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

The interlaminar tension-shear stress interaction criterion is used to predict delamination of the composite adherends. is reached. or the condition where a crack exists due to a manufacturing or in-service damage event. The selection of an initial crack size should be based Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. location. 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. and growth path. The first step in the static strength analysis is to choose the initial crack size. Locating a crack in a critical location simulates either the condition where a crack develops once the damage initiation load. 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. in laminates with either tape and/or fabric plies. 2002 Page 4 . Pinit . 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.

50 ) can be directly compared with the limit load to determine a margin of safety.. It may be necessary to analyze several crack paths to ensure that the critical path has been identified. They can also be used in damage tolerance analyses. the load. and Gtot . Other matrix cracking. a = 0. the calculated SERRs as a function of crack length and load level (Gtot vs. the total strain energy release rate (SERR.0. where the crack tip continues along a line between plies or along fibers within a ply during crack growth. and the mode mix (GII/Gtot ).on many factors. Pgrowth. Pgrowth. crack length. GII. The method of determining the ultimate static strength. The crack interfaces are modeled along the direction of anticipated crack growth.13] is used to calculate GI. The use of ∆Gtot (i. and ply jumping crack behaviors require more energy to propagate the crack than self-similar crack growth. A residual strength curve is then plotted as Pgrowth vs. and used to predict static strength and crack stability as a function of crack length. such as after the detection of in-service damage. the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) [12. it is generally conservative to assume a “clean crack path”. 2002 Page 5 . Gtot. Gtot ) is calculated for the crack length from the change in strain energy in the model between successive crack lengths. Then by comparing G tot from the finite element model (calculated at several load steps) to Gtot. Fatigue Life An outline of the fatigue life analysis procedure is given in Figure 5. A series of runs of the FE model are made for successive increments of increasing crack lengths.50 inch (Pgrowth. duplicate nodes are placed in the FE model along the anticipated crack path. a curves can be used to determine residual strength of the joint at any crack length. At several crack lengths. Note that within composite laminates.14]. critical crack interfaces can occur between two plies in the adherend. the critical fracture toughness. and on specific criteria. if the damage tolerance criteria for a given structure states that the joint must carry limit load in the presence of 0. including manufacturing acceptance and/or damage tolerance criteria for the specific structure. 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. The Pgrowth vs. To predict crack growth under cyclic loading. For each load step in each analysis run. In bonded joints with composite adherends. ∆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.crit is determined for each crack length using test data at the appropriate mode mix (GII/Gtot ) for that crack length.50 x 0. Note that mode mix was not considered in the fatigue analysis. and within the adhesive. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. the residual strength at a crack length.e. between the adherend and the adhesive.static depends on the shape of the Pgrowth versus crack length curve. Once the crack interface has been selected. 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 [2.50 inch damage.6. Next. a from FEM) are combined with crack growth rate test data (da/dN vs.crit at a given crack length. a. at which the crack is predicted to grow is determined. For example. as shown in Figure 4. Next. ply bridging.

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

for the three-point bending loadcase at the maximum applied load. Progressing to higher load.15]. does not occur.Other important areas in the bondline and the adhesive fillet were also modeled in detail. 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). 2002 Page 7 . Significant plastic yielding of the adhesive was predicted in a small region adjacent to the flange tip as shown in these figures. Skin/T-Stiffener Damage Initiation Analysis Based on previous research and data from literature [5. 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. the tip thickness is equal to two plies. it is expected that this delamination would start at the matrix crack and propagate along the interface between the first two skin plies. and is summarized in Figure 13.5]. no rounded flange tip or resin pocket) and material property discontinuities. the model predicts an interlaminar failure in the top 45° skin ply below the end of the flange. The predicted damage initiation load for each failure index was calculated by interpolation between the nonlinear load steps.e.. For the tapered flange. The contour plots were created without averaging the nodal results across boundaries between different materials and plies. given that the 45° ply is predicted to have a matrix crack. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. 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. This delamination propagation behavior is consistent with test results from similar tests reported in [4. This represents the onset of a matrix crack in the 45° ply. The load-displacement response of the joint is shown in Figure 8. respectively. which is a desirable design condition and consistent with test results on this type of bonded joint. This level of detailed model avoids stress singularities that would be caused by the combination of sharp corners (i. This ensures that inappropriate averaging. which can obscure peak stress regions. The model was run to a maximum load (PFEM) of 50 lbs with geometric and material nonlinearity enabled. 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 0.05 in/in The results are shown in contour form in Figures 11 and 12. 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. The height of the adhesive fillet extends up two plies on the flange and the slope of the fillet is roughly 45°. This represents the onset of a delamination. The adhesive is predicted to fail at higher loads than the skin laminate. The adhesive filler size.

As test data were not available for IM7/8552 during this study.6 lbs.40 inches was detected. The mode mix was plotted versus crack length and a curve fit was made as shown in Figure 16. 2002 Page 8 . The Pgrowth vs.crit represents the amount of strain energy required to advance the crack an infinitesimal amount. Duplicate nodes were placed in the model along the crack then successively released and analyzed for a series of crack lengths.0.05 inches were used) is then combined with fracture toughness test data to determine the critical fracture toughness. Gtot. the crack will become unstable once that load is reached.Skin/T-Stiffener Static Strength Analysis Based on the results of the damage initiation analysis. 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.17]. The crack will begin to grow at a load of 43. data were estimated based data for similar materials [5. Figure 17.00444 inches. Note that in this case.3 lbs. The critical fracture toughness values. Gtot. G .crit . In this case. as shown in Figure 13. is determined using the procedure outlined in the Analysis Approach section. the amount of mode II fracture (inplane shear mode) relative to mode I (opening mode) gradually increases.60 * 50 lbs. which represents a maximum allowable damage size based on typical design criteria. Therefore. The static strength of the joint. In this skin/T-stiffener example.) and compared with the load requirements and damage growth criteria for the structure to determine the disposition. This load. The smallest element size along the delamination was 0. That is.3 lbs. Pgrowth. The curve shows that. crack length were then plotted as shown in Figure 18. for each crack length were then combined with the predicted strain energy release rate. would be evaluated. suppose in-service damage of 0. 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. Since each nonlinear run has several load steps. a lower static strength would be predicted. Pgrowth.crit . as shown in Figure 18. The values of Pgrowth vs. from the FEM (Figure 15) to determine the tot load at which crack growth is predicted. the predicted static strength of the joint. if a larger initial crack size had been chosen. crack growth from the other potential damage initiation sites in the adhesive and the flange laminate. The mode mix at each chosen crack length (in this case increments of 0. Gtot can be calculated for each load level and plotted as shown in Figure 15. Gtot. 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. as shown in Figure 14. Also note that only one crack location was modeled to demonstrate feasibility. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. = 30 lbs. as the crack is opened. For a complete analysis of the skin/T-stiffener joint.static . additional load beyond the predicted damage initiation load of 25.crit ’s.static.16. static strength is dependent on the chosen initial crack length. a curve is negative. occurs when Gtot is equal to Gtot. a curve can also be used to determine the residual strength of the structure at a given crack length. For the purposes of this study. The crack was 'grown' to a total length of acrit = 0.40 = 0. Pgrowth.40 inches. is 43. is required to advance the crack. Since the slope of the Pgrowth vs. The residual strength could then be determined from the Pgrowth curve (Pgrowth.

FEM (= Gtot. these values of ∆Gtot. For constant amplitude loading. Pmax = 28.the fatigue crack path was assumed to be the same as the static crack path. Skin/T-Stiffener Summary of Predictions Damage Initiation Load: Pinit = 25. This type of high load transfer joint is critical to the understanding of joint analysis and fatigue behavior. the predicted damage locations.6 lbs Matrix crack in top skin ply followed by delamination between top two skin plies Static Strength: Pgrowth.75) were interpolated from the existing FEM load steps.40 inches. Next. 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]. 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. for Pmax = 28.1. since data for IM7/8552 were not available for this study.static = 43. the cycles to failure at an R-ratio of 0.5 and 0. see Figure 5) for three R-ratios (0. corresponding to cyclic loads Pmax and Pmin . and cycles to failure are consistent with previously developed test data from similar specimens [18.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. If a residual strength criterion is used. Single Lap Joint Model The single lap joint shown in Figure 21 represents a single-lap-shear flaperon repair.10 are predicted to be 49. the Pgrowth curve from the static strength analysis can be used to determine the critical crack length (acrit ) for fatigue life analysis.max – Gtot. the repair laminate uses Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. 2002 Page 9 . Figure 20. Values of ∆Gtot.877. 0. The skin laminate is made with IM6/3501-6 grade 145 carbon fiber tape. limit load). N curve for the corresponding R-ratio can be used to directly determine the number of cycles to failure.min .19].05 inches Fatigue Life: (assuming joint failure at crack length = 0. as shown in Figure 19. the Pmax vs.3 lbs Unstable crack growth at crack length = 0.9 lbs --> 49.40 inches) Low cycle fatigue.. The structure may be considered “failed” when the part can no longer carry a given load (e. The test data were estimated and assumed to be independent of R-ratio.9 lbs (67% of predicted ultimate static strength).877 cycles While directly comparable static and fatigue test results for this configuration were not available. This critical length would typically be determined by criteria or by residual strength requirements. The crack length at which the joint falls below the required residual strength (based on the static Pgrowth vs. loads. which is typically higher than the fatigue load. For example.g. The cycles to failure in this example are based on an arbitrary maximum allowable damage size of acrit = 0. a curve) can then be used as acrit .

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

the mode mix at any crack length can be determined.50 inches).15 inches were used) is then compared to fracture toughness test data to determine the critical fracture toughness.6. Crack growth is predicted at the load.crit . additional load is required to continue crack growth. The smallest element size along the delamination was 0. From this curve. This is in contrast to the skin/T-stiffener example where. Interpolation was used to determine Pgrowth for each crack length.05 inches and 0.05 inches). Once the maximum static load (Pgrowth.25 inches. Figure 29 shows the deformed model for a crack length of 0. Gtot. a curve is still positive in that region.10 inches. As can be seen in the figure. Again. the same maximum static load will be predicted for any initial crack crack size between 0.72 inches.) is reached at a = 0. Note that in this case. ∆Gtot. estimates were based on data for similar materials [5. crack length were then plotted using the same method as for the skin/T-stiffener joint. This indicates that as soon as damage initiates. since the slope of the Pgrowth vs. As shown in Figure 33. That is. a lower static strength would have been predicted (Figure 18).50 inches. The mode mix at each chosen crack length (in this case. The values of Pgrowth vs. 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. the crack will grow to this length. The model was then run for each increment of crack growth. which represents a maximum allowable damage size based on criteria. if a larger initial crack size had been chosen. then remains fairly constant as the crack continues to grow to 1.static = 2028 lbs. 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. static strength is not dependent on the chosen initial crack length (assuming the chosen initial length is less than 0. Pinit = 1875 lbs. at which Gtot is equal to Gtot.FEM . Figure 31 shows that as the crack opens from 0. is lower than the predicted damage initiation load. the mode mix shifts from mode I dominated fracture (opening mode) to mode II dominated (in-plane shear mode). 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. which is a desirable design condition and consistent with test results on this type of bonded joint. since regardless of the initial length. was compared to crack growth rate test data to determine the predicted crack growth Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.higher loads than the skin laminate. After that.50 inches. Pgrowth at the initial crack length (ainit = 0. As test data were not available for IM6/3501-6 at –65°F. Pgrowth. increments of 0. 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. 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.05 inches to 0.50 inches.10 inches. 2002 Page 11 . 2028 lbs will be required to grow the crack to its critical length. the crack becomes unstable and continues growing to the critical length.00444 inches. Pinit corresponds to a crack length of 0. As in the skin/T-stiffener analysis.16].crit (Figure 32).

the Pmax vs. For example. 2002 Page 12 . Pmax vs. Single Lap Joint Summary of Predictions Damage Initiation Load: Pinit = 1875 lbs Delamination in 0° tape skin ply will open to 0. Figure 19.static = 2028 lbs Unstable crack growth at crack length = 0.10 are predicted to be 132. loads.10 inches) Low cycle fatigue.25 inches once damage initiates Static Strength: Pgrowth. for Pmax = 1358 lbs (67% of predicted ultimate static strength). several potentially critical delamination locations would be evaluated. the cycles to failure at an R-ratio of 0. Only a single delamination location was analyzed for each configuration. in order to demonstrate the analysis approach. The analysis approach was applied to two different joint configurations.10 inches.50 inches Fatigue Life: (assuming joint failure at crack length = 1. CONCLUSIONS It has been shown that the analysis approach presented here for composite bonded joints can be used for predicting critical failure modes. the predicted damage locations. Pmax = 1358 lbs -->132.569 cycles While directly comparable test results for this configuration were not available. These results have been achieved through the use of basic material fracture toughness data. For constant amplitude loading. For a complete analysis of a given configuration.569. and cycles to failure are consistent with similar test data as reported in Reference 20. damage initiation loads and locations. This critical length would typically be determined by criteria or by residual strength requirements.rate at a given crack length for each load level. N curve for the corresponding R-ratio can be used to directly determine the number of cycles to failure. The dashed lines show the results from the skin/T-stiffener joint for comparison. residual strength. N curves were then developed for several R-ratios as shown in Figure 34. static strength. and without reliance on complicated and controversial stress-based failure criteria. and fatigue life. 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. The cycles to failure in this example are based on an arbitrary maximum allowable damage size of acrit = 1. This Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.

3..K. Adams.S. REFERENCES 1.2. C. London. J.” NASA Tech Memo 85694. W. 41. 1997. Vancouver.” Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Composite Materials (ICCM-X).” 83rd Meeting of the AGARD SMP—Bolted/Bonded Joints in Polymeric Composites. 7.” FAA Final Report DOT/FAA/AR-97/56. and O’Brien... August 1995. Composite Materials Handbook. 1997.. 1983. which indicates that a non-linear analysis is required to properly address the structural behavior. T. Volume 3E. 1994. I. Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. Mall. “Analysis of Adhesive Stresses in Bonded Joints. “Analysis of Skin/Stringer Bond Failure Using a Strain Energy Release Rate Approach.” Proceeding of the 38th AIAA Structures. 1994.. S. 587-600. Johnson.. R. 1998. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers. “Applications of Fracture Mechanics to the Durability of Bonded Composite Joints. 10. 1978. 2. “A Fracture Mechanics Approach for Designing Adhesively Bonded Joints. September. Minguet... P. British Columbia. Minguet. automation of the analysis would be essential for practical applications.. Rousseau. Fernlund.” NASA Tech Memo 112860.C.” Composites Science and Technology.. “The Strength of Adhesive-bonded Joints between Fibre-reinforced Plastics and Metals. Murri. Predicting residual strength to compare and validate designs Predicting crack growth under repeated loads to select inspection methods and intervals. P. 5.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.P. K. Structural Adhesive Joints in Engineering..N. a curve to select critical crack size for residual strength analysis.” Symposium: Joining in Fibre Reinf. Substantial material and geometric non-linearity was observed in the modeling. P.S. “Analysis of the Strength of the Interface between Frame and Skin in a Bonded Composite Fuselage Panel. Also. “Strength Prediction of Bonded Joints. Grant. C.. 9. Hildebrand. W. 8. Canada. London. 11. Mil-Handbook-17. D. 2002 Page 13 . due to the time intensive nature of the post processing of finite element model results. January 1997. et al. Plastics.J..B. G. Imperial College. Johnson. et al. Section 5. and Wake. Vol. G.” Technical Research Centre of Finland. p. Science and Technology Press. 1997. pp.. T. W.. M. “Fracture Load Predictions for Adhesive Joints. Charalambides M. 6. 51. O’Brien. 4. Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. “Fatigue Life Methodology for Tapered Composite Flexbeam Laminates.. 1984. et al.

“Stress Ratio Effect on Cyclic Debonding in Adhesively Bonded Composite Joints.“Computational Methods for Using Shell Elements in Skin Stiffener Disbonding Analysis”. Keary.. P. “Life Prediction Methodology for Composite Structures.87 Msi Msi Msi Msi Msi Msi Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research. P.D. 1987. April 1997. L..623 AS4/3501-6 5HS Fabric 9. 16.I. 9.” Engr.. Pierre J. and Trostle..45 0. O’Brien. Stewart.. 19. T..” Journal of Composite Materials.8 1.34 0.45 0. May 1988. Wang.12. December 1996. 13.R. 1987.57 1. and Rezaizdeh. Tsai. 1977.D.” Composite Structures.57 0..F. “An Experimental Investigation of Composite Bonded and/or Bolted Repairs Using Single Lap Joint Designs. 2/1997. M.34 0. M.. NASA Tech Memo 110331/Army Research Lab Report 1342. No.. 31. 15/2000. NASA CP 3229.32 0.K. Vol. Davidson. A. M.87 0. 18.. 17.S.65 0. 26 January 1999/PhD.. S. Ronald.65 IM6/3501-6 Grade 145 Tape 23. Stephen W. Dayton. 20.. Minguet. Polymer Engineering and Science.05 0. Mall. No. Table 1: Lamina Material Properties IM7/8552 Grade 160 Tape E1 E2 E3 ν12 ν13 ν23 G12 G13 G23 20.. O'Brien. OH.89 0.65 1. Cvitkovich.. 14. Interlaminar Fracture Toughness Testing of Composite Mode I and Mide II DCB Specimens”. Ramamurthy.T.K. 9. 34. Vol. Thesis. 28.” Bell Helicopter Textron Report 299-100-779. G. Kevin and Minguet.. 2002 Page 14 . J. Raju. "Testing and Analysis of Composite Skin/Stringer Debonding Under Multi-Axial Loading. Composites Design. and O’Brien. T. Krueger. Vol.32 0. Fracture Mechanics.W. University of Texas at Arlington. pp931-938. Parts I and II. Vol. Cvitkovich..H. B.65 0.87 0. J.89 0.57 0.32 0. Vol. Sleight. Think Composites. E.. B. No. Ilcewicz. Michael K.32 0.T. and Kanninen. 31-45.5 9.7 1.F.. 1993. Martin. “Fatigue Debonding Characterization in Composite Skin/ Stringer Configurations”. 8.5 1. 3rd Ed.R. Schaff. “A Finite Element Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors by a Modified Crack Closure Integral." Journal of Composite Materials.. pp. J. M. Rybicki. E..65 0. 15.

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. Inc 5 Deformed(0.300 0.315): Total Translation Fatigue Analysis Results • Cycles to failure • P vs. 2002 Page 15 . N • Spectra Figure 2: Outline of Bonded Joint Analysis Approach Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.34 E elastic (psi) 536000 361800 Tau max (psi) γ plastic 5000 9820 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 0.34 0.

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

Pj da/dN (in/cycle) Test Data ∆G tot at ai . Pj from FEM ∆G tot = G tot.max .max at ai . 2002 Page 17 . for Series of Crack Increments.Gtot.Gtot. to Grow Crack by ∆a Sum Up ∆N From ainit to acritical To Obtain Cycles To Failure. ∆Gtotal. Pj P1 ainit P3 P2 P4 Inc rea sin gL oa d PFEM Pj Crack growth rate at given ai.min acrit ai Crack Length. Pj Gtot. Calculate Crack Growth Rate and Divide By ∆a to Obtain Number of Cycles. ∆a Using Material da/dN Data. a ∆Gtot ∆a / (da/dN) = ∆N at a i.min at ai . Calculate SERR. Pj For Each Load Level. 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. ∆N.

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. 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.C.Frame or stiffener Since Critical Location Known to be Flange TIP. 2002 Page 18 . FE Model Incorporates Skin and Stiffener Flange Only.

12 0.06 0. P (lbs) 40 30 20 Load-Displacement Curve Linear Line 10 0 0 0.Skin/T-Stiffener Damage Initiation Model Load vs Deflection at Stiffener Centerline 60 50 Applied Load.02 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 0.08 0. 2002 Page 19 .04 0.

2002 Page 20 .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 = 25.6 lb. Figure 11: Skin/T-Stiffener—Maximum Transverse Tensile Stress Failure Index Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.

(3). P=25. (2). P=36. P=45.4 lbs Figure 12: Skin/T-Stiffener—CFRP Interlaminar Tension-Shear Stress Interaction and Adhesive Von Mises Strain Failure Indices F. Max Transverse Tension (Matrix Crack) Figure 13: Skin/T-Stiffener— Predicted Damage Initiation Loads and Locations Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.I.I.0 predicts damage initiation CFRP Interlaminar Interaction Criterion Delamination in top skin plies predicted Critical Load: P = 36. Interlaminar Stress (Delamination) F. VonMises Strain (Adhesive) F.4 lb.Contours shown for P = 50 lbs Failure index > 1. (1).I. 2002 Page 21 .2 lb.6 lb.2 lbs Adhesive VonMises Strain Criterion Adhesive failure predicted Critical Load: P = 45.

0 3.4 0.45 P/PFEM = 0.0 4.05 0.4 P/PFEM = 0.35 0.Matrix crack in skin at tip of adhesive followed by crack growth between top two skin plies to a length of 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 (0.6 P/PFEM = 0. a (in) (acrit ) Figure 15: Skin/T-Stiffener—Strain Energy Release Rate.0 5. a Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.15 Data from FEM Interpolated points for chosen crack lengths 0.0 1.0 0.40” Figure 14: Skin/T-Stiffener—Analyzed Crack Path Crack Between Skin Plies 1 (+45) and 2 (-45) 9.2 0.0 Gtotal versus Crack Length Gtotal (in-lb/in^2) 6.2 0.05”) to the chosen critical crack length (0. 2002 Page 22 .0 7.1 0. (Gtot )FEM vs.25 0. Crack Length.8 (ainit) Crack Length.0 8.0 2.3 0.40”) P FEM = 50 lbs P/PFEM = 1.0 0 P/PFEM = 0.

c (in-lb/in ) 5. RT.40 0. based on critieria Calculated using FEM nodal data & VCCT Curve fit showing chosen crack length increments 0. ainit chosen critical crack size.80 0.10 0.0 4.0 2.35 Mode Mix Ratio shown for P FEM = 50 lb.c 2 ** Estimated Data ** Mode Mix.00 G tot.40 0.0 0.c) versus Mode Mix (GII/Gtot ) for IM7/8552 tape.40 0.00 GII/G tot 0.Fracture Toughness Mode Mix Ratio (G II/Gtotal) Crack Between Skin Ply 1 (+45) and Ply 2 (-45) 0.30 0.50 0.05 0.25 0.00 0. 0. GII /Gtot Figure 17: Skin/T-Stiffener— Determination of Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot.crit) from Fracture Toughness Data Page 23 Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.30 0. Estimated Data 8.20 0.20 0.15 0.0 Mode mix for chosen crack lengths.05 0.25 0.15 0.35 0. the applied load to the FEM Mode Mix Ratio (G II/G total ) 0.0 3.70 0.0 100% G I 1.05" < a < 0.60 0.00 chosen initial crack size.0 6.0 0.10 0.90 1.0 7. a (in) Figure 16: Skin/T-Stiffener—Determination of Mode Mix for a Given Crack Length Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot.30 0. 2002 . a crit.40" 100% G II Gtot.45 Crack Length.20 0.10 0.

a (in) (acrit) 0.30 0. a Crack Between Skin Plies 1 (+45) and 2 (-45) P growth = PFEM = 50 lbs 1.Pgrowth vs.E-06 1.. R = 0.80 0.45 Figure 18: Skin/T-Stiffener—Predicted Residual Strength .E-08 1.E-03 Log[da/dN]. lower load required for propagation as crack length increases) Pgrowth /P FEM 0.866 --> Pgrowth.05 0.E-05 1.50 0.00 0. (in/cycle) 1.70 Max load at 0.90 0. -65° F.e.00 Additional load required to propagate damage 0.1 ** Estimated Data ** Gtot from FEM for a given load level (P) and crack length (a) 1.40 0. 2002 Page 24 .4 lbs) (ainit) 0.60 0.30 0. Strain Energy Release Rate (∆Gtot) ∆ 1.1 Crack growth rate (da/dN) for a given P and a IM6/3501-6.00 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.10 0.20 0.g.0.0 10.E-07 1.3 lbs Negative slope indicates unstable crack growth (i.512 --> Pinit = 25.Pgrowth versus Crack Length. P residual.0 100. a Crack Growth Rate (da/dN) vs.1 IM7/8552.E-04 1.608 * 50 lbs = 30.20 0. CLS. RT.E-02 1. CLS.static = 43.40 0.35 Crack Length.15 0.40 = 0.E-09 0. Crack Length. R = 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.10 0.25 0.

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

P = 3000 lb.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 0.50 0. (1.50 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.94 0.35 1. 2002 Page 26 .50 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.

05) (Loads based on 1.6 1. 2002 Page 28 .0 0.9 X Position Figure 25: Single Lap Joint—Adhesive Von Mises Strain Failure Indices Contours shown for P = 3000 lbs Failure index > 1.4 2.0 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.5 inch wide specimen) Load = 3000 lb Load = 2400 lb 0.4 0.0 Adhesive Failure at 3096 lb Failure Index 0.2 0. Axial Load Static Load Failure Indices in Adhesive 1.Flaperon Repair Lap Joint.9 1.2 ε Von Mises Strain Criteria (ε vm_max = 0.9 2.8 Load = 18200 lb Load = 1200 lb Load = 600 lb 0.4 1.

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 .

0 6. a Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.1 0.05”) to the chosen critical crack length (1.3 0. Figure 30: Single Lap Joint—Strain Energy Release Rate.7 0.5 0.8 0. (Gtot )FEM vs.0 1.Matrix crack in skin at tip of adhesive followed by crack growth between skin plies 2 and 3 to a to a length of 1.200 1.0 2.556 P/PFEM = 0.0 4.756 P/PFEM = 0.1 1.0 0.0 0 0. 2002 Page 30 . Crack Length. a (in) Data from FEM Interpolated points for chosen crack lengths (acrit ) .4 0.10”) G total versus Crack Length P FEM = 3000 lbs P/PFEM = 1.388 P/PFEM = 0.0 3.0 FE model is run to P FEM for a series of crack lengths as the crack is opened from the chosen initial crack length (0.9 1 P/PFEM = 0.00 Gtotal (in-lb/in^2) 5.6 0.2 0.2 (ainit) Crack Length.0 7.10 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.

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 0.00 1.20 0.30 0.90 0.crit) from Fracture Toughness Data Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.60 0.0 Mode Mix.50 0.10 0.10 1.40 0.20 Crack Length.10" G tot.0 Mode mix for chosen crack lengths.c) versus Mode Mix (G II/Gtot ) for IM6/3501-6 tape. a (in) Figure 31: Single Lap Joint—Determination of Mode Mix for a Given Crack Length Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot.50 0.70 0.40 0.90 1.20 0.c 2. based on critieria 0.70 0.0 100% GI GII/Gtot 0.90 1.05" chosen critical crack size.60 0.80 Mode Mix Ratio shown for PFEM = 3000 lb.70 0.00 0.c (in-lb/in 2 ) 4. 0.0 Gtot.00 chosen initial crack size.00 0.10 0. GII/G tot Figure 32: Single Lap Joint—Determination of Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot. Estimated Data 6.50 0.10 0. 2002 Page 31 . ainit = 0.05" < a < 1.80 0. acrit .60 0.00 0. -65°F.00 1.0 100% GII 5.Fracture Toughness Mode Mix Ratio (GII/Gtotal) Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45°) and Ply 3 (0°) 1.0 ** Estimated Data ** 3.20 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.40 0.0 0.

30 0.05") 0.00 0. Cycles (N) Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45°) and Ply 3 (0°) 1.20 0. N curves are developed for a series of R-ratios and used to address both constant applitude and spectrum fatigue loading Pmax / P growth. a (in) (acrit) Figure 33: Single Lap Joint—Predicted Residual Strength .Pgrowth vs.50 0.676 --> Pgrowth.00 1.10 0.00 0.60 0.25" once damage initiates (at Pinit) then require more load to open to 0.20 0.90 0.30 0.E+02 1.60 0. N] Figure 34: Single Lap Joint—Predicted Cycles to Failure vs.50 0. Load Level and R-Ratio Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research.E+10 1.10 0.90 1.static = 2028 lbs (ainit) Crack Length. a Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45°) and Ply 3 (0°) P growth = PFEM = 3000 lbs 1.20 Pgrowth vs. a Load Ratio (Pmax / PFEM) vs.50".40 0.E+06 1.20 0.70 0. Crack Length.80 0.00 (0.E+12 Log[Cycles.40 0.5 R = 0.1 1. a curve indicates that crack will open to 0.50 0.75 R = 0..10 0.60 0.70 P growth.00 1.70 0.e. lower load required for propagation as crack length increases) Pgrowth /P FEM 0.static 0.E+08 1.625 --> Pinit = 1875 lbs (damage initiation load) Negative slope indicates unstable crack growth (i.40 0. The crack will then become "unstable" as shown.80 0. Max load at 0.static = 2028 lbs P vs.80 0. 2002 Page 32 .00 0.90 0.E+00 R = 0.10 1.E+04 1.30 0.Pgrowth versus Crack Length.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful