0
Research Papers

Size Effect on Microbond Testing Interfacial Shear Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Composites

[+] Author and Article Information
Qiyang Li

State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic System,
Key Laboratory of Soft Machines and Smart Devices of Zhejiang Province
and Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
e-mail: liqy999@zju.edu.cn

Guodong Nian

State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic System,
Key Laboratory of Soft Machines and Smart Devices of Zhejiang Province
and Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
e-mail: gnian@zju.edu.cn

Weiming Tao

State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic System,
Key Laboratory of Soft Machines and Smart Devices of Zhejiang Province
and Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
e-mail: Taowm@zju.edu.cn

Shaoxing Qu

State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic System,
Key Laboratory of Soft Machines and Smart Devices of Zhejiang Province
and Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
e-mail: squ@zju.edu.cn

1Corresponding authors.

Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Applied Mechanics. Manuscript received March 24, 2019; final manuscript received March 30, 2019; published online April 12, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Yonggang Huang.

J. Appl. Mech 86(7), 071004 (Apr 12, 2019) (8 pages) Paper No: JAM-19-1135; doi: 10.1115/1.4043354 History: Received March 24, 2019; Accepted March 31, 2019

Microbond tests have been widely used for studying the interfacial mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced composites. However, experimental results reveal that the interfacial shear strength (IFSS) depends on the length of microdroplet-embedded fiber (le). Thus, it is essential to provide an insight into this size effect on IFSS. In this paper, microbond tests are conducted for two kinds of widely used composites, i.e., glass fiber/epoxy matrix and carbon fiber/epoxy matrix. The lengths of microdroplet-embedded glass fiber and carbon fiber are in the ranges from 114.29 µm to 557.14 µm and from 63.78 µm to 157.45 µm, respectively. We analyze the representative force–displacement curves, the processes of interfacial failure and frictional sliding, and the maximum force and the frictional force as functions of le. Experimental results show that IFSS of both material systems monotonically decreases with le and then approaches a constant value. The finite element model is used to analyze the size effect on IFSS and interfacial failure behaviors. For both material systems, IFSS predicted from simulations is consistent with that obtained from experiments. Moreover, by analyzing the shear stress distribution, a transition of interface debonding is found from more or less uniform separation to crack propagation when le increases. This study reveals the mechanism of size effect in microbond tests, serving as an effective method to evaluate the experimental results and is critical to guidelines for the design and optimization of advanced composites.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Jacobasch, H. J., Grundke, K., Uhlmann, P., Simon, F., and Mäder, E., 1996, “Comparison of Surface Chemical Methods for Characterizing Carbon Fiber Epoxy Resin Composites,” Compo. Interface, 3(4), pp. 293–320. [CrossRef]
Yang, L., and Thomason, J. L., 2010, “Interface Strength in Glass Fibre–Polypropylene Measured Using the Fibre Pull-out and Microbond Methods,” Compos. Part A-Appl. S, 41(9), pp. 1077–1083. [CrossRef]
Thomason, J. L., and Yang, L., 2014, “Temperature Dependence of the Interfacial Shear Strength in Glass–Fibre Epoxy Composites,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 96, pp. 7–12. [CrossRef]
Miller, B., Muri, P., and Rebenfeld, L., 1987, “A Microbond Method for Determination of the Shear Strength of a Fiber/Resin Interface,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 28(1), pp. 17–32. [CrossRef]
Zhandarov, S., and Mäder, E., 2005, “Peak Force as Function of the Embedded Length in Pull-out and Microbond Tests: Effect of Specimen Geometry,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., 19(10), pp. 817–855. [CrossRef]
Zhandarov, S., and Mäder, E., 2015, “Estimation of the Local Interfacial Strength Parameters of Carbon Nanotube Fibers in an Epoxy Matrix From a Microbond Test Data,” Carbon, 86, pp. 54–57. [CrossRef]
Nian, G., Li, Q., Xu, Q., and Qu, S., 2018, “A Cohesive Zone Model Incorporating a Coulomb Friction Law for Fiber-Reinforced Composites,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 157, pp. 195–201. [CrossRef]
Ash, J. T., Cross, W. M., Svalstad, D., Kellar, J. J., and Kjerengtroen, L., 2003, “Finite Element Evaluation of the Microbond Test Meniscus Effect, Interphase Region, and Vise Angle,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 63(5), pp. 641–651. [CrossRef]
Kang, S.-K., Lee, D.-B., and Choi, N.-S., 2009, “Fiber/Epoxy Interfacial Shear Strength Measured by the Microdroplet Test,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 69(2), pp. 245–251. [CrossRef]
Pandey, G., Kareliya, C. H., and Singh, R. P., 2011, “A Study of the Effect of Experimental Test Parameters on Data Scatter in Microbond Testing,” J. Compos. Mater, 46(3), pp. 275–284. [CrossRef]
Zhi, C., Long, H., and Miao, M., 2017, “Influence of Microbond Test Parameters on Interfacial Shear Strength of Fiber Reinforced Polymer-Matrix Composites,” Compos. Part A-Appl. S, 100, pp. 55–63. [CrossRef]
Needleman, A., 1987, “A Continuum Model for Void Nucleation by Inclusion Debonding,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 54(3), pp. 525–531. [CrossRef]
Needleman, A., 1990, “An Analysis of Decohesion Along an Imperfect Interface,” Int. J. Fracture, 42(1), pp. 21–40. [CrossRef]
Zhong, D., Liu, J., Xiang, Y., Yin, T., Hong, W., Yu, H., Qu, S., and Yang, W., 2019, “Effect of Partition on the Mechanical Behaviors of Soft Adhesive Layers,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 86(6), p. 061003. [CrossRef]
Takeda, N., Song, D. Y., Nakat, K., and Shioya, T., 1994, “The Effect of Fiber Surface Treatment on the Micro Fracture Progress in Glass Fiber/Nylon 6 Composites,” Compo. Interface, 2(2), pp. 143–155.
Piggott, M. R., 1997, “Why Interface Testing by Single-Fibre Methods can be Misleading,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 57(8), pp. 965–974. [CrossRef]
Pisanova, E., Dutschk, V., and Lauke, B., 1998, “Work of Adhesion and Local Bond Strength in Glass Fibre-Thermoplastic Polymer Systems,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technolo., 12(3), pp. 305–322. [CrossRef]
Auvray, M. H., Chéneau-Henry, P., Leroy, F. H., and Favre, J. P., 1994, “Pull-out Testing of Carbon/Bismaleimide Systems in the Temperature Range 20–250 °C,” Composites, 25(7), pp. 776–780. [CrossRef]
Zhandarov, S. F., Mäder, E., and Yurkevich, O. R., 2002, “Indirect Estimation of Fiber/Polymer Bond Strength and Interfacial Friction From Maximum Load Values Recorded in the Microbond and Pull out Tests. Part I: Local Bond Strength,” J. Adhes. Sci. Technol., 16(9), pp. 1171–1200. [CrossRef]
Zhandarov, S., and Mäder, E., 2005, “Characterization of Fiber/Matrix Interface Strength: Applicability of Different Tests, Approaches and Parameters,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 65(1), pp. 149–160. [CrossRef]
Zhandarov, S., and Mäder, E., 2014, “An Alternative Method of Determining the Local Interfacial Shear Strength From Force–Displacement Curves in the Pull-out and Microbond Tests,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes, 55, pp. 37–42. [CrossRef]
Schüller, T., Beckert, W., Lauke, B., and Perche, N., 1999, “Analytical and Numerical Calculation of the Energy Release Rate for the Microbond Test,” J. Adhesion, 70(1–2), pp. 33–56. [CrossRef]
Nairn, J. A., 2000, “Analytical Fracture Mechanics Analysis of the Pull-out Test Including the Effects of Friction and Thermal Stresses,” Adv. Compos. Lett., 9(6), pp. 373–383. [CrossRef]
Mendels, D. A., Leterrier, Y., Manson, J. A. E., and Nairn, J. A., 2002, “The Influence of Internal Stresses on the Microbond Test II: Physical Aging and Adhesion,” J. Compos. Mater., 36(14), pp. 1655–1676. [CrossRef]
Zhandarov, S., and Mäder, E., 2016, “Determining the Interfacial Toughness From Force–Displacement Curves in the Pull-out and Microbond Tests Using the Alternative Method,” Int. J. Adhes. Adhes, 65, pp. 11–18. [CrossRef]
Zhandarov, S., Gorbatkina, Y., and Mäder, E., 2006, “Adhesional Pressure as a Criterion for Interfacial Failure in Fibrous Microcomposites and Its Determination Using a Microbond Test,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 66(15), pp. 2610–2628. [CrossRef]
Jia, Y., Yan, W., and Liu, H.-Y., 2012, “Carbon Fibre Pullout Under the Influence of Residual Thermal Stresses in Polymer Matrix Composites,” Comp. Mater. Sci., 62, pp. 79–86. [CrossRef]
Sockalingam, S., Dey, M., Gillespie, J. W., Jr., and Keefe, M., 2014, “Finite Element Analysis of the Microdroplet Test Method Using Cohesive Zone Model of the Fiber/Matrix Interface,” Compos. Part A-Appl. S., 56, pp. 239–247. [CrossRef]
Minnicino, A. M., and Santare, M. H., 2012, “Modeling the Progressive Damage of the Microdroplet Test Using Contact Surfaces With Cohesive Behavior,” Compos. Sci. Technol., 72(16), pp. 2024–2031. [CrossRef]
Nian, G., Shan, Y., Xu, Q., Qu, S., and Yang, Q., 2016, “Failure Analysis of Syntactic Foams: A Computational Model with Cohesive Law and XFEM,” Compos. Part B-Eng., 89, pp. 18–26. [CrossRef]
Ghareeb, A., and Elbanna, A., 2018, “On the Role of the Plaque Porous Structure in Mussel Adhesion: Implications for Adhesion Control Using Bulk Patterning,” J. Appl. Mech., 85(12), p. 121003. [CrossRef]
Avellar, L., Reese, T., Bhattacharya, K., and Ravichandran, G., 2018, “Effect of Cohesive Zone Size on Peeling of Heterogeneous Adhesive Tape,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 85(12), p. 121005. [CrossRef]
Adams, G. G., 2019, “A Crack Close to and Perpendicular to an Interface: Resolution of Anomalous Behavior With a Cohesive Zone,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 86(3), p. 031008. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) The photograph of the experimental setup for the Soxhlet extraction method. (b) The photograph of the epoxy resin mixture under different conditions: (I) without centrifugation and (II) with centrifugation at 1000 rpm for 5 min, (III) at 5000 rpm for 5 min, (IV) at 7500 rpm for 5 min, (V) at 7500 rpm for 10 min, and (VI) at 10,000 rpm for 5 min. (c) The photograph of the metal frame for specimen preparation. (d) The photograph of in-house developed tester for the microbond test and its schematic.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The photographs of the as-prepared samples with (a) an outward convex coating, (b) irregular or (c) asymmetric conformation, (d) an air bubble enclosed, or (e) a slim conformation. (f) A larger portion of the microdroplet is left on the fiber after the test. Statistics of tested samples (black bars with slashes) and successful tests (red bars) for (g) glass fiber/epoxy matrix and (h) carbon fiber/epoxy matrix.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

As-prepared samples for the microbond test: (a) the glass fiber/epoxy matrix and (b) the carbon fiber/epoxy matrix. The screenshots of the videos during pull-out for (c) the glass fiber/epoxy matrix and (d) the carbon fiber/epoxy matrix. The samples of (e) the glass fiber/epoxy matrix and (f) the carbon fiber/epoxy matrix after tests. The force–displacement curves from the experiment and the simulation for (g) the glass fiber/epoxy matrix and (h) the carbon fiber/epoxy matrix.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The experimental recorded frictional force during pure friction sliding Ff versus le: (a) the glass fiber/epoxy matrix and (b) the carbon fiber/epoxy matrix

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The maximum force Fmax versus le from the experiment (black squares) and the simulation (crosses) for (a) the glass fiber/epoxy matrix and (b) the carbon fiber/epoxy matrix

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Contours of maximum principle stress of microdroplets with different le for the glass/epoxy system and carbon/epoxy system at five stages: (I) the initial stage, (II) the stage of increasing load, (III) the stage before peak load, (IV) the stage of peak load, and (V) the stage of pure friction sliding. le = (a) 60 µm, (b) 221.43 µm, and (c) 350 µm for glass/epoxy. (d) 65.54 µm, (e) 106.83 µm, and (f) 199.2 µm for carbon/epoxy.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) The illustration of different stages during the process of interfacial debonding. The normalized shear stress τ/τmax versus the normalized length l/le for the glass/epoxy system: le = (b) 60 µm, (c) 221.43 µm, and (d) 350 µm, and for the carbon/epoxy system: le = (e) 65.54 µm, (f) 106.83 µm, and (g) 199.2 µm.

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In