See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241653305

A multi-axial fatigue model for fiber-reinforced composite laminates based

on Puck’s criterion

Article  in  Journal of Composite Materials · February 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0021998311418701

CITATIONS READS

19 2,252

6 authors, including:

Xiushan Sun Andi Haris

Lloyd’s Register National University of Singapore
41 PUBLICATIONS   546 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   154 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

V B C Tan T.E. Tay

National University of Singapore National University of Singapore
247 PUBLICATIONS   5,924 CITATIONS    208 PUBLICATIONS   3,697 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Detection of defects in composite laminates with vibro-ultrasonic methods View project

Analysis and Optimization of Omega Composite Stiffener Under Impact View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiushan Sun on 17 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Composite Materials http://jcm.sagepub.com/

A multi-axial fatigue model for fiber-reinforced composite laminates based on Puck's criterion
X.S. Sun, A. Haris, V.B.C. Tan, T.E. Tay, S. Narasimalu and C.N. Della
Journal of Composite Materials 2012 46: 449
DOI: 10.1177/0021998311418701

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/46/4/449

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Composites

Additional services and information for Journal of Composite Materials can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jcm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/46/4/449.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 1, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

 JOURNAL OF
COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
46(4) 449–469
! The Author(s) 2011
A multi-axial fatigue model for fiber- Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
reinforced composite laminates based DOI: 10.1177/0021998311418701
jcm.sagepub.com
on Puck’s criterion

X.S. Sun1, A. Haris1, V.B.C. Tan1, T.E. Tay1, S. Narasimalu2

and C.N. Della2

Abstract
A new multi-axial fatigue model for fiber-reinforced composite laminates based on Puck’s criterion is proposed in this
article. In the fatigue model, fatigue master curves from the ATM are used to determine the uniaxial ply fatigue strengths
and the multi-axial fatigue failure is then determined by Puck’s criterion with the fatigue strengths at the ply level. The
fatigue master curves from ATM are generated with limited uniaxial fatigue tests and can be applied to fatigue loading
conditions with various frequencies and stress ratios. Both uniaxial and multi-axial S-N curves can be derived from
the fatigue model. Fatigue failure envelopes are also generated from the model to better interpret the multi-axial fatigue
failure in multi-axial stress spaces. The proposed multi-axial fatigue model is based on ply-level predictions, but it can
be extended to laminate-level predictions with the CLT or numerical methods such as the FEM. Multi-axial fatigue failures
caused by either local or global multi-axiality can be predicted by the model. Both uniaxial and biaxial fatigue experi-
ments were carried out to provide test data for establishing and validating the proposed fatigue model. The application
of the proposed multi-axial fatigue model is demonstrated with predictions of S-N curves and fatigue failure envelopes of
unidirectional laminates and multi-directional laminates with typical lay-up configurations. The predictions from the pro-
posed fatigue model are also compared with various experimental results and reasonably good agreement is observed.

Keywords
Fiber-reinforced composite, multi-axial fatigue, Puck’s criterion, fatigue master curve, fatigue failure envelope, biaxial
fatigue test

2. Phenomenological residual stiffness/strength models,

Introduction
Wind turbine blades made of composites experience
multi-axial fatigue loadings when in operation, and
therefore fatigue analysis is necessary and important
for the design and optimization of blades. Fatigue of
composites is usually much more complicated than that
of traditional homogenous materials such as metals
because both the material properties and the failure
of composites are affected by anisotropy and multi-
axiality. Thus the development of fatigue models for
composites is attracting interest of both researchers
and engineers. Many fatigue models for composite
materials have been developed over the years, and
may be classed into three broad categories:1
1. Fatigue life models based on the well-known S-N
curves and fatigue failure criteria.
which employ some evolution laws that describe
the gradual deterioration of the stiffness or strength.
3. Progressive damage models, which consider local
damage mechanisms and use one or more quantifi-
able damage variables related to damage descriptions
such as transverse crack density, delamination size,
etc.
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of
Singapore, Singapore.
2
Vestas Technology R&D, Singapore.
Corresponding author:
X.S. Sun, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of
Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117576, Singapore
Email: mpesx@nus.edu.sg

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

450
However, most of these models are formulated for
uniaxial loading and not extendable to multi-axial load-
ing conditions. In the fatigue failure models based on S-
N curves, the fatigue strengths are determined from S-
N curves which must be determined by experiments
with defined load frequency and stress ratio. If struc-
ture or load information changes, S-N curves usually
need to be redetermined by more experiments for this
kind of fatigue models. A typical example is a semi-log
S-N curve2,3 with linear relationship between the
applied cyclic stress and the number of cycles to failure.
The multi-axiality is indicated by two axial ratios in the
formula for the curve. A similar S-N curve was also
adopted by Philippidis and Vassilopoulos4 to fit fatigue
strength data with a Tsai-Wu-based fatigue failure
criterion under multi-axial stress. Huang5 used the max-
imum normal stress criterion with S-N curves for a plain-
woven fabric reinforced composite subjected to biaxial
cyclic loads. Recently, Gude et al.6 modified Puck’s cri-
terion with a group of semi-log S-N curves obtained from
linear regression analysis of various test data for predic-
tion of multi-axial fatigue failure of carbon/epoxy
tubular composites under tension/compression-torsion
fatigue loads.
The phenomenological residual stiffness/strength
models indirectly qualify the damage accumulation
during fatigue. These fatigue models are usually more
complicated, ranging from mainly empirical curve fits to
more sophisticated damage evolution functions linking
residual stiffness to damage variables and loading cycles.
An example is due to Kawakami et al.7 who proposed a
fatigue damage accumulation model for plain woven
glass fabric polymer composite based on continuum
damage mechanics, where the modulus decay ratios in
tension and shear were used as indicators for damage
variables. Under proportional combined tension-
torsion loadings, this model is reported to be able to
predict fatigue lives for different biaxial stress ratios.
Van Paepegem and Degrieck8 presented a phenomeno-
logical residual stiffness model that provides the stiffness
degradation and permanent strain under generalized in-
plane fatigue loading. This model takes into account the
actual stress state, but complicated damage growth rate
equations, which generally vary with different materials,
are used to interpret damage evolutions. Extensive
experiments and numerical simulations are required to
validate the model. Kawai9 developed a phenomenolog-
ical fatigue model for the off-axis fatigue behavior of
unidirectional (UD) polymer matrix composites, where
a new non-dimensional effective stress that considers the
effects of the stress ratio and multi-axial state of stress is
defined for the evolution of fatigue damage. However,
an empirical fatigue strength ratio was used in this
model, which requires fatigue experimental data to
determine the appropriate quantity. Passipoularidis
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)
and Philippidis10 proposed a statistical fatigue model
based on a strength degradation scheme named
Strength-Life Equal Rank Assumption (SLERA),
where several degradation models are studied and
large experimental data sets are required for implemen-
tation of the complicated model.
An example of a progressive damage approach is
given by Shokrieh and Lessard11–14 who proposed a
generalized residual material property degradation
model for fiber-reinforced composite laminates. They
used experimental data from an off-axis UD laminate
under uniaxial fatigue in order to predict the behavior
of a ply in multi-axial fatigue environment. This
model is complex and integrates stress analysis, failure
analysis, and material property degradation rules.
Diao et al.15 incorporated statistics into the above
model to study the fatigue failure of fiber-reinforced
composite laminates subjected to multi-axial loading,
where a Weibull distribution function of material
strengths was fitted by experimental data. In general,
such a model, however, requires more distribution
functions corresponding to the stochastic variables con-
sidered. Liu and Mahadevan16 proposed another S-N
curve-based fatigue progressive damage model for
multi-directional (MD) composite laminates.
However, only constant amplitude fatigue loading
was considered in this model, and the model was not
validated for different stress ratios. Quaresimin et al.17
recently assessed several typical multi-axial fatigue
models and proposed an approach based on damage
mechanics to develop life predictions for multi-axial
fatigue of composites, where failure mechanisms
including fiber failure (FF), rectangular cracking and
matrix damage from shear deformation are considered.
Passipoularidis et al.18 also developed a progressive
damage model for fatigue life prediction of composites
under block and spectrum loading, where Puck’s crite-
rion was used to determine fatigue failure and uniaxial
and/or multi-axial load time series can be simulated.
Fatigue models based on progressive damage analysis
are generally more computationally expensive and
complicated.
All the above three categories of fatigue models
are based on traditional fatigue tests, which generally
require very costly and substantial amounts of testing
at numerous load ratios and frequencies to generate
huge experimental fatigue failure databases for the
determination of the required empirical parameters.
This article proposes a multi-axial fatigue model based
on fatigue master curves and Puck’s criterion. Only lim-
ited uniaxial fatigue tests of UD laminates are required to
generate the master curves and the multi-axial fatigue
failure is determined by Puck’s criterion with uniaxial
ply fatigue strengths obtained from the fatigue master
curves. The traditional S-N curves can be derived and
Sun et al. 451

generated from the proposed fatigue model. In the certain values of stress ratio R ¼ min =max and a gener-
following sections, the proposed multi-axial fatigue alized fatigue master curve for different stress ratios can
model is introduced in detail, and then uniaxial and be obtained by introducing a coefficient gf such that:
biaxial fatigue experiments are carried out to provide
necessary test data for the proposed model. Finally,  
ð2ftÞnc
predictions of S-N curves and fatigue failure envelopes log f ¼ log s,0  log 1 þ gf   gf  logð2ftÞnf
ð2ft1 Þnr
under multi-axial fatigue loadings are demonstrated and
compared with test data for both UD and MD laminates ð2aÞ
with typical lay-up configurations. or the normalized fatigue master curve:

The multi-axial fatigue model based   nr 1

gf nf t na
on Puck’s criterion Mf ¼ ð2ftÞ þ gf  ð2ftÞ ð2bÞ
t1
The proposed multi-axial fatigue model consists of
two parts: the first establishes fatigue master curves where:
from accelerated testing methodology (ATM)19 which     
accounts for the uniaxial ply strengths under fatigue 1  r2 = 1  r20 ,  if r  0
gf ¼ ð3Þ
loadings (i.e. uniaxial ply fatigue strengths); the second ½1  rðjrj þ r0 Þ=2= 1  r20 , if r 5 0
is the prediction of multi-axial fatigue failure using 
Puck’s criterion. Generally, multi-axial stress states Mf ¼ f =s,0
ð4Þ
often arise in composite laminates due to the material na ¼ gf nf þ nc  nr
anisotropy, and hence a local multi-axiality at the 
ply level can exist even under uniaxial loading (such as j jmin R, if  1  R 5 1
r ¼ sgnðmin max Þ ¼
off-axis uniaxial loading). This article will consider a j jmax 1=R, if jRj 4 1
more general multi-axial situation which includes both ð5Þ
local and global (external) multi-axialities.
Here, 1  r 5 1 is a load amplitude ratio and ‘sgn’
denotes the sign function; r0 ¼ R0 if 0  R0 5 1 and
Fatigue master curves and S-N curves r0 ¼ 1=R0 if R0 4 1, where R and R0 are the stress
In the proposed fatigue model, the uniaxial ply fatigue ratios in the actual and reference states, respectively,
strengths are determined with fatigue master curves. with R0  0. With the empirical coefficient gf which
The fatigue master curve is established by the Time- accounts for the effect of mean and alternating stresses
Temperature Superposition Principle (TTSP) in ATM relative to the reference state, the defined fatigue master
under ply-level uniaxial loadings. With fatigue master curve in Equation (2) is suitable for loading conditions
curves, the long-term fatigue life of composites can be with various load frequencies and stress ratios. For
described in wide ranges of loading and environmental given load frequencies or stress ratios, typical normal-
conditions.19 The fatigue master curve at ambient ized fatigue master curves from Equation (2b) may be
temperature is obtained from master curves in the plotted in Figure 1(a) or (b), respectively. In general,
short-term tests with elevated temperature conditions higher frequencies will result in greater strength degra-
and can be generally formulated as:19 dation in the same time to failure.
  Analogously to Equation (1), Equation (2) can also
ð2ftÞnc be formulated by using the variable Nf and the relation-
log f ¼ log s,0  log 1 þ  logð2ftÞnf ð1Þ
ð2ft1 Þnr ship t ¼ Nf =f. To establish a consistent relationship
between the fatigue failure stress f and the correspond-
where f , f, t are variables denoting the uniaxial fatigue ing static failure stress, or static strength, 0 , assume
failure stress, frequency, and time to failure, respec- that f can be simplified to 0 when Nf ¼ f  t ¼ 1=2,
tively; s,0 is the constant strain rate (CSR) strength at so that a relationship between s,0 and 0 is obtained by
the initial reduced time; t1 is the transient reduced time substituting Nf ¼ 1=2 into Equation (2a):
at the reference temperature, which denotes a time
when the material turns to a glassy phase; nr , nc , nf are
s,0 ¼ 0 ð1 þ aÞ ð6Þ
exponent parameters determined by fitting test data.19
Consider the relationship t ¼ Nf =f and substituting it
where:
into Equation (1), f can also be formulated as a func-
tion of frequency f and number of cycles to failureNf .19
Usually, the fatigue master curve is based on some a ¼ gf =ð2ft1 Þnr ð7Þ

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

452 Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)

Figure 1. Normalized fatigue master curves: (a) for different frequencies and (b) for different stress ratios.

It can be seen that the fatigue master curve in where:

Equation (2) is determined by the corresponding 
static failure stress 0 , transient reduced time t1 , refer- 0, C ¼ 0, C 1 þ 1=R
ð11Þ
ence stress ratio R0 , and exponent parameters nr , nc , 0, T ¼ 0, T j1 þ Rj
and nf . In this article, the reference stress ratio R0 in
the fatigue master curve is selected from limited uniax- For R 4 1 or R 5 0, the absolute value of stress is
ial fatigue tests of UD laminates, and the parameters used in the master curve. Equation (10) indicates that
(t1 , nr , nc , and nf ) are then obtained by fitting curve there are two master curves for R 5 0, that is, tensile
with these limited fatigue test data. and compressive master curves corresponding to 0,T
For a constant load frequency and using the and 0, C , respectively. In this case, the fatigue failure
relationship Nf ¼ f  t, the traditional uniaxial S-N is determined by the master curve with lower stress for
curve can be recovered from the fatigue master curve a given time or number of cycles to failure, which indi-
formulation of Equation (2a): cates that the failure may be caused by tension or com-
pression. As shown in Figure 2, if the tensile and
0 ð1 þ aÞ compressive master curves intersect at point ðta ,f,a Þ,
f ¼  n  n ð8Þ the failure is dominated by compression under stress
2Nf 1 þa 2Nf 2
higher than f,a and by tension under stress lower
where the parameters n1 and n2 are obtained from than f,a . However, if the tensile and compressive
nc , nf , and gf through the following: master curves intersect at no point, which means
the tensile master curve is always above or below the
 compressive master curve, the failure is always deter-
n1 ¼ gf nf
ð9Þ mined by the master curve with lower stress. It is also
n2 ¼ gf nf þ nc
interesting to note three special cases for R 5 0:
For composite materials, the static failure stress 0
1. R ¼ 1 and therefore 0, C ¼ 0, T ¼ 0.
is usually different for tension and compression,
2. R ! 0 (left limit) and therefore 0, C ! 1 which
and therefore the value of 0 in Equation (6) can be
indicates that the failure is dominated by tension.
either tensile strength 0, T or compressive strength 0, C ,
3. R ! 1 and therefore 0, T ! 1 which indicates
or both, depending on the value of stress ratio R,
that the failure is dominated by compression.
that is:
8
>
> 0,T , if 0  R 5 1 The fatigue master curve defined in Equation (2a) is
<
0,C , if R 4 1 a deterministic formulation and the influence of the
0 ¼ ð10Þ
> 0,T and 0,C þ 0,C ,
> if  1  R 5 0 failure probability is not considered. The fatigue test
:
0,C and 0,T þ 0,T , if R  1 data are often scattered and the tests are somewhat

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

Sun et al.
Figure 2. Fatigue master curves for R < 0.
not deterministic (specimens may not fail or run out),
and statistical methods with failure probability are
usually adopted in some fatigue analyses of compos-
ites.10,15–17 An additional statistical term Kf may be
considered in the fatigue master curve,19 and a statisti-
cal formulation of the fatigue master curve can be
written as:
log f ¼ log s,0 þ log Kf  log
 
ð2ftÞnc
1 þ gf   gf  logð2ftÞnf
ð2ft1 Þnr
 1=f following:
Kf ¼  ln 1  Pf
where Pf is failure probability and f is a Weibull shape
parameter of test data.19
In Equation (13), if the failure probability
Pf ¼ 63:2%, then Kf ¼ 1 and consequently the influ-
ence of the failure probability vanishes in Equation
(12). In this case, the statistical formulation defined in
Equation (12) is simplified to the deterministic formu-
lation defined in Equation (2a). If different failure
probability is considered, for example, Pf ¼ 10% or
90%, the predicted results from the statistical model
will become more conservative or optimistic than
those from the deterministic model, and a region will
be predicted to represent scattered test data. A more
reasonable method to obtain the value of f is to fit a
linear Weibull plot of test data. While the Weibull plot
is indicated to be generated with static strength tests
in some literatures,10 it can be better generated with
uniaxial fatigue tests under the same stress level. Since
it requires multiple specimens tested under a fixed
stress level to obtain a proper Weibull parameter, this
article will only focus on the deterministic formulation
defined in Equation (2a), and the statistical formulation
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
453
may be further developed and evaluated in future
separate work.
Fatigue failure determination with Puck’s criterion
Puck’s failure criterion is an action-plane-related
strength criterion at the macro stress (ply stress) level,
which consists of two basically independent fracture
conditions: a FF condition and an inter-fiber failure
(IFF) condition.20–22 The FF condition is based on a
modified maximum strain failure criterion considering
a stress magnification effect and a shear correction, and
the IFF condition is based on a modified Mohr hypoth-
esis, that is, the IFF is influenced only by the stresses
on the fracture plane (an inclined plane parallel to the
fibers and determined by a fracture angle). The action-
plane-related strengths used in Puck’s criterion are gen-
erally determined by basic uniaxial ply strengths. With
the fatigue master curve defined in Equation (2a), the
uniaxial ply fatigue strengths including longitudinal
tension and compression, transverse tension and com-
pression, and in-plane shear, that is, XT, f , XC, f ,
YT, f , YC, f and S12, f , can be obtained for a fixed con-
stant frequency and time or number of cycles to failure.
These uniaxial ply fatigue strengths can be incorpo-
rated into Puck’s criterion, where the static strengths
are replaced by the fatigue strengths, and subsequently
the fatigue failure under any multi-axial loading can be
ð12Þ
predicted. Based on Puck’s criterion, the general multi-
axial fatigue failure criterion can be formulated as the
ð13Þ
FP ði, f , Sk, f ðR, f, tÞÞ ¼ 0 ð14Þ
where FP is the function of Puck’s criterion which is
usually determined by the fracture plane,22 and
Sk, f ðR,f,tÞ is the uniaxial ply fatigue strength for a
given stress ratio R, load frequency f, and time to fail-
ure t; i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 13 with fatigue stress compo-
nents 12, f ¼ 12, f , 23, f ¼ 23, f , and 13, f ¼ 13, f ;
k ¼ 1,2, . . . ,5 with uniaxial ply fatigue strengths
S1, f ¼ XT, f , S2, f ¼ XC, f , S3, f ¼ YT, f , S4, f ¼ YC, f , and
S5, f ¼ S12, f .
Alternatively, Equation (14) can also be formulated
with the number of cycles to failure Nf considering the
relationship t ¼ Nf =f. The multi-axial fatigue failure
criterion defined in Equation (14) may be applied to
generate fatigue failure envelopes for a given stress
ratio R, load frequency f, and time to failure t or
number of cycles to failure Nf . Similar to Puck’s crite-
rion for static analysis, the multi-axial fatigue version is
also ply-level based. Analysis methods such as the clas-
sical lamination theory (CLT) or the finite element
method (FEM) are needed for fatigue failure analysis
of MD laminates.
454
Equivalent fatigue stress and multi-axial S-N curves
The S-N curve defined in Equation (8) cannot be
directly used in multi-axial fatigue loadings where
multiple fatigue stress components must be considered.
Therefore, a method to determine the multi-axial S-N
curve is further developed with the above mentioned
fatigue model. Towards this end, a scalar equivalent
fatigue stress eq is defined with a general multi-axial
stress r or multi-axiality ratios i as the following:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X ffi
eq ¼ rT r ¼ jN j 2i
i axial fatigue stress rf ðR,f,Nf Þ corresponds to
where
8
T
>
> 1  2 3 12 23 13 , axial fatigue strength Rf is generally used in the context
>
>
< of a given group of multi-axiality ratios.
if UD laminates or plies
r¼
T ð16Þ
>
> x y z xy yz xz ,
>
>
: Implementation of the multi-axial fatigue model
if MD laminates
i ¼ i =jN j
Here, the superscript ‘T’ denotes transpose of an
array; i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 13 (with 12 ¼ 12 , 23 ¼ 23 ,
and 13 ¼ 13 ) for UD laminates or plies (the coordi-
nates system is defined in local material directions), and
i ¼ x,y,z,xy,yz,xz (with xy ¼ xy , yz ¼ yz , and
xz ¼ xz ) for MD laminates (the coordinates system
is defined in global reference directions); N is the first
non-zero stress component of r, for example, N ¼ 1 if
1 6¼ 0 for UD laminates. It should be noted that the
definition of multi-axiality ratios i in Equation (17)
implies a positive or negative value of the correspond-
ing stress component i , which corresponds to tension
or compression in some loading cases. A group of
multi-axiality ratios ½ comprises the multi-axiality
ratios i covering all stress components in a given
stress space.
Under multi-axial fatigue loading r ¼ rf ðR, f, Nf Þ,
the equivalent fatigue stress can be determined from
Equation (15) as eq ¼ eq, f ðR, f, Nf Þ. The multi-axial
fatigue stress rf ðR, f, Nf Þ can be obtained with the
above mentioned fatigue model and given multi-axiality
ratios, that is:
   different load amplitude ratios r for loading axes may
FP i, f , j, f , R, f, Nf ¼ 0
i, f : j, f ¼ i : j
where FP is the function of Puck’s criterion under
fatigue loadings; i, j ¼ 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 13ði 6¼ j Þ with
fatigue stress components 12, f ¼ 12, f , 23, f ¼ 23, f ,
and 13, f ¼ 13, f .
Once the multi-axial fatigue stress for a given stress
ratio R and load frequency f, rf ðNf Þ, is determined with
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)
Equation (18), the multi-axial S-N curve which
accounts for the effect of all fatigue stress components,
eq, f ðNf Þ ¼ eq, f ðrf ðNf ÞÞ, can be obtained through the
equivalent fatigue stress defined by Equation (15).
However, this multi-axial S-N curve cannot be explic-
itly formulated but is usually numerically obtained
from Equations (15) and (18). It can be verified that
the multi-axial S-N curve determined from Equations
(15) and (18) can be reduced to the uniaxial one explic-
itly defined in Equation (8) under uniaxial loading.
ð15Þ In the current multi-axial fatigue model, the multi-
the stress state causing fatigue failure and therefore
it is the multi-axial fatigue strength Rf , that is,
Rf ¼ rf ðR,f,Nf Þ and eq, f ¼ eq, f ðR,f,Nf Þ. The multi-
An Excel-based user-friendly interface was developed
ð17Þ for implementing the multi-axial fatigue model and fati-
gue analysis of UD or MD laminates. With the input
ply material properties (Young’s moduli and static
strengths, etc.) and fatigue load information (stress
ratio, frequency, multi-axiality ratios, number of
cycles or time to failure, etc.), the multi-axial fatigue
strength Rf for a given group of multi-axiality ratios
and a number of cycles or time to failure can be com-
puted from the fatigue model. Fatigue failure envelopes
for a given number of cycles or time to failure and S-N
curves for a given group of multi-axiality ratios can also
be generated and plotted. The flowchart for implement-
ing the multi-axial fatigue model is illustrated in
Figure 3. The fatigue master curves can be generated
from limited uniaxial fatigue tests and the correspond-
ing parameters can be stored for analysis of the same
composite materials. For simplicity but without loss of
generality, the fatigue failure envelope for a number of
cycles or time to failure is plotted with the same load
amplitude ratio r for all loading axes but possible
different stress ratio R, because the multi-axial loads
may alternate between tension and compression for
varying multi-axiality ratios. Nevertheless, this is not
a prerequisite for the multi-axial fatigue model and
be considered in the model.
ð18Þ
For UD laminates, the multi-axial fatigue strength
Rf is directly determined by Puck’s criterion with uni-
axial fatigue strengths obtained from the fatigue master
curves. For MD laminates, the multi-axiality ratios
are based on global reference directions and should
be transformed to the local multi-axiality ratios in
the ply material directions, and the stress ratio R is
same for local ply directions and global reference
Sun et al.
directions. Fatigue failure predictions are based on the
last-ply-failure (LPF) theory, as shown in Figure 4.
In determining the multi-axial fatigue strength Rf of
MD laminates by Puck’s criterion based on LPF,
usually a progressive degradation based on ply-by-ply
discount is required to calculate the degraded laminate
stiffness after first-ply-failure (FPF). For laminates with
uniform ply stress distribution, however, a simulta-
neous degradation scheme can be used to simplify the
failure analysis.23 In this article, only laminates with
uniform ply stress distribution are considered for dem-
onstrating the multi-axial fatigue model, and therefore
Figure 3. Flowchart for implementing the multi-axial fatigue
model.
Figure 4. Flowchart for determining the multi-axial fatigue
strength of MD laminates by CLT and Puck’s criterion with a
simultaneous degradation scheme.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
455
the simultaneous degradation scheme is used.
Nevertheless, the proposed model is straightforward
to laminates with non-uniform stress distribution
(such as laminates with an open hole) with progressive
damage analysis based on numerical methods such as
FEM. In the simultaneous degradation scheme, three
potential failure patterns are considered, i.e. the FPF
pattern where the laminate stiffness D is based on intact
materials, the LPF-matrix pattern where the laminate
stiffness D m is based on materials with degraded matrix,
and the LPF-fiber pattern where the laminate stiffness
D f is based on materials with degraded fibers. A coef-
ficient dm ¼ df ¼ 0:01 is used in the degradation of
matrix or fiber material to calculate the degraded lam-
inate stiffness (D m or D f ). The degradation of matrix or
fibers is simultaneous for all plies, and therefore no
iteration is required in the computation. The stress dis-
tribution based on the laminate stiffness D or the stress
redistribution based on the degraded laminate stiffness
(D m or D f ) in each ply is calculated by Puck’s criterion
with CLT for the three failure patterns, respectively.
The laminate failure stress for each pattern is the min-
imum value of failure stresses in all plies, and the final
laminate failure stress (the multi-axial fatigue strength)
is the maximum value of failure stresses from the three
patterns.
The current fatigue model is focused on predicting
the ultimate laminate strength under fatigue loading,
and only constant amplitude fatigue loading is consid-
ered in the article. Although the variable amplitude
fatigue may arise due to stress redistributions caused
by ply failures and stiffness degradation for MD
laminates, the amplitude can be assumed to be constant
for each failure pattern with the simultaneous degrada-
tion scheme (Figure 4), and the final failure stress or
strength is determined by the maximum value corre-
sponding to the stress state in plies.
Fatigue experiments
Both uniaxial and biaxial fatigue tests were carried
out under constant stress amplitude using a universal
testing machine INSTRON 8501. The uniaxial fatigue
tests are used to generate fatigue master curves for the
proposed multi-axial fatigue model and the biaxial fati-
gue tests are used to demonstrate the applicability of
the model.
Uniaxial static and fatigue tests
The proposed multi-axial fatigue model is based on ply-
level predictions and therefore the ply material properties
and static strengths are required in the application of
the model. In this article, glass/epoxy UD laminates
(eight plies, i.e. [0]8) were tested to provide the ply
456
material properties and static strengths for the current
fatigue tests which are used to establish and demon-
strate the multi-axial fatigue model. The laminates were
manufactured in infused glass fibers with fiber volume
fraction Vf ¼ 65%. The geometry and dimensions (in
mm) of the UD test coupons with end tabs are shown
in Figure 5. The coupons were cut from UD laminate
panels using water jet cutting method. For longitudinal
compressive tests, L ¼ 20 mm and W ¼ 25 mm; for
longitudinal tensile tests, L ¼ 40 mm and W ¼ 11 mm,
where the width of the test coupons was reduced from
the standard 25 mm to the current 11 mm due to the
load cell capacity (100 kN) of INSTRON 8501.
Nevertheless, a comparison test has been performed
and the results show that both Young’s modulus and
strength of the coupons with width 11 mm are consis-
tently similar to those coupons with width 25 mm.
The static tensile tests of glass/epoxy UD laminates
were performed according to EN ISO 527-424 using
INSTRON 8501 (load cell capacity: 100 kN), and the
compressive tests were performed according to ASTM
D3410/D3410M25 using Shimazu universal testing
machine (load cell capacity: 250 kN). Strain was
recorded using two single strain gauges attached on
the central area of the coupons, one on each face. The
uniaxial static test results are listed in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively, where the fiber material properties and the
ply shear and transverse compressive strengths are not
tested but referred to the values of typical glass/epoxy
materials from the ‘World-Wide Failure Exercise
(WWFE)’.26
Figure 5. Geometry and dimensions (in mm) of the UD test
coupons with end tabs.
Table 1. Material properties of the glass/epoxy UD laminate
Material properties Ply
Longitudinal modulus E1 (GPa) 48.7
Transverse moduli E2 ¼ E3 (GPa) 16.8
Shear moduli G12 ¼ G13 (GPa) 5.83a
Shear modulus G23 (GPa) 6.00
Poisson’s ratios v12 ¼ v13 0.28
Poisson’s ratio v23 0.40b
a Figure 6. Biaxial fatigue test with cruciform specimen and
Initial modulus. Secant modulus at shear failure strain G12s ¼ 1.95 GPa.
b
Values referred to the material in Word-Wide Failure Exercise.26
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)
The limited uniaxial fatigue tests of glass/epoxy UD
laminate [0]8 were carried out for three values of stress
ratio R ¼ 0:1, 10,  1, respectively. The geometry and
dimensions of the fatigue test coupons are similar to
those for static tests, as shown in Figure 5, with
L ¼ 40 mm for R ¼ 0.1 and L ¼ 20 mm for R ¼ 10,  1;
W ¼ 11 mm for all uniaxial fatigue test coupons. To get
good bonding surfaces, peel plies of the coupons and
end tabs were removed just before the bonding, and a
proper adhesive with high durability (3M-DP420
black) was used to bond the coupon and tabs in the
fatigue tests. All the coupons were tested using
INSTRON 8501 under sinusoidal loads with frequency
f ¼ 4Hz. The uniaxial test data obtained for R ¼ 0:1 and
R ¼ 10 are used to generate the fatigue master curves
(as shown in Figure 9). The uniaxial fatigue test
data obtained for R ¼ 1 are plotted in Figure 11 for
comparison with predictions from the proposed fatigue
model.
Biaxial fatigue tests
The biaxial fatigue tests were performed using a biax-
ial fixture mounted on INSTRON 8501 (Figure 6).
Table 2. Uniaxial static strengths of the glass/epoxy UD
laminate
Ply strengths Values
Longitudinal tensile strength XT (MPa) 1170
Longitudinal compressive strength XC (MPa) 977
Transverse tensile strength YT (MPa) 30.5
Transverse compressive strength YC (MPa) 114a
Shear strength S12 (MPa) 72.0a
a
Values referred to the material in Word-Wide Failure Exercise.26
Fiberb
74.0
74.0
30.8
30.8
0.20
0.20
biaxial fixture mounted on INSTRON 8501.
Sun et al. 457

A cruciform type specimen was set up on the biaxial
fixture. The center of the cruciform specimen (biaxial
zone) was milled to reduce the thickness from 7.14 mm
(32 plies in arms) to 1.78 mm (8 plies in the central biax-
ial zone), as shown in Figures 7(a) and 8(a). The area of
the biaxial zone is about 18  18 mm2. The cruciform
geometry is selected from the optimum type designed
by Smits et al.27 This geometry has a reduced thickness
in the central region of the specimen, in combina-
tion with a fillet corner between two arms inside the
material. These features cause failure to occur in the
biaxially loaded test zone, rather than in the uniaxially
loaded arms. Additionally, the uniformity of the strain
field in the central zone was also checked using finite
element analysis and digital image correlation tech-
nique. Lamkanfi et al.28–30 found that cruciform speci-
men type of Smits et al.27 may still lead to unwanted
stress concentrations at the inner radius of the arms
under certain conditions. They suggested the use of a
continuous spline for the arms to replace the inner
radius. However, as an alternative, in this article, the
thickness of the cruciform arms was instead made much
thicker than the thickness of the biaxial zone in order to
ensure higher stresses in the biaxial zone. The ratio of
the thicknesses of the arm to the biaxial zone is 4:1,
which is much higher than the specimen of Smits
et al.27 which is 1.8:1.
The biaxial loadings are achieved through the biaxial
fixture under a vertical loading by the INSTRON actu-
ator. For example, if the actuator moves upwards, the
cruciform specimen will experience compression in the
vertical direction and tension in the horizontal direc-
tion, and vice versa, as indicated by the white arrows
in Figure 6. The horizontal and vertical directions cor-
respond to the x and y directions in a global reference
coordinates system, respectively. The biaxiality ratio
between the horizontal and vertical loads was deter-
mined by the angle of link bars in the fixture. Strains
in both horizontal and vertical directions were recorded
using three strain gauges (strain rosettes) attached to
the central area (biaxial zone) of the specimens as
shown in Figures 7(a) and 8(a). The biaxial fatigue
tests were carried out under sinusoidal loads with fre-
quency f ¼ 4 Hz, and stress ratio R ¼ 10 for vertical

Figure 7. Photographs of off-axis specimen ([45/45]4 laminate; x ¼ 71:7 MPa, y ¼ 8:53 MPa): (a) Nf ¼ 0 (before loading),
(b) Nf ¼ 4944 (visible failure), (c) Nf ¼ 8902 (final failure), and (d) after final failure.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

458 Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)

Figure 8. Photographs of cross-ply specimen ([0/90]4 laminate; x ¼ 269:9 MPa, y ¼ 240:6 MPa): (a) Nf ¼ 0 (before loading),
(b) Nf ¼ 14364 (visible failure), (c) Nf ¼ 14453 (final failure) and (d) after final failure.

loading and R ¼ 0:1 for horizontal loading. Two kinds
of glass/epoxy MD laminates including off-axis lami-
nate (lay-up configuration: [45/45]4) and cross-ply
laminate (lay-up configuration: [0/90]4) were tested
under biaxial loads. Figures 7(b)–(d) and 8(b)–(d)
show the photograph of the biaxial fatigue specimens
for MD [45/45]4 and [0/90]4 laminates before and
after final failure (fracture), respectively.
Five and ten specimens were tested under different
stress levels and biaxiality ratios for off-axis and cross-
ply laminates, respectively. The biaxial test data are
plotted in Figures 18 and 23 for comparison with pre-
dictions from the proposed multi-axial fatigue model.
It was observed that damage started in the biaxial zone
of each specimen and no delamination was observed in
the arms of the cruciform specimens. For the off-axis
specimens ([45/45]4 laminate), extensive matrix crack-
ing occurred first in the biaxial zone and then followed
by fiber failure. For the cross-ply specimens ([0/90]4
laminate), damage clearly started in the biaxial zone
of each specimen, and the damage was dominated by
fiber failure. The off-axis specimens can still withstand
the load for many cycles after the visible matrix crack-
ing occurs as shown in Figure 7(b)–(d), whereas the
cross-ply specimens are fractured soon after the visible
failure, as shown in Figure 8(b)–(d).
Demonstration and application of the
fatigue model
The fatigue model may be applied to multi-axial fatigue
analysis of both UD and MD laminates. In this section,
glass/epoxy UD and MD laminates are used to demon-
strate the applicability of the proposed multi-axial
fatigue model. Master curves of uniaxial fatigue
strengths are first obtained from the above mentioned
limited uniaxial fatigue tests of glass/epoxy UD lami-
nates before fatigue analysis is performed based on the
master curves and Puck’s criterion. For the current
fatigue tests, the ply material properties and static
strengths used in the demonstration are listed in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively, as mentioned in the previ-
ous section. Besides the current fatigue tests, various
fatigue tests on glass/epoxy laminates in literature,

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

Sun et al.
Figure 9. Fitting fatigue master curves of glass/epoxy UD laminates from limited uniaxial test data: (a) longitudinal tension and
(b) longitudinal compression.
Figure 10. Fatigue master curves of glass/epoxy UD laminates
for the reference stress ratios: transverse tension/compression
and shear.
including the well-known OPTIMAT database,31–38
SNL/MSU/DOE database,39 and some published fatigue
test data,40 are also used to validate the model, where the
basic material properties are provided by corresponding
static tests.
Generation of fatigue master curves with limited
uniaxial fatigue tests
For fiber-reinforced UD laminates, five uniaxial ply
fatigue strengths (longitudinal tension and compres-
sion, transverse tension and compression, and in-
plane shear) may be determined from the fatigue
master curves. Six parameters from Equation (2a)
need to be determined from tests. The CSR strength
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
459
Figure 11. Comparison of predictions of uniaxial S-N curves
with the current test data for R ¼ 1.
s, 0 can be obtained by the corresponding static
strength 0 through the relationship in Equation (6),
and the other five parameters are determined by fitting
data with uniaxial fatigue tests of UD laminates.
Figure 9 shows the fitted fatigue master curves of
longitudinal tension and compression with the current
uniaxial test data of glass/epoxy UD laminates for
f ¼ 4Hz, where the values of reference stress ratio
R0 ¼ 0:1 and R0 ¼ 10 are used in the fitting data of
tension and compression, respectively. The obtained fit-
ting parameters are listed in Table 3.
The fatigue master curves of transverse and shear
strengths can also be fitted with corresponding test
data. However, in order to simplify the analysis and
without loss of generality for application of the fatigue
460 Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)

Figure 12. Comparison of predictions of uniaxial S-N curves with test data31,32 for various frequencies: (a) R ¼ 0.1 and (b) R ¼ 1.

Figure 13. Comparison of predictions of uniaxial S-N curves with test data33–35 for various stress ratios: (a) longitudinal direction
and (b) transverse direction.

model, it can be assumed that the fitting parameters in parameters for shear are same as those for tension.
the fatigue master curves for transverse tension and Figure 10 shows the fatigue master curves of uniaxial
compression are same as those for longitudinal tension transverse tension/compression and shear with the fit-
and compression, respectively, and that the fitting ting parameters and corresponding static strengths,
based on the reference stress ratios R0 ¼ 0:1 and
R0 ¼ 10. With these fatigue master curves, multi-axial
Table 3. Fitting parameters for fatigue master curves of the fatigue analysis can be implemented and S-N curves,
glass/epoxy UD laminate fatigue strengths, or fatigue failure envelopes can be
obtained for given load frequencies, stress ratios, and
Parameters Tension Compression multi-axiality ratios.
t1 ðminÞ 5:8  108 5:8  108
nf 0.05 0.03 Uniaxial and multi-axial S-N curves
nr 0.20 0.10
As mentioned in Section 2, both uniaxial and multi-
nc 0.15 0.11
axial S-N curves can be derived from the proposed

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

Sun et al.
Figure 14. Comparison of predictions of uniaxial S-N curves with test data39 for stress ratio R ¼ 0.1: (a) longitudinal tension and
(b) transverse tension.
Figure 15. Comparison of predictions of multi-axial S-N
curves for UD laminates with test data34,37 for different local
multi-axiality ratios (1 : 2 : 12 ).
multi-axial fatigue model, as indicated in Equations (8),
(15), and (18). Figures 11–14 plot various uniaxial S-N
curves of UD laminates, where the predictions from the
fatigue model are compared with test data from differ-
ent experiments. It can be seen that the theoretical pre-
dictions agree reasonably well with the experimental
results. The uniaxial S-N curves for different load fre-
quencies are compared in Figure 12, and the compari-
son shows that the predicted S-N curves change little
with load frequencies. Accordingly, a default frequency
f ¼ 4 Hz is used to plot the S-N curves for simplicity of
comparison in Figure 13.
The uniaxial S-N curves for various stress ratios are
also compared in Figures 11–13. The failure for R ¼ 1
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
461
may be caused by compression or tension depending
on different stress levels. In the case of longitudinal
loading for R ¼ 1, it is observed from experiments
that some specimens failed by compressive buckling
and others failed by tension, which corresponds to
high and low stress levels in the S-N curves, respec-
tively, as shown in Figures 11, 12(b) and 13(a). In the
current fatigue tests for R ¼ 1, three coupons failed in
compression at high stress levels, which correspond to
the three data points with f ¼ 679:9 MPa and
589.2 MPa in Figure 11, and other coupons failed in
tension. In the fatigue tests for R ¼ 1 by Philippidis
et al.34 only two coupons were monitored with slight
compressive buckling, which corresponds to the two
data points with f ¼ 344:6 MPa and 340:4 MPa for
R ¼ 1 in Figure 13(a). The report by Lekou32 only
mentioned that some coupons failed in compression
for R ¼ 1, without specific coupon information.
In the case of transverse loading for R ¼ 1, however,
the failure is usually caused by tension because the
transverse tensile strength is much lower than compres-
sive strength and the tensile S-N curve is always below
the compressive S-N curve, which can be seen in Figure
13(b).
The comparisons in Figures 11–14 also show that the
fatigue test data usually vary with different stress ratios,
loading directions (longitudinal or transverse), and
static strengths. For example, in the longitudinal fati-
gue tests for R ¼ 1, Figures 11, 12(b) and 13(a) show
different test data and S-N curves. Generally, for a
given number of cycles to failure, the higher the static
strength 0 or mplitude ratio r, higher is the fatigue
stress f . In the current fatigue model, a linear rela-
tionship between the static strength and the fatigue
stress is used, as indicated in Equation (8).
462
Figure 16. Comparison of predictions of multi-axial S-N curves for UD laminates with test data40 for different stress ratios:
(a) R ¼ 0.5, (b) R ¼ 0, and (c) R ¼ 1.
Figures 15 and 16 plot multi-axial S-N curves of UD
laminates for different local multi-axiality ratios
(1 : 2 : 12 ) and stress ratios (R), and the predictions
are also compared with test data which are obtained
through transforming fatigue test data of UD off-axis
coupons from the loading direction to ply material direc-
tions.37,40 The relationship between the local multi-axi-
ality ratios in the material directions and the off-axis
angle  is 1 : 2 : 12 ¼ cos2  : sin2  : cos  sin .
It should be noted that the multi-axial S-N curves in
Figures 15 and 16 are generated from Equations (15)
and (18) for given multi-axiality ratios, and the corre-
sponding test data are also transformed to the equivalent
stress defined in Equation (15). The relationship between
the equivalent stress eq and the off-axis stress x is:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
eq ¼ x 1  cos2  sin2 
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)
For comparison, the uniaxial S-N curve (with a
special group of local multi-axiality ratios
1 : 2 : 12 ¼ 1 : 0 : 0 or 1 : 2 : 12 ¼ 0 : 1 : 0) of lon-
gitudinal or transverse tension is also plotted. It can be
seen that the multi-axial S-N curves vary with different
multi-axiality ratios, and therefore a logarithmic scale
in the stress ordinate is used to better show the com-
parison for a wide range of stress values. The compar-
ison shows that the predicted multi-axial S-N curves
based on the equivalent stress generally agree with the
test data. In Figure 16, the predicted S-N curves in the
longitudinal direction (1 : 2 : 12 ¼ 1 : 0 : 0) are a
little more conservative than test data, which may be
caused by the lower static longitudinal tensile strength
(XT ¼ 800 MPa). For other multi-axiality ratios in
Figure 16, the predictions generally agree well with
ð19Þ test data, except for cases with higher transverse
stress components (2 ) for stress ratio R ¼ 1 as
Sun et al. 463

Figure 17. Comparison of predictions of multi-axial S-N curves for MD laminates with test data37-39 under global uniaxial loading
(special multi-axiality ratios: x : y : xy ¼ 1 : 0 : 0): (a) different lay-ups and (b) different stress ratios.

Figure 18. Comparison of predictions of biaxial S-N curves for MD laminates with the current test data for different global biaxiality
ratios (x : y ): (a) [45/45]4 laminate and (b) [0/90]4 laminate.

shown in Figure 16(c). It should be noted that the
compressive S-N curves for R ¼ 1 are not plotted in
Figure 16(c) because the compressive strengths are not
available in the test data.40 Nevertheless, the failure for
the off-axis tests for R ¼ 1 can be determined by the
tensile S-N curves because it was dominated by the
matrix.40
The multi-axial S-N curves for MD laminates are plot-
ted in Figures 17 and 18, and the predictions are also
compared with test data. In Figure 17, special global
multi-axiality ratios, that is, x : y : xy ¼ 1 : 0 : 0,
are investigated for different MD laminates and different
stress ratios, respectively. Although these MD laminates
are applied with a global uniaxial load, the failure in
the plies is actually caused by local multi-axial stress
states. For R ¼ 1 in Figure 17(a), failure was under
tension in all test cases.37 However, the failure mode of
tests for R ¼ 1 by DOE MSU39 was not reported.
The comparison in Figure 17 shows reasonably good
agreement of predictions with test data, which indicates
that the ply-level-based multi-axial fatigue model is able
to predict fatigue failure of MD laminates. Figure 18
shows biaxial S-N curves of MD laminates, including
lay-up configurations of [45/45/]4 and [0/90]4, for
different global biaxiality ratios (x : y ), f ¼ 4 Hz
and r ¼ 0:1. For the experiment, the biaxial stresses of

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

464 Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)

the cruciform specimen are estimated from the measured

strains and virgin stiffness based on CLT. For the
[45/45]4 laminate, a secant modulus at the failure
strain is used to calculate the failure stress in order to
circumvent the complication caused by material degra-
dation and non-linearity. For the [0/90]4 laminate, the
final failure is dominated by the fibers and the material
degradation of matrix usually has no significant influence
on the laminate stiffness before fiber failure, and so for
simplicity, the failure stress is calculated with virgin
stiffness. Based on the comparison with test results in
Figure 18, the multi-axial fatigue model reasonably pre-
dicts the fatigue failure under biaxial loading despite
some optimistic predictions for the MD [0/90]4 laminate
as shown in Figure 18(b).
Figure 19. Biaxial fatigue failure envelopes of UD laminates
(f ¼ 4 Hz).

Figure 20. Comparison of predictions of fatigue failure envelopes for UD laminates with test data (f ¼ 1.0 5.2 Hz, R ¼ 0.1)36,37in
various stress spaces: (a) stress space 1  2 with 12 6¼ 0, (b) stress space 1  12 with 2 6¼ 0, and (c) stress space 2  12 with
1 6¼ 0.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

Sun et al. 465

Figure 21. Comparison of predictions of fatigue failure envelopes for UD laminates with test data (f ¼ 3.3 Hz, R ¼ 0)40 in various
stress spaces: (a) stress space 1  2 (1  0 and 2  0) with 12 6¼ 0, (b) stress space 1  12 (1  0 and 12  0) with 2 6¼ 0,
and (c) stress space 2  12 (2  0 and 12  0) with 1 6¼ 0.

Figures 15, 16 and 18, fatigue failure envelopes pre-

Fatigue failure envelopes
It can be seen from Figures 15– 18 that the multi-axial
S-N curves can only illustrate multi-axial fatigue failure
for given groups of multi-axiality ratios. With the uni-
axial ply fatigue strengths obtained from the fatigue
master curves or S-N curves for given load frequencies
and stress ratios, fatigue failure envelopes can be
generated with Puck’s criterion in a given number of
cycles or time to failure. Fatigue failure envelopes, how-
ever, can illustrate multi-axial fatigue failure for any
group of multi-axiality ratios in a defined multi-axial
stress space (e.g. Figures 19 and 22). Different failure
modes can also be shown in the fatigue failure
envelope, which usually cannot be discerned with the
multi-axial S-N curves. Using the same test data in
dicted from the multi-axial fatigue model for given
numbers of cycles to failure are plotted in different
stress spaces for both UD and MD laminates and
compared with the test data (Figures 20, 21, 23).
UD LAMINATES. Figure 19 illustrates the fatigue fail-
ure envelopes of UD laminates in biaxial stress space
1  2 , for various number of cycles to failure and
r ¼ 0:1 (R ¼ 0:1, 10). Basically, the fatigue failure enve-
lope decreases in size with number of cycles to failure
because of the decreased fatigue strengths. As shown in
Figure 19, biaxial fatigue strength of UD laminates for
given biaxiality ratios and a number of cycles to failure
can be illustratively determined from the fatigue failure
envelopes.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

466 Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)

Figure 22. Biaxial fatigue failure envelopes of MD laminates: (a) [45/45]4 laminate and (b) [0/90]4 laminate.

Figure 23. Comparison of predictions of fatigue failure envelopes for MD laminates with the current test data in biaxial stress space
x  y (x  0 and y  0): (a) [45/45]4 laminate and (b) [0/90]4 laminate.

The fatigue failure envelopes of UD laminates for
different stress ratios are plotted in various biaxial
stress spaces, as shown in Figures 20 and 21, where
some of the test results36,37,40 are also included and
compared with the predicted failure envelopes. Since
the longitudinal and transverse compressive strengths
are not available in the test data,40 only parts with
1  0 and 2  0 of the failure envelopes are plotted
in Figure 21. The comparison demonstrates that the
predictions from the fatigue model generally agree
well with the experimental results. It should be noted
that Figures 20 and 21 actually plot the multi-axial (tri-
axial) failure envelopes in different biaxial stress
spaces through a sectional view with the non-zero
value of the third stress. For example, Figure 20(a)
plots the tri-axial failure envelopes in the 1  2
stress space with different non-zero values of shear
stress 12 . In Puck’s criterion, however, the longitudi-
nal stress 1 usually has little effect on failure envelopes
in stress space 2  12 if 1 is not close to the longitu-
dinal tensile or compressive strength. So the failure
envelopes in Figures 20(c) and 21(c) with different
values of 1 5 5 XT (denotes fatigue stress or
fatigue strength in fatigue loading) for each number
of cycles are nearly same as the corresponding biaxial
2  12 failure envelopes with 1 ¼ 0. The fatigue fail-
ure envelopes in Figures 20 and 21 clearly show fatigue
failures of UD laminates for various multi-axiality
ratios. For example, in Figure 20(c), the fatigue failures
for muli-axiality ratios 1 : 2 : 12 ¼ 1 : 0:03 : 0:18

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012

Sun et al.
(corresponding to 10o off-axis tests)37 and
1 : 2 : 12 ¼ 1 : 3 : 1:73 (corresponding to 60o off-
axis tests36,37 are mainly dominated by shear and trans-
verse tension, respectively.
MD LAMINATES. For MD laminates, the last-ply
failure (LPF) usually dominates the laminate ultimate
strength and is more important in the case of fatigue
loadings, and therefore the LPF envelopes are plotted
to show the laminate failure characteristics under multi-
axial fatigue loadings. Biaxial fatigue failure enve-
lopes are illustrated in Figures 22 and 23, which are
generated with the fatigue model and LPF analysis
based on CLT.
Figure 22 plots the fatigue failure envelopes of MD
laminates with lay-up configurations of [45/45]4 and
[0/90]4 in global biaxial stress space x  y , for various
number of cycles to failure and r ¼ 0:1. The fatigue
failure envelopes are usually different for laminates
with different configurations as shown in Figure 22.
The biaxial fatigue strengths of the same laminate
vary for different global biaxiality ratios. In addition,
the biaxial fatigue strengths also vary with different
laminates for the same global biaxiality ratios, for
example, x : y ¼ 1 : 0:2, as shown in Figure 22. The
failure envelopes clearly show different load capacity
of the laminates for different biaxiality ratios. For
example, for the [45/45]4 laminate, the load capacity
under biaxial tension–tension or compression–
compression is generally much better than that under
tension–compression or compression–tension, and the
failure is dominated by either the matrix or the fibers
depending on the biaxiality ratios, as shown in Figure
22(a). For the [0/90]4 laminate, however, the load
capacity is similar for different biaxiality ratios because
the final failure is always dominated by the fibers, as
shown in Figure 22(b). For the [45/45]4 laminate,
since the in-plane shear stress-strain relationship usu-
ally presents significant non-linearity for glass/epoxy
fiber-reinforced composites, the secant in-plane shear
modulus at failure strain is used in the LPF analysis.
The comparisons of failure envelopes from the
fatigue model (r ¼ 0:1) with the current test data
(R ¼ 0:1) for various number of cycles to failure are
illustrated in Figure 23(a) and (b) for the [45/45]4
and [0/90]4 laminates, respectively, where x and y cor-
respond to the stresses along the horizontal and vertical
directions in the tests. The predictions from the model
show that the failures of the [45/45]4 and [0/90]4 lam-
inates under biaxial tension-compression loads are
dominated by the matrix and the fibers, respectively,
which agree with the experimental observations. It
can be seen that the theoretical predictions for the
[45/45]4 laminate are in reasonably good agreement
with the experimental results. For the
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
467
[0/90]4 laminate, the predicted failure envelopes are a
little more optimistic than test data. Usually, the failure
of the [45/45]4 laminate under biaxial tension–
compression loads is dominated by the matrix and the
failure strengths obtained from FPF analysis and LPF
analysis are similar. For the [0/90]4 laminate under
biaxial tension–compression loads, however, the failure
is dominated by the fibers and failure strengths
obtained from FPF and LPF analyses are quite differ-
ent. The difference between the FPF and LPF analyses
may cause optimistic predictions. The experimental
results are supposed to be between predictions from
the FPF and LPF analyses, and closer to predictions
from the LPF analysis.
Conclusions
A multi-axial fatigue model based on fatigue master
curves and Puck’s criterion is developed for fatigue
analysis of fiber-reinforced composite laminates in
this article. The fatigue master curves from ATM are
generated with limited uniaxial fatigue test data of UD
laminates, and can be applied to fatigue loading condi-
tions with different frequencies and stress ratios. Under
fatigue loading, the uniaxial ply fatigue strengths are
obtained through the fatigue master curves, and then
the multi-axial fatigue failure is determined with these
fatigue strengths by applying Puck’s criterion at the ply
level. The traditional uniaxial S-N curve can be explic-
itly derived from the proposed fatigue model, and the
multi-axial S-N curve is numerically determined with
an equivalent fatigue stress by the fatigue model,
where all stress components in the fatigue loadings
are considered to account for the effects of multi-
axiality. The fatigue model is also applicable to general
MD laminates through analysis methods such as CLT
or FEM. With several basic fatigue master curves for
a ply material, fatigue strength of any laminate
may be predicted by the multi-axial fatigue model for
various frequencies, stress ratios, and multi-axiality
ratios.
Limited uniaxial fatigue tests on glass/epoxy UD
laminates were carried out to provide test data for
establishing the fatigue master curves, and MD lami-
nates were also tested under biaxial fatigue loadings.
The application of the proposed multi-axial fatigue
model is demonstrated with predictions of S-N curves
and fatigue failure envelopes of UD and MD laminates.
By using multi-axial S-N curves and fatigue failure
envelopes, multi-axial fatigue failure can be illustrated
with any number of cycles to failure and any group
of multi-axiality ratios in a defined stress space. The
multi-axial fatigue model can account for both local
and global multi-axial failures. Two features of the
multi-axial fatigue model are demonstrated:
468
1. Ply-level prediction of multi-axial fatigue failure,
which means the model is easy to be used for lami-
nates with various lay-up configurations.
2. Generation of fatigue failure envelope in stress
spaces, which can clearly show the multi-axial failure
and different failure modes, such as tension, com-
pression or shear.
The fatigue of glass/epoxy UD and MD laminates
with various lay-up configurations is investigated
with the proposed fatigue model. The predictions of
uniaxial and multi-axial S-N curves with different
stress ratios and multi-axiality ratios, for both local
and global multi-axialities, from the proposed fatigue
model are compared and validated with various test
data. Fatigue failure envelopes are also generated for
multi-axial loadings and compared with limited test
data. Reasonably good agreement is observed between
the results of prediction and experiment. Although the
multi-axial fatigue model is demonstrated and validated
with glass/epoxy laminates with uniform stress distribu-
tion, it can be extended to non-uniform stress distribu-
tion in structures, where the model can be coded into
numerical analysis software.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from Vestas and NUS Incentive Grant is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Degrieck J and Van Paepegem W. Fatigue damage model-
ing of fiber-reinforced composite materials: Review. Appl
Mech Rev 2001; 54: 279–299.
2. Fawaz Z and Ellyin F. Fatigue failure model for fiber-
reinforced materials under general loading conditions.
J Compos Mater 1994; 28: 1432–1451.
3. Fawaz Z and Ellyin F. A new methodology for the predic-
tion of fatigue failure in multidirectional fiber-reinforced
laminates. Compos Sci Technol 1995; 53: 47–55.
4. Philippidis TP and Vassilopoulos AP. Fatigue strength
prediction under multiaxial stress. J Compos Mater 1999;
33: 1578–1599.
5. Huang ZM. Fatigue life prediction of a woven fabric com-
posite subjected to biaxial cyclic loads. Compos Part A-
Appl S 2002; 33: 253–266.
6. Gude M, Hufenbach W, Koch I and Protz R. Fatigue
failure criteria and degradation rules for composites
under multiaxial loadings. Mech Compos Mater 2006; 42:
443–450.
7. Kawakami H, Fujii TJ and Morita Y. Fatigue degradation
and life prediction of glass fabric polymer composite under
tension/torsion biaxial loading. J Reinf Plast Comp 1996;
15: 183–195.
8. Van Paepegem W and Degrieck J. Modelling damage
and permanent strain in fiber-reinforced composites
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
Journal of Composite Materials 46(4)
under in-plane fatigue loading. Compos Sci Technol
2003; 63: 677–694.
9. Kawai M. A phenomenological model for off-axis fatigue
behavior of unidirectional polymer matrix composites
under different stress ratios. Compos Part A-Appl S
2004; 35: 955–963.
10. Passipoularidis VA and Philippidis TP. Strength degra-
dation due to fatigue in fiber dominated glass/epoxy
composites: a statistical approach. J Compos Mater
2009; 43: 997–1013.
11. Shokrieh MM and Lessard LB. Multiaxial fatigue behav-
iour of unidirectional plies based on uniaxial fatigue
experiments – I. Modelling. Int J Fatigue 1997; 19: 201–207.
12. Shokrieh MM and Lessard LB. Multiaxial fatigue behav-
iour of unidirectional plies based on uniaxial fatigue
experiments – II. Experimental evaluation. Int J Fatigue
1997; 19: 209–217.
13. Shokrieh MM and Lessard LB. Progressive fatigue
damage modeling of composite materials, Part I:
Modeling. J Compos Mater 2000; 34: 1056–1080.
14. Shokrieh MM and Lessard LB. Progressive fatigue
damage modeling of composite materials, Part II:
Material characterization and model verification.
J Compos Mater 2000; 34: 1081–1116.
15. Diao X, Lessard LB and Shokrieh MM. Statistical model
for multiaxial fatigue behavior of unidirectional plies.
Compos Sci Technol 1999; 59: 2025–2035.
16. Liu Y and Mahadevan S. Probabilistic fatigue life predic-
tion of multidirectional composite laminates. Compos
Struct 2005; 69: 11–19.
17. Quaresimin M, Susmel L and Talreja R. Fatigue behav-
iour and life assessment of composite laminates under
multiaxial loadings. Int J Fatigue 2010; 32: 2–16.
18. Passipoularidis VA, Philippidis TP and Brondsted P.
Fatigue life prediction in composites using progressive
damage modeling under block and spectrum loading.
Int J Fatigue 2011; 33: 132–144.
19. Miyano Y, Nakada M and Cai H. Formulation of long-
term creep and fatigue strengths of polymer composites
based on accelerated testing methodology. J Compos
Mater 2008; 42: 1897–1919.
20. Puck A and Schürmann H. Failure analysis of FRP lam-
inates by means of physically based phenomenological
models. Compos Sci Technol 1998; 58: 1045–1067.
21. Puck A and Schürmann H. Failure analysis of FRP lam-
inates by means of physically based phenomenological
models. Compos Sci Technol 2002; 62: 1633–1662.
22. Puck A, Kopp J and Knops M. Guidelines for the deter-
mination of the parameters in Puck’s action plane
strength criterion. Compos Sci Technol 2002; 62: 371–378.
23. Tsai SW. Theory of composites design. In: Tsai SW (ed.)
Strength & life of composites. CA, USA: Stanford
University, 2008, pp. A9-8–A9-17.
24. EN ISO 527-4. Plastics – Determination of tensile proper-
ties – Part 4: test conditions for isotropic and orthotropic
fiber-reinforced plastic composites. Geneve, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization, 1997.
25. ASTM D3410/D3410M. Standard test method for com-
pressive properties of polymer matrix composite materials
with unsupported gage section by shear loading.
 Sun et al.
Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing
and Materials, 2003.
26. Soden PD, Hinton MJ and Kaddour AS. Lamina prop-
erties, lay-up configurations and loading conditions for a
range of fiber-reinforced composite laminates. Compos
Sci Technol 1998; 58: 1011–1022.
27. Smits A, Van Hemelrijck D, Philippidis TP and Cardon
A. Design of a cruciform specimen for biaxial testing of
fiber reinforced composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol
2006; 66: 964–975.
28. Lamkanfi E, Van Paepegem W, Degrieck J, Ramault C,
Makris A and Van Hemelrijck D. Strain distribution in
cruciform specimens subjected to biaxial loading condi-
tions. Part 1: Two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional
finite element model. Polym Test 2010; 29: 7–13.
29. Lamkanfi E, Van Paepegem W, Degrieck J, Ramault C,
Makris A and Van Hemelrijck D. Strain distribution in
cruciform specimens subjected to biaxial loading condi-
tions. Part 2: Influence of geometrical discontinuities.
Polym Test 2010; 29: 132–138.
30. Makris A, Vandenbergh T, Ramault C, Van Hemelrijck
D, Lamkanfi E and Van Paepegem W. Shape optimisa-
tion of a biaxially loaded cruciform specimen. Polym Test
2010; 29: 216–223.
31. Lekou DJ. ‘Test Results of Benchmark Static Tests on
UD and MD Coupons’, OPTIMAT BLADES, ENK6-
CT2001-00552, OB_TG1_R007, http://www.wmc.eu/pub-
lic_docs/10154_000.pdf (2003, accessed 16 July 2011).
32. Lekou DJ. ‘Test Results of CA Fatigue Tests on UD
Coupons’, OPTIMAT BLADES, ENK6-CT2001-00552,
OB_TG1_R011, http://www.wmc.eu/public_docs/10197_
001.pdf (2004, accessed 16 July 2011).
33. Philippidis TP, Vassilopoulos AP, Assimakopoulou TT
and Passipoularidis V. ‘Static and Fatigue Tests of
OPTIMAT UD Coupons: Benchmark Tests’, OPTIMAT
BLADES, ENK6-CT2001-00552, OB_TG2_R012, http://
www.wmc.eu/public_docs/10120_000.pdf (2003, accessed
16 July 2011).
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at NATIONAL UNIV SINGAPORE on February 1, 2012
View publication stats
469
34. Philippidis TP, Passipoularidis VA, Assimakopoulou TT
and Antoniou AE. ‘Fatigue Tests in the Fiber Direction
of UD OB Standard Specimen: Main Test Phase I’,
OPTIMAT BLADES, ENK6-CT2001-00552, OB_TG1_
R013, http://www.wmc.eu/public_docs/10219_001.pdf
(2006, accessed 16 July 2011).
35. Philippidis TP, Assimakopoulou TT, Antoniou AE and
Passipoularidis VA. ‘Fatigue Tests on OB Standard
Coupons at 90o: Main Test Phase I’, OPTIMAT
BLADES, ENK6-CT2001-00552, OB_TG2_R021, http://
www.wmc.eu/public_docs/10253_000.pdf (2005, accessed
16 July 2011).
36. Philippidis TP, Antoniou AE, Assimakopoulou TT and
Passipoularidis VA. ‘Static Tests on the Standard OB UD
and MD Off-axis Coupons: Main Test Phase I’,
OPTIMAT BLADES, ENK6-CT2001-00552, OB_TG2_
R022, http://www.wmc.eu/public_docs/10254_000.pdf
(2005, accessed 15 July 2011).
37. Philippidis TP, Antoniou AE, Assimakopoulou TT and
Passipoularidis VA. ‘Fatigue Tests on OB Unidirectional
& Multidirectional Off-axis Coupons: Main Test Phase
I’, OPTIMAT BLADES, ENK6-CT2001-00552, OB_
TG2_R030, http://www.wmc.eu/public_docs/10350_000
.pdf (2006, accessed 15 July 2011).
38. Philippidis TP, Assimakopoulou TT, Passipoularidis VA
and Antoniou AE. ‘Static and Fatigue Tests on ISO
Standard 45o Coupons: Main Test Phase I’, OPTIMAT
BLADES, ENK6-CT2001-00552, OB_TG2_R020, http://
www.wmc.eu/public_docs/10207_000.pdf (2004, accessed
15 July 2011).
39. MSU Composite Group. ‘SNL/MSU/DOE Composite
Material Fatigue Database, Version 20.0’, http://www.
coe.montana.edu/composites/ (2011, accessed xx xx xxxx).
40. El Kadi H and Ellyin F. Effect of stress ratio on the
fatigue of unidirectional glass fiber/epoxy composite lam-
inae. Composites 1994; 25: 917–924.