Experimental Mechanics

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 69–80 | Cite as

Shear Evolution of Fiberglass Composites Under Compression

  • L. LambersonEmail author
  • L. Shannahan
  • S. Pagano


Woven composites can offer mechanical improvements over more traditional engineering materials, yet understanding the complex interplay between the fiber-matrix architecture during loading remains a challenge. This paper investigates the evolution of shear failure behavior during the compression of high performance fiberglass composites with varying resin binders at both quasi-static and dynamic strain rates. All samples are comprised of commercially available woven glass cloth with approximately 56 % fiber volume fraction. Laminates with thermosetting resin binders of silicone, melamine, and epoxy were examined. High-speed imaging reveals that failure occurs within a localized shear band region through multiple fiber-weave matrix interface failure with a characteristic macroscopic angle. The shear evolution was spatially mapped using grayscale histograms of the light intensity in the shear regions, and the resulting characteristic angles were measured and analyzed in the context of a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Optical microscopy and high-speed imaging of the shear formation shows initiation appears due to local instabilities from kinking and microbuckling, influenced by the stacking and interlacing regions of tows.


Polymer matrix composites Shear evolution Compression Instability Cohesive strength Internal friction 



The authors are grateful for support of this work through the Research and Educational Programs at the Ohio Aerospace Institute through the NASA Glenn Research Center Faculty Fellowship Program in 2013, as well as the 2014 Harry C. Bartels Faculty Engineering Development Award at Drexel University.


  1. 1.
    Hahn HT, Tsai SW (1973) Nonlinear elastic behavior of unidirectional composite laminae. J Compos Mater 7(1):102–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gates TS, Sun CT (1991) Elastic/viscoplastic constitutive model for fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites. AIAA J 29(3):457–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harding J (1993) Effect of strain rate and specimen geometry on the compressive strength of woven glass-reinforced epoxy laminates. Composites 24(4):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yoon KJ, Sun CT (1991) Characterization of elastic-viscoplastic properties of an AS4/PEEK thermoplastic composite. J Compos Mater 25(10):1277–1296Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Budiansky B, Fleck NA (1993) Compressive failure of fibre composites. J Mech Phys Solids 41(1):183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Takeda N, Wan L (1995) Impact compression damage evolution in unidirectional glass fiber reinforced polymer composites. High strain rate effects on polymer, metal and ceramic matrix composites and other advanced materials, pp 109–113Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tay TE, Ang HG, Shim VPW (1995) An empirical strain rate-dependent constitutive relationship for glass-fibre reinforced epoxy and pure epoxy. Compos Struct 33(4):201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weeks CA, Sun CT (1998) Modeling non-linear rate-dependent behavior in fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Sci Technol 58(3):603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee SH, Waas AM (1999) Compressive response and failure of fiber reinforced unidirectional composites. Int J Fract 100(3):275–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vogler TJ, Kyriakides S (2001) On the initiation and growth of kink bands in fiber composites: Part I. experiments. Int J Solids Struct 38(15):2639–2651CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xiao JR, Gillespie JW (2007) A phenomenological Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for composite laminates under interlaminar shear and compression. J Compos Mater 41(11):1295–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harding J (1989) Impact damage in composite materials. Sci Eng Compos Mater 1(2):41–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abrate S (1991) Impact on laminated composite materials. Appl Mech Rev 44(4):155–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abrate S (1994) Impact on laminated composites: recent advances. Appl Mech Rev 47(11):517–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cantwell WJ, Morton J (1991) The impact resistance of composite materials—a review. Composites 22 (5):347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumar P, Garg A, Agarwal BD (1986) Dynamic compressive behaviour of unidirectional GFRP for various fibre orientations. Mater Lett 4(2):111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shokrieh MM, Omidi MJ (2009) Compressive response of glass–fiber reinforced polymeric composites to increasing compressive strain rates. Compos Struct 89(4):517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ochola RO, Marcus K, Nurick GN, Franz T (2004) Mechanical behaviour of glass and carbon fibre reinforced composites at varying strain rates. Compos Struct 63(3):455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Staab GH, Gilat A (1995) High strain rate response of angle-ply glass/epoxy laminates. J Compos Mater 29(10):1308–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song B, Chen W, Weerasooriya T (2003) Quasi-static and dynamic compressive behaviors of a S-2 glass/SC15 composite. J Compos Mater 37(19):1723–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vural M, Ravichandran G (2004) Transverse failure in thick S2-glass/epoxy fiber-reinforced composites. J Compos Mater 38(7):609–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khan AS, Colak OU, Centala P (2002) Compressive failure strengths and modes of woven S2-glass reinforced polyester due to quasi-static and dynamic loading. Int J Plast 18(10):1337–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    El-Habak AMA (1991) Mechanical behaviour of woven glass fibre-reinforced composites under impact compression load. Composites 22(2):129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Powers BM, Vinson JR, Hall IW, Hubbard RF (1997) High strain rate properties of cycom 5920/1583. AIAA J 35(3):553–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nishida EE, Foster JT, Briseno PE (2012) Constant strain rate testing of a G10 laminate composite through optimized kolsky bar pulse shaping techniques. J Compos Mater 47(23):2955– 2963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ravi-Chandar K, Satapathy S (2007) Mechanical properties of G-10 glass-epoxy composite. Defense Technical Information CenterGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harding J, Dong L (1994) Effect of strain rate on the interlaminar shear strength of carbon-fiber-reinforced laminates. Combust Sci Technol 51(3):347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Benloulo ISC, Rodriguez J, Martinez MA, Galvez VS (1997) Dynamic tensile testing of aramid and polyethylene fiber composites. Int J Impact Eng 19(2):135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang Y, Xia Y (2000) A modified constitutive equation for unidirectional composites under tensile impact and the dynamic tensile properties of kfrp. Compos Sci Technol 60(4):591– 596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sierakowski RL, Chaturvedi SK (1997) Dynamic loading and characterization of fiber-reinforced composites. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sierakowski RL (1997) Strain rate effects in composites. Appl Mech Rev 50(12):741–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Al-Hassani STS, Kaddour AS (1997) Strain rate effects on GRP, KRP and CFRP composite laminates. In: Key engineering materials, vol 141. Trans Tech Publ, pp 427–452Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Greszczuk LB (1982) Damage in composite materials due to low velocity impact. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    MatWeb (2014) Material property data.
  35. 35.
    Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2002) Pulse shaping techniques for testing brittle materials with a split hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 42(1):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frew DJ, Forrestal MJ, Chen W (2005) Pulse shaping techniques for testing elastic-plastic materials with a split hopkinson pressure bar. Exp Mech 45(2):186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kolsky H (1949) An investigation of the mechanical properties of materials at very high rates of loading. Proc Phys Soc London, Sect B 62(11):676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chen W, Song B (2010) Split Hopkinson (Kolsky) bar: design, testing and applications. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ramesh KT (2008) High rates and impact experiments. In: Springer handbook of experimental solid mechanics. Springer, pp 929–960Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lamberson LE, Ramesh KT (2015) Spatial and temporal evolution of dynamic damage in single crystal α-quartz. Mech Mater 87:61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moore DE, Lockner DA, Iwata K, Tanaka H, Byerlee JD (2001) How brucite may affect the frictional properties of serpentinite. US Department of the Interior. US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Handin J (1969) On the Coulomb-Mohr failure criterion. J Geophys Res 74(22):5343–5348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Green SJ, Perkins RD et al (1968) Uniaxial compression tests at varying strain rates on three geologic materials. In: The 10th US symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics AssociationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations