A Fatigue Damage Model for (0/90) FRP

Composites based on Stiffness Degradation

of 0
and 90
Composite Plies

A. VARVANI-FARAHANI* AND A. SHIRAZI

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada

ABSTRACT: The present study develops a stiffness reduction based model to characterize fatigue
damage in unidirectional 0
and 90
plies and (0
/90
) laminates of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
composites. The proposed damage model has been developed, based on (i) cracking mechanism and
damage progress in matrix (Region I), matrix-fiber interface (Region II) and fiber (Region III) and
(ii) corresponding stiffness reduction of unidirectional composite laminates as the number of cycles
progresses. Fatigue damage of (0/90) composite systems was obtained by integrating damage values
and occurred in composite plies of 0
and 90
under fatigue cycles.
The predicted fatigue damage results based on the proposed damage model were found to be in
good agreement for both unidirectional and (0/90) FRP composites, as they were compared with
experimental data for these materials, tested at various cyclic stress levels, stress ratios, and off-axis
angles reported in the literature.

KEY WORDS: fatigue damage, FRP unidirectional and (0/90) composite system, matrix cracking,
fiber-matrix interface, factor f.

INTRODUCTION

IBER-REINFORCED POLYMER (FRP) composites are broadly used in various industries

F to manufacture load-bearing engineering components with a high strength/weight
ratio. FRP components are extensively used in the aerospace and automotive industries.
Durability and fatigue damage assessment of these materials under cyclic loading
conditions is of prime concern and requires extensive research investigation.
For predicting the life and modeling the damage of these components under cyclic
loading, many theories have been developed. Existing fatigue damage theories in FRP
composites can be classified into four categories: (i) macroscopic failure theories;
(ii) strength degradation fatigue theories; (iii) actual damage mechanisms fatigue theories;
and (iv) stiffness reduction fatigue theories. The latter theories correspond to the
degradation of composite stiffness as fatigue cycles increase. Several researchers [15] have
investigated fatigue damage response of unidirectional FRP composites based on the
reduction of the composite stiffness as the number of fatigue cycles increased.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: avarvani@ryerson.ca

Figure 13 appears in color online: http://: jrp.sagepub.com

Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES, Vol. 26, No. 13/2007 1319
0731-6844/07/13 131918 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0731684407079771
SAGE Publications 2007
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
1320 A. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. SHIRAZI

Philippidis et al. [2] employed an earlier developed empirical model of Andersen et al. [6]
to describe stiffness changes of GRP composite specimens as fatigue cycles progressed.
They have adopted a statistical analysis to correlate stiffness reduction with number of
fatigue cycles. Stiffness changes with respect to fatigue cycles were continuously monitored
and correlated to fatigue stress level, R-ratio and off-axis angles. The damage progress in
GRP composite specimens was evaluated by measuring stiffness degradation, EN/E1, as
the number of fatigue cycles increased and defined as:

c

EN
a N
1K : 1
E1 E0 Nf

Terms E1 and EN denote the Youngs moduli of the material measured at the first cycle
and the Nth cycle, respectively and E0 is the Youngs modulus of the undamaged material.
Material constants K and c are determined by curve fitting of experimental data for EN/E1,
which depends on the number of stress cycles N and cyclic amplitude stress
a. Term Nf
corresponds to the number of cycles to failure.
Ramakrishnan et al. [7] developed a mathematical description of a stiffness-based
damage model for unidirectional Nicalon fiber-reinforced borosilicate glass-ceramic
matrix composite. The model predicted the drop in the composite stiffness as a function of
fatigue cycles using mechanical properties of the composite constituents. In their model,
the stiffness reduction due to matrix damage was partitioned between the two rate
processes over progressive fatigue cycles, one logarithmic, and the other linear. The total
stiffness degradation as functions of the number fatigue cycles and properties of composite
constituents was given as:
(

    )
E Em Vm lnN 1 N Ef Vf ln 1  N=Nf
1 1  f f 1  r : 2
Ec Ec lnNf Nf m Ec ln1=Nf f

In Equation (2), subscripts m, f, and c correspond to matrix, fiber and composite

constituents, respectively. Terms Vf and Ef correspond to fiber volume fraction and elastic
modulus, respectively and terms Vm and Em correspond to matrix volume fraction and
elastic modulus, respectively. In the first bracket, factor f corresponds to the fibermatrix
interfacial shear strength and varies between 0 and 1 and in the second bracket; r is the
ratio of applied stress and ultimate tensile strength of composite.
The present study has attempted to develop a stiffness-reduction damage model to
characterize fatigue damage of 0
and 90
unidirectional plies and its extension to (0
/90
)
FRP composite systems while taking into account the effects of cyclic stress magnitude,
off-axis angle, mean stress and matrix-fibre bonding strength with respect to the applied
stress cycles.

ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DAMAGE MODEL FOR FRP

UNIDIRECTIONAL COMPOSITES [8]

Any physically based damage model for a composite must use contributions from
individual constituents as building blocks to determine the overall damage to the
composite. The peculiarity of damage is that the three constituents of FRP composites
(matrix, fiber-matrix interface, and fiber) do not fail simultaneously. This is explained by
Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1321

Matrix
I
x x
22
r III
e
fib er
Matrix fib
x
I Matrix x
er
y fib
11 II

Damaged index
Failure

I II III

Cycle ratio
Figure 1. Three regions of cracking mechanism in unidirectional composites.

their differing mechanical properties. Under cyclic tension-compression excursions, matrix

cracks are formed as an initial stage of micro-damage process, which affects the residual
strength and the life of a given laminate. Damage initiation in the form of microcracks
is normally formed at a local micro-defect such as misaligned fibers, resin-rich regions or
voids created during fabrication process [9]. Once initiated, matrix cracks grow in a
multiple mode and number within the matrix over the life cycles. Damage accumulation
continues as more cracks integrate until they encounter a fiber, leading to matrix-fiber
phase. Damage progress at this stage may cause matrix-fiber debonding and more
reduction in stiffness of composite laminates. The later stage of damage development is
typified by increasing rate of progression of all damage modes resulting in catastrophic
fiber failure. The progressive development of damage during fatigue life can be overviewed
with the aid of Figure 1, which represents the development of damage during the
fatigue life of unidirectional composite materials. In region I, multiple crack initiations
within the matrix are grouped together during the first 20% of the fatigue life [1012].
Region II commences as matrix cracks reach the vicinity of fiber. As the number of cycles
increases crack grows along the fiber-matrix interface. This region is characterized with
a larger life span and a lower slope of damage progress. In region III, with shorter
life span, fiber breakage occurs shortly after damage has been accumulated during regions
I and II [10].
The concept of damage accumulation may be used as a more suitable approach to
predict the fatigue life of structures of composite materials. However, fatigue damage
cannot be measured directly. Therefore, for quantitative evaluation of fatigue damage,
the Youngs modulus or the stiffness of composite materials are often used to evaluate the
fatigue damage due to cyclic loading, using a damage fatigue index:


E
D1 3
E0

where D is the accumulated fatigue damage index ranging between 0 and 1, E0 is the
Youngs modulus of the undamaged material, and E is the Youngs modulus of the
1322 A. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. SHIRAZI

40 140
(a) x
35 Ex (b)
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 2 1 120 Ex

Modulus of elasticity (GPa)

Gxy Gxy
30 y 100
25
80
20
60
15
40
10

5 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Off-axis angle (Degree) Off-axis angle (Degree)
Figure 2. The elastic modulus response as off-axis angle changes for UD composites, (a) GRP,
(b) CFRP [13].

damaged material. Thus, the extent of damage can be quantified by measuring the
Youngs modulus of the material.
The proposed damage model in this paper further modifies Equation (2) for inclusion of
affecting parameters (i.e., off-axis angle, cyclic stress magnitude, stress ratio and factor f
representing fiber-matrix interfacial strength) on stiffness reduction of composite
laminates. The backbone elements of this damage model constructed based on the fact
that the stiffness of the composite just prior to failure is obtained by subtracting the
summation of stiffness-reduction values of matrix and fibre from the initial composite
stiffness (E/E0 1). It is assumed that the matrix is severely damaged prior to final failure
and fibers are degraded up to a point where the composite can no longer withstand the
applied load.

Off-axis Angle Effect

The orientation of fibers embedded within polymeric matrix with respect to the applied
cyclic stresses to the unidirectional composite has a significant influence on fatigue damage
of these materials. The angle  0 represents a fiber-dominant condition at which the
fatigue strength is maximized while at angle  90 composite fatigue strength is
dominantly influenced by polymeric matrix constituent. Figure 2 represents the variations
of the elastic modulus (Ex) and the shear modulus (Gxy) of typical GRP and CFRP
composites as the off-axis angle increases [13].

R-ratio Effect

Many studies have verified that the fatigue behavior of composites is dependent on the
stress ratio R. Ellyin and El Kadi [14], Mandell and Meier [15], and Epaarachchi and
Clausen [16] have shown that for a given maximum stress in a tension-tension loading case,
the fatigue life of composites increases with increasing magnitude of stress ratio R.
In compressioncompression fatigue loading, an increase in R reduces the fatigue life of
Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1323

FRP composites. This effect has been implemented in the modified damage analysis by
correlating stress ratio R, maximum cyclic stress
max and ultimate stress
uts as:

a
max 1  R
R 1  1 4

uts 2
uts
where
a term corresponds to the cyclic amplitude stress.

Factor f

The matrix-fiber interface is the least understood, but the most influential factor in the
determination of composite properties. It is well known that the static strength of
unidirectional laminates is related to fiber-matrix bonding. Many investigators using
micro-mechanics models have predicted the influence of the fibermatrix interface on the
tensile strength of unidirectional laminates [1718]. The interfacial efficiency determines
how well the load is transferred from matrix to fiber.
The factor f is the representative of the fibermatrix interfacial shear strength and varies
between zero and unity. For f 0, fibermatrix interface strength is very little and as
f approaches unity, the fibermatrix interface bonding improves in strength. It is assumed
that if the applied longitudinal strain exceeds a certain value, the shear stress  s exerted at
the fibermatrix interface would reach the shear yielding or debonding magnitude at the
interface. The effect of interface shear strength factor f as a function of number of cycles
has been implemented in the proposed damage model, by the following expression:

f N 5

where coefficient  is mathematically defined at N 1 cycle and exponent  is the slope of

the f-log N curve. Coefficient  is defined as a ratio of normalized shear stress s of
composite to interfacial shear strength  i a s =i . Quin-Dun et al. [19] defined s
as function of stress applied along fiber direction
11 and fibermatrix properties:
 1=2
Vf Gf Gm
s
11 6
Ef Vf Gm Vm Gf

where Gf and Gm are the shear moduli of fiber and matrix, respectively. It is noteworthy to
point out that the modifications of the damage equation by factor f merely addresses
matrix and matrix-fiber interface cracking and has no impact on fiber breakage stage.

The Proposed Fatigue Damage Model

The proposed fatigue damage model takes into account the effects of cyclic stress
magnitude, mean stress, off-axis angles and interfacial bonding strength (through
Equations (46)) as the strength of unidirectional FRP composites degrades under fatigue
cycles. The proposed fatigue damage model is defined as:

E  
D 1 Em  f   Ef R  : 7
Ec
1324 A. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. SHIRAZI

Terms Em and Ef take into account the effect of off-axis angles and are defined
as Em 1  Ef Vf =Ec and Ef Ef Vf cos =Ec , respectively.
In Equation (7), terms ,  and  are functions of the number of cycles to failure Nf and
progressing fatigue cycles N and can be described as:

ln N 1
 8-1
lnNf =n


N
 8-2
Nf =n
ln 1  N=Nf =n
 8-3
lnn=Nf

where n corresponds to the percentage of drop in stiffness recorded for a fatigue test. This
mainly shows to what extend the stiffness reduction versus fatigue cycles has been
controlled/measured before the final failure takes place.

ELEMENTS OF FATIGUE DAMAGE ANALYSIS FOR (0/90) FRP

COMPOSITE LAMINATES

Figure 3 schematically represents a (0/90) composite laminate configuration and its plies
of 0
and 90
. The framework for the discussion of fatigue damage in a (0/90) composite
configuration is laminate stiffness reduction as the number of fatigue cycles increases.
Experimental investigations [2024] show that in each composite (0/90) laminate, damage
progress under cyclic loading respectively follows three regions of cracking within the
matrix, the matrix-fiber interface and the fiber (see Figure 1). In (0/90) composite
laminates, initially damage occurred in form of transverse cracks. Most of the stiffness
reduction occurred during the first 1020% of the life of the laminate [21]. Further
experimental studies by Daniel et al. [21] proved that the predominant damage mechanism
in (0/90) laminates are the initiation and propagation of transverse cracking in the
90
layers. They observed transverse cracking of 90
layers during first 80% of the lifetime
of the composite specimens.
Further investigation on cracking mechanism of (0/90) laminates [2528] revealed that
the crack density initially increased in the 90
ply and reached a saturation value.

(0/90) plies 0 ply 90 ply

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Schematic presentation of (a) (0
/90
) composite laminate and its plies of (b) 0
and (c) 90
.
Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1325

Longitudinal cracks then nucleated and grew along the specimen length in the 0
plies and
produced interior delaminations at the 0
/90
interface. Delaminations joined together in
regions between longitudinal cracks, separating small volumes of material in the 0
plies
which became longitudinal splits, and ultimately fiber breakage of the load-carrying (0
)
plies occurred.
The accumulation of damage of 0
and 90
plies to predict the life and damage of (0/90)
composite laminates can be generalized by the use of damage model equation presented
earlier [20,29] and also given by Equation (7) in this paper. A weighting factor of  has
been implemented to partition the efficiency of load carrying plies of 0
and 90
in the
composite laminates. Equation (9) combines the damage from two unidirectional plies of
0
and 90
as:




E E E
1 1   1   1  : 9
Ec 0=90 Ec 0 Ec 90

During the first 10% of composite life, most of the stiffness reduction is due to damage in
the 90
plies and there is minor stiffness reduction in the 0
plies which is dependent on the
type of the laminate and stacking sequences of 0
and 90
plies. In the present study
the effect of the stacking sequence in (0/90) laminate configuration was addressed in the
damage model by incorporating factor  varying between 1020% based on experimental
results by Bezazi et al. [25].
Figure 4 represents the cumulative damage scheme of fatigue damage analysis of a (0/90)
composite laminate based on the proposed damage method in this study. The proposed
fatigue damage analysis method includes damage in (0/90) composite plies in three regions
of matrix, matrix-fiber interface, and fiber and reflects the cracking mechanism within
three regions from early region of growth to final failure. This figure describes the
procedure of damage analysis as follows:
(i) Determines initial data for damage analysis as fiber stiffness, matrix stiffness,
composite initial stiffness, fiber volume fraction, Poissons ratio, stress ratio, applied
stress and number of applied cycles to failure of 0
and 90
plies.
(ii) Calculates the fatigue damage in individual 0
and 90
plies based on stiffness drop
Equation (7).
(iii) Calculates the fatigue damage of (0/90) composite laminates using Equation (9), and
(iv) Compares the predicted damagefatigue cycles curve with the experimentally
obtained damage data.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF 0 AND 90 UNIDIRECTIONAL PLIES AND

(0/90) FRP COMPOSITE LAMINATES

Material properties of FRP composites used in this study are listed in Table 1. Figure 2
represents the variations of the shear modulus (Gxy) and elastic modulus (Ex) of FRP
composites respectively as the off-axis angle varies from 0
to 90
. The derivation and
calculation of elastic moduli change with off-axis angle are comprehensively given in
reference [30]. Values of elastic moduli at any given off-axis angle are extracted from
Figure 2 and are used to calculate Em and Ef, in the proposed equations, by substituting
Ex as Ec, respectively.
1326 A. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. SHIRAZI

Start

Define states of applied Define states of applied

stress, R, Nf and stress, R, Nf and
material properties material properties
(0 Ply) (90 Ply)

Damage Equation (7) Damage Equation (7)

for for
(0 Ply) (90 Ply)

Equation (9)

Yes No
N<n*Nf

Damage-life curve

Stop

Figure 4. Flowchart of fatigue damage assessment of (0/90) system based on individual plies of 0
and 90
.

Table 1. Material properties of unidirectional GRP and CFRP composites.

Materials Vf (%) Em (GPa) Ef (GPa) Ec (GPa) Gm (GPa) Gf (GPa) G12 (GPa)
uts (MPa)  i (MPa)

GRP [2] 60 4.73 80 44.8 1.822 30 4.4 166 48.26

GRP [34] 25 4.73 72.4 22 1.822 30 2.381 125 22
GRP [5] 55 4.73 80 45.4 1.822 30 3.77 1203 41.35
GRP [23] 58 3.3 72.4 36.2 2.9 30 4.4 1200
GRP [31] 50 1.5 72.4 42.65 1.822 30 3.77 1025 50
CFRP [21] 63 3.3 228 54.2 2.9 5.5 7.6 779
CFRP [22] 42.7 3.3 228 46.2 2.9 5.5 2.96 474
CFRP [32] 58 3.3 296 173 2.9 5.5 5 2610 137
Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1327

Table 2. Testing conditions for UD and (0/90) GRP and CFRP composites
used in this study.

Materials h (
) R Frequency f (Hz) Specimen Geometry (mm)

GRP [2] 0 1 10 25  250  2.6

GRP [34] 0 and 90 1 68 12.7  130  3.3
GRP [5] 0 0.7 5 10  700  5
GRP [23] (0/90) 0.1 10 52 (90
ply thickness)
0.30 (0
ply thickness)
GRP [31] 0 0.1 5 12.5  200  2
CFRP [21] (0/90) 0 5 0.127 ply thickness
CFRP [22] (0/90) 0.1 3 610  610  3
CFRP [32] 0 0.1 1 12.7  188  2.8

(a) 0.2 (b)

Eq(7) GRP
Exp.
Philippidis model 0.15 R = 1
0.15 Ramkrishnan model Vf = 0.6
= 140MPa
GRP
Damage

Damage

R = 1 0.1
0.1 Vf = 0.6
= 120 MPa

0.05 0.05
Eq (7)
Exp.
Philippidis model
Ramakrishnan model
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 5 10 15 20 25
N (Cycles) N (Cycles)
Figure 5. Predicted vs. experimental values of damage cycles for UD GRP composites tested under R 1,
 0, and stress amplitudes of (a) 120 MPa and (b) 140 MPa [2].

EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED DAMAGE MODEL AND DISCUSSION

Unidirectional Composites

To assess the capability of the modified damage model in evaluating fatigue damage of
0
and 90
unidirectional FRP composites as number of cycles increases, several sets
of fatigue data of unidirectional composite laminates with various stress magnitudes,
R-ratios, and off-axis angles were taken from literature [25,3132]. Table 2 represents
fatigue testing details for FRP components performed at room temperature under
constant amplitude loading conditions and various stress ratios based on ASTM D3090M.
Figures 59 present a comparison between predicted and experimentally obtained DN
curves for UD GRP and CFRP composites at various cyclic stress magnitudes, R-ratios,
and off-axis angles of  0
and  90
. This figures show that predicted damage curve
based on the proposed damage Equation (7) is in a very close agreement with experimental
data, while predicted curves by Philippidis et al. [2] and Ramakrishnan et al. [7] models
(Figure (5)) fail to agree well with the experimental data. The closeness of Philippidis
curves with the experimental data in Figures 5(a) and (b) can be significantly influenced by
the constants K and c in Equation (1), determined by curve fitting, while, the damage
1328 A. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. SHIRAZI

(a) 1 (b) 1

0.8 0.8
GRP GRP
R = 1 R = 1
0.6 0.6
Damage

Damage
Vf = 0.25 Vf = 0.25
= 7.7 103 = 8.8103
0.4 0.4

Eq (7) Eq (7)
0.2 0.2 Exp.
Exp.
Ramakrishnan model Ramakrishnan model

0 0
0 2 105 4 105 6 105 8 105 1 106 1.2 106 0 1104 2104 3104 4104 5104
N (Cycles) N (Cycles)

Figure 6. Predicted vs. experimental values of damage cycles for UD GRP composites tested under various
R 1,  0, and strain amplitudes of (a) 0.0077 and (b) 0.0088 [3].

(a) 0.3 (b) 0.4

GRP Eq (7) 0.35
0.25 R=0.7 Exp.
Vf =0.55 Ramakrishnan model 0.3
0.2 =14 103
0.25
Damage
Damage

0.15 0.2 GRP

R = 0.1
0.15 Vf =0.5
0.1
0.1 =400MPa
0.05 Eq (7)
0.05 Exp.
Ramakrishnan model
0 0
0 11062106310641065 1066 1067 1068106 0 8000 1.6104 2.4104 3.2104 4104 4.8104
N (Cycles) N (Cycles)

Figure 7. Predicted vs. experimental values of damage cycles for UD GRP composites tested under
various R, ,
or ": (a) 0.7,0
, 0.0014 [5] and (b) 0.1,0
, 400 MPa [31].

Equation (7) requires no experimentally obtained constants. Figures 59 also show the
deviation of Ramakrishnan damage curves from the experimental data. The lack of
consideration of the effects of off-axis angles, cyclic stress magnitude, and variation of the
factor f with fatigue cycles is a prime drawback of this model in damage assessment of
FRP composites with various fiber orientations. Not only does the proposed damage
Equation (7) address the progressive damage development in composite constituents of
matrix, matrix-fiber and fiber, it also includes terms to take into account the effects of
cyclic stress magnitude, off-axis angle , and R-ratio on damage assessment of UD FRP
composites.

(0/90) Composite Laminates

To evaluate the capability of the proposed damage model in assessing fatigue damage of
(0/90) GRP and CFRP composite laminates at various R-ratios and cyclic stress
amplitudes, a few series of (0/90) experimental fatigue damage data has been extracted
from the literature [2123]. Table 2 also represents fatigue testing details for (0/90)
Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1329
1 1

(a) (b)
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
Damage

Damage
GRP GRP
R = 1 R = 1
0.4 Vf =0.25 0.4 Vf =0.25
=2.2 103
e = 2.7103
0.2 Eq (7) 0.2 Eq (7)
Exp. Exp.
Ramakrishnan model Ramakrishnan model
0 0
0 2 105 4 105 6 105 8 105 1 105 0 1105 2105 3105 4 105 5105
N (Cycles) N (Cycles)

1
(c)

0.8

0.6
Damage

GRP
R = 1
Vf = 0.25
0.4
=4.3103

0.2 Eq (7)
Exp.
Ramakrishnan model
0
0 5000 1 104 1.5104 2104 2.5104
N (Cycles)
Figure 8. Predicted vs. experimental values of damage cycles for UD GRP composites tested under various
R 1,  90, and strain amplitudes of (a) 0.0022, (b) 0.0027, and (c) 0.0043 [4].

0.6 0.6
CFRP CFRP
R = 0.1 R = 0.1
0.5 0.5
Vf = 0.58 Vf = 0.58
= 8.01103 = 7.75103
0.4 0.4
Damage

Damage

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
Eq (7)
0.1 Exp. 0.1 Eq (7)
Exp.
Ramakrishnan model Ramakrishnan model
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
N (Cycles) N (Cycles)

Figure 9. Predicted vs. experimental values of damage cycles for UD CFRP composites tested under various
R 0.1,  0
, and strain amplitudes of (a) 0.00801, and (b) 0.00775 [32].

FRP composite specimens. The available data are in the form of stiffness degradation
versus life (or cycle ratio), required in the damage analysis.
Over 100 experimentally obtained fatigue damage data of (0/90) CFRP composites
tested under uniaxial loading conditions by Daniel et al. [21] and Corum et al. [22] were
 1330

0.14
1 0.12
(a) 0.4
0.1 (b)
CFRP 0.08
R=0 0.35 0.06
0.8
0.14 Vf = 0.63 0.04
0.12 = 412.9 MPa 0.3 0.02

0.1 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0.6 0.25
0.08 Pre. 0Ply
0.06
Pre. 90Ply 0.2
0.04 Exp.
0.4 CFRP
0.02 0.15 R=0
0 Vf = 0.63
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Proposed damage equation (9)

0.1

Proposed damage equation (7)

0.2 = 412.9 MPa

0.05 Pre.
Exp.
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2105 4105 6105 8105 1106
5 5
N (Cycles) 10 N (Cycles) 10
1 0.4
(c) (d)
CFRP 0.35 CFRP
R=0 R=0
0.8 Vf = 0.63
Vf = 0.63 0.3
= 662 MPa = 662 MPa

0.25
0.6
Pre.0Ply Pre.
0.2 Exp.
Pre.90Ply
0.4 Exp.
0.15

0.1

Proposed damage equation (7)

Proposed damage equation (9)
A. VARVANI-FARAHANI

0.2
0.05
AND

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
N (Cycles) 103 N (Cycles) 103

Figure 10. Predicted fatigue damage evolution curves for 0
and 90
plies as number of fatigue cycles increases vs. experimental data of CFRP (0/90) composite
A. SHIRAZI

plies with Vf 63% tested with R 0 under stress amplitudes of (a) 412.9 MPa and (c) 662 MPa, (b) and (d) predicted damage curve of (0/90) CFRP composite based
on Equation (9) vs. (0/90) composite experimental data reported in reference [21].
Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1331
1 1
CFRP (a) CFRP (b)
Pre.0Ply
R = 0.1
Proposed damage equation (7)

Proposed damage equation (9)

0.8 Pre.90Ply 0.8 R = 0.1
Vf = 0.427 Vf = 0.427
Exp.
= 402.9 MPa = 402.9
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Pre.
Exp.

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
N (Cycles) 106 N (Cycles) 106
1 1
(c) CFRP (d)
Pre.0Ply
CFRP

Proposed damage equation (9)

Proposed damage equation (7)

Pre.90Ply R = 0.1 0.8 R = 0.1

0.8 Vf = 0.427
Exp. Vf = 0.427
= 424.8 MPa = 424.8 MPa
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Pre.
Exp.
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
N (Cycles) 104 N (Cycles) 104
1 1
(e) (f)
CFRP CFRP
Proposed damage equation (7)

Proposed damage equation (9)

0.8 R = 0.1 0.8 R = 0.1

Vf = 0.427 Vf = 0.427
= 448.4 MPa = 448.4 MPa
0.6 0.6
Pre.0Ply
Pre.90Ply
0.4 Exp. 0.4

0.2 0.2
Pre.
Exp.
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250
N (Cycles) N (Cycles)
Figure 11. (a), (c), (e) Predicted fatigue damage evolution curves for 0
and 90
plies as number of fatigue
cycles increases vs. experimental data of CFRP (0/90) composite plies with Vf 42.7% tested with R 0.1
under stress amplitudes of 402.9 MPa, 424.8 MPa, and 448.4 MPa respectively, (b), (d), (f) predicted damage
curve of (0/90) CFRP composite based on Equation (9) vs. (0/90) composite experimental data reported in
reference [22].

evaluated in this study. Fatigue damage data [21] on (0/90) CFRP composite specimens
with fiber volume fraction of Vf 63%, cyclic stress amplitudes of
412.9 MPa and
662 MPa, and stress ratio of R 0 were plotted versus predicted damage results by the
proposed damage model (Equation (9)) in Figure 10. Figure 11 also represents fatigue
damage data of the same materials with different fiber volume fraction of Vf 42.7% [22]
 1 0.4
0.08
1332

(a)
(b)
0.35 0.07
0.06
0.8
GRP 0.05
0.3
0.08 R = 0.1 0.04
0.07 0.03
Vf = 0.58 0.25
0.6 0.06 0.02
0.05 = 95 MPa
0.01
0.04 0.2 0
0.03 Pre.0Ply GRP
0.4 0.02 0.15
Pre.90Ply R = 0.1
0.01
Vf = 0.58
0 Exp.
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0.1

Proposed damage equation (9)

Proposed damage equation (7)

= 95 MPa
0.2
0.05 Pre.
Exp.
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2105 4105 6105 8105 1106

N (Cycles) 105 N (Cycles) 105

1 0.4
(c) (d)
GRP
0.35
0.8 R = 0.1
Vf =0.58
0.3
= 140 MPa

0.6 0.25
Pre.0Ply
Pre.90Ply 0.2

0.4 Exp. GRP

0.15 R = 0.1
Vf = 0.58
0.1

Proposed damage equation (7)

= 140 MPa
Proposed damage equation (9)

0.2
A. VARVANI-FARAHANI

0.05 Pre.
Exp.
AND

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15
N (Cycles) 103 N (Cycles) 103
Figure 12. (a), (c) Predicted fatigue damage evolution curves for 0
and 90
plies as number of fatigue cycles increases vs. experimental data of GRP (0/90)
composite plies with Vf 58% tested with R 0.1 under stress amplitudes of 95 MPa and 140 MPa respectively, (b), (d) predicted damage curve of (0/90) GRP
A. SHIRAZI

composite based on Equation (9) vs. (0/90) composite experimental data reported in reference [23].
 1 1
GRP (a) Pre. GRP (b)
Pre.0Ply R = 0.1
Exp. R = 0.1
Pre.90Ply Vf = 0.5 Vf = 0.5
0.8 0.8
Exp. = 210 MPa = 210 MPa

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

Proposed damage equation (7)

0.2 0.2

Proposed damage equation(9)

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites

N(Cycles) 105 N(Cycles) 105

1 1

GRP (c) GRP (d)

Pre.0Ply Pre.
R = 0.1 R = 0.1
0.8 0.8 Exp.
Pre.90Ply Vf = 0.5 Vf = 0.5
Exp. = 300MPa = 300MPa

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Proposed damage equation (9)

Proposed damage equation (7)

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
N(Cycles) N(Cycles)
Figure 13. (a), (c) Predicted fatigue damage evolution curves for 0
and 90
plies as number of fatigue cycles increases vs. experimental data of GRP (0/90)
composite plies with Vf 50% tested with R 0.1 under stress amplitudes of 210 MPa and 300 MPa respectively, (b), (d) predicted damage curve of (0/90) GRP
1333

composite based on Equation (9) vs. (0/90) composite experimental data reported in reference [20].
1334 A. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. SHIRAZI

tested at various stress amplitudes of
402.9 MPa, 424.8 MPa, 448.4 MPa, and R 0.1
and plotted versus predicted damage results.
The proposed damage model was further evaluated fatigue damage of (0/90) GRP
composite successfully as compared with over 45 experimental data points reported in
references 20 and 23. Boniface and Ogin [23] tested (0/90) GRP composites with Vf 58%
under cyclic stresses of
95 MPa and 140 MPa and R 0.1 (data shown in Figure 12)
and Wharmby et al. [20] tested the same material with Vf 50% under cyclic stresses of

210 MPa and 300 MPa and R 0.1 (data shown in Figure 13).
In Figures 1013, it is noticeable that the experimental damage data of (0/90) lamina fall
between the predicted damage results for 90
and 0
plies. These figures also verify how
capable the Equation (9) characterizes damage progress of (0/90) CFRP and GRP
composite laminates as predicted results using Equation (9) show good agreement with
experimentally reported data of same type.

CONCLUSIONS

A fatigue damage analysis based on stiffness reduction in unidirectional and cross-ply

FRP composites was developed. Damage analysis was performed based on physics of
cracking in matrix, matrix-fiber interface and fiber as number of cycles increased.
The proposed damage assessment included the effects of cyclic stress magnitude, stress
ratio, off-axis angle and interface bonding (factor f ) in fatigue life of FRP composites.
The predicted fatigue damage results for FRP composites were found in good agreement
when compared with the experimental data.
Further, it has been found that for a laminate of (0/90) composite under cyclic load,
the relationship between stiffness drop and number of cycles also exhibits three distinct
regions. Results of the prediction of fatigue damage as the number of cycles increases
showed a very good agreement between the proposed equation and the experimental data.
Based on the present study, the fatigue performance of (0/90) laminate can be evaluated
from the present model, knowing the fatigue behavior of unidirectional laminate in both
axial and transverse directions. The superiority of this damage model over other models
is that it holds terms of stress ratio, cyclic stress magnitude, number of cycles to failure,
off-axis angle  and interfacial parameter f.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.

REFERENCES

1. Highsmith, A. and L, Reifsnider, K. L. (1982). Stiffness reduction mechanisms in composite laminates.

In: Damage in Composite Materials. ASTM STP 775, Reifsnider, K. L. (ed.). American Society for Testing
and Materials, pp. 103117.
2. Philippidis, T. P. and Vassilopoulos, A. P. (2000). Fatigue Design Allowable for GRP Laminates Based on
Stiffness Degradation Measurements, Composites Science and Technology, 60: 28192828.
3. Agarwal, B. D. and Joneja, S. K. (1980). Flexural Fatigue of a Unidirectional Composite in the Longitudinal
Direction, Material Science and Engineering, 46: 6368.
4. Agarwal, B. D. and Joneja, S. K. (1979). Flexural Fatigue Properties of Unidirectional GRP in the
Transverse Direction, Composites, 10(1): 2830.
Fatigue Model for (0/90) FRP Composites 1335

5. Pauchard, V., Grosjean, F., Campion-Boulharts, H. and Chateauminois, A. (2002). Application of a

Stress-Corrosion-Cracking Model to an Analysis of the Durability of Glass Composites in Wet
Environment, Composites Science and Technology, 62: 493498.
6. Andersen, S. I, Brondsted, P. and Lilholt, H. (1996). Fatigue of Polymeric Composites for Wing Blades and
the Establishment of Stiffness-Controlled Fatigue Diagrams. In: 1996 European Union Wind Energy
Conference Proceedings, Goteborg, Sweden, pp. 950953.
7. Ramakrishnan, V. and Jayaraman, N. (1993). Mechanistically Based Fatigue-Damage Evolution Model for
Brittle Matrix Fiber-Reinforced Composites, Journal of Materials Science, 28: 55925602.
8. Varvani-Farahani, A. and Shirazi, A. (2007). Prediction of Stiffness Degradation And Damage Assessment
of Unidirectional GRP Composites Under Fatigue Loading, Journal of Science and Engineering of Composite
Materials (In-press).
9. Haftchenari, H. and Varvani-Farahani, A. (2003). Microcracking Response of CFRP Composites at
Different Temperatures, International Conference on Fatigue Damage of Materials: Experiment and
Analysis, Varvani-Farahani, A. and Brebbia, C. (eds), Toronto, Canada, pp. 389398.
10. Reifsnider, K. L. (ed.). Fatigue of Composite Materials, Elsevier Science Publisher, 1991.
11. Reifsnider, K. L. (1990). Damage and Damage Mechanics, Fatigue of Composite Materials, 4: 1175.
12. Yao, W. X. and Himmel, N. (2000). A new Cumulative Fatigue Damage Model for Fiber-Reinforced
Plastics, Composites Science and Technology, 60: 5964.
13. Varvani-Farahani, A., Haftchenari, H. and Panbechi, M. (2006). A Fatigue Damage Parameter for Life
Assessment of Off-axis Unidirectional Glass Fiber-reinforced Composites, Journal of Composite Materials,
40(18): 16591669.
14. Ellyin, F. and El-Kadi, H. (1994). A Fatigue Failure Criterion for Fiber Reinforcement Composite
Laminates, Composite Structures, 25(10): 917924.
15. Mandell, J. F. and Meier, Usr. (1982). Effect of Stress Ratio, Frequency and Loading Time on the Tensile
Fatigue of Glass-reinforced Epoxy, ASTM STP 813, pp. 5577.
16. Epaarachchi, J. A. and Clausen, P. D. (2003). An Empirical Model for Fatigue Behaviour Prediction of
Glass Fiber-reinforced Plastic Composites for Various Stress Ratios and Test Frequencies, Composite,
Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 34: 313326.
17. Subramanian, S., Reifsnider, K. L. and Stinchcomb, W. W. (1995). A Cumulative Damage Model to Predict
the Fatigue Life of Composite Laminates Including the Effect of a FIber-matrix Interphase, International
Journal of Fatigue, 17(5): 34351.
18. Gamstedtor, E. K. and Talreja, R. (1999). Fatigue Damage Mechanisms in Unidirectional Carbon-
fiber-reinforced Plastics, Journal of Materials Science, 34: 25352546.
19. Qing-Dun, Z., Zhi-Li, W. and Ling, L. (1997). A Study of the Influence of Interfacial Damage on Stress
Concentration in Unidirectional Composites, Composites Science and Technology, 57: 129135.
20. Wharmby, A. W., Ellyin, F. and Wolodko, J. D. (2003). Observations on Damage
Development in Fiber Reinforced Polymer Laminates Under Cyclic Loading, International Journal of
Fatigue, 25: 437446.
21. Daniel, I. M., Lee, J. W. and Yaniv, G. (1987). Damage Mechanisms and Stiffness Degradation in Graphite/
Epoxy Composite. Proceedings of ICCM-6 and ECCM-2, Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 412938.
22. Corum, J. M., Battiste, R. L., Liu, K. C. and Ruggles, M. B. (2000). Basic Properties of Reference Cross ply
Carbon-Fiber Composite, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2000.
23. Boniface, L. and Ogin, S. L. (1989). Application of the Paris Equation to the Fatigue Growth of Transverse
Ply Cracks, Journal of Composite Materials, 23: 735754.
24. Berthelot, J., ElMahi, A. and LeCorre, D. J. F. (2001). Development of Transverse Cracking in Cross-ply
Laminates During Fatigue Tests, Composites Science and Technology, 61: 17111721.
25. Bezazi, A. R., ElMahi, A. and Bethelot, J. M. (2003). Flexural Fatigue Behaviour of Cross-ply Laminates:
An Experimental Approach, Strength of Materials, 35(2): 149161.
26. Diao, X. X., Ye, L. and Mai, Y. W. (1996). Simulation of Fatigue Performance of Cross-ply Composite
Laminates, Applied Composite Materials, 3: 391406.
27. Reifsnider, K. L. (1990). Damage and Damage Mechanics, In Fatigue of Composite Materials, Composite
Materials, K. L. Reifsnider (ed.), Series ed R. B. Pipes, Elsevier and Science Publishers, pp. 1177.
28. Reifsnider, K. L. and Jamison, R. (1982). Fracture of Fatigue-Loaded Composite Laminates. International
Journal of Fatigue, 4: 187197.
29. Shirazi, A. (2006). Fatigue Damage Modeling Based on Cracking Progress in Unidirectional and Cross-ply
FRP Composites, MASc Thesis, Ryerson University, Canada.
30. Panbechi, M. (2005). Fatigue Damage Assessment of Unidirectional GRP and CFRP Composites.
MASc Thesis, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University.
1336 A. VARVANI-FARAHANI AND A. SHIRAZI

31. Oever, M. and Peijs, T. (1998). Continuous-glass-fiber-reinforced Polypropylene Composites

II Influence of Maleic-anhydride Modified Polypropylene on Fatigue Behaviour, Composites Part A, 29A:
227239.
32. Plumtree, A. and Shi, L. (2002). Fatigue Damage Evolution in Off-axis Unidirectional CFRP, International
Journal of Fatigue, 24: 155159.