# Strength and Fatigue Life Modeling of Bonded Joints in Composite Structure

D. M. Hoyt, NSE Composites, 1101 N Northlake Way #4, Seattle WA 98103 Stephen H. Ward, SW Composites, HC68, Box 15G, Taos, NM 87571 Pierre J. Minguet, The Boeing Company, MC P38-13, PO Box 16858, Philadelphia, PA 19142
Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 1

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 2

εyy = -ν L εxx and γxy = γyz = 0, where ν L is the laminate Poisson’s ratio. With these assumptions, ply stiffnesses are calculated for each of the ply angles in the laminate. Adhesives are modeled as non-linear isotropic materials with plastic hardening behavior, to match the true shear stress-strain response. Due to the potentially high plastic strains at the peak stress locations in the joints, the incorporation of non-linear stress-strain behavior in the adhesive is essential to obtaining an accurate stress representation in areas near the end of a bonded joint [7,8]. In order to develop an accurate shear stress-strain curve, the shear stressstrain behavior is first modeled using the relation developed by Grant [9]: If γ < γ e then τ = γG  αβ  If γ < γ e then τ = τ e +  α + β    where α = γG − τ e β = τ max − τ e γ = shear strain γ e = maximum elastic shear strain τ = shear stress τ e = shear stress corresponding to γ e τ max = maximum shear stress G = elastic shear modulus Values for τmax and G were readily available for the adhesive materials used in the models for this program. Values for τe are determined to match stress-strain curves from thickadherend test results. The resulting shear stress-strain curves are then converted into the axial stress-strain curves required by ABAQUS. In the plastic region, the axial curve is calculated from the shear curve assuming that ν = 0.5 in the plastic region and using the resulting relations: ε= Damage Initiation To predict the locations of damage (crack) initiation, the FE model results are used with strength of materials failure criteria to identify critical areas. Two criteria are used for the composite adherends: 1) an interlaminar tension-shear stress interaction criterion, and 2) a maximum ply transverse tensile stress criterion. For the adhesive materials, the maximum Von Mises strain criterion is used. Once potential initial damage locations have been identified, more computationally intensive fracture mechanics techniques are applied to predict damage growth and final failure. γ 2 3 2 σ=τ 3 2

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 3

This failure index has been used successfully in previous research [5] and is given below: Failure Index = σmax max F σ max where σ + σ3  σ − σ3  = 2 +  2  + τ23 2  2  2 Fmax = max transverse tensile stress in a ply σ2 = in-plane transverse principal stress (lamina coordinates) σ3 = through the thickness stress (lamina coordinates) τ23 = shear in the 2-3 plane (lamina coordinates) The Von Mises strain failure criterion is used to predict failure in the adhesives. Pinit . 2002 Page 4 . The failure index is given by: σz  τ  Failure Index = zz +  xz  xz F S  where σz τxz Fzz = Sxz= = = 2 through the thickness stress interlaminar shear in the x-z plane allowable through-thickness strength allowable interlaminar shear strength The maximum transverse tensile stress failure criterion is used to predict matrix cracking in tape laminates. The failure index is given by: Failure Index = ε VonMises VM max S where ε VonMises = Von Mises equivalent strain SVMmax = allowable Von Mises strain Static Strength An outline of the static strength analysis procedure is shown in Figure 3. or the condition where a crack exists due to a manufacturing or in-service damage event. is reached.The interlaminar tension-shear stress interaction criterion is used to predict delamination of the composite adherends. and growth path. Locating a crack in a critical location simulates either the condition where a crack develops once the damage initiation load. location. in laminates with either tape and/or fabric plies. The selection of an initial crack size should be based Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. The first step in the static strength analysis is to choose the initial crack size.

2002 Page 12 . the cycles to failure at an R-ratio of 0. This Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. For a complete analysis of a given configuration. CONCLUSIONS It has been shown that the analysis approach presented here for composite bonded joints can be used for predicting critical failure modes. and without reliance on complicated and controversial stress-based failure criteria.50 inches Fatigue Life: (assuming joint failure at crack length = 1. the Pmax vs. Pmax vs.10 are predicted to be 132. damage initiation loads and locations.rate at a given crack length for each load level. residual strength. The cycles to failure in this example are based on an arbitrary maximum allowable damage size of acrit = 1. N curves were then developed for several R-ratios as shown in Figure 34. and cycles to failure are consistent with similar test data as reported in Reference 20. The analysis approach was applied to two different joint configurations. Pmax = 1358 lbs -->132. static strength.10 inches) Low cycle fatigue.569. The fracture mechanics analysis in particular has demonstrated the ability to: • • • • Predict crack growth stability under static loads Predict static ultimate strength and critical crack lengths Predict crack growth under fatigue loads Accommodate a variety of durability and damage tolerance criteria related to initial flaw sizes and critical lengths. These results have been achieved through the use of basic material fracture toughness data. the predicted damage locations. in order to demonstrate the analysis approach.569 cycles While directly comparable test results for this configuration were not available. for Pmax = 1358 lbs (67% of predicted ultimate static strength). For example. Only a single delamination location was analyzed for each configuration. The dashed lines show the results from the skin/T-stiffener joint for comparison. Single Lap Joint Summary of Predictions Damage Initiation Load: Pinit = 1875 lbs Delamination in 0° tape skin ply will open to 0. This critical length would typically be determined by criteria or by residual strength requirements. loads. N curve for the corresponding R-ratio can be used to directly determine the number of cycles to failure. several potentially critical delamination locations would be evaluated. Figure 19. and fatigue life.10 inches. For constant amplitude loading.static = 2028 lbs Unstable crack growth at crack length = 0.25 inches once damage initiates Static Strength: Pgrowth.

11. T.P.S. Adams.. P. “The Strength of Adhesive-bonded Joints between Fibre-reinforced Plastics and Metals. G. Substantial material and geometric non-linearity was observed in the modeling. REFERENCES 1. Minguet. Composite Materials Handbook. et al. 3. 51. 1997. Murri.” FAA Final Report DOT/FAA/AR-97/56. Also. London.. 5... London.. Science and Technology Press. August 1995.” Symposium: Joining in Fibre Reinf. British Columbia. and O’Brien.” Proceeding of the 38th AIAA Structures. 1994. C. a curve to select critical crack size for residual strength analysis. O’Brien. “Analysis of Skin/Stringer Bond Failure Using a Strain Energy Release Rate Approach. 2. “A Fracture Mechanics Approach for Designing Adhesively Bonded Joints.analysis approach has the potential to be very useful for damage tolerance analyses of bonded and composite structure by: • • • Using the shape of P vs. “Fracture Load Predictions for Adhesive Joints. 1984.B. 1997. D. 1998. 1997..S.K. J. Predicting residual strength to compare and validate designs Predicting crack growth under repeated loads to select inspection methods and intervals.C. Canada. Mall. 10. Vol. Section 5. and Wake. R. 4.. P. Imperial College. W. “Analysis of Adhesive Stresses in Bonded Joints. Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. et al.. “Strength Prediction of Bonded Joints. 2002 Page 13 . 1978. Structural Adhesive Joints in Engineering. p. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. 6.” NASA Tech Memo 85694. Johnson. Mil-Handbook-17.” Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Composite Materials (ICCM-X). Vancouver. I. pp. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers.J.... automation of the analysis would be essential for practical applications.. 1983. T. Charalambides M. “Fatigue Life Methodology for Tapered Composite Flexbeam Laminates. January 1997. Volume 3E. P. Fernlund.” Composites Science and Technology. Minguet.2.” 83rd Meeting of the AGARD SMP—Bolted/Bonded Joints in Polymeric Composites. 1994. 587-600. M.. S.. G.” Technical Research Centre of Finland. Hildebrand. 9. W. due to the time intensive nature of the post processing of finite element model results. K. Plastics. September.. 8. Rousseau. et al. 41..” NASA Tech Memo 112860. “Analysis of the Strength of the Interface between Frame and Skin in a Bonded Composite Fuselage Panel. 7. C. Johnson. Grant. which indicates that a non-linear analysis is required to properly address the structural behavior. “Applications of Fracture Mechanics to the Durability of Bonded Composite Joints. W.N.

Composites Design. 1993. and O’Brien. Think Composites. Sleight.F. Cvitkovich..65 1.T.. Kevin and Minguet. T.05 0. and Kanninen. 1987.57 0.65 0. 8.. NASA CP 3229.. M..57 1. Interlaminar Fracture Toughness Testing of Composite Mode I and Mide II DCB Specimens”. Stewart. Schaff. 1987. P. No..H. 2/1997..65 0. 15/2000. A. 14. 28.8 1. Ilcewicz. Krueger...7 1. 2002 Page 14 . NASA Tech Memo 110331/Army Research Lab Report 1342.5 1. O'Brien. OH. May 1988. “A Finite Element Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors by a Modified Crack Closure Integral. O’Brien.34 0. "Testing and Analysis of Composite Skin/Stringer Debonding Under Multi-Axial Loading. Davidson.W. “Life Prediction Methodology for Composite Structures. pp. Vol..S." Journal of Composite Materials. 1977.R. No.87 Msi Msi Msi Msi Msi Msi Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.K. Cvitkovich. “An Experimental Investigation of Composite Bonded and/or Bolted Repairs Using Single Lap Joint Designs. and Rezaizdeh. Stephen W. J.. Thesis. 31.. Keary..34 0. Pierre J. Vol. December 1996. “Fatigue Debonding Characterization in Composite Skin/ Stringer Configurations”. M.5 9. S. Ronald. Michael K. 20. April 1997. 15.” Engr. Wang..“Computational Methods for Using Shell Elements in Skin Stiffener Disbonding Analysis”. 31-45. Raju.45 0.” Composite Structures. 16. Table 1: Lamina Material Properties IM7/8552 Grade 160 Tape E1 E2 E3 ν12 ν13 ν23 G12 G13 G23 20. pp931-938.K. 17.89 0. M. B.45 0.32 0.” Bell Helicopter Textron Report 299-100-779.65 0.32 0.. 26 January 1999/PhD. Polymer Engineering and Science.87 0. Fracture Mechanics. 9.R. Ramamurthy.12.. “Stress Ratio Effect on Cyclic Debonding in Adhesively Bonded Composite Joints. J. Dayton.32 0.. J. 34. and Trostle. B. Tsai. University of Texas at Arlington.32 0. 18. Mall. L. No. Rybicki. T.I.D. E. Martin..87 0.57 0. Vol.F. Minguet.. M.D. Vol. E. Parts I and II. 13. P.65 IM6/3501-6 Grade 145 Tape 23. Vol.” Journal of Composite Materials. 19.89 0. 3rd Ed.T. 9.623 AS4/3501-6 5HS Fabric 9.. G.

2002 Page 16 .Negative slope means crack is unstable. a Figure 3: Static Strength Analysis Procedure (A) í Pgrowth Pgrowth. Crack Length Curve Pgrowth Values Calculated for Each Crack Length Gtotal Strain Energy Release Rates (G I. a acrit based on criteria ainit Crack Length.critical vs. a Gtot. joint will fail . crack length curve Pgrowth.crit = G II / Gtotal Local FEM with Introduced Crack Pa4 Pa5 P P a6 a7 Increasing Load Negative Slope Results Combined with Material Gtotal.static Crack Arrest í Pgrowth í STABLE Positive Slope acrit based on criteria UNSTABLE / STABLE ainit Crack Length. a P a2 P a3 Pa5 P a6 (A) Crack Arrest (B) Unstable Growth a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 Pgrowth P a4 Crack Length. GII. Gtotal) for Multiple Crack Lengths at Several Load Increments Pa1 Pa2 Pa3 a1 Pa1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Pa7 a6 a7 Crack Length.static for four possible shapes of load vs.static Pgrowth Negative Slope Determination of Pgrowth.static = Static Strength (B) í Pgrowth. once Pgrowth for a init is reached.static Pgrowth More Load Required to Grow Crack .Crack G II / Gtotal FEM & VCCT Test Data + Crack Length.Positive slope means additional load required to grow crack STABLE / UNSTABLE ainit (C) (D) Crack Length.static UNSTABLE ainit Crack Length. a Pgrowth. a Pgrowth.critical Data to Obtain G total. a Figure 4: Static Strength from Pgrowth Residual Strength Curves Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.

Calculate Crack Growth Rate and Divide By ∆a to Obtain Number of Cycles. Pj P1 ainit P3 P2 P4 Inc rea sin gL oa d PFEM Pj Crack growth rate at given ai. ∆N. Pj Gtot. Calculate SERR. Pj from FEM ∆G tot = G tot. 2002 Page 17 .max at ai . to Grow Crack by ∆a Sum Up ∆N From ainit to acritical To Obtain Cycles To Failure.max . a ∆Gtot ∆a / (da/dN) = ∆N at a i. ∆a Using Material da/dN Data.Gtot. for Series of Crack Increments. Pj For Each Load Level.Gtot. NP Plot NP Results For All Load Increments Pgrowth Load (P) P4 P3 P2 P1 Pthresh 1 NP1 NP2 NP3 NP4 Nrunout NPthresh Cycles (N) Figure 5: Fatigue Life Analysis Procedure Using Crack Growth Approach Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. ∆Gtotal.min acrit ai Crack Length. Pj da/dN (in/cycle) Test Data ∆G tot at ai .min at ai .

C.Frame or stiffener Since Critical Location Known to be Flange TIP. 2 P/2 1 P = 50 lb 1” 1” Skin: [45/-45/90/45/-45/0/-45/45/90/-45/45] IM7/8552 Tape Figure 6: Skin/T-Stiffener—Finite Element Model 45° Fabric 0° Fabric Tee Flange Adhesive ±45° Tape (2 plies) Skin Panel 90° Tape 0° Tape 3 Elements per Ply in Tip Region Figure 7: Skin/T-Stiffener—Model Detail at Flange Tip Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. Flange Tip of flange Skin Adhesive: FM-300 Film Bondline Flange: [45/0/45/0/45/0/45/0/45] IM7/8552 Fabric Flange Tip Symmetric B. FE Model Incorporates Skin and Stiffener Flange Only. 2002 Page 18 .

02 0.04 0.12 0.Skin/T-Stiffener Damage Initiation Model Load vs Deflection at Stiffener Centerline 60 50 Applied Load. 2002 Page 19 . P (lbs) 40 30 20 Load-Displacement Curve Linear Line 10 0 0 0.06 0.08 0.14 Displacement at Center of Stiffener (Left End of Half Model) (inch) Figure 8: Skin/T-Stiffener—Predicted Non-Linear Deflection High peel stresses in adhesive and top skin ply Figure 9: Skin/T-Stiffener— Through-Thickness Normal Stress Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.1 0.

Large plastic strains in adhesive at flange tip Figure 10: Skin/T-Stiffener—Through-Thickness Shear Stress Contours shown for P = 30 lbs Max Transverse Tensile Stress Criterion Matrix crack in top 45° skin ply predicted Critical load: P = 25. Figure 11: Skin/T-Stiffener—Maximum Transverse Tensile Stress Failure Index Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. 2002 Page 20 .6 lb.

6 lb. (3).2 lb. P=45. Max Transverse Tension (Matrix Crack) Figure 13: Skin/T-Stiffener— Predicted Damage Initiation Loads and Locations Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. P=36. P=25. VonMises Strain (Adhesive) F.Contours shown for P = 50 lbs Failure index > 1. Interlaminar Stress (Delamination) F. (1).I.I. (2).4 lbs Figure 12: Skin/T-Stiffener—CFRP Interlaminar Tension-Shear Stress Interaction and Adhesive Von Mises Strain Failure Indices F.0 predicts damage initiation CFRP Interlaminar Interaction Criterion Delamination in top skin plies predicted Critical Load: P = 36.4 lb.2 lbs Adhesive VonMises Strain Criterion Adhesive failure predicted Critical Load: P = 45. 2002 Page 21 .I.

3 0. 2002 Page 22 .15 Data from FEM Interpolated points for chosen crack lengths 0.4 0.35 0.2 0.0 Gtotal versus Crack Length Gtotal (in-lb/in^2) 6.0 2.8 (ainit) Crack Length.6 P/PFEM = 0.2 0.0 5.0 8.05”) to the chosen critical crack length (0.40” Figure 14: Skin/T-Stiffener—Analyzed Crack Path Crack Between Skin Plies 1 (+45) and 2 (-45) 9.1 0.0 3.05 0. (Gtot )FEM vs.0 7.Matrix crack in skin at tip of adhesive followed by crack growth between top two skin plies to a length of 0.40”) P FEM = 50 lbs P/PFEM = 1. a Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.0 0 P/PFEM = 0.0 1.25 0.0 0. a (in) (acrit ) Figure 15: Skin/T-Stiffener—Strain Energy Release Rate.0 4.4 P/PFEM = 0. Crack Length.45 P/PFEM = 0.0 FE model is run to PFEM for a series of crack lengths as the crack is opened from the chosen initial crack length (0.

crit) from Fracture Toughness Data Page 23 Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.10 0.20 0.70 0.40 0.c (in-lb/in ) 5.35 Mode Mix Ratio shown for P FEM = 50 lb.30 0.80 0.0 2.00 GII/G tot 0. 0.00 0.45 Crack Length.0 4.20 0.0 100% G I 1.30 0. based on critieria Calculated using FEM nodal data & VCCT Curve fit showing chosen crack length increments 0.Fracture Toughness Mode Mix Ratio (G II/Gtotal) Crack Between Skin Ply 1 (+45) and Ply 2 (-45) 0.90 1. the applied load to the FEM Mode Mix Ratio (G II/G total ) 0.0 3.40 0.40 0.05" < a < 0. Estimated Data 8.0 0.c) versus Mode Mix (GII/Gtot ) for IM7/8552 tape.0 0.05 0. a (in) Figure 16: Skin/T-Stiffener—Determination of Mode Mix for a Given Crack Length Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot. ainit chosen critical crack size.0 7. a crit.20 0.0 Mode mix for chosen crack lengths. RT.40" 100% G II Gtot. GII /Gtot Figure 17: Skin/T-Stiffener— Determination of Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot.00 chosen initial crack size.10 0.05 0.30 0.25 0.0 6.50 0.10 0. 2002 .15 0.25 0.c 2 ** Estimated Data ** Mode Mix.00 G tot.35 0.60 0.15 0.

6 lbs (damage initiation load) Curve can also be used to determine residual static strength at a given crack length during fatigue damage growth (e.4 lbs) (ainit) 0.g. a Crack Between Skin Plies 1 (+45) and 2 (-45) P growth = PFEM = 50 lbs 1. CLS. lower load required for propagation as crack length increases) Pgrowth /P FEM 0.0 Log[∆Gtot] (in-lb/in^2) ∆ Figure 19: Determination of Crack Growth Rate from Test Data Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.80 0..45 Figure 18: Skin/T-Stiffener—Predicted Residual Strength .E-03 Log[da/dN].10 0.70 Max load at 0.E-05 1.1 ** Estimated Data ** Gtot from FEM for a given load level (P) and crack length (a) 1.90 0.0 10. a (in) (acrit) 0.30 0.20 0. R = 0. (in/cycle) 1.60 0.00 0.25 0. RT. a Crack Growth Rate (da/dN) vs.3 lbs Negative slope indicates unstable crack growth (i.E-08 1.0 100.1 IM7/8552.00 Additional load required to propagate damage 0.1 Crack growth rate (da/dN) for a given P and a IM6/3501-6. 2002 Page 24 .866 --> Pgrowth.0.static = 43.E-04 1.Pgrowth vs.05 0. CLS.40 = 0.20 0.40 0.E-09 0.e.35 Crack Length. -65° F. R = 0.00 0. Strain Energy Release Rate (∆Gtot) ∆ 1.E-02 1.512 --> Pinit = 25.30 0.Pgrowth versus Crack Length.E-07 1.608 * 50 lbs = 30.50 0.40 0. Crack Length. P residual.10 0.E-06 1.15 0.

Figure 20: Skin/T-Stiffener—Predicted Cycles to Failure vs. 2002 Page 25 . Load Level and R-Ratio Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.

94 0.35 1. 2002 Page 26 .50 Adhesive: Magnolia 6363 paste Figure 21: Single Lap Joint—Finite Element Model Repair Adhe Flaperon Skin Laminate Figure 22: Single Lap Joint—Model Detail at End of Repair Laminate Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.50 0.P = 3000 lb. (1.50 0.5 inch wide specimen) End Tabs P Repair Laminate [45/0/0/45] AS4/3501-6 fabric Symmetric BC’s Flaperon Skin [45/-45/0/45/-45/-45/45/-45/45] IM6/3501-6 tape 0.

2002 Page 27 .(Y Scale Exaggerated for Clarity) Peel stresses in adhesive and top skin plies Figure 23: Single Lap Joint—Through-Thickness Normal Stress High shear stress in adhesive and 0° skin ply (Y Scale Exaggerated for Clarity) Figure 24: Single Lap Joint—Through-Thickness Shear Stress Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.