International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Environmental fatigue behavior and life prediction of unidirectional

glass–carbon/epoxy hybrid composites
*
Ying Shan, Kin Liao
School of Materials Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang 639798, Singapore

Received 15 October 2000; received in revised form 10 August 2001; accepted 20 November 2001

Abstract

Unidirectional glass fiber reinforced and glass–carbon fiber reinforced epoxy matrix composite specimens were subjected to
tension–tension fatigue in air and in distilled water at 25 °C. While no significant change in fatigue life was observed for both
types of specimens tested in air and in water when cyclically tested at 85% of average ultimate tensile strength (UTS), the detrimental
effect of water becomes apparent at lower stress levels of 65 and 45% UTS. Compared to specimens tested in air, cyclic loading
in water results in shorter fatigue lives for both glass and hybrid specimens. While all of the glass fiber specimens did not survive
to 106 cycles when cyclically loaded in water, hybrid specimens (with 25% carbon fiber (by volume), 75% glass fiber (by volume),
30% total fiber volume fraction) showed better retention in structural integrity under environmental fatigue, for fatigue lives up to
107 cycles, a consequence of the corrosion resistant of carbon fiber. Thus it is shown, by incorporating appropriate amount of
carbon fibers in glass fiber composite, a much better performance in fatigue can be achieved for glass–carbon hybrid composite.
A simple life prediction model for the hybrid composite is proposed. Model predictions are compared with experiments results
from both laminated interply and intermingled intraply hybrid composites. Results suggest that synergistic effect of the reinforcing
fibers is critical in governing the fatigue behavior of intraply hybrid composite.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hybrid composites; Environmental fatigue; Life prediction

1. Introduction are proposed based on such a ‘constant strain’ assump-

1.1. Hybrid composites
A hybrid composite consists of two or more types of
reinforcing fibers in one or more types of matrices. By
hybridizing two or more types of fiber in a matrix allows
a closer tailoring of composite properties to satisfy spe-
cific requirements compared with composites with only
a single type of fiber. Uniaxial tensile behavior of unidi-
rectional hybrid composites has been studied extensively
since the mid 1970s. Whilst the elastic modulus in the
fiber direction can be predicted by rule-of-mixture
(ROM) approach, the tensile strength of hybrid com-
posites does not obey the ROM since the low elongation
(LE) fibers are expected to break first when their failure
strain is reached. Simple tensile strength models [1,2]
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-790-6258; fax: +65-790-9081.
E-mail address: askliao@ntu.edu.sg (K. Liao).
tion, where all of the low elongation fibers in a hybrid
composite are assume to break at their failure strain, fol-
lowed by failure of the high elongation (HE) fibers. A
schematic strength diagram constructed from these mod-
els is illustrated in Fig. 1. Point A denotes the tensile
strength of the high elongation fiber composite, and
point D that of the low elongation fiber composite. The
strength of the hybrid composites is then given by the
two straight lines AC and CD. To the right side of point
C, failure of the low elongation phase leads to immediate
failure of the entire hybrid composites since there is
insufficient high elongation fibers to sustain the load
after failure of the low elongation component. The
strength, shybrid, of the hybrid composite is then given by
shybrid ⫽ sLEnfLE ⫹ eLEEHEnfHE (1)
where nf is the volume fraction, s the tensile strength,
e the maximum strain, E, the Young’s modulus, and
subscripts LE and HE denote low elongation and high
elongation fiber, respectively. To the left side of point

0142-1123/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 2 - 1 1 2 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 1 0 - 9
848 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
Fig. 1. Strength curve constructed by constant strain model and rule-
of-mixture.
C, there are sufficient high elongation fibers to sustain
the load after failure of the low elongation fibers at stress
levels given by AC. The ultimate strength of the hybrid
at this volume fraction is then given by
shybrid ⫽ sHEnfHE
Since the crack arresting mechanism of the high
elongation components is not taking into consideration
in the constant strain model, it is an over simplification,
yielding a lower bound of hybrid strength. Deviation of
experiment data from this model is regarded as syner-
getic effect or hybrid effect.
Generally speaking, the properties of a hybrid com-
posite are considered to be an average of those of the
parent composites, and the fatigue responses are often
weighed by a ROM relation. Philips [3] reported that for
glass–carbon cloth an increase in tensile fatigue strength
is proportional to the amount of carbon fibers. Studies
by Marom et al. [4] on flexural fatigue behavior of unidi-
rectional carbon–aramid hybrid composites showed that
the slope of the S–N curve was given by a ROM
relationship. In a study on the unidirectional carbon–
kevlar epoxy hybrids, Fernando et al. [5] reported the
fatigue strength of the hybrids varies linearly with com-
position. Also, they claimed, after examining the fatigue
ratio (fatigue strength divided by tensile strength), that
their hybrids exhibited a positive deviation from ROM
or the actual fatigue strength is higher than the result
given by ROM predictions. In a subsequence paper
devoted to the fatigue behavior of unidirectional glass–
carbon hybrid composites [6], similar results were
reported by Dickson et al. In contrast with the amount of
literature on experimental results of hybrid composites,
however, few paper discuss modeling the fatigue
behavior of hybrid composites. An often debated matter
is whether it is possible to determine the fatigue response
of a hybrid composite from the properties of its parent
composites.
1.2. Environmental fatigue
When a material is cyclically loaded in the presence
of an environmental agent, such as moisture and/or tem-
perature, it is said to be under environmental fatigue.
In general, elevated temperatures and humidity shorten
fatigue lives of fiber reinforced polymer matrix com-
posites [9]. While preconditioning under relatively low
relative humidity may not have a significant effect on
glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) [10], precon-
ditioning in water at elevated temperatures (⬎75 °C)
often has a deleterious effect on the performance of
GFRP [10,11]. The fatigue performance of carbon fiber
reinforced plastics (CFRP) has been shown to be much
better than that of GFRP, even at elevated temperature
and high humidity. For instance, Jones et al. [11] showed
that preconditioning carbon/epoxy composite in boiling
water for three weeks has practically no effect on the
fatigue performance compared to specimens without pre-
conditioning, but glass composites did degrade at a much
faster rate.
(2) Most of the previous studies on environmental fatigue
of fiber reinforced plastics (FRP) were focused on vari-
ous preconditioning situations, and data on environmen-
tal fatigue of FRP tested under fluid immersion con-
ditions were very limited and results sometimes
contradicting. However, it is indicated by those data that
fatigue under fluid immersion is more severe than pre-
conditioning. Sumsion et al. [12] has compared flexural
fatigue behavior of uniaxial (0°) and cross-plied (±45°)
graphite/epoxy specimens tested in air and in water at
room temperature, substantial reduction in fatigue life
was observed for the latter case. In contrast, Komai et
al. [13] reported fatigue life of unidirectional CFRP
tested in immersed deionized water was slightly longer
than those tested in the air. They attributed this to the
enhanced ductility of the polymer matrix caused by
water absorption. They also found that specimens sub-
jected to preconditioning in water at various conditions
before cyclically loaded in water showed considerable
reduction in fatigue life. McBagonluri et al. [14] perfor-
med environmental fatigue on unidirectional pultruded
E-glass/vinyl ester composite by loading samples in a
fluid cell. They reported that after preconditioning in salt
water at 65 °C for 5 months the fatigue life for speci-
mens tested in salt water was considerably reduced com-
pared to that of as-delivered specimens cyclically tested
in air. However, when normalized to their respective
UTS, S–N curves revealed the same slope. It was there-
fore concluded that the fatigue damage mechanism was
the same for both conditions and was fiber dominated.
Recently, Liao et al. [15] have developed long-term
flexural fatigue data for unidirectional pultruded E-
glass/vinyl ester composite tested in water and NaCl sol-
utions. Under low stress, high cycle fatigue, substantial
 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
reductions in fatigue life under fluid immersion were
observed.
It is indicated by majority of the available data that
severe material degradation could be introduced to the
material under environmental fatigue of GFRP, even at
low stress levels. In order to enhance the durability of
GFRP, hybrid composite systems using both carbon and
glass fibers have been proposed [16,17]. As mentioned
previously, hybrid composites seem to be an attractive
material in resisting environmental attack. Both fatigue
performance and environmental resistance of glass–car-
bon hybrid composite is enhanced compared to all-glass
composites [9]. Compared to interply hybrid composites
constructed by laminating together distinct layers of
glass-fiber-reinforced composite and carbon-fiber-
reinforced composite, the intraply hybrid composite, in
which bundles of carbon and glass fibers are mixed
within a single layer, is considered more desirable in
terms of reduced mismatches. However, very limited
work has been carried out on intraply hybrid systems
because they are more difficult to fabricate.
In this paper, results of a study on fatigue and environ-
mental fatigue behavior of unidirectional glass com-
posite and glass–carbon intraply hybrid composite are
presented, and thereby it is shown that the hybrid
approach is viable in enhancing long term durability. A
simple phenomenological fatigue life prediction model
for unidirectional hybrid composites is also presented.
2. Materials and experiment
Unidirectional glass/epoxy and intraply glass–
carbon/epoxy specimens were fabricated by a wet wind-
ing and hot pressing method described by Peijis et al.
[18]. E-glass fiber, PAN–HTA carbon fiber, and an Epic-
ote 600 epoxy, a room temperature cured resin, are used
for this study. Fibers are used as-received without sur-
face treatments. Continuous glass fiber bundles were first
wound in parallel on a rectangular metallic frame. In
order to enhance the environmental resistance, carbon
fibers were wound after and on top of the glass fiber
bundles with an even spread. As a consequence, more
carbon fiber was near the surface of the resulting com-
posite plate. The epoxy matrix was prepared by first mix-
ing with the hardener at a specified ratio recommended
by the vendor, and subsequently degassed in a vacuum
oven for 5 min at a pressure of 25 mm Hg. Fibers were
wetted by pouring the degassed epoxy into a plastic bag
containing the fiber bundle-frame assembly. They were
then put into an open-ended mould pre-pasted with
release film to ensure ease of detachment of the com-
posite after curing. The whole assembly was subjected
to hot press for 2 h at 80 °C and a pressure of 20 t.
When curing was completed, the composite plate was
removed from the mold and post cured at 110 °C for 6 h.
849
The total fiber volume fraction was kept at approxi-
mately 30% for both all-glass and hybrid specimens.
Hybrid composite panels of relative glass to carbon fiber
volume fractions of 100:0, 95:5, 90:10, 75:25, 50:50, and
0:100 were fabricated to assess the effect of relative
glass to carbon volume ratio on the mechanical proper-
ties of the hybrids. Bar specimens of dimension
100×12×1.5 mm were cut from the unidirectional panel
after being released from the mold, and the two edges
of each specimen were polished to avoid edge effects.
Composite print circuit board (PCB) end-tabs of length
25 mm were bonded to the specimen surface, leaving a
gauge length of 50 mm. Quasi-static tensile tests were
performed using an Instron 5567 universal test
machine to determine their ultimate tensile strength
(UTS), at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. At least four
specimens were tested for each group.
Fatigue and environmental fatigue were carried out at
stress levels of 30, 45, 65, and 85% UTS using an
Instron 8516 servo-hydraulic test frame. Two groups
of composites specimens were employed to characterize
the fatigue and environmental fatigue behavior: all-glass
100:0 and hybrid 75:25. Specimens were cyclically
loaded using a sinusoidal wave function at 10 Hz for
65% and 85% UTS, and 20 Hz for 30 and 45% UTS,
at R ⫽ 0.1 (where R is the ratio of minimum to the
maximum cyclic stress) at 25 °C. Environmental fatigue
was performed with specimens immersed in distilled
water, shown schematically in Fig. 2, where the gauge
section of a specimen was wrapped with a rubber bag
filled with water-containing cotton with the lower end
sealed. Fatigue tests were interrupted periodically to
measure the tensile modulus of a specimen by means
of an extensometer (Instron model 2620-601). Surface
related damage during fatigue was also visually exam-
ined. Specimens that have survived to 107 cycles were
Fig. 2. Environmental fatigue specimen setup.
850 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
Fig. 3. Typical stress–strain curves of various hybrid compositions.
The curves of hybrid 90:10 and 95:5 partially overlap with each other.
loaded to failure under tension to determine their
residual strength. For convenience of identification,
hereafter in the paper, specimen tested in air is referred
to as ’dry’ specimen whereas specimen tested in distilled
water is referred to as ‘wet’ specimen.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Quasi-static test
Typical stress–strain curves for various hybrid compo-
sitions are shown in Fig. 3. Tensile test results are sum-
marized in Fig. 4. All specimens (all-carbon, all-glass,
and hybrid) show linear elastic behavior to final failure.
Different tensile failure modes are seen, they varied from
dominant fiber roving splitting and bundle failure in all-
glass specimens to dominant brittle-like failure mode in
all-carbon specimens where only few splitting between
fiber roving was seen. The tensile failure modes for
hybrid specimens were in between these two extremes,
Fig. 4. Experimental results and comparison with the constant strain
model and rule-of-mixture.
with some fiber splitting and bundle failure. Grip-related
failures were seen in some cases, which could be a cause
for the observed relatively low tensile failure strain. As
a result of the filament winding process, the fiber roving
may not be perfectly aligned and uniformly distributed
within the matrix. Also, because of the relatively small
size of the test specimens (0.18 cm2 nominal cross sec-
tional area), some specimens may contain more fiber
roving than others, causing scattering in tensile strength
data. Unlike most of the reports on the tensile behavior
of hybrid composites, an obvious drop in strength at low
carbon content is not seen. Based on the predictions of
the constant strain model, the lowest strength should
appear at around 10% carbon content. Rather, our results
scattered around the dotted line predicted by the ROM.
It was indicated by some earlier studies [1,16,18] that
the largest hybrid effects have been observed for hybrid
composites with the highest degree of fiber dispersion.
Bridging of a failed fiber bundle (Fig. 5) would be much
more easier than that of an entire ply, thus preventing a
crack arising from the failed bundle from developing
into catastrophic one. Consequently, the tensile strength
of intraply hybrids presents a strong positive deviation
from the constant strain model, which only provides a
lower bound for the tensile strength of hybrid composite.
3.2. Fatigue behavior
Results of fatigue test of all-glass 100:0 and hybrid
75:25 in air are summarized in Fig. 6. When calculating
the slope of stress life (S–N) curves, test results of all-
glass 100:0 at 30%, and 45% UTS, and hybrid 75:25 at
45% UTS were excluded since at these load levels, all
specimens survived 107 cycles and showed no sign of
damage as reflected in their residual strength (Figs. 7
Fig. 5. Bridging of a broken carbon fiber bundle as indicated by the
black arrow. The black colored regions are carbon-fiber bundles; the
white colored region is glass bundles.
 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859 851

composites of all kinds are linear and of a slope approxi-

mately 10% of the fracture strength. The lower slope in
our case compared with the Mandell stipulation could
be attributed to better fiber alignment or better fiber in
general. The slope of hybrid 75:25 S–N curve is 23.1
MPa per decade, or 5.1% of the static strength per dec-
ade. Thus, our hybrid composite showed an enhanced
fatigue resistance compared to all-glass specimens.
As has been well documented, change in elastic
modulus is a strong indicator of the state of the material
[19]. Data collected from various stress levels and dis-
similar fiber compositions suggest that the generic pat-
tern of modulus degradation during fatigue of for fiber
reinforced composites is independent of cyclic load level
and fiber compositions. This similarity reflects a resem-
blance in the essence of damage development process.
Fig. 6. S–N curves of all-glass and hybrid 75:25 in air. Some typical degradation curves of tensile modulus are
shown in Fig. 9, where tensile modulus and applied
cycles are presented in a normalized scale. A typical
curve is characterized by a small drop within the first
10% of life, followed by a plateau region extending to
about 80% of life, then succeeded by a much faster drop

Fig. 7. Residual strength of all-glass specimens after 107 cycles.

and 8). The S–N curve for the all-glass 100:0 specimens
has a slope of 18.8 MPa per decade of life, or about
5.7% of the static strength per decade. Our results do
not agree with the arguments of Mandell et al. [7,8],
who maintained that the slope of S–N curves for GRP

Fig. 9. Typical normalized stiffness change during fatigue in air: (a)

all-glass specimens; (b) hybrid 75:25 specimens. Arrow denotes run-
Fig. 8. Residual strength of hybrid 75:25 specimens after 107 cycles. out.
852 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859

during the last stage of life, a damage related pattern that

is typical of fiber-reinforced composites.
At lower stress levels, some specimens showed a
slight increase in tensile modulus during fatigue loading.
Similar phenomenon was also reported elsewhere for
pultruded glass/vinyl ester composite [15]. A plausible
explanation is that the applied stress is unable to produce
enough fiber breakage and matrix cracking, which are
the main causes for the drop in modulus in the initial
stage. Instead, realignment of fibers and macromolecular
chains of the polymeric matrix along the direction of
applied stress may occur during cyclic loading, contribu-
ting to the increased modulus. However, it should be
noted that similar modulus enhancing mechanism may
also happen in high cyclic stress levels but it is over-
whelmed by the deleterious effect of fiber breakage and Fig. 10. Fatigue and environmental fatigue S–N data of all-glass
matrix cracking, resulting in an overall drop in the (100:0) specimens.
modulus. Residual strength test results of specimen sur-
vived 107 cycles are given in Figs. 7 and 8. Only hybrid
75:25 specimens cyclically loaded at 65% UTS showed
a 9% reduction in mean tensile strength while most data
did not show a significant reduction in strength, and
some specimens even showed a slightly increase which
may also attribute to the fiber realignment during the
fatigue process.
Macroscopic fatigue failure modes of glass 100:0 and
hybrid 75:25 were also examined. Failed specimens of
both types showed extensive longitudinal splitting within
the glass fiber bundles, possibly due to weaker interfacial
bonding between glass fiber and epoxy matrix. When
glass–carbon hybrid specimens were subjected to
fatigue, fiber breakage usually occurs initially within the
carbon bundles since at the same applied strain level
much higher stress is sustained by the carbon fiber bun-
dle than the glass fiber bundle. Subsequent to failure of Fig. 11. Fatigue and environmental fatigue S–N data of hybrid 75:25
carbon fiber bundle, catastrophic failure of the composite specimens.
may occur. For some hybrid specimens cyclically loaded
at lower stress levels, remaining intact glass and carbon
fiber bundles were still able to sustain the applied load dominant, which has also been shown previously in
until final failure after failure of the first carbon fiber another study for E-glass/vinyl ester [15]. A significant
bundle. This is reflected in the modulus degradation difference in fatigue life begins to emerge for those
curve as a stepwise drop toward the end of its fatigue tested at lower cyclic load levels. At 65% UTS, most
life [Fig. 9(b)]. dry specimens have failed around 106 cycles whereas the
fatigue lives of most wet specimens were clustered
3.3. Environmental fatigue around 105 cycles. The discrepancy in fatigue lives
between dry and wet specimens further widened at 45%
The environmental fatigue S–N data of all-glass and UTS. At that stress level, all dry specimens survived 107
hybrid specimens are presented in Figs. 10 and 11, cycles and showed no significant sign of damage because
respectively. For all-glass specimens cyclically loaded at there was essentially no change in residual tensile
85% UTS, the S–N data are indistinguishable between strength compared to as-fabricated specimens (Fig. 7).
the dry and wet specimens (Fig. 10). Due to the scat- However, a remarkable reduction in fatigue life is seen
tering of the experiment data and the relative short time for wet specimens, as their fatigue lives only ranged
of cyclic loading ranging from a few seconds to a few from 105 to 106 cycles, at least a decade shorter than
minutes, influence of environmental effect on fatigue those of dry samples. At 30% UTS all dry specimens
life, if there is any, may not be detectable. At higher and most of the wet specimens survived 107 cycles,
stress levels the environmental fatigue behavior is stress whereas a considerable difference in residual strength
 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
was observed (Fig. 12). The average residual strength of
dry specimens showed virtually no change compared to
control, however, average residual strength of wet speci-
mens showed about 10% reduction. Therefore it is clear
that environmental fatigue behavior for all-glass speci-
mens is stress corrosion dominant at lower stress levels.
For the hybrid specimens, the situation is less drastic
in terms of difference in fatigue lives between wet and
dry specimens (Fig. 11). Similar to glass fiber speci-
mens, cyclic loading at 85% UTS did not produce sig-
nificant difference in fatigue lives between wet and dry
specimens. At 65% UTS, despite some overlapping of
data for dry and wet specimens, some of the dry speci-
mens survived to longer lives. Separation of fatigue life
for wet specimens from dry specimens become evident
only at 45% UTS. All dry specimens survived 107
cycles, and showed no sign of damage as is reflected
from the results of residual strength test, shown in Fig.
8. However, all wet specimens failed before reaching 107
cycles. Thus environmental fatigue of hybrid composite
is similar to that of all-glass composite, with stress domi-
nant behavior at higher stress levels and stress corrosion
dominant behavior at lower stress levels.
The similarity of data trends presented in Figs. 10 and
11 is that both all-glass and hybrid samples showed fas-
ter fatigue degradation in water compared to those tested
in air. The influence of an aqueous environment on the
tensile modulus of all-glass and hybrid specimens during
cyclic loading is shown in Fig. 13. Both all-glass and
hybrid wet specimens showed faster modulus degra-
dation than dry specimens. Hybrid specimens showed
delayed degradation in fatigue life. At 65% UTS, no
overlapping in fatigue lives is seen for all-glass com-
posite specimens. Fatigue lives ranged from 5×103 to
1.5×105 cycles for wet specimens, and from 3.5×105 to
2×106 cycles for dry specimens. However, partial over-
lapping in fatigue lives has occurred in the case of hybrid
Fig. 12. Difference in residual strength of all-glass specimens sub-
jected to 107 cycles under 30% UTS.
853
Fig. 13. Stiffness reduction at 65% UTS.
specimens, indicating improved resistant to environmen-
tal fatigue. At 65% UTS, wet hybrid specimens showed
a life between 1.5×105 and 2.6×106 cycles, and for dry
specimens 2.3×105 and 107 cycles. Both dry all-glass and
hybrid samples survived 107 cycles at 45% UTS. How-
ever, fatigue lives of wet glass composite specimens
ranged from 1×105 to 1×106 cycles, compared to
4.5×105–6.2×106 cycles for that of wet hybrid speci-
mens, a 500% difference. Therefore, it is shown that the
resistance to environmental fatigue is substantially
enhanced during long-term cyclic loading by using only
25% carbon fiber in hybrid composites compared to all-
glass composites. In other words, hybridization results
in a reduction of the stress corrosion dominant effect at
lower stress levels.
When a specimen is cyclically loaded in water, water
ingress in the specimen may involve capillary diffusion
of moisture along fatigue cracks as well as moisture
sorption from the specimen surface. However, with the
limited testing time involved at higher load levels, Fick-
ian absorption behavior may not be significant at room
temperature [10]. Thus, fluid ingress by way of matrix
cracking and fiber debonding may be a dominant mech-
anism [15]. Microscopic examinations on the fatigue
specimen’s surface revealed matrix cracking networks
and fiber debonding (Fig. 14) and it is believed that they
were the main passage for fluid ingress. It has been
shown that by direct weighting the fatigue samples the
sorption rate was found to be much faster than normal
Fickian sorption rate under load free condition [15].
However, the present study failed to reveal a similar
trend. Loss of material from the end-tab areas during the
frequent gripping and ungripping and possible transport
of material out to the fluid environment caused much
variation and error in data.
Previous studies suggested that the fiber/matrix
interphase region has a controlling effect in the environ-
mental fatigue performance of FRPs [20–24]. If the
fiber/matrix interphase region is damaged or destroyed
854 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
Fig. 14. Transverse matrix cracking and fiber debonding on specimen
surface.
by fluid ingress, fiber/matrix debonding may propagate
more easily, and fibers may lose their reinforcing func-
tion. Examinations of the fracture surface under SEM
revealed a difference on the fiber surface. Typically,
more matrix residue adhering to the fibers is seen from
dry specimens (Fig. 15) than that of wet specimens (Fig.
16). This difference on the fracture surface indicates that
fluid action degrades the adhesion between the fibers and
the matrix. Thus the process of environmental fatigue
involves coupled interaction between interphase degra-
dation and matrix cracking: once cracks in the matrix
are developed, ingress of corrosive fluid into the material
is at a much faster rate, which further accelerates the
degradation process of the interphase region. This
coupled process exposes the glass fibers to corrosion at
an increasing rate.
Early studies on the stress corrosion and sub-critical
crack growth of soda-lime glass in water suggested that
Fig. 15. Fatigue failure surface of a specimen tested in air.
Fig. 16. Fatigue failure surface of a specimen tested in water.
it is the reaction between water and the network mod-
ifying oxides of the glass that causes the reduction in
tensile strength [25]. Because carbon fibers are resistant
to water and dilute acid, glass–carbon hybrid composites
as a whole are more resistant to stress corrosion than all-
glass fiber composites. By hybridization with high
modulus carbon fibers, the modulus of the hybrid is
increased while the overall failure strain is reduced.
When subjected to a same stress level, the stress carried
by the glass fibers is reduced. For instance, when loaded
at 65% UTS, all-glass specimen has a maximum nominal
strain of 0.98% (212 MPa), and the tensile stress
developed in the glass fiber is about 710 MPa, calculated
from the rule of mixture. However, at the same stress
level, applied tensile strain for hybrid 75:25 specimen is
reduced to 0.88% (296 MPa) and the stress shared by
glass fiber is 640 MPa. Thus, the stress in the glass fiber
is reduced by as much as 70 MPa or 11% for the hybrid
75:25 samples. Since the subcritical crack growth rate
are shown to be a power function [26–29] of the applied
stress, it will notably reduce the corrosion rate of glass
fibers, and hence prolonging the fatigue life of the com-
posite. Furthermore, reduction in the composite failure
strain may also delay the onset of matrix cracking, there-
fore preventing the formation of passage for moisture
induct and postpone the fluid ingress process. As a
consequence, degradation of environmental fatigue life
is delayed substantially.
3.4. A simple life-prediction model
Being able to predict the fatigue response of a hybrid
composite from its parent materials is crucial in design-
ing such materials for optimized performance. In this
section, we present a simple phenomenological life pre-
diction model for hybrid unidirectional composites.
The hybrid composite is assumed to be composed of
two components with dissimilar properties, and the
 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
fatigue behavior of each component is known empiri-
cally. The aim of this model is to utilize known fatigue
data of parent materials to predict the fatigue behavior
of their hybrids with different volume ratio combi-
nations. Two assumptions are made for the model:
1. Each component works separately in the hybrid com-
posite, and their behavior within the hybrid follows
the fatigue S–N curves of its pure status;
2. A linear damage theory of fatigue is applicable to
each component,
冘i
ni
Ni
ⱖ1
where ni is the number of cycles experienced at a certain
stress level, si, and Ni is the number of cycles to failure
at si.
The S–N curve of a composite is most simply and
conveniently described by the following simple linear
function
s⫽sult⫺msultlogNf
where sult stands for its ultimate strength, m is the
decrease in fatigue strength per decade of fatigue life,
and Nf is the number of cycles to failure at applied cyclic
stress, s. However, since Eq. (4) may not be applicable
to certain types of composites such as aramid fiber
reinforced composites, a more general form would be
s ⫽ f(Nf)
and in reverse form
Nf ⫽ f⫺1(s)
The loading history of a hybrid composite is divided
into two stages. The first stage is the period from the
start of the test to the moment when one of its load-
carrying components fails. Stage two is the duration
from the failure of one of the components to final failure
of the composite.
In the first stage, before a component fails, both
components are able to carry the applied load, thus the
stresses s1, and s2, carried by components 1 and 2 are
s·E1 s·E2
s1 ⫽ s2 ⫽
E1nf1 ⫹ E2nf2 E1nf1 ⫹ E2nf2
where s is the applied stress, E is the Young’s modulus,
nf is the fiber volume ratio, subscript 1 or 2 denotes
component 1 or 2, respectively. Thus the number of
cycles to failure for each component are
N1 ⫽ f⫺1
1 (s1) and N2 ⫽ f2 (s2)
⫺1
If N1⬎N2 then component 2 fails first. Damage, D,
accumulated in the surviving component 1 is
855
N2
D⫽ (9)
N1
Otherwise, if N1⬍N2, component 1 fails first, and the
damage build up in component 2 is
N1
D⫽ (10)
N2
In the second stage, after failure of one of its compo-
nent, the remaining component may still able to sustain
the applied load, sr, until final failure.
(3) sr ⫽
s·Er
Ernfr
(r ⫽ 1 or 2) (11)
And the number of cycles to failure under sr is
Nr ⫽ f⫺1
r (sr) (r ⫽ 1 or 2) (12)
Taking into account the damage accumulated during
stage 1, the remaining cycles to failure, Nremain, is
Nremain ⫽ Nr(1⫺D) ⫽ f⫺1
r (sr)(1⫺D) (13)
By adding the cycles in stage 1 and stage 2 together,
(4) the total number of cycles to failure, Ntotal, is
Ntotal ⫽ min(N1,N2) ⫹ Nremain (14)
where min (N1,N2) denotes the smaller value among N1
and N2. Therefore, Ntotal is a function of applied stress,
s, and the volume fraction, nf, of the component.
Similar to the constant strain model in the static ten-
sile test of hybrid composites, this simple fatigue model
(5) does not take into account the synergetic effects such as
bridging of cracks in the low elongation component by
high elongation counterpart, thus deviations of actual
(6) fatigue response from the model predictions can be
regarded as fatigue hybrid effects. Thus if the actual
fatigue life is longer than the prediction, hybridization
has a desirable positive synergetic effect. If the opposite
is true, then hybridization only yields a detrimental syn-
ergetic effect or negative effect. In the following, model
prediction will be compared to fatigue data for two types
of hybrids, namely, the interply and the intraply com-
posite.
3.4.1. Interply hybrids
Both all-carbon and all-glass unidirectional com-
(7)
posites essentially follow a linear S–N curve [Eq. (4)].
Fatigue behavior of unidirectional laminated carbon and
glass composites (in which carbon-fiber and glass-fiber
laminae are arranged in an alternate manner) are
extracted from [6], and are tabulated in Table 1. Predic-
tion of the fatigue response of a family of glass–carbon
laminated hybrids is illustrated in Fig. 17 by a 3-dimen-
(8)
sional (3-D) plot. Cycles to failure, and carbon fiber con-
tent are represented by the Y- and X-axis, respectively,
and applied cyclic stress is expressed by the Z-axis. As
856 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
Table 1
S–N curve parameters for all-glass and all-carbon unidirectional lami-
nated composites. From [6]
sult (GPa) m E (GPa)
UD carbon composite 1.97 5.7% 137.5
UD glass composite 1.30 9.8% 41.7
Fig. 17. Model predictions of fatigue curves of glass–carbon lami-
nated interply hybrid composites.
illustrated in Fig. 17, the interception of the surface
graph to Plane 1 is the hybrid tensile strength predicted
by the constant strain model. The lowest strength is
located around 30% carbon fiber content, and produces
a ‘valley’ in the 3-D plot. To the right side of the valley,
the fatigue behavior is dominated by carbon-fiber
component, and to the left side, the glass-fiber compo-
nent. The S–N curve is also linear for various carbon
fiber contents to the right side of the valley with steeper
slope at higher carbon fiber content. This may explain
the data reported by Dickson [6], as the author noted
that the slope of the hybrid S–N curves are all roughly
the same and as ‘unexpectedly’ lower than that of the
plain CFRP laminates. Also, it can be seen from the
graph that the fatigue stress varies gradually from the
constant strain model at low cycles to almost following
ROM at high cycles.
When normalized by their tensile strength, the fatigue
behavior of glass–carbon hybrids becomes conspicu-
ous—it is carbon fiber dominated. As shown in Fig. 18,
normalized fatigue behavior of hybrids with carbon fiber
content ranging from 30 to 100% show the same
response, indicated by the flat surface on the graph. Cal-
culations from the model revealed that in glass–carbon
hybrid composites, the carbon-fiber component is usu-
Fig. 18. Normalized fatigue curves of glass–carbon laminated
interply hybrid composites.
ally the first one to fail because it has a lower failure
strain compared to the glass-fiber component. Thus,
although glass component has an inferior fatigue
response, it is being cycled at a much lower applied
strain that causes relatively little damage and eventually
survives longer life. After failure of the carbon-fiber
component, the glass-fiber component usually suffered
instantaneous failure. Only at two extreme conditions
could it sustain more applied cycles, that is, when the
material is under very low fatigue stress or it has low
carbon fiber content. Under these conditions, the glass
component becomes dominant, which is indicated in Fig.
18 as the steep transition region occurs from 0 to 30%
carbon fiber content. Thus the fatigue response of glass–
carbon hybrid composites does not follow ROM, rather
it seems to be carbon-component dominated for the most
part. By hybridization with only a small fraction of car-
bon, the fatigue properties of the hybrid are altered to be
similar to that of the all-carbon component. Therefore,
hybridization is a viable and cost-effective way to
improve the fatigue performance of GFRPs.
Comparisons between the model prediction and
experimental results of interply hybrid composites from
[6] are shown in Fig. 19. Given the scatting nature of
fatigue behavior, the model is able to provide predictions
on the trend of the fatigue response of glass–carbon
laminated hybrid composites, although at high cycles the
experimental data showed positive deviations from pre-
diction. These positive deviations may be attributed to
the crack arrest mechanisms by long elongation glass
plies.
 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
Fig. 19. Comparisons between model predictions and experimental
data for glass–carbon laminated hybrid composite. All experimental
data are extracted from [6].
Table 2
S–N curve parameters for all-glass and all-carbon intraply unidirec-
tional composites
sult (MPa) m E (MPa)
UD carbon composite 710.5 4.7% 67.8
UD glass composite 326.9 5.7% 23.4
3.4.2. Intraply hybrids
Parameters used in the prediction of intraply hybrid
composites were extracted from our experimental data
described previously. The value m of carbon fiber poly-
meric matrix composites usually ranges from 0.035 to
0.059, thus an average value of 0.047 was adopted in
our estimation based on data from the available literature
[9]. The strength, modulus, and m value of both all-car-
bon and all-glass composites are summarized in Table 2.
Comparison of the prediction of hybrid 75:25 and actual
experimental results are presented in Fig. 20. The experi-
ment data show a considerable positive deviation from
the prediction. As discussed in the previous section the
tensile strength of the intraply hybrids is higher than the
Fig. 20. Comparison between fatigue model prediction and the
experimental results of intraply hybrid composite.
857
value given by the constant strain model, thus the entire
experimental S–N data of hybrid 75:25 is higher than
the model prediction, which is an extrapolation of the
constant strain model. Therefore the proposed model can
be used as a lower bound for intraply fatigue behavior.
The fatigue behavior of both the intraply and interply
hybrid composites are examined. The difference between
the two is that the intraply hybrids showed a greater
deviation from model prediction, indicating a more
prominent hybrid effect during fatigue. More refined
models applying micromechanics and taking into
account the crack arresting mechanism are desirable. As
mentioned earlier, carbon fiber usually fails first during
fatigue, the breakage may cause subsequent premature
failure in its vicinity. Bridging of a carbon fiber bundle
is much ‘easier’ than that of an entire carbon ply and
causes relative little damage to the adjacent areas. Thus
the damage development is slower than the interply
hybrid composites, and consequently it has a better
fatigue resistance.
3.4.3. Predictions on environmental fatigue
If the environmental fatigue behavior of the glass-fiber
component in the hybrid composites is assumed to be
the same as that of the environmental fatigue S–N curve
established for the all-glass composites, and the same is
also applicable to the carbon-fiber component, then the
environmental fatigue behavior of the glass–carbon
hybrid can be estimated by our fatigue model. Since it
has been shown by previous studies that moisture does
not alter the fatigue properties of CFRPs [11], we
assume that both fatigue and the environmental fatigue
S–N curve are the same for the all-carbon fiber
reinforced composite. Based on these assumptions, the
model prediction for environmental fatigue of an intraply
hybrid composite is shown in Fig. 21. As revealed in
the figure, the environmental fatigue curve of hybrid
75:25 can be divided into two regions. At low cycles,
the curve is exactly the same as that of the fatigue curve
for dry specimens, that is after the failure of the carbon-
fiber component, the hybrid composite suffers instan-
Fig. 21. Comparison between model predictions of environmental
fatigue behavior of hybrid 75:25 and experimental results.
858 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
taneous failure. However, at high cycles, it is the glass-
fiber component that fails first, followed by carbon fib-
ers. Thus the fatigue response of a hybrid is dominated
by glass fibers at low stress for high cycle environmental
fatigue. This may further explain why the moisture
effects become obvious only at low stress levels. The
experiment data show a considerable positive deviation
from the prediction. As discussed earlier, the tensile
strength of the intraply hybrids is higher than predictions
from the constant strain model, thus the entire experi-
mental S–N data of hybrid 75:25 is higher than the con-
stant strain based life prediction model. This is also true
under fluid immersion condition. Therefore the proposed
model can also be used as a lower bound for intraply
environmental fatigue behavior.
4. Conclusions
Base on the results obtained in this study, the follow-
ing major conclusions can be reached:
앫 Cyclic loading in distilled water significantly shortens
the fatigue life of both unidirectional glass and glass–
carbon hybrid fiber reinforced epoxy matrix com-
posites compared to their fatigue lives in air, at lower
stress levels.
앫 Glass–carbon hybrid specimens showed a better
retention in fatigue life in water than that of all-glass
composite specimens, up to 107 cycles. Therefore by
hybridization with an appropriate amount of carbon
fibers, resistance to environmental fatigue degradation
of GFRP can be enhanced significantly.
앫 The proposed phenomenological fatigue model is cap-
able of estimating the fatigue behavior of hybrid com-
posites from their parent composites. The fact that this
simple model can better describe the behavior of
interply composite suggests that synergistic effects in
the intraply composites are significant and a refined
model entails the incorporation of the bridging mech-
anism.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support
of this research by Nanyang Technological University
through AcRF grant RG7/98.
References
[1] Manders PW, Bader MG. The strength of hybrid glass/carbon
fibre composites: part 1: failure strain enhancement and failure
mode. Journal of Materials Science 1981;16:2233–45.
[2] Chou TW, Kelly A. Mechanical properties of composites. Annual
Review of Materials Science 1980;10:229–59.
[3] Phillips LN. The hybrid effect—does it exist? Composites
1976;7:7–8.
[4] Marom G, Harel H, Neumann S, Friedrich K, Schulte K, Wagner
HD. Fatigue behavior and rate dependent properties of aramid
fibre/carbon fibre hybrid composite. Composites
1989;20(6):537–44.
[5] Fernando G, Dickson RF, Adam T, Reiter H, Harris B. Fatigue
behavior of hybrid composites: part 1 carbon/kevlar hybrids.
Journal of Materials Science 1988;23:3732–43.
[6] Dickson RF, Fernando G, Adam T, Reiter H, Harris B. Fatigue
behavior of hybrid composites: part 2 carbon–glass hybrids. Jour-
nal of Materials Science 1989;24:227–33.
[7] Mandell JF, Huang DD, McGarry FJ. Tensile fatigue perform-
ance of glass fiber dominated composites. Composites Tech-
nology Review 1981;3(3):96–102.
[8] Mandell JF, McGarry FJ, Hsieh AJY, Li CG. Tensile fatigue of
glass fibers and composites with conventional surface compressed
fibers. Polymer Composites 1985;6(3):168–74.
[9] Liao K, Schultheisz CR, Hunston DL, Brinson LC. Long-term
durability of fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix composite materials
for infrastructure applications: a review. SAMPE, Journal of
Advanced Materials 1998;30(4):2–40.
[10] Vauthier E, Abry JC, Bailliez T, Chateauminois A. Interactions
between hygrothermal ageing and fatigue damage in unidirec-
tional glass/epoxy composites. Composites Science and Tech-
nology 1998;58:687–92.
[11] Jones CJ, Dickson RF, Adam T, Reiter H, Harris B. The environ-
mental fatigue behaviour of reinforced plastics. Proceedings of
the Royal Society London Series A: Mathematical and Physical
Sciences 1984;396:315–38.
[12] Sumsion HT, Williams DP. Effect of environment on the fatigue
of graphite–epoxy composites. Fatigue of composite materials,
ASTM STP 569: American Society for Testing and Materials,
1975, pp. 226–47.
[13] Komai K, Minoshima K, Shiroshita S. Hygrothermal degradation
and fracture process of advanced fibre-reinforced plastics.
Materials Science and Engineering A 1991;143:155–66.
[14] McBagonluri F, Garcia K, Hayers M, Verghese KNE, Lesko JJ.
Charaterization of fatigue and combined environment on dura-
bility performance of glass/vinyl ester composite for infrastruc-
ture applications. International Journal of Fatigue 2000;22:53–64.
[15] Liao K, Schultheisz CR, Hunston DL. Long-term environmental
fatigue of pultruded glass-fiber-reinforced composites under
flexural loading. International Journal of Fatigue 1999;21:485–
95.
[16] Hofer KE Jr, Stander M, Bennett LC. Degradation and enhance-
ment of the fatigue behavior of glass/graphite/epoxy hybrid com-
posites after accelerated aging. In: Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual Technical Conference, The Society of the Plastics Indus-
tries, Inc. 1977, section 11-F.
[17] Manders PW, Bader MG. The strength of hybrid glass/carbon
fiber composites, part 2. Journal of Materials Science
1981;16:2246–56.
[18] Peijis AAJM, De Kok JMM. Hybrid composites based on poly-
ethylene and carbon fibres: part 6: tensile and fatigue behavior.
Composites 1993;24(1):19–32.
[19] Reifsnider KL, Schulte K, Duke Jr JC. Long-term fatigue
behavior of composite materials. In: O’Brien TK, editor. Long-
term behavior of composites, ASTM STP 813. Philadelphia:
American Society for Testing and Materials; 1983, p. 136–59.
[20] Hofer KE, Skaper GN, Bennett Effe LC. Effect of moisture on
fatigue and residue strength losses for various composites. Jour-
nal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 1987;6:53–65.
[21] Watanabe M. Effect of water environment on fatigue behavior
of fiberglass reinforced plastics. In: Tsai SW, editor. Composite
 Y. Shan, K. Liao / International Journal of Fatigue 24 (2002) 847–859
materials: testing and design (5th Conference), ASTM STP 674.
Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1979,
p. 345–67.
[22] Fried N. Degradation of composite materials: the effect of water
on glass-reinforced plastics. Mechanics of composite materials.
In: Wendt FW, Liebowitz H, Perone N, editors. Proceedings of
the Fifth Symposium on Naval Structure Mechanics, 1967, pp.
813–37.
[23] Hofer KE Jr, Bonnett LC, Stander M. Effect of various fiber sur-
face treatments on fatigue behavior of glass fabric composite in
high humidity environments. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual
Technical Conference of SPI, Washington DC, February 1976,
section 6A.
[24] Shih GC, Ebert LJ. The effect of the fiber/matrix interface on the
flexural fatigue performance of unidirectional fiberglass com-
posites. Composites Science and Technology 1987;28:147–61.
[25] Wiederhorn SM. Mechanics of subcritical crack growth in glass.
In: Bradt RC, Hasselman DPH, Lange FF, editors. Symposium
859
on the Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, vol. 4, Crack Growth
and Microstructure. New York: Plenum Press; 1973, p. 549–81.
[26] Evans AG, Wiederhorn SM. Proof testing of ceramic materials—
an analytical basis for failure prediction. International Journal of
Fracture 1974;10:379–92.
[27] Wiederhorn SM. Subcritical crack growth in ceramics. In: Bradt
RC, Hasselman DPH, Lange FF, editors. Symposium on the Frac-
ture Mechanics of Ceramics, vol. 2, Microstructure, Materials and
Applications. New York: Plenum Press; 1973, p. 613–46.
[28] Ritter Jr JE. Mechanics of subcritical crack growth in glass. In:
Bradt RC, Hasselman DPH, Lange FF, editors. Symposium on
the Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics, vol. 4, Crack Growth and
Microstructure. New York: Plenum Press; 1973, p. 667–86.
[29] Gupta PK. Examination of the tensile strength of E-glass fiber in
the context of slow crack growth. In: Bradt RC, Hasselman DPH,
Lange FF, editors. Symposium on the Fracture Mechanics of Cer-
amics, vol. 5, Surface Flaws, Statistics and Microstructures. New
York: Plenum Press; 1973, p. 291–303.