investigate improving the experimental setup to improve the resolution of force-displacement response, particularly in the
plateau region prior to failure to characterize damage propagation better. Follow-on work will apply the hybrid RDCB
geometry to study high deformation rate, Mode I delamination response as well as the fitting of a trapezoidal TSL to material
behavior.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the support of the Ontario Advanced Manufacturing Consortium and the Natural Science and
Engineering Research Council of Canada for financial support in this project.
References
1. Tabiei, A., Zhang, W.: Composite laminate delamination simulation and experiment: a review of recent development. Appl. Mech. Rev. 70(3),
030801 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040448
2. Machado, J., Marques, E., Campilho, R., da Silva, L.F.: Mode I fracture toughness of CFRP as a function of temperature and strain
rate. J. Compos. Mater. 51(23), 3315–3326 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998316682309
3. ASTM International: ASTM D5528-13 Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced
polymer matrix composites. West Conshohocken, PA (2013)
4. Marzi, S., Rauh, A., Hinterhölzl, R.M.: Fracture mechanical investigations and cohesive zone failure modeling on automotive composites.
Compos. Struct. 111, 324–331 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.01.016
5. Watson, B., Liao, C.-H., Worswick, M.J., Cronin, D.S.: Mode I traction-separation measured using rigid double cantilever beam applied to
structural adhesive. J. Adhes., 1–21 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2018.1502666
6. Brown, D.: Tracker video analysis and modeling tool V5.1.3.” [Computer Software]. http://physlets.org/tracker/ (2019)
7. Marat-Mendes, R.M., Freitas, M.M.: Failure criteria for mixed mode delamination in glass fibre epoxy composites. Compos. Struct. 92(9),
2292–2298 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.07.017
Fig. 2.3 Calculated traction-separation responses (blue curves) for each test (grey curves), plotted with the average TSL (yellow curve)
Table 2.1 TSL constitutive model parameters averaged over all specimens. Standard deviation provided in parenthesis
Parameter
E (GPa)
σ peak (MPa)
G I, C (kJ/m
2
)
Value
1482 (80)
57.5 (3.4)
1.98 (0.32)
8
D. C. Hartlen et al.
plateau region prior to failure to characterize damage propagation better. Follow-on work will apply the hybrid RDCB
geometry to study high deformation rate, Mode I delamination response as well as the fitting of a trapezoidal TSL to material
behavior.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the support of the Ontario Advanced Manufacturing Consortium and the Natural Science and
Engineering Research Council of Canada for financial support in this project.
References
1. Tabiei, A., Zhang, W.: Composite laminate delamination simulation and experiment: a review of recent development. Appl. Mech. Rev. 70(3),
030801 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040448
2. Machado, J., Marques, E., Campilho, R., da Silva, L.F.: Mode I fracture toughness of CFRP as a function of temperature and strain
rate. J. Compos. Mater. 51(23), 3315–3326 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998316682309
3. ASTM International: ASTM D5528-13 Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced
polymer matrix composites. West Conshohocken, PA (2013)
4. Marzi, S., Rauh, A., Hinterhölzl, R.M.: Fracture mechanical investigations and cohesive zone failure modeling on automotive composites.
Compos. Struct. 111, 324–331 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.01.016
5. Watson, B., Liao, C.-H., Worswick, M.J., Cronin, D.S.: Mode I traction-separation measured using rigid double cantilever beam applied to
structural adhesive. J. Adhes., 1–21 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2018.1502666
6. Brown, D.: Tracker video analysis and modeling tool V5.1.3.” [Computer Software]. http://physlets.org/tracker/ (2019)
7. Marat-Mendes, R.M., Freitas, M.M.: Failure criteria for mixed mode delamination in glass fibre epoxy composites. Compos. Struct. 92(9),
2292–2298 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.07.017
Fig. 2.3 Calculated traction-separation responses (blue curves) for each test (grey curves), plotted with the average TSL (yellow curve)
Table 2.1 TSL constitutive model parameters averaged over all specimens. Standard deviation provided in parenthesis
Parameter
E (GPa)
σ peak (MPa)
G I, C (kJ/m
2
)
Value
1482 (80)
57.5 (3.4)
1.98 (0.32)
8
D. C. Hartlen et al.