MIT-Portugal

Composite Bonded
Joints under Mode I
Fatigue Loading ( DCB )
M.V. Fernandez1, M. F. S. F. de Moura1, L. F. M. da Silva1,
A. T. Marques
1Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade
de Porto
Content
Objectives
Introduction
Data Reduction Schemes
Experimental details
Specimen fabrication
Test Procedures
Experimental Results
Data Analysis
Conclusions and Future Work
Objectives
Validation of the Compliance-Based Beam
Method (CBBM) in fatigue applications:
by comparing with Pirondi’s Model and the
polynomial model;
discussion of the capabilities and limitation
of this method
Application of the Paris-law
Introduction
 In several structural components
cyclical fatigue loading leading to
failure occurring at small loads.

 For fatigue damage two approaches
have been used extensively - stress-
life and fatigue crack growth (FCG).

 The FCG method is the correlation
between the rate of fatigue crack
growth per cycle (da/dN) and the
change of one fracture parameter (G
– Energy Release Rate) over the
time.

 Data reduction scheme to evaluate GI
=f(ae)

P 2 dC CBBM:
GI =
2b da
Po lyn o m ia l:
 C = A1+ A 2a+ A 3a +2 A 4a 3

Pirondi’s method:
δ 2λσ t  2 3
1 + 2( λσ a ) + 2( λσ a ) + ( λσ a ) 
2
C= = 
P E 'a b  3 

6 E ' Ea ae = f (C )
λ = 3 a
4
σ
Ea ' =
ht E (1 − ν 2 )

P 2 dC P 2 a 2
GI = = (1 + λσ ) 2
2b da 2bEI
 Experimental procedure -
Bonding
 The adhesive (Araldite
 The bonded surfaces
2015) was poured in thin
were polished with
wires with the
180 grit sandpaper
manufacturer mixing
 The specimens were nozzle, covering the
placed in a wooden entire bonding area in
board to guarantee both sides (to maximize
flatness, and a 0.2 the adhesion).
mm calibrated steel
 The specimens were cured
spacer was put to
for at least 6 days.
guarantee the
adhesive thickness.  Finally the load blocks were

fixed with Araldite 2021.


Specimen
The specimen dimensions are:

The adhesive thickness is 0.2 mm
L = 125 mm
a0 = 45 mm
b= 25 mm
l3= 15 mm
h = 5.7 mm
 Static Results

Static Pmax was

used as a reference
value to define the
dynamic load in
fatigue

  P max (N) GIC (N/mm)

DCB4 463.15 DCB2 0.39
DCB3 460.40 DCB3 0,42
DCB1 457.06 DCB4 0,42
Average 460 Average 0,41
C.O.V 0.66% C.O.V. 4,49%

Note: This plot is from the numeric simulation obtained before the experimental tests.
Dymanic Tests
The ASTM E 647 – 08 standard was used
The tests were made with load control
(constant amplitude loading).
The load ratio (R) is 0.1 and the maximum
load is 50% of the average maximum static
load (230 N)
The main objective of these tests is to define
the fatigue crack growth rate as a function
of the (Gmax/GIc)
Data reduction schemes
Determination of the Energy Release Rate
(GI):
Polynomial method
An analytical method developed by Pirondi
Compliance-Based Beam Method (CBBM)
Determination of the Fatigue crack growth
rate:
The FCGrate was obtained by the secant
method proposed in the standard. C
 ∆ GI 
2
da
 Pa ris-La w = C1  
dN  GIc 
Results
Cohesive Failure:
6 specimens


Interfacial Failure :
2 specimens


Delamination:
4 specimens

Results
 Results
Paris Law constants obtained with the GI
values obtained with the CBBM
 
(Cohesive
C1 C 2
failure) C
 ∆G 
2
Specimen 1 0.0255 3.2702
da

Specimen 2 0.0156 2.9155 = C1  I 
Specimen 3 0.1226 5.0217 dN  GIc 
Specimen 4 0.1837 4.9585
Specimen 6 0.0163 3.6237
Specimen 10 0.014 2.7019
All 0 . 0196 3 . 26747
Specimens
Conclusions
A new data reduction scheme (CBBM) is
capable of fitting the other two methods;
This method and Pirondi’s method present
an almost linear trend of GI=f(a);
CBBM does not require crack length
monitoring during propagation and
accounts for the adhesive presence;
The equivalent crack length matches the
experimental values of the real crack
length
Conclusions
The method used for calculated the general
Paris- Law fits the experimental results.
A more stable crack growth is needed,
because the variation of the constant
values is significant.
The types of failure affect drastically the
fatigue crack growth rate.
When cohesive failure occurs, the specimen
lasts around 20000 cycles after the
initiation of the crack.
Future work

Development of the damage law that is going to
be implemented in the FEM analysis;
Experimental work with thinner specimens, to
create a more stable crack growth and to
increase the linearity of the da/dN.
Validation of the Mode I FEM model with cohesive
elements;
Start the Mode II analysis using the End Notched
Flexure test.


Thank
You