REPORT

Low-energy impact: Impact damaged stringer stiffened panels

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. POOMAN S. SATINDER SINGH
DEPARMENT OF APPLIED 2K17/EC/150
CHEMISTRY
 Low-energy impact: Impact damaged stringer stiffened panels

INTRODUCTION
Failures in polymer composites due to in-service anomalies, where failure of the component
can be attributed to a degrading factor to which it was exposed during service, are considered.
Example of components that have failed due to the presence of impact damage are given in
impact case study, the effect of impact damage on the failure of post-buckled stiffened panels is
shown. This structure received a relatively low-energy impact, resulting in relatively limited
damage. It demonstrates how exposure of a component to conditions that are outside the
original design window can lead to considerable degradation in performance, and unexpected
failure. Composites are being more widely used nowadays. Impact damage tolerance is one of
the key drivers for composite design, and so there are different impacts of the same.
In this case study, Post-buckled stiffened panels were tested to validate predictive models. In
this study, the effect of impact damage on the failure of these panels is shown. This structure
received a relatively low energy impact, in which the inflicted damage was relatively limited.

ANALYSIS
Firstly, considering the panel containing the bay impact (SFN1), the C-scans revealed skin
delamination, of the pristine panel (SFN5), occurred adjacent to the mid-plane of the panel (0
°/90 ° ply interface) after stiffener debonding. Exposure of this surface revealed the damage
growth from the impact site. Also the larger delamination which grew from the free edges of
the panel. No other significant delamination were observed in the skin and also have some
limited axial extension of this delamination, within the same interface, along the 0 ° ply. The
shear cusps became more upright and damaged, indicating the presence of out-of-plane
closure forces on the delamination. Once beneath the stringers, the delamination appeared to
have been arrested. There was no direct through-thickness crack path linking the plane of the
embedded defect with the skin/stringer interface.
For examining more deeply, a central section of the skin was removed and the fracture
surfaces exposed. It was apparent that there was a 0 °/90 ° ply interface delamination in the
outer skin (between plies 3 and 4); this delamination extended from the impact site, but upon
reaching the stiffeners, it started to migrate up through the skin towards the surface (skin face).
This delamination had been generated before compression failure of the panel. Detail of the
compression failure of the skin in the bay showed that the failure was a combination of
compression failure of the plies and some in-plane shear fracture. Fiber ends in this region
showed evidence of out-of-plane micro-buckling, which was indicative of delamination induced
compression failure of the 0 ° layers and also evidences delamination of the skin had developed
before compression failure of the load-bearing plies.

METHODS
C-scans : C-Scan refers to the image produced when the data collected from an ultrasonic
inspection is plotted on a plan view of the component. The true definition according to BS EN
1330-4:2000 is the 'Image of the results of an ultrasonic examination showing a cross-section of
the test object parallel to the scanning surface.' However, the C-scan does not have to be a
single cross-section but often shows a combination of measurements obtained through the
whole thickness.
Here ,in this case study it is used for detecting defects and delamination present on the
surface of stringer stiffened panels.

CONCLUSIONS
The panel which exhibited the least reduction in strength (7%) was that containing the bay
impact (SFN1). the panel containing the foot impact (SFN2) exhibited the greatest reduction in
strength (29%) but did not exhibit any skin/ stringer detachment.
The foot impact, in SFN2, introduced a delamination at a critical depth (near surface), and that
this is subsequently grew during compressive loading. Such a delamination did not develop
during impact in the bay (SFN1) because the local geometry of the site promoted mid-plane
rather than near-surface delamination.
The delamination (SFN1) from the impact site extended beneath the stiffeners and there was
evidence that the presence of the stiffener increased the closing forces on the delamination
plane. A consequence of these closing forces was that the delamination deformed the stiffener
in this region