Improvements In The Fracture Cleavage Testing Of Adhesively-Bonded Wood


  • Jerone M. Gagliano
  • Charles E. Frazier


Fracture test, cleavage, wood adhesion


Previous researchers have used the contoured dual cantilever beam, DCB, to demonstrate the value of fracture testing for bonded wood. However, use of the contoured specimen is laborious and stringent, preventing the routine application of this powerful test. A simplified method for mode I fracture testing of adhesively-bonded wood is presented here. Two significant improvements are shown: 1) data analysis using a shear corrected compliance method derived from beam theory, and 2) the flat DCB geometry. The shear corrected compliance method is both simple and robust, accounting for variations in wood modulus that often confound traditional shear mode tests. The flat DCB geometry greatly simplifies sample preparation, eliminating difficulties associated with the preparation, calibration, and wood selection that are required with the composite contoured DCB. Real-time crack length measurements required for the flat geometry are routine using digital hardware. The sensitivity and simplification of the method are presented in hopes of promoting the wider adoption of fracture testing for bonded wood.


American Society for Testing and Materials. 1999a. Standard test method for strength properties of adhesive bonds in shear by compression loading. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM: D905-98, 15.06, 21-24.nAmerican Society for Testing and Materials. 1999b. Standard test method for fracture strength in cleavage of adhesives in bonded metal joints. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM: D3433-93, 15.06, 212-224.nBlackman, B., J. P. Dear, A. J. Kinloch, and S. Osiyemi. 1991. The calculation of adhesive fracture energies from double-cantilever beam test specimens. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. (10) 253-256.nDavalos, J. F., P. Madabhusi-Raman, and P. Qiao. 1997. Characterization of model-I fracture of hybrid material interface bonds by contoured DCB specimens. Eng. Fract. Mech. (58) 3:173-192.nEbewele, R., B. River, and J. Koutsky. 1979. Tapered double cantilever beam fracture tests of phenolic-wood adhesive joints. Part 1. Development of specimen geometry: Effects of bondline thickness, wood anisotropy, and cure time on fracture energy. Wood Fiber 11 (3): 197-213.nEbewele, R., B. River, and J. Koutsky. 1980. Tapered double cantilever beam fracture tests of phenolic-wood adhesive joints. Part II. Effects of surface roughness, the nature of surface roughness, and surface aging on joint fracture. Wood Fiber 12 (1):40-65.nEbewele, R., B. River, and J. Koutsky. 1982. Relationship between phenolic adhesive chemistry, cure and joint performance. Part I. Effects of base resin constitution and hardener on fracture energy and thermal effects during cure. J. Adhesion 14:189-217.nEbewele, R., B. River, and J. Koutsky. 1986a. Relationship between phenolic adhesive chemistry and adhesive joint performance; effect of filler type on fraction energy. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. (31):2275-2302.nEbewele, R., B. River, and J. Koutsky. 1986b. Wood processing variables and adhesive joint performance. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. (32):2979-2988.nGreen, D. W., J. E. Winandy, and D. E. Kretschmann. 1999. Mechanical properties of wood. Pagés 4:1-45 in Wood handbook, wood as an engineering material. Forest Products Society, Madison, WI.nHashemi, S., A. J. Kinloch, and J. G. Williams. 1990. The analysis of interlaminar fracture in uniaxial fibrepolymer composites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (427): 173-199.nKinloch, A. J. 1987. Adhesion and adhesives: Science and technology. Chapman & Hall, London, UK. 441 pp.nKinloch, A. J., and D. A. Tod. 1984. A new approach to crack growth in rubbery composite propellants. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotech. (9):48-55.nLim, W. W., and H. Mizumachi. 1995. Fracture toughness of adhesive joints. II. Temperature and rate dependencies of mode I fracture toughness and adhesive strength. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. (57):55-61.nLim, W. W., Y. Hatano, and H. Mizumachi. 1994. Fracture toughness of adhesive joints. I. Relationship between strain energy release rates in three different fracture modes and adhesive strengths. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. (52): 967-973.nMuovic, J. S., and J. A. Koutsky. 1979. Effect of wood grain angle on fracture properties and fracture morphology of wood-epoxy joints. Wood Science 11 (3): 164-168.nRakestraw, M. D. M. W. Taylor, D. A. Dillard, and T. Chang. 1995. Time dependent crack growth and loading rate effects on interfacial and cohesive fracture of adhesive joints. J. Adhesion (55): 123-149.nRiver, B. H., and E. A. Okkonen. 1993. Contoured wood double cantilever beam specimen for adhesive joint fracture tests. J. Testing Eval. (21):1, 21-28.nRiver, B. H., C. T. Scott, and J. A. Koutsky. 1989. Adhesive joint fracture behavior during setting and aging. Forest Prod. J. 39 (11/12):23-28.nScott, C. T., B. H. River, and J. A. Koutsky. 1992. Fracture testing wood adhesives with composite cantilever beams. J. Testing Eval. 20 (4):259-264.n






Research Contributions