You are on page 1of 18

A Fatigue Damage Model for (0/90) FRP

Composites based on Stiffness Degradation
of 0 and 90 Composite Plies

A. VARVANI-FARAHANI* AND A. SHIRAZI
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada

ABSTRACT: The present study develops a stiffness reduction based model to characterize fatigue
damage in unidirectional 0 and 90 plies and (0 /90 ) laminates of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
composites. The proposed damage model has been developed, based on (i) cracking mechanism and
damage progress in matrix (Region I), matrix-fiber interface (Region II) and fiber (Region III) and
(ii) corresponding stiffness reduction of unidirectional composite laminates as the number of cycles
progresses. Fatigue damage of (0/90) composite systems was obtained by integrating damage values
and occurred in composite plies of 0 and 90 under fatigue cycles.
The predicted fatigue damage results based on the proposed damage model were found to be in
good agreement for both unidirectional and (0/90) FRP composites, as they were compared with
experimental data for these materials, tested at various cyclic stress levels, stress ratios, and off-axis
angles reported in the literature.

KEY WORDS: fatigue damage, FRP unidirectional and (0/90) composite system, matrix cracking,
fiber-matrix interface, factor f.

INTRODUCTION

IBER-REINFORCED POLYMER (FRP) composites are broadly used in various industries
F to manufacture load-bearing engineering components with a high strength/weight
ratio. FRP components are extensively used in the aerospace and automotive industries.
Durability and fatigue damage assessment of these materials under cyclic loading
conditions is of prime concern and requires extensive research investigation.
For predicting the life and modeling the damage of these components under cyclic
loading, many theories have been developed. Existing fatigue damage theories in FRP
composites can be classified into four categories: (i) macroscopic failure theories;
(ii) strength degradation fatigue theories; (iii) actual damage mechanisms fatigue theories;
and (iv) stiffness reduction fatigue theories. The latter theories correspond to the
degradation of composite stiffness as fatigue cycles increase. Several researchers [1–5] have
investigated fatigue damage response of unidirectional FRP composites based on the
reduction of the composite stiffness as the number of fatigue cycles increased.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: avarvani@ryerson.ca
Figure 13 appears in color online: http://: jrp.sagepub.com

Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES, Vol. 26, No. 13/2007 1319
0731-6844/07/13 1319–18 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0731684407079771
ß SAGE Publications 2007
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore

[7] developed a mathematical description of a stiffness-based damage model for unidirectional Nicalon fiber-reinforced borosilicate glass-ceramic matrix composite. Terms Vf and Ef correspond to fiber volume fraction and elastic modulus. off-axis angle. and c correspond to matrix. subscripts m. Stiffness changes with respect to fatigue cycles were continuously monitored and correlated to fatigue stress level. In the first bracket. This is explained by . f. respectively. SHIRAZI Philippidis et al. [2] employed an earlier developed empirical model of Andersen et al. [6] to describe stiffness changes of GRP composite specimens as fatigue cycles progressed. respectively. EN/E1. and the other linear. Ramakrishnan et al. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. mean stress and matrix-fibre bonding strength with respect to the applied stress cycles. one logarithmic. which depends on the number of stress cycles N and cyclic amplitude stress  a. In their model. the stiffness reduction due to matrix damage was partitioned between the two rate processes over progressive fatigue cycles. They have adopted a statistical analysis to correlate stiffness reduction with number of fatigue cycles.1320 A. The damage progress in GRP composite specimens was evaluated by measuring stiffness degradation. Material constants K and c are determined by curve fitting of experimental data for EN/E1. respectively and E0 is the Young’s modulus of the undamaged material. ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DAMAGE MODEL FOR FRP UNIDIRECTIONAL COMPOSITES [8] Any physically based damage model for a composite must use contributions from individual constituents as building blocks to determine the overall damage to the composite. The model predicted the drop in the composite stiffness as a function of fatigue cycles using mechanical properties of the composite constituents. fiber-matrix interface. The present study has attempted to develop a stiffness-reduction damage model to characterize fatigue damage of 0 and 90 unidirectional plies and its extension to (0 /90 ) FRP composite systems while taking into account the effects of cyclic stress magnitude. The total stiffness degradation as functions of the number fatigue cycles and properties of composite constituents was given as: (       ) E Em Vm lnðN þ 1Þ N Ef Vf ln 1  ðN=Nf Þ ¼1 ð1  f Þ þf þ ð1  rÞ : ð2Þ Ec Ec lnðNf Þ Nf m Ec lnð1=Nf Þ f In Equation (2). respectively and terms Vm and Em correspond to matrix volume fraction and elastic modulus. R-ratio and off-axis angles. factor f corresponds to the fiber–matrix interfacial shear strength and varies between 0 and 1 and in the second bracket. and fiber) do not fail simultaneously. The peculiarity of damage is that the three constituents of FRP composites (matrix. Term Nf corresponds to the number of cycles to failure. fiber and composite constituents. as the number of fatigue cycles increased and defined as:  c   EN a N ¼1K : ð1Þ E1 E0 Nf Terms E1 and EN denote the Young’s moduli of the material measured at the first cycle and the Nth cycle. ‘‘r’’ is the ratio of applied stress and ultimate tensile strength of composite.

resin-rich regions or voids created during fabrication process [9]. the Young’s modulus or the stiffness of composite materials are often used to evaluate the fatigue damage due to cyclic loading. Under cyclic tension-compression excursions. In region I. Damage progress at this stage may cause matrix-fiber debonding and more reduction in stiffness of composite laminates. As the number of cycles increases crack grows along the fiber-matrix interface. fiber breakage occurs shortly after damage has been accumulated during regions I and II [10]. matrix cracks grow in a multiple mode and number within the matrix over the life cycles. The progressive development of damage during fatigue life can be overviewed with the aid of Figure 1. Once initiated. Therefore. which represents the development of damage during the fatigue life of unidirectional composite materials. their differing mechanical properties. E0 is the Young’s modulus of the undamaged material. which affects the residual strength and the life of a given laminate. However. with shorter life span. leading to matrix-fiber phase. The concept of damage accumulation may be used as a more suitable approach to predict the fatigue life of structures of composite materials. and E is the Young’s modulus of the . multiple crack initiations within the matrix are grouped together during the first 20% of the fatigue life [10–12]. Damage initiation in the form of microcracks is normally formed at a local micro-defect such as misaligned fibers. In region III. Damage accumulation continues as more cracks integrate until they encounter a fiber. The later stage of damage development is typified by increasing rate of progression of all damage modes resulting in catastrophic fiber failure. for quantitative evaluation of fatigue damage. Three regions of cracking mechanism in unidirectional composites. matrix cracks are formed as an initial stage of micro-damage process.Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1321 Matrix I σx σx 22 r III e fib er Matrix fib x I Matrix σx er y fib 11 II Damaged index Failure I II III Cycle ratio Figure 1. using a damage fatigue index:   E D¼1 ð3Þ E0 where D is the accumulated fatigue damage index ranging between 0 and 1. This region is characterized with a larger life span and a lower slope of damage progress. fatigue damage cannot be measured directly. Region II commences as matrix cracks reach the vicinity of fiber.

Thus.1322 A. In compression–compression fatigue loading. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. It is assumed that the matrix is severely damaged prior to final failure and fibers are degraded up to a point where the composite can no longer withstand the applied load. and Epaarachchi and Clausen [16] have shown that for a given maximum stress in a tension-tension loading case. Ellyin and El Kadi [14]. stress ratio and factor f representing fiber-matrix interfacial strength) on stiffness reduction of composite laminates. cyclic stress magnitude. (b) CFRP [13]. The elastic modulus response as off-axis angle changes for UD composites. an increase in R reduces the fatigue life of . The backbone elements of this damage model constructed based on the fact that the stiffness of the composite just prior to failure is obtained by subtracting the summation of stiffness-reduction values of matrix and fibre from the initial composite stiffness (E/E0 ¼ 1). Mandell and Meier [15]. Off-axis Angle Effect The orientation of fibers embedded within polymeric matrix with respect to the applied cyclic stresses to the unidirectional composite has a significant influence on fatigue damage of these materials. R-ratio Effect Many studies have verified that the fatigue behavior of composites is dependent on the stress ratio R. (a) GRP. the fatigue life of composites increases with increasing magnitude of stress ratio R. damaged material.e. The angle  ¼ 0 represents a fiber-dominant condition at which the fatigue strength is maximized while at angle  ¼ 90 composite fatigue strength is dominantly influenced by polymeric matrix constituent. off-axis angle. The proposed damage model in this paper further modifies Equation (2) for inclusion of affecting parameters (i. Figure 2 represents the variations of the elastic modulus (Ex) and the shear modulus (Gxy) of typical GRP and CFRP composites as the off-axis angle increases [13].. SHIRAZI 40 140 (a) x 35 Ex (b) Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 2 1 120 Ex Modulus of elasticity (GPa) Gxy Gxy 30 y 100 25 80 20 60 15 40 10 5 20 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Off-axis angle (Degree) Off-axis angle (Degree) Figure 2. the extent of damage can be quantified by measuring the Young’s modulus of the material.

This effect has been implemented in the modified damage analysis by correlating stress ratio R. respectively.Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1323 FRP composites. [19] defined s as function of stress applied along fiber direction  11 and fiber–matrix properties:  1=2 Vf Gf Gm s ¼ 11 ð6Þ ðEf ðVf Gm þ Vm Gf ÞÞ where Gf and Gm are the shear moduli of fiber and matrix. The Proposed Fatigue Damage Model The proposed fatigue damage model takes into account the effects of cyclic stress magnitude. Coefficient  is defined as a ratio of normalized shear stress s of composite to interfacial shear strength  i ða ¼ s =i Þ. The factor f is the representative of the fiber–matrix interfacial shear strength and varies between zero and unity. by the following expression: f ¼ N ð5Þ where coefficient  is mathematically defined at N ¼ 1 cycle and exponent  is the slope of the f-log N curve. It is noteworthy to point out that the modifications of the damage equation by factor f merely addresses matrix and matrix-fiber interface cracking and has no impact on fiber breakage stage. Factor f The matrix-fiber interface is the least understood. Quin-Dun et al. The effect of interface shear strength factor f as a function of number of cycles has been implemented in the proposed damage model. mean stress. It is well known that the static strength of unidirectional laminates is related to fiber-matrix bonding. but the most influential factor in the determination of composite properties. the fiber–matrix interface bonding improves in strength. the shear stress  s exerted at the fiber–matrix interface would reach the shear yielding or debonding magnitude at the interface. off-axis angles and interfacial bonding strength (through Equations (4–6)) as the strength of unidirectional FRP composites degrades under fatigue cycles. maximum cyclic stress  max and ultimate stress  uts as: ða Þ ðmax ð1  RÞÞ R ¼ 1  ¼1 ð4Þ uts 2uts where  a term corresponds to the cyclic amplitude stress. Many investigators using micro-mechanics models have predicted the influence of the fiber–matrix interface on the tensile strength of unidirectional laminates [17–18]. It is assumed that if the applied longitudinal strain exceeds a certain value. The interfacial efficiency determines how well the load is transferred from matrix to fiber. For f ¼ 0. fiber–matrix interface strength is very little and as f approaches unity. The proposed fatigue damage model is defined as: E   D¼ 1 ¼ Em ½ þ fð  Þ þ Ef R  : ð7Þ Ec .

Most of the stiffness reduction occurred during the first 10–20% of the life of the laminate [21]. ELEMENTS OF FATIGUE DAMAGE ANALYSIS FOR (0/90) FRP COMPOSITE LAMINATES Figure 3 schematically represents a (0/90) composite laminate configuration and its plies of 0 and 90 . [21] proved that the predominant damage mechanism in (0/90) laminates are the initiation and propagation of transverse cracking in the 90 layers. Schematic presentation of (a) (0 /90 ) composite laminate and its plies of (b) 0 and (c) 90 . VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. In (0/90) composite laminates. They observed transverse cracking of 90 layers during first 80% of the lifetime of the composite specimens.  and  are functions of the number of cycles to failure Nf and progressing fatigue cycles N and can be described as: ln ðN þ 1Þ ¼ ð8-1Þ lnðNf =nÞ   N ¼ ð8-2Þ ðNf =nÞ ln ð1  N=ðNf =nÞÞ ¼ ð8-3Þ lnðn=Nf Þ where n corresponds to the percentage of drop in stiffness recorded for a fatigue test. Experimental investigations [20–24] show that in each composite (0/90) laminate. Further investigation on cracking mechanism of (0/90) laminates [25–28] revealed that the crack density initially increased in the 90 ply and reached a saturation value. respectively. damage progress under cyclic loading respectively follows three regions of cracking within the matrix. The framework for the discussion of fatigue damage in a (0/90) composite configuration is laminate stiffness reduction as the number of fatigue cycles increases. This mainly shows to what extend the stiffness reduction versus fatigue cycles has been controlled/measured before the final failure takes place. initially damage occurred in form of transverse cracks. In Equation (7). (0/90°) plies 0° ply 90° ply (a) (b) (c) Figure 3. . Further experimental studies by Daniel et al. SHIRAZI Terms Em and Ef take into account the effect of off-axis angles and are defined as Em ¼ 1  Ef Vf =Ec and Ef ¼ Ef Vf ðcos Þ=Ec . the matrix-fiber interface and the fiber (see Figure 1). terms .1324 A.

matrix stiffness. fiber volume fraction. [25]. composite initial stiffness. The accumulation of damage of 0 and 90 plies to predict the life and damage of (0/90) composite laminates can be generalized by the use of damage model equation presented earlier [20. . in the proposed equations. stress ratio. In the present study the effect of the stacking sequence in (0/90) laminate configuration was addressed in the damage model by incorporating factor  varying between 10–20% based on experimental results by Bezazi et al. The proposed fatigue damage analysis method includes damage in (0/90) composite plies in three regions of matrix. by substituting Ex as Ec. Values of elastic moduli at any given off-axis angle are extracted from Figure 2 and are used to calculate Em and Ef. The derivation and calculation of elastic moduli change with off-axis angle are comprehensively given in reference [30]. separating small volumes of material in the 0 plies which became longitudinal splits. matrix-fiber interface. Figure 4 represents the cumulative damage scheme of fatigue damage analysis of a (0/90) composite laminate based on the proposed damage method in this study.29] and also given by Equation (7) in this paper. Figure 2 represents the variations of the shear modulus (Gxy) and elastic modulus (Ex) of FRP composites respectively as the off-axis angle varies from 0 to 90 . and (iv) Compares the predicted damage–fatigue cycles curve with the experimentally obtained damage data. Poisson’s ratio. A weighting factor of  has been implemented to partition the efficiency of load carrying plies of 0 and 90 in the composite laminates. (ii) Calculates the fatigue damage in individual 0 and 90 plies based on stiffness drop Equation (7). respectively. applied stress and number of applied cycles to failure of 0 and 90 plies. Delaminations joined together in regions between longitudinal cracks.Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1325 Longitudinal cracks then nucleated and grew along the specimen length in the 0 plies and produced interior delaminations at the 0 /90 interface. This figure describes the procedure of damage analysis as follows: (i) Determines initial data for damage analysis as fiber stiffness. Equation (9) combines the damage from two unidirectional plies of 0 and 90 as:       E E E 1 ¼ ð1  Þ 1  þ 1  : ð9Þ Ec ½0=90 Ec 0 Ec 90 During the first 10% of composite life. most of the stiffness reduction is due to damage in the 90 plies and there is minor stiffness reduction in the 0 plies which is dependent on the type of the laminate and stacking sequences of 0 and 90 plies. and fiber and reflects the cracking mechanism within three regions from early region of growth to final failure. (iii) Calculates the fatigue damage of (0/90) composite laminates using Equation (9). and ultimately fiber breakage of the load-carrying (0 ) plies occurred. MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF 0 AND 90 UNIDIRECTIONAL PLIES AND (0/90) FRP COMPOSITE LAMINATES Material properties of FRP composites used in this study are listed in Table 1.

VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. Nf and stress.26 GRP [3–4] 25 4.9 30 4.822 30 2.5 2. SHIRAZI Start Define states of applied Define states of applied stress.9 5.2 2.1326 A.3 228 46.822 30 3.2 2.381 125 22 GRP [5] 55 4.822 30 3.4 1200 – GRP [31] 50 1.4 42.4 36. R. Material properties of unidirectional GRP and CFRP composites.4 166 48.77 1025 50 CFRP [21] 63 3.5 72.4 1.7 3.73 72. R.9 5.8 1.5 5 2610 137 .35 GRP [23] 58 3. Materials Vf (%) Em (GPa) Ef (GPa) Ec (GPa) Gm (GPa) Gf (GPa) G12 (GPa)  uts (MPa)  i (MPa) GRP [2] 60 4.3 72.3 228 54.96 474 – CFRP [32] 58 3.73 80 44.9 5.2 2.4 22 1.73 80 45.3 296 173 2. Table 1.6 779 – CFRP [22] 42.65 1.77 1203 41.822 30 4. Nf and material properties material properties (0° Ply) (90° Ply) Damage Equation (7) Damage Equation (7) for for (0° Ply) (90° Ply) Equation (9) Yes No N<n*Nf Damage-life curve Stop Figure 4.5 7. Flowchart of fatigue damage assessment of (0/90) system based on individual plies of 0 and 90 .

31–32].8 (a) 0.1 1 12.2 (b) Eq(7) GRP Exp. determined by curve fitting.7 5 10  700  5 GRP [23] (0/90) 0. experimental values of damage cycles for UD GRP composites tested under R ¼ 1.05 Eq (7) Exp.7  130  3. This figures show that predicted damage curve based on the proposed damage Equation (7) is in a very close agreement with experimental data.7  188  2.6 σ = 120 MPa 0. [7] models (Figure (5)) fail to agree well with the experimental data. Predicted vs. and stress amplitudes of (a) 120 MPa and (b) 140 MPa [2].5  200  2 CFRP [21] (0/90) 0 5 0. Testing conditions for UD and (0/90) GRP and CFRP composites used in this study.30 (0 ply thickness) GRP [31] 0 0.Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1327 Table 2.6 σ = 140MPa GRP Damage Damage R = −1 0. R-ratios. Philippidis model 0. and off-axis angles were taken from literature [2–5.05 0.  ¼ 0.3 GRP [5] 0 0.15 Ramkrishnan model Vf = 0. while.6 GRP [3–4] 0 and 90 1 6–8 12. Figures 5–9 present a comparison between predicted and experimentally obtained D–N curves for UD GRP and CFRP composites at various cyclic stress magnitudes. Table 2 represents fatigue testing details for FRP components performed at room temperature under constant amplitude loading conditions and various stress ratios based on ASTM D3090M. Philippidis model Ramakrishnan model 0 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 5 10 15 20 25 N (Cycles) N (Cycles) Figure 5.1 5 12.1 3 610  610  3 CFRP [32] 0 0. [2] and Ramakrishnan et al. the damage .15 R = −1 0. R-ratios. several sets of fatigue data of unidirectional composite laminates with various stress magnitudes.1 Vf = 0.1 0. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED DAMAGE MODEL AND DISCUSSION Unidirectional Composites To assess the capability of the modified damage model in evaluating fatigue damage of 0 and 90 unidirectional FRP composites as number of cycles increases.1 10 52 (90 ply thickness) 0. and off-axis angles of  ¼ 0 and  ¼ 90 . while predicted curves by Philippidis et al. Materials h ( ) R Frequency f (Hz) Specimen Geometry (mm) GRP [2] 0 1 10 25  250  2.127 ply thickness CFRP [22] (0/90) 0. The closeness of Philippidis curves with the experimental data in Figures 5(a) and (b) can be significantly influenced by the constants K and c in Equation (1).

05 Eq (7) 0.8 0.0 . . (0/90) Composite Laminates To evaluate the capability of the proposed damage model in assessing fatigue damage of (0/90) GRP and CFRP composite laminates at various R-ratios and cyclic stress amplitudes.2 ε=14 ×10−3 0.0 .1 σ =400MPa 0. off-axis angle . 400 MPa [31]. matrix-fiber and fiber.4 GRP Eq (7) 0.7.25 ε = 7.2 0. Predicted vs.3 (b) 0. Exp.25 R=0.0088 [3].05 Exp.7 Exp.2 Exp.15 0.  or ": (a) 0. 0. Figures 5–9 also show the deviation of Ramakrishnan damage curves from the experimental data. a few series of (0/90) experimental fatigue damage data has been extracted from the literature [21–23].2 GRP R = 0. Table 2 also represents fatigue testing details for (0/90) . VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A.6 0.  ¼ 0. (a) 0.7× 10−3 ε = 8.6×104 2.0014 [5] and (b) 0. experimental values of damage cycles for UD GRP composites tested under various R ¼ 1.1. Equation (7) requires no experimentally obtained constants. Ramakrishnan model 0 0 0 1×1062×1063×1064×1065× 1066× 1067× 1068×106 0 8000 1.1 0.15 Vf =0.2 × 106 0 1×104 2×104 3×104 4×104 5×104 N (Cycles) N (Cycles) Figure 6.2×104 4×104 4.5 0.8 GRP GRP R = −1 R = −1 0. Not only does the proposed damage Equation (7) address the progressive damage development in composite constituents of matrix.4×104 3.25 Damage Damage 0. experimental values of damage cycles for UD GRP composites tested under various R.8×104 N (Cycles) N (Cycles) Figure 7. Vf =0. Ramakrishnan model Ramakrishnan model 0 0 0 2 ×105 4 ×105 6 ×105 8 ×105 1 ×106 1.3 0. cyclic stress magnitude. SHIRAZI (a) 1 (b) 1 0. and variation of the factor f with fatigue cycles is a prime drawback of this model in damage assessment of FRP composites with various fiber orientations.1 0.6 Damage Damage Vf = 0.8×10−3 0.0077 and (b) 0.25 Vf = 0. and R-ratio on damage assessment of UD FRP composites. it also includes terms to take into account the effects of cyclic stress magnitude. Predicted vs.55 Ramakrishnan model 0.4 0. and strain amplitudes of (a) 0.35 0.1328 A.4 Eq (7) Eq (7) 0. The lack of consideration of the effects of off-axis angles.

3×10−3 0.4 Vf =0. [22] were .4 ε =4. (b) 0.2 × 10−3 e = 2.6 0.Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1329 1 1 (a) (b) 0.8 0.6 Damage GRP R = −1 Vf = 0.5×104 2×104 2.6 0.25 0.8 0. and (b) 0.4 Vf =0. Predicted vs. Exp. FRP composite specimens.58 ε = 8. experimental values of damage cycles for UD CFRP composites tested under various R ¼ 0.2 Eq (7) Exp.1 Eq (7) Exp.8 0.  ¼ 90.25 0. experimental values of damage cycles for UD GRP composites tested under various R ¼ 1.75×10−3 0.4 0.3 0.5×104 N (Cycles) Figure 8.58 Vf = 0. Ramakrishnan model 0 0 5000 1 × 104 1.0027.7×10−3 0.2 Eq (7) Exp.2 0. and strain amplitudes of (a) 0.6 Damage Damage GRP GRP R = −1 R = −1 0. and (c) 0. Ramakrishnan model Ramakrishnan model 0 0 0 2× 105 4× 105 6 ×105 8 ×105 1 ×105 0 1×105 2×105 3×105 4 ×105 5×105 N (Cycles) N (Cycles) 1 (c) 0.4 Damage Damage 0. Over 100 experimentally obtained fatigue damage data of (0/90) CFRP composites tested under uniaxial loading conditions by Daniel et al.5 0.0022.  ¼ 0 . [21] and Corum et al.5 Vf = 0. Ramakrishnan model Ramakrishnan model 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 N (Cycles) N (Cycles) Figure 9. required in the damage analysis.25 ε =2. 0. Predicted vs. The available data are in the form of stiffness degradation versus life (or cycle ratio).3 0.00775 [32].1 Exp.1 R = 0.2 Eq (7) 0. 0. and strain amplitudes of (a) 0.01×10−3 ε = 7.0043 [4].00801.6 CFRP CFRP R = 0.1 0.2 Eq (7) 0.1.

1 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0. 0. .8 0.2 0.06 0.1 (b) CFRP 0.02 0.3 0.14 Vf = 0.04 Exp.8 Vf = 0.90°Ply 0.9 MPa 0.6 Pre.04 0.4 CFRP 0.08 Pre.05 Pre.1 Proposed damage equation (7) Proposed damage equation (9) A.6 0.2 σ = 412. 90°Ply 0.4 (c) (d) CFRP 0. Exp. 0. Predicted fatigue damage evolution curves for 0 and 90 plies as number of fatigue cycles increases vs.4 0. 0.2 0. 1330 0.9 MPa and (c) 662 MPa.63 Vf = 0. (b) and (d) predicted damage curve of (0/90) CFRP composite based on Equation (9) vs.14 1 0. Pre.63 0.15 0. VARVANI-FARAHANI 0.35 0.06 Pre. (0/90) composite experimental data reported in reference [21].15 R=0 0 Vf = 0.0°Ply Pre.25 0.35 CFRP R=0 R=0 0.12 σ = 412.05 AND 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 N (Cycles) × 103 N (Cycles) × 103 Figure 10.2 Exp.25 0.63 0.3 σ = 662 MPa σ = 662 MPa 0. 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2×105 4×105 6×105 8×105 1×106 5 5 N (Cycles) × 10 N (Cycles) × 10 1 0. 0°Ply 0. SHIRAZI plies with Vf ¼ 63% tested with R ¼ 0 under stress amplitudes of (a) 412.63 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Proposed damage equation (9) 0.08 R=0 0.1 Proposed damage equation (7) 0.12 (a) 0.9 MPa 0. experimental data of CFRP (0/90) composite A.02 0.4 Exp.

1 Vf = 0. and stress ratio of R ¼ 0 were plotted versus predicted damage results by the proposed damage model (Equation (9)) in Figure 10.6 0.90°Ply 0. (d). Vf = 0.1 Vf = 0. 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 N (Cycles) N (Cycles) Figure 11.427 Vf = 0. 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 N (Cycles) × 106 N (Cycles) × 106 1 1 (c) CFRP (d) Pre.7% tested with R ¼ 0. (b).9 MPa and 662 MPa.6 0.90°Ply R = 0. 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 N (Cycles) × 104 N (Cycles) × 104 1 1 (e) (f) CFRP CFRP Proposed damage equation (7) Proposed damage equation (9) 0.4 MPa σ = 448.2 Pre.0°Ply Pre. Figure 11 also represents fatigue damage data of the same materials with different fiber volume fraction of Vf ¼ 42.90°Ply 0. and 448. Exp.8 Pre.8 Vf = 0.427 σ = 424.Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1331 1 1 CFRP (a) CFRP (b) Pre.4 MPa 0.1 0. (0/90) composite experimental data reported in reference [22].9 MPa σ = 402.8 R = 0. Exp.9 0. cyclic stress amplitudes of  ¼ 412.427 Exp.4 0.2 0.1 Proposed damage equation (7) Proposed damage equation (9) 0. evaluated in this study.6 0. (f) predicted damage curve of (0/90) CFRP composite based on Equation (9) vs.4 MPa respectively.8 R = 0.4 0.8 MPa.7% [22] .2 Pre.6 0.6 Pre. (a). σ = 402. 0. (c).2 0. experimental data of CFRP (0/90) composite plies with Vf ¼ 42. Fatigue damage data [21] on (0/90) CFRP composite specimens with fiber volume fraction of Vf ¼ 63%. 424.6 0.8 MPa σ = 424.427 Exp. (e) Predicted fatigue damage evolution curves for 0 and 90 plies as number of fatigue cycles increases vs.0°Ply R = 0.8 R = 0.2 Pre.1 under stress amplitudes of 402.0°Ply CFRP Proposed damage equation (9) Proposed damage equation (7) Pre.4 0.9 MPa.2 0.8 R = 0.1 0.8 MPa 0.4 0.427 Vf = 0.427 σ = 448. Exp.4 Exp.1 0.4 0.

GRP 0.05 0.07 0. 1 0.08 1332 (a) (b) 0.25 0.01 0.90°Ply R = 0.1 under stress amplitudes of 95 MPa and 140 MPa respectively.04 0. (c) Predicted fatigue damage evolution curves for 0 and 90 plies as number of fatigue cycles increases vs.6 0.05 σ = 95 MPa 0.4 0.06 0.35 0. Exp.02 0.15 R = 0.6 0.15 Pre.06 0.90°Ply 0. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0.1 0.0°Ply Pre.2 A.04 0.05 Pre.2 0.4 (c) (d) GRP 0.1 0.2 0 0.0°Ply GRP 0.02 0. (0/90) composite experimental data reported in reference [23].1 Vf = 0.1 Proposed damage equation (9) Proposed damage equation (7) σ = 95 MPa 0.58 0 Exp.03 Vf = 0.07 0. SHIRAZI composite based on Equation (9) vs.4 0.1 Proposed damage equation (7) σ = 140 MPa Proposed damage equation (9) 0. experimental data of GRP (0/90) composite plies with Vf ¼ 58% tested with R ¼ 0. 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2×105 4×105 6×105 8×105 1×106 N (Cycles) × 105 N (Cycles) × 105 1 0. (a). (b).1 Vf =0.8 R = 0. VARVANI-FARAHANI 0.05 Pre.01 Vf = 0. (d) predicted damage curve of (0/90) GRP A.3 σ = 140 MPa 0. Exp.25 Pre.35 0.08 R = 0.4 Exp.03 Pre.8 GRP 0.58 0.58 0.2 0.3 0.58 0. AND 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 N (Cycles) × 103 N (Cycles) × 103 Figure 12. .

σ = 300MPa σ = 300MPa 0.8 0.5 Vf = 0.5 Exp. R = 0. (b).1 Exp.5 0.4 Proposed damage equation (7) 0. Pre.6 0.2 0. R = 0.1 under stress amplitudes of 210 MPa and 300 MPa respectively. (0/90) composite experimental data reported in reference [20].2 Proposed damage equation(9) 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites N(Cycles) × 105 N(Cycles) ×105 1 1 GRP (c) GRP (d) Pre.6 0. σ = 210 MPa σ = 210 MPa 0. (a).4 0.8 Exp.90°Ply Vf = 0.1 0.1 Pre. .90°Ply Vf = 0.6 0.0°Ply Pre. (d) predicted damage curve of (0/90) GRP 1333 composite based on Equation (9) vs. 1 1 GRP (a) Pre.0°Ply R = 0. GRP (b) Pre.4 0. experimental data of GRP (0/90) composite plies with Vf ¼ 50% tested with R ¼ 0.8 0.2 0 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 N(Cycles) N(Cycles) Figure 13.2 0.8 Exp.4 Proposed damage equation (9) Proposed damage equation (7) 0.6 0.5 Vf = 0. (c) Predicted fatigue damage evolution curves for 0 and 90 plies as number of fatigue cycles increases vs.1 R = 0.

Results of the prediction of fatigue damage as the number of cycles increases showed a very good agreement between the proposed equation and the experimental data. and Joneja. Reifsnider. These figures also verify how capable the Equation (9) characterizes damage progress of (0/90) CFRP and GRP composite laminates as predicted results using Equation (9) show good agreement with experimentally reported data of same type. and L. number of cycles to failure. Further. (1979). (1982). (2000). Composites Science and Technology. (ed. 60: 2819–2828. 448. Material Science and Engineering.4 MPa. . A. ASTM STP 775. REFERENCES 1. knowing the fatigue behavior of unidirectional laminate in both axial and transverse directions. Flexural Fatigue of a Unidirectional Composite in the Longitudinal Direction. T. Composites. Fatigue Design Allowable for GRP Laminates Based on Stiffness Degradation Measurements.1 and plotted versus predicted damage results.1 (data shown in Figure 13). it is noticeable that the experimental damage data of (0/90) lamina fall between the predicted damage results for 90 and 0 plies. K.8 MPa. Philippidis. Based on the present study. P. L. A. 2. pp. Boniface and Ogin [23] tested (0/90) GRP composites with Vf ¼ 58% under cyclic stresses of  ¼ 95 MPa and 140 MPa and R ¼ 0. The predicted fatigue damage results for FRP composites were found in good agreement when compared with the experimental data. P.1 (data shown in Figure 12) and Wharmby et al. B. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. D. In Figures 10–13.1334 A. S. and Joneja. 46: 63–68. B. SHIRAZI tested at various stress amplitudes of  ¼ 402. American Society for Testing and Materials. the relationship between stiffness drop and number of cycles also exhibits three distinct regions.). CONCLUSIONS A fatigue damage analysis based on stiffness reduction in unidirectional and cross-ply FRP composites was developed. stress ratio. The proposed damage assessment included the effects of cyclic stress magnitude. cyclic stress magnitude. (1980). 10(1): 28–30. The proposed damage model was further evaluated fatigue damage of (0/90) GRP composite successfully as compared with over 45 experimental data points reported in references 20 and 23. Highsmith. the fatigue performance of (0/90) laminate can be evaluated from the present model. The superiority of this damage model over other models is that it holds terms of stress ratio. K. K. In: Damage in Composite Materials. D. and Vassilopoulos. off-axis angle and interface bonding (factor f ) in fatigue life of FRP composites. Stiffness reduction mechanisms in composite laminates. Damage analysis was performed based on physics of cracking in matrix. off-axis angle  and interfacial parameter f. L. and R ¼ 0. Agarwal. K. 103–117. it has been found that for a laminate of (0/90) composite under cyclic load. 424. matrix-fiber interface and fiber as number of cycles increased. 3. [20] tested the same material with Vf ¼ 50% under cyclic stresses of  ¼ 210 MPa and 300 MPa and R ¼ 0. 4. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. Reifsnider. Agarwal. S. Flexural Fatigue Properties of Unidirectional GRP in the Transverse Direction.9 MPa.

. F. L. D. In Fatigue of Composite Materials. Fatigue of Composite Materials. G. K. and Bethelot. Usr. Y. L. 3: 391–406. C. Varvani-Farahani. ASTM STP 813. 1991. Journal of Materials Science. 16. 19. 62: 493–498. 4: 187–197. Ellyin. B. A Fatigue Damage Parameter for Life Assessment of Off-axis Unidirectional Glass Fiber-reinforced Composites. Haftchenari. 4129–38. Zhi-Li. 26. R. International Conference on Fatigue Damage of Materials: Experiment and Analysis. (2007). A. (2002). . A. (2006). (ed. 25(10): 917–924. C. Daniel. M. and Ruggles. Liu. Reifsnider. F. 22. Diao. R. K. Elsevier and Science Publishers. Reifsnider (ed. Journal of Composite Materials. and LeCorre. and Jamison. A.. and Shirazi. Reifsnider. Subramanian. (2005). Application of the Paris Equation to the Fatigue Growth of Transverse Ply Cracks. H. A. Microcracking Response of CFRP Composites at Different Temperatures. H. 24. Composite. Application of a Stress-Corrosion-Cracking Model to an Analysis of the Durability of Glass Composites in Wet Environment. J. K. R.. V. M. E. P. (1982). K. (1997). L. 29. 8. Elsevier Science Publisher. Wharmby. 25. ORNL/TM-2000. (2006).. Fatigue of Polymeric Composites for Wing Blades and the Establishment of Stiffness-Controlled Fatigue Diagrams. Berthelot.. Ryerson University. B. L. A. (1987). M. J. Pauchard. 20. (1990). Damage and Damage Mechanics. and Jayaraman. Ryerson University. N. X. (2000). Campion-Boulharts. 21. 7. J. Corum. Flexural Fatigue Behaviour of Cross-ply Laminates: An Experimental Approach. (eds). J. International Journal of Fatigue. Gamstedtor. Fatigue Damage Assessment of Unidirectional GRP and CFRP Composites. W. Effect of Stress Ratio. W. and Chateauminois. S. L. and El-Kadi. Canada. M. An Empirical Model for Fatigue Behaviour Prediction of Glass Fiber-reinforced Plastic Composites for Various Stress Ratios and Test Frequencies. 27. International Journal of Fatigue. L. 55–77. Haftchenari. London. 11. Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. Composites Science and Technology.. 28: 5592–5602. Mandell. H. Composites Science and Technology. (1995). Frequency and Loading Time on the Tensile Fatigue of Glass-reinforced Epoxy. J. (1999). Composite Structures. I. 14. Damage and Damage Mechanics. X. Canada. 9. 10. (1996). F. and Yaniv. Composites Science and Technology.. (1989). 389–398. A new Cumulative Fatigue Damage Model for Fiber-Reinforced Plastics. Basic Properties of Reference Cross ply Carbon-Fiber Composite. A. 57: 129–135. 60: 59–64.. In: 1996 European Union Wind Energy Conference Proceedings. L. Ye. J. 35(2): 149–161. Development of Transverse Cracking in Cross-ply Laminates During Fatigue Tests. A. L. pp. Applied Composite Materials. Journal of Materials Science. M. and Clausen. 25: 437–446. and Varvani-Farahani. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. (1990). and Mai. S. International Journal of Fatigue. 40(18): 1659–1669. W. 18. Reifsnider. Lee. Pipes. D. S. 17.). A. A. 34: 313–326. Strength of Materials. and Ogin. I. 28. A.. MASc Thesis. (2000). Proceedings of ICCM-6 and ECCM-2. MASc Thesis. Toronto. Boniface. Elsevier Applied Science. (1996). ElMahi. K. (1982). Composite Materials. Observations on Damage Development in Fiber Reinforced Polymer Laminates Under Cyclic Loading. pp. and Brebbia. and Talreja. Fracture of Fatigue-Loaded Composite Laminates. R. A. P. K. pp. Damage Mechanisms and Stiffness Degradation in Graphite/ Epoxy Composite. 15. A Cumulative Damage Model to Predict the Fatigue Life of Composite Laminates Including the Effect of a FIber-matrix Interphase. Epaarachchi. W. and Meier. 6. 4: 11–75. K. 34: 2535–2546. Prediction of Stiffness Degradation And Damage Assessment of Unidirectional GRP Composites Under Fatigue Loading. and Lilholt. Reifsnider. Goteborg. Reifsnider. Andersen. ElMahi. 11–77. Battiste. Ellyin. V. pp.Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1335 5. L. L. (2001). Qing-Dun. Simulation of Fatigue Performance of Cross-ply Composite Laminates. A Study of the Influence of Interfacial Damage on Stress Concentration in Unidirectional Composites. H. Brondsted. Mechanistically Based Fatigue-Damage Evolution Model for Brittle Matrix Fiber-Reinforced Composites. 12. A.. (2003). J. (2003). (2003). and Stinchcomb. W. Yao. F. Grosjean. 23: 735–754. Fatigue Damage Modeling Based on Cracking Progress in Unidirectional and Cross-ply FRP Composites. W. 17(5): 343–51. Ramakrishnan. Series ed R. Shirazi.. 23. D. K. Fatigue Damage Mechanisms in Unidirectional Carbon- fiber-reinforced Plastics. L. 950–953. Panbechi. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (1993). Sweden. 61: 1711–1721. (2003). Varvani-Farahani. 30. Bezazi. pp. N..). Composites Science and Technology. X. W. Fatigue of Composite Materials. and Ling. Z. 13. J. and Panbechi. Journal of Science and Engineering of Composite Materials (In-press). Journal of Composite Materials. (1994). Varvani-Farahani. H. F. A Fatigue Failure Criterion for Fiber Reinforcement Composite Laminates. and Wolodko. M. and Himmel.

29A: 227–239. . 24: 155–159. 32.1336 A. and Shi. Composites Part A. T. M. and Peijs. (2002). (1998). VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. Fatigue Damage Evolution in Off-axis Unidirectional CFRP. A. Oever. Continuous-glass-fiber-reinforced Polypropylene Composites II Influence of Maleic-anhydride Modified Polypropylene on Fatigue Behaviour. Plumtree. L. SHIRAZI 31. International Journal of Fatigue.