Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 10 June 2014
Keywords:
Composites
Bolted joints
Clearance
Continuum damage mechanics
Stiffness
In-plane damage
a b s t r a c t
A damage modelling approach, based on a continuum damage model (CDM) formulation, is proposed and
applied to the problem of double-lap, multi-bolt, bre-reinforced composite joints with variable clearances, subjected to quasi-static tensile loading. A new method of dealing with bre failure is included
in the CDM model, which is implemented in a commercial implicit nite element analysis code. The
model is validated at element and structural levels by comparing with experimental data. It has been
found that, for the joints examined in this paper, our formulation is capable of modelling development
of damage from bearing failure onset all the way to ultimate catastrophic net-tension failure without
numerical problems, which is an advance over previous work. The predictions from the CDM model of
net-tension failure modes and ultimate loads are in good agreement with those from the experiments.
Furthermore the model is capable of explaining some non-intuitive experimental ndings, such as the
larger energy absorption obtained in joints with higher clearances.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Composite bolted joints (CBJs) are widely used in critical structures in aerospace and energy applications. Though competing
with rapidly growing application of adhesive bonding and bonded
repair techniques [1], CBJs are still of major interest, especially
when thick composite parts are to be joined or where parts need
to be disassembled for inspection or repair during the life time of
the structure. The joints are the critical parts in the structure due
to the stress concentrations and bre discontinuities they
introduce. Hence, various methodologies have been developed to
investigate the structural response of the CBJs subjected to various
loading conditions, by means of numerical analysis, e.g. nite
element (FE) analysis, and/or experimental testing [24].
The two most well-known FE approaches for modelling brereinforced polymer (FRP) composite material are Progressive Damage Analysis (PDA) [5] and continuum damage mechanics (CDM).
PDA has been widely used for modelling CBJs, whereas the use of
CDM is much less prevalent for CBJs in the open literature. In
general, PDA is governed by material damage laws when an
undamaged element material reaches a critical stress and/or strain
442
predicted. In the present paper, a CDM model is suggested to alleviate these convergence difculties. An important feature which
has been found to improve the accuracy of predictions is the introduction of a new approach to derive the initial bre failure strain.
The model is capable of properly capturing the net-tension failure
mode and ultimate load of multi-bolt, double-lap, protruding-head
composite joints with different clearances, which the PDA model in
[16] failed to do. The proposed CDM model is used to correlate the
damage evolution with the joint stiffness variations during failure.
2. Overview of specimens
Brief details of the CBJ specimens studied are given here; for full
details of the experimental set-up see [15,22]. Specimen dimensions are shown in Fig. 1. The ratios of the width (w), edge distance
(e), and bolt pitch (p) to bolt diameter (d) were w/d = 6, e/d = 3, and
p/d = 4.5 respectively. The laminates were manufactured from carbonepoxy HTA/6376, and the quasi-isotropic lay-ups for the skin
(centre) plate and splice (outer) plates were respectively [45/0/
45/90]4s and [45/0/45/90]2s, with nominal ply thickness of
0.13 mm. All tests were carried out with titanium alloy protruding-head bolts, secured with a steel nut and washer. The elastic
material constants for the joint components are given in Table 1.
In the tests, an axial displacement was applied quasi-statically to
the splice plates while the skin plate was held stationary.
The four levels of clearance studied, labelled C1C4, are shown
in Table 2, which shows nominal clearance values, possible ranges
on the reamer and bolt diameters according to the tolerances used
on both, and consequent possible range on each clearance. The
nominal clearances are 0 lm, 80 lm, 160 lm and 240 lm, representing, respectively, percentage clearances of 0%, 1%, 2% and 3%
of the hole nominal diameter, 8 mm. The relatively large clearances
C3 and C4 are slightly outside of recommended tolerance for
aerospace applications, but may exist in practice if improper drilling or fastening procedures are followed. All the bolts had nominal
diameter 8 mm, manufactured with f7 ISO tolerance. For the multibolt joints, six different clearance combinations are studied, as
listed in Table 3. For example, the C1_C1_C1 case had (nominally)
zero clearance in all holes, while the C4_C1_C1 case had a large
Table 1
Material properties of HTA/6376 carbonepoxy, titanium alloy and steel [15,22].
E011 (GPa)
Lamina
Titanium alloy
Steel
E022 (GPa)
E033 (GPa)
G012 (GPa)
G013 (GPa)
G023 (GPa)
m12
m13
m23
10
5.2
5.2
3.9
0.3
0.3
0.5
140
10
E (GPa)
110
210
0.29
0.3
443
C1
C2
C3
C4
Nominal
clearance
(lm)
0
80
160
240
Reamer
diameter
Bolt diameter
Possible
clearance
Min
(mm)
Max
(mm)
Min
(mm)
Max
(mm)
Min
(lm)
Max
(lm)
7.985
8.065
8.145
8.225
7.994
8.074
8.154
8.234
7.972
7.972
7.972
7.972
7.987
7.987
7.987
7.987
2
78
158
238
22
102
182
262
Table 3
Joint clearance cases.
Case code
C1_C1_C1
C2_C1_C1
C4_C1_C1
C1_C3_C1
C3_C3_C1
C1_C1_C4
Hole 2
Hole 3
0
80
240
0
160
0
0
0
0
160
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
240
clearance in hole 1 only. As described in [15,22], special jigs, xtures and reamers were made for the tests, and the bolt loads were
measured with instrumented bolts.
3. Finite element model development
3.1. Parts and assembly of the joint
Finite element modelling was performed here using ABAQUS
[23]. A one-quarter symmetric model was used, as shown in
Fig. 2, taking advantage of the symmetry of the joint shown
in Fig. 1. The gripped areas were not modelled, i.e. perfect
gripping was assumed. The washers and bolts were modelled
and meshed separately. One element per ply was used through
the thickness. Three-dimensional 8-node reduced-integration
(C3D8R) elements with hourglass control were used to discretise
the model. The smallest element size in the laminate was
0.32 mm 0.4 mm 0.13 mm, and the model contained 131,616
elements. The boundary constraints are also shown in Fig. 2. The
nodes at one end of the skin plate model were xed in X, Y and Z
"
hr11 i2
hr22 i2
1
hr11 i2
hr22 i2 r2
ED
0 033
0
0
2 E011 1 d1
E11
E22 1 d2
E22
E33
2
2
13
G013
E011
2
23
G023
2
2
with
E022
s212
G012 1
d12
1
444
where E011 , E022 , E033 , G012 , G013 , G023 and m12, m13, m23 are respectively the
Youngs moduli, shear moduli and Poissons ratios of an undamaged
ply, and d1, d2 and d12 are the bre, transverse and shear scalar
damage variables, respectively, that govern the degradation of the
moduli. These variables take on values from 0 to 1 (=dmax). It is
noted that the transverse tension energy and compression energy
are split since transverse micro-cracks close up under compression.
Thermodynamic forces are derived from Eq. (1) in the form of
the energy dissipation rates, analogous to energy release rates for
crack propagation, which govern development of shear and transverse tensile damage for the matrix. The thermodynamic forces Y2,
Y12 are associated with damage variables d2 and d12 for dissipation,
and are dened as:
Y2
@ED
r2 J
0 22 s2 2
@d2 r;d1 ;d12 2E22 1 d2
Y 12
d1n1
@ED
r212
Yt maxs6t
q
Y 12 s bY 2 s
Y 2 t maxs6t
p
Y 2 s
where Y(t) and Y 2 (t) are set to their maximum values attained over
any previous time s up to the current time t for preventing the
material healing, and b is the shear-transverse damage coupling
factor.
OHiggins et al. [25] carried out numerous statistically robust
experimental tests to describe the damage development laws and
extract the material properties for the HTA/6376 CFRP material
modelled here. For this CFRP material system, OHiggins et al.
[25] wrote d12 and d2 as follows:
d12
8
0
>
>
<
Y 12a ln Yt Y 12b
>
>
:
dmax
if
Yt 6 Y 12
if
otherwise
6
where Y12a, Y12b are the constants dening the logarithmic function,
YS is the transverse tension brittle damage threshold, YR is the shear
brittle damage threshold and Y 12 0 is the initial shear damage point.
8
0
>
>
<
d2 Y 2a ln Yt Y 2b
>
>
:
dmax
if
Yt 6 Y 2 0
if
d2 < dmax ; Y 2 t 6 Y S ; Y t 6 Y R
otherwise
7
1
Sc22
Sc22
2
2S23
!
1 r22 r33
r12 r13 2
S212
P1
where rij and Sij are the stress and strength components, respectively, and superscript c refers to compression.
In general, damage in the bre direction governs the nal fracture mode of the structure. It is common knowledge that carbon
bre, though tough, exhibits brittle behaviour. Although the process from aw initiation to fracture is quite short, it is still necessary to simulate the damage accumulation not only for the
accuracy of the CDM model, but also for the sake of simulation convergence, as instantaneous (sudden) development of bre failure
may cause numerical uctuation and hence instability. In [25],
bre damage evolution is governed by a simple criterion based
on the strain in the bre direction only. Fibre damage initiates at
a user-dened initial failure strain ei11 . It then develops according
to Eq. (9).
r22 r33
4S223
2
23
r22 r33
S223
8
8
0
>
>
>
>
< u e11 ei11
n1
d1 eu11 ei11
>
>
u
>
>
: 1 1 du1 e e11
11
if
if
if
n1
u
11
e11n1 > e
8 2 2 2
>
< rX11 rS 12 rS 13 P 1
T
12
13
2
>
r
: 11 P 1
XC
r11 > 0
10
r11 < 0
where XT, XC, S12, and S13 are strengths for bre tension, bre compression, shear in 12 plane and shear in 13 plane respectively.
Once the criterion is satised, the corresponding strain is stored
as the initial failure strain, ei11 for use in Eq. (9), and then passed
to the next increment of the simulation to continue damage accumulation according to Eq. (9), which gives the bre damage variable, d1. Then, the damage variables (d1, d12, d22) are used to
update the stiffness matrix, and determine stresses in the next
increment.
Data for the CDM model are given in Table 4. The strength constants are common properties that are widely used in PDA models,
e.g. in [16], while the other parameters required in Eqs. (4)(10)
are tted from the experimental data in [25].
3.3. Validation of damage model
To validate the proposed CDM model with the new approach to
evaluate the initial failure strain, comparisons are made at the element scale and the structural scale. Stressstrain curves from single-element and four-element FE models are compared with
445
SC11 MPa
2200
p
Y 2b MPa
1.623
1.55
p
MPa
SC22 MPa
S12 MPa
S23 MPa
S13 MPa
Y 12a
1600
250
eu11 %
eu11c %
300
b
120
dmax
120
u
d1
Ys
0.3087
p
Pa
YR
1.48
-0.296
0.9
0.99
2700
565
Y 12b
p
MPa
1.7125
p
Pa
Y 2a
p
MPa
0.2961
Fig. 3. Validation of the model at the element scale: (a) bre damage response of HTA/6376; (b) matrix damage response of HTA/6376; (c) shear damage response of HTA/
6376.
446
Fig. 4. Validation of CDM model at the structural scale. Loaddisplacement curves of (a) C1_C1_C1; (b) C2_C1_C1; (c) C4_C1_C1; (d) C1_C1_C4; (e) C1_C3_C1 (f) C3_C3_C1.
single-bolt joints [17], where more volume of the laminate material exhibited damage at nal failure at large clearances, leading
to the suggestion that clearance could be advantageous for joints
designed to absorb energy. The interesting point is that the model
has captured this, i.e. in Fig. 4(f) we note the load stabilises again
even after the sharp drop at 3.8 mm displacement, indicating there
is still more load-carrying capacity available through further damage evolution before the nal net-tension failure at 4.8 mm. This
point is returned to in the next section.
With the CDM model shown to produce good results at the element and structural level, the next section discusses the FE prediction of the model for the CBJ in detail.
sticking and slipping, and growth in contact area, as the bolts settle
into the holes. Notice this initial oscillatory region is largest for
the joint with the largest total clearance (C3_C3_C1) as expected.
The highest level the stiffness reaches before it drops due to the
damage onset also matches the experiments quite well, as does
the load at which damage onset occurs (e.g. around 50 kN for the
C1_C1_C1 joint and 40 kN for the C3_C3_C1 joint).
After the bolts settle into the holes, all the stiffness curves have
three main stages: a relatively constant stiffness phase, a transition
phase where the stiffness oscillates again, and then a sharp decline
at the end. The stiffness oscillates in the transition phase (between
around 40 kN and 60 kN) because of the re-distribution of load
from the hole(s) that fail rst in bearing (the neat-t holes) to
447
the larger clearance holes which had initially taken much lower
load.
The process is illustrated in Fig. 6, which shows the bre damage level in the C1_C1_C4 joint at loads of 48 kN, 54 kN and 58 kN.
From Fig. 5(d) we see these loads correspond respectively to just
before the rst major drop in stiffness (rst bearing failure), just
at the point when the stiffness has dropped to a low value, and just
after it has rebounded somewhat to a higher value. At 48 kN
(Fig. 6(a)) we observe bre compressive (i.e. bearing) damage at
the two neat-t holes (holes 1 and 2), but none at the loose t hole
(hole 3). This is to be expected since the neat t holes will initially
take almost all the load, with hole 3 assuming only a small portion
of it (see [22] for unequivocal experimental evidence of this). At
Fig. 5. Joint stiffness comparisons between experiments and FE models: (a) C1_C1_C1; (b) C2_C1_C1; (c) C4_C1_C1; (d) C1_C1_C4; (e) C1_C3_C1; (f) C3_C3_C1.
448
Fig. 6. Fibre damage evolution of C1_C1_C4 joint: (a) at 48 kN; (b) at 54 kN; (c) at 58 kN.
Fig. 7. Failure modes of quasi-static tests: (a) C1_C1_C1, C1_C1_C4 and C1_C3_C1: net tension of splice (outer) plates at H3; (b) C2_C1_C1, C4_C1_C1 and C3_C3_C1: net
tension of skin (inner) plate at H1.
449
Fig. 8. Fibre damage at ultimate failure for C1_C1_C1: (a) splice plate and skin plate; (b) hole 1 of skin plate.
Fig. 9. Fibre damage at ultimate failure for C1_C3_C1: (a) splice plate and skin plate; (b) hole 1 of skin plate.
54 kN (Fig. 6(b)), the bearing damage at holes 1 and 2 has progressed sharply causing the sharp drop in stiffness of the joint,
but hole 3 is still not taking enough load to cause any bearing damage at that location. In fact, the take up of load by hole 3 is being
slightly delayed due to the onset of some tensile bre damage at
the net-tension section of hole 3, which allows the hole to stretch
(this occurs due to high by-pass loads as discussed below). Finally
at 58 kN (Fig. 6(c)), we nd signicant bearing damage at hole 3,
indicating all three holes are now fully sharing the burden of the
load, which leads to the temporary increase in stiffness of the joint
in Fig. 5(d) due to the increase in bearing area. This transition from
an unequal sharing of the load up to rst bearing failure, to an
equal sharing of the load by the time ultimate failure occurs,
explains why clearance affects 2% offset bearing strength but does
not signicantly affect ultimate strength.
450
Fig. 10. Fibre damage at ultimate failure for C2_C1_C1: (a) splice plate and skin plate; (b) hole 1 of skin plate.
Fig. 11. Fibre damage at ultimate failure for C3_C3_C1: (a) splice plate and skin plate; (b) hole 1 of skin plate.
451
Fig. 12. Fibre damage in 45/0/45/90 plies at ultimate failure: (a) hole 3 of splice plate for C1_C1_C1; (b) hole 1 of skin plate for C3_C3_C1. Shown also is the length of the
region in which bre damage occurs at the specimen edge (mm); this length is the original length of the damaged elements.
452
[9] Frizzell RM, McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA. Predicting the effects of geometry on
the behaviour of bre metal laminate joints. Compos Struct 2011;93:187789.
[10] Frizzell RM, McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA. Simulating damage and delamination
in bre metal laminate joints using a three-dimensional damage model with
cohesive elements and damage regularisation. Compos Sci Technol 2011;71:
122535.
[11] Nezhad HY, McCarthy CT. Deliverable: Low-Velocity, High-energy impacts and
compression after impact. In: MAAXIMUS-WP34-ULIM-DEL-D341-low
velocity/high-energy impact-V01. 2012.
[12] Ireman T, Ranvik T, Eriksson I. On damage development in mechanically
fastened composite laminates. Compos Struct 2000;49:15171.
[13] Padhi GS, McCarthy MA, McCarthy CT. BOLJAT: a tool for designing composite
bolted joints using three-dimensional nite element analysis. Compos A Appl
Sci Manuf 2002;33:157384.
[14] McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA. Three-dimensional nite element analysis of
single-bolt, single-lap composite bolted joints: Part II effects of bolt-hole
clearance. Compos Struct 2005;71:15975.
[15] McCarthy MA. An experimental study of bolt-hole clearance effects in singlelap, multibolt composite joints. J Compos Mater 2005;39:799825.
[16] McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA, Lawlor VP. Progressive damage analysis of multibolt composite joints with variable bolt-hole clearances. Compos B Eng
2005;36:290305.
[17] McCarthy MA, Lawlor VP, Stanley WF, McCarthy CT. Bolt-hole clearance effects
and strength criteria in single-bolt, single-lap, composite bolted joints.
Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:141531.
[19] ASTM standard D 5961M96, Standard test method for bearing response of
polymer matrix composite laminates. 1996.
[20] Egan B, McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA, Frizzell RM. Stress analysis of single-bolt,
single-lap, countersunk composite joints with variable bolt-hole clearance.
Compos Struct 2012;94:103851.
[21] Egan B, McCarthy CT, McCarthy MA, Gray PJ, Frizzell RM. Modelling a singlebolt countersunk composite joint using implicit and explicit nite element
analysis. Comput Mater Sci 2012;64:2038.
[22] Lawlor VP, McCarthy MA, Stanley WF. An experimental study of bolt-hole
clearance effects in double-lap, multi-bolt composite joints. Compos Struct
2005;71:17690.
[23] Abaqus-Inc. ABAQUS v6.10. User Manual, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp.
2010.
[24] McCarthy CT. Experiences with modeling friction in composite bolted joints. J
Compos Mater 2005;39:1881908.
[25] OHiggins RM. An experimental and numerical study of damage initiation and
growth in high strength glass and carbon bre-reinforced composite materials
[PhD]. University of Limerick, College of Engineering; 2007.
[26] Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional ber composites. J Appl Mech Trans
ASME 1980;47:32934.
[27] Hashin Z. Fatigue failure criteria for unidirectional ber composites. J Appl
Mech Trans ASME 1981;48:84652.
[28] McCarthy CT, OHiggins RM, Frizzell RM. A cubic spline implementation of
non-linear shear behaviour in three-dimensional progressive damage models
for composite laminates. Compos Struct 2010;92:17381.