Compressive strength of unidirectional

composites: evaluation and comparison

of prediction models
N.K. Naik, Rajesh S. Kumar

Eduardo Rondon
EAS 6939

Introduction
Study of composites is a relatively new branch of Engineering
Micromechanics dates back to the 1960s with research such

as that which led to Rosens compressive strength predictions

in 1965
Although much is well-understood, much research continues
on modelingg compressive
p
strength
g
Many factors govern compressive failure (e.g. layup, loading)
Because of this, empirical models are often developed around

experimental data sets

Introduction
Although many models are present, few have been compared
Since predictions are so empirical, they depend highly on

their test results.

The
Th goall off this
h study
d was to compare allll models
d l to a
common data set
Ideally,
Ideally one would find a predictive method that is both
accurate and simple

Introduction
Often in composites, failure is determined by compressive

stresses (compressive strength is lower than tensile strength)

Compression also comes hand in hand with buckling (global
or local)
Failure under compressive loading is defined as failure of the
material without the specimen
p
bucklingg or anyy other gglobal
defect triggering the mechanism

Th Three
The
Th
C
Compressive
i F
Failure
il
M
Modes
d
Microbuckling is the buckling of fibers within the matrix.

Can happen out of phase (extensional microbuckling) or in

phase (shear microbuckling)

Th Three
The
Th
C
Compressive
i F
Failure
il
M
Modes
d
Kinking is highly localized fiber buckling. It is only occurs

after microbuckling has already developed after the

attainment of a peak compressive load when the region
between breaks is deformed plastically
Found by Argon to be produced by a component of
interlaminar shear stress due to ppresence of misalignment
g

Th Three
The
Th
C
Compressive
i F
Failure
il
M
Modes
d

Transverse tensile rupture due to Poisson strains.

Not discussed in the paper, but Agarwal and Broutman found

thi is
this
i a goodd predictor
di t ffor glass-reinforced
l
i f
d composites.
it

Microbuckling based Models

Microbuckling-based
Rosens model:
In the extension mode
mode, fibers are out of phase,
phase putting the matrix in tension
Shear causes shear stress in matrix due to in-phase fiber buckling
His idealistic approach assumed the composite as 2D, and gave predictions for

extension mode failure and shear mode failure

Although shear strength is less than extensional strength, it is still significantly
greater than experimental data
Models are based on ideal assumptions

Microbuckling based Models

Microbuckling-based
Lo and Chim developed a model based on the analysis of failure as localized

microbuckling rather than full-length

full length microbuckling
Analyzed a simply supported Timoshenko beam using energy principle, then

replaced beam properties with composites

Added
Add d a semi-empiricall scaling
l ffactor to account ffor uncertainty in bboundary
d

conditions in the buckled region

Microbuckling based Models

Microbuckling-based
Xu and Reifsnider predicted strength based on the analysis of microbuckling of

a representative volume element using a beam on elastic foundation model

The stiffness of the foundation was determined through an elasticity solution of

the foundation model problem

Accounted
A
d ffor matrix slippage
l
andd ffiber-matrix
b
b d condition,
bond
d
so stillll depends
d
d

on empirical data to finalize the model

Microbuckling based Models

Microbuckling-based
Lagoudas, Tadjbakhsh, and Fares treated composite as an

inhomogeneous 2D continuum
Specifically, included spatial variation in the axial Youngs
modulus to represent fibers and matrix
Their models higher bound coincided with Rosen, the lower
bound is seen below

Models Based on Kinking

Budiansky unified the Rosen and Argons formulas for an

ideally elastic plastic composite

At zero degrees of misalignment, reduces to the Rosen
model
For large fiber misalignments, the model asymptotically
approaches
pp
to Argons
g
model
In his studies, Budiansky found two degrees of misalignment
are common for polymeric composites

Models Based on Kinking

Lagoudas and Saleh proposed a model based on steady-state

kink propagation
Assume a composite of finite dimensions containing a kink
originating at a free edge or weak point
Calculated work required to propagate the kink band until all
layers
y were damaged
g

Evaluating the Models

Models compared to existing data set found in the literature for E-glass/Epoxy

and T-300/5208
T 300/5208 carbon/epoxy
Lo and Chim used the most common data sets available in the literature (even

for the same material, the literature contains many variations in reported
strengths)
Compressive strength data for the E-glass composite
FiberVolumeFraction,Vf
Longitudinal Compressive Strength, Xc [MPa]
LongitudinalCompressiveStrength,Xc[MPa]

0.3
583

0.37
555

0.46
673

0.55
475

Compressive strength data for the carbon composite

FiberVolume
Fraction,Vf
i
f
Longitudinal
Compressive
Strength,Xc[MPa]

0.55

0.59

0.62

0.65

0.66

0.70

1570

1228

1516

1585

1508

1500

Results
Xu-Reifsnider fits CFRP (right) pretty well, but is a poor

predictor the the E-glass composite (left) at high fiber

volume fractions
Results are not greatly sensitive to the matrix-slippage
matrix slippage
percentage (zeta)

Results
Budiansky gives good results for a misalignment angle of

approximately two degrees. The predictions were slightly

better for CFRP (right)

Results
Overall, Budiansky and Xu-Reifnsider were by far the most

accurate models for both E-glass and graphite composites

Conclusions
It is found Xu-Reifsnider and Budiansky models predict the

compressive data quite accurately

Although Lo-Chim gives good results, skepticism must be
taken because it was designed around the data set used in the
comparison
Although
g Lagoudas
g
effectivelyy applies
pp a scalar to Rosen,, it
still over-predicts the strength of the data set

Questions?

References
R. F. Gibson, Principles of Composite Material Mechanics. Boca

Raton: CRC Press, 2007.

N. K. Naik and R. S. Kumar, Compressive strength of
unidirectional composites: evaluation and comparison of
prediction models, in Composite Structures, vol. 46, pp. 299
308, 1999.