Critical Assessment of Failure Criterion for Adhesively Bonded Composite Joint Repair Design

Matthew J. Donough 1,2*, Andrew J. Gunnion 2,3, Adrian C. Orifici 1, Chun H. Wang 1
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia * Corresponding author: m.donough@student.rmit.edu.au, +61 422 882 710
2 1

Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced Composite Structures Limited 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermans Bend, Victoria 3207, Australia
3

Advanced Composite Structures Australia Private Limited 4/11 Sabre Drive, Port Melbourne, Victoria 3207, Australia

1. Introduction
Despite adhesive bonding often being the preferred method of joining composite parts [1], adhesively bonded repair is currently not certified for primary structures due to concerns with the long-term durability of adhesive bonding and the lack non-destructive means of inspecting weak interfaces. The challenge in assuring long-term durability of composite joints is compounded by the large number of different failure mechanisms as shown in Figure 1. These failure modes can be broadly identified as cohesive, interfacial (even with proper surface preparation) and composite first-ply. The paper provides a critical review using experimental and analytical investigations of the applicability of different design methodologies and failure criteria for the bonded composite repairs.

Figure 1: Type of failure mechanisms that can be observed in a typical scarf-doubler joint repair Regulatory requirements for a primary structure repair can be reasonably summarised by the principal that the repair must restore the strength and function of the structure with the original certification basis to the satisfaction of relevant certification authority. This demands that the repair demonstrates the required strength, stiffness, damage-tolerance and fatigue life. Considerable work on the analysis of bonded joints had been added such people as Goland & Reissner and Volkersen. Reviews of such bonded joint analysis have been covered by blah and blah. Stress analysis can be divided into closed form analysis and numerical analysis. Stress analysis had been substantially developed and provides considerable information on the behaviour of the joint. This information is means of assessing the strength of a joint configuration for good, reliable design. The criterion to assess static joint strength is somewhat less successful than the development of stress analysis techniques. Early works on developing a failure criterion are concentrated on bonded metallic joints. The driving design philosophy is always to ensure the joint is stronger than the unnotched strength of the adherend. As metallic adherend is significantly stronger than the adhesive, the adhesive properties are used as the

design criterion. Interfacial failure is largely ignored as it is assumed to be a by-product of poor surface preparation. Hence it becomes a quality control issue. The through-thickness strength of composite imposes more difficulties in predicting joint strength. Failure in composite can occur as delamination. Therefore failure criterion based purely on adhesive properties is not sufficient. Failure criterion can be broadly classified as strength of material based and fracture mechanics based. Hart-Smiths non-linear analysis which expanded on work done by Volkersen and Goland & Reisnner uses the adhesive yield strain to predict joint failure [2]. In a point-based criterion, the conditions for failure are satisfied when the peak stresses or strains reached critical level (material allowables) at an individual point. Adams used finite element method to analysis bonded joints. Initially peak adhesive values were used to assess joint strength. The prediction of the joint strength is largely qualitative and dependent on the skill and experience of the analyst. The problem in using a critical peak is the problem of which stress or strain value to use. The stresses at the end points are known to vary considerably from specimen to specimen of the same material. Theoretically a bi-material wedge produces a singular stress point. Therefore a finite element analysis will produce results that are largely dependent on mesh refinement. Global yielding of the adhesive has been proposed but is considered to be not conservative for long overlap joints [3]. Finite element software allows stress analysis of complex geometry. However strength prediction requires good judgement of the repair engineer. Point stress/strain at a distance [4, 5] and average stress/strain over a distance [6, 7] failure criteria have been proposed to circumvent the stress singularity issue. The Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) can model crack propagation and uses fracture toughness as a criterion. Cohesive zone model uses a combination of a stress/strain criterion and a fracture toughness criterion to predict the onset of crack and crack propagation. However the use of VCCT and cohesive zone modelling requires prior knowledge of the crack path for an accurate assessment.

2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental The composite doubler and adherend were made of 40 plies of IM7-9773 composite pre-preg and measured 17020 mm and 34020 mm respectively. The composite was hand laid with the layup orientation [+45/0/0/-45/90]4S. The doubler was secondary bonded to the parent composite with FM3002K adhesive. For the secondary bonded joint, the composite was firstly cured in an autoclave and then bonded together by FM300-2K adhesive. Surface preparation was done prior to bonding. To prevent slippage during static testing, additional composite tabs with the same thickness were bonded using Araldite 420A/B epoxy. The specimens were loaded in tension at a rate of 0.5 mm/min with an Instron 8510 servo-hydraulic machine. Preliminary results showed that the failure mode in the joint is interfacial despite surface preparation and the initial crack path is as shown in Figure 2. Firstly there is a need to ascertain that the surface preparation done was sufficient to ensure good chemical bonds between adhesive and composites. SEM and microscopy were used to gather qualitative evidence of the failure mechanisms and to verify the possibility of geometric parameters (i.e. interfacial composite ply orientations) influence on failure mechanism. a) b)

Figure 2: a) Interfacial failure mechanism on the failure surfaces and b) crack path observed from side 2.2. Analytical Analytical and numerical studies are conducted to assess the accuracy of different failure criteria proposed in literature. Hart-smiths joint design methodology has been found to over-predict the ultimate joint strength by a factor of 2. This is due to the interfacial failure mechanism observed in experiments whereas a cohesive failure mechanism is assumed in the analysis. The joint was modelled using the FE method under plane strain condition to investigate the stress distribution in the specimen. Stresses were

found to peak at the terminus of the doubler. Elastic-plastic analysis of the adhesive indicated that the onset of plasticity initiated at the stress singularity region. The evidence seemed to indicate crack initiation in this region and propagation in two directions, one interfacially in the overlap region and another perpendicular to the principal stress direction in the spew fillet. This failure path is consistent with the experimental observation. Further investigations are conducted to provide quantitative evidence of the crack propagation mode, selection of appropriate stress/strain tensor for stress/strain based analysis and comparative studies of failure criteria.

3.

Concluding Remarks
Preliminary findings showed that stress or strain based design methods, using adhesive properties, will over-predict the strength of composite joints. This over-prediction can be attributed to the failure mode being interfacial or composite first-ply. Further experimental testing will be conducted and compared with predictions from theories identified in the review. The limitations of the identified design methods will be identified and discussed.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the technical support provided by RMIT University and CRC-ACS, and financial support provided by the CRC-ACS scholarship.

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Potter, D.L., Primary Adhesively Bonded Structure Technology (PABST). 1979, Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, CA, USA.. Hart-Smith, L.J., Analysis and design of advanced composite bonded joints. 1974, National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Washington, DC. p. 60. Crocombe, A.D., Global yielding as a failure criterion for bonded joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 1989. 9(3): p. 145-153. Engelstad, S.P. Composite Bonded Joint Analysis. in USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Program. 2006. San Antonio, TX, USA. Kim, K.-S., et al., Failure prediction and strength improvement of uni-directional composite single lap bonded joints. Composite Structures, 2008. 82(4): p. 513-520. Hu, F.Z. and C. Soutis, Strength prediction of patch-repaired CFRP laminates loaded in compression. Composites Science and Technology, 2000. 60(7): p. 1103-1114. Tsai, H.C., J. Alper, and D. Barrett, Failure analysis of composite bonded joints. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2000.