Advertisement

Damage Prediction of Integrated Composite T-Joint with Fixed Support Subjected to Low-Velocity Impact: An Experimental and Numerical Study

  • Rujian Zhu
  • Xiwu XuEmail author
  • Chunjian Mao
Original Paper
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

A finite element model was established based on Hashin failure criteria and the progressive damage theory to predict the damage of integrated composite T-joint structures with fixed support subjected to low-velocity impact. The cohesive zone model was employed to simulate the delamination behaviors of adhesive in the finite element model. The fiber damage and matrix damage of each ply can be provided by the finite element model in details. The damage behaviors of composite T-joint structure subjected to different impact energies were compared using the finite element model. The numerical results showed that the impact caused an elliptical projected area with its major axis along the surface fiber direction. Besides, the in-plane damage dimension is proportional to the impact energy. It is obviously noted that the damage of the first ply is the most serious owing to the delamination between soleplate and fillet caused by the stretching of the L-ribs. A low-velocity impact experiment of composite T-joint was also conducted and the damage dimension was determined by the ultrasonic C-scan. Results showed that the shape and size of our experimental damage agreed well with the simulation results. Our finite element model can be used to effectively analyze the damage behaviors of the integrated composite T-joint subjected to low-velocity impact.

Keywords

T-joint Finite element model Low-velocity impact Impact damage 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation (BK20160786).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Feng Y, Gao C, He YT et al (2016) Investigation on tension-tension fatigue performances and reliability fatigue life of T700/MTM46 composite laminates. Compos Struct 136:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Degenhardt R, Castro SGP, Mariano AA, Zimmerman R, Khakimova R, Kling A (2014) Future structural stability design for composite space and airframe structures. Thin Wall Struct 81:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mandar DK, Rahul G, Naik NK (2011) Effect of back pressure on impact and compression-after-impact characteristics of composites. Compos Struct 93:944–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riccio A, De Luca A, Di Felice G, Caputo F (2014) Modelling the simulation of impact induced damage onset and evolution in composites. Compos B 66:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrate S (1998) Impact on composite structures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rouchon J (1995) Fatigue and damage tolerance aspects for composite aircraft structures. In: Proceedings of ICAF symposium, DelftGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malhotra A, Guild FJ, Pavier M (2008) Edge impact to composite laminates-experiments and simulations. J Mater Sci 43(20):6661–6667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kesavan A, John S, Herszberg I (2008) Strain-based structural health monitoring of complex composite structures. Struct Health Monit 7(3):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park H, Kong C (2013) Experimental study on barely visible impact damage and visible impact damage for repair of small aircraft composite structure. Aerosp Sci Technol 29:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu L, Cui H, Li Y et al (2012) Numerical simulation of the failure of composite T joints with defects. Acta Aeronaut Astronaut Sin 33:287–296Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giovanni B, Roberto V (2003) Influence of the laminate thickness in low velocity impact behavior of composite materials plate. Compos Struct 61:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cartie DDR, Irving PE (2002) Effect of resin and fiber properties on impact and compression after impact performance of CFRP. Compos Part A 33:483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cantwell WJ (2007) Geometrical effects in the low velocity impact of GFRP. Compos Sci Technol 67:1900–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang SX, Wu LZ, Ma L (2010) Low-velocity impact and residual tensile strength analysis to carbon fiber composite laminates. Mater Design 31:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Besant T, Davies GAO, Hitchings D (2001) Finite element modeling of low velocity impact of composite sandwich panels. Compos Part A 32:1189–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yademellat Hesam, Nikbakht Ali, Saghafi Hsmed (2010) Experimental and numerical investigation of low velocity impact on electrospun nanofiber modified composite laminates. Compos Struct 200:507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma Xueshi, Bian Kan, Ji-yun Lu (2016) Experimental research on detection for interface debond of CFRP T-joints under tensile load. Compos Struct 158:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rhead AT, Marchant D, Butler R (2010) Compressive strength of composite laminates following free edge impact. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 41(9):1056–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Choi HY, Chang K (1992) A model for predicting damage in graphite-epoxy laminated composites resulting from low-velocity point impact. J Compos Mater 26(14):2134–2169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wiggenraad JFM, Zhang X, Davies GAO (1999) Impact damage prediction and failure analysis of heavily loaded, blade-stiffened composite wing panels. Compos Struct 45:81–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shenoi RA, Violette FLM (1990) A study of structural composite tee joints in small boats. J Compos Mater 24:644–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greenhalgh E, Meeks C, Clarke A, Thatcher J (2003) The effect of defects on the performance of post-buckled CFRP stringer-stiffened panels. Compos A 34(7):623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greenhalgh E, Clarke A, Thatcher J (2000) Mechanical evaluation of stringer-stiffened panels tested under compression. Report: DERA.T3.TR.4. Farnborough (UK)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ostre Benjamin, Bouvet Christophe (2015) Edge impact modeling on stiffened composite structures. Compos Struct 126:314–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Faggiani A, Falzon BG (2010) Predicing low-velocity impact damage on a stiffened composite panel. Compos A 41:737–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greenhalgh E, Bishop SM (1996) Characterisation of impact damage in skin-stringer composite structures. Compos Struct 36:187–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feng Yu, Zhang Haoyu (2016) Effect of impact damage positions on the buckling and post-buckling behaviors of stiffened composite panel. Compos Struct 155:184–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Serna Moreno MC, Lopez Cela JJ (2015) Adhesively bonded joints as a dissipative energy mechanism under impact loading. Appl Math Model 39:3496–3505MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cui Hai-Po, Wen Wei-Dong, Cui Hai-Tao (2009) An integrated method for predicting damage and residual tensile strength of composite laminates under low velocity impact. Comput Struct 87:456–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hua Huang Chien, Jung Lee Ya (2003) Experiments and simulation of the static contact crush of composite laminated plates. Compos Struct 61(3):265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Camanho PP, Davila CG (2002) Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination in composite materials. National Aeronautics and Space Agency, USA: NASA-technical paper, pp 211737Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Camanho PP, Matthews FL (1999) A progressive damage model for mechanically fastened joints in composite laminates. J Compos Mater 33:2248–2280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Atas A, Soutis C (2014) Strength prediction of bolted joints in CFRP composite laminates using cohesive zone elements. Compos B Eng 58:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Borg R, Nilsson L (2004) Simonsson K. Simulating DCB.ENF and MMB experiments using shell elements and a cohesive zone model. Compos Sci Technol 64:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moroni F, Pirondi A (2011) Cohesive zone model simulation of fatigue debonding along interfaces. Procedia Eng 10:1829–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical StructuresNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations