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

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

Page 1

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 2

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

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 3

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.

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.

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.

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.