1

Analysis of Discontinuous Fiber

Reinforced Lamina
Fiber length effects not previously
considered. 3 types to be considered:
1. Aligned discontinuous fibers
2. Off-axis aligned discontinuous fibers
3. Randomly oriented discontinuous fibers
Analysis begins with simplest case of
aligned discontinuous fibers.
Types of Discontinuous Fiber Reinforcement
2
Representative Volume Elements for
Aligned Discontinuous Fiber Composite
L
d D
Fiber
Fiber
Matrix
Matrix
(a) Matrix
material included
at ends of fiber
(b) Matrix material
not included at
ends of fiber
Three Dimensional and Two Dimensional
Random Orientations of Fibers
(a) Fiber length is less than
thickness of part. So fibers
are randomly oriented in
three dimensions
(b) Fiber length is greater
than thickness of part. So
fiber are randomly oriented
in only two dimensions.
L << t
L >> t
3
Schematic Representation of Matrix Shear
Deformation in a Short Fiber Composite
Fiber
Fiber
Before Deformation
After Deformation
Reinforcement of Matrix by Fiber
Fiber
Fiber
Before Loading
After Loading
Fiber stiffness >> Matrix Stiffness
Matrix
Grid
Lines
4
Stresses acting on a differential element of fiber
L
d D
dx x
f f
d +
f

Consider free body diagram in fig. 6.4:

( ) ( ) 0
4 4
2 2
= + =

dx d
d d
d F
f f f x

(6.1)
Simplifying and rearranging:
d dx
d
f

4
=
(6.2)
Separating variables and integrating

=
x
f
dx
d
d
f
0
4
0

(6.3)
Assume that stress transferred across the end of fiber
(
o
=
f
@ x = 0) is negligible:
Thus, in order to determine
f
, we need to know as a
function of x.

=
x
f
dx
d
0
4

(6.4)
5
G
m

y
Shear strain, Shear strain,
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

(a) Kelly Tyson Model

(b) Cox Model
Assumed stress strain curves for matrix material
in Kelly Tyson model and Cox model
Two approaches to estimating (x):
1. Kelly-Tyson Model assume matrix is rigid
plastic (Fig. 6.5 (a))
2. Cox Model assume matrix is linear elastic (Fig.
6.5(b))
For illustrative purposes, consider Kelly-Tyson Model.
Matrix shear stress (x) =
y
= yield stress constant
d
x
dx
d
y
x
y f


4
4
0
= =

(6.5)
And
f
is linear function of x.
6
But
f
has to be symmetric about x = L/2
(Fig. 6.6)
d
L
L
d
y
y f


2
2
4
max
= = (6.6)

fmax
cannot increase indefinitely as L is
increased, however, and one limiting value of

fmax
is the stress
f
in a continuous fiber composite.
m
f
m

c1
Variation of interfacial shear stress, , and
fiber normal stress,
f
, with distance along the
fiber according to Kelly Tyson model.

x
L
2
L

fmax
x
7
Predicted shear stress distributions along fiber from
finite element analysis and Cox model.
From Hwang, 1985.
For continuous fiber composite
1 1 c f
=
1
1
1
1
c
c
f
f
E E

=
1
1
1
1 c
c
f
f
E
E
=
As L L
i
(Ineffective length)
1
1
1
max c
c
f
f
E
E

8
Effect of fiber length on stress distributing
along fiber according to Kelly Tyson model
Variation of interfacial shear stress, , and
fiber normal stress,
f
, with distance along the
fiber according to Cox model.
L

f
x
x
9
Substituting L = L
i
;
1
1
1
max c
f
f
E
E
=
In Eq. (6.6)
1
1 1
2 E
dE
L
y
c f
i

=
(6.7)
L
i
referred to as ineffective length because
f
<
fmax
over this portion of fiber. L
i
also referred to as load
transfer length because interfacial shear load is
transferred over this length.
Another limiting value of
fmax
is the fiber tensile
strength, s
f1
(+)
. In this case, the applied composite
stress is
From Eq. (6.6), the fiber length for this maximum stress is
the critical length
y
f
c
ds
L
2
) (
1
+
=
) (
f
s
max f E
c f
E
+
= =
1
1
1 1

(6.8)
(6.9)
10
Critical length has important implications for calculation
of longitudinal composite strength
Recall rule of mixtures for longitudinal composite stress:
m
v
m f
v
f c 1 1 1
+ =
(3.19)
For discontinuous fibers of length L, the average
fiber stress is
2
1
1
2
0
/ L
dx
f
f
/ L

(6.10)
For fibers of length
i
L L
2 1 /
i
L
x
max f
f

=
(6.11)
and the average fiber stress is
i
L
L
max f
/ L
dx
/
i
L
x
max f
f
/ L
2 2
2
1
2
0

=
(6.12)
11
For fibers of length
i
L L
, the average fiber stress is
max f L
i
L
/ L
dx
max f
dx
/ L
x
max f
f
/
i
L / L
/ i
L

|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

+
=
2
1
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
(6.13)
) (
f max f
s
+
=
1

For fiber failure, substituting the failure conditions

) (
1
+
=
L c
s
( ) +
=
1 mf m
s
and L
i
= L
c
along with Eq. (6.12) in Eq. (3.19)
yields the composite longitudinal strength
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
+
+
=
+
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
f
v
mf
s
f
v
c
L
L
f
s
L
s 1
1 2
1
for
(6.14) c
L L
12
Similarly, substituting the failure conditions
) (
f max f
s
+
=
1

) (
1
+
=
L c
s
( ) +
=
1 mf m
s
and L
i
= L
c
along with Eq. (6.13) in Eq. (3.19)
yields the composite longitudinal strength
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
+
+
=
+
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
f
v
mf
s
f
v
f
s
L
c
L
L
s 1
1 1 2
1
for
c
L L
(6.15)
( )
m
v
) (
mf
S
f
v
) (
f
S
L
S
+
+
+
=
+
1 1
For L>>L
c
, Eq. (6.15) Eq. (4.21) for continuous fibers
(4.21)

Interfacial shear strength corresponding to critical

length found by rearranging Eq. (6.9) as:
c
f
y
L
ds
2
) (
1
+
= (6.16)
Thus, by measuring L
c
, d and s
f1
(+)
, we can determine
interfacial shear strength. Drzal, et al (MSU).
L
c
Single fiber
specimen
Note: Measured values
of L
c
statistically
distributed
13
Longitudinal Modulus of Aligned
Discontinuous fiber Composite
Cox Model:
Recall Eq. (6.2) :
Rate of change of axial load in fiber is linear
function of .
Cox assumed proportional to and that
dx
dP

d dx
d
f

4
=
( ) v u H
dx
dP
=
(6.17)
where u = axial displacement at a point in fiber
v = axial displacement the matrix would have at
same point with no fiber present
H = proportionality constant
(i.e., interfacial shear stress is proportional to mismatch
between stiffness of fiber and matrix)
differentiating Eq. (6.17):
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
.
|

\
|
= e
E A
P
H
dx
dv
dx
du
H
dx
P d
f f 1
2
2
(6.18)
where
1 f f
E A
P
dx
du
=
(From Mechanics of Materials)
e
dx
dv
=
Rearranging in standard form
He P
dx
P d
=
2
2
2
where
1
2
f f
E A
H
=
(6.12)
14
Solution
h p
P P P + =
Where P
p
= particular solution = A
f
E
f1
e
P
h
= homogeneous solution
x S x R cosh sinh + =
Resulting fiber stress is
(
(
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|

= =
2
cosh
2
cosh
1
1
L
x
L
e E
A
P
f
f
f

(6.20)
(6.21)
(R and S determined from B.C.s P=0 at x=0 & x=L)
Average fiber stress is
(
(
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
= =

2
2
tanh
1
2
1
2
0
L
L
e E
L
dx
f
L
f
f

(6.22)
Recall rule of mixtures for stress under longitudinal
loading,
m
m
f
f c
v v + =
1 1
(6.23)
Substituting Eq. (6.22) in (6.23) and assuming
e
c m f
= = =
Longitudinal modulus is then
m m f f c
v E v
L
L
E E +
(

=
2
2 tanh
1
1 1

(6.24)
15
Longitudinal Modulus Vs. Fiber Length
m m f f
v E v E +
1
(3.23)
m m
v E
( )
m m f f c
v E v
L
L
E E +
(

=
2
2 tanh
1
1 1

(6.24)
m m f f c
v E v E E L as +
1 1
,
m m c
v E E L as
1
, 0
L
E
c1
Variation of modulus ratio E
c1
/E
m
with fiber aspect
ratio, L/d, for several composites.
From Gibson, et al., 1982
16
Aligned Discontinuous Fiber
Composite Test Specimens
L
L
L
L
L
Unidirectional laminate
made from prepreq
tape cut with a knife
Comparison of measured and predicted (Cox model) longitudinal
moduli of aligned discontinuous fiber graphite/epoxy for various
fiber aspect ratios. (L/d)
eff
= L/d. From Suarez, et al., 1986
17
Comparison of measured and predicted (Cox model corrected for
fiber aspect ratio) longitudinal moduli of aligned discontinuous
fiber graphite/epoxy for various fiber aspect ratios. (L/d)
eff
=
0.03L/d. From Suarez, et al., 1986
Correction of Cox model to obtain better agreement
with experimental data
Effective fiber aspect ratio
Adding matrix material at ends of fiber (Fig. 6.14)
Modified Cox Model
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
.
|

\
|
d
L
Z
d
L
eff
(6.27)
( ) ( )
m C m
m
C
C
MC
E
e L e
E
e L L
E
v
E
v
E
+
+
+
= + =
1 1
1
1
1
(6.28)
18
E
L
/E
m
Vs. fiber aspect ratio for boron/epoxy without curve
fitting [E
f
= 58 x 10
6
psi (399.62 GPa), Z = 1, f = 51.62 Hz].
E
L
/E
m
Vs. fiber aspect ratio for boron/epoxy with curve fitting [E
f
= 55.43 x 10
6
psi (381.913 GPa), Z = 0.4, f = 51.62 Hz].
19
Finite Element Analysis
L
RVE:
matrix
fiber
Quarter domain: FEM mesh
c

Effective Modulus:
c
c
c
E

=
where = average applied stress
= average strain = /L
= average displacement
c

Finite Element Analysis - continued

20
Modified Cox model which includes matrix material at
ends of fiber. From Hwang and Gibson, 1987.
L e e
Matrix Matrix Matrix
Fiber
Fiber Fiber d
Modified Cox Model
L
Matrix Composite Matrix
2
e
2
e
Comparison of predictions from modified Cox model and
finite element analysis with experimental data for
boron/epoxy aligned discontinuous fiber composite at
different fiber aspect ratios. From Hwang and Gibson, 1987.
21
Halpin Tsai Equations
f
f
m
v
v
E
E

+
=
1
1
1
(6.29)
where
( )
( )

=
m f
m f
E E
E E
/
1 /
1
1
(6.30)
Curve fitting parameter
d
L
2 =
Assume E
2
, G
12
,
12
not significantly affected by
fiber length. So, use continuous fiber models for
E
2
, G
12
,
12
.
Dependence of longitudinal modulus on fiber aspect ratio for
aligned discontinuous fiber nylon/rubber composite.
Predictions from Halpin Tsai equations are compared with
experimental results. From Halpin, 1969.
22
2-D Strength Analysis
Off-axis Aligned Discontinuous Fibers -
y
2
x
1

Recall stress transformations:

2
1
cos
x
=

2
2
sin
x
=
sin cos
x
=
12
(4.3)
Substitution of stresses from Eqs. (4.3) in Tsai-Hill
Criterion Eq. (4.14)
1
2
2
12
2
2
2
2
2 1
2
2
1
= + +
LT T L L
S S S S

(4.14)
leads to the equation for the off-axis strength
2
1
2
4
2 2
2
1
2
1
2
4

+ + =
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
T
s
sin
cos sin
L
s
LT
s
L
s
cos
x

(6.31)
23
Evaluating Eq. (6.31) for off-axis strength
of discontinous fiber composites:
Assume that only the longitudinal strength, S
L
,
depends on fiber length, and use either
micromechanics equation (6.14) or (6.15) for
S
L
(+)
, depending on whether the fiber length is
less than or greater than the critical length. For
other strengths S
T
and S
LT
, use micromechanics
equations for continuous fiber composites from
Chapter 4.
2-D Off-axis Modulus Analysis
4
2
2 2
12 1
12
4
1
1 1 2 1
1
s
E
s c
G E
c
E
E
x
+
(

+ +
=

(2.39)
And similar equations for G
xy
, v
xy
, E
y
.
where E
1
= E
c1
= longitudinal modulus corrected for
fiber length
But E
2
, G
12
, v
12
assumed to be independent of fiber length
( ) , , , ,
12 12 2 1 1
G E E f E
c x
=
( ) , , , ,
12 12 2 1 2
G E E f E
c y
=
( ) , , , ,
12 12 2 1 3
G E E f G
c xy
=
( ) , , , ,
12 12 2 1 4
G E E f v
c xy
=
(6.32)
24
Comparison of predicted and measured off-axis modulus
ratio, E
x
/E
m
for graphite/epoxy. From Suarez, et al., 1986.
Tridimensional plot of E
x
/E
m
as a function of fiber aspect ratio and
fiber orientation for graphite/epoxy. From Suarez, et al., 1986
25
Randomly Oriented Discontinuous Fibers
2-D Strength Analysis
Example: Use Maximum Stress Criterion to find off-
axis strength,
x
, then average over all angles.

+ + =

+ + 1 2
1 2
0
2
2
) (
2
) (
sin cos sin cos
2
~

d
S
d
S
d
S
T LT L
x
(6.34)

=
0
d
x
x
~
(6.33)
or
where,
for , 0
1

2
) (
cos
+
=
L
x
S
(Longitudinal tensile failure)
for ,
2 1

cos sin
LT
x
S
=
(Interfacial shear failure)
for ,
2
2


(Transverse tensile failure)

2
) (
sin
+
=
T
x
S
where,
, cot
) (
1
LT
L
S
S
+
=
LT
T
S
S
) (
2
tan
+
=
26
Randomly Oriented Discontinuous Fibers
2-D Modulus Analysis
Analytical approach:
Averaging elastic constants over all possible
orientations by integration.
Cox (1952) analyzed a planar mat of randomly
oriented continuous fibers without matrix material.
Equations (6.37), (6.38) found, but not acceptable
for design use.
Nielsen and Chen (1968) use same averaging
concept, along with micromechanical equations
for E
1
, E
2
, G
12
,
12
and transformation equations
for planar isotropic system.
Nielsen and Chen 2-D analysis of isotropic
Youngs modulus

0
0
~
d
d E
E
x
(6.39)
Where E
x
is given by Eq. (2.39)
4
2
2 2
12 1
12
4
1
1 1 2 1
1
s
E
s c
G E
c
E
E
x
+
(

+ +
=

And E
1
, E
2
, G
12
,
12
are found from micromechanics
equations. Note: fibers assumed to be continuous
27
Dependence of modulus ratio on fiber volume fraction
for several values of E
f
/E
m
from Nielsen Chen model. From
Nielsen and Chen. 1968
1
~
E E
x
Use of Invariants
Integration of E
x
() in Eq. (6.39) is
cumbersome, and the use of invariants simplifies
the integration process.
Example : averaged value
11
~
Q
| |
1
0
3 2 1
0
0
11
11
4 cos 2 cos
~
U
d U U U
d
d Q
Q =
+ +
= =

(6.40)
28
Similarly,
| |
11 1
0
3 2 1
22
~
4 cos 2 cos
~
Q U
d U U U
Q = =
+
=

4 21 12
~ ~
U Q Q = =
0
~ ~
26 16
= = Q Q
2
~
4 1
66
U U
Q

=
The stress strain relationships for the planar isotropic
lamina are then,

(
(
(

xy
y
x
xy
y
x
U U
U U
U U

2 ) ( 0 0
0
0
4 1
1 4
4 1
(6.41)
or
( )

)

(
(
(

+


=

xy
y
x
xy
y
x
E
E E
E E

~
1 2
~
0 0
0 )
~
1 (
~
)
~
1 (
~
~
0 )
~
1 (
~
~
)
~
1 (
~
2 2
2 2
Where and are the engineering
constants for the planar isotropic lamina
( )
~
1 2
~
~
+
=
E
G ,
~
E
~
29
Solving simultaneously for and
(Tsai and Pagano, 1968)
G
~
,
~
E
~
Using the definitions of the invariants U
1
and U
4
in terms of E
1
, E
2
, G
12
, and
12
, Tsai and Pagano
developed a set of approximate expressions:
( )( )
1
4 1 4 1
~
U
U U U U
E
+
=
2
~
4 1
U U
G

=
1
4 ~
U
U
=
(6.43)
Tsai Pagano approximations
2 1
8
5
8
3 ~
E E E + =
2 1
4
1
8
1 ~
E E G + =
(6.44)
Where E
1
and E
2
are estimated from micromechanics.
One approach; use Halpin Tsai equations for aligned
discontinuous fibers (Eqs. (6.29, 6.30)), then use these
values of E
1
and E
2
in Tsai-Pagano equations.
Comparison with exp. data for boron/epoxy in Fig. (6.25)
Manera, 1977, also showed good agreement with exp. data
using Eq. (6.43)
30
2 1
8
5
8
3 ~
E E E + = Comparison of with experimental data
(From Primer on Composite Materials, by J. C. Halpin, 1984)
Comparison of with experimental data
for a glass/polyester chopped fiber composite. From M. Manera, J. Composite
Materials, Vol. 11, April 1977, pp. 235 247
( )( )
1
4 1 4 1
~
U
U U U U
E
+
=
31
1 4
~
U U v =
Comparison of with experimental data for a glass/polyester
chopped fiber composite. From M. Manera, J. Composite Materials, Vol. 11,
April 1977, pp. 235 247
2-D and 3-D randomly oriented
fiber composites
(a) Fiber length is less than
thickness of part. So fibers
are randomly oriented in 3-D
(b) Fiber length is greater
than thickness of part. So
fiber are randomly oriented
in only 2-D
L << t
L >> t
32
Analysis for random orientation of
fibers in 3-D
Christensen and Waals (1972) approach:
Integrate over all possible fiber orientations
in 3-D space - similar to Nielsen and Chen
2-D analysis
Nanofibers and Nanotubes as
Reinforcements in Composites
Due to nanometer-sized dimensions, nanofibers
and nanotubes have random 3-D orientation in
composites
Nanofibers and nanotubes are not straight, and
waviness must be accounted for in analytical
models
33
Nanofiber or nanotube length, L, is much less than
thickness of part, t, so nanofibers or nanotubes are
randomly oriented in 3-D space
L<<t
t








Scanning electron microscope image of vapor grown
carbon nanofibers in a polypropylene matrix. From
Tibbetts and McHugh, Journal of Materials Research,
1999
34











300 nm
Transmission electron microscope image of multi-walled
carbon nanotubes in a polystyrene matrix. From Qian, et al.,
Applied Physics Letters, 2000
Carbon structures, including nanotube
(From Smalley web site, 2002)
35
RVEs for micromechanical model for predicting
Youngs modulus of nanotube-reinforced composites.
From Anumandla and Gibson, Composites Part A, 2006
Waviness
NT
L
A
w=
Assumed shape
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
NT
L
x
sin A z
2
36
Anumandla-Gibson micromechanics model for
modulus of nanotube-reinforced composite
Youngs modulus of RVE1 assumed to be the same as that
of an element of a locally orthotropic lamina containing
wavy fibers, as described by Chan & Wang (1994)and
Hsaio & Daniel (1996)
Locally orthotropic compliances in RVE1 estimated using
Simplified Micromechanics equations of Chamis (1987)
Effective modulus of RVE1 with 3D randomly oriented
nanotubes estimated using Christensen-Waals 3D model
Effective modulus of series arrangement of RVE1 and
matrix material in RVE2 estimated using inverse rule of
mixtures
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
True Volume Fraction of Nanotube in RVE2
E
3
D
-
R
V
E
2

(
i
n

G
P
a
)
w = 0
w = 0.05
w = 0.1
w = 0.25
w = 0.5
Exp
Comparison of experimental modulus data for MWNT/polystyrene
composite from Andrews, et al. (2002) with micromechanics predictions.
from Anumandla and Gibson (2006)
37
Nanoparticle reinforcement of the matrix in a conventional
continuous fiber composite. From Vlasveld, et al.,
Polymer, 2005.
SEM micrographs of carbon fibers (a) before and (b) after
carbon nanotube growth on the fiber surface. From
Thostenson, et al., 2002.