Composite Structures 232 (2020) 111566

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Research on the tension damage behavior of sandwich composite L-joints: T

Experiment and simulation
Qin Kaia,b, , Yan Renjuna,b, , Shen Weia,b, Hu Yaoyua,b
⁎ ⁎

a
Key Laboratory of High Performance Ship Technology (Wuhan University of Technology), Ministry of Education, Wuhan 430063, China
School of Transportation, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430063, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This article studies the failure process of Composite Sandwich L-joints under tension load. Test results show that
Sandwich composite damage has already taken place well before the loading force reaches the maximum. The failure process is
L-joint divided into three stages based on the damage initiation force and damage expansion force identified through
Damage behavior test data. A new failure criterion is proposed to describe the behavior of the laminate skin. The application of this
Failure criterion
criterion requires merely common engineering parameters. Simulation result using this new criterion matches
both the failure load and the damage process of the experiment, while simulation using other mainstream cri-
teria report much lower ultimate forces.

failure modes are strongly influenced by the stresses orthogonal to the

Matrix: Elastic Modulus Em Tension Fail Stress δtm Compression Fail δcm
middle plane. Fan [4] investigated damage evolution in composite
Stress
Fiber: Elastic Modulus Ef Tension Fail Stress δtf sandwich panels under quasi-static impact by using a progressive
Skin: Skin Elastic Modulus Ex, Ey, Ez failure analysis methodology. Multiple failure criteria are adopted for
Skin Matrix-Tension Fail Stress Xtm, Ytm different failure mechanisms.
Skin Fiber-Tension Fail Stress Xtf, Ytf Basic components need to be connected to make a complete struc-
Skin Matrix-Compression Fail Stress Xcm, Ycm
Skin Normal Direction Tension Fail Stress Zt
ture. Welding technology for conventional structural steel has been
Skin Normal Direction Compression Fail Stress Zc studied for decades, yet there still exist many problems waiting to be
Fiber Layer Thickness Ratio η resolved. As one of the basic types of connection in composite struc-
Fiber Bundle Cross Sectional Area Ratio vfx = vfy = vf tures, the performance of L-joint requires thorough research. Qiu [5]
Fiber Bundle Cross Sectional Area Ratio inside vfx = vfy = vf / conducted bending test of a sandwich composite L-joints with stiffeners.
Fiber Layer
Test phenomenon are described in detail and he claims that L-joint can
maintain high load-bearing capacity with large deformations in struc-
1. Introduction ture. Zeng [6] looked into the tension and compression capability of a
stiffened L-joint quite similar to the one in our research. With the help
Fiber reinforced sandwich composite materials are being widely of progressive damage technique and finite element simulation, she
adopted in modern naval vessels for its prominent performance in proposes a numerical model to predict the failure load. Shen [7] focus
strength/weight ratio, design flexibility and electromagnetic properties his study on the fatigue life and fatigue failure mode of the same type of
[1]. Damage behavior of sandwich composite structures is a complex L-joints with Haiyan Zeng. He developed a fatigue life model for the
problem. Jiang [2] looked into the crack growth and crack blocking in joint and validated with test results. In 2019, a novel designed L-joint
sandwich composites. He developed a simple criterion that governs the featuring a connector and a stiffener panel is mentioned in the work of
two behaviors. He also claimed that there exists a critical facesheet Li [8]. After closely examined the damaging behavior through both test
thickness above which crack blocking is achieved and crack growth is and simulation, he improved the design of the joint and increased its
prevented. Russo and Zuccarello [3] conducted a systematic experi- bending stiffness by 38.6%.
mental study and numerical simulation on the structure constituted by Based on the previous work, the research described in this article
fiberglass laminate skins over PVC foam. They pointed out that the concentrates on the damaging process and simulation method of the L-

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: qinkai@whut.edu.cn (Q. Kai), yan_renjun@163.com (Y. Renjun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111566
Received 6 June 2019; Received in revised form 9 October 2019; Accepted 11 October 2019
Available online 12 October 2019
0263-8223/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Kai, et al. Composite Structures 232 (2020) 111566

Table 1
Material parameters.
GFRP Facesheet Elastic Modulus (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa) Shear Modulus (MPa)

E11 E22 E33 XT YT ZT G

18,000 18,000 10,000 488 488 100 3550
Compressive Strength (MPa) Shear Strength (MPa) Composite Layup

XC YC ZC S12 S13 S23 Orthogonal Fiber Cloth

390 390 185 160 80 80

PVC Core Elastic Modulus (MPa) Poison’s Ratio Yield Stress (MPa)

E μ σs
135 0.32 3

joint under tension load. While adopting progressive damage method, a

new failure criterion is proposed to describe the behavior of the face-
sheet laminates. Simulation results agree with the experiments. The
damage process revealed by the simulation also help better understand
the actual damaging process of the L-joint.

2. Test overview

2.1. Specimen

The L-joint in this test consist of an “L” shaped rectangular sandwich

plate and a strengthener in the middle. The facesheet are made of Glass
Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) laminates and the core is polyvinyl
chloride (PVC). Material parameters are listed in Table 1.
The detailed sketches of the structure are shown in Fig. 1. The fa-
cesheet of the sandwich composite is 3 mm thick orthogonal fiber cloth.
2.2. Load condition
During the experiment, both ends of the joints are clapped by
strengthened steel panels and fastened by bolts. The lower end is lat-
ched on the fixed workbench; the higher end is latched on the actuator,
as is shown in Fig. 2(a). The actuator of the test bench provides the load
force that pulls up the upper end. It is a typical loading scenario for an
L-joint like this in service conditions.
Fig. 2. (a) Load conditions & specimen fixture; (b) 3D model of the L-joint.
2.3. Data collection
Loading rate is controlled by the Test machine’s actuator and set at
3 mm/min. Load force and displacement data of the actuator are re-
corded directly by the test machine. Resistance strain gauges are glued
on three key point locations on the surface of the facesheet shown in
Fig. 1. Point D is in the middle of the curve length between point A and
B. Point A and C are symmetrical. Each type of data is collected at the
frequency of 5 Hz.

Fig. 1. Diagrams and strain gauge locations of the stiffened composite sandwich L-joint (Unit: mm).

2
Q. Kai, et al. Composite Structures 232 (2020) 111566

Fig. 3. Experiment Results of Specimen 1.

Fig. 4. Experiment Results of Specimen 2.

3. Experimental results & analysis

It is common knowledge that the physical property of composite

structures disperses greatly than conventional materials. Manufacturing
process poses unneglectable influence on the experimental results.
However, stress field redistribution accompanies damage occur-
rence and expansion. Although it is difficult to observe internal damage
directly, but through monitoring strain variations at key points and
fluctuations of load-displacement curves, we can indirectly understand
the damaging process inside the composite joint. Experiment data from
all three specimens are shown in Figs. 3–5.
Throughout the loading process, we can recognize two feature
points from the test data for all three specimens. Using the two feature
points, we can divide the loading process into three stages.
Irregular strain variations are always initially detected by strain
gauges at point B, when displacement curve and strain data from other
key points remain linear. This is the first feature point. This also in-
dicates that at this stage, damage has appeared but limited only to a
small area near point B. However, judging from the unaffected dis-
placement curve, damage at this level does not poses perceivable in-
fluence to the overall structural response. The corresponding load force
at the first feature point is the minimum force that can cause damage to
the structure only detectable by strain sensors. It can also be regarded
as damage initiation force. From this point forward during the test, we
can hear small discontinuous noise coming out of the corner area of the
joint.
Accompanied with a louder crisp sound, the first fluctuation in
displacement curves appear. This is the second feature point. From
Fig. 6(b), we can only see minor color changes in the corner area. Some
of the strain curves experience slope rate alterations, which means a
large area of damage redistribution has happened. Judging from the Fig. 5. Experiment Results of Specimen 3.
“bump” of the displacement curve, damage have affected the overall
structural response, but the corner joint still holds some reserved
bearing capacity. After this point, the crisp noise becomes more fre- place as load forces reach the maximum. The white areas quickly widen
quent, and white areas become obvious on the strengthener of the joint. and stretch across the upper surface of the strengthener (Fig. 6c). As the
Finally, the noise grows extremely rapid and much louder. From the joint continues to be pulled open, layers of the facesheet are pulled up,
displacement curves, we can see that abrupt structural collapses take and then facesheet on the upper surface of the strengthener breaks and

3
Q. Kai, et al. Composite Structures 232 (2020) 111566

2
xx
1, ( xx > 0)
Xtf (2)
X direction Matrix Compression Failure:
2 2 2
xx xy xz
+ + 1, ( xx < 0);
Xcm Sxy Sxz (3)
Y direction Matrix Tension Failure:
2 2 2
yy xy yz
+ + 1, ( yy > 0);
Ytm Sxy Syz (4)
Y direction Fiber Tension Failure:
2
yy
1, ( yy > 0);
Ytf (5)
Y direction Matrix Compression Failure:
2 2 2
yy xy yz
+ + 1, ( yy < 0);
Ycm Sxy Syz (6)

Fig. 6. Visible damage on the surface of specimen 1. (a). No damage state. (b). Z direction Tension Failure:
Feature point two, minor color changes. (c). Maximum force, apparent visible 2 2 2
zz xz yz
damage. (d). Final failure state. + + 1, ( zz > 0);
Zt Sxz Syz (7)
Z direction Compression Failure:
the crack runs down towards the base panel (Fig. 6d).
2 2 2
zz xz yz
+ + 1, ( zz < 0)
4. Simulation methods Zc Sxz Syz (8)

Progressive failure method is adopted to simulate the failure pro-
cess. Different components have different ways to describe their con-
stitutive relations. As the major load-bearing component of the com-
posite corner joints, skin is the main focus in our research. Therefore,
foam core and the bonding layer are treated as ideal elastic-plastic
materials.
The problem we faced when trying to simulate the damaging pro-
cess is that if we use conventional criterion for the skin, the Hashin
Fabric [9] criterion for example, damage only occurs right before the
final failure. This is a huge disagreement with the tests. In fact, strain
data at point B shows that damage appears in the early stage of the
loading process, when the stress level of the corner area is far less below
the tensile strength of the skin. This is easily verified by a quick cal-
culation using a pure elastic model. As a result, we have to make a few
assumptions and develop a new failure criterion to describe this kind of
behavior.
Criterion for matrix tension failure on the fiber directions (Eqs. (1)
and (4)) takes the same form of the fiber tension failure mode in Hashin
Criterion [9]. It is an ellipse quadrant approximation that accounts for
the mutual weakening effect of tensile and shear stress. After the matrix
tension failure, the transverse interaction between the matrix and the
fiber bundles are ignored. Therefore, the fiber failure in the next tension
stage is solely dependent on the axial tension stress (Eqs. (2) and (5)).
According to the assumptions, after the matrix fail under compres-
sion, fibers alone cannot withstand further load. So, Eqs. (3) and (6) are
criteria for compression matrix failure that account for shear stress.
Criteria for the layup direction is directly borrowed from the delami-
nation tension (Eq. (7)) and compression (Eq. (8)) mode in Shokreih-
Hashin [10] criterion. It should be noted that criteria for fiber-direction
compression failure and layup direction failure have limited influence
over the simulation results under tensile load, therefore they cannot be
verified in this simulation or experiment.

4.2. Application of the new failure criterion and determining the stiffness
4.1. A new failure criterion for resin matrix fiber reinforced plastic
regression ratio
composites

Generally, when damage happens in one direction, the corre-

In glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) composites, matrix closely
sponding value of material properties must be degraded. Constant de-
wraps up the fiber bundle. Matrix occupies most of the space, while its
gradation of the elastic properties is selected rather than the continuous
mechanical strength is far less than that of fiber. Our assumptions are
degradation approach, because constant degradation requires the
that when structural damage occurs, matrix fails first. And after the
lowest number of variables, it is mesh-size independent and more sui-
matrix fails, if the damage area is under tension stress, the fiber bundles
table for computational finite element adoption.
can still take on load until they finally break; if it is under compression,
When Eqs. (1), (3), (4), (6), (7) or (8) is met, material in the cor-
without the support of the matrix, fiber bundles cannot withstand any
responding direction will completely lose its bearing capability. So, the
further compression or shear force.
degradation ratio for them is set as 0.1%. Nevertheless, along fiber
For the orthogonal GFRP cloth used in the corner joint, the failure
direction, when matrix fails under tension load and fibers do not, the
criterion is described by the following Equations.
stiffness regression ratio k still needs to be determined. Table 2 lists all
X direction Matrix Tension Failure:
the stiffness regression ratio if any of the criterion is satisfied. The
xx
2
xy
2
xz
2
following content of this section describes an easy way to calculate the
+ + 1, ( xx > 0) stiffness regression ratio in this scenario.
Xtm Sxy Sxz (1)
Assuming that matrix and fiber bundles bond tightly. Fig. 7 shows
X direction Fiber Tension Failure: the idealized basic unit of the GFRP skin. According to this model, we

4
Q. Kai, et al. Composite Structures 232 (2020) 111566

Table 2 Ex = f · Ef (11)
Stiffness regression ratios.
Since the fibers are the only thing holding on the X direction before
Direction Criterion Material Parameters Stiffness Regression Ratio its final failure, then
X Eq. (1) Ex, μxy, μxz, Gxy, Gxz k Xtf = f · tf (12)
Eqs. (2) and (3) 0.10%
Y Eq. (4) Ey, μxy, μyz, Gxy, Gyz k As for z direction, elastic modulus of the fiber layer is
Eqs. (5) and (6) 0.10%
Z Eqs. (7) and (8) Ez, μxz, μyz, Gxz, Gyz 0.10% Eflz = Ef ·Va + Em·(1 Va ),

where Va is the volume ratio of fiber bundles inside the fiber layer.

Vfx Vfy Vfx · Vfy 2Vf V f2

Va = + =
2 2
(13)
Then
Em2 ·(1 Va) + Ef ·Em· Va
Ez =
Ef · Va·(1 ) + Em·(1 Va ) (14)
When the unit is under compression load on Z direction, we believe
that it is matrix compression failure that leads to the structure collapse.
Fig. 7. Idealized basic unit of the GFRP skin.
Then
Zc = (15)
can calculate the x direction elastic modulus by means of elastic me- cm

chanics. By combining Eqs. (10)–(15), we have established the relationship

In a matrix layer, elastic modulus is Em. When considering the elastic of some engineering constants between the composite unit and its
modulus of a fiber layer along x direction, the fiber layer can be divided constituents. Ex, Ez, Xtf, Xcm and Zc are given in Table 1. Additionally, we
into part a, which contains both resin and fiber, and part b, which only added Ef = 73100MPa as a known parameter. Other unknown values
contains fiber. Along x direction, the elastic modulus of part a is can be calculated (listed in Table 3).
Eax = Ef · + Em·(1 Therefore, when matrix fails under tension load along fiber direc-
fx fx ),
tion, the stiffness regression ratio is
Elastic modulus of the fiber layer is
k = Ex' / Ex = 0.4917
Eax ·Ef
Eflx = ,
Eax · fy + Ef ·(1 fy )
4.3. Finite element simulation model
Then, for the whole composite unit,
Simulation is conducted using Abaqus. The finite element model is a
Ex = Eflx · + Em·(1 ),
3D model with C3D8R elements. Progressive failure is achieved by in-
Note that the sectional area ratio of fiber bundles inside a fiber layer troducing USDFLD (User Defined Field). In order to focus on the tran-
is 1/η times larger than the general ratio. sitional area and reduce computation labor, the model excludes part of
the composite joint from both the fixture and the loading end. Then,
= = f/ ,
fx fy each end face of the model is coupled with a single node at the corre-
Then sponding loading or constraining location, as is shown in Fig. 8. Dis-
placement load is added on RP-1 (reference point 1) node and the re-
Ex action force of RP-1 is the total load force. Additionally, quasi-static
method is adopted to avoid possible convergence problem. But to en-
( ) ·E ()
f f
2 f
2 f
2 2
f · Ef + (1 ) + ·(1 + f) + 1 · Ef ·Em
m
sure the accuracy, the simulation must be kept in a quasi-static state.
=
Smooth step curve is adopted when adding displacement load. This can
+( ) ()
f f
2 f f
2
1 · Ef + · Em
not only lessen the initial impact but also reduce the residual kinetic
(9) energy of the structure. Normally, a simulation can be considered as
quasi-static when the kinetic energy of the system takes up less than 5%
When the unit is under tension load on X direction, if matrix failure
of the total internal energy. In this simulation, the ratio is kept below
is about to happen. The uniform stress on this section is
0.5% all the time.
= ·Em·(1 fx ) + · Ef · fx = Xtm ,
5. Simulation results & analysis
Note that strain on this section is = tm
Em
.
Then 5.1. Simulation results using the new criterion
Em
Xtm = tm· 1 f + · f Data extracted from the simulation results using the new criterion
Ef
are presented in Fig. 9. Because the failure process of this simulation
The same applies for compression shares much resemblance with the experiment, we can also divide the

Em Table 3
Xcm = cm· 1 f + · f
Ef (10) Calculated parameter results.
Em (MPa) δtf (MPa) E′x (MPa)
After the matrix fails, assuming that fiber bundles along Y direction νf η

would not affect the ones along X direction. The elastic modulus after 0.1211 0.2946 7201 4030 8851
the matrix fails is

5
Q. Kai, et al.
Fig. 8. Couplings & Border Conditions.
Fig. 9. Simulation Results of the New Rule.
6
Composite Structures 232 (2020) 111566
Fig. 10. Matrix tension damage and Fiber tension damage in simulation. (a)
Stage two starts and matrix tension damage appear. (b) Stage two ends with
dispersed matrix damages. (c) Stage three starts and previously dispersed ma-
trix tension damage merges. (d). Matrix tension damage at maximum load
force. (e) Fiber tension damage after load force reaches maximum.
simulated loading process into the following three stages using the
same two feature points as in the experiment.
Stage one, no damage stage. Before any damage take place, strain
and displacement values are linear to the loading force.
Stage two, matrix tension damage appears and slowly extends. After
load force reaches 42.34 kN, matrix tension damage starts to appear
dispersedly along the edge of the upper surface of the strengthener’s
corner (Fig. 10a). This clearly only affects strain at point B and makes it
deviate from its linear path, which marks the first feature point. Stage
three, matrix tension damage expands rapidly. After loading force
reaches 53.71 kN, the damage area is large enough to affect not only all
the strain readings, obvious fluctuations also start to appear on the
displacement curve. This is the second feature point. Additionally,
previously dispersed matrix tension damage now starts to merge
(Fig. 10c) and continue to expand.
Finally, fibers break and the structure completely fails (Fig. 10e).
When loading force arrives at 70.29 kN, fiber tension damage occurs
and almost instantly, multiple damage modes acutely expand across the
strengthener and the joint completely fails.
5.2. Comparision between multiple criteria and the experiment
For comparison, simulation using Hoffman, Tsai-Wu and Hashin-
Fabric criteria [9] is also conducted with the same model. In these si-
mulations, the whole structure fails immediately after damage appears
on the upper surface of the strengthener. Therefore, no damage stages
can be identified.
Fig. 11 compares the load-displacement curve between both ex-
periments and the simulations. The overall stiffness of the simulations is
larger than that of the experiment. This is because part of the two ends
of the corner joint is excluded in the simulation model, which means
their distortion is also excluded in the total displacement. Aside from
the difference in displacement, simulation with the new criterion still
agrees with the experiments in terms of load force.
Fig. 12 compares the strain values at point B. It should be noted that
Q. Kai, et al.
Fig. 11. Load-Displacement curves of simulations & experiments.
Fig. 12. Strain value at point B between simulations & experiments.
Fig. 13. Load stages comparison between experiments and simulations.
the strain data of point B from experiments is incomplete due to the
limited measuring range of the resistance strain gauge. They stopped
sending back data shortly after the first fluctuation in the displacement
curve (which is also the second feature point). In the simulation using
the new criterion, the first fluctuation of B strain curve marks the be-
ginning of matrix tension damage. And its huge jump later matches the
approximate timing when the strain gauges at point B break in the
experiments. However, strain data of simulation using other criteria is
still perfect linear before the abrupt failure.
Composite Structures 232 (2020) 111566
6. Discussion & conclusions
Data in Fig. 13 compares the corresponding damage stages between
the experiments and the simulations. Both the observed phenomenon
and strain data collected from the experiment clearly show that damage
initiates well before (at 57% of the ultimate force in average) the
structure reaches its maximum bearing capacity. Simulation matches
both the damage initiation force and the ultimate force in precise, and
presents the damage expansion and failure process very similar to the
experiment.
The second feature point marks the turning point where the damage
expansion starts to accelerate. From the experiment, we know that the
load bearing force is noticeably affected and experimental phenomena
(both noise and surface color changes) aggravate. Simulation tells us
this is when initial dispersed damages begin to merge, which provides a
reasonable explanation for the sudden changes in behavior.
The result from the simulation using the new criterion is satisfying.
Whereas simulations using other conventional criteria cannot reflect on
any of the damage that happens before the abrupt final failure.
Another huge difference of the simulations is between the ultimate
forces. The local stress of the critical area prior to final failure is ac-
tually very similar, due to the insignificance of the transverse and
normal stress. The difference is that in the simulation using the new
criterion, large area around the final failure spot has already experi-
enced matrix failure. Not only can it directly lessen the concentration of
the local stress, but also the extra deformation shortens the arm of the
load force. As a result, its ultimate force matches the experiment while
other simulations fail under much lower load forces.
Based on the simulation using the new criterion, we can now better
understand how the damage initiates and expands for the corner joint.
Additionally, application of this criterion does not require additional
parameters other than conventional engineering ones. By adopting the
same techniques, we are able to predict the tension damage behavior of
other similar GFRP structures more accurately.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 51609185) and the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2018-YS-023) .
References
[1] Santiuste C, Sánchez-Sáez S, Barbero E. A comparison of progressive-failure criteria
in the prediction of the dynamic bending failure of composite laminated beams.
Compos Struct 2010;92:2406–14.
[2] Jiang H, Huang Y, Liu C. Fracture analysis of facesheets in sandwich composites.
Compos B Eng 2004;35:551–6.
[3] Russo A, Zuccarello B. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the mechanical
behavior of GFRP sandwich panels. Compos Struct 2007;81:575–86.
[4] Fan XL, Wang TJ, Sun Q. Damage evolution of sandwich composite structure using a
progressive failure analysis methodology. Procedia Eng 2011;10:530–5.
[5] Qiu JB, Xi Z, Mei ZY. Bending load-bearing capacity and damage mechanism of
composite sandwich L-joint with stiffeners. J Naval Univ Eng 2015;27:23–7.
[6] Zeng H, Yan R, Xu L. Failure prediction of composite sandwich L-joint under bending.
Compos Struct 2018;197:54–62.
[7] Shen W, Luo B, Yan R, Zeng H, Xu L. The mechanical behavior of sandwich composite
joints for ship structures. Ocean Eng 2017;144:78–89.
[8] Li H, Tu S, Liu Y, Lu X, Zhu X. Mechanical properties of L-joint with composite
sandwich structure. Compos Struct 2019;217:165–74.
[9] Klasztorny M, Nycz D, Labuda R. Modelling, simulation and experimental validation
of bend tests on GFRP laminate beam and plate specimens. Compos Struct
2018;184:604–12.
[10] Shokrieh MM, Rafiee R. Simulation of fatigue failure in a full composite wind
turbine blade. Compos Struct 2006;74:332–42.