JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
46(19–20) 2295–2312
! The Author(s) 2012
Input data for test cases used in Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
benchmarking triaxial failure theories DOI: 10.1177/0021998312449886
jcm.sagepub.com
of composites

AS Kaddour1 and MJ Hinton2

Abstract
This article gives details of the input data provided for use in the Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II) for
benchmarking triaxial failure criteria. It includes (a) three-dimensional elastic constants, ultimate strains and strengths
and the nonlinear stress–strain curves for five unidirectional laminae and their constituents and (b) a description of 12
challenging test cases of 5 composite laminates, the lay-ups, layer thicknesses, stacking sequences and the loading
conditions. The originators of 3D failure theories were requested to use the exact data provided here in their blind
predictions of the test cases. The instructions issued to the contributors are also presented at the end of this article.

Keywords
Three-dimensional elastic properties, WWFE-II, test cases, input data

consideration was limited to laminated continuous

Introduction
In a recent activity, known as the first World-Wide
Failure Exercise (WWFE),1 the authors completed an
important phase in benchmarking failure criteria for
continuous fibre reinforced polymer composites when
subjected to two-dimensional (2D) states of stress. It
was concluded from that activity that the predictive
capabilities of failure criteria for dealing with triaxial
or 3D states of stresses remain largely unknown. To
close this gap in our knowledge, the authors have
launched a new international activity – the Second
World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II).2
In the WWFE-II, 12 groups representing well-
known originators of 3D failure criteria were requested
to run their models to make predictions for a set of
challenging test cases. They were asked to use an
agreed, common set of input data (material properties,
geometry, lay-up, loading conditions, etc.) for all of
these test cases. This article provides details of the
input data given to and employed by the participants
of the WWFE-II. Details of 12 models used and their
predictions are published in various associated refer-
ences.3–14 A comparison between all of these predic-
tions is made in Kaddour and Hinton.15
General considerations
fibre-reinforced polymer composites. Taking into con-
sideration the availability of suitably extensive experi-
mental data for laminates, two important and widely
used classes of fibres (anisotropic carbon and isotropic
glass) and one class resin system (epoxy resins) were
selected for the exercise.
A unidirectional (UD) lamina made of continuous
fibres in a softer matrix is considered to be the basic
building block for the multidirectional laminates. The
properties of the laminate depend very much on the
properties (especially the relative orientation) of the
laminae. The behaviour of each lamina is, in turn, gov-
erned by its constituents, i.e. the properties of the fibres,
the surrounding matrix, the interface and the relative
amount of fibres and matrix in the lamina.
For performing a theoretical analysis of the mech-
anical behaviour of multidirectional laminates
under various loadings, most theories require as
input data the properties of each of the individual
laminae that constitute the laminate. The properties
required include: elastic constants and thermal proper-
ties, strengths, failure strains and in some cases, the
full stress–strain curves. Some methods of analysis
1
QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK
2
QinetiQ, Fort Halstead, Sevenoaks, UK

Many different types of composite materials are avail- Corresponding author:

able and these include woven, nonwoven, braided, AS Kaddour, QinetiQ, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 0LX, UK
stitched, z-pin. To make the exercise manageable, Email: askaddour@QinetiQ.com
2296 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Figure 2. A schematic showing a positive fibre orientation

angle (y) in relation to the reference axes.
Figure 1. A schematic showing lamina coordinates: 1: fibre
direction, 2: transverse direction, 3: through-thickness direction.

– transverse tensile and compressive properties (YT,

require property information of the constituent fibres and
matrix.
The 3D elastic constants for an orthotropic UD
lamina consist of the following independent in-plane
and through-thickness properties:
e2T, YC and e2C)
– through-thickness tensile and compressive proper-
ties (ZT, e3T, ZC and e3C)
– in-plane and through-thickness shear properties
(S12,  12u, S13,  13u, S23 and  23u).

– Longitudinal (along the fibre) modulus E1,

– Transverse (perpendicular to the fibre) modulus E2,
Material properties
– Through-thickness (perpendicular to the fibre) Five types of fibres were selected in the analysis, two
modulus E3, types of glass fibre and three types of carbon fibre. They
– In-plane shear modulus G12, were chosen for consistency with data for particular
– Transverse shear modulus G13, laminates. The fibres are:
– Through-thickness shear modulus G23,
– Major in-plane Poisson’s ratio 12, – E-Glass fibres
– Transverse Poisson’s ratio 13 and – S2-Glass fibres,
– Through-thickness Poisson’s ratio 23 – T300 carbon fibres
– AS carbon fibres
where the subscripts 1, 2 and 3 refer to the three mutually – IM7 carbon fibres
perpendicular principal material directions. Figures 1
and 2 show schematic diagrams of a UD lamina with Five types of epoxy matrices were used in the ana-
the co-ordinate system used. Typically, the remaining lysis. These are:
Poisson’s ratios can be obtained by applying the recipro-
cal Maxwell relations, which give ij/Ei ¼ ji/Ej. Four of – MY750
these constants (E1, E2, 12 and G12) pertain to the in- – Epoxy 1
plane behaviour of thin laminae and the remainder relate – Epoxy 2
to the through-thickness (direction 3) behaviour. – PR-319
It is normally assumed that a unidirectional fibre- – 8551-7
reinforced lamina can be treated as transversely iso-
tropic. This assumption thereby reducing the number Using the above matrices and fibres, five types of
of independent elastic constants to five because E2 ¼ E3, laminae were used and these are
G12 ¼ G13, 12 ¼ 13 and G23 ¼ E2/2(1 þ 23).
Orthotropic composites generally possess nine 1. E-Glass/MY750
strengths and nine failure strain values. These are: 2. S2-Glass/epoxy
3. AS carbon/epoxy
– longitudinal tensile and compressive properties 4. IM7/8551-7 carbon/epoxy
(XT, e1T, XC and e1C) 5. T300/PR319 carbon/epoxy
Kaddour and Hinton 2297

Table 1. Mechanical properties for five unidirectional laminae

Fibre type IM7 T300 A-S S2-glass E-Glass

Matrix 8551-7 PR-319 Epoxy 1 Epoxy 2 MY750

Fibre volume fraction Vf (%) 60 60 60 60 60
Longitudinal modulus E1 (GPa) 165a 129 140a 52 45.6
Transverse modulus E2 (GPa) 8.4 5.6c 10 19 16.2
Through-thickness modulus E3 (GPa) 8.4 5.6c 10 19 16.2
In-plane shear modulus G12 (GPa) 5.6a 1.33c 6a 6.7a 5.83a
Transverse shear modulus G13 (GPa) 5.6a 1.33c 6a 6.7a 5.83a
Through-thickness shear modulus G23 (GPa) 2.8 1.86 3.35 6.7 5.7
Major Poisson’s ratio 12 0.34 0.318 0.3 0.3 0.278
Major transverse Poisson’s ratio 13 0.34 0.318 0.3 0.3 0.278
Through-thickness Poisson’s ratio 23 0.5 0.5 0.49 0.42 0.4
Longitudinal tensile strength XT (MPa) 2560 1378 1990 1700 1280
Longitudinal compressive strength XC (MPa) 1590 950 1500 1150 800
Transverse tensile strength YT (MPa) 73 40 38 63 40
Transverse compressive strength YC (MPa) 185b 125b 150b 180b 145b
Through-thickness tensile strength ZT (MPa) 63 40 38 50 40
Through-thickness compressive strength ZC (MPa) 185b 125b 150b 180b 145b
In-plane shear strength S12 (MPa) 90b 97b 70b 72b 73b
Transverse shear strength S13 (MPa) 90b 97b 70b 72b 73b
Through-thickness shear strength S23 (MPa) 57 45 50 40 50
Longitudinal tensile failure strain "1T (%) 1.551 1.07 1.42 3.27 2.807
Longitudinal compressive failure strain "1C (%) 1.1 0.74 1.2 2.21 1.754
Transverse tensile failure strain "2T (%) 0.87 0.43 0.38 0.33 0.246
Transverse compressive failure strain "2C (%) 3.2 2.8 1.6 1.5 1.2
Through-thickness tensile failure strain "3T (%) 0.755 0.43 0.38 0.263 0.246
Through-thickness compressive failure strain "3C (%) 3.2 2.8 1.6 1.5 1.2
In-plane shear failure strain  12u (%) 5 8.6 3.5 4 4
Transverse shear failure strain  13u (%) 5 8.6 3.5 4 4
Through-thickness shear failure strain  23u (%) 2.1 1.5 1.5 0.59 0.88
Longitudinal thermal coefficient 1 (106/ C) 1 1 1 8.6 8.6
Transverse thermal coefficient 2 (10-6/ C) 18 26 26 26.4 26.4
Through-thickness thermal coefficient 3 (106/ C) 18 26 26 26.4 26.4
Stress free temperature ( C) 177 120 120 120 120
a
Initial modulus.
b
Nonlinear behaviour and stress–strain curves and data points are provided.
c
Please note that values are considered to be low, compared with typical data for the same material published somewhere else or quoted by the
manufacturers. We have not attempted to change them in order to facilitate a comparison with test data in Part B of the exercise.

Tables 1 to 3 show typical data for the properties of
five unidirectional laminae, five epoxy resin matrices
and five types of glass or carbon fibres. It was noted
in Table 1 that the stress–strain behaviour of some
composite laminates is sometimes highly nonlinear,
particularly in shear and under transverse compression.
Figures 3 to 5 show typical stress–strain curves for the
selected laminae and the matrices under a variety of
uniaxial loadings. Data from these figures are also pre-
sented in tabular form in Tables 4 to 6 for the UD
laminae. All fibres were assumed to behave in a linear
elastic manner up to failure.
Some of the properties of the epoxy matrices are non-
linear. The nonlinear stress–strain curves and the asso-
ciated data are shown in Figure 5 and in Tables 6 to 8.
Details of the test cases
Twelve test cases were selected for the benchmark
study in WWFE-II. The test cases have been chosen
2298 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Table 2. Mechanical properties of fibres

Fibre type IM7 T300 AS S2-glass E-Glass

Longitudinal modulus Ef1 (GPa) 276 231 231 87 74

Transverse modulus Ef2 (GPa) 19 15 15 87 74
Transverse modulus Ef3 (GPa) 19 15 15 87 74
In-plane shear modulus Gf12 (GPa) 27 15 15 36 30.8
Major Poisson’s ratio f12 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Major Poisson’s ratio f13 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Transverse shear modulus Gf23 (GPa) 7 7 7 36 30.8
Longitudinal tensile strength Xf1T (MPa) 5180 2500 3500 2850 2150
Longitudinal compressive strength Xf1C (MPa) 3200 2000 3000 2450 1450
Longitudinal tensile failure strain "f1T (%) 1.87 1.086 1.515 3.27 2.905
Longitudinal compressive failure strain "f1C (%) 1.16 0.869 1.298 2.82 1.959
Longitudinal thermal coefficient f1 (106/ C) 0.4 0.7 0.7 5 4.9
Transverse thermal coefficient f2 (106/ C) 5.6 12 12 5 4.9
Through-thickness thermal coefficient f3 (106/ C) 5.6 12 12 5 4.9

Table 3. Mechanical properties of various matrices

Matrix type 8551-7 epoxy PR319 epoxy Epoxy 1 Epoxy 2 MY750

Elastic modulus Em (GPa) 4.08 0.95a 3.2 3.2 3.35

Elastic shear modulus Gm (GPa) 1.478 0.35a 1.2 1.2 1.24
Elastic Poisson’s ratio m 0.38 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Tensile strength YmT (MPa) 99 70 85 73 80
Compressive strength YmC (MPa) 130 130 120 120 120
Shear strength Sm (MPa) 57 41 50 52 54
Tensile failure strain "mT (%) 4.4 7.3 2.65 2.5 2.7
Compressive failure strain "mC (%) 9 13.6 3.75 5 5
Shear failure strain  m (%) 5.1 11.5 4.16 6 6
Thermal expansion coefficient m (106/ C) 46.7 60 58 58 58
a
These values are considered to be low, compared with typical data for the same material published somewhere else or quoted by the manufacturers.
We have not attempted to change them in order to facilitate a comparison with test data in Part B of the exercise.
The behaviour of materials PR319 and Epoxy 1 is taken as linear.

carefully to stretch each theory to the full and thereby Table 9 summarises laminate type, material type and
shed light on their strengths and weaknesses. They the graphical results requested. Five different lay-ups
are focused on a range of classical, continuous fibre, were chosen in the exercise and these are
laminated, reinforced polymer composites subjected,
in the absence of stress concentrations, to a variety of 1. A base resin with isotropic properties,
triaxial loading conditions. The key issues being 2. 0 unidirectional lamina,
explored are: 3. Quasi-isotropic (0 /45 /90 )s laminate,
4. Angle-ply (35 )s laminate and
– The means by which the theories distinguish (if at all) 5. Cross-ply (0 /90 )s laminate.
between the effects of anisotropy and heterogeneity.
– The types of failure mechanism employed and the
way that each is implemented within any given The loadings include the following:
theory.
– The accuracy and bounds of applicability of each 1. Nine failure envelopes under the following combin-
theory ations of stresses
Kaddour and Hinton 2299

120

100

80
Shear stress MPa
60

40 IM7/855-1 carbon/epoxy
S-glass/epoxy
E-glass/epoxy
20 A-S Carbon/epoxy
T300/PR319 carbon/epoxy

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Shear strain %

Figure 3. In-plane shear stress–strain curve for the various unidirectional materials.

-200
Transverse compressive stress MPa

-150

-100

IM7/8551 carbon/epoxy
S-glass/epoxy
-50
E-glass/epoxy
A-S Carbon/epoxy
T300/PR319 carbon/epoxy

0
-4 -2 0
Strain %

Figure 4. Transverse compressive stress–strain curves for the various unidirectional materials.

2. Three stress–strain curves described as follows:

–  x, versus  y (with  y ¼  z) for test case 1 – Shear stress–strain curves ( 12 versus  12 curves)
–  12 versus  1 (with  1 ¼  2 ¼  3) for test case 2 under  1 ¼  2 ¼  3 ¼ 600 MPa, for test case 4.
–  12 versus  1 (with  1 ¼  2 ¼  3) for test case 3 –  y versus "y and  y versus "x for  x ¼  y ¼
–  2 versus  1 (with  1 ¼  3) for test case 5  z ¼ 100 MPa followed by  x ¼  z ¼ 100
–  1 versus  2 (with  2 ¼  3) for test cases 6 and 7 MPa, for test case 9.
–  y versus  z (with  x ¼  z) for test case 8 – Compressive through-thickness stress–strain
–  zy versus  z (with  x ¼  y ¼ 0) for test cases 10 curves  z versus "z (and "y and "x) for  x ¼
and 11  y ¼ 0, for test case 12.
2300 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

150

8551-7 epoxy Tension

100
Epoxy-2
Shear
MY750 epoxy 50
Strain %
0
-12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12
-50

stress MPa
-100

-150
Compression
-200

Figure 5. Tensile, compressive and shear stress–strain curves for 3 epoxy materials.

Table 4. Data for the in-plane shear stress–strain curve of the various unidirectional laminae

IM7/8551-7 E-glass/epoxy S-glass/epoxy AS carbon/epoxy T300/PR319

Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear
stress (MPa) Strain (%) stress (MPa) strain (%) stress (MPa) strain (%) stress (MPa) strain (%) stress (MPa) strain (%)

0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0 0 0.00

5 0.09 5 0.07 6.99 0.1 5 0.08 5 0.38
10 0.18 10 0.15 13.36 0.2 10 0.17 10 0.75
15 0.27 15 0.22 19.18 0.3 15 0.25 15 1.13
20 0.36 20 0.30 24.50 0.4 20 0.34 20 1.50
25 0.45 25 0.37 29.34 0.5 25 0.42 25 1.88
30 0.54 30 0.45 33.73 0.6 30 0.52 30 2.26
35 0.64 35 0.53 37.70 0.7 35 0.63 35 2.63
40 0.75 40 0.63 41.30 0.8 40 0.77 40 3.01
45 0.88 45 0.74 44.54 0.9 45 0.96 45 3.39
50 1.03 50 0.90 47.45 1 50 1.20 50 3.77
55 1.21 55 1.14 50.06 1.1 55 1.54 55 4.16
60 1.44 60 1.51 56.33 1.4 60 2 60 4.55
65 1.73 62 1.72 60.75 1.7 64 2.49 65 4.96
70 2.10 64 1.96 64.65 2.1 66 2.79 70 5.39
75 2.58 66 2.25 67.70 2.6 68 3.12 75 5.86
80 3.20 68 2.59 70.27 3.2 70 3.50 80 6.37
85 4 70 3.01 72.99 4 85 6.95
90 5 72 3.50 90 7.62
97 8.79
Kaddour and Hinton 2301

Table 5. Data for the transverse compressive stress–strain curve of five unidirectional laminae

IM7-8551-7 E-glass/epoxy S2-glass/epoxy AS carbon/epoxy T300/319 epoxy

s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%) s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%) s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%) s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%) s2 (MPa) e2 (%) e1 (%)

0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0
10 0.111 0.002 10 0.062 0.006 10 0.053 0.004 10 0.100 0.002 10 0.179 0.002
20 0.222 0.004 20 0.123 0.012 20 0.105 0.008 20.0 0.200 0.004 20 0.357 0.005
30 0.333 0.006 30 0.185 0.018 30 0.158 0.013 30 0.300 0.006 30 0.536 0.007
40 0.444 0.008 40.0 0.247 0.024 40 0.211 0.017 40 0.400 0.009 40 0.714 0.010
50 0.556 0.010 50 0.309 0.030 50 0.263 0.021 50 0.500 0.011 50 0.894 0.012
60 0.667 0.012 60 0.371 0.037 60 0.316 0.025 60 0.600 0.013 60 1.075 0.014
70 0.779 0.014 70 0.434 0.043 70 0.369 0.029 70 0.700 0.015 70 1.260 0.017
80 0.892 0.016 80 0.499 0.049 80 0.423 0.033 80 0.801 0.017 80 1.454 0.020
90 1.007 0.018 90 0.566 0.056 90 0.478 0.038 90 0.903 0.019 90 1.664 0.022
100 1.127 0.020 100 0.640 0.063 100 0.535 0.042 100 1.006 0.022 100 1.905 0.026
110 1.252 0.023 110 0.723 0.071 110 0.597 0.047 110 1.111 0.024 110 2.196 0.030
120 1.389 0.025 120 0.822 0.081 120 0.664 0.053 120 1.221 0.026 120 2.570 0.035
130 1.541 0.028 130 0.944 0.093 130 0.741 0.059 130 1.337 0.029 125 2.800 0.038
140 1.718 0.031 140 1.103 0.109 140 0.832 0.066 140 1.462 0.031
145 1.819 0.033 145 1.200 0.119 145 0.885 0.070 145 1.529 0.033
150 1.930 0.035 150 0.944 0.075 150 1.600 0.034
155 2.054 0.037 155 1.010 0.080
160 2.192 0.039 160 1.084 0.086
170 2.522 0.045 175 1.375 0.109
175 2.720 0.049 170 1.265 0.100
180 2.945 0.053 175 1.375 0.109
185 3.200 0.058 180 1.500 0.119

Table 6. Data for the compressive stress–strain curve of three epoxies used

8551-7 Epoxy 2 MY750 epoxy

Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%) Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%) Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%)

0.00 0 0 0 0 0
5 0.12 5 0.16 5 0.15
10 0.25 10 0.31 10 0.30
15 0.37 15 0.47 15 0.45
20 0.50 20 0.63 20 0.60
25 0.63 25 0.78 25 0.75
30 0.77 30 0.94 30 0.90
40 1.07 40 1.25 40 1.19
50 1.43 50 1.56 50 1.49
60 1.86 60 1.88 60 1.80
70 2.38 70 2.20 70 2.11
80 3.02 80 2.55 80 2.44
90 3.81 90 2.93 90 2.82
100 4.77 100 3.41 100 3.31
110 5.94 110 4.06 110 3.98
120 7.33 120 5 120 5
130 9
2302 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Table 7. Data for the tensile stress–strain curve of three of the matrices used

IM7/8551-7 Epoxy 2 MY750

Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%) Stress, s (MPa) Strain, e (%) Stress, s2 (MPa) Strain, e2 (%)

0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0.12 5 0.16 5 0.15
10 0.25 10 0.31 10 0.30
15 0.39 15 0.47 15 0.45
20 0.53 20 0.63 20 0.60
25 0.68 25 0.78 25 0.75
30 0.84 30 0.94 30 0.90
40 1.19 35 1.10 35 1.04
50 1.58 40 1.27 40 1.19
60 2.03 45 1.44 45 1.34
70 2.55 50 1.61 50 1.50
80 3.12 55 1.79 55 1.65
90 3.76 60 1.97 60 1.81
99 4.40 65 2.17 65 1.99
70 2.37 70 2.18
73 2.50 75 2.41
80 2.70

Table 8. Data for the shear stress–strain curve of 8551-7 epoxy

IM7/8551-7 Epoxy 2 MY750

Shear stress (MPa) Shear strain (%) Shear stress (MPa) Shear strain (%) Shear stress (MPa) Shear strain (%)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.93 0.20 2.00 0.17 2.00 0.16
5.83 0.40 5.00 0.42 5.00 0.40
8.68 0.60 10.00 0.84 10.00 0.81
11.48 0.80 15.00 1.27 15.00 1.21
14.24 1.00 20.00 1.69 20.00 1.61
16.94 1.20 25.00 2.11 25.00 2.02
20.89 1.50 30.00 2.54 30.00 2.43
24.71 1.80 35.00 3.00 35.00 2.85
28.41 2.10 40.00 3.52 40.00 3.33
33.11 2.50 45.00 4.23 45.00 3.94
38.61 3.00 50.00 5.35 50.00 4.85
43.67 3.50 52.00 6.00 54.00 6.00
48.24 4.00
52.31 4.50
55.85 5.00
56.48 5.10
Kaddour and Hinton 2303

Table 9. Details of the test cases

Test case Laminate lay-up Material Description of required prediction

1 Resin MY750 epoxy  x versus  z (with  y ¼  z) envelope

2 0 T300/PR319  12 versus  2 (with  1 ¼  2 ¼  3) envelope
3 0 T300/PR319  12 versus  2 (with  1 ¼  2 ¼  3) envelope
4 0 T300/PR319 Shear stress–strain curves ( 12 –  12) (for  1 ¼  2 ¼  3 ¼ 600 MPa)a
5 90 E-glass/MY750 epoxy  2 versus  3 (with  1 ¼  3) envelope
6 0 S-glass/epoxy  1 versus  3 (with  2 ¼  3) envelope
7 0 A-S carbon/epoxy  1 versus  3 (with s2 ¼  3) envelope
8 35 E-glass/MY750 epoxy  y versus  z (with  x ¼  z) envelope
9 35 E-glass/MY750 epoxy Stress–strain curves ( y – "x and  y – "y) at  z ¼  x ¼ 100 MPab
10 (0 /90 /45 )s IM7/8551-7  yz versus  z (with  y ¼  x ¼ 0) envelope
11 (0 /90 )s IM7/8551-7  yz versus  z (with  y ¼  x ¼ 0) envelope
12 (0 /90 )s IM7/8551-7 Stress–strain curves ( z – "z,  z – "x and  z – "y) for  y ¼  x ¼ 0
a
Please first apply  1 ¼  2 ¼  3 ¼ 600 MPa to the lamina. Then apply the shear loading till final failure takes place.
b
Please first apply  y ¼  z ¼  x ¼ 100 MPa and record the resulting strain values. Then increase the stress  y (beyond 100 MPa) gradually till final
failure takes place. Please plot the full stress–strain curves ( y – "x and  y – "y).

Figure 6. Schematic of a failure envelope where initial and final failure stages are marked.

The instructions to participants (Appendix 1)
specify how loads were to be applied and how
results were to be presented. In some cases, failure
envelopes are requested and Figure 6 shows a diagram-
matic representation of a failure envelope where vari-
ous stages of failure could take place before final
failure.
Schematic diagrams showing the loading directions,
layer and laminate dimensions and stacking sequence
of the laminates are shown in Figures 7 to 18. Note
that the angles of the fibres in each layer are
measured from x direction as shown in Figure 2.
In addition to details of the loading configurations,
Figures 7 to 18 show also the scales of the graphs
the organisers have supplied to all of the participants
to follow, in order to facilitate comparison between
the various predictions. In those situations where the
predicted curves fall outside of the scales that were
provided, the contributors were advised to use scales
that suited their predictions.
2304 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Figure 7. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 1. Variation of the compressive strength ( x) of
polymeric resin matrix with stress  y( ¼  z).

Figure 8. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 2. Variation of shear strength ( 12) with stress
 2( ¼  1 ¼  3) for a unidirectional carbon/epoxy.

Selection of test cases

stress–strain characteristics and fracture of composite
It is recognised that there are many interesting and laminates under triaxial stresses. Hence, selecting the
unresolved problems in the area of predicting the laminates and loading conditions to be analysed was
Kaddour and Hinton
Figure 9. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 3. Variation of shear failure strain ( 12) with
stress  2(¼ 1 ¼  3) for a unidirectional carbon/epoxy.
Figure 10. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical
prediction for test case 4. Test case 1: Shear stress–strain curve
( 12 versus  12) for a unidirectional carbon/epoxy for
 1 ¼  2 ¼  3 ¼ 600 MPa.
not easy. The following factors were taken into
consideration:
. The problems should cover a wide range of lay-ups,
starting from an isotropic material to lamina and
then to a laminate. For this reason, five different
2305
lay-ups were chosen and these are a polymeric
material, (0 ), (0 /45 /90 )s, (35 )s and (0 /90 )s.
. The test cases should include laminates that are of
practical use. For this matter, laminates used in air-
crafts (e.g. (0 /45 /90 )s), pressure vessels (e.g.
(35 )s), struts and space were included in the
exercise.
. A wide range of loading conditions should be ana-
lysed. The cases selected included generating the
complete failure envelopes under combined stresses
( x,  y and  z), ( x,  y,  z and  xy) ( z versus  zy) and
pure through-thickness ( z) loading.
. The problems should include predicting the stress–
strain curves under both uniaxial and triaxial load-
ing because changes in laminate stiffness may be crit-
ical in some applications.
. The laminates analysed should be capable of
developing different types of damage due to loading
in shear, tension and compression, transverse and
parallel to the fibre direction.
. Both linear and nonlinear behaviour of unidirec-
tional laminae should be considered.
. Experimental results should be available which
could be used to check the effectiveness of the the-
oretical predictions.
Test case 1 is aimed at assessing how the composite
failure theories predict the compressive strength of an
isotropic polymer material in the presence of hydro-
static pressure compression. This represents the sim-
plest form of triaxial failure of isotropic materials.
2306 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Figure 11. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 5. Variation of transverse compressive strength
 2 with  3 (where  1 ¼  3) for a unidirctional glass/epoxy.

Figure 12. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 6. Variation of the longitudinal strength  1 with
through-thickness stress ( 3 ¼  2) for a unidirectional glass/epoxy.

Test cases 2 to 4 are dealing with studying how large
hydrostatic pressure affect the shear strength, ultimate
shear failure strain and the shape of the shear stress–
strain curve behaviours of a carbon/epoxy unidirec-
tional lamina.
Test cases 5 to 7 are concerned with assessing the
enhancement (or reduction) in the transverse or longi-
tudinal strengths of a unidirectional lamina with the
presence of stresses in the perpendicular directions.
In test case 5, the lamina is subjected to a stress in
the transverse direction ( 2) and an equal stress com-
ponent in the fibre and through-thickness directions
( 1 ¼  3).
However, in test cases 6 and 7, the laminae are sub-
jected to a stress in the fibre (longitudinal) direction ( 1)
and an equal stress component in the transverse and
Kaddour and Hinton 2307

Figure 13. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 7. Variation of the longitudinal strength s1 with
through-thickness stress (s3 ¼ s2) for a UD Carbon/epoxy.

Figure 14. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 8. Variation of axial compressive strength  y
with through-thickness stress  z for (þ35 /35 )s glass/epoxy laminate, where  x ¼  z).14

through-thickness directions ( 2 ¼  3). The difference
between these two cases is that one of them (test case
6) deals with isotropic fibres and the other (Test Case 7)
deals with anisotropic fibres. For these cases, even in
the absence of no longitudinal stress component
( 1 ¼ 0), the solution of these cases provide information
on the failure of a unidirectional under equi-biaxial
stresses ( 2 ¼  3) in the transverse and through-thick-
ness directions.
Test cases 8 to 12 look into the behaviour of multi-
directional laminates under stresses containing one in
the through-thickness direction.
Test cases 1, 5 and 8 (and 9) are important in a
number of aspects and can provide lessons on a
2308 Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)

Figure 15. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 9. Axial compressive stress–strain curves for
(þ35 /35 )s glass/epoxy laminate under  x ¼  z ¼ 100 MPa.15

Figure 16. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 10. Variation of the through-thickness shear
( zy) versus through-thickness stress ( z) for (þ45 /45 /90 /0 )s carbon/epoxy laminate.

number of fundamental issues. In order to assess how deals with an isotropic material subjected to a range of
the current theories deal with the prediction of isotropic triaxial compressive stress states and test case 5 is con-
and anisotropic materials, two test cases were set up cerned with a unidirectional laminate subjected to the
and these are test case 1 and test case 5. Test case 1 same conditions. Note that the epoxy (MY750) exhibits
Kaddour and Hinton 2309

Figure 17. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 11. Variation of the through-thickness shear
( zy) versus through-thickness stress ( z) for (0 /90 )s carbon/epoxy laminate.

Figure 18. Recommended scales for plotting the theoretical prediction for test case 12. Compressive through-thickness stress–
strain curves for (0 /90 )s carbon/epoxy laminate.

isotropic stiffness and its uniaxial tensile strength and low values in the transverse direction (Tables 1
is lower than the uniaxial compressive strength. and 3).
The E-glass/MY750 UD lamina in test case 5 The two cases (1 and 5) are interrelated insofar as the
exhibited large strength values in the fibre direction epoxy polymer material studied in case 1 is the same
2310
resin matrix used in making the E-glass/epoxy compos-
ite laminate in test case 5. Hence, in choosing test cases
1 and 5 these will begin to illuminate the assumptions
made in each theory regarding the treatment of mater-
ial isotropy/anisotropy and material heterogeneity.
Test cases (1 and 5) selected here are important
building blocks in our understanding of traditional,
high performance, continuous fibre, laminated compos-
ites which typically contain 60% fibre volume fraction
in order to gain both stiffness and strength. It is
accepted that a number of failure models rely on
micro-mechanics to model the behaviour of the com-
posite starting from that of the constituents, namely
fibres and matrix. For this reason, a full understanding
of the response of resin matrix is crucial for gaining an
insight into how these micro-mechanics models tackle
the behaviour of one of the main constituents of a com-
posite material.
Test case 8 is related to the prediction of a multi-
directional laminate made of the same plies as those
used in test case 1 and test case 5. However, the fibre
directions are oriented at 35 and þ35 relative to the
x direction. The laminate is subjected to various triaxial
loadings, including hydrostatic pressure similar to that
encountered in test cases 1 and 5. Hence, a study of this
laminate would provide an insight into how changing
fibre orientation and lamination could affect the
strength and deformation under 3D stress loadings.
Conclusions
. This article has presented the full input data pro-
vided to all the 12 participants taking part in the
WWFE-II.
. The article described the 12 test cases that were set-
up to challenge the models employed by the partici-
pants. This included the five laminates, five mater-
ials, nine loading conditions and the forms for
presenting the predictions. Nine failure envelopes
and three stress–strain curves were also described.
. All the guidelines issued to the participants were also
listed in the article.
Funding
This work was partially funded by the Royal Society in the
United Kingdom.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the UK Royal Society for
awarding Dr Kaddour the Royal Society Industry
Fellowship. We also thank Prof PA Smith (The University
of Surrey) and Dr Shuguang Li (Nottingham University) for
the supports and the technical advice throughout the period
of running the Second World-Wide Failure Exercise.
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
1. Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS and Soden PD. Failure criteria
in fibre reinforced polymer composites: The World-Wide
Failure Exercise. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 2004.
2. Hinton MJ and Kaddour AS. The background to the
Second World-Wide Failure Exercise (WWFE-II): 3D
failure criteria for fibre reinforced polymer composites.
J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2283–2294.
3. Cuntze RG. The predictive capability of failure mode
concept - based strength conditions for laminates com-
posed of UD laminae under static tri-axial stress states.
J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2563–2594.
4. Kress G. Examination of Hashin’s failure criteria for the
Second World-Wide Failure Exercise. J Compos Mater
2012; 46: 2539–2561.
5. Nelson EE, Hansen AC and Mayes S. Failure analysis of
composite laminates subjected to hydrostatic stresses: a
multicontinuum approach. J Compos Mater 2012; 46:
2461–2483.
6. Deuschle HM and Kröplin B-H. Finite element imple-
mentation of Puck’s failure theory for fibre-reinforced
composites under three-dimensional stress. J Compos
Mater 2012; 46: 2485–2513.
7. Ye J and Zhang D. Prediction of failure envelopes and
stress strain curves of composite laminates under triaxial
loads. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2417–2430.
8. Pinho ST, Darvizeh R, Robinson P, et al. Material and
structural response of polymer-matrix fibre-reinforced
composites. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2313–2341.
9. Carrere N, Laurin F and Maire J-F. Micromechanical
based hybrid mesoscopic 3D approach for non-linear
progressive failure analysis of composite structures. J
Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2389–2415.
10. Zand B, Butalia TS, Wolfe WE, et al. A strain energy
based failure criterion for nonlinear analysis of composite
laminates subjected to triaxial loading. J Compos Mater
2012; 46: 2515–2537.
11. Zhou YX and Huang Z-M. A bridging model prediction
of the ultimate strength of composite laminates sub-
jected to triaxial loads. J Compos Mater 2012; 46:
2343–2378.
12. Bogetti TA, Staniszewski J, Burns BP, et al. Predicting
the nonlinear response and progressive failure of compos-
ite laminates under tri-axial loading. J Compos Mater
2012; 46: 2443–2459.
13. Rotem A. The Rotem failure criterion for fibrous lami-
nated composite materials: three dimensional loading
case. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2379–2388.
14. Ha SK, Jin KK, Huang Y, et al. Prediction of composite
laminate failure with micromechanics of failure.
J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 2431–2442.
15. Kaddour AS and Hinton MJ. Benchmarking of triaxial
failure criteria for composite laminates: comparison
between models of Part (A) of WWFE-II. J Compos
Mater 2012; 46: 2595–2634.
Kaddour and Hinton 2311

Appendix 1
13. If your theory requires additional (or different)
Instructions to contributors information from that provided, please let us
The following provides general guidelines and instruc- know as soon as possible and we will endeavour
tions that you may find helpful when writing your to provide that information. If you have default
paper and making your submission. values for any missing parameters (e.g. interaction
coefficients), we prefer you to use those.
1. The in-plane loads (section stresses) should be
14. In some cases the theory employed may not be
applied in the x and y directions defined in the
intended to be applied to the whole range of lami-
diagrams provided for each laminate.
nates specified here. In that case, you may opt to
2. The through-thickness stresses should be applied in
analyse only some of the laminates but please
the z direction.
explain the reasons for not analysing the other lami-
3. The section stresses  x and  y are defined in the
nates in your paper.
usual way as the in-plane loads per unit width
15. The paper should describe your failure theory and
divided by the total thickness of the laminate.
method of application to laminates in sufficient
4. Unless otherwise stated, please assume that the
detail to allow your predictions to be reproduced
loads are increased monotonically, keeping any
by others, comment on the nature and the effects of
combination of the following ratios  x/ y/ z/ xy/
the failures predicted and, if appropriate, how your
 xz/ yz constant. (For test cases 4 and 9, please
predictions could be used for design.
refer to the notes below Table 9.)
5. Please, record and tabulate the magnitude of the
After receiving all the theoretical papers for publica-
stresses (and if appropriate the type and location of
tions, the experimental results will be superimposed on
failure as well as the mode of failure) at which each
the theoretical predictions. The superimposed graphs
failure is predicted.
will be sent back to you together with tables of the
6. Repeat the calculation to cover the range of stress
experimental results for your future use and informa-
ratios (2 or 4 quadrants) indicated by the graphs
tion on how the experimental results were obtained.
provided for each laminate.
The second paper (Part B) would present graphs of
7. If possible, please plot the results using the scales
superimposed results with any comment you may wish
provided for each laminate.
to make on the correlation between experiment and
8. Draw curves through the results to represent the
theory. You may choose to add a figure (or figures)
initial (inner), and final (outer) failure envelopes.
and appropriate sections to demonstrate refinement
Indicate any intermediate failure points/curves.
or particular features of your approach. You
Figure 6 shows a schematic of a failure envelope
could indicate any future development to your theory
representing various stages of failure. The aim
which would allow you to consider a wider variety of
of this figure is to illustrate what a failure
laminates than those you are able to analyse
envelope is. It is possible that not all the envelopes
immediately.
will be closed and, in this case, please indicate the
For those participants who have integrated failure
stress ratios and stress regime where the envelope is
analyses and structural analysis packages, details of
open.
the specimen geometries that you may opt to analyse
9. For the stress–strain curves, please plot the section
as part of the second paper, will be sent as soon as you
stress versus strain curves as requested for particu-
request them.
lar laminates using the scales provided.
10. It would be extremely helpful if you would also Further clarifications, instructions and guidelines to the
send us your tables of results, but these will prob- participants of WWFE-II
ably not be included in the paper. Results in the
form of data files sent to us by E-mail or other 1. We recommend that, for the sake of completing Part
accessible forms (e.g. CD) would be appreciated. A submission, all the participants consider no edge
11. We are asking all of the contributors to use the effects on the failure of the laminates. For those
same material properties even if you have reserva- models that are capable of analysing the influence
tions about the values provided. of edge effects on failure, details of specimen’s geo-
12. Your theory may not require all the lamina proper- metry and shapes would be provided in Part B of the
ties provided (e.g. some models and computer pro- exercise.
grams assume linear elastic properties). In that case 2. Please assume that the specimen’s dimensions are
please employ your usual assumptions and neglect large enough so that the ‘gauge length’ is much
any information which is not needed. larger than the ‘decay length’.
2312
3. For the laminates in test cases 8 to 12, the organisers
have deliberately not specified the number of
plies because we were not certain whether the avail-
able models could cope with dealing with changing
the number of plies, say from 4 to 50 or 100
plies. Having a large number of plies could under-
mine the computational capabilities of some of
the models and hence we have refrained from sug-
gesting the number of plies that should be
analysed. If, however, your model takes into account
the effect of thickness and the number of plies on the
failure predictions, please consider the following
points:
– All the laminates are balanced and symmetric.
– All the plies have the same thickness.
– Please provide predictions describing the effect
of thickness and number of plies on the failure
of the laminates. The thickness could vary from
2 to 30 mm.
4. As for the values of the fracture toughness, please
use the following values for your Part (A) paper.
Material GIC (J/m2) GIIC (J/m2)
IM7/8551-7 200 610
E-glass/epoxy 240 1500
Journal of Composite Materials 46(19–20)
5. As for the mixed mode toughness, please employ
your best curve you are familiar with.
6. The stresses in Figures 23 and 24 should have read
 yz rather than  yz.
7. The schematic in Figure 23 should be that of a (0 /
90 /þ45 /45 )s laminate.
8. For those models capable of considering the effects
of thermal stresses, we recommend the analysis be
carried out for two cases (a) with thermal stresses
and (b) with no thermal stresses.
9. Guidelines for the curing cycles are as follows:
– For E-glass/MY750 laminates:
2 h at 90 C, 1.5 h at 130 C and then 2 h at 150 C
with maximum rate of change of 1 C/min.
– For IM7/8551:
1 h at 107 C followed by 2 h at 177 C.