Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Interlaminar fracture toughness of GLARE laminates based on asymmetric T

double cantilever beam (ADCB)
Xiaoge Huaa, Huaguan Lia,b,∗∗, Yi Lua, Yujie Chena, Liangsheng Qiua, Jie Taoa,∗
a
College of Material Science & Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 211100, PR China
b
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Advanced Structural Materials and Application Technology, Nanjing Institute of Technology, Nanjing, 211167, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Interlaminar fracture toughness of GLARE laminates (Glass reinforced aluminum laminates) with different fiber
GLARE laminates orientation, such as cross-plies/0° and unidirectional-plies/0°, were investigated by the combination of experi-
Interlaminar fracture toughness ments and finite element analyses. The Beam Theory and Fracture mechanics theory were used to calculate the
Finite element analysis proportion of Mode I and Mode II and further to predict the interlaminar fracture toughness of GLARE laminates.
Theoretical calculation
Also, the effect of loading rates (1 mm/min, 5 mm/min and 10 mm/min) on the interlaminar fracture properties
was studied. Finite element analyses were carried out based on cohesive zone model (CZM) to numerically
simulate delamination propagation by using the above experimental GIC. The results showed that the inter-
laminar fracture toughness in cross-plies/0° laminates(0.248 kJ/m2) was higher than that in unidirectional-
plies/0° laminates(0.093 kJ/m2), and the interlaminar fracture toughness was increased with the growth of the
loading rates. The numerical results agreed well with the experiments at crack initiation and furthermore
supported the absence of mode mixity. The deviation between theoretical calculations and experimental results
gradually increased with the crack propagation. Meanwhile, they were conformed to the linear function for
unidirectional-plies/0° and cross-plies/0° laminates, respectively. Besides, the experimental data are highly
consistent with both theoretical calculation and numerical simulation results.

1. Introduction GLARE in practical applications [12]. Therefore, the inquiry of inter-

In recent years, many scientists have been involved in developing
new materials which maintain good mechanical performance and low
density [1]. Fiber metal laminates (FMLs), based on alternating layers
of thin metal sheets and fiber reinforced composite plies, are novel la-
minated composites. The hybrid composite combines the advantages of
metallic materials and fiber reinforced matrix systems [2–5]. GLARE
laminates (Glass reinforced aluminum laminates), consisting of uni-
directional glass fiber reinforced prepregs and high strength aluminum
alloy sheets, is the best known example of FMLs owing to its significant
weight reduction in structural design, high tensile and compressive
strengths, good fatigue and corrosion resistance property [6–8].
GLARE laminates are applied to aircraft fuselage, wing skin, cabin
floor and other critical components in particular [9,10]. Aircrafts are
always subjected to aerodynamic force and air resistance, which cause
serious invisible delamination damage inside the laminates [11]. The
most prominent feature of GLARE is multi-layer interface. Meanwhile,
the existence of multi-layer interface can result in the delamination of
laminar property of GLARE laminates is meaningful. Practically, the
basic mode of damage caused by low interlaminar strength and high
interlaminar stress is the separation between layers, ie, interlaminar
fracture [13].
In recent years, fracture mechanics has been applied to evaluate the
interlaminar fracture toughness. It is also known as strain energy re-
lease rate, which means the crack will propagates unsteadily when the
deformation energy released by crack propagation is equal to or greater
than the energy required for crack growth [14,15]. Interlaminar frac-
ture is divided into Mode I (peel), Mode II (shear) and Mode III (tear), of
which Mode I and II are the main ones and often occur in practical
applications. Therefore, we mainly focus on Mode I/Mode II fractures
and mode mixity for research. Generally, the testing of Mode I inter-
laminar fracture is time-consuming and complicated. So the inter-
laminar fracture toughness can be preliminarily estimated by theore-
tical calculation. In general, the symmetrical and homogeneous
composite laminates in Mode I and Mode II load condition are tested by
Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) and End Notched Flexure (ENF)

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author. College of Material Science & Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 211100, PR China.
E-mail addresses: lihuaguan@njit.edu.cn (H. Li), taojie@nuaa.edu.cn (J. Tao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.11.040
Received 29 August 2018; Received in revised form 24 October 2018; Accepted 6 November 2018
Available online 08 November 2018
1359-8368/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Hua et al.
methods, respectively [16]. Nevertheless, the structural asymmetry and
material heterogeneity cause FMLs, such as GLARE, testing by the DCB
or ENF method resulting in Mode I/II mixing at the crack tip [17,18].
Thus the exploration of Mode I/II mixing in DCB test of GLARE lami-
nates has more significance.
Except for theoretical calculation, the values of interlaminar frac-
ture toughness for specific interfaces are further frequently studied in
definition of adhesive joint mechanical behavior in numerical simula-
tions. Huiming Ning et al. [19] once discovered that the effect of var-
ious toughening mechanisms on the Mode I interlaminar fracture
toughness of Al/CFRP laminates with finite element analysis. However,
there was a certain difference between experimental and simulation of
the load-displacement curve, becasuse of the 2D finite element model
[20]. Therefore, it is important to establish appropriate 3D finite ele-
ment model in DCB test for GLARE laminates.
Generally, it is known that the experiments are used to verify the
results of theoretical calculations and numerical simulations [21].
However, there are relatively few studies for the GLARE laminates by
comparison with DCB tests and theoretical calculations. Meanwhile, the
influence of loading rate on the interlaminar fracture toughness of fiber
metal laminates was investigated from 1 mm/min directly to 3 m/s.
Hence, it is important to explore the relationship between theoretical
calculations and experimental results in DCB test for GLARE laminates.
Moreover, the exploration of reasonable loading rate used in DCB test
and the consideration of shortening the experimental period for the
GLARE laminates have more significance [22–24].
Herein, DCB tests and 3D numerical simulations were used to study
the effect of fiber orientation and loading rates on interlaminar fracture
property systematically. Besides, theoretical calculation was used to
obtain the proportion of Mode I and Mode II and further to predict the
interlaminar fracture toughness of GLARE laminates. This study could
provide a complete set of evaluation methods based on rational theo-
retical calculations-numerical simulations-experiments for GLARE la-
minates.
2. Experimental
2.1. Fabrication of specimens
The GLARE laminates were fabricated with layers of aluminum
alloy sheets (2024-T3, 0.3 mm thickness per sheet) and S4-glass/epoxy
prepregs (0.125 mm thickness per layer) by hand layup technique
(Table 1). Thereinto, 3/2 refers that the stackings are composed of 3
aluminum alloy sheets and 2 S4-glass fiber reinforced epoxy prepregs.
Unidirectional-plies and cross-plies laminates have been fabricated
to systematically investigate the effects of the different fiber stacking
sequences of GLARE. Firstly, surface treatment for the aluminum alloy
sheets was conducted to achieve a better bonding with the fiber re-
inforced composites [26,27]. Generally, the sheets were anodized in the
solution of 130 g/L phosphoric acid solution at 20 °C for 20 min with a
voltage 10 V [28,29]. After anodizing, the specimens were rinsed
thoroughly with distilled water and dried in the desiccator. Secondly,
the adhesive was sprayed on the surface within 24 h. Then four fiber/
epoxy prepreg layers were inserted into three aluminum alloy sheets to
fabricate GLARE-3/2 during the lay-up process. A folded aluminum foil
with a length of 50 mm, acted as a starter defect, was incorporated at
Table 1
Details of stacking configuration and thickness of laminates.
Structure Stacking configuration Thickness
Experiment Numerical simulation
3/2 Al/[0/0]/Al/[0/0]/Al 1.54 ± 0.02 1.404
Al/[90/0]/Al/[0/90]/Al
176
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184
the interface(Fig. 1). Finally, the vacuum bagged laminates were placed
in an autoclave to cure the resin system and bond the layers by hot
pressing process [1].
The specimens were cut by milling and attached with 1-inch hinges
by modified acrylate adhesive. Then, solidified the specimens at room
temperature for 12 h (Fig. 2).
2.2. DCB test
DCB tests of GLARE laminates were conducted by CMT-5105 uni-
versal electronic testing machine (Fig. 3) at a displacement rate of
1 mm/min, 5 mm/min and 10 mm/min, respectively. Fig. 3 is the
schematic diagram of experimental installation. The specimen was
loaded until the crack grew about 3–5 mm or until significant drop in
loading was observed. The location of the crack tip was recorded and
then the specimen was unloaded before the next loading. The process
was repeated until the crack propagates to the end of the scaling label
or until the specimen fails.
Mode-I interlaminar fracture toughness can be calculated by the
following Eq. (1), referring to ASTM D5528-2013.
mPδ
GIC =
2ba (1)
Here, P is the critical load at the crack growth, N; δ is displacement
corresponds to the loading point of P, mm; b is the sample width, mm. a
is the crack length, mm; The m is coefficient, can be calculated by Eq.
(2).
k 1 k k
∑i = 1 lgai lgQi − k (∑i = 1 lgai )(∑i = 1 lgQi )
m= k k 2
1
∑i = 1 (lgQi )2 − k (∑i = 1 lgai ) (2)
Where K is the number of points measured for a single sample; ai is
crack length before i loading, mm; δi is displacement corresponds to the
loading point of Pi, mm; Qi = δi/Pi, N/mm.
3. Calculation of interlaminar fracture toughness
The values of interlaminar fracture toughness were determined for
interface between aluminium layer and composite in GLARE. The cal-
culations of interlaminar fracture toughness derived in this study were
based on Beam Theory and compared with the closed-form solution
proposed by Williams [25] which can distinguish Mode I and Mode II
interlaminar fracture toughness contribution in asymmetric configura-
tions.
3.1. The analytical solution based on beam theory approach
The following theoretical derivation is based on the asymmetric
double cantilever beam(ADCB) with 3/2 structure as shown in Fig. 4.
The reaction forces at the loading point P1 and P2 were assumed to be
the same. However, the displacements associated with the upper arm
and lower arm may not be the same with the asymmetric structure.
Therefore, the structure was divided into upper beam and lower beam
of asymmetric double cantilever beam. Furthermore, let the upper arm
be (1) and the lower arm be (2) and assume displacement in each arm
δ1and δ2, respectively.
According to the beam theory, the upper beam(Fig. 5) loading point
displacement can be expressed as Eq. (3) [30].
P1 a3
δ1 =
3E1 I1 (3)
3δ1 E1 I1
Thus P1 =
a3 (4)
Moreover, the bending stiffness of GLARE laminates in this work is
calculated by following equation:
X. Hua et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of specimen fabrication process.

Fig. 2. DCB samples: (a) samples; (b) sample geo-

metry, unit: mm.

Fig. 3. DCB test.

Fig. 5. Schematic of cross-section of GLARE and location of its neutral axis: (a)
top arm; (b) bottom arm.

P2 a3
δ2 =
3E2 I2 (7)

Where for unidirectional-plies/0°, E2 I2 = EGFRP IGFPRbottom + EAl IAlbottom

Fig. 4. Schematic of ADCB for cross − plies/0°, E2 I2 = E1GFRP I1GFPRbottom + E2GFRP I2GFPRbottom
+ EAl IAlbottom (8)
Where for unidirectional − plies/0°, E1 I1 = EGFRP IGFPRtop + EAl IAltop;
The strain energy of the two arms during loading can be calculated
(5) by Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) [30].
for cross − plies/0°, E1 I1 = E1GFRP I1GFPRtop + E2GFRP I2GFPRtop + EAl IAltop; 1 2 M12
(6)
U1 =
2
∫0 E1 I1
dx
(9)
With IGFRPtop and IAltop are, respectively, the second moments of M22
1 2
area of the GFRP and Al layers with respect to the top arm's neutral axis. U2 =
2
∫0 E2 I2
dx
(10)
Similarly, the deflection of the lower beam can be expressed as Eq.
(7). Where M1 and M2 are bending moments due to forces P1 and P2. So the

177
X. Hua et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184

total interlaminar fracture toughness can be defined as Eq. (11).

1 ∂U 1 ∂U ∂U2 ⎤
G=− =− ⎡ 1 +
B ∂a B ⎣ ∂a ∂a ⎦ (11)
Therefore, the interlaminar fracture toughness can be expressed as
Eq. (12).
Where for unidirectional-plies/0°,
1 9
G= [δ12 (EGFRP IGFRPtop + EAl IAltop) + δ22 (EGFRP IGFRPbottom
B 2a4 Fig. 7. Discrete 3D model and applied boundary conditions of DCB test con-
+ EAl IAlbottom)] figuration.

for cross-plies/0°,
node linear brick solid elements. The basic mechanical properties are
1 9 shown in Table 2 [32].
G= [δ12 (E1GFRP I1GFRPtop + E2GFRP I2GFRPtop
B 2a4 Fiber layers were considered as orthotropic linear elastic material
+ EAl IAltop) + δ22 (E1GFRP I1GFRPbottom + E2GFRP I2GFRPbottom + EAl IAlbottom)] and meshed by eight-node quadrilateral continuum elements. The me-
chanical properties of GFRP/epoxy resin prepregs are listed in Table 3
(12)
[32]. The modulus and strength parameters were provided by the ma-
terial supplier.
3.2. Fracture mechanics theory Besides, the cohesive zone model [33] was beneficial to the analysis
of delamination initiation and propagation. The material properties for
There may be a mixed-mode fracture of double cantilever beam cohesive layers are listed in Table 4 [32]. Normally, the Quadratic
structure in view of the geometric asymmetry of structures around nominal strain criterion (Quade damage) was used for the failure in-
cracks. Williams proposed a solution to calculate the interlaminar itiation of the interface layers. The damage evolution was according to
fracture toughness of Model I and Model II under mixed-mode fracture the power law based on fracture energy.
[25]. 2 2 2
In the Williams model, GIC and GIIC are expressed as Eq. (13) and Eq. ⎧ (εn ) ⎫ + ⎧ (εs ) ⎫ + ⎧ (εt ) ⎫ = 1
⎨ f f f
(14). ⎩ εn ⎬ ⎭ ⎨
⎩ εs ⎬ ⎭ ⎨
⎩ εt ⎬ ⎭ (16)
a11 MI2 1+ψ a11 (M2 − ψM1)2 G
η
GI = = GIC + (GIIC − GIC ) ⎛ IIC ⎞ = GC
BI 16(1 − ξ )3 BI 16(1 − ξ )3 (1 + ψ) (13) ⎜ ⎟

⎝ GT ⎠ (17)
a11 M 2 Here εn is the normal strain, εs and εt are the shear strains (direction s is
∐ 3 1−ξ a 3(1 − ξ )(M2 + M1)2
GII = (1 + ψ) = 11 parallel to 0° fiber direction while direction t is perpendicular to 0° fiber
BI 16 ξ 2 BI 16ξ 3 (1 + ψ) (14)
direction), εnf is the allowable normal strain, εsf and εt f are the maximum
1 1
With G = GI + GII Where I0 = 12
B (2h)3 = 8I , I= 12
Bh3, shear strains. GIC and GIIC represent the fracture toughness for Mode I
1 1
I1 = 12
Bh13 = ξ 3I , I2 = 12
Bh23 = (1 − ξ )3I and Mode II. GT is the shear fracture energy.
3
I2 1 − ξ⎞ EI
ψ= = ⎜⎛ ⎟ , ξ3 = 1 1 5. Results and discussion
I1 ⎝ ξ ⎠ EI (15)
5.1. Computational analysis
4. Finite element model
The values of interlaminar fracture toughness and GIIC/GIC for cross-
The geometry model of GLARE laminates used in numerical simu- plies/0° and unidirectional-plies/0° laminates are calculated by fracture
lation is the same as DCB specimen, which is shown in Fig. 6. The model mechanics and beam theory approach, individually. The calculation
was loaded by displacement control. Normally, the laminate was sub- results are presented in Table 5.
jected to uniaxial tension in the longitudinal direction and the crack Fig. 8a and (b) present comparisons between the predictions ob-
propagated from the tip of the initial crack. tained from both analytical solutions and experimental data calculated
The finite element model used an independent mesh technique for at crack length of 50 mm for cross-plies/0° and unidirectional-plies/0°
each layer to appraise interfacial fracture property of laminates [31]. laminates. The results show that the analytical solution derived in this
The stacking configuration and thickness of laminates used in numer- study agrees well with the total interlaminar fracture toughness cal-
ical simulation are shown in Table 1. Fig. 7 illustrates discrete model of culated from fracture mechanics solution proposed by Williams, as well
ADCB specimen. as the experiment and both theoretical data. In Fig. 8, the Exp, FM, BT,
Aluminum alloy layers were meshed by three-dimensional eight- stands for the G values as calculated from the DCB tests, the Fracture
mechanics theory and Beam Theory, respectively. The models predict
the crack initiation fracture toughness very well as shown in Fig. 8.
Obviously, the theoretical calculation and the experimental value have
little deviation at the displacement rates of 1 mm/min and 5 mm/min.
The deviation between theoretical and experimental values increases
gradually with the growth of loading rate, and the results reveal that
the least difference is at 1 mm/min. Moreover, the average deviation is
between 0.615% and 2.47% of the unidirectional-plies/0° laminates.
The maximum deviation could be achieved to 24.86% with the loading
rate increasing. Similarly, for cross-plies/0° laminates, the average de-
viation is between 3.38% and 4.56%, while the maximum deviation
could reach 11.53% with the growth of loading rate.
Fig. 6. Geometry model of GLARE laminate: (a) top view; (b) front view. The interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional-plies/0°

178
X. Hua et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184

Table 2
Mechanical properties of 2024-T3 Al.
Material Elastic Modulus/GPa Yield Strength/MPa Tensile Strength/MPa Poisson's ratio Fracture strain

2024-T3 Aluminum 72 305 450 0.33 0.19

Table 3 laminates calculated by beam theory is 0.095 kJ/m2 at a = 50 mm.

Mechanical properties of GFRP/epoxy resin composites. Meanwhile, for cross-plies/0° laminates, the value of interlaminar
Material Performance Direction Parameter
fracture toughness calculated by beam theory is 0.259 kJ/m2. Thus, the
theoretical calculation values are a little deviant from experimental
GFRP/epoxy resin Elastic Modulus/GPa E11 55 dates. It is considered that the Mode II accounts for a large proportion
composites E22 9.5 in this experiment, and the effect of Mode II can not be neglected be-
Ultimate strength/MPa XT 1900.95
XC 2000
cause the fracture behavior is different. Hence, the presence of Mode II
YT 50 in the fracture process can significantly increase interlaminar fracture
YC 150 toughness.
S 50 The deviations between theoretical calculations and experimental
Poisson's ratio ν12 0.33
results gradually increase with the growth of crack length. And they are
ν13 0.45
Fracture Gf 12.5 conformed to the linear function and the curves are presented in Fig. 9.
toughness/kJ·m−2 Gm 1 The unidirectional-plies/0° laminates are in line with y = 0.948X-
50.21168, the fitting coefficient R2 is 0.971. The cross-plies/0° lami-
nates are in line with y = 4.67453X-231.40975, the fitting coefficient
Table 4 R2 is 0.970. In the initial stage of crack propagation, the Mode II
Mechanical properties of cohesive layers. fracture has little influence on the DCB tests, and the energy release rate
Material Performance Direction Parameter is close to the pure Mode I fracture toughness. Hence, the theoretical
values are larger than the experimental results. However, with the crack
0
Cohesive layers between Initial normal Kn 1.0 × 106 propagation, the experimental results are greater than the theoretical
Al and fiber stiffness/(N/mm) Ks 0 1.0 × 106
values and the deviation increases. It is considered that the increasing
Kt0 1.0 × 106
Interfacial strength/ τn0 6.57/5.56/ proportion of Mode II can greatly affect the value of energy release rate.
(MPa) 5.37 Meanwhile, the energy release rate obtained by the experiments is not
τs0 36.62 pure Mode I fracture toughness.
τt0 36.62
Experimentally determined characteristics of the interlaminar frac-
Mixed mode index η 1.75
ture toughness and the mode mixity ratios for 3/2 GLARE laminates are
shown in Fig. 10. The Mode I contribution in mode mixity ratio is
Table 5 changed with altering of fiber lay-up orientation for asymmetrical and
Values obtained from analytical solutions for total strain energy release rates nonhomogeneous GLARE laminates. Similar observation was reported
and GIIC/GIC. by Jarosław Bienias et al. [17] in interlaminar fracture toughness tests
of glass and carbon reinforced multidirectional fiber metal laminates.
Structure Stacking configuration GC/(kJ/m2)
The values of the ratio GIIC/GIC between pure Mode I and pure Mode II
GC-Beam Theory GC-Fracture Mechanics are 4.407and 3.072 for cross-plies/0° and unidirectional-plies/0° lami-
nates. It can be mainly attributes to the state of the bonding interface
GIIC GIC GIIC/GIC between metal and composites layers. Therefore, we can understand
GLARE 3/2 Unidirectional-plies/0° 0.095 0.070 0.022 3.072 that the asymmetric geometry could create mode-mixity complications
Cross-plies/0° 0.259 0.209 0.047 4.407 and influence the interlaminar fracture toughness value.

The original manuscript is replace GC-Beam Theory with GC-BT, replace GC-Fracture
5.2. Interlaminar fracture toughness
Mechanicswith GC-FM.
GC-BT: total strain energy release rates from beam theory; GC-FM: total strain
energy release rates from fracture mechanics.
Load-displacement curves of ADCB specimens for different fiber
orientation and loading rates of GLARE laminates are shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 8. Values obtained from experiment and both analytical solutions for total strain energy release rates at crack length of 50 mm: (a) unidirectional-plies/0°; (b)
cross-plies/0°.

179
X. Hua et al.
Fig. 9. Fitting curves of experimental minus theoretical results and crack length for interlaminar fracture toughness: (a) unidirectional-plies/0°; (b) cross-plies/0°.
Fig. 10. The ratio of GII to GI for unidirectional-plies/0° and cross-plies/0°.
It is evident that the load increases rapidly in a linear manner before
reaching a peak load, and then gradually deceases. This drop in peak
load corresponds with the crack initiation and propagation in inter-
layer. In addition, the load-displacement curve is very smooth, in-
dicating that the crack propagation is stable [34].
The load-displacement curves of GLARE laminates indicate that the
critical load changes accordingly with different fiber orientation, and
the experimental curves are in a good agreement with the calculated
curves, as present in Fig. 11. The DCB tests demonstrate that the critical
loading increases when the fiber orientation changes from unidirec-
tional-plies/0° to cross-plies/0°. Moreover, Fig. 11 indicates that the
critical load increases with the growth of the loading rate from 1 mm/
min to 10 mm/min. The critical load obtained by numerical simulation
is essentially in accordance with the experimental results at the loading
rates of 1 mm/min and 5 mm/min.
The variation of the energy release rate, with crack length (R-curve)
Fig. 11. Load-displacement curve: (a) unidirectional-plies/0°; (b) cross-plies/0°.
180
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184
for GLARE laminates is shown in Fig. 12, which shows that the energy
release rate increases with the growth of crack length. It is clear that the
delamination is at interfaces between the two glass fiber prepregs near
the middle aluminum plates. The results present that the energy release
rate of laminates with cross-plies/0° (0.248 kJ/m2) is much higher than
that with unidirectional-plies/0° (0.093 kJ/m2). This value compares
favorably with previously-published data on a novel GLARE laminate
[35]. Generally, energy release rate in cross-plies/0° laminates is higher
than that in unidirectional-plies/0° laminates. Because the outer pre-
preg layer (90° for cross-plies/0°) of GLARE laminates near the middle
aluminum sheet hindering the crack propagation. In addition, the ef-
fects of mechanical interlock hindering the crack propagation are
smaller under Mode I loading conditions than that under Mode II, and
the interlaminar cracks propagate easily in the Mode I than in the Mode
II [14]. Furthermore, the proportion of Mode II fracture in cross-plies/
0° laminate is larger than that in Mode I, which also verifies the theo-
retical results.
The energy release rate and crital load increase slightly in loading
rates from 1 mm/min to 10 mm/min. For unidirectional-plies/0° lami-
nates(Fig. 12a), the maximum load and energy release rate are 15.91 N
and 0.092 kJ/m2 at loading rate of 1 mm/min, respectively. And when
the loading rate increases to 10 mm/min, the crital load and energy
release rate increase to 16.98 N and 0.110 kJ/m2. Similar situations can
be seen in cross-plies/0° laminates(Fig. 12b). In addition, an increase in
the load required for fracture at higher rates would also suggest a vis-
coelastic response. The conclusion of few loading rate effect, based on
energy release rate results, is consistent with similar studies on the
interlaminar fracture of polyamide-based fiber-metal laminate, as re-
viewed by W. J. Cantwell and N. Jones [36].
It is observed that the overall angles (θ) of ADCB specimen are al-
tered during the DCB tests. These angles are obtained by image pro-
cessing analyses, and are depicted as curves in Fig. 13. The angle curve
of cross-plies/0° laminates is higher than that of unidirectional-plies/0°
X. Hua et al. Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184

Fig. 12. R curves: (a) unidirectional-plies/0°; (b) cross-plies/0°.

Fig. 13. Variations of θ angle for ADCB specimens during testing: (a) unidirectional-plies/0°; (b) cross-plies/0°.

laminates and increases quickly at the initial stage of crack propagation.

Referring to Fig. 12, the Mode II component of the specimen increases
with the growth of the θ angle owing to the higher interface bonding
behavior. This also verifies that the critical fracture toughness of the
cross-plies/0° laminate is higher than that of the unidirectional-plies/0°
laminates, which is related to the overall angle(θ) of the specimens.

5.3. Numerical analysis

The load-displacement curves of unidirectional, cross-ply GLARE of

Fig. 14. Overall displacement of the model.
numerical results compare to DCB tests are described in Fig. 11a and
(b), respectively. The numerical results agree well with the experiments
for critical load-displacement curves. Fig. 14 shows that the example of
the displacement result. This simulation results represent an ideal case
of the bonding between metal and composite parts.
Equivalent stress distribution of GLARE3/2 laminates for Al layers is

Fig. 15. Equivalent stress distribution for the Al layers: (a) Initial loading moment; (b) The crack propagates at some moment; (c) Ultimate loading moments.

181
X. Hua et al.
Fig. 16. The normal stress cloud and in-plane shear stress cloud of prepreg layers in the ADCB GLARE laminates at ultimate loading moments: (a) unidirectional-
plies/0°; (b) cross-plies/0°.
shown in Fig. 15. Take unidirectional-plies/0° as an example. It is seen
that the stress concentration region begins at the hinge loading point by
initial loading, and propagates until the maximum load. Here, no
fracture can be seen in aluminum layers.
For two layups of GLARE 3/2 laminates, the distributions of normal
stress and in-plane shear stress at the ultimate loading of each prepreg
182
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184
layer are shown in Fig. 16. The maximum normal stress occurs at fiber
layer near the pre-crack. During maximum loading, the ultimate
stresses of 0°/0°and 0°/90° laminates are 108 MPa and 279 MPa and are
much less than the bending strength of glass/epoxy prepreg
(1620.23 MPa). Thus no damage forms in the laminates. Moreover, the
maximum in-plane shear stresses of fiber layer of 0°/0°and 0°/90°
X. Hua et al.
Fig. 17. Predicted damage of cohesive layers in the ADCB GLARE laminates: (a) unidirectional-plies/0°; (b) cross-plies/0°.
laminates are 1.414 MPa and 2.210 MPa, respectively. It is clearly lower
than the in-plane shear strength of glass/epoxy prepreg (50.98 MPa).
Hence, no in-plane shear failure occurs in fiber layer.
Predicted damages of cohesive layers in the unidirectional-plies/0°
and cross-plies/0° GLARE laminates in Fig. 17 clearly depict the pro-
gressive failure mechanisms of different layers around the crack. The
stiffness degradation variable SDEG = 1 corresponding to the red re-
gion in the damage cloud indicates that the cohesive force element in
the area is completely destroyed. The blue region corresponds to
SDEG = 0, which has no lamination. And the stiffness degradation
variable of the remaining region is 0 < SDEG < 1, indicating that the
cohesion element of this part is damaged. In the x-y plane, the dela-
mination of each cohesive layer initials at the loading point and extends
gradually to the direction of crack propagation. In the thickness di-
rection, the initial delamination failure occurs in the layer near the
middle aluminum alloy. It is clearly shows that this layer has the larger
debonding area than other layers.
6. Conclusions
(1) The analytical solution derived in this study based on GLARE la-
minates agreed well with the total interlaminar fracture toughness
calculated from experimental tests and then supported by the finite
element analyses. This paper provided a complete set of evaluation
methods based on rational theoretical calculations-numerical si-
mulation-experiments system for the interlaminar fracture tough-
ness of GLARE laminates.
(2) The linear function formula between theoretical calculations and
experimental results was found for GLARE, which can be used to
estimate the interlaminar fracture toughness of the GLARE lami-
nates to avoid excessive experimental period.
(3) 3D finite element models of GLARE Laminates, possessing
Asymmetric Double Cantilever Beam (ADCB), were carried out to
analyse the crack propagation and appropriately predict the inter-
laminar fracture properties of GLARE.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (51705235), the Natural
Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20170762), China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project (2017M611758,
2018T110468), Scientific Research Foundation for the High-level
Talents of Nanjing Institute of Technology (YKJ201605), Jiangsu key R
& D plan (BE2018125). Priority Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions; the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities.
183
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184
References
[1] Cortes P, Cantwell WJ. The fracture properties of a fibre-metal laminate based on
magnesium alloy. Composer Part B 2006;37(2):163–70.
[2] Wang CM, Shin CS. Residual properties of notched [0/90]4S AS4/PEEK composite
laminates after fatigue and re-consolidation. Composer Part B 2002;33(1):67–76.
[3] Sugiman Sugiman, Crocombe AD, Katnam KB. Investigating the static response of
hybrid fibre-metal laminate doublers loaded in tension. Composer Part B
2011;42(7):1867–84.
[4] Moriniere FD, Alderliesten RC, Sadighi M, Benedictus R. An integrated study on the
low-velocity impact response of the GLARE fiber-metal laminate. Compos Struct
2013;100:89–103.
[5] Liu C, Du D, Tao J, et al. Interlaminar failure behavior of GLARE laminates under
short-beam three-point-bending load[J]. Composer Part B 2016;97:361–7.
[6] Abouhamzeh M, Sinke J, Jansen KMB, Benedictus R. Thermo-viscoelastic analysis of
GLARE. Composer Part B 2016;99(15):1–8.
[7] Majerski Krzysztof, Surowska Barbara, Bienias Jaroslaw. The comparison of effects
of hygrothermal conditioning on mechanical properties of fibre metal laminates and
fibre reinforced polymers. Composer Part B 2018;142:108–16.
[8] Dursun T, Soutis C. Recent developments in advanced aircraft aluminium alloys.
Mater Des 2014;56:862–71.
[9] Gurao NP, Adesola AO, Odeshi AG, Szpunar JA. On the evolution of heterogeneous
microstructure and microtexture in impacted aluminum-lithium alloy. J Alloy Comp
2013;578(0):183–7.
[10] Li H, Hu Y, Xu Y, et al. Reinforcement effects of aluminum-lithium alloy on the
mechanical properties of novel fiber metal laminate. Composer Part B
2015;82:72–7.
[11] Li H, Hu Y, Liu C, et al. The effect of thermal fatigue on the mechanical properties of
the novel fiber metal laminates based on aluminum-lithium alloy. Composer Part A
2016;84:36–42.
[12] Sinmazçelik T, Avcu E, Bora MÖ, et al. A review: fibre metal laminates, background,
bonding types and applied test methods. Mater Des 2011;32(7):3671–85.
[13] Hassan MK, Abdellah MY, Azabi SK, et al. Investigation of the mechanical behavior
of novel fiber metal laminates. Int J Mech Eng 2015;15:112–8.
[14] Pan Yingcai, Wu Guoqing, Cheng Xu, et al. Mode I and Mode II interlaminar frac-
ture toughness of CFRP/magnesium alloys hybrid laminates. Compos Interfac
2016;23(5):453–65.
[15] Kuwata M, Hogg PJ. Interlaminar toughness of interleaved CFRP using non-woven
veils: Part1. Mode-I testing. Composer Part A 2011;42:1551–9.
[16] Truong Hieu TX, Lagoudas Dimitris C, Ochoa Ozden O. Fracture toughness of fiber
metal laminates: carbon nanotube modified Ti-polymer-matrix composite interface.
J Compos Mater 2014;48(22):2697–710.
[17] Bienias Jarosław, Dadej Konrad, Surowska Barbara. Interlaminar fracture toughness
of glass and carbon reinforced multidirectional fiber metal laminates. Eng Fract
Mech 2017;175:127–45.
[18] Carlsson LA, Gillespie Jr. JW, Pipes RB. On the analysis and design of the end
notched flexure (ENF) specimen for mode II testing. J Compos Mater
1986;20(6):594–604.
[19] Ning Huiming, Li Yuan, Hu Ning, et al. Experimental and numerical study on the
improvement of interlaminar mechanical properties of Al/CFRP laminates. J Mater
Process Technol 2015;216:79–88.
[20] Abdullah MR, Prawoto Y, Cantwell WJ. Interfacial fracture of the fibre-metal la-
minates based on fibre reinforced thermoplastics. Mater Des 2015;66:446–52.
[21] Zakaria Afshin Zamani, Shelesh-nezhad Karim, Chakherlou Tajbakhsh Navid, et al.
Effects of aluminum surface treatments on the interfacial fracture toughness of
carbon-fiber aluminum laminates. Eng Fract Mech 2017;172:139–51.
[22] Compston P, Cantwell WJ. The interfacial fracture toughness of a polyamide-based
fiber-metal laminate bonded with an ionomer resin. J Mater Sci Lett
2001;20:509–12.
[23] Compston P, Cantwell WJ, Jones N. The influence of loading rate on the interfacial
fracture toughness of a polypropylene-based fiber-metal laminate. J Mater Sci Lett
2002;21:263–6.
[24] Compston P, Cantwell WJ, Jones N. Influence of loading rate on the interfacial
fracture toughness of a polyamide-based fiber-metal laminate. J Mater Sci Lett
2002;21:383–6.
X. Hua et al.
[25] Williams JG. Fracture mechanics of anisotropic materials. In: Friedrich K, editor.
Application of fracture mechanics to composite materials. Amsterdam: Elsevier;
1989.
[26] Zheng R, Lin J, Wang PC, et al. Effect of adhesive characteristics on static strength
of adhesive-bonded aluminum alloys. Int J Adhesion Adhes 2015;57:85–94.
[27] Fiore V, Alagna F, Di Bella G, Valenza A. On the mechanical behavior of BFRP to
aluminum AA6086 mixed joints. Composer Part B 2013;48:79–87.
[28] Xu YW, Li HG, Shen YZ, et al. Improvement of adhesion performance between
aluminum alloy sheet and epoxy based on anodizing technique. Int J Adhesion
Adhes 2016;70:74–80.
[29] Sun ZQ, Huang MH, Hu GH. Surface treatment of new type aluminum lithium alloy
and fatigue crack behaviors of this alloy plate bonded with Ti–6Al–4V alloy strap.
Mater Des 2012;35:725–30.
[30] Bennati S, Colleluori M, Corigliano D, et al. An enhanced beam-theory model of the
asymmetric double cantilever beam (ADCB) test for composite laminates. Compos
Sci Technol 2009;69(11–12):1735–45.
184
Composites Part B 163 (2019) 175–184
[31] Du DD, Hu YB, Li HG, et al. Open-hole tensile progressive damage and failure
prediction of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK–titanium laminates. Composer Part B
2016;91:65–74.
[32] Xu YW, Li HG, Shen YZ, et al. Improvement of adhesion performance between
aluminum alloy sheet and epoxy based on anodizing. Int J Adhesion Adhes
2016;70:74–80.
[33] Turon A, Camanho PP, Costa J, et al. Accurate simulation of delamination growth
under mixed-mode loading using cohesive elements: definition of interlaminar
strengths and elastic stiffness. Compos Struct 2010;92(8):1857–64.
[34] Kuwata M, Hogg PJ. Interlaminar toughness of interleaved CFRP using non-woven
veils: Part1. Mode-I testing. Composer Part A 2011;42:1551–9.
[35] Hassan Mohamed K, Abdellah Mohammed Y, Azabi Saber K, et al. Fracture
toughness of a novel GLARE composite material. Int J Eng Technol
2015;15(6):36–41.
[36] Cantwell WJ, Jones N. Influence of loading rate on the interfacial fracture tough-
ness of a polyamide-based fiber-metal laminate. J Mater Sci Lett 2002;21:383–6.