2.6 3.

Article

Fatigue Reliability Analysis of

Composite Material Considering
the Growth of Effective Stress and
Critical Stiffness

Jian-Xiong Gao, Fei Heng, Yi-Ping Yuan and Yuan-Yuan Liu

Special Issue
Computing Methods for Aerospace Reliability Engineering
Edited by
Dr. Lukai Song and Dr. Yat Sze Choy

https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10090785
 aerospace
Article
Fatigue Reliability Analysis of Composite Material Considering
the Growth of Effective Stress and Critical Stiffness
Jian-Xiong Gao * , Fei Heng, Yi-Ping Yuan and Yuan-Yuan Liu
Citation: Gao, J.-X.; Heng, F.; Yuan,
Y.-P.; Liu, Y.-Y. Fatigue Reliability
Analysis of Composite Material
Considering the Growth of Effective
Stress and Critical Stiffness. Aerospace
2023, 10, 785. https://doi.org/
10.3390/aerospace10090785
Academic Editors: Lukai Song and
Yat Sze Choy
Received: 14 August 2023
Revised: 2 September 2023
Accepted: 5 September 2023
Published: 6 September 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10090785
School of Mechanical Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830046, China
* Correspondence: jianxionggao@xju.edu.cn
Abstract: Fatigue damage accumulation will not only cause the degradation of material performance
but also lead to the growth of effective stress and critical stiffness. However, the existing fatigue
reliability models usually ignore the effective stress growth and its influence on the critical stiffness
of a composite material. This study considers the combined effects of performance degradation and
effective stress growth, and a pair of fatigue reliability models for a composite material are presented.
Firstly, the fatigue damage in a composite material is quantified by its performance degradation,
and the fitting accuracy of several typical fatigue damage models is compared. Subsequently, the
uncertainties of initial strength and initial stiffness are considered, and a pair of probabilistic models of
residual strength and residual stiffness are proposed. The performance degradation data of Gr/PEEK
[0/45/90/−45]2S laminates are utilized to verify the proposed probabilistic models. Finally, the
effective stress growth mechanism and its influence on the failure threshold are elaborated, and a
pair of fatigue reliability models for composite materials are developed. Moreover, the differences
between the strength-based and stiffness-based reliability analysis results of composite materials are
compared and discussed.
Keywords: fatigue reliability; performance degradation; effective stress; fatigue damage; composite
material
1. Introduction
Composite materials have been widely used in the aerospace and aviation industry due
to their excellent comprehensive performance [1]. For example, the Boeing 787 comprises
80% composite material by volume: the material composition is 50% composite, 20%
aluminum, 15% titanium, 10% steel and 5% other by weight [2]. Aerospace structures are
often in service under cyclic loading, and fatigue failure becomes the major failure mode of
composite materials [3]. Generally, the fatigue failure process of a composite material is
dominated by the development of fatigue damage. Therefore, it is important to explore
the fatigue damage behaviors in advance so that an optimal maintenance plan can be
scheduled before the occurrence of a catastrophic accident [4,5].
For some practical reasons, the fatigue damage accumulation rule of a composite material
is usually investigated from a performance degradation point of view. To ensure the safety
of composite structures during their service time, fatigue reliability analysis methods based
on performance degradation have been extensively studied over the past decades [6,7]. In
general, the existing fatigue reliability analysis approaches can be classified into two categories:
strength-based approaches [8–10] and stiffness-based approaches [11–13].
In terms of the strength-based fatigue reliability approach, Zaharia et al. [14] investi-
gated the fatigue reliability and lifetime of composite materials from the perspective of prob-
ability and statistics, but the strength degradation rule was not involved. Zhang et al. [15]
used the stochastic gamma process to characterize the fatigue damage accumulation of
composite structures, and an optimal maintenance strategy was developed. However,
the fatigue damage parameter adopted in Zhang et al. [15] lacks clear physical mean-
ing. Talreja [16] proposed a probabilistic model of residual strength based on Weibull
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 2 of 25

distribution, and the fatigue reliability of composite laminates was calculated. Cheng
and Hwu [17] analyzed the time-dependent reliability of composite laminates based on
a residual strength model and Weibull distribution. Chen et al. [18] explored the charac-
teristics of the reliability-dependent failure rate based on the strength degradation model
and Monte Carlo simulation approach. Gao et al. [19] proposed a pair of performance
degradation models for composite laminates, and the corresponding fatigue lives were
predicted. To account for the effects of stress level on fatigue failure, Ma et al. [20] devel-
oped a generalized performance degradation model for composite materials. It should be
noted that fatigue damage accumulation will not only cause the performance degradation
of composite material, but also lead to an increase in effective stress. However, the effective
stress growth caused by accumulated fatigue damage in a composite material is ignored in
Refs. [16–20].
In terms of the stiffness-based fatigue reliability approach, Feng et al. [21] analyzed
the fatigue failure behaviors and reliability of composite laminates based on stiffness
degradation. Unfortunately, the stiffness degradation model adopted in Ref. [21] is a
deterministic model, and the randomness of material performance was not considered.
For the tension–tension and tension–compression loading conditions, Häusler et al. [22]
explored the stiffness degradation rule of a composite material through a comprehensive
experimental approach. However, the critical stiffness in Ref. [22] was determined by an
experimental test, which lacks a rigorous theoretical basis. Wang et al. [23] calculated the
fatigue reliability of a composite material based on the non-probabilistic time-dependent
approach. Wu et al. [24] proposed a new residual stiffness model to quantify fatigue
damage in composite structures, and the random vibration tests were applied to verify its
validity. To accurately characterize the evolution of fatigue damage in composite materials,
Van Paepegem and Degrieck [25] presented a coupled approach for strength and stiffness
degradation. Gao and Yuan [26] considered the randomness of material performance, and
a probability model of residual stiffness was developed. To characterize the whole periods
of damage development, Shiri et al. [27] proposed a new residual stiffness model based on
trigonometric functions. It should be noted that the critical stiffness of composite material
changes with the increase in effective stress. However, the critical stiffness was treated as a
constant in Refs. [23–27], which is inconsistent with the real case.
A great deal of research that focused on the fatigue reliability of composite materi-
als has been conducted, and many strength-based and stiffness-based fatigue reliability
approaches have been presented [28–30]. It should be noted that the existing fatigue relia-
bility approaches mainly focus on the performance degradation path and its probabilistic
features. The growth of effective stress and critical stiffness caused by accumulated fatigue
damage is ignored in the existing studies. In essence, fatigue damage accumulation will
not only cause the degradation of material performance, but also lead to an increase in
effective stress and critical stiffness. In addition, the existing studies do not systematically
compare and discuss the differences between strength-based and stiffness-based fatigue
reliability approaches. To this end, a pair of probabilistic models of residual strength and
residual stiffness are proposed in this study. The growth mechanisms of effective stress and
critical stiffness are elaborated from the perspective of load-bearing capacity. The combined
effects of performance degradation and effective stress growth are considered, and a pair of
strength-based and stiffness-based fatigue reliability approaches are presented. Moreover,
the fatigue reliability and failure rate of composite laminates under different conditions are
compared and discussed.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the fatigue damage in the
composite material is quantified by its performance degradation. Section 3 develops a pair
of probabilistic models of residual strength and residual stiffness with consideration of the
randomness of material performance. In Section 4, the growth mechanisms of effective
stress and critical stiffness are elaborated. Section 5 presents a pair of strength-based
and stiffness-based fatigue reliability approaches, which are capable of accounting for the
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 3 of 25

combined effects of performance degradation and effective stress growth. Some conclusions
are drawn in Section 6.

2. Fatigue Damage Characterized by Performance Degradation

The microscopic damage behaviors of a composite material are difficult to explore
due to its inherent heterogeneity and anisotropy. Moreover, the damage evolution in
a composite material contains a variety of failure behaviors, which makes the damage
mechanisms much more complex [31–33]. From a macroscopic point of view, fatigue
damage accumulation usually results in the performance degradation of a composite
material. Therefore, the performance degradation of a composite material becomes an easily
measurable parameter to monitor the evolution of fatigue damage. In this section, several
representative strength-based and stiffness-based fatigue damage models are compared.
The fatigue test data of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates are utilized to evaluate
the fitting accuracy of different fatigue damage models.

2.1. Fatigue Damage Characterized by Strength Degradation

In practical engineering, strength degradation is a frequently used macroscopic dam-
age parameter to quantify the fatigue damage of a composite material. Over the past
decades, the strength degradation rule of a composite material under cyclic loading has
been widely investigated, and many strength-based fatigue damage models have been
proposed [1,17]. In this section, four representative strength-based fatigue damage models
are discussed to depict the evolution process of fatigue damage, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Strength-based fatigue damage models.

Researchers Models Parameters

a
Gao [34] DS (λ) = 1 −(1 − λ) a
a
Reifsnider [35] DS ( λ ) = 1 − 1 − λb a, b
Yao [36] sin( aλ) cos( a−b) a, b
DS ( λ ) = sin( a) cos( aλ−b)
λa
Mu [37] DS ( λ ) = 1 − 11+−cλ b a, b, c

In Table 1, λ represents the cycle ratio, which is defined as λ = n/N, n is the number
of loading cycles and N is the fatigue life of the composite material. Obviously, 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1.
DS (λ) represents the strength-based fatigue damage of the composite material; a, b and c are
the parameters of these models. The experimental data of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S
laminates in Ref. [38] are utilized to evaluate the fitting accuracy of the above four strength-
based fatigue damage models. Note from Ref. [38] that both the static and fatigue tests of
the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates are conducted on the MTS 810 machine. Based on
the strength degradation data from Ref. [38], the nonlinear least square method is applied to
estimate the parameters (i.e., a, b and c) of the above four models. The parameter estimation
results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Parameter estimation results of strength-based fatigue damage models.

Parameters Goodness of Fit

Stress Levels/MPa Models
a b c R2
Gao’s model 0.0577 — — 0.9771
Reifsnider’s model 0.0755 1.433 — 0.997
S2 = 646.31
Yao’s model 1.603 −9.358 — 0.9992
Mu’s model 16.1 1.51 0.1027 0.9983
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 4 of 25

Table 2. Cont.

Parameters − Goodness of Fit

Stress Levels/MPa Models
a b c R2
Gao’s model 0.0683 — — 0.9793
Reifsnider’s model 0.0883 1.411 — 0.9977
S3 = 623.50
Yao’s model 1.611 -9.344 — 0.9991
Mu’s model 15.48 1.518 0.1237 0.9988
Gao’s model 0.0787 — — 0.9784
Reifsnider’s model 0.1025 1.422 — 0.9975
S4 = 600.68
Yao’s model 1.584 0.06 — 0.9993
Mu’s model 14.7 1.51 0.1417 0.9989

Table 2 shows that the goodness of fit of these four strength-based fatigue damage
models is greater than 0.97. Therefore, the above four representative models can fit the
fatigue damage data of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−−45]2S laminates with good agreement. By
comparison, the fitting accuracy of Yao’s model is higher than that of other three models.
Specifically, the goodness of fit values of Yao’s model under three different stress levels are
0.9992, 0.9991 and 0.9993, respectively. Based on the parameter estimation results listed in
Table 2, the fitting curves of these four strength-based fatigue damage models are plotted,
as shown in Figure 1.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. Fitting curves of strength-based fatigue damage models: (a) S = S2 ; (b) S = S3 ; (c) S = S4 .

Figure 1 shows that the fatigue damage curve characterized by the strength degrada-
tion of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/− − 45]2S laminates exhibits a slow–fast trend during fatigue
failure. Fatigue damage accumulates slowly when the cycle ratio is 00< λ < 0.8 0.8, while it
accumulates rapidly when the cycle ratio is 0.8 <0.8 1
λ < 1. The later stage is always regarded
as the ‘sudden death’ behavior of a composite material under high cyclic loading. In this
study, Yao’s model is introduced to quantify the strength-based fatigue damage of the
Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates because of its superior fitting accuracy. Therefore,
−
the strength-based fatigue damage model of the composite material can be expressed as

S(λ) sin( aλ) cos( a − b)

DS ( λ ) = 1 − = (1)
S0 sin( a) cos( aλ − b)

where S0 is the initial strength (namely ultimate strength) of the composite material; S(λ)
is the residual strength of the composite material when the cycle ratio equals λ.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 5 of 25

2.2. Fatigue Damage Characterized by Stiffness Degradation

Stiffness degradation is another widely used macroscopic damage parameter, which is
capable of measuring the accumulated damage through a non-destructive testing method.
Many researchers have given special attention to the stiffness degradation rule of composite
materials, and numerous stiffness-based fatigue damage models have been developed [22,25].
In this section, four representative stiffness-based fatigue damage models are chosen to
quantify the accumulated fatigue damage of the composite material, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Stiffness-based fatigue damage models.

Researchers Models Parameters

Shiri [27] sin(αλ) cos(α− β) α, β
DE (λ) = sin(α) cos(αλ− β)
Gao [19] sin(αλ) cos( β) α, β
DE (λ) = sin(α) cos( βλα )
λα
Mu [37] DE (λ) = 1 − 11+−γλ β α, β, γ
Mao [39] DE (λ) = αλ β + (1 − α)λγ α, β, γ

In Table 3, DE (λ) represents the stiffness-based fatigue damage of the composite

material; α, β and γ are the parameters of the above models. The experimental data
of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates from Ref. [38] are utilized to examine the
fitting accuracy of these four stiffness-based fatigue damage models. Based on the stiffness
degradation data in Ref. [38], the nonlinear least square method is used to calculate the
parameters of the above four models. The parameter calculation results are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Parameter estimation results of stiffness-based fatigue damage models.

Stress Parameters Goodness of Fit

Models
Levels/MPa α β γ R2
Shiri’s model 2.906 1.348 — 0.7566
Gao’s model 2.896 1.556 — 0.9999
S2 = 646.31
Mu’s model 94.56 0.5177 0.087 0.887
Mao’s model 0.0783 0.437 82.8 0.8954
Shiri’s model 2.868 1.316 — 0.8398
Gao’s model 2.831 1.546 — 0.9987
S3 = 623.50
Mu’s model 75.46 0.5184 0.1161 0.9492
Mao’s model 0.1044 0.4804 83.67 0.9461
Shiri’s model 2.844 1.3 — 0.8606
Gao’s model 2.799 1.537 — 0.9944
S4 = 600.68
Mu’s model 75.09 0.5569 0.1541 0.9685
Mao’s model 0.8658 80.78 0.5055 0.9651

Table 4 notes that the goodness of fit of the four representative stiffness-based fatigue
damage models is greater than 0.75. Therefore, these four representative models are
capable of fitting the fatigue damage data of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates.
By comparison, Gao’s model has higher fitting accuracy than other three models. For
three different stress levels, the goodness of fit values of Gao’s model are 0.9999, 0.9987
and 0.9944, respectively. Based on the parameter calculation results shown in Table 4, the
fitting curves of these four stiffness-based fatigue damage models are plotted, as shown in
Figure 2.
 −

Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 6 of 25

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Fitting curves of stiffness-based fatigue damage models: (a) S = S2 ; (b) S = S3 ; (c) S = S4 .

Figure 2 notes that the stiffness-based fatigue damage curve of the Gr/PEEK
[0/45/90/ − −45]2S laminates exhibits a fast–slow–fast trend during fatigue failure. Fa-
tigue damage grows quickly when the cycle ratio 0 is 0 <0.2λ < 0.2, then it accumulates
0.2 is 0.20.9
slowly when the cycle ratio < λ < 0.9 and finally increases rapidly when the cycle
ratio
0.9 is 0.91 < λ < 1. This phenomenon is consistent with the existing studies, such as
Refs. [19] and [22]. In this study, Gao’s model is introduced to characterize the stiffness-
based fatigue damage of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates due to its excellent
−
fitting accuracy. Under such circumstances, the stiffness-based fatigue damage model of a
composite material can be formulated as

E(λ)sin( sin) (cos(

αλ) cos
) ( β)
DE (λ)1= 1 − = (2)
E0 sin(α) cos( βλα )
0 sin( ) cos( )
where E0 is the initial stiffness (namely modulus of elasticity) of the composite material;
0
E(λ) is the residual stiffness of the composite material when the cycle ratio equals λ.
λ
3. Performance Degradation of Composite Material
Performance degradation analysis plays a key role in reliability design and lifetime
prediction of composite structures [40–42]. In engineering practice, residual strength and
residual stiffness are two frequently used performance degradation parameters to quantify
the accumulated fatigue damage of composite structures. In this section, the two-parameter
Weibull distribution is utilized to characterize the probability distributions of initial strength
and initial stiffness of the composite material. Probabilistic models of residual strength and
residual stiffness are developed based on the fatigue damage and probability theories. The
performance degradation data of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates are adopted to
verify the proposed probabilistic models.
−
3.1. Probabilistic Model of Residual Strength
Residual strength is defined as the resistance of a composite material to fatigue frac-
ture after a given cycle ratio, which is generally measured through a destructive testing
method [17,20]. According to Equation (1), the residual strength of a composite material
can be expressed as
sin( aλ) cos( a − b)
 
S ( λ ) = S0 1 − (3)
sin( a) cos( aλ − b)
It should be noted that Equation (3) is a deterministic model, which characterizes the
strength degradation path from the perspective of mean value. According to Equation (3)
and the experimental data from Ref. [38], the mean value curve of residual strength of the
Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is plotted, as shown in Figure 3.
  sin( ) cos( )
0 1 sin( ) cos( ) 


Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 7 of 25

Figure 3. Mean value curve of residual strength of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates.

−
Note from Figure 3 that Equation (3) is capable of characterizing the strength degra-
dation path of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates. However, due to the random
−
distribution of original defects (such as voids, bubbles and broken fibers) in the composite
material, both initial strength S0 and residual strength S(λ) exhibit significant dispersion.
0
It is generally considered that the dispersions of initial strength and residual strength are
dominated by identical original defects inside the composite material [43]. The initial
strength data (i.e., ultimate strength data from Ref. [38]) of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S
laminates are shown in Table 5.
−
Table 5. Initial strength data of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates.

Initial Strength Data/MPa Mean− Value/MPa Standard Deviation/MPa

723.13, 725.19, 743.20, 748.85, 754.77,
760.36 25.42
770.98, 774.84, 776.90, 788.99, 796.70

In this study, the two-parameter Weibull distribution is applied to depict the proba-
bilistic characteristics of initial strength. Therefore, the cumulative distribution function
(CDF) of initial strength is formulated as
   
s A
FS0 (s) = 1 − exp − (4)
B

where FS0 (s) represents the CDF of initial strength; A and B are the shape and scale
parameters of the Weibull distribution, respectively.
Based on the initial strength data listed in Table 5, the maximum likelihood estimation
method is adopted to calculate the parameters in Equation (4). The parameter calculation
results show that A = 36.4579 and B = 771.857. Accordingly, the probability density
function (PDF) and CDF of the initial strength of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates
are plotted, as shown in Figure 4.
 36.4579 771.857
−
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 8 of 25

(a) (b)
− −45]2S laminates: (a) PDF
Figure 4. Probability distribution of initial strength of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/
of initial strength; (b) PDF of initial strength.

Figure 4 shows that Weibull distribution can well quantify the probabilistic charac-
teristics of the initial strength of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−−45]2S laminates. As mentioned
above, the dispersions of initial strength and residual strength depend on the same original
defects inside a composite material. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce the PDF of resid-
ual strength from the PDF of initial strength. Based on the probability theory, the CDF of
residual strength is formulated as

FS (sPr
)= { Pr{S(λ}) ≤ s} (5)
Pr {}
where FS (s) represents the CDF of residual strength; Pr{·} represents the probability of an
event.
The correlation between the CDF of residual strength and the CDF of initial strength
is derived by substituting Equation (3) into Equation (5).
  sin( n h) cos(
sin( aλ))cos (a−b) i
Pr
FS (s)0 1= Pr S0 1 − sin( a) cos ( aλ−b) ≤ s
o

  sin(h ) cos( )  i (6)

( a) cos( aλ−b)
= FS0 sin(a) coss(sin
 sin( ) cos( ) 
aλ−b)−sin( aλ) cos( a−b)
 sin( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( ) 
 between the PDF of residual strength and the PDF of initial
0
Moreover, the correlation
strength is obtained by the derivation of Equation (6).

dFS (s)
f S (s) = ds
sin( a) cos( aλ−b)
h
s sin( a) cos( aλ−b)
i (7)
= f
sin( a) cos( aλ−b)−sin( aλ) cos( a−b) S0 sin( a) cos( aλ−b)−sin( aλ) cos( a−b)

where f S (s) represents the PDF of residual strength; f S0 (·) represents the PDF of initial
strength, which can be expressed as

As A−1
   
s A
f S0 ( s ) = exp − (8)
BA B

Based on Equation (7) and Table 2, the evolution rule of the PDF of residual strength
can be obtained, as shown in Figure 5.
 1    
exp    
  
0

Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 9 of 25

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 5. Evolution rule of PDF of residual strength under different stress levels: (a) PDF of residual
strength under S2 ; (b) PDF of residual strength under S3 ; (c) PDF of residual strength under S4 .

In Figure 5, when the cycle ratios are equal to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, the corresponding
PDF curves of residual strength are shown in the red, green, blue and magenta dotted
curves, respectively. Similarly, the red, green, blue and magenta square points represent
the corresponding residual strength data under different cycle ratios. Note from Figure 5
that the PDF curve changes with the cycle ratio, and the proposed probabilistic model of

−
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 10 of 25

residual strength (i.e., Equation (7)) can fit the residual strength data with good agreement.
For a given cycle ratio, the residual strength of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is
a random variable.

3.2. Probabilistic Model of Residual Stiffness

Residual stiffness is defined as the ability of composite material to resist elastic de-
formation after a given cycle ratio. In engineering practice, residual stiffness is usually
measured through a non-destructive testing method, which makes it possible to con-
tinuously observe the fatigue damage state of a composite material [19]. According to
Equation (2), the residual stiffness of a composite material can be formulated as

sin(αλ) cos( β)
 
E(λ) = E0 1 − (9)
sin(α) cos( βλα )

Obviously, Equation (9) is a deterministic model, which characterizes the stiffness

degradation path from the perspective of mean value. Based on Equation (9) and the
test data from Ref. [38], the mean value curve of the residual stiffness of the Gr/PEEK
[0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is obtained, as shown in Figure 6.

− −45]2S laminates.
Figure 6. Mean value curve of residual stiffness of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/

Figure 6 shows that Equation (9) fits the stiffness degradation data of the Gr/PEEK
[0/45/90/ − −45]2S laminates with good agreement. As a result of the influence of uncertain
factors, various original defects will be produced in a composite material. The randomness
of original defects has a significant influence on initial stiffness E0 and residual stiffness
0
E(λ). Therefore, it is necessary to explore the stiffness degradation rule of a composite
material from the probability point of view. The initial stiffness data (i.e., elastic modulus
data from Ref. [38]) of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates are listed in Table 6.
−
Table 6. Initial stiffness data of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates.

Stress Level/MPa Initial Stiffness Data/MPa Mean value/MPa Standard Deviation/MPa

−
52.78, 54.29, 55.43, 56.42, 56.86, 57.63, 58.43, 58.95,
S2 = 646.31 58.56 3.00
59.27, 59.84, 60.48, 61.11, 61.52, 62.16, 63.22
52.83, 54.15, 55.31, 56.18, 57.15, 57.47, 57.96, 58.29,
S3 = 623.50 58.34 2.95
58.76, 59.53, 59.98, 60.62, 61.38, 62.21, 63.27
52.69, 54.09, 55.12, 55.78, 56.86, 57.55, 58.02, 58.63,
S4 = 600.68 58.08 2.94
59.12, 59.78, 60.11, 60.98, 61.58, 62.84
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 11 of 25

Similarly, the two-parameter Weibull distribution is utilized to quantify the proba-

bilistic characteristics of initial stiffness. Accordingly, the CDF of initial stiffness can be
expressed as    
e C
FE0 (e) = 1 − exp − (10)
D
where FE0 (e) represents the CDF of initial stiffness; C and D are the shape and scale
parameters, respectively.
Based on the initial stiffness data shown in Table 6, the parameters in Equation (10)
are determined by using the maximum likelihood estimation method. The parameter
estimation results are listed in Table 7.

Table 7. Parameter estimation results of initial stiffness distribution.

Stress Level/MPa Shape Parameter C Scale Parameter D

S2 = 646.31 23.8008 59.9005
S3 = 623.50 22.9969 59.6813
S4 = 600.68 23.5257 59.4076

Accordingly, the PDF and CDF curves of initial stiffness are plotted based on the above
parameters, as shown in Figure 7.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 7. Cont.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 12 of 25

(e) (f)
Figure 7. Probability distribution of initial stiffness of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/ − −45]2S laminates: (a) PDF
of initial stiffness under S2 ; (b) CDF of initial stiffness under S2 ; (c) PDF of initial stiffness under S3 ;
(d) CDF of initial stiffness under S3 ; (e) PDF of initial stiffness under S4 ; (f) CDF of initial stiffness
under S4 .

Note from Figure 7 that the Weibull distribution is flexible enough to characterize the
probability distribution of the initial stiffness of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S − laminates.
It is generally considered that the dispersions of initial stiffness and residual stiffness are
dominated by the same original defects. Therefore, the PDF of residual stiffness can be
derived from the PDF of initial stiffness. According to the probability theory, the CDF of
residual stiffness is expressed as
Pr { }
FE (e) = Pr{ E(λ) ≤ e} (11)

where FE (e) represents the CDF of residual stiffness.

By substituting Equation (9) into Equation (11), the correlation between the CDF of
residual stiffness and the CDF of initial stiffness is obtained.
  nsin(h ) cos(  ( β)i
sin(αλ)) cos
o
FEPr
(e) 0=1Pr E0 1 − sin(α) cos( βλα ) ≤ e
  sin(
h ) cos( )
e sin(α) cos( βλα )
 i (12)
= FE0 sin(α) cos
 sin( ) cos( ) 
( βλα )−sin(αλ) cos( β)
 
 sin( stiffness
) cos( is)obtained
sin( )by
cos( )
0
Moreover, the PDF of residual a derivation of Equation (12).

dFE (e)
f E (e) =
d
de
sin(α) cos( βλα )
h
e sin(α) cos( βλα )
i (13)
= f
d sin(α) cos( βλα )−sin(αλ) cos( β) E0 sin(α) cos( βλα )−sin(αλ) cos( β)

sin( )the
where f E (e) represents cos(PDF of 
) residual stiffness; f Esin( ) cos( ) the PDF of initial
(·) represents
 0 
sin( )can
stiffness, which cos(be formulated
) sin( )as cos( ) 0
 sin( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( ) 

CDC−1 e C0 
   
f E0 (e) = C
exp − (14)
D D

According to Equation (13) and Tables  7,

1 4 and
 the 
 evolution rule of the PDF of residual
stiffness is determined, as shown in Figureexp
8.    
   
0
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 13 of 25

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 8. Evolution rule of PDF of residual stiffness under different stress: (a)
levels: (a) PDF of residual
stiffness under S2 ; (b) PDF of residual stiffness under S3 ; (c) PDF of residual stiffness under S4 .

In Figure 8, when the cycle ratios are equal to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, the corresponding
PDF curves of residual stiffness are shown in the red, green, blue and magenta curves,
respectively. Similarly, the red, green, blue and magenta circle points represent the cor-
responding residual stiffness data under different cycle ratios. Note from Figure 8 that
the PDF curve changes with the cycle ratio, and the proposed probabilistic model of resid-
ual stiffness (i.e., Equation (13)) can well fit the residual stiffness data of the Gr/PEEK
−
[0/45/90/ −45]2S laminates. In addition, the residual stiffness is a random variable under a
given cycle ratio.

4. Effective Stress Growth and Critical Stiffness Increase

Fatigue damage accumulation will not only cause the degradation of material perfor-
mance but also lead to an increase in effective stress and critical stiffness. In this section,
the effective stress growth mechanism and its influence on critical stiffness are elaborated.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 14 of 25

4.1. Effective Stress Growth Caused by Fatigue Damage

As mentioned above, accumulated fatigue damage not only causes the degradation of
material performance but also leads to the growth of effective stress [25,44]. However, the
increase in effective stress caused by fatigue damage accumulation is usually ignored in
the existing studies. In this section, the effective stress growth mechanism is elaborated
from the perspective of the effective bearing area, as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Effective stress growth caused by fatigue damage accumulation.

In Figure 9, the cylinder represents a specimen subjected to the axial tension–tension

loading. The area of the blue circle represents the initial bearing area of the specimen,
denoted as A0A . 0The red crescent-shaped area indicates the development of fatigue damage,
and it grows with the cycle ratio; A(λi ) is the effective bearing area of the specimen when
the cycle ratio equals λi . Similarly, σ(λi ) and D (λi ) are the corresponding effective stress
and accumulated fatigue damage, respectively. Note from Figure 9 that fatigue damage of
the specimen accumulates with the increase in the cycle ratio. The effective bearing area of
the specimen gradually decreases with the development of fatigue damage. Under such
circumstances, the effective stress grows with the decrease in the effective bearing area.
The following will explain the effective stress growth mechanism from the perspective of
theoretical derivation.
The effective bearing area of a composite material gradually decreases with the accu-
mulation of fatigue damage, which results in a decreased ability to resist fatigue failure.
Therefore, the fatigue damage of a composite material can also be formulated as

A(λ)
D (λ) = 1 − (15)
A0
1
where D (λ) represents the fatigue damage when0 the cycle ratio equals λ, A(λ) is the corre-
sponding effective bearing area and A0 is the initial bearing area of a composite material.
λ
According to the principle of material mechanics, the nominal stress experienced by a
A0
material before fatigue damage occurs can be expressed as

F
σ= (16)
A0

where σ is the nominal stress; F is the axial tensile load.

The effective stress refers to the stress calculated over the effective bearing area of
A0
a material. Figure 9 shows that the effective bearing area gradually decreases with the
development of fatigue damage. Under such circumstance, the effective stress experienced
by a material can be formulated as

F
σ(λ) = (17)
A(λ)
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 15 of 25

where σ (λ) is the effective stress when the cycle ratio equals λ.
Based on Equations (15)–(17), the effective stress can be rewritten as
σ
σ(λ) = (18)
1 − D (λ)

Equation (18) illustrates the correlation between effective stress σ (λ) and fatigue
damage D (λ). Note from Equation (18) that the effective stress grows with the increase in
fatigue damage, which is consistent with the conclusion in Figure 9.

4.2. Critical Stiffness Increase Caused by Fatigue Damage

Fatigue damage accumulation not only causes the growth of effective stress but also
results in an increase in critical stiffness. However, the existing studies usually take the
critical stiffness as a constant, and its increase caused by accumulated fatigue damage is
ignored [19,26]. In this section, the increase mechanism of critical stiffness is elaborated
from the perspective of effective stress.
According to Ref. [38], the relationship between the static strength and ultimate strain
of a composite material can be approximately expressed as

S0 = E0 ·ε u (19)

where S0 is the static strength (namely initial strength), E0 is the modulus of elasticity
(namely initial stiffness) and ε u is the ultimate strain.
The stiffness of a composite material degrades with the accumulation of fatigue dam-
age, and fatigue failure occurs when residual stiffness falls to its critical value (namely criti-
cal stiffness). According to the principle of strain equivalence introduced by Lemaitre [45],
the relationship between effective stress and critical stiffness can be formulated as

σ (λ) = Ecr (λ)·ε u (20)

where Ecr (λ) is the critical stiffness (namely failure threshold) of a composite material,
which changes with the cycle ratio λ.
Based on Equations (19) and (20), the critical stiffness of a composite material can be
rewritten in the following form.

E0
Ecr (λ) = ·σ(λ) (21)
S0

Note from Equation (21) that the critical stiffness of a composite material varies with
the effective stress. By substituting Equation (18) into Equation (21), the correlation between
critical stiffness and fatigue damage is derived, as shown in Equation (22).

E0 σ
Ecr (λ) = · (22)
S0 1 − D E ( λ )

In Equation (22), the nominal stress σ, the initial strength S0 and initial stiffness E0 are
all constants. Therefore, the critical stiffness Ecr (λ) of a composite material increases with
the accumulation of fatigue damage DE (λ).

5. Fatigue Reliability Analysis Considering Effective Stress Growth

In engineering practice, the fatigue reliability of a composite material can be evaluated
from two different perspectives [46–49]. One is the strength-based reliability approach
and the other is the stiffness-based reliability approach. In this section, the disadvantages
of traditional fatigue reliability models are elaborated, and two improved models for a
composite material are proposed. The fatigue reliability and failure rate of the Gr/PEEK
[0/45/90/−45]2S laminates are analyzed based on the proposed models. Moreover, the
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 16 of 25

−
differences between the strength-based and stiffness-based reliability approaches are com-
pared and discussed.

5.1. Improved Strength-Based Fatigue Reliability Model

The strength-based fatigue reliability model specifically refers to the cyclic stress–
residual strength interference model. Accordingly, the fatigue reliability of a composite
material can be defined as the probability of residual strength being larger than the cyclic
stress, as shown in Figure 10.

(a) (b)
Figure 10. Schematic diagram of traditional and improved strength-based fatigue reliability mod-
els: (a) traditional strength-based fatigue reliability model; (b) improved strength-based fatigue
reliability model.

In Figure 10, the red curve represents the PDF of residual strength, which changes
with the cycle ratio. The green curve exhibits the strength degradation rule of the composite
material from the perspective of mean value. The blue curve represents the PDF of cyclic
stress. The black curve in Figure 10b represents the growth path of effective stress. In
the traditional model, it is generally considered that the PDF of cyclic stress (i.e., nominal
stress) remains unchanged during the fatigue process, as shown in Figure 10a. As stated in
Section 4.1, the effective stress grows with the accumulation of fatigue damage. Moreover,
we know that fatigue damage gradually accumulates with the increase in the cycle ratio.
Therefore, the PDF of cyclic stress (i.e., effective stress) varies with the cycle ratio, as shown
in Figure 10b. In other words, the growth of effective stress caused by accumulated fatigue
damage is ignored in the traditional model, which will lead to inaccurate results of the
fatigue reliability analysis.
In the improved strength-based fatigue reliability model, the growth of effective stress
caused by accumulated fatigue damage is considered. By substituting Yao’s model (i.e.,
Equation (1)) into Equation (18), the effective stress can be formulated as

σ sin( σ)sin
cos(( a) cos()aλ − b)
σ(λ) = = (23)
1 1 − DS (λsin(
) ) cos(
sin ) −sin(
( a) cos( aλ b) − )sin
cos( ) ( a − b)
( aλ) cos

Based on Equation (23) and the parameters listed in Table 2, the effective stress growth
curve of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is obtained, as shown in Figure 11.
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 17 of 25
−

− −45]2S laminates.
Figure 11. Effective stress growth curve of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/

Figure 11 shows that the effective stresses are 600.68 MPa, 623.50 MPa and 646.31 MPa,
respectively, when the cycle ratio equals zero. As fatigue damage gradually accumulates in
−
the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates, the effective stress grows nonlinearly with the
increase in the cycle ratio. In other words, the nominal stress and the effective stress are
equal when there is no fatigue damage in the composite material. When fatigue damage
occurs and accumulates, the effective stress is larger than the nominal stress.
In the traditional strength-based reliability model, both cyclic stress and residual
strength are treated as random variables [50,51]. The difference is that the former does
not change with the cycle ratio, while the latter does. According to the principle of the
traditional model, the fatigue reliability of a composite material under constant amplitude
cyclic stress can be expressed as

(λ{)
RSPr = Pr{S}(λ) > σ}
n h i o
sin( aλ) cos( a−b)
 =  Prsin(
S0 1)−cos( )  
 > σ
Pr  0 1 sin( a) cos( aλ−b)
 (24)
  sin( )ncos( )  (a) cos(aλ−b)
 oA
σ sin
= exp − B[sin(a) cos(aλ−b)−sin(aλ) cos(a−b)]
  
  sin( ) cos( )  
exp    
sin( ) cos( fatigue ) sin( ) cos(model) of acomposite material.
 
where RS (λ) represents the strength-based reliability

In the improved strength-based reliability model, both cyclic stress and residual
strength are treated as random variables that change with the cycle ratio. Under such
circumstance, the fatigue reliability of a composite material under constant amplitude
cyclic stress should be formulated as

RS (λ) = Pr{S(λ) > σ(λ)}

n h i o
( aλ) cos( a−b) ( a) cos( aλ−b)
= Pr S0 1 − sin
sin( a) cos( aλ−b)
> sin(a) cosσ(sin
aλ−b)−sin( aλ) cos( a−b)
(  A) (25)
σ [sin( a) cos( aλ−b)]2
= exp − 2
B[sin( a) cos( aλ−b)−sin( aλ) cos( a−b)]

According to Equations (24) and (25), the strength-based fatigue reliability curve of
the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is plotted, as shown in Figure 12.
 Pr  1 sin( ) cos( 
) 
0
  sin( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( ) 
 2 
  sin( ) cos( )  
exp   2 
  sin( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( )  
 
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 18 of 25

−
Figure 12. Strength-based fatigue reliability curve of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/ −45]2S laminates.

−
Note from Figure 12 that the reliability curve of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/ −45]2S lami-
nates presents two distinct stages. At the first stage, the reliability remains at a high level
without significant changes. At the second stage, the reliability decreases rapidly, which
is consistent with the ‘sudden death’ behavior of a composite material. By comparison,
the calculation results of the traditional strength-based reliability model are conservative.
Based on Equations (24) and (25), the strength-based failure rate model of a composite
material can be expressed as−Equation (26). Therefore, the corresponding failure rate curve
of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is obtained, as shown in Figure 13.

l (λ)
hS (λ) = RS (λ)
d
S
1 S (λ)
= R 1(λ) · dLdλ
d S (26)
= R 1(λ) · d[1−dλ RS (λ)]
1 d 
1 S 
)
= − RdR(Sλ()λdλ
d S

where hS (λ) is the strength-baseddfailure rate, lS (λ) is the PDF of strength-based lifetime
and LS (λ) is the CDF of strength-baseddlifetime.

−
Figure 13. Strength-based failure rate curve of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates.

−
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 19 of 25

−
Figure 13 shows that the strength-based failure rate curve of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S
laminates exhibits two distinctly different periods. For a given cycle ratio, the failure rate
−
calculated by the improved model is higher than that calculated by the traditional model.
This is because the improved model considers both effective stress growth and strength
degradation, while the traditional model only considers the latter.

5.2. Improved Stiffness-Based Fatigue Reliability Model

The stiffness-based fatigue reliability model specifically refers to the critical stiffness–
residual stiffness interference model. Therefore, the fatigue reliability of a composite
material can also be defined as the probability of residual stiffness being less than critical
stiffness, as shown in Figure 14.

(a) (b)
Figure 14. Schematic diagram of traditional and improved stiffness-based fatigue reliability
model: (a) traditional stiffness-based fatigue reliability model; (b) improved stiffness-based fatigue
reliability model.

In Figure 14, the red curves represent the PDFs of residual stiffness under different
cycle ratios. The green curve presents the stiffness degradation path of the composite
material from the perspective of mean value. The blue curves represent the PDFs of critical
stiffness under different cycle ratios. The black curve in Figure 14b represents the growth
path of critical stiffness. For the traditional model, it is generally considered that the PDF
of critical stiffness is unchanged during the fatigue process, as shown in Figure 14a. As
mentioned in Section 4.2, the critical stiffness increases with the accumulation of fatigue
damage. Moreover, fatigue damage is usually treated as a function of the cycle ratio.
Accordingly, we can conclude that the PDF of critical stiffness changes with the cycle ratio,
as shown in Figure 14b. However, the increase in critical stiffness caused by accumulated
fatigue damage is always ignored in the traditional model, which will result in a large
deviation of the reliability analysis results.
To overcome the disadvantages of the traditional model, the increase in critical stiff-
ness caused by accumulated fatigue damage is considered in the improved model. By
substituting Gao’s model (i.e., Equation (2)) into Equation (22), the critical stiffness of a
composite material can be expressed as
E0 σ
Ecr (λ) = S0 · 1 − D E ( λ )
E0 σ sin(α) cos( βλα )
(27)
= S0 [sin(α) cos( βλα )−sin(αλ) cos( β)]

According to Equation (27) and the parameters shown in Table 4, the critical stiffness
growth curve of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is plotted, as shown in Figure 15.
 cr
0 1

0 sin( ) cos( )
sin( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( ) 
0 
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 20 of 25

− −45]2S laminates.
Figure 15. Critical stiffness growth curve of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/

Note from Figure 15 that the critical stiffness values are 45.88 MPa, 47.84 MPa and
49.78 MPa, respectively, when the cycle ratio is equal to zero. With the continuous increase
in fatigue damage in the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S−laminates, the critical stiffness grows
nonlinearly with the cycle ratio. Therefore, the traditional method holds that the critical
stiffness remains unchanged, which is inconsistent with the actual situation.
In the traditional stiffness-based reliability model, both critical stiffness and residual
stiffness are regarded as random variables. The difference is that the former does not
change with the cycle ratio, while the latter does. Based on the principle of the traditional
model, the fatigue reliability of a composite material under constant amplitude cyclic stress
can be formulated as

R E (λ) = Pr{ E(λ) > Ecr }

n h i o
sin(αλ) cos( β)
= Pr E0 1 − sin α
(α) cos( βλ )
> E cr
 n (28)
oC 
Ecr sin(α) cos( βλα )
= exp − D[sin(α) cos( βλα )−sin(αλ) cos( β)]

where R E (λ) represents the stiffness-based fatigue reliability model of a composite material.
In the improved stiffness-based reliability model, both critical stiffness and residual
stiffness are considered as random variables that change with the cycle ratio. Under such
circumstance, the fatigue reliability of a composite material under constant amplitude cyclic
stress should be expressed as

R E (λ) = Pr{ E(λ) > Ecr (λ)}

E0 σ sin(α) cos( βλα )
n h i o
sin(αλ) cos( β)
= Pr E0 1 − sin α
(α) cos( βλ )
> α
S0 [sin(α) cos( βλ )−sin(αλ) cos( β)]
(  C ) (29)
σE0 [sin(α) cos( βλα )]2
= exp − α 2
DS0 [sin(α) cos( βλ )−sin(αλ) cos( β)]

Based on Equations (28) and (29), the stiffness-based fatigue reliability curve of the
Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is obtained, as shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16 shows that the reliability curve based on the traditional model presents a
slow–fast trend with the increase in the cycle ratio. By comparison, the reliability curve
based on the improved model exhibits three distinct stages. The reliability decreases
quickly at the first stage, and then it remains at a stable level without significant change
and finally drops rapidly. This phenomenon is consistent with the development of stiffness-
   
 sin( ) cos( )  0 sin( ) cos( ) 
Pr  0 1  
  sin( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( )  
0  
  2  
  sin( ) cos( )   
exp 
0 
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785  2  21 of 25
  
0 sin( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( )   
   
based fatigue damage. Compared with the improved model, the calculation results of the
− conservative.
traditional model are

−
− −45]2S laminates.
Figure 16. Stiffness-based fatigue reliability curve of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/

According to Equations (28) and (29), the stiffness-based failure rate model of a
d
composite material can be formulated1as Equation (30). Accordingly, the failure rate curve
of the Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/−45]2S laminates isd plotted, as shown in Figure 17.

h E (λ)1 = RdE (1λ) 

l (λ)
E
= 1
R E (λ)
·ddLdλ
E (λ)

d = 1
· d[1−dλR E (λ)] (30)
R E (λ)
d
= − RdR(Eλ()λdλ
)
E

where h E (λ) is the stiffness-based failure rate, lE (λ) is the PDF of stiffness-based lifetime
and L E (λ) is the CDF of stiffness-based lifetime.

− −45]2S laminates.
Figure 17. Stiffness-based failure rate curve of Gr/PEEK [0/45/90/

−
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 22 of 25

Note from Figure 17 that the stiffness-based failure rate curve of the Gr/PEEK
[0/45/90/−45]2S laminates is similar to but different than the bathtub shape. For a specific
cycle ratio, the failure rate calculated by the improved model is higher than that calcu-
lated by the traditional model. This is because the improved model considers both critical
stiffness growth and stiffness degradation, while the traditional model only considers
the latter.

5.3. Comparison between Different Reliability Analysis Approaches

In engineering practice, the fatigue reliability of a composite material can be evaluated
from two perspectives. One is the strength-based approach and the other is the stiffness-
based approach. In this section, the differences between these two approaches are compared,
as shown in Figure 18.

(a) (b)
Figure 18. Comparison between strength-based and stiffness-based approaches: (a) fatigue reliability
curve; (b) failure rate curve.

Figure 18 shows that the fatigue reliability and failure rate curves of these two approaches
are significantly different. The strength-based fatigue reliability curve presents two distinct
stages, while the stiffness-based fatigue reliability curve has three different stages, as shown
in Figure 18a. In addition, the strength-based fatigue reliability is higher than the stiffness-
based fatigue reliability when the cycle ratio is 0 < λ < 0.7, while the0former0.7 is less than the
latter when 0.7 < λ < 0.8. Note from Figure 0.7 18b that
0.8 the strength-based failure rate curve
shows a monotonic growth trend, while the stiffness-based failure rate curve is similar
to but different than the bathtub shape. Moreover, the strength-based failure rate is less
than the stiffness-based failure rate when the cycle ratio is 0 < λ < 0.7, while the former is
larger than the latter when 0.7 < λ < 1. As a matter of fact, the strength-based approach
evaluates0 the reliability
0.7 0.7
of a composite material from the perspective of resistance 1 fatigue
to
fracture, while the stiffness-based approach evaluates the reliability of a composite material
from the perspective of resistance to elastic deformation.

6. Conclusions
In this paper, the growth mechanisms of effective stress and critical stiffness caused by
fatigue damage accumulation are investigated, and a pair of strength-based and stiffness-
based fatigue reliability models are proposed. The conclusions of this paper can be drawn
as follows:
(1) The fatigue damage accumulation of a composite material is quantified from the
perspective of performance degradation. The fitting accuracy of some representative
fatigue damage models is compared based on the fatigue damage data of Gr/PEEK

−
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 23 of 25

[0/45/90/−45]2S laminates. Yao’s model and Gao’s model are adopted to characterize
the strength-based and stiffness-based fatigue damage, respectively.
(2) The Weibull distribution is applied to depict the probability distributions of initial
strength and initial stiffness. A pair of probabilistic models of residual strength
and residual stiffness are developed to characterize the performance degradation
of a composite material. The strength and stiffness degradation data of Gr/PEEK
[0/45/90/−45]2S laminates are used to verify the developed probabilistic models.
(3) The effective bearing area of a composite material is treated as damage metric, and the
growth mechanisms of effective stress and critical stiffness caused by fatigue damage
accumulation are elaborated. A pair of strength-based and stiffness-based fatigue
reliability models are proposed. The fatigue reliability and failure rate of Gr/PEEK
[0/45/90/−45]2S laminates under different conditions are compared and discussed.
(4) The strength degradation and stiffness degradation are dominated by the same dam-
age state of composite materials. There is a certain correlation between these two
degradation behaviors. In the future, the induced mechanisms and coupling effects
between strength degradation behavior and stiffness degradation behavior will be
further studied and discussed.

Author Contributions: Methodology, software, investigation, writing—review and editing, funding

acquisition, J.-X.G.; formal analysis, software, original draft preparation, F.H.; investigation, writing—
review and editing, supervision, Y.-P.Y.; data curation, writing—original draft preparation, Y.-Y.L. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 52065062), the Fundamental Research Funds for Universities in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous
Region (Grant No. XJEDU2023P007), the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous
Region (Grant No. 2020D01C056) and the Key Research and Development Program of Xinjiang
Uygur Autonomous Region (Grant No. 2021B01003).
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Saracyakupoglu, T. Usage of additive manufacturing and topology optimization process for weight reduction studies in the
aviation industry. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2021, 6, 815–820. [CrossRef]
2. Parveez, B.; Kittur, M.I.; Badruddin, I.A.; Kamangar, S.; Hussien, M.; Umarfarooq, M.A. Scientific advancements in composite
materials for aircraft applications: A review. Polymers 2022, 14, 5007. [CrossRef]
3. Towsyfyan, H.; Biguri, A.; Boardman, R.; Blumensath, T. Successes and challenges in non-destructive testing of aircraft composite
structures. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2020, 33, 771–791. [CrossRef]
4. Liao, D.; Zhu, S.P.; Keshtegar, B.; Qian, G.; Wang, Q.Y. Probabilistic framework for fatigue life assessment of notched components
under size effects. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2020, 181, 105685. [CrossRef]
5. Li, H.; Soares, C.G. Assessment of failure rates and reliability of floating offshore wind turbines. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
2022, 228, 108777. [CrossRef]
6. Li, X.Q.; Song, L.K.; Bai, G.C. Recent advances in reliability analysis of aeroengine rotor system: A review. Int. J. Struct. Integr.
2022, 13, 1–29. [CrossRef]
7. Larsson, T.S.; Rönnbäck, A.; Vanhatalo, E. Integrating mixture experiments and six sigma methodology to improve fibre-reinforced
polymer composites. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2022, 38, 2233–2254. [CrossRef]
8. Zhu, S.P.; Liu, Q.; Peng, W.; Zhang, X.C. Computational-experimental approaches for fatigue reliability assessment of turbine
bladed disks. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2018, 142–143, 502–517. [CrossRef]
9. Teng, D.; Feng, Y.W.; Chen, J.Y.; Lu, C. Structural dynamic reliability analysis: Review and prospects. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 2022, 13,
753–783. [CrossRef]
10. Li, X.K.; Zhu, S.P.; Liao, D.; Correia, J.A.F.O.; Berto, F.; Wang, Q.Y. Probabilistic fatigue modelling of metallic materials under
notch and size effect using the weakest link theory. Int. J. Fatigue 2022, 159, 106788. [CrossRef]
11. Crane, R.; Dillingham, G.; Oakley, B. Progress in the reliability of bonded composite structures. Appl. Compos. Mater. 2017, 24,
221–233. [CrossRef]
12. Solazzi, L.; Vaccari, M. Reliability design of a pressure vessel made of composite materials. Compos. Struct. 2022, 279, 114726.
[CrossRef]
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 24 of 25

13. Fei, C.W.; Li, H.; Lu, C.; Han, L.; Keshtegar, B.; Taylan, O. Vectorial surrogate modeling method for multi-objective reliability
design. Appl. Math. Model. 2022, 109, 1–20. [CrossRef]
14. Zaharia, S.M.; Pop, M.A.; Udroiu, R. Reliability and lifetime assessment of glider wing’s composite spar through accelerated
fatigue life testing. Materials 2020, 13, 2310. [CrossRef]
15. Zhang, C.Z.; Chen, H.P.; Tee, K.F.; Liang, D.F. Reliability-based lifetime fatigue damage assessment of offshore composite wind
turbine blades. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2021, 34, 4021019.1–4021019.11. [CrossRef]
16. Talreja, R. A mechanisms-based reliability model for fatigue of composite laminates. Z. Angew. Math. Mech.-J. Appl. Math. Mech.
2015, 95, 1058–1066. [CrossRef]
17. Cheng, H.C.; Hwu, F.S. Fatigue reliability analysis of composites based on residual strength. Adv. Compos. Mater. 2008, 15,
385–402. [CrossRef]
18. Chen, C.L.; Tsai, Y.T.; Wang, K.S. Characteristics of reliability-dependent hazard rate for composites under fatigue loading. J.
Mech. Eng. 2009, 25, 195–203. [CrossRef]
19. Gao, J.X.; Zhu, P.N.; Yuan, Y.P.; Wu, Z.F.; Xu, R.X. Strength and stiffness degradation modeling and fatigue life prediction of
composite materials based on a unified fatigue damage model. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 137, 106290. [CrossRef]
20. Ma, H.D.; Ma, Q.; Bai, X.Z.; Xu, J.L.; An, Z.W. A material property degradation model of composite laminates considering stress
level. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2023, 30, 272–283. [CrossRef]
21. Feng, Y.; He, Y.T.; Gao, C. TT fatigue behaviors of composite T800/MTM46 cross-ply laminate and reliability analysis on fatigue
life. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2017, 9, 1–14. [CrossRef]
22. Häusler, S.; Fink, R.; Benz, C.; Sander, M. An investigation of the residual stiffness of a glass fibre reinforced composite in high
cycle fatigue experiments. Procedia Struct. 2022, 38, 230–237. [CrossRef]
23. Wang, X.J.; Ma, Y.J.; Wang, L.; Geng, X.Y.; Wu, D. Composite laminate oriented reliability analysis for fatigue life under
non-probabilistic time-dependent method. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2017, 326, 1–19. [CrossRef]
24. Wu, Z.W.; Fang, G.D.; Fu, M.Q.; Chen, X.J.; Liang, J.; Lv, D.K. Random fatigue damage accumulation analysis of composite
thin-wall structures based on residual stiffness method. Compos. Struct. 2019, 211, 546–556. [CrossRef]
25. Van Paepegem, W.; Degrieck, J. A new coupled approach of residual stiffness and strength for fatigue of fibre-reinforced
composites. Int. J. Fatigue 2002, 24, 747–762. [CrossRef]
26. Gao, J.X.; Yuan, Y.P. Probabilistic modeling of stiffness degradation for fiber reinforced polymer under fatigue loading. Eng. Fail.
Anal. 2020, 116, 104733. [CrossRef]
27. Shiri, S.; Yazdani, M.; Pourgol-Mohammad, M. A fatigue damage accumulation model based on stiffness degradation of composite
materials. Mater. Des. 2015, 88, 1290–1295. [CrossRef]
28. Hu, Y.N.; Wu, S.C.; Xie, C.; Wu, W.W.; Zhang, J. Fatigue life evaluation of Ti–6Al–4V welded joints manufactured by electron
beam melting. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 2021, 44, 2210–2221. [CrossRef]
29. Li, X.Q.; Song, L.K.; Bai, G.C. Physics-informed distributed modeling for CCF reliability evaluation of aeroengine rotor systems.
Int. J. Fatigue 2023, 167, 107342. [CrossRef]
30. Li, H.; Diaz, H.; Soares, C.G. A developed failure mode and effect analysis for floating offshore wind turbine support structures.
Renew. Energ. 2021, 164, 133–145. [CrossRef]
31. Shi, B.K.; Deng, Z.M.; Tan, L.S.; Zhao, Y.L.; Zhang, X.J. Micromechanics-based reliability analysis method for laminated composite
structures. Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 2020, 28, 2096–2113. [CrossRef]
32. Niu, X.P.; Zhu, S.P.; He, J.C.; Liao, D.; Correia, J.A.F.O.; Berto, F.; Wang, Q.Y. Defect tolerant fatigue assessment of AM materials:
Size effect and probabilistic prospects. Int. J. Fatigue 2022, 160, 106884. [CrossRef]
33. Liu, X.T.; Liu, J.Z.; Wang, H.J.; Yang, X.B. Prediction and evaluation of fatigue life considering material parameters distribution
characteristic. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 2022, 13, 309–326. [CrossRef]
34. Gao, P.; Xie, L.Y. Reliability evaluation based on different distributions of random load. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 415327. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
35. Reifsnider, K.L.; Henneke, E.G.; Stinchcomb, W.W. Damage mechanics and NDE of composite laminates. In Mechanics of Composite
Materials; Hashin, Z., Herakovich, C.T., Eds.; Elsevier Press Inc.: Oxford, UK, 1983; pp. 399–420.
36. Yao, W.; Himmel, N. A new cumulative fatigue damage model for fibre-reinforced plastics. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2000, 60, 59–64.
[CrossRef]
37. Mu, P.G.; Wan, X.P.; Zhao, M.Y. A new pair of cumulative fatigue damage models for composite materials. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011,
160–162, 226–230. [CrossRef]
38. Hwu, F.S. Study on Fatigue Reliability of Quasi-homogeneous Gr/PEEK Composite Laminate under Variable Load. Ph.D. Thesis,
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2000. (In Chinese).
39. Mao, H.; Mahadevan, S. Fatigue damage modelling of composite materials. Compos. Struct. 2002, 58, 405–410. [CrossRef]
40. Guo, J.Y.; Li, Y.F.; Peng, W.W.; Huang, H.Z. Bayesian information fusion method for reliability analysis with failure-time data and
degradation data. Qual. Reliab. 2022, 38, 1944–1956. [CrossRef]
41. Li, H.; Huang, C.G.; Soares, C.G. A real-time inspection and opportunistic maintenance strategies for floating offshore wind
turbines. Ocean Eng. 2022, 256, 111433. [CrossRef]
42. Li, H.; Soares, C.G.; Huang, H.Z. Reliability analysis of a floating offshore wind turbine using Bayesian Networks. Ocean Eng.
2020, 217, 107827. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2023, 10, 785 25 of 25

43. Chou, P.C.; Croman, R. Residual strength in fatigue based on strength-life equal rank assumption. J. Compos. Mater. 1978, 12,
177–194. [CrossRef]
44. He, J.C.; Zhu, S.P.; Luo, C.; Niu, X.; Wang, Q.Y. Size effect in fatigue modelling of defective materials: Application of the calibrated
weakest-link theory. Int. J. Fatigue 2022, 165, 107213. [CrossRef]
45. Lemaitre, J. Evaluation of dissipation and damage in metals, submitted to dynamic loading. In Proceedings of the Conference
lnternationale sur Ie Comportement Mecanique des Materiaux, Kyoto, Japan, 15–20 August 1971.
46. Shi, B.K.; Deng, Z.M. Multiscale reliability analysis of composite structures based on computer vision. Compos. Struct. 2022, 292,
115587. [CrossRef]
47. Maurizio Gobbato, J.P.; Conte, J.B.; Kosmatka, C.R.F. A reliability-based framework for fatigue damage prognosis of composite
aircraft structures. Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 2012, 29, 176–188. [CrossRef]
48. Li, X.Q.; Song, L.K.; Choy, Y.S.; Bai, G.C. Multivariate ensembles-based hierarchical linkage strategy for system reliability
evaluation of aeroengine cooling blades. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2023, 138, 108325. [CrossRef]
49. Yang, L.; Shuang, L.Z. The preliminary analysis of reliability for a composite structure with damage. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1990, 37,
1157–1163. [CrossRef]
50. Li, H.; Teixeira, A.P.; Soares, C.G. A two-stage failure mode and effect analysis of an offshore wind turbine. Renew. Energ. 2020,
162, 1438–1461. [CrossRef]
51. Zhang, H.; Song, L.K.; Bai, G.C. Active extremum Kriging-based multi-level linkage reliability analysis and its application in
aeroengine mechanism systems. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2022, 131, 107968. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.