Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 2 October 2014
Keywords:
3D
FEA
Laminate
Flexural
CLT
a b s t r a c t
This paper developed three-dimensional (3D) Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to investigate the effect of
bre lay-up on the initiation of failure of laminated composites in bending. Tsai-Hill failure criterion
was applied to identify the critical areas of failure in composite laminates. In accordance with the 3D
FEA, unidirectional ([0]16), cross-ply ([0/90]4s) and angle-ply ([45]4s) laminates made up of pre-preg Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics (CFRP) composites were manufactured and tested under three-point bending. The basic principles of Classical Laminate Theory (CLT) were extended to three-dimension, and the
analytical solution was critically compared with the FEA results. The 3D FEA results revealed signicant
transverse normal stresses in the cross-ply laminate and in-plane shear stress in the angle-ply laminate
near free edge regions which are overlooked by conventional laminate model. The microscopic images
showed that these free edge effects were the main reason for stiffness reduction observed in the bending
tests. The study illustrated the signicant effects of bre lay-up on the exural failure mechanisms in
composite laminates which lead to some suggestions to improve the design of composite laminates.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Laminated composites have been widely used in renewable
energy devices such as wind turbines [1] and underwater turbines
[2] which are usually subjected to a combination of tension, bending and twisting. Delamination plays an important role in the composites failure, while one of the main causes of composites
delamination is the interlaminar shear stress [3]. Many theories
have been developed to predict the distribution of interlaminar
shear stress in composite laminates. It is well-known that Classical
Laminate Theory (CLT) [4], First-order Shear Deformation Theory
(FSDT) [5,6] and Rened Shear Deformation Theory (RSDT) [7] give
a good prediction of mechanical behaviour with innite composite
plates. However, these classical theories based on innitely wide
plates have experienced difculties on regions near boundaries
[8,9]. This is because these methods consider the laminated composites as shell elements which ignore the effects of the thickness
of the component. The shell method suffers from poor accuracy in
case of high ratio of height to width.
Three-dimensional numerical analysis has been used to examine
the stress distribution in laminated composites. The pioneer work
was carried out by Pipes and Pagano using the Finite Difference
Corresponding author. Fax: +44 (0)1752 586101.
E-mail address: maozhou.meng@plymouth.ac.uk (M. Meng).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.09.048
0263-8223/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Method (FDM) [10,11]. They demonstrated the singularity of interlaminar shear stress at the edge region in an angle-ply laminate
under tensile stress. Similar work investigated the interlaminar
shear stress at free edges using FEA [1214], Eigen-function expansions [15,16], Boundary Layer theory (BLT) [17,18], and Layer-wise
theory (LWT) [19]. A good review by Kant et al. [20] has covered the
analytical and numerical methods on free-edge problems of interlaminar shear stress up to year 2000.
Previous work on 3D analysis has illustrated the increase of
interlaminar shear stress at the edge region. Although the global
load may be lower than the composites strength, the interlaminar
shear stress can induce the initial delamination at edge region
which will reduce the fatigue life of composites. This phenomenon
has been reported in composites design and manufacturing [21].
In order to investigate the free edge effect on interlaminar shear
stress, most of the previous works were focused on the uniform
axial loads. This type of loading condition does not induce some
stress components, such as out-of-plane stresses, which nevertheless have a signicant effect on the bending failure behaviour. Moreover, with the decrease of the support span in bending, these stress
components play an increasingly important role in composite failure modes. Due to the nature of bending, laminates are subjected
to tension, compression and shear, so all of the six stress components should be considered when evaluating failure criteria. However, there have been few reports on the free edge effect in bending.
694
Nomenclature
[a], [b], [d]
r1, r2
q
w, h, l
[A], [B], [D]
C
C ij k
Dmax
Efapp
EfCLT ; Efx
Ef1 ; Ef2 ; Ef3
E1, E2, E3
Em
Fmax
Gf12 ; Gf23 ; Gf13
G12, G23, G13
Gm
I
K, Kf, Km
L
M, Mx
Nx;y;xy ; M x;y;xy
P
Q ij ; Q ij
Qx
S
A B
a b
block matrices of
matrix (inversed
B D
b d
matrix)
radius of load cell and support rollers
mesh quality factor
width, height and length of laminate
A B
block matrices of
matrix
B D
off-axis stiffness matrix of lamina
off-axis stiffness matrix of the kth ply
maximum deection
apparent exural modulus
exural modulus evaluated by CLT
principal elastic moduli of bre
principal elastic moduli of lamina
elastic modulus of matrix
maximum exure force
principal shear moduli of bre
principal shear moduli of lamina
shear moduli of matrix
moment of inertia
bulk moduli of lamina, bre and matrix
span
moment
force and moment per unit length
sinusoidal pressure
extensional compliance matrix of unidirectional
and off-axis lamina
force per unit length along the width
compliance matrix of lamina
S
Te, Tr
Vf
V
Wm
cxy
e
f
gxyx, gxyy
h
j
m12, m23, m13
f
f
f
m12
; m23
; m13
principal Poissons ratios of bre
mm
Poissons ratio of matrix
p
circumference ratio
k0
r1, r2, r3
rx, ry, rz
t
ult
rult
1 ; r2
ult c
1
ult f
2
ult t
f
ult t
m ;
r
r
2. Laminate preparation
Three different lay-ups of laminates were investigated for the
distributions of exural and interlaminar shear stress. Table 1
shows the laminate conguration. These three lay-up (unidirectional [0]16, cross-ply [0/90]4s and angle-ply [45]4s) are the simplest examples of laminates which show a range of behaviour.
The stress distributions and failure modes for a given laminate
Table 1
Laminate conguration.
Laminate
Lay-up
Thickness (mm)
Ply-thickness (mm)
Unidirectional
Cross-ply
Angle-ply
[0]16
[0/90]4s
[45]4s
2.08
1.92
1.92
0.13
0.12
0.12
695
4. Methodologies
4.1. FEA approach
Fig. 1. Optical microscope image of unidirectional laminate. A huge void was found,
which was probably because of the manufacturing process.
of unidirectional laminate. However, no voids were found in crossply and angle-ply laminates. In accordance with the actual thicknesses of the laminates, the ply thicknesses of unidirectional and
cross-ply laminates were adjusted in CLT and FEA models for consistency (shown in Table 1).
The exural stress was measured by the long-beam method
[24] with the dimension of length width = 100 mm 15 mm,
while the interlaminar shear stress was measured by the shortbeam method [25] with the dimension of length width =
20 mm 10 mm.
3. Bending test results
The experiment was conducted according to ISO standards
[24,25] using three-point bending. At least ve samples in each
group were tested and the mean values were calculated. The
results are shown in Table 2.
The value Dmax/L of unidirectional laminate was about 8%, as
shown in Table 2, which was close to the large-deection criterion
(10%) [24]. Therefore, the exural strength of unidirectional laminate was calculated by large-deection correction,
f
max cor
3F max L
2wh
2
!
Dmax
Dmax h
16
3
L
L2
Table 2
Experimental results from three-point bending tests and the Standard Deviations (SDs).
Laminate groups
Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Height (mm)
Span (mm)
Fmax (N)
Dmax (mm)
Efapp (GPa)
rapp
(MPa)
x
rapp
x cor (MPa)
sapp
xz (MPa)
Unidirectional [0]16
Cross-ply [0/90]4s
Angle-ply [45]4s
Long beam
Short beam
Long beam
Short beam
Short beam
100
15.18 0.03
2.09 0.06
80
853 32
6.59 0.27
120 3.1
20
10.14 0.03
2.13 0.07
10
2933 126
100
15.08 0.02
1.93 0.01
79
630 21
8.99 0.31
79.7 0.8
20
10.14 0.10
1.94 0.02
10
2257 83
20
10.10 0.12
1.93 0.01
10
1395 61
1544 49
1598 56
1328 39
1421 48
101.9 3.5
86.1 4.0
Fmax maximum exure load; Dmax maximum deection; Efapp apparent exural modulus;
large-deformation correction; sapp
xz apparent interlaminar shear strength.
app
x
app
x cor
53.7 2.8
apparent exural strength with
696
Table 3
Loading forces in different groups of coupons.
Orientation groups
Unidirectional
Force (N)
Cross-ply
Angle-ply
Long beam
Short beam
Long beam
Short beam
Short beam
853
2933
630
2257
1395
Fig. 2. Modelling conditions were equal to testing conditions. The two simply supported boundary conditions at two ends were replaced by positive distributed loads (P/2).
Fig. 3. Boundary conditions applied in (a) symmetric laminates and (b) angle-ply laminate.
Table 4
Material properties of bre and matrix. The bre transverse modulus is estimated as 10% of its longitudinal modulus, according to Refs. [2830].
Ef1
238 GPa
Ef2 Ef3
23.8 GPa
mf12 mf13
mf23
qf
Value
0.2
0.4
1.77 g cm3
Symbol
Wma
Em
mm
Value
35%
Symbol
Vf
ult t
f
qm
ult t
m
3.52 GPa
0.34
4.3 GPa
81.4 MPa
ult t
f
rm are the tensile strength of bre and matrix; rult
is
exural
strength
of matrix.
m
1 W m =qf
qm 1 W m
1 W m =qf W m =qf qm 1 W m qf W m
Substituting the values in Table 4 into Eq. (2), the bre volume
fraction can be estimated as Vf = 57.9%.
1.31 g cm3
f
rult
m
197 MPa
Employing the rule of mixture [31] and Halpin and Tsai [32]
methods, the in-plane material properties of lamina can be calculated. However, there is no agreed formula to calculate the transverse material properties (m23, G23). In the present work, the
transverse Poissons ratio was evaluated by the hydrostatic
697
rult
2
1
2 ult 2 ;
2 r1
1
2 ;
2 sult
23
1
G2 G3
2 ;
2 rult
1
1
G5 2 ;
2 sult
13
G4
1
G6 2
2 sult
12
x
y
cos h sin h
sin h
X
cos h
Fig. 4. Mesh plot of 20 mm 10 mm laminate with local renement. The edge area
was rened to investigate the free edge effect.
where X and Y are the transformed variables in the rotated (h) coordinate system. The elastic properties of lamina (Youngs modulus,
Shear modulus and Poissons ratio) were transformed using Eq.
(5) for the denition of FEA.
In FEA models, all of the 16 plies were built as 3D-solid element,
and bonded together. Because the mesh quality could affect the 3D
FEA results signicantly, two methods for mesh quality control
were employed: (a) distributed mesh was dened near edge
region; (b) global elements were referred to q factor, which was
evaluated by [36],
p
24 3V
q
P12 2
3=2
i1 hi
sxzk
Z z
@ sxz
@ sxz
dz
dz
@z j
@z k
zk1
zj1
k1 Z
X
j1
zj
k1 n
X
C 11j b11 C 12j b21 C 16j b61 zj zj1
j1
1
C 11j d11 C 12j d21 C 16j d61 z2j z2j1 Q x
2
n
1
where V is the volume, and hi are the edge lengths. If q > 0.1, the
mesh size should not affect the solution quality.
Table 5
Material properties of lamina for simulation.
Symbol
Value
E1
139 GPa
Symbol
rult
1
2.52 GPa
Value
a
E2 = E3
8.8 GPa
G12 = G13
4.7 GPa
rult
1
1.58 GPa
ult
rult
2 r3
123 MPa
G23
3.0 GPa
t
rult
2
123 MPa
m12 = m13
0.26
0.48
ult
sult
12 s13
sult
23
102 MPa
79 MPa
m23
698
Fig. 5. The effect of mesh size near the edge region on the distribution of global interlaminar shear stress in short-beam angle-ply laminate. The results show that 0.5 was
sufcient to get mesh independency.
sk
yz
k1 Z
X
j1
zj
zj1
@ syz
@z
dz
j
@ syz
dz
@z k
zk1
k1 n
X
zj zj1
j1
1
C 61j d11 C 62j d21 C 66j d61 z2j z2j1 Q x
2
n
1
The local interlaminar shear stress in the kth ply (along bre orientation) is evaluated according to its orientation,
k
k
k
s13
sxz
cos hk syz
sin hk
k
k
k
s23 sxz sin hk syz cos hk
Fig. 6. Distribution of tensile stress r1 on bottom surface of long-beam unidirectional laminate. The stress (FEA) shows a minor uctuation about 2% between the
free edge and central areas.
shows a tiny increase (about 2%) near the free edge region, as
shown in Fig. 6. Although the maximum tensile
t stress is much
lower than longitudinal tensile strength rult
(2.52 GPa), the
1
compressive
stress
is
very
close
to
the
compressive
strength
ult c
r1 (1.58 GPa), as shown in Table 5. Therefore, the long-beam
unidirectional laminate failed in compression, rather than tension.
The microscope observation conrmed this hypothesis. Fig. 7
shows a typical failure image of long-beam unidirectional
laminate, and Fig. 8 shows the deection-load curves of long-beam
unidirectional laminate. Fig. 7(b) clearly shows the interface
between tensile and compressive failures within a unidirectional
laminate, while Fig. 7(c) indicates that bres in the upper half
failed by compression. A survey of literature [3942] shows that
Table 6
Maximum ply normal stress and interlaminar shear stress by 3D CLT.
Orientation groups
Unidirectional [0]16
Cross-ply [0/90]4s
Long beam
Long beam
Short beam
Angle-ply [45]4s
Short beam
Notes
Short beam
EfCLT (GPa)
139
86.5
rmax
(MPa)
1
smax
13 (MPa)
1598 56
101.9 3.5
2157 78
83.3 2.6
40.6 2.1
699
Fig. 7. Microscope image of failure mode in a long-beam unidirectional laminate under three-point bending (side-view). Approximate 70% of the plies failed by compression,
and bre microbuckling could be observed on the compressive side.
Fig. 8. Deectionload curves of long-beam unidirectional laminate under three-point bending. Laminate failed rapidly after the rst stiffness losses appeared (progressive
failure is beyond the scope of this paper).
700
Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of bre microbuckling of long-beam unidirectional laminate. With the same bre orientation, the second ply is likely to buckle following the rst
ply by the compressive stress, and then followed by the third ply, and so on.
Fig. 10. Distribution of interlaminar shear stress s13 on middle plane of short-beam unidirectional laminate. The higher value at free edge region implies the crack could be
initialized from this area.
t
to the transverse tensile strength rult
in Table 5. It also indicates
2
that the ISO standard may underestimate the interlaminar shear
strength of short-beam unidirectional laminate.
5.2. Cross-ply laminates
Because of the bidirectional lay-up sequence, the exural stresses are not continuous through thickness in cross-ply laminates.
Fig. 12 shows these discontinuities in the long-beam cross-ply
laminate in local coordinate system, while Fig. 13 shows the
through-thickness stress distribution at the centre.
Fig. 13 shows that the maximum r1 and r2 at the centre of laminate are about 2.2 GPa and 140 MPa respectively. A comparison
of these values with the lamina strength shown in Table 5 illustrates that the longitudinal compressive stress has exceeded the
lamina compressive strength, while the longitudinal tensile stress
is slightly lower than lamina tensile strength. In accordance with
the experimental condition, the top ply could withstand such high
value of compressive stress, because the microbuckling was constrained by the roller and supported by the transverse ply underneath it. In this condition, the top ply would be more difcult to
buckle compared to the situation in a unidirectional laminate
(c.f. Fig. 9). Fig. 14 shows the schematics of bre orientation in
long-beam cross-ply laminate. The out-of-plane buckling of bres
in the top ply is constraint by the roller and the transverse bres
in the adjacent ply. Therefore the compressive strength of the
material is signicantly improved.
On the other hand, it is widely recognised that the plastic
matrix could withstand higher compressive stress than tensile
stress. Therefore, the 15th ply (90 orientation with low stiffness)
in the tensile region was more likely to fail than the second ply
(90) in the compressive region. Indeed, the tensile stress in the
15th ply had exceeded the transverse tensile strength of resin
shown in Table 5. Therefore, failure sequence of long-beam
701
Fig. 11. Typical failure images of short-beam unidirectional laminate and the distribution of out-of-plane normal stress r3. The combination of interlaminar shear stress s13
and out-of-plane normal stress r3 leads to delamination at compressive (top) part of the laminate.
Fig. 12. Distributions of stress components r1 (left) and r2 (right) in long-beam cross-ply laminate and their side-views.
cross-ply laminate can be explained as, (a) the 15th ply failed in
tension and the stiffness had a tiny drop (90 ply failed), (b) the
16th ply (0 orientation with high stiffness) delaminated and failed
in tension, and then the stiffness shown a huge decrease, (c) the
delamination propagated inside the laminate and it failed. Fig. 15
shows a typical microscope failure image of long-beam cross-ply
laminate, while Fig. 16 shows the deection-load curves of longbeam cross-ply laminate.
Applying the TsaiHill failure criterion to the FEA results of the
long-beam cross-ply laminate, indicates that the interlaminar
shear stress contributed about 4% to the criterion. However, the
stress component r2 contributes much more due to the lower
t
transverse tensile strength rult
. Fig. 17 shows the distribution
2
of the Tsai-Hill failure criterion in the long-beam cross-ply laminate. The maximum value appeared at the interfaces of the rst
and second plies corresponding to the maximum transverse stress
r2, as shown in Fig. 12. Delamination was also observed between
the 1st and the 2nd ply in the experiment as shown in Fig. 15.
For the short-beam cross-ply laminate, the interlaminar shear
stress s13 is not continuous due to the bidirectional lay-up
sequence, and the maximum value appears at the interface
between the 7th and 8th plies (z = 1.08 mm) rather than the midplane. This is different from the measured apparent interlaminar
702
Fig. 13. Through-thickness distributions of exural stress r1 (s11) and r2 (s22) at central point of long-beam cross-ply laminate. The stresses jump rapidly at the interface
between longitudinal and transverse plies.
Fig. 14. Schematics of bre microbuckling of long-beam cross-ply laminate. With the support of the second ply, the rst ply is more difcult to fail by microbuckling.
Fig. 15. Typical microscope failure image of long-beam cross-ply laminate (left) and its tensile failure in 3-point bending (right).
703
Fig. 16. Deection-load curves of long-beam cross-ply laminate. The small and large stiffness losses represent the failure of transverse and longitudinal plies.
Fig. 18. Distribution of interlaminar shear stress s13 of short-beam cross-ply laminate. The free edge effect is slight, compared with short-beam unidirectional laminate.
704
Fig. 19. Distributions of normal stress r2 (left) and r3 (right) in short-beam cross-ply laminate and their side-views. The maximum stresses appeared at the second ply (90),
and strong free edge effect on r3 is observed.
Fig. 20. Typical microscope failure image of short-beam cross-ply laminate. The
initial delamination began from the 2nd ply, corresponding to the maximum r2 and
r3 in Fig. 19.
gxyx Ex S16
gxyy Ex S26
Local
13
13
(MPa)
50
10
The interaction ratio (gxyx) represents the ratio of the shear strain
cxy induced by normal stress rx, to the normal strain ex induced
by the same normal stress rx.
Fig. 25 shows the relationship between interaction ratio gxyx
40
30
20
10
0
-1
5th plies, instead of the mid-plane (8th and 9th plies, as predicted
by CLT, shown in Fig. 21). However, the distribution tends to be
uniform inside the laminate. A small distance from the edge (2
ply-thicknesses, 0.24 mm), the distribution of global shear stress
sxz becomes a parabolic shape, while the maximum value of local
shear stress s13 at the mid-plane drops approximate 20%. Finally
both of the global and local shear stresses converge to the CLT at
central area.
This extremely high global shear stress sxz at the free edge
located at the interface of two plies, which may lead to delamination, while the local shear stress s13 at the corresponding location
is very close to the shear strength sult
13 shown in Table 5. Moreover,
quite a few points with these extreme values can be found at the
interface of two plies, which are easier to induce the multi-crack
at the edge area. Fig. 23 shows the surface plot and slice plot of
local shear stress s13 of the short-beam angle-ply laminate, while
Fig. 24 shows the diagram of the free edge effect.
It should be noted that the interaction ratio (gxyx) between normal stress rx and in-plane shear stress sxy is too high to be
neglected in angle-ply laminates. According to 3D CLT (shown in
Appendix B), the transformed compliance matrix S of angle-ply
laminate shows non-zero interaction terms (S16 and S26 ), leading
to a denition of interaction ratios:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Through-thickness(mm)
0.6
0.8
Fig. 21. Interlaminar shear stress sxz and s13 distribution through-thicknesses in
short-beam angle-ply laminate (CLT). The discrete s13 represents the complicated
lamina orientation.
705
Fig. 22. Distributions of interlaminar shear stress through-thicknesses in short-beam angle-ply (3D FEA model). The stress peaks at edge area converge to CLT at centre, and
the maximum value appears at z = 1.44 mm (interface of 45 plies).
0
Tensile
xyx
Tensile
xyy
Interaction ratio
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
Fig. 23. 3D distribution of s13 in short-beam angle-ply laminate. The slice plot
reveals the distribution of s13 in 3D scale, and the surface plot shows the variation
of s13 in different plies with particular bre orientation.
10
20
30
40
50
Angle in degree()
60
70
80
90
Fig. 25. Interaction between axial stress and shear stress in off-axis laminate
(according to CLT). The value of g represents the couple of normal stress to shear
stress.
Table 7
Engineering constants [44] and the interaction ratio (according to CLT).
Fig. 24. Contour curves of interlaminar shear stress s13 in short-beam angle-ply
laminate (z = 1.44 mm). The extremely high stress only appears near the edge area.
IM7/977-3
T800/Cytec
T700 C-Ply 55
T700 C-Ply 64
AS4/H3501
IM6/epoxy
AS4/F937
T300/N5208
IM7/8552
IM7/MTM45
Average
SDs
Coeff. var.
a
Divided by 90.
E1 (GPa)
E2 (GPa)
m12
G12 (GPa)
jgmax
xyx j
h ()
191
162
121
141
138
203
148
181
171
175
163.1
25.85
15.9%
9.94
9
8
9.3
8.96
11.2
9.65
10.3
9.08
8.2
9.363
0.96
10.2%
0.35
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.03
10.7%
7.79
5
4.7
5.8
7.1
8.4
4.55
7.17
5.29
5.5
6.13
1.37
22.4%
2.259
2.622
2.301
2.224
1.970
2.237
2.625
2.288
2.629
2.616
2.377
0.23
9.7%
12
10
11
12
13
12
10
12
10
10
11.2
1.14
1.3%a
706
Fig. 26. Slice plot (upper) and surface plot (lower) of in-plane shear stress in shortbeam angle-ply laminate. The values of s12 near the middle area of top and bottom
surfaces are so high that strong distortion was observed in the bending test.
Fig. 27. Typical failure image of angle-ply laminate under bending test condition.
Cracks appeared at free edge area, but without penetrating inside the volume. The
positions of cracks correspond to a peak of interlaminar shear stress, as shown in
Fig. 22. Specimen twisting induced by in-plane shear stress was observed.
much higher than the other two shear stress components sxz and
syz. Because of the nature of three-point bending, the maximum
normal stress appears at the top and bottom plies. As a consequence, this induced in-plane shear stress sxy may lead to strong
twisting at the two surfaces of the laminate. Fig. 26 shows the slice
plot and surface plot of in-plane shear stress s12 in short-beam
angle-ply laminate.
Fig. 28. Deection-load curves in angle-ply laminate from three-point bending test. Each crack represented a stiffness losses in bending test.
707
c2
s2
0 s
6
6
6
6
Te 6
6
6
6
4
2cs 2cs 0
Acknowledgements
DV r=K e1 e2 e3
11
cs 7
7
7
0 7
7
0 7
7
7
0 5
s2
s2
c2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
c
0
s
0 s
cs
cs
0 c 2 s2
17
0 c 2 s2
c2
6
6
6
6
Tr 6
6
6
6
4
cs
2cs
2cs 7
7
7
0 7
7
0 7
7
7
0 5
18
A
N
X
C ij k zk zk1
k1
Substituting the orthotropic properties (E2 = E3, G12 = G13, m12 = m13)
into the relation of stress and strain,
e1
1=E1
6 7 6
4 e2 5 4 m12 =E1
e3
m13 =E1
e1 e2 e3
m21 =E2
m31 =E3
32
r1
m23 =E2
12-1
r3
1=E3
1 2m12 21 m21 m23
r
E2
E1
12-2
m23 1 m21
E2 E2 1 2m12
2E1
2K
13
K m 1 fgV f
1 gV f
K f =K m 1
g
K f =K m f
K
A
Assembling the [A], [B] and [D] matrices for
B
a b
matrix,
inversed
b d
e
j
B
matrix, and its
D
A; B; B; D
EfCLT
b d
20-1
20-2
A B
B D
1
20-3
15
m12 =E1
m12 =E1
1=E2
m23 =E2
m23 =E2
1=E2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1=G23
1=G12
1=G12
12
jx
d11
rz1 Ek ezx
16
FL
4w
22
zFLd11
4w
zFLd11
Ek
4w
ezx zjx
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
21
h d11
Mx
1
6 m =E
6 12 1
6
6 m12 =E1
S6
6
0
6
6
4
0
19
Once the three-dimensional [a, b; b, d] matrix is assembled, the exural modulus of laminate can be evaluated by [4],
S T 1
e ST r
1=E1
N
1X
C ij k z3k z3k1
3 k1
14
D
a; b; b; d
C S
N
1X
C ij k z2k z2k1
2 k1
76 7
m32 =E3 54 r2 5
1=E2
B
23
708
References
[1] Brndsted P, Lilholt H, Lystrup A. Composite materials for wind power turbine
blades. Annu Rev Mater Res 2005;35:50538.
[2] Mohan M. The advantages of composite materials in marine renewable energy
structures. In: RINA Marine Renewable Energy Conference 2008; 2008.
[3] Granata RD et al. Durability of composite materials and structures; 2009. DTIC
document.
[4] Kaw AK. Mechanics of composite materials. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis Group;
2006 (ISBN 0-8493-1343-0).
[5] Yang PC, Norris CH, Stavsky Y. Elastic wave propagation in heterogeneous
plates. Int J Solids Struct 1966;2(4):66584.
[6] Whitney J, Pagano N. Shear deformation in heterogeneous anisotropic plates. J
Appl Mech 1970;37(4):10316.
[7] Jing H-S, Tzeng K-G. Rened shear deformation theory of laminated shells.
AIAA J 1993;31(4):76573.
[8] Pagano N, Halpin J. Inuence of end constraint in the testing of anisotropic
bodies. J Compos Mater 1968;2(1):1831.
[9] Puppo A, Evensen H. Interlaminar shear in laminated composites under
generalized plane stress. J Compos Mater 1970;4(2):20420.
[10] Pipes RB, Pagano NJ. Interlaminar stresses in composite laminates under
uniform axial extension. J Compos Mater 1970;4:11.
[11] Pagano N. Stress elds in composite laminates. Int J Solids Struct
1978;14(5):385400.
[12] Wang A, Crossman FW. Some new results on edge effect in symmetric
composite laminates. J Compos Mater 1977;11(1):92106.
[13] Kassapoglou C. Determination of interlaminar stresses in composite laminates
under combined loads. J Reinforced Plast Compos 1990;9(1):3358.
[14] Murthy PL, Chamis CC. Free-edge delamination: laminate width and loading
conditions effects; 1987.
[15] Pipes RB. Boundary layer effects in composite laminates. Fibre Sci Technol
1980;13(1):4971.
[16] Wang S, Choi I. Boundary-layer effects in composite laminates. Part 2: Freeedge stress solutions and basic characteristics. J Appl Mech
1982;49(3):54960.
[17] Tang S. A boundary layer theory. Part I: Laminated composites in plane stress. J
Compos Mater 1975;9(1):3341.
[18] Tang S, Levy A. A boundary layer theory. Part II: Extension of laminated nite
strip. J Compos Mater 1975;9(1):4252.
[19] Lee C, Chen J. Interlaminar shear stress analysis of composite laminate with
layer reduction technique. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1996;39(5):84765.
[20] Kant T, Swaminathan K. Estimation of transverse/interlaminar stresses in
laminated composites a selective review and survey of current
developments. Compos Struct 2000;49(1):6575.
[21] Foye R, Baker D. Design of orthotropic laminates. In: 11th Annual AIAA
structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Denver, Colorado;
1970.
[22] ISO, I. 14125: 1998 (E). Fibre reinforced plastic composites determination of
exural properties; 1998.
[23] ISO, B. 14130. Fibre-reinforced plastic composites determination of apparent
interlaminar shear strength by short-beam; 1998.
[24] 14125, I. Fibre-reinforced plastic composites determination of exural
properties. In: ISO standard; 1998.
[25] 14130, I. Fibre-reinforced plastic composites determination of apparent
interlaminar shear strength by short-beam method. In: ISO standard; 1998.
[26] Cytec. CYCOM 977-2. Epoxy resin system. Technical data sheet; 2012.
<www.cytec.com>.
[27] Tenax T. Toho Tenax HTS. Technical data sheet. <www.tohotenax-eu.com>.
[28] Bowles DE, Tompkins SS. Prediction of coefcients of thermal expansion for
unidirectional composites. J Compos Mater 1989;23(4):37088.
[29] Voyiadjis GZ, Kattan PI. Mechanics of composite materials with
MATLAB. Springer; 2005.
[30] Hyer MW. Stress analysis of ber-reinforced composite materials. DEStech
Publications, Inc.; 2009.
[31] Hull D, Clyne T. An introduction to composite materials. Cambridge University
Press; 1996.
[32] Halpin JC, Kardos JL. The HalpinTsai equations: a review. Polym Eng Sci
1976;16(5):9.
[33] Tsai SW. Strength theories of lamentary structures. Fundam Aspects Fiber
Reinforced Plast Compos 1968:311.
[34] Gibson RF. Principles of composite materials mechanics. McGraw-Hill; 1994
(ISBN O-07-023451-5).
[35] Berbinau P, Soutis C, Guz I. Compressive failure of 0 unidirectional carbonbre-reinforced plastic (CFRP) laminates by bre microbuckling. Compos Sci
Technol 1999;59(9):14515.
[36] COMSOL. COMSOL multiphysics reference manual; 2013.
[37] Creemers R.J.C. Interlaminar shear strength criteria for composites, National
Aerospace Laboratory NLR, Report No. NLR-TP-2009-262, 2010.
[38] MATWORKS. MATLAB reference manual; 2013.
[39] Budiansky B, Fleck NA. Compressive failure of bre composites. J Mech Phys
Solids 1993;41(1):183211.
[40] Soutis C. Compressive strength of unidirectional composites: measurement
and prediction. ASTM Spec Techn Publ 1997;1242:16876.
[41] Soutis C. Measurement of the static compressive strength of carbon-bre/
epoxy laminates. Compos Sci Technol 1991;42(4):37392.
[42] Liu D, Fleck N, Sutcliffe M. Compressive strength of bre composites with
random bre waviness. J Mech Phys Solids 2004;52(7):1481505.
[43] Lemanski SL et al. Modelling failure of composite specimens with defects
under compression loading. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 2013;48:2636.
[44] Tsai SW, Melo JDD. An invariant-based theory of composites. Compos Sci
Technol 2014;100:23743.
[45] Lekhnitski S. Theory of elasticity of an anisotropic elastic body. Holden-Day;
1963.