Key Engineering Materials Vols 525-526 (2013) pp 233-236 Online: 2012-11-12

© (2013) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.525-526.233

Failure of composite T-joints in bending with through-the- thickness

reinforcement: stitching vs Z-pinning

H Cuia, Y-L Lib

School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Youyi Xilu 127, Xian, China
a
cuihao_nwpu@hotmail.com, b liyulong@nwpu.edu.cn

Keywords: Z-pin; Stitch; Delamination; Fracture toughness;

Abstract. The stitched composite T-joints and Z-pinned ones subject to bending load were
investigated in this paper. A simple theoretical model characterizing the failure process of through
the thickness reinforcement (TTR) during mode I delamination was presented. The experimental
results showed that the initial damage load and maximum load of stitched specimens are higher than
that of Z-pinned ones, while the energy absorption of stitched specimens during delamination is
lower than that of Z-pinned ones. The energy absorption values predicted by the present model meet
the experiments reasonably well. High friction force at the interface between TTR tow and matrix,
with a long pull-out displacement of the tow, helps to improve the delamination resistance.

1. Introduction
Delamination resistance has become a major concern for composite laminates in the last twenty
years. Z-pinning and stitching are two of the most common ways to reinforce composite laminates
in the thickness direction. Z-pinning has been reported to be able to improve the delamination
toughness of composite laminates significantly [1, 2], which is concluded to be not effective at
resisting the crack initiation, but effective at resisting the propagation of long cracks [3]. Stitching is
capable of resisting damage growth, arresting crack propagation and retarding final fracture [4]. The
mode I fracture toughness can be improved by 47 times [5] with Kevlar stitches, and increasing the
cross-sectional area of the stitch has a more profound influence on fracture toughness than
increasing the stitch density [6]. Most of existing work focuses on comparison between TTR
reinforced specimens and unreinforced specimens, while less comparative investigations between
stitched laminates and Z-pinned laminates have been conducted. Besides, traditional data reduction
methods for evaluating delamination toughness based on linear elastic fracture mechanics may be
not applicable, due to the large bridging zone during the delamination process [7, 8]. The

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.ttp.net. (ID: 129.128.216.34, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada-27/04/15,01:58:20)
234 Advances in Fracture and Damage Mechanics XI

delamination resistance is strongly dependent upon specimen geometry [7], and expensive tests
need to be carried out for every single laminate with different geometry. A theory that can predict
the reinforced delamination toughness is strongly desired by the industry.
Bending tests of composite laminated T-joints reinforced respectively by Z-pinning and
stitching have been carried out in this paper, in purpose of comparing their crack resistance
performance. An analytical model is developed to highlight the difference between Z-pinning and
stitching, and predict the mode I fracture toughness of TTR strengthened composite laminates.

2. Specimen introduction and experiment configuration

Fig.1 illustrates the T-joint specimens used in this investigation. The Z-pins were made of
T300/BMI, their diameter was 0.3 mm, and the pin to pin spacing was 3 mm. The stitch yarns were
Kevlar-29 fiber and the stitch to stitch spacing was 5 mm. The specimen was placed on a steel
support during the experiment as shown in Fig.1. The bending test was conducted by a static load
frame with a built-in load monitor cell. The displacement of and load on the indenter have been
recorded.

Fig.2. Failure process of T-joint in bending

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Comparison between Z-pinning and stitching
The failure process of a Z-pinned specimen-joint is shown in Fig.2-a, which is similar to that of
stitched specimen. The load-displacement curves (Fig.2-b) are almost linear at the initial part of the
curve until the onset of matrix cracking at the intersection radius. At the instance of damage
initiation, a sharp drop of the load-displacement curve can be observed. The load increases linearly
again with a reduced slope. Two or more “zigzag like” distinct loops of the load increasing linearly
and dropping sharply can be observed until catastrophic failure comes out. It may be concluded
from Fig.2-c that Z-pinning is less effective at resisting damage initiation and improving the
maximum load as compared to stitching. However, the Z-pinning is more efficient at improving the
delamination toughness than stitching.
3.2 Generalized TTR model
The failure modes of Z-pins and stitch fibers are shown in Fig.3-a. Most of the stitch threads
ruptured near the delamination surface, while most of the Z-pins were pulled out completely despite
some splitting that occurred along the longitudinal direction. The TTR model is sketched in Fig.3-b.
The energy absorption during the failure process of the TTR, in particular, the benefits of improving
interfacial delamination toughness by stitching or Z-pinning, is discussed as following.
 Key Engineering Materials Vols. 525-526 235

Fig.3. (a) Failure modes and (b) schematics of through thickness reinforcement
For stitching reinforcement, the energy was mainly dissipated by rupture of the stitch fibers, the
interfacial debonding between stitch fiber and matrix, and the pull out process of the ruptured stitch
fibers. Hence, the total energy absorption of the stitch fiber is
1 Lˆ
Es = Er + Ed + E f = σ sε s LAf + GIIC
D
π DLˆ + ∫ f π Dldl (1)
2 0

Where Er is the fracture energy per unit Kevlar fiber cross section area, Ed is the energy dissipation
caused by interfacial shear debonding, Ef is the energy absorption during the pulling out process; h
and D represents the length and diameter of the TTR fiber that has experienced elastic deformation

during the fracture process [9], L is the length of the ruptured stitch that will be pulled out of the

GD σ ε
matrix, for Z-pin tow, L is equal to L . IIC is the interfacial mode II fracture toughness, s , s is
the fracture stress and fracture strain of TTR fibers.
The energy dissipation of Z-pins was mainly caused by interfacial debonding and the pull out
process of the Z-pin fibers. Therefore, the total energy absorption for Z-pins is:
L
Ez = GIIC
D
π DL + ∫ f π D l dl (2)
0

Finally, the energy absorption of the TTR per unit laminate area can be obtained as:
D ˆ 1
GIIC L + fLˆ2
1 2 4π
GS = σ sε s Lη + η (Stitching) (3)
2 Af 60%
D
4GIIC L + 2 fL2
GZ = η (Z-pinning) (4)
D
3.3 Model Validation
D
The GIIC of Z-pinning and stitching are assumed to be the same, with a typical mode II

fracture toughness of 1.0 N/mm. The frictional stress between the TTR rod and matrix is chosen as
15 Mpa [10]. The reinforced area of the specimens tested here is about 50 mm long. Hence, the
difference of energy absorbed between stitched joints and Z-pined counterparts is 58.5 N. mm when

the parameter L̂ is 0.5 mm for stitching. When L̂ is 1 mm, the difference is 38.5 N. mm. According
to the test results, the average energy absorption of Z-pinned specimens is 58.7 N. mm higher than
the stitched ones. The presented model meets experimental results reasonably well.
236 Advances in Fracture and Damage Mechanics XI

The sensitivity of the energy absorption on these uncertain parameters has been evaluated. It
was found that the frictional stress has significant influence on the energy absorption performance,
while the influence of interfacial bonding is negligible. Keeping the TTR tow area fraction constant
as 0.8 % for both stitching and Z-pinning, the energy absorption is also calculated for both
Z-pinning and stitching of different diameters. The efficiency of both Z-pins and stitches decrease
with the increase of diameter. For thick laminates where the pull-out length is longer, the effect of
tow diameter is more significant.

Fig. 4. Energy absorption for stitching and Z-pinning with different diameters.

4. Summary
Experiments show that Z-pinning is not effective at resisting the crack initiation, but is able to
resist long cracks efficiently. Stitching is more effective at raising the crack initiation load when
compared with Z-pinning. A simple mechanical model characterizing is presented to predict the
efficiency of Z-pinning and stitching. The model presented here supplies a convenient method to
evaluate the efficiency of TTR on improving the delamination toughness.

Acknowledgement
This work is funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.10932008) and the
111 project (No.B07050) in China.

References
[1] G. Freitas, C. Magee, Dardzinski, T. Fusco. J Adv Mater Vol. 25 (1994), p. 36
[2] K.L.Rugg, B.N.Cox, M.Massabo. Composites Part A Vol. 33 (2002), p.177
[3] A.P. Mouritz. Composites: Part A Vol. 38 (2007), p. 2383
[4] K. Dransfield, C. Baillie, Y.W. Mai. Composites Science and Technology Vol. 50 (1994), p. 305
[5] L.Chen, P.G. Ifju , B. V. Sankar. Journal of Composite Materials Vol.35 (2001), p.1137
[6] L.Chen, B.V. Sankar, P.G. Ifju. 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference 7-10 April 2003, Norfolk, Virginia
[7] I.K. Partridge, D.D.R. Cartie. Composites: Part A Vol. 36 (2005), p. 55
[8] D.D.R. Cartié, J.M. Laffaille, I.K. Partridge, A.J. Brunner. Engineering Fracture Mechanics Vol.
76 (2009), p. 2834
[9] K. P. Plain, L. Tong. Composite Structures Vol. 88 (2009), p. 558
[10] M. Meo, F. Achard, M. Grassi. Composite Structures Vol. 71 (2005), p. 383
Advances in Fracture and Damage Mechanics XI
10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.525-526

Failure of Composite T-Joints in Bending with Through-the-Thickness Reinforcement: Stitching Vs Z-

Pinning
10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.525-526.233

DOI References
[3] A.P. Mouritz. Composites: Part A Vol. 38 (2007), p.2383.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.08.016