Harbin Institute of Technology

HIT Graduate Course SYW33005Q / S0933065Q

Fiber Reinforced Polymers in Civil Engineering

Prof. Dr. h.c. Urs Meier
Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for
Materials Science and Technology
Department of Engineering Sciences
Institution of the ETH Domain
Prof. Dr. Guijun Xian
Laboratory for FRP Composites and
Structures (LFCS)
School of Civil Engineering
Harbin Institute of Technology

Volume 4: Engineering design with highly-oriented fiber reinforced

polymers: Rules for designing / Net theory / Continuum theory /
non-linearity / Lamina-by-lamina fracture analysis

November / December 2017

Printed by Empa Printing Office in November 2017

Head: Martin Gutknecht

 cont. 4.3 Rules for designing compo- cont. 4.3 Rules for designing compo-
nents made of fiber-reinforced plastics nents made of fiber-reinforced plastics
Ideal configuration of high performance • fiber direction vary from layer to layer
laminates: • "homogeneous" stacking sequence
• fibers stretched as far as possible, ideally (exception: sandwich stacking sequence,
on a *geodesic line possibly hybrid, bending and torsion)
• fabrics less suitable • symmetry relative to center plane
• 0.1 ... 1 mm UD layers
* the shortest line lying on a given surface and
connecting two given points

cont. 4.3 Rules for designing compo- 4.4 Basics of the Net Theory
nents made of fiber-reinforced plastics
"homogeneous“ “Sandwich“
stacking sequence stacking sequence 4.41 Assumptions and definitions
Stress analysis of a multilayer
composite

Pro memoria: „small, plane“ volume element Net Theory: Assumptions

• Plate (membrane)
y
• Force nj absorption only by fiber, not by matrix
xx z • Only forces nj [force per unit of width] in fiber
direction
• Within a UD ply, all fibers have the same
.z stress, i.e. the fibers form the shortest
Global coordinates
y

x, y, and z connection between two points

Page 143
 Net Theory: Assumptions Net Theory: „Knee Point“ in /-Diagram

• Only valid between micro cracking limit ( "knee

point") and fiber breaking stress (failure)
Net Theory
• Assumptions of the net theory in the area of the
fiber breaking stress are best fulfilled: It
generally describes the behavior of a multilayer
laminate under stresses close to the fiber Continuum Theory GFRP;  = 56 Vol%
breaking limit. Loading in 0° direction

Net Theory: „Knee Point“ in /-Diagram Quiz: Design with ….

A) Continuum Theory
GFRP;  = 56 Vol%
Loading in 0° direction B) Net Theory
Stress [N/mm2]

C) neither

Load
Fairing

Strain [%]

Quiz: Design with …. Quiz: Design with ….

A) Continuum Theory
B) Net Theory
C) neither

A) Continuum Theory
B) Net Theory
C) neither

Page 144
Quiz: Design with …. Quiz: Design with ….
A) Continuum Theory A) Continuum Theory
B) Net Theory B) Net Theory
C) neither C) neither

Folded roof structure

Heinz Isler
Lichthof Realschule GFRP
Geislingen BRD fiber volume =18%

Net Theory

• A multilayer laminate of the thickness t consists of n • The fiber volume fraction  of the multilayer laminate
UD-plies and possibly isotropic layers, numbered by is:
the index k = 1 to n and having different thicknesses tk
• The fiber volume fraction k of the k-th layer is: tF (4.53)

t
 k  tF,k (4.52) tk
tk tF,k n
tF   tF,k
k 1

• According to the assumption that no forces are

absorbed by the matrix, the average stress
directed parallel to the fibers is in the k-th UD-
ply
 llk   k . F,k (4.55)

F,k = stress in the fibers of the k-th UD-ply

:= positive off-axis angle k

Page 145
 4.42 Determination of forces in the UD-plies

Forces per unit width smeared over the From the assumptions follows for the k-th UD-
laminate: ply:

n x   x . t (4.56)

n y   y . t (4.57)     ll   #  0 (4.59)

n xy   xy . t (4.58)

From "Mohr's circle" follows: tF is for the laminate:

n
nllk
n x   nllk cos 2  k (4.60) nllk  F,k tF,k resp.. tF,k 
bzw (4.63)
k 1 F,k
n
n y   nllk sin2  k (4.61)
k 1 n
n t F   t F ,k (4.64)
nllk
n xy    sin 2 k (4.62) k 1

k 1 2

tF is for the laminate: From Eq. (4.63) follows

nllk
nllk  F,k tF,k resp.. tF,k 
bzw (4.63)
F,k n
nllk
tF   (4.65)
k 1 F,k
n
t F   t F ,k (4.64)
k 1

Page 146
The addition of Eq. (4.60) and (4.61) results in: ^ and n^
If nx y are major normal forces, the
^ and n
following considerations hold. If n ^ are
n x y
n x   nllk cos 2  k (4.60) both tensile
^ forces,
^ the minimum fiber effort is
k 1 obtained, when all layer forces are also tensile
n forces. From Eq. (4.65) and (4.66) as follows::
n y   nllk sin2  k (4.61)
k 1 n
tF  
nllk
nˆ x  nˆ y
k 1 F,k t F  t F,min  (4.67)
n n σ F,t
nˆ x  nˆ y   nllk (4.66) nˆ x  nˆ y   nllk
k 1 k 1 F,t = tensile stress in fibers

^ and n^ ^ and n^
If nx y are both compressive forces, the If nx y are both tensile forces, but in the
minimum fiber effort is obtained, when all layer laminate in individual layers compressive forces
forces^ are also
^ compressive force follows occur, follows:
analoguous:
n n
nˆ x  nˆ y   nllk,t   nllk,c (4.69)
k,t k,c
nˆ x  nˆ y
t F  t F,min  (4.68) n n
σ F,c
 nllt  nˆ x  nˆ y   nllk,c (4.70)
F,c = compressive stress in fibers k,t k,c

The total fiber thickness tF is thus, for the case If nx and ny are both compressive forces,
where n^ and n ^ tensile forces, but certain UD-
x y applies analogously
plies have compressive forces

nˆ x  nˆ y 1 n 1 n nˆ x  nˆ y 1 n 1 n
tF 
σ F,t
  llk,c σ 
σ F,c k,c
n  nllk,c tF 
σ F,c
  llk,t σ 
σ F,t k,t
n  nllk,t
F,t k,c F,c k,t

       
      
ll ll ll ll ll ll
t F,min additional additional t F,min additional additional
expenditur e expenditure expenditure expenditure
(4.71) (4.72)

Page 147
It follows that minimum fiber expenditure can be If this is taken into account, the required "total
achieved if the following recommendations are fiber thickness“ tF is always independent of the
observed: choice of the layer number n and the angle k:
^ and n
• If n ^ have the same sign, ensure that all UD-
x y
^ and n
layer forces nllk have the same sign as n ^ by a
x y
suitable choice of k. nˆ x  nˆ y
• The fiber thicknesses tF,k of the individual UD-layers t F  t F,min  (4.67)
are to be chosen in such a way that the same stress σ F,t
F,t or F,c occurs in all UD-layers corresponding to
the occurring layer forces nllk. nˆ x  nˆ y
t F  t F,min  (4.68)
σ F,c

^ and n
If the main normal forces n ^ have unequal After the determination of tF,min according to Eq.
x y
signs, the minimum fiber expenditure is obtained (4.67) and (4.68) can the UD-layers (resp. tF,k)
when the fibers are arranged in main normal be dimensioned according to Eq. (4.63) and
directions of force. (4.65). The fiber volume fraction k of a UD-
layer is, as already indicated earlier:

t F,k
Φk  (4.52)
tk

Conclusions Net Theory Conclusions Net Theory

A multilayer laminate composed of three
or more different fiber directions is capable
of absorbing any planar stress without the
aid of the matrix - solely by means of fiber
forces.
A laminate with only two different fiber
directions is not capable of absorbing any
planar stress condition without the aid of
the matrix.

Page 148
Conclusions Net Theory Example: Calculation of needed tF

If three different fiber directions are Given: external loads per width ^ny = 9n
^ and ^
x nxy = 0,
this means ^nx and ^ny are major normal forces.
present, the layer forces can be calculated
on the basis of the equilibrium conditions Wanted: needed tF for four y 90°
^ =9n
n ^
(statically determined system). For more different fiber arrangements y x
than three different fiber directions, the
^
problem becomes static undetermined and nx
the compatibility conditions must be
considered. x 0°

Example: Calculation of needed tF Example: Calculation of needed tF

a) 1 = 60° y 90° a) 1 = 60° y 90°

2 ^ =9n
n ^ 2 ^ =9n
n ^
= -60° y x = -60° y x
3 = 90° 3 = 90°
^
n ^
n
x x
b) 1 = 75.96° b) 1 = 75.96°
2 = -75.96° x 0° 2 = -75.96° x 0°
3 = 0° 3 = 0°

Example: Calculation of needed tF Example: Calculation of needed tF

c) 1 = 0° y 90° c) 1 = 0° y 90°
2 ^ =9n
n ^ 2 ^ =9n
n ^
= 90° y x = 90° y x

MSV d) 1 = 60° ^
n d) 1 = 60° ^
n
x x
2 = -60° 2 = -60°
3 = 0° x 0° 3 = 0° x 0°

Page 149
From "Mohr's circle" follows: Nach den
From Gl. (4.60)circle"
"Mohr's bis (4.62)follows
gilt für denfor
MSVa):a):
2 2 2
n x = nll1cos α1  nll2cos α 2  nll3cos α3
n
n x   nllk cos 2  k (4.60)
= nll10.25  nll2 0.25  nll3 0

k 1 2 2 2
n y = nll1sin α1  nll2 sin α 2  nll3 sin α 3
n
n y   nllk sin2  k (4.61) = nll10. 75  nll2 0. 75  nll3 1
k 1
n n n 
n n xy = n22 α1  ll2 sin
  ll1 sin n22 α 2  ll3 sin22 α3 
nllk
n xy    sin 2 k (4.62)  2 2 2 
2 =  nll10.43  nll2 0.43  nll3 0 
k 1

From the above equilibrium conditions and the Example: Calculation of needed tF; cont.
^ = 9n
specifications n ^ = 0 as well follow:
^ and n
y x xy

nll1  nll2 and nˆ x  0.5nll1  0 c) 1 = 0° y 90°

nll1  2nˆ x 2 = 90° ^ =9n
ny
^
x
9nˆ x  1.5nll1  nll3
nll3  6nˆ x d) 1 = 60° ^
n x
3
nllk 2nˆ x  2nˆ x  6nˆ x 10nˆ x 2 = -60°
tF     3
1 σ F,k σF σF = 0° x 0°
tF 3t
t F1  t F2  ; t F3  F
5 5

The solution routes for calculating the fiber content From the above equilibrium conditions and the
needed for cases b) to d) are analogous. In the specifications n ^ = 0 as well follow:
^ and n
^ = 9n
= y x xy
following, only the solution for case d) and a tabular nll1  nll2  6nˆ x
summary of all results will be presented.
According to Eq. (4.60) to (4.62) applies to d): nll3  2nˆ x (compressi on! )

n x  nll10. 25  nll2 0. 25  nll3 1 assumption : σ F,t  σ F,c  σ F

3 nllk 6nˆ x  6nˆ x  2nˆ x 14nˆ x
nˆ y  nll1 0.75  nll 2 0.75  nll 3 0 tF    
1 σ F,k σF sF
n n n  3t F t
nˆ xy   ll1 0.87  ll2 0.87  ll3 0  t F1  t F2  ; t F3  F
 2 2 2  7 7

Page 150
 Table final results of tF Table 4.6: Examples of strength values of
UD-plies (similar materials like in table 4.5)
Laminattyp T 300/5208 B (4)/5505 AS/3501 Scotchply 1002 Kevlar 49/
Epoxy

llzB
llUTS
1'500 1'260 1'447 1'062 1'400
2
(N/mm )

lllldB
UCS 1'500 2'500 1'447 610 235
2
(N/mm )

zB
UTS
40 61 51.7 31 12
2
(N/mm )

dB
UCS
246 202 206 118 53
2
(N/mm )

#B
#USS
68 67 93 72 34
2
(N/mm )
*assumption : σ  σ F,c  σ F
F,t

Quiz: Net Theory 4.5 Basics of the Continuum Theory of

FRP Laminates
The net theory is not suitable for:

A) Optimization studies
B) Proof of safety against rupture
C) Stability calculations (buckling)

„small, plane“ volume element „small, plane“ volume element

xx z

.z
Global coordinates
y

x, y, and z

Page 151
„small, plane“ volume element
“fiber/matrix” continuum
Use of micro-indenter for load displacement
measurements and to detect fiber push-out
A. Battista Empa/MSE
• The elastic constants of the MSV are
calculated from the elasticity of the individual
layers (Chapter 4.2) taking into account the
equilibrium-, the compatibility-conditions and
Hook's law.
• The classical hypotheses of disk and plate
theory form the basis of stress and
deformation analysis.
Page 152
4.51 Assumptions and Definitions
• The matrix material is in composite action.
• The multilayer composite is composed of
individual homogeneous orthotropic or/and
isotropic layers.
• The composite element “fiber/matrix” is
considered as a continuum.
• There is an ideal composite action between
the individual layers (plies).
• Hooke's law is valid.
• An element which is stressed only by forces
in a plane (membrane stress state) and
whose center surface remains flat during the
shape change is a disk. In contrast, an
element whose center surface undergoes a
curvature due to flexural stress is called a
plate.
Stiffness Matrix for UD-Ply (Table 4.4) Stiffnesses of the individual ply (layer),
transformed into the global x/y- axis
Stress-strain relationships for an UD-ply system (trigonometric functions)
in the orthotropic axis system, based on the
stiffnesses d d'11k  dllk cos 4 αk  dk sin4 αk  1/2 D'lk sin2 2αk (4.83)
 ll  # k
 ll dll dll 0
 dll d 0
 # 0 0 d# k x positiv
IIk

d'22k  dk cos 4 αk  dllk sin4 αk  1/2 D'lk sin2 2αk (4.84) The matrix [d'k] can be formed from the
individual elements dijk in the global x/y-axis
d'33k  d#k  1/4 D'2k sin 2αk 2
(4.85) coordinate system (for each individual ply of the
d'12k  d' 21k  dllk  1/4 D'2k sin 2αk 2
(4.86) multilayer laminate)
 d'11k d'12k d'13k 

d'13k  d'31k  1/2 D'2k sin2 αk  dllk  D'lk  sin2 αk (4.87) d'k  d' 21k d' 22k d' 23k  (N/mm 2 ) (4.91)
d'23k  d'32k  1/2 dk  D'lk   D'2k sin αk sin2αk (4.88) 2
 d'31k d'32k d'33k 

D'lk  dllk  2d #k (4.89)

D'2k  dllk  dk  2D'lk (4.90)

Quiz: Transformation Quiz: Transformation

k = 90° Which representation is correct? k = 33° Which representation is correct?

A)  d'
0 11k d'12k d'13k  B)  d'11k 0 12k
d' 013k 
d' A)  d'
0 11k d'12k d'13k  B)  d'11k 0 12k
d' 013k 
d'
d'k  d' 21k 0 22k
d' d' 23k  d'k  d'
0 21k d' 22k d' 23k  d'k  d' 21k 0 22k
d' d' 23k  d'k  d'
0 21k d' 22k d' 23k 
d'31k d'32k 033k 
d' d'
0 31k d'32k d'33k  d'31k d'32k 033k 
d' d'
0 31k d'32k d'33k 

C)  d'11k d'12k 0 13k 

d' D)  d'
0 11k d'12k d'13k  C)  d'11k d'12k 0 13k 
d' D)  d'11k d'12k d'13k 
d'k  d' 21k d' 22k 0 23k 
d' d'k  d'
0 21k d' 22k 023k 
d' d'k  d' 21k d' 22k 0 23k 
d' d'k  d' 21k d' 22k d' 23k 
d'
0 31k 0 32k
d' d'33k  d'31k d'32k 033k 
d' d'
0 31k 0 32k
d' d'33k  d'31k d'32k d'33k 

Page 153
The thickness tk of the individual layer k is taken First contribution to build the stiffness matrix S of
into account in the formation of the disk matrix the multilayer laminate
[d*k] of the k-th layer as follows:
d11 d12 d13 k 14 k15 k 16 
*  d' t
dijk  
ijk k (4.92) Disk matrix d21 d22 d23 k 24 k 25 k 26 
d d32 d33 k 34 k 35 k 36 
S   31 
k 41 k 42 k 43 b11 b12 b13 
 d* *
d12k * 
d13k k 51 k 52 k 53 b 21 b 22 b 23 
 11k   
dk*  d*21k d*
22k d*23k  (N/mm) (4.93) k 61 k 62 k 63 b 31 b 32 b 33 
 * * 
d31k d*32k d33k 
 

Next step: Calculations for the plate matrix Taking the bending stiffness b*ijk of each ply into
(bending stiffness, flexure) account (bending stiffness matrix)

Centroidal axis

The formation of the plate matrix [b*k] of the k-th b * *

b12k * 
b13k
ply (layer) in the global coordinate system is  11k 
based on the disk matrix d*k of this layer and the bk*  b *21k b *
22k
*
b 23k  (4.95)
 * 
parallel axis theorem (Steiner's theorem) b 31k b* 32k b *33k 
 

d11 d12 d13 k 14 k15 k 16 

*  d'  t k  z 2 t 
3
bijk  
ijk  k k
(4.94) d d22 d23 k 24 k 25 k 26 
 12   21
d31 d32 d33 k 34 k 35 k 36 
S 
3
tk k 41 k 42 k 43 b11 b12 b13 
d'ijk  inherent stiffness of the k-th ply (layer) k 51 k 52 k 53 b 21 b 22 b 23  Plate matrix
12  
k 61 k 62 k 63 b 31 b 32 b 33 

Page 154
The coefficients of the coupling matrix [k*k] of the Contribution to build the stiffness matrix S of the
k-th ply (layer) are determined with the aid of the multilayer laminate
coefficients in the stiffness matrix of the k-th layer
[d'k]:
d11 d12 d13 k 14 k15 k 16 
k ijk  
*  d' z t
ijk k k (4.96) d
 21 d22 d23 k 24 k 25 k 26 
d31 d32 d33 k 34 k 35 k 36 
k * * *  S 
k 15k k 16k k 41 k 42 k 43 b11 b12 b13 
 14k  k 51
k k*  k *24k k* k *26k  k 52 k 53 b 21 b 22 b 23 
25k (4.97)  
 *  k 61 k 62 k 63 b 31 b 32 b 33 
k 34k k*
35k k *36k 
 

Stiffnesses of the multilayer laminate based Finally we get the Stiffness Matrix S
on the global axis system (Superposition)
Disk Coupling
n
d11 d12 d13 k 14 k 15 k 16 
* d k 26 
dij   dijk Important prerequisite: (4.98)
 21 d22 d23 k 24 k 25
k 1 Compatibility
must be satisfied, that is, d d32 d33 k 34 k 35 k 36 
n
* S   31  (4.104b)
bij   bijk the individual layers (4.99) k 41 k 42 k 43 b11 b12 b13 
k 1 of the multi layer laminate k 51 k 52 k 53 b 21 b 22 b 23 
are perfectly  
k 61 k 62 k 63 b31 b 32 b33 
n
*
k ij   k ijk “glued“ together. (4.100)
k 1 Coupling Plate

Units of Stiffness Matrix S Compliance Matrix N by inversion of S

f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 

f f22 f23 e 24 e 25 e 26 
D (N/mm) K (N)   21
S  (4.104a) f f32 f33 e 34 e 35 e 36 
B (N  mm)  N   31  (4.105b)
K (N)  e 41 e 42 e 43 g11 g12 g13 
e 51 e 52 e 53 g21 g22 g23 
 
e 61 e 62 e 63 g31 g32 g33 

Page 155
 n  ε x 
Units of Compliance Matrix N Distortions and 
x
 d11d12 d13 k14 k15 k16  
curvatures with     
   Disk  Coupling   
resulting forces and   Matrix Matrix   
 n y  d d d k 24 k 25 k 26  ε y 
moments (4.81) where    21 22 23  
nx, ny, nxy [N / mm] = n xy  d 31d 32 d 33  
k 34 k 35 k 36   γ xy 
F (mm/N) E (1/N) 
N   membrane stresses      
E (1/N) G (1/N  mm)  (4.105a) m x  k 41 k 42 k 43 b11 b12 b13   κ x 
  (disk) and     
mx, my, mxy [N]   Coupling  Plate   
   Matrix Matrix  
= flexure (bending)   k k k b 21 b 22 b 23   κ 
m y   51 52 53  y 
and twist stresses     
(plate) m  k 61 k 62 k 63 b 31 b 32 b 33   
κ
 xy     xy 
   

Forces and ε x  f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 n x  Calculation of the Technical Young’s
ε    
moments with  y  f 21 f 22 f 23 e 24 e 25 e 26 n y  Moduli from the compliance matrix S
Resulting  γ xy  f 31 f 32 f 33 e 34 e 35 e36 n xy 
    Chessboard
distortions and  κ x  e 41 e 42 e 43 g11 g12 g13 m x 
 κ y  e51 e 52 e 53 g 21 g 22 g 23 m y 
  buckling mode
curvatures (4.82)      of GFRP
 κ xy  e 61 e 62 e 63 g 31 g 32 g 33 m xy 
cylinder
ε x  f11n x  f12 n y  f13n xy  e14 m x  e15 m y  e16 m xy
...............................................

Concerning the principal diagonals d11 to d33 or

f11 to f33 there is symmetry according to the
Maxwell-Betti reciprocal work theorem (cik = cki ).
Stringers and Stiffeners

Example of creep buckling of GFRP silo

due to «arching-effect» of filler material

e.g.
grain

Ring buckling mode Chessboard buckling

mode

Page 156
Calculation of the Technical Young’s Compliance matrix S
Moduli from the compliance matrix S
f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 
1 1 f f22 f23 e 24 e 25 e 26 
E x  (4.106)  21
t f11 f f32 f33 e 34 e 35 e 36 
N   31  (4.105b)
1 1 e 41 e 42 e 43 g11 g12 g13 
E y  (4.107) e 51 e 52 e 53 g21 g22 g23 
t f22  
e 61 e 62 e 63 g31 g32 g33 

Calculation of the Technical Young’s Compliance matrix S

Moduli from the compliance matrix S
f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 
 1 1
f
 21 f22 f23 e 24 e 25 e 26 
G xy (4.108)
t f33 f f32 f33 e 34 e 35 e 36 
N   31  (4.105b)
e 41 e 42 e 43 g11 g12 g13 
e 51 e 52 e 53 g21 g22 g23 
 
e 61 e 62 e 63 g31 g32 g33 

Calculation of the Technical Young’s Compliance matrix S

Moduli from the compliance matrix S
f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 
f12 f f
 21 f22 f23 e 24 e 25 e 26 
 yx     21 (4.109)
f11 f11 f f32 f33 e 34 e 35 e 36 
N   31  (4.105b)
f f e 41 e 42 e 43 g11 g12 g13 
 xy   12   21 (4.110) e 51 e 52 e 53 g21 g22 g23 
f22 f22  
e 61 e 62 e 63 g31 g32 g33 

Page 157
Calculation of the Technical Young’s Compliance matrix S
Moduli from the compliance matrix S
f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 
^ 12 1 f
 21 f22 f23 e 24 e 25 e 26 
E xb  (4.111)
t 3 g11 f f32 f33 e 34 e 35 e 36 
N   31  (4.105b)
^ 12 1 e 41 e 42 e 43 g11 g12 g13 
E yb  3 (4.112) e 51 e 52 e 53 g21 g22 g23 
t g22  
e 61 e 62 e 63 g31 g32 g33 

Calculation of the Technical Young’s Compliance matrix S

Moduli from the compliance matrix S
f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 
^ 12 1 f
 21 f22 f23 e 24 e 25 e 26 
Gxyd  (4.113)
t 3 g33 f f32 f33 e 34 e 35 e 36 
N   31  (4.105b)
e 41 e 42 e 43 g11 g12 g13 
e 51 e 52 e 53 g21 g22 g23 
 
e 61 e 62 e 63 g31 g32 g33 

Calculation of the Technical Young’s Compliance matrix S

Moduli from the compliance matrix S
f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 
g12 g f
 21 f22 f23 e 24 e 25 e 26 
^yxb     21 (4.114)
g11 g11 f f32 f33 e 34 e 35 e 36 
N   31  (4.105b)
g g e 41 e 42 e 43 g11 g12 g13 
 xyb
^
  12   21 (4.115) e 51 e 52 e 53 g21 g22 g23 
g22 g22  
e 61 e 62 e 63 g31 g32 g33 

Page 158
 Special case: balanced and anisotropic Multilayer Special case: balanced and anisotropic Multilayer

d11 d12 d13 

d d22 d23 0 
 21 
d d32 d33 
S   31  (4.122)
 b11 b12 b13 
 0 b21 b22 b23 
 
 b31 b32 b33 

Gegeben
Kreuzverbund a):

Special case: balanced and orthotropic Multilayer Example 4.5: unbalanced cross ply (16 plies)

d11 d12 0  cross ply a) 908 /08 

d d22 0 0 
 21  cross ply b) 904 /04 /904 /04 
0 0 d33  cross ply c) 902 /02 /902 /02 /902 /02 /902 /02 
S  (4.124)
 b11 b12 0 
 0 b21 b22 0 
 
 0 0 b33 

cross ply a) cross ply b)

[N/mm] [N]
 192  103 5.7  103 0  85.5  103 0 0   192  103 5.7  103 0  42.8  103 0 0 
 3   
 5.7  10 192  103 0 0  85.5  103 0   5.7  10
3
192  103 0 0  42.8  103 0 
 0 0 14.3  103 0 0 0   0 0 14.3  103 0 0 0 
S 3  S 
  85.5  10 0 0 64  103 1.9  103 0    42.8  10
3
0 0 64  103 1.9  103 0 
 0  85.5  103 0 1.9  103 64  103 0   0  42.8  103 0 1.9  103 64  103 0 
   
 0 0 0 0 0 4.7  103   0 0 0 0 0 4.7  103 
[N] [N . mm]

Page 159
 cross ply c) With the compliance matrix we get the strains
and curvatures, e.g.:
 192  103 5.7  103 0  21.4  103 0 0 
 3 
 5.7  10 192  103 0 0  21.4  103 0 
 0 0 14.3  103 0 0 0 
S 3 
  21.4  10 0 0 64  103 1.9  103 0 
 0  21.4  103 0 1.9  103 64  103 0 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 4.7  103 

ε x  f11nx  f12ny  f13nxy  x  e 41nx  e 42ny  e 43nxy

 e14mx  e15my  e16mxy (4.126)  g11mx  g12my  g13mxy (4.129)

ε y  f21nx  f22ny  f23nxy  y  e51nx  e 52ny  e 53nxy

 e 24mx  e 25my  e 26mxy (4.127)  g21mx  g22my  g23mxy (4.130)

 xy  f31nx  f32ny  f33nxy  xy  e61nx  e62ny  e63nxy

 e34mx  e35my  e36mxy (4.128)  g31mx  g32my  g33mxy (4.131)

With the strains and curvatures we get the σ xk  d'11k ε x  zkκ x   d'12k ε y  zkκ y 
 d'13k γ xy  zkκ xy 
stresses in each ply in the global system:
(4.133)

σ yk  d'21k ε x  zkκ x   d'22k ε y  zkκ y 

 d'23k γ xy  zkκ xy  (4.134)

τ xyk  d'31k ε x  zkκ x   d'32k ε y  zkκ y 

 d'33k γ xy  zkκ xy  (4.135)

Page 160
Transformation into the local system
1 1
 llk   xk cos  k   yk sin  k
2 2  #k    xk sin 2 k   yk sin 2 k
2 2
  xyk sin 2 k (4.137)   xyk cos 2 k (4.139)

 k   xk sin2  k   yk cos 2  k
  xyk sin 2 k (4.138)

The final stress analysis takes place in each Summary: Stress analysis
single ply
 llk   llk , perm The analysis can be summarized in the following
10 steps:
  k    k , perm 1. Starting properties
EF, F, EM, M, F
 #k   #k, perm
2. Elastic constants of all n plies (k = ply number)
EIIk, Ek, Gk, II, II
Calculator e.g. under: http://composite-tutorial.com/

3. Stiffnesses d of all n plies (k = ply number) 5. Taking the thickness tk of each ply into account
dIIk, dk, dk, dII, dII d*ijk = [d’ijk ] tk [N/mm] (4.92)

4. Transformed stiffnesses d’ of all n plies

6. Taking the bending stiffness b*ijk of each ply
dIIk dIIk 0 d‘11k d‘12k d’13k into account (bending stiffness matrix)
dIIk dk 0 d‘21k d‘22k d’23k
0 0 dk d‘31k d‘32k d’33k

Centroidal axis

Page 161
 n x  ε x 
7. Calculate the coefficients of coupling matrix Assembled we get   d11d12 d13 k14 k15 k16  
the stiffness matrix S     
k ijk  
*  d' z t
ijk k k


  Disk 
 Matrix
Coupling    
Matrix   
Strains, contortions  n y  d d d k 24 k 25 k 26  ε y 
   21 22 23  
8. Superposition (compatibility must be guaranteed) x, y, xy n    
 xy
 d 31d 32 d 33 k 34 k 35 k 36   γ xy 
7. Superposition the bending stiffness    
Curvatures
dij =  d*ijk (4.98) y m x  k 41 k 42 k 43 b11 b12 b13   κ x 
x, y, xy     
  Coupling  Plate   
bij =  b*ijk (4.99)    Matrix  
Forces n Matrix
  k k k b 21 b 22 b 23   κ 
kij =  k*ijk (4.100) m y   51 52 53  y 
    
x Moments m m  k 61 k 62 k 63 b 31 b 32 b 33   
κ
 xy     xy 
   

9. Inverting the stiffness matrix S we get the eventually we need the Technical Young’s Moduli
compliance matrix N of laminate e.g. for buckling formulas
^ ^ ^
 x   f11 f12 f13 e14 e15 e16 n x  Ex, Ey, Gxy or often also: Ex, Ey, Gxy
    
 y   f 21 f 22 f 23 e24 e25 e26 n y 
 xy   f 31 f 32 e36 n xy  1 1 1 1
 
f 33 e34 e35
   
e.g.: E x E y 
 x  e41 e42 e43 g11 g12 g13 mx  t f11 t f22
 y  e e52 e53 g 21 g 22 g 23 m y 
   51  
 xy  e61 e62 e63 g 31 g 32 g 33 mxy 
e.g. buckling of a tube
under external pressure
 x  f11n x  f12 n y  f13n xy  e14 m x  e15m y  e16m xy R t 2.5
pcrit  0.85 4 3
Ey Ex ( ) [ N / mm 2 ]
L R

10. The stress analysis takes finally place in each With a transformation we go back into the local
single ply system of each ply and get:
With the compliance matrix we get the strains  llk   xk cos 2  k   yk sin 2  k   xyk sin 2 k
and curvatures, e.g.:
 x  f11nx  f12 n y  f13 nxy  e14 mx  e15 m y  e16 mxy   k   xk sin 2  k   yk cos 2  k   xyk sin 2 k

1 1
 #k    xk sin 2 k   yk sin 2 k   xyk cos 2 k
With the strains and curvatures we get the 2 2
stresses in each ply in the global system, e.g.:
 xk  d '11k  x  zk  x   d '12 k  y  zk  y   d '13k  xy  z k  xy 

Page 162
The final stress analysis takes place in each 4.58 Lateral loading: non-linearity
single ply

 llk   llk , perm

Lateral tensile stress 

GFRP (EP)
x

  k    k , perm CFRP (P55S/EP)

x

 #k   #k, perm

Calculator e.g. under: http://composite-tutorial.com/ Lateral strain 

Shear loading: non-linearity Due to non-linearity: replacement of E-

modulus by secant modulus for each ply
II= 
GFRP (EP)
x
ES  0. 9 0. 7  E 
Shear stress II

(4.159)
x

GS#  0. 8 0. 3  G# (4.160)
CFRP (P55S/EP)

Distortion II

Due to creep: replacement of E-modulus 4.6 Lamina-by-Lamina Fracture Analysis

by creep modulus Ec
pro memoria
2
1  0.85 F (4.33)
E  E M
o

 F EM / EF  1   F 
o 1.25

creep modulus Ec of matrix

EM

o
EM
1  M
2

Page 163
Fiber Failure and Inter Fiber Failure
In composites basically Fiber Failure (FF) and
Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) of the individual layers of
a laminate have to be distinguished.
Whereas FF inevitably leads to total failure of the
laminate; certain IFF-modes are tolerable for
many applications like for example pressure
vessels. In such pressure vessels the damage
process is gradual.
Fiber Failure (FF) and Inter Fiber Failure
(IFF)
This so called gradual failure process has so far
not been considered in stress and strength
analysis of FRP-components based on the
Classical Laminate Theory (CLT).
. generated. The gradual failure process in
Basic loadings in the UD Lamina-by-
Lamina Fracture Analysis
Focus on
Page 164
Fiber Failure (FF) and Inter Fiber Failure
(IFF)
When IFF has occurred in a layer the stiffness of
this layer is lowered and part of its load
transferred to other layers of the laminate leading
there to higher stresses and potentially to further
failure.
.
Fiber Failure (FF) and Inter Fiber Failure
(IFF)
In order to change this unsatisfying situation
comprehensive experimental data for the
calibration of degradation models – which
quantify the loss of stiffness – has been
fiber/polymer-laminates can nowadays be
calculated more realistically.
Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)
macro mechanical approach:
• 3 modes of fracture
Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)

• Mode A: caused by 2(+) only • Mode A: caused by 21 only

12
21

2(+) 2(+)
21
12

Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)

• Mode A: caused by 2(+) and 21 Consequence Mode A:

• Cracks in the thickness direction in the
12
plane of action of 2(+) und 21
21

2(+) 2(+)
21
12

Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)

Consequence Mode A: • Mode B: caused by 21 und 2(-)

• Reduction of E2 for tensile loading
12
21

E2(+) E2(+) 2(-) 2(-)

21
12

Page 165
Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)

• Mode B: caused by 21 und 2(-) • Mode B:

• 2(-) ≤ 21 • E2 due to 2(-)  unchanged
• sole cause: 21
• Cracks can not open because of 2(-) 
"internal" friction E2(-) E2(-)

Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)

• Mode B: • Mode B:
• G21 will be slightly reduced, depending on • in laminates with three and more fiber
12
the size of 2(-) directions mode B is rare, since 21 ≥ 2(-) 
21 should be. Usually Fiber Failure (IFF) is
decisive.
2(-) 2(-)
21
12

Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)

• Mode C: plane (2(-), 21)- state of stress, • Modus C:

whereby 2 (-)  ≥ 21 • Fracture not in the (2, 21)-plane
12
• Fracture plane inclined by θfp
21
θfp
2(-) 2(-)
21
12

Page 166
Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)

• Modus C: • Mode C:
• In addition to 2(-) and 21 also 22 (┴ ┴) acts • depending on the ratio 2 / 21 , θfp varies
on the fracture plane from 0 ° (limit of mode B to mode C) up to
12
50 ° (pure transverse compressive stress)
21

2(-) 2(-)
21
12

Modes of Inter Fiber Failure (IFF) Inter Fiber Failure (IFF)

• Assessment of modes A to C: • tube under torsional

loading
• Modes A and B are relatively "harmless"
inside :
• Mode C is dangerous, due to burst effects thin layer -45°
(example tube under torsional loading) outside:
thick layer +45

Mode C is dangerous

Tubes for torsional loading (Drive Shafts) Delamination of Layers

• At the interface between two adjacent layers

act no reinforcing fibers in z-direction
z
•  weak point
•

Page 167
Delamination of Layers Delamination of Layers
3(+)
• low fracture energy required for "interlayer cause:
failure" = delamination
z • 3(+)

3(+)

Delamination of Layers Delamination of Layers

causes: causes:
32 31
• 32 , 23 23 • 13 , 31
13

Delamination of Layers Example of Delamination of Layers

GFRP Box Girder M
• 3(+), 13, 31, 32 and 23 are small in
undisturbed areas if:
• laminate is not exceptionally thick-walled
• laminate has no extremely small curvature M
radii = delamination zone
M = positive bending moment

Page 168
Example of Example of Delamination of Layers
r
Delamination of Layers
Delamination zones
Between the longitudinal cross section
unidirectional flange and the of GFRP
outermost ±45° layers of Box Girder
the web. Cause of the
delamination zones seen trough the
delamination: small radius r
transparent outermost ±45° layers
of curvature of the web

Example of Delamination of Layers Inter Fiber Failure / Delamination

• Inter Fiber Failure happens before

delamination
• Delamination growth under monotonic loading
and fatigue loading
• Mode C favors delamination
• Delamination causes a reduction in bending
and torsional stiffness → Stability problems!

Delamination of Layers Delamination of Layers

Remedy, if possible, by Z-thread Remedy may also be possible by the use of

Carbon Nanotube Sponges at the interface

READE S.A.

Page 169
Basic loadings in the UD Lamina-by- Fiber Failure (FF)
Lamina Fracture Analysis
Focus on • first failure of individual elementary fibers at
70-80% of the failure load, tensile loading
desired as long as σ(+)F, lateral < σM
• finally simultaneous, sudden failure of a very
large number of elementary fibers

Tensile Fiber Failure (FF) Compressive Fiber Failure (FF)

• Load carrying • Load carrying

capacity of the capacity of the
affected layer = 0 affected layer  0

Fiber Failure (FF) Failure of the Laminate

• Tensile and compressive stresses cause high • Progressive cracking due to Inter Fiber
energy releases at failure Failure leads to loading rearrangements on
the fibers
• Due to that destruction of the bond with
adjacent layers • With the entry of fiber failure = ultimate load of
the laminate is reached, although in some
• There is often a "chain reaction", initiation of cases still a residual capacity is maintained
fiber breaks in other layers
• If there is not one dominant load case, select
• E1, E2, und G21 → ≈ 0 three noticeably different fiber directions!

Page 170
 Failure Criterion Failure Condition

The term "fracture criterion" is used when a

formulation of the following type ist going to be
discussed; F ( , , R , R )  1

F ( ,  , R , R )  1 oder
or  1

Failure Condition Failure Condition

1, 2, 3 23, 31, 21

F ( , , R , R )  1 F ( , , R , R )  1

Failure Condition Failure Condition

F ( , , R , R )  1 F ( , , R , R )  1

Page 171
Failure Condition Failure Condition

R(+)

F ( , , R , R )  1 F ( , , R , R )  1

Failure Condition Failure Condition

F ( , , R , R )  1 F ( , , R , R )  1

Proof of Safety Proof of Safety

When designing and dimensioning FRP
components and then subsequently checking
the “Proof of Safety”, failure conditions are used
to computationally determine how far the
occurring stress states are still away from the
failure state.
It must be assumed that the individual stresses
are in the same fixed relationship to one
another both in the prevailing state of stress
and in the elevated state of stress leading to
failure.

Page 172
Reserve Factor fRes Reserve Factor fRes

The common positive factor with that under this Alternative notation for failure condition:
condition, all the existing stresses would have
to be increased in order for the failure condition
to be satisfied is called reserve factor fRes. f Re s ( ,  , R , R )  1
If fRes = 1, this means that the prevailing state of
tension is just leading to failure.

Efficiency Ratio  Typical Failure Condition

If no residual stresses: Combined (2, 21)-loading:

1 F  22 (
1

1
)  2  (  21 ) 2  1
 ( , , R , R )  ()
R R

()
 R
()
 R
( )
 R II
f res ( , , R , R )

Representation of the (2, 21)- failure Failure conditions for FF and IFF
envelope Fiber Failure
Faserbruch FF:
Fb:

  
2 Rll(+) für 1 > 0
 1 
1
 R(  /  )  Rll(-) für 1 < 0
 II 
Inter Fiber Failure IFF:
Zwischenfaserbruch Zfb:
2
  2    21 
2 R(+) für 2 > 0
 (  /  )      1
 R    R II  R(-) für 2 < 0

Page 173
Representation of the equations Closer to reality
Mode Failure condition Range of validity
FF

IFF

IFF
FF

Representation of the equations 3D-Representation of the equations

FF

IFF

FF

IFF

Comparison Lamina-by-Lamina Fracture Analysis

or Ply-by-Ply Fracture Analysis

Page 174
Flow Chart (M. Knops and C. Bögle) Current situation
start stress finish stress
analysis analysis
• Lamina-by-lamina fracture analysis is still not
new state no yet fully satisfactory
of stress fracture?

yes
• CLT (Classical Laminate Theory) and FEM
almost without any problems, apart from very
stress only no
rearrangement tolerable thick laminates
IFF?

yes change
degradation of the modules laminate
E, GII, II lay-up

Page 175