See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281736670

Prediction of Remaining Fatigue Cycles in Composite Materials Under

Uncertainty

Article · July 2016

DOI: 10.1115/1.4031037

CITATIONS READS

6 50

3 authors:

Saeed Shiri Mohammad Pourgol Mohamad

Institute of higher education of Acecr of Rasht Sahand University of Technology
5 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS    126 PUBLICATIONS   337 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mojtaba Yazdani
Sahand University of Technology
28 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Model Validation Through Uncertainty Quantification View project

cancer growth modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saeed Shiri on 16 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Saeed Shiri
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sahand University of Technology,
Tabriz 51335, Iran
e-mail: sshiri1392@gmail.com
Mohammad
Pourgol-Mohammad1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sahand University of Technology,
Tabriz 51335, Iran
e-mail: pourgol-mohamadm2@asme.org
Mojtaba Yazdani
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sahand University of Technology,
Tabriz 51335, Iran
e-mail: m.yazdani.sut@gmail.com
Prediction of Remaining Fatigue
Cycles in Composite Materials
Under Uncertainty
In this paper, a stiffness-based model is initially assessed for fatigue damage simulation of
composite materials. The model is evaluated with three sets of experimental data. A
residual strength model is coupled to the choice model and a modified model is developed.
Numerical results show that the modified model leads to a noticeable improvement of
accuracy in fatigue life prediction of composites under two-stage loadings. In the second
step of the research, an uncertainty analysis is conducted to evaluate the reliability of the
achieved results. The fatigue life and strength are assumed as random variables and
uncertainty analysis is done by the Monte Carlo (MC) approach. Reliability variations
of predicted residual fatigue lives are studied as well. The results demonstrate that the
fatigue life dispersion noticeably decreases the reliability of predicted remaining fatigue
cycles. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4031037]
Keywords: composite structures, phenomenological models, fatigue life prediction,
reliability estimation, Monte Carlo approach

1 Introduction damage development. The proposed model by Wu and Yao [7]

Composite materials are widely used in aerospace, automotive,
marine, and sports applications. Some of these applications involve
components that are subjected to cyclic loading. Cyclic loading
causes damage and material property degradation in a cumulative
manner. It is important to evaluate the damage and degraded proper-
ties accurately to ensure that the structures operate with high
reliability during their lives [1]. Fatigue is the dominant failure
mechanism for structures under this type of loading.
Degrieck and Van Paepegem [2] classified fatigue models into
three major categories: (1) fatigue life models, (2) residual stiffness
or residual strength models, and (3) progressive damage models.
The fatigue life model is established based on S–N curves or
Goodman-type diagrams. This approach does not consider the de-
tails of the damage mechanism. However, it is easy to apply. The
residual strength or residual stiffness model is based on damage
mechanics, which relates fatigue failure to the damage evolution
process. The degradation of stiffness or strength is correlated with
a damage variable (damage index). The progressive damage model
considers local damage mechanisms, such as delamination, trans-
verse matrix cracks, etc. This method is computationally expensive
and complicated and requires extensive experimental data [3]. Over-
all, it is commonly accepted that the second category models,
i.e., residual stiffness or strength models, are more realistic in com-
parison to the first category and require much less experimental time
and cost in comparison to the third category of models.
Many residual strength models have been developed describing
the degradation of the initial strength during fatigue life. The most
popular ones are explained in Refs. [4,5]. The main disadvantage
of these models is that the remaining life cannot be assessed by
nondestructive testing techniques. Residual stiffness models resolve
this deficiency [5]. They evaluate the fatigue damage accumulation
by measuring the gradual degradation of elastic properties, in par-
ticular, the axial/longitudinal stiffness of the material, and may be
used as a more proper approach to predict the fatigue life of
composite structures [6]. However, most of these models are not
capable of simulating the damage progress in whole periods of
1
Corresponding author.
Manuscript received March 5, 2015; final manuscript received June 12, 2015;
published online November 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Chimba Mkandawire.
resolves this deficiency. Combining these two types of models,
i.e., stiffness-based models with residual strength ones, provides
more realistic conditions, which may be used for reliable fatigue
life prediction purposes. To the knowledge of authors, these types
of models are limitary studies.
Fatigue life prediction is of vital importance in composite struc-
tures. That is, it is important to evaluate the performance of the
structure in advance so that the maintenance or replacement of com-
ponents is scheduled before catastrophic failure [8]. Such analysis
enables the analyst to predict the remaining life of the structure,
given the previous loading history, which requires considering
the existing uncertainties in fatigue process. Also, composite mate-
rials have several inherent flaws such as fiber misalignments and
microcracks [9]. Hence, assessment of fatigue life prediction is
treated in a stochastic approach rather than just a deterministic
approach.
Numerous studies, such as Refs. [10–14], have assessed the
existing uncertainties in fatigue process of composites. In general,
the tensile strength or fatigue life has been used as a random var-
iable. The dispersion of fatigue life and static strength are the two
main sources of uncertainty coming from the original defects. There
are many types of inner original defects in composites, e.g., air bub-
ble, void, and inclusion. The location, type, and size of the original
defects and the constituents of composites will have a significant
effect on the value of fatigue life and strength for the given fatigue
loading. Therefore, the random distribution of original defects is the
major factor affecting the dispersion of static strength and fatigue
life of composites [15].
There are few studies assuming both fatigue life and strength as
random variables under variable amplitude loading. This is mostly
due to the requirement of analyzing these variables in a static and
dynamic situation, making the task more challenging. In a recent
study done by the authors [8], fatigue life and strength are consid-
ered as random variables simultaneously. However, the choice
of normal distribution and unsuitable assumed parameters of the
corresponding distribution are the two main deficiencies in that
research. In another paper [10], the authors showed that the effect
of strength dispersion on the predicted residual lives is dependent on
the applied stress level. However, the reliability of the predicted
deterministic values was observed to be in the range of 0.55–0.8.
Overall, it is concluded that applying the following features on a

ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems MARCH 2016, Vol. 2 / 011001-1
Part B: Mechanical Engineering Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://risk.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/21/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 proper deterministic physical-based model leads to a more compre- Table 1 Results of curve fitting for the choice model
hensive and reliable analysis of composite fatigue life prediction
under variable amplitude loading. The features are proposed as fol- Type of composite Loading A B R2
lows: (1) assuming suitable distribution for each random variable Hemp/epoxy [18] %75 σu 0.8506 0.4059 0.9983
(goodness-of-fit test methods can help to determine the suitability Hemp/epoxy [18] %80 σu 0.4844 0.05913 0.9913
of the distribution), (2) proper specification of its parameters, and T650/polyimide [19] %70 σu 0.7148 0.1025 0.9833
(3) simultaneous consideration of the main sources of uncertainty,
i.e., strength and fatigue life dispersion.
In this paper, fatigue damage development is initially described
for composite materials. The capability of the chosen damage
model is evaluated for three sets of experimental data. A residual nth cyclic loading; n is the number of applied cycles; N is the
strength model is coupled to the residual stiffness one, and a modi- fatigue life; DðnÞ is the fatigue damage index; and A and B are
fied model is developed. Two sets of experimental data are utilized model parameters.
for the evaluation of the proposed modified model. Then, fatigue To validate the choice model, three different sets of experimental
life and static strength are assumed as random variables with two- data are utilized, adopted from Refs. [18,19]. Damage evolution
parameter Weibull distributions. Also, it is assumed that there is no curves are plotted according to Eq. (1) and parameters of the model
correlative relation between these two variables. MC simulation is are derived. These values are listed in Table 1 and the curves are
performed with 5000 iterations for each two-stage loading in two shown in Fig. 2.
sets of experimental data. To visualize the distribution of sample Figure 2 shows that, in addition to common fibers, the chosen
data, a histogram of predicted fatigue lives is plotted for some model is capable of simulating damage evolution for a natural fiber
cases. Also, reliability variations of the predicted remaining cycles with good agreement. The values of correlative coefficients, R2 ,
are studied. demonstrate the excellent accuracy of the model.

3 Proposed Model
2 Fatigue Damage
Based on the characteristics of damage evolution in the
Due to the complexity of the composite materials, their trend of composite materials, the rates of damage development are approx-
damage accumulation process is quite different with homogenous imately same in the first and final stage of fatigue life. Hence,
materials. As shown in Fig. 1, damage is accumulated nonlinearly in the relation between A and B is approximated as linear (more detail
composite materials. This process is divided into three main stages. is available in Ref. [7]). Herein, the parameters are modified as
The damage accumulates rapidly during the first few cycles. During follows:
this stage, microcracks initiate in multiple locations in the matrix.
Also, some fibers with low strength may break during this stage. log N
The next stage shows a slow and steady damage growth rate. This B¼C ð2Þ
ð1 − RÞðσmax =σr Þ
occurs when the crack density is saturated in the matrix. Finally, the
damage again grows rapidly. In brief, it is commonly known that
matrix cracking, delamination, and fiber breakage are the main A ¼ 0.85B þ 0.42 ð3Þ
dominant damage mechanisms in the explained stages [16,17].
Stiffness-based models are an appropriate approach for damage where σmax is the maximum stress, σr is the residual strength, C is a
development simulation of composites. The damage accumulation proportional constant, and R is the stress ratio (σmin =σmax ).
process can be quantified by measuring the Young’s modulus of the As seen, the residual strength is coupled to B and is approxi-
material. The proposed stiffness-based model by Wu and Yao [7] is mated by Eq. (4), which was originally proposed by Broutman
capable of describing the nonlinear damage evolution of composites and Sahu [20]
in all explained stages. The present paper is based on the following  
stiffness-based model: n
σr ¼ σu − ðσu − σmax Þ ð4Þ
  B A N
E − EðnÞ n
DðnÞ ¼ 0 ¼1− 1− ð1Þ
E0 − Ef N
where σu is the ultimate strength. Therefore, a combination model
where E0 is the static Young’s modulus; Ef is the failure Young’s of residual stiffness and strength is developed. It is a modified form
modulus; EðnÞ is the Young’s modulus of the material subjected to of the Wu and Yao model presented in Ref. [7]. The proposed model
has the advantage that it requires no estimation of additional param-
eters beyond those required for the choice model and considers the
degradation of two material properties simultaneously.
Based on the aforementioned model, the following equations are
proposed for life prediction of composites under two-stress level
loading
   
ni þ nki;i−1 Bavg Aavg
Dðni Þ ¼ 1 − 1 − ð5aÞ
Ni

     
ni−1 Bavg Aavg
ni;i−1 ¼ N i 1 − 1 − ð5bÞ
N i−1

DðnF Þ ¼ 1 ð6Þ

where ni and ni−1 are the number of applied cycles under ith and
(i − 1)th cyclic loadings; N i and N i−1 are the corresponding fatigue
Fig. 1 Sketch of fatigue damage development [1] lives, DðnF Þ is the critical damage, which causes fatigue failure

011001-2 / Vol. 2, MARCH 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://risk.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/21/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 2 Damage evolution curves of various composites under different loadings:
(a)
457 laminates, (b)
0=907 laminates, and (c)
0=60 laminates

under Fth cyclic loading; and k is a constant to consider the effect of Table 2 Predicted remaining fatigue cycles by the modified
load sequence. It is set to 0.95 for the high-low sequence and 1.02 model for E-glass/epoxy [20]
for the low-high sequence; Aavg and Bavg are the average values of
parameters, which are defined as follows: Current
Experimental study
 
Ai þ Ai−1 σ1 σ2
Aavg ¼ ð7Þ
2 (MPa) (MPa) n1 n2 Wu and Yao n2
241 289 49,950 3730 11,619 (211.5) 5302 (42.14)
  241 289 19,975 9490 13,877 (46.23) 8325 (12.27)
Bi þ Bi−1 241 337 49,950 391 2120 (442.2) 924 (136.33)
Bavg ¼ ð8Þ
2 241 337 19,975 804 2414 (200.25) 1405 (74.73)
241 386 19,975 124 490 (295.16) 281 (126.93)
289 337 10,000 293 846 (188.74) 222 (24.19)
where Ai , Ai−1 , Bi , and Bi−1 are the parameters under ith and (i − 1) 289 337 2000 1290 2276 (76.43) 1204 (6.69)
th fatigue loadings, respectively. 289 386 2000 355 476 (34.08) 241 (31.98)
337 386 1000 297 328 (10.44) 126 (57.68)
337 386 250 503 468 (6.96) 242 (51.93)
386 241 250 192,000 64,267 (66.53) 105,047 (45.29)
4 Numerical Implementation 386 241 100 193,000 100,320 (48.02) 121,218 (37.19)
386 289 250 5940 5944 (1.78) 8144 (39.44)
In order to validate the modified model and compare with 386 289 100 11,970 9605 (19.76) 9617 (19.66)
the original model, published data in Refs. [20,21] are used. 386 337 250 1250 1090 (12.8) 1254 (0.34)
Residual fatigue lives are calculated based on Eqs. (5–8). A pro- 386 337 100 1635 1784 (9.11) 1512 (7.49)
portional constant, C, is set to a value of 0.05 to achieve a good 337 241 1000 86,000 83,293 (3.15) 110,727 (28.75)
compatibility between the experimental values of model parame- 337 241 250 162,500 130,098 (19.94) 132,166 (18.67)
ters and those for two-stage test data. The results are presented in 337 289 1000 8670 7905 (8.82) 8678 (0.09)
337 289 250 8000 12,298 (53.73) 10,654 (33.17)
Tables 2 and 3. 289 241 10,000 96,500 52,292 (45.81) 97,968 (1.52)
The numerical results demonstrate that by applying the modi- 289 241 2000 110,800 135,150 (21.98) 131,181 (18.39)
fied model, the difference is decreased between the predicted
and experimental values for most cases. The percentage of relative Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of relative
error clarifies the extent of improvement. Therefore, a combination error for each prediction.

ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems MARCH 2016, Vol. 2 / 011001-3
Part B: Mechanical Engineering

Downloaded From: http://risk.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/21/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3 Predicted remaining fatigue cycles by the modified model of residual strength and residual stiffness improved the
model for carbon/epoxy [21] accuracy without requiring derivation of additional parameters.
Current
Experimental study
σ1 σ2
5 Uncertainty Analysis
(MPa) (MPa) n1 n2 Wu and Yao n2 The need to incorporate uncertainties in engineering design has
315 340 87,200 520 2214 (325.77) 193 (62.79) long been recognized. In contrast to the traditional approach of
315 340 8700 150 2232 (1388) 203 (35.53) using safety coefficients, probabilistic design allows the estimation
315 340 86,300 1408 2293 (63.86) 238 (83.13) of reliability by considering the stochastic variability of the data for
315 340 57,700 1750 4803 (174.46) 1628 (6.96) which designs are qualified to have a given reliability value [22].
315 340 57,550 2280 4816 (111.23) 1636 (28.25) In this section, fatigue life and strength are assumed as random
315 340 40,300 2027 6266 (209.13) 2572 (26.91)
315 340 28,700 3320 7169 (115.93) 3314 (0.17) variables with two-parameter Weibull distributions. The chosen dis-
315 340 26,500 2640 7333 (177.69) 3472 (31.51) tribution is based on the studied researches. Hwang and Han [23]
315 340 25,300 2464 7418 (201.06) 3561 (44.51) investigated three different distributions for fatigue life data and re-
315 340 17,650 6170 7942 (28.72) 4193 (32.05) ported that Weibull is the best distribution for fatigue life scattering.
315 340 17,000 38,140 7984 (79.07) 4253 (88.85) Also, it is commonly accepted that a two-parameter Weibull distri-
315 340 13,000 14,300 8229 (42.45) 4658 (67.43) bution fits the static strength data well. Hence, a Weibull distribu-
315 340 12,500 24,030 8259 (65.63) 4714 (80.38)
340 315 8500 15,250 4665 (69.41) 53,934 (253.67) tion is applied herein as follows [24]:
340 315 7480 17,060 17,517 (2.68) 58,847 (244.94)  α 
x
340 315 7480 79,496 17,517 (77.96) 58,847 (25.98) FðxÞ ¼ 1 − exp ð9Þ
340 315 6800 29,939 25,482 (14.89) 61,462 (105.29) β
340 315 6500 48,760 28,931 (40.67) 62,560 (28.30)
340 315 4600 73,910 50,523 (31.64) 69,408 (6.09) where x is the random variable, α is the shape parameter, β is the
340 315 4400 89,350 52,809 (40.9) 70,156 (21.48) scale parameter; and F is the cumulative density function (CDF).
340 315 4400 80,605 52,809 (34.48) 70,156 (12.96)
340 315 2500 90,150 75,271 (16.5) 78,143 (13.32)
The parameters of the Weibull distribution are listed in Table 4 for
340 315 1500 41,840 88,222 (110.86) 83,714 (100.08) fatigue life. The corresponding values for static strength are the
340 315 1500 11,1120 88,222 (20.61) 83,714 (24.66) same as in Ref. [10].
340 315 1350 99,520 90,296 (9.27) 84,723 (14.87) Values of the parameters in Table 4 are based on the experimen-
tal reported values in Refs. [20,21]. More information is available in
Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate the percent of relative error Ref. [25] on the specification of Weibull distribution parameters.
for each prediction. By using Table 4, MC simulation is performed with 5000 iterations
for each two-stage loading. A few simple equations make the MC
to run in the order of seconds with an ordinary personal computer.
Histograms of the resulting data are plotted for two cases of each
data set in Figs. 3 and 4.
It is inferred from Figs. 3 and 4 that fatigue life dispersion affects
Table 4 Parameters of Weibull distribution for fatigue life the predicted remaining cycles to a large extent. That is, the accu-
mulation of frequency is not necessarily in the vicinity of predicted
Experimental deterministic value. The tendencies of plots are near the vertical
Experimental value β axis, i.e., an earlier failure would take place with respect to the
data (cycles) α (cycles)
deterministic value. This is in contrast with the strength impact
493 1.3475 537.4511 showing a minor variation of predicted values (more information
Broutman and Sahu [20] 2470 1.717 2770.1279 about the effect of strength is available in Ref. [10]). These analyses
14,700 1.2582 15,806.2783
172,200 1.2582 185,159.6068
help designers to be aware of the variations of predictions. Reliabil-
Found and Quaresisimin [21] 8800 1.3475 9593.4479 ity estimation of predicted lives would improve comprehension of
115,150 1.3475 125,532.4463 the impact of fatigue life dispersion. Hence, reliability variations of
the predicted residual fatigue lives are plotted in Figs. 5 and 6

Fig. 3 Weibull distribution to the histogram of predicted residual fatigue lives for E-glass/epoxy laminates [20]:
(a) Low-high loading sequence and (b) high-low loading sequence

011001-4 / Vol. 2, MARCH 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://risk.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/21/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 4 Weibull distribution to the histogram of predicted residual fatigue lives for carbon/epoxy laminates [21]:
(a) Low-high loading sequence and (b) high-low loading sequence

Fig. 5 Reliability variation of predicted residual fatigue lives for E-glass/epoxy laminates [20]: (a) σ 1 241, σ 2 289,
n 1 49;950 and (b) σ 1 386, σ 2 337, n 1 100

Fig. 6 Reliability variation of predicted residual fatigue lives for E-glass/epoxy laminates [21]: (a) σ 1 315, σ 2 340,
n 1 86;300 and (b) σ 1 340, σ 2 315, n 1 1350

ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems MARCH 2016, Vol. 2 / 011001-5
Part B: Mechanical Engineering

Downloaded From: http://risk.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/21/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 As seen in Figs. 5 and 6, the reliability diagram shows a steep
trend from the beginning. This is caused mostly by the large scatter
of fatigue life. The reliability of the predicted deterministic values
was observed to be in the range of 0.3–0.5. These figures lead to a
more accurate and reliable analysis of composite durability under
fatigue loading.
6 Conclusions
In this paper, a stiffness-based model is used for fatigue dam-
age and life prediction of composites. A residual strength model is
coupled to the model parameters and a residual stiffness-strength
model is developed. Numerical results show that the accuracy of
predictions is noticeably improved. This is mainly related to the
simultaneous consideration of two material properties’ degradation.
To consider the uncertainties of predicted values, MC simulation is
applied and reliability variations of residual fatigue lives are studied.
The investigation shows that the predicted values are very reliable.
Applied stresses, the number of applied cycles in the first stage of
loading, and the extent of fatigue life uncertainty are the main fac-
tors affecting the resulting reliability values. Considering the cor-
relative relation between the distribution of fatigue life and strength
is proposed for future study. This analysis would help designers to
gain full employment of the composite material.
References
[1] Mao, H., and Mahadevan, S., 2002, “Fatigue Damage Modeling of Composite
Materials,” Comp. Struct., 58(4), pp. 405–410.
[2] Degrieck, J., and Van Paepegem, W., 2001, “Fatigue Damage Modeling of
Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials: Review,” Appl. Mech. Rev., 54(4),
pp. 279–300.
[3] Liu, Y. and Mahadevan, S., 2005, “Probabilistic Fatigue Life Prediction of
Multi-Directional Composite Laminates,” Comp. Struct., 69(1), pp. 11–19.
[4] Post, N. L., Case, S. W., and Lesko, J. J., 2008, “Modeling the Variable Ampli-
tude Fatigue of Composite Materials: A Review and Evaluation of the State of the
Art for Spectrum Loading,” Int. J. Fatigue, 30(12), pp. 2064–2086.
[5] Post, N. L., Lesko, J. J., and Case, S. W., 2010, “Residual Strength Fatigue
Theories for Composite Materials,” Fatigue Life Prediction of Composites and
Composite Structures, A. P. Vassilopoulos, ed., Woodhead Publishing Limited,
Cambridge, pp. 79–101.
[6] Van Paepegem, W., 2010, “Fatigue Damage Modelling of Composite Materials
With the Phenomenological Residual Stiffness Approach,” Fatigue Life
Prediction of Composites and Composite Structures, A. P. Vassilopoulos, ed.,
Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, pp. 102–138.
[7] Wu, F., and Yao, W., 2010, “A Fatigue Damage Model of Composite Materials,”
Int. J. Fatigue, 32(1), pp. 134–138.
011001-6 / Vol. 2, MARCH 2016
DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://risk.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 07/21/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[8] Shiri, S., Pourgol-Mohammad, M., and Yazdani, M., 2014, “Probabilistic Assess-
ment of Fatigue Life in Fiber Reinforced Composites,” ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE 2014), Montreal,
QC, Canada, ASME, New York.
[9] Kang, K.-W., Lim D.-M, and Kim J.-K., 2008, “Probabilistic Analysis for the
Fatigue Life of Carbon/Epoxy Laminates,” Comp. Struct., 85(3), pp. 258–264.
[10] Shiri, S., Pourgol-Mohammad, M., and Yazdani, M., 2015, “Effect of Strength
Dispersion on Fatigue Life Prediction of Composites Under Two-Stage Loading,”
Mater. Des., 65, pp. 1189–1195.
[11] Kam, T. Y., Tsai, S. Y., and Chu, K. H., 1997, “Fatigue Reliability Analysis of
Composite Laminates Under Spectrum Stress,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 34(12),
pp. 1441–1461.
[12] Post, N., Bausano, J., Case, S., and Lesko, J., 2006, “Modeling the Remaining
Strength of Structural Composite Materials Subjected to Fatigue,” Int. J. Fatigue,
28(10), pp. 1100–1108.
[13] Post, N., Cain, J., McDonald, K., Case, S., and Lesko, J., 2008, “Residual
Strength Prediction of Composite Materials: Random Spectrum Loading,”
Eng. Fract. Mech., 75(9), pp. 2707–2724.
[14] Passipoularidis, V., and Philippidis, T., 2009, “Strength Degradation Due to
Fatigue in Fiber Dominated Glass/Epoxy Composites: A Statistical Approach,”
J. Compos. Mater., 43(9), pp. 997–1013.
[15] Wu, F., and Yao, W., 2008, “A Model of the Fatigue Life Distribution of
Composite Laminates Based on Their Static Strength Distribution,” Chin. J.
Aeronaut., 21(3), pp. 241–246.
[16] Shirazi, A., and Varvani-Farahani, A., 2010, “A Stiffness Degradation Based
Fatigue Damage Model for FRP Composites of (0=θ) Laminate Systems,” Appl.
Compos. Mater., 17(2), pp. 137–150.
[17] Adden, S., Pfleiderer, K., Solodov, I., Horst, P., and Busse, G., 2008, “Charac-
terization of Stiffness Degradation Caused by Fatigue Damage in Textile
Composites Using Circumferential Plate Acoustic Waves,” Composites Sci.
Technol., 68(7), pp. 1616–1623.
[18] de Vasconcellos, D. S., Touchard, F., and Chocinski-Arnault, L., 2014,
“Tension–Tension Fatigue Behavior of Woven Hemp Fiber Reinforced Epoxy
Composite: A Multi-Instrumented Damage Analysis,” Int. J. Fatigue, 59,
pp. 159–169.
[19] Montesano, J., 2012, “Fatigue Damage Characterization of Braided and Woven
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites at Room and Elevated Tempera-
tures,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Ryerson
University, Toronto, Canada.
[20] Broutman, L. J., and Sahu, S., 1972, “A New Theory to Predict Cumulative
Fatigue Damage in Fiberglass Reinforced Plastics,” Composite Materials: Testing
and Design, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), West Consho-
hocken, PA, pp. 170–188, ASTM STP 497.
[21] Found, M. S., and Quaresimin, M., 2003, “Two-Level Loading of Woven Carbon
Fibre Reinforced Laminates,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater., 26(1), pp. 17–26.
[22] Chiachio, M., Chiachio, J., and Rus, J., 2012, “Reliability in Composites—A
Selective Review and Survey of Current Development,” Composites: Part B,
43(3), pp. 902–913.
[23] Hwang, W., and Han, K., 1987, “Statistical Study of Strength and Fatigue Life of
Composite,” Composites, 18(1), pp. 47–53.
[24] Modarres, M., Kaminskiy, M., and Krivtsov, V., 1999, Reliability Engineering
and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
[25] Shiri, S., 2014, “Probabilistic Fatigue Life Assessment of Fiber Reinforced Poly-
mer Composites,” MS thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sahand
University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran (in Persian).
Transactions of the ASME