Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Review article

A study on the failure behavior and mechanical properties of

unidirectional fiber reinforced thermosetting and thermoplastic
composites
Yan Ma a, Yuqiu Yang b, c, *, Toshi Sugahara d, Hiroyuki Hamada a
a
Advanced Fibro-Science, Kyoto Institute of Technology, Kyoto 6068585, Japan
b
College of Textiles, Donghua University, Shanghai 201620, PR China
c
Engineering Research Center of Technical Textiles, Ministry of Education, Shanghai 201620, PR China
d
Maruhachi Corporation, Fukui 910-0276, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Failure behavior and mechanical properties of unidirectional (UD) carbon fiber reinforced polyamide 6
Received 3 September 2015 (CF/PA6) and epoxy resin (CF/Epoxy) laminates were investigated through tensile tests in this study. The
Received in revised form fracture modes of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy were discussed based on the fiber orientation, interfacial
28 May 2016
properties, Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness and the brush width. Meanwhile, Global load sharing
Accepted 2 June 2016
Available online 4 June 2016
(GLS) model was employed to compare with the experimental mechanical properties and corresponding
fracture mechanics model was employed to analyze the fracture behavior. The results showed that UD
CF/PA6 laminates with weak interface but high Mode II interlaminalr fracture toughness mainly
Keywords:
Polymer-matrix composites (PMCs)
exhibited step-like fracture modes (77%) in interfacial fracture mode (Adhesive failure), while CF/Epoxy
Failure behavior laminates with stronger interface but lower Mode II interlaminalr fracture toughness mostly showed
Damage mechanics splitting fracture mode (69%) in matrix fracture mode (Cohesive failure).
Prepreg © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
2. Experimental methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
2.1. Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
2.2. Experimental procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
2.2.1. Tensile tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
2.2.2. End notched flexure test (ENF test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
2.2.3. Microscope observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
2.2.4. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3. Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3.1. model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3.2. Fracture mechanics model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.1. Fundamental properties of composite laminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.1.1. Fiber orientation and interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.1.2. Fiber volume fraction, Vf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.2. Mechanical properties of 0
laminates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.3. Interfacial shear strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.4. Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

* Corresponding author. College of Textiles, Donghua University, Shanghai

201620, PR China.
E-mail address: amy_yuqiu_yang@dhu.edu.cn (Y. Yang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.06.005
1359-8368/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172 163

4.5. Fracture behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

4.6. The brushy width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.7. SEM observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

1. Introduction fiber to other fibers and to the matrix in its vicinity. On the other
hand, in order to predict the strength and other properties of
Near-term developments in processing and manufacturing composites, a number of mathematical models of deformation,
technology of fiber reinforced plastics (FRPs) have given rise to an damage and failure of fiber reinforced composites have been
extensive range of engineering applications of types of materials to developed.
various application areas including aerospace and aircraft struc- The shear lag model, developed by Cox [22] is one of most often
ture, yachts as well as wind generator blades and other products on used approaches in the analysis of strength and damage of fiber
the account of their outstanding mechanical properties, light- reinforced composites. This model is often employed to analyze the
weight and longer service life [1e5]. Therefore, lots of traditional load redistribution in composites, resulting from failure of one or
materials, metal for instance, were gradually substituted by brand several fibers. This redistribution is described in the framework of
new replacements such as carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRPs) various load sharing models. Two limiting cases including global
[6e9]. Mechanical properties of CFRPs are affected by a lot of factors load sharing (GLS) [22e36] and local load sharing (LLS) [21,37e39]
including properties of raw materials, fiber orientation, are often considered. For GLS, load from a broken reinforcement
manufacturing processes and compatibility between fiber and is shed equally to all remaining intact reinforcements across the
resin. Therefore, one of the most efficient methods to ameliorate cross section of the composites. For LLS, one broken fiber sheds all
the capability of composites is to select a reasonable combination of the loads it carried before fracture to its immediate neighbors only.
reinforcement and matrix. Hedgepeth [23] applied the shear lag model to model the multifiber
Because reinforcements and matrices are chemically different, system for studying the stress distribution around broken fibers in
firm adhesion at their interfaces is necessary for an efficient 2D unidirectional composites with infinite array of fibers. Hedge-
transfer of stress and bond distribution throughout an interface peth and Van Dyke [24] generalized the elastic model to 3D case
[10]. Diverse raw materials including fibers and resins and various and included the elastic-plastic matrix into the model. Wagner and
interfaces contribute to all sorts of fracture modes, which bring Eitan [25] employed the shear lag model to investigate the stress
about different mechanical properties of CFRPs [11e15]. redistribution from a failed fiber to its neighbors. The effects of fi-
The tensile fracture mechanism of unidirectional (UD) CFRP has ber/matrix debonding and fiber/matrix interfacial friction were
not been completely understood because the fracture speed of UD incorporated in the model of stress redistribution after the fiber
CFRP is quite fast (Over 500 m/sec [16]). Failure of FRPs often occurs failure proposed by Zhou and Wagner [26]. Problem of independent
abruptly without any symptom or visible signs of damage serving and successive fiber fractures under GLS condition is reduced to the
as an alarm. This characteristic is caused by the progressively problem of failure of single fiber in the matrix by Curtin [27]. He
development of microscopic damages. Such damage prediction is estimated the ultimate strength of the composite as a function of
interesting and challenging, particularly in multidirectional CFRP the sliding resistance, and parameters of the Weibull distribution of
composites. In many cases, however, the failure of multidirectional the fiber strengths based on the assumption that the cumulative
composites was simultaneous with the failure of reinforced fibers number of defects in fibers from the Weibull distribution of fiber
oriented in the loading direction. Hence, understanding the strengths. Using Monte-Carlo method and shear lag-based models,
0
tensile failure behavior of UD composite is vital. Beyerlein et al. [28] and Beyerlein and Phoenix [29] investigated the
There are some proposed theories to figure out the tensile effects of the statistics of fiber strengths (Weibull distribution) on
fracture of UD CFRPs by using numerical calculation methods the fracture process. It was found that variability in fiber strength
[17,18] and numerical simulation methods [19] based on compu- can lead to a nonlinear deformation mechanism of the composites.
tational micromechanics, which were not experimentally verified. Landis et al. [30,31] developed a three-dimensional shear lag model
On the other hand, H.Kusano et al. introduced high-speed video combining with the Weibull fiber statistics and the influence su-
cameras to observe the destruction in detail of CFRPs from images perposition technique, and applied it to analyze the effect of sta-
[16]. O.Siron et al. investigated the mechanical behavior of UD tistical strength distribution and size effects on the strength of
CFRPs by using acoustic emission to detect physical damage composites. Curtin and colleagues [32e35] proposed an approach
occurring within the specimens [20]. to the analysis of the interaction between multiple breaks in fibers,
In a UD composites loaded along its fibers, unless the matrix is based on the Green’s functional model. Then Curtin and colleagues
brittle, internal damage is in the form of individual broken fibers [32,33] employed the 3D lattice Green’s functional model to
[21]. The tendency of one broken carbon fiber to cause neighboring determine the stress distribution and to simulate damage accu-
carbon fibers break determines the fracture behavior and me- mulation. Xia and Curtin [34], and Xia et al. [35] employed 3D FE
chanical properties like tensile strength. This tendency, in turn, is micro-mechanical analysis to investigate the deformation and
dominated by basic parameters of composites such as the fiber and stress transfer in fiber reinforced composites. However, most of
matrix properties, interfacial properties, fiber volume fraction (Vf) above existing related studies [22e39] mainly focused on the me-
and fiber distributions/arrangements in the matrix. Many authors chanical behaviors, their influence factors and mechanisms, while
have researched various combinations of matrix, fiber and inter- ignored the interesting fracture modes, which closely related to
facial properties to investigate the load transfer from one broken fracture mechanisms.
164 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172

Table 1
Mechanical properties of raw materials.

Material Manufacturer Type E (GPa) s (MPa) d (%) r (g cm3)

CF Toray T700SC 12k 230 4900 2.1 1.8
PA6 Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company MXD-PA 2.4 82 4.0 1.1
Epoxy Maruhachi Corp. MCP1110 3.2 80.6 5.4 1.2

E: Tensile modulus;s: Tensile strength;d: Elongation;r: Density.

properties based on the fiber orientation, interfacial properties,

Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness and the brush width using
a range of experimental techniques including tensile tests, end
notched flexure (ENF) tests, optical microscopy and scanning
electron microscopy (SEM). Meanwhile, GLS model was employed
to compare with the experimental mechanical properties and cor-
responding fracture mechanics model was employed to analyze the
fracture behavior.

2. Experimental methods

2.1. Materials

These CFRPs were manufactured from a unidirectional rein-

Fig. 1. CFRP plates (a) with thickness of 1 mm were fabricated by laminating 10 plies of
prepreg sheets (b) with stacking sequences of [0]10 for tensile tests and curing at
280
C for 3.5 min under compression pressure 4 kg/cm2 and curing at 130
C for
50 min under compression pressure 25 kg/cm2 for CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates,
respectively.
In this study, typical thermoplastic resin polyamide 6 (PA6) and
thermosetting epoxy resin were used as matrices to manufacture
UD carbon fiber reinforced PA6 resin laminates (CF/PA6) and epoxy
resin laminates (CF/Epoxy) laminates through hot compression
molding to investigate their failure behavior and mechanical
forced prepreg make of reinforcing carbon fiber grade T700SC 12K
supplied from Toray and PA6 (Type:MXD-PA) and epoxy
(Type:MCP939) supplied from Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company
and Maruhachi Corporation, respectively. Mechanical properties of
raw materials were shown in Table 1. Mechanical properties
including tensile modulus, tensile strength and density of PA6 and
epoxy resin were similar. The thickness of a single ply lamina was
0.1 mm. CFRP laminates with thickness of 1 mm were fabricated by
laminating 10 plies of prepreg sheets with stacking sequences of
[0]10 for tensile tests and cured at 280
C for 3.5 min under
compression pressure 4 kg/cm2 and 130
C for 50 min under

Fig. 2. Appearances of specimens before and after polishing.

Fig. 3. Specimen for tensile tests based on JIS K7165.

 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172 165

Fig. 4. Specimen for end notched flexure test based on JIS K 7086.

compression pressure 25 kg/cm2 for CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy lami- 2.2.2. End notched flexure test (ENF test)
nates, respectively. CFRP laminate and prepreg sheet are shown in Five specimens of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy 0
laminates were
Fig. 1(a) and (b), respectively. manufactured to standard specimens according to JIS K 7086
The specimens of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy composite lami- standard [41]. Three-point flexure test with the span length 2L of
nates were cut with a size of 25  250  1 100 mm is used as schematized in Fig. 4. The ENF tests were con-
(Width  Length  Thickness:mm) for tensile tests. The fiber di- ducted under a displacement controlled condition with the
rection of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy composite laminates were 0
. displacement rate of 1 mm/min. According to JIS K 7086, the
For specimens of compact tension tests, the fiber direction was 90
. interlaminar fracture toughness in mode II GIIc was evaluated using
the Eqs. (1) and (2) based on beam theory in reference to JIS K 7086
standard [41]:
2.2. Experimental procedures
9a2 P 2 C1
GIIC ¼
1 C  (1)
The tensile tests and compact tension tests were performed in 2B 2L3 þ 3a31
room temperature and relative humidity controlled laboratory
(23 ± 0.5
C, 48 ± 2% RH). Before testing, two edges of the speci-    1
mens were polished by polishing machine in order to eliminate the C1 3 2 C1 3
a1 ¼ a0 þ  1 L3 (2)
defects which formed during cutting process. The appearances of C0 3 C0
specimens before and after polishing were showed in Fig. 2. Where PC is the critical load at the onset of crack growth, a0 and
C0 are the initial crack length and load point compliance of the
specimen. a1 and C1 are the crack length and load point compliance
2.2.1. Tensile tests at P ¼ PC.
78 pieces of CF/PA6 and 52 pieces of CF/Epoxy 0
laminates were
cut into standard sizes for tensile tests as shown in Fig. 3. The
tensile tests were based on the JIS K 7165 standard [40]. Aluminum 2.2.3. Microscope observation
sheets were attached at the two grip sections of the specimens to The fiber orientation was analyzed on a polished surface part of
increase the friction between specimen and collet. The tensile tests cross section of the laminates (roughly over 1000 fibers). Each
were carried out on a computer-controlled Instron 55R4206 screw- micrograph contained typically 100 fully visible fibers. The fiber
driven universal testing machine equipped with a 100 kN load cell orientation for a given fiber was determined as follows: (i) Images
at a speed of 1 mm/min. taken in optical microscopy (VHX-500F CCD camera, which has a

Fig. 5. Cross section observation of CF/PA6 plates (a) and CF/Epoxy plates (b) after binarization and schematic diagram of cross section of the ith carbon fiber (c).
166 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172

resolution of 1600  1200 pixels in size) were preprocessed by the approximation [42].
aid of the ImageJ software. (ii) Functions in ImageJ software “Make
Binary” and “Watershed” used to get binary photos, then function sf r f
of “Noise / Remove outlier” [21] employed to get clear boundary
d¼ (3)
2ty
carbon fiber images of CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates as shown in
Fig. 5(a) and (b), respectively. (iii) Four directions (0
, þ45
, 90
and Where, sf is the stress in intact fiber, rf is the radium of radius of
45
) diameters of the ith carbon fiber were measured by ImageJ fiber, ty is the interfacial shear strength. The predicted composite
software (Functions in ImageJ software “Measure”) and recorded as strength can be predicted as shown in Eq. (4) [43].
Li1, Li2, Li3 and Li4 respectively, which were shown in Fig. 5(c).
  !
The fiber volume fraction, Vf, was measured in a similar way as
5 sf mþ1
above fiber orientation described on a polished surface of the whole sL ¼ sf Vf 1 (4)
12 s1
cross section of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates. The Vf for a
given laminates could be measured as above steps (i) and (ii) then
function in ImageJ software “Analyze/Analyze Particles” could be Where,
P 
Fiber cross section
used to calculate the area ratio cross section of CFRP , which is clearly ! 1
sm
0 L0 ty
mþ1

related to the Vf owing to the unidirectional characteristics. s1 ¼ (5)

rf

2.2.4. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) observation   1

All fracture specimens were observed under the optical micro- 12 mþ1
sf ¼ s1 (6)
scope, and then selected samples were coated with an AuePd layer 5m þ 10
and examined in more detail in a SEM Jelo JSM 5200.
Where m and s0 are the Weibull modulus and the scaling param-
eter, respectively. L0 is the span length at determining Weibull
3. Theory
parameters.
Then, maximizing with respect to the strain yields the ultimate
3.1. model
tensile strength
Rosen [36] introduced the weakest-link theory into the pre-   1  
diction of the unidirectional composite strength s*L , namely the 12 mþ1 mþ1
s*L ¼ Vf s1 (7)
“chain of bundles” model. He presented the UD composite as a 5m þ 10 mþ2
chain of bundles in series; once one of the unit bundles is broken,
To construct a stress-strain curve, a linear relation between fiber
the UD composite would be immediately fractured. Based on Cox’s
stress and composite strain shown in Eq. (8) can be substitute into
shear-lag model [22] and Kelly and Tyson’s model [42], Curtin [27]
above equations, where Ef is fiber modulus.
proposed a global load sharing (GLS) model in which the stress
released from a broken fiber is equally sustained by the remaining
unbroken fibers. Following Rosen’s chain of bundle concept,
sf ¼ Ef εf (8)
important characteristic of the Curtin’s model is that it takes
loading contributions of broken fibers and matrix shear loading
recovers away from the fiber breakage into consideration.
Rosen [36] considers the sustained load inside a bundle with
length 2d, double ineffective length as the working section. The
ineffective length d is defined as Eq. (3) according to the Kelly-Tyson 3.2. Fracture mechanics model

Criteria of splitting are deduced using a fracture mechanics

approach [43]. A model with length L includes a fiber breakage
cluster with length l, which defined as the representative length as
schematized in Fig. 6. In this model, a unidirectional composite was
divided into two parts: I) with cluster with a length l and II) without
cluster with length L-l. A is the composite cross section, a is the
cluster cross section area, s is the circumference of cluster, F is the
tensile load and EL is the composite modulus in the intact part.
The energy release rate (G) related to splitting at the edge of the
cluster could be deduced according to the strain energy in region I
(UI) and II (UII) as in Eq. (9).

Table 2
kI value calculation.

Type Modulus (GPa) kI

CF Vf Matrix VR Calculated Tested

CF/PA6 230 51.3% 3.0 48.7% 119.46 102.31 0.856

CF/Epoxy 230 59.3% 3.2 40.7% 137.78 133.83 0.971

* Calculation was based on the consideration that carbon fiber orientation of both
Fig. 6. Schematic of fracture mechanics model for splitting initiation [31]. CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy plates both were UD).
 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172 167

 
1 dUI dUII ð1  lÞaF 2
G¼ þ ¼
s dl dl 2EL AfA  ð1  lÞags
ð1  lÞAas2L
¼ (9)
2EL fA  ð1  lÞags
Where l is effective rate of composite modulus inside the
cluster. If A is large enough compare to a, G could be approximated
as in Eq. (10).

ð1  lÞAas2L ð1  lÞs2L a
G ¼ lim ¼ (10)
A/∞ 2EL fA  ð1  lÞags 2EL s

a/s represents the geometry of the cluster. By submitting shear

fracture toughness against splitting Gc into G in Eq. (11).
a * 2Gc Ef
c≡ ¼ (11)
s ð1  lÞVf s2f
Fig. 7. Typical tensile stress-strain curves between experiments and predictions from
Finally the critical cluster geometry c is linked to the shear GLS model.
fracture toughness Gc, fiber volume fraction (Vf) and intact fiber
stress (sf).
Table 4
Material constants used in the present calculation.
4. Results and discussion
Material constants CF/PA6 CF/Epoxy
4.1. Fundamental properties of composite laminates Young’s modulus of fiber (Ef) 230 GPaa 230 GPaa
Diameter of fiber (rf) 7 mma 7 mma
4.1.1. Fiber orientation and interface Fiber gage length (L0) 25 mm 25 mm
Weibull scale factor (s0) 2426 MPab 2426 MPab
The modulus of UD composite laminates could be calculated by
Weibull shape factor (m) 5.48 4.22b
the Rule of Mixtures equation as shown in Eq. (12). Interfacial shear strength (t0) 53.8 MPab 49.9 MPab
  Fiber volume fraction (Vf) 0.513 0.593
EC ¼ kFO  kI  Ef  Vf þ Em  1  Vf (12) a
From Tory Corp.
b
Cited from Ref. [31].
Where EC is calculated modulus, kFO is fiber orientation factor, kI
is interface factor, Ef is fiber modulus, Vf is fiber volume fraction, Em
is matrix modulus. Table 5
The calculated modulus and strength from GLS model.
For investigating the fiber orientation of the i th carbon fiber,
parameter Di was chosen as the evaluation index. Material constants CF/PA6 CF/Epoxy

Modulus (GPa) 117.43 1776.26

Limin
Di ¼ (13) Strength (MPa) 136.02 2291.27
Limax

Limin ¼ minfLi1 ; Li2 ; Li3 ; Li4 g
Limax ¼ maxfLi1 ; Li2 ; Li3 ; Li4 g
For both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates, more than 1000 car-
bon fibers (n > 1000) were measured and tested for investigating
the direction of all carbon fibers based on Eq. (16):
Pi¼n
i¼1 Di
d¼
n
Where d and n are direction parameter and tested number of all
carbon fiber in CFRPs respectively.
The calculating results showed that dCF/PA6 and dCF/Epoxy were
0.921 and 0.946 respectively, it could be considered that carbon
(14) fiber orientation of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates both were
almost unidirectional oriented. In this case, fiber orientation factor,
(15) kFO, of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy is considered 100% at current
study to simply the calculation, interface factor, kI, was calculated
and listed in Table 2. Even a rough calculation, the values of kI-CF/PA6
and kI-CF/Epoxy were 0.856 and 0.971 respectively, which show that
the interface of CF/Epoxy laminates seems better than CF/PA6
laminates.
(16)
4.1.2. Fiber volume fraction, Vf
Owing to their UD character, fiber volume fraction (Vf) of CF/PA6
and CF/Epoxy composites were calculated according to their cross
section ratio (as shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b)) between fibers and
laminates, which could be measured by image analysis software

Table 3
Mechanical properties of 0
composite boards.

Composites Vf (%) Test Number Modulus Strength

Mean (GPa) C.V. (%) Mean (MPa) C.V. (%)

CF/PA6 51.3 Tensile 78 102.3 10.5 1660 16.2

CF/Epoxy 59.3 Tensile 52 133.8 10.5 2428 18.3
168 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172
Fig. 8. Relationship between modulus and strength of tensile tests.
(ImageJ software) as explained in Section 2.2.3. The results of five
specimens showed the Vf of CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates were
51.3% (±2.4%) and 59.3% (±4.1%), respectively.
4.2. Mechanical properties of 0
laminates
Mechanical properties of 0
CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates
were summarized in Table 3. Coefficient of variation (C.V.) value was
calculated by the following Eq. (17) to indicate the stability of
tensile properties of the CFRP and CFRTP composites.
s   a 
C:V: ¼  100 (17)
m PF ¼ 1  exp 
Where s is standard deviation and m is mean value of all data.
Calculated stress-strain curves from the modified Curtin’s model
and typical experimental stress-strain curves (CF/PA6: Vf z 0.5, CF/
Epoxy: Vf z 0.6) are compared in Fig. 7. The basic parameters
including young’s modulus, diameter and fiber gage length of fiber,
Weibull scale and shape factors, interfacial shear strength and fiber
volume fraction used in the present calculation are shown in
Fig. 9. Weibull distribution of tensile strength (s) for unidirectional CF/PA6 and CF/
Epoxy laminates.
Table 4. Results indicate the GLS and experimental results exhibited
a good agreement especially for CF/PA6 laminates. Although the
load carried by broken fibers is locally distributed in the actual
composites (LLS), the difference in the stress-strain relation and
fiber breakage between GLS and LLS are very small until just before
failure [44]. At the same time, Kamoshida et al. [45] used a 3D shear
lag model for more realistic calculations of the fiber damage and
point out that the local strain concentration around a cluster of
fiber breaks can be neglected before failure. According to the
experimental and calculated stress-strain curve from Eq. (4), it is
shown that the GLS model is valid and useful to evaluate the me-
chanical damage except for the final failure strength and strain (see
Table 5).
The relationship between modulus and strength of tensile tests
together with results from GLS model (Different Vf) were shown in
Fig. 8. The calculated modulus and strength by using GLS model of
CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates is shown in Fig. 8 as closed triangle
and circle, respectively. Experimental results (Open triangle and
circle in Fig. 8) indicate that mechanical properties of CF/PA6
composites exhibited more concentrated behavior than CF/Epoxy
composites. However, CF/PA6 laminates exhibited lower modulus
than GLS model calculated modulus. According to the strain-stress
curves of CF/PA6 laminates as shown in Fig. 7, it is clear that the
modulus calculated from initial part of stress-strain curves is
smaller than the part of strain over 0.5%, which could be explained
by the difference of fiber orientation.
The results shown in Table 3 clearly indicate that there is an
appreciable scattering of tensile strength. The statistical distribu-
tion of composite strengths is usually described by means of the
Weibull equation [46]. The Weibull distribution is given by
sf
(18)
s0
where PF is the cumulative probability of failure of composite at
applied tensile strength sf, a is the Weibull modulus (Weibull shape
parameter) of the composite, s0 a Weibull scale parameter (char-
acteristic stress). Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. (18),
rearrangement of the two-parameter Weibull statistical distribu-
tion expression gives the following:
Fig. 10. Effect of interfacial shear strength on tensile strength of both CF/PA6 and CF/
Epoxy based on GLS model. (Material constants except interfacial shear strength used
in this calculation as shown in Table 4).
 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172 169

Fig. 11. Representative load-deflection curves (a) and fracture toughness results (b) of both 0
unidirectional CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy composites based on End Notched Flexure tests.

The difference in Weibull modulus, a can be attributed to the

   
1 nature and distribution of the flaws which are existed in the
ln ln ¼ a ln sf  alnðs0 Þ (19)
1  Fi composites. It is well know that many defects in the composites
were formed during precursor manufacturing and subsequent
Hence the Weibull modulus, a, can be obtained by linear various treatments. In present study, these include defects in car-
regression from a Weibull plot of Eq. (19). The probability of failure, bon fiber (misalignment, ultramicropores, etc.), carbon fiber
Fi, at the ith ranked specimen from a total of N specimens is ob- misalignment, bubble, dry carbon fiber bundle (not good impreg-
tained from the symmetric rank method as nation), etc. The existence of these defects in unidirectional com-
posites results in scattering of tensile strength. As a result, the
i  0:5 Weibull modulus a can be regarded as a defect frequency distri-
Fi ¼ (20)
N bution factor [46]. High values of a indicates the defects are evenly
distributed throughout the material. Low values of a indicated that
where i is rank of the specimen from lowest strength to highest defects are fewer and less evenly distributed, causing greater
strength. scatter in strength [47].
The Weibull plots of tensile strength for 0
unidirectional CF/
PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates are shown in Fig. 9. The Weibull 4.3. Interfacial shear strength
modulus, a, for CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates were calculated to
be 7.04 and 6.48, respectively. In GLS model used in this study, the value of interfacial shear
strength is cited from Ref. [43]. The effect of interfacial shear
strength on tensile strength of unidirectional CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy
laminates is shown in Fig. 10. It is clear that the tensile strength
increased in similar Cube Root Function way with the improvement
of interfacial shear strength. To investigate the relatively interfacial
shear strength of CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates, experimental
tensile strength of both CFRPs were employed to look for the cor-
responding interfacial shear strength as shown in Fig. 10. In detail,
the corresponding interfacial shear strengths of CF/PA6 and CF/
Epoxy laminates are z44 MPa and z68 MPa, respectively, which
means CF/Epoxy laminates possessed stronger interfacial shear
strength than CF/PA6 laminates.

4.4. Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness

The representative load-displacement curves of the ENF tests for

both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates were shown in Fig. 11(a). The
calculated mode II fracture toughness of both CFRPs is depicted in
Fig. 11(b). It is clear that the mode II interlaminar fracture toughness
of CF/PA6 laminates (GIIc-CF/PA6 ¼ 2.60 J/m2) was better than CF/
Epoxy CFRP laminates (GIIc-CF/Epoxy ¼ 1.89 J/m2), which means the
ability of CF/PA6 CFRP composites containing a crack to resist
fracture was more excellent than CF/Epoxy ones under the shearing
loading.

Fig. 12. Two typical fracture modes of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy specimens; (a)
Splitting fracture mode of CF/PA6 CFRP composite, (b) Step-like fracture mode of CF/
4.5. Fracture behavior
PA6 CFRP composite, (c) Splitting fracture mode of CF/Epoxy CFRP composite, (d) Step-
like fracture mode of CF/Epoxy CFRP composite. After tensile tests, two typical fracture modes including splitting
170 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172

Fig. 13. Example of brush width measurement (a) and brush width distribution (b) of whole data.

Fig. 14. SEM observation of fractured area of CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy composites.

and step-like mode of both CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates were
observed as shown in Fig. 12. Specimens fractured in splitting mode
exhibited broom-like head (Fig. 12(a) and (c)) while specimens
fractured in step-like mode showed more smooth fracture surface
(Fig. 12(b) and (d)). The big difference was that 0
CF/Epoxy com-
posite laminates mostly (69%) showed splitting fracture mode after
tensile tests, while CF/PA6 composite laminates mainly (77%)
exhibited step-like fracture modes.
4.6. The brushy width
The brushy width distribution of brush-shape fractured lami-
nates in splitting fracture modes of CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy laminates
was investigated in this study. Example of brushy width measure-
ment was shown in Fig. 13(a). In detail, the broken specimens after
tensile test were taken photos by microscopy and measured the
width of each brush through ImageJ software. All data of every
specimen was summarized as shown in Fig. 13(b). The results
showed that CF/PA6 laminates had more brush with width below
0.5 mm than CF/Epoxy laminates.
4.7. SEM observation
According to the observing results of CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy
laminates after tensile tests as shown in Fig. 14, it was found that
lots of PA6 resins surround carbon fibers were torn from fibers
which could be directly observed in CF/PA6 laminates. While for CF/
Epoxy laminates, lots of crack propagated in epoxy matrices and
carbon fibers were hard to be imaged directly. These representative
characteristics indicate the fracture modes of CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy
laminates belong to adhesive and cohesive failure, respectively.
 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172
Fig. 15. Schematic diagram of tensile fracture modes of CF/PA6 and CF/Epoxy composite boards.
5. Discussion
According to above investigation, it was found that CF/PA6
laminates with interface fracture form (Adhesive failure) have
unidirectional fiber orientation, a relative weaker interface but high
Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness, while CF/Epoxy laminates
with matrix fracture form (Cohesive failure) have unidirectional
fiber orientation, stronger interface but low Mode II interlaminar
fracture toughness.
Schematic diagram of typical tensile fracture modes is shown in
Fig. 15. For CFRP laminates, fiber breakage occurred at stresses
exceeding the strength of the weakest fiber. An isolated fiber break
caused stress concentration on the interface around the tip of the
broken fiber. If the interface between fiber and resin was not strong
enough, the crack in specimens propagated along the interface.
Otherwise, cracks in laminates with very strong interfaces propa-
gated in vertical direction firstly. After the first fiber breakage, CF/
PA6 laminates with weak interfaces mainly exhibited interfacial
fracture mode as shown in Fig. 15(b), while CF/Epoxy laminates
with stronger interfaces mostly showed matrix fracture mode as
shown in Fig. 15(c). In macroscopic view, both CF/PA6 laminates
and CF/Epoxy laminates showed two fracture modes including
splitting fracture mode (see Fig. 15(d) and (f)) and step-like fracture
mode (see Fig. 15(e) and (g)) after tensile tests.
In splitting fracture mode, cracks, parallel to the fiber orienta-
tion, propagated in the inner of matrices of CF/Epoxy laminates
owing to their strong interface and low fracture toughness, while it
was harder for CF/PA6 laminates to fracture in matrices easily
owing to their high fracture toughness. On the other hand, the weak
interface properties of CF/PA6 laminates led to the inner cracks
propagate along the interfaces. Different fracture mode led to
171
different fracture behavior, various propagation forms of cracks
related to the fractured brush width after tensile tests. Crack
propagating in the inside of matrices contributed to attach more
matrices around fibers after fracture.
Tensile fracture modes of CF/PA6 laminates with lower tensile
strength variation (16.2%) and lower Vf (51.3%) mainly exhibited
step-like mode (77%). CF/Epoxy CFRP laminates with higher tensile
strength variation (18.3%) higher Vf (59.3%) mostly showed splitting
mode (69%). The lower variation, the more concentrated fracture
mode was. Based on the research of Cook and Gordon [48], Ger-
berich [49] calculated the stress distribution ahead of a crack in an
all-brittle system and found that the tensile stress in transverse
direction reaches a maximum valure which is about one-fifth of the
tensile stress in the longtitudinal direction. According to this
mechanism, splitting occurs if
sc;T
< 0:2;
sc;L
where sc,T and sc,T are the transverse and the longtitudinal strength
of composites, respectively. According to Gerberich [49], sc,T
decreased but sc,L increased with increasing volume fraction of fi-
ber Vf, leading to the occurrence of splitting at high Vf. This is also
approved by Eq. (11), which indicates the fracture bundle sizes
related to the interlaminar shear fracture toughness GII and Vf
because same carbon fibers (same Ef, l and sf) are used in present
study. Therefore, CF/PA6 laminates with higher Vf possessed higher
fracture toughness than CF/Epoxy laminates with lower Vf, which
indicates that fiber bundles are easier to fracture in small size than
CF/Epoxy laminates.
172 Y. Ma et al. / Composites Part B 99 (2016) 162e172
6. Conclusion
In this study, CFRPs were manufactured from a unidirectional-
reinforced prepreg made of reinforcing carbon fiber and thermo-
plastic resin PA6 and thermosetting resin epoxy through hot
compression molding process. Mechanical properties and failure
behavior of carbon fiber reinforced PA6 and Epoxy resin laminates
were investigated by tensile tests. The physicochemical parameters
such as fiber volume fraction, fiber orientation, interfacial proper-
ties, Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness and brush width were
measured and calculated through a range of experimental tech-
niques including tensile tests, ENF tests, optical microscopy and
SEM. Meanwhile, GLS model was employed to compare with the
experimental mechanical properties and corresponding fracture
mechanics model was employed to analyze the fracture behavior. It
was found that 0
CF/PA6 laminates with weak interfaces but high
Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness mainly exhibited step-like
fracture modes (77%) in interfacial fracture mode (Adhesive fail-
ure), while CF/Epoxy laminates with stronger interfaces but low
Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness mostly showed splitting
fracture mode (69%) in matrix fracture mode (Cohesive failure).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Maruhachi Corporation Ltd., Japan for
manufacturing the specimens. The authors also thank a reviewer of
this article for a very detailed and careful review of the original
manuscript.
References
[1] Koronis G, Silva A, Fontul M. Green composites: a review of adequate mate-
rials for automotive applications. Compos Part B 2013;44(1):120e7.
[2] Ku H, Wang H, Pattarachaiyakoop N, Trada M. A review on the tensile prop-
erties of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites. Compos Part B
2011;42(4):856e73.
[3] Azeez AA, Rhee KY, Park SJ, Hui D. Epoxy clay nanocomposites-processing,
properties and applications: a review. Compos Part B 2013;45(1):308e20.
[4] Dhand V, Mittal G, Rhee KY, Park SJ, Hui D. A short review on basalt fiber
reinforced polymer composites. Compos Part B 2015;73:166e80.
[5] Xu J, Ma Y, Zhang Q, Sugahara T, Yang Y, Hamada H. Crashworthiness of
carbon fiber hybrid composite tubes molded by filament winding. Compos
Struct 2016;139:130e40.
[6] Lignola GP, Jalayer F, Nardone F, Prota A, Manfredi G. Probabilistic design
equations for the shear capacity of RC members with FRP internal shear
reinforcement. Compos Part B 2014;67:199e208.
[7] Ma Y, Sugahara T, Yang Y, Hamada H. A study on the energy absorption
properties of carbon/aramid fiber filament winding composite tube. Compos
Struct 2015;123:301e11.
[8] Chung DDL. Cement reinforced with short carbon fibers: a multifunctional
material. Compos Part B 2000;31:511e26.
[9] Ma H, Jia Z, Lau K, Leng J, Hui D. Impact properties of glass fiber/epoxy
composites at cryogenic environment. Compos Part B 2016;92:210e7.
[10] Wang J, Zhou Z, Xiao H, Zhang L, Hu B, Qiu Y, et al. Effect of alcohol pre-
treatment in conjunction with atmospheric pressure plasmas on hydro-
phobizing ramie fiber surfaces. J Adhes Sci Technol 2013;27(11):1278e88.
[11] Maria C. An overview of interface cracks. Eng Fract Mech 1990;37(1):
197e208.
[12] Lu T, Liu S, Jiang M, Xu X, Wang Y, Wang Z, et al. Effects of modifications of
bamboo cellulose fibers on the improved mechanical properties of cellulose
reinforced poly (lactic acid) composites. Compos Part B 2014;62:191e7.
[13] Jang KK, Man LS. Impact and delamination failure of woven-fabric composites.
Compos Sci Technol 2000;60:745e61.
[14] Pinho ST, Robinson P, Iannucci L. Fracture toughness of the tensile and
compressive fibre failure modes in laminated composites. Compos Sci Technol
2006;66:2069e79.
[15] Lu T, Jiang M, Jiang Z, Hui D, Wang Z, Zhou Z. Effect of surface modification of
bamboo cellulose fibers on mechanical properties of cellulose/epoxy com-
posites. Compos Part B 2013;51:28e34.
[16] Kusano H, Aoki Y, Hirano Y, Hasegawa T, Nagao Y. Visualization on static
tensile test for UD CFRP. Proc ICCM-17 Conf Edinburg July 2009:2009.
[17] Castellano A, Foti P, Fraddosio A, Marzano S, Piccioni MD. Mechanical char-
acterization of CFRP composites by ultrasonic immersion tests: experimental
and numerical approaches. Compos Part B 2014;66:299e310.
[18] Liao K, Reifsnider KL. A tensile strength model for UD fiber-reinforced brittle
matrix composite. Int J Fract 2000;106(2):95e115.
[19] Okabe T, Takeda N. Size effect on tensile strength of UD CFRP composites-
experiment and simulation. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62(15):2053e64.
[20] Siron O, Tsuda H. Acoustic emission in carbon fibre-reinforced plastic mate-
rials. Ann Chim Sci Mat 2000;25(7):533e7.
[21] Rossoll A, Moser B, Mortensen A. Tensile strength of axially loaded unidi-
rectional Nextel 610™ reinforced aluminium: a case study in local load
sharing between randomly distributed fibres. Compos Part A-Appl S
2012;43(1):129e37.
[22] Cox HL. The elasticity and strength of paper and other fibrous materials. J Appl
Phys 1952;3:73e9.
[23] Hedgepeth JM. Stress concentrations in filamentary structures. NASA TND-
882. 1961.
[24] Hedgepeth JM, Van Dyke P. Local stress concentrations in imperfect fila-
mentary composite materials. J Compos Mater 1967;1(3):294e309.
[25] Wagner HD, Eitan A. Stress concentration factors in two-dimensional com-
posites: effects of material and geometrical parameters. Compos Sci Technol
1993;46(4):353e62.
[26] Zhou XF, Wagner HD. Stress concentrations caused by fiber failure in two-
dimensional composites. Compos Sci Technol 1999;59(7):1063e71.
[27] Curtin WA. Theory of mechanical properties of ceramic-matrix composites.
J Am Ceram Soc 1991;74:2037e45.
[28] Beyerlein IJ, Phoenix SL, Sastry AM. Comparison of shear-lag theory and
continuum fracture mechanics for modeling fiber and matrix stresses in an
elastic cracked composite lamina. Int J Solids Struct 1996;33(18):2543e74.
[29] Beyerlein IJ, Phoenix SL. Statistics of fracture for an elastic notched composite
lamina containing Weibull fibers-Part I. Features from Monte-Carlo simula-
tion. Eng Fract Mech 1997;57(2):241e65.
[30] Landis CM, McGlockton MA, McMeeking RM. An improved shear lag model for
broken fibers in composite materials. J Compos Mater 1999;33(7):667e80.
[31] Landis CM, Beyerlein IJ, McMeeking RM. Micromechanical simulation of the
failure of fiber reinforced composites. J Mech Phys Solids 2000;48(3):621e48.
[32] Ibnabdeljalil M, Curtin WA. Strength and reliability of fiber-reinforced com-
posites: localized load-sharing and associated size effects. Int J Solids Struct
1997;34(21):2649e68.
[33] Ibnabdeljalil M, Curtin WA. Strength and reliability of notched fiber-
reinforced composites. Acta Mater 1997;45(9):3641e52.
[34] Xia ZH, Curtin WA. Multiscale modeling of damage and failure in aluminum-
matrix composites. Compos Sci Technol 2001;61(15):2247e57.
[35] Xia Z, Curtin WA, Okabe T. Green’s function vs. shear-lag models of damage
and failure in fiber composites. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62(10):1279e88.
[36] Rose BW. Tensile failure of fibrous composites. AIAA J 1968;6:1985e91.
[37] Okabe T, Sekine H, Ishii K, Nishikawa M, Takeda N. Numerical method for
failure simulation of unidirectional fiber-reinforced composites with spring
element model. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65:921e33.
[38] Okabe T, Nishikawa M, Takeda N, Sekine H. Effect of matrix hardening on the
tensile strength of alumina fiber-reinforced aluminum matrix composites.
Acta Mater 2006;54:2557e66.
[39] Okabe T, Ishi K, Nishikawa M, Takeda N. Prediction of tensile strength of
unidirectional CFRP composites. Adv Compos Mater 2010;19:229e41.
[40] JIS K 7165e2012. Plastics-Determination of tensile properties-Part 5: test
conditions for UD fiber-reinforced plastic composites. 2012.
[41] JIS K 7086-2013. Testing methods for interlaminar fracture toughness of
carbon fiber reinforced plastics. Jpn Ind Stand 2013.
[42] Kelly A, Tyson WR. Tensile properties of fibre-reinforced metals: copper/
tungsten and copper/molybdenum. J Mech Phys Solids 1965;13:329e38.
[43] Taketa I. Analysis of failure mechanisms and hybrid effects in carbon fibre
reinforced thermoplastic composites [PhD. thesis]. Leuven: KU Leuven; 2011.
[44] Curtin WA. Stochastic damage evolution and failure in fiber-reinforced com-
posites. Adv Appl Mech 2000;36:163e253.
[45] Kamoshida Y, Shimizu M, Okabe T, Takeda N. 3D shear lag model of unidi-
rectional composite considering micro-damages. P I Mech Eng C-J Mec 2000:
1019e26.
[46] Weibull WA. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. J Appl
Mech 1951;18:293e7.
[47] Naito K, Tanaka Y, Yang JM, Kagawa Y. Tensile properties of ultrahigh strength
PAN-based, ultrahigh modulus pitch-based and high ductility pitch-based
carbon fibers. Carbon 2008;46(2):189e95.
[48] Cook J, Gordon JE, Evans CC, Marsh DM. A mechanism for the control of crack
propagation in all-brittle systems. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci
1964;282(1391):508e20.
[49] Gerberich WW. Fracture mechanics of a composite with ductile fibers. J Mech
Phys Solids 1971;19(2):71e87.