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

com/

The background to Part B of the Second World-Wide Failure Exercise: Evaluation of theories for
predicting failure in polymer composite laminates under three-dimensional states of stress
MJ Hinton and AS Kaddour
Journal of Composite Materials published online 15 January 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0021998312473346

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/01/14/0021998312473346
A more recent version of this article was published on - Mar 26, 2013

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Composites

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

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

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

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

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

Version of Record - Mar 26, 2013

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 15, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014

 JOURNAL OF
COMPOSITE
Original Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
0(0) 1–10
! The Author(s) 2013
The background to Part B of the Second Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
World-Wide Failure Exercise: Evaluation DOI: 10.1177/0021998312473346
jcm.sagepub.com
of theories for predicting failure in
polymer composite laminates under
three-dimensional states of stress

MJ Hinton and AS Kaddour

Abstract
The Second World-Wide Failure Exercise was launched and organised by the authors to determine the accuracy of
current theories for predicting failure in polymer composite laminates under three-dimensional states of stress. This
paper provides an introduction to the second stage (‘Part B’) of Second World-Wide Failure Exercise within which the
level of maturity and accuracy of the leading three-dimensional failure theories for composites are assessed against
experimental data, their strengths and weaknesses are identified and conclusions are drawn. The Second World-Wide
Failure Exercise builds upon the process and philosophy developed during the First World-Wide Failure Exercise with the
clear aims of ensuring that the assessment is objective, transparent and an effective, accessible benchmark for use by the
composites community.

Keywords
Second World-Wide Failure Exercise, triaxial, failure, benchmark, three-dimensional stress, polymeric composite,
pressure

Progress towards that end has been steady whereas

Introduction
The ability to predict with accuracy the strength of a
structure under a wide variety of loading conditions is a
fundamental step in the design of load-bearing compo-
nents. There is an immense body of literature in this
domain, stretching back over many centuries, with the
bulk of the work focused on isotropic materials. As a
consequence, our understanding of strength prediction
for isotropic materials is now highly mature. In con-
trast, the development of fibre-reinforced polymer
(FRP) composites and their uptake into structural
applications is relatively new, with their usage starting
during the 1960s. By their very nature, FRPs exhibit
anisotropic and heterogeneous behaviour, thereby
bringing added complexity to the prediction of strength
in these materials and representing a departure from
the historical knowledgebase.
Over the last 50 years, a significant amount of
research has been conducted to fill this knowledge
gap so that engineers can be provided with the requisite
mathematical tools for use in component design.
the demand to deploy FRPs in structural applications
has mushroomed, world-wide, due to their exceptional
mechanical properties and fit with cost effective manu-
facturing methods. As a result, a significant mismatch
exists between the level of fidelity of the current
strength predictive tools and the desire of engineers to
employ FRPs in ever more complex loading environ-
ments. This mismatch has manifested itself in the form
of the ‘make and test’ philosophy that is widely used by
companies to work around the lack of confidence in
current predictive tools.
Whilst ‘make and test’ has underpinned rapid
growth in the FRP industry to date, clear signs are
emerging that, as product development cycle times
QinetiQ, Ively Road, Farnborough Hampshire, UK
Corresponding author:
AS Kaddour, QinetiQ, Ively Road, Farnborough Hampshire, GU14 0LX,
UK.
Email: askaddour@qinetiq.com

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014

2 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
reduce, the uncertainties in time, cost and risk (which
are implicit with this philosophy) are beginning to have
a negative impact. There is now a strong demand to
accelerate the evolution of credible, user-friendly pre-
dictive tools that will provide ‘right first time’ (or close
to) design solutions and thereby empower the contin-
ued growth in the FRP industry. The authors’ intent for
Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II) is
that it will contribute to the evolution.
In this introductory paper to WWFE-II Part B, the
authors have provided a brief account of various mile-
stones and the successes achieved to date from coordi-
nating the first and second WWFEs. The scope of
WWFE-II Part B is described together with the process
by which the predictive capabilities of the theories will
be assessed.
The First World-Wide Failure Exercise
The first exercise was launched, coordinated and
reported between 1996 and 2004 to deal with bench-
marking of failure criteria under in-plane (2-D) load-
ings. A total of 15 participating groups representing 19
different methodologies had taken part and their failure
theories have been compared with one another and with
14 sets of experimental data. The results, in the form
of papers written by the originators of the theories,
Refs [1–43], have been published in three special issues
of an international journal and then assembled in Ref.
[1]. The lessons, recommendations and gaps learnt from
this exercise can be found in Refs [1,17,31,32,41–43].
One of the high-priority gaps, identified in first
WWFE, was the need to examine the fidelity of failure
theories when applied to three-dimensional (3-D) (i.e.
triaxial) states of stress.
The Second World-Wide Failure Exercise
As noted in the introductory paper in Ref. [44], a thor-
ough understanding of the triaxial failure behaviour of
composites is important in many applications,
including:
. thick and thin composite (e.g. aircraft wing skin,
fuselage, lightweight fighting vehicles, rotor blades
in wind turbines, helicopters and others),
. high-pressure equipment and hydrostatic pressure,
e.g. deep underwater structures,
. bolted joints,
. indentations of shells and panels,
. impact and dynamic loadings and ballistic
penetration,
. composite manufacturing and thermal stress
build-up.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014
As a brief recap, WWFE-II was launched by the
authors with the objective of extending the assessment
of predictive failure criteria from 2-D to 3-D states of
stress. In order to achieve this goal, the authors
planned to:
(a) assemble a comprehensive description of the
current, foremost, 3-D failure theories that may
be applicable to FRPs,
(b) compare the predictive capabilities of each theory
directly with each other,
(c) compare the predictive capabilities of each theory
directly with experimental data,
(d) highlight any common gaps in the theories,
(e) highlight any gaps/shortfalls in the experimental
data.
In particular, the WWFE-II involves posing a set of
challenging test cases to validate and benchmark the
triaxial failure theories. Schematics showing the test
cases are depicted in Figure 1 and these cover the fol-
lowing areas, see also Table 1:
. Behaviour of an isotropic polymeric resin material,
without fibres under triaxial loading.
. Triaxial behaviour of unidirectional (UD) FRP
lamina, made of various fibres and resins, including
the resin as above.
. 3-D and through-thickness strength and deform-
ation behaviour of multi-directional laminates
under various triaxial stresses.
The stress states considered include:
. Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the tensile and com-
pressive strength of an isotropic material (polymer).
. Effect of hydrostatic pressure on the longitudinal
(along the fibres) and transverse (perpendicular) ten-
sile and compressive failure of a UD lamina and
multi-directional laminates.
. Effects of hydrostatic pressure on shear strength,
shear strain and shear stress–strain curves.
. Effects of in-plane loading on the through-thickness
shear.
. Behaviour of composite laminates under through-
thickness loadings.
Part A of WWFE-II
Part A of the WWFE-II was conducted between 2007
and 2009 and it captured full details of the theoretical
models and failure criteria of the participants and the
results of their blind predictions. A total of 12 groups,
see Table 2, representing 12 failure criteria, have
Hinton and Kaddour 3

Figure 1. Schematics of the 12 Test Cases used in Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II). One isotropic polymer material
(Case 1), six UD laminae (Cases 2 to 7) and five multi-directional laminates (Cases 8 to 12). Three stress–strain curves (Cases 4, 9 and
12) are sought.

Table 1. Details of the test cases used in Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II), Ref. [45].

Test case Lay-up Material Required predictions

1 Resin MY750 epoxy s2 versus s3 (s1 ¼ s3) envelope

2 0 T300/PR319  12 versus s2 (s1 ¼ s2 ¼ s3) envelope
3 g12 versus s2 (s1 ¼ s2 ¼ s3) envelope
4 Shear stress–strain curves ( 12  g12)
(for s1 ¼ s2 ¼ s3 ¼ 600 MPa)
5 E-glass/MY750 s2 versus s3 (s1 ¼ s3) envelope
6 S-glass/epoxy s1 versus s3 (s2 ¼ s3) envelope
7 Carbon/epoxy
8 35 E-glass/MY750 sy versus sz (sx ¼ sz) envelope
9 Stress–strain curves (sy  "x and sy  "y)
at sz ¼ sx ¼ 100MPa
10 (0 /90 /  45 )s IM7/8551-7  yz versus sz (sy ¼ sx ¼ 0) envelope
11 (0 /90 )s
12 Stress–strain curves (sz  "z, sz  "x and sz  "y)
for sy ¼ sx ¼ 0

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014


Table 2. A list containing names and addresses of the organisers and the participants (and their groups) involved in the Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II).
Name
MJ Hinton and AS Kaddour
D Zhang (a) and J-Q Ye (b), Refs [46,47]
ST Pinho*, R Darvizeh*, P Robinson*, C Schuecker**,
PP Camanho***, Refs [48,49]
A Puck (a), HM Deuschle and B-H Kröplin (b), Refs [50,51]
A Rotem, Refs [52,53]
N Carrere, F Laurin, and J-F Maire, Refs [54,55]
Y Huang, L Xu, and S K Ha*, Ref. [56]
Y Huang, C Jin and SK Ha*, Ref. [57]
B Zand (a), T Butalia (b), WE Wolfe (b),
and GA Schoeppner (c), Refs [58,59]
G Kress, Refs [60,61]
R Cuntze, Refs [62,63]
TA Bogetti (a), J Staniszewski (b), B P Burns (a), CPR Hoppel
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014
(a), JW Gillespie, Jr. (c), and J Tierney (d), Refs [64,65]
AC Hansen, EE Nelson, and DJ Kenik, Refs [66,67]
Z-M Huang (a) and Y-X Zhou (b), Refs [68,69]
4
Address
QinetiQ, Fort Halstead, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN14 7BP, UK. Email: mjhinton@QinetiQ.com. (Mike.Hinton@nccuk.com)
QinetiQ, Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 0LX, UK. Email: askaddour@QinetiQ.com
(a) School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, China
(b) School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK (now at Lancaster University. Email: j.ye2@lancaster.ac.uk)
*Department of Aeronautics, South Kensington Campus, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
**Luxner Engineering ZT, Christian-Plattner-Str. 4, 6460 Imst, Austria
*‘**DEMEGI, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal.
Email: silvestre.pinho@imperial.ac.uk, p.robinson@imperial.ac.uk
(a) Am Ahlberg 33, 34376 Immenhausen, Germany. Tel.: þ49-5673-3517; fax: þ49-5673-3517. Email: alfred.puck@gmx.de
(b) Institute for Statics and Dynamics of Aerospace Structures (ISD), University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 27, 70569 Stuttgart,
Germany Tel.: þ49-7031-79385-33; fax: þ49-7031-79385-77. Email: m.deuschle@kolt.de
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel.
Email: merar01@techunix.technion.ac.il
ONERA/DMSC, 29 avenue de la Division Leclerc, BP 72, F-92322 Châtillon cedex, France. Email: nicolas.carrere@ensta-bretag-
ne.fr, jean-francois.maire@onera.fr, frederic.laurin@onera.fr
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University #1271, Sa 3-dong, Sangnok-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 426-791, Korea
*Corresponding author. Email: sungha@hanyang.ac.kr; Tel: þ82-31-4005249; Fax: þ82-31-4071034
(a) American Electric Power, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, Ohio, 43215, USA, (b) Department of Civil Engineering, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, USA, (c) Material and Manufacturing Directorate, AFRL, Wright-Patterson, AFB, Ohio,
45433-7750, USA. Email: wolfe10@osu.edu, butalia.1@osu.edu
Structure Technologies, ETH Zürich, Leonhardstr. 27, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland, Fax:þ41 1 633 1125. Email: gkress@ethz.ch
D-85229 Markt Indersdorf, Germany. Tel.: 0049 8136 7754. Email: Ralf_Cuntze@t-online.de
(a) US Army Research Laboratory; AMSRL-WM-MB Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066, (b) Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education Participant, US Army Research Laboratory; AMSRL-WM-MB, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-
5066, (c) Center for Composite Materials, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
(d) Center for Composite Materials, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA. Email: bogetti@arl.army.mil,
burns@arl.army.mil
University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA. Email: hansen@uwyo.edu
Firehole Technologies, Inc.
(a) School of Aerospace Engineering & Applied Mechanics, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, China. Tel. & Fax:
(þ86)021-65985373. Email: huangzm@mail.tongji.edu.cn
(b) Department of Mechanical engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
Hinton and Kaddour
participated, and their methods covered the following
failure models:
. 3-D Maximum strain theory, referred to as Bogetti’s
model, Refs [64,65],
. Micromechanical based Hybrid Mesoscopic (MHM)
3-D approach, referred to as Carrere’s model, Refs
[54,55],
. Failure Mode Concept (FMC) model, referred to as
Cuntze’s model, Refs [62,63]
. MicroMechanics of Failure (MMF) model, referred
to as Ha’s model, Refs [56, 57] (The same referred to
as Ha-Tsai in Refs [44,70])
. Multi-Continuum micro-mechanics Theory (MCT),
referred to as Hansen’s model, Refs [66,67],
. Anisotropic plasticity, bridging model and constitu-
ents’ generalised maximum stress, referred to as
Huang’s model, Refs [68,69],
. Hashin’s model, Refs [60,61],
. 3-D physically-based constitutive model, referred to
as Pinho’s model, Refs [48,49],
. Physically based 3-D phenomenological model,
referred to as Puck’s model, Refs [50,51],
. Interactive matrix and fibre failure theory, referred
to as Rotem’s model, Refs [52,53],
. Maximum strain energy method, referred to as
Wolfe’s model, Refs [58,59] and
. Christensen’s theory, Refs [46,47].
In all cases, the aim was to seek contributions from
the originators of the theories and not from third par-
ties who might misinterpret or misapply the techniques
when making the blind predictions. This was achieved
for 10 of the 12 theories, however obtaining direct con-
tributions from two originators (Hashin and
Christensen) proved to be impossible and in both of
these cases, contributions were obtained indirectly,
‘by proxy’ via their colleagues.
Contributions for WWFE-II were sought from those
who had taken part in WWFE-I, in order to provide
continuity between the two. Eight contributors rose to
the challenge and this has added considerably to the
richness, bearing in mind that WWFE-I was an assess-
ment based on in-plane 2-D loading scenarios whereas
WWFE-II is focused on 3-D loading scenarios. It is
especially interesting to note that in most cases, the
originator chose to modify his/her theory from that
reported in WWFE-I in order to address failure predic-
tion under 3-D conditions. The reader might like to
ponder the significance of these changes by referring
back to the WWFE-I publications whilst reading the
WWFE-II Part A and B papers.
All of the papers have been subjected to a stringent
reviewing process by the organisers. In addition, further
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014
5
reviewing was undertaken by an independent panel,
selected by the Journal of Composite Materials. The
results are the subject of this special issue of Journal
of Composite Materials, which contains 15 papers,
comprising:
. An introductory paper, provided by the organisers,
describing the process and philosophy adopted in
Part A, Ref. [44].
. A paper, Ref. [45], written by the organisers detailing
the input data and instructions and guidelines for
Part A.
. A series of 12 papers submitted by the participants,
Refs [62] to [56].
. A paper, Ref. [70], written by the organisers sum-
marising and comparing the theoretical predictions
of all the 12 methods used.
The results generated within Part A highlighted a
number of interesting features in the theories employed.
Almost all of the theories were capable of dealing with
reinforced and un-reinforced materials. The prediction
of the behaviour of the un-reinforced materials was
challenging for a number of classical 3-D failure criteria
as the overwhelming majority of participants (9 out of
12) employed separate equations to delineate between
isotropic and orthotropic materials.
There was a lack of consensus regarding whether or
not the triaxial failure envelopes should be open or
closed, especially under hydrostatic compressive and/
or tensile loading situations. There was also a signifi-
cant diversity between the theoretical predictions in
terms of the shapes of the failure envelopes and whether
or not the envelopes for a unidirectional lamina should
be open under combined transverse and through-thick-
ness compression.
Part B of WWFE-II
The organisers initiated ‘Part B’, after the completion
of ‘Part A’, by means of a letter and data pack issued to
the participants, containing the following:
. Full instructions for participating in ‘Part B’
(including a defined format for their Part B paper
submission).
. Tables and figures of the experimental results for
each of the test cases defined in ‘Part A’.
. A description of the pedigree of the experimental
results and of the material properties provided by
the organisers.
On receipt of each paper, it was subjected to rigorous
reviewing by the organisers. Typically, papers required a
number of iterations of revision to achieve the necessary
6 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
level of content and quality whereupon the organisers
loaded them into the Journal of Composite Materials
portal. Further reviewing then took place by an inde-
pendent panel, selected by the Journal of Composite
Materials, in accordance with the policy of the journal.
Part B of the WWFE-II contains the following papers:
. An introduction, written by the organisers, is the
subject of the present paper.
. A paper giving full description, provided by the
organisers, of the experimental results and their ori-
gins for each of the test cases employed in the exer-
cise, Ref. [71].
. Individual papers, provided by the participants,
describing the degree of correlation between their
individual predictions and the experimental data,
and a description of any refinements in theory intro-
duced to resolve shortfalls, Refs [47,
49,51,53,55,57,59,61,63,65,69,67].
. A final paper, provided by the organisers, which
contains an assessment of the overall predictive cap-
abilities of the various theories when compared with
the experimental results, Ref. [71].
The evidence used to underpin (d) was derived by
carrying out a comprehensive comparison of each indi-
vidual theoretical prediction from ‘Part A’ and ‘Part B’
against the available experimental results. Both quanti-
tative and qualitative procedures were employed, full
details of which are provided in Ref. [71].
Selection and origin of experimental
results
The WWFE-II was built around 12 test cases, which
were selected on the basis that they would stretch the
theories to the full and that they were backed up by
experimental results with a reasonable pedigree. The
organisers recognised the need for high-quality data
and made every effort to identify suitable sources.
Indeed before ‘Part A’ was initiated, contacts were
made with those who published papers on the subject.
The response was disappointingly low, leaving the
organisers little margin but to use a mixture of data
known to themselves, through publications and through
personal contacts. After much debate, the organisers
settled on reasonable data sets and corresponding
test cases (including stress/strain response and strength
for a range of materials, lay-ups, geometry and different
types of loading), confident in the knowledge that they
would provide a meaningful challenge to the
theoreticians.
In general, the experimental results were not new but
were from published work. They originated from indi-
vidual activities and research programs carried out at
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014
by seven institutions, over a period of time from 1980 to
2010, and these are:
1. University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology (UMIST) (UK),
2. QinetiQ (previously known as The Defence
Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA)) (UK),
3. Leeds University (UK),
4. University of Bradford, Bradford (UK),
5. Moscow State University of Technology (Russia),
6. Rutgers University (USA) and
7. University of California/Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (USA).
A mapping of the origin of the data for each test case is
provided in Table 3. A comprehensive description of all
of the experimental results, in exactly the form provided
to the participants, is presented in Ref. [72]. Various
shapes of specimens were used, ranging from dog
bones, thick tubes, circular bars, thin rings, cubes and
waisted rectangular specimens. The experimental
results for any given test case were generally derived
by a single group of investigators, from a single
laboratory.
Five material types were employed in the exercise
and this, in turn, required the definition of five sets of
fibre, matrix and lamina properties on which to base
the theoretical predictions. The readers may recall that
the material data sets were provided to the participants
at the commencement of ‘Part A’ and are listed in Ref.
[45]. Wherever possible, the material data sets were
obtained from the same investigators who provided
the corresponding test case experimental results.
Modifications and improvements to
theories in Part B
Unsurprisingly, many of the participants of the
WWFE-II took advantage of the opportunity afforded
in ‘Part B’ to refine their theories in the light of the
lessons they had learned from Part A of the exercise
and especially when in receipt of the Part B data pack
containing the experimental results. Nine of the twelve
participating groups modified their predictions and a
summary of the modifications is shown in Table 4.
These can be categorised into the following:
. Modification of the failure criteria: (models by
Carrere, Christensen, Ha, Huang, Pinho).
. Adjusting certain parameters within the model
(models by Carrere, Cuntze, Huang, Hashin,
Wolfe, Rotem, Christensen).
. Curve fitting test data (models by Cuntze, Hashin,
Wolfe, Christensen).
Hinton and Kaddour 7

Table 3. Origin of the experimental results used in WWFE-II.

Test case Source of experimental data Remarks

1 QinetiQ, Leeds University (UK) Circular solid bar, pressure up to 400 MPa
2 Rutgers University (USA) Tubular specimens, pressures up to 600 MPa
3
4
5 QinetiQ, Leeds University(UK) Rectangular prisms, pressure up to 860 MPa
6 University of Bradford, Bradford (UK) and Dog-bone, thing hoop wound rings, pressure up to 500 MPa
Moscow State University of Technology
(Russia)
7 University of Bradford, Bradford (UK) Dog bone, pressures up to 300 MPa
8 University of Manchester (previously UMIST) Thick filament wound tubes, pressures up to 150 MPa
9 (UK)
10 University of California/Lawrence Livermore Circular hollow cylinders
11 National Laboratory (USA), Manchester
University (UK)
12(þ) Manchester University (UK) Cubes, cylinders, rectangular waisted specimens.
(þ) Test data were for (0 /90 /45 )s lay-up.

Table 4. Details of the modifications made by the participants in Part B of Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II).

Theory Modifications

Bogetti, Refs [64,65] Supplying missing stress–strain curves for Test Case 12.
Carrere, Refs [54,55] (1) Damage variable associated to the transverse cracking. (2) Fibre failure criterion (3)
Tuning of non-linear behaviour. (5) A permanent strain due to the micro-damage has
been added.
Cuntze, Refs [62,63] (1) Curve fitting of data in Test Cases 2-4 and 12. (2) Revising the parameter used to
describe the 2nd glassy temperature. (3) Calibrating curves parameters describing
friction effects. (4) Employing laminate-based criteria for Cases 10 and 11. (5)
Rectifying a problem with stress analysis in Test Case 9.
Ha, Refs [56,57] (referred to as (1) A quadratic fiber failure criterion was proposed to replace the maximum stress
Ha-Tsai in Refs [44,70]) criterion. (2) A 3-dimensional kinking model was introduced so as to take into account
the influence of the formation of kinking bands on micro stresses in the matrix, when a
ply is under longitudinal compression. (3) In-plane shear terms in stress amplification
factors were averaged to avoid overestimation of local stress concentration for regions
within the matrix and in the vicinity of the fiber-matrix interface.
Hansen, Refs [66,67] No modifications, except fine-tuning modes of failure
Huang, Refs [68,69] Modification to the fibre failure criteria and input data of the properties of the
constituents.
Hashin, Refs [60,61] Suggested possible adjustment for prediction failure of isotropic materials.
Considerations of effect of transverse stress on fibre failure. Curve fitting of experi-
mental stress strain curves for Test Cases 4 and 12.
Pinho, Refs [48,49] Modification to input parameters and introduction of an improved constitutive model,
which provided also better extrapolation of nonlinear material data.
Puck, Refs [50,51] No changes
Rotem, Refs [52,53] Model’s parameter calibration, improving post failure model.
Wolfe, Refs [58,59] (1) Curve fitting of experimental data in Test cases 2–4. (2) Calibration of model’s
parameters. (3) Inclusion of lamina thermal stresses
Christensen, Refs [46,47] (1) Introduced limits on through-thickness shear strength, (2) Introduced a laminate level
polynomial invariant theory where the measured strengths of the laminates in Test
Cases 10 and 11 were used.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014

8 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
The predictions of both the original and modified
theories are compared with the experimental results in
the ‘Part B’ submissions. The readers will find these
refinements to be of particular interest as they may
help in drawing inferences as to the robustness of the
original assumptions made and of the new modifica-
tions. Furthermore, the fact that nearly 75% of the
participants have implemented some refinements, as a
result of their engagement in this exercise, shows the
value of carrying out such independent and challenging
studies.
The effects of these modifications on the predicted
values and on the correlation with test data are shown
in Ref. [71]. The readers are advised to refer to the
individual papers in order to gain a better insight into
the modifications made and their impact on the validity
of the theory.
Concluding remarks
This ‘Part B’ introductory paper, taken together with
the introductory paper to ‘Part A’,44 has been written
to provide a commentary on the process adopted for
carrying out WWFE-II. The organisers believe that the
process provides an effective, objective and dispassion-
ate means of examining the robustness of the leading
3-D failure theories, whilst at the same time ensuring
that the current state of knowledge in this field has been
captured in a clear set of publications. Having estab-
lished the current position and identified the gaps in our
understanding, the authors fervently hope that this will
provide a springboard from which the composites com-
munity can develop improved 3-D failure theories
whilst generating additional, definitive experimental
evidence to increase the level of validation of the lead-
ing theories. We are pleased to see evidence of the
former beginning to occur within the ‘Part B’
contributions.
Acknowledgments
We thank all the contributors and their colleagues, from
many parts of the world, who have given encouragement
and help to the organisers. The contributors have displayed
striking enthusiasm and persistence, and without their efforts
this exercise would have been stillborn. The authors especially
thank Prof Paul Smith (University of Surrey) and Prof
Shuguang Li (Nottingham University) for their contributions
to WWFE-II. Paul and Shuguang have been active partici-
pants in the project, providing insight and acting as a sound-
ing board for the authors on a variety of issues. Dr Kaddour
acknowledges the Royal Society for their support of this pro-
ject via the Award of a Royal Society Industry Fellowship.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014
Funding
This research was sponsored partly by the Royal Society in
Great Britain.
References
1. Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS and Soden PD. Failure criteria
in fibre reinforced polymer composites: The World-Wide
Failure Exercise. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2004.
2. Hinton MJ and Soden PD. Predicting failure in compos-
ite laminates: the background to the exercise. Compos Sci
Technol 1998; 58: 1001–1010.
3. Soden PD, Hinton MJ and Kaddour AS. Lamina proper-
ties and lay-up configurations and loading conditions of a
range fibre reinforced composite laminates. Compos Sci
Tech 1998; 58: 1011–1022.
4. Gotsis PK, Chamis CC and Minnetyan L. Prediction of
composite laminate fracture: micromechanics and pro-
gressive fracture. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1137–1150.
5. Eckold GC. Failure criteria for use in the design envir-
onment. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1095–1106.
6. Edge EC. Stress based Grant-Sanders method for predict-
ing failure of composite laminates. Compos Sci Tech
1998; 58: 1043–1044.
7. McCartney LN. Predicting transverse crack formation in
cross-ply laminate. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1069–1082.
8. Hart-Smith LJ. Predictions of the original and truncated
maximum strain failure models for certain fibrous com-
posite laminates. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1151–1178.
9. Hart-Smith LJ. Predictions of a generalised maximum-
shear-stress failure criterion for certain fibrous composite
laminates. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1179–1208.
10. Puck A and Schürmann H. Failure analysis of FRP
laminates by means of physically based phenomeno-
logical models. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1045–1068.
11. Rotem A. Prediction of laminate failure with Rotem fail-
ure criterion. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1083–1094.
12. Sun CT and Tao JX. Prediction of failure envelopes and
stress strain behaviours of composite laminates. Compos
Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1125–1136.
13. Liu K-S and Tsai SW. A progressive quadratic failure
criterion of a laminate. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58:
1023–1032.
14. Wolfe WE and Butalia TS. A strain energy based failure
criterion for nonlinear analysis of composite laminates
subjected to biaxial loading. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58:
1107–1124.
15. Zinoviev PA, Grigoriev SV, Lebedeva OV, et al. Strength
of multilayered composites under plane stress state.
Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58: 1209–1224.
16. Soden PD, Hinton MJ and Kaddour AS. Comparison of
the predictive capabilities of current failure theories for
composite laminates. Compos Sci Tech 1998; 58:
1225–1254.
17. Hinton MJ, Soden PD and Kaddour AS. Evaluation of
failure prediction in composite laminates: background to
‘Part B’ of the exercise. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62:
1481–1488.
18. Soden PD, Hinton MJ and Kaddour AS. Experimental
failure stresses and deformations for a range of composite
Hinton and Kaddour
laminates subjected to uniaxial and biaxial loads: Failure
exercise benchmark data. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62:
1489–1514.
19. Hart-Smith LJ. Expanding the capabilities of the ten-
percent rule for predicting the strength of fibre-polymer
composites. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62: 1515–1544.
20. Gotsis PK, Chamis CC and Minnetyan L. Application of
progressive fracture analysis for predicting failure enve-
lopes and stress-strain behaviors of composite laminates:
A comparison with experimental results. Compos Sci
Tech 2002; 62: 1545–1560.
21. Eckold GC. Failure criteria for use in the design
environment - Part B. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62:
1561–1570.
22. Edge EC. Theory v. experiment comparison for stress
based Grant-Sanders method. Compos Sci Tech 2002;
62: 1571–1590.
23. Hart-Smith LJ. Comparison between theories and test
data concerning the strength of various fibre-polymer
composites. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62: 1591–1618.
24. McCartney LN. Predicting ply crack formation and fail-
ure in laminates. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62: 1619–1632.
25. Puck A and Schürmann H. Failure analysis of FRP
laminates by means of physically based phenomeno-
logical models- Part B –. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62:
11633–1672.
26. Rotem A. The Rotem failure criterion theory and prac-
tice. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62: 1663–1672.
27. Sun CT, Tao J and Kaddour AS. Prediction of failure
envelopes and stress-strain behavior of composite lamin-
ates: Comparison with experimental results. Compos Sci
Tech 2002; 62: 1672–1682.
28. Kuraishi A, Tsai SW and Liu K. A progressive quadratic
failure criterion, Part B. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62:
1682–1696.
29. Butalia TS and Wolfe WE. Strain energy based non-
linear failure criterion: comparison of numerical predic-
tions and experimental observations for symmetric com-
posite laminates. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62: 1695–1710.
30. Zinoviev PA, Olga V, Lebedeva, Ludmilla P and Tairova.
Coupled analysis of experimental and theoretical results
on the deformation and failure of laminated composites
under a plane state of stress. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62:
11711–1724.
31. Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS and Soden PD. A comparison
of the predictive capabilities of current failure theories for
composite laminates, judged against experimental evi-
dence. Compos Sci Tech 2002; 62: 1725–1797.
32. Hinton MJ, Soden PD and Kaddour AS. Evaluation of
failure prediction in composite laminates: background to
Part C of the exercise. Compos Sci Techno 2004; 64(3):
321–328.
33. Bogetti TA, Hoppel CPR, Harik VM, et al. Predicting the
nonlinear response and progressive failure of composite
laminates. Compos Sci Techno 2004; 64(3): 329–342.
34. Cuntze RG and Freund A. The predictive capability of
Failure Mode Concept - based strength criteria for multi-
directional laminates. Compos Sci Techno 2004; 64(3):
343–377.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014
9
35. Mayes SJ and Hansen AC. Composite laminate failure
analysis using multicontinuum theory. Compos Sci
Techno 2004; 64(3): 379–394.
36. Zheng ming Huang. A bridging model prediction of the
tensile strength of composite laminates subjected to biax-
ial loads. Compos Sci Techno 2004; 64(3): 395–44, 2004.
37. Bogetti TA, Hoppel CPR, Harik VM, et al. Predicting the
nonlinear response and failure of composite laminates:
correlation with experimental results. Compos Sci
Techno 2004; 64(3): 477–485.
38. Cuntze RG. The predictive capability of failure mode
concept - based strength criteria for multidirectional
laminates: Part B. Compos Sci Techno 2004; 64(3):
487–516.
39. Mayes SJ and Hansen AC. A comparison of multiconti-
nuum theory based failure simulation with experimental
results. Compos Sci Techno 2004; 64(3): 487–516.
40. Huang Z-M. Correlation of the bridging model predic-
tions of the biaxial failure strengths of fibrous laminates
with experiments. Compos Sci Techno 2004; 64(3):
529–548.
41. Kaddour AS, Hinton MJ and Soden PD. Comparison of
the predictive capabilities of current failure theories for
composite laminates: Additional contributions. Compos
Sci Techno 2004; 64(3): 449–476.
42. Hinton MJ, Soden PD and Kaddour AS. A further
assessment of the predictive capabilities of current failure
theories for composite laminates: comparison with
experimental evidence. Compos Sci Techno 2004; 64(3):
549–588.
43. Soden PD, Hinton MJ and Kaddour AS.
Recommendations for designers and researchers resulting
from the World-Wide Failure Exercise. Compos Sci
Techno 2004; 64(3): 589–604.
44. Hinton MJ and Kaddour AS. The background to the
Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II).
J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2283–2294.
45. Kaddour AS and Hinton MJ. Input data for test cases
used in benchmarking triaxial failure theories of compos-
ites. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2295–2312.
46. Ye J, Zhang D and Sheng H. Prediction of failure enve-
lopes and stress strain curves of composite laminates
under triaxial loads. J Compos Mater 2012; 46:
2417–2430.
47. Zhang D and Ye JQ. Prediction of failure envelopes and
stress strain curves of fiber composite laminates under
triaxial loads: comparison with experimental results, to
be published in. J Compos Mater.
48. Pinho ST, Darvizeh R, Robinson P, et al. Material and
structural response of polymer-matrix fibre-reinforced
composites. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2313–2341.
49. Pinho ST, Vyas GM and Robinson P. WWFE-II: Part B,
to be published in. J Compos Mater.
50. Deuschle HM and Kroplin B-H. FE implementation of
Puck’s failure theory for fibre reinforced composites
under 3D-stress. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2485–2513.
51. Puck A and Deuschle M. Application of the Puck failure
theory for fibre reinforced composites under 3D-stress:
Comparison with experimental results, to be published
in. J Compos Mater.
10
52. Rotem A. The Rotem failure criterion for fibrous lami-
nated composite materials: three dimensional loading
case. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2379–2388.
53. Rotem A. 3D Rotem failure criterion for fibrous lami-
nated composite materials: comparison with experiments,
to be published in. J Compos Mater.
54. Carrere N, Laurin F and Maire J-F. Micromechanical
based hybrid mesoscopic 3D approach for non-linear
progressive failure analysis of composite structures.
J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2389–2415.
55. Carrere N, Laurin F and Maire J-F. Micromechanical
based hybrid mesoscopic 3D approach for non-linear
progressive failure analysis of composite structures –
Part B: Comparison with experimental data, to be pub-
lished in. J Compos Mater.
56. Huang Y, Xu L and Ha SK. Prediction of 3D composite
laminate response using micromechanics of failure.
J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2431–2442.
57. Huang Y, Jin C and Ha SK. Strength prediction of triaxi-
ally loaded composites using a progressive damage model
based on micro-mechanics of failure, to be published in.
J Compos Mater.
58. Zand B, Butalia TS, Wolfe WE, et al. A strain energy
based failure criterion for nonlinear analysis of composite
laminates subjected to triaxial loading. J Compos Mater
2012; 46: 2515–2537.
59. Doudican BM, Zand B, Butalia TS, et al. Strain energy
based failure criterion: comparison of numerical predic-
tions and experimental observations for symmetric com-
posite laminates subjected to triaxial loading, to be
published in. J Compos Mater.
60. Kress G. Examination of Hashin’s Failure Criteria for
the Second World-Wide Failure Exercise. J Compos
Mater 2012; 46: 2539–2561.
61. Kress G. Examination of Hashin’s failure criteria for Part
B of the second world-wide failure exercise: Comparison
with test data, to be published in. J Compos Mater.
62. Cuntze RG. The predictive capability of failure mode
concept - based strength conditions for laminates com-
posed of UD laminae under static tri-axial stress states.
J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2563–2594.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 24, 2014
Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
63. Cuntze RG. Comparison between experimental and the-
oretical results using Cuntze’s ‘failure mode concept’
model for composites under triaxial loadings - Part B of
the WWFE-II, to be published in. J Compos Mater.
64. Bogetti TA, Staniszewski J, Burns BP, et al. Predicting
the nonlinear response and progressive failure of compos-
ite laminates under tri-axial loading. J Compos Mater
2012; 46: 2443–2459.
65. Bogetti TA, Staniszewski J, Burns BP, et al. Predicting
the nonlinear response and progressive failure of compos-
ite laminates under triaxial loading: correlation with
experimental results, to be published in. J Compos Mater.
66. Nelson EE, Hansen AC and Mayes S. Failure analysis of
composite laminates subjected to hydrostatic stresses: A
multicontinuum approach. J Compos Mater 2012; 46:
2461–2483.
67. Hansen AC, Nelson EE, Douglas J, et al. A comparison
of experimental data with multicontinuum failure simu-
lations of composite laminates subjected to tri-axial stres-
ses, to be published in. J Compos Mater.
68. Zhou Y-X and Huang Z-M. A bridging model predic-
tion of the ultimate strength of composite laminates
subjected to triaxial loads. J Compos Mater 2012; 46:
2343–2378.
69. Huang Z-M and Zhou Y-X. Correlation of the bridging
model predictions for triaxial failure strengths of compos-
ites with experiments, to be published in. J Compos
Mater.
70. Kaddour AS and Hinton MJ. Benchmarking of triaxial
failure criteria for composite laminates: Comparison
between models of ‘Part (A)’ of ‘WWFE-II’. J Compos
Mater 2012; 46: 2595–2634.
71. Kaddour AS and Hinton MJ. Maturity of 3D failure
criteria for fibre reinforced composites: Comparison
between theories and experiments: Part B of WWFE-II,
to be published in this issue.
72. Hinton MJ and Kaddour AS. Experimental test data for
benchmarking triaxial failure theories of composites, to
be published in. J Compos Mater.