Input Data For Test Cases Used in Triaxial Failure Theories PDF
Input Data For Test Cases Used in Triaxial Failure Theories PDF
Input Data For Test Cases Used in Triaxial Failure Theories PDF
COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
46(19–20) 2295–2312
! The Author(s) 2012
Input data for test cases used in Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
benchmarking triaxial failure theories DOI: 10.1177/0021998312449886
jcm.sagepub.com
of composites
Abstract
This article gives details of the input data provided for use in the Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II) for
benchmarking triaxial failure criteria. It includes (a) three-dimensional elastic constants, ultimate strains and strengths
and the nonlinear stress–strain curves for five unidirectional laminae and their constituents and (b) a description of 12
challenging test cases of 5 composite laminates, the lay-ups, layer thicknesses, stacking sequences and the loading
conditions. The originators of 3D failure theories were requested to use the exact data provided here in their blind
predictions of the test cases. The instructions issued to the contributors are also presented at the end of this article.
Keywords
Three-dimensional elastic properties, WWFE-II, test cases, input data
Tables 1 to 3 show typical data for the properties of laminae. All fibres were assumed to behave in a linear
five unidirectional laminae, five epoxy resin matrices elastic manner up to failure.
and five types of glass or carbon fibres. It was noted Some of the properties of the epoxy matrices are non-
in Table 1 that the stress–strain behaviour of some linear. The nonlinear stress–strain curves and the asso-
composite laminates is sometimes highly nonlinear, ciated data are shown in Figure 5 and in Tables 6 to 8.
particularly in shear and under transverse compression.
Figures 3 to 5 show typical stress–strain curves for the
Details of the test cases
selected laminae and the matrices under a variety of
uniaxial loadings. Data from these figures are also pre- Twelve test cases were selected for the benchmark
sented in tabular form in Tables 4 to 6 for the UD study in WWFE-II. The test cases have been chosen
2298 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
carefully to stretch each theory to the full and thereby Table 9 summarises laminate type, material type and
shed light on their strengths and weaknesses. They the graphical results requested. Five different lay-ups
are focused on a range of classical, continuous fibre, were chosen in the exercise and these are
laminated, reinforced polymer composites subjected,
in the absence of stress concentrations, to a variety of 1. A base resin with isotropic properties,
triaxial loading conditions. The key issues being 2. 0 unidirectional lamina,
explored are: 3. Quasi-isotropic (0 /45 /90 )s laminate,
4. Angle-ply (35 )s laminate and
– The means by which the theories distinguish (if at all) 5. Cross-ply (0 /90 )s laminate.
between the effects of anisotropy and heterogeneity.
– The types of failure mechanism employed and the
way that each is implemented within any given The loadings include the following:
theory.
– The accuracy and bounds of applicability of each 1. Nine failure envelopes under the following combin-
theory ations of stresses
Kaddour and Hinton 2299
120
100
80
Shear stress MPa
60
40 IM7/855-1 carbon/epoxy
S-glass/epoxy
E-glass/epoxy
20 A-S Carbon/epoxy
T300/PR319 carbon/epoxy
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear strain %
Figure 3. In-plane shear stress–strain curve for the various unidirectional materials.
-200
Transverse compressive stress MPa
-150
-100
IM7/8551 carbon/epoxy
S-glass/epoxy
-50
E-glass/epoxy
A-S Carbon/epoxy
T300/PR319 carbon/epoxy
0
-4 -2 0
Strain %
Figure 4. Transverse compressive stress–strain curves for the various unidirectional materials.
150
stress MPa
-100
-150
Compression
-200
Figure 5. Tensile, compressive and shear stress–strain curves for 3 epoxy materials.
Table 4. Data for the in-plane shear stress–strain curve of the various unidirectional laminae
Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear
stress (MPa) Strain (%) stress (MPa) strain (%) stress (MPa) strain (%) stress (MPa) strain (%) stress (MPa) strain (%)
Table 5. Data for the transverse compressive stress–strain curve of five unidirectional laminae
s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%) s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%) s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%) s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%) s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%)
0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0
10 0.111 0.002 10 0.062 0.006 10 0.053 0.004 10 0.100 0.002 10 0.179 0.002
20 0.222 0.004 20 0.123 0.012 20 0.105 0.008 20.0 0.200 0.004 20 0.357 0.005
30 0.333 0.006 30 0.185 0.018 30 0.158 0.013 30 0.300 0.006 30 0.536 0.007
40 0.444 0.008 40.0 0.247 0.024 40 0.211 0.017 40 0.400 0.009 40 0.714 0.010
50 0.556 0.010 50 0.309 0.030 50 0.263 0.021 50 0.500 0.011 50 0.894 0.012
60 0.667 0.012 60 0.371 0.037 60 0.316 0.025 60 0.600 0.013 60 1.075 0.014
70 0.779 0.014 70 0.434 0.043 70 0.369 0.029 70 0.700 0.015 70 1.260 0.017
80 0.892 0.016 80 0.499 0.049 80 0.423 0.033 80 0.801 0.017 80 1.454 0.020
90 1.007 0.018 90 0.566 0.056 90 0.478 0.038 90 0.903 0.019 90 1.664 0.022
100 1.127 0.020 100 0.640 0.063 100 0.535 0.042 100 1.006 0.022 100 1.905 0.026
110 1.252 0.023 110 0.723 0.071 110 0.597 0.047 110 1.111 0.024 110 2.196 0.030
120 1.389 0.025 120 0.822 0.081 120 0.664 0.053 120 1.221 0.026 120 2.570 0.035
130 1.541 0.028 130 0.944 0.093 130 0.741 0.059 130 1.337 0.029 125 2.800 0.038
140 1.718 0.031 140 1.103 0.109 140 0.832 0.066 140 1.462 0.031
145 1.819 0.033 145 1.200 0.119 145 0.885 0.070 145 1.529 0.033
150 1.930 0.035 150 0.944 0.075 150 1.600 0.034
155 2.054 0.037 155 1.010 0.080
160 2.192 0.039 160 1.084 0.086
170 2.522 0.045 175 1.375 0.109
175 2.720 0.049 170 1.265 0.100
180 2.945 0.053 175 1.375 0.109
185 3.200 0.058 180 1.500 0.119
Table 6. Data for the compressive stress–strain curve of three epoxies used
Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%) Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%) Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%)
0.00 0 0 0 0 0
5 0.12 5 0.16 5 0.15
10 0.25 10 0.31 10 0.30
15 0.37 15 0.47 15 0.45
20 0.50 20 0.63 20 0.60
25 0.63 25 0.78 25 0.75
30 0.77 30 0.94 30 0.90
40 1.07 40 1.25 40 1.19
50 1.43 50 1.56 50 1.49
60 1.86 60 1.88 60 1.80
70 2.38 70 2.20 70 2.11
80 3.02 80 2.55 80 2.44
90 3.81 90 2.93 90 2.82
100 4.77 100 3.41 100 3.31
110 5.94 110 4.06 110 3.98
120 7.33 120 5 120 5
130 9
2302 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
Table 7. Data for the tensile stress–strain curve of three of the matrices used
Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%) Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%) Stress, s2 (MPa) Strain, e2 (%)
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0.12 5 0.16 5 0.15
10 0.25 10 0.31 10 0.30
15 0.39 15 0.47 15 0.45
20 0.53 20 0.63 20 0.60
25 0.68 25 0.78 25 0.75
30 0.84 30 0.94 30 0.90
40 1.19 35 1.10 35 1.04
50 1.58 40 1.27 40 1.19
60 2.03 45 1.44 45 1.34
70 2.55 50 1.61 50 1.50
80 3.12 55 1.79 55 1.65
90 3.76 60 1.97 60 1.81
99 4.40 65 2.17 65 1.99
70 2.37 70 2.18
73 2.50 75 2.41
80 2.70
Shear stress (MPa) Shear strain (%) Shear stress (MPa) Shear strain (%) Shear stress (MPa) Shear strain (%)
Figure 6. Schematic of a failure envelope where initial and final failure stages are marked.
The instructions to participants (Appendix 1) that the angles of the fibres in each layer are
specify how loads were to be applied and how measured from x direction as shown in Figure 2.
results were to be presented. In some cases, failure In addition to details of the loading configurations,
envelopes are requested and Figure 6 shows a diagram- Figures 7 to 18 show also the scales of the graphs
matic representation of a failure envelope where vari- the organisers have supplied to all of the participants
ous stages of failure could take place before final to follow, in order to facilitate comparison between
failure. the various predictions. In those situations where the
Schematic diagrams showing the loading directions, predicted curves fall outside of the scales that were
layer and laminate dimensions and stacking sequence provided, the contributors were advised to use scales
of the laminates are shown in Figures 7 to 18. Note that suited their predictions.
2304 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
Figure 7. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 1. Variation of the compressive strength ( x) of
polymeric resin matrix with stress y( ¼ z).
Figure 8. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 2. Variation of shear strength ( 12) with stress
2( ¼ 1 ¼ 3) for a unidirectional carbon/epoxy.
Figure 9. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 3. Variation of shear failure strain ( 12) with
stress 2(¼ 1 ¼ 3) for a unidirectional carbon/epoxy.
Figure 11. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 5. Variation of transverse compressive strength
2 with 3 (where 1 ¼ 3) for a unidirctional glass/epoxy.
Figure 12. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 6. Variation of the longitudinal strength 1 with
through-thickness stress ( 3 ¼ 2) for a unidirectional glass/epoxy.
Test cases 2 to 4 are dealing with studying how large presence of stresses in the perpendicular directions.
hydrostatic pressure affect the shear strength, ultimate In test case 5, the lamina is subjected to a stress in
shear failure strain and the shape of the shear stress– the transverse direction ( 2) and an equal stress com-
strain curve behaviours of a carbon/epoxy unidirec- ponent in the fibre and through-thickness directions
tional lamina. ( 1 ¼ 3).
Test cases 5 to 7 are concerned with assessing the However, in test cases 6 and 7, the laminae are sub-
enhancement (or reduction) in the transverse or longi- jected to a stress in the fibre (longitudinal) direction ( 1)
tudinal strengths of a unidirectional lamina with the and an equal stress component in the transverse and
Kaddour and Hinton 2307
Figure 13. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 7. Variation of the longitudinal strength s1 with
through-thickness stress (s3 ¼ s2) for a UD Carbon/epoxy.
Figure 14. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 8. Variation of axial compressive strength y
with through-thickness stress z for (þ35 /35 )s glass/epoxy laminate, where x ¼ z).14
through-thickness directions ( 2 ¼ 3). The difference stresses ( 2 ¼ 3) in the transverse and through-thick-
between these two cases is that one of them (test case ness directions.
6) deals with isotropic fibres and the other (Test Case 7) Test cases 8 to 12 look into the behaviour of multi-
deals with anisotropic fibres. For these cases, even in directional laminates under stresses containing one in
the absence of no longitudinal stress component the through-thickness direction.
( 1 ¼ 0), the solution of these cases provide information Test cases 1, 5 and 8 (and 9) are important in a
on the failure of a unidirectional under equi-biaxial number of aspects and can provide lessons on a
2308 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
Figure 15. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 9. Axial compressive stress–strain curves for
(þ35 /35 )s glass/epoxy laminate under x ¼ z ¼ 100 MPa.15
Figure 16. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 10. Variation of the through-thickness shear
( zy) versus through-thickness stress ( z) for (þ45 /45 /90 /0 )s carbon/epoxy laminate.
number of fundamental issues. In order to assess how deals with an isotropic material subjected to a range of
the current theories deal with the prediction of isotropic triaxial compressive stress states and test case 5 is con-
and anisotropic materials, two test cases were set up cerned with a unidirectional laminate subjected to the
and these are test case 1 and test case 5. Test case 1 same conditions. Note that the epoxy (MY750) exhibits
Kaddour and Hinton 2309
Figure 17. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 11. Variation of the through-thickness shear
( zy) versus through-thickness stress ( z) for (0 /90 )s carbon/epoxy laminate.
Figure 18. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 12. Compressive through-thickness stress–
strain curves for (0 /90 )s carbon/epoxy laminate.
isotropic stiffness and its uniaxial tensile strength and low values in the transverse direction (Tables 1
is lower than the uniaxial compressive strength. and 3).
The E-glass/MY750 UD lamina in test case 5 The two cases (1 and 5) are interrelated insofar as the
exhibited large strength values in the fibre direction epoxy polymer material studied in case 1 is the same
2310 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
Appendix 1
13. If your theory requires additional (or different)
Instructions to contributors information from that provided, please let us
The following provides general guidelines and instruc- know as soon as possible and we will endeavour
tions that you may find helpful when writing your to provide that information. If you have default
paper and making your submission. values for any missing parameters (e.g. interaction
coefficients), we prefer you to use those.
1. The in-plane loads (section stresses) should be
14. In some cases the theory employed may not be
applied in the x and y directions defined in the
intended to be applied to the whole range of lami-
diagrams provided for each laminate.
nates specified here. In that case, you may opt to
2. The through-thickness stresses should be applied in
analyse only some of the laminates but please
the z direction.
explain the reasons for not analysing the other lami-
3. The section stresses x and y are defined in the
nates in your paper.
usual way as the in-plane loads per unit width
15. The paper should describe your failure theory and
divided by the total thickness of the laminate.
method of application to laminates in sufficient
4. Unless otherwise stated, please assume that the
detail to allow your predictions to be reproduced
loads are increased monotonically, keeping any
by others, comment on the nature and the effects of
combination of the following ratios x/ y/ z/ xy/
the failures predicted and, if appropriate, how your
xz/ yz constant. (For test cases 4 and 9, please
predictions could be used for design.
refer to the notes below Table 9.)
5. Please, record and tabulate the magnitude of the
After receiving all the theoretical papers for publica-
stresses (and if appropriate the type and location of
tions, the experimental results will be superimposed on
failure as well as the mode of failure) at which each
the theoretical predictions. The superimposed graphs
failure is predicted.
will be sent back to you together with tables of the
6. Repeat the calculation to cover the range of stress
experimental results for your future use and informa-
ratios (2 or 4 quadrants) indicated by the graphs
tion on how the experimental results were obtained.
provided for each laminate.
The second paper (Part B) would present graphs of
7. If possible, please plot the results using the scales
superimposed results with any comment you may wish
provided for each laminate.
to make on the correlation between experiment and
8. Draw curves through the results to represent the
theory. You may choose to add a figure (or figures)
initial (inner), and final (outer) failure envelopes.
and appropriate sections to demonstrate refinement
Indicate any intermediate failure points/curves.
or particular features of your approach. You
Figure 6 shows a schematic of a failure envelope
could indicate any future development to your theory
representing various stages of failure. The aim
which would allow you to consider a wider variety of
of this figure is to illustrate what a failure
laminates than those you are able to analyse
envelope is. It is possible that not all the envelopes
immediately.
will be closed and, in this case, please indicate the
For those participants who have integrated failure
stress ratios and stress regime where the envelope is
analyses and structural analysis packages, details of
open.
the specimen geometries that you may opt to analyse
9. For the stress–strain curves, please plot the section
as part of the second paper, will be sent as soon as you
stress versus strain curves as requested for particu-
request them.
lar laminates using the scales provided.
10. It would be extremely helpful if you would also Further clarifications, instructions and guidelines to the
send us your tables of results, but these will prob- participants of WWFE-II
ably not be included in the paper. Results in the
form of data files sent to us by E-mail or other 1. We recommend that, for the sake of completing Part
accessible forms (e.g. CD) would be appreciated. A submission, all the participants consider no edge
11. We are asking all of the contributors to use the effects on the failure of the laminates. For those
same material properties even if you have reserva- models that are capable of analysing the influence
tions about the values provided. of edge effects on failure, details of specimen’s geo-
12. Your theory may not require all the lamina proper- metry and shapes would be provided in Part B of the
ties provided (e.g. some models and computer pro- exercise.
grams assume linear elastic properties). In that case 2. Please assume that the specimen’s dimensions are
please employ your usual assumptions and neglect large enough so that the ‘gauge length’ is much
any information which is not needed. larger than the ‘decay length’.
2312 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
3. For the laminates in test cases 8 to 12, the organisers 5. As for the mixed mode toughness, please employ
have deliberately not specified the number of your best curve you are familiar with.
plies because we were not certain whether the avail- 6. The stresses in Figures 23 and 24 should have read
able models could cope with dealing with changing yz rather than yz.
the number of plies, say from 4 to 50 or 100 7. The schematic in Figure 23 should be that of a (0 /
plies. Having a large number of plies could under- 90 /þ45 /45 )s laminate.
mine the computational capabilities of some of 8. For those models capable of considering the effects
the models and hence we have refrained from sug- of thermal stresses, we recommend the analysis be
gesting the number of plies that should be carried out for two cases (a) with thermal stresses
analysed. If, however, your model takes into account and (b) with no thermal stresses.
the effect of thickness and the number of plies on the 9. Guidelines for the curing cycles are as follows:
failure predictions, please consider the following – For E-glass/MY750 laminates:
points:
– All the laminates are balanced and symmetric. 2 h at 90 C, 1.5 h at 130 C and then 2 h at 150 C
– All the plies have the same thickness. with maximum rate of change of 1 C/min.
– Please provide predictions describing the effect
of thickness and number of plies on the failure – For IM7/8551:
of the laminates. The thickness could vary from
2 to 30 mm. 1 h at 107 C followed by 2 h at 177 C.
4. As for the values of the fracture toughness, please
use the following values for your Part (A) paper.