Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 58, Issue 9, pp 1451–1467 | Cite as

In-situ Full Field Measurements During Inter-Facial Debonding in Single Fiber Composite Under Transverse Load

  • I. TabiaiEmail author
  • R. Delorme
  • D. Therriault
  • M. Levesque


The fibre/matrix interfacial damage mechanisms of fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) are investigated for single-fiber composites under transverse load. A stereo microscope setup is used for 3D digital image correlation during in-situ quasi-static tests of single-fiber standard dog-bone specimens. Macro-fibers (0.9 mm diameter) with radically different interfacial bonding with the epoxy matrix are used. Damage appears to initiate with fiber debonding at the free surface along the tensile direction. The crack then propagates around the interface while slightly growing along the fiber until a lateral crack initiates on the debonded free surface, provoking specimen failure. The final failure mechanisms appears to be different for strong and weak fiber/matrix bonding. 3D DIC is used to provide precise measurements of displacements, strains, and out-of-plane displacement during the whole test. Quantitative differences in the displacement fields are measured in the cases of strong and weak bonding between the fiber and matrix. 3D DIC with macro-fibers is shown to be a promising technique to provide a better understanding of the damage mechanisms in a single-fiber composite and to determine interfacial toughness of a specific fibre/matrix couple in order to perform accurate modeling of damage in FRCs. Displacement, strain, and confidence field results for each pixel from each experiment and at each time step are also provided for detailed comparison with simulation results.


Stereoscopic digital image correlation Interface fracture Single fiber composite Debonding Fiber reinforced composites 


  1. 1.
    Gherissi A, Abbassia F, Zghal A (2016) A Comparative Study of Three Different Microscale Approaches for Modeling Woven Composite Material. J Mater Sci Eng 6:1–7. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Talreja R, Veer Singh C (2012) Damage and Failure of Composite Materials, cambridge university press edn. Cambridge University Press.
  3. 3.
    González C, LLorca J (2007) Mechanical behavior of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymers under transverse compression: Microscopic mechanisms and modeling. Combust Sci Technol 67(13):2795–2806. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hinton M (1998) Predicting failure in composite laminates: the background to the exercise. Combust Sci Technol 58(7):1001–1010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nairn JA, Talreja R, Manson JAE (2000) Matrix microcracking in composites. In: Polymer matrix composites, no. 2 in comprehensive composite materials, pp 403–32. Elsevier scienceGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mantič V, García IG (2012) Crack onset and growth at the fibre–matrix interface under a remote biaxial transverse load. Application of a coupled stress and energy criterion. Int J Solids Struct 49(17):2273–2290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martyniuk K, Sørensen BF, Modregger P, Lauridsen EM (2013) 3d in situ observations of glass fibre/matrix interfacial debonding. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 55:63–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashin Z (1987) Analysis of damage in composite materials. In: Boehler JP (ed) Yielding, Damage, and Failure of Anisotropic Solids, vol. 5. egf publication .
  9. 9.
    Shao J, Rudnicki J (2000) A microcrack-based continuous damage model for brittle geomaterials. Mech Mater 32(10):607–619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee HC, Choi JS, Jung KH, Im YT (2009) Application of element deletion method for numerical analyses of cracking. J Achiev Mater Manuf Eng 35(2):154–161Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang Y, Zhao J, Jia Y, Mabrouki T, Gong Y, Wei N, Rabczuk T (2013) An analytical solution on interface debonding for large diameter carbon nanotube-reinforced composite with functionally graded variation interphase. Compos Struct 104:261–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silling SA (2014) Origin and effect of nonlocality in a composite. J Mech Mater Struct 9 (2):245–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sørensen BF, Goutianos S (2014) Mixed Mode cohesive law with interface dilatation. Mech Mater 70:76–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vernerey FJ, Kabiri M (2014) Adaptive Concurrent Multiscale Model for Fracture and Crack Propagation in Heterogeneous Media. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.
  15. 15.
    Wagner HD, Rubins M, Marom G (1991) The significance of microcomposites as experimental models. Polym Compos 12(4):233–236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ageorges C, Friedrich K, Schüller T, Lauke B (1999) Single-fibre Broutman test: fibre–matrix interface transverse debonding. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 30(12):1423–1434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koyanagi J, Shah PD, Kimura S, Ha SK, Kawada H (2009) Mixed-Mode interfacial debonding simulation in single-Fiber composite under a transverse load. J Solid Mech Mater Eng 3(5):796–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meurs PFM, Schrauwen BAG, Schreurs PJG, Peijs T (1998) Determination of the interfacial normal strength using single fibre model composites. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 29(9–10):1027–1034. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Piggott MR (1997) Why interface testing by single-fibre methods can be misleading. Combust Sci Technol 57(8):965–974. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhandarov SF, Pisanova EV (1997) The local bond strength and its determination by fragmentation and pull-out tests. Combust Sci Technol 57(8):957–964. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang L, Thomason JL (2010) Interface strength in glass fibre–polypropylene measured using the fibre pull-out and microbond methods. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 41(9):1077–1083. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhandarov S, Mäder E (2005) Characterization of fiber/matrix interface strength: applicability of different tests, approaches and parameters. Combust Sci Technol 65(1):149–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perrier A, Touchard F, Chocinski-Arnault L, Mellier D (2016) Mechanical behaviour analysis of the interface in single hemp yarn composites: DIC measurements and FEM calculations. Polym Test 52:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Canal L, González C, Molina-Aldareguía J, Segurado J, LLorca J (2012) Application of digital image correlation at the microscale in fiber-reinforced composites. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 43(10):1630–1638. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Ogihara S, Koyanagi J (2010) Investigation of combined stress state failure criterion for glass fiber/epoxy interface by the cruciform specimen method. Combust Sci Technol 70(1):143–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sottos NR, Scott WR, McCullough RL (1991) Micro-interferometry for measurement of thermal displacements at fiber/matrix interfaces. Exp Mech 31(2):98–103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wright P, Moffat A, Sinclair I, Spearing SM (2010) High resolution tomographic imaging and modelling of notch tip damage in a laminated composite. Combust Sci Technol 70(10):1444–1452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang H, Ericson ML, Varna J, Berglund LA (1997) Transverse single-fibre test for interfacial debonding in composites: 1. Experimental observations. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 28(4):309–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bruck HA, Moore CL, Valentine TL (2002) Repeatable bending actuation in polyurethanes using opposing embedded one-way shape memory alloy wires exhibiting large deformation recovery. Smart Mater Struct 11(4):509.
  31. 31.
    Mehdikhani M, Aravand M, Sabuncuoglu B, Callens MG, Lomov SV, Gorbatikh L (2016) Full-field strain measurements at the micro-scale in fiber-reinforced composites using digital image correlation. Compos Struct 140:192–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tracy J, Waas A, Daly S (2015) A new experimental approach for in situ damage assessment in fibrous ceramic matrix composites at high temperature. J Am Ceram Soc 98(6):1898–1906. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haldar S, Gheewala N, Grande-Allen KJ, Sutton MA, Bruck HA (2011) Multi-scale mechanical characterization of palmetto wood using digital image correlation to develop a template for biologically-inspired polymer composites. Exp Mech 51(4):575–589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tabiai I, Delorme R, Therriault D, Lévesque M (2018) Additional data for the In-situ full field measurement during inter-facial debonding in single fiber composite under transverse load. Type: dataset
  35. 35.
    Petr Hlaváček JB (2012) Using of abrasive water jet for measurement of residual stress in railway wheels. Tehnicki Vjesnik 19(2):387–390Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nakazawa M (2014) Mechanism of Adhesion of Epoxy Resin to Steel Surface. Nippon Steel Tech Report 63 (63):16–22. Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Biswas SK, Vijayan K (1992) Friction and wear of PTFE — a review. Wear 158(1):193–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Plummer J (2014) What makes epoxy resins good adhesives? Why do they bond so strongly to surfaces? Tech. rep., Mereco Technologies, Londonderry, NH 03053.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    Sutton MA, Orteu JJ, Schreier HW (2009) Image correlation for shape, motion and deformation measurements: basic concepts, theory and applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Correlated S (2010) Vic-3D Help Manual. Correlated Solutions.
  42. 42.
    Wang W, Fruehmann RK, Dulieu-Barton JM (2015) Application of Digital Image Correlation to Address Complex Motions in Thermoelastic Stress Analysis: Motion Compensation for TSA. Strain 51(5):405–418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bornert M, Brémand F, Doumalin P, Dupré JC, Fazzini M, Grédiac M, Hild F, Mistou S, Molimard J, Orteu JJ, Robert L, Surrel Y, Vacher P, Wattrisse B (2009) Assessment of digital image correlation measurement errors: methodology and results. Exp Mech 49(3):353–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sutton M, Yan J, Tiwari V, Schreier H, Orteu J (2008) The effect of out-of-plane motion on 2d and 3d digital image correlation measurements. Opt Lasers Eng 46(10):746–757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
  46. 46.
    Iadicola M, Banerjee D (2016) A comparison of strain calculation using digital image correlation and finite element software. J Phys Conf Ser 734:032,013.
  47. 47.
    Mazzoleni P (2013) Uncertainty estimation and reduction in digital image correlation measurements.

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Multiscale Mechanics, Department of Mechanical EngineeringPolytechnique MontrealMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations