January 2010 

NASA/TP–2010-216169 

Sizing Single Cantilever Beam Specimens for 

Characterizing Facesheet/Core Peel Debonding 

in Sandwich Structure 

James G. Ratcliffe 

National Institute of Aerospace 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

 Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to 

the advancement of aeronautics and space science. 

The NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role. 

 The NASA STI program operates under the 

auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It 

collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and 

disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program 

provides access to the NASA Aeronautics and Space 

Database and its public interface, the NASA Technical 

Report Server, thus providing one of the largest 

collections of aeronautical and space science STI in 

the world. Results are published in both non-NASA 

channels and by NASA in the NASA STI Report 

Series, which includes the following report types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or 

theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of 

significant scientific and technical data and 

information deemed to be of continuing 

reference value. NASA counterpart of peerreviewed formal professional papers, but having 

less stringent limitations on manuscript length 

and extent of graphic presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific 

and technical findings that are preliminary or of 

specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, 

working papers, and bibliographies that contain 

minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive 

analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or co-sponsored by NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from NASA 

programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientific and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission. 

 Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, and 

organizing and publishing research results. 

 For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to 

help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443-757-5803 

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at 

443-757-5802 

• Write to: 

 NASA STI Help Desk 

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

 7115 Standard Drive 

 Hanover, MD 21076-1320
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199 

 

January 2010 

NASA/TP–2010-216169 

Sizing Single Cantilever Beam Specimens for 

Characterizing Facesheet/Core Peel Debonding 

in Sandwich Structure 

James G. Ratcliffe 

National Institute of Aerospace 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
Available from: 

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 

7115 Standard Drive 

Hanover, MD 21076-1320 

443-757-5802 

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identification only. Their usage does not 

constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 
1

Sizing Single Cantilever Beam Specimens for Characterizing Facesheet/Core Peel 

Debonding in Sandwich Structure

James G. Ratcliffe

National Institute of Aerospace

100 Exploration Way, Hampton, VA 23666

Resident at:

Damage Tolerance, Durability, and Reliability Branch

NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681

ABSTRACT: This technical publication details part of an effort focused on the 

development of a standardized facesheet/core peel debonding test procedure. The 

purpose of the test is to characterize facesheet/core peel in sandwich structure, 

accomplished through the measurement of the critical strain energy release rate 

associated with the debonding process. Following an examination of previously 

developed tests and a recent evaluation of a selection of these methods, a single 

cantilever beam (SCB) specimen was identified as being a promising candidate for 

establishing such a standardized test procedure. The objective of the work described here 

was to begin development of a protocol for conducting a SCB test that will render the 

procedure suitable for standardization. To this end, a sizing methodology was developed 

to ensure appropriate SCB specimen dimensions are selected for a given sandwich 

system. Application of this method to actual sandwich systems yielded SCB specimen 

dimensions that would be practical for use. This study resulted in the development of a 

practical SCB specimen sizing method, which should be well-suited for incorporation 

into a standardized testing protocol.
2

List of Symbols

a Facesheet/core debond length of the single cantilever beam specimen

amax Maximum permissible debond length of the single cantilever beam specimen

 

!

amin

bending Minimum debond length for bending to dominate facesheet deformation

 

!

amin

compliance Minimum debond length to ensure simplification of compliance solution

a0 Initial debond length

aprop Permissible debond growth in the single cantilever beam specimen

b Width of the single cantilever beam specimen

B Fit parameter used in Eqs. 14-15

C Specimen compliance

CSCB Compliance of the single cantilever beam specimen

Ec Thickness-direction modulus of a sandwich panel core

Ef Flexural modulus of a sandwich panel facesheet

F1 Coefficient of SCB specimen compliance

F2 Coefficient of SCB specimen compliance

F3 Coefficient of SCB specimen compliance

Gc Debond toughness associated with facesheet/core debonding

Gxz,f Shear modulus of a sandwich panel facesheet

hp Loading rod length

hp,min Minimum loading rod length

k Elastic foundation modulus

L Length of the single cantilever beam specimen

LAB Debond length used in kinematic treatment of the single cantilever beam specimen

Lb Length of single cantilever beam specimen supported by elastic foundation

Lhinge Length of SCB specimen used for bonded piano hinge

Lb,min Minimum length of single cantilever beam specimen supported by elastic foundation

Lmin Minimum length of single cantilever beam specimen

LOA Length parameter used in kinematic treatment of the single cantilever beam specimen

P Applied force

Pc Applied force at onset of debond growth

tc Thickness of a sandwich panel core

tf Thickness of a sandwich panel facesheet

 

!

tf

strength Minimum thickness of sandwich panel facesheet to prevent arm failure during SCB test

 

!

tf

small disp Minimum thickness of sandwich panel facesheet to satisfy small displacement requirements

x Global x-axis coordinate

z Global z-axis coordinate

δ Load point displacement

δc Load point displacement at onset of debond growth

Δ Test machine crosshead displacement

λ Elastic foundation coefficient

θ1 Loading rod rotation

θ2 Facesheet rotation in kinematic treatment of the single cantilever beam specimen
3

1 Introduction

Sandwich structure can exhibit several different failure modes, the occurrence of 

which is dependent largely on the configuration of the sandwich system and loading 

scenario [1]. One such failure mode, facesheet/core debonding, can pose a threat to the 

structural integrity of a component comprised of sandwich structure. Consequently, 

manufactures often gauge the quality of the facesheet/core bond using the climbing drum 

peel (CDP) test [2]. This yields a qualitative assessment of the bond, however, use of

data from this test for damage tolerance design purposes is limited (although, recent work 

suggests that it may be possible to estimate the critical strain energy release rate 

associated with facesheet/core peel in thin facesheet sandwich panels using the CDP test 

[3]). Thus, numerous alternative test methods have arisen from the need for a 

quantitative assessment of the quality of the facesheet/core bond [3-23]. These test 

methods largely follow a common approach, whereby facecheet/core debonding is 

characterized through the measurement of the corresponding critical strain energy release 

rate (denoted here as debond toughness).

As is the case with mode I delamination in composite laminates, the most critical 

debonding process in sandwich structure is likely to be mode I dominated, corresponding 

to loading scenarios where the facesheet is peeled from the core. Subsequently, the 

literature is focused on test methods designed to measure the critical strain energy release 

rate associated with facesheet/core peel. In general, two classes of facesheet/core peel 

test specimens have been developed. The general specimen configuration used in both 

classes is similar, involving a sandwich beam containing a debond running partially along 

one of the facesheet/core interfaces. The first class of specimens is based on a single 

cantilever beam (SCB) design, where a force is applied to the debonded facesheet, while 

the underside of the specimen is secured to a rigid base and prevented from rotation. An 

example of this configuration class is shown in Fig. 1a. The second class of specimens is 

based on a double cantilever beam (DCB) configuration, where equal and opposite forces 

are applied to the specimen, either side of the debond, as illustrated in Fig. 1b. 

Several versions of each specimen class have been used for evaluating the debond 

toughness, associated with facesheet/core peel of a broad range of sandwich systems. 

There are a number of examples where slightly differing test configurations have been 

used to measure the debond toughness of the same, or similar, sandwich systems. For 

instance, values of debond toughness of a glass/polyester facesheet, H80 PVC foam core 

sandwich system, reported from four different tests, range from 0.2kJ/m2 to 0.53kJ/m2

(see Table A1, Appendix A). A similar amount of scatter in debond toughness was found 

following tests on two other sandwich systems using five test methods (Table A1, 

Appendix A). The differing sources of these data make it difficult to pinpoint the exact 

reasons for the scatter, thus limiting the quantitative value of the data. Moreover, fracture 

mechanics-based tools are being made available in finite element analysis codes, such as 

ABAQUS®1/Standard, which enable simulation of processes such as delamination and 

facesheet/core debonding. The accuracy, however, of such simulations resides 

significantly with the reliability of fracture criteria, such as debond toughness in the case 

of facesheet/core peel, that are used in these fracture mechanics tools. Consequently, a 

 1 ABAQUS® is manufactured by Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp. (DSS), Providence, RI, USA
4

clear motivation exists for establishing a standardized test procedure for characterizing 

facesheet/core debonding, which is capable of producing reliable values of debond 

toughness. The data reduction method for calculating debond toughness using data from 

such a test must involve simple, closed-form calculations. The test specimen and 

procedure must also be simple, in order to minimize potential differences that may arise 

from tests being conducted at different laboratories.

An inspection of developed test methods indicates a number of specimens that may 

exhibit the required attributes for a standardized test. In fact, a recent study evaluated the 

suitability of five of these test methods for measuring debond toughness associated with 

facesheet/core peel [4]. A SCB type specimen, with a configuration identical to that 

shown in Fig. 1a was identified as the most appropriate test for standardization. 

However, an appropriate protocol for conducting this test as part of a standardized test 

procedure has yet to be established. Therefore, the objective of the current work is to 

begin the protocol development by establishing a systematic method for determining 

appropriate dimensions of the SCB specimen.

This technical publication includes the following sections. Section 2 discusses the 

selection of the SCB specimen as an appropriate test for standardization. Section 3 

summarizes a sample set of sandwich systems that will be applied to the SCB specimen 

sizing method developed in Section 4. The resulting specimen dimensions are discussed 

in Section 5, followed by a summary of this work in Section 6.

2 Selection of SCB Test for Standardization

2.1 General Procedure of a Facesheet/Core Peel Test

The overall purpose of the proposed standardized test is to measure the static debond 

toughness associated with a facesheet peeling from the core of a sandwich beam. The 

general test procedure is analogous to that used for characterizing mode I delamination 

resistance in composite laminates, as employed in ASTM International Test Method 

D5528-01©2 [24]. A sandwich beam is prepared with a facesheet/core debond of initial 

length, a0, at one interface (see Fig. 1a). The specimen is loaded under displacement 

control (at a quasi-static displacement rate) until the debond is grown to a certain length, 

after which the specimen is unloaded. Applied force, P, and corresponding load point 

displacement values, δ, are recorded at several increments of debond growth, as shown in 

the force-displacement response illustrated in Fig. 2. The corresponding specimen 

compliance, C, is then calculated at the debond growth increments using the relationship, 

C=δ/P. This method for calculating specimen compliance is only valid for specimens 

that respond in a linear elastic manner. Furthermore, if the machine compliance is 

suspected to be significant, this must be subtracted from the compliance values measured 

during the SCB test. Machine compliance is typically measured by testing a rigid, replica 

specimen. Linear elastic fracture mechanics is used to compute the debond toughness, 

Gc, from the following relation [25]:

 2 Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428-2959, USA
5

 

!

Gc = Pc

2

2b

dC

da (1)

where Pc is the force at the onset of debond growth, and b is the specimen width. The 

derivative, dC/da, is evaluated from the compliance/debond length relationship measured 

using the test.

Although the loading conditions at the debond front are likely to be mode I dominated, 

the mismatch in modulus between the core and facesheet surrounding the debond act to 

couple the normal and shear deformations ahead of the debond front [26]. Consequently, 

there will not be a pure mode I loading condition along the debond front in a sandwich 

specimen. For this reason, debond toughness is generally referred to as Gc, rather than 

GIc (for example, see Ref. 7).

Values of debond toughness are computed for each debond length increment, at 

which specimen compliance was measured, thus establishing the relationship between 

debond toughness and debond length. This relationship is analogous to an R-curve 

measured from DCB tests conducted on monolithic laminates.

2.2 Conditions Necessary for a Standardized Test

An ideal standardized test will satisfy the following conditions:

I. Complexity of the test apparatus and procedure must be minimized.

II. The data reduction method used for computing Gc should not require detailed 

stress analyses, such as a finite element calculation. Solutions for specimen 

compliance should be closed-form.

III. Specimen loading must be mode I dominated, and this condition should be 

insensitive to debond length.

IV. The test must result in debond growth either at, or in the vicinity of the 

facesheet/core interface, parallel to the plane of the interface.

V. Debond growth must be stable, although stick-slip growth may be permitted.

VI. Specimen response must be linear-elastic and must be appropriate for analysis 

using linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM).

VII. The test must result in the measurement of quasi-static values of Gc, including 

an initiation value and subsequent propagation values.

VIII. It must be possible to test a practical range of sandwich systems.

In the following section, the SCB test that is being considered for standardization is 

described. Arguments are put forward supporting the assertions that this test is 

appropriate for standardization.

2.3 Single Cantilever Beam Test

A schematic of the SCB test being considered for standardization is presented in 

Fig. 1a. The general test procedure involving this specimen is identical to that detailed in 

Section 2.1. During this test, the load application point is vertically offset from the 

specimen via a loading rod that connects the piano hinge bonded to the specimen to the 
6

crosshead of the test machine (see Fig. 1a). The end of the loading rod attached to the 

crosshead is connected using a pinned configuration, thus preventing development of a 

moment arm in the rod. The purpose of offsetting the load application point is to ensure 

that loading remains essentially vertical during a test, thus preventing the accumulation of 

shear deformation in the core, which could introduce an unwanted mode II component of 

loading along the debond front.

Previous investigations using this SCB specimen, and other specimen configurations, 

have made use of the following form for the specimen compliance solution [6-8]:

!

CSCB = m(a + ")

3

(2)

where the parameters m and Δ are dependent on the sandwich system tested, and are 

evaluated from the relationship between C1/3 and debond length, as illustrated in Fig. 3.

Substituting Eq. 2 into Eq. 1 for the derivative, dC/da, gives the expression used for 

calculating Gc:

 

!

Gc = 3Pc

"c

2b(a + # ) (3)

The first two conditions for standardization (Section 2.2) are satisfied by the SCB 

specimen, because it uses a simple test apparatus, and a straightforward, closed form data 

reduction method for calculating Gc, as discussed above. Furthermore, a recent 

investigation [4] applied the SCB test to characterizing facesheet/core peel in 

polyurethane foam and Nomex®3 honeycomb-based sandwich systems (both reinforced 

with carbon/epoxy facesheets). The response of SCB specimens made from both 

sandwich systems was found to be linear elastic, and debond growth was found to be 

stable in the Nomex® honeycomb specimens. Debond growth in the foam specimens 

exhibited a stick slip behavior, where growth took place in several discrete increments. 

In all cases, the debond grew parallel to the facesheet/core just within the core material 

(sub-interface debond). The measured compliance/debond length relationship of both 

sandwich systems was found to adopt the form given in Eq. 2. 

A series of finite element analyses of the SCB specimen was also conducted during 

this study [4]. Results from these analyses indicated that the debond front loading 

conditions of the SCB specimen are mode I dominated, and are not significantly affected 

by debond length.

In summary, general observations indicate that the SCB specimen will likely satisfy 

all eight conditions necessary for standardization.

As noted in the introduction, a number of variations of the SCB specimen have also 

been developed [4, 6, 9-12]. Schematics of these tests are presented in Fig. 4. A brief 

examination of these specimens reveals that all of these alternate tests exhibit some 

feature that precludes them from being considered for standardization. For instance, the 

debond front loading conditions of the specimen illustrated in Fig. 4a have been shown to 

vary significantly with debond length [6]. Tests conducted on Nomex® honeycomb 

based sandwich systems using the specimen illustrated in Fig. 4b [4] resulted in kinking 

 3 Nomex® is a registered trademark of E.I DuPont de Nemours, Wilmington, DE, USA
7

of the debond into the core material. Due to it’s similarity with the latter specimen, the 

specimen illustrated in Fig. 4c [9] is also likely to result in a similar kind of debond 

growth behavior. The tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimen illustrated in Fig. 4d [10] 

involves tilting the specimen, as shown in the figure, resulting in axial loading of the 

facesheet, and the introduction of shear loading along the debond front. Consequently, 

this specimen will not impart the desired form of peel loading into the specimen. The 

two remaining SCB type specimens illustrated in Figs. 4e and 4f rely on a carriage 

system for ensuring that load application remains vertical during a test [11-12]. Although 

these tests appear to yield reasonable measurements of Gc, the added complexity of a 

carriage system should be avoided in a standardized test if another option exists. In this 

case, the specimen illustrated in Fig. 1 provides a better option.

A series of specimens based on a DCB configuration has also been proposed for 

characterizing facesheet/core peel [7, 13-15]. These test configurations are illustrated in 

Fig. 5. A common feature of all the DCB type specimens is that a bending moment is 

imparted in the core below the unbonded portion of the specimen, resulting in the 

development of axial tensile stresses in the core material, around the location of the 

debond. Tests conducted on a balsa-based sandwich system using the configuration 

shown in Fig. 5b, for instance, resulted in kinking of the debond into the core material 

[16], which was attributed to the tensile stresses developed in the core. Consequently, all 

DCB-based specimens are considered to be unsuitable for standardization.

Two additional test methods are available for characterizing facesheet/core peel. 

Schematics of the corresponding specimen configurations are presented in Fig. 6. The 

first of these specimens is the climbing drum peel test [2] (Fig. 6a). As mentioned in the 

introduction, recent work has been conducted that suggested this test could be used to 

evaluate Gc associated with facesheet/core peel [3]. The test apparatus, however, is too 

complex, and the test is also limited to sandwich configurations containing thin 

facesheets. Questions also remain, regarding the validity of using such a method for 

measuring debond toughness, when the test involves energy dissipating mechanisms in 

addition to debond growth. A center notch flexure (CNF) test is a simplified alternative 

to this test [17 and 18] (Fig. 6b). However, the CNF test works on the assumption that 

debonding will take place symmetrically, about a centrally-located loading pin. This is 

unlikely to take place in reality, as observed during similar tests [19]. Subsequently, 

debond toughness measurements from this test are also likely to be questionable.

To summarize, the SCB specimen illustrated in Fig. 1a is the only test that appears to 

satisfy the conditions necessary for standardization, and is therefore deemed to be the 

most appropriate test specimen of those proposed in the literature. The validity of the 

data reduction method proposed for use with this test, however, relies upon the SCB 

specimen dimensions and other test parameters being kept within specific limits. These 

limits are dependent on the sandwich system being tested. Section 4 discusses these 

limitations and proposes an efficient specimen sizing methodology (Section 4.4) for 

selecting appropriate specimen dimensions for a given sandwich system.
8

3 Sandwich Systems

The specimen sizing procedure developed in Section 4 is applied to a range of 

sandwich systems thought likely to be tested using the SCB specimen. This study was 

conducted to ensure the procedure yields specimen dimensions that are practical for SCB 

testing. This section details these sandwich systems. 

The range of sandwich systems considered here stem from four classes of facesheet 

and core material systems, which are thought to be representative of materials commonly 

used in panels for the marine and aerospace industries. The four classes of facesheet 

material systems include fiber reinforced/epoxy tape and plain weave fabric, with either 

carbon or glass used for the fiber reinforcement. Polyester is also a common matrix 

material used in glass fiber-based facesheets, but is not considered here due to the 

similarity in physical properties of this system, compared to those of glass/epoxy systems 

(for example, see Ref. 27). Furthermore, only tape and plain weave fabric facesheets 

consisting of a unidirectional stacking sequence, with principle fiber direction parallel to 

SCB specimen length, are considered in the current work. This is to avoid unwanted 

energy dissipating mechanisms during a SCB test, from sources such as matrix cracking 

in off-axis plies. Subsequently, the sizing method developed in Section 4 will only be 

appropriate for sandwich construction with unidirectional facesheets. The implications of 

this limitation are expanded upon in Section 4.4.

The properties of the four classes of facesheet materials considered in the SCB 

specimen sizing procedure are presented in Table 1. The flexural modulus values of the 

carbon and glass-based systems in Table 1 (rounded to the nearest 1000MPa) were taken 

as the average tensile modulus of five representative tape and fabric material systems 

listed in Tables B1 and B2, respectively, in Appendix B. The stress allowable values of 

the carbon and glass-based systems in Table 1 (rounded to the nearest 5MPa) are based 

on 75% of the lowest fiber-direction, tensile strength value, reported for both system 

classes in Tables B1 and B2, respectively. As will be discussed in Section 4.3, it is 

assumed that flexural failure of the loaded SCB arm will be prevented if the maximum 

stress developed in the arm does not exceed the stress allowable, σc. Shear modulus 

values reported in Table 1 for all four material classes are estimates, based on values 

reported for similar material systems in the literature (for instance, see Ref. 28).

TABLE 1 Properties of unidirectional facesheets considered in specimen sizing 

procedure

Material system Ef

MPa

Gxz,f *

MPa

σc

MPa

Carbon/epoxy tape 137000 5000 1090

Carbon/epoxy plain weave fabric 65000 4000 470

Glass/epoxy tape 46000 4000 800

Glass/epoxy plain weave fabric 25000 3500 225

* Subscript refers to coordinate system shown in Fig. 7. All values of Gxz,f are estimates.
9

The four classes of core material considered here include end grain balsa wood, PVC 

foam, aluminum honeycomb, and Nomex® honeycomb. Each of these materials is

offered in a range of densities and thicknesses (thickness direction corresponding to 

z-axis in Fig. 7). Thus, four versions of each core material type will be considered, 

corresponding to the lowest and highest densities offered, with two core thickness values 

of 12.5mm and 50mm, considered for each density. Subsequently, a total of 64 sandwich 

systems will be considered.

Values of z-direction (Fig. 7) modulus of the four classes of core material were taken 

from manufacturer’s data sheets [29, 30] and are listed in Table 2. Values of Gc reported 

in this table reflect the assumed facesheet/core peel debond toughness of a sandwich 

system consisting of the corresponding core material. For instance, any sandwich system 

consisting of H45 PVC foam will be assumed to exhibit a debond toughness of 

0.35kJ/m2. These data are based on average debond toughness values reported for 

sandwich configurations containing similar core materials (see Table A1).

TABLE 2 Core Properties and debond toughness values used in specimen sizing 

procedure

Material system * Density

kg/m3

Ec **

MPa

Gc

kJ/m2

End grain balsa wood 90 1850 0.84

End grain balsa wood 220 6840 0.84

H45 PVC foam 45 30 0.35

H200 PVC foam 200 440 1.13

Aluminum honeycomb 16 70 1.6

Aluminum honeycomb 192 4480 1.6

Nomex® honeycomb 24 41 0.96

Nomex® honeycomb 128 414 1.42

* Two versions of each core material will be considered with thickness values of 12.5mm and 50mm.

** Core modulus values correspond to the z-axis in Fig. 7 and are obtained from Refs. 29 and 30.

4 SCB Specimen Sizing Procedure

The validity of fitting compliance/debond length data from SCB tests to the form 

shown in Eq. 2 has not been fully established. In addition, no method exists to ensure 

that the SCB specimen will respond in a linear elastic manner during a test. 

Subsequently, a method is developed in this section that offers a means for establishing 

SCB dimensions for a given sandwich system, that will ensure the specimen meets these 

conditions, with the main intent being to design SCB specimens that will yield reliable 

values of debond toughness. The starting point of this method uses a closed-form 

compliance solution (compliance/debond length relationship) developed by Li and 

Carlsson [22], which can be applied to the SCB specimen. The method then proceeds by 

imposing specific limitations on several specimen dimensions that simplifies the 

compliance solution to the form shown in Eq. 2, and promotes a linear elastic response 

from the SCB specimen. This technique is an extension of a method developed by Li and 
10

Carlsson, used to establish specimen length and debond length of TSD specimens [22]. 

The resulting method, described at the end of this section (Section 4.4), provides a means 

for establishing the following dimensions of a SCB specimen made from any sandwich 

system:

• a0 Initial debond length (debond length at beginning of test)

• amax Maximum debond length

• Lmin Minimum specimen length

• tf Facesheet thickness

• hp Load rod length

4.1 SCB Specimen Compliance Solution

The SCB specimen is modeled as a cantilever beam partially supported by an elastic 

foundation, as illustrated in Fig. 7. The beam consists of two sections. The first section, 

corresponding to the unbonded portion of the SCB specimen facesheet, is considered to 

be free of the elastic foundation. The second section, corresponding to the intact portion 

of the SCB specimen facesheet, is supported by an elastic foundation. The elastic 

foundation is included to model the thickness-direction elastic response of the core 

material (z-axis in Fig. 7). The two sections of the beam connect at the location 

corresponding to the tip of the facesheet/core debond, which corresponds to the origin of 

the coordinate system used in the analysis. Use of this type of model for the development 

of compliance solutions of fracture specimens was first employed by Kanninen, during an 

analysis of a metal double cantilever beam specimen [31]. More recently, Li and 

Carlsson [22] applied Kanninen’s model to the tilted sandwich debond (TSD) specimen. 

Their solution for the TSD specimen at zero tilt angle (which equates to the SCB 

specimen) is used here for the compliance solution of the SCB specimen, and is 

expressed as [22]:

 

!

CSCB = "

P = 4#k

#

3

a3

3

+ #

2

a

2

F1 + #aF2 +

3ak

10#Gxz,f tf b

+

F3

2

$

%

&

'

(

) (4)

The parameters tf, b, and Gxz,f are the facesheet thickness, SCB specimen width, and 

facesheet shear modulus, respectively (subscripts relate to coordinate system in Fig. 7). 

The compliance coefficients, F1, F2, and F3 are hyperbolic functions, which are of 

importance in the specimen sizing procedure, and are discussed in Section 4.3. The 

parameter, k, is the elastic foundation modulus, and is related to the z-direction modulus 

of the core material as follows [31]:

!

k = Ecb

tc

(5)

where the parameters tc and Ec are the thickness and z-direction modulus of the core, 

respectively.
11

The parameter, λ, is effectively the ratio of the stiffness of the elastic foundation to 

the bending stiffness of the beam, and is given by [22]:

!

" = 3k

E f tf

3

b

#

$

%

&

'

(

1

4

= 3Ec

tc tf

3

E f

#

$

%

&

'

(

1

4

(6)

where the parameter, Ef, is the flexural modulus of the facesheet.

A complete derivation of Eq. 4 and the relations in Eqs. 5 and 6 can be found in 

Refs. 22 and 31. The compliance solution in Eq. 4 clearly differs from the form shown in 

Eq. 2. In the proceeding section, limitations imposed on SCB specimen dimensions and 

other test parameters are discussed that reduce Eq. 4 to the form of Eq. 2, and also act to 

promote a linear elastic response from an SCB specimen.

4.2 Imposed SCB Specimen Limits

The compliance solution of the SCB specimen in Eq. 4 can be simplified to the form 

shown in Eq. 2 by imposing limitations on the minimum intact specimen length, Lb, and 

initial debond length, a0, of the SCB specimen. With these limitations imposed, the SCB 

specimen compliance solution, Eq. 4, reduces to the form in Eq. 2, in this case written as:

!

CSCB = 4

E f btf

3 a +

1

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

3

(7)

Maximum debond length, amax, is calculated by adding a required amount of debond 

growth, aprop, to the initial debond length. Moreover, facesheet thickness is limited to a 

minimum value to ensure that the SCB specimen responds in a linear elastic manner 

(including avoidance of failure), and in accordance with beam theory. Lastly, the 

minimum load offset is calculated (Length hp,min in Fig. 7) to ensure load application

remains essentially vertical during a SCB test.

A summary of these limitations to be imposed on the SCB specimen dimensions is 

presented in Table 3. As can be seen in the table, more than one limitation is imposed on 

initial debond length and facesheet thickness. Furthermore, the in-plane specimen 

dimensions are dependant on facesheet thickness. Subsequently, an iterative procedure is 

required to determine all specimen parameters, which is described in Section 4.4. A 

derivation of these limitations is given next in Section 4.3.
12

TABLE 3 Summary of SCB specimen limitations

SCB Specimen Parameter Limitation

1 Specimen width b ≥ 25mm or six honeycomb cell sizes

2 Minimum intact specimen 

length

 

!

Lb,min = 2.7

tctf

3 Ef

3Ec

"

#

$

$

%

&

'

'

1

4

3

Initial debond length to ensure 

bending is dominant 

deformation mode of facesheet 

!

a0 " amin

bending # 30Ef tf

2

Gxz,f

$ 0.59Lb,min

4

Initial debond length to ensure 

compliance adopts the form of 

Eq. 2 

!

a0 " amin

compliance = Lb,min

5

Maximum debond length to 

ensure a required amount of 

debond growth, aprop

 

!

amax " a0 + aprop

6

Minimum facesheet thickness 

to assume small deformation 

in linear analysis

 

!

tf " tf

small disp = amax

3amax

2 Ef

200Gc

#

$

%

%

&

'

(

(

1

4

) tcEf

3Ec

#

$

%

%

&

'

(

(

1

4

*

+

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

-

.

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

4

3

7

Minimum facesheet thickness 

to prevent flexural failure of 

facesheet

 

!

tf " tf

strength # 6Ef Gcamax

2

$ c

2

amax +

tc(tf

small disp )

3Ef

3Ec

%

&

'

'

(

)

*

*

1

4

+

,

-

-

-

-

.

/

0

0

0

0

12

8 Minimum specimen length 

!

Lmin " Lhinge + amax + Lb,min

9

Minimum load application 

offset to ensure vertical load 

application 

!

hp,min " 1.062amax

4.3 Derivation of SCB Specimen Limitations

The numbers assigned to each limitation in this section correspond to the numbering 

used in Table 3.

Limitation 1: SCB Specimen Width

The sizing method does not permit an evaluation of an appropriate value of specimen 

width. Instead, indications of an appropriate width are gleaned from previous tests. 

Tests conducted on foam and balsa-based sandwich systems using the SCB test (or 

similar variants) indicate that an adequate specimen width is on the order of 25 to 40 mm 

[4, 5, 9-11]. A complication arises if honeycomb core-based specimens are to be tested, 

where debonding is expected to take place within the core material. Although previous 

analyses have been conducted in which honeycomb structure was explicitly modeled in a 

simulation of facesheet/core peel [32], a method is lacking for determining an adequate 

number of honeycomb cells that should be present across the width of debond specimens, 

such as the SCB specimen. Such a method is deemed to be beyond the scope of the 
13

current work. SCB type tests conducted on honeycomb-based specimens have tended to 

include 5-7 honeycomb cells across the specimen width, with reasonable specimen 

response [4,11,12]. It is therefore concluded here that honeycomb-based SCB specimens 

should include at least 6 cells across the specimen width.

Limitation 2: Minimum Intact Specimen Length

The compliance coefficients of Eq. 4, F1, F2, and F3 consist of hyperbolic functions as 

shown in Eqs. 8 [31]:

 

!

F1 = sinh( "Lb )cosh( "Lb )+ sin( "Lb )cos( "Lb )

sinh2( "Lb )# sin2( "Lb )

F2 = sinh2

( "Lb )+ sin2( "Lb )

sinh2( "Lb )# sin2( "Lb )

F3 = sinh( "Lb )cosh( "Lb )# sin( "Lb )cos( "Lb )

sinh2( "Lb )# sin2( "Lb )

(8)

All three compliance coefficients reduce to, and remain at unity, as the product, λLb

increases, as illustrated in the plot of the three compliance coefficients versus λLb in 

Fig. 8. It was found that the compliance coefficients reduce to within 1% of unity when 

the product, λLb, reaches a value of 2.7. In relation to the actual SCB specimen, this 

observation implies that if the intact portion of the specimen, Lb, is kept above a 

minimum value that results in λLb ≥ 2.7, then the compliance coefficients will remain at 

unity. Imposing this limitation results in the minimum intact SCB specimen length [22]:

!

Lb,min = 2.7

" = 2.7

tc tf

3

E f

3Ec

#

$

%

&

'

(

1

4

(9)

If this limitation is imposed, the compliance solution in Eq. 4 reduces to:

!

CSCB = "

P = 4#k

#

3

a

3

3

+ #

2

a

2 + #a +

3ak

10#Gxz, f tf b

+

1

2

$

%

&

'

(

) (10)

Limitation 3: Minimum Debond Length Ensuring Bending is Dominant Deformation 

Mode

The initial debond length, a0, of a SCB specimen is governed by two separate 

limitations, as indicated in Table 3. The first of these limitations is that the deformation 

mode of the loaded facesheet be dominated by bending, as discussed in this section.

According to Eq. 10, both bending and shear deformation of the loaded facesheet 

contribute to the specimen compliance, with bending becoming the dominant 

deformation mode as debond length increases. Subsequently, a minimum debond length 
14

can be calculated, above which shear deformation can be ignored, as follows. The term 

associated shear deformation of the facesheet in Eq. 10 is:

!

Cshear = 6a

5Gxz, f tf b (11)

It is assumed that this shear deformation term can be neglected when it is 1% or less 

of the specimen compliance assumed in Eq. 7. Dividing Eq. 11 by Eq. 7, this limitation 

can be expressed as:

!

3E f tf

2

a

10Gxz, f a +

1

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

3 = 1

100 (12)

Solving Eq. 12 for debond length, a, will result in the minimum debond length 

necessary to ensure that bending dominates facesheet deformation. However, 

establishing the exact solutions to Eq. 12 is not practical for use in a standardized test 

protocol. Instead, an approximate solution is proposed, as follows. Rearranging Eq. 12 

for debond length, a, gives:

 

!

a + 1 [ " ]

3

a = 30Ef tf

2

Gxz,f

(13)

The following approximation to the left hand side of Eq. 13 is assumed to be 

reasonable:

!

a + 1 [ "]

3

a # a +

B

"

$

%

& '

(

)

2

(14)

where the term, B, is a fit parameter aimed at minimizing error in the above 

approximation. Subsequently, rearranging Eq. 14 yields an approximation of debond 

length:

 

!

aapprox " aexact + 1 [ #]

3

aexact

$ B

# (15)

The fit parameter, B, was evaluated by applying the approximation to a hypothetical 

sandwich panel. Details of the panel are shown in the table in Fig. 9. In this figure, the 

approximation in Eq. 15 is plotted versus exact debond length, for three values of the fit 

parameter, namely B=1.0, 1.6, and 2.2. The result in Fig. 9 shows that the approximate 

solution agrees with the exact solution of debond length to within 1%, for debond lengths 

greater than 36mm, when the fit parameter is equal to 1.6. In this specific example, using 

the sizing procedure proposed here, the minimum debond length suggested for a SCB 

specimen is 54 mm. Thus, in this instance, the approximation for debond length will be 
15

accurate. Application of this check to other sandwich system permutations showed that a 

fit parameter of 1.6 always results in the closest approximation to the exact solution of 

debond length. Thus, combining Eqs. 13 and 15, and substituting Eq. 9 for the minimum 

intact specimen length, Lb,min, yields the following approximation for the minimum SCB 

debond length to ensure that bending is the dominant deformation mode of the loaded 

facesheet:

 

!

amin

bending " 30Ef tf

2

Gxz,f

# 0.59Lb ,min (16)

The accuracy of this approximation was evaluated by comparing the approximation 

with the exact solution, for all 64 sandwich systems described in Section 3. The exact 

value of 

!

amin

bending was found by incrementally adjusting the value of debond length, a, in 

Eq. 12 until the corresponding equality was satisfied (note that the same value of tf was 

used in the calculation of the exact and approximate values of 

!

amin

bending ). Furthermore, 

initial debond length, based on the limitation for simplifying the compliance solution 

(Limitation 4), was calculated for all 64 sandwich systems. The approximate values of 

!

amin

bending are plotted as a function of the exact values in Fig. 10. In roughly half of the 

sandwich systems considered, the approximation of initial debond length agreed very 

closely (within 1% error) with the exact solutions. These data are depicted by solid 

circles in Fig. 10. The remaining approximations, depicted in Fig. 10 as open circles, did 

not agree very well with the exact solutions (in these cases, a0 is governed by the 

compliance solution limitation discussed in the next section). However, as shown by the 

results in Fig. 10, each time initial debond length is governed by the bending deformation 

limitation, the approximation is consistently accurate, and is thus an acceptable means for 

estimating 

!

amin

bending . The reason for the poor accuracy of the approximation when bending 

does not govern initial debond length is that for these sandwich systems, the relative 

proportion of the shear deformation term (Eq. 11) never reaches a value equal to or 

greater than 1/100. Subsequently, the equality in Eq. 12 does not hold, rendering the 

approximation of the solution to this equation inaccurate.

Therefore, providing debond length is larger than or equal to the value calculated 

using Eq. 16, the SCB specimen compliance shown in Eq. 10 will reduce to the following 

form:

!

CSCB = 2

E f btf

3

"

3 +

4

E f btf

3 a +

1

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

3

(17)

Limitation 4: Minimum Debond Length to Simplify Compliance Solution

The second limitation imposed on initial debond length relates to the simplification of 

Eq. 17, as described in this section.

The first term on the right hand side of Eq. 17 is associated with compliance of a SCB 

specimen with no debond, and is likely to be small compared to the second term. It is 
16

assumed here that the first term can be ignored if it is 1% or less of the second term in 

Eq. 17. This condition can be written as:

!

2

E f btf

3

"

3

4

E f btf

3 a +

1

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

3 )

1

100 (18)

Solving Eq. 18 for debond length yields the minimum debond length necessary to 

ensure the first term on the right hand side of Eq. 17 is negligible:

 

!

amin

compliance = 2.7

tctf

3

Ef

3Ec

"

#

$

$

%

&

'

'

1

4

= Lb ,min (19)

Providing the debond length is kept above the minimum length in Eq. 19, the SCB 

specimen compliance solution in Eq. 17 simplifies to that shown in Eq. 7, thereby 

satisfying the requirement that the SCB specimen compliance solution adopts the form 

shown in Eq. 2.

It is noted that the actual initial debond length of the SCB specimen, a0, must be the 

largest of the two values computed using Eqs. 16 and 19. This will ensure that both 

Limitations 3 and 4 are satisfied.

Limitation 5: Maximum Debond Length

The maximum debond length is determined by summing the initial debond length 

with the amount of propagation required during a test. An adequate amount of growth, 

aprop, is needed to enable use of the data reduction method introduced in Section 2.3. 

Previous tests on similar specimens have indicated that a sufficient amount of growth 

would be approximately 50mm for stable growth [4,5,9,11,12] and approximately 80mm

when debond growth exhibits stick-slip behavior [4,10,22]. The maximum debond length 

is therefore given by:

 

!

amax = a0 + aprop (20)

where a0 is the largest of the two values calculated using Eqs. 16 and 19.

Limitation 6: Minimum Facesheet Thickness to Ensure Small Displacements

As the compliance solution to be used for the SCB specimen (Eq. 7) is founded upon 

beam theory, the amount of load point displacement applied to the SCB specimen must 

be limited to ensure the small displacement assumptions used in beam theory are not 

violated. Previous analyses [33] of the DCB specimen used in ASTM International test 

method D5528©, indicated that specimen response will remain in accordance with beam 

theory, providing load point displacement does not exceed 40% of the delamination 

length. Given that only one arm is deformed in the SCB specimen, a reasonable 

limitation on load point displacement would be 20% of the debond length. The following 
17

method is used to ensure this limitation is imposed. From Eqs. 1 and 7, the load point 

displacement of the SCB specimen at the onset of debond growth is:

!

"c = 2bGc

3Pc

a +

1

#

$

%

& '

(

) (21)

where the parameter, Gc, is the debond toughness of the SCB specimen and Pc is the 

applied force at the onset of debond growth, given by:

!

Pc = E f b2

tf

3

Gc

6 a +

1

"

#

$

% &

'

(

(22)

Substituting Eq. 22 into Eq. 21 for Pc, and dividing by debond length, leads to the 

following expression for limiting the load point displacement to 20% of the 

corresponding debond length:

 

!

"c

a = 24Gc

9Ef tf

3

1

a

a +

1

#

$

%

&

'

(

)

2

= 0.2 (23)

Substituting Eq. 6 into Eq. 23 for λ, and then rearranging Eq. 23 for facesheet 

thickness, gives the minimum facesheet thickness necessary to ensure the load point 

displacement does not exceed 20% of the debond length:

 

!

tf

small disp = amax

3amax

2 Ef

200Gc

"

#

$

$

%

&

'

'

1

4

( tcEf

3Ec

"

#

$

%

&

'

1

4

)

*

+

+

+

+

+

+

,

-

.

.

.

.

.

.

4

3

(24)

Limitation 7: Minimum Facesheet Thickness to Prevent Arm Failure

In this case, beam theory is used to ensure that the thickness of the loaded SCB 

specimen facesheet is sufficient to prevent arm failure during a test. According to beam 

theory, the maximum bending stress in the loaded facesheet at the onset of debond 

growth is:

 

!

" b,f = 6Ef Gc

tf

amax

amax +

tctf

3

Ef

3Ec

#

$

%

%

&

'

(

(

1

4

)

*

+

+

+

,

-

.

.

.

(25)
18

The solution to Eq. 25 for facesheet thickness is not practical for use in a standardized 

test protocol. Alternatively, an approximate solution to Eq. 25 for facesheet thickness is 

proposed, as follows. A value of facesheet thickness has already been established, on the 

basis of the small displacement requirement, as described in the previous section. This 

value is used in the rearrangement of Eq. 25, yielding an approximation of facesheet 

thickness required to prevent arm failure:

 

!

tf

strength " 6Ef Gcamax

2

# c

2 amax +

tc( tf

small disp )

3

Ef

3Ec

$

%

&

&

'

(

)

)

1

4

*

+

,

,

,

-

.

/

/

/

02

(26)

where the parameter, σc, is an allowable stress that may be experienced by the loaded 

arm without failure occurring. Values of this stress allowable for each class of facesheet 

material considered here are listed in Table 1. It is noted that the stress allowable values 

of all the unidirectional facesheets considered here were sufficiently high to ensure that 

facesheet thickness is always governed by the small displacement limitation 

(Limitation 6), as detailed in the following discussion. 

The accuracy of the approximation in Eq. 26 was evaluated by comparing the 

approximation with the exact solution, for all 64 sandwich systems described in 

Section 3. The exact value of 

!

tf

strength was evaluated by incrementally adjusting the value 

of facesheet thickness, tf, in Eq. 25 until the stress was found to be equal to the stress 

allowable corresponding to the facesheet material being considered (note that the same 

value of amax was used in the calculation of the exact and approximate values of 

!

tf

strength). 

The approximate values of 

!

tf

strength are plotted as a function of the exact values in Fig. 11. 

In the majority of cases, the approximation is reasonably accurate (within 10% of the 

exact values), however, in a small number of cases, the difference was on the order of 

25%. That being said, in all 64 sandwich configurations considered here, the minimum 

facesheet thickness required to prevent arm failure (using exact solution to Eq. 25) was 

always smaller than that needed to satisfy the small displacement requirement (Limitation 

6). Hence, it is probable that the small displacement requirement will always dictate 

facesheet thickness of the SCB specimen. Of course, if facesheet thickness is governed 

by the prevention of arm failure, and there is concern regarding the accuracy of the 

approximate solution, the exact solution can always be found by solving Eq. 25 

incrementally.

Limitation 8: Minimum SCB Specimen Length

The minimum required SCB specimen length is the sum of the three separate sections 

illustrated in Fig. 7. The first is the specimen length required for the piano hinge to be 

bonded to the specimen. The second section is the maximum debond length, and the 

third section is the minimum required intact specimen length.

 

!

Lmin = Lhinge + amax + Lb ,min (27)
19

Limitation 9: Minimum Loading Rod Length

As the SCB specimen is prevented from translation along the x-axis during a test, the 

load application point must be vertically offset from the specimen to ensure that the 

direction of load application remains vertical. This is necessary to prevent the 

introduction of shear loading at the facesheet/core debond front, due to a horizontal 

component of the applied load that develops when the direction of this load deviates from 

a vertical position. Li and Carlsson introduced an approximate kinematic description of 

the TSD specimen, in order to compute the rotation of the load application direction 

during these tests [22]. The same treatment is used here to estimate the minimum loading 

rod length necessary to ensure the load application direction does not deviate more than 1 

degree from vertical during SCB tests. A deviation of one degree from vertical is deemed 

to still be a good approximation of a purely vertical load application. A schematic of the 

SCB test specimen and loading apparatus is depicted in Fig. 12a. Following the 

treatment by Li and Carlsson [22], the approximate kinematics of the SCB specimen and 

loading apparatus is illustrated in Fig. 12b. The approximate kinematics is used here to 

calculate the rotation of the load application, θ1 (Fig. 12b), and subsequently the loading 

rod length, hp. This involves two main assumptions regarding deformation during an 

SCB test. First, it is assumed that the facesheet arm undergoes no axial deformation 

when it is loaded, and so the length, LAB, is approximately equal to debond length, a 

(Fig. 12b). This enables the following approximation for the length, LOA (Fig. 12b):

 

!

LOA = 2a sin "2

2

#

$

%

&

'

(

"2 = sin)1 *

a

#

$

%

&

'

(

(28)

where the parameter, δ, is the load point displacement applied to the SCB specimen. 

Second, the loading rod is assumed to be rigid, and therefore the load point displacement 

applied to the SCB specimen is assumed to be equal to the vertical translation, Δ, of the 

load frame crosshead, to which the opposite end of the loading rod is attached (Fig. 12b). 

Subsequently, the law of cosines can be used to determine the loading rod rotation, θ1, 

expressed as:

 

!

"1 = cos#1

hp

2 + h( p +$)

2

# LOA

2

2hp h( p +$ )

%

&

'

'

'

(

)

*

*

*

(29)

A rearrangement of Eq. 29 yields the following solution for the loading rod length:

!

hp = "2 # LOA

2

2[cos($1) #1]

+

"2

4 # "2 (30)
20

Thus, the minimum loading rod length, necessary to ensure the direction of the 

applied load does not deviate more than 1 degree from the vertical position (θ1 = 1°), can 

be calculated using the following expression:

!

hp,min = "c

2 # LOA2

2 cos 1o

[ ( ) #1]

+

"c

2

4 # "c2 (31)

Substituting Eq. 9 into Eq. 23 for λ yields the displacement at the onset of debond 

growth, δc,:

!

"c = 24Gc

9E f tf

3 (amax + 0.37Lb,min )

2

(32)

It may not be obvious from Eqs. 31 and 32, however, when δc/amax is limited to a 

maximum value of 0.2 (as is the case in this sizing procedure, see Limitation 6), hp,min is 

dominated by amax. Figure 13 contains a plot of hp,min versus amax (data from Table 4, 

Section 5), and shows this is indeed the case, where hp,min is linearly proportional to amax

in the following manner:

 

!

hp ,min "1.062amax (33)

4.4 Computing SCB Specimen Dimensions

The following procedure is developed on the basis of the SCB specimen test 

limitations discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. This procedure offers a systematic 

approach for determining appropriate dimensions of an SCB specimen, based on any 

sandwich system (assuming unidirectional tape or plain weave fabric facesheets), that 

should be well-suited to incorporation into a standardized testing protocol.

The following algorithm, based on the limitations summarized in Table 3, has been 

developed for calculating the dimensions of a SCB specimen.

1. Select values of Lhinge, tc, Ec, Gxz,f, Ef, Gc, aprop, σc, and initial value of tf.

2. Limitation 1: Determine specimen width, b

3. Limitation 2: Compute the minimum intact specimen length, 

!

Lb,min.

4. Limitation 3: Compute initial debond length to ensure bending is the dominant 

deformation mode of the loaded facesheet, 

!

amin

bending .

5. Limitation 4: Compute initial debond length for simplifying the compliance 

solution: 

!

amin

compliance.

6. Limitation 5: Compute maximum debond length, amax.

7. Limitation 6: Compute minimum facesheet thickness to ensure assumption of 

small displacements is valid, 

!

tf

small disp.

8. Limitation 7: Compute minimum facesheet thickness necessary to prevent 

facesheet arm failure, 

!

tf

strength.
21

9. Select 

!

tf ,min (largest of the two values, 

!

tf

small disp and 

!

tf

arm fail). If 

!

tf ,min is greater 

than the initial value selected in Step 1, repeat Steps 3-8 with 

!

tf = tf ,min . 

Otherwise, set tf = 

!

tf ,min and proceed to Step 10.

10. Limitations 8 and 9: Compute minimum specimen length, Lmin , and loading rod 

length, hp,min.

11. The resulting SCB specimen dimensions are therefore, b, 

!

tf ,min , a0, amax, and Lmin, 

and hp,min.

The above procedure assumes that sandwich panels will be manufactured to the 

computed dimensions. Furthermore, the procedure is aimed at specimens that contain 

unidirectional facesheets, where fiber direction is parallel to specimen length. However, 

it may often be desirable to test specimens from existing sandwich panels, which contain 

non-unidirectional facesheets. In such cases, the specimen sizing procedure may be used 

to establish dimensions of the SCB specimens, however, these specimens may exhibit 

unwanted energy dissipating mechanisms from potential damage in susceptible plies, 

such as those oriented away from the specimen length direction. Therefore, debond 

toughness data from tests conducted on specimens taken from pre-manufactured panels 

should be treated only as qualitative values. These data would not be reliable measures 

of the actual debond toughness, but would be acceptable for gauging the quality of the 

facesheet/core bond in the panel under consideration. In such cases, Steps 1-6, and 10 of 

the sizing procedure would be used to establish the in-plane dimensions of the SCB 

specimens.

5 Computed SCB Specimen Dimensions

The method summarized in Section 4.4 was applied to the 64 sandwich systems 

discussed previously in Section 3. The computed SCB specimen dimensions of all 64 

sandwich systems considered in this study are presented in Table 4 (b=25mm in all 

cases). The data are meant to act as a quick guide for estimating SCB specimen 

dimensions for a given sandwich system. Note that only tape and plain weave fabric 

facesheets, with a unidirectional stacking sequence and principal fiber direction oriented 

parallel to specimen length, are considered. It is observed in general that the sizing 

procedure yields very practical specimen dimensions for the cases considered.

The following general observations were made of the computed specimen dimensions 

presented in Table 4 (note that quoted limitation numbers correspond to those 

summarized in Table 3):

• Minimum intact specimen length (Limitation 2) is always equal to the initial 

debond length, when initial debond length is governed by the compliance solution 

simplification limitation (Limitation 4).

• Minimum intact specimen length is constant for a given core material and core 

thickness, regardless of facesheet material.

• Initial debond length was governed by the bending deformation limitation 

(Limitation 3) in approximately half of the cases considered. In the other cases, 
22

initial debond length was governed by the compliance solution simplification 

limitation (Limitation 4).

• Facesheet thickness was governed by the small displacement limitation in all 

cases considered (Limitation 6).

• Facesheet thickness increases with an increase in core thickness, for a given core 

material.

• Computed facesheet thickness varied from 1.65mm to 6.54mm, suggesting that 

facesheets of practical thickness result from the current sizing procedure.

• Computed specimen lengths ranged from 160mm to 301mm, suggesting that 

practical specimen length values result from the current sizing procedure.

• Computed loading rod lengths ranged from 121mm to 188mm, suggesting that 

this load application method will be practical for use. Loading rod length is in 

direct proportion with amax, as discussed in Section 4.3.

TABLE 4 Computed SCB specimen dimensions

Sandwich System

facesheet / core

tc

mm

tf

mm

Lb,min

mm

a0

mm *

amax

mm

Lmin

mm

hp,min

mm

Carbon/epoxy tape / balsa (90kg/m3) 12.5 2.01 19 46 b 126 171 134

Carbon/epoxy fabric / balsa (90kg/m3) 12.5 2.56 19 45 b 125 170 133

Glass/epoxy tape / balsa (90kg/m3) 12.5 2.82 19 41 b 121 165 129

Glass/epoxy fabric / balsa (90kg/m3) 12.5 3.41 19 39 b 119 163 126

Carbon/epoxy tape / balsa (90kg/m3) 50 2.03 27 42 b 122 175 130

Carbon/epoxy fabric / balsa (90kg/m3) 50 2.59 27 41 b 121 174 129

Glass/epoxy tape / balsa (90kg/m3) 50 2.85 27 37 b 117 169 124

Glass/epoxy fabric / balsa (90kg/m3) 50 3.45 27 35 b 115 167 122

Carbon/epoxy tape / balsa (220kg/m3) 12.5 2 14 49 b 129 168 137

Carbon/epoxy fabric / balsa (220kg/m3) 12.5 2.55 14 48 b 128 167 136

Glass/epoxy tape / balsa (220kg/m3) 12.5 2.8 13 44 b 124 163 132

Glass/epoxy fabric / balsa (220kg/m3) 12.5 3.39 13 42 b 122 160 129

Carbon/epoxy tape / balsa (220kg/m3) 50 2.01 20 46 b 126 171 134

Carbon/epoxy fabric / balsa (220kg/m3) 50 2.56 19 45 b 125 170 133

Glass/epoxy tape / balsa (220kg/m3) 50 2.82 19 41 b 121 166 129

Glass/epoxy fabric / balsa (220kg/m3) 50 3.41 19 39 b 119 163 126

Carbon/epoxy tape / H45 PVC foam 12.5 1.65 46 46 c 126 198 134

Carbon/epoxy fabric / H45 PVC foam 12.5 2.12 46 46 c 126 198 134

Glass/epoxy tape / H45 PVC foam 12.5 2.38 46 46 c 126 198 134

Glass/epoxy fabric / H45 PVC foam 12.5 2.91 46 46 c 126 198 134

Carbon/epoxy tape / H45 PVC foam 50 2 75 75 c 155 256 165

Carbon/epoxy fabric / H45 PVC foam 50 2.56 75 75 c 155 256 165

Glass/epoxy tape / H45 PVC foam 50 2.87 75 75 c 155 256 165

Glass/epoxy fabric / H45 PVC foam 50 3.52 75 75 c 155 256 165

Carbon/epoxy tape / H200 PVC foam 12.5 2.34 31 49 b 129 185 137

Carbon/epoxy fabric / H200 PVC foam 12.5 2.98 31 48 b 128 184 136

Glass/epoxy tape / H200 PVC foam 12.5 3.27 30 43 b 123 178 131

Glass/epoxy fabric / H200 PVC foam 12.5 3.96 30 40 b 120 175 128

Carbon/epoxy tape / H200 PVC foam 50 2.41 44 44 c 124 194 132

Carbon/epoxy fabric / H200 PVC foam 50 3.09 44 44 c 124 194 132

Glass/epoxy tape / H200 PVC foam 50 3.46 44 44 c 124 194 132

Glass/epoxy fabric / H200 PVC foam 50 4.24 44 44 c 124 194 132
23

Table 4 continued

*Initial debond length governed by (b) Bending limitation or (c) Compliance solution simplification limitation.

6 Summary

With the introduction of fracture mechanics-based tools in commercial finite element 

analysis codes, the means for simulating damage events, such as facesheet/core 

debonding in sandwich structure, is becoming readily available. The accuracy, however, 

of such simulations resides significantly with the reliability of fracture criteria, such as 

the critical strain energy release rate (debond toughness), that are used in these fracture 

mechanics tools. Meanwhile, a search of the literature revealed that a large number of 

test methods have been proposed for characterizing facesheet/core debonding in 

sandwich structure. However, debond toughness data reported from a number of these 

Sandwich System

facesheet / core

tc

mm

tf

mm

Lb,min

mm

a0

mm *

amax

mm

Lmin

mm

hp,min

mm

Carbon/epoxy tape / AL hcomb (16kg/m3) 12.5 2.98 58 58 c 138 222 147

Carbon/epoxy fabric / AL hcomb (16kg/m3) 12.5 3.83 58 58 c 138 222 147

Glass/epoxy tape / AL hcomb (16kg/m3) 12.5 4.29 58 58 c 138 222 147

Glass/epoxy fabric / AL hcomb (16kg/m3) 12.5 5.26 58 58 c 138 222 147

Carbon/epoxy tape / AL hcomb (16kg/m3) 50 3.71 97 97 c 177 299 188

Carbon/epoxy fabric / AL hcomb (16kg/m3) 50 4.76 97 97 c 177 299 188

Glass/epoxy tape / AL hcomb (16kg/m3) 50 5.34 97 97 c 177 299 188

Glass/epoxy fabric / AL hcomb (16kg/m3) 50 6.54 97 97 c 177 299 188

Carbon/epoxy tape / AL hcomb (192kg/m3) 12.5 2.73 19 67 b 147 191 156

Carbon/epoxy fabric / AL hcomb (192kg/m3) 12.5 3.48 19 65 b 145 190 154

Glass/epoxy tape / AL hcomb (192kg/m3) 12.5 3.8 19 59 b 139 184 148

Glass/epoxy fabric / AL hcomb (192kg/m3) 12.5 4.58 19 56 b 136 180 145

Carbon/epoxy tape / AL hcomb (192kg/m3) 50 2.75 27 63 b 143 196 152

Carbon/epoxy fabric / AL hcomb (192kg/m3) 50 3.51 27 61 b 141 194 150

Glass/epoxy tape / AL hcomb (192kg/m3) 50 3.83 27 55 b 135 188 144

Glass/epoxy fabric / AL hcomb (192kg/m3) 50 4.63 27 52 b 132 184 140

Carbon/epoxy tape / Nomex® hcomb (24kg/m3) 12.5 2.53 59 59 c 139 223 147

Carbon/epoxy fabric / Nomex® hcomb (24kg/m3) 12.5 3.24 59 59 c 139 223 147

Glass/epoxy tape / Nomex® hcomb (24kg/m3) 12.5 3.63 59 59 c 139 223 147

Glass/epoxy fabric / Nomex® hcomb (24kg/m3) 12.5 4.45 59 59 c 139 223 147

Carbon/epoxy tape / Nomex® hcomb (24kg/m3) 50 3.14 98 98 c 178 301 189

Carbon/epoxy fabric / Nomex® hcomb (24kg/m3) 50 4.03 98 98 c 178 301 189

Glass/epoxy tape / Nomex® hcomb (24kg/m3) 50 4.52 98 98 c 178 301 189

Glass/epoxy fabric / Nomex® hcomb (24kg/m3) 50 5.54 98 98 c 178 301 189

Carbon/epoxy tape / Nomex® hcomb (128kg/m3) 12.5 2.62 34 55 b 135 194 143

Carbon/epoxy fabric / Nomex® hcomb 

(128kg/m3) 12.5 3.34 34 54 b 134 193 142

Glass/epoxy tape / Nomex® hcomb (128kg/m3) 12.5 3.65 33 48 b 128 187 136

Glass/epoxy fabric / Nomex® hcomb (128kg/m3) 12.5 4.41 33 45 b 125 183 133

Carbon/epoxy tape / Nomex® hcomb (128kg/m3) 50 2.69 49 49 c 129 203 137

Carbon/epoxy fabric / Nomex® hcomb 

(128kg/m3) 50 3.44 49 49 c 129 203 137

Glass/epoxy tape / Nomex® hcomb (128kg/m3) 50 3.87 49 49 c 129 203 137

Glass/epoxy fabric / Nomex® hcomb (128kg/m3) 50 4.74 49 49 c 129 203 137
24

tests conducted on similar sandwich systems, exhibit a significant amount of scatter. 

Subsequently, the SCB specimen has been identified as a candidate for standardizing the 

measurement of facesheet/core debond toughness. In the current work, an analytical 

treatment of the SCB specimen was used in the development of a procedure for 

determining appropriate dimensions of a SCB specimen. The procedure aimed to result 

in specimens that respond in a linear elastic manner, and exhibit a well-defined 

compliance/debond length relationship, that is easily adapted to a data reduction method 

for computing debond toughness. The sizing procedure was applied to 64 different 

hypothetical sandwich systems consisting of unidirectional facesheets, deemed to be 

representative of systems used in the marine and aerospace industries. Results from this 

study indicate that the sizing procedure should yield practical SCB specimen dimensions. 

This method for sizing SCB specimens should be well-suited to incorporation into a 

standardized testing protocol.

7 Acknowledgements

This research was conducted at the Durability, Damage Tolerance, and Reliability 

Branch, NASA Langley Research Center, VA and funded by the NASA Fundamental 

Aeronautics Program/Subsonic Rotary Wing Program. The author also wishes to express 

his gratitude for the useful discussions with Dr. Ed Glaessgen of NASA Langley 

Research Center, and Dr. Dan Adams from the University of Utah. A special thanks to 

Dr. James Reeder of NASA Langley Research Center for his tireless efforts in editing 

this technical publication.

8 References

[1] Allen, H.G., “Analysis and Design of Structural Sandwich Panels”, Permagon Press, 1969.

[2] American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard Test Method for Climbing Drum Peel for 

Adhesives,” ASTM Standard D1781-98, In: ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.06, ASTM, 

2006.

[3] Nettles, A.T., Gregory, E.D., and Jackson, J.R., “Using the Climbing Drum Peel (CDP) Test to 

Obtain a GIc Value for Core/Face Sheet Bonds,” Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 41, No. 24, 

2007, pp. 2863-2876.

[4] Weaver, C., “Evaluation of Mode I Fracture Mechanics Test Methods For Sandwich Composites,” 

M.Sc Thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 2009.

[5] Cantwell, W.J., and Davies, P., “A Study of Skin-Core Adhesion in Glass Fiber Reinforced 

Sandwich Materials,” Applied Composite Materials, Vol. 3, 1996, pp. 407-420.

[6] Cantwell, W.J., Scudamore, R., Ratcliffe, J., and Davies, P., “Interfacial Fracture in Sandwich 

Laminates,” Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 54, No. 14, 1999, pp. 2079-2085.

[7] McGarva, L.D., and Åström, B.T., “Experimental Investigation of Compression Moulding of 

Glass/PA12-PMI foam Core Sandwich Components,” Composites: Part A, Vol. 30, 1999, 

pp. 1171-1185.

[8] Shivakumar, K., Chen, H., and Smith, S.A., “An Evaluation of Data Reduction Methods for Opening 

Mode Fracture Toughness of Sandwich Panels,” Journal of Sandwich Structure and Materials, Vol. 

4, No. 1, 2005, pp. 77-90.
25

[9] Cantwell, W.J., Broster, G., and Davies, P., “The Influence of Water Immersion on Skin-Core 

Debonding in GFRP-Balsa Sandwich Structures,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics, and Composites, 

Vol. 15, 1996, pp. 1161-1172.

[10] Li, X., and Carlsson, L.A., “The Tilted Sandwich Debond (TSD) Specimen for Face/Core Interface 

Fracture Characterization,” Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials, Vol. 1, 1999, pp. 60-75.

[11] Cantwell, W.J., and Davies, P., “A Test Technique For Assessing Core-Skin Adhesion in Composite 

Sandwich Structures,” Journal of Materials Science Letters, Vol. 13, 1994, pp. 203-205.

[12] Glaessgen, E.H., Reeder, J.R., Sleight, D.W., Wang, J.T., Raju, I.S., and Harris, C.E., “Debonding 

Failure of Sandwich-Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank with Internal Core Pressure,” Journal of 

Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2005, pp. 613-627.

[13] Prasad, S, and Carlsson, L.A., “Debonding and Crack Kinking in Foam Core Sandwich Beams–II. 

Experimental Investigation,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 47, No. 6, 1994, pp. 825-841.

[14] Smith, S.A., and Shivakumar, K.N., “Modified Mode-I Cracked Sandwich Beam (CSB) Fracture 

Test,” Proceedings of the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and 

Materials Conference, Vol. 1, 2001, AIAA, Reston, VA, pp. 1-18.

[15] Østergaard, R.C., and Sørensen, B.F., “Interface Crack In Sandwich Specimen,” International 

Journal of Fracture, 2007, Vol. 143, pp. 301-316.

[16] Shivakumar, K.N., and Smith, S.A., “In Situ Fracture Toughness Testing of Core Materials in 

Sandwich Panels,” Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 38, No. 8, 2004, pp. 655-668.

[17] Gates, T.S., and Herring, H.M., “Facesheet Push-off Tests to Determine Composite Sandwich 

Toughness at Cryogenic Temperatures,” Proceedings of the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 

Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Vol. 1, 2001, AIAA, Reston, VA, 

pp. 323-333.

[18] Ratcliffe, J., and Cantwell, W.J., “A New Test Geometry for Characterizing Skin-Core Adhesion in 

Thin-Skinned Sandwich Structures,” Journal of Materials Science Letters, Vol. 19, 2000, 

pp. 1365-1367.

[19] Berggreen, C., Simonsen, B.C., and Borum, K.K., “Experimental and Numerical Study of Interface 

Crack Propagation in Foam-cored Sandwich Beams,” Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 41, 

No. 4, 2007, pp. 493-520.

[20] Shipsha, A., Burman, M., and Zenkert, D., “Interfacial Fatigue Crack Growth in Foam Core 

Sandwich Structures,” Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, Vol. 22, 

1999, pp. 123-131.

[21] Ural, A., Zehnder, A.T., and Ingraffea, A.R., “Fracture Mechanics Approach to Facesheet 

Delamination in Honeycomb: Measurement of Energy Release Rate of Adhesive Bond,” 

Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 70, 2003, pp. 93-103.

[22] Li, X., and Carlsson, L.A., “Elastic Foundation Analysis of Tilted Sandwich Debond (TSD) 

Specimen,” Journal of Sandwich Structures and Materials, Vol. 2, 2000, pp. 3-32.

[23] Carlsson, L.A., Sendlein, L.S., and Merry, S.L., “Characterization of Face Sheet/Core Shear Fracture 

of Composite Sandwich Beams,” Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 25, 1991, pp. 101-116.

[24] American Society for Testing and Materials, “Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of 

Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites,” ASTM Standard D5528-01(2007), 

In: ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.03, ASTM, 2008.

[25] Irwin, G.R., “A Critical Energy Rate Analysis of Fracture Strength,” Welding Journal (Research 

Supplement), 1954.

[26] Suo, Z., and Hutchinson, J.W., “Sandwich Test Specimens for Measuring Interface Crack 

Toughness,” Materials Science and Engineering, A107, 1989, pp. 135-143.

[27] Kollar, L. P., and Springer, G. S., “Mechanics of Composite Structures,” Cambridge University 

Press, 2003.

[28] O'Brien, T. K., and Krueger, R., “Analysis of Flexure Tests for Transverse Tensile Strength 

Characterization of Unidirectional Composites,” Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 

Vol. 25, 2003, pp. 50-68.

[29] Manual de Productos, MEL Composites, http://www.melcomposites.com

[30] HexwebTM Honeycomb Attributes and Properties, A Comprehensive Guide to Standard Hexcel®

Honeycomb Materials, Configurations, and Mechanical Properties, Hexcel® Composites, 1999.

[31] Kanninen, M.F., “An Augmented Double Cantilever Beam Model For Studying Crack Propagation 

and Arrest,” International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1973, pp. 83-92.
26

[32] TerMaath, S.C., Ingraffea, A.R., Wawrzynek, P.A., “A Computational Fracture Mechanics 

Approach for the Analysis of Facesheet-From-Core Disbond of Honeycomb Core Sandwich Panels,” 

Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 30th Volume, ASTM STP 1360, Paris, P.C., and Jerina, K.L., Eds., 

American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999, pp. 169-182.

[33] Williams, J. G., “The Fracture Mechanics of Delamination Tests,” Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol. 

24, No. 4, 1989, pp. 207–214.

[34] MIL-HDBK-17F, The Composite Materials Handbook, Vol. 2F, ASTM International, West 

Conshohocken PA, 2002.

[35] Naik, N.K., Tiwari, S.I., Kumar, R.S., “An Analytical Model for Compressive Strength of Plain 

Weave Fabric Composites,” Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 63, No. 5, 2003, pp. 609-625.

[36] Naik, N.K., and Ganesh, V.K., “Thermo-Mechanical Behaviour of Plain Weave Fabric Composites: 

Experimental Investigations,” Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1997, pp. 267-277.

[37] Pandita, S.D, Huysmans, G., Wevers, M., and Verpoest, I., “Tensile Fatigue Behaviour of Glass 

Plain-Weave Fabric Composites in On- and Off-Axis Directions,” Composites Part A: Applied 

Science and Manufacturing, Vol. 32, No. 10, 2001, pp. 1533-1539.

[38] Xiaoa, J.R., Gamaa, B.A., and Gillespie, Jr., J.W., “Progressive Damage and Delamination in Plain 

Weave S-2 Glass/SC-15 Composites Under Quasi-Static Punch-Shear Loading,” Composite 

Structures, Vol. 78, No. 2, 2007, pp. 182-196.
27

APPENDIX A - TABLE A1 Summary of facesheet/core debond tests

Test method

(see Figs. 4-6)

 Far-field 

loading Sandwich system* Debond location / stability #

Average Gc

kJ/m2

SCB-III (Fig.4e) [11] Mode I GFRP- balsa Interface / S 0.41

DCB-III (Fig. 5c) [14] Mode I GFRV-balsa (100kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.69

DCB-III (Fig. 5c) [14] Mode I GFRV-balsa (150kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 1.01

SCB-III (Fig.4e) [11] Mode I GFRP-balsa (175kg/m3) Interface / S 0.96-1.32

SCB-II (Fig. 4c) [9] Mode I GFRP-balsa (175kg/m3) Interface / S 0.80-1.0

TPB (Fig. 4a) [6] Mode I/II GFRP-balsa (175kg/m3) Interface / S 0.50-1.00

CNF (Fig. 6b) [18] Mode I/II GFRP-balsa (175kg/m3) Interface / S 0.75

DCB-I (Fig. 5a) [13] Mode I CFRP-PMC (96kg/m3) Interface / S 0.79-1.82

DCB-I (Fig. 5a) [13] Mode I CFRP-ti (107kg/m3) Interface / S 1.65-1.95

SCB (Fig. 1a) [4] Mode I CE-Nomex®

 (48kg/m3) Sub-interface / S 0.74-1.13

TPB (Fig. 4a) [4] Mode I/II CE-Nomex® (48kg/m3) Sub-interface / S 0.86-1.11

CDP (Fig. 6a) [3] Mode I CE-Nomex® (64kg/m3) Core / S 1.58-1.75

SCB-III (Fig.4e) [11] Mode I CE-Nomex® (128kg/m3) Sub-interface / S 1.68

CDP (Fig. 6a) [3] Mode I CE-Nomex® (128kg/m3) Interface / S 1.16

SCB-IV (Fig. 4f) [12] Mode I CE-Korex®4

 (48kg/m3) Interface / S 1.30

CNF (Fig. 6b) [17] Mode I/II CE-Korex® (48kg/m3) Interface / S 0.95

CNF (Fig. 6b) [18] Mode I/II GFRP-AL (92kg/m3) Interface / S 1.60

SCB-III (Fig.4e) [11] Mode I GFRP-H80 (80kg/m3) Interface / S 0.53

DCB-III (Fig. 5c) [14] Mode I GFRV-H80 (80kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.37

DCB-IV (Fig. 5d) [15] Mode I/II GFRP-H80 (80kg/m3) Sub-interface / S 0.31

CNF (Fig. 6b) [18] Mode I/II GFRP-H80 (80kg/m3) Interface / S 0.20

SCB-III (Fig.4e) [5] Mode I GFRP-R63.80 (80kg/m3) Core / S 2.77

DCB-II (Fig. 5b) [7] Mode I GFRP-PMI (90kg/m3) Interface / S 0.43

DCB-III (Fig. 5c) [14] Mode I GFRV-H100 (100kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.56

TSD§ (Fig. 4d) [10] Mode I GFRV-H100 (100kg/m3) Sub-interface / U ~0.20-0.30

DCB-III (Fig. 5c) [14] Mode I GFRV-H130 (130kg/m3) Sub-interface / S 0.88

DCB-IV (Fig. 5d) [15] Mode I/II GFRP-H130 (130kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.40

TPB (Fig. 4a) [4] Mode I/II CFRP-PF (160kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.21-0.29

SCB (Fig, 1a) [4] Mode I CFRP-PF (160kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.17-0.26

SCB-I (Fig, 4b) [4] Mode I CFRP-PF (160kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.14-0.41

DCB-III (Fig. 5c) [4] Mode I CFRP-PF (160kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.11-0.34

DCB-I (Fig. 5a) [4] Mode I CFRP-PF (160kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.12-0.28

DCB-III (Fig. 5c) [14] Mode I GFRV-H200 (200kg/m3) Sub-interface / S 1.35

TSD§ (Fig. 4d) [22] Mode I GFRV-H200 (200kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 1.28

DCB-IV (Fig. 5d) [15] Mode I/II GFRP-H200 (200kg/m3) Sub-interface / U 0.75

DCB-I (Fig. 5a) [13] Mode I AL-R90.400 (400kg/m3) Interface / S 0.38

* GFRP-balsa – Glass reinforced polyester facesheets and balsa wood core

GFRV-balsa – Glass reinforced vinylester facesheets and balsa wood core

CFRP-PMC – Carbon reinforced polyimide facesheets and carbon reinforced PETI-5 honeycomb core

CFRP-ti - Carbon reinforced polyimide facesheets and titanium honeycomb core.

CE-Nomex® - Carbon reinforced epoxy facesheets and Nomex® honeycomb core.

CE-Korex® Carbon reinforced epoxy facesheets and Korex® honeycomb core

GFRP-AL – Glass reinforced polyester facesheets and aluminum honeycomb core

GFRP-Hn – Glass reinforced polyester facesheets and Hn PVC foam core (n denotes core density)

GFRP-R63.80 – Glass reinforced polyester facesheets and R63.80 PVC foam core

GFRP-PMI – Glass reinforced polyimide facesheets and polyimide foam core

GFRV-Hn – Glass reinforced vinylester facesheets and Hn PVC foam core (n denotes core density)

CE-PF – Carbon reinforced epoxy facesheets and polyurethane foam core

AL-R90.400 – Aluminum facesheets and R90.400 polyimide foam core

# Stable debond growth denoted by ‘S’. Semi-unstable stick-slip debond growth denoted by ‘U’.

§ Data from TSD tests conducted with tilt angle equal to zero.

 4

Korex® is a registered trademark of E.I DuPont de Nemours, Wilmington, DE, USA
28

APPENDIX B

TABLE B1 Properties of representative carbon reinforced epoxy systems 

(unidirectional stacking sequence) [34]

Tape systems Plain weave fabric systems

System E1

MPa

FTU

MPa System E1MPa

FTU

MPa

T300/976 135181 1455 T300/934 62763 628

T650-35/976 151734 1593 T650-35/976 71729 651

Celion/E7k8 137940 2021 Celion/E7k8 66694 910

AS4/E7k8 133112 2090 AS4/E7k8 62211 766

HITEX 33/E7k8 125525 2159 HITEX 33/E7k8 59659 904

TABLE B2 Properties of representative glass reinforced epoxy systems 

(unidirectional stacking sequence)

Tape systems Plain weave fabric systems

System E1

MPa

FTU

MPa System E1MPa

FTU

MPa

S2/8552 [28] 47710 ** E-glass/epoxy [36] 20657 300

Scotchply/1002 [27] 38600 1062 Glass/epoxy [27] 29100 370

S-glass/epoxy [27] 43000 1280 E-glass/F533 [37] 20500 410

E-glass/epoxy [35] 51000 1397 7781 E-glass/PR 381 [34] 26415 517

S2-449/PR 381 [34] 47658 1697 Glass/epoxy [38] 27500 604

**Strength value not found in the open literature
29

Figure 1. Classes of facesheet/core debond tests (a) SCB-based specimen 

(b) DCB-based specimen

(a) P

L

tf

tf

tc

a0 Lb

b

δ

Loading rod to offset load 

application point from 

specimen.

hp

Lhinge

(b) P

tf

tf

tc

b

L

a Lb

P

δ

Lhinge

Core Facesheets

Piano hinge
30

Figure 2. Illustration of force displacement response from a SCB test with five debond 

growth increments between the limit, a0 ≤ a ≤ a5

Figure 3. Method used to determine compliance parameters, m and Δ

P

δ a

Force, P

Load point displacement, δ

a0

a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

Δ

m

Debond length, a

 

!

C

1

3
31

(a) Three-Point Bend (TPB) [6] (b) Single Cantilever Beam (SCB-I) [4]

(c) Single Cantilever Beam (SCB-II) [9] (d) Tilted Sandwich Debond (TSD) [10]

(e) Single Cantilever Beam (SCB-III) [11] (f) Modified SCB (SCB-IV) [12]

Figure 4. SCB-based Tests for characterizing facesheet/core peel

a

L

P

P

Load application 

offset

a 

L 

Rigid base

a

L

P

Rigid base on rollers

a

L

P

Rigid base on rollers

P

Load application 

offset

a

L

P L

a
32

(a) Double Cantilever Beam (DCB-I) [13] (b) Double Cantilever Beam (DCB-II) [7]

(c) Double Cantilever Beam (DCB-III) [14] (d) DCB uneven bending moments

 (DCB-IV) [15]

Figure 5. DCB-based Tests for characterizing facesheet/core peel

a

L

P

a

L

tf

tf

tc

P

Load application 

offset

a

L

P

L

a

M1

M2
33

(b) Center notch flexure (CNF) [17,18]

(a) Climbing Drum Peel (CDP) [2]

Figure 6. Tests for characterizing facesheet/core peel

Figure 7. Beam on an elastic foundation model of SCB specimen

 

!

hp,min

a

L

P

L/2

Drum

a

Loading 

strap

Drum travel 

direction

P

P

L

a Lb

δ

k

P

x

z

δ

a Lb

Lhinge
34

Figure 8. Relationship between compliance coefficients and bonded specimen length

Figure 9. Comparison of approximate solution to Eq. 13 with exact values, for various 

values of fit parameter, B

F1

F2

F3

λLb=2.7

B=1.6

B=1.0

B=2.2

Ef = 65000MPa, Gxz,f = 4000MPa, tf = 3.34mm

Ec = 414MPa, tc = 12.5mm

 

!

aexact + 1 [ "]

3

aexact

# B

"

aexact

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

a

exact, mm
35

Figure 10. Comparison of approximate and exact values of 

!

amin

bending

Figure 11. Comparison of approximate and exact values of 

!

tf

strength

 

!

tf

strength (exact) mm

 

!

tf

strength (Approx)

 mm

 

!

tf

strength (exact)

 

!

amin

bending (exact) mm

 

!

amin

bending

 mm

 

!

amin

bending (exact)

 

!

amin

bending a0 = aminbending ( )

 

!

amin

bending a0 = amincompliance ( )
36

Figure 12. (a) Schematic of offset load application method (b) Approximate kinematics 

(not to scale with Fig. 12a)

Figure 13. Relationship between loading rod length and amax.

100

120

140

160

180

200

100 120 140 160 180 200

h

p,min

mm

a

max, mm

(a)

Moveable 

crosshead Loading 

rod

hp

a

δ

Δ

δ

Δ

hp

a

O

A

B

(b)

θ2

θ1

hp

0

0

 

!

hp ,min "1.062amax
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Publication

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Sizing Single Cantilever Beam Specimens for Characterizing 

Facesheet/Core Peel Debonding in Sandwich Structure 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Ratcliffe, James G.

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-19806

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 24

Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

This technical publication details part of an effort focused on the development of a standardized facesheet/core peel debonding test 

procedure. The purpose of the test is to characterize facesheet/core peel in sandwich structure, accomplished through the measurement of the 

critical strain energy release rate associated with the debonding process. Following an examination of previously developed tests and a 

recent evaluation of a selection of these methods, a single cantilever beam (SCB) specimen was identified as being a promising candidate for 

establishing such a standardized test procedure. The objective of the work described here was to begin development of a protocol for 

conducting a SCB test that will render the procedure suitable for standardization. To this end, a sizing methodology was developed to ensure 

appropriate SCB specimen dimensions are selected for a given sandwich system. Application of this method to actual sandwich systems 

yielded SCB specimen dimensions that would be practical for use. This study resulted in the development of a practical SCB specimen 

sizing method, which should be well-suited for incorporation into a standardized testing protocol.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Facesheet/core debonding; Debond toughness; Test method; Sandwich structure

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

41

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(443) 757-5802

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

814358.02.01.07 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA/TP-2010-216169

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 01 - 2010