Effect of the properties of the

constituents on the fatigue

performance of composites: a
review
O. KONUR and F. L. MA TTHEWS
(Centre for Composite Materials, Imperial College, London, UK)
The effects of the properties of the constitutuents of advanced
composites on their fatigue performance are reviewed for unnotched
unidirectional and crossply laminates, subjected to mainly tensile
cyclic loading. It is pointed out that there are close relations between
the properties of matrix, fibre and interphase and the resulting fatigue
performance of the composites.

Key words: fatigue; epoxy resin; PEEK;carbon fibre; glass fibre;

Kevlar; damage; adhesion; failure mechanism; delamination; tensile
strength; toughness

Carbon, glass and Kevlar fibre-reinforced plastics are
increasingly used because of their inherent high specific
strength and specific stiffness and superior long term
properties, including fatigue resistance. It has long
been realized that better understanding of processing-
structure-property relations of-the basic fibre, matrix
and interphase constituents will result in improved
performance of all mechanical properties.
Research on the fatigue performance of advanced
composites started at the beginning of the 1970's, just
after their introduction, with glass, boron and carbon
fibre composites. These early works served as a basis
for later understanding of the complex fatigue
behaviour of polymer matrix composites. A number of
materials and testing parameters were studied during
these early investigations, and it was recognized that
higher modulus carbon fibre composites had an
excellent fatigue behaviour with nearly flat stress-life
curves and a low strength degradation rate. However,
lower modulus glass fibre composites had a relatively
poor fatigue performance with steeper stress-life curves
and high strength degradation rates. With the advent of
more effective nondestructive and destructive testing
methods it became possible to understand basic
damage mechanisms and to assess damage
development, resulting in a better understanding of the
different fatigue behaviour of high modulus carbon
fibre composites and lower modulus glass fibre
composites. Then, since it was realized that there was a
close interrelation between fibre deformation
characteristics (failure strains) and the composite's
0010-4361/89/040317-12 $3.00©1989 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd
COMPOSITES. VOLUME 20. NUMBER4. JULY 1989
fatigue limit, the latter being a matrix property,
attention shifted towards understanding the effect of
the matrix and interphase properties on fatigue
performance.
In this paper the historical development of the
understanding of the effects of the fibre, matrix and
interphase properties on the general fatigue
performance of carbon, glass and Kev!ar fibre
composites is reviewed. Fatigue damage mechanisms
for unidirectional materials are discussed in detail.
Following this the influence of fibre properties on the
performance of unidirectional laminates is considered:
the same approach is then repeated for crossply
materials. The influence of matrix properties is
reviewed, followed finally by a consideration of
interphase effects.
UNIDIRECTIONAL COMPOSITES
FATIGUE DAMAGE MECHANISMS
The research related to fatigue damage mechanisms of
unidirectional composites has served as a basis for
understanding the complex fatigue behaviour of
advanced composites and improving the high cycle
fatigue life and strength. Damage mechanisms in
unidirectional composites depend greatly upon the
relations between composite static failure strains and
the matrix resin fatigue strain limits. The static failure
strain of the composite is closely linked to the stiffness
and failure strain of the fibres.
317
 oo2].
ec llL !l[ Vf

.E
Catastrophic fibre damage
(fibre breakageand interfacial debonding)
.c_.

E
0.016
"~-..,..~ • ~
o 0.50
• 0.33
• o16

e°I I mH HIll/ IFH HH - failurestrain :3 o"

E E
x
._E matrix (matrix cracking)
x and interfacial damage (interfacial 0.008

em
•••hearPrOgressive
"////I/////////////////I/~
failure) em _--

2 4 6 8
Fatigue strain limit of composite (matrix) a Log life

Log life
em
Fig. 1 Strain-life diagrams for unidirectional composites
showing the dominant regions of tensile fatigue damage o.ooo "-'-Z-,,-" _;;". : .., ,, .,"1
mechanisms, the so-called fatigue-life diagrams proposed by
Talreja I
r-
ec- l
0.004
IIII I'1-1FfF r.3711 I
The fatigue damage mechanisms in unidirectional
composites consist of fibre, matrix and interracial E
damage. Fibre damage occurs non-progressively 2
(catastrophically) whereas both matrix and interfacial 0.002
damage evolves progressively. Matrix damage is in the
form of matrix cracking while interracial damage is in
the form of longitudinal splitting. However, fibre
damage results in fibre breakage and interfacial 1 I
b o 4 8
debonding. Log life
Talreja 1, z attempted to clarify the complex nature of

0011!11 II I1[1[11]111I
the fibre effects, and proposed fatigue damage
mechanisms based on so-called fatigue life diagrams.
These diagrams are basically strain-life diagrams as
suggested originally by Boller. 3 Strain-life diagrams
proposed by Talreja are shown in Fig. 1, in which the E
dominant regions of catastrophic and progressive IXem "~O,E,~t'2='o; . X , . . .
E 0.006
fatigue damage are shown. The horizontal band x
centred about the composite static failure strain shows
the dominant region of catastrophic damage while the
sloping band corresponds to progressive damage. The 0.002
horizontal line below the sloping band shows the 0 2 4 6
fatigue strain limit of the matrix. The relations between C Log life
fatigue damage and fatigue loading are apparent. At
low cycles, catastrophic fibre damage is dominant
resulting in failures within the tensile static strength 0.02
scatter band. For intermediate cycles, progressive
damage mechanisms become dominant, while at high
cycles, below the matrix limit, only matrix microcrack r-
ec--b
11111111111111111
nucleation is seen. 4
The applicability of these fatigue life diagrams has been E 0.01
discussed extensively in the literature and it has been ×
concluded that they constitute a conceptual framework em •
for interpretation of fatigue test results and fatigue
damage mechanisms and comparative evaluation of
composites with different constituents, resulting in the I I J J
clarification of fatigue performance limits of advanced 0 4 8
composites.5' 6 d Log life
Talreja s developed fatigue life diagrams using Dharan's
data 7 for glass fibre-reinforced plastics (GFRP), Fig. 2 Fatigue-life diagrams for unidirectional composites
Sturgeon's data 8 for type I carbon fibre-reinforced showing the effect of fibre type and modulus on their fatigue
plastics (CRFP),Awerbuch and Hahn's data 9 for type II damage mechanisms: (a) E-glass fibre composite (extensive
progressive matrix and interfacial damage); (b) type I carbon
CFRP, and Sturgeon's data 1° for type III CRFP.The fibre composite (only catastrophic fibre damage; (c) type II
epoxy matrix fatigue strain limit was taken as 0.006. 7 carbon fibre composite (little progressive damage); and (d) type
All results are shown in Fig. 2.1 III carbon fibre composite (extensive progressive damage) 1

318 COMPOSITES. JULY 1989

Fig. 2(a) shows the fatigue life diagram for a low
modulus, high failure strain, E-glass fibre composite.
All the data fit well the sloping, progressive damage
mechanisms, band. The fatigue life diagrams for
different types of carbon fibre composites are given in
Figs 2 (b), (c) and (d). For a high modulus, low strain,
carbon fibre composite only the horizontal catastrophic
damage band is observed. It is very notable that for this
composite, the static failure strain (0.005) is less than
the matrix fatigue limit (0.006). Fig. 2(c) shows that for
a high strength carbon fibre composite the failure strain
is slightly larger than the epoxy fatigue strain limit, and
the data fit well a small strain range, sloping,
progressive damage band. Finally, Fig. 2(d) shows that
for a low modulus carbon fibre composite the failure
strain of the composite is greater than the epoxy failure
strain, and its fatigue performance is similar to the
lower modulus glass fibre composites shown in Fig.
2(a). It is suggested that the reason for this similarity is
the similar fibre failure strains.
Talreja also discussed the 'fatigue ratio' (normally
taken as the ratio of fatigue strength to static failure
strength) and proposed this concept in terms of
maximum cyclic strain, ie as the ratio of composite
fatigue strain limit to composite static failure strain.
The composite fatigue strain limit was described as the
minimum strain required to initiate the lowest energy
damage mechanism. The author determined fatigue
strain limits for limiting damage mechanisms, namely
matrix cracking and longitudinal splitting, as 0.006 and
0.001 respectively, for epoxy matrix unidirectional
composites.
The composite fatigue strain limit was defined as the
strain below which matrix cracks do not propagate
further at one million cycles, in accordance with the
limiting damage mechanisms observed experimentally.
It appears from these fatigue performance limits that
the composite fatigue strain limit is a matrix-dominated
property, implying that composite fatigue performance
is determined largely by the matrix rather than the fibre
properties. However, in some cases, interfacial damage
may dominate composite performance since its strain
threshold can be smaller than the strain threshold for
matrix cracking. For a high modulus, low strain (0.005)
carbon fibre composite, a fatigue ratio cannot be
defined since its failure strain is less than the matrix
fatigue limit.
Curtis and Moore 1t observed extensive and limited
progressive damage for O~RPand CRFPcomposites, e~
respectively. The progressive damage was in the form v
of matrix cracking and longitudinal splitting initiating
from interfacial debonding and early matrix cracking.
E 280
Lorenzo and Hahn ~2, 13found that although extensive
interfacial and matrix damage took place for glass fibre
2 210 -
x
composites, limited matrix cracking occurred near fibre
breakage zones for graphite fibre composites. Because
the matrix microcracks initiated at the interface along
the fibres and were rather isolated in graphite fibre
composites, at intermediate and low cycles only fibre
failures were observed. However, at high cycles only Fig. 3 Stress-life curves for glass fibre composites showing
matrix cracking and a few scattered fibre failures were the effect of fibre type and modulus on their fatigue
observed. performance; an early study 3
C O M P O S I T E S . J U L Y 1989
The different fatigue damage mechanisms with various
fibres have been widely discussed in the literature in
terms of fibre deformation characteristics and matrix
resin fatigue limit relations. 11, 14-20 It appears that the
fatigue properties are determined by matrix properties
in composites which have larger static failure strains
than the matrix fatigue strain limit, whereas composites
which have lower failure strains than the matrix fatigue
strain limit have fatigue properties independent of
matrix properties. Although the fatigue life diagrams of
Talreja are useful, they are nevertheless largely
conceptual and need information on rate-controlling
parameters before they can become a quantitative tool.
EFFECT OF FIBRE PROPERTIES
Glass fibre composites
The initial work on the effect of fibre properties on the
fatigue behaviour of advanced polymer matrix
composites was carried out by Boller 3 in the early
1960's. He studied comparative fatigue performances
of higher modulus S-glass and lower modulus E-glass
fibre-reinforced composites for the same matrices, and
found that the higher modulus composites had a
superior fatigue performance, as shown in Fig. 3. Later
Davies and Sunsdrud 21 and other workers 22"23 also
compared the tensile fatigue performance of S-glass
and E-glass fibre-reinforced epoxy matrix composites.
They too concluded that S-glass composites had a
better fatigue performance.
Carbon fibre composites
In the early 1970's investigations were carried out by
several research groups into the effects of fibre
properties on the fatigue performance of type I (high
modulus), type II (high strength) and type III (low
modulus) carbon fibre-reinforced polyester and epoxy
matrix composites.
Owen and Morris z4 studied untreated type I carbon
fibre-reinforced isophthalic polyester resin and found
that the fatigue failure band was just below the static
strength scatter band and its stress-life curve was
nearly horizontal. For the same fibres, similar results
700
630 _ "~z~z~ Sglass, 175 MPa
560
490 -S-glass, zero mean s ~ e ~ s ' ~ , n ~,~
420
17"" P a ' ~ " ' - ° o"~ '~ ~
350
Eglass, zero mean stress~"'-~ o
~ 0
140
70
I I I L I L L
0
10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Life
319
Table 1. Mechanical properties of carbon fibres

Fibre types Type I Type II Type III HTA ST3

References Ref. 24 Ref. 25 Ref. 8, 27 Ref. 26 Ref. 26 Ref. 59 Ref. 59

Tensile strength (GPa) 1.8-2.4 1.8-2.4 2.10 2.10-2.80 1.80-2.40 3.40 4.30
Tensile modulus (GPa) 350-410 350-410 398 225-280 350-410 238 238
Failure strain (%) 0.5-0.6" 0.5-0.6" 0.5* 0.9-1.0" 0.5-0.6* 1.4 1.8

* Calculated from strength and modulus values for each fibre

were obtained by Beaumont and Harris 25 with a Shell carbon fibre composites, with the same matrix of Ciba
Epikote 828-Epicure DDM-BF3 epoxy matrix, and for Geigy 913 epoxy. The fatigue strength was in the range
a surface treated type I carbon fibre-reinforced Shell of 400-600 MPa after one million cycles for the ~FRV
Epikote 828-DDS-BF3400 epoxy resin matrix compared to 1100-1300 MPa for the CFRPafter ten
composite by Owen.26Later, Sturgeon s' 27 presented thousand to ten million cycles.
data for the same fibre/Erla 4617 epoxy matrix
composites. The strength and stiffness values of carbon Favre and Vida115 investigated in-plane and
fibres used by these researchers are presented in Table interlaminar shear fatigue performance of T300 carbon
1. The stress-life data obtained by Sturgeon 1° showed fibre/914 epoxy resin and S-glass/Araldite HT972 cured
that the fatigue resistance of type II and type III CRFP CY205 epoxy composites, and compared the slopes of
was lower than type I composites.
The effect of fibre type is easily seen if the stress-life
curves are normalized in terms of fibre strength, as 100!- ~ ~
shown in Fig. 4. 28 It is apparent from Fig. 4 that type I
CRFPhas a superior fatigue behaviour, and that the
stress-life curves for CFRPSwith lower modulus become
much steeper. Low modulus CFRVhas a poorer fatigue ==
performance than high modulus CFRV.
50 U_DT_ype!_carbon f i b r e " ' ~
More recent studies on fatigue behaviour of composites
have concentrated on the improved, high strength and UDDT;pp: I i I ; a ; b b g n f i f b b ; e / ~
O
high strain, carbon fibre composites. For example, 7" UD E-glassfibre ~ ~
Curtis 14 ' 29 ' 30 used high strength (1.2%),intermediate Crossply E-glassfibre
failure strain (1.5%), high failure strain (1.7%) and I i I 1 I i I t
intermediate modulus (1.5%) fibres in standard DICY- 0 2 4 6 8
cured epoxy matrices. The strain-life diagrams for Log life
these composites are shown in Fig. 5. 30 It is apparent
Fig. 4 ' Normalized stress-life curves for unidirectional
from the curves that these fibre types have only a small advanced composites showing the effect of fibre type, modulus,
effect on the fatigue performance of the composite for and lay-up on their fatigue performance 2a
the same brittle epoxy matrix.
1,4
Carbon and glass fibre composites
Dharan 7, 31 studied the comparative fatigue behaviour ~- 1.2 _

of unidirectional, type III, graphite fibre/polyester

resin and E-glass fibre/Epon 815 TETA epoxy matrix
composite materials subjected to four-point bending. It E 1.0
was apparent from these studies that high modulus x - Symbol System
carbon fibre composites have a superior fatigue E t
lemeteee= 2
performance, as discussed before, to lower modulus •-~ 0.8 ~g~e 3
¢-
E-glass fibre composites. u~m~ 4

Sturgeon 32 compared the tensile fatigue performance 0.6 I I I I I I I

of unidirectional Equerove E-glass fibre and type III -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
carbon fibre/Ciba Geigy 913 epoxy composites and
found that, for a life of one million cycles, GFRPand Log life
CFRPhave 150 and 350-400 MPa fatigue strengths, Fig. 5 Strain-life curves for unidirectional standard carbon
respectively. His results confirmed those of Dharan. fibre/DICY cured epoxy matrix composites showing the effect of
the properties of fibres on the fatigue performance of their
Curtis and Moore 1~ investigated the comparative resulting composites with high strength [1], intermediate failure
tensile fatigue behaviour of E-glass fibre and XAS strain [2], high failure strain [3] and intermediate modulus
carbon fibres [4] 30

320 COMPOSITES . JULY 1989

their stress-life curves. CRFP had a better fatigue
performance than S-glass based 6FRP.
Recently, Lorenzo and Hahn 12' 13 studied tensile
fatigue behaviour of unidirectional composites made
with E-glass and T300 graphite fibre bundles, in brittle
and ductile epoxy matrices, with special emphasis on
their comparative fatigue damage mechanisms, as
already noted.
Kevlar fibre composites
It is apparent from the work of Curtis and Dorey 14 and
Fernando et al.33 that Kevlar fibre-reinforced plastics
(KFRe) have a fatigue performance intermediate to
higher modulus carbon fibre composites and lower
modulus glass fibre composites. An important
observation arising from these studies is the dual nature
fatigue behaviour of KFRP. It appears that its low cycle
fatigue performance is better than CRFP. However, the
high cycle fatigue performance of KFRPis worse. This
poor high cycle fatigue performance was attributed to
the interfibrillar weakness of the Kevlar fibres.
Hybrid composites
It has been shown by several researchers 34-38that the
fatigue performance of glass fibre composites are
improved through hybridization with carbon fibres. In
a similar manner, the fatigue performance of Kevlar-49
fibre composites can be improved through
hybridization with carbon fibre. 33 In general, the
failure stress at a given life appears to be given by a
'rule of mixtures' prediction.
Conclusions
Fibre stiffness and failure strain are clearly key
parameters in determining fatigue performance.
Composites containing fibres with a low modulus have
a steeper stress-life curve than those containing fibres
with a high modulus.
350
N~, Phenolic
280
13. Heat-resistant---~
epoxide %~
210
140 polyester "~~'~.
E
< Recently, Newaz as investigated the flexural fatigue
7O
0 I I 1 1 I I I
0 10 102 103 10 a 10 s 10 s
Life
Fig. 6 S t r e s s - l i f e curves for E-glass fibre composites with a
number of matrices showing the effect of matrix type on their
fatigue performance as in an early study 39
COMPOSITES. JULY 1989
EFFECT OF MATRIX PROPERTIES
The early work on the effect of matrix properties on the
fatigue behaviour of advanced polymer matrix
composites was carried out by Boiler. 39 He studied the
comparative fatigue performance of laminates of
epoxy, silicone, polyester and phenolic matrices
reinforced with 181 E-glass fabric and found that epoxy
matrix composites had a superior fatigue performance,
as shown in Fig. 6. 39 In the meantime Boiler's results
were confirmed by Davis et al. 4° The latter attrib/ited
the improved fatigue performance of epoxy matrix
composites t ° the inherent toughness, durability and
compatibility of epoxy matrices with glass fibres.
Glass fibre composites
At the beginning of the 1970's Owen et al. 41' 42
investigated matrix ductility effects for polyester matrix
GRFPcomposites and found that toughened polyester
matrices did not affect the fatigue performance of GRFP.
Gauchel et al. 43 compared the fatigue performance of
DGXBAand bisphenol-based epoxy matrix S-glass
composites and found that the DGXBAbased composite
had 20 to 30% relative improvement in fatigue, whilst
the epoxy matrix had a superior toughness and
compatibility with S-glass fibres since its composite was
less susceptible to matrix and interracial damage. Davis
and Sunsdrud 21 searched for matrix effects in E- and
S-glass fibre epoxy composites and found that matrices
with greater toughness resulted in improved fatigue
performance.
Mandell et a1.44 studied extensively the comparative
fatigue performance of E-glass strands and their
composites with polyester, epoxy, and toughened
epoxy matrices and found that the fatigue performance
for neat E-glass strands and their composites was the
same. They obtained the values of 0.10 and 0.12
respectively for continuous and woven fibre reinforced
composites as the slope of the stress-life curves.
Commenting on their experimental findings, the
authors pointed out that the fatigue performance of
glass fibre composites was fibre dominated.
Several researchers45' 46 attempted to verify the model
proposed by Mandell et al. for glass fibre composites.
Harris 19 discussed the matter extensively and
concluded that it was impossible for all classes of glass
fibre composites to obey a single mechanistic model.
Later Mandell et al. 47 proposed that the fatigue
sensitivity of fibres might be reduced by developing
residual surface compression in the glass fibres,
resulting in improved fatigue performance for glass
= fibre composites with different matrices.
performance of Derakene 411-45 vinyl ester (strain of
0.035) and relatively tough Dow (DER) 331 epoxy
(strain of 0.05) matrices with unidirectional E-glass
107 108 fibres. From the stiffness degradation curves it is
apparent that the epoxy matrix composite had a
relatively superior fatigue performance, having a
shallower curve and a longer fatigue life. Fatigue
damage was studied and at high deflection levels found
321
to consist of matrix cracking, interracial debonding and Curtis29, 30 studied extensively matrix effects on the
fibre fracture on the tensile side, and out-of-plane fatigue behaviour of unidirectional, intermediate
buckling and delamination on the compressive side. failure strain, carbon fibre composites with different
However, the damage consisted only of matrix cracking matrices: DICYcured epoxy; DDS cured epoxy; and
and splitting at low deflection levels. The authors second generation PEEK. It is apparent from the
pointed out that low deflection fatigue damage was strain-life curves of Fig, 7(a) that high cycle fatigue
matrix and interface dominated, and high deflection performance of DDS cured epoxy and PEEKmatrix
fatigue life of the composites was controlled by a composites is poor. Similarly, strain-life curves for
splitting mechanism. intermediate modulus carbon fibre composites with
Giavotto et al. 23 discussed the matrix effect for S-glass standard DICYcured epoxy, toughened epoxy and
fibre composites. Elastomer modified epoxy matrix bismaleimide resin matrices are shown in Fig. 7(b).
Again, it is observed that toughened matrix carbon
composites showed an improved fatigue life compared
to those with a standard epoxy matrix. fibre composites have poor high cycle fatigue
performances. This poor performance of toughened
matrix composites was attributed partly to a greater
Carbon fibre composites tendency to longitudinal splitting and partly to the
poorer shear fatigue behaviour of the matrix. 14, 29, 30
Bucknall and Partridge 49 investigated unidirectional
XAS carbon fibre and a mixture of Ciba Geigy ERL Hartness and Kim 5°' 51 studied early generation PEEK
510 and MY720 epoxy resins, cured with DICVand DDS matrix with unidirectional XAS carbon fibre, and AS4
separately in the presence of polyethersulphone (PES). carbon fibre/3502 epoxy composite materials, and
The former DICYcured laminates had a nodular resin found (in contrast to Curtis) that tough and strong PEEK
morphology with the nodules in the range of 0.2 to matrix based composites had a superior fatigue
0.6 ~tm while the latter DDS cured laminates had no such performance. The better fatigue behaviour of PEEK
morphology. The DDS cured epoxy matrix composites matrix composites was attribted to improved cracking
had a better fatigue performance. resistance.
Croman 52 investigated the fatigue of unidirectional
AS4 carbon fibre-reinforced J-polymer thermoplastic
1.4
A and 3501-6 epoxy matrix composites. It was found that
¢-
epoxy matrix composites performed better than J-
"2 ~.2 --~ t%~~~~~%%%%%t11%%
t1111 tii i ii!il ilt ii Iil ~ti i~llti IiI i I I I 1011111110DI IIIiil polymer based composites. The author found that the
fatigue damage development was different'for each
E composite, the basic difference being that the tough
.~ 10 thermoplastic matrix composite had no interracial
E debonding and consequent delamination.
Symbol System ~ %%
......... ,
"t.- O.B
.... 85
Conclusions
I I I 1 I I I
The influence of matrix properties, such as toughness,
0.6 still has to be fully understood. Clearly the gains
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a expected from 'tough' resins are not always realized in
Log life the composite. Certainly the complacency engendered
1.6 by the early carbon fibre/epoxy composites, which were
1~l°soo.,°ioloolo.oe°ooolo.,i,o,I
effectively fatigue insensitive, could be misplaced as
newer materials are brought into wider use.
1.4
t-

EFFECT OF INTERPHASEPROPERTIES
E 1.2 Interphase
2
Composite materials are frequently treated as if they
E 10 consist only of fibres and matrix. This simplistic
Symbol System "Q approach may be due to insufficient knowledge of
(-
4 interface structure and composition.
0.8
- 6 The term 'interface' implies a two-dimensional concept
•" " " ' " ' " 7 and recent research in this area has resulted in the
0.6 I I I 1 I I development of a three-dimensional 'interphase'
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 concept. By definition,53 the interphase exists from
b Log life some point in the fibre, where the local properties
Fig. 7 Strain-life curves for unidirectional carbon fibre begin to change from the fibre's bulk properties,
composites showing the effect of the matrix toughness on their though the actual interface into the matrix, where the
fatigue performance: (a) DICY cured epoxy [1], DDS cured epoxy local properties again equal the bulk properties.
[5], and PEEK matrix composites [8] with intermediate strain
fibres; and (b) DICY cured epoxy [4], toughened epoxy [6], and Interphase thickness varies from a few to thousands of
bismaleimide [7] resin matrix composites with intermediate nm. The exact nature of the interphase region and its
modulus fibres 3° effect on composite performance is very unclear. The

322 COMPOSITES. JULY 1989

effect of the interphase properties on the fracture
properties of carbon fibre composites was studied by
Drzal and Rich. 54 A weak interphase results in
longitudinal crack propagation along the interface,
while a strong interphase results in transverse crack
propagation across fibres leading to premature
composite failure. However, an interphase of
intermediate strength leads to optimum composite
performance between these extreme conditions. A
brittle interphase results in increased fracture
toughness allowing crack propagation between and
around fibres. The authors concluded that the
interphase could be considered as a material property,
being a product of fibre-matrix interaction.
Interphase effect on fatigue performance
There is only limited information available on the effect
of the interphase on the fatigue performance of
advanced composites, probably due to insufficient
understanding of the interphase.
Recently Sih and Ebert s~' 56 studied interface effects on
the fatigue performance of unidirectional Type 30
E-glass fibre/Ciba Geigy XU-235-XU 205 epoxy
composites subjected to flexural loading, with and
without silane Z-6020 coupling agent. The coated glass
fibre composite had a superior fatigue performance to
the composite with uncoated fibres. For wet specimens
it also appeared that the interface recovered part of its
strength loss during cycling. By considering the relative
magnitudes of longitudinal shear strength of coated and
uncoated materials, the authors concluded that glass
fibre composites with a stronger interface would have a
higher fatigue resistance. They showed a linear increase
in fatigue life and fatigue strength with shear strength.
Through the examination of fracture morphology of
specimens with coated and uncoated fibres, the same
authors developed a three-stage fatigue damage
mechanisms map for glass fibre composites, similar to
that of Dharan.'In the first step nucleation and growth
of damage takes place. Fibre ridging, transverse matrix
cracking, longitudinal matrix cracking along fibres
(interracial debonding), fibre breakage and local
delaminations around fibre breaks were described as
fatigue damage mechanisms taking place in the first
step. The authors suggested that fibre ridging was
caused by interfacial degradation. Longitudinal
cracking was due to stiffness differences between
matrix and fibre. Local delamination was thought to be
a substage following longitudinal matrix cracking. In
the second stage extensive fibre breakage and
subsequent macroscopic delamination was observed. In
the final stage of damage development delamination
cracks propagate outwards along the span.
Commenting on fracture micrographs, the authors
concluded that a strong interface delayed the onset of
fibre ridging and longitudinal matrix cracking, resulting
in improved fatigue performance of unidirectional glass
fibre composites.
The effect of the interface has been discussed by several
other researchers. Dickson et al. 57 Davis and
Sunsdrud 21 and Harris ~9' 20 all stated that improved
interfacial adhesion would result in an improved fatigue
COMPOSITES . JULY 1989
performance, in addition to the beneficial effects of
using high strain fibres and matrices. The studies of
Baron e t a / . 58-61 support this hypothesis. However,
Curtis14, 29.30 and Hahn 17 concluded that a strong
interphase coupled with a strong matrix would lead to
reduced fatigue performance for polymer matrix
composites.
Conclusions
In the light of Shih and Ebert's recent studies 55' 56 and
the related discussions, together with other
experimental findings, it should be expected that
laminate configuration, geometry, stress state, load
history and environment, the optimum interracial
adhesion between high strain fibres and high strain
matrices would result in improved fatigue performance
for various polymer matrix composites. However, this
cannot be taken as a universal conclusion in view of the
work of Curtis ~4' 29.30 and Hahn. 17 Clearly there could
also be a conflict with the interface requirements
needed for improved impact resistance.
CROSSPL Y COMPOSITES
FATIGUE DAMAGE MECHANISMS
Talreja a has developed a fatigue life diagram for a
crossply~raphite/epoxy laminate using data from
Grimes, °~ as shown in Fig. 8. It appears that the
composite static failure strain is greater than the epoxy
fatigue strain limit. Fibre breakage of 0° plys and
transverse ply progressive damage (matrix cracking and
interfacial failure including delamination) are the
fatigue damage mechanism dominant regions for the
horizontal scatter band, centered around the composite
static failure strain and the sloping scatter band,
respectively. The matrix fatigue strain limit
corresponds to the proportional limit of the
longitudinal stress-transverse strain plot of the
composite (0.0043) and is taken as the limiting strain
for delamination. In this case, it apears that the fatigue
strain threshold limit for delamination is lower than the
value for matrix cracking, being 0.006 for the same
epoxy matrices, implying that delamination is a
dominant, performance limiting, fatigue damage
mechanism.
008•1
Delamination and debonding in 90 ° plies
ec
o~
0. I/I IJLIIIIIII
E oa)
.~- o.o / / / / / / / / /~
I I I I I 1 I
0 2 4 6
Log life
Fig. 8 Fatigue-life diagram for a crossply g r a p h i t e / e p o x y
composite with Grimes's data 1
323
Fatigue damage mechanisms, observed during tensile
fatigue loading of high performance crossply laminates,
have been reviewed by Stinchcomb. 63 Basic damage
mechanisms are described as transverse ply cracking,
edge and internal delaminations, longitudinal cracks,
interfacial debonding and fibre fracture. 64 It is clear
that fatigue damage mechanisms are very different for
unidirectional and crossply laminates. 65
Fatigue damage develops over two dominant stages,
non-interactive and interactive stages. 66 The first stage
consists of homogenous damage restricted primarily to
the individual plies. The second stage is characterized
by the tendency to localize damage in zones of
increased interaction. The transition from the non-
interactive to the interactive state is the so-called
characteristic damage state (cos) which is considered as
a saturation crack pattern. 67
Jones e t al. 28 discussed the effect of transverse ply
cracking on the fatigue resistance of GFRPand CFRPby
comparing their results with typical results for the
behaviour of unidirectionally reinforced CFRPand GFRP
laminates. Normalized stress-life curves for the latter
are shown in Fig. 4. Their results for crossply nxs
carbon fibre composites are shown on the normalized
stress-life curve in Fig. 9, and slopes for both
unidirectional and crossply laminates as a function of
fibre modulus were found to be nearly the same. The
• 0°/90°/E-glass
o
O
10
U D/E-glass
carbon (UD)
0
e-
carbon
0
HT-S carbon (UD)
HM-S carbon (UD)
0 200 400
Fibre modulus (GPa)
Fig. 9 The slope of normalized stress-life curve versus fibre
modulus for advanced composites showing the effect of fibre
type, modulus and lay-up on the fatigue damage evolution of
their resulting composites; HT-S carbon fibre composites have
similar fatigue damage for unidirectional and crossply lay-ups
whereas E-glass fibre composites have different damage 2a
324
authors, interpreting these experimental findings
concluded, surprisingly, that fatigue damage
mechanisms for both unidirectional and crossply tITS
carbon fibre composites should be the same. Hence
progressive damage, ie transverse ply cracking seen
generally for crossply laminates, should not affect the
fatigue performance of the main load bearing plies of
crossply Hxs carbon fibre composites.
However, Fig. 9 shows that normalized stress-life
curves for crossply and unidirectional GFRPwere
different. Mandell et al. 44 found the slope of stress-life
curves for unidirectional GFRPcomposites as 0.10, while
Jones et al. 46 determined it as 0.14 for crossply GFRP
laminates. The authors pointed out that transverse ply
cracking affected the fatigue performance of the main
load bearing plies in crossply GFRPcomposites,
resulting in a decreased fatigue resistance.
Adam et al. 68 attempted to compare fatigue damage
mechanisms of crossply high performance composites
by analysing and modelling their residual strength data.
The residual strength curves for GFRP,CFRPand KFRP
are shown in Fig. 10. Residual strength degradation
due to fatigue loading is observed for GFRPand KFRP
while CFRPdoes not degrade. Both KFRPand GFRPfail
when their residual strengths are equal to the maximum
cyclic load. However, CFRPfails catastrophically
without any residual strength degradation. The authors
interpreted these results in terms of the size of a critical
nucleus of fibre damage and pointed out that this
damage nucleus should be smaller for CFRPthan for
GFRP. The authors then developed a unique model
including both residual strength degradation and
catastrophic failure, the so-called sudden death failure
for, GFRP and CFRP,respectively. 69 Their results in
terms of stress ratio-cycle ratio indicate that the
strength degradation increases in the sequence of CFRP,
boiled GFRP,KFRPand GFRP.
The stress-life curves obtained by Jones et al. 46 for
three crossply advanced composites were converted to
strain-life diagrams 33 as suggested by Boiler 3 and
Talreja. ~ GFRP showed higher failure strains, CFRPhad
failure strains near the matrix limit while KFRPshowed
an intermediate behaviour, as usual.
Boniface and Bader 7°' 71 studied fatigue damage
development in crossply XAS carbon fibre/914 epoxy
composite and E-glass fibre/913 epoxy composite
materials subjected to tensile loading. They observed
that transverse ply crack density increases with fatigue
loading, and stiffness reduction was proportional to the
transverse crack density. Stiffness reduction in CFRP
laminates was small with respect to the GFRPlaminates
and the authors interpreted this result in terms of 0° ply
dominance in the CFRPlaminates, confirming the results
of Jones et al. 28" 46
Although much work has been done on damage
development, it seems that the later stages, when
transverse matrix cracks within a ply interact, are not
yet fully understood. Although axial stiffness reduction
is the common method for quantifying damage, it could
be that a more comprehensive set of elastic constants
should be monitored during a test.
COMPOSITES. JULY 1989
 1.0
fibre resulted in improved fatigue performance for the
brittle matrix composites.
GRP The other notable point from the data of Baron et al. is
0.8
that an inherent static strength-fatigue life relation
exists for these materials. Such a relation was first
suggested in an implicit way by Hahn and Kim, 72
v 0.6
proposed in an explicit way by Chou and Croman 73 and
developed by Barnard and Young. 74 The relation
constitutes the basis of residual strength degradation
-~
"0
0.4 models developed by a number of researchers 69 and
states in a simple way that the statically stronger
•
materials would have a longer fatigue life. For
0.2 _ :%o00 example, both static tensile strength and fatigue
strength, at any number of cycles, of HTAfibre/ductile
• 500 S-N curve
matrix composite are significantly larger than those of
the brittle matrix composite. However, for ST3 fibre
0 I I I 1 I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 composites the difference is small. In addition to this
ST3 fibre composites have a higher static strength,
a Log life
resulting in a superior fatigue performance compared
1.0 CFRP to the HTAcomposites.
o
0.9
Curtis14, 29, 30 investigated the comparative fatigue
behaviour of standard high strength carbon fibre/pier
0.8 cured epoxy, intermediate modulus carbon fibre/
0.7
toughened epoxy and intermediate failure strain carbon
S-N curve fibre/PEEK crossply composites. It was apparent from
0.6 the stress-life curves that the intermediate modulus
• Omax = 700 MPa
t~ fibre/toughened epoxy system has a superior fatigue
performance to standard high strength and
I I I I t
intermediate failure strain carbon fibre composites.
0 1 2 3 4 5 However, it must be remembered that each system had
b Log life a different matrix and this undoubtedly influenced the
0.8 results.

Q_

m
0.6

0.4
Omax

• 400 MPa
• 500
• 600
-••RP S-N curve~
Glass, carbon and Kevlar fibre composites
Jones et al. 28" 46 investigated the tensile fatigue
behaviour of crossply Silenka E-glass fibre, Grafil HTS
carbon fibre and Kevlar-49 fibre composites with Code
69 epoxy resin. CFRP has a superior fatigue
performance while GFRPhad the worst fatigue
performance, showing the steepest S - N curve slope.
0.2 l I I I I I As expected, Kevlar fibre composites showed a dual
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 fatigue performance, having a flat S - N curve for low
C Log life cycles and a steep curve for high cycles. As discussed
Fig. 10 Residual s t r e n g t h - l i f e curves for crossply advanced
previously, the poor high cycle fatigue performance of
composites showing the effect of fibre type on the residual KFRPwas attribtued to the interfibrillar weakness of the
strength degradation of their composites: (a) glass fibre Kevlar fibres themselves. 46 The weakness of the Kevlar
composite (extensive strength degradation); (b) carbon fibre
composite (catastrophic failure); and (c) Kevlar fibre composite 200
(intermediate strength degradation) 8a
o CFRP
o o GFRP
EFFECT OF FIBRE PROPERTIES ~. 150
v
~ ~ : ~ l ~ u _ ~ KFRP
Carbon fibre composites
Baron et al. 5s' 61 studied the effect of fibre properties on 100
the tensile fatigue performance of crossply composite
=E
E
laminates. ST3 carbon fibres with improved strength
50
and failure strain and standard HTA fibres were used in
the conventional, brittle, TODOM-based Araldite,
MY720-HT972 (DDS), and in the tough, higher failure 0 1 1 I I I I [ I
strain, MY720-LY556-HT972 epoxy matrix systems. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
The stiffness, strength and failure strain values of these Log life
fibres are presented in Table 1. It is apparent upon Fig. 11 Stress-life curves for + 45 ° crossply composites tested
comparative evaluation of the results that ST3 carbon under tensile loading s h o w i n g the effect of the fibre 48

COMPOSITES. JULY 1989 325

fibres is more pronounced in tensile fatigue testing of _
45 ° angle ply laminates. The stress-life curves for KFRP,
CFRPand 6FRP are shown in Fig. 11. 46
Recently, Ganczakowski et al. ,75 who investigated
tensile fatigue behaviour of crossply I<FRPlaminates,
showed that the stiffness of the 0° plies increased with
fatigue cycling due to reorientation of fibres and
molecular chains. The authors described four stages in
the fatigue life; steady stiffness increase up to 20 000
cycles due to 0 ° ply stiffening; overall stiffness drop
between 20 000 and 50 000 cycles due to transverse ply
cracking; modulus increase at one million cycles where
saturation cracking pattern is obtained due to 0 ° ply
stiffening dominance; and towards the end of the life
stiffness drops due to other damage mechanisms such
as delamination, splitting, and 0° fibre breakage.
EFFECT OF MATRIX PROPERTIES
Schulte 76 investigated matrix effects for crossply T300
carbon fibre/brittle 914C and ductile, HT917 cured,
LY556 epoxy matrix composites. The author found that
due to less longitudinal crack development, ductile
matrix composites had an improved strength and life.
Baron and Schulte 58-61 investigated brittle, HT976
cured, MY720 and ductile, HT976 cured, MY720-
LY556 epoxy matrix crossply composites with ST3
carbon fibres. The authors evaluated damage
development by X-ray radiography and discussed the
improved fatigue performance of composites with both
higher strain fibres and matrices. It was pointed out
that improvements in both static and fatigue
performance of tough composites were due to the delay
of longitudinal and transverse crack formation, and to
shifting of first ply failure to higher failure strain levels.
First ply failure delay also implied the delay of 0 ° ply
damage, shifting 0 ° ply failure to higher strains.
Dickson et al. 57 investigated the fatigue performance of
XAS carbon fibre/early generation PEEKmatrix
composites in comparison to Code 69 epoxy resin
composites. Their results are shown in Fig. 12, along
100
75
0~
UD HTS/epoxy ~
I TIII
z
~ 25 o C,o,, EEK ........
• Crossply HTS/epoxy LID XAS/epoxy
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log life
Fig. 12 Normalized stress-life curves for a number of
composites showing the presence of the same damage
mechanisms for unidirectional and crossply carbon fibre
composites; crossply XAS/PEEK has the same performance as
XAS/Code 69 epoxy while crossply and unidirectional HTS/
Code 69 epoxy composites have a similar fatigue performance s7
326
with those for unidirectional Hxs carbon fibre/epoxy
composites obtained by Sturgeon. ~0They found that
their data fitted Sturgeon's data for unidirectional
composites and concluded that fatigue damage
mechanisms for both crossply PEEKmatrix composites
and unidirectional epoxy composites were the same. As
discussed before for GFRPand CFRPlaminates, it was
proposed that transverse ply cracking had little effect
on the fatigue performance of the load bearing 0° plies
in crossply carbon laminates. The slopes of the
stress-life curves for PEEKand epoxy matrix composites
were 30 and 35 MPa per decade respectively. From
these experimental findings, the authors concluded that
the ductile PEEKmatrix delays the critical damage
mechanisms leading to final fatigue failure, confirming
the results obtained by Baron et al. 5s-61 for toughened
epoxy composites. These early generation XAS carbon
fibre/PEEK matrix composites had a superior fatigue
performance, confirming the results found by Hartness
and Kim. 5°' 51 The superiority of PEEKmatrix
composities is more pronounced when crossply
laminates are tested at +_ 45 ° in tension. When
commenting on the scanning electron micrographs
obtained for PEEKmatrix composites, the latter authors
pointed out that better interracial bonding resulted in
an improved fatigue performance, in combination with
the improved toughness of PEEKmatrices.
Curtis 29 discussed the fatigue performance of
toughened matrix systems and compared his results to
the contradictory results obtained by Hartness and
KimSO, 5z and Dickson et al. 57 He pointed out the great
influence of processing on the fatigue properties of
PEEK matrix composites. Indeed, Lee and Porter 77
found that crystallization of PEEKduring laminate
manufacture might be favoured by adjusting some
processing parameters, resulting in improved
interracial bonding. Curtis 29 obtained a superior fatigue
resistance for PEEKbased composites by increasing the
cooling rate during manufacture. He emphasized that
current PEEKcomposites were susceptible to interfacial
damage in the form of longitudinal splitting, implying
poor interfacial bonding for these second generation
PEEKmatrix composites.
EFFECT OF INTERPHASE PROPERTIES
There is very little information available regarding
interphase effects on crossply laminates. An early study
was carried out by Owen26 who investigated the effect
of surface treatment on type II carbon fibre/Epikote
828-DDS-BF3 epoxy composites. The author also
discussed fracture morphology of type I carbon fibre
composites. For untreated fibres, brush-like failure was
II observed, while for surface treated fibres the fracture
surface was smooth.
8
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from the
present review
1) Having constituents with 'improved' properties,
such as fibres with high strain, matrices with high
strain and toughness and interphases with strong
COMPOSITES. JULY 1989
 f i b r e - m a t r i x a d h e s i o n d o e s n o t a l w a y s result in
i m p r o v e d f a t i g u e p e r f o r m a n c e , i e a l o n g e r fatigue
life a n d a h i g h e r f a t i g u e r a t i o . B u t it s h o u l d be
e x p e c t e d t h a t c o m p o s i t e s w i t h i m p r o v e d fibres,
i m p r o v e d m a t r i c e s a n d an o p t i m u m d e g r e e o f
i n t e r r a c i a l a d h e s i o n c a n l e a d to an i m p r o v e d
f a t i g u e r e s i s t a n c e , d e p e n d i n g on t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f
t h e f i b r e , m a t r i x a n d i n t e r p h a s e d a m a g e for a
specific l a m i n a t e .
2) It a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e a r e close r e l a t i o n s h i p s
between fibre deformation characteristics,
c o m p o s i t e static f a i l u r e s t r a i n a n d t h r e s h o l d strains
for f a t i g u e l i m i t i n g d a m a g e m e c h a n i s m s . T h e
extent and dominance of the fatigue damage and
t h e r e s u l t i n g f a t i g u e p e r f o r m a n c e o f the
composites are determined by the relative
s t r e n g t h s o f t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s . F o r c o m p o s i t e s with
static f a i l u r e s t r a i n s g r e a t e r t h a n c o m p o s i t e
( m a t r i x ) f a t i g u e s t r a i n limits, the f a t i g u e
performance of the composites are governed by
matrix and interphase damage mechanisms.
O t h e r w i s e , t h e f a t i g u e p e r f o r m a n c e o f the
c o m p o s i t e is i n d e p e n d e n t o f m a t r i x a n d i n t e r p h a s e
p r o p e r t i e s , a n d d e p e n d e n t on t h e fibre p r o p e r t i e s
only.
3) T h e c i t e d s t u d i e s s h o w t h a t t h e r e a r e close links
between the structure, processing and property
r e l a t i o n s o f the c o n s t i t u t e n t s a n d the r e s u l t i n g
f a t i g u e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e c o m p o s i t e s . This
s i t u a t i o n l e a d s to v a r i a t i o n s in the fatigue
performance of nominally identical composites,
and invalidates any universal generalization of the
e x p e r i m e n t a l findings.
4) T h e r e is a g r e a t n e e d for f u r t h e r , s y s t e m a t i c ,
r e s e a r c h in this a r e a , i n c l u d i n g t h e c o m p a r a t i v e
evaluation of the fatigue damage mechanisms and
modelling of fatigue damage development leading
to f a t i g u e life p r e d i c t i o n o f c o m p o s i t e s .
REFERENCES
1 Talreja, R. 'Fatigue of composite materials and fatigue-life
diagrams' Proc Royal Soc LondA 378 (1981) pp 461-475
2 Talreja, R. 'Damage models for fatigue of composite materials'
in Lilholt, H. and Talreja, R. (eds) Fatigueand Creep of
Composite Materials (Riso National Laboratory, Denmark,
1982) pp 137-153
3 Boiler, K. H. 'Fatigue fundamentals for composite materials'
A S T M STP 460 (1969) pp 217-235
4 Dharan, C. K. H. 'Fatigue failure in glass fibre polymer
composites' J Mater Sci l0 (1975) pp 1665-1670
5 Talreja, R. 'A conceptual framework for interpretation of
fatigue damage mechanisms in composites' J Comp Tech Res 7 1
(1985) pp 25-29
6 Talreja, R.'FatigueofCompositeMaterials'(Technomic
Publishing Company, Zurich, Switzerland, 1986)
7 Dharan, C. K. H. 'Fatigue failure mechanisms in unidirectionally
reinforced composite materials' A S T M ST[' 569 (1975) pp
171-188
8 Sturgeon, J. B. 'Fatigue and creep testing of CFRP' Twenty-
eighth Annual Conference, Society of the Plastics Industry,
Washington DC, USA, February 1973, Proceedings (SPI, New
York, USA, 1973) paper 12-B
9 Awerbuch, J. and Hahn, H. T. 'Fatigue and proof testing of
unidirectional graphite/epoxy composites' A S T M STP 636
(1977) pp 248-266
10 Sturgeon, J. B. 'Fatigue testing of CFRP" R A E TR 75135 (Royal
Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, UK, 1975)
COMPOSITES. JULY 1989
11 Curtis, P. T. and Moore, B. B. 'A comparison of plain and
double waisted coupons for static and tensile testing of UD GRP
and CFRP' Second International Conference on Composite
Structures, Paisley, Scotland, UK, September 1983, Proceedings
(Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, UK, 1983) pp
383-398
12 Lorenzo, L. and Hahn, H. T. 'Fatigue failure mechanisms in
unidirectional composites' A S T M STP 907 (1987) pp 210-232
13 Lorenzo, L. 'Fatigue failure characterization of a unidirectional
composite and its AE characterization' Ph. D thesis, Washington
University, St. Louis, MO, USA (1985)
14 Curtis, P. T. and Dorey G. 'Fatigue of composite materials'
Proceedings of International Conference on Fatigue and
Engineering Materials and Structures, I Mech E, London, 1986,
pp 297-306
15 Favre, J. P. and Vidal, G. 'In-plane and interlaminar shear
fatigue characterization of unidirectional GFRP and CFRP,
including moisture effects' Int Conf on Testing, Evaluation and
Quality Control of Composites, University of Surrey, UK,
September 1983
16 Stinehcomb, W. W. and Reifsneider, K. L. 'Fatigue damage
mechanisms in composite materials: a review' A S T M STP 675
(1979) pp 762-787
17 Hahn, H. F. 'Fatigue behaviour and life-prediction of composite
laminates'ASTMSTP674 (1979) pp 383-417
18 Agarwal, B. D. and Broutman, L. J. 'Analysis and Performance
of Fiber Composites' (John Wiley, New York, USA, 1980) pp
223-246
19 Harris, B. 'Engineering Composite Materials" (Institute of
Metals, 1986) pp 81-105
20 Harris, B. 'Fatigue and accumulation of damage in reinforced
plastics" Composites 8 (1977) pp 214-220
21 Davis, J. N. and Sundsrud, G. J. 'Fatigue data on a variety of
nonwoven glass composites for helicopter rotor blades' A S T M
STP674 (1979) pp 137-148
22 Salkind, M. J. 'Fatigue of composite materials' A S T M STP 497
(1982) pp 143-169
2.~ Giavotto, V., Wagner, V., Caslini, M. and Zanotti, C.
'Consideration of early fatigue damage on damage accumulation
and on delamination mechanism in composite materials
structures' Proc 14th ICA F Conf (1987) pp 503-535
24 Owen, M. J. and Morris, S. 'Assessment of potential of CFRP as
fatigue resistant materials' 25th SPI Annual Tech Conf,
Washington DC. USA, February 1970. Proceedings (SPI, New
York, USA, 1970) paper 8-E
25 Beaumont, P. W. R. and Harris, B. 'The effect of environment
on fatigue and crack propagation in carbon fibre reinforced
epoxy resin) Proc lnt Conf on Carbon Fibres, Their Composites
and Applications, Plastics Institute, London, UK (1971)paper 49
26 Owen, M. J. 'Fatigue of carbon fiber reinforced plastics' in
Broutman, L. J. (ed) 'Composite Materials Volume 5, Fatigue
and Fracture' (Academic Press, New York, USA, 1974) pp
341-369
27 Moore, B. B. and Sturgeon, J. B. 'Zero-tension fatigue tests on
high modulus CFRP' R A E TM M A T 155 (Royal Aircraft
Establishment, Farnborough, UK, 1972)
28 Jones, C. J., Dickson, R. F., Adam, T., Reiter, H. and Harris, B.
'The environmental fatigue behaviour of reinforced plastics"
Proc Royal Soc London A 369 (1984) pp 315-338
29 Curtis, P. T. 'An investigation of mechanical properties of
improved carbon fibre composite materials" R A E TR 86021
(Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, UK, 1986)
30 Curtis, P. "An investigation of tensile fatigue behaviour of
carbon fibre composite laminates' ICCM6 Proceedings, Imperial
College of Science and Technology, London. UK, 1987 (Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers, 1987) 4 pp 54-64
3! Dharan, C. K. H. "Fatigue failure in fibre reinforced materials'
ICCM1 Proceedings, Geneva. Switzerland and Boston, MA,
USA, April 1975 (Metallurgical Society of AIME, New York,
USA. 1976) pp 830-839
32 Sturgeon, J. B. 'Tensile fatigue of 0, + / - 30 and +/-60 °
angleplied glass fibre epoxy resin' R A E TR 80151 (Royal
Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, UK, 1980)
33 Fernando, G., Dickson, R. F., Adam, T., Reiter, H. and Harris,
B. "Comportement de composites hybrides carbone-Kevlar"
Comptes Rendus des Annees Nationales sur les Composites, JNC
5, Paris, France, September, 1986 (Editions Pluralis, 1986) pp
583-592
34 Hofer, K. E. Jr, Bennett, L. C. and Stander, M. 'Degradation
327
 and enhancement behaviour of glass/graphite epoxy hybrid
composites after accelerated ageing' 32nd SPIAnnual Conf,
Washington, DC, USA, February 1977 (SPI, New York, USA)
paper 11-F
35 Sturgeon, J. B. 'Some fatigue results on carbon fibre/glass fibre
epoxy hybrid composites' RAE TM MA T235 (Royal Aircraft
Establishment, Farnborough, UK, 1975)
36 Hofer, K. E., Bennett, L. C. and Stander, M. 'Effect of moisture
and fatigue on residual mechanical properties of S-glass/
graphite/epoxy hybrid composites' ASTM STP 636 (1977) pp
103-122
37 Hiwa, C., Asakawa, K. and Nakagawa, T. 'Residual strength of
CF/GF hybrid composites based on fiber strength degradation'
Japan Soc Mat Sci 34 1 (1985) pp 59-63
38 Philips, L. N., Bradley, J. S. and Sturgeon, J. B. RAE TM241
(Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, UK, 1976)
39 Boiler, K. H. 'Fatigue characteristics of reinforced plastic
laminates subjected to axial loading' Mod Plast 41 (1964) p 145
40 Davis, J. W., McCarthy, J. A. and Schurb, J. N. 'Fatigue
resistance of reinforced plastics' Mater Des Engng (1964) pp
87-91
41 Owen, M. J. 'Fatigue' in Parkyn, B. (ed) Glass Reinforced
Plastics (Iliffe Books, London, UK, 1970) pp 251-267
42 Owen, M. J. and Rose, G. 'Polyester flexibility versus fatigue
behaviour of fibre reinforced plastics' Mod Plast 47 11 (1970) pp
130-138
43 Gauchel, J. V., Steg, I. and Cowling, J. E. 'Reducing effect of
water on fatigue properties of S-glass epoxy composites' ASTM
STP 569 (1975) pp 45-52
44 Mandell, J. F., Huang, D. D. and McGarry, F. J. 'Tensile fatigue
performance of glass fibre dominated composites' Comp Tech
Rev 3 (1981) pp 96-102
45 Sims, G. D. and Gladman, D. G. 'A framework for specifying
fatigue performance of glass fibre reinforced plastics' NPL DMA
(A) (59 National Physics Laboratory, 1982)
46 Jones, C. J., Dickson, R. F., Adam, T., Reiter, H. and Harris, B.
'Environmental fatigue of reinforced plastics' Composites 14 3
(1983) pp 288-293
47 Mandell, J. F., McGarry, F. J., Hsieh, A. J. Y. and Li, C. G.
'Tensile fatigue of glass fibers and composites with conventional
and surface compressed fibers Polym Comp 6 (1985) pp 168-174
48 Newaz, G. M. 'Influence of matrix material on flexural fatigue
behaviour of unidirectional composites' Comp Sci Techno124
(1985) pp 199-214
49 Bucknall, C. B. and Partridge, I. K. 'Effect of morphology in
epoxy/polyethersulphone matrix on fatigue behaviour of
unidirectional CFRP' Composites 15 2 (1984) pp 129-133
50 Hartness, J. T. and Kim R. Y. 'Comparative study on fatigue
behaviour of polyetheretherketone and epoxy with reinforced
graphite cloth' Twenty-eighth SAMPE Symposium and
Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA, April 1983 (SAMPE, 1983) pp
535-544
51 Kim, R. Y. and Hartuess, J. T. 'Evaluation of fatigue behaviour
of polyetheretherketone/graphite fabricated from prepreg tape'
Twenty-ninth SAMPE Symposium and Exhibition, Reno, NV,
USA, April 1984 (SAMPE, 1984) pp 765-776
52 Croman, R. B. 'Flexural fatigue behaviour of AS4 graphite
reinforced thermoplastics' ICCM6, Imperial College of Science
and Technology, London, UK, Proceedings (Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers, 1987) 4 pp 76-88
53 Drzal, L. T. 'Composite interphase characterization' SAMPEJ
19 (September/October 1983) pp 7-13
54 Drzal, L. T. and Rich, M. J. 'Effect of graphite fibre/epoxy
adhesion on composite fracture behaviour' ASTM STP 864
(1985) pp 16-26
55 Shih, G. C. 'Basic role of interface on fatigue performance of
unidirectional fibre glass reinforced composites' Ph. D thesis,
Case Western Reserve University, 1985
56 Shih, G. C. and Ebert, L. J. 'Effect of interface on fatigue
performance of unidirectional fiber glass composites' Comp Sci
Tech 28 (1987) pp 137-161
57 Dickson, R. F., Jones, J. C., Harris, B., Leach, D. C. and
Moore, D. R. 'Environmental fatigue behaviour of carbon fibre
PEEK' J Mater Sci 20 (1985) pp 60-70
58 Baron, C. H., Schulte, K. and Harig, H. 'Influence of fibre and
matrix failure strain on static and fatigue properties of CFRP'
Comp Sci Techno129 (1987) pp 257-272
328
59 Baron, C. H. and Schulte, K. 'Fatigue damage response of CFRP
with toughened matrices and improved fibres' ICCM6, Imperial
College of Science and Technology, London, UK, Proceedings
(Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1987) 4 pp 65-75
60 Baron, C. H., Schuite, K., Harig, N. and Niederstadt, G.
'Tensile behaviour and fatigue damage development of carbon-
epoxy resin composites in individual components with different
stress fracture points' Twentieth Annual Meeting on Reinforced
Plastics, Freudenstadt, FRG, October 1985, Proceedings
(Frankfurt an Main, FRG, Arbeitgeimschaft Verkstarkte
Kunstoffe, 1986) paper 39
61 Baron, C. H. and Schulte, K. 'Influence of different laminate
components on static and dynamic properties of CFRP'
Zeitschriftfur Werkstofftechnik 18 9 (1987) pp 306-313
62 Grimes, G. C. 'Structural design significance of T-T fatigue data
on composites' ASTM STP 617 (1977) pp 106-119
63 Stinehcomb, W. W. 'NDE of damage accumulation processes in
composite materials' Comp Sci Techno125 2 (1986) pp 103-118
64 Reifsnider, K. L., Schulte, K. and Duke, J. C. 'Long term fatigue
behaviour of composite materials' ASTM STP813 (1983) pp
136-159
65 Schulte, K. 'Damage development under cyclic loading'
European Syrup on Damage Development and Failure Processes
in Composite Materials, Leuven, Belgium, 1987, Proceedings
(Katholiete Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium, 1987) pp 35-54
66 Talreja, R. 'Fatigue reliability of composite materiais' Report
No. $33, (Technical University of Denmark, 1986)
67 Reifsnider, K. L. and Highsmith, A. L. 'The relationship of
stiffness changes in composite laminates to fracture-related
damage mechanisms' Second USA-USSR Syrup, Bethlehem, PA,
USA, March 1981, Proceedings (Martinuus Nijhoff Publishers,
The Hague, The Netherlands, 1982) pp 279-290
68 Adam, T., Dickson, R. F., Jones, C. J., Reiter, H. and Harris, B.
'Power law damage model for fibre reinforced plastic laminates'
Proc 1 Mech E 200 C3 (1986) pp 155-160
69 Konur, O. and Matthews, F. L. 'Effects of fibre, matrix and
interphase properties on fatigue performance of unnotched
polymer matrix composites: a review' Internal report, (Centre
for Composite Materials, Imperial College of Science and
Technology, London, UK, July 1988)
70 Boniface, L. and Bader, M. G. 'Fatigue damage in crossply
laminates' ECCM1, Bordeaux, France, 1985, Proceedings
(Association Europeenne des Materiaux Composites, 1985) pp
57-62
71 Bader, M. G. and Boniface, L. 'Damage development during
quasi-static and cyclic loading in GRP and CFRP laminates
containing 90° plies' ICCM5, San Diego, CA, USA, 1985,
Proceedings (Metallurgical Society of AIME, 1985) pp 221-232
72 Hahn, H. T. and Kim, R. Y. 'Proof testing of composite
materials' J Comp Mater 9 3 (1975) pp 297-311
73 Chou, P. C. and Croman, R. 'Residual strength in fatigue based
on the strength-life equal rank assumption' J Comp Mater 12 2
(1978) pp 177-194
74 Barnard, P. M. and Young, J. B. 'Cumulative fatigue and life
prediction of fibre composites' Final report, Part 2. Experimental
Techniques and Results, RAE Cont. XR/Mat 11494 2028-0134,
(Cranfield Institute of Technology, UK, 1986)
75 Ganczakowski, H. L. and Beaumont, P. W. R. 'On the modulus
of KFRP laminates in static and fatigue loading' ICCM6,
Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, UK, 1987,
Proceedings (Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, UK,
1987) 3 pp 166-175
76 Schuite, K. 'Development in microdamage in composite
laminates during fatigue loading' Proc Int Conf on Testing,
Evaluation and Quality Control of Composites, University of
Surrey, Guildford, UK, September 1983, pp 233-242
77 Lee, Y. and Porter, S. 'Crystallization of PEEK in carbon fibre
composites' Polym Engng Sci 26 9 (1986) pp 633-639
AUTHORS
T h e a u t h o r s a r e at t h e C e n t r e for C o m p o s i t e M a t e r i a l s ,
Imperial College, Prince Consort Rd., London, SW7
2 B Y , U K . E n q u i r i e s s h o u l d b e a d d r e s s e d to F. L.
Matthews.
COMPOSITES. JULY 1989