Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part A
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

A constitutive model for elastoplastic-damage coupling effect of T

unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites
Yanfei Chena,b, Yunong Zhaoc, Shigang Aia,b, , Chunwang Hea,b, Yong Taod, , Yazheng Yanga,b,
⁎ ⁎

Daining Fanga,b
a
Institute of Advanced Structure Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, PR China
b
Beijing Key Laboratory of Lightweight Multi-functional Composite Materials and Structures, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, PR China
c
State Key Laboratory for Turbulence and Complex Systems, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
d
Department of Mechanics, School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410083, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, an elastoplastic-damage coupling constitutive model for unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer
Fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites matrix composites (UD FRPs) is presented, which both considers the plastic-hardening and damage-softening
Elastoplastic-damage coupling processes. Tension-compression asymmetry and shear strength increase due to transverse compression are ob-
Constitutive model served under off-axis tensile/compressive tests of UD E-glass/YPH-200. Therefore, a four-parameter plastic yield
criterion considering these two effects is proposed. Applying this model to predict the off-axis tensile/com-
pressive responses of present tests provides good agreement with experimental curves. In addition, we give a
novel definition of shear damage variable based on Puck failure theory and discuss it in detail. Further, we
develop a four-parameter matrix failure criterion for UD FRPs and exactly predict the off-axis failure strength.

1. Introduction
With increasing use of fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites
(FRPs) in aerospace and automobile, numerical simulation technique
becomes an important approach to reduce the cost and to shorten the
design period of composite structures before production. To enhance
the reliability and credibility of numerical simulation results, an accu-
rate constitutive model is necessary. Due to the nonlinear deformation
and complicatedly nonlinear mechanism of FRPs, establishing the
constitutive model is still a challenge [1,2].
FRPs are consisted of two phases: reinforced fiber and polymer
matrix. Fiber behaves elastically, while polymer matrix is regarded as a
complicated elastic-viscoplastic material with damage due to the
movement of macromolecular chains [3], as well as the nucleation,
growth, and coalescence of voids /crazes [4,5]. Plasticity theory and
Continuum Damage Mechanics (CDM) are traditional approaches to
establish the constitutive models [6,7]. The keys of the plasticity theory
are the yield criterion and the flow rule. Several yield criteria have been
proposed to predict the yield initiation of FRPs. Jeong proposed a yield
function and a hydrostatic stress-controlled void nucleation model for
porous solids with pressure-sensitive matrix [8]. Canal et al used this
model to investigate the problem of weak fiber/matrix interfaces and
the failure micromechanics [9]. Drucker-Prager criterion was widely
used for isotropic polymer matrix on the mesoscopic level [10]. On the
macroscopic level, a simple one-parameter yield criterion was firstly
proposed [11]. Cho et al proposed a two-parameter yield criterion,
which considered the transverse isotropy and tension-compression
asymmetry of UD FRPs [7]. The effect of transverse compression on
shear yield strength was observed in experiments, which has not been
studied in theory [12]. The damage initiation and propagation criteria
of FRPs are the keys to constructing the CDM constitutive models.
Different failure criteria have been adopted for UD FRPs and fiber yarns
in braided FRPs [13–15]. Puck theory is considered as one of the best
available failure theories [16]. Once the failure initiation is satisfied, a
damage evolution law is used to describe the degradation rate of the
material stiffness. Linear and exponential softening laws were applied
for FRPs [13,17]. CDM models based on failure criteria describe the
damage softening behavior after the stress satisfies the failure criteria.
However, the off-axis nonlinearity of FRPs occurs before the stress
reaches a peak value. Further promotions should be done before they
are utilized in FRPs analysis and simulations.
Fig. 1a shows a comparison of the typical illustrations of tensile and
compressive stress-strain curves of experiments and the predictions of
plasticity theory and CDM theory for UD FRPs. Apparently, both plas-
ticity theory and CDM theory cannot completely characterize the stress-
strain relationships of UD FRPs alone.

⁎
Corresponding authors at: Institute of Advanced Structure Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, PR China (S. Ai).
E-mail addresses: sgai@pku.edu.cn (S. Ai), taoyong@pku.edu.cn (Y. Tao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105736
Received 24 July 2019; Received in revised form 28 November 2019; Accepted 18 December 2019
Available online 19 December 2019
1359-835X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Chen, et al. Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736

Fig. 1. (a) Comparison of the typical il-

lustration of tensile/compressive stress-
strain curves of experiments and predic-
tions of plasticity and CDM theories for
UD FRPs; (b) the direction diagram of
UD FRPs. (For interpretation of the re-
ferences to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

Elastoplastic-damage coupling constitutive models are used in the asymmetry can be found.
numerical simulations of braided FRPs. The conventional method is to
treat the fiber and polymer matrix as elastic damage and elastoplastic 3. Constitutive model
materials separately. Ernst et al considered that the nonlinear behavior
only originated from the softening of epoxy resin [18]. Drucker-Prager Generally, the nonlinearity of UD FRPs was assumed to come from
yield function combined with a non-associated flow rule was used to the nucleation, growth, and coalescence of voids /crazes. However,
model the plastic deformation. Ge et al considered the fiber bundle as previous studies indicated that the nonlinear behavior also arises in
elastic-brittle material using elastic damage model [19]. However, the glassy polymer matrix from the movement of macromolecular chain
plastic behavior of fiber bundle, which had been confirmed through segments [20]. It has been postulated that strain hardening originates
experiments, was ignored. from the stretch-induced tensioning of entanglements between mole-
In this paper, we establish an elastoplastic-damage coupling con- cular segments [21,22]. Herein, we use the plasticity theory and CDM
stitutive model for UD FRPs, which describes the hardening behavior of theory to describe the hardening and softening processes.
plasticity and damage softening behavior after failure. Section 2 shows
the experimental results of off-axis tension and compression tests of UD 3.1. Elastoplastic-damage coupling framework
FRPs. Detailed elastoplastic-damage coupling constitutive model is
derived in Section 3. Section 4 determines the plastic parameters and The total strain tensor is decomposed into an elastic part e
and a
physical quantities. The proposed model is validated with the experi- plastic part p :
mental data of off-axis tension/compression tests. Further, a four- e p (1)
= +
parameter matrix failure criterion is proposed to predict the off-axis
strength of UD FRPs. The conclusions are given in Section 5. The total-strain elastoplastic-damage coupling constitutive model of
UD FRPs is written as:

2. Material characterization = C (d ): ( p)
(2)
where is the stress tensor and C (d ) is a four-rank degradation stiffness
2.1. Material and specimens tensor that includes material parameters and damage variables tensor
d . In fact, there is no complete one-to-one correspondence between
The FRPs investigated in this paper is UD E-glass/YPH-200 with a stress and strain. Therefore, Eq. (2) is modified to an incremental form:
normal resin content of 35% obtained in prepreg form. Off-axis coupon
specimens were cut at fiber angles of 0° , 30° , 45°, 60°, 75° and 90° by a C (d ) p ):
d = :( dd + C (d ): (d d p)
FLOW™ waterjet cutting machine. Tensile and compressive tests were d (3)
performed, respectively, using 1.5 mm thick dog-bone laminates and In the following discussion, we assume that the damage response
rectangular laminates with dimensions of 12 × 10 × 3 mm. occurs after stress components satisfy failure criterion. As shown in
Fig. 1b, the direction along the fiber is denoted as x1and the directions
2.2. Off-axis testing and results perpendicular to the fiber are denoted as x2 and x3 , respectively.

Quasi-static tensile and compressive tests were both performed on 3.2. Plastic description
an Instron Legend 2367 testing system with 30 kN load cell at a loading
velocity of 0.5 mm/min. To improve accuracy, an Instron strain gauge 3.2.1. Yield criterion
extensometer (50 mm gauge) was used in tensile tests. Fig. 2 shows the To account for the pressure sensitive yield and transverse isotropy of
tensile and compressive stress-strain curves of UD E-glass/YPH-200 UD FRPs and the assumption that there is no plastic deformation along
with different off-axis angles. In tensile tests, the nonlinearity and the fiber direction [6,23], the modified Drucker-Prager yield criterion
fracture strain decreased with off-axis angles. In compressive tests, the consisting of deviatoric and dilatational deformation components pro-
nonlinearity and fracture strain increased with increasing off-axis angle posed by Cho et al. [7] is adopted:
up to 45° and decreased beyond that angle. This suggested that the f= a2 ( 2 2 2 2 2
( p) = 0
22 33 ) + a4 23 + a6 ( 12 + 13 ) + b2 ( 22 + 33)
shear component of applied compressive stress made a major con-
tribution to the nonlinear behavior. This might be due to the en- (4)
hancement of shear strength caused by the transverse compression. The The first term inside the square root is related to deviatoric de-
off-axis elastic modulus and failure strength of UD E-glass/YPH-200 are formation and the second term is related to dilatational deformation
summarized in Table 1, from which apparent tension-compression accounting for the tension-compression asymmetry. a2 , a4 , a6 and b2

2
Y. Chen, et al. Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736

Fig. 2. The (a) tensile and (b) compressive stress-strain curves of UD E-glass/YPH-200 with various off-axis angles. (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

are the plastic parameters. The constitutive model could be directly

reduced to a 2D plane stress version by letting 33 = 13 = 23 = 0 [6,7]
2 2 2 2 2
and then Eq. (4) is simplified as a two-parameter expression: f = c1 ( 22 + 33) + c2 23 + c3 ( 12 + 13)

f= a2 2
+ 2
+ b2 ( p) = 0 (5) c42 c2
22 12 22 + + 5 2c1 22 33 + c4 23 ( 22 + 33)
c2 2c3
where ( p) represents the effective stress related to the effective 1/2

plastic strain p of UD FRPs, which is usually written as a power law + c5 ( 12 22 + 13 33 )

form:
+ b2 ( 22 + 33) ¯ (¯ p) = 0 (8)
= A ( p )n (6)
The parameters in Eq. (8) are denoted as follows:
where A and n are material paramters. 2
c1 = a2 + a4 µ 23 + a6 µ122 , c2 = a4
In previous investigations of failure criteria for UD FRPs, a con-
c3 = a6 , c4 = 2a2 µ 23 , c5 = 2a6 µ12 (9)
sensus was reached: tensile stress promotes tensile fracture, whereas
compressive stress impedes shear fracture [16]. The work of Daniel Without loss of generality, setting c2 = 1 [7]. For the plane-stress
[12] showed that matrix yield envelope was similar to that of failure. case, Eq. (8) becomes:
That is to say, transverse compressive stress also impedes shear
2 2
yielding. Based on the Coulomb-Mohr criterion, transverse compression f= c1 22 + c3 12 + c5 12 22 + b2 22 ( p) = 0 (10)
has a negative effect on the shear yield strength. Therefore, Eq. (4) is
Different from previous studies, the proposed yield criterion in Eq.
modified as:
(10) adds a coupling item c5 12 22 , resulting from the effect of trans-
2 2
verse compression on the shear yield strength.
f = {a2 ( 22 33 ) + a4 [ 23 µ 23 ( 22 + 33 )]

+ a6 3.2.2. Flow rule and plastic hardening

[( 12
1
µ12 11 µ122 22 )
2 +( 13
1
µ13 11
3
µ13 33 )
2]2 }1/2 An associated flow rule is used to determine the plastic strain in-
+ b2 ( + ¯ (¯ p) = 0 (7) crement:
22 33)

p f
where µ 23 , µ12
1
, µ122 , µ13
1
and µ132
are the internal friction parameters. d =d
(11)
Because there is no plastic deformation in fiber direction, corre-
sponding plastic strain component should equal to zero, 11p = 0 . Ac- where d is the plastic multiplyer and determines the direction of f

cording to the flow rule, Eq. (11), the coefficients of stress component plastic flow. From the equivalence of the increment of plastic work per
11 should equal to zero. Because the shear stress components contribute
unit volume:
to yield criteria and should not equal to zero, a6 doesn’t equal to zero. f
Therefore, we can abtain µ12 = 0 . Based on the transverse iso-
1 1 dWp = : d p = :d = ¯ d = ¯ d¯ p
= µ13 (12)
tropy, we further get µ12 = µ13 = µ12 . Finally Eq. (7) is simplified to:
2 2

It is obtained that:
d = d¯ p (13)

Table 1
The off-axis elastic modulus and failure strength of UD E-glass/YPH-200.
Off-axis angles (°) 0 30 45 60 75 90

Elastic modulus T/C (GPa) 34.9/15.6 15.1/5.9 11.9/4.4 10.2/3.94 10.0/4.9 10.8/5.2
Failure strength T/C (MPa) 801/662 133/182 96/168 70/145 58/134 45/129

*T: Tension; C: Compression.

3
Y. Chen, et al. Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736

Multiply the left and right sides of Eq. (3) with f

simultaneously: modulus between fiber and the matrix in the interface. The re-
commended values of {mf , p(+) , p( ) } for carbon fiber-reinforced com-
f f C (d )
:d = : :( p): dd + C (d ): (d d p) posites are {1.1, 0.35, 0.3} , and are {1.3, 0.3, 0.25} for glass fiber re-
(14)
inforced composites. The parameters of p( ) , R A and 12c are calculated
According to the consistent condition, the yield criterion can be by:
written as:
1 Yc Yc
f f p( )
= 1 + 2p( )
1 , RA = , 12c = S12 1 + p( )

f = :d + d¯ p = 0 2 S12 2(1 + p( ) )
¯p (15)
(23)
Combining Eq. (15) with Eqs. (11)–(14), it can be obtained that
f C (d ) f
: d
: ( p ): dd + : C (d ): d 3.3.2. Damage evolution law
d¯ p = f f Based on the CDM theory, once the damage initiation law is sa-
: C (d ): + Hp (16) tisfied, the material is damaged. The damage threshold rI must satisfy
where Hp = p =
f
p is the effective tangent modulus. Substituting
the Kuhn-Tucker and consistency conditions:
Eq. (16) and Eq. (11) into Eq. (3), the final incremental elastoplastic- r 0; F 0; rF = 0
damage coupling constitutive model for UD FRPs is expressed as: F = 0, if F = 0 (24)
C (d ) f
d = :( p ): dd + C (d ): d d¯ p Integrating Eq. (24), the damage threshold rI can be expressed as:
d (17)
rI = max{1, max{ I }} [0, t ] (25)

3.3. Damage description where t is the total time period and is the current time.
The damage process is irreversible and the stiffness of the material is
3.3.1. Damage initiation criteria degraded once the failure criteria is satisfied. Based on the work of
In order to predict the damage initiation and propagation, the da- Linde [24], an exponential damage law (see Fig. 3) is adopted for UD
mage activation function is defined as follow: FRPs to describe the stiffness degradation once I is greater than 1.

FI = rI 0, I = {1t , 1c, 2t , 2c, 3t , 3c} (18) 1

I dI = 1 exp[XI2 (1 rI ) CIIII gI ] I = {1t , 1c, 2t , 2c, 3t , 3c }
rI (26)
where I = {1t , 1c, 2t , 2c, 3t , 3c} means the tensile (t) or compressive (c)
stress state in different material directions, as shown in Fig. 1b, I is where XI is the tensile/compressive strength in different material di-
loading function for different failure modes for UD FRPs, and rI is da- rections; CIIII denotes the material stiffness; gI is the energy dissipated
mage threshold parameter dependent on the loading history. The initial per unit volume with the value of 14.4 mJ/mm3 [25]. In general, it is
value of rI is 1 when the material is undamaged, and it increases with postulated that the damage variables dij (i j) are not independent, and
the damage level. For UD FRPs, Puck theory is considered as one of the are expressed as a function of remaining variables [13,19]:
best failure criteria to predict the failure initiation. In the plane stress dij = 1 (1 dii )(1 djj ) (i j) (27)
condition, Puck theory is written as follow:

1 E1 4. Model validation
1t ,1c = 11 v21 v21, f mf 22
±Xt , c E1, f (19)
4.1. Plastic parameters
2 2 2
12 (+) Yt 12 (+) 22
= + 1 p +p , 0
2t
S12 S12 Yt S12
22
(20) The plastic parameters are determined by referring to the work of
Sun and Chen [26]. The stress and plastic strain components in the
1 2 22 RA principal material directions are given by:
2c = ( 12 + (p ( )
22 )
2 + p( )
22), 22 < 0&
S12 12 12c (21) 2 , 2
11 = x cos 22= x sin , 12 = x sin cos
p p 2 p 2 p
2 2
d x = d 11 cos +d 22 sin d 12 sin cos (28)
12 22 Yc 12 12c
= + , < 0&0
where , d and d are the off-axis angle, off-axis plastic strain and
2c ( ) 22 A p p
2(1 + p ) S12 Yc 22 22 R x ij

(22)
where 11, 22 and 12 are the plastic trial stress; Xt and Xc are the tensile
and compressive strength in the fiber direction; Yt and Yc are the
transverse tensile and compressive strength; S12 is in-plane shear
strength; E1 and E1, f are the elastic modulus of PFMCs and fiber in the
fiber direction. The parameters employed in Puck theory are given in
Table 2. mf is the “stress magnification factor” caused by difference of

Table 2
Material parameters employed in Puck theory.
Xt (MPa) Xc (MPa) Yt (MPa) Yc (MPa) S12 (MPa)

801 672 56.7 136.5 76.9

E1,f (GPa) E1t (GPa) E1c (GPa) v21 v21, f

73.1 36.5 15.9 0.26 0.22

Fig. 3. The exponential damage evolution law.

4
Y. Chen, et al. Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736

Fig. 4. Effective stress-effective plastic strain curves for 300 off-axis UD E-glass/
YPH-200. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

principal plastic strain components, respectively. The off-axis plastic

strain is calculated by:
p x
x = x
Ex (29)

Substitute Eq. (28) into (10), we obtain the effective stress and ef-
fective plastic strain:
= h ( ) x, p = p
x h( ) (30)

where

h( ) = c1sin4 + c3sin2 cos2 c5sin3 cos + b2sin2 , x 0

h( ) = c1 sin4 + c3 sin2 cos2 c5 sin3 cos + b2 sin2 , <0 Fig. 5. Illustration of the algorithm implementation scheme.
x

(31)
mapping algorithm (Complete implicit integral constitutive algorithm)
The parameters in Eqs. (31) for effective stress and effective plastic is used for plastic hardening process.
strain are determined by trial and error until all the off-axis stress-strain Assuming that the values of the variables at tn and the strain in-
curves collapse into one master curve in the p
plane [26]. For a crement corresponding to the interval [tn, tn + 1] are given, the nu-
certain UD FRPs, the relation is unique. Without losing universality, 30° merical algorithm should obtain the updated values at the end of the
off-axis tensile/compressive tests were used to determine these plastic interval, tn + 1. The stress tensor at tn + 1 can be defined as:
parameters.
Fig. 4 shows the collapsing of the curves for 30° off-axis orientation n+1 = tr , e
n+1 + n+1 (32)
with the plastic parameters in Table 3. The master curve ( p)
is
fitted by Eq. (6). where ntr+, e1 is elastic trial stress tensor, and n + 1 = C: np+ 1 is plastic
modified stress tensor, which returns the elastic trial stress tensor along
4.2. Algorithm implementation the plastic flow direction at tn + 1 to the updated yield surface fn+ 1 = 0 , as
shown in Fig. 6. At tn + 1, the plastic update and yield condition is written
The elastoplastic-damage coupling constitutive model described in as:
the previous section is implemented using a MATLAB code. Fig. 5 il-
lustrates the algorithm implementation scheme. It should be judged = p + np + d r = 0
whether the loading direction is in the fiber direction or not. If it is in b= ¯p + ¯np + d = 0
the fiber direction, the algorithm directly jumps into the damage soft- f ( , ¯ p) = 0 (33)
ening process. Otherwise, the algorithm goes into the plastic hardening
process. In the plastic hardening process, with the stress increasing, if where r is equal to f
. Eq. (33) is a series of nonlinear tensor equations
the yield criterion is satisfied, the algorithm goes to the process of
relating to the unknown quantities of n + 1, np+ 1 and np+ 1. To solve these
plastic hardening. According to the consistent condition, the stress at
equations, Newton-Raphson iterative algorithm is performed. In gen-
any time should be kept on the yield surface. Herein a general return
eral, the solving method of Newton-Raphson iterative of the nonlinear
equations g ( ) = 0 is written as:
Table 3
Plastic parameters for UD FPMCs (E-glass/YPH-200). (k )
dg
A (MPa) −n
n
g (k ) + (k ) = 0, (k + 1) = (k ) + (k )
c1 c3 c5 b2 d (34)
2.0 5.5 0.8 0.28 296.7 0.146
Therefore, Eq. (33) can be written as:

5
Y. Chen, et al. Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736

C (d ) p ): f
m+1 = :( d + C (d ): ¯p
d m +1 m+1

(39)
These two terms of Eq. (39) indicate the coupling between elasto-
plasticity and damage. The first term can be further modified as
C (d )
d
: ( p ): d
m+1
=
C (d )
d m+1
: ( m +1
p
m + 1): ( ) d
m+1

( ) ( )
tr
: : :
tr
m+1 m+1 (40)
tr
It should be noted that is the effective plastic stiffness and is
written as:
f f
tr C: : :C
= C f f
: C: + Hp (41)
The second term is modified to:
m+1
f f
C (d ): ¯p = [C (d )]m + 1 : ¯ p (m + 1)
Fig. 6. The return mapping iterating procedure. m+1

(42)

(k ) + C 1: (k ) + (k )
( ) r (k )
: (k ) + (k ) r (k ) =0
4.3. Physical quantities for plane stress state
b( k ) ¯ p (k ) + (k ) =0
It is necessary to clarify that all the tensors presented in above
( ) ( )
f (k ) f (k )
f (k ) + : (k ) + ¯ p (k ) = 0
¯p (35) sections are expressed in Voigt notation form. The model validation is
performed in the plane stress condition. Therefore, the elastic stiffness
Eq. (35) are the linear equations relating to (k )
, p (k )
and (k )
.
of undamaged material is given as follow:
Solve this equation and obtain
C11 C12 0
1
( ) ~ (k )
( ) ( )
(k ) (k ) f (k )
(k ) =
f
: C : r (k ) f (k ) +
f
: (k ) + ¯ p (k) C0 = C12 C22 0
¯p
0 0 C66 (43)
¯ p (k ) = bk + (k )

(k ) ~ (k ) (k ) (k ) r (k ) ) in which the material constants are:

= C :( +
(36)
E1 v12 E1
C11 = 1 v12 v 21
, C12 = 1 v12 v 21
1 E2
where C
(k )
= C 1 + (k )
( ) r (k )
. Then the plastic parameters and
C22 = 1 v12 v 21
, C66 = G12 (44)
stress tensor update: To keep the degradation stiffness self-consistent, the degradation
p (k + 1)
stiffness is defined as follow:
= p (k ) C 1: (k )

¯ p (k + 1) = ¯ p (k) + ¯ p (k ) (1 d1 )2C11 (1 d1 )(1 d2 ) C12 0

(k + 1) = (k ) + (k ) C (d ) = (1 d1 )(1 d2 ) C12 (1 d2 ) 2C22 0
(k + 1) = (k ) + (k )
(37) 0 0 (1 d6 ) C66 (45)

In conclusion, the complete implicit return mapping algorithm (see where d6 = 1 (1 d1 )(1 d2) . Therefore, the damage tensor d is
Fig. 6) for plastic hardening is processed as follow: [d1 d2 ]T [27–29]. In addition, C (d ) is a 3 × 3 × 2 three-rank tensor and
d
calculated as follow:
(1) Initiation: k = 0 , p (0) = p (n)
, p (0) = p (n )
, (k ) = 0
and
2(d1 1) C11 (d2 1) C12 0
n + 1;
(0) = tr , e

(2) Calculate f (k ) = f ( (k) , ¯ p (k ) ) . If f (k ) is smaller than the tolerance ( C (d )

d )ij1
= (d2 1) C12 0 0
limit, it iterates to convergence, and stop to iterate; 0 0 (1 d2 ) C66
(3) Calculate the plastic multilayer increment (k ) , stress tensor in- 0 (d1 1) C12 0
crement (k )
and effective plastic strain increment p (k )
ac-
cording to Eq. (36); ( C (d )
d )
ij2
= (d1 1) C12 2(d2 1) C2 0
0 0 (1 d1 ) C66 (46)
(4) Update p (k + 1) , p (k + 1) , (k + 1) and (k + 1) according to Eq. (37). Let
k = k + 1, and go to step (2) to continue to iterate.
4.4. Prediction for off-axis tensile-compressive tests
As shown in Fig. 5, at any time tm + 1, the stress state mtr+, p1 calculated
by the return mapping algorithm is taken as a plastic trial stress to judge
Comparison of predictions between the proposed constitutive model
whether the material is damaged. The stress at tm + 1 is defined as Eq.
and experimental stress-strain curves under off-axis tension and com-
(32):
pression are shown in Fig. 7. In the plastic-hardening stage, theoretical
= tr , p
+ (38) predictions are in good agreement with experimental results, except for
m+1 m +1 m+1
the compressive curve under 45° off-axis angle. In 45° off-axis com-
where is the trial stress calculated from return mapping algorithm.
tr , p
m+1 pression, the nonlinearity of theoretical prediction is weaker than the
m+1 is calculated according to Eq. (17): experimental curve. A possible reason is that as the off-axis angle

6
Y. Chen, et al. Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736

Fig. 7. Compression between present model and MLT model with experimental results. (a–c) are corresponding to 45° , 60° and 75° off-axis tension, respectively. (d–f)
are corresponding to 45° , 60° and 75° off-axis compression, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

decreases, in-plane fiber rotation, known as fiber kinking, strengthens
the nonlinear behavior [27–29]. The figure suggests an accurate pre-
diction of the strength compared to the experiments. In tensile curves,
the stress abruptly reduces to zero, which is exactly captured by the
present model. However, there exist some certain errors in compres-
sion. In the damage softening stage of compressive curves, the UD FRPs
still keep loading capacities after the stress quickly reduces to a certain
value. In the present model, stress slowly decreases after reaching the
peak value. The comparison between the proposed model and Mat-
zenmiller-Lubliner-Taylor (MLT) model [30] is also shown in Fig. 7.
The proposed model does better than MLT model in describe the non-
linear response before stress reaches peak value.
In addition, the stress-strain predictions under tensile/compressive
cycles are simulated for 45° and 60° off-axis specimens, as shown in
Fig. 8. The simulated behavior behaves differently in off-axis tension
and compression, and the transition between the two regions is not
smooth due to tension-compression asymmetry.
In previous papers, the damage evolution resulting from shear
failure (Eq. (27)) is determined by the damage variables of d1 and d2 .
That is to say, the shear damage is not an independent variable.
However, for Puck’s theory, shear dominated and compression domi-
nated failure behaviors are separately analyzed in compression.
Therefore, referring to Eq. (26), we try to define a novel and in-
dependent in-plane shear damage variable:

7
Y. Chen, et al. Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736

Fig. 8. The simulated stress-strain predictions under tensile/compressive cycles for 45° and 60° off-axis specimens. (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

d12 = 1
1 2
exp[S12 (1 r12 ) G12 g12] yield criterion can describe the nonlinear plastic hardening until failure
r12 (47) occurs. Therefore, this four-parameter model is extended to explain the
matrix dominated failure for the off-axis specimens. The failure func-
where r12 equals to the value of 2c of Eq. (21). The reason is that the
tion is given by:
shear failure is predicted by Eq. (21) for shear dominated compression
failure. Then, based on the damage initiation, Equation (18), and Kuhn- 2 2
f ( ij ) = {m1 22 + m2 12 + m3 12 22 }
1 2 + 22 = kcr (48)
Tucker and consistency conditions Eq. (24), we obtain r12 = 2c during
damage evolution process. Especially, d2 only updates with the value of
where kcr is a critical value determining failure while mi (i = 1, 2, 3) is
2c of Eq. (22). Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the damage variables
the strength orthotropic parameters. The terms mi and kcr are the four
defined by Eqs. (27) and (47) under 10° and 60° off-axis compression. In
parameters to be determined experimentally. The terms mi controls the
60° off-axis compression, the shear damage variable d12 defined by Eq.
shape of the failure envelope while kcr controls the size of the failure
(47) is zero but that defined by Eq. (27) equals to d2 . There is no shear
develop. Under the off-axis loading, Eq. (48) may be written as:
damage obtained from Eq. (47). While in 10° off-axis compression, d12
defined by Eq. (27) is triggered first by d2 , and further increases after
x ( m1sin4 + m2sin2 cos2 m3sin3 cos + sin2 ) = kcr , x 0
damage initiates in fiber direction. However, d12 defined by Eq. (47)
suddenly increases after the failure criterion of Eq. (21) satisfies, while x( m1sin4 + m2sin2 cos2 m3sin3 cos + sin2 ) = kcr , x <0
d2 keeps to zero. Puck theory shows that there exists a critical off-axis (49)
angle to separate the shear failure mode and compressive failure mode.
The definition of Eq. (47) can distinguish the damage modes. Theoretically, mi and kcr can be determined by four experimental
tests. However, due to the discretization of strength, it is hard to get
reliable values of these parameters. Therefore, a least square method is
4.5. Matrix failure criterion for UD FRPs
employed to determine these parameters based on the strength data of
various off-axis tension/compression tests. The parameters m1, m2 , m3
Experimental observations show that for UD FRPs, the failure al-
and kcr are found to be 5.6, 6.5, 2.6 and 176.5, respectively, for both
ways occurs along the off-axis angle parallel to the fiber direction while
tensile and compressive cases. As shown in Fig. 10, the failure envelope
fiber breakage occurs only for the 0° specimens. Previous investigations
curve predicted by present matrix failure criterion are in good agree-
suggest that off-axis specimens have a matrix dominated failure me-
ment with the experimental data.
chanisms. The above analysis indicates that the present four-parameter

Fig. 9. Comparison of the damage variables with different definition for UD E-glass/YPH-200 under (a) 10° and (b) 60° off-axis compression. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

8
Y. Chen, et al.
Fig. 10. The failure envelope predicted by present matrix failure criterion for
UD FRPs (E-glass/YPH-200). (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
5. Summary and conclusions
This paper focuses on establishing an elastoplastic-damage coupling
constitutive model for UD FRPs. Main conclusions are summarized as
follow:
(1) An elastoplastic-damage coupling constitutive model, which con-
siders the tension-compression asymmetry and transversal isotropy,
is tailored for UD FRPs.
(2) By introducing the hydrostatic stress, a four-parameter yield cri-
terion which considers both the effect of transversal compression on
shear yield stress and the tension-compression asymmetry, is de-
rived.
(3) Off-axis tensile and compressive tests for UD FRPs (E-glass/YPH-
200) are conducted to determine the material parameters of the
present four-parameter yield criterion, effective stress-effective
plastic strain relation, Puck theory and damage evolution law.
(4) Through the verification on E-glass/YPH-200 FRPs, it is found that
the model not only capture the off-axis tensile/compressive stress-
strain curves well but also exactly predict the failure strengths.
(5) We try to define a novel and independent shear damage variable
based on Puck theory and discuss the difference between the novel
and traditional shear damage variables.
(6) A four-parameter matrix failure criterion extended from present
yield criterion is proposed. A least square method is employed in
strength predictions and good agreement between experimental
data and prediction is achieved.
(7) This elastoplastic-damage coupling constitutive model is very sui-
table for implementation in finite element simulation for braided
FRPs, which will be conducted in our future work.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yanfei Chen: Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Funding acqui-
sition, Writing - original draft. Yunong Zhao: Investigation, Formal ana-
lysis. Shigang Ai: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Chunwang He: Software. Yong Tao: Methodology, Data curation,
Validation, Formal analysis. Daining Fang: Conceptualization, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Composites Part A 130 (2020) 105736
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Nos. 11672030, 11902034), the China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (No. 2019M650500) and the Beijing Natural Science
Foundation (No. 1204035).
References
[1] Li H, Zhang B. A new viscoelastic model based on generalized method of cells for fiber-
reinforced composites. Int J Plast 2015;65:22–32.
[2] Voyiadjis GZ, Shojaei A, Li G. A generalized coupled viscoplastic–viscodamage–visco-
healing theory for glassy polymers. Int J Plast 2012;28(1):21–45.
[3] Robbins MO, Hoy RS. Scaling of the strain hardening modulus of glassy polymers with the
flow stress. J Polym Sci, Part B: Polym Phys 2009;47(14):1406–11.
[4] Zaïri F, Naït-Abdelaziz M, Gloaguen JM, Lefebvre JM. Modelling of the elasto-viscoplastic
damage behaviour of glassy polymers. Int J Plast 2008;24(6):945–65.
[5] Francis DK, Bouvard JL, Hammi Y, Horstemeyer MF. Formulation of a damage internal
state variable model for amorphous glassy polymers. Int J Solids Struct
2014;51(15):2765–76.
[6] Yokozeki T, Ogihara S, Yoshida S, Ogasawara T. Simple constitutive model for nonlinear
response of fiber-reinforced composites with loading-directional dependence. Compos Sci
Technol 2007;67(1):111–8.
[7] Cho J, Fenner J, Werner B, Daniel I. A constitutive model for fiber-reinforced polymer
composites. J Compos Mater 2010;44(26):3133–50.
[8] Jeong HY. A new yield function and a hydrostatic stress-controlled void nucleation model
for porous solids with pressure-sensitive matrices. Int J Solids Struct
2002;39(5):1385–403.
[9] Canal LP, Segurado J, Llorca J. Failure surface of epoxy-modified fiber-reinforced com-
posites under transverse tension and out-of-plane shear. Int J Solids Struct
2009;46(11):2265–74.
[10] Drucker DC, Prager W. Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design. Q Appl Math
1952;10(2):157–65.
[11] Chen J, Sun C. A plastic potential function suitable for anisotropic fiber composites. J
Compos Mater 1993;27(14):1379–90.
[12] Daniel IM. Yield and failure criteria for composite materials under static and dynamic
loading. Prog Aerosp Sci 2016;81:18–25.
[13] Zhong S, Guo L, Liu G, Lu H, Zeng T. A continuum damage model for three-dimensional
woven composites and finite element implementation. Compos Struct 2015;128:1–9.
[14] Tao Y, Chen H, Yao K, Lei H, Pei Y, Fang D. Experimental and theoretical studies on inter-
fiber failure of unidirectional polymer-matrix composites under different strain rates. Int
J Solids Struct 2017;113:37–46.
[15] Chen Y, Zhao Y, He C, Ai S, Lei H, Tang L, et al. Yield and failure theory for unidirectional
polymer-matrix composites. Compos B Eng 2019;164:612–9.
[16] Puck A, Schürmann H. Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means of physically based
phenomenological models. This article represents the authors' contributions to a world-
wide exercise to confirm the state-of-the-art for predicting failure in composites, orga-
nised by Hinton and Soden. Compos Sci Technol 1998; 58(7): 1045–67.
[17] Maimí P, Camanho PP, Mayugo J, Dávila C. A continuum damage model for composite
laminates: Part I-Constitutive model. Mech Mater 2007;39(10):897–908.
[18] Ernst G, Vogler M, Hühne C, Rolfes R. Multiscale progressive failure analysis of textile
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2010;70(1):61–72.
[19] Ge J, He C, Liang J, Chen Y, Fang D. A coupled elastic-plastic damage model for the
mechanical behavior of three-dimensional (3D) braided composites. Compos Sci Technol
2018.
[20] Robertson RE. Theory for the plasticity of glassy polymers. J Chem Phys
1966;44(10):3950–6.
[21] Hoy RS, Robbins MO. Strain hardening of polymer glasses: Entanglements, energetics,
and plasticity. Phys Rev E 2008;77(3):031801.
[22] Govaert LE, Engels TA, Wendlandt M, Tervoort TA, Suter UW. Does the strain hardening
modulus of glassy polymers scale with the flow stress? J Polym Sci, Part B: Polym Phys
2008;46(22):2475–81.
[23] Thiruppukuzhi SV, Sun C. Models for the strain-rate-dependent behavior of polymer
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2001;61(1):1–12.
[24] Linde P, Pleitner J, de Boer H, Carmone C. Modelling and simulation of fibre metal la-
minates. ABAQUS Users’ conference; 2004.
[25] Gao X, Gillespie JW, Jensen RE, Li W, Haque BZ, McKnight SH. Effect of fiber surface
texture on the mechanical properties of glass fiber reinforced epoxy composite. Compos A
Appl Sci Manuf 2015;74:10–7.
[26] Sun C, Chen J. A simple flow rule for characterizing nonlinear behavior of fiber com-
posites. J Compos Mater 1989;23(10):1009–20.
[27] Kabiri Ataabadi A, Hosseini-Toudeshky H, Ziaei Rad S. Experimental and analytical study
on fiber-kinking failure mode of laminated composites. Compos B Eng 2014;61:84–93.
[28] Matsuo T, Kageyama K. Compressive failure mechanism and strength of unidirectional
thermoplastic composites based on modified kink band model. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf
2017;93:117–25.
[29] Naya F, Herráez M, Lopes C, González C, Van der Veen S, Pons F. Computational mi-
cromechanics of fiber kinking in unidirectional FRP under different environmental con-
ditions. Compos Sci Technol 2017;144:26–35.
[30] Matzenmiller A, Lubliner J, Taylor R. A constitutive model for anisotropic damage in
fiber-composites. Mech Mater 1995;20(2):125–52.