Composites Science and Technology 54 (1995) 385-394
0 1995 Elsevier Science Limited
ELSEVIER 0266-3538(95)00069-O
THREE-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF CENTER-
DELAMINATED UNIDIRECTIONAL AND
MULTIDIRECTIONAL SINGLE-LEG BENDING SPECIMENS
B. D. Davidson,
Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Manufacturing
Institute for Statics and Dynamics of Aerospace Structures, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
(Received 22 December 1994; revised version received 17 April 1995; accepted 5 May 1995)
Abstract
Results are presented from a theoretical investigation of
the effects of stacking sequence on the energy release
rate in laminated composite single-leg bending test
specimens. Deflections and energy release rates of
unidirectional and multidirectional single-leg bending
specimens are obtained by classical laminated plate
theory based methods and by three-dimensional finite
element analyses. It is shown that the distribution of
energy release rate varies across the front of an initially
straight delamination and that, regardless of stacking
sequence, all three energy release rate components will
occur. The percentage of the mode III energy release
rate is generally small. Its relative magnitude, as well as
the differences between the maximum and minimum
values of all the energy release rate components, are
shown to correlate with a non-dimensional ratio
comprised of the jlexural rigidities of the specimen. The
classical plate theory based methods are shown to
predict accurately both the total energy release rate and
the average mode ratio, i.e. with respect to the full
width of the specimen, for all stacking sequences
evaluated.
Keywords: delamination, mixed-mode, fracture, finite
element, crack-tip element
1 INTRODUCTION
It is becoming generally accepted that delamination
growth in laminated composite structures can be
predicted by comparing the energy release rate, G, to
its critical value, G,. For most laminated materials, G,
is a function of the mode ratio and the relative
orientations of the plies bounding the delamination.-8
Currently, double cantilever beam (DCB) and
end-notched flexure (ENF) tests are often used to
determine the mode I and mode II toughness,
respectively, of a given material system as a function
of interfacial ply orientation.*- For mixed-mode I/II
Printed in Northern Ireland. All rights reserved
0266-3538/95/$09.50
R. Kri.ige? & M. Kiinig
Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244,
USA
loadings, the mixed-mode bending (MMB) test910 is
often used for determining the toughness of
unidirectional (0) laminates. Typically, the
load/deflection data from the MMB test are reduced
to obtain G, and the mode ratio through a set of
equations that include material and geometric
properties, such as moduli and bending rigidities9-
This procedure appears to be generally accepted for 0
laminates. However, due to the possibly large
discrepancies between theoretically predicted and
manufactured bending rigidities, shear moduli, and
through-thickness moduli,6 the accuracy of this
procedure for multidirectional lay-ups is uncertain. As
a result, a common approach has not yet emerged for
the determination of the mixed-mode toughness of
interfaces between plies at arbitrary orientations.
Recently, a single-leg bending (SLB) test has been
introduced for the determination of fracture toughness
as a function of mode mix for bimaterial interfaces.*
The general SLB geometry is shown in Fig. 1. This
test may be performed in a standard three-point
bending fixture such as that used for the ENF test. By
varying the relative thickness of the cracked regions,
various mode mixities may be achieved for a given
bimaterial pair. This test may also be used for
laminated composites, and similar tests have pre-
viously been used for evaluating the delamination of
unidirectional laminates,3-5 typical circuit board
interfaces16 and adhesive joints.17 Unfortunately,
varying the thickness ratio for a homogeneous
material (0 laminate) does not yield results over a
particularly wide range of mode ratios. For example,
for a 0 laminate where 5/l 2 fl/t22 l/5, the SLB
geometry will produce mode ratios, G,/G, only over
the range 0.46-O-64.* Also, for tl # t2, geometric
non-linearities may be significant; these must be
eliminated, or their influence accounted for, in the
data reduction procedure in order to obtain accurate
values of G,. These issues may have a limited prior use
of the SLB geometry for tl # f2.13However, for t, = t2,
the SLB test is simple to run, it is relatively easy to
385
386 3. D. Davidson, R. Kriiger, M. KGrzig

assumed that the untracked region is either midplane

symmetric or midplane anti-symmetric (by anti-
symmetric, we mean that if at a location z = z^the ply
angle is 8, then at z = -2, the ply angle is - 0).
Although the symmetry and anti-symmetry restric-
tions are not necessary from an analytical viewpoint,
for practical reasons most geometries of interest will
be of this type.7,8,1s,19The restriction t, = tz is enforced
simply because this is the only geometry for which we
have extensive finite element and experimental
results. Extension of the analysis to general
geometries is easily performed using the results herein
Fig. 1. SLB test and specimen geometry.
and those obtained previously.* At present, it is
assumed that classical plate theory (CPT) may be used
choose test geometries where the specimen response is to relate the in-plane load and moment resultants in
linear up to fracture, and test data may be analyzed the specimen to its in-plane strains and curvatures. It
using the compliance calibration method of data is also assumed that CPT is valid for the
reduction.&s Symmetric SLB specimens with midplane determination of strain energy and ERR.
delaminations therefore provide a convenient test The CPT equations for any of the three regions (i.e.
geometry for accurately assessing the effect of plate 1, plate 2, or the untracked portion of the
bounding ply orientation on toughness at an specimen) are given by:
intermediate mode ratio. The use of unidirectional
INI AL, A,2 Au, B,, Bl2 B,,
and multidirectional DCB, ENF, MMB and SLB tests
N2 A,2 A22 A26 B,2 B22 B26
for the development of design allowables for
N6 Al6 A26 A66 B,6 B26 B66
delamination is discussed elsewhere.18~iY
In the present work, the closed-form analysis of the MI BI, B12 B,6 DII 012 016

SLB test presented previously* is modified for the M2 B,, B22 B26 012 D22 D26

determination of energy release rate (ERR) and mode 816 B26 B66 D,6 026 D6,
M6
ratio for the case of an orthotropic specimen with a
midplane delamination. This analysis is applied to a 0
laminate and to a number of multidirectional or. in their inverted form:
laminates with delaminations at +0/ + 8 or +O/ - 8 a11 a12 al6 PI1 P12 PI6 -N
interfaces. Next, distributions of the mode I, mode II
ff12 a22 a24 P21 022 P26 N2
and mode III ERRS along the delamination fronts are
a16 a26 a66 Phi P62 P66 N6
determined for each laminate by three-dimensional =
PI1 P21 P61 611 612 616 Ml
finite element analyses. Predictions for the total ERR
and mode ratio by the two analyses are compared, and P12 P22 P62 612 622 626 M2

the results are used to make recommendations PI6 P26 P66 h6 826 866 M6 /
regarding appropriate stacking sequences and data
(2)
reduction procedures for multidirectional SLB ge-
Note that for
a midplane symmetric region,
ometries. Experimental results for these laminates are
presented elsewhere.7*
PI = [PI = PI. For an anti-symmetric region, the only
non-zero components of these two matrices are B16,
As a final note, we point out that other names have
Bx, Px, Px, Pbl and PG2.
typically been used for the SLB test, such as the
In view of the loading, we will adopt a
mixed-mode tlexure (MMF) test,13, or the modified
one-dimensional moment-curvature relationship, den-
end-notched flexure (MENF) test.5316 We prefer the
oted by: ^
name SLB, as it is more descriptive than MMF,
whereas MENF tends to invoke an image of a mode II
specimen.
where M is the moment on a face defined by a normal
vector in the positive or negative x direction, b is the
2 CLASSICAL PLATE THEORY ANALYSIS specimen width, w is the deflection in the z direction,
Consider the SLB geometry of Fig. 1. We will refer to and D is the effective bending rigidity per unit width.
the region above the crack as plate 1, and the region Standard sign convention is used for M, i.e. a positive
below the crack as plate 2. Results will be restricted to moment produces a positive stress in positive z. D
the case where t, = t2, and for which plates 1 and 2 denotes the effective bending rigidity of the untracked
each possess midplane symmetry. It will also be region, and D1 denotes the effective bending rigidity
 Center-delaminated single-leg bending specimens 387

of plate 1. The term effective is used because the where the compliance, C, is defined as the
bending rigidity in either region depends upon the center-point deflection divided by the load. The crack
three-dimensional constraint conditions.21,22 If the length, a, and half-span length, L, are as defined in
constraint conditions for both regions are those of Fig. 1, and R is the ratio of flexural rigidities of the
generalized plane stress, i.e. if N2=N6=M2=M6= untracked region to that of plate 1, i.e. R = DIDI.
0, then, also noting N1 = 0, eqn (2) yields: Assuming that the specimen fabrication process is
such that the residual thermal stresses do not
DE& (4) contribute to the ERR, then eqn (7) may be
011
substituted into the relationship between ERR and
For plane strain conditions (6; = E: = K2 = Kg = 0), eqn the derivative of compliance with respect to crack
(l), along with the condition B,, = 0, yields: length:24
D =DII (5)
D2 3C

Similar expressions, in terms of the flexural modulus

and compliance of plate 1, are obtained for D1. to obtain:
In general, plane stress (hereafter used to refer to
c. _ P2a2(R - 1)
the generalized plane stress condition described G - (9)
Sb*D
above) conditions are valid for specimens where the
cracked and untracked regions are long and narrow, or, substituting eqn (7) into eqn (9):
and plane strain conditions are valid for specimens 3PSa2
Gem -
_ (R-l)
where the cracked and untracked regions are short (IO)
2b [2L3 + a3(R - l)]
and wide. For specially orthotropic plates (AI6 =
A26 = B, = D16 = D26 = 0), the difference between the where S is the center-point deflection.
plane stress and plane strain flexural rigidities may be Equation (9) may be used with the critical load, or
characterized by a non-dimensional ratio, D,, defined eqn (10) may be used with the critical load and
as 1 minus the ratio of the plane stress to plane strain deflection (i.e. the values at the onset of crack
rigidities:21 advance) to obtain G,. Equation (10) is likely to be
more accurate, as there is less influence of
D:2 uncertainties in material properties on G,. More
D,=I-T-
4 1 J922 accurate values of G, from experimental data will be
For plates that are comprised of a typical laminated obtained by compliance calibration.6-s
graphite/epoxy material, D, varies from a minimum of
0.007 for a unidirectional specimen to a maximum of 3 CRACK-TIP ELEMENT ANALYSIS
0.589 for a +45 angle-ply specimen.l Small values of
The total energy release rate for an SLB specimen
D, indicate that the effect of finite width is relatively
may also be obtained by a crack-tip element
unimportant. The larger the value of D,, the greater
analysis.1825~26 Further, this approach allows for
the error that may be incurred in predictions of
analytical determination of the stress intensity factor
deflection and ERR if either plane strain or plane
and mode mix. For fiber-reinforced materials, the
stress conditions are assumed. Also, for typical DCB
mode mix obtained depends strongly on the
and ENF specimens, the larger the value of D,, the
greater the non-uniformity in the ERR distribution assumptions made in the mathematical model. If the
assumption is made that individual plies in a
across the delamination front.22*23In previous work,22
it has been suggested that D, = O-25 (for either plate 1 composite laminate can be represented as equivalent,
homogeneous, transversely isotropic layers, then an
or plate 2) is a useful limiting value in the design of
such specimens. That is, plates with D, values beyond inverse square root singular near-tip stress field will be
this have markedly non-uniform G distributions and predicted in a symmetric SLB specimen with a
the perceived ERR and mode ratio, using a midplane delamination. In this case, mode mix may be
two-dimensional analysis, may be more than 10% represented in terms of conventionally defined ERR
different from the true result. Thus, the results from components. However, an oscillatory near-tip field
such a test are of little practical use. Therefore, we will be predicted in the anti-symmetric lay-ups, and
will restrict ourselves to analyses of plates with D, conventional ERR components cannot be defined.25
values below 0.25. When this occurs, energy release rates are defined
Using the moment-curvature relationship defined in herein in accordance with the p = 0 approach.8,25,27
eqn (3), the equation for the compliance of the SLB Use of the p = 0 approach does not affect the total
specimen may be derived using CFT as: ERR; it does, however, eliminate the oscillatory
nature of the stress singularity and therefore provides
Ccpr _ 2L3 + a3(R - 1) a unique, physically meaningful mode ratio. For
-
1260 materials with relatively small crack-tip damage zones
388 B. D. Davidson, R. Kriiger, M. Kb;nig

where a singular field based mode decomposition is crack-tip in both plate 1 and in the untracked region,
valid, use of this approach in the interpretation of test A, is the in-plane rigidity of plate 1, A; is its in-plane
data and the prediction of fracture should result in compliance, D1 is the flexural rigidity of plate 1, 0; is
predictions with essentially the same accuracy as when its flexural compliance, and D is the flexural
the full nature of the oscillatory field is compliance of the untracked region. For plane strain:
considered. 18~25,27 Also, for the anti-symmetric lay-ups I
considered in this work, the p = 0 approach gives A, =A,]
identical results for the mode ratio to an alternative, D, = D:, (16)
previously-proposed mode decomposition
procedure.2p-30 In the latter method, ERR com- and for plane stress:
ponents are determined numerically, based on a finite
crack extension that is large with respect to the region A,=+
a11
containing the oscillatory part of the near-tip field. As
a result of the stacking sequences chosen, and the fact
D,=& 07)
that all delaminations were at the laminate midplane, 11
the mode decomposition used herein for all laminate
types considered will also agree with the global mode where the superscript 1 denotes that these properties,
decomposition procedure described elsewhere. taken from eqn (1) or eqn (2) are for plate 1. For
Assuming that each of the cracked and untracked either plane strain or plane stress:
regions are individually specially orthotropic, and
using the above approximation for mode decomposi-
tion in the anti-symmetric lay-ups, a crack-tip element
analysis2~82~26
predicts the ERR components as:

(18)
(11) where D is defined by eqns (4) and (5).

The total energy release rate, G = G, + G,,, will

agree with that given by eqns (9) and (10). The 4 PLANE STRESS OR PLANE STRAIN?
constants cI and c2 are given by:18,25,26
Based on previous studies2~21~22 and results presented
D;t: in the following section, typical SLB geometries will
c,=2A;+? be globally in a state close to that of generalized plane
stress. Thus, the true total energy release rate will be
c2 = 20; (12) closely approximated by eqns (9) and (10) or the sum
of eqns (11) when plane stress properties are assumed.
NC and A4, are the concentrated crack-tip force and The mode mix, however, is controlled by the local
moment, respectively, and are given by: constraint conditions and for most typical SLB
geometries this gives a plane strain condition. In order
N, = a,&,
to reconcile the apparent contradiction, consider the
local problem: i.e. remove a portion of the SLB near
MC= (y-a22)Mp (13) the crack-tip. This portion includes the entire width
and its length in the x direction is small, but not so
where small as to cut through the singular zone. The loading
on this region may be obtained by solving the
- A,Dt, governing fourth-order partial differential equation of
a 12 =
2 CPTzO for each of the three regions, along with the
appropriate boundary conditions. For most practical
a 22= DID (14) SLB geometries, this loading will not be uniform with
and respect to y; rather, the loads carried by the center of
plate 1 and by the center of the untracked region will
be larger than the loads carried by those regions near
(15) their edges. The non-uniformity in load occurs as a
result of the deflection constraints imposed by the
In eqns (12)-(U), n/r, is the moment resultant at the untracked region on the cracked regions at the
 Center-delaminated
crack-tip, and the magnitude of the non-uniformity
can be shown to be proportional to the D, ratio of the
specimen. Notice that this local problem has a width
that is considerably larger than any of its other
dimensions and is therefore very nearly in plane
strain. Thus, a better approximation than the
two-dimensional solution presented above would be to
include the local loading, along with the plane strain
properties, in eqn (11). This would be a quasi-three-
dimensional approach and would give a close
approximation for the true distribution of G and mode
mix across the delamination front; for more accurate
results, a three-dimensional crack-tip element
required.*(j Alternatively, a three-dimensional finite
element method, as presented in the following section,
may be used. Both a three-dimensional finite element
or quasi-three-dimensional approach as described
above will predict non-uniform mode I, mode II and
mode III ERRS across the specimen width. The total
ERR for the specimen will most nearly agree with the
plane stress, two-dimensional plate theory predictions,
and the average mode mix (i.e. for the entire width)
will nearly agree with the plane strain, two-
dimensional plate theory (crack-tip element) predic-
tions. This issue is discussed in more detail
elsewhere,12 as the difference between the plane stress
and plane strain mode mix is much more pronounced
when there is an oscillatory singularity.
5 FINITE ELEMENT VERIFICATION
A number of three-dimensional finite element
analyses were performed to verify the preceding
equations for various stacking sequences. The primary
issues that we will address in this section are:
1. whether eqn (7), with plane stress properties,
accurately predicts compliance;
2. whether eqns (9) and (lo), with plane stress
properties, accurately predict ERR;
3. whether eqn (ll), with plane strain properties,
accurately predicts mode mix.
The finite element results are also used to quantify
the magnitude of the non-uniformities in the total
ERR and the individual ERR components along the
delamination front as a function of D,. This
information is utilized to provide some guidelines for
choosing stacking sequences for multidirectional SLB
specimens.
5.1 Specimen and test geometries
Five different test specimens were chosen for analysis.
These specimens use the same stacking sequences that
have been considered in previous analyses and test
programs.8z2 Each specimen is chosen so that
delamination growth occurs at a different interface;
the five interfaces selected for study are bounded by
single-leg bending specimens 389
either O/O, +15/ - 15, +15/ + W, +30/ - 30 or
+30/ + 30 plies. The cracked regions of all
sequences are individually symmetric, the untracked
regions are either symmetric or anti-symmetric, all
regions (cracked and untracked) are specially
orthotropic, and within these constraints the D, ratio
of each sequence is minimized. Material properties
corresponding to Ciba-Geigy C12KIR6376
graphite/epoxy are utilized for all analyses, and the
unidirectional ply properties are given in Table 1.
The five lay-ups are presented in Table 2. Each of
these stacking sequences have D16 and Dz6 terms that
is are at least three orders of magnitude smaller than
Dll, Dz2, D,, or Dh6. This is true for both the cracked
and untracked regions. For the specimens where
growth occurs at a +f3/ - 0 interface, the chosen
anti-symmetric sequences of the untracked regions
have values of B16 and BZ6 that are essentially zero.
Each lay-up is 32-plies thick and contains a midplane
delamination; d indicates the delamination location in
the anti-symmetric lay-ups. The following abbrevia-
tions will be used throughout to refer to these lay-ups:
the first sequence will be referred to as the [O]; the
second as [Z15] (i-e. crack growth occurs at a
+15/ + 15 interface); the third as [f 151; and the
fourth and fifth sequences will be referred to as [I301
and [ f 301, respectively.
All of the geometries studied used a half-span
length (L) of 88.9 mm, a crack length (a) of 34.29
mm, and a width (b) of 25-4 mm. These geometries
were chosen as they were utilized in our initial test
program of composite SLB specimens. In subsequent
experimental works, we have shortened the half-span
length to L = 63.5 mm and reduced the crack length
to 31.75 mm. These reductions were performed to
minimize the geometric non-linearity observed in the
[I301 and [ f 301 specimens prior to fracture. Some
guidelines on choosing specimen geometries, such that
the effects of geometric non-linearities are insig-
nificant, are presented elsewhere.8
5.2 Finite element analyses
The finite element models and analysis procedure is
essentially the same as those described previously.22,31-
33 Three-dimensional models, using eight-noded,
continuum-based three-dimensional shell elements,34
were used for each laminate considered. A geometri-
cally non-linear formulation was used; however, only
Table 1. Unidirectional material properties for Ciba-
Geigy Cl2K/R6376 graphite/epoxy
E,, = 146.86 GPa Yxy= 0.33 G*, = 5.45 GPa
E,, = 10.62 GPa VXZ= 0.33 G,, = S-45 GPa
E,, = 10.62 GPa YyL= 0.33 G,, = 3.99 GPa
Single ply thickness = 1.27 X 1O-4 m
390 B. D. Davidson,
Table 2. Stacking sequences evaluated
Interface Lay-up
o/o [Ol,*
+ 15/+ 15 [f 15/o/ - 15/0/15/0,/15/0/ - 15/o/ F 151,
+ 15/- 15 [ + 15/O/- 15/0/15/0,/15/O/ - 15/O/ r 15/dl
F 15/0/15/0/-151041 -15/0/15/0/ +15]
+30/+30 [*30/O/-30/0/30/0,/30/0/-30/o/ +30],
+30/ -30 [*30/O/ -30/0/30/0,/30/0/-3O/Olr 30/d/
r 30/0/30/0/ - 30/o,/ - 30/0/30/01 f 301
relatively low loads were applied, and all results were
observed to remain within the linear regime. A typical
finite element model is illustrated in Fig. 2. For any
given laminate, the four plies nearest the delamination
were modelled individually. The remaining plies were
subdivided into four groups, each of which contained
seven plies. That is, the continuum-based three-
dimensional shell is a brick type volume element in
which the in-plane, coupling, and bending rigidities of
a ply or group of plies are accurately represented.,34
Energy release rate distributions were obtained by the
virtual crack closure technique. Specific details,
describing the application of the virtual crack closure
technique to the three-dimensional models, are given
elsewhere. In all cases, crack advance was
assumed to be self-similar.
In order to establish the accuracy and validity of
Fig. 2. Finite element model.
R. Kriiger, M. Kiinig
results, mesh refinement and convergence studies
were conducted with respect to the number of
elements along the specimen width, length, and the
refinement in the crack-tip region. Total energy
release rates and energy release rate distributions
obtained by models similar to those used herein have
also been verified to agree with those obtained from
three-dimensional finite element models containing
conventional 20-node brick elements.332 Contrary to
what was expected, we did not observe an oscillatory
singularity27-29 in our convergence studies for de-
lamination growth at a +8/ - 0 interface. Rather, the
mode ratio that was obtained for these cases
converged to that predicted by a continuum analysis if
it is assumed that a small but finite crack extension
occurs.28-3 For the geometries considered, this
definition also corresponds to that obtained by the
p = 0 approximation.8~25~27 Additional details of the
finite element models, mesh refinement and verifica-
tion studies have been presented previously.33
5.3 Results
Table 3 shows the DC ratio of each specimen. Table 4
presents the compliance, ERR and mode ratio of the
five different specimen types, under conditions of both
plane stress and plane strain, using the plate theory
equations. All the results in both tables are identical
for the [ k 01 and [It?] laminates. As has been
observed in previous studies,2m23 the difference
between the plane stress and plane strain predictions
becomes more pronounced with increasing D,. All of
the specimens are less compliant, and therefore have a
lower normalized ERR, in plane strain than in plane
stress. For all of the specimen types examined, little
difference in mode ratio with changing constraint
conditions is observed.
Table 5 presents the first comparison of finite
element and classical plate theory results for the
different specimens. This table shows specimen
compliance, as determined by the finite element
analysis (FEA), normalized by both the plane stress
(Pa) and plane strain (Pe) CPT results. The results
for the [Z 131and [ f 01 specimens are identical. It is
apparent from Table 5 that the true global constraint
conditions are essentially plane stress. As expected,
the CPT plane stress predictions improve with
decreasing E,/G,, ratio, where E, is the Youngs
modulus of the specimen in the x direction, and G,3 is
the transverse shear modulus with respect to the X-Z
plane.
Table 3. DC ratios (per cracked
region)
LO1 [ f 151 [ * 301
0.0079 0.0579 0.2423
 Center-delaminated single-leg bending specimens 391

Table 4. Classical plate theory predictions for compliance and ERR

Lay-up c C G/P G/P2 GJG WG

Planeo Planee Plane (T Plane E Planet Plane E
( x 10e6 m/N) ( x 10m6m/N) ( X lO_/Nm) ( X 10e3/Nm)

PI 6.94 6.69 1.94 1.93 o-571 0.571

7.52 7.18 2.25 2.11 0.569 0.570
10.6 8.75 3.68 2.75 0.558 0.564

Figure 3 presents the finite element results for
energy release rate along the delamination front for
the [0] specimen. The horizontal axis is defined such
that y/b = O-5 is at the specimen center (compare with
Fig. 1); thus y/b = 0.0 corresponds to the specimen
free edge. As the G distributions are symmetric about
y/b = 0.5, results for only one half of the specimen
width are included. The distributions of G,, Grl, Gm
and GT = G1 + G,, + Grrr are shown; each data point
represents the energy release rate at the center of a
local area of crack closure.313 Energy release rates in
Fig. 3 are normalized by the total energy release rate
for the entire width, as determined by the finite
element results. To avoid confusion, we will refer to
the energy release rates (either mode I, mode II,
mode III or GT) for the entire width as average
values. Average energy release rates were determined
by multiplying the energy release rate for a given area
of crack closure by that area of crack closure,
summing these values across the specimen width, and
dividing by the total area of crack closure. Notice
from Fig. 3 that the energy release rate is fairly
uniform across the specimen width, except very near
the free edge. Near this edge, there is a decrease in
G,, an increase in Glr, and the appearance of Gm; this
is primarily a result of the anticlastic curvature of the
cracked and untracked regions.21-23 Due to the small
D, ratio for this specimen, these free edge effects are
relatively small. The curves connecting the symbols in
Figs 3-5 are comprised of a series of straight lines,
edge effect increases with increasing DC ratio. This is
consistent with results obtained in previous studies of
pure mode I21,23,36 and pure mode I122,3hdelamination.
For the mode I portion of the loading, the induced
transverse curvature increases the percentage of GI at
the specimen center as compared to that at its edges.
Conversely, for the mode II loading, this effect causes
peak ERRS to occur at the specimen edges. The mode
III ERR arises from the mode II loading, and occurs
primarily as a result of the dissimilar transverse
contractions that the lower surface of plate 1 and the
upper surface of plate 2 are trying to achieve.22 For
pure mode II loadings, such as an ENF specimen, we
have experimentally observed that the non-uniform
ERR distributions cause crack growth to first occur at
the specimen edges.6 This is particularly true of the
[:30] and [ f 301 specimens. However, we have not
observed any sub-critical crack advance in any of the
five sequences when tested in the SLB geometry.
Next, note that the ERR distributions of Fig. 4 and
Fig. 5 are slightly asymmetric. Referring to Fig. 1, the
larger peaks at y/b = 0.0 occur because this is the
fiber dominated edge. That is, the local orientation
of the fibers provides a natural load path to this edge,
whereas the y/b = 1.0 is a matrix dominated edge;
the local load path is very compliant and the peak
energy release rate values are considerably smaller. It
is also of interest to note that the ERR distributions in
1.2

and are included to aid in visualizing results. 1

er
Figure 4 and Fig. 5 present the distributions of
energy release rate along the delamination front for
the [ f 151 and [ f 301 specimens, respectively. As in
0
Lli 1.0
01

::
-I *

2 0.8
Fig. 3, the energy release rates in both figures are c?
normalized by the average GT for that specimen as
determined from the finite element results. These
figures also indicate that the magnitude of the free

Table 5. Compliance as determined by finite ele-

ment analysis, normalized to classical plate theory c+e+xm Mode I
- Mode II
predictions Q++H Mode III
0.0 - I V IO G B N c 0
PI I* 151 [+301 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Width-Normalized Location (y/b)

CFEAICCPT*P= 1.05 1.05 1.02
CFEAICCPT.PE 1.06 1.10 1.24 Fig. 3. Normalized energy release rate distributions for a [0]
specimen.
392 B. D. Davidson, R. Kriiger, M. Kb;nig

the [I 01 versus the [ f 01 lay-ups were primarily in the

mode II component.
Table 6 presents the finite element energy release
rate results for all specimens. The first three columns
of the table show normalized average Gr, Gr, and Gm
values (i.e. results for the entire width). As in the
preceding figures, the normalization is with respect to
the average GT for that specimen as determined by the
finite element results. If the [Z 01 and [ f 01 lay-ups are
considered separately, it can be shown that the total
N
z percentage of mode II behavior, the total percentage
: 0.2 rf888~ Total ERR
m Mode I of mode III behavior, and the peak values of ERR all
$ 0.4 I - Mode II
increase in proportion to DC.22At a given D,, the [ze]
yo.ol lay-ups show a higher normalized Gir, primarily due to
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
their larger mode II edge concentrations. Also, for
Width-Normalized Location (y/b) comparison, two-dimensional plane strain finite
Fig. 4. Normalized energy release rate distributions for a element analyses of unidirectional, symmetrically
[ f 151 specimen. delaminated SLB specimens with L = 2a predict that
the mode ratio, GJG, changes slightly with the
the [ f 01 lay-ups for DCB and ENF loadings are slenderness ratio. For a/t, = 66.7, G,/G is predicted to
syrnmetric;22*3,3h the SLB is asymmetric because only be 0.575, and for a/t, = 16.7 it is predicted to be
one of the cracked regions is loaded. In our models, 0,599.7 The slight difference between the two-and
the near edge locations, where the ERR was three-dimensional finite element results is likely to be
computed, corresponded to y/b = 0.002 and y/b = primarily due to the different geometries analyzed.
0.998; the width of these areas, W/b, was 0.004, and There is no effect of slenderness ratio or L/a on the
their length, L/b, was 0.010. As expected, the ERR crack-tip element results.
distributions for the [I151 and [:30] specimens were The final column in Table 6 shows the finite element
very similar to those of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively, results for average GT normalized by the classical
with the exception of the near edge regions. In all plate theory plane stress prediction. As expected, the
cases, the peaks in ERR at y/b = 0.002 were larger in accuracy of the CPT ERR prediction depends on the
the [IO] than in the [ f 131specimens, and the peaks in relative magnitudes of the longitudinal and shear
ERR at y/b = 0.998 were smaller in the [IO] than in moduli of the specimen. Hence, the worst CPT
the [IL 01 specimens. For example, the peak value of predictions are obtained for the 0 specimens, and the
the normalized CT for the [ k 301 specimen in Fig. 5 at best for the [:30] and [ f 301 lay-ups. This indicates
y/b = 0.002 is 2.037, and at y/b = O-998 is l-4014. For that it may be desirable to reduce the data from an
comparison, for the [I301 specimen the peak values at SLB test using the compliance calibration method of
y/b = 0.002 and y/b = 0.998 were 3.185 and 0.937, data reduction.7,8 The first column of Table 6 may also
respectively. These differences in the peak values in be compared to the results of Table 4 to assess the
accuracy of the crack-tip element predictions for mode
ratio. It can be seen that the crack-tip element
2.25
predictions for plane strain are reasonably accurate.
As was the case for the total ERR, the accuracy of the
+++b-tv Total ERR
crack-tip element prediction depends on the relative
CS+CY+CMode I magnitudes of the longitudinal and shear moduli of
M Mode /I
(3tX-N Mode III
the specimen.
z-l.25
P
a,
6 CONCLUSIONS
s1.00
w Analytical and numerical analyses of symmetric and
anti-symmetric centrally delaminated SLB specimens
have been presented. Similar to that obtained for pure
mode I and mode II loadings, it has been shown that
the non-uniformity in energy release rate along the
delamination front is a function of the specimen D,
.oo 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 ratio. As expected, the accuracy of CPT based
Width-Normalized Location (y/b) analyses were dependent upon the relative ratio of the
Fig. 5. Normalized energy release rate distributions for a longitudinal Youngs modulus of the specimen to its
[ f 301 specimen. transverse shear modulus. For the stacking sequences
 Center-delaminated single-leg bending specimens 393

Table 6. Energy release rates as determined by finite element analysis

G-._AVG/G~AVG G~AVG.FE/G~C=LPU
Lay-up G,AVG/G-rAG GTrAVG/GTAVG
0.002 1.143
o-014 1.116
0.398 0.005 1.134
0.374 0.049 0.974
0.400 0.031 o-997

the SLB test is simple to run, it is relatively easy to Pieracci, A., Effects of mode ratio, ply orientation and
precracking on the delamination toughness of a
examined, a crack-tip element analysis provided
laminated graphite/epoxy composite. J. Rein6 Plast.
reasonably accurate predictions of mode ratio. A CRT Comp. (in press).
based method of data reduction can also be used to 9. Reeder, J. & Crews, J., The mixed-mode bending
obtain total ERR (e.g. through eqn (lo)), but for method for delamination testing. AMA J., 28 (1990)
highly accurate results, it is recommended that 1270-6.
10. Reeder, J. R. & Crews Jr, J. H., Nonlinear analysis and
compliance calibration be utilized.73s Overall, it
redesign of the mixed-mode bending delamination test.
appears that relatively small errors are obtained when NASA-TM-102777, 1991.
applying a two-dimensional analysis to unidirectional 11. Kinloch, A. J., Wang, Y., Williams, J. G. & Yayla, P.,
or multidirectional SLB specimens with D, ratios (per The mixed-mode delamination of fibre composite
cracked region) less than 0.25. materials. Comp. Sci. Technol., 47 (1993) 225-37.
12. Davidson, B. D. & Sundaraiaman, V., A single leg
bending test for interfacial fracture toughness deter-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT mination. Znt. J. Fract. (submitted).
13. Russell, A. J. & Street, K. N., Moisture and
temperature effects on the mixed-mode delamination
This work was partially supported (B.D.D.) by the fracture of unidirectional graphite/epoxy. Delamination
Federal Aviation Administration under Grant 94-G- and Debonding of Materials, ASTM STP 876, ed. W. S.
022. Johnson. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA, 1985, pp. 349-70.
14. Charalambides, M., Kinloch, A. J., Wang, Y. &
REFERENCES Williams, J. G., On the analysis of mixed-mode failure.
1. Johnson, W. S. & Mangalgiri, P. D., Influences of the Znt. J. Fract., 54 (1992) 269-91.
resin on interlaminar mixed-mode fracture. Toughened 15. Yoon, S. H. & Hong, S. H., Modified end notched
Composites, ASTM STP 937, ed. N. J. Johnston. flexure specimen for mixed mode interlaminar fracture
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadel- in laminated composites. Znt. J. Fract., 43 (1990)
phia, PA, 1987, pp. 295-315. R3-R9.
2. Chai, H., The characterization of mode I delamination 16. Goodelle, J., Pearson, R. A. & Wu, T. Y.,
failure in non-woven, multidirectional laminates. Characterization of interfacial fracture toughness of
Composites, 15 (1984) 277-90. bimaterial interfaces as a function of mode-mixity. Proc.
3. Nicholls, D. J. & Gallagher, J. P., Determination of G,, 25th Int. SAMPE Technical Conf on Advanced
in angle ply composites using a cantilever beam test Materials: Expanding the Horizons, Philadelphia, PA,
method. J. Reirtf Plast. Comp., 2 (1983) 2-17. 1993.
4. Shi, Y. B., Hull, D. & Price, J. N., Mode II fracture of 17. Liechti, K. M. & Freda, T., On the use of laminated
+0/ - 8 angled laminate interfaces. Comp. Sci. beams for the determination of pure and mixed-mode
Technol., 47 (1993) 173-84. fracture properties of structural adhesives. J. Adhesion,
5. Chou, I., Kimpara, I., Kageyama, K. & Ohsawa, I., 28 (1989) 145-69.
Mode I and mode II fracture toughness of differently 18. Davidson, B. D., Prediction of delamination growth in
oriented interlaminae in graphite/epoxy composites. 5th laminated structures. Failure Mechanics in Advanced
Symp. on Composite Materials: Fatigue and Fracture, Polymeric Composites, AMD Vol. 196, ed. G. A.
ASTM STP 1230, ed. R. H. Martin, American Society Kardomateas & Y. D. S. Rajapakse. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA (in press). of Mechanical Engineers, 1994, pp. 43-65.
6. Davidson, B. D., Altonen, C. S. & Polaha, J. J., Effect 19. Davidson, B. D. & Koudela, K. L., On the development
of stacking sequence on delamination toughness and of design allowables for delamination. 6th Symp. on
delamination growth behavior in composite end- Composite Materials: Fatigue and Fracture, ed. E. A.
notched flexure specimens. 12th Symp. on Composite Armanios. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Materials: Testing and Design, ed. C. R. Saff & R. Deo. Philadelphia, PA (in press).
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadel- 20. Whitney, J. M., Structural Analysis of Laminated
phia, PA (in press). Anisotropic Plates. Technomic, Lancaster, PA, 1987.
7. Polaha, J. J., Effect of interfacial ply orientation on the 21. Davidson, B. D. & Schapery, R. A., Effect of finite
fracture toughness of a laminated graphite/epoxy width on deflection and energy release rate of an
composite. 35th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHSlASC orthotropic double cantilever specimen. J. Comp.
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Mater., 22 (1988) 640-56.
Conference, 1994, pp. 1707-16. 22. Davidson, B. D., Kruger, R. & Kbnig, M., Three
8. Polaha, J. J., Davidson, B. D., Hudson, R. C. & dimensional analysis and resulting design recommenda-
394 B. D. Davidson, R. Kriiger, M. Kb;nig

tions for unidirectional and multidirectional end- local energy release rates along straight and curved
notched flexure tests. J. Comp. Mater., 29 (1995). delamination fronts of unidirectionally laminated
23. Davidson, B. D., An analytical investigation of DCB-and ENF-specimens. Proc. 34th
delamination front curvature in double cantilever beam AIAAIASMEIASCEIAHSIASC Structures, Structural
specimens. J. Comp. Mater., 24 (1990) 1124-37. Dynamics and Materials ConjY, 1993, pp. 1332-42.
24. Broek, D., Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 32. Kruger, R., Konig, M., Albinger, .I. & Hansel, C.,
Martinus Nijhoff, 1982. Combined experimental-numerical approach for the
25. Davidson, B. D., Hu, H. & Schapery, R. A., An determination of mixed mode energy release rates at
analytical crack tip element for layered elastic delamination growth. Proc. 35th
structures. J. Appl. Me&., 62 (1995) 294-305. AIAAIASMEIASCEIAHSIASC Structures, Structural
26. Schapery, R. A. & Davidson, B. D., Prediction of Dynamics and Materials Conj, 1994, pp. 1212-22.
energy release rate for mixed-mode delamination using 33. Kruger, R., Three dimensional finite element analysis of
classical plate theory. Appl. Mech. Rev., 43 (1990) multi-directional composite DCB, SLB and ENF
S281-S287. specimens. ISD Report No. 2194, Institute for Statics
27. Davidson, B. D., Prediction of energy release rate for and Dynamics of Aerospace Structures, University of
edge delamination using a crack tip element approach. Stuttgart, Germany, 1994.
5th Symp. on Composite Materials: Fatigue and 34. Parisch, H., A continuum-based shell theory for
Fracture, ed. R. H. Martin. ASTM STP 1230. American nonlinear applications. Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 38
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA (in (1995) 1855-83.
press). 35. Rybicki, E. F. & Kanninen, M. F., A finite element
28. Sun, C. T. & Jih, C. J., On strain energy release rates calculation of stress intensity factors by a modified crack
for interfacial cracks in bi-material media. Eng. Fract. closure integral. Eng. Fract. Mech., 9 (1977) 931-8.
Mech., 28 (1987) 13-20. 36. Davidson, B. D., Kruger, R. & K&rig, M., Effect of
29. Sun, C. T. & Manoharan, M. G., Strain energy release stacking sequence on energy release rate distributions in
rates of an interfacial crack between two orthotropic multidirectional DCB and ENF specimens. Eng. Fract.
solids. J. Camp. Mater., 23 (1989) 460-78. Mech. (submitted).
30. Hwu, C. & Hu, J. S., Stress intensity factors and energy 37. Sundararaman, V., Three new tests for studying the
release rates of delaminations in composite laminates. fracture mechanics of bimaterial interfaces. PhD
Eng. Fract. Mech., 42 (1992) 977-88. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1995.
31. Kruger, R., Konig, M. & Schneider, T., Computation of