Faculty of Engineering – Cairo University

Mechanical Design and Production Engineering

Two Semesters System – 3rd Year
Composite Materials – MDP 352

Mechanical Testing and Composite failure

Theories and Mechanisms

Submitted To
Prof. Emad EL-Kashef

Prepared by

Ayman Hisham Mahmoud B.N: 10

Mahmoud Ahmed El-Sayed Kasab B.N: 24

June 7, 2020
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. I

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. II
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... III
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Basic Elastic and Strength Values .................................................................................................. 5
Strength of Composites ................................................................................................................... 5
Standardization Bodies for Composites .......................................................................................... 5
Mechanical Testing for Composites ............................................................................................... 6
1. Tensile Testing ..................................................................................................................... 6
Considerations and Instructions .............................................................................................. 6
2. Flexure Testing .................................................................................................................... 7
Three-point Bending Test ....................................................................................................... 7
Strength Difference with Tensile Test .................................................................................... 8
3. Uniaxial Compression Testing ............................................................................................. 8
4. Shear Testing ....................................................................................................................... 8
1. Torsion Test .................................................................................................................. 8
2. Iosipescu Shear Test ..................................................................................................... 8
3. Interlaminar Shear Test ................................................................................................ 9
Material Fail Theories ..................................................................................................................... 9
Failure Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 10
Failure Mechanisms ...................................................................................................................... 11
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 12
Reference ...................................................................................................................................... 13

I
List of Figures

Figure 1: Illustration for The Nine Strength Values ....................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Tensile Testing Specimen ............................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Tapering Strength Variations .......................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Result Graph of Tensile Testing ...................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Three Point Bending Test ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 6: Moment and Shear Diagrams for Three-Point Bending Test .......................................... 7
Figure 7: Young's Modulus Obtained by Tension and Bending Test ............................................. 8
Figure 8: Uniaxial Compression Testing Machine ......................................................................... 8
Figure 9: Torsion Test ..................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 10: Iosipescu Shear Test ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 11: Interlaminar Shear Test ................................................................................................. 9
Figure 12: Stress Strain Curve Comparing Behavior of Materials ................................................. 9
Figure 13: Stress Space Failure Envelope .................................................................................... 10
Figure 14: Strain Space Failure Envelope .................................................................................... 10
Figure 15: Delamination Mechanism............................................................................................ 11
Figure 16: Impact Damage Mechanism ........................................................................................ 11

II
Abstract

Tests are performed to determine the material properties like specific strength and modulus
of elasticity to be adjusted for design and analysis as bigger view. But also used to know the degree
of acceptability and quality of a components during the manufacturing process.
The most common standard used for testing is the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). The test standards for polymer matrix and metal matrix composites are found in ASTM
Vol. 15.03 Space Simulation; Aerospace and Aircraft; Composite Materials and the test standards
for ceramic matrix composites are found in ASTM Vol. 15.01 Refractories; Activated Carbon;
Advanced Ceramics.

III
Introduction

There are several reasons to do a test for composite material such as development of a new
material, theoretical work (starting point for theories and verification of models), comparison with
other materials, input for design calculations, prediction of performance in real life, and quality
control and assurance.
Also, there is many goals to perform a test like:
a. Determine the type of specimen (coupon, substructure, whole structure).
b. Determination of the environmental conditions for the composite material (accurate lab
control, special hot-wet condition, real life).
c. Data reduction test (OK-not OK decision, basic data, full data acquisition).
As for composite failure is very different from metal failure, so to be considered the way of
composite yield and if fail theories of metal failure -like Von Mises or Tresca- hold for the
composite material and if not, so how does a composite fail or rupture and the mechanism involved
in.
Also seeing the behavior of composites under fatigue loading compared to metals and the way it
fractures in this condition.

Page | 4
Basic Elastic and Strength Values

For isotropic materials is easy there is two elastic properties:

1. Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio.
2. One or 2 strength values (tensile/compressive or yield strength).
For anisotropic materials is more complex:
Elastic properties are still possible
1. A bulk property but many values
(Transversely isotropic: 5 elastic constants and Orthotropic: 9 elastic constants)

2. Strength values is difficult because of

a. the strength is a local property (defect sensitive).
b. Large scatter.
c. Unexpected failure occurs.

Strength of Composites

Nine strength values:

• Three tensile strengths
• Three compressive strengths
• Three shear strengths

Figure 1: Illustration for The Nine Strength Values

Standardization Bodies for Composites

a. International (no legal implications): ISO .

b. Supranational: CEN.
c. National: ASTM, JIS, DIN, AFNOR, BS.
d. Sectorial: CRAG, MIL-HDBK.
e. Company: ICI, Boeing, Airbus.

Page | 5
Mechanical Testing for Composites [1]

1. Tensile Testing

Figure 2: Tensile Testing Specimen

Considerations and Instructions

1. Specimen should be long and slender.
2. End tabs to reduce failure in the grips.
3. Dimensions depend on the standard and the lay-up.
4. Strain measurements: extensometer or strain gauges.
5. Stress concentration at the end tabs
• Often too short: shear failure at end tab specimen interface.
• Still many failures near or at the end-tabs.
• Comparative test with extreme tapering.
6. Specimen Dimensions

Figure 3: Tapering Strength Variations

Figure 4: Result Graph of Tensile Testing

Page | 6
 2. Flexure Testing
There are many reasons that encourage to perform such a test like
a. Simple specimen (no end-tabs).
b. Larger displacements (easier to measure).
c. Different properties than in tension: (outer layers contribute more to strength and
stiffness; compressive failure is possible).

Three-point Bending Test

• Simple rectangular cross-section and its dimensions found

in standards as ISO 14125:1998 – ASTM D 790-86

Figure 5: Three Point Bending Test

Requirements:
1. Support rolls must be max 4 times beam thickness according to (ASTM)
2. For length to thickness ratio to avoid important shear deformation or shear failure
a. 0° UD: L/h = 32 b- 90° UD: L/h = 16

Force directly measured

Central point  displacement measured by:
1. Crosshead displacement.
2. LVDT underneath central loading point.
Maximum stress described by

Figure 6: Moment and Shear Diagrams for Three-

Point Bending Test

Page | 7
Strength Difference with Tensile Test

• Generally higher results

• Explained by statistics for a brittle material, where failure is controlled
by flaws
Figure 7: Young's Modulus Obtained
So, it is different from tensile modulus for ex: for (Cross-ply)s IM6-Epoxy by Tension and Bending Test

3. Uniaxial Compression Testing

• Specimen geometry (a slender specimen is needed).
• This results in (Geometry dependent test results – Complicated
test generations).
• Things must be avoided (Buckling – Axial misalignment –
Splitting at the ends).
• Three classes: Type I: short gauge lengths – Type II: lateral
supports – Type III: other (ex. Sandwich construction).
Figure 8: Uniaxial Compression Testing Machine

4. Shear Testing
• Shear testing is very difficult due to anisotropy because of:
❖ Need for a homogeneous shear stress field.
❖ Presence of normal stresses leads to tensile failure.
• Two types of tests (In-plane shear tests - Interlaminar shear test).
• In-plane shear modulus and strength tests (Torsion test – Rail shear test – Iosipescu test –
± 45 tension – Off-axis tension).

1. Torsion Test
• pure shear in central area.
• homogenous stress if wall thickness is small.
• best test results for strength and modulus.

Figure 9: Torsion Test

2. Iosipescu Shear Test

Page | 8
Figure 10: Iosipescu Shear Test
 3. Interlaminar Shear Test
• Simple and small specimen.
• Non-homogenous stress field.
• Influence of compressive stresses.
• Not always shear failure.

Figure 11: Interlaminar Shear Test

Material Fail Theories

First Ply Failure (FPF)

• Similar to yield
• First indication of non-reversible deformation
• Change in slope of loading curve (non-linear)
• Laminate has residual load-bearing potential
Last Ply Failure (LPF)
• Similar to Ultimate
• No more load bearing potential
• Rupture
First Ply Failure Criteria Figure 12: Stress Strain Curve Comparing Behavior of
Materials
• Maximum Stress
• Maximum Strain
No Description of failure mechanism
• Hill (Maximum Distortion Energy)
• Tsai-Wu (Quadratic)
• Matrix Tension
• Matrix Compression
Last Ply Failure Criteria Indicates failure mechanism

• Fiber Tension
• Fiber Compression

Page | 9
Failure Criteria [2]

x y  xy
1. Maximum Stress 1 1 1
X Y S

x y  xy
2. Maximum Strain 1 1 1
X Y S

  x   x y   y    xy 
2 2 2

3. Hill (Max Energy)   − +  +  1

X  X 2  Y   S 

 1 1  1 1  x2  y  xy 2 2

4. Tsai-Wu  −  x +  −  y + + + + 2 Fij  x  y  1
 Xt Xc   Yt Yc  XtXc YtYc S 2

 y   xy 
2 2
As for:
5. Matrix Tension   +   1
Y   S  X = Longitudinal Strength
 y   xy 
2 2
Y = Transverse Strength
6. Matrix Compression   +   1
Y   S  S = Shear Strength

 y   xy 
2 2
Xt = Tensile Strength
7. Fiber Tension   +   1
Y   S  Xc = Compressive Strength
x Fij = Empirical Factor ~ -0.5
8. Fiber Compression 1
Xc

Figure 13: Stress Space Failure Envelope Figure 14: Strain Space Failure Envelope

Page | 10
Failure Mechanisms [3]

Failure mechanisms Characteristics

Hygroscopic swelling • Occurs to the organic polymer matrices tend to absorb moisture.
• Absorbed moisture causes the polymer to swell, resulting in stress if
the volume is constrained.

Delamination • Separation between plies in a laminate or between the core and the skin
of a sandwich structure.
• Very difficult to predict and usually requires fracture mechanics
approach to determine stable or unstable energy release rates.

Impact damage • Impact may cause damage that is undetectable (matrix cracking within
laminate), visible (usually on the rear side of a laminate) or complete
penetration.
• Impact damage may be matrix cracking, delamination, skin debond, or
fiber breakage.
• Impact damage may cause ultimate failure immediately (rupture of a
tank) or may be the site of crack propagation for subsequent failure.

Fatigue • Fatigue in composites is generally better than metals because the fibers
act to deflect the crack and stop crack growth.
• Exact mechanisms are complex, but follow same general pattern as for
metals:
a. LCF: Failure set by ultimate strain of material.
b. MCF: Allowable strain decreases with number of cycles.
c. HCF: Below minimum strain threshold, composites have infinite
fatigue life because matrix does not crack, so no cracks can grow.

Figure 15: Delamination Mechanism Figure 16: Impact Damage Mechanism

Page | 11
Conclusion

The test result to be considered as valid the result must be representative for the component or
the material (composition, processing parameters [shape, size (thickness)]) or for basic testing test
result equals to the material property but with some restriction as
a. Material property must be within standard deviation of the test result.
b. Specimen dimensions >> scale of inhomogeneity.
c. A uniform stress fields.
d. No local damage.
e. Avoidance of end effects.
Special care in the selection of the test method need to be taken because:
a. The composites show large variations (fiber alignment, voids, defects, specimen
alignment).
b. Large scatter in results so many tests needed.
c. Composites suffer from their anisotropy (unexpected failure modes, edge effects, end
effects).
As failure mechanisms, failure criteria apply at the ply level so after one layer fails, the entire
laminate fails. And to know which failure criteria that the composite complies to depends on the
fiber/matrix combination so you should test to determine most appropriate criteria
As for failure Envelopes for Composites are Rarely Used because complex ply interactions make
visualization difficult, but it is sometimes can be helpful for a particular laminate.

Page | 12
Reference

[1] J. M. Hodgkinson, Mechanical testing of advanced fibre composites. CRC Press, 2000.
[2] J. E. King, “Failure in composite materials POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITES,” Met.
Mater. Int., vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 720–726, 1989, [Online]. Available:
http://publications.aston.ac.uk/23791/1/Failure_in_composite_materials.pdf.
[3] A. C. Orifici, I. Herszberg, and R. S. Thomson, “Review of methodologies for composite
material modelling incorporating failure,” Compos. Struct., vol. 86, no. 1–3, pp. 194–210,
2008, doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2008.03.007.

Page | 13