Figure 3. Manufacturing flow for interlocking-fiber-based crack arrester. Figure 4. Photograph of arrester part of DCB specimen. RESULTS A comparison of the typical load-displacement curves between the specimens without the arrester and with the arrester (02-902 specimen) is shown in Figure 5. In the specimens without the arrester, the load increased elastically at first. When the crack started to grow from the initial crack, the load decreased with crack propagation. This is a typical behavior of specimens in DCB tests. The specimens with the arrester showed the same tendency as that of the specimen without the arrester in the initial stage of the test. However, after the crack reached the arrester, the load increased inversely. Failure occurred at a significantly higher load than that in the specimens without the arrester. A comparison of the crack tip positions between the specimens without the arrester and with the arrester when a displacement of 30 mm is applied is shown in Figure 6. In the specimens without the arrester, the crack length was approximately 65 mm from the initial position. In contrast, crack propagation was suppressed at the arrester part, which is 30 mm from the initial crack, in the specimens with the arrester. This shows that crack propagation can be suppressed by introducing crack arresters into the w w w. s a m p e . o r g Figure 5. Comparison of typical load-displacement curves of specimens without arrester and with arrester (02-902 specimen). S E P T E M B E R /O C TO B E R 2 0 2 0 | SAMPE JOURNAL | 9http://www.sampe.org