1

Aerospace Structures and Materials:

Composite Failure
Dr. Tom Dragone
Orbital Sciences Corporation
2
Structure Design / Analysis Process
BOX BEAM ANALYSIS
Component Loads
(Cap Forces, Shear Flow)
JOINT LOADS
Weld , Braze
Bond, Bolt
Metal
Yield
Rupture
Composite
FPF
LPF
Stability
Buckling
Crippling
Fracture
Toughness
Crack Size
Fatigue
Crack Initiation
Crack Growth
MS>0?
SHEAR-MOMENT
DIAGRAM
Section Loads
GLOBAL LOADS
Aerodynamics
Inertial
Applied
GEOMETRY
Planform
Skin Construction
Spar/Rib Layout
SIZING
Thickness
Ply Orientation
MATERIALS
Metal
Composite
Structure
Idealization
Stiffness
Lamination Theory
Done
FAILURE ANALYSIS
Yes No
3
Motivation
Composite failure is very different from metal failure

Discussion Questions:
How does a composite yield? Does Von Mises or Tresca hold?
How does a composite fail or rupture? What are some of the
mechanisms involved?
Are composites better or worse than metals under fatigue
loading?
How would a composite fracture? Does LEFM apply?
What additional failure modes are possible with composites?
4
Failure Envelopes
Metal Failure: Homogeneous and Isotropic
Composite Failure: Inhomogeneous and Anisotropic
VON MISES: 1
2
2
2
2 1
2
1
<
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
ty ty ty
F F F
o o o o
TRESCA: ( ) | |
sy
F 2 , , max
2 1 2 1
< o o o o
1
o
2
o
COMPOSITE:
5
Stress-Strain Behavior
o
c
METAL
BIDIRECTIONAL
LAMINATE
UNIDIRECTIONAL
LAMINATE
Yield
FPF
LPF
Ultimate
FPF, LPF
6
Ply Failure
First Ply Failure (FPF)
Similar to yield
First indication of non-reversible deformation
Change in slope of loading curve (non-linear)
Laminate has residual load-bearing potential

Last Ply Failure (LPF)
Similar to Ultimate
No more load bearing potential
Rupture
7
Ply Failure Criteria
First Ply Failure Criteria
Maximum Stress
Maximum Strain
Hill (Maximum Distortion Energy)
Tsai-Wu (Quadratic)
Matrix Tension
Matrix Compression

Last Ply Failure Criteria
Fiber Tension
Fiber Compression
}
}
No Description of
Failure Mechanism
Indicates
Failure Mechanism
8
Failure Analysis Implementation
Weakest Link Analogy
Failure criteria apply at the ply level
When one layer fails, the entire laminate fails

Which Failure Criteria to Use?
Depends on the particular fiber/matrix combination
Must test to determine most appropriate criteria

Failure Envelopes for Composites are Rarely Used
Complex ply interactions make visualization difficult
Sometimes can be helpful for a particular laminate
9
Failure Criteria
1 1 1 < < <
S Y X
xy y
x
t o
o
Maximum Stress
Maximum Strain
1
2 2
2
2
<
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
S Y X X
xy y y x
x
t o o o
o
Hill (Max Energy)
1 1 1 < < <
S
G
Y
E
X
E
xy xy y y
x x
c
c
Tsai-Wu
1 2
1 1 1 1
2
2 2
2
< + + + +
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|

y x ij
xy y
x
y x
F
S YtYc XtXc
Yc Yt Xc Xt
o o
t o
o
o o
X = Longitudinal
Strength
Y = Transverse
Strength
S = Shear
Strength
Xt = Tensile
Strength
Xc = Compressive
Strength
Fij = Empirical
Factor ~ -0.5
10
Failure Criteria
1
2 2
<
(

+
(

S Y
xy y
t o
Matrix Tension
1 1
2 2
2
2
2
<
(

+
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
+
(

S Yc S
Yc
S
xy y y
t o o
Matrix Compression
Fiber Tension 1
2
2
<
(

+
(

S Xt
xy
x
t
o
1 <
Xc
x
o
Fiber Compression
11
Stress Space Failure Envelope
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400


T
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
s
i
)
Longitudinal Stress (ksi)
MaxStress
MaxStrain
Hill
TsaiWu
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15


T
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
s
i
)
Longitudinal Stress (ksi)
MaxStress
MaxStrain
Hill
TsaiWu
12
Strain Space Failure Envelope
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15


T
r
a
n
s
v
e
r
s
e

S
t
r
a
i
n

(
m
c
)
Longitudinal Strain (mc)
MaxStress
MaxStrain
Hill
TsaiWu
13
Progressive Damage Models
FPF Usually Implies Transverse Failure of Matrix
Fiber can still continue to bear load
Does not cause rupture
Causes change in failed ply stiffness
Set Ply Transverse Modulus and Shear Modulus = 0
Load is Shifted to Other Layers
Other Plies MAY Fail Leading to FPF = LPF
or
Stable Equilibrium Reached Such That Laminate Can Take More
Applied Load
Process Continues Until Fiber Failure Occurs in Weakest Ply
Progressive Damage Models Typically Used in Failure
Investigations, Not in Design Because They are Cumbersome
14
COMPFAIL Process
Apply Loads
Return Strains and Curvatures
Return Equivalent Moduli (For Symmetric Laminates ONLY)
Return Ply Strains and Ply Stresses
c
1
, c
2
, c
6
, o
1
, o
2
, o
6
for Global (Laminate) Coordinate System
c
x
, c
y
, c
s
, o
x
, o
y
, o
s
for Local (Material) Coordinate System

Two Values:
Top and Bottom
of Ply
15
COMPFAIL Failure Analysis Process
Calculate Failure Criteria for Each Ply
2 2
2
2
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
S Y X X
xy y y x
x
t o o o
o
2
2
(

+
(

S Xt
xy
x
t
o
Xc
x
o
y x ij
xy y
x
y x
F
S YtYc XtXc
Yc Yt Xc Xt
o o
t o
o
o o
2
1 1 1 1
2
2 2
2
+ + + +
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|

2 2
(

+
(

S Y
xy y
t o
16
COMPFAIL Failure Analysis Process
Calculate Failure Criteria for Each Ply
Calculate R Value for Each Ply
R = Factor x Applied Load That Gives
Failure Index = 1
R ~ 1/(Failure Index)^2
1
2 2
=
(

+
(

S
R
Y
R
xy y
t o
2 2
(

+
(

S Y
xy y
t o
17
COMPFAIL Failure Analysis Process
Calculate Failure Criteria for Each Ply
Calculate R Value for Each Ply
Search for Minimum R Value Through Thickness
18
COMPFAIL Failure Analysis Process
Calculate Failure Criteria for Each Ply
Calculate R Value for Each Ply
Search for Minimum R Value Through Thickness
Summarize Values
19
COMPFAIL Failure Analysis Process
Calculate Failure Criteria for Each Ply
Calculate R Value for Each Ply
Search for Minimum R Value Through Thickness
Summarize Values
Color Code:
Green = FI > 1.5
Yellow = 1.25 < FI < 1.5
Red = FI<1.25
20
Other Failure Mechanisms
Failure
Mechanism
Characteristics
Hygroscopic
Swelling
- Organic polymer matrices tend to absorb moisture
- Absorbed moisture causes the polymer to swell, resulting
in stress if the volume is constrained
- Composite swelling described by Moisture Expansion
Coefficient, analogous to Thermal Expansion Coefficient
- Hot/Wet properties can be 30% less than RT properties
Delamination
- Separation between plies in a laminate or between the
core and the skin of a sandwich structure
- Very difficult to predict
- Usually requires fracture mechanics approach to
determine stable or unstable energy release rates
21
Delamination
0
45
-45
90
90
-45
45
0
Crack Initiation
22
Delamination
Between Plies
Interface
Delamination Growth
23
Other Failure Mechanisms
Failure
Mechanism
Characteristics
Impact
Damage
- Impact may be caused by dropped tools (low velocity),
Foreign Object Damage (FOD) kicked up from runway,
hail, bird strikes, ballistic impact, hypervelocity impact of
micrometeoroid or orbital debris (high velocity)
- Impact may cause damage that is undetectable (matrix
cracking within laminate), visible (usually on the rear side
of a laminate) or complete penetration
- Impact damage may be matrix cracking, delamination,
skin debond, or fiber breakage
- Greater impactor energy => greater damage
- Tougher matrix => less damage
- Impact damage may cause ultimate failure immediately
(rupture of a tank), or may be the site of crack
propagation for subsequent failure
24
Impact Damage
Impact Visible Damage
Ultrasonic Image
Internal Damage
25
Impact Damage
Internal Rib Damage
Core Damage
26
Other Failure Mechanisms
Failure
Mechanism
Characteristics
Fatigue - Fatigue in composites is generally better than metals
because the fibers act to deflect the crack and stop crack
growth
- Exact mechanisms are complex, but follow same general
pattern as for metals:
- LCF: Failure set by ultimate strain of material
- MCF: Allowable strain decreases with number of cycles
- HCF: Below minimum strain threshold, composites have
infinite fatigue life because matrix does not crack, so no
cracks can grow
27
Other Failure Modes
c
th
~ 6000c for many resins
Design Below This to Eliminate Microcracking and Fatigue Damage
High Cycle Fatigue
FATIGUE
c
th

Strain
Cycles
Low Cycle Fatigue
c
c

Matrix Cracking
Interface Shear
Fatigue Limit
for Matrix
Fiber Breakage
Interface Debonding
28
Delamination
0
45
-45
90
90
-45
45
0