Advanced computational analysis of adhesively bonded joints

Junghyun Ahn, Ph.D. Advanced Methods and Development Lead General Atomics Aeronautical System, San Diego, CA 92128

Anthony M. Waas, Ph.D Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Department of Aerospace Engineering University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Keywords
Composite bonded, A4EI, shear stress distribution, cohesive zone, finite element analysis, joint analysis

Abstract
Adhesively bonded structural components are increasingly being considered for lightweight aerospace structures. In this article, the authors provide a state-of-the-art description of how contemporary advances in computational mechanics, based on the finite element method, can be used to obtain a basic understanding of the deformation response of adhesive joints in aerospace composite structures. In addition, engineering approaches that can be used to design bonded structural joints are also described. In particular, bonded joint analysis using cohesive zone modeling is described. As an example for a real-life design implementation of cohesive zone based bonded joint analysis, an integrated computational analysis approach is presented at the end of the article.

I. INTRODUCTION
Structural joint design is one of the most challenging problems in aerospace structures, regardless of whether joining metallic or composite parts. The traditional approach to efficient airframe structural design consists of breaking down the design cycle into various parts for specific load path (direction and magnitude), designing specific parts, taking particular loading components and using joints to transfer load among the structural members. The main load-bearing members in the wing are spar beams. These run span-wise to the wing and carry the force and moment due to lift generated from the wing. Wing skins and chord-wise airfoil shaped structural frames (ribs) transfer pressure and shear forces to the spars. Wing skins usually have stringers to add stiffness. Typical semi-monocoque fuselages have structural beams, frames, skins and stiffeners. Structural beams running longitudinally are called longerons, and a center beam, which is the major load carrying member, is called the keel. Frames can be either circumferential or fully enclosed disks (pressure bulkhead). Each component is joined either by mechanical fasteners and/or adhesives (Figure1).

Figure1. Typical Airframe structure (Ref.1, Ref. 2) Due to the nature of airframe structural systems (individual parts supporting particular loading components), the best overall, lightweight, design to maximize performance can be achieved by tight integration of different subsystem components; hence the most efficient design methods of joining components are crucial. Of course, the cost of parts and the total life cycle cost is always of concern in any structural design. Joints in composite structures present an additional challenge, since the composite material, by itself, has complex failure mechanisms due to its synthetic microstructure which results in macroscopic anisotropy of properties and response. This adds complexity 2

to issues associated with traditional joints including stress concentrations, eccentric load transfer through fasteners, joint interface, and out of plane failure modes at termination points. A stress concentration effect on mechanical composite joints is particularly severe because the nature of load transfer through contact interaction of fasteners is complex. Establishing allowables for various joint configurations is a very costly and timeconsuming process (bearing, bypass, bearing failure allowables correlated by various fastener configurations, temperature effects and fastener geometry). Because of these issues, the preferred joining method for composite structures includes a bonded joint, whether in isolation or in conjunction with bolts (bonded-bolted joints). Modern UAV systems such as the Predator/Reaper family (Figure 2), and the Avenger Series (Figure 3) use adhesively bonded joints at most interfaces.

Figure 2 Predator-A and Reaper UAV

Figure 3 Avenger UAV Adhesive joints are less intrusive (no need to punch holes for fasteners), and the relatively ductile response of adhesives results in less severe stress concentrations than mechanically fastened structures. The assembly process of a bonded structure can be simpler than a mechanically fastened structure (fewer parts count, no necessary treatment of holes, less inspection required during assembly process). On the other hand, bonded structures are difficult to dis-assemble and can add complexity to maintenance, repair, 3

and access to other structures. Edge debonding, and delamination of thick bonded joints are a difficult issue to tackle. Impact resistance can be weak, and additional care needs to be taken in the quality control of bonding (by process control and environmental control) to ensure that consistent joint integrity is maintained throughout a production run. Predictable and docile degradation behavior without tendency to catastrophic degradation during operation use is highly sought, but difficult to achieve. This can be very hard to guarantee for certification and maintenance over a long period of time, especially for joining highly loaded, safety critical components. This is why deploying mechanically fastened composite structures is still the preferred approach in primarily loaded, safety critical composite structures.

II. BONDED JOINTS

Adhesively bonded joints are more efficient than mechanical joints because they can distribute load over a much broader area than mechanical joints. Bonded joints do not require intrusive processes such as drilling holes, putting fasteners in and tightening them. Therefore they do not create local stress concentrations which can cause bearing damage and/or delamination through the thickness of the adherend. Additionally, they are much lighter than mechanical joints. On the opposite side of the coin, bonded joints are difficult to disassemble without destroying the substrate. Particular caution needs to be taken in preparing bonding surfaces, treating bonding agents, and controlling the bonding process. Environmental degradation of bond integrity by means of galvanic corrosion of dissimilar joint materials, humidity, infrared, temperature fluctuations over a long period of time can also affect bonded joints. As a result, bonded joints require inspection techniques not traditionally adopted for mechanical joints, such as ultrasonic inspection. Typical bonded joint configurations are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Typical Bonded Joints (Ref. 3) The design approach to ensure that there is satisfactory joint reliability in the bonded joints is to avoid failure of the adhesive bond layer before adherend failure. Because of the weak nature of adhesives compared to adherends, the overall strength of the joint can be controlled by choosing different joining geometries that are suitable for an intended application.. For example, using a bond area and configuration that maximizes the bonding effect while minimizing stress concentrations, or, using an adhesive thickness that minimizes the bond shear stress and peel stress. Maximum shear stress and peel stress is achieved when the joint is designed such that the adherend fails before the

adhesive. Joint configurations and corresponding failure effects are shown in Figure 5, from the work of Hart-Smith (Ref 4).

Figure 5. Joint configurations and strengths, as a function of adherend thickness (Ref.4) The maximum integrity of adhesive joints is achieved by promoting adherend failure. This is achieved by controlling the joint configuration and the thicknesses of the adherends and adhesive. Good process control (surface treatment, bonding process) to ensure consistent integrity of bonding interface is crucial. Long term durability of adhesive joints, creep failure under cyclic loading with different environmental conditions (hot-wet particular) calls for detailed load spectrum analysis. Crack initiation and growth of within the adhesive layer, and also along the bond/adherend interface are major issues for the durability of bonded joints (life cycle prediction of bonded joints). Certification of aircraft structures with bonded joints present in the primary structure is an additional challenge. The inspection limitations of bonded joints, especially for thick composite joints, have to be answered by full spectrum life analysis with a reasonable guarantee even if bond integrity is lost (fail-safe condition). A simplified one dimensional approach by Hart-Smith along with the A4EI software codes (Ref. 3) and their derivative methods have been used in designing adhesive joints in various aerospace structures. Simple one-dimensional lap joint solutions are obtained by calculating the shear stress distribution in the adhesive for various adherend stiffness and loadings (Figure 5). For more complex adhesive joint configurations such as step joints, a one dimensional approach can be used to treat a joint as a serious of individual joints, each with uniform adherend thickness. Extensive test data is used to derive correction factors for confident failure predictions of adhesive joints. 5

Figure 5. Single lap joint geometry (Ref. 5) Where

d 1 T d 2 T2 2 , ADH = 1 = 1 ; = and = G ADH ADH , the shear dx E1 t1 dx E2 t 2

failure of the adhesive is assumed to occur when ADH MAX (Ref. 5). The design approach using this method is from practical realization based on the feature of aerospace design that the adherends are thin relative to other dimensions in the loading direction; hence the details of the stress distribution through the thickness thickne is assumed to be linear. . The adhesive joints are sized to accommodate dominant axial loading, and any complex behavior induced by other factors such as, multi-axial multi loads, thick composite adherends, thick adhesive layers etc., are incorporated using semiempirical correction factors. For non-idealized, idealized, realistic behavior of adhesive joints, joints there are new methods that have emerged. One promising recent development developmen is due to Stapleton and Waas (Ref. Ref. 11), , that uses a combination of analytical shape functions functio for adhesive behavior in conjunction with standard finite element codes. Alternatively, extensive 3-dimensional dimensional finite element analysis techniques can be used to obtain fairly accurate stress and strain distributions in the joint region and these approa approaches are described at the end of this section.

III. Cohesive Zone (CZM) (CZ based bonded joint analysis

To analyze failure initiation (debonding) and crack propagation within a bonded joint, traditional fracture mechanics based approaches can be used for propagation of a preexisting crack within the framework of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). To calculate crack opening-propagation, the strain energy release rates rate (SERR) are calculated using the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT), (VCCT) as s shown in Rybicki and Kanninen (Ref. 10). By comparing the SERR against critical values in pure modes or against a suitable mixed-mode criterion, the debonding initiation margin and growth assessment of a typical adhesive joint can be assessed. Another approach, pproach, which can be conveniently automated using commercially available software packages is the Cohesive Zone Model (CZM), , which, in addition to the SERRs also use cohesive strengths to assess crack growth predictions and accounts for finite size process process zones ahead of the crack tip (Ref. 7). The CZM originated from the need to re-examine examine the non-physical non prediction of singular stresses at the crack tip (Ref. 12). . It was argued that the failing material ahead of the crack tip can be represented by a traction-separation trac separation law, whose origins can be micromechanical (Figure 6). ). CZM uses fracture energy as a parameter 6

(established from testing) to represent the effect of energy dissipation mechanisms (crack propagation) in the cohesive traction zone. Typically a fracture energy and a cohesive strength are needed to formulate the traction-separation traction separation law. In reality, the traction law must originate from a finite traction value since when failure occurs, the traction is finite at the crack tip (Ref. 13).

Figure 6. 6 Cohesive Zone Modeling (Ref. 6) Implementation of CZM with the FEM framework can be either using CCZM (continuum cohesive zone model) or DCZM (discrete cohesive zone model). In one variant of the CCZM, an energy potential function needs to be established to define the traction-separation separation law in the cohesive zone. . Various potential functions, function , have been proposed, , and it is typical to have a polynomial form, , with the tractions, , computed as a function of separation, , using,

where,

The cohesive strength , and the maximum separation measure the cohesive strength and fracture energy. energy

are deduced from tests that

Figure 7. CCZM & DCZM and traction / separation behavior (Ref. 7, Ref. 8) In DCZM, the cohesive behavior of the crack interface is embedded using nonlinear discrete elements with pre-defined pre behavior as shown in Figure 7. The DCZM is seen as a robust alternative to CCZM, where the latter may become mesh sensitive in certain cert applications, and suffer from convergence difficulties during the unloading portion of the cohesive behavior. The DCZM, in contrast, treats the fracture behavior using discrete connections that are associated with node pairs of the adjacent surfaces involved in the separation process. . The method incorporates the characteristic length by scaling the traction law with the size of an element, so that the fracture energy and cohesive strength are preserved, and is therefore mesh objective (Ref. 9). The result from a typical CCZM based approach used in a basic hybrid joint characterization is shown in Figure 8.

Load (P) & Displacement of Bonded Joint

Load (P) and Displacement Hybrid Joint

Figure 8. Typical Hybrid - Bonded Joints 8

For both joint interface models, the bonded surface behavior through contact definition is described along the bonded interface. The mechanical fasteners in the hybrid joints are modeled as beam elements, which may have a form of full 3D solid bolt model as well at the expense of computation cost. In the bonded joint pull off test, there is considerable crack arrest and further growth (non-smooth crack growth), prior to final failure, and the FE results are seen to capture the average trend observed in the test results. For the case of hybrid bonded joint simulation, the pull-off load is seen to increase with the displacement of the load point, followed by failure initiation through debonding (small load drop), then there is further increase in load with intermittent crack growth until final failure. Hybrid joints consisting of adhesive and fasteners (bonded-bolted joints) are common in today's aircraft structures. The inherent redundancy of these joints solves some of the certification problems posed by purely bonded joints. The bond interface behavior between composite parts can be modeled using surface based contact behavior, which is an available function in modern nonlinear FE packages, such as LS-DYNA, MARC, and ABAQUS. The advantages of this approach in real applications are; 1. No need to use expensive specialized elements, user subroutines or a user element 2. Using existing contact pair modeling, with prescribed traction-separation laws 3. Specifying the contact behavior in areas where debonding is most likely to occur (bond-lines) The surface based cohesive behavior requires several parameters including bond line stiffness, damage initiation, damage evolution, and damage stabilization. These parameters come together to describe the behavior of the bond line. Coupon level test data are used to determine the values for describing the bond line response. These can be coupled with information from subcomponent level design studies and used for the system level model predictions. The latter is where testing becomes more complex and expensive and thus this is where a robust computational model can be made to be most useful. The flow chart in Figure 9 shows a typical procedure for evaluating joints up to the system level while minimizing cost.

Figure 9. . Finite Element Model Procedure and Flow Chart

IV. Design Perspective

In designing gning aerospace structures with bonded and hybrid structures, the most critical aspect of structural analysis is the trade trade-off between analysis accuracy (the more accurate information usually ally takes more time) and efficiency of solution (quick turnaround, timely information necessary to advance design) per a given task scope and a set of deliverables. Understanding certification requirements requirement (impact resistance, damage tolerance, operational-environmental environmental degradation and failsafe condition) of joint configuration configurations dictates the airframe design as well. With appropriate deployment of the latest technologies in the field of finite element analysis methods, which includes high speed pre/post-processing, essing, together with a system level-integrated integrated analysis approach, analyzing an entire system (airplane level) level structure (a full wing, fuselage and empennage system) as part of an integrated product design process has been quite successful. successful Representing a realistic joint interface in the airplane level analysis has distinct advantages in understanding joint behavior under more representative loading conditions, condition identifying critical design area areas, and assessing the probability of debonding/degradation debonding/degr behavior for damage tolerance assessment. Airplane level design analysis requires preceding work in validating the joint modeling approach (Figure 9) ) from coupon to subsub component level before implementing in an airplane level structure. An airplane e level integrated analysis approach (full aircraft system with everything down to each joint simulated) for system level aircraft design, in addition to localized adhesive joint analysis, is one of the sought after objectives in a modern integrated

10

aerospace composite structure. Such analyses approaches are being considered for successful implementation in many ongoing airplane programs.

References
1. Steven A. Brandt, Randall J. Stiles, John J. Bertin, Ray Whitford , Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design Perspective, AIAA Education Series, pp. 255 2. Michael Chun-Yung Niu, Airframe Structural Design, Practical Design Information, , Conmilit Press, LTD 3. Robert M. Jones, Mechanics of Composite Materials, Second Edition, Taylor & Francis 4. Hart-Smith, L.J., Advances in the Analysis and Design of Adhesive-Bonded Joints in Composite Aerospace Structures, SAMPE Process Engineering Series, Vol. 19, SAMPE, Azusa, 1974, pp. 727-737 5. Primer on A4EI, Computer Code for Bonded Joint Analysis; Ben Rodini / Swales Aerospace, GSFC FEMCI, 2001 6. Namas Chandra, Theoretical and Computational Aspects of Cohesive Zone Modeling, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Florida State University 7. De Xie, Mohit Garg, Dade Huang, Frank Abdi, Cohesive Zone Model for Surface Cracks using Finite Element Analysis, 49th AIAA SDM, 7-10 April 2008, Schaumburg, IL 8. Peter A. Gustafson, Anthony M. Waas, The influence of adhesive constitutive parameters in cohesive zone finite element models of adhesively bonded joints, International Journal of Solids and Structures 46 (2009), pp 2201-2215 9. De Xie and Waas A.M., Discrete Cohesive Zone Model for Mixed-Mode Fracture using finite element analysis, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 73 (2006): 1783-1796 10. E.F. Rybicki and M.F. Kanninen, A Finite Element Calcualtion of Stress Intensity Factors by a Modified Crack Closure Integral, Eng. Fracture Mech., Vol. 9 pp. 931938, 1977 11. Stapleton, S. E. and Waas, A. M., Reduced-Order Modeling of Adhesively Bonded Joints Using an Enhanced Joint Finite Element Proceedings of the 52nd International SAMPE Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT, October 11-14 , 2010 12. Barenblatt G.I., The formation of equilibrium cracks during fracture: general ideas and hypothesis, axially symmetric cracks. Appl. Math. Mech. 1959;23:622-36

11

13. Siva Shankar Rudraraju, A multiscale crack path predicting computational method for laminated fiber reinforced composites, 49th SDM conference, April 7-10, 2008, Schaumburg, IL 14. Isaac M. Daniel, Ori Ishai, Engineering Mechanics of Composite Materials, 1994, Chapter 5. 15. Hahn, H. and Tsai, S., Nonlinear Elastic Behavior of Unidirectional Composite Laminates, Journal of Composite Materials, 7, 1973, pp. 102-118 16. Hashin. Z. and Rotem. A., A Fatigue Failure Criterion for Fiber Reinforced Materials, Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 7. Oct. 1973, pp. 448-464 17. MIL-HDBK-17-3E, Polymer Matrix Composites, Volume 3. Materials Usage, Design and Analysis, 2002, Chapter 5 18. ABAQUS manual, SIMULIA, 2009

12