VOL. 6, NO.

12, DECEMBER 1968 AIAA JOURNAL 2325

Tensile Failure of Fiber Composites

CARL ZWEBEN*
General Electric Company, King of Prussia, Pa.

In this paper two modes of composite tensile failure are investigated. The failure loads
predicted by these analyses are significantly closer to experimental data than predictions
of other theories. The first study considers composites containing a planar array of parallel
fibers which exhibit a large number of isolated fiber breaks before failure. A statistical
analysis that includes the effects of stress concentrations is employed to describe the mechanics
of failure. The second study, which is also statistical in nature, considers monolayer and
multilayer unidirectional composites that do not display many isolated breaks before failure.
Failure criteria are established for each mode, and the implications for nondestructive test-
ing are discussed.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on June 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.4990

Introduction served during testing and much experimental data exist

T HIS paper investigates two modes of composite tensile
failure. The first is applicable to a planar array of paral-
lel, continuous, high-strength fibers in a ductile matrix,
whereas the second is valid for two- and three-dimensional
arrays of parallel fibers. In both cases the tensile loading is
parallel to the fiber direction.
The simplest failure analysis assumes that a uniform strain
exists throughout the composite and that fracture occurs at
the failure strain of the fibers alone.1 However, the failure
strain of most fibers of interest is not a unique quantity. In
general, the high-strength, high modulus fibers that are used
in composite materials are brittle, having tensile strengths
that must be characterized statistically. Any theory for
the tensile strength of composites containing such fibers must
take into account the dispersion in their failure stress levels
in order to have any relevance. Parratt2 noted the dispersion
in fiber strength and suggested that failure of a fibrous com-
posite subjected to tensile load occurs when the fibers have
been broken up into lengths so short that any increase in
applied load cannot be transmitted to the fibers because the
limit of interface or matrix shear has been reached. In Refs.
3 and 4 Rosen presented the results of an analytical and ex-
perimental composite failure study. His theory considers
fibers having a statistical distribution of flaws that result in
individual fiber breaks at various stress levels. The load in
a broken fiber is assumed to be distributed equally among
the remaining unbroken fibers in a cross section. Com-
posite failure is supposed to occur when the weakest cross
section is unable to sustain the applied load.
Although Rosen's theory agrees qualitatively with experi-
mental data, in that failure is associated with the accumula-
tion of many fiber breaks, there is quite often a disparity be-
tween predicted and observed failure loads. It was felt
that the discrepancy might be the result of some simplifica-
tions introduced in his analysis. Therefore, it was decided to
investigate the effects of load concentrations caused by fiber
breaks. The result of this study is an analytical method for
treating the failure mechanism of fiber fracture propagation.
An associated failure load prediction is formulated which
gives good quantitative agreement with experimental data.
Two-dimensional composites, i.e., those containing a planar
array of fibers, are studied because these are most easily ob-
for them. Furthermore, since many composite structures
are built up from thin tapes, it is important to be able to
predict the strength of the three-dimensional structure from
the strength of the tape from which it is fabricated.
Since some composites do not exhibit a large number of
isolated fractures before failure, a second failure mode is
studied. This analysis is applicable to composites having
both two- and three-dimensional arrays of parallel fibers.
Cumulative Fracture-Propagation Mode
Description of the Model
The model used in this paper (Fig. 1) is based on the one
introduced by Rosen in Ref. 3. The applied load is con-
sidered to be supported entirely by the fibers since their ex-
tensional modulus is much greater than that of the matrix.
Because the fibers have scattered flaws they break randomly
throughout the body as the applied load is increased. In the
vicinity of a break the fiber has a reduced stress level, and
therefore this portion of the fiber is not fully effective in re-
sisting the applied load. By a logical extension of this rea-
soning, the composite can be thought of as consisting of a
series of identical layers of elements whose axial dimensions
are some "ineffective length" 8. Any fiber that breaks in a
layer is considered to have zero stress within that layer, but
to be fully stressed in all other layers. Therefore, a com-
posite of length L containing N fibers will have M = L/d lay-
ers and a total of MN elements.
Rosen assumed the load in a broken element to be uni-
formly distributed among the other elements in the layer
which are intact. However, in this paper it is assumed that
the elements adjacent to a broken one are subjected to a load
intensity greater than that which is sustained by fibers dis-
tant from the fracture site. Therefore, each fracture site can
be thought of as a nucleus for the propagation of fiber frac-
n t n 11 i L
A >
L

Presented as Paper 68-173 at the AIAA 6th Aerospace Sciences

Fig. 1 Tensile failure
model for the cumula-

MATRIXX
Vi
Meeting, New York, January 22-24, 1968; submitted January
15, 1968; revision received June 24, 1968. This work was
supported by NASA under Contract NASw-1377. The author
tive fracture-propaga-
tion mode. f:
wishes to acknowledge the creative contribution of B. Walter I
Rosen.
* Research Engineer, Mechanics Research and Development 1 J 11 i i i A
Section, Space Science Laboratory. Member AIAA.
 2326 C. ZWEBEN
ture. As in Rosen's analysis, the matrix is considered to be
purely a medium for the transmission of shear stress be-
tween the fibers, and crack propagation through the matrix
itself is not included in the study of this failure mode. How-
ever, crack propagation in the matrix is a possible failure
mechanism, and it is discussed later.
Determination of Ineffective Length
The ineffective length is a measure of the portion of the
fiber which has a significant reduction in stress, and several
definitions have been proposed for it. In this paper the defi-
nition proposed by Friedman5 is used unless an experimental
value (as determined by photoelastic analysis, for example)
is available. Friedman's definition for the elastic case is
d== (1)
where df is the fiber diameter, Ef the Young's modulus, Gb the
matrix shear modulus, and vf the fiber volume fraction.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on June 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.4990
Statistical Analysis
It is assumed that the strength of the population of fiber
elements of length 5 can be characterized by a cumulative
distribution function F(a). That is, the probability that
an arbitrary element has a failure stress level less than or
equal to cr is F(<r). In a group of MN elements, the number
that can be expected to fail when subjected to a stress cr is
= MNF(<r) (2)
If these broken elements are part of a planar composite, next
to each of them there will be two elements subjected to a load
concentration. (Refinements for breaks along the edge are
neglected.)
Hedgepeth6 used a shear lag analysis to determine the
average stress in fibers adjacent to an arbitrary number of
broken fibers. He considered an infinite, two-dimensional
array of fibers subjected to tensile load parallel to the fiber
direction which is uniform at a great distance from the frac-
ture area. The ratio of the average over the cross section of
the stress in the two fibers adjacent to a run of r broken fibers
to the uniform applied stress at infinity is, for a static stress
distribution,
Kr = 4.6-8- --- -(2r + 2)/3-5-7- --- -(2r (3)
Hedgepeth calls Kr a stress-concentration factor, but in this
paper it will be referred to as a load-concentration factor so
that it will not be confused with stress-concentration factors
found by an "exact" analysis of the stress distribution.
For the case in which r fibers break simultaneously, Hedge-
peth demonstrated that the ratio of the maximum dynamic
load to the static load in the fibers adjacent to the break in-
creases from 1.15 for r = 1 to a limit of 1.27. For example,
when an element breaks at a stress level cr, the two adjacent
fibers are subjected to a maximum stress equal to (1.15) -fcr.
As the perturbations damp out the stress approaches the
static value -f a. Since we are interested in the effects of the
accumulation of fractures that occur at various levels, it is
appropriate to use the static load-concentration factors.
Furthermore, it is assumed that the load concentration is
constant throughout the two elements adjacent to a break.
The probability that an element adjacent to a broken one
will break due to the load concentration is equal to the
probability that its strength lies between a and K\cr. This
probability is given by
- F(a) (4)
Note that a is assumed to be the nominal fiber stress, that is,
the applied load divided by the total fiber area. For sim-
plicity the increase in average fiber stress caused by the initial
fractures has been neglected. This simplification is justified
since the number of broken elements in a given layer im-
AIAA JOURNAL
mediately before failure is quite small. In addition, the
probability of having an adjacent element break because
its strength is less than a has been ignored since this prob-
ability is small and we are interested in the effects of fracture
propagation due to load concentrations.
Given that a single element is broken, the probability that
one, and only one, of the two adjacent fibers will break due
to the load concentration is
- F(a)] - 2[F(Kl(r) - (5)
The probability that both adjacent fibers will break simul-
taneously is
It is now assumed that only the two fibers immediately
adjacent to a break are subjected to an overstress and that
all of the remaining fibers in the cross section have a stress
level equal to the nominal stress a. If one of the fibers ad-
jacent to a single fracture breaks, the fibers adjacent to the
two broken fibers are subjected to a stress level K-2(r. One
of these overstressed fibers was previously exposed to a stress
level Kia while the other saw only the stress cr. The prob-
ability that one of the two fibers will break is
- F(Ki<r)] - F(ff}\ -
) - F(<r)] (7)
The probability that both fibers will break simultaneously is
- F(Klff)][F(Ko-) - (8)
If both fibers adjacent to an initial fracture break simul-
taneously, there will be three broken fibers in a row, and
therefore the two fibers adjacent to this group, which were
previously at a stress level cr, will be subjected to a stress
Kscr. Again, it is possible for one or two of these fibers to
break, and so on.
By now the process and complexity of the problem should
be evident so that the expressions for further fracture prob-
abilities are presented without discussion, except to note that
there are two paths by which a state of three broken fibers
can be reached from a single break: A, by the simultaneous
breaking of both fibers adjacent to the initial break and B, by
the successive breaking of two fibers. The expression pnjc
represents the probability of having i fibers broken given that
j are already broken. The letter z represents the particular
path if there is more than one. The letters A and B refer
to the paths previously described
) - F(<r)]* (9a)
(9b)
~) ] [F(K3a) - F(a}} (9c)
) - F(a)] (9d)
Using the "transitional" probabilities given by Eqs. (5-9)
it is possible to formulate expressions for multiple fractures
for the composite in its entirety. It will be recalled that the
probability that a given element will break under a stress cr
is
pi = F(a) (10)
The expected number of such breaks in the composite is
given by Eq. (2). The probability that there will be at least
one broken element in the composite is
Pi = 1 - (1 - (11)
The probability that a given element will break followed
by the fracture of at least one adjacent element is
= F(o-)(p2/i (12)
 DECEMBER 1968 TENSILE FAILURE OF FIBROUS COMPOSITES
Therefore, for the composite as a whole the expected number
of groups of two or more broken fibers is (neglecting edge
effects)
E2 = MNp* (13)
The associated probability of having at least one such group
is
= 1 _ H n^MN (14)
The probability that an element will fracture followed by
the breaking of at least two other adjacent fibers is equal to
the probability of at least two fractures, less the probability
that two, and only two, will break without further fractures
occurring. This probability is
- ps/2 - 4/2) (15)
The probability of having at least one group with three or
more fractures is
P3 = 1 - (1 - Pz)MN
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on June 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.4990
(16)
and the expected number of such events is
(17)
The analogous expressions for groups of four or more frac-
tures are
P4 = 1 - (1 ~ p (19)
#4 = MNp* (20)
In general,
Ei = MNpi (21)
Pi = I - (1 - p (22)
The general expression for the probability of a group con-
taining an arbitrary number of broken elements, p^ has not
yet been obtained. However, it seems that such an expression
may be of academic interest only, at least for laboratory
specimens, since it has been found that when the probability
of secondary breaks (i.e., the probability of groups con-
taining two or more fractures) becomes significant, failure
of the composite can be expected. Whether or not this rela-
tion holds for large structures is yet to be determined. More
will be said of this point later on.
Noncumulative Fracture Mode
Although a large number of isolated fiber breaks before
failure is the rule for glass-epoxy composites, such is not the
case for other fiber-matrix systems. For example, Kreider
and Leverant7 report the occurrence of many fiber breaks
before failure for hot-pressed, plasma-sprayed boron-alumi-
num composites, but only a few breaks before failure for
plasma sprayed specimens that are not hot-pressed. Lenoe8
has observed no significant fracture accumulation in melt-
infiltrated boron-aluminum composites except at a very low
volume fraction of reinforcement. In tests of boron-epoxy
composites Friedman5 detected no fiber breaks before failure
although observation of isolated fractures is difficult for
such specimens.
The absence of many breaks before failure could be ex-
plained by the cumulative weakening or cumulative fracture-
propagation theories if the fiber strength dispersion were
very small, but this is not the case. Therefore, it is logical
to study the correlation between the theoretical strength of
the weakest fiber and the observed failure loads.
Consider a population of fibers of length L whose strength
is characterized by the probability density g(a) and cumula-
2327
tive distribution function G(a). For a sample of N fibers
drawn from this population the probability density function
for the strength of the weakest fiber is given by
= Ng(a)[l - (23)
We now assume that the fiber strength can be character-
ized by a Weibull distribution of the form 3
G(o-) = I - e~aL^ (24)
which has the corresponding density
le-aLP (25)
[The Weibull distribution is also used for F(d) with L = 8.]
Substituting (24) and (25) into (23) and differentiating, the
following expression is obtained for the mode of the weakest
fiber strength distribution:
ov. = [(0 - l)/NLap]l/f> (26)
The details of the failure mechanism for this mode are
unknown. However, it is possible that in such a case the
fracture of a single fiber initiates a propagating crack in the
matrix which causes the breaking of additional fibers, re-
sulting in catastrophic failure. If this mechanism is the
cause of failure, it is imperative to prevent the propagation
of matrix cracks, since the full potential of the fibers can only
be realized if the weaker ones are permitted to break without
causing failure of the composite.
Comparison with Experimental Data
Cumulative Fracture-Propagation Mode
Since the ultimate test of any theory is its agreement with
observed behavior, a careful comparison with experimental
data has been made. A detailed study of composite failure
mechanics was made by Rosen in Refs. 3 and 4. The speci-
mens studied consisted of a planar array of glass fibers im-
bedded in an epoxy matrix. A sequence of photographs
from a typical test is shown in Fig. 2, which was taken from
Ref. 3. The specimens were observed under transmitted
polarized light so that stressed areas appear light and un-
stressed areas dark. Scattered fiber breaks, which appear
as dark areas since they are unstressed, occur at less than
50% of the ultimate load. These dark areas are the in-
effective lengths. As the load increases, an increasing
number of random breaks appear throughout the specimens.
The presence of increased stress intensity in the fibers ad-
jacent to a fracture site appears as a localized brightening
in the photographs. Note that despite the presence of these
load concentrations few of the overstressed fibers break. This
is a significant point that will be discussed later.
The tests reported in Ref. 4 were made on composites
consisting of 3.5-mil E-glass fibers imbedded in two types
of epoxy matrices (denoted B and C). The Weibull param-
eters for the strength distribution, determined by tests of
the virgin fibers, were found to be ft = 9.40 and a~1^ =
181.5 in units of kips and inches. From the photographs of
the tests, the ineffective lengths for series B and C were
found to be 0.031 and 0.086 in., respectively. There did not
appear to be much variation of ineffective lengths with
applied load.
Using these data, the expected number of single broken
elements was calculated from Eq. (2) and is represented by
the dashed lines in Figs. 3 and 4. The number of fractures
observed experimentally in the various specimens in the
two test series is presented for comparison. It can be seen
that for low stress levels there are generally more fractures
than the theory predicts. However, the behavior is most
important at the higher stress levels in the area of failure
loads, and here agreement is fairly good considering the
statistical spread in fiber properties and the experimental un-
certainties involved. The relatively large number of frac-
 2328 C. ZWEBEN AIAA JOURNAL
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on June 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.4990

a)

b) d)
Fig. 2 Typical sequence of photographs of tensile failure specimen (taken from Ref. 3).

tures at low stress levels is possibly a result of damage to the
fibers during the fabrication of the specimens since glass is
notoriously sensitive to handling as far as strength is con-
cerned.
The quantities Ei, E2, E^, and E4 (where Ei represents the
expected number of group of fractures having at least i broken
fibers) given by Eqs. (2, 13, 17, and 20) are plotted for series
B and C in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. It can be seen that
not only do the curves for Ez, E8, and E* rise sharply in the
range of observed failures, but they are also close together,
indicating that fibers adjacent to initial fracture sites are
expected to break in this stress range, and that when this
 DECEMBER 1968 TENSILE FAILURE OF FIBROUS COMPOSITES
10 20 504050 100 150
SPECIMEN LOAD(POUNDS)
Fig. 3 Number of breaks as a function of applied load
(Ref. 4, series B).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on June 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.4990
occurs there is a high probability that propagation of fiber
fractures will result. The failure loads predicted by the
theory of Ref. 3 are presented for comparison.
In order to assess the validity of the expressions for the
expected number of multiple fractures, the numbers of such
groups were counted on films of the tests. The results are
plotted in Figs. 7 and 8. The dashed curves in the figures
are calculated values of E%, which, it will be recalled, is the
expected number of groups having at least two adjacent
breaks. As such, E2 represents the expected number of
multiple-fracture groups. It can be seen that in general
multiple breaks begin to appear in the stress range predicted
by the theory. Furthermore, those multiple fractures that
occur at lower stress levels do not cause immediate failure.
This is consistent with the theory, which predicts that frac-
ture propagation is not likely at these low stress levels. It
can also be seen that the rate of formulation of multiple-
fracture groups is quite high in the failure range and the
composites fail without the occurrence of a large number of
such groups. This is the type of behavior that the theory
predicts since the probability of fracture propagation is high
in this stress range. This fact is further demonstrated in
Fig. 9, which presents Pi, P2, PS, and P, where Pi is the
probability of having at least one group of i fractures. The
expressions for these quantities are given in Eqs. (11, 14,
16, and 19).
Although the static failure analysis, which is based on the
accumulation of fractures, provides good agreement with
0 10 20 30 40 50 100 150
SPECIMEN LOAD (POUNDS)
Fig. 4 Number of breaks as a function of applied load
(Ref. 4, series C).
2329
GLASS EPOXY
REFERENCE 4
SERIES B
AVERAGE FAILURE
STRESS = 161 KSI
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
FIBER STRESS (KSI)
Fig. 5 Expected numbers of groups of fractures as a func-
tion of applied load (Ref. 4, series B).
experimental data, the actual failure mechanism is far more
complex. Consider, for example, the expression p^/i + PS/I,
which is the probability that at least one fiber adjacent to an
initial break will fracture. This quantity has been evaluated
using static and dynamic load-concentration factors for test
series B of Ref. 4. The results are shown in Fig. 10. It can
be seen that the dynamic curve is markedly higher than the
static in the failure range, indicating the dynamic effects may
be significant. The situation is further complicated by the
possibility of fiber debonding and crack propagation in the
matrix.
The fracture propagation theory was also compared with
the results of two tests on continuous glass fibers in an epoxy
matrix which were made by Friedman.5 The Weibull
parameters for the fibers are ft = 4.0 and a~1^ = 137.7 in
in.-kip units. The ineffective length was computed using
Eq. (1). The curves of Ei, EZj Es, and E* are presented in
Fig. 11. The experimental failure stresses and the prediction
of Ref. 3 are presented for comparison.
Since ft is an inverse measure of dispersion, these fibers
had a much wider spread in failure stress levels than did
those of Ref. 4. This large dispersion is reflected in the wide
spread of the curves of EI, EZj Es, and E presented in Fig.
11. The separation of the Ez, Es, and E4 curves signifies a
smaller probability of fracture propagation than those of
test series B and C of Ref. 4. However, both failures do
occur in a region where multiple fiber breaks are expected.
On the basis of good agreement between theoretical pre-
dictions and experimental observations it is suggested that,
for two-dimensional composite specimens exhibiting a signifi-
cant number of scattered fiber breaks before failure, a con-
servative prediction of the failure load is that load for which
the first multiple break is expected. That is, the composite
failure load <r* can be determined from the equation
pZ(CT
J-J /.T-#\)
_ i.i ^97^
\.it)
GLASS-EPOXY
REFERENCE 4
SERIES C
AVERAGE FAILURE STRESS = 152
90 120 150
FIBER STRESS (KSI)
Fig. 6 Expected numbers of groups of fractures as a
function of applied load (Ref. 4, series C).
 2330 C. ZWEBEN AIAA JOURNAL

GLASS-EPOXY FAILURE
REFERENCE 4
STRESSES
SERIES B

Bl GLASS EPOXY
x B2 REFERENCE 4
O B3 SERIES B
A 84
O B5 (PORTION OF SPECIMEN
ALONG EDGE BROKE
OFF AT 151 KSI)
u.

30 60 90 120 150 180

FIBER STRESS(KSI)

90 120 150 Fig. 9 Pi, P2, PS, and P4 as a function of applied load (Ref.
FIBER STRESS (KSI) 4, series B).
Fig. 7 Observed and predicted multiple-fracture groups
(Ref. 4, series B). 'where Ei is defined in Eq. (2). Using the occurrence of the
first break as a failure criterion, it is possible to estimate the
where E% is defined in Eq. (13). The selection of the occur- probability of failure at any stress by using Eq. (11).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on June 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.4990

rence of the first multiple-fracture group as a failure criterion

permits an estimation of the probability of failure at any
stress level by the use of Eq. (14).
Noncumulative Fracture Mode
Friedman5 tested two 2-in. specimens, each consisting of
90 boron fibers in any epoxy matrix. The specimens failed
when the fiber stresses were 193 and 215 ksi, respectively.
Using the fiber and matrix properties presented in the refer-
ence and Friedman's definition of ineffective length, the
cumulative weakening theory of Ref. 3 predicts a fiber stress
at failure of 428 ksi while the stress for which E^ = 1 is 300
ksi. However, using Eq. (26) the first fiber break is predicted
to occur at 172 ksi. In the range of observed failures only
two or three isolated breaks are expected, and the probability
of multiple fractures, JP2, is only 0.016. Although no fiber
breaks were detected before composite failure, it should be
noted that observation can be difficult in boron-epoxy
specimens.
Grinius9 tested three-dimensional boron-epoxy specimens
containing about 1300 fibers. Their average failure stress
was 197 ksi. The cumulative weakening theory3 predicts a
failure stress of 432 ksi, and Eq. (27) gives cr* = 285 ksi.
However, the first fiber break is predicted at about 160 ksi.
At the observed failure stress, Ei ~ 7 and P2 = 0.003. On
the basis of this evidence it seems likely that only a few iso-
lated breaks occurred before failure, although the report does
not describe the failure in detail.
It seems reasonable that a good estimate of the average
fiber stress at failure for composite specimens exhibiting this
mode of failure can be obtained from the equation
#1(0-') = 1
en 14 GLASS EPOXY FAILURE _
REFERENCE 4 STRESSES
SERIES C
12
Cl
A C2 (7 FIBERS BROKE OFF EDGE
I0
O C3 AT 95 KSI)
tr
u_ A C4
u 8 D C6
x C7
Discussion and Conclusions
Two modes of failure of composite specimens subjected to
uniaxial tension have been analyzed and failure criteria sug-
gested which are in accord with experimental results. In
the first part of this paper, a method was demonstrated for
including the effect of load concentrations in the analysis of
composite failure. The study demonstrated that a close
correlation exists between the probability that fiber breaks
will propagate and the occurrence of specimen failure for
several sets of experiments. On the basis of this fact the load
at which the first multiple-fracture group is expected was sug-
gested as a failure criterion. An extension of the present anal-
ysis, to be presented in a subsequent paper, has shown this
type of criterion to give good results for whisker-reinforced and
multilayer uniaxial specimens composed of various fibers and
matrices. However, a great deal of additional testing is re-
quired to determine the general validity of this criterion.
This is especially true for large structures and where the
fiber strength exhibits great dispersion, as in Fig. 11.
The demonstration of the influence of load concentrations
has particular significance for composites reinforced by dis-
continuous fibers. The effect of these discontinuities is to
introduce in the model additional isolated fiber breaks at zero
stress level, thus increasing the probability of fracture
propagation at any load. The effect of a large number of
initial fiber discontinuities may be a significant limiting
factor in the strength that can be achieved by whisker com-
posites. Another prediction of the cumulative fracture-
propagation model is that multilayer unidirectional com-
posites will have higher average fiber stresses at failure because
the load concentration factors are significantly smaller.10
(28) The relatively good agreement between the number of
predicted and observed single fiber breaks as shown in Figs.
3 and 4 supports the cumulative break concept of Rosen.
This suggests the possibility of determining in situ fiber
properties by observing the relation between applied load
and the number of fiber breaks. This information, along
with an estimate of ineffective length and a failure criterion
GLASS EPOXY

Fig. 10 Static and

dynamic values of
2 2 (pm + ps/i) as a
function of applied
load (Ref. 4, series
FIBER STRESS (KSI)
B).

Fig. 8 Observed and predicted multiple-fracture groups 120 150 180

(Ref. 4, series C). FIBER STRESS, (KSI)
 DECEMBER 1968 TENSILE FAILURE OF FIBROUS COMPOSITES
60 80 100 120 140
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND on June 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.4990
FIBER STRESS (KSI)
Fig. 11 Expected numbers of fracture groups as a func-
tion of applied load (Ref. 5, tests).
such as Eq. (27), provides a means for nondestructive evalu-
ation of composite strength.
The theoretical verification of the experimental observa-
tion that some composites fail without a significant accumu-
lation of isolated breaks supports the contention that this
is a separate failure mode, the details of which are unknown.
It has been shown that composites exhibiting this failure
mode are not realizing the potential strength that can be ob-
tained if cumulative fractures are permitted to occur. In
the noncumulative mode, failure is probably caused by a
fiber break initiating a propagating crack in the matrix,
which results in the fracture of additional fibers. Some
evidence to support this hypothesis has recently been de-
veloped by Gatti.11 By observing one to five boron fibers
in epoxy matrices he found that the fracture of a fiber in-
variably causes a crack in the matrix. However, a light
coating of graphite on the fiber caused them to debond locally
upon fracturing, without initiating a crack in the matrix.
This eliminated the catastrophic mode of failure, resulting
in higher failure loads in tension. It remains to be seen
whether this type of behavior is also observed in composites
with high volume fractions.
It is interesting to note that both the cumulative and non-
cumulative fracture modes predict that composite failure
strength decreases with the size of the body. This is in
contradiction with the theory of Ref. 3 which predicts a
failure strength that is essentially independent of size. As
an illustration, the effect of length on failure stress is pre-
sented in Fig. 12 for the glass-epoxy composites of Ref. 4,
series B. The prediction of the cumulative fracture propaga-
tion theory is shown along with the theoretical predictions
for mean fiber and for mean bundle strengths.
It is well-known that brittle materials like ceramics exhibit
a significant size effect that is generally attributed to flaw
sensitivity. This dependence of strength on size has also
been well documented for the high modulus fibers such as
glass, boron, and graphite, which are currently in use. How-
ever, little work has been done to investigate this effect in
composites. Kies12 reported a significant decrease in strength
with size increase for filament-wound pressure vessels. But,
as he noted, the nonuniformity of stress in such structures
prevents the formation of any concrete conclusions. The
2331
THEORY OF REFERENCE 3
irz^*w!S5aETH
1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
LENGTH (INCHES)
Fig. 12 Variation of failure stresses with length (Refo
4, series B).
resolution of this dilemma requires a great deal of careful
testing.
The work presented in this paper has elucidated some sig-
nificant effects in the failure of composites in uniaxial tension.
But it has also demonstrated the need for more theoretical
and experimental studies to investigate other possible in-
fluences and to assess which are the more important ones.
Only through such a combined effort can the complex pro-
cesses involved in composite failure be understood.
References
1
Jech, R. W., McDaniels, D. L., and Weeton, J. W., "Fiber
Reinforced Metallic Composites," Proceedings of the 6th Sagamore
Ordnance Materials Research Conference, Aug. 1959.
2
Parratt, N. J., "Defects in Glass Fibers and their Effect on
the Strength of Plastic Mouldings," Rubber and Plastics Age,
March 1960.
3
Rosen, B. W., "Tensile Failure of Fibrous Composites,"
AIAA Journal, Vol. 2, No. 11, Nov. 1964, pp. 1985-1991.
4
Rosen, B. W., "Mechanics of Composite Strengthening,"
Fiber Composite Materials, American Society for Metals, Metals
Park, Ohio, 1965.
5
Friedman, E., "A Tensile Failure Mechanism for Whisker
Reinforced Composites," 22nd Annual Meeting of the Reinforced
Plastics Division of the SPI, Washington, D. C., Feb. 1967.
6
Hedgepeth, J. M., "Stress Concentrations in Filamentary
Structures," TN D-882, May 1961, NASA.
7
Kreider, K. G. and Leverant, G. R., "Boron Fiber Metal
Matrix Composites by Plasma Spraying," AFML-TR-66-219,
July 1966, Air Force Materials Lab.
8
Lenoe, E. M., "Micromechanics of Boron Filament Rein-
forced Aluminum Composites," Symposium on Metal Matrix
Composites, American Society for Testing and Materials, June
1967.
9
Grinius, V. G., "Micromechanics-Experimental and Ana-
lytical Studies," AFML-TR-67-148, April 1967, Air Force Ma-
terials Lab.
10
Hedgepeth, J. M. and VanDyke, P., "Local Stress Concen-
trations in Imperfect Filamentary Composite Materials,"
Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 1, 1967.
11
Gatti, A., private communication, to be published.
12
Kies, J. A., "The Strength of Glass Fibers and the Failure
of Filament Wound Pressure Vessels," Rept. 6034, Naval Re-
search Lab.