See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26850765

Failure prediction of composite materials

Article · January 2008

Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS
4 838

4 authors, including:

Robert Zemčík Tomas Kroupa

University of West Bohemia University of West Bohemia
46 PUBLICATIONS   199 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kottner Radek
University of West Bohemia
32 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multiscale modelling of composites View project

Modelling and testing of composites for space applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Zemčík on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BULLETIN OF APPLIED MECHANICS 4(14), 81–87 (2008)
Failure Prediction of Composite Materials
Vladislav Laš, Robert Zemčík, Tomáš Kroupa, and Radek Kottner
?
Abstract— The work focuses on the prediction of failure of
composite material under both static and dynamic loading.
Modern criteria are used in the calculations, such as LaRC04 or
Puck’s criteria. The crack growth in composite material is
investigated using progressive failure analysis up to final rupture.
Three types of specimens are analyzed. One is thin flat strip
loaded in tension statically and dynamically. Second is thin
orthotropic plate loaded by low-velocity transverse impact. Third
specimen is flat strip loaded in Mode I to induce delamination. All
cases were analyzed numerically using finite element method in
MSC.Marc code and validated experimentally. Good agreement
was achieved in each case.
Index Terms— composite, failure criteria, progressive failure
analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
C OMPOSITE materials have been used more
extensively in the recent years in many areas of
industry. The main advantages of such materials are high
strength and stiffness together with low weight, and the
possibility to design different desired mechanical properties of
a structure in different locations and directions. This fact
involves higher demands on the computational analysis,
especially when compared to corresponding analysis of
conventional materials. One of the important tasks is to assess
the critical stress state for static or dynamic loadings. There
are many criteria which are used to predict the failure of
composite materials. The accuracy of the prediction of failure
depends strongly on the criterion.
In this work, modern criteria, such as LaRC04 [11] or
Puck’s criterion [10], are applied. Special type of failure is
delamination, which is failure between individual layers of a
laminate [1]. The monitoring of the process of failure
propagation is performed with the method known as
? ?
Manuscript received April 9, 2008. This work was supported by the
research projects MSM 4977751303 and GA AV IAA200760611.
V. Laš, University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Applied Sciences,
Department of Mechanics, Univerzitní 8, 306 14 Pilsen, Czech Republic,
phone: +420 377632326; fax: +420377632302; e-mail: las@kme.zcu.cz).
R. Zemčík, University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Applied Sciences,
Department of Mechanics, Univerzitní 8, 306 14 Pilsen, Czech Republic,
phone: +420 377632336; e-mail: zemcik@kme.zcu.cz).
T. Kroupa, University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Applied Sciences,
Department of Mechanics, Univerzitní 8, 306 14 Pilsen, Czech Republic,
phone: +420 377632367; e-mail: kroupa@kme.zcu.cz).
R. Kottner, University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Applied Sciences,
Department of Mechanics, Univerzitní 8, 306 14 Pilsen, Czech Republic,
phone: +420 377632373; e-mail: radek.kottner@kme.zcu.cz).
progressive failure analysis which uses material degradation
approach [4, 12]. Three types of problems are analyzed in this
article: thin strips loaded in tension, thin unidirectional plate
loaded by transverse impact, and delamination of
unidirectional composite under Mode I loading.
II. FAILURE CRITERIA
There exists a large number of criteria for the prediction of
failure of composite material. Ranging from the simplest non-
interactive ones, such as maximum stress or maximum strain
criteria, to the interactive ones, such as Tsai-Hill, Tsai-Wu [3],
etc. Modern criteria have emerged recently which distinguish
between fiber failure (tensile and compressive) and matrix
failure. Several type or modes are considered in the case of
matrix failure and therefore these criteria are designated as so-
called direct mode criteria. This work uses two direct mode
criteria, namely the Puck’s criterion [10] and LaRC04 criterion
[11].
Special type of composite failure is delamination of layered
composites, i.e., the separation of the layers (laminae). This
type of failure is caused either by normal stress components
between the layers or by shear stresses acting in the plane of
layers [9].
A Puck’s failure criterion
Puck’s criterion (direct mode) [10] avoids the deficiencies
of both non-interactive and interactive criteria. It consists of
total five failure modes, two for fiber failure (tensile and
compressive) and three for matrix failure (denoted as A, B and
C). The specific matrix failure types are shown in Figure 1
with corresponding mechanisms. The criterion is developed
especially for the analysis of lamina under plane stress.
The mathematical formulae for the calculation of failure
indices of fibers FIF and of matrix FIM are summarized in
Table 1, where XT and XC are material (lamina) tensile and
compressive strengths in the fiber direction, YT and YC are
tensile and compressive strengths in the transverse direction, S
is shear strength, and σL, σT and τLT are the normal
longitudinal, transverse and shear stresses, respectively. The
meaning of remaining symbols can be found for example in
[10]. The failure occurs when the corresponding failure index
exceeds the value of one.
B LaRC04 failure criterion
This criterion, in contrast to the aforementioned, can be
applied also to three-dimensional state of stress. Another
BULLETIN OF APPLIED MECHANICS 4(14), 81–87 (2008)

advantage is that it contains correction considering non-linear

behavior of the composite in shear loading. It is noticeable
from Table 2 that it consists of total six failure modes.
The first two rows represent two fiber failure modes,
whereas the third row denotes so-called combined mode when
fiber and matrix failures occur simultaneously. The remaining
three rows describe pure matrix failure. The symbol FIM/F
denotes the combined failure and the symbols SL and ST
represent the longitudinal and transverse shear strengths,
respectively. Symbols ηL and ηT denote the longitudinal and
transverse friction coefficients. The meanings of the remaining
symbols can be found for example in [11].
The combined mode (#6) not present in Puck’s criterion
assumes that the critical plane where failure occurs and the
transverse direction T form an angle ψ and that the influence
of compressive longitudinal stress causes the fibers to deflect
by an angle ϕ (see Figure 2), which is followed by the
simultaneous failure of fibers and matrix.
Mode A Figure 2. The combined mode of LaRC04 criterion.

D Delamination of composites
Mode B This type of failure is driven by the influence of interlaminar
shear stress or normal stress between adjacent laminae. The
mechanism of failure is similar to the problems of fracture
mechanics. The interlaminar fracture toughness is usually
Mode C
considered to be the critical value of the strain energy release
rate, denoted as Gc, or critical value of the stress intensity
factor Kc. Suitable experimental measurements must be carried
out to assess these values and for subsequent numerical
simulations. The interlaminar toughness GIc (corresponding to
Figure 1. Mechanisms causing matrix failure. Mode I loading) can be assessed according to the standard

Table I. Calculation of Puck’s criterion failure indices

Fiber tension EL  v 
 ε L + f mσ f σ T  = FI F , (K) ≥ 0
XT  Ef 
 
Fiber compression  
EL v
 ε L + f mσ f σ T  = FI F , (K) < 0
XC  Ef 
 
Mode A 2 2
τ TL
2
 Y T  σT  σ
+ 1 − p ⊥(+ )   T  + p ⊥(+ ) TT = FI M , σ T ≥ 0
S  S  Y  S
Mode B 1 2 σT R
 τ TL + ( p ⊥ σ T ) + p ⊥ σ T  = FI M ,
(−) 2 (−)
σT < 0 ≤ ≤
S  τ TL Sc
Mode C  τ TL R  2  σ T  2  Y C τ TL S
 C  +  C   = FI M , σT < 0 ≤ ≤ c
 Y S   Y   − σ T σT R

YC S
R= , p ⊥( + ) = p ⊥( − ) = p ⊥⊥
(−)
,
(−)
S C = S 1 + 2 p ⊥⊥
2(1 + p ⊥⊥
(−)
) R
BULLETIN OF APPLIED MECHANICS 4(14), 81–87 (2008)

ASTM D5528-01 [1] using DCB (Double Cantilever Beam)
specimens.
The specimens are laminated rectangular strips with
included non-adhesive aluminum foil which serves as the
initial crack (see Figure 3). The specimen is placed in testing
machine using piano hinges and thus loaded by tensile force F.
The dependence of force F on the grip opening δ is recorded,
together with the crack length. The critical value GIc can then
be readily evaluated from this dependency. The strain energy
release rate is mathematically defined, in general, as
1 dU ,
G=− (1)
b da
where dU is the increase in potential energy of internal forces,
b is specimen width and da is increase in crack length. In case
of Mode I loading the formula can be transformed using the
solution of Euler-Bernoulli beam theory to
12F 2 a 2
GI = 2 2 , (2)
b h E
where E is the Young’s modulus in the axial direction and h is
half-thickness of the specimen. According to ASTM [1] the
formula which is used for the evaluation of interlaminar
toughness is in the form
3F δ
GIc = c c , (3)
2b a
where Fc and δc are the critical values of load und
displacement at which the crack propagation occurs. Since the
Table II. Calculation of LaRC04 failure criterion failure indices.
Fiber failure conditions
specimen (beam) is not clamped perfectly (there can occur
certain rotation in the cross-section at crack tip), the ASTM
suggests using a correction with additional crack length ∆,
hence the GIc is actually calculated as
3F δ c . (4)
G Ic =
2b (a + ∆ )
E Progressive failure analysis
Several failure criteria were mentioned in the preceding
section. These criteria can be used the find the location and
moment of failure but whether and how the failure is going to
propagate cannot be decided. One of the methods that can be
used for such simulation is a combination of so-called
progressive failure analysis (PFA) with, for instance, the
material degradation strategy. During the numerical simulation
performed usually by FEA (finite element analysis), the
degradation is applied to the elasticity constants of the material
(characterized by stress-strain matrix C), thus reducing the
local stiffness. Three main types of failure can occur in general
– for matrix failure transverse to lamina plane C reduces to
CM, for fiber failure to CF and for simultaneous failure (or
subsequent failure of both matrix and fibers) to CM/F.
The constitutive relation for unidirectional fiber composite
(modeled as transversely isotropic material) in the case of
undamaged element can be written as
σ = C ε, (5)
where σ and ε are stress and strain vectors and

LaRC #3 σL ≥ 0 σL
FI F =
XT

LaRC #4 σ L < 0 , σ 2m 2m < 0 τ 1m 2 m

FI F =
S − η L σ 2m 2m
L

LaRC #6 σ L < 0 , σ 2m 2m ≥ 0  σ 2m 2m   σ 2m 2m
2
  σ 1m 2 m 
2

FI M / F = (1 − g )  T  +  T  +  L 
 Y   Y   S 

Matrix failure conditions

LaRC #1 σT ≥ 0 σ   σ  τ 
2 2

FI M = (1 − g ) TT  + g  TT  +  LTL 
Y  Y   S 
2 2
LaRC #5 σ T < 0 , σ L < −Y C  τ Tm   τ Lm 
FI M =  T 
T m 
+ 
 L

L m 
 S −η σ n   S −η σ n 
2 2
LaRC #2 σ T < 0 , σ L ≥ −Y C  τT   τL 
FI M =  T T

 + 
 L L

 S −η σ n   S −η σ n 
BULLETIN OF APPLIED MECHANICS 4(14), 81–87 (2008)

C11 C12 C13 0 0  0 III. NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL EXAMPLES

C C 22 C 23 0 0 0  Numerical simulations of failure of composite materials
 12 
C C 23 C33 0 0 0 . (6) were carried out together with corresponding experiments for
C =  13  three types of specimens. First case considered thin rectangular
 0 0 0 C 44 0 0 
panels made of unidirectional composite loaded in tension,
 0 0 0 0 C55 0 
  secondly, thin unidirectional plate loaded by transverse impact,
 0 0 0 0 0 C 66  and finally, Mode I delamination of unidirectional laminates.
In case the failure index FIM > 1 in any element, the All specimens were cut out using water jet from plates made of
corresponding matrix CM is autoclaved prepreg layers (Toray T600SC fibers, volume ratio
C11 θ C13 0 0 0  vf = 0.51) with material properties displayed in Table 3 [8].
 θ θ θ 0 0 0
  Table III. Material properties of carbon-epoxy composite.
C13 θ C33 0 0 0  , (7)
C M
=  EL [GPa] 109 XT [MPa] 2128
 0 0 0 θ 0 0
ET [GPa] 7.7 XC [MPa] 1160
 0 0 0 0 C55 0 
  νLT 0.28 YT [MPa] 27
 0 0 0 0 0 θ
C
where θ is null (or very small number for the sake of numerical GLT [GPa] 4.5 Y [MPa] 200
stability). If failure index FIF > 1, then the matrix CF is applied ρ [kg⋅m-3] 1510 SL [MPa] 52
as
θ θ θ 0 0 0
θ C C 23 0 0 0 A Unidirectional composite panels loaded in tension
 22

θ C 32 C33 0 0 0 (8)
The tensile tests were performed on specimens with (type
CF =   A) and without (type B) stress concentrators having thickness
0 0 0 C 44 0 0 
1.05 mm. Each specimen was equipped with aluminum tabs at
0 0 0 0 θ 0 the ends. The specimens were rectangular having three
  different fiber orientations θ measured clockwise from the
0 0 0 0 0 θ
and if both matrix and fibers fail within one element the matrix loading direction. The effective length was 150 mm and width
reduces to either 25 mm (θ = 90°), 20 mm (θ = 45°), or 15 mm (θ = 0°);
θ θ θ 0 0 0  the width of specimens with stress concentrators (circular hole
θ θ θ 0 0 0  of diameter 10 mm in the center) was always 20 mm (see
  Figure 4). The grip speed was approx. 1 mm/min.
 θ θ θ 0 0 0 . (9)
CM / F =  
0 0 0 θ 0 0
0 0 0 0 θ 0
 
 0 0 0 0 0 θ 
The overall methodology of PFA is shown in the chart in
Figure 3 for quasi-static and non-stationary cases.

Figure 4. Fractured specimens in experiment.

Figure 3. Progressive failure analysis for quasi-static and non- In numerical simulation using FEA and Puck’s criterion, the
stationary problems (dashed). specimens were loaded in tension in displacement control, thus
BULLETIN OF APPLIED MECHANICS 4(14), 81–87 (2008)

assuming perfectly rigid area of the attached tabs in machine

grips. The load-displacement curves were calculated and they
are compared with the corresponding experimental data in
Figure 5. Artificial flaws had to be used in case of the two
panels without stress concentrators (A45, A00) in order to
initiate the matrix cracking in the desired location. The flaw
was modeled by element with strength YT reduced by 1%
[7,13].

Figure 7. Time dependence of transverse velocity of plate.

Also, the approach velocity of the impactor which is able to

damage the plate was investigated. The agreement of
experimental and numerical results is acceptable. Damaged
FEM model is shown in Figure 8. Matrix failure mode LaRC
#1 was driving the cracking of the plate. Hence the stress-
strain matrix of the damaged elements had the form (7). This
test showed the capability of selected PFA in the field of
impact loaded thin composite structures. The numerical
analyses show good agreement with the experiments [5, 6].

Figure 5. Comparison of experimental and numerical force-

displacement dependencies.
B Thin unidirectional plate loaded by transverse impact
The material of the plate was described above. Dimensions
of the plate were
50 mm × 50 mm × 1 mm. The impactor was steel cylinder
with rounded contact area. The direction of the impact is
obvious from Figure 6.
The transverse velocity of the plate was measured in chosen
points by laser vibrometer with sampling frequency of 1 MHz
and compared with numerical results showing good agreement.
The comparison between numerical and experimental results Figure 8. Numerical results showing damaged elements of the
for one specimen is shown in Figure 7. plate (dark elements).

C Delamination of unidirectional laminates

The DCB specimens were having dimensions 154.5 × 21 ×
4 mm. The inserted aluminum foil, which served as the initial
crack, was 11 µm thick. The opening force was applied using
the piano hinges as suggested in ASTM (see Figure 9). During
the testing process the dependence of the opening force F vs.
transverse displacement δ was recorded. The crack
propagation in time (crack length a) was measured optically
using a digital still camera. The optical measurement also
served as a verification of the transverse displacement values,
which might differ, in general, from the grip movement as
recorded by the testing machine due to its unknown internal
stiffness. The speed of the grip movement was chosen in the
range between 1 and 5 mm/min.
Figure 6. Configuration of the experiment. The numerical simulation was performed using FEA in
BULLETIN OF APPLIED MECHANICS 4(14), 81–87 (2008)
MSC.Marc. Different finite element mesh was prepared for
each calculated case with certain crack length a [16]. The
equality between values of energy release rate and J-integral in
the case of elastic analysis was used in the simulations. The
code calculates the J-integral using the DeLorenzi method [2].
piano hinge
fibers
foil
piano hinge
foil
Figure 9. DCB specimen (Mode I) experimental setup.
The values of GIc (and its limits GIcmin and GIcmax as shown in
Table 4) were calculated from experimental data using (4) and
then used in the numerical model. As opposed to the theory,
the critical values change during the test. The reconstructed
load-displacement curves are compared in Figure 10
corresponding curve obtained experimentally. It is obvious
that for the two limit values the numerical simulation yields
two different dependencies one of which approaches the
experimental data at the beginning of delamination, while the
latter at the moment of final rupture. Only in the case when the
approximated values of GIc as a function of crack length a are
used it is possible to obtain good agreement with experimental
F vs. δ dependency.
Figure 10. Comparison of load-displacement curves on pre-
cracked DCB specimen.
Table IV. Measured and calculated parameters on pre-
cracked DCB specimen.
Initial crack length [mm] a 60.37
Crack length correction [mm] |∆| 7.41
Min. energy release rate [kJm–2] GIcmin 0.4579
Max. energy release rate [kJm–2] GIcmax 0.6468
IV. CONCLUSION
The failure analysis of three different composite specimens
is performed in this work. The problems were both static and
dynamic. It can be concluded that the choice of failure criteria
plays an important role. Another important aspect is the
reliability of the computational model, namely the material
properties used therein. The manufacturer of the composite
provides certain set of data which must be considered as
referential only. One option is to calculate the properties from
the properties of constituents but in order to obtain reliable
data it is necessary to carry out series of experiments and
corresponding numerical simulations [14, 15]. Currently, new
methodologies for faster and more precise identification of
material properties are investigated, as it shows that the failure
analysis has been of constantly growing importance by the
practice.
REFERENCES
[1] ASTM D5528-01, Standard Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture
Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites.
Annual Book of ASTM Standard, pp. 249-260, 2002.
[2] MSC.Marc Volume A: Theory and user information, Version 2005.
MSC.Software Corporation, 2004.
[3] Berthelot J. M.: Composite materials: Mechanical behaviour and
structural analysis. Springer – Verlag, New York, 1999.
[4] Knight N. F. Jr., Rankin C. C., Brogan F. A.: STAGS computational
procedure for progressive failure analysis of laminated composite structures.
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 37, pp. 833-849, Pergamon,
2002.
[5] Kroupa T.: Poškození kompozitů vlivem rázu. Doktorská práce,
Západočeská univerzita v Plzni, Plzeň, 2006.
[6] Kroupa T., Zemčík, R., Laš V.: Progressive failure analysis of orthotropic
plate loaded by transverse low-velocity impact. In: 5th International Congress
of Croatian Society of Mechanics, Trogir/Split, 2006.
[7] Laš V., Zemčík R.: Progressive damage of unidirectional composite
panels, Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 25-44, 2008.
[8] Laš, V., Zemčík, R., Kroupa, T.: Numerické simulace porušení kompozitů
a jejich experimentální ověření. Transfer. 2007, roč.2, č.3, s.42-67, ISSN
1801-9315.
[9] Laš V., Zemčík R., Měšťánek P.: Numerical simulation of composite
delamination with the support of experiment. Acta Mechanica Slovaka, 1,
EAN 2006, TU Košice, 2006.
[10] Puck A., Schürmann H.: Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means of
physically based phenomenological models. Composites Science and
Technology, 58, pp. 1045-1067, Elsevier, 1998.
[11] Silvestre, T., P., Dávila, G., C., Camanho, P., P., Iannucci, L., Robinson,
O.: Failure models and criteria for FRP under in-plane or threedimensional
stress state including shear non-linearity. Research report, NASA/TM-2005-
213530, NASA Langley Research Center VA 23681 USA, 2005.
[12] Sleigh D. W.: Progressive failure analysis methodology for laminated
composite structures. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, 1999.
BULLETIN OF APPLIED MECHANICS 4(14), 81–87 (2008)

[13] Zemčík R.: Non-stationary progressive failure analysis of fiber-

reinforced composites. Doktorská práce, Západočeská univerzita v Plzni,
Plzeň, 2005.
[14] Zemčík R., Červ J., Laš V.: Numerical and experimental investigation of
stress wave propagation in orthotropic strip. In: Computational Mechanics
2003, Nečtiny, 2003.
[15] Zemčík R., Laš V.: Identification of composite material properties using
progressive failure analysis. In: Computational Mechanics 2005, Hrad
Nečtiny, 2005.
[16] Zemčík R., Laš V., Měšťánek P.: Numerical and experimental analysis
of delamination of unidirectional composite material. In: 5th International
Congress of Croatian Society of Mechanics, Trogir/Split, 2006.

View publication stats