This article showcases the authors’ predictions for Part B of the second World Wide Failure Exercise. Predictions are made using the failure criteria published in the submission for Part A. In several cases, the original predictions are found to match the experimental data well and no revisions are made. A novel constitutive model for unidirectional composite materials is used to improve predictions for cases involving multidirectional laminates.
PinhoSTDarvizehRRobinsonP. Material and structural response of polymer-matrix fibre-reinforced composites. J Compos Mater2012; 46: 2313–2341.
2.
VyasGMPinhoSTRobinsonP. Constitutive modelling of unidirectional composites at the ply level using a plasticity-based approach. Compos Sci Technol2011; 78: 1068–1074.
3.
ShinESPaeKD. Effects of hydrostatic pressure on in-plane shear properties of graphite/epoxy composites. J Compos Mater1992; 26: 828–828.
4.
RaghavaRCaddellRMYehGSY. The macroscopic yield behaviour of polymers. J Mater Sci1973; 8: 225–232.
5.
SchueckerCDávilaCGRoseA. Comparison of damage models for predicting the non-linear response of laminates under matrix dominated loading conditions, NASA/TP-2010-216856, Washington, DC: NASA, 2010.
6.
HintonMJKaddourAS. Triaxial test results for fibre reinforced composites: second world-wide failure exercise: benchmark data. J Compos Mater2013; 47(6--7): 653–678.
7.
KaddourASHintonMJ. Maturity of 3D failure criteria for fibre reinforced composites: comparison with experimental results for Part (B) of ‘WWFE-II’. J Compos Mater2013; 47(6--7): 925–966.
8.
MartinRHDavidsonBD. Mode II fracture toughness evaluation using four point bend, end notched flexure test. Plast Rubber Compos1999; 28: 401–406.
9.
Haberle JG. The Imperial College method for testing in compression. Technical Memo TM 99/03. Centre for Composite Materials, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, in: EW Godwin (ed.), 1999.
10.
PuckAKoppJKnopsM. Guidelines for the determination of the parameters in Puck’s action plane strength criterion. Compos Sci Technol2002; 62: 371–378.
11.
PuckAKoppJKnopsM. Errata to “Guidelines for the determination of the parameters in Puck’s action plane strength criterion” [Compos Sci Technol 2001; 62(3): 371–378]. Compos Sci Technol2002; 62(2002): 1275–1275.
12.
ShinEESPaeKD. Effects of hydrostatic pressure on the torsional shear behavior of graphite/epoxy composites. J Compos Mater1992; 26: 462–485.
13.
HinePJDuckettRAKaddourAS. The effect of hydrostatic pressure on the mechanical properties of glass fibre/epoxy unidirectional composites. Composites Part A2005; 36: 279–289.
14.
WronskiASParryTV. Compressive failure and kinking in uniaxially aligned glass-resin composite under superposed hydrostatic pressure. J Mater Sci1982; 17: 3656–3662.
15.
HoppelCPBogettiTAGillespieJW. Literature review – effects of hydrostatic pressure on the mechanical behavior of composite materials. J Thermoplast Compos Mater1995; 8: 375–409.
16.
PaeKD. The macroscopic yielding behaviour of polymers in multiaxial stress fields. J Mater Sci1973; 12: 1209–1214.
17.
Pinho ST, Dávila CG, Camanho PP, et al. Failure models and criteria for FRP under in-plane or three-dimensional stress states including shear non-linearity. NASA/TM-2005-213530, 2005. Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.
18.
PinhoSTIannucciLRobinsonP. Physically-based failure models and criteria for laminated fibre-reinforced composites with emphasis on fibre kinking: Part I: development. Composites Part A2006; 37: 63–73.
19.
ZinovievPATsvetkovSV. Mechanical properties of unidirectional organic-fiber-reinforced plastics under hydrostatic pressure. Compos Sci Technol1998; 58: 31–39.
SilanoAABhatejaSKPaeKD. Effects of hydrostatic pressure on the mechanical behavior of polymers: polyurethane, polyoxymethylene, and branched polyethylene. Int J Polym Mater1974; 3: 117–131.
