Chapter 8

Mixed-Mode Fracture Interactions Along Centrally Cracked

Weakened Planes

Kyle R. Messer, Achyuth Thumbalam Guthai, Ali F. Fahem, and Raman P. Singh

Abstract Mixed-mode fracture interactions contribute to many industrial applications, particularly in oil and natural gas
extraction across shale regions. However, shale is a layered material that complicates the interactions of the mixed-mode
fracture to respond as a weakened plane mixed-mode fracture. Furthermore, the nature of mixed-mode fracture along weak-
ened planes is not fully understood. This study focuses on the investigation of mixed-mode fracture along weakened planes
subjected to compressive stress wave loading. Specimens are prepared using rectangular polycarbonate plates through cut at
45° angles and glued back together using a polymeric adhesive. A central gap is left to create a starter pre-crack along this
weakened plane. The specimens are dynamically loaded in a split-Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB), and the full-field strains
are monitored using Digital Image Correlation (DIC). The mixed-mode stress intensity factor is determined using far-field
applied loads from the SHPB measurements and the crack tip opening displacements from DIC.

Keywords Dynamic · Mixed-mode · Fracture · Weakened planes

8.1 Introduction

Fracture is an intrinsic element to many fields in engineering; however, mixed-mode fracture mechanics still has many areas
that need to be reviewed and studied. One specific area of interest is shale materials. Most studies are interested in mode I
fracture with mode II, and mode III is found to be negligible [1–3]. This is true for shale material where the weakened planes
are working with the force of the application. However, in cases where the material is against the weakened planes, such as
out-of-plane loading, the mode I fracture is not enough to determine fracture characteristics. Such characteristics are because
shale is a layered material. In this regard, shale is a complex material in nature and difficult to gain information from one
specific aspect considering the material characteristics of shale, such as the bedding planes, heterogeneous, bi-modulus
properties, and brittleness. Shale weakened plane orientations form at various angles due to geological and material proper-
ties, affecting the fracture characteristics [4]. Mixed-mode fractures occur most commonly under two conditions; the first is
when the stress state on the crack surface is bi/multiaxial, and the second is when a crack is at an angle [5]. The latter case is
of interest for this research since shale has natural micro-cracks along the weakened planes that will fracture when placed
under mixed-mode loading conditions. It is common to limit these orientations from 0° (pure shear) to 90° (pure tensile)

K. R. Messer ( ) · A. F. Fahem
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Architecture, and Technology, Oklahoma State University,
Tulsa, OK, USA
e-mail: kmesser@okstate.edu; afahem@okstate.edu
A. T. Guthai
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, College of Engineering, Architecture, and Technology, Oklahoma State University,
Tulsa, OK, USA
e-mail: athumba@okstate.edu
R. P. Singh
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Architecture, and Technology, Oklahoma State University,
Tulsa, OK, USA
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, College of Engineering, Architecture, and Technology, Oklahoma State University,
Tulsa, OK, USA
e-mail: raman.singh@okstate.edu

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2023 61

A. Beese et al. (eds.), Fracture, Fatigue, Failure and Damage Evolution, Volume 3, Conference Proceedings of the Society for
Experimental Mechanics Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17467-4_8
62 K. R. Messer et al.

angles. Bedding planes directly result in brittle failure and change the fracture patterns on the material. However, it is difficult
to measure the stress wave loading conditions of the bedding plane when shale has such diverse characteristics.
This research hopes to identify the interactions of stress waves in the presence of centrally cracked and weakened planes
for brittle materials such as shale. However, shales’ various characteristics create a difficult starting point for stress wave
interactions on the centrally cracked weakened planes. In reference to the reasons above, polycarbonate is used because of
its isotropic material properties, which allows for understanding just the effect of the angle and the stress wave in the pres-
ence of cracked, weakened planes. Since shale and polycarbonate are brittle materials with similar fracture characteristics,
the stress wave interactions will be similar. The weakened planes are created by cutting the material into two sections and
glued back together using a polymeric adhesive.

8.2 Methods

This study focuses on the stress wave interactions by means of stress intensity factor and fracture toughness on centrally
cracked polycarbonate specimens in the presence of weakened planes at a 45° bedding angle using Digital Image Correlation
and a split-Hopkinson pressure bar. The SHPB is a standard experimental apparatus to test materials dynamically [6, 7]. The
SHPB experimental apparatus allows for a controlled pulse wave to propagate to the specimen. The pulse wave contains
enough energy to cause fracture once the wave interacts with the centrally cracked, weakened plane. This allows the initial
pulse wave to be the reason for fracture and safely eliminates any reflected wave. Polycarbonate acts as a more substantial
material, while the glue is weaker. This allows the glue-polycarbonate interface to become the weakened plane, and this the
fracture direction will follow the weakened plane. This will result in a stress intensity factor and fracture toughness of the
glue-polycarbonate interface being determined and not the polycarbonate itself.
Two separate techniques are utilized to determine the fracture toughness of the polycarbonate-glue interface. The first
technique is the traditional SHPB through obtaining the strain created from the wave and correlating the strain to stress using
Hooke’s law. The stress intensity factor and fracture toughness are then calculated using a geometry factor, which provides
a far-field measurement of the stress intensity factor. The second method is determined using an HPV-X2 Shimadzu high-
speed camera and Digital Image Correlation processing to determine the fracture toughness on the specimen by tracking
local displacements on the polycarbonate specimen near the crack tip and relating to stress intensity factor and fracture
toughness. If the specimen is under dynamic equilibrium, both the far-field and local measurements will be identical.
However, under transient loading conditions, this will not be the case.
The SHPB and DIC techniques together make up the experimental apparatus. These two techniques work in unison, so
when the wave caused by the SHPB passes through the specimen, the DIC will detect movement of the speckle on the speci-
men, while the SHPB strain gauges detect the wave passing through the bar.

8.3 SHPB Technique

One portion of the experimental apparatus consists of a split-Hopkinson pressure bar. The split-Hopkinson pressure bar
experimental process consists of a striker bar colliding into an incident bar creating a pulse wave that travels through the
incident bar into the specimen. The traveling pulse wave is transferred through the specimen, and some of the wave is
reflected across the incident bar. The remainder of the wave travels through the specimen and into the reflected bar, where
the wave is dissipated at the stop block. The transmitted, incident, and striker bars are made from aluminum. Aluminum
provides an adequate wave propagation speed and intensity to be amplified to the oscilloscope. Two 3210B Vishay Signal
Conditioning Amplifiers are used with two Omega® Precision strain gauges and a Tektronix MDO32 3 Series Mixed Domain
Oscilloscope to generate data.

K I, II F Vout  t  ,Vbr ,A,k ,H  t  ,E ,V  t  ,E1S ,a1 ,v,P,Area,  (8.1)

Equation 8.1 shows the stress intensity factor used for the SHPB as a function of σ(t), β, π, a, ε, A, P(t), E, and Area, where
Vout is the voltage output from the strain gauges, Vbr is the bridge excitation voltage, A is the amp gain, k is the gauge factor,
ε is the strain calculated which can be calculated by Vout from the manufacturers’ instruction manual (Signal Conditioning
Amplifier Instruction Manual) [8], E is the elastic modulus of the bar, σ(t) is the stress generated by the interaction of the bar
8 Mixed-Mode Fracture Interactions Along Centrally Cracked Weakened Planes 63

and the specimen, β is the angle of the weakened plane, a is the crack length P(t) is the force of the bar, and Area is the area
of the bar. To calculate the mixed-mode fracture, shown in Eq. (8.2), a function is used that combines KI and KII stress inten-
sity interactions, where KI is the mode I fracture and KII is the mode II fracture.

K I, II F  K I ,K II  (8.2)

8.4 DIC Technique

The other portion of the experimental apparatus consists of Digital Image Correlation. This method is a nonintrusive, rapidly
growing technique that uses imaging to determine the local displacements based on the movements of a speckle pattern on a
specimen. This process requires high-speed cameras, solid computational means, and adequate lighting to achieve acceptable
results. For this case, a relinc HEX-700 W light source is utilized along with an HPV-X2 Shimadzu high-speed camera as
mentioned above.

K I, II F  kstrain ,E ,S ,P ,xc ,U ,V ,S  (8.3)

where kStrain is plane strain conditions, β is the angle of weakened planes, μ is the shear modulus, xc is the distance away from
the crack tip, U is the horizontal displacement, and V is the vertical displacement. Equation (8.3) is a slightly modified ver-
sion of Ma’s “A CTOD-Based Mixed-Mode Fracture Criterion” (Eqs. 4a and 4b) [9]. The same method of mixed-mode
fracture is calculated using Eq. (8.2) as mentioned in Section SHPB Technique.

8.5 Specimen Preparation

A sliding compound miter saw (Ryobi® TSS103) was used to rough cut large sheets of Tuffak® polycarbonate (McMaster-
Carr®). The specimen was then precision cut with a milling machine (Accupath AC-3KV) and a three-flute mill bit (Speed
Tiger® IAUE 1/2੟3) with a water-cooling spray system (OriGlam 130103020Q) as the coolant for the machining process. A
three-way precision angle vise was used to cut the specimen at the desired 45° angles. The specimen was then glued together
using a Loctite glue (Loctite® Super Glue Liquid Brush 5 gr 852,882 en-US) with generalized cyanoacrylate adhesive infor-
mation taken from references [10, 11]. TaegaSeal PTFE tape is used to create a starter crack. The specimen was spray-
painted using Rust-Oleum® Painter’s Touch® 2X Ultra Cover Flat White and allowed to dry completely. A fine tip Sharpie
(Sharpie® 37101PP) was used to hand speckle the specimen.
The specimen was selected at 101.6 mm to ensure a fully developed stress wave by the time the wave reaches the weak-
ened plane. The specimen was chosen to have the same height of 25.4 mm as the SHPB to prevent any change in the wave
geometry and stress concentration effects. A rectangular specimen allows uniform loading to occur, which allows the wave
characteristics to remain uninterrupted when the wave travels through the incident bar onto the specimen and then into the
transmitted bar (Fig. 8.1).

8.6 Results and Discussion

Table 8.1 shows the results of the local DIC and far-field SHPB data with modes of fracture broken into mode I, mode II, and
mixed-mode fracture toughness with standard deviations. It can be seen that the mode I and mode II fracture toughness are
similar to one another. This is a consequence of equal components of tensile and shear loading in mode I and mode II
directions.
Figures 8.2 and 8.3 show the vertical and horizontal crack tip opening displacement on a 45° weakened plane specimen.
At time 78 the stress wave begins moving through the specimen. Time 96 is the point of crack tip and stress wave interactions
take place and time 109 is the point of fracture. Time 109 is where the value for fracture toughness can be found, while the
time between 78 and 109 can be utilized to find the stress wave interactions on the centrally cracked weakened plane speci-
men (Fig. 8.4).
64 K. R. Messer et al.

Fig. 8.1 Actual image of centrally cracked polycarbonate 45° weakened plane and hand-speckled pattern specimen with dimensions

Table 8.1 SHPB and DIC comparison of centrally cracked 45°-angled specimens for mode I, mode II, and mixed-mode fracture toughness
displaying similar failure characteristics
Method KI MPa√m KII MPa√m Kmixed MPa√m
Far-field 0.54 ± 0.03 0.54 ± 0.03 0.77 ± 0.05
Local 0.55 ± 0.01 0.55 ± 0.04 0.77 ± 0.03

50 78 96 109

25

-25

Point 1
-50
Point 2

-75

-100

-125

-150
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Fig. 8.2 Vertical CTOD of two points on opposite sides of the crack

Figure 8.5 shows the SPHB data where time 548 is the beginning of the stress wave and time 561 is the time of fracture.
Time 561 is the time where fracture toughness can be calculated, and the time between points 548 and 561 can be used for
finding the stress intensity factor. The primary component of gaining stress intensity and fracture toughness data is aligning
the DIC and SPHB time frames. This was done by a comparison of DIC imaging and CTOD and compared with SPHB data.
In this case, the timing is in microseconds, and it is found that point 96 in Figs. 8.2 and 8.3 matches with point 548 in Fig. 8.5.
The stress intensity factor measures a brittle material’s ability to resist a crack. Brittle materials exhibit minimal plastic
zones and fracture when the elastic potential energy is completely dissipated into the material. For this study, polycarbonate
and cyanoacrylate were chosen as the brittle material. The centrally cracked 45° weakened planes have a specific amount of
energy stored before the material begins plastic deformation. When a crack is introduced, the amount of possible stored
energy decreases because the crack becomes a stress concentration factor on the polycarbonate-glue interface and will result
in spontaneous failure as soon as plastic deformation occurs. However, the method by which the energy is stored inside the
8 Mixed-Mode Fracture Interactions Along Centrally Cracked Weakened Planes 65

900 78 96 109

800

700

600

500
Point 1
Point 2
400

300

200

100

0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Fig. 8.3 Horizontal CTOD of two points on opposite sides of the crack

Fig. 8.4 Actual testing images of specimen: point 78 (top left), point 96 (top right), point 96 (bottom left), point 115 (bottom right)

polycarbonate specimen is not entirely understood. Modes of fracture and stress wave interactions help to understand the
energy storage method into a weakened plane material. It was shown that the mixed-mode fracture energy was evenly dis-
tributed between mode I and mode II fracture because the 45° angle has equal parts of shear and tensile components and the
far-field SHPB results matched the local DIC results.

8.7 Conclusion

Shale is the second largest mean source of oil and gas [12]. Understanding the mixed-mode fracture of shale in the oil and
natural gas field is growing in demand, and this research will be used as a baseline for future shale research. Two independent
experimental methods, DIC and SHPB, were used in unison and showed that the SHPB and the DIC data are in good agree-
ment. The stress wave interactions on centrally cracked polycarbonate specimens were investigated using stress intensity,
fracture toughness, and mixed-mode fracture. Equal magnitudes of tensile and shear loading in mode I and mode II direc-
tions result in equal failure components on weakened plane brittle materials.
66 K. R. Messer et al.

548 561
0.0025

-0.0025

Transmitted Wave (V)

-0.005

-0.0075
Transmitted Wave
-0.01

-0.0125

-0.0150

-0.0175

-0.02

-0.0225
510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600

Fig. 8.5 Transmitted pulse raw data in voltage showing critical points of interest

Acknowledgments This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DEFE0031777. This report
was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the US Government. Neither the US Government nor any agency thereof, nor any
of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the US Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the US Government or any agency thereof.

References

1. Luo, Y., Xie, H.P., Ren, L., Zhang, R., Li, C.B., Gao, C.: Linear elastic fracture mechanics characterization of an anisotropic shale. Sci. Rep.
8(1), 1–12 (2018)
2. Chalivendra, V.B., Hong, S., Arias, I., Knap, J., Rosakis, A., Ortiz, M.: Experimental validation of large-scale simulations of dynamic fracture
along weak planes. Int. J. Impact Eng. 36(7), 888–898 (2009)
3. Kramarov, V., Parrikar, P.N., Mokhtari, M.: Evaluation of fracture toughness of sandstone and shale using digital image correlation. Rock
Mech. Rock. Eng. 53(9), 4231–4250 (2020)
4. Suo, Y., Chen, Z., Rahman, S.S., Song, H.: Experimental and numerical investigation of the effect of bedding layer orientation on fracture
toughness of shale rocks. Rock Mech. Rock. Eng. 53(8), 3625–3635 (2020)
5. Fu, G., Yang, W., Li, C.Q.: Stress intensity factors for mixed mode fracture induced by inclined cracks in pipes under axial tension and bending.
Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 89, 100–109 (2017)
6. Bagher Shemirani, A., Naghdabadi, R., Ashrafi, M.: Experimental and numerical study on choosing proper pulse shapers for testing concrete
specimens by split Hopkinson pressure bar apparatus. Constr. Build. Mater. 125, 326–336 (2016)
7. Vishay Corp: Signal Conditioning Amplifier Instruction Manual. English. Version 2310B. Vishay, p. 100 (2009)
8. Ross, C.A., Tedesco, J., et  al.: Split-Hopkinson pressure-bar tests on concrete and mortar in tension and compression. Mater. J. 86(5),
475–481 (1989)
9. Ma, F., Deng, X., Sutton, M.A., Newman, J.C., Miller, K., McDowell, D.: A CTOD-based mixed-mode fracture criterion. ASTM Spec. Tech.
Publ. 1359, 86–110 (1999)
10. Matweb Material Property: Data, “Overview of materials for cyanoacrylate adhesive.” Retrieved, January 18 (2022)
11. www.adhesivestoolkit.com. Adhesive type. Retrieved January 18 (2022)
12. Fahem, A., Singh, R.: Dynamic damage evolution in shale in the presence of pre-existing microcracks. SEM Ann. Conf. 1(1), 1–10 (2021)