ME – 518

Mechanics of Composite
Materials

Muhammad Ilyas, PhD

Mazumdar SK - 2002, Composites Manufacturing - Materials, Product, and Process
Engineering
 Strength of a Continuous FR Lamina
➢ Analysis of composite strength is more difficult than the analysis of
elastic behavior
➢ Variety of failure modes can occur in composites (fiber pullout, fiber
breakage, fiber microbuckling, matrix cracking, and delamination)
➢ Strength of a composite is derived from the strength of the fibers and
this strength is highly directional in nature, e.g.
➢ longitudinal strength of the continuous fiber-reinforced lamina, 𝑠𝐿 , is much
greater than the transverse strength, 𝑠𝑇
(−) (−)
➢ the compressive strengths 𝑠𝐿 and 𝑠𝑇 may be different from the
(+) (+)
corresponding tensile strengths 𝑠𝐿 and 𝑠𝑇
(+)
➢ typically, transverse tensile strength, 𝑠𝑇 , is the smallest of all the lamina
strengths

➢ in-plane shear strength 𝑠𝐿𝑇 associated with the principal material axes is still
another independent property
5
 Strength of a Continuous FR Lamina

➢ The “effective strengths” of lamina may be defined as ultimate values of

the volume-averaged stresses that cause failure of the lamina under
simple states of stress.

6
 Strength of a Continuous FR Lamina
➢ Assume linear elastic behavior up to failure

➢ When the loading is perpendicular to the fibers as shown in Figure,

stress and strain concentrations occur in the matrix around the fibers
(i.e. the fibers create discontinuities in the matrix) and this reduces
the tensile strength of the matrix material

7
 Table 4.1

8
 Strength of a Continuous FR Lamina

➢ Compressive strengths are not necessarily equal to the corresponding

tensile strengths
➢ Transverse compressive strengths are generally greater than the
transverse tensile strengths
➢ Longitudinal compressive strengths are usually less than or equal to
the longitudinal tensile strengths
➢ The intrinsic compressive strength of composites has always been
difficult to determine experimentally

9
 Multiaxial Strength Criteria

➢ Off-axis or multiaxial loading,

➢ It is assumed that lamina failure can be characterized by using a multiaxial
strength criterion (or failure criterion) that incorporates the gross
mechanical strengths.

➢ Objective of such a theory

➢ Provide the designer with the capability to estimate quickly when lamina
failure will occur under complex loading conditions other than simple
uniaxial or shear stresses.

10
 Multiaxial Strength Criteria

➢ Many of the failure criteria for anisotropic composites are based on

generalizations of previously developed criteria for predicting the
transition from elastic to plastic behavior in isotropic metallic
materials
➢ Make use of concept of a “failure surface” or “failure envelope”
generated by plotting stress components in stress space
➢ Coordinate axes for the stress space generally correspond to the
stresses along the principal material axes.
➢ Theory predicts: those combinations of stresses whose loci fall inside
the failure surface will not cause failure, whereas those combinations
of stresses whose loci fall on or outside the surface will cause failure

11
 Multiaxial Strength Criteria

➢ In the application of all the failure criteria, the first step is the
transformation of calculated stresses to the principal material axes
using transformation equations (Chapter 2)

12
 Maximum Stress Criterion
➢ First suggested in 1920 by Jenkins as an extension of the Maximum
Normal Stress Theory (or Rankine’s Theory) for isotropic materials
➢ Failure is predicted when any principal material axis stress component
exceeds the corresponding strength
➢ According to this criterion, the following set of inequalities must be
satisfied to avoid failure

(−) (−)
➢ The numerical values of 𝑠𝐿 and 𝑠𝑇 are assumed to be positive

➢ It is assumed that shear failure along the principal material axes is

13
independent of the sign of the shear stress 𝜏12
 Maximum Stress Criterion

➢ Note: this failure surface is independent of the shear stress 𝜏12 , and
that the criterion does not account for possible interaction between the
stress components
➢ i.e. predicted limiting value of a particular stress component is the
same whether other stress components are present or not

14
 Maximum Stress Criterion
➢ the applied normal stress, 𝜎𝑥 , in the off-axis uniaxial loading test
shown in Figure produces the following biaxial stress state along the
principal material axes

15
 Maximum Stress Criterion
➢ These stress components may then be substituted into equations similar to
Equation 4.2 to generate failure surfaces.

➢ For small 𝜃 (near 𝜃 = 0°), predicted failure is governed by the longitudinal tensile
(+)
strength, 𝑠𝐿

➢ For intermediate values of θ, failure is dominated by the shear strength, 𝑠𝐿𝑇

(+)
➢ For large 𝜃 (near 𝜃 = 90°), failure is dominated by the transverse tensile strength, 𝑠𝑇
16
 Maximum Stress Criterion
➢ the off-axis shear test described in Figure, the applied shear stress, 𝜏𝑥𝑦 ,
generates the following biaxial stress state along the principal material axes
according to Equation 2.31

17
 Maximum Stress Criterion

➢ If the angle 𝜃 = 45°, Equation 4.4 reduces to 𝜎1 = 𝜏𝑥𝑦 , 𝜎2 = −𝜏𝑥𝑦 , and 𝜏12 = 0
⇒ a positive applied shear stress, 𝜏𝑥𝑦 , would produce longitudinal tension and
transverse compression along the principal material axes, as shown in the
lower part of Figure (a)

➢ A negative applied shear stress would produce longitudinal compression and

transverse tension, as shown in the lower part of Figure (b)

➢ The fact that the transverse tensile strength is much lower than other
strengths (Table 4.1), the importance of sign of the applied off-axis shear stress
should now be obvious

➢ It is easy to visualize a situation where a negative shear stress of a certain

magnitude could cause a transverse tensile failure, whereas a positive shear
stress of the same magnitude would not cause failure

18
 Example
A generally orthotropic lamina made from E-glass/470-36 vinylester composite
material has the strength properties listed in Table 4.1 and the lamina
orientation is 𝜃 = 30°. If the applied stresses in the off-axis coordinate system 𝑥𝑦
are 𝜎𝑥 = 200 MPa, 𝜎𝑦 = −100 MPa, and 𝜏𝑥𝑦 = 100 MPa, determine whether the
lamina will fail or not according to the maximum stress criterion.

19
 Example
An element of an orthotropic lamina made of T300/5208 carbon/epoxy material is
subjected to a positive off-axis shear stress, 𝜏𝑥𝑦 , at an angle 𝜃 = 45° as shown in
Figure below. Determine the value of the off-axis shear stress 𝜏𝑥𝑦 that would
cause failure according to the maximum stress criterion.

20
 Example
Repeat the above example if the off-axis shear stress is negative, as shown in
Figure below:

21
 Maximum Strain Criterion
➢ Proposed by Waddoups, in 1967, as an extension of the Maximum Normal
Strain Theory (or Saint Venant’s Theory)

➢ Failure is predicted when any principal material axis strain component

exceeds the corresponding ultimate strain

(−) (−)
➢ the numerical values of 𝑒𝐿 and 𝑒𝑇 are assumed to be positive and the
ultimate strains are all engineering strains

➢ it is assumed that shear failure along the principal material axes is

independent of the sign of the shear strain 𝛾12

22
 Maximum Strain Criterion

➢ The failure surface for the Maximum Strain Criterion in 𝜀1 , 𝜀2 space is a

rectangle (not shown here)

➢ In 𝜎1 -𝜎2 space, however, the Maximum Strain Criterion failure surface is a

parallelogram, as shown in Figure

23
 Maximum Strain Criterion
➢ The limiting strain associated with the positive 1 direction is

(+) 1
➢ This is equation of a straight-line having intercept (𝑠𝐿 , 0) and slope 𝜐
12

➢ Similarly, limiting strain along the positive 2 direction yields the equation

(+)
➢ which is the equation of a straight line having intercept (0, 𝑠𝐿 ) and slope 𝜐21

➢ Depending on the magnitudes of the lamina strengths and stiffnesses, the

intercepts of the Maximum Strain Criterion parallelogram may not be the
same as those of the Maximum Stress Criterion rectangle in stress space
24
 Quadratic Interaction Criteria

➢ So-called quadratic interaction criteria also evolved from early failure theories
for isotropic materials

➢ Include terms to account for interaction between the stress components

➢ Quadratic forms of the equations for plane stress lead to elliptical failure
surfaces

➢ In 1948, Hill suggested that for a general three-dimensional state of stress

along the principal axes of anisotropy (the 123 axes) in such a material, the
failure surface (or yield surface) 𝜎1 , 𝜎2 , 𝜎3 space is described by the equation 4.9

2 2 2 2 2 2
𝐴 𝜎2 − 𝜎3 + 𝐵 𝜎3 − 𝜎1 + 𝐶 𝜎1 − 𝜎2 + 2𝐷𝜏23 + 2𝐸𝜏31 + 2𝐹𝜏12 =1

➢ To avoid failure, left-hand side of the equation must be < 1

25
 Tsai–Hill Criterion

➢ 123 directions are assumed to be the principal material axes of the orthotropic
transversely isotropic lamina and 1 direction being along the reinforcement
direction

➢ Plane stress is assumed (𝜎3 = 𝜏31 = 𝜏23 = 0)

➢ Replace Hill’s anisotropic yield strengths corresponding effective lamina

strengths, i.e. 𝑌1 = 𝑠𝐿 , 𝑌2 = 𝑌3 = 𝑠𝑇 , and 𝑌12 = 𝑠𝐿𝑇

26
 Tsai–Hill Criterion

➢ The failure surface generated by this equation is an ellipse

➢ The ellipse shown in Figure is symmetric about the origin because of the
assumption of equal strengths in tension and compression

➢ Tsai–Hill equation can be used when tensile and compressive strengths are
different by simply using the appropriate value of 𝑠𝐿 and 𝑠𝑇 for each quadrant
of stress space
(+) (−)
➢ e.g. if 𝜎1 is positive and 𝜎2 is negative, the values of 𝑠𝐿 and 𝑠𝑇 would be used
in Equation 4.14

➢ Resulting failure surface is no longer symmetric about the origin

27
 Example
A filament-wound cylindrical pressure vessel (Figure 2.19) of mean diameter 𝑑 =
1 m and wall thickness 𝑡 = 20 mm is subjected to an internal pressure, 𝑝. The
lamina strengths of E-glass/epoxy are listed in Table 4.1. Determine the internal
pressure 𝑝, which would cause failure of the vessel according to (a) the maximum
stress criterion and (b) the Tsai–Hill criterion.

28
 Example 4.4
Using the maximum strain criterion, determine the uniaxial failure stress, 𝜎𝑥 , for
off-axis loading of the unidirectional lamina in Figure below if the material is
AS/3501 carbon/epoxy and the angle 𝜃 = 30°.

29
 Problem 4.3
Using the material properties given below and assuming that the stiffnesses are
the same in tension and compression, determine the allowable off-axis shear stress,
𝜏𝑥𝑦 , at 𝜃 = 45° (refer to Figure) according to: (a) the Maximum Stress Criterion, (b)
the Maximum Strain Criterion, and (c) the Tsai–Hill Criterion. Compare and
discuss the results and check both positive and negative values of 𝜏𝑥𝑦 .

30
 Tsai-Wu Criterion

➢ Based on Total Strain Energy failure theory of Beltrami (Gol’denblat

and Kopnov)
➢ Tsai-Wu applied the failure theory to a lamina in plane stress
➢ Lamina is considered to be failed if
𝐹1 𝜎1 + 𝐹2 𝜎2 + 𝐹6 𝜏12 + 𝐹11 𝜎12 + 𝐹22 𝜎22 + 𝐹66 𝜏12
2
+ 2𝐹12 𝜎1 𝜎2 ≥ 1
➢ More general than Tasi-Hill
➢ It distinguishes between compressive and tensile strengths
➢ 𝐹1 , 𝐹2 , 𝐹6 , 𝐹11 , 𝐹22 and 𝐹66 are determined using the five strength
parameters of a UD lamina

31
 Tsai-Wu Criterion

➢ Uniaxial (tension and compression) tests in longitudinal direction give

1 1
𝐹1 = + − −
𝑠𝐿 𝑠𝐿
1
𝐹11 =
𝑠𝐿+ 𝑠𝐿−
➢ Uniaxial (tension and compression) tests in transverse direction give
1 1
𝐹2 = + − −
𝑠𝑇 𝑠 𝑇
1
𝐹22 =
𝑠𝑇+ 𝑠𝑇−
➢ Shear (+ve and -ve) tests give
𝐹6 = 0
1
𝐹66 = 2
𝑠𝐿𝑇
32
Tsai-Wu Criterion

➢ 𝐹12 cannot be directly found ➢ Tsai-Hahn (better suited for

from strength parameters graphite/epoxy)

➢ This can be found 𝐹11 𝐹22

𝐹12 = −
experimentally by conducting 2
biaxial test ➢ Tsai-Hill
1
➢ Some empirical suggestions to 𝐹12 = −
2 𝑠𝐿+ 2
find 𝐹12 are given:
➢ Hoffman
1
𝐹12 = −
2 𝑠𝐿+ 𝑠𝐿−
➢ Mises-Hencky

1 1
𝐹12 =−
2 𝑠𝐿+ 𝑠𝐿− 𝑠𝑇+ 𝑠𝑇−
 Tsai-Wu Criterion

34
 Sample Problem

➢ Find the maximum value of 𝜎 > 0 if a stress 𝜎𝑥 = 2𝜎, 𝜎𝑦 = −3𝜎, and

𝜏𝑥𝑦 = 4𝜎 are applied to a 60° lamina of graphite/epoxy. Lamina
strengths are given below
a) Use Tsai-Hill theory

b) Use Tsai–Wu failure theory

𝑠𝐿+ = 1800MPa, 𝑠𝐿− = 1400MPa, 𝑠𝑇+ = 40MPa, 𝑠𝑇− = 230MPa, 𝑠𝐿𝑇 =

100MPa

35
 Sample Problem
➢ A filament-wound composite pressure vessel is to be made from unidirectional
AS/3501 graphite/epoxy. The winding angle is 0° ≤ 𝜃 ≤ 90°. The pressure vessel
has closed ends. An internal pressure 𝑃, a torque 𝑇 and a bending moment 𝑀
are applied as shown in the figure below. The bending stress is known to be
𝜎𝐵 = 5𝑎/6𝑡. The torque will result in a shear stress expressed as 𝜏 = 2𝑎/𝑡, where
𝑎 = 𝑝𝑑/2 = 265 kPa-m. The diameter 𝑑 = 0.762 m. Determine the variation of
thickness with fibre orientation 𝜃. Do not forget to consider that the bending
stress is either tensile or compressive, depending upon which circumferential
position is being evaluated. Assess the failure using
a) Use Tsai-Hill theory

b) Use Tsai–Wu failure theory

𝑠𝐿+ = 1448 MPa, 𝑠𝐿− = 1172 MPa, 𝑠𝑇+ = 48.3 MPa, 𝑠𝐿− = 248 MPa, 𝑠𝐿𝑇 = 62.1 MPa

36
 Micromechanics Models for Lamina Strength

➢ Elementary mechanics of materials approaches to micromechanical modeling

of lamina strength will be described

➢ We do not expect such simple models for strength to be as accurate as those for
stiffness

➢ Because the strength is affected more than the stiffness by material and
geometric nonhomogeneity and the resulting local perturbations in the stress
and strain distributions

➢ Differences between tensile and compressive modes of failure make it

necessary to develop different micromechanics models for tensile strengths and
compressive strengths

37
 Longitudinal Tensile Strength
➢ Simple micromechanics models for composite longitudinal tensile strength can
be developed from the rule of mixtures for longitudinal stress

➢ Compare figures (a) and (b)

(+) (+) (+) (+)
Here, 𝑒𝑚1 is matrix failure strain, 𝑒𝑓1 is fiber failure strain (typically 𝑒𝑚1 > 𝑒𝑓1 for PMCs
(+) (+)
and 𝑒𝑓1 > 𝑒𝑚1 for CMCs)

38
 Longitudinal Tensile Strength

➢ For both cases shown in Figure above, the analyses will be developed on the
assumptions of
1. equal strengths in all fibers

2. linear elastic behavior up to failure

3. equal longitudinal strains in composite, fiber, and matrix (recall Equation 3.26)

39
 Longitudinal Tensile Strength
➢ Figure (a), the composite fails at a strain level corresponding to the fiber
(+)
(+) 𝑠𝑓1
tensile failure strain, 𝑒𝑓1 = ൘𝐸
𝑓1

➢ Theoretically, if the matrix could support the full applied load after fiber
failure, the strain could be increased to the matrix failure strain.

➢ However, for all practical purposes, fiber failure means composite failure

40
 Longitudinal Tensile Strength
➢ If the fiber volume fraction 𝑣𝑓 < 𝑣𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 , the composite strength from Equation
4.22 is less than the matrix strength, where

➢ Once the fibers fail in composites having 𝑣𝑓 < 𝑣𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 , the remaining cross-
sectional area of matrix that can support the load is such that

➢ Equations 4.22 and 4.24 intersect at

➢ For practical composites 𝑣𝑓𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 , is

generally less than 5%

41
 Longitudinal Tensile Strength
➢ Figure (b), composite failure may be defined in two ways, depending on
whether we choose to use fiber failure or matrix failure as the criterion

➢ If matrix failure is the criterion

➢ As with Equation 4.22, this equation only has a physical meaning for a certain
range of fiber volume fractions

42
 Longitudinal Tensile Strength
➢ Due to the matrix failure, remaining load-bearing area of fibers is such that
the composite strength is now given by

➢ Equations 4.26 and 4.27 intersect at

➢ For practical composites, 𝑣𝑓𝑚𝑖𝑛 is

much smaller than the actual fiber
volume fraction, so the composite
longitudinal strength for the case of
Figure (b) would be given by
Equation 4.27

43
 Longitudinal Tensile Strength
➢ Of the three assumptions made at the beginning of this section, the weakest
(+)
one is that all fibers in the composite have the same strength, 𝑠𝑓1

➢ As shown in Figure, fiber strength is not uniform, and some fibers fail at
stresses well below the ultimate composite strength.

➢ Fiber strength decreases with increasing fiber length due to the increased
probability of imperfections in the fiber

➢ The variability of strength in reinforcing fibers may be quite significant and

statistical methods must be used for accurate analysis

44
 Longitudinal Tensile Strength

➢ The assumption regarding linear elastic behavior up to failure is not valid for
many ductile matrix materials, the errors generated by this assumption are
believed to be small

➢ e.g. the contribution of the matrix strength to the composite strength in

Equation 4.22 is small, and the matrix strength does not appear at all in
Equation 4.27

45
 Longitudinal Compressive Strength
➢ Three basic longitudinal compression failure modes
1. Microbuckling of fibers in either shear (in-phase) or extensional (out-of-phase) mode

2. Transverse tensile rupture due to Poisson strains

3. Shear failure of fibers without buckling 3

46
 Longitudinal Compressive Strength
➢ Assuming a sinusoidally buckled shape, the buckling stress (or compressive
strength) for the extensional, or out-of-phase mode:

➢ Buckling stress for the shear, or in-phase mode:

(+)
➢ When the Poisson strain 𝜀2 = 𝑒𝑇 , the compressive strength is

➢ When the maximum shear stress is given by a rule of mixtures, so that the
compressive strength is

47
 Transverse Tensile Strength

➢ Assuming linear behavior to failure, the corresponding transverse strength is

➢ F is the strain concentration factor (𝐹 > 1)

48
 Transverse Tensile Strength

49
 In-Plane Shear Strength
➢ For the shaded element shown in Figure the in-
plane shear strain is

➢ In-plane shear strain concentration factor is

➢ 𝛾𝑚12 = average matrix in-plane shear strain

➢ 𝛾𝑐12 = average composite in-plane shear strain

➢ 𝛾𝑓12 = average fiber in-plane shear strain

➢ 𝐺𝑓12 = fiber in-plane shear modulus

50
 Example Problem
➢ A hybrid carbon–aramid/epoxy composite is made by randomly mixing
continuous aligned fibers of the same diameter, so that there are two carbon
fibers for each aramid fiber. The fibers are assumed to be arranged in a square
array with the closest possible packing. The stress–strain curves for
longitudinal tensile loading of fiber and matrix materials are shown in Figure.
Determine the longitudinal tensile strength of the composite.

51
 Example Problem
➢ Using the Maximum Strain Criterion and micromechanics, set up the equations for
predicting the averaged isotropic strength of a randomly oriented continuous fiber
composite. Your answer should be expressed in terms of the appropriate fiber and
matrix properties and volume fractions, the variable fiber orientation angle 𝜃, and the
appropriate strengths of the corresponding unidirectional lamina that consists of the
same fiber and matrix materials and volume fractions. In the micromechanics analysis,
assume that the matrix failure strain is greater than the fiber failure strain, i.e. the
materials behave as shown in Figure (a). Define all parameters used, but do not try to
solve the equation.

52
 Example Problem
➢ A flywheel for energy storage is modeled as a rotating thin-walled cylindrical ring (𝑡 ≪
𝑟) as shown in schematic. Find the equation for the tensile stress in the ring as a
function of the mean radius, 𝑟, the rotational speed, 𝜔, and the mass density, 𝜌, of the
ring, then compare the maximum peripheral speed (tangential velocity) and the kinetic
energy stored per unit mass of a ring made from 4340 steel with that of a ring made
from IM-7 carbon fibers. For the carbon fiber ring, assume that the fibers are oriented in
the circumferential direction, and that the entire tensile load is supported by the fibers.

➢ How would the answer to the above Problem change if the flywheel ring is made of IM-
7/8552 carbon/epoxy composite with fibers oriented in the circumferential direction?
Assume a fiber volume fraction 𝑣𝑓 = 0.6.

53