Due to the observed dependence of transverse-tensile strength, YT, on test geometry and specimen size, there is no consensus regarding a test method that can uniquely measure YT. This study reexamines the characterization of YT by comparing results from established flexure tests with results from a new tensile test that exhibits consistent failure in the gage region. Additionally, the effects of surface preparation and direction of transverse fracture are investigated. Results show that YT is inversely proportional to specimen volume and surface roughness and is insensitive to direction of transverse fracture. The relationship between specimen volume and YT is adequately captured by Weibull strength-scaling theory, except at the tails of the YT distributions. However, specimens exhibited microcracking prior to failure, which violates the “weak-link” assumption of the Weibull theory. These findings highlight the challenges of using deterministic YT values in progressive damage analysis.
Pinho ST, Dávila CG, Camanho PP, et al. Failure models and criteria for FRP under in-plane or three-dimensional stress states including shear non-linearity. NASA/TM-2005-213530, 2005.
2.
Rose CA, Dávila CG and Leone FA. Analysis methods for progressive damage of composite structures. NASA/TM-2013-218024, 2013.
3.
HallettSRWisnomMR. Numerical investigation of progressive damage and the effect of layup in notched tensile tests. J Compos Mater2006; 40: 1229–1245.
4.
BouvetCCastaniéBBizeulM, et al.Low velocity impact modelling in laminate composite panels with discrete interface elements. Int J Solid Struct2009; 46: 2809–2821.
5.
MoësNDolbowJBelytschkoT. A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng1999; 46: 131–150.
6.
BelytschkoTBlackT. Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng1999; 45: 601–620.
7.
Van der MeerFPSluysLJ. A phantom node formulation with mixed mode cohesive law for splitting in laminates. Int J Fract2009; 158: 107.
8.
De Carvalho N, Chen B, Pinho S, et al. Floating node method and virtual crack closure technique for modeling matrix cracking-delamination interaction. NASA/CR-2013-218022, 2013.
9.
IarveEVGurvichMRMollenhauerDH, et al.Mesh-independent matrix cracking and delamination modeling in laminated composites. Int J Numer Methods Eng2011; 88: 749–773.
BarenblattGI. The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Adv Appl Mech1962; 7: 55–129.
12.
TuronACamanhoPPCostaJ, et al.Accurate simulation of delamination growth under mixed-mode loading using cohesive elements: definition of interlaminar strengths and elastic stiffness. Compos Struct2010; 92: 1857–1864.
13.
TuronACamanhoPPCostaJ, et al.A damage model for the simulation of delamination in advanced composites under variable-mode loading. Mech Mater2006; 38: 1072–1089.
14.
Hoos KH and Iarve EV. Discrete damage modeling of matrix dominated failure including random spatial variation of strength. In: Proceedings of the American society for composites – 33rd technical conference on composite materials, Seattle, WA, USA, 24–26 September 2018.
15.
ASTM Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, D3039/D3039M. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2008.
16.
O'Brien TK and Salpekar SA. Scale effects on the transverse tensile strength of graphite/epoxy composites. In: Camponeschi E (ed.) Composite materials: testing and design. vol. 11, ASTM STP 1206, 1995, pp.23–52.
17.
de PaivaJMFMayerSRezendeMC. Comparison of tensile strength of different carbon fabric reinforced epoxy composites. Mater Res2006; 9: 83–90.
18.
De BaereIVan PaepegemWQuaresiminM, et al.On the tension-tension fatigue behaviour of a carbon reinforced thermoplastic part I: Limitations of the ASTM D3039/D3479 standard. Polym Test2011; 30: 625–632.
19.
O'BrienTKChawanADDeMarcoK, et al.Influence of specimen configuration and size on composite transverse tensile strength and scatter measured through flexure testing. J Compos Tech Res2003; 25: 1–19.
20.
AdamsDFKingTRBlackketterDM. Evaluation of the transverse flexure test method for composite materials. Compos Sci Technol1990; 39: 341–353.
21.
BullockRE. Strength ratios of composite materials in flexure and in tension. J Compos Mater1974; 8: 200–206.
22.
WhitneyJMKnightM. The relationship between tensile strength and flexure strength in fiber-reinforced composites. Exp Mech1980; 20: 211–216.
23.
MadhukarMSDrzalLT. Fiber-matrix adhesion and its effect on composite mechanical properties: tensile and flexure behavior of graphite/epoxy composites. J Compos Mater1991; 25: 958–991.
24.
MaalejMLiVC. Flexural/tensile-strength ratio in engineered cementitious composites. J Mater Civ Eng1994; 6: 513–528.
25.
BiolziLCattaneoSRosatiG. Flexural/tensile strength ratio in rock-like materials. Rock Mech Rock Eng2001; 34: 217–233.
26.
PrewoKM. Tension and flexural strength of silicon carbide fibre-reinforced glass ceramics. J Mater Sci1986; 21: 3590–3600.
27.
CzabajMWRatcliffeJG. Comparison of intralaminar and interlaminar mode I fracture toughnesses of a unidirectional IM7/8552 carbon/epoxy composite. Compos Sci Technol2014; 89: 15–23.
28.
ASTM Standard Test Method for Measuring the Curved Beam Strength of a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Matrix Composite, ASTM D6415. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2013.
29.
MakeevASeonGNikishkovY, et al.Methods for assessment of interlaminar tensile strength of composite materials. J Compos Mater2015; 49: 783–794.
30.
SeonGMakeevASchaeferJD, et al.Measurement of interlaminar tensile strength and elastic properties of composites using open-hole compression testing and digital image correlation. Appl Sci2019; 9: 2647.
31.
HardyMPHudsonJAFairhurstC. The failure of rock beams, part I: theoretical studies. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci1973; 10: 53–67.
32.
SwanG. Fracture stress scale effects for rocks in bending. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci1980; 17: 317–324.
33.
BažantZP. Size effect in blunt fracture: concrete, rock, metal. J Eng Mech1984; 110: 518–535. .
34.
QuinnGDMorrellR. Design data for engineering ceramics: a review of the flexure test. J Am Ceram Soc1991; 74: 2037–2066.
35.
NohutSUsbeckAÖzcobanH, et al.Determination of the multiaxial failure criteria for alumina ceramics under tension–torsion test. J Eur Ceram Soc2010; 30: 3339–3349.
36.
BazantZP. Size effect. Int J Solid Struct2000; 37: 69–80.
37.
WisnomMR. Size effects in the testing of fibre-composite materials. Compos Sci Technol1999; 59: 1937–1957.
38.
WeibullW. A statistical theory of the strength of materials. Ingeniors Vetenskaps Akad1939; 151: 1–4.
39.
LeJLBažantZPBazantMZ. Unified nano-mechanics based probabilistic theory of quasibrittle and brittle structures. I. Strength, static crack growth, lifetime and scaling. J Mech Phys Solid2011; 59: 1322–1337.
40.
SutherlandLSShenoiRALewisSM. Size and scale effects in composites. I. Literature review. Compos Sci Technol1999; 59: 209–220.
41.
WisnomMRJonesMI. Size effects in interlaminar tensile and shear strength of unidirectional glass fibre/epoxy. J Reinf Plast Compos1996; 15: 2–15.
42.
WisnomMRKhanBHallettSR. Size effects in unnotched tensile strength of unidirectional and quasi-isotropic carbon/epoxy composites. Compos Struct2007; 84: 21–28.
43.
Crews JH and Naik RA. Measurement of multiaxial ply strength by an off-axis flexure test. In: 11th vol: composite materials – testing and design. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 1993.
44.
SalzbrennerBCRodelasJMMadisonJD, et al.High-throughput stochastic tensile performance of additively manufactured stainless steel. J Mater Process Technol2017; 241: 1–12.
45.
Ng Y and Tomblin J. NCAMP process specification. NPS 81228, Revision B, 2011.
46.
SchindelinJ, et al.Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods2012; 9: 676–682.
GurvichMRDiBenedettoATRanadeSV. A new statistical distribution for characterizing the random strength of brittle materials. J Mater Sci1997; 32: 2559–2564.
49.
ASTM Standard Practice for Size Scaling of Tensile Strengths Using Weibull Statistics for Advanced Ceramics, C1683, 2015.
50.
Jain R. Effective area and effective volume calculations for ceramic test specimens. Doctoral Dissertation, Cleveland State University, OH, USA.
51.
ZokFW. On weakest link theory and Weibull statistics. J Am Ceram Soc2016, pp. 1265–1268.
52.
NwobiFNUgommaCA. A comparison of methods for the estimation of Weibull distribution parameters. Metod Zv2014; 11: 65–78.
53.
Andrews GE, Askey R and Roy R. Special functions. vol. 71. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
54.
O'Brien TK and Krueger R. Analysis of ninety degree flexure tests for characterization of composite transverse tensile strength. NASA/TM-2001-211227, 2001.
55.
MATLAB Release 2014a. The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA.
56.
Hexcel 8552 IM7 Unidirectional Prepreg 190 GSM & 35%RC Qualification Material Property Data Report, NCAMP Test Report Number: CAM-RP-2009-015 Rev A, 22 April 2011.
57.
GurvichMRDibenedettoATRanadeSV. A new statistical distribution for characterizing the random strength of brittle materials. J Mater Sci1997; 32: 2559–2564.
58.
BoyceBL. A sequential tensile method for rapid characterization of extreme-value behavior in microfabricated materials. Exp Mech2010; 50: 993–997.
59.
BažantZPPangSD. Mechanics based statistics of failure risk of quasi-brittle structures and size effect on safety factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci2006; 103: 9434–9439.
60.
LeJ-LBažantZPBažantMZ. Unified nano-mechanics based probabilistic theory of quasibrittle and brittle structures. I. Strength, static crack growth, lifetime and scaling. J Mech Phys Solids2011; 59: 1291–1321.
