The damage initiation criteria based on Hashin’s theory for fiber-reinforced composite lamina are refined by replacing the fracture strengths with the respective damage initiation strengths. The damage initiation strengths of the carbon fiber-reinforced (CFRP) composite lamina under tension and compression are comparable to the respective fracture strength. Thus, emphasis is placed on the measured nonlinear longitudinal shear response of the lamina. Results show that the damage initiation strength for longitudinal shear at 47.2 MPa is 43.5% lower than the lamina shear strength. The pure shear stress state at the mid-length gage region of the V-notch test coupon is maintained up to damage initiation, after which the fibers rotate and induce the normal strain components. The outcomes of the computational model fit the second-order description of the lamina damage initiation criteria and the expected post-damage stiffness reduction of the laminate coupon. The damage model is validated by the comparable measured and finite element (FE)-predicted load-displacement curves to fracture of the laminate coupon. The FE-computed and measured shear strain field using the digital image correlation (DIC) method is similar. In addition, the FE-calculated anti-symmetric matrix tensile damage distribution at the notches in the observed locations of the initial matrix cracks is consistent.
ZimmermannNWangPH. A review of failure modes and fracture analysis of aircraft composite materials. Eng Fail Anal2020.
2.
SwatiRFQureshiSRSohailMU, et al.Micro-mechanical investigation of interfacial debonding in carbon fiber-reinforced composites using extended finite element method (XFEM) approach. Micromachines2022; 13(8): 1226.
3.
WanLUllahZYangD, et al.Comprehensive inter- fibre failure analysis and failure criteria comparison for composite materials using micromechanical modelling under biaxial loading. J Compos Mater2023; 57(18): 2919–2932.
4.
AzziVDTsaiSW. Anisotropic strength of composites: investigation aimed at developing a theory applicable to laminated as well as unidirectional composites, employing simple material properties derived from unidirectional specimens alone. Exp Mech1965; 5: 283–288.
ShahidIChangF-K. An accumulative damage model for tensile and shear failures of laminated composite plates. J Compos Mater1995; 29(7): 926–981.
7.
PuckASchürmannH. Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means of physically based phenomenological models. Fail Criteria Fibre-Reinforced-Polymer Compos2004; 62: 832–876.
8.
ASTM D3039. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, United States: ASTM International, 2017.
9.
ASTM D3410. Standard test method for compressive properties of polymer matrix composite materials. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, United States: ASTM International, 2016.
10.
ASTM D7078. Standard test method for shear properties of composite materials by the V-notched. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, United States: ASTM International, 2005.
11.
ASTM D5528. Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, United States: ASTM International, 2013.
12.
ASTM D7905. Standard test method for determination of the mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, United States: ASTM International, 2014.
13.
RanatungaVClaySB. Cohesive modeling of damage growth in z-pinned laminates under mode-I loading. J Compos Mater2013; 47(26): 3269–3283.
14.
CamanhoPDavilaCG. Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements in for the simulation composite of delamination materials. Nasa, 2002, pp. 1–37.
15.
VenzalVMorelSParentT, et al.Frictional cohesive zone model for quasi-brittle fracture: mixed-mode and coupling between cohesive and frictional behaviors. Int J Solid Struct2020; 198: 17–30.
16.
SmithARamnathMDe CarvalhoN. Modeling matrix crack/delamination interaction in a double edge notch tension specimen via a divisible cohesive element with damage state mapping. J Compos Mater2022; 56(30): 4595–4620.
17.
AbdullahMAAbdul-LatifATaminMN. Methodology for extracting interface damage properties of FRP composite laminates under cyclic shear loading conditions. 3rd International Conference on Power Generation Systems and Renewable Energy Technologies (PGSRET), 2017.
18.
KhanSAKoloor SSRWongKJ, et al.An interlaminar fatigue damage model based on property degradation of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Eng Fract Mech2024; 302(4).
19.
MattaSRamjiM. Prediction of mechanical behaviour of adhesively bonded CFRP scarf jointed specimen under tensile loading using localised DIC and CZM. Int J Adhesion Adhes2019; 89(11): 88–108.
20.
FikryMMOgiharaSVinogradovV. Application of DIC to deformation measurement around damages in CFRP cross-ply laminates. Mech Eng J2019; 6(3): 1900003.
21.
GonabadiHOilaAYadavA, et al.Investigation of anisotropy effects in glass fibre reinforced polymer composites on tensile and shear properties using full field strain measurement and finite element multi-scale techniques. J Compos Mater2022; 56(3): 507–524.
22.
MehrabianMBoukhiliR. Full-field through-the-thickness strain distribution study of hybrid multi-bolted/bonded single-lap composite joints using digital image correlation. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2022; 163: 107242.
23.
ASTM D3518. Standard test method for in-plane shear response of polymer matrix composite materials by tensile test of a 45° laminate 1. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2018.
24.
GliescheKHübnerTOrawetzH. Investigations of in-plane shear properties of ±45°-carbon/epoxy composites using tensile testing and optical deformation analysis. Compos Sci Technol2005; 65(2): 163–171.
25.
ASTM D5379. Standard test method for shear properties of composite materials by the V-notched iTeh standards iTeh standards document preview. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2019.
26.
ChoiJHJangJShimW, et al.Determination of the in-plane shear modulus of unidirectional carbon fiber-reinforced plastics using digital image correlation and finite-element analysis. Compos Struct2019; 229(9): 111392.
XuWLiuLXuW. Experiments and finite element simulations of composite laminates following low velocity on-edge impact damage. Polymers2022; 14(9): 1744.
29.
AndrajuLBRajuG. Continuum and cohesive zone damage models to study intra/inter-laminar failure of curved composite laminates under four-point bending. Compos Struct2020; 253(6): 112768.
30.
SuZCTayTERidhaM, et al.Progressive damage of open-hole composite laminates under compression load. Compos Struct2015; 32(6): 1762–1768.
31.
ShimizuSSatoMKoyanagiJ, et al.Numerical simulation of compressive failure of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic laminates with various hole shapes. Adv Compos Mater2021; 30(1): 58–75.
32.
KoloorSSRKarimzadehAYidrisN, et al.An energy-based concept for yielding of multidirectional FRP composite structures using a mesoscale lamina damage model. Polymers2020; 12(1).
33.
ShokriehMMLessardLB. Multiaxial fatigue behaviour of unidirectional plies based on uniaxial fatigue experiments - II. Experimental evaluation. Int J Fatig1997; 19(3): 209–217.
34.
ParkKJKangHJChoiIH, et al.Progressive failure analysis of carbon-fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) laminates using combined material nonlinear elasticity and continuum damage mechanics based on treatment of coupon test. J Compos Mater2016; 50(11): 1431–1455.
35.
SunCTTaoJX. Prediction failure envelopes and stress/strain behaviour of composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol1998; 58: 1125–1136.
36.
HashinZRotemA. A fatigue failure criterion for fiber reinforced materials. J Compos Mater1973; 7: 448–464.
37.
TsaiSWWuEM. A general theory of strength for anisotropic materials. J Compos Mater1971; 5: 58–80.
38.
LiuKSTsaiSW. A progressive quadratic failure criterion for a laminate. Compos Sci Technol1998; 58: 1023–1032.
39.
RotemA. The rotem failure criterion: theory and practice. Fiber-Reinrced-Polymer Compsoites2004: 877–889.
40.
SuttonMAOrteuJ-JSchreierHW. Image correlation for shape, motion and deformation measurement. Basic concept, Theory and Application2009.
41.
ChenZShaoXXuX, et al.Optimized digital speckle patterns for digital image correlation by consideration of both accuracy and efficiency. Appl Opt2018; 57(4): 884–893.
ASME VVUQ 10.2-2021. The role of uncertainty quantification in verification and validation of computational solid Mechanics models. USA: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2022.
44.
PinhoSTDarvizehRRobinsonP, et al.Material and structural response of polymer-matrix fibre-reinforced composites. J Compos Mater2012; 46(19–20): 2313–2341.
45.
TabriziIEKhanRMAMassarwaE, et al.Determining tab material for tensile test of CFRP laminates with combined usage of digital image correlation and acoustic emission techniques. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2019; 127(6): 105623.
46.
KimJWGardnerJMSautiG, et al.Multi-scale hierarchical carbon nanotube fiber reinforced composites towards enhancement of axial/transverse strength and fracture toughness. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2023; 167: 107449–107531.
47.
UyttersprotJDe CorteWVan PaepegemW. Mechanical characterization of GFRP tiled laminates for structural engineering applications: stiffness, strength and failure mechanisms. J Compos Sci2024; 8(7): 265.
48.
GanKWLauxTTaherST, et al.A novel fixture for determining the tension/compression-shear failure envelope of multidirectional composite laminates. Compos Struct2018; 184: 662–673.
49.
MoheimaniRSaraylooRDalirH. Failure study of fiber/epoxy composite laminate interface using cohesive multiscale model. Adv Compos Lett2020; 29: 1–19.
50.
LanKWangHWangC. Delamination behavior of CFRP laminated plates under the combination of tensile preloading and impact loading. Materials2023; 16(19): 6595.
51.
Martínez-HerguetaFAresDRidruejoA, et al.Modelling the in-plane strain rate dependent behaviour of woven composites with special emphasis on the non-linear shear response. Compos Struct2019; 210: 840–857.
52.
LiNZhouYD. Failure mechanism analysis of fiber-reinforced polymer composites based on multi-scale fracture plane angles. Thin-Walled Struct2021; 158(9): 107195–107217.
