Babu JB 2012 PHD Thesis

PREDICTING THE FATIGUE BEHAVIOUR OF
MATRICES AND FIBRE-COMPOSITES

BASED UPON MODIFIED EPOXY POLYMERS
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Imperial College
London
and the Diploma of Imperial College
February 2012
By Jibumon B Babu
Department of Mechanical Engineering

Imperial College London
Abstract
The present research work has studied the fatigue behaviour of matrices and
fibre-composites based upon modified epoxy polymers. The basic epoxy
polymer has been modified with (a) nano-silica particles, (b) micrometre-rubber
particles, and (c) both of these additives, to give a ‘hybrid’ modified epoxy.
These modifications have been undertaken in order to try to increase the cyclic
fatigue resistance of the fibre-composite material. The experimental work has
used a linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) approach to firstly ascertain the
fatigue properties of the epoxy polymer matrices. Secondly, the unmodified (i.e.
control) and the modified epoxy resins were used to fabricate glass fibre
reinforced plastic (GFRP) composite laminates by a resin infusion under flexible
tooling (RIFT) manufacturing method. Tensile cyclic fatigue tests were
performed on these composites, during which the degree of matrix cracking and
stiffness degradation were also monitored. The fatigue life of the GFRP
composite was significantly increased due to the presence of the nano-silica
particles and/or micro-rubber particles. Suppressed matrix cracking and a
reduced crack propagation rate in the modified matrix of the fibre-composite
were observed to contribute towards the enhanced fatigue life of the composites
containing the nano-silica particles and/or micro-rubber particles. The
theoretical studies employed an extended finite element method, coupled with a
cohesive zone model, to predict the fatigue behaviour of the fibre composites
based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) and modified epoxy polymer matrices.
A ‘user element subroutine’ has been developed in Abaqus to incorporate the
extended finite element method and a mathematical model has been proposed
to evaluate the constitutive laws for the cohesive zone model to simulate the
growth of fatigue cracks. A fatigue degradation strategy based on the ‘Paris law’
(determined from the fatigue tests on the matrix materials) has been adopted to
change the constitutive law for the cohesive zone model as a function of the
number of fatigue cycles that have been accumulated. The theoretical
predictions for the fatigue behaviour have been compared to the experimental
results, and very good agreement between the theoretical and experimental
results was found to exist.
i
Acknowledgment
I am deeply indebted to Prof A.J. Kinloch, Prof Felicity Guild and Dr A. C. Taylor
for their generous effort, useful advice and dedication with respect to the
supervision of my Ph.D research. I would like to thank Prof A.J. Kinloch and
Prof Felicity Guild for their relentless and continuous assistance regarding all
aspects of the project. I would also like to thank Imperial College London for
providing the opportunity that has enabled me to pursue my higher studies in
one of the most prestigious institutions in the world.
It is a pleasure to thank many people who have helped me during my Ph.D

studies. I would like to give my special thanks to Dr. Manjunatha, Ms.
Shamsiah, Dr. Hsieh and Dr. Masania for kindly sharing some of their data and
for their guidance in the experimental aspects of my research. I am also grateful
to Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Brett for many useful discussions.
I am very grateful to the laboratory staff of the Mechanical Engineering and

Aeronautics Departments for providing laboratory facilities. I am also grateful to
my friends Giannis, Fendi, Hari, Sorates, Nanke, Idris, Catrin, Tim, Paul and
Ruth in the research office for providing a good working environment and an
amazing time. I also wish to thank Sandeep, Sahu, Linash, Davendu, Aditya,
Anant and Ahmad, and many more friends whose names are not mentioned
due to space constraints, for making my time at Imperial so enjoyable.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family for their support during my
studies. I would especially like to express my sincere gratitude to my parents
and to my sister for their encouragement and support. Finally, I would like to
thank my wife for her love and patience.
ii
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................. ii
Contents ......................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................. ix
List of Tables ................................................................................................ xix
Nomenclature ............................................................................................... xxi
Abbreviations................................................................................................ xxi
English Alphabet ..........................................................................................xxii
Greek Alphabet ........................................................................................... xxv
1. Introduction and Objectives

1.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Damage in Composites ............................................................................. 3
1.3 Modelling Techniques................................................................................ 4
1.4 Objectives of the Present Research .......................................................... 5
1.5 Structure of the Thesis .............................................................................. 5
2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Fracture Mechanics ................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) ......................................... 7
2.2.2 Modes of fracture ................................................................................ 8
2.2.3 Griffith's criterion ................................................................................. 9
2.2.4 Stress intensity factor........................................................................ 10
2.3 Damage ................................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Static damage ................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Fatigue damage ................................................................................ 12
iii
2.4 Methods of Finite Element Analysis......................................................... 17
2.4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 17
2.4.2 The Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) method ..................... 17
2.4.3 The Cohesive Zone Model (CZM) method ........................................ 19
2.4.3.1 Introduction................................................................................. 19
2.4.3.2 Pure mode loading ..................................................................... 23
2.4.3.3 Mixed-mode loading ................................................................... 23
2.4.4 The Energy method .......................................................................... 25
2.5 Modelling Damage and the Life Time under Cyclic Fatigue Loading ....... 28
2.5.1 Quasi-static loading .......................................................................... 28
2.5.2 Fatigue loading ................................................................................. 31
2.6 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................... 39
3. Experimental Techniques
3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 41
3.2 Materials .................................................................................................. 42
3.3 Preparation of Epoxy Matrix Polymer Specimens.................................... 42
3.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 42
3.3.2 Preparation of plates ......................................................................... 43
3.3.3 Single edge notched bending (SENB) specimens ............................ 43
3.3.4 Compact tension (CT) specimens ..................................................... 44
3.4 Preparation of GFRP Composite Specimens .......................................... 44
3.4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 44
3.4.2 Resin infusion under flexible tooling (RIFT) ...................................... 44
3.4.3 Double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens ....................................... 45
3.4.4 Composite strip specimens ............................................................... 46
3.5 Test Methods for the Epoxy Matrix Polymer Specimens ......................... 46
iv
3.5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 46
3.5.2 Single edge notched bending (SENB) tests ...................................... 47
3.5.3 Compact tension (CT) tests .............................................................. 48
3.6 Test Methods for the GFRP Composite Specimens ................................ 49
3.6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 49
3.6.2 DCB tests: Quasi-static tests ............................................................ 50
3.6.3 DCB tests: Cyclic-fatigue tests .......................................................... 52
3.6.4 Composite strip laminate tests: Quasi-static and fatigue tests .......... 53
4. Theoretical Techniques
4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 55
4.2 Quasi-Static Analysis............................................................................... 55
4.2.1 The Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) .................................. 55
4.2.2 The cohesive zone law ..................................................................... 57
4.2.2.1 Kinematics .................................................................................. 57
4.2.2.2 Constitutive laws ........................................................................ 59
4.2.2.3 Mathematical formulation ........................................................... 60
4.2.3 A bi-linear cohesive zone law ........................................................... 66
4.2.3.1 Norm of displacement jump tensor ............................................. 68
4.2.3.2 Damage ...................................................................................... 69
4.2.3.3 Mixed-mode loading: onset of crack growth ............................... 70
4.2.3.4 Mixed-mode loading: crack propagation ..................................... 71
4.2.3.5 Mode-mixity ................................................................................ 73
4.3 Fatigue Analysis ...................................................................................... 74
4.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 74
4.3.2 Degradation strategies ...................................................................... 76
v
4.3.3 Static damage evolution under fatigue loading ................................. 77
4.3.4 Fatigue damage evolution ................................................................. 78
4.3.5 Damage Analysis .............................................................................. 84
4.3.5.1 The cycle jump strategy ............................................................. 84
4.3.5.2 Displacement ratio and load ratio ............................................... 84
5. Experimental Results and Theoretical Modelling Studies

5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 87
5.2 Elastic Properties of Materials ................................................................. 89
5.2.1 Elastic properties of the lamina ......................................................... 89
5.2.2 Elastic properties of the composite ................................................... 92
5.2.2.1 Elastic properties of DCB ........................................................... 94
5.2.2.2 Elastic properties of composite strip ........................................... 96
5.2.3 Elastic properties of aluminium and steel ........................................ 100
5.3 Criteria for Cohesive Zone Modelling .................................................... 100
5.3.1 Mesh sensitivity analysis................................................................. 100
5.3.2 Initial value of the cohesive zone law parameters ........................... 101
5.3.3 The cohesive zone length ............................................................... 103
5.4 Quasi-Static Models .............................................................................. 104
5.4.1 The SENB test: Experimental and theoretical results ..................... 105
5.4.1.1 SENB results: VCCT analysis .................................................. 106
5.4.1.2 SENB results: Cohesive contact analysis ................................. 107
5.4.1.3 SENB results: Cohesive zone element analysis ....................... 108
5.4.2 The DCB test: Experimental and theoretical analysis ..................... 113
5.4.2.1 DCB results: VCCT analysis..................................................... 115
5.4.2.2 DCB results: Cohesive contact analysis ................................... 116
vi
5.4.2.3 DCB results: Cohesive zone element analysis ......................... 117
5.4.3 The composite material strip test: Experimental and theoretical results
................................................................................................................. 122
5.4.3.1 Normalised stiffness with crack density .................................... 128
5.4.3.2 Normalised stiffness with number of fatigue cycles .................. 133
5.4.3.3 Quasi-static strength of the composite strip.............................. 136
5.5 Toughening Mechanisms ...................................................................... 138
5.6 Fatigue Models ...................................................................................... 139
5.6.1 User element subroutine ................................................................. 139
5.6.1.1 Validation.................................................................................. 140
5.6.2 Fatigue analysis using the user element subroutine ....................... 143
5.6.2.1 The CT test and user element analysis .................................... 144
5.6.2.2 DCB test and user element analysis ........................................ 151
5.6.2.3 Strip test and user element analysis......................................... 154
5.7 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................. 160
6. Conclusions & Recommendations for Future Work

6.1 Quasi-Static Fracture Properties ........................................................... 161
6.2 Quasi-Static Modelling........................................................................... 162
6.3 Fatigue Testing ...................................................................................... 162
6.4 Fatigue Modelling .................................................................................. 162
6.5 The User Element Subroutine Analysis ................................................. 164
6.6 Fatigue Life............................................................................................ 164
6.7 Recommendations for Further Work...................................................... 165
6.7.1 Unidirectional composite analysis ................................................... 166
6.7.2 Delamination analysis ..................................................................... 166
6.7.3 Modelling process of failure ............................................................ 166
6.7.4 The role of matrix properties ........................................................... 167
vii
References .............................................................................................. 168
Appendix……………………………………………………………………….174
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Stress-strain characteristics of unidirectional composites: (a) low

stiffness fibres; (b) high stiffness fibres (Talreja [1]). ........................................... 1
Figure 2.1 Different modes of failure in a material (mode I is the opening mode,
mode II is the shear mode and mode III is the tearing mode). ............................ 9
Figure 2.2 (a) Failed specimen (scaling factor, ms=1) and (b) detail of failed
specimen edge (Hallett et al. [9]). ..................................................................... 11
Figure 2.3 Photograph and schematic of delaminations in ply level scaled

specimen (Hallett et al. [9]). .............................................................................. 12
Figure 2.4 Photographs of the development of transverse cracking in (0/90/0)

glass-fibre/epoxy specimens at different strain levels (Berthelot [10]). ............. 12
Figure 2.5 Fatigue load cycle parameters. ....................................................... 13
Figure 2.6 Typical growth rate curve. ............................................................... 14
Figure 2.7 Fatigue damaged edge of (0/90/45) carbon fibre epoxy laminates at:
(a) 2% stiffness reduction (b) 4% reduction (c) 8% reduction (d) 12% reduction
(e) 15% reduction (Reifsnider and Jamison [11]). ............................................. 15
Figure 2.8 Microscopic damage mechanisms resulting from a constant stress

amplitude fatigue test observed via optical microscopy for (a) 10, (b) 100 and (c)
1500 cycles of loading (Hosoi et al. [12]). ......................................................... 16
Figure 2.9 Different cohesive zone model laws. (a)Triangular form (b) Constant
stress form (c) Triangular form (bi-linear law) (d) Elastic constant linear damage
form (e) Linear polynomial form and (f) Elastic constant form (Zou et al. [20]).. 21
Figure 2.10 The bi-linear cohesive zone law. ................................................... 22
Figure 2.11 Fatigue degradation in a bi-linear cohesive zone law. ................... 23
ix
Figure 2.12 The minimum load required to propagate a delamination of a
certain size in its most detrimental location (Wimmer and Pettermann [28]). .... 26
Figure 2.13 Comparison of theoretical equation for delamination growth rate

with the test data (Shivakumar et al. [29]). ........................................................ 27
Figure 2.14 Failure modes in laminate (Shivakumar et al. [29]). ...................... 28
Figure 2.15 Transverse crack interference model (Boniface et al. [30]). ........ 29
Figure 2.16 Failure of a composite strip specimen (Huchette [32]). ................. 30
Figure 2.17 Stiffness reduction as a function of the average crack density in the
case of two different laminates. Eo is the initial elastic modulus of the laminate
and Ex is the elastic modulus with a given crack density (Leblond et al. [33]). .. 31
Figure 2.18 Crack multiplication in transverse plies (Leblond et al. [33]).......... 31
Figure 2.19 Fatigue life diagram for a (0/90 2)s carbon fibre/epoxy matrix
laminate (Akshantala and Talreja [34]). ............................................................ 32
Figure 2.20 Fatigue life diagram for a unidirectional composites under loading
parallel to the fibres (Talreja [1]). ...................................................................... 33
Figure 2.21 The tapping mode atomic force microscopy (AFM) phase images of
the hybrid-epoxy matrix polymer (Manjunatha et al. [39]) (CTBN: carboxy-
termianted butadiene acrylonitrile rubber). ........................................................ 35
Figure 2.22 Transmitted light photographic images of matrix cracking in the

GFRP composites after testing at stress of 150MPa. NR-Neat resin, NRR-Neat
resin with rubber, NRS-Neat resin with silica and NRRS-Neat resin with rubber
and silica (Manjunatha et al. [40]) ..................................................................... 35
Figure 2.23 Crack length versus cycles (Robinson et al. [41]). ........................ 36
Figure 2.24 Experimental relation between the maximum SERR, , and the
number of fatigue cycles, , for the onset of crack growth (Attia et al. [42]). ... 37
x
Figure 2.25 Evolution of the interface/cohesive traction and the maximum
interface/cohesive strength as a function of the number of cycles for a
displacement jump controlled high-cycle fatigue test (Turon et al. [43]). (Here
interfacial traction is the critical stress of the cohesive zone law at a given
number of fatigue cycles and the interfacial traction is the traction at the
cohesive zone at a given number of fatigue cycles.) ......................................... 38
Figure 3.1 Fabrication of a GFRP sheet using RIFT. ....................................... 45
Figure 3.2 DCB specimen. ............................................................................... 50
Figure 3.3 Experimental setup for a DCB test. ................................................. 51
Figure 3.4 Fibre bridging in DCB test. .............................................................. 51
Figure 3.5 Experimental setup for a fatigue DCB test. ..................................... 53
Figure 4.1 The VCCT model. ........................................................................... 56
Figure 4.2 A four noded cohesive zone element in (a) undeformed state and (b)
deformed state in a global coordinate system. .................................................. 58
Figure 4.3 A four noded cohesive zone element. ............................................. 61
Figure 4.4 The bi-linear cohesive zone law. ..................................................... 66
Figure 4.5 Cohesive law in mode II. ................................................................. 68
Figure 4.6 Variation of damage variable with displacement in a bi-linear

cohesive zone law. ............................................................................................ 70
Figure 4.7 Flow chart of the fatigue analysis embedded in the user element
subroutine. ........................................................................................................ 75
Figure 4.8 Cohesive zone law and energy representation. .............................. 79
Figure 4.9 Representation of energy release under fatigue in a cohesive zone

law. ................................................................................................................... 82
xi
Figure 4.10 Fatigue degradation of cohesive zone law with time. .................... 83
Figure 4.11 Resultant fatigue degradation of a cohesive zone law. Path 1-2
shows the fatigue damage evolution and path 1-3 shows the static and fatigue
damage evolution (Robinson et al. [41]). .......................................................... 83
Figure 4.12 The cycle jump strategy applied to a cohesive zone law approach
to modelling fatigue (Van Paepegem and Degrieck [65]). ................................. 84
Figure 4.13 Experimental and numerically applied displacement/stress in a

displacement/stress controlled fatigue test. In the present study, displacement
controlled fatigue tests were conducted on the CT bulk epoxy material and the
DCB composite materials, whilst stress controlled fatigue tests were conducted
on the composite material strip specimens. ...................................................... 86
Figure 5.1 Overview schematic of the work plan. ............................................. 88
Figure 5.2 A section of a lamina with local coordinates. ................................... 90
Figure 5.3 Equivalent Abaqus and local coordinate system for a DCB
composite specimen. ........................................................................................ 93
Figure 5.4 Equivalent Abaqus and local coordinate system for different lamina
of the composite strip. ....................................................................................... 93
Figure 5.5 Cube with different faces (FF-Face front, FBk-face back, FR-face
right, FL- face left, FT-face top, FB- face bottom). The control point (CP)
boundary condition is at the origin of the coordinate system............................. 94
Figure 5.6 The modelled load versus displacement curves of the DCB
composite specimen for different mesh sizes. The elastic properties of the
unmodified (i.e. control) bulk epoxy matrix and the composite are used for the
analysis (Table 5.13 and Table 5.4). ............................................................... 101
Figure 5.7 Cohesive zone behaviour in (a) undeformed and (b) deformed state.
........................................................................................................................ 102
xii
Figure 5.8 Cohesive zone elements with cohesive zone length, . .............. 103
Figure 5.9 SENB specimen. .......................................................................... 105
Figure 5.10 Dimensions of the SENB bulk epoxy matrix specimen. ............... 106
Figure 5.11 Loading and boundary condition applied on the SENB specimen
the model. ....................................................................................................... 106
Figure 5.12 The stress field around the crack tip in a SENB FEA model of the
bulk epoxy matrix with cohesive contact in Abaqus. ....................................... 108
Figure 5.13 The stress field around the crack tip in a SENB model with
cohesive zone elements as modelled in FEA Abaqus. ................................... 110
Figure 5.14 Comparison of load-displacement curve for the SENB specimen

based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix. ................................... 111

based upon the micro-rubber modified epoxy matrix. ..................................... 111

based upon the nano-silica modified epoxy matrix. ........................................ 112
Figure 5.17 Comparison of load-displacement curve for the SENB epoxy

specimen based upon the nano-silica and micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified
epoxy matrix. ................................................................................................... 112
Figure 5.18 Flow chart of quasi-static and fatigue analyses of the composite
material DCB specimens................................................................................. 114
Figure 5.19 DCB specimen ............................................................................ 115
Figure 5.20 Dimensions of the DCB composite material specimen ................ 115
Figure 5.21 Loading and boundary condition applied on the model ............... 116
Figure 5.22 The stress field around the crack tip in a DCB model with cohesive
contact in Abaqus ........................................................................................... 117
xiii
zone elements in Abaqus ................................................................................ 119
Figure 5.24 Comparison of load-displacement curve for the DCB composite

material based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix ...................... 120

based upon the micro-rubber modified epoxy matrix ...................................... 120

based upon the nano-silica modified epoxy matrix ......................................... 121

based upon the nano-silica and micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix
........................................................................................................................ 121
Figure 5.28 Flow chart of the life prediction modelling of the composite strip
under cyclic fatigue loading ............................................................................. 123
Figure 5.29 Composite material strip with dimensions ................................... 124
Figure 5.30 Section of the strip with transverse cracks (a) strip under loading
(b) cross section of the strip with transverse cracks (c) symmetric cross-section
of the strip with transverse cracks ................................................................... 125
Figure 5.31 Dimension of a section of the modelled strip. The length, l, of the
strip model depends on the crack density ....................................................... 126
Figure 5.32 Boundary conditions applied on the symmetric cross-section of the

composite material strip with transverse cracks .............................................. 127
Figure 5.33 Variation of ±45o crack density with number of cycles in composite
material strips based upon unmodified (i.e. control) and modified epoxy
matrices .......................................................................................................... 128
Figure 5.34 Composite material strip with transverse cracks in the Abaqus FEA
method ............................................................................................................ 129
xiv
Figure 5.35 Comparison of the normalised stiffness versus the crack density for
the composite strip test. For the composite based upon the unmodified (i.e.
control) epoxy matrix. ...................................................................................... 130
the composite strip test. For the composite based upon the micro-rubber
modified epoxy matrix. .................................................................................... 130
the composite strip test. For the composite based upon the nano-silica modified
epoxy matrix. ................................................................................................... 131
the composite strip test. For the composite based upon the nano-silica and
micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix. ............................................ 131
the composite strip, based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) and nano-silica
modified epoxy matrices. ................................................................................ 132
the composite strip, based upon the micro-rubber and with both nano-silica and
micro-rubber modified epoxy matrices ............................................................ 132
Figure 5.41 Normalised stiffness versus the number of cycles for the
composite strip based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix ........... 134
composite strip based upon the micro-rubber modified epoxy matrix ............. 134
composite strip based upon the nano-silica modified epoxy matrix ................ 135
composite strip based upon the nano-silica and micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid)
modified epoxy matrix ..................................................................................... 135
xv
Figure 5.45 Comparison of the global stress with percentage strain in the
composite strip ................................................................................................ 137
Figure 5.46 Comparison of global stiffness reduction with the percentage strain
of composite strip ............................................................................................ 137
Figure 5.47 A single cohesive zone element for testing ................................. 140
Figure 5.48 Cohesive zone element testing in (a) mode I, (b) mode II and (c)
mixed-mode .................................................................................................... 141
Figure 5.49 Cohesive zone element in mode I. The cohesive zone law
parameters used for the element is for the unmodified (i.e. control) bulk epoxy
matrix ( =3900N/mm2, =10.9 N/mm2 and =75.8J/m2) .............................. 142
Figure 5.50 Cohesive zone element in mode II. The cohesive zone law
parameters used for the element is for the unmodified (i.e. control) bulk epoxy
matrix ( =3900N/mm2, =10.9 N/mm2 and =75.8J/m2) .............................. 142
Figure 5.51 Cohesive zone element in mixed-mode ( =0.5). The cohesive

zone law parameters used for the element is for the unmodified (i.e. control)
bulk epoxy matrix ( =3900N/mm2, =10.9 N/mm2 and =75.8J/m2 for both
modes) ............................................................................................................ 143
Figure 5.52 Compact tension specimen ......................................................... 145
Figure 5.53 Dimension of the CT specimen ................................................... 146
Figure 5.54 Boundary condition applied on the CT specimen ........................ 147
Figure 5.55 Stress field around the crack tip in a CT model with cohesive zone
elements in Abaqus ........................................................................................ 148
Figure 5.56 Growth rate curve for the CT specimen for the bulk unmodified (i.e.
control) epoxy matrix....................................................................................... 149
Figure 5.57 Growth rate curve for the CT specimen for the bulk micro-rubber
xvi
Figure 5.58 Growth rate curve for the CT specimen for the bulk nano-silica
Figure 5.59 Growth rate curve for the CT specimen for the bulk nano-silica and
micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix (experimental data from Lee
[49]) ................................................................................................................. 150
Figure 5.60 Growth rate curve for the composite DCB specimen based upon
the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix ....................................................... 152
the micro-rubber modified epoxy matrix .......................................................... 153
the nano-silica modified epoxy matrix ............................................................. 153
the nano-silica and micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix .............. 154
Figure 5.64 Transmitted light photographs of GFRP composite with unmodified

(i.e. control) epoxy matrix showing the sequence of matrix crack development
with the number of cycles, N, under fatigue loading ........................................ 155
Figure 5.65 Applied maximum fatigue stress versus the number of cycles upon
fatigue loading for the composite strip based upon the unmodified (i.e. control)
epoxy matrix.................................................................................................... 158
fatigue loading for a composite strip based upon the micro-rubber modified
epoxy matrix.................................................................................................... 158
fatigue loading for a composite strip based upon the nano-silica modified epoxy
matrix .............................................................................................................. 159
xvii
fatigue loading for a composite strip based upon the nano-silica and micro-
rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix ....................................................... 159
Figure 6.1 Fatigue crack growth rate curve for the CT epoxy specimen based
upon the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix .............................................. 163
Figure 6.2 Stress versus number of cycles from the fatigue loading for a
composite material strip based upon the micro-rubber modified epoxy matrix 165
xviii
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Description of the material properties of the bulk epoxy matrix
relevant to Figure 4.7. ....................................................................................... 76
Table 5.1 Elastic properties of bulk epoxies and glass fibre ............................ 91
Table 5.2 Unidirectional elastic properties of the different composite lamina

based on the various epoxy matrices ................................................................ 92
Table 5.3 Derivation of homogenised elastic property of DCB from cube

analysis ............................................................................................................. 95
Table 5.4 Elastic properties of the arms the DCB composite specimens for the
various epoxy matrices ..................................................................................... 95
Table 5.5 Equivalent local elastic properties of the lamina of the strip in the
Abaqus coordinate system ................................................................................ 97
Table 5.6 Derivation of the elastic properties of 0o lamina .............................. 97
Table 5.7 Derivation of the elastic properties of 90o lamina .......................... 98
Table 5.8 Derivation of the elastic properties of ±45o lamina ......................... 98
Table 5.9 Elastic properties of 0o lamina .......................................................... 99
Table 5.10 Elastic properties of ±45o lamina .................................................... 99
Table 5.11 Elastic properties of 90o lamina ..................................................... 99
Table 5.12 Elastic properties of aluminium-alloy and steel ............................. 100
Table 5.14 Quasi-static cohesive contact/element parameters for the bulk

epoxy matrices ................................................................................................ 110
Table 5.15 Quasi-static cohesive contact/element parameters of the DCB

lamina interface............................................................................................... 119
Table 5.16 Elastic properties of the composite material strip.......................... 124
xix
Table 5.17 Fatigue parameters of the bulk epoxy matrix CT specimens from
Paris law fit...................................................................................................... 148
Table 5.18 Fatigue parameters obtained from the DCB composite material
specimen......................................................................................................... 152
Table 5.19 Threshold stress for the composite strip ....................................... 160
Table 6.1 Fracture energies of the different bulk epoxy matrices ................... 161
Table 6.2 Fracture energies of the composite materials based upon the different
epoxy matrices ................................................................................................ 162
xx
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
AEW Amine equivalent weight MMB Mixed-mode bending

AFM Atomic force microscopy NCF Non-crimp fibre
ASTM American Society for Testing NL Non-linear
and Materials
B-K Benzeggagh-Kenane NR Neat resin
CBT Corrected beam theory NRR Neat resin with rubber
CCT Crack closure technique NRRS Neat resin with silica
CFRP Carbon fibre reinforced NRS Neat resin with rubber and
plastic silica
CLT Classical laminate theory PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
CP Control point QI Quasi-isotropic
CT Compact tension RIFT Resin infusion under flexible
tooling
CTBN Carboxyl-terminated SENB Single edge notched bending
butadiene-acrylonitrile
CZM Cohesive zone model SERR Strain energy release rate
DCB Double cantilever beam UD Unidirectional
DGEBA Diglycidyl ether of bis-phenol VCCT Virtual crack closure
A technique
DOF Degree of freedom
EEW Epoxide equivalent weight
ENF End notch flexure
EPFM Elastic plastic fracture
mechanics
FB Face bottom
FBk Face back
FEA Finite element analysis
FF Face front
FL Face left
FR Face right
FRP Fibre reinforced plastic
FT Face top
GFRP Glass fibre reinforced plastic
ISO International Organization for
Standardization
LEFM Linear elastic fracture
mechanics
LVDT Linear variable displacement
transducer
xxi
English Alphabet
Crack length
Area
Acz Area of cohesive zone
Ad Damaged cohesive zone area
Area of the element
Damaged area of the element
Ap Amplitude of sine wave
Breadth
B matrix
Paris law exponent
Damage variable
Global displacement
Components of stiffness tensor
Linear and non-linear element displacement in global coordinate
system
Components of undamaged stiffness tensor
Components of undamaged stiffness tensor
Local stiffness tensor
Maximum damage
Static and fatigue damage
, Rate of change of static and fatigue damage
Damage at t and t+1 time
Tangent stiffness tensor
Components of tangent stiffness tensor
Elasticity modulus
Initial modulus of laminate
Modulus of elasticity in 1, 2 and 3 direction
Elastic modulus of fibre and matrix
Resultant elastic modulus
Transverse elastic modulus (through thickness direction)
Modulus of laminate with a given crack density
Modulus of elasticity in x, y and z direction
Differential of shape function matrix
Scalar factor
Correction factor
Forces in the x and y direction
Force vector
Function of x variable
Fracture energy
xxii
Shear modulus in 1-2, 1-3 and 2-3 plane
Critical fracture energy
Shear modulus of fibre and matrix
, Energy release rate in mode I and mode II
Critical fracture energy in mode I and mode II
Maximum energy release rate in mode I
Energy release rate when growth is infinite/unstable
Maximum energy release rate
Total energy release rate
Threshold fracture energy
Shear modulus in P-T, P-P, T-P, T-T, T-L and L-T plane
Shear modulus in x-y, x-z and y-z plane

Shape/interpolation matrix
Factor
Variable
Identity matrix of size nxn
Variable
Jacobian matrix
Penalty stiffness of cohesive zone law
Approximate penalty stiffness of cohesive zone law
Compressibility modulus of fibre, matrix and composite
Stiffness of the element
Critical stress intensity factor in mode I
Maximum stress intensity factor
Length
Distance from the centre of the loading block to the mid-plane of
the specimen
Cohesive zone length
Length of the element
Size of mesh
Exponent of Paris law
Parameter
Scaling factor
Number of nodes
Number of cycles
Number of elements
Number of cycles of fatigue life
Interpolation/shape function
Load
xxiii
Maximum load or 5% offset load
Maximum load in a fatigue cycle
Constant
Stress ratio
Displacement ratio
Spacing
Spacing between point A and B
Crack spacing before and after loading
t Time
Thickness of 0o and 90o lamina
Thickness of continuum element
Unit local coordinate vector
Traction vector
Local traction vector
Time period
Displacement
Energy stored
Displacements at c and d points in the u direction
Local displacements at the bottom and top of the crack/element
Local displacement
Minimum and maximum displacement in a fatigue cycle
Global displacements in the u and v direction (linear)
Global displacements in the u and v direction (non-linear)
Displacement
Displacements at c and d points in the v direction
Volume fraction
Width
Energy required
Variable
Differential in and direction of mid-plane coordinate in global
coordinate system
Global coordinate in undeformed state
, Global displacement at the bottom and top of the crack/element
Mid-plane coordinate in global coordinate system
Global coordinate
xxiv
Greek Alphabet
Power law factor
Factor
Power law factor
Displacement
Load-line displacement in DCB specimen
Displacement in 1 and 2 direction
, Kronecker delta
Displacement in mode I and II
Failure displacement in mode I and II
Opening displacement in mode I and II
Component of displacement jump
, Opening and failure displacement in cohesive zone law
Displacement at time t and t+1
Displacement jump threshold at time t
Δa Correction for crack tip rotation in DCB specimen
Δcoh Displacement in cohesive zone element
Strain in composite
Strain in matrix
Maximum strain
Resultant strain
Shape factor
Local coordinate in a cohesive zone
Mode-mixity factor
Factor
Transformation matrix
Poisson’s ratio
Poisson’s ratio in 1-2, 2-1, 2-3 and 1-3 direction
Poisson’s ratio of fibre and matrix in 1-2 direction
Poisson’s ratio in L-T, T-L, T-P, T-T and P-P direction
Poisson’s ratio in x-y, x-z and y-z direction
Difference in the energy
Local coordinate in a cohesive zone
Stress
Stress in the 1 and 2 direction
, Critical stress in 1 and 2 direction
Critical applied stress
Minimum, maximum and mean stress applied
Cohesive zone traction/stress
xxv
Critical cohesive zone traction/stress
Cohesive zone traction/stress in the 1 and 2 direction
Component of cohesive zone traction/stress
Unit vectors in and the normal direction
Diameter
Energy at a given time and the initial energy
xxvi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 Introduction
Composite materials are engineered or naturally occurring materials formed by

mixing two or more constituent materials in different phases with different
physical or chemical properties. Composites are found in nature in the form of
bone, mollusc shell, wood etc. They have different constituents in different
proportions to form a new material with properties different from the individual
constituents.
The main constituents of the composite are the matrix and reinforcement. The
matrix of the composite helps to bind the reinforcement together in the
composite. The reinforcement is embedded in the matrix and the reinforcement
typically has a relatively high modulus and tensile strength, compared to the
matrix. The matrix has good binding properties and is less stiff than the
reinforcement. The proportion and the structure of the reinforcement greatly
influence the properties of the composite (see Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1 Stress-strain characteristics of unidirectional composites: (a) low

stiffness fibres; (b) high stiffness fibres (Talreja [1]).
1
Typical reinforcements are fibrous in nature with high aspect ratios. Such
reinforcements are classified as long fibres and short fibres, depending on the
value of the aspect ratio. Short fibres are usually randomly orientated whereas
long fibres are orientated in different directions in the composite to design a
composite with the desired material properties. Typically, long, continuous fibres
are laid in sheets in unidirectional or multidirectional orientation within the
composite. Thus, the fibres are essentially oriented in different directions and
bonded together using a polymeric matrix to form a laminate. The unidirectional
fibres have all the fibres in the same direction in the laminate.
Glass fibre reinforced plastic (GFRP) and carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP)
are commonly used as fibre reinforced laminates for the aerospace industry.
The main advantages of composite materials are their relatively low density and
high stiffness and strength compared to metallic materials. Composites also
provide good design flexibility, as they can be moulded into complex shapes
and geometries.
The composite for the present work is a multilayer and multidirectional quasi-
isotropic laminate of a polymeric matrix with glass fibres and the laminate is
known as GFRP. It is a quasi-isotropic laminate which has equivalent stiffness
properties in all directions in a given plane.
Epoxy polymers are widely used as the matrices for fibre reinforced composite
materials. They have good engineering properties, such as high modulus,
failure strength, low creep and good performance at elevated temperatures after
curing. The properties of the epoxy polymers can be improved by the addition of
a particulate phase which may increase the toughness of the epoxy polymer
matrix. The effectiveness of the addition of the particulate phase depends on
the dispersion of the particulate phase in the matrix as well as the adhesion of
the particle to the matrix. The most commonly used such additives are the
nano-silica and micrometre-rubber particles, which are used in the present
research.
2
1.2 Damage in Composites
Damage in composite materials occurs in different stages of their manufacture

and service life (Matthews and Rawling [2]). The main sources of defects in the
composite are
1. Defects in the fibres;
2. Defects introduced during manufacture;
3. Damage that develops during their service life.
Defects in the materials used for the manufacture of the composite material
causes the introduction of intrinsic damage in the composite. The defects in the
manufacture occur due to, for example, misalignment of fibres, inclusion of
impurities in the manufacture process, etc. The damage that develops during
the service life of the composite arises due to different types of loading, impact,
shocks etc. There are various types of damage that may be so introduced and
these invariably lead to a reduction in the strength, stiffness and fatigue life of
the composite material.
The failure of composite materials during their service life occurs mainly due to
delamination, debonding, transverse cracking and fibre failure (Sridharan [3]).
Delamination occurs in the lamina of composites and is often associated with
the prior formation of transverse cracks in the composite. Indeed transverse
cracking is one of the main failure mechanisms in composite materials and
essentially consists of the formation of matrix cracks in the lamina of composite
due to quasi-static and cyclic fatigue loading. The matrix cracks lead to the
stiffness of the laminate decreasing due to a lower degree of interaction
between the fibres and the matrix. They therefore lead to a lower stiffness due
to less transfer of the applied load by the matrix. Cycling loading causes the
evolution of transverse cracks due to the reversal of the stress with time.
Quasi-static damage is the damage in the composite material which arises due
to the application of a steady, or steadily increasing load. On the other hand,
cyclic fatigue damage is the progressive structural damage that occurs when a
3
composite material is subjected to cyclic loading. In fatigue study of composites,

the material is subjected to repeated loading and unloading cycles over a period
of time. The fatigue loading cycle is broadly divided into low cycle fatigue and
high cycle fatigue based on the number of cycles required for the failure of the
material and the level of stress applied on it. The low cycles fatigue regime is
characterised by a relatively high stress level, a very localised stress
concentration and a low number of cycles to failure. The high cycle fatigue is
characterised by a relatively low stress level, with damage developing at the
micro-scale, and large number of cycles to failure.
1.3 Modelling Techniques
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is a technique widely used to

characterise composite materials (Hull and Clyne [4]). The approach most
commonly adopted for the analysis of fracture is based on an energy balance,
which assumes energy released during fracture is at least equal to that
necessary to generate a new fracture surface when an existing crack
propagates.
An LEFM approach may be readily coupled with a finite element analysis (FEA)
where the damage in the form of transverse cracks and delamination may be
modelled (Cook et al. [5]). In a FEA approach, the growth of cracks and
delamination may be analysed based on the energy released during the
initiation and propagation of the crack. The energy release rate during fracture
in may be modelled using a virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) (Krueger
[6]) and this may be coupled with a cohesive zone model (CZM) (Camanho et
al. [7]). The VCCT method calculates the strain energy release rate (SERR)
based on the forces and displacements needed to advance the crack. A CZM
approach models the progressive damage and failure in the composite material
based a known cohesive zone law. The CZM approach also predicts the onset
of propagation and subsequent growth of a crack under different types of
loading, and the fatigue degradation of the composite material may be based on
a degradation and evolution law.
4
1.4 Objectives of the Present Research
The main objective of the present work is the analysis of transverse cracks in
composites under quasi-static and fatigue loading by developing a novel FEA
approach coupled with a CZM technique. The present research implements an
extended FEA method via the Abaqus software. The work investigates epoxies
and composites toughened with nano-silica and micrometre-rubber particles to
improve the quasi-static and fatigue performance. Different specimens of bulk
epoxy matrix and the composite are tested and modelled. The performance of
hybrid (with both nano-silica and micro-rubber particles) epoxy matrix and
composite is also studied and modelled. The fracture energy of the bulk epoxy
and interlaminar fracture energies of composite were determined experimentally
and modelled. The static behaviour of epoxy and the composite are modelled
using the fracture energy to obtain the cohesive zone parameters. The cohesive
properties of bulk epoxy and composite are modelled for fatigue condition and
growth rate curve is obtained for the fracture mechanics specimens. The
cohesive properties of the epoxy are used to obtain the S-N curve of the
composite and predict the fatigue life. The fatigue parameters of different
materials are compared to study the influence of addition of different additives
on the performance of composite.
In the analysis, a user element subroutine (Hibbitt [8]) is developed in Abaqus to

incorporate the extended finite element capabilities and a mathematical model
proposed in Chapter 4 to evaluate constitutive laws to simulate fatigue driven
transverse cracking in composite. A fatigue degradation strategy based on Paris
law is adopted for the analysis and is used to represent the behaviour of lamina
interface and transverse cracks in composites under fatigue loading.
1.5 Structure of the Thesis
The thesis is divided into six chapters with each Chapter describing different
aspects of work. The next Chapter deals with the literature study and the past
work reported on the quasi-static and fatigue studies on composites. The
Chapter also deals with the conventional and computational methods for the
modelling of composites.
5
Chapter 3 describes about the experimental techniques adopted in the present

work to obtain the experimental results. The Chapter explains about the
materials, manufacture of specimens, testing of specimens and interpretation of
the experimental data for the modelling studies.
Chapter 4 deals with the theoretical techniques adopted in the present study.
The Chapter describes about the theoretical formulation of the present problem
and the analysis using FEA method.
Chapter 5 presents the experimental and modelling results of the present work
on bulk epoxy matrix and composite. The results of the modelling are compared
with the experimental results to understand the quasi-static and fatigue
behaviour of bulk epoxy matrix and the composite. Chapter 6 concludes the
thesis with recommendations to study the behaviour of the composite materials.
6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Static damage in a composite material arises from a constant applied load or

from a steadily increasing applied load and cyclic fatigue damage arises from
an applied oscillatory load. Such damage causes a reduction in the strength of
the composite material with increasing time. This fracture process can be
studied experimentally and modelled by analytical or numerical methods.
Fracture mechanics approaches have been widely used to study and model
such damage and the basis for this approach is firstly reviewed. The damage
that occurs in composites, and the methods of analysis used to study the
fracture processes, are then reviewed. Finally, the life prediction analysis
methods which have been proposed to describe the accumulation of such
damage and the eventual fracture of the composite material are discussed.
2.2 Fracture Mechanics
Fracture mechanics is the field of mechanics concerned with the study of the
propagation of cracks in materials. It uses methods of analytical solid
mechanics to calculate the driving force on a crack and those of experimental
solid mechanics to characterise the material's resistance to fracture. It applies
the physics of stress and strain using theories of elasticity and plasticity to
describe the growth of cracks.
2.2.1 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is a theory of fracture mechanics

which helps to study the fracture in a material or a structure. The LEFM
technique assumes the material is linear elastic in the bulk of the material and
that the plastic or damage zone near the crack tip is relatively small. In LEFM,
most equations are derived for either plane stress or plane strain associated
7
with the three basic modes of loadings on a cracked body: opening, sliding and
tearing (Figure 2.1). The LEFM method is valid only when the inelastic
deformation zone is small compared to the size of the crack. In the case of large
zones of plastic deformation in the material associated with crack propagation,
then the elastic plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) technique is used. However,
the EPFM techniques are not relevant to the present research, and therefore
will not be considered further.
LEFM is a method widely used for predicting the static failure in composites.
The LEFM technique is applied to materials or structures with an initial crack or
damage, as this method predicts the initiation of crack growth and the
subsequent propagation of a crack. It should be noted that the LEFM method
fails to predict the first initiation of a void or defect or crack.
2.2.2 Modes of fracture
Fracture in a composite laminate may occur due to the initiation of the growth of
various types of cracks. The growth of the crack may be classified as occurring
in the opening (mode I), shear (mode II) and tearing (mode III) modes. The
different modes (Figure 2.1) have different values of critical strain energy
release rate (SERR), , needed for crack propagation. Mode I failures are
more predominant in composite materials due to less energy being needed to
propagate a crack compared to the other modes. Transverse matrix crack
growth occurs mainly in mode I and the delamination in the composite occurs in
both in mode I and II. Transverse cracks are often precursors to the initiation of
delamination, but delamination often suppresses more transverse cracking
occurring due to more consumption of energy being required in mode II fracture.
This situation typically arises once the maximum transverse crack density has
been achieved. In composites, mode III failure is usually ignored due to
negligible fracture occurring in this direction. Hence, in typical analyses only
mode I and mode II failures are considered together with mixed-mode (I/II), and
mode III fracture is neglected.
8
Figure 2.1 Different modes of failure in a material (mode I is the opening mode,
mode II is the shear mode and mode III is the tearing mode).
2.2.3 Griffith's criterion
The Griffith criterion states that crack propagation will occur if the energy
released upon crack growth is sufficient to provide all the energy that is required
for crack growth. The condition for crack growth is
(2.1)
where is the energy required and is the energy stored which is available to
form a crack.
Griffith calculated the energy stored per unit plate thickness in an edge crack in
an isotropic infinite plate as
(2.2)
where is the elasticity modulus, is the crack length and is the applied
stress on the material. The term can be replaced to give
(2.3)
where is the critical fracture energy, also called the crack driving force and
the critical strain-energy release rate, and is the critical applied stress.
9
The energy required to grow the crack is dependent on the state of stress at the
crack tip. The energy release rate for crack growth can be calculated as the
change in elastic strain energy per unit area of crack growth, i.e.,
(2.4)
where is the elastic energy of the system and is the crack length. The value
of is evaluated from by either keeping the load, , or the displacement, ,
constant.
2.2.4 Stress intensity factor
The stress intensity factor is a different approach to measure the material’s

toughness. It describes the stress field around the crack tip. Crack extension
occurs when the stresses at the crack tip are such that a critical value of the
stress intensity factor is reached. The critical stress intensity factor in mode
I, , is given by the expression
(2.5)
where is a constant, is the initial crack length and is the critical applied
stress.
For a mode I crack, the critical fracture energy and the critical stress intensity
factor are related by the expression for plane strain as
(2.6)
where is the Young's modulus, is Poisson's ratio, and is the stress
intensity factor in mode I. The strain energy release rate (SERR), , of a crack
in a body can also be expressed in terms of the mode I, mode II and mode III
stress intensity factors. In composites, there is a significant difficulty in defining
the stress in the interlaminar layer and hence the fracture energy, i.e. the critical
SERR, , of the material is easier to define and use. The present work is
10
therefore based on the energy method to model fracture in the bulk epoxy
matrix polymers and the composite materials.
2.3 Damage
Damage in the composite material occurs due to different types of loading. The
two major types of damage occurring in the composites are static and cyclic
fatigue damage. The static damage occurs with a steady increase in the load
with time. The damage is characterised by the formation of transverse cracks
leading to delamination at relatively high stresses. Fatigue damage occurs in
composites due to cyclic loading over time. The damage is characterised by
progressive mechanisms of failure in which transverse cracking is accompanied
by delamination in the composites. The two types of damage are discussed and
reviewed below to provide a basis for the present research.
2.3.1 Static damage
Static damage occurs when a constant load is applied on the material or when a
load is applied which increases steadily with time. Static damage in the
composites occurs typically due to transverse cracking followed by interlaminar
delamination. Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 shows the failure of a composite strip
under a quasi-static load due to delamination and transverse cracking. Damage
arising from transverse cracking is one of the important mechanisms of failure in
composites. Figure 2.4 shows the development of transverse cracks in a strip
under quasi-static loading at different values of the applied strain.
Figure 2.2 (a) Failed specimen (scaling factor, ms=1) and (b) detail of failed
specimen edge (Hallett et al. [9]).
11
Figure 2.3 Photograph and schematic of delaminations in ply level scaled

specimen (Hallett et al. [9]).
Figure 2.4 Photographs of the development of transverse cracking in (0/90/0)

glass-fibre/epoxy specimens at different strain levels (Berthelot [10]).
2.3.2 Fatigue damage
Fatigue damage in composites occurs due to cyclic load reversals over time.
The fatigue damage occurs as transverse cracks and delamination in the plies
of the composite laminate. Fatigue driven cracking is governed by energy
release and the accumulation of damage in the composite material over time.
Usually, the fatigue load is applied as a sinusoidal stress wave-form of constant
amplitude. The stress cycles in the fatigue loading are expressed as the -ratio,
also called the stress ratio, which gives the ratio of the minimum to the
12
maximum stress in a fatigue cycle. A typical stress fatigue cycle can be

represented using the amplitude, maximum stress, , minimum stress,
, and the time period, as shown in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5 Fatigue load cycle parameters.
The Paris law is the most widely used law to describe crack growth curve under
fatigue loading. The growth rate in a composite material is related to the energy
release rate and has three regions. The crack growth in the first region (Region
I) of the curve growth rate curve (Figure 2.6) is zero as the energy released is
less than the threshold value, , required for crack growth. Region II of the
crack growth curve has a linear part in which crack growth depends on the
energy released. This linear part of the curve is described by the Paris law. The
last part of the curve (Region III) has an asymptote of the crack growth as the
energy release rate is now equal to the fracture energy, , of the material. The
Paris law describes the linear region of the growth rate curve using a power law
and can be expressed as
(2.7)
13
where the values of and are obtained experimentally. The value of

depends on the material, loading conditions, temperature etc and is the slope
of the growth rate curve when plotted logarithmically as shown in Figure 2.6.
Region I Region II Region III

log (da/dN)
Gth log (Gmax) Gc
Figure 2.6 Typical growth rate curve.
In fatigue loading, transverse cracking and delamination develop with an

increase in the number of fatigue cycles. Fibre breakage may also occur, and
this usually occurs during the final stages of fatigue cycles leading to further
transverse cracking and delamination. Coupling of the cracks also leads to
delamination, as well as fibre breakage in the laminate. Typical fatigue damage
observed in composite materials is shown in Figure 2.7. Transverse cracks and
delaminations may be seen at the edge of the strip and they give rise to
different degrees of stiffness reduction. Thus to summarise, in the damage
process, the initial mechanisms of damage lead to the formation of transverse
cracks in the composite and this progressive damage leads to delamination
occurring, and the damage that results is observed as a reduction in stiffness of
the composite material.
14
Figure 2.7 Fatigue damaged edge of (0/90/45) carbon fibre epoxy laminates at:
(a) 2% stiffness reduction (b) 4% reduction (c) 8% reduction (d) 12%
reduction (e) 15% reduction (Reifsnider and Jamison [11]).
The points are further illustrated in Figure 2.8 which shows the development of
the damage under fatigue loading and the development of transverse cracks,
matrix cracks and delaminations in a composite. In a multidirectional composite,
the transverse cracks occur in a 90o lamina and the matrix cracks occur in
angled ply lamina due to the loading directions.
15
Figure 2.8 Microscopic damage mechanisms resulting from a constant stress

amplitude fatigue test observed via optical microscopy for (a) 10, (b)
100 and (c) 1500 cycles of loading (Hosoi et al. [12]).
16
2.4 Methods of Finite Element Analysis
2.4.1 Introduction
Different methods are used for the analysis of composites which use either an
energy or a stress based criteria for the analysis of fracture. The most widely
used techniques are based upon a finite element analysis approach. They are
the virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) method and the cohesive zone
model (CZM) methods. The conventional energy method and other methods of
analysis are also used to study fatigue damage in composites. The different
analysis methods which have been used are described below.
2.4.2 The Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) method
Crack propagation studies using the VCCT method (Rybicki and Kanninen [13])
have been performed by many authors. In the VCCT method, the total energy
release rate is computed locally at the crack front. It involves determining the
energy release rate as a function of the direction in which the crack is extended.
By Irwin’s theory, the energy required for the crack propagation is directly
proportional to the crack length and the energy released during crack
propagation can be calculated from the nodal displacements.
In the VCCT method, the stress field around the crack is calculated based on
elasticity theory. In this analysis, the crack propagates when the strain energy
released is equal to the fracture energy of the material. The VCCT method is
computationally efficient due to a relatively low amount of computational time
being needed and due to its simplicity. The main disadvantage of this method is
its failure to be able to initiate crack propagation in an uncracked material, as it
depends on the nodal displacement ahead of crack tip in order to calculate the
strain energy release rate (SERR), .
Zou et al. [14] developed a model for the evaluation of energy release rate
using the VCCT method. Their study included the influence of the number of
laminae in determining the total energy release rate in composites. They
derived the energy and modes of failure in sub-laminates from nodal forces and
17
moments in the lamina and showed the oscillatory behaviour of the SERR at the
crack tip due to edge delamination occurring.
Krueger [6] has reviewed the application of the VCCT method in the analysis of
crack propagation in two dimensional and three dimensional problems
concerned with composite materials. He described the principles governing the
technique and the calculation of the energy release rate in three dimensional
space. In this study, equations for the energy release rate in the 2D shell and
3D solid elements were derived from the geometry of the structure. The model
gave an accurate prediction of crack propagation.
Krueger and O'Brien [15] used multi-point constraints in the VCCT method to
compute the SERR across the width of the composite specimen. They
computed the SERR for beams of different widths from classical laminate plate
theory and derived the equations for plate/shell and solid elements for crack
propagation based on the geometry of the composite specimens.
Shen et al. [16] developed a computational model of circular delamination for

the prediction of delamination growth in composites. They adopted the VCCT
method for modelling a circular delamination in different layers of a composite
laminate. Their study showed that the direction of delamination growth
coincided with the direction of maximum SERR. They obtained the distribution
of energy released in the delamination front to predict the resultant delamination
shape and direction. Their model also gave information about the shape of the
delamination under buckling loads.
Qian and Xie [17] developed a cohesive zone model using the VCCT method to
model the crack propagation under mixed-mode loading. They used a cohesive
zone model based on SERR principles in the finite element analysis package to
model mixed-mode crack propagation occurring at a constant crack velocity.
The cohesive zone model was incorporated using subroutines to model different
crack velocities. It should be noted that, by using the VCCT method together
with a cohesive zone model, it is possible to predict the initiation and
propagation of cracks. The approach worked well for quasi-static loading under
18
mixed-mode loading but failed to predict the fatigue behaviour due to the
absence of a degradation law in the models that they developed.
Rybicki and Kanninen [13] developed a technique to determine the stress

intensity factors based on the VCCT. The method they adopted measured the
stress intensity factors for a crack in a plate using a constant strain element in
mode I and II and gave good results which were comparable to the J-integral
method. The VCCT method, which uses calculations via FEA of the nodal force
and displacement, was shown to be a relatively simple method for the analysis
of stress intensity factors for different modes, mode I and II (see Section 2.2.2).
Mandell et al. [18] used the VCCT method to predict the life of skin stiffeners
bonded to a composite panel using the SERR method by predicting
delamination in wind turbines under static and fatigue loading. The SERR for
the different modes of loading was obtained from a FEA analysis. The tests
were undertaken for various crack growth rates and the energy release rate
determined. The method predicted delamination failure for different thickness of
the matrix resin, and also predicted the static delamination in wind turbine
blades for various mixed-mode loading conditions.
2.4.3 The Cohesive Zone Model (CZM) method
2.4.3.1 Introduction
Cohesive zone modelling is considered to be the most accurate method of

modelling the damage in composites. In this method, a cohesive zone model is
used to model the crack propagation. The cohesive zone model law relates the
traction and displacement at the crack tip to calculate the SERR under different
modes of loading. The cohesive zone model helps to overcome the complexity
of the singularity located at the crack tip. In the cohesive zone modelling
approach, the crack propagates in the material according to a defined cohesive
zone model law and damage evolution principles. The cohesive zone model
combines aspects of a strength based analysis and fracture mechanics to
predict the onset of damage and the propagation of the crack. The main
19
advantage of cohesive zone models is the ability to predict crack initiation and
propagation using the same cohesive zone model law.
Different shapes of traction, , versus displacement, , laws are proposed for

the cohesive zone law depending on the shape of the cohesive zone law: e.g.
bi-linear, linear-parabolic, exponential and trapezoidal; see Figure 2.9 and note
that the area under these shaped is equivalent to the fracture energy, . In a
cohesive zone model law, the shape of the cohesive zone law determines the
loading and the rate of degradation in the material. For example, Alfano [19]
studied the influence of the shape of the cohesive zone model law when
analysing delamination problems in composite materials. He studied bi-linear,
linear-parabolic, exponential and trapezoidal shapes for the cohesive zone
model law and compared them, assuming the same value of the initial penalty
stiffness (the initial penalty stiffness being the value of the initial gradient in the
cohesive zone law). He concluded that the trapezoidal law gave the poorest
results both in terms of the numerical stability and convergence and that the
exponential law gave the optimal results in terms of predicting accurately the
rate of degradation. His study also showed that the bi-linear law represented the
best compromise between computational cost and the prediction of the
degradation rate. He concluded that the influence of the shape of the cohesive
zone law curve depends on the penalty stiffness of the material.
20
τ τ
τ0 τ0
(a) (b)
Gc
Gc
δ δ
τ τ
τ0 τ0
(c) (d)
Gc Gc
δ δ
τ τ
τ0 τ0
(e) (f)
Gc Gc
δ δ
Figure 2.9 Different cohesive zone model laws. (a)Triangular form (b) Constant
stress form (c) Triangular form (bi-linear law) (d) Elastic constant
linear damage form (e) Linear polynomial form and (f) Elastic
constant form (Zou et al. [20]).
The bi-linear cohesive zone law (see Figure 2.9 (c)) is widely used for the
analysis of fracture. It is the simplest of the cohesive zone laws as it represents
the elastic and degradation part linearly. The bi-linear cohesive zone law has a
discontinuity at the damage initiation point due to the sudden change in the
slope of the curve and hence different laws have been proposed to smooth out
21
this discontinuity and hence possibly better predict the behaviour of the
material. A typical bi-linear cohesive zone model law is defined by a penalty
stiffness, , critical fracture energy, , and critical stress, , of the element, as
shown in Figure 2.10.
τ0
Traction, τ
Gc
δo δf
Displacement, δ
Figure 2.10 The bi-linear cohesive zone law.
Cohesive zone modelling is considered to be the most accurate method for the
analysis of cyclic-fatigue damage in composites. In this method, a cohesive
zone model is used to model crack propagation under fatigue loading. The
damage occurs in the cohesive zone by evolution of damage with time, and the
degradation of the cohesive zone law can be achieved by degrading the penalty
stiffness of the cohesive zone law with time. The degradation of the penalty
stiffness is computed based on the energy released at nodes of elements under
the fatigue loading. The relevant damage parameter, , in the cohesive zone
law is calculated based on the Paris law, which is obtained from experimental
tests on the composite material as described in Section 2.3.2 and as shown in
Figure 2.6. For example, the degradation of a bi-linear cohesive zone law due to
fatigue load with time is shown in Figure 2.11. The term and in Figure
2.11 are the fatigue damage at time and of the fatigue cycle. These
aspects are discussed in detail later in Chapter 4.
22
τ0
K(1-dt)
K(1-dt+1)
δt δt+1 δf δ
Figure 2.11 Fatigue degradation in a bi-linear cohesive zone law.

2.4.3.2 Pure mode loading
Here the fracture in the material occurs when the energy released is equal to
the fracture energy in the particular mode. Therefore, the propagation criteria
can be expressed as
However, in real structure the loading is usually via a mixture of mode I and
mode II.
2.4.3.3 Mixed-mode loading
Mixed-mode loading occurs in most real structures. The mode-mixity in a

cohesive zone model analysis can be defined using the different criteria for the
mixed-modes. The simplest criterion considers that failure of the composite
occurs mainly in mode I due to the relatively high energy for fracture required in
mode II (Whitcomb [21]). The criteria are given by the relations
(2.8)
23
(2.9)
However, these very simple criteria are invariably found to be inadequate. So

another criterion for the prediction of the propagation of crack growth under
mixed-mode loading is to sum the individual fracture energies to give the critical
fracture energy in the mixed-mode condition (Wu [22]). This criterion can be
expressed as
(2.10)
And can be expressed in the normalised form as
(2.11)
Yet another, more generalised form of Equation 2.11 is a power law expression
(Camanho et al. [7]) given by where crack propagation occurs if
(2.12)
where the parameters and are the constants obtained from experimental
data, and and are the critical strain energy release rates in pure mode I
and II respectively.
Another criterion (Hahn [23]) which accounts for mode-mixity effects is the
expression
(2.13)
and yet another propagation criteria (Ramkumar [24]) is
(2.14)
24
The Benzeggagh-Kenane (B-K) criterion (Camanho et al. [7]) for accounting the
mode-mixity is given by
(2.15)
where and are given by the expressions
(2.16)
(2.17)
The mode-mixity factor, , is a factor which may be obtained from an

experimental fit. In the present work, B-K criterion is used for the mixed-mode
analysis as it depend only on one factor, which can readily be determined by
experimental fit, as discussed further in Chapter 4.
2.4.4 The Energy method
The energy method is the most conventional method used for the analysis of
damage in composites. Some of the important work undertaken using this
method is described below.
Rebière and Gamby [25] used the variational energy method to model
delamination and cracking behaviour of cross-ply laminates. The transverse and
longitudinal cracking of the laminates were modelled to determine the value of
SERR associated with the three modes of fracture. They modelled the
development of a triangular-shaped delamination and showed that the
delamination length is not uniform in the plane of the laminate.
Quantian Luo and Liyong Tong [26] developed a closed-form formula for
different mode energies for crack formation in a composite beam. The energy
release rate was expressed in terms of axial load, shear forces and bending
moments on the crack tip in the layered beam. An equation was derived for a
25
zero thick adhesive layer in the beam. The energy method predicted the static
crack growth in the material but was unable to account for the degradation of
material properties.
Kashtalyan and Soutis [27] developed a theoretical model based on stiffness

degradation and mechanical behaviour of symmetric laminates with off-axis ply
cracks and crack induced delaminations. They calculated the SERR based on
crack density, delamination area and ply orientation angle in symmetric
laminates. A shear-lag analysis was used to determine ply stresses in different
modes.
Wimmer and Pettermann [28] used a Griffith crack growth criterion to predict the
load required to propagate the crack and studied the stability of delamination
crack growth (Figure 2.12). Figure 2.12 shows the variation of force and
displacement with the delamination growth and the influence of delamination
size on the stability of crack growth. They also determined the critical size of
delamination where the growth changed from stable to unstable, and vice versa.
Their method could be applied to composites, as well as to other problems
where the crack path was known. They proved in their study that a small
delamination grew in an unstable manner while large delaminations grew in a
stable manner.
Figure 2.12 The minimum load required to propagate a delamination of a

certain size in its most detrimental location (Wimmer and
Pettermann [28]).
26
Shivakumar et al. [29] conducted experiments to determine the resistance to

crack growth as a function of delamination extension. They established an
equation for the delamination growth rate, , as a function of the maximum
cyclic energy release rate, (Figure 2.13). The increase of resistance due
to matrix cracking, fibre bridging, tow splitting, separation, bridging and breaking
(see Figure 2.14) were accounted for through normalisation of the equation by
the instantaneous resistance value, (i.e. the energy release rate when the
delamination growth was infinite, or unstable).
Figure 2.13 Comparison of theoretical equation for delamination growth rate

with the test data (Shivakumar et al. [29]).
27
Figure 2.14 Failure modes in laminate (Shivakumar et al. [29]).
2.5 Modelling Damage and the Life Time under Cyclic Fatigue Loading
2.5.1 Quasi-static loading
Quasi-static loading in composites causes damage due to an increase in the

applied load with time. The static damage in composites appears mainly as
transverse cracks which occur within the laminae of composites, as well as due
to interlaminar delaminations. The analysis of damage build-up, and the
associated loss of stiffness, in composites materials under quasi-static loading
has been undertaken by various authors using different methods. Some of the
important and relevant work undertaken is described below.
Boniface et al. [30] used a compliance, i.e. the inverse of stiffness, change
approach via a shear lag analysis to relate the crack growth rate with the SERR.
They studied the energy release and the interaction of transverse cracks
between each other, depending on the spacing of cracks. The study also
showed how the crack spacing affects (Figure 2.15) the interaction between the
28
cracks and confirmed the validity of the Paris curve to describe fatigue crack
growth.
Figure 2.15 Transverse crack interference model (Boniface et al. [30]).
Hallett et al. [9] analysed a quasi-isotropic composite plate to predict the failure.
In this work, the composite was analysed using both the VCCT technique and
the cohesive zone model approach to predict the delamination and transverse
cracking. It was shown that delamination, and its interaction with the transverse
cracks, affected the final failure of the laminate. The study also highlighted the
difficulty in accurately predicting the failure of composite materials.
Parvizi and Bailey [31] studied the growth of transverse cracks for different
stresses and ply thickness. They developed a shear lag analytical expression
using a exponential equation to model the reduction in strength with crack
spacing. They observed that a change in the stiffness of the composite due to
transverse cracking at relatively low strains was accompanied by a visual
whitening effect, due to the formation of the transverse micro-cracks. Their
method is difficult to adopt for non-isotropic materials, as their model cannot
take into account other directional material properties.
29
Huchette [32] illustrated the damage in the composite due to transverse

cracking and delamination. The different steps in the damage process of the
composite (02/902)s are shown in Figure 2.16. This study showed the interaction
of transverse cracks with the delamination in the failure of composites could be
successfully modelled using cohesive zone model elements.
Figure 2.16 Failure of a composite strip specimen (Huchette [32]).
Leblond et al. [33] used a finite element method to study cross-ply laminates.
They studied the longitudinal stiffness reduction due to cracks in the laminates
and modelled the laminates and obtained good agreement with the
experimental results. Their study showed the major reduction of stiffness that
occurred with an increasing crack density of transverse cracks in the cross-ply
laminates. Their theoretical predictions were in good agreement with the
experimental results (Figures 2.17 and 2.18).
30
Figure 2.17 Stiffness reduction as a function of the average crack density in the
case of two different laminates. Eo is the initial elastic modulus of
the laminate and Ex is the elastic modulus with a given crack
density (Leblond et al. [33]).
Figure 2.18 Crack multiplication in transverse plies (Leblond et al. [33]).
2.5.2 Fatigue loading
Fatigue loading in a material occurs due to application of a periodic load and

causes the degradation of material properties with time. The load reversals
31
cause permanent damage in the material and the cyclic load applied in the
fatigue test is invariably considerably less than the ultimate load. There is also
usually a fatigue limit of the composite material (Figure 2.19), below which no
fatigue damage occurs.
Figure 2.19 Fatigue life diagram for a (0/902)s carbon fibre/epoxy matrix
laminate (Akshantala and Talreja [34]).
Turon et al. [35] developed a damage model for the simulation of progressive
delamination in composite materials under variable mixed-mode loading. The
model used constitutive laws for modelling the initiation and propagation of
delamination. The damage evolution for the cohesive zone model elements was
based on progressive degradation of the cohesive zone model parameters, as
will be described later in detail in Chapter 4.
Talreja [1] has developed a fatigue damage mechanism for the analysis of
composites. He proposed ‘fatigue life diagrams’ based on the strain in the fibres
and matrix (Figure 2.20). In his paper, he defined the fatigue ratio and defined
the fatigue limit for unidirectional, cross and angle plied laminates, as illustrated
in Figure 2.20. The study thus defined the fatigue resistance of the materials
from the strains in the composite material.
32
Figure 2.20 Fatigue life diagram for a unidirectional composites under loading
parallel to the fibres (Talreja [1]).
Manjunatha et al. [36] studied the fatigue behaviour of an epoxy matrix polymer
containing nano-silica particles and the corresponding GFRP composites. The
work quantified the development of transverse cracking with the number of
cycles of fatigue loading. The fatigue life of the GFRP composites was shown to
increase by about three to four times with the addition of the nano-silica
particles. The study also showed that reduced matrix cracking, due to the
nano-silica particles debonding and associated plastic void growth mechanisms,
contributed significantly to the increase in the fatigue life in the GFRP
composites with the modified matrix.
Tong et al. [37] studied the transverse cracking in the matrix in GFRP laminates
under fatigue loads. Their experimental observations of the fatigue crack growth
in the laminates were undertaken to study the fatigue degradation of the
strength of the material. Their work also studied the degradation of stiffness with
the increase of transverse cracks during the experiments. They observed
different crack densities in the various plies of composite and found that the
transverse crack density in the 90o fibres saturated after a certain cycles of
33
fatigue load. The experimental study also showed a relationship between the
crack density and material properties and gave a good insight into the
characteristic damage that occurs in composite materials.
Tong et al. [38] modelled the experimental results obtained in their previous
work on laminates to predict the reduction of stiffness of laminates with fatigue
cycles. They modelled open cracks in the laminates using a finite element
analysis inputting the value of crack density observed in the experiments. The
transverse cracks in different plies gave the distribution of the stresses around
the crack tip and their contribution to the total stiffness reduction. The model
was developed with plane strain elements and showed good agreement with
the experimental results for different values of crack density.
Manjunatha et al. [39] studied the fatigue life of GFRP composite materials
modified with both rubber and silica particles, see Figure 2.21. The fatigue life of
these hybrid (i.e. containing both micrometre-sized rubber and nano-silica
particles) epoxy matrix composites was about six to ten times higher than that
of the GFRP composites manufactured using the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy
matrix polymer. They explained the increase in the fatigue life of the hybrid
epoxy composites as arising from the toughening micro-mechanisms caused by
the presence of both types of particles, such as cavitation of the rubber particles
and silica particle debonding. These effects both resulted in increased plastic
deformation of the epoxy matrix (Figure 2.21). Indeed, Manjunatha et al. [40]
observed less transverse cracking in the composites due to the addition of
rubber and silica particles (Figure 2.22).
34
Figure 2.21 The tapping mode atomic force microscopy (AFM) phase images of
the hybrid-epoxy matrix polymer (Manjunatha et al. [39]) (CTBN:
carboxy-termianted butadiene acrylonitrile rubber).
Figure 2.22 Transmitted light photographic images of matrix cracking in the

GFRP composites after testing at stress of 150MPa. NR-Neat
resin, NRR-Neat resin with rubber, NRS-Neat resin with silica and
NRRS-Neat resin with rubber and silica (Manjunatha et al. [40])
35
Camanho et al. [7] developed a cohesive zone model for crack propagation
under mixed-mode loading in composites. Their constitutive law proposed used
the relative displacement between the nodes for initiation and propagation of
the cracks. They used a mixed-mode criterion to determine the initiation and
propagation of delamination under the mixed-mode loading. They developed
the cohesive zone model formulation using a subroutine to simulate the double
cantilever beam (DCB), end notch flexure (ENF) and mixed-mode bending
(MMB) experimental tests. The model gave a good prediction of the fatigue life
of the composite material.
Robinson et al. [41] developed a cohesive zone model approach to predict

fatigue delamination growth in composite materials. They predicted the fatigue
growth curve for composites (Figure 2.23) using a novel degradation law which
had an exponential component to account for the degradation of the composite
material due to delamination occurring. The degradation law showed a similarity
to the Paris law for fatigue life prediction, see Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.23 Crack length versus cycles (Robinson et al. [41]).
36
Attia et al. [42] proposed a different method for predicting the growth of impact
damage in fibre composite skin structures when subjected to cyclic-fatigue
loading. The method that they developed used the experimental relationship
between the SERR and the number of fatigue cycles to initiate a fatigue crack,
which was included into a finite element analysis (Figure 2.24). The approach
uses the FEA model to deduce the SERR of the panel by deducing the energy
change for growth by approximately 5% of the original impact-damaged area.
Figure 2.24 Experimental relation between the maximum SERR, , and the
number of fatigue cycles, , for the onset of crack growth (Attia et
al. [42]).
Turon et al. [43] proposed a damage model for the simulation of delamination
propagation under high-cycle fatigue loading using a cohesive zone model
approach. They obtained the damage state as a function of the loading
conditions and determined the Paris law coefficients to use in the model in order
to degrade the cohesive zone law as a function of the number of fatigue cycles.
In their work the degradation of the material using the cohesive zone model
resulted in the degradation of the cohesive traction (i.e. stress) (Figure 2.25).
The model was validated by predicting the propagation rates in mode I, II and
37
mixed-mode tests and by observing that they obtained good agreement with the
experimental results.
Figure 2.25 Evolution of the interface/cohesive traction and the maximum

interface/cohesive strength as a function of the number of cycles
for a displacement jump controlled high-cycle fatigue test (Turon
et al. [43]). (Here interfacial traction is the critical stress of the
cohesive zone law at a given number of fatigue cycles and the
interfacial traction is the traction at the cohesive zone at a given
number of fatigue cycles.)
Iannucci [44] developed a cohesive zone modelling technique using a

formulation based on a damage mechanics approach and he used a stress
threshold and critical energy release rate for each particular delamination mode.
In his analysis, cohesive zone elements were placed where delaminations were
expected. (Thus, it should be noted that prior knowledge of their propagation
path was required.) The energy dissipated in different modes was used to
calculate the mode ratio. Again, this combination of a cohesive zone model with
a finite element analysis gave very good agreement with the experimental
results.
38
Khoramishad et al. [45] developed a bi-linear cohesive law to simulate damage

in adhesively bonded joints. The fatigue degradation in the model was based on
the degradation of the cohesive penalty stiffness, , with time. The cohesive
model predicted the fatigue life and strains in the adhesive joints. They also
derived a formulation for fatigue degradation using a mode-mixity criterion and
reducing the critical cohesive stress, instead of the penalty stiffness of the
element.
Mao and Mahadevan [46] have developed a mathematical model for the
degradation of composite materials under cyclic fatigue loading. A nonlinear
model was used for the damage evolution in the composite materials subject to
fatigue loading. The damage model accounted for the damage of the material
based on the degradation of elastic parameters. They used a curve fitting
method to predict the appropriate parameters for use in the fatigue law. The
damage accumulation law employed a power function for the number of cycles
and gave a reasonably good agreement with the experimental results.
2.6 Concluding Remarks
The present study has reviewed the literature on the prediction of fatigue life of
composite materials using various analysis methods. The finite element
analysis using a fracture mechanics concept is clearly a good tool for studying
the fatigue life of composite materials.
The present review also gives a good insight into the methods that may be
combined with such finite element analyses for the life prediction of composites
namely the VCCT, the cohesive zone model law, etc. The cohesive zone model
seems to be a very appropriate approach for the analysis of fatigue damage in
an uncracked specimen, because of its ability to predict the initiation and
propagation of a crack. The studies reviewed in the present Chapter also
highlight the difficultly in predicting the fatigue life of composites due to the
complex nature of the damage arising from both transverse cracking and
delamination occurring in the composite material.
39
The present literature review also reveals that little theoretical work has been
reported on the prediction of the fatigue life of nano-particle, rubber-particle and
hybrid modified epoxy matrix composites. It may also be seen from the present
review that there are very few reports available on the study of fatigue life in
transversely isotropic composite using a cohesive zone model law. Hence the
present work will mainly concentrate on modelling and predicting the fatigue life
of transversely isotropic composites with different formulations of epoxy
matrices using a cohesive zone model method, coupled with a finite element
analysis approach. The cohesive zone model formulations of Turon et al. [43],
Turon et al. [35] and Camanho et al. [7] will be used for the present analyses.
However, before the novel theoretical analyses developed in the present work
are described (Chapter 4), the experimental techniques will be given in the next
Chapter.
40
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
CHAPTER 3
3. EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES
3.1 Introduction
In the present work, a glass fibre reinforced plastic (GFRP) composite is used to
study the fatigue behaviour of quasi-isotropic (QI) laminates. The properties of
the epoxy matrices used in the composite are also studied. The epoxy matrices
used for the present work are basically
a) A control formulation;
b) A modified formulation with a dispersion of nano-silica particles;
c) A modified formulation with a dispersion of micrometre-sized rubber particles;
d) A hybrid formulation with a dispersion of both micrometre-rubber and nano-

silica particles.
The bulk epoxies and the GFRP composite materials of the different
formulations have been tested. Such tests have been conducted in order to
determine the quasi-static and fatigue properties of the GFRP composite
laminates. The bulk epoxy matrices have been tested to ascertain the various
parameters needed for the theoretical modelling studies, which are later
developed to predict the fatigue life of the GFRP laminates (Chapter 4). The
tests undertaken on the epoxy are quasi-static single edge notched bending
(SENB) tests and the cyclic-fatigue test using compact tension (CT) specimens.
The tests undertaken on the GFRP composite are quasi-static and cyclic-fatigue
tests on double cantilever beam (DCB) and composite strip specimens. The
present experimental work is the continuation of previous studies on the
unmodified (i.e. control) and modified epoxy composites by Manjunatha et al.
[36], Manjunatha et al. [39], Manjunatha et al. [40]), Masania [47], Hsieh [48] and
Lee [49].
41
3.2 Materials
In this work, GFRP laminates based on the control and modified epoxy resin
matrices were prepared, i.e. the control resin, a resin with 9% wt. of micrometre-
rubber particles, a resin with 10% wt. nano-silica particles and a resin with 9%
wt. micrometre-rubber and 10% wt. nano-silica particles. The epoxy resin used
was ‘LY556’, a standard diglycidyl ether of bis-phenol A (DGEBA) with an
epoxide equivalent weight (EEW) of 185g/mol, supplied by Huntsman, Duxford,
UK. The curing agent was ‘Albidur HE 600’, an accelerated
methylhexahydrophthalic acid anhydride with an amine equivalent weight
(AEW) of 170g/mol and a stoichiometric amount of the curing agent was added
to the formulation to cure the epoxy resin. The nano-silica particles used in the
resin were based on ‘Nanopox F400’ where they were present in a
concentration of 40% wt. in a DGEBA epoxy resin with an EEW of 295g/mol
from Nanoresins, Geesthacht, Germany. The ‘Albipox 1000’, reactive liquid
carboxyl-terminated butadiene-acrylonitrile (CTBN) rubber was obtained as a
CTBN-epoxy adduct with a rubber concentration of 40% wt. in DGEBA epoxy
resin from Emerald, Cleveland, USA. The E-glass fibre sheet was a stitched two
layer of non-crimp fibre (NCF) arranged in a ±45° pattern with an areal weight of
450g/m2 from SP systems, Newport, UK.
3.3 Preparation of Epoxy Matrix Polymer Specimens
3.3.1 Introduction
Standard fracture mechanics specimens were prepared from the materials to

obtain the fracture mechanics data and the cohesive zone law parameters
needed for the theoretical modelling studies. The composite specimens used for
the fatigue analysis were also manufactured with the materials described in the
above section. The specimen preparation methods for the various types of test
specimens are described in the sections below.
42
3.3.2 Preparation of plates
Fracture mechanics testing was performed using epoxy matrix specimens

machined from bulk epoxy plates. The bulk epoxy specimens used for testing
were manufactured as plates. The epoxy was cured in a 6mm thick metal
mould, which was used for preparing the bulk epoxy plates. Initially silicone
gasket was placed around the mould to prevent the leakage of epoxy from the
mould. The moulds were first opened and the inside surface cleaned with
acetone. The surface of the mould was then coated with release agent to aid
the easy removal of the specimen. The moulds were then assembled and made
ready for pouring the resin. The epoxy resin matrix prepared as described
above, was poured into the mould. The resin was mixed with a stoichiometric
amount of the curing agent and degassed at 50 oC and -1atm. The resin mixture
was then poured into the release-coated steel mould. The resin was poured
from the one side of the mould to prevent the development of bubbles in the
resin when pouring. The mould was taken to the oven for curing. The resin was
cured by increasing the temperature at 1oC/min and cured at 100oC for 2hr and
later post-cured at 150oC for 10hr. After curing, the plates were removed from
the mould and inspected for any defects or voids in the moulding. The cured
bulk epoxy plate was machined to obtain the required specimen dimensions.
The surface of the test specimens was made smooth by polishing with abrasive
papers, as surface irregularities might affect the fracture behaviour of these
relatively brittle materials.
3.3.3 Single edge notched bending (SENB) specimens
Standard tests were performed on the bulk epoxy materials to obtain the
fracture properties of the various epoxy formulations. The SENB test was
conducted to obtain the fracture energy, . The test was conducted according
to the standard ISO:13586:2000 [50]. The specimens were machined from the
epoxy plate, with the dimensions as in the standard. A sharp notch was
inserted in the specimen using a razor blade to act as a pre-crack, and the
specimen was tested. The load versus displacement curve of the specimen
under quasi-static load was obtained.
43
3.3.4 Compact tension (CT) specimens
Compact tension specimens were used to determine the cyclic-fatigue

properties of the bulk epoxy materials. The CT specimens were manufactured
from the plates of the bulk epoxy as specified in the ASTM:E647 [51] standard.
A sharp notch was inserted in the CT specimen by machining and then
sharpened using a razor blade. The surface of the specimen was again
polished to remove any defects. The compact specimen was loaded in tension-
tension fatigue.
3.4 Preparation of GFRP Composite Specimens
3.4.1 Introduction
Composite specimens were manufactured from the materials described in

Section 3.2. The preparation of the composite specimens was based on the
manufacturing method described below.
3.4.2 Resin infusion under flexible tooling (RIFT)
The laminated plates for the specimens were prepared from a multidirectional,
high strength, glass fibre epoxy pre-preg, and a resin infusion under flexible
tooling (RIFT) method was used to prepare the fibre reinforced epoxy
composites (Figure 3.1). In this method, the woven fibres were laid up and
placed in a vacuum bag and the resin was made to infuse through the fibre
layup using the vacuum pressure that was applied. The epoxy resin was
therefore forced to spread throughout the fibre layup, and the layup was then
cured to form the laminate. The glass fibre sheet was cut into 330x330mm2
squares.
To give further details, then to produce the laminates a temperature controlled

plate surface was set to the required infusion temperature. The surface of the
plate was cleaned and made smooth and an infusion stack was built. A
polyamide film was laid over the plate and fixed using adhesive tape. The
polyamide film formed the first and the outer layer of the vacuum bag. A sealant
tape was bonded on to the polyamide film along the plate border to form the
44
vacuum bag. A flow media, i.e. a sheet of plastic net to help uniform flow of the
epoxy resin, was placed next to the polyamide film to help the infusion of the
matrix resin. The inlet pipes and outlet pipes were fixed on the ends of the plate.
The fibre layup was placed over the peel ply, and the same procedure was
repeated on the other side of the fibre layup. The vacuum bag was sealed with
the sealant tape and a vacuum pump was connected to the so-formed vacuum
bag. The resin was infused into the vacuum bag through the inlet pipe and the
temperature of the plate was controlled. The resin flowed through the dry fibre
layup and reached the other end of the plate. The inlet pipe was then closed to
prevent the infusion of the resin into the vacuum chamber. The resin was cured
by ramping the temperature to 100oC at 1oC/min, cured for 2hr, again ramped to
150oC at 1oC/min and post-cured for 10hr. After the curing cycle was complete,
the laminate was taken out of the vacuum bag and machined around the edges.
The composite laminate was visually checked for voids. Composite plates of
330X330X5.4mm3 were therefore manufactured by the above method.
Figure 3.1 Fabrication of a GFRP sheet using RIFT.
3.4.3 Double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens
Composite plates were prepared using the glass fibre sheet manufactured as
described above laid up in the sequence of [(-45/45)s(90/0)s]2 [(0/90)s(45/-45)s]2
to give a 0o/90o lamina interface (mid plane) across the fracture plane. A
45
12.5μm thick polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) film was inserted in the mid-plane

of the plate to act as a pre-crack. The specimens were designed to be
sufficiently stiff to avoid large displacements, plastic deformation, intra-ply
damage and to reduce elastic couplings. Each plate had sixteen layers of
woven glass fibre. Using this method, standard composite plates of
300x300x5.4mm3 were made.
The DCB specimens were cut from the plates using a wet-saw cutting machine
with nominal dimensions as recommended by the standard (ISO:15024:2001
[52]). Each laminate plate was cut into ten specimens. The pre-crack lengths
were approximately 60mm for the specimens. Machined aluminium alloy blocks
of the same width as the specimens were bonded onto the end of the DCB test
specimen using an epoxy adhesive, which was cured at room temperature. One
of the edges of the DCB specimen was coated with white ink and was
graduated at 1mm interval to monitor the crack growth.
3.4.4 Composite strip specimens
Composite plates of 300x300x2.7mm3 in dimension were prepared using the

RIFT method, as described above, with a layup sequence of [(45/-45/0/90)s]2.
Each plate had eight layers of woven glass fibres. The strip specimens were cut
from the plates using the wet-saw cutting-machine with nominal dimensions of
150x25x2.7mm3. The strips were grit blasted where the end tabs were to be
fixed and the tabs were fixed to the specimen using an epoxy adhesive, which
was cured at room temperature. The strip specimens were finished by lightly
abrading the edges of the test specimens to remove any major defects.
3.5 Test Methods for the Epoxy Matrix Polymer Specimens
3.5.1 Introduction
Tests were undertaken on the bulk epoxy matrix specimens at 20o±2oC to

determine the fracture properties of the material. These are described below.
46
3.5.2 Single edge notched bending (SENB) tests
SENB specimens were tested to determine the mode I fracture energy, , of

the bulk epoxy matrix polymer. This test measures the resistance to the
initiation and propagation of a crack in the bulk epoxy polymer under mode I
loading. A standard quasi-static test was conducted to determine the mode I
fracture toughness, , according to the standard (ISO:13586:2000 [50]). The
specimen was loaded under displacement control at a rate of 0.05mm/min. The
start of the crack was observed visually and the growth of the crack was noted
using the event marker, the length of the propagating crack being recorded on
the load versus displacement trace. A linear variable displacement transducer
(LVDT) was used to measure the displacement during the loading of the
specimen. The fracture toughness, , of the material may be calculated from
the expression
(3.1)
where is the maximum load or 5% offset load, the breadth, the width and
the shape factor of the specimen where
(3.2)
The fracture energy, , can be calculated from the equation
(3.3)
where is the elasticity modulus (Table 5.1 ) and is the Poisson’s ratio (Table
5.1) of the bulk epoxy.
47
3.5.3 Compact tension (CT) tests
The CT specimen test was conducted to determine the cyclic-fatigue properties

of the epoxy matrix polymers under cyclic tension-tension loading. This test also
ascertains the threshold fracture energy of the epoxy matrix material under
fatigue loading. The fatigue parameters obtained from these tests will be used
for the modelling analyses of the composite strip specimens (Chapter 5).
A cyclic-fatigue test (based on the ASTM:E647 [51] and ISO:15850 [53]
standards) was conducted to determine the rate of crack growth, , per cycle
as a function of the maximum value of the applied strain energy release rate,
. The load was applied as a sinusoidal function with a maximum
displacement less than the displacement required for the initiation of crack
growth under quasi-static loading. The test was conducted using a 1kN
computer-controlled servo-hydraulic test machine under displacement control
loading. A fatigue ‘Krak gauge’ was bonded on the side of the specimen using a
standard M-bond adhesive resin, which was cured at 25oC for 10hrs using a
curing agent. The ‘Krak gauge’ is used to monitor the crack growth in the
specimen.
Cyclic-fatigue tests were carried out for the different bulk epoxy matrix
polymers. The specimens were subjected to displacement-controlled fatigue
loading with the frequency of loading kept at 5Hz. As well as using the ‘Krak
gauge’ method the crack growth under the fatigue loading was also monitored
using an optical microscope focussed on the crack front. This test therefore
measured the maximum load and crack growth under fatigue loading. It also
determined the load below which there was no propagation of the crack, and
therefore the threshold fracture energies of the different bulk epoxy matrices
were determined from the data. The maximum fracture toughness, , for a
given cycle can be calculated from the expression
(3.4)
48
where is the maximum load in the fatigue cycle, the breadth, the width
and is a shape factor of the specimen where . The shape factor is
given by the expression
(3.5)
The maximum fracture energy may be calculated from the equation
(3.6)
where the elastic modulus, , and the Poisson’s ratio, , of material are
obtained from Table 5.1. The crack growth curve can be obtained from the
secant method and the incremental polynomial method (ASTM:E647 [54]). In
the incremental polynomial method, the growth rate curve, , is obtained by
fitting a polynomial between a set of points. In the present work, the secant
method was used for obtaining the growth rate curve. In the secant method, the
slopes of the adjacent points are used to calculate the growth rate curve.
3.6 Test Methods for the GFRP Composite Specimens
3.6.1 Introduction
Tests were undertaken the composite material at 20o±2oC under both quasi-
static and cyclic fatigue loading to determine the fracture mechanics properties
of the material. Tension-tension cyclic fatigue tests were also conducted on
strips of the GFRP composite material to determine the lifetime of the material
under fatigue conditions. Details of the tests conducted on the specimens are
given below.
49
3.6.2 DCB tests: Quasi-static tests
A standard quasi-static test was conducted to determine the mode I interlaminar

fracture energy, , under quasi-static load for the GFRP composites using a
DCB specimen (ISO:15024:2001 [52]). During the test the load, displacement
and crack length required for the initiation and growth of the crack were
measured in the DCB specimen. The values of for initiation and propagation
of the crack were obtained from the load versus displacement trace. The DCB
specimen was loaded under displacement control at a rate of 1mm/min. The
start of the crack was observed visually and the growth of the crack was noted
using the event marker to indicate the crack length on the load versus
displacement trace. The laminate sequence of the composite was [(-
45/45)s(90/0)s]2 [(0/90)s(45/-45)s]2, with the initial crack located at the mid-plane
of the laminate. The test is shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3.
Aluminium loading block
Composite
Initial crack
Figure 3.2 DCB specimen.
The load versus displacement trace of the composite was typical of brittle matrix
fibre laminates. The fracture surfaces showed evidence of tow splitting, fibre-
breakage and fibre-matrix interfacial fracture (see Figure 3.4). The non-linearity
(i.e. the 5% offset) or the maximum load criteria was used to define the point of
crack initiation. The 5% offset is the intersection of the load versus
displacement curve with a line corresponding to a value of the compliance
which is 5% higher than the initial slope (ISO:15024:2001 [52]).
50
Figure 3.3 Experimental setup for a DCB test.
Figure 3.4 Fibre bridging in DCB test.
The value of the interlaminar fracture energy, , was calculated using the
‘Corrected beam theory’ (CBT) method as defined in the ISO standard
(ISO:15024:2001 [52]) and which may be expressed by
51
(3.7)
where , , , and are the load, load-line displacement, crack width, crack
length and the crack-tip rotation correction factor of the specimen, respectively.
The factor is given by
(3.8)
where is the distance from the centre of the loading pin to the mid-plane of
the specimen beam.
3.6.3 DCB tests: Cyclic-fatigue tests
The tests were conducted according to the prescribed standard (ASTM:E647

[51]). The load was applied as a sinusoidal function with a maximum
displacement of 50% of the displacement required for the initiation of the crack
in the corresponding quasi-static tests of the DCB specimens. The frequency of
the loading was 1~3Hz. The laminate sequence of the composite strip was [(-
45/45)s(90/0)s]2[(0/90)s(45/-45)s]2, which is identical to that of the DCB
specimens described above.
The cyclic-fatigue DCB test was conducted using a 1kN computer-controlled

servo-hydraulic test machine (Figure 3.5). The tests were conducted under
displacement control loading. A travelling microscope was mounted on a
traversing stand to monitor the growth of delamination. The number of cycles
required for the growth of the crack was noted for different amplitudes of the
applied displacement. The maximum load was recorded when the visual onset
of delamination growth was observed on the edge of the specimen. The
threshold energy of the strain energy release rate was also obtained from the
fatigue test. The maximum energy release rate, , was calculated using the
above equations for the DCB quasi-static test. The crack growth rate, , and
52
the for the experiments were plotted using logarithmic scales to obtain the
typical growth rate curve.
Figure 3.5 Experimental setup for a fatigue DCB test.
3.6.4 Composite strip laminate tests: Quasi-static and fatigue tests
A quasi-static test was conducted on the composite strip to determine the quasi-
static strength and elastic properties of the laminate. The tests were conducted
based on the ASTM:D3039 [55] standard. The tensile test was performed using
a 100kN computer-controlled screw-driven test machine and the specimen was
loaded at a rate of 1mm/min. The load versus displacement curve was obtained
to determine the elastic property of the composite.
Cyclic-fatigue tests were conducted on the composite strip to study the fatigue
life of the composite laminate (ASTM:D3479M [56]). Composite strips were
loaded using a stress controlled cyclic-fatigue test to different stress levels, and
the number of cycles to failure was noted. During this test the growth, the
initiation and propagation of transverse cracks in the composite laminate strip
under fatigue loading were also observed. The size of the strips used for the
testing was 150x25x2.7mm3 and the load was applied as constant amplitude
sinusoidal stress with a stress ratio of 0.1, using a 25kN computer-controlled
53
servo-hydraulic test machine. The frequency used for the low-cycle fatigue (i.e.
a high applied stress) tests was 1Hz and for the high-cycle fatigue (i.e. a low
applied stress) was 4Hz. The tests were conducted using different specimens at
different stress levels and the number of cycles to failure of the specimen was
noted. The crack density was also noted for a given number of cycles and the
variation of crack density on the surface of the specimen was plotted against
the number of fatigue cycles. The crack density was observed on the surface of
the specimens using an optical microscope, and the stiffness reduction of the
strip was also measured as a function of the number of fatigue cycles.
Tests on the bulk epoxy and the GFRP composite were undertaken to measure
their behaviour under quasi-static and fatigue loading. From the quasi-static
tests the values of the fracture energy, , for both the bulk epoxy matrices and
the GFRP laminates were measured. The cyclic-fatigue tests enabled the rate
of the crack growth per cycle, , and the corresponding maximum applied
stain-energy release rate, , to be determined, again for both the bulk epoxy
matrices and for the corresponding GFRP laminates. All these data are needed
for the modelling studies described in Chapter 5. To validate the model, the
applied stress versus the number of fatigue cycles to failure was measured,
using composite strip specimens of the GFRP laminates of the same lay-up
sequence. The next Chapter describes the theoretical modelling work
developed during the current research.
54
CHAPTER 4 THEORETICAL TECHNIQUES
CHAPTER 4
4. THEORETICAL TECHNIQUES
4.1 Introduction
In the present chapter, theoretical models and formulations based upon finite
element analysis (FEA) methods are developed to simulate the experimental
results. Different methods of analysis, such as virtual crack closure technique
(VCCT), cohesive contact and cohesive zone elements are used, with the FEA
approach, for modelling the fracture of the composite materials. Analysis of the
FEA models is undertaken using the Abaqus software program employing
continuum elements and cohesive zone elements. All the analyses of the
continuum elements is done using 2D plane-strain elements. In a typical
cohesive zone element model of the specimens, plane-strain elements are used
to model the continuum elements and the cohesive zone elements are used
solely to model the fracture path. It should be noted that in Abaqus the cohesive
law is represented by stress/traction versus strain in the cohesive zone.
4.2 Quasi-Static Analysis
A quasi-static analysis formulation is derived in the following sections employing

the different methods as listed below. The underlying principles of the FEA
approach are also explained and the details of the methodology are shown.
4.2.1 The Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)
The VCCT method is derived from the crack closure technique (CCT), see
Section 2.4.2. This technique determines the energy released during crack
propagation from the geometry of the crack. The energy released can be
calculated from the displacement and forces in each direction at the nodes of
crack tip. The energy released by the crack extension, , is the work required
55
to close the crack by the same amount to its original length, keeping the
external load constant.
Δa
y, v
c a
x, u e
f
d b
Figure 4.1 The VCCT model.
The energy released can be calculated using the displacement and nodal forces
in the different directions (Krueger [6]). The crack is represented by a one
dimensional discontinuity of a line of nodes which have the same coordinates at
the top and bottom surfaces (Figure 4.1). The energy released due to mode I
and II is due to the opening and shear displacements between the contact
surfaces. The energy released in different directions is the energy release
associated with that given mode, e.g. mode I or II.
The different mode components of the strain energy release rate (SERR) can
be obtained by combining two analysis methods. In the first analysis, nodal
forces are calculated at the nodes prior to crack growth and in the second
analysis the crack nodes are released to obtain the displacements at the crack
tip. The SERR is calculated by multiplying half of the nodal forces from the first
analysis with the displacements obtained in the second analysis. The energy
released in different modes due to crack opening can be expressed as
(4.1)
(4.2)
56
(4.3)
where are the SERR at the nodes, and are the nodal
forces acting at the nodes with displacements . The above equations
are presented for the mixed-mode SERR for a two dimensional model in plane
stress or plane strain.
4.2.2 The cohesive zone law
Cohesive zone laws are powerful tools used for modelling the failure of
composites, such as delamination, shear cracks, matrix cracking, fibre failure or
micro-buckling (e.g. kink-band formation), friction between the plies, bridging by
through-thickness reinforcement and oblique crack-bridging fibres. In this
method, a cohesive zone is used to model the crack propagation, in mode I
mainly. The cohesive zone law helps to overcome the complexity of considering
a singularity at the crack tip. The cohesive zone law relates the traction and
displacement at the crack tip to the energy release rate of the material when
loaded in the different modes. The concept behind such a law is that crack
propagates in the material according to a defined cohesive zone law, and the
law itself may change according to well defined damage evolution principles.
4.2.2.1 Kinematics
The kinematics of the cohesive zone can be developed from a crack present in
a material (Ortiz and Pandolfi [57]). The crack in the material causes the
formation of new surfaces, which can be assumed to possess a top and a
bottom. The crack in the material can be represented using a cohesive zone
element (Figure 4.2) of zero thickness. The relative displacement across this
cohesive zone element can be written as
(4.4)
where and are the displacements at the top and bottom surface of the
cohesive zone element.
57
3 η 4
ξ
X2 X2
1 2
X1 X1
(a) (b)
Figure 4.2 A four noded cohesive zone element in (a) undeformed state and (b)
deformed state in a global coordinate system.
The coordinates of the cohesive zone element can be represented using a

global coordinate system, as
(4.5)
(4.6)
The global coordinate system for the mid-plane of the cohesive zone element
can be represented as
(4.7)
The vector which defines the normal and the tangential surface of a deformed
cohesive zone element is given by
(4.8)
(4.9)
where and are the normal and tangential direction in the numerical
coordinate system and and are the coordinates in the local system. The unit
vector normal to the local coordinate system can obtained as
(4.10)
58
The unit vectors tangential to the local coordinate system can be represented
as
(4.11)
and
(4.12)
where , and are the direction cosines of the local coordinate system in
the global coordinate system
4.2.2.2 Constitutive laws
The relation between the relative displacement and the traction for an cohesive
zone is given by the relation of the traction versus the separation (Turon et al.
[35]). The traction in the cohesive zone law for a 2D cohesive zone model is a
function of a displacement jump norm and can be written as
(4.13)
(4.14)
where is tangent stiffness tensor, is the cohesive stress and is the

norm of the displacement jump. The energy in the cohesive zone law is related
to the traction and displacement jump. The free energy per unit surface of the
layer can be expressed as
(4.15)
where is the damage variable. The energy can be expressed as
(4.16)
where is the initial stiffness tensor. It shall be noted that the negative values
of are eliminated to avoid the interpenetration of the different surfaces. Thus,
the expression for the free energy is given by
59
(4.17)
where is the MacAuley bracket defined as and is the
Kronecker delta. The equation for the cohesive surface is obtained by

differentiating the free energy with respect to the displacement jump as
(4.18)
where is the cohesive traction. The undamaged stiffness tensor is defined

as
(4.19)
where is the penalty stiffness of the cohesive zone element. The penalty
stiffness of the element is selected in order to have a high penalty stiffness
condition being used to simulate the cohesive surface. The constitutive equation
can be written in Voigt notation as
(4.20)
The energy at a given period can be expressed as
(4.21)
4.2.2.3 Mathematical formulation
A 2D cohesive zone element is made up of two linear-line elements connected

to the fracture surface (Feih [58]). The two surfaces of the cohesive zone
element initially lie together in the unstressed deformed state and separate as
the adjacent elements deform. The relative displacements of nodes of the
cohesive zone element in the normal and shear direction create element
stresses. A four noded cohesive zone element (Figure 4.3) is considered for the
present study, but it can be implemented here to develop the formulation for
60
higher degrees of cohesive zone element. The thickness of the cohesive zone
element is assumed to be zero.
η
3 4
thickness=0 ξ
ξ =0
v ξ=-1 ξ=1
1 2
u
Figure 4.3 A four noded cohesive zone element.
The present element formulation is derived for a linear-line element for 2D

simulations. The 2D element has two degrees of freedom (DOF) at each node
and hence the number of degrees of freedom is twice the number of nodes in
the element. Hence the linear cohesive element has four nodes ( and eight
(2x ) degrees of freedom; four on the top surface and four on the bottom
surface. The displacement at the nodes of cohesive element is expressed as a
vector, . The nodal displacement vector in a global coordinate system is given
by
(4.22)
where and are the displacement at the node in the direction and
direction, respectively. The relative displacement between the paired nodes is
used to derive the cohesive formulation. The relative displacement between the
linked pair of nodes can be obtained by operating the displacement vector with
a matrix, where is the identity matrix. Hence, the relative
displacement, , vector is given by
(4.23)
The displacements at the nodes are used to obtain the integration point
functions. The different integration point functions for an element can be
61
obtained from the relative displacement at the nodes using a shape or an

interpolation function. The interpolation functions, , (Cook et al. [5]) for
each node are obtained in the local coordinate system ( ) of the element. The
degree of the interpolation function depends on the number of node pairs in a
given element. The relative displacement between the paired nodes in an
element is given by
(4.24)
where
(4.25)
(4.26)
where is
(4.27)
In case of large deformations, the mid-plane of the element is taken as the

coordinate of the element. The mid-plane coordinate is calculated to determine
the deformation of the element. The mid-plane coordinate for the element under
deformation can be obtained as given below
(4.28)
where is the coordinate of the element in the undeformed state in a given

coordinate system. Hence, the relative displacement between paired nodes in a
coordinate system is given by
(4.29)
62
This local coordinate vector with unit length is obtained by differentiating the
global position vector with respect to the local coordinates.
(4.30)
(4.31)
where can be written as
(4.32)
where is the derivative of the shape function matrix given by
(4.33)
The length of the element is given by the modulus of the and is obtained
as
(4.34)
The transformation matrix, , which relates the local and global displacement
is given by the relation
(4.35)
The global displacement, , and local displacement, , can be related

using the transformation matrix, , as
63
(4.36)
The force vector for an element is then given by the expression
(4.37)
(4.38)
where is the width of the cohesive zone element, or the through thickness of
the model and is the traction vector. The above integration can be achieved
by a Newton-Raphson numerical integration technique (Cook et al. [5]). The
above expression can be integrated using the numerical integration technique
as given below.
(4.39)
where is the local traction vector The determinant of a Jacobian matrix,

, is given by the expression
(4.40)
The value of should be positive and it transforms the local coordinate

system to a global coordinate system. The stiffness matrix of an element is
given by the relation
(4.41)
By integrating numerically as before, is given by the expression
64
(4.42)
(4.43)
(4.44)
(4.45)
The local stiffness tensor is given by the relation
(4.46)
(4.47)
where and are the penalty stiffnesses of the cohesive zone law in the
directions 1 and 2, and is the coupling term which is assumed to be zero.
The numerical implementation of the above formulation is undertaken by using

the tangent stiffness tensor, , of Equation 4.14 which can be derived as
(see Turon et al. [59] for the derivation)
(4.48)
where is the displacement jump threshold in the loading history and the
factor is given by
(4.49)
65
4.2.3 A bi-linear cohesive zone law
A bi-linear cohesive zone law is defined by the traction and displacement

between adjacent cohesive nodes in a cohesive zone. A cohesive constitutive
law relates the traction to displacement jumps at the cohesive surface. The area
under the traction-displacement jump curves is the respective fracture energy,
, for the given mode. A typical cohesive zone model is characterized by a bi-
linear, rate-independent, damage-dependent failure law across the cohesive
surfaces. The cohesive zone law is represented by the penalty stiffness, ,
critical displacement for failure, , and the final failure displacement, , as
shown in Figure 4.4. The value of the critical stress is ideally a characteristic
property of the material.
The propagation of the crack is dependent on the strain energy release rate
(SERR) corresponding to the different modes. The energies released in the
different modes are combined to determine the critical SERR, as was discussed
in Section 2.4.3.3. Different laws may be used to combine the different modes
of the energy to find the critical SERR. The propagation of the crack occurs, of
course, once the strain energy released is more than the critical strain energy
for propagation. The parameters for the cohesive zone law are determined by
calibrating the theoretical model using the experimental results, and the critical
SERR, , is the criterion used in linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) for
the propagation of the crack.
τ0
Traction, τ
Gc
δo δf
Displacement, δ
Figure 4.4 The bi-linear cohesive zone law.
66
In the present work, a bi-linear cohesive zone law is assumed for each of the
fracture modes. The parameters required to define a bi-linear cohesive zone
law are the critical displacement, , critical stress, , and critical SERR, as
shown in Figure 4.4. The three parameters in the bi-linear law are independent
of each other and depend on the material properties. The bi-linear cohesive
zone law is divided into the linear elastic region, the linear stiffness degradation
region and the failure zone. The first part of the cohesive zone law defines the
behaviour between the elastic limit and the critical displacement. The elastic
limit coincides with the maximum stress value and, once the elastic limit is
exceeded in the zone, the cohesive zone starts to degrade. The last part of the
cohesive zone law defines a relative displacement value that is equal, or larger,
than the critical displacement value.
The main characteristic of the cohesive zone models is that the cohesive
surface can still transfer load after the onset of damage. When the critical value
of displacement jump norm (Section 4.2.3.1), i.e. , (Turon et al. [43]) is
reached or exceeded, the element fails. When formulating this cohesive
constitutive law for mode I, any negative relative displacement is avoided, to
prevent interpenetration of surfaces, by adopting a cohesive zone law as in
Figure 4.4. In mode II, negative relative displacements may readily exist and
therefore a symmetrical bi-linear constitutive law is adopted (see Figure 4.5).
67
τ0
Gc
-δf -δo
δo δf δ
Gc
Figure 4.5 Cohesive zone law in mode II.
A cohesive zone law can be implemented in a FEA analysis using either (a) a
cohesive contact analysis, or (b) a cohesive element analysis. In a cohesive
contact analysis, the fracture surfaces are connected together by nodes of the
fracture surface and the displacement between the nodes are used to
determine the cohesive zone law. The displacements at the element nodes of
the surface are employed for the calculation of the cohesive zone law, and to
determine the failure behaviour. The cohesive zone law can also be
implemented using cohesive zone elements which represent the fracture
surface. Here, the displacements at the adjacent nodes of the cohesive
elements are used to implement the cohesive zone law.
4.2.3.1 Norm of displacement jump tensor
The displacement jump (Turon et al. [43]) is a function representing the

resultant displacement at the nodes in a mixed-mode analysis. The norm of the
displacement jump tensor is used to compare different stages of the
displacement jump state. The displacement jump norm, , is a continuous
function accounting for the other modes and can be expressed using mode I
and II displacements as
68
(4.50)
(4.51)
where is the shear displacement jump in mode II and is the displacement

jump in mode I. The value of the displacement jump norm is always greater
than, or equal to zero, and is used to avoid the interpenetration of the
cohesive zone elements.
4.2.3.2 Damage
A damage variable, , is employed with respect to the cohesive zone law to

define the three states of the cohesive zone law: the elastic state, the damaged
state and the failure state.
for the elastic state:
(4.52)
for the damaged state:
(4.53)
for the failure state:
(4.54)
The damage variable, , increases rapidly once the critical damage in the
cohesive zone element is reached. This rapid increase in the damage variable
is due to the definition of the damage variable in the cohesive zone law. The
variation of the damage variable with an increase in the displacement is shown
in Figure 4.6.
69
1.2
0.8
Damage
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
(δ/δf)
Figure 4.6 Variation of damage variable with displacement in a bi-linear

cohesive zone law.
4.2.3.3 Mixed-mode loading: onset of crack growth
An initiation criterion derived from the Benzeggagh-Kenane (B-K) fracture

criterion, see Section 2.4.3.3, gives a sound basis for a cohesive zone law for
mixed-mode loading based on the mode-mixity factor, (Benzeggagh and
Kenane [60]). The opening displacement under mixed-mode loading is given by
the relation
(4.55)
where is the energy release rate in mode I and is the energy release rate
in mode II. The mode-mixity factor, , depends on the mode-mixity and is
determined experimentally. The equivalent failure displacement for mixed-mode
loading can be calculated from the expression
70
(4.56)
The traction in the cohesive zone after the elastic limit has been exceeded may
be described in terms of the critical traction, , the opening displacement, ,
and the failure displacement, , as
(4.57)
where . The stress in the cohesive zone element is zero when the
displacement jump is equal to or more than the failure displacement is given by
; (4.58)
The damage variable for mixed-mode loading is given by
(4.59)
4.2.3.4 Mixed-mode loading: crack propagation
The propagation criteria for a mixed-mode crack growth are derived based on
the components of the energy release rate in the different modes. The critical
SERR, , is derived for mixed-mode loading and is used to predict crack
propagation. The crack growth occurs when the strain energy released is more
than the critical strain energy release rate for a given mixed-mode load. Hence,
the criterion can be written as
(4.60)
The expression for the can be derived from the mode-mixity of the problem
and the energy release rate, , is the resultant of the energy released in mode I
and II. The critical strain energy release rate, , for mixed-mode crack growth
may be obtained as
71
(4.61)
The energy release rate in different modes for a mode-mixity, , can be

expressed as (Travesa [61])
(4.62)
(4.63)
The mode-mixity factor can be obtained from the relation (Camanho et al. [7])
(4.64)
The mode-mixity factor can be written based on the displacement as
(4.65)
is the Mac Auley bracket defined as = . The displacement jump
in the different modes can be expressed as
(4.66)
Using the Equation 4.66, the opening and shear displacements under mixed-
mode loading are related by the expression
(4.67)
(4.68)
72
Using the above equation, the ratio of energy released in mode II to the total
energy released rate can be obtained as
(4.69)
It should be noted that under cyclic fatigue loading, crack propagation occurs
when is greater than the threshold value, . In fatigue loading, crack growth
occurs and is stable if the energy released is more than and less than of
the material.
4.2.3.5 Mode-mixity
A mixed-mode criterion is used to establish the interaction between the different

components of strain energy release rate for mixed-mode loading. The criterion
simulates the onset of crack propagation and failure under mixed-mode loading.
The B-K criterion (Camanho et al. [7]) which accounts for mode-mixity is given
by
(4.70)
where and are given by the expressions
(4.71)
(4.72)
The mode-mixity factor, , is the factor obtained from an experimental fit.

Under mixed-mode loading, damage onset may occur before any of the critical
stresses involved reach their respective critical limits. In typical industrial
applications of composites, crack growth occurs mainly under mixed-mode
conditions.
73
4.3 Fatigue Analysis
4.3.1 Introduction
The analysis of fatigue driven crack growth in composite materials using FEA is
tedious and is dependent on the interactions between the variables involved. In
the present work, a mathematical model is developed for mode I and mode II
fracture, with the mode II parameters assumed to be equivalent in value to
mode I, due to mode I failure being dominant failure mode observed in
composite materials. This assumption was shown to be valid concept by Harper
and Hallett [62]. Further, the variation of the test frequency and displacement, or
stress, ratio are not considered to be significant factors, as observed by Yang et
al. [63] and Manjunatha et al. [40], and hence the rate dependence of material
need not to be taken into account. The subroutine for the fatigue degradation is
written in FORTRAN.
The degradation of the cohesive zone law for the composite materials, using the
Paris law constants determined from the experiments conducted using the
corresponding epoxy polymer matrices, can be described using the following
flowchart.
74
Input parameters for an user element subroutine for fatigue analysis

( , and (see Table 4.1)
Calculate
Calculate
Calculate static damage,
Calculate fatigue damage rate,
where
Damage= static damage + x time increment
Stiffness= (1-Damage)
Run the model with the degraded cohesive zone element to

get the complete degradation of the model with time
Figure 4.7 Flow chart of the fatigue analysis embedded in the user element
subroutine.
75
Table 4.1 Description of the material properties of the bulk epoxy matrix
relevant to Figure 4.7.
Parameter Meaning How obtained Explained

s Quasi-static SENB
Fracture energy of
experiments on the Section 3.3.3
the bulk epoxy matrix
bulk epoxy matrix
By fitting the CZM
model to the bulk
Penalty stiffness of Sections
epoxy matrix load
the cohesive zone 5.4.1.2 &
versus displacement
model 5.4.1.3
curve from quasi-
static SENB tests
By fitting the CZM
model to the bulk
Critical stress (i.e. Sections
epoxy matrix load
traction) of the 5.4.1.2 &
versus displacement
cohesive zone model 5.4.1.3
curve from quasi-
static SENB tests
Threshold strain Fatigue CT
energy release rate experiments on the Section 3.5.3
of bulk epoxy matrix bulk epoxy matrix
Fatigue CT
Paris law parameter
of bulk epoxy matrix
bulk epoxy matrix
Fatigue CT
Paris law parameter
of bulk epoxy matrix
bulk epoxy matrix
4.3.2 Degradation strategies
The degradation under cyclic fatigue loading of the cohesive zone law
parameters can be achieved using different strategies based on the degradation
of the penalty stiffness, . Indeed, the present work uses degradation of the
penalty stiffness as a strategy for the degradation of the constitutive law
embedded in the cohesive zone law upon fatigue loading. The penalty stiffness
degradation of the bi-linear law can be achieved using the evolution of a
damage variable in the cohesive zone law. To initiate this modelling approach, it
should be noted that the stress in the cohesive zone law can be expressed as
76
(4.73)
where
(4.74)
and where is the damage variable.
4.3.3 Static damage evolution under fatigue loading
The evolution of static damage occurs due to the reduction of the penalty
stiffness of the cohesive zone, which leads to the development of further static
damage. The increase in such defined static damage due to fatigue loading can
be derived from the rate of damage evolution with time. The evolution of the
static damage variable (Robinson et al. [41]) under fatigue loading can be
derived from Equation 4.59 as
(4.75)
The static damage evolution for a given number of cycles, , is the given by
(4.76)
where is the time to cycles and is the time corresponding to

cycle. Integrating the above equation, the evolution of the static damage
with the number of cycles is given by
(4.77)
77
4.3.4 Fatigue damage evolution
The fatigue crack growth may be defined as the extent of growth of the crack
per cycle, which is represented as . The crack growth rate curve is usually
represented as versus . The Paris law is then typically used to
describe the linear region of the growth curve and which relates the maximum
energy release rate, , in a fatigue cycle to by the relation
(4.78)
where and are constants that depend on the material and the mode ratio.
The constants and are given by the vertical intercept and slope of the linear
region of the growth rate curve, respectively, when using logarithmic scales.
The values of both constants are obtained by fitting the Paris law equation to
the experimental results.
The damage which develops under fatigue loading is the sum of the quasi-static
and the fatigue damage (Muñoz et al. [64]). The evolution of the damage
progresses with time, and the rate of change of damage with time can be
expressed as
(4.79)
The static damage evolution can be calculated from Equation 4.75 for the
cohesive zone element. The damage evolution with the number of cycles, ,
can be related to the crack growth rate curve in the fatigue loading as
(4.80)
where is the growth rate of the crack and is the damaged area. The
growth rate of the curve depends on the material properties. The expression for
78
the can be derived from the strain energy released during the propagation
of the crack. The ratio of the energy released, to the critical fracture energy,
, can be expressed as (Figure 4.8)
(4.81)
where is the area of the cohesive zone element.
τ0
(1-d)K
Gc
δo δ δf δ
Figure 4.8 Cohesive zone law and energy representation.
The expression for the can be obtained from the above equation as
(4.82)
The increase in the growth of the damaged area with the number of cycles is
the sum of the damaged area growth in the entire cohesive zone. Hence, the
growth of the damaged area with the number of cycles can be represented as
79
(4.83)
where is the total area of the cohesive zone and is the damaged area in
a given cohesive zone element. The average damaged area in the cohesive
zone element can be taken as . The number of cohesive zone elements in
the cohesive zone can be obtained as
(4.84)
The expression for the growth rate can then be simplified as
(4.85)
The terms can next be rearranged to get the expression for as
(4.86)
The damage evolution for the cohesive zone element can now be obtained by
substituting from Equation 4.82 and can be expressed as
(4.87)
The area of the cohesive zone (Turon et al. [43]) for mode I loading can be
written as
(4.88)
The crack growth rate arising from fatigue damage is dependent on the energy
released and can be expressed using the Paris law as
80
(4.89)
where and are the constants to be determined experimentally, as described

in Chapter 2. The damaged area in the cohesive zone can be expressed as
(4.90)
where is the width of the crack. The total change in the energy released in a
fatigue cycle is the difference in the maximum and minimum energy release rate
in a cycle and can be expressed as
(4.91)
where and are the maximum and minimum strain energy release rates
during a fatigue loading cycle (Figure 4.9).
81
τ0
Gmax
δo δ max δf δ
τ0
Gmin
δo δ min δf δ
Figure 4.9 Representation of energy release under fatigue in a cohesive zone

law.
The maximum energy released is given by the expression
(4.92)
where and are the maximum displacement jump and damage in the
whole cyclic loading history. The constitutive relationship derived is independent
of the element formulation. It is important to note that the fatigue degradation of
the cohesive zone law with time occurs as shown in Figure 4.10 where and
are the values of the damage variables at time and . As noted above,
the damage in the cohesive zone law occurs due to the combined static and
fatigue loading. The actual degradation of the cohesive zone law with time due
82
to both the static and fatigue damage evolution can be illustrated as shown in
Figure 4.11. In these figures, and in the present modelling studies, the fatigue
damage variable, , can be calculated from Equation 4.87 based on the
number of cycles accumulated with time. The term can then be used to
account for the total damage in Equation 4.74.
τ0
K(1-dt)
K(1-dt+1)
δt δt+1 δf δ
Figure 4.10 Fatigue degradation of cohesive zone law with time.
τ0
Gc
2 3
δo δ1 δ2 δf δ
Figure 4.11 Resultant fatigue degradation of a cohesive zone law. Path 1-2
shows the fatigue damage evolution and path 1-3 shows the static
and fatigue damage evolution (Robinson et al. [41]).
83
4.3.5 Damage Analysis
When using the above modelling approach the analysis is not undertaken cycle
by cycle due to the computational effort needed. The complete cycle of fatigue
loading is undertaken based on a ‘cycle jump strategy’ as described below.
4.3.5.1 The cycle jump strategy
The cycle jump strategy in the fatigue analysis is employed to limit the number
of individual analyses needed in modelling high cycle fatigue. The cycle jump
strategy controls the accuracy of the damage variable for a given cycle jump.
The accuracy of the degradation modelling is controlled by limiting the
maximum change in the damage variable for a given jump of cycles (Van
Paepegem and Degrieck [65] and Muñoz et al. [64]). The cycle jump principle is
illustrated in Figure 4.12. In the present work, the cycle jump strategy is adopted
in the model of the fatigue life to limit the maximum time increment employed in
the analysis.
Figure 4.12 The cycle jump strategy applied to a cohesive zone law approach
to modelling fatigue (Van Paepegem and Degrieck [65]).
4.3.5.2 Displacement ratio and load ratio
The displacement ratio, , is defined as the ratio of the minimum

displacement, , to the maximum displacement, , applied in a cycle of
fatigue loading (Lee [49]). Higher values of the displacement ratio cause a
decrease in the fatigue damage due to less change occurring in the strain
energy released. The value of may be defined by
84
(4.93)
The load ratio, , is defined as the ratio of the minimum stress, , to the
maximum stress, , applied in a cycle of fatigue loading (Turon et al. [43]).
Higher values of the load ratio also cause a decrease in the fatigue damage due
to a smaller change occurring in the strain energy released, . The load ratio
for a fatigue cycle can be expressed as
(4.94)
Now, the cyclic loading is applied as a sinusoidal load with a given frequency
and a displacement, or stress amplitude. Numerically in the modelling studies
the load is applied as a constant displacement, or stress, which is equivalent to
the maximum displacement, or stress, applied in the experiment. The minimum
to the maximum displacement for the fatigue cycle depends on the
displacement ratio, , and the minimum to the maximum stress for the fatigue
cycle depends on the stress ratio, , relevant to the fatigue cycle. Hence, in the
numerical model, the displacement, or stress, is applied in the first cycle of
loading and the displacement, or stress, is kept constant for the remainder of
the cycles being modelled (Robinson et al. [41]), as shown in Figure 4.13.
85
Figure 4.13 Experimental and numerically applied displacement/stress in a

displacement/stress controlled fatigue test. In the present study,
displacement controlled fatigue tests were conducted on the CT
bulk epoxy material and the DCB composite materials, whilst
stress controlled fatigue tests were conducted on the composite
material strip specimens.
The present Chapter has described the theoretical methods which have been
developed to model and predict the quasi-static and fatigue behavior of the
composite materials. The values needed for these modelling studies are
ascertained from experiments conducted upon the bulk epoxy matrices, and
validated using the DCB composite material test results, as will be described in
Chapter 5. The model will then be used to predict the cyclic fatigue behavior
and lifetime of the composite material strips. The model represents a novel
method to predict such behaviour. It builds upon the research of Robinson et al.
[41] & Turon et al. [43] but contains several novel features, including an
important new user element subroutine.
The following Chapter will describe the experimental results obtained in the
present research and compare these results to the theoretical predictions which
have been obtained using the models developed in the present Chapter.
86
CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND THEORETICAL MODELLING STUDIES
CHAPTER 5
5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND

THEORETICAL MODELLING STUDIES
5.1 Introduction
In the present work, the material and cohesive zone law parameters of the bulk
epoxy matrices and the composite materials are obtained from the various
experimental tests. The tests were undertaken on the bulk epoxy matrices and
the corresponding composites, as explained in Chapter 3. The quasi-static and
the fatigue test experimental results are described in the sections of the present
Chapter.
The predicted theoretical results are then discussed and compared to the
experimental results. The flowchart for the different analyses of the various
specimens is given in Figure 5.1, which gives an overview of the experimental
and modelling work undertaken in the present research.
87
Test the SENB Model the quasi-static Obtain the elastic properties of
specimen of bulk SENB specimen of bulk the bulk epoxy and the
epoxy under quasi- epoxy and obtain the composite material (Sections
static load to obtain the cohesive zone law 5.2.1 & 5.2.2)
load-displacement parameters of the bulk
curve (Section 3.5.2) epoxy (Sections 5.4.1.2
& 5.4.1.3)
Test the CT
Model the CT fatigue
specimen of bulk
specimen of bulk epoxy
epoxy under fatigue
and obtain the fatigue
loading to obtain the
parameters of the bulk
crack growth rate
epoxy (Section 5.6.2.1) Model the quasi-
curve and fatigue
parameters (Section static DCB
3.5.3) composite
Test the DCB specimen and
composite specimen obtain the
under quasi-static parameters of the
loading to obtain the cohesive zone law
load-displacement (Sections 5.4.2.2 &
curve (Section 3.6.2) 5.4.2.3)
Test the DCB Model the DCB

Test the composite strip
composite specimen fatigue composite
under quasi-static load
under fatigue load to specimen and
to obtain strength of the
obtain the crack obtain the growth
laminate (Section 3.6.4)
growth rate curve and rate curve to match
fatigue parameters the test (Section
(Section 3.6.3) 5.6.2.2)
Model the quasi-static strip Prediction and initial

specimen and obtain the normalised validation of the
stiffness as a function of crack fatigue life of the DCB
Test the composite density and number of cycles composite specimen
strip under fatigue (Sections 5.4.3.1 & 5.4.3.2) under fatigue loading
loading to obtain the
crack density, (Section 5.6.2.2)
stiffness and the
number of cycles to Model the composite
strip specimen under Prediction of the
failure for the laminate
fatigue loading with the fatigue life of strip
(Section 3.6.4) specimen under
crack density observed
from the experiments fatigue loading
(Section 5.6.2.3) (Section 5.6.2.3)
Figure 5.1 Overview schematic of the work plan.
88
Notes to Figure 5.1:
a) Sections 5.4.1.2 & 5.4.1.3: The cohesive zone law parameters from the bulk
epoxy matrix are used to model the development of transverse cracks in the
composite, and hence are used in Section 5.6.2.3 of the flow chart.
b) The fatigue parameters determined in Section 5.6.2.1 are used for the
composite strip modelling in Section 5.6.2.3.
c) In Section 5.6.2.2, the DCB fatigue composite sample is modelled so as to

validate the novel user element subroutine analysis.
d) In Section 5.6.2.3, it should be noted, it is not necessary to undertake fatigue

experiments to find the crack density, but one can use the saturated crack
density as explained later in Figure 5.28.
5.2 Elastic Properties of Materials
The elastic properties of the different materials are derived as detailed below in
Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. The different directional elastic properties of the
composite are derived from the basic equations for composite materials.
5.2.1 Elastic properties of the lamina
The elastic properties of a unidirectional lamina are derived to determine the

properties of the composite material. The fibre properties of the 0o ply can then
be calculated from the general expression for the lamina. The volume fractions
of the composite material (Manjunatha et al. [40]) are also used to determine
the properties of the lamina. The elastic properties of the lamina are calculated
from the expressions for the unidirectional properties of the lamina. The lamina
is assumed to be oriented in the 1-2 planes with the fibre direction in the 1 axis,
as shown in Figure 5.2.
89
2
3
Figure 5.2 A section of a lamina with local coordinates.
The different material properties of the lamina in different directions can be

obtained from the expressions below. The equations are obtained from
Khashaba [66].
(5.1)
(5.2)
(5.3)
(5.4)
(5.5)
(5.6)
(5.7)
(5.8)
(5.9)
90
(5.10)
(5.11)
(5.12)
where , , , , , and are the elastic moduli of the fibre and

matrix, volume fraction of plies, shear moduli of fibre and matrix, bulk moduli of
composite, fibre and matrix, respectively. The factor is the shape factor, which
has a value of two for a circular fibre (Khashaba [66]). The matrix properties of
the different bulk epoxy matrices (Manjunatha et al. [67], Pegoretti et al. [68])
and the glass fibre (Pegoretti et al. [68]) used in the modelling studies are given
in Table 5.1. The unidirectional elastic properties of the lamina obtained from
the equations above are given in Table 5.2.
Table 5.1 Elastic properties of bulk epoxies and glass fibre
91
Table 5.2 Unidirectional elastic properties of the different composite lamina

based on the various epoxy matrices
Composite
Properties
Control Rubber Nano Hybrid
E1 (GPa) 42.39 42.18 42.59 42.28
E2(GPa) 10.88 9.05 12.40 9.92
E3 (GPa) 10.88 9.05 12.40 9.92
ν12 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
ν13 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
ν23 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28
G12 (GPa) 3.25 2.67 3.74 2.94
G13 (GPa) 3.25 2.67 3.74 2.94
G23 (GPa) 4.26 3.55 4.86 3.89
5.2.2 Elastic properties of the composite
The elastic properties for the composite are obtained from the unidirectional
properties for the different coordinate system of the composite material. The
elastic properties of the composite are homogenised for simplicity so as to
readily model the composite material in Abaqus. The homogenised elastic
properties of the composite material are used for the subsequent analyses. It
should be noted that the material coordinate system in Abaqus, the local
material coordinate system of the DCB (Figure 5.3) and the unidirectional
lamina are different (Figure 5.4). Hence, the elastic properties of the composite
are obtained by a cube (i.e. a 3D representation with solid elements) analysis of
the composite in Abaqus using the composite layup of the specimen to
determine the homogenised property of the composite material (Figure 5.5).
The layup of the composite cube has the same stacking sequence as that of the
composite specimen, so as to obtain the appropriate homogenised elastic
properties. The lamina properties of the composite material are analysed for the
different orientations using both classical laminate theory (CLT) and FEA (via
Abaqus) to obtain the homogenised elastic properties.
92
Abaqus coordinate Local coordinate

y T
x P
DCB
z P
Figure 5.3 Equivalent Abaqus and local coordinate system for a DCB
composite specimen.
Abaqus coordinate Local coordinate
y L
0o fibre
x T
z T
y T
90o fibre
x T
z L
y
P
±45o fibre
x T
z P
Figure 5.4 Equivalent Abaqus and local coordinate system for different lamina
of the composite strip.
93
FT
FBk
FL FR
FF
FB
Figure 5.5 Cube with different faces (FF-Face front, FBk-face back, FR-face
right, FL- face left, FT-face top, FB- face bottom). The control point
(CP) boundary condition is at the origin of the coordinate system.
5.2.2.1 Elastic properties of DCB
The elastic properties of the DCB composite in the Abaqus coordinate system
are determined from the local coordinate system of the composite (Figure 5.3).
The homogenised elastic properties for the DCB analysis are derived from a 3D
solid cube (Figure 5.5) analysis in Abaqus, with different boundary conditions as
described in Table 5.3. The layup of the DCB composite in the cube analysis is
[(-45/45)s(90/0)s]2[(0/90)s(45/-45)s]2. The unidirectional properties of lamina of
Table 5.2 are used to model the composite cube. The homogenised elastic
properties obtained from the cube analysis are given in Table 5.4.
94
Table 5.3 Derivation of homogenised elastic property of DCB from cube

analysis
Properties Loading Boundary condition Calcualtion
Abaqus analysis of the cube with force in the x direction/area of

Ex FL(x=0), FR(x=1% strain)
load in the x direcrtion cube
Abaqus analysis of the cube with force in the y direction/area of

Ey FB(y=0), FT(y=1% strain)
load in the y direction cube
Same as the undirectional fibre

Ez - -
property E3
Abaquq analysis of the cube with strain in y direction/strain in x

νxy FL(x=0), FR(x=1% strain)
load in the x direcrtion direction
Abaqus analysis of the cube with strain in z direction/strain in x

νxz FL(x=0), FR(x=1% strain)
load in the x direcrtion direction
Abaqus analysis of the cube with strain in z direction/strain in y

νyz FB(y=0), FT(y=1% strain)
load in the y direcrtion direction
Abaqus analysis of the cube with shear force in the y direction

FR(y=1% strain), FL(y=-1% strain),
Gxy shear force in the x plane in the y in the x plane/
FT(x=1% strain), FB(x=-1% strain)
direction (shear strain x area of cube)
Abaqus analysis of the cube with shear force in the z direction
FR(z=1% strain), FL(z=-1% strain),
Gxz shear force in the x plane in the z in the x plane/
FF(x=1% strain), FBk(x=-1% strain)
Abaqus analysis of the cube with shear force in the z direction
FF(y=1% strain), FBk(y=-1% strain),
Gyz shear force in the y plane in the z in the y plane/
FT(z=1% strain), FB(z=-1% strain)
Table 5.4 Elastic properties of the arms the DCB composite specimens for the
various epoxy matrices
Abaqus properties Local properties Control Rubber Nano Hybrid

Ex EP 18.41 17.37 19.30 17.86
Ey ET 10.88 9.05 12.40 9.92
Ez EP 18.41 17.37 19.30 17.86
νxy νPT 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.22
νxz νPP 0.30 0.31 0.39 0.33
νyz νTP 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10
Gxy GPT 3.99 3.30 4.57 3.63
Gxz GPP 8.22 9.81 10.68 10.04
Gyz GTP 4.09 3.40 4.66 3.73
95
5.2.2.2 Elastic properties of composite strip
The elastic properties of each lamina of the strips are derived to model the
transverse cracks within the lamina. The elastic properties of the lamina in the
Abaqus coordinate system are determined from the local coordinate system of
the unidirectional lamina (Figure 5.4). The equivalent properties of the lamina
for different orientations (in Abaqus) are derived by considering a coordinate
system of the strip in Abaqus.
The elastic properties of the 0o and 90o degree layers in the composite material
strip are obtained by considering the fibre direction as the longitudinal direction,
L, and the other direction as the transverse direction, T, in the local coordinate
system (Figure 5.4). The elastic properties of the ±45o layer in the strip are
obtained by considering the plane of the lamina as the plane direction, P, and
the normal direction perpendicular to the plane as the transverse direction, T, in
the local coordinate system (Figure 5.4). Table 5.5 shows the equivalent local
elastic properties of the lamina of the strip in the Abaqus coordinate system for
different orientations. The different lamina properties of each lamina are
obtained from the cube analysis in Abaqus. The loads and boundary conditions
are applied on the cube (Figure 5.5), on the different faces, to derive the elastic
properties. The derivations of elastic properties of the lamina are given in Table
5.7 to Table 5.8, and the elastic properties obtained are given in Tables 5.9 to
5.11.
The calculated elastic modulus values were validated by calculating the

modulus of the composite strip layup based on the unmodified (i.e. control)
epoxy matrix. The agreement was very good between the calculated and
measured values, being with in ±3% (Manjunatha et al. [40]).
96
Table 5.5 Equivalent local elastic properties of the lamina of the strip in the
Abaqus coordinate system
o
Properties Ply orientation ( )
0 90 ±45
Ex ET ET ET
Ey EL ET EP
Ez ET EL EP
νxy νTL νTT νTP
νxz νTT νTL νTP
νyz νLT νTL νPP
Gxy GTL GTT GTP
Gxz GTT GTL GTP
Gyz GLT GTL GPP
Table 5.6 Derivation of the elastic properties of 0o lamina
Global material Local material Boundary

Description Loading condition
properties properties Condition
Ex ET Unidirectional property, E2 - -
Ey EL Unidirectional property, E1 - -
Ez ET Unidirectional property, E1 - -
Derived from unidirectional
νxy νTL - -
property (=ν12(E2/E1))
Abaqus analysis of the cube
νxz νTT FT(y=1% strain) FB(y=0)
with load in the y direcrtion
νyz νLT Unidirectional property, ν12 - -

FT(x=1% strain), FB(x=-1% strain),
Gxy GTL with shear force in the y CP(z=0)
FR(y=1% strain), FL(y=-1% strain)
plane in the x direction
FT(z=1% strain), FB(z=-1% strain),
Gxz GTT with shear force in the y CP(x=0)
FF(y=1% strain), FBk(y=-1% strain)
plane in the z direction
Gyz GLT Unidirectional property, G 12 - -
97
Table 5.7 Derivation of the elastic properties of 90o lamina

Ey ET Unidirectional property, E2 - -
Ez EL Unidirectional property, E1 - -
νxy νTT FT(y=1% strain) FB(y=0)
with load in the y direcrtion
νxz νTL - -
property (=ν12 (E2/E1))
νyz νTL - -
property (=ν12(E2/E1))
FT(z=1% strain), FB(z=-1% strain),
Gxy GTT with shear force in the y CP(x=0)
FF(y=1% strain), FBk(y=-1% strain)
plane in the z direction
Gxz GTL with shear force in the y CP(z=0)
Gyz GTL with shear force in the y CP(z=0)
Table 5.8 Derivation of the elastic properties of ±45o lamina

Laminator analysis of (45) 8

Ey EP - -
layup sequence
Laminator analysis of (45) 8
Ez EP - -
layup sequence
νxy νTP FF(z=1% strain) FBk(z=0)
with load in the z direcrtion
νxz νTP FF(z=1% strain) FBk(z=0)
with load in the z direcrtion
νyz νPP FR(x=1% strain) FL(x=0)
with load in the x direcrtion
FF(x=1% strain), FBk(x=-1% strain),
Gxy GTP with shear force in the z CP(y=0)
FR(z=1% strain), FL(z=-1% strain)
FF(x=1% strain), FBk(x=-1% strain),
Gxz GTP with shear force in the z CP(y=0)
FR(z=1% strain), FL(z=-1% strain)
FR(y=1% strain), FL(y=-1% strain),
Gyz GPP with shear force in the x CP(z=0)
FT(x=1% strain), FB(x=-1% strain)
plane in the y direction
98
Table 5.9 Elastic properties of 0o lamina
Table 5.10 Elastic properties of ±45o lamina
Table 5.11 Elastic properties of 90o lamina
99
5.2.3 Elastic properties of aluminium and steel
The elastic properties used to model the aluminium-alloy blocks and steel pins
in the experiments are given in Table 5.12 (Callister [69]).
Table 5.12 Elastic properties of aluminium-alloy and steel
Properties Aluminium Steel

Elastic modulus (GPa) 69 207
Poisson's ratio 0.33 0.30
5.3 Criteria for Cohesive Zone Modelling
A cohesive zone analysis is dependent on many factors for the accurate

analysis of the failure and the important factors are discussed below.
5.3.1 Mesh sensitivity analysis
The results of the cohesive zone element analysis maybe mesh dependent, and
an accurate and reproducible analysis needs a refined mesh (Turon et al. [70]),
as such a mesh gives an accurate representation of the stress field around the
crack tip. Also the convergence of the cohesive zone element analysis depends
on the mesh size, and a more refined mesh is required to obtain convergence.
The convergence test is conducted by studying the convergence using different
mesh sizes for the specimens, and the mesh which shows no deviation of the
results with further refinement is then used for the subsequent modelling
studies. The mesh sensitivity analysis is therefore done to understand the size
of the mesh required for the analyses. In the present study, meshes with
different degrees of refinement are used for the analysis of the DCB specimen
and the predicted load-displacement curves are compared to the experimental
curves (Figure 5.6). From the results shown in Figure 5.6, in all the present
analyses a 0.1mm size mesh has been adopted for the cohesive zone
elements.
100
80
70
60
50
Force (N)
40 2 mm
1.25 mm
1 mm
30 0.5 mm
0.25 mm
0.2 mm
20 0.1 mm
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.6 The modelled load versus displacement curves of the DCB
composite specimen for different mesh sizes. The elastic
properties of the unmodified (i.e. control) bulk epoxy matrix and
the composite are used for the analysis (Table 5.13 and Table
5.4).
5.3.2 Initial value of the cohesive zone law parameters
Different methods are used to find the approximate value of the penalty stiffness
of the cohesive zone. The initial value of the cohesive zone penalty stiffness is
obtained from an expression which equates the transverse stress in the
cohesive zone and in the adjacent material (Figure 5.7). The stress in the
cohesive zone and in the adjacent material is made equal to get the
approximate value of the cohesive zone penalty stiffness (Turon et al. [70]).
Thus
(5.13)
101
where is the through-thickness elastic modulus of the material and )
is the strain in the adjacent material. The cohesive zone penalty stiffness
is the approximate penalty stiffness of the cohesive zone and is the
relative displacement between the surfaces.
Continuum
tct+εtrtct
elements
Continuum
elements tct
Δcoh
Continuum Continuum
elements tct tct+εtrtct
elements
(a) (b)
Figure 5.7 Cohesive zone behaviour in (a) undeformed and (b) deformed state.
The total strain in the whole model is given by
(5.14)
Hence, from the above equation, the resultant stress is the same and is given
by the expression
(5.15)
The resultant modulus of the composite can be written as
102
(5.16)
It should be noted that the resultant properties of will be not be affected if

is much greater than . Indeed, the value is chosen in such a
way that the overall stiffness in the through thickness direction is not
significantly affected. From Equation 5.16, the expression for the cohesive zone
penalty stiffness is given by
(5.17)
where is a proportionality factor. The size of the cohesive zone should

provide a reasonable penalty stiffness but be small enough to avoid numerical
problems due to oscillations of the stresses at the crack tip. The value of the
penalty stiffness should also be fixed in such a way that it is small as possible to
avoid ill-conditioning of the stiffness matrix. For relatively high values of , the
loss of stiffness is considerably less. The expression for takes into
consideration the elastic properties of the adjacent material and hence it is
relatively accurate.
5.3.3 The cohesive zone length
The length of the cohesive zone is defined as the distance from the crack tip to
the point where the critical cohesive zone stress is attained (Figure 5.8).
Continuum elements
Cohesive
elements
lcz
Continuum elements
Figure 5.8 Cohesive zone elements with cohesive zone length, .
103
A necessary condition for obtaining a good solution using a cohesive analysis is

the size of the element (Harper and Hallett [62]). The cohesive zone length of
the element should be less than the cohesive zone at the crack tip. The
expression to derive the cohesive zone length, , is
(5.18)
where is the elastic modulus of the material, is the critical energy release
rate, is the critical stress in the cohesive zone and the parameter depends
on the cohesive zone model. The number of elements required for a given
mesh length is
(5.19)
where is the size of the mesh. The accuracy of the results increases when
value is the least. The minimum number of elements required for predicting the
initiation and propagation is two as the crack tip stress variation is high due to
the initiation of the crack. Hence, more than two elements were also used in the
present research.
5.4 Quasi-Static Models
The epoxy matrix SENB and the composite material DCB specimens were
tested experimentally and then modelled in FEA Abaqus, using 2D plane strain
elements, to obtain the cohesive zone law parameters. Structured meshing is
adopted for the analysis and the size and type of the mesh employed were
based upon the meshes defined from the mesh convergence study, see Section
5.3.1 above.
104
5.4.1 The SENB test: Experimental and theoretical results
A three point bending test is conducted using the SENB specimen. The load
versus displacement at the middle point of the application of the load is
obtained from the test. The test is conducted for the different bulk epoxy
matrices and the value of the fracture energy, , of the bulk epoxy is directly
obtained. The mean load versus displacement curves obtained from the test are
shown in Figures 5.14 to 5.17. The mean fracture energies of the different
epoxies obtained from the test are given in the Table 5.14.
The SENB test is conducted to study the quasi-static behaviour of the bulk
epoxy matrices. The cohesive zone properties of the bulk epoxy which are then
derived are used to model the fatigue behaviour of the composite material strip.
The transverse cracks in the strip develop due to matrix cracking, and hence
the cohesive zone properties obtained from the SENB test are very appropriate
to employ to model the transverse cracks in the composite strip. The values of
the fracture energy, , obtained directly from the experiments are also used for
modelling studies.
Steel loading roller
Steel roller
support
Figure 5.9 SENB specimen.
105
60 mm
12 mm
6 mm
y 6 mm 1 mm
30 mm
6 mm
x
z
Figure 5.10 Dimensions of the SENB bulk epoxy matrix specimen.
Figure 5.11 Loading and boundary condition applied on the SENB specimen
the model.
5.4.1.1 SENB results: VCCT analysis
A model of the SENB specimen is developed using a FEA approach in Abaqus.

The dimensions of the specimen are given in Figure 5.10. The specimen is
modelled as two parts and a VCCT criterion is applied on the surface where
crack growth occurs. The three point supports in the experiment are modelled
as semi circles and a ‘hard contact’ criterion is used in Abaqus between the
surfaces to avoid any interpenetration. The friction between the surfaces is
assumed to be zero. The elastic properties of the bulk epoxy (Table 5.1) and
steel rollers (Table 5.12) are used for the modelling studies. The load is applied
as a displacement on the top middle roller and the load versus displacement
curve for the specimen is obtained from the reaction forces and displacement at
the top support. The boundary conditions applied on the model are shown in
106
Figure 5.11. The analysis is conducted for the different bulk epoxy matrices and
the load versus displacement curve from the analysis is compared with the
experiments, see Figures 5.14 to 5.17.
5.4.1.2 SENB results: Cohesive contact analysis
The SENB specimen of the bulk epoxy is modelled using FEA with cohesive
contact, via Abaqus. The dimensions of the specimen are given in Figure 5.10.
The SENB specimen is modelled in two parts and the ‘cohesive behaviour’
contact option in Abaqus is adopted between the surfaces. The elastic
properties of the bulk epoxy (Table 5.1) and steel rollers (Table 5.12) are used
for modelling the specimen. The three point bending supports are modelled as
semi circles in Abaqus and a ‘hard contact’ criterion in Abaqus is adopted
between the surfaces to avoid any interpenetration. The friction between the
surfaces is assumed to be zero. The load in the model is applied as a
displacement on the middle roller (Figure 5.11) and the load versus
displacement curve for the specimen is obtained from the reaction forces at the
support. The cohesive contact parameters of the bulk epoxy are obtained using
the same procedure as in the cohesive contact analysis of the DCB model, see
later in Section 5.4.2.2. The stress field in a cohesive contact analysis in
Abaqus is shown with the stress contours in Figure 5.12. The load versus
displacement curves of the modelling for different materials are shown in
Figures 5.14 to 5.17.
107
Figure 5.12 The stress field around the crack tip in a SENB FEA model of the
bulk epoxy matrix with cohesive contact in Abaqus.
5.4.1.3 SENB results: Cohesive zone element analysis
The SENB specimens of the bulk epoxy matrices are modelled in Abaqus with
the dimensions of the specimen as given in Figure 5.10. The SENB specimen is
modelled as one part, and the part is partitioned as consisting of continuum
elements and cohesive zone elements. The elastic properties of the bulk epoxy
matrix (Table 5.1) and steel rollers (Table 5.12) are used for modelling the
specimen. The thickness of the cohesive zone element was adopted as 0.001
mm, as brittle fracture is observed in the experiments.
The three point bending supports are modelled as semi circles in the Abaqus
programme and ‘hard contact’ criterion in Abaqus is adopted between the
surfaces to avoid any interpenetration. The friction between the surfaces is
assumed to be zero. The load is applied as a displacement on the middle
108
support and the load versus displacement curve for the specimen is obtained
from the reaction force and displacement at the support. The parameters of the
cohesive contact are obtained by the procedure described in the DCB cohesive
contact analysis, see later in Section 5.4.2.2. The analysis is run for the
different bulk epoxy matrices using Abaqus, to obtain the cohesive contact
parameters needed to accurately model the SENB test.
The elastic properties used for modelling the SENB specimen are given in
Table 5.1. The values of the elastic properties and fracture energies, , of the
different bulk epoxies are obtained from the experiments (Table 5.14). The
values of the penalty stiffness and the critical stress for the different epoxies are
obtained from matching the experimental results with the modelling results, and
are given in Table 5.14. The load versus displacement curves obtained from the
modelling are compared with the experiments, and are given in Figures 5.14 to
5.17 for the different materials. The fracture energies of the bulk epoxies are
obtained directly from the experiments (Section 3.5.2). The stress contours of a
SENB cohesive zone element analysis in Abaqus is shown in Figure 5.13.
109
Figure 5.13 The stress field around the crack tip in a SENB model with
cohesive zone elements as modelled in FEA Abaqus.
Table 5.14 Quasi-static cohesive contact/element parameters for the bulk

epoxy matrices
110
35
30
25
20
Load (N)
15
10 Experiment
VCCT
Cohesive contact
5 Cohesive element
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Displacement (mm)

based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix.
80
70
60
50
Load (N)
40
30
Experiment
20 VCCT
Cohesive contact
10 Cohesive element
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Displacement (mm)

based upon the micro-rubber modified epoxy matrix.
111
50
45
40
35
30
Load (N)
25
20
Experimental
15
VCCT
10 Cohesive contact
Cohesive element
5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Displacement (mm)

based upon the nano-silica modified epoxy matrix.
90
80
70
60
Force (N)
50
40
Experiment
30
VCCT
Cohesive contact
20
Cohesive element
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.17 Comparison of load-displacement curve for the SENB epoxy

specimen based upon the nano-silica and micro-rubber (i.e.
hybrid) modified epoxy matrix.
112
5.4.2 The DCB test: Experimental and theoretical analysis
A flowchart for the DCB testing and modelling of the composite material
specimens is given in Figure 5.18, which schematically illustrates an overview
of the experimental and modelling work.
The DCB specimen is tested under quasi-static conditions to obtain the load
versus displacement curve of the composite material. The fracture energy of the
composite material is also obtained from the experiments, as described in
Section 3.6.2. The mean load versus displacement traces of the DCB
specimens for the various composite materials, based on the different epoxy
matrices, are shown in Figures 5.24 to 5.27.
A FEA 2D model of the DCB (Figure 5.19) specimen is modelled in Abaqus to

validate the models and subroutine which will be used to predict the fatigue life
of the composite material strips, see Section 5.6.2.3 below. The laminate
sequence of the composite DCB test specimen is [(-45/45)s(90/0)s]2 [(0/90)s(45/-
45)s]2. The initial crack in the DCB specimen is located between the 0o and 90 o
lamina interface at the mid-plane of the laminate sequence. The dimensions of
the DCB specimen are shown in Figure 5.20. The size of the aluminium alloy
end-blocks used is 20x12x20mm3 and the initial length of the crack is 60 mm.
The elastic properties in Table 5.4 and Table 5.12 are used in the modelling
studies. The load versus displacement curves obtained from the analyses are
compared with the experiments. The model use VCCT, cohesive contact and
cohesive element methods to obtain the parameters of the lamina interface for
the cohesive zone law.
113
Quasi-static modelling
of the DCB specimen
using the VCCT method
Obtain and Quasi-static modelling of

of the lamina
for the cohesive the DCB specimen using
interface of interest
zone law cohesive contact and
from the DCB
cohesive element analyses
quasi-static test
Fatigue modelling of the

DCB specimen to match the
growth rate curve using the Fatigue parameters
subroutine , and of the
lamina interface
from DCB fatigue
Subroutine uses the Paris tests
law to degrade the cohesive
law, see Figure 5.1
Prediction of the fatigue life

of DCB specimen under a
displacement controlled
fatigue test
Hence validation of
proposed modelling method
Figure 5.18 Flow chart of quasi-static and fatigue analyses of the composite
material DCB specimens
114
Aluminium block
Composite
Initial crack
Figure 5.19 DCB specimen
20 mm
Initial crack Fracture plane

12 mm 6 mm
5.4 mm
120 mm
y
60 mm
x
z
Figure 5.20 Dimensions of the DCB composite material specimen
5.4.2.1 DCB results: VCCT analysis
The fracture energy of composite material, which fractured at the 0 o/90o lamina
interface, obtained from the experiment is used to model the DCB using the
VCCT technique. The two arms of the DCB are modelled as separate parts and
the surfaces are connected using the VCCT criterion. The elastic properties of
the composite and aluminium blocks are taken from Table 5.4 and Table 5.12,
respectively. The loads are applied as a displacement in the opposite direction
at the centre of the two aluminium blocks, as in Figure 5.21. The boundary
conditions are applied at the top and bottom arms (Figure 5.21) at the centre of
the block, as the hole in the aluminium block is assumed to be filled. The result
115
obtained from the analysis is half the displacement in the y direction of the top
arm. The modelling results are compared with the experimental results to
validate the stiffness and failure displacement of the DCB experiment. The load
versus displacement curves of the modelling for the different composite
materials based upon the different epoxy matrices are shown in Figures 5.24 to
5.27.
x
z
Figure 5.21 Loading and boundary condition applied on the model

5.4.2.2 DCB results: Cohesive contact analysis
The analysis of the quasi-static test of the DCB model is undertaken to obtain
the cohesive zone law parameters of the lamina interface of interest in the
composite material. The model used for the analysis is the same as that of the
VCCT analysis but with the surface contact option, as embedded in the Abaqus
software. The elastic properties of the composite and aluminium blocks in the
model are taken from Table 5.4 and Table 5.12, respectively. The loads are
applied as a displacement at the centre of aluminium blocks and the arms are
given an equal displacement in the opposite directions, as shown in Figure
5.21. The boundary conditions are applied at the top and bottom arms at the
centre of the block (Figure 5.21).
The cohesive zone law parameters of the lamina interface are obtained by a
trial and error method by fitting to the experimental load versus displacement
curve to determine these parameters. Initially an approximate value of the
cohesive zone penalty stiffness is assumed in the analysis, with a critical stress
equal to the yield stress of the bulk epoxy matrix. The load versus displacement
116
curve predicted by the analysis is then compared with the experiments to match
the slope of the experimental curve. In particular, the penalty stiffness of the
cohesive contact theoretical analysis is varied to match the slope of the
experimental curve. Once good fit of the penalty stiffness of the cohesive
contact behaviour is obtained, the critical stress of the cohesive contact analysis
is next varied to match the failure displacement in the experiment. The cohesive
contact parameters are then obtained for the given DCB specimen. The stress
contours obtained at the crack tip of the model are shown in Figure 5.22. The
cohesive zone law parameters obtained from the analysis are given in Table
5.15. The load versus displacement curves of the modelling for different
materials are shown in Figures 5.24 to 5.27.
contact in Abaqus
5.4.2.3 DCB results: Cohesive zone element analysis
The quasi-static analysis of the DCB is undertaken in the FEA Abaqus software
to obtain the cohesive zone law parameters of the composite materials. The
117
cohesive zone parameters of the lamina interface of interest are obtained by a

trial and error method, as described above for the cohesive contact analysis
approach. The elastic properties of the composite and aluminium blocks are
taken from Table 5.4 and Table 5.12, respectively. The loads are applied as
displacement at the centre of the aluminium blocks, and the arms are given an
equal displacement in the opposite directions as in Figure 5.21. The boundary
conditions are applied at the top and bottom arms at the centre of the block
(Figure 5.21).
The model for the DCB is developed with the same arm thickness as that in the
experiments. The thickness of the matrix in-between the lamina is of order 10 -2
mm (Masania [47]) and hence the thickness of the cohesive layer is adopted as
0.01 mm. The penalty stiffness and critical stress for the cohesive zone element
are obtained, described above for the cohesive contact analysis approach. The
DCB model is developed as a single part and the part is partitioned as cohesive
zone elements and continuum elements. The load is applied in the model as a
displacement and the boundary condition adopted is the same as that of the
cohesive contact analysis. The boundary condition for the DCB model is applied
at the arms and the load is applied as a displacement in the opposite directions.
The penalty stiffness and critical stress of the lamina interface obtained from the
analysis are given in Table 5.15. The load versus displacement curves from the
modelling for the different composite materials based upon the different epoxy
matrices are shown in Figures 5.24 to 5.27. In these figures the VCCT method
gives a relatively poor fit to the experimental results. This is suggested to arise
from the fibre bridging which is seen to occur behind the crack tip during the
testing of the DCB composite specimens. Unlike the cohesive contact and
cohesive element methods, the VCCT method does not take such fibre bridging
into account. The contours of the stress variation in a DCB cohesive zone
element analysis is shown in Figure 5.23.
118
zone elements in Abaqus
Table 5.15 Quasi-static cohesive contact/element parameters of the DCB

lamina interface
119
90
80
70
60
50
Load (N)
40
Experimental
30
VCCT
Cohesive contact
20
Cohesive element
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (mm)

material based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix
120
100
80
Load (N)
60
40 Experiment
VCCT
Cohesive contact
20 Cohesive element
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)

based upon the micro-rubber modified epoxy matrix
120
90
80
Experiment
70
VCCT
Cohesive contact
60
Cohesive element
Load (N)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)

based upon the nano-silica modified epoxy matrix
120
100
80
Load (N)
60
40 Experiment
VCCT
Cohesive contact
20 Cohesive element
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)

based upon the nano-silica and micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified
epoxy matrix
121
5.4.3 The composite material strip test: Experimental and theoretical

results
The flowchart for the composite strip testing and analysis of the specimen are
given in Figure 5.28, which gives an overview of the experimental and modelling
work.
122
Quasi-static modelling of the

SENB bulk epoxy matrix
specimen using the VCCT
method
Obtain of the
cohesive zone law
of the epoxy from the
Quasi-static modelling of the
matrix SENB bulk
SENB bulk epoxy matrix
specimen using the cohesive epoxy matrix
Obtain of the contact and cohesive element quasi-static
cohesive zone law analysis test
of the epoxy
matrix
Fatigue modelling of the CT

bulk epoxy matrix specimen to
match the growth rate curve Fatigue parameters
using the subroutine (see , and of the
Figure 4.7) epoxy from the CT
bulk epoxy matrix
Subroutine (see Figure fatigue test
4.7) uses the Paris law
to degrade the
cohesive zone law
Determine the
maximum crack density
Subroutine (see Figure for maximum stiffness
4.7) validated with reduction in the fatigue
growth curve matching test of the strip
with the CT fatigue test Fatigue modelling of the OR
composite with the The saturation crack
saturation/experimental density; obtained by
crack density using the predicting the crack
subroutine (see Figure density required for the
4.7) maximum stiffness
reduction using trial
and error method of
static modelling. (Can
Prediction of the fatigue life of composite be validated from the
for different applied stresses. (Life of the experiments.)
composite is assumed to be equivalent to
the number of cycles required for the
maximum stiffness reduction for crack
density adopted earlier.)
Figure 5.28 Flow chart of the life prediction modelling of the composite strip
under cyclic fatigue loading
123
The quasi-static test of the composite strip is undertaken to determine the

quasi-static strength of the composite material strip. The strip is loaded quasi-
statically and the load versus displacement graph is obtained. The ultimate
tensile strength of the composite strip may be deduced, and the change in
stiffness with loading is also obtained from the test. The results of the test are
shown in Table 5.16. The research on the composite strip has been undertaken
together with Dr. Manjunatha [40].
Table 5.16 Elastic properties of the composite material strip
The quasi-static analysis of the strip is performed to study the failure behaviour
of the GFRP composite. The composite strips are modelled to study the
influence of transverse cracks in the stiffness reduction of the composite. The
dimensions of the strip are as shown in Figure 5.29. The symmetric model of
the strip is analysed using the symmetric boundary condition for the length of
strip (Figure 5.30).
Composite End tabs
2.7 mm
50 mm
150 mm
Figure 5.29 Composite material strip with dimensions
The strip is modelled with cracks having a crack density as experimentally

measured in the experiments (Figure 5.31). The transverse crack density of the
strip is obtained from the fatigue experiments for different cycles of loading
(Figure 5.33). The elastic properties in Tables 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 are used to
model the different laminae of the strip. The normalised stiffness of the
composite material strip as a function of the crack density is also obtained from
the experiments (Figures 5.35 to 5.38).
124
Load
s s
(b) (c)
y
Load
x
z (a)
Figure 5.30 Section of the strip with transverse cracks (a) strip under loading
(b) cross section of the strip with transverse cracks (c) symmetric
cross-section of the strip with transverse cracks
125
1.35 mm
l mm
Figure 5.31 Dimension of a section of the modelled strip. The length, l, of the
strip model depends on the crack density
The transverse cracking within the laminae is modelled using a relation between
the cohesive traction and the relative displacements. The effect of transverse
crack density on the stiffness degradation is studied and the model simulates
the critical stress above which the crack starts propagating, and also gives the
strain energy release rate in the system. The damage model is able to simulate
crack onset and propagation.
The transverse cracks in the strip are modelled as continuum elements (with
very low elasticity modulus, i.e. =1x10-9N/mm2 and a Poisson’s ratio, ν=0.01)
of thickness 0.001mm (i.e. the thickness of the cohesive zone element in the
SENB and CT models). The load in the strip is applied as a displacement at the
top of the model and the boundary conditions adopted for the model are shown
in Figure 5.32.
126
Figure 5.32 Boundary conditions applied on the symmetric cross-section of the

composite material strip with transverse cracks
The variation of the crack density of a laminae consisting ±45o fibres for
different fatigue cycles observed in the experiments is shown in Figure 5.33.
The 90o crack density is assumed to be constant at a value of 0.64/mm (Tong et
al. [37]) for all the cycles of fatigue. As may be seen from the results shown in
Figure 5.33, the composite strips based upon the control matrix exhibit the
highest crack densities whilst those based upon the hybrid matrix exhibit the
lowest values of crack density. From the previous results in Chapter 5, this is as
would be expected.
127
2.5
Crack density (mm-1) 2
Control
1.5 Nano
Rubber
Hybrid
0.5
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
Number of cycles
Figure 5.33 Variation of ±45o crack density with number of cycles in composite
material strips based upon unmodified (i.e. control) and modified
epoxy matrices
5.4.3.1 Normalised stiffness with crack density
In the quasi-static analysis of the strip, the normalised stiffness of the composite
is compared with the experimental values of crack density obtained for different
cycles of fatigue (Figure 5.33). The normalised stiffness reduction is also
obtained for the corresponding crack density for different cycles of fatigue
cycles in the experiment (Figures 5.35 to 5.38).
Different models with different crack densities are then run and the normalised
stiffness of the strip is obtained. The models are run with continuous increments
of crack density to obtain a smooth reduction of the stiffness with crack density
in the composite (Figures 5.35 to 5.38). The normalised stiffness as a function
of crack density obtained from the model is compared with the normalised
stiffness with an increase in crack density (for different number of cycles in the
128
fatigue experiment.) The comparison of normalised stiffness with crack density

from the modelling and experimental studies is shown in Figures 5.35 to 5.38.
Comparisons of the normalised stiffness of the composite with crack density
from the modelling and experimental studies are also shown in Figure 5.39 to
5.40, where further comparison are made between the different composite
materials based on the different epoxy matrices. The strip analysis in Abaqus
with transverse cracks is shown in Figure 5.34.
Figure 5.34 Composite material strip with transverse cracks in the Abaqus FEA
method
The agreement between the modelling results and the experimental results is
very good for all the different composite materials, with the poorest agreement
being seen for the composite materials based upon the hybrid epoxy matrix at
the relatively very high crack densities.
129
1.20
1.00
Normalised stiffness
0.80
0.60
Experiment
0.40
Modelling
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Crack density (mm-1)
the composite strip test. For the composite based upon the
unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix.
1.2
0.8
0.6
Experiment
0.4
Modelling
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
the composite strip test. For the composite based upon the micro-
rubber modified epoxy matrix.
130
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Experiment
0.4
Modelling
0.2
0
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800
the composite strip test. For the composite based upon the nano-
silica modified epoxy matrix.
1.2
0.8
0.6
Experiment
0.4
Modelling
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
the composite strip test. For the composite based upon the nano-
silica and micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix.
131
0.95
Control Modelling
0.9
Control Experiment
Nano Modelling
0.85 Nano Experiment
0.8
0.75
0.7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
the composite strip, based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) and
nano-silica modified epoxy matrices.
1
Rubber Modelling
0.95
Rubber Experiment
Hybrid Modelling
0.9 Hybrid Experiment
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
the composite strip, based upon the micro-rubber and with both
nano-silica and micro-rubber modified epoxy matrices
132
5.4.3.2 Normalised stiffness with number of fatigue cycles
The normalised stiffness with the number of cycles may also be plotted for the
different crack densities observed in the experiments. The analysis is performed
with a crack density for a given number of cycles, and the normalised stiffness
is then obtained for the strip. The normalised stiffness with the number of cycles
of fatigue is obtained from the experiments, which are modelled using the same
crack density for different cycles of loading (Figure 5.33) to obtain the
normalised stiffness. The 90o crack density is again assumed to be constant at
a value of 0.64/mm (Tong et al. [37]). The model is analysed with the crack
density as measured in the experiments and the normalised stiffness is plotted
versus the number of cycles.
The normalised stiffness as a function of the number of cycles, (with crack

density also being measured) is obtained from the experiments. Different
models with the different crack densities (for different cycles of fatigue loading)
obtained are run and the normalised stiffness is derived from the analysis. The
values of normalised stiffness as a function of the number of cycles of loading
for the different composite materials are shown in Figures 5.41 to 5.44.
Again the agreement between the results from the modelling studies and the
experimental results is very good. Although, the composite strip specimens
based upon the hybrid epoxy matrix do show a somewhat larger discrepancy
between the experimental results and the modelling studies than for the
composite strips based upon the other matrices. This may arise due to the
presence of the fibre changing somewhat the morphology, and hence the
mechanical properties, of the hybrid epoxy matrix in the composite strip
specimens compared to the bulk hybrid epoxy polymer. However, even for
Figure 5.44, the agreement between the experimental and theoretical modelling
studies is still relatively good. This is very encouraging for the work on
modelling the fatigue life of the composite strips, which is discussed later.
133
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Experiment
0.4
Modelling
0.2
0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Number of cycles
composite strip based upon the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy
matrix
1.2
0.8
0.6
Experiment
0.4
Modelling
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
composite strip based upon the micro-rubber modified epoxy
matrix
134
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Experiment
0.4
Modelling
0.2
0.0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Number of cycles
composite strip based upon the nano-silica modified epoxy
matrix
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Experiment
0.4
Modelling
0.2
0.0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
Number of cycles
composite strip based upon the nano-silica and micro-rubber
(i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix
135
5.4.3.3 Quasi-static strength of the composite strip
The quasi-static strength of the composite is obtained from modelling composite

with maximum crack density (Figure 5.33) observed in the experiments. The 90o
crack density is assumed to be constant at 0.64/mm (Tong et al. [37]). The
cracks are modelled as cohesive zone elements with the cohesive zone
parameters of the epoxy material (Table 5.14). A quasi-static model (Figure
5.31) is run and the global stiffness reduction with increase in displacement is
noted. The cracks in the strip are modelled using cohesive zone elements and
the reduction of stiffness with displacement is plotted with percentage strain
applied in the model. The damage in cohesive zone element due to quasi-static
loading of composite causes reduction of global stiffness of the model. The
global stiffness of model attains a plateau with increase in strain and the final
failure of the composite is uncertain as the model fail to predict the abrupt
failure of glass fibre in 0o lamina.
The Figures 5.45 and 5.46 shows the global stress with increase in strain and
the corresponding reduction of global stiffness in the composite model. If the
model was able to predict the failure strain in the global stiffness versus strain
curve (Figure 5.46), the corresponding failure global stress for the composite
can be obtained for the failure strain from the Figure 5.45.
136
800
700
Global stress (N/mm 2) 600
500
Control
400
Rubber
Nano
300 Hybrid
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
% strain
Figure 5.45 Comparison of the global stress with percentage strain in the
composite strip
4.4E+05
4.2E+05
4.0E+05
Global stiffness (N/mm)
3.8E+05 Control
Rubber
Nano
3.6E+05
Hybrid
3.4E+05
3.2E+05
3.0E+05
0 1 2 3 4 5
% strain
Figure 5.46 Comparison of global stiffness reduction with the percentage strain
of composite strip
137
5.5 Toughening Mechanisms
The fracture energy, , of the unmodified (i.e. control) and modified bulk epoxy
matrices are found to be different, with the modified epoxies having significantly
higher fracture energies, see Table 5.14. Indeed, the hybrid bulk epoxy matrix
has the highest fracture energy of all the epoxy polymers. The increase in the
fracture energy in the epoxy, due to the addition of the nano-silica and micro-
rubber particles, occurs from to the energy-dissipating toughening mechanisms
developing in the structure of the epoxy. Now, epoxies are highly cross-linked
thermosetting polymers. Hence, they have a poor resistance to initiation and
growth of cracks. This is due to the fact that when the epoxy is polymerised it is
amorphous and highly-crosslinked in structure (Kinloch [71]) resulting in a
relatively high modulus and strength. This structure of the epoxy matrix also
leads to the development of the brittle nature of the epoxy. Hence, the addition
of micro-rubber particles dispersed in the bulk epoxy helps to increase the
fracture energy by the dissipation of energy. The microstructure, and hence the
mechanical properties of the micro-rubber modified epoxy, depends on the
dispersion of the rubber particles and on the adhesion of the particle to the
epoxy matrix. Kinloch et al. [72] and Kinloch et al. [73] observed that the plastic
deformation of the modified epoxy matrix causes energy dissipation, and hence
an increase in the fracture energy. The increase in the fracture energy is
attributed to the interaction of the stress field with the micro-rubber particles
around the crack tip. The micro-rubber particles have a lower shear modulus,
but a comparable bulk modulus, than the epoxy matrix. This leads to stress
concentrations and volume constraint in the matrix around the rubber particles.
Hence, the rubber particles in the epoxy matrix act as stress concentrators, as
well as transferring the load. This leads to cavitation of the micro-rubber
particles in the epoxy matrix due to the triaxial stress state ahead of the crack
tip. (The residual stress after the curing cycle of the epoxy also causes the
development of such voids in the rubber particle.) The void in the micro-rubber
particles enables the development of extensive local plastic void growth in the
epoxy at the crack tip, and reduces the triaxiality which leads to even more
plastic deformation occurring at the crack tip in the epoxy polymer. Hence, the
138
presence of rubber particles in the epoxy increases the local plastic deformation
and so significantly increases the value of .
The fracture energy of the modified epoxy with nano-silica particles is found to
be significantly higher than the umodified epoxy matrix. As for micro-rubber
particle modified epoxies, the toughening of the epoxy with nano-silica particles
is dependent on the values of glass transition temperature, molecular weight
between cross-links of the epoxy polymer and the adhesion at the interface of
nano-silica particles with the epoxy (Hsieh et al. [74] and Hsieh et al. [75]). The
toughening mechanisms are somewhat similar to that described above.
Namely, localised shear bands are initiated by the stress concentrations around
the nano-silica particles and the debonding of the nano-silica particles leads to
plastic void growth. These toughening mechanisms lead to the increase in the
fracture energy of the modified epoxy.
5.6 Fatigue Models
The fatigue analysis is undertaken in Abaqus using the subroutine, see Figure
4.7. The degradation of the cohesive zone element is based on the Paris law,
and the subroutine degrades the penalty stiffness of the cohesive zone element
with time, as described in Section 4.3.4.
5.6.1 User element subroutine
The fatigue analysis of the composite is performed using the user element
subroutine (Hibbitt [8]) and the subroutine is written in FORTRAN (see the
Appendix). The subroutine uses the theoretical formulations to calculate the
damage in the material due to fatigue cycling. The subroutine is firstly validated
against the quasi-static and fatigue behaviour using a unit cell element with
given material properties. The quasi-static analysis of the unit cell of the
cohesive zone element using the subroutine is matched with the standard
cohesive zone element in Abaqus. The testing of the user cohesive zone
element is done, and the results plotted to validate the element, as described
below.
139
5.6.1.1 Validation
The unit cell cohesive zone element analysis is done using a standard
continuum element and hence the user cohesive zone element is tested. The
cohesive zone element to be tested is placed between the continuum elements
as shown in Figure 5.47. The 2D cohesive zone element has 0.001mm
thickness (i.e. same as that of the SENB and CT quasi-static cohesive zone
element analyses used for the bulk epoxy matrix studies) and the breadth and
through-thickness of the cohesive zone element is taken as unity. The unit cell
has a displacement loading applied at the nodes and the load versus
displacement curve is compared with the standard Abaqus cohesive zone
element with the same geometry.
continuum
element
cohesive
elements
node
x
z
Figure 5.47 A single cohesive zone element for testing
The quasi-static test of the cohesive zone element is undertaken to validate the
user element (Figure 5.48). The element is tested in mode I and mode II using
the cohesive zone parameters of the SENB specimen based on the unmodified
(i.e. control) epoxy matrix. The values of the critical displacement, critical stress
and failure displacement are checked to validate the cohesive zone element.
The material properties adopted for the continuum element (Table 5.1) and
140
cohesive zone element (Table 5.14) are, of course, that of the unmodified (i.e.
control) bulk epoxy. As noted above, the subroutine cohesive zone element is
subjected to mode I, mode II, as well as mixed-mode loading, and is compared
with the standard Abaqus cohesive zone element analysis. The behaviour of the
subroutine cohesive zone element and standard cohesive zone element are
shown in Figures 5.49 to 5.51. The analyses show that the subroutine cohesive
zone element has the same behaviour as that of standard cohesive zone
element in Abaqus, and hence the new user cohesive zone element proposed
in the current research is validated.
Figure 5.48 Cohesive zone element testing in (a) mode I, (b) mode II and (c)
mixed-mode
The critical displacement for cohesive zone element is given by
(5.20)
The failure displacement is given by the relation
(5.21)
The critical stress at each node of a unit length cohesive zone element is .
141
4
Load (mm)
Abaqus element
3
User element
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.49 Cohesive zone element in mode I. The cohesive zone law
parameters used for the element is for the unmodified (i.e.
control) bulk epoxy matrix ( =3900N/mm2, =10.9 N/mm2 and
=75.8J/m2)
4
Load (N)
Abaqus element
3
User element
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.50 Cohesive zone element in mode II. The cohesive zone law
parameters used for the element is for the unmodified (i.e.
control) bulk epoxy matrix ( =3900N/mm2, =10.9 N/mm2 and
=75.8J/m2)
142
4.5
3.5
2.5
Load (N)
2 Abaqus element
User element
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.51 Cohesive zone element in mixed-mode ( =0.5). The cohesive

zone law parameters used for the element is for the unmodified
(i.e. control) bulk epoxy matrix ( =3900N/mm2, =10.9 N/mm2
and =75.8J/m2 for both modes)
5.6.2 Fatigue analysis using the user element subroutine
The user element subroutine may now be employed with confidence for the
fatigue analysis of the composite material strips. The subroutine is used to
modify the penalty stiffness of the cohesive zone law element with number of
cycles of fatigue loading. The damage variable in the cohesive zone law is
calculated in the subroutine for each cycle of analysis and the penalty stiffness
of the cohesive zone element is varied according to the change in the damage
variable. The initial quasi-static penalty stiffness of the cohesive zone element is
varied according to the cohesive zone law and the new penalty stiffness is
calculated from the formulation. The equivalent penalty stiffness is calculated in
the subroutine to account for both static and fatigue damage. The static damage
in the cohesive zone element is given by the Equation 4.77 and the fatigue
damage rate is given by the Equation 4.87 and the resultant damage is applied
143
on the cohesive zone by reducing the penalty stiffness of the cohesive zone
element in the stiffness matrix. The total damage and equivalent penalty
stiffness is calculated in each element, and hence the continuous degradation
of the cohesive zone law for the element takes place.
The strain in the cohesive zone element and the number of cycles are the two
parameters which determine the penalty stiffness of the cohesive zone element
after an analysis step. For each step of the analysis, the penalty stiffness of the
individual cohesive zone element is calculated based on the strain of the
element and also accounting for the fatigue damage from the fatigue cycles.
The subroutine is called up for each analysis step, and for each cohesive zone
element. The strain in mode I and II are requested in the subroutine to calculate
the damage in the element. Using the equation for the damage variable, the
penalty stiffness is updated for each element to get the stiffness matrix of the
element during each step of the analysis to therefore have a continuous
degradation of the cohesive zone element in the fatigue analysis.
5.6.2.1 The CT test and user element analysis
The fatigue test is conducted on the CT specimen of the bulk epoxy matrix. The
load is applied to the specimen as a sinusoidal constant-amplitude
displacement. The frequency of the periodic load and the displacement ratio
(ratio of minimum displacement to maximum displacement in fatigue cycle) is
kept constant. The threshold fracture energy, , of the bulk epoxy and the
growth rate curve of the epoxy are obtained for the various epoxy matrices from
the test data. The growth rate curves obtained from the test are shown in
Figures 5.56 to 5.59. The threshold fracture energy for the bulk epoxies are
obtained from the growth rate curve for the specimen.
The CT specimen (Figure 5.52) is analysed in the Abaqus programme to model

the fatigue behaviour. The dimensions of the specimen are as shown in Figure
5.53. The quasi-static cohesive zone element parameters (Table 5.14) of the
SENB test are used to model the CT specimen. The elastic properties used for
the specimen are same as that of the SENB specimen (Table 5.1 and Table
5.12). The thickness of the cohesive zone element is kept same as that of the
144
quasi-static SENB model. The fatigue growth in the CT specimen is modelled

using the subroutine and the growth rate curve of the specimen is compared
with the experimental results.
Steel pin
Bulk epoxy
Figure 5.52 Compact tension specimen
145
10 mm
20 mm
50 mm
23 mm
12 mm
48 mm
Ф 8 mm
x
z
Figure 5.53 Dimension of the CT specimen
The load in the fatigue model is applied as a constant displacement, as

described in Section 4.3.5.2, and the load is kept constant throughout whole
cycle of fatigue analysis (Figure 5.54). The growth rate curve of the experiment
is matched with that from the modelling studies obtained from cyclic fatigue
studies.
146
Figure 5.54 Boundary condition applied on the CT specimen
The fatigue parameters of the CT specimens of the bulk epoxy matrices are
obtained from the Paris law fit for the different materials and are given in Table
5.17. The fatigue parameters of the specimen are used in the subroutine
analysis to determine the growth rate curve of the specimen. The growth rate
curve obtained from the modelling and experimental studies for the different
epoxies are shown in Figures 5.56 to 5.59. It should be noted that there is some
scatter in the modelling data shown in Figures 5.56 to 5.59. This occurs
because the calculation of the crack growth rate is not exact between a period
of cycles. This is due to the inability of the numerical method to find the exact
growth rate between adjacent two analysis steps during modelling of the
fracture process. The stress contours at the crack tip in the CT model is shown
in Figure 5.55.
147
Figure 5.55 Stress field around the crack tip in a CT model with cohesive zone
elements in Abaqus
Table 5.17 Fatigue parameters of the bulk epoxy matrix CT specimens from
Paris law fit
Matrix fatigue properties Control Nano Rubber Hybrid

c 22.26 1.05 2.91 0.042
m 13.29 16.48 7.77 5
Gth (J/m 2) 20.5 49 49 100
148
-1
-2
-3
log (da/dN)
-4
Experiment
-5 Modelling
Paris law fit
-6
-7
-0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.45 -0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2
log (Gmax/Gc)
Figure 5.56 Growth rate curve for the CT specimen for the bulk unmodified (i.e.
control) epoxy matrix
-2
-3
-4
log (da/dN)
Experiment
-5 Modelling
Paris law fit
-6
-7
-8
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4
log (Gmax/Gc)
Figure 5.57 Growth rate curve for the CT specimen for the bulk micro-rubber
modified epoxy matrix
149
-1.2
-2.2
-3.2
log (da/dN)
-4.2
Experiment
-5.2 Modelling
Paris law fit
-6.2
-7.2
-0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05
log (Gmax/Gc)
Figure 5.58 Growth rate curve for the CT specimen for the bulk nano-silica
-3
-3.5
-4
log (da/dN)
-4.5
-5
Experiment (Paris law)

-5.5 Modelling
Paris law fit
-6
-6.5
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4
log (Gmax/Gc)
Figure 5.59 Growth rate curve for the CT specimen for the bulk nano-silica and
micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix (experimental data
from Lee [49])
150
5.6.2.2 DCB test and user element analysis
The DCB fatigue test is undertaken to find the lamina interface fracture energy
of the composite material. The cohesive zone properties of the lamina are
obtained from the fatigue test of the composite material. The growth rate curves
obtained from the tests are shown in Figures 5.60 to 5.63. The threshold
fracture energy for the composite material is found from the growth rate curve.
The fatigue analysis of the DCB is performed using a FEA approach in the
Abaqus software. The analysis of the fatigue damage in the composite is
modelled using a cohesive zone element. The subroutine is developed in
Abaqus and accounts for the fatigue damage of cohesive zone element with
time. The thickness of the cohesive zone element is kept the same as in the
quasi-static model at 0.01mm. The model is analysed using the subroutine to
obtain the fatigue parameters of the cohesive zone element. The load in the
fatigue model is applied as a constant displacement, as described in Section
4.3.5.2, and the load is kept constant throughout the fatigue cycles.
The growth rate curve predicted by the model is compared with the growth rate
curve from the experimental tests. The parameters for the fatigue model are
obtained by comparing the slope and intercept of the growth rate cure and
matching them with the experimental results. The experimental growth rate
curve of the different materials is used to validate the fatigue parameters. (Since
the cohesive zone element parameters are derived from the quasi-static work
are used to model the DCB test in fatigue.) The growth rate curve of the DCB
specimen is matched with the experiments to obtain the fatigue parameters of
the lamina interface (Figures 5.60 to 5.63). The fatigue parameters and
obtained from the Paris law fit are given in Table 5.18. The fatigue parameters
are then used in the user element subroutine to degrade the cohesive zone
element according to the Paris law, as described in Section 4.3.4.
151
Table 5.18 Fatigue parameters obtained from the DCB composite material
specimen
Matrix fatigue properties Control Nano Rubber Hybrid

c 0.0243 0.0123 0.0084 0.0174
m 2.71 3.88 3.27 3.54
Gth (J/m 2) 39.5 57 54 118
-1
-2
-3
log (da/dN)
-4
Experiment
-5 Modelling
Paris law fit
-6
-7
-8
-1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
log (Gmax/Gc)
the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix
152
-1
-2
log (da/dN)
-3
-4
Experiment
-5 Modelling
Paris law fit
-6
-7
-1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
log (Gmax/Gc)
the micro-rubber modified epoxy matrix
0
-1
-2
-3
log (da/dN)
-4
Experiment
-5 Modelling
Paris law fit
-6
-7
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
log (Gmax/Gc)
the nano-silica modified epoxy matrix
153
-1
-2
log (da/dN)
-3
Experiment
-4 Modelling
Paris law fit
-5
-6
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
log (Gmax/Gc)
the nano-silica and micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy
matrix
5.6.2.3 Strip test and user element analysis
The fatigue test on the composite strip is undertaken to determine the fatigue
life of composite strip specimens. The composite strip is tested under a
constant fatigue load to determine the fatigue life of the strip. The transverse
crack density of the composite strip is obtained for different cycles of fatigue
and the number of cycles to failure of the strip is also found out. A typical
photograph of the crack density observed in the composite for different cycles of
fatigue is shown in Figure 5.64. The graphs of stress versus number of cycles
for failure of the composite strip are shown in Figures 5.65 to 5.68; and values
of the crack density for different cycles of fatigue obtained for the different
composite materials are as shown previously in Figure 5.33.
154
Figure 5.64 Transmitted light photographs of GFRP composite with unmodified

(i.e. control) epoxy matrix showing the sequence of matrix crack
development with the number of cycles, N, under fatigue loading.
The composite strips are now finally modelled to predict the fatigue life of the
composite material based on the different epoxy matrices. The composite strip
has a layup of [(-45/45/0/90)s]2 and dimensions of 50x2.7x25mm3 is used to
study the fatigue behaviour of the composites. The strip is modelled considering
a small section of the strip from the cross-section, as shown in Figure 5.30. The
strip is then modelled with transverse cracks with a density as observed in the
experiments (Figure 5.33). The 90o lamina crack density is assumed to be
constant at a value of 0.64/mm (Tong et al. [37]). The fatigue analysis is
undertaken with different crack densities, and with the different epoxy
composites.
The load is applied as constant stress on the strip as shown in Figure 4.13. The
nodes on the applied stress surface are tied with each other to have an equal
displacement in the y direction of the strip (in Figure 5.32 the top surface nodes
are made to move equally in the y direction). The width of the model is half the
thickness of strip and the length of the model depends on the crack density
(Figure 5.31). In the model, a symmetric section (Figure 5.30) of the strip is
155
modelled. The strip is modelled as shown in Figure 5.31. The boundary

condition for the strip is shown in Figure 5.32.
The cohesive degradation law is used to model the effect of the accumulation of
damage upon fatigue loading of the composite. The cohesive zone elements
are placed in the transverse cracks and the maximum transverse crack density
is selected to study the fatigue crack growth in the strip. The Paris law
parameters obtained from the CT specimen (Table 5.17) and the quasi-static
cohesive zone law parameters obtained from the SENB test (Table 5.14), both
of which are measured on the corresponding bulk epoxy matrix, are used to
model the fatigue life of composite.
The threshold value of the composite is taken as of the corresponding bulk

epoxy matrix (Table 5.14). The composite is modelled with the highest crack
density observed in the experiments. However, the value of the maximum crack
density, or the saturation crack density for maximum stiffness reduction, for the
fatigue modelling of the strip can also be attained by achieving a plateau in the
normalised stiffness with an increase in crack density via a quasi-static
modelling. Now, the saturation crack density which causes the maximum
stiffness reduction may be determined from a quasi-static model. Thus, when
the experimental value of the crack density is not available, the fatigue model
proposed in the present research can still be employed.
The failure criteria for the composite strip in fatigue can be described in two
ways for different levels of fatigue stress. In low and high stress analysis, the
threshold energy of the bulk epoxy is kept the same as that of the bulk epoxy
CT specimen fatigue test. However:
1. For higher stresses, the failure criterion is defined by the number of

cycles required for the maximum reduction of stiffness with the failure of
cohesive zone elements occurring.
2. The failure criteria for the cohesive zone element in the strip under a low
applied fatigue stress can be defined as the number of cycles required
for the stiffness to achieve a plateau value; and no energy is now
156
available for any further stiffness reduction caused by the growth of

cracks. The cohesive zone element in this case never fails completely,
and the growth of the crack stops as the energy available is less than the
threshold energy required for the growth of crack in fatigue.
The model is run until the maximum stiffness reduction is obtained for the crack
density. The stress versus number of cycles for failure of the composite strip is
shown in Figures 5.65 to 5.68 for the modelling and experimental results. The
modelling matches very well with the experimental results for the relatively low
applied fatigue stress values. At the higher fatigue stresses, the failure of the
composite is mainly due to delamination and fibre failure. Hence the life of the
composite is over predicted at these higher stresses.
It shall be noted that the very good agreement between the experimental results
and the theoretical predictions at the relatively low levels of applied fatigue
stress is of major industrial importance since the fatigue life at the threshold
stress is a typical design criterion.
157
300
250
Experiment
200
Modelling
Stress (N/mm 2)
150
100
50
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Number of cycles to failure
fatigue loading for the composite strip based upon the unmodified
(i.e. control) epoxy matrix
300
250
Experiment
200
Stress (N/mm2)
Modelling
150
100
50
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
fatigue loading for a composite strip based upon the micro-rubber
158
300
Experiment
250
Modelling
200
Stress (N/mm 2)
150
100
50
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
fatigue loading for a composite strip based upon the nano-silica
300
250
Experiment
200
Modelling
Stress (N/mm2)
150
100
50
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
fatigue loading for a composite strip based upon the nano-silica
and micro-rubber (i.e. hybrid) modified epoxy matrix
159
The threshold stress for the composite strip is obtained by progressively

applying even lower fatigue stresses and checking the stiffness reduction with
time. The stress at which there is no further reduction of the stiffness from the
model is determined and taken as the threshold stress below which no fatigue
failures of the composite material strip will occur. The values of the threshold
stress so obtained for the different composite strip models are given in Table
5.19.
Table 5.19 Threshold stress for the composite strip
Strip properties Control Rubber Nano Hybrid

Stress (MPa) 80 100 105 110
The improvement in the value of the threshold stress for cyclic fatigue failure of
the composite materials based upon the modified epoxy matrices should be
especially noted.
The modelling of the different specimens has been undertaken using a FEA
model constructed using Abaqus together with a novel user subroutine. The
fatigue life of the composite materials based upon the different epoxy matrices
has been found to be predicted accurately. It is very note worthy that the input
into the model developed in the present research is that needed from tests
undertaken on the bulk epoxy matrices. Thus, the model does not require prior
knowledge of the behaviour of the composite material under cyclic fatigue
loading.
160
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
CHAPTER 6
6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FUTURE WORK
6.1 Quasi-Static Fracture Properties
The quasi-static testing of the bulk epoxy matrices, using the single edge
notched bending (SENB) specimen, gives the fracture properties of the bulk
epoxy matrices. It is shown that the modified bulk epoxy matrices have a higher
fracture energy, and their failure strength is also increased, compared with the
unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix. The fracture energies for the different
modified epoxy matrices are compared with that of the unmodified (i.e. control)
epoxy matrix in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Fracture energies of the different bulk epoxy matrices
Matrix Properties Control Rubber Nano Hybrid

Gc (J/m2) 75.8 415.9 123.4 859.0
The quasi-static testing of the double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens gives
values of the fracture energy of the GFRP composite materials based upon the
different epoxy matrices, for the 0o/90o lamina plane. The fracture energy of the
composite material based on the epoxy ‘hybrid’ matrix ( i.e. modified with the
nano-silica and micro-rubber particles) is found to be higher than those based
upon the epoxy matrices modified only with the nano-silica or only with the
micro-rubber particles (Table 6.2). Thus, as may be seen from the summary of
results given in Table 6.1 and 6.2, the addition of nano-silica or micro-rubber
particles, and especially the combination of both particles to give a hybrid
modified matrix, results in tougher bulk epoxy matrices, and tougher GFRP
composite materials (Table 6.2). The toughening mechanisms responsible for
these observations are discussed in Section 5.5.
161
Table 6.2 Fracture energies of the composite materials based upon the different
epoxy matrices
Matrix Properties Control Nano Rubber Hybrid

Gc (J/m 2) 910 1080 1790 1894
6.2 Quasi-Static Modelling
The modelling results from using a FEA approach coupled with a cohesive zone
model (CZM) works very well for both the bulk epoxy matrices and the
composite materials. The quasi-static model predicts the static failure of the
SENB fracture mechanics tests on the bulk epoxy matrix relatively accurately.
The modelling defines the parameters of the cohesive zone law, which are then
used subsequently for the modelling of the composite strip materials, see
Section 6.6. The modelling of the static failure of the DCB fracture mechanics
tests on the composite materials gives results which are also in very good
agreement with the experimental results, and this helps to validate the
modelling methods developed in the present studies.
6.3 Fatigue Testing
Fatigue testing of the compact tension (CT) specimen is undertaken to

determine the cyclic fatigue properties of the bulk epoxy matrices. The growth
rate curves of the maximum strain energy release rate, , versus the rate of
crack growth per cycle, , for the bulk epoxy matrices are obtained from
these tests. The fatigue parameters of the bulk epoxy matrices are obtained
from the linear fit to the test data, i.e. the Paris law parameters, are readily
obtained from these experimental results.
6.4 Fatigue Modelling
The novel user element subroutine developed for the fatigue analysis is written
in FORTRAN, see Section 6.5 below. The analysis predicts the stiffness
degradation of the cohesive zone law as a function of time, i.e. as a function of
time taken to accumulate damage developed, via the number of fatigue cycles,
in the cohesive zone due to the cyclic fatigue loading. The degradation in the
cohesive zone law is implemented by using a bi-linear constitutive law for the
162
CZM, with the degradation of this constitutive law governed by the Paris law
parameters, which are determined as noted above.
To illustrate the experimental results, and the predictions from the modelling
studies, a typical fatigue growth curve is shown again in Figure 6.1. In this case
for the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix, and the results were obtained
using the CT specimen. The linear region is fitted to the Paris law, as shown in
Figure 6.1. The FEA model, incorporating the CZM, has been run with the
cohesive zone law parameters degraded via employing the user element
subroutine, see Section 6.5. The modelling results are also shown in Figure 6.1.
The agreement between the results from the proposed model and the
experimental results is very good. This good agreement is taken to provide a
further validation of the modelling procedures proposed in the present research.
-1
-2
-3
log (da/dN)
-4
Experiment
-5 Modelling
Paris law fit
-6
-7
-0.6 -0.55 -0.5 -0.45 -0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2
log (Gmax/Gc)
Figure 6.1 Fatigue crack growth rate curve for the CT epoxy specimen based
upon the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix
163
The fatigue crack growth rate curves of the DCB specimens using the
composite materials are also measured, and predicted from the modelling
studies. As for the bulk epoxy matrices, the agreement between the
experimental and modelling results for the values of versus for the
composite materials is found to be excellent. This provides a further validation
of the model proposed in the present research.
6.5 The User Element Subroutine Analysis
A special mention must be made of the novel user element subroutine

developed in the present research, since it is a crucially important feature of the
proposed model, and is given in the Appendix. This subroutine modifies the
penalty stiffness of the cohesive zone law with time equivalent to the number of
fatigue cycles, and hence a model of the fatigue degradation in the material is
achieved. The degradation of the penalty stiffness is based upon knowing the
values of Paris law parameters which are determined as described above. The
user element subroutine analysis was found to run very well for the fatigue
analyses of the bulk epoxy matrices and the composite material specimens.
Indeed, it provides a good prediction of the fatigue crack growth rate data which
are experimentally determined from the bulk epoxy matrix CT specimens and
composite material DCB specimens, which therefore provide a validation of the
proposed model and the user element subroutine as noted above.
6.6 Fatigue Life
Finally, this validated FEA/CZM model is used as a new approach to undertake

predicting the failure of the composite materials under cyclic fatigue loading.
The proposed fatigue model of the composites is modelled with multiple
transverse cracks, since this is the main form of damage observed in the fatigue
tests. These transverse cracks are modelled using CZM with a constitutive law
which is degraded as described above. The criterion for stopping the further
degradation of the constitutive law of the CZM is based upon attaining a
saturation matrix crack density. However, it is not necessary to directly measure
this parameter. The model determines the loss of stiffness of the composite
164
material strip, which arises from the matrix cracking, until no further decrease in
stiffness is predicted by the model. At this point the fatigue life of the composite
material is assumed to have been reached. A typical result is summarised in
Figure 6.2 for the composite material strip based on the epoxy matrix containing
micrometre-sized rubber particles. Here the maximum stress applied in the
fatigue cycle is plotted against the number of cycles to failure. As for all the
composite materials studied, the agreement between the experimental results
and the predictions from the model developed in the present research is very
good.
300
250
Experiment
200
Stress (N/mm2)
Modelling
150
100
50
0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Figure 6.2 Stress versus number of cycles from the fatigue loading for a
composite material strip based upon the micro-rubber modified
epoxy matrix
6.7 Recommendations for Further Work
Future work that could be undertaken to extend further the present modelling
studies for the fatigue behaviour of composite materials is discussed below.
165
6.7.1 Unidirectional composite analysis
A modelling analysis of unidirectional fibre composite materials needs a

different approach to developing a sound predictive analysis, as the transverse
crack density in the matrix is not readily available. Further, the analysis of the
unidirectional composite may depend on the mode II matrix parameters, and the
prediction of the fibre failure needs to be based on knowledge of the failure
strain. Indeed, the failure of a unidirectional composite material mainly occurs
due to interlaminar damage, and hence a different model has to be developed
for the analysis. This has been outside the scope of the present research but
represents a worthwhile future research goal.
6.7.2 Delamination analysis
Delamination in composite materials of various layups may occur due to fatigue

loading, and it occurs at the lamina interfaces. Delamination can be analysed in
the composite using the mode II quasi-static and fatigue properties. At higher
cycles, delamination occurs when the degree of transverse cracking saturates
in the lamina. Modelling delamination at the lamina interface may give better
results for the prediction of the fatigue life of composite materials, as it may give
more accurate values of the associated stiffness reductions. Delaminations
could be incorporated into the proposed model along the lamina interface by
employing a thin layer of cohesive zone elements between the laminae.
6.7.3 Modelling process of failure
The present work is unable to model accurately the development of the damage
mechanisms which are actually observed during the fatigue failure of composite
materials; whereby in reality the cracks develop one after another, i.e. in a
sequential manner. (In the current modelling, the highest crack density is used
for the analysis and all cracks grow simultaneously.) Modelling of the composite
with such transverse cracks growing sequentially represents a limitation in the
proposed model. Models could therefore be developed in order to overcome
this limitation.
166
6.7.4 The role of matrix properties
The present research has confirmed that the addition of a particulate phase of
nano-silica or micrometre-size rubber particles improves the toughness, , of
the bulk epoxy matrix, and that this improvement is transferred to the
corresponding GFRP composite material. Further, a hybrid toughened matrix, or
corresponding composite material, exhibits the highest values of . However,
further properties of the composite materials based upon these modified epoxy
matrices need to be evaluated. For example, the abrasion resistance of such
nano-silica modified composite materials might be significantly improved
compared with composites based on the unmodified (i.e. control) epoxy matrix
material. On the other hand, the hygrothermal properties of such composite
materials might be adversely affected. Thus, the hygrothermal properties of
such matrices and corresponding composite materials are worthy of further
study. Indeed, the models proposed in the current research project could be
extended to attempt to predict the hygrothermal properties of the composite
materials.
167
REFERENCES
References
1. Talreja, R. (1981). "Fatigue of composite materials: Damage mechanisms and fatigue-life

diagrams." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical
Sciences 378 (1775): 461-475.
2. Matthews, F. L. and R. D. Rawling (2007). Composite materials: engineering and science,

Woodhead Publishing Limited.
3. Sridharan, S. (2008). Delamination behaviour of composites, Woodhead Publishing Limited.
4. Hull, D. and T. W. Clyne (1996). An introduction to composite materials, Cambridge

University Press.
5. Cook, R. D., D. S. Malkus, M. E. Plesha and R. J. Witt (2003). Concepts and Applications of
Finite Element Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
6. Krueger, R. (2004). "Virtual crack closure technique: History, approach, and applications."
Applied Mechanics Reviews 57 (2): 109-143.
7. Camanho, P. P., C. G. Davila and M. F. de Moura (2003). "Numerical simulation of mixed-

mode progressive delamination in composite materials." Journal of Composite Materials 37
(16): 1415-1438.
8. Hibbitt, K. S., Inc. (2011). ABAQUS 6.9 User's Manuals.
9. Hallett, S. R., W.-G. Jiang, B. Khan and M. R. Wisnom (2008). "Modelling the interaction
between matrix cracks and delamination damage in scaled quasi-isotropic specimens."
Composites Science and Technology 68 (1): 80-89.
10. Berthelot, J.-M. (2003). "Transverse cracking and delamination in cross-ply glass-fiber and
carbon-fiber reinforced plastic laminates: Static and fatigue loading." Applied Mechanics
Reviews 56 (1): 111-147.
11. Reifsnider, K. L. and R. Jamison (1982). "Fracture of fatigue-loaded composite laminates."

International Journal of Fatigue 4 (4): 187-197.
12. Hosoi, A., H. Kawada and H. Yoshino (2006). "Fatigue characteristics of quasi-isotropic CFRP
laminates subjected to variable amplitude cyclic two-stage loading." International Journal of
Fatigue 28 (10): 1284-1289.
13. Rybicki, E. F. and M. F. Kanninen (1977). "A finite element calculation of stress intensity
factors by a modified crack closure integral." Engineering Fracture Mechanics 9 (4): 931-938.
14. Zou, Z., S. R. Reid, P. D. Soden and S. Li (2001). "Mode separation of energy release rate for
delamination in composite laminates using sublaminates." International Journal of Solids and
Structures 38 (15): 2597-2613.
15. Krueger, R. and T. K. O'Brien (2001). "A shell/3D modeling technique for the analysis of
delaminated composite laminates." Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 32
(1): 25-44.
168
REFERENCES
16. Shen, F., K. H. Lee and T. E. Tay (2001). "Modeling delamination growth in laminated
composites." Composites Science and Technology 61 (9): 1239-1251.
17. Qian, Q. and D. Xie (2007). "Analysis of mixed-mode dynamic crack propagation by
interface element based on virtual crack closure technique." Engineering Fracture Mechanics
74 (5): 807-814.
18. Mandell, J. F., D. S. Cairns, D. D. Samborsky, R. B. Morehead and D. J. Haugen (2003).

"Prediction of delamination in wind turbine blade structural details." Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering 125 (4): 522-530.
19. Alfano, G. (2006). "On the influence of the shape of the interface law on the application of
cohesive-zone models." Composites Science and Technology 66 (6): 723-730.
20. Zou, Z., S. R. Reid and S. Li (2003). "A continuum damage model for delaminations in
laminated composites." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 51 (2): 333-356.
21. Whitcomb, J. D. (1986). "Parametric analytical study of instability-related delamination

growth." Composites Science and Technology 25 (1): 19-48.
22. Wu, E. M., Reuter,R.C. (1965). "Crack extension in fibreglass reinforced plastics." TAM
Report Texas AM USA 275.
23. Hahn, H. T. (1983). "A mixed-mode frature criteria for composite materials." Composite
Technology Review 5: 3.
24. Ramkumar, R. L., Whitecomb, J.D. (1985). "Characterization of mode I and mixed-mode
delamiantion growth in T300/5208 graphite/epoxy." Delamination and Debonding of
Materials, ASTM 876: 315.
25. Rebière, J. L. and D. Gamby (2004). "A criterion for modelling initiation and propagation of
matrix cracking and delamination in cross-ply laminates." Composites Science and Technology
64 (13-14): 2239-2250.
26. Quantian Luo and Liyong Tong (2009). "Calculation of energy release rates for cohesive and
interlaminar delamination based on the classical beam-adhesive model." Journal of Composite
Materials 43 (4): 331-348.
27. Kashtalyan, M. and C. Soutis (2005). "Analysis of composite laminates with intra- and
interlaminar damage." Progress in Aerospace Sciences 41 (2): 152-173.
28. Wimmer, G. and H. E. Pettermann (2008). "A semi-analytical model for the simulation of
delamination in laminated composites." Composites Science and Technology 68 (12): 2332-
2339.
29. Shivakumar, K., H. Chen, F. Abali, D. Le and C. Davis (2006). "A total fatigue life model for
mode I delaminated composite laminates." International Journal of Fatigue 28 (1): 33-42.
30. Boniface, L., S. L. Ogin and P. A. Smith (1991). "Strain energy release rates and the fatigue
growth of matrix cracks in model arrays in composite laminates." Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 432 (1886): 427-444.
169
REFERENCES
31. Parvizi, A. and J. E. Bailey (1978). "On multiple transverse cracking in glass fibre epoxy
cross-ply laminates." Journal of Materials Science 13 (10): 2131-2136.
32. Huchette, C., Guinot, F. (2008). Experimental and numerical analysis on delamination
growth in damaged composite material. European Conference on Composite Materials 13.
Stockholm.
33. Leblond, P., A. El Mahi and J. M. Berthelot (1996). "2D and 3D numerical models of
transverse cracking in cross-ply laminates." Composites Science and Technology 56 (7): 793-
796.
34. Akshantala, N. V. and R. Talreja (2000). "A micromechanics based model for predicting
fatigue life of composite laminates." Materials Science and Engineering A 285 (1-2): 303-313.
35. Turon, A., P. P. Camanho, J. Costa and C. G. Dávila (2006). "A damage model for the
simulation of delamination in advanced composites under variable-mode loading." Mechanics
of Materials 38 (11): 1072-1089.
36. Manjunatha, C. M., A. C. Taylor, A. J. Kinloch and S. Sprenger (2010). "The tensile fatigue
behaviour of a silica nanoparticle-modified glass fibre reinforced epoxy composite."
37. Tong, J., F. J. Guild, S. L. Ogin and P. A. Smith (1997). "On matrix crack growth in quasi-
isotropic laminates--I. Experimental investigation." Composites Science and Technology 57
(11): 1527-1535.
38. Tong, J., F. J. Guild, S. L. Ogin and P. A. Smith (1997). "On matrix crack growth in quasi-
isotropic laminates--II. Finite element analysis." Composites Science and Technology 57 (11):
1537-1545.
39. Manjunatha, C. M., S. Sprenger, A. C. Taylor and A. J. Kinloch (2010). "The tensile fatigue
behavior of a glass-fiber reinforced plastic composite using a hybrid-toughened epoxy matrix."
Journal of Composite Materials 44 (17): 2095-2109.
40. Manjunatha, C., A. Taylor, A. Kinloch and S. Sprenger (2009). "The effect of rubber micro-
particles and silica nano-particles on the tensile fatigue behaviour of a glass-fibre epoxy
composite." Journal of Materials Science 44 (1): 342-345.
41. Robinson, P., U. Galvanetto, D. Tumino, G. Bellucci and D. Violeau (2005). "Numerical
simulation of fatigue-driven delamination using interface elements." International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 63 (13): 1824-1848.
42. Attia, O., A. J. Kinloch and F. L. Matthews (2003). "The prediction of fatigue damage growth
in impact-damaged composite skin/stringer structures. Part I: theoretical modelling studies."
43. Turon, A., J. Costa, P. P. Camanho and C. G. Dávila (2007). "Simulation of delamination in
composites under high-cycle fatigue." Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing
38 (11): 2270-2282.
44. Iannucci, L. (2006). "Dynamic delamination modelling using interface elements." Computers
& Structures 84 (15-16): 1029-1048.
170
REFERENCES
45. Khoramishad, H., A. D. Crocombe, K. B. Katnam and I. A. Ashcroft (2010). "Predicting

fatigue damage in adhesively bonded joints using a cohesive zone model." International Journal
of Fatigue 32 (7): 1146-1158.
46. Mao, H. and S. Mahadevan (2002). "Fatigue damage modelling of composite materials."
Composite Structures 58 (4): 405-410.
47. Masania, K. (2010), Toughening Mechanisms of Silica Nanoparticle-Modified Epoxy

Polymers, Ph.D Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London
48. Hsieh, T.-H. (2011), Properties and Toughening of Silica Nanoparticle- and Carbon
Nanotube-Modified Epoxy Polymers, Ph.D Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Imperial College London
49. Lee, J. S. (2009), The Fatigue Behaviour of Nano-Modified Epoxy Adhesives, Ph.D Thesis in
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London
50. ISO:13586:2000 (2000). Plastics - Determination of fracture toughness (GIC and KIC) - Linear
elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) approach.
51. ASTM:E647 (2008). Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack growth rates.
52. ISO:15024:2001 (2001). Fibre-reinforced plastic composites- Determination of mode I

interlaminar fracture toughness, GIC, for unidirectionally reinforced materials. ISO.
53. ISO:15850 (2002). "Plastics -Determination of tension-tension fatigue crack propagation -

Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) approach." ISO.
54. ASTM:E647 (2000). Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack growth rates.
55. ASTM:D3039 (2003). Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix
composite materials.
56. ASTM:D3479M (2007). Standard test method for tension-tension fatigue of polymer matrix
composite materials.
57. Ortiz, M. and A. Pandolfi (1999). "Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for
three-dimensional crack-propagation analysis." International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 44 (9): 1267-1282.
58. Feih, S. (2005). Development of a user element in ABAQUS for modelling of cohesive laws
in composite structures. Roskilde, Denmark, Risø National Laboratory.
of Materials 38 (11): 1072-1089.
60. Benzeggagh, M. L. and M. Kenane (1996). "Measurement of mixed-mode delamination

fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending
apparatus." Composites Science and Technology 56 (4): 439-449.
171
REFERENCES
61. Travesa, A. T. (2006), Simulation of Delamination in Composites under Quasi-static and

Fatigue Loading using Cohesive Zone Models, Mecánica y de la Construcción Industrial
62. Harper, P. W. and S. R. Hallett (2008). "Cohesive zone length in numerical simulations of
composite delamination." Engineering Fracture Mechanics 75 (16): 4774-4792.
63. Yang, B., S. Mall and K. Ravi-Chandar (2001). "A cohesive zone model for fatigue crack
growth in quasibrittle materials." International Journal of Solids and Structures 38 (22-23):
3927-3944.
64. Muñoz, J. J., U. Galvanetto and P. Robinson (2006). "On the numerical simulation of fatigue
driven delamination with interface elements." International Journal of Fatigue 28 (10): 1136-
1146.
65. Van Paepegem, W. and J. Degrieck (2001). "Fatigue degradation modelling of plain woven
glass/epoxy composites." Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 32 (10):
1433-1441.
66. Khashaba, U. A. (2004). "In-plane shear properties of cross-ply composite laminates with
different off-axis angles." Composite Structures 65 (2): 167-177.
67. Manjunatha, C., A. Taylor, A. Kinloch and S. Sprenger (2009). "The cyclic-fatigue behaviour
of an epoxy polymer modified with micron-rubber and nano-silica particles." Journal of
Materials Science 44 (16): 4487-4490.
68. Pegoretti, A., L. Fambri, G. Zappini and M. Bianchetti (2002). "Finite element analysis of a
glass fibre reinforced composite endodontic post." Biomaterials 23 (13): 2667-2682.
69. Callister, W. D. (2000). Materials Science And Engineering An Introduction, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
70. Turon, A., C. G. Dávila, P. P. Camanho and J. Costa (2007). "An engineering solution for
mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models." Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 74 (10): 1665-1682.
71. Kinloch, A. J. (2003). "Toughening epoxy adhesives to meet today's challenges." MRS
Bulletin 28 (06): 445-448.
72. Kinloch, A. J., S. J. Shaw, D. A. Tod and D. L. Hunston (1983). "Deformation and fracture
behaviour of a rubber-toughened epoxy: 1. Microstructure and fracture studies." Polymer 24
(10): 1341-1354.
73. Kinloch, A. J., S. J. Shaw and D. L. Hunston (1983). "Deformation and fracture behaviour of a
rubber-toughened epoxy: 2. Failure criteria." Polymer 24 (10): 1355-1363.
74. Hsieh, T. H., A. J. Kinloch, K. Masania, A. C. Taylor and S. Sprenger (2010). "The mechanisms
and mechanics of the toughening of epoxy polymers modified with silica nanoparticles."
Polymer 51 (26): 6284-6294.
75. Hsieh, T., A. Kinloch, K. Masania, J. Sohn Lee, A. Taylor and S. Sprenger (2010). "The
toughness of epoxy polymers and fibre composites modified with rubber microparticles and
silica nanoparticles." Journal of Materials Science 45 (5): 1193-1210.
172
REFERENCES
of Materials 38 (11): 1072-1089.
173
APPENDIX
Appendix
User Element Subroutine
SUBROUTINE UEL(RHS,AMATRX,SVARS,ENERGY,NDOFEL,NRHS,NSVARS,
PROPS,NPROPS,COORDS,MCRD,NNODE,U,DU,V,A,JTYPE,TIME,DTIME,
KSTEP,KINC,JELEM,PARAMS,NDLOAD,JDLTYP,ADLMAG,PREDEF,
NPREDF,LFLAGS,MLVARX,DDLMAG,MDLOAD,PNEWDT,JPROPS,NJPROP,
PERIOD)
INCLUDE 'ABA_PARAM.INC'
PARAMETER (NGAUS = 2)
DIMENSION RHS(MLVARX,*),AMATRX(NDOFEL,NDOFEL),PROPS(*),
SVARS(NSVARS),ENERGY(8),COORDS(MCRD,NNODE),U(NDOFEL),
DU(MLVARX,*),
V(NDOFEL),A(NDOFEL),TIME(2),PARAMS(*),JDLTYP(MDLOAD,*),
ADLMAG(MDLOAD,*),DDLMAG(MDLOAD,*),PREDEF(2,NPREDF,NNODE),
LFLAGS(*),JPROPS(*)
DIMENSION TAU(NNODE/2,MCRD),POSGP(2)
DIMENSION ASDIS(NNODE/2,MCRD)
DIMENSION DERIV(MCRD-1,NNODE/2),SHAPEE(NNODE/2),
BMATX(MCRD,NDOFEL),WEIGP(NGAUS),DBMAT(MCRD,NDOFEL),
DMATX(NNODE/2,MCRD,MCRD),XJACM(MCRD-1,MCRD),
KF(NNODE/2),SCALAR(NNODE/2),BMAT(MCRD,NDOFEL/2),
BMATXT(NDOFEL,MCRD),AAMATRX(NDOFEL,NDOFEL),VP(MCRD,MCRD),
BMATXB(MCRD,NDOFEL),VN(NDOFEL/2,NDOFEL)
IF (JTYPE.EQ.2) THEN
SVARS(1)=1.D0
SVARS(2)=1.D0
END IF
CALL NUMPROP(GIC,GIIC,T1,T2,PEN,ETA,THICK,NLGEOM,PROPS,JPROPS,
COORDS,MCRD,NNODE)
DO IEVAB=1,NDOFEL
DO JEVAB=1,NDOFEL
AMATRX(IEVAB,JEVAB)=0.0D0
END DO
RHS(IEVAB,1)=0.0D0
END DO
IF(LFLAGS(4).NE.0) THEN
STOP 771
END IF
IF(LFLAGS(3).EQ.1)THEN
CALL GAUSSQ(NGAUS,POSGP,WEIGP)
!--------------------------------------
! Numerical integration
!--------------------------------------
KGASP=0
DO IGAUS=1,NGAUS
DO JGAUS=1,1
KGASP=KGASP+1
R=POSGP(KGASP)
CALL SFR3(DERIV,R,MCRD,SHAPEE,NNODE,KGASP)
CALL JACOBT(DERIV,DNORMA3,COORDS,KGASP,MCRD,NNODE,
SHAPEE,VN,XJACM,JELEM,NDOFEL,U,THICK,NLGEOM,VP)
DAREA=0.0D0
DAREA=DNORMA3*WEIGP(IGAUS)*WEIGP(JGAUS)*THICK
174
APPENDIX
CALL BMATT (SHAPEE,NDOFEL,MCRD,BMATX,VN,NNODE,BMAT,VP,KGASP,

BMATXB)
!--------------------------------------
! Relative displacements
!--------------------------------------
DO ISTRE=1,MCRD
ASDIS(KGASP,ISTRE)=0.0D0
DO IEVAB=1,NDOFEL
ASDIS
(KGASP,ISTRE)=ASDIS(KGASP,ISTRE)+(BMATXB(ISTRE,IEVAB)*U(IEVAB))
END DO
END DO
!--------------------------------------¬
! [D] matrix
!--------------------------------------¬
CALL MODT (MCRD,DMATX,KGASP,JELEM,
PEN,ASDIS,T1,T2,GIC,GIIC,ETA,SVARS,KF,SCALAR,NNODE)
!---------------------------------------
! Traction vector
!---------------------------------------
DO ISTRE=1,MCRD
TAU(KGASP,ISTRE)=DMATX(KGASP,ISTRE,ISTRE)*ASDIS(KGASP,ISTRE)
END DO
!---------------------------------------¬
! Force vector
!---------------------------------------¬
BMATXT=TRANSPOSE(BMATX)
DO IEVAB=1,NDOFEL
DO ISTRE=1,MCRD
RHS(IEVAB,1)=RHS(IEVAB,1)-
BMATXT(IEVAB,ISTRE)*TAU(KGASP,ISTRE)*DAREA
END DO
END DO
!--------------------------------------¬
! Stiffness matrix
!--------------------------------------¬
CALL STIFF (MCRD,NDOFEL,NNODE,DMATX,BMATX,KGASP,ASDIS,
KF,SCALAR,DAREA,AAMATRX,JELEM,KINC,KSTEP,PNEWDT,TIME,DTIME,VP)
DO IEVAB=1,NDOFEL
DO JEVAB=1,NDOFEL
AMATRX(IEVAB,JEVAB)=AMATRX(IEVAB,JEVAB)+AAMATRX(IEVAB,JEVAB)
END DO
END DO
END DO
END DO
ELSE
Write(7,*)'*****WARNING LFLAGS(3)=',LFLAGS(3)
END IF
RETURN
END
!*****************SUBROUTINE NUMPROP*************
! Materials properties
!************************************************
SUBROUTINE NUMPROP(GIC,GIIC,T1,T2,PEN,ETA,THICK,NLGEOM,PROPS,
JPROPS,COORDS,MCRD,NNODE)
DIMENSION COORDS(MCRD,NNODE),PROPS(*),JPROPS(*)
GIC= PROPS(1)
GIIC= PROPS(2)
T1= PROPS(3)
175
APPENDIX
T2= PROPS(4)
PEN= PROPS(5)
ETA = PROPS(6)
THICK = PROPS(7)
NLGEOM = JPROPS(1)
RETURN
END
!*****************SUBROUTINE GAUSSQ*******
! Integration points
!*****************************************
SUBROUTINE GAUSSQ(NGAUS,POSGP,WEIGP)
DIMENSION POSGP(2),WEIGP(NGAUS)
POSGP(1)=-1.0D0
POSGP(2)=1.0D0
WEIGP(1)=1.0D0
WEIGP(2)=1.0D0
RETURN
END
!*****************SUBROUTINE MODT**************
! [D] matrix calculation
!**********************************************
SUBROUTINE MODT (MCRD,DMATX,KGASP,JELEM,
PEN,ASDIS,T1,T2,GIC,GIIC,ETA,SVARS,KF,SCALAR,NNODE)
DIMENSION DMATX(NNODE/2,MCRD,MCRD),ASDIS(NNODE/2,MCRD),
SVARS(*),KF(NNODE/2),SCALAR(NNODE/2),PBEF(2)
KF(KGASP) = 0
thickness= !VALUE
ODI = T1/(PEN/thickness)
ODII = T2/(PEN/thickness)
DDI = ASDIS(KGASP,2)
DII = ABS(ASDIS(KGASP,1))
IF (ABS(DDI).LT.1.0D-20) THEN
BETA = 1.0D0
CYCDI=DII
ELSE
BETA = DII/(ABS(DDI)+DII)
CYCDI = SQRT(DDI*DDI+DII*DII)
END IF
A =(BETA**2/(1.0d0+2.0d0*BETA**2-2.0d0*BETA))**ETA
OD=SQRT(ODI**2+(ODII**2-ODI**2)*A)
FD = 2.0d0*(GIc+(GIIc-GIc)*A)/((PEN/thickness)*OD)
TR=OD*(PEN/thickness)
GCR=0.50d0*(PEN/thickness)*OD*FD
GTH= !INPUT VALUE
GR=GCR
WIDTH= !INPUT VALUE
PBEF(1)=!INPUT VALUE
PBEF(2)=!INPUT VALUE
E33=!VALUE
DISPOLD=SVARS(KGASP+8)
DAMFATOLD=SVARS(KGASP+4)
IF (DISPOLD.LE.CYCDI.AND.CYCDI.GE.0.0d0) THEN
DI=CYCDI
END IF
IF (DISPOLD.GE.CYCDI.AND.CYCDI.GE.0.0d0) THEN
DI=DISPOLD
END IF
IF (CYCDI.LT.0.0d0) THEN
176
APPENDIX
DI=DISPOLD
END IF
IF (DI.LE.OD.AND.DI.GE.0.0d0) THEN
DAMSTATT(1)=0.0d0
END IF
IF (DI.GT.OD.AND.DI.LE.FD.AND.DI.GT.0.0d0) THEN
DAMSTATT(1)=FD/DI*(DI-OD)/(FD-OD)
END IF
IF (DI.GT.FD) THEN
DAMSTATT(1)=1.0d0
END IF
IF (DI.LT.0.0D0) THEN
DAMSTATT(1)=SVARS(KGASP)
END IF
IF (DAMSTATT(1).LE.SVARS(KGASP)) THEN
DAMSTATT(1)=SVARS(KGASP)
END IF
IF (DAMSTATT(1).GT.1.0d0) THEN
DAMSTATT(1)=1.0d0
END IF
IF (DI.LE.OD.AND.DI.GE.0.0d0) THEN
GMAX=(PEN/thickness)*DI**2.0d0/2.0d0
END IF
IF (DI.GT.OD.AND.DI.LE.FD.AND.DI.GT.0.0d0) THEN
GMAX=(PEN/thickness)*OD*OD/2.0d0 +
(((1.0d0-DAMSTATT(1))*(PEN/thickness)*DI+TR)/2.0d0*(DI-OD) )
END IF
IF (DI.GT.FD.OR.DI.LE.0.0d0) THEN
GMAX=0.0d0
END IF
IF (GMAX.GE.GTH.AND.GMAX.LE.GCR) THEN
RATE=WIDTH*PBEF(1)*(GMAX/GR)**PBEF(2)
ELSE
RATE=0.0d0
END IF
ACZ=WIDTH*9.0d0*22.0d0*E33*GMAX/(32.0d0*7.0d0*TR**2.0d0)
IF (ACZ.GT.0.0d0) THEN
DRATE=(FD*(1.0d0-DAMSTATT(1))+
DAMSTATT(1)*OD)**2.0d0*(RATE)/
(FD*OD*ACZ)
ELSE
DRATE=(FD*(1.0d0-DAMSTATT(1))+
DAMSTATT(1)*OD)**2.0d0*(RATE)/
(FD*OD*0.1d0*WIDTH)
END IF
DAMSTATT(2)=DAMFATOLD + DTIME*DRATE
DAMTOT= DAMSTATT(1)+DAMSTATT(2)
IF (DAMTOT.GE.1.0d0) THEN
DAMTOT=0.999999999d0
END IF
IF (DAMTOT.GT.(SVARS(KGASP)+SVARS(KGASP+4))) THEN
KF(KGASP) = 1
ELSE
KF(KGASP) = 0
END IF
IF (DAMTOT.GT.1.0D0) THEN
DAMTOT = 1.0D0
KF(KGASP)=0
END IF
DO I=1,MCRD
177
APPENDIX
DO J=1,MCRD
DMATX(KGASP,I,J)=0.D0
END DO
DMATX(KGASP,I,I)=(1.0D0-DAMTOT)*(PEN/thickness)
END DO
IF (DI.LT.0.D0) THEN
DMATX(KGASP,MCRD,MCRD)=(PEN/thickness)
END IF
IF(KF(KGASP).EQ.1) THEN
SCALAR(KGASP) = FD*OD*(PEN/thickness)/(DI**3*(FD-OD))
END IF
SVARS(KGASP)= DAMSTATT(1)
SVARS(KGASP+4)= DAMSTATT(2)
SVARS(KGASP+8)= CYCDI
RETURN
END
!***************** SUBROUTINE STIFF *************

! Stiffness matrix
!************************************************
SUBROUTINE STIFF (MCRD,NDOFEL,NNODE,DMATX,BMATX,KGASP,ASDIS,
KF,SCALAR,DAREA,AAMATRX,JELEM,KINC,KSTEP,PNEWDT,TIME,DTIME,VP)
PARAMETER (ITMAX=15)
DIMENSION AAMATRX(NDOFEL,NDOFEL),DMATX(NNODE/2,MCRD,MCRD),
SCALAR(NNODE/2),ASDIS(NNODE/2,MCRD),BMATX(MCRD,NDOFEL),
DTANG(NNODE/2,MCRD,MCRD),DBMAT(MCRD,NDOFEL),KF(NNODE/2),
TIME(2),VP(MCRD,MCRD),BMATXTT(NDOFEL,MCRD)
COMMON /KZERO/ KSEC
COMMON /KINCREMENTZ/ KINC1
COMMON /KCOUNTINGZ/ KCOUNT
COMMON /KAUX/ KELEMENT
COMMON /KELLABEL/ KLABEL
COMMON /KCHSTEP/ KSTEP1
COMMON TI
IF(KELEMENT.NE.1) THEN
KLABEL = JELEM
KELEMENT = 1
END IF
IF(KINC.NE.KINC1.AND.KSTEP1.NE.KSTEP) THEN
IF(JELEM.EQ.KLABEL) THEN
KCOUNT = KCOUNT+1
KINC1 = KINC+1
KSTEP1 = KSTEP+1
END IF
ELSE
KCOUNT = 0
KINC1 = KINC+1
KSTEP1 = KSTEP +1
KSEC = 0
TI = DTIME
END IF
IF(KCOUNT.GE.ITMAX*NNODE/2) THEN
IF(DTIME.NE.TI) THEN
KCOUNT=0
TI=DTIME
KSEC=1
END IF
END IF
178
APPENDIX
IF
(JELEM.EQ.KLABEL.AND.KCOUNT.GE.ITMAX*NNODE/2.AND.KSEC.NE.1)THEN
PNEWDT = 0.9D0
END IF
DO I=1,MCRD
DO J=1,MCRD
DTANG(KGASP,I,J)=DMATX(KGASP,I,J)
END DO
END DO
IF (KCOUNT.LT.(ITMAX+1)*NNODE/2) THEN
IF (KF(KGASP).EQ.1) THEN
DO I=1,MCRD
DO J=1,MCRD
DTANG(KGASP,I,J)=DMATX(KGASP,I,J)-
SCALAR(KGASP)*ASDIS(KGASP,J)*ASDIS(KGASP,I)
END DO
END DO
IF (ASDIS(KGASP,MCRD).LT.0.D0) THEN
DO I=1,MCRD
DTANG(KGASP,MCRD,I)=DMATX(KGASP,MCRD,I)
DTANG (KGASP,I,MCRD)=DMATX(KGASP,I,MCRD)
END DO
END IF
END IF
ELSE
END IF
!--------------------------------------
!calculate [DTAN]x[B]
!--------------------------------------
DO I=1,MCRD
DO J=1,NDOFEL
DBMAT(I,J)=0.0D0
DO K=1,MCRD
DBMAT(I,J)=DBMAT(I,J)+(DTANG(KGASP,I,K)*BMATX(K,J))
END DO
END DO
END DO
DO IEVAB=1,NDOFEL
DO JEVAB=1,NDOFEL
AAMATRX(IEVAB,JEVAB)=0.0D0
END DO
END DO
!------------------------
!calculate [BT]x[DTAN]x[B]dA
!-------------------------
BMATXTT=TRANSPOSE(BMATX)
DO IEVAB=1,NDOFEL
DO JEVAB=1,NDOFEL
DO ISTRE=1,MCRD
AAMATRX(IEVAB,JEVAB)=AAMATRX(IEVAB,JEVAB)+BMATXTT(IEVAB,ISTRE)*
DBMAT(MCRD,JEVAB)*DAREA
END DO
END DO
END DO
RETURN
END
179
APPENDIX
!***************** SUBROUTINE BMATT *************

! [B] matrix
!************************************************
SUBROUTINE BMATT
(SHAPEE,NDOFEL,MCRD,BMATX,VN,NNODE,BMAT,VP,KGASP,
BMATXB)
DIMENSION
SHAPEE(NNODE/2),BMATX(MCRD,NDOFEL),BMAT(MCRD,NDOFEL/2),
VN(NDOFEL/2,NDOFEL),BMATXB(MCRD,NDOFEL),VP(MCRD,MCRD)
DO I=1,MCRD
DO J=1,NDOFEL/2
BMAT(I,J)=0.0D0
END DO
END DO
DO I=1,MCRD
K=0
DO J=1,(NDOFEL/2),MCRD
K=K+1
BMAT(I,J+I-1)=SHAPEE(K)
END DO
END DO
DO I=1,MCRD
DO J=1,NDOFEL
BMATXB(I,J)=0.0D0
DO M=1,NDOFEL/2
BMATXB(I,J)=BMATXB(I,J)+BMAT(I,M)*VN(M,J)
END DO
END DO
END DO
DO I=1,MCRD
DO J=1,NDOFEL
BMATX(I,J)=0.0D0
DO M=1,MCRD
BMATX(I,J)=BMATX(I,J)+VP(I,M)*BMATXB(M,J)
END DO
END DO
END DO
RETURN
END
!*****************SUBROUTINE JACOBT********
! Jacobian matrix
!******************************************
SUBROUTINE JACOBT(DERIV,DNORMA3,COORDS,KGASP,MCRD,NNODE ,
SHAPE,VN,XJACM,JELEM,NDOFEL,U,THICK,NLGEOM,VP)
DIMENSION COORDS(MCRD,NNODE),SHAPEE(NNODE/2),
VN(NDOFEL/2,NDOFEL),XJACM(MCRD-1,MCRD),U(NDOFEL),VP(MCRD,MCRD),
VPP(MCRD,MCRD),DERIV(MCRD-1,NNODE/2)
DO I=1,NDOFEL/2
DO J=1,NDOFEL
VN(I,J)=0.0D0
END DO
END DO
DO I=1,NDOFEL/2
VN(I,I)=-1.0D0
END DO
180
APPENDIX
PAD=0
DO I=NDOFEL/2+1,NDOFEL
PAD=PAD+1
VN(PAD,I)=1.0D0
END DO
DO IDIME=1,MCRD-1
DO JDIME=1,MCRD
XJACM(IDIME,JDIME)=0.0D0
DO INODE=1,NNODE/2
XJACM(IDIME,JDIME)=XJACM(IDIME,JDIME)+DERIV(IDIME,INODE)*
(0.50D0*(COORDS(JDIME,INODE+2)+COORDS(JDIME,INODE))
+0.50D0*(U((INODE-1)*MCRD+JDIME)+
U((INODE+NNODE/2-1)*MCRD+JDIME)))
END DO
END DO
END DO
DNORMA3=SQRT(XJACM(1,1)**2+XJACM(1,2)**2)
VPP(1,1)=XJACM(1,1)/DNORMA3
VPP(1,2)=-XJACM(1,2)/DNORMA3
VP=VPP
RETURN
END
!*****************SUBROUTINE SFR3***********
! Shape functions
!*******************************************
SUBROUTINE SFR3(DERIV,R,MCRD,SHAPEE,NNODE,KGASP)
DIMENSION SHAPEE(NNODE/2),DERIV(MCRD-1,NNODE/2)
RP=1.0D0+R
RN=1.0D0-R
DO I=1,NNODE/2
SHAPEE(I)=0.0D0
DO J=1,MCRD-1
DERIV(J,I)=0.0D0
END DO
END DO
SHAPEE(1)=RN/2.0D0
SHAPEE(2)=RP/2.0D0
DERIV(1,1)=-0.5D0
DERIV(1,2)=0.5D0
RETURN
END
181

Babu JB 2012 PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Babu JB 2012 PHD Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREDICTING THE FATIGUE BEHAVIOUR OF

MATRICES AND FIBRE-COMPOSITES

and the Diploma of Imperial College

Department of Mechanical Engineering

It is a pleasure to thank many people who have helped me during my Ph.D

I am very grateful to the laboratory staff of the Mechanical Engineering and

Contents ......................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ................................................................................................. ix

List of Tables ................................................................................................ xix

Nomenclature ............................................................................................... xxi

English Alphabet ..........................................................................................xxii

Greek Alphabet ........................................................................................... xxv

1. Introduction and Objectives

1.2 Damage in Composites ............................................................................. 3

1.3 Modelling Techniques................................................................................ 4

1.4 Objectives of the Present Research .......................................................... 5

1.5 Structure of the Thesis .............................................................................. 5

2.2 Fracture Mechanics ................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) ......................................... 7

2.2.2 Modes of fracture ................................................................................ 8

2.2.3 Griffith's criterion ................................................................................. 9

2.2.4 Stress intensity factor........................................................................ 10

2.3 Damage ................................................................................................... 11

2.3.1 Static damage ................................................................................... 11

2.3.2 Fatigue damage ................................................................................ 12

2.4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 17

2.4.2 The Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) method ..................... 17

2.4.3 The Cohesive Zone Model (CZM) method ........................................ 19

2.4.3.2 Pure mode loading ..................................................................... 23

2.4.3.3 Mixed-mode loading ................................................................... 23

2.4.4 The Energy method .......................................................................... 25

2.5.1 Quasi-static loading .......................................................................... 28

2.5.2 Fatigue loading ................................................................................. 31

2.6 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................... 39

3.2 Materials .................................................................................................. 42

3.3 Preparation of Epoxy Matrix Polymer Specimens.................................... 42

3.3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 42

3.3.2 Preparation of plates ......................................................................... 43

3.3.3 Single edge notched bending (SENB) specimens ............................ 43

3.3.4 Compact tension (CT) specimens ..................................................... 44

3.4 Preparation of GFRP Composite Specimens .......................................... 44

3.4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 44

3.4.2 Resin infusion under flexible tooling (RIFT) ...................................... 44

3.4.3 Double cantilever beam (DCB) specimens ....................................... 45

3.4.4 Composite strip specimens ............................................................... 46

3.5.2 Single edge notched bending (SENB) tests ...................................... 47

3.5.3 Compact tension (CT) tests .............................................................. 48

3.6 Test Methods for the GFRP Composite Specimens ................................ 49

3.6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 49

3.6.2 DCB tests: Quasi-static tests ............................................................ 50

3.6.3 DCB tests: Cyclic-fatigue tests .......................................................... 52

3.7 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................... 54

4.2 Quasi-Static Analysis............................................................................... 55

4.2.1 The Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) .................................. 55

4.2.2 The cohesive zone law ..................................................................... 57

4.2.2.1 Kinematics .................................................................................. 57

4.2.2.2 Constitutive laws ........................................................................ 59

4.2.2.3 Mathematical formulation ........................................................... 60

4.2.3 A bi-linear cohesive zone law ........................................................... 66

4.2.3.1 Norm of displacement jump tensor ............................................. 68

4.2.3.2 Damage ...................................................................................... 69

4.2.3.3 Mixed-mode loading: onset of crack growth ............................... 70

4.2.3.4 Mixed-mode loading: crack propagation ..................................... 71