9 views

Uploaded by Nishant Patil

fracture

save

- Basic Concepts of Strength of Materials
- Richard Garrison Material Science Lab 1
- AISI 4340 Steel
- 11 energy methods
- G39
- 802694_ch9
- Cubierta_Lerma
- Strength Criteria for Composite
- Properties and Characteristics of Engineering Materials
- Ch06 Introduction to Static Failure Theories
- Uct Report
- Ss16MCE 321-Chapter 5 Failure-Theories2
- WSM & LSM
- Sagaseta09b
- Reinforced Concrete Design Lecture 03 Strength of Beams
- Fiber_reinforced_polymer(FRP).pdf
- IRJET-Design Analysis and Fabrication of Roll Cage of M-Baja ATV
- Pipeline Hydro Test Pressure Determination _ Pipeline & Gas Journal
- geoCoPS1
- 2 Axial Loading
- Modern Pulley Design Techniques and Failure Analysis Methods
- Cowl
- LRFD - Design - Bridge - Structures - Federal Highway Administration 9
- Functionality 13
- 2014-Prediction of Behavior of CeramicMetal Composite Panels Under Two Consecutive Ballistic Impacts
- TEMA CONSTRUCCIONES MINERAS ingles.docx
- Else Vier 05
- 12018
- Question Bank
- Tunnel support in weak rock (Hoek,1998).pdf
- Fracture Mechanics
- torsion in beam.pdf
- ANSYS APDL introductory Tutorials.pdf
- Direct Stiffness Method - Wikipedia
- Rules for Journal
- tour package -1.pdf
- Solved_ Number of Nodes is Less Than Number of Elements - Autodesk Community
- Torsional Analysis of a Circular Shaft
- 1-s2.0-S0093641304001041-main
- Cap09
- Tour Package -1
- 1
- Building the Finite Element Model
- Detailed Explanation of the Finite Element Method (FEM)
- tour package -2.pdf
- thesis 1
- A Structural Mechanics Approach for Predicting Mechanical Properties of CNT
- Carbon Nanotubes – Structure, Properties And
- Assignment 5
- 9.1 nodes
- Flow Cart 123
- Ansys tutorials.pdf
- ME532_ES_SOL.pdf
- Carbon Nanotube Metal Matrix Composites
- Cocubes Placement Paper 2
- sol_q2
- Analysis of Elastic Properties of Transversely Isotropic Cntreinforced Polymers
- Cocubes Placement Paper 1
- Effect of Fiber Geometry and Representative
- A Finite Element Approach for Estimation of Young’s

You are on page 1of 76

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

These differences make the currently available. NON INTERACTIVE CRITERIA A non-interactive failure Criteria is defined as the one having no interactions between stress or strain components. here the individual component refers to the stress or strain component in the particular plane and particular direction. Maximum strain criteria Maximum Stress Criteria According to maximum stress theory. 2. Failure criteria for composite materials are often classified into two groups: based on the stress interaction considered. Non-Interactive failure criteria.2 1. Interactive Failure Criteria. In this type the individual stress or strain component are compared with the corresponding material strength.73 fracture when in tension to fiber micro-buckling and interfacial splitting when in compression. failure occurs when at least one stress component along with one of the principal material axes exceeds .2. positive and negative shear strength in the principal material direction is the same. Under this category come the popular theories like. well developed failure theories for isotropic materials not applicable for failure prediction in composites.1 1. However. Maximum stress criteria 2. 3. 3.

It also does not consider the stress interaction (uniaxial). Figure 3.74 the corresponding strength in that direction (Figure 3. 3.1) The maximum stress theory is more applicable for brittle modes of failure.2). Failure Condition can be expressed as given below.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. but it does not have micromechanical approach. It can also be said as failure mode based. hence they under predicts the strength in the presence of combined action of in plane stresses.1). .1 Maximum stress criteria X L whenσ 11 ≥ 0 YL whenσ 22 ≥ 0 and σ 22 = − X T whenσ 11 ≤ 0 − YT whenσ 22 ≤ 0 σ 11 = (3.2. closer to longitudinal and transverse tension. the approach very important for composite materials.

They can be classified into three types based on their formulation.2) Generally the strain Criteria is expressed in terms of stress components as given below.3 INTERACTIVE CRITERIA An interactive failure Criteria is defined as the one having interaction between stress or strain components. 3.75 Figure 3. either among stress on particular planes or of all stress components. X L whenε11 ≥ 0 YL whenε 22 ≥ 0 and σ 22 − γ 21σ 11 = − X T whenε11 ≤ 0 −YT whenε 22 ≤ 0 σ 11 − γ 12σ 22 = (3. . 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.3) 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.2 Maximum strain criteria ε whenε11 ≥ 0 ε 2t whenε 22 ≥ 0 ε11 = 1t and ε 22 = ε 1c whenε11 ≤ 0 ε 2 c whenε 22 ≤ 0 (3.

1 1. Direct mode determining theories. because of its quadratic form it fails to distinguish the failure between tension and compression. σ 112 F1 2 + σ 22 2 F2 2 + τ 12 2 F6 2 − σ 11σ 22 F12 =1 (3. 3. the appropriate strength values can be used in the above equation according to the signs of σ 1 and σ 2 . Hence it has some programming difficulties during analysis. X whenσ 1 ≥ 0 YL whenσ 2 ≥ 0 F1 = L .4) Hill modified this Criteria for ductile material and based on that Azizi and Tsai formulated one Criteria for orthotropic composite materials.76 3. 2. Polynomial Theories.5) In the above there is no distinction between tensile and compressive strengths. Strain Energy theories.6) Even though stress interaction has been considered in this theory.3. 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. Thus we get the following form. . F2 = and F6 = SLT X T whenσ 1 ≤ 0 YT whenσ 2 ≤ 0 (3. However.

the equation (3. f1σ 11 + f 2σ 22 + f11σ 112 + f 22σ 22 2 + f 66τ 12 2 + 2 f12σ 11σ 22 = 1 f1 = (3. f 11 = . and are usually polynomial equations based on the material strengths and use separate equations to describe each mode of failure.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.3.7) 1 1 1 1 1 1 . With these advantages this is the most widely used theory. 1 1 1 1 1 1 − σ 112 + σ 222 + σ 11 + − σ 22 + X L XT YLYT X L XT YL YT 1 2 τ 12 − 2 S LT σ 11σ 22 X L X T YLYT =1 (3. f 22 = X L XT X L XT YL YT YLYT f 66 = 1 S LT 2 . 3. − − . they formulated the failure condition as. Tsai-Wu Criteria is readily amenable to computational procedure. it uses stress invariants.8) Tsai-Wu Criteria accounts for tensile and compressive stress through linear terms. . f2 = . f 12 = − 1 [ f11 f 22 ]1 / 2 2 Using the above.Mode Determining Theories Direct mode determining theories are those they consider different modes of composite structural failures.7) can be rewritten as.2 Direct.

Fiber tensile failure mode is explosive. laminated materials typically exhibit local failures prior to rupture into two or more distinct pieces. Some fiber splitting at the fracture surface can usually be observed. which is evidence of the shear nature of the failure process. The bending stiffness of delaminated panels can be significantly reduced. It releases large amounts of energy. even when no visual defect is visible on the surface or the free edges. It is necessary to have a fundamental understanding of micro-level failure mechanisms in order to develop high strength materials. Indeed. Matrix compression failure is actually shear matrix failure. Failure Modes Delamination is one type of failure mode. Thus. . in structures that cannot redistribute the load. and. These heterogeneous. it is desirable to have failure criteria which are applicable at the level of the lamina. the failure occurs at an angle with the loading direction. From the standpoint of structural designer. it typically causes catastrophic failure. Failure at these levels is often the consequence of an accumulation of micro-level failure events. Matrix tensile failure is another mode results in fracture surface resulting from this failure mode is typically normal to the loading direction. it is also important to have a fundamental understanding of failure events at the fiber/matrix level. the laminate.78 Failure is often an ill-defined term in reference to composite materials and composite structures. composite materials made of different plies stacked together tend to delaminate. and the structural component.

9) The coefficient.79 Fiber compression failure mode is largely affected by the resin shear behavior and imperfections such as the initial fiber misalignment angle and voids. Longitudinal and transverse stresses in a lamina can be expressed as σ 11 = E ε 11 Cos 2θ . kinking bands can be observed at a smaller scale. currently lot of study and research is being carried out and considerable numbers of failure mode based theories are developed. Considering the necessity of failure mode prediction. The failure envelope equation can be expressed as 2 R 2 X Lσ 112 + 2YLYT σ 11σ 22 + X T σ 22 + S LTτ 122 + R ( X Lσ 11 + X T σ 22 ) − 1 = 0 (3. They form the criteria for prediction of these failure modes. below the threshold for . The criterion is basically strain based and can be summarized as follows. and are the result of fiber micro-buckling. Here ε 11 and ε 22 are the strains in corresponding directions. Direct mode determining theories are based on these various failure modes. The method is simple in concept and aims to hold strains to a very low level. Eckold’s Criteria: The theory is an extension of the philosophy used in British standards for commercial GRP pressure vessel design. depending on the criticality of service etc. 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. σ 22 = E ε 22 Sin 2θ and τ 12 = ε 12 G12 Sinθ Cosθ respectively. matrix shear failure or fiber failure. 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). Typically. R. Theories which have sound physical basis and coherence are only considered.

g. No allowance was made to account for non linear behaviour and that leads to an underestimate of strains and an overestimate of stiffness.15) This criterion gave moderate agreement with the measured shape of failure envelopes for unidirectional laminates. 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. The predictions are mostly unconservative.13) Fiber Compression (for σ 11 ≤ 0 ): σ 11 = X T (3.12) For final failure Fiber Tension (for σ 11 ≥ 0 ): σ 11 = X L (3.11) 2 2 σ τ Combined Shear and Matrix Tension: 22 + 12 = 1 YL S12 (3. It did not predict the interactions observed between strengths in some quadrants of the . an assumption was made that the lamina tensile and compressive strength in the fiber direction was identical.10) Matrix Compression (for σ 22 ≤ 0 ) : σ 22 = YC (3. In many cases first failure is in a final failure mode and the distinction disappears. the 900 tension test where initial transverse tension failure precipitates catastrophic collapse). so again the distinction disappears. In the case of unidirectional 00 lamina all failures are classed as final irrespective of their nature (e. These are divided into initial and final failure criteria. In applying the theory. Edge’s Criteria: This criterion is interactive in nature.14) σ 11 τ 12 + X T S LT Combined Shear and fiber compression: = 1 (3.80 initial failure in a uniaxial test.

Hashin (1980) proposes two failure mechanisms: one associated with the fiber and the other associated with the matrix. for the matrix. But the predicted shapes were different from those obtained in experiments. with reference to the fiber orientation. This approach is plausible. the author proposes quadratic Criteria because on the one hand a linear Criterion underestimates in his experience. The most serious is that it implies that failure occurs at the maximum transverse shear plane.81 experimental failure envelopes but it did in others. The first is governed by the longitudinal stress. which is difficult to accept as a general conclusion. In general the laminate initial failure stress predictions were very low. 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. It is noticeable that. a polynomial of higher degree would be too complicated to manage. . Laminate final failure strength predictions were some times conservative and unconservative in some other instances with no clear pattern to each. distinguishing in both cases between tension and compression. they do not mention this fact. 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. the author’s strategy to deduce the Criteria is to apply logical reasoning to reach an applicable Criteria. but some explanations might have been given. and the second is governed by the transversal and tangential stresses to the fiber. 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. Thus. It has to be mentioned that once this distinction based on the failure mechanism is made. even though the authors do not distinguish matrix failure and interface failure. the strength of the material and on the other hand.

The experimental measure of Transverse shear strength (ST) as mentioned in Hashin’s work is found inaccurate.82 Hashin’s criteria is the base of all theories of this type. Fiber tensile mode failure had been applied the action plane concept. The criteria is based on the assumption that for a fiber dominated laminate. 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.19) Action plane concept . 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. But most of his work is based on logical reasoning rather than theoretical base. Fiber Tension (for σ 11 σ ≥ 0 ): 11 XL Fiber Compression (for σ 11 ≤ 0 ): Matrix Tension (for σ 22 2 2 τ 12 + = 1 SL σ 11 XT σ ≥ 0 ): 22 YL (3.Fracture is exclusively created by stresses which act on the fracture plane is important concept applied in Hashin’s work.17) =1 2 2 τ 12 + = 1 SL (3. and that laminate failure can be treated as a projection of a multi axial fiber failure criterion onto laminate stress space. .16) (3.18) Matrix Compression (for σ 22 ≤ 0 ): σ 22 2ST 2 τ σ YT + − 1 22 + 12 2 S Y T SL T 2 = 1 (3. It had been also widely applied. For fiber compression the maximum stress Criteria had been considered. failure can be attributed to shear failures of the fibers. Hart-Smith’s Criteria: Hart-Smith proposes criteria based on all three categories.

3.83 Initially. In the figure. these stress differences resolve into shear stresses in the three planes lying at 450 to the three pairs of coordinate directions. Hart Smith concluded that in many cases laminate failure can be reduced to shear failures in the fibers. 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. Application to a laminate containing 0° and 90° laminae under biaxial loadings in the 0° and 90°directions is illustrated in Figure 3. 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. “L-N” failures. In general the Hart-Smith criterion is intended for fiber dominated laminates which contain more than two reinforcement directions. 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. and the T and N directions. the L and N directions. and “T-N” failures corresponding to differences between principal stresses in the L and T directions. it was suggested that these shear failures could be characterized as “L-T” failures. . The strain coordinates εx and εy are laminate strains which are assumed to be the same as the strains in the fiber. Hart-Smith attributed the low laminate strength measurements to the presence of biaxial stresses which were believed to induce shear failures in the fibers.

and is essentially the same as the Sudden failure method (no matrix failure is assumed) in conjunction with the Maximum Strain criterion. With the out-of-plane stress σN equal to zero in typical laminate applications.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. The only difference between 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. The constants α and β are related to the Poisson ratios of the lamina as required to produce these constant stress conditions. 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. the latter conditions amount to constant σT and constant σL cutoffs. 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.4 correspond to L-T failures. respectively. .84 Figure 3. The criterion indicates that the 45 degree lines in the second and fourth quadrants in Figure 3.4 for the 00 lamina.3 and the conventional Maximum Strain criterion is the 45° cut off lines in the 2nd and 4th quadrants.

are based on physical foundations as proposed by Hashin. As indicated previously. The most crucial is that of whether or not there are 450 cutoffs of the lamina failure envelope in the second and fourth quadrants. Puck’s Criteria: Puck (1969) starts early but he follows Hashin’s work. It is assumed that almost all .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. developed by Puck. There are certain issues that need to be resolved in connection with the Hart-Smith approach to failure. 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. Particularly the new Criteria for IFF. The experimental results cited by Hart-Smith for these phenomena are somewhat limited and have not been confirmed to any extent by other criteria. In addition. But this work is a distinct advance in the direction of Hashin’s work. without the cutoffs the Hart-Smith criterion reduces to the maximum Strain or Maximum Stress criterion.85 Figure 3.

Hashin provided the logical reasoning with out any physical proof. but using the advantage of numerical solutions for problems. Fiber Tension (for ε 11 ≥ 0 ): γ f 12 1 ε 11 + mσ f σ 22 = 1 (3. 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 =0.21) . σ n . In fiber part his work is based on maximum strain Criteria and with empirical coefficients his predictions are matching well with experimental data. Matrix failure in a plane parallel to the fibers is exclusively determined by the shear stresses ( τ nt .20) ε 1T Ef1 Fiber Compression (for ε 11 ≤ 0 ): γ f 12 1 2 ε 11 + mσ f σ 22 = 1 − (10γ 21 ) ε 1C Ef1 (3. For Matrix failure under compression .brittle nature of failure of FRP laminas had been considered. It is therefore formulated for a rotating coordinate system. 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. τ nl ) and the normal stress σ n that are acting in this plane. 1. The Criteria is essentially based on the hypothesis of Coulomb and Mohr and its modification by Paul.86 composites in structural applications with a polymer matrix behave in a brittle fashion. the plane where the brittle fracture occurs. Mohr-Coulombs hypothesis had been applied. 2. Puck gave the new criteria. which is referred to as the fracture plane.

Rotem’s Criteria: The first version of the failure criterion was suggested in 1973 and has been modified later in 1975 and 1981. τ nt (α ) . between -900 and +900 until that cutting angle (α fp ) are found for which the highest ‘risk of fracture’ exists. In dependence of σ n being positive or negative the stresses are inserted into the valid equations. The criterion was postulated particularly for fiber composite materials and is not .22) Transverse Compression (for σ 22 ≤ 0 ): σ 1 τ 122 + ( pσ 22 )2 + pσ 22 = 1 − 11 (3. which means the global maximum of equations is found. τ nl (α ) on a plane parallel to the fibers.23) S LT XL Figure 3.87 Transverse Tension (for σ 22 ≥ 0 ): τ 12 S LT 2 Y + 1 − p T S LT 2 σ 22 YT 2 σ σ + p 22 = 1 − 11 S LT σ 11D (3. 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 ) .5 Stresses τ nt . In this equation. the constants p and σ 11D are the experimentally determinable quantities. This has to be repeated for a sufficiently large number of angles (α ) .

.88 suitable for other types of anisotropic materials. The failure of a fiber composite material laminate will occur either in the fibers or in the matrix.e. The stress strain response is generally truncated at much lower strains than the final strain observed in the experiments. There are no interlaminar stresses which may cause failure. The fibers. 2. The laminate has no free edges. They generally coincide with the initial failure range alone and they do not predict the final failure properly. The criterion is based on three basic assumptions: 1. Therefore only in-plane stresses are effective. The failure criterion is expressed mathematically in the following fashion: Fiber Tension: σ 11 = X T (3. 3.26) The final failure predictions for multi directional laminates are also conservative in nature. the laminate is wide enough and clamped on its outer contour and has no holes. The matrix material is weaker and softer than the fibers. i.24) Fiber Compression: σ 11 = X C (3. can only fail by loads acting in their axial direction. namely a fiber failure criterion and a matrix failure criterion. On the basis of these assumptions the failure criterion actually combines two separate criteria. being stiffer and stronger than the matrix. The onset of the failure is a localized phenomenon.25) 2 E ε σ Matrix failure: m 11 + 22 YL YT 2 τ 12 + S LT 2 = 1 (3.

Equation (3.30) Matrix Tension (for σ 22 ≥ 0 ): σ 22 YL 2 τ 12 + S L − µσ 2 22 = 1 .6 Matrix Compression (for σ 22 σ ≤ 0 ): 22 YT 2 τ + 12 S L (3.27) =1 σ 22 YL 2 τ + 12 S LT 2 = 1 (3. If equation (3.28) Failure is assumed when one of the two equations is satisfied. µ = µ 0 = 0.28) represents the condition for matrix failure. σ 11 XL (3.32) . the corresponding (tensile or compressive) strengths must be chosen based on the sign of the applied stresses. Fiber Tension (for σ 11 ≥ 0 ): σ 11 XL =1 Fiber Compression (for σ 11 ≤ 0 ): σ 11 XT (3. he formulated new one for matrix failure and included a coefficient to consider resistance to failure offered by compressive stress as detailed below. then we have fiber breakage.89 Sun’s Criteria: In his first approach Sun proposes the criterion as generalized for either tensile or compressive stresses.29) =1 (3. The mode of matrix failure is determined by comparing the ratios σ 22 /YL and τ 12 /SLT.27) is satisfied. Then in his second formulation.31) 2 = 1 (3.

The ply is monolithic and elastic under tension in the transverse direction within the first stage (the 0-1 segment). the stress strain prediction terminates at lower level. 2 . This is why on further compression of the ply . XL or XT. Deformation of the ply (both under tension and compression) along the fiber direction is completely elastic (Figure 3. Residual strains are zero. But the final failure stress was much conservative.6. Initial and final failure points are coincides in a single location. σ 11dε 11 ε∫1 Fiber Failure: ∫ σ 11 dε 11 ε1u m1 σ 11dε 11 ε∫ Matrix Failure: 1 ∫ σ 11 dε 11 ε1u σ i dε i ε∫i ∑ i =1. the ply is assumed to be broken. Unloading from any point of the ~ segment 1-2 occurs with the unloading modulus E 2 which equals the secant modulus of the diagram. When longitudinal stresses reach their ultimate values.33) mi < 0.6(a)).6(b)). suggesting that the cracks are completely closed. The behaviour of the ply in the transverse direction is much more complicated (Figure 3. Mode of failure can not be predicted by this theory. 6 σ i dε i ∫ ε iu ≥ 0.1 (3. The process of cracking the matrix begins at point 1 and progresses within the 1-2 segment of the diagram. Zinoviev Criteria: Zinoviev assumes that the unidirectional ply within the composite laminate deforms as shown in Figure 3. Hence. 2 . The isolated unidirectional ply fails at point 1. 6 σ i dε i ∫ ε iu m1 mi σ i dε i ε∫i ∑ i =1.90 Wolfe’s Criteria: This is a strain based theory and is expressed as follows.34) Reasonably good prediction was obtained for unidirectional laminate. the functional is differentiated with respect to strain variable. For the prediction of fiber failure and matrix failure.1 (3.

ε 22 . 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 modulus of the ply completely regains its initial value. Thus. is the special strain which enables us to consider the effect of deformation in the fiber direction on the process of matrix cracking. Hence σ 2 can be written as σ 22 = Figure 3. E 22 is expressed as follows: .6(b) ~ that the unloading modulus. 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.6 γ γ 21 ε 11 + 12 ε 22 γ 21 (1 − γ 12 γ 21 ) E11 (3. It follows from Figure 3.35) Behaviour of a unidirectional ply within a multilayered composite (a model) Suppose that ε 22 = 0.35). in equation (3.6(b) is plotted as a function of the modified strain ε 2 = ε 2 + γ 12 ε 1 . the modified strain.91 (segment 3-4 of the diagram). The deformation diagram in Figure 3.

Few samples of failed blades are shown in Figure 3.36) The starred values are the largest algebraic values during the history of deformation. similar to that under deformation in the direction transverse to the fiber direction (Figure 3.8. Hence a new failure criterion is proposed as follows.4 FAILURE ENVELOPE GENERATION USING MODIFIED CRITERIA FOR WIND TURBINE BLADE Based on the observations made in field survey. If the stress σ 22 reaches its ultimate value YT.92 −1 * ε 22 γ 122 σ 22 E22 = * + = γ 2σ * σ 22 E11 ε 22 + 12 22 E11 (3. 3. 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. The stress/ strain curve of the ply is linear elastic within the 0-1 segment. most of the failures of wind turbine blades are due to matrix compression.6(c)). The ply behaviour under shear is. in many ways. The process of shear deformation does not depend γ 12* on the sign of the stress τ 12 . Unloading process (segment 2-3) takes place with the unloading ~ shear modulus G12 = τ 12* . the ply is then considered to be broken. This mode of failure is due to combination of transverse matrix compression and shear stresses. It is proposed that matrix failure occurs under compression due to interaction between effective shear stress components acting on the faces of the critical .7. Consider a composite lamina subjected to transverse stress (σ 22 ) and shear stress (τ 12 ) as shown in Figure 3. which is why ply deformation within the 3-4 ~ segments also occurs with the unloading modulus G12 . Segment 1-2 corresponds to the stage of matrix cracking.

Using the transformation matrix between loading coordinates and along the critical section.37) The shear stress acting along the plane τ T = − sin θ cos θ .39) Figure 3. Consider a lamina subjected to normal stress σ 22 transverse to the fiber orientation and shear stress τ 12 .σ 22 (3.93 section. The normal stress acting perpendicular to the plane be σ n = cos 2 θσ 22 (3.38) Magnitude of stress along the direction of the fiber τ L = cos θτ 12 (3.7 Failed Blades due to combination of transverse compression and shear stresses . 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.

94 Component of effective stresses τ T eff .40) τ L eff = τ L + η Lσ n (3.43) .41) The above set of equations has the effect of applied biaxial stress field σ 22 . τ T eff = S T = YC Cosθ (Sinθ − η T Cosθ ) (3.41) and using the condition for failure under compression as σ 22 = −YC . 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. the failure index equation can be expressed as τ T eff FI = ST 2 τ L eff + SL 2 = 1 (3. τ 12 and inclination of critical section.40) and (3.8 Fracture of a unidirectional lamina subjected to transverse compression and shear Hence. Figure 3. Substituting the values of σ n .τ L in equations (3. 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 (3.42) Here ST and SL are strength properties of the laminate.τ T .

(3.48) B = 2ηT cos3 θ (3. the constants η T and η L can be determined.47) where A. 2 [ ( τ T eff σ 22 − sin θ cos θ + η T cos 2 θ = S T2 ST )] 2 (3. B.45) Similarly for the second part of equation (3. i. τ 12 will be equal to in-plane shear strength. failure will be considered to occur when the critical plane angle maximizes the effective transverse shear.44) Using the above condition. FI = A 22 + B 22 12 + C 12 ST S T . Using the equation (3.42).49) C = Cos 2θ (3.95 Under transverse compression.S L SL 2 (3.46) By adding the corresponding coefficients and further simplification 2 σ σ . For this condition.42).43) in the first part of proposed failure index equation (3. when ∂τ T eff ∂θ =0. C are called as Action Plane Coefficients (APC) [ A = η T cos 2 θ − sin θ cos θ ] 2 + η L2 Cos 4θ (3. calculate critical plane angle ( θ ) using .e. τ L eff SL SL 2 cos θτ 12 + η T cos θσ 22 2 ST = 2 SL 2 (3.50) Initially when σ 22 is zero.τ τ leads to. fracture will occur.

matrix and their stiffness properties. 2. τ 12 will be equals to its inplane shear strength.96 equation (3. Using the calculated θ . calculate the Action Plane Coefficients.5 METHODOLOGY . Repeat this procedure till σ 22 reaches the transverse compressive strength.44. 3. The same procedure can be utilized for evaluating the failure envelope points in the longitudinal compressive region also. volume fraction of fiber. Utilize the computed value of τ 12 for the next increment of σ 22 to calculate θ . τ 12 − σ 11 and σ 22 − σ 11 .STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE OF FAILURE ENVELOPE GENERATION FOR COMPOSITE LAMINA 1. Determination of critical plane angle: Find the magnitude of load index. initialize σ 22 as zero. For this condition. determine the value of critical plane angle (θ ) that maximizes the effective transverse shear. Processing of data: Initialize the x quadrant as zero. revise the τ 12 using (3. Hence APC’s can be computed using equations (3.48) to (3. . For τ 12 − σ 22 plot.47).47). the magnitude of τ 12 for the next load case can be computed. viz.43) and condition 3. environmental conditions. τ 12 − σ 22 . 4. 3. Using biaxial Mohr’s circle polygon. Input required: Properties of lamina like type of fiber. strength properties of the lamina and required type of plot. Substituting the values of APC’s in equation (3.50). Determination of APC: Using the value of critical plane angle (θ ) .

6. however. Conceptually. Determination of biaxial points: Substitute the values of APC’s in equation (3. three-dimensional failure mechanisms are present in the laminate. and matrix shear failure) occurring at the lamina level.97 5.6 FAILURE ENVELOPE GENERATION FOR A LAMINATE Classical laminate strength analysis is based on the assumption of a two-dimensional stress field in the laminate. matrix tension. get the predicted point ( τ 12 ) for the given σ 22 . Classical laminate strength analysis is restricted to those laminates whose failure is not dominated by 3-D failure modes (Reddy et al 1992. Failure curve for lamina: Join the failure points using a smooth curve to obtain the failure envelope using modified criteria. determine the critical plane angle (θ ) and repeat steps 4 and 5 to find more failure points. 7. the most notable of which include delamination and failure induced by free edge singular stresses. Loop Initialization for Lamina: Increment or decrement (as the case may be) the value of σ 22 for the calculated τ 12 . Laminate failure is the eventual result of progressive failure processes taking place in the constituent laminae under loading. The effects of free edge stresses are .47). In reality. 3. the failure mechanisms in laminates are a great deal more complicated than those in a unidirectional composite under plane stress. The flowchart for the failure envelope generation of a lamina is given in Appendix 1. a ply-by-ply failure analysis should yield the desired failure load for the laminate. In addition to the three intra laminar failure modes (fiber failure. 1993).

the Parallel Spring Model and the Incremental Stiffness Reduction Model. As lamina failure is progressive in nature. 3. the progressive loss of lamina stiffness must also be accounted for in the laminate analysis (Wu et al 1974. Two methods for achieving this were developed for the present study. the longitudinal modulus is reduced. These methods require a procedure for “discounting” the failed ply and reducing the laminate stiffness.1 Parallel Spring Model Each lamina is modeled with a pair of springs representing the fiber (longitudinal) and matrix (shear and transverse) deformation modes. 3. The value to which the moduli are reduced was arbitrary although it was commonly set equal to zero.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.98 usually treated separately from classical laminate failure analysis.7. When fiber breakage occurs. When matrix cracking occurs. the shear and transverse moduli are reduced. The entire laminate is modeled by grouping together a number of parallel lamina spring sets as shown in Figure 3.9. Yamada 1978). 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. .

The model which reduces E1 for fiber failure and E2 and G12 for either transverse or shear matrix failure is denoted the PSM.99 Figure 3. However. The model which reduces E1 for fiber failure.9 Schematic of Parallel Spring Model (PSM) This model is also capable of differentiating between types of matrix failure if desired. E2 for transverse matrix failure. Laminate stiffness reduction is achieved similar to the Parallel Spring Model. and E2 and G12 for shear matrix failure is denoted the PSMs.e.7. 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.. the transverse and shear moduli can be reduced separately depending on the specific type of matrix failure mode. i.2 Incremental Stiffness Reduction Model To avoid the sudden jump in strain at ply failure seen in the Parallel Spring Model. it is assumed that the reduced . a model resembling the bilinear hardening rule in classical plasticity can be formulated. 3.

However.100 laminate stiffness governs only the incremental load-deformation relations beyond immediate ply failure. those laminates whose failure is dominated by matrix cracking. This point is where matrix cracking has occurred in the 90° plies or where locally E2 = 0. y) location where all ply failures would occur. a nonlinear function such as exponential function may be used to gradually reduce these values. Instead of reducing the appropriate moduli suddenly after a ply failure. as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Thus. i.e. This progressive softening approach may model certain laminates better than others.10 Schematic of Incremental Stiffness Reduction Model (ISRM) .. The use of such reduction can be justified by regarding the laminate analysis to be at the in-plane (x. Consider a 90° lamina (within a laminate) containing a number of transverse matrix cracks.10. For most fiber-dominated composites. the assumption is made that ensuing 0° fiber failure will occur at the weakest point. it is acceptable to reduce E2 directly to zero after transverse matrix cracking for the ultimate strength analysis. The 90° ply still retains some stiffness in the loading direction (E2 direction locally). Both of these stiffness reduction models have flexibility. setting the stiffness constants directly to zero after the corresponding mode of failure is simple and unambiguous.

One common way is to assume ultimate laminate failure when fiber breakage occurs in any ply. A stiffness reduction model is used to reduce the stiffness of the laminate due to that individual ply failure. 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.e. if assumed to be true over the whole laminate. the effect of matrix cracks on the overall laminate stiffness is usually very small. A number of definitions have been proposed on how to determine ultimate laminate failure. a variety of laminate failure analysis methods have been proposed. It is obvious that such drastic lamina stiffness reduction. The laminate is treated as a homogeneous material and is analyzed with a lamina failure criterion.. The laminate with reduced stiffness is again analyzed for stresses and strains.8. This cycle continues until ultimate laminate failure is reached. 3. Matrix-dominated laminates . the portion of a failed lamina between two cracks would still contribute substantially to the laminate stiffness.1 Ply-By-Ply Discount Method This is a very common method for laminate failure analysis. yielding of the laminate stiffness matrix). Another way is to check if excessive strains occur (i. In fiber-dominated laminates. The lamina failure criterion predicts the next ply failure and laminate stiffness is accordingly reduced again. would overestimate the ultimate strains of the laminate.101 Since matrix cracks are discrete. A lamina failure criterion is then used to determine the particular ply which will fail first and the mode of that failure. Following is a description of each methodology. Laminated plate theory is used to initially calculate stresses and strains in each ply.8 LAMINATE FAILURE ANALYSIS METHODS As with lamina failure analysis. 3.

This suggests that in such laminates the progressive stiffness reduction seen in the previous method may be unnecessary.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.9 FAILURE PREDICTION FOR COMPOSITE LAMINATE (FPCL) CODE GENERATION This FPCL Code has been generated using C++ language.102 such as [±45]s may fail without fiber breakage. 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). Others have suggested a “last ply” definition in which the laminate is considered failed if every ply has been damaged. 3. To perform this analysis. For this project.1 and 3. The code utilize two kinds of inputs namely Inbuilt input and interactive input.2. The program utilizes 2-D classical laminated plate theory with a Ply-by-Ply Discount laminate analysis method. The inbuilt input includes the mechanical and thermal properties of four fibrous and matrix materials and are enlisted in Tables 3.8. The laminate strength predicted by the sudden failure method is usually higher than the laminate strength predicted by the ply-by-ply discount method. No stiffness reductions are included in the process. 3. The purpose of this program is to provide a thorough analysis of the failure progression leading to ultimate failure in laminated composites. 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). a lamina failure criterion is chosen and the failure load is determined by calculating the load required for fiber failure in the dominant lamina. .

959 -0. α f 2 (10-6/0C) 225 15 15 0. similarly type either 2 or 3 or 4 if the fiber type is Silenka E-Glass 1200tex or AS4 or T300. the user can enter the required type of fiber or matrix material. 2.687 2. LY556/DY063 epoxy.869 1.813 1. The following parameters are specified as interactive input. Selection of Criteria Mechanical and Thermal properties of Fibers (Soden et al 1998) 230 15 15 E-glass 21×K43 Gevetex 80 80 33.5 -0.33 2150 1450 30.1 iv. 3 and 4 corresponds to MY750/HY917/ epoxy.9 15 12 4. Type 1 if the fiber type is E-glass 21×K43 Gevetex.33 Silenka E-Glass 1200tex 74 74 30. Stacking Sequence v.9 4. 3501-6 epoxy and BSL914C epoxy respectively.8 2150 1450 1.2 . XfL (MPa) Longitudinal compressive strength.103 Once the programme is initialized. YfL (MPa) Longitudinal tensile failure strain. Ef2 (GPa) In-plane shear modulus. Gf12 (GPa) Major Poisson's ratio. Number of Lamina iii.7 4.086 2. ε f 2 L (%) Longitudinal thermal coefficient. Volume fraction of fiber ii.111 0.8 7 3350 2500 7 2500 2000 33. For the case of matrices 1. Gf23 (GPa) Longitudinal tensile strength. Ef1 (GPa) Transverse modulus. Lamina Thickness (should be defined in mm) Table 3. α f 1 (10-6/0C) Transverse thermal coefficient. ν f 12 Transverse shear modulus. The other kind of input employed in the coding is Interactive input.488 1.9 Fibre type AS4 T300 Longitudinal modulus. i.905 1.9 4. ε f 1L (%) Longitudinal compressive failure strain. In order to invoke the required material properties from the inbuilt input “Switch-Case-Break” option is employed.

Wolfe . YmC (MPa) 250 150 120 120 Shear strength. Sun 3. ε mT (%) 1.2 4.7 4 5 5 Thermal coefficient.2 Mechanical and Thermal properties of Matrices (Soden et al 1998) Matrix type Modulus. Sm (MPa) 50 70 68 68 Tensile failure strain. Eckold 5.35 0.24 1.35 3. Hart Smith 6. Under case 1. Gm (Gpa) 1.104 Table 3.34 0. ν m 0.24 Poisson's ratio. it is possible to choose one of following criteria by specifying corresponding number noted against the name 1. Em (Gpa) 3501-6 BSL914C epoxy epoxy LY556/ DY063 epoxy MY750/ HY917/ epoxy 4.35 Tensile strength. α m (10-6/0C) 45 55 58 58 Under selection of criteria.35 Shear modulus. Hart Smith 2. Zinoviev Under case 2.567 1. it is required to key in 1 for Stress based 2 for Strain based and 3 for Interactive criteria.35 0. it is possible to choose one of following criteria by specifying corresponding number noted against the name 4. YmT (MPa) 69 75 80 80 Compressive strength.481 1.0 3.

the procedure adopted in classical laminated theory was adopted. Using the specified details. Modified After defining the above details. After calculating the stiffness matrix of each lamina. the FPCL coding will calculate the material properties of the lamina with the help of rule of mixture equation. Inplane and Inter laminar shear strength parameters should be defined. [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. either one of the following interactive criteria can be selected. [Aij]. Rotem 12. As per the theory. Puck 11. On the other hand. For interactive theories there will be set of failure envelope equations as discussed in the previous topic. The flowchart for the failure envelope generation of a lamina is given in Appendix 2. Strength properties of the specified laminate like Longitudinal and Transverse Tensile strength. . Edge 8. If the failure is encountered in matrix. Tsai Wu 13.105 Under case 3. ply by ply discount procedure is adopted. 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). Hart Smith 10. The induced strain in a particular lamina was calculated after determining the midplane strain and midplane curvature. Hashin 9. 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. Longitudinal and Transverse Compressive strength. if the failure is in fiber the code will declare it as ultimate failure of the laminate (Jones 1998). 7.

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,

100

SR = -1.81:1

τ12 (MPa)

Strain based and Modified Criteria and are shown in Figures 3.11 to 3.13.

Hart - Smith[54]

Sun[117]

Zinoviev[143]

Modified

Experimental data[28]

80

SR = 1.52:1

60

40

20

0

-175

-150

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

σ22 (MPa)

0

25

50

75

100

**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

Eckold[34]

τ12 (MPa)

SR = -1.81:1

80

Hart-Smith[54]

Wolfe[137]

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.

a

τ12 (MPa)

100

SR = -1.81:1

80

Edge[37]

Hart Smith[54]

Hashin[57]

Puck[101]

60

Rotem[109]

Tsai[133]

Modified

Experimental data[28]

40

SR = 1.52:1

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.

07 1.12 1.02 1. Tables 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. 2 1 N Analysis Re sult SE = 1 − ∑ N i =1 Test Re sult i (3.3 to 3. strain based and interactive criteria with experimental data points.5 1. 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.14 and 3.11 1. 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.5 shows the error comparison for prediction made by various stress based. Hence.15 show the bar chart comparison in failure prediction at stress ratio of 1.26 1.52:1 which is in the first quadrant and at -1.11 1.51) N is the number of test data points.81:1 which is in the second quadrant.109 Puck’s criteria in addition to Modified criteria fit well with experimental data and they predict the maximum shear stress point. 2.0497 whereas the SE for Puck and Edge are 0.52:1 .5 2. Since the interactive criteria predict the failure in a relatively better manner.07 1.0596 and 0.19 1 0.26 exp 2 theo / 2.0608 respectively.93 1.5 d ov ie v Zi n Ec ko l Sm i th t- W ol fe Ed ge em Ro t Su n i Ts a k Pu c Ha r M od i fi ed 0 Figure 3. Figures 3. Predictions made by Modified criteria are good with a SE of 0.

92 σtheo /σexp 1.3 -- 25.2 61.9 8.0 -25.0 12.0 66.6 48.1 -70.1 -24.8 7.3 41.8 RE (%) 11.79 0.4 -19.81:1 Table 3.1 -13.00 0.0 -29.2 61.0 -25.0 40.0 0.70 0.7 26.2 28.2 72.1 Modified RE (%) 11.0659 0.0 68.8 SE 0.2 -37.0 35.1 -4.1 38.7 -110.0 -- τ 12 τ 12 1.0 59.0497 .7 83.0 -7.0 61.3 36.2 52.5 61.8 -21.1 61.0 51.9 -0.0 1.3 -44.2 -12.6 61.110 1.1 -13.0 82.0 38.2 -9.1 2.0 28.92 0.0974 σ 22 τ 12 RE (%) 61.2 -27.5 67.77 0.2 -12.73 0.9 -12.4 29.4 3.0 -0.7 46.0 18.3 -- RE (%) 18.1 61.6 71.6 -16.1 -41.80 0.1375 0.0 -2.77 0.3 36.9 32.3 61.0 -120.0 38.8 -0.06 0.1 -12.4 80.8 50.0 61.40 0.5 30.20 1.20 M od if i ed Ed ge ov ie v k Pu c Zi n Sm ith t- em H ar Ro t Su n W ol fe Ts a i 0.8 18.0 88.0 1.60 0.5 88.7 -44.80 0.0 -130.2 61.6 68.9 86.15 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 -1.8 -0.2 τ 12 τ 12 0.5 81.3 52.6 -12.3 61.6 31.9 69.00 Figure 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 34.4 -16.0 61.

0 18.8 0.7 -16.3 -44.4 -- -- 61.7 -110.4 61.9 28.0 66.3 49.0 -0.8 SE 0.2 1.8 2.3 61.4 61.8 18.3 26.6 68.9 61.0 51.8 -27.9 52.0 -70.0 -29.0497 .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 σ 22 τ 12 τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 RE (%) 34.2859 0.1 1.1 26.0 57.3 61.6 -- -- 61.2 -12.1 -30.0 40.3 61.1375 0.0 -- 11.7 32.6 80.0 69.6 -- -- 61.9 59.1 -13.1 81.6 88.5 2.0 12.2 61.3 61.8 10.8 7.5 86.4 -32.0 61.0 36.0 -0.0 -- 61.0 -2.0 18.0 -15.5 83.0 -- -- -- -- 38.0 34.3 -27.2 30.4 38.9 61.0 -0.7 -17.111 Table 3.9 36.6 58.0 -25.0 88.0 -130.0 -0.8 -2.0 -7.0 88.4 -120.0 69.0 3.0 82.9 61.1 -4.2 61.0783 0.0 47.6 -- -- 61.0 -25.

3 52.3 33.1 -13.8 7.3 52.2 1.0 -25.7 61.8 -12.9 71.0 1.1 26.3 52.0 51.3 74.4 52.6 -7.0 66.0 82.9 36.0660 0.8 -12.6 52.4 38.2 -27.9 -15.5 10.0 61.0 38.3 52.0 -15.2 -10.0 -0.2 68.2 9.1 53.3 61.8 66.1 61.3 35.3 -44.4 61.0 -0.0 -0.3 28.3591 0.8 73.1 -24.3 11.6 80.3 -32.3 31.0 -70.2 28.2 -12.1 23.6 72.5 -21.8 11.2 15.3 52.5 83.1 -12.0 -2.0802 0.0 44.0 61.1 -15.1 5.2 61.8 84.5 52.1 -24.8 -2.6 52.8 45.7 71.6 26.0 35.1 -4.2 -28.6 72.9 49.2 30.2 1.0 3.8 SE 0.2 -12.3 52.5 -- -- -- -- 38.0497 112 .0596 0.0 61.3 3.1 1.0 32.1 -13.6 52.5 -2.9 8.1 -12.8 55.0 52.0 37.6 38.0 12.6 59.2 -27.3 75.8 18.1 -13.0608 0.7 32.0 0.5 2.5 86.4 -120.1 45.3 61.0660 0.6 -3.9 8.0 50.4 -18.5 -11.0 -36.0 -0.8 0.2 1.0 -7.5 -18.2 -12.9 -30.0 -36.Table 3.0 -25.0 306.9 61.2 -28.8 49.0 59.8 -8.4 -16.3 61.5 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 (%) 34.2 -20.7 -110.0 28.9 -15.3 61.6 36.0 -0.0 -21.0 -29.0 -40.5 50.1 81.0 88.0 -0.4 11.4 -19.3 19.0 40.0 -130.1 34.

1 − ν 21ν 12 1 − ν 21ν 12 .52) 4 4 2 2 Q11 = Q11 C + Q22 S +2(Q12+2Q66) S C (3.61) Here the values of Q’s for 2D orthotropic lamina are as follows: Q11 = Q22 = E11 1 − ν 21ν 12 E 22 1 − ν 21ν 12 .55) 2 2 4 4 Q 21 = (Q11+Q22 – 4Q66) S C + Q21 (C + S ) (3.2 Predicting initial strength of multidirectional laminates Material properties of a composite lamina can be found from the properties of fiber.57) 3 3 Q 26 = (Q11 – Q12 – 2Q66) S C – (Q22 – Q12 – 2Q66) C S (3. matrix and volume fraction of fiber. stiffness ( Qij ) of a general orthotropic lamina can be found (Ochoa et al 1987) and is expressed in matrix notation as Q 11 Qij = Q 21 Q 61 Q 12 Q 22 Q 62 Q 16 Q 26 Q 66 (3.113 3.60) 2 2 4 4 Q 66 = (Q11 + Q12 – 2Q12 – 2Q66) S C + Q66 (S + C ) (3.58) 3 3 Q 61 = (Q11 – Q21 – 2Q66) SC – (Q22 – Q21 – 2Q66) CS (3. Q66 = G12 .56) Q 22 = Q11 S4 + Q22 C4 +2(Q12+2Q66) S2C2 (3. Q12 = ν 21 E11 ν E .59) Q 62 = (Q11 – Q21 – 2Q66) S3C – (Q22 – Q21 – 2Q66) C3S (3. Q16 = Q26 = Q61 = Q62 = 0.53) Q 12 = (Q11+Q22 – 4Q66) S2C2 + Q12 (C4 + S4) (3. Using the material properties of the lamina and fiber orientation angle.10. Q21 = 21 22 .54) Q 16 = (Q11 – Q12 – 2Q66) SC3 – (Q22 – Q12 – 2Q66) CS3 (3.

63) Here. Using the following relationships to relate resultant force per unit length of the laminate and resultant moment per unit length of the laminate. 0 N xy M xy γ xy k xx N xx M xx k yy = [C1 ] N yy + [D1 ] M yy k N xy M xy xy (3. [D1 ] = (D *)−1 . [A1 ] = [A −1 ] + [A −1 ][B] (D *)−1 [B][A −1 ] . [ ] (h 2 k [ ] (h k 3 ) k − h 2 k −1 . −1 D * = [D ] − [B ][A ][B ] (3. n [ ] (h Aij = ∑ Q ij k =1 k k Bij = 1 n ∑ Q ij 2 k =1 Dij = 1 n ∑ Q ij 3 k =1 − hk −1 ) .64) ) 0 N xx M xx ε0 xx ε yy = [ A1 ] N yy + [B1 ] M yy . N xx A11 N yy = A21 N xy A61 A12 A22 A62 0 A66 ε xx B11 0 A26 ε yy + B21 0 A66 γ xy B61 B12 B22 B62 M xx B11 M yy = B21 M xy B61 B12 B22 B62 0 B66 ε xx D11 0 B26 ε yy + D21 0 B66 γ xy D61 D12 D22 D62 B66 k xx B26 k yy B66 k xy D66 k xx D26 k yy D66 k xy (3.65) Here. [B1 ] = −[A −1 ][B] (D *)−1 [C1 ] = [B1 ] T .66) . determine the mid plane strain and curvature of the laminate. because it relates stress with strain in a lamina. k − h 3 k −1 (3.114 Determination of stiffness matrix is important.62) (3.

0 ε ε xx xx k xx 0 ε yy = ε yy + z k yy γ 0 k xy γ xy xy (3.115 After calculating the mid plane strain and curvature. The corresponding failure mode can also be enlisted as follows: Transverse tension. 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. (− σ 22 ) ≤ (− YC ) (3. Using a particular failure criterion check the condition of all lamina in a laminate. it is possible to obtain induced strain and stress for all lamina. σ 22 ≥ YT (3.67) Induced stresses in each lamina can be found using the stress strain relationship. induced strain in each lamina due to the applied force or moment can be found out using the following relation.69) 2 2 σ τ Combined Shear and transverse tension. 22 + 12 ≥ 1 YT S L (3. σ xx Q11 Q12 σ yy = Q 21 Q 22 τ xy Q 61 Q 62 Q16 ε xx Q 26 ε yy Q 66 γ xy (3. For the case of Modified criteria.71) .68) By changing the value of “z”.70) Transverse Compression.

With reference to Figure 3.35:1 SR = 1:1 80 60 40 Hart-Smith[54] Sun[117] 20 Zinoviev[143] Modified σyy (MPa) -275 -225 -175 -125 -75 0 -25 25 75 Figure 3. . variation is due to the level of treatment of residual thermal stress and effective in-situ ply strengths in the theoretical predictions. But in the transverse stress region. For the case of composite wind turbine blades problem.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. the general shape of stress based criteria are similar and predictions are closer to modified criteria. the shapes are similar but the prediction made by Sun is unconservative and others predictions are nearer to prediction made by Modified criteria.16. This is mainly due to the shortage of good experimental data.116 100 τxy (MPa) 120 SR = -2. in the tensile transverse stress region. making it difficult to arrive at straightforward conclusions regarding the best theory to use for predicting initial failure. Also. experimental data are not available for the initial failure of lamina.

117 Hart-Smith[54] 100 Wolfe[137] Modified τxy (MPa) 120 Eckold[34] SR = 1:1 SR = -2.17 Comparison of modified failure criteria with strain based criteria for initial failure prediction of a laminate of wind 120 SR = -2.18 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 .35:1 τxy (MPa) turbine blade material in τ xy − σ yy field SR = 1:1 100 80 60 40 Edge[37] Hart-Smith[54] Hashin[57] Puck[101] Rotem[109] Tsai[133] Modified -275 -225 -175 -125 20 σyy (MPa) -75 0 -25 25 75 Figure 3.35:1 80 60 40 20 σyy (MPa) 0 -275 -225 -175 -125 -75 -25 25 75 Figure 3.

it yields conservative prediction up to load index of 0. In compressive region. In the compressive transverse stress region. 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 FPCL declares ultimate failure of laminate. either tensile or compressive. Modified failure criteria employ the fundamentals of classical lamination theory with stiffness reduction model. Ply by ply discount procedure is adopted to account for final failure of the laminate. Other criteria like Hashin Hart-Smith. if the failure occurs in matrix material. prediction made by Eckold is very different and is highly conservative in both regions. Once initial failure is encountered in any of the lamina in the laminate.17). All the interactive criteria (Figure 3. the transverse and shear modulus can be reduced separately depending on the specific type of matrix failure mode.18) predict failure points with same shape. 3. Hart-Smith’s prediction is conservative in tensile region. The coding FPCL (Failure Prediction for Composite Laminate) reduces the stiffness of a lamina. The FPCL reduces Q 22 for transverse matrix failure. stiffness of that particular lamina is reduced.e. but Puck and Edge predictions are much less shear stress for various values of tensile and compressive transverse stress.. The . Tsai and Rotem’s predictions are nearer to modified predictions and the other two namely Hashin and Hart-Smith is unconservative.10.3 Predicting Final Strength of Multidirectional Laminates It is an important factor for failure criteria to predict the final failure of a laminate.80.118 For Strain based criteria (Figure 3. i. This FPCL is also capable of differentiating between types of matrix failure if desired. If failure encountered in fiber material. If the failure is due to matrix shear Q 22 and Q 66 are reduced. after that it becomes unconservative. Tsai and Rotem fit well with modified criteria predictions in tensile transverse stress region.

10. B and C are Action Plane Coefficients which were explained in equations (3.S L ST (3.35:1 200 100 σyy (MPa) 0 -500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700 Working Stresses corresponds to Wind Velocities 5. τ T eff + τ L eff SL 2 ≥ 1 (3.72) Longitudinal compression.τ σ A 22 + B.19 to 3. 20 & 25 m/sec Figure 3.73) In -plane shear. It can be seen that from Figures 3. (− σ 11 ) ≤ (− X C ) (3.74) Combined longitudinal compression and shear. there 500 Hart-Smith[54] Sun[117] 400 Zinoviev[143] τxy (MPa) is a scatter in experimental data in tensile transverse region of the plot.75) Combined Transverse compression and shear.50). SR = 1:1 Modified Experimental Data[28] 300 Working Stresses SR = -2.76) where A. 15. (τ 12 )2 ≥ S L S T (3. 2 2 τ σ . 12 ≥ 1 SL S T .48) to (3.21.19 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 .119 Modified Criteria declares a composite laminate as failed ultimately if any one of the following condition is satisfied. σ 11 ≥ X T (3. 22 12 + C. Longitudinal tension.

10. 10. Among the interactive criteria. Hart-Smith prediction is good along with Modified Criteria.120 Working stresses in the wind turbine blade when it is operating with 5. Zinoviev’s prediction is little conservative in both quadrants. Edge and Hashin’s criteria predict the failure well with similar curve shape in transverse compressive region. (Figure 3. Puck. but they are more conservative in tensile region. Predictions made by Wolfe and Eckold are very much conservative and they lie in the region of initial failure. . 20 & 25 m/sec 700 Figure 3.35:1 300 200 100 σyy (MPa) 0 -500 -300 -100 100 300 500 Working Stresses corresponds to Wind Velocities 5. SR = 1:1 Modified Experimental Data[28] Working Stresses SR = -2.20).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 3.21). Especially in transverse tensile region it is not capable of predicting the maximum shear stress data point. Predictions made by Tsai and Rotem are very much conservative and they lie in initial failure region. 15. 15. prediction made by Hart-Smith fit well with experimental data. Among the stress based criteria which were shown in Figure 3.19. HartSmith’s predictions fit well in first quadrant whereas it becomes conservative 500 Eckold[34] Hart-Smith[54] Wolfe[137] 400 τxy (MPa) in transverse compressive region. 20 and 25 m/sec are also plotted in these figures.

0664 and 0.6 to 3. 0. Hart-Smith and Zinoviev are also having a minimum value of SE with 0.0752 respectively. Modified criteria has a least SE of 0.0581.22 and 3.35:1 respectively. For predicting the final failure of the wind turbine blade material. 10.23 shows the bar chart comparison between various prediction at stress ratio of 1:1 and -2. 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. .500 Edge[37] Hart-Smith[54] Hashin[57] τxy (MPa) 121 SR = 1:1 400 Puck[101] Rotem[109] Tsai[133] 300 Modified Experimental Data[28] Working Stresses 200 SR = -2.0625.8 show the error in prediction of failure for various criteria. Puck. Tables 3.35:1 100 0 -500 -300 -100 σyy (MPa) 100 300 500 700 Working Stresses corresponds to Wind Velocities 5. 15.21 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. 20 & 25 m/sec Figure 3.

30 0.28 0.80 0.38 0.03 0.02 0.73 0.72 0.4 0.47 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.00 0.97 1 σtheo/σexp 0.44 0.2 Ed ge M od ifi ed Sm ith H ar t- H as hi n k Pu c Su n i Zi no vi ev Ts a Ro te m Ec ko ld W ol fe 0 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 1.63 0.8 0.122 1.82 0.6 0.39 0.2 0.23 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 .71 1.70 0.71 0.38 1.82 0.99 σtheo /σexp 1 0.2 M od if ie d Sm ith H as hi n H ar t- Pu ck Su n Ed ge Zi no vi ev R ot em Ts ai W ol fe Ec ko ld 0 Figure 3.4 1.73 0.

0 178.9 -100.9 -220.0 350.0 -- Modified τ xy -- RE (%) -- 175.9 71.9 149.4 260.9 -47.0 -19.5 29.0 SE -- RE (%) -- 9.0 -50.5 -320.0 -7.0 250.0 226.0 95.1 -- -- 45.5 -35.0 240.7 -78.2 -280.6 RE (%) -4.3 -2.3 -18.0 450.0 280.1 32.3 6.9 184.6 -0.0 300.2 83.0 73.1 321.5 8.8 --117.0 -18.2 -23.0 44.0 225.0 297.9 225.0 150.7 1.0 200.0 260.0 -9.8 205.6 225.5 -350.0 80.0 213.0 224.8 59.1 -41.4 111.1 -24.0 -77.3 -23.0 -7.8 -44.4 7.5 323.2 3.8 166.8 254.6 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 τ xy -- RE (%) -- 162.0 250.0927 τ xy 69.0 0.7 60.4 48.2 -28.0752 18.0 2.7 250.0 11.5 -13.0 -13.0 150.0 140.0 275.8 -28.7 277.8 -11.9 -17.4 -59.0943 -- -0.0 251.0 -25.7 -20.2 249.0 267.0 480.2 -79.7 -62.1 0.6 9.2 -0.0 331.0 198.1 0.4 164.5 213.0581 .1 212.7 -130.7 345.0 -25.0 -10.0 -- -- 430.8 34.3 -21.2 90.0 -12.4 296.1 --- --- 73.2 -0.0 250.5 274.5 231.0 410.0 205.4 320.0 σ yy τ xy τ xy 520.6 244.5 -71.0 10.1 2.0 180.3 274.0 -70.0 250.5 220.5 -17.0 225.0 -28.2 34.0 171.2 264.7 -49.6 283.0 128.1 -7.0 -29.9 225.4 -70.9 -60.1 235.2 300.2 1.7 225.1 225.2 225.0 150.2 225.4 74.2 -69.0 307.7 -51.5 0.0 55.5 -380.0 300.0 -300.0 -16.4 0.3 -16.4 250.4 -- -- 31.0 199.6 -17.7 -10.1 75.6 -2.2 225.8 187.3 0.8 10.1 -26.0 255.8 307.9 59.2 -1.0 -20.8 178.0 160.1 259.0 110.0 400.7 223.6 -150.4 -51.5 200.8 243.123 Table 3.3 270.0 192.0 178.2 1.1 0.1 -44.

9 -85.1610 0.6 22.2 150.4 400.0 -29.4 -220.9 -0.0 -- -- -- -- 224.0 -78.5 -13.0 300.0 175.0 95.0 250.6 -300.0 321.1 260.0581 .2 9.2 274.0 -70.0 270.7 323.8 105.8 6.6 -2.3 -85.0 -25.0 35.0 300.6 -96.1 267.0 180.5 7.0 250.7 -10.2 -280.0 150.7 11.0 275.0 -- -- -- 178.0 140.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.6 296.0 -- -- -- -- 225.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 149.0 SE 0.0 -- -- -- -- 212.2 225.6 -17.0 -25.0 -19.0 -13.0 250.1 225.7 34.0 350.3 2.8 -86.8 -76.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 111.5 -94.0 -16.5 -380.8 -- -- 200.8 225.0 243.5 255.0 10.4 -90.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 164.8 430.1 -7.6 225.7 264.4 1.4 30.0 32.0 9.0752 0.0 160.0 450.5 60.4 -66.0 307.1 0.2 -2.7 1.4 -83.8 231.1 480.2 -90.2 205.1 277.0 110.0 320.8 225.9 410.0 300.6 -4.3 34.6 -150.9 -17.0 -- -- -- -- 51.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 69.0 -18.1 184.5 -350.7 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 (%) 520.3 -80.0 -- -- 0.5 250.0 260.1 225.0 225.0 -- -- 10.0 -- -- -- -- 225.3 -67.4 40.1 32.4 -87.2 -79.0 250.4 250.0 0.8 -- -- 225.0 200.2 71.3 0.0 41.4 48.3 90.0 -- -- -- -- 187.1 -85.124 Table 3.9 0.5 -7.1 80.6 274.0 -- -- -- -- 162.2851 0.0 -65.0 51.5 -320.0 -10.3 -0.0 106.0 280.2 -0.9 -1.0 63.6 -100.6 24.7 -130.3 -50.0 150.

2 -63.9 -44.1 150.4 ------------0.0 56.6 -4.0 0.5 176.0 -28.3 -0.0 --175.1 -21.3 90.2 368.6 -78.6 205.4 48.7 20.4 -51.0 -26.4 241.0 255.7 20.1 -11.3 122.3 2.9 -4.6 321.5 -13.0 -380.7 1.7 -11.0 -150.9 182.2 -31.5 149.0 -220.3 264.9 200.6 243.2 -23.2 130.6 -2.4 95.0 -5.5 -25.0 350.9 97.4 132.0 -12.4 0.0 180.3 -23.5 -74.8 -20.5 69.0 83.4 -59.Table 3.6 225.6 240.0 --280.7 -26.8 7.6 -28.8 168.1 179.8 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 σ yy 520.5 -40.8 187.1 -1.0 178.0 -320.5 111.5 139.4 114.0 250.0 295.5 7.0 -16.2 ----------0.8 -42.7 -33.4 137.9 SE 0.4 200.2 125.9 98.1 275.0 -52.0 175.5 260.2 -60.9 105.1 160.7 -17.5 -59.4 220.6 -19.8 189.0 -44.9 65.0 -10.2 -27.2 -21.0 300.1 132.1 10.0 -51.5 -35.1 ----------0.6 7.0 -300.7 47.2 69.9 338.4 321.1878 τ xy Rotem RE (%) --------------53.9 96.0 -44.0 300.2 -7.1 150.5 -54.0 191.7 11.4 245.9 0.7 270.2 178.8 228.0 171.0 296.0 480.1 215.9 -0.4 102.0 210.2034 τ xy Puck RE (%) 133.9 -4.0 -45.7 -22.0 43.6 -65.2 -47.9 -1.1 274.5 92.0 -2.2 323.4 172.8 180.0 247.0 -350.5 323.5 -60.8 5.4 277.7 231.1 161.0 -49.0625 τ xy Edge RE (%) ------------268.8 15.6 164.5 238.0 95.0 -19.4 -24.5 -73.0 250.0 240.0 -24.4 -28.0 -48.0 430.2 148.0 --140.0 -50.0 150.2 -2.0 73.0 196.7 292.0 410.6 166.3 -67.0 222.5 134.0825 τ xy Hart-Smith τ xy RE (%) --223.1 27.6 -8.0 211.9 245.0664 Modified RE (%) 9.8 -52.6 225.0 -130.9 217.7 131.0 τ xy Tsai RE (%) ------------------130.0 195.3 0.0 202.0 266.0 307.1 -7.5 280.1 110.0 450.1 80.4 -62.2 71.5 231.0 -280.5 -2.8 250.9 274.0 -12.0949 τ xy .0 -22.6 -26.0581 τ xy 125 Hashin RE (%) 10.9 -7.1 0.0 260.0 -100.8 199.1 -19.6 -12.1 107.3 -159.2 -0.3 -45.0 128.0 300.0 75.4 320.8 260.7 101.6 -82.1 -30.0 -28.7 -15.0 297.0 250.1 250.5 250.0 0.3 215.1 195.6 -69.0 -21.0 -14.4 -63.8 267.1 78.0 -70.6 203.2 9.6 --------0.4 -73.8 6.0 30.0 59.4 -18.4 1.0 400.6 50.

4 Strain Response of Lamina under Uniaxial Loading The stress strain curves for the unidirectional loading case for stress based criteria.10.24 Comparison of strain predictive capability of stress based criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade under uniaxial loading . strain based criteria and interactive criteria are shown in Figures 3. all the curves are very similar in shape for predictions made by stress based criterion. especially in longitudinal direction. It was observed that. Among the strain based criteria.126 3. The slope of curve predicted by Sun was shallower than the others.5 -1 Modified Experimental Data[28] -0. Prediction made by Wolfe is very much conservative and not capable of predicting the final failure.5 1 1.5 2 0 εxx (%) ε yy (%) Figure 3. Among them. In Rotem's analysis. Final Prediction σ yy (MPa) -150 -100 Hart Smith[54] Sun[117] -50 Initial Prediction Zinoviev[143] -1. there is an abrupt increase in strain associated with initial failure.5 0 0. Predictions made by all interactive criteria are similar in shape except for those of Rotem.22.20 to 3. prediction made by Eckold extends only up to initial failure region. prediction made by Hart-Smith is shallower than the others.

5 -1 Wolfe[137] Modified Experimental Data[28] -0.127 Final Prediction σyy (MPa) -150 -100 Eckold[34] -50 Initial Prediction Hart Smith[54] -1.5 2 0 ε xx (%) εyy (%) Figure 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 ε yy (%) εxx (%) Figure 3.25 Comparison of strain predictive capability of strain based criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade under uniaxial loading Final Prediction σyy (MPa) -150 -100 Edge[37] Hart Smith[54] Hashin[57] Puck[101] Rotem[109] Tsai[133] Modified Experimental Data[28] Initial Prediction -50 -1.5 0 0.5 -1 -0.26 Comparison of strain predictive capability of interactive criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade under uniaxial loading .5 1 1.

6 0.05 0.4 0.00 0.51 0.6 0.90 0.95 1.95 0.00 1.128 1.89 0.90 1.77 0.2 n sh i Ha k Pu c ai Ts Ed ge Su n od if i ed M Ha rt Sm i th ov ie v Zi n tem Ro ol fe W Ec ko l d 0 Figure 3.64 0.8 0.89 0.28 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 .96 1.68 0.2 0.03 1.07 1.00 0.4 0.10 1.2 εtheo /εexp 1 0.89 ε theo /ε exp 1 0.27 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 1.8 0.2 H as hi n ov ie v Zi n Pu ck M od if i ed Su n i H ar t Ts a Ed ge W ol fe Sm ith 0 Figure 3.96 0.

27 and 3.5 Response of the Lamina under Biaxial Loading The stress strain curves under biaxial tension (SR -1. Hashin and Tsai relatively made good predictions. Figure 3. Zinoviev. Predictive capabilities of various theories are compared in bar charts as shown in Figures 3.81: 1) for various criteria were shown in Figures 3.10.28.129 Most predictions showed only a small reduction in stiffness after initial failure. 3. Modified. 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.31.29 Comparison of strain predictive capability of stress based criteria for E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade under biaxial loading . depending upon the theory used. Among all criteria Puck. The initial failure stress was in the range of 5-55MPa while the final failure stress was in the range of 50-155MPa.29 to 3.

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 .

4 1.8 0.2 1.00 1.03 1.59 0.80 Wolfe Hart Smith 0.4 0.00 1.8 0.2 1.05 εtheo /εexp 0.10 1.02 1.02 1.30 0.94 1 1.00 Puck Modified Zinoviev Edge Sun 1 0.4 0.2 0 Tsai Hashin Figure 3.131 1.77 0.15 1.02 1.6 1.6 0.60 ε theo /ε exp 1.2 Sm ith H ar t H as hi n Su n i Ts a M od if i ed Pu ck Ed ge ov ie v Zi n W ol fe em Ro t Ec ko l d 0 Figure 3.05 0.6 0.99 0.00 1.00 1.32 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 1.33 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 .

From the bar chart. strain based criteria and interactive criteria of [0/ ± 45/90]s Laminate.6 Strain Response of [0/ ± 45/90]s Laminate under Unidirectional Loading Figures 3. Modified.34 Comparison of strain predictive capability of stress based criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade under uniaxial loading .10. prediction made by various theories were also remarkably similar to one another.5 -200 Hart Smith[54] -150 Sun[117] Zinoviev[143] -100 Modified Experimental Data[28] -50 0 0. Modes of failure are also similar to that of unidirectional failure. Edge. Zinoviev.33.5 1 1. In this case also slope of curve predicted by Sun was shallower than the others. 3. σyy (MPa) -550 Final Prediction -500 -450 -400 -350 -300 Initial Prediction -250 -1.36 shows the stress strain curves for the unidirectional loading case for stress based criteria.5 2 0 ε xx (%) ε yy (%) Figure 3.34 to 3.132 Similar to that of unidirectional loading.5 -1 -0. predictions made by Puck. Majority of theories gave values of final failure stresses which were close to one another. In this case also Rotem showed a step in his predictions. Sun and Tsai were good.32 and 3. shown in Figures 3. Prediction made by Eckold terminates with initial failure region itself.

Among them. 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. In transverse direction all criteria are slightly unconservative. especially in longitudinal direction. two stages by Edge and Puck.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. prediction made by Eckold extends only up to initial failure region. Among the strain based criteria. prediction made by Hart-Smith is shallower than the others. In Rotem's analysis.133 It was observed that. -550 σyy (MPa) Final Prediction -500 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 Eckold[34] Initial Prediction -200 -1. three stages by Wolfe.5 2 0 ε xx (%) ε yy (%) Figure 3.5 Hart Smith[54] Wolfe[137] -150 Modified -100 -50 Experimental Data[28] 0 0. all the curves are very similar in shape for predictions made by stress based criterion. Failure was predicted to take place in one stage by Hart-Smith.5 -1 -0. there is an abrupt increase in strain associated with initial failure. Predictions made by all interactive criteria are similar in shape except for those of Rotem. Zinoviev. . The slope of curve predicted by Sun was shallower than the others.5 1 1. Prediction made by Wolfe is very much conservative and not capable of predicting the final failure.

In this case also slope of curve predicted by Sun was shallower than the others. In almost all the theories where more than one stage of failure is predicted.5 1 Modified Experimental 1. 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. prediction made by various theories were also remarkably similar to one another. In this case also Rotem showed a step in his predictions. -550 -450 -400 σyy (MPa) Final Prediction -500 -350 Initial Prediction -300 -1. . Similar to that of unidirectional loading.5 -1 -0.7 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. Hashin and Tsai relatively made good predictions.37 to 3.5 -250 Edge[37] Hart Smith[54] -200 Hashin[57] Puck[101] -150 Rotem[109] Tsai[133] -100 -50 0 0. Depending upon the predictive capabilities and error involved in predicting the failure. it can be concluded that Puck.134 Tsai and Modified and in four stages by Sun. Modified. Prediction made by Eckold terminates with initial failure region itself.10.39. Zinoviev.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.

37 Comparison of strain predictive capability of stress based criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade under biaxial loading Figure 3.135 Figure 3.38 Comparison of strain predictive capability of strain based criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade under biaxial loading .

The initial failure stress ranged from -5MPa to -140MPa while the final stress ranged from -132MPa to -318MPa. Zinoviev.136 Majority of theories gave values of final failure stresses which were close to one another. Puck. Tsai and Zinoviev showed four stages of failure. Comparing the predictive capabilities. 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. which were perpendicular to the loading direction in this case. Figure 3. Modified. all predicting initial failure due to transverse tension in matrix in the 00 plies. and final failure by longitudinal tension in the 900 plies. Stages of failure were similar to those shown for unidirectional loading case. Edge.39 Comparison of strain predictive capability of interactive criteria for E-glass epoxy laminate for wind turbine blade under biaxial loading . predictions made by Puck. Wolfe. Sun and Tsai were good. Sun.

Predictions made by Sun.41. which were shown in Figure 3. it seems that the criteria predicts only initial failure and is not extending beyond up to final . 900 SR = 1:2 SR -1:3 600 σxx(MPa) SR =1:1 300 σyy (MPa) 0 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 400 500 600 Hart Smith[54] Sun[117] Zinoviev[143] Modified Experimental data[28] SR = 1:-1 -600 Figure 3.11 show standard error comparison in which Zinoviev and Modified criterion ends with 0.40 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 3.40). prediction made by Wolfe is highly conservative. In the other regions it yields only unconservative predictions.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. Hart-Smith’s prediction fits well in compressive transverse and tensile longitudinal quadrant alone. Zinoviev and Modified criteria fits relatively well with experimental data points.0671 respectively.137 3.9 to 3. From the failure envelope. Among the stress based criteria. For strain based criteria.0763 and 0. (Figure 3.

prediction made by modified criteria. The error comparison also favors modified criteria as a better one in . Hashin and Edge are fit well with experimental data points and these criteria are capable of predicting maximum stress points. Eckold’s prediction is unconservative in second and third quadrants and is conservative in others.42). In the other regions it yields only unconservative predictions. Hart-Smith’s prediction fits well in second quadrant alone. As similar to stress based prediction.1198 each for Wolf and Eckold’s prediction.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. Prediction made by Hart-Smith is partially good in one region and is unconservative in other regions. Among the interactive criteria (Figure 3. Also it can not predict the high stress point in the first quadrant.138 failure point.0992 for Hart-Smith and 0. Predictions made by Tsai and Rotem lie only in initial failure region. σxx(MPa) 800 SR = -1:3 SR = 1:2 500 SR = 1:1 200 σyy (MPa) -300 -200 -100 -100 0 -400 -700 100 200 300 400 Eckold[34] Hart Smith[54] Wolfe[137] Modified Experimental data[28] 500 600 SR = 1:-1 Figure 3. Puck.

139 predicting the failure of wind turbine blade material in σ yy − σ xx field. -1:3 and 1:2 respectively.46 show the predictive capability comparison of various theories in bar chart at stress ratios of 1:1.42 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 .43 to 3. 1:-1. SR = 1:2 SR = 1:1 500 200 σyy (MPa) -300 -200 -100 -100 0 -400 100 200 300 SR = 1:-1 -700 400 500 600 Edge[37] Hart Smith[54] Hashin[57] Puck[101] Rotem[109] Tsai[133] Modified Experimental data[28] Figure 3. Figures 3. At all stress levels modified criteria is capable of predicting the failure with good 800 SR = -1:3 σxx (MPa) amount of accuracy.

4 755.0 741.2 20.4 11.4 420.0 729.4 104.0 -- -- -173.0 475.0 725.1 18.7 754.6 -13.1 -0.0 710.0 297.4 9.9 10.8 735.8 600.8 400.0 625.3 727.0 600.0 749.2 -20.3 -66.0 650.1 648.0 0.7 -1.6 30.9 350.5 553.0 211.0 42.6 345.0 850.0 480.0 36.0 47.0 -30.0 54.7 -27.7 850.6 -40.1 26.8 759.7 -210.2 749.8 399.0 -3.0 30.0 140.9 400.6 850.0 480.5 850.6 0.8 -16.0 645.0671 .9 0.2 28.6 235.0 -350.1 68.7 730.3 746.0 590.9 687.0 752.0 0.8 23.0 17.0 365.0 625.0 16.0 699.0 3.6 633.0 380.7 39.140 Table 3.0 375.0 -400.6 -28.0 575.7 27.4 752.0852 0.2 850.0 -1.0 625.0763 0.6 26.0 -- -247.2 4.0 -30.2 748.0 540.7 611.5 260.8 337.4 -29.4 15.4 850.4 SE 0.4 30.9 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 -300.0 159.0 475.3 -20.2 31.0 -350.6 850.7 325.0 32.0 125.2 -16.7 6.0 110.0 16.7 38.0 33.3 -30.3 350.6 -6.4 -16.8 19.0 270.2 -425.0 33.0 -400.1 32.4 -42.0 720.3 2.0 550.9 19.0 595.0 745.0 33.0994 0.6 6.0 270.7 2.2 -78.0 -300.9 30.4 696.7 729.6 175.8 643.0 57.6 3.0 36.0 749.3 16.3 -394.8 215.8 62.0 44.0 312.8 682.7 -210.0 666.0 654.0 19.5 850.8 850.7 220.3 -400.8 499.1 37.9 850.0 225.8 0.0 -200.7 499.7 29.0 716.

4 SE 0.6 648.0 125.141 Table 3.3 -400.0 1.0 480.4 -38.0 12.0 590.8 -400.0 10.8 0.0 260.7 13.9 0.800.0 600.-247.3 800.2 0.1 18.0 -650.800.3 2.0 334.0 -.0 -- -.8 22.0 23.3 -650.2 4.0 -- -- -- -.0 -33.0 33.0 140.0 28.0 650.0 -200.0 595.1 -21.0 -300.9 379.0 45.7 651.6 -40.0 -300.0 699.0 625.2 31.4 420.8 62.8 -48.0 550.6 235.0 -.0 83.0 -.2 -63.0992 τ 12 RE (%) 0.0 540.0 389.7 220.0 480.0 -68.5 600.1198 τ 12 Modified τ 12 RE (%) τ 12 Hart-Smith RE (%) 0.9 400.7 4.0 -212.5 260.0 -1.1 365.0 34.5 651.0 33.5 800.800.10 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 σ 22 Wolfe Eckold τ 12 -75.7 -.7 730.0 28.0 152.0 8.3 800.8 23.3 -394.800.7 29.9 350.0 710.5 553.104.9 13.5 -5.800.3 350.-400.0 -- -- -- -- 50.0 0.3 -30.0 600.1 643.1 682.9 -- -.3 749.0 654.6 501.0 -56.6 651.7 -37.3 546.0 375.0 48.0 625.0 362.800.4 11.0 550.7 10.0 -200.274.1 696.0 39.6 175.0 270.0 475.6 3.0 455.0 -- -- -- -- -24.0 -- -- -- -.6 651.0 -- -- -- -.7 8.2 -78.9 -- -.4 -42.0671 .0 33.-188.9 -29.-400.1198 RE (%) 0.0 575.0 0.0 225.7 -1.2 -.7 0.0 -- -- -- -.0 -86.0 110.7 651.3 800.7 325.0 625.2 -16.0 35.9 10.4 15.5 687.7 215.0 725.

0 48.0 0.0 643.9 50.0 590.1 -21.3 -399.0992 Modified τ 12 RE (%) 365.3 768.7 716.5 744.7 -43.0 -16.8 645.3 -20.1 522.6 402.0 270.9 -400.2 56.8 611.8 19.0 480.0 50.6 -44.6 -247.3 729.0 420.4 41.0 648.0 -54.0 380.2 745.6 -2.0 -300.2 -17.0 540.2 -16.6 -40.0 -450.6 800.9 -6.1 800.5 34.9 800.1 5.1 7.8 720.8 625.7 0.1 700.1 37.0 625.0 33.6 3.2 644.0 235.2 -16.8 -200.0 375.0 34.4 -92.9 730.0 600.5 696.0 21.0 110.1030 Rotem τ 12 RE (%) 126.0 501.4 44.2 598.7 -6.3 0.1 0.3 -6.7 29.Table 3.0 480.5 800.9 749.7 800.2328 Puck τ 12 RE (%) 297.7 -1.3 517.0 357.3 -394.2 -78.1 -55.0 260.0 -40.4 553.0 225.1 -17.0 16.0 -342.6 488.0 654.3 -206.6 475.0875 Hart-Smith τ 12 RE (%) 274.0 400.5 19.0 0.8 22.0 33.3 -400.0 -3.7 -50.0 -33.8 4.0 635.8 744.7 -350.6 -22.4 535.2 31.2 762.0 699.3 800.0 800.0 -1.0 575.5 ---------------------250.1 800.3 11.8 475.0 5.7 682.7 -400.3 215.9 8.9 29.1 -33.8 ---350.4 30.4 11.6 709.0 125.7 -27.0 600.0 710.4 749.3 48.0994 Edge τ 12 RE (%) 338.0 175.7 749.2 266.3 2.0 SE Hashin τ 12 RE (%) 226.11 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 σ 22 τ 12 -75.3 800.2 -377.0 650.1 379.9 10.8 554.0 -86.0 33.0 45.2 -91.4 15.0 10.1 -0.0 16.7 2.8 0.5 34.2 10.1 25.0 625.0 50.0 35.5 321.4 659.4 -42.2 466.2 634.1 619.2 760.5 800.2 -20.7 --450.7 -302.4 --474.1 800.2 4.3 772.8 --134.7 0.4 470.8 534.0 10.5 265.3 -59.5 -84.0 28.7 6.4 9.6 30.0 -300.2 -31.0 550.3 275.0 32.4 -0.9 0.7 104.7 555.7 4.0 741.0 220.0 350.0 23.0 2.3 159.0 -200.0 350.6 687.0671 142 .4 0.8 0.3 -66.0 12.0 0.0 595.6 659.0 --400.6 14.5 4.0 0.5 -24.0 28.3 -94.8 270.7 195.7 -27.8 23.4 39.0 725.5 714.0 -30.0789 Tsai τ 12 RE (%) 250.0 325.8 62.0 140.4 654.0 39.6 26.7 -1.0 45.3 -14.0 800.5 -----------30.0 -3.9 676.7 -33.3 0.4 666.1 18.

03 1.91 1 exp theo σ /σ 1.66 0.01 1.2 1.21 0.4 1.6 0.44 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 .64 0.2 it h Sm rt Ha M Ha sh i n Su n ck od if i ed Pu ai Zi no vi ev Ed Ts ge d ko l Ec W Ro ol fe tem 0 Figure 3.4 0.2 Ha r tS m ith n H as hi M od ifi ed ov iev Zi n Su n k Pu c Ed ge i Ts a W ol fe d Ec ko l Ro t em 0 Figure 3.8 0.43 1.77 0.08 1.71 0.00 1.8 theo σ /σ exp 0.6 1.31 1.143 1.06 0.2 1.80 0.66 0.74 0.6 0.43 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 1.4 0.02 1.11 0.14 0.14 1 0.07 1.02 1.

73 0.02 0.23 0.80 0.144 1.45 0.4 0.45 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 2.82 0.5 ld ko Ec Zi no v ie v n Su ge Ed ck Pu ai Ts Sm ith n rt sh i Ha Ha tem Ro od M W o lf ifi ed e 0 Figure 3.59 0.6 0.90 0.8 0.4 1.25 1.5 2.10 theo σ /σ exp 1 0.91 0.20 1.73 0.99 0.2 od ifi ed Ha rt Sm i th Ed ge Su n ov ie v k M Zi n Pu c Ha sh i n d i Ec ko l Ts a em Ro t W ol fe 0 Figure 3.00 1.46 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 .2 1.01 1.10 1.5 1.20 1.67 1.75 0.20 0.00 theo σ /σ exp 2 1 1.

the predictive capabilities of Non interactive and interactive failure criteria were studied. Thus.145 3. Strain response of the laminate as well as induced stresses predicted by various theories was compared with experimental results. The Parallel Spring model for stiffness reductions is adequate for analysis of laminate strengths. At the lamina level. Modified criteria stood first in reasonable failure prediction. Experimental results indicate that matrix cracking does take place even in laminates with well dispersed laminae. 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. Failure envelopes were constructed in σ 22 − τ 12 field using Stress based. the ply-by-ply discount of stiffness in failed laminae is justified. 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. In this case the results shown by Modified criteria for failure prediction are remarkable. those criteria which separate the fiber failure mode from the matrix failure mode are the most reasonable and accurate. Classical Laminated Theory was employed to analyze the failure of laminate with stiffness reduction model.12 CONCLUDING REMARKS In this study. The standard error in failure prediction for various criteria was also tabulated. 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. .

- Basic Concepts of Strength of MaterialsUploaded byMRABSENI
- Richard Garrison Material Science Lab 1Uploaded byRich Garr
- AISI 4340 SteelUploaded byAndy Huff
- 11 energy methodsUploaded bytigin
- G39Uploaded bynksonia
- 802694_ch9Uploaded bymvjayaram007
- Cubierta_LermaUploaded byPoint García Guerrero
- Strength Criteria for CompositeUploaded byNguyễn Hoàng Thành
- Properties and Characteristics of Engineering MaterialsUploaded byiamjemah
- Ch06 Introduction to Static Failure TheoriesUploaded byIsczu
- Uct ReportUploaded byilasensei
- Ss16MCE 321-Chapter 5 Failure-Theories2Uploaded byMostafa Sabea
- WSM & LSMUploaded bySantosh Rai
- Sagaseta09bUploaded byoqusous
- Reinforced Concrete Design Lecture 03 Strength of BeamsUploaded byglen cristian rivera
- Fiber_reinforced_polymer(FRP).pdfUploaded bySunil Salathia
- IRJET-Design Analysis and Fabrication of Roll Cage of M-Baja ATVUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Pipeline Hydro Test Pressure Determination _ Pipeline & Gas JournalUploaded bylewgne08
- geoCoPS1Uploaded byWaldo Enrique Quispe Palomino
- 2 Axial LoadingUploaded byPavan Nishad
- Modern Pulley Design Techniques and Failure Analysis MethodsUploaded byChris
- CowlUploaded byvkms
- LRFD - Design - Bridge - Structures - Federal Highway Administration 9Uploaded byDiane Mahal KO
- Functionality 13Uploaded byCesar Rodolfo Angulo Delgado
- 2014-Prediction of Behavior of CeramicMetal Composite Panels Under Two Consecutive Ballistic ImpactsUploaded byvenkatesanjs
- TEMA CONSTRUCCIONES MINERAS ingles.docxUploaded byFederico Alberto
- Else Vier 05Uploaded byJose Alberto Aponte Cachay
- 12018Uploaded bywerdubob
- Question BankUploaded byVishnu Gupta
- Tunnel support in weak rock (Hoek,1998).pdfUploaded byniken tri ayuning

- Fracture MechanicsUploaded byNishant Patil
- torsion in beam.pdfUploaded byNishant Patil
- ANSYS APDL introductory Tutorials.pdfUploaded byNishant Patil
- Direct Stiffness Method - WikipediaUploaded byNishant Patil
- Rules for JournalUploaded byNishant Patil
- tour package -1.pdfUploaded byNishant Patil
- Solved_ Number of Nodes is Less Than Number of Elements - Autodesk CommunityUploaded byNishant Patil
- Torsional Analysis of a Circular ShaftUploaded byNishant Patil
- 1-s2.0-S0093641304001041-mainUploaded byNishant Patil
- Cap09Uploaded byNishant Patil
- Tour Package -1Uploaded byNishant Patil
- 1Uploaded byNishant Patil
- Building the Finite Element ModelUploaded byNishant Patil
- Detailed Explanation of the Finite Element Method (FEM)Uploaded byNishant Patil
- tour package -2.pdfUploaded byNishant Patil
- thesis 1Uploaded byNishant Patil
- A Structural Mechanics Approach for Predicting Mechanical Properties of CNTUploaded byNishant Patil
- Carbon Nanotubes – Structure, Properties AndUploaded byNishant Patil
- Assignment 5Uploaded byNishant Patil
- 9.1 nodesUploaded byNishant Patil
- Flow Cart 123Uploaded byNishant Patil
- Ansys tutorials.pdfUploaded byNishant Patil
- ME532_ES_SOL.pdfUploaded byNishant Patil
- Carbon Nanotube Metal Matrix CompositesUploaded byNishant Patil
- Cocubes Placement Paper 2Uploaded byNishant Patil
- sol_q2Uploaded byNishant Patil
- Analysis of Elastic Properties of Transversely Isotropic Cntreinforced PolymersUploaded byNishant Patil
- Cocubes Placement Paper 1Uploaded byNishant Patil
- Effect of Fiber Geometry and RepresentativeUploaded byNishant Patil
- A Finite Element Approach for Estimation of Young’sUploaded byNishant Patil