This article details a procedure for sizing single cantilever beam (SCB) test specimens that are used to characterize facesheet–core debonding in sandwich structure. The characterization is accomplished by measuring the critical strain energy release rate, Gc, associated with the debonding process. The sizing procedure is based on an analytical representation of the SCB specimen, which models the specimen as a cantilever beam partially supported on an elastic foundation. This results in an approximate, closed-form solution for the compliance–debond length relationship of the specimen. The solution provides a series of limitations that can be imposed on the specimen dimensions to help ensure the specimen behaviour does not violate assumptions made in the derivation of the data reduction method used to calculate Gc. Application of the sizing procedure to actual sandwich systems yielded SCB specimen dimensions that would be practical for use. The method is specifically configured for incorporation into a draft testing protocol to be developed into an ASTM International testing standard.
CantwellWJDaviesP. A test technique for assessing core-skin adhesion in composite sandwich structuresJ Mater Sci Lett1994; 13: 203–205.
2.
Zarda RP and Fields RE. Analysis and test methodology for fracture mechanics of unbonded sandwich structures. Martin Marietta Studies Task Report, EDF No. MM0 TKR 10722739-001, 1994.
3.
PrasadSCarlssonLA. Debonding and crack kinking in foam core sandwich beams–II. Experimental investigationEng Fract Mech1994; 47(6): 825–841.
4.
CantwellWJDaviesP. A study of skin-core adhesion in glass fiber reinforced sandwich materialsAppl Compos Mater1996; 3: 407–420.
5.
CantwellWJBrosterGDaviesP. The influence of water immersion on skin-core debonding in GFRP-balsa sandwich structuresJ Reinf Plast Compos1996; 15: 1161–1172.
6.
CantwellWJScudamoreRRatcliffeJDaviesP. Interfacial fracture in sandwich laminatesCompos Sci Technol1999; 54(14): 2079–2085.
7.
McGarvaLDÅströmBT. Experimental investigation of compression moulding of glass/PA12-PMI foam core sandwich componentsComposites: Part A1999; 30: 1171–1185.
8.
LiXCarlssonLA. The tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimen for face/core interface fracture characterizationJ Sandwich Struct Mater1999; 1: 60–75.
9.
LiXCarlssonLA. Elastic foundation analysis of tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimenJ Sandwich Struct Mater2000; 2: 3–32.
10.
ShipshaABurmanMZenkertD. Interfacial fatigue crack growth in foam core sandwich structuresFatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct1999; 22: 123–131.
11.
RatcliffeJCantwellWJ. A new test geometry for characterizing skin-core adhesion in thin-skinned sandwich structuresJ Mater Sci Lett2000; 19: 1365–1367.
12.
Gates TS and Herring HM. Facesheet push-off tests to determine composite sandwich toughness at cryogenic temperatures. In: Proceedings of the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. Vol. 1. AIAA, Reston, VA, 2001, pp. 323–333.
13.
Smith SA and Shivakumar KN. Modified mode-I cracked sandwich beam (CSB) fracture test. In: Proceedings of the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. Vol. 1. AIAA, Reston, VA, 2001, pp. 1–18.
14.
UralAZehnderATIngraffeaAR. Fracture mechanics approach to facesheet delamination in honeycomb: measurement of energy release rate of adhesive bondEng Fract Mech2003; 70: 93–103.
15.
ShivakumarKNSmithSA. In situ fracture toughness testing of core materials in sandwich panelsJ Compos Mater2004; 38(8): 655–668.
16.
GlaessgenEHReederJRSleightDWWangJTRajuISHarrisCE. Debonding failure of sandwich-composite cryogenic fuel tank with internal core pressureJ Spacecraft Rockets2005; 42(4): 613–627.
17.
ShivakumarKChenHSmithSA. An evaluation of data reduction methods for opening mode fracture toughness of sandwich panelsJ Sandwich Struct Mater2005; 4(1): 77–90.
18.
BerggreenCSimonsenBCBorumKK. Experimental and numerical study of interface crack propagation in foam-cored sandwich beamsJ Compos Mater2007; 41(4): 493–520.
19.
ØstergaardRCSørensenBF. Interface crack in sandwich specimenInt J Fract2007; 143: 301–316.
20.
Weaver C. Evaluation of mode I fracture mechanics test methods for sandwich composites. MSc Thesis. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2009.
21.
Ratcliffe J. Sizing single cantilever beam specimens for characterizing facesheet/core peel debonding in sandwich structure. NASA Technical Publication, NASA-TP 2010-216169, 2010.
22.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. In: ASTM Annual Book of Standards, ASTM Standard D5528-01(2007), Vol. 15.03, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2008.
23.
IrwinGR. A critical energy rate analysis of fracture strengthWeld J1954Research Supplement193s–198s.
Hexweb™ Honeycomb Attributes and Properties. A comprehensive guide to Standard Hexcel® Honeycomb materials, configurations, and mechanical properties, Hexcel® Composites, 1999.
WilliamsJG. The fracture mechanics of delamination testsJ Strain Anal1989; 24(4): 207–214.
35.
TerMaathSCIngraffeaARWawrzynekPAParisPCJerinaKL. A computational fracture mechanics approach for the analysis of facesheet-from-core disbond of honeycomb core sandwich panelsFatigue and fracture mechanics; Vol. 30ASTM STP 1360. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999, 169–182.
36.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Facing properties of sandwich constructions by long beam flexure. In: ASTM Standard D7249-06, ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.03. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2008.
37.
JonesRM. Mechanics of composite materials2nd edPhiladelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, 1999.
