On the calculation of the strain energy release rate for thin-gage facesheet sandwich structures using the J-integral method
Source abstract
Abstract
Facesheet-to-core disbonding in sandwich composites is a critical failure mechanism that can occur under relatively low, out-of-plane loads. Test methods such as the single-cantilevered beam (SCB) and drum peel tests are being considered for standardization to estimate the strain energy release rate (SERR) for computationally predicting failure and structural sizing purposes. In particular, the present SCB standard uses modified beam theory (MBT) and the area method to estimate the SERR, but these have limitations: MBT assumes linear-elastic behavior, while the area method requires a complex loading/unloading testing scheme to subsequently calculate the SERR. In this study, an alternative for SERR estimation is investigated using the J-integral method. Unlike MBT, the J-integral does not rely on linear-elastic assumptions, enables instantaneous SERR calculation, and is expected to be more widely applicable. Therefore, SCB tests were conducted on sandwich composites with relatively thin-gage (1.65 mm) facesheets, and the corresponding SERR estimates from J-integral, MBT, and area method were compared. In addition, finite element analysis using a virtual crack-closure technique was employed to verify the J-integral approach. For small normalized disbond lengths (<40 mm/mm), all analytical methods showed good agreement. Deviations over 10% in SERR estimates between the J-integral and MBT methods were observed for large normalized disbond lengths (>40 mm/mm), which is attributed to geometric nonlinearities affecting the estimate of the effective crack extension. Using the predicted load and angles, the predicted J-integral is shown to be in good agreement with corresponding experimental values. Overall, the J-integral method appears to be a robust, efficient alternative to estimate SERRs and appears to account for geometric nonlinearities.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Composite Structure Analysis and Optimization · Cellular and Composite Structures
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
NASA Langley Research Center
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alaska
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. McQuigg T. Compression after impact experiments and analysis on honeycomb core sandwich panels with thin facesheets. NASA/CR-2011-217157. Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2011.
2. 10.3390/ma1612424910.3390/ma16124249 ↗
3. Guo Z Jiang S Shen Y et al. Nonlinear dynamic analysis and vibration of two sandwich beams connected by a joint with clearance. Mech Syst Signal Process; 223: 111828.10.1016/j.ymssp.2024.111828 ↗
4. ASTM International ASTM D5528/D5528M-21 Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. 2022.
5. 10.1177/0892705722108349310.1177/08927057221083493 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0013-7944(02)00024-310.1016/S0013-7944(02)00024-3 ↗
7. 10.1177/002199831140111610.1177/0021998311401116 ↗
8. Weaver C. Evaluation of mode I fracture mechanics test methods for sandwich composites. Dissertation. University of Utah, 2010.
9. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.07.00510.1016/j.compstruct.2017.07.005 ↗
10. Nettles AT. Measuring core/facesheet bond toughness in honeycomb sandwich structures. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. NASA/TP-2006-214713.
11. Krueger R Ratcliffe JG Adams D et al. Characterizing face sheet/core disbonding using the single cantilever beam test: results from an international round robin. NASA/TM–20240001178. NASA Langley Research Center.
12. 10.1007/BF0027816210.1007/BF00278162 ↗
13. ASTM International ASTM WK90368 Standard test method for mode I dominant facesheet-to-core fracture toughness of sandwich constructions. 2025.
14. Kessler J, Adams D. Development and evaluation of fracture mechanics test methods for sandwich composites. Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Technical Review. https://www.wichita.edu/industry_and_defense/NIAR/Documents/T1220_Utah_Kessler.pdf
15. 10.1007/BF0001779010.1007/BF00017790 ↗
16. Anderson TL. Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications. 3rd ed. Tayler and Francis.
17. 10.1115/1.360120610.1115/1.3601206 ↗
18. 10.1007/BF0003428110.1007/BF00034281 ↗
19. 10.1007/s10704-007-9063-810.1007/s10704-007-9063-8 ↗
20. 10.1007/s10704-021-00547-610.1007/s10704-021-00547-6 ↗
21. 10.1115/1.406321610.1115/1.4063216 ↗
22. 10.1177/109963621877796410.1177/1099636218777964 ↗
23. 10.1177/0021998322108203910.1177/00219983221082039 ↗
24. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp. ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual. Version, 2022.
25. 10.1177/00219983870210040310.1177/002199838702100403 ↗
26. 10.1007/BF0073070110.1007/BF00730701 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ijlmm.2020.06.00510.1016/j.ijlmm.2020.06.005 ↗
28. Massabò R The effective crack extension and its implications on the single cantilever beam test for sandwich composites. 26: 175–204.10.1177/10996362231174553 ↗
29. 10.1007/s10704-009-9366-z10.1007/s10704-009-9366-z ↗