Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 0

IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON
Fracture Mechanics
Short Report 4

Jithin Gopal

Demonstrator: Mr Mohammad Zainol Abdin
Technician: Mr Joeseph Meggyesi
Submitted on 23
rd
January 2012
Experiment carried out in mechanical lab Composite Centre
Imperial College London
Summary
Inter-laminar fracture behaviour of ACG MTM 44-1 was studied using Mode I Double
Cantilever Beam method (DCB) and Mode II End Load Splitting (ELS). Fracture mechanism
like fibre bridging, crack splitting and friction were observed in the sample, which increased
the fracture energy. Correction factors were used to ensure the value obtained is more
matched with the actual testing. For mode I testing was done according to ISO 15024 but
mode II testing has no agreed international standard. The fracture energy obtained for two
DCB sample tested are G
IC
initiation energy was ~300Jm
-2
and this was comparable with the
literature for epoxy matrix and there was an increase in the fracture energy with crack length
which and for mode II ELS testing the G
IIC
initiation energy was found to be ~450Jm
-2
. There
were few problem associated with the testing in terms of data collection, the marking fluid
being thick and crack propagation not visible due to this. Overall, the experiment was success
in measuring the fracture energy for this ACG MTM 44-1 material and obtained comparable
data with published results.
Jithin Gopal
Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 1


1. Introduction
As laminated composites are widely used in aerospace applications, their failure mechanisms
under different loading conditions have been studied extensively by various research groups
(Naghipour, 2010). Different stacking sequences, fibre orientations and crack propagation
directions have considerable effects on the structural response, fracture resistance, and failure
mechanisms of the composite (Hashemi, 1990b). Laminated fibre composites made of high
strength fibres in a relatively weak matrix material are susceptible to delamination
(Hodgkinson J M, 2000). From a design point of view it is important to know how tough a
composite is to enable material developers to improve resistance to delamination and provide
failure criteria for designers.

Loading Modes
Delamination can be regarded as crack propagation and hence fracture mechanics can be
applied where the characterisation is via the energy per unit of crack area, G
C
(Department of
Aeronautics, Laboratories booklet 2011/2012 ., 2011/2012). The crack propagation will
usually be interlaminar, which leads to different modes of propagation under different
loading conditions (Taylor Ambrose Dr, 2011). The most obvious is mode I, the tensile
opening mode, giving G
lC
where the crack propagates by the crack faces opening normal to
the crack plane. In addition, the crack may propagate by a sliding or shear motion,
particularly in bending, which is characterized by G
IIC
. There is no reason for these to be the
same, and indeed combinations of opening and shear loadings can give mixed mode failure
that can only be characterized for each ratio of mode I to mode II loading(Hashemi, 1990a).
To characterise laminates it is necessary to devise testing methods to produce the various
modes, and hence determine G
IC
, G
IIC
and G
Ic/G11c
under mixed mode loading(Taylor
Ambrose Dr, 2011). To fully understand fracture failure mechanism, the total strain energy
release rate, GI, the mode I component due to interlaminar tension, G
I
, the mode II
component due to interlaminar sliding shear, G
II
, and the mode III component, G
III
, due to
interlaminar scissoring shear, need to be calculated(Williams, 1988). In order to accurately
predict delamination onset or growth for two-dimensional problems, these calculated G
components are compared to interlaminar fracture toughness properties experimentally
measured over a range from pure mode I loading to pure mode II loading.

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the basic modes of crack loading, mode I( opening), mode II (
Shear), mode III (tearing) (Hodgkinson J M, 2000)
Double Cantilever Beam Test (DCB)
Standard test method used for mode one testing and it is the most common method used for
mode I testing. Sample of ACG MTM 44-1 was prepared in the lab in composite centre with
a release film at the mid thickness to create the initial delamination. End block are then bound
to the sample using a strong adhesive. The sample used have been shown in Figure 2 painted
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 2

and marked with white pain as shown in the figure. The sample is pre-cracked to ensure a
sharp natural crack is obtained before the testing (this ensure the energy value measures is a
real value rather than the value of a resin rich area). The sample is subjected to tensile loading
at a constant rate and the crack length monitored using a video camera.

Figure 2 Mode I double cantilever beam (DCB) specimen (Hodgkinson J M, 2000)
Mode I standards are International Standard ISO 15024 ( also British Standard ISO 15024)
and American Society for Testing of Materials ASTM D5528. Technical details of the
testing are specified for DCB method but this standard is limited to uni directional (UD)
layup only and requires testing from insert and mode I pre-crack. There are different ways to
process the result obtained from the testing. The method used for analysis is via corrected
beam theory and modified compliance calibration method (MCC).Simple beam theory cannot
be applied here as assumption of built in beam is not strictly correct ( low shear modulus of
polymeric fibre composites leads to deflections and rotations occurring at the crack tip).Large
displacement so the beam cause shortening of the moment arm and because of the use of end
blocks the stiffness is a false stiffness and hence correction factors are derived. Crack length
is apparently longer due to deflections and rotation occurring at crack tip this is corrected by
introducing a correction factor . Shortening of the moment arm is corrected by introducing a
factor F derived using small displacement beam theory. Correction factor N is used to correct
the increased stiffness obtained by using the end blocks. These factors and there derivation is
outside the scope of this report and these have been used by referring to work done by S.
Hashemi; A. J. Kinloch; J. G. Williams(The Analysis of Interlaminar Fracture in Uniaxial
Fibre-Polymer Composites; Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 427, No. 1872. (Jan. 8, 1990), pp. 173-199.
End Loaded Split test (ELS)
Mode II testing covers the testing done for in-plane sliding and loading on a crack due to
bending, bending stresses on upper and lower arms induce opposing shear stresses on crack
faces. Loaded arrangement shown in Figure 3a this arrangement incorporates a small roller
which aims to eliminate friction between beam halves. There is no current ISO standard for
mode II testing and the work is still on-going other complication arises in this form of testing
in term of micro-cracking as observed by several researchers (OBrien at NASA Langley).
Mode II testing is widely used to measure the mode II fracture energies despite the mentioned
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 3

problems. Similar to mode one the correction factors were applied from S Hashemi et.al and
results analysed.
End Notch Flexure (ELF)
This is another version of the mode II test and this is more commonly used as this is simpler
to use in industry and is less complicated with the setup. This test as shown in Figure 3 b use
three point flexure arrangement. Due to the nature of this report (short ) not much detail about
the testing is included and has been mentioned for completeness.

Figure 3 Mode II specimens (a) Ended Loaded Split (ELS) specimen, (b) End notched flexure
(ENF)(Hashemi, 1990b)
Mixed mode test and Mode III testing
There are other two modes involved with fracture and energy, but is not discussed in this
report s it is outside the scope of the report.
2. Objective
The purpose of this experiment is to perform fracture testing on ACG MTM 44-1composite
material. The experiment was carried according to International Standard ISO 15024 ( also
British Standard ISO 15024) for Mode I and as there is not an international standard for
Mode II End Loaded Split test (ELS) were performed and the analysis was performed based
on the literature available mainly by S. Hashemi; A. J. Kinloch; J. G. Williams(The Analysis
of Interlaminar Fracture in Uniaxial Fibre-Polymer Composites; Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 427, No. 1872. (Jan.
8, 1990), pp. 173-199.

The experiment performed were
- Double cantilever beam test (Mode I) 2 samples
- End Loaded Split test (Mode II)- 2 samples

The main objective of this experiment is to measure the following properties
- Interlaminar fracture energy G
IC
for Mode I
- Interlaminar fracture energy G
IIC
for Mode II
- Fracture energy G
C
non-linear initiation
- Fracture energy G
C
max imitation
- Fracture energy G
C
5% max initiation
- To Plot load vs displacement graph of both test
- To Plot (C/N)
1/3
vs a plot where a is the crack length , N is a correction factor as
mentioned in introduction and C is compliance factor
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 4

- To understand the mechanics involved in Mode I and Mode II
- Failure modes in both test is investigated
To measure these properties some other properties are measured like
o Load(N)
o Displacement (mm)
o Length, Width and Thickness (mm)
In order to carry out the objective different set of skills and equipment is required and it is
also important to analyse the failure mode and the expected failure mode. The equipment
used for this experiment is listed below

- Instron 4505 Tensile testing machine (100kN)
- Closed-circuit television
- Data logger
- Correction Fluid (Tipex)

Other measuring equipment
o Vernier calliper for width and length
o Screw gauge for thickness measurement
- The technique required for this lab is to monitor the crack and machine
displacement , apply the correction fluid and making a scale on the edge
- Collecting data from the data acquisition system
Two specimens per method tested and the data compared with published
literature
3. Procedure
Manufacturing of specimen (Advanced Composite Group, 04/11/2011).
The pre-peg used for manufacture of the specimen was ACG MTM 44-1, is a high
performance, toughened epoxy matrix system optimised for low pressure vacuum-bag out of
Autoclave processing and cured(Advanced Composite Group, 04/11/2011). The cure cycle is
a single cycle with ramp rate of 1-2
o
C, with pressure from 3-7 bar and vacuum pressure
>0.75bar. For autoclave processing the temperature is 4 hours at 130
o
C.

Figure 4 Set up of Autoclave production of test (Advanced Composite Group)
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 5

Sample for the testing were prepared in Imperial College Composite centre from ACG MTM
44-1 pre-peg and autoclave curing. ACG MTM 44-1 pre-peg was stacked in layers of 4 and
assembles to get a 12 stacked and a PTFE (0.25m) thick release paper was incorporated into
the specimen 40 mm wide. So a 24 ply 3mm thick composite was produced for this test using
an autoclave to cure the sample as explained above. This sample was then machine to shape
using a diamond saw first to cut the excess and then using and wet saw to cut specimens of
size 150mm*20mm*3mm.Sample was then grit blasting at the one end and the aluminium
end block was attached using Araldite 2011 two component epoxy paste adhesive (50:50
mix) and left to cure at room temperature. 4 specimens are prepared to do the testing.
Sample preparation Sample prepares as above were measurement and the readings are
recorded in table and table 2 sample were then painted thinly with brittle white liquid
(correction fluid te-pex). This aids the visual location of the crack and it was monitored using
CCTV equipment. This setup is shown in Figure 5 .
Mode 2
DIMENSIONS:
Specimen Length Width Thickness Length Width Thickness Diameter
149.81 20.01 3.41 19.08 19.87 12.65 8
149.63 20 3.39 19.07 19.91 12.63 7.93
149.85 20.02 3.39 19.06 19.9 12.64 8.02
Average 149.76 20.01 3.4 19.07 19.89 12.64 7.98
149.22 19.88 3.33 19.02 20.03 12.31 7.93
149.24 19.97 3.32 19.06 20.01 12.32 7.85
149.16 20.02 3.3 19.07 19.98 12.3 8.01
Average 149.21 19.96 3.32 19.05 20.01 12.31 7.93
3
4
Material Load Block

Table 1 sample dimension for Mode II test Sample 3 and 4
mode 1
DIMENSIONS:
Specimen Length Width Thickness Diameter
T B T B T B
1 149.14 18.81 3.41 19.38 19.3 19.7 20.25 12.6 12.75 8.07
149.93 19.32 3.39 19.15 19.33 19.71 20.25 12.7 12.62 8.15
149.18 19.72 3.39 19.17 19.2 19.65 20.23 12.8 12.65 8.01
Average 149.42 19.28 3.4 19.23 19.28 19.69 20.24 12.7 12.67 8.08
2 149.5 19.84 3.18 19.08 19.1 20 20.13 12.67 12.5 8.2
149.47 19.76 3.2 19.11 19.14 20.01 20.15 12.65 12.54 8.25
149.51 19.69 3.21 19.08 19.16 20 20.18 12.56 12.61 8.24
Average 149.49 19.76 3.2 19.09 19.13 20 20.15 12.63 12.55 8.23
Length Width Thickness
Material Load Block
Table 2 sample dimension for Mode I test Sample 1 and 2
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 6


Figure 5 The testing equipment and the CCTV equipment used and the ELS test setup
Procedure for pre-cracking (both for DCB and ELS)
1. Sample loaded to the machine marked with white fluid and a scale
2. Rate of loading set to 5mm/min for pre crack
3. Load applied
4. Crack prorogation watched on the monitor
5. Pre- cracking stopped after crack length reaches 50mm
6. Unload the sample and return to previous position
Procedure for test (both for DCB and ELS)
1. Sample loaded to the machine marked with white fluid and a scale
2. Rate of loading set to 5mm/min until it reaches the pre-crack length
3. Rate of loading set to 1mm/min for the rest of the test
4. Load applied
5. Crack propagation watched on the monitor
6. Data collected manually of the crack length from the monitor and machine
displacement rerecorded for that crack length
7. Crack length allowed to reach 100m
8. Unload the sample and return to previous position
9. Repeat for other samples
Result analysis
This section summarises the different formulaes used to deduce the results the correction
factors .The method used for analysis is via corrected beam theory and modified compliance
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 7

calibration method (MCC).Simple beam theory cannot be applied here as assumption of built
in beam is not strictly correct ( low shear modulus of polymeric fibre composites leads to
deflections and rotations occurring at the crack tip).Large displacement so the beam cause
shortening of the moment arm and because of the use of end blocks the stiffness is a false
stiffness and hence correction factors are derived. Crack length is apparently longer due to
deflections and rotation occurring at crack tip this is corrected by introducing a correction
factor . Shortening of the moment arm is corrected by introducing a factor F derived using
small displacement beam theory. Correction factor N is used to correct the increased stiffness
obtained by using the end blocks. These factors and there derivation is outside the scope of
this report and these have been used by referring to work done by S. Hashemi; A. J. Kinloch;
J. G. Williams(The Analysis of Interlaminar Fracture in Uniaxial Fibre-Polymer Composites;
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences,
Vol. 427, No. 1872. (Jan. 8, 1990), pp. 173-199.
Equations ( from the report above )
(a) The mode I DCB test


1
=3/10

2
=3/2
(b) The mode II test
2 3 4 2
1
] ) / ( 3 1 /[ ) ) / ( 63 ) / ( 50 15 (
20
3
L a L a L a + + + = O
For h
1
=h
2
=h, and
] ) / ( 3 1 /[ ) / ( 3 1 )( / ( 3
3 2
2
L a L a a L + + = O

(c) The mode 1 DCB test

3
=1,
4
=9/8[1-(l
2
/a)
2
],
3
=9/35
(d) The mode II ELS test
], ) / ( 3 1 /[ 4
3
3
L a + = O
2 3
2 2
2
2 3
4
] ) / ( 3 1 [
]} ) / ( 3 1 ][ ) / ( 1 [ ) / ( 4 ] ) / ( 3 1 )[ / ( 1 {(
4
9
L a
L a a l L a L a L a
+
+ + +
= O
3 3
4 2 3
5
] ) / ( 3 1 [
]} ) / ( 63 ] ) / ( 70 35 [ ) / (
8
3
1 {[(
35
36
L a
L a L a L a
+
+ + +
= O

Equation 9 is the basic equation in which correction factors are then applied to obtain
the equation (10,11)

a
C
b
P
G
c
c
= .
2
2

Other correction factors are

F= 1-
1
(/L)
2
-
2
(l
1
/L
2
)
(1)
(2)
(7)
(4)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(8)
(9)
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 8


N= 1-
3
(l
2
/L)
3
-
4
(l
1
/L
2
)-
5
(/L)

For mode one testing the formulae can be summarsied as below


Mode II
For ELS specimens as shown in Figure 3


Notations
l
1
,l
2
,h,a,B,L are shown in figure 2 and are dimensions of the sample and the block

1,

2
,
3,

4,

5,

6
are geometric correction factors as stated by S. Hashemi
C is the compliance and can be defined as C =/P, where is the displacement and P is the
load.
F is the correction factor for effective shortening of the beams due to the large displacements
and the tilting of end blocks.
N is the correction factor for the increased stiffness obtained by using the end blocks.
is for rotation occurring at crack tip. This was found from the plot of (C/N)^(1/3) vs a as
shown in results section
G
I
is the fracture energy for mode I .
G
II
is the fracture energy for mode II.
Equation (1) to (9) was used for calculations of the results and is presented in the next
section.
(10)
(11)
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 9

4. Result

Figure 6 Load displacement graph for DCB testing Mode I
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 10


Figure 7 (C/N)^(1/3) vs crack length graph which is used to deduce

Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 11

Figure 8 R curved behaviour of DCB sample from mode I testing (fracture Energy vs crack length )
Mode II results

Figure 9 Load displacement graph for ELS testing Mode II

Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 12

Figure 10 R curved behaviour of ELS sample from mode II testing (fracture Energy vs crack length )
Summary table
G
IC
sample one intiation value Mode I DCB 300Jm
-2

G
IC
sample Two intiation value Mode I DCB 315Jm
-2

G
IIC
sample one intiation value Mode II ELS 815J m
-2

G
IIC
sample one intiation value Mode II ELS 435J m
-2

G
IIC
Propogation value
E11 for mode I Average value 117GPa
G
IC
sample one intiation value Mode I DCB 5%
offset value
305J m
-2

G
IC
sample two intiation value Mode I DCB 5%
offset value
375Jm
-2

Table 3 Summary table showing the different values deduced from the experiment conducted
The two failure mechanism observed during the mode I and II interlaminar facture test were :
(a) Interlaminar crack growth involving fibre bridging and pullout at crack tip.
(b) Interlaminar crack growth involving crack tip splitting.
All the specimens tested exhibited this mechanism , the degree of fibre bridging and
splitting was not the same for all material.
Sample calculation
(a) For mode I calculation the
3 / 1
|
.
|

\
|
N
C
vs a was plotted to find the value of the
correction factor .Load and displacement was measured in the machine and markers
were manually made using the CCTV for every cracklength this displacement was
matched and data processed. The mode I DCB test


1
=3/10

2
=3/2

(b) The mode 1 DCB test

3
=1,
4
=9/8[1-(l
2
/a)
2
],
3
=9/35

4
=9/8[1-(l
2
/a)
2
] ,
4
=9/8[1-(9.6/63)
2
]=
4
= 1.09

5
=9/35
Other correction factors are

F= 1-
1
(/L)
2
-
2
(l
1
/L
2
) = (1-((3/10)*(7.77/139.8)
2
)((3/2)*(7.77*8.04/(139.8
2
)) = 0.99
N= 1-
3
(l
2
/L)
3
-
4
(l
1
/L
2
)-
5
(/L)
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 13

N=1-(1*(9.6/139.8)
3
-(1.098*((7.77*8.04)/139.8
2
)-(9/35*(7.7/139.8
2
) = 0.995
E
11
= =(37.2/7.77)*(8)*(1)*(633)/(19.28)*(1.693) = 90.46GPa
C= displacement /load = 7.77/37.2= 0.24
was deduced from the
3 / 1
|
.
|

\
|
N
C
vs a graph and for sample one was deduced as 5.5
G
IC
= (0.99/0.995)*(3*32.7*7.77)/(2*19.28)*(63+(6)) = 275 Jm
-2
Calculation similar were performed to obtain the results presented in this section and this was
to demonstrate a sample calculation.
5. Discussion
The interlaminar crack energy of ACG MTM 44-1 were measured using DCB and ELS
method. For mode I fracture testing. The facture mechanism observed for both testing was
involved fibre bridging, pull-out and crack tip splitting which lead to more fibre bridging.
The evidence of the above mentioned mechanism can been seen in load vs displacement
graph in figure 6 and figure 9.The interlaminar crack grew in stable ,continuous manner
thought he DCB specimen and the load displacement curves shown in figure 6 and 9.Load
displacement curves indicated linear elastic, nonlinear elastic and nonlinear inelastic
behaviour. Linear response was observed in the beginning of the test at lower load (~35N).
The second response was non-linear elastic response, which occurred in the middle of the
trace as the nearby material gets stiffer as the load increases. The third type was the nonlinear
inelastic response, which occurred at high loads and can be associated with onset of crack
growth and the decrease in slope of the load- displacement trace. The nonlinear inelastic
response in these materials can be associate with large displacement being present in the test
specimen this has been taken into account by using an correction factor, but other mechanism
which has affected the experiment are fibre birding and crack tip splitting. Fibres resist crack
opening by stretching and absorb energy and hence increasing the toughness. Toughness
increase with crack length for mode one sample this is evident with the resistance curve
behaviour as shown in figure 8.The value obtained for fracture energy for Initial crack was
found to be around 300Jm
-2
, the quality of this has been compared with other published
literature and for an epoxy system like MTM 44-1this is an comparable value .The effect of
crack length on G
IC
( fracture Energy ) is clear from figure 8, G
IC
value associated with the
onset of the crack is different to the values obtained for crack propagation and this is reflected
on the R curve as shown in Figure 8. Beam theory correction required to analyse the data and
the correction factors were applied a shown in the procedure section.
For mode II testing there is no recognised standard for testing of material in mode II. There
are four methods currently used but no agreement on which method to standardise. The
method used for this experiment was End Load Splitting (ELS) some of the problem
associate with ELS testing are role of friction during the test, how much energy is absorbed
by friction can this be calculated and accounted for in the analysis and is it possible to reduce
friction experimentally. Micro cracking has also been reported by several researchers and to
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 14

model this and calculate this will be very complex. The fracture energy against crack length
is plotted as seen in Figure 10 and unlike mode I there is a difference in the nature , the
fracture energy is going up with crack length and this is due to the friction, fibre bridging,
crack tip splitting and this is reflected in the figure . There is a very big difference in the
crack Initiation values and propagation value and they can be quoted as450 and 950 Jm
-2
.
Mode II values obtained are comparable with the literature but has to be treated with caution
as there are no standard methods available and hence the details of the experimentation needs
to be checked before comparing like to like data. The load- displacement graph has a linear
and non-linear area similar to the mode I. The Fracture energy values obtained from Mode I
and Mode II cannot be compared ad they are very different and involved different
mechanism.
The quality of the fracture energy values have been compared with the published data and
they are comparable and as the test was carried out according to standard test methods the
results obtained are good quality . There were a few problems during the experiment like the
white ink used to mark the specimen was applied thick and during testing some of the cracks
were propagation under the crack and were difficult to detect. Despite the difficulties the data
analysed produced meaningful results and was comparable with published data.
6. Conclusion
Inter-laminar fracture behaviour of ACG MTM 44-1 was studied using Mode I DCB and
Mode II ELS.
- The load- displacement graph shows non-linear behaviour, mainly due to the large
displacements in the specimen and the fracture mechanism like fibre-bridging, crack
splitting and friction.
- Modified beam theory with correction factors were used to deduce the fracture energy
following S Hashemi et al (Hashemi, 1990b)
- The Fracture energy values obtained from Mode I and Mode II cannot be compared
and they are very different and involved different mechanism. Correction factors were
used to ensure the value obtained is more in sync with the actual testing.
- Mode I testing was done according to ISO 15024 but mode II testing has no agreed
international standard.
- The fracture energy obtained for two DCB sample tested are G
IC
initiation energy was
~300Jm
-2
and this was comparable with the literature for epoxy matrix and there was
an increase in the fracture energy with crack length which is associated with fibre
bridging, crack end splitting and friction.
- For mode II ELS testing the G
IIC
initiation energy was found to be ~450Jm
-2
and
there was an increase in the fracture energy with crack length which is associated with
fibre bridging, crack end splitting and friction.
Jithin Gopal

Group2 Fracture Mechanics Short Report 15

- Mode II fracture energy VS crack length graph was a bigger scatter and the R
curved behaviour was not very obvious. Initiation and propagation values were
compared with previous work done by S Hameshi and the values obtained are
comparable taking into the experimental error.
There were few problem associated with the testing in terms of data collection, the
marking fluid being thick and crack propagation not visible due to this. Overall the
experiment was success in measuring the fracture energy for this ACG MTM 44-1
material and obtained comparable data with published results.


7. References
Advanced Composite Group. (04/11/2011) ACG MTM 44-1 product information. [Online]
Available from: http://www.advanced-
composites.co.uk/data_catalogue/catalogue%20files/pds/PDS1189_MTM44-1_Issue7b.pdf .
Department of Aeronautics, Laboratories booklet 2011/2012 . (2011/2012) MSc in
composites Laboratory Handout. Tensile Testing. In: Anonymous pp. 32-46.
Hashemi, S. (1990a) The Analysis of Interlaminar Fracture in Uniaxial Fibre-Polymer
Composites. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.Series A, Mathematical and
Physical Sciences. 427 (1872), 173-199.
Hodgkinson J M. (2000) Mechanical Testing of Advanced Fibre Composites. , Woodhead
Publishing Limited.
Naghipour, P. B. (2010) Effect of fiber angle orientation and stacking sequence on mixed
mode fracture toughness of carbon fiber reinforced plastics: Numerical and experimental
investigations. Materials Science Engineering.A, Structural Materials: Properties,
Microstructure and Processing. 527 (3), 509-517.
Taylor Ambrose Dr. (2011) Fracture. Lecture Notes Imperial College Course. 2, .
Williams, J. (1988) On the calculation of energy release rates for cracked laminates.
International Journal of Fracture. 36 (2), 101-119.