Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here





I am trying to find information regarding CFRP unfolding.
Can anyone help me?
Many thanks.

RE: Composites

Do you mean delamination? If so your question is too broad for a short answer. Please be more specific.

RE: Composites

Compositepro, thank you for your reply.
I was reviewing a composite design allowables document and came up with F33t, F33c & F13 values for "Unfolding". Are these values then the max allowed for interlaminar tension, compression & shear respectively to prevent "delamination"?

RE: Composites

Your interpretation seems reasonable. I'm not a stress analyst though, and am not fluent with their "language".

RE: Composites

have never heard of "unfolding" in that context.

perhaps it means "opening of a curved laminate"?

The F33t, F33c & F13 values might cover for delamination depending on how they were determined and from what type of test and whether the test included intentional flaws in the peak stress area.  Ideally the test specimen would be very similar to the structural detail you are analyzing.  If it is not, then the values very likely do not provide a good prediction of delamination onset.  Fracture mechanics based methods are much more accurate for delamination prediction compared to stress based methods


RE: Composites

What was the 'composite design allowables' document? A bit more context might make a difference.

I also have not come across 'unfolding' in any sort of technical sense.

F33t, F33c are the through thickness direct stress directions, F13 is through thickness shear. The 33 and 13 nomenclature probably indicates that the 'F's are 'material' values, so that they are for a laminate with all its plies at 0 degrees (Z and X would usually indicate 'laminate' directions as opposed to material).

F33c is somewhat controversial. If it's for unidirectional plies the failure mechanism is by what I've heard some people call 'log-rolling,' where the fibres can roll over one another as the resin fails. A real laminate (or one made of fabric) is quite a lot stronger than F33c for a UD.

As SW says, F33t is also somewhat controversial. If it's for a laminate failing in 33 tension up due to a corner radius opening up then there is a quarter corner bend test standard. However, it's quite variable in its values and when damage is introduced *very* variable.

RE: Composites


From the test data that I have seen, F33t is all over the place, even without flaws.  That being said, what are your thoughts on the Chang-Springer interaction?  With the interlaminar shear playing a relatively small role (generally), can you confidently determine an interaction between interlaminar shear and tension (when the tension allowable varies considerably)?  I suppose it is a relatively conservative form so it should be OK.  If nothing else, it is a typical type of interaction, but I just wonder if the physics really hold up and if you can really prove it.  

I will have another go at the paper by Chang and Springer, but I wonder if they addressed some of the papers which reported significant scatter.  This is largely an academic question I suppose, but interesting to me nonetheless.



RE: Composites

Google gives no hits for "Chang-Springer interaction"! (It goes on to give non-useful hits for chang springer interaction without the quotes.) I have no record of it in any of my own references. Is this simultaneous through-thickness compression with interlaminar shear? I have some stuff on that but not by a Chang or Springer. What's their interaction?

RE: Composites

The C-S failure criteria is a simple elliptical interaction between interlaminar tension and interlaminar shear.  Was developed for predicting the strength of a curve laminate in bending.  Published in a paper in the late '80's IIRC.  If I recall where I put a copy I'll post the reference.

It works ok only if the "allowable" F33 and F13 values are backed out of curved laminate test data using the criteria and the allowable values are only used in analysis of similar structure (same thickness, radius, etc).   And the curved laminate test specimens should have intentional flaws (delam's) in the radius to avoid high scatter and unconservative results.


RE: Composites


It is also used in an ESDU (don't have the number off hand).  If memory serves me correctly, the original paper by Chang-Springer assumed that F22t = F33t, which seems to be a poor assumption even without a flaw (and a very poor assumption as an engineering solution).  Actual implementations don't assume this, as you have stated.  

I suppose it was a guess at an interaction, like many other failure criteria, but there is nothing particularly special about the physics of it.  It seems most of these sorts of failure criteria are just guesses and then they try to prove them later.  Some of them just so happen to fit test data better than others and hence become used more often.  

What I have wondered is if just using the interlaminar tension component would be good enough (neglecting the interlaminar shear).  If the F33 allowable is then backed out using that assumption, I suspect it would work pretty well (i.e. non interactive failure criterion).   


RE: Composites

Thanks SW and ESP. My personal interest was in how the shear strength is increased by through-thickness compression. Oddly my current work may well include an aspect of how through-thickness tension and shear can conspire to cause early failure, so it's relevant!

To the OP gkstress: still quite curious as to what 'unfolding' may be.

RE: Composites


I am currently developing software to handle a curved laminate, which is why I am interested in it.


I am debating whether or not to just address a pure moment or include the shear component.  I don't think the shear component is a very big driver, but it makes solving the stress state more challenging.  Anyway, if you have any other good info, let me know.


RE: Composites

Thank you all for your feedback.
From my understanding the term 'unfolding'(not frequently used) describes composite curved angle delamination onset as a result of through thickness stresses. I am currently researching in order to get a better understanding of this phenomenon.
ESPComposites thanks for the software link, very useful tools.


Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close