You are on page 1of 699

Technical Manual

MTS 006 Iss. B


Outhouse distribution authorised

Composite stress manual


1

5 4

2 4

1
2
5

Structural
Design
Manual
Purpose To list and homogenise the calculation methods and the
allowable values for the composite materials used at the
Aerospatiale Design Office.

Scope To be used as reference document for all Aerospatiale and


subcontractors' stressmen.

Data processing tool


supporting this Manual

Summary See detailed summary

Document Dept. code : BTE/CC/SC Validation Name : JF. IMBERT


responsibility
Name : P. CIAVALDINI Function: Deputy Department
Group Manager
Dept. code : BTE/CC/A
Date : 06/05/99
Signature

This document belongs to AEROSPATIALE and cannot be given to third parties and/or be copied without
prior authorisation from AEROSPATIALE and its contents cannot be disclosed.
© AEROSPATIALE - 1999
Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Foreword

This issue is incomplete and existing chapters are liable to change.


All allowable values and coefficients related to the various materials described in chapter Z
are updated with each issue of the manual. This means that different values may be found in
the stress dossiers prior to latest issue.
The data processing tools are given for information purposes only.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS

Iss. Date Editor


DETAILED SUMMARY A Jan 98 P. Ciavaldini
B INTRODUCTION - COMPOSITE MATERIAL PROPERTIES A B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
COMPOSITE PLATE THEORY B *
MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE ANALYSIS C A Jan 98 P. Ciavaldini
MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING ANALYSIS D A Jan 98 P. Ciavaldini
MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS E A Jan 98 P. Ciavaldini
MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR ANALYSIS F B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
B
MONOLITHIC PLATE - FAILURE CRITERIA G B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
MONOLITHIC PLATE - FATIGUE ANALYSIS H *
MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE-TOLERANCE I ** B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
MONOLITHIC PLATE - BUCKLING J *
MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER ANALYSIS K B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
B
MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE L B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
MONOLITHIC PLATE - SPECIAL ANALYSIS M *
B SANDWICHIC - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR ANALYSIS N B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
SANDWICH - FATIGUE ANALYSIS O *
SANDWICH - DAMAGE-TOLERANCE APPROACH P *
SANDWICH - BUCKLING ANALYSIS Q *
SANDWICH - SPECIFIC DESIGNS R *
BONDED JOINTS S A Jan 98 P. Ciavaldini
B BONDED REPAIRS T B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
BOLTED REPAIRS U A Jan 98 P. Ciavaldini
B THERMAL CALCULATIONS V B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT W *
NEW TECHNOLOGIES X *
STATISTICS Y *
B MATERIAL PROPERTIES Z ** B Apr 99 P. Ciavaldini

*: chapter not dealt with.


**: chapter partially dealt with.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOW TO USE THE COMPOSITE MANUAL?

title(s) of subchapter(s) reference of chapter


reference(s) of
title of chapter subchapter(s)

SANDWICH
Effect of normal load Ny
N 4.2.1 page
1/2 number
4.2.1 . Effect of normal load Ny
Assuming that all layers are in a pure tension or compression condition, a
normal load Ny applied at the neutral line results in a constant elongation over
the whole cross-section. This elongation may be formulated as follows:

reference Ny
n3 ε =
of b (EMi ei + EMc ec + Ems es )
relation
This elongation this unduces:
- in the lower skin, a stress σi = Emi ε,
- in the core, a stress σc = Emc ε,
- in the upper skin, a stress σs = Ems ε.
The equivalent membrane modulus of the sandwich beam may be determined
by the relationship m14.

Remark: In the case of a sandwich beam in which


Emc ec << Emi ei and Emc ec << Ems es, the relationship becomes:

Ny
n4 ε ≈
b (EMi e i + Ems e s )

σs
Ny
Ems es Y
σc
Emc ec

Emi ei
b σi ε

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

HOW TO USE THE COMPOSITE MANUAL?

title(s) of subchapter(s) reference of chapter


reference(s) of
title of chapter subchapter(s)

SANDWICH
Example
N5 page
1/7 number

5 . EXAMPLE
Let a 10 mm wide sandwich beam be defined by the following stacking
sequence:
- an upper skin (carbon layers) of thickness es = 1.04 mm and of longitudinal
2
elasticity Es = 6000 daN/mm ,
- a core (honeycomb) of thickness ec = 10 mm and of longitudinal elasticity
2
modulus Ec = 15 daN/mm ,
- a lower skin (carbon cloths) of thickness ei = 0.9 mm and of longitudinal
2
elasticity modulus Ei = 4500 daN/mm .

We shall assume that the beam is subjected to the following two loads and
moment:
- Ny = 800 daN,
- Mx = 2000 daN mm,
Z
Tz = 250 daN
- Tz = 250 daN.

Mx = 2000 daN mm

1,04 Y

10
Ny = 800 daN
0,9

10
X

reference
1 step: to determine elongation ε induced by normal load Ny.
st
of
relation {n3}

ε= 800 = 7612 µd
10 ( 4500 0.9 + 15 10 + 6000 1.04 )
Z

ε = 7612 µd
X

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

DETAILED SUMMARY

A . INTRODUCTION - COMPOSITE MATERIAL PROPERTIES


1 . Introduction - General
2 . Composition
2.1 . Fibres
2.2 . Matrices
3 . Processing methods
4 . Composite structure design
5 . Assembly
6 . Advantages - Disadvantages (environmental parameters)
7 . Similitudes with metals
7.1 . System equilibrium
7.2 . Load distribution
7.2.1 . Normal load N
7.2.2 . Bending moment M
7.2.3 . Shear load T
7.3 . Material strength laws - Behavior laws
7.4 . General instability
8 . Differences with metals

B . COMPOSITE PLATE THEORY


1 . Ply
1.1 . Tapes - Fabrics
1.2 . Ply behavior (unidirectional orthotropic)
1.3 . Definitions - Notations
2 . Laminate
2.1 . Principle
2.2 . Assembly
3 . Sandwich
3.1 . Principle
3.2 . Assembly

C . MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE ANALYSIS


1 . Notations
2 . General definitions
2.1 . Homogeneity - Isotropy
2.2 . Coupling phenomena
2.2.1 . Plane coupling
2.2.2 . Mirror symmetry
3 . Analysis method
4 . Deformations and equivalent properties
5 . Graphs
5.1 . Failure envelopes
5.1.1 . Theoretical principle
5.1.2 . Margin search - Methodology
5.2 . Mechanical properties
6 . Example

D . MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING ANALYSIS


1 . Notations
2 . Introduction
3 . Analysis method
© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A
Composite stress manual

4 . Deformations and equivalent properties


5 . Example

E . MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


1 . Notations
2 . Introduction
3 . Analysis method
4 . Example

F . MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR ANALYSIS


1 . Notations
2 . Introduction
3 . Design method
4 . Example

G . MONOLITHIC PLATE - FAILURE CRITERIA


1 . Notations
2 . Inventory of static failure criteria
2.1 . Maximum stress criterion
2.2 . Maximum strain criterion
2.3 . Norris and Mac Kinnon's criterion
2.4 . Puck's criterion
2.5 . Hill's criterion
2.6 . Norris's criterion
2.7 . Fischer's criterion
2.8 . Hoffman's criterion
2.9 . Tsaï - Wu's criterion
3 . "Aerospatiale"'s criterion: Hill's criterion
4 . Example

H . MONOLITHIC PLATE - FATIGUE ANALYSIS

I . MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


1 . Notations
2 . Introduction
3 . Damage sources and classification
3.1 . Manufacturing damage or flaws
3.2 . In-service damage
3.2.1 . Fatigue damage
3.2.2 . Corrosion damage and environmental effects
3.2.3 . Accidental damage
4 . Inspection of damage
4.1 . Minimum damage detectable by a Special Detailed Inspection
4.2 . Minimum damage detectable by a Detailed Visual Inspection
4.3 . Minimum damage detectable by a General Visual Inspection
4.4 . Minimum damage detectable by a Walk Around Check
4.5 . Classification of accidental damage by detectability ranges
5 . Effects of flaws/damage on mechanical characteristics
5.1 . Health flaws
5.1.1 . Porosity
5.1.2 . Delaminations
5.1.2.1 . Delaminations outside stiffener
© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A
Composite stress manual

5.1.2.2 . Delaminations in stiffener area of an integrally-stiffened panel


5.1.3 . Delamination in spar radii
5.1.4 . Delamination on spar flange edges
5.1.5 . Foreign bodies
5.1.6 . Translaminar cracks
5.1.7 . Delaminations consecutive to a shock
5.2 . Visual flaws
5.2.1 . Sharp scratches
5.2.2 . Indents
5.2.3 . Scaling
5.2.4 . Steps
6 . Justification of permissible manufacturing flaws
7 . Justification of in-service damage
7.1 . Justification philosophy
7.1.1 . Undetectable damage
7.1.2 . Readily and obvious detectable damage
7.1.3 . Damage susceptible to be detected during scheduled in-service inspections
7.1.3.1 . Aerospatiale semi-probabilistic method
7.1.3.1.1 . Process for determining inspection intervals
7.1.3.1.2 . Inspection interval calculation software
7.1.3.1.3 . Load level K to be demonstrated in the presence of large VID
7.1.3.2 . CEAT semi-probabilistic method
7.2 . Examples
7.2.1 . AS method applied to A340 ailerons
7.2.2 . CEAT method applied to A340 nacelles

J . MONOLITHIC PLATE - BUCKLING


1 . Local buckling
1.1 . Design conditions
1.1.1 . General
1.1.2 . Specific to composite materials
1.2 . Design rules
2 . General buckling
2.1 . Variable inertia
2.2 . Off-centering
2.3 . Post local buckling

K . MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT - FASTENER ANALYSIS


1 . Notations
2 . Introduction
3 . General theory
st
3.1 . 1 method (Whitney and Nuismer)
nd
3.2 . 2 method (NASA)
rd
3.3 . 3 method (isotropic plate)
th
3.4 . 4 method (empirical)
4 . Associated failure criteria
4.1 . Point stress
4.2 . Average stress
4.3 . Empirical
5 . Examples

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

L . MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


1 . Notations
2 . General - Failure modes
2.1 . Bearing failure
2.2 . Net cross-section failure
2.3 . Plane shear failure
2.4 . Cleavage failure
2.5 . Cleavage and net cross-section failure
2.6 . Fastener shear failure
3 . Single hole with fastener
3.1 . Pitch p definition
3.2 . Membrane design - Short cut method
3.2.1 . Theory
3.2.2 . EDP computing program PSG33
3.3 . Bending design - Short cut method
3.4 . Justifications
3.5 . Nominal deviations on a single hole
3.5.1 . Changing to a larger diameter
3.5.2 . Pitch decrease
3.5.3 . Edge distance decrease
3.6 . "Point stress" finite element method
3.6.1 . Description of the method
3.6.2 . Justifications
4 . Multiple holes
4.1 . Independent holes
4.2 . Interfering holes
4.3 . Very close holes
5 . Examples

M . MONOLITHIC PLATE - SPECIAL ANALYSIS


1 . Stiffener run-out
2 . Bending on border
3 . Effect of "stepping"
4 . Edge effects

N . SANDWICH - MEMBRANE/BENDING/SHEAR/ANALYSIS
1 . Notations
2 . Specificity
3 . Construction principle
4 . Design principle
4.1 . Sandwich plate
4.2 . Sandwich beam
4.2.1 . Effect of a normal load Ny
4.2.2 . Effect of a shear load Tx
4.2.3 . Effect of a shear load Tz - Honeycomb shear
4.2.4 . Effect of a bending moment Mx
4.2.5 . Effect of a bending moment Mz
4.2.6 . Equivalent properties
5 . Example

O . SANDWICH - FATIGUE ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

P . SANDWICH - DAMAGE TOLERANCE APPROACH


1 . Impact damages
1.1 . Delamination
1.2 . Separation
1.3 . Design rules
2 . Manufacturing defects
2.1 . Porosity/bubbling
2.2 . Fissures/cracks

Q . SANDWICH - BUCKLING ANALYSIS


1 . Local buckling
1.1 . Dimpling
1.2 . Wrinkling
2 . General buckling
2.1 . Bending
2.2 . Shear load

R . SANDWICH - SPECIAL DESIGNS


1 . Densified zones
2 . Slopes/ramps

S . BONDED JOINTS
1 . Notations
2 . Bonded single lap joint
2.1 . Elastic behavior of materials and adhesive
2.1.1 . Highly flexible adhesive
2.1.2 . General case (without cleavage effect)
2.1.3 . General case (with cleavage effect)
2.1.4 . Scarf joint
2.2 . Elastic-plastic behavior of adhesive and elastic behavior of materials
3 . Bonded double lap joint
4 . Bonded stepped joint
5 . Software
6 . Examples

T . BONDED REPAIRS
1 . Notations
2 . Introduction
3 . Analysis method
3.1 . Analytical method
3.2 . Digital method
4 . Example

U . BOLTED REPAIRS
1 . Notations
2 . Stiffness of fasteners
2.1 . Fastener in single shear
2.2 . Fastener in double shear
3 . Assumptions
4 . Geometrical characteristics
5 . Mechanical properties
© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A
Composite stress manual

6 . Assessment of mechanical distributed in-plane forces on the doubler


6.1 . Distribution of flow Nx
6.2 . Distribution of flow Ny
6.3 . Distribution of shear flow Nxy
7 . Assessment of thermal in-plane forces on the doubler ?
8 . Assessment of flows in the panel
9 . Assessment of loads per fastener
9.1 . Repair with 1 row of fasteners
9.2 . Repair with 2 rows of fasteners
9.3 . Repair with 3 rows of fasteners
9.4 . Repair with 4 rows of fasteners
9.5 . Repair with a number of rows of fasteners greater than 4
9.6 . General resolution method for direction x
10 . Assessment of loads per fastener due to the transfer of shear loads Nxy
11 . Justifications
12 . Summary flowchart
13 . Examples

V . THERMAL CALCULATIONS
1 . Notations
2 . Introduction
3 . Hooke - Duhamel law
4 . Behavior of unidirectional fibre
5 . Behavior of a free monolithic plate
5.1 . Calculation method
5.2 . Residual curing stresses
5.3 . Equivalent expansion coefficients
6 . Theory of the bimetallic strip
6.1 . Determining stresses of thermal origin
6.2 . Study of the link between two parts
6.2.1 . Bolted or riveted joints
6.2.1.1 . Force F taken by one fastener
6.2.1.2 . Force F taken by two fasteners
6.2.1.3 . Force F taken by three fasteners
6.2.1.4 . Force F taken by four or more fasteners
6.2.2 . Bonded joints
7 . Influence of temperature on aircraft structures
7.1 . General
7.2 . Temperature of ambient air
7.2.1 . Temperature envelope
7.2.2 . Variation of ambient air temperature
7.2.2.1 . Ambient temperature on ground
7.2.2.2 . Ambient temperature in flight
7.3 . Wall temperature
7.3.1 . Influence of solar radiation
7.3.1.1 . Maximum solar radiation
7.3.1.2 . Solar radiation during the day
7.3.2 . Influence of aircraft speed
7.3.3 . Temperature of structure
7.3.3.1 . Calculation method
7.3.3.2 . Thermal characteristics of the materials
7.3.3.3 . Temperatures of structure on ground
7.3.3.4 . Temperatures of structure in flight
7.4 . Recapitulative block diagram
8 . Computing softwares
9 . Examples
© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A
Composite stress manual

W . ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT
1 . Temperature
2 . Aging
3 . Humidity

X . NEW TECHNOLOGIES
1 . R.T.M.
2 . Thermoplastic
2.1 . Shoft fibres
2.2 . Long fibres
3 . Glare-Arall

Y . STATISTICS

Z . MATERIAL PROPERTIES
1 . Prepreg unidirectional tapes
1.1 . First generation epoxy high strength carbon
1.2 . Second generation epoxy intermediate modulus carbon
1.3 . Epoxy R glass
1.4 . Bismaleimide carbon
2 . Fabrics
2.1 . Epoxy resin prepreg
2.1.1 . Carbon
2.1.2 . Glass
2.1.3 . Kevlar
2.1.4 . Hybrid
2.1.5 . Quartz polyester hybrid
2.2 . Phenolic resin prepreg
2.2.1 . Carbon
2.2.2 . Glass
2.2.3 . Kevlar
2.2.4 . Fiberglass carbon hybrid
2.2.5 . Quartz polyester hybrid
2.3 . Bismaleimide resin prepreg
2.3.1 . Carbon
2.4 . Wet lay--up epoxy (for repair)
2.4.1 . Carbon
2.4.2 . Glass
2.4.3 . Kevlar
2.4.4 . Fiberglass carbon hybrid
2.4.5 . Quartz polyester hybrid
3 . R.T.M.
3.1 . Epoxy resin
3.1.1 . Carbon
3.2 . Bismaleimide resin
3.3 . Phenolic resin
4 . Injection moulded thermoplastics
4.1 . Carbon
4.1.1 . PEEK
4.1.2 . PEI
4.1.3 . Polyamide
4.1.4 . PPS
4.1.5 . Polyarylamide
4.2 . Glass
© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A
Composite stress manual

4.2.1 . PEEK
4.2.2 . PEI
5 . Long fibre thermoplastics
5.1 . Carbon
5.1.1 . PEEK
5.1.2 . PEI
5.2 . Glass
6 . Arall-Glare
7 . Metallic matrix composite materials (CMM)
8 . Adhesives
8.1 . Epoxy
8.2 . Phenolic
8.3 . Bismaleimide
8.4 . Thermoplastic
9 . Honeycomb
9.1 . Nomex
- Hexagonal cells
- OX-Core
- Flex-Core
9.2 . Fiberglass honeycomb
- Hexagonal cells
- OX-Core
- Flex-Core
9.3 . Aluminium honeycomb
10 . Foams

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION - COMPOSITE MATERIAL PROPERTIES

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
General A 1

1 . INTRODUCTION - GENERAL

The importance of using composite materials in aeronautical construction, and specifically


within the Aerospatiale group, has initiated the need to prepare a document the interest of
preparing a document gathering all the design methods and mechanical properties of the
main composite materials used and/or developed by the composite material Design
Office.

Each one of these two subjects shall make up one volume of the composite material
design manual.

Composite materials result from the association of at least two chemically and
geometrically different materials.

"Composite material" commonly means arrangements of fibres - continuous or not - of a


resistant material (reinforcing material) which are embedded in a material with a much
lower strength (matrix), and stiffness.

The bond between the reinforcing material and the matrix is created during the
preparation phase of the composite material and this bond shall have a fundamental
effect on the mechanical properties of the final material.

Composite materials include:

- wood,

- reinforced concrete,

- fibre-reinforced organic matrices (polymer resins),

- particle or fibre-reinforced metal matrices,

- ceramic fibre-reinforced ceramic matrices.

In the aeronautical industry, the term "composite" is mainly associated with fibre-
reinforced polymer resins.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Composition - Fibres A 2.1

2 . COMPONENTS OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS

2.1 . Fibres

Their purpose is to ensure the mechanical function of the composite material. Fibres can
be of very different chemical and geometrical types, and the following properties shall be
specifically searched for:

- high mechanical properties.

- physico-chemical compatibility with the matrix.

- easy to use.

- good repeatability of the properties.

- low density.

- low cost.

They are made up of several thousand filaments (the number of filaments being indicated
by 3K: 3000 filaments, 6K: 6000 filaments or 12K: 12000 filaments) with a diameter
between 5 and 15 µm, and they are commercialised in two different forms:

- short fibres (a few centimeters long): they are felt, pylons (fabrics in which fibres are
laid out randomly) and injected short fibres,

- long fibres: they are cut during manufacture of the composite material, used as such
or woven,

• high strength fibres: glass, carbon, boron,

• synthetic fibres: aramid (kevlar), nylon, polyester,

• ceramic fibres: silica, alumina.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Composition - Matrices - Implementation A 2.2
3
1/3

2.2 . Matrices

Their function is:

- to provide a bond between the reinforcing fibres (cohesion of all fibres) while
maintaining a regular interval between them,

- to protect fibres against their environment,

- to allow stress transfer from one fibre to another,

There are three categories of matrix:

- resin matrices:

• thermoplastics (polyethylene, polysulfone, polycarbonate and polyamide, ...),

• thermosetting (phenolic, epoxy and polyester, ...),

• elastomers (polychloroprene, ethylene, propylene, silicone, ...),

- mineral matrices (silicon carbides, carbon),

- metal matrices (aluminium, titanium and nickel alloys).

3 . PROCESSING METHOD

The reinforcing fibre/resin mix becomes a genuinely resistant composite material only
upon completion of the last manufacturing phase, i.e; curing of the matrix.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Implementation A 3
2/3

* Material curing cycle

This cycle is achieved following the chemical reaction between the various components -
this is the crosslinking phase.

The chemical reaction is initiated as soon as products are in contact, and it is often
accelerated by heat: the higher the temperature, the quicker and more explosive is the
reaction:

There are two types of chemical reactions:

- the polyaddition reaction for epoxy resins where the weight of reactants is equal to
the weight of the compound,

- the condensation reaction (polycondensation) for phenolic resins where two


compounds are formed (a solid one and a gaseous one).

The curing cycle consist of a number of temperature levels of variable duration:

- a gel level which allows getting a consistent temperature gradient throughout the
material before full gelation to limit internal stresses,

- a curing level which allows hardening,

- a post-curing level which allows internal stresses to be relieved, and additional curing
for a better temperature resistance.

Note: the glass transition point is the temperature value at which all material properties
change. This important property must be measured, before and after wet aging.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Implementation A 3
3/3

There are several types of manufacturing facilities and processes:

- Manufacturing facilities:

• Autoclave: parts are produced under pressure and at high temperature.

• Oven: parts are vacuum produced and at high temperature.

• Hot press: pressure is applied by a mechanical device or by hydraulic jacks.

- Manufacturing processes:

• Multiple shots process: laminate are cured separately, then bonding of


laminates to the substructure (ribs, honeycombs, etc.) is performed as a
second operation.

• Semi-cocuring process: the external skin is cured separately, the substructure


(rib, or honeycomb + internal skin and stiffeners) is then cocured on the
external skin with an adhesive film spread, if necessary.

• Single phase process: or "cocuring", skins are cured and bonded to the
substructure (ribs or honeycomb or stiffeners) in one single operation.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Design A 4

4 . COMPOSITE STRUCTURE DESIGN

The choice of the design principle depends on the following criteria:

- element geometry.

- element type.

- level of loads to be transmitted.

- manufactured parts suitability for inspection.

- industrialization suitability of the part.

Composite structures use the same types of design principles as metal ones:

- Solid part type structure :

• Multiple rib box type structure

B • Multiple spar type structure

• Stiffened or milled out panel type structure

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Assembly A 5

- Sandwich type structure:

• Sandwich face sheet box

• Through - the - thickness sandwiches

5 . ASSEMBLY

After being manufactured, the different composite (and metal) elements must be
connected to one another to allow load transfer.

The two most commonly used techniques are bonding and bolting (or riveting).

Bonding techniques are tricky to implement (preparation of surfaces to be bonded)


because they are sensitive to environmental conditions: hygrometry, temperature, cure
date of adhesives.

They are also difficult to control because even a sound adhesive film is a barrier to
ultrasounds.

More repetitive and reliable bolting techniques may generate:

- stress concentration at fastener holes,

- delamination during drilling or assembly operations,

- corrosion of fasteners or of metal parts assembled with composite parts.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Advantages - Disadvantages A 6

6 . ADVANTAGES - DISADVANTAGES OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS

The use of composite materials has four major advantages:

- a weight gain which is reflected by fuel saving and, therefore, by a payload increase,

- the capacity to control stiffness and strength according to the areas of the structure,
thanks to the different types of layered materials. Composite materials naturally offer
membrane-bending coupling or plane coupling possibilities, which can have important
applications in the field of aero-elasticity,

- a good fatigue strength, which increases the life of aircraft parts concerned and
lightens the maintenance program considerably,

- absence of corrosion, which also lightens the maintenance program.

However, composite materials remain sensitive to environmental conditions. Their


mechanical properties change, due to:

- humidity,

- temperature,

- the various aeronautical fluids such as Skydrol (hydraulic fluid), oils or solvents (MEK)
and fuels,

- radiation (ultraviolet).

On the other hand, the effects of lightning strikes (temperature rise, melting, impacts,
electronic damages) and shocks (delamination, separation, punctures) must be taken into
account in the design and justification of composite parts.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Metal/composite material similitudes - System equilibrium A 7
7.1
1/4

7 . COMPARISON BETWEEN COMPOSITE STRUCTURES AND METAL


STRUCTURES

Composite material and metal material structures obey the same basic rules of structural
mechanics.

On the other hand, composite material behavior laws are slightly different from those for
metals.

The purpose of this sub-chapter is to specify the similitudes between metal materials and
composite materials for the structural justification of structures.

Composite parts and metal parts have the same behavior with respect to:

- static equilibrium.

- load distribution rules among several elements.

- basic rules of structural mechanics.

- general instability problems (buckling).

7.1 . System equilibrium

Whatever the type of system or element under study (metal, composite or combined), it is
subject to a set of external loads which may be of several types:

- Solid loads: distributed in the volume of the solid and of gravity (selfweight), dynamic
(inertial forces), electrical or magnetic origin.

- Areal loads: distributed over the external surface of the solid, such as normal
pressures due to a fluid or tangential loads due to friction phenomena.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
System equilibrium A 7.1
2/4

- Line loads: distributed over a line and which are, in fact, an idealized density of
surface load with a much smaller application width than length.

- Concentrated loads (P): acting in one point and which are, in fact, an idealized
density of surface load acting on a surface with smaller dimensions with respect to
the dimensions of the solid under study.

- Concentrated moments (M): acting in one point and which are, in fact, an idealized
concentrated moment.

ds

dl

P
dv
Z

To reach the equilibrium of the solid, all these external loads (C) must be equilibrated by
reactions at the bearing surfaces (R).

Σ (C) = - Σ (R)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
System equilibrium A 7.1
3/4

Let the solid be defined by its external loads and bearing surfaces:

external loads
+
bearing surfaces
a
A Z
B
Y

deformed system

external loads
+
reactions at bearing surfaces

Z
ra
Y

RA X

RB

The general equilibrium is summed up by a system of six equilibrium equations: three


equilibrated forces (F) and three equilibrated moments (Mt).

Σ (Fx) = Σ (Cx) + Σ (Rx) = 0


Σ (Fy) = Σ (Cy) + Σ (Ry) = 0
Σ (Fz) = Σ (Cz) + Σ (Rz) = 0

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
System equilibrium A 7.1
4/4

Σ (Mt/x) = 0
Σ (Mt/y) = 0
Σ (Mt/z) = 0

If the system is isostatic, the solving alone of these six equations allows all reactions at
the bearing surfaces to be found.

If the system is slightly hyperstatic and consisting of a simple geometry, it is necessary to


introduce new equations (the number depends on the degree of redundancy) of the
deformation compatibility type that take element stiffness into account.

If the system is complex or if the degree of redundancy is high, only a point stress or a
matrix analysis makes it possible to find reactions at the bearing surfaces and the internal
loads they generate.

Whatever the case and whatever the type of structure (composite or metal), the three
following rules must always be applied before any stress and deformation calculation:

1) External loading must be accurately defined.

2) Reactions must be fully determined.

3) The system must always be equilibrated.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Load distribution - Normal load N A 7.2.1

7.2 . Distribution of loads among several closely bound structural elements

7.2.1 . Normal load N

If a system made up of several parts which are connected together, is subject to a normal
load N, then, the load distribution within the different elements (whether metal or
composite) is as follows:

σ1

σ2

1 N
2

3
ε σ3
A.N.

we have:

å
3
N1 N2 N3 Nk N
k = 1
ε= = = = =
å å
3 3
E1 S1 E2 S 2 E3 S3 E Sk E Sk
k = 1 k k = 1 k

N Ei Si
a1 hence Ni =
å
3
E Sk
k =1 k

å
3
E Sk
k =1 k
a2 we may deduce Eeq. memb. (1 + 2 + 3) =
å
3
Sk
k =1

where Ni: load transferred by layer (i)


Ei: layer (i) elasticity modulus
Si: layer (i) section

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Load distribution - Bending moment M A 7.2.2

7.2.2 . Bending moment M

A bending moment M applied to the neutral axis of the system is picked up in each layer
in proportion to its bending stiffness.

The moment M breaks down, in each layer (i), into a bending moment Mi and a normal
load Ni, so that:

εe σe
v1

1 M
2

3
σi
εi
A.N.

M Ei Si v i
a3 Ni =
å
3
E l
k =1 k k

a4 Mi =
M Ei ιi
å
3
E l
k =1 k k

å
3
E l
k =1 k k
a5 we may deduce E eq. flex. (1 + 2 + 3) =
å
3
l
k =1k

where Ni: normal load applied to layer (i)


Mi: moment applied to layer (i)
li: layer (i) inertia with relation to the system neutral axis
ιi: layer inertia of layer (i)
Si: layer (i) section
vi: distance between layer (i) neutral axis and system neutral axis
Ei: layer (i) elasticity modulus
æ b h3 ö
li: inertia + "Steiner" inertia ç + S d2 ÷
è 12 ø
æ b h3 ö
ιi : layer inertia ç ÷
è 12 ø

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Load distribution - Shear load T A 7.2.3

7.2.3 . Shear load T

Assuming that layers 1, 2 and 3 are parallel and of the same height, a shear load T is
applied to each layer in proportion to its shear stiffness.

3
2 T
1

τm3
τm2
τm1

we have:

å
3
T1 T2 T3 T T
k = 1 k
γ= = = = =
å å
3 3
G1 S1 G 2 S 2 G 3 S3 Gk Sk Gk Sk
k = 1 k =1

T Gi Si
a6 hence Ti =
å
3
Gk Sk
k =1

å
3
Gk Sk
k =1
a7 we may deduce G eq. (1 + 2 + 3) =
å
3
Sk
k =1

where Ti: shear load transferred by layer (i)


Gi: layer (i) shear modulus
Si: layer (i) section

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Material strength laws - Behavior laws A 7.3

7.3 . Material strength laws - Behavior laws

Composite materials obey the general rules of structural mechanics.

Stress - deformation relationship for a two-dimensional analysis: Hooke's law applies


(σ) = (Aij) (ε), the matrix (Aij) is more complex for composite materials as described in
chapter C.

∂2y M
The equation of the elastic line of a bent metal beam = becomes
∂x 2 EI
∂2y M
= for a composite structure.
∂x 2
å
n
Ek lk
k =1

Normal stress - normal load relationship: for a stressed or compressed metal beam, the
N N Ei
expression σ = becomes σi = for each layer of a composite beam.
å
n
S Ek Sk
k =1

Normal stress - bending moment relationship: for a bent metal beam,


Mv M Ei v i
σ= becomes σi = for each layer of the composite beam.
å
n
l Ek lk
k =1

TW
Shear stress - shear load relationship: for a sheared metal beam, τ = becomes
lb
T Ei w i
τi = for each layer of the composite beam.
å
n
Ek lk bk
k =1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
General instability A 7.4

7.4 . General instability

For a beam, Euler's law which associates the general instability critical compression load
with the geometrical and mechanical properties of the beam remains valid, whatever the
material used (metal/isotropic or composite/orthotropic).

Indeed, the critical load is formulated as follows:

π2 E l
Fc = for metal beams,
l2

å
n
π2 E l
k = 1 k k
Fc = 2
for composite beams,
l

where l is the buckling length.

Regarding plates, the approach is more complex for composite materials, although bases
are identical.

The differential equation which governs composite plate instability is formulated in its
most general form:

∂4 w ∂4 w ∂4 w ∂2 w ∂2 w ∂2w
C11 + 2 (C + 2 C ) + C = N + N + 2 N
∂x 4 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂y 4 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂x ∂y
12 33 22 x y xy

where C11, C12, C33 and C22 are the temps of the matrix (Cij) binding the rotation tensor
and the bending load tensor (see chapter D).

For isotropic materials such as metals, the relationship is simplified:

E e3 æ ∂4 w ∂4 w ∂4 w ö ∂2w ∂2 w ∂2w
ç + + ÷ = N + N + 2 N
12 (1 − ν2 ) è ∂x 4 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂y 4 ø ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂x ∂y
x y xy

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Metal/composite material differences A 8
1/3

8 . DIFFERENCES BETWEEN METAL AND COMPOSITE MATERIALS

These differences are actually covered by the composite material manual. A few
examples are given below:

- Metal material isotropic/composite material anisotropic duality

If metal and composite materials are both macroscopically homogeneous, composite


materials are generally anisotropic. This means that their properties depend on the
direction (see drawing below) along which they are measured.

y
F/S l
Isotropic material F F

2 1, 2, 3

1
3

x ∆l/l
0
Properties are independent from the
coordinate system direction

y
F/S l
Anisotropic material F F

1
2
2
1
3 3

x ∆l/l
0
Properties depend on the coordinate
system direction

This difference may be an advantage. Through an optimization of the orientation of fibres,


it allows a greater freedom to choose element rigidity and, therefore, a more accurate
control of load routing.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Metal/composite material differences A 8
2/3

- Failure criteria

Because of their microscopic heterogeneity, composite materials do not obey


covariant failure criteria (independent from the coordinate system direction) like metal
materials. Generally, they must be applied to each layer and are applicable only in a
preferential direction (the direction of the fibre to be justified).

- Effect of holes

Sizing of holes in composite materials not only takes into account the net cross-
section coefficient (as for metal materials) due to material removal, but also a
decrease of the intrinsic material strength.

- Effect of bearing

The presence of bearing due to load transfer at a fastener in a laminate causes


membrane stresses to be artificially increased by part of the bearing stresses and, as
a result, residual strength to be decreased.

- Damage tolerance

The presence of impact or manufacturing damages causes a significant decrease to


the laminate static strength.

- Effect of fatigue/damage tolerance

Corrosion and fatigue are the overriding factors of the limited life of metal structures.
Metal fatigue is controlled by the number of cycles required, on the one hand, to
initiate a crack and, on the other hand, bring it to its critical length (growth phase).
Influent factors of this phenomena are stress concentrations and tension loads.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
Différences composite/métal A 8
3/3

As a general rule, fatigue is not a design factor for composite elements of civil aircraft
with thin thicknesses and no structural irregularities. More specifically, mechanical
properties are such that static design requirements naturally "cover" fatigue design
requirements. Wohler curves are relatively flat and damaging loads are of the
compression type (R = - 1).

(Impact or manufacturing) Damage growth under mechanical fatigue is not allowed


because of the high rate of delamination growth. The current inability to control
through analysis the damage growth rate in composite materials does not allow a
damage tolerance justification based on slow growth. For this reason, allowable
damage tolerance values are low; this makes it possible to avoid any explosive
evolution during the aircraft life.

- Metal material plasticity/composite material "brittleness" duality

Metal materials have an elastic range and a plastic range, in their behavior, which
lead to breaking, breaking occurs in carbon composite materials without plasticizing.

F/S l F/S l
F F F F

breaking
breaking
plastic zone

elastic zone elastic zone

∆l/l ∆l/l
0 Plastic material 0 Brittle material
(metal) (composite)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

INTRODUCTION
References A
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

COMPOSITE PLATE THEORY

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Notations C 1

1 . NOTATIONS

(o, x, y): reference coordinate system


(o, l, t): coordinate system specific to the unidirectional ply

k: fibre coordinate system


θ: fibre orientation

nθ: number of plies in direction θ


eθ: overall thickness of plies in direction θ: eθ = nθ x ep

e: overall thickness of laminate


n: number of plies in laminate

(N): flux tensor


(σ): stress tensor
(ε): elongation tensor
(Q): stiffness matrix of unidirectional ply
(R): stiffness matrix of laminate
(A): stiffness matrix of laminate

El: longitudinal young's modulus of unidirectional ply


Et: transversal young's modulus of unidirectional ply
νit: longitudinal/transversal Poisson coefficient
Et
νtl = νlt : transversal/longitudinal Poisson coefficient
El
Glt: shear modulus of unidirectional ply
ep: ply thickness

Rlt: allowable longitudinal tension stress


Rlc: allowable longitudinal compression stress
Rtt: allowable transversal tension stress
Rtc: allowable transversal compression stress
S: allowable shear stress

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

2.1
MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE
Definitions - Homogeneity - Isotropy - Coupling C 2.2.1
2.2.2

2 . GENERAL DEFINITIONS

2.1 . Homogeneity - Isotropy

- A material is so-called homogeneous when its properties are independent from the point
considered.

- A material is isotropic if it has the same properties in all directions.

- A material is anisotropic if there is no property symmetry, i.e. properties depend on the


direction and on the point considered.

- A material is orthotropic if its properties are symmetrical with relation to two


perpendicular planes. Axes of symmetry are so-called axes of orthotropy.

2.2 . Coupling phenomenon

2.2.1 . Plane coupling

In the case of an orthotropic material, there is a “plane coupling” if the loading axis is not
coincident with one of its axes of orthotropy. In that case, normal loading (σ) generates
shear (γ) and shear loading (τ) generates elongation (ε).

N1 x N1

2.2.2 . Mirror symmetry

The laminate must be such that each layer has an identical symmetrical layer with relation
to the neutral plane.

This symmetry allows the membrane-bending coupling to be eliminated, i.e. the


occurrence of plate bending, when a tension load is applied in its plane.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Design method C 3
1/8

3 . DESIGN METHOD

The design method for a flat plate consists in assessing stresses in each ply and in
determining the corresponding Hill’s criterion (see § G.3).

Let’s assume that all plies are made up of the same material, and that the laminate is
provided with the mirror symmetry property.

That is to say the central plane of the laminate (for example: (0°/45°/135°/90°) s =
(0°/45°/135°/90°/90°/135°/45°/0°). This property implies that there is no coupling between
the membrane effects and the bending effects.

Which means that the membrane flux tensor (Nx, Ny, Nxy) induces εx, εy, and γxy type
elongations only and that, on the other hand, the moment flux tensor (Mx, My, Mxy) induces
χx, χy and χxy type rotations only.

In other words, in the case of a laminate with the mirror symmetry property, the
relationship which binds loading and elongation may be formulated as follows:

Nx εx

Ny Aij 0 εy

Nxy γxy

=
Mx χx
My 0 Cij χy
Mxy χxy

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Design method C 3
2/8

A laminate (as well as the sign convention for membrane type load fluxes) may be
represented as follows:
z

y y

Ny > 0
Nxy > 0
x Nx > 0
3
θ2

θ1
x

1
θ3

With each fibre direction (θ = 1, 2 or 3) is associated the number of corresponding plies


nθ.

1st step: Design of the stiffness matrix for the unidirectional layer in its own coordinate
system (l, t). This matrix shall be called (Ql, t).

c1 (σl, t) = (Ql, t) x (εl, t) t

El ν tl E l
σl 0 εl
1 − νlt ν tl 1 − ν lt ν tl

ν lt E t Et
σt = 0 εt
1 − ν lt ν tl 1 − ν lt ν tl

τlt 0 0 Glt γlt

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Design method C 3
3/8

2nd step: Design of the stiffness matrix for the unidirectional layer in direction θ in the
reference coordinate system (x, y). This matrix shall be called (Qx, y,θ).

c2 (Qx, y,θ) = (Tθ) x (Ql, t) x (T'θ)-1

y
l
t

with:

(cos θ) 2 (sin θ) 2 − 2 x sin θ x cos θ

(Tθ) = (sin θ) 2 (cos θ) 2 2 x sin θ x cos θ

sin θ x cos θ − sin θ x cos θ (cos θ) 2 − (sin θ) 2

(cos θ) 2 (sin θ) 2 − sin θ x cos θ

(T'θ) = (sin θ) 2 (cos θ) 2 sin θ x cos θ

2 x sin θ x cos θ − 2 x sin θ x cos θ (cos θ) 2 − (sin θ) 2

Matrix (Tθ) corresponding to the basic transformation matrix for stress condition.

Matrix (T'θ) corresponding to the basic transformation matrix for elongation condition.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Design method C 3
4/8

Note: Let material be defined by the two following drawings:

t y

ds

σt
l

τxy
τtl σx
θ
x
τyx

i
σy
σt

τtl
t y τlt
σl

σy
l
τyx σl
τlt

τlt ds τxy τtl


τxy σx
σl
σx σt
θ

x
τyx

i σy

By obtaining their equilibrium, we get the three following expressions:

σl ds - σx ds (cosθ)2 - σy ds (sinθ)2 + τxy ds sinθ cosθi - τxy ds sinθ cosθ = 0

τlt ds + σx ds sinθ cosθ - σy ds sinθ cosθ - τxy ds (sinθ)2 - τxy ds (cosθ)2 = 0

σt ds - σx ds (sinθ)2 - σy ds (cosθ)2 + τxy ds cosθ cosθ - τxy ds sinθ sinθ = 0

Expressions from which the matrix (Tθ) terms are easily taken.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Design method C 3
5/8

Remark: the stiffness matrix (Qx, y, θ) also allows determination of the mechanical
properties of the unidirectional layer in direction θ in the reference coordinate
system (o, x, y). For the unidirectional layer, we have:

(σx, y) = (Qx, y, θ) x (εx, y) hence (εx, y) = (Qx, y, θ)-1 x (σx, y)

1 ν yx (θ) ηyx (θ)


εx − σx
E x (θ) Ey (θ) Gxy (θ)

ν xy (θ) 1 µ yx
εy = − σy
E x (θ) Ey (θ) G xy (θ)

η x (θ) µ y (θ) 1
γxy τxy
E x (θ) E y (θ) G xy (θ)

where:

1
Ex(θ) =
c4
s 4
æ 1 ν ö
+ + c2 s2 ç − 2 tl ÷
El Et è Glt Et ø

1
Ey(θ) =
s4
c 4
æ 1 ν ö
+ + c2 s2 ç − 2 tl ÷
El Et è Glt Et ø

1
Gxy(θ) =
( )
2
æ 1 1 ν tl ö c 2 − s2
4c s ç +
2 2
+2 ÷ +
è El E t Et ø Glt

ν yx (θ) ν tl 4 æ1 1ö
E y (θ)
=
Et
( )
c + s4 − c 2 s 2 ç +
1
− ÷
è El E t Glt ø

E x (θ)
νxy(θ) = νyx(θ)
E y (θ)

with c ≡ cos(θ) and s ≡ sin(θ)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Design method C 3
6/8

3rd step: Knowing the stiffness matrix of each layer (Qx, y, θ) with relation to the reference
coordinate system (x, y), the laminate stiffness matrix can be calculated in this same
coordinate system: (Rx, y).

For this, the mixture law shall be applied.

å å
n n
(Q x, y, θk ) ep (Q x, y, θk )
k =1 k =1
c3 (Rx, y) = or (Rx, y) =
n e

4th step: Determination of the laminate elongation tensor in the reference coordinate
system.

1
c4 (εx, y) = x (Rx, y)-1 x (Nx, y)
e

εx Nx Nx εx

1
εy = (Rx, y)-1 Ny or Ny = (A) εy
e
γ xy Nxy Nxy γ xy

where (A) is the laminate membrane stiffness matrix: (A) = e x (Rx, y).

Matrix (A) is the stiffness matrix which binds the stress flux tensor (N) with the elongation
tensor (ε).

c5 (N) = (A) x (ε)

Nx A 11 A 12 A 13 εx

Ny = A 21 A 22 A 23 x εy

Nxy A 31 A 32 A 33 γ xy

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Design method C 3
7/8

where

c6 Aij = å
n
k = 1
(Ε k
ij (z k − z k )
− 1)

ply No. k
thickness

ply No. 1

with

Ε11(θ) = c4 Εl + s4 Εt + 2 c2 s2 (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)


Ε22(θ) = s4 Εl + c4 Εt + 2 c2 s2 (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)
Ε33(θ) = c2 s2 (Εl + Εt - 2 νtl Εl) + (c2 - s2)2 Glt
Ε12(θ) = Ε21(θ) = c2 s2 (Εl + Εt - 4 Glt) + (c4 + s4) νtl Εl
Ε13(θ) = Ε31(θ) = c s {c2 Εl - s2 Εt - (c2 - s2) (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)}
Ε23(θ) = Ε32(θ) = c s {s2 Εl - c2 Εt + (c2 - s2) (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)}

c ≡ cos(θ) where θ is the fibre direction in the reference coordinate system (o, x, y)

s ≡ sin(θ) where θ is the fibre direction in the reference coordinate system (o, x, y)

El
Εl =
1 − ν tl νlt

Et
Εt =
1 − ν tl νlt

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Design method C 3
8/8

5th step: Determination of elongations in each fibre direction

c7 (εl, t, θ) = (T' - θ) x (εx, y)

ε lθ (cos θ) 2 (sin θ) 2 sin θ x cos θ εx

ε tθ = (sin θ) 2 (cos θ) 2 − sin θ x cos θ εy

γ lt θ − 2 x sin θ x cos θ 2 x sin θ x cos θ (cos θ) 2 − (sin θ) 2 γ xy

6th step: Determination of stresses in each fibre direction

c8 (σl, t, θ) = (Ql, t) x (εl, t, θ)

σ lθ ε lθ

σ tθ = (Ql, t) ε tθ

τ lt θ γ lt θ

7th step: Assessment of Hill’s criterion in each fibre direction. Refer to chapter G (failure
criteria).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Equivalent properties C 4

4 . DEFORMATIONS AND EQUIVALENT MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Monolithic plates are microscopically heterogeneous. It is sometimes necessary to find


their equivalent membrane stiffness properties in order to determine the passing loads
and resulting deformations.

Equivalent membrane young's moduli are directly derived from the laminate stiffness
matrix (A):

1 ν yxmemb. equi.
− x
E xxmemb. equi. E yy memb. equi.
1 ν xymemb . equi. 1
c9 (A)-1 = − x
e E xxmemb. equi. E yymemb . equi.
1
x x
Gxy memb. equi.

If reference axes (o, x, y) are coincident with the axes of orthotropy of the laminate, we
obtain:

A11 A 22 − (A 12 )2
E xxmemb. equi. =
e A 22

A 11 A 22 − (A12 )2
E yymemb. equi. =
e A11

A 66
Gxymemb . equi. =
e

A12
ν xy memb. equi. =
A 22

A 21
ν yxmemb . equi. =
A 11

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Graphs - Failure envelopes - Theoretical principle C 5.1.1
1/3

5 . GRAPHS

5.1 . Failure envelopes

5.1.1 . Theoretical principle

Let a laminate be made up of plies in the same material and described as follows:

- overall thickness e,

- percentage of plies at 0°,

- percentage of plies at 45°,

- percentage of plies at 135°,

- percentage of plies at 90°.

If membrane fluxes Nx, Ny and Nxy, are applied to the laminate, so that Nx2 + Ny2 + Nxy2 = 1,
the design method outlined above allows loads inside each layer to be determined and the
overall plate margin (m) to be found (see § G "Failure criteria").

Ny

Nx', Ny', Nxy' (zero margin)

Nx, Ny, Nxy (margin m)


Nx
o

Nxy

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Graphs - Failure envelopes - Theoretical principle C 5.1.1
2/3

m
Let's assume that the three fluxes are multiplied by the coefficient + 1.
100

In this case, the laminate subject to this new loading (Nx', Ny', Nxy') shall have a zero
margin.

Therefore, it is possible to associate each triplet (Nx, Ny, Nxy) with a flux triplet (Nx', Ny', Nxy')
so that the margin associated with it is zero.

If this operation is repeated for the set of points so that Nx2 + Ny2 + Nxy2 = 1 (sphere S with
radius 1), then, surface S' is obtained, corresponding to the set of points with a zero
margin. This is the material failure envelope.

Ny

S'

Nx
o

Nxy

This three-dimensional representation of zero margin points is not easy to use.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Graphs - Failure envelopes - Theoretical principle C 5.1.1
3/3

It can be represented in a two-dimensional space (Nx, Ny) in the form of graphs (each
curve corresponding to the intersection S' with an equation plane Nxy = Nxyi).

Ny

plane Nxy = 0

plane Nxyi

plane Nxyn

Nx

Nxy

If this set of curves is projected onto the plane (o, Nx, Ny), a network of curves is obtained
which constitutes the breaking graph of the laminate.
Ny

Nxyi = 0

Nxyi

Nxyn

Nx
o

This graph (corresponding to a given material and a specific lay-up) allows the laminate
margin (Hill's criterion) to be determined graphically.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Graphs - Failure envelopes - Margin C 5.1.2

5.1.2 . Margin search - Methodology

Let a laminate be subject to fluxes Nxo, Nyo and Nxyo and the breaking graph associated
with it.

- Plot the straight line D crossing point o and point A of coordinates Nxo and Nyo.

- Perpendicular to this straight line, plot the value Nxyi segment corresponding to the
graph curve Nxyi. Repeat this operation for each graph curve.

- Plot curve C.

- From point A, plot point B so that AB = Nxyo and AB ⊥ D.

- Determine point C, intersection of the straight line (o, B) and curve C.

æo C ö
- The composite plate margin is equal to 100 ç − 1÷ .
èoB ø

Ny

N
xy
i

A C
Nyo N
xy
o
c
B
o Nx
Nxo

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Graphs - Mechanical properties C 5.2

In practice, curves are represented in stress and not in flux values. This makes it possible
to group together some laminates per lay-up class (for example: 3/2/2/1 ≡ 6/4/4/2 ≡
9/6/6/3).

A number of orthotropic laminate failure envelopes in carbon T300/914 layers shall be


found in chapter Z “material properties”.

5.2 . Mechanical properties

For a given material, a set of graphs may be created giving the mechanical properties
(strength and elasticity moduli) of an orthotropic laminate described by its percentages of
plies in each direction (see drawing below).

Gxy

% to 90°
Gxy

% to 45°
%

A number of those graphs associated with carbon T300/914 layer shall be found in
chapter Z “material properties”.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Example C 6
1/8

6 . EXAMPLE

Given a laminate made of T300/BSL914 (new) with the following lay-up:

0°: 6 plies
45°: 4 plies
135°: 4 plies
90°: 6 plies

Mechanical properties of the unidirectional ply are the following:

El = 13000 hb (130000 MPa)


Et = 465 hb (4650 MPa)
νlt = 0.35
νtl = 0.0125
Glt = 465 hb (4650 MPa)
ep = 0.13 mm
e = 2.6 mm

Rlt = 120 hb (1200 MPa)


Rlc = - 100 hb (1000 MPa)
Rtt = 5 hb (50 MPa)
Rtc = - 12 hb (120 MPa)
S = 7.5 hb (75 MPa)

The purpose of this example is to search for stresses applied to each ply (0°, 45°, 135°,
90°) knowing that the laminate is globally subject to the three following load fluxes in the
reference coordinate system (x, y):

Nx = 30.83 daN/mm
Ny = - 2.22 daN/mm
Nxy = 44.92 daN/mm

These load fluxes being the continuation of the example covered in chapter K (Fastener
hole).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Example C 6
2/8

1st step: Design of stiffness matrix (Ml, t) for the unidirectional ply with relation to its own
coordinate system (l, t).

{c1}

13000 13000 0.0125


0
1 − 0.35 0.0125 1 − 0.35 0.0125

465 0.35 465


(Ql, t) = 0
1 − 0.35 0.0125 1 − 0.35 0.0125

0 0 465

13057 163 0

(Ql, t) = 163 467 0

0 0 465

All values being expressed in daN/mm2.

2nd step: Assessment of stiffness matrix for each unidirectional ply with relation to the
reference coordinate system (x, y).

{c2}

−1
1 0 0 13057 163 0 1 0 0

(Qx, y, 0°) = 0 1 0 163 467 0 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 465 0 0 1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Example C 6
3/8

0.5 0.5 − 1 13057 163 0 0.5 0.5 − 0.5 − 1

(Qx, y, 45°) = 0.5 0.5 1 163 467 0 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.5 − 0.5 0 0 0 465 1 −1 0

0.5 0.5 1 13057 163 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 − 1

(Qx, y, 135°) = 0.5 0.5 − 1 163 467 0 0.5 0.5 − 0.5

− 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 465 − 1 1 0

0 1 0 13057 163 0 0 1 0 −1

(Qx, y, 90°) = 1 0 0 163 467 0 1 0 0

0 0 −1 0 0 465 0 0 −1

Thus, we find:

13057 163 0

(Qx, y, 0°) = 163 467 0

0 0 465

3928 2998 3148

(Qx, y, 45°) = 2998 3928 3148

3148 3148 3299

3928 2998 − 3148

(Qx, y, 135°) = 2998 3928 − 3148

− 3148 − 3148 3299

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Example C 6
4/8

467 163 0

(Qx, y, 90°) = 163 13057 0

0 0 465

All values being expressed in daN/mm2.

3rd step: By applying the mixture law, the overall laminate stiffness matrix (Rx, y) is
formulated as follows.

{c3}

6 x 13057 + 8 x 3928 + 6 x 467 12 x 163 + 8 x 2998 4 x 3148 − 4 x 3148

1
(Rx, y) = 12 x 163 + 8 x 2998 6 x 467 + 8 x 3928 + 6 x 13057 4 x 3148 − 4 x 3148
20
4 x 3148 − 4 x 3148 4 x 3148 − 4 x 3148 12 x 465 + 8 x 3299

5628 1297 0

(Rx, y) = 1297 5628 0

0 0 1598

. xE − 4
188 − 4.32 x E − 5 − 6.11 x E − 20

(Rx, y)-1 = − 4.32 x E − 5 . xE − 4


188 4.02 x E − 20

− 6.11 x E − 20 4.02 x E − 20 6.25 x E − 4

All values being expressed in daN/mm2 and mm²/daN.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Example C 6
5/8

4th step: Determination of the laminate strain tensor in the reference coordinate system (x,
y).

{c4}

εx . xE − 4
188 − 4.32 xE − 5 − 611
. xE − 20 3083
. 2262 x E − 6

1
εy = − 4.32 xE − 5 . xE − 4
188 . xE − 20
402 − 2.22 = − 673 x E − 6
2.6
γ xy − 611
. xE − 20 . xE − 20
402 6.25 x .E − 4 44.92 10807 x E − 6

All values being expressed in mm/mm.

5th step: Determination of the strain tensor in each fibre direction.

{c7}

1 0 0 2262 x E − 6 2262 x E − 6

(εl, t, 0°) = 0 1 0 − 673 x E − 6 = − 673 x E − 6

0 0 1 10807 x E − 6 10807 x E − 6

0. .5 0.5 0.5 2262 x E − 6 6198 x E − 6

(εl, t, 45°) = 0.5 0.5 − 0.5 − 673 x E − 6 = − 4609 x E − 6

− 1 1 0 10807 x E − 6 − 2935 x E − 6

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Example C 6
6/8

0.5 0.5 − 0.5 2262 x E − 6 − 4609 x E − 6

(εl, t, 135°) = 0.5 0.5 0.5 − 673 x E − 6 = 6198 x E − 6

1 − 1 0 10807 x E − 6 2935 x E − 6

0 1 0 2262 x E − 6 − 673 x E − 6

(εl, t, 90°) = 1 0 0 − 673 x E − 6 = 2262 x E − 6

0 0 −1 10807 x E − 6 − 10807 x E − 6

All values being expressed in mm/mm.

6th step: With the previous results, stresses in each ply are determined.

{c8}

13057 163 0 2262 x E − 6 29.42

(σl, t, 0°) = 163 467 0 − 673 x E − 6 = 0.06

0 0 465 10807 x E − 6 5.03

13057 163 0 6198 x E − 6 80.17

(σl, t, 45°) = 163 467 0 − 4609 x E − 6 = − 114


.

0 0 465 − 2935 x E − 6 − 136


.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Example C 6
7/8

13057 163 0 − 4609 x E − 6 − 59.17

(εl, t, 135°) = 163 467 0 6198 x E − 6 = 2.14

0 0 465 2935 x E − 6 136


.

13057 163 0 − 673 x E − 6 − 8.42

(εl, t, 90°) = 163 467 0 2262 x E − 6 = 0.95

0 0 465 − 10807 x E − 6 − 5.03

All values being expressed in hb.

7th step: In each direction, the corresponding Hill’s criterion is calculated (see chapter G),
which gives the following margins for each ply:

0° → 40 % 45° → 42 % 135° → 31 % 90° → 42 %

The ply at 135° is, therefore, the most brittle ply in this loading case.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


Example C 6
8/8

8th step: The laminate margin may be found with the breaking graph corresponding to this
material (see chapter Z).

We have: Nx = 30.83 daN/mm


Ny = - 2.22 daN/mm
Nxy = 44.92 daN/mm

Giving, for an overall thickness of 2.6 mm, the following stresses:

σx = 11.86 hb
σy = - 0.85 hb ≈ 0 h
τxy = 17.28 hb

+ T = 22 HB
x T = 21 HB
Y T = 18 HB
+ T = 15 HB
x T = 12 HB
Y T = 9 HB
T = 6 HB
T = 3 HB
T = 0 HB

Scale: 1 cm ↔ 3.33 hb

æo C ö æ 72 ö
Marge = 100 ç − 1÷ = 100 ç − 1÷ ≈ 41 %
èoB ø è 51 ø

There is a 10 % error with respect to the analytical method (31 %).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE


References C
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

M. THOMAS, Analysis of a laminate plate subject to membrane and bending loads,


440.227/79

J.C. SOURISSEAU, 40430.030

J. CHAIX, 436.127/91

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Notations D 1

1 . NOTATIONS

(o, x, y): reference coordinate system


(o, l, t): coordinate system specific to the unidirectional fibre

u, v, w: displacement from any point on the beam


uo, vo, wo: displacement from the beam neutral plane
β: beam curvature at a given point
R: beam radius of curvature at a given point

εx, εy, γxy: strains at any point


εox, εoy, γoxy: strains neutral plane

(M): bending moment tensor

(χ): rotation tensor


(α): tensor of angles formed by the deformation diagram
(C): inertia matrix of laminate

k: fibre coordinate system

θ: fibre orientation

El: longitudinal young's modulus of unidirectional ply


Et: transversal young's modulus of unidirectional ply
νlt: longitudinal/transversal poisson coefficient
Et
νtl = νlt : transversal/longitudinal poisson coefficient
El
Glt: shear modulus of unidirectional ply
ep: ply thickness

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Introduction - Design method D 2
3
1/4

2 . INTRODUCTION

In chapter C, we examined the case of a laminate provided with mirror symmetry subject
to membrane type loading. In the paragraph below, we shall examine the case of a
laminate with the same properties but, this time, subject to pure bending type loads.

By convention, we shall consider that any positive moment compresses the laminate
upper fibre.

Let’s assume that bending moment flows Mx, My and Mxy generate εx, εy and γxy type
strains.

Let’s assume also (Kirchoff) that the neutral plane is coincident with the neutral line.

3 . DESIGN METHOD

Let a bent plate be represented as follows:


z

y
My > 0

x Mx > 0 Mxy > 0


z
1
R=
2
∂ w
2 ∂w
∂x tg(β) =
∂x

w
x, y

w
u, v wo
z
x, y
uo, vo

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Design method D 3
2/4

If the displacements from a point at position Z are defined as u, v and w in the coordinate
system (x, y, z), then we may write:

∂w o
u = uo - z
∂x

∂w o
v = vo - z
∂y

w = wo

where uo, vo et wo represent displacements from the neutral plane in the coordinate
system (x, y, z).

We deduce (by deriving with respect to coordinates) the corresponding non-zero strains:

∂2 w o
d1 εx = εox - z
∂x 2

∂2 w o
εy = εoy - z
∂y 2

∂2wo
γxy = γoxy - 2 z
∂x ∂y

εx z
εox
neutral plan o

2
∂ w
tg(α) =
2
∂x
x

where εox, εoy and γoxy rerepresent strains at a point located on the neutral plane and εx, εy
and γxy represent strains at any point at position z.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Design method D 3
3/4

h
From the general expression for the bending moment: M = ò

2
h
2
σ z dz , we obtain the

relationship between the bending load tensor (M) and the rotation tensor (χ):

d2 (M) = (C) x (χ)

∂2wO
Mx C11 C12 C13
∂x 2
∂2wO
My = C 21 C22 C 23
∂y 2
∂2 w O
M xy C 31 C32 C 33 2
∂x ∂y

where

æ k zk3 − zk3 − 1 ö
å
n
d3 Cij = çç Ε ij ÷÷
k = 1
è 3 ø

with

d4 Ε11(θ) = c4 Εl + s4 Εt + 2 c2 s2 (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)


Ε22(θ) = s4 Εl + c4 Εt + 2 c2 s2 (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)
Ε33(θ) = c2 s2 (Εl + Εt - 2 νtl Εl) + (c2 - s2)2 Glt
Ε12(θ) = Ε21(θ) = c2 s2 (Εl + Εt - 4 Glt) + (c4 + s4) νtl Εl
Ε13(θ) = Ε31(θ) = c s {c2 Εl - s2 Εt - (c2 - s2) (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)}
Ε23(θ) = Ε32(θ) = c s {s2 Εl - c2 Εt + (c2 - s2) (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)}

c ≡ cos(θ) where θ is the ply direction in the reference coordinate system (o, x, y)

s ≡ sin(θ) where θ is the ply direction in the reference coordinate system (o, x, y)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Design method D 3
4/4

with

El
d5 Εl =
1 − ν tl νlt

Et
Εt =
1 − ν tl νlt

If the tensor of angles formed by the strain diagram in each direction is defined by (α):
(αx, αy, αxy) we may write in a simplified form the relationship:

d6 (χ) = tg (α)

By convention, we shall assume that (α) is negative when the upper fibre is in tension. We
have:

d7 (ε)z = - (χ) x z

z z

ply No. k
α
zk zk - 1
h neutral plan σ ε

ply No. 1

This relationship makes it possible to determine each ply strain and, therefore, to find
(using chapter C) stresses applied to it.

Remark: The terms Cij must be determined with relation to the laminate neutral line
(Kirchoff’s assumption). In this case, the neutral plane shall also be used as a
reference for the overall load pattern.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Equivalent mechanical properties D 4

4 . DEFORMATIONS AND EQUIVALENT MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Monolithic plates are microscopically heterogeneous. It is sometimes necessary to find


their equivalent bending stiffness properties in order to determine the passing loads and
resulting deformations.

Equivalent bending elasticity moduli are directly derived from the laminate stiffness matrix
(C):

1
x x
E xx bending equi.
12 1
d8 (C)-1 = x x
e3 E yy bending equi.
1
x x
Gxy bending equi.

If reference axes (o, x, y) are coincident with the axes of orthotropy of the laminate, we
obtain:

C11 C 22 − (C12 )2
Exxbending equi. = 12
e3 C 22

C 11 C 22 − (C 12 ) 2
Eyybending equi. = 12
e 3 C 11

C 66
Gxybending equi. = 12
e3

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Example D 5
1/7

5 . EXAMPLE

Let a T300/BSL914 laminate (new) be laid up as follows:

0°: 2 plies
45°: 2 plies
135°: 2 plies
90°: 2 plies

Stacking from the external surface being as follows: 0°/45°/135°/90°/90°/135°/ 45°/0°.

z8 = 0.52
k = 8 (0°)
z7 = 0.39
k = 7 (45°)
z6 = 0.26
k = 6 (135°)
z5 = 0.13
k = 5 (90°)
z4 = 0
k = 4 (90°)
k = 3 (135°)
k = 2 (45°)
k = 1 (0°)

Mechanical properties of the unidirectional ply are the following:

El = 13000 hb
Et = 465 hb
νlt = 0.35
νtl = 0.0125
Glt = 465 hb
ep = 0.13 mm

The purpose of this example is to search for elongations at the laminate external surface,
knowing that the laminate is globally subject to the three following moment fluxes in the
reference coordinate system (x, y):

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Exemple D 5
2/7

Mx = 10 daN
My = 0 daN/mm
Mxy = - 5 daN/mm
z

Mxy = - 5 daN
x Mx = 10 daN

1st step: calculation of stiffness coefficients for the unidirectional ply:

{d5}

13000
Εl = = 13057 daN/mm2
1 − 0.35 0.0125

465
Εt = = 467 daN/mm2
1 − 0.35 0.0125

2nd step: For each ply, stiffness coefficients Εij expressed in daN/mm2 are calculated.

{d4}

ply at 0°

Ε11(0°) = 13057
Ε22(0°) = 467
Ε33(0°) = 465
Ε12(0°) = Ε21(0°) = 0.0125 x 13000 = 163
Ε13(0°) = Ε31(0°) = 0
Ε23(0°) = Ε32(0°) = 0

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Example D 5
3/7

ply at 45°

Ε11(45°) = 0.7074 13057 + 0.7074 467 + 2 x 0.7072 0.7072 (0.0125 x 13057 + 2 x 465) = 3925
Ε22(45°) = 0.7074 13057 + 0.7074 467 + 2 x 0.7072 0.7072 (0.0125 x 13057 + 2 x 465) = 3925
Ε33(45°) = 0.7072 0.7072 (13057 + 467 - 2 x 0.0125 x 13057) = 3297
Ε12(45°) = Ε21(45°) = 0.7072 0.7072 (13057 + 467 - 4 x 465) + (0.7074 + 0.7074) x 0.0125 x 13057 = 2995
Ε13(45°) = Ε31(45°) = 0.707 x 0.707 {0.7072 13057 - 0.7072 467} = 3146
Ε23(45°) = Ε32(45°) = 0.707 x 0.707 {0.7072 13057 - 0.7072 467} = 3146

ply at 135°

Ε11(135°) = 3925
Ε22(135°) = 3925
Ε33(135°) = 3297
Ε12(135°) = Ε21(135°) = 2995
Ε13(135°) = Ε31(135°) = - 3146
Ε23(135°) = Ε32(135°) = - 3146

ply at 90°

Ε11(90°) = 467
Ε22(90°) = 13057
Ε33(90°) = 465
Ε12(90°) = Ε21(90°) = 163
Ε13(90°) = Ε31(90°) = 0
Ε23(90°) = Ε32(90°) = 0

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Example D 5
4/7

3rd step: Calculation of laminate inertia matrix (C) coefficients Cij expressed in daN mm.

The laminate being provided with the mirror symmetry property, coefficients Cij shall be
calculated for the laminate upper half, then they shall be multiplied by 2.

{d3}

90° 135° 45° 0°


æ .
0133
− 0 3
0.26 3
− 013
. 3
0.39 3
− 0.26 3
0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C11 = 2 ç 467 + 3925 + 3925 + 13057 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ . 3 − 03
013 0.26 3 − 013
. 3 0.39 3 − 0.26 3 0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C12 = 2 ç163 + 2995 + 2995 + 163 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ 0.13 3 − 0 3 0.26 3 − 0.13 3 0.39 3 − 0.26 3 0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C13 = 2 ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ . 3 − 03
013 0.26 3 − 0.13 3 0.39 3 − 0.26 3 0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C21 = 2 ç163 + 2995 + 2995 + 163 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ . 3 − 03
013 0.26 3 − 013
. 3 0.39 3 − 0.26 3 0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C22 = 2 ç13057 + 3925 + 3925 + 467 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ 0.13 3 − 0 3 0.26 3 − 0.13 3 0.39 3 − 0.26 3 0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C23 = 2 ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ 0.13 3 − 0 3 0.26 3 − 0.13 3 0.39 3 − 0.26 3 0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C31 = 2 ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ 0.13 3 − 0 3 0.26 3 − 0.13 3 0.39 3 − 0.26 3 0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C32 = 2 ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ . 3 − 03
013 0.26 3 − 013
. 3 0.39 3 − 0.26 3 0.52 3 − 0.39 3 ö
C33 = 2 ç 465 + 3297 + 3297 + 465 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
C11 = 858
C12 = 123
C13 = 55
C21 = 123
C22 = 194
C23 = 55
C31 = 55
C32 = 55
C33 = 151

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Example D 5
5/7

Thus, the following matrix is obtained:

858 123 55

(C) = 123 194 55

55 55 151

4th step: Search for the rotation tensor

{d2}

∂ 2 wo
Mx 858 123 55
∂x 2
∂ 2 wo
My = 123 194 55 =
∂y 2
∂2 wo
Mxy 55 55 151 2
∂x ∂y

hence

∂ 2 wo
1287
. E−3 − 7.617 E − 4 − 1913
. E−4 Mx
∂x 2
∂ 2 wo
= − 7.617 E − 4 6.199 E − 3 − 198
. E−3 = My
∂y 2
∂2 wo
2 − 1913
. E−4 − 198
. E−3 7.414 E − 3 Mxy
∂x ∂y

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Example D 5
6/7

∂2wo
1287
. E−3 − 7.617 E − 4 − 1913
. E−4 10
∂x 2
∂2wo
= − 7.617 E − 4 6.199 E − 3 − 198
. E−3 = 0
∂y 2
∂2 w o
2 − 1913
. E−4 − 198
. E−3 7.414 E − 3 −5
∂x ∂y

Thus, we find:

∂2wo
13.82 E − 3
∂x 2
∂2wo
= 2.283 E − 3
∂y 2
∂2 w o
2 − 38.98 E − 3
∂x ∂y

which is the rotation tensor (χ).

5th step: We now propose to calculate strains ε (0°) for the ply at 0° (at the external line of
the layer).

{d7}

∂2 w o h
εx(0°) = - x
∂x 2
2

∂2 w o h
εy(0°) = - x
∂y 2
2

∂2w o h
γxy(0°) = - 2 x
∂x ∂y 2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


Example D 5
7/7

hence:

εx(0°) = - 1 x 13.82 E-3 x 0.52 = - 7186 µd

εy(0°) = - 1 x 2.283 E-3 x 0.52 = - 1187 µd

γxy(0°) = - 1 x - 38.98 E-3 x 0.52 = 20270 µd

Stresses in the layer may be determined afterwards. To do this, refer to


chapter C.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BENDING


References D
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

M. THOMAS, Analysis of a laminate plate subject to membrane and bending loads,


440.227/79

J.C. SOURISSEAU, 40430.030

J. CHAIX, 436.127/91

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Notations E 1

1 . NOTATIONS

(o, x, y): reference coordinate system


(o, l, t): coordinate system specific to the unidirectional fibre

εx, εy, γxy: material strains at any point


wo: displacement from plate neutral plane

(N): normal flux tensor


(M): bending moment tensor

(ε): membrane type strain tensor


(χ): curvature tensor

(A): laminate stiffness matrix (membrane)


(B): laminate stiffness matrix (membrane/bending coupling)
(C): laminate stiffness matrix (bending)

θ: fibre orientation

k: fibre coordinate system

El: longitudinal elasticity modulus of unidirectional fibre


Et: transversal elasticity modulus of unidirectional fibre
νlt: longitudinal/transversal poisson coefficient

νtl: transversal/longitudinal poisson coefficient


Glt: shear modulus of unidirectional fibre
ep: ply thickness

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Introduction E 2

2 . INTRODUCTION

We have seen in chapter C that there is a relationship which binds membrane strains and
loading of the same type.

This relationship may be formulated as follows: (N) = (A) x (ε).

We also saw in chapter D that there is a relationship which binds the curvature tensor and
the moment tensor.

This relationship may be formulated as follows: (M) = (C) x (χ).

If lay-up has the mirror symmetry property, then both phenomena are dissociated and
independent. In other words, the overall relationship which binds the set of strains and the
set of loadings may be formulated as follows:

Nx A11 A12 A13 0 0 0 εx

Ny A 21 A 22 A 23 0 0 0 εy

Nxy A 31 A 32 A 33 0 0 0 γ xy
= ∂2wo
Mx 0 0 0 C11 C12 C13 ∂x 2
∂2wo
My 0 0 0 C21 C 22 C23 ∂y 2
∂2 wo
Mxy 0 0 0 C31 C 32 C33 2
∂x ∂y

where coefficients Aij and Cij are defined in chapters C and D.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Analysis method E 3
1/2

3 . ANALYSIS METHOD

If lay-up is non-symmetrical, then all zero terms of the previous matrix become non-zero
and there is a membrane/bending coupling. Both phenomena become dependent. The
relationship between loadings and strains is thus:

Nx A11 A12 A13 B11 B12 B13 εx

Ny A 21 A 22 A 23 B21 B22 B23 εy

Nxy A 31 A 32 A 33 B31 B32 B33 γ xy


e1 = ∂2wo
Mx B11 B12 B13 C11 C12 C13 ∂x 2
∂2wo
My B21 B22 B23 C21 C 22 C23 ∂y 2
∂2 wo
Mxy B31 B32 B33 C31 C 32 C33 2
∂x ∂y

where

æ k zk2 − zk2 − 1 ö
å
n
e2 Bij = - çç Eij ÷÷
k = 1
è 2 ø

ply No. k

zk zk - 1

neutral plane

ply No. 1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Analysis method E 3
2/2

with

e3 Ε11(θ) = c4 Εl + s4 Εt + 2 c2 s2 (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)


Ε22(θ) = s4 Εl + c4 Εt + 2 c2 s2 (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)
Ε33(θ) = c2 s2 (Εl + Εt - 2 νtl Εl) + (c2 - s2)2 Glt
Ε12(θ) = Ε21(θ) = c2 s2 (Εl + Εt - 4 Glt) + (c4 + s4) νtl Εl
Ε13(θ) = Ε31(θ) = c s {c2 Εl - s2 Εt - (c2 - s2) (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)}
Ε23(θ) = Ε32(θ) = c s {s2 Εl - c2 Εt + (c2 - s2) (νtl Εl + 2 Glt)}

where

c ≡ cos(θ) where θ is the fibre direction in the reference coordinate system (o, x, y).

s ≡ sin(θ) where θ is the fibre direction in the reference coordinate system (o, x, y).

with

El
e4 Εl =
1 − ν tl νlt

Et
Εt =
1 − ν tl νlt

Remark: The terms Bij and Cij must be determined with relation to the laminate neutral
line (Kirchoff’s assumption). In this case, the neutral plane shall also be used as
a reference for the overall load pattern.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
1/9

4 . EXAMPLE

Let a T300/BSL914 laminate (new) be laid up as follows:

0°: 1 ply
45°: 1 ply
135°: 1 ply
90°: 1 ply

Stacking from the external surface being as follows: 0°/45°/135°/90°.

z4 = 0.26
k = 4 (0°)
z3 = 0.13
k = 3 (45°) neutral plane
z2 = 0
k = 2 (135°)
z1 = - 0.13
k = 1 (90°)
z0 = - 0.26

Mechanical properties of the unidirectional fibre are the following:

El = 13000 hb
Et = 465 hb
νlt = 0.35
νtl = 0.0125
Glt = 465 hb
ep = 0.13 mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
2/9

The purpose of this example is to search for strains at the laminate internal and external
surfaces, knowing that the laminate is globally subject to the following fluxes in the
reference coordinate system (x, y):

Nx = 5 daN/mm
Ny = 0 daN/mm
Nxy = 0 daN/mm

Mx = 0 daN
æ mm daN ö
My = - 0.15 daN ç ÷
è mm ø
Mxy = 0 daN

My = - 0.15 daN

x Nx = 5 daN/mm

1st step: calculation of stiffness coefficients for the unidirectional fibre:

{e4}

13000
Εl = = 13057 daN/mm2
1 − 0.35 0.0125

465
Εt = = 467 daN/mm2
1 − 0.35 0.0125

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
3/9

2nd step: For each fibre direction, stiffness coefficients Εij expressed in daN/mm2, are
calculated.

{e3}

fibre at 0°

Ε11(0°) = 13057
Ε22(0°) = 467
Ε33(0°) = 465
Ε12(0°) = Ε21(0°) = 0.0125 x 13000 = 163
Ε13(0°) = Ε31(0°) = 0
Ε23(0°) = Ε32(0°) = 0

fibre at 45°

Ε11(45°) = 0.7074 13057 + 0.7074 467 + 2 x 0.7072 0.7072 (0.0125 x 13057 + 2 x 465) = 3925
Ε22(45°) = 0.7074 13057 + 0.7074 467 + 2 x 0.7072 0.7072 (0.0125 x 13057 + 2 x 465) = 3925
Ε33(45°) = 0.7072 0.7072 (13057 + 467 - 2 x 0.0125 x 13057) = 3297
Ε12(45°) = Ε21(45°) = 0.7072 0.7072 (13057 + 467 - 4 x 465) (0.7074 + 0.7074) x 0.0125 x 13057 = 2995
Ε13(45°) = Ε31(45°) = 0.707 x 0.707 {0.7072 13057 - 0.7072 467} = 3146
Ε23(45°) = Ε32(45°) = 0.707 x 0.707 {0.7072 13057 - 0.7072 467} = 3146

fibre at 135°

Ε11(135°) = 3925
Ε22(135°) = 3925
Ε33(135°) = 3297
Ε12(135°) = Ε21(135°) = 2995
Ε13(135°) = Ε31(135°) = - 3146
Ε23(135°) = Ε32(135°) = - 3146

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
4/9

fibre at 90°

Ε11(90°) = 467
Ε22(90°) = 13057
Ε33(90°) = 465
Ε12(90°) = Ε21(90°) = 163
Ε13(90°) = Ε31(90°) = 0
Ε23(90°) = Ε32(90°) = 0

3rd step: Calculation of laminate (membrane) stiffness matrix (A) coefficients Aij expressed
in daN/mm.

{c6}

90° 135° 45° 0°


A11 = (467 x 0.13 + 3925 x 0.13 + 3925 x 0.13 + 13057 x 0.13)
A12 = (163 x 0.13 + 2995 x 0.13 + 2995 x 0.13 + 163 x 0.13)
A13 = (0 x 0.13 - 3146 x 0.13 + 3146 x 0.13 + 0 x 0.13)
A21 = (163 x 0.13 + 2995 x 0.13 + 2995 x 0.13 + 163 x 0.13)
A22 = (13057 x 0.13 + 3925 x 0.13 + 3925 x 0.13 + 467 x 0.13)
A23 = (0 x 0.13 - 3146 x 0.13 + 3146 x 0.13 + 0 x 0.13)
A31 = (0 x 0.13 - 3146 x 0.13 + 3146 x 0.13 + 0 x 0.13)
A32 = (0 x 0.13 - 3146 x 0.13 + 3146 x 0.13 + 0 x 0.13)
A33 = (465 x 0.13 + 3297 x 0.13 + 3297 x 0.13 + 465 x 0.13)

hence

A11 = 2779
A12 = 821
A13 = 0
A21 = 821
A22 = 2779
A23 = 0
A31 = 0
A32 = 0
A33 = 978

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
5/9

4th step: Calculation of laminate (bending) inertia matrix (C) coefficients Cij expressed in
daN mm.

{d3}

90° 135° 45° 0°


æ (− 013
3
. ) − (− 0.26)
3 3
0 − (− 013
. )
3
013
.
3
− 0
3 3
0.26 − 013
.
3
ö
C11 = ç 467 + 3925 + 3925 + 13057 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ (− 013
3
. ) − (− 0.26)
3 3
0 − (− 0.13)
3
013
.
3
− 0
3
0.26 − 0.13 ö
3 3
C12 = ç163 + 2995 + 2995 + 163 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ ( − 0.13) 3 − (− 0.26) 3 3
0 − (− 0.13)
3 3
0.13 − 0
3
0.26 − 0.13 ö
3 3
C13 = ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ (− 013
3
. ) − (− 0.26)
3 3
0 − (− 013
. )
3
013
.
3
− 0
3
0.26 − 0.13 ö
3 3
C21 = ç163 + 2995 + 2995 + 163 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ (− 013
3
. ) − (− 0.26)
3 3
0 − (− 013
. )
3
013
.
3
− 0
3 3
0.26 − 013
.
3
ö
C22 = ç13057 + 3925 + 3925 + 467 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ (− 0.13) 3 − (− 0.26) 3 3
0 − (− 0.13)
3 3
0.13 − 0
3
0.26 − 0.13 ö
3 3
C23 = ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ ( − 0.13) 3 − (− 0.26) 3 3
0 − (− 0.13)
3 3
0.13 − 0
3
0.26 − 0.13 ö
3 3
C31 = ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ ( − 0.13) 3 − (− 0.26) 3 3
0 − ( − 0.13)
3 3
0.13 − 0
3
0.26 − 0.13 ö
3 3
C32 = ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
æ (− 013
3
. ) − (− 0.26)
3 3
0 − (− 013
. )
3 3
0.13 − 0
3 3
0.26 − 013
.
3
ö
C33 = ç 465 + 3297 + 3297 + 465 ÷
è 3 3 3 3 ø
hence

C11 = 75.1
C12 = 6.06
C13 = 0
C21 = 6.06
C22 = 75.1
C23 = 0
C31 = 0
C32 = 0
C33 = 9.59

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
6/9

5th step: Calculation of membrane - bending coupling coefficients Bij expressed in daN.

{e2}

90° 135° 45° 0°


æ ( − 0.13 )
2
− ( − 0.26 )
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13 )
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0.26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B11 = - ç 467 + 3925 + 3925 + 13057 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
æ ( − 0.13)
2
− ( − 0.26 )
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13)
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0.26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B12 = - ç 163 + 2995 + 2995 + 163 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
æ ( − 0.13 )
2
− ( − 0.26 )
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13 )
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0.26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B13 = - ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
æ ( − 0.13)
2
− ( − 0.26 )
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13)
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0.26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B21 = - ç 163 + 2995 + 2995 + 163 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
æ ( − 0.13)
2
− ( − 0.26)
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13)
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0,26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B22 = - ç 13057 + 3925 + 3925 + 467 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
æ ( − 0.13 )
2
− ( − 0.26 )
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13 )
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0.26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B23 = - ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
æ ( − 0.13 )
2
− ( − 0.26 )
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13 )
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0.26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B31 = - ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
æ ( − 0.13 )
2
− ( − 0.26 )
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13 )
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0.26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B32 = - ç 0 − 3146 + 3146 + 0 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
æ ( − 0.13 )
2
− ( − 0.26 )
2
0
2
− ( − 0.13)
2
0.13
2
− 0
2
0.26
2
− 0.13
2
ö
B33 = - ç 465 + 3297 + 3297 + 465 ÷
è 2 2 2 2 ø
hence

B11 = - 319
B12 = 0
B13 = - 53.2
B21 = 0
B22 = 319
B23 = - 53.2
B31 = - 53.2
B32 = - 53.2
B33 = 0

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
7/9

6th step: Expression of stiffness overall matrix

{e1}

Nx A 11 A 12 A 13 B 11 B 12 B 13 εx

Ny A 21 A 22 A 23 B 21 B 22 B 23 εy

Nxy A 31 A 32 A 33 B 31 B 32 B 33 γ xy
= ∂2wo
Mx B 11 B 12 B 13 C 11 C 12 C 13 ∂x 2
∂2wo
My B 21 B 22 B 23 C 21 C 22 C 23 ∂y 2
∂2 wo
Mxy B 31 B 32 B 33 C 31 C 32 C 33 2
∂x ∂y

then

Nx 2779 821 0 − 319 0 53.2 εx

Ny 821 2779 0 0 319 53.2 εy

Nxy 0 0 978 53.2 53.2 0 γ xy


= ∂2wo
Mx − 319 0 53.2 75.1 6.06 0 ∂x 2
∂2wo
My 0 319 53.2 6.06 75.1 0 ∂y 2
∂2 wo
Mxy 53.2 53.2 0 0 0 9.59 2
∂x ∂y

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
8/9

By reversing the relationship, we find:

ε 1.15 x E − 3 − 5.0 x E − 4 3.80 x E − 4 5.00 x E − 3 1.99 x E − 3 3.61 x E − 3 N


x x

ε − 5.0 x E − 4 1.15 x E − 3 − 3.8 x E − 4 − 2.0 x E − 3 − 5.0 x E − 3 3.61 x E − 3 N


y y

γ 3.80 x E − 4 − 3.8 x E − 4 1.28 x E − 3 2.33 x E − 3 2.33 x E − 3 0 N


xy xy

∂2w
o
= 5.00 x E − 3 − 2.0 x E − 3 2.33 x E − 3 3.57 x E − 2 7.23 x E − 3 1.67 x E − 2 M
x
∂x 2
2
∂ w
o
2.00 x E − 3 − 5.0 x E − 3 2.33 x E − 3 7.23 x E − 3 3.57 x E − 2 − 1.67 x E − 2 M
y
∂y 2

∂2w
o
2 3.61 x E − 3 3.61 x E − 3 0 1.67 x E − 2 − 1.67 x E − 2 1.44 x E − 1 M
∂x ∂y xy

7th step: Search for the strain tensor

By replacing loading by values quoted at the beginning of the example in the previous
relationship, we find:

εx 5.44 E − 3 mm / mm (5440 µd)

εy − 174
. E − 3 mm / mm (− 1740 µd)

γ xy . E − 3 mm / mm
154 (1540 µd)
∂2wo =
∂x 2 2.38 E − 2 mm −1
∂2wo
∂y 2 4.57 E − 3 mm −1
∂2 wo
2 2.05 E − 2 mm −1
∂x ∂y

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


Example E 4
9/9

8th step: Search for strains in the upper fibre at ε (0°)

To do this, membrane strains (εx, εy, γxy) are added to strains resulting from the bending
æ ∂2wo h ∂ wo
2
h ∂2wo hö
effect ç x , x , 2 x ÷
è ∂x
2
2 ∂y 2
2 ∂x ∂y 2 ø

{d7}

∂2 w o h
εx(0°) = εx - x
∂x 2
2

∂2 w o h
εy(0°) = εy - x
∂y 2
2

∂2wo h
γxy(0°) = γxy - 2 x
∂x ∂y 2

hence:

εx (0°) = 5.44 E-3 + (-1) x 2.38 E-2 x 0.26 = - 748 µd


εy (0°) = - 1.74 E-3 + (-1) x 4.57 E-3 x 0.26 = - 2928 µd
γxy (0°) = - 1.54 E-3 + (-1) x 2.05 E-2 x 0.26 = - 3790 µd

For the lower fibre, we would find:

εx (90°) = 5.44 E-3 + 2.38 E-2 x 0.26 = 11628 µd


εy (90°) = - 1.74 E-3 + 4.57 E-3 x 0.26 = - 552 µd
γxy (90°) = + 1.54 E-3 + 2.05 E-2 x 0.26 = 6870 µd

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - MEMBRANE + BENDING ANALYSIS


References E
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

M. THOMAS, Analysis of a laminate plate subjected to membrane and bending loads,


440.227/79

J.C. SOURISSEAU, 40430.030

J. CHAIX, 436.127/91

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


Notations F 1

1 . NOTATIONS

(o, x, y): reference coordinate system


(o, l, t): coordinate system specific to the unidirectional fibre

El: longitudinal elasticity modulus of unidirectional fibre


Et: transversal elasticity modulus of unidirectional fibre
νlt: longitudinal/transversal Poisson coefficient
νtl: transversal/longitudinal Poisson coefficient
Glt: shear modulus of unidirectional fibre
ep: ply thickness

Ek: longitudinal elasticity modulus with relation to x-axis of ply No. k

n: total number of laminate layers

θ: fibre orientation

El: laminate overall inertia with relation to the (moduli weighted) neutral axis

E Wk: static moment with relation to the (moduli weighted) neutral axis of the set of plies k
to n

τ: shear stress

Txy, Tyz, T(β): shear load flux

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


Introduction F 2

2 . INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to determine interlaminar shear stresses in a monolithic


plate subject to a shear load flux.

For simplification purposes, we shall assume that the laminate is made up of n identical
fibres but with different directions.
z
Tyz > 0

y
z

Txz > 0
x

y
θ
k=n

ep
k=1

Layer No. k in direction θ has the following longitudinal elasticity modulus with relation to
the reference coordinate system (o, x, y):

1
f1 Ek = see chapter C3.
c4
s 4
æ 1 ν ö
+ + c 2 s2 ç − 2 tl ÷
El Et è Glt Et ø

with

c ≡ cos(θ)

s ≡ sin(θ)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


Introduction - Analysis method F 2
3
1/5

We shall assume that shear load Txz (direction z load shearing a plane perpendicular to x-
axis) creates stress τxz and, based on the reciprocity principle, stress τzx.

Similarly, we shall assume that shear load Tyz (direction z load shearing a plane
perpendicular to y-axis) creates stress τyz and, based on the reciprocity principle, stress
τzy.

These shear stresses are called interlaminar stresses.

τzy
τzx
τyz

τxz
y
Tyz

Txz

3 . ANALYSIS METHOD

To calculate interlaminar stresses τxz (τzx) generated by shear load Txz (Tyz), use the
following methodology.

We shall only consider the case of a laminate subject to shear load Txz. The analysis
principle is the same for Tyz.

In this case, inertias (El) and static moments (E W k) are measured with relation to y-axis.
Elasticity moduli (Ek) are measured with relation to x-axis.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


Analysis method F 3
2/5

1st step: The position of the laminate neutral axis is determined. If the laminate lower fibre
is used as a reference, then the neutral axis is defined by dimension zg, so that:

å ( )
n
E k z k2 − z k2 − 1
k =1
f2 zg =

n
(
Ek z k − zk − 1
k =1
)
z

ply No. n

ply No. k

zg
zk
zk - 1

z1 ply No. 1
y
z0 = 0

2nd step: The (moduli weighted) bending stiffness of laminate El is determined with relation
to the lay-up neutral axis

(z )
3
− zk − 1 æ zk + zk − 1 ö
2

f3 El = å
n
k =1
Ek
k

12
+ å
n
k =1
(
Ek z k − z k − 1 ) ç
è 2
− zg ÷
ø

ply No. k

zk zk - 1
zg

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


Analysis method F 3
3/5

3rd step: Then the (elasticity moduli weighted) static moment E W k (of the material surface
located above the line where interlaminar stress is to be calculated), is determined. This
static moment shall be calculated with relation to the plate neutral axis.

If the line is a fibre interface surface (z = zk - 1), then we have the following relationship:

æ zi + z i − 1 ö
f4 E Wk = å
n
i=k
(
Ei z i − z i − 1 ç
è
) 2
− zg ÷
ø
z

ply No. k

zk zk - 1
zg

zk + zk − 1
If the line is situated at the centre of a fibre at z = , the relationship becomes:
2

z i + zi
f5 E Wk = å
n
i = k
(
Ei zi − zi − 1 ) æçè 2
− 1 ö
− zg ÷ −
ø

æ zk + z k − 1 ö æ zk + z k − 1 zk − 1 ö
Ek ç − zk − 1÷ ç + − zg ÷
è 2 ø è 4 2 ø
z

z +z
k k − 1
ply No. k
2

zg
zk zk - 1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


Analysis method F 3
4/5

4th step: Shear stress τxzk is determined, so that:

Txz . E Wk
f6 τxzk =
El

where Txz is the shear load applied to the laminate.

By using this analysis method for each ply interface (or at the center of each ply for
greater accuracy), it is possible to plot the interlaminar shear stress diagram over the
entire plate width.

The previous relationship shows that the shear stress is maximum when the static
moment is maximum as well, i.e. at the neutral axis (z = zg).

z z

τxzk
ply No. k

τzxk

zg

τxz y

Remark: The previous analysis is based on a shear load flux Txz applied to a section
perpendicular to x-axis.

In the case of any section forming an angle β in the coordinate system (o, x, y), the shear
load flux in this new section may be expressed as a function of Txz and Tyz.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


Analysis method F 3
5/5

T(β + π/2)

ds
T(β)
-Txz

β
x

-Tyz

As shown in the drawing above, the z equilibrium of the hatched material element leads to
the following relationship:

T(β) ds - Txz ds cos(β) - Tyz ds sin(β) = 0

hence:

T(β) = cos(β) Txz + sin(β) Tyz

æ Tyz ö
It is easy to show that for β = Arctg ç ÷ , a modulus extremum T(β) (called main shear
è Txz ø
load flux) is reached that is equal to:

f7 l T(β) l = Txz 2 + Tyz 2

Example: if shear load fluxes Txz and Tyz are equal, then the maximum shear load flux is
located in the plane with a direction β = 45°. Its modulus equals 2 Txy (or 2 Tyz).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
1/9

4 . EXAMPLE

Let a T300/BSL914 laminate (new) be laid up as follows:

0°: 1 ply
45°: 1 ply
135°: 1 ply
90°: 1 ply

Stacking from the external surface being as follows: 0°/45°/135°/90°.



45°
135°
90°

Mechanical properties of the unidirectional fibre are the following:

El = 13000 hb (130000 MPa)


Et = 465 hb (4650 MPa)
νlt = 0.35
νtl = 0.0125
Glt = 465 hb (4650 MPa)
ep = 0.13 mm
e = 0.52 mm

The purpose of this example is to search for interlaminar shear stresses in the laminate,
knowing that it is subject to the following shear load flux:

Txz = 0.7 daN/mm z

Txz = 0.7 daN/mm


x

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
2/9

Knowing the mechanical properties of the unidirectional fibre, elasticity moduli of each
fibre should be calculated in direction x.

{f1}

For the fibre at 90°: k = 1.

E1 = Et = 465 hb (4650 MPa)

For the fibre at 135: k = 2

1
E2 = 4 4
0.707 0.707 æ 1 0.0125 ö
+ + 0.707 2 0.707 2 ç − 2 ÷
13000 465 è 465 13000 ø

E2 = 925 hb (9250 MPa)

For the fibre at 45°: k = 3

E3 = 925 hb (9250 MPa)

For the fibre at 0°: k = 4

E4 = El = 13000 hb (130000 MPa)

1st step: Analysis of the position of neutral axis zg

{f2}

465 (0.13 2 − 0 2 ) + 925 (0.26 2 − 0.13 2 ) + 925 (0.39 2 − 0.26 2 ) + 13000 (0.522 − 0.39 2 )
zg =
2 ( 465 (0.13 − 0) + 925 (0.26 − 0.13) + 925 (0.39 − 0.26 ) + 13000 (0.52 − 0.39 ))

zg = 0.42 mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
3/9

z4 = 0.52
z3 = 0.39
z2 = 0.26
zg = 0.42
z1 = 0.13
z0 = 0

2nd step: Analysis of the laminate bending stiffness El with relation to the neutral axis

{f3}

(0.13 − 0) 3 (0.26 − 0.13 ) 3


El = 465 + 925 +
12 12

(0.39 − 0.26 ) 3 (0.52 − 0.39 ) 3


925 + 13000 +
12 12

2
æ 0.13 + 0 ö
465 (0.13 − 0) ç − 0.42 ÷ +
è 2 ø

2
æ 0.26 + 0.13 ö
925 (0.26 − 0.13) ç − 0.42 ÷ +
è 2 ø

2
æ 0.39 + 0.26 ö
925 (0.39 − 0.26) ç − 0.42 ÷ +
è 2 ø

2
æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö
13000 (0.52 − 0.39) ç − 0.42 ÷
è 2 ø

El = 0.085134 + 0.169352 + 0.169352 + 2.380083 + 7.618211 + 6.087656 + 1.085256 + 2.07025

El = 19.67 daN.mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
4/9

3rd step: Analysis of static moments E W k (with relation to the neutral line) at the base and
center of each ply.

At the top of ply at 0°

{f4}

E W 4 = 0 daN
z


45°
135°
90° y

At the center of ply at 0°

{f5}

æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö
E W 4 = 13000 (0.52 − 0.39 ) ç − 0.42 ÷ −
è 2 ø

æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö æ 0.52 + 0.39 0.39 ö


13000 ç − 0.39 ÷ ç + − 0.42 ÷
è 2 øè 4 2 ø

E W 4 = 59.15 - 2.11

E W 4 = 57.04 daN

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
5/9

At the base of ply at 0°

{f4}

æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö
E W 4 = 13000 (0.52 − 0.39 ) ç − 0.42 ÷
è 2 ø

E W 4 = 59.15 daN
z

At the center of ply at 45°

{f5}

æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö æ 0.39 + 0.26 ö


E W 3 = 13000 (0.52 − 0.39) ç − 0.42 ÷ + 925 (0.39 − 0.26 ) ç − 0.42 ÷
è 2 ø è 2 ø

æ 0.39 + 0.26 ö æ 0.39 + 0.26 0.26 ö


− 925 ç − 0.26 ÷ ç + − 0.42 ÷
è 2 øè 2 2 ø

E W 3 = 59.15 - 11.42 + 7.67

E W 3 = 55.4 daNp

45°

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
6/9

At the base of ply at 45°

{f4}

æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö æ 0.39 + 0.26 ö


E W 3 = 13000 (0.52 − 0.39) ç − 0.42 ÷ + 925 (0.39 − 0.26 ) ç − 0.42 ÷
è 2 ø è 2 ø

E W 3 = 59.15 - 11.42

E W 3 = 47.73 daN
z

45°

At the center of ply at 135°

{f5}

æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö æ 0.39 + 0.26 ö


E W 2 = 13000 (0.52 − 0.39) ç − 0.42 ÷ + 925 (0.39 − 0.26 ) ç − 0.42 ÷ +
è 2 ø è 2 ø

æ 0.26 + 0.13 ö
925 (0.26 − 0.13) ç − 0.42 ÷ −
è 2 ø

æ 0.26 + 0.13 ö æ 0.26 + 0.13 0.13 ö


925 ç − 0.13 ÷ ç + − 0.42 ÷
è 2 øè 4 2 ø

E W 2 = 59.15 - 11.42 - 27.06 + 15.48

E W 2 = 35.35 daN
z

135°
y

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
7/9

At the base of ply at 135°

{f4}

æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö æ 0.39 + 0.26 ö


E W 2 = 13000 (0.52 − 0.39) ç − 0.42 ÷ + 925 (0.39 − 0.26 ) ç − 0.42 ÷ +
è 2 ø è 2 ø

æ 0.26 + 0.13 ö
925 (0.26 − 0.13 ) ç − 0.42 ÷
è 2 ø

E W 2 = 59.15 - 11.42 - 27.06

E W 2 = 19.87 daN
z

135°
y

At the center of ply at 90°

{f5}

æ 0.52 + 0.39 ö æ 0.39 + 0.26 ö


E W 1 = 13000 (0.52 − 0.39 ) ç − 0.42 ÷ + 925 (0.39 − 0.26 ) ç − 0.42 ÷ +
è 2 ø è 2 ø

æ 0.26 + 0.13 ö æ 0.13 + 0 ö


925 (0.26 − 0.13) ç − 0.42 ÷ + 465 (0.13 − 0) ç − 0.42 ÷ −
è 2 ø è 2 ø

æ 0.13 + 0 ö æ 0.13 + 0 0 ö
465 ç − 0÷ ç + − 0.42 ÷
è 2 øè 4 2 ø

E W 1 = 59.15 - 11.42 - 27.86 - 21.46 + 11.71


z
E W 1 = 10.12 daN

90°
y

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
8/9

At the base of ply at 90°

{f4}

E W 1 = 0 daN

90° y

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


B
Example F 4
9/9

4th step: calculation of maximum interlaminar shear stress

In the example given, it is located at the point where the static moment is maximum, i.e. at
the base of the ply at 0°. Its value equals at E W 0 = 59.15 daN, which gives stress τxz0:

{f6}

0.7 x 59.15
τxz0 = = 2.1 hb (21 MPa)
19.67

If these interlaminar shear stresses are analysed for each fibre, stresses are distributed
along the laminate thickness as follows:

0.7 E Wk
τxzk =
19.67

0.52

0.455

0.39

0.325

z (mm) 0.26

0.195

0.13

0.065

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

τ (hb)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - TRANSVERSAL SHEAR


References F
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FAILURE CRITERIA

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Notations G 1

1 . NOTATIONS

σl (σl): longitudinal stress in unidirectional fibre


σt (σ2): transversal stress in unidirectional fibre
τlt (σ6): shear stress in unidirectional fibre

εl (εl): longitudinal strain in unidirectional fibre


εt (ε2): transversal strain in unidirectional fibre
γlt (ε6): shear strain in unidirectional fibre

Rl: allowable longitudinal stress


Rlt: allowable longitudinal tension stress
Rlc: allowable longitudinal compression stress

Rt: allowable transversal stress


Rtt: allowable transversal tension stress
Rtc: allowable transversal compression stress

S: allowable shear stress

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Inventory G 2

2 . INVENTORY OF STATIC FAILURE CRITERIA

The purpose of this chapter is to describe various failure criteria of the unidirectional fibre
within a laminate.

The following criteria shall be presented in chronological order (this is not an exhaustive
list):

- maximum stress criterion

- maximum strain criterion

- Norris and Mac Kinnon's criterion

- Puck's criterion

- Hill's criterion

- Norris's criterion

- Fischer's criterion

- Hoffman's criterion

- Tsaï - Wu's criterion

For three-dimensional criteria, we shall assume that the composite material is subjected to
the following stress tensor and strain tensor:

(σ) = (σ1, σ2, σ3, σ4, σ5, σ6)

(ε) = (ε1, ε2, ε3, ε4, ε5, ε6)

For two-dimensional criteria, we shall assume that the unidirectional fibre is subjected to
the following stress tensor and strain tensor:

(σlt) = (σl, σt, τlt)

(εlt) = (εl, εt, γlt)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Maximum stress criterion G 2.1

2.1 . Maximum stress criterion

This criterion is applicable for orthotropic materials only.

The criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

for 1 ≤ i ≤ 6

g1 σi = Xi for tension stresses


or
σi = - X'i for compression stresses

For the two-dimensional case, the failure envelope may be represented as follows:

σt

σl

τlt

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Maximum strain criterion G 2.2

2.2 . Maximum strain criterion

This criterion is applicable for orthotropic materials only.

The criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

for 1 ≤ i ≤ 6

g2 εi = Yi for tension strains


or
εi = - Y'i for compression strains

For the two-dimensional case, the failure envelope may be represented as follows:

εt

εl

γlt

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Norris and Mac Kinnon's criterion G 2.3

2.3 . Norris and Mac Kinnon's criterion

This criterion is valid for any material.

The criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

å
6
C i (σ i ) 2 = 1
1

Coefficients Ci depend on the material used.

For the two-dimensional case, the expression becomes:

g3 C1 (σl)2 + C2 (σt)2 + C6 (τlt)2 = 1

The failure envelope may be represented as follows:

σt

σl

τlt

This is the first criterion which calls for stress dependency.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Puck's criterion G 2.4

2.4 . Puck's criterion

This two-dimensional criterion is valid for orthotropic materials only.

The criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

σ1 = X1 for tension stresses


or
σ1 = - X'1 for compression stresses

and

2 2 2
æ σ1 ö æσ ö æτ ö
g4 ç ÷ + ç 2 ÷ + ç 12 ÷ = 1
è X1 ø è X2 ø è X6 ø

Coefficients X1, X2 and X6 depend on the material used.

σt

σl

τlt

Accuracy close to that of Norris and Mac Kinnon's criterion.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Hill's criterion G 2.5

2.5 . Hill's criterion

This criterion is valid for orthotropic materials or for slightly anisotropic materials only.

The criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

F (σ2 - σ3)2 + G (σ3 - σ1)2 + H (σ1 - σ2)2 + L (σ4)2 + M (σ5)2 + N (σ6)2 = 1

Coefficients F, G, H, L, M and N depend on the material used.

For a two-dimensional analysis, the expression becomes:

g5 F (σt)2 + G (σl)2 + H (σl - σt)2 + N (τlt)2 = 1

σt

σl

τlt

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Norris's criterion G 2.6

2.6 . Norris's criterion

This two-dimensional criterion is valid for orthotropic materials only.

The criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

F (σ2 - σ3)2 + G (σ3 - σ1)2 + H (σ1 - σ2)2 + L (σ4)2 + M (σ5)2 + N (σ6)2 = 1

and for 1 ≤ i ≤ 6

σi = Xi for tension stresses


or
σi = - X'i for compression stresses

Coefficients F, G, H, L, M and N depend on the material used.

For a two-dimensional analysis, the expression becomes:

g6 F (σt)2 + G (σl)2 + H (σl - σt)2 + N (τlt)2 = 1

- X'1 ≤ σl ≤ X1 and - X'2 ≤ σt ≤ X2 and - X'6 ≤ τlt ≤ X6

σt

σl

τlt

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Fischer's criterion G 2.7

2.7 . Fischer's criterion

This two-dimensional criterion is valid for orthotropic materials only.

The criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

2 2 2
æ σl ö æσ ö σ σ æτ ö
g7 ç ÷ + ç t ÷ − K l t + ç lt ÷ = 1
è X1 ø è X2 ø X1 X 2 è X 6 ø

Coefficients X1, X2 and X6 depend on the material used.

σt

σl

τlt

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Hoffman's criterion FAILURE CRITERIA G 2.8

2.8 . Hoffman's criterion

This criterion is valid for orthotropic materials only.

The criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

C1 (σ2 - σ3)2 + C2 (σ3 - σ1)2 + C3 (σ1 - σ2)2 + C4 (σ4)2 + C6 (σ6)2 + C5 (σ5)2 + C'1 σ1 + C'2 σ2 +
C'3 σ3 = 1

Coefficients C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C'1, C'2 and C'3 depend on the material used.

For a two-dimensional analysis, the expression becomes:

g8 C1 (σt)2 + C2 (σl)2 + C3 (σl - σt)2 + C6 (τlt)2 + C'1 σl + C'2 σt = 1

σt

σl

τlt

Very good tension accuracy, but very bad compression results.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Tsaï - Wu's criterion G 2.9

2.9 . Tsaï - Wu's criterion

This criterion intends to be as general as possible and then, there is, a priori, no particular
hypothesis.

This criterion anticipates failure of the material if:

For 1 ≤ i ≤ 6

Σ Fi σi + Σ Fij σi σj + Σ Fijk σi σj σk + … = 1

For a two-dimensional analysis, there is:

g9 F1 σl + F2 σt + F6 τlt + F11 (σl)2 + F22 (σt)2 + F66 (τlt)2 + 2 F12 σl σt + 2 F26 σt τlt + 2 F16 σl τlt = 1

Coefficient F1, F2, F6, F11, F22, F66, F12, F26 and F16 depend on the material used.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Aerospatiale's criterion G 3
1/2

3 . Failure criterion used at Aerospatiale: Hill's criterion

As seen previously, Hill's criterion is, in its general form, formulated as follows:

F (σt)2 + G (σl)2 + H (σl - σt)2 + N (τlt)2 = 1

This non-interactive criterion is applicable at the elementary ply only. There is a laminate
failure when the most highly loaded layer is broken.

If the expression is developed, we obtain:

(G + H) (σt)2 + (F + H) (σl)2 - 2 H σl σt + N (τlt)2 = 1

By definition, we shall assume that:

(G + H) = (1/Rl)2 where Rl is the longitudinal strength of the unidirectional fibre.

(F + H) = (1/Rt)2 where Rt is the transversal strength of the unidirectional fibre.

2 H = (1/Rl)2

N = (1/S)2 where S is the shear strength of the unidirectional fibre.

2 2
æσ ö æσ ö æτ ö
2
æσ σ ö
g10 2
There is a failure if h = ç l ÷ + ç t÷ + ç lt ÷ − ç l 2 t÷ = 1
è Rl ø è Rt ø è Sø è Rl ø

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Aerospatiale's criterion G 3
2/2

Thus, the following Reserve Factor is deduced:

1 1
g11 RF = =
h 2
æ σt ö
2 2
æ σl σ t ö
æ σl ö æ τ lt ö
ç ÷ + ç ÷ + ç ÷ +ç ÷
è Rl ø è Rt ø è Sø 2
è Rl ø

This criterion is the one used by Aerospatiale. In order to avoid having a premature
theoretical failure in the resin, the transversal modulus Et was considerably reduced (by a
coefficient 2 approximately) with relation to the average values measured.

This "design" value is determined so that the transversal strain is greater than the
longitudinal one.

The allowable plane shear value S of the unidirectional fibre was determined for having, a
B good test/calculation correlation and significant tension and compression failures of
notched or unnotched laminates.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Example G 4
1/4

4 . EXAMPLE

Hill's criterion shall be applied to the example considered in the chapter "plain plate -
membrane". Stresses applied to fibres are calculated and presented in the corresponding
chapter (C.6) and quoted in the following pages.

Let a T300/BSL914 laminate (new) be laid up as follows:

0°: 6 plies
45°: 4 plies
135°: 4 plies
90°: 6 plies

Mechanical properties of the unidirectional fibre are the following:

El = 13000 hb (130000 MPa)


Et = 465 hb (4650 MPa)
νlt = 0.35
Glt = 465 hb (4650 MPa)

Rlt = 120 hb (1200 MPa)


Rlc = 100 hb (1000 MPa)
Rtt = 5 hb (50 MPa)
Rtc = 12 hb (120 MPa)
S = 7.5 hb (75 MPa)

The laminate is globally subjected to the three following load fluxes in the reference
coordinate system (x, y) (see chapter C.6) :

Nx = 30.83 daN/mm

Ny = - 2.22 daN/mm

Nxy = 44.92 daN/mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Example G 4
2/4

Reminder of stresses applied to the fibre with a 0° direction

σl = 29.42 hb
σt = 0.06 hb
τlt = 5.03 hb

{g10}

2 2 2
æ 29.42 ö æ 0.06 ö æ 5.03 ö æ 29.42 x 0.06 ö
÷ +ç ÷ +ç ÷ −ç ÷ =1
2
h = ç
è 120 ø è 5 ø è 7 .5 ø è 120 2 ø

h2 = 0.06 + 1.44 E-4 + 0.45 - 1.23 E-4 = 0.51

{g11}

1 1
Reserve Factor: R.F. = = = 14
.
h2 0.51

Margin = 100 (R.F. - 1) ≈ 40 %

Reminder of stresses applied to the fibre with a 45° direction

σl = 80.17 hb
σt = - 1.14 hb
τlt = - 1.36 hb

{f10}

2 2
æ − 114 æ − 136 æ 80.17 x (− 114
2
æ 80.17 ö . ö . ö . )ö
h2 = ç ÷ + ç ÷ + ç ÷ − ç ÷
è 120 ø è 12 ø è 7.5 ø è 120 2 ø

h2 = 0.45 + 0.009 + 0.033 + 0.006 = 0.498

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Example G 4
3/4

{g11}

1
Reserve Factor: R.F. = = 142
.
0.498

Margin ≈ 42 %

Reminder of stresses applied to the fibre with a 135° direction

σl = - 59.17 hb
σt = 2.14 hb
τlt = 1.36 hb

{g10}

2
æ − 59.17 ö æ − 59.17 x 2.14 ö
2 2
æ 2.14 ö æ 136
. ö
h2 = ç ÷ + ç ÷ + ç ÷ − ç ÷
è 100 ø è 5 ø è 7.5 ø è 100 2 ø

h2 = 0.35 + 0.183 + 0.033 + 0.0126 = 0.579

{g11}

1
Reserve Factor: R.F. = = 131
.
0.579

Margin ≈ 31 %

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

FAILURE CRITERIA
Example G 4
4/4

Reminder of stresses applied to the fibre with a 90° direction

σl = - 8.42 hb
σt = 0.95 hb
τlt = - 5.03 hb

{g10}

2 2
æ − 8.42 ö æ − 5.03 ö æ − 8.42 x 0.95 ö
2
æ 0.95 ö
2
h = ç ÷ + ç ÷ + ç ÷ − ç ÷
è 100 ø è 5 ø è 7.5 ø è 100 2 ø

h2 = 0.007 + 0.036 + 0.45 + 8 E-4 = 0.494

{g11}

1
Reserve Factor: R.F. = = 142
.
0.494

Margin ≈ 42 %

Conclusion: the laminate overall margin is therefore 31 %

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FAILURE CRITERIA


References G
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

Comparative analysis of composite material damaging criteria

BOUNIE, Failure criteria of mechanical bonds in composite materials, 1991, 440.180/91

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FATIGUE ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Notations I 1

1 . NOTATIONS

(o, x, y): panel reference frame

Nx: x-direction normal flow


Ny: y-direction normal flow
Nxy: shear flow

α i: orientation of fibre “i”

εli: longitudinal strain of fibre “i”


εti: transverse strain fibre “i”
γlti: angular slip of fibre “i”

εadm: permissible longitudinal strain of unidirectional fibre


γadm: permissible slip of unidirectional fibre

σli: longitudinal stress of fibre “i”


σti: transverse stress of fibre “i”
τlti: shear stress of fibre “i”

Rl: permissible longitudinal stress of unidirectional fibre


Rt: permissible transverse stress of unidirectional fibre
S: permissible shear stress of unidirectional stress

κR: reduction coefficient for permissible longitudinal stress


κS: reduction coefficient for permissible shear stress

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Introduction I 2

2 . INTRODUCTION

The regulatory requirements in terms of structural justification concern, on the one hand,
the static strength JAR § 25.305 and, on the other hand, fatigue + damage tolerance JAR
§ 25.571. For the latter, three cases are to be considered:

- § 25.571 (b) Damage tolerance


- § 25.571 (c) Safe-life evaluation
* § 25.571 (d) Discrete Source

For the static strength evaluation, Acceptable Means of Compliance ACJ 25.603 § 5.8
requests resistance to ultimate loads with "realistic" impact damage susceptible to be
produced in production and in service. This damage must be at the limit of the
detectability threshold defined by the selected inspection procedure. Also, static strength
must be demonstrated after application of mechanical fatigue (§ 5.2) and test specimens
must have minimum quality level, that is, containing the permissible manufacturing flaws
(§ 5.5) and "realistic" impact damage.

The static strength range is defined therefore for a detection threshold and by a "realistic"
cut-off energy leading to "realistic" impacts.

The damage tolerance range is outside the static range.

Detection threshold
(impact depth in mm)

Damage at Damage Tolerance Range


detectability
threshold limit
Low thickness

Static strength
range

High thickness

Impact energy

Static cut-off Damage-tolerance


energy cut-off energy

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

2
MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE
Introduction I 3
3.1

Distinction is made between the range above the detectability threshold where all damage
will be detectable and the range above the static cut-off energy and below the detectability
threshold where the damage will never be detected.

In this "Damage tolerance" section, we shall discuss both manufacturing defects and
impact damage for the static justification and the fatigue-damage tolerance justification.

The basic assumption to be retained is the fatigue damage no-growth concept.

3 . DAMAGE SOURCES AND CLASSIFICATION

Distinction is made between damage which may occur during manufacture and that which
occurs in service.

3.1 . Manufacturing damage of flaws

Manufacturing damage or flaws include porosities, microcracks and delaminations


resulting from anomalies, during the manufacturing process and also edge cuts, unwanted
routing, surface scratches, surface folds, damage attachment holes and impact damage
(see § 3.2.3).

Damage, outside of the curing process, can occur a detail part or component level during
the assembly phases or during transport or on flight line before delivery to the customer.

If manufacturing damage/flaws are beyond permissible limits, they must be detected by


routine quality inspections.

For all composite parts, the acceptance/scrapping criteria must be defined by the Design
Office. Acceptable damage/flaws are incorporated into the ultimate load justification by
analysis and into the test specimens to demonstrate the tolerance of the structure to this
damage throughout the life of the aircraft.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Fatigue damage I 3.2
3.2.1

3.2 . In-service damage

This damage occurs in service in a random manner. Distinction is made between three
types of damage:

- fatigue,
- corrosion and environmental effects,
- accidental.

3.2.1 . Fatigue damage

Composite materials are said to be insensitive to fatigue; more exactly, their mechanical
properties are such that the static dimensioning requirements naturally cover the fatigue
dimensioning requirements. This is valid for a laminate submitted to plane loads, less than
60 % of ultimate load. However, complex areas or areas with a sudden variation in rigidity
may favour the appearance of delaminations under triaxial loads.

Today, it is very difficult to (analytically or numerically) model the growth rate of a possible
flaw. This is why a "safe-life" justification philosophy has been adopted. It is based on two
principles which must be underpinned by experimental results:

- non-creation of fatigue damage (endurance),


- no-growth of damage of tolerable size.

On account of the dispersion proper to composites and the form of the "Wohler" curves
associated with them (relatively flat curve with low gradient), the factor 5 normally used on
metallic structures for the number of lives to be simulated during a fatigue test, was
replaced by a load factor.

All these points will be discussed in detail in section O (MONOLITHIC PLATE -


FATIGUE).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Corrosion damage - Environmental effects I 3.2.2

3.2.2 . Corrosion damage and environmental effects

a) Corrosion

Composites are insensitive to corrosion. Nevertheless, their association with certain


metallic materials can cause galvanic coupling liable to damage certain metal alloys.

For information purposes, the table below shows various carbon/metal pairs over a scale
ranging from A to E.

We consider that type A and B couplings are correct and that those of types C, D and E
are not.

A Anodised titanium, protected titanium fasteners


Coupling with carbon

A Titanium and gold, platinium and rhodium alloys


correct

B Chromiums, chrome-plated parts

B Passivated austenitic stainless steels

B Monel, inconel

B Martensitic stainless steels


Coupling with carbon to

C Ordinary steels, low alloys steels, cast irons

D Anodic or chemically oxidised aluminium and light alloys


be avoided

D Cadmium and cadmium-plated parts

D Aluminium and aluminium-magnesium alloys

D Aluminium-copper and aluminium-zinc alloys

b) Environmental effects

At high temperatures, aggressions by hydraulic fluids may cause damage such as


separation, delamination, translaminar cracks, etc.

Rain can cause damage by erosion, etc.

All these points will be discussed in detail in section W (INFLUENCE OF THE


ENVIRONMENT).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Accidental damage - Inspection of damage I 3.2.3
4

3.2.3 . Accidental damage

This is the most important type of damage and the damage most liable to call into
question the structural strength of the part. It can occur during the manufacture of the item
(drilling delamination) or in service (drop of a maintenance tool, hail or bird strikes).

4 . INSPECTION OF DAMAGE

One of the main preoccupations concerning the damage tolerance of composites is


damage detection. This is true both during manufacture and in service. In service, the
detectability threshold depends on the type of scheduled in-service inspection. There are
four types of inspections:

Inspection - Special detailed (ref: Maintenance Program Development: MPD):

An intensive examination of a specific location similar to the detailed inspection except


for the following differences. The examination requires some special technique such as
non-destructive test techniques, dye penetrant, high-powered magnification, etc., and
may required disassembly procedures.

This type of inspection is mainly conducted during production but can be used
exceptionally in service.

Inspection - Visual Detailed (ref: Maintenance Program Development: MPD):

An intensive visual examination of a specified detail, assembly, or installation. It


searches for evidence of irregularity using adequate lighting and, where necessary,
inspection aids such as mirrors, hand lens, etc. Surface cleaning and elaborate access
procedures may be required.

This type of inspection enables BVID (Barely Visible Impact Damage) to be detected.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

4
MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE
Inspection of damage I 4.1
4.2

Inspection - General Visual (ref: Maintenance Program Development: MPD):

A visual examination that will detect obvious unsatisfactory conditions/discrepancies.


This type of inspection may require removal of fillets, fairings, access panels/doors, etc.
Workstands, ladders, etc. may be required to gain access.

Inspection - Walk Around Check (ref: Maintenance Review Board Document: MRB):

A visual check conducted from ground level to detect obvious discrepancies.

In general, the Walk Around check is considered as a general daily visual inspection.

4.1. Minimum damage detectable by a Special Detailed Inspection

These inspections are conducted with bulky facilities: ultrasonic, thermographic, X-rays,
etc. Minimum detectable sizes are related to the size of the U.S. probes and the accuracy
of the tools used, etc.

4.2 . Minimum damage detectable by a Detailed Visual Inspection

This type of damage is called BVID (Barely Visible Impact Damage). The geometrical
detectability criteria are as follows (cf. ref. 22S 002 10504):

Inside box structure


δ"
Depth of flaw "δ Outside box structure
(broken fibres)
Mean 0.1 mm 0.3 mm

"A" value 0.2 mm 0.5 mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Inspection of damage I 4.3
4.4

4.3 . Minimum damage detectable by a General Visual Inspection

This type of damage is called Minor VID (Minor Visible Impact Damage). The geometrical
detectability criteria are as follows (cf. ref. 22S 002 10504):

δ"
Depth of flaw "δ Size of perforation

2 mm
or thickness of structure 20 mm ∅
if < 2 mm

4.4 . Minimum damage detectable by a Walk Around Check

This type of damage is called Large VID (Large Visible Impact Damage). The geometrical
detectability criteria are not explicitly defined but the damage must be detectable without
ambiguities during a Walk Around Check.

We generally use a 50/60 mm ∅ perforation as criterion.

The diagram below summarises these four detectability levels according the size of the
damage.
Special Detailed General
detailed visual visual
inspection inspection inspection Walk around
Size of
BVID Minor Large damage
VID VID

Depth of indent δ = 0.3 mm δ = 2 mm


diameter 20 mm ∅ 50/60 mm ∅

In the remainder of this document, we will consider only visual inspections.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Classification of damage I 4.5

4.5 . Classification of accidental damage by detectability ranges

Depending on the type of visual inspection considered during the maintenance phases
(general or detailed), we will define three clearly separate detectability ranges:

a) Damage undetectable by visual means used in service.

b) Damage susceptible to be detected during in-service inspections.

c) Damage "inevitably" detectable that can be placed into two categories:

- Readily detectable damage.


- Obvious detectable damage.

These ranges are positioned as follows on the previously defined detectability scale:

→ For Detailed Visual Inspection:

Damage Inevitably
Undetectable susceptible to detectable
damage be detected damage

DVI WA

BVID Minor Large


VID VID

→ For General Visual Inspection:

Damage Inevitably
Undetectable susceptible to detectable
damage be detected damage

GVI WA

BVID Minor Large


VID VID

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

4.5
MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE
Influence of damage - Porosity I 5
5.1
5.1.1

Remark: Note that certain authors define the BVID notion according to the type of
inspection selected.
In this case, for a general inspection: MINOR VID ≡ BVID
In our document, we will conserve the initial definition related to the visual
detailed inspection.

5 . EFFECT OF FLAWS/DAMAGE ON MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 . Health flaws

5.1.1 . Porosity

→ Description

By "porosity", we mean a heterogeneity of the matrix leading, more often than not, to lack
of inter- or intra-layer cohesion, generally small in size, but distributed uniformly or almost
throughout the complete thickness of the laminate. Note that for unidirectional tapes the
porosities have a tendency to be located between the layers whereas, for fabrics, they are
more generally located where the weft and warp threads cross. The porosity ratio given is
a surface porosity ratio measured by the ultrasonic attenuation method. The permissible
absorption level is fixed at 12 dB irrespective of the thickness inspected (cf. note
440.241/90 issue 2 - SIAM curve). All absorption areas above this limit will be considered
as a delamination and meet therefore the same criteria as a delamination.

However, only T300/N5208, more fluid than T300/BSL914 has a higher tendency to be
porous.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Porosity I 5.1.1

→ Loss of mechanical characteristics due to porosity

The test results were interpolated, for the V10F wing, on T300/N5208 with various
porosity ratios distributed in all interply areas to determine the influence on the mechanical
characteristics for a 3 % ratio considered as the acceptable limit. This ratio combined with
the fatigue, ageing and residual test effects at 80° C, led to the following losses in
mechanical characteristics:

3 % porosity
Loss of characteristics
T300/N5208 Loss of characteristics
after F + VC1 + 80° C
after F + VC1 + 80° C
BENDING - 15 % - 19 %

INTERLAMINAR SHEAR - 47 % - 33.5 %

COMPRESSION - 20 % - 19 %

TENSILE (high bearing


- 20 % - 19 %
stress) joint not supported

→ Example of porosity acceptance criteria

The 3 % acceptance criterion appears therefore as being non-conservative for


interlaminar shear. However, let us recall:

- that the spar boxes of the wings, movable surfaces or fin are subjected to very low
interlaminar stresses,

- only T300/N5208 had porosities,

- that the 3 % porosity criterion distributed at all interply areas is today no longer
applied to primary structures. The permissible porosity ratio depends on the thickness
of the laminate.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations outside stiffener I 5.1.2
5.1.2.1
1/5

5.1.2 . Delaminations

A delamination is a lack of cohesion between the layers caused by a shear or transverse


tensile failure of the resin or, more simply, by forgetting a foreign body.

5 1.2.1 . Delaminations outside stiffener

Þ Skin bottom areas

→ Description

A skin bottom delamination is a lack of cohesion between two well-defined plies. Natural
delaminations appear during manufacture (surface contamination). A foreign body left in
the laminate (separator) will be considered as a delamination.

→ Loss of characteristics due to a delamination

For the V10F wing, a lack of interlayer cohesion up to 400 mm2 leads to a loss of
compression strength of around 10 % for the two materials (T300/N5208 and
T300/BSL914) tested in new condition at θ = 80° C. In aged/fatigue condition the drop in
strength is 20 % for T300/N5208 and 13 % for T300/BSL914 in relation to the new
state/80° C reference. Fatigue leads to no growth of the flaw.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations outside stiffener I 5.1.2.1
2/5

Þ Fastener areas

→ Description

As for the skin bottom delaminations, the lack of cohesion in these areas occurs between
two well-defined plies, sometimes at several levels but generally adjacent. These flaws
come through to the bore. They are created during the drilling operations. The ultrasonic
inspections conducted after each test case showed no evolution of existing flaws.

damage ∅
The parameter representing the size of the damage is the number given by: φ =
fastener ∅

damage Ø

fastener Ø

Vb
The parameter representing the drop in characteristics is the number given by: ν =
Vc
where Vb represents the "B value" (see section Y) relevant to all tests characterising the
material and where Vc is the calculation value used. Provided that the calculation value is
lower than the "B value", the integrity of the item is ensured. For safety reasons, we will
impose a minimum margin of 10 % between the calculated value and the "b value".

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations outside stiffener I 5.1.2.1
3/5

Two cases can occur:

- if ν ≥ 1.1: no reduction will be made on the initial reserve factor RF,


ν
- if ν < 1.1: after reduction, the new reserve factor is equal to RF’ = RF
1.1
The values of ν are given by the graphs in section Z for the prepreg epoxy carbon fibre
T300/914.

Generally speaking, the graphs gives the values of ν for the flaw (delamination) but also
for repairs which may be made on it (injection of resin, NAS cup). They enable you to find
therefore:

- whether the flaw is acceptable as such,


- what type of repair is to be chosen.

→ Examples of acceptance and concession criteria

- in standard area, the delamination must be covered by a concession if its surface


area is greater than:

S mm2 75 120 160 285 440 440


Ø 3.2 4.1 4.8 6.35 7.92 9.52
These permissible delamination values are valid only for isolated delaminations.

For delaminated hole concentrations and irrespective of the size of the delaminations, the
flaw must be covered by a concession if:

- for aligned fasteners, more than 20 % of the holes are delaminated and/or two flaws
are less than 5 fastener pitches apart,

- for a delamination at a fastener or of another skin bottom area, they are less than
120 mm apart.

- in designated area, permissible delamination is defined as follows:

S mm2 50 80 110 200 400 400


Ø 3.2 4.1 4.8 6.35 7.92 9.52
These permissible delamination values are valid only for isolated delaminations.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations outside stiffener I 5.1.2.1
4/5

For delaminated hole concentrations and irrespective of the size of the delaminations, the
flaw must be covered by a concession if:

- for aligned fastener, more than 10 % of the holes are delaminated and/or two flaws
are less than 5 fastener pitches apart,

- for a delamination at a fastener or of another skin bottom area, they are less than
120 mm apart.

- for areas with several fastener rows:

• if the fasteners are on same row: same as above,

• if the flaws are located on several rows, they must be covered by a concession
if they are less than 175 mm apart.

→ Examples of repairs to be made

The table below summarises the repair solutions to be applied when delaminations are
detected at fastener holes in materials T300/914, G803/914 and HTA/EH25 depending on
the loads and the damage ∅ ratio.
fastener ∅

The choice of the solution is governed by the following rules:

- for a pure load, the repair or untreated delamination must resist ultimate loads under
the most severe environmental conditions,

- for a pure bearing stress test, the calculation value Vc is taken as reference. The
Vb
repair will not be acceptable if is lower than 1.
Vc

The validation range of the acceptable solutions given in the table below is damage ∅ ≤ 6.
fastener ∅

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations outside stiffener I 5.1.2.1
5/5

Untreaded Injection via Normal


Load Condition NAS cup
delamination vent hole injection

New Acceptable Unacceptable - -


Pure tensile
Aged-wet Acceptable Unacceptable - Acceptable
Acceptable
New damage ∅ Acceptable - Acceptable
< 4
Bearing fastener ∅
Tensile Acceptable Acceptable
Aged-wet damage ∅ damage ∅ - Acceptable
< 4.5 < 4.5
fastener ∅ fastener ∅
Acceptable
New Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable damage ∅
< 5
fastener ∅
Pure
Acceptable
compression Acceptable
damage ∅
Aged-wet Unacceptable < 2.5 Acceptable damage ∅
< 5.25
fastener ∅
fastener ∅

Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable


New damage ∅ damage ∅ damage ∅ damage ∅
< 4.75 < 2 < 5.25 < 5.25
Bearing fastener ∅ fastener ∅ fastener ∅ fastener ∅
compression Acceptable
Aged-wet damage ∅ Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable
< 4
fastener ∅

Without
Acceptable Unacceptable - Acceptable
bending
Bending Acceptable in
JOINT tensile Acceptable Unacceptable -
1000 µd "hollow"
Bending
Acceptable Unacceptable - Unacceptable
2500 µd
Without
Unacceptable Unacceptable - Acceptable
bending
JOINT Bending Acceptable in
Unacceptable Unacceptable -
compression 1000 µd "hollow"
Bending
Unacceptable Acceptable - Acceptable
2500 µd

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations in stiffener area I 5.1.2.2
1/5

5.1.2.2 . Delaminations in stiffener area of an integrally-stiffened panel

❏ Stiffener runouts

Stiffener runouts represent a critical point for dimensioning. When these stiffener runouts
are made during moulding without later machining operations, these fairly tortured areas
may include lacks of cohesion either in the base, or in the stiffener itself.

U-section

Half core

Baseplate U-section Wedge

Þ Crater

→ Description

This flaw is consecutive to too short a wedge which gives, after machining of the stiffener
runout, a crater at the end of the stiffener.

L
e

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations in stiffener area I 5.1.2.2
2/5

→ Loss of characteristics due to crater

Loss of
Size of flaw Test conducted Conditions characteristics
due to flaw
Tensile
Compression New
ATR 72 - 28 %
(stiffener runouts θ = 20° C
T300/914 not protected)
L = 10 mm
l = 4 mm Tensile
e = 1 mm Compression New
0%
(stiffener runouts θ = 20° C
protected)
Compression
-4%
(with reinforcement)
ATR 72 Aged
HTA/EH25 Compression θ = 70° C
(without - 12 %
reinforcement)

For unprotected stiffener runouts (that is, when it was impossible to thicken the skin to
make structure relatively simple to manufacture), this flaw must be covered by a
concession. When it is located at protected stiffener runouts (that is with a significant skin
overthickness at stiffener runout), this flaw will be covered by a concession only if its size
is greater than the following values:

L = 10 mm l = 2 mm e = 0.5 mm

Þ Punching

→ Description

This flaw is due to an imperfect Mosite cut leading to flaws at stiffener ends.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations in stiffener area I 5.1.2.2
3/5

L
e

→ Loss of characteristics due to punching

Loss of
Size of flaw Test conducted Conditions characteristics
due to flaw
Tensile
Compression New
- 20 %
ATR 72 (stiffener runouts θ = 20° C
T300/914 not protected)
Tensile
L = 10 mm Compression New
e = 1 mm 0%
(stiffener runouts θ = 20° C
protected)

Must be covered by a concession when located at unprotected stiffener runouts. When


located at protected stiffener runouts, it will be covered by a concession only if it size is
greater than the following values:

L = 10 mm l = 2 mm e = 0.5 mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations in stiffener area I 5.1.2.2
4/5

Þ Flaws "E", "B", "AB" and "BC"

→ Description

These flaws are located at various levels:

FLAW E FLAW B FLAW AB


Delamination in radius
Delamination at skin mid-
between U-sections and Delamination under wedge
thickness
base

Flaws BC correspond to one or more lacks of cohesion of stiffener wedge as shown on


diagram below:

Flaw BC

A
B

C
Wedge

U-section
Half core

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations in stiffener area I 5.1.2.2
5/5

Þ Loss of characteristics due to flaw

Loss of
Type of flaw Test conducted Conditions characteristics
due to flaw
V10F
Tensile
T300/N5208 New
(between wedge - 17 %
200 mm2 θ = 20° C
and base skin)
(flaw B)
ATR 72 Tensile
Wet ageing
T300/914 (unprotected - 20 %
θ = 50° C
(flaw BC) stiffener runouts)
ATR 72 Compression
Wet ageing
T300/914 (unprotected 0%
θ = 50° C
(flaw BC) stiffener runouts)

❏ Stiffener top

Lack of interlayer cohesion at top of stiffener between the U-section and the wedge does
not seem to modify the mechanical characteristics.

❏ Stiffener base

Lack of interlayer cohesion in stiffener base hardly modifies the mechanical


characteristics. Within the scope of the V10F programme, the greatest drop is less than
10 % in standard stiffener compression case with a type BC flaw.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delamination in spar radii
Delamination on edge of spar flanges
I 5.1.3
5.1.4

5.1.3 . Delamination in spar radii

This flaw correspond to lack of cohesion between two well-defined plies in the web/flange
blend-in radius.

The maximum permissible surface area for a flaw is 100 mm2.

Þ In standard areas: maximum local surface area between 2 ribs for a radius is 250
mm2, including delaminations and foreign bodies.

Þ In designated areas: maximum local surface area between 2 ribs for a radius is
150 mm2, including delaminations and foreign bodies.

5.1.4 . Delamination on spar flange edges


l

Delamination

Delamination acceptable after repair is defined as follows :

- 1 delaminated interface only,


- l ≤ 5 mm,
- L ≤ 25 mm.

An acceptable flaw will however require a Hysol 9321 sealing operation on edge. Any
other flaws shall be covered by a concession.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Foreign bodies - Translaminar cracks I 5.1.5
5.1.6

5.1.5 . Foreign bodies

Same criteria as given for delaminations (cf. § 5.1.2.1).

5.1.6 . Translaminar cracks

Translaminar cracks have been detected on the ATR 72 outer wing spar box, the A340
aileron, the 2000 fin, the A300/A310 (cf. note 494.048/91); however there are none on the
flight V10F (cf. note 494.007/91).

These are elongated flaws due to the use of a corrosive stripper (MEK, Methyl Ethyl
Ketone). Currently, baltane is used. T300/914 and G803/914 have these flaws; the tests
conducted on IM7/977-2 and HTA/EH25 showed no translaminar cracks (cf. note
494.056/91).

These cracks are detected by ultrasonic inspection in the fastener areas (the back surface
echo totally disappears). They concern all ply directions but do not touch between two
plies with different orientations. It is in the high crack density area that the ultrasonic signal
is totally damped. There a transition zone between this area and the healthy part of the
laminate where crack density decreases and the ultrasonic back surface echo reappears.

These cracks are parallel to the fibres leaving the holes. They first affect the plies at 0°,
then the plies at ± 45°. Some cracks are observed in the central plies at 90°. The axes of
these crack networks correspond approximately to the hole diameters.

They do not lead to a drop in the mechanical characteristics (cf. note 437.115/91).

The existence of flaws at fasteners can be masked by high density translaminar cracks.
Therefore, the threshold of the surface areas of the translaminar cracks which must be
plotted is coherent with the size of acceptable delaminations.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations consecutive to a shock I 5.1.7
1/4

5.1.7 . Delaminations consecutive to a shock (during production and in service)

→ Description

An impact causes lack of interlayer cohesion at several levels depending on the energy of
the impact.

Delaminated area Damaged area


Impactor indent

→ Loss of characteristics due to a delamination

Generally speaking, a composite material with a non-through delamination is much more


sensitive from a structural strength viewpoint to compression or shear loads (resin) than to
tensile loads (fibre).

The drops in characteristics within the scope of the V10F programme are:

- 18 % in tensile strength for a maximum invisible impact,

- 36 % in compression strength for a maximum invisible impact.

All points of the tests conducted on the V10F test specimens were plotted on the graph
below (the points of the static and fatigue test specimens are combined on this curve as it
has been demonstrated that the ageing effect is not significant for damage tolerance).

The curve used at Aerospatiale for the new states/residual test at ambient temperature
and aged/fatigue states/residual test at ambient temperature is shown on the curve below
by comparison at static test specimen and fatigue test specimen points.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations consecutive to a shock I 5.1.7
2/4

Behaviour to impact damage V10F


Static test specimen (CES)
Fatigue test specimen (CEF)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500


- 1000

- 1500

- 2000
Allongement de compression (µd)

- 2500 i32 - (- 2800 µd)


Arrêt CEF

- 3000 i22 - (- 3108 µd)


Rupture CES

- 3500
COURBE ACTUELLE VALEURS DE CALCUL
Etat neuf/température ambiante ou
- 4000 Etat vieilli/fatigue à 20° C/température ambiante

- 4500 CES

CEF
- 5000

Delaminated surface area (mm2)

→ Ultimate strength of a delaminated laminate

The problem is generally posed as follows: we take a laminate consisting of a set of tapes
(or fabrics) that we will assume to be made of the same material, each one of them having
a specific orientation in relation to the reference frame (o, x, y).

The laminate is submitted to shear forces (of membrane type) Nx, Ny and Nxy. In the
presence of a delamination (without ply failure) in surface area Sd, what is the strength of
the plain composite plate?

Today, there are three methods for evaluating the residual strength in the presence of a
delamination (established from experimental results) which call on the stresses and/or
strains of the unidirectional fibre and not those of the laminate considered as a
homogeneous plate. Each fibre direction must therefore be justified.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations consecutive to a shock I 5.1.7
3/4

We will describe here these three methods in chronological order.

1st method:

This first method consists in calculating a failure criterion determined from the strains of
each fibre in relation to their intrinsic frame (o, l, t).

By referring to the "plain plate - calculation method" section, it is possible to calculate the
strains in the various layers of the composite from the global flows Nx, Ny and Nxy applied
to the laminate and from the characteristics of the material used.

For layer "i" defined by its orientation α i, the strains of the fibre "i" in its own frame are
defined by the following strain tensor: (εli, εti, γlti).

We can define the following failure criterion C1 for each layer "i":

2 2
æ εl i ö æ γ ö
i1 C1 = ç ÷ + ç lt i ÷
çε ÷ çγ ÷
è adm ø è adm ø

where εadm and γadm are the permissible strains (longitudinal and shear) of the
unidirectional fibre (equivalent).

These values (obtained from the test results) depend on the material and the surface area
Sd of the delamination considered and the types of loads.

They are given in section Z (sheets giving calculation values and coefficients used).

This criterion was used for the dimensioning of the ATR 72 wing panels (dossier
22S00210460).

2nd method:

This second method consists in calculating a failure criterion C2 (Hill type criterion in which
the permissible stresses are reduced by coefficients κR and κS) calculated from the
stresses in each fibre in relation to their intrinsic frames (o, l, t).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Delaminations consecutive to a shock I 5.1.7
4/4

By referring to the "plain plate - calculation method" section, it is possible to calculate the
strains in the various layers of the composite from the global flows Nx, Ny and Nxy applied
to the laminate and from the characteristics of the material used.

For layer "i" defined by its orientation α1, the stresses of the fibre "i" in its own frame are
defined by the following stress tensor: (σli, σti, τlti).

We can define the following failure criterion C2 for each layer "i":

2 2 2
æ σ li ö æσ ö æ τ ö σ li σ t i
i2 C2 = ç ÷ + ç t i ÷ + ç lt i ÷ −
çκ R ÷ çR ÷ ç κ S÷ (κ R R l )2
è R l ø è tø è s ø

where Rl, Rt and S are the permissible longitudinal, transverse and shear stresses of the
unidirectional fibre respectively (equivalent) and where κR and κs are the reduction
coefficients for these permissible stresses.

These coefficients depend on the material used and the surface area of the delamination
considered and are determined from the test results.

They are given in section V (sheets giving calculation values and coefficients used).

This criterion was used for the sizing of the A330/340 inboard and outboard aileron
panels.

3rd method:

This method consists in calculating a failure criterion C3 (similar to the one of method 1)
calculated from the strains of each fibre in relation to their intrinsic farmes (o, l, t).

For layer "i" defined by its orientation αi, the strains of the fibre "i" in its own frame are
defined by the following strain tensor: (εli, εti, γlti).

We can define the following failure criterion C3 for each layer "i" :

2 2
æ ε li ö æ γ ö ε ε
i3 C3 = ç ÷ + ç lt i ÷ + li t i
çε ÷ çγ ÷ (ε ab )2
è a ø è adm ø

where:

if 2 ôεadmô ≤ ôγadmô

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE 5.1.7


Delaminations consecutive to a shock
Visual flaws - Sharp scratches
I 5.2
5.2.1

1
i4 εa =
3 2

2 (ε adm ) (γ adm )2
2

1
i5 εab =
3 6

2 (ε adm ) (γ adm )2
2

else

εa = εadm
εab = + ∞

The particularity of this method is that it takes into account (in a significant manner) the
load transverse to the fibre.

Tests have shown that presence of a tensile force perpendicular to the fibre direction
compression increases the ultimate strength of the laminate.

Criterion C3 takes this phenomenon into account. Indeed, if εti is of tensile type and εli of
compression type, the third term of the criterion C3 becomes negative and tends to
increase the reserve factor and therefore the margin (RF = 1/C3).

Today, it is recommended to use this third finer method based on a high number of
experimental results.

5.2 . Visual flaws

5.2.1. Sharp scratches

→ Description

Sharp scratches are made by scalpels or cutting tools. Sharp scratches lead to drops in
tensile characteristics of around 15 %; for compression, we assume that there is no drop
in characteristics.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Sharp scratches I 5.2.1

→ Examples of acceptance criteria for sharp scratches

A long anomaly is acceptable without concession within following limits:

Þ On the ATR 72 outer wing carbon box structure,

→ In standard areas: permissible scratches are defined as follows:


- maximum length: 100 mm,
- maximum depth: 1 ply irrespective of the thickness.

→ in designated areas: the acceptance criteria are as follows:


- maximum length: 100 mm,
- maximum depth: 1 ply irrespective of the thickness,
- all scratches though to a hole, an hedge or stopping less than 5 mm away must be
covered by a concession.

Any scratch concentrations must be covered by a concessions if the flaws are less than
20 mm apart.

Þ On A330/A340 inboard and outboard ailerons, if length of scratch is less than 100 mm
and if its depth is less than 0.15 mm for tapes and 0.3 mm for fabrics, sealing with
Hysol 9321 will be performed.

Þ On A330/A340, A320, A319, A321 nose landing gear doors (carbon fabrics G803/914),

→ at fittings, the permissible scratches are defined as follows:


- maximum length: 10 mm,
- maximum depth: 1 ply irrespective of the thickness.

→ outside fittings: the acceptance criteria are as follows :


- maximum length: 250 mm,
- maximum depth: 1 ply irrespective of the thickness.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

5.2.1
MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE
Indents - Scaling I 5.2.2
5.2.3
1/3

Þ On A330/A340, A320, A319, A321 main landing gear doors (carbon fabrics G803/914),

→ at fittings, the acceptance criteria as follows:

- maximum length: 10 mm,


- maximum depth: 1 ply irrespective of the thickness.

→ outside fittings: the acceptance criteria area as follows :

- maximum length: 100 mm,


- maximum depth: 1 ply irrespective of the thickness.

5.2.2 . Indents

"Indent" type flaws due, for instance, to abrasion of skin by a rototest are permissible if:

- surface area of indent is ≤ 20 mm2 (∅ 5),

- only the 1st ply is totally damaged, that is 2nd ply visible.

Any flaw concentrations must be covered by a concession if two indents are less than
100 mm apart.

5.2.3 . Scaling

→ Description

By "scaling", we mean separation or removal of several fibres (locally) altering only the
first surface ply on monolith edge or on outgoing side of drilled holes.

→ Examples of scaling acceptance criteria

Þ On ATR 72 outer wing carbon box structure,

→ in standard areas: the permissible scaling flaws are defined as follows:

Maximum surface area = 30 mm2


Maximum depth: 1 ply for th < 20 plies
2 plies for th ≥ 20 plies

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Scaling I 5.2.3
2/3

For scaled hole concentrations, this flaw must be covered by a concession if, for aligned
fasteners, more than 20 % of the holes are scaled and/or two flaws are less than
5 fastener pitches apart.

Flaw 1 Flaw 2

→ in designated area: permissible scaling flaws are defined as follows:

Maximum surface area = 20 mm2,


Maximum depth: 1 ply irrespective of the thickness.

For scaled hole concentrations, this flaw must be covered by a concession if:

- for aligned fasteners, more than 10 % of the holes are scaled and/or two flaws are
less than 5 fastener pitches apart,

Flaw 1 Flaw 2

- for areas with several fasteners rows (e.g. piano area)

175 mm
Flaw 1 For flaws 1 and 3:
to be covered by a
concession

Flaw 2
For flaws 1 and 2:
if S1 and S2 ≤ permissible
surface area permissible

Flaw 3

• for fasteners on same row: same as above,

• for flaws on several rows; must be covered by a concession if they are less than
175 mm apart.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Scaling I 5.2.3
3/3

All scaled areas will be sealed with Hysol 9321 to restore flat surface and avoid scaling
developing during later operations.

Þ On A330/A340 inboard and outboard ailerons, scaling on 1 ply of skin will be sealed
with Hysol 9321. Permissible scaling flaws are defined as follows:

→ panels (delaminations at fasteners)

Maximum surface area = 30 mm2

For flaw concentrations at fasteners, two flaws on same row must be separated by 9
fasteners.

Areas with several fastener rows:

- on same row: see above,


- between different fastener rows
minimum distance = 175 mm

→ panels (leading edge joints), ribs, spar

Maximum surface area = 30 mm2


Maximum depth: 0.2 mm

For flaw concentrations, 5 flaws maximum on 10 consecutive fasteners.

→ panels (other areas) (scaling at fasteners)

Maximum surface area = 30 mm2


Maximum depth: 0.2 mm

For flaw concentrations, two flaws on a given row must be separated by 9 fasteners.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Steps I 5.2.4
1/2

5.2.4 . Steps

→ Description

This is a fold of one or more skin plies which may occur between two (spar support)
blocks or on a sandwich skin during co-curing or in spar webs.

50 mm Filleralu

→ Examples of acceptance criteria

Þ On ATR 72 outer wing carbon box structure

→ On bearing surfaces (spar, rib passage)

- Standard areas: steps on spar and rib passage areas are acceptable within a limit of
0.3 mm. This type of flaw will be compensated for by Filleralu over a width of 50 mm
on either side of the step.

- Designated areas: this flaw must be covered by a concession irrespective of its


geometry.

→ On stiffeners

- standard areas: steps on stiffener flanges are acceptable within a height limit of
0.3 mm provided that:

• there are no flaws in stiffener radius,


• two flaws are at least 400 mm apart in Y-direction (wing frame),
• two adjacent stiffeners are not affected in the same section,
• an ultrasonic inspection demonstrates absence of "delamination" type flaws.

- designated areas: steps on stiffener flanges must be covered by a concession.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Steps - Justification of permissible manufacturing flaws I 5.2.4
2/2

Þ On A330/A340 inboard and outboard ailerons under spar and rib bearing surfaces,
steps lower than or equal to 0.2 mm and with a width lower than or equal to 3 mm will
be accepted, but:

- they must never be trimmed,


- they will be compensated for by Filleralu,
- in other areas, acceptable height is 0.4 mm.

Þ On A330 Pratt et Whitney thrust reverser sandwich skins mainly in areas with high
curvatures, steps with a height less than 0.5 mm are accepted in production. Steps
greater than 0.5 mm will be examined case by case.

6 . JUSTIFICATION OF PERMISSIBLE MANUFACTURING FLAWS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

7
MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE
Justification of in-service damage I 7.1
7.1.1

7 . JUSTIFICATION OF IN-SERVICE DAMAGE

7.1. Justification philosophy

A justification philosophy in agreement with European regulations (JAR) is associated with


each damage detectability range § 4.5 (undetectable damage; damage susceptible to be
detected [during inspection]; readily and obvious detectable damage).

7.1.1. Justification philosophy for undetectable damage

ACJ 25.603 § 5.1 :


The static strength of the composite design should be demonstrated through a
programme of component ultimate load tests in the appropriate environment, unless
experience with similar design, material systems and loadings is available to
demonstrate the adequacy of the analysis supported by subcomponent tests, or
component tests to agreed lower levels.

ACJ 25.603 § 5.2 :


The effect of repeated loading and environmental exposure which may result in material
property degradation should be addressed in the static strength evaluation…

ACJ 25.603 § 5.5 :


The static test articles should be fabricated and assembled in accordance with
production specifications and processes so that the test articles are representative of
production structure.

ACJ 25.603 § 5.8 :


It should be shown that impact damage that can be realistically expected from
manufacturing and service, but not more than established threshold of detectability for
the selected inspection procedure, will not reduce the structural strength below ultimate
load capability. This can be shown by analysis supported by test evidence, or by test at
the coupon, element or subcomponent level.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Justification of in-service damage I 7.1.2
7.1.3
1/3

Undetectable damage, whether due to accidental impacts (in-service damage


undetectable by a detailed visual inspection and therefore corresponding to BVID) or
manufacturing flaws must be covered by a static justification at ultimate load under the
most severe environmental conditions (humidity and temperature) and at end of aircraft
life. During the certification tests, this damage will be introduced into minimum margin
areas

7.1.2 . Justification philosophy for readily and obvious detectable damage

As laid down in the regulations, any damage which cannot withstand the limit loads must
be readily detectable during any general visual inspection (50 flights) or obvious.

Þ Damage readily detectable within an interval of 50 flights must withstand 0.85 LL.
Þ Obvious damage (engine burst) which occurs in flight with crew being aware of it must
withstand 0.7 LL (get-home loads capability).

7.1.3 . Justification philosophy for damage susceptible to be detected during


scheduled in-service inspections

Þ Regulatory aspects

ACJ 25.603 § 6.2.1 :


Structural details, elements, and subcomponents of critical structural areas should be
tested under repeated loads to define the sensitivity of the structure to damage growth.
This testing can form the basis for validating a no-growth approach to the damage
tolerance requirements…

ACJ 25.603 § 6.2.3 :


...The evaluation should demonstrate that the residual strength of the structure is equal
to or greater than the strength required for the design loads (considered as ultimate)...

ACJ 25.603 § 6.2.4 :


...For the case of no-growth design concept, inspection intervals should be established
as part of the maintenance programme. In selecting such intervals the residual strength
level associated with the assumed damage should be considered.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Justification of in-service damage I 7.1.3
2/3

Þ General

For metallic structures, the two fundamental damage tolerance parameters are the
initiation of the damage and its growth before detection. Many tests have been conducted
therefore to evaluate the growth speed of the damage and the time required to reach its
critical size and therefore its residual strength (limit load).

The critical loading mode is mainly tensile loading.

εresidual
Repair

εU.L.

εL.L.

METALLIC
Growth
Time
Initiation
threshold
Inspection intervals

In contrast, impact damage to the composite structure of perforation/delamination type


cause, when it occurs, a very substantial drop in the mechanical strength but it does not
grow under the fatigue load levels on civil aircraft.

The critical loading mode is mainly compression (and shear) loading

εresidual

εU.L.

εL.L.

COMPOSITE

Time

At time of impact

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Justification of in-service damage I 7.1.3
3/3

Several methods are used for demonstrating conformity with regulations:

a) Semi-probabilistic methods

If the no-growth concept of the flaw is demonstrated (by fatigue test), the size of the
damage no longer depends on an evolving phenomenon but on a random event
(accidental).

For the damage range between BVID and VID, the aim of the (analytical) justification will
be to determine an inspection interval so that the probability (Re) of simultaneously having
a flaw and a load greater than its residual load will be a highly improbable event
(probability per flight hour less than 10-9).

This probabilistic damage occurrence versus time aspect therefore replaces the
deterministic concept for metallic materials where the occurrence of a flaw depends either
on fatigue initiation, or, for certain areas, on an accidental impact; the effect of the latter
being a modification in the threshold.

The complete philosophy can be summarised by the curve below. It expresses the load
level to be demonstrated and the type of justification versus the damage range
considered.
The portion of the curve between the BVID and the VID depends on the results of the
probabilistic analysis. Probabilistic analysis
TOLDOM
εresidual
≥ L.L.

Re = E - 9
εBVID ≥ U.L.

εU.L.

εVID
εL.L.
0.85 εL.L.
0.7 εL.L.
ULTIMATE
LOADS

BVID VID OBVIOUS


READILY DETECTABLE

These methods are used by AS and CEAT.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE 7.1.3


Aerospatiale semi-probabilistic method
Determining inspection intervals
I 7.1.3.1
7.1.3.1.1
1/6

b) deterministic method (Boeing)

This method is based on two analysis and test configurations:

- demonstrating positive margins at ultimate load with BVID,


- demonstrating positive margins at limit load with extensive damage.

The non-growth aspect of the fatigue damage must be demonstrated.

7.1.3.1 . AEROSPATIALE semi-probabilistic method (cf. note 432.0162/96)

7.1.3.1.1 . Process for determining inspection intervals

As stated above and in § 4.5, certain damage is susceptible to be detected during


inspections which implies that the aircraft may possibly fly between two inspections with
damage in a structure the residual strength of which may be lower than the ultimate loads.

In order not to design composite structures less reliable than metallic ones, an inspection
programme has been defined so that the probability of simultaneously having a flaw and a
load greater than its residual strength will be a highly improbable event (probability per
flight hour less than 10-9).

In mathematical form, this requirement can be written:

probability of occurrence of an impact with given energy (Pat)


x
probability of not detecting the resulting flaw (1- Pdat)
x
probability of occurrence of loads greater than the residual strength of the damage
(Prat) ≤ 10-9/fh

or again:

i6 Pat x (1 - Pdat) x Prat ≤ 10-9/fh

This condition involves several notions that we will specify in the following sections.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Determining inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.1
2/6

❑ Pdat: probability of detecting the damage.

We defined, in § 4.2 to 4.4, the visual detection criteria for "A" value and "B" value
damage and the mean value for various types of in-service inspections. Knowing that the
"A" values correspond to a detection probability of 99 %, the "B" values to a probability of
90 % and the mean values to a probability of 50 %, we can deduce the curve below which
shows the probability of detection versus the depth of the indent and the type of
inspection.
Depth of indent
(mm)

General visual inspection: *


Detailed visual inspection: **
5

*
2
0,5
**
0,3

Pdat
0 0.5 0.99 1 Detection probability
❑ Pat: probability of occurrence of an impact with given energy.

Several sources of impacts can be considered (this list is not restrictive):

- projection of gravel,
- removal of the item,
- dropping of tools or removable items,
- shock with maintenance vehicle.

Each impact source will be defined by its incident energy.

As for detection, we will define an impact source by a statistical distribution (in this case,
the Log-normal distribution).

We will therefore speak of the impact probability (or, more precisely, the impact energy
range) that we will call (Pat) and which will be characterised by mean energy Em and a
standard deviation (according to Sikorsky, the standard deviation σ has a constant value
equal to 0.217).

The probability of having an impact energy between E et E+2 Joules is equal to


E+2
Pat = ò
E
f (E) x dE

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Determining inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.1
3/6


We also obtain ò
0
f (E) x dE = 1
f(E)

Pat

E
Em 2J
The impact energy will generally be limited to 50 J (cut-off energy), except for THS root:
140 J corresponding to the energy of a tool box failing from the top of the fin.

Now that the impact has been defined, we must find the relation between the incident
energy (E), the size of the damage (Sd) and its indentation (f).

Generally, we have :

E
Sd = Ksd
e

3.3
æEö
f = Kf ç ÷
èeø

Test campaigns are however necessary to determine the coefficients Ksd and Kf which
depends on the types of materials, their thickness and the item bearing conditions.

❑ Prat: probability of having a loading case greater than the residual strength of the
impacted laminate.

As we saw in paragraph § 5.1.7, the residual strength of a laminate with a delamination


defined by its surface area Sd can be determined by the numbers C1, C2 and C3 that we
will call more generally C in the remainder of this section.

The need to have three variables to characterise the number C (εl, εt, γlt ou σl, σt, τlt)
makes all theoretical exploitations of the item loads (or deformations) difficult.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Determining inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.1
4/6

ε admissible
We will therefore define a number εresidual = which represents the permissible
C
strain of damage of size Sd under a single compression load.

This residual deformation depends of course on the size of the damage Sd. The general
form of this relation can be represented by the following curve:
Sd

εresidual
εnominal

It is therefore possible to determine, for each point on the item studied, the probability of
occurrence of the load leading to the failure of the laminate with a delamination of size Sd

Knowing that the following gust occurrence probabilities are generally admitted:

- 2 x 10-5 for limit loads,


- 1 x 10-9 for ultimate loads,

We can plot the curve below associating a probability of occurrence Prat with all residual
strength levels (εresidual = k x εL.L.) such that:

i7 Prat = 10- 8.6 k + 3.9


Prat

-5
2 x 10

-9
10

εresidual
εL.L. εU.L.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Determining inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.1
5/6

This curve will in fact be compared to a log-normal type occurrence law (or a first
approximation linear law) for a larger deformation range.

PROBABILITY DETERMINATION LOGIC DIAGRAM

- to have an impact in a given energy range,


- to detect damage,
- to encounter a load greater than the residual strength of the laminate.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Determining inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.1
6/6
f(E)
Known impact
source

Impact energy
range

Pat
Energy
Em
Detection probability mean
f f
Depth of
General visual inspection: * indent 3.3
Detailed visual inspection: ** æEö
Kf ç ÷
èeø
*

**

Pdat Energy
Pdat 1

Sd Sd
Delaminated
surface

E
Ksd
e

εresidual Energy

Prat

-5
2 x 10
Prat

-9
10

εresidual
εL.L. εU.L.

The inspection interval must be such that risk of failure in the interval:
Pat x (1 - Pdat) x Prat ≤ 10-9/flight hours

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Determining and calculating inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.1
7.1.3.1.2
1/4

Prat

Linear law
1

Log-normal law
0.5

-5
2 x 10
-9
10
εresidual
εmean εL.L. εU.L.

This curve, like all statistical distribution curves, is characterised by a mean value and a
standard deviation. A simple calculation enables us to obtain the following expressions:

εmean = 10(Log (εU.L.) - 0.5554)


σ = 0.0928

To sum up, it is clear that by choosing a given impact energy range, the values of Pat, f,
Pdat, Sd, εresidual and Prat are implicitly determined.

The drawing above shows the links between these various quantities.

7.1.3.1.2 . Inspection interval calculation software

The calculation tool is based on the fundamental principle described above: all damage
susceptible to be detected during an inspection must have a probability of encountering a
load greater than its residual strength lower than 10-9 per flight hour (maximum value at
end of aircraft life or before last inspection).

This principle involves three probabilities:

❑ Pat: probability of occurrence of an impact with a given energy.

❑ Pdat: probability of detecting the damage.

❑ Prat: probability of occurrence of a loading case greater than the residual strength of
the impacted laminate.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Calculating inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.2
2/4

This principle can be stated in a more useable form:

The probability of having damage susceptible to encounter a load greater than its residual
strength is equivalent to the sum of the probabilities of having:

- damage relevant to an incident energy between 0 and 2 J susceptible to encounter a


load greater than its residual strength
and
- damage relevant to an incident energy between 2 and 4 J susceptible to encounter a
load greater than its residual strength
and
- damage relevant to an incident energy between 48 and 50 J susceptible to encounter
a load greater than its residual strength.

By discretizing the incident energy and therefore the type of the damage, each flaw range
can be dealt with independently of the others.
f(E)

We can therefore apply the fundamental principle to each energy interval then add the
results.

First of all we will consider an incident energy range between E and E+2 Joules.

The trickiest bit is to determine the probability of existence of damage of a well-defined


size versus time knowing that its probability of occurrence is equal to Pat (per flight hour)
and its probability of non-detection during inspections is equal to (1 - Pdat).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Calculating inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.2
3/4

If Pat is the probability of occurrence of the flaw per flight hour at time t1 (before first
inspection for instance) the probability of existence of the flaw is equal to: 1 - (1 - Pat)t1.

After the first inspection, the probability of occurrence of the flaw is therefore reduced to:
[1 - (1 - Pat)t1] (1 - Pdat) then increases according to same curve as before but with a time
shift as initial probability is no longer zero. We repeat this operation up until the last
inspection.

The form of the function makes the calculations difficult; it is for this reason that we
compare the curve to its tangent: 1 - (1 - Pat)t ≈ t x Pat. This approximation remains valid
as long as the term t x Pat is small in comparison with 1.

This therefore gives the following configuration:

Probability of
occurrence
of a flaw

1 - (1 - Pat) ^ t1
[1 - (1 - Pat) ^ t1] (1 - Pdat)

t
IT1 t1 IT2 t2 IT3 t3 IT4 t4

The curve [1 - (1 - Pat) ^ t] will be compared


to its limited development: t x Pat

Probability of
occurrence
of a flaw

IT x Pat IT x Pat
IT x Pat IT x Pat

IT x Pat x (1 - Pdat) ^ 2 IT x Pat x (1 - Pdat) ^ 3


IT x Pat x (1 - Pdat)
t
IT IT IT IT

ERL = n x IT

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Calculating inspection intervals I 7.1.3.1.2
4/4

For constant inspection intervals, the mean probability of occurrence of the flaw is equal
to:

IT x Pat n − 1 n − i
2
+
i =1 n
å
x IT x Pat x (1 − Pdat )i

The maximum probability of occurrence of the flaw (Rd) is equal to:

n −1
i8 Rd = IT x Pat + å IT x Pat x (1 − Pdat )
i=1
i

The mean probability of failure (Rr) of the flaw is therefore equal to:

ìïIT x Pat n − 1 n − i üï
Prat x í
ï 2
+
n
å
x IT x Pat x (1 − Pdat) i ý
ï
î i =1 þ

The maximum probability of failure (Rr) of the flaw is therefore equal to:

ìï n −1 üï
i9 Rr = Prat x íIT x Pat +
ï
å
IT x Pat x (1 − Pdat) i ý
ï
î i =1 þ

To find the mean overall risk per flight hour, all we need to do is to integrate this result into
all possible incident energy ranges.

E = 50 J ìïIT x Pat n − 1 n − i üï
å Prat x í
ï 2
+
n
å
x IT x Pat x (1 − Pdat) i ý
ï
E=0J î i=1 þ

The overall maximum risk per flight hour (Re) is equal to:

E = 50 J ìï n −1 ü

i10 Re = å Prat x íIT x Pat +
ï
å IT x Pat x (1 − Pdat) ýï
E=0J î i =1 þ

This risk must be lower than 10 E-9.

The table below summarises (by giving the mathematical links between the various
variables) the method used to determine Re.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Load level K I 7.1.3.1.2
7.1.3.1.3
1/5

IT & ERL

E f Sd εresidual Prat Pdat Pat Rd Rr

0-2J
2-4J
4-6J i8
.
.
.
i9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44 - 46 J
46 - 48 J
48 - 50 J

i10

Re

7.1.3.1.3 . Load level K to be demonstrated in the presence of Large VID

The previous analysis can be substantiated by a static test with VID and a load level k.CL
(1 ≤ k ≤ 1.5).

❑ First method:

This method consists in initially evaluating the reduction coefficient α on the permissible
strengths of the material so that the final calculated risk Re is equal to 10-9 per flight hour
(this determination can only be done by successive approximations).

This means that we can suppose that the damage tolerance behaviour of the material is
degraded in relation to that really used, that is a material whose strength (under
compression loading after impact) will be equal to a certain percentage, called α, of that of
the real material.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Load level K I 7.1.3.1.3
2/5

In this case, the (εresidual; Sd) is submitted to a homothety in relation to the x-axis.

Sd
Basic curve
→ Re

Reduced curve
→ Re = 10 /fh
-9

εresidual
1
The number can therefore legitimately be compared to a reserve factor.
α

We will thus define a static test with VID (Visible Impact Damage) such that the margin in
relation to the residual strain ε (VID) of the flaw is the one defined above.

We obtain:

1 ε ( VID)
=
α K x εL.L.

hence:

ε ( VID)
i11 K=α = α x k ( VID)
ε L.L.

value representing the load level K to be demonstrated with VID.

❑ Second method:

Another method would consist in directly considering the probability and load notions.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Load level K I 7.1.3.1.3
3/5

It is clear that for a static test, we can consider that the probabilities of occurrence of the
flaw (Pat) and the probabilities of detecting (Pat) and not detecting (1 - Pdat) the flaw are
equal to 1 as we are sure that it is present in the item.

If we write the equivalence between the test and the maximum risk per flight hour from a
probabilistic viewpoint, we obtain: Re = Prat x PatVID x (1 - PdatVID) = Prat.

The method consists therefore in determining a fictive ultimate load level such that the
probability of the flaw residual load level is equal to Re.

The drawing below shows that we must randomly subject the curve (strain level ε; Prat) to
1
a homothety with a factor so as to move point A to point B level. In this case, it appears
η
that the permissible load level of the VID has a probability of occurrence Re.

We see that this transformation also moves point A' to point B' which corresponds to the
fictive ultimate load level that must be applied to the structure.

Prat

1 Permissible
deformation of
VID

-5
2 x 10
-9 B' A'
10
B A
Re
εresidual
εU.L. fictive εL.L. εU.L.

ε VID

By zooming in onto the part of the graph which concerns us and imposing a logarithmic
scale on the y-axis, we obtain the following representation:

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Load level K I 7.1.3.1.3
4/5

- Log(Prat)

8.6 x K - 3.9
B /η A
- Log(Re)
B' A'
9

4.7

ε residual
k =
1 K(VID) 1.5 ε L.L.

12.9 x K ( VID ) − Log(Re ) + 3.9


− Log(Re ) + 3.9 8 .6

We obtain:

axis( A ) − Log(Re) + 3.9


η= =
axis(B ) 8.6 x k( VID)

We can deduce the fictive ultimate load level to be demonstrated in the presence of VID

12 .9 x k ( VID )
i12 K =
− Log(Re ) + 3.9

Load level K must always be between 1 and 1.5.

The graph below represents the previous relation (the maximum risk Re per flight hour on
the x-axis and the load level K to be demonstrated on the y-axis). Each curve is relevant
to a residual load level of the flaw K.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - DAMAGE TOLERANCE


Load level K I 7.1.3.1.3
5/5

K Safety factor to be applied to limit loads

ULTIMATE LOAD
1.5

1.4

K = 1.17 K = 1.7

1.3
k = 20

k = 1.9
Re = E-15

k = 1.8

k = damage residual
k = 1.7
load level
1.2
k = 1.6

k = 1.5

k = 1.4

1.1 k = 1.3

k = 1.2

k = 1.1
LIMIT LOAD
1

Risk of failure per flight hour in Log


0.9 Log(Re)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - BUCKLING

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Notations K 1

1 . NOTATIONS

(o, x, y): reference coordinate system of panel


(o, 1, 2): orthotropic axis of laminate

φ: angle formed by loading with the orthotropic axis


α: angular position of point to be calculated with the orthotropic coordinate system

Ex: longitudinal modulus of laminate in the reference coordinate system


Ey: transversal modulus of laminate in the reference coordinate system
Gxy: shear modulus of laminate in the reference coordinate system
νxy: Poisson coefficient of laminate in the reference coordinate system

E1: longitudinal modulus of laminate in the orthotropic coordinate system


E2: transversal modulus of laminate in the orthotropic coordinate system
G12: shear modulus of laminate in the orthotropic coordinate system
ν12: Poisson's ratio of the laminate in the orthotropic coordinate system

σ ∞x : stress to infinity
σx (y): stress along y-axis
σt (α): tangential stress around circular hole

K ∞T : hole coefficient for an infinite plate width


K LT : hole coefficient for a finite plate width

β: "finite plate width" coefficient

L: plate width
∅: hole diameter
R: hole radius

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Introduction - Theory - First method K 2
3.1
1/3

2 . INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to assess stresses at the edge of a hole without fastener on
an axially loaded composite plate and to anticipate failure of a notched laminate.

3 . GENERAL THEORY

3.1 . First method (Withney and Nuismer)

From a theoretical point of view, the problem is formulated as follows: let an infinite plate
be subjected to stress flux σ ∞x and with the diameter hole: ∅.

The method is valid only if the x-axis is the laminate orthotropic axis. What is the stress σx
(y) distribution along the y-axis?

σx (y)

σ∞
x

σx (y = R)

∅ = 2R

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Theory - First method K 3.1
2/3

First, the following number needs to be considered:

σ x ( y = R) hole edge stress


k1 K ∞T = =
σ ∞x inf inite stress

This coefficient expresses hole edge stress concentration for the case of an infinitely large
plate. This is the hole coefficient.

For a composite plate, this term may be formulated as a function of the mechanical
properties of the laminate as follows:

æ E ö E
k2 K ∞T = 1 + 2 ç x
− ν xy ÷ + x
ç E ÷ G
è y ø xy

Stress σx (y) evolution along the y-axis may be expressed as follows:

σ ∞x æ 2 4
æ 6 8
öö
k3 σx (y) = ç 2 + æç R ö÷ + 3 æç R ö÷ − K ∞ − 3 ç 5
( ) æ Rö
ç ÷
æ Rö
−7ç ÷ ÷÷
2 ç è yø è yø
T ç è yø è yø ÷÷
è è øø

If y = R, then this function is reduced to expression k1.

If the material is near-isotropic, then:

2 + ξ2 + 3 ξ4
k4 σx (R + do) ≈ σ ∞x
2

R
k5 with: ξ =
R + do

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Theory - First method K 3.1
3/3

If the plate is not infinitely large and has a length L, then:

σ∞ æ 2 4
æ 6 8 ö
ö
k6 σx (y) = β x ç 2 + æç R ö÷ + 3 æç R ö÷ − K ∞ − 3 ç 5 æç R ö÷ − 7 æç R ö÷ ÷ ÷
( )
2 ç è yø è yø
T ç è yø è y ø ÷ø ÷ø
è è

with:

3
æ ∅ö
2 + ç1 − ÷
è Lø
k7 β= as a first approximation
æ ∅ö
3 ç1 − ÷
è Lø
or
æ ∅ö
3 ç1 − ÷
è Lø 1 æ ∅ Mö
6
æ æ ∅ Mö
2
ö
β
1
=
æ ∅ö
3
+ ç
2è L ø

(
÷ K T − 3 çç 1 −
è
) ç
è L ø
÷ ÷÷ as a second approximation
ø
2 + ç1 − ÷
è L ø

æ ∅ ö
ç 3 æç 1 − ö÷ ÷
è Lø
1− 8 ç − 1÷ −1
ç ∅
3 ÷
ç 2 + æç 1 − ö÷ ÷
è è Lø ø
in which: M2 = 2
æ ∅ö
2ç ÷
èLø

σx (y)

σ∞
x

σx (y = R)

L x

∅ = 2R

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Theory - Second method K 3.2
1/3

3.2 . Second method (NASA)

This method is based on a NASA study.

For an infinite plate, it expresses the ratio K ∞T between the loading stress to infinity σ ∞x
and the tangential normal stress at the edge σt (α) around the hole.

The position of the point is defined by the angle α with relation to the orthotropic

It shall be assumed that loading is uniaxial.

2
σ∞
x

σt (α)

α
x

φ
∅ = 2R

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Theory - Second method K 3.2
2/3

The first step consists in searching for the orthotropic axes (o, 1, 2) of the material. Angles
φ and α are thus determined (α being the angular coordinate of the point to be considered
with relation to the orthotropic coordinate system).

The hole coefficient expression is the following:

k8

K ∞T =
σt(α ) Eα
σx∞
=
E 1
{ [ ]
(− cos 2 φ + (k + n) sin 2 φ) k cos 2 α + (1 + n) cos 2 φ − k sin 2 φ sin 2 α −

n (1 + k + n) sin φ cos φ sin α cos α}

with

E1
k9 k=
E2

Eα 1
k10 =
E1 E1 1æ E ö
sin 4 α + cos 4 α + ç 1 − 2 ν12 ÷ sin 2 2α
E2 4 è G12 ø

æE ö E
K11 n= 2 çç 1 − ν 12 ÷÷ + 1
è E2 ø G12

where E1, E2, G12 and ν12 are the mechanical properties of the laminate in the orthotropic
coordinate system (o, 1, 2).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Theory - Second method K 3.2
3/3

If the laminate lay-up is equilibrated, the expression is simplified and becomes:

σ t (α ) Eα
K ∞T =
σ ∞x
=
E1
{
− k cos 2 α + (1 + n) sin 2 α }

If the laminate lay-up is nearly-isotropic, the expression is reduced to:

σ t (α )
K ∞T = = − cos 2 α + 3 sin 2 α
σ ∞x

For a nearly-isotropic lay-up and uniaxial loading, hole coefficients for 0°, 45°, 135° and
90° fibre directions are thus: 3, 1, 1 and - 1.

1
1
1
1
σ∞
x

3
1

-1
K∞
T
x

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Theory - Third method K 3.3

3.3 . Third method (isotropic plate theory)

If the material is isotropic (or nearly-isotropic) and if the plate is infinitely large, then the
stress tensor may be formulated for any point P (identified by its coordinates r and α) on
the plate as follows:

σ ∞x æ R 2 ö σ ∞x æ 3 R4 R2 ö
k12 σr = ç 1 − ÷ + ç 1 + − 4 ÷ cos 2α
2 è r2 ø 2 è r4 r2 ø

σ ∞x æ R2 ö σ ∞ æ 3 R4 ö
σt = ç 1 + 2 ÷ − x ç 1 + 4 ÷ cos 2α
2 è r ø 2 è r ø

σ ∞x æ 3 R4 2 R2 ö
τrt = − ç 1 − 4 + 2 ÷ sin 2α
2 è r r ø

t
r
σ∞
x
P
r

α
x

∅ = 2R

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Theory - Fourth method K 3.4
1/2

3.4 . Fourth method (empirical)

This method is simple, fast but conservative. For more details, refer to chapter L
(MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE) by considering the bearing load as zero.

Let a plate of length L be subjected to stress triplet σ ∞x , σ ∞y , and τ ∞xy .

σ∞
y

τ∞
xy

L x σ∞
x

The first step consists in calculating the principal stresses σ p∞ and σ p'∞ and in weighting
L
them with the net cross-section coefficient .
L−∅

Thus, the main net stresses σ Np and σ Np' are obtained.

Both stresses are then divided by coefficients Kt (K ct or K tt for direction p) and K't (K' ct or
K' tt for direction p').

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Theory - Fourth method K 3.4
2/2

These coefficients (smaller than 1) are a function of the material, the elasticity moduli in
the direction considered (p or p'), the hole diameter (∅) and the type of load (tension "t" or
compression "c"). They are found in the form of graphs (for carbon T300/914 layer in
particular) in chapter Z (sheets 3 and 4 T300/914).

The two following final stresses are obtained :

σ Np
σ Fp =
Kt

σ Np'
σ Fp' =
K t'

Both stresses are expressed in the main coordinate system (o, p, p').

σN
p'

p'

σN
p
/Kt

σN
p'
/K't
L p

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


"Point stress" - Failure criterion K 4.1
1/2

4 . ASSOCIATED FAILURE CRITERIA

4.1 . Failure criterion associated with the "point stress" method (Whitney and
Nuismer)

To determine the failure of a notched laminate, it is generally allowed (for composite


materials) to search for edge stresses at a certain distance do from the hole edge. Indeed,
edge distance stress release through microdamages causes them to be analyzed at the
edge distance do in practice. This distance depends on the type of load of the fibre
considered (compression or tension), on the hole diameter and on the material (see
chapter Z sheets 9 and 10 for T300/914).

At the composite material stress office of the Aerospatiale Design Office, one considers
("point stress" method) that there is a failure in the laminate when the longitudinal stress
of the most highly loaded fibre (located at the edge distance do) tangent to the hole is
greater than the longitudinal stress allowable for the fibre.

k13 There is a failure if: σl (y = R + do) > Rl

σl: longitudinal stress of the fibre tangent to the hole

Rl: longitudinal stress allowable for the fibre

fibre at 0°
°
45
at
re b
fibre at 90° fi
fib
re
at
13

do

σl σl

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


"Point stress" - Failure criterion K 4.1
2/2

For complex loads, there is a software (PSH2 on mx4) which automatically models a finite
element mesh and finds loads in fibres that are tangent to the hole.

Longitudinal stress analysis is performed in a circle of elements, its center of gravity being
located at the hole edge distance do.

2 do

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


"Average stress" - Failure criterion K 4.2

4.2 . Failure criterion associated with the "average stress" method (Whitney and
Nuismer)

This method consists in determining the average stress average σx average (ao) between
coordinate points (0, R) and (0, R + ao). It is assumed that the plate is infinitely large and
the loading uniaxial.

σx average (ao)

σ∞
x
(ao)

∅ = 2R

Based on the previous theory (see K 3.1), the following may be formulated as:

1 R + ao
σx average (ao) =
ao ò
R
σ x (y) dy

After development, we obtain:

2 − ξ2 − ξ4
k14 σx average (ao) ≈ σ ∞x
2 (1 − ξ)

R
k15 with: ξ =
R + ao

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Empirical method - Failure criterion K 4.3

It is possible to choose ao so that:

σx average (ao) ≈ σx (R + do)

This condition allows the "point stress" and the "average stress" method to become
equivalent.

The "average stress" method is rarely used at Aerospatiale, the same failure criterion as
for the "point stress" method may be applied: one considers that there is a failure in the
laminate when the longitudinal stress of the most highly loaded fibre tangent to the hole is
greater than the longitudinal stress allowable for the fibre.

4.3 . Failure criterion associated with the empirical method

After determining stresses σ Fp and σ Fp' , a smooth calculation must be performed (see
chapter C) in order to assess longitudinal stresses in fibres tangent to the hole.

B The Hill's failure criterion shall be used to each single ply (see chapter G3).

It may be noted that this method is relatively conservative because both coefficients Kt
and K't are assessed for different points, each one being the most critical with relation to
directions p and p'.

On the other hand, coefficient Kt and K't values were determined only for diameters
between ∅ 3.2 to ∅ 11.1. It is, therefore, necessary to use the theory for large diameters.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


First example K 5.1
1/4

5 . Example

5.1 . First example

Let a T300/BSL914 (new) square laminate plate of width L = 120 mm be laid up as


follows:

0°: 6 plies
45°: 4 plies
135°: 4 plies
90°: 2 plies

In the coordinate system (o, x, y), it is subjected to the following loading:

N ∞x = 10 daN/mm
N ∞y = 0 daN/mm
N ∞xy = 0 daN/mm

The plate has a diameter hole ∅ = 40 mm.

2
4
6
4

L = 120 x Nx = 10

∅ = 40

L = 120

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


First example K 5.1
2/4

Let's analyse, along the y-axis, the evolution of stress flux Nx (y).

The mechanical properties of the laminate in the reference coordinate system are the
following:

Ex = E1 = 6256 daN/mm2 (62560 MPa)


Ey = E2 = 3410 daN/mm2 (34100 MPa)
Gxy= Gv12 = 1882 daN/mm2 (18820 MPa)
νxy = ν12 = 0.4191
νyx = ν21 = 0.2285

The value of K ∞T is deduced as follows:

{k2}

æ 6256 ö 6256
K ∞T = 1 + 2ç − 0.4191÷ + = 3.28
ç 3410 ÷ 1882
è ø

This number represents the hole edge coefficient for the case of a plate of infinite width.

Since the plate does not have an infinite width L = 120 mm, we are led to calculate the
following number :

{k3}

3
æ 40 ö
2 + ç1 − ÷
β= è 120 ø = 1.148
æ 40 ö
3 ç1 − ÷
è 120 ø

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


First example K 5.1
3/4

We thus obtain the evolution of normal stress fluxes along the y-axis:

æ 2 4
æ 6 8 ö
ö
Nx (y) = 1.148
10 ç 2 + æç 20 ö÷ + 3 æç 20 ö÷ − (3.28 − 3) ç 5 æç 20 ö÷ − 7 æç 20 ö÷ ÷ ÷
ç ç ÷ ç ÷ ç
ç è y ø ÷ ç ÷ ÷
2
è è y ø è y ø è è y ø ÷ø ø

æ æ 20 ö
2
æ 20 ö
4
æ æ 20 ö 6 æ 20 ö ö÷ ö÷
8
ç ç
Nx (y) = 5.74 ç 2 + çç ÷÷ + 3 çç ÷÷ − 0.28 5 çç ÷÷ − 7 çç ÷÷ ÷
è y ø è y ø ç è y ø è y ø ÷ø ø
è è

40
37.65

35

30

25

Nx (y) 20

15
12.32

10 10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
y

And we obtain, at the plate edge (y = 60) a flux of 12.32 daN/mm and at the hole edge
(y = 20) a flux of 37.65 daN/mm.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


First example K 5.1
4/4

If one determines the flux at a hole edge distance do = 1 mm (see do in tension for the
T300/914), one gets: Nx (y = 20 + 1) = 32.47 daN/mm.

A smooth plate calculation (chapter C) with this flux makes it possible to determine the
longitudinal stress of the most highly loaded fibre (fibre at 0°): σl = 32.41 hb.

On the other hand, as the allowable longitudinal tension stress of the same fibre is equal
to Rl = 120 hb, based on the "point stress" failure criterion, we obtain:

æ 120 ö
Margin: ç − 1÷ 100 = 270 %
è 32.41 ø

At a hole edge distance do = 1 mm (see tension do for fibre T300/914 in chapter Z), flux Nx
is now only 32.47 daN/mm.

A smooth plate calculation makes it possible to find that fibres with a 0° direction are
subjected to a 32.41 hb longitudinal stress at this particular hole edge distance.

The longitudinal tensile strength of fibre T300/914 being 120 hb, the targeted margin is
thus:

æ 120 ö
Margin = 100 ç − 1÷ = 270 %
è 32 . 41 ø

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Second example K 5.2
1/5

5.2 . Second example

Let a T300/BSL914 (infinitely large) laminate plate be laid up as follows:

0°: 6 plies
45°: 4 plies
135°: 4 plies
90°: 2 plies

In the coordinate system (o, x, y), it is subject to the following loading:

N ∞x = 2.8 daN/mm
N ∞y = - 7.8 daN/mm
N ∞xy = 5.3 daN/mm

The plate has a diameter hole ∅ = 40 mm.

Ny = - 7.8

Nxy = 5.3

2
4
6
4
Nx = 2.8
x

∅ = 40

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Second example K 5.2
2/5

Let's determine the normal stress fluxes of the hole edge at point P (fibre at 0° tangent to
hole). To do this, we shall use the second method

First of all, (in order to eliminate the shear flux), let's be positioned in the main coordinate
system (o, p, p') which forms a 22.5° angle with the reference coordinate system (o, x, y).
Stress fluxes then become N p∞ = 5 daN/mm, N p'∞ = - 10 daN/mm.

Orthotropic axes (o, 1, 2) are coincident with the reference coordinate system (o, x, y).

The plate and its loading may then be described as follows:

Np' = - 10

p'

4
2
4 2
φ' = 112.5° y
6

α = 90°
P Np = 5
p
φ = 22.5°
∅ = 40
1
x

In the coordinate system (o, p, p'), the mechanical properties of the laminate are the
following:

Ep = 5800 daN/mm2 (58000 MPa)


Ep' = 3749 daN/mm2 (37490 MPa)
Gpp' = 1788 daN/mm2 (17880 MPa)
νpp' = 0.3481
νp'p = 0.225

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Second example K 5.2
3/5

In the reference coordinate system (o, x, y) and in the orthotropic coordinate system (o, 1,
2), the laminate properties are the following:

Ex = E1 = 6256 daN/mm2 (62560 MPa)


Ey = E2 = 3410 daN/mm2 (34100 MPa)
Gxy= G12 = 1882 daN/mm2 (18820 MPa)
νxy = ν12 = 0.4191
νyx = ν21 = 0.2285

A first step shall consist in calculating the effect of the main flux N p∞ at point P as follows:

We have:

{k9}

6256
k= = 1.354
3410

{k10}

E 90° 1
=
E1 6256 1 æ 6256 ö
sin 4 90° + cos 4 90° + ç − 2 x 0.4191÷sin 2 2 x 90°
3410 4 è 1882 ø

E90° 1
= =1
E1 1

{k11}

æ 6256 ö 6256
n= 2ç − 0.4191÷ + = 2.48
ç 3410 ÷ 1882
è ø

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Second example K 5.2
4/5

{k1}

K ∞T =
σ t ( α = 90°)
=
6256
{
( − cos 2 22.5° + (1.354 + 2.48 ) sin 2 45°) 1.354 cos 2 90° +
σ p∞ 6256

((1 + 2.48 ) cos 2 22.5° − 1.354 sin 2 22.5°) sin 2 90° − 2.48 (1 + 1.354 + 2.48) sin 22.5° cos 22.5°

sin 90° cos 90°}

σ t (α = 90°)
K ∞T = = 2.773
σ p∞
p'

4
2
2
4 y
6

2.773
P Np = 5
p

1
x

A second step shall consist in calculating the effect of the main flux N p'∞ at point P.

{k1}

K' ∞T =
σ t ( α = 90°)
=
6256
{
( − cos 2 112.5° + (1.354 + 2.48 ) sin 2 45°) 1.354 cos 2 90° +
σ p∞' 6256

((1 + 2.48 ) cos 2 112.5° − 1.354 sin 2 112.5°) sin 2 90° − 2.48 (1 + 1.354 + 2.48 ) sin 112.5° cos 112.5°

sin 90° cos 90°}

σ t (α = 90°)
K' ∞T = = − 0.646
σ p∞'

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


Second example K 5.2
5/5

Np' = - 10

p'

4
2
2
4 y
6

- 0.646
P
p

1
x

The deduction is that the normal stress flux tangent to the hole crossing point P is equal
to:

Nt (P) = 2.773 N p∞ + (- 0.646) N p'∞ = 2.773 x 5 + (- 0.646) x (- 10) = 20.31 daN/mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - HOLE WITHOUT FASTENER


References K
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Résistance des matériaux

S.C. TAN, Finite width correction factors for anisotropic plate containing a central opening,
1988

J. Rocker, Composite material parts: Design methods at fastener holes 3 ≤ φ ≤ 100 mm.
B
Extrapolation to damage tolerance evaluation, 1998, 581.0162/98

W.L. KO, Stress concentration around a small circular hole in a composite plate, 1985,
NSA TM 86038

WHITNEY - NUISMER, Uniaxial failure of composite laminates containing stress


concentration, American Society for testing materials STP 593, 1975

ERICKSON - DURELLI, Stress distribution around a circular hole in square plate, loaded
uniformly in the plane, on two opposite sides of the square, Journal of applied mechanics,
vol. 48, 1981

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Notations L 1
1/2

1 . NOTATIONS

(o, x, y): initial coordinate system


(o, M, M'): coordinate system specific to the bearing load
(o, P, P'): stress main coordinate system

F: bearing load
∅: fastener diameter
Sf: countersink surface of fastener
e: actual thickness of laminate
e*: thickness taken into account in bearing calculations
p: fastener pitch

σ Nt : net cross-section stress at the hole


σm: bearing stress
σR: allowable stress of material (general designation)

σxa: allowable normal stress of material in direction x


σya: allowable normal stress of material in direction y
τxya: allowable shear stress of material
τvisa: allowable shear stress of screw

N Bx
N By gross fluxes in panel
B
N xy

N Nx
N Ny net cross-section fluxes
N
N xy

N NM
N NM' net cross-section fluxes in the coordinate system specific to the bearing load
N NMM'

Nm
M additional flux due to the bearing load

β: bearing load angle with relation to the initial coordinate system

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Notations L 1
2/2

NPN
net cross-section global fluxes in the main coordinate system
NPN'
α: main coordinate system angle with relation to the bearing load

N Fx
N Fy corrected final fluxes
F
N xy

K mc : compression bearing coefficient


K mt : tension bearing coefficient
Km : bearing coefficient in the broad meaning of the term

K ct : compression hole coefficient


K tt : tension hole coefficient
Kt: hole coefficient in the broad meaning of the term

Kf: bending hole coefficient

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


General - Failure modes L 2.1
2.2

2 . GENERAL/FAILURE MODES

The purpose of this chapter is to assess the structural strength of a notched and loaded
laminate fitted with fastener.

Depending on the loading level and the type of geometry, such a system may fail as per
several failure modes.

2.1 . Bearing failure

F
≥ σRm
∅e
e

∅ F ∅

2.2 . Net cross-section failure

F
≥ σxa
(b − ∅) e

b ∅ F

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

2.3
MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE
General - Failure modes L 2.4
2.5

2.3 . Plane shear failure

F
≥ τxya
2 (L − 0,35 ∅) e e
L

45°
F

2.4 . Cleavage failure

F
≥ σya
æ ∅ö
çL − ÷ e
è 2ø L e

∅ F ∅

2.5 . Cleavage: net cross-section failure

2F
σxa (b - ∅) + τxya L ≤
e

L e

b ∅ F ∅

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Failure modes - Pitch definition L 2.6
3.1

2.6 . Fastener shear failure

4F
≥ τvisa
π ∅2
e

∅ F ∅

where:

σxa is the allowable normal stress of the notched material in direction x


σya is the allowable normal stress of the notched material in direction y
τxya is the allowable shear stress of the notched material
σRm is the allowable bearing stress of the material
τvisa is the allowable shear stress of the screw

3 . SINGLE HOLE WITH FASTENER

The purpose of this sub-chapter is to outline the justification method of a hole with a
fastener to which is applied a bearing load in any direction, the laminate being subjected
to membrane type surrounding load fluxes and/or bending moment fluxes. The failure
mode associated with this method is a combined net cross-section failure mode in the
presence of bearing (see 2.1 and 2.2).

3.1 . Pitch p definition

If the main loading is in the F1 direction, the pitch taken into account in the calculations
p1 + p2
shall be equal to: p = .
2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane analysis - Short cut method - Theory L 3.2.1
1/8

If the main loading is direction F2, the pitch (which is more commonly called edge
distance) taken into account in the designs shall be equal to: p = 2 p3.

For complex loading (or for simplification purposes), the following pitch value may be
used: p = mini (p1; p2; 2 p3).

It should be noted that for membrane or membrane and bending loading, pitch p is limited
to k ∅ where k depends on the material used. The value of k is generally between 4.5 and
5. For pure bending loading, this limitation does not apply.

F1

p1 p2

p3
F2

p1 + p2
p=
2

3.2 . Membrane analysis - Short cut method

3.2.1 . Theory

Generally speaking, a failure is reached at a fastener hole when:

l1 σ Nt + Km σm ≥ Kt σR

In the case of a membrane loaded single hole with fastener, the various justification
(broadly summed up by relationship I1) steps must be followed:

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane analysis - Short cut method - Theory L 3.2.1
2/8

1st step: For load introduction zones (fittings, splices), the membrane gross flux NB to be
taken into account at fasteners is deduced from the constant flux to infinity N∞ by the
following relationship:

p
l2 NB = N∞ if p > 5 ∅ NB = N∞ if p ≤ 5 ∅
5∅

If the zone to be justified is a typical zone (ribs, spars), then:

NB = N∞

N∞

B
N

Flux

The drawing above shows the difference between the flux to infinity and the actual flux at
fasteners for a load introduction zone and highlights the existence of a working strip at
each fastener of a width equivalent to 5 Ø. This phenomenon is comparable to the one
described in chapter M.1.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane analysis - Short cut method - Theory L 3.2.1
3/8

2nd step: It consists in transforming pitch corrected gross fluxes (see previous step) into
net cross-section flux in the initial coordinate system:

F
β<0
x B p
Nx

p
l3 N Nx = N Bx
Sf
p−∅−
e

p
N Ny = N By
Sf
p−∅−
e

p
N Nxy = N Bxy
Sf
p−∅−
e

y
N
Nx
F

x
β<0

Thus, the equivalent diameter may be determined:

Sf
∅' = ∅ +
e

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane analysis - Short cut method - Theory L 3.2.1
4/8

where the countersink surface is equal to:

Sf = b h = h2 tgθ
b

h
θ

∅'

3rd step: It consists in transforming the previously designed fluxes in the coordinate
system specific to the bearing load:

NNM (cos β)2 (sin β)2 − 2 x sin β x cos β NNx

l4 NNM' = (sin β)2 (cos β)2 2 x sin β x cos β NNy

NNMM' sin β x cos β − sin β x cos β (cos β)2 − (sin β)2 NNxy

N
M' NM M

F
0
β<
x

Angle β is, in the trigonometric coordinate system, the angle leading from the M-axis
(bearing coordinate system) to the x-axis (reference coordinate system).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane analysis - Short cut method - Theory L 3.2.1
5/8

4th step: Once positioned in the bearing coordinate system, the flux due to the bearing
load N NM (reduced by coefficient Km), is added to (or subtracted from) flux N m
M .

Fe
l5 Nm
M =
∅ e*

e* = mini (e; 2.6 ∅) for double shear.


e* = mini (e; 1.3 ∅) for single shear.

The bearing height e* is voluntarily reduced for a large thickness to take into account
stress concentration at the element surface.

SINGLE SHEAR
DOUBLE SHEAR

The resulting fluxes are thus expressed by:

NNM ± Nm
M Km
m
N ± Km N M
NM
l6 NNM' M' M

NNMM'
y

F
< 0
β
x

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane analysis - Short cut method - Theory L 3.2.1
6/8

The values of Km depend on the type of loading, the bearing stress and the material used
(see chapter Z).

Three calculations shall be made with the following values: - Km; + Km; 0.

5th step: It consists in transferring fluxes so determined in their main coordinate system:

NPN (cos α ) 2 (sin α ) 2 2 x sin α x cos α NNM ± Nm


M Km

l7 NPN' = (sin α ) 2 (cos α ) 2 − 2 x sin α x cos α NNM'

0 − sin α x cos α sin α x cos α (cos α ) 2 − (sin α ) 2 NNMM'

where:

1 æ 2 NNMM' ö
α= Arctg ç N ÷
è NM ± NM K m − NM' ø
m N
2

P
N
NP

M'
M
α>0

P' F

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane analysis - Short cut method - Theory L 3.2.1
7/8

Angle α is, in the trigonometric coordinate system, the angle leading from the M-axis
(bearing coordinate system) to the P-axis (main coordinate system).

1
6th step: Fluxes are maximized by coefficient where Kt is the hole coefficient.
Kt

Kt values depend on the type of loading (tension or compression), the fastener diameter,
the mechanical properties and the material used (see chapter Z).

It should be noted that to each of both main fluxes is associated a hole coefficient which
may be different. This is why their notation differs from the sign*.

NPN
Kt
NPN'
l8
K *t
0 P

NPN
Kt

M'
M
α>0

P' F

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane analysis - Short cut method - Theory L 3.2.1
8/8

7th step: Fluxes so maximized are recalculated in the initial coordinate system (o, x, y).
P
y

P'
F
F
Nx
α-β>0
x

NPN
NFx 2 2
(cos(β − α )) (sin(β − α )) 2 x sin(β − α ) x cos( β − α ) Kt
2 2 NPN'
l9 NFy = (sin(β − α )) (cos(β − α )) − 2 x sin(β − α ) x cos( β − α )
K *t
2 2
− sin(β − α ) x cos( β− α ) sin(β − α ) x cos( β − α ) (cos(β − α )) − (sin(β − α ))
NFxy 0

Angle (α - β) are, in the trigonometric coordinate system, the angle leading from the x-axis
(reference coordinate system) to the p-axis (main coordinate system).

8th step: A smooth plate calculation is made with fluxes NF previously determined (see
chapter C) to obtain the margin.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


EDP computing program PSG33 L 3.2.2

3.2.2 . Computing program PSG33

B This software, which can be used on mx4 or PC, is simply the digital application of the
theory presented above, the eight steps being integrated into the calculation.

Let input data relating to the example covered further in this chapter be as follows.

CARACMF 1 3 4 1
2 4.8 21.6 4.91 -30. 77. 40.
*3 T300 neuf
1 0.78 0.52 0.52 0.78
2 0. 45. -45. 90.
3 3.
MAT03 1 13000. 465. 465. .35 120.0 -100. 5.
*2 -12. 7.5 .13
*

4PE 8. -6. 20.

The software gives the design margin for each value of Km, as well as all intermediate
results. To allow a quick check of loading, it represents the bearing load and main net
fluxes in the reference coordinate system.

^90
I
N2 = -20.19 I N1 = 22.19
* I *
* I *
* I *
* I * /
* I * /
* I * /
*I*/ FM = 77.
--------------------------------------->0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Note the bearing load direction (β = - 30°).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Bending analysis L 3.3
1/5

3.3 . Bending analysis - Short cut method

If the notched plate is subjected to bending moment fluxes Mx, My and Mxy, follow the
additional steps described hereafter:

1st step: Determine stresses on the external and internal surfaces corresponding to
bending loads only.

As a first approximation, these stresses may be assessed by the general relationship


Mv 6M
σ≈ ≈ 2 . In that case, the material shall be considered as homogeneous.
l e

external surface
σ Be

σB
l
internal surface

It is nevertheless recommended to determine these stresses with the computing software


PSD48 (stacking homogenizing and analysis) which takes into account stiffness variations
within the laminate or to refer to chapter D.

external surface σ Be

σB
l
internal surface

Thus, for each design direction (x, y and xy), the following stresses are obtained:

σe Bx , σe By , τe Bxy : gross stresses on external surface.

σi Bx , σi By , τi Bxy : gross stresses on internal surface.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Bending analysis L 3.3
2/5

2nd step: From these stresses, "equivalent" membrane gross fluxes are evaluated.

∆neBx σ eBx

∆neBy σ eBy for external surface

∆neBxy τ eBxy

l10 =e

∆niBx σiBx

∆niBy σiBy for int ernal surface

∆niBxy τ iBxy

B
∆n e external surface

B
∆n i internal surface

3rd step: On the contrary of membrane analysis, no majoration between fluxes to infinity
N∞ and gross fluxes NB will be taken into account at load introduction areas.

NB = N∞

4th step: "Equivalent" membrane net fluxes are evaluated from "equivalent" membrane
gross fluxes.

p
l11 ∆ne Nx = ∆ne Bx
Sf
p−∅−
e
p
∆ne Ny = ∆ne By for external surface (with countersunk fastener head)
Sf
p−∅−
e
p
∆ne Nxy = ∆ne Bxy
Sf
p−∅−
e

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Bending analysis L 3.3
3/5

p
∆ni Nx = ∆ni Bx
p−∅
p
∆ni Ny = ∆ni By for internal surface (no countersunk fastener head)
p−∅
p
∆ni Nxy = ∆ni Bxy
p−∅

Confer to sub-chapter L.3.1 to determine fastener pitch.

N
∆n e external surface

N
∆n i internal surface

5th step: "Equivalent" membrane net fluxes are divided by the coefficient Kf (bending hole
coefficient) which depends on the material (in general Kf = 0.9).

Hence, we get the (majorated) "equivalent" membrane net fluxes:

∆n e Nx
l12 ∆ne Fx =
Kf
∆n e Ny
∆ne Fy = for external surface
Kf
∆n e Nxy
∆ne Fxy =
Kf

∆ni Nx
∆ni Fx =
Kf
∆niNy
∆ni Fy = for internal surface
Kf
∆n i Nxy
∆ni Fxy =
Kf

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Bending analysis L 3.3
4/5

6th step: Final membrane fluxes from relation I9 are, then, added to fluxes calculated from
relation I12.

l13 N Fx + ∆ne Fx

N Fy + ∆ne Fy for external surface (without bearing)

N Fxy + ∆ne Fxy

N Fx + ∆ni Fx

N Fy + ∆ni Fy for internal surface (with bearing)

N Fxy + ∆ni Fxy

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Membrane + bending analysis - Summary table L 3.3
5/5

The overall method for the membrane and bending analysis is summarized in the figure
here below.

External surface Neutral line Internal surface


Membrane Bending Membrane Membrane Bending
B B B B B
Nx ∆n x Nx Nx ∆n x
Data in the
initial B B B B B
Ny ∆n y Ny Ny ∆n y
coordinate
system B B B B B
Ny ∆n yx Ny Ny ∆n yx

N B p N B p N B p
Nx =Nx ∆n x = ∆n x Nx =Nx
Sf Sf Sf N B p N B p
p−∅− p−∅− p−∅− Nx =Nx ∆n x = ∆n x
e e e p − ∅ p − ∅

Net cross- N B p N B p N B p
Ny =Ny ∆n y = ∆n y Ny =Ny N B p N B p
section Ny =Ny ∆n y = ∆n y
Sf Sf Sf
analysis p−∅− p−∅− p−∅− p − ∅ p − ∅
e e e
N B p N B p
N B p N B p N B p N xy = N xy ∆n xy = ∆n xy
N xy = N xy ∆n xy = ∆n xy N xy = N xy p − ∅ p − ∅
Sf Sf Sf
p−∅− p−∅− p−∅−
e e e
N N
NM NM
Rotation in
N N
↓ ↓ ↓
the load N M' N M'
coordinate
N N
system N MM' N MM'
β β
N m N m
N M ± Km N M N M ± Km N M

N N
↓ ↓ ↓
Addition of N M' N M'
bearing
N N
N MM' N MM'
β β
N N N
Rotation in NP NP NP

↓ ↓
the main
N N N
coordinate N P' N P' N P'
system
α α-β α-β
N N
F
∆n x F
∆n x
N ∆n x = N N ∆n x =
NP Kt NP NP Kt

Kt N Kt Kt N
Hole ∆n y ∆n y
F F
coefficient N ∆n y = N N ∆n y =
maximizing NP' Kt NP' NP' Kt

Kt N Kt Kt N
∆n xy ∆n xy
F F
α ∆n xy = α-β α-β ∆n xy =
Kt Kt

F F F
Nx Nx Nx
Rotation in

↓ ↓
the initial F F F
Ny Ny Ny
coordinate
system F F F
N xy N xy N xy

F F F F
N x + ∆n x N x + ∆n x
Addition of F F F F
N y + ∆n y N y + ∆n y
fluxes
F F F F
N xy + ∆n xy N xy + ∆n xy

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Justifications - Nominal deviations L 3.4
3.5.1

3.4 . Justifications

Whatever the type of load (membrane or membrane + bending), make sure that:

- the plain monolithic plate subject to "equivalent" membrane load fluxes (NF + ∆neF) or
(NF + ∆niF) is acceptable from a structural strength point of view (refer to chapter C),

- the allowable bearing stress of material σm (which depends on the material, the
fastener diameter and the thickness to be clamped - see chapter Z) is greater or
equal to the bearing stress applied corresponding to a laminate thickness that is
smaller or equal to 1.3 ∅ for single shear or 2.6 ∅ for double shear (see sub-chapter
L.2.1 - 4th step):

3.5 . Nominal deviations on a single hole

This sub-chapter is directly related to concession processing. Here, simple rules are
outlined, that shall allow the stressman to assess the effect of a geometrical deviation,
such as a fastener diameter, its pitch or edge distance, on an initial margin.

The following paragraphs are valid only for a hole with fastener subject to membrane
fluxes.

However, for greater accuracy, it is recommended to redo the calculation or use the
B
software psg33.

3.5.1 . Changing to a larger diameter

Following a drilling fault, it is sometimes necessary to change to a repair size or to


oversize the fastener.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Nominal deviations - Pitch decrease L 3.5.2

Based on the theory we have just presented, any diameter change (∅ changes to ∅')
shall have an effect on:

- the net cross-section coefficient: the resulting reduction shall be equal to:

Sf'
p − ∅' −
l14 k= e
Sf
p−∅−
e

- the bearing stress: we shall assume that there is no effect on the bearing stress, even
if it tends to decrease (this assumption is conservative),

- the hole coefficient: if we assume that the hole coefficient value is in the most
unfavorable case Kt = 0.003684 ∅2 - 0.08806 ∅ + 0.886 (see corresponding curve in
chapter Z - material T300/914), the resulting reduction shall be equal to:

0.0037 ∅' 2 − 0.088 ∅' + 0.89 ∅


k' = ≈
0.0037 ∅ − 0.088 ∅ + 0.89
2
∅'

Thus, the general relationship may be given as follows:

Sf'
p − ∅' −
∅ e
l15 RF' ≈ RF k k' ≈ RF
∅' p − ∅ − Sf
e

3.5.2 . Pitch decrease

If loads are parallel to the free edge, no reduction is necessary on the reserve factor:

RF' ≈ RF
F2

p'

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Nominal deviations - Edge distance decrease L 3.5.3
1/2

If loads are perpendicular to the free edge, the reduction on the reserve factor is equal to:

Sf
p' − ∅ −
l16 RF' ≈ RF e
Sf
p−∅−
e

F1

p'

3.5.3 . Edge distance decrease

If loads are parallel to the free edge, the reduction on the reserve factor is equal to:

Sf
p' − ∅ −
RF' ≈ RF e
Sf
p−∅−
e

p'
p
F2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Nominal deviations - Edge distance decrease L 3.5.3
2/2

If loads are perpendicular to the free edge, the reduction on the reserve factor is equal to:

0.54
æ p' ö
l17 RF' ≈ RF çç ÷÷ → (100 % ± 45°)
èpø

0.73
æ p' ö
RF' ≈ RF çç ÷÷ → (50 % 0; 50 % ± 45°)
èpø

1.65
æ p' ö
RF' ≈ RF çç ÷÷ → isotrope
èpø

F1

p'
p

Important remarks:

- These empirical relationships are valid only for low edge distance variations (2 ∅ ≤ p' ≤
2.5 ∅).

- For low edge distances, the fact that the failure mode described in sub-chapter L.2.3 is
not critical shall have to be demonstrated.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


"Point stress" finite element method - Description L 3.6.1

3.6 . "Point stress" finite element method (membrane analysis)

3.6.1 . Description of the method

Procedure PSH2 allows the calculation of stresses in fibres around a circular hole with
fastener in a multilayer composite plate subjected to membrane type surrounding fluxes. It
is based on a finite element display of a drilled plate. Mapping calls for two separate parts:

- the bolt (rivet/screw/bolt),

- the drilled plate.

The drilled hole is modeled by 8-junction quadrangular elements and 6-junction triangular
elements. The area adjacent to the hole is modeled by two rings of elements. The ring
nearest to the hole is thin and is not utilized directly on issued sheets. Issues are
presented on the second ring, the center of gravity of elements being at a design distance
from the hole corresponding to the point stress theory (do).
2 do

Contact elements between the plate and the bolt (which also simulate clearance between
the fastener and the edge distance) are of the variable stiffness type. Their stiffness is
very low when there is no contact with the plate, their stiffness is very high if there is a
contact.

Loading is achieved by (normal and shear) fluxes on plate edges.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


"Point stress" finite element method - Justifications L 3.6.2

3.6.2 . Justifications

Make sure that:

- longitudinal stresses in fibres tangent to the hole edge distance (and located at a
distance do) are smaller than the longitudinal stress allowable for fibre Rl,

Fibre at 0°

°
45
at
re
Fibre at 90° Fib

Fi
br
e
at
13

do

σl σl

- The allowable bearing stress of the material σm is greater or equal to the bearing
stress applied corresponding to a laminate thickness that is smaller or equal to 1.3 ∅
for single shear or 2.6 ∅ for double shear (see sub-chapter L.2.1 - 3rd step).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Multiple holes - Independent holes - Interfering holes L 4.1
4.2

4 . MULTIPLE HOLES

The previous study allowed us to find the structural effect of a single hole with fastener (or
distant enough from others) on a monolithic plate subject to membrane or bending type
loads.

We shall now study the effect of several lined up holes. We shall assume that the plate is
subjected to a membrane type uniaxial load flux that is perpendicular to the row of
fasteners.

If loading is parallel to the row of fasteners, refer to chapter L.3.4.2 calculation.

4.1 . Independent holes

If each fastener pitch is greater of equal to 5 ∅, each fastener may be considered as a


single hole. Refer to sub-chapter L.3.

5∅ pas = 5 ∅ 5∅ 5∅

4.2 . Interfering holes (0 < d < 3.5 ∅)

If the distance between two holes is smaller than 5 ∅, the net cross-section coefficient to
be used changes to:

5∅−d
l18
Sf
5∅−d−∅−
e

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Multiple holes - Very close holes L 4.3
1/2

On the other hand, the hole coefficient in tension must also be modified. It changes to:

æ æ 5 ∅ − dö
2
æ5 ∅ − dö ö
l19 η Kt ≈ ç 0.065 ç ÷ − 0.65 ç ÷ + 2.625 ÷ k t (see values of η on next page)
ç è ∅ ø è ∅ ø ÷
B è ø

The hole coefficient in compression is unchanged (cf. note 440.197/84), but the
connection of the holes is ignored for the net section calculation.

These new values are to be taken into account in relationships l3 and l8.

pas = 5 ∅ - d

4.3 . Very close holes (d = 3.5 ∅ soit p = 1.5 ∅)

When holes are very close to each other, the diameter ∅' envelope hole shall be
considered. The net cross-section coefficient then changes to:

pitch
l20
Sf
pitch − ∅' −
e

The hole coefficient is not modified by the number η but applies to diameter ∅'.

pitch = 4.25 ∅

∅'

1.5 ∅

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Multiple holes - Kt correction coefficient L 4.3
2/2

Kt correction coefficient
2
E

1.9
P
P

1.8
O

1.7
L

1.6
E
V

η 1.5
N

1.4
E

1.3
U

1.2
O
R

1.1
T

1
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

5∅−d

pitch pitch = 5 ∅ - d

∅'

1.5 ∅

d d 5∅ pitch = 5∅ 5∅

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


First example L 5.1
1/7

5.1 . First example

Let a T300/BSL914 (new) laminate be laid up as follows:

0°: 6 plies
45°: 4 plies
135°: 4 plies
90°: 6 plies

Total thickness: e = 20 x 0.13 = 2.6 mm

It is subjected to the three following fluxes in the initial coordinate system (o; x; y):

N Bx = 8 daN/mm
N By = - 6 daN/mm
N Bxy = 20 daN/mm

and to the bearing load:

F = 185 daN
β = - 30°

The fastener is a ∅ 4.8 mm countersunk head one (100° countersink angle, which
corresponds to a 4.91 mm2). The fastener pitch is 21.6 mm.

6
4
F = 185 daN
6

4 β = - 30°

The purpose of the example is to determine the three final fluxes that shall be used for the
equivalent smooth plate design, which shall provide the hole margin looked for (this
calculation shall be covered in chapter C).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


First example L 5.1
2/7

Design of net cross-section fluxes in the initial coordinate system:

{l3}

21.6
NNx = 8 x = 11.59 daN / mm
4.91
21.6 − 4.8 −
2.6

21.6
NNy = ( − 6) x = − 8.69 daN / mm
4.91
21.6 − 4.8 −
2.6

21.6
NNxy = 20 x = 28.97 daN / mm
4.91
21.6 − 4.8 −
2.6

Flux transfer in the bearing coordinate system (o, M, M'):

{l4}

N NM = 31.61 daN/mm
N NM' = - 28.71 daN/mm
N NMM' = 5.7 daN/mm
β = - 30°

Bearing flux addition: 3 cases shall be considered

185
The bearing stress is equal to: σm = = 14.82 hb
4. 8 x 2. 6

{l5}

Nm
M = 14.82 x 2.6 = 38.54 daN/mm

The flux in the load direction being a tension flux (+ 31.61 daN/mm), the value of K mt is
thus equal to 0.135 (see chapter Z - material T300/914 - Sheet 2).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


First example L 5.1
3/7

If the bearing flux minimized by coefficient K mt , is added to previously determined fluxes,


the three configurations K mt > 0; K mt < 0 and K mt = 0 are obtained:

{l6}

K mt = 0.135
N NM = 31.61 + 0.135 x 38.54 = 36.81 daN/mm
N NM' = - 28.71 daN/mm
N NMM' = 5.7 daN/mm
β = - 30°

{l6}

K mt = - 0.135
N NM = 31.61 - 0.135 x 38.54 = 26.4 daN/mm
N NM' = - 28.71 daN/mm
N NMM' = 5.7 daN/mm
β = - 30°

{l6}

K mt = 0
N NM = 31.61 + 0 = 31.61 daN/mm
N NM' = - 28.71 daN/mm
N NMM' = 5.7 daN/mm
β = - 30°

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


First example L 5.1
4/7

Rotation in the main coordinate system (o ; P ; P'):

{l7}

N NP = 37.3 daN/mm
N PN' = - 29.2 daN/mm
α = 4.9°

y P

M
α = 4.9°

β = - 30°
x
N
N P = 37.3 daN/mm
N
N P' = - 29.2 daN/mm

{l7}

N NP = 26.98 daN/mm
N PN' = - 29.29 daN/mm
α = 5.8°

{l7}

N NP = 32.14 daN/mm
N PN' = - 29.24 daN/mm
α = 5.4°

Angle α is the angle formed by the main coordinate system and the bearing coordinate
system.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


First example L 5.1
5/7

Application of hole coefficients:

Monolithic lay-up under study gives the following elasticity and shear moduli in the main
axes:

E
α + β = - 34.9° E = 4470 G = 2078 = 2.151 K tt ≈ 0.6 K ct ≈ 0.87
G
E
α + β = - 35.8° E = 4455 G = 2092 = 2.13 K tt ≈ 0.6 K ct ≈ 0.87
G
E
α + β = - 35.4° E = 4461 G = 2086 = 2.139 K tt ≈ 0.6 K ct ≈ 0.87
G

The values are derived from chapter Z (T300/914 sheets 3 and 4).

Which gives the following new values for corrected main fluxes :

{l8}

37.3
N NP = = 62.17 daN/mm
0.6
− 29.2
N PN' = = - 33.56 daN/mm
0.87
α - β = 34.9°

{l8}

26.98
N NP = = 44.97 daN/mm
0.6
− 29.29
N PN' = = - 33.67 daN/mm
0.87
α - β = 35.8°

{l8}

32.14
N NP = = 53.57 daN/mm
0 .6
− 29.24
N PN' = = - 33.61 daN/mm
0.87
α - β = 35.4°

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


First example L 5.1
6/7

Rotation in the initial coordinate system (o; x; y):

A rotation of angle (β - α) is achieved:

{l9}

N Fx = 30.83 daN/mm
N Fy = - 2.22 daN/mm
N Fxy = 44.92 daN/mm
y

N Fxy = 44.92 daN/mm

N Fx = 30.83 daN/mm x

N Fy = - 2.22 daN/mm

{l9}

N Fx = 18.06 daN/mm
N Fy = - 6.76 daN/mm
N Fxy = 37.31 daN/mm

{l9}

N Fx = 24.32 daN/mm
N Fy = - 4.36 daN/mm
N Fxy = 41.17 daN/mm

These fluxes are then used in a smooth plate design. Calculation shall be continued in
chapter C.6.

A 31 % (RF = 1.31) margin shall be found.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


First example L 5.1
7/7

New, let's assume that, as a result of a defective drilling operation, the fastener diameter
had to be changed to a ∅ 6.35 mm with a 8.62 mm2 countersunk surface.

What would be the new margin?

{l15}

8.62
21.6 − 6.35 −
4.8 2.6 = 0.92
RF' = 1.31 x x
6.35 4.91
21.6 − 4.8 −
2.6

Which corresponds to a - 8 % margin, thus non allowable. However, a full manual analysis
B
(or using software PSG33) would have made it possible to find a 0 % margin.

If the calculation is conservative, it is due to the fact that the decrease of the bearing
stress corresponding to fastener oversizing was not taken into account (see chapter
L.3.5.1).

The preceding example shall also be fully covered in the composite material manual part
B
"Calculation programs" (PSG33 instructions).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Second example L 5.2
1/5

5.2 . Second example

Let's assume that three moment fluxes are superposed on membrane fluxes:

Mt Bx = - 4 daN mm/mm
B
Mt y = 3 daN mm/mm
B
Mt xy = 5 daN mm/mm

y
β = - 30°
F = 185 daN

Mt By = 3 daN

Mt Bxy = 5 daN
x Mt Bx = - 4 daN

If the material is considered (as a first approximation) as homogeneous, a strength


l 2 .6 2
moment per unit of length equal to: = = 1.127 mm2 is found.
v 6

Assuming that a positive moment flux creates compression stresses on the external
surface, we obtain:

for the external surface:

4
σe Bx = = 3.55 hb (35.5 MPa)
1.127

−3
σe By = = - 2.66 hb (- 26.6 MPa)
1.127

−5
τe Bxy = = - 4.44 hb (- 44.4 MPa)
1.127

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Second example L 5.2
2/5

For the internal surface:

−4
σi Bx = = - 3.55 hb (- 35.5 MPa)
1.127
3
σi By = = 2.66 hb (26.6 MPa)
1.127
4
τi Bxy = = 4.44 hb (44.4 MPa)
1.127

EXTERNAL SURFACE
- 4.44 hb
3.55 hb y

- 2.66 hb x
4.44 hb
- 3.55 hb

2.66 hb
INTERNAL SURFACE

The purpose of this example is to determine which bending type fluxes must be added to
membrane type fluxes for the fastener hole calculation.

The "equivalent" gross bending type fluxes necessary for the calculations thus have the
following value:

{l10}

for the external skin:

∆ne Bx = 3.55 x 2.6 = 9.23 daN/mm


∆ne By = - 2.66 x 2.6 = - 6.92 daN/mm
∆ne Bxy = - 4.44 x 2.6 = - 11.54 daN/mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Second example L 5.2
3/5

for the internal skin:

∆ni Bx = - 3.55 x 2.6 = - 9.23 daN/mm


∆ni By = 2.66 x 2.6 = 6.92 daN/mm
∆ni Bxy = 4.44 x 2.6 = 11.54 daN/mm

The "equivalent" net bending type fluxes thus have the following value:

{l11}

for the external skin:

21.6
∆ne Nx = 9.23 = 13.37 daN/mm
4.91
21.6 − 4.8 −
2.6

21.6
∆ne Ny = - 6.92 = - 10.02 daN/mm
4.91
21.6 − 4.8 −
2.6

21.6
∆ne Nxy = - 11.54 = - 16.72 daN/mm
4.91
21.6 −4.8 −
2.6

for the internal skin:

21.6
∆ni Nx = - 9.23 = - 11.87 daN/mm
21.6 − 4.8

21.6
∆ni Ny = 6.92 = 8.9 daN/mm
21.6 − 4.8

21.6
∆ni Nxy = 11.54 = 14.84 daN/mm
21.6 − 4.8

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Second example L 5.2
4/5

Hole coefficient weighting

{l12}

for the external skin:

13.37
∆ne Fx = = 14.86 daN/mm
0. 9

− 10.02
∆ne Fy = = - 11.13 daN/mm
0 .9

− 16.72
∆ne Fxy = = - 18.58 daN/mm
0 .9

for the internal skin:

− 11.87
∆ni Fx = = - 13.19 daN/mm
0 .9

8. 9
∆ni Fy = = 9.89 daN/mm
0. 9

14.84
∆ni Fxy = = 16.49 daN/mm
0. 9

All prior calculations were made in the initial coordinate system (o; x; y). These
"equivalent" bending type fluxes are thus to be added to the membrane type fluxes found
in the first example (see summary table on next page).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


Second example L 5.2
5/5

This table summarizes the various steps of "equivalent" membrane flux calculation of the
previous example.

External surface Neutral line Internal surface


Membrane Bending Membrane Membrane Bending

Data in the
8 9.23 8 8 - 9.23
initial
-6 - 6.92 -6 -6 6.92
coordinate
20 - 11.54 20 20 11.54
system

Net cross- 11.59 13.37 11.59 10.29 - 11.87


section - 8.69 - 10.02 - 8.69 - 7.71 8.9
design 28.97 - 16.72 28.97 25.71 14.84

Rotation in
the bearing 31.61 28.06

↓ ↓ ↓
- 28.71 - 25.48
load 5.7 5.06
coordinate - 30° - 30°
system

+ Km - Km Km = 0 + Km - Km Km = 0
36.81 26.4 31.61 33.26 22.86 28.06
↓ ↓ ↓
Addition of
- 28.71 - 28.71 - 28.71 - 25.48 - 25.48 - 25.48
bearing flux 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.06 5.06 5.06
- 30° - 30° - 30° - 30° - 30° - 30°

Rotation in
32.14 37.3 26.98 32.14 33.69 22.59 28.53
↓ ↓
the main
- 29.24 - 29.2 - 29.29 -29.24 - 25.91 - 26.01 - 25.95
coordinate 35.4° 34.9° 35.8° 35.4° 34.9° 36° 35.4°
system

Hole 53.57 14.86 62.17 44.97 53.57 56.15 37.65 47.55 - 13.19
coefficient - 33.61 - 11.13 - 33.56 -33.67 - 33.61 - 29.78 - 29.90 -29.83 9.89
maximizing 35.4° - 18.58 34.9° 35.8° 35.4° 34.9° 36° 35.4° 16.49

Rotation in
24.32 30.83 18.06 24.32 27.7 14.35 21.43
↓ ↓
the initial
- 4.36 - 2.22 - 6.76 - 4.36 - 0.87 - 5.68 - 3.03
coordinate
41.17 44.92 37.31 41.17 38.82 30.81 35.12
system

39.18 14.51 1.16 8.24


Addition of
- 15.49 161 % marging 31 % marging 9.02 4.21 6.86 8 % marging
final fluxes
22.59 55.31 47.3 51.61

The minimum margin is the only one considered, i.e.:

31 % for membrane design


8 % for membrane + bending design

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - FASTENER HOLE


References L
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

LAFON, Carbon fibre structures: simplified rules for sizing at fastener holes, 1983, PL No.
139/83

BOUNIE, Failure criteria of mechanical bonds in composite materials, 1991, 440.181/91

LAFON, Justification of design methods used for carbon fibre structures - thin sheet
subject area, 1983, 440.156/83

J. ROCKER, Composite material parts: design methods at fastener holes, 3 ≤ ∅ ≤


B
100 mm. Extrapolation to damage tolerance evaluation, 1998, 581.0162/98

LAFON, TROPIS, Structural strength of outer wing - justification of design values, 1989,
440.233/89

B LAFON - LACOSTE, Synthesis of drilled carbon specimen tests, 1984, 440.197/84


issue 2.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

MONOLITHIC PLATE - SPECIAL ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Notations N 1

1 . NOTATIONS

Ny: normal load flux


Mx: moment flux
Mz: moment flux
Tx: shear load flux
Tz: shear load flux

Emi: membrane elasticity modulus of lower skin


Efi: bending elasticity modulus of lower skin
Gi: shear modulus of lower skin
ei: thickness of lower skin

Emc: membrane elasticity modulus of core material


Efc: bending elasticity modulus of core material
Gc: shear modulus of core material
ec: thickness of core material

Ems: membrane elasticity modulus of upper skin


Efs: bending elasticity modulus of upper skin
Gs: shear modulus of upper skin
es: thickness of upper skin

zg: neutral axis position with respect to the lower skin

Σ El: overall inertia of elasticity moduli weighted plate

EW: elasticity moduli weighted static moment

B µd: microstrain (10-6 mm/mm)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

2
SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR
Specificity - Construction principle - Design principle N 3
4

2 . SPECIFICITY

A sandwich is a three-phase structure consisting of a core generally made out of


honeycomb or foam with a low elasticity modulus and two thin and stiff face sheets.

Sandwich structures have a very high specific bending stiffness.

external face sheet


adhesive
bonding core (honeycomb)
interface
internal face sheet

3 . CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLE

The face sheets and core are assembled by bonding with synthetic adhesives. There are
several alternative manufacturing processes:

- multiple phase process: face sheets are cured separately, then bonding of face
sheets to the honeycomb is performed as a second operation,

- semi-cocuring process: the external face sheet is cured separately, the honeycomb
and the internal face sheet are then cocured on the external face sheet,

- single phase or "cocuring" process: face sheets and the honeycomb are cured in one
single operation.

4 . DESIGN PRINCIPLE

The design rules that shall be developed are derived from the classical elasticity (refer to
"distribution of load among several closely bound structural elements" in chapter A.7).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Sandwich plates - Sandwich beams N 4.1
4.2
1/3

First of all, we shall consider that the three materials together are completely ordinary.
Then, we shall simplify the relationships obtained by considering that face sheets are thin
and stiff and that the sandwich core is thick and flexible.

4.1 . Sandwich plates

Like monolithic metal or composite plates, sandwich plates are under the general plate
equation (see § A.7.4).

The determination of matrices (Aij), (Bij) and (Cij) which connect the strain tensor to the
load tensor is described in chapters C, D and E.

4.2 . Short cut theory - "Sandwich" beams

Here, we shall outline a short cut method applicable to sandwich beams. This method
does not take into account transversal loading, transversal effects so-called "Poisson"
effects and membrane-bending coupling. This simplification may lead to an error of
approximately 10 % on results obtained in cases of complex loading.

From the overall deformation point of view, sandwich plates obey the conventional
equations of classical elasticity theory. Stiffness equivalences (with iso-cross-section) with
homogeneous beams are described by relationships n14 to n18.

Let a sandwich beam be made up of:

- an upper skin of thickness es, of membrane elasticity modulus Ems and of equivalent
bending elasticity modulus Efs,

- a core thickness ec, of membrane elasticity modulus Emc and of equivalent bending
elasticity modulus Efc,

- a lower skin of thickness ei, of membrane elasticity modulus Emi and of equivalent
bending elasticity modulus Efi.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Sandwich beams N 4.2
2/3

The bending modulus concept comes from the fact that lower and upper skins are
generally (in the case of honeycomb sandwiches) laminates with different membrane and
bending moduli (see chapters C and D). Its value depends on ply stacking. This concept
was extended to all three materials.

First of all, we shall develop the full sandwich beam theory while taking into account face
sheet thickness and bending stiffnesses, then we shall outline at the end of each sub-
chapter, the simplified relationships in which face sheets shall supposedly be thin and
subject to membrane stress only.

The neutral line of the sandwich beam is defined by dimension zg to that:

ei 2 æ e ö æ e ö
Emi + Emc ec ç ei + c ÷ + Ems e s ç ei + ec + s ÷
2 è 2ø è 2ø
n1 zg =
Emi ei + Emc ec + Ems es

Remark: In the case of a beam in which Emc ec << Emi ei and Emc ec << Ems es, the
relationship becomes:

ei 2 æ e ö
Emi + Ems es ç ei + ec + s ÷
2 è 2ø
n2 zg =
Emi ei + Ems es

es

ec

ei
Ems Efs Gs

Emc Efc Gc

Emi Efi Gi
b
zg

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Sandwich beams N 4.2
3/3

We shall assume that the beam is subjected to the following overall load pattern at the
neutral axis:

- Ny: normal load in direction y

- Tx: shear load in direction x

- Tz: shear load in direction z

- Mx: bending moment around x-axis

- Mz: bending moment around z-axis

Torsional moment My shall not be taken into account because it does not correspond to
any realistic loading.

The purpose of this chapter is to determine the stress and elongation diagram for each
one of these five loads.

We shall study the effects of Ny, Tx, Tz, Mx and Mz one by one.

Tz

Mx

y Mz

Ny

Tx

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of normal load Ny N 4.2.1
1/2

4.2.1 . Effect of normal load Ny

Assuming that all layers are in a pure tension or compression condition, a normal load Ny
applied at the neutral line results in a constant elongation over the whole cross-section.
This elongation may be formulated as follows:

Ny
n3 ε=
b (Emi ei + Emc ec + Ems es )

This elongation thus induces:

- in the lower skin, a stress σi = Emi ε,

- in the core, a stress σc = Emc ε,

- in the upper skin, a stress σs = Ems ε.

The equivalent membrane modulus of the sandwich beam may be determined by the
relationship n14.

Remark: In the case of a sandwich beam in which Emc ec << Emi ei and Emc ec << Ems
es, the relationship becomes:

Ny
n4 ε=
b (Emi ei + Ems es )
z

σs
Ems es y Ny

Emc ec σc

Emi ei
σi ε
b
x

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of normal load Ny N 4.2.1
2/2

By taking into account the remark assumptions of the previous page (ei << ec, es << ec,
Emc << Emi and Emc << Ems), it is possible to oversimplify load distribution in the different
sandwich layers.

We shall assume that load Ny applied at the beam neutral axis is fully picked up by two
membrane type normal loads (Fs and Fi) in both face sheets.

Both loads have the following value:

Emi ei
n5 Fi ≈ Ny
Emi ei + Ems es

Ems e s
Fs ≈ Ny
Emi ei + Ems e s

Fs

y Ny

Fi

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of shear loads Tx N 4.2.2

4.2.2 . Effect of shear load Tx

Generally speaking, shear load Tx is distributed in each of the three materials in proportion
with their shear stiffness.

The maximum shear stress in each of the three layers may then be formulated as follows:

3 Tx Gs es
n6 τs =
2 b es Gs es + Gc ec + Gi ei

3 Tx Gc e c
τc =
2 b e c Gs es + Gc ec + Gi ei

3 Tx Gi ei
τi =
2 b ei Gs es + Gc ec + Gi ei

The equivalent shear modulus with relation to the x-axis may be determined by the
relationship n15.

τs

es Gs y
Tx
ec Gc τc
τi
ei Gi

b
x

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of shear load Tz N 4.2.3
1/3

4.2.3 . Effect of shear load Tz

Generally speaking, shear stress τ in materials may be formulated by the relationship:


T EW
τ= z (Bredt generalized formula).
b å El

where

2
b Efs es 3 æ e ö
n7 Σ El = + b Ems es ç ei + e c + s − z g ÷ +
12 è 2 ø

2
b Efc ec 3 æ e ö
+ b Emc e c ç ei + c − zg ÷ +
12 è 2 ø

2
b Efi ei3 æe ö
+ b Emi ei ç i − zg ÷
12 è2 ø

If we consider three critical points A, B and zg, moduli weighted static moments at these
points are equal to:

æ e ö
n8 EW A = b Ems es ç e i + e c + s − z g ÷
è 2 ø
2
æ e ö æe e zg ö
EW zg = b Ems es ç e i + e c + s − z g ÷ + b Em c ç i + c + ÷
è 2 ø è2 2 2ø
æ eö
EW B = b Emi ei ç z g − i ÷
è 2ø

Shear stresses at these points are then equal to:

Tz EWA Tz EWz g Tz EWB


n9 τA = τzg = τB =
b Σ El b Σ El b Σ El

Stress τzg corresponds to the maximum stress within the core. In the general case of a
honeycomb sandwich material, this stress is the maximum shear stress of the
honeycomb.

Stresses τA and τB correspond to shear of (adhesive bonding) interface between the core
and the skins (force sheets).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of shear load Tz N 4.2.3
2/3

The equivalent shear modulus with relation to the z-axis may be determined by the
relationship n16.
z

τA Tz
τzg
τB
es y

ec

ei

b
x

Remark 1: In the case of a sandwich beam in which Emc ec << Emi ei and Emc ec << Ems
es, τA, τzg and τB take the following simplified from:

Tz
n10 τA ≈ τzg ≈ τB ≈
æ e e ö
b ç i + ec + s ÷
è2 2ø
z

τA Tz

τzg
τB
es y

ec

ei

b
x

Remark 2: It should be noted that the equivalent shear modulus of a thin face sheet
sandwich beam is on the same order of magnitude as the core for the
honeycomb it consists of, thus very low.

For the assessment of a honeycomb sandwich beam (or plate) deflection, it is


therefore important to take into account this significant effect with respect to
the deformation due to the bending moment.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of shear load Tz N 4.2.3
3/3

For example, for a sandwich beam simply supposed, loaded in its center, the deflected
shape due to the shear load may represent approximately 60 % of the overall deflection.

Let an aluminium beam and a sandwich beam with equivalent bending stiffness be, giving:

1 daN

300

3 E = 7400 hb, G = 2840 hb


2
Aluminium 10 El = 1.85E6 daN mm
ES = 2.22E5 daN
GS = 8.52E4 daN
10
2
0.5 E = 8200 El = 1.85E6 daN mm
Sandwich 9G=2 ES = 8.2E4 daN
0.5 E = 8200 GS = 180 daN

f1

f2

Aluminium beam: f1 = 0.3041 mm (99.6 %); f2 = 0.0011 mm (0.4 %)

Sandwich beam: f1 = 0.3041 mm (38 %); f2 = 0.5 mm (62 %)

P l3
f1: deflection due to the bending moment f1 =
48 E l

1.2 Pl
f2: deflection due to the shear load f 2 =
4GS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of bending moment Mx N 4.2.4
1/2

4.2.4 . Effect of bending moment Mx

A bending moment Mx applied at the neutral line results in the creation of a linear
distribution of elongations along the cross-section. At the outer surfaces, we have:

Mx v s − Mx (ei + ec + es − z g )
n11 εs = =
Σ El Σ El

Mx v i Mx z g
εi = =
Σ El Σ El

with:

2
b Efs es 3 æ e ö
Σ El = + b Ems es ç ei + e c + s − z g ÷ +
12 è 2 ø

2
b Efc ec 3 æ e ö
+ b Emc e c ç ei + c − zg ÷ +
12 è 2 ø

2
b Efi ei3 æe ö
+ b Emi ei ç i − zg ÷
12 è2 ø

The equivalent bending modulus of the sandwich beam may be determined by the
relationship n17.
z

Mx
σs εs
y
Ems Efs es

Emc Efc ec

Emi Efi ei
σi εi
b
x

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of bending moment Mx N 4.2.4
2/2

Remark: In the case of a sandwich beam in which ei << ec, es << ec, Emc << Emi and
Emc << Ems, self inertias of both face sheets and honeycomb stiffness may be
disregarded:

2 2
æ e ö æe ö
Σ El ≈ b Ems es ç ei + ec + s − zg ÷ + b Emi ei ç i − z g ÷
è 2 ø è 2 ø

We shall assume that moment Mx is fully picked up by two membrane type normal loads
(F's and F'i) in both face sheets.

Both loads have the same modulus but are opposite. Their value is equal to:

Mx
n12 F'i ≈ - F's ≈
æ ei es ö
ç + ec + ÷
è2 2ø

F's
Mx

F'i

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Effect of bending moment Mz N 4.2.5

4.2.5 . Effect of bending moment Mz

Generally speaking, bending moment Mz is distributed in each of the three materials in


proportion to their natural bending stiffness (with relation to the z-axis).

The maximum normal stress in each of the three materials may then be simply formulated
as follows:

6 Mz Ems e s
n13 σs = ±
b es Ems e s + Emc e c + Emi ei
2

6 Mz Emc e c
σc = ±
b ec Ems es + Emc e c + Emi ei
2

6 Mz Emi ei
σi = ±
b ei Ems e s + Emc e c + Emi ei
2

The equivalent bending modulus with relation to the z-axis is identical to the equivalent
membrane modulus with relation to the y-axis (see relationships n14 and n18).

σs ε

σc Mz
y
Ems es

Emc ec

Emi ei
- σi -ε
b
x

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Equivalent mechanical properties N 4.2.6

4.2.6 . Deformations and equivalent mechanical properties

Sandwiches are microscopically heterogeneous. It is sometimes necessary to find their


equivalent stiffness properties in order to determine the passing loads and resulting
deformations.

For a sandwich beam, equivalences (with iso-cross-section) with respect to typical loads
are the following:

e1 (3)
e2 (4)
e3
(5)
E1G1

E2G2 (1)

E3G3 (2)

å
3
Ek ek
k =1
n14 (1) E equivalent normal load =
å
3
ek
k =1

å
3
Gk ek
k =1
n15 (2) G equivalent shear load =
å
3
e
k =1 k

æ ek ö
å
3
ç ÷
k =1 G
1 è kø
n16 (3) =
å e
3
G equivalent shear load
k=1 k

å E l
3
k =1 k k
n17 (4) E equivalent bending moment =
å l
3
k =1 k

å E e
3
k =1 k k
n18 (5) E equivalent bending moment =
å e
3
k =1 k

æ e3 ö
lk: self inertia + "Steiner" inertia ç + e d2 ÷
è 12 ø

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Example N 5
1/7

5 . EXAMPLE

Let a 10 mm wide sandwich beam be defined by the following stacking sequence:

- an upper skin (carbon layers) of thickness es = 1.04 mm and of longitudinal elasticity


modulus Es = 6000 daN/mm2 (the bending modulus being identical),

- a core (honeycomb) of thickness ec = 10 mm and of longitudinal elasticity modulus


Ec = 15 daN/mm2,

- a lower skin (carbon cloths) of thickness ei = 0.9 mm and of longitudinal elasticity


modulus Ei = 4500 daN/mm2 (the bending modulus being identical).

We shall assume that the beam is subjected to the following two loads and moment:

- Ny = 800 daN

- Mx = 2000 daN mm

- Tz = 250 daN z

Tz = 250 daN

Mx = 2000 daN mm
y
1.04

10
Ny = 800 daN
0.9
10

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Example N 5
2/7

The purpose of the first part of the example is to determine inner and outer surface
elongations of the beam subject to load Ny and moment Mx.

1st step: the neutral axis position has to be determined, this position being referenced with
relation to the inner surface.

{n1}

0. 9 2 æ 10 ö æ 1.04 ö
4500 + 1510 ç 0.9 + ÷ + 6000 1.04 ç 0.9 + 10 + ÷
Zg =
2 è 2 ø è 2 ø
4500 0.9 + 1510 + 6000 1.04

Zg = 7.09 mm

zg = 7.09

2nd step: To determine elongation ε induced by normal load Ny.

{n3}

800
ε= = 7612 µd (microstrain)
10 ( 4500 0.9 + 1510 + 6000 1.04 )

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Example N 5
3/7

Remark: If the simplified relationship is used, we obtain:

{n4}

800
ε= = 7774 µd the error is 2 %
10 ( 4500 0.9 + 6000 1.04 )

Ny = 800 daN

ε = 7612 µd

3rd step: To determine maximum elongations εi and εs induced by moment flux Mx.

{n11}

−2000 (0.9 + 10 + 1.04 − 7.09 )


εs =
Σ El
2000 7.09
εi =
Σ El

{n7}

2
10 6000 1.04 3 æ 1.04 ö
Σ El = + 10 6000 1.04 ç 0.9 + 10 + − 7.09 ÷ +
12 è 2 ø
2
10 15 10 3 æ 10 ö
+ 10 15 10 ç 0.9 + − 7.09 ÷ +
12 è 2 ø
2
10 4500 0.9 3 æ 0. 9 ö
+ 10 4500 0.9 ç − 7.09 ÷
12 è 2 ø

Σ El = 5624 + 1169931 + 12500 + 2124 + 2733 + 1785629 = 2978541 daN mm2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Example N 5
4/7

giving maximum elongations :

εs = - 3256 µd

εi = 4761 µd

In fact, elongations (and stresses) are calculated at the center of each face sheet:

4.33
εs = - 3256 = - 2906 µd
4.85
6.64
εi = 4761 = 4459 µd
7.09
z
εs = - 3256 µd

Mx = 2000 daN mm

y - 2906 µd

4459 µd

εi = 4761 µd

Remark: If the simplified relationship is used, we obtain:

{n12}

2000
F'i = - F's ≈ = 182.3 daN
0.9 1.04
+ 10 +
2 2

Which corresponds to average elongations in lower and upper face sheets equal to:

− 182.3
εs ≈ ≈ - 2921 µd the error is 0.5 %
10 1.04 6000
182.3
εi ≈ ≈ 4501 µd the error is 0.9 %
10 0.9 4500

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Example N 5
5/7

4th step: Globally, we have:

- at the lower fibre, an elongation of 7612 + 4761 = 12373 µd,

- at the upper fibre, an elongation of 7612 - 3256 = 4356 µd.

z
εs = 4356 µd
Mx = 2000 daN mm

y
Ny = 800 daN

εi = 12373 µd

The second part of the example consists in calculating the evolution of shear stress due to
shear load Tz, at the neutral axis in particular, at point A (upper face sheet - honeycomb
interface) and at point B (lower face sheet - honeycomb interface).

1st step: To calculate the inertia of the elasticity moduli weighted beam.

{n7}

Σ El = 2978541 daN mm2

Remark: If the simplified relationship of a sandwich beam is used (see § M.3.2.4), we


obtain the value:

2 2
æ 1.04 ö æ 0 .9 ö
Σ El ≈ 10 6000 1.04 ç 0.9 + 10 + − 7.09 ÷ + 10 4500 0.9 ç − 7.09 ÷
è 2 ø è 2 ø

Σ El ≈ 2955560 daN mm2 the error is 1 %

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Example N 5
6/7

2nd step:

- To calculate the elasticity moduli weighted static moment EW zg (static moment with
relation to the neutral axis of part of the material located above it).

{n8}

2
æ 1.04 ö æ 0.9 10 1.04 ö
EW zg = 10 6000 1.04 ç 0.9 + 10 + − 7.09 ÷ + 10 15 ç + + ÷
è 2 ø è 2 2 2 ø

EW zg = 275538 daN mm

- To calculate the elasticity moduli weighted static moment EW A (static moment with
relation to the neutral axis at the upper face sheet).

æ 1.04 ö
EW A = 10 6000 1.04 ç 0.9 + 10 + − 7.09 ÷
è 2 ø

EW A = 270192 daN mm

- To calculate the elasticity moduli weighted static moment EW B (opposite of the static
moment with relation to the neutral axis at the lower face sheet).

æ 0.9 ö
EW B = 10 4500 0.9 ç − + 7.09 ÷
è 2 ø

EW B = 268920 daN mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


Example N 5
7/7

3rd step: to determine shear stresses at the neutral axis (shear stress in honeycomb), at
point A and point B.

{n9}

250 275538
τzg = = 2.31 hb (23.1 MPa)
10 2978541

250 270192
τA = = 2.26 hb (22.6 MPa)
10 2978541

250 268920
τB = = 2.25 hb (22.5 MPa)
10 2978541

It should be noted that, between point A and point B, the shear stress is practically
constant. It would be totally constant if the honeycomb elasticity modulus were zero
(which may be considered as such).
z
Tz = 250 daN
-A

-B y

τA = 2.26 hb
τzg = 2.31 hb

τB = 2.25 hb

Remark: With the simplified formula, we find:

{n10}

250
τA ≈ τzg ≈ τB ≈ = 2.28 hb (22.8 MPa)
æ 0.9 1.04 ö
10 ç + 10 + ÷
è 2 2 ø

The error is 2 %.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - MEMBRANE / BENDING / SHEAR


References N
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

M. THOMAS, Analysis of a laminate plate subjected to membrane and bending loads,


440.227/79

J.C. SOURISSEAU, 40430.030

J. CHAIX, 436.127/91

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - FATIGUE ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - DAMAGE TOLERANCE APPROACH

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - BUCKLING ANALYSIS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

SANDWICH - SPECIAL DESIGNS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Notations S 1
1/2

1 . NOTATIONS

F: normal load transferred in bonded materials


Fr: failure load of adhesively bonded joint
æ tö
M: cleavage moment ç M = F x ÷
è 2ø
E1: longitudinal elasticity modulus of material 1
e1: thickness of material 1
E2: longitudinal elasticity modulus of material 2
e2: thickness of material 2
E: longitudinal elasticity modulus of materials 1 and 2, if they are similar
e: thickness of materials 1 and 2, if they are similar

Gc: shear modulus of adhesive


Ec: longitudinal elasticity modulus of adhesive
ec: thickness of adhesive
h: width of adhesively bonded joint
l: length of adhesively bonded joint
lm: minimum length of adhesively bonded joint
æ e e ö
t: thickness of cleavage ç t = 1 + 2 + ec÷
è 2 2 ø

λ: design constant
k: design constant
D: design constant

τm: average shear stress in adhesively bonded joint


τM: maximum shear stress in adhesively bonded joint
τx: shear stress in adhesively bonded joint at dimension x
τam: allowable average shear stress of adhesive
τaM: allowable maximum shear stress of adhesive

σm: average peel stress in adhesively bonded joint


σM: maximum peel stress in adhesively bonded joint
σa: allowable peel stress of adhesive

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Notations S 1
2/2

F1i: normal load passing through material 1 (at center of step No. i)
F2i: normal load passing through material 2 (at center of step No. i)
∆Fi: normal load transferred by the adhesively bonded joint (in step No. i)

E1i: longitudinal elasticity modulus of material 1 (in step No. i)


e1i: thickness of material 1 (in step No. i)
E2i: longitudinal elasticity modulus of material 2 (in step No. i)
e2i: thickness of material 2 (in step No. i)

li: length of adhesively bonded joint (in step No. i)

τmi: average shear stress in adhesively bonded joint (in step No. i)
τMi: maximum shear stress in adhesively bonded joint (in step No. i)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Bonded single joint - Highly flexible adhesive S 2.1.1

2 . BONDED SINGLE LAP JOINT

This technique consists in assembling two (or several) elements by molecular adhesion.
The adhesive must ensure load transmission.

Bonding of two flat surfaces only shall be considered.

Four cases shall be examined:

- Single joints:
• highly flexible adhesive with respect to bonded laminates,
• general case (without cleavage effect),
• general case (with cleavage effect).
- Scarf joint.

2.1 . Elastic behavior of materials and adhesive

2.1.1 . Highly flexible adhesive

e1 E1 Gc

ec
E2 e2

F
τ

F
τ

τm

x if E1 and E2 >> Gc
- l/2 l/2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
General case - Without cleavage S 2.1.2
1/3

In the case of an adhesive with a very low stiffness as opposed to the stiffness of the
laminates to be assembled, shear stress may be considered as uniform and equal to:

F
s1 τm =
hxl

If τa is the allowable shear stress of the adhesive, the minimum length of the adhesively
bonded joint shall be equal to:

F
lm =
h x τ am

The failure load is equal to:

Fr = λ x τam x h

In practice, check that the average stress (which, in this case, is equal to the maximum
stress) is smaller or equal to τam.

2.1.2 . General case (without cleavage effect)

F
τ

τ τM

x if E1 x e1 ≠ E2 x e2
- l/2 l/2

τ τM

x if E1 x e1 = E2 x e2
- l/2 l/2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
General case - Without cleavage S 2.1.2
2/3

In the case of any bonded assembly (E1 x e1 > E2 x e2) (see drawing on previous page)
subjected to a normal load F, the shear stress in the adhesively bonded joint may be
formulated as follows (VOLKERSEN) :

λ x l æ cosh ( λ x x ) sinh (λ x x ) E x e1 − E 2 x e 2 ö
s2 τx = τm x çç + x 1 ÷÷
2 è sinh (λ x l / 2) cosh (λ x l / 2) E 1 x e1 + E 2 x e 2 ø

with:

G c E 1 x e1 + E 2 x e 2
s3 λ= x
e c E1 x e 1 x E 2 x e 2

and

F
τm =
hxl

Remark: If E1 x e1 = E2 x e2 = E x e the joint is so-called equilibrated


If E1 = E2 = E and e1 = e2 = e the joint is so-called symmetrical

In the case of an equilibrated joint, the maximum shear stress may be formulated as
follows:

λ xl æλ xlö
s4 τM = τm x x coth ç ÷
2 è 2 ø

with

2 x Gc
s5 λ=
E x e x ec

and

F
τm =
hxl

if λ x l << 0 then τM ≈ τm

λ xl
if λ x l >> 0 then τM ≈ τm x
2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
General case - Without cleavage S 2.1.2
3/3

In practice, check that τM ≤ τaM and that τm ≤ τam

If τa is the allowable shear stress of the adhesive, the minimum length of the adhesively
bonded joint shall be equal to:

æ2 æ Fxλ ö ö
lm = Max ç x Arcth ç ÷; F ÷
çλ ç 2 x τa x h ÷ τa x h ÷
è è M ø m ø

The failure load is equal to:

æ æ λ x l ö 2 x τ aM x h ö
Fr = Min çç th ç ÷x ; l x τ am x h ÷÷
è è 2 ø λ ø

The latter relationship makes it possible to establish, for a bonded assembly, the concept
of optimum bonding length. Indeed, the function "th ( )" is asymptotically directed towards
1 when "λ x l/2" increases; now, value 1 is practically reached for a value of "λ x l/2" equal
to 2.7 (th (2.7) = 0.99).

Thus, we have:

λ x l = 2 x 2.7

hence:

5. 4 E x e x ec E x e x ec
l= = 5 .4 x = 3.82 x
λ 2 x Gc Gc

In practice, the following relationship shall be used:

E x e x ec
s6 loptimal = 3.16 x
Gc

Fr
≈ 0.99.Fr

l
loptimal

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
General case - With cleavage S 2.1.3

2.1.3 . General case (with cleavage effect)

F
M M
t F

In the case of a symmetrical assembly, the misalignment of neutral axes of parts to be


æ Fxtö
assembled causes secondary moments ç M = ÷ to appear in elements, which tends to
è 2 ø
create peeling stresses in the adhesive.

Maximum shear and peeling stresses in the adhesive may, in that case, be formulated as
follows (Bruyne and Houwnik) :

λ xl æλ xl ö
s7 τM = τm x x 1 + 3 x k x coth ç x 1+ 3 x k ÷
2 è 2 ø

and

k E e F
s8 σM = σ x x 6x c x with σ =
2 E ec hxe

with

1
s9 k=
lxF l2 x F2
1+ +
2 x D 24 x D 2

and

E x t3
s10 D=
(
12 x 1 − n 2 )

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Scarf joint S 2.1.4
1/2

2 2
æτ ö æσ ö
Check that τM ≤ τaM and that çç M ÷÷ + ç M ÷ ≤ 1.
è τaM ø è σa ø

2.1.4 . Scarf joint

ec; Gc e2
e1

F F
E1 α E2

In the case of an angle α, scarf joint, the average shear stress is equal to:

F x cos α
τm =
lxh

The maximum shear stress τM may be assessed using graphs on next page:

Gc æ 1 1 ö
as abscissa: λ x l with λ2 = x çç + ÷
e c è E1 x e1 E 2 x e 2 ÷ø

τm
as ordinate:
τM

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Scarf joint S 2.1.4
2/2

E1 x e1
Each curve is representative of a value of ratio
E2 x e2

0.9
0.9

0.8
0.8

0.7
0.7

0.6
0.6

0.5
τm
0.5
τM
0.4
0.4
0.3

0.3
0.2

0.2
0.1

0.1

0.5 1 10 20 30
λl

The peeling stress in the adhesively bonded joint shall be considered as constant. It shall
be equal to the following value:

F x sin α
σm =
lxh

In practice, check that τM ≤ τaM and that τm ≤ τam.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Elastic-plastic behavior S 2.2
1/3

2.2 . Elastic-plastic behavior of adhesive and elastic behavior of laminates

Case of an elastic-plastic behavior of adhesive (see drawing below).

c
sti
rupture

ela
τr

τp -plastic
Elastic

γ
γp γt

As long as maximum stresses at joint ends (τM) have not reached the critical value τp
(plasticizing stress of adhesive), the bonded joint behaves like a flexible joint and stress
evolution follows the rules defined in paragraph 1).

If the load increases, a plasticizing zone (with stress τp) is formed at the most highly
loaded end of the joint.

If loading is yet increased, the shear stress of the adhesive in this plasticizing zone
reaches the critical value τr (failure stress of adhesive), which causes the adhesively
bonded joint failure.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Elastic-plastic behavior S 2.2
2/3

The drawing below illustrates, from a quality standpoint, the shear stress evolution in the
adhesively bonded joint as the bonding force increases.

τr: failure

τp τp: beginning of plasticizing


Load

x
l

Remark: There is no simple theory for the elastic-plastic behavior of a bonded joint. A
finite element model only would allow justification of the structural strength of
such a system in this case.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Elastic-plastic behavior S 2.2
3/3

However, in the case of an equilibrated joint and assuming that the adhesive has an
elastic-plastic behavior such as described in the drawing below, it is possible to determine
(M.J. DAVIS, The development of an engineering standard for composite repairs, AGARD
SMP 1994) the length of plasticized adhesive and, of course, the length of adhesive in
elastic behavior.
τ

c
sti
ela

τp
elastic-plastic

γ
γp

In the case of such behavior, the shear stress diagram in the adhesive is the following:
τ

Lp Le Lp

τp

x
L
F
Lp ≈
4 x h x τp

6 E x e x ec
Le ≈ ≈6
λ 2 x Gc

If the joint is equilibrated, the plasticized length is given by the following relationship:

æ 1 æ æ L ööö F 2 x Gc
τp ç L p − tanh ç Φ ç − + L p ÷ ÷ ÷ = with Φ=
è Φ è è 2 øøø 2 ec x E x e

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Bonded double lap joint S 3

3 . BONDED DOUBLE LAP JOINT

e1 E1 Gc

ec
x E2 2 x e2

e1 E1

For the case of a bonded double lap joint, shear stress distribution in the adhesive film is
given by the following formula (in replacement of relationship s2) :

ææ 1− β β ö ö
τx = τm x λ x l x çç çç + ÷÷ cosh (λ x x ) − (1 − β) sinh (λ x x ) ÷
÷
è è tanh (λ x l) sinh (λ x l) ø ø

−1
æ E x e2 ö
where β = çç1 + 2 ÷÷
è E1 x e1 ø

In the general case, the maximum shear stress at the joint ends is formulated as follows:

(1 − β' ) + β' x cosh (λ x l)


τM = τm x λ x l x
sinh (λ x l)

where β' = max (β; 1 - β)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Bonded stepped joint S 4
1/3

4 . ADHESIVELY BONDED STEPPED JOINT

When the laminates to be bonded are too thick or when the loads to be transmitted are
too high, the "stepping" or scarfing bonding technique is imperative.

The drawing below shows the general geometry of such a joint (the drawing shows a
three-stepped joint (n = 3), a higher number may be considered).

The design method consists in determining, for each adhesively bonded joint portion, the
load fraction crossing it, then, in considering each step "i" as elementary.

This so-called "short cut" method is a strictly manual method which gives the order of
magnitude of average shear stresses per step. For greater accuracy, it is recommended
to use the computing software PSB2 (see § S4 and program PSB2 instructions).

Assumptions: Let's assume that transversal effects are insignificant (εy = 0 or Fy = 0). Let's
also assume that there is no secondary bending (off-centering from the neutral line shall
not be taken into account): joints below are considered as equivalent.

EQUIVALENCE

Material (2)

F Material (1)

l1 li ln

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Bonded stepped joint S 4
2/3

1st step: Determination of loads (F1i et F2i) passing through both laminates (parent material
"1" and repair material "2") at the center of each step.

We shall assume that loads are distributed (at the center of each step) in proportion to the
rigidity of each material:

E1i x e1i
s11 F1i = F x F2i = F - F1i
E 1i x e1i + E 2i x e 2i

E2i, e2i

F2i F
F
F1i

E1i, e1i

We shall assume that the load evolution in material 1 (and consequently in material 2) is
linear by portions. Which leads to the following configuration:

F21
F
F2i
F F2n

F11
F1i
F1n

F2x

F2n
F2i

F2i
x
Evolution of the load transferred in the repair material

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Bonded stepped joint S 4
3/3

2nd step: From the previously determined curve, the load (∆Fi) transferred by each step is
calculated.

l 2 x F1 + l1 x F2
s12 ∆F1 =
l1 + l 2

li + 1 x Fi + li x Fi + 1 li x Fi − 1 + li − 1 x Fi
∆Fi = − 2≤i≤n-1
li + li + 1 li − + li

l n x Fn − 1 + ln − 1 x Fn
∆Fn = Fn −
ln − 1 + ln

å
n
We have also (∆Fi ) = F
i=1

The diagram below presents the method used visually:

∆F1
F
∆Fi
F ∆Fn

F2x

∆Fn

∆Fi

∆F1
x
0

3rd step: Then, the average stress τmi is assessed.

We have:

∆Fi
s13 τmi = 1.05 x
h x li

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
EDP software S 5

where 1.05 is a fixed plus factor (according to the rule) allowing one to be conservative
with respect to results established by EDP software.

4th step: Check for the following condition:

For any step (i) τmi ≤ τam

5 . EDP SOFTWARE

The EDP software PSB2 digitally processes problems with adhesively bonded stepped
joints and, therefore, with adhesively bonded single joints as well.

This computing program is based on a differential analysis of the adhesively bonded joint
and not on the "short cut" method outlined in chapter § S3.

The purpose of this software is to compute:

- stresses in any point of a bonded stepped single or double joint (evolution of shear
stress and average stress per step),

- the evolution of normal stress in parent and repair laminates.

For more information, refer to instructions for use or to the example in chapter § S6.2.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
First example S 6.1
1/2

6 . EXAMPLES

6.1 . First example: single joint

Let the following symmetrical bonded joint be:

h = 100 mm

2
Gc = 400 daN/mm
2
e1 = 2 mm E1 = 5000 daN/mm

ec = 0.1 mm 2
e2 = 2 mm
E2 = 5000 daN/mm

l = 50 mm

The allowable average shear value of the adhesive being: τam = 0.8 hb.

Assuming that the joint is subjected to load F = 1000 daN and that there is no cleavage
effect.

1000 1000
{s1} τm = = = 0.2 hb (2 MPa)
100 x 50 5000

2 x 400
{s5} λ= = 0.9
5000 x 2 x 0.1

0.9 x 50 æ 0.9 x 50 ö
{s4} τM = 0.2 x x coth ç ÷ = 4.5 hb (45 MPa)
2 è 2 ø

Check that the average stress τm is smaller than the allowable stress τam (0.8 hb; 8 MPa)
and that the maximum stress τM is smaller than τaM (8 hb; 80 MPa).

The margin thus obtained is equal to 77 % (RF = 1.77 = 8/4.5). Within the framework of
the previous example, let's calculate the optimum bonding length from which any increase
becomes useless over the decrease of maximum shear stress in the adhesive.

5000 x 2 x 0.1
{s6} loptimale = 3.16 x = 5 mm
400

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
First example S 6.1
2/2

This result proves that, concerning the maximum shear stress, a change in the bonding
length from 50 mm to 5 mm increases (after calculations) this stress by only 1 %. The gain
is thus insignificant.

Concerning the average stress, the minimum length is equal to:

1000
lm = = 12.5 mm
0.8 x 100

The drawing below shows the evolution of the actual stress (smooth curve) and the value
of the average stress (dotted curve) in the example quoted.

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
- 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Second example S 6.2
1/5

6.2 . Second example: three-stepped joint

Let the following three-stepped joint be defined by its geometry and mechanical
properties:

h = 10 mm

F = 100 daN

F = 100 daN

l1 = 15 mm l2 = 10 mm l3 = 15 mm

e21 = 0.26 mm e22 = 0.52 mm e23 = 0.78 mm


2 2 2
E21 = 5250 daN/mm E22 = 5000 daN/mm E23 = 7000 daN/mm

2
1

e11 = 0.78 mm e12 = 0.52 mm e13 = 0.26 mm


2 2 2
E11 = 7000 daN/mm E12 = 5000 daN/mm E13 = 5250 daN/mm

The allowable average shear value of the adhesive being: τam = 0.8 hb (8 MPa).
The allowable maximum shear value of the adhesive being: τaM = 8 hb (80 MPa).
We shall assume that the joint is subjected to load F = 100 daN and that there is no
cleavage effect.
The first stage consists in calculating, at the center of each step, loads passing through
each material.
Concerning the first step:
0.26 x 5250
{s11} F21 = 100 x = 20 daN
0.26 x 5250 + 0.78 x 7000
F11 = 100 - 20 = 80 daN

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Second example S 6.2
2/5

Concerning the second step :

0.52 x 5000
{s11} F22 = 100 x = 50 daN
0.52 x 5000 + 0.52 x 5000

F12 = 100 - 50 = 50 daN

Concerning the third step:

0.78 x 7000
{s11} F23 = 100 x = 80 daN
0.26 x 5250 + 0.78 x 7000

F13 = 100 - 80 = 20 daN

The determination of these values allows the load evolution curve passing through
material 2, or repair material, to be plotted:
F21
F
F22
F F23
F11
F12
F13

F2x

F = 100 daN
F23 = 80 daN

F22 = 50 daN

F21 = 20 daN
0 x

The second stage consists in calculating, from the previous curve, loads transferred by
each step:

15 x 50 + 10 x 20
{s12} ∆F1 = - 0 = 38 daN
15 + 10
15 x 50 + 10 x 80 15 x 50 + 10 x 20
{s12} ∆F2 = − = 24 daN
15 + 10 15 + 10
15 x 50 + 10 x 80
{s12} ∆F3 = 100 - = 38 daN
15 + 10

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Second example S 6.2
3/5

The drawing below represents the different loads ∆Fi transferred by each step.

∆F1
F
∆F2
F ∆F3

∆F3 = 38 daN

∆F2 = 24 daN

∆F1 = 38 daN
x

The third stage consists in determining for each step the average and maximum stresses
in the adhesively bonded joint, based on ∆Fi calculated previously.

steps 1 and 3 being equivalent for symmetry reasons, only the first two shall be justified.

{s13}

38
τm1 = 1.05 x = 0.266 hb (2.66 MPa)
10 x 15

{s13}

24
τm2 = 1.05 x = 0.252 hb (2.52 MPa)
10 x 10

and

τm3 = τm1 = 0.266 hb (2.66 MPa)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Second example S 6.2
4/5

The fourth stage consists in checking that average stresses are smaller than τam.

0.266 < 0.8 hb

F
F

τ = 0.266 hb τ = 0.252 hb τ = 0.266 hb

Only a digital analysis (program PSB2) or a finite element analysis (program PSH14) shall
be able to determine with accuracy the shear stress evolution along each step.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
Second example S 6.2
5/5

For information purposes, we present below the output file of PSB2 corresponding to the
previous example.

Basic data:

I 5) 3 3 10 1 3
F10) 10.0000000 10.0000000 ← loading
A 8)BONDED STEPPED JOINT SAMPLE
MAT1 MF 4 3
MAT1
MAT1 1001) 7000.00000 5000.00000 5250.00000 ← parent material
MAT1 2001) 3000.00000 3000.00000 3000.00000
MAT1 3001) 0. 0. 0.
MAT1 4001) .780000000 0.52000000 .260000000
MAT2P MF 4 3
MAT2P
MAT2P 1001) 5250.00000 5000.00000 7000.00000 ← repair material
MAT2P 2001) 3000.00000 3000.00000 3000.00000
MAT2P 3001) 0. 0. 0.
MAT2P 4001) .260000000 .520000000 .780000000
COLLE MF 2 3
COLLE
COLLE 1001) .050000000 .050000000 .050000000 ← adhesive
COLLE 2001) 300.000000 300.000000 300.000000
VF 3
1) 15.0000000 25.0000000 40.0000000 ← step dimensions

Output (average stresses in each step):

AVERAGE STRESS IN THE ADHESIVE FOR EACH STEP


STEPS UPPER STEPS HB

1 .229 ← step No. 1


2 .313 ← step No. 2
3 .229 ← step No. 3

It may thus be observed that the short cut method provides (in this example), with respect
to the PSB2 method, a difference of:

+ 16 % for external steps


- 20 % for the central step

Consequently, it is recommended to use as often as possible the software PSB2, its


analytical model being "closer" to physical reality. The "short cut" method being mainly a
manual method.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED JOINTS
References S
GAY, Composite materials, 1991

K. STELLBRINK, Preliminary Design of Composite Joints, DLR-Mitt.92-05

S. ANDRE, Structural strength of a bonded joint, AS 432.178/95

A. TROPIS, Study of the behavior of bonded junctions, AS 432.445/96

S. ANDRE, Elastic-plastic analysis of the behavior of a bonded junction with a bonding


failure accounted for, AS 432.651/96

M.J. DAVIS, The development of an engineering standard for composite repairs, AGARD
SMP 1994

NASA CR 112-235

NSA CR 112-236

D.A. BIGWOOD A.D. CROCOMBE, Elastic analysis and engineering design formulae for
bonded joints

L.J. HART SMITH, Adhesively bonded joints for fibrous composite structures, Mc Donnell
Douglas Corporation

L.J. HART SMITH, The design of repairable advanced composite structures, Mc Donnell
Douglas Corporation 1985

L.J. HART SMITH, Adhesive bonded scraf and stepped lap joints, Mc Donnell Douglas
Corporation

J.W. VAN INGEN A. VLOT, Stress analysis of adhesively bonded single lap joint

S. MALL N.K. KOCHHAR, Criterion for mixed mode fracture in composite bonded joints,
University of Missourri-Rolla, 1986

S. MALL W.S. JONSHON, A fracture mechanic approach for designing adhesively


bonded joints, University of Maine

M. DE NEEF, Study of composite material bonding with edge effects accounted for,
Alcatel Espace ; Août 1992

M. THOMAS, Stress distribution in bonded stepped joints, 440.128/77

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Notations T 1

1 . GENERAL NOTATIONS

(o, x, y): reference coordinate system of panel


(o, p, p'): main coordinate system of stress fluxes

Nx∝: normal flux in direction x


Ny∝: normal flux in direction y
Nxy∝: shear flux

Np∝: principal flux in direction p


Np'∝: principal flux in direction p'

β: angle

In principal direction p

τmi: average shear stress in adhesively bonded joint (in step No. i)
τMi: maximum shear stress in adhesively bonded joint (in step No. i)

Nsi: normal flux in parent material (in step No. i)


Nri: normal flux in repair material (in step No. i)

In principal direction p'

τ'mi: average shear stress in adhesively bonded joint (in step No. i)
τ'Mi: maximum shear stress in adhesively bonded joint (in step No. i)

N'si: normal flux in parent material (in step No. i)


N'ri: normal flux in repair material (in step No. i)

τam: allowable average shear stress of adhesive

τaM: allowable maximum shear stress of adhesive

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Introduction T 2

2 . INTRODUCTION

When a panel undergoes a damage (hole, delamination, etc.), two types of repair may be
considered: a bolted repair (see chapter U) or a bonded repair.

Let the damaged (assuming that the damage is a hole) panel (monolithic skin) be
subjected to stress fluxes Nx∝, Ny∝, Nxy∝.

We shall assume that the repair is circular and of its stiffness close to that of the skin (no
increase of parent skin fluxes due to load transfer in a repair that is too stiff).

Ny∝

Nxy∝

Nx∝

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Analytical method T 3.1
1/6

3 . DESIGN METHOD

3.1 . Analytical method

This is an extrapolation of the bonded joint method (see chapter S) and, therefore, it is not
suited for shear flux transfer. Thus, it is necessary to work within the principal coordinate
system in which stress fluxes are Np∝ and Np'∝ to return to the case of a single joint. This
method is conservative.

1st step: Calculation of principal fluxes Np and Np' and of main angle β.

N x ∞ + Ny ∞ 1
t1 Np∝ = + (Nx ∞ − Ny ∞ )2 + 4 Nxy ∞ 2
2 2

N x ∞ + Ny ∞ 1
t2 Np'∝ = − (N x ∞ − Ny ∞ )2 + 4 N xy ∞ 2
2 2

1 æ 2 N xy ∞ ö
t3 β= Arctg çç ÷
÷
2 è Nx∞ − Ny∞ ø

y
Np'∝

Np∝

p'

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Analytical method T 3.1
2/6

2nd step: For each calculation direction (p and p'), let's consider the repair as a 1 mm wide
material strip.

The drawing below shows that, based on a two-dimensional repair (R), two one-
dimensional bonded stepped joints (Jp) and (Jp') are determined (or isolated). Each one of
these elementary bonded joints must transfer a normal load Fp = 1 Np∝ and Fp' = 1 Np'∝.

For the determination of flux transfers from the parent material to the repair material, refer
to the design method for bonded stepped joints (see chapter S) or to the computing
software PSB2.

y
Np'∝

Np∝
J p'

Jp β

p' m
1m
p

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Analytical method T 3.1
3/6

3rd step:

From this analysis, the following results are extracted for each step and each direction (p
and p'):

- for direction p:

• average and maximum shear stresses in each step of the adhesively bonded joint: τmi
(average stress in step i) and τMi (maximum stress in step i),

• normal fluxes in the parent material for each step Nsi (step i),

• normal fluxes in the repair material for each step Nri (step i).

Jp

4
3
2
i=
1 p

τ Mi

τ mi
τ
p

Nsi

N Nri
Np

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Analytical method T 3.1
4/6

- for direction p':

• average and maximum shear stresses in each step of the adhesively bonded joint: τ'mi
(average stress in step i) and τ'Mi (maximum stress in step i),

• normal fluxes in the parent material for each step N'si (step i),

• normal fluxes in the repair material for each step N'ri (step i).

p'

p'

J p' N' r i
N' s i

4 τ' m i

3 N p'
τ' M i
2
i=
N'
1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Analytical method T 3.1
5/6

4th step: It consists of a combination of previously determined shear stresses and normal
fluxes.

- Average shear stresses in the adhesively bonded joint calculated for both directions p
and p' are vertorially combined (although points are different) and the resulting stress for
each step is compared with the allowable average shear value of the adhesive
considered.

t4 ( τmi )2 + (τ'mi )2 ≤ τ a m
τmi (p)
τ'mi (p')

adhesively bonded
joint step No. i

- Maximum shear stresses in the adhesively bonded joint calculated for both directions p
and p' are vectorially combined (although points are different) and the value found for
each step is compared with the allowable maximum shear value of the adhesive
considered.

t5 ( τMi )2 + (τ'Mi )2 ≤ τ a M
τMi (p)
τ'Mi (p')

adhesively bonded
joint step No. i

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Analytical method T 3.1
6/6

- In a plain plate calculation (see chapter C), normal stress fluxes Nsi and N'si for the
parent material are associated (although points are different).

This calculation shall be performed where fluxes are maximum (at the beginning of each
step).
N'si

Nsi

es

parent material
step No. i

- In a plain plate calculation (see chapter C), normal stress fluxes Nri and N'ri for the repair
material are associated (although points are different).

This calculation shall be performed where fluxes are maximum (at the end of each step).

N'ri

Nri

er

repair material
step No. i

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Digital method T 3.2

3.2 . Digital method

In the case of a highly loaded bonded repair or with complex loading, the use of finite
element modeling is preferable.

The software PSH14 has been developed for this purpose. It allows automatic modeling of
a circular bonded repair (see drawing below). This model is subjected to membrane stress
only and does not take cleavage effects into account.

The adhesively bonded joint is represented by type 29 volume elements (with elastic-
plastic behavior), the panel and repair by type 80 and 83 elements.

Y-axis

507
407
same st
as
1
quadrant 307

207

X-axis
details of 107
step
same as elements
st
1
same st
as quadrant
1
quadrant 16 7
26 17
36 27

The plotted results represent:

- plane fluxes in the parent material,

- plane fluxes in the repair material,

- shear stresses in the adhesive.

For more information, refer to program instructions.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Example T 4
1/8

4 . EXAMPLE

Let the following repair be:

Nxy∝ = 4 daN/mm

Parent material: G803/914 (new)


Repair material: G803/914 (new)

0°/90°
45°/135°
0°/90°
45°/135°
0°/90° 0°/90°
45°/135° 45°/135°
0°/90° 0°/90°
45°/135° 45°/135°
0°/90°
45°/135°

i=1 i=2

12 20

Let's assume (with a view to simplification) that both materials are nearly-isotropic (their
elasticity modulus being equal to 4417 daN/mm2 in all directions) for each step and that
steps are 12 and 20 mm long.

The parent panel is only subjected to shear flux Nxy∝ = 4 daN/mm.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Example T 4
2/8

We may deduce that the principal coordinate system has a 45° direction and that principal
fluxes are equal to Np∝ = 4 daN/mm and Np'∝ = - 4 daN/mm.

{t1}

1
Np∝ = + 4 4 2 = 4 daN/mm
2

{t2}

1
Np'∝ = - 4 4 2 = - 4 daN/mm
2

{t3}

1 æ2x 4ö 1 1
β= Arctg ç ÷ = Arctg (∞ ) = 90 = 45°
2 è 0 ø 2 2

Np'∝ = - 4 daN/mm Np∝ = 4 daN/mm

J
p' Jp β = 45°

p' p

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Example T 4
3/8

After running the software PSB2 (computation of a bonded stepped joint), the following
results are found for direction p (results may be multiplied by - 1 for direction p'):

- Shear stresses in the adhesive

2.2 hb

τ
1.35 hb
1.21 hb

0.207 hb

0.076 hb
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
p

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Example T 4
4/8

- Stress fluxes in the parent material (direction p)

3.5

2.5

Nsi 2

1.512 daN/mm
1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
p

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Example T 4
5/8

- Stress fluxes in the repair material (direction p)

Nri 3

2.472 daN/mm

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
p

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Example T 4
6/8

• The first check consists of a vectorial combination of average shear stresses for each
step. In this case, average shear stresses are the same (to the nearest sign) in both
directions p and p'.

The maximum value is equal to 0.207 daN/mm2 in each direction. We may deduce the
vectorial resultant stress:

{t4}

(τm1 )2 + (τ'm1 )2 = 2 0.207 = 0.293 daN/mm2

This value is to be compared to the allowable average shear value of the adhesively
bonded joint that is generally selected equal to 0.8 daN/mm2 (a 173 % margin is
obtained).

• The second check consists of a vectorial combination of maximum shear stresses for
each step. In this case, shear stresses are the same (to the nearest sign) in both
directions p and p'.

The maximum stress is reached at the beginning of the first step. The value reached is
equal to 2.20 daN/mm2.

We may deduce the vectorial resultant stress :

{t5}

(τM1 )2 + (τ'M1 )2 = 2 2.20 = 3.11 daN/mm2

This value is to be compared to the allowable maximum shear value of the adhesively
bonded joint: 8 daN/mm2 (a 157 % margin is obtained).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Example T 4
7/8

• The third check consists of a plain plate calculation of the parent material for each step
(where the flux is maximum: at the beginning of the step).

At the beginning of the first step, the flux in direction p is Ns1 = 4 daN/mm and the flux in
direction p' is N's1 = - 4 daN/mm, which corresponds to a shear flux Nxys1 equal to
4 daN/mm in the reference coordinate system. At this location, the parent material is
made out of six fabrics (3 fabrics at 0°/90° + 3 fabrics at 45°/135°) G803/914 (supposed
new).

A running of the program PSB3 (plain plate computation) makes it possible to find a Hill's
criterion margin equal to 966 %.

At the beginning of the second step, the flux in direction p is Ns2 = 1.512 daN/mm and
the flux in direction p' is N's2 = - 1.512 daN/mm, which corresponds to a shear flux Nxys2
equal to 1.512 daN/mm in the reference coordinate system. At this location, the parent
material is made out of two fabrics (1 fabric at 0°/90° + 1 fabric at 45°/135°) G803/914
(supposed new).

A running of program PSB3 (smooth plate computation) makes it possible to find a Hill's
criterion margin equal to 843 %.

• The fourth check consists of a smooth plate calculation of the repair material for each
step (where the flux is maximum: at the end of the step).

At the end of the first step, the flux in direction p is Nr1 = 2.472 daN/mm and the flux in
direction p' is N'r1 = - 2.472 daN/mm, which corresponds to a shear flux Nxyr1 equal to
2.472 daN/mm in the reference coordinate system. At this location, the repair material is
made out of four fabrics (2 fabrics at 0°/90° + 2 fabrics at 45°/135°) G803/914 (supposed
new).

A running of the program PSB3 (plain plate computation) makes it possible to find a Hill's
criterion margin above 1000 %.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
Example T 4
8/8

At the end of the second step, the flux in direction p is Nr2 = 4 daN/mm and the flux in
direction p' is N'r2 = - 4 daN/mm, which corresponds to a shear flux Nxyr2 equal to
4 daN/mm in the reference coordinate system. At this location, the repair material is made
out of eight fabrics (4 fabrics at 0°/90° + 4 fabrics at 45°/135°) G803/914 (supposed new).

A running of the program PSB3 (plain plate computation) makes it possible to find a Hill's
criterion margin above 1000 %.

B In conclusion, the minimum safety margin is assessed at 157 % under maximum stress in
the adhesively bonded joint.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

BONDED REPAIRS
References T
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

TRIQUENAUX, Investigation on the use of bonding and on dimensioning rules of bonded


joints, 1995, DCR/M-62385/F-95

CUQUEL-LEONDUFOUR, Study of bonded repairs, 1995, 432.095/95

CIAVALDINI, Effect of stepped machining on the structural strength of a skin intended to


receive a bonded repair, 1994, 440.133/94

STELLBRINK, Preliminary design of composite joints, 1992, DLR-Mitt.92-05

M. THOMAS, Stress distribution in bonded stepped joints, 440.128/77

M. MAHE - D. GRIMALD, Implementation of a digital model for the finite element design of
bonded repairs on composite materials, 436.0086/95

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Notations U 1
1/2

1 . NOTATIONS

∅: diameter of damage

Nx EF
meca. : flux Nx derived from E.F.s not influenced by the repair

Ny EF
meca. : flux Ny derived from E.F.s not influenced by the repair

Nxy EF
meca. : flux Nxy derived from E.F.s not influenced by the repair


Nx or Nx meca . : mechanical origin flux Nx upstream of the repair

Ny or Ny meca . : mechanical origin flux Ny upstream of the repair

Nxy or Nxy meca . : mechanical origin flux Nxy upstream of the repair

Nxr meca.: mechanical origin flux Nx crossing the doubler


Nyr meca.: mechanical origin flux Ny crossing the doubler
Nxyr meca.: mechanical origin flux Nxy crossing the doubler

Nxr meca. + therm.: mechanical and thermal origin flux Nx crossing the doubler
Nyr meca. + therm.: mechanical and thermal origin flux Ny crossing the doubler

Nxr therm.: thermal origin flux Nx crossing the doubler


Nyr therm.: thermal origin flux Ny crossing the doubler

Nxs meca.: mechanical origin flux Nx in the panel below the doubler
Nys meca.: mechanical origin flux Ny in the panel below the doubler
Nxys meca.: mechanical origin flux Nxy in the panel below the doubler

L sx and h sx : panel dimensions for calculation of direction x


L sy and h sy : panel dimensions for calculation of direction y
L rx and h rx : doubler dimensions for calculation of direction x
L ry and h ry : doubler dimensions for calculation of direction y

n: total number of load-carrying fasteners in the given direction


r: elementary stiffness of fasteners.

Exs: longitudinal elasticity modulus (direction x) of panel


Eys: transversal elasticity modulus (direction y) of panel
Gxys: shear modulus of panel
es: panel thickness

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Notations U 1
2/2

αxs: coefficient of expansion of panel in direction x


αys: coefficient of expansion of panel in direction y

Exr: longitudinal elasticity modulus (direction x) of doubler


Eyr: transversal elasticity modulus (direction y) of doubler
Gxyr: shear modulus of doubler
er: doubler thickness.
αxr: coefficient of expansion of doubler in direction x
αyr: coefficient of expansion of doubler in direction y

R sx : stiffness of panel with respect to flux Nx


R sy : stiffness of panel with respect to flux Ny
R sxy : stiffness of panel with respect to flux Nxy
R rx : stiffness of doubler with respect to flux Nx
R ry : stiffness of doubler with respect to flux Ny
R rxy : stiffness of doubler with respect to flux Nxy
η: correcting factor of panel shear stiffness

a and a*: fastener pitch


ni: number of rows of fasteners on a "unit strip"
ri: stiffness of all fasteners on row "i"
A: distance between the last load-carrying row of fasteners and the axis of symmetry of
the repair

Fxi: overall load transferred by row of fasteners "i" in direction x


Fyi: overall load transferred by row of fasteners "i" in direction y
fx/xij: load on fastener identified by rows "i" and "j" due to flux Nx
fy/yij: load on fastener identified by rows "i" and "j" due to flux Ny
fx/xyij: direction x load on fastener identified by rows "i" and "j" due to flux Nxy
fy/xyij: direction y load on fastener identified by rows "i" and "j" to flux Nxy

lxi: position of row of fasteners "i" with relation to the axis of symmetry of the repair
lyj: position of row of fasteners "j" with relation to the axis of symmetry of the repair

Remark: Without an exponent, a notation looses its directional nature and thus becomes
general and applicable to x and y-axes.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Stiffness of a fastener in single shear U 2.1

2 . STIFFNESS OF FASTENERS

One of the most important parameters for the justification of a bolted repair is the stiffness
of fasteners which make it up. Their effect on load transfer is direct. The purpose of this
sub-chapter is to make an analytical assessment of the stiffness of a fastener.
Two cases are considered: single shear (the most common in our case) and double
shear.

2.1 . Stiffness of a fastener in single shear

Let a fastener of diameter D and longitudinal elasticity modulus E bind two parts of
thickness er and es and of elasticity moduli Er and Es.

Er
E
er Es

es

D
The stiffness of the fastener + parts system to be bound may be assessed by one of the
three relationships quoted below.

1 5 æ 1 1 ö
= + 0.8 ç + ÷ → Mac Donnel Douglas
r ED ç ÷
è Er er E s es ø

0.85 er 0.85 e s
1 2 D æ 1 3 ö 2 D æ 1 3 ö
= çç + ÷÷ + çç + ÷÷ → Boeing
r er E
è r 8 E ø es E
è s 8 E ø

2/ 3
1 æ e + er ö æ 1 1 1 1 ö
=ξç s ÷ ç + + + ÷ → Huth
r è 2D ø è Er e r E s e s 2 er E 2 e s E ø

with
ξ = 2.2 → rivet on metal joint
ξ=3 → screw on metal joint
ξ = 4.2 → carbon seal

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Stiffness of a fastener in double shear - Assumptions U 2.2
3
1/2

In the software (Bolted Repairs), the stiffness of the fastener + parts system to be bound
is calculated by the Huth method:

2/3
1 æ e + er ö æ 1 1 1 1 ö
u1 = 4.2 çç s ÷÷ çç + + + ÷÷
r è 2D ø è Er er E s e s 2 er E 2 e s E ø

2.2 . Stiffness of a fastener in double shear

For the case of a load-carrying fastener in double shear, let's assume:

rdouble shear ≈ 1.5 rsingle shear

er
2

Er
E
Es

es

D
3 . ASSUMPTIONS

Let's have the five following assumptions:

- a delamination type damage shall be considered as a hole if the load flux it is


subjected to is a compression or shear flux. In tension, we shall consider that the
panel retains its initial stiffness,

- the panel is subjected to membrane stress. The bending effects cannot be taken into
account in this method,

- the panel and doubler have a constant thickness and all fasteners are similar,

- the "Poisson" effect is ignored on the doubler,

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Assumptions U 3
2/2

- no overload on panel due to the presence of the doubler: to take it into account,
fluxes in the skin derived from finite element (N EF
meca. ) should be increased in

proportion to stiffnesses of the non-damaged skin alone and of the damaged skin with
reinforcing piece.

∞ Rrx + Rsx E x s e s hrx


Nx meca . = Nx EF
meca. with R sx ∅ = 0 =
Rsx ∅ = 0 Lxs

R ry + R sy E y e s hry

Ny meca . = Ny EF
meca. with R sy ∅ = 0 = s

R sy ∅ = 0 Lys

∞ R rxy + R sxy
Nxy meca EF
. = Nxy meca. with R sxy∅ = 0 = Gxy s es
R sxy∅ = 0

All type R βα stiffnesses are explained further.

α: x; y; xy

β: r; s

Generally speaking, a bolted repair attached to a panel subjected to three load fluxes
∞ ∞ ∞
Nx meca . , Ny meca. , Nxy meca. may be represented as follows:


Ny meca.


Nxy meca.


Nx meca.

Nx meca.


Nxy meca. x

Ny meca.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Geometrical data - Mechanical properties U 4
5

The justification method of such a repair shall first consist in calculating the three load
fluxes crossing the doubler (Nxr meca., Nyr meca. and Nxyr meca.) then in assessing loads applied to
the repair fasteners, based on these results. The set of fluxes at each fastener may be
determined on a unique basis.

Some geometrical and mechanical parameters of the structure shall be required for
conducting this study.

4 . GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Below are represented the general geometrical characteristics describing the repair. All
other geometrical characteristics appearing further in the document may be formulated
according to these characteristics.
y
2 hr

a*

x
2 hr

y
er
es

x
a

5 . MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

The mechanical properties required are the following:

For the panel: Longitudinal (direction x) and transversal (direction y) elasticity moduli,
shear modulus and thickness: Exs; Eys; Gxys; es.

For the doubler: Longitudinal (direction x) and transversal (direction y) elasticity moduli,
shear moduli and thickness: Exr; Eyr; Gxyr; er.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Distribution of flux Nx U 6.1

For fasteners: Number of load-carrying fasteners (n) and elementary stiffness in shear (r)
of each fastener.

6 . ASSESSMENT OF MECHANICAL ORIGIN FLUXES IN THE DOUBLER

The assessment method of fluxes crossing the doubler (Nxr meca.


, Nyr meca.
and Nxyr meca.
) is
∞ ∞ ∞
identical for all three fluxes Nx meca . , Ny meca. and Nxy meca. . It consists in calculating for each

one the equivalent stiffness of the panel (Rs) and the equivalent stiffness of the doubler
(Rr) and in distributing the flux in proportion to those.

6.1 . Distribution of flux Nx


If Nx meca . is the panel flux "far from the repair", the flux Nxr meca.crossing the doubler is equal

to:

∞ R rx
u2 Nxr meca. = Nx meca .
R rx + R sx

with

E xr e r hrx n r
4 Lxr
u3 R rx =
E xr e r hrx nr
+
Lxr 4

and

E x s es hsx
u4 R sx = without chamfer
Lxs
æ a* hx − a *ö
R sx = Exs es ç x + s x ÷ with chamfer
è Ls − a Ls ø

where 2 L rx is the distance between the centers of gravity of fasteners located on either
side of the damage (see shaded fasteners on drawing below). The number of columns
taken into account shall never exceed 3.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Distribution of flux Ny U 6.2


hsx = hrx −
2 x
2 Ls
chamfer

x
hs

x
Lr x
center of gravity of fasteners

6.2 . Distribution of flux Ny


If Ny meca . is the panel flux "far from the repair", the flux Nyr meca. crossing the doubler is equal

to:

∞ R ry
u5 Nyr meca. = Ny meca .
R ry + R sy

with

E yr e r hry n r
4 Lyr
u6 R ry =
E yr e r hry nr
+
Lyr 4

and
Ey s es hsy
u7 R sy = without chamfer
Lys
æ a hy − a ö
R sy = Eys es ç y + s y ÷ with chamfer
è Ls − a * Ls ø

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Distribution of flux Nxy U 6.3

where 2 L ry is the distance between the centers of gravity of fasteners located on either
side of the damage (see shaded fasteners on drawing below). The number of columns
taken into account shall never exceed 3.


hys = hry −
2

center of gravity of fasteners

y
y Lr
2 Ls

x
chamfer
y
hs

6.3 . Distribution of flux Nxy


If Nxy meca . is the panel flux "far from the repair", the flux Nxyr meca. crossing the doubler is

equal to:

∞ R rxy
u8 Nxyr meca. = Nxy meca .
R rxy + R sxy

with

Gxy r er n r

u9 R rxy = 8
nr
Gxy r er +
8

and

u10 R sxy = η Gxys es

Factor η makes it possible to take into account the effect of damage size ∅ on the panel
shear stiffness below the doubler.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Thermal origin loads in doubler U 7

V2 + W2 0.5
u11 η= 2 2
æ ö æ ö
ç ÷ ç ÷
ç V − 1+ 1 ÷ + ç W − 1+ 1 ÷
ç 1 ÷ ç 1 ÷
ç 1− ÷ ç 1− ÷
è W ø è V ø

with
2 Lxs
V=

and
2 Lys
W=

7 . ASSESSMENT OF THERMAL LOADS IN THE DOUBLER

In the case of two geometrically different plates (1) and (2) bound by a system with
stiffness ℜ, the thermal loads applied to plate (1) are equal to:

∆θ (α 2 L 2 − α1 L1)
v9 F= (cf. § V6.1)
L1 L2 2
+ +
e1 b1 E1 e2 b 2 E2 ℜ
(1)
ℜ ℜ

(2)

L2
b1 L1 b2

By generalizing this relationship with the case of a bolted repair, we find thermal loads in
directions x and y which apply to the doubler:

u12 Fxr therm. =


(
2 ∆θ α x s Lxs − α xr Lxr )
Lxr Lxs 4
+ +
e r hrx E xr e s h sx E x s nr

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Flux in panel - Loads per fastener due to Nx and Ny U 8
9

Fyr therm. =
(
2 ∆θ α y s Lys − α yr Lyr )
Lyr Lys 4
+ +
er hry E yr e s h sy Ey s nr

We may thus deduce the thermal gross fluxes in the doubler:

Fx r therm.
Nxr therm. =
2 hrx

Fyr therm.
Nyr therm. =
2 hry

8 . ASSESSMENT OF FLUXES IN THE PANEL

Gross fluxes in the panel are deduced immediately form fluxes crossing the doubler:


u13 Nxs meca. = Nx meca . - Nxr meca. - Nxr therm.

Nys meca. = Ny meca . - Nyr meca. - Nyr therm.

Nxys meca. = Nxy meca . - Nxyr meca.

9 . ASSESSMENT OF LOAD S PER FASTENER DUE TO THE TRANSFER OF


NORMAL LOADS Nx AND Ny

Loads in fasteners are deduced from the geometry and from mechanical and thermal
fluxes crossing the doubler and calculated previously.

A half repair may be represented as follows. The analysis being similar for directions x
and y, indexes x and y have been removed to make the diagram as general as possible.

There are two possible cases (see drawings on next page):

- straight edge,
- edge with chamfer.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Repair with 1 row of fasteners U 9.1

i=6 i=5 i=4 i=3 i=2 i=1


2 hr N meca. + therm.
er Er
es Es

A a a a a a

Fr
F6 F5 F4 F3 F2 F1

F∞

Fs


2 hr N meca. + therm.
er Er
es Es

A a a a a a

9.1 . Repair with 1 row of fasteners

If the number of rows of fasteners is equal to 1, the load transmitted in the doubler is
equal to loads transmitted by all fasteners on the row (single). The load per fastener is
then deduced immediately by the relationship:

Fr 2 x Nr meca . + therm. x h r
f/fix. = =
number of fasteners number of fasteners

F1

F1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Repair with 2 rows of fasteners U 9.2

9.2 . Repair with 2 rows of fasteners

A a

E2' S2' E1' S1'

F1 + F2

r2 F2 r1 F1

E2 S2 E1 S1
F

The overall stiffness of row "i" fasteners is defined by (ri).

ri = ni x r

where ni is the number of fasteners on row "i".

If F1 and F2 correspond to loads transmitted by the rows of fasteners, the system


displacement resolution leads to the two following equations:

æ A 1 A ö æ A A ö FxA
F2 çç + + ÷ + F1 ç
÷ çE x S + E x S ÷÷ =
è E 2 ' x S 2 ' r2 E 2 x S 2 ø è 2' 2' 2 2 ø E2 x S2

æ − 1ö æ a a 1ö Fxa
F2 çç ÷÷ + F1 çç + + ÷÷ =
è r2 ø è E1' x S1' E 1 x S 1 r1 ø E1 x S1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Repair with 3 rows of fasteners U 9.3

9.3 . Repair with 3 rows of fasteners

A a a

E2' S2' E2' S2' E1' S1'

F1 + F2 - F3

r3 F3 r2 F2 r1 F1

E2 S2 E2 S2 E1 S1 F

æ A A 1ö æ A A ö
F3 çç + + ÷÷ + F2 çç + ÷÷ +
è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 r3 ø è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 ø
æ A A ö FxA
F1 çç + ÷÷ =
è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 ø E 2 x S 2

æ − 1ö æ a a 1ö æ a a ö Fxa
F3 çç ÷÷ + F2 çç + + ÷÷ + F1 çç + ÷÷ =
è r3 ø E
è 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 r 2 ø E
è 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 ø E 2 x S2

æ − 1ö æ a a 1ö Fxa
F2 çç ÷÷ + F1 çç + + ÷÷ =
è r2 ø è E1' x S1' E 1 x S 1 r1 ø E1 x S1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Repair with 4 rows of fasteners U 9.4

9.4 . Repair with 4 rows of fasteners

A a a a

E2' S2' E2' S2' E2' S2' E1' S1'

F1 + F2 + F3 + F4
r4 F4 r3 F3 r2 F2 r1 F1

E2 S2 E2 S2 E2 S2 E1 S1 F

æ A A 1ö æ A A ö
F4 çç + + ÷÷ + F3 çç + ÷÷ +
è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 r4 ø è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 ø
æ A A ö æ A A ö FxA
F2 çç + ÷÷ + F1 çç + ÷÷ =
è E 2' x S 2 ' E 2 x S 2 ø è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 ø E 2 x S 2

æ − 1ö æ1 a a ö
F4 çç ÷÷ + F3 çç + + ÷÷ +
è r4 ø è r3 E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 ø
æ a a ö æ a a ö Fxa
F2 çç + ÷÷ + F1 çç + ÷÷ =
è E 2' x S 2 ' E2 x S2 ø è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 ø E 2 x S 2

æ − 1ö æ a a 1ö æ a a ö Fxa
F3 çç ÷÷ + F2 çç + + ÷÷ + F1 çç + ÷÷ =
è r3 ø è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 r2 ø è E 2' x S 2' E 2 x S 2 ø E2 x S2

æ − 1ö æ a a 1ö Fxa
F2 çç ÷÷ + F1 çç + + ÷÷ =
è r2 ø è E1' x S1' E 1 x S 1 r1 ø E1 x S1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
with a number of rows of fasteners greater than 4 U 9.5

9.5 . Repair with a number of rows of fasteners greater than 4

We may easily find the previous equation system type for a number of rows of fasteners
greater than 4.

A a a a

E2' S2' E2' S2' E2' S2' E1' S1'

Σ Fi

rn Fn r(n-1) F(n-1) r2 F2 r1 F1

E2 S2 E2 S2 E2 S2 E1 S1
F

However, we shall consider that, for a number of rows of fasteners greater than 6, the
rows greater or equal to 7 have an insignificant effect on load Fr transfer distribution (see
diagram below).

Fr

F8 = 0 F7 = 0 F6 F5 F4 F3 F2 F1

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
General resolution method for direction x U 9.6

9.6 . General resolution method for direction x (see drawing below)

It consists in following the procedure indicated below:

Matrixed resolution of the equation system by assuming F = 1.

Assessment of unit loads Fi per row "i" of fasteners.

Assessment of ratio k

2 x N xr meca . + therm .
x h rx
u14 k=
å
n
F
i =1 i

Assessment of effective loads transferred by each row "i" of fasteners

u15 Fxi = k x Fi

Assessment of effective loads transferred by each fastener of row "i"

1.15 x Fxi
u16 fxi =
ni

where ni is the number of fasteners of row "i"

2 x h rx
ni = (no chamfer)
a*

or

2 x h rx
ni = − 2 (with chamfer for the first row)
a*

i=6 i=5 i=4 i=3 i=2 i=1


y
x
Fxi fx/xi

Nx meca. + therm.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Assessment of loads per fastener due to Nxy U 10

The fastener is identified by the letter "i" . "i" being the number of the row perpendicular to
the load. By definition, only full lines shall be considered and it shall be assumed that row
number 1 is located next to the free edge of the doubler.

10 . ASSESSMENT OF LOADS PER FASTENER DUE TO THE TRANSFER OF SHEAR


LOADS Nxy

Loads in the fasteners are deduced from the geometry and from the mechanical origin
fluxes crossing the doubler.
lx3
a
ly2
i=3

i=1

fy/xyij
j=2
fx/xyij y
a*
j=1
x

1≤j≤n=2 ∞
Nxy meca.
1≤i≤m=5

Loads on fasteners due to the transfer of Nxyr meca. flux are equal to:

Nxyr meca .
x a x ly j
u17 fx/xyij =
å
n
j =1
ly j

Nxyr meca .
x a * x lx i
fy/xyij =
å
m
i =1
lx i

The fastener is identified by letters "i" and "j". "i" being the number of the row parallel to
the y-axis and "j" being the number of the row parallel to the x-axis. By definition, only full
lines shall be considered and it shall be assumed that row number 1 is located next to the
free edge of the doubler.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Justifications U 11
1/2

11 . JUSTIFICATIONS

The repair justification consists of a notched and loaded plain plate calculation (for the
parent skin and for the repair) and a check of the behavior of the existing damage.

The most highly loaded fastener holes (of the four angles) must be justified by
superposing loads due to fluxes Nx meca. (fx/x), Ny meca. (fy/y) and to flux Nxy meca. (fx/xy and fy/xy).

This resulting load (f) must then be combined with fluxes N xs meca., Nys meca. and Nxys meca. (for
the initial skin) or Nxr meca., Nyr meca. and Nxyr meca. (for the repair) at the fastener considered.

REPAIR PARENT SKIN

Nyr Ny∝
Nxy∝
Nxyr - fx/x - fx/xy
y
fy/y - fy/xy
f

f
Nxr Nx∝
fy/xy - fy/y
x
fx/xy fx/x

On the other hand, the damage in the parent skin in the presence of fluxes Nxs meca., Nys meca.
and Nxys meca. at the repair center shall be justified.

General remark: It should be noted that there are two types of fastener arrangements: a
so-called "square" arrangement and a so-called "staggered"
arrangement. The "square" arrangement is preferred because the hole
coefficient is limited.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Justifications U 11
2/2

Both diagrams below show which value of "a" should be applied in the calculation of loads
per fastener in each of these cases.

a a

"Square" arrangement "Staggered" arrangement

This theory was implemented with the desktop computing program "REPBOUL" (refer to
instructions).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Summary flowchart U 12

12 . SUMMARY FLOWCHART
step No. 1

INITIAL CALCULATE
DOUBLER THE STIFFNESS
LOADING
GEOMETRY OF FASTENERS
Nx∝ Ny∝ Nxy∝
r

step No. 2 step No. 3


ASSESS THE ASSESS THE
DOUBLER PANEL
STIFFNESSES STIFFNESS
x y xy x y xy
Rr Rr Rr Rs Rs Rs

step No. 4 step No. 5


ASSESS ASSESS
FLUXES IN THE FLUXES IN THE
PANEL PANEL
meca. + therm. meca. + therm.
Nxr Nyr Nxyr Nxs Nys Nxys

step No. 6
ASSESS THE RESULTING
LOAD
meca. + therm.
fx/x fy/y fx/xy fy/xy

step No. 7
ASSESS THE
RESULTING
LOAD
meca. + therm.
f

step No. 8 step No. 9 step No. 10


JUSTIFY THE JUSTIFY THE
FASTENER FASTENER JUSTIFY THE
HOLES OF THE HOLES OF THE DAMAGE
PARENT SKIN DOUBLER

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
1/11
13 . Example
Let the following repair be:
Mechanical characteristics original panel
Lay-up: 6/6/6/6
Exs = 4878 daN/mm2
Eys = 4878 daN/mm2
Gxys = 1882 daN/mm2
es = 3.12 mm
Doubler Mechanical characteristics
Lay-up: 2/4/4/2
Exr = 4008 daN/mm2
Eyr = 4008 daN/mm2
Gxyr = 2355 daN/mm2
er = 1.56 mm
Fastener characteristics
Total number n = 32
Stiffness r = 2000 daN/mm
∅ = 3.2 mm
Fastener Elasticity modulus = 7400 daN/mm2

Ny∝ = - 32 daN/mm
Nxy∝ = - 20 daN/mm

a = 18

A
x / xy
fA 1
y/y y / xy
fA 1 fA 1
= 108 mm

= 72 mm

A = 18

∅ = 20 mm
y
r
y
s

2L
2L

a* = 18

x
y
hs = 35 mm
x
2 L s = 72 mm
y
2 h r = 90 mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
2/11

Assessment of fluxes in the doubler and the panel below the doubler

This example does not include any thermal loads, we shall only cover mechanical fluxes.
Therefore, notations shall not have any index.
The first calculation step consists in determining both fluxes crossing the doubler (Nyr;
Nxyr) which entails assessing panel and doubler stiffnesses with respect to both of these
load types, first of all. The fact that flux Nx∝ is zero has the following consequence Nxr =
Nxs = 0.

Determination of doubler and panel stiffnesses

{u6}

4008 x 1.56 x 45
30 x 2000
4 x 36
Rr =
y
= 5138 daN / mm
4008 x 1.56 x 45 30 x 2000
+
36 4

(30 is the total number of load-carrying fasteners in direction y).

{u7}

4878 x 3.12 x 35
R sy = = 9864 daN / mm
54

{u9}

2355 x 1.56 x 32 x 2000


R rxy = 8 = 2518 daN / mm
32 x 2000
2355 x 1.56 +
8

(32 is the total number of load-carrying fasteners in direction xy).

We have:

72
V= = 3.6
20

108
W= = 5.4
20

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
3/11

{u11}

3. 6 2 + 5. 4 2 0.5
η= 2 2
= 0.94
æ ö æ ö
ç ÷ ç ÷
ç 3.6 − 1 + 1 ÷ + ç 5.4 − 1 + 1 ÷
ç 1 ÷ ç 1 ÷
ç 1− ÷ ç 1− ÷
è 5.4 ø è 3.6 ø

{u10}

R sxy = 0.94 x 1882 x 3.12 = 5494 daN/mm

Determination of fluxes crossing the doubler

{u5}

5138
Nyr = Ny∝ = 0.34 Ny∝ = 0.34 (- 32) = - 10.96 daN/mm
5138 + 9864

{u8}

2518
Nxyr = Ny∝ = 0.31 Nxy∝ = 0.31 (- 20) = - 6.28 daN/mm
2518 + 5494

Determination of fluxes crossing the panel below the doubler

{u13}

Nys = - 32 - (- 10.96) = - 21.04 daN/mm

Nxys = - 20 - (- 6.28) = - 13.72 daN/mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
4/11

Assessment of loads on fastener A

Load due to Ny

Repair with 3 rows of fasteners: if F1, F2 and F3 corresponds to loads transmitted by the
rows of fasteners, the system displacement resolution leads to the three following
equations:

æ 18 18 1 ö
F3 çç + + ÷÷ +
è 4008 x 1.56 x 90 4878 x 3.12 x 90 5 x 2000 ø

æ 18 18 ö
F2 çç + ÷÷ +
è 4008 x 1.56 x 90 4878 x 3.12 x 90 ø

æ 18 18 ö F x 18
F1 çç + ÷÷ =
è 4008 x 1.56 x 90 4878 x 3.12 x 90 ø 4878 x 3.12 x 90

æ −1 ö æ 18 18 1 ö
F3 çç ÷÷ + F2 çç + + ÷÷ +
è 5 x 2000 ø è 4008 x 1.56 x 90 4878 x 3.12 x 90 5 x 2000 ø

æ 18 18 ö F x 18
F1 çç + ÷÷ =
è 4008 x 1 . 56 x 90 4878 x 3 .12 x 90 ø 4878 x 3.12 x 90

æ −1 ö æ 18 18 1 ö F x 18
F2 çç ÷÷ + F1 çç + + ÷÷ =
è 5 x 2000 ø è 4008 x 1.56 x 90 4878 x 3.12 x 90 5 x 2000 ø 4878. x 3.12 x 90

by assuming F = 1, loads F1, F2 and F3 per row "i" of fasteners are deduced from the
matrix resolution.

F1 = 0.1366 daN

F2 = 0.0669 daN

F3 = 0.0273 daN

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
5/11

{u14}

Assessment of ratio k

2 x ( − ) 10.96 x 45
k= = − 4275
0.1366 + 0.0669 + 0.0273

{u15]

Assessment of effective load transferred by row "i = 1" of fastener

Fyi = - 4275 x 0.1366 = - 584 daN

{u16}

Assessment of effective loads transferred by each fastener of row "i = 1"

1.15 x − 584
fyi = = 1.15 x - 116.8 = - 134 daN
5

Load due to Nxy

{u17}

Loads on fasteners due to transfer of Nxyr flux are equal to:

− 6.28 x 18.54
fx/xyij = = - 56.56 daN
54 + 36 + 18

− 6.28 x 18 x 36
fy/xyij = = - 113.13 daN
36

(
The resultant shall be equal to 56.56 2 + (113.13 + 134 ) )
2 0.5
= 254 daN and the slope
angle of the load shall have the value Arctg (- 247.13/- 56.56) = 77° (- 180°) = - 103°.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
6/11

At this fastener A, fluxes are:

- on the panel

Nxs = 0 daN/mm

Nys = - 32 daN/mm

Nxys = - 20 daN/mm

- in the doubler

Nxr = 0 daN/mm

− 116.8
Nyr = = - 6.49 daN/mm
18

Nxyr = - 6.28 daN/mm

fx/xy = - 57 daN A

fy/xy = - 113 daN


- 103°
fy = - 134 daN

254 daN
y

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
7/11

Now, let's assume that the carbon reinforcing plate is replaced by an Aluminium plate of
thickness er = 0.84 mm (the thickness was selected so that the doubler stiffness may
remain constant: 0.84 x 7400 = 1.56 x 4008 = 6252 daN/mm) and of coefficient expansion
αr = 2.2 E-5/°C.

The expansion factor of the parent skin (isotropic T300/314 laminate) is equal to: αs = 1.4
E-6/°C (refer to chapter § V 4.2 for the calculation of equivalent coefficient of expansion of
a laminate).

We shall look for thermal loads for an absolute temperature of + 74° C, which corresponds
to a relative temperature with respect to the ambient temperature of ∆T = + 54° C (with a
view to simplicity, mechanical loads shall be considered as zero).

By applying the relationship {u12}, we find the thermal loads in the doubler in directions x
and y.

{u12}

In direction x :

2 x 54 (1.4 E − 6 x 36 − 2.2 E − 5 x 27.69 )


Fxr therm. =
27.69 36 4
+ +
0.84 x 63 x 7400 3.12 x 53 x 4878 26 x 2000

Fxr therm. = - 314 daN

(26 is the total number of load-carrying fasteners in direction x)

In direction y :

2 x 54 (1.4 E − 6 x 54 − 2.2 E − 5 x 36 )
Fyr therm. =
36 54 4
+ +
0.84 x 45 x 7400 3.12 x 35 x 4878 30 x 2000

Fyr therm. = - 260 daN

(30 is the total number of load-carrying fasteners in direction y)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
8/11

Thermal fluxes in the doubler are deduced by dividing the previous results by widths 2 h rx
and 2 h ry :

− 314
Nxr therm. = = - 2.49 daN/mm
2 x 63

− 260
Nyr therm. = = - 2.89 daN/mm
2 x 45

Initial material characteristics


Lay-up: 6/6/6/6
Exs = 4878 daN/mm2
Eys = 4878 daN/mm2
Gxys = 1882 daN/mm2
es = 3.12 mm
Doubler material characteristics
Aluminium
Exr = 7400 daN/mm2
Eyr = 7400 daN/mm2
Gxyr = 2846 daN/mm2 h sy = 35 mm
er = 0.84 mm

Nyr therm. = - 2.89 daN/mm


= 126 mm

= 108 mm

= 72 mm

Nxr therm. = - 2.49 daN/mm


∅ = 20 mm
y
r
x

y
s
r

2L
2h

2L

= 53 mm
x
s
h

x
2 L r = 55.38 mm

x
2 L s = 72 mm
x
y
2 h r = 90 mm

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
9/11

Which allows calculation of thermal loads on the most highly loaded fasteners (those in
angles).

In direction x:

Repair with two rows of fasteners: if F1 and F2 correspond to loads transmitted by the rows
of fasteners, the system displacement resolution leads to the two following equations (see
chapter § U 9.2) :

æ 18 1 18 ö
F2 çç + + ÷÷ +
è 7400 x 126 x 0.84 6 x 2000 4878 x 126 x 3.12 ø

æ 18 18 ö F x 18
F1 çç + ÷÷ =
è 7400 x 126 x 0.84 4878 x 126 x 3.12 ø 4878 x 126 x 3.12

æ −1 ö æ 18 18 1 ö F x 18
F2 çç ÷÷ + F1 çç + + ÷÷ =
è 6 x 2000 ø è 7400 x 126 x 0.84 4878 x 126 x 3.12 7 x 2000 ø 4878 x 126 x 3.12

By assuming that F = 1, loads F1 and F2 per row "i" of fasteners are deduced from the
matrix resolution:

F2 x 1.157 E-4 + F1 x 3.237 E-5 = 9.387 E-6

F2 x (- 8.333 E-5) + F1 x 1.038 E-4 = 9.387 E-6

We find:

F1 = 0.1271 daN

F2 = 0.0455 daN

{u14}

Assessment of ratio k

2 x ( − 2.49 ) x 63
k= = − 1818
0.0455 + 0.1271

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
10/11

{u15}

Assessment of effective load transferred by row "i = 1" of fasteners

Fxi = - 1818 x 0.1271 = - 231 daN

{u16}

Assessment of effective loads transferred by each fastener of row "i = 1"

1.15 x − 231
fxi = = 1.15 x ( − 33 ) = − 37daN
7

In direction y:

For calculation in direction y, just use results for the transfer of mechanical origin fluxes
(distribution on rows of fasteners being independent from the load value - see § U 13 p.
5).

We know that:

mechanical loads:

Nyr meca. = - 10.96 daN/mm → fyi = - 134 daN

therefore:

thermal loads:

− 2.89
Nyr therm. = - 2.89 daN/mm → fyi = − 134 x = − 35 daN
− 10.96

The resulting load on angle fasteners is equal to:

Fresultant therm. = 37 2 + 352 = 51 daN

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
Example U 13
11/11

At this fastener, the resulting load is equal to 51 daN.

Thermal fluxes in the doubler have the following value:

− 37 æ − 2.49 x F1 − 2.4 x 0.1271 ö


Nxr therm. = = − 1.79 daN / mm çç = ÷
18 x 1.15 è F1 + F2 0.1271 + 0.0455 ÷ø

− 35 æ − 2.89 x F1 − 2.89 x 0.1366 ö


Nyr therm. = = − 1.69 daN / mm çç = ÷÷
18 x 1.15 F
è 1 + F2 + F3 0 .1366 + 0 . 0669 + 0 . 0273 ø

fx therm. = 37 daN

fy therm. = 35 daN
Fresultant therm. = 51 daN
y

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

BOLTED REPAIRS
References U
BARRAU - LAROZE, Design of composite material structures, 1987

GAY, Composite materials, 1991

VALLAT, Strength of materials

ESCANE - CIAVALDINI - TROPIS, Design of a bolted repair on a composite structure -


determination of mechanical loads in the reinforcing piece, 1992, 440.192/92

TROPIS - SAVOLDELLI, Repair of carbon self-stiffened panels - justification in


compression, 1989, 420.535/90

TROPIS - SAVOLDELLI, Repair of carbon self-stiffened panels - justification in tension,


1990, 420.541/90

M. JANINI - P. CIAVALDINI, Design of a bolted repair on a composite structure -


determination of mechanical loads in the reinforcing piece, 440. 129/92

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. A


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

Page intentionally left blank

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Notations V 1

1 . NOTATIONS

∆T, ∆θ: relative temperature (difference between effective and ambient temperatures)
Tather., θather.: athermane temperature
Tamb., θamb.: ambient temperature
Tstruc., θstruc.: structure temperature

L: plates length

r: attachment or link stiffness

b1: plate width (1)


e1: plate thickness (1)
E1: plate modulus of elasticity (1)
α1: plate thermal expansion coefficient (1)

b2: plate width (2)


e2: plate thickness (2)
E2: plate modulus of elasticity (2)
α2: plate thermal expansion coefficient (2)

∆L: thermal expansion

∆L': mechanical elongation

F: global mechanical force of thermal origin

f: force on fasteners

τ: shear stress in adhesive

Gc: adhesive shear modulus


ec: adhesive thickness

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Introduction V 2

2 . INTRODUCTION

A homogeneous anisotropic solid subjected to a uniform variation of temperature expands


differently in different directions. To characterize its behavior, several expansion
coefficients must be defined. In addition, strains and (or) stresses will appear depending
on the boundary conditions and the temperature range inside the solid.

A free composite plate subjected to a uniform variation in temperature will be subjected to


strains and stresses due to the different expansions of the fiber and the resin. As
composite plates are generally manufactured by curing at a temperature greater than
utilization θ, residual curing stresses appear in these plates. Although they can be high,
they are generally not explicitly calculated but included implicitly into the calculation values
determined on crosswise laminated plates (see § V 5.2).

As well, a variation in temperature applied to an assembly (attached or bonded) of plates


with different expansion coefficients leads to stresses and strains in these plates which
are added to those induced by mechanical loading.

The aim of this chapter is to study the stresses and strains of thermal origin for
unidirectional fibers, composite plates, bimetallic strips and, lastly, aircraft structures,
submitted to regulation environmental conditions.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Hooke - Duhamel law V 3

3 . HOOKE - DUHAMEL LAW

If a material is submitted to a mechanical load, the stress - strain relation can be written in
its tensorial form:

v1 εij = ηijkl x σkl


ou cf. § V 5
σij = λijkl x εkl

If a homogeneous, elastic and anisotropic solid which is free to deform is submitted to a


change in temperature, the strain - temperature relation can be written in its tensorial
form:

v2 εij = αij (T - To)

where

To: original temperature (uniform)


T: modified temperature (uniform)

αij is the thermal expansion tensor which is a characteristic of the material.


αij is symmetrical.
For an orthotropic material in the orthotropy reference frame.

éα l o où
ê ú
ê ú
(α) = ê o α ll oú
ê ú
ê ú
ëo o α lll û

If the material is submitted to a mechanical load, the stress - strain - temperature relation
can be written:

εtotal = εmechanical + εfree thermal

v3 εij = ηijkl x σkl + αij (T - To)


or
σij = λijkl x εkl + βij (T - To)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Behavior of unidirectional fiber V 4

where

(η): flexibility tensor


(λ): rigidity tensor
(α): thermal expansion tensor
(β): thermal modulus tensor

T: absolute temperature applied


To: reference temperature
∆T: relative temperature

4 . BEHAVIOR OF UNIDIRECTIONAL FIBER

Let us take a unidirectional fiber defined by its longitudinal direction (l) and by its
transverse direction (t), it is a transverse isotropic and orthotropic material.

The unidirectional fiber will be characterized by two expansion coefficients in the


orthotropic axis:
t

t (3)
t (y)

l (x)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Behavior of a monolith plate V 5.1
1/3

The expansion coefficients are different in the two directions l and t:

αl: longitudinal expansion coefficient of unidirectional fiber in x-axis.


αt: transverse expansion coefficient of unidirectional fiber (resin) in y- and z-axes.
éα l o où
ê ú
ê ú
Generally αl << αt (α) = ê o αt oú
ê ú
ê ú
ëo o αt û

5 . BEHAVIOR OF A FREE MONOLITHIC PLATE

5.1 . Calculation method


As we saw in chapter E 3, the general relation between the strain sensor and the load
sensor of a monolith plate can be written in its matrix form (relation to be compared with
the relation v1):

Nx A11 A12 A13 B11 B12 B13 εx

Ny A 21 A 22 A 23 B21 B22 B23 εy

Nxy A 31 A 32 A 33 B31 B32 B33 γ xy


= ∂2wo
Mx B11 B12 B13 C11 C12 C13 ∂x 2
∂2wo
My B21 B22 B23 C21 C 22 C23 ∂y 2
∂2 wo
Mxy B31 B32 B33 C31 C 32 C33 2
∂x ∂y

The sign conventions are as follows:


z z

y y
My > 0
Ny > 0

Mx > 0 Mxy > 0 Nx > 0 Nxy > 0


x x

SIGN CONVENTIONS FOR SIGN CONVENTIONS FOR


BENDING MEMBRANE

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Behavior of a monolith plate V 5.1
2/3

If the plate is submitted to a relative uniform temperature ∆T = (T - To), the previous


expression becomes (relation which is to be compared with relation v3):

Nx εx αEh x

Ny A B εy αEh y

Nxy γ xy αEh xy
v4 = ∂2wo - ∆t
Mx αEh2
∂x 2 x

∂2wo
My B C αEh2
∂y 2 y

∂2 wo
Mxy 2 αEh2
∂x ∂y xy

where the thermoelastic behavior of the laminate is described by vector (αEh) which terms
are equal to:

æ c 2 El (α l + ν tl α t ) + s 2 E t ( νlt α l + α t ) ö
å
n
v5 αEh x = ç k
( z − z k −1 ) ÷
k =1
è 1 − νlt ν tl ø

æ s 2 El (α l + ν tl α t ) + c 2 E t ( νlt α l + α t ) ö
å
n
αEh y = ç (z k − z k − 1) ÷
k =1
è 1 − νlt ν tl ø

æ c s E t ( ν lt α l + α t ) − c s E l (α l + ν tl α t ) ö
å
n
αEh xy = ç ( zk − zk − 1 ) ÷
k =1
è 1 − ν lt ν tl ø

æ z k2 − z k2 − 1 c 2 El (α l + ν tl α t ) + s 2 E t ( νlt α l + α t ) ö
å
n
αEh 2
=− ç ÷
k = 1ç 1 − νlt ν tl ÷
x
è 2 ø

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Behavior of a monolith plate V 5.1
3/3

æ z k2 − z k2 − 1 s 2 E l (α l + ν tl α t ) + c 2 E t ( ν lt α l + α t ) ö
å
n
αEh 2
=− ç ÷
k = 1ç 1 − ν lt ν tl ÷
y
è 2 ø

æ z k2 − z 2 c s E ( ν + α + α ) − c s E (α + ν α ) ö
å ç t ÷
n
αEh =−
2 k −1 t lt l t l l tl
xy k = 1ç 2 1 − ν ν ÷
è lt tl ø

y
ply No. k ek
t l
zk zk - 1
neutral plane
θ
ply No. 1 x

where:

c ≡ cos(θ) where θ is the orientation of the fiber in the basic reference frame (o, x, y)
s ≡ sin(θ) where θ is the orientation of the fiber in the basic reference frame (o, x, y)

El: longitudinal modulus of elasticity of the unidirectional fiber


Et: transverse modulus of elasticity of the unidirectional fiber
νlt: longitudinal/transverse Poisson coefficient of the unidirectional fiber
E
νtl = νlt t : transverse/longitudinal Poisson coefficient of the unidirectional fiber
El

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Curing stresses - expansion coefficients V 5.2
5.3

5.2 . Residual curing stresses

For thermosetting resin composites, the plates are made by juxtaposing different layers
with different characteristics.

These layers are manufactured simultaneously to the plate. We assume that when the
resin cures, each layer is frozen in the state it is in at that time. Let Tp be the curing
temperature; the stresses in the plate can be considered as zero at this temperature.

To obtain the stresses at ambient temperature after cooling, apply relation v4.

If the plate does not have mirror symmetry, the coupling terms, (B) and αEh2 of v4 are
non zero; therefore, a uniform reduction in the temperature (from curing temperature to
ambient temperature) will create a strain in the plane and a curvature of the neutral plane.

In the same way, if there is in-plane coupling (terms A16, A26 non zero), that is if plies are
not equal in + or - α, angular distortion will occur during cooling after curing, the plate will
be "parallelogram" shaped.

5.3 . Equivalent expansion coefficients

The equivalent expansion coefficient vector αequi. (αx equi., αy equi., αxy equi.) of an orthotropic
composite plate, with mirror symmetry without in-plane coupling, can be determined by
the following relation:

v6 (αequi.) = (A)- 1 x (αEh)

where terms Aij of the laminate rigidity matrix (A) can be determined by relation c6 of
chapter C.3.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bimetallic strip theory V 6.1
1/4

6 . BEHAVIOR OF A SYSTEM CONSISTING OF TWO BEAMS WITH DIFFERENT


EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS - BIMETALLIC STRIP THEORY

6.1 . Determining stresses of thermal origin

The aim of this subchapter is to study the mechanical influence of the temperature on a
system consisting of two beam elements with an infinitely rigid connection at their ends.

The following analysis is unidirectional. Furthermore, we shall neglect the secondary


bending effects and the Poisson effects.

Let us take, therefore, two long plates (L >> b) with an infinitely rigid connection at their
ends and with the following mechanical characteristics:

Plate (1):

- length: L
- width: b
- thickness: e1
- modulus of elasticity: E1
- expansion coefficient: α1 (§ V 5.3)

Plate (2)

- length: L
- width: b
- thickness: e2
- modulus of elasticity: E2
- expansion coefficient: α2 (§ V 5.3)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bimetallic strip theory V 6.1
2/4

(1)

(2)

L
b

Initially, let us assume that the two plates are free at their ends. If we submit each one of
them to a uniform relative temperature ∆T (in relation to the ambient temperature of the
setup), they will expand by the following lengths:

∆L1 = ∆T α1 L

where α1 ≠ α2

∆L2 = ∆T α2 L

(1) ∆L2

(2) ∆L1

Now, as these two plates are rigidly attached at their ends, they will deform by the same
length. Mechanical interaction forces of thermal origin (F1 and F2) are created:

F1 : force of plate (2) on plate (1)

F2 : force of plate (1) on plate (2)

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bimetallic strip theory V 6.1
3/4

(1) ∆L'2
F1 F1 F1

- F1 F2 - F1
(2) ∆L'1

As the system is globally in equilibrium, the force applied to plate (1) is the same as the
one applied to plate (2) except for the sign: F1 = - F2.

The plate elongations due to these forces alone will be therefore:

F1 L
∆L'1 =
E1 e1 b1

F2 L − F1 L
∆L'2 = =
E2 e 2 L E2 e 2 b 2

The equal length principal implies the following relation:

∆L1 + ∆L'1 = ∆L2 +∆L'2

∆L1

∆L2 ∆L'2 ∆L'1

After development and simplification, we obtain:

∆T (α 2 − α1)
v7 F1 =
Γ

∆T (α1 − α 2 )
F2 =
Γ

where

1 1
v8 Γ= +
E1 e1 b1 E2 e2 b 2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bimetallic strip theory V 6.1
4/4

Remark: For two plates with totally different geometries attached at the ends by an
element (one or several fasteners for example) of global rigidity ℜ, the previous
relation is slightly modified.

(1)
ℜ ℜ

(2)

L2
b1 L1 b2

The equal length principle becomes:

∆L1 ∆L'1 ∆L 2 ∆L' 2 2F1


+ = + +
2 2 2 2 ℜ

∆L1
2

∆L'1
∆L 2 ∆L' 2 2
2 2

Force of thermal origin is then equal to:

∆θ (α 2 L 2 − α1 L1)
v9 F1 =
L1 L2 2
+ +
e1 b1 E1 e2 b 2 E2 ℜ

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bolted system V 6.2.1
6.2.1.1
1/2
6.2 . Study of the link between two parts

In practice, the link between two parts is ensured either by fasteners or by bonding.

6.2.1 . Bolted or riveted joints

We shall assume that the plates are sufficiently long so that the thermal expansion cannot
be absorbed by the play (and the rigidity) of the fasteners (see previous remark).

The thermal force, which will have been calculated previously by relation v4, will be
expressed herein by letter F.

Several hypotheses can be put forward concerning the number of fasteners (of rigidity r)
likely to take force F.

6.2.1.1 . Force F taken by one fastener


L

F
-F

f
b

f=F

For information purpose, the table on the next page shows the various forces applied to
the structural elements for a splice and a doubler, these being submitted to tensile or
compression loads and at a positive or negative relative temperature.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bolted system V 6.2.1.1
2/2

We will consider that the expansion coefficient of the upper material (aluminium for
instance) is higher than that of the lower material (isotropic carbon laminate for instance).

It is important to point out that the forces represented on the drawings are those applied to
the structure by the fasteners.

SPLICE DOUBLER
TENSION
COMPRESSION

0° 0°
∆T > 0

upper α > lower α upper α > lower α

0° 0°
∆T < 0

upper α > lower α upper α > lower α

Table V6.2.1.1: Transfer of mechanical and thermal forces to the splices and doublers

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bolted system V 6.2.1.2
6.2.1.3

6.1.2.3 . Force F taken by two fasteners


A a

F
-F

r r

f2 f1
b

A+a
Γ+
Aar
v10 f1 = F
2A+a
Γ+
Aar
f2 = F - f1

6.2.1.3 . Force F taken by three fasteners

A a a

F
-F

r r r

f3 f2 f1
b

1 æA öæ 1 ö
+ A Γ + ç − 1÷ ç ÷
r èa ø è3r + a Γ r ø
2
v11 f1 = F
1 A æ1 ö
+ ç + a Γ÷
r a èr ø
1
v12 f2 = F
3+aΓr

f3 = F - f1 - f2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bolted system V 6.2.1.4

6.2.1.4 . Force F taken by four or more fasteners

A a a

F
-F

r r r r

f4 f3 f2 f1
b

1 æA öæ 1 ö
+ A Γ + ç − 1÷ ç 2÷
F r è a ø è3r + a Γ r ø
v13 f1 =
δ 1 A æ1 ö
+ ç + a Γ÷
r a r è ø
where

n−3
v14 δ=1+
10

where n equals number of fasteners.

Remark: Relations v10 to v14 have been established analytically. It is however


recommended for a large number of fasteners to solve the problem by a matrix
calculation or a finite element model.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bonded joints V 6.2.2
1/2

6.2.2 . Bonded joints

For a bonded link, the (antisymmetrical) loading of the two plates is continuous from one
end of the system to the other; the main part of the loading is however at the start of the
bonded link.

L
Doubler

τMax.

- τMax.

L
2

-F

τMax.

The maximum shear stress at the interface of the two plates can be written as follows:

Fλæ æ λ Lö æ λ L ö E1 e1 − E 2 e 2 ö
v15 τMax. = ç coth ç ÷ + tanh ç ÷ ÷
b è è 2 ø è 2 ø E1 e1 + E 2 e 2 ø

where

Gc E1 e1 + E2 e2
v16 λ=
e c E1 e1 E2 e2

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Bonded joints V 6.2.2
2/2

where Gc is the shear modulus of the adhesive and ec its thickness.

This relation has been established by analogy with the bonded joint theory (see chapter S)
where the distribution of the shear stresses in the adhesive joint is of the symmetrical type
and where the value of this stress, although negligible, is not zero in the center.

Symmetrical distribution of shear stresses: Bonded splice

+ +

τ≈C

Antisymmetrical distribution of shear stresses: Bonded doubler

+
-
τ=0

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

7.1
THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Influence of temperature V 7.2
7.2.1

7 . INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE ON AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES

7.1 . General

The influence of the temperature on the aircraft structures is twofold:

- thermal stresses induced by the different expansion coefficients per unit length of the
components of the composite and metallic structures (spars/skins/rib, etc.) and also
between the fibers and the resin,

- reduction of the mechanical properties especially the resin and the adhesives (certain
fibers are also sensitive to the temperature).

The demonstration of the resistance to the ultimate loads must be made in the most
penalizing association case of the ultimate temperatures of the structure combined with
selected design-critical mechanical loads.

We shall first of all define the various types of temperatures involved in the procedure
described in this chapter.

7.2 . Temperature of ambient air

7.2.1 . Temperature envelope

The static air temperature envelope to be considered on the ground and in flight are given
for each aircraft (DBD: Data Basis Design); they depend on changes in regulatory
requirements and aircraft operational limits.

For example, the maximum temperature to be considered on the ground was increased by
10° C between the A320 (45°) and the A340 (55°). The minimum temperature on the
ground is - 54° C (see curves below).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Influence of temperature V 7.2.2
7.2.2.1

z
(fts)
45000
41100 ft
40000

35000

flight 30000

25000

20000

15000
12500 ft
10000
ground
5000

- 80 - 60 - 54°C - 40 - 20 0 20 40 60
- 5000
OAT
(° C)

We must therefore determine the ultimate temperatures of the structure for all aircraft
flight phases (static and fatigue). This is dealt with in this subchapter.

7.2.2 . Variation of ambient air temperature

7.2.2.1 . Ambient temperature on ground

The ambient temperature on the ground changes during the day. We will assume that its
variation is homothetic to the quantity of heat Qϕ received by the ground (see chapter §
V 7.3.1.2).

It therefore depends on the time of the day and the geographical location on earth
(latitude ζ/type of atmosphere).

The table and curves below show change of ambient temperature on ground for a tropical
atmosphere (55° C at 12 h ≡ ISA + 40° C) and for a polar atmosphere (regulatory lower
limit of - 54° C).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Influence of temperature V 7.2.2.2

We consider however that heat builds up during the day which explains why the "night"
temperature (32° C for the tropical atmosphere) starts at 20 h and not at 18 h.

Time 6h 7h 8h 9h 10 h 11 h 12 h 13 h
Tamb. (° C) 32 38 43.5 48.3 51.9 54.2 55 54.5

Time 13 h 14 h 15 h 16 h 17 h 18 h 19 h 20 h
Tamb. (° C) 54.5 52.9 50.5 47.3 43.6 39.7 35.7 32

T amb. ground

55° C = ISA + 40° C


STANDARD
ATMOSPHERE TROPICAL
ATMOSPHERE

32° C 15° C = ISA

0 t
6h 12 h 18 h 20 h 24 h

- 54° C

POLAR
ATMOSPHERE

7.2.2.2 . Ambient temperature in flight

The ambient temperature in flight depends on the ambient temperature on the ground
(see previous chapter) and the altitude z. From 0 to 40000 fts (troposphere), we generally
consider that the temperature decreases on average 0.5° C for every 328 fts increase in
altitude with a lower limit of - 54° C.

The diagram below gives the ambient temperature at a given altitude for all ambient
temperatures on the ground.

Tamb. z ≈ - 2 E-3 x z + Tamb. gnd where ∀ z Tamb. z ≥ - 54° C

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Wall temperature V 7.3

60
ISA + 40°

40

20
ISA

0
Tamb. z
(° C)

- 20

- 40

- 54 ° C
- 60
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Altitude (x 1000 fts)

7.3 . Wall temperature

The combined effects of the solar radiation in flight (optional effect) and the speed of the
aircraft (Mach number M) lead to a significant increase in the wall temperatures when
compared with the temperature of the ambient air in flight.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Influence of solar radiation V 7.3.1.1
7.3.1.2
1/3

7.3.1 . Influence of solar radiation

7.3.1.1 . Maximum solar radiation

It is maximum outside the atmosphere (z ≥ 36000 fts) and is equal to 1360 w/m2. This
radiation is lower on earth due to the influence of the ozone layer, humidity and other
factors.

At sea level (z = 0) and at 12-o-clock, Qs ≈ 1010 w/m2 in tropical areas.

Between these two points, we assume that Qs varies in a linear manner as a function of
the altitude: Qsz ≈ 9.72 E-3 x z + 1010 (see curve below).

1400

1360

1300

Qs z
2 1200
(w/m )

1100

1010
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Altitude (x 1000 fts)

Remark: These values are unchanged between ISA + 35° C and ISA + 40° C.

7.3.1.2 . Solar radiation during the day

The quantity of heat Qϕ received by the ground depends on the quantity of heat Qs
emitted by the sun and passing through the atmosphere (Qs = 1010 w/m2) and the angle
of incidence ϕ between the light rays and the ground.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Influence of solar radiation V 7.3.1.2
2/3

Qs
ϕ

Qs
ϕ

Qϕ Qϕ
Ground

This angle of incidence ϕ itself depends on time t (represented by angle ω on the drawing)
and on the latitude ζ of the point under study.

ϕ = 90°

solar radiation
ζ
ω

ϕ = Arc (cos ζ x cos ω) = Arc (cos ζ x cos (15 t - 180)) for 18 h ≤ t ≤ 6 h

In tropical atmosphere (ζ ≈ 0°), this expression is simplified and becomes:

ϕ = Arc (cos 0° x cos ω) = 15 t - 180 for 18 h ≤ t ≤ 6 h

The diagram below shows, between 6 h and 18 h the "theoretical" change in the quantity
of heat Qϕ that the ground receives for different types of atmospheres.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Influence of solar radiation V 7.3.1.2
3/3

Qϕ STANDARD TROPICAL
ATMOSPHERE 2 ATMOSPHERE
LATITUDE ζ ≈ 45° 1010 w/m LATITUDE ζ ≈ 0°
2
714 w/m

t
0 6h 12 h 18 h 24 h

POLAR
ATMOSPHERE
LATITUDE ζ ≈ 90°

Nevertheless, we will assume that during the night (from 18 h to 6 h), a certain quantity of
heat (≈ 280 W/m2 for a tropical atmosphere) is exchanged between the outside medium
and the structure ("night irradiation").

The table and curve below show the "regulatory" change in the quantity of heat Qϕ during
the day in tropical atmosphere and at sea level.

The curve Qϕ = Qs x cosϕ has therefore been (arbitrarily) offset at 280 w/m2 for 6 h and
18 h.

Time 7h 8h 9h 10 h 11 h 12 h
ϕ (w/m2)
Qϕ 636 838 929 980 1002 1010

Time 12 h 13 h 14 h 15 h 16 h 17 h
ϕ (w/m )
Qϕ 2
1010 1002 980 929 838 636

Qs
Q
2
1010 w/m

2
280 w/m Qs x cosϕ

t
0 6h 12 h 18 h 24 h

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Influence of speed - Temperature of structure V 7.3.2
7.3.3

7.3.2 . Influence of aircraft speed

The effect of the speed of the aircraft (friction of the air) increases the ambient
temperature in flight to a level called the athermane temperature.

The athermane temperature (or friction temperature) is the temperature at which the
thermal flow exchange between the wall of the structure and the outside medium is zero.

To find the athermane temperature at structure stagnation point, the ambient temperature
at an altitude z must be multiplied by a coefficient which depends on the speed of the
aircraft:

æ γ −1 ö
Tath. z = Tam. z x ç 1 + Mach2 ÷
è γ ø

Cp
where γ = = 1.4 γ: ratio between molar heat capacities (perfect gas constant).
Cv

where Cp and Cv are the heat capacities of the gas (in this case, of the air at the altitude
concerned) at constant pressure and volume.

7.3.3 . Temperature of the structure

In the previous subchapters, we defined the various temperatures outside the structure
(ambient temperature on ground, ambient temperature in flight, wall temperature and
athermane temperature).

The aim of the next chapter is to determine the temperature of the various structural
elements.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Calculation method V 7.3.3.1
1/2

7.3.3.1 . Calculation method

The temperature of each structural element depends on:

- the change of the athermane temperature which itself depends on the time, the
altitude, the speed of the aircraft and the type of atmosphere,

- the solar radiation at the altitude in question (generally not taken into account),

- the geometrical and thermal characteristics of the various elements comprising the
structure,

- the color of the exterior paint.

The calculation method consists in breaking down the structure into elements assumed to
be at a uniform temperature at time t and in writing the thermal equilibrium of each of
these elements assuming that at time t = 0 all the structure has a uniform temperature
equal to the temperature of the ambient air.

A finite difference calculation enables the problem to be solved including in transient


phase.
The quantity of heat required to vary the temperature of each element by ∆T in the time
interval ∆t is:

C x V x ∆T = Qa + Qc + Qi + (Qϕ - Qr)

where:

C = heat capacity of the material


V = volume of the element
Qc = quantity of heat exchanged with the boundary layer by convection
Qa = quantity of heat exchanged by conduction with adjacent elements
Qi = quantity of heat exchanged with the inside medium (kerosene)
Qϕ = quantity of heat received by solar radiation
Qr = quantity of heat lost by radiation

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Calculation method - Thermal characteristics V 7.3.3.1
7.3.3.2
2/2

For "tank" structures, three kerosene levels can be studied:

- all internal elements are in contact with the kerosene,


- only the lower surface elements and a section of the spars are in contact with the
kerosene,
- only the upper surface elements are not in contact with the kerosene.

This method enables us to find at time t the temperature of each element and therefore to
deduce the forces and thermal stresses required for the fatigue and static justification.

Remark: The effects of the radiation of a section of the structure to another section need
not be taken into account in the calculations as this effect tends to make the
temperatures uniform.

7.3.3.2 . Thermal characteristics of the materials

- Conductivity

Carbon fiber
Light Tita-
Nomex Drawing
alloy nium Transv.
25/25/25/25 50/20/20/10 10/20/20/50

Thermal 4.5 5.2 3.8


conductivity 0.1 143 6.7 3
(w/m/° C) 440.092/92 22S.002.10502

B
- Specific heat

Light Tita- Carbon fiber


Nomex
alloy nium
Longi. Transv.

2 E6 2 E6
Specific heat
54 E3 2.6 E6 2.4 E6
(J/m3/° C) 22S.002.10502
440.092/92

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Temperatures of structure on ground V 7.3.3.3

- Paints

To calculate the temperatures on the ground (or optionally in flight), the absorptivity and
emissivity coefficients of the paint must be defined.

The emissivity coefficient ε is generally taken as equal to 0.85 or 0.9.

The absoptivity coefficient α is related to the color of the paint.

light light dark navy


Color white
gray yellow gray blue

α 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.8

7.3.3.3 . Temperatures of structure on ground

The first step consists in determining, with software PST2, change in the temperature of
the structure on the ground during the day in order to evaluate the most critical initial flight
conditions.

The study is generally conducted over a complete day from 0 h to 24 h but can be
extended over two or three days in order to minimize the influence of the initil conditions
(ambient temperature at 0 h: 32° C at ISA + 40° C).

Several sections of the structure with different thermal and geometrical characteristics will
be modeled.

As the absoptivity coefficient corresponds to the color of the paint used and the ground
ambient temperature and insolation curves, we calculate the maximum temperature on
the ground for each structural item during a day (see drawing below).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Temperatures of structure in flight V 7.3.3.4
1/3

T struc. ground

TEMPERATURE OF
STRUCTURAL
ELEMENT

ISA + 40° C AMB. TEMPERATURE


ON GROUND

t
0 12 h 24 h

7.3.3.4 . Temperatures of structure in flight

As we saw previously, software PST2 enables us to define the changes in the


temperatures of the structural elements on the ground. We shall apply the same method
to find the changes of these elements in flight.

For this, we must define the aircraft operating scenarios. These scenarios depend on:

- typical aircraft mission (change of speed M and altitude z versus time),

- distribution of the missions during the day (generally not taken into account for the
static justification),

- type of atmosphere,

- initial conditions defined previously (see chapter V 7.3.3.3).

- Typical mission

Several flight configurations or "missions" can be taken into account depending on the
way in which the aircraft is used.

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Temperatures of structure in flight V 7.3.3.4
2/3

Generally, a typical "mission" can be described as follows (A300-600):


TIME
(min)

10.8

87.2
1.3

2.3

5.7

4.4

3.3
5

5
DIST.

664.9
(nm)

10.3

78.8

42.8

21.5

21.6

12.5
2.4

12
CRUISE 0.78 M

DESCENT 0.82 M/335 KT


CLIMB 30 KT/0.78 M

DECELERATION 335 KT to 250 KT


ACCELERATION 250 KT to 330 KT

DECELERATION 250 KT to 240 KT

DECELERATION 240 KT to 210 KT


31000 fr

DESCENT 250 KT

HOLD 5 mm - 240 kT

APPROACH 210 KT to 145 KT


DESCENT 210 KT
CLIMB 250 KT
START UP AND TAXI-OUT

10000 fr
T.O. + CLIMB

5000 fr

LANDING

TAXI-IN
1500 fr

- Daily use of the aircraft

A mean "typical" use is determined. For instance: for the A340, five 75' flights have been
considered distributed over 1 day as shown below:

75' 75' 75' 75' 75'

60' 60' 60' 60'

0 400 1440
time (min)

Remark: For the static justification, we will not take into account the influence of the
previous flight on the initial conditions of the mission under study. Each flight will
be considered as isolated during the day. We shall therefore choose the most
penalizing time for the start of the mission (generally 12 h for positive
temperatures).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


Composite stress manual

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Temperatures of structure in flight V 7.3.3.4
3/3

- Definitions of atmospheres

Three types of atmospheres are to be considered in the analyses:

- standard,

- tropical,

- polar.

Remark: For the fatigue analysis, it is sometimes necessary (if we do not want to be too
conservative) to use a random distribution of the type of atmosphere
encountered during one year in service. The "standard" operating time can for
instance be broken down as follows:

- ¼ of operation in polar atmosphere,

- ¼ of operation in standard atmosphere,

- ½ of operation in tropical atmosphere.

For the static justification, we shall choose the most penalizing atmosphere (tropical or
polar).

© AEROSPATIALE - 1999 MTS 006 Iss. B


© AEROSPATIALE - 1999

7.4 . Recapitulative block diagram

THERMAL CALCULATIONS
Typical - Standard
- Tropical
atmosphere - Polar

Tamb. ground Qϕ
Ambient temp. Solar radiation

Block diagram
on ground on ground
12 h 24 h 0h 12 h 24 h

Composite stress manual


Altitude Tamb. z
Typical z 55° C
Altitude Ambient
flight z temp. in flight
MTS 006 Iss. B

- 54° C
t mission Altitude
t z

Speed
M
Speed
x (1 + 0.18 Mach2)
M
t Qϕ z
Radiation in
flight
T Altitude
athermane z

T struc.
- Conduction
Daily Temperature T
- Convection

V
frequency of elements wall
- Radiation
0h 24 h t