Figure 5.8: Delamination growth resistance surface fitted through data from figure 5.7
The experimental results have shown that fiber bridging decreases ∆Gs at a constant stress
ratio as both cyclic Gmax and Gmin are effected by fiber bridging. In the literature, fiber
bridging has been presented as a source that increase effective stress ratio [1]. The stress ratio
will be affected in case the Gmax or Gmin are changed due to fiber bridging. In the present
study, fiber bridging was observed to have an effect on both maximum and minimum cyclic
loads in such manner that the stress ratio with fiber bridging was approximately equal to the
stress ratio without fiber bridging. The maximum and minimum loads were recorded before
and after cutting the bridging fibers during fatigue delamination test. The load is plotted
against cycles in figure 5.9. The cyclic stress ratio was 0.089 and 0.087 before and after fiber
cutting respectively.

91
Effect of Crack Closure and Fiber Bridging on Mode I Fatigue Delamination Growth

Fiber cutting instance

Figure 5.9: Fatigue load versus number of cycles showing the decrease in the maximum and
minimum cyclic loads after fiber cutting

5.4 Conclusions
The mode I fatigue delamination growth is reduced by crack closure and fiber bridging due to
shielding of the crack tip. Crack closure influences only in case of delaminations growth at
lower stress ratios. No trace of plasticity was observed on the fracture surfaces. The surfaces
include fiber matrix debris, broken fibers and loose fibers, which induce crack closure during
delamination growth. Due to crack closure, the effective stress ratio at the crack tip is higher
than the applied stress ratio. The mechanism of stress ratio effect in mode I fatigue
delamination growth is different from the crack growth in metals. Crack closure in case of
delamination growth marginally explains the stress ratio effect as compared to metal crack
growth.
Fiber bridging reduces the delamination growth by decreasing the applied driving loads on the
crack tip. It has no effect on the stress ratio during delamination growth. Both maximum and
minimum fatigue loads are reduced due to fiber bridging.
The effect of stress ratio in mode I delamination growth is not explained by the crack closure
and fiber bridging. However the effects of these mechanisms on delamination growth should
be accounted in further analysis. The results of the SEM investigations on the width tapered
DCB specimens, presented in the previous chapter, have indicated that the monotonic and
cyclic stresses have distinct effects on the microscopic features. Such investigations can lead
to the explanation of the stress ratio effect on the delamination growth. In the next chapter the
mechanism of the delamination growth and the effect of fatigue loadings are described and a
two-parameter model for delamination growth prediction is presented.

92
 Chapter 5

References
1. Ritchie R. O., Mechanisms of Fatigue Crack Propagation in Metals, Ceramics and
Composites: Role of Crack Tip Shielding. Material Sience and Engineering, 1988.
A103: p. 15-28.

2. Banerjee S., A review of crack closure, AFWAL-TR-84-4031, University of Dayton

research institute. 1984.

3. Elber W., The significance of Crack Closure. ASTM STP 486, Philadelphia., 1971: p.
230-242.

4. Gustafson C. G, Hojo M., Delamination fatigue crack-growth in unidirectional

graphite epoxy laminates. journal of Reinforced Plastics and composite, 1987. 6(1): p.
16.

5. Johnson W. S., Manalgiri P. D., Investigation of Fiber Bridging in Double Cantilever

Beam Specimen," Composites Technology & Research, 9:10-13 (1987).

6. Knehans R., Steinbrech R. W.,, Journal of material Science letters. 1 (1982) 327.

7. Mai Y. W., Hakeem M. I., Journal of material Science 19 (1984) 501.

8. Hu X. Z., Mai Y. W., Mode I delamination and fiberbridging in carbon-fiber/epoxy

composites with and without PVAL coating. Composite Science and Technology,
1993. 46 (2): p. 147-156.

9. Sorensen L., Botsis J., Gmur T., Cugnoni J., Delamination detection and
characterization of bridging tractions using long FBG optical sensors. Composites,
2007. Part A, 38: p. 2087-2096.

10. Hwang W., Han K.S., Interlaminar Frcature Behaviour and fiber bridging of
glass/epoxy Composite Under Mode I Static and Cyclic Loadings. Journal of
Composite Materials, 1989. 23.

93
 CHAPTER 6
TWO-PARAMETER MODEL FOR
DELAMINATION GROWTH

Abstract
A two parameter model for mode I fatigue delamination growth has been developed in this
chapter. The model is based on the mechanisms of delamination formation that was
determined through SEM investigations. The experimental data of fatigue delamination
growth under mode I fatigue from the current study and the literature has been used for the
validation of the model.

6.1 Introduction
The experimental results that have been presented in Chapter 4 clearly indicate that the
delamination growth rate da/dN is not a unique function of ∆Gs, but that the relationship
between these two parameters is dependent on the stress ratio R. This implies that the
delamination growth rate is related to both the amplitude of the load cycle, and the monotonic
load. In general this could thus be formulated as
𝑑𝑎
= 𝑓 ∆𝐺𝑠 , 𝑅 (6.1)
𝑑𝑁

Now in itself this observation may not be new; as explained in Chapter 2, previous studies
have revealed the dependency of delamination growth rate on both the cyclic and monotonic
load. However, what has been made clear in Chapter 5, is that the relation to the stress ratio
(which is a means to address the monotonic load contribution) is not explained by
phenomenon like crack closure and fiber bridging. These mechanisms may have an influence
on the actual value of the cyclic and monotonic strain energy release rate (SERR) experienced
by the crack tip and the corresponding rate with which that tip will progress. This influence
will however, not collapse the curves for different stress ratios R in the presentation of the
crack resistance, i.e. delamination growth rate da/dN plotted against the (either range of
SERR or maximum SERR).

In other words, one may describe crack closure and fiber bridging, reducing the crack driving
force to what is actually experienced by the crack tip rather than at applied level, but one still
has to account for the influence of both cyclic and monotonic load.

Whether or not accounting for crack closure and fiber bridging as discussed in the previous
chapter, various authors have attempted to formulate the relationship between delamination
growth rate and the SERR, using a so called two-parameter model. The proposed formulations
of these two-parameter models have been presented and discussed in Chapter 2, but they all
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

seem to have one aspect in common; the formulations multiply the cyclic and monotonic
SERR contributions with each other varying the individual exponents.

In general these two-parameter models have been justified by validating that the formulation
indeed collapsed all experimental data to a single crack resistance curve, but the fundamental
question concerning the contributions using fractography is not provided.

This chapter presents the fractographic evaluation of fracture surfaces obtained post-mortem
from the tests described in Chapter 3 with the intention to derive the physically correct
formulation of the two-parameter model, relating fractographic features to individual failure
modes and cyclic or monotonic load parameters.

6.2 Mechanism of delamination growth

Considering the fact that the macroscopic delamination growth rate is influenced by both
cyclic and monotonic loading, the fracture surfaces have been evaluated for their
fractographic features. In general, one may observe loose or broken fibers, partially imbedded
fibers, fiber imprints in the matrix, and matrix cracking on the fracture surfaces delaminated
under mode I fatigue loading. Several of these features are (more) specifically related to the
progression of the delamination or crack tip during application of load cycles.

Consider the illustration (figure 6.1) of a formed delamination at a given interface between or
within fiber reinforced plies, one may observe few dominant failure modes, i.e. cohesive or
adhesive failure between fiber and matrix (feature often identified as fiber imprint), or a
cohesive failure of the matrix. In this particular case of crack tip extension, it is assumed that
fiber failure (and related observations of loose fibers) is not occurring at the crack tip, but
further away behind the crack tip.

Figure 6.1: Schematic of delamination in composites

Considering crack closure and fiber bridging, there are two aspects primarily attributed to
these phenomena, fiber bridging and fiber failure, which both happen behind the crack tip.
This implies that these aspects could be excluded when considering the mechanism at the
crack tip. In other words, when describing the crack growth in relation to both cyclic and
monotonic loading, only fiber disbonding (may still be cohesive or adhesive failure) and
matrix cracking is to be considered.

96
 Chapter 6

For each of these two mechanisms, the progression of damage growth should be formulated in
relation to cyclic and monotonic loading. Here specific fractographic features are evaluated in
order to create such relation. For the cohesive failure of the matrix (in-between fibers), the
formation of so-called hackles has been investigated, while for the fiber decohesion, the
formation of striations in the fiber imprint have been analyzed.

6.2.1 Hackle formation during matrix decohesion

Hackles have been observed in the matrix between two adjacent fiber imprints on the fracture
surfaces. Hackles are formed because of microcracks ahead of crack tip that are formed in the
plane of maximum resolved tensile stress. The coalescence of the macrocrack and
microcracks results in the formation of hackles.

Hackles are formed in opposite directions on both opposite fracture surfaces. In this study no
comparison was made to verify formation of hackles on opposite surfaces, however literature
studies [1-2] have reported evidences of hackles with opposite angles on the opposite fracture
surfaces. Moris [2] has illustrated the formation of hackles on opposite surfaces as shown in
figure 6.2. The figure shows that crack c1 grows under load F1 and coalesces with c2 that
grows under the load F2. The hackles are thus formed on opposite surfaces as shown in the
last illustration of figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: Illustration of delamination growth and hackle formation due to microcrack
coalescence [2]

97
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

The illustration of the shape of microcracks in figure 6.2 shows that these are formed under
the influence of two-dimensional load. Johanesson [3] also suggested the formation of
microcracks under two-dimensional stress state. In this study, the shape of hackles suggests
that microcracks have been formed under three-dimensional stress states. Figure 6.3 shows
hackles on fracture surface of DCB 3. In figure 6.3 (b), it has been shown by arrows that the
top hackle flank is inclined in three-dimensional coordinates, implying microcrack growth
under three-dimensional stress state.

(a)

Delamination
growth direction

(b)

z
x

Figure 6.3: SEM images of fracture surface of DCB 3 at magnification of 300X (a) and
4000X (b)

98
 Chapter 6

The mechanism of the three-dimensional stress states on microcracks can be explained by the
sequence of damage growth during delamination extension. Consider a fiber and its
surrounding matrix in the ply, just above the delamination plane, as shown in figure 6.4.
Assume that the fiber-matrix interface strength (adhesive strength) is less than the cohesive
strength of the matrix due to heterogeneous nature. As a result of mode I load, the fiber
disbonds from the matrix before matrix failure due to weaker strength. The disbonding grows
to certain length that creates stress concentration on the matrix in-between the fibers shown in
the figure. The matrix forms a semicircular shape around the fiber and it is deformed as a
result of the stress concentration.

Figure 6.4: Schematic view of fiber disbonding and microcrack initiation in matrix

The resulting state of stress is locally three-dimensional and it creates a microcrack in the
matrix blank. This microcracks grows in three-dimensional directions in the subsequent
cycles resulting in hackle formation.

6.2.2 Striation formation during fiber-matrix decohesion

Fatigue striations were observed in the fiber imprints on the fracture surfaces. Striations are
formed due to step wise decohesion of fibers from matrix during a fatigue cycle. Consider a
single fiber and matrix in a laminate as shown in figure 6.5. The fiber decohesion from the
matrix starts at the location where load is locally pure mode I. This location is the bottom of
the fiber-matrix interface as shown in the figure. Decohesion grows in two directions, around
the fiber and in the delamination growth direction. The decohession does not follow a parallel
path to the the delamination plane, instead it is slightly inclined to it. After extension, next
decohession is generated and coalesces with the previous decohession, resulting in a striation
as shown.

99
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.5: Illustration of striation formation

The described mechanism of striation formation is based on the shape of striations in the fiber
imprints. The previous researchers described mechanism of striation formation differently.
Franz [4] and Moris [5] suggested that the striation formation takes place due to the extension
of the microcracks at fiber-matrix interface into the matrix around the fiber(which become
fiber imprint after delamination extension). This mechanism will result in approximately
equal hackle length and striation spacing as each microcrack will create one hackle and one
striation. In the current study the observation presented in section 4.3 of this thesis suggest
that hackle length is 5-10 times of the striation spacing, implying that for one hackle there are
5-10 striations.

6.3 Monotonic and cyclic load contribution related to fractographic features

The microscopy results in chapter 4 have revealed that hackle length per cycle is a function of
fatigue loading parameters Gmax and ∆Gs. Hackles are formed due to microcracks coalescence
ahead of the crack/delamination tip. For longer hackles at higher Gmax values, implies that the
microcracks are created at larger distances from the crack tip.

Hackle length increases with Gmax with an approximately linear trend up to Gmax=0.65Gc. The
length becomes non-uniform and increases with a kink as Gmax becomes higher than 0.65Gc.
The relation between hackle length per cycle, L and Gmax was described by power law in
figure 4.30 (a). The equation is given as:

𝐿 = 6.4377𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 0.8643 (6.2)

The microscopy has shown that hackle length per cycle decreases with the SERR range ∆Gs.
For higher ∆Gs, the density of microcracks ahead of the crack tip increases, which result in
higher delamination rates and shorter hackle lengths. The relation between hackle length per
cycle and ∆Gs was described by power law in figure 4.30 (b). The equation is given as:

𝐿 = 611.6∆𝐺𝑠 −1.04 (6.3)

100
 Chapter 6

No literature studies were available for the comparison of the current investigation and
previous investigations for the effect of fatigue loading on the hackle length.

Striation geometry depends on both monotonic and cyclic loading. The microscopy results in
chapter 4 have shown that striations are not formed at very low SERR (Gmax< 0.3Gc) and very
high SERR (Gmax> 0.8Gc). Sjogren [6] and Moris [5] have reported similar observations for
striation formation for the monotonic loading effect.

The SEM results in chapter 4 have shown that the striation spacing increases with ∆Gs. The
relation between striation spacing and ∆Gs is described by a power law in figure 4.37 (a). The
equation is given as

𝑠 = 5𝑒 −8 ∆𝐺𝑠 3.23 (6.4)

The striation spacing increases with Gmax. The relation between striation spacing and Gmax was
described by power law in figure 4.37 (b). The equation is given as:

𝑠 = 3.1𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 1.72 (6.5)

6.4 Development of two-parameter model principles

In this section, a mechanistic model for delamination growth is proposed. The model is based
on the relation between microscopic features growth and macrocrack growth under fatigue.
The relation of microscopic features with monotonic and cyclic loads has been discussed in
the previous section. This section links the loading parameters Gmax and ∆Gs to the
macrocrack growth using the microscopy results.

Assume a DCB specimen is loaded in mode I as shown in figure 6.6. The loading creates a
complex stress field at the delamination tip. The maximum principle tensile stress creates
microcracks ahead of delamination front as shown in figure 6.6a. The size of the microcrack
grows as the loading is repeated in subsequent cycles (figure 6.6b). The microcrack growth
limits are the fiber boundaries. As the microcracks grow to the fiber boundaries, further
growth is stopped and next microcrack is generated ahead (figure 6.6c). The loading in the
next cycle causes the previous microcrack to coalesce with the new microcrack as illustrated
in figure 6.6d. The coalescence process generates hackles as the delamination grows. The
second mechanism that takes place during delamination growth is the striation formation in
the fiber imprint as a result of the fiber and matrix decohesion.

101
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.6: Sequence of delamination growth under fatigue (a) microcrack created (b)
microcrack growth (c) Next microcrack created (d) Microcracks coalescence

Delamination growth creates fracture surface comprising of hackles and striations as shown
schematically in figure 6.7. In ∆N cycles, delamination grows through a length of ∆a as
shown in the figure. The area of the fracture surface can be thus written as:

𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝐴𝑕𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑒 + 𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (6.6)

where Ahackle and Astriation are area of hackles and striations.

102
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.7: Illustration of the fracture surface showing hackles and striations per unit length

6.4.1 Relation of hackle geometry with cyclic and monotonic loading

Considering generic hackle geometry in figure 6.8, hackle length L is given as

𝐿𝑕𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑒 = 𝐿𝛽 cos 𝛽 − 𝐿𝛼 cos 𝛼 (6.7)

With

𝐿𝛼 sin 𝛼 = 𝐿𝛽 sin 𝛽 = 𝑕 (6.8)

where L and L in equations 6.7 and 6.8 are the lengths of top and bottom flanks of the
hackle respectively as shown in figure 6.8. Angles  and  are the top and bottom hackle
flank angles with delamination plane respectively, and h is the hackle height.

From equations 6.7 and 6.8 it can be derived that

𝐿
𝐿𝛽 = cos 𝛼 (6.9)
cos 𝛽− sin 𝛽
sin 𝛼

And
𝐿
𝐿𝛼 = cos 𝛽 (6.10)
sin 𝛼−cos 𝛼
sin 𝛽

Assuming unit width, length L in figure 6.8 is equal to fracture area Ahackle. For fracture area
Ahackle, fracture surface of area L + L is created. The area of the fracture surface for different

103
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

values of Gmax and ∆Gs can be evaluated from the experimental observations. The observed
hackle flank angles are plotted against ∆Gs in figure 6.9. The figure shows that for Gmax=200
J/m2, average value of  = 82 and  = 21.6. For Gmax=223 J/m2, average value of  = 56.6
and  = 29.4 . With these angles the total fracture surfaces become L + L = 1.6 and L + L
= 2.9 for Gmax = 200 J/m2 and 223 J/m2 respectively.

Delamination growth
direction

L
L
h



Figure 6.8: Definition of generic hackle geometry

From figure 6.9, it cannot be concluded that the angles  and  are dependent on Gs. All
data seems to fall within the scatter bands. This means that the slight reduction in average
hackle length with Gs, illustrated in figure 4.30 (chapter 4) should correspond to a slight
reduction in hackle height h.

Let us in a similar way consider the maximum SERR Gmax, and assume to begin with that the
height h is constant. Figure 6.9 illustrate that increasing Gmax gives an increase in the hackle
top angle  and a decrease in the bottom angle . This is illustrated in figure 6.10 with the red
hackle shape. Such change in angles thus implies that with increasing Gmax the hackle length
L is decreased. This is opposite to the trend observed experimentally (figure 4.30), which
shows a systematic increase of the hackle length with increasing Gmax. If it is assumed with
figure 6.9 that no systematic change in angles can be derived from the little data presented in
the figure, it would still imply at most that the hackle length would remain constant with
increasing Gmax. In other words, to accommodate the trend illustrated in figure 4.30, i.e.
increasing hackle length with increasing Gmax, the hackle height h should also increase.

From the above discussion for hackle geometry it can be summarized

- With increasing Gs, no evident change in hackle angles is observed, which seems to
indicate that, if there is a slight decrease of hackle length, the hackle height h should
decrease.

- With increasing Gmax, the evident increase in hackle length can only be accommodated
with an increase in hackle height h.

Thus the hackle height h increases with Gmax and may slightly decrease with Gs. This means
that the total fracture surface area L + L = f(h).

104
 Chapter 6

The analysis of the hackle formation seems to indicate that decohesion via hackle formation is
dependent predominantly on the monotonic load component, i.e. Gmax, whereas either no
influence of the cyclic component could be established, or a slight dependency. In the latter
case, it has been established to relate to the hackle height h, because the hackle shape angles
seem to be independent of the cyclic component.

As the hackle height h is also observed to be the primary influence on the relationship
between hackle length and monotonic Gmax, it is assumed that most appropriate equation that
describes the hackle formation contribution to the delamination area would be:

𝐿 = 𝑓 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑓 ∆𝐺𝑠 + 𝑓(𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∆𝐺𝑠 ) (6.11)

(a)

105
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

(b)

Figure 6.9: Hackle flank angles versus ∆Gs for different Gmax in specimen WTDCB 1,
Hackle top flank angle  (a), Hackle bottom flank angle  (b)

L
L
h
 


Figure 6.10: Illustration of change of hackle length with Gmax for equal height h

6.4.2 Relation of striation spacing with cyclic and monotonic loading

Trend of the experimentally observed striation spacing with Gmax for different ∆Gs is plotted
in figure 6.11. Due to limited number of data points, the slopes of both data sets could be
equal, implying no interaction between monotonic and cyclic load components that would
change slope.

Obviously figure 6.11 illustrate that the slope for Gs = 85.3 J/m2 is less steep than for Gs =
66.6 J/m2 implying that the spacing is more sensitive for the lower Gs. If the interaction of
cyclic and monotonic loadings is assumed, the above trend should be opposite, i.e. slope
should be steep for Gs = 85.3 J/m2.

From the above discussion it is therefore suggested to assume that the monotonic and cyclic
SERR components both influence the striation spacing but without interaction. The relation of
striation spacing with ∆Gs and Gmax can be written as below:

106
 Chapter 6

𝐿𝑠 = 𝑓 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑓 ∆𝐺𝑠 (6.12)

Srtiation spacing [µm]

2.5

2
∆Gs=66.6
1.5
∆Gs =85.3
1

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Gmax /Gc

Figure 6.11: Striation spacing versus Gmax/Gc for different ∆Gs for specimens WTDCB 2 and
WTDCB 4

6.4.3. Macroscopic delamination growth

Using equations 6.6, 6.11 and 6.12, the delamination growth per cycle, i.e. da/dN can be
written as:
𝑑𝑎 𝐴𝑕 𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑙𝑒 𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
= 𝑓 𝑓 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑓 ∆𝐺𝑠 + 𝑓(𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∆𝐺𝑠 ) + 𝑓 𝑓 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑓 ∆𝐺𝑠 (6.13)
𝑑𝑁 𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

Where the interaction component in the equation for hackle formation is established to be of
an order smaller than f(Gmax) and f(∆Gs). Also the contribution of hackle area to the total
fracture area is 10-20%, which implies that striation is the primary mechanism in
delamination growth. Figure 6.12 illustrate SEM images showing distribution of striation and
hackle areas on fracture surface. Area covered by fiber imprints containing striations is 80-
90% of the total area, implying further decrease in the contribution of interaction component
in equation 6.13. The interaction component could be thus ignored in equation 6.13.

Using superposition of the hackle and striation components in equation 6.13, the equation
could be thus reduced to:
𝑑𝑎
= 𝑓 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑓 ∆𝐺𝑠 (6.14)
𝑑𝑁

107
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Fiber imprint

Hackles

(a)

(b)

108
 Chapter 6

(c)

Figure 6.12: SEM images showing hackles and fiber imprint in WTDCB 1 (a), WTDCB 2,
(b) and WTDCB 3 (c)

The delamination growth is thus linked to the fatigue loading parameters Gmax and ∆Gs using
relation of these parameters with micro mechanisms of delamination growth. A graphical
description of the analogy between delamination growth rates variation with Gmax and ∆Gs
and the variation of the microscopic features with Gmax and ∆Gs is schematically illustrated in
figures 6.13 and 6.14 respectively. The delamination growth rate increases with Gmax under
constant ∆Gs in figure 6.13 (a) and it has an analogy with the variation of striation spacing
and hackle length versus Gmax as shown in 6.13 (b) and (c). The increase of delamination
growth rate with ∆Gs at constant Gmax in figure 6.14 (a) has analogy with the variation of
striation spacing and hackle length in 6.14 (b) and (c).

109
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Striation space
(b)
∆Gs
∆Gs

da/dN
Gmax

Hackle length
∆Gs

(a) (c) G
max
Gmax

Figure 6.13: Illustration of the analogy between delamination growth and micro features
growth versus Gmax under constant ∆Gs

Striation space
(b)
Gmax
Gmax

∆Gs
da/dN

Hackle length

Gmax

(a) ∆Gs (c) ∆Gs

Figure 6.14: Illustration of analogy between delamination growth and micro features versus
∆Gs under constant Gmax

Using the analogy between micro and macro levels delamination growth, the functions in the
delamination growth equation 6.14 can be similarly described as the functions of the striation
spacing and hackle length per cycle with Gmax and ∆Gs. The striation spacing and hackle
length per cycle are related to Gmax and ∆Gs by power equations as given by equations 6.2-6.5.
The equation 6.14 can be written as:
𝑑𝑎 𝑚 𝑛
= 𝐴 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝐵 ∆𝐺𝑠 (6.15)
𝑑𝑁

where A, B, m and n are equation parameters.

Equation 6.15 is valid for the linear region (Paris region) of the fatigue delamination growth
curve only. Using experimental fatigue data given in table 3.2 for carbon/epoxy

110
 Chapter 6

M30SC/DT120, the parameters of equation 6.15 were determined. The resulting equation is
given as:
𝑑𝑎
= 2.26𝑒 −21 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 6 + 8.131𝑒 −20 ∆𝐺𝑠 6 (6.16)
𝑑𝑁

By plotting experimental data and predictions by equation 6.16 against ∆Gs in figure 6.15, it
can be seen that the equation results in a linear line. At lower delamination rates, a slight
deviation of experimental data from the prediction is evident for the three stress ratios.
Although in current study, more data points in the threshold region, for which a clear non-
linear trend is visible, were not available. However many researchers [7-8] have reported a
clear non-linear trend of delamination growth in the threshold region. A comparison of the
experimental data in threshold region and equation 6.15 predictions will be further described
in case studies in section 6.6

Figure 6.15: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs, Solid lines represent prediction with
equation 6.16

111
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

In order to extend the validity of the model given by equation 6.15 in the threshold region, it
is proposed to add a constant term C to the equation 6.15. The equation will thus become:
𝑑𝑎 𝑚 𝑛
= 𝐶 + 𝐴 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝐵 ∆𝐺𝑠 (6.17)
𝑑𝑁

where A, B, m and n are equation parameters.

Constant C in the above equation is less than zero and it is a mean to determine delamination
growth rate in threshold region. Figure 6.16 schematically compares delamination growth
rates for equation 6.15 and 6.17. Delamination growth rate curve becomes non-linear in case
of equation 6.17, capturing material fatigue behavior in the threshold region.

log [da/dN] 𝑑𝑎
= 𝐴∆𝐺𝑠𝑚 + 𝐵𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑛
𝑑𝑁

𝑑𝑎
= 𝐶 + 𝐴∆𝐺𝑠𝑚 + 𝐵𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑛
𝑑𝑁

0 log [ ∆Gs]

Figure 6.16: Illustration of delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs for equation 6.15 and 6.17

In the next section the model given by equation 6.17 is implemented to the experimental data.
The parameters of the equation 6.17 were determined using experimental data from tests
described in table 3.2. The model for the delamination growth with constant C for the material
is given by equation 6.18. The equation 6.18 prediction was compared to the experimental
data under different stress ratios in figure 6.22. The figure shows that the model predictions
become non-linear in threshold delamination growth region, thus capturing the non-linear
growth behavior.

The next section describes that the exponents of the equation 6.18 (with constant C) are
approximated with the striation space variation with ∆Gs and Gmax. Striations forms 80-90%
of the fracture area, hence a dominant microscopic feature at micro level delamination

112
 Chapter 6

growth. In table 6.1, the exponents of the equation 6.15 and equation 6.18 are compared with
the exponents of striation space variation with respect to ∆Gs and Gmax in table 6.1 The
comparison shows that the exponents of the power terms are two-time larger for the equation
without C.

Table 6.1: Comparison of the exponents of power terms in equations 6.15 and
equation 6.18 with striation space variation with cyclic and monotonic load

Striation space Model witht C Model without C

∆Gs 3.23 3.23 6

Gmax 1.72 1.72 6

Summarizing the above discussion, it can be stated that by including C in the model for
delamination growth

- Non-linear behaviour of delamination growth below threshold is described by the

model.
- Microscopic and macroscopic delamination growth are better correlated

Hence the finally proposed two-parameter model has the form given by equation 6.17.

The constant term C in equation 6.17 implicitly describe the interaction of monotonic and
cyclic loads Gmax and ∆Gs. As discussed earlier, the interaction term was ignored in equation
6.13 due to smaller contribution; however the experimental data show that at lower
delamination growth near threshold, interaction is present. The threshold SERR Gth is a
function of ∆Gs. Figure 6.17 shows threshold delamination boundary on Gmax - ∆Gs plane. By
taking Gmax equal to Gth, it can be seen that Gth decreases with ∆Gs.

Due to smaller data set generated in the present study, it was not possible to fully describe and
model the interaction of Gmax and ∆Gs on micro and macro delamination growth. The effect
was however included by introducing constant C. Further investigations are required for the
development of a mechanistic two-parameter delamination growth model accounting for the
interaction of monotonic and cyclic loads.

The threshold boundary for the fatigue delamination growth was determined from equation
6.18 (this equation is developed from experimental data in next section) by defining threshold
equal to 1x10-9 meter per cycle. Figure 6.17 shows the threshold boundary for the
M30SC/DT120 on Gmax versus ∆Gs plane. The threshold values of Gmax and ∆Gs for tests
under R=0.12, R=0.34 and R=0.46 were calculated using equation 6.18 and shown in figure
6.17.

113
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

280

240
Gmax[J/m2] 200 Delamination growth region
44, 155,R=0.46
160 64, 148.5,R=0.34

120 91, 126,R=0.12

80 No growth region
Threshold boundary
40

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
∆Gs [J/m2]

Figure 6.17: Delamination growth and no growth regions in the Gmax versus ∆Gs plane for
M30SC/DT120

6.5. Implementation of the model

The two-parameter model developed in the previous section is implemented with
experimental data of mode I delamination growth. In this study, two sets of fatigue data were
generated using M30SC/DT120.

The first data set is the delamination growth rate results of the experiments described in
section 3.2. In these experiments, the fibers were not cut during delamination growth. The
delamination growth rate da/dN is plotted against ∆Gs and Gmax as shown in figure 6.18.

114
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.18: Delamination growth rate versus Gmax and ∆Gs for the specimens DCB 1, DCB
3 and DCB 4

The two-parameter model for the material was described according to equation 6.17. The
exponents of the equation were approximated to the exponents of the striation variation with
∆Gs and Gmax in equations 6.4 and 6.5 respectively. The model parameters were obtained by
surface fitting to the experimental data using MATLAB as shown in figure 6.19. The two-
parameter-model for the material is given as:
𝑑𝑎
= −3.5e−7 + 5.2e−14 ∆G𝑠3.23 + 5.8e−11 G1.72
max (6.18)
𝑑𝑁

The goodness of the equation 6.19 was determined by calculating residuals of the fitted
surface to the experimental data. Figures 6.20 and 6.21 show residual versus Gmax and ∆Gs
respectively. The residuals are within an error range ~ ±1 µm per cycle.

115
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.19: Surface plot for the specimens DCB 1, DCB 3 and DCB 4 data according to
equation 6.18

Figure 6.20: Residuals versus Gmax for equation 6.18

116
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.21: Residuals versus ∆Gs for equation 6.18

The higher exponent of the ∆Gs terms in equation 6.19 for delamination growth, implies that
delamination growth rate is more sensitive to the cyclic loading (∆Gs) as compared to the
monotonic load (Gmax).

To compare prediction of equation 6.18 with experimental data in 2D plot of da/dN versus
∆Gs, the Gmax term was transformed into R. Equation 6.18 can be written in terms of ∆Gs and
R as:
𝑑𝑎
= −3.5e−7 + 5.2e−14 ∆G𝑠3.23 + 5.8e−11 [∆Gs /(1 − R)2 ]1.72 (6.19)
𝑑𝑁

The delamination growth curves at R=0.12, 0.34 and 0.46 are obtained from equation 6.19
and compared with the experimental data in figure 6.22. The solid lines in the figure represent
the model predictions. The predictions of the model and observations match for R=0.12 and
0.46. The difference between model prediction and data is higher at higher delamination rates
for R=0.34. The scatter is also higher for this stress ratio that may be attributed to the fatigue
tests under two different cross head displacements under the same stress ratio, as discussed in
section 3.2.3. The trend of the data is followed at higher delamination rates for the three stress
ratios. The experimental data converge at higher growth rates. A similar convergence of the
curves is also evident from the figure.

117
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.22: Experimental delamination rate versus ∆Gs compared with equation 6.19
predictions

The second data set was taken from the experiments where fibers were cut during fatigue
tests. The experiments have been described in section 3.4 and 3.5 respectively. The
delamination growth rate, da/dN is plotted against ∆Gs and Gmax in figure 6.23. The two-
parameter model for the material was described according to equation 6.17. The exponents of
the equation were approximated to the exponents of the striation variation with ∆Gs and Gmax
in equations 6.4 and 6.5 respectively. The model parameters were obtained by surface fitting
to the experimental data using MATLAB as shown in figure 6.24. The model is given by the
following equation:
𝑑𝑎
= −2.2e−6 + 3.1e−14 ∆G𝑠3.23 + 4.1e−10 G1.72
max (6.20)
𝑑𝑁

The goodness of the equation was checked by plotting residuals of the model against ∆Gs and
Gmax in figures 6.25 and 6.26 respectively. The error range of the residuals is ~±3 µm per
cycle, three times higher than equation 6.18. The higher error range for the current model is
due to higher scatter in the data which is attributed to two mechanisms. The first mechanism
is the effect of non-uniform microcrack generation at higher Gmax as indicated by the non-
uniform hackle length. The second mechanism is the effect overloads due to fiber cutting
process. For fiber cutting, the specimens were kept open at higher crack opening

118
 Chapter 6

displacements than the applied displacement during fatigue tests to give way to cutting thread
to cut closer to the tip.

Figure 6.23: Delamination growth rates versus ∆Gs and Gmax for the tests with fibers cutting,
specimens FB 1, FB 2, FB 4, FB 7 and FB 8

119
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.24: Surface plot for the tests with fibers cutting, specimens FB 1, FB 2, FB 4, FB 7
and FB 8 using equation 6.20

Figure 6.25: Residuals versus ∆Gs for the equation 6.20

120
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.26: Residuals versus Gmax for the equation 6.20

The prediction of equation 6.20 is compared with the experimental data in 2D plot by
transforming Gmax term in the equation to R. The equation can be written in terms of ∆Gs and
R as:
𝑑𝑎
= −2.2e−6 + 3.1e−14 ∆G𝑠3.23 + 4.1e−10 [∆Gs /(1 − R)2 ]1.72 (6.21)
𝑑𝑁

The experimental data for R=0.15 and 0.5 and the equation 6.21 predictions are plotted
against ∆Gs in figure 6.27. For R=0.5, the model follows the trend of the data. However for
R=0.15, the model predictions deviates from the experimental data.

121
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.27: Experimental delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs compared with equation
6.21 predictions

6.6 Verification of the model with data sets from literature

In this section, the developed two-parameter model is verified with the mode I fatigue
delamination test data taken from the literature. Three case studies from the literature have
been analyzed.

6.6.1 Verification with data from Hojo’s [8] work

The first case study examines the test results from Hojo‟s [8] investigations of the effect of
stress ratio on mode I delamination growth in carbon/epoxy laminates 914C. The model
developed in section 6.4 is compared with the Hojo‟s two-parameter model. The effect of
including constant C in developed two-parameter model is also analyzed.

Hojo fatigue tested the material under four stress ratios R=0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5 respectively.
The delamination growth rate is plotted against ∆K and Kmax in figure 6.28. For the test
material, the two-parameter model was developed according to equation 6.17. The equation
parameters were determined by fitting a surface to the experimental data. The two-parameter
model for the material is described by the following equation:

122
 Chapter 6

𝑑𝑎
= −1e−10 + 1.1e−7 ∆K 26 + 1.4e−9 K16
max (6.22)
𝑑𝑁

Figure 6.29 shows a surface according to equation 6.22 and the experimental data. The
exponents of the power terms in the equation are higher than the exponents of the model
described by equation 6.18. In equation 6.18, SERR was used as the correlating parameter for
the delamination growth. For the current case study, the delamination growth rate is correlated
to SIF in order to compare with the Hojo‟s model. The SIF corresponds to square of SERR
according to fracture mechanics principles, i.e K∝G2, implying that the exponents will be two
times greater in case of SIF, however the equation 6.22 shows that exponents are at least eight
times greater than equation 6.18.

Figure 6.28: Delamination growth rate da/dN versus Kmax and ∆K for data from Hojo [8]

123
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.29: Surface plot to the data of figure 6.29 according to equation 6.23

Hojo proposed an empirical two-parameter model where the power terms were multiplied.
The model was described by the following equation:
da
= 6.96e−9 ∆K 2 K14
max (6.23)
dN

The two models given by equations 6.22 and 6.23 respectively were compared for describing
fatigue behavior of the material under different stress ratios. In figure 6.30, the delamination
growth rate under different stress ratios is plotted against ∆K. It is obvious from the figure that
the data is linear in higher delamination growth region and become non-linear at lower
delamination growth rates. In the same figure, the delamination growth rates determined by
equation 6.22 are plotted as solid lines. These lines are linear in higher delamination growth
rates and become non-linear in lower delamination growth region following the material
behavior, thus capturing material behavior in both higher and lower delamination growth
regions.

The Hojo model in equation 6.23 was compared with the experimental data in figure 6.31.
The predictions by Hojo‟s model are shown by dashed lines in the figure. The model‟s
predictions match experimental data in higher delamination growth region; however deviation
of the data from predictions is evident when non-linearity in the data is started in threshold
delamination growth region. The deviation from the experimental data is due to the empirical
124
 Chapter 6

nature of the Hojo model. The model equation is obtained by purely curve fitting approach
thus neglecting the actual material behavior.

Figure 6.30: Delamination growth rates versus ∆K under different stress ratios from Hojo [8]
and the predictions with equation 6.22

125
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.31: Delamination growth rates versus ∆K under different stress ratios and
predictions by Hojo

As discussed in section 6.4, the constant C was added to the two-parameter model to capture
material behavior in the threshold delamination growth region. Since the experimental data in
the threshold delamination growth region is available in the current case study, the two-
parameter models containing C and without C can be effectively compared. For the model
without C, the parameters of the equation were determined by fitting a surface to the
experimental data according to equation 6.15. The delamination growth model for the
material is given by the following equation:
𝑑𝑎
= 1.062e−7 ∆K 26 + 1.346e−9 K16
max (6.24)
𝑑𝑁

The exponents of the above equation are higher than equation 6.22. The delamination growth
rates under different stress ratios and the model predictions are shown in figure 6.32. Solid
lines represent model‟s prediction. The model prediction match experimental data in the
higher delamination growth region however the data is deviated from the model in the
threshold delamination growth region.

126
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.32: Delamination growth rates versus ∆K under different stress ratios from Hojo [8]
and predictions with equation 6.24(without constant C)

6.6.2 Verification with data from Bathias [7] work

In this case study, the model was verified using data from the work of Bathias [7]. A
comparison of the two-parameter model with and without constant C is made in this case
study.
Bathias investigated the delamination growth in Brochier fabric/1452 laminates under mode I
fatigue under stress ratios R=0.01, 0.4 and 0.5. The delamination growth rate da/dN is plotted
against ∆Gs and Gmax in figure 6.33.
The two-parameter model for the material was obtained according to equation 6.17. The
exponents of the equation were approximated to the striation variation with ∆Gs and Gmax in
equations 6.4 and 6.5 respectively. The parameters of the model were determined by fitting a
surface to the data as shown in figure 6.34. The two-parameter equation for the material is
given as:

𝑑𝑎
= −4e−5 + 2.4e−13 ∆G𝑠3.23 + 3.8e−9 G1.72
max (6.25)
𝑑𝑁

127
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

The exponent of ∆Gs term is higher than Gmax, implying that the delamination growth is more
sensitive to ∆Gs.

Figure 6.33: Delamination growth rates versus ∆Gs and Gmax for data from Bathias [7]

128
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.34: Surface plot to the data from Bathias [7] according to equation 6.25

The prediction of equation 6.25 is compared with the experimental data in 2D plot of da/dN
versus ∆Gs in figure 6.35. The figure shows that the model predictions follow the non-linear
trend of experimental data in the threshold region.

Since the data set has threshold delamination growth in the present study, the two-parameter
models with and without C are compared. The two-parameter model without constant C is
given by the following equation
𝑑𝑎
= 4.59e−13 ∆G𝑠3 + 3.085e−11 Gmax
2.5
(6.26)
𝑑𝑁

The predictions of equation 6.26 and the experimental data are plotted in figure 6.36. The
figure illustrates that the model predictions match experimental data in the higher
delamination growth region. In the threshold region, large deviation of the data from the
model is obvious from the figure.

129
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.35: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs from Bathias [7] and the prediction with
equation 6.25

130
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.36: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs from Bathias [7] and the prediction with
equation 6.26(without constant C)

6.6.3 Verification with data from Mall’s [9] work

In this case study, the data from Mall‟s [9] work was used for the verification of the
mechanistic two-parameter model. Mall investigated the effect of stress ratio on the
debonding growth in T300/5208-EC3445, adherend-adhesive system under the mode I fatigue
under stress ratio R=0.1, 0.6 and 0.75. It should be noted that in the work of Mall, three stress
ratios 0.1, 0.5 and 0.75 were reported. The value of the intermediate stress ratio i.e. 0.5
actually ranged between 0.55 and 0.64, as calculated by the author using the ∆Gs and Gmax
from the reported data set. For this reason an average value 0.6 was used in the analyses in
this case study. The debond growth rate da/dN is plotted against ∆Gs and Gmax in figure 6.37.
The two-parameter model for the material was described according to equation 6.17. The
exponents of the equation 6.17 were approximated to the exponents of the striation space
variation with ∆Gs and Gma in equations 6.4 and 6.5 respectively. The model parameters were
determined by fitting a surface to the data as shown in figure 6.38. The model equation is
given as:

131
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

𝑑𝑎
= −1e−7 + 1.85e−14 ∆G𝑠3.2 + 5.13e−12 G1.72
max (6.27)
𝑑𝑁

Figure 6.37: Delamination growth rates versus ∆Gs and Gmax for the data from Mall [9]

132
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.38: Surface plot to the data of figure 6.38 according to equation 6.28

The predictions of the equation 6.27 and experimental data were compared in 2D plot of
da/dN versus ∆Gs by transforming Gmax terms into R. Figure 6.39 illustrate the plot of the
equation 6.27 predictions and experimental data. A slight difference between the model
predictions and data is evident from the figure that can be attributed to using different material
system in this case study. As discussed earlier, the study has addressed the debond growth
under fatigue as compared to the delamination growth in this thesis.

The experimental data does not show a non-linear trend in the threshold region. The data was
analyzed with the two-parameter model without C. The two-parameter model without C was
described according to equation 6.15. By approximating exponents of equation 6.15 to the
equations 6.4 and 6.5 respectively and evaluating model parameters using MATLAB, the two-
parameter model without C is described by the following equation:
𝑑𝑎
= 1.67e−16 ∆G𝑠4 + 2.26e−18 Gmax
4
(6.28)
𝑑𝑁

The predictions of the equation 6.28 and experimental data are plotted against ∆Gs in figure
6.40. It can be seen from the figure that experimental data and the model predictions has a
reasonable agreement. The results show that interaction of the ∆Gs and Gmax, that was
implicitly included as C is negligible in case of debond growth.
133
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

Figure 6.39: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs from Mall [9] and the prediction with
equation 6.27

134
 Chapter 6

Figure 6.40: Delamination growth rate versus ∆Gs from Mall [9] and the prediction with
equation 6.28

6.7 Discussion of the model

In the previous sections, the mode I delamination growth model was developed. The model
relates the delamination growth to monotonic and cyclic loads under fatigue. The model
equation was obtained by superimposing cycle-by-cycle effect of loading on micro features
formed during delamination growth.

The approach to develop two-parameter model is different from previous studies. The model
for the macrocrack delamination growth has been derived from the micro level delamination
growth. The micromechanisms are analyzed to determine the relation of fatigue loading with
microscopic features, hackles and striations. It has been shown that the exponents of the
model can be approximated to the exponents of the microscopic delamination growth. The
microscopic features have been separated during experimental investigations and effect of
monotonic and cyclic loadings were independently investigated.

The previous studies generally proposed empirical models. Both single and two-parameter
models have been proposed in the literature. Mall‟s [9] and Atodaria [11] proposed single

135
Two-parameter Model for Delamination Growth

parameter empirical models, correlating delamination growth to the either maximum or range
of SERR i.e. in terms of monotonic or cyclic loading. The single parameter models do not
describe stress ratio effect on the delamination growth observed. This shortcoming of the
single parameter models can be eliminated by two-parameter model i.e. accounting for both
monotonic and cyclic load terms in the models. Literature studies are present where two-
parameter models are proposed, however, these models are empirical. Hojo‟s [8] proposed
two-parameter model where physical delamination growth is not linked to the model. It has
been shown in the case studies that these models fail to capture experimental delamination
growth behavior.

In the proposed two-parameter model in this study, the effects of monotonic loadings are
superimposed in conjunction to the micro level delamination growth. The SEM has shown
that micro features are affected by both monotonic and cyclic loading. The proportional effect
of these loadings on micro features should be mirrored in the macro delamination growth, an
approach that has been followed in section 6.4 for the model development. The effect of the
interaction of the monotonic and cyclic loading on micro features was ignored due to smaller
contribution. However, the experimental delamination growth shows the presence of
interaction in the threshold region. The effect of interaction has included implicitly by
introducing constant term in the model.

The exercise with the experimental data from the current study and literature has shown that
the exponents of the two-parameter model can be approximated to the striation space variation
with Gmax and ∆Gs respectively. The exponents obtained for striation variation with Gmax and
∆Gs for the material M30SC/DT120 were effectively used for developing delamination
growth models for other materials. In case studies, for different materials the model prediction
and the experimental data showed reasonable agreement.

The model parameters are easily obtained by fitting a surface to the experimental data using
commercial softwares like MATLAB. The model parameters are material dependent. Fatigue
experiments at constant stress ratios using DCB specimens or WTDCB specimens are
required for generating data for the model validation for specific materials.

The current approach of modeling delamination growth can be extended to the metal fatigue
crack growth rate. The role of crack closure in the stress ratio effect explanation in metal
crack growth remains doubtful in the literature and various two-parameter models have been
proposed [12]. The current approach of superposition of the effects of monotonic and cyclic
loads on micro features in metal fatigue growth need further investigations.

References
1. Hooper S. J., Subramanian, R., Effects of water and jet fuel absorption on Mode I and
Mode II delamination of graphite/epoxy. Composite Materials: Fatigue and fracture,
ASTM STP 1156, ASTM Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 318-340, 1993.

136
 Chapter 6

2. Moris G. E., Determining fracture directions and fracture origons on failed

graphite/epoxy surfaces. Nondestructive Evaluation and Flaw Criticality for
Composite, ASTM D-30, 1979.

3. Johanesson T., Sjoblom, P., Selden R., The detailed structure of delamination fracture
surfaces in graphite/epoxy laminates,. Journal of Material Sience 1984. 19.

4. Franz H. E., Microfractography of fiber reinforced composite materilas. Practical

Metallography, 1991. 28: p. 404-419.

5. Moris G. E., Hetter. C.,, Fractographic studies of graphite/epoxy fatigue specimens.

Riefsnider K.L. Damage in compsoite materials, ASTM STP 775, ASTM Phildelphia,
1982.

6. Sjogren A., Asp LE.,Greenhalgh ES., Hilley MJ.,, Effect of short fiber reinforcement
on the fatigue crack propagation and fracture of PEEK matrix composites.
Composites, 2001. 17: p. 205-16.

7. Bathias C., Laksimi A.,, Delamination threshold and Loading Effect in Fiber Glass
Epoxy Composite. Delamination and Debonding of Materials, ASTM STP
Philadelphia. p. 10, 1985.

8. Hojo M., Tanaka K., Gustafson C-G., Hayashi R., Effect of stress ratio on near-
threshold propagation of delamination fatigue cracks in unidirectional CFRP.
Compos Sci Technol, 1987. 29: p. 19.

9. Mall S., Ramamurthy G., Rezaizdeh M. A. , Stress Ratio Effect on Cyclic Debonding
in Adhesively Bonded Composite Joints. Composite Structures, 1987. 8: p. 15.

10. Paris P.C., Erdogan, F., Critical Analysis of Propagation Laws. Journal of Basic
Engineering, , 1963. 85: p. 6.

11. Atodaria D.R, Putatunda SK, Mallick PK, Delamination growth behaviour of a fabric
reinforced laminated composite under mode I loading. J Eng Mater Technol 1999.
121(3): p. 6.

12. Noroozi A. H., Glinka G., Lambert S., A two parameter driving force for fatigue
crack growth analysis. International Journal of Fatigue, 2005. 24: p. 1277-1296.

137
 CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION
The work presented in this thesis has addressed delamination growth behavior of composite
laminates under mode I loading. The idea was that thorough understanding of the mechanisms
in the long term may aid the development of delamination assessment tools for designing
damage tolerant composite structures in aerospace. The objective of the research was to
analyze the mechanism of delamination growth and to develop a mechanistic theory for
delamination growth prediction. As a result, several experimental studies were performed and
a model was proposed based on the delamination growth mechanisms. This chapter provides a
discussion of the presented work in the prospective of delamination growth analyses in
composites.
The next section discusses general aspects related to the delamination growth
characterization. The effects of opening mode, ply orientation and monotonic and cyclic load
components on the delamination growth at micro and macro level are discussed in this
section. Section 7.2 discusses the experimental techniques performed to investigate stress
ratio effect on delamination growth at macro level. The crack closure, fiber bridging and
constant monotonic and cyclic load tests using width tapered DCB tests is discussed. The
ASTM proposal for correction of fiber bridging effect in fatigue data is critically discussed in
this section.
Section 7.3 discusses fractographic analyses for the effect of monotonic and cyclic load on the
micromechanism of the delamination growth. The relation of striation and hackle geometry
with monotonic and cyclic load is discussed in the section. Section 7.4 discusses the
delamination growth characterization using similitude principles and delamination growth
resistance surface. Section 7.5 discusses the developed mechanistic model for delamination
growth. The relation of micro and macro level delamination growth is discussed in this
section. The contribution of the present work to the stress ratio effect in the delamination
characterization is discussed in section 7.6. Future prospects of the approach are discussed in
section 7.7.

7.1 Aspects related to the general delamination characterization

Composite structures may contain several types of damages of which delamination (figure
7.1) is the most severe damage type. Delamination results in a greater stiffness drops in a
structure as compared to the other damage types. Delaminations originate from discontinuities
like ply-drops, from impact of tools during service, or local overstressing. Successive fatigue
cycles cause delamination growth resulting in redistribution of stresses and more delamination
or damage.
Discussion

Delamination

Figure 7.1: Typical delamination in composite laminate

It should be expected that in a given case of delamination growth, a certain effective

combination of monotonic and cyclic loading may occur that in combination with a certain
opening mode mix may drive the delamination growth. However, this combination of load
components and this mode mix may change throughout the delamination growth process. For
a single opening mode, i.e. mode I, Figure 7.2 illustrates the change in maximum strain
energy release rate (SERR) and SERR range along with the delamination length. In this
particular case the constant displacement applied in the fatigue test, decrease both the
maximum SERR and SERR range. It thus may be expected that depending on the compliance
of a more complex structural detail, the loads inducing the mode mix with the monotonic and
cyclic load contribution may vary. This must be evaluated with detailed 3D analyses, like
finite element analyses.

250
Gmax
200
∆G
SERR [J/m2]

150

100

50

0
52 54 56 58 60 62 64

Delamination length, [mm]

Figure 7.2: SERR vs. delamination length in specimen DCB 1

In addition, considering that in composite structures delaminations most likely propagate in a

planar fashion, rather than in a single direction, one has to consider that the delamination
growth should be attributed to the effective fiber orientations. This implies that quite some
aspects are to be considered before delamination growth in general can be fully understood.
The following sections discuss the individual contributions to the general problem, to explain
how the current research contributes to that general problem.

140
 Chapter 7

7.1.1 Opening modes

Depending on loading, delamination growth may occur under three modes; mode I (tensile), II
(shear) and III (transverse shear), as shown in figure 7.3. For the general case of delamination,
it is considered that these modes may occur together with various contributions.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7.3: Modes of loading (a) mode I /tensile mode (b) mode II /shear mode (c) mode III/
transverse shear mode

The characterization of the general case of delamination should be performed in several steps.
First, the delamination resistance for each individual mode has to be experimentally
established, and the appropriate formulation against both the monotonic and cyclic load
component has to be determined. This thesis outlines the approach for mode I, but similar
approaches should be developed for the other modes. The contribution of both monotonic and
cyclic loading will be different for the three opening modes. The literature shows that the
stress ratio effect is absent in mode II by plotting delamination growth rate against SERR
range ∆Gs, however the effect is obvious in mode I. This is illustrated in Figure 7.4(a) and
7.4(b) where the delamination growth rate is plotted against ∆Gs for different stress ratios
mode I [1] and mode II [2] respectively. This implies that the delamination resistance surface
for different modes will be oriented differently in 3D coordinates of delamination growth rate
versus ∆Gs and Gmax.

141
Discussion

gg

Figure 7.4: Delamination growth rate vs. SERR range for different stress ratios for mode I [1]
(a) and mode II [2] (b)

Subsequently, the combination of opening modes must be investigated to determine how the
three different opening modes contribute to the general delamination growth process. This
implies that physically correct superposition principles have to be established based on
fractographic investigation, rather than based on mathematical principles. This means that a
microscopy study must be performed similar to presented in this thesis, to identify the
decohesion mechanisms in relation to the loading and opening mode contributions.

For example, using the superposition principles from the literature [3], the delamination
growth under mixed mode conditions, may be represented by either [1, 4]
𝑑𝑎 𝑚
= 𝐶 ∆𝐺𝑡𝑜𝑡 (7.1)
𝑑𝑁

with

∆𝐺𝑡𝑜𝑡 = ∆𝐺𝐼 + ∆𝐺𝐼𝐼 + ∆𝐺𝐼𝐼𝐼 (7.2)

Or it may be represented by [5]

𝑑𝑎 𝑚1 𝑚2 𝑚3
= 𝐶1 ∆𝐺𝐼 + 𝐶2 ∆𝐺𝐼𝐼 + 𝐶3 ∆𝐺𝐼𝐼𝐼 (7.3)
𝑑𝑁

Where the C and m are the material parameters.

Both representations are known to be different, but based upon quantitative fractography they
both may be observed to be inapplicable. In chapter 6, it has already been demonstrated that
the appropriate formulation for mode I requires an additional term for the monotonic load
component.

In the ideal case, one may hope that the mathematical and physical principles coincide.
However, the relations for the individual modes between delamination growth rate and both
142
 Chapter 7

the monotonic and cyclic load cycle components may be different as suggested by the
difference in Figure 7.4. This difference implies that superposition of both load components
may not to be similar for all modes due to different fracture mechanisms in each mode. As a
result, the combination of the individual modes to describe the delamination growth behavior
based on monotonic and cyclic load components at macro level may not be straightforward.
The identification of decohesion mechanisms for individual modes, and their potential
interaction, is thus important for mix mode delamination growth characterization.

At microscopic level, the delamination is preceded by micro-crack formation in the matrix

resin in the delamination plane. In case of a mixed mode delamination growth with a
dominant mode I, the micro-cracks form approximately parallel to the delamination plane.
The coalescence of these micro-cracks results in hackles, as illustrated in this thesis. For an
increasing mode II contribution, the micro-cracks will form further ahead of delamination tip.
The angle of these micro-cracks with the delamination plane also increase (upto 450 [6]). In
that case, the coalescence of these micro-cracks results in shear cusps rather than hackles.
Under fatigue these shear cusps are degraded to matrix roller due to fracture surface friction.
In mode II reversed loading, another set of micro-cracks is generated normal to the first set of
micro-cracks [7]. Figure 7.5 shows schematic of micro-cracks under mode II non-reversed
and reversed load. For the development of the mechanistic model for mix mode delamination,
the cusps angles can lead to the individual mode contributions in the micro feature
geometries.

Fiber bridging in unidirectional composites is another mechanism that affect delamination

growth under mode I and mode II differently. Fiber bridging decreases or arrests the
delamination growth by shielding the crack tip. The literature reports that for higher mode I
contribution, fiber bridging is important [8] , however with higher mode II contribution, the
effect is less important [6]. In higher mode II, fiber bridging will affect fracture surfaces
friction by either increasing due to increased roughness or decreasing if they act like rollers.
Further research is required in this regard.

143
Discussion

Non-reversed Reversed
loading loading

Figure 7.5: Illustration of reversed and non-reversed shear loading and their effect on micro-
crack formation

7.1.2 Monotonic and cyclic load contributions

A load cycle can be described by both a cyclic and monotonic load component, for example
Smax and S, or Smean and Sa, or S and the stress ratio R. To attribute the delamination growth
to the fatigue loading, two components of the load cycle are to be considered.

In the case fatigue loading comprises a fully arbitrary load spectrum, one may assume that for
each load cycle the combination of monotonic and cyclic load is different, i.e. the stress ratio
is different, see the illustration in figure 7.6. To be able to describe the delamination growth
under these arbitrary load spectra two aspects should be understood

- The relation between the delamination growth rate and both the monotonic and cyclic
load component
- The potential interaction between subsequent load cycles.

Figure 7.6: Two load cycles with same stress amplitude but different maximum stresses, R2>
R1

144
 Chapter 7

The delamination growth can initially be studied using constant amplitude loading, as is
adopted in the current investigation. However, the relation obtained between the monotonic
and cyclic load component and the delamination growth rate may have been influenced by the
fact that prior load cycles have the same amplitude and mean value. In other words,
interaction potentially may be present. This requires subsequent research on variable
amplitude loading. The literature shows that the interaction depends on the fiber/epoxy
system. Marissen [9] reported an increase in the delamination growth due to prior overload
cycles in the hybrid aluminium-aramid composite (ARALL). Khan [10] observed no
interaction in UD S2 glass/FM94 prepreg. In the current thesis, UD laminates of
M30SC/DT120 carbon/epoxy were used in the fatigue experiments. Based on this similarity,
it may be assumed that no interaction is present in the current investigations, however further
research is recommended in this regard.

7.1.3 Ply orientations

Corresponding to the planar growth, delaminations may extend in directions under various
angles with respect to the principle material directions. The general characterization of
delamination growth therefore must include the influence of various ply orientations.

Previous research reports that resistance against delamination growth depends on ply angles
with respect to the growth direction [11]. If plies are oriented perpendicular to the
delamination growth direction (figure 7.7), the delamination deflects into ply cracking due to
increased resistance to interlaminar growth. Thus to characterize the influence of the ply
orientations on delamination growth most likely can only be done up to certain ply angles. For
example, Kim et al. [12] reported that for small orientations less than 300, the delamination
precedes the ply failure.

Ply cracking

Delamination

Figure 7.7: Illustration of cracking of the plies that are perpendicular to delamination growth
direction (delamination growth direction is from left to right), modified from [13]

Transverse micro-cracking in angled plies cause delaminations to jump to other interfaces.

Tao et al. [14] observed that transverse matrix cracking in off-axis plies is prone to

145
Discussion

delamination jump to other interfaces until it reaches a 00 interface, which prevents further
delamination jumping. Thus delaminations grow predominantly along 00/θ0 interfaces.

The measured resistance to delamination growth is increased by transverse matrix cracking

and delamination jumping in angled plies. Evidence supporting this conclusion is given by
Schӧn et al.[15]who tested delamination growth in 00/00, 450/450 and 900/900 interfaces under
mode I fatigue. The 00/00 interfaces showed smooth fracture surfaces dominated by matrix
failure. The 900/900 surfaces were rough and the delamination growth followed a zigzag path
about 900/900 interface as shown in figure 7.8. The figure shows that delamination tip was
arrested when it reached 00 interfaces and waited for subsequent micro-crack nucleation. This
is equivalent to a local mode II. This was regarded by Schӧn as a toughening mechanism for
this interface. The behavior of 450/450 was similar to 900/900 except that the delamination
follows the fiber directions and that they change interfaces at the specimen‟s edges. The
delamination growth rate resistance was the lowest for 00/00 laminates and the highest for
900/900 in Schӧn‟s study, as shown in figure 7.9.

Figure 7.8: Crack growth at 900/900 interface between two adjacent 00plies[15], delamination
growth direction is from left to right of the figure

146
 Chapter 7

Figure 7.9: Delamination growth rate as function of energy release rate ∆G (= Gmax - Gmin)
for DCB specimen, different interfaces considered [15]

The complexity can be substantial in angled ply laminates. Consider for example a ply
delamination between two plies, one oriented under 45 with respect to the delamination
growth direction, and one under -45. In this case, the delamination may stay at that particular
interface. However, considering the planar growth, the growth direction under an angle of 15
from that direction implies ply orientations of 30 and -60. Here the angle of -60 may result
in ply cracking rather than ply delamination.

7.2 Delamination growth experiments

7.2.1 Selection of experiment and specimen

The main objective of the research presented in this thesis was to investigate the mode I
fatigue delamination growth experimentally following a mechanistic approach rather than an
empirical approach. The hypothesis formulated in chapter 1, is that the relation between
delamination growth rate and both the monotonic and cyclic load component corresponds to
the physical decohesion mechanisms causing the delamination.

To investigate this hypothesis, fatigue delamination experiments had to be executed in which

both the monotonic and cyclic load component contribution could be varied such that

- distinct relations between the delamination growth rate and the individual load
component could be established
- subsequent fractographic evaluation could reveal distinct relations between the
fracture features and the individual load components

147
Discussion

These conditions to the research have driven the selection of experiments and test specimens.
Not only were standard DCB test specimen used to characterize the delamination resistance,
but also width tapered DCB (WTDCB) specimen configurations were adopted to tailor the
contribution of each the monotonic and cyclic load component.

The DCB specimens were used for testing against constant stress ratio. These tests were
performed at stress ratios between R=0.12 and 0.5 under constant maximum and minimum
displacements. This technique has the advantage that load drops with delamination extension,
thus automatic load shedding is achieved in this technique. The delamination growth
decreases as the test progresses.

In WTDCB specimens, the Gmax, Gmin, ∆Gs, R and da/dN can be kept constant under constant
fatigue load. Thus the effect of one parameter on delamination growth can be analyzed by
keeping the other constant in WTDCB. On the other hand, in simple DCB, only R can be kept
constant. The Gmax, Gmin, ∆Gs and da/dN continuously change as delamination extends in
DCB, forming fracture surfaces at different combinations of monotonic and cyclic load. The
fractography of the DCB specimens is thus inappropriate for the effect of monotonic and
cyclic load on fracture surface features.

The WTDCB specimens are traditionally used to characterize effect of fiber bridging on mode
I fracture toughness [16]. The specimens use can be extended for investigation of the effect of
fiber bridging on delamination growth. For this similar technique of fiber cutting in DCB
specimens in the current study can be followed.

7.2.2 Considering fiber bridging

Murri [17] proposed to correct fatigue test data for the effect of fiber bridging by using
normalized Gmax as correlating parameter. This seems in agreement with the proposal in the
ASTM working document [18] to which Murri refers. The Gmax was normalized by the
resistance curve GIR obtained with a quasi-static test. Based upon the evidence presented in
this thesis, it is believed that the approach has several shortcomings.

To begin with, the correction of fatigue test data with data from static tests is incorrect. The
mechanisms of static and fatigue delamination growth are different. The quasi-static fracture
surface exhibits fiber pull-out, hackles and smooth resin failure [19]. The fracture surfaces
under static fracture are smoother than fatigue surfaces. The fatigue fracture surfaces contain
striations (upto 80% of the surface area), hackles and fiber breaks. The striations are
associated only with fatigue. The observations presented in figure 4.28 show that the hackle
length increases and become non-uniform as Gmax approaches Gc.

The second shortcoming in Murri‟s approach is the correction of the correlating parameter
Gmax only. With the use of Gmax, the effect of minimum cyclic SERR Gmin is ignored in fatigue
data presentation. The corrected fatigue data cannot be compared with uncorrected data if the
Gmin has been changed. The experimental observations in this study show that fiber bridging
not only affects Gmax but also Gmin. Figure 5.9 shows that the minimum load is higher in the

148
 Chapter 7

load cycle with bridging fibers than the minimum load in the consecutive cycle after cutting
the fibers.

Aside from ignoring the minimum load in the load cycle, Murri‟s proposal to correct Gmax
only for fiber bridging in the fatigue test data is inadequate. In chapter 5 of this thesis it has
been demonstrated that fiber bridging affects Gmax, Gmin, ∆Gs and delamination growth rate
da/dN. The observations presented in this chapter illustrate that these parameters decrease due
to fiber bridging. It is observed that physically correcting for the effect of fiber bridging by
cutting fibers does not change the delamination resistance surface. To illustrate this, figure 5.8
shows that corrected and uncorrected data falls on the same delamination resistance surface of
the material. Following Murri‟s approach for fiber bridging correction, a new resistance
surface will be created implying a change in material behavior. This is in contradiction with
Murri‟s statement about the effect of fiber bridging in ref. [17]. There, Murri states “However,
this fiber-bridging is not a material property, but an artifact of the specimen” and “In a
structure where delamination is the dominant failure mode, the effect of fiber-bridging on the
mode I delamination growth rate must be recognized as an artifact of the DCB test on a
unidirectional layup”.

In agreement with Murri‟s statement, the results of the crack closure and fiber bridging tests
in the present study show that the corrected data remains on the same crack resistance surface
for the material. The crack closure correction shifts the data to higher stress ratio region on the
same surface. The fiber bridging changes the position of data on the same surface by a
simultaneous change in the Gmax, ∆Gs and da/dN. However, the procedure proposed by Murri
is violating her own observation that fiber bridging does not change the delamination
resistance.

Based upon the results presented in this thesis, it can be concluded that crack closure and fiber
bridging do not explain the effect of stress ratio on delamination resistance.

It has been mentioned in chapter 3 that in the current investigations, eliminating bridging
fibers up to the crack tip was not possible with the available fiber cutting techniques. As a
consequence, an extrapolation technique was adopted to get corrected loads in case all fibers
are hypothetically cut. Despite the fact that the author believes this approach is consistent and
correct, it still means that the tests that have been presented as „no fiber bridging‟ still have
delamination growth in presence of bridging fibers in a span of 3-5 mm in the close proximity
of the delamination tip. It is therefore recommended that new techniques are developed to
physically cut all bridging fibers in the delamination wake to get pure data without the
influence of bridging fibers.

7.3 Fractographic evaluation

In addition to the empirical evaluation of delamination growth using the DCB tests, the
mechanism of the delamination growth was analyzed with microscopy on the delamination
fracture surfaces of the WTDCB specimens. The effect of the monotonic and cyclic load
component on the fractographic features has been analyzed quantitatively using scanning
electron microscopy (SEM).

149
Discussion

Although numerous papers report qualitative evaluations of typical fracture features such as
striation and hackles [20-25], the literature however lacks a quantitative analysis of these
micro-features originated from fatigue delamination growth. Hojo et al. [23] classified
fracture surfaces qualitatively for different stress ratios. For higher stress ratios it was reported
that the surfaces contain brittle fracture and resembles to the surfaces created due to static
fracture. For the same cyclic ∆Gs, the Gmax is higher for higher stress ratios; hence Gmax will
be closer to the critical SERR Gc. This implies that the fracture surfaces at higher stress ratios
will be similar to the static fracture in some features such as hackles and smooth resin failure.
Bathias [20] has reported striations in the tests at higher stress ratios, however the variation of
striation spacing for different stress ratio was not discussed in the study.

In the current study, the two fractographic features that were observed to change
systematically with the monotonic and cyclic load components were hackles and striations.
Striations are observed in fiber imprints and formed due to decohesion of fiber and matrix. It
is discussed in chapter 4, that the striation spacing increases when either the maximum load
increases or the load range. Hackles are being formed within the matrix predominantly in-
between fibers. The length of the hackles increases only when the maximum load increases;
with increasing load range, the hackle length becomes smaller. This difference between
striation spacing and hackle length imply that both features are formed following different
mechanisms. Both mechanisms were observed to exhibit consistent relations between both the
monotonic and cyclic load components. These relations could be described with power laws,
except for the hackle length when the monotonic load reaches the quasi-static failure load. In
that case, a steep increase in the relation was observed, resulting in a kink in the relationship.

Additionally, it was observed that the relationships become less apparent near the quasi-static
failure load, i.e. Gmax> 0.65 Gc, due to an increase in scatter in the delamination growth rate
data. This seems to correspond with the observation that the relation between micro-features
and SERR substantially increases for values near the critical SERR Gc.

The variation of microscopic feature geometry with cyclic and monotonic load is related to
the macroscopic delamination growth. The effect of monotonic and cyclic load on the features
is additive, i.e. the effects can be superimposed. On the other hand, at macroscopic level, the
stress ratio effect for the same ∆Gs could not be explained by the crack closure and fiber
bridging, thus the effect is attributed to the effect of monotonic load. For same ∆Gs, higher
stress ratios mean higher monotonic load and results in higher delamination rate. The effects
of monotonic and cyclic load at macro level delamination growth are also additive. Thus the
delamination growth can be related to the superposition of effects from Gmax and ∆Gs. This
indicates a link between micro and macro level delamination growth.

7.4 Characterization of delamination

7.4.1 Similitude principles

The delamination growth is characterized by fracture mechanics parameter. There are several
approaches toward controlling fracture mechanics parameter for delamination growth. Some
researchers [23, 26] have used stress intensity factor(SIF) range as fracture mechanics

150
 Chapter 7

parameter for delamination growth. However, due to complex stress field at delamination
front, its evaluation is difficult for orthotropic composite laminates making it inconvenient for
such materials. Using strain energy release rate as controlling fracture mechanics parameter is
an effective alternative for delamination growth analysis and widely adopted by researchers
[5, 27-29]. The problem with the SERR approach is the lack of consensus on the formulation
of the strain energy released rate used to characterize fatigue delamination growth. Two
commonly adopted formulations for SERR used to characterize fatigue delamination growth
are the use of maximum energy release rate Gmax [29] and the energy release rate range
defined as ∆G = Gmax –Gmin [28, 30]. The prevalent use of Gmax stems from its importance in
assessing the limits for static delamination propagation. For delamination growth related to
cyclic loading, however, this parameter fails to consider the effect of the minimum energy
release rate, Gmin, related to the minimum load in the applied load cycle. Ignoring Gmin has
several drawbacks, the crack closure effect cannot be captured as it is only active in the lower
part of the fatigue cycle. Fiber bridging affects both Gmax and Gmin. By ignoring Gmin, the
results for fiber bridging correction will be misleading. In fatigue, the fracture surface is
affected by both monotonic and cyclic load. As Gmin is an essential component of cyclic load
and by neglecting it; the variation of fractographic features could not be explained.

Use of ∆G = Gmax –Gmin, attempts to removes this shortcoming in a manner analogous to the
SIF range, ∆K, used for crack growth in metals. The simple arithmetic difference in maximum
and minimum SERRs, however, fails to adhere to the rules of superposition for SERR, thus
violating the similitude principle central to linear elastic fracture mechanics. The consequence
of using this arithmetic definition is that the effects of monotonic and cyclic loading on
delamination growth are inter-related, that can lead to misinterpretation of the results [31].

The above shortcomings of ∆K, Gmax and ∆G are fulfilled by the use of SERR range ΔGs=
(√Gmax – √Gmin)2. This formulation is the correct similitude with the applied cyclic load,
corresponding to the formulation of the SIF range.

7.4.2 Plotting delamination resistance data

The delamination growth rate da/dN is plotted against Gmax and ΔGs, defined to represent the
monotonic load and the cyclic load component respectively, in a 3D coordinate system to
illustrate the effect of both parameters. It was observed that this representation is more
consistent than the 2D representation against either Gmax or ΔG used in previous studies,
because the obtained surface determines implicitly the stress ratio effect that was so far only
empirically evaluated. The use of 3D presentation provides better fundamental insight into the
material behaviour. For example when the crack closure correction were applied in the 3D
presentation (chapter 5), the corrected data points shifts to new location, however remaining
on the same surface, implying that crack closure does not change material inherent
delamination resistance. Similar observations were made for the correction for fiber bridging.
The corrected and uncorrected data remains on the same surface. On the other hand, the 2D
presentation may be misleading the effect of these mechanisms, as the change in one
parameter ignores the effect of the other and the data is shifted to new location. Thus in 2D
presentation, one will have no idea about the change in the resistance surface.

151
Discussion

7.4.3 Boundaries of crack resistance surface in case of mode I delamination growth

In 3D coordinates of da/dN versus Gmax and ΔGs, the resistance surface for mode I is bound
by:

 Threshold delamination curve in Gmax versus ΔGs plane.

 Gmax = Gc
 -∞ <R< 1

In mode I, the effective R=0 for the compressive minimum cyclic loads.

In the presents study the observations shows that effective stress ratio was increased due to
crack closure for the lower stress ratio test as discussed in chapter 5, reducing the stress ratio
range for delamination growth tests for material behaviour characterization.

Once the crack resistance surface boundaries are set, fitting a surface to the data can be done
with more confidence because the data will be maximally spread over ∆Gs-Gmax plane.

7.4.4 Effects of crack closure and fiber bridging on delamination growth

The major observation in the study was that correcting both crack closure and fiber bridging
in the 2D presentation against ΔGs seem to shift the curves, while they still maintain on the
crack resistance surface. In other words, these mechanisms could not be used to explain the
stress ratio effect. The question then arises that from where the stress ratio effects come? The
answer can be obtained by comparing the cyclic energies input into the specimen under two
different R1 and R2, where R2>R1.

Consider the case of DCB 1, tested under R1=0.12. The cyclic loads Fmax1, Fmin1 and the
displacements δmax1, δmin1 at a delamination length of 60.7 mm are shown in load versus
displacement plot in figure 7.10 (a). The area under the load-displacement curve represents
the input energy. For the figure 7.10 (a), the cyclic energy ∆U1 is given as:
1
∆𝑈1 = 2 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 1 𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥 1 − 𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑛 1 𝛿𝑚𝑖𝑛 1 (7.4)

The ∆U1=96 J in the figure. Assume that for same ∆Gs=94.4 J/m2s, R1 is increased to R2=0.31,
this implies that Gmax will be higher for R2. Figure 7.10 (b) plots loads and displacements
corresponding to R2. The cycle energy ∆U2 in figure 7.10 (b) was calculated similar to
equation 7.1 and has a value of 135.3 J.

The above analyses prove that for same ∆Gs, the input cyclic energy is higher for higher R
values. The observed stress ratio effect on delamination growth rate is thus the result of the
increased cyclic energy.

152
 Chapter 7

Figure 7.10: load vs. displacement plot for DCB 1 under R1=0.12 (a) and R2=0.31(b)

The mechanism of stress ratio effect is different in mode II fatigue as shown by figure 7.4(b).
The figure shows no obvious difference in delamination rate for mode II as compared to mode
I. The cycle energy input is also increased in mode II for higher stress ratios similar to mode I
as described in the last paragraph. Here the question arises that where the increased cycle
energy is compensated in mode II?

The difference in case of mode II may be attributed to different decohesion mechanism. In

mode II, the friction of fracture surfaces that degrade shear cusps into matrix rollers is an
energy dissipating mechanism. For higher stress ratios, the maximum cyclic load has a higher
value, implying larger plastic deformation of the matrix that will result in cusps with more
plastic deformation and rougher fracture surfaces. The surface friction thus becomes higher in
case of higher stress ratios consuming the incremental cycle energy. Further research is
however recommended for verification of this hypothesis.

7.5 Mechanistic model for delamination

The work presented in this thesis is considered a step forward in delamination growth
characterization. The work has identified the effect of fatigue loading on microscopic features
and linked loading parameters with delamination growth using geometrical variation of
micro-features with loading. The review shows that such an approach is missing in the
literature. The research presented in the literature seems to merely approach the data
phenomenologically, i.e. for certain stress ratios the delamination growth rate da/dN versus
ΔGs is determined and then a trend line is fitted to the data. The physics behind that approach
is lacking. This work represents therefore a contribution to science in that it approaches the
problem from the physical perspective: if delamination consists of decohesion between
matrix, or between fiber and matrix, fractography can reveal whether decohesion is dominated
by the cyclic load component or by the monotonic component.

153
Discussion

The relation between da/dN and ΔGs is therefore no longer an empirical fit by regression, but
an educated fit based on the observed contribution of both load components to the fracture
surface formation. However, although the current model comprises a two-parameter model,
the contribution of the load components in the model is different from the two-parameters
models previously proposed. Based upon the fractographic examination of the fracture
surfaces it was concluded that these two-parameter models basically violate the observed
physics of delamination. Previous two-parameter models multiply both parameters without
any justification from the physics of the delamination growth, the current model attributes
their contribution independent from each other.

As a result, the model that is developed, not only fits the phenomenological data, but also
corresponds to the physics of microscopic decohesion under both monotonic and cyclic load
components. The proposed approach has the potential for adoption in the industry for the
development of delamination growth prediction models. A model can be developed by
performing well chosen sets of tests under constant stress ratio, constant ΔGs and constant
Gmax. The convenient set of tests may include R~0, Gmax~0.8Gc, and combinations of ΔGs and
Gmax where delamination growth rates are near threshold. The upper bound may be
established based on the current quasi-static delamination tests. The delamination growth data
can be easily fitted with a surface using commercial software like MATLAB to get the two
parameter model equation. In particular when the form of the equation is known based on
quantitative fractography.

7.6 Contribution of the present work to the stress ratio effect evaluation
In context of the general delamination characterization, outlined in section 7.1 of this chapter,
the current research only comprises an initial contribution to the problem. However, by
limiting the problem to a specific case, i.e. delamination growth in mode I characterized under
constant amplitude loading, a first step could be made towards addressing the general
problem.

To begin with, the approach followed to distinct in the contribution of both the monotonic and
cyclic load component to the delamination formation can be repeated for the other two
opening modes, mode II and eventually mode III.

But more important is that the problem of the so-called stress ratio effect in delamination
growth, has been generalized to the attribution of delamination growth to two components
describing the load cycle. For example, the role of crack closure in the stress ratio effect
remained ambiguous in previous studies. In some of these studies [20, 32]observations of
crack closure was reported for lower stress ratios, but its role in the effect of stress ratio
remained unclear. Based on the current work, it is concluded that this is predominantly
attributed to the fact that the similitude principles were not well thought of, and that the
representation remained 2D, either against the monotonic or the cyclic load component. The
similitude formulation was either based on the use of the SIF or based on the SERR range
defined as arithmetic difference of maximum and minimum SERR, Gmax and Gmin. In the
present study it was shown that crack closure only marginally explains the stress ratio effect,

154
 Chapter 7

and only for stress ratios near R=0. Similarly, fiber bridging was also investigated in previous
studies as another crack shielding mechanism, and considered to affect stress ratio during
delamination growth [33]. It was proven experimentally in the present study that fiber
bridging decreases delamination growth, but as it also changes the SERR parameters, it
cannot be used to explain the stress ratio.

As these phenomena do not explain the stress ratio effect, one has to consider that another
mechanism or phenomenon is causing the effect of R. In this chapter it is argued that the
application of load together with the deflection of the specimen, implies the application of
cyclic energy. Because the cyclic energy changes with the stress ratio R, it should be expected
that this is reflected by the obtained delamination resistance.

7.7 Future prospects

The approach used in the current study for delamination growth characterization paves the
road for a more thorough approach of delamination characterization where the relevant
aspects and parameters, as summarized in section 7.1, are related to delamination growth.
Subsequently, mechanistic prediction models can be further developed that utilize dedicated
data sets where appropriate superposition principles are adopted to combine the contribution
of different load cycles, opening modes, and ply orientations.

The scientific understanding of delamination growth can be further developed by repeating

the followed approach for the other two opening modes, and different ply orientations, but
also for different material systems. Currently, only uni-directional pre-impregnated composite
plies have been used, which provide fairly straight delamination interfaces and microscopic
fracture features. However, when for example woven composite plies are considered, like for
example often used in wind-turbine blade manufacturing, different fracture surface topologies
may be expected [24, 34], that require further fractographic investigation in order to
quantitatively relate the microscopic fracture features to delamination growth.

It is foreseen that the proposed approach fits into the damage tolerance design principles
adopted in the aerospace, but also civil engineering. However, the prerequisites for adoption
of the approach proposed in this thesis in an industrial environment are the development of a
mechanistic model accounting for at least the mode I and mode II delamination growth under
arbitrary load spectra. To enable predictions, the delamination must be characterized for the
individual parameters according to a standardized experimental scheme. It is therefore
proposed that discussions are initiated on the tests and test techniques necessary to obtain all
input data sets, in conjunction with the method development. Compared to the state of the art
approach where empirical data sets are generated to enable engineering predictions it is
foreseen that the quantity of data sets necessary for the proposed mechanistic models is
substantially lower than the data sets required for a phenomenological prediction model. For
example, the mode I analysis in the present study shows, the exponents of the two-parameter
delamination growth model were approximated to the micro level delamination growth (see
section 6.5 of this thesis). The exponents were based on striation variation and were equal to
3.23 and 1.72 for ∆Gs and Gmax respectively. These exponents were used for delamination

155
Discussion

growth modeling of other materials from literature with reasonable accuracy. Once the
exponents of the two-parameter model are set from the fractography, the orientation is
basically set. All the model constants will do is to adjust the height of the surface. For the two
parameter model in terms of ∆Gs and Gmax, only two tests can give us the constants in the
model, one at constant Gmax (with varying ∆Gs) and second with constant ∆Gs (with varying
Gmax). Thus the number of tests required to set these constants is much less. Similar micro
and macro level analyses can be extended to other modes.

The standardization of techniques for delamination growth characterization must be based on

the physics of the phenomenon to avoid misleading results. For example to correct fatigue
data for fiber bridging in ref. [17], the quasi static test should be first examined for its analogy
to the fatigue using mechanisms of the phenomenon. The mechanism of the quasi static and
fatigue are significantly different. In the quasi static tests, the SERR at delamination onset is
determined for the material. There is no quantitative relation between the fracture and SERR
at delamination onset. In fatigue tests, the SERR parameters are related to the delamination
growth quantitatively. This implies a relation between fatigue delamination growth and
SERR. For the quasi static test, the correct value of the SERR should be determined, however
in fatigue test the SERR may be apparently incorrect as the da/dN anyway will relate to the
local SERR that occurs. Due to these differences the use of quasi static test to correct data is
incorrect. In this scenario, the correction for the fiber bridging in fatigue tests should be made
physically as performed in the current study by fiber cutting during fatigue tests.

In addition, the technique to determine the delamination resistance surface in the 3D plots
must be standardized in order to generate material data in a reproducible manner, as required
in agreement with industrial standards. Here, it has to be identified which tests and how many
data exactly is necessary to reliably determine the delamination resistance surface for a given
opening mode.

References
1. Mall S., Ramamurthy G., Rezaizdeh M. A. , Stress Ratio Effect on Cyclic Debonding
in Adhesively Bonded Composite Joints. Composite Structures, 1987. 8: p. 15.

2. Rans, C.D., Alderliesten, A. C., Fromulating an Effective Strain Energy Release Rate
for a Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Description of Delamination growth. in
ICCM 17, Edingburgh U.K., 2009.

3. Perez, N., FRACTURE MECHANICS. 2004, New York: Kluwer Acadamic Publishers.

4. Tada, H., Paris, P.C., Irwin, G.R.,, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook. 3rd ed
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2000.

5. Ramkumar, R.L., Whitcomb, J.D., Charachterization of mode I and mixed mode

delamination growth in T300/5208 graphite/epoxy. Delamination and debonding of
Materials, . ASTM STP, 1985. 876: p. 20.

156
 Chapter 7

6. Greenhalgh, E., Characterization of mixed-mode delamination growth in carbon-fiber

composites. PhD Thesis, Imperial College, UK,, 1998.

7. Dahlen, C., Springer, G.S., , Delamination growth in composite under cyclic loads.
journal of composite Materials, 1994. 28(8): p. 52.

8. Tanaka, H., Tanaka, K.,, Mixed-mode growth of interlaminar cracks in carbon/epoxy

laminates under cyclic loading. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on
composite Materials, Whistler B.C. (Canada),, 1995: p. 8.

9. Marissen R, Crack Growth in ARALL, A hybrid aluminium-aramid composite

material, crack growth mechanisms and quantitative predictions of the crack growth
rate, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Nederland.

10. Khan, S.U., Fatigue Crack and Delamination Growth in Fiber Metal Laminates under
Variable Amplitude Loading, PhD Thesis, TU Delft, Delft, Nederland. 2012.

11. Ivens J., Debaere C., Mcgoldrick C., Verpoest I., Van der vleuten P., 2.5D fabrics for
delamination resistant composite structures. Composites, 1994. 25(2).

12. Kim, K.S., and Hong, C.S.,, Delamination Growth in Angle-Ply Laminated
Composites. Journal of Composite Materials, , 1986. 20.

13. Greenhalgh E. S., Rogers C., Robinson P.,. Fractographic observations of

delamination growth mechanisms. in ICCM 16. 2007. Kyto, Japan.

14. Tao, J., and Sun, C. T.,, Influence of Ply Orientation on Delamination in Composite
Laminates. Journal of Composite Materials, 1998. 32.

15. Schӧn, J., Nyman, T., Blom, A., Ansell, H.,, A numerical and experimental
investigation of delamination behaviour in the DCB specimen, Composites Science
and Technology 60 (2000), pp:173-184.

16. Hwang W., Han K.S.,, Interlaminar Frcature Behaviour and fiber bridging of
glass/epoxy Composite Under Mode I Static and Cyclic Loadings. Journal of
Composite Materials, 1989. 23.

17. Murri, G.B., Evaluation of Delamination Growth Characterization Methods Under

Mode I Fatigue Loading. ASC 27th Technical Conference, Arlington, TX, 2012.

18. Standard Test Method for Mode I Fatigue Delamination Propagation of

Unidirectional Fiber- Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites,” Draft standard,
ASTM International, Committee D30 on Composites, 2009.

19. Bascom, W.D., Boll, D. J., Hunstun, D. L., Fuller, B., Phillips P. J.,, Fractographic
Analysis of Interlaminar Fracture. Toughned Composites, ASTM STP 937,
Philadelphia, pp-131-149.

157
Discussion

20. Bathias C., Laksimi A.,, Delamination threshold and Loading Effect in Fiber Glass
Epoxy Composite. Delamination and Debonding of Materials, ASTM STP
Philadelphia. p. 10, 1985.

21. Franz, H.E., Microfractography of fiber reinforced composite materilas. Practical

Metallography, 1991. 28: p. 404-419.

22. Hiley, M., Fractographic Study of Static and Fatigue Failures in Polymer
Composites. Plastics, Rubber and Composites, 28, pp210-227. 1999.

23. Hojo M., Tanaka K., Gustafson C-G., Hayashi R., Effect of stress ratio on near-
threshold propagation of delamination fatigue cracks in unidirectional CFRP.
Compos Sci Technol, 1987. 29: p. 19.

24. Matsubara G., One H., Tanaka K., , Mode II fatigue crack growth from delamination
in unidirectional tape and satin woven fabric lamiantes of high strength GFRP.
International Journal of Fatigue, 2006. 28: p. pp. 1177-1186.

25. Tanaka, H., Tanaka, K., Stress ratio effect on mode II propagation of interlaminar
fatigue cracks in graphite/epoxy composites. composite materials: fatgue and fracture
6, ASTM STP 1285, 1997: p. 16.

26. Anderson, J., Hojo, M., Ochiai, S., . Empirical Model for stress ratio effect on fatigue
delamination growth rate in composite laminates. International Journal of fatigue,
2004. 26(6): p. 7.

27. Asp, L.E., Sjogren, A., Greenhalgh, E.S.,, delamination growth and threshold in
carbon/epoxy composite under fatigue loading. Journal of Composite Technology and
Research, 2001. 23(2): p. 13.

28. Beghini M., Bertini L., Forte P., Experimental investigation on the influence of crack
front to fiber orienetation on fatigue delamiantion growth rate under mode II.
Composite Science and Technology, 2006. 66: p. 240-247.

29. Martin R. H., Murri B., Characterization of Mode I and Mode II Delamiantion
Growth and Thresholds in AS4/PEEK Composites. Composite Materials: Testing and
Design (Ninth Volume), ASTM STP 1059, S. P. Garbo, Ed., ASTM Philadelphia,
1990, pp. 251-270, 1990.

30. Kenane, M., Benzeggagh, M.L., , Mixed mode delamination fracture toughness of
unidirectional glass/epoxy composites under fatigue loading. composite Scince and
Technology, 1997. 57(5): p. 28.

31. Rans C. D., Alderliesten R., Benedictus R., Misinterpreting the results: How
similitude can improve our understanding of fatigue delamination growth Composite
Science and Technology, 2011. 71 p. 230–238.

158
 Chapter 7

32. Gustafson C.G, Hojo M.,, Delamination fatigue crack-growth in unidirectional

graphite epoxy laminates. journal of Reinforced Plastics and composite, 1987. 6(1): p.
16.

33. Ritchie, R.O., Mechanisms of Fatigue Crack Propagation in Metals, Ceramics and
Composites: Role of Crack Tip Shielding. Material Sience and Engineering, 1988.
A103: p. 15-28.

34. Shindo, Y., Inamoto, A., Narita, F., Horiguchi, K., , Mode I fatigue delamination
growth in GFRP woven laminates at low temperatures. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 73 (2006) 2080–2090.

159
 CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS
The thesis has presented the investigations of delamination growth under mode I fatigue. The
objective of the thesis was to investigate the delamination growth mechanisms under mode I
to aid development of a mechanistic model for delamination growth prediction. The
delamination growth was experimentally analyzed both at macroscopic and microscopic
levels. As a result a two-parameter model was developed to describe delamination growth in
relation to the applied loading. This chapter lists the conclusions of the research presented in
the thesis.

8.1 Characterization of delamination growth

Correct similitude of fatigue load cycle enables distinction in the test data for the load cycle
components, monotonic load and cyclic load. By correct similitude, the effects of monotonic
and cycle loads on the delamination growth data can be separately described.

The delamination growth is influenced by both monotonic and cyclic load components. This
can be accounted for by plotting in 3D graph instead of 2D. The delamination resistance
forms a surface in the 3D plot, which is described by a two-parameter model.

The fractographic investigations show that the effect of monotonic and cyclic load on the
delamination growth should be superimposed.

8.2 Effect of crack closure and fiber bridging on delamination growth

Crack closure and fiber bridging decrease delamination growth. Crack closure reduces the
cyclic load amplitude by increasing effective minimum load at the crack tip. This effectively
increases the stress ratio at the crack tip. Fiber bridging affects the maximum SERR,
minimum SERR and SERR range, but it has no effect on the stress ratio.

Both crack closure and fiber bridging do not explain the stress ratio effect. Crack closure
induces an apparent stress ratio effect of stress ratios close to R=0. However, due to crack
closure, the effective stress ratio at the crack tip is increased. As a result the delamination
resistance surface remains unaffected.

In case of fiber bridging, the delamination growth is slightly reduced due to reduction in
SERR, but that was observed to only slightly move the data on the delamination resistance
surface.

8.3 Fractographic observations

The fracture surfaces due to delamination growth consist of broken fibers, striations, and
hackles. Striation and hackle geometries were observed to change with monotonic and cyclic
Conclusions

loads. Striation spacing increases with both monotonic and cyclic loads. Hackle length was
observed to increase with the monotonic load, but decrease with the cyclic load.

The observed trend in hackle length was observed to be applicable up to about 0.65Gc beyond
which a steep increase was observed towards static fracture.

The effects of monotonic and cyclic loads on the fracture surfaces can be investigated
independently using width tapered double cantilever beam (WTDCB) specimens as compared
to simple DCB specimens.

8.4 Mechanistic model for delamination growth

The delamination growth was observed both at microscopic and macroscopic level to depend
on the monotonic and cyclic loads, but rather independent of each other. The macroscopic
delamination growth has been linked to the microscopic delamination growth using
quantitative fractography.

As a result, the model for delamination growth consists of a two-parameter model where the
two parameters are related to the monotonic and cyclic load components. . In this model, the
monotonic and cyclic components are superimposed instead of multiplied.

The two-parameter equation represents a surface in the 3D coordinates of delamination

growth rate versus maximum SERR and SERR range. Individual terms in the model are
power equations in terms of maximum SERR and SERR range.

162
 APPENDIX A
STRAIN ENERGY RELEASE RATE
In this appendix some basic formulations of linear elastic fracture mechanics used in this
thesis have been presented. Section A.1 presents formulation of the strain energy release rate
(SERR). The derivation of the SERR range is given in section A.2. The calculation of the
SERR range in case of crack closure is presented in section A.3.

A.1 Strain energy release rate

Strain energy release rate G is defined as the measure of the energy available for crack
extension. It is given by equation
𝑑∏
𝐺= (A.1)
𝑑𝐴

Where, ∏ is the potential energy of a cracked elastic plate (figure A.1) and A is the crack area.

2a

Figure A.1: A through thickness crack in an infinitely wide plate subjected to remote tensile
load

The potential energy of the cracked body shown in the figure is given as

∏ =𝑈−𝑊 (A.2)

Where, U is the potential energy stored in the body and W is the work done by external forces.
Strain energy release rate

Load
P

a
δ
Displacement

Figure A.2: Crack plate under tensile load

Considering an elastic cracked body subjected to constant load P as shown in figure A.2.
Since load is fixed, W is given as

𝑊 = 𝑃𝛿 (A.3)

and
𝛿 𝑃𝛿
𝑈= 0
𝑃𝑑𝛿 = (A.4)
2

Therefore

∏ = −𝑈 (A.5)

and
1 𝑑𝑈 𝑃 𝑑𝛿
𝐺 = 𝐵 𝑑𝑎 = 2𝐵 𝑑𝑎 (A.6)

Compliance is defined as the inverse of the plane stiffness

𝛿
𝐶=𝑃 (A.7)

Substituting equation A.6 into equation A.5 gives

𝑃 2 𝑑𝐶
𝐺 = 2𝐵 𝑑𝑎 (A.8)

A.2 Derivation of strain energy release rate range ∆Gs

In this section formulation for the SERR range ∆Gs has been derived using principles of linear
elastic fracture mechanics.

Stress is defined as the force per unit area. From equations A.1 and A.2 it can be concluded
that SERR is directly proportional to stress squared as

𝐺 ∝ 𝜎2 (A.9)

The linear superposition of the stress in terms of SERR can be expressed as [1]

164
 Appendix A

2
1/2 1/2 1/2
𝐺 = 𝐺(1) + 𝐺(2) + 𝐺(3) … . . (A.10)

For a fatigue cycle, the range of SERR ∆Gs is derived from equation A.10 as
2
∆𝐺𝑠 = 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺𝑚𝑖𝑛 (A.11)

Where, Gmax and Gmin are the maximum and minimum SERR.

A.3 Strain energy release rate range in case of crack closure

The SERR range is reduced due to crack closure because of early closure of the crack tip
during a fatigue load cycle. The SERR at closure is equal to Gclose and calculated using load at
crack closure. Figure A.3 illustrates crack closure effect in SERR cycle.

Figure A.3: SERR cycle versus time

The SERR range in case of crack closure is given by the following equation
2
∆𝐺𝑠 = 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒 (A.12)

References

1. H. Tada, P.C. Paris, G.R. Irwin,,, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook. 3rd ed The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2000.

165
 APPENDIX B
FATIGUE DELAMINATION GROWTH TESTS
RESULTS
In this appendix the results of the fatigue tests have been presented. These tests were
performed to generate data sets for the analysis of the delamination growth under various
stress ratios. Section B.1 presents the results of fatigue tests performed to determine stress
ratio effect on delamination growth rate on M30SC/DT120. Section C.2 presents results of
fatigue delamination growth tests performed for the observation of crack closure effect.
Section C.3 presents results of delamination growth tests for the observation of fiber bridging
effect. Results of fatigue delamination growth tests performed using width tapered double
cantilever beam specimens are presented in section B.4.

B.1 Effect of stress ratio on delamination growth rate

Test results for experiments performed for stress ratio effect on delamination growth are
presented in this section. Test matrix for the experiments is given by table 3.2. Figures B.1
and B.2 show delamination length versus cycles and delamination growth rate versus
delamination length for the tests respectively.

65 44
Delamination length [mm]

Delamination length [mm]

(a) (b)
42
60 40
38
55
36
50 34
32
45 30
100 10000 1000000 100 1000 10000 100000
Cycles Cycles
Fatigue delamination tests results

Delamination length [mm]

45
100
40 (c) (d)

Delamination length [mm]

35 80
30
25 60
20
40
15
10 20
5
0 0
1 100 10000 1 100 10000 1000000
Cycles Cycles

60

Delamination length [mm]

37
Delamination length [mm]

(e) (f)
55 35
50 33
45 31
40 29
35 27
30 25
1 100 10000 100 1000 10000 100000
Cycles Cycles

Figure B.1: Delamination length versus Cycles for R= 0.12 (a), 0.17(b), 0.34 (c), 0.46(d),
0.19(e), 0.16(f)
1.00E-05 1.00E-05
(a) (b)
da/dN[m/cycle]

da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06 1.00E-06

1.00E-07 1.00E-07

1.00E-08 1.00E-08
54 56 58 60 62 39.5 40 40.5 41 41.5 42 42.5
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

168
 Appendix B

1.00E-05 1.00E-05
(c) (d)
da/dN[m/cycle]

da/dN[m/cycle]
1.00E-06 1.00E-06

1.00E-07 1.00E-07

1.00E-08 1.00E-08
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 100
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

1.00E-04 1.00E-05
(e) (f)
da/dN[m/cycle]

da/dN[m/cycle]
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
1.00E-06
1.00E-07
1.00E-07

1.00E-08 1.00E-08
48 50 52 54 56 32 32.5 33 33.5 34
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

Figure B.2: Delamination growth rate versus delamination length for R= 0.12 (a), 0.17(b),
0.34 (c), 0.46(d), 0.19(e), 0.16(f)

B.2 Crack clsoure tests

In this section the experimental results of the fatigue delamination growth tests performed for
the observation of the crack closure have been presented. The tests were performed under the
stress ratio R=0.15, 0.32 and 0.49 respectively. The delamination length is plotted against
cycles in figure B.3 for the tests. The delamination growth rates are plotted against
delamination length in figure B.4.

34
(a) 40
(b)
Delamination length [mm]
Delamination length [mm]

32
30 35
28
30
26
24
25
22
20 20
100 1000 10000 100000 100 1000 10000 100000
Cycles Cycles

169
Fatigue delamination tests results

36
(c)

Delamination length [mm]

34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
100 1000 Cycles 10000 100000

Figure B.3: Delamination length versus Cycles for crack clsoure tests for R= 0.49 (a),
0.15(b), 0.32 (c)

1.00E-05 (b)
(a)
da/dN[m/cycle]
da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06
1.00E-06

1.00E-07 1.00E-07
27 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 36 37
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

1.00E-05
(c)
da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06

1.00E-07
28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Delamination length, a [mm]

Figure B.4: Delamination growth rate versus delamination length for crack clsoure tests for
R= 0.49 (a), 0.15(b), 0.32 (c)

170
 Appendix B

B.3 Fatigue delamination growth tests for fiber bridging effect investiagtion

In this section the results of delamination growth tests performed for the investiagtion of fiber
bridging effec on delamination growth rate are presented. Figure B.5 shows delamination
length versus cycles. Figure B. 6 shows delamination growth rate versus delamination for
different specimens. The detailed test matrix for these specimens is shown in table 3.4.

85

Delamination length [mm]

55
(a) (b)
Delamination length [mm]

50 80
45
75
40
35 70
30
65
25
20 60
100 1000 10000 100000 100 1000 10000
Cycles Cycles

51 (d)
55.5
(c) 50
Delamination length [mm]

55
Delamination length [mm]

54.5 49
54 48
53.5 47
53 46
52.5
45
52
44
51.5
51 43
50.5 42
100 1000 10000 100 1000 10000
Cycles Cycles

29 57 (f)
(e) 56.5
Delamination length [mm]

28.5
56
28
Delamination length [mm]

55.5
27.5 55
27 54.5
26.5 54
26 53.5
25.5 53
25 52.5
24.5 52
24 51.5
100 1000 10000 100 1000 10000
Cycles Cycles

171
Fatigue delamination tests results

68 (g) 74
67 (h)
73
Delamination length [mm] 66

Delamination length [mm]

65 72
64 71
63 70
62
69
61
60 68
59 67
58 66
100 1000 10000 100 1000 10000 100000
Cycles Cycles

60 (j)
47
(i) Delamination length [mm] 59
Delamination length [mm]

46 58
57
45 56
55
44
54
43 53
52
42 51
50
41
100 1000 10000 100000
100 1000 10000 100000
Cycles Cycles

40 (l)
Delamination length [mm]

50
(k) 35
Delamination length [mm]

40 30
25
30
20
20 15
10
10 5
0
0
100 10000 1000000
100 10000 1000000
Cycles Cycles

172
 Appendix B

77 (n)
56

Delamination length [mm]

(m) 76
Delamination length [mm]

55
75
54
74
53
73
52 72
51 71
50 70
49 69
48 68
100 1000 10000 100000 100 1000 10000 100000
Cycles Cycles

40.5
(o)
Delamination length [mm]

40
39.5
39
38.5
38
37.5
37
36.5
36
100 1000 10000
Cycles

Figure B.5: Delamination length versus Cycles for fatigue tests using specimens FB 1(a), FB
2(b), FB 3 (c), FB 4 (d), FB 7(e), FB 2 (f), FB 8 (g), FB 3 (h), FB 7(i), FB 3(j), FB 6(k), FB
6(l), FB 7(m), FB 8(n), FB 5(o)

1.00E-05 (b)
1.00E-05
(a)
da/dN[m/cycle]

da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06

1.00E-06
1.00E-07
77 78 79 80 81
30 35 40 45 50 55
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

173
Fatigue delamination tests results

1.00E-05 1.00E-05 (d)

(c)
da/dN[m/cycle]

da/dN[m/cycle]
1.00E-06 1.00E-06

1.00E-07 1.00E-07
44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

1.00E-05 (f)
1.00E-05
(e)

da/dN[m/cycle]
da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06

1.00E-07 1.00E-06
26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5 61 62 63 64 65
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

1.00E-05 1.00E-05
(g) (h)
da/dN[m/cycle]
da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06 1.00E-06

1.00E-07 1.00E-07
53 53.5 54 54.5 55 68 69 70 71 72
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

174
 Appendix B

1.00E-05 1.00E-05 (j)

(i)

da/dN[m/cycle]
da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06
1.00E-06

1.00E-07
1.00E-07
53 54 55 56
42.5 43 43.5 44 44.5
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

1.00E-05
1.00E-05 (l)
(k) da/dN[m/cycle]
da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06

1.00E-06
1.00E-07

1.00E-07
1.00E-08
35 36 37 38 39 40 41
28 29 30 31 32 33
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

(n)
1.00E-05 1.00E-05
(m)
da/dN[m/cycle]
da/dN[m/cycle]

1.00E-06 1.00E-06

1.00E-07
1.00E-07
50 51 52 53
70.5 71 71.5 72
Delamination length, a [mm] Delamination length, a [mm]

175
Fatigue delamination tests results

1.00E-05
(o)

da/dN[m/cycle]
1.00E-06

1.00E-07
37.6 37.8 38 38.2 38.4 38.6 38.8
Delamination length, a [mm]

Figure B.6: Delamination growth rate versus delamination length for fatigue tests using
specimens FB 1(a), FB 2(b), FB 3 (c), FB 4 (d), FB 7(e), FB 2 (f), FB 8 (g), FB 3 (h), FB 7(i),
FB 3(j), FB 6(k), FB 6(l), FB 7(m), FB 8(n), FB 5(o)

B.4 Delamination growth tests under constant Gmax and constant ∆Gs using width tapered
DCB specimens

In this section the results of fatigue delamination growth tests under constant Gmax and
constant ∆Gs are presented. The tests were performed using width tapered DCB specimens.
The test matrix has been given by table 3.5. Figure B.7 shows delamination length versus
cycles during fatigue tests. Delamination growth rate is plotted against delamination length in
figure B.8.

(a) Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=178.8

0.082
Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=171
0.08 Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=156
Delamination length, a [m]

0.078 Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=148

Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=126
0.076
Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=119.1

0.074

0.072

0.07

0.068
0 100 200 300 400
Cycles, N

176
 Appendix B

0.09 (b) Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=148.9

Gmax=208.4 , ∆G=141.4
Delamination length, a [m] 0.089
Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=134
0.088 Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=126.5

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=119
0.087
Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=111
0.086 Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=104.2

0.085 Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=96.7

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=89.3
0.084

0.083

0.082

0.081

0.08
0 500 1000 1500
Cycles, N

0.108
(c)
Gmax=200.7,
0.106
∆Gs=141.1
0.104 Gmax=200.7,
Delamination length, a [m]

∆Gs=126.3
0.102
Gmax=200.7,
0.1 ∆Gs=118.8
Gmax=200.7,
0.098
∆Gs=111.4
0.096 Gmax=200.7,
∆Gss=103.9
0.094
Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=96.6
0.092
0.09
0.088
0.086
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Cycles, N

177
Fatigue delamination tests results

0.12 (d)
Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=133.8
Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=126.4
0.118
Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=118.9
Delamination length, a [m]

0.116 Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=111.3

Gmax=193.3, ∆Gs=103.9
0.114 Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=96.4
Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=89.2
0.112

0.11

0.108

0.106

0.104
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Cycles, N

0.134 (e)
Gmax=185.6 , ∆Gs=126.1

0.132 Gmax=185.6, ∆Gs=118.8

Gmax=185.6 , ∆Gs=111.3
Delamination length, a [m]

0.13 Gmax=185.6, ∆Gs=103.9

0.128 Gmax=185.6 , ∆Gs=96.4

Gmax=185.6, ∆Gs=89
0.126 Gmax=185.6, ∆Gs=81.6

0.124

0.122

0.12

0.118

0.116
0 5000 10000 15000
Cycles, N

178
 Appendix B

0.1342 (f)
Gmax=133.6 , ∆Gs=81.6
0.134
Gmax=133.6 , ∆Gs=74.2
Delamination length, a [m]

Gmax=133.6 , ∆Gs=66.8
0.1338

0.1336

0.1334

0.1332

0.133

0.1328
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Cycles, N

(g) ∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 95.4

0.14
∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 107.3
∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 129.7
0.12
Delamination length, a [m]

∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 150

∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 174
0.1
∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 200
∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 228.6
0.08
∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 254

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Cycles, N

179
Fatigue delamination tests results

(h)
0.14
∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax= 147.6
0.12
Delamination length, a [m]
∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax= 181.7
∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax= 195.4
0.1
∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax= 205.4
∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax=244.3
0.08
∆Gs=94.7 J, Gmax=277.8

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 50000 100000 150000
Cycles, N

(i)
0.14
∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax= 155.4

0.12 ∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax= 177.9

Delamination length, a [m]

∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax= 204.6

0.1 ∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax=248.5
∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax=269.7
0.08
∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax=290.8
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 50000 100000 150000
Cycles, N

Figure B.7: Delamination length versus Cycles for fatigue tests using specimens WTDCB 1
under Gmax=223 J/m2(a), WTDCB 1 under Gmax=208.4 J/m2(b), WTDCB 1 under Gmax=200.7
J/m2 (c), WTDCB 1 under Gmax =193.3 J/m2(d), WTDCB 1 under Gmax =185.6 J/m2(e),
WTDCB 1 under Gmax =133.6 J/m2 (f), WTDCB 2 (g), WTDCB 3(h), WTDCB 4 (i) [SERR
units are J/m2]

180
 Appendix B

1.00E-04 (a)
Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=178.8
Delamination growth rate [m/cycle]

Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=171

1.00E-05 Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=156

Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=148

Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=126
1.00E-06

Gmax=223 , ∆Gs=119.1

1.00E-07
0.07 0.075 0.08 0.085
Delamination length [m]

(b)
1.00E-05 Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=148.9

Gmax=208.4 , ∆G=141.4
Delamination growth rate [m/cycle]

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=134

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=126.5

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=119

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=111

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=104.2

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=96.7

Gmax=208.4 , ∆Gs=89.3

1.00E-06
0.08 0.082 0.084 0.086 0.088 0.09
Delamination length [m]

181
Fatigue delamination tests results

1.00E-04
(c)

Delamination growth rate, da/dN [m/cycle]

Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=141.1

Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=126.3
1.00E-05

Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=118.8

1.00E-06 Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=111.4

Gmax=200.7, ∆Gss=103.9

1.00E-07 Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=96.6

Gmax=200.7, ∆Gs=81.6

1.00E-08
0.085 0.09 0.095 0.1 0.105 0.11
Delamination length, a [m]

(d)
Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=133.8
Delamination growth rate [m/cycle]

Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=126.4

1.00E-06
Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=118.9

Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=111.3

Gmax=193.3, ∆Gs=103.9

Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=96.4

Gmax=193.3 , ∆Gs=89.2

1.00E-07
0.105 0.11 0.115 0.12
Delamination length [m]

182
 Appendix B

1.00E-06 (e)
Gmax=185.6 , ∆Gs=126.1

Derlamination growth rate [m/cycle] Gmax=185.6, ∆Gs=118.8

Gmax=185.6 , ∆Gs=111.3

Gmax=185.6, ∆Gs=103.9

Gmax=185.6 , ∆Gs=96.4

Gmax=185.6, ∆Gs=89

Gmax=185.6, ∆Gs=81.6

1.00E-07
0.115 0.12 0.125 0.13 0.135
Delamination length [m]

(f)
1.00E-07
Delamination growth rate [m/cycle]

Gmax=133.6 , ∆Gs=81.6

Gmax=133.6 , ∆Gs=74.2
1.00E-08

Gmax=133.6 , ∆Gs=66.8

1.00E-09
0.1325 0.133 0.1335 0.134 0.1345
Delamination length [m]

183
Fatigue delamination tests results

1.00E-05 (g)

Delamination growth rate [m/cycle] ∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 95.4

∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 107.3

1.00E-06
∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 129.7

∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 150

1.00E-07
∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 174

∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 200

1.00E-08 ∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 228.6

∆Gs=85.3 , Gmax= 254

1.00E-09
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Delamination length [m]

(h)

∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax= 147.6

Delamination growth rate [m/cycle]

1.00E-06 ∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax= 181.7

∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax= 195.4

∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax= 205.4

1.00E-07
∆Gs=94.7 , Gmax=244.3

∆Gs=94.7 J, Gmax=277.8

1.00E-08
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Delamination length [m]

184
 Appendix B

(i)
1.00E-04
∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax= 155.4

Delamination growth rate [m/cycle]

∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax= 177.9
1.00E-05

∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax= 204.6

1.00E-06
∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax=248.5

∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax=269.7
1.00E-07

∆Gs=66.6 , Gmax=290.8

1.00E-08
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Delamination length [m]

Figure B.8: Delamination growth rate versus delamination length for fatigue tests using
specimen WTDCB 1 under Gmax=223 J/m2(a), WTDCB 1 under Gmax=208.4 J/m2(b), WTDCB
1 under Gmax=200.7 J/m2 (c), WTDCB 1 under Gmax=193.3 J/m2(d), WTDCB 1 under
Gmax=185.6 J/m2(e), WTDCB 1 under Gmax=133.6 J/m2 (f), WTDCB 2 (g), WTDCB 3(h),
WTDCB 4 (i) [SERR units are J/m2]

185
 APPENDIX C
MICROSCOPY RESULTS
In this appendix, SEM images of the fracture surfaces of width tapered double cantilever
beam (WTDCB) specimens tested under constant maximum strain energy release rate (SERR)
and constant SERR range are presented. These images contain hackles and striations on the
fracture surfaces. The values of the Gmax and ∆Gs for each image and the corresponding figure
number are listed in tables C.1, C.2 C.3 and C.4.

C.1 Hackles

This section presents the SEM images containing hackles. The values of loading for each
image and the figure number showing the image are listed in table C.1 and C.2. The table C.1
contains images at constant Gmax and variable ∆Gs while the table C.2 contains images at
constant ∆Gs and variable Gmax.

Table C.1: List of constant Gmax and variable ∆Gs values with corresponding
figure numbers for the SEM images containing hackles

Specimen Gmax [J/m2] ∆Gs [J/m2] Figure

178.8 C.1
171 C.2
WTDCB 1 156 C.3
223
148 C.4
126 C.5
119.1 C.6
Microscopy results

Figure C.1

Figure C.2

188
 Appendix C

Figure C.3

Figure C.4

189
Microscopy results

Figure C.5

Figure C.6

190
 Appendix C

Table C.2: List of constant ∆Gs and variable Gmax values with corresponding figure
numbers for the SEM images containing hackles

Specimen ∆Gs [J/m2] Gmax [J/m2] Figure

93 C.7
107 C.8
WTDCB 2
129.7 C.9
85.3 150 C.10
174 C.11
200 C.12
228.6 C.13
147.6 C.14
181.7 C.15
94.7
WTDCB 3 195.4 C.16
205.4 C.17
244.26 C.18
104.1 C.19
155.4 C.20
177.9 C.21
66.6
WTDCB 4 204.6 C.22
248.3 C.23
269.7 C.24
290.8 C.25

Figure C.7

191
Microscopy results

Figure C.8

Figure C.9

192
 Appendix C

Figure C.10

Figure C.11

193
Microscopy results

Figure C.12

Figure C.13

194
 Appendix C

Figure C.14

Figure C.15

195
Microscopy results

Figure C.16

Figure C.17

196
 Appendix C

Figure C.18

Figure C.19

197
Microscopy results

Figure C.20

Figure C.21

198
 Appendix C

Figure C.22

Figure C.23

199
Microscopy results

Figure C.24

Figure C.25

C.2 Striations

In this section the SEM images containing striations are given. The specimens were tested at
constant Gmax and constant ∆Gs. The values of Gmax and ∆Gs are given in tables C.3 and C.4
with the corresponding figure numbers.

200
 Appendix C

Table C.3: List of constant Gmax and variable ∆Gs values with corresponding
figure numbers for the SEM images containing striations

Specimen Gmax [J/m2] ∆Gs [J/m2] Figure

178.8 C.26
WTDCB 1 171 C.27
156 C.28
223
148 C.29
126 C.30
119.1 C.31

Figure C.26

201
Microscopy results

Figure C.27

Figure C.28

202
 Appendix C

Figure C.29

Figure C.30

203
Microscopy results

Table C.4: List of constant ∆Gs and variable Gmax values with corresponding
figure numbers for the SEM images containing striations

Specimen ∆Gs [J/m2] Gmax [J/m2] Figure

107 C.31
WTDCB 2 85.3 129.7 C.32
174 C.33
177.9 C.34
66.6 204.6 C.35
WTDCB 4
269.7 C.36
290.8 C.37

Figure C.31

204
 Appendix C

Figure C.32

Figure C.33

205
Microscopy results

Figure C.34

Figure C.35

206
 Appendix C

Figure C.36

Figure C.37

207
 SAMENVATTING
Vezelversterkte composieten zijn aantrekkelijk voor lucht en ruimtevaart toepassingen
vanwege hun hoge specifieke sterkte en stijfheid. Over de afgelopen decennia is het gebruik
ervan geleidelijk toegenomen tot 50% van het gewicht van het vliegtuig. De consequentie is
dat moderne vliegtuigen composieten gebruiken in de primaire constructies zoals vleugelhuid
en romp. Het gebruik van composieten in primaire constructies heeft de behoefte aan
betrouwbare sterkteberekeningsmethodieken doen toenemen.

Composieten zijn inherent aan verschillende soorten schades, waarvan delaminatie de meest
ernstige vorm van schade is. Delaminaties kunnen groeien als gevolg van vermoeiing, hetgeen
resulteert in spanningsherverdeling, en potentieel kan leiden tot constructief falen. Dit maakt
vermoeiing een belangrijke zorg voor het ontwerp.

Schadetolerantie van vliegtuigconstructies is een belangrijk aspect in het onderhoud en de

veiligheid van het vliegtuig. Voor schadetolerant ontwerpen van constructies, is de
ontwikkeling van nauwkeurige evaluatie tool voor delaminatiegroei noodzakelijk.

Delaminatiegroei wordt beïnvloed door zowel het cyclische al shet monotone deel van de
vermoeiingsbelasting. Het effect van het monotone deel staat bekend als het effect van de
spanningsverhouding (verhouding van minimum tot maximum belasting) op delaminatiegroei,
en is uitgebreid bestudeerd in de literatuur. Hoofdstuk 2 geeft een gedetailleerd overzicht van
de literatuur betreffende het effect van de spanningsverhouding op delaminatie groei.

Het literatuuronderzoek toont aan dat eerdere studies de delaminatiegroei empirisch relateren
aan een parameter die de drijvende kracht beschrijft, maar die niet gebaseerd lijkt op een
fysiek mechanisme. Studies zijn aanwezig waarin het mechanisme van delaminatiegroei is
onderzocht; echter, er is een gebrek aan inspanningen deze kwantitatief te linken aan
delaminatiegroeimodellen.

Het doel van dit proefschrift is de ontwikkeling van een mechanistisch model voor
delaminatiegroei die gebaseerd is op de waargenomen delaminatie mechanismenen en de
effecten van monotone en cyclische belastingen in vermoeiing. De scriptie is gebaseerd op de
hypothese dat zowel monotone als cyclische belastingen de breukvlakformatie beïnvloeden,
hetgeen gebruikt kan worden voor delaminatiegroei karakterisering. Het secundaire doel van
dit proefschrift is de karakterisering van de breukvlakken voor wat betreft het effect van
monotone en cyclische belasting. Om de omvang te beperken, is delaminatiegroei onder
scheuropening modus I onderzocht in het proefschrift.

De aanpak van het proefschrift is experimenteel. Delaminatiegroei werd experimenteel

gekarakteriseerd, zowel op macro- als op microscopisch niveau, zoals beschreven in
hoofdstuk 3. Vermoeiingstesten werden uitgevoerd op double cantilever beam (DCB)
proefstukken om het delaminatiegroeigedrag onder verschillende spanningsverhoudingen te
onderzoeken. Proefstukken werden gemaakt van uitgeharde laminatien van gepreïmpregneerd
M30SC/DT120 carbon/epoxy. Scheursluiting werd onderzocht tijdens de delaminatiegroei
met behulp van een opgeklemde extensometer. Het effect van vezeloverbrugging werd
onderzocht door middel van het doorsnijden van overbruggende vezels tijdens de
delaminatiegroei experimenten. Microscopie van de breukvlakken werden uitgevoerd met
behulp van een elektronenmicroscoop. Verjongde DCB (WTDCB) proefstukken werden
gebruikt voor de delaminatiegroei testen waarbij monotone en cyclische belasting constant
gehouden werden tijdens delaminatie groei.

De resultaten van de vermoeiingstesten en de microscopie zijn gepresenteerd in hoofdstuk 4.

De delaminatiegroei werd gekarakteriseerd met behulp van de snelheid waarmee
vervormingsenergie vrijkomt (Strain Energy Release Rate - SERR). Het bereik van de SERR
werd zodanig gedefinieerd dat het de juiste analogie heeft met het bereik van de
spanningsintensiteitsfactor (SIF). Voor een constant SERR bereik is de delaminatiegroei
hoger voor hogere spanningsverhoudingen. Scheursluiting werd in de testen waargenomen bij
de laagste spanningsverhouding.

Fractografische analyse van de breukvlakken liet gebroken vezels, losse vezels, zogenaamde
hackles en striations zien. De hackles en striations op de breukvlakken van WTDCB
proefstukken werden kwantitatief geanalyseerd voor verschillende combinaties van monotone
belastingen en cyclische belastingamplitudes. Er werd waargenomen dat de striation afstand
toenam met monotone en cyclische belasting. De hackle lengte nam toe met monotone
belasting , maar nam af met cyclische belasting amplituden.

Scheursluiting en vezeloverbrugging verklaren maar marginaal het effect van de

spanningsverhouding op delaminatiegroei, zoals besproken in hoofdstuk 5. Scheursluiting
verhoogt de effectieve minimale belasting bij de scheurtip op alleen de lagere
spanningsverhouding. Dit resulteert in een hogere effectieve spanningsverhouding bij de
scheurtip. In dat geval werd de SERR gecorrigeerd voor scheursluiting. Door het weergeven
van delaminatiegroeiteg en het gecorrigeerde SERR bereik, verschoof de data naar een hogere
spanningsverhouding. Om het effect van scheursluiting in een 3D-weergave te illustreren,
werd de delaminatiegroei uitgezet tegen zowel het bereik van als de maximale SERR. De voor
scheursluiting gecorrigeerde gegevens verschoven naar hogere spanningsverhoudingen,
waarbij het op het zelf de scheurweerstandsoppervlak bleef.

Tevens werd geobserveerd dat de vezeloverbrugging de delaminatiegroeiv erminderde. De

spanningsverhouding bleef echter hetzelfde. De overbruggende vezels bleken invloed te
hebben op zowel minimale en maximale vermoeiingsbelastingen hetgeen resulteert in
dezelfde spanningsverhouding als het geval zonder vezeloverbrugging. In een 3D-weergave
van delaminatie groeite gen het SERR bereik en de maximale SERR, wordt de data
verschoven naar de lagere delaminatie groei hetgeen te wijten is aan vezeloverbrugging.

De experimentele resultaten laten zien dat de delaminatie groei niet een unieke functie is van
het SERR bereik, maar ook afhankelijk is van de spanningsverhouding. Dat houdt in dat de
delaminatiegroei afhangt van zowel cyclische en monotone belastingen. Een twee-parameter
model voor delaminatiegroei is ontwikkeld gebaseerd op de waarneming op de breukvlakken
van het effect van cyclische en monotone belastingen. Hoofdstuk 6 beschrijft het mechanisme
van delaminatiegroei en de ontwikkeling van het mechanistische twee-parameter model voor
210
delaminatiegroei voorspelling. De twee parameter termen in het model worden bij elkaar
opgeteld in plaats van vermenigvuldigd in overeenstemming met de superpositie van effecten
van cyclische en monotone belastingen op microscopische karakteristieken op de
breukvlakken. Het twee parameter model voor delaminatiescheurgroei representeert een
scheurweerstandsoppervlak voor het materiaal in de 3D-coördinaten van delaminatie groei
tegen het SERR bereik en de maximale SERR.

Het model is geïmplementeerd met behulp van gegevens uit de delaminatiegroei

experimenten. De oppervlakteregressie methode van de commerciële software MATLAB
werd gebruikt voor het verkrijgen van de vergelijking in het model. Voor validatie van het
model, werden experimentele gegevens uit de literatuur gebruikt. De modelvoorspellingen en
de experimentele waarnemingen bleken in goede overeenstemming met elkaar te zijn.

Het huidige model is anders dan eerdere modellen hierin dat de relatie tussen delaminatiegroei
en de correlerende parameters is niet langer een eenvoudige regressie is van experimentele
gegevens. De correlatie is een onder bouwde regressie op basis van de waargenomen bijdrage
van monotone en cyclische belastingcomponenten op de breukmechanismen. De twee
parameters in het model worden bij elkaar opgeteld om de bijdrage van de
belastingcomponenten te beschrijven. In eerdere twee-parameter modellen werden de termen
met elkaar vermenigvuldigd zonder rechtvaardiging op basis van de fysica van delaminatie
groei.

De conclusies van dit proefschrift zijn samengevat in hoofdstuk 8. Het kan worden
geconcludeerd dat het effect van monotone belasting op delaminatiegroei niet volledig
verklaard wordt door scheursluiting en vezeloverbruggingg. De delaminatie groeimoet
worden gekarakteriseerd op basis van zowel monotone als cyclische belasting componenten.
Deze belastingcomponenten beïnvloeden delaminatiegroei op microscopisch niveau
onafhankelijk van elkaar. De twee-parameter termen in het model worden bij elkaar opgeteld
in correlatie met de superpositie van effecten van deze parameters op microscopische
kenmerken. Het model kan worden uitgebreid tot de delaminatiegroei onderverschillende
openingsmodi van de scheur.

211
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“Towns and Cities exist because one can‟t accomplish needs alone”. This statement I often
heard from elders when they motivate for cooperating with others. A PhD results from
cooperation of many individuals. Words may seem smaller in response to the efforts;
nevertheless “Thanks” is the best way to complete the cycle.

First of all, I thank ALLAH and praise and pray to Him with His words in the Quran “With
the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful. Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of
all the worlds, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful, the Master of the Day of Judgment. You
alone we worship, and from You alone we seek help. Guide us in the straight path, the path of
those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not of those who have incurred Your wrath,
nor of those who have gone astray”.

I am thankful to my supervisor, Prof.dr.ir. Rinze Benedictus, for his trust in me, support and
valuable discussions during my PhD study. He was always enthusiastic about the research and
its methodology. I will remember his appreciative comments in our first meeting about the
PhD project when I proposed to develop model for mixed mode delamination growth from
micromechanisms. The comments acted as a catalyst in the research work in the very initial
stage of the PhD.

I am thankful to my daily supervisor, Dr.ir. René Alderliesten for his energetic and innovative
guidance. The research field was tough and challenging, however the support of Dr.
Alderliesten kept my focus on track. He is one of the brilliant brains within TU Delft, full of
innovative ideas. His guidance increased my level of understanding of the research field. I
will remember his support in my future career.

I am also thankful to Dr. Calvin Rans, who was my first daily supervisor in the beginning of
the PhD. He supported me a lot and gave me a first push in the research field.

I am also thankful to the secretary of our group, Mrs. Gemma van der Windt, for her support
and managing the official documentation in extremely efficient manner. She kept me nearly
free in management tasks of the PhD.

As most of my research is experimental, I am thankful to all of the staff members of the

Aerospace structures and materials laboratory. Special thanks to Berthil, Bob, Hans, Frans,
Kees, Ed, Johan, and the others who dedicated a lot of their time to help me with the setup of
testing machines and measuring devices.

I would like to express my gratitude to all committee members who have dedicated part of
their time to review this thesis and have travelled to Delft to participate in the defence.

During my stay in the delft I spend good time with my Pakistani friends. I am thankful to Atif,
Hamayun, Zubair, Faisal Nadeem, Imran, Shah Muhammad, Faisal Karim, Jahanzeb Cheema,
Fakhar, Seyab, Iftikhar, Shafqat, Zubair, Akram, Laeeq, Nooruddin of india, Pervez of
Bangladesh, Saeed of Somalia and others. I also spend good times with Moalna Tahir, Bilal
Sahib from Den Haag, Dilawar Bhai, Jahangir Sahib from Rotterdam, Abbas Sahib of india
and others.

My office colleagues Ping, Salim, Iftikhar and others gave me lot of support, I am thankful to
them. A special thank goes to current and past colleagues of TU Delft: Amir, Rik-Jan,
Gustavo, Ligeia, Milan, Patricio, Jos, Greg W., Greg R., Vincent, Alfonso, Sharif, Gianni,
Alessandro, Freddy, Nick, Lizzet, Tahira, Lee, Cory, Danial, Ilhan, Danis, Edwardo, Boss and
others.

As my PhD was sponsored by HEC Pakistan, special thanks go to HEC and their staff
members for the valuable support.

I also thank sincere friends in Pakistan, Amjad, Sakhi Jan, Mujahid, Muin, Falak Naz and
Laeeq. They always increased my courage.

I am thankful to my family, my wife, brothers and sisters. They supported me during this
challenging adventure. They have always been enthusiastic and pushed me forward during the
tough moments.

214
 CURRICULUM VITAE
The author was born in Lakki Marwat, Pakistan, in 1980. After graduating from the higher
secondary school in September 1998, he moved to Peshawar to study at the N.W.F.P
University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, at the Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering. The author obtained his B.Sc degree in September 2003 from this university.
After graduation, the author was appointed in a public sector organization as Assistant
Manager. The author had the responsibility of designing composite structures for high
temperature applications. The author worked there for 3-years, from 2004-2007.

In 2004, the author started his master studies at the N.W.F.P University of Engineering and
Technology Peshawar and completed it in 2006. The master project was titled, “Selection of
material handling Equipment” and was completed under the supervision of Dr. Iftikhar
Hussain.

In 2008, the author was awarded a scholarship by the Higher Education Commission Pakistan
for the PhD study. The author started his PhD study at the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
of TU Delft under supervision of Prof.dr.ir. Rinze Benedictus and Dr. ir. René Alderliesten.
During the 4-years period of the PhD study, the author conducted experimental and analytical
modelling activities, which resulted in the present PhD dissertation.

215
 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Journal Publications

1. Khan R., Alderliesten R., Benedictus R., “Two-parameter model for delamination
growth in composites, Part A.” (Submitted to Composites Part. A).

2. Khan R., Alderliesten R., Benedictus R., “Two-parameter model for delamination
growth in composites, Part B.” (Submitted to Composites Part. A).

3. Khan R., Alderliesten R., Benedictus R., “Crack closure and fiber bridging during
delamination growth in composites” (Submitted to Composite Science and
Technology).

4. Khan R., Alderliesten R., Benedictus R., “Effect of stress ratio on delamination
growth under fatigue, Critical review” (to be published).

Conference Publications

1. Khan R., Rans C.D., Benedictus R., “Stress ratio effect on delamination growth in
Carbon/epoxy composites under fatigue loading” in ICCM 17, Eideneberg
UK,2009