Mechanics of Composite Materials

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 439–462 | Cite as

Mode I, mode II, and mixed-mode I/II interlaminar fracture toughness of GFRP influenced by fiber surface treatment

  • R. Rikards
  • F. -G. Buchholz
  • A. K. Bledzki
  • G. Wacker
  • A. Korjakin


The interlaminar fracture behavior of unidirectional glass fiber reinforced composites with fiber surface treatment has been investigated in modes I and II and for fixed mode I to mode II ratio of 1.33. The data obtained from these tests have been analyzed by using different analytical approaches. The present investigation is focused on the influence of the glass fiber surface treatment on the interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional laminates. Glass fibers with two different fiber surface treatments have been investigated. fiber surface treatment was carried out by using a polyethylene or silane coupling agent in combination with modifying agents. The glass fibers were embedded in the brittle epoxy matrix. Mode I, mode II, and mixed-mode I/II tests were performed in order to determine critical strain energy release rates. Double cantilever beam (DCB), end-notched flexure (ENF), and mixed-mode flexure (MMF) specimens were used. For both types of fiber surface treatment about the same values of mode I initiation fracture toughness GICinit were obtained. It was observed that in mode I interlaminar crack growth in the DCB test for the composite sized by polyethylene, the crack propagation is accompanied by extensive fiber bridging. For both fiber surface treatments interlaminar fracture toughness increases considerably with increasing of crack length. For the fiber surface treatment with the silane coupling agent, the value of mode II initiation fracture toughness GIICinit was about 2.5-times higher in comparison with that of a composite sized by polyethylene. For both types of fiber surface treatments the mixed-mode I/II test has shown a similar behavior to the mode I DCB test.


Fracture Toughness Glass Fiber Energy Release Rate Silane Coupling Agent Strain Energy Release 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. R. Piggott, “Interface properties and their influence of fibre-reinforced polymers,” in: Composite Applications. The Role of Matrix, Fiber and Interface, T. Vigo and B. Kinzig (eds.), VCH Publishers, New York (1992), pp. 221–266.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Sela and O. Ishai, “Interlaminar fracture toughness and toughening of laminated composite materials: A review,” Composites,20(5), 423–435 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Albertsen, J. Ivens, P. Peters, M. Wevers, and I. Verpoest, “Interlaminar fracture toughness of CFRP influenced by fiber surface treatment: Part 1. Experimental results,” Comp. Sci. Technol.,54, 133–145 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Chai, “On the correlation between the mode I failure of adhesive joints and laminated composites,” Eng. Fract. Mech.,24(3), 413–431 (1986).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. E. Keary, B. L. Ilcewicz, C. Shaar, and J. Trostle, “Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of composites using slender double cantilevered beam specimens,” J. Comp. Mater.,19, 154–177 (1985).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Zhao, M. Gädke, and R. Prinz, “Mixed-mode delamination behavior of carbon/epoxy composites,” J. Reinforced Plastics Composites,14, 804–826 (1995).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Hashemi, A. J. Kinloch, and G. Williams, G., “Mechanics and mechanism of delamination in a poly(ether sulphone)-fiber composite,” Comp. Sci. Technol.,37, 426–429 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Hashemi, A. J. Kinloch, and G. Williams, “The analysis of interlaminar fracture in uniaxial fiber-polymer composites,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond., A427, 173–199 (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Yeung and L. J. Broutman, “The effect of glass-resin interface strength on the impact strength of fiber reinforced plastics,” Polymer Eng. and Sci.18(2), 62–72 (1978).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. D. Davidson, R. Krüger, and M. König, “Three-dimensional analysis of center-delaminated unidirectional and multidirectional single-leg bending specimens,” Comp. Sci. Technol.,54, 385–394 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Davies, C. Moulin, and H. H. Kausch, “Measurement of GIC and GIIC in carbon/epoxy composites,” Comp. Sci. Technol.,39, 193–205 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. A. Carlsson, J. W. Gillespie, R. B. Pipes, and R. B. Pipes Jr., “On the analysis and design of the end notched flexure (ENF) specimen for mode II testing,” J. Comp. Mater.,20, 594–605 (1986).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. R. Reeder and J. H. Crews Jr., “Mixed-Mode bending method for delamination testing,” AIAA J.,28(7), 1270–1276 (1990).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Hashemi, A. J. Kinloch, and G. Williams, “The effects of geometry, rate and temperature on the Mode I, Mode II and Mixed-Mode I/II interlaminar fracture of carbon-fiber/poly(ether-ether ketone) composites,” J. Comp. Mater.,24, 918–956 (1990).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Davies et al., “Round-robin interlaminar fracture testing of carbon-fiber-reinforced epoxy and PEEK composites,” Comp. Sci. Technol.,42, 129–136 (1992).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. S. Madhukar and L. T. Drzal, “Fiber-matrix adhesion and its effect on composite mechanical properties: IV. Mode I and mode II fracture toughness of graphite/epoxy composites,” J. Comp. Mater.,26, 936–968 (1992).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. M. Ratwani and R. B. Deo, “Resistance curve approach to composite materials characterization,” in: Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 17, 17th National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Albany (New York), 7–9 August, 1984. American Society for Testing of Materials, ASTM STP 905, Philadelphia (1986), pp. 108–123.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Hashemi, A. J. Kinloch, and G. Williams, “Corrections needed in double-cantilever beam test for assessing the interlaminar failure of fiber-composites,” J. Materials Sci. Letters,8, 125–129 (1989).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Zhou and T. He, “On the analysis of end-notched flexure specimen for measuring mode II fracture toughness of composite materials,” Comp. Sci. Technol.,50, 209–213 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Maikuma, J. W. Gillespie Jr., and J. M. Whitney, “Analysis and experimental characterization of the center notch flexural test specimen for mode II interlaminar fracture,” J. Comp. Mater.,23, 756–786 (1989).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. K. O'Brien, “Mixed-mode strain energy release rate effects on the edge delamination of composites,” in: Effects of Defects in Composite Materials, American Society for Testing of Materials, ASTM STP 836, Philadelphia (1984), pp. 125–142.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. J. Kinloch, Y. Wang, J. G. Williams, and P. Yayla, “The mixed mode delamination of fiber composite materials,” Comp. Sci. Technol.,47, 225–237 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Y. Wang and J. G. Williams, “Corrections for mode II fracture toughness specimens of composite materials,” Comp. Sci. Technol.,43, 129–136 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. T. Drzal, M. J. Rich, and P. F. Lloyd, “Adhesion of graphite fibers to epoxy matrices: 1. The role of fiber surface treatment,” J. Adhesion,16, 1–30 (1982).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. S. Gutowski, E. R. Pankevicius, and D. Y. Wu, “Controlled interfaces of ultra-high modulus of polyethylene and aramid fibers for advanced composites,” in: Proc. Int. Conf. Interfaces II, CAMT, Ballart, Australia (1993).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. T. Drzal, “The interphase in epoxy composites,” Advances in Polymer Sciences,75(1), 1–31 (1986).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. P. Plueddemann, Silane Coupling Agents. Plenum Press, New York (1982).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    E. P. Plueddemann, “Reminiscing on silane coupling agents,” in: Silane and Other Coupling Agents K. L. Mittal (ed.), VSP BV, Utreht, The Netherlands (1992), pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. A. Ishida, “Review of a recent progress in the studies of molecular and microstructure of coupling agents and their functions in composites, coatings and adhesive joints,” Polymer Composites,5, 101–123 (1986).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. K. Bledzki, G. Wacker, and H. Frenzel, “Effect of surface treated glass fibers on the dynamic behavior of fiberreinforced composites,” Mech. Comp. Mater.,29(5), 585–591 (1993).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. Wacker, “Experimentell gestützte Identifikation ausgewählter Eigenschaften glasfaserverstärkter Epoxidharze unter Berücksichtigung der Grenzschicht,” PhD Dissertation, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany (1996), (in German).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. F. Gibson, Principles of Composite Material Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1994).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Hojo, K. Kageyama, and K. Tanaka, “Prestandardization study on mode I interlaminar fracture toughness test for CFRP in Japan,” Composites,26, 243–255 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Broek, Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 4th, ed. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1986).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. P. Berry, “Determination of fracture surface energies by the cleavage technique,” J. Appl. Physics,34(1), 62–68 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. N. Chatterjee, “Analysis of test specimens for interlaminar mode II fracture toughness, part 1. Elastic laminates,” J. Comp. Mater.,25, 470–493 (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Rikards
  • F. -G. Buchholz
  • A. K. Bledzki
  • G. Wacker
  • A. Korjakin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations