Sie sind auf Seite 1von 76

70

CHAPTER 3

FAILURE CRITERIA FOR COMPOSITE LAMINATES

The Non-homogeneity and anisotropic nature of composite


materials calls for the special considerations from the available failure
theories for general engineering materials. For the conventional Engineering
materials like Steel, Aluminium etc., the strength of the material can be
considered as a unique value irrespective of loading and dimensions. But for
composites, it is not so due to their anisotropic nature. Hence prediction of
failure of composites is itself is a very cumbersome task, since it is
represented by a curve in their loading field rather than a point. Several
researches propose so many theories to predict the failure of the material
which is useful for their applications (Abu-Farsakh et al 1994). Continuous
efforts have been taken for the last three decades for developing failure
criteria for unidirectional fiber composites and their laminates. Currently,
there exist a large number of lamina failure criteria and laminate failure
analysis methods (Nahas 1986). But these criteria are suitable to only
laminate and compositions for which they designed for (Burk 1983). A
comprehensive evaluation of the accuracy of these failure criteria in the light
of available experimental data seems to be overdue (Craddock et al 1982;
Cuntze 2004; Cui et al 1992).

Analysis of composite laminate is a two stage process, i.e., lamina


failure criteria and laminate stress analysis with lamina stiffness reduction
(Agarwal and Broutman 1987). Between the two, the accuracy of the failure
criterion is the most crucial issue.
71

Further, evaluating these lamina failure criteria is a two part


process. The first step is to characterize the criteria in their ability to predict
failure in a unidirectional composite or a lamina. These are the precise
conditions for which the criteria were designed. Those criteria which correlate
with experimental data and those criteria which are mechanistically sound can
be identified. Secondly, the lamina failure criteria must be evaluated in their
ability to predict the failure strength of a laminate comprised of laminae with
varying fiber orientations. Endorsing a lamina failure criteria based on its
success with unidirectional failure predictions is premature. In a laminate,
failure mechanisms are more complicated i.e., in situ laminae can exhibit
considerably higher matrix strength than experimentally determined through
unidirectional lamina tests. A lamina failure criterion must be flexible and
accommodate the more complicated nature of laminate analysis (Hinton et al
1998, 2002a, 2002b, 2003).

In this study, failure prediction made by several researches has been


considered (Arcan et al 1978; Butalia et al 2002; Chamis et al 1968, 1969;
Chang et al 1986, 1987a, 1987b; Chang and Chen 1987; Christensen 1988;
Eckold 1998, 2002; Edge 1998a, 1998b, 2002; Feng et al 1991; Hashin et al
1973, 1980, 1983; Hart-Smith 1990, 1992, 1993, 1998a, 1998b, 2002a,
2002b; Hill 1948; Hwu et al 1995; Kuraishi et al 2002; Labossiere et al 1987;
Li et al 1998; Liu et al 1998; McCartney 1998, 2002; Puck and Schurmann
1998, 2002; Puck et al 2002; Rotem 1998, 2002; Sun et al 1987a, 1987b; Sun
and Tao 1998; Sun and Zhou 1988; Sun and Kaddour 2002; Swanson et al
1984, 1987,1988, 1989, 1992; Tan et al 1989, 1991, 1993; Tsai 1965, 1971,
1984; Voloshin 1980; Wolfe 1998; Yeh et al 1994a, 1994b; Zinoviev 1998,
2002). Among them predictive capabilities of ten theories that have been
proposed over the years are investigated. They are criteria proposed by
Eckold, Edge, Hashin, Hart Smith, Puck, Rotem, Sun, Tsai Wu, Wolfe and
Zinoviev. Among them Hart-Smith proposes criteria based on the above three
categories, whereas criteria proposed by Sun and Zinoviev belong to stress
72

based criteria category. Examples for Strain based criteria are Wolfe and
Eckold criteria. Tsai, Rotem, Puck, Hashin and Edge belong to interactive
theory category. The proposed modified criterion is also interactive in nature.
The conventional failure theories like Maximum stress and maximum strain
criteria assume no stress interaction, hence not considered for this evaluation.

3.1 LAMINA FAILURE ANALYSIS

The purpose of the lamina failure criterion is to determine the


strength and mode of failure of a unidirectional composite lamina in a state of
combined stress.

In general, failure theories are the formulae used for theoretical


prediction of failure of any materials. For isotropic materials the simplest
method to predict failure is to compare the applied stresses to the strengths or
some other allowable stresses. In this case there is no principal material
direction so the material strengths are the same in all directions. For isotropic
metals failure usually occurs by yielding and can be simply predicted by the
maximum shear stress theory.

For orthotropic/anisotropic composite lamina these methods are not


sufficient because the failure mechanisms and strength properties change with
direction of loading. Failure usually does not occur by yielding but rather by
fracture of one of the constituents or the fiber-matrix interface. Unlike
isotropic materials, axis of maximum stress does not necessarily coincide with
direction of maximum strain. As a consequence the highest stress on body
may not be the highest critical stress in the structure.

In orthotropic/anisotropic composites the tensile and compressive


strengths in the principal material directions usually do not have the same
values. This is because the mechanism of failure can change from fiber
73

fracture when in tension to fiber micro-buckling and interfacial splitting when


in compression. However, positive and negative shear strength in the principal
material direction is the same. These differences make the currently available,
well developed failure theories for isotropic materials not applicable for
failure prediction in composites.

Failure criteria for composite materials are often classified into two
groups: based on the stress interaction considered,

1. Non-Interactive failure criteria,


2. Interactive Failure Criteria.

3.2 NON INTERACTIVE CRITERIA

A non-interactive failure Criteria is defined as the one having no


interactions between stress or strain components. In this type the individual
stress or strain component are compared with the corresponding material
strength, here the individual component refers to the stress or strain
component in the particular plane and particular direction. Under this
category come the popular theories like,

1. Maximum stress criteria


2. Maximum strain criteria

3.2.1 Maximum Stress Criteria

According to maximum stress theory, failure occurs when at least


one stress component along with one of the principal material axes exceeds
74

the corresponding strength in that direction (Figure 3.1). Failure Condition


can be expressed as given below,

Figure 3.1 Maximum stress criteria

 X L whenσ 11 ≥ 0  YL whenσ 22 ≥ 0 


σ 11 =   and σ 22 =   (3.1)
− X T whenσ 11 ≤ 0 − YT whenσ 22 ≤ 0

The maximum stress theory is more applicable for brittle modes of


failure, closer to longitudinal and transverse tension. It can also be said as
failure mode based, but it does not have micromechanical approach, the
approach very important for composite materials. It also does not consider the
stress interaction (uniaxial), hence they under predicts the strength in the
presence of combined action of in plane stresses.

3.2.2 Maximum Strain Criteria

According to maximum strain theory failure occurs when at least


one of the strain components along the principal material axes exceeds
corresponding ultimate strain in that direction (Figure 3.2).
75

Figure 3.2 Maximum strain criteria

ε whenε11 ≥ 0  ε 2t whenε 22 ≥ 0 
ε11 =  1t  and ε 22 =   (3.2)
ε 1c whenε11 ≤ 0  ε 2 c whenε 22 ≤ 0 

Generally the strain Criteria is expressed in terms of stress


components as given below, when expressed in terms of stress components, it
is found that the stress components have small interaction between
longitudinal and lateral stress due to Poisson effect.

 X L whenε11 ≥ 0  YL whenε 22 ≥ 0 


σ 11 − γ 12σ 22 =   and σ 22 − γ 21σ 11 =   (3.3)
− X T whenε11 ≤ 0  −YT whenε 22 ≤ 0 

The maximum strain Criteria also possesses the drawbacks of


maximum stress criteria, but comparatively it has some interaction with
longitudinal and transverse direction due to poisson effect.

3.3 INTERACTIVE CRITERIA

An interactive failure Criteria is defined as the one having


interaction between stress or strain components, either among stress on
particular planes or of all stress components. They can be classified into three
types based on their formulation.
76

1. Polynomial Theories,
2. Direct mode determining theories,
3. Strain Energy theories.

3.3.1 Polynomial Theories

Tsai-Hill Theory
It takes form from 2D Von-Misses yield Criteria
σ 11 2 + σ 22 2 − σ 11σ 22 = σ 2 yp (3.4)

Hill modified this Criteria for ductile material and based on that
Azizi and Tsai formulated one Criteria for orthotropic composite materials,

σ 112 σ 22 2 τ 12 2 σ 11σ 22
2
+ 2
+ 2
− =1 (3.5)
F1 F2 F6 F12

In the above there is no distinction between tensile and compressive


strengths. However, the appropriate strength values can be used in the above
equation according to the signs of σ 1 and σ 2 . Thus we get the following form,

 X whenσ 1 ≥ 0  YL whenσ 2 ≥ 0 


F1 =  L  ; F2 =   and F6 = SLT (3.6)
 X T whenσ 1 ≤ 0  YT whenσ 2 ≤ 0 

Even though stress interaction has been considered in this theory,


because of its quadratic form it fails to distinguish the failure between tension
and compression. Hence it has some programming difficulties during
analysis.
77

Tsai-Wu Theory: This theory is based on Goldenblat and


Koponov’s work Tsai and Wu modified them assuming the existence of
failure surface in stress space and in plane shear strength similarity, they
formulated the failure condition as,

f1σ 11 + f 2σ 22 + f11σ 112 + f 22σ 22 2 + f 66τ 12 2 + 2 f12σ 11σ 22 = 1 (3.7)


1 1 1 1 1 1
f1 = − ; f 11 = ; f2 = − ; f 22 = ;
X L XT X L XT YL YT YLYT

1 1
f 66 = 2
; f 12 = − [ f11 f 22 ]1 / 2
S LT 2

Using the above, the equation (3.7) can be rewritten as,

 1 1  1 1 1 1
 −  σ 11 +  −  σ 22 + σ 112 + σ 222 +
 X L XT   YL YT  X L XT YLYT

1 2 σ 11σ 22
2
τ 12 − =1 (3.8)
S LT X L X T YLYT

Tsai-Wu Criteria accounts for tensile and compressive stress


through linear terms. Tsai-Wu Criteria is readily amenable to computational
procedure, it uses stress invariants. With these advantages this is the most
widely used theory.

3.3.2 Direct- Mode Determining Theories

Direct mode determining theories are those they consider different


modes of composite structural failures, and are usually polynomial equations
based on the material strengths and use separate equations to describe each
mode of failure.
78

Failure is often an ill-defined term in reference to composite


materials and composite structures. These heterogeneous, laminated materials
typically exhibit local failures prior to rupture into two or more distinct
pieces. From the standpoint of structural designer, it is desirable to have
failure criteria which are applicable at the level of the lamina, the laminate,
and the structural component. Failure at these levels is often the consequence
of an accumulation of micro-level failure events. Thus, it is also important to
have a fundamental understanding of failure events at the fiber/matrix level. It
is necessary to have a fundamental understanding of micro-level failure
mechanisms in order to develop high strength materials.

Failure Modes

Delamination is one type of failure mode; composite materials


made of different plies stacked together tend to delaminate. The bending
stiffness of delaminated panels can be significantly reduced, even when no
visual defect is visible on the surface or the free edges.

Matrix tensile failure is another mode results in fracture surface


resulting from this failure mode is typically normal to the loading direction.
Some fiber splitting at the fracture surface can usually be observed.

Matrix compression failure is actually shear matrix failure. Indeed,


the failure occurs at an angle with the loading direction, which is evidence of
the shear nature of the failure process.

Fiber tensile failure mode is explosive. It releases large amounts of


energy, and, in structures that cannot redistribute the load, it typically causes
catastrophic failure.
79

Fiber compression failure mode is largely affected by the resin


shear behavior and imperfections such as the initial fiber misalignment angle
and voids. Typically, kinking bands can be observed at a smaller scale, and
are the result of fiber micro-buckling, matrix shear failure or fiber failure.

Direct mode determining theories are based on these various failure


modes. They form the criteria for prediction of these failure modes. The
ability of a lamina failure Criteria to determine mode of failure is essential in
bringing an analysis tool to the laminate level (an individual lamina failure
within a laminate does not necessarily constitute ultimate failure).
Considering the necessity of failure mode prediction, currently lot of study
and research is being carried out and considerable numbers of failure mode
based theories are developed. Theories which have sound physical basis and
coherence are only considered.

Eckold’s Criteria: The theory is an extension of the philosophy


used in British standards for commercial GRP pressure vessel design. The
criterion is basically strain based and can be summarized as follows.
Longitudinal and transverse stresses in a lamina can be expressed
as σ 11 = E ε 11 Cos 2θ , σ 22 = E ε 22 Sin 2θ and τ 12 = ε 12 G12 Sinθ Cosθ respectively.
Here ε 11 and ε 22 are the strains in corresponding directions. The failure
envelope equation can be expressed as

R 2  X Lσ 112 + 2YLYT σ 11σ 22 + X T σ 22


2
+ S LTτ 122  + R ( X Lσ 11 + X T σ 22 ) − 1 = 0 (3.9)

The coefficient, R, is the design factor for the laminate and is


specified as being between 8 and 12 for the inner surface adjacent to the
process fluid, depending on the criticality of service etc. The method is simple
in concept and aims to hold strains to a very low level, below the threshold for
80

initial failure in a uniaxial test. In applying the theory, an assumption was


made that the lamina tensile and compressive strength in the fiber direction
was identical. The predictions are mostly unconservative. No allowance was
made to account for non linear behaviour and that leads to an underestimate
of strains and an overestimate of stiffness.

Edge’s Criteria: This criterion is interactive in nature. These are


divided into initial and final failure criteria. In many cases first failure is in a
final failure mode and the distinction disappears. In the case of unidirectional
00 lamina all failures are classed as final irrespective of their nature (e.g. the
900 tension test where initial transverse tension failure precipitates
catastrophic collapse), so again the distinction disappears. The general form
of Edge criteria to predict various modes of failure can be expressed as
follows:

For Initial failure:


Matrix Tension (for σ 22 ≥ 0 ) : σ 22 = YC (3.10)
Matrix Compression (for σ 22 ≤ 0 ) : σ 22 = YC (3.11)
2 2
σ  τ 
Combined Shear and Matrix Tension:  22  +  12  = 1 (3.12)
 YL   S12 
For final failure
Fiber Tension (for σ 11 ≥ 0 ): σ 11 = X L (3.13)
Fiber Compression (for σ 11 ≤ 0 ): σ 11 = X T (3.14)

 σ 11   τ 12 
Combined Shear and fiber compression:   +   = 1 (3.15)
 X T   S LT 

This criterion gave moderate agreement with the measured shape of


failure envelopes for unidirectional laminates. It did not predict the
interactions observed between strengths in some quadrants of the
81

experimental failure envelopes but it did in others. In general the laminate


initial failure stress predictions were very low. Laminate final failure strength
predictions were some times conservative and unconservative in some other
instances with no clear pattern to each. This was one of the few theories with
the capability to predict non linear forms of stress strain curve up to the large
strains observed in some test cases. But the predicted shapes were different
from those obtained in experiments.

Hashin’s Criteria: Hashin (1973) propose two failure


mechanisms: one based on the failure of the fiber and the other based on the
failure of the matrix. The first is governed by the longitudinal stress, with
reference to the fiber orientation, and the second is governed by the
transversal and tangential stresses to the fiber. It is noticeable that, even
though the authors do not distinguish matrix failure and interface failure, they
do not mention this fact. This approach is plausible, but some explanations
might have been given.

Hashin (1980) proposes two failure mechanisms: one associated


with the fiber and the other associated with the matrix, distinguishing in both
cases between tension and compression. It has to be mentioned that once this
distinction based on the failure mechanism is made, the author’s strategy to
deduce the Criteria is to apply logical reasoning to reach an applicable
Criteria, rather than to continue with the mechanism of failure to establish the
macro variables associated with it and to propose a Criteria based on them.
Thus, for the matrix, the author proposes quadratic Criteria because on the
one hand a linear Criterion underestimates in his experience, the strength of
the material and on the other hand, a polynomial of higher degree would be
too complicated to manage. The most serious is that it implies that failure
occurs at the maximum transverse shear plane, which is difficult to accept as a
general conclusion.
82

Hashin’s criteria is the base of all theories of this type, first it was
formulated based on failure modes as fiber failure and matrix failure, later had
been extended into tension and compression for each modes.

2 2
σ   τ 12 
Fiber Tension (for σ 11 ≥ 0 ):  11  +   = 1 (3.16)
 XL   SL 
σ 11
Fiber Compression (for σ 11 ≤ 0 ): =1 (3.17)
XT
2 2
σ   τ 12 
Matrix Tension (for σ 22 ≥ 0 ):  22  +   = 1 (3.18)
 YL   SL 
Matrix Compression (for σ 22 ≤ 0 ):
2 2
 σ 22   YT σ τ 
  +  − 1  22 +  12  = 1
 2ST   2 S T Y
 T  SL 
(3.19)

Action plane concept - Fracture is exclusively created by stresses


which act on the fracture plane is important concept applied in Hashin’s work.
Fiber tensile mode failure had been applied the action plane concept. For fiber
compression the maximum stress Criteria had been considered. It had been
also widely applied. But most of his work is based on logical reasoning rather
than theoretical base. The experimental measure of Transverse shear strength
(ST) as mentioned in Hashin’s work is found inaccurate.

Hart-Smith’s Criteria: Hart-Smith proposes criteria based on all


three categories. The criteria is based on the assumption that for a fiber
dominated laminate, failure can be attributed to shear failures of the fibers,
and that laminate failure can be treated as a projection of a multi axial fiber
failure criterion onto laminate stress space. A ply-by-ply discount procedure
was not adopted by this criterion. The failure envelope is given in the strain
space that corresponds to an “extended” Tresca (maximum shear stress) yield
criterion.
83

Initially, the Hart-Smith failure criterion was based on experimental


results on in-plane shear failures in ±45° laminates which gave strengths
about half of what is expected when the shear stress is resolved into pure
tension and compression in the fiber directions. Hart-Smith attributed the low
laminate strength measurements to the presence of biaxial stresses which were
believed to induce shear failures in the fibers. Hart Smith concluded that in
many cases laminate failure can be reduced to shear failures in the fibers.
Denoting L and T as the in-plane longitudinal and transverse directions with
respect to the fibers and N the out-of-plane normal direction, it was suggested
that these shear failures could be characterized as “L-T” failures, “L-N”
failures, and “T-N” failures corresponding to differences between principal
stresses in the L and T directions, the L and N directions, and the T and N
directions; these stress differences resolve into shear stresses in the three
planes lying at 450 to the three pairs of coordinate directions. Application to a
laminate containing 0° and 90° laminae under biaxial loadings in the 0° and
90°directions is illustrated in Figure 3.3. In the figure, εo is the tensile failure
strain of the fiber and εo′ is the compressive failure strain of the 0° lamina
which may be less than εo because of micro buckling which precedes the fiber
rupture under compression. The strain coordinates εx and εy are laminate
strains which are assumed to be the same as the strains in the fiber. In general
the Hart-Smith criterion is intended for fiber dominated laminates which
contain more than two reinforcement directions.
84

Figure 3.3 Hart-Smith’s truncated maximum strain failure envelope


for laminates

The failure envelope (called truncated maximum strain criterion by


Hart-Smith) shown in Figure 3.3 in terms of strains in the 0/90 laminate is
based on superposition of the individual lamina failure envelopes such as the
one shown in Figure 3.4 for the 00 lamina, and is essentially the same as the
Sudden failure method (no matrix failure is assumed) in conjunction with the
Maximum Strain criterion. The only difference between Figure 3.3 and the
conventional Maximum Strain criterion is the 45° cut off lines in the 2nd and
4th quadrants. The lamina failure envelope shown in Figure 3.4 represents the
projection onto lamina strain space of the fiber failure surface based on the
three shear failure modes. The criterion indicates that the 45 degree lines in
the second and fourth quadrants in Figure 3.4 correspond to L-T failures,
while those in the first and third quadrants corresponding to the lines at
angles -α to the horizontal and -β to the vertical represent T-N and L-N
failures, respectively. With the out-of-plane stress σN equal to zero in typical
laminate applications, the latter conditions amount to constant σT and constant
σL cutoffs, respectively. The constants α and β are related to the Poisson ratios
of the lamina as required to produce these constant stress conditions.
85

Figure 3.4 Failure strain envelope proposed by Hart-Smith for fibers

The translation from the fiber failure surface to the lamina strain
surface depends on the assumption made by Hart-Smith that the longitudinal
and transverse strains in the lamina are the same as those in the fiber. There
are certain issues that need to be resolved in connection with the Hart-Smith
approach to failure. The most crucial is that of whether or not there are 450
cutoffs of the lamina failure envelope in the second and fourth quadrants. As
indicated previously, without the cutoffs the Hart-Smith criterion reduces to
the maximum Strain or Maximum Stress criterion. In addition, the evidence
for shear failures in fibers under normal stress loading as well as the
implications of low shear strength in ±450 laminates need to be fully explored.
The experimental results cited by Hart-Smith for these phenomena are
somewhat limited and have not been confirmed to any extent by other criteria.

Puck’s Criteria: Puck (1969) starts early but he follows Hashin’s


work. But this work is a distinct advance in the direction of Hashin’s work.
Particularly the new Criteria for IFF, developed by Puck, are based on
physical foundations as proposed by Hashin. It is assumed that almost all
86

composites in structural applications with a polymer matrix behave in a brittle


fashion. The Criteria is essentially based on the hypothesis of Coulomb and
Mohr and its modification by Paul. It is therefore formulated for a rotating
coordinate system, which is referred to as the fracture plane, the plane where
the brittle fracture occurs. Hashin provided the logical reasoning with out any
physical proof, but using the advantage of numerical solutions for problems,
Puck gave the new criteria. In fiber part his work is based on maximum strain
Criteria and with empirical coefficients his predictions are matching well with
experimental data.

For Matrix failure under compression - brittle nature of failure of


FRP laminas had been considered. Mohr-Coulombs hypothesis had been
applied,

1. Matrix failure in a plane parallel to the fibers is exclusively


determined by the shear stresses ( τ nt , τ nl ) and the normal

stress σ n that are acting in this plane;

2. If it is a tensile stress the normal stress σ n promotes fracture

in combination with the shear stresses τ nt and τ nl or even

alone for τ nt = τ nl =0. In contrast to that σ n impedes fracture if


it is a compressive stress by increasing the fracture resistance
of the fracture plane against shear fracture with increasing
compressive stress, σ n .

1  γ f 12 
Fiber Tension (for ε 11 ≥ 0 ): ε 11 + mσ f σ 22  = 1 (3.20)

ε 1T  Ef1 

Fiber Compression (for ε 11 ≤ 0 ):

1  γ f 12 
mσ f σ 22  = 1 − (10γ 21 )
2

ε 11 + 
(3.21)
ε 1C  Ef1 
87

Transverse Tension (for σ 22 ≥ 0 ):


2 2 2
 τ 12   Y   σ 22  σ σ
  + 1 − p T    + p 22 = 1 − 11 (3.22)
 S LT   S LT   YT  S LT σ 11D

Transverse Compression (for σ 22 ≤ 0 ):


1 σ
τ 122 + ( pσ 22 )2 + pσ 22 = 1 − 11 (3.23)
S LT XL

Figure 3.5 Stresses τ nt , τ nl and σ n on fiber parallel plane

In order to find the fracture plane one has first to determine the
stresses σ n (α ) , τ nt (α ) , τ nl (α ) on a plane parallel to the fibers. In dependence of

σ n being positive or negative the stresses are inserted into the valid equations.
This has to be repeated for a sufficiently large number of angles (α ) , between
-900 and +900 until that cutting angle (α fp ) are found for which the highest

‘risk of fracture’ exists, which means the global maximum of equations is


found. In this equation, the constants p and σ 11D are the experimentally
determinable quantities.

Rotem’s Criteria: The first version of the failure criterion was


suggested in 1973 and has been modified later in 1975 and 1981. The
criterion was postulated particularly for fiber composite materials and is not
88

suitable for other types of anisotropic materials. The criterion is based on


three basic assumptions:

1. The failure of a fiber composite material laminate will occur


either in the fibers or in the matrix. The onset of the failure is
a localized phenomenon.

2. The laminate has no free edges, i.e. the laminate is wide


enough and clamped on its outer contour and has no holes.
Therefore only in-plane stresses are effective. There are no
interlaminar stresses which may cause failure.

3. The matrix material is weaker and softer than the fibers.

On the basis of these assumptions the failure criterion actually


combines two separate criteria, namely a fiber failure criterion and a matrix
failure criterion. The fibers, being stiffer and stronger than the matrix, can
only fail by loads acting in their axial direction. The failure criterion is
expressed mathematically in the following fashion:

Fiber Tension: σ 11 = X T (3.24)


Fiber Compression: σ 11 = X C (3.25)
2 2 2
 E ε  σ   τ 12 
Matrix failure:  m 11  +  22  +   = 1 (3.26)
 YL   YT   S LT 

The final failure predictions for multi directional laminates are also
conservative in nature. The stress strain response is generally truncated at
much lower strains than the final strain observed in the experiments. They
generally coincide with the initial failure range alone and they do not predict
the final failure properly.
89

Sun’s Criteria: In his first approach Sun proposes the criterion as


generalized for either tensile or compressive stresses; the corresponding
(tensile or compressive) strengths must be chosen based on the sign of the
applied stresses.

σ 11
=1 (3.27)
XL
2 2
 σ 22   τ 
  +  12  = 1 (3.28)
 YL   S LT 

Failure is assumed when one of the two equations is satisfied. If


equation (3.27) is satisfied, then we have fiber breakage. Equation (3.28)
represents the condition for matrix failure. The mode of matrix failure is
determined by comparing the ratios σ 22 /YL and τ 12 /SLT.

Then in his second formulation, he formulated new one for matrix


failure and included a coefficient to consider resistance to failure offered by
compressive stress as detailed below.

σ 11
Fiber Tension (for σ 11 ≥ 0 ): =1 (3.29)
XL

σ 11
Fiber Compression (for σ 11 ≤ 0 ): =1 (3.30)
XT

Matrix Tension (for σ 22 ≥ 0 ):


 σ 2
  τ 12 
2
 22 +  = 1 , µ = µ 0 = 0.6 (3.31)
 YL   S L − µσ 
  22

 σ 2
 τ 
2

Matrix Compression (for σ 22 ≤ 0 ):  22  +  12  = 1 (3.32)


 YT   S L 
 
90

Wolfe’s Criteria: This is a strain based theory and is expressed as


follows. For the prediction of fiber failure and matrix failure, the functional is
differentiated with respect to strain variable. Mode of failure can not be
predicted by this theory.
m1 mi
 σ 11dε 11   σ i dε i 
 ε∫1   ε∫i 
Fiber Failure:   ∑   ≥ 0.1 (3.33)
 ∫ σ 11 dε 11  ∫
i =1, 2 , 6  σ i dε i 
 ε1u   ε iu 
m1 mi
 σ 11dε 11   σ i dε i 
 ε∫   ε∫i 
Matrix Failure:  1  ∑   < 0.1 (3.34)
 ∫ σ 11 dε 11  ∫
i =1, 2 , 6  σ i dε i 
 ε1u   ε iu 

Reasonably good prediction was obtained for unidirectional


laminate. But the final failure stress was much conservative. Initial and final
failure points are coincides in a single location. Hence, the stress strain
prediction terminates at lower level.

Zinoviev Criteria: Zinoviev assumes that the unidirectional ply


within the composite laminate deforms as shown in Figure 3.6. Deformation
of the ply (both under tension and compression) along the fiber direction is
completely elastic (Figure 3.6(a)). When longitudinal stresses reach their
ultimate values, XL or XT, the ply is assumed to be broken. The behaviour of
the ply in the transverse direction is much more complicated (Figure 3.6(b)).
The ply is monolithic and elastic under tension in the transverse direction
within the first stage (the 0-1 segment). The process of cracking the matrix
begins at point 1 and progresses within the 1-2 segment of the diagram. The
isolated unidirectional ply fails at point 1. Unloading from any point of the
~
segment 1-2 occurs with the unloading modulus E 2 which equals the secant
modulus of the diagram. Residual strains are zero, suggesting that the cracks
are completely closed. This is why on further compression of the ply
91

(segment 3-4 of the diagram), the modulus of the ply completely regains its
initial value. Repeated deformation of the unidirectional ply under transverse
tension (positive σ 2 values) follows along the 3-2 segment and further along
the 2-21 segment of the diagram. The deformation diagram in Figure 3.6(b) is
plotted as a function of the modified strain ε 2 = ε 2 + γ 12 ε 1 . Hence σ 2 can be
written as

E11  γ 
σ 22 =  γ 21 ε 11 + 12 ε 22  (3.35)
(1 − γ 12 γ 21 )  γ 21 

Figure 3.6 Behaviour of a unidirectional ply within a multilayered


composite (a model)

Suppose that ε 22 = 0, in equation (3.35). In this case it is always


possible to increase σ 22 at the expense of increasing ε 11 up to any σ 22 value
including YT when the cracks appear. Thus, the modified strain, ε 22 , is the
special strain which enables us to consider the effect of deformation in the
fiber direction on the process of matrix cracking. It follows from Figure 3.6(b)
~
that the unloading modulus, E 22 is expressed as follows:
92

−1
 ε 22 γ 122  *
σ 22
E22 =  * +  = (3.36)
 σ 22 E11  γ 2σ *
ε 22 + 12 22
E11

The starred values are the largest algebraic values during the
history of deformation. If the stress σ 22 reaches its ultimate value YT, the ply
is then considered to be broken. The ply behaviour under shear is, in many
ways, similar to that under deformation in the direction transverse to the fiber
direction (Figure 3.6(c)). The stress/ strain curve of the ply is linear elastic
within the 0-1 segment. Segment 1-2 corresponds to the stage of matrix
cracking. Unloading process (segment 2-3) takes place with the unloading
~ τ 12*
shear modulus G12 = . The process of shear deformation does not depend
γ 12*
on the sign of the stress τ 12 , which is why ply deformation within the 3-4
~
segments also occurs with the unloading modulus G12 . Repeated deformation
of the ply under positive τ 12 values follows along the 4-3-2 segment and
further along the 2-21 segment where the process of matrix cracking resumes.

3.4 FAILURE ENVELOPE GENERATION USING MODIFIED


CRITERIA FOR WIND TURBINE BLADE

Based on the observations made in field survey, most of the failures


of wind turbine blades are due to matrix compression. Few samples of failed
blades are shown in Figure 3.7. This mode of failure is due to combination of
transverse matrix compression and shear stresses. Hence a new failure
criterion is proposed as follows. Consider a composite lamina subjected to
transverse stress (σ 22 ) and shear stress (τ 12 ) as shown in Figure 3.8. It is
proposed that matrix failure occurs under compression due to interaction
between effective shear stress components acting on the faces of the critical
93

section. Consider a lamina subjected to normal stress σ 22 transverse to the


fiber orientation and shear stress τ 12 . Let the critical section along which
failure progresses in the lamina are inclined at an angle of θ to the vertical
plane of the lamina. Using the transformation matrix between loading
coordinates and along the critical section,

The normal stress acting perpendicular to the plane be σ n = cos 2 θσ 22 (3.37)


The shear stress acting along the plane τ T = − sin θ cos θ .σ 22 (3.38)
Magnitude of stress along the direction of the fiber τ L = cos θτ 12 (3.39)

Figure 3.7 Failed Blades due to combination of transverse compression


and shear stresses
94

Component of effective stresses τ T eff , τ L eff acting along the

transverse and longitudinal directions of critical plane can be represented as

τ T eff = τ T + ηT σ n (3.40)

τ L eff = τ L + η Lσ n (3.41)

The above set of equations has the effect of applied biaxial stress
field σ 22 , τ 12 and inclination of critical section. It is proposed that matrix
failure occurs under compression due to interaction between effective shear
stress components acting on the faces of the critical section.

Figure 3.8 Fracture of a unidirectional lamina subjected to transverse


compression and shear

Hence, the failure index equation can be expressed as


2 2
 τ T eff   τ L eff 
FI =   +   = 1 (3.42)
 ST   SL 

Here ST and SL are strength properties of the laminate.

Substituting the values of σ n ,τ T ,τ L in equations (3.40) and (3.41)

and using the condition for failure under compression as σ 22 = −YC ,

τ T eff = S T = YC Cosθ (Sinθ − η T Cosθ ) (3.43)


95

Under transverse compression, failure will be considered to occur


when the critical plane angle maximizes the effective transverse shear.
∂τ T eff
i.e. fracture will occur, when =0. (3.44)
∂θ

Using the above condition, the constants η T and η L can be


determined. Using the equation (3.43) in the first part of proposed failure
index equation (3.42),

τ T eff 
=
2
[ (
σ 22 − sin θ cos θ + η T cos 2 θ )]
2

(3.45)
 
 ST  S T2

Similarly for the second part of equation (3.42),


2
  SL 
cos θτ 12 +  η T cos θσ 22  
2
2
τ L eff    ST 
  = 2
(3.46)
 SL  SL

By adding the corresponding coefficients and further simplification


2 2
σ   σ .τ  τ 
leads to, FI = A  22  + B  22 12  + C  12  (3.47)
 ST   S T .S L   SL 

where A, B, C are called as Action Plane Coefficients (APC)

[
A = η T cos 2 θ − sin θ cos θ ]2
+ η L2 Cos 4θ (3.48)

B = 2ηT cos3 θ (3.49)

C = Cos 2θ (3.50)

Initially when σ 22 is zero, τ 12 will be equal to in-plane shear


strength. For this condition, calculate critical plane angle ( θ ) using
96

equation (3.43) and condition 3.44. Hence APC’s can be computed using
equations (3.48) to (3.50). Substituting the values of APC’s in equation
(3.47), the magnitude of τ 12 for the next load case can be computed. Utilize
the computed value of τ 12 for the next increment of σ 22 to calculate θ . Using
the calculated θ , revise the τ 12 using (3.47). Repeat this procedure till σ 22
reaches the transverse compressive strength. The same procedure can be
utilized for evaluating the failure envelope points in the longitudinal
compressive region also.

3.5 METHODOLOGY - STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE OF


FAILURE ENVELOPE GENERATION FOR COMPOSITE
LAMINA

1. Input required: Properties of lamina like type of fiber, matrix


and their stiffness properties, volume fraction of fiber,
environmental conditions, strength properties of the lamina
and required type of plot, viz. τ 12 − σ 22 , τ 12 − σ 11 and σ 22 − σ 11 .

2. Processing of data: Initialize the x quadrant as zero. For


τ 12 − σ 22 plot, initialize σ 22 as zero. For this condition, τ 12 will
be equals to its inplane shear strength.

3. Determination of critical plane angle: Find the magnitude of


load index. Using biaxial Mohr’s circle polygon, determine
the value of critical plane angle (θ ) that maximizes the
effective transverse shear.

4. Determination of APC: Using the value of critical plane


angle (θ ) , calculate the Action Plane Coefficients.
97

5. Determination of biaxial points: Substitute the values of


APC’s in equation (3.47), get the predicted point ( τ 12 ) for the
given σ 22 .

6. Loop Initialization for Lamina: Increment or decrement (as


the case may be) the value of σ 22 for the calculated τ 12 ,
determine the critical plane angle (θ ) and repeat steps 4 and 5
to find more failure points.

7. Failure curve for lamina: Join the failure points using a


smooth curve to obtain the failure envelope using modified
criteria.

The flowchart for the failure envelope generation of a lamina is


given in Appendix 1.

3.6 FAILURE ENVELOPE GENERATION FOR A LAMINATE

Classical laminate strength analysis is based on the assumption of a


two-dimensional stress field in the laminate. Laminate failure is the eventual
result of progressive failure processes taking place in the constituent laminae
under loading. Conceptually, a ply-by-ply failure analysis should yield the
desired failure load for the laminate. In reality, however, the failure
mechanisms in laminates are a great deal more complicated than those in a
unidirectional composite under plane stress. In addition to the three intra
laminar failure modes (fiber failure, matrix tension, and matrix shear failure)
occurring at the lamina level, three-dimensional failure mechanisms are
present in the laminate, the most notable of which include delamination and
failure induced by free edge singular stresses. Classical laminate strength
analysis is restricted to those laminates whose failure is not dominated by 3-D
failure modes (Reddy et al 1992, 1993). The effects of free edge stresses are
98

usually treated separately from classical laminate failure analysis. It is thus


generally assumed that the laminate is either free from free edge stresses or
laminate failure does not initiate from the free edge. As lamina failure is
progressive in nature, the progressive loss of lamina stiffness must also be
accounted for in the laminate analysis (Wu et al 1974; Yamada 1978).

3.7 STIFFNESS REDUCTION METHODS

Some of the laminate failure analysis methods consider a laminate


capable of load bearing after an individual ply within the laminate has failed.
These methods require a procedure for “discounting” the failed ply and
reducing the laminate stiffness. Two methods for achieving this were
developed for the present study, the Parallel Spring Model and the
Incremental Stiffness Reduction Model.

3.7.1 Parallel Spring Model

Each lamina is modeled with a pair of springs representing the fiber


(longitudinal) and matrix (shear and transverse) deformation modes. The
entire laminate is modeled by grouping together a number of parallel lamina
spring sets as shown in Figure 3.9. When fiber breakage occurs, the
longitudinal modulus is reduced. When matrix cracking occurs, the shear and
transverse moduli are reduced. The value to which the moduli are reduced
was arbitrary although it was commonly set equal to zero.
99

Figure 3.9 Schematic of Parallel Spring Model (PSM)

This model is also capable of differentiating between types of


matrix failure if desired; i.e., the transverse and shear moduli can be reduced
separately depending on the specific type of matrix failure mode. The model
which reduces E1 for fiber failure and E2 and G12 for either transverse or shear
matrix failure is denoted the PSM. The model which reduces E1 for fiber
failure, E2 for transverse matrix failure, and E2 and G12 for shear matrix failure
is denoted the PSMs. The idea behind the PSMs is that a transverse matrix
failure doesn’t necessarily inhibit the ability of the lamina to carry significant
shear loads.

3.7.2 Incremental Stiffness Reduction Model

To avoid the sudden jump in strain at ply failure seen in the Parallel
Spring Model, a model resembling the bilinear hardening rule in classical
plasticity can be formulated. Laminate stiffness reduction is achieved similar
to the Parallel Spring Model. However, it is assumed that the reduced
100

laminate stiffness governs only the incremental load-deformation relations


beyond immediate ply failure. Both of these stiffness reduction models have
flexibility. Instead of reducing the appropriate moduli suddenly after a ply
failure, a nonlinear function such as exponential function may be used to
gradually reduce these values. This progressive softening approach may
model certain laminates better than others, i.e., those laminates whose failure
is dominated by matrix cracking. For most fiber-dominated composites,
setting the stiffness constants directly to zero after the corresponding mode of
failure is simple and unambiguous. The use of such reduction can be justified
by regarding the laminate analysis to be at the in-plane (x, y) location where
all ply failures would occur. Consider a 90° lamina (within a laminate)
containing a number of transverse matrix cracks, as shown in Figure 3.10.
The 90° ply still retains some stiffness in the loading direction (E2 direction
locally). However, the assumption is made that ensuing 0° fiber failure will
occur at the weakest point. This point is where matrix cracking has occurred
in the 90° plies or where locally E2 = 0. Thus, it is acceptable to reduce E2
directly to zero after transverse matrix cracking for the ultimate strength
analysis.

Figure 3.10 Schematic of Incremental Stiffness Reduction Model (ISRM)


101

Since matrix cracks are discrete, the portion of a failed lamina


between two cracks would still contribute substantially to the laminate
stiffness. It is obvious that such drastic lamina stiffness reduction, if assumed
to be true over the whole laminate, would overestimate the ultimate strains of
the laminate. In fiber-dominated laminates, the effect of matrix cracks on the
overall laminate stiffness is usually very small. It is reasonable to estimate the
laminate ultimate strains by using the virgin laminate stress-strain relations
and the laminate failure stresses obtained from the laminate failure analysis.

3.8 LAMINATE FAILURE ANALYSIS METHODS

As with lamina failure analysis, a variety of laminate failure


analysis methods have been proposed. Following is a description of each
methodology.

3.8.1 Ply-By-Ply Discount Method

This is a very common method for laminate failure analysis. The


laminate is treated as a homogeneous material and is analyzed with a lamina
failure criterion. Laminated plate theory is used to initially calculate stresses
and strains in each ply. A lamina failure criterion is then used to determine the
particular ply which will fail first and the mode of that failure. A stiffness
reduction model is used to reduce the stiffness of the laminate due to that
individual ply failure. The laminate with reduced stiffness is again analyzed
for stresses and strains. The lamina failure criterion predicts the next ply
failure and laminate stiffness is accordingly reduced again. This cycle
continues until ultimate laminate failure is reached. A number of definitions
have been proposed on how to determine ultimate laminate failure. One
common way is to assume ultimate laminate failure when fiber breakage
occurs in any ply. Another way is to check if excessive strains occur
(i.e., yielding of the laminate stiffness matrix). Matrix-dominated laminates
102

such as [±45]s may fail without fiber breakage. Others have suggested a “last
ply” definition in which the laminate is considered failed if every ply has been
damaged. For this project, the laminate failure is defined as occurring when
either fiber breakage occurs in any ply or the reduced stiffness matrix
becomes singular (Reddy et al 1987).

3.8.2 Sudden Failure Method

In highly fiber dominated composite laminates; effect of the


laminate stiffness reduction due to progressive matrix failures on the laminate
ultimate strength is insignificant. This suggests that in such laminates the
progressive stiffness reduction seen in the previous method may be
unnecessary, and laminate failure may be taken to coincide with the fiber
failure of the load-carrying ply (the ply with fibers oriented closest to the
loading direction). To perform this analysis, a lamina failure criterion is
chosen and the failure load is determined by calculating the load required for
fiber failure in the dominant lamina. No stiffness reductions are included in
the process. The laminate strength predicted by the sudden failure method is
usually higher than the laminate strength predicted by the ply-by-ply discount
method.

3.9 FAILURE PREDICTION FOR COMPOSITE LAMINATE


(FPCL) CODE GENERATION

This FPCL Code has been generated using C++ language. The
purpose of this program is to provide a thorough analysis of the failure
progression leading to ultimate failure in laminated composites. The program
utilizes 2-D classical laminated plate theory with a Ply-by-Ply Discount
laminate analysis method. The code utilize two kinds of inputs namely Inbuilt
input and interactive input. The inbuilt input includes the mechanical and
thermal properties of four fibrous and matrix materials and are enlisted in
Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
103

Once the programme is initialized, the user can enter the required
type of fiber or matrix material. Type 1 if the fiber type is E-glass 21×K43
Gevetex, similarly type either 2 or 3 or 4 if the fiber type is Silenka E-Glass
1200tex or AS4 or T300. For the case of matrices 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to
MY750/HY917/ epoxy, LY556/DY063 epoxy, 3501-6 epoxy and BSL914C
epoxy respectively. In order to invoke the required material properties from
the inbuilt input “Switch-Case-Break” option is employed. The other kind of
input employed in the coding is Interactive input. The following parameters
are specified as interactive input.

i. Volume fraction of fiber


ii. Number of Lamina
iii. Lamina Thickness (should be defined in mm)
iv. Stacking Sequence
v. Selection of Criteria

Table 3.1 Mechanical and Thermal properties of Fibers (Soden et al


1998)

E-glass Silenka
Fibre type AS4 T300 21×K43 E-Glass
Gevetex 1200tex
Longitudinal modulus, Ef1 (GPa) 225 230 80 74
Transverse modulus, Ef2 (GPa) 15 15 80 74
In-plane shear modulus, Gf12 (GPa) 15 15 33.33 30.8
Major Poisson's ratio, ν f 12 0.2
Transverse shear modulus, Gf23 (GPa) 7 7 33.33 30.8
Longitudinal tensile strength, XfL (MPa) 3350 2500 2150 2150
Longitudinal compressive strength, YfL 2500 2000 1450 1450
(MPa)
Longitudinal tensile failure strain, 1.488 1.086 2.687 2.905
ε f 1L (%)
Longitudinal compressive failure strain, 1.111 0.869 1.813 1.959
ε f 2 L (%)
Longitudinal thermal coefficient, -0.5 -0.7 4.9 4.9
α f 1 (10-6/0C)
Transverse thermal coefficient, 15 12 4.9 4.9
α f 2 (10-6/0C)
104

Table 3.2 Mechanical and Thermal properties of Matrices (Soden et al


1998)

LY556/ MY750/
3501-6 BSL914C
Matrix type DY063 HY917/
epoxy epoxy
epoxy epoxy
Modulus, Em (Gpa) 4.2 4.0 3.35 3.35
Shear modulus, Gm (Gpa) 1.567 1.481 1.24 1.24
Poisson's ratio, ν m 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.35
Tensile strength, YmT (MPa) 69 75 80 80
Compressive strength, YmC (MPa) 250 150 120 120
Shear strength, Sm (MPa) 50 70 68 68
Tensile failure strain, ε mT (%) 1.7 4 5 5
Thermal coefficient, α m (10-6/0C) 45 55 58 58

Under selection of criteria, it is required to key in 1 for Stress based


2 for Strain based and 3 for Interactive criteria. Under case 1, it is possible to
choose one of following criteria by specifying corresponding number noted
against the name

1. Hart Smith
2. Sun
3. Zinoviev

Under case 2, it is possible to choose one of following criteria by


specifying corresponding number noted against the name

4. Eckold
5. Hart Smith
6. Wolfe
105

Under case 3, either one of the following interactive criteria can be


selected.
7. Edge
8. Hashin
9. Hart Smith
10. Puck
11. Rotem
12. Tsai Wu
13. Modified

After defining the above details, Strength properties of the specified


laminate like Longitudinal and Transverse Tensile strength, Longitudinal and
Transverse Compressive strength, Inplane and Inter laminar shear strength
parameters should be defined. Using the specified details, the FPCL coding
will calculate the material properties of the lamina with the help of rule of
mixture equation. After calculating the stiffness matrix of each lamina, the
procedure adopted in classical laminated theory was adopted. As per the
theory, [Aij], [Bij] and [Dij] matrices were computed utilizing the detail about
the position of a particular lamina with respect to the position of the mid
plane. The induced strain in a particular lamina was calculated after
determining the midplane strain and midplane curvature. Stress vector
< σ xx σ yy τ xy > T of each lamina can be computed using the calculated strain

vector and stiffness matrix of that lamina. The computed stress can be
substituted in the failure criteria under consideration to check out the
condition of the particular lamina (Kere et al 2001). For interactive theories
there will be set of failure envelope equations as discussed in the previous
topic. If the failure is encountered in matrix, ply by ply discount procedure is
adopted. On the other hand, if the failure is in fiber the code will declare it as
ultimate failure of the laminate (Jones 1998). The flowchart for the failure
envelope generation of a lamina is given in Appendix 2.
106

3.10 CASE STUDY I: COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADE


LAMINATE

3.10.1 Response of the Lamina

Modified failure criteria have been developed primarily for this


application. During operation, leading edges of the wind turbine blade are
subjected to compressive loading. Field survey of failed blades evicted that
the induced in plane shear stresses are the main cause of blade failure.
Prediction made by Modified criteria is compared with other Stress based,
Strain based and Modified Criteria and are shown in Figures 3.11 to 3.13.

100

τ12 (MPa)
SR = -1.81:1 Hart - Smith[54]
Sun[117]
Zinoviev[143]
80 Modified
Experimental data[28]

SR = 1.52:1

60

40

20

0
-175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100
σ22 (MPa)

Figure 3.11 Comparison of modified failure criteria with stress based


criteria for a unidirectional lamina of wind turbine blade
material in τ 12 − σ 22 field

The plotted graph shows the response of shear stress due to the
application of either tensile transverse stress or compressive transverse stress.
From the experimental data plotted in the figures, it is understood that the
107

shear failure stresses decreases due to the application of tensile transverse


stress. On the other hand, it increases when moderate compressive transverse
stress is applied, i.e. up to a load index of 0.56, after which it decreases. Stress
based criteria like Sun and Hart-Smith fits well with experimental data sets in
tensile transverse region as shown in Figure 3.11. The other stress based
criteria, Zinoviev resulted in unconservative prediction in tensile transverse
stress region. But they give conservative predictions in compressive
transverse stress region. The modified criteria fit well in both tensile and
compressive transverse stress region and it predicts the maximum shear in the
second quadrant. Predictive capability of Strain based criteria is shown in
Figure 3.12.

100
SR = -1.81:1 Eckold[34]
τ12 (MPa)
Hart-Smith[54]
Wolfe[137]
80 Modified
Experimental data[28]

SR = 1.52:1
60

40

20

0
-175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100
σ22 (MPa)

Figure 3.12 Comparison of modified failure criteria with Strain based


criteria for a unidirectional lamina of wind turbine blade
material in τ 12 − σ 22 field

Among them Eckold is unconservative in tensile region and very


conservative in the other. Hart-Smith is also unconservative in tensile region
108

and very conservative in the other but the degree of conservativeness in


compressive region is much less than Eckold’s prediction. Wolfe’s prediction
fits well in tensile transverse stress region. But in compressive transverse
stress region, up to load index of 0.77, it offers conservative predictions after
that fits well with experimental data sets. Among the interactive criteria which
are shown in Figure 3.13, it can be identified that Puck’s theory was little
unconservative in shear-compression quadrant.

100

τ12 (MPa)
SR = -1.81:1 Edge[37]
Hart Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
80 Puck[101]
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
Modified
60 Experimental data[28]

40 SR = 1.52:1
a

20

σ22 (MPa)
0
-175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125

Figure 3.13 Comparison of Modified failure criteria with Interactive


criteria for lamina of Wind turbine blade material in
τ 12 − σ 22 field

All interactive criteria except Hart-Smith’s Interactive criteria fit


very well with strength data in tensile transverse stress region. Hart-Smith
offers unconservative predictions. In compressive stress region, Edge offers
conservative prediction and the general shape of the curve is not similar to the
trend of strength data. Even though Hashin and Rotem give conservative
predictions, the shape of the curve is similar to the trend of strength data.
109

Puck’s criteria in addition to Modified criteria fit well with experimental data
and they predict the maximum shear stress point. Since the interactive criteria
predict the failure in a relatively better manner, a comparison among the
interactive criteria is also made in terms of standard error (SE) between
analytical and test results and is obtained using the following expression.

2
1 N  Analysis Re sult 
SE = ∑ 1 −
N i =1  Test Re sult  i
 (3.51)

N is the number of test data points. Tables 3.3 to 3.5 shows the error
comparison for prediction made by various stress based, strain based and
interactive criteria with experimental data points. Predictions made by
Modified criteria are good with a SE of 0.0497 whereas the SE for Puck and
Edge are 0.0596 and 0.0608 respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that
Modified criteria along with Puck and Edge can be recommended for
reasonable conservative predictions of the lamina failure envelopes for
composite wind turbine blades. Figures 3.14 and 3.15 show the bar chart
comparison in failure prediction at stress ratio of 1.52:1 which is in the first
quadrant and at -1.81:1 which is in the second quadrant.

2.5 2.26 2.26


1.93
2
exp

1.5 1.19
1.07 1.07 1.11 1.11 1.12
theo /

1.02
1

0.5

0
v
i

i th

d
ge
k

em
ed

fe
a

ie
Su

l
c

Ts

ko
ol
Ed
i fi

Sm
Pu

ov
t
Ro

Ec
od

n
t-

Zi
M

r
Ha

Figure 3.14 Bar Chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for lamina of Wind turbine blade material in
τ 12 − σ 22 field at stress ratio of 1.52:1
110

1.20 1.06
1.00 0.92 0.92
0.77 0.77 0.79 0.80
0.80 0.70 0.73

σtheo /σexp
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

v
ith
i

ed
em

ge
fe
a

ie
Su

c
Ts

Sm
ol

if i
Ed
Pu

ov
t
Ro
W

od
n
t-

Zi

M
ar
H
Figure 3.15 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for lamina of wind turbine blade material in
τ 12 − σ 22 field at stress ratio of -1.81:1

Table 3.3 Relative error and standard error comparison of stress


based criteria for lamina failure of wind turbine blade
material under τ 12 − σ 22 field

Exp Data Sun Zinoviev Hart-Smith Modified


σ 22 τ 12 τ 12
RE τ 12
RE τ 12
RE τ 12
RE
(%) (%) (%) (%)
34.0 12.8 11.2 -12.5 61.0 -- 18.7 46.1 11.2 -12.2
30.7 32.3 28.1 -13.0 61.0 88.9 29.2 -9.6 28.1 -13.1
26.9 36.0 38.9 8.1 61.0 69.4 31.6 -12.2 38.8 7.8
18.0 51.3 52.2 1.8 61.0 18.9 41.4 -19.3 52.2 1.8
0.0 61.2 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3
-44.1 81.9 71.9 -12.2 61.0 -25.5 68.4 -16.5 83.5 2.0
-70.5 86.6 72.6 -16.2 61.0 -29.6 67.8 -21.7 88.1 1.7
-110.0 82.0 59.2 -27.8 61.0 -25.6 48.1 -41.3 80.0 -2.4
-120.0 66.0 50.1 -24.1 61.0 -7.6 36.7 -44.4 68.0 3.0
-130.0 40.0 35.1 -12.3 -- -- 25.2 -37.0 38.1 -4.8
SE 0.0659 0.1375 0.0974 0.0497
111

Table 3.4 Relative error and standard error comparison of strain


based criteria for lamina failure of Wind turbine blade
material under τ 12 − σ 22 field

Exp Data Wolfe Eckold Hart-Smith Modified


RE RE RE RE
σ 22 τ 12 τ 12 τ 12 τ 12 τ 12
(%) (%) (%) (%)
34.0 12.8 10.7 -16.4 61.0 -- 61.0 -- 11.2 -12.2
30.7 32.3 26.7 -17.3 61.0 88.9 61.0 88.9 28.1 -13.1
26.9 36.0 36.8 2.2 61.0 69.4 61.0 69.4 38.8 7.8
18.0 51.3 49.8 -2.9 61.0 18.9 61.0 18.9 52.2 1.8
0.0 61.2 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3
-44.1 81.9 59.3 -27.6 -- -- 61.0 -25.5 83.5 2.0
-70.5 86.6 58.4 -32.6 -- -- 61.0 -29.6 88.1 1.7
-110.0 82.0 57.1 -30.4 -- -- 61.0 -25.6 80.0 -2.4
-120.0 66.0 47.8 -27.6 -- -- 61.0 -7.6 68.0 3.0
-130.0 40.0 34.0 -15.0 -- -- -- -- 38.1 -4.8
SE 0.0783 0.2859 0.1375 0.0497
Table 3.5 Relative error and standard error comparison of interactive criteria for lamina failure of wind turbine
blade material under τ 12 − σ 22 field

Exp Data Hashin Tsai Rotem Puck Edge Hart-Smith Modified


σ 22 τ 12 τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%)
34.0 12.8 11.2 -12.2 9.2 -28.4 11.2 -12.2 15.3 19.5 10.2 -20.3 52.0 306.3 11.2 -12.2
30.7 32.3 28.1 -13.1 23.2 -28.2 28.1 -13.1 34.1 5.6 26.4 -18.3 52.0 61.0 28.1 -13.1
26.9 36.0 38.9 8.0 32.2 -10.6 38.9 8.0 37.3 3.6 36.0 0.0 52.0 44.4 38.8 7.8
18.0 51.3 52.2 1.8 45.5 -11.3 52.2 1.8 49.8 -2.9 49.6 -3.3 52.0 1.4 52.2 1.8
0.0 61.2 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3 61.0 -0.3 52.0 -15.0 61.0 -0.3
-44.1 81.9 71.8 -12.3 74.8 -8.7 71.8 -12.3 75.6 -7.7 61.0 -25.5 52.0 -36.5 83.5 2.0
-70.5 86.6 72.9 -15.8 73.1 -15.6 72.9 -15.8 84.5 -2.4 61.0 -29.6 52.0 -40.0 88.1 1.7
-110.0 82.0 59.2 -27.8 55.3 -32.6 59.2 -27.8 66.5 -18.9 61.0 -25.6 52.0 -36.6 80.0 -2.4
-120.0 66.0 50.1 -24.1 45.9 -30.5 50.1 -24.1 53.4 -19.1 61.0 -7.6 52.0 -21.2 68.0 3.0
-130.0 40.0 35.1 -12.3 31.5 -21.3 35.1 -12.3 33.4 -16.5 -- -- -- -- 38.1 -4.8
SE 0.0660 0.0802 0.0660 0.0596 0.0608 0.3591 0.0497

112
113

3.10.2 Predicting initial strength of multidirectional laminates

Material properties of a composite lamina can be found from the


properties of fiber, matrix and volume fraction of fiber. Using the material
properties of the lamina and fiber orientation angle, stiffness ( Qij ) of a general

orthotropic lamina can be found (Ochoa et al 1987) and is expressed in matrix


notation as

 Q 11 Q 12 Q 16 
 
Qij = Q 21 Q 22 Q 26  (3.52)
Q 61 Q 62 Q 66 

4 4 2 2
Q11 = Q11 C + Q22 S +2(Q12+2Q66) S C (3.53)

Q 12 = (Q11+Q22 – 4Q66) S2C2 + Q12 (C4 + S4) (3.54)

Q 16 = (Q11 – Q12 – 2Q66) SC3 – (Q22 – Q12 – 2Q66) CS3 (3.55)


2 2 4 4
Q 21 = (Q11+Q22 – 4Q66) S C + Q21 (C + S ) (3.56)

Q 22 = Q11 S4 + Q22 C4 +2(Q12+2Q66) S2C2 (3.57)


3 3
Q 26 = (Q11 – Q12 – 2Q66) S C – (Q22 – Q12 – 2Q66) C S (3.58)
3 3
Q 61 = (Q11 – Q21 – 2Q66) SC – (Q22 – Q21 – 2Q66) CS (3.59)

Q 62 = (Q11 – Q21 – 2Q66) S3C – (Q22 – Q21 – 2Q66) C3S (3.60)


2 2 4 4
Q 66 = (Q11 + Q12 – 2Q12 – 2Q66) S C + Q66 (S + C ) (3.61)

Here the values of Q’s for 2D orthotropic lamina are as follows:

E11 ν 21 E11 ν E
Q11 = ; Q12 = ; Q16 = Q26 = Q61 = Q62 = 0; Q21 = 21 22 ;
1 − ν 21ν 12 1 − ν 21ν 12 1 − ν 21ν 12

E 22
Q22 = ; Q66 = G12
1 − ν 21ν 12
114

Determination of stiffness matrix is important, because it relates


stress with strain in a lamina. Using the following relationships to relate
resultant force per unit length of the laminate and resultant moment per unit
length of the laminate, determine the mid plane strain and curvature of the
laminate.

0 
 N xx   A11 A12 A66  ε xx   B11 B12 B66  k xx 
   0   
 N yy  =  A21 A22 A26  ε yy  +  B21 B22 B26  k yy  (3.62)
A66  γ xy   B61 B66  k xy 
0
 N xy   A61 A62 B62
   

0 
 M xx   B11 B12 B66  ε xx   D11 D12 D66  k xx 
   0   
 M yy  =  B21 B22 B26  ε yy  +  D21 D22 D26  k yy  (3.63)
B66  γ xy   D61 D66  k xy 
0
 M xy   B61 B62 D62
   

Here,
n
Aij = ∑ Q ij [ ] (h
k k − hk −1 ) ;
k =1

1 n
Bij = ∑ Q ij
2 k =1
[ ] (h k
2
k − h 2 k −1 ; ) (3.64)

1 n
Dij = ∑ Q ij
3 k =1
[ ] (h k
3
k − h 3 k −1 )
0 
ε0 xx   N xx   M xx  k xx   N xx   M xx 
           
ε yy  = [ A1 ]  N yy  + [B1 ]  M yy  ; k yy  = [C1 ]  N yy  + [D1 ]  M yy  (3.65)
0   N xy   M xy  k   N xy   M xy 
γ xy       xy     

Here,
[A1 ] = [A −1 ] + [A −1 ][B] (D *)−1  [B][A −1 ] ;
[B1 ] = −[A −1 ][B] (D *)−1 
[C1 ] = [B1 ] T ; (3.66)

[D1 ] = (D *)−1  ;


D * = [D ] − [B ][A ][B ]
−1
115

After calculating the mid plane strain and curvature, induced strain
in each lamina due to the applied force or moment can be found out using the
following relation.

0 
ε
ε xx   xx   k xx 
  0   
ε yy  = ε yy  + z k yy  (3.67)
γ   0  k 
 xy  γ xy   xy 
 

Induced stresses in each lamina can be found using the stress strain
relationship.

σ xx   Q11 Q12 Q16  ε xx 


    
σ yy  = Q 21 Q 22 Q 26  ε yy  (3.68)
τ    
 xy  Q 61 Q 62 Q 66  γ xy 

By changing the value of “z”, it is possible to obtain induced strain


and stress for all lamina. Using a particular failure criterion check the
condition of all lamina in a laminate.

For the case of Modified criteria, Initial failure is said to occur in a


composite laminate if any one of the following failure condition occurs in the
FPCL (Failure Prediction for Composite Laminate) coding.

The corresponding failure mode can also be enlisted as follows:

Transverse tension, σ 22 ≥ YT (3.69)


2 2
 σ  τ 
Combined Shear and transverse tension,  22  +  12  ≥ 1 (3.70)
 YT   S L 
Transverse Compression, (− σ 22 ) ≤ (− YC ) (3.71)
116

120

τxy (MPa)
SR = -2.35:1

100 SR = 1:1

80

60

40

Hart-Smith[54]
Sun[117]
20
Zinoviev[143]
Modified
σyy (MPa)
0
-275 -225 -175 -125 -75 -25 25 75

Figure 3.16 Comparison of modified failure criteria with stress based


criteria for initial failure prediction for laminate of wind
turbine blade material in τ xy − σ yy field

The level of agreement between the theoretical predictions and the


available experimental results was generally not very good for this class of
problem. This is mainly due to the shortage of good experimental data. Also,
variation is due to the level of treatment of residual thermal stress and
effective in-situ ply strengths in the theoretical predictions, making it difficult
to arrive at straightforward conclusions regarding the best theory to use for
predicting initial failure. For the case of composite wind turbine blades
problem, experimental data are not available for the initial failure of lamina.
With reference to Figure 3.16, in the tensile transverse stress region, the
general shape of stress based criteria are similar and predictions are closer to
modified criteria. But in the transverse stress region, the shapes are similar but
the prediction made by Sun is unconservative and others predictions are
nearer to prediction made by Modified criteria.
117

120

τxy (MPa)
Eckold[34]
Hart-Smith[54]
Wolfe[137] 100 SR = 1:1
Modified SR = -2.35:1

80

60

40

20

σyy (MPa)
0
-275 -225 -175 -125 -75 -25 25 75

Figure 3.17 Comparison of modified failure criteria with strain based


criteria for initial failure prediction of a laminate of wind
turbine blade material in τ xy − σ yy field

120
τxy (MPa)

SR = -2.35:1

100 SR = 1:1

80

60

40
Edge[37]
Hart-Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
Puck[101]
20
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
Modified
σyy (MPa)
0
-275 -225 -175 -125 -75 -25 25 75

Figure 3.18 Comparison of modified failure criteria with interactive


criteria for initial failure prediction of a laminate of wind
turbine blade material in τ xy − σ yy field
118

For Strain based criteria (Figure 3.17), prediction made by Eckold


is very different and is highly conservative in both regions. Hart-Smith’s
prediction is conservative in tensile region. In compressive region, it yields
conservative prediction up to load index of 0.80, after that it becomes
unconservative. All the interactive criteria (Figure 3.18) predict failure points
with same shape, but Puck and Edge predictions are much less shear stress for
various values of tensile and compressive transverse stress. Other criteria like
Hashin Hart-Smith, Tsai and Rotem fit well with modified criteria predictions
in tensile transverse stress region. In the compressive transverse stress region,
Tsai and Rotem’s predictions are nearer to modified predictions and the other
two namely Hashin and Hart-Smith is unconservative.

3.10.3 Predicting Final Strength of Multidirectional Laminates

It is an important factor for failure criteria to predict the final


failure of a laminate. Modified failure criteria employ the fundamentals of
classical lamination theory with stiffness reduction model. The coding FPCL
(Failure Prediction for Composite Laminate) reduces the stiffness of a
lamina, if the failure occurs in matrix material, either tensile or compressive.
If failure encountered in fiber material, the FPCL declares ultimate failure of
laminate. Ply by ply discount procedure is adopted to account for final failure
of the laminate. Once initial failure is encountered in any of the lamina in the
laminate, stiffness of that particular lamina is reduced. This FPCL is also
capable of differentiating between types of matrix failure if desired; i.e., the
transverse and shear modulus can be reduced separately depending on the
specific type of matrix failure mode. The FPCL reduces Q 22 for transverse

matrix failure. If the failure is due to matrix shear Q 22 and Q 66 are reduced.
This is due to the fact that a transverse matrix failure doesn’t necessarily
inhibit the ability of the lamina to carry loading in the shear direction. The
119

Modified Criteria declares a composite laminate as failed ultimately if any


one of the following condition is satisfied.

Longitudinal tension, σ 11 ≥ X T (3.72)


Longitudinal compression, (− σ 11 ) ≤ (− X C ) (3.73)

In -plane shear, (τ 12 )2 ≥ S L S T (3.74)


Combined longitudinal compression and shear,
2
 τ T eff + τ L eff 
  ≥ 1 (3.75)
 SL 
Combined Transverse compression and shear,
2 2
σ  σ .τ  τ 
A 22  + B. 22 12  + C. 12  ≥ 1 (3.76)
 ST   S T .S L   SL 

where A, B and C are Action Plane Coefficients which were explained in


equations (3.48) to (3.50). It can be seen that from Figures 3.19 to 3.21, there
is a scatter in experimental data in tensile transverse region of the plot.

500
τxy (MPa)

Hart-Smith[54] SR = 1:1
Sun[117]
Zinoviev[143]
400

Modified
Experimental Data[28]
300
Working Stresses

SR = -2.35:1
200

100

σyy (MPa)
0
-500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700
Working Stresses corresponds to Wind Velocities 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 m/sec

Figure 3.19 Comparison of modified failure criteria with stress based


criteria for final failure prediction of a laminate of wind
turbine blade material in τ xy − σ yy field
120

Working stresses in the wind turbine blade when it is operating


with 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 m/sec are also plotted in these figures. Among the
stress based criteria which were shown in Figure 3.19, Zinoviev’s prediction
is little conservative in both quadrants. Especially in transverse tensile region
it is not capable of predicting the maximum shear stress data point. Hart-
Smith’s predictions fit well in first quadrant whereas it becomes conservative
in transverse compressive region.

500

τxy (MPa)
Eckold[34]
SR = 1:1
Hart-Smith[54]
Wolfe[137] 400
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
Working Stresses
300

SR = -2.35:1
200

100

σyy (MPa)
0
-500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700
Working Stresses corresponds to Wind Velocities 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 m/sec

Figure 3.20 Comparison of modified failure criteria with strain based


criteria for final failure prediction of a laminate of wind
turbine blade material in τ xy − σ yy field

Among the strain based criteria (Figure 3.20), Hart-Smith


prediction is good along with Modified Criteria. Predictions made by Wolfe
and Eckold are very much conservative and they lie in the region of initial
failure. Among the interactive criteria, (Figure 3.21), prediction made by
Hart-Smith fit well with experimental data. Puck, Edge and Hashin’s criteria
predict the failure well with similar curve shape in transverse compressive
region, but they are more conservative in tensile region. Predictions made by
Tsai and Rotem are very much conservative and they lie in initial failure
region.
121

500

τxy (MPa)
Edge[37]
SR = 1:1
Hart-Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
400
Puck[101]
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
Modified 300
Experimental Data[28]
Working Stresses
SR = -2.35:1 200

100

σyy (MPa)
0
-500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700
Working Stresses corresponds to Wind Velocities 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 m/sec

Figure 3.21 Comparison of modified failure criteria with interactive


criteria for final failure prediction of a laminate of wind
turbine blade material in τ xy − σ yy

Figures 3.22 and 3.23 shows the bar chart comparison between
various prediction at stress ratio of 1:1 and -2.35:1 respectively. Tables 3.6 to
3.8 show the error in prediction of failure for various criteria. For predicting
the final failure of the wind turbine blade material, Modified criteria has a
least SE of 0.0581. Puck, Hart-Smith and Zinoviev are also having a
minimum value of SE with 0.0625, 0.0664 and 0.0752 respectively. Hence
Modified criteria along with Puck Hart-Smith and Zinoviev can be considered
for reasonable conservative predictions of the final failure of wind turbine
blade materials.
122

1.2 1.03
0.99 1.00
1
0.80
0.71 0.73 0.73
0.8
σtheo /σexp

0.6 0.44
0.38 0.38 0.39
0.4
0.2
0

ev

ith
ld

n
i

ed
m

ge
fe

hi
Su

c
Ts

vi
ko

te

Sm
ol

ifi
Ed
Pu

as
no
Ro
W

Ec

od
H

t-
Zi

M
ar
H
Figure 3.22 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
τ xy − σ yy field at stress ratio of 1:1

1.2
1.02
0.97
1
0.82 0.82
0.8 0.70 0.71 0.72
σtheo/σexp

0.63
0.6
0.47

0.4 0.28 0.30

0.2

0
ith
ev
ld

d
em

n
ai

ck
ge
fe

ie
hi
Su

Sm
vi
ko

Ts
ol

Ed

Pu

if
as
ot

no
W

od
Ec

t-
Zi

M
ar
H

Figure 3.23 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
τ xy − σ yy field at stress ratio of -2.35:1
123

Table 3.6 Relative error and standard error comparison of stress


based criteria for laminate failure of wind turbine blade
material under τ xy − σ yy field

Exp Data Sun Zinoviev Hart-Smith Modified


σ yy τ xy τ xy RE τ xy RE τ xy RE τ xy RE
(%) (%) (%) (%)
520.0 10.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.6 -4.0
450.0 175.0 -- -- 162.5 -7.1 235.2 34.4 260.4 48.8
430.0 140.0 29.7 -78.8 187.7 34.1 244.8 74.9 267.3 90.9
410.0 160.0 60.7 -62.1 212.1 32.6 254.4 59.0 274.2 71.4
400.0 250.0 75.0 -70.0 224.7 -10.1 259.2 3.7 277.7 11.1
480.0 250.0 -- -- 51.2 -79.5 220.8 -11.7 250.0 0.0
350.0 280.0 199.2 -28.9 225.0 -19.6 283.2 1.1 296.8 6.0
300.0 300.0 226.1 -24.6 225.0 -25.0 307.2 2.4 307.3 2.4
250.0 300.0 251.3 -16.2 225.0 -25.0 331.4 10.5 321.5 7.2
150.0 320.0 297.0 -7.2 225.0 -29.7 345.8 8.1 323.4 1.1
0.0 275.0 240.0 -12.7 225.0 -18.2 249.0 -9.5 274.3 -0.3
-50.0 270.0 213.7 -20.9 225.0 -16.7 223.5 -17.2 264.6 -2.0
-70.0 260.0 205.3 -21.0 225.0 -13.5 213.3 -18.0 255.9 -1.6
-100.0 250.0 192.2 -23.1 225.0 -10.0 198.0 -20.8 243.2 -2.7
-130.0 250.0 178.0 -28.8 205.6 -17.8 178.8 -28.5 231.1 -7.6
-150.0 225.0 171.3 -23.9 184.9 -17.8 166.1 -26.2 225.9 0.4
-220.0 200.0 128.5 -35.8 -- -- 117.1 -41.5 200.3 0.2
-280.0 180.0 95.2 -47.1 -- -- 73.8 -59.0 178.9 -0.6
-300.0 150.0 83.9 -44.1 -- -- 59.4 -60.4 164.2 9.5
-320.0 150.0 73.4 -51.1 -- -- 45.2 -69.9 149.2 -0.5
-350.0 110.0 55.7 -49.4 -- -- 31.5 -71.4 111.7 1.5
-380.0 80.0 44.8 -44.0 -- -- 18.0 -77.5 69.5 -13.1
SE 0.0943 0.0752 0.0927 0.0581
124

Table 3.7 Relative error and standard error comparison of strain


based criteria for laminate failure of wind turbine blade
material under τ xy − σ yy field

Exp Data Wolfe Eckold Hart-Smith Modified

σ yy τ xy τ xy RE τ xy RE τ xy RE τ xy RE
(%) (%) (%) (%)
520.0 10.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.6 -4.0
450.0 175.0 -- -- -- -- 162.5 -7.1 260.4 48.8
430.0 140.0 -- -- -- -- 187.7 34.1 267.3 90.9
410.0 160.0 -- -- -- -- 212.1 32.6 274.2 71.4
400.0 250.0 -- -- -- -- 224.7 -10.1 277.7 11.1
480.0 250.0 -- -- -- -- 51.2 -79.5 250.0 0.0
350.0 280.0 -- -- -- -- 225.0 -19.6 296.8 6.0
300.0 300.0 -- -- -- -- 225.0 -25.0 307.3 2.4
250.0 300.0 9.6 -96.8 -- -- 225.0 -25.0 321.5 7.2
150.0 320.0 106.4 -66.8 105.3 -67.1 225.0 -29.7 323.4 1.1
0.0 275.0 95.0 -65.5 60.0 -78.2 225.0 -18.2 274.3 -0.3
-50.0 270.0 63.8 -76.4 40.1 -85.1 225.0 -16.7 264.6 -2.0
-70.0 260.0 51.3 -80.3 34.8 -86.6 225.0 -13.5 255.9 -1.6
-100.0 250.0 41.4 -83.4 30.4 -87.8 225.0 -10.0 243.2 -2.7
-130.0 250.0 35.9 -85.6 24.4 -90.2 205.6 -17.8 231.1 -7.6
-150.0 225.0 32.3 -85.6 22.2 -90.1 184.9 -17.8 225.9 0.4
-220.0 200.0 -- -- 10.5 -94.8 -- -- 200.3 0.2
-280.0 180.0 -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- 178.9 -0.6
-300.0 150.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 164.2 9.5
-320.0 150.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 149.2 -0.5
-350.0 110.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 111.7 1.5
-380.0 80.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 69.5 -13.1
SE 0.2851 0.1610 0.0752 0.0581
Table 3.8 Relative error and standard error comparison of interactive criteria for laminate failure of wind turbine
blade material under τ xy − σ yy field

Exp Data Hashin Tsai Rotem Puck Edge Hart-Smith Modified


σ yy τ xy τ xy
RE (%) τ xy RE (%) τ xy RE (%) τ xy RE (%) τ xy RE (%) τ xy RE (%) τ xy RE (%)
520.0 10.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 133.3 -- -- -- -- -- 9.6 -4.0
450.0 175.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 159.6 -8.8 -- -- 223.1 27.5 260.4 48.8
430.0 140.0 30.6 -78.1 -- -- -- -- 168.7 20.5 -- -- 231.9 65.6 267.3 90.9
410.0 160.0 59.2 -63.0 -- -- -- -- 176.1 10.1 -- -- 240.6 50.4 274.2 71.4
400.0 250.0 75.6 -69.8 -- -- -- -- 179.6 -28.2 -- -- 245.0 -2.0 277.7 11.1
480.0 250.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 148.5 -40.6 -- -- 210.0 -16.0 250.0 0.0
350.0 280.0 196.1 -30.0 -- -- -- -- 203.2 -27.4 268.9 -4.0 266.9 -4.7 296.8 6.0
300.0 300.0 222.0 -26.0 -- -- 53.6 -82.1 220.7 -26.4 295.1 -1.6 292.5 -2.5 307.3 2.4
250.0 300.0 247.7 -17.4 -- -- 78.4 -73.9 241.6 -19.5 321.6 7.2 323.8 7.9 321.5 7.2
150.0 320.0 297.2 -7.1 130.5 -59.2 105.3 -67.1 280.0 -12.5 368.8 15.3 338.8 5.9 323.4 1.1
0.0 275.0 240.0 -12.7 130.0 -52.7 107.5 -60.9 260.0 -5.5 215.0 -21.8 245.0 -10.9 274.3 -0.3
-50.0 270.0 211.1 -21.8 131.0 -51.5 97.4 -63.9 238.1 -11.8 199.6 -26.1 217.0 -19.6 264.6 -2.0
-70.0 260.0 202.7 -22.0 134.0 -48.5 96.4 -62.9 228.6 -12.1 195.4 -24.8 205.8 -20.8 255.9 -1.6
-100.0 250.0 191.2 -23.5 139.0 -44.4 98.2 -60.7 215.0 -14.0 187.5 -25.0 189.0 -24.4 243.2 -2.7
-130.0 250.0 178.4 -28.6 137.0 -45.2 101.4 -59.4 195.2 -21.9 180.0 -28.0 172.2 -31.1 231.1 -7.6
-150.0 225.0 171.3 -23.9 125.0 -44.4 102.5 -54.4 182.1 -19.1 175.0 -22.2 161.0 -28.4 225.9 0.4
-220.0 200.0 128.5 -35.8 -- -- 95.8 -52.1 132.7 -33.7 69.6 -65.2 114.8 -42.6 200.3 0.2
-280.0 180.0 95.2 -47.1 -- -- -- -- 47.5 -73.6 -- -- 166.9 -7.3 178.9 -0.6
-300.0 150.0 83.9 -44.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 122.4 -18.4 164.2 9.5
-320.0 150.0 73.4 -51.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 132.7 -11.5 149.2 -0.5
-350.0 110.0 56.0 -49.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 92.7 -15.7 111.7 1.5
-380.0 80.0 43.3 -45.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 20.5 -74.4 69.5 -13.1
SE 0.0949 0.1878 0.2034 0.0625 0.0825 0.0664 0.0581

125
126

3.10.4 Strain Response of Lamina under Uniaxial Loading

The stress strain curves for the unidirectional loading case for stress
based criteria, strain based criteria and interactive criteria are shown in
Figures 3.20 to 3.22. It was observed that, all the curves are very similar in
shape for predictions made by stress based criterion. Among them, prediction
made by Hart-Smith is shallower than the others. Among the strain based
criteria, prediction made by Eckold extends only up to initial failure region.
Prediction made by Wolfe is very much conservative and not capable of
predicting the final failure. Predictions made by all interactive criteria are
similar in shape except for those of Rotem. In Rotem's analysis, there is an
abrupt increase in strain associated with initial failure, especially in
longitudinal direction. The slope of curve predicted by Sun was shallower
than the others.

-150
σ yy (MPa)
Prediction
Final

-100

Hart Smith[54]

-50 Sun[117]
Zinoviev[143]
Prediction
Initial

Modified
Experimental Data[28]

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2


0
εxx (%) ε yy (%)

Figure 3.24 Comparison of strain predictive capability of stress based


criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial loading
127

-150

σyy (MPa)
Prediction
Final
-100

Eckold[34]
-50 Hart Smith[54]

Prediction
Initial
Wolfe[137]
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
εxx (%) ε yy (%)

Figure 3.25 Comparison of strain predictive capability of strain based


criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial loading

-150
σyy (MPa)
Prediction
Final

-100

Edge[37]
Hart Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
-50 Puck[101]
Rotem[109]
Prediction

Tsai[133]
Initial

Modified
Experimental Data[28]

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2


0
ε xx (%) εyy (%)

Figure 3.26 Comparison of strain predictive capability of interactive


criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial loading
128

1.2
1.07
1.03
1.00 1.00
0.95 0.96 0.96
1

εtheo /εexp
0.90

0.8
0.64
0.6

0.4

0.2

v
ith
i

n
n

ed
ge

ck
fe

ie

hi
Su
Ts
ol

Sm

if i
Ed

Pu

ov

as
W

od

H
n
t

Zi
ar

M
H

Figure 3.27 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength of E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial load in the loading direction

1.2 1.10
1.05
1.00
1 0.95
0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90
ε theo /ε exp

0.77
0.8
0.68

0.6 0.51

0.4

0.2

0
ai
n
ie v
d

n
ge
i th

k
tem

ed
fe

Su
l

i
c
Ts
ko

sh
ol

Ed

Pu

if i
Sm
ov
Ro

Ha
W
Ec

od
n
Zi

rt

M
Ha

Figure 3.28 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength of E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial load in the transverse direction
129

Most predictions showed only a small reduction in stiffness after


initial failure. The initial failure stress was in the range of 5-55MPa while the
final failure stress was in the range of 50-155MPa, depending upon the theory
used. In almost all of the theories failure is predicted mostly due to transverse
tension in the matrix in the plies that were perpendicular to the load direction.
Predictive capabilities of various theories are compared in bar charts as shown
in Figures 3.27 and 3.28. Among all criteria Puck, Modified, Zinoviev,
Hashin and Tsai relatively made good predictions.

3.10.5 Response of the Lamina under Biaxial Loading

The stress strain curves under biaxial tension (SR -1.81: 1) for
various criteria were shown in Figures 3.29 to 3.31.

Figure 3.29 Comparison of strain predictive capability of stress based


criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under biaxial loading
130

Figure 3.30 Comparison of strain predictive capability of strain based


criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under biaxial loading

Figure 3.31 Comparison of strain predictive capability of interactive


criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under biaxial loading
131

1.2 1.15
1.03 1.05 1.05
1.02 1.02 1.02
0.99
1 0.94

εtheo /εexp
0.8

0.59
0.6

0.4 0.30

0.2

0
v

ith
i
d

n
n
ed
em

ge

ck
fe

a
ie
l

hi
Su
Ts
ko

ol

Sm
if i
Ed
ov

Pu

as
t
Ro

W
Ec

od

H
n

t
Zi

ar
M

H
Figure 3.32 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength of E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under biaxial load in the loading direction

1.6 1.60
ε theo /ε exp

1.4

1.2 1.10
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1
0.77 0.80
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
Wolfe Hart Puck Modified Zinoviev Edge Sun Tsai Hashin
Smith

Figure 3.33 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength of E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under biaxial load in the transverse direction
132

Similar to that of unidirectional loading, prediction made by


various theories were also remarkably similar to one another. In this case also
Rotem showed a step in his predictions. In this case also slope of curve
predicted by Sun was shallower than the others. Prediction made by Eckold
terminates with initial failure region itself. Majority of theories gave values of
final failure stresses which were close to one another. Modes of failure are
also similar to that of unidirectional failure. From the bar chart, shown in
Figures 3.32 and 3.33, predictions made by Puck, Modified, Zinoviev, Edge,
Sun and Tsai were good.

3.10.6 Strain Response of [0/ ± 45/90]s Laminate under Unidirectional


Loading

Figures 3.34 to 3.36 shows the stress strain curves for the
unidirectional loading case for stress based criteria, strain based criteria and
interactive criteria of [0/ ± 45/90]s Laminate.

-550
σyy (MPa)

-500
Prediction

-450
Final

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200 Hart Smith[54]


Prediction

Sun[117]
Initial

-150 Zinoviev[143]
-100 Modified
Experimental Data[28]
-50
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
ε xx (%) ε yy (%)

Figure 3.34 Comparison of strain predictive capability of stress based


criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial loading
133

It was observed that, all the curves are very similar in shape for
predictions made by stress based criterion. Among them, prediction made by
Hart-Smith is shallower than the others. In transverse direction all criteria are
slightly unconservative. Among the strain based criteria, prediction made by
Eckold extends only up to initial failure region. Prediction made by Wolfe is
very much conservative and not capable of predicting the final failure.
Predictions made by all interactive criteria are similar in shape except for
those of Rotem. In Rotem's analysis, there is an abrupt increase in strain
associated with initial failure, especially in longitudinal direction. The slope
of curve predicted by Sun was shallower than the others.

-550

-500
σyy (MPa)
Prediction

-450
Final

-400

-350

-300

-250
Eckold[34]
-200 Hart Smith[54]
Prediction

Wolfe[137]
Initial

-150
Modified
-100 Experimental Data[28]

-50
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
ε xx (%) ε yy (%)

Figure 3.35 Comparison of strain predictive capability of strain based


criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial loading

Most predictions showed only a small reduction in stiffness after


initial failure. The initial failure stress was in the range of -5 to -205MPa
while the final failure stress was in the range of -200 to -545MPa, depending
upon the theory used. Failure was predicted to take place in one stage by
Hart-Smith, two stages by Edge and Puck, three stages by Wolfe, Zinoviev,
134

Tsai and Modified and in four stages by Sun. In almost all the theories where
more than one stage of failure is predicted, the first stage was by transverse
tension in the matrix in the plies that were perpendicular to the load direction
and the final stage was tension along the fibers in the plies parallel to the
loading direction. Depending upon the predictive capabilities and error
involved in predicting the failure, it can be concluded that Puck, Modified,
Zinoviev, Hashin and Tsai relatively made good predictions.

-550

-500

σyy (MPa)
Prediction

-450
Final

-400

-350

-300
Edge[37]
-250 Hart Smith[54]
-200 Hashin[57]
Prediction

Puck[101]
Initial

-150 Rotem[109]
-100 Tsai[133]
Modified
-50 Experimental
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Data[28] 2
0
ε xx (%) ε yy (%)

Figure 3.36 Comparison of strain predictive capability of interactive


criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial loading

3.10.7 Strain Response of [0/ ± 45/90]s Laminate under Bidirectional


Loading

The stress strain curves for [0/ ± 45/90]s Laminate under biaxial
tension (SR 1: 1) for various criteria were shown in Figures 3.37 to 3.39.
Similar to that of unidirectional loading, prediction made by various theories
were also remarkably similar to one another. In this case also Rotem showed a
step in his predictions. In this case also slope of curve predicted by Sun was
shallower than the others. Prediction made by Eckold terminates with initial
failure region itself.
135

Figure 3.37 Comparison of strain predictive capability of stress based


criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade
under biaxial loading

Figure 3.38 Comparison of strain predictive capability of strain based


criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade
under biaxial loading
136

Majority of theories gave values of final failure stresses which were


close to one another. The initial failure stress ranged from -5MPa to -140MPa
while the final stress ranged from -132MPa to -318MPa. Stages of failure
were similar to those shown for unidirectional loading case. Wolfe, Sun,
Puck, Tsai and Zinoviev showed four stages of failure, all predicting initial
failure due to transverse tension in matrix in the 00 plies, which were
perpendicular to the loading direction in this case, and final failure by
longitudinal tension in the 900 plies. Failure in the second and third stages
occurred in the ± 450 plies and 900 plies respectively with the same mode of
failure as that in the 00plies. Comparing the predictive capabilities, predictions
made by Puck, Modified, Zinoviev, Edge, Sun and Tsai were good.

Figure 3.39 Comparison of strain predictive capability of interactive


criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade
under biaxial loading
137

3.11 FAILURE ENVELOPE GENERATION FOR WIND


TURBINE BLADE LAMINATE IN σ yy − σ xx FIELD

Failure prediction for composite wind turbine blade using various


criteria is also represented in σ yy − σ xx plot. Among the stress based criteria,

(Figure 3.40), Hart-Smith’s prediction fits well in compressive transverse and


tensile longitudinal quadrant alone. In the other regions it yields only
unconservative predictions. Predictions made by Sun, Zinoviev and Modified
criteria fits relatively well with experimental data points.

900
SR = 1:2
SR -1:3

600
SR =1:1
σxx(MPa)

300

σyy (MPa)
0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Hart Smith[54]
Sun[117]
Zinoviev[143]
-300 Modified
Experimental data[28]

SR = 1:-1
-600

Figure 3.40 Comparison of modified failure criteria with stress based


criteria for final failure prediction of a laminate of wind
turbine blade material in σ xx − σ yy field

Tables 3.9 to 3.11 show standard error comparison in which


Zinoviev and Modified criterion ends with 0.0763 and 0.0671 respectively.
For strain based criteria, which were shown in Figure 3.41, prediction made
by Wolfe is highly conservative. From the failure envelope, it seems that the
criteria predicts only initial failure and is not extending beyond up to final
138

failure point. As similar to stress based prediction, Hart-Smith’s prediction


fits well in second quadrant alone. In the other regions it yields only
unconservative predictions. Eckold’s prediction is unconservative in second
and third quadrants and is conservative in others. Also it can not predict the
high stress point in the first quadrant.

800

σxx(MPa)
SR = -1:3 SR = 1:2

500

SR = 1:1

200

σyy (MPa)

-300 -200 -100 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

-400 SR = 1:-1
Eckold[34]
Hart Smith[54]
Wolfe[137]
Modified
Experimental data[28]
-700

Figure 3.41 Comparison of modified failure criteria with strain based


criteria for final failure prediction of a laminate of wind
turbine blade material in σ xx − σ yy field

The standard error for all strain based criteria is more and is about
0.0992 for Hart-Smith and 0.1198 each for Wolf and Eckold’s prediction.
Among the interactive criteria (Figure 3.42), prediction made by modified
criteria, Puck, Hashin and Edge are fit well with experimental data points and
these criteria are capable of predicting maximum stress points. Predictions
made by Tsai and Rotem lie only in initial failure region. Prediction made by
Hart-Smith is partially good in one region and is unconservative in other
regions. The error comparison also favors modified criteria as a better one in
139

predicting the failure of wind turbine blade material in σ yy − σ xx field.

Figures 3.43 to 3.46 show the predictive capability comparison of various


theories in bar chart at stress ratios of 1:1, 1:-1, -1:3 and 1:2 respectively. At
all stress levels modified criteria is capable of predicting the failure with good
amount of accuracy.

σxx (MPa)
SR = 1:2
800
SR = -1:3

SR = 1:1

500

200

σyy (MPa)

-300 -200 -100 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Edge[37]
Hart Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
-400 SR = 1:-1 Puck[101]
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
Modified
Experimental data[28]
-700

Figure 3.42 Comparison of modified failure criteria with interactive


criteria for final failure prediction of a laminate of wind
turbine blade material in σ xx − σ yy field
140

Table 3.9 Relative error and standard error comparison of stress


based criteria for laminate failure of wind turbine blade
material under σ xx − σ yy field

Exp Data Sun Zinoviev Hart-Smith Modified


σ 22 τ 12 τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%)
-75.0 225.0 297.0 32.0 312.7 39.0 211.6 -6.0 365.8 62.6
-40.0 480.0 380.3 -20.8 400.4 -16.6 345.6 -28.0 475.0 -1.0
0.0 600.0 475.2 -20.8 499.8 -16.7 499.2 -16.8 600.0 0.0
110.0 650.0 625.0 -3.8 759.3 16.8 850.0 30.8 643.7 -1.0
125.0 590.0 645.4 9.4 755.2 28.0 850.0 44.1 648.9 10.0
140.0 625.0 666.7 6.7 754.2 20.7 850.0 36.0 654.2 4.7
220.0 575.0 749.6 30.4 752.9 30.9 850.0 47.8 682.1 18.6
235.0 595.0 749.6 26.0 752.1 26.4 850.0 42.9 687.4 15.5
260.0 540.0 741.1 37.2 748.7 38.6 850.0 57.4 696.7 29.0
270.0 625.0 745.8 19.3 746.9 19.5 850.0 36.0 699.4 11.9
350.0 710.0 729.7 2.8 735.0 3.5 850.0 19.7 730.3 2.9
400.0 725.0 720.1 -0.7 729.6 0.6 850.0 17.2 749.6 3.4
420.0 550.0 716.4 30.3 727.1 32.2 850.0 54.5 553.8 0.7
325.0 480.0 159.3 -66.8 337.4 -29.7 611.7 27.4 104.2 -78.3
350.0 375.0 270.7 -27.8 399.6 6.6 633.1 68.8 215.4 -42.6
175.0 -200.0 -- -- -173.6 -13.2 -425.0 -- -247.8 23.9
0.0 -300.0 -350.0 16.7 -210.0 -30.0 -400.0 33.3 -400.0 33.3
-30.0 -300.0 -350.0 16.7 -210.0 -30.0 -400.0 33.3 -394.2 31.4
SE 0.0994 0.0763 0.0852 0.0671
141

Table 3.10 Relative error and standard error comparison of strain


based criteria for laminate failure of wind turbine blade
material under σ xx − σ yy field

Exp Data Wolfe Eckold Hart-Smith Modified


σ 22 τ 12 τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%)
-75.0 225.0 83.2 -63.0 455.2 -- 274.8 22.1 365.8 62.6
-40.0 480.0 152.0 -68.3 546.9 13.9 379.1 -21.0 475.0 -1.0
0.0 600.0 260.0 -56.7 651.7 8.6 501.2 -16.5 600.0 0.0
110.0 650.0 334.8 -48.5 651.7 0.3 800.0 23.1 643.7 -1.0
125.0 590.0 362.4 -38.6 651.7 10.5 800.0 35.6 648.9 10.0
140.0 625.0 389.7 -37.6 651.7 4.3 800.0 28.0 654.2 4.7
220.0 575.0 625.0 8.7 651.7 13.3 800.0 39.1 682.1 18.6
235.0 595.0 600.2 0.9 -- -- 800.0 34.5 687.4 15.5
260.0 540.0 550.0 1.9 -- -- 800.0 48.1 696.7 29.0
270.0 625.0 -- -- -- -- 800.0 28.0 699.4 11.9
350.0 710.0 -- -- -- -- 800.0 12.7 730.3 2.9
400.0 725.0 -- -- -- -- 800.0 10.3 749.6 3.4
420.0 550.0 -- -- -- -- 800.0 45.5 553.8 0.7
325.0 480.0 -- -- -- -- -24.7 -- 104.2 -78.3
350.0 375.0 -- -- -- -- 50.0 -86.7 215.4 -42.6
175.0 -200.0 -- -- -188.5 -5.8 -400.0 -- -247.8 23.9
0.0 -300.0 -200.0 -33.3 -650.0 -- -400.0 33.3 -400.0 33.3
-30.0 -300.0 -212.9 -29.0 -650.0 -- -400.0 33.3 -394.2 31.4
SE 0.1198 0.1198 0.0992 0.0671
Table 3.11 Relative error and standard error comparison of interactive criteria for laminate failure of wind turbine
blade material under σ xx − σ yy field

Exp Data Hashin Tsai Rotem Puck Edge Hart-Smith Modified


σ 22 τ 12 τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%)
-75.0 225.0 226.1 0.5 250.3 11.2 126.7 -43.7 297.0 32.0 338.9 50.6 274.8 22.1 365.8 62.6
-40.0 480.0 321.7 -33.0 266.6 -44.5 195.3 -59.3 380.3 -20.8 402.2 -16.2 379.1 -21.0 475.0 -1.0
0.0 600.0 357.6 -40.4 265.1 -55.8 275.0 -54.2 475.2 -20.8 466.6 -22.2 501.2 -16.5 600.0 0.0
110.0 650.0 470.7 -27.6 611.3 -6.0 56.2 -91.4 625.0 -3.8 634.6 -2.4 800.0 23.1 643.7 -1.0
125.0 590.0 488.1 -17.3 635.1 7.6 44.4 -92.5 645.4 9.4 654.2 10.9 800.0 35.6 648.9 10.0
140.0 625.0 517.2 -17.2 659.0 5.4 34.3 -94.5 666.7 6.7 676.9 8.3 800.0 28.0 654.2 4.7
220.0 575.0 598.5 4.1 535.7 -6.8 -- -- 749.6 30.4 772.5 34.3 800.0 39.1 682.1 18.6
235.0 595.0 619.7 4.2 554.9 -6.7 -- -- 749.6 26.0 768.9 29.2 800.0 34.5 687.4 15.5
260.0 540.0 644.5 19.4 555.0 2.8 -- -- 741.1 37.2 762.4 41.2 800.0 48.1 696.7 29.0
270.0 625.0 659.1 5.5 534.3 -14.5 -- -- 745.8 19.3 760.0 21.6 800.0 28.0 699.4 11.9
350.0 710.0 744.8 4.9 -- -- -- -- 729.7 2.8 709.4 -0.1 800.0 12.7 730.3 2.9
400.0 725.0 800.0 10.3 -- -- -- -- 720.1 -0.7 700.0 -3.4 800.0 10.3 749.6 3.4
420.0 550.0 800.0 45.5 -- -- -- -- 716.4 30.3 -- -- 800.0 45.5 553.8 0.7
325.0 480.0 714.3 48.8 -- -- -- -- 159.3 -66.8 474.7 -1.1 -24.7 -- 104.2 -78.3
350.0 375.0 744.8 -- -- -- -- -- 270.7 -27.8 522.4 39.3 50.0 -86.7 215.4 -42.6
175.0 -200.0 -134.1 -33.0 -30.5 -84.8 -- -- -- -- -399.7 -- -400.0 -- -247.8 23.9
0.0 -300.0 -342.6 14.2 -200.0 -33.3 -250.0 -16.7 -350.0 16.7 -450.0 50.0 -400.0 33.3 -400.0 33.3
-30.0 -300.0 -377.1 25.7 -206.2 -31.3 -302.8 0.9 -350.0 16.7 -450.0 50.0 -400.0 33.3 -394.2 31.4
SE 0.0789 0.1030 0.2328 0.0994 0.0875 0.0992 0.0671

142
143

1.6 1.43
1.4 1.31

1.2 1.07 1.11


1.06
1 0.91
exp
σ /σ 0.80
0.74
0.8 0.66
theo

0.64
0.6
0.4 0.21
0.2
0

ai

n
ev
d

n
ge

ck

it h
tem

fe

ed

Su
l

i
Ts
ko

sh
vi
ol

Ed

Pu

if i

Sm
Ro

no

Ha
W

Ec

od
Zi

rt
M

Ha
Figure 3.43 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
σ xx − σ yy field at stress ratio of 1:1

1.2 1.14
1.08
1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03
1
0.77
0.8 0.71
0.66
exp
σ /σ

0.6
theo

0.4

0.2 0.14

0
iev
i

n
d

ith
ge

k
em

ed
fe

Su
l

hi
c
Ts
ko

ol

Ed

ifi

m
Pu

ov

as
t
Ro

W
Ec

tS
od

H
n
Zi

r
M

Ha

Figure 3.44 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
σ xx − σ yy field at stress ratio of 1:2
144

1.4 1.25
1.2 1.10
0.99
1 0.90 0.91
0.82
exp
σ /σ 0.8 0.73 0.73
0.59
theo

0.6 0.45
0.4
0.23
0.2
0

ie v
i

n
d

i th
ge
k
em

ed
fe

Su
l

c
Ts

ko

sh
ol

Ed
Pu

ifi

Sm
ov
t
Ro

Ha
W

Ec

od
n

rt
Zi

Ha
Figure 3.45 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
σ xx − σ yy field at stress ratio of 1:-1

2.5
2.00
2
exp

1.5 1.20 1.20 1.20


σ /σ

1.10
1.00 1.01 1.02
theo

1 0.75 0.80
0.67

0.5

0
ai

v
ge
n

ck

ld
tem

ith
e

ed

Su

v ie
i

Ts
o lf

sh

ko
Ed
Pu
ifi

Sm
Ro

no
Ha
W

Ec
od

Zi
rt
M

Ha

Figure 3.46 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
σ xx − σ yy field at stress ratio of -1:3
145

3.12 CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this study, the predictive capabilities of Non interactive and


interactive failure criteria were studied. At the lamina level, those criteria
which separate the fiber failure mode from the matrix failure mode are the
most reasonable and accurate. This is supported by test data and a
micromechanical consideration which indicates the fiber failure and matrix
failure should be governed by different failure criteria. Experimental results
indicate that matrix cracking does take place even in laminates with well
dispersed laminae. Thus, the ply-by-ply discount of stiffness in failed laminae
is justified. The Parallel Spring model for stiffness reductions is adequate for
analysis of laminate strengths. The drastic ply stiffness reduction (the
concerned stiffness is set equal to zero after ply failure) does not cause
appreciable errors in the predicted laminate strength for fiber-dominated
laminates.

Failure envelopes were constructed in σ 22 − τ 12 field using Stress


based, Strain based and Interactive criteria and their predictive capabilities
were compared with the help of Experimental data for lamina failure of Wind
turbine blade material. The standard error in failure prediction for various
criteria was also tabulated. Modified criteria stood first in reasonable failure
prediction.

Classical Laminated Theory was employed to analyze the failure of


laminate with stiffness reduction model. Strain response of the laminate as
well as induced stresses predicted by various theories was compared with
experimental results. In this case the results shown by Modified criteria for
failure prediction are remarkable.