journal article·2026-04-20

Impact of Intact Length and Initial Debond on the Mode I Fracture Toughness of Sandwich Structures

Amal Alliyankal Vijayakumar, Muhammad Zahid, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano G. Corvaglia, Alfonso Maffezzoli

Polymer Composites· Volume 47· Issue 8
Publisher page

Abstract

ABSTRACT The single cantilever beam (SCB) configuration, mounted on a roller base or equipped with a flexible long loading rod, has been widely adopted as a dominant Mode I skin/core fracture test for sandwich structures. However, the influence of SCB geometry in determining the accuracy of Mode I characterization remains underexplored. This paper outlines a systematic experimental parametric analysis on the influence of final intact length ( L b ) and initial debond ( a 0 ) length on Mode I fracture toughness using a SCB with a roller base setup. The study employs a mono‐polymer thermoplastic sandwich structure, featuring commingled E‐glass/polypropylene (PP) skin and a closed‐cell PP foam core, manufactured using one‐stage non‐isothermal compression molding without any aid of adhesives. The results demonstrated that the SCB designed according to the specified sizing limitations, particularly a 0 and L b , effectively reduces the global shear components, promoting dominant Mode I conditions. Among various sizing limitations, the configuration following the dimensional criteria proposed by Ratcliffe et al. ( a 0 and L b as 100 mm) achieved dominant Mode I fracture toughness (≈3.76 kJ/m 2 ) with minimal shear at crack tips throughout the crack length. Despite lowering the shear, sizing limitations do not guarantee that crack propagation will occur through the skin/core interface. The specimens with L b or/and a 0 (i.e., L b as 40 mm, or both L b and a 0 as 40 mm) that fall outside the SCB limitations show deviation from the dominant Mode I behavior. In contrast, changes in a 0 at a constant L b that align with the sizing limitations have no significant impact on the average fracture toughness. Nonetheless, fracture toughness reduction at shorter crack lengths was evident due to the mixed‐Mode conditions associated with smaller a 0 , even when L b conforms to the sizing limitations. These findings establish specimen sizing as a critical, yet previously underexplored, factor in achieving reliable Mode I characterization of sandwich structures.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Composite Structure Analysis and Optimization

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Engineering for Innovation University of Salento Lecce Italy

Quantum Technologies, Optronics and Material Laboratories, Leonardo Innovation Hub Leonardo S.p.A. Grottaglie Italy

Quantum Technologies, Optronics and Material Laboratories, Leonardo Innovation Hub Leonardo S.p.A. Rome Italy

Technology Research & Innovation, Aerostructure Division Leonardo S.p.A. Grottaglie Italy

References (38)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.21062/mft.2025.00210.21062/mft.2025.002 ↗
2. 10.3144/expresspolymlett.2024.1210.3144/expresspolymlett.2024.12 ↗
3. 10.1007/s13399‐023‐05000‐310.1007/s13399‐023‐05000‐3 ↗
4. 10.21062/mft.2025.02110.21062/mft.2025.021 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.10831210.1016/j.matdes.2019.108312 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.10907510.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109075 ↗
7. 10.1007/s00707‐025‐04253‐510.1007/s00707‐025‐04253‐5 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.cej.2025.15946110.1016/j.cej.2025.159461 ↗
9. 10.1177/168781401666741810.1177/1687814016667418 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2024.10390810.1016/j.ijadhadh.2024.103908 ↗
11. 10.1007/978-1-4020-3225-710.1007/978-1-4020-3225-7 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.08.25310.1016/j.jmrt.2025.08.253 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2024.11197310.1016/j.compositesb.2024.111973 ↗
14. 10.1177/089270571560468110.1177/0892705715604681 ↗
15. 10.1002/pc.2002510.1002/pc.20025 ↗
16. ASTM D1781‐98 · 2021
17. 10.1177/002199830707997410.1177/0021998307079974 ↗
18. 10.1177/0892705722108349310.1177/08927057221083493 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2025.10890410.1016/j.polymertesting.2025.108904 ↗
20. Ratcliffe J. G. · 2010
21. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.12.00810.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.12.008 ↗
22. 10.1177/002199831140111610.1177/0021998311401116 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.04.03210.1016/j.compstruct.2018.04.032 ↗
24. Saseendran V. · 2017
25. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.10949810.1016/j.engfracmech.2023.109498 ↗
26. 10.1007/s11831‐023‐09999‐610.1007/s11831‐023‐09999‐6 ↗
27. 10.1115/1.317366810.1115/1.3173668 ↗
28. Hutchinson J. W. · 1991 · 63
29. 10.1177/109963621878822310.1177/1099636218788223 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.11094210.1016/j.compstruct.2019.110942 ↗
31. ASTM D7264/D7264M‐21 · 2021
32. ASTM D790‐17 · 2017
33. ASTM D5528‐21 · 2021
34. 10.1007/BF0027816210.1007/BF00278162 ↗
35. 10.1177/00219980177266139910.1177/002199801772661399 ↗
36. 10.1007/BF0003595810.1007/BF00035958 ↗
37. 10.1177/10996362000020010110.1177/109963620000200101 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.03.04510.1016/j.engfracmech.2007.03.045 ↗