The rate effect of fiber–matrix interfacial debonding behavior of SC-15 epoxy with S-2 glass and aramid fiber reinforcements was studied via in-situ visualization of the transverse debonding event. In this study, the debonding force history, debonding initiation, debonding crack velocity, and crack geometry were characterized using a quasi-static load frame and a modified tension Kolsky bar at loading velocities of 0.25 mm/s and 2.5 m/s. Cruciform-shaped specimens were used for interfacial transverse debonding between SC-15 epoxy matrix and two types of fiber reinforcements. The load history and high-speed images of the debonding event were simultaneously recorded. A major increase was observed for the average peak debonding force and a minor increase was observed for the average crack velocity with increasing loading velocity. The crack geometry of the cruciform specimens under both loading velocities was also tracked. Scanning electron microscopy of the recovered specimens revealed the debonding direction along the fiber–matrix interface through angled patterns on the failure surface.
XiaoJRGamaBAGillespieJWJr. Progressive damage and delamination in plain weave S-2 glass/SC-15 composites under quasi-static punch-shear loading. Compos Struct2007; 78: 182–196.
2.
ZhandarovSMäderE. Characterization of fiber/matrix interface strength: applicability of different tests, approaches and parameters. Compos Sci Technol2005; 65: 149–160.
3.
Broutman LJ. Measurement of the Fiber-Polymer Matrix Interfacial Strength. In: Interfaces in Composites, ASTM, Philadephia, PA, 1969, pp.27–41.
4.
HudspethMClausBDubelmanS, et al.High speed synchrotron X-ray phase contrast imaging of dynamic material response to split Hopkinson bar loading. Rev Sci Instrum2013; 84: 025102–025102.
5.
ChuJMClausBParabN, et al.Visualization of dynamic fiber-matrix interfacial shear debonding. J Mater Sci2017; 53: 5845–5859.
6.
Mandell JF, Chen JF and McGarry FH. A microdebonding test for in-situ fiber-matrix bond strength and moisture effects. Report for Massachusetts Inst of Tech Cambridge Dept of Materials Science and Engineering. Report no. MIT/RRR80-1; ADA303021, February 1980.
7.
LiZBiXLambrosJ, et al.Dynamic fiber debonding and frictional push-out in mode composite systems: experimental observations. Exp Mech2002; 42: 417–425.
8.
TanogluMMcKnightSHPalmeseGR, et al.A new technique to characterize the fiber/matrix interphase properties under high strain rates. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2000; 31: 1127–1138.
9.
MillerBMuriPRebenfeldL. A microbond method for determination of the shear strength of a fiber/resin interface. Compos Sci Technol1987; 28.1: 17–32.
10.
Gao X. Tailored interphase structure for improved strength and energy absorption of composites. PhD Thesis, University of Delaware, US, 2006.
11.
TamrakarSHaqueBZGillespieJW. High rate test method for fiber-matrix interface characterization. Polym Test2016; 52: 174–183.
12.
KellyATysonWR. Tensile properties of fibre-reinforced metals: copper/tungsten and copper/molybdenum. J Mech Phys Solids1965; 13: 329in1339–338in2350.
13.
GreenfieldMJPediciniAPennLS. Development of a single fiber fragmentation test for high strain rates. Int J Adhes Adhes2000(5403–407.
14.
GundelDBMajumdarBSMiracleDB. Evaluation of the transverse response of fiber-reinforced composites using a cross-shaped sample geometry. ScriptaMetallurgica et Materialia1995; 33: 2057–2065.
15.
TandonGPKimRYBechelVT. Fiber–matrix interfacial failure characterization using a cruciform-shaped specimen. J Compos Mater2002; 36: 2667–2691.
16.
LevineSNieYChenW. Dynamic transverse debonding of a single fiber. J Dyn Behav Mater2016; 2: 521–531.
17.
EhlertGJSodanoHA. Zinc oxide nanowire interphase for enhanced interfacial strength in lightweight polymer fiber composites. ACS Appl Mater Interf2009; 1: 1827–1833.
18.
GalanULinYEhlertGJ, et al.Effect of ZnO nanowire morphology on the interfacial strength of nanowire coated carbon fibers. Compos Sci Technol2011; 71: 946–954.
19.
ZhengNHuangYSunW, et al.In-situ pull-off of ZnO nanowire from carbon fiber and improvement of interlaminar toughness of hierarchical ZnO nanowire/carbon fiber hydrid composite laminates. Carbon2016; 110: 69–78.
20.
MeursPFSchrauwenBASchreursPJ, et al.Determination of the interfacial normal strength using single fibre model composites. Compos Part A1998; 29: 1027–1034.
21.
HuSKarpurPMatikasTE, et al.Free edge effect on residual stresses and debond of a composite fibre/matrix interface. Mech Compos Mater Struc1995; 2: 215–225.
22.
GundelDBMiracleDB. The influence of interface structure and composition on the response of single-fiber SiC/Ti-6Al-4V composites to transverse tension. Appl Compos Mater1998; 5: 95–108.
23.
GundelDBWarrierSGMiracleDB. The transverse tensile behavior of SiC-fiber/Ti–6Al–4V composites 2. Stress distribution and interface failure. Compos Sci Technol1999; 59: 1087–1096.
24.
LiZGhoshSGetinetN, et al.Micromechanical modeling and characterization of damage evolution in glass fiber epoxy matrix composites. Mech Mater2016; 99: 37–52.
25.
WangMLMcAninchIMLa ScalaJJ. Materials characterization of high-temperature epoxy resins: SC-79 and SC-15/SC-79 Blend. ARL-TR-54852011.
26.
Justusson B, Yu J, Chen A, et al. Mechanical testing of 3D fabric composite and their matrix materials SC-15. ARL-TR-6245 2012; ADA570162.
27.
Ravi-ChandarKKnaussWG. An experimental investigation into dynamic fracture: III. On steady-state crack propagation and crack branching. Int J Fract1984; 26: 141–154.
28.
PurslowD. Matrix fractography of fibre-reinforced epoxy composites. Composites1986; 17: 289–303.
29.
TabiaiIDelormeRTherriaultD, et al.In-situ full field measurements during inter-facial debonding in single fiber composite under transverse load. Exp Mech2018; 58: 1451–1467.
30.
GuoZCasemDHudspethM, et al.Transverse compression of two high-performance ballistic fibers. Text Res J2016; 86: 502–511.
31.
HudspethMChuJMJewellE, et al.Effect of projectile nose geometry on the critical velocity and failure of yarn subjected to transverse impact. Text Res J2017; 87: 953–972.
