JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
0(0) 1–14
! The Author(s) 2015
Micromechanical damage analysis in Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
laminated composites with randomly DOI: 10.1177/0021998315614992
jcm.sagepub.com
distributed fibers

Nithin K Parambil and Suhasini Gururaja

Abstract
Damage mechanisms in uni-directional fiber-reinforced plastics have been studied at the micro-scale by developing three-
dimensional-repeating unit cells with randomly distributed fibers. Three damage mechanisms have been considered, viz.,
matrix damage, fiber failure and fiber-matrix interface debonding. The development of these damage modes and their
effect on the overall stress–strain response of the micro-structure due to varying fiber volume fractions, loading con-
ditions (longitudinal, transverse and combined transverse tension and shear), spatial distribution of fibers and fiber
strength distributions (deterministic and Weibull) are of interest. A numerical framework has been developed that
allows for conducting such studies for the chosen parameters. Microscopic images of real micro-structure of uni-
directional fiber-reinforced plastics have been used to develop the random micro-structure for the three-dimensional-
repeating unit cell. In the longitudinal loading scenario, fibers with Weibull strength distribution are closer to reality.
While the three-dimensional-repeating unit cell under longitudinal loading fails in predominantly fiber failure mode,
debonding and matrix damage play a major role in determining the average response of the micro-structure under
transverse and combined transverse and shear loading.

Keywords
Damage analysis, uni-directional fiber-reinforced plastics, Weibull strength, random fiber distribution

property of FRPs.3,8–11 However, the assumptions

Introduction
In recent times, conventional structural materials such
as steel, aluminum, etc. have been replaced by fiber-
reinforced plastics (FRPs) in aerospace, marine engin-
eering, defense and other sectors due to their better
performance, viz., higher specific strength, stiffness,
fatigue, corrosion, tailorability, etc.1 Anisotropy and
heterogeneity in FRPs result in a multitude of
damage mechanisms such as matrix cracking, fiber-
matrix debonding, fiber breakage, fiber pull-outs,
delaminations, etc. that occur at multiple length
scales. Therefore, design and failure analysis of struc-
tures made from FRPs is more complex than trad-
itional metals and necessitates advanced
computational techniques for accurate predictions of
material behavior across multiple length scales.2
In the past, experimental, analytical and numerical
methods have often been employed to characterize the
material behavior of FRPs.3–7 Well-established analyt-
ical models are available to predict the effective
used for analytical model development prevent them
from predicting material behavior by considering
actual micro-structure of FRPs in addition to account-
ing for different damage mechanisms.12 On the other
hand, empirical models are inadequate in terms of cap-
turing the physics of the damage mechanisms and often
times, fail to yield accurate predictions.13 Additionally,
unlike macro-scale experiments,14,15 conducting micro-
scale experiments to capture micro-scale damage mech-
anisms in FRPs is quite complex and difficult to carry
out.16 Among the numerical approaches, generalized
method of cells,17–20 variational asymptotic method
for unit cell homogenization21 and finite element
Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore,
Karnataka, India
Corresponding author:
Suhasini Gururaja, Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science
(IISc), C V Raman Avenue, Bangalore 560012, Karnataka, India.
Email: suhasini@aero.iisc.ernet.in

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

2 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
analysis (FEA) with continuum damage modeling22,23
are a few that have received considerable attention in
recent past. Thus, in the last decade, numerical multi-
scale damage accumulation models have been devel-
oped with the aim of capturing damage initiation and
progression at multiple length scales replicating the
actual physics of damage in FRPs.16
Traditionally, micromechanics principles have been
used for effective property estimations of compos-
ites.12,22,24,25 Correlating the micro-structure to the
effective property is done in two ways, namely, repre-
sentative volume element (RVE) approach and repeat-
ing unit cell (RUC) approach. In RVE method, the
smallest volume element that replicates the composite
macro-behavior is first chosen and analyzed using
‘‘homogenization’’ theory (based on a Micro–Meso–
Macro principle) to yield the effective property of the
composite.9,22 On the other hand, RUC assumes that
the constituents of the composite (matrix, fiber, voids,
interface, etc.) follow a periodic distribution known a
priori and the domain of analysis is chosen to be this
smallest repeating periodic volume element.26–29 Drago
and Pindera30 have compared and distinguished these
two approaches. Uni-directional FRPs (UD-FRPs) are
often modeled as individual fibers embedded in matrix
with a uniform square or hexagonal distribution. It is
recognized that the micro-structure for a UD-FRP is, in
fact, characterized by random distribution of fibers.
For a micro-structure with an evolving damage state,
it becomes necessary to model a realistic micro-
structure and explicitly account for the spatial random-
ness in fiber distributions.31,32 It has been observed that
although longitudinal properties (without considering
any damage and failure) do not vary across the two
RUCs (uniform and random arrangement of fibers),
transverse properties do depend on spatial distribution
of fibers.33 Trias et al.34 carried out a comparative study
on RUCs with uniformly distributed fibers and com-
pared with an RUC with randomly distributed fibers. It
was observed that matrix cracking and damage initi-
ation were also influenced by the spatial arrangement
of fibers. In the longitudinal tensile loading scenario,
the failure of fibers was not found to be unique.35 In
recent times, attempts have been made to model the
micro-structure as an RUC with randomly distributed
fibers with an evolving damage state wherein the
response of the micro-structure is evaluated using
standard homogenization techniques.36,37 The micro-
mechanical model, such as RVE or RUC model,
which is coupled with a macro-model used to evaluate
overall behavior of a composite laminate is often
known as multi-scale modeling.16 Thus, in order to
achieve a more efficient multi-scale modeling paradigm,
it becomes important to capture damage evolution real-
istically at the micro level.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015
Several algorithms are currently available for produ-
cing random fiber distributions, the most common one
being the hard-core model. In the hard-core model, the
fibers were modeled as non-overlapping circular disks.
The maximum Vf produced using this algorithm was
50%; above this, Vf overlapping takes place (this is
called jamming limit).38,39 A statistically equivalent
RVE developed by Swaminathan et al.40 using a two-
point correlation function based on the parent hard-
core model was capable of generating Vf up to 60%.
A new algorithm named random sequential expansion
overcame the jamming limit of hard-core model and
efficiently produced Vf greater than 60%.41 Other
approaches using the principle of nearest neighbor dis-
tances have also been developed.42,43 Besides these
methods, digital imaging techniques have also been
employed wherein the micro-structure of the UD-
FRP laminate is directly modeled by measuring the
centroid coordinates of the fibers from the image and
reproducing it.44
In addition to spatial randomness of fibers, tensile
test results of single fiber and fiber bundles indicate
that fiber strength is not a single deterministic
strength value but follows a Weibull distribution.45–48
Incorporating such a probabilistic strength for fibers
within a micro-scale progressive damage framework,
considering random distribution of fibers in matrix
has received little attention. In this work, effective
properties of FRPs have been estimated using a
three-dimensional (3D)-RUC of randomly distributed
fibers under evolving damage using non-deterministic
fiber strength. A framework for damage initiation
and progression has been adopted considering three
major damage mechanisms, viz., matrix damage,
fiber-matrix debonding and fiber failure. The effective
constitutive response of the composite has been
obtained through non-linear homogenization proced-
ure in the presence of the aforementioned damage
processes. The present work aims at developing a
framework for damage development and progression
in FRPs at the micro-scale. It is envisaged that the
current framework can be extended to higher length
scales paving way toward multi-scale progressive
damage development and virtual mechanical testing
of FRPs.
Approach
3D-RUC (with randomly distributed fibers) has been
modeled with three different phases, namely: matrix,
fiber and fiber-matrix interface as shown in Figure 1.
To understand the damage mechanism of 3D-RUC,
three major damage mechanisms, viz., matrix damage,
fiber-matrix debonding and fiber failure have been
adopted.
Parambil and Gururaja 3

3D-RUC with random fibers
A polished sample of UD-FRP laminate cross-section
has been used for microscopic study. To capture the
position of fibers in the matrix, different images were
obtained using an optical microscope (Zeiss Axiovert)
as shown in Figure 2. Central coordinates of fibers have
been obtained by using inbuilt option in Mathematica.
By fixing the origin, distance between the center of
fibers and origin has been calculated. Probability dens-
ity function of these data was calculated using
Figure 1. 3D-RUC with randomly distributed fibers.
3D-RUC: three-dimensional-repeating unit cell.
MATLAB code. From the distribution fittings, it is
concluded that the distance from the center of the
fibers to origin follows a normal distribution. Thus, in
this work, the fibers are distributed using normal dis-
tribution within the 3D-RUC.
Constitutive modeling
Fiber damage. Fiber has been modeled as an orthotropic
elastic material, and its material constants are shown in
Table 1. Fiber breakage is modeled using the maximum
stress criterion. Two cases of fiber damage have been
studied in this work, viz., deterministic fiber strength
and probabilistic fiber strength. In the deterministic
fiber strength case, 2500 MPa has been taken as fiber
strength.49 As mentioned earlier, tensile testing of fibers
and fiber bundles reveals a Weibull strength distribu-
tion.47 Historically, there are two types of Weibull dis-
tributions, namely, two-parameter and three-parameter
Weibull distribution.45 For the fixed fiber diameter case
as in the present analysis, two-parameter Weibull dis-
tribution fits the failure stress curves. For studying the
variation in strength of fibers, two-parameter Weibull
distribution as shown in equation (1) has been imple-
mented using scale ( o) and shape (m) factors as
2500 MPa and 6, respectively.50
  m 
x
PðxÞ ¼ 1  exp  ð1Þ
o

Figure 2. Microscopic images of UD-FRPs.

UD-FRPs: Uni-directional fiber-reinforced plastics.

Table 1. Material properties for C-fiber and epoxy matrix.49

Elastic constants E11 (GPa) E22 (GPa) 12 23 G12 (GPa) G23 (GPa) T (MPa) Y (MPa) C (MPa)

Carbon fiber 235 14 0.2 0.25 28 5.6 2500

Matrix 4.8 – 0.34 – – – – 60 120

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

4 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

where x represents the stress in the fiber direction.
Matrix damage. Matrix is modeled as an elastic isotropic
material that has different strengths in tension and
compression with the properties as shown in Table 1.
Raghava et al.51 suggested a modified von Mises failure
criterion for the matrix wherein yielding depended on
both deviatoric stress invariant (von Mises equivalent
stress (vm Þ) and volumetric stress invariant (I1) as
shown in equation (2).
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð  1ÞI1 þ ð  1Þ2 I21 þ 4vm
eq ¼
2
where  is the ratio of tensile strength and compressive
strength of matrix. The  eq is compared with the tensile
strength of the matrix  Y. When eq  Y , matrix
damage starts to develop resulting in stiffness degrad-
ation of the matrix.52 After damage, the constitutive
equation of the matrix and damage factor (D) is
shown in equation (3).
ijm ¼ ð1  DÞCm m
ijkl kl
where superscript ‘m’ indicates the matrix properties
and D ranges from 0 to 1.
Fiber-matrix interface. Cohesive zone modeling is used to
simulate the fiber-matrix interface damage. A bi-linear
traction-separation law is adopted wherein the cohesive
surface exhibits linear elastic behavior till damage onset
beyond which linear softening law delineates damage
evolution (cf. Figure 3). Equation (4) describes this con-
stitutive interface behavior where Kn is the slope of the
traction-separation curve before damage evolution, and
damage (D) is calculated using equation (5). Prior to
damage onset (i.e.,   0 ), n  tn and D ¼ 0. As
n 4 tn , damage evolution begins according to equation
(5). D ¼ 1 represents complete debonding of the inter-
face. A mixed-mode damage propagation criterion
based on equation (6) is adopted.53 Table 2 shows the
properties of fiber-matrix interface used in the present
analysis.
n ¼ ð1  DÞKn  ð4Þ
2 8
> 0   0
ð2Þ >
< ð   Þ
0 f
D ¼ max 0 5  5 f ð5Þ
>
> ðf  0 Þ
:
1  4 f
     
GI GII  GIII 
þ þ ¼1 ð6Þ
GIc GIIc GIIIc
where  ¼ 1
Numerical implementation
ð3Þ
3D-RUC with randomly distributed fibers has been
modeled with periodic boundary conditions (PBCs)
using python scripting interface in the commercially
available FE software Abaqus. An algorithm has
been developed to generate randomly distributed
fibers (non-overlapping) in a matrix to study the
damage mechanisms in the 3D-RUC. Center of fibers
has been generated using the inbuilt random number
generator function (using normal distribution) in
Python. It should be noted that the fibers do not inter-
sect with the boundaries of the 3D-RUC and are always
located in the central region of the 3D-RUC for easy
implementation of PBCs (cf. Appendix 2). Such a
restriction has led to the presence of a matrix rich
band around the RUC that might result in strain local-
ization or shear band formation. However, from the
micro-structural images (cf. Figure 2), it can be inferred
that there are matrix-rich regions present abundantly.
Thus, the restriction of having non-intersecting fibers
should still be a valid representation of the micro-
structure. Required volume fraction of fibers has been
generated with the help of input parameters (radius of
the fiber, fiber volume fraction and total number of

Table 2. Properties for the C-fiber/epoxy interface.53

Kn (MPa/m) tn (MPa) ts (MPa) GIc (J/m2) GIIc ¼ GIIIc (J/m2)

Figure 3. Bi-linear traction-separation law for interface 1012 60 60 2 6
debonding.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

Parambil and Gururaja 5

fibers). Meshing has been done for both matrix and Homogenized stress–strain curves are obtained using
fiber using 3D eight-noded linear isoparametric elem- equation (7) and implemented via python script in
ents (C3D8). PBCs have been applied as multi-point post-processing mode in Abaqus.
constraint equations for each nodal pair. User material
subroutine (UMAT) has been implemented in Z I
FORTRAN within Abaqus framework to implement 1 1X p

the yield criteria and damage development in the
matrix. Fiber failure has been modeled as a UMAT
based on maximum stress criterion. Fibers are assumed
to ‘‘fail’’ when the longitudinal stress in the fiber
exceeds the tensile strength of the fiber. Fiber ‘‘failure’’
has been simulated by assigning a degradation factor
(1%) to the appropriate stiffness coefficient of the
fiber.54 Flow chart for the implementation of damage
mechanism in UD-FRPs is shown in Figure 4. Three
different loading conditions are considered in the pre-
sent work, longitudinal (loading in the fiber direction),
transverse (loading perpendicular to the fiber direction)
and transverse shear (combination of transverse and
shear). As in traditional micromechanics analysis, load-
ing is applied in the form of far-field displacement
fields.29 For all cases, homogenized stress–strain
curves are plotted to understand the damage behavior.
 ij ¼ ij dV ¼  k Vk ð7Þ
V V k¼1 ij
where  ¼ homogenized stress, V ¼ total volume of
3D-RUC, ijk ¼ stress component in the kth integration
point, Vk ¼ volume of the kth element and Ip ¼ total
number of integration points in the 3D-RUC FE
model.
Results and discussion
FE models have been developed to study the differ-
ent loading condition (longitudinal, transverse
and transverse shear) with Vf ¼ 20%, 30%, 40%
and 50%. Far-field strains have been applied to
the model for studying damage mechanisms for all
cases.

Figure 4. Implementation of damage for the 3D-RUC with random fiber distribution (cf. Appendix 3).
PBC: periodic boundary condition; 3D-RUC: three-dimensional-repeating unit cell.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

6 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Convergence studies studied by considering several 3D-RUC models for

To establish a rigorous model for FE analysis, conver-
gence studies were performed. There were two main
aspects that were investigated, viz., the number of
fibers in the 3D-RUC model and the mesh size. To
begin with, FE analysis was carried out by varying
the number of fibers (N) from 1 to 60 within the
matrix for Vf ¼ 30% with far-field strain applied in
the longitudinal (along the fiber) direction. Analysis
has been carried out considering all three damage
mechanisms (matrix damage, fiber-matrix debonding
and fiber failure). Beyond 30 fibers, the stress–strain
response was found to converge (within 1% variation).
It should be noted that the dimensions of the 3D-RUC
model were varied as N varied from 1 to 60 such that
Vf ¼ 30% for all cases. Following this analysis, mesh
sensitivity was conducted by decreasing the element
length from 2.66 to 1.18 microns for Vf ¼ 30% and
N ¼ 30. Solution was found to converge (within 1%
variation) when the element length was lesser than
1.78 microns. Thus, for further analysis, 30 fibers with
mesh size of 1.78 microns have been used for all cases.
Additionally, effect of spatial randomness of fibers was
Vf ¼ 30% and N ¼ 30. The stress–strain response in all
cases was found converge within 1%.
Longitudinal tensile case
In addition to incorporating random distribution of
fibers, variation in strength of fibers has also been
accounted for. Thus, two separate cases have been stu-
died, viz., (i) strength of the fiber is taken to be a con-
stant and (ii) strength of the fiber has been taken to
follow Weibull distribution.
3D-RUC with deterministic fiber strength. The homogenized
stress–strain curves for Vf ¼ 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%
for far-field strain applied in the longitudinal (along the
fiber) direction are shown in Figure 5(a). As expected,
the linear part showed an increase in stiffness with
increase in the Vf. An abrupt drop in the homogenized
stress has been observed as the applied strain reaches a
value around 1.2%. This is attributed to all fibers fail-
ing. As the far-field strain increases, debond softening
initiation of fiber-matrix interface occurs prior to fiber

(a)

(b) (c) (d)

Figure 5. (a) Homogenized stress–strain curves for Vf ¼ 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% with deterministic fiber strength, (b) and (c) von
Mises stress distribution of RUC for Vf ¼ 30% with deterministic fiber strength and (d) matrix damage (not applicable in the fiber
region).

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

Parambil and Gururaja 7

failure. Once all fibers fail, the load-carrying capability
of the 3D-RUC drastically reduces due to reduction in
fiber stiffness to 1% of its original stiffness. Thus, fur-
ther displacement loading results in matrix yielding and
eventually matrix damage. von Mises stress before fiber
breakage and after fiber breakage are shown in Figure
5(b) and (c), respectively. Matrix damage (SDV15 pre-
assigned solution-dependent state variables for matrix
damage) has taken place at B in Figure 5(a) and is
shown in Figure 5(d).
3D-RUC with Weibull distribution for fiber strength. Figure 6(a)
shows the homogenized stress–strain curves for
Vf ¼ 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% with far-field
strain applied in the longitudinal (along the fiber) dir-
ection with Weibull distribution for fiber strength.
Since the longitudinal strength of the fiber is not
constant, all fibers do not fail at the same applied load-
ing. Thus, a sudden load drop is not observed as in
Figure 5(a).55,56 Instead, a series of smaller load drops
are observed, each load drop being indicative of either
an individual fiber failure or failure of a collection of
fibers as shown in Figure 6. These fiber failures are
found to occur in a progressive manner with load redis-
tribution occurring after each fiber(s) failure (or
load drop) event. An additional observation from
Figure 6(a) is that the RUC continues to carry load
even after the first few fibers have failed. Once a signifi-
cant number of fibers have failed, the homogenized
stress–strain curve gradually slopes down indicating
reduction in load-carrying capability. Eventually, a
final load drop occurs as all the fibers fail.

(a) 800

700 V = 20%
f
A
Vf = 30%
600
V = 40% C
f
Stress, σ (MPa)

B
500 Vf = 50%
11

400
D
300

200

100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Strain, ε (%)
11
(b) (c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h) (i)

Figure 6. (a) Homogenized stress–strain curves for Vf ¼ 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% with Weibull distribution for fiber strength, (b) to
(e) von Mises stress distribution of RUC for Vf ¼ 30% with Weibull distribution for fiber strength and (f) to (i) matrix damage of RUC
for Vf ¼ 30% with Weibull distribution for fiber strength.
RUC: repeating unit cell.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

8 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

The debond softening initiation of fiber-matrix inter-
face occurs prior to fiber failure. Matrix damage was
found to initiate just after the first load drop event due
to stress redistribution that occurs in the vicinity of
failed fibers (cf. Figure 6).
Transverse tensile case
Figure 7(a) shows the homogenized stress–strain curves
for Vf ¼ 30% with far-field strain applied in the trans-
verse (perpendicular to the fiber) direction. Damage
propagation is shown in Figure 7(b) to (g). Unlike lon-
gitudinal case, the significant damage modes in
transverse load case are fiber-matrix debonding and
matrix damage. Fiber failure does not occur under
this loading case. Due to the random spatial distribu-
tion of fibers in the 3D-RUC, the stress state is not
uniform in the matrix. Fiber clustering typically leads
to increased stress concentration in the surrounding
matrix. Debonding—one of the first damage modes—is
found to occur either in a single fiber-matrix interface
or in a collection of fibers. Debonding in some fibers
starts from one side of fiber, whereas in others, it starts
from both sides depending on the stress state in the
vicinity of an interface (cf. Figure 8). Upon further
loading, debonding is found to trigger damage

(a)

(b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g)

Figure 7. (a) Homogenized stress–strain curves for Vf ¼ 30% with far-field strain applied in the transverse direction and (b) to (g)
matrix damage propagation with different far-field strains for Vf ¼ 30%.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

Parambil and Gururaja
Figure 8. Fiber-matrix interface debonding, one-sided and two-sided cases.
initiation in matrix accompanied by further propaga-
tion of interfacial debonding. Matrix damage also
propagates triggering additional fiber-matrix debonds
in other interfaces. The proximity of fibers or the pres-
ence of fiber clusters plays an important role in govern-
ing the damage evolution. In regions with a prevalence
of fiber clustering, debonding/matrix damage occurs at
a lower applied far-field strain as compared to regions
that are matrix rich (cf. Figure 7) due to the increased
stress concentration in the vicinity of fibers. The matrix
damage and debonding develop a failure-path that
ultimately causes failure of the 3D-RUC. For an
applied 22 far-field strain, damage initiation is
observed at 22 ¼ 0.8% accompanied by a reduction in
the global stiffness value. As the damage propagates,
further reduction in stiffness is noted. This is shown in
Figure 7(a). From Figure 7, it is clear that the damage
propagation seems to occur along the load direction.
This could be due to the usage of a stress-based damage
onset criterion; since maximum principal stress is along
the load direction, damage onset and propagation
occurs along the same direction.
Transverse shear case
In this case, a combination of transverse (22) and shear
(23) far-field strains are applied to the 3D-RUC as
shown in Figure 9(a). Homogenized transverse shear
stress envelopes for Vf ¼ 30% is shown in Figure 9(a).
This envelope is obtained by changing the combination
of transverse and shear far-field strains to get a matrix
damage parameter of approximately 0.5 in any single
element in the 3D-RUC. The resultant damage
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015
9
propagation purely depends on either shear or trans-
verse strain, whichever is predominant as is clear from
Figure 9(b) to (e). In transverse strain predominant case
(point D in Figure 9(a)), matrix damage initiation
occurs prior to interface debonding. On the other
hand, in shear strain predominant case (point B in
Figure 9(a)), some fiber-matrix interface debonding
occurs prior to matrix damage initiation. As the applied
far-field strain increases, matrix damage propagates,
and this causes more interfaces to debond. Points A
and E in Figure 9(a) show pure shear and transverse
cases, respectively. At point C in Figure 9(a), applied
far-field strains are equal, and in this case, interface
debonding occurs prior to damage initiation. The plot
shown in Figure 9(a) can be used as failure onset enve-
lope since further increase in the far-field strain reduces
the stiffness of matrix. A similar approach can be used
to develop failure envelopes for other Vf’s correspond-
ing to various damage parameters. As we discussed in
the transverse tensile case, the damage propagation is
along the maximum principal stress direction as is clear
from Figure 9. It should be noted that similar results
have also been obtained in Melro et al.32
Conclusions and future work
In the present study, a unified framework for micro-
scale damage evolution has been developed considering
randomly distributed fibers in the matrix. Real micro-
scopic structure of UD-FRP has been studied using
optical microscopy for fitting the fiber distribution in
the matrix, and an algorithm has been developed for
modeling 3D-RUC. Damage mechanisms under static
10 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

(a)

(b) (c)

(d) (e)

Figure 9. (a) Homogenized transverse shear stress curves for Vf ¼ 30% and (b) to (e) matrix damage propagation under different
combination of applied transverse and shear strains for Vf ¼ 30%.

loading have been studied by considering matrix
damage, debonding of fiber-matrix interface and fiber
failure. Non-linear homogenized stress–strain curves
for 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% volume fractions of
fibers were obtained for the longitudinal load case.
Fibers with deterministic strength and Weibull strength
distributions have been studied to understand the
damage mechanisms. It is noted that fibers with
Weibull strength distribution describe a more realistic
damage scenario in UD-FRPs. In addition to the

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

Parambil and Gururaja
longitudinal loading case, 3D-RUC response under
combined transverse and shear loads has been
obtained. Under transverse and shear loads, interface
debonding and matrix damage play a vital role in deter-
mining the damage state of the 3D-RUC. A progressive
damage development with matrix damage triggering
interface disbonds and vice versa has been captured
with increased far-field loading. Failure envelopes for
transverse shear loading cases have also been obtained.
Based on this analysis, it can be inferred that for a
certain predefined damage state, one can obtain the
failure envelopes that could be coupled with a multi-
scale damage assessment strategy in order to ascertain
the load-carrying capability of a composite structure.
Further investigations need to be carried out to extend
the current formulation to include cure stresses, com-
pressive and fatigue loads. Effect of defects such as fiber
misalignments can also be addressed within the current
framework. The results obtained can be integrated with
a meso-scale model paving way toward multi-scale
damage modeling of FRPs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Renton WJ, Olcott D, Roeseler W, et al. Future of flight
vehicle structures (2000 to 2023). J Aircraft 2004; 41:
986–998.
2. Kaddour AS, Hinton MJ, Smith PA, et al. The back-
ground to the third world-wide failure exercise.
J Compos Mater 2013; 47: 2417–2426.
3. Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber compos-
ites. J Appl Mech 1980; 47: 329–334.
4. Sun C and Jun AW. Compressive strength of unidirec-
tional fiber composites with matrix non-linearity.
Compos Sci Technol 1994; 52: 577–587.
5. Puck A and Schürmann H. Failure analysis of FRP lamin-
ates by means of physically based phenomenological
models. Compos Sci Technol 1998; 58: 1045–1067.
6. Ibnabdeljalil M and Curtin W. Strength and reliability of
fiber-reinforced composites: localized load-sharing and
associated size effects. Int J Solids Str 1997; 34: 2649–2668.
7. Hart-Smith L. Comparison between theories and test data
concerning the strength of various fibre–polymer compos-
ites. Compos Sci Technol 2002; 62: 1591–1618.
8. Hill R. Elastic properties of reinforced solids: some theor-
etical principles. J Mech Phys Solids 1963; 11: 357–372.
9. Hashin Z. Analysis of composite materials–a survey.
J Appl Mech 1983; 50: 481–505.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015
11
10. Camanho PP. Failure criteria for fibre-reinforced polymer
composites. Secçăo de Mecânica Aplicada, Departamento
de Engenharia Mecânica e Gestăo Industrial, Faculdade de
Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, 2002.
11. Tucker CL and Liang E. Stiffness predictions for unidir-
ectional short-fiber composites: review and evaluation.
Compos Sci Technol 1999; 59: 655–671.
12. Sudhir A, Nagaraja AM and Gururaja S. Effective mech-
anical properties of carbon-carbon composites. In:
ASME 2014 international mechanical engineering congress
and exposition, 14–20 November 2014, IMECE2014-
36583. Canada: ASME.
13. Talreja R. Assessment of the fundamentals of failure the-
ories for composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 2014;
105: 190–201.
14. Vaughan TJ and McCarthy CT. A combined experimen-
tal–numerical approach for generating statistically
equivalent fibre distributions for high strength laminated
composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 2010; 70:
291–297.
15. Fiedler B, Hojo M, Ochiai S, et al. Failure behavior of an
epoxy matrix under different kinds of static loading.
Compos Sci Technol 2001; 61: 1615–1624.
16. Llorca J, González C, Molina-Aldareguı́a JM, et al.
Multiscale modeling of composite materials: a roadmap
towards virtual testing. Adv Mater 2011; 23: 5130–5147.
17. Paley M and Aboudi J. Micromechanical analysis of
composites by the generalized cells model. Mech Mater
1992; 14: 127–139.
18. Aboudi J, Arnold SM and Bednarcyk BA.
Micromechanics of composite materials: a generalized mul-
tiscale analysis approach. Waltham, MA, USA:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012.
19. Pineda EJ and Waas AM. Modelling progressive failure
of fibre reinforced laminated composites: mesh objective
calculations. Aeronaut J 2012; 116: 1221–1246.
20. Pineda EJ, Bednarcyk BA, Waas AM, et al. Progressive
failure of a unidirectional fiber-reinforced composite
using the method of cells: discretization objective compu-
tational results. Int J Solids Str 2013; 50: 1203–1216.
21. Yu W and Tang T. Variational asymptotic method for
unit cell homogenization. In: Gilat R and Banks-Sills L
(Eds.) Advances in mathematical modeling and experimen-
tal methods for materials and structures. Netherlands:
Springer, 2009, pp.117–130.
22. Sun CT and Vaidya RS. Prediction of composite proper-
ties from a representative volume element. Compos Sci
Technol 1996; 56: 171–179.
23. Shojaei A, Li G, Fish J, et al. Multi-scale constitutive
modeling of ceramic matrix composites by continuum
damage mechanics. Int J Solids Str 2014; 51: 4068–4081.
24. Li S. On the unit cell for micromechanical analysis of
fibre-reinforced composites. Proc R Soc London, Ser A:
Math Phys Eng Sci 1999; 455: 815–838.
25. Gururaja S, Taya M and Kang Y. Design of ferromag-
netic shape memory alloy composite made of Fe and TiNi
particles. J Appl Phys 2005; 102: 064910–1–6.
26. Li S. General unit cells for micromechanical analyses of
unidirectional composites. Compos Part A: Appl Sci
Manuf 2001; 32: 815–826.
12
27. Li S and Wongsto A. Unit cells for micromechanical ana-
lyses of particle-reinforced composites. Mech Mater 2004;
36: 543–572.
28. Li S. Boundary conditions for unit cells from periodic
microstructures and their implications. Compos Sci
Technol 2008; 68: 1962–1974.
29. Arabatti T, Sudhir A and Gururaja S. Micromechanics of
damage development in polymer composites. In: ASME
2014 international mechanical engineering congress and
exposition, 14–20 November 2014, IMECE2014-36580.
Canada: ASME.
30. Drago A and Pindera MJ. Micro-macromechanical ana-
lysis of heterogeneous materials: macroscopically homo-
geneous vs periodic microstructures. Compos Sci Technol
2007; 67: 1243–1263.
31. Vaughan TJ and McCarthy CT. Micromechanical mod-
elling of the transverse damage behaviour in fibre rein-
forced composites. Compos Sci Technol 2011; 71:
388–396.
32. Melro AR, Camanho PP, Pires FMA, et al.
Micromechanical analysis of polymer composites rein-
forced by unidirectional fibres: part II–micromechanical
analyses. Int J Solids Str 2013; 50: 1906–1915.
33. Wongsto A and Li S. Micromechanical FE analysis of
UD fibre-reinforced composites with fibres distributed
at random over the transverse cross-section. Compos
Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2005; 36: 1246–1266.
34. Trias D, Costa J, Mayugo J, et al. Random models versus
periodic models for fibre reinforced composites. Comput
Mater Sci 2006; 38: 316–324.
35. Beetz CP. A self-consistent Weibull analysis of carbon fibre
strength distributions. Fibre Sci Technol 1982; 16: 81–94.
36. Mishnaevsky L and Brøndsted P. Micromechanical mod-
eling of damage and fracture of unidirectional fiber rein-
forced composites: a review. Comput Mater Sci 2009; 44:
1351–1359.
37. Mishnaevsky L and BrÃndsted P. Micromechanisms of
damage in unidirectional fiber reinforced composites: 3D
computational analysis. Compos Sci Technol 2019; 69:
1036–1044.
38. Hinrichsen EL, Feder J and Jøssang T. Geometry of
random sequential adsorption. J Stat Phys 1986; 44:
793–827.
39. Pyrz R. Correlation of microstructure variability and
local stress field in two-phase materials. Mater Sci Eng:
A 1994; 177: 253–259.
40. Swaminathan S, Ghosh S and Pagano NJ. Statistically
equivalent representative volume elements for unidirec-
tional composite microstructures: part I – without
damage. J Compos Mater 2006; 40: 583–604.
41. Yang L, Yan Y, Ran Z, et al. A new method for generat-
ing random fibre distributions for fibre reinforced com-
posites. Compos Sci Technol 2013; 76: 14–20.
42. Wang Z, Wang X, Zhang J, et al. Automatic generation
of random distribution of fibers in long-fiber-reinforced
composites and mesomechanical simulation. Mater Des
2011; 32: 885–891.
43. Melro AR, Camanho PP and Pinho ST. Generation of
random distribution of fibres in long-fibre reinforced
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2008; 68: 2092–2102.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015
Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
44. Buryachenko VA, Pagano NJ, Kim RY, et al.
Quantitative description and numerical simulation of
random microstructures of composites and their effective
elastic moduli. Int J Solids Str 2003; 40: 47–72.
45. Weibull W. A statistical distribution function of wide
applicability. J Appl Mech 1951; 16: 293–307.
46. Van der Zwaag S. The concept of filament strength and
the Weibull modulus. J Test Eval 1989; 17: 292–298.
47. Lee S, Nguyen T, Chin J, et al. Analysis of the single-fiber
fragmentation test. J Mater Sci 1998; 33: 5221–5228.
48. Zhang Y, Wang X, Pan N, et al. Weibull analysis of the
tensile behavior of fibers with geometrical irregularities.
J Mater Sci 2002; 37: 1401–1406.
49. Wang X, Zhang J, Wang Z, et al. Finite element simula-
tion of the failure process of single fiber composites con-
sidering interface properties. Compos Part B: Eng 2013;
45: 573–580.
50. Andersons J, Joffe R, Hojo M, et al. Glass fibre strength
distribution determined by common experimental meth-
ods. Compos Sci Technol 2002; 62: 131–145.
51. Raghava R, Caddell RM and Yeh GS. The macroscopic
yield behaviour of polymers. J Mater Sci 1973; 8: 225–232.
52. Huang Y, Xu L and Ha SK. Prediction of three-dimen-
sional composite laminate response using micromecha-
nics of failure. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2431–2442.
53. Zhang H, Ericson ML, Varna J, et al. Transverse single-
fibre test for interfacial debonding in composites: 1.
Experimental observations. Compos Part A: Appl Sci
Manuf 1997; 28: 309–315.
54. Chamis CC, Abdi F, Garg M, et al. Micromechanics-
based progressive failure analysis prediction for
WWFE-III composite coupon test cases. J Compos
Mater 2013; 47: 2695–2712.
55. Parambil NK and Gururaja S. Damage development in
3D-RUC of polymer matrix with randomly distributed
fiber. In: 56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, struc-
tural dynamics, and materials conference, 5–9 January
2015, AIAA-0971, Florida: AIAA.
56. Wang H, Qin QH, Ji H, et al. Comparison among differ-
ent modeling techniques of 3D micromechanical model-
ing of damage in unidirectional composites. Adv Sci Lett
2011; 4: 400–407.
Appendix 1
Notation
Eii Young’s modulus in ith direction [MPa]
GI strain energy release rate (Mode I) [J/m2]
GII strain energy release rate (Mode II) [J/m2]
GIII strain energy release rate (Mode III) [J/m2]
GIc critical strain energy release rate (Mode I)
[J/m2]
GIIc critical strain energy release rate (Mode II)
[J/m2]
GIIIc critical strain energy release rate (Mode III)
[J/m2]
Parambil and Gururaja 13

Gij shear modulus [MPa] where x, y, z are the coordinates of a point R while u, v
Kn penalty stiffness [MPa/m] and w are the displacements at this point. 011 , 022 , 033 ,
m Weibull shape parameter 023 , 013 and 012 are the macroscopic strain components.
N number of fibers Quantities with a prime are associated with R0 . The
tn normal traction strength for interface [MPa] displacement components (u, v, w) in the respective
ts first shear strength for interface [MPa] (x, y, z) directions obey the constraint equations
Vf fiber volume fraction (faces) as follows12,27
ij Poisson’s ratio
ðujx¼L  ujx¼0 Þjy,z ¼ L011
C compressive yield strength of matrix [MPa]
 eq equivalent stress [MPa] ðvjx¼L  vjx¼0 Þjy,z ¼ 0
n normal traction [MPa] ðwjx¼L  wjx¼0 Þjy,z ¼ 0
o Weibull scale parameter [MPa]
T longitudinal tensile strength of fiber [MPa] abbreviated as UA  UB ¼ FAB
 vm von Mises stress [MPa]
Y tensile yield strength of matrix [MPa]
ðujy¼B  ujy¼0 Þjx,z ¼ B012
ðvjy¼B  vjy¼0 Þjx,z ¼ B022
Appendix 2: Implementation of PBCs for ð9Þ
ðwjy¼B  wjy¼0 Þjx,z ¼ 0
the 3D-RUC
abbreviated as UC  UD ¼ FCD
Translational symmetry transformation has been used
to establish the 3D-RUC for UD-FRPs. Stresses and
strains are transformed identically from one unit cell to ðujz¼D  ujz¼0 Þjx,y ¼ D013
another under translational symmetry transforma-
tion.27 Figure 10 depicts the face, edge and vertices ðvjz¼D  vjz¼0 Þjx,y ¼ D023
identified for a 3D-RUC of L  B  D dimensions as ðwjz¼D  wjz¼0 Þjx,y ¼ D033
chosen in the current analysis. The set of all nodes on
each face are delineated into internal face nodes, edge abbreviated as UE  UF ¼ FEF
nodes and vertex nodes (cf. Figure 10(a) and (b)).
Since displacements are derived from strains, the In equation (9) (first three equations), the subscripts
relative displacements are transformed in the same ‘‘x ¼ L’’ and ‘‘x ¼ 0’’ indicate the opposite faces,
way as the strains. This leads to the following relative whereas subscripts y, z indicate the common coordi-
displacements at point R in a unit cell to those R0 nates shared by the corresponding points on the pair
(which is the image of R in another cell) of faces. To incorporate PBCs for edges and vertices,
faces have been divided into vertex nodes, edge nodes
u0  u ¼ ðx0  xÞ011 þ ð y0  yÞ012 þ ðz0  zÞ013 and internal face nodes (all the internal nodes excluding
the vertices and edges) as shown in Figure 10. Since
v0  v ¼ ð y0  yÞ022 þ ðz0  zÞ023 ð8Þ
each edge is shared by two faces and each vertex is
0
w  w ¼ ðz  0
zÞ033 shared by three faces, equation (9) is further simplified

Figure 10. Cubic unit cell.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015

14 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

for edge node pairs (equation (10)) and vertex node

Appendix 3
pairs (equation (11)) as follows: The following tables describe the constitutive behavior
9 of matrix and fiber implemented in the current work.
UII  UI ¼ FAB >
>
>
>
UIII  UI ¼ FAB þ FCD >
>
>
>
UIV  UI ¼ FCD >
>
>
>
>
>
UVI  UV ¼ FAB >
> Table 3. Algorithm for implementation of the damage consti-
=
tutive model for the epoxy matrix.52
UVII  UV ¼ FAB þ FEF Edge Equations ð10Þ
>
>
UVIII  UV ¼ FEF >
> Step 1 Compute stress tensor at each increment
>
>
>
> rm ¼ Cm m
UX  UIX ¼ FCD >
>
>
> rm m
iþ1 ¼ ri þ ri
m
UXI  UIX ¼ FCD þ FEF >
>
> Step 2 Check for yield condition
>
;
UXII  UIX ¼ FEF eq  Y
9 if yes, go to step 3 else go to step 1
U2  U1 ¼ FAB >
> Step 3 Compute the damage variable

D
>
>
U3  U1 ¼ FAB þ FCD >
> D ¼ 1  exp 1:5 1  mY
>
>
>
> m is a scalar history variable recording
U4  U1 ¼ FCD >
= the highest matrix equivalent stress ever attained
U5  U1 ¼ FEF Vertex Equations Step 4 Update stress tensor
>
>
U6  U1 ¼ FAB þ FEF >
> rm ¼ ð1  DÞCm m
>
>
> rm m
iþ1 ¼ ri þ ri
m
U7  U1 ¼ FEF þ FAB þ FCD >
>
>
>
;
U8  U1 ¼ FCD þ FEF
ð11Þ
Table 4. Algorithm for implementation of the damage
constitutive model for the carbon fiber.49

Step 1 Compute stress tensor at each increment

 f ¼ Cf f
 fiþ1 ¼  fi þ  fi
Step 2 Check for strength criterion
11  T
if yes, go to step 3 else go to step 1
Step 3 Compute the damage variable D
D ¼ 0.99
Step 4 Update stress tensor
 f ¼ ð1  DÞCf f
 fiþ1 ¼  fi þ  fi
The tensors are denoted as bold letter.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on December 11, 2015