DURABILITY AND DAMAGE TOLERANCE 35

OF FIBROUS COMPOSITE SYSTEMS

Ken Reifsnider

35.1 DEFINITIONS AND ISSUES simple, and are illustrated in Fig. 35.1.
Damage tolerance is the remaining strength
Durability and damage tolerance are critical
after some period of service, and durability, in
to the design of composite structures.
general, has to do with how long the compo-
Damage tolerance is the approach often
nent will last, i.e. with the life of the structure.
required for the certification of safety-rated
In this context, durability is often discussed in
structures such as aircraft components; dura-
terms of the resistance or susceptibility to
bility has been identified as one of the most
damage initiation. Both concepts imply that
important technical drivers for the design of
the subject component is being exposed to
major composite structures such as the High
applied conditions such as mechanical loading
Speed Civil Transport. Recent reports from
and environments such as temperature and
the National Materials Advisory Board and a
chemical agents over long periods of time that
great volume of other literature focus on
are typical of the projected service life of the
these
component.
Of course, there are many nuances in the
There are several technical concepts that
definitions of durability and damage toler-
form a foundation for our discussion of these
ance. However, the basic concepts are quite
closely related topics. The first of these is the

Damage Tolerance (Remaining strength)

1

Normalized
stress level

Life Locus
Durability (Life) 4

Time / Cycles

Handbook of Composites. Edited by S.T.Peters. Published Fig. 35.1 Basic definitions of ’durability’ and ‘dam-
in 1998 by Chapman & Hall,London. ISBN 0 412 54.020 7 age tolerance’.

question of the relationship of material
strength to structural strength. In general, the
strength of (fiber reinforced) composite mate-
rials is represented by an array of values that
reflect the anisotropic nature of the materials
(Fig. 35.2). For planar materials, at least the
tensile strength and compressive strength in
the fiber direction and transverse to the fibers
and the in-plane shear strength are required
for a complete answer to the question of ’how
strong is this material’. However, as an array,
those values do not directly show ’how strong
is a composite structure’. Several possible
answers to that question are typically given.
One may use a ’failure criterion’ that compares
all of the point stress components with all of
the material strength components (such as the
Tsai-Hill or Tsai-Wu riter ria)^ in some collec-
tive form based on concepts such as critical
energy, critical shear resistance, etc. The salient
point to be made is that the complexity of
(inhomogeneous) composite materials and
their array of anisotropic material strengths
give rise to the development of a correspond-
ing array of damage and failure modes in
these materials that must be understood and
correctly modeled to answer the question of
Five in-plane strength values for fiberous composites:
Tension and compression
strength in the fiber
direction
Xt or X,
-S
f 1
Composite *
IL-kr
Fig. 35.2 Schematic illustration of ’principal strength’ directions in a unidirectional continuous fiber com-
posite laminate.
Definitions and issues 795
’how strong is this composite structure’, even
if the array of material strengths are known
(shown in Fig. 35.2). Hence, there is a need to
develop understandings and representations
of the critical damage and failure modes that
control the performance of engineering com-
ponents. This technology is currently
incomplete, but discussions of those topics
will follow.
A second fundamental concept is
microstructural architecture. As shown in Fig.
35.3(a), many fibrous composite components
are made in layered or laminated form, with the
fibers in different layers having different direc-
tions; in some cases the plies are made from
different materials to form a ’hybrid’ compos-
ite. In addition, the fibers may not be straight,
but may be woven, braided, or arranged in
mats of various types (Fig. 35.3(b),(c)). These
details have a major influence on the durability
and damage tolerance of the materials. In fact,
most composite material systems are ‘designed’
to be ’fiber dominated’, to take advantage of
light, strong and stiff (but brittle) fiber materials
that are available. Typically, the fibers, their
geometry and their arrangement are important
parts of the question.
Tension and compression
strength in the direction
transverse to the fibers
Yt orY,
in-plane shear strength
Strength tensor:
796 Durability and damage tolerance offibrous composite systems
Fig. 35.3 Typical engineering composite reinforcement types: (a) fibrous, unidirectional pile; (b) fibrous
woven; (c) fibrous, braided.
A third technical issue has to do with the
degradation of intrinsic strength and stiffness.
For metals, the material stiffness and strength
are generally constant during the life of the
engineering component. This may not be true
for composites. Stiffness changes of the order
of 10-20% may be caused by micro-cracking,
for example. Since many structures are stiff-
ness designs, this mode of degradation must
be considered. In addition, the intrinsic mate-
rial strengths (indicated in Fig. 35.2) may also
be degraded, especially by such things as
physical or chemical aging. This behavior
must also be part of the supporting predictive
technology developed for these materials.
Nondestructive methods of tracking such
degradation are under development, but this
remains as a challenge currently.
Methodologies for the assessment and pre-
diction of durability and damage tolerance of
composite materials typically involve the fol-
lowing features:
0 Remaining strength and life models are
developed and predictions are made for
each independent failure mode (such as
fiber failure in tension or micro-buckling in
compression, etc.).
0 Mechanics representations of the state of
stress and state of material are constructed
on the basis of a 'representative volume' of
the material that is typical of the distributed
damage state that controls the remaining
stiffness and strength of the composite. A
typical representative volume of material is
a controlling ply in a laminate, but may be a
micro-buckling ligament, a small group of
fibers, etc.
0 Various methods are used to characterize
and monitor the rate of strength degrada-
tion in composites. A typical parameter
which is useful for that purpose is stiffness
change; however, that parameter is not
appropriate in some cases.
0 Micromechanics (mechanics analysis at the

fiber/matrix level of representation) is
increasingly used for remaining-strength
modeling, for the calculation of stiffness
change (which leads to internal stress redis-
tribution), and for the estimation of
remaining strength for a given failure
mode.
Statistical considerations are essential for
the correct representation of the long-term
behavior of composites. Composites typi-
cally fail because of the statistical
accumulation of defects, which eventually
interact to create a critical condition. This is
in contrast to self-similar single crack prop-
agation that is the typical mechanism of
failure for common metals.
Time-dependent behavior such as vis-
coelastic creep, creep rupture (driven by
such things as internal stress redistribution
or oxidation), and aging are typically
important in the consideration of the long-
term durability and damage tolerance of
polymer composites, particularly for com-
ponents that serve at elevated temperatures.
This chapter will discuss the range of physical
and engineering details that define and control
this subject. Of course, a complete discussion
would fill several volumes, so the reader
should regard this discussion as only a start-
ing point for further study.
35.2 DAMAGE MODES AND FAILURE
MODES
The failure of 'typical' (homogeneous
isotropic) engineering materials is a familiar
topic. The subjects of ductile rupture and brit-
tle fracture are widely discussed and taught in
undergraduate and graduate courses.
However, composite materials generally do
not behave in a manner easily described by
either plasticity (or yield) theory or by self-
similar crack growth concepts.
The reason for this different behavior is the
fundamental difference in the micro-structure
of composite materials, i.e. in the way they are
Damage modes and failure modes 797
made. Composites consist of mechanical 'mix-
tures' of distinct phases (such as fibers or
particles) in a matrix material. The geometry
and arrangement of the reinforcement phase
is carefully chosen to achieve the desired com-
posite properties. As a result, such material
systems are always inhomogeneous, often
anisotropic, and often brittle. These three
basic characteristics control the nature of
damage development and failure in compos-
ite materials.
The most salient single feature of damage in
composites is the process of damage accumula-
tion. Damage development usually involves
many damage modes which create a widely
distributed damage state, and failure is usually
the result of a statistical accumulation of dam-
age (rather than the statistical occurrence of
damage). As discussed below, these multiple
damage accumulations on failure modes are
often closely related to the manner in which
the composite is made, especially to the basic
nature of the inhomogeneity and anisotropy of
the material. This damage development
process ultimately controls durability and
damage tolerance, so we will discuss some typ-
ical major features of that phenomenon.
The most pervasive damage mode in com-
posite materials is microcracking, most often
in the matrix material. Figure 35.4 shows two
embodiments of this mode. Figure 35.4(a)
shows an X-ray radiograph of a cross-ply lam-
inate with cracks in both ply types, and Fig.
35.4(b) shows matrix cracking parallel to the
fibers in the off-axis plies of a laminate, as seen
from a tracing of those cracks as they appear
on the edge of this [0,45,45,90Is laminate. A
typical scenario for the development of such
cracks is the formation of matrix cracks as a
function of increasing applied load or increas-
ing cycles of loading. These cracks typically
extend through the thickness of a ply and gen-
erally extend quickly in the fiber direction if
the local stress is uniform.
Several other important features of matrix
cracking are suggested by Fig. 35.4. As shown
by Fig. 35.5, matrix crack formation releases
798 Durability and damage tolerance offibrous composite systems

"'r! 'r!-.e-

I
rt
.1!

.I: I

Strain

Fig. 35.5 Change in slope of the elastic stress-strain

curve induced by microcracking.

APPLIED STRESS (MPo)

100
I
200
I
300 400 500 600
I
m
b I

Fig. 35.4 Microcracking in the matrix, parallel to

the fibers; a radiograph of a cross-ply laminate with
(a) inter-ply delamination at crack intersections
(arrow) and (b) a tracing of matrix cracks on the
edge of a [0,+45,-45,90] laminate.

stored energy in the cracked ply or material,

and changes the stiffness of material propor-
tionately, a matter of concern to engineering
applications, as noted earlier. However, the
density of cracks in the ply of a laminate
reaches a stable saturation value, as first
observed by Reifsnider et a1.5,8,called the char-
acteristic damage state (or CDS) of the ply.
That CDS is a function only of the properties
of the plies, their thickness, and their stacking
sequence. Figure 35.6 shows that the same
CDS is formed by static or cyclic loading. This
CDS can be readily predicted since the crack
spacing is determined by the rate at which the
surrounding material can transfer stress back
into the broken ply. Moreover, the stiffness
change caused by this cracking can also be
predicted as well7r9-*l.
A second important damage mode is delam-
ination, as shown in Fig. 35.7. Delamination is
driven by the fact that local regions of the com-
posite would deform differently in response to
01 I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I .o
NO. OF CYCLES (MILLIONS)
Fig. 35.6 Data showing identity of the equilibrium
crack spacing ('characteristic damage state' or CDS)
for quasi-static and cyclic loading of a laminate.
the local loads if they were not bonded together
in the composite. Hence, stored energy is
released if they separate, and that energy drives
the separation process. The most common
example of this damage mode is the separation
of the plies of a laminate near a free edge, as
shown in Fig. 35.7. This process has been
widely studied and is well described. More will
be said of this driving mechanism below.
It should be noted that delamination is usu-
ally nucleated by other damage modes (such
as matrix and although it is a
common damage mode, it is not usually a fail-
ure mode, per se. Delamination usually begins
 Damage modes and failure modes 799

fW"82tr'tiKT W 7 K " V q T 4 ~ K ~ W m ~ Tcracks in one ply may cause fiber frac-

matrix
ture in an adjacent ply due to the local stress
concentrations21,2z.
Figure 35.8@) shows a second feature of
importance. When the matrix and fibers have
comparable stiffness and strength, the fibers
may break many times along their length
before the composite fractures. In this situa-
tion, fiber fracture can cause a significant
stiffness loss as well as a strength reductionu.
I
-7 Another generic damage mode is micro-
'
1
buckling, induced by local or global
compressive loads, as shown in Fig. 35.9.
Fig. 35.7 Edge micrograph of delamination (arrow)
showing (a) relationship to matrix cracking; (b) plan
view radiograph of edge delamination in a cross-
ply laminate (shaded regions).

at an edge, such as a cutout, bolt hole, rivet

hole, etc. If it is in a region of nonuniform
stress, it may stop growing when it reaches the
boundary of that region. Even if it grows to
large dimensions, it usually does not cause
significant loss of strength in engineering
sized structures. Still, the loss of integrity can
lead to other damage and failure modes, so it
should be avoided.
A third generic damage mode is fiber frac-
ture. Many composites are 'fiber dominated',
i.e. they depend on the fibers for their stiffness
and strength. Hence, fracture of the fibers is
both an important damage mode and failure
mode. However, fiber fracture is difficult to
detect and has been studied less completely
than many other damage modes. However,
considerable data have been ~ollected'~'~.
Figure 35.8 shows two examples of such data,
driven by two important mechanisms. Figure
35.8(a) shows fibers broken beside one
another, a typical situation. In many compos-
ites, the fibers are coated with a material that
decreases the tendency for the fracture of one
fiber to cause the fracture of neighboring fibers
by forming an 'interphase region' around the
fibers that tends to 'isolate' the fracture
effectslS2O.It is also important to note that the
800 Durability and damage tolerance offibrous composite systems
There are several aspects of this phenomenon
that are of importance to durability and dam-
age tolerance. For example, the compression
strength (or remaining strength) of the com-
posite may be controlled by the local stress
required to initiate the local instability, in
which case one wants a large diameter, stiff
fibers in a stiff matrix. Or, the strength may be
controlled by local resistance to shear defor-
mation after buckling begins, in which case
one would choose a tough matrix or inter-
phase region between the fibers and the
matrix. This is another case in which a damage
mode may or may not be a failure mode, an
important distinction.
Fig. 35.9 Localized microbuckling in a polymer
matrix composite. Printed with permission, I.M.
Daniel and 0. Ishai, Engineering Mechanics of
Composite Materials, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1994.
Another 'damage mode' of considerable impor-
tance to polymer composites and all composites
used at high temperatures is the phenomenon
of creep, i.e. time-dependent deformation at
constant applied stress. Figure 35.10 shows a
typical form of that behavior, with an initial
transient region, a steady state region (in which
most engineeringdesign is done), and a tertiary
(usually unstable) region. This phenomenon is
usually represented by introducing viscoelastic
Time
Fig. 35.10 Schematic of typical creep deformation
at constant load and temperature.
or rheological models that represent the behav-
ior in terms of a change in the stiffness of the
material with time, as a function of tempera-
ture. Quite often, the reinforcing fibers do not
show creep behavior at low temperatures, but
at high temperatures, essentially all con-
stituents may creep. The changes of stiffness
with time can be characterized in the labora-
tory, and must be modeled carefully, based on
those data. In fact, this part of the behavior is
critically important to the correct calculation of
internal stress states, since the creep of the con-
stituents changes the internal stress distribution
greatly in some cases. For example, if the matrix
creeps more than the reinforcing fibers (a typi-
cal situation), that creep 'relaxes' the stress in
the matrix, and increases the load carried by the
fibers. If we wish to calculate a fiber-controlled
strength, for example, a correct representation
of this behavior must be included in our model.
Finally, another failure mode is creep-rup-
ture. This is a fairly general terminology used
to refer to a variety of physical phenomena
that produce time-dependent failure. This can
be due to, say, oxidation of the fibers, or to
other physical degradation processes which
eventually cause rupture. It is clear that these
phenomena must also be modeled correctly if
we are to discuss durability and damage toler-
ance of material systems.

35.3 DAMAGE DRIVERS AND DAMAGE
'RESISTANCE'
In the previous section, a number of damage
and failure modes that occur in composite
materials, and ultimately control durability
and damage tolerance, were identified. Many
of these modes are related to the manner in
which the composites were put together. This
raises the basic question of 'can one design
composite materials to be durable and damage
tolerant?' Most of the rest of this discussion
will address this question.
Some general concepts will be followed by
some micro-mechanics methods of quantifymg
answers. Microcracking is likely to be the most
pervasive damage mode in typical composites,
especially under long-term loading, and most
especially under cyclic loading. Even though
most matrix materials are chosen because they
offer some level of ductility, in most composite
systems the matrix is highly constrained so
that cracks develop due to local constraint,
local stress concentrations, and local defects
that grow rapidly under what is generally a
'plane strain' condition. Hence, matrix tough-
ness, in the general sense, is the key to the
reduction of matrix cracking. Increasing the
strain to failure of the matrix material is a pri-
mary objective, and increasing the plane-strain
fracture toughness of the matrix is a compan-
ion objective. There is a richly developed
science and technology associated with matrix
toughening; some starting points are listed in
Wilkinson et al.24and Hedrick et al?5.
A second damage mode identified earlier is
delamination. This problem is a strong combi-
nation of structural and material concerns. The
material concerns are essentially the same as
those discussed for matrix cracking, with one
important exception. Matrix toughness does
not translate directly into interlaminar tough-
ness. Hence, resistance to delamination cannot
be controlled entirely with material property
increases. The structural part of the problem
does, however, present opportunities. It was
mentioned before that delamination is driven
Damage drivers and damage 'resistance' 801
by local discontinuitiesin stress state, typically
caused by neighboring plies or ply groups
(bonded together) that would have very dif-
ferent strain states if they were not bonded.
Hence, the orientation of the plies in a lami-
nate and the stacking sequence of those plies
are controlling players in the development of
the interlaminar stresses that drive delamina-
tion. This problem has been exhaustively
studied, and methods of reducing interlami-
nar stresses have been widely d i s c ~ s s e d ' ~ - ~ ~ ,
but because of the inhomogeneous and often
anisotropic nature of composites, interlaminar
stresses generally cannot be eliminated in lam-
inated systems, so mechkical methods are
widely used to control that tendency. The most
successful of these is weaving, i.e. to use
woven fiber architectures to reduce the
anisotropy of a given ply, and therefore, to
reduce the 'disagreement' between the
response of any two or more plies. Woven
materials are now widely used, especially for
this reason. A second approach is to 'stitch' the
composite in the region of non-uniform stress,
typically near an edge of the laminate.
Stitching simply 'clamps' the edge of the mate-
rial to prevent it from separating; the internal
stresses are still present. Stitching has a some-
what smaller number of proponents, but is a
successful method as well. Finally, three-
dimensional reinforcement, such as mats or
braids, also serve the purpose of providing
constraint to the delamination drivers. These
methods are not as widely used at this time,
largely because of the difficulty associated
with manufacturing.
A less obvious influence on durability and
damage tolerance is the bonding between the
fiber and matrix. The nature of this influence
has only come to light in recent years. Some of
the mechanics models needed for this discus-
sion will be developed in the next section; only
a few general points will be made here. First,
the properties of composite materials are
determined not only by the properties of the
constituents, but they are also greatly influ-
enced by the manner in which the constituents
802 Durability and damage tolerance of fibrous composite systems
interact. This critical interaction is, of course,
controlled by the bonding between the con-
stituents, between the fibers and matrix in our
case. Typically, this bonding is ‘controlled’ by
a fiber coating or ’sizing’. However, it is now
known that such things as notched fatigue
behavior can be improved by as much as two
orders of magnitude by carefully ’designed’
’interphase’ regions between the fibers and the
matrixz6.There are at least two basic concepts
operating in these effects. First, if one can
toughen the composite by toughening the
interphase between the fibers and matrix, the
composite is likely to be more durable, as dis-
cussed above. Second, the interphase region
can greatly influence the local stress state, and
reduce the driving force for fiber-matrix
debonding. An illustration of that is shown in
Fig. 35.11. If one considers the strength of a
composite under loads applied perpendicular
to the fiber direction, then it is clear that the
fiber causes a local stress concentration,in pro-
portion to the difference between its
properties and those of the matrix. However, if
a coating around the fiber is introduced, this
local concentration can be greatly reduced. In
fact, for a ’rigid’ fiber, compared to the matrix,
it is not surprising that a compliant coating on
the fiber will increase the transverse composite
strength by as much as a factor of two, and the
Interphase region
Composite
Fig. 35.11 Schematic diagram of the geometry of
the interphase region in a fibrous composite, sub-
iected to loading.
” transverse to the fibers.
strain to failure by as much as a factor of
In general, although design rules are
not yet fixed, design of the interphase region is
a new and important opportunity for the
enhancement of the durability and damage
tolerance of composite system^^^^*.
The final subject in this section is ’failure
criteria’; which are used to describe remaining
strength. In general, failure criteria are chosen
on the basis of the known failure mode. If fiber
fracture controls strength, then a suitable crite-
rion may be just the stress in the fiber direction
divided by the strength in that direction. If
matrix behavior is controlling, a shear stress or
combined stress criterion may be appropriate.
Figure 35.12 shows a comparison between
strength ‘envelopes’predicted by two popular
criteria. It is important to note that the inputs
to the failure function will, in general, change
as a function of time and loading history. The
general form of any failure criterion will usu-
ally be some function of the ratios of stress in
principal material directions to strength in
those directions, as mentioned earlier. Under
long-term conditions which induce damage,
the local stress changes as damage causes
redistribution, and the principal values of
material strength change, due to such things
as constituent degradation or micro-damage.
Hence, to calculate damage tolerance by using
Criterion:
I -
Maximum stress -
Applied
Stress (ksi)
0 90
Angle of Loading (deg)
Fig. 35.12 Allowable uniaxial loading as a function
of angle of loading relative to the fiber direction in
a unidirectional lamina, estimated from a maxi-
mum stress and a popular effective stress criterion.
 Composite micro-strengthand remaining strength models 803

failure functions (or criteria) to calculate utility of such models. The example is a recent
remaining strength, one must be careful to use model of tensile strength. (Figure 35.13). The
the correct local stress state and material state
stress in the broken fibers builds back up to the
in those expressions, especially when degra- undisturbed level by shear transfer from the
dation has changed those states from their surrounding matrix, composite, and inter-
initial values. phase region. That rate of buildup is directly
proportional to the stress concentration in the
next nearest fibers; if the buildup occurs over a
35.4 COMPOSITE MICRO-STRENGTH AND
short distance (a short 'ineffective length), the
REMAINING STRENGTH MODELS
stress concentration in the neighboring fibers
The importance of material principal strengths is great, and they tend to break causing very
was noted, and the importance of composite brittle composite behavior. However, if the
microstructure in the determination of those buildup occurs over a large distance (i.e. if the
strengths has been emphasized. The proper- material around the fiber is very compliant or
ties, geometry, arrangement, and bonding of breaks easily ), the strength of each fiber is lost
the constituents determine the resulting val- completely when the first local fiber break
ues of composite principal strengths. So, if occurs. A model has been developed that
those factors are understood, strong, durable, describes the physics and mechanics of this
damage tolerant composites can be designed. behavior, which estimates the fiber strength as:
That understanding is currently incomplete, 2z0L l / m + l 2 l / m + l m + 1
but some models are available. Such models
are very valuable since they can tell us the
4= ...'-+1(7r) ( K T ) m +2
preferable way to make composite materials, (1 + m)l/"
in contrast to how they can be made (the job of (C," + q m - 1 + ... + ly" (35.1)
the materials science community).
In this limited space, one example will suf- where a, is the Weibull characteristic strength
fice to demonstrate the general nature and of the fibers, z, is the shear stress between the

Composite
4 zt: Normal stress In:
broken fiber

EE
: P nelghboring
FlbersC

Fiber
breaks

t . I
Average global values
away from fiber fracture

Fig. 35.13 Schematic diagram of the local stress distribution around broken fibers in a unidirectional
composite.
804 Durability and damage tolerance offibrous composite systems

fibers and the matrix (usually taken as the continuous fiber reinforced composites is
interphase strength), m is the Weibull shape outlined. A great many details will have to be
parameter for the fiber strength distribution, omitted due to space limitations; the inter-
and Cnis the local stress concentration when n ested reader can find them in other
fibers are broken together in a local region. publication^"^^.
Hence, the tensile strength in the fiber direc- A start is to identdy a well-defined failure
tion can be estimated on the basis of the mode, as defined earlier. Since damage is dis-
properties of the constituents and the inter- tributed, this damage mode will be 'typical' of
phase region between the fibers and the any 'representative volume' of material; a
matrix. If any of those constituent characteris- mechanics boundary value problem on such a
tics change, the model can show how the representative volume (RV), as suggested in
strength of the composite changes, i.e. the Fig. 35.14 can be 'set'. This RV may be discon-
model can be used to calculate the damage tol- tinuous; i.e. it may have cracks, delamination,
erance of the composite if the failure mode is debonds, etc. But some part of it will remain
controlled by fiber strength in tension. intact until fracture of the composite, and this
Comparable models can be constructed for part of the RV that defines the fracture event is
compression failure, and for other failure a 'critical element'. Therefore the objective is
mode^^*^^. the calculation of the state of stress and state of
material in the 'critical element.' One can write
all failure functions, Fa, in that critical element,
35.5 ESTIMATION OF REMAINING
and claim that when these failure functions
STRENGTH AND LIFE
(for each distinct failure mode) predict failure,
As indicated earlier, damage tolerance is the composite will fail.
defined by remaining strength, and durabil- Invoking kinetic theory we can derive an
ity is usually discussed in terms of life. In this equation that relates changes in stress state and
final section, one approach to the estimation material state with time and loading history to
of the durability and damage tolerance of remaining strength, i.e. allow the incorporation

failure modes

Fig. 35.14 Diagram illustrating how experimental observation of failure modes define the representative
volume (used to set the boundary value problem) and the critical elements in which all continuum states
are defined.

of the explicit time, cycles, and environmental
dependence that leads to phenomenological
behavior such as creep, creep rupture, fatigue,
and aging into the calculation of remaining
strength. From thermodynamic principles, the
F, = 1 - lyl(l
following expression can be derived:
- Fa),( n d( $)
N)1-1 (35.2)
where
in the critical element, F, is the normalized
remaining strength, n is cycles, and N is the
life of the critical element under the current
state of stress and state of material. The
methodology of this calculation is shown in
Fig. 35.15. Remaining composite strength, F ,
is calculated directly; life is calculated by the
coincidence of Fa and Fr. Numerous compar-
isons of such calculations with experimental
data have been made over the last 10 years or
so, and there are a few examples at the end of
this chapter. The immediate purposes are
served by using eqn(35.2) to examine the
effects of some hypothetical change in mater-
ial state and stress state on remaining strength
(damage tolerance). If the failure mode is ten-
State of State of
Subcritical Critical
Fig. 35.15 Schematic flow diagram of the manner in which the MRLife simulation scheme calculates
remaining strength and life.
Estimation of remaining strength and life 805
sile fiber failure, and it is assumed that some
fatigue behavior of unidirectional material
under uniaxial stress in the fiber direction has
been measured, a 1-D SN relationship can be
derived, of the form:
s,
S"
= A + B (log N)p (35.3)
where, for our example, A = 1, B = -0.1, Su =
100 ksi (the initial ultimate strength), p = 1,and
Sa is the applied stress amplitude. Equation
(35.3) provides an input, N, into (35.2) since
where u,, is now the current local ply stress in
the fiber direction, and X , is the current local
principal material strength in tension, given
by eqn (35.1). Substituting eqn (35.4) in
eqn (35.2) and assuming that no other
phenomena are present (and using j = 1.2, a
known typical value), the curve (a) in Fig.
35.16 results. Now, suppose the ply is the
critical element in a multiaxial laminate
having off-axis plies that crack and 'dump'
stress into the critical element as a function of
I I
life N, N2
reipresentative volume
806 Durability and damage tolerance offibrous composite systems
Remaining
Strength
Cycles
Fig. 35.16 Calculated remaining strength predic-
tions for (a)0" lamina degradation alone; (b) added
effect of matrix cracking; (c) added effect of fiber
degradation (e.g.by oxidation).
cycles, according to the rate shown in Fig.
35.17 (from cracking rates that must be
measured or estimated). With this internal
stress redistribution, only, added to eqn (35.2),
the damage tolerance changes to curve (b) in
Fig. 35.16. Of course, if creep occurs in the
matrix (perhaps because of increased
temperature), in which case the local fiber
stress will increase again as a function of
cycles to change the form shown in Fig. 35.17.
Finally, suppose creep rupture is occurring,
driven, for example, by oxidation of the fibers
that is reducing the diameter of the fibers, D,
in eqn (35.1), in the manner shown in
Fiber- Stress increase due
Direction
Stress
40 ' 1
I
Cycles
4
5x10 9.999~10
4
I
Fig. 35.17 Assumed increase in stress in the 0" ply
due to matrix cracking.
I
-
Cycles
Fig. 35.18 Assumed degradation of fiber strength
for the sample laminate.
Fig. 35.18. Then the strength model, eqn (35.1),
correctly integrates that micro-change into the
global calculation, and eqn (35.2) shows the
damage tolerance to be curve (c) in Fig. 35.16
for that situation. Hence this 'micro-kinetic'
approach has the capability to estimate
durability and damage tolerance for very
complex situations involving combinations of
many time and cycle dependent phenomena
in composite systems, using a mechanistic
approach.
An example follows. Using the methods
described above, the rate of matrix cracking
and the unidirectional SN curve of a carbon
fiber reinforced PEEK matrix composite were
determined, and used to estimate the remain-
ing strength and life of several different
laminates made from that material. Figure
35.19 shows an example of the predicted and
observed life for several load levels of a quasi-
isotropic laminate made from such material
and Fig. 35.20 shows comparisons of the pre-
dicted and observed remaining strength of
such laminates for two load levels and cycles
of load application. It can be seen that this
approach can produce quite useable results.
Many such predictions have been compared
using the MRLife performance simulation
code based on this
 Estimation of remaining strength and life 807

AS-4lPEE K (APC-2)
Quasi-Isotropic Notched Fatigue (R=-1)
0.75

I 1 I
0.45
3 4 5 6 7
Log N (Cycles)
Simonds B Stinchcomb MRLife
(1 989) Prediction
0

Fig. 35.19 Predicted (line) and observed life for a quasi-isotropicAS-4/PEEK notched coupon under fully
reversed loading.

Residual Strength at 0.70 Suit Residual Strength at 0.90 SI,,

11.05 1.05

1.00 1.w
r r
F
E!
P
E!
5 5
3 0.95 3 0.05

P P
;
2
.-
0
0.w ......................................................
d
x1
N

€0
0.w

z z
0.85 ..................................................... 0.85 ......................................................

0.80 0.80
2 5 1 0 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 2 0 0
Cycles Cycles
M E h Expepnt Mfih Expepml

Fig. 35.20 Predicted (lines) and observed residual strength of AS-4/PEEK specimens subjected to under
fully reversed cyclic loading.
808 Durability and damage tolerance offibrous composite systems
35.6 SUMMARY
This has been a short outline of the physical
behavior associated with the durability and
damage tolerance of composite material sys-
tems, and a few modeling approaches to the
estimation and prediction of that behavior have
been indicated. It should be noted that there is
every evidence that composite materials are
remarkably durable and damage tolerant.
Fatigue allowables for carbon fiber reinforced
polymer composites, for example, exceed those
of structural steels, and the durability and dam-
age tolerance of ceramic composites make them
the only choice for ultra-high temperature
applications in turbines, etc. Understanding of
this subject, which is admittedly incomplete,
has reached a level that is sufficient to support
engineering applications of composites to even
the most demanding situations in the most
severe environments. In fact, that is exactly the
situation in which the application of compos-
ites is most beneficial and cost effective.
Composite material systems can provide many
new opportunities to design for damage toler-
ance and durability.
REFERENCES
1. Life Prediction Methodologies for Composite
Materials, NMAB-460. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, 1990.
2. High-Temperature Materials for Advanced
Technological Applications, NMAB-450.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,
1988.
3. Horton, P.E. and Whitehead, R., Damage
Tolerance of Composites, Vol. I and 11, Air Force
Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, AFWAL TR-
87-3030, 1988.
4. Daniel, I.M. and Ishai, O., Engineering Mechanics
of Composite Materials. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1994.
5. Reifsnider, K.L. and Highsmith, A.L.,
Characteristic damage states: A new approach
to representing fatigue damage in composite
laminates. In Materials: Experimentation and
Design in Fatigue, Guildford, U.K.:
Butterworth/IPC, 1981, pp. 246-260.
6. Damage in Composite Materials: Basic Mechanisms,
Accumulation, Tolerance, and Characterization,
STP 775, American Society for Testing and
Materials, (ed. K.L. Reifsnider), 1982.
7. Highsmith, A.L., Stijfrzess Reduction Resulting
from Transverse Cracking in Fiber-Reinforced
Composite Laminates. Master of Science Thesis.
Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, 1981.
8. Reifsnider, K.L., Some fundamental aspects of
the fatigue and fracture of composite materials.
In Proc. 14th Ann. SOC. Engng Science Mg.
Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University, 1977.
9. Highsmith, A.L., Damage Induced Stress
Redistribution in Composite Laminates. PhD
Dissertation. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1984.
10. Bader, M.G., Bailey, J.E., Curtis, P.T. and Parviz,
A., The Mechanisms of Initiation and develop-
ment of damage in multi-axial fibre-reinforced
plastic laminates. In Proc. 3rd Intern. Conf.
Mechanical Behavior of Materials. Cambridge,
U.K., 1979.
11. Reifsnider, K.L., Damage and damage mechan-
ics. In Fatigue of Composite Materials, (ed. K.L.
Reifsnider), Amsterdam: Elsevier Science
Publishers, 1990.
12. OBrien, T.K., Characterization of delamination
onset and growth in a composite laminate. In
Damage in Composite Materials, ASTM STP 775,
1982, p. 140.
13. OBrien, T.K., Analysis of local delaminations
and their influence on composite laminate
behavior. In Delamination and Debonding of
Materials, ASTM STP 876, 1985, pp. 282-297.
14. OBrien, T.K. and Hooper, S.J., Local delamina-
tion in laminates with angle ply matrix cracks:
Part I, Tension tests and stress analysis. In
N A S A TM 104055,1991.
15. Razvan, A. and Reifsnider, K.L., Fiber fracture
and strength degradation in unidirectional
graphite/epoxy composite materials. In
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 1991,
16,81-89.
16. Razvan, A., Bakis, C.E. and Reifsnider, K.L.,
SEM Investigation of fiber fracture in composite
laminates. In Materials Characterization, 1990,24,
179-190.
17. Lorenzo, L. and Hahn, H.T., Fatigue failure
mechanisms in unidirectional composites. In
Composite Materials: Fatigue and Fracture, ASTM
STP 907, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1986, pp. 210-232.

18. Ishida, H. (ed.), Controlled Interphases in
Composite Materials, New York: Elsevier, 1990.
19. Warren, R. (ed.), Ceramic Matrix Composites,
New York: Chapman and Hall, 1992.
20. Reifsnider, K.L. (ed.), Fatigue of Composite
Materials, London: Elsevier Science Publishers,
1991.
21. Jamison, R.D., Fiber fracture in composite lami-
nates. In Proc. lntl. Con$ on Composite Materials
VI, 1987, no. 3, pp. 185-199.
22. Jamison, R.D., Schulte, K., Reifsnider, K.L. and
Stinchcomb, W.W., Characterization and analy-
sis of damage mechanisms in tension-tension
fatigue of Graphite/Epoxy Laminates. In Efects
of Defects in Composite Materials, ASTM STP 836,
American Society For Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA, 1984, pp. 21-55.
23. Tiwari, A., The Development of an Interpretive
Methodology for the Application of Real-Time
Acousto-Ultrasonic NDE Techniques for
Monitoring Damage in Ceramic Composites Under
Dynamic Loads. PhD Dissertation. Blacksburg,
Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, 1993.
24. Wilkinson, S.P., Liptak, S.C., Lesko, J.J., Dillard,
D.A., Morton, J., McGrath, J.E. and Ward, T.C.,
Toughened bismaleimides and their carbon
fiber composites for fiber-matrix interphase
Studies. In Proc. 6th Japan-U.S. Conf Composite
Materials, 1992.
25. Hedrick, J., Patel, N.M. and McGrath, J.E.,
Toughening of epoxy resin networks with func-
tionalized engineering thermoplastics. In ACS
Advances in Chemistry Series, no. 233,
Toughened Plastics I: Science and Engineering, (eds.
C.K. Riew and A.J. Kinloch), 1993, pp. 293-304.
26. Swain, R.E., Reifsnider, K.L., Jayaraman, K. and
El-Zein, M., Interface/interphase concepts in
composite material systems. J. Thermoplastic
Comp. Mater., 1990, 3, 13-23.
27. Case, S.W., Micromechanics of Strength-Related
Phenomena in Composite Materials. MS Thesis.
Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, 1993.
28. Carman, G.P., Eskandari, S. and Case, S.W.,
Analytical investigation of fiber coating effects
on shear and compression strength, symposium
on durability and damage tolerance, ASME
WAM, (in press), 1994.
29. Jayaraman, K. and Reifsnider, K.L., The inter-
phase in unidirectional fiber-reinforcedepoxies:
effect of residual thermal stresses. Comp. Sci.
Tech., 1993,47, 119-129.
References 809
30. Jayaraman, K., Gao, Z . and Reifsnider, K.L., The
interphase in unidirectional fiber reinforced
epoxies: effect on local stress fields. J. Comp.
Tech. Res., 1994,16(1):21-31.
31. Jayaraman, K., Reifsnider, K.L. and Swain, R.E.,
Elastic and thermal effects in the interphase:
Part 11. comments on modeling studies. J. Comp.
Tech. Res., 1993,15(1):14-22.
32. Jayaraman, K., Reifsnider, K.L. and Swain, R.E.,
Elastic and thermal effects in the interphase:
Part I. comments on characterization methods.
J. Comp. Tech. Res., 1993,15(1):3-13.
33. Gao, Z . and Reifsnider, K.L., Micromechanics of
Tensile Strength in Composite Systems. Fourth
Volume, ASTM STP 2256, (eds W. W. Stinchcomb
and N. E. Ashbaugh), Philadelphia, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials,
1993, pp. 453-470.
34. Xu, Y. and Reifsnider, K.L., Micromechanical
modeling of composite compressive strength. J.
Comp. Mater., 1993, 27(6):572-587.
35. Reifsnider, K. L. and Gao, Z., Micromechanical
concepts for the estimation of property evolu-
tion and remaining life. In Proc. Intern. Con5
Spacecraft Structures and Mechanical Testing,
Noordwijk, the Netherlands, 1991, pp. 653-657.
36. Curtin, W.A., Theory of mechanical properties
of ceramic-matrix composites. J. Amer. Ceram.
SOC.,1991, 74(11),2837-2845.
37. Reifsnider, K.L., Performance simulation of
polymer-based composite systems. In Durability
of Polymer-Based Composite Systems for Structural
Applications, (eds A.H. Cardon and G.
Verchery), New York: Elsevier Applied Science,
1991, pp. 3-26.
38. Reifsnider, K.L. and Stinchcomb, W.W., A criti-
cal element model of the residual strength and
life of fatigue-loaded composites coupons. In
Composite Materials: Fatigue and Fracture, ASTM
STP 907, (ed. H.T. Hahn), Philadelphia, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials,
1986, pp. 298-313.
39. Reifsnider, K.L., Use of mechanistic life predic-
tion methods for the design of damage tolerant
composite material systems. In ASTM STP 2257,
(eds M.R. Mitchell and 0. Buck), Philadelphia,
PA: American Society for Testing and Materials,
1992, pp. 205-223.
40. Reifsnider, K.L., Evolution concepts for
microstructure property interactions in compos-
ite systems. In Proc. IUTAM Conf.
Microstructure-Property Interactions in Composite
Materials. Aalborg, Denmark, 1994.