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, OBrien, 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 Poissons 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 yy = xy = yz = 0 and Plane Stress, where yy = xy = yz = 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 Poissons 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

yy = - L xx and xy = yz = 0, where L is the laminate Poissons 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 < e then = G If < e then = e + + where = G e = max e = shear strain e = maximum elastic shear strain = shear stress e = shear stress corresponding to e max = maximum shear stress G = elastic shear modulus Values for max and G were readily available for the adhesive materials used in the models for this program. Values for e 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 = 0.5 in the plastic region and using the resulting relations: = 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. 2 3 2 = 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, in laminates with either tape and/or fabric plies. The failure index is given by: z Failure Index = zz + xz xz F S where z xz 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. This failure index has been used successfully in previous research [5] and is given below: Failure Index = max max F max where + 3 3 = 2 + 2 + 23 2 2
2

Fmax = max transverse tensile stress in a ply 2 = in-plane transverse principal stress (lamina coordinates) 3 = through the thickness stress (lamina coordinates) 23 = shear in the 2-3 plane (lamina coordinates)

The Von Mises strain failure criterion is used to predict failure in the adhesives. The failure index is given by: Failure Index = VonMises VM max S where 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. The first step in the static strength analysis is to choose the initial crack size, location, and growth path. Locating a crack in a critical location simulates either the condition where a crack develops once the damage initiation load, Pinit , 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, 2002

Page 4

on many factors, including manufacturing acceptance and/or damage tolerance criteria for the specific structure. Next, the location of the crack interface is determined a-priori based on the damage initiation site and experience with typical crack paths in composite structure. It may be necessary to analyze several crack paths to ensure that the critical path has been identified. The crack interfaces are modeled along the direction of anticipated crack growth. In bonded joints with composite adherends, critical crack interfaces can occur between two plies in the adherend, between the adherend and the adhesive, and within the adhesive. Note that within composite laminates, it is generally conservative to assume a clean crack path, where the crack tip continues along a line between plies or along fibers within a ply during crack growth. Other matrix cracking, ply bridging, and ply jumping crack behaviors require more energy to propagate the crack than self-similar crack growth. Once the crack interface has been selected, duplicate nodes are placed in the FE model along the anticipated crack path. A series of runs of the FE model are made for successive increments of increasing crack lengths. For each load step in each analysis run, the total strain energy release rate (SERR, Gtot ) is calculated for the crack length from the change in strain energy in the model between successive crack lengths. At several crack lengths, the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) [12,13] is used to calculate GI, GII, and Gtot , and the mode mix (GII/Gtot ). Next, the critical fracture toughness, Gtot,crit is determined for each crack length using test data at the appropriate mode mix (GII/Gtot ) for that crack length. Then by comparing G tot from the finite element model (calculated at several load steps) to Gtot,crit at a given crack length, the load, Pgrowth, at which the crack is predicted to grow is determined. A residual strength curve is then plotted as Pgrowth vs. crack length, a, and used to predict static strength and crack stability as a function of crack length. The method of determining the ultimate static strength, Pgrowth,static depends on the shape of the Pgrowth versus crack length curve, and on specific criteria, as shown in Figure 4. The Pgrowth vs. a curves can be used to determine residual strength of the joint at any crack length, such as after the detection of in-service damage. They can also be used in damage tolerance analyses. For example, if the damage tolerance criteria for a given structure states that the joint must carry limit load in the presence of 0.50 x 0.50 inch damage, the residual strength at a crack length, a = 0.50 inch (Pgrowth,0.50 ) can be directly compared with the limit load to determine a margin of safety. Fatigue Life An outline of the fatigue life analysis procedure is given in Figure 5. To predict crack growth under cyclic loading, the calculated SERRs as a function of crack length and load level (Gtot vs. a from FEM) are combined with crack growth rate test data (da/dN vs. 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. Note that mode mix was not considered in the fatigue analysis. The use of Gtot (i.e., 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 [2,6,14].

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 5

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

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 6

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

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 7

Skin/T-Stiffener Static Strength Analysis Based on the results of the damage initiation analysis, 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. Duplicate nodes were placed in the model along the crack then successively released and analyzed for a series of crack lengths. The crack was 'grown' to a total length of acrit = 0.40 inches, which represents a maximum allowable damage size based on typical design criteria. The smallest element size along the delamination was 0.00444 inches. 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, Gtot can be calculated for each load level and plotted as shown in Figure 15. The mode mix was plotted versus crack length and a curve fit was made as shown in Figure 16. The curve shows that, as the crack is opened, the amount of mode II fracture (inplane shear mode) relative to mode I (opening mode) gradually increases. The mode mix at each chosen crack length (in this case increments of 0.05 inches were used) is then combined with fracture toughness test data to determine the critical fracture toughness, Gtot,crit , Figure 17. Gtot,crit represents the amount of strain energy required to advance the crack an infinitesimal amount. As test data were not available for IM7/8552 during this study, data were estimated based data for similar materials [5,16,17]. The critical fracture toughness values, Gtot,crit s, for each crack length were then combined with the predicted strain energy release rate, G , from the FEM (Figure 15) to determine the tot load at which crack growth is predicted. This load, Pgrowth, occurs when Gtot is equal to Gtot,crit . The values of Pgrowth vs. crack length were then plotted as shown in Figure 18. The static strength of the joint, Pgrowth,static, is determined using the procedure outlined in the Analysis Approach section. In this case, additional load beyond the predicted damage initiation load of 25.6 lbs. is required to advance the crack, as shown in Figure 18. The crack will begin to grow at a load of 43.3 lbs. Since the slope of the Pgrowth vs. a curve is negative, the crack will become unstable once that load is reached. Therefore, the predicted static strength of the joint, Pgrowth,static , is 43.3 lbs. Note that in this case, static strength is dependent on the chosen initial crack length. That is, if a larger initial crack size had been chosen, a lower static strength would be predicted. Also note that only one crack location was modeled to demonstrate feasibility. For a complete analysis of the skin/T-stiffener joint, crack growth from the other potential damage initiation sites in the adhesive and the flange laminate, as shown in Figure 13, would be evaluated. The Pgrowth vs. a curve can also be used to determine the residual strength of the structure at a given crack length. In this skin/T-stiffener example, suppose in-service damage of 0.40 inches was detected. The residual strength could then be determined from the Pgrowth curve (Pgrowth,0.40 = 0.60 * 50 lbs. = 30 lbs.) and compared with the load requirements and damage growth criteria for the structure to determine the disposition. 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. For the purposes of this study,
Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 8

the fatigue crack path was assumed to be the same as the static crack path. Values of Gtot,FEM (= Gtot,max Gtot,min , corresponding to cyclic loads Pmax and Pmin , see Figure 5) for three R-ratios (0.1, 0.5 and 0.75) were interpolated from the existing FEM load steps. Next, these values of Gtot,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, as shown in Figure 19. The test data were estimated and assumed to be independent of R-ratio, since data for IM7/8552 were not available for this study. 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, Figure 20. For constant amplitude loading, the Pmax vs. N curve for the corresponding R-ratio can be used to directly determine the number of cycles to failure. For example, for Pmax = 28.9 lbs (67% of predicted ultimate static strength), the cycles to failure at an R-ratio of 0.10 are predicted to be 49,877. The cycles to failure in this example are based on an arbitrary maximum allowable damage size of acrit = 0.40 inches. This critical length would typically be determined by criteria or by residual strength requirements. If a residual strength criterion is used, the Pgrowth curve from the static strength analysis can be used to determine the critical crack length (acrit ) for fatigue life analysis. The structure may be considered failed when the part can no longer carry a given load (e.g., limit load), which is typically higher than the fatigue load. The crack length at which the joint falls below the required residual strength (based on the static Pgrowth vs. a curve) can then be used as acrit . Skin/T-Stiffener Summary of Predictions Damage Initiation Load: Pinit = 25.6 lbs Matrix crack in top skin ply followed by delamination between top two skin plies Static Strength: Pgrowth,static = 43.3 lbs Unstable crack growth at crack length = 0.05 inches Fatigue Life: (assuming joint failure at crack length = 0.40 inches) Low cycle fatigue, Pmax = 28.9 lbs --> 49,877 cycles While directly comparable static and fatigue test results for this configuration were not available, the predicted damage locations, loads, and cycles to failure are consistent with previously developed test data from similar specimens [18,19]. Single Lap Joint Model The single lap joint shown in Figure 21 represents a single-lap-shear flaperon repair. This type of high load transfer joint is critical to the understanding of joint analysis and fatigue behavior. 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 skin laminate is made with IM6/3501-6 grade 145 carbon fiber tape; the repair laminate uses

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 9

AS4/3501-6 5-harness (5HS) carbon fiber fabric. The adhesive is Magnolia 6363 paste. The material properties are given in Tables 1 and 2. The joint is axially loaded. One-half of the joint was modeled with symmetry boundary conditions at the centerline, as shown in Figure 21. An axial load of 3000 lbs was applied to the end of the model. The loading tabs were simulated in the model, and were constrained from moving in the thickness direction (Y). Figure 22 shows the model details, including the different ply types and orientations (material properties), and the element densities relative to the ply and adhesive thicknesses. The appropriate composite ply properties are entered for each element based on its material and orientation. The joint was modeled with 65F material properties. One element was used through the thickness of each ply, 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. 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). Single Lap Joint Damage Initiation Analysis The same three damage initiation failure criteria were used as for the skin/T-stiffener model. Based on data from literature [5,15], 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 0.05 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). 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. This is likely because the flaperon laminate is thinner and less stiff (smaller percentage of 0 plies) than the repair laminate, which results in more bending in the flaperon skin. Figures 26 and 27 show failure index contour plots of the maximum transverse tensile stress criterion at P = 3000 lbs, and the interlaminar tension-shear stress interaction criterion at P = 2400 lbs, respectively. The thickness directions of the contour plots are exaggerated by a factor of 3 for clarity. 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. For the purposes of the damage growth modeling, it was assumed that a through-thethickness matrix crack in the two 45 plies above the 0 ply would also occur. This behavior is consistent with test results from similar tests reported in [20]. A summary of the predicted damage initiation loads and location is shown in Figure 28. The adhesive is predicted to fail at

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 10

higher loads than the skin laminate, which is a desirable design condition and consistent with test results on this type of bonded joint. 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. 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 1.10 inches, which represents a maximum allowable damage size based on criteria. Figure 29 shows the deformed model for a crack length of 0.72 inches. The smallest element size along the delamination was 0.00444 inches. The model was then run for each increment of crack growth. As in the skin/T-stiffener analysis, 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. Figure 31 shows that as the crack opens from 0.05 inches to 0.50 inches, the mode mix shifts from mode I dominated fracture (opening mode) to mode II dominated (in-plane shear mode), then remains fairly constant as the crack continues to grow to 1.10 inches. From this curve, the mode mix at any crack length can be determined. The mode mix at each chosen crack length (in this case, increments of 0.15 inches were used) is then compared to fracture toughness test data to determine the critical fracture toughness, Gtot,crit (Figure 32). As test data were not available for IM6/3501-6 at 65F, estimates were based on data for similar materials [5,6,16]. Crack growth is predicted at the load, Pgrowth, at which Gtot is equal to Gtot,crit . Interpolation was used to determine Pgrowth for each crack length. The values of Pgrowth vs. crack length were then plotted using the same method as for the skin/T-stiffener joint. As shown in Figure 33, Pgrowth at the initial crack length (ainit = 0.05 inches), is lower than the predicted damage initiation load, Pinit = 1875 lbs. As can be seen in the figure, Pinit corresponds to a crack length of 0.25 inches. This indicates that as soon as damage initiates, the crack will grow to this length. After that, additional load is required to continue crack growth, since the slope of the Pgrowth vs. a curve is still positive in that region. Once the maximum static load (Pgrowth,static = 2028 lbs.) is reached at a = 0.50 inches, the crack becomes unstable and continues growing to the critical length. Note that in this case, static strength is not dependent on the chosen initial crack length (assuming the chosen initial length is less than 0.50 inches). That is, the same maximum static load will be predicted for any initial crack crack size between 0.05 inches and 0.50 inches, since regardless of the initial length, 2028 lbs will be required to grow the crack to its critical length. This is in contrast to the skin/T-stiffener example where, if a larger initial crack size had been chosen, a lower static strength would have been predicted (Figure 18). 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. Again, 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, Gtot,FEM , was compared to crack growth rate test data to determine the predicted crack growth
Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 11

rate at a given crack length for each load level, Figure 19. Pmax vs. N curves were then developed for several R-ratios as shown in Figure 34. The dashed lines show the results from the skin/T-stiffener joint for comparison. For constant amplitude loading, the Pmax vs. N curve for the corresponding R-ratio can be used to directly determine the number of cycles to failure. For example, for Pmax = 1358 lbs (67% of predicted ultimate static strength), the cycles to failure at an R-ratio of 0.10 are predicted to be 132,569. The cycles to failure in this example are based on an arbitrary maximum allowable damage size of acrit = 1.10 inches. This critical length would typically be determined by criteria or by residual strength requirements. Single Lap Joint Summary of Predictions Damage Initiation Load: Pinit = 1875 lbs Delamination in 0 tape skin ply will open to 0.25 inches once damage initiates Static Strength: Pgrowth,static = 2028 lbs Unstable crack growth at crack length = 0.50 inches Fatigue Life: (assuming joint failure at crack length = 1.10 inches) Low cycle fatigue, Pmax = 1358 lbs -->132,569 cycles While directly comparable test results for this configuration were not available, the predicted damage locations, loads, and cycles to failure are consistent with similar test data as reported in Reference 20. CONCLUSIONS It has been shown that the analysis approach presented here for composite bonded joints can be used for predicting critical failure modes, damage initiation loads and locations, static strength, residual strength, and fatigue life. The analysis approach was applied to two different joint configurations. Only a single delamination location was analyzed for each configuration, in order to demonstrate the analysis approach. For a complete analysis of a given configuration, several potentially critical delamination locations would be evaluated. The fracture mechanics analysis in particular has demonstrated the ability to: Predict crack growth stability under static loads Predict static ultimate strength and critical crack lengths Predict crack growth under fatigue loads Accommodate a variety of durability and damage tolerance criteria related to initial flaw sizes and critical lengths.

These results have been achieved through the use of basic material fracture toughness data, and without reliance on complicated and controversial stress-based failure criteria. This

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 12

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. a curve to select critical crack size for residual strength analysis. Predicting residual strength to compare and validate designs Predicting crack growth under repeated loads to select inspection methods and intervals.

Substantial material and geometric non-linearity was observed in the modeling, which indicates that a non-linear analysis is required to properly address the structural behavior. Also, due to the time intensive nature of the post processing of finite element model results, automation of the analysis would be essential for practical applications. REFERENCES 1. Composite Materials Handbook, Mil-Handbook-17, Volume 3E, Section 5.2, January 1997. 2. Johnson, W.S., et al., Applications of Fracture Mechanics to the Durability of Bonded Composite Joints, FAA Final Report DOT/FAA/AR-97/56, 1998. 3. Murri, G.B., OBrien, T.K., Rousseau, C., Fatigue Life Methodology for Tapered Composite Flexbeam Laminates, NASA Tech Memo 112860, 1997. 4. Minguet, P. J. and OBrien, T. K., Analysis of Skin/Stringer Bond Failure Using a Strain Energy Release Rate Approach, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Composite Materials (ICCM-X), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, August 1995. 5. Minguet, P.J., Analysis of the Strength of the Interface between Frame and Skin in a Bonded Composite Fuselage Panel, Proceeding of the 38th AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 1997. 6. Johnson, W.S., Mall, S., A Fracture Mechanics Approach for Designing Adhesively Bonded Joints, NASA Tech Memo 85694, September, 1983. 7. Hildebrand, M., The Strength of Adhesive-bonded Joints between Fibre-reinforced Plastics and Metals, Technical Research Centre of Finland, 1994. 8. Adams, R. D. and Wake, W. C., Structural Adhesive Joints in Engineering, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, 1984. 9. Grant, P., Analysis of Adhesive Stresses in Bonded Joints, Symposium: Joining in Fibre Reinf. Plastics, Imperial College, London, I.P.C. Science and Technology Press, 1978, p. 41. 10. Fernlund, G., et al., Fracture Load Predictions for Adhesive Joints, Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 51, pp. 587-600, 1994. 11. Charalambides M.N., et al., Strength Prediction of Bonded Joints, 83rd Meeting of the AGARD SMPBolted/Bonded Joints in Polymeric Composites, 1997.
Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 13

12. Wang, J.T., Sleight,D.W., Raju,I.S., Martin,R.H., and OBrien,T.K.,Computational Methods for Using Shell Elements in Skin Stiffener Disbonding Analysis, NASA CP 3229, 1993. 13. Rybicki, E.F. and Kanninen, M.F., A Finite Element Calculation of Stress Intensity Factors by a Modified Crack Closure Integral, Engr. Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 9, 1977, pp931-938. 14. Mall, S., Ramamurthy, G., and Rezaizdeh, M. A., Stress Ratio Effect on Cyclic Debonding in Adhesively Bonded Composite Joints, Composite Structures, Vol. 8, 1987, pp. 31-45. 15. Tsai, Stephen W., Composites Design, 3rd Ed, Think Composites, Dayton, OH, 1987. 16. Ilcewicz, L. B., Keary, P. E. and Trostle, J., Interlaminar Fracture Toughness Testing of Composite Mode I and Mide II DCB Specimens, Polymer Engineering and Science, May 1988, Vol. 28, No. 9. 17. Schaff, J.R., Davidson, B.D., Life Prediction Methodology for Composite Structures, Parts I and II, Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 31, No. 2/1997. 18. Krueger, Ronald, Cvitkovich, Michael K., O'Brien, T. Kevin and Minguet, Pierre J., "Testing and Analysis of Composite Skin/Stringer Debonding Under Multi-Axial Loading," Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 34, No. 15/2000. 19. Cvitkovich, M., OBrien, T.K., Minguet, P., Fatigue Debonding Characterization in Composite Skin/ Stringer Configurations, NASA Tech Memo 110331/Army Research Lab Report 1342, April 1997. 20. Stewart, M., An Experimental Investigation of Composite Bonded and/or Bolted Repairs Using Single Lap Joint Designs, Bell Helicopter Textron Report 299-100-779, 26 January 1999/PhD. Thesis, University of Texas at Arlington, December 1996. Table 1: Lamina Material Properties
IM7/8552 Grade 160 Tape E1 E2 E3 12 13 23 G12 G13 G23 20.7 1.65 1.65 0.34 0.34 0.45 0.65 0.65 0.65 IM6/3501-6 Grade 145 Tape 23.8 1.57 1.57 0.32 0.32 0.45 0.89 0.89 0.623 AS4/3501-6 5HS Fabric 9.5 9.5 1.57 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.87 0.87 0.87 Msi Msi Msi

Msi Msi Msi

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 14

Table 2: Adhesive Material Properties

Tau elastic (psi) 4000 5800

Adhesive FM-300 Magnolia 6363

G elastic Temperature (psi) 70F -65F 200000 135000

12 0.34 0.34

E elastic (psi) 536000 361800

Tau max (psi) plastic 5000 9820 0.300 0.231

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(0.315): Total Translation

Fatigue Analysis Results

Cycles to failure P vs. N Spectra

Figure 2: Outline of Bonded Joint Analysis Approach

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 15

Crack G II / Gtotal

FEM & VCCT

Test Data

+
Crack Length, a

Gtot,crit

=
G II / Gtotal

Local FEM with Introduced Crack

Pa4 Pa5 P P a6 a7 Increasing Load
Negative Slope

Results Combined with Material Gtotal,critical Data to Obtain G total,critical vs. Crack Length Curve Pgrowth Values Calculated for Each Crack Length

Gtotal

Strain Energy Release Rates (G I, GII, Gtotal) for Multiple Crack Lengths at Several Load Increments

Pa1

Pa2

Pa3

a1 Pa1

a2

a3

a4

a5 Pa7

a6 a7

Crack Length, a
P a2 P a3 Pa5 P a6 (A) Crack Arrest (B) Unstable Growth a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7

Pgrowth

P a4

Crack Length, a

Figure 3: Static Strength Analysis Procedure

(A)
Pgrowth Pgrowth,static Pgrowth
Negative Slope

Determination of Pgrowth,static for four possible shapes of load vs. crack length curve Pgrowth,static = Static Strength

(B)
Pgrowth,static

UNSTABLE ainit Crack Length, a Pgrowth,static Pgrowth

More Load Required to Grow Crack

- Negative slope means crack is unstable; once Pgrowth for a init is reached, joint will fail - Positive slope means additional load required to grow crack

STABLE / UNSTABLE ainit

(C)

(D)

Crack Length, a Pgrowth,static Crack Arrest

Pgrowth

STABLE
Positive Slope acrit based on criteria

UNSTABLE / STABLE ainit Crack Length, a

acrit based on criteria

ainit Crack Length, a

Figure 4: Static Strength from Pgrowth Residual Strength Curves

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 16

Gtot,max at ai , Pj Gtot,min at ai , Pj P1 ainit

P3 P2

P4

Inc rea sin gL oa d

PFEM Pj

Crack growth rate at given ai, Pj da/dN (in/cycle)

Test Data G tot at ai , Pj from FEM

G tot = G tot,max - Gtot,min acrit

ai

Crack Length, a

Gtot
a / (da/dN) = N at a i, Pj

For Each Load Level, Calculate SERR, Gtotal, for Series of Crack Increments, a Using Material da/dN Data, Calculate Crack Growth Rate and Divide By a to Obtain Number of Cycles, N, to Grow Crack by a Sum Up N From ainit to acritical To Obtain Cycles To Failure, 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, 2002

Page 17

Frame or stiffener

Since Critical Location Known to be Flange TIP, FE Model Incorporates Skin and Stiffener Flange Only.

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.C. 2 P/2 1 P = 50 lb

1
Skin: [45/-45/90/45/-45/0/-45/45/90/-45/45] IM7/8552 Tape

Figure 6: Skin/T-StiffenerFinite 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-StiffenerModel Detail at Flange Tip

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 18

Skin/T-Stiffener Damage Initiation Model Load vs Deflection at Stiffener Centerline

60

50

Applied Load, P (lbs)

40

30

20

Load-Displacement Curve Linear Line

10

0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

Displacement at Center of Stiffener (Left End of Half Model) (inch)

Figure 8: Skin/T-StiffenerPredicted 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, 2002

Page 19

Large plastic strains in adhesive at flange tip

Figure 10: Skin/T-StiffenerThrough-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-StiffenerMaximum Transverse Tensile Stress Failure Index

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 20

Contours shown for P = 50 lbs Failure index > 1.0 predicts damage initiation CFRP Interlaminar Interaction Criterion Delamination in top skin plies predicted Critical Load: P = 36.2 lbs Adhesive VonMises Strain Criterion Adhesive failure predicted Critical Load: P = 45.4 lbs

Figure 12: Skin/T-StiffenerCFRP Interlaminar Tension-Shear Stress Interaction and Adhesive Von Mises Strain Failure Indices

F.I. (3), P=45.4 lb. VonMises Strain (Adhesive) F.I. (2), P=36.2 lb. Interlaminar Stress (Delamination) F.I. (1), P=25.6 lb. Max Transverse Tension (Matrix Crack)

Figure 13: Skin/T-Stiffener Predicted Damage Initiation Loads and Locations

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 21

Matrix crack in skin at tip of adhesive followed by crack growth between top two skin plies to a length of 0.40

Figure 14: Skin/T-StiffenerAnalyzed Crack Path

Crack Between Skin Plies 1 (+45) and 2 (-45)

9.0 8.0 7.0 FE model is run to PFEM for a series of crack lengths as the crack is opened from the chosen initial crack length (0.05) to the chosen critical crack length (0.40) P FEM = 50 lbs P/PFEM = 1.0

Gtotal versus Crack Length

Gtotal (in-lb/in^2)

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 P/PFEM = 0.4 P/PFEM = 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.15 Data from FEM Interpolated points for chosen crack lengths 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 P/PFEM = 0.6 P/PFEM = 0.8

(ainit)

Crack Length, a (in)

(acrit )

Figure 15: Skin/T-StiffenerStrain Energy Release Rate, (Gtot )FEM vs. Crack Length, a

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 22

Fracture Toughness Mode Mix Ratio (G II/Gtotal) Crack Between Skin Ply 1 (+45) and Ply 2 (-45)
0.40 0.35 Mode Mix Ratio shown for P FEM = 50 lb, the applied load to the FEM

Mode Mix Ratio (G II/G total )

0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 chosen initial crack size, ainit chosen critical crack size, a crit, based on critieria Calculated using FEM nodal data & VCCT Curve fit showing chosen crack length increments

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Crack Length, a (in)

Figure 16: Skin/T-StiffenerDetermination of Mode Mix for a Given Crack Length Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot,c) versus Mode Mix (GII/Gtot ) for IM7/8552 tape, RT, Estimated Data
8.0 7.0 6.0 Mode mix for chosen crack lengths, 0.05" < a < 0.40" 100% G II

Gtot,c (in-lb/in )

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 100% G I 1.0 0.0 0.00 GII/G tot 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 G tot,c

** Estimated Data **

Mode Mix, 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, 2002

Pgrowth versus Crack Length, a Crack Between Skin Plies 1 (+45) and 2 (-45)
P growth = PFEM = 50 lbs 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 Max load at 0.866 --> Pgrowth,static = 43.3 lbs Negative slope indicates unstable crack growth (i.e., lower load required for propagation as crack length increases)

Pgrowth /P FEM

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Additional load required to propagate damage

0.512 --> Pinit = 25.6 lbs (damage initiation load)

Curve can also be used to determine residual static strength at a given crack length during fatigue damage growth (e.g. P residual,0.40 = 0.608 * 50 lbs = 30.4 lbs)

(ainit)

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Crack Length, a (in)

(acrit)

0.40

0.45

Figure 18: Skin/T-StiffenerPredicted Residual Strength - Pgrowth vs. Crack Length, a

Crack Growth Rate (da/dN) vs. Strain Energy Release Rate (Gtot)
1.E-02 1.E-03

Log[da/dN], (in/cycle)

1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07 1.E-08 1.E-09 0.1

Crack growth rate (da/dN) for a given P and a

IM6/3501-6, -65 F, CLS, R = 0.1 IM7/8552, RT, CLS, R = 0.1

** Estimated Data **

Gtot from FEM for a given

load level (P) and crack length (a)
1.0 10.0 100.0

Log[Gtot] (in-lb/in^2)

Figure 19: Determination of Crack Growth Rate from Test Data

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 24

Figure 20: Skin/T-StiffenerPredicted Cycles to Failure vs. Load Level and R-Ratio

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 25

P = 3000 lb. (1.5 inch wide specimen) End Tabs

P

Repair Laminate [45/0/0/45] AS4/3501-6 fabric

Symmetric BCs

Flaperon Skin [45/-45/0/45/-45/-45/45/-45/45] IM6/3501-6 tape

0.50 0.50 0.35 1.94 0.50

Adhesive: Magnolia 6363 paste

Figure 21: Single Lap JointFinite Element Model

Repair

Adhe

Flaperon Skin Laminate

Figure 22: Single Lap JointModel Detail at End of Repair Laminate

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 26

(Y Scale Exaggerated for Clarity) Peel stresses in adhesive and top skin plies

Figure 23: Single Lap JointThrough-Thickness Normal Stress

High shear stress in adhesive and 0 skin ply

(Y Scale Exaggerated for Clarity)

Figure 24: Single Lap JointThrough-Thickness Shear Stress

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 27

Flaperon Repair Lap Joint, Axial Load Static Load Failure Indices in Adhesive
1.2 Von Mises Strain Criteria ( vm_max = 0.05) (Loads based on 1.5 inch wide specimen) Load = 3000 lb Load = 2400 lb 0.8 Load = 18200 lb Load = 1200 lb Load = 600 lb 0.6

1.0

Adhesive Failure at 3096 lb

Failure Index

0.4

0.2

0.0 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9

X Position

Figure 25: Single Lap JointAdhesive Von Mises Strain Failure Indices

Contours shown for P = 3000 lbs Failure index > 1.0 predicts damage initiation

Max Transverse Tensile Stress Criterion

(Y Scale Exaggerated for Clarity)

Figure 26: Single Lap JointMaximum Transverse Tension Failure Index

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 28

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 JointCFRP Interlaminar Tension-Shear Stress Interaction Failure Index

P =1875 lbs Interlaminar Stress

P =3096 lbs

Figure 28: Single Lap JointPredicted Damage Initiation Loads and Locations

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 29

Matrix crack in skin at tip of adhesive followed by crack growth between skin plies 2 and 3 to a to a length of 1.10 inches

Deformations and Y-scale exaggerated for clarity

Figure 29: Single Lap JointModel with Skin Delamination

Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45) and Ply 3 (0)

8.0 7.0 6.0 FE model is run to P FEM for a series of crack lengths as the crack is opened from the chosen initial crack length (0.05) to the chosen critical crack length (1.10)

G total versus Crack Length

P FEM = 3000 lbs P/PFEM = 1.00

Gtotal (in-lb/in^2)

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

P/PFEM = 0.756

P/PFEM = 0.556

P/PFEM = 0.388 P/PFEM = 0.200 1.1 1.2

(ainit)

Crack Length, a (in)

Data from FEM Interpolated points for chosen crack lengths

(acrit )

Figure 30: Single Lap JointStrain Energy Release Rate, (Gtot )FEM vs. Crack Length, a

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 30

Fracture Toughness Mode Mix Ratio (GII/Gtotal) Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45) and Ply 3 (0)
1.00 0.90 0.80 Mode Mix Ratio shown for PFEM = 3000 lb, 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

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 chosen initial crack size, ainit = 0.05"

chosen critical crack size, acrit , based on critieria

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

Crack Length, a (in)

Figure 31: Single Lap JointDetermination of Mode Mix for a Given Crack Length
Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot,c) versus Mode Mix (G II/Gtot ) for IM6/3501-6 tape, -65F, Estimated Data
6.0 100% GII 5.0 Mode mix for chosen crack lengths, 0.05" < a < 1.10"

G tot,c (in-lb/in 2 )

4.0

** Estimated Data **

3.0 Gtot,c 2.0 100% GI GII/Gtot 0.0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

1.0

Mode Mix, GII/G tot

Figure 32: Single Lap JointDetermination of Critical Fracture Toughness (Gtot,crit) from
Fracture Toughness Data

Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 31

Pgrowth versus Crack Length, a Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45) and Ply 3 (0)
P growth = PFEM = 3000 lbs 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.625 --> Pinit = 1875 lbs (damage initiation load) Negative slope indicates unstable crack growth (i.e., lower load required for propagation as crack length increases)

Pgrowth /P FEM

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 (0.05") 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 Pgrowth vs. a curve indicates that crack will open to 0.25" once damage initiates (at Pinit) then require more load to open to 0.50". The crack will then become "unstable" as shown. Max load at 0.676 --> Pgrowth,static = 2028 lbs

(ainit)

Crack Length, a (in)

(acrit)

Figure 33: Single Lap JointPredicted Residual Strength - Pgrowth vs. Crack Length, a
Load Ratio (Pmax / PFEM) vs. Cycles (N) Crack Between Skin Plies 2 (-45) and Ply 3 (0)
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 P growth,static = 2028 lbs P vs. N curves are developed for a series of R-ratios and used to address both constant applitude and spectrum fatigue loading

Pmax / P growth,static

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1.E+00 R = 0.75 R = 0.5 R = 0.1

1.E+02

1.E+04

1.E+06

1.E+08

1.E+10

1.E+12

Log[Cycles, N]

Figure 34: Single Lap JointPredicted Cycles to Failure vs. Load Level and R-Ratio
Published in Journal of Composites Technology and Research, 2002

Page 32