Design, manufacturing and testing of pull-out

and shear-out insert allowable for

sandwich applications
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin
Department of Structures and Materials, National Institute for Aerospace Research Elie Carafoli, Bucharest, Romania
Alexandra-Raluca Axenie
Department of Space, National Institute for Aerospace Research Elie Carafoli, Bucharest, Romania
Adrian Gaz, George Pelin, Adriana Stefan and Cristian Moisei
Department of Structures and Materials, National Institute for Aerospace Research Elie Carafoli, Bucharest, Romania, and
Albert Arnau Cubillo
Romaero S.A., Bucharest, Romania

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to present the procedures necessary to determine the insert allowable for a composite sandwich, considering that the
inserts were the most commonly used means to install equipment on the composite structure of Clean Sky 2 (CS2)-RACER compound helicopter.
Design/methodology/approach – The installation of the equipment inside of the airframe shall comply with the certification regulations, especially in
relation to the inertial factors. Establishing of the needed number of inserts to fix the equipment is directly linked to the allowable coming from coupon
tests. The materials and test procedures to which they were subjected are part of the process qualification used in the development of the CS2-RACER
Main Fuselage. The samples were tested in two different static mechanical loadings, consisting of pull-out insert and shear-out insert tests. The
mechanical behaviour and failure mechanism of the materials were evaluated using optical and scanning electron microscopy.
Findings – The insert installation on the sandwich structure influences the behaviour and mechanical properties during pull-out and shear-out
testing.
Research limitations/implications – The limited data available in standardized documents related to insert testing makes it difficult to compare
results with certified baseline values.
Practical implications – To reduce the effort of selecting the optimized insert system, specific parameters are included in analytical pre-sizing, i.e.
type of loads, geometry, materials, failure modes, special conditions such as manufacturing and testing.
Originality/value – The results of the study presenting the design, manufacturing and mechanical testing of pull-out and shear-out inserts used in
composite materials sandwich-type coupons provide valuable information regarding the insert allowable determination.
Keywords RACER helicopter, Pull-out insert, Shear-out insert, Sandwich composites, Failure analysis, Adhesive fixation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction The CS2-RACER, which combines the vertical agility of a

A compound rotorcraft is an aircraft that combines the main
rotor with supplementary propulsion – usually additional thrust
engines or propellers. The challenge in rotorcraft design is
always to improve payload-lifting capability, reduce fuel burn
and increase the vehicle’s range. In Clean Sky 2 (CS2)
program, the two planned rotorcraft demonstrators have a very
specific and novel feature: by combining forward “pull” or
thrust with the vertical lift capability, both aircraft models will
“bridge the gap” between traditional helicopters and fixed-wing
aircraft (IADP, 2020).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1748-8842.htm
helicopter with the pace of a fixed-wing aircraft, demonstrates
the possibilities of pan-European aeronautical collaboration
facilitated through the Clean Sky ecosystem (CleanAviation,
2019).
RACER demonstrator is one of the two demonstrators to be
built inside the Innovative Aircraft Demonstrator Platform
This work was co-financed from “RoRCraft CompAct” Project, the European
Structural and Investment Funds through Operational Program Competitiveness
2014–2020; Action 1.1.3 Creating synergies with R&DI actions of the
Framework Program Horizon 2020 of the European Union and other R&DI
international programs, project number POC2/1.1.3 H/01.02.2018, coordinated
by National Institute for Aerospace Research “Elie Carafoli”. The content of this
material does not necessarily represent the official position of the European
Union or the Romanian Government.

Received 21 October 2022

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology Revised 15 February 2023
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842] 12 May 2023
[DOI 10.1108/AEAT-10-2022-0280] Accepted 28 May 2023
 Sandwich applications
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.
(IADP). “Fast Rotorcraft” RACER is based on a compound
rotorcraft concept (vertical take-off and landing) initially
evaluated with the Airbus Helicopters X3 demonstrator
(Cabrit, 2017).
Sandwich composite panels and structures are widely used in
the aerospace, automotive and marine industries, due to their
suitable properties for applications needed in these fields,
which combines low density with high bending and
compression stiffness compared to solid panels (Mouritz and
Thomson, 1999; Zenkert, 1997).
Ideally, sandwich panels should be constructed without
junction inserts; however, they are strongly required within
areas with the change in stiffness and strength to distribute
loads uniformly with less stress concentration in the sandwich
panel (Kim and Lee, 2008). Considering also that, the biggest
issue concerning sandwich structures is their junction with the
materials around them, therefore to transmit concentrated out-
of-plane loads back into the skin of the sandwich, mechanical
inserts are required, that represent mechanical fasteners with
the role of holding items attached to the panel (Lapid et al.,
2014).
Insert installation into the sandwich structures has to be
performed via a selected method, to ensure both load transmission
as well as viable technical routes for fabrication.
Literature presents a very limited number of studies involving
sandwich insert installation procedures, design, testing and/or
investigations and most of them focus on calculation methods.
The complexity of the insert/sandwich structures involves a
multitude of factors that can contribute to the load distribution,
structure failure limit as well as failure mechanism. Literature
certifies very diverse studies, some investigate the potting
adhesive compound variation and the effect on pull-out tensile
tests results (Lapid et al., 2014), others focus on finite element
method analysis and tensile and shear mechanical tests in order
to evaluate the behaviour of inserts in sandwich composites (Roy
et al., 2014), other studies investigate the strength of the insert
itself, while changing the configuration of the sandwich
composite structure (Song et al., 2008), others investigate the
insert type and potting radius of the adhesive (Raghu et al.,
2009), while others analysed the local bending effects induced in
the surrounding area of inserts in sandwich panels (Bozhevolnaya
Figure 1 Typical bracket installation
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
et al., 2004). In 2008, a study (Kim and Lee, 2008) presented the
investigations on load transfer characteristics of the partial type
insert for composite sandwich panels with respect to the insert
shape, using aluminium honeycomb core, two laminates of
carbon fibre/epoxy composite and aluminium inserts.
According to the insert installation method, the inserts can
be partial type or through thickness type, the selection between
these two types depending on the application and how the
inserts are placed (Kim and Lee, 2008). Inserts generally
transfer the loads in transverse, shear and torque ways. The
attachment of cabin safety equipment and walls, shell structural
attachments require low load carrying, while flap and landing
gear door junctions require high-load inserts (Kim and Lee,
2008).
The current paper presents the procedures necessary to
determine the joining of the inserts to the composite sandwich,
considering that the inserts were the most commonly used
means to install equipment on the composite structure of the
CS2-RACER compound helicopter. The insert allowables for
composite sandwich are greatly influenced by the sandwich
structure quality and by the joining of the insert to this
structure. The installation of the equipment inside of the
airframe shall comply with the certification regulations,
especially in relation to the inertial factors. A typical bracket
installation can be seen in Figure 1.
In this regard, the establishing of the needed number of
inserts to fix the equipment is directly linked to the allowable
coming from coupon tests. The installation constraints (e.g.
narrow spaces, sealing requirements, etc.) will lead to several
types of insert types and installation methods. All these
variations shall have as design background the allowable
coming from tests.
The design of such of fixation on a sandwich panel will have
to take into account the compatibility between the size of the
insert (height), which is usually a standard part, the size of the
honeycomb (thickness) and its mechanical characteristics, and
the position of the center of gravity of the equipment’s mass.
Taking into account the design parameters, to size an insert-
based solution system, a large number of options are available
in the market. To reduce the effort of selecting the optimized
insert solution system, analytical pre-sizing is used. The specific
 Sandwich applications
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.
parameters included in this pre-sizing are the type of loads, the
geometry, the materials, the failure modes and the special
conditions such as manufacturing and testing.
The materials and test procedures to which they were
subjected are part of the process qualification used in the
development of the CS2-RACER Main Fuselage (Figure 2). The
samples were tested in two different static mechanical loadings,
consisting of pull-out insert and shear-out insert tests. Although
only simple load cases were tested, these are the required
allowables for the methods used in industry to structural sizing of
a fastener-insert joint. The mechanical behaviour of the materials
was evaluated using microscopic techniques consisting of optical
microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, to evaluate the
mechanism involved during mechanical testing.
The results of the study presenting the design, manufacturing,
and mechanical testing of pull-out and shear-out inserts used in
composite materials sandwich-type coupons provide valuable
information regarding the insert allowable determination.
Samples development and configuration
There were two types of inserts (DHS 443–152 Airbus
Helicopters Standard) used in the current study, with 4 mm
thread diameter DHS 443–152.81 (M4) and with 6 mm thread
diameter DHS 443–152.87(M6) respectively, that were tested in
a junction with a DIN 912 Steel Grade 8.8 fastener (Figure 3).
The potting adhesive material used for mounting the inserts is
ECS 6054–1023 which is an Airbus Helicopters Standard
adhesive (Table 1).
The samples consisted of sandwich type materials, based on
15 mm Nomex honeycomb HRH-10–3.2–48 (LN 29967 A4
Airbus Helicopters Standard) (HexWebHRH-10, 2017) as
sandwich core materials and carbon fibre-reinforced epoxy
composites (CFRP) prepreg M18/1/43%/G939 (ECS0017-
218 Airbus Helicopters Standard) (HexPlyM18/1, 2020) as
sandwich skins. The upper skin (facing) was based on CFRP
monolith consisting of three prepreg layers (ECS0017-218),
disposed at [0/90, 145/
45, 0/90] lay-up configuration, with
the thickness of 1.05 mm while the lower skin consisted of two
CFRP prepreg layers disposed at [145/
45/, 0/90] lay-up
configuration with the thickness of 0.7 mm. The core and skins
Figure 2 CS2 RACER main fuselage
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
were bonded together through the use of a certified adhesive film
consisting of Cytec FM300 (ECS6060-1073 Airbus Helicopters
Standard). The specimens for pull-out and shear-out testing were
cut into square shape geometry, with 100  100 mm outside
dimensions. The specimen’s dimension, the insert location and
the geometry configuration are illustrated in Figure 4, whereas
the lay-up configuration is illustrated in Figure 5. The
approximate weight it is 38.3 g for the M4 specimen
configuration and 40.8 g for the M6 specimen configuration.
There were two modes used for the insert attachment
techniques into the sandwich-based samples, as shown in Figure 4:
1 Mode 1 (no potting added at the bottom of the blind
threaded insert): The sandwich was pierced, the insert
was placed in the hole and the adhesive was injected
through the insert inlet slots, no potting was added at the
bottom of the blind threaded insert. This method was
used to simulate deliberately an erroneous mounting of
the metallic inserts to the sandwich samples.
The adhesive embedding of the lower flange of the insert was
omitted in this method, as shown in Figure 4. In this way, the
lower skin of the sandwich is not active in the mechanical test
performed on these samplesL
1 Mode 2 (potting added at the bottom of the blind
threaded insert): The sandwich was pierced, a thin layer of
adhesive was placed at the base of the hole (potting added
at the bottom of the blind threaded insert), afterwards the
insert was placed in the hole and the adhesive was injected
through the insert inlet slots. This mounting method was
indicated by Airbus Helicopters technical specifications.
As Figure 5 illustrates, it can be observed that the upper face
composed of three layers is the working face of the composite
sandwich sample.
Pull-out and shear-out test preparation
Design and development of fastening device for samples
testing
Taking into consideration that pull-out and shear-out tests do
not follow a general standard at this moment, the testing
 Sandwich applications Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.

Figure 3 Dimensions of inserts DHS 443–152

Table 1 Sample configuration and dimensions

Fastener type, Honeycomb core type, Upper facing type, Lower facing type, Dimensions [mm] and
Insert type material and metric material and thickness material and layup material and layup weight [g] of Inserts
DHS 443–152.81 DIN 912 Nomex Carbon fibre Prepreg Hexcel Carbon fibre Prepreg Hexcel A = 14.22
Steel Grade 8.8 Hexcel M18/1/43%/G939 M18/1/43%/G939 L = 12.7
M4 HRH-10-3.2-48 (ECS0017-218) (ECS0017-218) C = 3.0
(LN 29967 A4) [0,45,0] [45,0] E = 10.16
15 mm H = 6.6
m = 5.70 g
DHS 443–152.87 DIN 912 Nomex Carbon fibre Prepreg Hexcel Carbon fibre Prepreg Hexcel A = 17.4
Steel Grade 8.8 Hexcel M18/1/43%/G939 M18/1/43%/G939 L = 12.7
M6 HRH-10-3.2-48 (ECS0017-218) (ECS0017-218) C = 3.6
(LN 29967 A4) [0,45,0] [45,0] E = 13.21
15 mm H = 7.9
m = 8.12 g
Source: Table by authors
 Sandwich applications
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.
Figure 4 Insert installation method scheme
Figure 5 Specimen lay-up configuration
accessories and parameters were established according to
Airbus Helicopters specifications established within the
RACER project. The mounting devices used for pull-out and
shear-out tests were designed and conceived in INCAS
(Figure 6), and they are currently under patenting process,
therefore, limited technical details can be given.
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Figure 6 Sample mounted in (a) pull-out device, (b) shear-out device
(designed and manufactured in INCAS)
Torque pre-test
Before performing the actual mechanical tests, all samples were
subjected to a pre-test, intended to check if they can undergo the
limit load (LL) torque value, in accordance with assembling
 Sandwich applications
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.
methods for a fastener-insert joint. The value of the pre-toque
moment was hand calculated for threaded fastener holes with
pretension, in accordance with the VDI-recommendations (VDI-
RICHTLINIEN-2330, 2003). The torque was applied before
testing the inserts for pull-out and shear-out allowable, using a
high-precision digital wrench. The aim is to verify that neither the
insert rotation nor cracking noises will be observed during torque
application. Only the specimens that passed the torque pre-test
were further subjected to pull-out or shear-out tests.
Pull-out insert test
In the pull-out test, the load must be introduced parallel with
the axis of the insert (and normal to the working face of the
sample). The parameters of the test were established by Airbus
Helicopters requirements and were the following:
 Preload: F = 50 N with speed test of 0.5 mm/min.
 Test Speed S = 2 mm/min.
 Stop criterion: Load until insert failure (adhesive failure).
Shear-out insert test
In the shear-out test, the load has to be introduced normal to
the axis of the insert (and parallel to the working face of the
sample). The parameters of the test were established by Airbus
Helicopters requirements and were the following:
 Preload: F = 50 N with speed test of 0.5 mm/min.
 Test Speed S = 2 mm/min.
 gap  0 mm.
 Stop criterion: Load until insert failure (adhesive failure).
In Figure 7, the forces were illustrated at a certain distance from
the insert to provide visibility of the direction of the application.
Still, they were applied at a zero gap distance from the insert
during the tests.
Results discussion
Pull-out and shear-out test results discussion
As mentioned above, there were two types of inserts that differ
through their dimensions, and there were two methods used to
Figure 7 Principle of test set-up
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
bond the insert into the sandwich specimens, with and without
potting added at the bottom of the blind threaded insert. The
pull-out and shear-out mechanical tests were performed on five
specimens per each sample, and a minimum of three specimens
(Materials Sciences Corporation, 2002) were used to calculate the
average value of the force at pull-out and shear-out, respectively.
All the samples were tested until the first damage appeared in the
adhesive potting, and the tests were stopped immediately after this.
This translates into the fact that the samples were not tested until
the destructive force or total failure of the joint, because in reality, if
the test’s force mean values were to be reached, the equipment
would safely hold its place in the helicopter until landing.
In Tables 2 and 3 are provided two statistical values, first is
the sample mean values (Materials Sciences Corporation, 2002)
obtained for the specimens tested, and second is the normal
B-basis value (Materials Sciences Corporation, 2002) calculated
by taking into consideration also the standard deviations and the
number of samples used for this statistics. The force values shown
in the curves (Figures 8–11) as maximum values are appropriate
when considering helicopter ultimate load. The B-basis value was
calculated to provide a design value (ECSS-E-ST-32-10C, 2019)
for the safe load capacity of the insert, to establish values as safety
measures, up to which no damages would be expected to appear
in the joint. The lower values of the B-basis could be attributed to
the use of the minimum number of specimens when performing
the mechanical tests on each type of sample.
As indicated by the MIL-HDBK-17-1F – Polymer Matrix
Composites: Guidelines for Characterization of Structural Materials
(Materials Sciences Corporation, 2002), B-basis values were
calculated using the mean value (x) and standard deviation (s),
considering a population with normal distribution:
B ¼ x
kB s
In which:
1X n
1 X n
x¼ xi s2 ¼ ðxi
x Þ2 kB ¼ tolerance limit factor
n i¼1 n
1 i¼1
For the calculation of B-basis value, the tolerance factor used
was according to the number of specimens mediated: 6.157 for
 Sandwich applications Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.

Table 2 Pull-out insert test mediated results

Insert mounting Pull-out insert Force at pull-out insert Standard Force at pull-out insert
mode specimen type Torque pre-test mean value(kN) deviation B-basis value (kN)
1 DHS 443–152.81 (M4) Torque pre-test undergo limit load 2.38 0.13 1.95
torque 4 Nm for each specimen
1 DHS 443–152.87 (M6) Torque pre-test undergo limit load 2.55 0.13 2.09
torque 12 Nm for each specimen
2 DHS 443–152.81 (M4) Torque pre-test undergo limit load 2.5 0.2 1.25
torque 4 Nm for each specimen
2 DHS 443–152.87 (M6) Torque pre-test undergo limit load 2.83 0.09 2.44
torque 12 Nm for each specimen
Source: Table by authors

Table 3 Shear-out insert test mediated results

Insert mounting Shear-out insert Force at shear-out insert Standard Force at shear-out insert
mode specimen type Torque pre-test mean value (kN) deviation B-basis value (kN)
1 DHS 443–152.81 (M4) Torque pre-test undergo limit load 2.07 0.16 1.39
torque 4 Nm for each specimen
1 DHS 443–152.87 (M6) Torque pre-test undergo limit load 2.31 0.20 1.48
torque 12 Nm for each specimen
2 DHS 443–152.81 (M4) Torque pre-test undergo limit load 2.98 0.18 2.22
torque 4 Nm for each specimen
2 DHS 443–152.87 (M6) Torque pre-test undergo limit load 4.69 0.86 1.10
torque 12 Nm for each specimen
Source: Table by authors

Figure 8 Displacement-force curves during pull-out inserts testing of DHS 443–152.81 (M4) specimens manufactured via Mode 1 (a) and via Mode 2 (b)

3 specimens, 4.163 for 4 specimens and 3.408 for 5 specimens
(Materials Sciences Corporation, 2002).
Analysing the test results for the two different conditions in
which the samples were obtained, it can be observed that the
mode used for insert installation influences the mechanical
properties and behaviour, as it was expected (Shur-Lok, 1996).
In the case of Mode 1 (without potting on the lower flange of
the insert), forces at pull-out and forces at shear-out are lower
than the forces in the case of Mode 2 (with potting). A smaller
value for the shear-out force in the case of mounting Mode 1
occurs due to the fact that the working shear area is only around
the insert lateral zones, but does not extend to the bottom area,
due to the lack of adhesive potting on the lower flange. The
potting presence sustains the distribution of shear forces all
around the insert lateral and below areas, requiring larger forces
to generate the sample failure.
In the literature (Ramírez et al., 2020), the behaviour of the
inserts during pull-out and shear-out tests is similar to the
results presented in our study. For the shear-out test results,
the force-displacement diagrams show there were clearances
in the measuring system, but this behaviour is due to the
tolerances of the mounting device and of the dimensions of
the samples and does not affect the quality of the method
used.
 Sandwich applications Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.

Figure 9 Displacement-force curves during pull-out inserts testing of DHS 443–152.87 (M6) specimens manufactured via Mode 1 (a) and via Mode 2 (b)

Figure 10 Displacement-force curves during shear-out inserts testing of DHS 443–152.81 (M4) specimens manufactured via Mode 1 (a) and via Mode 2 (b)

Figure 11 Displacement-force curves during shear-out inserts testing of DHS 443–152.87 (M6) specimens manufactured via Mode 1 (a) and via Mode 2 (b)

Failure analysis and morphostructural analysis of mechanism involved in the failure during mechanical testing is
tested samples important for the samples behaviour evaluation and
Failure analysis (fractography) was performed with the aid of component-materials of the system (sandwich-adhesive-insert)
optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. The response to the mechanical load. The micrographs were
 Sandwich applications
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.
captured in the samples cross-section along the line of the
insert.
Optical microscopy was performed using Meiji 8520 optical
microscope at 40x magnification level.
Figure 12 illustrates the cross-section of one of the samples
obtained through Mode 1, tested at pull-out. One can observe
the presence of a crack of the adhesive in the lower side area
from the insert, whereas Figure 13 illustrates magnified photos
of the observed crack, visualized with optical microscope. The
micrographs confirm that the crack occurred only in the
adhesive material, without propagating in the sandwich core or
skins and without causing detachment between the adhesive
and honeycomb or adhesive and insert.
Figure 14 illustrates the cross-section of one of the samples
obtained through Mode 1, tested at shear-out. In this case,
several cracks are observed in the adhesive lateral areas around
the insert. Figure 15, illustrating magnified visualized with
optical microscope, shows that the cracks propagated top to
bottom in the lateral area of the adhesive, without propagating
in the sandwich core or skins and without causing detachment
between the adhesive and honeycomb or adhesive and insert.
The cracks number and position confirm that the shear area is
concentrated in the lateral areas around the insert.
Figure 12 Cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-pull out sample (insert Mode 1) after testing (Specimen no. 4)
Figure 13 Optical micrographs of cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-pull out sample (insert Mode 1) after testing (Specimen no 4)
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Figure 16 illustrates the cross-section of one of the samples
obtained through Mode 2, tested at pull-out, whereas Figure 17
shows the optical micrographs of one side of the cut sample in three
different areas visualized. One can observe the presence of small
cracks in the adhesive, at one corner point of the insert in the lower
side of the specimen (zone 1 – Figure 17) and detachment of the
adhesive and the lower CFRP skin as well as insert material (zone 2
– Figure 17). In zone 3 – Figure 17, it can be observed a very small
area of detachment between adhesive and upper CFRP skin.
Figure 18 illustrates the cross-section of one of the samples
obtained through Mode 2, tested at shear-out, whereas
Figure 19 illustrates the optical micrographs of one side of the
cut sample in three different areas visualized. One can observe
the detachment of the adhesive from the insert on one side of
the specimen, from upper to lower skin. No detachment
adhesive-insert is visualized on the other side of the specimen.
In this specimen, adhesive area cracking is not so present as in
samples obtained through Mode 1.
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed using SEM
Quanta 250 equipment at different magnification levels (x100-
x150).
Figure 20 illustrates the cross-section of the same specimen
DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-pull out sample (insert mode 1) after
 Sandwich applications Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.

Figure 14 Cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-shear out sample (insert Mode 1) after testing (Specimen no 8)

Figure 15 Optical micrographs of cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-shear out sample (insert Mode 1) after testing (Specimen no 8)

Figure 16 Cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-pull out sample (insert Mode 2) after testing (Specimen no 1)
 Sandwich applications Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.

Figure 17 Optical micrographs of cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-pull out sample (insert Mode 2) after testing (Specimen no 1)

Figure 18 Cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-shear out sample (insert Mode 2) after testing (Specimen no 5)

Figure 19 Optical micrographs of cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-shear out sample (insert Mode 2) after testing (Specimen no 5)

testing, that was visualized with optical microscope. Figure 20(c)
illustrates the border (interface) between metallic insert and
Nomex honeycomb, whereas Figure 20(a), (b) illustrates the
crack already observed in previous analysis of the sample,
confirming that it occurred strictly in the adhesive area.
Figure 21 illustrates the cross-section of the same specimen of
DHS 443–152.87 (M6) shear out sample (insert mode 1) after
testing that was visualized with optical microscope. Figure 21
(a) shows the border area (interface) between adhesive and
metallic insert, while Figure 21(b), (c) illustrate the
 Sandwich applications Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.

Figure 20 SEM micrographs of cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-pull out sample (insert Mode 1) after testing (Specimen no 4)

Figure 21 SEM micrographs of cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-shear out sample (insert Mode 1) after testing (Specimen no 8)

propagating crack in the adhesive area. In this specimen as well,
the crack propagates exclusively in the adhesive material,
without any extension to the nearby areas consisting of other
materials (Nomex honeycomb or CFRP skin).
Figure 22(a) illustrates the SEM micrograph of Area 1 of
specimen obtained via Mode 2, tested in pull-out and visualized in
Figure 15, the images showing the crack in the adhesive initiated in
the lower part of the insert, starting from a corner of the insert and
ending in the CFRP skin. Figure 22(b), (c) illustrate the SEM
micrographs of Area 2 of the specimen obtained via Mode 2,
tested in pull-out and visualized in Figure 15, the images showing a
disruption area of the adhesive between the insert and CFRP lower
skin composed of broken adhesive material as well as detachment
at the adhesive/insert interface.
Figure 23(a) illustrates SEM micrograph captured in Area 2
from Figure 17, of the specimen DHS 443–152.87 (M6) shear
out sample (insert Mode 2), showing a massive detachment of
adhesive from the CFRP and insert that led to a gap in the area.
Figure 23(b), (c) illustrate SEM micrograph captured in Area 3
from Figure 17, of the same specimen, showing the insert limit
at adhesive detachment.
Failure analysis through optical microscopy and system
components interface evaluation through SEM morphostructural
analysis confirm the fact that metallic insert installation mode
plays an important role in the system mechanical behaviour, the
potting presence being able to efficiently distribute the mechanical
loads into the system. It can be observed that the adhesive area
visualized in Mode 1 specimens exhibits a more extent crack
presence than for Mode 2 of installation based specimens.
Conclusions
The study presents design, manufacturing and testing of pull-
out and shear-out insert allowable for composite materials

Figure 22 SEM micrographs of cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-pull out sample (insert Mode 2) after testing (Specimen no 1)
 Sandwich applications
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.
Figure 23 SEM micrographs of cross-section of DHS 443–152.87 (M6)-shear out sample (insert Mode 2) after testing (Specimen no 5)
sandwich applications. The paper presents details from
selection and installation of fastening devices, samples
development (including sandwich manufacturing and insert
fixation), to parameters establishment, mechanical testing and
failure analysis evaluation through microscopic methods. The
results can be summarized in a few conclusions:
 The manufacturing method used for insert bonding into
the sandwich influences the mechanical behaviour under
load at the interface between the potting adhesive and the
sandwich, as seen in Figures 8–10. Therefore, if the
working area around the insert is higher, the sample mean
value of the forces resulting from tests is higher.
 Based on the sample mean value of the forces obtained
from the tests, it can be observed for the pull-out tests a
percentage difference in the values between Methods 1
and 2 of mounting the insert: of 4.91% for the DHS 443-
152.81 samples and of 10% for samples DHS 443-152.87
(Table 2). While for the shear-out tests is a percentage
difference of 36.03% for the DHS 443-152.81 samples
and 68% for samples DHS 443-152.87 (Table 3). As
expected, the values for the pull-out tests do not vary
considerably and the mode of mounting the insert into the
sandwich plays a more important role in the shear-out
tests, where the working area plays a higher role in
transferring the loads from the joint to the structure.
 Following the morpho-structural analysis of the interest
areas from the insert-potting assembly, the critical areas
where the cracks occurred for each mode of mounting
were identified. As noted in Figures 20 and 21, for Mode 1
of mounting the inserts, the most frequent failure mode is
the cohesive failure. And for Mode 2 of mounting, as seen
in Figures 22 and 23, the most frequent failure mode is the
adhesive failure.
 Taking into account all the findings, the mode of mounting
the insert into a sandwich plays an important role in the
mechanical behaviour and the insert allowable of the joint
assembly, and also in the failure modes of the potting adhesive.
 The investigation’s results can be used in the trade-off
actions where only the Method 1 can be applied in order
to quickly estimate the fixation capability reduction.
References
AirbusHelicopters (2012), “DHS443-152 blind tapped insert”.
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
Bozhevolnaya, E., Lyckegaard, A., Thomsen, O.T. and
Skvortsov, V. (2004), “Local effects in the vicinity of inserts
in sandwich panels”, Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 35
Nos 6/8, pp. 619-627.
Cabrit, P. (2017), “Clean sky 2’ racer technological demonstrator”,
EASA – 11th Rotorcraft Symposium, (accessed at 5-6 December
2017), available at: https://vast.aero/archives/symposium/2017%
20EASA%20Racer.pdf
CleanAviation (2019), “Best of both whirls: the RACER
synthesises speed with VTOL capability”, available at: www.
clean-aviation.eu/media/results-stories/best-of-both-whirls-the-
racer-synthesises-speed-with-vtol-capability
CleanAviation (2020), “Fast rotorcraft IADP”, available at:
www.clean-aviation.eu/clean-sky-2/programme-overview-and-
structure/clean-sky-2-structure/fast-rotorcraft-iadp
ECSS-E-ST-32-10C (2019), Structural Factors of Safety for
Spaceflight Hardware, available at: https://ecss.nl/standard/ecss-
e-st-32-10c-rev-2-structural-factors-of-safety-for-spaceflight-
hardware-15-may-2019/
HexPlyM18/1 (2020), www.hexcel.com, available at: www.hexcel.
com/user_area/content_media/raw/HexPly_M181_eu_DataSheet
(1).pdf
HexWebHRH-10 (2017), www.hexcel.com, available at: www.
hexcel.com/user_area/content_media/raw/HexWeb_HRH10_
DataSheet_eu(1).pdf
Kim, B. and Lee, D. (2008), “Characteristics of joining inserts
for composite sandwich panels”, Composite Structures,
Vol. 86 Nos 1/3, pp. 55-60.
Lapid, T., Bil, C. and Hanlon, G. (2014), “Honeycomb panel
insert bolt pull-out testing of a new fast curing adhesive”,
Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space
Sciences, Aerospace Technology Japan, Vol. 15 No. APISAT-
2016, pp. a53-a60.
Materials Sciences Corporation (2002), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE HANDBOOK MIL-HDBK-17-1F, Polymer
Matrix Composites Guidelines for Characterization of
Structural Materials, Materials Sciences Corporation, Vol. 1,
available at: l.academicdirect.org/Statistics/tests/kS-AD/
MIL-HDBK-17-1F.pdf (accessed 19 October 2022).
Mouritz, A. and Thomson, R.T. (1999), “Compression, flexure
and shear properties of a sandwich composite containing
defects”, Composite Structures, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 263-278.
Raghu, N., Battley, M. and Southward, T. (2009), “Strength
variability of inserts in sandwich panels”, Journal of Sandwich
Structures & Materials, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 501-517.
 Sandwich applications
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin et al.
Ramírez, J., Castanie, J. and Bouvet, C. (2020), “Insert of
sandwich panels sizing through a failure mode map”,
Composite Structures, p. 234.
Roy, R., Nguyen, K.H., Park, Y.B., Kweon, J.H. and Choi, J.
H. (2014), “Testing and modeling of nomexTM honeycomb
sandwich panels with bolt insert”, Composites Part B:
Engineering, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 762-769.
Shur-Lok (1996), “Sandwich panel fasteners, design manual”,
available at: www.shur-lok.com/documents/catalogs/sandwich-
structure-design-manual.pdf (accessed 19 October 2022).
Song, K.I., Choi, J.Y., Kweon, J.H., Choi, J.H. and Kim, K.S.
(2008), “An experimental study of the insert joint strength of
composite sandwich structures”, Composite Structures,
Vol. 86 Nos 1/3, pp. 107-113.
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (2003), “VDI-RICHTLINIEN-
2330 systematic calculation of high duty bolted joints joints
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
with one cylindrical bolt – part 1”, available at: www.vdi.de/
fileadmin/pages/vdi_de/redakteure/richtlinien/inhaltsverzeichnisse/
2244231.pdf (accessed 19 October 2022).
Zenkert, D. (1997), The Handbook of Sandwich Construction,
EMAS Publishing, London, ISBN: 978 0 947817 96 1
(print).
Further reading
ECSS-E-HB-32-22A (2011), Insert Design Handbook, available
at: https://ecss.nl/hbstms/ecss-e-hb-32-22a-insert-design-
handbook/ (accessed 19 October 2022).
Corresponding author
Cristina-Elisabeta Pelin can be contacted at: pelin.
cristina@incas.ro