Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Determining the elastic interlaminar shear modulus

of composite laminates
A. Chan a, W.K. Chiu a,*
, X.L. Liu b

a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Monash University, Wellington Road, P.O. Box 31, Clayton, Vic. 3800, Australia
b
Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced Composite Structures Limited, 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermans Bend, Vic. 3207, Australia

Available online 17 July 2006

Abstract

An inverse parameter identification technique has been proposed to determine the elastic interlaminar shear modulus of composite
laminates. The technique involves minimising the difference between an experimentally measured and a numerically determined material
response by varying the interlaminar shear modulus in the numerical model. As such, the ‘optimum’ interlaminar shear modulus can be
found by using a relatively simple mechanical test. The inverse parameter identification technique using a modified Iosipescu shear test
and three-point bend test was applied in the current study. Experimental investigations, numerical studies, as well as the development of
a computer program were conducted to implement the proposed technique. An average elastic interlaminar shear modulus of 3.23 GPa
and 2.37 GPa was obtained with the modified Iosipescu shear and three-point bend tests, respectively. These results are extremely prom-
ising as they are close to previously speculated values. It is acknowledged that a discrepancy of approximately 26.6% exists between the
two results, however, a comprehensive explanation of this difference is provided.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Interlaminar shear modulus; Composite materials; Mechanical properties of composite laminates; Shear modulus

1. Introduction
The use of composite materials is becoming very popu-
lar in many industries. In particular, the aerospace and
defence industries have been increasing their dependence
on the application of composite materials. However, usage
of these materials is currently limited, to a certain degree,
by excessive costs that can be attributed to expensive raw
materials and relatively complicated manufacturing and
assembly procedures. Much effort has been made to reduce
the associated costs in these areas. Projects such as afford-
able manufacturing and assembly have been developed at
the CRC-ACS [1], which have been successful in introduc-
ing significant cost reductions.
However, there are still trial and error processes cur-
rently being employed in the design and manufacture of
composite structures and components, resulting in unnec-
*
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +61 3 9905 5595.
E-mail address: wing.kong.chiu@eng.monash.edu.au (W.K. Chiu).
essary use of resources. Such trial and error processes are
generally required as there is often insufficient material
data to allow for accurate predictions in the behaviour of
the composite structures. In many cases, insufficient
material data stems from the absence of reliable test meth-
ods to provide such information. Standard test methods
currently exist for most of the in-plane elastic and shear
moduli, and strength parameters of composite materials
[2]. However, test methods for obtaining interlaminar
Young and shear moduli are primitive at best [3]. It is,
therefore, imperative that robust methodologies for deter-
mining the interlaminar material properties of composite
materials be developed.
A noticeable void in current literature is the lack of a
test method for determining the interlaminar shear modu-
lus. This is largely attributable to the fact that conventional
methods of direct stress and strain measurements cannot be
easily adapted for the measurement of interlaminar proper-
ties. For example, utilising these conventional methods for
determining the interlaminar shear modulus requires extre-

0263-8223/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.05.025
 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408 397

mely thick composite coupons to be manufactured, which
has proven to be very difficult and costly [4].
The Iosipescu shear test [5,6] is the only standard proce-
dure that has been used in attempts to determine the inter-
laminar shear modulus of composite laminates. However,
previous investigations have revealed that a pure shear
state, for which the Iosipescu test relies on, may not be
achievable in the test [7–9]. Mespoulet et al. [10] attempted
to determine the interlaminar shear modulus using a test
similar to that proposed by Post et al. [11]. Two sides of
a composite specimen were adhesively bonded to steel rails,
and then loaded to shear. The specimens were strain-
gauged on the two free sides. It was found that failure
always occurred through a combination of shear and trans-
verse tension, indicating a pure shear mode was not
achieved in the test. Pierron and Grediac [12] proposed a
technique to take advantage of the existence of a mixture
of tension and shear stresses in the Iosipescu shear tests.
An identification procedure based on the principle of vir-
tual work with particular virtual fields was proposed to
measure the four through-thickness moduli of thick cou-
pons. Promising analytical results were obtained. However,
experimental application were yet to be implemented.
It is evident from these investigations that a methodol-
ogy that can efficiently and accurately determine the inter-
laminar shear modulus of composite laminates in the
elastic domain is not yet available. The main intention of
the current study is to develop such a methodology and
hence provide a solution to this significant problem.
2. Inverse parameter identification technique
The present authors believe that the elastic interlaminar
shear modulus can be determined by applying an inverse
parameter identification approach to a customised mechan-
ical test. This approach involves minimising the difference
between an experimentally measured and numerically pre-
dicted material response by varying the interlaminar shear
modulus in the numerical model. As such, the interlaminar
shear modulus can be determined using a relatively
straightforward mechanical test.
The steps involved in the approach are illustrated in
Fig. 1, with the key components being:
• an experimental process that can be applied to obtain
reliable and repeatable data;
• finite element (FE) models that can accurately simulate
the mechanical tests and
• a computer program that can efficiently perform the
minimisation process.
Each of these components will be described in greater
detail in later sections.
2.1. Material properties
Hexcel F593-18 carbon–epoxy plain weave pre-preg,
designated as W3T282-4200 -F593, is to be used as the quan-
tifying material in the current study. The stiffness material
properties of this material are shown in Table 1.
3. Sensitivity analysis
For the proposed inverse parameter identification tech-
nique to be successful, it is important that the measured
response in the selected mechanical test is sensitive to
changes in the interlaminar shear modulus while remaining
relatively insensitive to changes in the other unknown
material properties. A sensitivity analysis was previously
conducted by the current authors [13] to determine a suit-
able mechanical test and the corresponding material
response for use with the inverse parameter identification
technique. Seven mechanical tests were considered in that
study. Their suitability for the proposed technique was
determined by considering their sensitivity to changes in
different material properties. From the analysis results, it
was found that the modified Iosipescu shear test and the
three-point bend test were the most suitable.
As can be seen in Table 1, there is a significant difference
between the material properties used in the previous sensi-
tivity analysis and that of the Hexcel F593-18 composite
Table 1
Mechanical tests and geometric parameters considered
Potential test Geometric parameters
Constant (mm) Variables (mm)
Standard Iosipescu a = 80.0 b = 20.0, 24.0, 28.0, 32.0, 36.0
shear
Modified Iosipescu a = 80.0 b = 20.0, 24.0, 28.0, 32.0, 36.0
shear
Three-point bend S = 120.0 t = 10.0, 15.0, 20.0, 25.0
Off-axis tensile L = 60.0 h = 7, 10, 12, 16

n n
Experiment: Run FE Obtain G13 / G23 are the
Apply load P0 simulation translation ΔFE Is optimum
0
|ΔFE - ΔEXP| < ε? Yes
and obtain with G13 and from interlaminar shear
translation ΔEXP
0
G23 and P0 simulations moduli

n
Change G13
n
and G23 No
accordingly

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the inverse parameter identification technique.

398 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408

material used in the current study. The four most promis-
ing mechanical tests from the previous sensitivity analysis
were reconsidered in the current investigation. The aim is
to test the validity of these tests when the new material
properties are applied. The four tests considered are the
standard Iosipescu shear test, modified Iosipescu shear test,
three-point bend test and the off-axis tensile test.
3.1. Geometric parameters
The geometric parameters of the four mechanical tests
are shown in Fig. 2. The location from which the material
responses were obtained are indicated in these figures. The
corresponding values of the geometric parameters that are
varied in the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table 2.
3.2. Element type—validation study
A validation study was first conducted to test the affects
of using two different types of elements in the FE models.
There are many different element types that could be used
in an FE analysis, as such careful considerations must be
taken to ensure that the chosen element does not affect
the overall results of the sensitivity analysis.
The current FE simulations being conducted are linearly
static involving 3-dimensional orthotropic material proper-
ties. In ABAQUS/Standard, the two most obvious choices
are C3D8 and C3D20R elements. The C3D8 is a first order
element consisting of eight nodes, while the C3D20R is a
second-order elements consisting of 20 nodes. Second-
order elements provide higher accuracy than first-order ele-
ments for problems that do not involve complex contact
conditions, impact, or severe element distortions. They
capture stress concentrations more effectively and are bet-
ter for modelling geometric features. The downside to sec-
ond-order elements is that they are computationally more
expensive than first-order elements [14].
Stress measurements and accurate stress distributions
are not a major factor in the current FE simulations as
the chosen material responses are all displacements. There-
fore, C3D8 elements would be much more attractive than
C3D20R elements if similar accuracies can be achieved

LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD

1 1

2 2

LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD

z z
Thickness: 6.0mm Thickness: 6.0mm
x Material response: Δ z 12 x Material response: Δ z 12

(a) (b)

LOAD 3

1 2

z z
Thickness: 20.0mm Thickness: 20.0mm
Material response: Δ z A y Material response: Δ y 12
x
(c) (d)

Fig. 2. Specimen size and location from which the material response is measured for each of the mechanical tests considered. (a) Standard Iosipescu shear
test, (b) modified Iosipescu shear test, (c) three-point bend test and (d) off-axis tensile test.

Table 2
Material properties of F593-18 plain weave pre-preg
E11 (GPa) E22 (GPa) E33 (GPa) G12 (GPa) G13 (GPa) G23 (GPa) v12 v13 v23
a a
Reference 54.0 54.0 9.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 0.3 0.25 0.25
10% Increase 59.4 59.4 9.9 4.95 3.3 3.3 Remains constant
20% Increase 64.8 64.8 10.8 5.4 3.6 3.6 Remains constant
30% Increase 70.2 70.2 11.7 5.85 3.9 3.9 Remains constant
Previous assumption 80.0 80.0 9.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 0.3 0.25 0.25
a
Assumed value.
 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408 399

due to the lower computational requirements of the C3D8
elements. Simulations to test the accuracies of the two ele-
ment types were conducted using the standard Iosipescu
shear test and the three-point bend test.
3.2.1. Validation method
FE simulations of the standard Iosipescu shear test and
the three-point bend test were conducted using C3D8 and
C3D20R elements. The dimensions of the test specimen,
boundary and loading conditions, and the location of the
material response are shown in Fig. 2a and c for the two
mechanical tests. The parameter b in the standard Iosipe-
scu shear test was chosen to be 20.0 mm, while a thickness
of 10.0 mm was chosen for the three-point bend test. The
benchmark material properties as outlined in Table 2 were
used for the validation process.
3.2.2. Numerical models
The FE model generated for this validation test is shown
in Figs. 3 and 4 for the two mechanical tests. For the stan-
dard Iosipescu shear test, the default size for the front face
of the elements in the FE mesh was 0.5 · 0.5 mm. This was
maintained for the outer rectangular sections of the FE
model. Smaller element sizes were then specified for the
six curves forming the two notches of the specimen to gen-
erate a finer mesh for the section between the notches. The
FE model was then divided into four equally spaced ele-
ments in the depth direction.
For the three-point bend test, the default size for the
front face (x–z-plane) of the elements in the FE mesh
was 1.0 · 1.0 mm. Due to the symmetry of the model in
the x–z-plane, only half of the specimen was generated
and the required boundary conditions were applied to sim-
ulate this symmetry plane. As such, it was sufficient to
divide the FE model into five equally spaced elements in
the depth direction.
3.2.3. Validation test results
The nodal displacements along the x- and z-axes for the
two nodes as shown in Fig. 2a were obtained for the stan-
dard Iosipescu test cases. The subsequent differential dis-
placement along and x- and z-axes were calculated for

Fig. 3. FE mesh used for the standard Iosipescu shear validation tests.

Fig. 4. FE mesh used for the three-point bend validation tests.

400 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408

both simulations to give the x-axis and z-axis material
responses, respectively. These results, together with the
approximate computation time for each simulation, are
shown in Table 3. Similarly, the z-axis material response
was obtained from the three-point bend test FE models
using the two different element types. The comparison of
results are shown in Tables 4 and 5.
As can be seen in the tabulated results for both mechan-
ical tests, the difference in the material responses obtained
from the FE models using the C3D8 and C3D20R elements
are minimal, with the percentage differences being between
0.19% and 0.41%. This clearly indicates that in the current
FE simulations, the use of C3D8 elements does not affect
the accuracy of the overall results and that it should be
used in the FE simulations conducted for the sensitivity
analysis given the substantial savings in computational
resource and analysis time. The simulations employing
C3D8 elements are completed in approximately one fifth
of the time required by the simulations employing
C3D20R elements for the standard Iosipescu shear test
and one third of the time for the three-point bend test.
3.2.4. Discussion
It is believed that the common problems associated with
the use of C3D8 elements, such as shear-locking, does not
affect the results of the current FE models as relatively
small loads are applied. If the test specimens are subjected
to higher stresses, it is recommended that C3D20R ele-
Table 3
Comparison of results obtained from the Iosipescu shear validation test
using C3D8 and C3D20R elements
C3D20R C3D8
Number of elements 27,200 27,200
Number of nodes 13,2149 35,055
x-axis material response 24.46 lm 24.56 lm
z-axis material response 363.03 lm 362.25 lm
Approximate analysis time 1067.0 s 197.0 s
ments be used. Based on the results achieved in the valida-
tion study, the use of C3D8 elements in the previously
sensitivity analysis are justified. Further, also based on
the validation results, the FE models used in the follow-
ing sensitivity analysis will be generated using C3D8
elements.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis—results
The current sensitivity analysis was conducted on the
four mechanical tests as discussed previously. The speci-
men dimensions are shown in Fig. 2. The FE models were
generated to these dimensions, while boundary and loading
conditions were applied to replicate the support and load-
ing shown in these figures. Different loads were imple-
mented in each mechanical test. A load of 10.0 kN was
applied in the two Iosipescu shear tests, while a load of
1.0 kN was applied to the three-point bend test. For the
off-axis tensile test, a stress of 20.0 MPa was used. The
same methodology as used in the initial sensitivity analysis
was used in the current analysis. An in-depth description of
the sensitivity analysis process can be found in Chan et al.
[13]. The FE simulations were conducted using the new
material properties as discussed above in Section 2.1.
Fig. 5 illustrates the sensitivity results for one of the geo-
metric cases considered for the standard Iosipescu shear
test. The percentage change in the material response corre-
sponding to the percentage changes in the four stiffness
properties (see Table 2) are shown in this figure. As can
be seen, the relationship between the changes in the
mechanical response and the changes in the stiffness prop-
erties is quite linear. This allows for a comparisons to be
made after a 30.0% change in the stiffness properties.
Difference (%) The percentage changes of the material responses corre-
– sponding to a 30% change in the four stiffness properties
73.47 for each of the geometric cases considered for the four
0.41 mechanical tests are shown in Fig. 6.
0.21
81.54
3.4. Discussion

From the results of the validation study and the cur-

Table 4
Comparison of results obtained from the three-point bend validation test rent sensitivity analysis, the following conclusions were
using C3D8 and C3D20R elements drawn:
C3D20R C3D8 Difference (%)
• The use of C3D8 elements is valid and appropriate in
Number of elements 7500 7500 –
Number of nodes 37,231 9966 73.23 the current simulations, as little difference is shown in
z-axis material response 573.34 lm 572.27 lm 0.19 the material response obtained from FE simulations
Approximate analysis time 163.0 s 54.0 s 66.87 conducted using C3D8 and C3D20R elements.

Table 5
Experimental loading conditions
Mechanical test Control type Load type Maximum load Maximum average shear stress Load rate
(kN) (MPa) (kN/min)
Modified Iosipescu shear Load Compression 6.0 52.6 1.0
Three-point bend Load Compression 12.0 31.5 2.0
 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408 401

30.0

Percentage change in material response (%)

25.0 G13, G23
E1,E2
E3
20.0
G12

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Percentage change in stiffness property (%)

Fig. 5. Sensitivity of the z-axis material response to changes in the four stiffness properties for the standard Iosipescu shear test, b = 20 mm.

• The variations in the material properties used in the two Iosipescu shear test should be used as it eliminates the
sensitivity analyses did not significantly affect the sensi- complexities of having to manufacture the delicate notch
tivity of the four mechanical tests considered. (See Chan in the specimens. It is acknowledge that the stress distri-
et al., 2004 for a comparison of results.) bution would be different between the original and mod-
• Similar sensitivities are achieved in the standard and ified versions of the Iosipescu shear test. However, this
modified Iosipescu shear tests. As such, the modified factor does not affect the suitability of the modified

30.0 30.0
Percentage change in z-axis material

Percentage change in z-axis material

25.62 25.93

25.0 23.58 25.0 23.50

21.88 21.66
20.48 20.20
20.0 20.0
response (%)

response (%)

G13, G23 G13, G23

15.0 15.0
E1, E2 E1, E2
E3 E3
10.0 G12 10.0 G12

5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0
b (mm) b (mm)
(a) (b)
25.0 25.0
Percentage change in z-axis material

Percentage change in z-axis material

20.0 20.0
response (%)

response (%)

15.0 15.0
G13, G23 G13, G23
E1, E2 E1, E2 11.78
10.58
10.0 E3 10.0 E3
8.88
G12 8.37 G12

5.71 5.55
5.0 5.0

2.98
2.33

0.0 0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 4.0 7.0 10.0 13.0 16.0 19.0
t (mm) (mm)
(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Sensitivity of the material response to a 30% change in the four stiffness properties for the four potential mechanical tests. (a) Standard Iosipescu
shear test, (b) modified Iosipescu shear test, (c) three-point bend test and (d) off-axis tensile test.
402 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408
Iosipescu shear test as the success of the technique is
only dependent on the chosen displacement material
response.
• Both the three-point bend test and off-axis tensile tests
are equally suitable for the proposed technique. Given
that the in-plane Young’s modulus is known for the
material under investigation, their high sensitivity to this
stiffness property is acceptable in both cases.
• For the three point bend test, a minimum thickness of
approximately 20.0 mm should be selected, while an
off-axis angle of greater than 13 if required for the
off-axis tensile test to be suitable.
Based on these conclusions, a decision was made to
apply the inverse parameter identification technique to
the modified Iosipescu shear test and the three-point bend
test to determine the elastic interlaminar shear modulus of
the Hexcel F-593-18 carbon-composite pre-preg. Due to
a foreseeable complicated process in fabricating test
specimens, the off-axis tensile test was not selected at this
stage.
4. Elastic interlaminar shear modulus
The inverse parameter identification technique, using
both the modified Iosipescu shear and three-point bend
tests, was applied to determine the elastic interlaminar
shear modulus. The combination of experimental method,
numerical method and computational method is discussed
in detail in the following sections. Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate
the finalised geometric parameters of the two chosen
mechanical tests. To simplify the fabrication process, a
decision was made to use a thickness of 19.0 mm for the
Fig. 7. Design parameters of the modified Iosipescu shear test. Material response: Dz12 = z1  z2.
LOAD
A
z
Fig. 8. Design parameters of the three-point bend test. Material response: dA.
three-point bend test so that all specimens can be cut from
the same composite block.
4.1. Experimental method
The tests were conducted on an Instron 4204 universal
testing machine with a 10 kN load cell. The load was
applied to the test specimens at a set loading rate until a
specified maximum load was reached. The loading condi-
tions used for the two mechanical tests are shown in Table
5. The continuous loading and displacement measurements
were logged into a data acquisition computer. A schematic
of the experimental set-up for the three-point bend tests is
illustrated in Fig. 9. A similar set-up was employed for the
modified Iosipescu shear test.
Each experiment was conduced six times to ensure that a
repeatable, and hence reliable, test procedure is developed.
The specimens were laid-up with Hexcel F593-18 carbon–
epoxy plain weave pre-preg as [0/90]86, and machined to
the dimensions shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for the modified
Iosipescu and three-point bend tests, respectively.
Obtaining the required displacement data from the mod-
ified Iosipescu shear test proved to be considerably difficult.
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the relative displacement of two
given points on the specimen surface was required for the
duration of the loading. Traditional data acquisition
instrumentations were found to be inadequate in obtaining
the required data. Custom-made clips, as shown in
Fig. 10a, were designed to be used in conjunction with an
Instron extensometer to capture the required displace-
ments. The clips serve as an extension to the extensometer
and allow the whole assembly to be attached to the test
specimen. Careful considerations of the clip size and design
 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408 403

Force
Instron 4204 Output (V)
Control Instron Control Data Acq. Data Acq.
& three-point
Computer Panel Box Computer
bend rig

Probe 1 Probe 2

Fibre
Optic
Sensors
Displacement 2 (V)

Displacement 1 (V)

Fig. 9. Schematic of three-point bend test.

Fig. 10a. Custom-made Iosipescu test clips. Fig. 11a. Holder for the fibre optic sensors.

Fig. 10b. Data acquisition assembly. Fig. 11b. Three-point bend test rig setup.

had to be made in order for it to fit into the Iosipescu shear Data acquisition for the three-point bend test was more
test rig without any of the components interfering with straightforward. The maximum deflection at the mid-span
each other throughout the entire testing process. Fig. 10b of the specimen under load was obtained with a fibre optic
illustrates the assembly of the clips, specimen and test rig. displacement sensor. A special rig attachment was designed

Fig. 12a. FE model of the modified Iosipescu shear test specimen. Front and side views.
404 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408

and manufactured for holding the fibre optic sensor in the viding the required repeatability. The placement of the
correct location (Fig. 11a). This allowed the fibre optic sen- sensor holder relative to the three-point bend test rig is
sor to be in the same position for each specimen, thus pro- shown in Fig. 11b.

Fig. 12b. FE model of the three-point bend test specimen. Front and side views.

PASCAL PROGRAM

Read user file for node &

filename information

Read in experimental
data

Read output file and store the

required nodel displacements

BATCH PROGRAM
Have all of the nodal
NO
displacements been found?
Run FE job in
START

HKS.Abaqus and
generate output file YES
Generate
error file
Read in current material
Run Pascal properties of FE model
Program

Apply the 'secant method' to

determine a new G13/G23
value using the experimental
and numerical data

Does a program
NO termination or error
file exist? Is the percentage change of
the new G12/G23 less than a
specified error-function?

YES

Group the YES NO

END

answer/results
files.

Update material
properties of FE
model
Generate program
termination file

Generate new
input file

Fig. 13. Flowchart of the minimisation program.


4.2. Finite element models
FE model were generated to accurately represent the
various aspects of the actual mechanical test, which
includes load and boundary conditions, specimen dimen-
sions, and known material properties. The stiffness proper-
ties shown in Table 1 was applied to the FE models.
EDS.FeMap v.8.3 was used as the pre-processor for con-
structing the FE models, and HKS.Abaqus Standard
v.6.4 was used as the FE solver for the analysis.
Mesh density of the FE models can significantly affect
the overall performance of the proposed technique. Accu-
rate predictions of the model response cannot be achieved
with an overly coarse mesh. However, an overly fine mesh
will place an excessively high demand on computing
resources, limiting the overall efficiency of the technique.
A mesh dependency analysis was conducted for both the
modified Iosipescu shear test and the three-point bend test
to establish the most suitable mesh densities. The final FE
meshes are shown in Fig. 12a and 12b. A constant element
size of 0.5 · 0.5 · 1.0 mm was implemented for the modi-
fied Iosipescu test FE model. Whereas a variable mesh size
was adopted for the three-point bend test FE model, allow-
ing the same accuracy of a much denser model to be
achieved while significantly reducing the computational
time. Due to symmetry, only one half of the modified Iosip-
escu test specimen and a quarter of the three-point bend
test specimen were modelled.
4.3. Computer program (minimisation process)
The core of the inverse parameter identification tech-
nique is a computer program that performs the minimisa-
tion procedure. The program is used to minimise the
following error function:
e ¼ jDFE  DEXP j
0.25
0.20
Material response (mm)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 10.0
-0.05
Fig. 14. Modified Iosipescu shear test experimental results: applied shear stress vs. z-translation between the specified nodes.
A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408 405
where DFE and DEXP represents the predicted and measured
displacements, respectively.
The following nonlinear equation needs to be solved to
minimise the above error function in terms of the interlam-
inar shear modulus:
de
¼0 ð2Þ
dG13
where G13 is the interlaminar shear modulus to be
determined.
It should be noted that Eq. (2) is nonlinear since the dis-
placements are related to the interlaminar shear modulus in
a nonlinear fashion. In the present work, Eq. (2) is solved
iteratively using the secant method [15].
The major functions of the minimisation program have
been written using the Pascal programming language. A
batch program has also been written to control the numer-
ical simulations and the operation of the Pascal program.
These are outlined in the flowchart shown in Fig.13.
5. Results and discussion
The results obtained from applying the inverse parame-
ter identification technique using the modified Iosipescu
shear and the three-point bend tests are shown in Figs.
14 and 15, respectively. The material responses from all five
specimens in each of the two mechanical tests are plotted
against the average shear stress, which is defined as the
applied force over the cross-sectional area of the specimen.
This data was acquired at a sampling rate of 2.0 Hz, which
was deemed sufficient for material responses at the slow
rates of load application (1 kN/min and 2 kN/min). The
limited spread in the specimen’s material responses in both
the modified Iosipescu shear test and the three-point bend
test indicates that good repeatability have been achieved in
ð1Þ both cases. The consistency of the results also demonstrates
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
Specimen 4
Specimen 5
20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Average shear stress (MPa)
406 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408

that the custom-made experimental equipment is robust determining the elastic interlaminar shear modulus. Similar
and can be relied upon for future experiments. nonlinear behaviour is not observed for the three-point
A closer examination of the modified Iosipescu shear bend tests as the interlaminar shear is not the most signif-
test results reveals that the response is slightly nonlinear icant mode of deformation in this case.
from the beginning, and the nonlinearity becomes more The minimisation program was applied using the mate-
obvious when the applied average shear stress reaches rial response obtained from both the modified Iosipescu
approximately 30.0 MPa. This kind of response can be shear test and the three-point bend test at stress levels of
explained by considering the viscoelastic behaviour in the 10.0 MPa, 15.0 MPa, and 20.0 MPa to determine the elas-
interlaminar shear of polymer composites. The interlami- tic interlaminar shear modulus. These results are shown in
nar shear modulus of a composite laminate is a matrix- Figs. 15–17.
dominant property. It has been stated repeatedly that poly- Given the nonlinearity of the material response, the
meric materials can behave in a viscoelastic manner, even modulus values calculated from the modified Iosipescu
at the room temperatures [16,17]. Therefore, this suggests shear tests decreases as the load increases. Whereas, the
that an average shear stress level of less than 30.0 MPa values calculated from the three-point bend tests remain
should be applied to the modified Iosipescu specimens for relatively constant as the loads are varied. The average

0.20

0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

-0.20
Material response (mm)

-0.40

-0.60

Specimen 1
-0.80
Specimen 2

-1.00 Specimen 3
Specimen 4
-1.20 Specimen 5

-1.40
Average shear stress (MPa)

Fig. 15. Three-point bend test experimental results: applied shear stress vs. mid-span deflection.

4.0

3.5
3.240
3.296
Interlaminar shear modulus (GPa)

3.147
3.0
(Ave=3.22)

2.5

10MPa
2.0 15MPa
3.466

3.412
3.379

3.376
3.331

20MPa
3.281

3.281
3.266

3.205
3.199

3.149
3.068

3.049
3.014

2.941

1.5 Ave (10MPa)

Ave (15MPa)
Ave (20MPa)
1.0

0.5

0.0
1 2 3 4 5
Specimen number

Fig. 16. Interlaminar shear modulus values as calculated by the minimisation program using the three-point bend test.
 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408 407

3.0

2.5
Interlaminar shear modulus (GPa) 2.373

2.0

10MPa
1.5 15MPa
20MPa

2.433
2.431
2.427
2.404

2.404

2.404

2.355
2.353
2.348
2.340
2.339

2.340

2.332

2.332

2.332
Ave (10MPa)
1.0 Ave (15MPa)
Ave (20MPa)

0.5

0.0
1 2 3 4 5
Specimen numbers

Fig. 17. Interlaminar shear modulus values as calculated by the minimisation program using the modified Iosipescu shear test.

elastic interlaminar shear modulus values from the five mentally measured and numerically determined material
modified Iosipescu shear tests conducted is approximately response by varying the interlaminar shear modulus in
3.23 GPa, while the average from the three-point bend tests the numerical model. As a consequence, the ‘optimum’
is approximately 2.37 GPa. interlaminar shear modulus can be determined using a rel-
It is noted that there is a difference of approximately atively simple mechanical test. The process involves a com-
26.6% between the interlaminar shear moduli determined bination of experimental investigations, numerical studies,
by the two test methods. This discrepancy can be attributed and the development of a computer program to automate
to several factors. The sensitivity analysis has shown that the iteration process required. In the current investigation,
the three-point bend test is most sensitive to changes in the proposed technique was applied to determine the elastic
the in-plane Young’s modulus, E11, hence slight uncertain- interlaminar shear modulus of the Hexcel F593-18 carbon–
ties in this material property can have a significant impact epoxy pre-preg composite material.
on the interlaminar shear modulus obtained from the test. A sensitivity analysis was initially conducted in the cur-
For example, a 5.0% error in the Young’s modulus will rent investigation on four mechanical tests. From a valida-
affect the interlaminar shear modulus by approximately tion analysis, it was found that the use of C3D8 elements is
9.0%. Another factor affecting the accuracy of the results valid in the current FE models as sufficiently small loads
would be the testing equipment used to measure the mid- are applied to the specimens. Based on the results of the
span deflection. There are inadequacies in the use of the sensitivity analysis, the modified Iosipescu shear and the
Philtec non-contact fibre optic sensors, mainly due to the three-point bend tests were chosen for use with the inverse
fact that any misalignment of the sensor can affect the mea- parameter identification technique.
sured material response significantly. The inverse parameter identification technique was then
Despite inherent possibility of errors in the three-point applied using both the modified Iosipescu shear and three-
bend test, the results obtained from the this mechanical test point bend tests. Data from a series of experimental tests
serves as a good comparison for the interlaminar shear were used in conjunction with FE analyses results through
modulus values obtained from the modified Iosipescu shear a customised computer program to determine the elastic
test. It enhances the degree of confidence in the present interlaminar shear modulus of the composite material
inverse parameter identification approach when the modi- under investigation. This value was found to be 3.23 GPa
fied Iosipescu shear test is implemented is reasonably close and 2.37 GPa from using the modified Iosipescu shear
moduli are obtained. and the three-point bend tests, respectively. These results
were found to be extremely promising as they are within
6. Conclusion an acceptable range of previously speculated values.
A significant contribution has been made in showing
An inverse parameter identification technique has been that the modified Iosipescu shear test can be used to deter-
proposed to determine the elastic interlaminar shear mine the elastic interlaminar shear modulus. The modified
modulus of composite laminates. The basis behind the Iosipescu shear test omits the notches that exist in the stan-
technique is to minimise the difference between an experi- dard Iosipescu test specimens, consequently a much simply
408 A. Chan et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 396–408
preparation is required for the modified Iosipescu shear
test as the process of fabricating the delicate notches is
no longer required.
The overall outcome of the results suggests that the pro-
posed inverse parameter identification technique can be
applied to determine the elastic interlaminar shear modulus
of composite laminates. The extension of this technique to
determine the viscoelastic interlaminar shear modulus is
currently in progress.
References
[1] Baker AA et al. An affordable methodology for replacing metallic
aircraft panels with advanced composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci
Manuf 2002;33(5):687–96.
[2] Staab GH. Laminar composites. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann;
1999. p. 102–39.
[3] Hantranft DD. Analysis and experimental characterization of out-of-
plane properties of woven 3-D reinforced composites. PhD University
of Delaware; 1997.
[4] Walrath DE, Adams DF. The Iosipescu shear test as applied to
composite materials. Exp Mech 1983;23(1):105–10.
[5] Iosipescu N. New accurate procedure for single shear testing of
metals. J Mater 1967;2(3):547–66.
[6] Standard test method for shear properties of composite materials by
the V-notched beam method. ASTM Designation: D 5379/ D 5379M
– 93.
[7] Morton J, Ho H, Tsai MY. An evaluation of the Iosipescu specimen
for composite materials shear property measurement. J Compos
Mater 1992;26(5):708–50.
[8] Zhou G, Green ER, Morrison C. In-plane and interlaminar shear
properties of carbon/epoxy laminates. Compos Sci Technol
1995;55:187–93.
[9] Lee S, Munro M. Evaluation of testing techniques for the Iosipescu
shear test for advanced composite materials. J Compos Mater
1990;24:419–40.
[10] Mespoulet S et al. Design, development, and implementation of test
methods for determination of through thickness properties of
laminated composites. Plast Rubber Compos 2000;29(9):496–502.
[11] Post D, Dai FL, Guo Y, Ifju P. Interlaminar shear moduli of cross-
ply laminates: An experimental analysis. J Compos Mater
1989;23(3):264–79.
[12] Pierron F, Grediac M. Identification of the through-thickness moduli
of thick composites from whole-field measurements using the
Iosipescu fixture: theory and simulations. Compos Part A
2000;31:309–18.
[13] Chan A, Liu XL, Chiu WK. Sensitivity analysis of potential tests for
determining the interlaminar shear modulus of fibre reinforced
composites. Compos Struct 2004;66:109–14.
[14] ABAQUS Version 6.5—Analysis: User’s Manual. Vol. 4, Elements,
Chapter 14.1.1.
[15] Kreyszig E. Advanced engineering mathematics. 8th ed. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.; 1999. p. 845–6.
[16] Crawford RJ. Plastics engineering. 3rd ed. Butterworth–Heinemann;
1998.
[17] Mills NJ. Plastics: microstructure, properties, and applications.
second ed. Halsted Press; 1993.