Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

A comparison of the predictive capabilities of current failure

theories for composite laminates: additional contributions
A.S. Kaddoura,*, M.J. Hintonb, P.D. Sodenc
a
QinetiQ FST, Farnborough, Hampshire, GV14 0LX UK
b
QinetiQ Fort Halstead, Kent, TN14 7BP UK
c
Mechanical Aerospace and Manufacturing Engineering Department, UMIST, UK

Received 1 March 2003; accepted 1 May 2003

Abstract
Following the publication of an article by Soden, Hinton and Kaddour (Compos Sci Technol, V58, pp. 1225–54, 1998), which
compared the predictions of 14 internationally recognised failure theories for fibre reinforced polymer composite laminates, the
present paper extends that comparative study to include five more theories, supplied by their originators. Evaluation of the pre-
dictive capabilities of the additional theories was carried out in an identical manner to the original study. The same test cases were
utilised, covering a wide range of lay-ups, materials and in-plane loading conditions. The results (initial and final failure envelopes
and representative stress–strain curves) have been superimposed to show similarities and differences between the predictions of the
19 theories. Final failure predictions for the additional theories fall within the existing range obtained from the original 14 theories
but the initial failure predictions for the additional theories have widened the previously observed range. Comments are provided
on the possible reasons for the increased spread.
# 2003 QinetiQ Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Multiaxial failure envelopes; Failure criteria; B. Stress–strain curves

1. Introduction 14 theories were compared systematically with each

The present paper expands the number of theories
considered within the ‘World-Wide Failure Exercise’
(WWFE), Ref. [1]. In the exercise, the originators of
various failure theories used their own theory to predict
the performance of specified carbon and glass fibre
reinforced epoxy laminates subjected to a range of
biaxial loads, using the same material properties, lami-
nate arrangements and loading conditions, defined by
the organisers (the authors of this paper), Ref. [2]. Each
contributor has described their theory in some detail in
a separate paper, Refs. [3–14] and analysed 14 test cases
containing biaxial failure envelopes and stress–strain
curves. A total of 11 groups took part in the exercise
and they provided 14 different theories. Their predic-
tions were made ‘blindly’, i.e. without prior knowledge
of the experimental data. The ‘blind’ predictions of the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1252-395978; fax: +44-1252-
395077.
E-mail addresses: askaddour@qinetiq.com (A.S. Kaddour),
mjhinton@qinetiq.com (M.J. Hinton), p.soden@umist.ac.uk
(P.D. Soden).
0266-3538/$ - see front matter # 2003 QinetiQ Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00226-4
other in Ref. [15] in order to identify some of the major
similarities and differences between them.
Five more theories, Refs. [16–20], have emerged since
the publication of the first comparative study, Ref. [15].
These additional theories were applied by their origina-
tors, whilst maintaining the ‘blind’ approach to solve
the 14 Test Cases. This paper utilises the same metho-
dology as applied in Ref. [15] to compare the predic-
tions of the five theories with each other and, where
appropriate, with those of the 14 previous theories. 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 similarities and the differ-
ences between their predictive capabilities.
2. Description of the failure theories employed in the
exercise
The current work is an extension of the methodology
reported in Ref. [15]. An identical format is used to
describe the additional theories and, to aid the reader,
450 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476
details of both original and additional theories are
presented here to provide a comprehensive view of all 19
theories examined in the exercise.
2.1. Identification of the theories
Table 1 lists the ‘original’ and ‘additional’ participants
and indicates the approaches they employed. The new
contributions are the last five entries in Table 1 and these
are Cuntze, Bogetti, Mayes, Huang and Hart-Smith (3).
For identification purposes each of the theories is referred
to by a single name, (see the last column in Table 1). In
certain instances, the named author may not be the origin-
ator of the theory as for example the case of the Max-
imum Strain theory presented by Hart-Smith, Ref. [7].
It’s worth mentioning here that although the Hart-
Smith (3) theory has already been published in Part B of
the WWFE, Ref. [16], and was compared with test data
in Ref. [22], his prediction has not been compared with
the ‘blind’ prediction of other theories. Therefore, and
for the sake of consistency, it is felt appropriate to
compare his published curves with those of the addi-
tional theories.
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:
2.2.1. Method of analysis
All of the contributors utilised classical laminate the-
ory as the principal ‘calculation engine’ on which to
base their theory. Sun, Mayes and Chamis also used
finite element codes.
2.2.2. Type of analysis
This refers to whether linear or nonlinear material
properties were considered. Chamis, Eckold, Hart-
Smith, McCartney, Tsai, Sun (L) and Zinoviev used
linear analysis of material properties whereas the rest
(Edge, Rotem, Puck, Wolfe, Sun (NL), Bogetti, Cuntze,
Huang and Mayes) used nonlinear analysis.
2.2.3. Thermal stresses
A significant portion of the participants (Eckold,
Hart-Smith, Rotem, Wolfe, Zinoviev and Bogetti) did
not include residual thermal stresses while the others
did, but not all in the same way, see Table 2. For
example Huang was the only contributor to provide an
analysis that considers residual stresses at the micro-
mechanics (ie resin and fibre) level.
2.2.4. Modes of failure
Almost all of the theories were able to discriminate
between two or more modes of failure. Various modes
of failure and failure criteria were postulated in the
theories, see Table 3. The modes of failure basically
range from fibre failure (tension, compression or shear)
to matrix failure (due to transverse tension, transverse
compression, shear or a combination of these three). In
most cases the properties used to predict the modes of
failure are lamina properties rather than constituent
(fibre or matrix) properties. However, Mayes, Huang
and Chamis used the constituent fibre and matrix
properties (provided to all participants) for determining
failure.
2.2.5. Micromechanics
Overall, approximately half of the theories relied on
micromechanics in their formulation. Chamis, Hart-
Smith (1), Puck, Rotem, Tsai and the new participants
Cuntze, Mayes and Huang, explicitly required certain
properties of the constituents.

The use of micro-mechanics by the original par-
ticipants (Chamis, Hart-Smith, Puck, Rotem,
Tsai) was described in Ref. [15].

Cuntze’s theory, like Puck’s, requires some of the
properties of the fibres.

Huang’s theory, like Chamis’, relies on micro-
mechanics for determining the unidirectional
(UD) lamina properties. Huang used the non-
linear shear stress/strain curves of the matrix to
determine the nonlinear behaviour of the lamina.
Using a ‘bridging’ model, Huang adjusted the
constituent properties to give lamina properties
close to those provided in the exercise

Mayes’s theory is also micro-mechanics based.
2.2.6. Post-initial failure degradation models
The entry in the seventh column of Table 2 specifies
whether or not the theory used any degradation model
to account for post initial failure behaviour. Multi-
directional laminates subjected to uniaxial or biaxial
stresses may still be capable of carrying a load after first
ply failure or initial failure has occurred. Modelling post
failure behaviour of a laminate requires that certain
assumptions be made regarding the properties of the
degraded lamina. Table 4 summarises the different post
initial failure models adopted.
The post failure methods employed do differ and, for
sake of simplicity, they can be classified into three main
groups:
(i) Model employing no post failure analysis. These
include Eckold and Hart-Smith.
(ii) Models employing sudden reduction in the
properties of the failed lamina. These are utilised
by Tsai, Wolfe, Sun (L), Chamis, Bogetti, Huang
and Mayes.
Table 1
A summary of participants and approaches represented in the exercise

Contributor(s) Organisation Approach represented Theory designation

Chamis C C, P K Gotsis, NASA Lewis, Cleveland, USA. -ICAN (micro-mechanics based) -Chamis (1)
L Minnetyan -CODSTRAN -Chamis (2)

A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

Hart-Smith L J
Hart-Smith L J
Eckold G C
Edge E C
McCartney L N
Puck A and H Schürmann
Wolfe W E and T S Butalia
Sun C T and J X Tao
Zinoviev P, S V Grigoriev,
O V Labedeva and L R Tairova
Tsai S W and K-S Liu
Rotem A
Cuntze R and A Freund
Bogetti T, C Hoppel, V Harik,
J Newill and B Burns
Mayes S J and A C Hansen
Z-M Huang
Hart-Smith L J
Boeing, USA. Generalised Tresca theory Hart-Smith(1)
Boeing, USA. Maximum Strain Theory Hart-Smith(2)
AEA Technology, UK British Standard pressure vessel design codes Eckold
British Aerospace, Military Aircraft Division, Warton, UK. British Aerospace, In-house design method Edge
National Physical Laboratory, London, UK. Physically based ‘Damage Mechanics’ McCartney
Technische Hochchule, Darmstadt, Germany. Physically based 3-D phenomenological models Puck
Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio State University, Ohio, USA. Maximum strain energy method, due to Sandhu Wolfe
Purdue University School of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Indiana, USA. Linear and non-linear analysis Sun(L)
(non-linear is FE based) Sun(NL)
Institute of Composite Technologies, Orevo, Moskovkaya, Russia. Development of Maximum stress theory Zinoviev
Aeronautics and Astronautics Department, Stanford University, Interactive progressive quadratic failure criterion Tsai
California, USA.
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Interactive matrix and fibre failure theory Rotem
Technology, Haifa, Israel.
MAN Technologies, Germany. Failure mode concept (FMC) Cuntze
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, AMSRL-WM-MB, Aberdeen 3-D Maximum strain Bogetti
Proving Ground, MD 21005.
US Naval Surface Warfare Center, West Bethesda, MD, Multi-continuum micro-mechanics theory Mayes
and Alfred University.
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Tongji University, Bridging model, micro-mechanics Huang
Shanghai, China.
Boeing, USA. Ten-Per-Cent rule Hart-Smith(3)

451
 452
Table 2
A summary of key features of the theories used by various contributors

Contributor Method Type of analysis Thermal stresses Failure Modes Micro- mechanics Degradation model Failure criterion Computer program used

Chamis CLT+FE Linear (a) Yes(b) Yes Yes Micromechanics based ICAN and CODSTRAN

A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

Eckold CLT Linear No No No No BS4994 None
Edge CLT Nonlinear Yes Yes No Yes Grant-Sanders Modified ESDU package
Hart-Smith CLT Linear (c) No Yes Yes No Maximum strain theories, None
Generalised Tresca criteria
and 10% rule.
McCartney CLT Linear Yes Yes No Yes Fracture mechanics Program developed at NPL, UK
Puck CLT Non linear Yes (d) Yes Yes Yes Puck’s theory FRACUAN developed in
Kessel, Germany
Rotem CLT Nonlinear Yes Yes Yes Yes Rotem theory In-house program
Sun CLT(e) Linear Yes Yes No Yes Rotem–Hashin theory In-house program
Sun CLT+FE (f) Non-linear Yes No No Yes Plasticity model based ABAQUS program
on Hill’s yield
Tsai CLT Linear Yes(g) Yes 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
Bogetti CLT Nonlinear No Yes No Yes Maximum strain In-house program
Mayes CLT+FE Nonlinear (a) Yes Yes Yes Multi-continuum theory FE-based
Cuntze CLT Nonlinear Yes(d) Yes Yes Yes Failure mode concept (FMC) In-house program
Huang CLT Nonlinear Yes(a)(h) Yes Yes Yes Bridging model In-house program

(a) Not in all cases.

(b) The theory identifies 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 part of the thermal residual stresses are considered.
(e) Used to generate the failure envelopes and stress–strain curves.
(f) The finite 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) Huang attempted to consider the micro thermal stresses generated in the constituents.
Table 3
Modes of failure and failure criteria used by the participants

Mode of failure Failure criterion Theory

1 1
Fibre failure 
K1f I1f2 þ K4f I4f ¼ 1 where K1f ¼  , K4f ¼ 2 Mayes

A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

2
S11f S12f
and I1f and I4f are fibre stress invariants.
1
Fibre failure
eq ¼
ð1Þ , when
ð2Þ 4 0 and ½ð
ð1Þ Þq þ ð
ð2Þ Þq q , when
ð2Þ > 0, 1 < q 4 1 Huang


1 f12
Fibre failure in tension "1 þ m
f
2 ¼ 1 Puck
"1T Ef1

Longitudinal tension failure s1=XT Zinoviev, Rotem, Sun, Edge,

Hart-Smith (3) and Cuntze

Longitudinal tensile failure e1=e1T (and Eckold’s e1=0.004) Hart-Smith (2), Eckold and Bogetti

2
2



2

1
2 1 1 1 1 2F1 2
1
2 12
Fibre tension/compression and matrix þ þ

1 þ

2 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ ¼1 Tsai
XT XC YT YC XT XC YT YC XT XC YT YC S12
tension and compression and shear
"Ð #m1 , "Ð #mi

1 d"1 P
i d"i
Fibre failure (in tension and compression) Ð "^1 Ð "^i 5 0:1 Wolfe
"u1
1 d"1 i¼1;2;6 "ui
i d"i


1 f12
¼ 1
ð10 21 Þ2
Fibre failure in compressive " þ m
Puck
"1C
1
f 2
Ef1

Longitudinal compressive failure s1=XC (and Eckold s1=XT) Zinoviev, Edge, Rotem, Sun, Hart-Smith (1)(3),
Cuntze and Eckold

Longitudinal compressive failure e1=e1C (and Eckold e1=0.004) Hart-Smith (2), Eckold and Bogetti

Shear of fibres Tresca type criterion Hart-Smith (1)

Transverse tensile failure s2=YT Zinoviev, Edge, Eckold and Sun

453
(continued on next page)
 454
Table 3 (continued)

Mode of failure Failure criterion Theory

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u 4p
u
Transverse tensile cracking
þ k
t > u þ
0 where 2g is McCartney
t 1 1

EAð2pÞ EAðpÞ
fracture energy, see also Ref [16]

A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

Transversal tensile failure

2
(IFF1) ¼1 Cuntze
Eff ?
R?t

Transverse tensile failure e2=e2T ( and Eckold e2=0.001) Hart-Smith (2), Eckold and Bogetti
Transverse tension YT=XT/10 or XC/10 whichever is the greatest Hart-Smith (3)

Transverse compression YC=XT/10 or XC/10 whichever is the greatest Hart-Smith (3)

Transverse compressive failure s2=YC Zinoviev, Edge, Eckold, Sun and Huang
Transverse compressive failure e2=e2C (and Eckold e2=0.001) Hart-Smith (2), Eckold and Bogetti

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
2
2
21 þ Þ YT
2 þÞ
2
1
Inter-fibre failure Mode A þ 1
pð?jj þ pð?jj ¼1
Puck
S21 S21 YT S21
1D
(for transverse tension)
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !
1   2
1
Inter-fibre failure Mode B 2
21 þ pð?jj

Þ

2 þ pð?jj

Þ

2 ¼1
Puck
S21
1D
(for moderate transverse
compression) 20 3 12

2
4@  21
2 5 YC ¼ 1

1
Inter-fibre failure Mode C  A þ Puck
2 1 þ pð??

Þ
S21 YC ð

2 Þ
1D
(for large transverse compression)
 
b?
1 ð
2 þ
3 Þ b? ð
2

3 Þ2 þb?jj 21
2
Wedge failure (IFF3) þ  2 ¼1 Cuntze
Eff ? R?c ?
Eff R c
?

3 2
21 þ b?jj 2
2 21
Inter-fibre failure (IFF2)  3 ¼ 1 Cuntze
Eff ?jj R?jj
In-plane shear failure S12=XT/20 or XC/20 whichever is the greatest Hart-Smith (3)
In-plane shear failure t12=S12 Zinoviev, Edge, Hart-Smith (1),
Hart-Smith (2), and Sun

(continued on next page)

Table 3 (continued)

Mode of failure Failure criterion Theory

A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476


2
Combined transverse tension
2 2 12 Edge
and shear þ ¼1
YT S12



1 12
Combined longitudinal þ ¼ 1 Edge
H1c S12
compression and shear
Delamination t12te >or Edge

 1 1
Matrix failure K3m I3m þ K4m I4m ¼ 1 where K3m ¼ S 2 2
, K4m ¼ 2 Mayes
22m þ 22S33m S12m
and I3m and I4m are matrix stress invariants.

2
2

2 12
Matrix failure þ ¼ 1 (Chamis obtains Y and S12 from micromechaincs) Chamis and Sun
Y S12


2
2
Emð"1Þ"1 2
2 12
Matrix failure þ þ ¼1 Rotem
Ym Y S12
"Ð #m1 , "Ð #mi

1 d"1 P
i d"i
Matrix failure Ð "^1 Ð "^i < 0:1 Wolfe
"u1
1 d"1 i¼1;2;6 "ui
i d"i

n  q  q 1
Matrix failure
eq ¼
ð1Þ ; when
ð2Þ 4 0;
ð1Þ þ
ð2Þ q ; when
ð2Þ > 0; 1 < q41 Huang

455
456 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

Table 4
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 final matrix failure E2=0.0, G12=0.0, E1=E01 exp(-k e1),
k is a large constant
McCartney Lamina cracking Detailed mathematical analysis for reducing
stiffness
Puck Cracking under tension Mode (A) E2=Z E02, G12=Z G012, n12=Z n012 where Z is a
parameter which varies with stress
Cracking under compression G12=Z1 G012, n12=n012
Modes (B) and (C) Z1 is smaller than Z
Chamis Matrix failure Em is replaced by a negligible value and E2,
G12, n12 and E1 are computed from micro-mechanics
Edge Matrix failure E2=b1 E02, G12=b2 G012, n12=b3 n012
Where b1, b2 and b3 are empirical parameters
that decrease with increasing strain
Wolfe Matrix failure E2=0.0, G12=0.0, n12=0.0
Sun (linear) Shear matrix failure E2=0.0, G12=0.0
Transverse matrix failure E2=0.0
Sun (NL) Matrix shear failure E2=E02 exp(-aE l) and G12=G012 exp(-aG l), aE and aG
are constants, l is normalised crack density
Transverse matrix failure E2=E02 exp(-aE l)
Tsai Matrix failure (e2 >0) Em=0.15 E0, 0
mn12=0.15 n12 where E2 and G12 are computed from
micromechanics
Matrix failure (e240) E2=0.01 E02, G12=0.01 G012, n12=0.01n012, E1=0.01 E01
Zinoviev Open cracks s2 >0 For |g12|<|g*12| (a) when e2 < e*2: E2=c2 E02, G12=c3 G012
where c is a function of strain (b) when e2=e*2 : E2=0.0,
G12=c3 G012 For |g12|=|g*12| (a) when e2 <e*2: E2=c2
E02, G12=0.0 (b) when e2 >0: E2=0.0, G12=0.0.
Closed cracks s2 <0 For e2 <0: (a) when |g12|< |g*12|: G12=c3 G012
(b) when |g12|>0 : G12=0.0
Bogetti Shear failure G12=0.0
Bogetti Transverse strain failure E2=0.0
Cuntze IFF1, IFF2 and IFF3 Curves describing ‘softening’ behaviour
Huang Matrix or fibre Failure Em=Ef=0.0 or E2=0.0, G12=0.0, n12=0.0, E1=0.0
Mayes Matrix failure Em=0.01 E0m where E2 and G12 are computed
from micromechanics

(iii) Models employing a gradual drop in the prop-
erties of the failed lamina. These were utilised by
Cuntze, Puck, Edge, Rotem, Zinoviev, McCart-
ney, and Sun (NL).
Full details of all the models are given in the con-
tributors papers, Refs. [3–14,16–20].
2.2.7. Failure criterion
Column 8 of Table 2 identifies the origin, nature or
the name of the failure theory used. The governing
equations that constitute the various failure criteria are
described, by the participants, in their own papers (see
also Table 3 for a brief summary). It should be noted
that the exercise features two variants of the Maximum
Strain Theory. Hart-Smith, Ref. [7], provided his 2-
dimensional interpretation as used in the aircraft indus-
try, without incorporating any progressive failure
analysis. The additional paper by Bogetti, Ref. [17],
applied the theory in its original 3-dimensional form
together with a progressive failure model.
2.2.8. 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 partici-
pants. The participants have either coupled their analy-
sis into a commercial code (Chamis, Mayes, Sun(NL),
or written their own (Tsai, Zinoviev, Puck, McCartney,
Rotem,Edge, Sun(L), Wolfe, Cuntze, Huang and
Bogetti) or used simple calculations (Hart-Smith-1,
Hart-Smith-2, Hart-Smith-3 and Eckold).
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 457

Table 5
Details of the laminates and loading (Test) cases, Ref [15]

Laminate lay-up Material Loading case Description (a wide range of biaxial stress ratios
unless other wise indicated)

0 E-glass/LY556/HT907/DY063 1 Biaxial failure stress envelope under

transverse and shear loading (sy versus txy)
T300/BSL914C 2 Biaxial failure stress envelope under
longitudinal and shear loading (sx versus txy)
E-glass/MY750/HY917/DY063 3 Biaxial failure stress envelope under longitudinal
and transverse loading (sy versus sx)
(90 /30 /90 ) E-glass/LY556/HT907/DY063 4 Biaxial failure stress envelope (sy versus sx)
5 Biaxial failure stress envelope (sx versus txy)
(0 / 45 /90 ) AS4/3501-6 6 Biaxial failure stress envelope (sy versus sx)
7 Stress–strain curves under uniaxial tensile
loading in y direction (sy : sx=1 : 0)
8 Stress–strain curves for sy : sx=2 : 1
55 E-glass/MY750/HY917/DY063 9 Biaxial failure stress envelope (sy versus sx)
10 Stress–strain curves under uniaxial tensile
loading for sy : sx=1 : 0
11 Stress–strain curves for sy : sx=2 : 1
(0 /90 ) E-glass/MY750/HY917/DY063 12 Stress–strain curve under uniaxial tensile
loading for sy : sx=0 : 1
45 E-glass/MY750/HY917/DY063 13 Stress–strain curves for sy : sx=1 : 1
14 Stress–strain curves for sy : sx=1 :-1

Table 6
Summary of the cases analysed by the participantsa

Theory Loading cases analysed (see Table 2 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 final failure
Sun (NL) XX XX XX XX XX XX & & XX & & & & &&
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 fibre
results
Hart-Smith (3) && && && X& X& X& X& X& X& X& X& X& X& X&
Chamis && && && && && &X && && && && && && && &&
Edge && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Puck && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Rotem && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Sun (L) && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Tsai && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Wolfe && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Zinoviev && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Cuntze && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Bogetti && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Huang && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
Mayes && && && && && && && && && && && && && &&
a
X, Case not analysed. , Final failure not reached; &, Initial failure predicted only; &, Final failure predicted only.

systems, laminate configurations and load combinations

2.3. Breadth of cases analysed by each participant have been described in detail in Ref. [2]. Table 6 shows
the Test Cases attempted by each contributor. Four of
The participants were set 14 Test Cases for analysis the additional participants (Bogetti, Cuntze, Huang and
and these are summarised in Table 5. The composite Mayes) were able to analyse all the 14 Test Cases.
458 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

Table 7
Ratios of the highest:lowest predicted lamina strengths for selected stress ratios

No Laminate studied Stress ratio Final failure prediction Highest: lowest ratio predictions

Highest Lowest

1 E-glass/LY556 sy:txy=-1.58:1 Edge, Hart-Smith (2), Zinoviev Eckold 3.22

(Test Case 1)
2 sy:txy=1:2.06 Hart-Smith (2), Zinoviev, Eckold Tsai 1.54
3 sy:txy=0:1 Huang Eckold 3.6
4 T300/914C sx:txy=-12.5:1 Zinoviev, Sun, Hart-Smith (1), Hart-Smith (2) Edge 1.64
(Test Case 2)
5 sx:txy=18.75:1 Edge, Zinoviev, Hart-Smith (1) (2), Sun Chamis 1.414
6 E-glass/MY750 sx:sy=8.83:1 Edge, Zinoviev and Sun Eckold 3.6
(Test Case 3)
7 sx:sy=-32:1 Eckold Wolfe 4.77
8 sx:sy=7.8:1 Hart-Smith (2), Bogetti Rotem 4.4
9 sx:sy=0:1 Hart-Smith (3) Eckold 3.2
10 sx:sy=-1:0 Eckold Wolfe 3.8
11 sx:sy=-3.15:-1 Bogetti Eckold 6.9
12 sx:sy=-14:-1 Tsai Eckold 2.72

Table 8
Summary of theoretical results showing the range of initial and final failure predictions

No. Test Case Stress ratio Final failure prediction Initial failure prediction Largest final/initial prediction

Highest Lowest Ratio Highest Lowest Ratio Name Ratio

1 4 sy :sx=1:3 Hart-Smith (1) Rotem 6.2 Huang Chamis (2) 13.3 Edge 34
2 sy :sx=1:-1 Hart-Smith (1) Chamis (2) 8.42 Huang Chamis (2) 4.7 Eckold 5.7
3 sy :sx=-1:-3 Eckold Zinoviev 3.1 Huang Bogetti 3.2 Eckold 3.74
4 sy :sx=1:1 Hart-Smith (2) Wolfe 7.0 Huang Chamis (2) 9.19 Chamis (2) 19
5 sy :sx=-1:-1 Edge Tsai 1.66 Huang Eckold 4.55 Eckold 3.66
6 sy :sx=1:0 Hart-Smith (1) Wolfe 2.42 Huang Chamis (2) 5.2 Edge 7.5
7 sy :sx=-4.26:1 Zinoviev Chamis (2) 2.11 Zinoviev Chamis (2) 7.46 Eckold 5
8 sx:txy=-2.35:1 Puck Chamis (2) 3.8 Huang Chamis (2) 4.5 Puck 1.99
9 5 sx:txy=1:1 Hart-Smith (1) Wolfe 5.21 Huang Chamis (2) 11.6 Edge 12.8
10 sx:txy=0:1 Puck Chamis (2) 4.71 Huang Chamis (2) 7.8 Puck 6
11 sx:txy=-1:0 Eckold Tsai 3.58 Huang Eckold 7.3 Eckold 12
12 sx:txy=1:0 Eckold Chamis (2) 3.13 Huang Chamis (2) 15.5 Eckold 24
13 sy :sx=0:-1 Huang Wolfe 1.88 Sun Chamis (2) 9.23 Huang 1.54
14 6 sy :sx=1.5:-1 Zinoviev Wolfe 2.71 Huang Chamis (2) 22.6 Edge 15.7
15 sy :sx=-1:-1 Tsai Wolfe 1.72 Tsai Bogetti 3.05 Bogetti 2.15
16 sy :sx=2:1 Sun Huang 3.0 Bogetti Chamis (2) 17.6 Chamis (2) 51
17 sy :sx=1:0 Zinoviev Chamis (2) 2.0 Huang Chamis (2) 17.6 Chamis (2) 24
18 sy :sx=1:1 Zinoviev Huang 4.45 Bogetti Chamis (2) 21.2 Edge 28
19 sy :sx=0:-1 Zinoviev Eckold 2.53 Edge Eckold 3.64 Eckold 1.47
20 9 sy :sx=-1:0 Eckold Chamis (2) 3.61 Sun Eckold 4.95 Eckold 9.6
21 sy :sx=-2:-1 Eckold Chamis (2) 4.13 Huang Bogetti 3.8 Eckold 5
22 sy :sx=2:1 Hart-Smith (1) Wolfe 8.7 Huang Chamis (2) 5.7 Chamis (2) 19
23 sy :sx=1:0 Eckold Chamis (2) 4.47 Puck Eckold 4.88 Eckold 9.55
23a sy :sx=2.728:1 Sun Rotem 7.05 Huang Chamis (2) 15.53
23b sy :sx=1.33:1 Hart-Smith (2) Wolfe 13.0
24 13 sy :sx=1:1 Chamis (2) Wolfe 9.7 Huanga Cuntze 3.72 Puck 13
25 14 sy :sx=1:-1 Edge Chamis (2) 5.8 Huang Chamis (2) 2.47 Edge 4
26 12 sy :sx=0:1 Puck Wolfe 2.28 Huangb Edge 3.85 Puck 12
a
Eckold terminated his curves at a slightly higher stress than those of Huang.
b
If Huang’s results without thermal stresses are considered then the ratio would be 5.5.

3. Comparing the predictions
The 14 Test Cases can be broadly grouped into
three classes (a) biaxial failure of unidirectional
In order to facilitate the task of comparing the pre- laminae (Test Cases 1, 2 and 3), (b) biaxial failure
dictions, the following steps were taken, Ref. [15]: envelopes of multidirectional laminates (Test
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 459

Cases 4, 5, 6 and 9) and (c) stress–strain curves of
laminates under uniaxial and biaxial loading
(Test Cases 7, 8, 10–14).

Graphs were produced containing the super-
imposed predictions of the five new theories for
each Test Case. Superimposed graphs for all the
other 14 theories were presented previously in
Ref. [15].

In addition, bar charts of strengths (and, where
appropriate, strains) predicted by all of the the-
ories were constructed at specific conditions of
loading for 14 Test Cases.

The largest differences between the predictions of
all the theories for some of the loading combi-
nations are recorded in Tables 7 and 8.
Brief observations are made on the differences
between the predictions before proceeding to draw con-
clusions in Section 4.
3.1. Biaxial failure envelopes for unidirectional laminae
(Test Cases 1, 2 and 3)
The predicted biaxial failure envelopes for the five
new theories are shown in Figs. 1–3. The bar charts in
Figs. 1b, 2b and c show the failure strengths for all 19

Fig. 1. (a) Biaxial failure stress envelope for 0 unidirectional E-glass/LY556 epoxy lamina under transverse and shear loading (
y versus xy). (b)
Bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses for a unidirectional E-glass/LY556 epoxy lamina under
y:xy=
1.58:1, 1:2.08 and 0:1.
460 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

theories (including the additional ones: Bogetti, Cuntze,
Huang, Mayes and Hart-Smith(3)) at the selected stress
ratios indicated in Figs. 1a, 2a, and 3a.
Due to the differences between lamina failure criteria
employed, the predicted biaxial failure envelopes descri-
bed a variety of shapes. Adding to the observations made
in Ref. [15], the following comments can be made regard-
ing the shape and magnitude of the predicted stresses.

In all of the theories used, except those of Eck-
old, Hart-Smith (2), and three of the additional
theories (Huang and Bogetti and Hart-Smith
(3)), the predicted failure envelopes passed
through the values of strengths under uniaxial
loading which were provided as part of the data
pack Ref [2] to all participants.

In Fig. 3, Bogetti does not give a unique pre-
diction for the uniaxial compression strength
parallel to the fibres. He supplied two values
because of his initial failure (through-thickness
transverse tension) prediction One of those values
is similar to an earlier prediction by Wolfe [Ref 13]
i.e. about one half of the uniaxial compressive
strengths for that lamina.

Fig. 2. (a) Biaxial failure stress envelope for a unidirectional T300/BSL914C lamina under longitudinal and shear loading (
x versus xy). (b) Bar
charts showing the biaxial failure stresses for a unidirectional T300/914C lamina under
x:xy=-12.5:1 and 18.75:1.
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 461

Bogetti shows an inner envelope that differs from
the outer envelope for Test Cases Nos. 1 and 3 in
which the initial failure occurs due to exceeding
the ultimate strain in the through thickness
direction.

Some theories predicted envelopes in which the
effective strength in one direction is influenced by
the applied stress in the other direction. (i.e. they
employed ‘interactive’ failure criteria). These
theories include the new contributors Cuntze,
Mayes, Bogetti and Huang.

Huang predicts an unusual sharp peak in the
compression quadrant of the failure envelope
shown in Fig. 1.

Like Hart-Smith (2), Bogetti predicts a sig-
nificant enhancement in the strength under

Fig. 3. (a) Biaxial failure stress envelope for 0 unidirectional lamina made of E-glass/MY750 epoxy under longitudinal and transverse loading (
y
versus
x). (b) 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.
462 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476
certain ranges of biaxial tension–tension and
compression–compression stress states in
y

x tensile failure strength,
y, predicted by Bogetti
space (Fig. 3). Indeed, Test Case 3 (i.e. Fig. 3)
highlights the largest differences between the
various theoretical predictions for lamina
strength. Table 7 shows that at stress ratios
around
x:
y=-3.15:-1, the transverse compres-
sive failure strength (
y) predicted by Bogetti’s
theory is more than six times higher than that
predicted by Eckold. In the tension–tension
quadrant, the largest difference between the
strength values predicted occurs at stress ratio of
Fig. 4. (a) Initial and (b) Final biaxial failure stress envelope for (90 /
30 /90 ) laminate made of E-Glass/LY556 epoxy under combined
loading (
y versus
x).

x:
y=7.8:1. At this stress ratio, the transverse
(and Hart-Smith (2)) is more than 4.4 fold higher
than that predicted by almost all of the other
theories.

In complete contrast, Huang’s theory predicted a
trend opposite to that of Bogetti in one portion
of the tension–tension quadrant of Fig. 3. Where
stress interaction appears to increase the pre-
dicted strength in the Bogetti theory it supresses
the predicted strength for Huang.

One of the most common forms of interaction
assumed that combined stresses reduced the
strength of a lamina to a value lower than its
strength under uniaxial loading. Figs. 1–3 show
many examples of this (see the predictions of
Huang, Mayes and Cuntze).
In can be seen from Figs. 1–3 that although there
were some similarities, no two theories gave identical
shaped envelopes for the three tests cases.
3.2. Failure envelopes for multi-angled laminates (Test
Cases 4, 5, 6 and 9)
In order to examine the performance of the failure
theories at the laminate level, four Test Cases were
chosen 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, (y versus x),
(Test Case 4)
Initial failure envelopes predicted by the five theories
are shown in Fig. 4a and the final failure envelopes are
shown in Fig. 4b. These figures show that the new con-
tributors predicted a wide range of different strengths
for this laminate. Bar charts in Fig. 5 compare the initial
and final failure stresses predicted by all 19 theories at
specific ratios of applied biaxial loads
y:
x. Table 8
shows the range of predicted values at selected load
ratios, including those in the bar charts.
With the exception of Bogetti (and previously Eckold,
Chamis (2) and Wolfe) the initial failure envelopes
shown in Fig. 4a are approximately diamond shaped,
but the magnitudes of the predicted initial failure stres-
ses vary considerably from theory to theory. Huang’s
envelope was the largest of all, due to his high predicted
lamina strengths (as indicated in Fig. 1). The initial
failure predictions were influenced, among other fac-
tors, by whether or not residual thermal stresses had
been taken into account in a given theoretical method.
For instance, the inclusion of thermal stresses by Cuntze
led to the lowest predicted initial failure stresses for
most of the tensile quadrants of Fig. 4a. The largest
deviation between the theoretical predictions (more
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 463

than a factor of 13 (Huang: Chamis)) occurred at a
biaxial tensile stress ratio of
y:
x=1:3 (see Table 8).
Although none of the Test Cases contained any
through thickness loading Bogetti’s predictions of low
initial failure stresses in the biaxial compression quad-
rant are due to through thickness strains generated by
Poisson’s ratio effects that exceed the allowable
through-thickness tensile failure strain.
Examination of Fig. 4b in this paper and Figs. 4b and
c in Ref. [15] shows that Huang’s final failure envelope
resembles that of Rotem’s where the prediction is very
low (i.e. conservative) in the biaxial tension quadrant,

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.
464 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

Table 9
Examples of the effect of thermal stresses on the initial failure stresses of certain laminates

Laminate SR Mode of failure Initial failure stresses (MPa)

Without thermal stresses With thermal stresses

0 /90 GRP 1:0 Transverse tension 78 (a) 55.4 (b)

55 GRP 2:1 Transverse tension 112 (a) 68.6 (b)
0 / 45 /90 CFRP 1:1 Matrix failure 318 (d) 35 (b)
0 / 45 /90 CFRP 1.5:-1 Matrix failure 276.5 (e) 12.24 (c)

(a) Zinoviev
(b) Edge
(c) Chamis (2)
(d) Bogetti
(e) Huang

compared with that of other theories. It is a sign that

Huang’s theory may contain a similar shortfall to that
exposed in Rotem’s theory during Part B of the WWFE
(see Ref. [22]). This is addressed in Ref. [21].
Table 8 shows that the highest ratio of maximum:
minimum final failure stresses was 8.4:1 (Hart-Smith (1):
Chamis (2)) at stress ratio
y:
x=1:-1 and hence the
new contributions have not altered the range of predic-
tions reported in Ref. [15].
The bar charts in Fig. 5 show that at certain stress
ratios (e.g. for biaxial compression
y:
x=-1:-1) most
of the theories, except that of Bogetti, predicted final
failure stresses of similar magnitude to the initial failure
stresses, whilst at other stress ratios (e.g.
y:
x=1:0)
the final stresses are predicted to be much greater than
the initial failure stresses. In Table 8 the largest ratio
of final: initial failure loads predicted by any one
author for this laminate was still 34:1, by Edge at

y:
x=1:3.

3.2.2. Combined direct and shear loading (x versus

Fig. 6. (a) Initial and (b) Final biaxial failure stress envelope for (90 /
30 /90 ) E-glass/LY556 laminate under combined direct and shear
loading (
x versus xy).
 xy) of the (90 / 30 )s E-glass/LY556 epoxy laminate
(Test Case 5)
Figs. 6a and b show, respectively, the initial and final
failure envelopes predicted by the five new theories for
the (90 / 30 )s E-glass/LY556 laminate under com-
bined direct
x and shear xy loads. Failure stresses for
all of the theories at selected stress ratios are shown in
the bar charts in Fig. 7.
The magnitude of the predicted shear strengths of the
laminate varied greatly from one theory to the next.
Huang’s initial failure envelope for this test case was
again the largest predicted by any theory in the exercise
(see Fig. 7 and Table 8)
The Tsai, Rotem, Wolfe, and Chamis final failure
envelopes, Ref [15], tended to be smaller than the others
including those shown in Fig. 6b. The majority of
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 465

theories, including the additional contributions showed
an enhancement in the final shear strength under the
application of moderate tensile loads.
Fig. 7 shows that the predicted final failure loads were
always larger than the initial ones for this type of load-
ing. The biggest difference between initial and final fail-
ure loads occurred under uniaxial tension
x:xy=1:0.
A difference of a factor of 18 was predicted by Chamis,
Ref. [15]. All of the additional theories predicted a
smaller difference.
3.2.3. Biaxial envelope for (0 / 45 /90 )s AS4/3501-6
carbon/epoxy quasi-isotropic laminate under combined
y and x, (Test Case 6)
This family of laminates is typical in aircraft struc-
tures and is frequently known as ‘black aluminium’. The
initial failure envelopes for this quasi-isotropic laminate
are presented in Fig. 8a and the final failure envelopes
are shown in Fig. 8b for the five new theories. Compar-
ison between the initial and final stresses at selected
stress ratios is shown in Fig. 9, for all of the theories.

Fig. 7. Bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses of (90 / 30 /90 ) E-glass/LY556 laminate under combined direct and shear loading

x:xy=2.35:1, 1:1, 0:1 and 1:0.
466 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

Fig. 8. (a) Initial and (b) Final biaxial failure stress envelope for (0 / 45 /90 ) AS4/3501-6 laminate under combined loading (
y versus
x).
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 467

3.2.3.1. Initial failure envelopes. As one might expect, all
of the envelopes are symmetric about the 1:1 diagonal.
The strength under equal biaxial compression is similar
for all of the theories except that for Tsai’s interactive
theory which predicts higher biaxial compression
strength than the other theories (see the bar charts for

y:
x=-1:-1 in Fig. 9). Bogetti predicts a lower strength
than the others due to through-thickness failure (once
again caused by a through-thickness Poisson’s strain
effect) at this stress ratio.

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.
468 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476
There were large differences in magnitude of initial
failure strengths predicted in the other quadrants of the
failure envelope by the different theories. The biggest
ratio of maximum: minimum predicted initial failure
strengths shown in Table 8 was 22.6 (Huang: Chamis
(2)). Some of these differences may be attributed to the
effect of thermal residual stresses, see Table 9.
3.2.3.2. Final failure envelopes. The predicted final fail-
ure envelopes for the 0 /  45 /90 laminate reported in
Ref. [15] and those in Fig. 8b fall broadly into two
groups. The majority of theories are in the first group
and predict diamond shaped failure envelopes, similar
in shape and in magnitude to those of Hart-Smith (3),
Fig. 10. Stress–strain curves for (0 / 45 /90 ) AS4/3501-6 laminate
under uniaxial tensile loading in y direction (
y:
x=1:0).
Fig. 11. Stress–strain curves for (0 / 45 /90 ) AS4/3501-6 laminate
under biaxial tensile loading (
y:
x=2:1).
Bogetti, Cuntze and Mayes in Fig. 8b. In the second
group (Tsai, Wolfe, Rotem, and Huang), each theory
predicts an envelope that is unique in shape and in
magnitude. Huang and Rotem predict lower final failure
stresses than the other theories in the biaxial tension
quadrant and Huang and Tsai Ref. [15] predict larger
strengths than any of the other theories in different
parts of the biaxial compression quadrant.
The largest difference between the theoretical predic-
tions of final failure strength (Zinoviev: Huang=4.45:1)
occurred under biaxial tensile loading (
y:
x=1:1). The
bar charts in Fig. 9 show the variation between predic-
tions for other stress ratios.
Almost all of the theories predicted the initial failure
strength to be the same as the final failure strength (i.e.
a single, catastrophic failure) over the whole of the
biaxial compression quadrant of the failure envelope.
The exceptions were Bogetti and Huang’s theories.
All of the theories predicted final failures that were
different from the initial failures (i.e. the presence of a
progressive failure) when tensile loads were applied
(except for Hart-Smith, who did not predict initial
Fig. 12. Initial biaxial failure stress envelope for angle ply  55
E-glass/MY750 epoxy laminate under combined loading (
y versus
x).
Fig. 13. Final biaxial failure stress envelope for angle ply  55
E-glass/MY750 epoxy laminate under combined loading (
y versus
x).
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 469

failure). The greatest ratio of final: initial failure
strength (see Table 8) for this Test Case was 51:1, pre-
dicted by Chamis (2), Ref. [15].
3.2.4. Biaxial envelope for (  55)s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under combined y and x (Test Case
9)
The  55 angle-ply laminate is commonly employed
in pipes and pressure vessels. Many thousands of tons
of such pipes are in service around the world. The initial
failure envelopes are shown in Fig. 12 and the final
envelopes in Fig. 13. The bar charts (Fig. 14) compare
initial and final failure stresses at selected loading ratios.
The various theories gave a range of results for the
initial failure loads. Cuntze joined several other theories
that predict very low initial failure strengths in biaxial
tension whereas Huang’s envelope was the largest of all
(see Fig. 12). Bogetti again predicted low initial failure
stresses under biaxial compression due to a through-
thickness Poisson’s strain effect.
The biggest difference between predicted initial failure
envelopes was at the stress ratio of 2.73:1 where the

Fig. 14. Bar charts showing the biaxial failure stresses for 55 E-glass/MY750 laminate under
y:
x=1:0, 2:1,-2:-1 and-1:0.
470 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

ratios of predicted initial failure strengths was 15.5:1
(Huang and Chamis (2)), see Table 8.
An equally striking range of predictions was evident
for the final failure envelopes, although the stress ratio
at which the largest deviations took place are different.
Fig. 13 shows a wide variety of shapes of final failure
envelopes with Mayes joining Rotem and Wolfe in giv-
ing much lower final 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 final failure stresses was 13:1 (Hart-Smith (1):
Wolfe), Ref. [15].
With the exception of Sun, Edge, Puck and Bogetti,
all of the theories predicted initial and final failures as
being coincident events in the biaxial compression
quadrant, see Fig. 14. However, many of the theories
predict very large differences between the initial and
final failure loads in the tension–tension quadrant. The
largest difference between initial and final failure shown
in Table 8 is at
y:
x=2:1 where most of the theories
predict matrix tension failure at low stress and final
failure due to tensile fracture along the lamina fibre
direction at high stress. The initial and final strengths
differ by a factor of up to 19 (Chamis (2)) in this
instance, Ref. [15].

Fig. 15. Stress–strain curves for 55 E-glass/MY750 under uniaxial tensile loading with
y:
x=1:0.

Fig. 16. Stress–strain curves for  55 E-glass/MY750 laminate under biaxial tensile loading with
y:
x=2:1.
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 471

3.3. Stress–strain curves (Test Cases 7, 8, 10–14)
3.3.1. Stress–strain curves for (0 / 45 /90 )s AS4/
3501-6 carbon/epoxy quasi-isotropic laminate under
uniaxial tension y:x=1:0 and biaxial tension
y:x=2:1. (Test 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 of the curves are very similar in shape
except for those of Chamis and Rotem, Ref [15]. Most
predictions showed only a small reduction in stiffness
after initial failure. The initial failure stress was in the
range 15 (Chamis (2) to 265 MPa (Huang)) whilst the
final failure stress was in the range of 385 (Chamis (2))
to 728 MPa (Zinoviev). Huang’s final failure stress pre-
diction was lower than many others.
Failure was predicted to take place in one stage by all
of Hart-Smith’s theories, two stages by Edge and Puck,

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 direction) and (c )45 E-glass/MY750 under
y:
x=1:-1 (strain in y direction).
472 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476
three stages by the new contributors Bogetti, Huang,
Mayes, Cuntze (and previously by Wolfe, Zinoviev and
Tsai) and in four stages by Sun.
For Test Case 8 (Fig. 11), the stress–strain curves
under biaxial tension (SR=
y:
x=2:1) predicted by
nearly all of 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. Huang
(and Rotem in Ref. [15]) were exceptional. They showed
a step in the y and x curves and their stress–strain
curves were truncated at very low stresses (once again
giving early indication that Huang’s theory may have a
similar limitation to that identified in Rotem’s during
Part B (Ref. [22]).
The initial and final failure stresses predicted by all of
the theories are compared in Fig. 9, for
SR=
y:
x=2:1. The initial failure stress ranged from
5.33).
15 [Chamis (2)] to 264 MPa (Bogetti) while the final
stress ranged from 280 (Huang) to 840 MPa (Sun) but
the majority of theories gave values of final 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.
Cuntze, like Wolfe, Sun, Puck, Tsai, and Zinoviev
showed four stages of failure, all predicting initial fail-
ure due to transverse tension (matrix failure or Inter-
fibre Mode A failure) in the 0 plies, which were per-
pendicular to the loading direction in this case, and final
failure by longitudinal tension in the 90 plies. Failure in
the second and third stages occurred in the  45 plies
Fig. 18. Stress–strain curves for (0 /90 ) E-glass/MY750 laminate
under uniaxial tensile loading with
y:
x=0:1.
and 90 plies respectively 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 y:x=1:0 and
biaxial tension y:x=2:1. (Cases 10 and 11)
For uniaxial tension of the  55 laminate (Test Case
10, SR=1:0), the stress–strain curves for the additional
contributors are shown in Fig. 15, bar charts of pre-
dicted failure stresses for all theories in Fig. 14 and for
predicted failure strains in Fig. 17. The initial Young’s
modulus is identical in all predictions, except for Hart-
Smith (3) who did not provide a prediction of the shape
of the stress–strain curve. All of the new contributions
predicted non-linear curves with failure strains in the
region of 2–3% except for Huang who predicted a
larger strain at final failure (ex=
The predicted final failure stresses for all of the the-
ories, shown in the bar chart in Fig. 14, differ by a
maximum factor of 4.5 between Eckold (640 MPa) and
Chamis (2) (140 MPa), Ref. [15]. All of the new con-
tributors predicted failure stresses in the range 220–320
MPa. Furthermore, like nearly all of the original parti-
cipants, the new contributors all predicted that initial
and final failures were coincident events and that failure
was dominated by in-plane shear.
Fig. 16 shows the new contributors stress–strain
curves for biaxial tension Test Case (11) (at
y:
x=2:1).
The original participants had predicted a very wide
range of results for this case (see Ref. [15]), with a par-
ticularly large variation in the strains predicted in the x
direction. Fig. 16 shows that the new contributors also
predicted a variety of results with Huang and Mayes
producing curves that were truncated at very low stres-
ses and strains, like two of the previous contributors,
Rotem and Wolfe. The initial and final failure strains in
the x and y directions predicted by all of the theories are
shown as bar charts in Fig. 17.
The range of predicted initial failure stresses was 45–
276 MPa with general agreement (where identified) that
the mode of failure at the lamina level was due to
transverse tension (i.e. stresses perpendicular to the
fibres). Some of these differences may again be attrib-
uted to the effect of thermal residual stresses, see
Table 9. The predicted final failure stress ranged from
112 to 977 MPa, again quite a wide range.
3.3.3. Stress–strain curves for (0 /90 )s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under uniaxial tension y:x=0:1. (Test
Case 12)
The stress–strain curves for uniaxial tensile loading of
a 0 /90 laminate predicted by the new contributors are
shown in Fig. 18 and a comparison between the pre-
dicted failure stresses for all of the theories is shown in
Fig. 19c. All of the predictions in Fig. 18, presented here
and the same figure in Ref. [15] are superficially rather
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476 473

similar but a close examination of the results does reveal
some differences. For example, in Ref. [15], the "y fail-
ure strain ranged from +0.05% (Sun (L)) to
0.776% being an entirely plausible figure). The final failure loads
(Rotem). This implies that the original theories showed
the largest spread in the prediction of this failure strain.
The final failure stress was in the range 293–714 MPa
with a significant number of failure theories including
Cuntze, Bogetti, Mayes and Hart-Smith (3) predicting
final failure by tensile fracture of the fibres at a laminate
stress of around 640 MPa This equates to a failure stress
level in the 0 laminae of 1280 MPa (i.e. exactly the
value for the uniaxial tensile strength of the unidirec-
tional ply as provided by the organisers Ref. [2], thereby
predicted by Huang, Tsai and Wolfe were lower than
the others (see Fig. 19c). It was noted from the work of
Huang, Ref. [20], that his final strength prediction
increased from 488 to 690 MPa if thermal stresses are
neglected.
In all cases where predictions of both initial and final
failure stress were provided by participants the final
stresses were much larger than the initial stresses, the

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 0 /90
E-glass/MY750 under
y:
x=1:0.
474 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476

Fig. 20. Stress–strain curves for  45 E-glass/MY750 laminate under biaxial tensile loading with
y:
x=1:1.

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

largest ratio of final: initial stresses being more than
11:1 for Puck and Edge, Ref. [15] and for the new par-
ticipant Cuntze.
3.3.4. Stress–strain curves for (  45)s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under equal biaxial tension y:x=1:1.
(Test Case 13)
This Test Case, where equal biaxial tension is applied
to a  45 laminate, is equivalent to a 0 /90 laminate
loaded under equi-biaxial tension. It differs from Test
Case 12 in that the ex and ey strains are expected to be
of the same sign and of equal magnitude, such that
cracking would be expected to occur in all of the layers
at an intermediate stress level well below final failure.
The stress–strain curves for the new contributors are
shown in Fig. 20 and bar charts comparing the pre-
dicted initial and final failure stresses for all theories are
presented in Fig. 19a.
 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476
In general, the predictions indicated that the laminate
would fail initially, in all layers, by transverse tension fail-
ure, at a stress of 49–175 MPa. Final failure would occur
either by fibre failure (e.g. Cuntze, Bogetti, Hart-Smith
(3)) at a laminate stress up to 714 MPa or by matrix
failure (Mayes, Huang, Rotem and Wolfe) at a stress
below 175 MPa. The very low final failure stresses pre-
dicted by Mayes, Huang, Rotem and Wolfe are likely to
be due to the rather limited post failure models they
employed (more of which will be reported in Ref. [21]).
3.3.5. Stress–strain curves for (  45)s E-glass/MY750
epoxy laminate under biaxial tension-compression
y:x=1:-1. (Test Case 14)
This case is equivalent to a 0 /90 laminate subjected
to pure in-plane shear, Ref. [15]. The stress–strain
curves for all of the additional theories are super-
imposed in Fig. 21. The predicted failure stresses and
strains are shown in the bar charts in Figs. 19b and 17c,
respectively. Fig. 21 shows that all of the new theories
except Hart-Smith (3), predicted non-linear stress–strain
curves. Some of the previous contributors [Tsai, Sun
(L), Eckold, and Chamis] had predicted linear stress–
strain curves and failure at very low strains. Mayes,
Cuntze, Bogetti, predicted failure in shear at about 2%
strain but Huang showed an extended stress–strain
curve up to 10% strain at failure. In the absence of any
post failure modelling, a simple Mohr’s circle analysis
would indicate that the laminate strains at failure
should equate in magnitude to half of the lamina ulti-
mate shear-failure strain, specified as 4% in Ref. [2].
Therefore, some immediate doubts are raised over the
validity of Huang’s results but this issue will be con-
sidered again when the theoretical predictions are com-
pared with the experimental results (Ref. [21]).
All five additional theories predicted initial and final
failure to be coincident events. This should be con-
trasted with a few of the theories described in Ref [15],
which showed two stage failure process.
4. Conclusions
Conclusions relating to the original 14 theories com-
prising Parts A and B of the WWFE have already been
presented in Ref [15]. In light of the five additional the-
ories discussed above, the conclusions have been upda-
ted to ensure that they are pertinent to all of the 19
theories now studied.
1 On a lamina level, each theory generated a unique
biaxial failure envelope for the three test cases con-
sidered and differences as great as 690% were
observed in the strength predictions. Some theories
(Huang, Bogetti, Hart-Smith (2), Hart-Smith (3),
Eckold and Wolfe) predicted uni-axial strength data
475
of the lamina that were different to those measured
and provided as input data. The largest deviation
between measured and predicted uniaxial strength
value (transverse tensile strength) was a factor of 3.2.
This highlights some very significant problems within
certain of these theories.
2 A number of major issues emerged in predicting the
laminate responses:-

There was little unanimity between the partici-
pants in how to account for the residual thermal
stresses resulting from elevated temperature cur-
ing of the laminates. For example, as can be seen
from Table 9, predictions of initial failure loads
for the quasi-isotropic carbon/epoxy laminate
varied (maximum:minimum) by 2260% in one of
the worst instances.

For many of the test cases the most extreme
predictions of initial failure strength came from
two sources. The new contribution from Huang
contained the highest predictions, whereas Cha-
mis (one of the original contributors) gave the
lowest (possibly because he made full allowance
for thermal stresses).

The participants used a variety of methods to
predict laminate behaviour after initial failure.
The type of post failure modelling employed by
Rotem, Wolfe and the new contributors Mayes
and Huang produced much lower final failure
strength values than the other contributors in
many cases.

Even for very familiar cases, the spread in the
final failure strengths predicted by the partici-
pants was very large. Ratios of highest:lowest
predicted final strengths as great as 445% were
observed for the quasi-isotropic aircraft laminate
(Test Case 6), 970% for the cross ply ( 45 )
laminate (Test Case 13) and 1300% for the  55
GRP piping/pressure vessel laminate (Test Case
9).

Micromechanics featured in several of the theo-
retical approaches. Three participating groups
Chamis, Huang and Mayes, relied on the prop-
erties of the fibres and matrices to compute the
linear elastic constants, strengths and non-linear
behaviour of the composite laminae. Others
required properties of the fibres and/or the
matrix to establish failure conditions and to carry
out post-initial failure modelling.
3 Any judgements as to which theoretical approach
predicts the most realistic results should be reserved
until the theoretical results have been compared with
the available experimental data, see Ref. [21].
476 A.S. Kaddour et al. / Composites Science and Technology 64 (2004) 449–476
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank all of the contributors of the failure
exercise for their generous, active, sustained and posi-
tive participation in this exercise. A portion of this work
was carried out on behalf of the UK MoD Corporate
Research Programme and we gladly acknowledge this
support.
References
[1] Hinton MJ, Soden PD. Predicting failure in composite laminates:
the background to the exercise. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1001–10.
[2] Soden PD, Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS. Lamina properties and lay-
up configurations and loading conditions of a range fibre rein-
forced composite laminates. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1011–22.
[3] Gotsis PK, Chamis CC, Minnetyan L. Prediction of composite
laminate fracture: micromechanics and progressive fracture.
Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1137–50.
[4] Eckold GC. Failure criteria for use in the design environment.
Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1095–106.
[5] Edge EC. Stress based Grant-Sanders method for predicting fail-
ure of composite laminates. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1043–4.
[6] McCartney LN. Predicting transverse crack formation in cross-
ply laminate. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1069–82.
[7] Hart-Smith LJ. Predictions of the original and truncated max-
imum strain failure models for certain fibrous composite lami-
nates. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1151–78.
[8] Hart-Smith LJ. Predictions of a generalised maximum-shear-
stress failure criterion for certain fibrous composite laminates.
Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1179–208.
[9] Puck A, Schürmann H. Failure analysis of FRP laminates by
means of physically based phenomenological models. Compos Sci
Tech 1998;58:1045–68.
[10] Rotem A. Prediction of laminate failure with Rotem failure cri-
terion. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1083–94.
[11] Sun CT, Tao JX. Prediction of failure envelopes and stress strain
behaviours of composite laminates. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:
1125–36.
[12] Liu K-S, Tsai SW. A progressive quadratic failure criterion of a
laminate. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1023–32.
[13] Wolfe WE, Butalia TS. A strain energy based failure criterion for
nonlinear analysis of composite laminates subjected to biaxial
loading. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1107–24.
[14] Zinoviev P, Grigoriev SV, Labedeva OV, Tairova LR. Strength
of multilayered composites under plane stress state. Compos Sci
Tech 1998;58:1209–24.
[15] Soden PD, Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS. Comparison of the pre-
dictive capabilities of current failure theories for composite lami-
nates. Compos Sci Tech 1998;58:1225–54.
[16] Hart-Smith LJ. Expanding the capabilities of the ten-percent rule
for predicting the strength of fibre-polymer composites. Compos
Sci Tech 2002;62:1515–44.
[17] Bogetti TA, Hoppel CPR, Harik VM, Newill JF, Burns BP. Pre-
dicting the nonlinear response and progressive failure of compo-
site laminates. In this issue.
[18] Cuntze RG, Freund A. The predictive capability of failure mode
concept based strength criteria for multidirectional laminates. In
this issue.
[19] Mayes S, Hansen AC. Composite laminate failure analysis using
multicontinuum theory. In this issue.
[20] Huang ZM. A bridging model prediction of the tensile strength
of composite laminates subjected to biaxial loads. In this issue.
[21] Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS, Soden PD. Further assessment of the
predictive capabilities of current failure theories for composite
laminates: Comparison with experimental evidence. In this
issue.
[22] Hinton MJ, Kaddour AS, Soden PD. A comparison of the pre-
dictive capabilities of current failure theories for composite lami-
nates, judged against experimental evidence. Compos Sci Tech
2002;62:1725–98.