0 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Anonymous XFDv0lBJGC

SHM of composite materials

- Design and Analysis of Composite Propeller Shaft
- Improved Key Cards4
- Paper22121-126
- Modulus of Elasticity
- Mech Eng Research
- MSC 18-19 Foundation Tutorial
- Ford It As
- Composite Pressure Vessels
- 17513-63822-1-PB
- 6987
- 2005 REE terms.docx
- 2006_49_paper
- H2 T3 Force Tutorial 09
- pf-1111.en_10132
- KPR_CompositeMechanics_August2013
- B.E - 2013
- Review 1
- Rotation
- 2009 2348 Composite+Materials+and+Structures
- Composite Racket Manufacture

Anda di halaman 1dari 64

L. N. McCartney

Materials Division, National Physical Laboratory

Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LW, UK

for predicting some of the properties of laminated ﬁbre reinforced

composites that can be used when designing composite laminates, or

when validating numerical methods of estimating these properties.

To begin, convenient methods are given to estimate the properties

of undamaged single plies and undamaged symmetric laminates.

Methods of predicting fracture in homogenized anisotropic materi-

als are then described, which exploit some very useful properties

of orthogonal polynomials. Example solutions are given which are

compared with known accurate solutions. The problem is then con-

sidered of quantifying, using analytical methods, the dependence of

the eﬀective thermoelastic properties of a damaged laminate on the

density of ply cracks in the 900 ply of a cross-ply laminate. Many

very useful inter-relationships are given showing how most of the ef-

fective properties of damaged laminates depend on a single damage

function. Some example predictions are given for a typical carbon

ﬁbre reinforced laminate. Finally, a model is described for predict-

ing the progressive degradation of a unidirectional ﬁbre reinforced

composite that is degraded by an aggressive environment causing

defect growth in the ﬁbres and eventually the catastrophic failure

of the composite. It is also shown how the time dependence of

residual strength may be estimated. An example is given of a nor-

malised failure/time curve, and some associated residual strength

curves that can be the basis of design methods to avoid the failure

of composites that will be exposed to aggressive environments.

1 Introduction

Engineers responsible for the design and maintenance of composite struc-

tures will usually be involved with some form of ﬁnite element analysis

(FEA) so that the stress distributions within and the deformation of the

CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences

DOI 10.1007/978-3-7091-1835-1_4 © CISM Udine 2015

192 N. McCartney

spots where local stresses are raised to levels that are in danger of initiating

damage and structural failure, or to ensure that the deformation during ser-

vice does not exceed the design limits. A key requirement for ﬁnite element

analysis is a knowledge of all the relevant materials property data such as

the full range of elastic constants, and the thermal expansion coeﬃcients of

laminated composites. For an orthotropic material there are twelve inde-

pendent thermoelastic constants whose values need to be known. Many of

the properties cannot easily be measured in the laboratory, and their values

are either guessed, or are estimated using a variety of predictive models as-

suming that ﬁbre and matrix properties, or single ply properties are known.

A challenging objective for engineers is being able to design structural

components so that damage and failure can be avoided during service. In

structures the presence of stress hot-spots will generate localised damage

that can grow progressively as a result of stress increase, or because of fa-

tigue loading. The damage growth locally degrades the material properties

leading to load transfer in structures, and to the threat of catastrophic

failure. Dealing with the eﬀects of localised damage is exceedingly diﬃ-

cult. One pragmatic approach is to try to design composite structures so

that damage formation is avoided. This approach is particularly useful for

structures that undergo cyclic loading as it will extend the fatigue damage

initiation phase of the component life.

The topics to be considered in this paper describe various recommended

methods for assessing the properties of composites, and the resistance of

laminated composites to damage formation, by considering a range of an-

alytical modelling methods that are built up from a knowledge of rein-

forcement and matrix geometry and properties, or from knowledge of the

geometry and properties of individual plies. The topics focus on compact

analytical formulae that can be used to provide quickly and reliably in-

formation on properties needed for FEA, and on damage resistance. In

addition, the focus is also on theoretical developments which have not been

published in the literature, other than through NPL Reports or Conference

Proceedings.

2.1 Notation for Properties of a Single Lamina

First of all, it is assumed that the ﬁbres of the lamina are aligned exactly

in the axial direction forming what is known as a unidirectional ﬁbre rein-

forced composite. Three diﬀerent notations will now be introduced, which

describe the properties of unidirectional ﬁbre reinforced composites. The

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 193

Axial

direction (x1 )

Through-thickness

Fibre direction direction (x3 )

Transverse

direction (x2 )

coordinate system for a lamina where ﬁbres are aligned in the axial direction

(x1 , x2 , x3 ) or (x, y, z) while the third, to be used in this paper, is a more

compact notation that will enable an immediate physical interpretation of

each property. Consider a single lamina of a composite material, as shown

in Fig. 1, where the ﬁbres are aligned in the x1 -direction (or x-direction).

For this case the ﬁbre direction also corresponds with the axial direction of

the lamina, while the x2 -direction (or y-direction) corresponds with the in-

plane transverse direction, and the x3 -direction (or z-direction) corresponds

with the through-thickness direction.

The thermoelastic constants are best deﬁned with respect to stress-strain

relations (see Eqs. (1)-(3) below), and each material constant is described

as shown in Table 1. The thermal expansion coeﬃcients are associated with

a temperature diﬀerence ΔT = T − T0 , where T is the uniform temperature

of the lamina and T0 is the uniform reference temperature of the lamina at

which all stresses and strains are zero, when the lamina is in an unloaded

state.

194 N. McCartney

Common Compact

notation notation

Young’s modulus in ﬁbre direction (axial / longi- E11 Exx EA

tudinal)

Young’s modulus in in-plane transverse direction E22 Eyy ET

Young’s modulus in through-thickness direction E33 Ezz Et

In-plane axial Poisson’s ratio ν12 νxy νA

Out-of-plane axial Poisson’s ratio ν13 νxz νa

Transverse Poisson’s ratio ν23 νyz νt

In-plane axial shear modulus μ12 μxy μA

Out-of-plane axial shear modulus μ13 μxz μa

Transverse shear modulus μ23 μyz μt

Axial thermal expansion coeﬃcient α11 αxx αA

In-plane transverse thermal expansion coeﬃcient α22 αyy αT

Through-thickness thermal expansion coeﬃcient α33 αzz αt

It is assumed that the loading of the lamina is such that the stress and

strain distributions are uniform everywhere within the lamina. Such a stress

and deformation state occurs when the external surfaces are subject to uni-

form applied tractions or linear displacements. The stress-strain relations

referred to the coordinates (x1 , x2 , x3 ) have the following orthotropic form:

1 ν21 ν31 σ12

ε11 = σ11 − σ22 − σ33 + α11 ΔT, ε12 = ,

E11 E22 E33 2μ12

ν12 1 ν32 σ13

ε22 = − σ11 + σ22 − σ33 + α22 ΔT, ε13 = , (1)

E11 E22 E33 2μ13

ν13 ν23 1 σ23

ε33 = − σ11 − σ22 + σ33 + α33 ΔT, ε23 =

E11 E22 E33 2μ23

When referred to the coordinates (x, y, z), the stress-strain relations are

written in the form

1 νyx νzx σxy

εxx = σxx − σyy − σzz + αxx ΔT, εxy = ,

Exx Eyy Ezz 2μxy

νxy 1 νzy σxz

εyy = − σxx + σyy − σzz + αyy ΔT, εxz = , (2)

Exx Eyy Ezz 2μxz

νxz νyz 1 σyz

εzz = − σxx − σyy + σzz + αzz ΔT, εyz =

Exx Eyy Ezz 2μyz

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 195

Using the compact notation to be used in this paper, involving only inde-

pendent thermoelastic constants, the stress-strain relations are written:

1 νA νa τA

εA = σA − σT − σt + αA ΔT, γA = ,

EA EA EA μA

νA 1 νt τa

εT = − σA + σT − σt + αT ΔT, γa = (3)

EA ET ET μa

νa νt 1 τt

εt = − σA − σT + σt + αt ΔT, γt =

EA ET Et μt

The subscripts A, T and t attached to stresses, strains and properties indi-

cate parameters associated respectively with the axial, in-plane transverse

and through-thickness directions of the lamina. It should be noted that

the upper case subscripts A and T are associated only with in-plane direc-

tions and parameters, while the lower case subscripts are associated with

the through-thickness direction and parameters. The above three sets of

stress-strain relations are equivalent only if:

μA = μ12 = μxy , μa = μ13 = μxz , μt = μ23 = μyz , (4)

αA = α11 = αxx , αT = α22 = αyy , αt = α33 = αzz

and

νa ν13 ν31 νxz νzx

= = = =

EA E11 E33 Exx Eyy

Et

so that ν13 = νxz = νa , ν31 = νzx = νa ,

EA

νt ν23 ν32 νyz νzy

= = = =

ET E22 E33 Eyy Ezz

(5)

Et

so that ν23 = νyz = νt , ν32 = νzy = νt ,

ET

νA ν21 ν12 νyx νxy

= = = =

EA E22 E11 Eyy Exx

ET

so that ν12 = νxy = νA , ν21 = νyx = νA

EA

It should be noted that

γA = 2ε12 = 2εxy , γa = 2ε13 = 2εxz , γt = 2ε23 = 2εyz ,

(6)

τA = σ12 = σxy , τa = σ13 = σxz , τt = σ23 = σyz

twice the corresponding shear strains introduced when using tensor nota-

tion. It should be noted that just 9 lamina elastic properties appear in the

196 N. McCartney

erties appear when using the conventional approach of the relations (1) or

(2). The relations (5) indicate that the 9 lamina elastic properties of the

compact notation are independent, adding a further reason for their use in

this paper. The thermoelastic constants of individual plies in a laminate

are usually assumed to be transverse isotropic so that

Et = ET , νa = νA , μa = μA , αt = αT and ET = 2μt (1 + νt )

to 7.

The inverted form of the stress-strain relations (3) may be written

σT = ν̄A ĒT εA + ĒT εT + ν̄t Ēt εt − ĒT ᾱT ΔT, τa = μa γ a , (7)

σt = ν̄a Ēt εA + ν̄t Ēt εT + Ēt εt − Ēt ᾱt ΔT, τt = μt γ t ,

where

EA E

ĒA = 1 − νt2 t ,

Λ ET

ET E

ĒT = 1 − νa2 t ,

Λ EA

Et 2 ET

Ēt = 1 − νA ,

Λ EA

ET E

ν̄A ĒT = νA + νa νt t , (8)

Λ ET

Et

ν̄a Ēt = (νa + νt νA ) ,

Λ

Et ET

ν̄t Ēt = ν t + νa νA ,

Λ EA

Et Et 2 ET Et

Λ = 1 − νa2 − νt2 − νA − 2νa νt νA

EA ET EA EA

ĒT ᾱT = ν̄A ĒT αA + ĒT αT + ν̄t Ēt αt , (9)

Ēt ᾱt = ν̄a Ēt αA + ν̄t Ēt αT + Ēt αt

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 197

relations (7) are symmetric as required.

The components of the stress and strain tensors are now assembled in

column vectors so that

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

σA σ1 σ11 σxx

⎢ σT ⎥ ⎢ σ2 ⎥ ⎢ σ22 ⎥ ⎢ σyy ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ σt ⎥ ⎢ σ3 ⎥ ⎢ σ33 ⎥ ⎢ σzz ⎥

⎢ ⎥≡⎢ ⎥≡⎢ ⎥≡⎢ ⎥

⎢ τt ⎥ ⎢ σ4 ⎥ ⎢ σ23 ⎥ ⎢ σyz ⎥ ,

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ τa ⎦ ⎣ σ5 ⎦ ⎣ σ13 ⎦ ⎣ σxz ⎦

τA σ6 σ12 σxy

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ (10)

εA ε1 ε11 εxx

⎢ εT ⎥ ⎢ ε2 ⎥ ⎢ ε22 ⎥ ⎢ εyy ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ εt ⎥ ⎢ ε3 ⎥ ⎢ ε33 ⎥ ⎢ εzz ⎥

⎢ ⎥≡⎢ ⎥≡⎢ ⎥≡⎢ ⎥

⎢ γt ⎥ ⎢ ε4 ⎥ ⎢ 2ε23 ⎥ ⎢ 2εyz ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ γa ⎦ ⎣ ε5 ⎦ ⎣ 2ε13 ⎦ ⎣ 2εxz ⎦

γA ε6 2ε12 2εxy

General linear elastic stress-strain relations, including thermal expansion

terms, have the contracted matrix form

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

σA C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 εA U1

⎢ σT ⎥ ⎢ C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 ⎥ ⎢ εT ⎥ ⎢ U2 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ σt ⎥ ⎢ C31 C32 C33 C34 C35 C36 ⎥ ⎢ εt ⎥ ⎢ U3 ⎥

⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥−⎢ ⎥

⎢ τt ⎥ ⎢ C41 C42 C43 C44 C45 C46 ⎥ ⎢ γt ⎥ ⎢ U4 ⎥ ΔT,

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ τa ⎦ ⎣ C51 C52 C53 C54 C55 C56 ⎦ ⎣ γa ⎦ ⎣ U5 ⎦

τA C61 C62 C63 C64 C65 C66 γA U6

(11)

where CIJ are elastic constants which are components of the second or-

der matrix C and where UI are thermal expansion constants which are

components of the vector U , the indexes I and J ranging from 1 to 6.

For orthotropic materials the stress-strain relations have the simpler matrix

form

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

σA C11 C12 C13 0 0 0 εA U1

⎢ σT ⎥ ⎢ C21 C22 C23 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ εT ⎥ ⎢ U2 ⎥

⎢ σt ⎥ ⎢ C31 C32 C33 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ εt ⎥ ⎢ U3 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥−⎢ ⎥ ΔT (12)

⎢ τt ⎥=⎢ 0 0 0 C44 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ γt ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥

⎣ τa ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 C55 0 ⎦⎣ γa ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

τA 0 0 0 0 0 C66 γA 0

198 N. McCartney

By comparing (12) with (7) using (8) and (9), it follows that the non-zero

components of the C matrix are related to the elastic constants deﬁned by

the stress-strain relations (3) as follows

EA Et ET Et

C11 = 1 − νt2 = ĒA , C12 = νA + νa νt = ν̄A ĒT ,

Λ ET Λ ET

Et ET Et

C13 = (νa + νt νA ) = ν̄a Ēt , C21 = νA + νa νt = ν̄A ĒT ,

Λ Λ ET

ET Et Et ET

C22 = 1 − νa2 = ĒT , C23 = νt + νa νA = ν̄t Ēt ,

Λ EA Λ EA

Et Et ET

C31 = (νa + νt νA ) = ν̄a Ēt , C32 = νt + νa νA = ν̄t Ēt ,

Λ Λ EA

Et 2 ET

C33 = 1 − νA = Ēt , C44 = μt , C55 = μa , C66 = μA

Λ EA

(13)

with

Et Et 2 ET Et

Λ = 1 − νa2 − νt2 − νA − 2νa νt νA

EA ET EA EA

The non-zero components of the U vector are related to the thermoelastic

constants deﬁned by the stress-strain relations (3) as follows

U1 = ĒA ᾱA , U2 = ĒT ᾱT , U3 = Ēt ᾱt (14)

The inverse matrix form of (12) is of the form

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

εA S11 S12 S13 0 0 0 σA αA

⎢ εT ⎥ ⎢ S21 S22 S23 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ σT ⎥ ⎢ αT ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ εt ⎥ ⎢ S31 S32 S33 0 0 ⎥⎢ σt ⎥ ⎢ αt ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥+⎢ ⎥ ΔT, (15)

⎢ γt ⎥=⎢ 0 0 0 S 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ τt ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 44 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ γa ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 S55 0 ⎦⎣ τa ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

γA 0 0 0 0 0 S66 τA 0

and a comparison with (3) shows that

1 νA νa

S11 = , S12 = − , S13 = − ,

EA EA EA

νA 1 νt

S21 = − , S22 = , S23 = − ,

EA ET ET

(16)

νa νt 1

S31 = − , S32 = − , S33 = ,

EA ET Et

1 1 1

S44 = , S55 = , S66 =

μt μa μA

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 199

the reinforcements and matrix that have been used to make the composite.

For multi-phase composites, where the matrix is reinforced with N diﬀerent

types of ﬁbre such that the ﬁbre volume fraction of the i th ﬁbre is denoted

by Vfi and that of the matrix by Vm , eﬀective properties denoted with the

superscript eﬀ may be estimated using the following formulae for transverse

isotropic materials derived using Maxwell’s methodology (Maxwell, 1873;

McCartney and Kelly, 2008; McCartney, 2010) (see also reference Hashin

(1983))

1 N

Vfi Vm

eﬀ m

= f(i)

+ m m, (17)

κT + κT i=1 κT + κT

m κ T + κT

1 N

Vfi Vm

= + m , (18)

kTeﬀ m

+ μT i

k + μT

i=1 T

m kT + μm

T

N

Vfi kTi νA

i

Vm k m ν m

+ m T A

i

k + μT

i=1 T

m kT + μm T

eﬀ

νA = , (19)

N

Vfi kTi Vm kTm

+ m

i=1

kTi + μm

T kT + μm T

⎛ 2 ⎞

eﬀ 2 f(i) f(i)

4kTeﬀ νA μm

N

⎜ f(i) 4kT νA μm ⎟

eﬀ

EA + eﬀ

= Vfi ⎝EA + f(i) ⎠

kT + μm i=1 kT + μm (20)

4k m ν 2 μm

+ Vm Em + mT m ,

kT + μm

1 N

Vfi Vm

= + m , (21)

μeﬀ

A

m

+ μA i

μ + μA

i=1 A

m μ A + μm

A

1 N

Vfi Vm kTm μm

= + m , where μ∗m = T

, (22)

μeﬀ

T

∗

+ μm i

μ + μm

i=1 T

∗ μT + μ∗m kTm + 2μmT

eﬀ

eﬀ eﬀ 4νA (αeﬀ eﬀ eﬀ

T + νA αA ) = V E f αf + V E α

EA αA + 1 1 f A A m m m

eﬀ

+

kT μm

f (23)

4νA (αfT + νAf f

αA ) 4ν (α + νm αm )

+Vf 1 1 + Vm m 1 m 1 ,

+ m +

kTf μm kT μm

200 N. McCartney

N

Vfi kTi αiT + νAi i

αA Vm kTm (αm m m

T + νA αA )

+

i=1

kTi + μm

T kTm + μm

T

αeﬀ eﬀ eﬀ

T + νA αA = , (24)

N

Vfi kTi Vm k m

i m + m Tm

k + μT

i=1 T

kT + μT

eﬀ 2 2

1 1 1 (νA ) νTeﬀ 1 1 eﬀ

4(νA )

= + + , = − − (25)

ETeﬀ 4μeﬀ

T 4kT

eﬀ E eﬀ

A ETeﬀ 4μeﬀ

T 4kT

eﬀ EA

eﬀ

νTeﬀ .

It is required now to consider how these properties are used to derive

those of angled plies. One very important parameter that must be clearly

deﬁned is the angle φ deﬁning the ﬁbre directions in an angled lamina.

Figure 2 illustrates the deﬁnition that is used, and it should be noted that

this angle diﬀers in sign from that used in some previous publications by

the author. The change of sign aﬀects only the signs of shear coupling

parameters.

Figure 2 also deﬁnes the three orthogonal principal directions of the lam-

inate, and associates these directions with a right handed system (x1 , x2 , x3 )

of Cartesian coordinates deﬁning a set of global axes. The angle φ deﬁning

the ﬁbre direction of the lamina is measured from the global x1 -axis in a

clockwise direction when viewing from a point situated on the negative part

of the global x3 -axis.

Following rotation of the lamina the stress-strain equations, including

thermal expansion terms, relating global strain components to global stress

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 201

direction (x1 )

x1 Through-thickness

direction (x3 )

x3

Transverse

φ direction (x2 )

x2 Global axes

Local axes

coordinate system for an angled lamina, and the angle φ specifying the

ﬁbre direction

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

εA ε11

⎢ εT ⎥ ⎢ ε22 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ εt ⎥ ⎢ ε33 ⎥

⎢ ⎥≡ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ γt ⎥ ⎢ 2ε23 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ γa ⎦ ⎣ 2ε13 ⎦

γA 2ε12

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

S11 S12 S13 0 0 S16 σA V1

⎢ S12 S22 S23 0 0 S26 ⎥⎢ σT ⎥ ⎢ V2 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ S13 S23 S33 0 0 S36 ⎥⎢ σt ⎥ ⎢ V3 ⎥

=⎢

⎢

⎥⎢

⎥⎢

⎥+⎢

⎥ ⎢

⎥ ΔT,

⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 S44 S45 0 ⎥⎢ τt ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥

⎣ 0 0 0 S45 S55 0 ⎦⎣ τa ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

S16 S26 S36 0 0 S66 τA V6

(26)

where on setting m = cos φ and n = sin φ it can be shown that the co-

eﬃcients in these stress-strain relations are related to the thermoelastic

202 N. McCartney

1 2νA m4 n4

S11 = m2 n2 − + + , (27)

μA EA EA ET

1 1 1 νA

2 2

S12 = m n + − − m4 + n 4 , (28)

EA ET μA EA

ν ν

S13 = − m2 a − n2 t , (29)

EA ET

1 2ν 2m2 2n2

S16 = − mn m2 − n2 − A − + , (30)

μA EA EA ET

1 2ν m4 n4

S22 = m2 n2 − A + + , (31)

μA EA ET EA

ν ν

S23 = −m2 t − n2 a , (32)

ET EA

2 1 2νA 2m2 2n2

S26 = mn m − n 2

− − + , (33)

μA EA ET EA

1

S33 = , (34)

Et

νt ν

S36 = 2mn − a , (35)

ET EA

m2 n2

S44 = + , (36)

μt μa

1 1

S45 = mn − , (37)

μa μt

m2 n2

S55 = + , (38)

μa μt

2 2

1 1 2ν m − n2

S66 = 4m2 n2 + + A + , (39)

EA ET EA μA

V1 = m2 αA + n2 αT ,

V2 = m2 αT + n2 αA ,

(40)

V3 = αt , V4 = 0, V5 = 0

V6 = 2mn (αA − αT )

It should be noted that the expressions (26)-(40) reduce to (15) and (16)

when φ = 0 so that m = 1 and n = 0.

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 203

The inverted form for the stress-strain relations of an angled ply is given

by

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

σA σ11

⎢ σT ⎥ ⎢ σ22 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ σt ⎥ ⎢ σ33 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ≡⎢ ⎥

⎢ τt ⎥ ⎢ σ23 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ τa ⎦ ⎣ σ13 ⎦

τA σ12

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

C11 C12 C13 0 0 C16 εA U1

⎢ C12 C22 C23 0 0 C26 ⎥⎢ εT ⎥ ⎢ U2 ⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ C13 C23 C33 0 0 C36 ⎥⎢ εt ⎥ ⎢ U3 ⎥

=⎢

⎢

⎥⎢

⎥⎢

⎥−⎢

⎥ ⎢

⎥ ΔT,

⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 C44 C45 0 ⎥⎢ γt ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥

⎣ 0 0 0 C45 C55 0 ⎦⎣ γa ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

C16 C26 C36 0 0 C66 γA U6

(41)

where

4 4

C11 = m Ē A+ n ĒT + 2m2 n2 ν̄A ĒT + 2μA ,

m2 + n ν̄2A ĒT + m n ĒA + ĒT − 4μA ,

4 4 2 2

C12 =

C13 = m ν̄ a + n ν̄t Ēt , 2

C16 = mn m2 ĒA − n2 ĒT − m − n2 ν̄A ĒT + 2μA ,

4 4 2 2

C22 = m Ē T + n ĒA + 2m n ν̄A ĒT + 2μA ,

2 2

C23 = m ν̄ t + n ν̄a Ēt ,

C26 = mn n2 ĒA − m2 ĒT + m2 − n2 ν̄A ĒT + 2μA , (42)

C33 = Ēt

C36 = mn (ν̄a − ν̄t ) Ēt ,

C44 = m 2 μt + n 2 μa ,

C45 = mn (μa − μt ) ,

C55 = m 2 μa + n 2 μt ,

2

C66 = m2 n2 ĒA + ĒT − 2ν̄A ĒT + m2 − n2 μA ,

and

U1 = m2 ĒA ᾱA + n2 ĒT ᾱT ,

U2 = n2 ĒA ᾱA + m2 ĒT ᾱT ,

(43)

U3 = Ēt ᾱt,

U6 = mn ĒA ᾱA − ĒT ᾱT

that m = 1 and n = 0.

204 N. McCartney

lations

The ﬁnal task of Sect. 2 is to introduce the concept of shear coupling and

to deﬁne the thermoelastic constants that characterise the phenomenon. It

can be shown that

(P ) (P ) (P )

1 νA νa λA (P )

εA = σ −

(P ) A

σ −

(P ) T

σ −

(P ) t

τ

(P ) A

+ αA ΔT,

EA EA EA μA

(P ) (P ) (P )

νA 1 νt λT (P )

εT = − σ +

(P ) A

σ −

(P ) T

σ −

(P ) t

τ

(P ) A

+ αT ΔT,

EA ET ET μA

(P ) (P ) (P )

(44)

νa νt 1 λt (P )

εt = − (P )

σA − (P )

σT + (P )

σt − τ

(P ) A

+ αt ΔT,

EA ET Et μA

(P ) (P ) (P )

λA λT λt 1 (P )

γA = − σ −

(P ) A

σ −

(P ) T (P )

σt + τ

(P ) A

+ αS ΔT,

μA μA μA μA

an angled ply. By comparing (26) and (44) it is clear that

(P ) (P ) (P )

1 νA νa λA

S11 = (P )

, S12 = − (P )

, S13 = − (P )

, S16 = − (P )

,

EA EA EA μA

(P ) (P )

1 νt λT 1

S22 = (P )

, S23 = − (P )

, S26 = − (P )

, S33 = (P )

,

ET ET μA Et (45)

(P )

λt 1

S36 = − (P )

, S66 = (P )

,

μA μA

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

V1 = αA , V2 = αT , V3 = αt , V6 = αS

they characterise the coupling of the shear stress τA to the non-shear strains

εA , εT and εt . The parameter αS characterises a shear deformation response

to temperature changes. When the ﬁbres are aligned in the axial and in-

plane transverse directions all four parameters have zero values. It should

be noted that the signs of the shear coupling parameters λA , λT , λt and the

expansion coeﬃcient αS depend upon the sign of the orientation angle φ,

indicating why it is essential to deﬁne exactly how this angle is deﬁned.

From (44)4

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

τA = λA σA + λT σT + λt σt + μA γA − μA αS ΔT, (46)

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 205

(P ) (P )

(P ) 1 ν̃A ν̃a (P )

ε̃A ≡ εA + λA γA = σ −

(P ) A

σ −

(P ) T (P )

σt + α̃A ΔT,

ẼA ẼA ẼA

(P ) (P )

(P ) ν̃A 1 ν̃t (P )

ε̃T ≡ εT + λT γA = − σ +

(P ) A

σ −

(P ) T (P )

σt + α̃T ΔT, (47)

ẼA ẼT ẼT

(P ) (P )

(P ) ν̃a ν̃t 1 (P )

ε̃t ≡ εt + λt γA = − σ −

(P ) A (P )

σT + (P )

σt + α̃t ΔT,

ẼA ẼT Ẽt

where

1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1

(P ) (P )

(P )

= (P )

− λA (P )

, (P )

= (P )

− λT (P )

,

ẼA EA μA ẼT ET μA

1 1 2 1 (P )

ν̃t

(P )

νt

(P ) (P )

λ t λT

(P )

(P )

= (P )

− λt (P )

, (P )

= (P )

+ (P )

,

Ẽt Et μA ẼT ET μA

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (48)

ν̃A νA λA λT ν̃a νa λt λA

(P )

= (P )

+ (P )

, (P )

= (P )

+ (P )

,

ẼA EA μA ẼA EA μA

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

α̃A = αA + λA αS , α̃T = αT + λT αS ,

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

α̃t = αt + λt αS

The relations (47) are known as the reduced stress-strain relations for the

angled lamina as they have exactly the same form as three of the stress-

strain relations (3) which apply when φ = 0.

The ﬁnal steps of this Sect. 2 are to manipulate the stress-strain equa-

tions (46) and (47) so that they are in a form that will be useful when

considering the eﬀective properties of laminates. The objective is to express

stresses and strains in terms of the parameters εA , εT , γA , σT and ΔT which

will have the same values in all plies of a laminate. It can be shown that

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

σA = Ω11 εA + Ω12 εT + Ω13 σt + Ω16 γA − ω1 ΔT,

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

σT = Ω12 εA + Ω22 εT + Ω23 σt + Ω26 γA − ω2 ΔT,

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (49)

εt = −Ω13 εA − Ω23 εT + Ω33 σt − Ω36 γA + ω3 ΔT,

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

τA = Ω16 εA + Ω26 εT + Ω36 σt + Ω66 γA − ω6 ΔT,

206 N. McCartney

where

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

(P ) ẼA (P ) ν̃ Ẽ (P ) ν̂a

Ω11 = (P )

, Ω12 = A (P T) , Ω13 = (P ) ,

Ψ Ψ Ψ

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

(P ) ẼA (P ) ν̃A ẼT (P ) (P ) ẼT

Ω16 = (P ) λA + λ T , Ω 22 = ,

Ψ Ψ(P ) Ψ(P )

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

(P ) ν̂ (P ) ν̃ Ẽ (P ) Ẽ (P )

Ω23 = t(P ) , Ω26 = A (P T) λA + T(P ) λT , (50)

Ψ Ψ Ψ

(P ) (P )

(P ) Λ (P ) (P ) ν̂a (P ) ν̂t (P ) (P )

Ω33 = , Ω 36 = λ + λ + λt ,

Ψ(P ) Ẽt

(P ) Ψ(P ) A Ψ(P ) T

(P ) (P )

(P ) ẼA (P ) (P ) ẼT (P ) (P ) (P )

Ω66 = λ λ̂ + (P ) λT λ̂T + μA ,

Ψ(P ) A A Ψ

(P ) (P ) (P )

(P ) ẼA (P ) ν̃ Ẽ (P )

ω1 = (P )

α̃A + A (P T) α̃T ,

Ψ Ψ

ẼT (P )

(P )

(P ) (P ) (P )

ω2 = α̃T + ν̃ A α̃A ,

Ψ(P )

(51)

(P ) (P )

(P ) ν̂a (P ) ν̂ (P ) (P )

ω3 = α̃ + t(P ) α̃T + α̃t ,

Ψ(P ) A Ψ

(P ) (P )

(P ) ẼA (P ) (P ) ẼT (P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

ω6 = λ̂ α̃ + (P ) λ̂T α̃T + μA αS ,

Ψ(P ) A A Ψ

and where

2 Ẽ (P )

(P )

Ψ(P ) = 1 − ν̃A T

(P )

,

ẼA

(P ) (P ) (P )

ν̂a = ν̃a(P ) + ν̃t ν̃A , (52)

(P )

(P ) (P ) (P ) ẼT

ν̂t = ν̃t + ν̃a(P ) ν̃A (P )

ẼA

(P ) (P )

Ẽt (P ) Ẽt (P )

Λ(P ) = Ψ(P ) − ν̃a(P ) ν̂ (P ) − ν̃t

(P ) a

ν̂

(P ) t

ẼA ẼT

2 Ẽ (P ) 2 Ẽ (P ) 2 (P )

ẼT

(P ) (P )

= 1 − ν̃a(P ) t

(P )

− ν̃ t

t

(P )

− ν̃ A (P )

(53)

ẼA ẼT ẼA

(P )

(P ) (P ) Ẽt

−2ν̃a(P ) ν̃t ν̃A (P )

,

ẼA

(P )

(P ) (P ) (P ) (P ) ẼT (P ) (P ) (P ) (P )

λ̂A = λA + λT ν̃A (P )

, λ̂T = λT + λA ν̃A (54)

ẼA

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 207

x1

h

x1 = L

Plane External

symmetry surface

h1 h2 hi hn

Axial

direction

Through-thickness

direction

x3

(1) (i−1) (i) (n−1) (n)

0 x3 x(2)

3 x3 x3 x3 x3

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of geometry for one half of a general sym-

metric laminate

ric Laminates

Consider now a laminate that is made by perfectly bonding together

various laminae (i.e. plies) having diﬀerent orientations so that there are no

defects (i.e. the laminate is undamaged). The situation under consideration

concerns the deformation of a symmetric multi-layered laminate of total

thickness 2h constructed of 2n perfectly bonded plies that can have any

combination of orientations, such that symmetry about the mid-plane of the

laminate is preserved. The plies in each half of the laminate can be made

of diﬀerent materials and each can have a diﬀerent thickness as illustrated

in Fig. 3. As laminate symmetry is assumed, it is necessary to consider

only the right hand set of n layers (see Fig. 3). A global right handed

set of Cartesian coordinates is chosen having the origin at the centre of

the mid-plane of the laminate. The x1 -direction deﬁnes the longitudinal

or axial direction, the x2 -direction deﬁnes the in-plane transverse direction

and the x3 -direction deﬁnes the through-thickness direction. The locations

of the n − 1 interfaces in one half of the laminate (x3 > 0) are speciﬁed by

208 N. McCartney

(i)

x3 = x3 , i = 1, . . . , n − 1. The mid-plane of the laminate is speciﬁed by

(0) (n)

x3 = x3 = 0 and the external surface by x3 = x3 = h where h is the

half-thickness of the laminate. The thickness of the ith layer is denoted by

(i) (i−1)

hi = x3 − x3 such that

n

h= hi . (55)

i=1

ciated with the ith layer are denoted by a superscript (i). The orientation of

the ith layer is speciﬁed by the angle φi (measured clockwise when looking

in the direction of positive values of x3 ) between the x1 -axis and the ﬁbre

direction of this layer (see Fig. 2). The representative volume element of

the laminate to be considered is speciﬁed by |x1 | ≤ L, |x2 | ≤ W, |x3 | ≤ h.

It is now required to determine the eﬀective laminate properties S and

V in terms of the Young’s and in-plane shear moduli, Poisson’s ratios and

thermal expansion coeﬃcients of the laminate. This is achieved by modify-

ing the relations (26) derived for a single angled lamina so that they apply

to a laminate rather than to an individual angled ply. When the laminate is

considered as a homogenised plate, the eﬀective stress-strain relations must

be of the following form analogous to the corresponding single ply relations

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

εA ε11

⎢ εT ⎥ ⎢ ε22 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ εt ⎥ ⎢ ε33 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ≡⎢ ⎥

⎢ γt ⎥ ⎢ 2ε23 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎣ γa ⎦ ⎣ 2ε13 ⎦

γA 2ε12

⎡ ⎤

(L)

S11 S12

(L) (L)

S13 0 0 S16 ⎡

(L) ⎤ ⎡ (L) ⎤

σA V1

⎢ (L) (L) ⎥

⎢ S12 (L)

S22

(L)

S23 0 0 S26 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ (L) ⎥

⎢ (L) (L) ⎥⎢

σT ⎥ ⎢ V2 ⎥

⎢S (L) (L)

S36 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ (L) ⎥

=⎢

S23 S33 0 0 ⎥⎢ σt ⎥+⎢ V3 ⎥ ⎥ΔT,

⎥ ⎢

13

⎢ 0 0 ⎥⎢⎥ ⎥

⎥ ⎢

(L) (L) τt

⎢ 0 0 S44 S45 ⎢ 0 ⎥

⎢ (L) (L) ⎥⎣ τa ⎦ ⎢

⎣ 0 ⎦

⎣ 0 0 0 S45 S55 0 ⎦

(L) (L) (L) (L) τA V6

(L)

S16 S26 S36 0 0 S66

(56)

where the superscript (L) is used to denote eﬀective thermoelastic constants,

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 209

and where

(L) (L) (L)

(L) 1 (L) νA (L) νa (L) λA

S11 = (L)

, S12 = − (L)

, S13 = − (L)

, S16 = − (L)

,

EA EA EA μA

(L) (L)

(L) 1 (L) νt (L) λT (L) 1

S22 = (L)

, S23 = − (L)

, S26 = − (L)

, S33 = (L)

,

ET ET μA Et

(L)

(L) λt (L) 1 (L) (L) 1 (L) 1

S36 = − (L)

, S44 = (L) , S45 = Φ(L) , S55 = (L) , S66 = (L)

,

μA μt μa μA

(L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L)

V1 = αA , V2 = αT , V3 = αt , V6 = αS

(57)

It can be shown that the laminate properties appearing in (57) are calculated

using the following relations

2 2

(L) (L)

1 1 λA 1 1 λT

(L)

= (L)

+ (L)

, (L)

= (L)

+ (L)

,

EA ẼA μA ET ẼT μA

2

(L)

1 1 λt (L)

ν̃t λt λT

(L) (L)

(L) (L)

(L)

= (L)

+ (L)

, νt = ET (L)

− (L)

,

Et Ẽt μA ẼT μA

(L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L)

(L) (L) ν̃A λA λ T (L) ν̃a λ t λA

νA = EA (L)

− (L)

, νa(L) = EA (L)

− (L)

,

ẼA μA ẼA μA

(L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L)

αA = α̃A − λA αS , αT = α̃T − λT αS ,

(L) (L) (L) (L)

αt = α̃t − λ t αS ,

(58)

where

2 2

(L) (L)

Ω12 (L)

Ω12 Ω12

(L) (L) (L) (L) (L)

ẼA = Ω11 − (L)

, ν̃A = (L)

, ẼT = Ω22 − (L)

,

Ω22 Ω22 Ω11

(L)

(L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) ẼT (L)

ν̃a(L) = Ω13 − ν̃A Ω23 , ν̃t = Ω23 − ν̃A Ω ,

(L) 13

ẼA

2 2

(L) (L) (L) (L)

1 ν̃a (L) ν̃a ν̃t (L) ν̃t (L) (L)

(L)

= (L)

Ω11 + 2 (L) (L) Ω12 + (L)

Ω22 + Ω33 ,

Ẽt ẼA ẼA ẼT ẼT

(59)

(L) (L)

(L) 1 (L) ν̃A (L) (L) 1 (L) ν̃A (L)

λA = Ω −

(L) 16

Ω , λT

(L) 26

= Ω −

(L) 26 (L)

Ω16 , (60)

ẼA ẼA ẼT ẼA

210 N. McCartney

(L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L)

λt = Ω36 − Ω13 λA − Ω23 λT , (61)

2 2

(L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L)

μA = Ω66 − Ω11 λA − 2Ω12 λA λT − Ω22 λT (62)

(L) (L)

(L) 1 (L) ν̃A (L) (L) 1 (L) ν̃A (L)

α̃A = ω

(L) 1

− ω , α̃T

(L) 2

= ω

(L) 2

− (L)

ω1 , (63)

ẼA ẼA ẼT ẼA

α̃t = ω3 − Ω13 α̃A − Ω23 α̃T ,

(L) 1 (L) (L) (L) (L) (L)

(64)

αS = (L) ω6 − Ω16 α̃A − Ω26 α̃T

μA

(L) (L)

The quantities ΩIJ and ωI are calculated using the following summations

1 1

n n

(L) (i) (L) (i)

Ω11 = hi Ω11 , Ω12 = hi Ω12 ,

h i=1 h i=1

1 1

n n

(L) (i) (L) (i)

Ω22 = hi Ω22 , Ω33 = hi Ω33 ,

h i=1 h i=1

(65)

1 1

n n

(L) (i) (L) (i)

Ω16 = hi Ω16 , Ω26 = hi Ω26 ,

h i=1 h i=1

1

n

(L) (i)

Ω66 = hi Ω66 ,

h i=1

1 1 1

n n n

(L) (i) (L) (i) (L) (i)

Ω13 = hi Ω13 , Ω23 = hi Ω23 , Ω36 = hi Ω36 , (66)

h i=1 h i=1 h i=1

1 1

n n

(L) (i) (L) (i)

ω1 = hi ω 1 , ω 2 = hi ω 2 ,

h i=1 h i=1

(67)

1 1

n n

(L) (i) (L) (i)

ω3 = hi ω 3 , ω 6 = hi ω 6

h i=1 h i=1

These relations are derived by applying the following expressions for eﬀective

stresses and strains to the relations (50) that apply to individual plies

1 1 1 1

n n n n

(i) (i) (i) (i)

σA = hi σA , σT = hi σT , τA = hi τA , εt = hi ε t

h i=1 h i=1 h i=1 h i=1

(68)

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 211

The eﬀective properties characterising the out-of-plane shear of the laminate

are given by

1

n

(L) m2i n2i 1

S44 = hi (i)

+ (i) = (L) ,

h i=1 μt μa μt

1

n

(L) 1 1

S45 = h i mi n i (i)

− (i) = Φ(L) , (69)

h i=1 μ

a μt

(L) 1 n

mi 2

ni2

1

S55 = hi (i)

+ (i) = (L) ,

h i=1 μa μt μa

where

1 1 1

n n n

(L) (i) (L) (i) (L) (i)

S44 = hi S44 , S45 = hi S45 , S55 = hi S55 (70)

h i=1 h i=1 h i=1

This Section will introduce a very convenient and elegant method of solving

crack problems in plates based on orthogonal polynomials. The methodol-

ogy will then be applied to bridged cracks, especially those arising in lami-

nates where ply cracks are conﬁned to a limited number of plies (usually the

90o plies). The use of orthogonal functions enables very simple expressions

for stress intensity factors and energy release rates. The ﬁrst objective is to

consider a very useful method of analysing isolated crack problems for com-

posite materials that have been homogenised as an anisotropic continuum.

It is assumed that there is no through-thickness loading and that the

axial loading direction is parallel to the y-axis. The plate is assumed to be

orthotropic having the following stress-strain relations

εyy = a12 σxx + a22 σyy + a26 σxy , (71)

2εxy = a16 σxx + a26 σyy + a66 σxy ,

where

1 1 νA 1

a11 = , a22 = , a12 = − , a66 = , a = a26 = 0 (72)

ET EA EA μA 16

212 N. McCartney

1 − νT2 1 2 ET νA (1 + νT )

a11 = , a22 = 1 − νA , a12 = − ,

ET EA EA EA (73)

1

a66 = , a = a26 = 0

μA 16

For a 0o -90o -0o cross-ply laminate the values of EA and ET (the axial and

transverse Young’s moduli), νA (the axial Poisson’s ratio) and μA (the axial

shear modulus) are calculated from single ply properties. It should be noted

that thermal expansion eﬀects have been neglected in (71).

Consider a straight through-crack of length 2c embedded within an in-

ﬁnite transverse isotropic plate so that the crack plane is normal to the

surfaces of the plate. For conditions of generalised plane stress and plane

strain, crack problems are two dimensional. Introduce a set of rectangular

Cartesian coordinates (x, y) such that the crack is parallel to the x -axis and

occupies the region |x − a| ≤ c, y = b. The complex variable z is introduced

such that

z = x + iy (74)

The locations of the two crack tips are speciﬁed by

z = t1 = a − c + ib, (75)

z = t2 = a + c + ib (76)

The stress and displacement representation developed by Sih and Liebowitz

(1968) is used, which is valid for plane strain deformations in rectilinearly

anisotropic bodies containing a crack. In the absence of body forces, as is

assumed in the present model, this representation may also be applied to

the conditions of generalised plane stress that are being considered.

The representation involves two analytic functions φ (z1 ) and ψ (z2 ) of

the complex variables

z1 = x − a + s1 (y − b), z2 = x − a + s2 (y − b), (77)

where s 1 and s 2 are the two roots having positive imaginary parts (see

below) of the following quadratic equation (since a 16 = a 26 = 0)

a11 s4 + (2a12 + a66 )s2 + a22 = 0 (78)

The representation for the stress components is given by

σxx = s21 φ (z1 ) + s22 ψ (z2 ) , (79)

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 213

σxy = [s1 φ (z1 ) + s2 ψ (z2 )] , (81)

and that for the displacement components is

where (since a 16 = a 26 = 0)

0

pk = a11 s2k + a12

for k = 1, 2 (84)

qk = a12 sk + a22 /sk

Putting

a22 2a12 + a66

γ= , δ= , (85)

a11 2a11

it follows from (78) that

s2 = −δ ± δ2 − γ (86)

It can be shown that for both GRP and CFRP, the values of s 2 are real

and negative. The following distinct pure imaginary roots are, therefore,

obtained

s1 = i δ − δ 2 − γ, s2 = i δ + δ 2 − γ (87)

The other two roots of (78) are given by s̄1 = −s1 , s̄2 = −s2 . The stress and

displacement representation automatically satisﬁes the equilibrium equa-

tions and the stress-strain relations (71) for any analytic functions φ(z) and

ψ(z) of the complex variable z. They are now assumed to take the following

form:

)t2

1 1

φ(z) ≡ w(t)ρ̂(t) ln dt, (88)

2πi z−t

t1

)t2

1 1

ψ(z) ≡ w(t)σ̂(t) ln dt (89)

2πi z−t

t1

The density functions ρ̂(t) and σ̂(t) are assumed to be polynomials and

t 2 − t1

w(t) ≡ 1/2

(90)

[ (t − t1 )(t − t2 ) ]

214 N. McCartney

tions at all points in the complex plane lying outside the crack, the following

crack tip closure conditions must be satisﬁed:

)t2 )t2

w(t)ρ̂(t)dt = 0, w(t)σ̂(t)dt = 0 (91)

t1 t1

)t2

1 w(t)ρ̂(t)

φ (z) ≡ dt, (92)

2πi t−z

t1

)t2

1 w(t)σ̂(t)

ψ (z) ≡ dt (93)

2πi t−z

t1

indicating that the stress ﬁeld arising from the representation (79)-(81) has

zero net force applied at inﬁnity.

The algebra may be simpliﬁed by changing variables to

ζ = ξ + iη, (95)

where

2z − (t1 + t2 )

ζ = ζ(z) = , (96)

t 2 − t1

x−a y−b

ξ= , η= (97)

c c

The crack is then described by −1 < ξ < 1, η = 0 and it follows from (92)

and (93) that

)1

1 ρ(s) ds

φ (z) ≡ √ , (98)

π 1−s 2 ζ(z) −s

−1

)1

1 σ(s) ds

ψ (z) ≡ √ , (99)

π 1 − s ζ(z) − s

2

−1

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 215

where ρ(ξ) ≡ ρ̂(t), σ(ξ) ≡ σ̂(t). From (91) the crack closure conditions are

written

)1 )1

ρ(s)ds σ(s)ds

√ = 0, √ =0 (100)

1−s 2 1 − s2

−1 −1

Chebyshev polynomials of the ﬁrst kind are deﬁned over the interval

[−1, 1] by

Tn (cos α) ≡ cos nα, 0 ≤ α ≤ π, n ≥ 0 (101)

Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind are deﬁned by

sin(n + 1)α

Un (cos α) = , 0 ≤ α ≤ π, n ≥ 0 (102)

sin α

The functions Tn (z ) and Un (z ) can both be analytically continued to the

entire complex plane, simply by considering the usual analytic continuation

of the functions sin(z) and cos(z). Use will be made of the following two

identities:

Tn ((λ + 1/λ)/2) ≡ (λn + 1/λn )/2, n ≥ 0, (103)

Un−1 ((λ + 1/λ)/2) ≡ (λn − 1/λn ) / (λ − 1/λ) , n ≥ 1 (104)

The density functions ρ(ξ) and σ(ξ) are now assumed to be of the form

N

N

ρ(ξ) ≡ An Tn (ξ), σ(ξ) ≡ Bn Tn (ξ), (105)

n=1 n=1

(100) are automatically satisﬁed and substitution of (105) in (98) and (99)

leads to

N N

φ (z) ≡ An Hn (ζ), ψ (z) ≡ Bn Hn (ζ), (106)

n=1 n=1

where, using a result established by Gladwell and England (1977),

n

)1 ζ − (ζ 2 −1 )

1/2

1 Tn (s) ds

Hn (ζ) ≡ √ ≡ 2 1/2 ,n ≥ 0 (107)

π 1 − s2 ζ − s ζ −1

−1

it can be shown that for n ≥ 1,

n

ζ − (ζ 2 −1 )1/2 Tn (ζ)

Hn (ζ) ≡ 2 1/2 ≡ 1/2 − Un−1 (ζ) (108)

ζ −1 ζ −1

2

216 N. McCartney

Let Sn+ , St+ , Sn− , St− be the normal and transverse tractions on the upper

and lower surfaces of the crack. Since

⎧ 2

⎪

⎪ ξ −1, ξ > 1, η = 0,

⎪

⎪

⎪

2 1/2 ⎨ i 1 − ξ 2 , |ξ| < 1, η = 0+,

ζ −1 = (109)

⎪

⎪ −i 1 − ξ 2 , |ξ| < 1, η = 0−,

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ 2

− ξ −1, ξ < −1, η = 0,

it follows from (108) that

Tn (ξ)

Hn± (ξ) = ±i − Un−1 (ξ), |ξ| < 1, n ≥ 1, (110)

1 − ξ2

where Hn+ and Hn− are the limiting values of Hn (ζ) on the positive and

negative sides of the crack respectively. Substituting (106) into (80) and

(81) using (110) leads to the following relations valid only for |ξ| < 1:

N

Tn (ξ)

±

Sn (ξ) = ± [An + Bn ] − [An + Bn ] Un−1 (ξ) , (111)

n=1 1 − ξ2

N

Tn (ξ)

±

St (ξ) = ± [s1 An + s2 Bn ] + [s1 An + s2 Bn ] Un−1 (ξ)

n=1 1 − ξ2

(112)

The tractions Sn+ , St+ , Sn− , St− must be bounded as ξ → ±1, for values of

ξ in the range |ξ| < 1 leading to the following conditions for the complex

coeﬃcients An , Bn :

[An + Bn ] = [s1 An + s2 Bn ] = 0 (113)

These conditions may easily be satisﬁed by choosing real αn , βn such that

αn = An + Bn , βn = −(s1 An + s2 Bn ), (114)

and

αn s2 + βn αn s1 + βn

An = − , Bn = , (115)

s1 − s2 s1 − s2

which, furthermore, yields the following simple expression for the tractions

on the crack surfaces:

±

N

±

Sn + iSt (ξ) = − (αn + i βn ) Un−1 (ξ), |ξ| < 1 (116)

n=1

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 217

Deﬁne n

Gn (ζ) ≡ ζ − (ζ 2 − 1)1/2 , n ≥ 1, (117)

that

Gn (ζ) ≡ exp [−n(α + iβ)] , when ζ = cosh(α + iβ) (118)

It is easily shown that

d

Gn (ζ) = −nHn (ζ), n ≥ 1 (119)

dζ

N

An

φ(z) = −c Gn (ζ), (120)

n=1

n

N

Bn

ψ(z) = −c Gn (ζ) (121)

n=1

n

Let

ζ1 = ξ + s1 η and ζ2 = ξ + s2 η (122)

On substituting (106), (115), (120) and (121) into the representation (79)-

(83), the stresses and displacement components may be expressed

N

σxx = − (αn s1 s2 + βn (s1 + s2 )) Hn (ζ1 ) + s22 (αn s1 + βn )ΔHn (ζ1 , ζ2 ) ,

n=1

(123)

N

σyy = [αn Hn (ζ1 ) − (αn s1 + βn )ΔHn (ζ1 , ζ2 )] , (124)

n=1

N

σxy = [βn Hn (ζ1 ) + s2 (αn s1 + βn )ΔHn (ζ1 , ζ2 )] , (125)

n=1

N

1

u = c [(αn (a11 s1 s2 − a12 ) + βn a11 (s1 + s2 )) Gn (ζ1 )

n=1

n (126)

+ (a11 s22 + a12 )(αn s1 + βn )ΔGn (ζ1 , ζ2 ) ,

218 N. McCartney

N

1 s1 + s2 a22

v = c −αn a22 + βn a12 − Gn (ζ1 )

n=1

n s1 s2 s1 s2

+ a12 s2 + as22

2

(αn s 1 + β n ) ΔGn (ζ ,

1 2ζ ) ,

(127)

where

⎧

⎪

⎪ Hn (ζ1 ) − Hn (ζ2 )

⎪

⎪ , for s1 = s2 ,

⎪

⎪ s1 − s2

⎪

⎨ Hn (ζ1 ) − Hn (ζ2 )

ΔHn (ζ1 , ζ2 ) ≡ lim

⎪ s1 →s2

s1 − s2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ n ζ

⎪

⎩ = −η

1

⎪ + 2 H(ζ1 ), for s1 = s2

(ζ12 −1 )

1/2

ζ1 −1

(128)

and

⎧

⎪

⎪ Gn (ζ1 ) − Gn (ζ2 )

⎨ , for s1 = s2 ,

ΔGn (ζ1 , ζ2 ) ≡ s1 − s2

⎪

⎪ Gn (ζ1 ) − Gn (ζ2 )

⎩ lim = −nηH(ζ1 ), for s1 = s2 ,

s1 →s2 s1 − s2

(129)

One limiting situation, s1 = s2 = i, occurs when the material is isotropic,

and in this case the expressions (123)-(127) coincide with those of McCart-

ney and Gorley (1987) for the case of parallel cracks. It should be noted

that

ΔGn (ζ1 , ζ2 ) → 0 , ΔHn (ζ1 , ζ2 ) → 0 as y → 0

From (108) and (117)

1/2 1/2

Gn (ζ) ≡ Hn (ζ) ζ 2 − 1 ≡ Tn (ξ) − ζ 2 − 1 Un−1 (ζ) (130)

It is deduced from (109) that the limiting values of Gn (ζ) on the crack faces

are given by

G±n (ξ) = Tn (ξ) ± i 1 − ξ Un−1 (ξ)

2 (131)

By considering the limiting distributions for the normal and tangential dis-

placements along the upper and lower surfaces of the crack, which are de-

noted by Vn+ , Vn− , Ut+ , Ut− , use can be made of (126) and (127) together with

(131) to obtain an expression for the displacement discontinuities across the

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 219

crack:

√ αn

N

Δv(ξ) ≡ (Vn+ − Vn− )(ξ) = 4c a22 g 1 − ξ 2 Un−1 (ξ), (132)

n=1

n

N

√ βn

Δu(ξ) ≡ (Ut+ − Ut− )(ξ) = 4c a11 g 1 − ξ2 Un−1 (ξ), (133)

n=1

n

where

1 √

g= (2 a11 a22 + 2a12 + a66 ) (134)

4

In the isotropic limit, this result agrees with the corresponding result of

McCartney and Gorley (1987).

For the crack tip at t1 , the mode I and mode II stress intensity factors

KI1 , KII

1

are deﬁned by

KI1 + iKII

1

= lim 2πc(−ξ − 1) (Sn (ξ) + iSt (ξ)) , (135)

ξ→−1

where Sn (ξ) and St (ξ) are the normal and tangential tractions acting on

ξ < −1, η = 0. It follows from (80), (81), (106), (108) and (115) that on

ξ < −1, η = 0 the tractions are given by

N

Tn (ξ)

Sn (ξ) + iSt (ξ) = − (αn + i βn ) 2 + Un−1 (ξ) (136)

n=1 ξ −1

√ N

KI1 + iKII

1

= πc (−1 )n+1 (αn + i βn ) , (137)

n=1

KI2 + iKII

2

= lim 2πc(ξ − 1) (Sn (ξ) + iSt (ξ)) , (138)

ξ→1

where Sn (ξ) and St (ξ) are the normal and tangential tractions acting on

ξ > 1, η = 0. For ξ > 1, η = 0,

N

Tn (ξ)

Sn (ξ) + iSt (ξ) = (αn + i βn ) 2 − Un−1 (ξ) (139)

n=1 ξ −1

220 N. McCartney

simple result

√ N

KI2 + iKII2

= πc (αn + i βn ) (140)

n=1

Consider now a test example of two collinear cracks of equal length em-

bedded in an isotropic material, where the exact solution is known and can

be compared with the predictions obtained using orthogonal polynomials.

Figure 4 shows the geometry where the two cracks have length 2c and the

separation of the inner crack tips is 2s. A uniaxial stress σ is applied in a

direction normal to the crack planes. The crack problem is such that the

deformation at the crack tips is mode I, i.e. the mode II stress intensity

factors are zero.

The exact solution for the mode I stress intensity factors is given by

Rooke and Cartwright (1976)

√ s + 2c 1 E(k)

KI (x = s) = σ πc − α2 ,

αc k K(k)

(141)

√ s + 2c 1 E(k)

KI (x = s + 2c) = σ πc 1−

c k K(k)

√

with k = 1 − α2 and α = c/(s + 2c). For a unit applied stress and when

c = 0.45 c0 , s = 0.1c0 and on selecting N = 100, for any normalising crack

length c0 , the methodology based on orthogonal polynomials leads to the

results

which are identical to the numerical estimates, thus conﬁrming the validity

of the methodology based on orthogonal polynomials.

It should be noted that the relation (139) can be used to investigate

magnitude of the tractions on the crack surfaces. For the example considered

the tractions, which should be zero, have the order of 10−16 indicating the

very high accuracy of the methodology used.

Consider now a test example of three equally spaced vertically stacked

cracks of equal length embedded in an inﬁnite isotropic material. Figure

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 221

2c x

2c

2s

isotropic plate having two collinear cracks

5 illustrates the geometry where the three cracks have length 2c and the

vertical separation of the cracks is s. A uniaxial stress σ is applied in a

direction normal to the crack planes. The crack problem is such that the

deformation at the tips of the central crack is mode I, and the deformation

at the other tips is mixed mode. The magnitudes of the model I and mode

II stress intensity factors for the upper and lower cracks are expected to be

the same.

For a unit applied stress and when c = 0.5 c0 , s = 0.5c0 and on selecting

N = 100, for any normalising crack length c0 , the methodology based on

222 N. McCartney

x

s 2c

isotropic plate having three equally spaced vertically stacked cracks

Central crack : KI = 0.70031026, KII = 0.0,

Bottom crack : KI = 0.92924447, KII = −0.14265165

It is seen that the mode I stress intensity factor for the central crack is less

than that of the upper and lower cracks. This illustrates the shielding eﬀect

on the central crack because of the presence of the other two cracks. The

model II stress intensity of the lowest crack is seen to be negative because the

local shear stress is negative. For this example the tractions, which should

be zero, have the order of 10−16 again indicating the very high accuracy of

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 223

Laminates

Stress transfer phenomena in cross-ply laminates have been examined ex-

tensively in the literature using an approximate method of stress analysis,

ﬁrst developed for UD composites, that is known as ‘shear-lag theory’. An

improved approach was developed by the author many years ago (McCart-

ney, 1992) by removing various approximations that had to be made when

developing shear-lag solutions. The objective of this Section is to show how

the methodology described in reference (McCartney, 1992) may be further

extended.

Using a simple cross-ply laminate as an example, alternative methods

will be described for determining the stress and displacement distributions

when there is a regularly spaced array of ply cracks in the 90o ply. It will

be shown how the eﬀective elastic and thermal constants can be estimated.

The example considered here, given in detail for the ﬁrst time, is a very

good way of presenting the important physical principles that have already

been applied to the more complex case of general symmetric laminates. The

approach to be described and developed in detail here has been extended in

previous work by the author recently summarised in one of the publications

(McCartney, 2013a) of an International Exercise (Kaddour et al., 2013a).

Consider the model of a simple [0/90]s cross-ply laminate illustrated in

Fig. 6 where two possible representative volume elements (RVEs) are shown.

For the ﬁrst shown in Fig. 6(a) one ply crack in the inner 90o ply is located

on the plane x1 = 0 and neighbouring ply cracks (not shown) are on the

planes x1 = ±2L. For the second RVE shown in Fig. 6(b), the plane x1 = 0

is mid-way between two neighbouring ply cracks in the inner 90o ply on the

planes x1 = ±L. The inner 90o ply has total thickness 2a and the two outer

0o plies each have thickness denoted by b so that the total thickness of the

laminate is 2h where h = a + b. A set of Cartesian coordinates (x1 , x2 , x3 )

is introduced such that the origin lies on the mid-plane of the laminate at

the mid-point between two neighbouring cracks in the 90o ply. The x1 -axis

is directed along the principal loading direction and the x3 -axis is directed

in the through-thickness direction.

The following equilibrium equations must be satisﬁed for both the 0o

224 N. McCartney

2h 2h

x1 x1

x3 x3

2L

0 0

b b b b

2a 2a

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Representative volume elements for a cracked cross-ply laminate

+ + = 0,

∂ x1 ∂ x2 ∂ x3

∂ σ12 ∂ σ22 ∂ σ23

+ + = 0, (142)

∂ x1 ∂ x2 ∂ x3

∂ σ13 ∂ σ23 ∂ σ33

+ + = 0,

∂ x1 ∂ x2 ∂ x3

where σij are the stress components. The plies are regarded as transverse

isotropic solids so that the stress-strain-temperature relations involve the

axial and transverse values of the Young’s modulus E, Poisson’s ratio ν,

shear modulus μ and thermal expansion coeﬃcient α. Superscripts ‘0’ or

‘90’ will be used to denote the ply to which a stress, strain and displacement

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 225

∂ u01 1 0 νA0

νa0 0

ε011 = = σ

0 11 − σ

0 22

0

− 0

0 σ33 + αA ΔT,

∂ x1 EA EA EA

∂ u02 ν0 0 1 0 ν0 0

ε022 = = − A0 σ11 + 0 σ22 − t0 σ33 + α0T ΔT,

∂ x2 EA ET ET

∂ u03 ν0 0 ν0 0 1 0

ε033 = = − a0 σ11 − t0 σ22 + 0 σ33 + α0t ΔT,

∂ x3 EA ET Et

(143)

∂ u01 ∂ u02 σ0

2ε012 = + = 12 ,

∂ x2 ∂ x1 μ0A

∂ u01 ∂ u03 σ0

2ε013 = + = 13 ,

∂ x3 ∂ x1 μ0a

∂ u2 ∂ u03 σ0

2ε023 = + = 23 ,

∂ x3 ∂ x2 μ0t

while for the 90o plies

∂ u90 1 90 ν 90 90 νt90 90

ε90

11 =

1

= σ11 − A90 σ22 − σ + α90 T ΔT,

∂ x1 ET90 EA ET90 33

∂ u90 ν 90 90 1 90 νa90 90

ε90

22 =

2

= − A90 σ11 + 90 σ22 − 90

90 σ33 + αA ΔT,

∂ x2 EA EA EA

∂ u90 ν 90 90 ν 90 90 1 90

ε90

33 =

3

= − t90 σ11 − a90 σ22 + σ + α90t ΔT,

∂ x3 ET EA Et90 33

(144)

∂ u90

1 ∂ u90

2 σ 90

2ε90

12 = + = 12 ,

∂ x2 ∂ x1 μ90

A

∂ u90

1 ∂ u90

3 σ 90

2ε90

13 = + = 13 ,

∂ x3 ∂ x1 μ90

t

∂ u90

2 ∂ u90

3 σ 90

2ε90

23 = + = 23 ,

∂ x3 ∂ x2 μ90

a

where the strain and displacement components are denoted by εij and

ui respectively. The subscripts A, T and t are attached to the proper-

ties to associate them respectively with the axial, in-plane transverse and

through-thickness directions of the lamina. It should be noted that the up-

per case subscripts A and T are associated only with in-plane directions,

while the lower case subscripts are associated with the through-thickness

direction. The relations (144) are either obtained by modifying directly the

relations (143) for the 0o plies, or by using the relations (27)-(40) to ro-

tate the ply by an angle ± 90o . The thermoelastic constants of individual

226 N. McCartney

Et = ET , νa = νA , μa = μA , αt = αT and ET = 2μt (1 + νt ).

In order that the ﬁeld equations can be solved uniquely, it is necessary

to impose a suﬃcient number of boundary and interface conditions. The

free surface (x3 = ±h) and interface (x3 = ±a) conditions will ﬁrst be

considered. On the free surfaces

0

σ33 0

= σt , σ13 0

= σ23 = 0, on x3 = ±h, (145)

and on the interfaces

0 90 0 90 0 90

σ33 = σ33 , σ13 = σ13 , σ23 = σ23 ,

on x3 = ±a (146)

u01 = u90

1 , u02 = u90

2 , u03 = u90

3 ,

form having the following values

2 = ±W εT ,

u02 = u90 on x2 = ±W, (147)

where εT is the in-plane transverse strain that is uniform everywhere in the

laminate when generalised plane strain conditions are imposed. The edges

x2 = ±W are assumed to have zero shear stresses so that

0

σ12 90

= σ12 0

= 0, σ23 90

= σ23 = 0, on x2 = ±W (148)

For the above boundary conditions, and because of the symmetric nature of

the laminate, there will be symmetry about x3 = 0 of the stress, strain and

displacement distributions such that the following conditions are satisﬁed

0 90 0 90

σ13 = σ13 = 0, σ23 = σ23 = 0, u03 = 0, onx3 = 0 (149)

When applying laminate edge conditions applied on planes normal to the

x1 -axis, two possible approaches can be made. Consider ﬁrst of all the RVE

shown in Fig. 6(a) which can be used for undamaged laminates, and for

damaged laminates where a ply crack in the 90o ply is located at x1 = 0.

The edges x1 = ±L are such that in-plane axial displacement is uniform

having the following values

1 = ±LεA ,

u01 = u90 on x1 = ±L, (150)

where εA is the eﬀective axial applied strain. The edges x1 = ±L are

assumed to have zero shear stresses so that

0

σ12 90

= σ12 = 0, 0

σ13 90

= σ13 = 0, on x1 = ±L (151)

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 227

that

0 90 0 90

σ12 = σ12 = 0, σ13 = σ13 = 0, u01 = u90

1 = 0, on x1 = 0 (152)

Consider now the RVE shown in Fig. 6(b) where the 90o ply cracks are

located on the planes x1 = ±L. The boundary conditions applied are given

by

0

σ12 90

= σ12 0

= 0, σ13 90

= σ13 90

= 0, σ11 = 0, u01 = ±LεA , on x1 = ±L (153)

It is clear from both the RVEs shown in Fig. 6 and the boundary conditions

applied on planes normal to the x1 -axis that for uniformly arrays of ply

cracks there is symmetry about the planes x1 = 0 and x1 = ±L.

For undamaged laminates and in regions away from laminate edges, the

axial and transverse strains in both 0o and 90o plies have the uniform values

ε̂A and ε̂T respectively. The ‘hat’ symbol is attached to the in-plane strains

to distinguish them from the diﬀering values εA and εT that will arise when

the laminate is damaged. The through-thickness stress in both plies has

the uniform value σt . For undamaged laminates it is useful to deﬁne the

following laminate constants for the 0o and 90o plies

0

0

1 1 0 2 ET 1 1 0 2 ET

= 0 1 − (ν A ) 0 , = 1 − (ν A ) ,

ẼA 0 EA EA ẼT0 ET0 EA0

ν̃t0 νt0 νa0 νA0

= 0 , = 0 + 0 , (154)

ẼA 0 EA ẼT0 ET EA

0

0 ET 0

α̃0A = α0A + νA α , α̃0 = α0T + νA 0 0

αA ,

EA T T

0

90

90

1 1 90 2 ET 1 1 90 2 ET

= 90 1 − (νA ) 90 , = 90 1 − (νA ) 90 ,

90

ẼA EA EA ẼT90 ET EA

90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

ν̃a ν ν ν ν̃t ν ν ν

= a90 + t 90A , = t90 + a 90A , (155)

90

ẼA E A E A ẼT90 E T EA

90

90 90 ET 90

α̃90

A = αA + νA 90 αT , α̃90 90

T = αT + νA αA

90 90

EA

From a consideration of mechanical equilibrium the uniform ply stresses can

be used to deﬁne, for an undamaged laminate, the eﬀective axial stress σ̂A

and the eﬀective in-plane transverse stress σ̂T as follows

0 90

hσ̂A = bσ̂11 + aσ̂11 , (156)

228 N. McCartney

0 90

h σ̂T = bσ̂22 + aσ̂22 (157)

The ‘hat’ symbol is used to distinguish these eﬀective stresses from those

that will result when the laminate is damaged. Corresponding to the uni-

form through-thickness stress σt , an eﬀective through-thickness strain ε̂t

can be deﬁned by the relation

hε̂t = bε̂033 + aε̂90

33 (158)

It should be noted that the value σt for the through-thickness stress of an

undamaged laminate corresponds to the eﬀective value when the laminate

is damaged. It can be shown that on deﬁning the constants

b 0 a b 0 0 a 90 90 b a

A = ẼA + ẼT90 , B = νA ẼT + νA ẼT , C = ν̃a0 + ν̃t90 ,

h h h h h h

b 0 a 90 b 0 a 90

F = ẼT + ẼA , G = ν̃t + ν̃a , (159)

h h h h

b 0 0 a b 0 0 a 90 90

P = ẼA α̃A + ẼT90 α̃90

T ,Q = Ẽ α̃ + ẼA α̃A ,

h h h T T h

the thermoelastic constants of an undamaged cross-ply laminate are given

by

(L) B2 (L) B2 (L) B

EA = A − , ET = F − , νA = ,

F A F

(L) BG (L) BC

νa = C − , νt = G − , (160)

F A

1 (L)

(L) (L) (L) 1 (L) ET

αA = (L) P − νA Q , αT = (L) Q − νA (L)

P ,

EA ET EA

such that the in-plane non-shear stress-strain relations for an undamaged

laminate are

(L) (L)

1 νA νa (L)

ε̂A = σ̂ −

(L) A

σ̂ −

(L) T

σ + αA ΔT,

(L) t

EA EA EA

(L) (L) (161)

ν 1 ν (L)

ε̂T = − A(L) σ̂A + (L) σ̂T − t(L) σt + αT ΔT

EA ET ET

It should be noted that

(L)

(L) b 0 a 90 (L) ET B b ν 0 Ẽ 0 + aνA90 90

ẼT

ẼA = A = Ẽ + Ẽ , νA == A T0 ,

h A h T (L)

EA A bẼA + a ẼT90

(L) b a 90 (L) B bν 0 Ẽ 0 + aνA 90 90

ẼT

ẼT = F = ẼT0 + Ẽ , νA = = A T0 ,

h h A F bẼT + aẼA 90

(162)

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 229

where

(L) (L)

(L) EA (L) ET

ẼA = (L) (L) (L)

, ẼT = (L) (L) (L)

(163)

1 − (νA )2 ET /EA 1 − (νA )2 ET /EA

ﬁrst deﬁned

b νa0 + νt0 νA0

0 a νt90 νa90 νA

90

b a

A = 0 ẼA + + ẼT90 = ν̃a0 + ν̃t90 ,

h EA h ET90 EA 90 h h

b νt0 νa0 νA0

0 a νa90 + νt90 νA90

90 b a

B = + Ẽ T + ẼA = ν̃t0 + ν̃a90 ,

h ET0 EA 0 h EA 90 h h

b 1 νa0 ν̃a0 νt0 ν̃t0 a 1 νt90 ν̃t90 νa90 ν̃a90

C = − 0 − 0 + − − ,

h Et0 EA ET h Et90 ET90 EA 90

b ν0 0 0 ν0

P = α0t + a0 ẼA α̃A + t0 ẼT0 α̃0T

h EA ET

90

a 90 ν a 90 90 νt90 90 90

+ αt + 90 ẼA α̃A + 90 ẼT α̃T

h EA ET

(164)

It can be shown that the through-thickness properties are given by

(L)

(L) ET

= A − B νA , = B − A νA

(L) (L) (L)

νa νt (L)

,

EA

(L) (L) (165)

1 νa νt

= C + A + B = P − A αA − B αT ,

(L) (L) (L)

(L) (L) (L)

, αt

Et EA ET

such that

(L) (L)

νa νt 1 (L)

ε̂t = − σ̂ −

(L) A (L)

σ̂T + (L)

σt + αt ΔT, (166)

EA ET Et

It can be shown that the same values result for the minor Poisson’s ratios

(L) (L)

νa and νt when using the relations (160) or (165).

Consider a symmetric damaged laminate of length 2L, width 2W and

total thickness 2h, for which the plies are uniformly thick and perfectly

bonded together. In-plane loading is applied by imposing uniform axial and

transverse displacements, denoted by ±UA and ±UT , on the edges of the

laminate thus deﬁning an eﬀective axial strain εA = UA /L and an eﬀective

transverse strain εT = UT /W . The faces of the laminate are subjected to

230 N. McCartney

plane strains εA and εT , axial and transverse eﬀective applied stresses can

be deﬁned for damaged laminates by

)W )h )L )h

1 1

σA = σ11 dx2 dx3 , σT = σ22 dx1 dx3 (167)

4W h 4Lh

−W −h −L −h

thickness strain εt can be deﬁned for damaged and undamaged laminates

by

)W )L

1

εt = [u3 (x1 , x2 , h) − u3 (x1 , x2 , −h)] dx1 dx2 (168)

8LW h

−W −L

transverse strains will be uniform throughout all plies of the laminate having

the values εA and εT respectively, and the through-thickness stress will be

uniform throughout the laminate having the value σt in each ply. It then

follows from (167) and (168) that σA = σ̂A , σT = σ̂T and εt = ε̂t where σ̂A ,

σ̂T and ε̂t are deﬁned by the relations (156)-(158).

Generalised plane strain conditions are assumed so that the stress and

strain distributions do not depend on the x 3 -coordinate. This situation

occurs when the displacement ﬁeld is of the form

and 90o plies. In addition, it is assumed that on the laminate faces x3 = ±h

that σ330

≡ σ33

90

≡ σt where σt is a uniform applied through-thickness stress

and σ13 ≡ σ23 ≡ 0. If εT = 0 then the laminate is highly constrained in

the transverse direction leading to well known conditions of plane strain

deformation. It should be noted that the solution for undamaged laminates

derived in the previous section is automatically one of generalised plane

strain as the transverse strain εT is uniform everywhere in those regions of

the laminate that are suﬃciently well away from the edges.

It can be shown that for the 0o plies

0 0

νA ET 0

0 σ11 + νt σ33 − ET αT ΔT + ET εT ,

0 0 0 0 0 0

σ22 = (170)

EA

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 231

1 0 ν̃a0 0 0

0 ET

ε011 = σ

0 11

− σ

0 33

+ α̃0

A ΔT − ν A 0 εT , (171)

ẼA ẼA EA

ν̃a0 0 1 0

ε033 = − 0

σ11 + 0 σ33 + α̃0t ΔT − νt0 εT , (172)

ẼA Ẽt

where

1 1 (ν 0 )2

= 0 − t 0 , α̃0t = α0t + νt0 α0T (173)

0

Ẽt Et ET

For the 90o ply

90

σ22 90 90

= νA σ11 + νa90 σ33

90

− EA

90 90 90

αA ΔT + EA εT , (174)

1 90 ν̃ 90 90

ε90

11 = 90

σ11 − t90 σ33 T ΔT − νA εT ,

+ α̃90 90

(175)

ẼT ẼT

ν̃t90 90 1 90

33 = −

ε90 t ΔT − νa εT ,

+ α̃90 90

σ11 + 90 σ33 (176)

ẼT90 Ẽt

where

1 1 (νa90 )2

= 90 − 90 , α̃90 90 90 90

t = αt + νa αA (177)

Ẽt90 Et EA

The easiest approach is to consider the stress and displacement repre-

sentation involving an unknown stress transfer function C(x1 ) and to show

that it satisﬁes required ﬁeld equations and boundary conditions. For gen-

eralised plane strain conditions where it is assumed σ12 = σ23 = 0 and

u2 = εT x2 , the stress distribution is assumed to have the following form

b

0

σ11 0

(x1 , x3 ) = C(x1 ) + σ̂11 , 90

σ11 (x1 , x3 ) = − C(x1 ) + σ̂11

90

, (178)

a

b

0

σ13 (x1 , x3 ) = C (x1 ) (h − x3 ) , 90

σ13 (x1 , x3 ) = C (x1 )x3 , (179)

a

0 0

νA ET 1 0 2

0 C(x1 ) + 2 νt C (x1 ) (h − x3 ) + σ̂22 ,

0 0

σ22 (x1 , x3 ) = (180)

EA

b 90 b

90

σ22 (x1 , x3 ) = − νA C(x1 ) + νa90 C (x1 ) ah − x23 + σ̂22

90

, (181)

a 2a

1 2

0

σ33 (x1 , x3 ) = C (x1 ) (h − x3 ) + σt ,

2 (182)

b

90

σ33 (x1 , x3 ) = C (x1 ) ah − x23 + σt ,

2a

232 N. McCartney

ν̃ 0

ν̃ 90

b 2

− (h − x )2

C (x1 )

3

u01 (x1 , x3 ) = a

(x3 − a)2 − t90 b(x3 − a) +

2ẼA 0 ẼT 2μ0a

(h − x3 )4 − b4 + 4b3 (x3 − a) ab (2h + b) (x3 − a)

− + C (x1 ) + A(x1 ),

24Ẽt0 6Ẽt90

(183)

90

b 1 ν̃

u90

1 (x1 , x3 ) = − t90 (x23 − a2 )C (x1 )

2a μ90 t ẼT

b 1 4

+ x3 − a4 − 6ah(x23 − a2 ) C (x1 ) + A(x1 )

24a Ẽt

90

(184)

90 0

ν̃ ν̃

u03 (x1 , x3 ) = ε̂033 (x3 − a) + ε̂90 33 a + b 90 −

t a

0

(x3 − a) C(x1 )

ẼT ẼA

1 1 3 ab

+ b − (h − x 3 )3

+ (2h + b) C (x1 ),

6 Ẽt0 Ẽt90

(185)

b ν̃t90 b 1

90

u3 (x1 , x3 ) = C(x1 )x3 + C (x1 ) 3ah − x3 x3 + ε̂33 x3 (186)

2 90

a ẼT90 6a Ẽt90

It follows that

0 90 0 90

hσA = bσ11 (x1 , x3 ) + aσ11 (x1 , x3 ) = bσ̂11 + aσ̂11 = hσ̂A , (187)

so that the eﬀective applied axial stress for damaged laminate σA is equal to

the eﬀective axial stress σ̂A for the corresponding undamaged laminate. The

function A(x1 ) appearing in (183) and (184) is for the moment arbitrary.

The representation automatically satisﬁes the equilibrium equations (142)

and the required interface continuity conditions. In addition, all the stress-

strain relations (143) and (144), except for the two relations (143)1 and

(144)1 involving the axial strains ε011 and ε90 11 respectively, for any functions

C(x1 ) and A(x1 ). It is possible, however, to satisfy these axial relations after

they are averaged through the thickness of the 0o and 90o plies respectively,

as will now be described.

Assuming symmetry about the mid-plane x3 = 0, the average of any

quantities f0 (x1 , x3 ) and f90 (x1 , x3 ) associated with the 0o and 90o plies are

deﬁned respectively by

)h )a

1 1

f¯0 (x1 ) = f0 (x1 , x3 ) dx3 , f¯90 (x1 ) = f90 (x1 , x3 ) dx3 (188)

b a

a 0

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 233

ν̃a0 ν̃t90 1

0

ū1 (x1 ) = − + 0 b2 C (x1 )

6ẼA 0 2ẼT90 3μa

(189)

1 a (2a + 3b) 4

− + b C (x1 ) + A(x1 ),

20Ẽt0 12b2 Ẽt90

a ν̃t90 1

90

ū1 (x1 ) = − 90 b2 C (x1 )

3b ẼT90 μt

(190)

a2 (5b + 4a) 1 4

+ b C (x1 ) + A(x1 )

30b3 Ẽt90

On substituting into the averaged axial stress-strain relations for the 0o and

90o plies, and on eliminating the terms σ̂11

0 90

and σ̂11 , and the function A(x1 ),

it can be shown that the stress transfer function must satisfy the following

fourth order ordinary diﬀerential equation

F b4 C (x1 ) − Gb2 C (x1 ) + HC(x1 ) = 0, (191)

where

1 2 a a2 5 a 15

F = + + + > 0,

20Ẽt0 15Ẽt90 b b2 2b 8

1 1 1 a ν̃a0 ν̃t90 2a + 3b

G= + 90 + 0 − 90 , (192)

3 μ0a μt b ẼA ẼT b

1 1 b

H = 0 + 90 > 0

ẼA ẼT a

The function A(x1 ) can be calculated using either of the following two equiv-

alent relations

1 a(2a + 3b) 4

A(x1 ) = + b C (x1 )

20Ẽt0 12b2 Ẽt90

(193)

ν̃a0 ν̃t90 1 2 1

− − + b C (x1 ) + C̄(x1 ) + ε̂ x

A 1 ,

3ẼA 0 2ẼT90 3μ0a 0

ẼA

A(x1 ) =− b C (x1 )

30b3 Ẽt90

a 4a + 3b ν̃t90 1 b 1

− − 90 b2 C (x1 ) − C̄(x1 ) + ε̂A x1 ,

3b 2a ẼT90 μt a ẼT90

(194)

234 N. McCartney

where

)x1

C̄(x1 ) ≡ C(x)dx. (195)

0

C (x1 ) = 0. The integration constant has been selected so that A(x1 ) = 0.

On substituting (193) in (189)

1 ν̃ 0

ū01 (x1 ) = 0

C̄(x1 ) − a0 b2 C (x1 ) + ε̂A x1 , (196)

ẼA 6ẼA

b 1 2a + 3b ν̃t90 2

1 (x1 ) = −

ū90 C̄(x1 ) − b C (x1 ) + ε̂A x1 (197)

a ẼT

90 6b ẼT90

1 (0) = 0 consistent with the conditions

(152)3 . Because the function A(x1 ) is now known in terms of C(x1 ), the

u1 displacement distributions (183) and (184) are fully speciﬁed in terms of

the stress transfer function C(x1 ).

On deﬁning

G H

r= , s= , (198)

2F F

the most general solution of the diﬀerential equation (191) satisfying the

symmetry condition C(x1 ) ≡ C(−x1 ) is given by

• if s > r:

px1 qx1 px1 qx1

C(x1 ) = P cosh cos + Q sinh sin , (199)

b b b b

• if s = r:

px1 x1 px1

C(x1 ) = P cosh + Q sinh , (200)

b b b

• if s < r:

px1 qx1 px1 qx1

C(x1 ) = P cosh cosh + Q sinh sinh , (201)

b b b b

where

1 1

p= (r + s), q= |r − s| (202)

2 2

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 235

Consider now a uniform array of ply cracks, having density ρ = 1/(2L),

in the 90o ply of the cross-ply laminate as shown in Fig. 6(b). The tractions

on the ply crack surfaces must be zero so that from (179) and (178)

b

90

σ13 (L, x3 ) = C (L)x3 = 0, implying C (L) = 0, (203)

a

b a 90

90

σ11 (L, x3 ) = − C(L) + σ̂11

90

= 0, implying C(L) = σ̂ (204)

a b 11

On applying these conditions and on writing P = A + B, Q = A − B, the

parameters A and B must be selected so that

(p−q)L (p+q)L

a (p − q) tanh b a (p + q) tanh b

A=− 90

Λσ̂11 , B= 90

Λσ̂11 , (205)

b cosh (p+q)L

b

b cosh (p−q)L

b

where

1 (p + q)L (p − q)L

= (q + p) tanh + (q − p) tanh (206)

Λ b b

The only boundary condition for a damaged laminate that has not been

satisﬁed is given by (153)1 . It is clear from (183), (184) and (193) or (194)

that it is not possible for this boundary condition to be satisﬁed by the ap-

proximate solution derived. The boundary condition (153)1 is now replaced

by the following averaged condition

90

a Φσ̂11

εA = 0

+ ε̂A (208)

LẼA

where

4Λpq (p + q)L (p − q)L

Φ= tanh tanh (209)

p −q

2 2 b b

On using (157) it can be shown using (180) and (181) that the eﬀective

applied transverse stress σT deﬁned by (167)2 is given by

0

ab 0 ET

σT = νA 0 − νA Φσ̂11

90 90

+ σ̂T (210)

Lh EA

236 N. McCartney

so that the stress-strain relations (161) for an undamaged laminate may be

written

(L) (L)

1 νA νa (L)

ε̂A = σ −

(L) A

σ̂ −

(L) T (L) t

σ + αA ΔT ,

EA EA EA

(L) (L) (211)

νA 1 νt (L)

εT = − (L) σA + (L) σ̂T − (L) t

σ + αT ΔT

EA ET ET

On using (208) and (210) to eliminate ε̂A and σ̂T respectively, it can be

shown following extensive algebraic manipulation that

1 ν ν

εA = σA − A σT − a σt + αA ΔT, (212)

EA EA EA

νA 1 ν

εT = − σA + σT − t σt + αT ΔT, (213)

EA ET ET

where the thermoelastic constants of the damaged laminate are deﬁned by

1 1 2 a Ẽ 90 Φ

(L) 90

= (L)

+ 1 − ν A ν A

T

, (214)

EA EA L E (L) Ẽ 0 ξ

A A

2 2

0 0 90

1 1 0 ET b a ẼA ẼT Φ

= 1 + νA 0 − νA 90

, (215)

ET (L)

ET EA h2 L Ẽ (L) E (L) ξ

A T

(L)

implying ET = ξET ,

νA

(L)

νA

E0

b a ẼT90 Φ

(L) 90

= (L)

+ 1 − ν A ν A ν 0

A

T

0 − ν 90

A (L) (L)

, (216)

EA EA EA hLE E ξ

A T

(L)

νa νa

= (L)

EA

EA

(L)

ν 90

(L)

ν 90 (L) 90

νa νt (L) 90 a ẼA ẼT Φ

+ (L)

− t90 + νA

90

(L)

− a90 1 − νA νA ,

EA ET ET EA L E (L) ẼA

0 ξ

A

(217)

(L)

νt νt

= (L)

ET

ET

(L) (L)

νa ν 90 νt ν 90 0

0 ET

90

90 b a ẼT Φ

− (L)

− t90 + νA

90

(L)

− a90 νA 0 − νA ,

EA ET ET EA EA h L E (L) ξ

T

(218)

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 237

a Ẽ (L) Ẽ 90 Φ

(L) (L) 90 (L) 90 (L)

αA = αA + 1 − νA νA αA + νA αT − α̃90

T

A T

, (219)

L E (L) ẼA0 ξ

A

E0

b a ẼT90 Φ

(L) (L) 90 (L)

αT = αT − αA + νA αT − α̃90T

0

νA T

0 − νA

90

, (220)

EA h L E (L) ξ

T

where

2 2

0 0 90

0 ET b a ẼA ẼT

ξ = 1 − νA 0 − ν 90

A 2

Φ. (221)

EA h L Ẽ E (L)

(L)

A T

laminate are exactly of the same form as those for an undamaged lami-

nate. The formation of damage aﬀects only the values of the thermoelastic

constants, and not the form of the stress-strain relations.

On applying (168) to the ply crack problem being considered

) L

1

εt = u03 (x1 , h)dx1 (222)

Lh 0

thickness stress-strain relation is obtained

νa ν 1

εt = − σA − t σT + σ + αt ΔT, (223)

EA ET Et t

where

νa νa

(L) 90

90 (L) b a ẼT Φ

= (L)

+ Ω 1 − ν ν

A A , (224)

EA EA h L E (L) ξ

A

(L)

0

2 0 90

νt νt 0 ET b a ẼA ẼT Φ

= (L)

− Ω ν A 0 − ν 90

A 2

, (225)

ET ET EA h L Ẽ E (L) ξ

(L)

A T

$ %

(L) (L)

1 1 νa νt90 νt νa90 b a 90 Φ

= (L) + Ω − 90 + νA 90

− 90 Ẽ , (226)

Et Et E

(L) ET E

(L) EA hL T ξ

A T

ba Φ

(L) (L) (L)

αt = αt − Ω αA + νA

90

αT − α̃90

T Ẽ 90 , (227)

hL T ξ

and where

(L)

ν̃ 0 ν̃ 90 ν 0

0 ET

Ω = a0 − t90 − t(L) νA 0 − νA

90

(228)

ẼA ẼT ET EA

238 N. McCartney

The relations (217) and (218) are equivalent to the results (224) and (225)

because it can be shown that

(L) (L)

νa νt90 νt νa90 b ẼA 0

(L)

− 90 + νA90

(L)

− 90 = Ω (L)

(229)

E ET E EA h Ẽ

A T A

The key results of this section are expressions for the various eﬀective

thermoelastic properties of a simple cross-ply laminate having an array of

uniformly spaced ply cracks. For the example the following ply properties,

typical of a transverse isotropic carbon ﬁbre reinforced composite, are used:

νA = 0.28, νa = 0.28, νt = 0.43,

μA = 4.59 GPa, μa = 4.59 GPa, μt = 3.09441 GPa,

αA = 0.245x10−6K−1 , αT = 45.6x10−6K−1 , αt = 45.6x10−6K−1

When these ply properties are used in conjunction with the formulae

(214)-(220) and (224)-(227), for a set of ply crack densities in the range

0 – 4 cracks/mm, the results shown in Fig. 7 are obtained. The results

shown assume the following identiﬁcations:

νA ≡ nuA, νa ≡ nusa, νt ≡ nust,

μA ≡ muA, μa ≡ musa, μt ≡ must,

αA ≡ alA, αT ≡ alT, αt ≡ alst

It is noted that for ply crack densities exceeding 2/mm, the eﬀective

properties no longer depend on the crack density. Also, it is seen that the

eﬀective in-plane transverse modulus ET is hardly aﬀected by ply cracking,

and that the eﬀective axial thermal expansion coeﬃcient is aﬀected a great

deal by ply cracking.

Similar situations arise for ply cracking in the 90o plies of general sym-

metric laminates for a variety of laminate conﬁgurations considered in the

WWFE III International Exercise (Kaddour et al., 2013a) concerned with

the assessment of damage models for composite laminates. Results anal-

ogous to those derived here for cross-ply laminates have been derived for

general symmetric laminates (McCartney, 2013a,b) and assessed/discussed

by the organisers of the Exercise (Kaddour et al., 2013b). However, the

author recommends that a great deal of caution is applied when consider-

ing the comparison models as the information presented by the organisers

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 239

1

Normalised properties

0.9

EA

ET

0.8

Est

nuA

0.7

nusa

nust

0.6 alA

alT

0.5 alst

0.4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Ply crack density (/[mm])

Figure 7. Predictions of the normalised eﬀective properties of a simple

cross-ply laminate as a function of the density of a uniform distribution of

ply cracks in the 90o ply

(Kaddour et al., 2013b) relating to the generalised plane strain model devel-

oped by the author is wholly misleading, and conclusions are not justiﬁed

by the information presented to the exercise by the author (see McCartney

(2013b)).

Environmental Damage

The axial strength of unidirectional ﬁbre reinforced composites is controlled

by the strength of the ﬁbres. In cross-ply laminates the axial strength of the

laminate is controlled to a large degree by the strength of the ﬁbres in the

0o plies. Fibre strength is statistical in nature due to the presence of defects

both on ﬁbre surfaces, and in their interior. The eﬀect of interface properties

on axial strength are of secondary importance, and modelling their eﬀect

on axial strength requires the use of sophisticated stress transfer models

and Monte Carlo simulation techniques. For unprotected glass ﬁbres, it is

well known that the environmental exposure of the composite leads to time

dependent reductions in ﬁbre strength. The strength reduction of the ﬁbres

results because of the progressive growth of ﬁbre defects caused by stress

corrosion cracking at a microscopic level.

Environmental exposure, provided that it is saturated, can lead to a

240 N. McCartney

unidirectional composite is not aﬀected to a great extent by interface prop-

erties, it is reasonable to assume, when modelling the axial behaviour of

a unidirectional composite, that the interfaces in the composite following

prolonged exposure have no ‘strength’. This enables a relatively simply ap-

proach to be taken that will provide good insight into the axial behaviour

of a composite when exposed an aggressive environment.

Because of the dominance of ﬁbre behaviour, earlier modelling work ap-

plied to glass ﬁbre composites (McCartney, 1998; Broughton and McCart-

ney, 1998; Metcalfe et al., 1971; Kelly and McCartney, 1981; McCartney,

1982) regarded the unidirectional composite as a loose bundle of parallel

ﬁbres having equal length, so that the relatively low load carrying capacity

of the matrix was ignored. The glass ﬁbres in the bundle were assumed

to be attached to rigid supports which were able to share the applied load

equally between all surviving ﬁbres. The objective of this report is to ex-

tend the existing loose bundle model so that the load carrying capacity of

the matrix is taken into account when considering the axial behaviour of

glass ﬁbre reinforced composites subject to environmental exposure.

Consider a unidirectional ﬁbre reinforced composite having a ﬁbre vol-

ume fraction Vf and matrix volume fraction Vm such that Vf + Vm = 1.

The composite has been wholly immersed in an aggressive environment for

a suﬃcient time for the composite to be fully saturated. The application of

axial load to the composite leads to the environmental growth of defects in

the ﬁbres; a phenomenon well known to aﬄict glass ﬁbres. The interfaces

between the ﬁbres and matrix are regarded as being signiﬁcantly weakened

by the environment to the extent that it can be assumed that the ﬁbres

and matrix behave independently in regions of the composite that are well

away from the uniaxial loading mechanism where clamping eﬀects become

important. This assumption means that the composite can be modelled as

a parallel bar model, as shown in Fig. 8.

The ﬁbres in the composite are regarded as acting as a loose bundle

forming one bar of the model. The matrix material in the composite is

considered as being gathered together to form the other bar of the model

which is regarded as homogeneous, i.e. the bar is solid. When a ﬁbre fails

the load it carried is shared between the surviving ﬁbres in the bundle and

the matrix in such a way that all surviving ﬁbres and matrix experience the

same axial strain increment. The ﬁbres are assumed to have the same length

so that each surviving ﬁbre has the same stress throughout the progressive

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 241

F (t)

Fibre Matrix

bundle

Vf Vm

σ(t) σm (t)

Eb (t) Em

ε(t) ε(t)

Ef

F (t)

composite for predicting eﬀects of environmental exposure on axial compos-

ite properties

failure process. The composite is subject to a ﬁxed applied load F for all

times t > 0, where t = 0 corresponds to the time when the ﬁxed load F is

ﬁrst applied. Environmental defect growth in the ﬁbres leads to progressive

ﬁbre failure until the bundle collapses. It is assumed that bundle collapse

corresponds to the catastrophic failure of the composite, i.e. the matrix

strength is insuﬃcient to maintain the load when all the ﬁbres have failed.

The objective is to develop the parallel bar model of a composite so that

it can predict the dependence of composite life tf on the ﬁxed applied load

F, and the dependence of the residual strength F *(t ) of the composite on

elapsed time t from the instant of ﬁrst loading.

242 N. McCartney

dation has been modelled by Kelly and McCartney (1981); McCartney

(1982) for the case when the load applied to the bundle is ﬁxed in time.

For the parallel bar model of the composite which is subject to a ﬁxed load

F, the progressive failure of ﬁbres in the bundle leads to a time dependence

of the eﬀective bundle stiﬀness, and consequently to a time dependence of

the load applied to the ﬁbre bundle. Thus, the earlier modelling requires

modiﬁcation if it is to be applied to the prediction of the behaviour of a

uniaxially loaded unidirectional composite material having weak interfaces.

The analysis of the parallel bar model shown in Fig. 8 will neglect any

axial thermal stresses arising from a mismatch of the thermal expansion

coeﬃcients of the ﬁbres and the matrix. The area fraction of all ﬁbres in

the bundle is denoted by Ab , and that of the matrix is Am . It follows that

Ab Am

Vf = , Vm = = 1 − Vf (230)

Ab + Am Ab + Am

The load applied to the ﬁbre bundle at time t is denoted by Fb (t ), the stress

in each surviving ﬁbre being denoted by σ(t). The cross-sectional area of

each of the ﬁbres in the bundle is denoted by A, and the axial modulus of

each ﬁbres is denoted by Ef which is assumed to be time independent. The

axial stress at time t in the matrix is denoted by σm (t). The modulus of

the matrix is denoted by Em which is assumed to be independent of time.

A time dependence could be included to account for visco-elastic eﬀects, or

for time-dependence arising from matrix ageing.

The axial strain in all surviving ﬁbres of the bundle and the matrix

has the same time dependent value that is denoted by ε(t). As thermal

expansion mismatch eﬀects are neglected it follows that

σ(t) σm (t)

ε(t) = = (231)

Ef Em

The balance of forces in the parallel bar model leads to the equilibrium

relation

Fb (t) + Am σm (t) = F (232)

The number of surviving ﬁbres in the bundle at time t is denoted by N (t )

so that the load applied to the bundle at time t may be written

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 243

(231) it is easily shown that the number of ﬁbres surviving at time t is related

to the ﬁbre stress σ(t) through the following relation that quantitatively

characterises the load sharing that occurs when ﬁbres in the composite fail

N (t) F Vm Em

+ α σ(t) = , where α = , (234)

N0 Ab Vf Ef

posite material of the relation used in the modelling a loose bundle of ﬁbres

subject to environmental degradation (Kelly and McCartney, 1981; McCart-

ney, 1982) which is recovered from (234) on letting α → 0.

It is useful to relate the number of ﬁbres surviving in the bundle at time

t to the eﬀective axial modulus of the bundle Eb (t ). The eﬀective stress

applied to the bundle is deﬁned by

Fb (t)

σb (t) = , (235)

Ab

and since the axial strain of the bundle and the individual ﬁbres has the

value σ(t)

ε(t) = = = = , (236)

Ef Eb (t) Ab Eb (t) N0 Eb (t)

where use has been made of (233) and (235). Clearly the eﬀective axial

modulus of the ﬁbre bundle is given by

N (t)

Eb (t) = Ef (237)

N0

F

σapp = , (238)

Ab + Am

and it can be shown from (230) and (234), together with the fact that

Ab = N0 A, that

rule of mixtures, as to be expected.

244 N. McCartney

The objective here is to show how the analysis of Kelly and McCartney

(1981), developed for loose bundles exposed to an aggressive environment,

must be modiﬁed for application to a unidirectional composite having weak

interfaces. The analysis is based on the assumption that the strength of

individual ﬁbres is determined by surface defects whose eﬀective size and

distribution along the ﬁbre surface is statistically distributed.

Fibre failure is assumed to be governed by a Griﬃth type of failure

criterion having the form

K 2 = y 2 σ 2 a = KIc

2

, (240)

where K is an eﬀective stress intensity factor for a ﬁbre defect of eﬀective

size a subject to a ﬁbre stress s, KIc is the eﬀective fracture toughness of

the ﬁbre material, and where y is a dimensionless parameter designed to

account for defect geometry. The aggressive environment leads to defect

growth when the ﬁbre is under load. Such defect growth is assumed to be

governed by a growth law of the form

da

= CK n , (241)

dt

where C and n are material constants.

When a constant load is applied to a unidirectional composite, exposed

to an aggressive environment to the point of saturation, the ﬁbre defects

grow in size according to the growth law (241) eventually leading to ﬁbre

failure when the failure criterion (240) is satisﬁed. Thus ﬁbres progressively

fail and the load carried by failed ﬁbres is, for the parallel bar model under

discussion, transferred to the surviving ﬁbres and matrix using the load

sharing rule (234). The stress in each ﬁbre of the system is thus time

dependent. It is useful to present here the relationship that determines

the initial defect size X 0 (t ) that requires a time t to grow to the critical

size ac (t ), at which the ﬁbre stress is s(t ), under the inﬂuence of a time

dependent ﬁbre stress history σ(τ ); 0 < τ < t . The critical defect size at

time t is predicted by (240) to be

2

KIc

ac (t) = , (242)

yσ(t)

and it can be shown on integrating (241) between the limits X 0 (t ) and ac (t )

that

⎡ ⎤ 2−n

2

2 )t

KIc

X0 (t) = 2 ⎣σ n−2 (t) + (n − 2)λ σ n (τ )dτ ⎦ , (243)

y

0

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 245

where

1 n−2 2

λ= CKIc y (244)

2

On using (240) it follows from (243) that the initial strength σi (t) of the

ﬁbres, that fail at time t when their stress is σ(t), is given by

⎡ ⎤ n−2

1

)t

σi (t) = ⎣σ n−2 (t) + (n − 2)λ σ n (τ )dτ ⎦ (245)

0

sumed to be large enough for there to be a very large number of ﬁbres.

It can then be assumed that the bundle of ﬁbres used in the parallel bar

model contains every possible ﬁbre strength that can arise in the statistical

distribution. It is assumed that the strength distribution of the ﬁbres is

given by the two parameter Weibull distribution (Weibull, 1951) so that,

for a large bundle of N 0 ﬁbres, the expected number of ﬁbres N surviving

when the stress in each ﬁbre is σ is given by

m

σ

N = N0 exp − (246)

σ0

where σ0 is a scaling parameter that will depend on the length of the com-

posite.

It is useful to investigate the prediction of the static strength of a uni-

directional composite assuming that the parallel bar model is valid. When

using (246) in conjunction with (234) it is easily shown that the total load

carried by the composite, when the stress in surviving ﬁbres has the value

σ is given by

m

F̂ = σ̂ α + e−σ̂ , (247)

deﬁned by

F σ

F̂ = , σ̂ = (248)

N0 σ0 A σ0

The static strength of the composite is the maximum value of the load that

can be carried by the composite. The maximum load occurs when F̂ has a

local maximum when plotted as a function of σ̂. The maximum ﬁbre stress

σmax satisﬁes the transcendental equation

m

m

m σ̂max = 1 + α eσ̂max (249)

246 N. McCartney

The corresponding static strength for the composite is then obtained using

Fmax m

m+1

mσ̂max

= F̂max = σ̂max α + e−σ̂max = α m −1

, (250)

N0 A σ0 m σ̂max

which is consistent with the known result for a loose bundle Kelly and

McCartney (1981) when the limit α → 0 is taken.

The equation (249) governing the maximum ﬁbre stress does not always

have a solution as is easily seen by examining the form of the LHS and RHS

m

of (249). On letting x = σ̂max the critical conditions deﬁning the limit of

solutions to (249) may be written

y = αex . It is easily seen that the critical condition occurs when

m 1+m

x = ln = (252)

α m

It is concluded that the equation (249) has a solution only if

1

α < me−(1+ m ) (253)

If this condition is not satisﬁed then it is deduced that the ﬁbres progres-

sively fail until there is just one surviving ﬁbre which will then fail, i.e. the

bundle does not suddenly collapse. The value of the Weibull modulus m for

ﬁbres of interest is usually such that the condition (253) is satisﬁed so that

bundle collapse is always expected in practice.

At time t the ﬁbres that survive in the composite are those whose initial

strengths were greater than σi (t) deﬁned by (245). It then follows from

(246) that the expected number of surviving ﬁbres N (t ) at time t is given

by

m

N (t) σi (t)

= N̂ (t) = exp − (254)

N0 σ0

On substituting (245) in (254)

n−2

m )t

1

ln = σ̂ n−2

(t) + (n − 2)η σ̂ n (τ )dτ, (255)

N̂ (t)

0

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 247

where

1 n−2 2 2

η = λσ02 =

CKIc y σ0 , (256)

2

and where use has been made of the deﬁnitions (248), which when applied

to the load sharing rule (234) lead to

F̂

N̂ (t) = −α (257)

σ̂(t)

n−2

m )t

σ̂(t)

ln = σ̂ n−2

(t) + (n − 2)η σ̂ n (τ )dτ. (258)

F̂ − ασ̂(t)

0

governing the time dependence of the normalised ﬁbre stress σ̂(t) is obtained

⎡ n−m−2 ⎤

m

⎣ 1 F̂ σ̂(t) dσ̂(t)

ln − σ̂ n−2 (t)⎦ = σ̂ n+1 (t) (259)

m F̂ − ασ̂(t) F̂ − ασ̂(t) d(ηt)

to the initial condition

σ̂(0) = s0 , (260)

where s 0 is the solution of the transcendental equation

m

F̂ = s0 α + e−s0 , (261)

The structure of the diﬀerential equation is such that dσ̂/dt → ∞ when

σ̂(t) → σ̂f where

n−m−2

m

1 F̂ σ̂f

ln = σ̂fn−2 . (262)

m F̂ − ασ̂f F̂ − ασ̂f

The stress σ̂f in the surviving ﬁbres when the composite fails can thus be

determined using numerical methods without having to solve the diﬀerential

equation (259). It should be noted that when F̂ = F̂max the solution of (262)

248 N. McCartney

is given by σ̂f = σ̂max where σ̂max and F̂max are given by (249) and (250)

respectively. The time to failure for the composite is denoted by tf .

The number of surviving ﬁbres just before composite failure is obtained

using (254) and is given by

N (tf ) m σi (tf )

= N̂f = e−σ̂i , σ̂i = (263)

N0 σ0

The transcendental equation (262), that usually must be solved numerically,

involves the dimensionless loading parameter F̂ in a complicated way. It

is useful to unravel the dependence on this parameter by using the load

sharing rule (257) to express (262) in terms of Nf as follows

n−1 n−m−2

1 N̂ f + α 1

m

F̂ n−2 = ln (264)

m N̂f N̂f

Having solved (264) to ﬁnd N̂f using numerical methods, the normalised

failure stress is obtained, on making use of (234), from the relation

F̂

σ̂f = (265)

N̂f + α

equation (259) in the normalised stress range s0 ≤ σ̂(t) ≤ σ̂f .

A key requirement concerning the eﬀects of environment on composite

degradation is the prediction of the time dependence of the residual strength

of a composite. This has already been considered for the case of a loose bun-

dle of ﬁbres (McCartney, 1982). The objective now is to extend the analysis,

and simplify it so far as is possible, so that the residual strength of a unidi-

rectional composite with weak interfaces can be predicted. After an elapsed

time t from the application of a ﬁxed load F, the load is instantaneously

increased until the composite fails catastrophically. Just before the load is

suddenly increased the stress in the surviving ﬁbres has the value σ(t) and

at any stage during the subsequent instantaneous load increase the value of

the stress in the ﬁbres is denoted by s. When the ﬁbre stress has the value

s the critical defect size has the following value speciﬁed by (240)

2

KIc

a∗c = (266)

ys

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 249

the relations (240) and (241). It is easily shown that

)t

∗

2−n 2−n 1

(X ) 2

= (a∗c ) 2

+ C (n − 2)y n σ n (τ )dτ (267)

2

0

On using (240) the initial strength of the ﬁbres that are critical at time t

when the ﬁbre stress has the value s is denoted by si and is given, on using

(267), by the relation

)t

ŝn−2

i = ŝ n−2

+ (n − 2)η σ̂ n (τ )dτ, (268)

0

si s

ŝi = , ŝ = (269)

σ0 σ0

On using (258) the relation (268) may be written in the form

ŝn−2

i = ŝn−2 − k(t), (270)

where

n−2

m

σ̂(t)

k(t) = σ̂ n−2 (t) − ln (271)

F̂ − ασ̂(t)

The load applied to the composite Fs , when the ﬁbre stress has the value

s, is obtained from (248) and (257) so that

Fs

= F̂s = ŝ α + N̂s , (272)

N0 σ0 A

where F̂s is the normalised applied load and where N̂s is the normalised

number of surviving ﬁbres when the load on the composite is such that the

ﬁbre stress has the value s. It follows from (246) that

m

N̂s = e−ŝi (273)

malised load applied to the composite during a residual strength test

m

F̂s = ŝ α + e−ŝi . (274)

250 N. McCartney

of Fs when s is varied, or alternatively the maximum value of F̂s when ŝ

is varied. Noting that k (t ) is independent of ŝ, the maximum value of F̂s

occurs when ŝi = x (t ) which satisﬁes the transcendental equation

m k(t)

1 + αex (t) = mxm (t) 1 + n−2 (275)

x (t)

On using (270) the stress σmax (t) in the surviving ﬁbres just before the

composite fails during a residual strength test is obtained from

= x (t) + k(t) n−2 = σ̂max (t). (276)

σ0

It then follows from (270) and (274) that the residual strength of the com-

posite S (t ) is obtained using

S(t) m

= σ̂max (t) α + e−x (t) = Ŝ(t). (277)

σ0

When t = 0 it can be shown using (258) that k (0) = 0 in which case the

transcendental equation (275) reduces to the form (249) which needs to be

solved when calculating the static strength of the composite.

In order to assess the properties of the model some example predictions

have been made to illustrate the principal characteristics. There are four

parameters that need to be speciﬁed in order to obtain predictions:

1. The Weibull exponent characterising the strength distribution of the

ﬁbres before environmental exposure. This parameter, which often

has values in the range 4 – 8, appears in the relation (246) deﬁning

the expected number of ﬁbre failures for a given ﬁbre stress in a static

loading test. The value m = 8 will be used here. The value of m is

usually obtained from single ﬁbre strength tests.

2. The exponent n appearing in the defect growth law (241). This pa-

rameter, which usually has values in the range 3 – 30, is often obtained

from stress corrosion cracking tests carried out using monolithic glass

testpieces rather than ﬁbres. The value n = 20 is used here.

3. The ratio α deﬁned by (234) which takes approximate account of the

properties of the ﬁbre and matrix, and also of the ﬁbre volume fraction.

For many glass ﬁbre composites of interest, the value of α lies in the

range 0 - 0.1. It will be assumed here that α = 0.025.

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 251

1

0.8

0.6

F/Fm

F/Fm

F ∗ /Fm = 0.2

0.4

F ∗ /Fm = 0.4

F ∗ /Fm = 0.6

0.2

0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

log10 (ηt)

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of the parallel bar model of a unidirectional

composite for predicting eﬀects of environmental exposure on axial compos-

ite properties

4. The level of loading applied axially to the composite where the model

assumes that the ratio F/Fm is given where F is the axial load applied

to the composite and Fm is the static strength, i.e. the strength of the

composite before environmental exposure. The value of F/Fm always

lies in the range 0 – 1.

The Euler-Richardson solution technique (Churchhouse, 1981) is used to

solve the ordinary diﬀerential equation (259) where the normalised dimen-

sionless time η t may be regarded as an unknown function of σ̂. In other

words, the diﬀerential equation can be used directly to determine an incre-

ment in the value of η t for any given increment in σ̂. The initial condition

is speciﬁed by (260) and (261) and the range s0 ≤ σ̂ ≤ σ̂f is subdivided into

100 equal intervals when solving the diﬀerential equation. The upper limit

σ̂f is determined by the relations (264) and (265). Figure 9 shows the result

of solving the diﬀerential equation (259) to ﬁnd the normalised time η tf

for various values of the loading ratio F/Fm . The normalising parameter

η is deﬁned by (256). It is seen that as F/Fm → 1 the lifetime tends to

zero. Figure 9 also shows predictions of the normalised residual strength Ŝ

deﬁned by (277), as a function of the normalised time η t.

The principal conclusion to be drawn from the results presented is that

the time dependence of the axial properties of a unidirectional ﬁbre rein-

forced glass composite subject to environmental exposure under ﬁxed load

252 N. McCartney

can be predicted using a parallel bar model of the composite where interface

bonding is neglected. The model enables the prediction of the stress history

of the ﬁbre stress in surviving ﬁbres from the point of ﬁrst loading to the

occurrence of catastrophic failure. Results not shown indicate that the ﬁbre

stress is almost independent of the matrix properties, a situation that arises

because Em Ef .

The model can also be used to predict the time dependence of the resid-

ual strength of the composite, a property which does show some dependence

on matrix properties. However, results not shown indicate that, when the

residual strength is divided by the static strength, the resulting residual

strength ratio is virtually independent of the matrix properties. It is con-

cluded that the residual strength ratio for a unidirectional composite is

predictable (and therefore measurable) from the static strength of the com-

posite, and the time dependence of the residual strength of a loose bundle

of ﬁbres.

6 Closing Remarks

A varied set of topics concerning the behaviour of composite materials has

been considered in this paper. They concern the estimation of the undam-

aged properties of plies in terms of ﬁbre and matrix properties, the esti-

mation of the undamaged properties of general symmetric laminates, the

consideration of an elegant method of considering cracks in anisotropic ma-

terials using orthogonal polynomials, a detailed treatment of ply cracking

in a simple cross-ply laminate, and the modelling of the eﬀects of envi-

ronmental exposure on the lifetime and residual strength of unidirectional

composites. Much of the work presented here has not been published be-

fore. For the analyses dealing with composite damage, example predictions

have been given to help readers understand the capabilities of the various

damage models.

It is hoped that readers of this paper will be convinced that analytical

modelling, which has been undertaken in some quite complex situations,

enables much deeper insight into the modelling of composite material sys-

tems than numerical solution methods permit, and provides opportunities

for convenient design methods based on relatively compact formulae rather

than on data tables and graphs that have to be generated when using nu-

merical methods such as ﬁnite element analysis.

and the Queen’s printer for Scotland

Analytical Methods of Predicting Performance… 253

Bibliography

W.R. Broughton and L.N. McCartney. Predictive models for assessing

long-term performance of polymer matrix composites. Technical Report

CMMT(A)95, NPL, Teddington, April 1998.

R.F. Churchhouse. Numerical methods. In W. Ledermann, editor, Handbook

of Applicable Mathematics, volume 3, pages 319–321, Chichester, 1981.

Wiley.

G.M.L. Gladwell and A.H. England. J. Mech. Appl. Math., 30:175, 1977.

Z. Hashin. Analysis of composite materials - a survey. Trans. ASME. J.

Appl. Mech., 50:481–505, 1983.

A.S. Kaddour, M.J. Hinton, P.A. Smith, and S. Li. The background to the

third world-wide failure exercise. J. Comp. Mater., 47(20-21):2417–2426,

2013a.

A.S. Kaddour, M.J. Hinton, P.A. Smith, and S. Li. A comparison between

the predictive capability of matrix cracking, damage and failure criteria

for ﬁbre reinforced laminates: part a of the third world-wide failure

exercise. J. Comp. Mater., 47(20-21):2749–2779, 2013b.

A. Kelly and L.N. McCartney. Failure by stress corrosion of bundles of

ﬁbres. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A374:475–489, 1981.

J.C. Maxwell. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, volume 1. Claren-

don Press, Oxford, 1st edition, 1873.

L.N. McCartney. Time dependent strength of large bundles of ﬁbres loaded

in corrosive environments. Fibre Science & Technology, 16:95–109, 1982.

L.N. McCartney. Theory of stress transfer in a 0-90-0 cross-ply laminate

containing a parallel array of transverse cracks. J. Mech. Phys. Solids,

40:27–68, 1992.

L.N. McCartney. Model of composite degradation due to environmental

damage. Technical Report CMMT(A)124, NPL, Teddington, September

1998.

L.N. McCartney. Maxwell’s far-ﬁeld methodology predicting elastic prop-

erties of multiphase composites reinforced with aligned transversely

isotropic spheroids. Phil. Mag., 90:4175–4207, 2010.

L.N. McCartney. Derivations of energy-based modelling for ply cracking

in general symmetric laminates. J. Comp. Mater., 47(20-21):2641–2673,

2013a.

L.N. McCartney. Energy methods for modelling damage in laminates. J.

Comp. Mater., 47(20-21):2613–2640, 2013b.

L.N. McCartney and T.A.E. Gorley. Complex variable method of calculating

stress intensity factors for cracks in plates. In A.R. Luxmoore et al.,

editor, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Fracture Mechanics,

Swansea, 1987. Pineridge Press.

254 N. McCartney

the prediction of properties of multi-phase isotropic particulate compos-

ites. Proc. Roy. Soc., A464:423–446, 2008.

A.G. Metcalfe, M.E. Gulden, and G.K. Schmitz. Glass Technology, 12:

15–23, 1971.

D.P. Rooke and D.J. Cartwright. Compendium of Stress Intensity. Hilling-

don Press, Uxbridge, 1st edition, 1976.

G.C. Sih and H. Liebowitz. Mathematical theories of brittle fracture. In

H. Liebowitz, editor, Fracture, volume II, page 67, San Diego, 1968.

Academic Press.

W. Weibull. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. Journal

of Applied Mechanics, 19:293–297, 1951.

- Design and Analysis of Composite Propeller ShaftDiunggah olehVinod Bawane
- Improved Key Cards4Diunggah olehthaivinhtuy
- Paper22121-126Diunggah olehGokulnath Kongunadu Singam
- Modulus of ElasticityDiunggah olehusman javed
- Mech Eng ResearchDiunggah olehAmmar Bany Ata
- MSC 18-19 Foundation TutorialDiunggah olehCon Can
- Ford It AsDiunggah olehagoszt
- Composite Pressure VesselsDiunggah olehInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- 17513-63822-1-PBDiunggah olehMahesh GV O Positive
- 6987Diunggah olehrajesh kumar dogra
- 2005 REE terms.docxDiunggah olehKarl Benitez
- 2006_49_paperDiunggah olehKenneth Hejlesen
- H2 T3 Force Tutorial 09Diunggah olehabdulrehman999
- pf-1111.en_10132Diunggah olehJorge perez
- KPR_CompositeMechanics_August2013Diunggah olehhari
- B.E - 2013Diunggah olehShantanu Ambre
- Review 1Diunggah olehSripad Althati
- RotationDiunggah olehahmadomar89
- 2009 2348 Composite+Materials+and+StructuresDiunggah olehThahir Ahmad
- Composite Racket ManufactureDiunggah olehAmit Sharma
- polymers-10-00122Diunggah olehDivyam Goel
- polymer matrix composites-ReviewDiunggah olehselogok
- Bio Dr Prr April2012Diunggah olehD.VENKATA RAMANA REDDY
- 11.Glassfiber Reinforcedpolymercomposite Areview OriginalcopyDiunggah olehŜṟéẻ Ṛąṁ Chowdary
- Experimental and Finite Element Analysis of a Double Strap Joint Between Steel Plates and Normal Modulus CFRPDiunggah olehVietnhut Phan
- Fracture Toughness of the Nano-particle Reinforced Epoxy CompositeDiunggah olehbennybenham
- Ekhlas Aboud Osman Al-Bahadly ThesisDiunggah olehGiuliana Protzek
- Oil & Gas OffshoreDiunggah olehWitchfinder General
- Study of Properties of Polypropylene-Natural Fiber CompositeDiunggah olehAnonymous kw8Yrp0R5r
- Study on Composite Material Marine Propeller.pdfDiunggah olehchetan_thakur4278

- The Effect of ShearDiunggah olehanakren296
- YEVDiunggah olehTed Thomson
- First SPE Comparative StudiesDiunggah olehAprilya Ramadanti
- Compendium Book For IIT -MainsDiunggah olehApex Institute
- MSDS Hydrex 7930Diunggah olehMoamen Taha
- PhysRevB.13.5188Diunggah olehKiran Dasari
- Assays for Determination of Protein ConcentrationDiunggah olehSam Joshva
- adixen-Alcatel, ASM192 Helium Leak_Detector.pdfDiunggah olehLulu Sweet Thing
- Non-slip Deck CoatingDiunggah olehmanoj983@gmail.com
- Nautilus Space Program.pdfDiunggah olehdorobatpaul96
- Piezoelectric Constants _ Elastic Compliance _ APCI.pdfDiunggah olehAhmad Daniel
- Eng Model Test 2Diunggah olehsvsk
- Stoichiometry, Chemical Reactions, Chemical Thermodynamics, Chemical KineticsDiunggah olehMark
- Modelling of edge crack formation and propagation in ceramic laminates using the stress–energy coupled criterion.pdfDiunggah olehArun Kumar
- A511 96.pdfDiunggah olehJohano Araújo
- Sun HillsDiunggah olehSACHIDHANANDHAM A
- AE15301-AIRCRAFT MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY.pdfDiunggah olehDurai Raj Kumar
- 3-Way Valve - ThreadedDiunggah olehAhrian Bena
- Kurniawan ThesisDiunggah olehMuhammad Aldie Syafaat
- Hand Calculations for Distillation TowersDiunggah olehStefano Ramsingh
- Tut Sheet 4 Sch RnT Freeb SHODiunggah olehPrithviraj Netke
- stome mastic asphaltDiunggah olehShaz Fs
- vmdDiunggah olehpaula44167
- Investment Casting DataDiunggah olehN.Palaniappan
- Shapere, D. - the Concept of Observation in Science and PhilosophyDiunggah olehRicardo Rom
- Residual Chlorine LaboratoryDiunggah olehniazmn
- 00A 012 EcoPlate Sell SheetDiunggah olehEnzo Emanuel Raimondo
- Daftar Affiliasi ImfDiunggah olehmafula
- IS 3370-1965 Part IDiunggah olehNaresh Babu
- Hempathane TopcoatDiunggah olehFrancisco M. Ramos