Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 50, Issue 20, pp 6642–6648 | Cite as

Mode-I fracture behavior of a shear-thickening fluid as adhesive layer under different loading rates

  • Maisha Tabassum
  • Lin Ye
  • Li ChangEmail author
  • Klaus Friedrich
Original Paper


This study characterizes the fracture behavior of a shear-thickening fluid (STF) with 58 vol% dispersion of styrene/acrylate particles in ethylene glycol. Double-cantilever-beam specimens with the STF as adhesive layer were utilized to characterize the mode-I fracture energy of the fluid with fluid thickness varying from 0.2 to 2.05 mm, and crack opening displacement rates from 1 to 50 mm/s. It was found that the deformation behavior of the STF was rate sensitive. In particular, liquid–solid transition could occur by increasing the loading rate and/or decreasing the fluid thickness. As confirmed by the high-speed video recording, the STF showed a “solid” behavior, fracturing with crack growth in a brittle manner when the displacement rate was greater than 30 mm/s. Thus, the average mode-I fracture energy of the fluid could be determined. It is interesting to note that the measured G c of the “solidified” STF was almost constant at ~230 J/m2, which is comparable to a low cross-linked epoxy. The results demonstrate that the deformation behavior of the STF in solid phase can be characterized by the standard test method following classic fracture mechanics. The measured fracture toughness can be used as an effective parameter showing the crack resistance or the energy-absorbing capacity of the STF in the solid phase.


Crack Growth Rate Fracture Energy Displacement Rate Critical Shear Rate Normal Strain Rate 
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.



The authors acknowledge BASF AG (Germany) for providing the material. The authors thank Trevor Shearing for his technical assistance and advice to carry out our test program. The project was partly supported by a University of Sydney Bridging Support Grant (Dr. Li Chang). M. Tabassum is grateful for an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) and a Peter Nicol Russell (PNR) for a top-up scholarship from the School of Aerospace, Mechanical & Mechatronic Engineering, the University of Sydney.


  1. 1.
    Barnes H (2009) Shear-thickening (“dilatancy”) in suspensions of nonaggregating solid particles dispersed in Newtonian liquids. J Rheol 33:329–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoffman RL (1972) Discontinuous and dilatant viscosity behavior in concentrated suspensions I observation of a flow instability. J Rheol 16:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffman RL (1974) Discontinuous and dilatant viscosity behavior in concentrated suspensions II theory and experimental tests. J Colloid Interface Sci 46:491–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boersma WH, Laven J, Stein HN (1990) Shear thickening (dilatancy) in concentrated dispersions. AIChE J 36:321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoffman RL (1998) Explanations for the cause of shear thickening in concentrated colloidal suspensions. J Rheol 42:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    White EEB, Chellamuthu M, Rothstein JP (2010) Extensional rheology of a shear-thickening cornstarch and water suspension. Rheol Acta 49:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang L, Friedrich K, Schlarb A, Tanner R, Ye L (2011) Shear-thickening behaviour of concentrated polymer dispersions under steady and oscillatory shear. J Mater Sci 46:339–346. doi: 10.1007/s10853-010-4817-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galindo-Rosales FJ, Rubio-Hernández FJ, Velázquez-Navarro JF (2009) Shear-thickening behavior of Aerosil® R816 nanoparticles suspensions in polar organic liquids. Rheol Acta 48:699–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wagner NJ, Wetzel ED (2007) Advanced body armor utilizing shear thickening fluids. Google Patents (ed)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee YS, Wagner NJ (2003) Dynamic properties of shear thickening colloidal suspensions. Rheol Acta 42:199–208Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee YS, Wetzel ED, Wagner NJ (2003) The ballistic impact characteristics of Kevlar woven fabrics impregnated with a colloidal shear thickening fluid. J Mater Sci 38:2825–2833. doi: 10.1023/A:1024424200221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wetzel ED, Lee YS, Egres RG, Kirkwood KM, Kirkwood JE, Wagner NJ (2004) The effect of rheological parameters on the ballistic properties of shear thickening fluid (STF)–Kevlar composites. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Industrial Forming Processes (NUMIFORM 2004). AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 712, pp 288–293Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Egres RGJ, Lee YS, Kirkwood JE, Kirkwood KM, Wetzel ED, Wagner NJ (2004) Liquid armor: protective fabrics utilizing shear thickening fluids. IFAI 4th International Conference on Safety and Protective Fabrics, 1–8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Decker MJ, Halbach CJ, Nam CH, Wagner NJ, Wetzel ED (2007) Stab resistance of shear thickening fluid (STF)-treated fabrics. Compos Sci Technol 67:565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Houghton JM, Schiffman BA, Kalman DP, Wetzel ED, Wagner NJ (2007) Hypodermic needle punture of shear thickening fluid (STF)-treated fabrics. In: Proceedings of SAMPE, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalman DP, Schein JB, Houghton JM, Laufer CHN, Wetzel ED, Wagner NJ (2007) Polymer dispersion based shear thickening fluid-fabrics for protective applications. In: Proceedings of SAMPE, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosen BA, Laufer CHN, Kalman DP, Wetzel ED, Wagner NJ (2007) Multi-threat performance of kaolin-based shear thickening fluid (STF)-treated fabrics. In: Proceedings of SAMPE, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grigoryan VA, Kobylkin IF, Marinin VM, Bespalov IA (2009) Ballistic performance of textile armor treated with shear thickening fluid. Tech Wyr Włókiennicze 17:12–15Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laun H, Bung R, Schmidt F (1991) Rheology of extremely shear thickening polymer dispersions (passively viscosity switching fluids). J Rheol 35:999–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Helber R, Doncker F, Bung R (1990) Vibration attenuation by passive stiffness switching mounts. J Sound Vib 138:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoshihara H (2010) Mode I and mode II initiation fracture toughness and resistance curve of medium density fiberboard measured by double cantilever beam and three-point bend end-notched flexure tests. Eng Fract Mech 77:2537–2549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhou L (1996) A new technique for determining fracture toughness KIC and its confidence with single DCB specimen. Eng Fract Mech 55:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szekrényes A, Uj J (2005) Advanced beam model for fiber-bridging in unidirectional composite double-cantilever beam specimens. Eng Fract Mech 72:2686–2702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tamuzs V, Tarasovs S, Vilks U (2001) Progressive delamination and fiber bridging modeling in double cantilever beam composite specimens. Eng Fract Mech 68:513–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams JG (1989) The fracture mechanics of delamination tests. J Strain Anal Eng Des 24:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maisha Tabassum
    • 1
  • Lin Ye
    • 1
  • Li Chang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Klaus Friedrich
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Advanced Materials Technology, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, The University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for Composite MaterialsUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations