Received: 18 March 2019 Revised: 8 May 2019 Accepted: 16 May 2019

DOI: 10.1111/ffe.13069

SPECIAL ISSUE CONTRIBUTION

An insight into mode II fracture toughness testing using

SCB specimen

Bahador Bahrami1 | Majid R. Ayatollahi1 | Iman Sedighi1 | Mohd Yazid Yahya2

1
Fatigue and Fracture Research
Abstract
Laboratory, Center of Excellence in
Experimental Solid Mechanics and The effect of friction forces between the test specimen and its bottom supports
Dynamics, School of Mechanical on the mode II fracture toughness values obtained using the semicircular bend
Engineering, Iran University of Science
and Technology, Tehran, Iran
(SCB) specimen is investigated. First, a number of experiments were conducted
2
Center for Advanced Composite on SCB specimen in order to determine the mode II fracture toughness
Materials, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) according to the conventional approaches
Johor Bahru, Malaysia
available in the literature. Three different types of supports that have been fre-
Correspondence quently employed by researchers in recent years were used to evaluate the
Majid R. Ayatollahi, Fatigue and Fracture effect of support type on the fracture loads. It was found that the friction forces
Research Laboratory, Center of Excellence
in Experimental Solid Mechanics and
between the supports and the SCB specimen have a significant effect on the
Dynamics, School of Mechanical value of mode II fracture toughness measured using the SCB samples. Then,
Engineering, Iran University of Science the specimen was simulated using finite element method for more detailed
and Technology, Narmak, 16846 Tehran,
Iran.
investigation on the near crack tip stress field evolution when friction forces
Email: [email protected] increase between the supports and the SCB specimen. The finite element
results confirmed that the type of support affects not only the stress intensity
factors KI and KII but also the T‐stress. The experimental and numerical results
showed that the use of the crack tip parameters available in literature for fric-
tionless contact between the supports and the SCB specimen can result in sig-
nificant errors when the mode II experiments are performed by using the fixed
or roller‐in‐grove types of supports.

KEYWORDS
fracture test, mode II fracture toughness, semicircular bending, support friction effect, T‐stress

1 | INTRODUCTION a combination of them. In order to assess the safety of

cracked components, one of the most important parame-
Cracked components under in‐plane loading can be sub- ters is fracture toughness, defined as the resistance of
jected to different modes of deformation such as pure cracked element to crack propagation. When the mode I
mode I (opening mode), pure mode II (sliding mode), or or mode II stress intensity factors reach the mode I or

Nomenclature: a, length of the crack; F fric,n, the component of the friction force normal to the crack faces; F fric,t, the component of the friction force
tangent to the crack faces; KI, mode I stress intensity factor; KII, mode II stress intensity factor; KII0, the mode II SIF in the almost frictionless case;
KIIC, mode II fracture toughness; KIIμ, the mode II SIF in high friction coefficient cases; R, radius of the SCB specimens; S, the support span of the
SCB specimens; t, thickness of the SCB specimens; β, the crack inclination angle; βII, the crack inclination angle corresponding to pure mode II
loading; μcf, the friction coefficient between the crack faces; μsup, the friction coefficient between the supports and the specimen; σxx, the normal
component of stress in x‐direction

Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2019;1–9. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ffe © 2019 Wiley Publishing Ltd. 1
2 BAHRAMI ET AL.

mode II fracture toughness of material, the crack is the specimen dimensions and the crack length are simu-
expected to propagate. Therefore, engineers should know lated by finite element (FE) method to find the crack
the values of mode I or mode II fracture toughness of inclination angles corresponding to pure mode II in the
materials in order to study the load bearing capacity of SCB specimen. Then, different types of supports are uti-
a cracked component under pure mode I or pure mode lized to conduct fracture tests under pure mode II loading
II loading. This fact underlines the importance of devel- conditions. It is shown that significantly different fracture
oping appropriate procedures to determine mode I and loads are obtained when different support types are used.
mode II fracture toughness of materials in the safety Finally, the FE method is employed to explore and dis-
assessment of structures. cuss the reason for such different experimental results.
Dealing specifically with mode II fracture toughness,
several test specimens have been proposed to determine
mode II fracture toughness of various materials. For 2 | F I N I T E E L E M E N T AN A L Y S I S
instance, the compact tension‐shear (CTS) specimen was
used by Miao et al to investigate mode II fracture tough- In the following section, the FE method is utilized for the
ness of commercially pure titanium.1 Furthermore, in SCB specimen to find an appropriate crack inclination
order to calculate the fracture toughness of PVC foam angle corresponding to mode II loading condition, and
under mode II loading, Noury et al utilized the CTS spec- the results are compared with those available in the liter-
imen.2 Four‐point bending is another specimen that has ature. Figure 1 shows the geometry of the SCB sample
been used by several researchers to find mode II fracture and its dimensional parameters including the radius of
toughness of various materials such as glass interposer, the semicircle (R), the support span (S), the length of
concrete mixtures, and rocks.3-5 The cracked triangular the crack (a), and the thickness of the part (t). All these
sample was also proposed by Aliha et al to assess brittle parameters were considered to be constant, with the
fracture of cracked rocks under in‐plane loading condi- values of R = 50 mm, S = 50 mm, a = 25 mm, and
tions.6 As a favourite specimen for measuring mode II t = 4.7 mm. Additionally, because of the independence
fracture toughness of brittle materials, the cracked Brazil- of stress intensity factors from material properties, arbi-
ian disc (BD) specimen has been used extensively by a trary typical values of E = 1.8 GPa and υ = 0.38 were
number of researchers, eg, for different types of rocks,7-9 selected for PMMA.31 The commercial FE code ABAQUS
zirconia‐based materials,10 and silicon nitride.11 was used for modelling the specimens in this work.
The semicircular bend (SCB) specimen is another well‐ To model the boundary conditions, two nodes at bottom
known sample for fracture toughness determination supports were constrained, in a way that both were fixed in
under mode II loading, which has received much atten- the vertical direction, while only one was fixed in the hor-
tion in the recent years.12,13 A review of literature on izontal direction. Also, an arbitrary force of 1000 N was
the application of SCB specimen in the brittle fracture applied vertically on the top node of the geometry. More-
tests shows that the researchers have utilized various over, plane stress eight‐node quadrilateral full‐integration
types of supports when conducting the SCB tests. For element was utilized for meshing the specimen. The ele-
example, the support that has been used in previous stud- ments were of smaller size near the crack tip in order to
ies14-22 is completely fixed and cannot move in the hori-
zontal direction. There are numerous other
investigations that have used the roller‐in‐groove type of
supports (see previous studies23-25). The rollers in this
support type can slightly rotate but not freely roll. There
are also some investigations that have used bottom sup-
ports that can freely roll (see previous studies26-30). It
can be seen that in spite of the broad use of the SCB spec-
imen for acquiring the fracture toughness of materials,
little research has been performed to investigate the effect
of support type on the test results. The aim of this work is
to look into this matter and determine the best type of
support for mode II fracture testing using the SCB
specimens.
In the present manuscript, a study is conducted to
assess whether the support type can affect the results FIGURE 1 The geometry and dimensional parameters of the
obtained from the SCB fracture tests or not. To this end, semicircular bend (SCB) specimen
BAHRAMI ET AL. 3

better simulate the stress field in its vicinity. The radial

distance between the crack tip and the closest node was
8e‐4 mm in the mesh grid used. It is useful to note that
the crack tip parameters (KI, KII, and T‐stress) could also
be evaluated using a coarse mesh near the crack tip as
demonstrated by Meneghetti et al.32-35
To determine the crack inclination angle β correspond-
ing to pure mode II loading, different crack inclination
angles were tested, and the mode II angle was found to
be βII = 40°, which is in agreement with the results
reported in the literature.13
Following the FE analysis, fracture tests were per-
formed in order to determine the mode II fracture tough-
ness of SCB specimens according to the calculated mode
II crack angle.

3 | EXPERIMENTAL

In this section, the experimental procedure is described.

First, the specimen preparation for pure mode II SCB
samples is described, including the geometry of the spec-
imens and the sample preparation process. Afterwards,
by using three different support types frequently used in
the literature, the mode II fracture toughness of PMMA
is determined.
The SCB samples were produced from PMMA. Similar
to the FE models, the values of S/2R = 0.5, a/R = 0.5, and
R = 50 mm were considered. Then, the samples were
manufactured out of PMMA sheets of t = 4.7 mm thick-
ness by using a laser cutting machine. A crack with an
inclination angle of β = 40° was introduced to the sam-
ples by the laser cutting method while the last 2 mm of
its length was sharpened using a razor blade to make
the crack tip sufficiently sharp.
The tests were conducted using STM‐150 universal
testing machine (SANTAM, Iran). Loading rate of
0.5 mm/min was considered, and a three‐point bending
setup was employed to apply the load. In order to provide
the three‐point bending setup, three different support
configurations were employed. As described earlier, these
support types have been frequently used by researchers
for determining the mode II fracture toughness of differ-
ent materials. Figure 2 shows these three types of sup-
ports, including (A) the roller supports, (B) the roller‐in‐
groove supports, and (C) the fixed supports.
Table 1 presents the results obtained from the fracture
tests on the SCB samples using different types of sup- FIGURE 2 Three‐point bending setup with (A) roller supports,
(B) roller‐in‐groove supports, and (C) fixed supports [Colour figure
ports. As the results show, the fracture loads differ signif-
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
icantly by using one type of support or another. The
average mode II fracture loads for roller, roller‐in‐groove,
and fixed supports are 1730, 2378, and 4397 N, respec-
tively. Using the fracture load of 1730 N as the input
4 BAHRAMI ET AL.

TABLE 1 The results obtained from the fracture tests on mode II The preparation procedure for these specimens was simi-
samples using three different supports lar to that of the SCB samples, meaning that the speci-
Average mens were cut by laser machine from the same PMMA
Mode II Mode II sheet of 4.7 mm thickness.
Average Fracture Fracture Likewise, the same three types of supports were uti-
Support Fracture Fracture Toughness, Toughness, lized for flexural tests. Table 2 shows the fracture loads
Type Load, N Load, N MPa.m1/2 MPa.m1/2 obtained from the flexural tests. It is seen again that the
Roller 1652 1731 1.2 1.27 support type has undeniable effects both in flexural
1787 1.3 strength and in mode II fracture tests performed on the
1754 1.3 SCB specimens.
Roller‐in‐ 2838 2741 2.1 2.03 In the next section, a detailed FE study is performed to
groove 2647 2.0 analyse the support friction effects on both the flexural
2739 2.0 strength and the mode II fracture toughness of PMMA.
Fixed 4322 4397 3.2 3.27
4416 3.3
4454 3.3 4 | ADDITIONAL FINITE ELEMENT
ANALYSIS
value in the FE simulations, the critical mode II stress
intensity factor (SIF) or the mode II fracture toughness As stated in the previous section, there was an inconsis-
calculated for the SCB samples with the roller‐type sup- tency between the results obtained from different test
port is KIIC = 1.27 MPa.m1/2. Using a similar procedure, setups, which was presumed to be the result of the sup-
the mode II fracture toughness values for the roller‐in‐ port friction effect. In order to validate this presumption,
groove and fixed supports are 2.03 and 3.27 MPa.m1/2, a number of FE simulations are performed in this section.
respectively. It should be noted that in all these FE anal- The first set of FE results belongs to the flexural
yses, conventional boundary conditions described in the strength tests. To apply the boundary conditions, the sup-
previous section were considered. It is seen that the mea- ports were modelled using the contact elements so that
sured values of mode II fracture toughness are consider- frictional properties could be set as desired. Semicircles
ably dependent on the type of bottom supports used in were selected as the geometry for both the bottom sup-
the experimental setup for the SCB test. One can suggest ports and the top contact applying the force, because this
that the main difference between these three types of sup-
ports is related to the magnitude of the friction force they TABLE 2 Fracture loads of flexural test specimens for different
apply on the specimens during the tests. The roller causes types of supports
almost no friction as it is rolling freely under the samples,
while the fixed supports can generate noticeable friction Fracture Average Fracture
Support Type Load, N Load, N
forces as they resist against the relative movement
between the SCB specimen and the support. The roller‐ Roller 2981 2891
in‐groove support behaves somehow in between the other 2850
two, with a roller slightly rotating in a fixed location. 2842

In order to assess the effects of support type on mode II Roller‐in‐groove 3276 3217
SCB testing more thoroughly, another set of experiments 3178
3198
were also performed to evaluate similar effects on the
flexural strength of PMMA. Figure 3 demonstrates the Fixed 3525 3442
schematic view and dimensions of the rectangular speci- 3395
3409
mens used for conducting the flexural strength tests.

FIGURE 3 The schematic view and

dimensions of flexural test specimens
BAHRAMI ET AL. 5

geometry models the experimental setups very well. In that the magnitude of the arbitrary load (1000 N) is in
order to find the effect of friction forces on the maximum the range of the experimental fracture loads. Further, in
value of the longitudinal stress σxx in the specimen, the order to find the effect of friction forces on the stress
friction coefficient between the supports and the sample intensity factors, the friction coefficient was changed
(μsup) was changed from μsup = 0 to μsup = 1 in 0.1 steps, from μsup = 0 to μsup = 1 in 0.1 steps. Figure 5 illustrates
and a total number of 11 simulations were performed. the geometry and boundary conditions of the modelled
Figure 4 shows the variation of the maximum σxx against SCB specimen, as well as the meshing patterns used for
the friction coefficient between the supports and the rect- the simulation.
angular specimen. It should be noted that an arbitrary Figure 6 displays the FE results including the changes
load of 3000 N was applied to the specimens, and the in the mode I and mode II SIFs and the T‐stress with
maximum σxx in all analyses was taken from the middle respect to the support friction coefficient μsup. It should
point along the lower edge of the specimen. Considering be noted that in these FE analyses, the crack faces are
that the effect of contact forces including the friction allowed to penetrate into each other to evaluate the effect
has a nonlinear behaviour, the arbitrary load was selected of support friction on the mode I and mode II SIFs, inde-
from the same range as the experimental data. pendently. It can be noticed that the mode II SIF in high
It is seen from Figure 4 that the support friction con- friction coefficient cases (μsup > 0.3) is the constant value
siderably reduces the maximum value of σxx in the speci- of KIIμ = −0.85 MPa.m1/2 and in the almost frictionless
men since the friction forces are opposing the extension case of roller supports is KII0 = −0.74 MPa.m1/2, giving
in the bottom edge of the sample. Using the results given
in Table 2 and Figure 4, a simplified analysis can be per-
formed here to provide an estimate for the friction coeffi-
cient between the supports and the rectangular specimen
in each case of roller‐in‐grove and fixed supports. If the
roller‐type support is taken as an almost frictionless case
with a reference σxx = 84.3 MPa (see Figure 4), in propor-
tion to the fracture loads given in Table 2, the values of
reference σxx for roller‐in‐grove and fixed support cases
can be approximated as 75.7 and 70.8 MPa, respectively.
For these values of σxx, their friction coefficients μsup are
found to be roughly 0.16 and 0.24, as shown in Figure 4.
These values are used later for some additional FE
analyses. FIGURE 5 Finite element (FE) model of the mode II
In order to model the SCB specimens, a similar proce- semicircular bend (SCB) specimen with contact elements defined
dure was performed. A semicircle was again defined as between the specimen and the supports [Colour figure can be
the support geometry, and contact elements were defined viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
between the specimen and the supports. The applied
loads and the material properties were also similar to
those explained in Section 2. One should keep in mind

FIGURE 6 The variations of mode I and mode II SIFs and T‐

stress with respect to friction coefficient between the supports and
FIGURE 4 Variations of maximum value of σxx against the the SCB samples, obtained from finite element (FE) analysis, for the
friction coefficient between the supports and the rectangular mode II case of β = 40° [Colour figure can be viewed at
specimen wileyonlinelibrary.com]
6 BAHRAMI ET AL.

the ratio of KII0/KIIμ = 1.2. Figure 7 shows a schematic the SCB specimen and the supports) is considered. This
view of the friction forces exerted on the crack region. is because only in this case mode I SIF is zero.
As illustrated in the picture, since the friction forces are Another issue raised in this section is that the amount
not normal to the crack direction, they have two compo- of the decline in the mode II SIF does not cover the 58%
nents, ie, normal ( F fric,n) and tangent ( F fric,t) to the and 154% discrepancies in the experimental results of
crack. The tangential components of the friction forces the roller‐in‐groove and fixed support configurations,
are in the opposite direction of the shear stresses related whose fracture load ratios relative to the roller supports
to the mode II deformation near the crack tip (specified are 1.58 and 2.54, respectively. While the support friction
by dashed arrows). Consequently, F fric,t lowers the mode is one of the reasons for the reduction in KII, one should
II stresses to some extent, reducing KII as a result. Fur- not overlook the fact that in these two cases, the crack
thermore, the normal component closes the crack surfaces are pressed against each other, as shown by the
resulting in negative vales of mode I SIF. However, since negative KI values in Figure 6. Although a negative KI
in the frictionless case the inclination angle of β = 40° is could not exist for a cracked component in an actual case,
regarded as the mode II angle and in practice the mode I it could be a measure of how much the crack faces are
SIF is zero, the crack faces do not move away from one pressed against each other. With this in view, it is also
another. Therefore, when the support friction acts on this known that the mode II crack displacement causes the
geometry and tries to close the crack further, the crack crack faces to slide relative to each other. Since the faces
faces press on each other. This is also visible in Figure 6 are pushed towards each other, the sliding movement
where KI deviates from zero and takes more negative generates a secondary friction force between the crack
values as μsup increases, reaching a constant value of faces, reducing the mode II movement and, therefore,
approximately −20 MPa.mm1/2. The support friction also lowering the value of KII.
affects the T‐stress, although in a lower extent, reducing To study the effect of friction between the crack faces
from 5.5 MPa for the frictionless case to 4.1 MPa for high more thoroughly and to model the SCB sample more real-
friction cases. As can be seen from Figure 6, for a crack istically, contact properties should be defined across the
angle of β = 40°, pure mode II is provided only when crack faces. Therefore, an additional set of FE simulations
the roller‐type support (with negligible friction between were conducted in order to better model the crack behav-
iour. To perform this task, the input data for the contact
properties between the supports and the specimen were
selected according to the results obtained earlier from
the flexural test specimens. Hence, μsup was taken to be
0.16 for the roller‐in‐groove support type and 0.24 for
the fixed support type. Then, for these selected values,
the friction coefficient between the crack faces (μcf) was
changed from 0 to 1 in steps of 0.1. Figure 8 shows the
variations of KII and T against the friction coefficient
μcf. As expected, by increasing the friction coefficient μcf
from zero, the absolute value of the mode II SIF drops
noticeably. According to the numerical results shown in
Figure 8, the significant drop in the mode II SIF due to
the friction forces between the crack faces can be the
additional important reason for the difference observed
between the fracture toughness values calculated in the
cases of roller‐in‐grove and fixed supports in comparison
with the case of roller type of supports.
It is worth mentioning that although the mode I SIF
was zero in the previous analysis, there was a compres-
sive force between the crack faces, which means that it
cannot be considered as a pure mode II specimen with
traction‐free crack flanks. Therefore, for each of the 11
FIGURE 7 A schematic view of the support friction forces friction coefficients in the supports, the crack inclination
applied to a mode II semicircular bend (SCB) sample and their angle was reduced until the mode I SIF vanished without
simplified components in the vicinity of the crack [Colour figure contact conditions between the crack surfaces. The
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] obtained angle defines the crack angle corresponding to
BAHRAMI ET AL. 7

FIGURE 10 The variations of KI, KII, and T with respect to the

support friction coefficient obtained from the finite element (FE)
simulations of the semicircular bend (SCB) sample in pure mode II
loading [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

the new mode II crack angles βII. It is seen that the fric-
tion forces lower the mode II stress intensity factor for
the reasons stated previously. Additionally, the T‐stress
is reduced from 5.5 MPa to zero and then continues to
reach −1.2 MPa. This shift in the value of T‐stress can
also affect the fracture behaviour of SCB specimens under
pure mode II loading. Finally, it is useful to note that the
mode II tests are always coupled with an induced mode
III contribution that can affect the stresses ahead of crack
front.36 This phenomenon and its possible effect on the
FIGURE 8 KII and T‐stress with respect to the friction coefficient fracture load variation related to the types of support
between the crack faces for (A) μsup = 0.16 and (B) μsup = 0.24
can be investigated as a future work.
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
The results presented in this paper showed that the
friction forces can significantly affect the mode II fracture
pure mode II (β = βII) in the presence of friction forces toughness of materials determined using the SCB speci-
between the supports and the SCB specimen. Figure 9 men. Therefore, in order to obtain a correct value of
shows the pure mode II crack angle βII against different mode II fracture toughness, it is quite important to use
values of friction coefficients between the crack faces free roller–type supports in the SCB testing procedure.
μcf. It is clear that βII decreases because the KI values Alternatively, the support friction coefficient (μsup)
shown in Figure 6 are reduced here and, hence, less crack should be found, and then the mode II crack angle βII
line rotation β is needed to reach mode II (ie, KI = 0). and its corresponding values of KII, KI, and T should be
Figure 10 shows the values of KI, KII, and T obtained for determined from Figures 9 and 10. Afterwards, the mode
II fracture toughness can be calculated from the experi-
mentally determined mode II fracture load and the cor-
rect value of KII. It is clear that the first option (the use
of roller‐type supports) is more reliable and less complex.

5 | C ON C L U S I ON

The effects of friction forces on the mode I and mode II

SIFs and the T‐stress were investigated for the SCB spec-
imen under mode II loading. A series of experiments with
three different types of supports were performed to study
FIGURE 9 Pure mode II crack angle for the semicircular bend the effect of support type on mode II fracture toughness
(SCB) specimen in terms of friction coefficient μcf values obtained from the SCB testing. Significant
8 BAHRAMI ET AL.

differences were observed in the fracture loads when the strain criterion. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct.
type of supports was changed. While the lowest mode II 2017;40(12):2118‐2127.
fracture toughness was determined for the roller‐type 10. Ghouli S, Ayatollahi MR, Bushroa AR. Fracture characterization
supports, the highest value was related to the fixed sup- of ceria partially stabilized zirconia using the GMTSN criterion.
Eng Fract Mech. 2018;199:647‐657.
ports. The mode II fracture toughness related to the
11. Levesque G, Arakere NK, Mecholsky JJ, Gopalakrishnan K.
roller‐in‐groove supports had a value in between. FE
Numerical and experimental investigation of mixed‐mode frac-
results showed that the significant differences observed
ture parameters on silicon nitride using the Brazilian disc test.
in the calculated mode II fracture toughness could be Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2010;33(8):490‐503.
attributed to different levels of friction forces that exist 12. Ayatollahi MR, Aliha MRM, Hassani MM. Mixed mode brittle
between the SCB specimen and the bottom supports. It fracture in PMMA—an experimental study using SCB speci-
was also shown that the friction forces between the two mens. Mater Sci Eng A. 2006;417(1‐2):348‐356.
crack faces (existing in the cases of roller‐in‐groove and 13. Ayatollahi MR, Aliha MRM. On determination of mode II frac-
fixed supports) can influence the test results considerably. ture toughness using semi‐circular bend specimen. Int J Solids
It is finally recommended that for mode II fracture tough- Struct. 2006;43(17):5217‐5227.
ness measurement using the SCB specimen, free rollers 14. Mirsayar MM, Razmi A, Berto F. Tangential strain‐based criteria
are always used as bottom supports to avoid significant for mixed‐mode I/II fracture toughness of cement concrete.
unwanted errors because of the effect of support friction. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2018;41(1):129‐137.
15. Razmi A, Mirsayar MM. On the mixed mode I/II fracture prop-
erties of jute fiber‐reinforced concrete. Construct Build Mater.
ORCID 2017;148:512‐520.
16. Aliha MRM, Bahmani A, Akhondi S. Mixed mode fracture
Majid R. Ayatollahi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9840- toughness testing of PMMA with different three‐point bend type
6225 specimens. Eur J Mech A/Solids. 2016;58:148‐162.
17. Aliha MRM. On predicting mode II fracture toughness (KIIc) of
hot mix asphalt mixtures using the strain energy density crite-
R EF E RE N C E S
rion. Theor Appl Fract Mech. 2019;99:36‐43.
1. Miao X, Yu Q, Zhou C, Li J, Wang Y, He X. Experimental and 18. Aliha MRM, Fattahi Amirdehi HR. Fracture toughness predic-
numerical investigation on fracture behavior of CTS specimen tion using Weibull statistical method for asphalt mixtures
under I‐II mixed mode loading. Eur J Mech ‐ A/Solids. containing different air void contents. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater
2018;72:235‐244. Struct. 2017;40(1):55‐68.
2. Noury PM, Shenoi RA, Sinclair I. On mixed‐mode fracture of 19. Torabi AR, Kalantari MH, Aliha MRM. Fracture analysis of dis-
PVC foam. Int J Fract. 1998;4412:131‐151. similar Al‐Al friction stir welded joints under tensile/shear
3. Lee CC, Huang PC. Mixed mode interfacial crack energy estima- loading. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2018;41(9):2040‐2053.
tion of glass interposer and SiNx coatings by using fracture 20. Elghazel A, Taktak R, Bouaziz J. Combined numerical and
mechanics based computer methods and experimental valida- experimental mechanical characterization of a calcium phos-
tions. Theor Appl Fract Mech. 2018;96:790‐794. phate ceramic using modified Brazilian disc and SCB
4. Fakhri M, Amoosoltani E, Aliha MRM. Crack behavior analysis specimen. Mater Sci Eng A. 2016;670:240‐251.
of roller compacted concrete mixtures containing reclaimed 21. Ghasemi‐Ghalebahman A, Akbardoost J, Ghaffari Y. Evaluation
asphalt pavement and crumb rubber. Eng Fract Mech. of size effect on mixed‐mode fracture behavior of epoxy/silica
2017;180:43‐59. nanocomposites. J Strain Anal Eng Des. 2017;52:239‐248.
5. Wang C, Zhu ZM, Liu HJ. On the I‐II mixed mode fracture of 22. Ayatollahi MR, Aliha MRM, Saghafi H. An improved semi‐
granite using four‐point bend specimen. Fatigue Fract Eng circular bend specimen for investigating mixed mode brittle
Mater Struct. 2016;39(10):1193‐1203. fracture. Eng Fract Mech. 2011;78(1):110‐123.
6. Aliha MRM, Hosseinpour GR, Ayatollahi MR. Application of 23. Chavez F, Marcobal J, Gallego J. Laboratory evaluation of the
cracked triangular specimen subjected to three‐point bending mechanical properties of asphalt mixtures with rubber incorpo-
for investigating fracture behavior of rock materials. Rock Mech rated by the wet, dry, and semi‐wet process. Construct Build
Rock Eng. 2013;46(5):1023‐1034. Mater. 2019;205:164‐174.
7. Ayatollahi MR, Aliha MRM. Cracked Brazilian disc specimen 24. Aliha MRM, Mousavi SS, Bahmani A, Linul E, Marsavina L.
subjected to mode II deformation. Eng Fract Mech. Crack initiation angles and propagation paths in polyurethane
2005;72(4):493‐503. foams under mixed modes I/II and I/III loading. Theor Appl
8. Ayatollahi MR, Aliha MRM. On the use of Brazilian disc speci- Fract Mech. 2019;101:152‐161.
men for calculating mixed mode I‐II fracture toughness of rock 25. Ameri M, Nowbakht S, Molayem M, Aliha MRM. Investigation
materials. Eng Fract Mech. 2008;75(16):4631‐4641. of fatigue and fracture properties of asphalt mixtures modified
9. Hua W, Dong S, Pan X, Wang Q. Mixed mode fracture analysis with carbon nanotubes. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct.
of CCBD specimens based on the extended maximum tangential 2016;39(7):896‐906.
BAHRAMI ET AL. 9

26. Zuo JP, Yao MH, Li YJ, Zhao SK, Jiang YQ, Li ZD. Investigation mesh patterns. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct.
on fracture toughness and micro‐deformation field of SCB sand- 2018;49(5):1044-1063.
stone including different inclination angles cracks. Eng Fract 33. Campagnolo A, Meneghetti G, Berto F. Rapid finite element
Mech. 2019;208:27‐37. evaluation of the averaged strain energy density of mixed‐
27. Lin Q, Ji W‐W, Pan P‐Z, Wang S, Lu Y. Comments on the mode mode (I + II) crack tip fields including the T‐stress contribution.
II fracture from disk‐type specimens for rock‐type materials. Eng Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2016;39(8):982‐998.
Fract Mech. 2019;211:303‐320. 34. Meneghetti G, Campagnolo A, Berto F, Atzori B. Averaged
28. Su C, Wu Q, Weng L, Chang X. Experimental investigation of strain energy density evaluated rapidly from the singular peak
mode I fracture features of steel fiber‐reinforced reactive powder stresses by FEM: cracked components under mixed‐mode (I +
concrete using semi‐circular bend test. Eng Fract Mech. II) loading. Theor Appl Fract Mech. 2015;79:113‐124.
2019;209:187‐199. 35. Campagnolo A, Meneghetti G. Rapid estimation of notch stress
29. Ban H, Im S, Kim YR. Mixed‐mode fracture characterization of intensity factors in 3D large‐scale welded structures using the
fine aggregate mixtures using semicircular bend fracture test peak stress method. MATEC Web Conf. 2018;165:17004.
and extended finite element modeling. Construct Build Mater. 36. Pook LP, Campagnolo A, Berto F, Lazzarin P. Coupled fracture
2015;101:721‐729. mode of a cracked plate under anti‐plane loading. Eng Fracture
30. Fathipour Azar H, Choupani N, Afshin H, Hamidzadeh Mech. 2015;134:391‐403.
Moghadam R. Effect of mineral admixtures on the mixed‐
mode (I/II) fracture characterization of cement mortar: CTS,
CSTBD and SCB specimens. Eng Fract Mech. 2015;134:20‐34.
31. Torabi AR, Bahrami B, Ayatollahi MR. Mixed mode I/II brittle How to cite this article: Bahrami B, Ayatollahi
fracture in V‐notched Brazilian disk specimens under negative MR, Sedighi I, Yazid Yahya M. An insight into
mode I conditions. Phys Mesomech. 2016;19(3):332‐348. mode II fracture toughness testing using SCB
32. Meneghetti G, Campagnolo A, Avalle M, et al. Rapid evaluation specimen. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2019;1–9.
of notch stress intensity factors using the peak stress method: https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.13069
comparison of commercial finite element codes for a range of