Strength and Fatigue Life Modeling of Bonded Joints in Composite Structure

D. M. Hoyt, Stephen H. Ward and Pierre J. Minguet ABSTRACT The aerospace industry lacks a validated, practical analysis method for the strength, durability, and damage tolerance evaluation of composite bonded joints. This paper presents the results of a combined strength and fracture analysis approach applied to typical bonded joint configurations found in rotorcraft composite structures. The analysis uses detailed 2-D nonlinear finite element models of the local bondline. Strength-of-materials failure criteria are used to predict critical damage initiation loads and locations. A fracture mechanics approach is used to predict damage growth and failure under static and cyclic loads based on test data for static fracture toughness (GIc, GIIc) and crack growth rate (da/dN). Results are presented from the application of the analysis approach to two joint configurations: 1) a skin-stiffener T-joint and, 2) a bonded repair lap joint. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach can be used to predict critical failure modes, damage initiation loads and locations, crack and/or delamination stability, static strength, residual strength, and fatigue life. Discussion is also included on how this approach can be applied in damage tolerance evaluations of composite bonded joints.. INTRODUCTION Ever increasing aerospace performance requirements make the high strength-to-weight ratios and cost efficiency associated with bonded joints attractive. However, bonding cannot be fully utilized without validated analytical methods to increase confidence in bonded designs and to reduce the expensive testing often necessary to certify bonded joints in critical locations. Current standard analysis methods are not capable of predicting all of the complex failure mechanisms associated with composite bonded joints [1]. Most existing bonded joint analyses do not include shear deformation of the adherends and cannot account for peel failures at the end of the overlap (Figure 1), which are often a primary cause of joint failure. In addition, they often truncate the adhesive stress-strain curve to indirectly account for the composite adherend failure modes not explicitly analyzed. An accurate composite bonded joint analysis method must be able to predict failure in the adhesive, at the adhesive-adherend interface, within the surface plies of the laminate itself, at stiffener flange fillets, or at the skin-to-core interface in sandwich structure, and must also account for nonlinear material behavior. In addition to being able to predict all critical failure modes and locations, the analysis method must have the ability to address damage growth and damage tolerance, given the
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

emphasis now placed on them by aircraft certifying agencies. Many of the failures in composite bonded joints involve delaminations that may grow from small pre-existing flaws or from damage induced by fatigue loads. Delaminations may also be driven by temperature and/or moisture induced loading. Recent research indicates that a fracture mechanics approach can effectively predict quasi-static delamination growth and is best suited to address the issues of fatigue life, damage tolerance, and the effects of operating environments on composite bonded joints subjected to cyclic loading [2-3,10-11]. This paper presents the results of a combined strength and fracture analysis approach applied to typical bonded joint configurations found in rotorcraft structures. ANALYSIS APPROACH The analysis approach presented here overcomes many of the shortcomings of existing methods and is capable of predicting all critical joint failure modes, as well as tracking damage growth due to static and fatigue loading. This integrated approach is based on the work of Minguet, O’Brien, and Johnson [2,4-6]. The analysis uses non-linear 2-D FE models (throughthe-thickness) of the local bondline together with strength-of-materials failure criteria for the prediction of critical damage initiation loads and locations, and a fracture mechanics approach for the prediction of damage growth and failure under static and cyclic loads, Figure 2. All of the fracture mechanics analysis for crack growth, static strength, and fatigue life is done as "postprocessing" based on a single set of FEM results for a series of crack lengths. Finite Element Modeling For these analyses, 2D, plane stress, continuum (solid) elements with an 8-noded, biquadratic (2nd order), reduced integration formulation (ABAQUS ® CPS8R elements) are used. Composite lamina are modeled with linear elastic properties; however, to account for 3D effects, material properties are entered to achieve a generalized plane strain solution that is between classical plane stress and plane strain assumptions. The difficulty in using 2-D modeling when representing laminated composites is that, although the laminate may be in a state of plane stress, each lamina is typically not in a state of plane stress. The effect is most marked for angle (e.g., +/- 45°) plies because of their high in-plane Poisson’s ratio, while it is small for 0° and 90° plies. The following procedure is an approximation designed to balance accuracy and efficiency with 2-D modeling. Starting with the traditional 3-D stress-strain relationships and the traditional orientations where x,y,z are the laminate axes and 1,2,3 the lamina axes, the two traditional options are: Plane Strain, where ε yy = γxy = γyz = 0 and Plane Stress, where σyy = τxy = τyz = 0. The typical choice for 2-D models of laminates where the model is in the thickness direction is to use a plane strain approach. A pure plane stress approach would assume that the laminate in-plane stresses in the laminate y-direction (into the page in a 2-D, through-thethickness model) are zero. This is clearly not valid since significant stresses in 90° plies result from Poisson strains. On the other hand, using a plane strain approach makes the +/-45° plies too stiff due to their high Poisson’s ratio. For this reason, an intermediate “generalized plane strain” state is used where it is assumed that:
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.

50 inch damage. crack length. For each load step in each analysis run. Fatigue Life An outline of the fatigue life analysis procedure is given in Figure 5. a. In bonded joints with composite adherends. and on specific criteria. It may be necessary to analyze several crack paths to ensure that the critical path has been identified. To predict crack growth under cyclic loading. ply bridging. Note that mode mix was not considered in the fatigue analysis. and Gtot . A residual strength curve is then plotted as Pgrowth vs.13] is used to calculate GI. A series of runs of the FE model are made for successive increments of increasing crack lengths. Pgrowth. For example. The crack interfaces are modeled along the direction of anticipated crack growth. They can also be used in damage tolerance analyses. 2002 Page 5 . a from FEM) are combined with crack growth rate test data (da/dN vs. and within the adhesive. Note that within composite laminates. and the mode mix (GII/Gtot ).e.50 ) can be directly compared with the limit load to determine a margin of safety. where the crack tip continues along a line between plies or along fibers within a ply during crack growth. Other matrix cracking. a = 0. as shown in Figure 4. Pgrowth.crit is determined for each crack length using test data at the appropriate mode mix (GII/Gtot ) for that crack length. the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) [12. duplicate nodes are placed in the FE model along the anticipated crack path. the total strain energy release rate (SERR.0. between the adherend and the adhesive. The use of ∆Gtot (i.50 x 0. the critical fracture toughness. the location of the crack interface is determined a-priori based on the damage initiation site and experience with typical crack paths in composite structure. it is generally conservative to assume a “clean crack path”. the calculated SERRs as a function of crack length and load level (Gtot vs. Gtot ) is calculated for the crack length from the change in strain energy in the model between successive crack lengths.on many factors. ∆Gtot ) from standard composite or bonded fracture toughness specimens to determine the number of fatigue cycles required to grow a crack to its critical length. if the damage tolerance criteria for a given structure states that the joint must carry limit load in the presence of 0. Once the crack interface has been selected. The Pgrowth vs. and used to predict static strength and crack stability as a function of crack length. The method of determining the ultimate static strength.14].crit at a given crack length.6. a curves can be used to determine residual strength of the joint at any crack length. Next.static depends on the shape of the Pgrowth versus crack length curve. Then by comparing G tot from the finite element model (calculated at several load steps) to Gtot. the residual strength at a crack length. and ply jumping crack behaviors require more energy to propagate the crack than self-similar crack growth. critical crack interfaces can occur between two plies in the adherend. Next.50 inch (Pgrowth. including manufacturing acceptance and/or damage tolerance criteria for the specific structure. At several crack lengths. the load. at which the crack is predicted to grow is determined. GII. the difference between the total SERRs at Pmax and Pmin ) is based on research indicating it to be more important than either ∆GI or ∆GII for cyclic delamination growth in polymer matrix composites [2. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.. Gtot. such as after the detection of in-service damage.

g. (N Pj). cycles data (Gonset vs. the total strain energy release rate range is determined as ∆Gtot = Gtot.. Skin/T-Stiffener Model The skin/T-stiffener joint is shown in Figure 6. The crack growth increment (∆ a) is then divided by this growth rate to obtain the number of cycles (∆N) required to progress the crack that distance under the specified cyclic loading. Next. except in the region near the flange tip.max . This joint configuration represents integrally stiffened panels used in many current fuselage and wing designs. the crack growth rate (da/dN) for each crack length and maximum load level is determined from ∆Gtot using crack-growth-rate test data (da/dN vs. There. Pmax vs. one element was used through the thickness of each ply. N) to predict the number of cycles to damage onset. Figure 7 shows the model details. 2002 Page 6 . at each cyclic load level. to more accurately model the stress gradients in that area. a scarf repair joint. including integrated bonded designs for stringers. the maximum calculated SERR value over the crack length can be combined with damage onset toughness vs. That is. ribs and bulkhead attachments. and a sandwich panel bulkhead attachment. The fatigue life (N) of the joint due to loading at that specific R-ratio can then be determined for any load amplitude from a curve constructed through the (N Pj. and the adhesive was FM-300 film. The appropriate composite ply properties are entered for each element based on its material and orientation. N plots are developed from fatigue test data for various R-ratios and used together with a damage accumulation model (e. Miner's Rule).min for each crack increment (∆a) at a series of load levels. Results from the skin/T-stiffener and single lap joints are presented here. Note that if only the onset of fatigue damage is of interest (not crack growth due to cyclic loading). ∆Gtot ). To address spectrum loading. a single lap joint. including the different ply types and orientations (material properties). First. In general. including a T-stiffened skin panel. APPLICATION OF ANALYSIS The above analysis approach has been successfully applied to several typical aerospace configurations. an alternate approach can be used. The properties for a +45° ply and a –45° ply are the same since the model is twodimensional. Pmax) data pairs.The procedure outlined in Figure 5 is for constant amplitude fatigue loading at a single load ratio (R-ratio = Pmin /Pmax). three elements through the thickness were used for the adhesive and for the two plies on either side of the adhesive layer.Gtot. The material properties are given in Tables 1 and 2. frames. and the element densities relative to the ply and adhesive thicknesses. the flange used IM7/8552 plain weave (PW) carbon fiber fabric. The skin laminate was made with IM7/8552 grade 160 carbon fiber tape. Finally. the number of fatigue cycles ( N) associated with each increment of crack ∆ growth are summed from the initial to final crack lengths to determine the number of cycles to failure. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.

2002 Page 7 .e. Significant plastic yielding of the adhesive was predicted in a small region adjacent to the flange tip as shown in these figures. the corner radius of the flange and the thickness of the tip of the tapered flange are all based upon typical dimensions observed in actual specimens. it is expected that this delamination would start at the matrix crack and propagate along the interface between the first two skin plies.15].05 in/in The results are shown in contour form in Figures 11 and 12. which is a desirable design condition and consistent with test results on this type of bonded joint. This ensures that inappropriate averaging.5]. Progressing to higher load. This delamination propagation behavior is consistent with test results from similar tests reported in [4. no rounded flange tip or resin pocket) and material property discontinuities. This represents the onset of a matrix crack in the 45° ply. The height of the adhesive fillet extends up two plies on the flange and the slope of the fillet is roughly 45°.Other important areas in the bondline and the adhesive fillet were also modeled in detail. This level of detailed model avoids stress singularities that would be caused by the combination of sharp corners (i. The model was run to a maximum load (PFEM) of 50 lbs with geometric and material nonlinearity enabled. The adhesive is predicted to fail at higher loads than the skin laminate. does not occur. given that the 45° ply is predicted to have a matrix crack. the following strength values were used to calculate the damage initiation failure indices discussed earlier: Skin interlaminar tension: Skin interlaminar shear: Flange interlaminar tension: Flange interlaminar shear: Skin transverse (in-plane) tension: Adhesive Von Mises strain 3000 psi 5000 psi 3000 psi 5000 psi 5000 psi 0. the model predicts an interlaminar failure in the top 45° skin ply below the end of the flange. and is summarized in Figure 13. Through-the-thickness normal and shear stress results in the area near the flange tip are shown as contour plots in Figures 9 and 10. respectively. which can obscure peak stress regions. The predicted damage initiation load for each failure index was calculated by interpolation between the nonlinear load steps. the tip thickness is equal to two plies. The radius at the flange tip corner is chosen equal to one ply thickness to better represent actual part geometry (perfectly sharp corners are not produced by typical machining processes). for the three-point bending loadcase at the maximum applied load. The adhesive filler size. The contour plots were created without averaging the nodal results across boundaries between different materials and plies. Damage is first predicted to initiate in the top 45° skin ply in the in-plane transverse tension failure mode at a location near the end of the adhesive fillet. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. Skin/T-Stiffener Damage Initiation Analysis Based on previous research and data from literature [5. For the tapered flange. This represents the onset of a delamination. The load-displacement response of the joint is shown in Figure 8..

is required to advance the crack. is determined using the procedure outlined in the Analysis Approach section.3 lbs. Note that in this case. is 43. Gtot can be calculated for each load level and plotted as shown in Figure 15.) and compared with the load requirements and damage growth criteria for the structure to determine the disposition.60 * 50 lbs.40 inches. Figure 17. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. the predicted static strength of the joint. additional load beyond the predicted damage initiation load of 25. Total strain energy release rate (Gtot ) and mode mix (GII/Gtot ) were calculated as a function of crack length using the fracture mechanics methods described earlier. Also note that only one crack location was modeled to demonstrate feasibility. The mode mix at each chosen crack length (in this case increments of 0.17]. as shown in Figure 18. static strength is dependent on the chosen initial crack length. The static strength of the joint. Therefore. as shown in Figure 13. As test data were not available for IM7/8552 during this study. a curve can also be used to determine the residual strength of the structure at a given crack length.crit . Pgrowth.40 inches was detected.16. from the FEM (Figure 15) to determine the tot load at which crack growth is predicted. Skin/T-Stiffener Fatigue Life Analysis The durability of the skin/T-stiffener joint under fatigue loading was then assessed using the methods discussed above in the Analysis Approach section.crit represents the amount of strain energy required to advance the crack an infinitesimal amount. The crack was 'grown' to a total length of acrit = 0. data were estimated based data for similar materials [5. Since the slope of the Pgrowth vs. which represents a maximum allowable damage size based on typical design criteria.crit .0. The critical fracture toughness values. for each crack length were then combined with the predicted strain energy release rate. Gtot. For the purposes of this study. For a complete analysis of the skin/T-stiffener joint. The smallest element size along the delamination was 0. The residual strength could then be determined from the Pgrowth curve (Pgrowth. G . The Pgrowth vs. Pgrowth. The mode mix was plotted versus crack length and a curve fit was made as shown in Figure 16. Pgrowth. suppose in-service damage of 0. crack growth from the other potential damage initiation sites in the adhesive and the flange laminate. = 30 lbs.00444 inches. Duplicate nodes were placed in the model along the crack then successively released and analyzed for a series of crack lengths.40 = 0.crit ’s. as the crack is opened. as shown in Figure 14. occurs when Gtot is equal to Gtot.05 inches were used) is then combined with fracture toughness test data to determine the critical fracture toughness. Since each nonlinear run has several load steps. Gtot.static . In this skin/T-stiffener example. The crack will begin to grow at a load of 43. In this case. This load. That is. Gtot. The curve shows that. crack length were then plotted as shown in Figure 18. 2002 Page 8 . a crack was introduced into the model to represent a matrix crack in the skin at the tip of the adhesive followed by crack growth between the top two skin plies. the crack will become unstable once that load is reached. a lower static strength would be predicted. if a larger initial crack size had been chosen.static. the amount of mode II fracture (inplane shear mode) relative to mode I (opening mode) gradually increases. would be evaluated.3 lbs. The values of Pgrowth vs.Skin/T-Stiffener Static Strength Analysis Based on the results of the damage initiation analysis. a curve is negative.6 lbs.

The estimated crack growth rate data were combined with the calculated SERRs to generate a set of S-N type curves for several R-ratios. the Pmax vs. The cycles to failure in this example are based on an arbitrary maximum allowable damage size of acrit = 0. loads.1.g. The crack length at which the joint falls below the required residual strength (based on the static Pgrowth vs. the Pgrowth curve from the static strength analysis can be used to determine the critical crack length (acrit ) for fatigue life analysis. This type of high load transfer joint is critical to the understanding of joint analysis and fatigue behavior. Next.FEM (= Gtot. 0.min . corresponding to cyclic loads Pmax and Pmin . The structure may be considered “failed” when the part can no longer carry a given load (e.6 lbs Matrix crack in top skin ply followed by delamination between top two skin plies Static Strength: Pgrowth. limit load).9 lbs (67% of predicted ultimate static strength). N curve for the corresponding R-ratio can be used to directly determine the number of cycles to failure.877. Single Lap Joint Model The single lap joint shown in Figure 21 represents a single-lap-shear flaperon repair.19]. This critical length would typically be determined by criteria or by residual strength requirements.max – Gtot. Skin/T-Stiffener Summary of Predictions Damage Initiation Load: Pinit = 25.10 are predicted to be 49. since data for IM7/8552 were not available for this study.05 inches Fatigue Life: (assuming joint failure at crack length = 0.75) were interpolated from the existing FEM load steps. For constant amplitude loading. 2002 Page 9 .40 inches) Low cycle fatigue.3 lbs Unstable crack growth at crack length = 0.40 inches. Pmax = 28. these values of ∆Gtot. the repair laminate uses Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.static = 43.the fatigue crack path was assumed to be the same as the static crack path. Values of ∆Gtot. Figure 20.. see Figure 5) for three R-ratios (0. and cycles to failure are consistent with previously developed test data from similar specimens [18. The skin laminate is made with IM6/3501-6 grade 145 carbon fiber tape. for Pmax = 28. the cycles to failure at an R-ratio of 0.5 and 0.877 cycles While directly comparable static and fatigue test results for this configuration were not available. If a residual strength criterion is used. the predicted damage locations. as shown in Figure 19.9 lbs --> 49.FEM were compared to crack growth rate test data to determine the predicted crack growth rate at a given crack length for each load level. The two-dimensional (through-the-thickness) finite element model of the joint shown in Figure 21 was constructed based on a typical tilt-rotor flaperon skin repair joint [20]. which is typically higher than the fatigue load. For example. a curve) can then be used as acrit . The test data were estimated and assumed to be independent of R-ratio.

Through-the-thickness normal stress and shear stress results in the area at the end of the repair laminate are shown in Figures 23 and 24 at the maximum applied load (3000 lbs). Higher stresses were observed at the repair laminate termination (left end) than at the skin laminate termination (right end). A summary of the predicted damage initiation loads and location is shown in Figure 28. it was assumed that a through-thethickness matrix crack in the two 45° plies above the 0° ply would also occur.15]. which results in more bending in the flaperon skin. The joint is axially loaded. Single Lap Joint Damage Initiation Analysis The same three damage initiation failure criteria were used as for the skin/T-stiffener model. as shown in Figure 21. This is likely because the flaperon laminate is thinner and less stiff (smaller percentage of 0° plies) than the repair laminate. This behavior is consistent with test results from similar tests reported in [20]. Figure 22 shows the model details. The loading tabs were simulated in the model. The thickness directions of the contour plots are exaggerated by a factor of 3 for clarity. One element was used through the thickness of each ply. A survey of all three failure indices at both ends of the joint indicated that the left end of the joint was more critical in all cases. These plots show that the critical location is in the 0° ply at the end of the repair adherend. The material properties are given in Tables 1 and 2. An axial load of 3000 lbs was applied to the end of the model. except for two skin and one repair plies adjacent to the adhesive and for the adhesive layer where three elements through the thickness of each ply were used. The adhesive is Magnolia 6363 paste. Figures 26 and 27 show failure index contour plots of the maximum transverse tensile stress criterion at P = 3000 lbs.AS4/3501-6 5-harness (5HS) carbon fiber fabric. The joint was modeled with –65°F material properties.05 in/in Figure 25 shows the adhesive Von Mises strain failure index plotted along the entire bondline. and the element densities relative to the ply and adhesive thicknesses. respectively. 2002 Page 10 . One-half of the joint was modeled with symmetry boundary conditions at the centerline. The appropriate composite ply properties are entered for each element based on its material and orientation. For the purposes of the damage growth modeling. Damage is predicted to initiate as a delamination between the 0° ply and the –45° ply above it. and the interlaminar tension-shear stress interaction criterion at P = 2400 lbs. the following strength values were used to calculate the failure indices in the lap joint materials: Skin interlaminar tension: Skin interlaminar shear: Repair interlaminar tension: Repair interlaminar shear: Skin transverse (in-plane) tension: Adhesive Von Mises strain 3000 psi 5000 psi 4000 psi 6000 psi 5000 psi 0. The adhesive is predicted to fail at Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. including the different ply types and orientations (material properties). Based on data from literature [5. and were constrained from moving in the thickness direction (Y).

Once the maximum static load (Pgrowth. Pgrowth. After that. is lower than the predicted damage initiation load. The values of Pgrowth vs. The mode mix at each chosen crack length (in this case. As test data were not available for IM6/3501-6 at –65°F. As can be seen in the figure. Interpolation was used to determine Pgrowth for each crack length. the total strain energy release rate (Gtot ) and the fracture mode mix (GII/Gtot ) were calculated and plotted as a function of crack length as shown in Figures 30 and 31.50 inches.higher loads than the skin laminate. was compared to crack growth rate test data to determine the predicted crack growth Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. Pinit corresponds to a crack length of 0. The model was then run for each increment of crack growth. Pgrowth at the initial crack length (ainit = 0. increments of 0. 2002 Page 11 . As shown in Figure 33. the mode mix shifts from mode I dominated fracture (opening mode) to mode II dominated (in-plane shear mode). a curve is still positive in that region. Gtot. Single Lap Joint Static Strength Analysis The predicted damage initiation load and location was used as the starting point for the fracture mechanics based strength analysis.50 inches.static = 2028 lbs. a lower static strength would have been predicted (Figure 18). the crack becomes unstable and continues growing to the critical length. the mode mix at any crack length can be determined.10 inches. since the slope of the Pgrowth vs. the fatigue crack path was assumed to be the same as the static crack path and the calculated change in total strain energy release rate. Crack growth is predicted at the load.crit .) is reached at a = 0. A crack was placed in the model at the left end of the adhesive bondline (end of the repair laminate) and then “grown” incrementally at the interface between the top –45° and 0° skin plies to a total length of 1. Figure 31 shows that as the crack opens from 0. then remains fairly constant as the crack continues to grow to 1. which represents a maximum allowable damage size based on criteria. As in the skin/T-stiffener analysis.10 inches. estimates were based on data for similar materials [5.05 inches and 0. Pinit = 1875 lbs. That is. additional load is required to continue crack growth.16]. the crack will grow to this length.05 inches).crit (Figure 32). 2028 lbs will be required to grow the crack to its critical length. From this curve. the same maximum static load will be predicted for any initial crack crack size between 0.05 inches to 0.72 inches.00444 inches.50 inches). Note that in this case. since regardless of the initial length. Again. which is a desirable design condition and consistent with test results on this type of bonded joint. Single Lap Joint Fatigue Life Analysis The durability of the single lap joint under fatigue loading was then assessed in the same manner as for the skin/T-stiffener joint. at which Gtot is equal to Gtot.25 inches. ∆Gtot. Figure 29 shows the deformed model for a crack length of 0.50 inches. if a larger initial crack size had been chosen. This is in contrast to the skin/T-stiffener example where.6. This indicates that as soon as damage initiates. crack length were then plotted using the same method as for the skin/T-stiffener joint. The smallest element size along the delamination was 0. static strength is not dependent on the chosen initial crack length (assuming the chosen initial length is less than 0.15 inches were used) is then compared to fracture toughness test data to determine the critical fracture toughness.FEM .

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.

300 0.Table 2: Adhesive Material Properties Tau elastic (psi) 4000 5800 Adhesive FM-300 Magnolia 6363 G elastic Temperature (psi) 70°F -65°F 200000 135000 ν12 0. 2002 Page 15 . N • Spectra Figure 2: Outline of Bonded Joint Analysis Approach Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. Inc 5 Deformed(0.34 E elastic (psi) 536000 361800 Tau max (psi) γ plastic 5000 9820 0.315): Total Translation Fatigue Analysis Results • Cycles to failure • P vs.231 Figure 1: Common Failure Sequence for Composite Bonded Joints (Showing Adherend Delamination Due to Peel Stresses in the Joint) Database Joint Configuration and Loads Joint Configuration and Loading Input • • • • • Joint Geometry Critical Loads Fatigue Spectra Materials Environments Global Loads from Global FE Model Sub-element Loads from non-linear FEM V L 1 C Analysis Strength of Materials Local Bondline FE Model DamageInitiation Analysis Results • Initial damage load • Damage mechanism • Location Y Z X Fracture Mechanics Material Properties and Criteria Stiffnesses and nonlinear properties Strength Data Local FE Model w/Crack V2 L1 C11 Static Analysis Results • Ultimate load • Crack stability Fracture Toughness Data Fatigue Data Structural Design Criteria Y Z X Output Set: Step 1.34 0.

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.

5 inch wide specimen) Load = 3000 lb Load = 2400 lb 0.4 2.6 1.2 ε Von Mises Strain Criteria (ε vm_max = 0.05) (Loads based on 1.4 1.8 Load = 18200 lb Load = 1200 lb Load = 600 lb 0.2 0.0 predicts damage initiation Max Transverse Tensile Stress Criterion (Y Scale Exaggerated for Clarity) Figure 26: Single Lap Joint—Maximum Transverse Tension Failure Index Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.4 0. 2002 Page 28 .Flaperon Repair Lap Joint.0 0.9 X Position Figure 25: Single Lap Joint—Adhesive Von Mises Strain Failure Indices Contours shown for P = 3000 lbs Failure index > 1.0 Adhesive Failure at 3096 lb Failure Index 0.9 1. Axial Load Static Load Failure Indices in Adhesive 1.9 2.

Contours shown for P = 2400 lbs Failure index > 1.0 predicts damage initiation CFRP Interlaminar Interaction Criterion Delamination in 0° skin ply predicted Critical Load: P =1875 lbs (Y Scale Exaggerated for Clarity) Figure 27: Single Lap Joint—CFRP Interlaminar Tension-Shear Stress Interaction Failure Index P =1875 lbs Interlaminar Stress P =3096 lbs Figure 28: Single Lap Joint—Predicted Damage Initiation Loads and Locations Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. 2002 Page 29 .

10 inches Deformations and Y-scale exaggerated for clarity Figure 29: Single Lap Joint—Model with Skin Delamination Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45°) and Ply 3 (0°) 8.2 0.4 0.05”) to the chosen critical crack length (1. Figure 30: Single Lap Joint—Strain Energy Release Rate.00 Gtotal (in-lb/in^2) 5.200 1.556 P/PFEM = 0.0 1.10”) G total versus Crack Length P FEM = 3000 lbs P/PFEM = 1.7 0.0 0 0.0 FE model is run to P FEM for a series of crack lengths as the crack is opened from the chosen initial crack length (0.756 P/PFEM = 0. 2002 Page 30 .0 2.0 4.2 (ainit) Crack Length.1 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.Matrix crack in skin at tip of adhesive followed by crack growth between skin plies 2 and 3 to a to a length of 1.0 6.3 0.8 0. a (in) Data from FEM Interpolated points for chosen crack lengths (acrit ) . (Gtot )FEM vs.0 3.0 7. a Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.388 P/PFEM = 0. Crack Length.6 0.9 1 P/PFEM = 0.

a (in) Figure 31: Single Lap Joint—Determination of Mode Mix for a Given Crack Length Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot.30 0.0 Mode mix for chosen crack lengths.c 2.10 0.0 0. Estimated Data 6.20 0.80 0. GII/G tot Figure 32: Single Lap Joint—Determination of Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot.70 0.50 0. acrit .40 0.60 0.90 1.c) versus Mode Mix (G II/Gtot ) for IM6/3501-6 tape.05" chosen critical crack size.40 0. -65°F.05" < a < 1.00 1.20 0.40 0.60 0. 2002 Page 31 .0 Gtot.00 1.20 0.90 0.00 0.0 100% GII 5.0 ** Estimated Data ** 3.crit) from Fracture Toughness Data Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.10" G tot.80 Mode Mix Ratio shown for PFEM = 3000 lb.00 0.00 chosen initial crack size.10 1.30 0.20 Crack Length. the applied load to the FEM Calculated using FEM nodal data & VCCT Curve fit showing chosen crack length increments Mode Mix Ratio (G total ) II /G 0.0 100% GI GII/Gtot 0.10 0. ainit = 0.10 0.70 0.c (in-lb/in 2 ) 4.50 0.80 0. 0.Fracture Toughness Mode Mix Ratio (GII/Gtotal) Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45°) and Ply 3 (0°) 1.30 0. based on critieria 0.0 Mode Mix.60 0.50 0.70 0.90 1.00 0.

E+12 Log[Cycles. a Load Ratio (Pmax / PFEM) vs.10 0.70 0.50 0.E+00 R = 0.static 0.00 0.00 (0.10 0.60 0. a (in) (acrit) Figure 33: Single Lap Joint—Predicted Residual Strength .00 0.30 0. a curve indicates that crack will open to 0.e. lower load required for propagation as crack length increases) Pgrowth /P FEM 0.10 1.05") 0.90 0.90 0.E+06 1.E+08 1.75 R = 0.676 --> Pgrowth.30 0.80 0.70 P growth.50 0.80 0.10 0.625 --> Pinit = 1875 lbs (damage initiation load) Negative slope indicates unstable crack growth (i. Crack Length.1 1. 2002 Page 32 .50".20 Pgrowth vs. N curves are developed for a series of R-ratios and used to address both constant applitude and spectrum fatigue loading Pmax / P growth.80 0.90 1.30 0.00 1. Cycles (N) Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45°) and Ply 3 (0°) 1.50 0.20 0.5 R = 0.40 0.20 0.E+10 1.00 1.60 0.static = 2028 lbs (ainit) Crack Length.E+04 1. N] Figure 34: Single Lap Joint—Predicted Cycles to Failure vs.20 0.E+02 1.60 0. The crack will then become "unstable" as shown.Pgrowth vs.00 0. Load Level and R-Ratio Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.25" once damage initiates (at Pinit) then require more load to open to 0.static = 2028 lbs P vs.Pgrowth versus Crack Length. a Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45°) and Ply 3 (0°) P growth = PFEM = 3000 lbs 1.70 0.40 0. Max load at 0..40 0.