International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Fatigue simulation for progressive damage in CFRP laminates using

intra-laminar and inter-laminar fatigue damage models
Ryoma Aoki *, Ryo Higuchi, Tomohiro Yokozeki
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, The University of Tokyo, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study proposes a simulation method to evaluate fatigue progressive damage in composite laminates using
Polymer matrix composites intra-laminar and inter-laminar damage models. The intra-laminar and inter-laminar damages are modeled using
Fatigue modelling continuum damage mechanics and cohesive zone model, respectively, and the evolution laws of damages are
Damage mechanics
formulated. A simulation method combining finite element method and fatigue models are described in this
Life prediction
paper. Fatigue simulations are conducted on a curved specimen and the results of that are compared with the
experimental results. The comparison indicates that the proposed method can predict the stiffness degradation
and the number of final failure cycles in good accuracy.

1. Introduction
In recent years, fiber-reinforced composite materials such as CFRP
(Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic) have been increasingly applied to
primary structures of aircraft thanks to their excellent mechanical
properties. Fatigue damage accumulates inside aircraft structures
because aircraft are subjected to repeated loading during long-term
operation. Since fatigue damage leads to a decrease in the strength
and stiffness of composite structures, it is indispensable to appropriately
evaluate the fatigue damage progress for the structural integrity of
aircraft. Establishing of a numerical simulation method to evaluate the
fatigue progressive damage has become an important issue for assessing
the residual stiffness and strength and fatigue life.
Many previous studies have investigated the damage mechanisms of
composites in fatigue and have shown that composite laminates exhibit
complex damage growth processes under fatigue [1–6]. Reifsnider et al.
[1] proposed a three-stage stiffness degradation model to describe the
stiffness reduction process in composites, and Jamison et al. [2] clearly
described the fatigue damage mechanisms in each stiffness degradation
process. In CFRP laminates, intra-laminar damage (including micro­
cracking, interfacial debonding between fiber and resin, and transverse
crack) and inter-laminar damage represented by delamination occur and
progress interactively due to fatigue loading. In order to evaluate the
fatigue damage process by numerical simulation, it is necessary to apply
an appropriate numerical model for damage modes in each stage. As a
numerical model, the cohesive zone model (CZM) approach [7] is widely
used to model transverse crack and delamination. On the other hand,
continuum damage mechanics (CDM) is a suitable way to model the
intra-laminar damage by homogenizing it for evaluating the stiffness
loss.
CDM was first proposed by Kachanov [8,9] to describe a creep
damage growth of metallic materials. Damage models for not only creep
damage but also damage due to static and fatigue loading have been
proposed using CDM [10–24]. Ladeveze and Allix [10–12] applied a
CDM model for composite materials and formulated a damage evolution
model. In the context of CDM, a damage state of materials can be
expressed using an internal state variable called damage variable, which
describes the mechanical behavior and damage growth of materials by
formulating its evolution law. It is an attractive approach for predicting
the residual stiffness due to damage growth.
As a method to predict the stiffness degradation of composite lami­
nates under fatigue loading, many previous studies have proposed intra-
laminar fatigue damage models based on CDM [13–24]. Hwang and Han
[13,14] introduced a concept of fatigue stiffness, which defined the
stiffness change in loading cycles as a function of applied stress and
strain. Besides, Sidoroff and Subagio [15] proposed a d(D)/dN model in
which the damage growth rate was formulated using a damage param­
eter D and an applied strain. Van Paepegem et al. proposed a phenom­
enological fatigue model with a coupled residual stiffness and strength
for glass-fiber woven composites [16–19]. In addition, Carrella-Payan
et al. [20] extended the model proposed by Van Paepegem et al. for
multidirectional CFRP laminates and conducted fatigue simulation

* Corresponding author at: 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan.

E-mail address: r.aoki@aastr.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp (R. Aoki).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.106015
Received 4 August 2020; Received in revised form 17 October 2020; Accepted 22 October 2020
Available online 26 October 2020
0142-1123/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Aoki et al. International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015

using the model, which accurately predicted the stiffness reduction of

where 〈∙〉 is Macaulay bracket defined as 〈x〉 = (x + |x|)/2, and ν012 is an
CFRP laminates on three-point bending tests. However, in these previ­
undamaged poisson’s ratio.
ous works on fatigue damage analysis, residual stiffness was numerically
CFRP laminate generally shows the stiffness reduction behavior
evaluated by modeling only intra-laminar damage, and damage growth
under fatigue loading through the following three stages as the number
due to delamination was not taken into account. In order to predict the
of loading cycles increases, as shown in Fig. 1 [1–6,16,17]. (i) In Stage I,
stiffness degradation and the final failure due to delamination, it is
the initial damage such as fiber/matrix interfacial debonding and
necessary to properly model the inter-laminar damage and to establish a
transverse cracks occurs at off-axis plies and the stiffness sharply de­
simulation method in combination with an intra-laminar damage model.
creases until the saturation of the intra-laminar cracking. (ii) In Stage II,
On the other hand, in many previous works, fatigue damage models
although the axial splitting occurs in 0 deg. plies and local delamination
using CZM have been proposed to predict the fatigue propagation of
at the crack tip induced by the transverse cracks occurs and grows, these
delamination. A. Turon et al. [25] proposed the fatigue evolution law of
damages hardly reduce the axial stiffness. (iii) Finally, the local
cohesive elements by linking fracture mechanics to damage mechanics,
delamination extends to the large-scale and leads to the final fracture
and the simulation using the fatigue model was able to predict the crack
and the rapid stiffness degradation in Stage III. In order to simulate the
growth rates. Several previous studies have proposed fatigue models
stiffness reduction behavior, a d(d)/dN model is adopted as a fatigue
using a modified Paris law to describe the evolution law of cohesive
model for intra-laminar damage evolution.
elements and conducted fatigue simulations for predicting crack prop­
To deal with the intra-laminar damage in multidirectional CFRP
agation [26–30]. In addition, Yashiro et al. implemented a fatigue
laminates, damage variables are employed for the three components: in
cohesive zone model for not only delamination but also transverse
fiber direction (ij = 11), shear direction (ij = 12), and transverse di­
cracks [31–33]. These previous studies have focused on predicting crack
rection (ij = 22). The damage evolution rates with respect to the number
propagation length. Compared with intra-laminar damage models using
of loading cycles are formulated as a function of damage variables and
CDM, these methods are difficult to accurately evaluate the stiffness loss
thermodynamic forces as shown in Eqs. (3)–(6). The formulations are
due to fatigue loading because these methods cannot account for
based on an evolution law proposed by Van Paepegem et al. [16,17].
microcracking and fiber/matrix interfacial debonding. Even though it is
Considering the effects of crack closure, we assumed that the damage
essential to reduce the computational cost on fatigue simulations,
does not progress in the transverse direction (ij = 22) when negative
damage models using CZM for all transverse cracks lead to worsening of
stress is applied, as defined in Eq. (6). When the stress in the transverse
the convergence and high computational cost. The combination of CDM
direction is positive, Eq. (5) is activated.
and CZM approach modeling the intra- and inter-laminar damages is
⎛ ⎞
considered to be a suitable method to predict the stiffness degradation of
composite laminates under fatigue loading. However, in previous works, d(d11 ) ⎜ d11 ⎟
(3)
2
= c1,11 Ỹ 11 exp⎝ − c2,11 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⎠ + c3,11 d11 Ỹ 11
the fatigue simulation method combining CDM and CZM approach has dN Ỹ 11
not been proposed.
The objective of this study is to propose a fatigue simulation method ( )
d(d12 ) d12
combining an intra-laminar damage model and an inter-laminar damage (4)
2
= c1,12 Ỹexp − c2,12 √̅̅̅̅ + c3,12 d12 Ỹ
dN
model for predicting the stiffness degradation of CFRP laminates. In this Ỹ
study, the damage in CFRP laminate under fatigue loading is divided
d(d22 ) d(d12 )
into intra-laminar damage and inter-laminar damage, which are = b3 if σ 22 ⩾0 (5)
adequately modeled using the CDM and CZM approach respectively, and dN dN
the evolution laws of damage are formulated. The proposed fatigue d(d22 )
models are implemented in a finite element analysis to evaluate the =0 if σ 22 < 0 (6)
dN
damage state. It also attempts to predict the number of loading cycles at
which final failure occurs. where N denotes the number of loading cycles, and Ỹ 11 , Ỹ are normal­
ized thermodynamic forces defined as follows:
2. Intra-laminar fatigue damage model
Y11 Y12 + b2 Y22
Ỹ 11 = s
, Ỹ = s s
(7)
2.1. Definition of intra-laminar fatigue damage model Y11 Y12 + b2 Y22

b2, b3 are coupling parameters based on a CDM model proposed by

Based on CDM, the degradation of the in-plane stiffness is expressed
Ladeveze et al. [10,11]. Yijs is a value of thermodynamic force in ij
using damage variables and the fatigue damage growth is modeled by
defining the evolution law of damage variables. A damage variable is a
parameter that takes values ranging from 0 to 1, where 0 represents no
damage and 1 represents complete damage and loss of load transfer
capacity. In CDM, the damage evolution law is formulated by associating
the damage variable dij with a thermodynamic force Yij defined by the
following equation [10–12].

∂ed σ 2ij
Yij = = (1)
∂dij 2Eij0 (1 − dij )2

where σ ij is stress components, E0ij is the components of stiffness with no

damage (ij = 11, 22, 12 which represents fiber, transverse and shear
direction, respectively), and ed is in-plane strain energy when damage
occurs, defined as follows [10–12]:

σ 211 〈σ22 〉2 〈 − σ 22 〉2 ν012 σ2

ed = + + − 0 σ11 σ 22 + 0 12
2E10 (1 − d11 ) 2E20 (1 − d22 ) 2E20 E1 2G12 (1 − d12 )
Fig. 1. Typical behavior of stiffness degradation of CFRP laminates under fa­
(2) tigue loading.

2
R. Aoki et al. International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015

component when the damage variable dij reaches 1 under static loading. where Dmax is a maximum value of the damage variable stored at an
In the intra-laminar fatigue damage model, ck,ij (k = 1, 2, 3, ij = 11,
integration point of cohesive element and |Δ̃| is a norm of the normalized
12) are parameters that govern the rate of damage evolution. The pa­
rameters c1,ij, c2,ij, determine the slope of stiffness reduction in the low relative displacement vector Δ̃ = {ΔI /ΔIc , ΔII /ΔIIc , ΔIII /ΔIIIc }T .
cycle range (Stage I) and parameters c3,ij determine the slope of the The damage variable D needs to increase monotonically to prevent
gradually increasing damage region (Stage II). The intra-laminar fatigue the recovery of inter-laminar damage. The maximum value of the
damage model intends to reproduce the stiffness reduction behavior in normalized relative displacement norm in loading history is stored as
Stage I and II. the damage variable at each integration point of cohesive elements.
Taking Eq. (3) as an example, the functionality of the parameters is Once the inter-laminar damage initiates, the inter-laminar strengths
described as follows. When damage variable d11 takes a value close monotonically decrease as the damage variable increases. When the
enough to 0, the exponential part in Eq. (3) is close to 1, and the second damage variable finally reaches 1 (D = 1), the cohesive element absorbs
term takes a value close enough to 0. Thus, the first parameter c1,11 energy equal to the fracture toughness and at the same time delamina­
determines the initial rate of stiffness degradation because the coeffi­ tion is generated. Additionally, it should be noted that the initial value of
cient of the first term c1,11 becomes dominant. As the damage variable the inter-laminar damage variable D needs to be larger than 0 to avoid
increases to some extent, the exponential part becomes dominant, so the an infinite stiffness of cohesive element.
second parameter c2,11 determines the end region of Stage I. As the
damage variable further increases, the exponential part approaches zero 3.2. Definition of inter-laminar fatigue damage model
and the second term becomes dominant. It means that the third
parameter c3,11 controls the slop of Stage II. To model the fatigue propagation of inter-laminar damage, the d(D)/
dN model is also applied to the cohesive element. We utilized the fatigue
2.2. Stress-Strain constitutive law with intra-laminar damage evolution model for inter-laminar damage, proposed by Yashiro et al.
[31] and the evolution law is defined as follows:
Taking into account the decrease in stiffness, the stress-strain
d(D) F βm
constitutive law when the intra-laminar damage occurs is defined as = αm (12)
dN (1 − D)γm
follows:
( ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2 ( )2̅
σ = M − 1 : C0 : M − T : ε (8) τI τII τIII
F= + + (13)
τIc τIIc τIIIc
where σ is a stress tensor, ε is a strain tensor, and C0 is an undamaged
orthotropic elastic modulus tensor. M is a damage effect tensor, which is where F is a dimensionless parameter that represents the stress state on
a 4th order symmetric tensor. The damage effect tensor is defined as the cohesive element. αm, βm, γ m are parameters that govern the crack
follows using the damage variables dij (written in matrix form by Voigt growth rate under mixed-mode conditions. These values are assumed to
notation) [20]. be linearly interpolated using the values in mode I and II.
⎡ ⎤
1 αII − αI
√ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎢ 1− d ̅ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ αm = (Δm − ΔI ) + αI (14)
⎢ 11 ⎥ ΔII − ΔI
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢
⎢ 0 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎥ where Δm is defined as an equivalent relative displacement Δm =
⎢ 1 − d22 ⎥ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
〈ΔI 〉2 + Δ2II + Δ2III . αI, αII are the values in modes I and II, respectively.
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
M=⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 0 ⎥ (9)
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ βm and γm also take the same form as above.
⎢ 0 0 0 1 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢
0 0 0 0 1 0 ⎥
⎥ 4. Simulation method
⎣ 1 ⎦
0 0 0 0 0 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
1 − d12 4.1. Procedure of fatigue simulation
Applying the above stress-strain constitutive law to solid elements,
In this study, it is assumed that the damage progress only when the
the stiffness reduction due to the intra-laminar damage can be simulated
maximum stress is applied in one cycle of the fatigue loading and the
in a finite element analysis (FEA).
minimum load of the fatigue loading has no effect on the damage
progress. We adopted a method of repeating the analysis at the
3. Inter-laminar fatigue damage model
maximum load of fatigue loading as illustrated in Fig. 2, which is based
on a concept proposed by Van Paepegem et al. [35] for reducing the
3.1. Constitutive law of cohesive element
computational cost.
Starting from the cycle number N = 1, a finite element analysis is
A cohesive element is used to simulate fatigue propagation of
delamination by using FEA. In this study, a newly defined damage
variable D representing the inter-laminar damage is used for the
following traction τi - relative displacement Δi relationship. It is based on
the cohesive element model proposed by Geubelle et al. [34].
1 − D τic
τi = Δi (i = I, II, III) (10)
D Δic

where τic, Δic are inter-laminar strengths and critical relative displace­
ments in each fracture mode, respectively. The damage variable D is
defined using relative displacements.

D = max[Dmax , min[1, |Δ̃| ] ] (11)

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the cycle jump calculation.

3
R. Aoki et al. International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015

Fig. 3. FEM model of three-point bending test.

performed after setting damage variables in all solid elements and ⎧

cohesive elements as initial values dij = 0, D = 0.001. The displacement ⃒ ⎪
⎪
⎪ 10− 20
(if dijk = 0)
field is converged at the point where the maximum fatigue load is d(dijk )⃒⃒ ⎨
Δd k = ⃒ × NJUMP1 = 0.5 × dijk (if 0 < dijk ⩽0.2) (16)
applied. In the following, a FEA is conducted to evaluate fatigue damage dN ⃒
Nk
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ 0.1 (if dijk > 0.2)
every ΔN cycles. In a calculation cycle Nk, the FEA is performed using a
stiffness matrix created with the intra-laminar damage variables dkij and { }
the inter-laminar damage variable Dk. In the FEA, the intra-laminar
k
ΔNinter = ΔDmax /max d(Dk )/dN (17)
damage variables dkij are fixed, and the inter-laminar damage variable
where ΔDmax is a pre-determined parameter that controls the evolution
Dk is calculated using Eq. (11) in one cycle. Next, the damage evolution rate of the inter-laminar damage and was set to ΔDmax = 0.02 in this
rates are determined using the intra- and inter-laminar fatigue damage simulation.
k+1
models and the damage variables (dk+1 ij , D ) in the next cycle are All FEAs were conducted using commercial finite element analysis
updated as follows. software MSC Marc2017. The damage models were implemented by the
⃒
⃒ user subroutines ANELAS and UCOHESIVE [36]. In the following sim­
d(dijk )⃒
dij = dij + dN ⃒ × ΔN k ,
k+1 k ulations, material properties shown in Table 1 were used for FEM
⃒ k
N (15) models.
⃒
d(Dk )⃒
D = D + dN ⃒⃒ × ΔN k
k+1 k
Nk 4.2. Parameter identification of intra-laminar fatigue damage model
k+1 k k
In the next cycle N (=N + ΔN ), a finite element analysis is
The parameters ck,ij (k = 1, 2, 3, ij = 11, 12) in the intra-laminar
performed with the updated damage variables as inputs. The above
fatigue damage model defined in Section 2 were identified using
procedure is repeated until the target number of cycles is reached or no
experimental results of three-point bending fatigue tests. The 11 com­
numerical convergence is obtained.
ponents ck,11 (k = 1, 2, 3) and the 12 components ck,12 (k = 1, 2, 3) of the
To determine the skipped cycle number ΔNk, Eqs. (16) and (17) are
parameters were determined from the experimental results of [0/90]8S
used because the evolution rates of intra-laminar damage differ from
laminate and [45/− 45]8S laminate, respectively. The experiments were
that of inter-laminar damage. The number of cycles ΔNk is finally
conducted under load control using Instron ElectroPuls E10000. The
determined as the smaller value of ΔNkintra and ΔNkinter. For the determi­
applied load was 84% of static strength for [0/90]8S laminates with a
nation ΔNkintra, NJUMP algorithm proposed by Van Paepegem et al.
stress ratio of 0.1 at a frequency of 5 Hz. That for [45/− 45]8S laminates
[16,35] is utilized here. In the algorithm, the number of cycles NJUMP1
was 70% of static strength with a stress ratio of 0.1 at a frequency of 2
is determined at each integration point of solid elements so that the
Hz. Curve fitting was performed by conducting fatigue simulations
increment of the intra-laminar damage Δdk satisfies Eq. (16) [20]. ΔNkintra
described in the previous section so that the predicted stiffness in each
is determined as the value of the 5th percentile of NJUMP1 calculated
loading cycle matches the stiffness from experimental results. FEM
from all integration points. On the other hand, ΔNkinter is obtained using
models were three-point bending test models with length of 200 mm,
Eq. (17) [25].
width of 25 mm, and support span of 100 mm, shown in Fig. 3. All layers
of the laminates [0/90]8S and [45/− 45]8S were modeled using 8-node
solid elements and 8-node cohesive elements inserted between 0/90
and 45/− 45 layers.
Fig. 4 shows the stiffness values obtained from the simulation and the
Table 1 experimental results. The stiffness values were calculated as the
Material properties.
maximum load of fatigue loading divided by the corresponding
Material properties displacement and were plotted by normalizing the initial stiffness with
Longitudinal Young’s modulus 112 GPa no damage. The sudden drops of stiffness in Fig. 4(a) might be caused
Transverse Young’s modulus 7.75 GPa due to the local delamination induced by intra-laminar cracking in 90
In-plane shear modulus 3.35 GPa deg. plies. To determine the parameters of the intra-laminar fatigue
Out-of-plane shear modulus 2.89 GPa
In-plane Poisson’s ratio 0.311
damage model, the sudden drops were neglected. The simulation results
Interlaminar strength in Mode I 40 MPa showed good agreement with experimental results and indicated that
Interlaminar strength in Mode II & III 70 MPa the behavior of the stiffness degradation due to intra-laminar fatigue
Critical energy release rate Mode I 0.25 kJ/m2 damage can be reproduced by using the present model. Table 2-(a)
Critical energy release rate Mode II & III 0.96 kJ/m2
shows the results of parameter identification in the intra-laminar fatigue
Ladeveze model properties damage model.
s
Y11 9.97 MPa
s
Y22 6.0 MPa 4.3. Parameter identification of inter-laminar fatigue damage model
s
Y12 0.22 MPa
b2 0.5 Focusing on predicting the onset of fatigue delamination, the pa­
b3 1.2
rameters αi, βi, γ i (i = I, II) in the inter-laminar fatigue damage model

4
R. Aoki et al. International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015

Fig. 4. The results of parameter identification of intra-laminar fatigue damage model: (a) [0/90]8S, (b) [45/− 45]8S.

calculated by the following equation; Gmax/Gic = (Pmax)2/(Pcr)2 (Gic;

Table 2
fracture toughness in mode I or II, Pcr; the critical load).
Fatigue model parameters.
FEM models consisted of 8-node solid elements and 8-node cohesive
(a) Intra-laminar fatigue damage model (b) Inter-laminar fatigue damage elements introduced in the mid-plane of the laminates. In the fatigue
parameters model parameters
simulation, the onset cycle of crack propagation was defined as the
c1,11 c2,11 c3,11 αI βI γI number of cycles at which the cohesive element at the crack tip was
5 5 3
2.0 × 10− 120 3.0 × 10− 4.0 × 10− 10.5 10.5
failed (see Fig. 5). Note that the same values of the maximum cyclic
c1,12 c2,12 c3,12 αII βII γII
1.0 × 10− 3
20 3.0 × 10− 2
5.0 × 10− 3
11.0 11.0 displacements were given at several energy levels in FEAs because the
fatigue tests for G-N curves were performed under displacement control.
The parameters were determined so as to fit the simulation results on the
defined in Section 3 were identified using G-N curve [37–39], which G-N curve obtained from the experiment by trial and error.
represents a relationship between the maximum energy release rate The G-N curves obtained from the fatigue simulations are shown in
under fatigue loading and the number of cycles of the crack growth Fig. 6 with the experimental results. The maximum energy release rate
onset. For the parameters in mode I and II, the G-N curves obtained from normalized by the critical energy release rate (fracture toughness) was
DCB (Double Cantilever Beam) and ENF (End Notched Flexure) speci­ plotted in the vertical axis. The dotted lines are the trend lines for the
mens were used, respectively. The fatigue tests were carried out on onset cycle of delamination, the red one shows the experimental results
Instron ElectroPuls E10000. The DCB specimens and its testing jig and and the blue one shows the simulation results in Fig. 6. The simulation
ENF specimens and its testing jig were prepared according to ASTM results showed that the onset cycle of delamination can be predicted
D5528 [40] and ASTM D7905 [41], respectively. The load conditions for using the inter-laminar fatigue model. Table 2-(b) shows the results of
mode I and mode II fatigue loading were determined with reference to parameter identification in the inter-laminar fatigue damage model.
ASTM D6115 [37]. The maximum cyclic displacement δmax is deter­
mined as the displacement corresponding to the maximum load Pmax

Fig. 5. FEM models of DCB and ENF specimens.

5
R. Aoki et al. International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015

Fig. 6. The results of parameter identification of inter-laminar fatigue damage model: (a) DCB, (b) ENF.

Fig. 7. Configuration of curved specimen (a) in experiments and (b) in simulations.

5. Simulation results and discussion

To validate the simulation method using the intra- and inter-laminar

Fig. 8. Normalized stiffness-cycles histories obtained from simulations and
experiments.
fatigue damage models presented in this study, a fatigue simulation was
conducted on a curved specimen as shown in Fig. 7. The stacking
sequence of the curved specimen was quasi-isotropic laminate [30/
− 30/90]S4. The experiments were performed on Instron ElectroPuls
E10000 under load control, and the cyclic frequency and stress ratio
were set to be 5 Hz and 0.1, respectively. The tension-tension fatigue
load was applied along with x direction by clamping the specimens with
no tab as illustrated in Fig. 7 (a). The FEM model of the specimen was
modeled using 8-node solid elements excluding the clamped area and 8-
node cohesive elements inserted between the interlayers. For the tensile
fatigue condition, the maximum load of fatigue loading was applied to
the one end (along with x-direction in the figure) and the nodes at the
other end were fixed in all degrees of freedom as boundary conditions.
The material properties and fatigue parameters listed in Tables 1 and 2
were used in this simulation.

6
R. Aoki et al.
5.1. Validation of intra- and inter-laminar fatigue damage model
For validation, fatigue simulations were carried out using only the
intra-laminar fatigue model, using only the inter-laminar fatigue model,
and using both fatigue models. It should be noted that the same values
were used for material properties and fatigue parameters. The applied
maximum load of fatigue loading was 1,000 N, which was about 50% of
the static strength of the curved specimen.
Fig. 8 shows the stiffness normalized by initial stiffness obtained
from the simulations and experiments. The normalized stiffness is
determined as the stiffness divided by the initial stiffness with no
damage. In this study, the stiffness of the curved specimen is defined as
the applied load Pmax divided by the corresponding displacement δmax:
Stiffness = Pmax/δmax. Furthermore, in this study, the final failure of the
curved specimen is defined as when the stiffness decreases to 50% or
more of the initial stiffness. The black solid line, black dashed line, and
red solid line in the figure indicate the results obtained from simulations
using only the intra-laminar fatigue damage model, the only inter-
laminar fatigue damage model, and both fatigue models, respectively.
Firstly, the simulation result using only the intra-laminar fatigue
model shows good agreement with the experimental results regarding
the stiffness reduction behavior up to 50,000 cycles. However, the
predicted stiffness values from 50,000 to 300,000 cycles were over­
estimated in comparison with the test results. Even though the simula­
tion was performed up to 400,000 cycles, no rapid decrease in stiffness
was observed because the inter-laminar fatigue damage was not
implemented.
Fig. 9. Comparison of damage distribution d22 between (a) in case of using only the intra-laminar damage model and (b) in case of using both fatigue models at
340,000 cycles and (c) failure mode in the experiments at 50% load level.
7
International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015
Secondly, no stiffness loss due to initial damage was observed in the
simulation using only the inter-laminar fatigue model, and the predicted
stiffness hardly decreased up to 400,000 cycles. It is thought that
delamination did not progress because the simulation could not capture
the initial degradation of stiffness.
Finally, the results from the simulation using both the intra- and
inter-laminar fatigue models presented in this study confirmed that the
behavior of stiffness reduction due to initial damage, subsequent gradual
stiffness reduction, and abrupt stiffness reduction was in good agree­
ment with the experimental results. The predicted stiffness value at
300,000 cycles was 96.4% of the initial stiffness while the experimental
values were 97.7% and 96.9%. Furthermore, regarding the number of
cycles of final failure, the analysis results showed that the final failure
occurred at 340,000 cycles, while the experimental results showed that
the failure occurred at 344,000 cycles and 380,000 cycles. These results
demonstrated that the proposed method can predict the stiffness value
and the number of final failure cycles with good accuracy.
In the case of the simulation using both fatigue models, the behavior
of the stiffness degradation of CFRP laminates up to the final failure was
successfully predicted while the drastic stiffness loss due to delamina­
tion could not be reproduced in the case of the analysis using only the
inter-laminar damage model. This suggests that the relative displace­
ments between the interlayers were expanded caused by the in-plane
stiffness loss and consequently the inter-laminar damage progressed.
In addition, Fig. 9 shows a comparison of the damage distribution d22 at
340,000 cycles in cases of using only intra-laminar damage model (a)
and using both fatigue models (b), and microscopic image at the final
R. Aoki et al.
Fig. 10. Prediction of the number of final failure cycles.
failure with 50% load level condition (c). As shown in Fig. 9 (c), the final
fracture in the experiment is caused due to large-scale delamination and
the occurrence of intra-laminar crackings in 30, − 30, and 90 deg. layers
were observed. The simulated damage in Fig. 9 shows intra-laminar
matrix damage and corresponds to the intra-laminar cracking in 30
deg. plies, which was observed on the edges of the 30 deg. outermost
plies in the experiment. As can be seen from the figure, little damage
distribution in the thickness direction was observed in case (a), while it
can be confirmed that intra-laminar damage has progressed significantly
in the vicinity of the inter-laminar damage in case (b). Once delamina­
tion has occurred, stress relaxation occurs at the location where the
inter-laminar damage occurred, while higher in-plane stresses occur in
the layers above and below it, resulting in higher intra-laminar damage
growth. It can be said that the damage progress in which the intra- and
inter-laminar damages interfere with each other was numerically
reproduced.
5.2. Prediction of final failure on several load levels
As a validation for several load levels, fatigue simulations were
conducted at the load levels of 60% (1,150 N) and 65% (1,250 N) of the
static strength. The numbers of failure cycles were 75,000 cycles and
21,000 cycles, respectively, and the prediction of the number of cycles of
final failure was summarized with experimental results in Fig. 10. The
dotted lines are the trend lines for the final failure cycle of curved
specimens. The red one shows the experimental results and the black one
shows the predicted results in Fig. 10. As shown in the figure, it can be
said that the fatigue simulation by the present method can predict the
number of failure cycles at several load levels It is because the simula­
tion was able to capture the initiation of delamination by determining
the parameters in the inter-laminar fatigue damage model as to predict
the onset numbers of crack growth at several energy conditions.
6. Conclusions
Focusing on progressive damage in CFRP laminates under fatigue
loading, we modeled intra- and inter-laminar damage based on CDM and
CZM approaches, respectively. The fatigue evolution laws of the intra-
laminar damage variables and the inter-laminar damage variable were
formulated as the damage growth rates defined by damage and stress
states. A fatigue simulation method combining both fatigue models and
FEA was proposed adopting the cycle jump calculation. It was verified
that the intra-laminar fatigue damage model predicted the stiffness
reduction and the number of crack initiation cycles could be predicted at
several energy levels using the inter-laminar fatigue damage model. To
validate the proposed method, three types of fatigue simulation were
carried out on the curved specimen. It was confirmed that the result of
8
International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015
simulation using both fatigue models showed the best agreement with
the experimental results regarding the stiffness degradation and can
predict the number of final failure cycles at several load levels.
Furthermore, the comparison of damage distribution suggested that the
proposed method was able to reproduce the fatigue damage growth
where intra-laminar and inter-laminar damages interact on the numer­
ical simulation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by JST-Mirai Program Grant Number
JPMJMI19C6, Japan, and Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows Grant No.
20J13151 from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) .
References
[1] Reifsnider KL, Jamison R. Fracture of fatigue-loaded composite laminates. Int J
Fatigue 1982;4(4):187–97.
[2] Jamison R, Schulte K, Reifsnider K, Stinchcomb W. Characterization and analysis of
damage mechanisms in tension-tension fatigue of graphite/epoxy laminates. In:
Effects of Defects in Composite Materials, ASTM STP 836; 1984. p. 21–55.
[3] Talreja R. Fatigue of composite materials: damage mechanisms and fatigue-life
diagram. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci 1981;378:461–75.
[4] Spearing SM, Beaumont PW. Fatigue damage mechanics of composite materials. I:
Experimental measurement of damage and post-fatigue properties. Compos Sci
Technol 1992;44:159–68.
[5] Fujii T, Amijima S, Okubo K. Microscopic fatigue processes in a plain-weave glass-
fibre composite. Compos Sci Technol 1993;49:327–33.
[6] Carraro PA, Maragoni L, Quaresimin M. Characterisation and analysis of transverse
crack-induced delamination in cross-ply composite laminates under fatigue
loadings. Int J Fatigue 2019;129.
[7] Elices M, Guinea GV, Planas J. The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations
and challenges. Eng Fract Mech 2002;69:137–63.
[8] Kachanov M. Time of the rupture process under creep conditions. Izestiia Akademii
Nauk SSSR, Otedelenie Teckhnicheskikh Nauk 1958;8:26–31.
[9] Kachanov M. Elastic solids with many cracks: A simple method of analysis. Int J
Solids Struct 1987;23:23–43.
[10] Ladevèze P. A damage computational method for composite structures. Comput
Struct 1992;44:79–87.
[11] Ladeveze P, LeDantec E. Damage modelling of the elementary ply for laminated
composites. Compos Sci Technol 1992;43:257–67.
[12] Allix O, Bahlouli N, Cluzel C, Perret L. Modelling and identification of temperature-
dependent mechanical behaviour of the elementary ply in carbon/epoxy laminates.
Compos Sci Technol 1996;56:883–8.
[13] Hwang W, Han KS. Cumulative damage models and multi-stress fatigue life
prediction. J Compos Mater 1986;20:125–53.
[14] Hwang W, Han KS. Fatigue of composites—fatigue modulus concept and life
prediction. J Compos Mater 1986;20(2):154–65.
[15] Sidoroff F, Subagio B. Fatigue damage modelling of composite materials from
bending tests. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Composite Materials,
London, UK, July. 1987.
[16] Van Paepegem W, Degrieck J, De Baets P. Finite element approach for modelling
fatigue damage in fibre-reinforced composite materials. Compos B Eng 2001;32:
575–88.
[17] Van Paepegem W, Degrieck J. Coupled residual stiffness and strength model for
fatigue of fibre-reinforced composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:
687–96.
[18] Van Paepegem W, Degrieck J. Experimental set-up for and numerical modelling of
bending fatigue experiments on plain woven glass/epoxy composites. Compos
Struct 2001;51:1–8.
[19] Van Paepegem W, Degrieck J. A new coupled approach of residual stiffness and
strength for fatigue of fibre-reinforced composites. Int J Fatigue 2002;24:747–62.
[20] Carrella-Payan D, Magneville B, Hack M, Lequesne C, Naito T, Urushiyama Y,
Yamazaki W, Yokozeki T, Van Paepegem W. Implementation of fatigue model for
unidirectional laminate based on finite element analysis: theory and practice.
Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale 2016;10:184–90.
[21] Samareh-Mousavi SS, Mandegarian S, Taheri-Behrooz F. A nonlinear FE analysis to
model progressive fatigue damage of cross-ply laminates under pin-loaded
conditions. Int J Fatigue 2019;119:290–301.
[22] Huang J, Pastor ML, Garnier C, Gong XJ. A new model for fatigue life prediction
based on infrared thermography and degradation process for CFRP composite
laminates. Int J Fatigue 2019;120:87–95.
R. Aoki et al.
[23] Sally O, Laurin F, Julien C, Desmorat R, Bouillon F. An efficient computational
strategy of cycle-jumps dedicated to fatigue of composite structures. Int J Fatigue
2020;135.
[24] Tamboura S, Laribi MA, Fitoussi J, Shirinbayan M, Bi RT, Tcharkhtchi A, Dali HB.
Damage and fatigue life prediction of short fiber reinforced composites submitted
to variable temperature loading: Application to Sheet Molding Compound
composites. Int J Fatigue 2020;138.
[25] Turon A, Costa J, Camanho PP, Dávila CG. Simulation of delamination in
composites under high-cycle fatigue. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2007;38:2270–82.
[26] Harper PW, Hallett SR. A fatigue degradation law for cohesive interface elements –
Development and application to composite materials. Int J Fatigue 2010;32:
1774–87.
[27] Landry B, LaPlante G. Modeling delamination growth in composites under fatigue
loadings of varying amplitudes. Compos B Eng 2012;43:533–41.
[28] Kawashita LF, Hallett SR. A crack tip tracking algorithm for cohesive interface
element analysis of fatigue delamination propagation in composite materials. Int J
Solids Struct 2012;49:2898–913.
[29] Tao C, Qiu J, Yao W, Ji H. A novel method for fatigue delamination simulation in
composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol 2016;128:104–15.
[30] Kaushik V, Ghosh A. Experimental and numerical investigation of Mode-I & Mode-
II fatigue crack growth in unidirectional composites using XIGA-CZM approach. Int
J Fatigue 2020;134:105461.
[31] Yashiro S, Okabe T. Numerical prediction of fatigue damage progress in holed
CFRP laminates using cohesive elements. J Solid Mech Mater Eng 2009;3:1212–21.
International Journal of Fatigue 143 (2021) 106015
[32] Okabe T, Yashiro S. Numerical simulation for predicting fatigue damage progress
in notched CFRP laminates by using cohesive elements. J Solid Mech Mater Eng
2009;3:1202–11.
[33] Yamaguchi T, Okabe T, Yashiro S. Fatigue simulation for titanium/CFRP hybrid
laminates using cohesive elements. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69:1968–73.
[34] Geubelle PH, Baylor JS. Impact-induced delamination of composites: a 2D
simulation. Compos B Eng 1998;29:589–602.
[35] Van Paepegem W, Degrieck J. Fatigue degradation modelling of plain woven glass/
epoxy composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 2001;32:1433–41.
[36] MSC Marc Documentation. Volume D: User Subroutines and Special Routines. MSC
Software; 2017.
[37] ASTM D6115-97. Standard Test Method for Mode I Fatigue Delamination Growth
Onset of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites. American
Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM international; 2011.
[38] Murri GB. Evaluation of Delamination onset and growth characterization methods
under Mode I fatigue loading. NASA TM-2013-217966 2013.
[39] O’Brien TK, Johston WM, Toland GJ. Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness and
Fatigue Characterization of a Graphite Epoxy Composite Materials. NASA TM-
2010-216838 2010.
[40] ASTM D5528-13, Standard Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture
Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites.
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM international; 2011.
[41] ASTM D7905-14, Standard Test Method for Determination of the Mode II
Interlaminar Fracutre Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Matrix Composites. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM
international; 2011.