JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
46(19–20) 2313–2341
! The Author(s) 2012
Material and structural response Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of polymer-matrix fibre-reinforced DOI: 10.1177/0021998312454478
jcm.sagepub.com
composites

ST Pinho1, R Darvizeh1, P Robinson1, C Schuecker2 and

PP Camanho3

Abstract
This paper presents a pressure-dependent three-dimensional constitutive law to predict failure for laminated composites.
The nonlinear constitutive response in shear and in the transverse and through-the-thickness directions, which is
measured experimentally, is incorporated directly into the model. In addition, secant stiffnesses are dependent on the
state of hydrostatic pressure and on the general state of strain. The failure criteria distinguish between matrix failure,
fibre kinking and fibre tensile failure. In-situ strengths are used for matrix failure. Propagation of failure takes into
consideration the fracture energy associated with each failure mode and, for matrix failure, the accumulation of
cracks in the plies. A detailed discussion is undertaken of the mismatch between the available experimental data and
the physical properties required to characterise the constitutive response up to final failure. The model is employed to
make blind predictions of the triaxial failure envelopes and stress–strain curves of all 12 test cases provided by the
organisers of the second World-Wide Failure Exercise.

Keywords
WWFE-II, 3D model, pressure dependent, progressive failure

is that failure models and resulting criteria ought to

Introduction
This paper describes the contribution of the authors to
the second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II).
The exercise aims at assessing the predictive capabilities
of existing failure criteria and models for laminated
polymeric-matrix fibre-reinforced composites consist-
ing of unidirectional plies, and subjected to a three-
dimensional (3D) stress state. While most previous
publications in the area have focused on plane-stress,
many applications of composite structures typically
involve 3D stress states. The out-of-plane stress com-
ponents can be due to the design of the component, e.g.
‘T’-joint, or to the application, e.g. hydrostatic pressure
in marine or aircraft components.
The approach presented here follows previous work
by the authors,1-4 and includes further developments.
The previous failure criteria published by the authors
were designated as LaRC02,5 LaRC036 and LaRC04,2
and the ones presented in this paper can thus be desig-
nated as LaRC05. The philosophy behind the approach
include as much as possible of the physics associated
with the failure process at the micromechanical level,
while still allowing for solutions to be computed for
laminae and laminates.
The current knowledge of the physics of failure in
composites is incomplete. In some cases, the limitations
on the understanding of the failure process, together
with the need to obtain a workable solution, require
assumptions, approximations and heuristics. In other
cases, the data required to fully characterise the plies
1
Department of Aeronautics, South Kensington Campus, Imperial
College London, London, UK
2
Luxner Engineering ZT, Christian-Plattner-Str. 4, Imst, Austria
3
DEMEGI, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr.
Roberto Frias, Porto, Portugal
Corresponding author:
ST Pinho, Department of Aeronautics, South Kensington Campus,
Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
Email: silvestre.pinho@imperial.ac.uk
2314
(a) τ (b)
I II III
γ II I
Figure 1. Typical response of a polymer; (a) three regions in a shear curve; (b) compressive loading and (c) brittle response
in tension.
is not available and has to be estimated. The compari-
sons with experimental results will ultimately establish
whether the simplifications, assumptions and estima-
tions are appropriate, or whether they need to be reas-
sessed. Despite the current incomplete physical
understanding of failure in composites, the physical
basis for the models provides a solid foundation
which not only allows for predicting the failure event
but also the failure mode and the consequences of fail-
ure in terms of residual materials properties.
This paper starts by discussing the nonlinear
material response of composites, which is assumed
to result exclusively from the nonlinear response of
the resin. The experimental findings show that the
constitutive response of laminated composites is rela-
tively complex, but the inclusion of this complexity in
a model is required to obtain an accurate stress field
for each ply of a laminate. In turn, an accurate stress
field is essential to accurately predict failure of a
laminate. Failure criteria are formulated at the ply
level and can distinguish between matrix cracking,
fibre kinking and fibre tensile failure. The present
damage propagation model predicts the response of
laminates from first ply failure until final laminate
failure. In addition to any imperfections associated
with the models presented, the ability of these
models to predict the test cases of the WWFE-II
depends on the exact definition of the problems to
be simulated and on the knowledge of the relevant
material properties. The factors affecting the accuracy
of the models and respective predictions for each test
case are presented.
Nonlinear constitutive response
of unidirectional composite plies
Nonlinear response of polymers
Most polymers used in engineering respond linearly
for low applied strains, after which yielding with
hardening occurs, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
σ (c)
σ
ε
II I ε
While the exact hardening curve depends on the
polymer, the response tends to be qualitatively simi-
lar for different data published in the literature.7-12
For shear and compressive loading, three different
areas can be identified, Figure 1(a) and (b). In the
first region, the polymer behaves linearly. In the
second region, the entangled polymer chains
straighten and move relative to each other, eventu-
ally breaking some cross-links in the process. In
the third region, there is an added resistance to
any further straightening, which might be caused
by the cross links and entanglement of the polymer
chains. For tensile loading, Figure 1(c), yielding is
usually not as prominent because existing micro-
cracks propagate and break the specimen before
any substantial yielding takes place. Rabinowitz
et al.13 and Schuecker et al.14 point out that there
are two different mechanisms competing for failure:
yielding and brittle fracture. For certain stress states,
failure results from excessive yielding, while in others
brittle fracture occurs prior to any significant
yielding.
Under superimposed hydrostatic pressure, both
the Young’s modulus and the shear modulus
increase with pressure,12,15 see Figure 2(a). For
most experimental data published, the dependence
of initial (linear elastic) moduli with pressure can
be approximated reasonably with a linear function,
see e.g. Figure 2(b). However, many authors identify
two separate regions with different slopes,13,15,17 with
the kink between the regions related to the depend-
ence of the glass transition temperature on pressure.
The dependence of the elastic moduli on the hydro-
static pressure is probably related to the compress-
ibility of the resin and the added resistance to
deformation of the entangled polymer chains when
hydrostatic pressure is superimposed. The linear
dependence of the moduli with hydrostatic pressure
can be predicted with good accuracy for a wide
range of polymers15 using a model proposed by
Birch.18 Birch’s model is simple and only requires
Pinho et al. 2315

0.6
p = 690 MPa
200 550 MPa
415 MPa 0.5

Resin's shear modulus (GPa)

275 MPa
Compressive stress (MPa)

150 0.4
140 MPa

0.1 MPa 0.3

100

0.2

50
0.1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 200 400 600
Compressive strain (%) Pressure (MPa)

Figure 2. Effect of pressure on (a) the compressive response of a polymer, after reference [16], and (b) the initial shear modulus,
after reference [11].

the moduli at atmospheric pressure and the Poisson’s
ratio of the polymer:
E ¼ Eo þ E pr with E ¼ 2ð5  4Þð1  Þ,
3ð3  4Þ
G ¼ Go þ G pr with G ¼
2ð1 þ Þ
where E and G are the initial Young’s and shear
moduli, respectively, Eo and Go are the Young’s and
shear moduli (in the elastic region) at a reference pres-
sure, respectively, pr is the pressure (relative to the pres-
sure at which Eo and Go are measured) and  is the
Poisson’s ratio. Values of the slope parameters E and
G measured experimentally for different polymer sys-
tems are shown in Table 1.
Figure 2(a) shows that, while the hydrostatic pres-
sure results in an increased yield stress, the yield strain
is not significantly affected. In fact, the boundaries
between the three regions identified in Figure 1(a) and
(b) are almost unaffected by the superimposed hydro-
static pressure. The effect of hydrostatic pressure is
essentially to shift the curves up, while any horizontal
shifting appears to be less significant. These observa-
tions suggest that the yielding in the resin is controlled
by the state of deviatoric strain, rather than by the state
of stress, which seems reasonable, as the yielding results
from the relative movement of the entangled polymer
chains.
Nonlinear response of composites
For polymer-matrix fibre-reinforced composites, the
nonlinear response of the matrix induces a nonlinear
response of the composite. Experimental data for sev-
eral composites15 show a pressure-dependence of the
Young’s and shear moduli (see Figure 3), similar to
the one observed in pure polymer. Therefore, the
ð1Þ dependence of the moduli with pressure can be
, described using expressions analogous to those in equa-
tion (1). As with pure resin, the most significant effects
of hydrostatic pressure appear to be to shift the stress
vs. strain curves up, and to allow larger plastic deform-
ation to occur before fracture. Any distortion or shift-
ing in the strain axis appears to be much less significant.
Just like for pure resin, these observations suggest that
yielding is mainly controlled by the state of deviatoric
strain rather than by the state of stress.
The slope coefficients E and G for the composite
can either be measured experimentally or deduced from
the slope coefficients for the polymer using a suitable
micromechanical model. Hine et al.17 compared the
two approaches for a glass/epoxy using Wilczynski’s
model19 and obtained a good agreement. If the slope
coefficients of the composite are obtained from the
slope coefficients of the polymer, then those latter coef-
ficients can be either measured experimentally or calcu-
lated using Birch’s model.18 Values of the slope
parameters E and G measured experimentally for dif-
ferent composites are shown in Table 1.
Yielding and matrix cracking are two different mech-
anisms. While yielding is related to the deviatoric strain
state in the matrix, matrix cracking is a fracture mech-
anics problem. The amount of yielding that can take
place before fracture initiation depends on the load case
and on the stacking sequence. For composites, unstable
crack propagation can take place at early stages of
2316 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Table 1. Pressure coefficients for several composites and resins

Reference Material E G L

[11] Carbon T300 epoxy PR319 60% 0.19–0.21 0.082

[17] E Glass–epoxy 15.1–17.1 0.08–0.19
[20] Glass–epoxy 60% 0.2
[21] Kevlar Epoxy 12.2
[15] Epoxy PR319 0.48 0.073
[17] Epoxy MY750/HY917/DY063 100:85:2 6.2
[22] CA 5.1
[22] PC 4.1
[15] PCTFE 3
[23] PE 4.1
[23] PI 3
[24] POM 0.07
[23] PP 4.1
[24] PP 0.21
[17] PTFE 3.3
[23] PVC 3.2

(a) 180 (b) 1.6

p = 600 MPa
160
Composite's shear modulus (GPa)

1.5
140
500 MPa
Shear stress (MPa)

120 1.4
300 MPa
100 200 MPa
100 MPa 1.3
80 0.1 MPa

60 1.2

40
1.1
20

0 1
0 5 10 15 20 0 200 400 600 800
Shear strain (%) Pressure (MPa)

Figure 3. Effect of pressure on (a) the whole shear response of a composite, and (b) the initial shear modulus, after reference [12].

deformation, due to existing microscopic defects in the
composite. Therefore, the amount of yielding and the
matrix-related strengths of the composite are very
dependent on these initial defects, particularly when
the state of stress includes no significant compression
to close existing microcrack tips. This argument has
two main implications. Firstly, because the magnitude
of the initial defects depends on the type of specimen
and stacking sequence, the amount of yielding before
fracture also depends on the type of specimen and
stacking sequence. This explains for instance why a
45 ASTM D3518 standard specimen for the deter-
mination of shear properties25 exhibits more yielding
than a V-notched rail shear specimen.26 While the
small individual layer thickness in the 45 specimen
limits the maximum defect size, and the bounding
layers restrict unstable crack propagation, the unidirec-
tional rail shear specimen can accommodate large man-
ufacturing defects, and the stacking sequence is such
that cracks can propagate unstably throughout the
Pinho et al. 2317

thickness of the laminate. The second implication is and G are slope coefficients for the transverse
that, under conditions that tend to close the initial Young’s and shear moduli, respectively. Because the
microcracks, the amount of yielding before failure stress in the fibre direction is mainly supported by the
should increase. This explains why there is more yield- fibres, the variable p, which corresponds to the hydro-
ing at higher hydrostatic pressures, as demonstrated in static pressure pr in equation (1), is redefined here as the
Figure 3(a). As a result, it appears clear that these two transverse hydrostatic pressure
mechanisms – yielding and matrix cracking – have to be
represented by two separate models. The model for 2 þ 3
p¼ : ð5Þ
the nonlinear constitutive response with yielding and 2
that for the fracture of the matrix are presented below.
As discussed above, the secant Young’s and shear
Nonlinear constitutive model for unidirectional moduli for zero (or atmospheric) hydrostatic pressure,
Eo2 and Go12 , are functions of the strain state, since they
composite plies
are affected by yielding. Since the second invariant of
Pressure dependence and yielding. The strains e in a com- the deviatoric strain tensor includes terms in "1 , which
posite ply are related to the stresses p in the same ply is considered here not to contribute significantly to
through Hooke’s law for orthotropic materials yielding, a modified version of the invariant that
excludes terms in "1 is empirically chosen to define an
8 9 equivalent strain
8 9 2 3> 
"1 1=E1 12 =E1 13 =E1 0 0 0 >> 1>>
>
> >
> > > > qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
>
>
>
>
> 6 7>>
> 2 >
>
>
>
>
> "2 >
>
>
6
6 1=E2 23 =E2 0 0 0 7
7>> >
> > "eq ¼ ð"2  "3 Þ2 þ12 2 þ 2 þ 2 ð6Þ
>
> >
> 6 7> >
>
23 31
>
> >
> 6 >
< >
=
< "3 = 6 1=E3 0 0 0 7
7 3
¼6 7 ,
>
> 12 >> 6
6
7>
7> > such that, under monotonic loading, Eo2 and Go12 are
>
>
>
>
>
> 6
1=G12 0 0
7>> 12 >
>
> defined as:
>
> >
> 6 7>> > >
>
> >
> 6 7> >
>
>
 23 > 4 sym: 1=G23 0 5> >
> 23 >
>
> >
: >
; > >
>  
31
>
1=G31 :
>
; Eo2 ¼ Eo2 "eq
31   ð7Þ
Go12 ¼ Go12 "eq :
ð2Þ
The nonlinear curves defined by equation (7) are
or, in short, determined experimentally under uniaxial loading con-
ditions. The experimental curves are assumed to remain
e ¼ Dp: ð3Þ valid for all combinations of loading conditions when
expressed in terms of
 the
 equivalent strain
 "eq . Since the
Assuming transverse isotropy in equation (2), functions Eo2 ¼ Eo2 "eq and Go12 ¼ Go12 "eq are only
E2
E3 ¼ E2 , G13 ¼ G12 , 13 ¼ 12 and G23 ¼ 2ð1þ 23 Þ
. To known at points, and not as a mathematical function,
completely define the constitutive law, the dependence spline-interpolations of these curves were implemented
of five material properties with loading needs to be for the range of experimental data (in a stand-alone
established: E1 , E2 , G12 , 12 and 23 . However, the program for the unidirectional test cases and in a
variation of E1 , 12 and 23 is less significant than the finite element program for the laminate test cases).
variation of E2 and G12 . Therefore, only the depend- Because the composite can withstand for specific load
ence of E2 and G12 on the stress and strain state combinations higher strains than those verified by uni-
is considered here. By virtue of their dependence on axial testing, an extrapolation of the experimental data
E2 and G12 (due to the assumed transverse isotropy), is also necessary. The extrapolations of the curves for
the moduli E3 , G13 and G23 also depend on the stress the five material systems used in the exercise are shown
and strain states. in Figure 4. It should be noted that the extrapolation is
To represent the effect of pressure on the moduli subjective, particularly on what concerns the inflection
detailed above, the following expressions for E2 and points visible in Figure 4. Ideally, the extrapolation
G12 are proposed: ought to be guided by suitable multi-axial data for
each material system.
E2 ¼ Eo2 þ E p
ð4Þ
G12 ¼ Go12 þ G p ,
Unloading. The test cases proposed by the present exer-
where Eo2 and Go12 are the secant Young’s and shear cise do not require the capability to model unloading.
moduli at atmospheric pressure, respectively, and E However, material healing during unloading can be
2318 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

150 300
T300/ PR319 T300/ PR319

Compressive transverse stress

Shear stress (MPa)
100 200

(MPa)
50 Experimental points 100
Interpolation and extrapolation

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 4
Shear strain (%) Compressive transverse strain (%)
150 300
E-Glass/ MY750 E-Glass/ MY750

Compressive transverse stress

Shear stress (MPa)

100 200

(MPa)
50 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 4
Shear strain (%) Compressive transverse strain (%)
150 300
S Glass/ Epoxy Compressive transverse stress S Glass/ Epoxy
Shear stress (MPa)

100 200
(MPa)

50 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 4
Shear strain (%) Compressive transverse strain (%)
150 300
A-S Carbon/ Epoxy A-S Carbon/ Epoxy
Compressive transverse stress
Shear stress (MPa)

100 200
(MPa)

50 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 4
Shear strain (%) Compressive transverse strain (%)
150 300
IM7/ 8551-7 IM7/ 8551-7
Compressive transverse stress
Shear stress (MPa)

100 200
(MPa)

50 100

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 4
Shear strain (%) Compressive transverse strain (%)

Figure 4. Extrapolation of the experimental longitudinal shear and transverse compression curves.
Pinho et al. 2319

60
Table 2. Failure criteria for polymers

50 Criterion Equationa
k (MPa) (deviatoric component)

Mohr-Coulomb fp ¼ S  n

40
Modified Tresca max ¼ S  h
Modified von Mises k ¼ ko  h
30
Raghava [29] k2 ¼ ðT  CÞh þ TC=3
a
20 Experimental fp is the shear stress acting on a potential fracture plane; n is the
Raghava normal traction acting on a potential fracture plane; max is the maximum
Input data for Raghava shear stress; ko and  are parameters which depend on the criterion and
10 Modified von Mises can be calculated from uniaxial test data; S is the shear strength and k is
Input for modified von Mises
defined in equation (12).
0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50
σh (MPa) (hydrostatic component)

Figure 5. Experimental failure points for an epoxy resin, after Experimental data can be predicted with good accur-
reference [22], and predictions using Raghava and modified von acy using different pressure-dependent criteria, such as
Mises criteria. the Mohr-Coulomb, modified Tresca, modified von
Mises, Raghava,29 Li-Wu30 and Altenbach-Tushev28
criteria. Some of these are summarised in Table 2.
The criterion proposed by the authors for the failure
prevented by simply defining the history field variable  exercise is the Raghava29 criterion:
at time t as  
  3 k2  ðT  CÞh
ðtÞ ¼ max "eq ðt Þ ð8Þ FIp ¼ , ð10Þ
 t t
TC

where T is the tensile strength of the resin, C is the

and the Young’s and shear moduli for no superposed compressive strength of the resin, h is the hydrostatic
hydrostatic pressure Eo2 and Go12 are defined as function stress defined as
of the maximum equivalent strain in the loading
history, 3h ¼ x þ y þ z ð11Þ

Eo2 ¼ Eo2 ðÞ and k is defined as

Go12 ¼ Go12 ðÞ ,
instead of being calculated by equation (7).
Failure model at the ply level
Failure of polymers
Strength of polymers is greatly affected by the hydro-
static pressure. Experimental data shows that the fail-
ure stress increases linearly with pressure until a given
pressure, after which the growth rate appears to
decrease,12,27,28 see Figure 5.
Physically, the increase in strength with pres-
sure12,27,28 can be attributed to two separate factors.
Firstly, the compressive stresses close micro-crack tips
thus allowing for both friction and mechanical locking
between the faces of the microcracks, resulting in a
strengthening effect. Secondly, the volumetric deform-
ation induced by the hydrostatic pressure increases the
entanglement of the polymer chains, which might fur-
ther restrict crack growth.
ð9Þ
6k2 ¼ ðP1  P2 Þ2 þðP2  P3 Þ2 þðP3  P1 Þ2 , ð12Þ
with Pi being the principal stresses. The Raghava cri-
terion is chosen because it is able to capture the change
in slope verified experimentally at high pressures, while
still remaining relatively simple.
Matrix failure
In-situ effects. The strengths associated with matrix-
dominated failure in a composite should not be
expected to be material properties. They are structural
properties, dependent on the thickness of the ply, and
on the neighbouring plies in the laminate. Under the
same stress state (averaged over ply thickness), the con-
ditions for the propagation of micro-cracks are much
more favourable for the case of a UD laminate than for
a thin ply in a multi-axial laminate neighboured by 0
plies. The thickness of the ply and the presence of
neighbouring plies change the boundary conditions of
the fracture mechanics problem for crack growth.
2320 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

(a) (b)

2 a0 L h 2 a0
L
2 a0

(c) (d)

h 2 a0 L
h 2a
L 2 a0
0

Figure 6. Slit crack considered for in-situ effects. (a) Ply in a UD laminate; (b) thin outer ply; (c) thin embedded ply and (d) thick
embedded ply.

This observation is at the root of the in-situ effects on represent the area under the strain versus stress curve
the strength presented in this section. up to the point ð", Þ, and are thus defined as
Consider the different types of plies presented in
Figure 6, which include an equivalent slit crack. The Z "ð  Þ
equivalent slit crack is an equivalent crack of a well- x2 ð  Þ ¼ 2 d"2
defined shape and orientation which purposes to repre- 0
Z  ð Þ
sent the existing microcracks in the ply, resulting from
xL ð Þ ¼ L dL ð14Þ
manufacturing. The conditions for crack propagation 0
can be related to the longitudinal and transverse critical Z  ð Þ
energy release rates for mode I and mode II by (see also xT ð Þ ¼ T dT :
References [2,6,31,32]): 0

ao  
GIc ¼ Y 4x2 YisT The function x2 ð Þ is obtained from a standard
m
ao  is  transverse tensile test. The function xL ð Þ is obtained
GLIIc ¼Y x S ð13Þ from a longitudinal shear test and the function xT ð Þ
m L L
ao  is  is obtained from a transverse compressive test.
GTIIc ¼Y x S
m T T However, the functions are not derived directly from
the tests but rather from the spline curves with inter-
where GIc , GLIIc and GTIIc are the mode I and mode II and extrapolation shown in Figure 4. The variables L
(longitudinal and transverse) fracture toughness, and T are the longitudinal and transverse shear stresses
respectively, Y is a geometry-dependent factor, m is (see Figure 7), and their significance is discussed in the
equal to either 2, for unstable propagation in the trans- next section. The fracture mechanics solutions for the
verse direction, or 4, for unstable propagation in the four types of plies are summarised in Table 3 (see also
longitudinal direction. The strengths YisT , SisL and SisT are References [1,2,6]).
the in-situ transverse tensile strength, longitudinal shear
strength and transverse shear strengths, respectively. Matrix failure criterion. Matrix-dominated failure in com-
These strengths are in-situ because they depend on posites has similarities to that of pure polymer. This
the thickness of the ply and on the location of the ply would indicate that criteria analogous to Raghava’s29
in the laminate (inner or outer ply). The functions xð Þ would be amongst the most suitable to predict matrix
Pinho et al. 2321

(a) (b)
τ
3 2 αo
αο
2
2.6mm 2α o ST
c
σ
−Y −Y
c
2

(c) 3 (d)
α τT τL

σn
2

Figure 7. Traction components acting on the matrix fracture plane, from reference [2].

Table 3. Formulae for in-situ strengthsa

Transverse tensile strength Longitudinal shear strength Transverse shear strength

Linear Nonlinear Linear Nonlinear Linear Nonlinear

UD  
YT SL cosð o Þ
ST ¼ YC cosð o Þ sinð o Þ þ
tanð2 o Þ

Thick embedded pffiffiffi   pffiffiffi pffiffiffi

1:12 2YT x1 2
2 1:12 2xðYT Þ 2SL x1
L ð2xðSL ÞÞ 2ST x1
T ð2xðST ÞÞ

Thin embedded qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  L  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  L  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  L 

8GIC L = h x1
2 2GIC = h 8GIICL G = h x1
L 4GIIC = h 8GIICL G = h x1
T 4GIIC = h
0
12 12

Thin outer qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  T  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  T  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  T 

4GIC T = h x1
2 GIC = h 4GIICT G = h x1
L 2GIIC = h 8GIICT G = h x1
T 2GIIC = h
0
12 12

a 1 221
with  ¼ 2 E2  E1 and h0 ¼ h=cos o.

failure in a composite. However, to predict the conse- UD composite plies. The failure index for matrix failure
quences of failure in composites knowing the fracture is defined as:
angle becomes extremely important. Variations of the
 2  2  
Mohr-Coulomb criterion, first proposed for composites T L hN iþ 2
by Puck and co-workers,33-37 have proven to be capable FIM ¼ þ þ ,
SisT  T N SisL  L N YisT
of predicting matrix failure under multi-axial stress
ð15Þ
states and have the added advantage that the fracture
angle comes directly with the prediction. For these rea-
sons, the criterion proposed here for matrix failure is an with failure being predicted when FIM  1. The last
adaptation of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for term in the criterion represents the contribution from
2322
the positive normal traction in opening the cracks.
Therefore, this criterion is intended to be applicable
for both tensile and compressive matrix failure.
In equation (15), L , T and N are the traction com-
ponents in the (potential) fracture plane, see Figure 7,
and are obtained by stress transformation:
2 þ 3 2  3
N ¼ þ cosð2 Þ þ 23 sinð2 Þ
2 2
2  3 ð16Þ
T ¼  sinð2 Þ þ 23 cosð2 Þ
2 introduced by failure in the neighbouring plies. In gen-
L ¼ 12 cosð Þ þ 31 sinð Þ
where is the angle that maximizes FIM and is obtained
numerically by evaluating the function at selected
angles in the interval 0  5 180 as per References
[2,5,38]. The particular value of for pure transverse
compression, o, is a material property that can be
measured experimentally. Several sources have
observed that the fracture angle for either glass or
carbon composites is typically 51  o  55 .2,4,36
The slope or friction coefficients T and L in equa-
tion (15) are introduced to account for the effect of
pressure on the failure response. Their effect is that of
increasing the respective shear strengths in the presence
of a compressive normal traction and reducing the
respective shear strengths in the presence of a tensile
normal traction. The slope or friction coefficient T is
obtained from the pure transverse compression test as a
function of o,2
1 that fibre kinking only takes place for an absolute
T ¼  , ð17Þ
tanð2 o Þ
while the slope or friction coefficient L is an independ-
ent material property that needs to be measured
experimentally, see Table 1. Finally, the McCauley
brackets hiþ in equation (15) are defined as
hxiþ ¼ maxf0,xg.
Fibre kinking failure
The physics of axial compressive failure are arguably
less understood than for any other failure mode in com-
posites. The experimental fact is that kink bands are
observed in the material after failure. Although similar
kink bands appear in different materials and at different
scales, the reasons for their formation, at least for poly-
mer-matrix fibre-reinforced composites, seems far from
agreed upon by all researchers in the area. While a
stream of researchers follows the hypothesis from
Rosen39 according to which kink band failure is some-
how the final result of the microbuckling of the fibres,
another stream follows Argon40 and argues that kink
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
bands are triggered by localised matrix failure next to
misaligned fibres.41,42 Both streams have in common
that they do not predict directly how kink bands
form but rather predict an event (microbuckling or
matrix failure) which triggers the formation of kink
bands.
The micrographs in Figure 8 show different stages of
kink-band formation in a T300/913 specimen. Matrix
splitting in between the fibres can be identified in
Figure 8(b) and is the result of the high shear stresses
eral, the high localised shear stresses can also be intro-
duced by manufacturing defects, such as fibre
misalignments. The splitting promotes further bending
of the fibres, which in turn results in more splitting,
Figure 8(c). The bent fibres eventually break due to
the combination of bending and compressive stresses,
first at one end and then at the other, finally resulting in
a kink band, Figure 8(d). Experimental observations, as
shown in Figure 8, suggest that kink bands are pre-
ceded by matrix failure and that microbuckling is not
necessarily the triggering factor for failure.
Following the previous observations, fibre kinking is
assumed to result from shear-dominated matrix failure
in a misaligned frame, under significant longitudinal
compression. However, if the longitudinal compression
is not significant, the shear-dominated matrix failure on
the misaligned frame results in fibre splitting but not
necessarily in fibre kinking. Experimental data for com-
bined longitudinal compression and inplane shear for a
carbon/epoxy T300/LY556-HY917-DY07043 suggests
value of longitudinal compression greater than XC/2.
However, for longitudinal compression combined
with transverse tension, experimental results for T800/
92444 indicate that no kink bands are formed if the
magnitude of the longitudinal compression is lower
than XC.
The criteria proposed here for fibre kinking and
for splitting use the same failure index equation
written as
 m
2  m
2
23 12
FIKINK ¼ FISPLIT ¼ is þ is
ST  T 2m SL  L 2m
!2
2m þ
þ : ð18Þ
YisT
The two failure modes are then distinguished based
on the magnitude of longitudinal compression with
1  XC =2 indicating fibre kinking and 1  XC =2
signifying fibre splitting. This distinction is relevant for
the propagation of failure.
The rotated coordinate systems relevant for the
description of a kink band are shown in Figure 9.
Pinho et al. 2323

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 8. Sequence of events during kink-band formation. The laminate is being loaded in compression in the vertical direction.
(a) Misalignment introduced by a matrix crack in an adjacent layer. (b) Matrix-fibre splitting exists throughout (see zoom); the first fibre
failures are indicated. (c) Further fibre failure. (d) Final kink band. Legend. K Matrix cracking; L Fibre failure.
2324 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Kink plane 3
1 m m
ϕ 1

3ψ n
2m

l 2
3ψ 2ψ
3 ψ 2
1

3ψ Figure 10. Coordinate system aligned with the crack.

The strain mo is a function of the corresponding

shear stress, mo , as
α
mo ¼  ðmo Þ: ð22Þ
m
2
The initial misalignment angle ’o is a material prop-
Matrix fracture plane erty which can be obtained from the longitudinal com-
pressive strength solving the following iterative
Figure 9. Physical model for kink-band formation. equation:
 
The relevant stress rotation equations are for rotation 1
’o ¼ ’c   sinð2’o ÞXC , ð23Þ
to the kink-band plane : 2
8
>
>  ¼ cos2 2 þsin2 3 þ2sin cos 23 where ’c is given by Reference [2]
> 2
>
>
<  ¼ 12 cos þ31 sin rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
12 0
> 1  1  4 XSLC þ L XSLC C
>
> 23 ¼ sin cos 2 þsin cos 3 þðcos2 sin2 Þ 23 B
>
>
: ’c ¼ arctanB
@
C:
A ð24Þ
31 ¼ 31 cos 12 sin 2 XSLC þ L
ð19Þ

and for the subsequent rotation to the misalignment

Fibre tensile failure
frame:
8 m
The maximum stress failure criterion has been shown to
>
>  ¼ sin2 ’ 1 þ cos2 ’ 2  2 sin ’ cos ’ 12 correlate well with existing experimental data45 regard-
< 2
ing fibre tensile failure. Therefore, the maximum stress
m
12 ¼  sin ’ cos ’ 1 þ sin ’ cos ’ 2 þ ðcos2 ’  sin2 ’Þ 12
>
> criterion here is used to predict this failure mode:
: m
23 ¼ 23 cos ’  31 sin ’
ð20Þ h1 iþ
FIFT ¼ : ð25Þ
XT

The angle of the kink band, , is found numerically

in the range 0  5 180 so as to maximise the failure
index (FI) in equation (18). The misalignment angle, ’,
is the sum of the initial misalignment angle ’o (manu-
facturing defect) and the shear strain mo expressed in a
coordinate system aligned with the manufacturing
defect:
’ ¼ sign 12 ’o þ mo :
Propagation of failure
When any of the failure indices reaches 1, the constitu-
tive law is modified to simulate the formation
and propagation of cracks/damage in the composite.
Propagation of failure is processed differently for
different failure modes, taking into account their
ð21Þ specificities, but following a common approach. More
specifically, the components of the traction acting on
Pinho et al. 2325

σ σo
d = 1−
σ

σo
U crack σ o ε f −ε
d = 1−
σ ε f −ε d

d =0

U delam

ε el
ε o
εd ε f
d =1

Figure 11. Progressive cracking for an angle ¼ 0.

the predicted fracture plane are reduced to zero. The
reduction of tractions is performed in such a way that
the energy dissipation predicted by the numerical model
per unit area of created surface equals the fracture
toughness of the material for the respective failure
mode. The stresses obtained from Hooke’s law are
designated effective stresses, as they are the stresses
that act on the effective resisting area of the material
once failure started propagating. The stresses which are
in fact applied to the material, dependent on damage,
are designated nominal stresses.
The effective stress tensor in the material coord-
inate system p 123 is rotated to a coordinate sys-
tem aligned with the fracture plane, as shown in
Figure 10, thus defining p ‘mn ¼ f ‘ m
n ‘m mn n‘ gT . The effective traction vector is
given as t ¼ f n mn n‘ gT . The presence of the
crack/damage is simulated by degrading the traction
components, such that the nominal tractions are
defined as
n oT
t¼ 1  d hnniþ n ð1  dÞmn ð1  dÞn‘
The McCauley brackets in the first term indicate that
the normal component of the traction is degraded in
tension but not in compression. The nominal stresses
expressed in the coordinate system aligned with the
fracture plane are
n oT
p‘mn ¼ ‘ m 1  d hnniþ n ‘m ð1  dÞmn ð1  dÞn‘ :
ð27Þ
This nominal stress vector is then rotated back to the
material axes.
The evolution of the damage variable d defines how
much energy is dissipated by damage. To assess this
energy, the non-elastic component of the strain due to
yielding is first removed from the total strain. The elas-
tic strain, in the material coordinate system, is given by
the expression
eel123 ¼ Del1 p 123 , ð28Þ
where Del is similar to D defined in Equation 3, but
: ð26Þ
using the initial moduli instead of the moduli affect
2326
σo σ o ε f −ε
d = 1−
σ ε f −ε d
d =0
εo
Figure 12. Wedge effect for an angle 6¼ 0.
by yielding. In other words, Del does not include the
effect of yielding on the moduli but does include the
effect of hydrostatic pressure.
If only traction vector components are degraded,
the dissipated energy can be computed from the
internal product of the elastic strain vector on the
T
fracture plane, "eln mn el
nlel , and the traction
vector, t. This is equivalent to projecting the elastic
fracture plane strain vector onto the direction of
the traction vector and multiplying the magnitude
of the projected vector, designated here as "el , with
the magnitude of the nominal traction vector, .
From that it is clear that  and "el are work-con-
jugate, and the energy per unit volume dissipated by
failure  can be visualized by the area under the
"el ,  curve. The damage variable d is finally
defined for each failure mode as a function of "el
and the magnitude of the effective traction vector, , 
in such a way that the energy absorbed by failure
equals the fracture toughness for the respective fail-
ure mode as outlined in the following sections.
The damage propagation model presented here
includes three independent damage variables: one for
matrix failure, one for fibre kinking and one for fibre
tensile failure.
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
d =1
εf ε el
Matrix failure
The mechanical response of a composite ply during
matrix failure propagation depends on the angle of
fracture and on the type of ply (ply in a UD specimen,
embedded ply, or outer ply). For a multidirectional
laminate, two different situations can be distinguished
regarding the fracture angle . If the angle is equal to
zero, then the formation of the first crack is followed by
the formation of further cracks, until a saturation level
is reached at which delamination occurs, see Figure 11.
This saturation level can be determined experimentally
or obtained using a shear lag model.46 If the angle is
not zero, as it is typically the case in compression, then
a wedge effect will trigger delamination after the first
crack is created, see Figure 12.
Multidirectional laminates with fracture angle ¼0
Embedded ply. In a multidirectional laminate, after
the formation of the first matrix crack with equal to
zero, stresses can still be transmitted to the failed ply by
shear from the neighbouring plies. Because of this, the
effect of a crack on the stress field will vanish at rela-
tively small distances from this crack and further cracks
Pinho et al.
τL
h ation multiplied by the mode II interlaminar critical
2n
τL
S Lis
− S Lis
σ2
YTis
Figure 13. Shear lag model.
will be formed. During this period of crack accumula-
tion, it is here assumed that the nominal stress remains
constant with increased strain. Eventually, the number
of cracks will saturate as the distance between neigh-
bouring cracks becomes too small to transmit stresses
to the layer. The saturation crack density, n, can be
calculated from a shear lag model by assuming constant
shear stresses at the interface equal to the shear strength
(see Figure 13), as
SisL
n¼ , ð29Þ
hYisT
where h is the total thickness of the plies with the same
orientation clustered together. The energy per unit
volume dissipated
 by the formation of these cracks is
Ucrack ¼ 0:5 o "d  "o , as indicated by the shaded tri-
angle on the left in Figure 11. On the other hand, the
total energy required for the formation of the new
cracks in an element of volume V is nVGc , where Gc
is the critical energy release rate for the failure mode.
Therefore, the strain "d at the onset of delamination
(see Figure 11) can be determined as
2nGc
"d ¼ "o þ , ð30Þ
o
where  o is the magnitude of the traction at the onset of
failure. When the strain "d is reached, further loading
will result in delamination, as shown in Figure 11. The
energy per unit volume dissipated by the model is
2327
Udelam ¼ 0:5 o "f , as indicated by the shaded triangle
in the right in Figure 11. However, the energy dissi-
pated by delamination should be the area of delamin-
energy release rate GIIc , which results in the following
expression for "f :
2GIIc
"f ¼ , ð31Þ
o t
where t is the thickness of the element.
To reproduce the shape of the stress vs. strain
response in Figure 11, the damage variable d for
matrix failure in embedded plies with equal to zero
is then defined as the maximum value in time of

inst o  o "f  "el
d ¼ max 0, min 1  , 1  ,1 ,
  "f  "d
 
d ¼ max dinst
time
ð32Þ
Outer ply. For the purpose of accumulation of
matrix cracks, outer plies differ from embedded plies
because shear from neighbouring plies are only trans-
mitted from one side of the ply. Applying a shear lag
model for outer plies results in a crack saturation dens-
ity half of that for embedded plies:
SisL
n¼ : ð33Þ
2hYisT
Damage propagation for outer plies is processed in
the same way as for embedded plies, but with the sat-
uration density given by equation (33).
Multidirectional laminates with fracture angle 6¼ 0. If a
matrix crack is formed in a multidirectional laminate
with different from zero, a wedge effect will promote
delamination. The traction vs. strain curve for this
damage mode is assumed to be bilinear, as shown in
Figure 12. The energy per unit volume dissipated by the
model is 0:5 o "f while the energy dissipated by the
crack is the area of fracture multiplied by the critical
energy release rate for that failure mode. This results in
the following expression for "f :
Gc =L þ GIc =t
"f ¼ 2 : ð34Þ
o
In equation (34), L is a characteristic length related
to the mesh size (ratio of the volume of the element to
the area of the fracture surface) and is calculated using
2328
the algorithm detailed in Reference [3]. Gc is calculated
using the power law according to Reference [3].
To reproduce the shape of the stress vs. strain
response in Figure 12, the damage variable d for
matrix failure in multidirectional laminates with frac-
ture angle different from zero is then defined as the
maximum value in time of

 o "f  "el
dinst ¼ max 0, min 1  ,1
 "f  "o
 
d ¼ max dinst :
time
UD laminates. For UD laminates, there is no accumula-
tion of cracks regardless of the fracture angle and a
bilinear curve is assumed.
 Equating
 the energy dissi-
pated by the element 0:5 o "f V to the energy dissi-
pated by fracture ðGc AÞ, the following expression for
"f is obtained:
Gc =L
"f ¼ 2 : ð36Þ
o
The damage variable d is defined by equation (35).
Fibre kinking
In this work, kink bands are simulated as localised
bands of failed material similar to fracture planes. A
bilinear law is used to degrade the traction components
acting on the equivalent fracture plane. For the defin-
ition of the bilinear law, "f is given by equation (36)
(with Gc in this case being equal to the critical energy
release rate for fibre kinking) and the damage variable d
is defined by equation (35).
Fibre tensile failure
Fibre tensile fracture planes are assumed to be normal
to the fibre direction. It is worth noticing that recent
results47,48 indicate that a softening relation defined by
two softening curves might be required to accurately
represent the different energy dissipation mechanisms
associated with longitudinal fracture. Using more
than one softening law requires the identification of
the transition strength as well as the partition of the
fracture energy. These material properties are not avail-
able for the material used here. Therefore, a bilinear
law is also used for this failure mode, where "f is
given by equation (36) (using the critical energy release
rate for fibre tensile failure for Gc ) and the damage
variable d is defined by equation (35).
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
General considerations
Yielding of the resin
As pointed out in Section 0, specimens used for char-
acterising the composite lamina include little informa-
tion on the yielding response of the resin, and the
corresponding nonlinear curves have to be extrapo-
lated. The implications of this extrapolation can be
very significant for loading cases with considerable
, yielding.
ð35Þ
Effect of hydrostatic pressure
The slope coefficients for the elastic properties and
shear strengths (longitudinal and transverse) of a ply
are intrinsic material properties. In this exercise, they
have to be assumed (note that although T was calcu-
lated from o , the latter was assumed), but they should
ideally be measured experimentally for each material
system.
Residual thermal stresses
Thermal stresses can potentially have a significant effect
on the failure mode and failure load of a laminate. For
the predictions contained in this paper, it is assumed
that the laminates were stress-free at the cure tempera-
ture and that testing occurred at 20 C, without any
relaxation of stresses having taken place.
Edge effects
Delamination and edge effects may trigger failure of a
laminate. The failure stresses become therefore struc-
tural properties, and their prediction requires knowing
the geometry of the specimen tested. Without this
knowledge, edge effects cannot realistically be
accounted for, compromising any predictions made
for multidirectional laminates. Following the guidelines
from the organisers of the WWFE-II,49 edge effects are
not taken into account in this part of the exercise,
which might result in an inappropriate representation
of the specimens actually tested.
In-situ effects
For the matrix-dominated failure modes, the strength
of a ply depends on its thickness and on the existence
and orientation of the neighbouring plies. For this
reason, it is essential for strength predictions of multi-
directional laminates to know the thickness of each
individual ply, as well as the exact stacking sequence.
For this exercise, the thickness of each ply is not given
Pinho et al. 2329

and neither is the exact stacking sequence. A less

accurate estimation of the in-situ strengths can result
in the predicted failure envelopes being offset with
respect to the experimental ones.
Statistical effects
The mechanical properties of a composite – both elastic
and strength – vary from point to point in a specimen.
There is therefore an intrinsic limitation in predicting
the deterministic strength of a laminate based on the
deterministic strength of the plies. Ideally, the distribu-
tion of the probability of failure of a laminate could be
obtained provided the distribution of ply properties
and geometry and size of the specimen are known.
Since the distribution of ply properties is not known,
and neither are the size of the specimens, statistical
effects cannot be taken into account.
Fracture toughness
The in-situ strengths for the matrix-dominated failure
modes depend on the matrix intralaminar fracture
toughnesses and the progressive failure of a lamin-
ate depends on the fracture toughness for each fail-
ure mode taking place. Because the fracture
toughnesses for each failure mode are not known, not-
ably for the fibre-dominated failure modes, typical
values obtained from literature and from the authors’
experience are used. However, there is in some cases
little data available and a better knowledge of the
values of these properties could improve the
predictions.
Manufacturing method
Many mechanical properties of a composite are consid-
erably dependent on the manufacturing method. For
instance, the strength associated with fibre kinking
depends greatly on existing defects such as fibre mis-
alignments, non-uniform fibre distribution, micro-
cracks, voids, etc. The strengths associated with the
matrix-dominated failure modes, particularly in ten-
sion, are also greatly affected by defects such as micro-
cracks and voids. Therefore, if the manufacturing
method used to manufacture the specimens for the
test cases is not the same as the manufacturing
method used for the material characterisation, the ply
strengths might not be entirely representative of the
laminate’s strengths. For this reason, it is important
to guarantee that, to the extent possible, all specimens
are manufactured using the same method.
Application of accurate boundary conditions
For the test cases involving laminates under 3D stress
states (test cases 8 to 12), the correct representation of
the boundary conditions and the stress state in the
laminate is here achieved using an implementation of
the failure model described in a finite element code. For
each test case, laminates with 16 plies, each 0.25 mm
thick, are modelled, and appropriate boundary condi-
tions are applied to the models.
Predictions
The test cases for WWFE-II are summarised in Table 4
and full details of the lay-ups, materials and loading

Table 4. Details of the 12 test cases used in WWFE-II49

Test Case Laminate lay-up Material Description of Required Prediction

1 Resin MY750 epoxy  x versus  z (with  y ¼  z) envelope

2 0
3 0
4 0
5 90
6 0
7 0
8 35
9 35
10 (0 /90 /45 )s
11 (0 /90 )s
12 (0 /90 )s
T300/PR319  12 versus  2 (with  1 ¼  2 ¼  3) envelope
T300/PR319 g12 versus  2 (with  1 ¼  2 ¼  3) envelope
T300/PR319 Shear stress strain curves ( 12  g12)
(for  1 ¼  2 ¼  3 ¼ 600 MPa)
E-glass/MY750 epoxy  2 versus  3 (with  1 ¼  3) envelope
S-glass/epoxy  1 versus  3 (with  2 ¼  3) envelope
A-S carbon/epoxy  1 versus  3 (with  2 ¼  3) envelope
E-glass/MY750 epoxy  y versus  z (with  x ¼  z) envelope
E-glass/MY750 epoxy Stress-strain curves ( y "x and  y "y)
at  z ¼  x ¼ 100 MPa
IM7/8551-7  yz versus  z (with  y ¼  x ¼ 0) envelope
IM7/8551-7  yz versus  z (with  y ¼  x ¼ 0) envelope
IM7/8551-7 Stress-strain curves ( z  "z,  z  "x and  z  "y)
for  y ¼  x ¼ 0
2330 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Table 5. Material properties used49

E-glass/ A-S carbon/

T300/PR319 MY750epoxy S-glass/epoxy epoxy IM7/8551-7

E1 (GPa)a 129 45.6 52 140 165

E2 (GPa)a 5.6 16.2 19 10 8.4
G12 (GPa)a 1.33 5.83 6.7 6 5.6
12 a 0.318 0.278 0.3 0.3 0.34
23 a 0.5 0.4 0.42 0.49 0.5
E b 16 16 16 16 16
G b 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
L b 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.082
XT (MPa)a 1378 1280 1700 1990 2560
XC (MPa)a 950 800 1150 1500 1590
YT (MPa)a 40 40 63 38 73
YC (MPa)a 125 145 180 150 185
 b
o ( ) 53 53 53 53 53
SL (MPa)a 97 73 72 70 90
GIc (kJ/m2)b (matrix) - 0.165 - - 0.21
GIIc (kJ/m2)b (matrix) - 0.8 - - 0.8
GIc (kJ/m2)b (fibre tensile) 45 92
GIc (kJ/m2)b (kinking) 40 80
6  a
L (10 / C) - 8.6 - - -1
6  a
T (10 / C) - 26.4 - - 18

T ( C)a - 100 - - 157
h (mm)a 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
a
Given by organisers, Reference [49].
b
Estimated from the authors’ experience and from literature.

conditions are provided in Reference [49]. The mater-

ial properties used for the predictions are
summarised in Table 5. The predictions for test cases
1 to 12 are presented in Figure 14 to Figure 25,
respectively.
For the test cases corresponding to UD plies, the
predictions were carried out using a simple explicit
implementation of the constitutive response using a
stand-alone Fortran code. For the test cases corres-
ponding to multidirectional laminates, a 3D explicit
finite element implementation was used to calculate
the ply stresses, since these cannot be obtained from
classical lamination theory. For each of the test
cases 8 to 12, a simple model of the laminate was
created with suitable boundary conditions so that
the ply stresses would be calculated from laminate
stresses by the FE code. Being explicit, the imple-
mentations only require secant stiffnesses to be com-
puted, and all material nonlinearities measured at
the ply level could be included. The explicit imple-
mentation avoids the convergence problems typical
of implicit implementations.
Discussion
This section is divided in the test case for resin (test case
1), the test cases for UD laminates (test cases 2 to 7) and
the test cases for multidirectional laminates (test cases 8
to 12). The test case for pure resin is naturally different
since it does not correspond to the failure of a composite.
The division between UD and multidirectional
laminates arises because prediction of the strength for
the latter requires considering in-situ effects, residual
thermal stresses and propagation of failure, while
prediction of strength for the former does not. As
mentioned above, the predictions for UD plies were car-
ried out with a stand-alone explicit implementation of
the model, while the predictions for multidirectional
laminates were carried out with an explicit finite element
implementation.
Pure resin
Failure of pure resin appears to be fairly well under-
stood, and several publications in the literature succeed
in predicting failure of pure resin accurately.
Pinho et al. 2331

200

–200
σy = σz (MPa)

–400

Predictions
–600
Data given
Modified von Mises
Modified Tresca
–800
–800 –600 –400 –200 0 200
σx (MPa)

Figure 14. Predicted envelope for test case 1 – shear failure of MY750 epoxy resin under superimposed hydrostatic pressure.

250

200

150
τ12 (MPa)

100

Predictions, matrix cracking with α = 0

50 Experimental Shin&Pae1992 (90 degrees tubes)
Experimental Shin&Pae1992 (0 degrees tubes)
Data given

0
–800 –700 –600 –500 –400 –300 –200 –100 0 100
σ1 = σ2 = σ3 (MPa)

Figure 15. Predicted envelope for test case 2 – 12 vs. 2 failure envelope with 1 ¼ 2 ¼ 3 for T300/PR319.

The pressure-dependent strength of pure resin is
approximately linear, at least for low superimposed
hydrostatic pressures, and needs to be characterised
experimentally. The proposed prediction for test
case 1 is shown in Figure 14. It can be seen
that using the Raghava criterion leads to a slightly non-
linear influence of hydrostatic pressure on strength
and that it predicts no failure for pure hydrostatic
compression.
UD laminates
Test case 2. In test case 2, the 12 vs. 2 failure enve-
lope with 1 ¼ 2 ¼ 3 for T300/PR319 is requested.
2332 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

0.6
Predictions, matrix cracking with α = 0

Experimental Shin&Pae1992 (0 degrees

0.5 tube)
Experimental Shin&Pae1992 (90 degrees
tubes)
0.4
Data given
γ12

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
–800 –700 –600 –500 –400 –300 –200 –100 0 100
σ1 = σ2 = σ3 (MPa)

Figure 16. Predicted envelope for test case 3 – 12 vs. 2 failure envelope with 1 ¼ 2 ¼ 3 for T300/PR319.

150

Experimental (single specimen) Shin&Pae1992

Prediction

100
τ12 (MPa)

50 σ1 = σ2 = σ3 = –600 MPa

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
γ12

Figure 17. Predicted stress vs. strain response for test case 4 – 12 vs. 12 with 1 ¼ 2 ¼ 3 ¼ 600 MPa for T300/PR319.

Figure 15 shows that the predicted envelope is open for
2 5 0, and the composite is thus not expected to fail
under hydrostatic compression. The failure model
(equation (15)) predicts for this case a constant slope
of the 12 vs. 2 failure envelope for 2 5 0. The mag-
nitude of the slope of the envelope is defined by the
material property L , which is not provided for this
exercise. Nevertheless, any deviation from linearity of
the experimental data would indicate a limitation of the
current model.
Coincidentally, this loading condition and material
has been studied by Shin and Pae.3,11,12 They tested
composite tubes under torsion and hydrostatic pres-
sure, with fibres at 0 and at 90 to the axial direction.
Pinho et al. 2333

100
90°

0
0°

–100
α = 53°
σ1 = σ3 (MPa)

–200
°
37
=
3
-5
–300 90

–400 Pure hydrostatic

pressure Predictions (matrix
cracking)

–500
–450 –400 –350 –300 –250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50
σ2 (MPa) Data given

Figure 18. Predicted envelope for test case 5 – 2 vs. 3 failure envelope for E-glass/MY750 epoxy with 1 ¼ 3 .

200

Splitting Matrix cracking

0
σ2 = σ3 (MPa)

–200

Fibre tensile failure

Predictions
g
k in
k in
re

–400
Fib

Pure hydrostatic
–600 pressure

–800
–2500 –2000 –1500 –1000 –500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
σ1 (MPa) Data given

Figure 19. Predicted envelope for test case 6 – 1 vs. 3 failure envelope for S-glass/epoxy with 2 ¼ 3 .

The experimental results are also shown in Figure 15.
The in-plane shear strength is different for the 0 and
90 specimens, although it could be expected that it
should be one single property. It is likely that the dif-
ferent manufacturing required by the different stacking
sequences results in different initial defects in the mater-
ial. Furthermore, the rotation of the fibres during load-
ing is different for the different specimens. Both these
factors are responsible for the different strengths mea-
sured. Another aspect worth mentioning is that, for
moderate compression, the slope for both types of spe-
cimens appears to be the same. This coincidence might
be because the compression closes any previously exist-
ing micro-cracks (and therefore the slope is less sensi-
tive to the magnitude of manufacturing imperfections)
and the nonlinear geometric effects are not yet very
2334 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

100
Splitting Matrix cracking

–200

Fibre tensile failure

σ2 = σ3 (MPa)

g
k in Predictions
k in
–400
re
Fib

–600
Pure hydrostatic pressure

–800
–3000 –2000 –1000 0 1000 2000
σ1 (MPa) Data given

Figure 20. Predicted envelope for test case 7 – 1 vs. 3 failure envelope with 2 ¼ 3 for A-S carbon/epoxy.

200
0°
α=
g
ittin
Spl 90°
0
Initial failure
Final failure
–200

45° < α < 90°

σy (MPa)

ing
ink
re k
–400 Fib
°
45
=
g ,α
–600 c k in
cra
trix
Hydrostatic Ma
pressure
–800

–900 –800 –700 –600 –500 –400 –300 –200 –100 0 100
σx = σz (MPa)

Figure 21. Predicted envelope for test case 8 – y vs. z (with x ¼ z ) envelope for a 35 laminate of E-glass/MY750 epoxy.

significant. For higher compressive loads, the strength
and thus strain to failure increases, and the geometric
effects are therefore more significant. Geometric effects
might explain why the strengths for 0 and 90 speci-
mens becomes different again. The different response
of specimens that are conceptually identical illustrates
well the problem of predicting failure in composites.
Because the specimens with fibres at 90 should not
suffer fibre rotation during the application of shear, the
parameter L used in the predictions was obtained by
best fitting the corresponding experimental data.
Therefore, while the linear dependence of the shear
strength on the hydrostatic pressure is a characteristic
of the model, the good agreement with the experimental
Pinho et al. 2335

ε
–0.05 –0.04 –0.03 –0.02 –0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
0

–100
σy (MPa)

–200
εy εx

8 plies model
–300
Initial failure

–400
50 plies model

–500

Figure 22. Predicted stress vs. strain response for test case 9 – y vs. "x and y vs. "y at z ¼ x ¼ 100 MPa for a 35 laminate of
E-glass/MY750 epoxy.

100

30° <α< 60°

80

α = 60°
60
τyz (MPa)

60° <α< 90°

Initial & final failure (outer ply)

40

20

α = 30°
α = 90°
0
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100
σz (MPa)

Figure 23. Predicted envelope for test case 10 – yz vs. z envelope for a (0 /90 /45 )s laminate of IM7/8551-7.

data presented is also due to the fact that L was
obtained from the same data set.
Test case 3. Shin and Pae11,12 also measured the strain
to failure for the T300/PR319 specimens mentioned
previously, allowing for a 12 vs. 2 envelope to be
drawn, as shown in Figure 16. This figure also shows
the predictions of the current model, requested for test
case 3. It can be seen that the model predicts an almost
linear dependence of the shear strain to failure on 2 .
2336
100
30° <α< 60°
80
60
τyz (MPa)
40
Initial & final failure (outer ply)
20
α = 30°
0
–600 –500 –400
Figure 24. Predicted envelope for test case 11 – yz vs. z envelope for a (0 /90 )s laminate of IM7/8551-7.
No experimental failure strain-related information
from Shin and Pae11,12 was used for the case of this
envelope, and any agreement between experimental
and numerical results is fully predictive. Given a pre-
diction for the strength of the specimen, the aspects of
the model that determine the predicted strain to failure
are those related to the nonlinear response and include
the pressure-dependence of G12 (equation (4)), the def-
inition of the equivalent strain used (equation (6)) and
the necessary extrapolation of the experimental shear
stress vs. strain curve (Figure 4).
Test case 4. The curve 12 vs. 12 for
1 ¼ 2 ¼ 3 ¼ 600 MPa is requested in test case 4
for the same material T300/PR319 which was also mea-
sured by Shin and Pae,11,12 see Figure 17. This figure
also shows the predictions from the current model. As
for the previous test case, the experimental curve from
Shin and Pae11,12 is not used in any way for the predic-
tions, and any agreement between experimental and
numerical is fully predictive. The aspects of the model
that are relevant for this prediction are the strength
prediction (equation (15)) and the nonlinear aspects
of the model as explained in the discussion of test
case 3.
Test case 5. Test case 5 requests the 2 vs. 3 failure
envelope for E-glass/MY750 epoxy with 1 ¼ 3 . The
predictions, shown in Figure 18, indicate that the enve-
lope is open under pure hydrostatic pressure. The seg-
ments adjacent to the open part of the envelope are
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
α = 60°
60° <α< 90°
α = 90°
–300 –200 –100 0 100
σz (MPa)
linear. The lack of interaction between 2 and 3 for
positive values of both stress components is an interest-
ing feature of the predicted envelope. The failure enve-
lope is symmetrical about the pure hydrostatic pressure
line. For the load combinations in test case 5, the fail-
ure mode is always matrix failure. In particular, fibre
kinking is never predicted as the first failure mode to
occur. However, it should be noted that, for matrix
failure under considerable superposed hydrostatic pres-
sure, the stress state in the specimen after matrix failure
can in principle lead to subsequent fibre kinking,
depending on the specimen and on how the load is
applied. The angle of matrix failure changes from
¼ 0 to ¼ 53 , the latter being an input value ( o ).
In the first quadrant, the change in angle ¼ 90 to
¼ 0 occurs at a stress ratio 2 =3 ¼ 1. In the
second quadrant, the change in angle ¼ 53 to

¼ 90 occurs for stress ratios 2 =3 in the approxi-
mate range ½2:75,  1:73 . In the fourth quadrant, the
change in angle ¼ 37 to ¼ 0 occurs for stress
ratios 2 =3 in the approximate range ½0:58,  0:36 .
Test case 6. The 1 vs. 3 failure envelope for S-glass/
epoxy with 2 ¼ 3 is requested for test case 6. The
predicted failure envelope, shown in Figure 19, is
again open for pure hydrostatic pressure. On the left
part of the envelope, it can be seen that an increase in
fibre-kinking strength is predicted with hydrostatic
pressure. The exact (non-constant) slope of the enve-
lope in this region results from the combination of
many features of the model, including nonlinear
Pinho et al.
–0.04 –0.035 –0.03 –0.025
0
–100
–200
σz (MPa)
–300
–400
–500
εz
–600
Figure 25. Predicted stress vs. strain response for test case 12 – z vs. "z and z vs. "x ¼ "y for a (0 /90 )s laminate of IM7/8551-7.
response, slope coefficients on the elastic properties and
shear strengths, definition of equivalent strain, and
extrapolation of the nonlinear stress vs. strain curves.
Test case 7. Test case 7 is the same as test case 6, but for
A-S carbon/epoxy instead of S-glass/epoxy. The predic-
tions, shown in Figure 20, are qualitatively similar, and
the same discussion as for test case 6 applies, since the
proposed model does not distinguish between carbon
and glass fibre composites. Although glass fibres tend
to exhibit some nonlinear response, this effect is not
considered to be significant and is not taken into
account.
Multidirectional laminates
In the present model, the strength for the matrix-
dominated failure modes depends on the thickness of
the plies in the laminate, which is here assumed to be
0.25 mm. Furthermore, their accurate evaluation
requires assuming the values of the respective fracture
energies and the extrapolation of experimental non-
linear constitutive curves. Finally, the effect of weaker
outer plies on the final failure of the laminate depends
on the number of plies, which is here unless otherwise
stated assumed to be 16. As a result, there is consider-
able scope for the properties used and laminate simu-
lated not corresponding exactly to the experimental
tests; consequently, some deviation might be expected
regarding quantitative predictions. Qualitative results
such as the shape of failure envelopes and predicted
2337
ε
–0.02 –0.015 –0.01 –0.005 0 0.005 0.01
εy = εx
failure modes are expected to provide a validation of
the general model assumptions.
Test case 8. Test case 8 requires the y vs. z (with
x ¼ z ) envelope for a 35 laminate of E-glass/
MY750 epoxy, as shown in Figure 21. It can be
observed that the envelope is open for pure hydrostatic
pressure. Depending on the load combination, the spe-
cimen can fail by matrix cracking, fibre splitting or fibre
kinking. The matrix fracture angle within each individ-
ual ply, ¼ 45 , is interesting, as it has not appeared in
previous envelopes; it is the result of shear-dominated
matrix failure, with some transverse compression.
Notice that, due to the multidirectional nature of the
laminate, the macroscopic fracture angle of the lamin-
ate is not 45 . However, the 45 fracture on each ply
should be observable using microscopy.
Test case 9. The stress vs. strain curves for compression
in y-direction, y vs. "x and y vs. "y at
z ¼ x ¼ 100 MPa are requested in test case 9 for
the same laminate as in test case 8, see Figure 22. The
pronounced nonlinearity for high strains can be
observed very clearly. This nonlinearity results from
the nonlinear matrix response, and hence depends on
the extrapolation of the constitutive response
(Figure 4). Two curves are shown in Figure 22; one
corresponding to an 8-ply model and another corres-
ponding to a 50-ply model. The initiation of failure is
predicted in both cases for the same stress at the outer
plies. However, the effect of the failure of the outer plies
2338
in the subsequent response of the laminate can be
observed to be more pronounced for the model with 8
plies only. Both models predict a matrix fracture angle
within each individual ply ¼ 45 .
Test case 10. Test case 10 requests the yz vs. z envelope
for a (0 /90 /45 )s laminate of IM7/8551-7. The speci-
men fails by matrix failure in the outer ply for all load
combinations, without clear separation between initial
and final failure, see Figure 23. Moderate through-the-
thickness compression is seen to improve the strength of
the laminate. The ply to fail first is the outer ply, which
restricts how further load can be applied to the speci-
men, given the z component of the loading. The fracture
angles range from 30 to 90 , as indicated in Figure 23.
Test case 11. Test case 11 is the same as test case 10,
but for a (0 /90 )s laminate. The results, presented in
Figure 24, are qualitatively similar to test case 10.
Test case 12. The stress–strain curves z vs. "z and z vs.
"x ¼ "y for the same laminate as the one in test case 11
are requested in test case 12. The nonlinearity that can
be observed in Figure 25, in particular the stiffening at a
stress of about 200 MPa, depends largely on the
extrapolation of the constitutive shear curves. More
evolved processes for extrapolating the constitutive
curves for cases which exhibit more plasticity than in
the tests used to measure material properties ought to
be investigated in the future.
The predictions from this model are compared with
those involved in the WWFE-II in Reference [50].
Conclusions
1. The mechanical response of fibre-reinforced lami-
nated composites is nonlinear and pressure-depen-
dent. At the microscopic scale, different mechanisms
such as deformation of polymer chains and breakage
of cross-links, crazing or void formation and propa-
gation of micro-cracks compete for damage and fail-
ure of the matrix. For fibre kinking, the respective
micromechanics are not yet clearly understood.
2. At a mesoscopic scale (ply level), the presence of
neighbouring plies influences the propagation of
microcracks, thus resulting in an in-situ strength
which is different from the strength measured on a
unidirectional specimen.
3. The understanding of all of these phenomena is not
complete yet, but significant progress has been made
in the past decades. The relation between complexity
of a phenomenon and its relevance in terms of
material response is not always easy to assess, and
therefore the most appropriate compromise between
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
complexity of a model and its predictive capability is
not always straightforward to define.
4. In this paper, a nonlinear constitutive model for lami-
nated composites which includes failure prediction is
proposed. The application of the model to the test
cases allows predicting not only failure itself but
also the failure modes and orientation of fracture
planes. The model appears to have captured interest-
ing physical phenomena, such as open envelopes for
hydrostatic compression, and the influence of hydro-
static pressure on compressive fibre failure. While it is
expected that the model captures the relevant phys-
ical mechanisms and their effects appropriately, there
are several issues that interfere with an accurate pre-
diction of failure stresses and the amount of nonli-
nearity. First, material properties which are
determinants for the initiation and propagation of
failure, such as intralaminar fracture toughnesses,
are not always available or readily measurable.
Second, multidirectional laminates are structures on
their own right, and their failure strength is deter-
mined not only by the material properties of the indi-
vidual plies and generic stacking sequence but also by
the total number of plies in the laminate and the
number of plies clustered together.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Acknowledgements
ST Pinho would like to acknowledge the support from the
Royal Society through the Research Grants Scheme, and of
the EPSRC through Overseas Travel Grant EP/F020872/1.
PP Camanho would like to acknowledge the support from
the Royal Society through the International Incoming Short
Visits programme. All authors would like to acknowledge Dr
C Dávila’s invaluable contribution through many discussions
and in proof-reading this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Nomenclature
Lowercase Roman letters
ao equivalent slit crack dimension
d damage variable
dinst instantaneous value of the damage variable
h total thickness of a group of 90 plies clus-
tered together
Pinho et al. 2339

k measure of deviatoric stress state e strain tensor

n crack saturation density "eq equivalent strain
p hydrostatic pressure eel123 elastic strain tensor in material coordinate
t dimension of a finite element in the thickness system
direction "i direct strain in direction i
t effective traction vector "d strain at onset of delamination
t nominal traction vector "o strain at onset of damage
"f strain at complete decohesion
mo shear strain in the initial fibre misalignment
frame
Uppercase Roman letters ij shear strain in plane ij
E slope coefficient for Young’s modulus
G slope coefficient for shear modulus
C compressive strength of a polymer L slope coefficient for longitudinal shear
D constitutive tensor strength
Del elastic constitutive tensor T slope coefficient for transverse shear strength
E Young’s modulus ’ fibre misalignment angle
Eo Young’s modulus for no superposed hydro- ’o initial fibre misalignment angle
static pressure ’c fibre misalignment angle at failure for pure
Ei Young’s modulus in direction i longitudinal compression
Eo2 Young’s modulus in the inplane transverse  maximum value in time of "eq
direction for no superposed hydrostatic  Poisson’s ratio of a polymer
pressure ij Poisson’s ratio in plane ij
FIp failure index for a polymer p stress tensor
FIM failure index for matrix failure in a composite N normal component of the traction
FIKINK failure index for fibre kinking i direct stress in direction i
i direct stress in direction i in a coordinate
FISPLIT failure index for splitting system rotated by (see Figure 9)
FIFT failure index for fibre tensile failure ij shear stress in plane ij in a coordinate system
G shear modulus rotated by (see Figure 9)
Go12 inplane shear modulus for no superposed im direct stress in direction i in a coordinate
hydrostatic pressure system rotated by ’ (see Figure 9)
Gc critical energy release rate ijm shear stress in plane ij in a coordinate system
Gij shear modulus in plane ij rotated by ’ (see Figure 9)
GIc mode I critical energy release rate h hydrostatic stress
GIIc mode II critical energy release rate Pi principal stress i
Go shear modulus for no superposed hydrostatic p 123 effective stress tensor in material coordinate
pressure system
S shear strength of a polymer p ‘mn effective stress tensor in crack coordinate
SisL in-situ longitudinal shear strength system
SL inplane shear strength p‘mn nominal stress tensor in crack coordinate
SisT in-situ transverse shear strength system
T tensile strength of a polymer o magnitude of traction at onset of failure
XC longitudinal compressive strength  magnitude of the effective traction vector
XT longitudinal tensile strength p123 nominal stress tensor in material coordinate
Y geometry-dependent factor system
YisT in-situ inplane transverse tensile strength T transverse shear component of the traction
ij shear stress in plane ij
fp shear stress acting on a potential fracture
Greek letters plane
max maximum shear stress
mo shear stress in the initial fibre misalignment
matrix fracture angle frame
o matrix fracture angle for pure inplane trans- L longitudinal shear component of the traction
verse compression x2 area under the curve ð2 , "2 Þ
2340
xL area under the curve ð L , L Þ
xT area under the curve ð T , T Þ
angle of a kink-band plane
References
1. Camanho PP, Dávila CG, Pinho ST, et al. Prediction of
in situ strengths and matrix cracking in composites under
transverse tension and in-plane shear. Compos Appl Sci
Manuf 2006; 37(2): 165–176.
2. Pinho ST, Dávila CG, Camanho PP, et al. Failure models
and criteria for frp under in-plane or three-dimensional
stress states including shear non-linearity. NASA/TM-
2005-213530. NASA Langley Research Center.
Hampton, VA 2368, 2005.
3. Pinho ST, Iannucci L and Robinson P. Physically based
failure models and criteria for laminated fibre-reinforced
composites with emphasis on fibre kinking. Part II: FE
implementation. Compos Appl Sci Manuf 2006; 37(5):
766–777.
4. Pinho ST, Iannucci L and Robinson P. Physically-based
failure models and criteria for laminated fibre-reinforced
composites with emphasis on fibre kinking: Part I:
Development. Compos Appl Sci Manuf 2006; 37(1):
63–73.
5. Dávila CG, Jaunky N and Goswami S. Failure criteria
for FRP laminates in plane stress. In: 44th AIAA-ASME-
ASCE-AHS-ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, 2003, AIAA Paper 2003-1991.
6. Dávila CG, Camanho PR and Rose CA. Failure criteria
for FRP laminates. J Compos Mater 2005; 39(4):
323–345.
7. Bowden PB and Jukes JA. The plastic flow of isotropic
polymers. J Mater Sci 1992; 7: 52–63.
8. Boyce MC, Parks DM and Argon AS. Large inelastic
deformation of glassy polymers. Part I: rate dependent
constitutive model. Mech Mater 1988; 7: 15–33.
9. Matsushige K, Radcliffe SV and Baer E. The mechanical
behaviour of polystyrene under pressure. J Mater Sci
1975; 10: 833–845.
10. Spathis G. Theory for the plastic deformation of glassy
polymers. J Mater Sci 1997; 32: 1943–1950.
11. Shin EES and Pae KD. Effects of hydrostatic pressure on
the torsional shear behavior of graphite/epoxy compos-
ites. J Compos Mater 1992; 26(4): 462–485.
12. Shin EES and Pae KD. Effects of hydrostatic pressure on
in-plane shear properties of graphite/epoxy composites.
J Compos Mater 1992; 26(6): 828–868.
13. Rabinowitz S, Ward IM and Parry JSC. The effect of
hydrostatic pressure on the shear yield behaviour of poly-
mers. J Mater Sci 1970; 5(1): 29–39.
14. Schuecker C and Pettermann HE. Combining elastic brit-
tle damage with plasticity to model the non-linear behav-
ior of fiber reinforced laminates. In: Camanho PP, Dávila
CG, Pinho ST and Remmers JJC (eds) Mechanical
response of composites. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2008,
pp.99–116.
15. Hoppel CP, Bogetti TA and Gillespie JW. Literature
review–Effects of Hydrostatic pressure on the mechanical
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
behavior of composite materials. J Thermoplast Compos
Mater 1995; 8: 375–409.
16. Sauer JA. Deformation, yield and fracture of polymers at
high pressure. Polymer Eng Sci 1977; 17(3): 150–164.
17. Hine PJ, Duckett RA, Kaddour AS, et al. The effect of
hydrostatic pressure on the mechanical properties of glass
fibre/epoxy unidirectional composites. Compos Appl Sci
Manuf 2005; 36(2): 279–289.
18. Birch F. The effect of pressure upon the elastic param-
eters of isotropic solids, according to Murnaghan’s
theory of finite strain. J Appl Phys 1938; 9(4): 279–288.
19. Wilczynski PA. A basic theory of reinforcement for uni-
directional fibrous composites. Compos Sci Tech 1990;
38(4): 327–337.
20. Wronski AS and Parry TV. Compressive failure and
kinking in uniaxially aligned glass-resin composite
under superposed hydrostatic pressure. J Mater Sci
1982; 17(12): 3656–3662.
21. Zinoviev PA and Tsvetkov SV. Mechanical properties of
unidirectional organic-fiber-reinforced plastics under
hydrostatic pressure. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58(1): 31–39.
22. Elias HHG, Bhateja SK and Pae KD. Pressure depend-
ence of elastic moduli. J Macromol Sci Phys 1976; 12(4):
599–602.
23. Silano AA, Bhateja SK and Pae KD. Effects of hydro-
static pressure on the mechanical behavior of polymers:
polyurethane, polyoxymethylene, and branched poly-
ethylene. Int J Polym Mater 1974; 3(2): 117–131.
24. Pae KD. The macroscopic yielding behaviour of poly-
mers in multiaxial stress fields. J Mater Sci 1977; 12(6):
1209–1214.
25. D3518/D3518M-94 A. Standard test method for in-plane
shear response of polymer matrix composite materials by
tensile test of a 45 laminate. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
26. D7078/D7078M-05 A. Standard test method for shear
properties of composite materials by v-notched rail
shear method. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
27. Altenbach HH. On elastoplastic deformation of grey cast
iron. Int J Plast 2001; 17(5): 719–736.
28. Altenbach H and Tushtev K. A new static failure criter-
ion for isotropic polymers. Mekhanika kompozitnykh
materialov 2001; 37(5): 731–743.
29. Raghava R, Caddell RM and Yeh GSY. The macro-
scopic yield behaviour of polymers. J Mater Sci 1973;
8(2): 225–232.
30. Li JCM and Wu JBC. Pressure and normal stress effects
in shear yielding. J Mater Sci 1976; 11(3): 445–457.
31. Laws N and Dvorak GJ. The effect of fiber breaks and
aligned penny-shaped cracks on the stiffness and energy
release rates in unidirectional composites. Int J Solid
Struct 1987; 23(9): 1269–1283.
32. Laws N, Dvorak GJ and Hejazi M. Stiffness changes in
unidirectional composites caused by crack systems. Mech
Mater 1983; 2(2): 123–137.
33. Puck A. Fracture criteria for highly stressed fibre-plastics
composites which meet requirements of design practice.
Kunststoffe–German Plastics 1992; 82(2): 149–155.
Pinho et al.
34. Puck A. Festigkeitsnachweis von FKV-Bauteilen
Strength proof of design for fibre-reinforced plastics com-
ponents. Kunststoffe Plast Europe 1996; 86(6): 2.
35. Puck A and Mannigel M. Physically based non-linear
stress-strain relations for the inter-fibre fracture analysis
of FRP laminates. Compos Sci Tech 2007; 67(9):
1955–1964.
36. Puck A and Schürmann H. Failure analysis of
FRP laminates by means of physically based
phenomenological models. Compos Sci Tech 1998;
58(7): 1045–1067.
37. Puck A and Schürmann H. Failure analysis of FRP
laminates by means of physically based phenomeno-
logical models. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62(12–13):
1633–1662.
38. Dávila CG and Camanho PP. Failure criteria for FRP
laminates in plane stress, NASA/TM-2003-212663.
Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center, 2003.
39. Rosen BW. Mechanics of composite strengthening. In:
Fiber composite materials. Metals Park, OH: American
Society of Metals, 1965, pp.37–75.
40. Argon AS. Fracture of composites. In: Treatise on mater-
ials science and technology. Vol. 1, Academic Press pub-
lishers, 1972, pp.79–114.
41. Schultheisz CR and Waas AM. Compressive failure of
composites, Part I: testing and micromechanical theories.
Prog Aero Sci 1996; 32(1): 1–42.
42. Waas AM and Schultheisz CR. Compressive failure of
composites, Part II: experimental studies. Prog Aero Sci
1996; 32(1): 43–78.
2341
43. Mannigel M. Influence of shear stresses on the fibre failure
behaviour in carbon fibre reinforced plastics, PhD Thesis,
Von der Fakultät für Maschinenwesen der Rheinisch-
Westfälischen (RWTH), Technischen Hochschule
Aachen, 2007.
44. Li X. Comparative study on the failure behaviour of
advanced carbon-epoxy composites. MSc Thesis,
Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London,
2007.
45. Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS and Soden PD. A compari-
son of the predictive capabilities of current failure the-
ories for composite laminates, judged against
experimental evidence. Compos Sci Tech 2002;
62(12–13): 1725–1797.
46. Cox HL. Elasticity and strength of paper and other
fibrous materials. Br J Appl Phys 1952; 3(3): 72–79.
47. Maimi P, Camanho PP, Mayugo JA, et al. A continuum
damage model for composite laminates: Part I–
Constitutive model. Mech Mater 2007; 39(10): 897–908.
48. Maimi P, Camanho PP, Mayugo JA, et al. A continuum
damage model for composite laminates: Part II–
Computational implementation and validation. Mech
Mater 2007; 39(10): 909–919.
49. Kaddour AS and Hinton MJ. Input data for test cases
used in benchmarking triaxial failure theories of compos-
ites. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2295–2312.
50. Kaddour AS and Hinton MJ. Benchmarking of triaxial
failure criteria for composite laminates: comparison
between models of ‘Part (A)’ of ‘WWFE-II’. J Compos
Mater 2012; 46: 2595–2634.