Micromechanics of Cracked Laminates under Uniaxial Load: A Comparison between Approaches

<div>Variation of interlaminar shear in 0/90 interface for a glass fiber/epoxy cross-ply <svg height="12.584pt" id="M162" style="vertical-align:-3.29567pt" version="1.1" viewbox="-0.0498162 -9.28833 37.2021 12.584" width="37.2021pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)"><path d="M290 -163V-135C183 -126 181 -122 181 -44V583C181 662 184 666 290 675V703H120V-163H290Z" id="g113-92"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="345" vert-adv-y="345"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,4.485,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z" id="g113-49"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="480" vert-adv-y="480"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,10.725,0)"><path d="M368 703H309L44 -163H104L368 703Z" id="g113-48"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="412" vert-adv-y="412"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,16.086,0)"><path d="M244 635C114 635 38 519 38 422C38 317 111 240 217 240C236 240 255 244 277 256L345 292C311 140 203 39 59 15L64 -15C89 -15 150 -5 204 17C339 72 440 202 440 386C440 521 368 635 244 635ZM228 602C326 602 352 479 352 390C352 370 351 347 348 324C327 308 293 296 258 296C174 296 124 369 124 458C124 517 152 602 228 602Z" id="g113-58"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="480" vert-adv-y="480"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.327,0)"><path d="M241 635C89 635 35 457 35 312C35 153 89 -12 240 -12C390 -12 443 166 443 312C443 466 390 635 241 635ZM238 602C329 602 354 454 354 312C354 172 330 22 240 22C152 22 124 173 124 313S148 602 238 602Z" id="g113-49"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="480" vert-adv-y="480"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.567,0)"><path d="M226 -163V703H56V676C162 667 165 662 165 584V-43C165 -122 162 -126 56 -136V-163H226Z" id="g113-94"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="345" vert-adv-y="345"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0091,0,0,-0.0091,33.052,3.132)"><path d="M327 325C324 350 312 408 304 433C283 442 256 451 213 451C120 451 59 391 59 320C59 243 125 210 188 181C237 158 266 136 266 93C266 52 231 24 195 24C134 24 93 81 74 148L42 143C42 106 51 37 59 23C78 8 125 -12 177 -12C257 -12 345 35 345 127C345 198 292 234 216 264C171 283 131 305 131 348C131 387 156 416 195 416C243 416 277 378 297 317L327 325Z" id="g58-113"></path><glyph.data ascent="1007" descent="-369" horiz-adv-x="376" vert-adv-y="376"></glyph.data></g></svg> composite using Berthelot-modified shear-lag model [<a href="/journals/amse/2017/3707329/#B12">12</a>].</div>

Advances in Materials Science and Engineering

fig5

Figure 5

Figure 5: Micromechanics of Cracked Laminates under Uniaxial Load: A Comparison between Approaches 