Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 3
71
72
based criteria category. Examples for Strain based criteria are Wolfe and
Eckold criteria. Tsai, Rotem, Puck, Hashin and Edge belong to interactive
theory category. The proposed modified criterion is also interactive in nature.
The conventional failure theories like Maximum stress and maximum strain
criteria assume no stress interaction, hence not considered for this evaluation.
3.1
73
Failure criteria for composite materials are often classified into two
groups: based on the stress interaction considered,
3.2
1.
2.
3.2.1
1.
2.
74
X L when 11 0
YL when 22 0
and 22 =
X T when 11 0
YT when 22 0
11 =
(3.1)
3.2.2
75
when11 0
2t when 22 0
11 = 1t
and 22 =
1c when11 0
2 c when 22 0
(3.2)
X L when11 0
YL when 22 0
and 22 21 11 =
X T when11 0
YT when 22 0
11 12 22 =
(3.3)
3.3
INTERACTIVE CRITERIA
76
3.3.1
1.
Polynomial Theories,
2.
3.
Polynomial Theories
Tsai-Hill Theory
(3.4)
Hill modified this Criteria for ductile material and based on that
Azizi and Tsai formulated one Criteria for orthotropic composite materials,
112
F1
22 2
F2
12 2
F6
11 22
F12
=1
(3.5)
X when 1 0
YL when 2 0
F1 = L
; F2 =
and F6 = SLT
X T when 1 0
YT when 2 0
(3.6)
77
(3.7)
1
1
1
1
1
1
; f 11 =
; f2 =
;
; f 22 =
X L XT
X L XT
YL YT
YLYT
f 66 =
1
S LT
; f 12 =
1
[ f11 f 22 ]1 / 2
2
1
1 1
1
1
1
112 +
222 +
11 + 22 +
X L XT
YLYT
X L XT
YL YT
1 2
12
2
S LT
11 22
X L X T YLYT
=1
(3.8)
3.3.2
78
Failure Modes
resulting from this failure mode is typically normal to the loading direction.
Some fiber splitting at the fracture surface can usually be observed.
the failure occurs at an angle with the loading direction, which is evidence of
the shear nature of the failure process.
energy, and, in structures that cannot redistribute the load, it typically causes
catastrophic failure.
79
shear behavior and imperfections such as the initial fiber misalignment angle
and voids. Typically, kinking bands can be observed at a smaller scale, and
are the result of fiber micro-buckling, matrix shear failure or fiber failure.
used in British standards for commercial GRP pressure vessel design. The
criterion is basically strain based and can be summarized as follows.
Longitudinal and transverse stresses in a lamina can be expressed
as 11 = E 11 Cos 2 , 22 = E 22 Sin 2 and 12 = 12 G12 Sin Cos respectively.
Here 11 and 22 are the strains in corresponding directions. The failure
envelope equation can be expressed as
2
R 2 X L 112 + 2YLYT 11 22 + X T 22
+ S LT 122 + R ( X L 11 + X T 22 ) 1 = 0
(3.9)
80
divided into initial and final failure criteria. In many cases first failure is in a
final failure mode and the distinction disappears. In the case of unidirectional
00 lamina all failures are classed as final irrespective of their nature (e.g. the
900 tension test where initial transverse tension failure precipitates
catastrophic collapse), so again the distinction disappears. The general form
of Edge criteria to predict various modes of failure can be expressed as
follows:
(3.10)
(3.11)
2
Combined Shear and Matrix Tension: 22 + 12 = 1
YL S12
(3.12)
(3.13)
(3.14)
11 12
+
X T S LT
= 1
(3.15)
81
Hashins
Criteria:
Hashin
(1973)
propose
two
failure
mechanisms: one based on the failure of the fiber and the other based on the
failure of the matrix. The first is governed by the longitudinal stress, with
reference to the fiber orientation, and the second is governed by the
transversal and tangential stresses to the fiber. It is noticeable that, even
though the authors do not distinguish matrix failure and interface failure, they
do not mention this fact. This approach is plausible, but some explanations
might have been given.
82
Hashins criteria is the base of all theories of this type, first it was
formulated based on failure modes as fiber failure and matrix failure, later had
been extended into tension and compression for each modes.
0 ): 11
XL
12
+
= 1
SL
11
XT
0 ): 22
YL
(3.16)
(3.17)
=1
12
+ = 1
SL
(3.18)
2ST
YT
+
1 22 + 12
2
S
Y
T
SL
T
= 1
(3.19)
three categories. The criteria is based on the assumption that for a fiber
dominated laminate, failure can be attributed to shear failures of the fibers,
and that laminate failure can be treated as a projection of a multi axial fiber
failure criterion onto laminate stress space. A ply-by-ply discount procedure
was not adopted by this criterion. The failure envelope is given in the strain
space that corresponds to an extended Tresca (maximum shear stress) yield
criterion.
83
84
Figure 3.3
85
The translation from the fiber failure surface to the lamina strain
surface depends on the assumption made by Hart-Smith that the longitudinal
and transverse strains in the lamina are the same as those in the fiber. There
are certain issues that need to be resolved in connection with the Hart-Smith
approach to failure. The most crucial is that of whether or not there are 450
cutoffs of the lamina failure envelope in the second and fourth quadrants. As
indicated previously, without the cutoffs the Hart-Smith criterion reduces to
the maximum Strain or Maximum Stress criterion. In addition, the evidence
for shear failures in fibers under normal stress loading as well as the
implications of low shear strength in 450 laminates need to be fully explored.
The experimental results cited by Hart-Smith for these phenomena are
somewhat limited and have not been confirmed to any extent by other criteria.
work. But this work is a distinct advance in the direction of Hashins work.
Particularly the new Criteria for IFF, developed by Puck, are based on
physical foundations as proposed by Hashin. It is assumed that almost all
86
1.
2.
f 12
1
11 +
m f 22 = 1 (3.20)
1T
Ef1
f 12
1
2
11 +
m f 22 = 1 (10 21 )
1C
Ef1
(3.21)
87
S LT
Y
+ 1 p T
S LT
22
YT
+ p 22 = 1 11
S LT
11D
(3.22)
1
122 + ( p 22 )2 + p 22 = 1 11 (3.23)
S LT
XL
In order to find the fracture plane one has first to determine the
stresses n ( ) , nt ( ) , nl ( ) on a plane parallel to the fibers. In dependence of
n being positive or negative the stresses are inserted into the valid equations.
This has to be repeated for a sufficiently large number of angles ( ) , between
-900 and +900 until that cutting angle ( fp ) are found for which the highest
risk of fracture exists, which means the global maximum of equations is
found. In this equation, the constants p and 11D are the experimentally
determinable quantities.
suggested in 1973 and has been modified later in 1975 and 1981. The
criterion was postulated particularly for fiber composite materials and is not
88
1.
2.
3.
Fiber Tension: 11 = X T
(3.24)
Fiber Compression: 11 = X C
(3.25)
E
Matrix failure: m 11 + 22
YL YT
12
+
S LT
= 1
(3.26)
The final failure predictions for multi directional laminates are also
conservative in nature. The stress strain response is generally truncated at
much lower strains than the final strain observed in the experiments. They
generally coincide with the initial failure range alone and they do not predict
the final failure properly.
89
11
XL
(3.27)
=1
22
YL
+ 12
S LT
= 1
(3.28)
11
XL
=1
11
XT
(3.29)
=1
(3.30)
12
+
S L
22
= 1 , = 0 = 0.6
0 ): 22
YT
+ 12
S L
(3.31)
2
= 1
(3.32)
90
follows. For the prediction of fiber failure and matrix failure, the functional is
differentiated with respect to strain variable. Mode of failure can not be
predicted by this theory.
11d 11
1
Fiber Failure:
11 d 11
1u
m1
11d 11
Matrix Failure: 1
11 d 11
1u
i d i
i
i =1, 2 , 6 i d i
iu
m1
mi
i d i
i
i =1, 2 , 6 i d i
iu
0.1
(3.33)
mi
< 0.1
(3.34)
segment 1-2 occurs with the unloading modulus E 2 which equals the secant
modulus of the diagram. Residual strains are zero, suggesting that the cracks
are completely closed. This is why on further compression of the ply
91
(segment 3-4 of the diagram), the modulus of the ply completely regains its
initial value. Repeated deformation of the unidirectional ply under transverse
tension (positive 2 values) follows along the 3-2 segment and further along
the 2-21 segment of the diagram. The deformation diagram in Figure 3.6(b) is
plotted as a function of the modified strain 2 = 2 + 12 1 . Hence 2 can be
written as
22 =
Figure 3.6
21 11 + 12 22
21
(1 12 21 )
E11
(3.35)
92
1
*
22 122
22
E22 = * +
=
2 *
22 E11
22 + 12 22
E11
(3.36)
The starred values are the largest algebraic values during the
history of deformation. If the stress 22 reaches its ultimate value YT, the ply
is then considered to be broken. The ply behaviour under shear is, in many
ways, similar to that under deformation in the direction transverse to the fiber
direction (Figure 3.6(c)). The stress/ strain curve of the ply is linear elastic
within the 0-1 segment. Segment 1-2 corresponds to the stage of matrix
cracking. Unloading process (segment 2-3) takes place with the unloading
~
12*
. The process of shear deformation does not depend
12*
on the sign of the stress 12 , which is why ply deformation within the 3-4
~
segments also occurs with the unloading modulus G12 . Repeated deformation
of the ply under positive 12 values follows along the 4-3-2 segment and
further along the 2-21 segment where the process of matrix cracking resumes.
3.4
93
(3.37)
(3.38)
(3.39)
Figure 3.7
94
T eff = T + T n
(3.40)
L eff = L + L n
(3.41)
The above set of equations has the effect of applied biaxial stress
field 22 , 12 and inclination of critical section. It is proposed that matrix
failure occurs under compression due to interaction between effective shear
stress components acting on the faces of the critical section.
Figure 3.8
L eff
+
SL
= 1
(3.42)
(3.43)
95
T eff
=0.
(3.44)
[ (
T eff
22 sin cos + T cos 2
=
S T2
ST
)]
(3.45)
L eff
SL
SL
2
cos 12 + T cos 22
2
ST
=
2
SL
(3.46)
.
leads to, FI = A 22 + B 22 12 + C 12
ST
S T .S L
SL
(3.47)
+ L2 Cos 4
(3.48)
B = 2T cos3
(3.49)
C = Cos 2
(3.50)
96
equation (3.43) and condition 3.44. Hence APCs can be computed using
equations (3.48) to (3.50). Substituting the values of APCs in equation
(3.47), the magnitude of 12 for the next load case can be computed. Utilize
the computed value of 12 for the next increment of 22 to calculate . Using
the calculated , revise the 12 using (3.47). Repeat this procedure till 22
reaches the transverse compressive strength. The same procedure can be
utilized for evaluating the failure envelope points in the longitudinal
compressive region also.
3.5
1.
97
5.
3.6
98
3.7.1
99
To avoid the sudden jump in strain at ply failure seen in the Parallel
Spring Model, a model resembling the bilinear hardening rule in classical
plasticity can be formulated. Laminate stiffness reduction is achieved similar
to the Parallel Spring Model. However, it is assumed that the reduced
100
101
102
such as [45]s may fail without fiber breakage. Others have suggested a last
ply definition in which the laminate is considered failed if every ply has been
damaged. For this project, the laminate failure is defined as occurring when
either fiber breakage occurs in any ply or the reduced stiffness matrix
becomes singular (Reddy et al 1987).
3.8.2
This FPCL Code has been generated using C++ language. The
purpose of this program is to provide a thorough analysis of the failure
progression leading to ultimate failure in laminated composites. The program
utilizes 2-D classical laminated plate theory with a Ply-by-Ply Discount
laminate analysis method. The code utilize two kinds of inputs namely Inbuilt
input and interactive input. The inbuilt input includes the mechanical and
thermal properties of four fibrous and matrix materials and are enlisted in
Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
103
Once the programme is initialized, the user can enter the required
type of fiber or matrix material. Type 1 if the fiber type is E-glass 21K43
Gevetex, similarly type either 2 or 3 or 4 if the fiber type is Silenka E-Glass
1200tex or AS4 or T300. For the case of matrices 1, 2, 3 and 4 corresponds to
MY750/HY917/ epoxy, LY556/DY063 epoxy, 3501-6 epoxy and BSL914C
epoxy respectively. In order to invoke the required material properties from
the inbuilt input Switch-Case-Break option is employed. The other kind of
input employed in the coding is Interactive input. The following parameters
are specified as interactive input.
i.
ii.
Number of Lamina
Table 3.1
iv.
Stacking Sequence
v.
Selection of Criteria
Mechanical and Thermal properties of Fibers (Soden et al
1998)
230
15
15
E-glass
21K43
Gevetex
80
80
33.33
Silenka
E-Glass
1200tex
74
74
30.8
7
3350
2500
7
2500
2000
33.33
2150
1450
30.8
2150
1450
1.488
1.086
2.687
2.905
1.111
0.869
1.813
1.959
-0.5
-0.7
4.9
4.9
15
12
4.9
4.9
Fibre type
AS4
T300
225
15
15
0.2
104
Table 3.2
Matrix type
Modulus, Em (Gpa)
3501-6 BSL914C
epoxy
epoxy
LY556/
DY063
epoxy
MY750/
HY917/
epoxy
4.2
4.0
3.35
3.35
1.567
1.481
1.24
1.24
Poisson's ratio, m
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.35
69
75
80
80
250
150
120
120
50
70
68
68
1.7
45
55
58
58
1.
Hart Smith
2.
Sun
3.
Zinoviev
4.
Eckold
5.
Hart Smith
6.
Wolfe
105
Edge
8.
Hashin
9.
Hart Smith
10. Puck
11. Rotem
12. Tsai Wu
13. Modified
After defining the above details, Strength properties of the specified
laminate like Longitudinal and Transverse Tensile strength, Longitudinal and
Transverse Compressive strength, Inplane and Inter laminar shear strength
parameters should be defined. Using the specified details, the FPCL coding
will calculate the material properties of the lamina with the help of rule of
mixture equation. After calculating the stiffness matrix of each lamina, the
procedure adopted in classical laminated theory was adopted. As per the
theory, [Aij], [Bij] and [Dij] matrices were computed utilizing the detail about
the position of a particular lamina with respect to the position of the mid
plane. The induced strain in a particular lamina was calculated after
determining the midplane strain and midplane curvature. Stress vector
< xx
vector and stiffness matrix of that lamina. The computed stress can be
substituted in the failure criteria under consideration to check out the
condition of the particular lamina (Kere et al 2001). For interactive theories
there will be set of failure envelope equations as discussed in the previous
topic. If the failure is encountered in matrix, ply by ply discount procedure is
adopted. On the other hand, if the failure is in fiber the code will declare it as
ultimate failure of the laminate (Jones 1998). The flowchart for the failure
envelope generation of a lamina is given in Appendix 2.
106
3.10
3.10.1
100
SR = -1.81:1
12 (MPa)
Strain based and Modified Criteria and are shown in Figures 3.11 to 3.13.
Hart - Smith[54]
Sun[117]
Zinoviev[143]
Modified
Experimental data[28]
80
SR = 1.52:1
60
40
20
0
-175
-150
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
22 (MPa)
25
50
75
100
The plotted graph shows the response of shear stress due to the
application of either tensile transverse stress or compressive transverse stress.
From the experimental data plotted in the figures, it is understood that the
107
100
Eckold[34]
12 (MPa)
SR = -1.81:1
80
Hart-Smith[54]
Wolfe[137]
Modified
Experimental data[28]
SR = 1.52:1
60
40
20
0
-175
-150
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
25
50
75
100
22 (MPa)
108
12 (MPa)
100
SR = -1.81:1
80
Edge[37]
Hart Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
Puck[101]
60
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
Modified
Experimental data[28]
40
SR = 1.52:1
20
22 (MPa)
0
-175
-150
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
25
50
75
100
125
109
Pucks criteria in addition to Modified criteria fit well with experimental data
and they predict the maximum shear stress point. Since the interactive criteria
predict the failure in a relatively better manner, a comparison among the
interactive criteria is also made in terms of standard error (SE) between
analytical and test results and is obtained using the following expression.
2
1 N
Analysis Re sult
SE =
1
N i =1
Test Re sult i
(3.51)
N is the number of test data points. Tables 3.3 to 3.5 shows the error
comparison for prediction made by various stress based, strain based and
interactive criteria with experimental data points. Predictions made by
Modified criteria are good with a SE of 0.0497 whereas the SE for Puck and
Edge are 0.0596 and 0.0608 respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that
Modified criteria along with Puck and Edge can be recommended for
reasonable conservative predictions of the lamina failure envelopes for
composite wind turbine blades. Figures 3.14 and 3.15 show the bar chart
comparison in failure prediction at stress ratio of 1.52:1 which is in the first
quadrant and at -1.81:1 which is in the second quadrant.
2.5
2.26
exp
2
theo /
2.26
1.93
1.5
1.02
1.07
1.07
1.11
1.11
1.12
1.19
1
0.5
ov
ie
v
Zi
n
Ec
ko
l
Sm
i th
t-
W
ol
fe
Ed
ge
em
Ro
t
Su
n
i
Ts
a
k
Pu
c
Ha
r
od
i fi
ed
Figure 3.14 Bar Chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for lamina of Wind turbine blade material in
12 22 field at stress ratio of 1.52:1
110
1.20
1.06
0.92
theo /exp
1.00
0.70
0.80
0.77
0.73
0.77
0.92
0.80
0.79
0.60
0.40
0.20
M
od
if i
ed
Ed
ge
ov
ie
v
k
Pu
c
Zi
n
Sm
ith
t-
em
H
ar
Ro
t
Su
n
W
ol
fe
Ts
a
0.00
Figure 3.15 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for lamina of wind turbine blade material in
12 22 field at stress ratio of -1.81:1
Table 3.3
Exp Data
Sun
Zinoviev
Hart-Smith
34.0
12.8
RE
(%)
11.2 -12.5
30.7
26.9
32.3
36.0
28.1 -13.0
38.9
8.1
61.0
61.0
88.9
69.4
29.2 -9.6
31.6 -12.2
28.1 -13.1
38.8
7.8
18.0
0.0
51.3
61.2
52.2
61.0
61.0
61.0
18.9
-0.3
41.4 -19.3
61.0 -0.3
52.2
61.0
1.8
-0.3
-44.1
-70.5
81.9
86.6
71.9 -12.2
72.6 -16.2
61.0 -25.5
61.0 -29.6
68.4 -16.5
67.8 -21.7
83.5
88.1
2.0
1.7
-110.0
-120.0
82.0
66.0
59.2 -27.8
50.1 -24.1
61.0 -25.6
61.0 -7.6
48.1 -41.3
36.7 -44.4
80.0
68.0
-2.4
3.0
-130.0
40.0
35.1 -12.3
--
25.2 -37.0
38.1
-4.8
SE
0.0659
0.1375
0.0974
22
12
RE
(%)
61.0
--
12
12
1.8
-0.3
--
RE
(%)
18.7 46.1
Modified
RE
(%)
11.2 -12.2
12
12
0.0497
111
Table 3.4
Exp Data
Wolfe
Eckold
Hart-Smith
Modified
22
12
12
RE
(%)
12
RE
(%)
12
RE
(%)
12
RE
(%)
34.0
12.8
10.7
-16.4
61.0
--
61.0
--
11.2
-12.2
30.7
32.3
26.7
-17.3
61.0
88.9
61.0
88.9
28.1
-13.1
26.9
36.0
36.8
2.2
61.0
69.4
61.0
69.4
38.8
7.8
18.0
51.3
49.8
-2.9
61.0
18.9
61.0
18.9
52.2
1.8
0.0
61.2
61.0
-0.3
61.0
-0.3
61.0
-0.3
61.0
-0.3
-44.1
81.9
59.3
-27.6
--
--
61.0
-25.5
83.5
2.0
-70.5
86.6
58.4
-32.6
--
--
61.0
-29.6
88.1
1.7
-110.0
82.0
57.1
-30.4
--
--
61.0
-25.6
80.0
-2.4
-120.0
66.0
47.8
-27.6
--
--
61.0
-7.6
68.0
3.0
-130.0
40.0
34.0
-15.0
--
--
--
--
38.1
-4.8
SE
0.0783
0.2859
0.1375
0.0497
Table 3.5
Relative error and standard error comparison of interactive criteria for lamina failure of wind turbine
blade material under 12 22 field
Exp Data
Hashin
Tsai
Rotem
Puck
Edge
Hart-Smith
Modified
22
12
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
34.0
12.8
11.2
-12.2
9.2
-28.4
11.2
-12.2
15.3
19.5
10.2
-20.3
52.0
306.3
11.2
-12.2
30.7
32.3
28.1
-13.1
23.2
-28.2
28.1
-13.1
34.1
5.6
26.4
-18.3
52.0
61.0
28.1
-13.1
26.9
36.0
38.9
8.0
32.2
-10.6
38.9
8.0
37.3
3.6
36.0
0.0
52.0
44.4
38.8
7.8
18.0
51.3
52.2
1.8
45.5
-11.3
52.2
1.8
49.8
-2.9
49.6
-3.3
52.0
1.4
52.2
1.8
0.0
61.2
61.0
-0.3
61.0
-0.3
61.0
-0.3
61.0
-0.3
61.0
-0.3
52.0
-15.0
61.0
-0.3
-44.1
81.9
71.8
-12.3
74.8
-8.7
71.8
-12.3
75.6
-7.7
61.0
-25.5
52.0
-36.5
83.5
2.0
-70.5
86.6
72.9
-15.8
73.1
-15.6
72.9
-15.8
84.5
-2.4
61.0
-29.6
52.0
-40.0
88.1
1.7
-110.0
82.0
59.2
-27.8
55.3
-32.6
59.2
-27.8
66.5
-18.9
61.0
-25.6
52.0
-36.6
80.0
-2.4
-120.0
66.0
50.1
-24.1
45.9
-30.5
50.1
-24.1
53.4
-19.1
61.0
-7.6
52.0
-21.2
68.0
3.0
-130.0
40.0
35.1
-12.3
31.5
-21.3
35.1
-12.3
33.4
-16.5
--
--
--
--
38.1
-4.8
SE
0.0660
0.0802
0.0660
0.0596
0.0608
0.3591
0.0497
112
113
3.10.2
Q 11
Qij = Q 21
Q 61
Q 12
Q 22
Q 62
Q 16
Q 26
Q 66
(3.52)
4
4
2 2
Q11 = Q11 C + Q22 S +2(Q12+2Q66) S C
(3.53)
(3.54)
(3.55)
2 2
4
4
Q 21 = (Q11+Q22 4Q66) S C + Q21 (C + S )
(3.56)
(3.57)
(3.58)
3
3
Q 61 = (Q11 Q21 2Q66) SC (Q22 Q21 2Q66) CS
(3.59)
(3.60)
2 2
4
4
Q 66 = (Q11 + Q12 2Q12 2Q66) S C + Q66 (S + C )
(3.61)
Q11 =
Q22 =
E11
1 21 12
E 22
1 21 12
; Q12 =
21 E11
E
; Q16 = Q26 = Q61 = Q62 = 0; Q21 = 21 22 ;
1 21 12
1 21 12
; Q66 = G12
114
N yy = A21
N xy A61
A12
A22
A62
0
A66 xx B11
0
A26 yy + B21
0
A66 xy B61
B12
B22
B62
M xx B11
M yy = B21
M xy B61
B12
B22
B62
0
B66 xx D11
0
B26 yy + D21
0
B66 xy D61
D12
D22
D62
B66 k xx
B26 k yy
B66 k xy
D66 k xx
D26 k yy
D66 k xy
(3.62)
(3.63)
Here,
n
[ ] (h
Aij = Q ij
k =1
Bij =
1 n
Q ij
2 k =1
Dij =
1 n
Q ij
3 k =1
hk 1 ) ;
[ ] (h
[ ] (h
k
h 2 k 1 ;
h 3 k 1
(3.64)
0
N xx
M xx
0 xx
yy = [ A1 ] N yy + [B1 ] M yy ;
0
N xy
M xy
xy
k xx
N xx
M xx
k yy = [C1 ] N yy + [D1 ] M yy
k
N xy
M xy
xy
(3.65)
Here,
[C1 ] = [B1 ] T ;
[D1 ] = (D *)1 ;
1
D * = [D ] [B ][A ][B ]
(3.66)
115
After calculating the mid plane strain and curvature, induced strain
in each lamina due to the applied force or moment can be found out using the
following relation.
xx xx
k xx
0
yy = yy + z k yy
0
k
xy xy
xy
(3.67)
Induced stresses in each lamina can be found using the stress strain
relationship.
xx Q11 Q12
yy = Q 21 Q 22
xy Q 61 Q 62
Q16 xx
Q 26 yy
Q 66 xy
(3.68)
Transverse tension, 22 YT
(3.69)
2
Combined Shear and transverse tension, 22 + 12 1
YT S L
(3.70)
Transverse Compression, ( 22 ) ( YC )
(3.71)
116
100
xy (MPa)
120
SR = -2.35:1
SR = 1:1
80
60
40
Hart-Smith[54]
Sun[117]
20
Zinoviev[143]
Modified
yy (MPa)
-275
-225
-175
-125
-75
0
-25
25
75
117
Hart-Smith[54]
100
Wolfe[137]
Modified
xy (MPa)
120
Eckold[34]
SR = 1:1
SR = -2.35:1
80
60
40
20
yy (MPa)
0
-275
-225
-175
-125
-75
-25
25
75
120
SR = -2.35:1
xy (MPa)
SR = 1:1
100
80
60
40
Edge[37]
Hart-Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
Puck[101]
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
Modified
-275
-225
-175
-125
20
yy (MPa)
-75
0
-25
25
75
118
3.10.3
119
Longitudinal tension, 11 X T
(3.72)
Longitudinal compression, ( 11 ) ( X C )
(3.73)
In -plane shear, ( 12 )2 S L S T
(3.74)
SL
(3.75)
.
A 22 + B. 22 12 + C. 12 1
SL
S T .S L
ST
(3.76)
500
Hart-Smith[54]
Sun[117]
400
Zinoviev[143]
xy (MPa)
SR = 1:1
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
300
Working Stresses
SR = -2.35:1
200
100
yy (MPa)
0
-500
-300
-100
100
300
500
700
Working Stresses corresponds to Wind Velocities 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 m/sec
120
500
Eckold[34]
Hart-Smith[54]
Wolfe[137]
400
xy (MPa)
SR = 1:1
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
Working Stresses
SR = -2.35:1
300
200
100
yy (MPa)
0
-500
-300
-100
100
300
500
Working Stresses corresponds to Wind Velocities 5, 10, 15, 20 & 25 m/sec
700
500
Edge[37]
Hart-Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
xy (MPa)
121
SR = 1:1
400
Puck[101]
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
300
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
Working Stresses
200
SR = -2.35:1
100
0
-500
-300
-100
yy (MPa)
100
300
500
700
Figures 3.22 and 3.23 shows the bar chart comparison between
various prediction at stress ratio of 1:1 and -2.35:1 respectively. Tables 3.6 to
3.8 show the error in prediction of failure for various criteria. For predicting
the final failure of the wind turbine blade material, Modified criteria has a
least SE of 0.0581. Puck, Hart-Smith and Zinoviev are also having a
minimum value of SE with 0.0625, 0.0664 and 0.0752 respectively. Hence
Modified criteria along with Puck Hart-Smith and Zinoviev can be considered
for reasonable conservative predictions of the final failure of wind turbine
blade materials.
122
1.2
0.99
theo /exp
1
0.73
0.71
0.8
0.6
0.38
0.4
1.03
0.80
0.73
0.44
0.39
0.38
1.00
0.2
Ed
ge
M
od
ifi
ed
Sm
ith
H
ar
t-
H
as
hi
n
k
Pu
c
Su
n
i
Zi
no
vi
ev
Ts
a
Ro
te
m
Ec
ko
ld
W
ol
fe
Figure 3.22 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
xy yy field at stress ratio of 1:1
1.2
0.97
theo/exp
0.82
0.8
0.70
0.71
1.02
0.82
0.72
0.63
0.6
0.47
0.4
0.28
0.30
0.2
M
od
if
ie
d
Sm
ith
H
as
hi
n
H
ar
t-
Pu
ck
Su
n
Ed
ge
Zi
no
vi
ev
R
ot
em
Ts
ai
W
ol
fe
Ec
ko
ld
Figure 3.23 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
xy yy field at stress ratio of -2.35:1
123
Table 3.6
Exp Data
Sun
Zinoviev
Hart-Smith
xy
--
RE
(%)
--
162.5
29.7
60.7
-78.8 187.7
-62.1 212.1
75.0
--
Modified
xy
--
RE
(%)
--
175.0
--
--
430.0
410.0
140.0
160.0
400.0
480.0
250.0
250.0
350.0
300.0
1.1
2.4
296.8
307.3
6.0
2.4
250.0
150.0
10.5
8.1
321.5
323.4
7.2
1.1
0.0
-50.0
-0.3
-2.0
-1.6
-2.7
-7.6
0.4
0.2
-280.0 180.0
-300.0 150.0
95.2
83.9
-47.1
-44.1
---
---
73.8
59.4
-59.0 178.9
-60.4 164.2
-0.6
9.5
-320.0 150.0
73.4
-51.1
--
--
45.2
-69.9 149.2
-0.5
-350.0 110.0
55.7
-49.4
--
--
31.5
-71.4 111.7
1.5
-380.0
44.8
-44.0
0.0943
--
-0.0752
18.0
yy
xy
xy
520.0
10.0
450.0
80.0
SE
--
RE
(%)
--
9.6
RE
(%)
-4.0
-7.1
235.2
34.4
260.4
48.8
34.1
32.6
244.8
254.4
74.9
59.0
267.3
274.2
90.9
71.4
11.1
0.0
-77.5
0.0927
xy
69.5
-13.1
0.0581
124
Table 3.7
Exp Data
Wolfe
Eckold
Hart-Smith
Modified
yy
xy
xy
RE
(%)
xy
RE
(%)
xy
RE
(%)
xy
RE
(%)
520.0
10.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
9.6
-4.0
450.0
175.0
--
--
--
--
162.5
-7.1
260.4
48.8
430.0
140.0
--
--
--
--
187.7
34.1
267.3
90.9
410.0
160.0
--
--
--
--
212.1
32.6
274.2
71.4
400.0
250.0
--
--
--
--
11.1
480.0
250.0
--
--
--
--
51.2
-79.5 250.0
0.0
350.0
280.0
--
--
--
--
6.0
300.0
300.0
--
--
--
--
2.4
250.0
300.0
9.6
-96.8
--
--
7.2
150.0
1.1
0.0
275.0
95.0
-65.5
60.0
-0.3
-50.0
270.0
63.8
-76.4
40.1
-2.0
-70.0
260.0
51.3
-80.3
34.8
-1.6
-100.0 250.0
41.4
-83.4
30.4
-2.7
-130.0 250.0
35.9
-85.6
24.4
-7.6
-150.0 225.0
32.3
-85.6
22.2
0.4
-220.0 200.0
--
--
10.5
-94.8
--
--
200.3
0.2
-280.0 180.0
--
--
0.0
--
--
--
178.9
-0.6
-300.0 150.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
164.2
9.5
-320.0 150.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
149.2
-0.5
-350.0 110.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
111.7
1.5
-380.0
--
--
--
--
--
--
69.5
-13.1
80.0
SE
0.2851
0.1610
0.0752
0.0581
Table 3.8
Relative error and standard error comparison of interactive criteria for laminate failure of wind turbine
blade material under xy yy field
Exp Data
yy
520.0
450.0
430.0
410.0
400.0
480.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
150.0
0.0
-50.0
-70.0
-100.0
-130.0
-150.0
-220.0
-280.0
-300.0
-320.0
-350.0
-380.0
xy
Tsai
RE (%)
------------------130.5 -59.2
130.0 -52.7
131.0 -51.5
134.0 -48.5
139.0 -44.4
137.0 -45.2
125.0 -44.4
------------0.1878
xy
Rotem
RE (%)
--------------53.6
-82.1
78.4
-73.9
105.3 -67.1
107.5 -60.9
97.4
-63.9
96.4
-62.9
98.2
-60.7
101.4 -59.4
102.5 -54.4
95.8
-52.1
----------0.2034
xy
Puck
RE (%)
133.3
-159.6
-8.8
168.7
20.5
176.1
10.1
179.6 -28.2
148.5 -40.6
203.2 -27.4
220.7 -26.4
241.6 -19.5
280.0 -12.5
260.0
-5.5
238.1 -11.8
228.6 -12.1
215.0 -14.0
195.2 -21.9
182.1 -19.1
132.7 -33.7
47.5
-73.6
--------0.0625
xy
Edge
RE (%)
------------268.9
-4.0
295.1
-1.6
321.6
7.2
368.8
15.3
215.0 -21.8
199.6 -26.1
195.4 -24.8
187.5 -25.0
180.0 -28.0
175.0 -22.2
69.6
-65.2
----------0.0825
xy
Hart-Smith
xy RE (%)
--223.1
27.5
231.9
65.6
240.6
50.4
245.0
-2.0
210.0 -16.0
266.9
-4.7
292.5
-2.5
323.8
7.9
338.8
5.9
245.0 -10.9
217.0 -19.6
205.8 -20.8
189.0 -24.4
172.2 -31.1
161.0 -28.4
114.8 -42.6
166.9
-7.3
122.4 -18.4
132.7 -11.5
92.7
-15.7
20.5
-74.4
0.0664
Modified
RE (%)
9.6
-4.0
260.4
48.8
267.3
90.9
274.2
71.4
277.7
11.1
250.0
0.0
296.8
6.0
307.3
2.4
321.5
7.2
323.4
1.1
274.3
-0.3
264.6
-2.0
255.9
-1.6
243.2
-2.7
231.1
-7.6
225.9
0.4
200.3
0.2
178.9
-0.6
164.2
9.5
149.2
-0.5
111.7
1.5
69.5
-13.1
0.0581
xy
125
Hashin
RE (%)
10.0
--175.0
--140.0 30.6
-78.1
160.0 59.2
-63.0
250.0 75.6
-69.8
250.0
--280.0 196.1 -30.0
300.0 222.0 -26.0
300.0 247.7 -17.4
320.0 297.2
-7.1
275.0 240.0 -12.7
270.0 211.1 -21.8
260.0 202.7 -22.0
250.0 191.2 -23.5
250.0 178.4 -28.6
225.0 171.3 -23.9
200.0 128.5 -35.8
180.0 95.2
-47.1
150.0 83.9
-44.1
150.0 73.4
-51.1
110.0 56.0
-49.1
80.0
43.3
-45.9
SE
0.0949
xy
126
3.10.4
The stress strain curves for the unidirectional loading case for stress
based criteria, strain based criteria and interactive criteria are shown in
Figures 3.20 to 3.22. It was observed that, all the curves are very similar in
shape for predictions made by stress based criterion. Among them, prediction
made by Hart-Smith is shallower than the others. Among the strain based
criteria, prediction made by Eckold extends only up to initial failure region.
Prediction made by Wolfe is very much conservative and not capable of
predicting the final failure. Predictions made by all interactive criteria are
similar in shape except for those of Rotem. In Rotem's analysis, there is an
abrupt increase in strain associated with initial failure, especially in
longitudinal direction. The slope of curve predicted by Sun was shallower
than the others.
Final
Prediction
yy (MPa)
-150
-100
Hart Smith[54]
Sun[117]
-50
Initial
Prediction
Zinoviev[143]
-1.5
-1
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
-0.5
0.5
1.5
xx (%)
yy (%)
127
Final
Prediction
yy (MPa)
-150
-100
Eckold[34]
-50
Initial
Prediction
Hart Smith[54]
-1.5
-1
Wolfe[137]
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
-0.5
0.5
1.5
yy (%)
xx (%)
Final
Prediction
yy (MPa)
-150
-100
Edge[37]
Hart Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
Puck[101]
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
Initial
Prediction
-50
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
xx (%)
yy (%)
128
1.2
theo /exp
1
0.8
0.96
0.95
0.90
1.00
0.96
1.07
1.03
1.00
0.64
0.6
0.4
0.2
H
as
hi
n
ov
ie
v
Zi
n
Pu
ck
M
od
if i
ed
Su
n
H
ar
t
Ts
a
Ed
ge
W
ol
fe
Sm
ith
Figure 3.27 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength of E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial load in the loading direction
1.2
0.89
theo / exp
1
0.8
0.6
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.10
1.05
0.77
0.68
0.51
0.4
0.2
n
sh
i
Ha
k
Pu
c
ai
Ts
Ed
ge
Su
n
od
if i
ed
M
Ha
rt
Sm
i th
ov
ie v
Zi
n
tem
Ro
ol
fe
W
Ec
ko
l
Figure 3.28 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength of E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under uniaxial load in the transverse direction
129
3.10.5
The stress strain curves under biaxial tension (SR -1.81: 1) for
various criteria were shown in Figures 3.29 to 3.31.
130
131
1.15
1.2
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.02
1.05
theo /exp
0.8
0.99
0.94
1.05
0.59
0.6
0.4
0.30
0.2
Sm
ith
H
ar
t
H
as
hi
n
Su
n
i
Ts
a
M
od
if i
ed
Pu
ck
Ed
ge
ov
ie
v
Zi
n
W
ol
fe
em
Ro
t
Ec
ko
l
Figure 3.32 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength of E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under biaxial load in the loading direction
1.4
1.60
theo / exp
1.6
1.2
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Puck
Modified
Zinoviev
Edge
Sun
1
0.8
0.77
0.80
Wolfe
Hart
Smith
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Tsai
Hashin
Figure 3.33 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength of E-glass epoxy lamina for wind turbine blade
under biaxial load in the transverse direction
132
3.10.6
Figures 3.34 to 3.36 shows the stress strain curves for the
unidirectional loading case for stress based criteria, strain based criteria and
interactive criteria of [0/ 45/90]s Laminate.
yy (MPa)
-550
Final
Prediction
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
Initial
Prediction
-250
-1.5
-1
-0.5
-200
Hart Smith[54]
-150
Sun[117]
Zinoviev[143]
-100
Modified
Experimental Data[28]
-50
0.5
1.5
xx (%)
yy (%)
133
It was observed that, all the curves are very similar in shape for
predictions made by stress based criterion. Among them, prediction made by
Hart-Smith is shallower than the others. In transverse direction all criteria are
slightly unconservative. Among the strain based criteria, prediction made by
Eckold extends only up to initial failure region. Prediction made by Wolfe is
very much conservative and not capable of predicting the final failure.
Predictions made by all interactive criteria are similar in shape except for
those of Rotem. In Rotem's analysis, there is an abrupt increase in strain
associated with initial failure, especially in longitudinal direction. The slope
of curve predicted by Sun was shallower than the others.
-550
yy (MPa)
Final
Prediction
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
Eckold[34]
Initial
Prediction
-200
-1.5
-1
-0.5
Hart Smith[54]
Wolfe[137]
-150
Modified
-100
-50
Experimental Data[28]
0.5
1.5
xx (%)
yy (%)
134
Tsai and Modified and in four stages by Sun. In almost all the theories where
more than one stage of failure is predicted, the first stage was by transverse
tension in the matrix in the plies that were perpendicular to the load direction
and the final stage was tension along the fibers in the plies parallel to the
loading direction. Depending upon the predictive capabilities and error
involved in predicting the failure, it can be concluded that Puck, Modified,
Zinoviev, Hashin and Tsai relatively made good predictions.
-550
-450
-400
yy (MPa)
Final
Prediction
-500
-350
Initial
Prediction
-300
-1.5
-1
-0.5
-250
Edge[37]
Hart Smith[54]
-200
Hashin[57]
Puck[101]
-150
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
-100
-50
0.5
Modified
Experimental
1.5 Data[28] 2
xx (%)
yy (%)
tension (SR 1: 1) for various criteria were shown in Figures 3.37 to 3.39.
Similar to that of unidirectional loading, prediction made by various theories
were also remarkably similar to one another. In this case also Rotem showed a
step in his predictions. In this case also slope of curve predicted by Sun was
shallower than the others. Prediction made by Eckold terminates with initial
failure region itself.
135
136
137
3.11
FAILURE
ENVELOPE
GENERATION
FOR
WIND
900
SR = 1:2
SR -1:3
600
xx(MPa)
SR =1:1
300
yy (MPa)
0
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
-300
400
500
600
Hart Smith[54]
Sun[117]
Zinoviev[143]
Modified
Experimental data[28]
SR = 1:-1
-600
138
xx(MPa)
800
SR = -1:3
SR = 1:2
500
SR = 1:1
200
yy (MPa)
-300
-200
-100 -100 0
-400
-700
100
200
300
400
Eckold[34]
Hart Smith[54]
Wolfe[137]
Modified
Experimental data[28]
500
600
SR = 1:-1
The standard error for all strain based criteria is more and is about
0.0992 for Hart-Smith and 0.1198 each for Wolf and Eckolds prediction.
Among the interactive criteria (Figure 3.42), prediction made by modified
criteria, Puck, Hashin and Edge are fit well with experimental data points and
these criteria are capable of predicting maximum stress points. Predictions
made by Tsai and Rotem lie only in initial failure region. Prediction made by
Hart-Smith is partially good in one region and is unconservative in other
regions. The error comparison also favors modified criteria as a better one in
139
800
SR = -1:3
xx (MPa)
amount of accuracy.
SR = 1:2
SR = 1:1
500
200
yy (MPa)
-300
-200
-100
-100 0
-400
100
200
300
SR = 1:-1
-700
400
500
600
Edge[37]
Hart Smith[54]
Hashin[57]
Puck[101]
Rotem[109]
Tsai[133]
Modified
Experimental data[28]
140
Table 3.9
Exp Data
Sun
Zinoviev
Hart-Smith
Modified
22
12
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
12
RE (%)
-75.0
225.0
297.0
32.0
312.7
39.0
211.6
-6.0
365.8
62.6
-40.0
480.0
380.3
-20.8
400.4
-16.6
345.6
-28.0
475.0
-1.0
0.0
600.0
475.2
-20.8
499.8
-16.7
499.2
-16.8
600.0
0.0
110.0
650.0
625.0
-3.8
759.3
16.8
850.0
30.8
643.7
-1.0
125.0
590.0
645.4
9.4
755.2
28.0
850.0
44.1
648.9
10.0
140.0
625.0
666.7
6.7
754.2
20.7
850.0
36.0
654.2
4.7
220.0
575.0
749.6
30.4
752.9
30.9
850.0
47.8
682.1
18.6
235.0
595.0
749.6
26.0
752.1
26.4
850.0
42.9
687.4
15.5
260.0
540.0
741.1
37.2
748.7
38.6
850.0
57.4
696.7
29.0
270.0
625.0
745.8
19.3
746.9
19.5
850.0
36.0
699.4
11.9
350.0
710.0
729.7
2.8
735.0
3.5
850.0
19.7
730.3
2.9
400.0
725.0
720.1
-0.7
729.6
0.6
850.0
17.2
749.6
3.4
420.0
550.0
716.4
30.3
727.1
32.2
850.0
54.5
553.8
0.7
325.0
480.0
159.3
-66.8
337.4
-29.7
611.7
27.4
104.2
-78.3
350.0
375.0
270.7
-27.8
399.6
6.6
633.1
68.8
215.4
-42.6
175.0
-200.0
--
--
-173.6
-13.2
-425.0
--
-247.8
23.9
0.0
-300.0 -350.0
16.7
-210.0
-30.0
-400.0
33.3
-400.0
33.3
-30.0
-300.0 -350.0
16.7
-210.0
-30.0
-400.0
33.3
-394.2
31.4
SE
0.0994
0.0763
0.0852
0.0671
141
Table 3.10
Exp Data
22
Wolfe
Eckold
12
-75.0
225.0
83.2
-63.0 455.2
-- 274.8
22.1 365.8
62.6
-40.0
480.0 152.0
-68.3 546.9
13.9 379.1
-21.0 475.0
-1.0
0.0
600.0 260.0
-56.7 651.7
8.6 501.2
-16.5 600.0
0.0
110.0
650.0 334.8
-48.5 651.7
0.3 800.0
23.1 643.7
-1.0
125.0
590.0 362.4
-38.6 651.7
10.5 800.0
35.6 648.9
10.0
140.0
625.0 389.7
-37.6 651.7
4.3 800.0
28.0 654.2
4.7
220.0
575.0 625.0
8.7 651.7
13.3 800.0
39.1 682.1
18.6
235.0
595.0 600.2
0.9
--
-- 800.0
34.5 687.4
15.5
260.0
540.0 550.0
1.9
--
-- 800.0
48.1 696.7
29.0
270.0
625.0
--
--
--
-- 800.0
28.0 699.4
11.9
350.0
710.0
--
--
--
-- 800.0
12.7 730.3
2.9
400.0
725.0
--
--
--
-- 800.0
10.3 749.6
3.4
420.0
550.0
--
--
--
-- 800.0
45.5 553.8
0.7
325.0
480.0
--
--
--
--
-24.7
-- 104.2
-78.3
350.0
375.0
--
--
--
--
50.0
-86.7 215.4
-42.6
175.0 -200.0
--
-- -188.5
-5.8 -400.0
-- -247.8
23.9
-33.3 -650.0
-- -400.0
33.3 -400.0
33.3
-29.0 -650.0
-- -400.0
33.3 -394.2
31.4
SE
0.1198
RE (%)
0.1198
12
Modified
12
RE (%)
12
Hart-Smith
RE (%)
0.0992
12
RE (%)
0.0671
Table 3.11
Relative error and standard error comparison of interactive criteria for laminate failure of wind turbine
blade material under xx yy field
Exp Data
22
12
-75.0 225.0
-40.0 480.0
0.0 600.0
110.0 650.0
125.0 590.0
140.0 625.0
220.0 575.0
235.0 595.0
260.0 540.0
270.0 625.0
350.0 710.0
400.0 725.0
420.0 550.0
325.0 480.0
350.0 375.0
175.0 -200.0
0.0 -300.0
-30.0 -300.0
SE
Hashin
12 RE (%)
226.1
0.5
321.7 -33.0
357.6 -40.4
470.7 -27.6
488.1 -17.3
517.2 -17.2
598.5
4.1
619.7
4.2
644.5 19.4
659.1
5.5
744.8
4.9
800.0 10.3
800.0 45.5
714.3 48.8
744.8
--134.1 -33.0
-342.6 14.2
-377.1 25.7
0.0789
Tsai
12 RE (%)
250.3 11.2
266.6 -44.5
265.1 -55.8
611.3 -6.0
635.1
7.6
659.0
5.4
535.7 -6.8
554.9 -6.7
555.0
2.8
534.3 -14.5
-----------30.5 -84.8
-200.0 -33.3
-206.2 -31.3
0.1030
Rotem
12 RE (%)
126.7 -43.7
195.3 -59.3
275.0 -54.2
56.2 -91.4
44.4 -92.5
34.3 -94.5
---------------------250.0 -16.7
-302.8 0.9
0.2328
Puck
12 RE (%)
297.0 32.0
380.3 -20.8
475.2 -20.8
625.0 -3.8
645.4
9.4
666.7
6.7
749.6 30.4
749.6 26.0
741.1 37.2
745.8 19.3
729.7
2.8
720.1 -0.7
716.4 30.3
159.3 -66.8
270.7 -27.8
---350.0 16.7
-350.0 16.7
0.0994
Edge
12 RE (%)
338.9 50.6
402.2 -16.2
466.6 -22.2
634.6 -2.4
654.2 10.9
676.9
8.3
772.5 34.3
768.9 29.2
762.4 41.2
760.0 21.6
709.4 -0.1
700.0 -3.4
--474.7 -1.1
522.4 39.3
-399.7
--450.0 50.0
-450.0 50.0
0.0875
Hart-Smith
12 RE (%)
274.8 22.1
379.1 -21.0
501.2 -16.5
800.0 23.1
800.0 35.6
800.0 28.0
800.0 39.1
800.0 34.5
800.0 48.1
800.0 28.0
800.0 12.7
800.0 10.3
800.0 45.5
-24.7
-50.0 -86.7
-400.0
--400.0 33.3
-400.0 33.3
0.0992
Modified
12 RE (%)
365.8 62.6
475.0 -1.0
600.0
0.0
643.7 -1.0
648.9 10.0
654.2
4.7
682.1 18.6
687.4 15.5
696.7 29.0
699.4 11.9
730.3
2.9
749.6
3.4
553.8
0.7
104.2 -78.3
215.4 -42.6
-247.8 23.9
-400.0 33.3
-394.2 31.4
0.0671
142
143
1.6
1.43
1.31
1.4
1.2
1.07
1.11
0.91
exp
theo
1.06
0.8
0.66
0.64
0.80
0.74
0.6
0.4
0.21
0.2
it h
Sm
rt
Ha
Ha
sh
i
Su
n
ck
od
if i
ed
Pu
ai
Zi
no
vi
ev
Ed
Ts
ge
d
ko
l
Ec
Ro
ol
fe
tem
Figure 3.43 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
xx yy field at stress ratio of 1:1
1.2
1.01
1.00
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.08
1.14
1
0.8
theo
exp
0.66
0.71
0.77
0.6
0.4
0.14
0.2
Ha
r
tS
m
ith
n
H
as
hi
M
od
ifi
ed
ov
iev
Zi
n
Su
n
k
Pu
c
Ed
ge
i
Ts
a
W
ol
fe
d
Ec
ko
l
Ro
t
em
Figure 3.44 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
xx yy field at stress ratio of 1:2
144
1.4
1.25
1.2
1.10
theo
exp
0.91
0.90
0.99
0.82
0.73
0.8
0.73
0.59
0.6
0.45
0.4
0.23
0.2
od
ifi
ed
Ha
rt
Sm
i th
Ed
ge
Su
n
ov
ie v
Zi
n
Pu
c
Ha
sh
i
Ec
ko
l
Ts
a
em
Ro
t
ol
fe
Figure 3.45 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
xx yy field at stress ratio of 1:-1
2.5
2.00
1.5
1.01
1.00
theo
exp
1.20
1.20
0.80
0.75
0.67
1.20
1.10
1.02
0.5
ld
ko
Ec
Zi
no
v ie
n
Su
ge
Ed
ck
Pu
ai
Ts
Sm
ith
n
rt
sh
i
Ha
Ha
tem
Ro
od
M
o lf
ifi
ed
Figure 3.46 Bar chart showing the ratio of predicted and experimental
strength for laminate of wind turbine blade material in
xx yy field at stress ratio of -1:3
145
3.12
CONCLUDING REMARKS