Sizing a single cantilever beam specimen for characterizing facesheet

Abstract

This article details a procedure for sizing single cantilever beam (SCB) test specimens that are used to characterize facesheet–core debonding in sandwich structure. The characterization is accomplished by measuring the critical strain energy release rate, G_c, associated with the debonding process. The sizing procedure is based on an analytical representation of the SCB specimen, which models the specimen as a cantilever beam partially supported on an elastic foundation. This results in an approximate, closed-form solution for the compliance–debond length relationship of the specimen. The solution provides a series of limitations that can be imposed on the specimen dimensions to help ensure the specimen behaviour does not violate assumptions made in the derivation of the data reduction method used to calculate G_c. Application of the sizing procedure to actual sandwich systems yielded SCB specimen dimensions that would be practical for use. The method is specifically configured for incorporation into a draft testing protocol to be developed into an ASTM International testing standard.

Keywords

sandwich structure facesheet–core debonding test method

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cantwell

Davies

. A test technique for assessing core-skin adhesion in composite sandwich structures J Mater Sci Lett 1994; 13: 203–205.

Zarda RP and Fields RE. Analysis and test methodology for fracture mechanics of unbonded sandwich structures. Martin Marietta Studies Task Report, EDF No. MM0 TKR 10722739-001, 1994.

Prasad

Carlsson

. Debonding and crack kinking in foam core sandwich beams–II. Experimental investigation Eng Fract Mech 1994; 47(6): 825–841.

Cantwell

Davies

. A study of skin-core adhesion in glass fiber reinforced sandwich materials Appl Compos Mater 1996; 3: 407–420.

Cantwell

Broster

Davies

. The influence of water immersion on skin-core debonding in GFRP-balsa sandwich structures J Reinf Plast Compos 1996; 15: 1161–1172.

Cantwell

Scudamore

Ratcliffe

Davies

. Interfacial fracture in sandwich laminates Compos Sci Technol 1999; 54(14): 2079–2085.

McGarva

Åström

. Experimental investigation of compression moulding of glass/PA12-PMI foam core sandwich components Composites: Part A 1999; 30: 1171–1185.

Carlsson

. The tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimen for face/core interface fracture characterization J Sandwich Struct Mater 1999; 1: 60–75.

Carlsson

. Elastic foundation analysis of tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimen J Sandwich Struct Mater 2000; 2: 3–32.

10.

Shipsha

Burman

Zenkert

. Interfacial fatigue crack growth in foam core sandwich structures Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1999; 22: 123–131.

11.

Ratcliffe

Cantwell

. A new test geometry for characterizing skin-core adhesion in thin-skinned sandwich structures J Mater Sci Lett 2000; 19: 1365–1367.

12.

Gates TS and Herring HM. Facesheet push-off tests to determine composite sandwich toughness at cryogenic temperatures. In: Proceedings of the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. Vol. 1. AIAA, Reston, VA, 2001, pp. 323–333.

13.

Smith SA and Shivakumar KN. Modified mode-I cracked sandwich beam (CSB) fracture test. In: Proceedings of the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. Vol. 1. AIAA, Reston, VA, 2001, pp. 1–18.

14.

Ural

Zehnder

Ingraffea

. Fracture mechanics approach to facesheet delamination in honeycomb: measurement of energy release rate of adhesive bond Eng Fract Mech 2003; 70: 93–103.

15.

Shivakumar

Smith

. In situ fracture toughness testing of core materials in sandwich panels J Compos Mater 2004; 38(8): 655–668.

16.

Glaessgen

Reeder

Sleight

Wang

Raju

Harris

. Debonding failure of sandwich-composite cryogenic fuel tank with internal core pressure J Spacecraft Rockets 2005; 42(4): 613–627.

17.

Shivakumar

Chen

Smith

. An evaluation of data reduction methods for opening mode fracture toughness of sandwich panels J Sandwich Struct Mater 2005; 4(1): 77–90.

18.

Berggreen

Simonsen

Borum

. Experimental and numerical study of interface crack propagation in foam-cored sandwich beams J Compos Mater 2007; 41(4): 493–520.

19.

Østergaard

Sørensen

. Interface crack in sandwich specimen Int J Fract 2007; 143: 301–316.

20.

Weaver C. Evaluation of mode I fracture mechanics test methods for sandwich composites. MSc Thesis. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2009.

21.

Ratcliffe J. Sizing single cantilever beam specimens for characterizing facesheet/core peel debonding in sandwich structure. NASA Technical Publication, NASA-TP 2010-216169, 2010.

22.

American Society for Testing and Materials. Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. In: ASTM Annual Book of Standards, ASTM Standard D5528-01(2007), Vol. 15.03, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2008.

23.

Irwin

. A critical energy rate analysis of fracture strength Weld J 1954Research Supplement193s–198s.

24.

Manual de Productos. ‘MEL Composites’, http://www.melcomposites.com (accessed November 2009).

25.

Hexweb™ Honeycomb Attributes and Properties. A comprehensive guide to Standard Hexcel® Honeycomb materials, configurations, and mechanical properties, Hexcel® Composites, 1999.

26.

MIL-HDBK-17FThe composite materials handbook; Vol. 2FWest Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2002.

27.

Kollar

Springer

. Mechanics of composite structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

28.

Naik

Tiwari

Kumar

. An analytical model for compressive strength of plain weave fabric composites Compos Sci Technol 2003; 63(5): 609–625.

29.

Xiaoa

Gamaa

Gillespie

Jr . Progressive damage and delamination in plain weave S-2 glass/SC-15 composites under quasi-static punch-shear loading Compos Struct 2007; 78(2): 182–196.

30.

Naik

Ganesh

. Thermo-mechanical behaviour of plain weave fabric composites: experimental investigations J Mater Sci 1997; 32(1): 267–277.

31.

Kanninen

. An augmented double cantilever beam model for studying crack propagation and arrest Int J Fract 1973; 9(1): 83–92.

32.

Vlasov VZ and Leont’ev NN. Beams, plates and shells on elastic foundations. Israel Program for Scientific Translations Ltd, 1966, pp. 13–25.

33.

Carlsson

. Fracture mechanics of tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimen J Compos Mater 2001; 35(23): 2145–2168.

34.

Williams

. The fracture mechanics of delamination tests J Strain Anal 1989; 24(4): 207–214.

35.

TerMaath

Ingraffea

Wawrzynek

Paris

Jerina

. A computational fracture mechanics approach for the analysis of facesheet-from-core disbond of honeycomb core sandwich panels Fatigue and fracture mechanics; Vol. 30ASTM STP 1360. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999, 169–182.

36.

American Society for Testing and Materials. Facing properties of sandwich constructions by long beam flexure. In: ASTM Standard D7249-06, ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.03. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2008.

37.

Jones

. Mechanics of composite materials 2nd edPhiladelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1999.

Sizing a single cantilever beam specimen for characterizing facesheet–core debonding in sandwich structure

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References