Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part C: Open Access

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/composites-part-c-open-access

Investigation of analytical model of crack propagation under multi axial

fatigue in fiber metal laminate
Mustafa M. Kadhim a, b, *, Fathi A. Alshamma a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Baghdad University, Iraq
b
Al-Qasim Green University, Babylon, Iraq

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mostly the aerospace and other applications parts during their service life are subjected to the multi axial fatigue
Multi axial fatigue, Crack growth rate with non-proportional loading. In this study, the fatigue crack growth in glass laminate aluminum reinforced
GLARE epoxy subjected to special case of non-proportional multiaxial fatigue (cyclic tension with constant shear) has
Delamination growth
been investigated. New prediction analytical model used empirical Paris equation has been adopted. Crack-
Bridging stress
Equivalent stress intensity factor
growth rate was in relation with the equivalent stress-intensity factor for mixed mode at the crack-tip.
Bridging stress-intensity factor was superimposed with the far-field stress-intensity factors to evaluate the
equivalent stress-intensity factor. Bridging stress distribution, crack opening contour, delamination shape and its
growth have been estimated simultaneously to evaluate the bridging stress-intensity factor. The obtained results
indicated that there was a considerable enhancement in the crack growth rate (193.8%), number of cycles
required to full failure (192%) and other performance characteristic as compared with the monolithic aluminum.
Numerical simulation by ABAQUS 2021 software has been implemented to verification of the analytical model. A
significant convergence in behavior between the extracted results from both analytical model and numerical
simulation with maximum deviation reach to 8.2%.

Introduction
Several decades ago, most research in aerospace industry focused on
improving the mechanical properties of materials and production a new
class of material. This improvement and development in scientific
research led to the discovery of fiber metal laminate FML in Delft Uni­
versity of Technology-Netherlands in 1978 [1–3]. FML is a combination
of thin aluminum layers bonded alternately with thin layers of fiber
reinforced epoxy to form advanced hybrid materials have excellent fa­
tigue crack propagation resistance and good other mechanical proper­
ties such as damage tolerance, corrosion resistance and impact strength
[4–8].
The most aerospace parts during their service life are subjected to
different loading types and especially fatigue loading, therefore, the
main purpose of manufacturing and development fiber metal laminate is
to increase fatigue crack propagation resistance. Due to fiber layers
existence between aluminum layers in fiber metal laminate, there is a
significant increasing in fatigue crack growth resistance. The fiber layers
remain intact and stresses pass over the crack resulting in a reduced
stress-intensity factor in the crack-tip and consequently a reduced
fatigue crack-growth rate. This action is called fiber bridging [9–15].
Several methods were adopted to predict fatigue crack growth model
in fiber metal laminate exposed to uniaxial loadings which are boundary
element method, finite element method, phenomenological method and
analytical method. Each of previous modeling method has advantages
and disadvantages as compared with experimental results [16–20].
The best of the above methods is analytical model published by R.C.
Alderlisten in 2006 and followed by Wilson model in 2013 for uniaxial
fatigue loading in glass laminate aluminum reinforced epoxy GLARE.
These models showed agreement with a wide range of the experimental
results when used different types and arrangements of GLARE [21, 22].
The fatigue crack growth of (GLARE) is represented as two simul­
taneous damage growths which are crack growth in aluminum layers
and delamination-growth through aluminum and fiber layers interfaces
as shown in figure 1 [21]. The crack is initiated and propagated in
aluminum layers earlier than in glass fiber reinforced epoxy layers,
therefore, these layers remain intact and stress-intensity factor at
crack-tip is estimated from far filed loading which open crack faces and
bridging loading of fiber which close crack faces [23–25].
At most the components in aircraft and other applications subjected

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.kadhim1803d@coeng.uobaghdad.edu.iq (M.M. Kadhim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2022.100305

Available online 9 August 2022

2666-6820/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305

Fig. 2. Lay-up of GLARE 2A for current study.

Specimen geometry and load conditions

In this study, 150 mm long and 30 mm width of GLARE 2A specimen

Fig. 1. FML configuration with bridging stress of fiber and delamination be­
tween layers.
to non-proportional multi axial fatigue loading, and to this day, an
analytical model for multi axial fatigue to predict crack growth in FML
has not been created and developed; therefore, this research tries to
characterize the fatigue crack growth in glass laminate aluminum
reinforced epoxy subjected to special case of non-proportional multi­
axial fatigue (cyclic tension with constant shear) by analytical proced­
ure. This model based on R.C. Alderlisten’s principles to represent the
effect of fiber bridging on the stress-intensity factor at the crack-tip and
then on the crack-growth rate. The obtained results have been validated
through ABAQUS 2021 numerical simulation on GLARE specimen.
GLARE arrangement
GLARE has a various grades with large number of lay-up arrange­
ments, therefore, a simple coding system was utilized to express about
lay-up and GLARE grade as shown in table 1. For GLARE design and
production, this coding scheme is critical. In this study, GLARE with
coding GLARE 2A-2/1-0.3 has been used which contains two layers of
2024-T3 aluminum alloy bonded with two intermediate 0◦ unidirec­
tional glass fiber reinforcement epoxy layers. The lay-up for the current
GLARE is shown in figure 2.
has been adopted with 4 mm initial crack through all thickness of
specimen. Special case of non-proportional multiaxial fatigue loading
was used to model fatigue crack growth in GLARE specimen. Loading
and geometry is shown in figure 3.
Fatigue crack growth analytical model
This research introduces method to investigate the crack’s growth in
the GLARE. This method depends on the following assumptions:
• Crack propagates in aluminum layer only; while glass fabric rein­
forced epoxy remain intact.
• Utilizing linear-elastic-fracture mechanics theory (LEFM)
• The empirical relation (Paris equation) that link the da/dN (crack-
growth rate) with the ΔKeq (equivalent stress-intensity factor range)
for thin monolithic aluminium plats is as well apply for the GLARE’s
aluminium layers.
• Using the mixed mode theories to find the equivalent stress-intensity-
factor ΔKeq for the aluminum layer in GLARE.
• The equivalent stress-intensity factor requires that all effects of fibre
bridging, crack opening restraint and delamination to be combined.

Table 1
Coding system of GLARE.
Grade of Secondary Aluminum Alloy Fiber Major
GLARE grade alloy thickness layers purpose of
(mm) stacking application
GLARE_1 - AA7475- From 0.3 0/0 Strength,
T761 to 0.4 yielding
stress and
fatigue
GLARE_2 GLARE_2A AA2024- From 0.2 0/0 Strength
T3 to 0.5 with fatigue
GLARE_2B AA2024- From 0.2 90 / 90 Strength
T3 to 0.5 with fatigue
GLARE_3 - AA2024- From 0.2 0 / 90 Impact and
T3 to 0.5 fatigue
GLARE_4 GLARE_4A AA2024- From 0.2 0 / 90 / Fatigue and
T3 to 0.5 0 strength
along
0◦ direction
GLARE_4B AA2024- From 0.2 90 / 0 / Fatigue and
T3 to 0.5 90 strength
along 90◦
direction
GLARE_5 - AA2024- From 0.2 0 /90 Impact
T3 to 0.5 /90 / 0 strength
GLARE_6 GLARE_6A AA2024- From 0.2 +45 / Off axis
T3 to 0.5 -45 properties
and shear
strength
GLARE_6B AA2024- From 0.2 -45 / Off axis
T3 to 0.5 +45 properties
and shear
strength
Fig. 3. Dimension and loading conditions of GLARE specimen.

2
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305

Individual layer loading The angle of the plane of the principal stresses which inclined with
the horizontal axis:
The combination of GLARE consists of isotropic material (aluminum
2τxy 2τal
layers) and orthotropic material (glass fiber reinforced epoxy). These tan2θp = = (11)
σx − σ y σal
materials are different in elasticity; therefore, each layer in GLARE has a
certain level of stresses. To calculate the stresses in aluminum and glass The original loading conditions on GLARE and central crack in x
fabric layers, classical lamination theory has been used for 2D loading direction can be represented by inclined crack with angle (θp) with
[26]. In this theory for a laminate, the stiffness matrix is written as: respect to the principal stresses as explained in figure 4. In this config­
∑
n uration of specimen and loading, crack propagation occur by two frac­
tp 2tal 2tf
[M]lam = [M]p = [M]Al + [M]f (1) ture modes (mode-I and mode-II).
tlam tlam tlam
p=1 The normal and parallel stresses to the crack plane which led to crack
Where [M]AL stiffness matrix of aluminum layer: propagation under opening mode (mode-I) and shearing mode (mode-II)
⎡ ⎤ can be found by using equilibrium equations along x and y directions
Eal μEal
0 which shown in figure 5.
⎢1 − μ 2
1− μ 2 ⎥ ∑
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢ μEal
⎥
⎥ Fx = 0 (12)
E
(2)
al
⎢
[M]Al = ⎢ 0 ⎥
1 − μ 2
1 − μ 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣
⎥ ∴ τ = (σ1 − σ2 )sinθp cosθp (13)
Eal ⎦
0 0 ∑
2(1 + μ)
Fy = 0 (14)
And [M]f stiffness matrix of fiber layer:
⎡ ⎤ ( )2 ( )2
Ex μyx Ex ∴ σ = σ 1 cosθp + σ 2 sinθp (15)
⎢1 − μ μ 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 − μxy μyx ⎥
⎢ xy yx
⎥ The crack growth rate in aluminum sheets of glass fiber reinforced
⎢ μ E ⎥
[M]f = ⎢ yx x Ey ⎥ (3) aluminum laminate (i.e. GLARE) has been evaluated by using Paris
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 − μxy μyx 1 − μxy μyx
⎣
⎥
⎦ equation with respect to the range of stress-intensity factor [32]:
0 0 Gxy da ( )n
= Ccg ΔKeq cg (16)
dN
The strain in loading direction for GLARE, aluminum and fiber layers
are equal otherwise, there is a separation between the layers. Where Ccg and ncg are fatigue parameter have been found from fa­
{ } tigue testing on thin aluminum sheet 2024-T3, and ΔKeq is the equiva­
{εal } = {εlam } = εf (4) lent stress-intensity factor range which determined by using the mixed
By using Hooke’s law during elasticity limit, the stresses in each layer mode theories [27, 30]:
can be found as: ΔKeff − I 1 (
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
)2 ( )2
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ΔKeq = + ΔKeff − I + 4 αΔKeff − II (17)
2 2
⎨ εx ⎬ ⎨0⎬
− 1
{εlam } = [M]lam {σ lam } ⇒ εy − 1
= [M]lam σ (5)
⎩γ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
xy lam
τ lam

{σal } = [M]al {εal } = [M]al [M]−lam1 {σ lam } (6)

⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎨ σx ⎬ ⎨0⎬
∴ σy = [M]al [M]−lam1 σ (7)
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
τxy al τ lam

Then σ al in y-direction and Ԏal in xy-plane for aluminum layers can

be found from the above equation. In similar minor the stresses in fiber-
adhesive layers (σf in y-direction and Ԏf in xy-plane) can be found from
the following equation:
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎨ σx ⎬ ⎨0⎬
∴ σy − 1
= [M]f [M]lam σ (8)
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
τxy f
τ lam

Equivalent stress intensity factor finding method

This method depend on the principal stresses in element of

aluminum layer loaded by non-proportional multi axial fatigue loading
which can be represented as follow:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(σ − σ )2 ( ) ̅
σ + σy
(9)
2
σ 1,2 = x ±
x y
+ τxy
2 2
For the case study of the research:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( ) ̅
σal σ al 2
σ 1,2 = ± + (τal )2 (10)
2 2
Fig. 4. Specimen with inclined crack and principal stresses.

3
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305

fibre bridging, crack opening restraint and delamination as shown in

figure 6.
Ktip− I = Kfarfield− I − Kbridging− I (20)

Ktip− II = Kfarfield− II (21)

When:
√̅̅̅̅̅
Kfarfield− I = βI σ π a (22)
√̅̅̅̅̅
Kfarfield− II = βII τ πa (23)

β is correction factor for geometry [31]:

1
βI,II = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 (24)
1 − 2a W

The stress-intensity factor of fiber bridging contribution Kbridging − I

has been calculated according to Alderlisten approach [21]:
[ ]
∑Ne
σ br,al (xi ) w a 1 b2i
Kbridging− I = 2 √̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 1 + (1 + μ) 2
i=1
πa a2 − x2 + b2 2 a − x2i + b2i
Fig. 5. Stresses in crack plane and principal stresses. i i

(25)
When α is material parameter equal to 1.155, ΔKeff-I and ΔKeff-II are σ br,al is bridging stress in aluminum layer. From force balance:
the effective stress-intensity factors ranges for opening mode (mode-I) ( )
and shearing mode (mode-II) respectively. σ br,al (nal tal ) = σ br nf tf (26)
( ) ( ) ( )
ΔKeff − I = Ktip− I max − Ktip− I min (18) nf tf
∴ σbr,al = σbr (27)
( ) ( ) nal tal
ΔKeff − II = Ktip− II max − Ktip− II min (19)
bi is the delamination length through interface between aluminum and
When Ktip – I and Ktip – II are stress-intensity factors at crack tip in
fiber-adhesive layers at any distance from crack center.
metal layers for mode-I and mode-II respectively which include the
Consider the delamination length bi and crack opening v(x) in fiber
combined effect of far field applied load (derived with LEFM principles),
direction. The initial delamination shape at starting period of crack
propagation according to the observation in the previous researches was
triangle, ellipse, cosine and parabolic shape. In this study, parabolic
shape was adopted according to the following equation:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
x − as
b(x)parabola = b(as ) 1 − (28)
a − as

Bridging stress distribution

Bridging stress is a type of stress that prevents cracks from opening

and lowers the stress-intensity factor near the crack-tip in aluminium
layers. The bridging stress is determined by the shape of delamination
and the contour of the crack opening.
The bridging stress is calculated by equating the relationships that
describe the crack opening in the aluminium layers with the relation­
ships describing the deformation and elongation of the fiber layers in the
delamination area (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Crack and Delamination geometry with Ni element over the total
Fig. 6. Far-field with fiber bridging loading in GLARE. crack length.

4
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305

v(x) = v∞ (x) − vbr (x) = δf (x) + δsh (29) δ(i, j) is kronecker delta
Where v∞(x) is crack opening due to far-field loading on the 1 if i = j
aluminum sheet derived according to LEFM (essentially due mode I δ(i, j)= { (42)
0 if i =
∕j
loading while mode II loading has no effect on crack opening in fiber
direction) [19]. H is a square matrix with dimension equal to the number of elements
over the total crack length (Ne × Ne). When the crack grows by incre­
σ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
v∞ (x) = 2 a2 − x2 (30) ment equal to the width of one element, the dimension of H matrix in­
Eal crease to become (Ne+1 × Ne+1), therefore, the dimension of this matrix
And vbr(x) is crack-closing effect due to the bridging stress which was continue to increase simultaneously with crack propagation. MATLAB
derived by Irwin [28] and modified by Alderlisten [21] to satisfy with software has been used to implement this iteration and to find the
bridging stress distribution at the delamination boundary. bridging stress distribution. Figure 8 explain the crack length division by
elements in delamination boundaries.
∫a
( )
vbr (x) = v x, xp dxp (31)
as
Delamination growth rate

Based on Marissen Derivation [29], the delamination growth rate

⎛ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ⎞
2 − x2 2
( ) ( ) 4 ⎜ a 1
(1 + μ )b(x ) a2 − x2j ⎟ ( )
(32)
j i
v x, xp = v xi , xj = ⎝tanh− 1 2
+ 22 2 ⎠σbr xj dxj
πE 2 2
a − xi + b(xi ) 2
xj − xi + b(xi ) a − x2i + b(xi )2
2

db/dN is determined with respect to energy release rate by the empirical

E, μ are elastic modulus and Poisson ratio of laminate respectively. If Paris equation.
x<xp use equation 32, else if x>xp replace xi = xj and xj = xi and use (√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )nd
db
equation 32. = Cd Gd max − Gd min (43)
dN
And δf(x) is the fiber layer elongation in the delamination area.
Where: Cd and nd are delamination parameters for mode II.
σ f ,tot (x) σf + σ br (x) This derivation was depended on the balance equation between
δf (x) = εf (x)b(x) = b(x) = b(x) (33)
Ef Ef elastic strain energy, applied work and surface energy in delaminated
The crack-opening displacement due to shearing deformation in the area to evaluate the energy-release rate.
fiber – adhesive layers δsh was derived based on linear elastic theory nf tf
(
nal tal Eal
)
( )2
[21]. Gd max = σf + σ br, max (x) (44)
2jEf nal tal Eal + nf tf Ef
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )̅
tf 1 1 ( )
δsh = Cb σtal + (34) Gd min =
nf tf nal tal Eal (
Rσ f + σbr, min (x)
)2
(45)
Gf Fal Ff 2jEf nal tal Eal + nf tf Ef
Where Cb is correction factor for delamination: When: j equal to the number of aluminum and fiber-adhesive layers
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Cb = 1 − (cosh αUD b(x) − tanh αUD b(x)sinh αUD b(x)) (35) interfaces in GLARE.

And
Crack growth angle
Gf
αUD = 2 (36)
tf Ef There are several criteria for crack growth angle predicting in metal
layer under mixed mode loadings which can be used in fiber metal
Fal = nal tal Eal and Ff = nf tf Ef (37) laminate. In this research, Richard criterion has been adopted [27]:
By substitution equations from 30 to 37 in equation 29, then: [ ⃒ ⃒
⃒Ktip− II ⃒ ] [ ⃒ ⃒
⃒Ktip− II ⃒ ]2
( ( ))
∘⃒
θc = ± 155.5 ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ − 83.4∘ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ (46)
∑Ne
( ) σ f + σbr xj Ktip− I ⃒ + ⃒Ktip− II ⃒ ⃒Ktip− I ⃒ + ⃒Ktip− II ⃒
v∞ (xi ) − v xi , xj = δsh (xi ) + b(xi ) (38)
Ef
j=1
± depend on Ktip-II (If Ktip-II >0 use negative sign else use positive sign).
[ ]
∑ Ne The mechanical properties and material constants of GLARE com­
v(xi ,xj )
b(xi ) = + b(x δ(i, j) σ br (xi )
σf
⇒v∞ (xi ) − δsh (xi ) − Ef j=1 σbr (xj ) Ef
i)
ponents which were used in this analytical model is adopted from the
previous researches [21] and inserted in tables 2 and 3.
∴ σbr (xi ) = H − 1 .Q (39)
Results and discussion
When
σf The obtained results from this prediction analytical model were
Q = v∞ (xi ) − δsh (xi ) − b(xi ) (40)
Ef focused on the cycles number required to crack propagation through full
( ) specimen width, crack growth rate, equivalent stress intensity factors,
∑Ne
v xi , xj b(xi ) delamination shape at different crack lengths and bridging stress
H= ( ) + δ(i, j) (41)
j=1 σ br xj
Ef distribution.
Figures 9 and 10 explain the relation between the numbers of cycles

5
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305

Fig. 8. Crack length division by elements and delamination boundary.

cycles to failure and 193.8% for crack growth rate). This due to the
Table 2
bridging effect of fiber which leads to increase the number of cycles
Mechanical properties of GLARE components [21].
required to failure and decreases the crack-growth rate [9, 23].
Mechanical properties 2024-T3 aluminum sheet Fiber-epoxy layer The range of equivalent stress-intensity factor versus crack length in
Elastic modulus Eal = 72400 MPa Ex = 5500 MPa
aluminum alloy and GLARE laminate subjected to mixed mode non-
Ey = 48900 MPa
Modulus of rigidity Gal = 27600 MPa Gxy = 5500 MPa proportional loading has been shown in figure 11. The results of this
Gxz = 1650 MPa figure indicate that there is a significant decreasing in values of the
Poisson’s ratio μ = 0.33 μxy = 0.33 equivalent stress-intensity factor for GLARE as compare with its values
μyx = 0.0371
in aluminum alloy only. This is due to the bridging stress-intensity factor
contribution at the crack-tip which works to close the crack and this lead
to decreasing the crack-growth rate and increase the component life [22,
Table 3 33]. In GLARE, ΔKeq decreases slightly at initial period and then rises
Paris equation constants [21]. due to the combined effect of bridging and far-field stress intensity
Material constants For crack propagation For delamination factors.
C Ccg = 2.17*10− 12
Cd = 0.05 The results of bridging stress distribution throughout the length of
N ncg = 2.94 nd = 5.5 the crack in delaminated area have been shown in figure 12 for four half
crack lengths (a = 3, 6, 9 and 12 mm). The bridging stress values are
arranged in ascending order from the center to reach maximum value at
with respect to the crack growth until certain length through the spec­ the near of the crack tip. This behavior helps to reduce the rate of crack
imen width and crack growth rate. The results have been obtained for growth in GLARE as compared with aluminum alloy only [23]. The
2024-T3 aluminum alloy and for GLARE 2A laminate under loading of bridging stress distribution overall shape during crack propagation did
100 MPa repeated tension and 10 MPa constant shear. These results not change and the peak value of bridging stress increase with increasing
indicate that there is a significant enhancement of GLARE performance crack length.
as compared with aluminum alloy only (about 192% for number of

Fig. 9. Crack length versus number of cycles with loading (100 MPa repeated tension and 10 MPa constant shear).

6
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma
Fig. 10. Crack-propagation rate vs. the length of the crack with loading (100 MPa repeated tension and 10 MPa constant shear).
Fig. 11. Equivalent stress-intensity factor range with respect to the length of the crack for aluminum and GLARE.
The delamination shape between the aluminum and fiber-adhesive
layers around the propagated crack was illustrated in figure 13. The
assumed initial delamination shape was parabolic shape and this shape
gradually converts to a triangular shape as long as the crack continues
increase in length.
Numerical simulation
To verification the analytical model results for crack propagation
through aluminum layers of GLARE and delamination length with
respect to the number of cycles under loading conditions of this
research, ABAQUS 2021 software has been used to perform numerical
simulation GLARE_2A specimen.
Three dimensional, deformable (solid base feature) parts were
created for aluminum and glass fiber-epoxy layers. For aluminum layers,
linear elastic fracture mechanics was adopted with maximum principal
stress (300 Mpa) for damage initiation and Benzeggagh Kenane (BK)
fracture criterion for mixed mode of damage evolution with 2900 and
2150 J/m2 mode I and II fracture energies determined experimentally.
Fiber glass – epoxy layer was represented as orthotropic material (with
7
Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305
engineering constant E1 = 48900 MPa, E2 = 5500 MPa, E3 = 5500 MPa,
μ12 = μ13 = 0.33, μ23 = 0.45, G12 = G13 = 5500 MPa and G23 = 1650
MPa).
The loading condition (Repeated tension 100 MPa and constant
shear 10 MPa) with the boundary conditions are shown in figure 14. For
easy job running without time consumption, one aluminum and fiber-
epoxy layer were included in this modeling simulation, therefore,
symmetrical boundary condition was applied in xy-plane of the GLARE
specimen. Direct cyclic and general static steps are used in this
modeling.
The adhesive bonding between FML layers is represented by master
to slave surface contact interaction technique. Fracture criterion with
VCCT technique was adopted to model the delamination growth in area
around the propagated crack. Mixed mode behavior according to BK law
and Paris equation (with parameters C3 = 0.05 and C4 = 5.5) were used
for this technique. The damage evolution was based on mode I and II
critical energy release rates (GIc = 804.371 J/m2 and GIIc = 501.904 j/
m2) which measured experimentally by double cantilever beam (DCB)
and end notched flexure (ENF) standards respectively, with exponent
equal to 1.5. XFEM crack through entire thickness of specimen was
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305

Fig. 12. Distribution of bridging stress along crack length.

Fig. 13. Delamination shape at various crack lengths.

Fig. 15. meshing of the model parts.

created to show the effect of the fatigue loading on the crack

Fig. 14. Boundary conditions which used to simulate GLARE specimen.
propagation.
3D-stress, linear, hexahedral with reduced integration element type
(C3D8R) is used to mesh both fiber-adhesive and aluminum layers. The
whole model elements are 24000 elements, 12000 elements for each
layer. Figure 15 explain meshing of the model parts.
The extracted results from this simulation model (crack propagation

8
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma
Fig. 16. Crack length versus number of cycles for numerical simulation and analytical model.
Fig. 17. Crack-propagation rate vs. the length of the crack for numerical simulation and analytical model.
versus number of cycles, crack growth rate versus crack length and the
delamination length at the initial crack tip versus number of cycles) have
been compared with the corresponding results of the analytical model to
validate it, as shown in the figures 16 to 18.
The results in figures 16 and 17 indicate that there is a similarity in
the behavior of crack growth for numerical simulation and analytical
model with maximum deviation reach to 8.2%. This is also applicable to
the crack growth rate of GLARE specimen with a little fluctuation for
numerical simulation. The delamination length at initial crack tip with
respect the number of cycles was shown in figure 18. From this figure, it
appears that there is a difference in the beginning of the curves for the
delamination growth. This can be attributed to the assumption of a
primitive form of the delamination length and shape (parabolic) before
the initial crack grows. And then a noticeable convergence in behavior
occurs as the delamination continues to grow. Previous researches
assumed that the initial delamination shape before crack growth as
triangular, parabolic, cosine and ellipse shape. These assumptions effect
on initial delamination growth [20–23].
The crack growth path and its orientation in aluminum layer of
GLARE specimen viewed by ABAQUS software simulation looks similar
9
Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305
to that extracted from analytical model (initial angle of crack growth
was 21.801◦ for simulation while 20.556◦ for analytical model) as
shown in the figure 19. As assumed in analytical model, in numerical
simulation crack was observed that it propagated in aluminum layer
only.
The delamination shape in area around the propagated crack be­
tween GLARE layers is shown in figure 20. The extracted results from
this figure indicate that the obtained delamination shape was not
triangular as obtained from the prediction analytical model.
Crack opening v(x) in aluminum layer of GLARE specimen at a point
2 mm away from the crack center with respect to the crack length was
inserted in figure 21. Both results of analytical and numerical simulation
indicate that there is a similarity in behavior with maximum deviation
reach to 9.1 %.
Conclusion
Crack propagation under the effect of multi axial fatigue with non-
proportional loading has been investigated simultaneously with
delamination-growth through the interfaces between the aluminum and
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305

Fig. 18. Delamination length at initial crack tip vs. number of cycles for numerical simulation and analytical model.

Fig. 19. Crack Growth path and its orientation.

Fig. 20. Delamination shape on fiber-adhesive layer.

fiber-adhesive layers in GLARE laminate.
Several facts can be pointed from this prediction analytical model
such as the crack-propagation rate of fiber metal laminate can be in
relation with the equivalent stress-intensity factor for mixed mode at the
crack-tip region using an empirical Paris equation which utilized for
monolithic aluminum. The equivalent stress-intensity factor has been
calculated from the principal stresses method after incorporation the
effect of the bridging stress-intensity factor. The distribution of bridging
stresses throughout the length of the crack can be found if the crack
opening contour and the delamination shape around crack are known.
The highest value of the bridging stress was at the distance near to the
crack tip. The delamination propagation at the layers interface in GLARE

10
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma
Fig. 21. Crack opening in aluminum layer vs. the length of the crack for numerical simulation and analytical model.
can be linked with the energy-release rate by using an empirical Paris
equation. The energy-release-rate along the crack length can be evalu­
ated by using energy balance and the bridging stress distribution.
The obtained results for the current loading conditions were vali­
dated by ABAQUS 2021 numerical simulation. The similarity in
behavior is the most important findings of this validation. It can be
concluded that the present analytical model is accurate to some extent
and suitable for the fatigue loading conditions (especially for non-
proportional loading consist of cyclic stress with constant stress).
In the future, to prove the accuracy, ability and comprehensiveness
of this analytical model, it is necessary to verify its results by comparing
them with experimental results for other loading conditions.
Declaration of interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix: Nomenclature
[M]lam: Laminate stiffness matrix
[M]p: Stiffness matrix of any layer
[M]Al: Stiffness matrix of aluminum layer
[M]f: Stiffness matrix of fiber-adhesive layer tp: Thickness of any
layer tlam: Thickness of laminate tal: Aluminum layer thickness tf: Fiber –
adhesive layer thickness
Eal: Elastic modulus of aluminum layer
μ: Poisson’s ratio for aluminum layer
Ex: Elastic modulus along x direction of fiber – adhesive layer
Ey: Elastic modulus along y direction of fiber – adhesive layer
μxy: Poisson’s ratio of fiber – adhesive layer
Gxy: Modulus of rigidity in xy plane for fiber – adhesive layer
Ɛlam: Elastic strain of fiber metal laminate
Ɛal: Elastic strain of aluminum layer
Ɛf: Elastic strain of fiber – adhesive layer
σal: Tensile stress in aluminum layer
Ԏal: Shear stress in aluminum layer
σf: Tensile stress in fiber – adhesive layer
Ԏf: Shear stress in fiber – adhesive layer
σ: Normal stress on the crack plane
Ԏ: Shear stress which is parallel to the crack plane
σ1,2: Principal stresses
11
Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305
ϴp: The angle of the plane of the principal stresses da/dN: Crack
growth rate (mm/cycle)
ΔKeq: Equivalent stress-intensity factor range
Ccg, ncg: Paris equation constants for crack growth
ΔKeff-I: Effective stress-intensity factor range for mode I
ΔKeff-II: Effective stress-intensity factor range for mode II
Ktip-I: Stress-intensity factor at the crack tip for mode I
Ktip-II: Stress-intensity factor at the crack tip for mode II
Kbridgibg-I: Stress-intensity factor of fiber bridging contribution
βI, II: Correction factor for geometry a: Crack length
W: Specimen width
σbr, al: Bridging stress in aluminum layer b: Delamination length nal:
number of aluminum layers nf: number of fiber – adhesive layers
σbr: Bridging stress in fiber – adhesive layer as: Initial crack length v
(x): Crack opening at any x v∞(x): Crack opening due to far-field loading
vbr(x): Crack closing due to bridging loading
δf: Fiber layer elongation
δsh: Crack-opening displacement due to shearing deformation
Cb: Correction factor for delamination
Fal: Stiffness of aluminum layer
Ff: Stiffness of fiber-adhesive layer
δ(i, j) Kronecker delta db/aN: Delamination growth rate (mm/cycle)
Cd, nd: Paris equation constants for delamination growth
Gd: Energy release rate j: Number of aluminum and fiber-adhesive
layers interfaces in GLARE
ϴc: Crack growth angle
Subscripts al: Aluminum layer f: Fiber-adhesive layer lam: Laminate
far-field: Far-field loading br: Bridging loading sh: Shearing deformation
cg: Crack growth d: Delamination growth
I: Mode I (Opening mode)
II: Mode II (Shearing mode) tip: Crack tip eq: Equivalent
References
[1] Aniket Salve, Ratnakar Kulkarni, Ashok Mache, A Review: Fiber Metal Laminates
(FML’s) – Manufacturing, Test methods and Numerical modeling, International
Journal of Engineering Technology and Sciences (IJETS) 6 (1) (2016) 71–84.
[2] Niranjan A. Patil, Sharad S. Mulik, Kiran S. Wangikar, Atul P. Kulkarni,
Characterization of Glass Laminate Aluminum Reinforced Epoxy- A Review,
Procedia Manufacturing 20 (2018) 554–562. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.20
18.02.083.
[3] Tamer Sinmazçelik, Egemen Avcu, Mustafa zgür Bora, Onur oban, A Review, Fiber
metal laminates, bonding types and applied test methods, Materials and Design 32
(2011) 3671–3685.
[4] Sunil Bhat, S. Narayanan, On Fabrication and Testing of GLARE, ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences 9 (9) (2014) 1606–1614.
M.M. Kadhim and F.A. Alshamma
[5] Fathi A. Alshamma, Mustafa M. Kadhim, Optimization of delamination resistance
of vacuum infused glass laminate aluminum reinforced epoxy (GLARE) using
various surface preparation techniques, Periodicals of Engineering and Natural
Sciences 10 (1) (2022) 361–375.
[6] T. Subesh, D. Yagaraj, V. Ramesh, Characterization of Fiber Metal Laminates,
Bonding and Manufacturing Methods, International Journal of Innovative
Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) 8 (11) (2019) 1062–1065. http://
doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.J1117.0981119.
[7] J.G. Carrillo, W.J. Cantwell, Mechanical properties of a novel fiber-metal laminate
based on a polypropylene composite, Mechanics of Materials 41 (2009) 828–838.
[8] Bharat Yelamanchi, Eric MacDoland, et al., The Mechanical Properties of Fiber
Metal Laminates Based on 3D Printed Composites, Materials 13 (2020) 1–15. http
://doi.org/10.3390/ma13225264.
[9] M.A.Nasir W.Asghar, et al., Investigation of fatigue crack growth rate in CARALL,
ARALL and GLARE, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures
(2016) 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12566.
[10] Anindito Purnowidodo Sutedja, et al., Tensile Strength and Fatigue Crack Growth
Behavior of Natural Fiber Metal Laminates, Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology 4 (2020) 2809–2822.
[11] Aiea A. Elhabak, et al., Mechanical Behavior of Aluminum Hybrid Laminates,
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 14 (20) (2019) 3455–3462.
[12] W.S. Johnson, M.W. Hammond, Crack growth behavior of internal titanium plies of
a fiber metal laminate, Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 1705–1715.
[13] Kai Jin, Kai Chen, Xinyi Luo, Jie Tao, Fatigue crack growth and delamination
mechanisms of Ti/CFRP fiber metal laminates at high temperatures, Fatigue and
Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures (2020) 1–11. http://doi.org/
10.1111/ffe.13178.
[14] Tohru Takamatsu, Takashi Matsumura, et al., Fatigue crack growth properties of a
GLARE3-5/4 fiber/metal laminate, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 63 (1999)
253–272.
[15] J.J. Homan, Fatigue initiation in fiber metal laminates, International Journal of
Fatigue 28 (2006) 366–374.
[16] J.R. Yeh, Fatigue crack growth in fiber-metal laminates, International Journal of
Solids and Structures 32 (1995) 2063–2075.
[17] D.A. Burianek, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001.
[18] T. Takamatsu, T. Shimokawa, T. Matsumura, Y. Miyoshi, Y. Tanabe, Evaluation of
fatigue crack growth behavior of GLARE3 fiber/metal laminates using compliance
method, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 2603–2616.
12
Composites Part C: Open Access 9 (2022) 100305
[19] R. Marissen, Fatigue Crack Growth Predictions in Aramid Reinforced Aluminum
Laminates (ARALL), J. Aircraft 25 (2) (1988) 135–140.
[20] Ya-Jun Guo, Xue-Ren Wu, Bridging stress distribution in center-cracked fiber
reinforced metal laminates: modeling and experiment, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 63 (1999) 147–163.
[21] R.C. Alderlisten, Analytical prediction model for fatigue crack propagation and
delamination growth in Glare, International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007) 628–646.
[22] G.S. Wilson, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2013.
[23] Po-Yu Chang, Jenn-Ming Yang, Modeling of fatigue crack growth in notched fiber
metal laminates, International Journal of Fatigue 30 (2008) 2165–2174.
[24] S.U. Khan, R.C. Alderlisten, R. Benedictus, Delamination in Fiber Metal Laminates
(GLARE) during fatigue crack growth under variable amplitude loading,
International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1292–1303.
[25] R.C. Alderlisten, Fatigue in fiber metal laminates: The interplay between fatigue in
metals and fatigue in composites, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials
and Structures 42 (2019) 2414–2421. http://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12995.
[26] Sunil Bhat, Suresh Nagesh, C.K. Umesh, S. Narayanan, Theoretical Model for
Estimation of Yield Strength of Fiber Metal Laminates, Materials Sciences and
Engineering 225 (2017) 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/225/1/0121
00.
[27] H.A. Richard, M. Fulland, M. Sander, Theoretical crack path prediction, Fatigue
and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 28 (2004) 3–12. http://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1460-2695-2004.00855.x.
[28] H. Tada, P.C. Paris, G.R. Irwin, The Stress Analysis of Crack Handbook, 3rd edition,
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000.
[29] R. Marissen, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, 1988.
[30] F. Erdogan, G.C. Sih, On the Crack Extension in Plate Under Plane Loading and
Transverse Shear, Journal of Basic Engineering 85 (1963) 519–525.
[31] Konrad Dadej, Jaroslaw Bienias, The role of non-linear material constitutive
behaviour in modeling of fatigue crack growth of laminated plates, Composite
structure 267 (2021) 1–13.
[32] Fathi A. Alshamma, Omar Ali Jassim, Dynamic crack propagation in nano-
composite thin plate under multi-axial cyclic loading, Journal of Materials
Research and Technology 853 (2019) 1–10.
[33] Anindito Purnowidodo, Hilmi Iman, Crack propagation behavior on metal laminate
of FMLs after a high tensile overload under high constant amplitude load, FME
Transactions 48 (2020) 419–426. http://doi.org/10.5937/fme2002419P.