Chapter 2

Macromechanical Analysis of a
Lamina
 Chapter Objectives
• Review definitions of stress, strain, elastic moduli, and strain
energy.
• Develop stress–strain relationships for different types of
materials.
• Develop stress–strain relationships for a
unidirectional/bidirectional lamina.
• Find the engineering constants of a
unidirectional/bidirectional lamina in terms of the stiffness
and compliance parameters of the lamina.
• Develop stress–strain relationships, elastic moduli, strengths,
and thermal and moisture expansion coefficients of an angle
ply based on those of a unidirectional/bidirectional lamina and
the angle of the ply.
 Typical Laminate
A lamina is a thin layer of a composite material that is generally of
a thickness on the order of 0.005 in. (0.125 mm). A laminate is
constructed by stacking a number of such laminae in the direction
of the lamina thickness.

FIGURE 2.1
Typical laminate made of three laminas
• Mechanical structures made of these laminates,
such as a leaf spring suspension system in an
automobile, are subjected to various loads, such
as bending and twisting.
• The design and analysis of such laminated
structures demands knowledge of the stresses
and strains in the laminate.
• Also, design tools, such as failure theories,
stiffness models, and optimization algorithms,
need the values of these laminate stresses and
strains.

25.03.2020 4
• However, the building blocks of a laminate are single
lamina, so understanding the mechanical analysis of a
lamina precedes understanding that of a laminate.
• A lamina is unlike an isotropic homogeneous material.
• Forexample, if the lamina is made of isotropic
homogeneous fibers and anisotropic homogeneous
matrix, the stiffness of the lamina varies from point to
point depending on whether the point is in the fiber,
the matrix, or the fiber–matrix interface.
• Accounting for these variations will make any kind of
mechanical modeling of the lamina very complicated.

25.03.2020 5
• For this reason, the macromechanical analysis
of a lamina is based on average properties and
considering the lamina to be homogeneous.
• Methods to find these average properties
based on the individual mechanical properties
of the fiber and the matrix, as well as the
content, packing geometry, and shape of
fibers are discussed in Chapter 3.

25.03.2020 6
• Even with the homogenization of a lamina, the
mechanical behavior is still different from that
of a homogeneous isotropic material.
• For example, take a square plate of length and
width w and thickness t out of a large
isotropic plate of thickness t (Figure 2.2) and
conduct the following experiments.

25.03.2020 7
• Case A : Subject the square
plate to a pure normal load P in
direction 1.
• Measure the normal
deformations in directions 1
and 2, δ1A and δ2A, respectively.

• Case A : Apply the same pure

normal load P as in case A,
• Measure the normal
deformations in directions 1
and 2, δ1B and δ2B, respectively.

δ1 A = δ 2 B ,
δ 2 A = δ1 B

25.03.2020 8
• However, taking a unidirectional
square plate (Figure 2.3) of the
same dimensions w ×w×t out of a
large composite lamina of
thickness t and conducting the
same case A and B experiments,
note that the deformations
δ1 A  δ 2 B ,
δ 2 A  δ1 B
• Because the stiffness of the unidirectional
lamina in the direction of fibers is much
larger than the stiffness in the direction
perpendicular to the fibers.
• Thus, the mechanical characterization of a
unidirectional lamina will require more
parameters than it will for an isotropic
lamina.

25.03.2020 9
• Also, note that if the square plate
(Figure 2.4) taken out of the
lamina has fibers at an angle to
the sides of the square plate, the
deformations will be different for
different angles.

• In fact, the square plate

would not only have
deformations in the
normal directions but
would also distort.

25.03.2020 10
 2.2 Review of Definitions

25.03.2020 11
 2.2.1 Stress
• A mechanical structure takes external forces, which act
upon a body as surface forces (for example, bending a
stick) and body forces (for example, the weight of a
standing vertical telephone pole on itself).
• These forces result in internal forces inside the body.
Knowledge of the internal forces at all points in the body
is essential because these forces need to be less than the
strength of the material used in the structure.
• Stress, which is defined as the intensity of the load per
unit area, determines this knowledge because the
strengths of a material are intrinsically known in terms of
stress.
 Stress

lim Δ Ps
ηs =
ΔA  0 Δ A

FIGURE 2.5
Stresses on infinitesimal area
 Stress

ΔPx
ζ x  lim ,
ΔA0 ΔA

lim Δ Py
η xy = ,
ΔA  0 ΔA

lim Δ Pz
η xz =
ΔA  0 ΔA
FIGURE 2.6
Forces on an infinitesimal area
 Stress

η xy = η yx ,
η yz = η zy ,
η zx = η xz
FIGURE 2.7
Stresses on an infinitesimal cuboid
 2.2.2 Strain
• Similar to the need for knowledge of forces inside a
body, knowing the deformations because of the
external forces is also important. For example, a
piston in an internal combustion engine may not
develop larger stresses than the failure strengths,
but its excessive deformation may seize the engine.
• Also, finding stresses in a body generally requires
finding deformations. This is because a stress state
at a point has six components, but there are only
three force-equilibrium equations (one in each
direction).
• The knowledge of deformations is specified in terms of
strains — that is, the relative change in the size and
shape of the body.
• The strain at a point is also defined generally on an
infinitesimal cuboid in a right-hand coordinate system.
• Under loads, the lengths of the sides of the
infinitesimal cuboid change. The faces of the cube also
get distorted.
• The change in length corresponds to a normal strain
and the distortion corresponds to the shearing strain.

25.03.2020 17
 Strain

Figure 2.8 shows the strains on one of

the faces, ABCD, of the cuboid. The
strains and displacements are related to
each other.
Take the two perpendicular lines AB and
AD. When the body is loaded, the two
lines become A’B’ and A’D’. Define the FIGURE 2.8
displacements of a point (x,y,z) as; Normal and shearing strains on a
infinitesimal area in the x-y plane
u = u(x,y,z) = displacement in x-direction at point (x,y,z),

v = v(x,y,z) = displacement in y-direction at point (x,y,z),

w = w(x,y,z) = displacement in z-direction at point (x,y,z)

 Strain
The normal strain in the x-
direction, εx, is defined as the lim AB - AB
change of length of line AB per unit εx =
AB  0 AB
length of AB as

Where:
AB = ( AP )2 + ( BP )2

= [x + u( x + x, y)  u( x, y) ]2 +[v( x + x, y) - v( x, y) ]2 ,

AB = Δx
 Strain
Substituting the preceding expressions of Equation (2.7) in Equation (2.6),

2 1/ 2
lim  
2
u ( x + Δ + ) - u ( x,y)   v( x + Δ + ) - v( x,y)  
εx =  1 +  +    -1
Δx  0   Δx   Δx  

1/ 2
  u 
2
 v  
2

ε x =  1 +  +   -1
  x   x  

u
<<1 u
x εx =
x
v
<<1
x
 Strain
The normal strain in the y-direction, εy is defined as the change in
the length of line AD per unit length of AD as
lim AD - AD
εy =
AD  0 AD

Where:
AD = ( AQ )2 + (QD )2

= [ Δy + v( x,y + Δ, )  v( x,y) ] +[u( x,y +Δ, )- u( x,y) ] ,

2 2

AD = Δy
 Strain
Substituting the preceding expressions of Equation (2.10) in Equation
(2.9),
1/2
lim  v( x, y + y ) - v( x, y )}  u ( x, y + y ) - u ( x, y )  
2 2
 
 y=  1 +  +   -1
y  0   y    y 
 

2 1/ 2
  v 
2
 u  
εy =  1 +  +    -1
  y   y  

u
y
<<1 v
εy =
v y
<<1
y
 Strain

γ xy = θ1 + θ 2

Where:
lim PB
θ1 = ,
AB  0 AP

PB = v( x + x, y) - v( x, y),

AP = u( x + x, y) + x - u( x, y)
 Strain

γ xy = θ1 + θ 2

Where:
lim QD
θ2 = ,
AD  0 AQ

QD = u( x, y + y) - u( x, y),

AQ = v(x, y + y)+ y - v(x, y)

 Strain
Substituting Equation (2.13) and Equation (2.14) in Equation (2.12),

v( x + x, y ) - v( x, y ) u ( x, y + y ) - u ( x, y )
lim x + y
u ( x + x, y ) + x - u ( x, y ) v( x, y + y ) + y - v( x, y )
 xy = x  0
x y
y  0

v u
y
γ xy  x 
u u
1 1
x y
u
<<1
x
v v u
<<1 γ xy= +
y x y
 Strain

ν w
γ yz = + ,
z y

w u
γ zx = + ,
x z

w
ε zz =
z
 Example 2.1

25.03.2020 27
 2.2.2 Elastic Moduli
• As mentioned in Section 2.2.2, three equilibrium equations are
insufficient for defining all six stress components at a point.
• For a body that is linearly elastic and has small deformations, stresses
and strains at a point are related through six simultaneous linear
equations called Hooke’s law.
• Note that 15 unknown parameters are at a point: six stresses, six
strains, and three displacements. Combined with six simultaneous
linear equations of Hooke’s law, six strain-displacement relations —
given by Equation (2.8), Equation (2.11), Equation (2.15), and
Equation (2.16) — and three equilibrium equations give 15 equations
for the solution of 15 unknowns.
• Because strain-displacement and equilibrium equations are
differential equations, they are subject to knowing boundary
conditions for complete solutions.
 Elastic Moduli
For a linear isotropic material in a three-dimensional
stress state, the Hooke’s law stress–strain relationships
at a point in an x–y–z orthogonal system (Figure 2.9) in
matrix form are  1 ν ν 0 0 0
 E -E -E 
 
 
- ν 1 ν 0 0 0 
-
 ε x  E E E   ζ x
     
 ε y    ζ y
  - ν ν 1 0 0 0 
-  
 εz  E E E   ζ z
 =   
γ yz   0 0 0 1 0 0
  η yz 
     
 γ zx   G   η zx 
     
γ xy   0  η xy 
FIGURE 2.9    0 0 0 0 1
 G 
Cartesian coordinates in 3-D  
 0 0 0 0 0 1
 
 G
compliance matrix [S]
 1 ν ν 0 0 0
 E - - 
E E
 
 
- ν 1
-
ν 0 0 0
 ε x  E E E   ζ x
     
 ε y    ζ y
  - ν - ν 1 0 0 0
 
 εz  E E E   ζ z (2.17)
 =   
γ yz   0 0 0 1 0 0
  η yz 
     
 γ zx   G   η zx 
     
γ xy   0   η xy 
   0 0 0 1 0 
 G 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 1
 
 G
 stiffness matrix [C]
 E (1 -  ) E E 0 0 0
 (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + ) 
 x      x
    
 y   E E(1 -  ) E 0 0 0   y
   (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + )  
 z      z
 =   
(2.18)
 yz   E E E(1 -  ) 0 0 0   yz 

  (1 - 2 )(1 + )  
(1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + )
 zx     
   0 0 0 G 0 0
  zx 
 xy    xy 
 0 0 0 0 G 0  

 
 0 0 0 0 0 G 

Where: E
G=
2(1 + )
 2.2.4 Strain Energy
• Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. In
solid, deformable, elastic bodies under loads,
the work done by external loads is stored as
recoverable strain energy. The strain energy
stored in the body per unit volume is then
defined as;

1
W = ( x  x +  y  y +  z  z +  xy  xy +  yz  yz +  zx  zx) (2.20)
2
 Example 2.2

25.03.2020 36
 2.3 Hooke’s Law for Different Types of
Materials
• The stress–strain relationship for a general material that is
not linearly elastic and isotropic is more complicated than
Equation (2.17) and Equation (2.18).
• Assuming linear and elastic behavior for a composite is
acceptable; however, assuming it to be isotropic is generally
unacceptable.
• Thus, the stress–strain relationships follow Hooke’s law, but
the constants relating stress and strain are more in number
than seen in Equation (2.17) and Equation (2.18).
• The most general stress–strain relationship is given as follows
for a three-dimensional body in a 1–2–3 orthogonal Cartesian
coordinate system:
Stiffness Matrix [C] for General Material

 ζ1  C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16   ε1

     
 ζ 2  C 21 C 22 C 23 C 24 C 25 C 26   ε 2
     
 ζ 3 C 31 C 32 C 33 C 34 C 35 C 36   ε 3
 =    (2.25)
 η 23 C 41 C 42 C 43 C 44 C 45 C 46  γ 23
     
 η 31 C 51 C 52 C 53 C 54 C 55 C 56   γ31
     
 η12  C 61 C 62 C 63 C 64 C 65 C 66   γ12

Stiffness matrix [C] has 36 constants

Compliance Matrix [S] for General Material

 ε1  S 11 S 12 S 13 S 14 S 15 S 16   ζ1
     
 ε 2   S 21 S 22 S 23 S 24 S 25 S 26   ζ 2
     
 ε 3  S 31 S 32 S 33 S 34 S 35 S 36   ζ 3
 =    (2.26)
γ 23  S 41 S 42 S 43 S 44 S 45 S 46   η 23
     
 γ31  S 51 S 52 S 53 S 54 S 55 S 56   η 31
     
 γ12  S 61 S 62 S 63 S 64 S 65 S 66   η12 
• In the case of an isotropic material, relating the preceding strain–stress equation to Equation (2.17),
one finds that the compliance matrix is related directly to engineering constants as;

 1 ν ν 0 0 0
 E - - 

E E
  ε1  S 11 S 12 S 13 S 14 S 15 S 16   ζ1
       
- ν 1 ν 0 0 0   ε 2   S 21
- S 22 S 23 S 24 S 25 S 26   ζ 2
 ε x  E E E   ζ x      
     
 ε y    ζ y
 ε 3  S 31 S 32 S 33 S 34 S 35 S 36   ζ 3
   -
ν
-
ν 1 0 0 0     =   
 εz  E E E   ζ z γ 23  S 41 S 42 S 43 S 44 S 45 S 46   η 23
 =         
γ yz   0   η yz   γ31  S 51 S 56 
  
0 0 1 0 0   
S 52 S 53 S 54 S 55  η 31
 γ zx   G   η zx       
       γ12  S 61 S 62 S 63 S 64 S 65 S 66   η12 
γ xy   0 0  η xy 
   0 0 0 1
 G 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 1
 
 G
25.03.2020 40
In the case of an isotropic material, relating the preceding
strain–stress equation to Equation (2.17), one finds that
the compliance matrix is related directly to engineering
constants as

and S , other than in the preceding, are zero.

ij

25.03.2020 41
 2.3.1 Anisotropic Material
• The material that has 21 independent elastic
constants at a point is called an anisotropic
material.
• Once these constants are found for a
particular point, the stress and strain
relationship can be developed at that point.
• Note that these constants can vary from point
to point if the material is nonhomogeneous.

25.03.2020 44
• Even if the material is homogeneous (or assumed
to be), one needs to find these 21 elastic
constants analytically or experimentally.
• However, many natural and synthetic materials
do possess material symmetry — that is, elastic
properties are identical in directions of symmetry
because symmetry is present in the internal
structure.
• Fortunately, this symmetry reduces the number
of the independent elastic constants by zeroing
out or relating some of the constants within the 6
× 6 stiffness [C] and 6 × 6 compliance [S]
matrices.
• This simplifies the Hooke’s law relationships for
various types of elastic symmetry.
25.03.2020 45
 2.3.2 Monoclinic Material
• If, in one plane of material symmetry* (Figure
2.11), for example, direction 3 is normal to the
plane of material symmetry, then the stiffness
matrix reduces to

FIGURE 2.11
Transformation of coordinate axes for 1-2
plane of symmetry for a monoclinic material
25.03.2020 46
 Stiffness Matrix [C] for Monoclinic Materials
 ζ 1  C11 C12 C13 0 0 C16   ε1
     
 ζ 2  C12 C 22 C 23 0 0 C26   ε 2
     
 ζ 3 C13 C 23 C 33 0 0 C36   ε 3 (2.35)
 =    
 η 23  0 0 0 C 44 C45 0 γ 23
     
 η 31  0 0 0 C45 C 55 0  γ31
     
 η12 C16 C26 C36 0 0 C 66  γ12
The direction perpendicular to the plane of symmetry is called
the principal direction. Note that there are 13 independent
elastic constants. Feldspar is an example of a monoclinic
material.
Compliance Matrix [S] for Monoclinic Materials

 ε1  S 11 S 12 S 13 0 0 S16   ζ1

    
 ε 2   S 12 S 22 S 23 0 0 S 26   ζ 2 
    
 ε 3  S13 S 23 S 33 0 0 S 36   ζ 3
 =  
γ 23  0 0 0 S 44 S 45 0  η 23
    
 γ31  0 0 0 S 45 S 55 0  η 31
    
 γ12  S16 S 26 S36 0 0 S 66  η12 
 2.3.3 Orthotropic Material (Orthogonally
Anisotropic)/Specially
Orthotropic
• If a material has three mutually perpendicular
planes of material symmetry, then the
stiffness matrix is given by

FIGURE 2.13
A unidirectional lamina as a
monoclinic material with fibers
25.03.2020 arranged in a rectangular array 49
Compliance Matrix [S] for Orthotropic Materials

9 independent material constants

 ε1  S 11 S 12 S 13 0 0 0  ζ1
    
 ε 2   S 12 S 22 S 23 0 0 0  ζ 2 
    
 ε 3  S13 S 23 S 33 0 0 0  ζ 3
 =  
γ 23  0 0 0 S 44 0 0  η 23
    
 γ31  0 0 0 0 S 55 0  η 31
    
 γ12  0 0 0 0 0 S 66  η12
Compliance Matrix [S] for Orthotropic Materials

 1  12  13 0 0 0
 E   
E1 E1
 1

 
  21 1  23 0 0 0
   
E E E
 ε1  2 2 2   ζ1
    
 ε 2    31  32 1 0 0 0  ζ 2 
      
 ε 3  E 3 E 3 E 3   ζ 3
 =  
γ 23  0 0 0 1 0 0  η 23
    
 γ31  G 23   η 31
    
 γ12  0 0 0 0 1 0
  η12
 
 G31 
 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 1 
 G12 
Stiffness Matrix [C] for Orthotropic Materials

 ζ1  C11 C12 C13 0 0 0  ε1

     
 ζ 2 C12 C 22 C 23 0 0 0  ε 2
     
 ζ 3 C13 C 23 C 33 0 0 0  ε 3
 =    
 η 23  0 0 0 C 44 0 0 γ 23
     
 η 31  0 0 0 0 C 55 0  γ31
     
 η12  0 0 0 0 0 C 66  γ12
Stiffness Matrix [C] for Orthotropic Materials
 1  23 32  21   23 31  31   21 32 0 0 0
 EE E2 E3  E2 E3  
 2 3

 ζ 1    ε1
   21   23 31 1  13 31  32   12 31 0 0 0  
 ζ 2    ε 2
   E E
2 3  E E
1 3  E E
1 3    
 ζ 3    ε 3
 =  31   21 32  32   12 31 1  12 21 0 0 0  
 η 23   γ 23
   E E
2 3  E E
1 3  E E
1 2    
 η 31    γ31
   0 0 0 G 23 0 0   
 η12     γ12 
 0 0 0 0 G 31 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 G12 
 2.3.4 Transversely Isotropic Material
• If a material has axes of symmetry in its
longitudinal axis and all directions perpendicular
to its longitudinal axis (i.e., more than three
mutually perpendicular axes of symmetry) then
such material is transversely isotropic.
• (e.g., unidirectional composites). There are five
independent elastic constants for these
materials.

25.03.2020 55
 Stiffness Matrix [C] for Transversely
Isotropic Materials
 C11 C12 C12 0 0 0
 ζ1    ε1
  C12 C 22 C 23 0 0 0  
 ζ 2    ε 2
  C12 C 23 C 22 0 0 0  
 ζ 3    ε 3
 =    
 η 23  0 0 0 C 22  C 23 0 0  γ 23
   2   
 η 31    γ31
   0 0 0 0 C 55 0  
 η12    γ12
 0 0 0 0 0 C 55
Transverse isotropy results in the following relations:
 Transversely Isotropic Materials

FIGURE 2.15
A unidirectional lamina as a transversely isotropic material with fibers
arranged in a rectangular array
Note the five independent elastic constants. An example of this is
a thin unidirectional lamina in which the fibers are arranged in a
square array orhexagonal array. One may consider the elastic
properties in the two directions perpendicular to the fibers to be
the same. In Figure 2.15, the fibers are in direction 1, so plane 2–
3 will be considered as the plane of isotropy.
 2.3.5 Isotropic Material
• If all planes in an orthotropic body are
identical, it is an isotropic material; then, the
stiffness matrix is given by

25.03.2020 58
 Stiffness Matrix [C] for Isotropic Materials

 ε1  C11 C12 C12 0 0 0  ζ1

    
 ε 2   C12 C11 C12 0 0 0  ζ 2 
    
 ε 3 C12 C12 C11 0 0 0  ζ 3
 =  
γ 23  0 0 0 (C11  C12 ) / 2 0 0  η 23
    
 γ31  0 0 0 0 (C11  C12 ) / 2 0  η 31
    
 γ12   0 0 0 0 0 (C11  C12 ) / 2  η12 
• Isotropy results in the following additional
relationships:

25.03.2020 60
 Stiffness Matrix [C] for Isotropic Materials

 E(1 - ) E E 0 0 0
 (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + ) 
 x      x
    
 y   E E(1 - ) E 0 0 0   y
   (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + )  
 z      z
 =   ,
(2.18)
 yz   E E E(1 - ) 0 0 0   yz 
   (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + ) (1 - 2 )(1 + )  
 zx     
   0 0 0 G 0 0
  zx 
 xy    xy 
 0 0 0 0 G 0  

 
 0 0 0 0 0 G 
25.03.2020 62
 Compliance Matrix [S] for Isotropic Materials

 ε1  S 11 S 12 S 12 0 0 0  ζ1
    
 ε 2   S 12 S 11 S 12 0 0 0  ζ 2 
    
 ε 3  S12 S 12 S 11 0 0 0  ζ 3
 =  
γ 23  0 0 0 2( S 11  S12 ) 0 0  η 23
    
 γ31  0 0 0 0 2( S 11  S12 ) 0  η 31
    
 γ12  0 0 0 0 0 2( S 11  S12 )  η12
 Independent Elastic Constants

Independent Elastic
Material Type
Constants

Anisotropic 21
Monoclinic 13
Orthotropic 9
Transversely Isotropic 5
Isotropic 2
 Example 2.3

25.03.2020 65
 Example 2.4

25.03.2020 66
 Example 2.5

25.03.2020 67
 Hooke’s Law for a Two-Dimensional
Unidirectional
Lamina
• A thin plate is a prismatic member having a
small thickness, and it is the case for a typical
lamina. If a plate is thin and there are no out-
of-plane loads, it can be considered to be
under plane stress (Figure 2.17).

25.03.2020 68
 Plane Stress Assumption

 3 = 0 ,  31 = 0,  23  0

 Upper and lower surfaces are free from external loads

 3 = 0 ,  23  0,  31  0,
FIGURE 2.17
Plane stress conditions for a thin pla
 Plane Stress Assumption

Transverse stress σ3 is zero

 2.4.2 Reduction of Hooke’s Law in
Three Dimensions to Two Dimensions
• A unidirectional lamina falls under the
orthotropic material category. If the lamina is
thin and does not carry any out-of-plane
loads, one can assume plane stress conditions
for the lamina.

25.03.2020 71
Reduction of Compliance Matrix in 3D to 2D for
Orthotropic Materials
 ε1  S 11 S 12 S 13 0 0 0  ζ1 Therefore, taking
     Equation (2.26)
 ε 2   S 12 S 22 S 23 0 0 0  ζ 2 
     and
 ε 3  S13 S 23 S 33 0 0 0  ζ 3 Equation (2.39)
 =  
γ
 23  0 0 0 S 44 0 0  η 23 and assuming σ = 3

     0,  = 0, and  = 0,
23 31

 γ31  0 0 0 0 S 55 0  η 31 then

    
 γ12  0 0 0 0 0 S 66  η12 ε3 = S13 ζ1+ S 23 ζ 2 ,

Compliance Matrix
 ε1  S 11 S 12 0  ζ 1
     
 ε 2  =  S 12 S 22 0  ζ 2 ,
      (2.77)
γ12  0 0 S 66   η12 
Reduction of Stiffness Matrix in 3D to 2D for
Orthotropic Materials

 ζ1  Q11 Q12 0  ε1

     
 ζ 2  = Q12 Q 22 0  ε 2 (2.78)
     
 η12  0 0 Q66 γ12

S 22
Q11 = ,
S 11 S 22  2
S 12
S 12
Q12 =  ,
S11 S 22  S 12
2
(2.79a–d)
S11
Q22 = ,
S11 S 22  2
S12
1
Q66 =
S 66
 2.4.3 Relationship of Compliance and
Stiffness Matrix to Engineering
Elastic Constants of a Lamina
• Equation (2.77) and Equation (2.78) show the
relationship of stress and strain through the
compliance [S] and reduced stiffness [Q]
matrices.
• However, stress and strains are generally
related through engineering elastic constants.
For a unidirectional lamina, these engineering
elastics constants are;
25.03.2020 74
 E = longitudinal Young’s modulus (in direction 1)
1

E = transverse Young’s modulus (in direction 2)

2

 = major Poisson’s ratio, where the general Poisson’s

12

ratio,  is defined as the ratio of the negative of the normal

ij

strain in direction j to the normal strain in direction i, when

the only normal load is applied in direction i
G = in-plane shear modulus (in plane 1–2)
12

25.03.2020 75
 Compliance and Stiffness Matrix Elements in Terms of Elastic
Constants

(a) Tensile load in direction 1

Experimentally, the four
independent engineering elastic
constants are measured as
follows and can be related to
(b) Tensile load in direction in 2
the four independent elements
of the compliance matrix [S] of
Equation (2.77).

(c) Pure shear stress in plane of 1-2

FIGURE 2.18
Application of stresses to
find engineering constants
 Pure Axial Load in Direction 1

Apply a pure axial load in direction 1

ζ1  0 , ζ 2 = 0 , η12 = 0

 ε1  S 11 S 12 0  ζ 1 ε1= S 11 ζ 1
     
 ε 2  =  S 12 S 22 0  ζ 2 ε 2 = S 12 ζ 1
      γ12 =0
γ12   0 0 S 66   η12 

ζ1 1 1
E1  = S 11=
ε1 S 11 E1
ε2 S ν12
ν12   =  12 . S12 = 
ε1 S 11 E1
 Pure Axial Load in Direction 2

Apply a pure axial load in direction 2

ζ1  0, ζ 2  0, η12 =0

 ε1  S 11 S 12 0  ζ 1 ε1= S 12 ζ 2
     
 ε 2  =  S 12 S 22 0  ζ 2 ε 2 = S 22 ζ 2
      γ12 =0
γ12   0 0 S 66   η12 

ζ2 1 1
E2  = S 22 =
ε 2 S 22 E2
ν 21
ν21  
ε1 S
=  12 . S 12 = 
ε2 S 22 E2
 Reciprocal Relationship

ν 21
S12 = 
ν12 S 12 = 
E1 E2

ν12 ν 21
=
E1 E 2
 Pure Shear Load in Plane 12

Apply a pure shear load in Plane 12

ζ1  0 , ζ 2 =0 , η12  0

 ε1  S 11 S 12 0  ζ 1 ε1=0
     
 ε 2  =  S 12 S 22 0  ζ 2 ε 2 =0
      γ12 =S 66 12
γ12   0 0 S 66   η12 

G12 
 12 = 1 1
S 66 =
 12 S 66 G12
 Compliance Matrix

 ε1  S 11 S 12 0  ζ 1
     
 ε 2  =  S 12 S 22 0  ζ 2
     
γ12   0 0 S 66   η12 

 1 ν 
  12 0 
 ε1  
   E1 E1   ζ1
ν
=  12 0   ζ 2
1
 ε 2
   E1 E2  
γ12   1   η12
 0 0 
 G12 
 Coefficients of Stiffness Matrix

 ζ1  Q11 Q12 0  ε1

     
 ζ 2  = Q12 Q 22 0  ε 2
     
 η12  0 0 Q66 γ12

S 22  E1 ν12 E 2 
Q11 =  1- 1  ν21 ν12 0
S 11 S 22  S 12
2
 ν21 ν12 
S 12  ζ1    ε1
Q12 =     ν12 E 2 E2   
S11 S 22  S 12
2
 ζ 2 =  0  ε 2
S 11   1  ν21 ν12 1  ν21 ν12   
Q 22 =  η12   γ12
S 11 S 22  S 12
2
 0 0 G12
1  
Q66 =  
S 66
 Example 2.6

25.03.2020 83
 2.5 Hooke’s Law for a Two-
Dimensional Angle Lamina
• Generally, a laminate does not consist only of
unidirectional laminae because of their low
stiffness and strength properties in the transverse
direction.
• Therefore, in most laminates, some laminae are
placed at an angle. It is thus necessary to develop
the stress–strain relationship for an angle lamina.
• The coordinate system used for showing an angle
lamina is as given in Figure 2.20.
25.03.2020 84
Hooke's Law for a 2D Angle Lamina

FIGURE 2.20
Local and global axes of an angle lamin
• The global and local stresses in an angle
lamina are related to each other through the
angle of the lamina, θ (Appendix B):
 c 2 s 2 -2 sc 
 
T  =  s 2 c2 2sc 
1

 
 sc -sc c 2 - s 2 

 ζ x   c 2 s 2 -2 sc   ζ1 c  cos( ) ; s  sin( )

     
 ζ y =  s 2
c
2
2 sc   ζ 2
     
 η xy   sc -sc c 2 - s 2   η12 

25.03.2020 86
Relationship of Global and Local Stresses
[T] is called the transformation matrix
[T]-1 is called the inverse transformation matrix

 c2 s2 2 sc 
 
[T ] =  s c  2 sc 
2 2

 
 sc sc c - s 
2 2

 c 2 s 2 -2 sc 
 
[T ]1 =  s 2 c 2 2 sc 
 
 sc -sc c 2 - s 2 
 Relationship of Global and Local Stresses

 ζ1  c s 2 sc  ζ x  ζ 1  ζ x
2 2

   2       
 ζ 2  =  s c  2 sc  ζ y  ζ 2  = [T ]  ζ y
2

         
 η12  sc sc c 2 - s 2   η xy   η12   η xy 

 ζ x   c 2 s 2 -2 sc  ζ1  ζ x  ζ 1
         
 ζ y  =  s2 c2 2 sc  ζ 2  ζ y  = [T ] 1  ζ 2
         
 η xy   sc -sc c 2 - s 2   η12   η xy   η12 
 Relationship of Global and Local Strains

  1  c s
2 2
2 sc   x
   2      1   x
  2  =  s c 2  2 sc   y    
        2  = [T ]   y
 12 / 2  sc sc c 2 - s 2   / 2    
 xy   12 / 2  / 2
 xy 
  x   1
  x  c s
2
-2sc
2
  1    
        y  = [T ] 1   2
  y =  s 2
c
2
2sc   2    
       / 2  12 / 2
 / 2  sc -sc c 2 - s 2   xy 
 xy     12 / 2
 Expanding Global Strain-Local Strain Relationship

    1
1 0 0    x  1 0 0 
0 1 0    =[T ]1 0 1 0   
   y     2
0 0 1 / 2   0 0 1 / 2  

 xy   12

  x   1
  1 0 0 1 0 0 
 
  y  = 0 1 0[T ] 1 0 1 0    2
     
 
  0 0 2 0 0 1 / 2
 12
 xy 

  x   1
   
  y  =[ R][T ] 1 [ R] 1   2
   
   12
 xy 
 Global Stress and Strain

  x   x   1
  1  
     
  y  =[ R][T ] 1 [ R] 1   y  =[ R][T ] 1 [ R] 1 [ S ]  2 
  2  
     
     12
 xy   12  xy 

  x  ζ x  ε x   S11 S12 S16  ζ x 

        
  y  =[ R][T ] 1 [ R] 1 [ S ] [T ]  ε y  =  S12 S 22 S 26  ζ y 
 ζ y     
    γ   S  
   η xy   xy   16 S 26 S 66  η xy 
 xy 
 Transformed Compliance Matrix

 ε x   S11 S12 S16  ζ x 

    
 ε y  =  S12 S 22 S 26  ζ y 
    
γ   S  
 xy   16 S 26 S 66  η xy 
S11 = S11 c  (2S12 + S 66) s c + S 22 s ,
4 2 2 4

S12 = S12 (s + c )+ (S11 + S 22  S 66) s c ,

4 4 2 2

4 2 2 4
S 22 = S11 s +(2S12+ S 66) s c + S 22 c ,

S16 = (2 S11  2 S12  S 66) sc  (2 S 22  2 S12  S 66) s c,

3 3

S 26 = (2 S11  2 S12  S 66) s c  (2 S 22  2 S12  S 66) sc ,

3 3

S 66 = 2 (2 S11+2 S 22  4 S12  S 66) s c + S 66 (s + c )

2 2 4 4
 Transformed Reduced Stiffness Matrix

 ζ x   Q11 Q12 Q16  ε x 

     
 ζ y  = Q12 Q 22 Q 26  ε y 
     
 η xy  Q Q  γ 
Q66  xy 
 16 26

4 4 2 2
Q11 = Q11 c + Q22 s +2(Q12 +2 Q66) s c ,

Q12 = (Q11+ Q22  4 Q66) s c + Q12 (c + s ),

2 2 4 4

Q16 = (Q11  Q12  2 Q66) c s  (Q22  Q12  2 Q66) s c,

3 3

4 4 2 2
Q22 = Q11 s + Q22 c + 2(Q12 +2 Q66) s c ,

Q26 = (Q11  Q12  2 Q66) cs  (Q22  Q12  2 Q66) c s,

3 3

Q66 = (Q11+ Q22  2 Q12  2 Q66) s c + Q66 ( s + c )

2 2 4 4
 Engineering Constants

25.03.2020 94
 Pure Axial Load in Direction x

ζ x  0,ζ y  0,η xy  0

 ε x   S11 S12 S16  ζ x 

     0
 ε y = S12 S 22 S 26  ζ y 
     0
γ   S   η xy 
 xy  16 S 26 S 66
(a)

FIGURE 2.23
Application of stresses to find
engineering constants of an angle lamina
 Engineering Constants

ε x = S11 ζ x ε y = S12 ζ x γ xy = S 16 ζ x

εy
Ex 
ζx 1
= ν xy   =  S12
ε x S 11 εx S11

In an angle lamina, unlike in a unidirectional lamina, interaction

also occurs between the shear strain and the normal stresses.
This is called shear coupling. The shear coupling term that
relates the normal stress in the x-direction to the shear strain is
denoted by m and is defined as 1
x
ζx 1
 =
mx γ xy E1 S 16 E1
 Pure Axial Load in Direction y

ζ x  0,ζ y  0,η xy  0

 ε x   S 11 S 12 S 16  ζ x 0
    
 ε y    S 12 S 22 S 26  ζ y 
     0
γ   S   η xy 
 xy  16 S 26 S 66

(b)

FIGURE 2.23
Application of stresses to find
 Engineering Constants

ε x = S12 ζ y ε y = S 22 ζ y γ xy = S 26 ζ y

εx ζy 1 ζy
ν yx   =  S 12 Ey  = 1
 =
1
εy S 22 ε y S 22 my γ xy E1 S 26 E1

ν yx ν xy
=
E y Ex
 Pure Shear Load in x-y Plane

ζ x  0,ζ y  0,η xy  0

 ε x   S 11 S 12 S 16  ζ x 0
     0
 ε y    S 12 S 22 S 26  ζ y 
    
γ   S   η xy 
 xy  16 S 26 S 66
(c)

FIGURE 2.23
Application of stresses to find
engineering constants of an angle lamina
 Engineering Constants

ε x = S16 η xy ε y = S 26  xy γ xy  S 66 η xy

1  xy 1 1  xy 1 η xy 1
=  =  G xy  =
mx  x E1 S 16 E1 my  y E1 S 26 E1 γxy S 66
 Stress-Strain Relationships for Angle
Lamina
 ε x   S11 S12 S16  ζ x 
    
 ε y = S12 S 22 S 26  ζ y   1 ν xy mx 
        
γ   S   η xy   Ex Ex E1 
   S S  ε x    ζ x
xy 16 26 66

  
 ε y =   ν xy
1 my  
  ζ y
   Ex Ey E1   
γ     η xy 
 xy   
 m x my 1 

 E1 E1 G xy 
Engineering Constant Ex of an Angle Lamina

1
= S11
Ex

= S11 c4 +2 S12 + S 66  s 2 c2 + S 22 s 4

1  1 2 ν12  2 2 1 4
= c 
4
+   s c + s
E1  G12 E1  E2
 Engineering Constant Ey of an Angle Lamina

1
= S 22
Ey

= S11 s 4 +(2S12+ S 66) c2 s 2 + S 22 c4

1  2 ν12 1  2 2 1 4
s    c s + c
4
= + +
E1  E1 G12  E2
Engineering Constant Gxy of an Angle Lamina

1
= S 66
G xy

=22 S11+2 S 22  4 S12  S 66  s 2 c2 + S 66 s 4 + c4 

2 2 4ν12 1  2 2 1 4 4
=2     s c + s + c 
 E1 E 2 E1 G12  G12
 Engineering Constant mx of an Angle Lamina

mx =  S16 E1


=  E1 2 S11  2 S12  S 66 sc 3  2S 22  2 S12  S 66 s 3 c 
 2 2 ν12 1  3  2 2 ν12 1  3 
= E1    +  s c + +   s c 
 E1 E1 G12   E 2 E1 G12  
 Engineering Constant my of an Angle Lamina

m y =  S 26 E1

=  E1 2 S11  2 S12  S 66  s3 c  2 S 22  2 S12  S 66 s c3

 2 2 ν12 1  3  2 2 ν12 1  3
= E1      s c+ +   s c 
 E1 E1 G12   E 2 E1 G12  
 Invariant Form of Stiffness Matrix
 x   Q11 Q12 Q16    x 
    
 y  = Q12 Q 22 Q 26    y  ,
    
 xy  Q   
Q66   xy 
 16 Q 26

Q11= U 1+U 2 cos 2θ+U 3 cos 4θ 1

U1 = (3 Q11+3 Q 22 +2 Q12 +4 Q66)
8
Q12 =U 4  U 3 cos 4θ 1
U2 = (Q11  Q 22)
Q22 =U 1  U 2 cos 2θ+U 3 cos 4θ 2
1
Q16 =
U2
sin 2θ+U 3 sin 4θ U 3 = (Q11+Q22  2 Q12  4 Q66)
2 8
U2 1
Q 26 = sin 2θ  U 3 sin 4θ U4 = (Q11+ Q 22 +6 Q12  4 Q66)
2 8
1
Q66 = (U 1  U 4)  U 3 cos 4θ
2
 Invariant Form of Compliance Matrix

  x   S 11 S 12 S 16   x 
    
  y  =  S 12 S 22 S 26   y  ,
    
   S  
 xy   16 S 26 S 66   xy 

S11 = V 1+V 2 cos 2θ + V 3 cos 4θ, 1

V1 = (3 S 11 + 3 S 22 + 2 S 12 + S 66 ),
8
S12 = V 4  V 3 Cos 4 , 1
V2 = (S 11  S 22 ),
S 22 = V 1  V 2 Cos 2 +V 3 Cos 4 , 2
1
( S 11 + S 22  2 S 12  S 66 ),
S16 = V 2 sin 2θ + 2V 3 sin 4θ, V3=
8
1
S 26 = V 2 Sin 2  2V 3 Sin 4 , V 4 = ( S 11 + S 22 + 6 S 12  S 66 )
8
S66 = 2(V 1  V 4 )  4 V 3 Cos 4 ,
Maximum Stress Failure Theory
 Strength Failure Theories
for an Angle Lamina
• The failure theories are generally based on the normal and shear strengths
of a unidirectional lamina.

• In the case of a unidirectional lamina, the five strength parameters are:

 Longitudinal tensile strength ζ 1  T

ult

 Longitudinal compressive strength ζ 1C   ult

 
 Transverse tensile strength ζ T2 ult

 Transverse compressive strength ζ C

2   ult

 In-plane shear strength  12 ult

 Maximum Stress Failure Theory
• The lamina is considered to be failed if:

 ζ1C ult  ζ1  ζ1T ult , or

 ζ C2 ult   2  ζT2 ult , or

  12 ult   12   12 ult
is violated.

• Note that all five strength parameters are positive numbers.

• Each component of stress does not interact with each other.
 Example
Find the maximum value of S>0 if a stress of  x  2S , y  3S , and  xy  4S
is applied to a 60o lamina of Graphite/Epoxy. Use Maximum
Stress failure theory. Use properties of a unidirectional
Graphite/Epoxy lamina given in Table 2.1.

FIGURE 2.33
Off-axis loading in the x-direction
 Solution

The stresses in the local axes are

 ζ1  0.2500 0.7500 0.8660  2 S 

    
 ζ 2 = 0.7500 0.2500 -0.8660 -3S 
     4S 
 η12  - 0 .4330 0 .4330 - 0 .5000 
 0.1714101
 
=-0.2714101 S.
 
-0.4165101
 Solution

The ultimate strengths of a unidirectional Graphite/Epoxy lamina are:

 T

1 ult  1500 MPa,
 C

1 ult  1500 MPa,
 T

2 ult  40 MPa,
 C

2 ult  246 MPa,
 12 ult  68 MPa.
 Solution

Then using the inequalities of the Maximum Stress Failure Theory:

 1500(106 )  0.1714(101 ) S  1500(106 ),  ζ1  0.1714 10 
1

   
 246(106 )  0.2714(101 ) S  40(106 ),  ζ 2 =-0.2714 10  S.
1

   
 68(106 )  0.4165(101 ) S  68(106 ),  η12 -0.4165 10 
1

or,
 875.1(106 )  S  875.1(106 ),
 14.73(106 )  S  90.64(106 )
 16.33(106 )  S  16.33(106 ).
All the inequality conditions (and S  0 )are satisfied if 0  S  16.33 MPa.
The above inequalities also show that the angle lamina will fail in shear. The
maximum stress that can be applied before failure is:
 x  32.66 MPa, x=  48.99 MPa, xy=65.32 MPa.
 Maximum Strain Failure Theory

25.03.2020 116
 Maximum Strain Theory

• The lamina is considered to be failed if:

 ε1C ult < ε1 <ε1T ult , or

 εC2 ult < ε2 <εT2 ult , or

  12 ult < 12< 12 ult ,
is violated, where:
ε 
T
1 ult = Ultimate longitudinal tensile strain (in direction 1),
ε1C ult = Ultimate longitudinal compressive strain (in direction 1),
ε 
T
2 ult = Ultimate transverse tensile strain (in direction 2),
ε 
C
2 ult = Ultimate transverse compressive strain (in direction 2),
 12 ult = Ultimate in-plane shear strain (in plane 1-2).
 Example
Find the maximum value of S>0 if a stress of  x  2S , y  3S , and  xy  4S
is applied to a 60o lamina of Graphite/Epoxy. Use Maximum
Strain Failure Theory. Use properties of a unidirectional
Graphite/Epoxy lamina given in Table 2.1.

FIGURE 2.33
Off-axis loading in the x-direction
 Solution

The stresses in the local axes are:

 ζ1  0.2500 0.7500 0.8660  2 S 

    
 ζ 2 = 0.7500 0.2500 -0.8660 -3S 
     4S 
 η12  - 0 .4330 0 .4330 - 0 .5000 
 0.1714 101
 
=-0.2714 101 S.
 
-0.4165 101
 Example
The strains in the local axes
are:
 ε1  ζ 1
   
 ε 2 =S   ζ 2 
   
γ12   η12 
0.5525 1011 0.1547  1011 0  0.1714 101  0.1367  1010
    
=  0.1547  1011
0.9709 10-10
0  0.2714 10  S =
1
 0.2662 10  S.
9
    
 0 0 0.1395 10    0.4165 10 
 9 1
  0.5809 10 
- 9
 Example
Assume there is a linear relationship between all the stresses and
strains till failure, then the ultimate failure strains are:
T
(ζ1 )ult 1500 10
6
(ε1T )ult = = =8.287  10- 3 ,
E1 181 109

(ζ 1C )ult 1500 106

C
(ε ) = = =8.287  103 ,
181 10
1 ult 9
E1

(ζ T2 )ult 40  106
T
(ε ) = = =3.883 103 ,
10.3  10
2 ult 9
E2

(ζ 2C )ult 246106
C
(ε )= = =2.388102 ,
10.3 10
2 9
E2
( η12)ult 68  106
(γ12) ult = = =9.483 103 .
G12 7.17  10 9
 Example
 8.287103 <0.13671010 S<8.287103 ,  ε1  0.1367  1010
   
 ε 2  =  0.2662 10  S
 9

 2.388102 <  0.2662109 S<3.883103 ,    

 12   0.5809 10 
γ - 9
 
 9.483103 <  0.5809109 S<9.483103 ,
( ε1T )ult =8.287  10- 3
or:
( ε1C )ult =8.287 103
 606.2 10 <S<606.2 10 ,
6 6

14.58106 <S<89.71106 ( εT2 )ult =3.883  10 3

16.33106 <S<16.33106 ,
( εC2 )ult =2.388102
which give:
( γ12 )ult =9.483103
0<S<16.33MPa.
 Observations
• The strength ratio from Maximum Stress Failure Theory and
Maximum Strain Failure Theory is 16.33 MPa. There is no
difference between the two values because the mode of failure
is shear.

• However, if the mode of failure were other than shear, there

would have been a difference between the strength ratios due
to the Poisson's ratio effect, which couples the normal strains
and stresses in the local axes.

• Neither, the Maximum Stress Failure Theory nor the

Maximum Strain Failure Theory have any coupling between
the three possible modes of failure.
 Tsai-Hill Failure Theory

25.03.2020 125
 Tsai-Hill Failure Theory
Based on the distortion energy theory, Tsai and Hill proposed that a lamina
has failed if:

G 2 + G3 ζ12 +G1+ G3 ζ 22 +G1+ G 2  ζ 32  2 G3 ζ1 ζ 2  2 G 2 ζ1 ζ 3

 2 G1 ζ 2 ζ 3 +2 G 4 η 223 +2 G 5 η13
2 2
+2 G 6 η12 <1

• This theory is based on the interaction failure theory.

• The components G1 thru G6 of the strength criteria depend on the

strengths of a unidirectional lamina.
 Components of Tsai-Hill Failure Theory

G 2 + G3 ζ12 +G1+ G3 ζ 22 +G1+ G 2  ζ 32  2 G3 ζ1 ζ 2  2 G 2 ζ1 ζ 3

 2 G1 ζ 2 ζ 3 +2 G 4 η 223 +2 G 5 η13
2 2
+2 G 6 η12 <1

ζ1=ζ1 ult ,
T

Apply to a unidirectional lamina, then the lamina will fail. Hence,

Equation reduces to:
G 2 + G3ζ 
T 2
1 ult 1
 Components of Tsai-Hill Failure Theory

G 2 + G3 ζ12 +G1+ G3 ζ 22 +G1+ G 2  ζ 32  2 G3 ζ1 ζ 2  2 G 2 ζ1 ζ 3

 2 G1 ζ 2 ζ 3 +2 G 4 η 223 +2 G 5 η13
2 2
+2 G 6 η12 <1

ζ 2 =ζ 2 ult ,
T

Apply to a unidirectional lamina, then the lamina will fail. Hence,

G1+ G3ζ T2 ult

Equation reduces to:
1
2
 Components of Tsai-Hill Failure Theory

G 2 + G3 ζ12 +G1+ G3 ζ 22 +G1+ G 2  ζ 32  2 G3 ζ1 ζ 2  2 G 2 ζ1 ζ 3

 2 G1 ζ 2 ζ 3 +2 G 4 η 223 +2 G 5 η13
2 2
+2 G 6 η12 <1

Apply ζ 3 =ζ T2 ult , to a unidirectional lamina, and assuming that the normal
tensile failure strength is the same in direction (2) and (3), then the lamina
will fail. Hence, Equation reduces to:

G1+ G 2 ζ  T 2
2 ult 1
 Components of Tsai-Hill Failure Theory

G 2 + G3 ζ12 +G1+ G3 ζ 22 +G1+ G 2  ζ 32  2 G3 ζ1 ζ 2  2 G 2 ζ1 ζ 3

 2 G1 ζ 2 ζ 3 +2 G 4 η 223 +2 G 5 η13
2 2
+2 G 6 η12 <1

Apply η12 =η12 ult to a unidirectional lamina, then the lamina will fail.
Hence, Equation reduces to

2 G6 η12 ult =1
2
 Components of Tsai-Hill Failure Theory

1  2 1 


   
G1= 
2 ( ζ T2 ) 2 ( ζ 1T ) 2 
 ult ult 
G 2 + G3ζ 
T 2
1 ult 1
1  1 
G2=  T 
2  ( ζ1 )ult  
G1+ G3ζ 
2
T 2
2 ult 1
1  
G1+ G 2 ζ 
T 2
1 G3 =  T
1 
2  ( ζ1 )ult  
2
2 ult

2 G6 η12 ult =1
2
1  1 

G6 = 
2  ( η12 )ult  
2
 Tsai-Hill Failure Theory – Plane Stress

Because the unidirectional lamina is assumed to be under plane stress - that

is, ζ 3 = η 31 = η 23 = 0 ,

G 2 + G3 ζ12 +G1+ G3 ζ 22 +G1+ G 2  ζ 32  2 G3 ζ1 ζ 2  2 G 2 ζ1 ζ 3

 2 G1 ζ 2 ζ 3 +2 G 4 η 223 +2 G 5 η13
2 2
+2 G 6 η12 <1

2 2 2
 ζ1   ζ1 ζ 2   ζ 2   η12 
 T    T 2 +  T  +   1
 (ζ1 ) ult   ( 1 ) ult   (ζ 2 ) ult   ( η12) ult 
 Tsai-Hill Failure Theory

• Unlike the Maximum Strain and Maximum Stress Failure Theories, the
Tsai-Hill failure theory considers the interaction among the three
unidirectional lamina strength parameter.

• The Tsai-Hill Failure Theory does not distinguish between the compressive
and tensile strengths in its equation. This can result in underestimation of
the maximum loads that can be applied when compared to other failure
theories.

• Tsai-Hill Failure Theory underestimates the failure stress because the

transverse strength of a unidirectional lamina is generally much less than
its transverse compressive strength.
 Example
Find the maximum value of S>0 if a stress of  x  2S , y  3S , and  xy  4S
is applied to a 60o lamina of Graphite/Epoxy. Use Tsai-Hill
Failure Theory. Use properties of a unidirectional
Graphite/Epoxy lamina given in Table 2.1.

FIGURE 2.33
Off-axis loading in the x-
 Example
From Example 2.13,

 1 = 1.714 S,

 2 = - 2.714 S,

 12 = - 4.165S.

Using the Tsai-Hill failure theory from Equation (2.150),

2 2 2
 1.714S   1.714S   - 2.714S   - 2.714S   - 4.165S 
  -  +  +  <1
 1500  10   1500  10   1500  10   40  10   68  10 
6 6 6 6 6

S < 10.94.MPa

a) The Tsai-Hill failure theory considers the interaction between the three unidirectional lamina

strength parameters, unlike the Maximum Strain and Maximum Stress failure theories.

b) The Tsai-Hill failure theory does not distinguish between the compressive and tensile strengths in

its equations. This can result in underestimation of the maximum loads that can be applied when

compared to other failure theories. For the load of  x = 2MPa,  y = - 3 MPa and  xy = 4 MPa

as found in Examples 2.15, 2.17 and 2.18, the strength ratios are given by
 Example 2.18
SR = 10.94 (Tsai-Hill failure theory),

= 16.33 (Maximum Stress failure theory),

= 16.33 (Maximum Strain failure theory).

Tsai-Hill failure theory underestimates the failure stress because the transverse tensile

strength of a unidirectional lamina is generally much less than its transverse compressive

strength. The compressive strengths are not used in the Tsai-Hill failure theory. The

Tsai-Hill failure theory can be modified to use corresponding strengths, tensile or

compressive, in the failure theory as follows

  1     1   2   2   12 
2 2 2

  -   +   +   < 1 (2.151)

 X 1    X 2  X 2   Y   S 

where

X1 = (  T1 )ult if ζ1 > 0

= (  1C )ult if ζ1 < 0

X2 = (  T1 )ult if ζ2 > 0

= (  1C )ult if ζ2 < 0
 Example 2.18
Y = (  T2 )ult if ζ2 > 0

= (  C2 )ult if ζ2 < 0

S = (  12 )ult .

For Example 2.18, the modified Tsai-Hill failure theory given by Equation (2.151) now gives

 1.714   1.714   - 2.714   - 2.714   - 4.165 

2 2 2

  -  +  +  <1
 1500  10   1500  10   1500  10   246  10   68  10 
6 6 6 6 6

ζ < 16.06 MPa.

which implies that the strength ratio is SR = 16.06 (modified Tsai-Hill failure theory)

This value is closer to the values obtained using Maximum Stress and Maximum Strain failure

theories.

c) The Tsai-Hill failure theory is a unified theory and hence does not give the mode of failure like

the Maximum Stress and Maximum Strain failure theories.

However, you can make a reasonable guess of the failure mode by calculating |  1 /(  T1 )ult |,

|  2 /(  T2 )ult | and |  12 /(  12 )ult | . The maximum of these three values gives the associated mode

of failure. In the modified Tsai-Hill failure theory, calculate the maximum of

|  1 / X 1 |,|  2 /Y | and |  12 /S | for the associated mode of failure.

 Modified Tsai-Hill Failure Theory

 ζ 1   ζ 1  ζ 2   ζ 2   η12 
2 2 2

             1
 X 1   X 2  X 2   Y   S 

  , if   0
X 1   1T ult 1

   , if   0
C
1 ult 1

X    , if   0
2
T
1 ult 2

   , if   0
C
1 ult 2

Y    , if   0
T
2 ult 2

   , if   0
C
2 ult 2

S   12 ult
 Tsai-Wu Failure Theory

25.03.2020 140
 Tsai-Wu Failure Theory
• Tsai-Wu applied the failure theory to a lamina in plane stress. A lamina is
considered to be failed if:

H11  H 2 2  H612  H1112  H 22 22  H66122  2H121 2  1

is violated. This failure theory is more general than the Tsai-Hill failure
theory because it distinguishes between the compressive and tensile
strengths of a lamina.

• The components H1 – H66 of the failure theory are found using the five
strength parameters of a unidirectional lamina.
 Components of Tsai-Wu Fail
a) Apply1  1T ult , 2  0,12  0 to a unidirectional lamina, the lamina will fail. Equation
(2.152) reduces to:
H 1 ζ1 ult + H 11 ζ1 ult =1.
T T 2

b) Apply1  1C ult , 2  0,12  0 to a unidirectional lamina, the lamina will fail. Equation
(2.152) reduces to:
 H 1 ζ1 ult + H 11 ζ1 ult =1.
C C 2

From Equations (2.153) and (2.154),

1 1

H 1=
ζ  ζ 
T C
,
1 ult 1 ult

1
H 11=
ζ  ζ 
T C
,
1 ult 1 ult
 Components of Tsai-Wu Fail
c) Apply1  0, 2   2T ult ,12  0 to a unidirectional lamina, the lamina will fail. Equation
(2.152) reduces to
H 2 ζ 2 ult + H 22 ζ 2 ult =1.
T T 2

d) Apply1  0, 2   2C ult ,12  0 to a unidirectional lamina, the lamina will fail. Equation
(2.152) reduces to:
 H 2 ζ 2 ult + H 22 ζ 2 ult =1.
C C 2

From Equations (2.157) and (2.158):

1 1

H 2=
ζ  ζ 
T C
,
2 ult 2 ult

1
H 22 =
ζ  ζ 
T C
.
2 ult 2 ult
 Components of Tsai-Wu Fail
e) Apply 1  0,  2  0, 12   12 ult to a unidirectional lamina, the lamina will fail. Equation
(2.152) reduces to:
H 6  12 ult + H 66  12 ult =1.
2

f) Apply 1  0, 2  0, 12   12 ult to a unidirectional lamina, the lamina will fail. Equation
(2.152) reduces to:
 H 6  12 ult + H 66  12 ult =1.
2

From Equations (2.157) and (2.158),

H 6 =0 ,
1
H 66 = .
  2
12 ult
 Determination of 𝐇𝟏𝟐

Apply equal tensile loads along the two material axes in a unidirectional
composite. If ζ x = ζ y = ζ η xy =0, is the load at which the lamina fails, then:

H 1+ H 2 ζ+H 11+ H 22 +2 H 12ζ 2 =1.

The solution of the Equation (2.165) gives:

H 12 
1
2
1-( H 1+ H 2 )ζ  ( H 11+ H 22 ) ζ 2.
2ζ

H11  H 2 2  H612  H1112  H 22 22  H66122  2H121 2  1

 Determination of 𝐇𝟏𝟐
Take a 450 lamina under uniaxial tension ζ x. The stress ζ x at failure is noted
If this stress is ζ x  0 then using Equation (2.94), the local stresses at failure are:

1  ,
2

2  ,
2

 12   .
2

Substituting the above local stresses in Equation (2.152):

ζ ζ2
H 1+ H 2  + H 11+ H 22 + H 66 +2 H 12=1,
2 4
2 H 1 + H 2  1
H 12 2 
=  H 11+ H 22 + H 66 .
ζ ζ 2

H1σ1+H2σ2+H6τ12+H11  12 +H22  22 +H66  12

2
+2H12σ1σ2< 1
 Empirical Models of 𝐇𝟏𝟐

1
H12  
T 2 as per Tsai-Hill failure
2( ζ ) 1 ult
theory8
1
H12   T C as per Hoffman criterion10
2( ζ )ult ( ζ )ult
1 1

1 1
H12   T as per Mises-Hencky criterion1
2 ( ζ )ult
1 ( ζ1C )ult ( ζ T2 )ult ( ζ C2 )ult
 Example 2.19
 xy = 4S
Find the maximum value of S 0 if a stress  x = 2S, y = - 3S and
are applied to a 600 lamina of Graphite/Epoxy. Use Tsai-Wu failure
theory. Use the properties of a unidirectional Graphite/Epoxy lamina
from Table 2.1.
 Example 2.19
• Using Equation (2.94), the stresses in the local axes are:

 ζ1  0.2500 0.7500 0.8660  2 S 

    
 ζ 2  =  0.7500 0.2500 -0.8660 -3S 
     4S 
 η12  - 0 .4330 0 .4330 - 0 .5000 
 0.1714 101
 
= -0.2714 101 S.
 
-0.4165 101
H12=

Example 2.19
1 1
H1    0 Pa -1 ,
150010 150010
6 6

1 1
H2    2.09310-8 Pa -1 ,
40 10 24610
6 6

H 6  0 Pa-1 ,

1
H11   4.444410-19 Pa - 2 ,
( 1500 10 )( 150010 )
6 6

1
H 22   1.0162 10
-16
Pa
-2
,
( 40  106 ) ( 246106 )

1
H 66   2.162610-16 Pa - 2 ,
( 68 10 )
6 2

H12  -0.5 4.444410  1.016210 

1
-19 -16 2
 3.36010-18 Pa- 2 .
 Example 2.19
Substituting these values in Equation (2.152),
we obtain:
01.714S +2.09310-8-2.714S 
+0-4.165S +4.444410191.714S 
2

+1.0162 10-16-2.714S  +2.162610164.165S 

2 2

+2-3.36010-181.714S -2.714S   1,

or

S<22.39MPa
 Example 2.19
If one uses the other two empirical criteria for H12 as per Equation (2.171), one obtains:
1
S<22.49MPa for H 12   2
,
2( ζ1T )ult
1 1
S<22.49MPa for H 12   .
2 ( ζ 1T )ult ( ζ 1C )ult

Summarizing the four failure theories for the same stress-state, the
value of S obtained is:

S = 16.33 (Maximum Stress failure theory),

= 16.33 (Maximum Strain failure theory),
= 10.94 (Tsai-Hill failure theory),
= 16.06 (Modified Tsai-Hill failure theory),
= 22.39 (Tsai-Wu failure theory).
 Comparison of Failure Theories

25.03.2020 153
Strength Failure Theories of an Angle Lamina

• The failure theories are generally based on the normal and shear strengths
of a unidirectional lamina.

• An isotropic material generally has two strength parameters:

normal strength and shear strength.

• In the case of a unidirectional lamina, the five strength parameters are:

ζ 
T
1 ult
 Longitudinal tensile strength
ζ 
C
1 ult

 
Longitudinal compressive strengthT
ζ2

ζ 
ult
Transverse tensile strength C
 Transverse compressive strength 2 ult

 In-plane shear strength  12 ult

 Experimental Results and Failure Theories

• Tsai and Wu compared the results from various

failure theories to some experimental results. He
considered an angle lamina subjected to a uniaxial
load in the x-direction.

2 y
1

x
x x

FIGURE 2.33
Off-axis loading in the x-direction
 Experimental Results and
Maximum Stress Failure Theory
 ζ 1C ult  ζ 1  ζ 1T ult

 ζ C2 ult   2  ζT2 ult

  12 ult   12   12 ult

2 y
1

x
x x
FIGURE 2.34
Maximum normal tensile stress in x-direction
as function of angle of lamina using maximum
stress failure theory
 Experimental Results and
Maximum Strain Failure Theory

 ε1C ult < ε1 <ε1T ult

 εC2 ult < ε2 <εT2 ult

  12 ult < 12< 12 ult

2 y
1


x
x
x FIGURE 2.35
Maximum normal tensile stress in x-direction
as function of angle of lamina using maximum
Strain failure theory
 Experimental Results and
Tsai-Hill Failure Theory
2 2 2
 ζ1   ζ1 ζ 2   ζ 2   η12 
 T    T 2 +  T  +   1
 (ζ1 ) ult   ( 1 ) ult   (ζ 2 ) ult   ( η12) ult 

2 y
1

x
x x

FIGURE 2.36
Maximum normal tensile stress in
x-direction as function of angle of
Fig 2.33 – second edition
lamina
Fig 2.31 –using
first edition Tsai-Hill failure theory
 Experimental Results and
Tsai-Wu Failure Theory
H11  H 2 2  H612  H1112  H 22 22  H66122  2H121 2  1

2 y
1

x
x x

Fig 2.33 – second edition

Fig 2.31 – first edition

FIGURE 2.37
Maximum normal tensile stress in
x-direction as function of angle of
lamina using Tsai-Wu failure theory
 Comparison of Strength Ratios

S = 16.33 (Maximum Stress failure theory),

= 16.33 (Maximum Strain failure
theory),
= 10.94 (Tsai-Hill failure theory),
= 16.06 (Modified Tsai-Hill failure
theory),
= 22.39 (Tsai-Wu failure theory)

2 y
1

x
x x
 Hygrothermal Stresses and Strains

25.03.2020 161
 Hygrothermal Stress-Strain Relationship
• For a unidirectional lamina

  1  S 11 S 12 0    1  1   1 
T C

       T   C
  2  =  S 12 S 22 0   2  +  2  +  2  (2.174)
        
 12   0 0 S 66   12   0   0 
• Thermally induced strains:
 T1   1
   
 T2  = T  2 
   
 0  0  (2.175)
 
• Moisture induced strains:
 1C    1
   
 C2  = C   2 
   
 0  0  (2.176)
 
 Hygrothermal Stress-Strain Relationship
• For a unidirectional lamina

 ε1  S 11 S 12 0  ζ1  ε1
T
  ε1
C

       T   C
 ε 2  =  S 12 S 22 0  ζ 2  +  ε 2  +  ε 2 
         
γ12   0 0 S 66   η12   0  0 (2.174)

 ζ1  Q11 Q12 0  ε1 - ε1T - ε1C 

     
 ζ 2  = Q12 Q 22 0 ε 2 - εT2 - ε C2 
     
 η12   0 0 Q66   γ12  (2.177)

 Hygrothermal Stress-Strain Relationship
• For an angular lamina

 ε x   S 11 S 12 S 16   ζ x   εTx   ε Cx 
      
     
 ε y  =  S 12 S 22 S 26   ζ y  + εTy + ε Cy
      
     
γ   S  
 xy   16 S 26 S 66   η xy  γ xy  γ xy  (2.178)
T C

• Thermally induced strains:

 T   x
  x  
 T  = T   y
  y  
 T  xy  (2.179)
 xy 

• Moisture induced strains:

 C   x
x  
 C  = C  
 y 
 y (2.180)
 C  
 xy   xy 
 Transformation of CTE
• For an angular lamina

 α x  α1
   
 α y  = [T ] α 2 
-1
(2.181)
   
α xy / 2  0

 c2 s
2
 2 sc   c2 s2 2sc
   
1
[T ] =  s 2 c
2
2 sc  (2.95) [T] =  s c2 2
- 2sc (2.96)
   
 sc  sc c  s 
2 2
- sc sc c2 - s 2 

c = Cos (  )
s = Sin (  ) (2.97a,b)
 Transformation of Coefficients of Moisture Expansion

• For an angular lamina

  x   1
   
   = [T ]   
- 1

 y
  
2

  /2  0 
(2.182)
 xy 

 c2 s
2
 2sc  c2 s2 2sc
   
1
[T ] =  s 2 c
2
2sc (2.95) [T] =  s c2 2
- 2sc
    (2.96)
 sc  sc c  s 
2 2
- sc sc c2 - s 2 

c = Cos (  )
s = Sin (  ) (2.97a,b)
 Example 2.20
Find the following for a 600 angle lamina of Glass/Epoxy

a) coefficients of thermal expansion,

b) coefficients of moisture expansion,

c) strains under a temperature change of -1000C and a moisture absorption of 0.02 kg/kg.

Use properties of unidirectional Glass/Epoxy lamina from Table 2.1.

 Example 2.20
a) From Table 2.1,
  x  1
   
 1 = 8.6  10-6 m/m / 0 C,   y  = [T ]  2  .
-1

 
(2.181)
 
 2 = 22.1 10-6 m/m / 0 C.  xy /2  0 
Using Equation (2.181), gives

  x  0.2500 0.7500 - 0.8660  8.6  10-6 

    
  y  = 0.7500 0.2500 0.8660 22.1  10-6  ,
    
 xy /2 0.4330 - 0.4330 - 0.5000  0
 

  x   18.73  10-6 
   
  y  =  11.98  10-6  m/m / 0 C.
   
 xy  - 11.69  10-6 
 
 Example 2.20
b) From Table 2.1
  x   1
 1 = 0 m/m/kg/kg,    
   = [T ] -1    (2.182)
 2 = 0.6 m/m/kg/kg.  y
  
2

  /2  0 
Using Equation (2.182) gives  xy 

  x  0.2500 0.7500 - 0.8660 0.0

    
   = 0.7500 0.2500 0.8660 0.6 

 y
   
  /2 0.4330 - 0.4330 - 0.5000  0 
 xy 

  x   0.4500
   
  y  =  0.1500 m/m/kg/kg
   
  xy  - 0.5196
 Example 2.20
c) Now using Equations (2.179) and (2.180) to calculate the strains as.

  x   18.73  10-6   0.4500

   
  y  =  11.98  10-6  (-100) +  0.1500 (0.02)
    - 0.5196
  - 11.69  10-6   
 xy   

 0.7127  102 
 
=  0.1802  10  m/m
2
 
- 0.9223  10 
2
 

  x   S 11 S 12 S 16   x    Tx    Cx 
      
     
  y  =  S 12 S 22 S 26   y  +  Ty +  Cy
       (2.178)
     
   S  
 xy   16 S 26 S 66   xy   xy   xy 
T C