Composites Science and Technology 58 (1998) 12251254

# British Crown Copyright 1998, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency,

published by Elsevier Science Ltd with permission
Printed in Great Britain
PII: S0266-3538(98)00077-3 0266-3538/98 $see front matter

A COMPARISON OF THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES OF

CURRENT FAILURE THEORIES FOR COMPOSITE LAMINATES

P. D. Soden,a* M. J. Hintonb & A. S. Kaddoura

a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, UMIST, PO Box 88, Sackville Street, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
b
Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA), Structural Materials Centre, Fort Halstead, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 7BP, UK

(Received 23 March 1998; accepted 25 March 1998)

Abstract In the current exercise,11 the originators of a variety

This paper presents a unique and comprehensive compar-
ison between the predictions of internationally recognised
failure theories for bre-reinforced polymer-composite
laminates. The theories were applied by their originators
(or their colleagues) to carefully selected test cases cov-
ering a wide range of lay-ups, materials and in-plane
loading conditions. Key features in each theory are iden-
tied including: types of failure models employed, whether
linear or non-linear analysis was carried out, reliance on
software and numerical methods, allowance for thermal
stresses and identication of modes of failure. The results
(initial and nal failure envelopes and representative
stress/strain curves) have been superimposed to show
similarities and dierences between the predictions of the
various theories. In addition, bar charts were constructed
to demonstrate the levels of agreement between the pre-
dicted initial and nal failure stresses and strains. Sources
of discrepancies between the predictions of the various
failure theories are discussed. The originators have the
opportunity to comment on and compare their theoretical
predictions with experimental results in the second part of
this Exercise which will be published separately. # British
Crown Copyright 1998, Defence Evaluation and Research
Agency, published by Elsevier Science Ltd with permission
Keywords: multiaxial failure envelopes, composite lami-
nates, failure criteria, stress/strain curves
1 INTRODUCTION
There has been a number of previous articles surveying
work on the biaxial behaviour of composites and com-
paring failure theories for bre-reinforced-plastic lami-
nates. These include reviews presented by Chamis,1
Sandhu,2 Owen and Griths,3 Soni,4 Tsai,5,6 Row-
lands,7 Nahas,8 Chen and Matthews9 and chapters in
textbooks on composites, e.g. Tsai6 and Daniel and
Ishai.10
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
1225
of failure theories have used their own theories to
predict the performance of specied carbon- and glass-
bre-reinforced epoxy laminates subjected to a range of
biaxial loads, using the same given material properties,
laminate arrangements and loading conditions.12
Because laminates are often able to carry higher loads
after the rst damage occurs, the participants were
asked to predict initial and nal failure loads and, in
some cases, stress/strain curves up to nal failure. Each
contributor has described his theory and analysed 14
dierent cases of biaxial failure envelopes and stress/
strain curves in some detail in a separate paper.1324
The objective of this paper is to compare their pre-
dictions and identify some of the major dierences
between them. The results from each contributor are
superimposed and compared, and reasons for some
overall dierences between the predictions are then dis-
cussed. At this stage of the exercise no attempt will be
made to draw conclusions about which theory is the
best. The emphasis is on clarifying the dierences
between them and between their predictions.
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FAILURE THEORIES
EMPLOYED IN THE EXERCISE
2.1 Identication of the theories
Numerous failure theories are available for bre-rein-
forced composites.110 The contributors to this exercise
were selected to represent a variety of the most impor-
tant approaches.11 Table 1 lists the participants and
indicates the twelve approaches they employed. For the
sake of simple identication and quick referencing, each
of the theories is referred to by a single name in this
paper, see the last column in Table 1. For those papers
that are single-authored, the name of the theory is
usually that of the author. However, for those papers
that are co-authored, the name of one key author is
given, although this key author may not be the sole
originator of the theory. For example, the strain-energy-
based theory employed in the paper by Wolfe and
Butalia is referred to as Wolfe's theory although it
 1226
Table 1. Summary of the participants and approaches represented in the exercise
Contributor(s) Organisation Approach represented Theory designation
Chamis, C. C., Gotsis P. K. and NASA Lewis, Cleveland, USA ICAN Chamis(1)
Minnetyan, L. CODSTRAN (micromechanics analyses) Chamis(2)
Hart-Smith, L. J. Douglas Products Division, Longbeach, USA Generalised Tresca theory Hart-Smith(1)
Hart-Smith, L. J. Maximum strain theory Hart-Smith(2)
Eckold, G. C. AEA Technology, Harwell, UK. British Standard pressure vessel design codes Eckold
Edge, E. C. British Aerospace, Military Aircraft Division, British Aerospace, In-house design method Edge

P. D. Soden et al.
Warton, UK
McCartney, L. N. National Physical Laboratory, London, UK Physically based `Damage Mechanics' McCartney

Puck, A. and Schurmann, H.
Wolfe, W. E. and Butalia, T. S.
Sun, C. T. and Tao, J. X.
Zinoviev, P., Grigoriev, S. V.,
Labedeva, O. V. and Tairova, L. R.
Tsai, S. W. and Liu, K.-S.
Rotem, A.
Technische Hochchule, Darmstadt, Germany Physically based 3-D phenomenological models Puck
Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio State University, Maximum strain energy method, due to Sandhu Wolfe
Ohio, USA
Purdue University School of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Linear and non-linear analysis (non-linear is Sun
West Lafayette, Indiana, USA. FE based)
Institute of Composite Technologies, Orevo, Development of Maximum stress theory Zinoviev
Moskovkaya, Russia.
Aeronautics and Astronautics Department, Interactive progressive quadratic failure criterion Tsai
Stanford University, California, USA.
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion-Israel Interactive matrix and bre failure theory Rotem
Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
 Current failure theories for composite laminates
originated from the work of Sandhu and colleagues at
Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
Some of the participants (Hart-Smith, Sun and Chamis)
presented more than one method of solving the test prob-
lems. Hart-Smith provided two contributions to the cur-
rent exercise. One is a generalized Tresca model,18 which
considers shearing of the bres as one of the dominant
failure modes and is referred to here as the Hart-Smith(1)
theory. The second paper,17 contains an interpretation of
the widely used maximum-strain and truncated-max-
imum-strain failure theories. The maximum-strain theory
is referred to here as the Hart-Smith(2) theory. The trun-
cated-maximum-strain theory is only slightly dierent
from the original maximum-strain theory.
Sun and Tao21 presented results for linear and non-
linear analyses. Their detailed non-linear analysis, which
is based on nite-element analysis and allows for elastic/
plastic material properties and progressively increasing
matrix crack density, was used only to predict stress/
strain curves. Their linear analysis was applied to gen-
erate the failure envelopes and stress/strain curves.
Chamis13 and his group at NASA employed two
computer programs (a) `Integrated Composite Analy-
ser' (ICAN) and (b) `Composite Durability Structural
Analyser' (CODSTRAN), which is integrated with a
nite-element package that allows analysis of complex
structures. Results are presented for each program.
ICAN results are referred to as Chamis(1) and COD-
STRAN results as Chamis(2).
2.2 Characteristics of the theories
Each of the theories can be characterised by a number
of key features. Table 2 lists some of the features,
including the following:
1. Identication of theory: This is shown in column 1.
2. Method of analysis: Whether classical thin-lami-
nate theory or a nite-element (FE) program was
used. All the contributors relied on classical thin-
laminate theory. Sun and Chamis have used nite-
element codes besides.
3. Type of analysis: Whether linear or non-linear
analysis was performed. Chamis, Eckold, Hart-
Smith, McCartney, Tsai, Sun (linear) and Zinoviev
used linear material properties whereas Edge,
Rotem, Puck, Wolfe and Sun (non-linear) used
non-linear analysis.
4. Thermal stresses: Whether or not thermal residual
stresses were included. Half of the participants
(Eckold, Hart-Smith, Rotem, Wolfe and Zinoviev)
did not include the thermal stresses while the oth-
ers attempted to do so but with some other con-
siderations, see Table 2.
5. Modes of failure: Whether the theory is able to
identify the modes of failure encountered during
loading. Almost all of the theories were able to
discriminate between two or more modes of fail-
ure. Various modes of failure and failure criteria
1227
were postulated in the theories, see Table 3. The
modes of failure basically range from bre failure
(tension, compression or shear) to matrix failure
(transverse tension, transverse compression, shear
or a combination of any of these three modes). In
most cases the properties used to predict the
modes of failure are lamina properties rather than
constituent (bre or matrix) properties.
6. Micromechanics: A few theories relied on micro-
mechanics in their formulation. Although the prop-
erties of all the laminae provided in the exercise are
inuenced by the properties of the constituents, i.e.
the bre and the matrix, certain theories (Chamis,
Hart-Smith(1), Puck, Rotem and Tsai) explicitly
required certain properties of the constituents.
. Unlike all the other contributors, both of Cha-
mis's programs are based on micromechanics
relationships and predict the lamina properties
from the properties of the constituents. The rele-
vant equations for calculating ply properties and
stress limits can be found in the ICAN code.13
Using ICAN, Chamis adjusted the constituent
properties to give lamina properties close to those
provided in the exercise and then used the derived
lamina properties to predict laminate behaviour.
. Hart-Smith(1) theory uses micromechanics to
obtain the failure-strain limits needed for
establishing the failure envelopes in the strain
plane, which can then be converted into an
appropriate envelope in the stress plane.
Among the properties needed are bre volume
fraction, bre moduli, bre Poisson ratios and
the modulus and Poisson ratio of the matrix.
. Tsai's theory uses micromechanics to carry out
progressive post-failure analysis.
. Rotem's theory requires the knowledge of the
matrix modulus and the tensile and compressive
strengths for use in his matrix failure criterion.
. Puck's theory requires the properties of the
bres (strengths, moduli and Poisson ratios)
and the modulus of the matrix. They are used
to compute, for instance, a stress magnication
factor that is needed for establishing biaxial
failure envelopes.
7. Post-initial failure degradation models: The entry in
the seventh column of Table 2 species whether or
not the theory used any degradation model to
account for post initial failure. Eckold and Hart-
Smith did not employ any post-failure model
whereas the rest did.
Multi-directional laminates subjected to uni-
axial or biaxial stresses may still be capable of
carrying load beyond rst-ply failure or initial
failure occurrence. The modelling of post-failure
behaviour of a laminate requires that assump-
tions be made regarding the properties of the
 1228
Table 2. A summary of key features of the theories used by various contributors
Contributor Method Type of Thermal Failure Micromechanics Degradation Failure criterion Computer program used
analysis stresses modes model
a
Chamis CLT+FE Linear Yesb Yes Yes Micromechanics based ICAN and CODSTRAN
Eckold CLT Linear No No No No BS4994 None
Edge CLT Nonlinear Yes Yes No Yes GrantSanders Modied ESDU package
Hart-Smith CLT Linearc No Yes Yes No Maximum strain theories and None
generalised Tresca criteria
McCartney CLT Linear Yes Yes No Yes Fracture mechanics Program developed at NPL, UK

P. D. Soden et al.
Puck CLT Non linear Yesd Yes Yes Yes Puck's theory FRACUAN developed in Kessel,
Germany
Rotem CLT Nonlinear Yes Yes Yes Yes Rotem theory In-house program
Sun CLTe Linear Yes Yes No Yes RotemHashin theory In-house program
f
Sun CLT+FE Non-linear Yes No No Yes Plasticity model based on Hill's yield ABAQUS program
Tsai CLT Linear Yes g Yes h Yes Yes Tsai-Wu quadratic theory Mic-Mac
Wolfe CLT Nonlinear No Yes No Yes Sandhu's strain energy model In-house program
Zinoviev CLT Linear No Yes No Yes Maximum stress theory STRAN software
a
Not in all cases.
b
The theory identies failure modes but Chamis chose not to present them for some of the cases he analysed.
c
Secant properties rather than initial properties are occasionally used in the analysis.
d
Only 50% of the thermal residual stresses are considered.
e
Used to generate the failure envelopes and stress/strain curves.
f
The nite element (FE) analysis was used only to generate the stress/strain curves.
g
Tsai introduced a certain amount of moisture to compensate for the thermal stresses.
h
Additional criteria identify modes of failure.
 Current failure theories for composite laminates 1229

Table 3. Summary of the post initial failure degradation models used in the theories
Name Failure mode Properties degraded
Eckold No post failure

Hart-Smith No post failure

Rotem After nal matrix failure E2 0
0, G12 0
0, E1 E01 expk"1 , k is a large constant

McCartney Lamina cracking detailed mathematical analysis for reducing stiness.

Puck Cracking under tension Mode (A) E2 E02 , G12 G012 , 12 012 , where  is a parameter which varies
with stress
Cracking under compression Modes G12 1 G012 , 12 012 ; where 1 is smaller than 
(B) and (C)

Chamis Matrix failure Em is replaced by a negligible value and E2 , G12 , 12 and E1 are
computed from micromechanics

Edge Matrix failure E2 1 E02 , G12 2 G012 , 12 3 012 , where 1 , 2 and 3 are
empirical parameters that decrease with increasing strain

Wolfe Matrix failure E2 0
0, G12 0
0, 12 0
0

Sun (linear) Shear matrix failure E2 0
0, G12 0
0

Transverse matrix failure E2 =0.0

Sun (Nonlinear) Matrix shear failure E2 E02 expE l) and G12 G012 expG l), where E and G are
constants, l is normalised crack density
Transverse matrix failure E2 E02 expE l

Tsai Matrix failure "2 > 0 Em 0
15E0m , 12 0
15012 ; where E2 and G12 are computed from
micromechanics

Matrix failure "2  0 E2 0
01E02 , G12 0
01G012 , 12 0
01012 , E1 0
01E01


Zinoviev Open Cracks 2 > 0 For j 12 j < j 12 j (a) when "2 < "2 : E2 2 E02 , G12 3 G012
(b) when "2 "2 : E2 0
0, G12 3 G012

For j 12 j j 12 j (a) when "2 < "2 : E2= 2 E02 , G12 0
0
(b) when
"2 > 0: E2 0
0, G12 0
0 ( is a function of strain)

Closed cracks 2 < 0 For
"2 < 0: (a) when j 12 j < j 12 j: G12 3 G012
(b) when
j 12 j > 0: G12 0
0

degraded lamina. Table 3 summarises the dier-
ent post-initial-failure models adopted. All these
models shared the following common features.
. All rely on ply-by-ply analysis.
. All assume that bre failure, be it in tension or
in compression, constitutes nal failure.
. Almost all models distinguish between failures
under transverse tension and that under trans-
verse compression. Here the term `transverse' is
used to refer to the direction perpendicular to
the bres in a lamina.
However, the post-failure methods employed do dif-
fer and, for the sake of simplicity, they can be classied
into two main groups:
(a) Models employing sudden reduction in the
properties of the failed lamina. These are
presented by Tsai, Wolfe and Sun (linear).
(b) Models employing a gradual drop in the
properties of the failed lamina. These are
represented by Puck, Edge, Rotem, Zinoviev,
Rotem, Chamis and Sun (non-linear).
Full details of all the models are given in the con-
tributors papers.1324
8. Failure criterion: This is to identify the origin, the
nature or the name of the failure theory used. The
theory used by Sun in his linear analysis is
attributed to Hashin and Rotem but was slightly
dierent from the theory Rotem applies in his
contribution to the exercise. Zinoviev's theory uses
a maximum-stress criterion with further develop-
ment to cater for various post-failure scenarios.
Equations governing the failure criteria used are
described by the participants in their own papers,
see also Table 4.
9. Title of computer program used: The entry in the
last column of Table 2 lists the name, if any, of the
computer program used by the participants. The
participants have either used commercial codes
(Chamis, Edge, Sun (non-linear), Tsai and Zinoviev),
 Table 4. Modes of failure in the theories

1230
Mode of failure Failure criterion Theory
 
1 f12
Fibre failure in tension "1T "1 Ef1 mf 2 1 Puck

Longitudinal tension failure 1 X T Zinoviev, Rotem, Sun, Edge

Longitudinal tensile failure "1 "1T (and Eckold's "1 0
004) Hart-Smith(2) and Eckold
 2  2        2
1
Fibre tension/ compression and matrix tension XT XC YTY2 C X1T X1C 1 Y1T Y1C 2 p
2F12 1 2
X X Y Y
12
S12 1 Tsai
T C T C
and compression and shear
2 3m1 2 3mi
1 d"1 1 d"i
6"^1 7 P 6"^i 7
Fibre failure (in tension and compression) 6 7 = 6 7  0
1 Wolfe
4 1 d"1
5 4 i d"i
5
i1;2;6
"u "u
1 i

 
Fibre failure in compressive 1
"1C j "1 Ef12
f1
m f  2 j 1 10 21 2 Puck

Longitudinal compressive failure 1 Xc (and Eckold 1 XT ) Zinoviev, Edge, Rotem, Sun, Hart-Smith(1)
and Eckold

P. D. Soden et al.
Longitudinal compressive failure "1 "1C (and Eckold "1 0
004) Hart-Smith(2) and Eckold

Shear of bres Tresca type criterion (see eqn (13) in Ref. 18) Hart-Smith(1)

Transverse tensile failure 2 YT Zinoviev, Edge, Eckold and Sun

r
4p
Transverse tensile cracking  kt > 1
1
0 where 2 is fracture energy, see also Ref. 16 McCartney
EA 2p EA p

Transverse tensile failure "2 "2T (and Eckold "2 0
001) Hart-Smith(2) and Eckold

Transverse compressive failure 2 YC (and Eckold 2 YT ) Zinoviev, Edge, Eckold and Sun

Transverse compressive failure "2 "2C (and Eckold "2 0
001) Hart-Smith(2) and Eckold

r 2    
21 YT 2 2 2
Inter-bre failure Mode A (for transverse tension) S21 1 p ?k S21 YT p?k S212 1 1D1 Puck
r !
 2 

Inter-bre failure Mode B (for moderate 1
S21
2
21 p?k 2 p?k 2 1 1D1 Puck
transverse compression)
" 2   #
2
21 YC
Inter-bre failure Mode C (for large transverse Y2C 1
2 1 1D Puck
21p?? S21

compression)
(continued)
 Table 4contd
Mode of failure Failure criterion Theory

Current failure theories for composite laminates

In-plane shear failure 12 S12 Zinoviev, Edge, Hart-Smith(1),
Hart-Smith(2), and Sun
 2  2
2
Combined transverse tension and shear YT S1212 1 Edge
 
1 12
Combined longitudinal compression and shear H1c j S12 j 1 Edge

Delamination 12
te > !r Edge


2   2
Matrix failure Y S12 1 (Chamis obtains Y and S12 from micromechanics)
2 12
Chamis and Sun
  2
 2
Em"1 "1 2
Matrix failure Ym Y2 S1212 1 Rotem
2 3m1 2 3mi
1 d"1 i d"i
6"^1 7 P 6 "^i 7
Matrix failure 6 7 6 7
4 1 d"15 = 4 i d"i5 < 0
1 Wolfe
i1;2;6
"u "u
1 i

1231
1232 P. D. Soden et al.

Table 5. Details of the laminates and loading cases

Laminate Material Loading Description (a wide range of biaxial stress ratios
lay-up case unless otherwise indicated)
0 E-glass/LY556/HT907/DY063 1 Biaxial failure stress envelope under transverse and
shear loading (y vs xy )
T300/BSL914C 2 Biaxial failure stress envelope under longitudinal and
shear loading (x vs xy )
E-glass/MY750/HY917/DY063 3 Biaxial failure stress envelope under longitudinal and
transverse loading (y vs x )
(90 /30 /90 ) E-glass/LY556/HT907/DY063 4 Biaxial failure stress envelope (y vs x )
5 Biaxial failure stress envelope (x vs xy )
(0 /45 /90 ) AS4/3501-6 6 Biaxial failure stress envelope (y vs x )
7 Stress-strain curves under uniaxial tensile loading in
y direction (y : x 1 : 0)
8 Stress-strain curves for y : x 2 : 1

55 E-glass/MY750/HY917/DY063 9 Biaxial failure stress envelope (y vs x )

10 Stress-strain curves under uniaxial tensile loading for
y : x 1 : 0
11 Stress-strain curves for y : x 2 : 1
(0 /90 ) E-glass/MY750/HY917/DY063 12 Stress-strain curve under uniaxial tensile loading for
 y : x 0 : 1
45 E-glass/MY750/HY917/DY063 13 Stress-strain curves for y : x 1 : 1
14 Stress-strain curves for y : x 1 : 1

Table 6. Summary of the loading cases analysed by the participants

Theory Loading cases analysed (see Table 5 for details of these cases) Remarks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
McCartney XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX & &
& &
XX No nal failure
Hart-Smith(2) && && && X& X& X& XX XX X& XX XX XX XX XX No stress/strain curves
Hart-Smith(1) && && && X& X& X& XX XX X& XX XX XX XX XX No stress/strain curves
Eckold && XX && && XX XX XX XX && &X &X &X &X &X No carbon-bre results
Chamis && && && && && &X && && && && && && && &&
Edge && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Puck && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Rotem && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Sun && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Tsai && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Wolfe && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Zinoviev && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&

X Case not analysed.

&
Final failure not reached.
& Initial failure predicted only.
& Final failure predicted only.

or in-house programs (McCartney, Rotem, Sun
(linear) and Wolfe) or no code (Eckold, Hart-Smith).
2.3 Breadth of cases analysed by each participant
The participants were set 14 test Cases for analysis and
these are summarised in Table 5. The composite sys-
tems, laminate congurations and load combinations
have been described in detail.12
Table 6 shows the test cases attempted by each con-
tributor. The majority of the participants were able to
analyse all the cases. However, there were some notable
shortfalls:
. Chamis did not present a nal failure envelope for
the quasi-isotropic laminate (Case 4).
. Eckold did not analyse the carbon-bre composites
because his simple design method was developed
specically for glass-bre-reinforced pressure ves-
sels. He also chose not to analyse shear loading of
laminates (Case 5) because that type of loading is
not covered by the pressure-vessel design code.
. Hart-Smith did not provide solutions for the seven
test cases involving stress/strain curves. Neither
did he predict initial failures in either of the two
theories oered (Hart-Smith(1) and Hart-Smith
(2)), although that would be possible for some
 Current failure theories for composite laminates 1233

laminates by using other interpretations of the
maximum-strain theory.26
. The analytical method used by McCartney is in its
infancy and at the time of writing he was able to
apply it to only two cases, (Case 12) a 0 /90
laminate under uniaxial tension (SR y :
x 0:1) and (Case 13) a 45 laminate under
SR 1:1 which is equivalent to a 0 /90 laminate
under biaxial tension. He did not attempt to pre-
dict nal failure loads for those cases.
dierent theories for (i) E-glass/LY556 lamina under
combined shear and direct loading perpendicular to the
bres (y and xy ), (ii) T300/BSL914C lamina under
combined shear and direct stresses parallel to the bres
(x and xy ) and (iii) E-glass/MY750 lamina subjected to
biaxial stresses applied in directions parallel and per-
pendicular to the bres (x and y ). The bar charts in
Figs 1b, 2b and 3c show the failure strengths for each
theory at the selected stress ratios indicated in Figs 1a,
2a, 3a and b.

3.1.1 Observations on the predictions for unidirectional

3 COMPARING THE PREDICTIONS
The 14 test cases can be grouped into three classes (a)
biaxial failure of unidirectional laminae (Cases 1,2 and
3), (b) biaxial failure envelopes of multi-directional
laminates (Cases 4, 5, 6 and 9) and (c) stress/strain
curves of laminates under uniaxial and biaxial loading
(Cases 7, 8, 1014). Given the large amount of data, the
simplest way of comparing the various theories is to
produce graphs containing the superimposed predic-
tions for each test case. In addition, bar charts of
strengths (and occasionally strains) were constructed at
specic conditions of loading for all 14 cases. The lar-
gest dierences between the predictions for those
combinations of loading are recorded in Tables 7 and 8.
Brief observations are made on the dierences between
the predictions before proceeding to more general dis-
cussion in Section 4.
3.1 Biaxial failure envelopes for unidirectional laminae
(Cases 1, 2 and 3)
The rst three cases were to predict failure envelopes for
isolated unidirectional plies under combined loading.
The objective was to demonstrate the assumptions
employed in the dierent theories on the simplest of
situations before considering their predictions for the
more complex laminates. Figures 1a, 2a and Fig. 3a and
3b compare the failure stresses predicted by all the
laminae
In all of the theories used, except that of Eckold, the
predicted failure envelopes passed through the three or
four given values of strengths under uniaxial loading.
Nevertheless, owing to the dierences between lamina
failure criteria employed, a variety of shapes resulted for
the predicted biaxial failure envelopes.
Some of the theories, for example the maximum-
stress theory used by Zinoviev, assumed that the strength
in one direction was independent of the magnitude of
applied stress in the other directions. These theories
produced rectangular failure envelopes in Figs 13.
Eckold's method is similar to Zinoviev's, except that the
compressive strengths were set to be equal to the tensile
strengths. For the isolated lamina, the eects of equat-
ing the compressive strength to the tensile strength were
that the theory under-predicted the transverse compres-
sive strengths in Figs 1 and 3 by a factor of around 3
and over-predicted the longitudinal compressive
strength in Fig. 3. The latter is non-conservative, which
is usually considered undesirable in design methods.
Note, however, that Eckold was the only one to show
an inner envelope that diers from the nal envelope.
His additional inner envelopes correspond to a strain of
0.1% in the direction perpendicular to the bres and
0.4% in the bre direction. Apart from Eckold, the
remaining participants predicted the initial and nal
stresses to be coincident.

Table 7. Ratios of the highest:lowest predicted unidirectional lamina strengths for selected stress ratios
No. Lamina studied Stress ratio Final failure prediction Highest:lowest
ratio of predictions
Highest Lowest
1 E-glass/MY750 x : y 8
83 : 1 Edge, Zinoviev and Sun Eckold 3.6
(Loading Case 3)
2 x :  y 32 : 1 Eckold Wolfe 4.77
3 x :  y 7
8 : 1 Hart-Smith(2) Rotem 4.4
4 x :  y 3
75 : 1 Hart-Smith(2) Eckold 5.7
5 x :  y 14 : 1 Tsai Eckold 2.72
6 E-glass/LY556 y : xy 1
58 : 1 Edge, Hart-Smith(2), Zinoviev Eckold 3.22
(Loading Case 1)
7 y : xy 1 : 2
06 Hart-Smith(2), Zinoviev, Eckold Tsai 1.54
8 T300/914C x : xy 12
5 : 1 Zinoviev, Sun, Hart-Smith(1), Edge 1.64
(Loading Case 2) Hart-Smith(2)
9 x : xy 18
75 : 1 Edge, Zinoviev, Hart-Smith(1), Chamis 1.414
Hart-Smith(2), Sun
 1234
Table 8. Summary of theoretical results showing the range of initial and nal failure predictions for multidirectional laminates
No. Laminate studied Stress ratio Final failure prediction Initial failure prediction Largest final/initial prediction
Highest Lowest Ratio Highest Lowest Ratio Name Ratio
 
1 (30 /90 ) GRP (loading Case 5) x : xy 2:35 : 1 Puck Chamis(2) 3.8 Sun Chamis(2) 4.16 Puck 1.99
2 x : xy 1:1 Hart-Smith(1) Wolfe 5.21 Tsai Chamis(2) 5.74 Edge 12.8
3 x : xy 0:1 Puck Chamis(2) 4.71 Zinoviev Chamis(2) 2.91 Puck 6
4 x : xy 1 : 0 Eckold Tsai 3.58 Sun Eckold 4.61 Eckold 12
5 x : xy 1:0 Eckold Chamis(2) 3.13 Tsai Chamis(2) 6.5 Eckold 24
6 (30 /90 ) GRP (Loading Case 4) y : x 1:3 Hart-Smith(1) Rotem 6.2 Eckold Chamis(2) 12.8 Edge 34
7 y : x 1 : 1 Hart-Smith(1) Chamis(2) 8.42 Zinoviev Chamis(2) 2.83 Eckold 5.7
8 y : x 1 : 3 Eckold Zinoviev 3.1 Sun Eckold 1.47 Eckold 3.74

P. D. Soden et al.
9 y : x 1:1 Hart-Smith(2) Wolfe 7 Tsai Chamis(2) 5.03 Chamis(2) 19
10 y : x 1 : 1 Edge Tsai 1.66 Chamis(1) Eckold 4 Eckold 3.66
11 y : x 1:0 Hart-Smith(1) Wolfe 2.42 Tsai Chamis(2) 2.94 Edge 7.5
12 y : x 4:26 : 1 Zinoviev Chamis(2) 2.11 Zinoviev Chamis(2) 7.46 Eckold 5
13 (0 /45 /90 ) CFRP (Loading Case 6) y : x 0 : 1 Rotem Wolfe 1.33 Sun Chamis(2) 9.23 Zinoviev 1.24
14 y : x 1:5 : 1 Zinoviev Wolfe 2.71 Zinoviev Chamis(2) 19.6 Edge 15.7
15 y : x 1 : 1 Tsai Wolfe 1.72 Tsai Wolfe 1.72 All 1
16 y : x 2:1 Sun Rotem 2.63 Chamis(1) Chamis(2) 18 Chamis(2) 51
17 y : x 1:0 Zinoviev Chamis(2) 2 Zinoviev Chamis(2) 16 Chamis(2) 24
18 y : x 1:1 Zinoviev Rotem 3.28 Chamis(1) Chamis(2) 17 Edge 28
19 (55 ) GRP (Loading Case 9) y : x 0 : 1 Zinoviev Eckold 2.53 Edge Eckold 3.64 Eckold 1.47
20 y : x 1 : 0 Eckold Chamis(2) 3.61 Sun Eckold 4.95 Eckold 9.6
21 y : x 2 : 1 Eckold Chamis(2) 4.13 Wolfe Eckold 2.82 Eckold 5
22 y : x 2:1 Hart-Smith(1) Wolfe 8.7 Eckold Chamis(2) 3.66 Chamis(2) 19
23 y : x 1:0 Eckold Chamis(2) 4.47 Puck Eckold 4.88 Eckold 9.55
24 (45 ) GRP (Loading Cases 13 and 14)  y : x 1 : 1 Chamis 2 Wolfe 9.7 Eckold Puck 3.71 Puck 13
25 y : x 1 : 1 Edge Chamis(2) 5.8 Edge Chamis(2) 1.48 Edge 4
26 (0 /90 ) GRP Loading Case 12  y : x 0 : 1 Puck Wolfe 2.28 Eckold Edge 2.83 Puck 12
 Current failure theories for composite laminates 1235

Fig. 1. (a) Biaxial failure stress envelope for 0 unidirectional E-glass/LY556 epoxy lamina under transverse and shear loading (y
vs xy ); (b) bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses for an E-glass/LY556 epoxy lamina under y : xy 1
58 : 1 and 1:2.08.

Other theories predicted envelopes in which the
strength in one direction is aected by the stress in the
other direction. Tsai's theory predicted an elliptical
failure envelope with a large enhancement of the long-
itudinal compressive strength in the y x space
(Fig. 3). It is a feature of his equation that the predicted
biaxial compressive strength increases when the value of
the uniaxial transverse tensile strength is reduced.
Hart-Smith(2) also predicts an enhancement of the
strength under biaxial loads in y x space. Indeed,
the largest dierence between the predicted failure
stresses in the biaxial compression quadrant occurs at
the stress ratio x : y 3
75 : 1. At that stress ratio,
the transverse compressive failure strength, y , predicted
by Hart-Smith(2) theory is 5.70 times higher than that
predicted by Eckold. This is partly due to the low
transverse compressive strength assumed by Eckold.
Hart-Smith(2) also predicts much higher strengths in
biaxial tension than the other theories. In the tension
tension quadrant, the largest dierence between the
strength values predicted occurs at stress ratio of
x : y 7
8 : 1. At that stress ratio, the transverse ten-
sile failure strength, y , predicted by Hart-Smith(2) is
more than 4.4 fold higher than that predicted by almost
all the rest of the theories.
The most common form of interaction assumed that
combined stresses reduced the strength of a lamina to a
value lower than its strength under uniaxial loading.
Figures 13 show many examples of this such as Rotem,
Sun and Wolfe. In Fig. 3, Wolfe's theory predicts
strengths under combined transverse tension and long-
itudinal compression that are about one third of the
uniaxial strengths for that lamina. Note also that Wolfe
produces a discontinuous envelope as the stresses
approach uniaxial tension and compression along the
bre direction (i.e. at x : y 1 : 0 and 1:0).
It can be seen from Figs 13 that although there were
some similarities, no two theories gave identically
shaped envelopes for the three tests cases.
3.2 Failure envelopes for laminates (test cases 4, 5, 6
and 9)
In order to examine the performance of the failure the-
ories at the laminate level, four test cases were chosen,
1236 P. D. Soden et al.

Fig. 2. (a) Biaxial failure stress envelope for T300/BSL914C lamina under longitudinal and shear loading (x vs xy ); (b) bar charts
showing the biaxial failure stresses of T300/914C lamina under x : xy 12
5 : 1 and 18.75:1.

covering a wide range of materials, layups and biaxial
loading conditions.
3.2.1 Failure envelopes for the (90 /30 )s E-glass/
LY556 laminate under biaxial loads, (sy vs sx ) (Case 4)
As described in Soden et al.,12 82.8% of the thickness of
this (90 /30 )s E-glass/LY556 laminate is made of
30 plies and only 17.2% of the thickness made of 90
plies. Thus, the laminate is not quasi-isotropic. Conse-
quently, the failure envelopes are expected to lack sym-
metry, in relation to the material principal loading
directions, and also to contain a number of failure
modes depending upon the loading direction. Initial
failure envelopes for all the theories are shown in Fig. 4a
and the nal failure envelopes are shown in Fig. 4b and c.
Bar charts in Fig. 5 compare the initial and nal
failure stresses predicted by the theories, at specic
ratios of applied biaxial loads y : x , and Table 8
shows the range of predicted values at selected load
ratios, including those in the bar charts.
With the exception of Eckold, Chamis(2) and Wolfe,
the initial failure envelopes shown in Fig. 4a are fairly
regular and approximately diamond-shaped, but the
magnitudes of the predicted initial failure stresses vary
considerably from theory to theory. The results were
inuenced by thermal stresses and the highest ratio of
maximum:minimum predicted initial failure stresses
shown in Table 8 was 12.8:1 (Eckold: Chamis) at a ratio
of applied biaxial tension stresses y : x 1 : 3. Further
details of the eect of thermal stresses are discussed in
Section 4.3.
Dierences in predicted modes of failure and their
eects on the nal strength values were apparent at
SR=1:1 in Fig. 4b. Hart-Smith(2) predicted bre ten-
sion failure in the 90 plies at a load of 471 MPa
whereas Wolfe predicted transverse tension failure in
30 plies at a load of 67 MPa.
The envelopes supplied by Chamis(2) and Eckold
were rather coarse, data points being provided at a lim-
ited number of biaxial stress ratios and hence the shapes
 Current failure theories for composite laminates 1237

Fig. 3. (a) and (b) Biaxial failure stress envelope for 0 unidirectional lamina made of E-glass/MY750 epoxy under longitudinal and
transverse loading (y vs x ); (c) bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses of E-glass/MY750 lamina under y : x 7
8 : 1,
32:1, 14:1, 3.75:1 and 8.83:1.
1238 P. D. Soden et al.

Fig. 4. (a) Initial biaxial failure stress envelope for (90 /30 /90 ) laminate made of E-Glass/LY556 epoxy under combined load-
ing (y vs x ); (b) and (c) nal biaxial failure stress envelope for (90 /30 /90 ) laminate made of E-Glass/LY556 epoxy under
combined loading (y vs x ).

of these envelopes might change if more points were
computed.
Examination of Fig. 4b and c shows that Hart-
Smith(1) and Hart-Smith(2) theories gave similar nal
failure envelopes. Rotem's nal failure prediction is very
conservative in the biaxial tension quadrant.
Eckold predicts the highest (x ) compressive strengths
in the biaxial compression quadrant. This is as a result
of his starting assumption to use a value for the long-
itudinal lamina compressive strength equal to the long-
itudinal lamina tensile strength and hence a much
larger longitudinal compressive strength than the other
participants.
Table 8 shows that the highest ratio of maximum:
minimum nal failure stresses was 8.4:1 (Hart-Smith(1):
Chamis(2)) at stress ratio y : x 1 : 1.
The bar charts in Fig. 5 show that at some stress
ratios (e.g. y : x 1 : 1) most of the theories pre-
dicted nal stresses of similar magnitude to the initial
failure stresses, whilst at other stress ratios (e.g.
y : x 1 : 0) the nal stresses are predicted to be much
greater than the initial failure stresses. In Table 8 the
 Current failure theories for composite laminates
Fig. 5. Bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses of (90 /
30 /90 ) E-glass/LY556 laminate under y : x 1 :3,
1 : 1; 1 : 1 and 1:0.
largest ratio of nal: initial failure loads predicted by
any one author for this laminate was 34:1, by Edge at
y : x 1 : 3.
3.2.2 Combined direct and shear loading (sx vs txy ) of
the (90 /30 )s E-glass/LY556 epoxy laminate (Case 5)
Figure 6a and b shows, respectively, the initial and nal
failure envelopes predicted by dierent contributors for
the (90 /30 )s E-glass/LY556 laminate under com-
bined direct x and shear xy loads. Failure stresses at
selected stress ratios are shown in Fig. 7. The magnitude
of the predicted shear strengths of the laminate varied
greatly from one theory to the next. The Tsai, Rotem,
Wolfe, and Chamis nal failure envelopes tended to be
smaller than the others. Figure 7 shows that the pre-
dicted nal failure loads were always larger than the
initial ones for this type of loading. The biggest dier-
ence between initial and nal failure loads occurred
under uniaxial tension x : xy 1 : 0. A dierence of a
factor of 24 was predicted by Eckold, a factor of 18 by
Chamis and a factor of around 15 by Puck and Edge.
There were dierences between the theories in pre-
dicting modes of failure for the same stress ratio. For
nal failure, the predicted modes of failure at SR=1:1
1239
were transverse tension in the +30 plies (Wolfe),
transverse compression in the +30 plies (Zinoviev),
delamination and local buckling in 30 plies (Puck)
and longitudinal tension in the +30 plies (Hart-
Smith(1), Hart-Smith(2) and Sun). The failure load
predicted by Hart-Smith(1) was more than 5 times
higher than that predicted by Wolfe.
3.2.3 Biaxial envelope for (0 /45 /90 )s AS4/3501-6
carbon/epoxy quasi-isotropic laminate under combined
sy and sx (Case 6)
This is the test problem most familiar to the aerospace
industry. The quasi-isotropic arrangement is widely
employed, as it ensures that some bres are always
likely to be near coincident with the loading direction in
the general case. One can treat the material like a `black
aluminium' (i.e. carbon/epoxy but with modulus and
strength values that are fairly omnidirectional and
broadly similar to aluminium, but with a lower density).
The initial failure envelopes are presented in Fig. 8a
and the nal failure envelopes are shown in Fig. 8b and
8c. Comparison between initial and nal stresses at
selected stress ratios is shown in Fig. 9. Stress/strain
curves are shown in Figs 10 and 11.
3.2.3.1 Initial failure envelopes Most of the predicted
initial failure envelopes for the quasi-isotropic laminate
are of roughly similar shape. As expected, all the envel-
opes are symmetric about the 1:1 diagonal. The strength
under equal biaxial compression is similar for all the
theories except that for Tsai's interactive theory which
predicts higher biaxial compression strength than the
other theories (see Fig. 8 and the bar charts for
y : x 1 : 1 in Fig. 9).
There were large dierences between the magnitudes
of initial failure strengths predicted in the other quad-
rants of the failure envelope by the dierent theories.
The biggest ratio of maximum: minimum predicted
initial failure strengths shown in Table 8 was 19.6:1
(Zinoviev: Chamis(2)).
3.2.3.2 Final failure envelopes The predicted nal
failure envelopes shown in Fig. 8b and 8c fall broadly
into two camps. In the rst group (Zinoviev, Sun, Puck,
Edge, Hart-Smith(1) and Hart-Smith(2)) the theories
predict diamond shaped failure envelopes which are
similar in shape and in magnitude. In the second group
(Tsai, Wolfe, Rotem, Fig. 8b), each theory predicts an
envelope which is unique in shape and in magnitude.
Rotem's envelope is similar to the diamond shaped
envelopes in the compressioncompression quadrant
but predicts lower nal failure stresses than the other
theories in the biaxial tension quadrant.
Not shown in Fig. 8b are cut-os representing matrix
shear failure in the 45 plies and intersecting Hart-
Smith(2)'s maximum strain envelope in the tension-
compression quadrants. The cut-o lines run parallel to
those of the truncated-maximum-strain theory.
1240 P. D. Soden et al.

Fig. 6. (a) Initial biaxial failure stress envelope for (90 /30 /90 ) E-glass/LY556 laminate under combined loading (x vs xy );
(b) nal biaxial failure stress envelope for (90 /30 /90 ) E-glass/LY556 laminate under combined loading (x vs xy ).

The largest dierence between the theoretical
predictions of nal failure strength, Zinoviev:
Rotem=3.31:1, occurred under biaxial tensile loading
(y : x 1 : 1). The bar charts in Fig. 9 show the varia-
tion between predictions for other stress ratios.
Almost all of the theories predicted the initial failure
load to be the same as the nal failure load over the
whole of the biaxial compression quadrant of the failure
envelope. All of the theories predicted nal failures that
were dierent from the initial failures when tensile loads
were applied (except for Hart-Smith who did not predict
initial failure). The greatest ratio of nal: initial failure
loads shown in the whole of Table 8 was 51:1, predicted
by Chamis(2) for this quasi-isotropic laminate loaded at
y : x 2 : 1. That result was taken from the stress/
strain data (test Case 8 presented below) as Chamis did
not provide data for the nal failure envelope for this
laminate.
3.2.4 Biaxial envelope for (55)s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under combined sy and sx (Case 9)
This type of laminate is commonly employed in pipes
and pressure vessels. The initial failure envelopes are
shown in Fig. 12 and the nal envelopes in Fig. 13. The
bar charts (Fig. 14) compare initial and nal failure
stresses at selected loading ratios.
The various theories gave a range of results for the
initial failure loads. Edge, Rotem, Chamis(2) and Puck
all predict very low strengths in biaxial tension. A rela-
tively small number of data points appear to have been
calculated by Chamis(2) and Eckold. Eckold's design
approach is seen to be conservative in comparison with
the other theories over a wide range of stress ratios, but
predicts higher initial strengths than the others for a small
range of biaxial tensile loads (e.g. compare with Puck).
The biggest dierence between predicted initial failure
envelopes was at stress ratios of 1:0 and 1:0 where the
 Current failure theories for composite laminates
Fig. 7. Bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses of (90 /
30 /90 ) E-glass/LY556 laminate under x : xy 2
35 : 1,
1:1, 0:1 and 1:0.
ratios of predicted initial failure strengths were 5:1 (Sun:
Eckold) and 4.9:1 (Puck: Eckold), respectively (see
Fig. 12 and Table 8).
The situation is worse for the nal failure envelopes.
Figure 13 shows a wide variety of shapes of nal failure
envelopes with Rotem and Wolfe giving much lower
nal failure strengths than the other theories in the
biaxial tension quadrant (see for instance the bar chart
in Fig. 14 for y : x 2 : 1). The biggest discrepancy was
at y : x 1
33 : 1 where the ratio of predicted nal
failure stresses was 13:1 (Hart-Smith(1): Wolfe).
With the exception of Sun, Edge, Puck and Eckold,
all the theories predicted initial and nal failures as
being coincident events in the biaxial compression
quadrant. Many of the theories predict very large dif-
ferences between the initial and nal failure loads in the
tensiontension quadrant. The largest dierence
between initial and nal failure is shown in Table 8 is at
y : x 2 : 1 where most of the theories predict matrix
tension failure at low stress and nal failure due to ten-
sion fracture of the bres at high stress. The initial and
nal strengths dier by a factor of up to 19 (Chamis(2))
in that case.
1241
3.3 Stress/strain curves (Cases 7, 8, 1014)
The participants were asked to predict the shapes of
stress/strain curves for a number of laminates and
loading conditions. The objective was to demonstrate
the predicted eects that initial failure and any sub-
sequent change in laminate behaviour had on the stress/
strain curves.
3.3.1 Stress/strain curves for (0 /45 /90 )s AS4/3501-
6 carbon/epoxy quasi-isotropic laminate under uniaxial
tension sy:sx=1:0 and biaxial tension sy:sx=2:1.
(Cases 7 and 8)
The stress/strain curves for these loading cases are
shown in Figs 10 and 11. Under uniaxial loading,
Fig. 10, all the curves are very similar in shape except
for those of Chamis and Rotem. In Rotem's analysis,
there is an abrupt increase in strain associated with
initial failure and in Chamis's curve, there is a large
increase in the strain associated with nal failure. Most
predictions showed only a small reduction in stiness
after initial failure. The initial failure stress was in the
range of 15241 MPa while the nal failure stress was in
the range of 385728 MPa, depending upon the theory
used. Chamis predicted the lowest initial and nal fail-
ure stresses.
Failure was predicted to take place in one stage by
Hart-Smith(1) and Hart-Smith(2), two stages by Edge
and Puck, three stages by Wolfe, Zinoviev and Tsai and
in four stages by Sun. In almost all of the theories where
more than one stage of failure is predicted, the rst
stage was by transverse tension (or matrix failure or
inter-bre mode A) in the plies that were perpendicular
to the load direction and the nal stage was, according
to Zinoviev, Edge and Puck, by tension along the bres
in the plies parallel to the loading direction.
For Case (8), the stress/strain curves under biaxial
tension (SR y : x 2 : 1) predicted by the various
theories were also remarkably similar to one another,
with a very small change in slope after initial failure, as
can be seen from Fig. 11. Rotem again showed a step in
his "y curve and the "x curve is missing from his graph.
The slope of "x curve predicted by Sun (linear) was
shallower than the others.
The initial and nal failure stresses predicted by all the
theories are compared in Fig. 9, for SR y : x 2 : 1.
The initial failure stress ranged from 15 MPa (Chamis(2))
to 256 MPa (Chamis(1)) while the nal stress ranged
from 320 MPa (Rotem) to 840 MPa (Sun) but the
majority of theories gave values of nal failure stresses
which were close to one another.
Stages of failure were similar to those shown for
SR=1:0, but the number of stages predicted by some
theories increased by one over that described above.
Wolfe, Sun, Puck, Tsai and Zinoviev showed four stages
of failure, all predicting initial failure due to transverse
tension (matrix failure or Inter-bre Mode A failure) in
the 0 plies, which were perpendicular to the loading
direction in this case, and nal failure by longitudinal
1242 P. D. Soden et al.

Fig. 8. (a) Initial biaxial failure stress envelope for (0 /45 /90 ) AS4/3501-6 laminate under combined loading (y vs x ); (b) and
(c) nal biaxial failure stress envelopes for (0 /45 /90 ) AS4/3501-6 laminate under combined loading (y vs x ).

tension in the 90 plies. Failure in the second and third
stages occurred in the 45 plies and 90 plies respec-
tively with the same mode of failure as that in the 0
plies.
3.3.2 Stress/strain curves for (55)s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under uniaxial tension sy:sx=1:0 and
biaxial tension sy:sx=2:1 (Cases 10 and 11)
Stress/strain curves for Case 10 (SR=1:0) are shown in
Fig. 15, the failure stresses in Fig. 14 and the failure
strains in Fig. 17. In this case the laminae are, according
to linear analysis, subjected to high shear and low ten-
sile stresses in direction perpendicular to the bres. The
transverse stress component changes from being tensile
to being compressive when non-linear analysis is carried
out.
The initial Young's modulus is identical in all predic-
tions but some of the theories predicted large changes of
laminate stiness after initial failure (Fig. 15). Tsai, Sun,
Edge, Wolfe and Eckold showed only one failure point,
coincident with initial failure. Edge and Chamis
predicted very dierent curves from the rest, with very large
strains, up to 12%, which was the specied limit of the
graph provided by the organisers. At the other extreme,
 Current failure theories for composite laminates
Fig. 9. Bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses for (0 /
45 /90 ) AS4/3501-6 laminate under y : x 1 : 0, 1.5:1,
2:1,1:1 and 1:0.
Eckold's curve stopped at only 0.5% strain. Thus, the ratio
of Chamis' to Eckold's maximum strains is 24:1.
The nal failure stresses, shown in the bar chart in
Fig. 14, dier by a maximum factor of 4.5 between
Eckold (640 MPa) and Chamis(2) (140 MPa). Note that
Eckold's results were taken from the envelope shown in
Fig. 10 of Eckold.14
Sun, Tsai, Rotem, Wolfe and Edge predicted that
initial and nal failures were coincident events and the
failure was dominated by in-plane shear (Sun, Wolfe
and Edge). It was only Zinoviev who predicted separate
failure loads with the initial failure due to shear and
nal failure due to compression perpendicular to the
bres.
For test Case 11 (at y : x 2 : 1), a very wide range
of stress/strain curves was predicted as shown in Fig. 16a
and b. In addition, the predicted initial and nal failure
strains in the x and y directions are shown as bar charts
in Fig. 17. The shape of the stress/strain curves varied
from linear (Wolfe, Rotem and Eckold), and bi-linear
(Tsai, Zinoviev, Sun (linear) and Puck) to highly non-
1243
Fig. 10. (a) and (b) Stress/strain curves for (0 /45 /90 )
AS4/3501-6 laminate under uniaxial tensile loading in y direc-
tion (y : x 1 : 0).
linear (Edge, Sun (non-linear)). In Sun's linear analysis,
the "x strain curve intersected the "y strain curve at
around "y 1% while Zinoviev predicted an intersec-
tion point near nal failure, i.e. at "y 2
8%.
The range of initial failure occurrence (45156 MPa)
is marked in Fig. 16a and b and that was predicted by
most of the participants to be due to tension
perpendicular to the bres. Also marked on these g-
ures is the range of nal failure occurrence (112
977 MPa). This nal failure was due to tension along the
bre direction according to Zinoviev, Edge, Chamis,
Puck and Sun and due to matrix failure in the case of
Wolfe. The latter gave the lowest failure strength.
There was a large variation in the strains predicted in
the x direction. All predicted failure strains in that
direction were tensile, except that of Edge. In Edge's
analysis, the strain "x started as a positive value and
became negative at high strains, see Fig. 16, while the
strain "y was comparable to the other predictions.
3.3.3 Stress/strain curves for (0 /90 )s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under uniaxial tension sy:sx=0:1 (Case
12)
This type of laminate has been researched fairly heavily
over the last 20 years, see for instance Bailey et al.,28 by
1244 P. D. Soden et al.
Fig. 11. (a) and (b) Stress/strain curves for (0 /45 /90 )
AS4/3501-6 laminate under biaxial tensile loading
(y : x 2 : 1).
those seeking an understanding of the eect of con-
straint on the transverse strength of a lamina and in the
development of transverse crack multiplication failure
models. The stress-strain curves for this case are shown
in Fig. 18 and a comparison between the predicted fail-
ure stresses is shown in Fig. 19c.
The initial slopes of all the predicted stress/strain
curves are similar and the slopes of all the x vs "x
curves after initial failure are also remarkably similar,
except that of Chamis (see Fig. 18). Eckold predicted a
truncated curve as he uses a (0.5%) limit on the strain
values.
There were large dierences in the predicted failure
strain normal to the loading direction. The "y failure
strain ranged from 0.05% (Sun (linear)) to 0.776%
(Rotem).
This was one of the cases analysed by McCartney. He
predicted the stress/strain curves to be similar to the
other theories but did not attempt to predict the nal
failure.
The nal failure stress was in the range of 293
668 MPa with a signicant number of failure theories
(Zinoviev, Sun, Rotem, Puck, Edge and Chamis)
predicting nal failure to be by tensile fracture of the
bres at a laminate stress of around 640 MPa. This
stress is half the uniaxial tensile strength (1280 MPa) of
the unidirectional ply. The nal failure loads predicted by
Tsai and Wolfe were lower than the others (see Fig. 19c).
In all cases where initial and nal failure stresses were
predicted the nal stresses were much larger than the
initial stresses, the largest ratio of nal: initial stresses
being more than 10:1 for Puck and Edge.
3.3.4 Stress/strain curves for (45)s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under equal biaxial tension sy:sx=1:1
(Case 13)
This test case is equivalent to a 0 /90 laminate loaded
under equi-biaxial tension. This is one step more complex
than case 12, because transverse cracking would be
expected to occur in all the layers at an intermediate stress
well below nal failure. The stress/strain curves are
shown in Fig. 20 and bar charts comparing the predicted
initial and nal failure stresses are presented in Fig. 19a.
This was the second problem analysed by McCartney.
He showed separate curves for cracking of the inner and
outer layers but he stopped his calculation before nal
failure and did not attempt to predict nal failure. The
initial and secondary slopes predicted by all the theories
were remarkably similar to one another, McCartney's
being the exception. His secondary stiness was notice-
ably higher than the rest. Chamis predicted a reduction
in stiness and a large strain (ca 17%) at nal failure
(see Fig. 20).
The laminate was predicted to fail initially, in all lay-
ers, by transverse tension failure, at a stress of 49
182 MPa and nally by either bre failure (Chamis,
Edge, Puck, Sun and Zinoviev) at a laminate stress
around 681 MPa or by matrix failure (Rotem and
Wolfe) at around 80 MPa. The low failure stresses pre-
dicted by Rotem and Wolfe are due to the post failure
models they employed, see Section 4.4.
3.3.5 Stress/strain curves for (45)s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under biaxial tension-compression
sy:sx=1:1 (Case 14)
This case is equivalent to a 0 /90 laminate subjected
to pure shear. The stress/strain curves are super-
imposed in Fig. 21. The predicted failure stresses and
strains are shown in the bar charts in Figs 19c and 17c,
respectively.
 Current failure theories for composite laminates 1245

Fig. 12. Initial biaxial failure stress envelope for angle ply 55 E-glass/MY750 epoxy laminate under combined loading (y vs
x ).

Fig. 13. (a) and (b) Final biaxial failure stress envelope for Fig. 14. Bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses for
angle ply 55 E-glass/MY750 epoxy laminate under com- 55 E-glass/MY750 laminate under y : x 1 : 0, 2:1, 2:1
bined loading (y vs x ). and 1:0.
1246 P. D. Soden et al.

Fig. 15. (a) and (b) Stress/strain curves for 55 E-glass/MY750 under uniaxial tensile loading with y : x 1 : 0.

The predicted curves were either linear (Tsai, Sun
(linear), Eckold and Chamis)) or non-linear (Puck, Sun
(non-linear), Rotem and Wolfe) reecting the type of
analysis employed in these theories.
Zinoviev showed unusual behaviour after initial fail-
ure, predicting failure strains up to 8%, Fig. 21. The
initial failure was by shear and the nal failure was by
transverse compression. Edge's curves are very dierent
from the others. His predicted failure strains reached
15%, far higher than any other strain predicted by the
rest of the participants.
Wolfe, Tsai, Sun, Eckold and Chamis predicted nal
failure stresses to be the same as the initial failure
stresses but Rotem, Zinoviev, Puck and Edge predicted
nal failure stresses that were higher than the initial
failure stresses (see the bar chart in Fig. 19b).
4 DISCUSSION
Theoretical results, obtained by the participants in the
failure exercise, have been presented in the form of
superimposed failure envelopes, bar charts, and super-
imposed stress/strain curves for 0 , (90 /30 )s, (0 /
45 /90 )s, (55 )s, (45 )s and (0 /90 )s laminates.
The dierences between the predictions of all the
 Current failure theories for composite laminates
Fig. 16. (a) and (b) Stress/strain curves for 55 E-glass/MY750 laminate under biaxial tensile loading with y : x 2 : 1.
theories for each of the cases analysed have been
described. Among the factors that have aected the
predicted failure envelopes and stress/strain curves for
the laminates are:
. Dierences in the failure criteria applied at the
lamina (or constituent) level (or otherwise).
. Allowances made in some theories for the dier-
ences in the lamina strength when tested in isola-
tion and when embedded in a laminate.
. Inclusion of residual thermal stresses as a result of
the curing process.
. Type of analysis (linear or non-linear).
. Dierences between post-failure models and
mechanisms.
These factors are discussed in more detail below.
4.1 Dierences between lamina failure criteria
Some of the characteristics of the dierent failure cri-
teria, which were observed in the failure envelopes for
1247
unidirectional bre-reinforced laminae, are reected in
the failure envelopes for the multidirectional laminates.
The high failure strength of the quasi-isotropic (0 /
45 /90 )s AS4/3501-6 carbon/epoxy laminate under
equal biaxial compressive load predicted by Tsai in
Fig. 8 results from the enhanced strength that he predicts
for unidirectional laminae under biaxial compression
(e.g. Fig. 3).
The enhancement of the lamina biaxial transverse
strength, predicted by Hart-Smith(2), is not shown in
the results for multidirectional laminates presented here.
That is primarily due to the fact the Hart-Smith chose
to omit the constant transverse strain failure lines from
his laminate failure envelopes for reasons stated in his
papers.17,18
In Eckold's predictions, the eects of equating long-
itudinal compressive and tensile strengths of a lamina
are reected in the failure envelopes for the multi-direc-
tional laminates. For example, the failure strength of
(90 /30 ) and 55 (Figs 4b and 13b) and laminates
was higher than that predicted by the other participants
1248 P. D. Soden et al.
Fig. 17. Bar charts showing failure strains for (a) 55 E-
glass/MY750 under y : x 2 : 1 (strain in y direction); (b)
55 E-glass/MY750 under y : x 2 : 1 (strain in x direc-
tion) and (c) 45 E-glass/MY750 under y : x 1 : 1
(strain in y direction).
in the compressioncompression quadrant. BS4994,27
which uses Eckold's method, does allow for dierent
tensile and compressive strengths to be employed if
measured values are available. Use of the compressive
strength values provided in the exercise would remove
some of the anomalies from Eckold's results for laminae
and laminates.
A number of theories showed that the biaxial lamina
strength under compressive load in one direction com-
bined with tension in the other direction is smaller that
than under uniaxial load, see Fig. 3. This is reected for
example in the low initial failure stresses predicted by
Tsai compared with those of Zinoviev in the following
areas (i) (0 /45 /90 )s AS4/3501-6 carbon/epoxy
laminate under equal biaxial compressive-tension load-
ing of y : x 1 : 1, see Fig. 8b, (ii) (30 /90 )s glass/
epoxy laminate under y : x 4
25 : 1, Fig. 4b and c
and (iii) (30 /90 )s glass/epoxy laminate under
x : xy 2
35 : 1, Fig. 6b. In the last two cases,
with the same input data, Tsai's theory predicted
initial failure due to combined longitudinal com-
pression and transverse tension of the laminae whereas
Zinoviev's theory predicted failure due to in-plane
lamina shear.
Fig. 18. Stress/strain curves for (0 /90 ) E-glass/MY750 lami-
nate under uniaxial tensile loading with y : x 0 : 1.
4.2 Properties of embedded lamina
Some of the contributors chose to dierentiate between
the behaviour of an isolated lamina and that of a lamina
embedded within a laminate. They assumed that the
strength (occasionally the stiness) of a lamina embed-
ded in a laminate is higher than that of an isolated
lamina. For example, in his analysis of multidirectional
laminates, Sun, after studying work by Bailey et al.28
and Flaggs and Kural,29 assumed new values for the
shear and transverse tensile strengths of the laminae,
which were 50% higher than those provided by the
organisers and employed by other participants.
Following the ndings of Rotem and Hashin,25
Rotem assumed that, for all the laminae in the exercise,
the shear and transverse strengths, as well as the corre-
sponding stiness of the embedded laminae, increased
by 20% above their values measured on isolated lami-
nae. He took the measured isolated lamina strengths as
being the cause of initial cracking in the constrained
lamina and the modied strengths as controlling the
onset of nal failure. Thus, Rotem predicted, for
instance, that 45 glass/epoxy laminate, whose beha-
viour is shear dominated under SR=1:1, nally failed
at an applied stress of 87.6 MPa, which is 20% higher
than the initial failure stress of 73 MPa. He also pre-
dicted that the 45 glass/epoxy laminate, subjected to
 Current failure theories for composite laminates
Fig. 19. Bar charts showing failure stresses for (a) 45 E-
glass/MY750 under y : x 1 : 1, (b) 45 E-glass/MY750
under y : x 1 : 1 and (c) 0 /90 E-glass/MY750 under
y : x 1 : 0.
equal biaxial tension loading, would fail initially at a
stress corresponding to a lamina transverse tension
strength of 40 MPa and that the nal failure was also by
transverse tension but at a load corresponding to
48 MPa transverse lamina stress, i.e. 20% higher than
that at initial failure.
On the basis of his experience with carbon/epoxy
materials and their use in the aircraft industry, Hart-
Smith assumed theoretical limits to the transverse
strengths of embedded laminae,17,18 which were much
higher than those suggested by Rotem and Sun. The
clearest consequence of the high embedded lamina
strength can be seen in the results of the Hart-Smith(1)
and Hart-Smith(2) predictions for the biaxial failure
envelopes of the 55 glass/epoxy, (90 /30 )s glass/
epoxy and (0 /45 /90 )s Carbon/epoxy laminates.
In all these envelopes predicted by Hart-Smith, the
transverse lamina strengths were raised to such an
extent that the matrix tensile cracking (initial failure)
mode never occurred.
Those theories, which assume a gradual decrease
in lamina stinesses after initial damage (see Table 4),
are another way in which some authors treat
embedded lamina behaviour as dierent from that
of the isolated lamina (see Section 4.4 for details of
the inuence of post failure modelling on the response
of laminates).
1249
4.3 Residual thermal stresses due to curing
Another major factor that aected the strength predic-
tion of the laminates was thermal stresses. All the par-
ticipants were aware that residual thermal stresses can
arise in composite laminates that were made at elevated
temperatures and then cooled to the operating tem-
perature. However, only a few contributors (Chamis,
Edge, McCartney, Puck and Sun) attempted to consider
the eects of thermal stresses on their predictions. Puck,
for instance, opted for taking into account only 50%
of the thermal stresses on the grounds that relax-
ation with time, due to moisture absorption and
the accompanying swelling, leads to reduction of the
thermal residual stresses. Tsai introduced 0.5% moist-
ure content in his calculation and assumed a tempera-
ture dierence of 100 C in all the laminates he
analysed. These two factors tended to cancel each other
out.22
Chamis was the only one who demonstrated the
extent to which the thermal residual stresses aect the
biaxial failure envelopes. In his Fig. 11, Chamis13 plot-
ted the biaxial stress failure envelope for (0 /45 /90 )s
carbon/epoxy laminate with and without thermal stres-
ses. The highest inuence was in the tensiontension
quadrant of the envelope where the initial failure was
dominated by transverse tension failure. Chamis repor-
ted that the failure stress at SR=1:1 when the thermal
stresses were neglected, was ten times higher than that
when the thermal stresses were included.
Table 9 compares the initial failure stresses predicted
by Edge and Zinoviev, for three of the laminates loaded
in dierent ways, where the initial modes of failure were
all transverse tension (and shear stresses were small, to
eliminate other dierences between the theories). The
large dierences between the results of Edge who took
thermal stresses into account and Zinoviev, who did
not, support Chamis's ndings.
The initial shear strength of the (90 /30 ) laminate
(Fig. 6a) was inuenced by thermal stresses but shear
loading of that laminate produced initial failure of the
30 layers by transverse tension.
4.4 Post-initial-failure models
Having briey described the post failure models used by
the participants in Table 4, it is possible to show exam-
ples of the eect of post failure modelling on the pre-
dicted behaviour of the laminates. The theories that
reduced suddenly and simultaneously two or more ply
properties, once failure occurs, usually gave lower pre-
dictions of nal failure loads than other theories. When
E2 and G12 are reduced to zero in angle-ply laminates,
both the initial and nal failure stresses are coincident,
due to the singularity in the stiness matrix. For
example, Wolfe and Rotem predicted low failure stres-
ses compared with the other theories for 55 GRP
laminate loaded under biaxial tension (Fig. 13b) and for
biaxial loading of 45 GRP laminates under SR=1:1,
(Fig. 20). The mode of nal failure in those two cases
1250 P. D. Soden et al.
Fig. 20. Stress/strain curves for 45 E-glass/MY750 laminate under biaxial tensile loading with y : x 1 : 1.
was by matrix failure rather than the bre tension
predicted by others.
After initial failure in transverse tension, in addition
to reducing E2 and G12, Rotem also reduced the mod-
ulus (E1) parallel to the bres in the failed lamina. In the
quasi-isotropic laminate loaded at SR=1:1, where all
layers experience the same stress after initial failure, the
value of E1 will be reduced in all the laminae simulta-
neously and the laminate cannot carry further loads. On
the other hand, in the 0 /90 laminate loaded in uniaxial
tension (SR=0:1), only the 90 layer fails initially and
the 0 layer can still carry load.
The eects of dierent post-failure models can also be
observed in the stress/strain curves. One case which
showed striking dierences between the theories was the
behaviour of the 55 laminate under y : x 2 : 1
(Fig. 16). Theories which employ a gradual non-linear
reduction in lamina properties after the initial failure
(e.g. those of Sun and Edge) predicted non-linear beha-
viour in both the "x and the "y curves, although, the
degree of nonlinearity was more pronounced in the "x
curve as this is matrix dominated.
In the case of Edge's prediction, which was based on
reducing gradually and simultaneously the transverse,
shear moduli and Poisson's ratio, once transverse ten-
sion failure occurs, the slope of the "x curve changed
gradually and eventually the strain switched from being
tensile to being compressive.
The simultaneous drop to zero of both the transverse
and shear moduli in the case of Wolfe and Rotem, as
described above, truncated the stress/strain curve.
The two models proposed by Sun (non-linear) and
McCartney, which relied on a crack density formulation
for predicting the stiness degradation after initial fail-
ure, gave very similar shaped stress/strain curves to
nearly all the other theories for the 0 /90 laminate
 Current failure theories for composite laminates 1251

Fig. 21. Stress/strain curves for 45 E-glass/MY750 laminate under biaxial tensile loading with y : x 1 : 1:

under uniaxial tension, Fig. 18. There was one notice-
able dierence between the models of McCartney and
Sun and that was the transverse strain predicted by Sun,
which was larger than that predicted by McCartney.
However, when the same two models (Sun and
McCartney) were used to predict the stress/strain curve
for the 45 laminate under equal biaxial tension, they
gave dierent results. Sun's results were remarkably
similar to most of the others in terms of the slope of the
stress/strain curves and also the nal failure strength
which was around 640 MPa, representing bre tension
failure. McCartney's results were stier than the others
and he did not predict nal failure.
4.5 Non-linear behaviour
The main source of non-linearity in the behaviour of the
laminates preceding initial failure was the decrease in in-
plane lamina shear stiness with increasing shear
strain.12 The 45 laminate loaded at SR=1:1 (load
Case 14) was equivalent to a 0 /90 cross-ply laminate
loaded in pure shear so the stress/strain curves in Fig. 21
should reect the given non-linear shear curve for the
unidirectional lamina supplied by Soden et al.12 For that
case the initial failure strains in the non-linear analyses
(Puck, Edge, Rotem, Wolfe and Sun (non-linear)) were
around 2% which is , as expected, half the shear strain
to failure of an isolated lamina. That predicted strain
1252 P. D. Soden et al.
Table 9. Examples of the eect of thermal stresses on initial failure prediction
Laminate SR Mode of failure
0 /90 GRP 1:0 Transverse tension
55 GRP 2:1 Transverse tension
0 /45 /90 CFRP 1:1 Transverse tension
0 /45 /90 CFRP 1.5:1 Transverse tension*
a
Zinoviev.
b
Edge.
c
Chamis (2).
*
Mode of failure valid for Zinoviev's results only.
was up to 3.2 fold higher than the initial failure strains
in the linear analyses (Zinoviev, Chamis, Sun and Tsai)
which produce truncated stress/strain curves.
In the laminates whose behaviour is not aected by
in-plane lamina shear, linear analysis should give iden-
tical answers to non-linear analysis for initial failure
prediction. The behaviour of a 45 laminate under
SR=1:1 and the 0 /90 laminate under SR=0:1 are
clear examples of stress/strain curves where shear non-
linearity is absent.
Zinoviev introduced an additional geometric non-lin-
earity by allowing for the change of ply angle as defor-
mation progressed. It is this geometric non-linearity
which results in the slight increase in stiness at large
strains in the stress/strain curves for the cross ply lami-
nate loaded in pure shear, Fig. 21.
Certain theories (Edge, Sun(non-linear) and Puck)
introduced additional material non-linearity by assum-
ing that the transverse and shear moduli decreased
gradually after initial failure. It is the combined non-
linearities which result in the non-linear divergence of
the strains "x in the stress/strain curves predicted by Sun
(non-linear) and Edge for the 55 laminate loaded at
SR=2:1 (Fig. 16).
The inclusion of any of these forms of non-linear
behaviour into the laminate analysis usually requires the
introduction of iterative numerical methods of solution.
4.6 Large and unbounded deformations
Several of the participants encountered problems in
deciding when to terminate numerical solutions that
predicted ever-increasing deformations. For example,
Edge produced stress/strain curves for 55 laminates
under SR y : x 1 : 0 and SR=2:1 and for the 45
laminate under SR=1:1 in which the predicted failure
strains were very large compared with those obtained by
others.
In Chamis's results, large failure strains were shown
for the (0 /45 /90 )s AS4/3501-6 quasi-isotropic lami-
nate under SR=1:0, in the 45 laminate under
SR=1:1 and in the 55 laminates under SR=1:0.
Chamis13 pointed out that the large increase in the
strains with very little increase in the stress would hap-
pen only in monotonic loading and any uctuation in
Initial failure stresses (MPa)
Without thermal stresses With thermal stresses
78a 55.4b
112a 68.6b
241a 35b
241a 12.24c
the applied load would lead to imminent failure at the
onset of that large deformation.
There were other cases where large deformations led
to open (discontinuous) failure envelopes (i.e. failure
envelopes with indeterminate regions). Puck reported
that both the initial and nal biaxial failure envelopes
for the 55 laminate were open where large shear
strains, combined with transverse tension stress, were
induced in the plies. The initial failure envelope was
open in the range 7 : 1 > y : x > 2
5 : 1. The nal failure
envelope was also open at the same range of stress
ratios and in another area between 0 : 1 < y : x < 2 : 1.
Zinoviev also reported the occurrence of an open
envelope for the nal biaxial failure stresses between
stress ratios 0 : 1 < y : x < 2 : 1, which is the same as the
second range reported by Puck.
5 CONCLUSIONS
(a) Leading theories have been employed, by their orig-
inators, to predict the strength and deformation
response in 14 test cases, involving six dierent
FRP laminates (0 , (90 /30 )s, (0 /45 /90 )s,
(55 )s, (45 )s and (0 /90 )s laminates)
subjected to a range of in-plane biaxial loading
conditions.
(b) The exercise revealed that some theories lack
exibility and other require further development.
One contributor who adopted a `damage
mechanics' approach solved only two of the 14
test cases.
(c) These were many similarities between the predic-
tions of various theories, but some striking dif-
ferences.
(d) A number of the test cases (Nos 13) were chosen
to compare the theories at the most simplistic
level, i.e. that of a unidirectional bre-reinforced
lamina. No two theories gave the same biaxial
failure envelopes for all these cases, and dier-
ences as great as 570% were observed in the
strength predictions.
(e) At the next level of complexity, certain test cases
were chosen by the organisers because they
 Current failure theories for composite laminates
represented material/layup/loading situations
which were believed to be well understood by the
community, and as a consequence, one might
have expected some unanimity in the predictions.
Test case number 6 considered a carbon-bre
quasi-isotropic laminate, which is the funda-
mental building block used in aircraft structures,
world wide. Test Case 12 considered a simple
(45 ) GRP cross-ply, which has been studied
extensively by researchers for the last 25 years.
Test Case 11 considered a 55 GRP laminate
loaded at a stress ratio of y : x 2 : 1, which is
featured in piping and pressure vessels currently
in-service throughout the world. The exercise
revealed that even for these very familiar cases,
the spread in the nal failure strengths pre-
dicted by the participants was surprisingly
large. Ratios of highest : lowest predicted nal
strengths as great as 330% were observed for the
quasi-isotropic aircraft laminate test case, 970%
for the cross ply (45 ) laminate test case and
870% for the 55 GRP piping/pressure vessel
laminate.
(f) A number of major issues emerged in the analysis
of the laminates:
. There was little unanimity between the partici-
pants on how to account for the residual thermal
stresses resulting from elevated temperature curing
of the laminates. The majority of the predictions
ignored their eects. Dierences in the treatment
of thermal stresses led to large dierences in pre-
dicted rst-ply-failure loads in certain situations,
particularly for those cases where the loading
resulted in tension perpendicular to the bres. For
example, predictions of initial failure loads for the
quasi-isotropic carbon/epoxy laminate varied
(maximum:minimum) by 1900% in the worst
instance.
. Some participants made a distinction between the
behaviour of an isolated lamina and its behaviour
when embedded in a laminate. Thus, when asked
to analyse the test cases containing laminates, cer-
tain contributors applied correction factors to the
lamina properties provided by the organisers (par-
ticularly the transverse tensile and shear
strengths). They argued that the embedded prop-
erties of a lamina would be higher because of the
constraining eect of the surrounding layers. This
approach leads to signicantly higher values of
initial failure stress for laminates.
. There was little unanimity between the partici-
pants in how to predict laminate behaviour after
initial failure. A number of methods were
employed and there were signicant dierences
between them (including the assumption by some
that the onset of initial failure equated to nal
failure). As a consequence, there was a wide var-
1253
iation in the predicted values of nal failure
strength (ratios of up to 970%). There were large
dierences between initial and nal failure strength
and, in one instance, the predicted value of nal
failure stress was 50 times higher than the initial
failure stress predicted by the same theory.
. In many instances, the theories diered in the
mode (and occasionally the location) of failure
each predicted, and this was associated with
dierent predictions of failure strengths. In
some cases, the mode of failure was not clearly
identied.
. Many of the theories utilised some form of non-
linear analysis, to account for inherent material
non-linearity and that associated with post-initial
failure. In some instances, there appeared to be
evidence of instability in the non-linear algorithms,
leading to the generation of open failure envelopes
or unexpectedly large failure strains. By compar-
ison, the alternative linear-elastic analytical
approach employed in several theories, led to the
prediction of stress/strain curves which appeared
to be prematurely truncated, in some instances. A
variety of shapes of stress/strain curves were pre-
dicted by the linear and non-linear theories. Dif-
ferences between the predicted failure strains for
some laminates reached as high as 25:1.
. Micromechanics featured in several of the theore-
tical approaches. One participating group relied on
the properties of the bres and matrices to com-
pute the linear elastic constants and strengths of
the composite laminae. Others required properties
of the bres and/or the matrix to establish failure
conditions and to carry out post-initial failure
modelling.
(g) In this paper we have concentrated on drawing
attention to dierences between the various
theories and particularly to dierences between
their predictions for the selected laminates and
biaxial loading cases. The fact that a theory pre-
dicts dierent results from all the other theories
does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. Any
judgements as to which theoretical approach
is the best should be reserved until after the
theoretical results have been compared with
the available experimental data in Part B of this
exercise.
REFERENCES
1. Chamis, C. C., Failure criteria for lamentary compo-
sites. In Testing and Design, ASTM STP 460, 1969,
pp. 336460.
2. Sandhu, R. S., A survey of failure theories of isotropic
and anisotropic materials. AFFDL-TR-72-71,
AD756889, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, USA, 1972.
1254 P. D. Soden et al.
3. Owen, M. J. and Rice, D. I., Biaxial strength behaviour
of glass-reinforced polyester resins. In Composite
Materials: Testing and Design, 6th Conf., ASTM STP
787, ed. I. M. Daniel. 1982, pp. 124144.
4. Soni, S. R., A comparative study of failure envelopes in
composite laminates. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 1983, 2,
3442.
5. Tsai, S. W., A survey of macroscopic failure criteria for
composites materials. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 1984, 3,
4062.
6. Tsai, S. W., Composite Design, 4th edn. Think Com-
posites, Dayton, Ohio, 1988.
7. Rowlands, R. E., Strength (failure) theories and their
experimental correlation. In Handbook of Composites,
Vol 3, Failure Mechanics of Composites, ed. G. C. Sih
and A. M. Skudra. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1985,
pp. 71125.
8. Nahas, M. N., Survey of failure and post failure theories
of laminated bre reinforced composites. J. Compos.
Technol. Res., 1986, 8, 138153.
9. Chen, A. S. and Matthews, F. L., A review of multiaxial/
biaxial loading tests for composite materials. Composites,
1993, 24, 395406.
10. Daniel, I. M. and Ishai, O., Engineering Mechanics of
Composite Materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK, 1994.
11. Hinton, M. J. and Soden, P. D., Predicting failure in
composite laminates: the background to the exercise
Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7), 1001.
12. Soden, P. D., Hinton, M. J. and Kaddour, A. S., Lamina
properties, lay-up conguration and loading conditions
for a range of bre reinforced composite laminates,
Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7), 1011.
13. Gotsis, P. K., Chamis, C. C. and Minnetyan, L., Predic-
tion of composite laminate fracture: micromechanics and
progressive fracture. Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7),
1137.
14. Eckold, G. C., Failure criteria for use in the design
environment. Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7), 1095.
15. Edge, E. C., Stress based Grant-Sanders method for pre-
dicting failure of composite laminates. Compos. Sci.
Technol., 1998, 58(7), 1033.
16. McCartney, L. N., Predicting transverse crack formation
in cross-ply laminate. Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7),
1069.
17. Hart-Smith, L. J., Predictions of the original and trun-
cated maximum-strain failure models for certain brous
composite laminates. Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7),
1151.
18. Hart-Smith, L. J., Predictions of a generalized maximum-
shear-stress failure criterion for certain brous com-
posite laminates. Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7),
1179.
19. Puck, A. and Schurmann, H., Failure analysis of FRP
laminates by means of physically based phenom-
enological models. Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7),
1045.
20. Rotem, A., Prediction of laminate failure with the Rotem
failure criterion. Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7), 1083.
21. Sun, C. T. and Tao, J. X., Prediction of failure envelopes
and stress/strain behaviour of composite laminates.
Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998, 58(7), 1125.
22. Liu, K.-S. and Tsai, S. W., A progressive quadratic
failure criterion for a laminate. Compos. Sci. Technol.,
1998, 58(7), 1023.
23. Wolfe, W. E. and Butalia, T. S., A strain-energy based
failure criterion for nonlinear analysis of composite lami-
nates subjected to biaxial loading. Compos. Sci. Technol.,
1998, 58(7), 1107.
24. Zinoviev, P., Grigoriev, S. V., Labedeva, O. V. and
Tairova, L. R., Strength of multilayered composites
under plane stress state. Compos. Sci. Technol., 1998,
58(7), 1209.
25. Rotem, A. and Hashin, Z., Failure modes of angle ply
laminates. J. Compos. Mater., 1975, 9, 191206.
26. Hinton, M. J., Soden, P. D. and Kaddour, A. S., Strength
of composite laminates under biaxial loads. Appl. Com-
pos. Mater., 1996, 3, 151162.
27. BS4994: Specication For Design And Construction Of
Vessels And Tanks In Reinforced Plastics, BSI, London,
UK, 1987.
28. Bailey, J. E., Curtis, P. T. and Parvisi, A., On the trans-
verse cracking and longitudinal splitting of glass and car-
bon bre reinforced epoxy cross ply laminates and the
eect of Poisson and thermally generated strain. Proc. R.
Soc. Lond., 1979, A366, 599623.
29. Flaggs, D. L. and Kural, M. H., Experimental deter-
mination of the in-situ transverse laminate strength in
graphite epoxy laminates. J. Compos. Mater., 1982, 16,
103116.