Strength of a Continuous Fiber

Reinforced Lamina
For the orthotropic lamina under simple
uniaxial or shear stress, there are 5
strengths:
( )
S L = Longitudinal tensile strength
( )
S L = Longitudinal compressive strength
( )
ST = Transverse tensile strength
( )
ST = Transverse compressive strength
S LT = Shear strength
(See Fig. 4.1)

Stress-strain curves for uniaxial and shear loading

showing lamina strengths and ultimate strains.

Longitudinal Uniaxial
Loading

sL
eL

( )

( )

eL

1
sL

( )

( )

Stress-strain curves for uniaxial and shear loading

showing lamina strengths and ultimate strains.
Transverse Uniaxial
Loading

ST
eT

2
( )

( )

ST

( )

eT

( )

Stress-strain curves for uniaxial and shear loading

showing lamina strengths and ultimate strains.
Shear Loading
12

12

sLT

eLT

12

Assuming linear elastic behavior up to failure:

SL

()

E1eL

SL

( )

ST

()

ST

( )

()

E1eL

()

E2 eT

()

E2 eT

( )

(4.1)

S LT G12 eLT
( )

( )

( )

()

where eL , eL , eT , eT , eLT are the

corresponding ultimate strains.

Transverse tensile strength ST(+) is low because of

stress concentration in matrix at fiber/matrix
interfaces.

Fibers are, in effect, holes in matrix under

transverse or shear loading.

Typical values of lamina strengths for several composites

Material

SL(+)
ksi(MPa)

SL(-)
ksi(Mpa)

ST(+)
ksi(Mpa)

ST(-)
ksi(Mpa)

SLT
ksi(Mpa)

Boron/5505
boron/epoxy
vf = 0.5 (*)

230 (1586)

360 (2482)

9.1 (62.7)

35.0 (241)

12.0 (82.7)

AS/3501
graphite/epoxy
vf = 0.6 (*)

210 (1448)

170 (1172)

7.0 (48.3)

36.0 (248)

9.0 (62.1)

T300/5208
graphite/epoxy
vf = 0.6 (*)

210 (1448)

210 (1448)

6.5 (44.8)

36.0 (248)

9.0 (62.1)

Kevlar 49/epoxy
aramid/epoxy
vf
= 0.6 (*)

200 (1379)

40 (276)

4.0 (27.6)

9.4 (64.8)

8.7 (60.0)

Scotchply 1002
E-glass/epoxy
vf = 0.45 (*)

160 (1103)

90 (621)

4.0 (27.6)

20.0 (138)

12.0 (82.7)

85 (584)

116 (803)

6.2 (43)

27.1 (187)

9.3 (64.0)

E-glass/470-36
E-glass/vinylester
vf = 0.30 (*)

Multiaxial Strength Criteria

Semi-empirical approaches to estimating
lamina strength under multiaxial stresses.
Not concerned with specific
micromechanical failure modes such as
fiber pullout, fiber micro buckling, matrix
cracking or delamination.
Multiaxial strength criteria expressed in
terms of the 5 lamina strengths and the
stresses 1 , 2 , 12 along principal
material axes.

Procedure for application of multiaxial

strength criteria:
1. Transform stresses to principal material axes:

x
1

2 T y


12
xy
2. Apply criterion which relates stresses
1 , 2 , 12
to strengths SL(+), SL(-),
ST(+), ST(-), SLT.

Maximum Stress Criterion

In order to avoid failure, we must have

SL

()

ST

( )

1 SL

()

2 ST

()

(4.2)

12 S LT
where the numerical values of SL(-) and SL(-)
are assumed to be positive.
Note: lack of interaction between stress
components. Failure surface is a
rectangle.

Failure surface for maximum stress criterion is

a rectangle in 1 2 space

2
ST
SL

( )

( )

SL
ST

( )

( )

Biaxial Testing to produce 1 and 2

Pressurized cylinder under axial load,
F

Internal
pressure, P

Biaxial Testing to produce 1 and 2

Cross Specimen

Fy

Fx

Fx
Fy

Off-axis uniaxial test of a unidirectional lamina specimen

Stress transformations:

1 x cos
2
2 x sin
2

(4.3)

12 x cos sin
Off-axis uniaxial test produces biaxial stresses
along principal material axis.

Uniaxial Off-axis Test

x
x

y
2

x 0, y xy 0
1
x

2 T 0

0
12

x cos
1

2
x sin
2
sin cos
x
12

(4.3)

Uniaxial Off-axis Test

Longitudinal tensile failure
want
or

1 SL
x SL

()

()

cos
2

Transverse tensile failure

want
Shear failure
want

x ST

()

sin
2

S LT
x
sin cos

Thus, the smallest allowable stress is found from:

()
SL
()
2
x S L cos
2
cos

x ST

()

sin
2

()

ST
2
sin

x S LT sin cos

x
S LT
sin cos

45

90

Off-axis uniaxial loading

Maximum stress
failure theory

From Jones,
Mechanics of
Composite
Materials

experimental
data for
glass/epoxy in
tension
experimental
data for
glass/epoxy in
compression

Off-Axis Shear Test

xy 0, x y 0

xy

xy

0
1

2 T 0


12
xy

1 2 xy cos sin

2 2 xy cos sin
cos 2 sin 2
12 xy

(4.4)

Off-Axis Shear Test

For example, when 45

1 xy
2 xy

12 0
Result: Transverse Compression

xy
xy

 xy

Off-Axis Shear Test

xy 0, x y 0
0
1

2 T 0


xy
12

xy

1 2 xy cos sin

2 2 xy cos sin
sin 2 cos 2
12 xy

Off-Axis Shear Test

For example, when 45

1 xy
2 xy

12 0
Result: Transverse Tension

xy

xy

Maximum Strain Criterion

In order to avoid failure, we must have

eL

( )

eT

()

1 eL

()

2 eT

()

(4.5)

12 eLT
where the numerical values of eL(-) and eT(-)
are positive.
Failure surface is a skewed parallelogram.

Limiting strain along +1 direction:

()

SL
1
2
1

12
E1
E1
E1

1 SL
2
12

(4.6)

()

(4.7)

which is equation for a straight line having intercept

(SL(+), 0) and slope 1/12.
Similarly, the limiting strain along +2 direction is such
()
that
(4.8)
S
2

21

which is straight line having intercept (0, ST(+)) and

slope 21.

Maximum
( )
Stress
ST

SL

21

Maximum
Strain

TsaiHill

( )

1 12
SL

ST

( )

( )

Maximum stress, Maximum Strain and Tsai-Hill failure

surfaces in 1, 2 space.

Maximum
Stress

SL

2
ST

( )

( )

SL 1

( 1 ,0)

( )

ST

( )

Maximum
Strain

Example showing that intercepts for Maximum Strain

Criterion failure surfaces are not always the same as
those for Maximum Stress Criterion.

Maximum strain failure theory

From Jones,
Mechanics of
Composite Materials

Quadratic Interaction Criteria

Unlike Maximum Stress and Maximum
Strain Criteria, the Quadratic Interaction
Criteria include terms to account for
interaction between the stress components.
Evolved from early failure theories for
isotropic metals.
Example: Hill Criterion for yielding of
anisotropic metals under 3-D stress a
modification of Von Mises Criterion for
isotropic metals.

A( 2 3 ) B( 3 1 ) C ( 1 2 )
2

2 D 23 2 E 31 2 F 12 1
2

(4.9)

where A, B, C, D, E and F are determined from

yield strengths in uniaxial or shear loading
For a uniaxial test along the 1-direction with 1 =
Y1 = yield strength in 1-direction, Eq. (4.9)
1
reduces to
(4.10)
BC 2
Y1
Similarly, uniaxial tests along 2 and 3 directions
1
1
yield
(4.11)
AC 2 ; A B 2
Y2
Y3

(Yield strengths in T and C assumed equal)

Solving for A, B, and C:

1
1
1
2A 2 2 2
Y2 Y3 Y1
1
1
1
2B 2 2 2
Y3 Y1 Y2
1
1
1
2C 2 2 2
Y1 Y2 Y3

(4.12)

Shear tests along 23, 31 and 12 planes

1
1
1
yield

2D

Y23

; 2E

Y31

; 2F

Y12

(4.13)

Yield Surfaces for Isotropic Metallic Materials 2D

(From An Introduction to the Mechanics of Solids, 2nd Edition, S. H. Crandall, N.
C. Dahl, and T. J. Lardner, McGraw Hill, 1978)

Yield Surfaces for Isotropic Metallic Materials 3D

Tsai-Hill Criterion:
Assumed plane stress in12 plane, and that
material is orthotropic and transversely isotropic.
Replaced Hills anisotropic yield strengths with
effective lamina strengths (i.e., Y1 = SL,
Y2=Y3=ST, Y12=SLT)
Hill criterion then reduces to:

1 1 2 2
12

2
1
2
2
2
SL
SL
ST
S LT
2

(4.14)

More accurate than Maximum Stress or

Maximum Strain Criteria see comparisons with
exp. data.

Modification of Tsai-Hill Criterion for different

tensile and compressive strengths:
If 1>0, use SL(+)
If 1<0, use SL(-)
If 2>0, use ST(+)
If 2<0, use ST(-)
2 <0, Tsai-Hill becomes
2
2
Ex: If 1>0,
2
1
1 2
2
12
( )2 ()2
1
()2
2
SL
SL
ST
S LT
2
2
2
Ex: If 1<0,

>0,
we
get,
1 2 1 2
2
12
()2 ( )2
1
()2
2
SL
SL
ST
S LT

Tsai-Hill Criterion for

Off-axis tensile test
From Jones, Mechanics of
Composite Materials

 Problems With Hill Criterion:

Tensile and compressive strengths
assumed to be equal
Does not predict failure under hydrostatic
stresses

1 2 3
12 23 13 0

These deficiencies led to development of a

more general tensor polynomial failure
theory by Tsai and Wu.

Tsai Wu Criterion:

Fi i Fij i j 1

(4.15)

where i, j = 1, 2, , 6 and Fi and Fij are measured

strengths.
Tsai Wu Criterion for 2D plane stress
2

F11 1 F22 2 F66 6 F1 1

F2 2 2 F12 1 2 1

(4.16)

 Linear term F6 6 dropped since shear

strength along 1, 2 axes not affected by sign
of shear stress 6 = 12
Linear terms F1 1 and F2 2 retained to take
into account different strengths in tension
and compression
Interaction term 2 F12 1 2 takes into
account interaction between normal stresses
1 and 2
F1, F2, F11, F22, F66 determined from uniaxial
tests
F12 determined by biaxial testing

Determination of F1 and F11:

Conduct uniaxial tension test with 1 = SL(+)
and uniaxial compression test with 1 = - SL(-)
Simultaneous solutions of two equations
from Tsai Wu:
2
Yields
and

F11 1 F1 1 1
() 2

F11 ( S L ) F1S L
( ) 2

()

()

F11 ( S L ) F1 ( S L ) 1

Solving simultaneously:

1
1
1
F11 ( ) ( ) and F1 ( ) ( )
SL
SL
SL SL

(4.17)

 From transverse tests in T and C:

1
1
1
F22 ( ) ( ) and F2 ( ) ( )
S T ST
ST
ST

From shear test:

F66

(4.17)

1
2

S LT
From biaxial test with 1 and 2 ,can determine F12
Experiments show that F12 depends on 1 / 2,

however
Optimization procedure used to account for sensitivity
of F12 to experimental scatter in applied stresses.
1
()
()
If F12
and S L S L S L
2

2S L

Tsai-Wu reduces to Tsai-Hill

Comparison of predicted failure surfaces with

experimental failure data for graphite/epoxy
(from Burk, 1983).

World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE)

Reference: Soden, P. D., Kaddour, A. S., and Hinton, M. J.,
Composites Science and Technology, 64(3-4), 2004, 589-604)

Predicted and measured failure envelopes for unidirectional Eglass/epoxy under biaxial stress (x, y). From World-wide Failure
Exercise (see Soden, Kaddour, and Hinton, Composites Science and
Technology, 64(3-4), 2004, 589-604)

Predicted and measured failure envelopes for unidirectional Eglass/epoxy under combined stress (xy, y). From World-wide
Failure Exercise (see Soden, Kaddour, and Hinton, Composites
Science and Technology, 64(3-4), 2004, 589-604)

Recommendations of WWFE five criteria gave best

overall agreement with experimental data

Zinoviev, et al. used the Maximum Stress Criterion to predict failure of a single
lamina. Linear elastic behavior was assumed up to initial failure. For laminate
failure prediction, additional features were included after first ply failure.
Bogetti, et al. employed a three-dimensional version of the Maximum Strain
Criterion. Linear elastic behavior was assumed up to initial failure in the
normal stress-normal strain relationships, but nonlinear shear stress-shear strain
behavior was assumed. Additional features including progressive lamina failure
were included for laminate analysis.
Tsai used the Tsai-Wu Criterion and assumed linear elastic behavior up to
initial ply failure. For laminate failure prediction, a progressive failure analysis
feature was added.
Puck, et al. and Cuntze, et al. employed similar three-dimensional progressive
failure theories, which are beyond the scope of this book

Most multiaxial failure criteria such as

Maximum Stress, Maximum Strain, Tsai-Hill,
Tsai-Wu only address in-plane stresses in
lamina.
In a laminate, interlaminar stresses cause a
triaxial state of stress in some areas will
discuss criteria for delamination later, in
Chap. 7

Micromechanics Models for

Strength
Strength more sensitive to material and
geometric nonhomogeneity than stiffness,
so statistical variability of strength is
usually greater than that of stiffness.
Different failure modes for tension and
compression require different micro
-mechanical models.

Statistical distribution of tensile strength for

boron filaments (From Weeton, et al., 1987).

Tensile Failure of Lamina Under Longitudinal Stress

Representative stress-strain curves for typical fiber,
matrix and composite materials
(matrix failure strain greater than fiber failure strain)
Stress

S m1

SL

()

(a) Fiber Failure Mode

S f1

()

Fiber

SL

( )

Composite(v f vcrit )

( )

S mf 1

()

Composite (v f vcrit ) Matrix

ef1

()

em1

()

Strain

Tensile Failure of Lamina Under Longitudinal Stress

Representative stress-strain curves for typical fiber,
matrix and composite materials
(fiber failure strain greater than matrix failure strain)
Stress

Sf1

Fiber
(a) Matrix Failure Mode

()

S fm1

()

SL

( )

S m1

()

Composite
Matrix

em1

()

ef1

()

Strain

Longitudinal Tensile Strength

a) Fiber failure mode (ef1(+)<em1(+))
Rule of mixtures for longitudinal stress:

c1 f 1v f m1vm
()
when S
f1
f1
()
()
m1 S mf 1 Em e f 1
()

(3.18)

c1 S L
()
()
()
S L S f 1 v f Em e f 1 vm (4.21)
()
()
S f 1 v f S mf 1 vm
(only valid if vf is large enough)

Longitudinal Tensile Strength

Critical fiber volume fraction, vfcrit

SL

when

v f crit

()

S m1
S f1

()

()

S m1

()

S mf 1
S mf 1

()

()

(4.22)

Once fibers fail, when vf <vfcrit

SL

()

()

S m1 vm

(4.23)

Longitudinal Tensile Strength

This defines

v f min

S m1
S f1

()

()

S mf 1

S mf 1

()

()

S m1

()

(4.24)

In most of the cases, vfcrit is very small,

so

SL

()

()

S f 1 v f S mf 1

()

1 v
f

(4.21)

Variation of composite longitudinal tensile strength with

fiber volume fraction for composites having
matrix failure strain greater than fiber failure
strain
Strength

S m1

Equation (4.21)

Sf1

()

S mf 1

()

Equation (4.23)

v f min

v fcrit

Fiber Volume Fraction

1.0

()

Variation of composite longitudinal tensile strength with

fiber volume fraction for composites having
fiber failure strain greater than matrix failure
strain
Strength
Equation (4.26)
Equation (4.25)

S m1

()

v f min
Fiber Volume Fraction

Sf1

()

()
mf 1

Longitudinal Tensile Strength

(b) Matrix Failure Mode

SL

()

()

S fm1 v f S m1

()

1 v
f

(4.25)

Fibers can withstand ef1(+)>em1(+) and remaining

area of fibers is such that

SL

()

()

S f1 vf

Which applies for practical vf

(see Fig. 4.10)

(4.26)

Longitudinal Compression
Three possible failure modes for longitudinal
compressive loading of a unidirectional composite
Shear
Mode

Fiber Micro buckling

Extensional
Mode

Longitudinal Compression
Three possible failure modes for longitudinal
compressive loading of a unidirectional composite
Transverse Tensile Rupture Due to Poisson Strains

Longitudinal Compression
Three possible failure modes for longitudinal
compressive loading of a unidirectional composite
Shear Failure Without Buckling

Transverse Tensile Rupture due

to Poisson Strains
Under longitudinal stress, 1

1
2 v121 v12
E1

when
So that

()

2 eT , 1 S L
SL

()

(see Fig. 4.12)

(4.31)

()

()

E1eT

v12

(4.32)

Variation of predicted compressive strength of glass/epoxy with

fiber volume fraction for fiber microbuckling and transverse tensile
rupture modes of failure. From Agarwal and Broutman, 1990.

Mechanics of materials model for strain

concentration under transverse loading
Matrix

Fiber

2
d
s

Transverse Tensile Strength

(similar approach for in-plane shear strength)
Transverse failure strain

eT

()

()

em 2

(4.34)

F = strain concentration factor

Transverse tensile strength

E2 S m
ST
Em F
1
F

d Em
1 1

s E f 2
()

where

()

(4.35)
(4.38)
Note:
as v f , E f 2 / Em , F

Mechanics of materials model for strain

concentration under in - plane loading
d

d
s

12

Matrix

12

Fiber

In-plane shear strain concentration factor

Fs

1
d
s

Gm12

1 1

G f 122

(4.41)

Variation of strain concentration factor F or Fs with

fiber volume fraction. Valid for F when Em/Ef2 << 1
and for Fs when Gm/Gf12 << 1. From Chamis, 1974.

Another approach to predicting transverse strength

use 3D finite element micromechanical analysis with
von Mises or ultimate principal stress failure criterion to
predict failure of matrix material (de Kok and Meijer, 1999)
Equivalent axial stress for von Mises criterion:
2
2
2

eq

a
c
c
a

b
b

2
where

a , , c
b

(4.39)

are the principal stresses in matrix

Failure predicted when eq Y uniaxial tensile

strength of matrix material

Von Mises Yield Criteriion for Isotropic Ductile Materials

How can uniaxial tensile test data be used to predict yielding
in a 2-D or 3-D state of stress?
Recall that yielding in ductile materials is due to slip and
dislocation movement, which in turn is driven by shear stress.
Shear stresses are generated by virtue of principal stress
differences.
Example: hydrostatic stress a b c

Mohrs circle
Shrinks to a pointNo shear stress
on any plane

Mohrs circles for general 3D state of stress a b c

Yield criteria are based on shear stresses and

principal stress differences.

For uniaxial tension test

a

b, c

Yielding in uniaxial tensile test occurs when Y ,

the uniaxial yield stress.

von Mises Yield Criterion:

When the root mean square (RMS) of the principal stress
differences (i.e., RMS of 3 circle diameters) reaches the same
value as it has when yielding begins in a tensile test, then
yielding begins in 2-D or 3-D case:
General 3-D case:

General 3-D case:

RMS

1
a b 2 b c 2 a c 2
3

Tensile test
RMS

applied

1
a 0 2 0 a 0 2
3

2 2
a
3

At yield in tensile test, a Y , and

RMS

2 2
Y
3

Therefore yielding in general 3-D case occurs when

1
a b 2 b c 2 a c 2
3

or

a b 2 b c 2 a c 2 2 Y 2
for 2 - D case , with , c 0

a b 2 b 2 c 2 2 Y 2
a 2 2 a b b 2 b 2 a 2 2 Y 2

or

a 2 a b b 2 Y 2

No yielding when LHS < RHS

2
Y2
3

Another way to look at it define an equivalent axial

stress (or von Mises stress) for the general 2D or 3D case:

eq

1
2 2 2

c
a
c
b
b
2 a

Then yielding in the general 2D or 3D case begins when

the equivalent axial stress equals the uniaxial yield
strength eq Y

Transverse strength of E-glass/epoxy composite as a function of fiber volume

fraction, as measured in tension ( ) and three point bending ( ), and predicted
with the square ( solid lines ) and hexagonal (dotted lines ) fiber packing models,
using a von Mises criterion and an ultimate stress criterion. (From de Kok and
Meijer, Copyright 1999, with permission from Elsevier)

But transverse modulus also increases with increasing vf, so

transverse failure strain decreases

Transverse failure strain of E-glass/epoxy composite as a function of fiber volume

fraction, as measured in tension ( ) and three point bending ( ), and predicted
with the square ( solid lines ) and hexagonal (dotted lines ) fiber packing models,
using a von Mises criterion and an ultimate stress criterion. (From de Kok and
Meijer Copyright 1999, with permission from Elsevier)

Direct Micromechanics Method (DMM) for predicting

multiaxial strength combines finite element
micromechanical model of unit cell with failure criteria
for fiber and matrix materials and fiber/matrix interface

von Mises yield criterion

for fiber and matrix failure

Maximum tensile and shear

stress criteria applied for
fiber/matrix interfacial failure

Finite element model

of unit cell

Comparison of results from Direct Micromechanics Method,

Tsai-Wu criterion, Maximum Stress criterion and Maximum
Strain criterion in the prediction of failure envelopes for a
unidirectional composite under biaxial loading. (From Zhu,
Sankar and Marrey, 1998