LAMINATE DESIGN 30

Jocelyn M . Seng

30.1 INTRODUCTION birch or spruce, laid over balsa core or fir

stringers to form a sandwich structure1. This
An early example of laminated composite
successful production aircraft (7781 units built)
materials is the de Havilland Mosquito
was designed without the analytical techniques
fighter/bomber used by the British Royal Air
described in this chapter and without fancy
Force during World War I1 (Fig. 30.1). This air-
computer tools. With current laminate design
craft was built entirely out of wood because of
and analysis techniques, today’s higher-perfor-
limited metal supplies and the need for quick
mance composite aircraft are made possible;
delivery. The wings, for example, were made as
with the increase in speed and accuracy of com-
three-ply skins (each 1.5 mm (0.060 in) thick) of
putation results, designer confidence in

Fig. 30.1 The de Havilland Mosquito, an all-wood

Handbook of Composites. Edited by S.T. Peters. Published WWII Production aircraft.Printed With Permission,
in 1998 by Chapman & Hall, London. ISBN 0 412 54020 7 Zokeisha Publications, Inc.

composites structures is increased. This chapter
presents the basic mathematical tools used to
design laminates and provides insight on the
many options for optimizing the material for
particular needs.
Three distinct levels of benefit can be
derived when using composites and laminate
design. With equal fiber distribution in multi-
ple directions, rendering an effectively
quasi-isotropic material, composites can
approximate metals while providing a weight
savings due to the difference in material den-
sities. In addition, however, designers opting
to use composite parts enjoy the advantage of
being able to tailor the properties of their
material by orienting load-carrying fibers in
the directions that there are loads. The result is
an anisotropic material, which by definition is a
material with different properties in different
directions. Ultimately, the composites industry
is finally beginning to see the development of
unique structures that have never before been
attempted and with material behavior that is
only possible with distinct laminate designs.
This is a result of coupled behavior, for exam-
ple, an extensional load on an anisotropic
material can yield extension coupled with
bending and twisting deformations.
The objective of this chapter is to outline a
method to design ply layouts which achieve
structural design goals for composite parts.
This method is based on laminated plate the-
ory used with the quadratic failure criterion2.
This general discussion, which assumes famil-
iarity with undergraduate mechanical
engineering fundamentals, shows how the
principles for isotropic materials (such as met-
als) are extended to the analysis of advanced
composites. The basic equations are presented
and the analysis procedure is outlined.
Simplifying concepts are introduced and dis-
cussed. Simple computer codes that embody
these equations are now widely available,
making it unnecessary to ever have to solve
these equations by hand. Examples and sam-
ple problems are included to demonstrate
concepts.
Laminated plate theory 687
30.2 LAMINATED PLATE THEORY
30.2.1 LAMINA
Advanced composite materials are typically
supplied as a thin layer, called a ply or lamina,
which is subsequently stacked into a thin
plate, called a laminate. A unidirectional ply or
lamina is a flat or curved layer of fibers ori-
ented in one direction and held together by
matrix material that serves to support the
fibers. The stresses perpendicular to the planar
surface are assumed to be zero.
While the behavior of isotropic materials can
be described with two elastic constants (typi-
cally the Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s
ratio) and one strength value, a composite ply
that is transversely isotropic is characterized by
four elastic (stiffness) constants and five
strength parameters in two-dimensional analy-
sis. The material properties are defined along
the fiber (x-direction ) and perpendicular to the
fiber (y-direction ). For each unidirectional ply
in its own axes, the four orthotropic elastic con-
stants are the longitudinal tensile modulus, Ex;
the transverse tensile modulus, EY;the major
Poisson’s ratio, vx; and the shear modulus, Es.
Only one Poisson’s ratio is necessary since Y,,=
vx(€,,/Ex). The five strength parameters for each
unidirectional ply are the longitudinal tensile
strength, X; the longitudinal compressive
strength, X’; the transverse tensile strength, Y;
the transverse compressivestrength, Y’; and the
shear strength, S.
The five initial coupon tests to experimen-
tally determine the nine material constants are
shown in Fig. 30.2. In the stress, o, versus
strain, E , plot, the material is characterized by
the slope of the line, which represents material
stiffness, and by the failure point, which
defines the maximum stress that the material
can sustain, i.e. its strength, and by the corre-
sponding maximum strain. Use of the strength
parameters is discussed in the section on fail-
ure criteria.
During three of the coupon tests, the
nonzero strains are monitored and the rela-
tionships in eqn (30.1) are determined. The
688 Laminate design

Longitudinal Transverse

EX j

" =-- EY

......

Longitudinal Transverse
Compression Compression

Fig. 30.2 Coupon tests to determine the nine material constants used to characterize an anisotropic material.

material is assumed to be linear and elastic; If a unidirectional specimen was simultane-

thus, the stiffness of a material is the same in
tension as in compression. Based on the four
elastic constants, infinitely different lami-
nates can be designed using laminated plate
theory.
ously tested under the three load cases,
longitudinal tension, transverse tension, and
shear, then superposition of the strains results
in

Longitudinal tension test

1
E = -0 --0VX
3 Y EY Y Ex
E = - 0 (30.1)
Ex
1
ES = -0,
E S

Written conveniently in matrix notation,

Transverse tension test

1
E = - 0
y E,, y

0 0

Shear test
(30.3)
1
E =-a,
E,
 Laminated plate theory 689

Defining the plane stress stiffness matrix [QJ =
[SI-', another form of eqn (30.3) is
laminate, x, y, s and 1,2,6 are interchangeable.
Material properties are specified with
respect to the on-axis coordinates. The proper-
ties of an off-axis ply, anything other than 0
degrees, can be calculated by transforming the
properties of the 0-degree ply. The angle of
transformation, 8, is equal to the ply angle
shown in Fig. 30.3, where 1 and 2 are the lam-
inate axes and x and y are the rotated ply axes.
8 is positive counterclockwise from the 1-axis
to 90°, and negative clockwise to -90".

Y
l o 0 E, J
This calculation of the plane stress stiffness
matrix [Q]for a single ply is the starting point
of laminated plate theory, once the engineer- 1
ing constants have been experimentally
determined.

30.2.2 COORDINATE TRANSFORMATIONS

Two coordinate systems are used in laminated
plate theory. The local, or on-axis, coordinate
frame is defined by x and y, also referred to as
the ply axes. The x-axis is along the longitudi-
nal direction of the ply (along the fiber); the
y-axis is in the same plane, but in the trans-
verse direction (perpendicular to the fiber
direction). The subscripts is used with expres-
sions for shear, and is a contraction for the
subscript xy. The ply's material properties are
Fig. 30.3 Definition of ply axes (x,y) and laminate
axes (1,2), where the lines indicate the fiber direc-
tion.
The laminate off-axis stiffness matrix is com-
puted from the ply on-axis stiffness matrix by
using the following ransformation relation:
Q1ll
Q22

defined in this axis system. Since not all plies

are aligned in the same direction along the
principal loading axis in a laminate, a second
set of coordinates is necessary to analyze com-
posite laminates. The global, or off-axis,
coordinate frame is defined by 1 and 2, also m4 n4 2rn2n' 4m2n2
referred to as the laminate axes. The 1 direc-
n4 m4 2m2n2 4m2n2
tion is along the principal orientation of the
laminate; the 2 direction is perpendicular to it. m2n2 m2n2 m4+n4 -4m2n2
The subscript 6 is used with expressions for m2n2 m2n2 --2m2n2 (m' -n2)'
shear, and is a contraction for the subscript 12. m3n -mn3 mn3 - m3n 2(mn3- m3n:
The loads on the laminate and the boundary
mn3 -m3n m3n- mn3 2(m3n- mn3:
conditions are usually defined in the global
svstem.
, In the case of a 0-degree
" unidirectional (30.5)
690 Laminate design
where rn = cos 8, n = sin 8. A summary of some
other useful transformation relations is given
in Section 30.7. It is clear from these relations
that when 8 = 0, then Q,, = Q,, = 0, which
means shear and extension are uncoupled, i.e.
shear loading only causes shear deformation,
and extensional loading causes extensional
deformation with Poisson’s effect but no shear
deformation.
Using the off-axis plane stress stiffness coef-
ficients, the constitutive relations of eqns (30.4)
and (30.3) can be generalized to a ply of any
orientation:
and inversely
For example, a physical interpretation is
shown in Fig. 30.4. In general, the terms on the
diagonal (S,,, S,, S,) reflect the amount of
deformation in the direction of loading. As
Fig. 30.4 Extensional loading of (a) a unidirectionalply and (b) an off-axis ply and their associated off-axis
stiffness matrix.
with the [Q] matrix, the S12(and SJ, terms
reflect the deformation in the direction per-
pendicular to the direction of loading, and are
commonly referred to as the ‘component due
to Poisson’s effect’ (implying the major
Poisson’s ratio). The S,, and S2, (and S,, and
S62)terms reflect the amount of shear deforma-
tion under extensional loading, and are
commonly referred to as ’coupling terms’.
Unlike the off-axis unidirectional ply shown in
Fig. 30.4@), the 0-degree unidirectional ply
shown in Fig. 30.4(a) does not exhibit any
shear deformation under extensional loading.
30.2.3 KINEMATICS
Kinematics is the study of movement and
depends solely on geometry, not on material
properties. Since composite laminates are
often thin two-dimensional structures, plate
theory is used to simplify the three-dimen-
sional behavior. Plate theory tries to account
for stretching and bending behavior relative to
the midplane of the laminate.
The key assumption of plate theory is that
normals remain normal, straight and
unstretched. In practical terms, the plies in the
laminate are assumed to be completely
bonded to each other, allowing no interlami-
nar shear. Some other assumptions are that the
 Laminated plate theory 691

material exhibits perfectly linear elastic behav-

ior and that there is a perfect bond between
the fiber and matrix. The out-of-plane dis-
placement, w, can be described by a function
of the in-plane coordinates such that E: -I-ZK1

w = wo(x,y) (30.7)
Based on the Kirchhoff assumptions, Fig. 30.5
shows the deformation of a cross section of the
plate in the x-z plane, relative to the x-direc-
tion

u = uo-z-
aw0
ax (30.8) 30.2.4 STRESS RESULTANTS
Similarly, the displacement along the y-axis is Just as beam theory defines net tensile force,
shear force, and moment, relating everything
Y = Y,-Z-
awo (30.9) to the neutral axis, plate theory defines stress
aY resultants and moment resultants to eliminate
Based on the definition of strains, any z-direction dependence and to relate
au auo azw, everything to the midplane, as shown in Fig.
& =-=--z- (30.10) 30.6. Ply stresses along each loading direction
1 ax ax a x 2 are summed for the laminate:

(30.12)

2
M-
Undeformed Deformed
Cross Section Cross Section
Fig. 30.6 Force and moment resultants acting on a
Fig. 30.5 Extension and bending deformation. plate.
692 Laminate design

These resultants can be rewritten in terms of A,, indicates the relationship between longi-
strain by substituting in the constitutive rela- tudinal in-plane load, N,, and the
tions. Putting the two-part expression for longitudinal extension, E;;
strains, eqn (30.11), into the constitutive rela- A,, indicates the coupling between longitu-
tions, eqn (30.6), and substituting the resulting dinal in-plane load, N,, and the extension
stress expression into the definitions for the in the transverse direction, E;, (the tradi-
resultants, eqn (30.12), tional Poisson's effect);
A,, indicates the coupling between longitudi-
{N] = [A] (E'} + [B](K) (30.13) nal in-plane load, N,, and the in-plane
shear, E;;
A, indicates the relationship between in-
plane shear load, N,, and the in-plane
All Bll 1' 2 B16 shear distortion, E;;
2' 1 2'2 B26 B,, indicates the coupling between transverse
'61 '62 '66
in-plane load, N,, and the twist, K ~ ;
B, indicates the relationship between in-
1
'1 1' 2 1
'6 Dll D12 D16
plane shear load, N6, and the twist, K ~ ;
B21 '22 B26 D21 D26 D12 indicates the coupling between longitudi-
6' 1 B62 '66 D61 D62 D645 nal bending load, MI, and the transverse
bending curvature, K,;
(30.14) D, indicates the relationship between twisting
moment load, M6, and the twist angle, K ~ .
The ply stacking sequence has no effect on the
[AI = IIQldz (30.15) A matrix coefficients, which reflect in-plane
behavior. However, since the B and D matrix
coefficients are a function of z, they are depen-
dent on the stacking sequence.
There are two unique physical situations
that deserve mention. When the laminate is
symmetric about its midplane, the B coeffi-
cients are zero, which means that there is no
It can be shown that A,, = A,,, B,, = BZ1, D,,= coupling between in-plane loads and curva-
DZ1,etc. Equation (30.14)represents the funda- tures, nor between bending loads and
mental relationships in laminated plate theory. in-plane deformations. Another common sit-
The 6 x 6 matrix is the laminate stiffness uation is when the A,, and A,, coefficients are
matrix. zero (usually in the presence also of all the €3
A composite with unidirectional plies lami- coefficients being zero): this arises when a
nated in different directions (a generally laminate is balanced, i.e. there are an equal
anisotropic material) under an inplane load number of off-axis plies in the +8 and 4
may stretch, bend and twist, as a result of directions and they have equal thickness. In
extensional/ shear coupling. By comparison, a this case, there is no coupling between exten-
metal structure will stretch only under an sion loads and shear strain. If, in addition,
inplane load, bend only under flexure, and those +8 and 4 plies are effectively the same
twist only under torque. Each matrix coeffi- distance from the midplane, then the corre-
cient in eqn (30.14) relates a particular sponding B and D matrix coefficients tend
resultant to a strain expression. For example, toward zero.
 Laminated plate theory 693

Most laminates used today are symmetric a flexural contribution, then it must be added
to eliminate or reduce any tendency of the
structure to warp unexpectedly. Most lami-
nates are also balanced, often because it is
erroneously thought to be necessary to pre-
vent the structure from warping. A balanced
laminate is really only necessary in situations
with reversible shear loading conditions. The off-axisply strains can be transformed to
on-axis ply strains for each ply and their signif-
icance can be evaluated per a failure criterion
30.2.5 RESULTING STRAIN STATE (refer to the relations given in Section 30.7).
Knowing the laminate stiffness matrix and the
applied loads, the resulting strains can be
computed. The strains are obtained by invert-
ing the stiffness matrix and multiplying by the
input load. Instead of inverting the 6 x 6 stiff-
[Et
Es I
=.
i
m2
n2
n2
m2
-mn
mn
2mn -2mn m2-n2
f:
., I (30.19)

ness matrix, however, it is sometimes possible
to simplify the analysis even further. If the
laminate is symmetric about the midplane so
that the B coefficients are identically zero, then
the in-plane (described by N, [A], E ) and bend-
ing problems (described by M I [D], IC)become
uncoupled. In this case, it is much easier to
invert two 3 x 3 stiffness matrices to get the
compliance matrices (see also Section 30.7 for
the explicit terms to invert a matrix)
[a] = [AI-’
where, as before, m = cos 8, n = sin 8. One step
further, the on-axis ply stresses can be obtained
by multiplying the on-axis ply strains by the
ply stiffness matrix [Q] as shown in eqn (30.6).
The laminate engineering constants, which
have meaning with symmetric laminates only,
are calculated from the compliance matrix and
are useful for comparison to the properties of
other materials, such as metals

[d] = [Dl-’ (30.16)

Then, the compliance matrix is multiplied
by the appropriate input load conditions to
compute the laminate strains
where the compliance terms have been nor-
malized to have the necessary units of
[length2/ force]

I
‘EP ‘11 ‘12 ‘16 ‘IN, ’
= a12 aZ a26 N2 (30.17) [a*] = [a]h (30.21)
E;
\E: ‘16 ‘26 ‘66. tN6 ,

In summary, the mathematical process of ana-

lyzing composite laminates is indicated in Fig.
30.7. A laminate’s stiffness is calculated as the
summation of its individual ply properties.
Load on the laminate is described in terms of
Since all the plies are bonded together, the the laminate coordinates. Calculated from the
strains in each ply, in the laminate axes, (1,2), applied load and the known material stiffness
are equivalent to the laminate strain. If there is properties, the response of the laminate is
694 Laminate design

expressed as laminate strain. In order to apply 30.3.2 HYGROTHERMAL EFFECTS

a failure criterion, the laminate strain is com-
Most structure is exposed to a variety of envi-
monly transformed into ply strains and each
ronmental effects. Of particular concern are
ply is individually evaluated.
heat and moisture. The design must account
for the hygrothermal effects (hygrothermal
30.3 ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BASIC means water and temperature). A laminate
LAMINATED PLATE EQUATIONS that is stress-free when curing at an elevated
temperature will have residual stresses when
30.3.1 SANDWICH CONSTRUCTION brought back to room temperature. It has been
thought that some of the apparent improve-
In composite structures, sandwich construc-
ment in toughness of 250°F resins over 350°F
tions are commonly used. By increasing the
resins is simply due to the reduction in resid-
distance between the load-carrying laminate
ual stresses (AT = 75 - 250 = -175°F versus AT
skins, a core can provide increased bending
= 75 - 350 = -275°F). In addition, moisture is
stiffness without a significant weight penalty.
absorbed by the laminate, usually into the
The core is often idealized in laminate design:
resin. The negative effect on the mechanical
it is assumed that the core does not contribute
properties is particularly pronounced at both
to laminate strength or in-plane stiffness, and
high temperature and high humidity.
that the shear bonds between the skins and
Assuming that the primary effect on resid-
core are perfect. The parallel axis theorem can
ual stresses is due to different thermal
be used to account for the increased moment
expansions and moisture expansions along
of inertia that the core creates by offsetting the
and transverse to the fiber direction, two addi-
laminate load-carrying skins from the mid-
tional strains on the laminate result:
plane. Once the skin laminates have been
sized, further calculations can be performed to {E) = {a)AT+@)Ac (30.22)
confirm that the core assumptions are valid3.

Measured Plane Laminate Inverted Given Loads;

Ply Stress Stiffness Stiffness Resulting Ply
Stiffnesses Coeff. Matrix Matrix Laminate Strains
Strains
Fig. 30.7 Logical flow of calculations involved in analyzing a symmetric composite laminate that is loaded
axially and/or in bending.

The summation process can be used to deter-
mine the effective laminate expansion
coefficients.
The hygrothermal load, sometimes called
non-mechanical load, can be computed by
multiplying the laminate stiffness by the
hygrothermal strain (i.e. laminate thermal
expansion coefficients multiplied by the
change in temperature). The stress induced by
moisture absorption can be accounted for sim-
ilarly by using PAC in place of aAT. Thus, the
non-mechanical loading in the laminate can be
expressed as
The mechanical and non-mechanical loads, N
and W , can be added together to determine
the total load experienced by the laminate.
30.4 FAILURE CRITERIA
The ultimate objective in any structural design
is to create a structure able to withstand
deflections or loads without failing. The initial
concern is to remain below a prescribed deflec-
tion as part of stiffness criteria. Once these
criteria are satisfied, the focus shifts to a
strength criterion, such that applied stress
must not exceed laminate strength.
Composite materials normally possess dif-
ferent strengths when loaded in either tension
or compression. The following represent the
minimum number of strength properties nec-
essary to characterize a unidirectional or fabric
ply. They are determined using material
coupon tests, previously outlined in Fig. 30.2.
X = longitudinal tensile strength,
Failure criteria 695
X' = transverse tensile strength,
Y = longitudinal compressive strength,
Y' = transverse compressive strength,
S = shear strength. (30.24)
The maximum ply strain values can be inter-
preted by dividing the above strengths by the
appropriate ply stiffness coefficient.
cx* = max longitudinal tensile strain,
E ~ ' *= max longitudinal compressive strength,
E * = max transverse tensile strength,
Eyf* =
Y
max transverse compressive strength,
E,* = max shear strength. (30.25)
Laminate strength is function of material (ply)
strength and the constraints on the ply within
the laminate. Thus, failure is best assessed at
the ply level. The proper interpretation, how-
ever, of the significance of the applied stress
relative to the material strength is still
debated. Maximum stress and maximum
strain failure criteria are common wherein the
applied stress or strain value is compared
directly to the strength value. A review of fail-
ure criteria has been published4.
Early laminate failure theories fail to
account for Poisson's effects and interaction
between loads in orthogonal directions (a
complex load condition). For example, the
major weakness of both the maximum stress
and the maximum strain failure criteria are
their inability to couple stress, or strain, com-
ponents in determining the ultimate failure of
a ply. It is important to understand that the
longitudinal tensile failure of a ply is affected
not only by the longitudinal load, but also by
the magnitude of applied transverse loads. As
a result, stress interaction criteria are widely
used throughout the industry to determine ply
failure in a laminate.
30.4.1 QUADRATIC FAILURE CRITERION
Tsai developed a two-dimensional stress inter-
action failure criterion and predicted the
strength of an orthotropic ply subjected to
combined stresses or strains. This analysis
696 Laminate design
takes into account the effects of other stress
components on the strength in any one direc-
tion. Tsai postulated a criterion in stress space
consisting of the sum of linear and quadratic
scalar products as follows:
F ‘1DOI
1
+ Ftp1I 1 i, j = x, y, s
or, in expanded form,
+ ( F p x + Fyuy)I1
Note that Fxs = Fys= F, = 0, and the six strength
parameters are interpreted from the ply
strength values (reviewed in Section 30.8):
1
F = -
s
2
1 1 1 1
F = -- - F = -- -
x x y Y Y’
The stress interaction term, Fx,*, can have a
value of -1 I Fx; < 1although is recommended
to be -1/2. When F,; = -1/2, the quadratic fail-
ure criterion is a general case of the von Mises
criterion (Section 30.8.2).
Instead of simply evaluating the failure cri-
terion to determine if the laminate failed, it is
useful to consider a nondimensional ratio to
provide a perspective of the significance of the
applied stress relative to material strength.
Tsai defines the strength ratio, R, such that
The strength ratio is always a positive number
with the following physical implications:
X = 1 failure occurs (at the applied stress or
strain level);
R > 1 failure has not occurred and R repre-
sents a factor of safety (e.g. if R = 2, then
the applied stress can be safely doubled
before failure occurs);
R < l failure has already occurred (i.e. occurs
prematurely at some point below the
applied stress or strain) and the applied
stress or strain level can not be attained
(e.g. if R = 0.5, then only half the
(30.26)
applied stress can be sustained).
Equation (30.28) is substituted into eqn (30.26)
and the solution of this quadratic equation can
be obtained.
[ F I , ~ l ~ ~+][F,u,]
R‘ R -1 = 0 (30.29)
i, j = x, y, s
The positive and negative roots of the qua-
dratic equation can be found and represent
failure of the laminate in tension and compres-
sion (where the absolute value of the negative
root is used), respectively.
Failure envelopes can be plotted to show
laminate strength for any combination of
(30.27) loads. Instead of the stress space representa-
tion, however, the examination of failure
envelopes in strain space is a useful alterna-
tive. The representation of failure envelopes in
strain space is preferred because strain is usu-
ally specified in laminated plate theory. Strain,
unlike stress, is at most a linear function of the
thickness. Furthermore, failure envelopes are
fixed in strain space, and are independent of
other plies with different angles which may
exist in a laminate. Thus, they can be regarded
as material properties. Another additional
advantage of strain space is that the axes are
dimensionless.
30.4.2 STRENGTH OF LAMINATES
(30.28)
Traditional failure criteria based on strength of
materials are limited to the prediction of the
FPF, the point beyond which the continuous
and homogeneous material assumptions are
no longer valid. The use of a simple method
for modeling of degraded plies is recom-
mended, from which the FPF can be estimated.
The load-carrying capability of a laminate
 Laminate design 697

beyond the FPF can be formulated using a ply of the preselected orientations results in a
degradation model. Two possible methods are quasi-isotropic laminate. This is the perfor-
recommended: first, the simplified microme- mance baseline, because load-carrying fiber is
chanics model based on the modified in effectively all directions. Laminate perfor-
rule-of-mixtures relations can be used. Plies mance can only be improved beyond that of a
with transverse cracks are replaced by plies quasi-isotropic laminate as fiber is biased into
with reduced matrix modulus, Em. load directions, since, of course, fiber would
Micromechanics translates the effect of the never be put in unnecessary directions.
altered constituent material properties to the Heretofore, quasi-isotropic laminates have
ply level, e.g. how a change in the matrix mod- been used because they give properties like
ulus affects the shear and transverse modulus those of metals, and predictable responses that
of the unidirectional ply. Degraded plies are are familiar, although they are not optimal in
modeled by quasi-homogeneous plies so that strength-to-weight or stiffness-to-weight
laminated plate theory can be reapplied to ratios. Many laminates used today on aircraft
determine the ply stresses and ply strains. structures tend to be of this type. In general,
Another approach for the prediction of however, the more directional the loading, the
post-FPF strength can be based on macrome- bigger the payoff possible with anisotropic tai-
chanics, without resorting to micromechanics. loring.
The degradation factor (DF) is applied directly To improve on the performance obtained
to the transverse and shear modulus, as well with a quasi-isotropic laminate, the cost to
as the major Poisson's ratio. The exact value design and analyze the anisotropic part (using
for the degradation factor must be determined the tools like those discussed in this chapter) is
empirically.A value between 0.1 and 0.3 is rec- unfortunately often thought not to be worth
ommended. If the degradation factor is given the additional weight savings. This attitude is
a value close to zero, the quadratic failure cri- commonly rationalized by worry about holes,
terion can be made to resemble the maximum increase in work associated with more compli-
strain criterion and results in a generally con- cated fiber placement (preform assembly), etc.
servative estimation of laminate strength. In practice, laminate designs, if not quasi-
isotropic, are certainly still symmetric about
30.5 LAMINATE DESIGN
the midplane, balanced (equal quantity of -8
and +8 plies), and orthotropic. Capitalizing on
To simplify the analysis, it is commonly initially the benefits of anisotropy will probably occur
specified that a laminate will be constructed of in other industries first before being adopted
plies oriented with fibers in a few preselected by the more conservative aircraft industry.
directions, where only the percentage distribu- An exception to traditional aircraft laminate
tion in each orientation must then be design is the X-29 experimental aircraft, which
determined. Laminates with plies distributed demonstrated a unique attribute of anisotropy
every 45" are called n/4 laminates (plies can be (Fig. 30.8). The basis for this design lies in the
in the 0, 45, 90 or 4 5 directions. Ply orienta- important assumption that the 1,2,6 axes are
tions are usually specified as a value between usually the primary load directions for the
-90 and 90". For example, instead of identifying laminate. With the coordinate system for load-
the orientation as 135, the laminate orientation ing changed to be 20" off a designated
is more commonly called 45", although they laminate system, it can be shown that the lam-
are the same). Another class of laminates are inate behavior in flexure and torsion is
called n/3, where plies are placed every 60" coupled. In fact, twisting will result with flex-
(plies can be in the 0, 60 or -60 directions). In ural loading, even though the material would
both cases, an equal percentage of plies in each normally behave as most metals. This is the
698 Laminate design

principle used on the X-296. The normal ten- the laminate. Composite materials are not
dency for forward swept wings to diverge at merely a light-weight substitute for heavy-
increasing speeds was counteracted by this weight metals. Structural performances which
laminate design: the increase in lift creates a are not possible with metals are easily achiev-
decrease in angle of attack, as the laminate able. Examples of such unique properties
twists in the direction opposing the forces. include Poisson’s ratios greater than unity or
It is conceivable that in the future the even negative, bending-twisting coupling, and
graphite golf shafts currently gaining in popu- zero or negative coefficients of thermal expan-
larity could be tailored to the individual golfer. sion (CTE). The problems and examples below
The same coupling principle could be applied. illustrate the engineering constants of angle-
A golfer’s tendency to consistently slice the ply and related laminates. Examples of large
ball might allow the designer to customize a and negative Poisson’s ratios and examples of
golf shaft which not only bends, but also bend-twist coupling are also given.
twists slightly under the bending load of the
bad swing.
30.5.2 UNUSUAL POISSON’S RATIOS
Personal computer software based on a com-
30.5.1 UMQUE BEHAVIOR
puter spreadsheet allows rapid sensitivity
The most unique features of composite materi- studies and parametric analysis of the behav-
als are the highly direction-dependent ior of laminates. Laminated plate theory with
properties. Highly coupled deformation and micromechanics is programmed into ’Mic-
load-carrying capability can be designed into Mac/In-Plane’2. A companion charting tool,

Fig. 30.8 Top view of the Grumman X-29 aircraft with wings that twist under flexure to counteract the
detrimental aerodynamic effects.@ NASA)
 Laminate design 699

'Chart-quick', can be used to plot variation of Table 30.1 Material property data for three differ-
CTE as a function of independent variables (0, ent carbon fiber systems: IM6/Epoxy, T300/5208
E,,, E,, vf, etc.). For the following problems and M40J/F584
and examples, the carbon fiber reinforced
polymer material data used are shown in lM6/ T300/ M40J/
Epoxy 5208 F854
Table 30.1.
Figure 30.9(a) shows the engineering con- Longitudinal tensile
stants for a unidirectional laminate as it is modulus, E x (Msi) 29.44 26.27 32.8
rotated from the on-axis. The Poisson's ratio, vx, Transverse modulus,
of a 0" laminate is approximately 0.3. With EY(Msi) 1.62 1.49 1.2
increasing angle of the off-axis laminate, the Poisson's ratio 0.32 0.28 0.26
Poisson's ratio decreases. The Poisson's ratio of
a 90" laminate is effectively zero, because con- Shear modulus, Es (Msi) 1.22 1.04 0.66
traction in the transverse direction is Longitudinal CTE, a1 -0.14
constrained by the fibers. Transverse CTE, a2 15
Figure 30.9(b) shows the engineering con-
stants for an angle-ply laminate. It is interesting Volume fraction V,(%) 66 70 62
to observe the very large Poisson's ratio of 1.32
for a [ S O ] laminate. A value of greater than one
implies that the transverse dimensional change image' of the longitudinal modulus, Ex.
is more than in the dimensional change in the Figure 30.10(a) shows the engineering con-
longitudinal direction of loading. stants for cross-ply laminates. For any given
When the ply angle is either 0 or 90", the laminate, the longitudinal modulus, Ex, and
laminates (and consequently the values for the the transverse modulus, E , are equal. The
engineering constants) in Figs. 30.9(a) and Poisson's ratio, vx, of a [d/90] laminate is
30.9(b) are the same. In both Figs. 30.9(a) and approximately zero, because of the presence of
30.9(b), the transverse modulus, E,, is a 'mirror fibers in the transverse direction. The largest

Modulus Poisson's Modulus Poisson's

(Msi) Ratio (Msi) Ratio
30 00 2 30.00 2

22.50 1.5 22.50 1.5

15.00 1 15.00 1

'
7.50 0.5 7.50 0.5

0.00 0 0.00 0
15 30 45 60 75

Ply Angle, 8 (degrees)

f -0.5
Ply Angle, 8 (degrees)
(4 (b)

Fig. 30.9 Engineering constants of IM6/epoxy laminates as a function of 6 for (a) off-axis unidirectional [e],;
and (b) mgle-ply [+el,.
700 Laminate design
LO7 (6 + 90>1,,
Modulus
(Msi)
30.00
22.50
15.00
7.50
0.00
15 30 45 60 75
Ply Angle, 8 (degrees)
(4
Fig. 30.10 Engineering constants of IMG/epoxy laminates as a function of 19for (a) cross-ply [I9,(0+ 90)],,;
and @) LO,, * qs.
Poisson's ratio is 0.55 for a [*45] laminate. The
shear modulus, E , is a maximum, of course,
for the [*45] laminate.
Figure 30.10(b) shows the engineering con-
stants for laminates with 50% 0" plies and 50%
angle-plies. With the exception of the trans-
verse modulus, the results are similar to those
for the angle-ply laminate shown in Fig.
30.9(b).When the ply angle is 90", the values
for the engineering constants in Figs. 30.10(a)
and 30.10(b)are the same.
Figures 30.11(a) and 30.11(b)show the engi-
neering constants for some unusual laminates.
When the ply angle, 8, is 15", Fig. 30.11(a)
shows an off-axisunidirectional laminate and
Fig. 30.11(b)shows an angle-ply. For all other
ply angles, the laminates are unbalanced.
From Fig. 30.11(a),it can be observed that the
[15/60Is laminate exhibits an extremely large
negative Poisson's ratio of -0.32, meaning the
laminate will expand in the transverse direc-
tion under longitudinal tension loading and
compress in the transverse direction under
longitudinal compressive loading. From Fig.
30.11(b), it can be observed that the [-15/30Is
LO, f 6,Is
Poisson's
15 30 45 60 75
Ply Angle, 8 (degrees)
(b)
laminate exhibits a very large Poisson's ratio
of 1.32, when compared with that of an
isotropic material (0.3). Besides the unique
Poisson's ratio behavior, it is also important to
examine the values of the other coupling coef-
ficients.
EXAMPLE
Table 30.2 considers the resulting deforma-
tions on coupon specimens under load, and
Fig. 30.12 indicates the relative magnitude of
deformation due to large and negative
Poisson's ratios.
30.5.3 STIFFNESS AND COUPLING
It is useful to look at the A, B, D stiffness matri-
ces of some simple laminates. For ease of
comparison, the stiffness matrices can be nor-
malized to have units of [force/length2]by
defining
[A*]= [ A ] / h , [B*] = 2[B]/h2,
 Laminate design 701

Poisson‘s [-I 5/9 14s Poisson‘s

,r”
Modulus
Ratio (Msi) Ratio
30.00 T ’ T 2
30’00 T
22.50 22.50 1.5
1
15.00 15.00 1

7.50 0.5 7.50 0.5

0.00 0 0.00 0

1 Ply Angle, 6 (degrees) 1 -0.5 Ply Angle, 8 (degrees) -0.5

(4 (b)

Fig. 30.11 Engineering constants of IM6/epoxy laminates as a function of 8 for (a) [15/8],s; and (b)
[-w~I,.

Table 30.2 Strains, deformations and strength ratio (based on first-ply-failure) of 10 in x 1 in x 0.1 in spec-
imens under 1000 lb longitudinal load, N,

Longitudinal Transverse Longitudinal Transverse Strength

strain strain displacement displacement ratio
El E2 A1 A2
R
Material (1C3in/in) in/in) (1C3in) (10-3 in)
.-
40ksi Steel 0.34 -0.10 3.4 -1.0 3.9
IM6/Epoxy 0.34 -0.11 3.4 -1.1 50.0
IM6/Ep 0.65 -0.02 6.5 -0.2 7.9
IM6/Ep 0.95 -1.29 9.5 -12.9 6.8
30ksi Aluminum 1.02 -0.30 10.2 -3.0 2.9
IM6/Ep 1.09 0.35 10.9 3.5 3.1
IM6/Ep 2.40 -1.77 24.0 -17.7 2.7
E-glass/Ep 3.20 -2.07 32.0 -20.7 4.5
IM6/Ep 6.25 -0.11 62.5 -1.1 0.8

Fig. 30.12 Relative deformation of 10 x 1 x 0.1 in specimens under 1000 lb load along the centerline (lami-
nates are IM6/epoxy, unless otherwise indicated).
702 Laminate design

A four-ply laminate consisting of two 0" and
two 90" plies can be combined into four differ-
ent laminates. From Table 30.3 it can be
observed that while the A* matrix remains
unchanged through varied ply stacking
sequences, large differences arise in the B* and
D*matrices.
From Table 30.4 it can be observed that only
the fourth laminate is unsymmetric and has a
B* matrix with nonzero terms. The first and
fourth laminates are balanced and so the A*16
and A*26coefficients are zero. For the second
and third laminates which differ by the sign of
the off-axis plies, the stiffness behavior differs
only in that the A*16,A*26,D*,6 and D*26coeffi-
cients are of opposite signs.
Table 30.5 displays different quasi-isotropic
laminates. Note that the normalized A* matrix

Table 30.3 Normalized stiffness coefficients for four IM6/epoxy laminates, in units of Msi

Layup 10/90/90/01 190/0/0/901 ~0/90/0/901 f 0/0/90/901

' 15.624 0.525
.15.624 0.525 0 '
'
15.624 0.525 15.624 0.525
[A*] 0.525 35.634 0 0.525 15.634 0 0.525 15.634 0 0.525 15.634 0
~ 0 0 1.220 0 0 1.220, , 0 0 1.220 0 0 1.220

- 6.997
:]I0
' 0 0 0 ' ' 0 0 3.499 0 0 - 0 0 '
[B*] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3.499 0 0 -6.997 0
, o 0 o , , 0 0 0 0 o * , 0 0 0 .

26.129 0.525 0 . ' 5.138 0.525 0 ' ' 15.634 0.525 0 . .15.634 0.525 0 '
0.525 5.138 0 0.525 26.129 0 0.525 15.634 0 0.525 15.634 0
0 0 1.220. . 0 0 1.220, , 0 0 1.220, 0 0 1.220,

Table 30.4 Normalized stiffness coefficients for four IM6/epoxy laminates, in units of Msi

Layup [0/0/+45/-451$ 10/0/+45/+451+ [0/0/-45/-45Is f+45,/45,1

I
' 19.463 3.692 0 ' ' 19.463 3.692 3.499 19.463 3.692 -3.499- 9.297 6.859 0
[A*] 3.692 5.469 0 3.692 5.469 3.499 3.692 5.469 -3.499 6.859 9.297 0
, o 0 4.387. , 3.499 3.499 4.387 .-3.499 -3.499 4.387 . , 0 0 7.555 *

IB"1
* o
0
, o
0
0
0
:I
0 J
0
0
o
0
0
0 :ll!
0
0
0
0
: [:
0
0
0
3.499 3.499
3.499
3.499
0 I
II
27.087 1.316 0.656 27.087 1.316 0.875 27.087 1.316 -0.875 9.297 6.859 0
1.316 2.597 0.656 1.316 2.597 0.875 1.316 2.597 -0.875 6.859 9.297 0
0.656 0.656 2.012 0.875 0.875 2.012 -0.875 -0.875 2.012 0 0 7.555
 Laminate design 703

Table 30.5 Normalized stiffness coefficients for four IM6/epoxy laminates, in units of Msi

1[
I
12.466 3.692 0 12.466 3.692 0 12.466 3.692 0 12.466 3.692 0
3.692 12.466 0 3.692 12.466 0 3.692 12.466 0 3.692 12.466 0
0 0 4.387 0 0 4.387 0 0 4.387 I O 0 4.387

I
20.932 3.098 1.312 20.2115 2.504 1.968 18.194 2.782 3.735 22.001 1.932 0.737
3.098 5.188 1.312 2.504 7.094 1.968 2.782 8.558 2.208 1.932 6.451 1.956
1.312 1.312 3.793 1.968 1.968 3.200 3.735 2.208 3.477 0.737 1.956 2.628

terms are equivalent for all quasi-isotropic Multiplying out the strains, = a , , ~ , , E2 =
laminates. This means all have the same stiff-
a12N2/ ‘6 = a16N1
ness to weight ratio. (iii) Evaluate the displacements by integrating
The differences between these laminates the strains. (Note that for the tube,
thus manifests themselves only in how they
dd)
behave in bending. E =r-.)
dx
PROBLEM
Find the amount that an anisotropic 20-layer
[0/30], T300/5208, 3 in diameter, 12 in tube
1 Eldx = l:$dx = l:llNldx - u = allNIL

tube will extend, change in circumference, and

twist under an in-plane load, N, = 100 lb/in. I E2dy=$$dC =[a12NldC ---t z, = ul2N12nR

SOLUTION
1 L
(i) Compute the laminate stiffness matrix and -
+@ = a , 6 ~ l R
invert to get the compliance matrix: R

21.159 2.567 3.935

2.567 2.476 1.458 ,
3.935 1.458 3.195 I (iv) Evaluate the displacements numerically:
=-a*ll N L = - 62.563 x 100 x 12
h 0.1
= 0.75 x 10-3in

I
62.563 -26.647 -64.893
[a*] = -26.647 563.836 -224.518
-64.893 -224.518 495.374

(ii) Evaluate the strains:

I v = -Nl2nR
a*,,
h
26*M7 x 100 x 2 x 3.14 x 1.5
= -___
0.1
= -0.25 x 10-3 in

@ = -U*16
N- L = x 100 x 12/1.5
64 893L
-
h ‘R 0.1
= -0.52 x radian = -0.03 degree
704 Laminate design

30.5.4 CTE BEHAVIOR the a1 is -2 to -2.5 (versus -0.14 for a1 of the

The following four figures show the coefficient unidirectional tape, as shown in Fig. 30.13(a)).
of thermal expansion (CTE) in two principal As the number of ply angles increases, the
directions (referred to as a , and a,) for CTE behavior becomes less intuitive. Figure
M40J/F584 carbon fiber laminates. Figure 30.14(a) shows the CTE of a laminate with 50%
30.13(a)shows the CTE of an off-axis unidirec- 0 plies and 50% angle-ply; Fig. 30.1303) shows
tional ply; Fig. 30.1303) shows the CTE of an the CTE of a laminate with 25% 0 plies, 25% 90
angle-ply laminate. From Fig. 30.13@), it can plies and 50% angle-ply. Note that when &
be observed that, due to the Poisson coupling equals 45", the resulting laminate is quasi-
effect, laminate CTE values less than that of a isotropic [0, 90, &45] as confirmed by a ,
unidirectional material are possible for specific equaling a*. Examination of the fundamental
ply angles. In Fig. 30.13(b), for 0 of GO to do", trends in Figs. 30.13 and 30.14 indicates

16.00 16.00 -r
14.00 14.00
12.00 1200
10.00 10.00
8.00 am
6.00 600

-0
c
4.00

200
4.00
200
C
a,
._
0 0.00 0.00

0 -200
p 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90
-200
0 Ply Angle, 0 (degrees) -4.00
(b)

Fig. 30.13 Coefficient of thermal expansion of M40J/F584 laminates as a function of 8 for (a) off-axis undi-
rectional [e,],; and (b) angle-ply [&J,.

0
4.00 --
c
c 200 --

Ply Angle, 0 (degrees) Ply Angle, B (degrees)

(4 (b)
Fig. 30.14 Coefficient of thermal expansion M40J/F584 laminates as a function of 0 in the following lami-
nates (a>[o,, and (b) IO, ,90,, 4 1 , .

potential near-zero CTE laminates, particu-
larly useful in spacecraft applications to
minimize deformation due to the large cyclic
thermal loading.
EXAMPLE
To remove a composite shaft from a metal
mandrel after elevated temperature cure, the
laminate CTE in the hoop direction of the
cylindrical section has to be less than that of
the mandrel material to prevent lock-on. The
composite is considered to be stress-free at
cure-temperature, and thus the temperature
loading is associated with the temperature
decrease to room-temperature.
Figure 30.15(a) illustrates that it is preferable Aluminum alloy
to have the metal mandrel contract more than Concrete
the composite during cool-down, which Invar
Steel
means that the metal CTE must be more than Titanium
the composite CTE. For a shaft with fibers pre-
a composite ' aofmandrel
(significantamount fibers
in hoop direction)
comDosite
AT<O
Fig. 30.15 Result of different coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE), a,for metal and composite cylindri-
cal sections under two thermal load cases.
Laminate design 705
dominantly in the longitudinal direction to
accommodate flexural loading (like a mast or
golf club), Fig. 30.14(a) indicates that a [O,,
G0JS with a steel mandrel would be a prob-
lematic choice, resulting in a composite shaft
locked on to the mandrel as shown in Fig.
30.15@).There is a need for sufficient fibers in
the hoop direction (90") to result in a laminate
CTE less than that of the mandrel material.
The CTE of the metal materials given in Table
30.6 indicates that it is easier to remove a com-
posite shaft from an aluminum mandrel than
from a steel mandrel.
Table 30.6 Average coefficients of linear thermal
expansion of selected materials
12.8
6.7
0.39
alloy 6.5
4.9
a composite ' a mandrel
(predominantly longitudinalfibers)
706 Laminate design
EXAMPLE
Carbon fiber room temperature curing materi-
als are often used for composite bicycle
frames. To prevent a metal-composite joint
from coming apart under in-service thermal
loading, the metal lug is generally on the
inside. Ideally, under an in-service tempera-
ture increase due to sun shining on a part
(which can be up to 82"C(18OoF)),or friction,
the lug will expand more than the composites.
REFERENCES
This 'seizing' action will prevent the lug from
breaking loose. If there are mostly longitudinal 1. Harper, R. The Fifth Halford Memorial Lecture,
fibers due to flexural design considerations,
2. Tsai, S.W. 1990 Composites Design, 4th Edn.,
the CTE in the hoop direction may be greater
than that of the metal; the metal fitting should 3. MIL-HDBK-23A, Military Handbook -
be then on the outside. More commonly, how-
ever, the composite has more fiber wound
around the lug (in the hoop direction) and the 4. Quinn B.J. and Sun, C.T. A critical evaluation of
CTE is less than that of the metal.
These are only two of the challenges in cop-
ing with different thermal expansion
coefficients of dissimilar materials. In general,
because of the low CTE of the fiber, multidirec-
tional laminates typically have a laminate CTE
less than metals. This can cause difficulties in
part manufacture, in cases of elevated cure. It is
generally desirable to match the CTE of a com-
posite part with the tooling to minimize
springback and residual stresses. A tool with
zero CTE results in a dimensionally more
accurate part; a tool with equivalent CTE
results in no chance of lock-on. Composite tool-
ing systems may be used in order to match
CTE; however, such tools usually do not have
the necessary durability over long production
runs.Steel tooling is often preferred over alu-
minum tooling because of the lesser CTE.
30.6 CONCLUSIONS
Composite materials have many well-known
advantages over other structural materials
including increased strength-to-weight ratio,
stiffness-to-weight ratio, increased fatigue life,
corrosion resistance, and the ability to tailor the
properties of the material. The extraordinary
freedom to design the laminated material is at
the price of more complicated analysis. This
chapter presented an explanation of the basic
mathematical tools used to design laminates
including laminated plate theory and the qua-
dratic failure criterion. Some examples were
provided to lend insight on the many options
for optimizing the material to particular needs.
J. Roy. Aeronaut. Soc., Apr 1966,70,477-486.
Think Composites, Dayton, OH, 1988.
Structural Sandwich Composites, Department
of Defense, Washington., 1968.
failure analysis methods for composite lami-
nates, Proceedings of the Ninth
DoD/NASA/FAA Conference on Fibrous
Composites in Structural Design, Lake Tahoe,
Nevada, Nov 67,1991, pp. V21-V37.
5. Tsai, S.W. and Hahn, H.T. Introduction to
Composite Materials. Technomic Publishing Co.,
1980.
6. Hadcock, R.N. X-29 Composite Wing, AIAA
Evaluation of Aircraft/Aerospace Structure and
Materials Symposium, Air Force Museum,
Wright-Patt AFB, Apr 24-25,1985.
7. Popov, E.P. Mechanics of Materials, 2nd Edn.,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976, p. 295.
OTHER READING
MIL-HDBK-17-2C, Military Handbook - Polymer
Matrix Composites, Vol. II: Material Properties,
Department of Defense, Washington D.C., Feb
25, 1994.
MIL-HDBK-17-3D, Military Handbook - Polymer
Matrix Composites, Vol. 111: Utilization of Data,
Department of Defense, Washington DC, Feb
28,1992.
Hyer, M.W. Calculations of the Room-Temperature
Shapes of Unsymmetric Laminates, J. Composite
Materials, 1981,15,296-310.
Hyer, M.W. Some observations on the cured shape
of thin unsymmetric laminates, J. Composite
Materials, 1981,15, 175-194.
 Appendix B 707

Garfinkle, M. Twisting Smartly in the Wind,

Aerospace America, American Institute of m2 -mn n2
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, July = n2 mn m2 (30.A8)
1994, 18-20.
Smith, E.C. Vibration and Flutter of Stiff-Inplane 2mn -2mn m2-n2
Elastically Tailored Composite Rotor Blades,
34th AIAA/ ASME/ ASCE / AHS/ ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conferece, La Jolla, CA, AIAA-93-1302-CP, Apr
19-21, 1993, pgs. 26-37.
-2mn 2mn m2- n2
NOTE
MIL-HDBK-23 is obsolete and no longer available.
The data is being included in MIL-HDBK-17, which
can be obtained from DODSSP, BLDG4D, 700 ‘11 ‘12 ‘16’ 1
Robbins Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19111-5094, or ~
‘12 ‘n ‘26 = x (30.A10)
http:/ /www.dodssp.daps.mil.
‘16 ‘26 ‘66 I

30.7 APPENDIX A: TRANSFORMATION

RELATIONS
.A27!A, - A;6 A16A26 - A17!26 -
-
-A1866 -
There are several useful transformation rela- LA17!26 - A27!16 - - A:2
tions (prime refers to the off-axis coordinates
1,2,6 and no prime refers to the on-axis coor- where the determinant is IAl = (A,,A, - A:,)A6,
dinates x, y, s as in Fig. 30.3). + 2Al.$26A16 - A,,A;, - A2,A:,. The flexural stiff-
ness matrix [D] can be inverted similarly to
{a’}= Ullal (30.A1)
obtain the compliance matrix [d].
(4 = Ul-’la’} (30.A2)
30.8 APPENDIX B: MORE DETAILS ON THE
QUADRATIC FAILURE CRITERION5

{&’I = (30.A4) 30.8.1 DETERMINING THE COEFFICIENTS

A useful exercise is to review how the F coeffi-
(Q’} = UIIQIVI (30.A5)
cients in the quadratic failure criterion
where m = cos 6, n = sin 6 .
F,,a: + 2Fqaxay+ FyYai+ FS& + Fxax+ Fyay= 1
m2 n2 2mn (30.B1)
ul= n2 m2 -2mn (30.A6) are mathematically determined from the ply
-mn mn m2--n2 strength properties. During a uniaxial tension
test of a 0 degree unidirectional laminate along
the longitudinal axis (pulling in the direction
m2 n2 -2mn of the fibers), ax = X and ay = os = 0.
n2 m2 2mn (30.A7) Substituting into eqn (3O.B1), the failure crite-
mn -mnm2-n2 rion reduces to
FxxX+ FIX = 1 (30.B2)
708 Laminate design

During a uniaxial compression test of a 0 familiar from isotropic materials. The most
degree unidirectional laminate, a, = X' and a common form of the von Mises criterion is
= as = 0 and the failure criterion in eqn (30.Blf probably the equation written in terms of the
reduces to principal stresses in three dimensions7.
FxxX'-FxX = 1 (30.B3) (a,- a,)' + (a, - a,), + (a,- a,)*= %2yield
Solving the two equations given by eqns
(30.B7)
(30.B2) and (30.B3) for two unknowns, F,, and
F,, yields For plane stress a, = 0, eqn (30.B7) becomes
1 a: - ala2+ a; = a*,,d (30.B8)
Fxx = xx'
Instead of computing the principal stresses,
(30.M)
11 the von Mises criterion in eqn (30.B8) can also
F =--- be written in terms of a general stress state that
x X' includes a shear stress contribution
Similarly for the transverse direction, a 90
- aXay+ 0; + 30: = (30.B9)
degree unidirectional laminate can be experi-
mentally evaulated under uniaxial tension (ay Now, for comparison, the quadratic failure cri-
= Y, a, = as =0) and compression (ay= Y', a, = terion is repeated here
as = 0).
Substituting each test situation into the qua-
FxXa:+ 2Fya,uy + FW$ + Fssa:+ Fp, + Fyay= 1
dratic failure criterion and solving the two
(30.B10)
equations, the resulting two unknown coeffi-
cients, Fw and Fy,would be where
1 1
1
1
1

F =- (30.B5) F = F = - (30.Bll)
Yy' Yy'
~

YY xx XX' YY

1 1 1
F =--- Fss = 7 Fy=F*yd(Fx,FYY)
!I Y Y' S
For a shear test, a, = S and the resulting coeffi- 1 1 1 1
cient is F =--- F =---
X X ' Y Y Y'
1
F ss = -s2 (30.B6) We can recover the von Mises failure criterion
for isotropic materials when F*y = -1/2 and
The sixth coefficient, F ,must be determined by setting the strengths to be the same in all
empirically from biaxiar tests such that directions
FXY= F*&&) X = X' = Y = Y', S = X/d3 (30.B12)
To have a closed failure envelope, Fey must be where the 43 factor is the result of the von
between -1 and 1. Mises invariant. Substituting expressions in
eqn (30.B12) into those of eqn (30.Bll) and
then rewriting eqn (30.B10) results in
30.8.2 RECOVERING VON MISES CRITERION
It may be useful to review the quadratic failure
0; - O ~ O ~+ +ai = x2 (30.B13)
criterion and make it less of a mathematical which matches eqn (30.B9).
abstraction by comparing it with what is