<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#note>
"D A M A G E T O L E R A N C E OF B O N D E D COMPOSITE A I R C R A F T REPAIRS FOR METALLIC STRUCTURES  by R A N D A L JOHN C L A R K  B . Eng., Carleton University, 1995 M . A . Sc., University of British Columbia, 2000  A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  In  T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES  (Mechanical Engineering)  The University of British Columbia A p r i l 2007 \u00A9 Randal John Clark, 2007  \u000CAbstract This thesis describes the development and validation of methods for damage tolerance substantiation of bonded composite repairs applied to cracked plates. This technology is used to repair metal aircraft structures, offering improvements in fatigue life, cost, manufacturability, and inspectability when compared to riveted repairs. The work focuses on the effects of plate thickness and bending on repair life, and covers fundamental aspects of fracture and fatigue of cracked plates and bonded joints. This project falls under the U B C Bonded Composite Repair Program, which has the goal of certification and widespread use of bonded repairs in civilian air transportation. This thesis analyses the plate thickness and transverse stress effects on fracture of repaired plates and the related problem of induced geometrically nonlinear bending in unbalanced (single-sided) repairs. The author begins by developing a classification scheme for assigning repair damage tolerance substantiation requirements based upon stress-based adhesive fracture/fatigue criteria and the residual strength of the original structure. The governing equations for bending of cracked plates are then reformulated and line-spring models are developed for linear and nonlinear coupled bending and extension of reinforced cracks. The line-spring models were used to correct the W a n g and Rose energy method for the determination of the long-crack limit stress intensity, and to develop a new interpolation model for repaired cracks of arbitrary length. The analysis was validated using finite element models and data from mechanical tests performed on hybrid bonded joints and repair specimens that are representative of an in-service repair. This work w i l l allow designers to evaluate the damage tolerance of the repaired plate, the adhesive, and the composite patch, which is an airworthiness requirement under F A R (Federal Aviation Regulations) 25.571. The thesis concludes by assessing the remaining barriers to certification of bonded repairs, discussing the results of the analysis, and making suggestions for future work. The developed techniques should also prove to be useful for the analysis of fibrereinforced metal laminates and other layered structures. Some concepts are general and should be useful in the analysis of any plate with large in-plane stress gradients that lead to significant transverse stresses.  ii  \u000CTable of contents Abstract  ii  Table of contents  iii  List of tables  viii  List of figures  x  List of symbols  xv  Acknowledgments  xvii  Co-authorship statement  xviii  Chapter 1: Damage tolerance of bonded composite aircraft repairs  1  1.1 Introduction  1  1.2 Bonded composite repair technology  1  1.2.1 Assurance of structural integrity  4  1.2.2 Durability  4  1.3 Literature review  5  1.3.1 Repair experiments and failure modes  6  1.3.2 Certification and damage tolerance analysis  8  1.3.3 Mechanics of a repair  9  1.3.4 Damage mechanics  13  1.3.5 Critical analysis  16  1.4 Thesis objectives  20  1.5 Summary  22  1.6 References  22  Chapter 2: Bending of bonded composite repairs: an experimental and finite element design study  28  2.1 Introduction  28  2.2 Experimental study  32  2.3 Finite element modeling  37  iii  \u000C2.4 Validation  39  2.5 Residual strength and damage tolerance assessment  44  2.5.1 A l u m i n u m substrate fracture  45  2.5.2 Adhesive failure  46  2.5.3 Composite fracture and delamination  52  2.5.4 Synergy of aluminum and composite/adhesive fracture criteria  56  2.6 Discussion  57  2.7 Concluding remarks  62  2.8 References  63  Chapter 3: Extension of generalized plane strain plates with reinforced cracks  67  3.1 Introduction  67  3.2 The generalized plane strain plate  68  3.2.1 A cracked plate  71  3.2.2 Numerical solution  74  3.2.3 Geometry correction factors for a cracked plate  76  3.3 Crack bridging: a line-spring model  80  3.4 Discussion  85  3.5 Concluding remarks  86  3.6 References  87  Chapter 4: Transverse shear and pressurization in the bending of reinforced cracks  88  4.1 Introduction  88  4.2 Basic plate bending models and fracture  90  4.3 A n 8 -order plate bending model  92  4.4 Hyper-singular integral equations  95  4.5 Bending of a cracked plate  99  th  4.6 Comparison to three dimensional finite element results  109  4.7 Bending of reinforced cracked plates  114  4.8 Discussion  120  4.9 Concluding remarks  122  iv  \u000C4.10 References  i22  Chapter 5: Linear coupled bending and extension of a bonded repair  124  5.1 Introduction  124  5.2 A methodology for damage tolerance assessment  128  5.2.1 Stress in the crack plane  128  5.2.2 Characterization of crack-bridging springs  129  5.2.3 Long-crack limit behaviour  133  5.2.4 Interpolation for arbitrary crack lengths  135  5.3 A line-spring model for crack-bridging  138  5.4 Comparison to finite element models  141  5.4.1 Stress intensity and crack face displacements  141  5.4.2 Spring stiffness and nominal stress determination  146  5.5 Results and discussion  148  5.6 Concluding remarks  149  5.7 References  150  Chapter 6: Elastic analysis of hybrid bonded joints and bonded composite repairs  153  6.1 Introduction  153  6.2 Background  155  6.3 Linear bonded joint formulation  157  6.3.1 Solution and boundary conditions  161  6.3.2 Thermal strains  165  6.3.3 Joint failure  166  6.4 Analysis of a bonded composite repair 6.4.1 Nominal stresses  169 \u2022  171  6.4.2 Spring compliance and adhesive stresses  173  6.4.3 Crack bridging analysis  176  6.5 Results and discussion  180  6.6 Concluding remarks  182  6.7 References  182  v  \u000CChapter 7: Nonlinear mechanics of hybrid bonded joints and composite repairs  184  7.1 Introduction  1  7.2 Lap joint experiments  186  7.3 Bonded joint finite element model  189  7.4 Stress intensity calculation: the Rose model  196  7.5 Comparison to a 3D F E model and mode separation  200  8  4  7.5.1 M o d e Separation  202  7.5.2 Adhesive and Composite Failure  207  7.6 Discussion  211  7.7 Concluding Remarks  213  7.8 References  214  Chapter 8: Results, contributions, and future work  216  8.1 Introduction  216  8.2 Patch testing and finite element analysis  217  8.3 Plate models and linear coupled bending and extension  219  8.4 Hybrid bonded joints and orthotropic patches  221  8.5 Geometrically nonlinear bending  222  8.6 Contributions and recommendations for future work  223  8.7 Concluding Remarks  228  8.8 References....  229  Appendix A : Bonded joint specimen construction A . 1 Description of specimen types  231 231  A . 2 Parts and materials  232  A . 3 Panel construction  245  A.3.1 Composite manufacture  ,  245  A.3.2 A l u m i n u m surface preparation  248  A.3.3 Laminated panel construction  250  Appendix B : Instrumented repair specimen  259  B . l A M R L specimen geometry  259  vi  \u000CB.2 Instrumented specimen  259  Appendix C : Test data  264  Appendix D : Engineering plate models  280  D . 1 Plane stress extension  282  D . 1.1 A cracked plate in plane stress  283  D.2 Plane strain extension  286  D.2.1 A cracked plate in plane strain  287  D.3 Plane stress bending  288  D.3.1 Bending of a cracked plate under plane stress conditions D.4 Plane strain bending  289 292  D.4.1 A cracked plate under plane strain bending conditions D.5 Shear-deformable plane stress bending D.5.1 A shear deformable cracked plate under plane stress conditions D.6 Shear-deformable plane strain bending D.6.1 A shear deformable cracked plate under plane strain conditions D . 7 References  293 294 296 298 299 301  Appendix E : Material properties  302  E . l Boron/Epoxy 5521/4 Laminate  302  E.2 A l u m i n u m 2024-T3 (A-Basis)  303  E.3 Adhesive F M 7 3 M  304  vii  \u000CList of tables Table 2-1: Material properties and dimensions  37  Table 2-2: Possible composite failure modes for unidirectional patch  53  Table 3-1: Material properties used to test the G P S model  76  Table 4-1: Material properties used to test the G P S model  102  Table 5-1: Material properties and dimensions  142  Table 6-1: Material properties and dimensions  170  Table 7-1: Material properties and dimensions  190  Table 7-2: Thermal residual elastic strain energy (J/m)  200  Table 8-3: Steps for repair design, application, and certification  225  Table A - 4 : Coupon specimen materials  233  Table A - 5 : A l u m i n u m surface preparation  254  Table A - 6 : Wedge test procedure  255  Table A - 7 : Composite parts fabrication  256  Table A - 8 : H S - D L J specimen assembly  257  Table A - 9 : C L S specimen assembly  258  Table B - l : Strain gauge types  260  Table C - l : Strains for connector A l  264  Table C-2: Strains for connector A 2  265  Table C - 3 : Strains for connector A 3  265  Table C-4: Strains for connector A 4  266  Table C - 5 : Strains for connector B l  266  Table C-6: Strains for connector C I  267  Table C-7: Strains for connector C 2  267  Table C-8: Strains for connector D I  268  Table C-9: Strains for connector E l  268  Table C-10: Strains for connector F  269  viii  \u000CTable C - l 1: Strains for connector A l  270  Table C - l 2 : Strains for connector A 2  270  Table C-13: Strains for connector A 3  271  Table C-14: Strains for connector A 4  271  Table C - l 5 : Strains for connector B l  ,  272  Table C-16: Strains for connector C I  272  Table C - l 7 : Strains for connector C 2  273  Table C - l 8 : Strains for connector D I  273  Table C-19: Strains for connector E l  274  Table C-20: Strains for connector F  \u2022  274  Table C-21: Strains for connector A l  275  Table C-22: Strains for connector A 2  275  Table C-23: Strains for connector A 3  276  Table C-24: Strains for connector A 4  276  Table C-25: Strains for connector B l  277  Table C-26: Strains for connector C I  277  Table C-27: Strains for connector C 2  278  Table C-28: Strains for connector D I  278  Table C-29: Strains for connector E l  279  Table C-30: Strains for connector F  279  Table E - l : Material properties for 5521/4 boron/epoxy  302  Table E-2: Material properties for aluminum 2024-T3 (A-basis)  303  Table E-3: Material properties for adhesive F M - 7 3  304  ix  \u000CList of figures Figure 1-1: Bonded (left) and mechanically fastened (right) repairs  3  Figure 1-2: Load transfer regions  11  Figure 1-3: T w o step method  11  Figure 2-1: A bonded repair and a mechanically fastened repair  29  Figure 2-2: Experimental apparatus  33  Figure 2-3: Strain gauge locations  34  Figure 2-4: Bending under tension (left) and compression (right)  35  Figure 2-5: Adhesive failure surface  35  Figure 2-6: Interfacial failure surface  36  Figure 2-7: The crack face after pre-cracking (left) and after 175,000 cycles (right)  36  Figure 2-8: Finite element mesh, (a) the crack tip and (b) the entire model  38  Figure 2-9: Three-dimensional view of the cracked region  39  Figure 2-10: Strain distribution in undamaged repair  40  Figure 2-11: Adhesive elements in the region of the crack, showing the disbond  40  Figure 2-12: Strain distribution, with honeycomb  41  Figure 2-13: Variation of strains with applied stress, with honeycomb  42  Figure 2-14: Strains, without honeycomb  43  Figure 2-15: Variation of strain with applied stress, without honeycomb  44  Figure 2-16: Membrane and bending stress intensity factors  45  Figure 2-17: Adhesive stresses  47  Figure 2-18: Adhesive yield criteria and finite element model adhesive stresses  48  Figure 2-19: Comparison of adhesive fracture data and yield criteria  51  Figure 2-20: Composite stresses  55  Figure 2-21: Proposed classification of repairs by D T substantiation requirements  59  Figure 2-22: Process for 'Quadrant D ' repairs  61  Figure 3-1: Distribution of plate displacements and stresses  69  x  \u000CFigure 3-2: Stress intensity for a through crack  77  Figure 3-3: Stress intensity difference plotted against normalized crack length  77  Figure 3-4: Crack face displacement plotted against crack length  79  Figure 3-5: Difference in crack face displacement plotted against crack length  79  Figure 3-6: A reinforced crack in a plate  80  Figure 3-7: Stress intensity results from the line-spring model  81  Figure 3-8: Normalized stress intensity plotted against crack length  82  Figure 3-9: Comparison of stress intensity predictions  83  Figure 3-10: Crack face displacement for various spring stiffnesses  84  Figure 3-11: Comparison of crack face displacement predictions  85  Figure 4-1: Displacements and stresses for the 8th-order plate bending model  92  Figure 4-2: Stress intensities for shear deformable plane stress bending  102  Figure 4-3: Stress intensity difference plotted against normalized crack length  103  Figure 4-4: Crack face displacements for shear-deformable plane stress bending  104  Figure 4-5: Difference in crack face displacements plotted against crack length  105  Figure 4-6: Stress intensity for 8th-order plate bending formulation  106  Figure 4-7: Crack face displacement for 8th-order plate bending formulation  107  Figure 4-8: Stress intensity difference plotted against normalized crack length  108  Figure 4-9: Crack face displacement plotted against normalized crack length  108  Figure 4-10: Finite element map showing boundary conditions  110  Figure 4-11: Through-thickness variation of the stress intensity  111  Figure 4-12: Theoretical and finite element bending stress intensities  112  Figure 4-13: Theoretical and finite element model crack face deflections  114  Figure 4-14: A bending crack reinforced by springs  115  Figure 4-15: Stress intensity from the line spring model  116  Figure 4-16: Normalized stress intensity plotted against crack length  117  Figure 4-17: Stress intensity predicted by line-spring and interpolation models  118  Figure 4-18: Crack face displacement for various spring stiffnesses  119  Figure 4-19: Crack face displacement from line-spring and interpolation models  120  xi  \u000CFigure 5-1: Repair configurations: balanced (top) and unbalanced (bottom)  125  Figure 5-2: Equivalency of forces and moments  132  Figure 5-3: Three-dimensional finite element model of a repair  142  Figure 5-4: Membrane stress intensity  143  Figure 5-5: Bending stress intensity  144  Figure 5-6: Membrane crack face displacement  145  Figure 5-7: Bending crack face displacement  145  Figure 5-8: F E mesh showing the (a) cracked, (b) tapered, and (c) grip regions  146  Figure 5-9: Nominal stresses  147  Figure 5-10: Spring compliances  148  Figure 6-1: A n unbalanced repair  157  Figure 6-2: H y b r i d bonded joint element  158  Figure 6-3: Assumed variation of transverse adherend stresses  159  Figure 6-4: Single sided lap joint specimen  170  Figure 6-5: Lap joint finite element model  171  Figure 6-6: Substrate membrane and bending stresses under remote applied tension.... 172 Figure 6-7: Substrate residual stresses at 20\" C for a 120\" C adhesive cure cycle  172  Figure 6-8: M o d e l configuration for spring compliances  173  Figure 6-9: Adhesive stresses developed by an applied membrane load  174  Figure 6-10: Adhesive stresses developed by an applied bending load  174  Figure 6-11: Adhesive thermal residual stresses  175  Figure 6-12: Repair compliance under membrane and bending loading  176  Figure 6-13: Comparison of membrane stress intensity predictions  178  Figure 6-14: Comparison of bending stress intensity predictions  178  Figure 6-15: Membrane deflection results  179  Figure 6-16: Bending deflection results  179  Figure 7-1: A bonded repair and a mechanically fastened repair  185  Figure 7-2: Lap joint specimens. From the top: S L J , D L J , and H S - D L J specimens  187  Figure 7-3: Strain gauge locations  187 xii  \u000CFigure 7-4: Disbonding of the D L J specimen  188  Figure 7-5: Failure surface of the S L J specimen  189  Figure 7-6: F E mesh showing the (a) cracked, (b) tapered, and (c) grip regions  190  Figure 7-7: Strains for the cracked S L J specimen  191  Figure 7-8: Strains for the uncracked S L J specimen  192  Figure 7-9: Edge position of cracked S L J  192  Figure 7-10: Edge position of uncracked S L J  \u2022\u2022 193  Figure 7-11: Cracked S L J lateral deflection  194  Figure 7-12: Uncracked S L J lateral deflections  195  Figure 7-13: Load vs. displacement curves  196  Figure 7-14: The energy method: A - A and B - B show cracked and uncracked joints.... 197 Figure 7-15: Change in strain energy  199  Figure 7-16: Finite element model (a) front view and (b) crack-tip region  201  Figure 7-17: Nonlinear variation in R M S stress intensity  202  Figure 7-18: Stress-stiffening beam model  203  Figure 7-19: Membrane stress intensity  205  Figure 7-20: Bending stress intensity  206  Figure 7-21: Membrane crack face displacement  206  Figure 7-22: Bending crack face displacement  207  Figure 7-23: Adhesive shear stress  209  Figure 7-24: Adhesive peel stress  209  Figure 7-25: Patch membrane stress  210  Figure 7-26: Patch bending stress  .-  211  Figure A - l : Single lap joint specimen  231  Figure A - 2 : Double lap joint specimen  231  Figure A - 3 : Honeycomb separated double lap joint specimen  232  Figure A - 4 : Cracked lap-shear specimen  232  Figure A - 5 : L J specimen composite panel assembly drawing  234  Figure A - 6 : D L J specimen composite panel assembly drawing  235  xiii  \u000CFigure A - 7 : H S - D L J specimen composite panel assembly drawing  236  Figure A - 8 : C L S specimen composite panel assembly drawing  237  Figure A - 9 : L J specimen face sheet drawing  238  Figure A - 1 0 : D L J and H S - D L J specimen face sheet drawing  239  Figure A - l l : C L S specimen face sheet drawing  240  Figure A - 1 2 : Guide plug drawing  241  Figure A - 1 3 : H S - D L J spacer block drawing  242  Figure A - 1 4 : H S - D L J honeycomb drawing  243  Figure A - 1 5 : E n d tab drawing  244  Figure A - 1 6 : Workspace for patch lay-up  245  Figure A - 1 7 : Application of peel ply  246  Figure A - 1 8 : Workspace for C L S panel lay-up  246  Figure A - 1 9 : Strain gauge placement (finished panel in background)  247  Figure A - 2 0 : Layout on the tool plate  247  Figure A - 2 1 : Vacuum bagging and debulking  248  Figure A - 2 2 : Grit blasting  249  Figure A - 2 3 : Silane application  250  Figure A - 2 4 : Workspace for construction of the H S - D L J panel  251  Figure A - 2 5 : Rolling the adhesive on to the back of the face plate  251  Figure A - 2 6 : Positioning the spacer blocks and honeycomb  251  Figure A - 2 7 : Ready to apply the composite patches  252  Figure A - 2 8 : Applying the adhesive  252  Figure A - 2 9 : Applying an instrumented patch  252  Figure A - 3 0 : Double lap joint specimens, ready for vacuum bagging  253  Figure B - l : A M R L specimen dimensions  259  Figure B - 2 : Instrumented A M R L specimen drawing  261  Figure B - 3 : Instrumented A R L specimen drawing, side A  262  Figure B - 4 : Instrumented A M R L specimen drawing, side B  263  xiv  \u000CList of symbols a  half crack length  p  pressure  r  radius  t  thickness or distance from centre of crack  u  crack face deflection  y  coordinate taken from centre of crack  z  coordinate taken from plate centre line  k  spring stiffness  c  spring compliance  D  plate bending constant, Et* l\\2  G  strain energy release rate or shear modulus  K  stress intensity factor  E  Young's modulus  5  stiffness ratio, E t  M  line moment, or moment per unit length acting on a cut in a plate  N  line force, or force per unit length acting on a cut in a plate  Y  geometry correction factor  a  normalized crack length or coefficient of thermal expansion  6  rotation  ju  shear modulus  v  Poisson's ratio  77  effective Poisson's ratio for transversally isotropic plate, 77 =  o~  normal stress  T  shear stress  K  parameter arising from differential equations  r  r  IE t p  p  Subscripts p  plate  r  reinforcement  a  adhesive  xv  v 4EIE z  z  \u000Cm  membrane  b  bending  w  denotes relation to transverse deflection  (j)  denotes relation to pressurization effects  y/  denotes relation to transverse shear effects  Superscripts r  reinforced result from interpolation model  n  numerical result from line-spring model  0  nominal result without including crack bringing springs  \u00B0\u00B0  long crack limit result including crack bringing springs  z  transverse property  pres.  correction for transverse pressurization  shear  correction for transverse shear  xvi  \u000CAcknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Douglas Romilly, for his guidance and patience with this large body of work. This is a long thesis covering a broad topic and the last year of proofreading, editing, and journal submission has required constant attention. I must also extend my gratitude to my committee, and particularly Dr. Gary Schajer, for their support and advice. I would also like to take the opportunity to mention M r . D o n Raizenne and the staff of the Canadian National Research Council Institute for Aerospace Research, who deserve much credit for their advice and for their help in the manufacture and instrumentation of the bonded composite repair and hybrid bonded joint specimens employed in this research. Second, I would like to thank my colleagues in the lab and office for the years of support and companionship during the (at times) destitution of student living and the inevitable low points of post-graduate work. Never again shall we eat 'fridge stew'! A n d finally, I dedicate this thesis to friends and family, the people who make life a joy. It has been a long road.  xvii  \u000CCo-authorship statement The six main chapters of this thesis (Chapters 2 through 7) have been published or w i l l be published as co-authored papers with authorship as indicated in the heading of each chapter.  The  authors  have  maintained  a  traditional supervisor/graduate  student  relationship through all stages of the work, with the student becoming more independent as the program progressed, as would be expected. Details are provided below for each stage of the work as they are defined by the University of British Columbia Faculty of Graduate Studies requirements for the co-authorship statement. The identification and design of the overall research project was accomplished by Dr. Romilly, with the stated goals of the University of British Columbia Bonded Repair Program being defined in research grant applications allowing provision of laboratory equipment and supplies, travel, and training. The identification and design of the specific steps in the research work for this thesis were carried out by R . J . Clark under the supervision of Dr. D . P . R o m i l l y and following from the goals of the greater research program. Both the research work and the data analysis were performed by R . J . Clark, with Dr. D.P. R o m i l l y providing supervision, guidance, and oversight. The A M R L specimen used to obtain the test results reported in Chapter 2 was manufactured by A . Albat, and the strain gauge instrumentation was installed by the technical staff of the Canadian National Research Council - Institute for Aerospace Research. Hybrid bonded joint specimen manufacture and instrumentation was carried out by R.J. Clark. Initial manuscript preparation (i.e. completed first drafts) was performed by R.J. Clark, with Dr. D . P . R o m i l l y reviewing the manuscripts, providing constructive comments and suggesting both technical and presentation-oriented additions to the text. R . J . Clark served as corresponding author on all submissions. When the examining committee signs the Dissertation/Thesis Approval Form, this shall be a confirmation of the accuracy of this co-authorship statement.  xviii  \u000CChapter 1: Damage tolerance of bonded composite aircraft repairs R.J. Clark University of British Columbia Department of Mechanical Engineering  1.1 Introduction A typical bonded repair is a multi-layer composite patch bonded to a weak or damaged aircraft structure. The repair acts to reduce stresses in the damaged region and to prevent crack growth by restricting the opening of any cracks. In this opening chapter, the bonded composite repair technology applied for life extension of aluminum airframes is introduced. The chapter begins with a description of the technology, including an overview of its history, benefits and limitations, the materials used for patch construction, and application methods. Some terminology specific to bonded composite repairs is introduced, along with some basic concepts for assessing damage tolerance, durability, and assurance of structural integrity. The second section is a detailed literature review of subjects related to the damage tolerance analysis of repairs, and includes a critical review identifying predominant issues that need to be addressed in order to certify a repair. Finally, in light of the difficulties facing the technology, the objectives of this thesis are defined and the content of upcoming chapters is described.  1.2 Bonded composite repair technology A bonded composite repair is a filamentary composite and epoxy patch bonded to a cracked or damaged aircraft structure. The original use of this repair technology was for life extension of military aircraft and rapid repair of battle damage in the field. The most common methods of application involve either pre-cured composite repairs that are bonded to the damaged structure using an epoxy adhesive, or repairs built up from layers of composite 'pre-preg', which are co-cured with the epoxy onto the underlying structure. The result is a hybrid structure consisting of the original damaged structure, a layer of epoxy adhesive, and an outer layer of composite material. If accessible, repairs are applied to both sides of the structure to prevent induced bending and hence reduce the stresses in the adhesive. The bonded patch technology originates in bonded metal reinforcements used to strengthen fatigue-prone components in military and commercial aircraft. Metal patches have also been considered for the repair of cracked structures, but have primarily been  1  \u000Cused for reinforcement, lowering stresses in fatigue-prone parts with simple surfaces. There are several reasons for metal patches being limited to a reinforcing role - first, it is difficult to inspect through a metallic repair to see i f a crack is growing, meaning metallic repairs shouldn't be used over riveted plates or to repair cracks. Second, it is difficult to apply enough reinforcement to prevent crack growth using a matching material as it requires at least a doubling of the thickness of the structure to return the strength, and perhaps an even thicker patch to prevent induced bending. A n d finally, it provides a second metallic surface that must be chemically treated for bonding. It w i l l  be  demonstrated that the durability (i.e. the long term strength in service) of adhesive/metal bonds is a formidable obstacle to bonded repairs. In practice, boned composite repairs are more commonly made from composite materials such as boron-epoxy, which is three times stiffer and much stronger than aluminum, and hence can be made very thin compared to the original structure.  Boron-epoxy also provides the advantage of  inspectability, as eddy-current probes can be used to detect crack growth through a patch. There is also significant interest in G L A R E (a fibreglass and aluminum laminate) as a low cost material that is easier to apply. G L A R E has lower modulus and strength than boron-epoxy but is more impact-resistant and is reasonably compatible with eddy-current inspection. A final advantage of a composite repair is the ability to tailor the stiffness of the patch to the stresses in the structure, allowing one to provide reinforcement only in the direction required. This minimizes changes in the load flow within the broader aircraft structure caused by the application of the repair, as an overly stiff patch may detrimentally attract load to the region in which it is applied. Carbon fibre reinforced polymers have also been considered as a repair material but are limited by concerns regarding larger thermally induced strains, corrosion, and inspectability. A repair attracts loads from the surrounding structure due to its high stiffness, which is the means by which it provides reinforcement. Generally, the larger and stiffer the repair, the more it attracts loading from the underlying structure. The load transfer from the structure to the repair occurs through adhesive shear stresses that build up near the edges of the repair, and about the crack. Accordingly, the repair acts both to reduce stresses in the vicinity of the crack, and prevent the crack from opening. These beneficial effects may be partially offset by thermal stresses arising both during patch application and during service due to mismatched thermal expansion coefficients in the patch and structure materials, and by attraction of loads from the surrounding structures due to the increase in stiffness caused by the patch. In this thesis the term repair w i l l refer to a bonded patch used to repair a cracked or damaged structure, and reinforcement w i l l apply to a patch used to strengthen an undamaged or sound structure.  2  \u000CFigure 1-1: Bonded (left) and mechanically fastened (right) repairs Figure 1-1 illustrates a bonded and a conventional repair. Bonding offers many advantages over mechanical fastening. The principal advantages are the smooth load transfer provided by bonding, the high stiffness and hence high load transfer capability of the composite materials, and the restraint that a bonded patch provides against crack opening. These advantages make possible a many-fold increase in fatigue life. Other advantages include improvements in manufacturability, cost, and inspectability. Despite this potential, the bonded composite repair technology has not seen widespread use outside of military applications. Examples of commercial application include a Boeing demonstration  program where small reinforcing doublers were applied to sound  structures to test the technology for the fast repair of engine cowling bird-strikes and for localized fuselage fatigue enhancement or repair of localized damage. Another example is the application of very large bonded composite reinforcements during the overhaul of Lockheed L-1011 passenger aircraft to repair cracking doorframes, enabling the return to service of a fleet of aircraft. Primarily, the issues of damage tolerance and bond durability prevent airworthiness certification and widespread use [1,2]. Damage tolerance refers to the ability of a structure to hold up under design loads in a damaged state without failure or excessive deformation before the damage can be detected and repaired. Damage can arise from a number of sources including fatigue, corrosion, manufacturing flaws, or accidental loads such as impacts. Durability refers to the ability of a structure to withstand  environmental  exposure  and  mechanical  loading  without  undue  or  unpredictable degradation. This is a significant issue for bonded repairs, as poorly applied adhesives are prone to failure under service loads and environmental exposure. It is presently very difficult and costly to certify a major bonded composite repair, as it requires all of the damage tolerance, materials and process controls that are necessary for the certification of any primary composite structure.  3  \u000C1.2.1 Assurance of structural integrity Regulatory authorities are rightly concerned about the structural integrity of bonded repairs over the life of the structure. Repairs are generally applied to highly loaded structures that have already experienced significant damage. By F A R 25.571, damage tolerance analysis is required for bonded composite repairs and is one of the three means of assuring the structural integrity, as summarized below [3]. (1) Safe-life: cracking will not occur during the life of the repair, (2) Fail-safe: multiple load paths prevent catastrophic failure before detection, or (3) Damage tolerance: inspections during service ensure adequate residual strength. It is a widely held view that a damage tolerance analysis is the only way to ensure the structural integrity of a bonded repair [3] for Principal Structural Elements (PSE) and Structurally Significant Items (SSI) on an aircraft. A PSE is an element of an aircraft whose failure could result in catastrophic failure of the aircraft. A n SSI is a structure that contributes significantly to the carrying of flight, ground, or pressurization loads. In this thesis, we will simply refer to these safety-critical components as primary structure. Safe life methods alone are not feasible for repairs applied to cracked structures, as both crack growth and disbonding are likely to occur. Stopping crack growth requires significant restraint against crack opening, and hence, large adhesive stresses near the crack, which will promote disbonding. The best that can be achieved is a compromise to optimize the life of the repair. Baker has proposed that a safe life approach to certification could be used about the edges of a patch [3] to ensure that adhesive disbonding will not occur under environmental and fatigue loading. Safe life methods may also be useful for bonded reinforcements that act to strengthen weak or weakened structures without cracks. This would preclude an analysis of disbonding from the edges of the repair or reinforcement, but would require stresses to be kept very low, which can be accomplished by tapering the edges of the patch. The remaining method, damage tolerance, is then the method of choice and will require a means for predicting the rate of damage accumulation and load-carrying capacity of the patch, such that failures are preventable through a program of inspections during service.  1.2.2 Durability Durability issues complicate the damage tolerance assessment of bonded joints [4-10]. Durable bonds predictably withstand wear and tear; they last, are stable, and will degrade in a consistent manner. Poorly formed bonds exhibit unpredictable and varying damage rates and are sensitive to environmental conditions, particularly intermittently hot and wet environments. This sensitivity is due to the nature of the adhesive/metal oxide interface, and oxide instability in the service environment [11-21]. As chemical bonds at the  4  \u000Cadhesive/oxide interface tend to hydrate, surface treatments are designed to increase their strength in the presence of water and ensure a reversible reaction, allowing them to reform when the solvent (water) is removed [22]. Process variability, contamination, and surface treatment errors result in reduced durability. Variations in primer thickness, silane surface treatment concentration, surface abrasion, and etching treatments can impact durability [13]. Metal oxide layers may be initially weak or corrode in service [15]. Adhesive porosity weakens the joint and speed the transport of water [23-26], and results from gases or liquids entrapped during assembly, evaporation of water absorbed by the adhesive prior to curing, and by entrapment of gases formed by chemical reactions. Accordingly, bond degradation under the effects of stress, moisture and temperature depends greatly on the control exerted over shop cleanliness, material storage, surface preparation, and other aspects of design and fabrication. Bond durability is difficult to assess, as there is no non-destructive test for it. Instead, it is evaluated by destructive testing of 'travellers' - test coupons made with adhesives from the same lot and from aluminum or composite adherends that have received a surface treatment concurrently with the aircraft structure [16]. Physical tests in a hot and wet environment, performed on wedge specimens made from the traveller, ensure the durability of the adhesive/oxide interface. The assumption is that loss of durability due to bonding process errors or contaminated materials will be detected by early failure of the traveller. A poor traveller result must be seen as a reflection of the facilities' process control and quality assurance regime and not just the lack of fitness of an individual component. The goal is to reliably produce sound bonds with controlled processes, and to have a track record of good results - possibly a challenge for smaller repair facilities or in the field. Adhesive bonds are a common joining method for aerospace structures, and methods exist to ensure bond durability. As such, this issue alone should not impede certification. The required quality assurance controls, training, and extra steps in the manufacturing process are onerous but not undue given the risks. The main issue for bonded repairs when compared to other bonded structures is the existence of cracks in the underlying structure, and the presence of a highly stressed bond line that might severely test a poor bond. In this thesis, the issue of bond durability will only be examined indirectly, by providing a means for the assessment and hence reduction of the adhesive stresses (particularly peel stresses) in the region of the repaired crack.  1.3 Literature review In this section, the author isolates the elements that are required for the damage tolerance analysis of a repair, and reviews the literature for significant experimental and analytical work that has relevance to the subject. The section begins with a review of  5  \u000Cmechanical testing that has been carried out to evaluate the repair technology, a review of the failure mechanisms that have been observed, and an assessment of the regulatory controls and requirements for damage tolerance analysis. The section continues with a review of techniques available for assessing the mechanical behaviour and hence the life and strength of a repair, and concludes with a critical assessment of the capabilities and shortcomings of the available methods for damage tolerance assessment of a repair.  1.3.1 Repair experiments and failure modes Many  experiments  have  been  performed to  investigate  failure  mechanisms,  to  demonstrate the predictive performance of models, and to evaluate repair materials and mechanical phenomena in a repair. A widely used repair specimen is the Australian Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratories ( A M R L ) specimen, described in detail in Appendix B . This test article consists of two repaired plates that are bonded to an aluminum honeycomb employed to restrict the bending induced by the neutral axis offset of the repair and to model the support of underlying structures that often exist in highly stressed sections of aircraft. Baker has published experimental results for the A M R L specimen that illustrate the effects of cure cycle parameters [26,27], disbonding [26,28], patch shear deformation [27,29], adhesive plasticity [29], and test temperature [26] on performance. In Canada, the A M R L specimen has been used by the National Research Council - Institute for Aerospace Research ( N R C - I A R ) to examine the effects of load spectrum, compressive loading, and adverse environments on patch performance [30,31], and by Albat and Romilly [32] to evaluate thermal strains. Without bending, the failure mode of the repair has consistently been continued cracking of the existing crack in the aluminum plate with accompanying adhesive disbonding. Testing of double lap-shear specimens  has been used to investigate the effects of patch shear deformation and  adhesive plasticity on the apparent stiffness of the patch in the region of the crack [29]. Patch shear deformation and adhesive plasticity have been shown to reduce patch life by reducing the restraint against crack opening imposed by the repair. It has also been shown that increasing the cure cycle temperature and time can impose two penalties on patch performance; 1) tensile thermal residual stresses from a mismatch in thermal expansion coefficients  can accelerate fatigue crack growth, and 2) crack growth retardation is  reduced due to annealing of crack tip plasticity-induced residual stresses. Sharp, Clayton, and Clark [37] have examined the effects of adhesive infiltration into the crack, which was found to increase the stress required to open the crack, and hence improve the fatigue life. Researchers have also examined bonded repair issues using other types of bonded repair specimens. Poole, Lock, and Young [33] have investigated fatigue damage propagation in thick aluminum plates repaired with graphite/epoxy patches. Similar to the  6  AMRL  \u000Cspecimen, repaired plates were bonded to a honeycomb core and tested in pairs to restrict bending. They examined the effect of the F A L S T A F F loading spectrum on repair performance, and compared the results to boundary element analyses that included the effects of adhesive plasticity. The results showed lifetime improvement by a factor of 3.2 for the F A L S T A F F loaded specimen, and up to 17 for a constant-amplitude cycled specimen when compared to an unrepaired sheet. Denney and M a l l  [34-36] have  investigated boron/epoxy repairs applied to a single side of a thin centre-cracked aluminum panel, where patch bending is a significant factor due to an offset of the neutral axis. They investigated the effect of variously sized disbonds at different locations within the repair, and concluded that disbonds over the crack reduce patch life whereas disbonds away from the crack are not detrimental. They suggested that disbonds away from the crack may increase patch life by reducing the apparent size and stiffness of the patch and hence the amount of load it attracts from the surrounding structure. Failure occurred due to crack growth in the aluminum and little disbonding was noted. K l u g et al. [38] performed a similar test using thick and thin unbalanced repairs, and noted significant disbonding near the crack and near the edges of the patch for a thick repair and only near the crack for a thin repair. For these specimens, the patch was not tapered, leading to increased stresses about the edge of the repair. Jones, Chiu, and Smith [39] have presented a thorough review of the failure modes and locations of damage experienced in laboratory testing and military use of bonded repairs. W h i l e most of the work reported in the literature examines the primary failure modes of the repair, i.e. substrate cracking and accompanying cohesive disbonding of the adhesive, they conclude that the assessment should also include composite failure modes such as fibre failure, adhesive failure, cohesion failure at the patch-adhesive interface, adhesive failure at the adhesive-substrate interface, and inter-laminar failure and delamination. In practice, unexpected failure due to crack growth and disbonding about the crack has not been a problem, as mitigation of this form of crack growth is the primary design goal of the repair and it is well accounted for in the analysis, testing and inspection regimes. Another factor is that the technology has mainly been limited to double-sided repair of flat plates, to structures with bending restraint, and to structures with residual strength. Unexpected composite failures have usually only occurred during laboratory testing for evaluation of a repair, rather than during service. F A A Advisory Circular 25.571-1A identifies the failure modes and locations of damage that must be considered, and requires the assessment of the effects of impact damage, inter-ply delamination, and disbonding on the composite, adhesive, and substrate. Composite and adhesive damage mechanisms are most likely to arise in areas of high stress, or due to impact damage or manufacturing flaws. Generally, the fatigue strength of a composite laminate is high unless it is damaged by environmental degradation or  7  \u000Cimpact, or it is loaded in a weak direction. One would not expect growth of inter-ply or impact damage unless it is accompanied by fibre damage or occurs in a region experiencing significant bending and through-thickness stresses, compressive loads, or very large transfers of load through shear, such as might exist near a repaired crack or about the edges of the patch. In practice, this has proven to be true, with experimental results suggesting that delamination growth from impact damage or manufacturing flaws away from load transfer regions is minimal [34]. A final concern is the possibility of undetected widespread or multi-site fatigue damage in the region of the repair, which must be considered when designing repairs for older structures. The Australian A i r Force has had some experience in crack patching with widespread fatigue damage [1], and Molent and Jones [43] have successfully applied bonded repairs to heavily damaged transport aircraft lap joint sections, demonstrating that the technology can be applied in areas of widespread or multi-site damage.  1.3.2 Certification and damage tolerance analysis Regulations require the damage tolerance analysis of all components of the repair system. According  to F A A Advisory  Circular 25.571-1 A ,  the  damage  tolerance  evaluation must \"define the loading and the environmental conditions, extent of damage or degradation of the structure, adhesive and repair, conduct of the associated structural tests or analyses, or both, used to substantiate that the repair design objective has been achieved, and establish data for inspection programs necessary to ensure detection of damage\". Damage tolerance assessment is required for impacts, manufacturing flaws corresponding to limits of inspection methods, and progressive failure near the crack in the underlying structure. The result is that the certification of a repair must meet most of the requirements for the design of a new composite structure. Baker [3] has postulated that the outer edge of the repair could be treated in a safe life manner, with the inner region over the repaired crack being subject to damage tolerance assessment. The somewhat unpredictable nature of the failure mechanism and strength of composite structures has lead to the general requirement for physical testing of representative specimens to catch unexpected failure modes. Requirements for certification include the documentation and control of the manufacturing process such that the test articles closely match the actual composite parts in service. The only possible exceptions to the rule are for structures that are very similar in loading, composition, and manufacture to ones that have already been tested and certified. Jones et al. [39] have suggested a policy for damage tolerance assessment based on F A A requirements, by incorporating a two-stage approval process whereby a repair may be certified for a short term based on static strength  analysis  and  testing.  Physical  testing  of representative  structures  in a  representative environment would be required for cases where sufficient test data or  8  \u000Coperational experience from similar structures was not available. Continuing operation of the aircraft would require the registration of a detailed damage tolerance analysis including an inspection plan. Jones et al [39] stress the need to perform residual strength analysis based on the limits of the inspection criteria, rate of damage growth, and strength of the damaged structure, including the possibility of wide-spread fatigue damage (the possibility of many cracks smaller than the detection limit). F A A circular 25.571-1A effectively makes this a requirement. It is stated that, unless stresses are so low that serious damage growth is extremely improbable, the structure must be shown to always be capable of supporting the design limit loads, and that the rate of damage growth and the inspectability of the structure provide a practical basis for an inspection program. Experimental testing of similar articles in representative environments must support the analysis. Damage may be simulated by saw-cuts, manufactured disbonds or delaminations, and by low-energy impacts, with the caveat that the damage must be placed in regions of maximum stress, where the residual strength of the structure will be most affected, or in areas where the additional compliance caused by damage will cause increased loads in surrounding structural elements and elevated stresses in the region of the patch. It is also required to examine the consequences of failure - e.g. structural failure and redundancy or criticality of the component, engine intake of loose parts, excessive drag, etc. Jones et al [39] also outline the analysis and testing requirements for static strength analysis and damage tolerance of the composite patch itself. Design allowables for the laminate must be generated through testing in appropriate environments, unless such data already exists or service experience shows that the performance of the material is unaffected. In addition, the static strength and damage tolerance of the composite must be tested as an entire system for the given application. The testing must include load dwells, and the specimens must be produced according to the production specifications. They also emphasized the need to include several composite-specific failure modes in the damage tolerance analysis of the patch system. These include failure by fibre failure, adhesive failure, cohesion failure at the patch-adhesive interface, adhesive failure at the adhesive-substrate interface, and inter-laminar failure.  1.3.3 Mechanics of a repair Several methods are available for the stress analysis of a bonded repair, including both numerical and closed-form approaches. Many researchers have used finite element analysis to investigate the mechanical response of a repair. Early studies by Ratwani [44] used three-dimensional linear finite element analysis to develop correction factors to account for bending, and Jones [45] developed 'three layer' finite element models that required fewer computational resources by modeling the underlying structure and the  9  \u000Crepair as plates, and by modelling the adhesive as shear and extensional springs. More recent work includes nonlinear analysis performed by K l u g et al. [38] and by Naboulsi and M a l l [46,47], where three-layer solutions have been used to assess the effects of nonlinear deformation and stress-stiffening in a single-sided repair. These techniques have the advantage of allowing evaluation of complex geometries and loading, but tend to be computationally demanding due to the large number of elements required to accurately model the crack in the substrate and the stresses in the load transfer regions of the patch. They also demand a large amount of operator time to accurately model a repair scenario. A n alternative choice is the boundary element method, whereby the patch and plate are modelled as cracked plates, with the deflection, plate loads, and stress intensity being characterized  by Green's  functions,  and the  adhesive  being modelled as  independent shear and extensional springs. Erdogan and A r i n [48] first used the boundary element techniques to analyze the problem of a disbonding patch bonded to a cracked aluminum plate without bending. Ratwani [44] has shown that this model provides accurate results for determining the stress intensity when compared with finite element analysis and experiments. Dowrick, Cartwright, and Rooke [49] and Young, Cartwright, and Rooke [50-52] have developed a boundary element model applicable to highly orthotropic patches. Here, the patch is divided into cells, each of which is 'riveted' at regular intervals to the underlying plate. The 'rivets' each have a shear spring stiffness determined from the adhesive thickness and shear modulus, and the area of the patch represented by the cell. This model also has the capability to include nonlinear adhesive response. Poole, Lock, and Young [53] have verified this model against experimental results for a graphite/epoxy patch applied to a thick cracked plate. M o r e recent efforts have applied the dual method, a means of simplifying the analysis of the region near the crack, to solve the problem of combined bending and extension of a repaired plate [54,55]. A n analytic method for analysis of a repair is to consider the load transfer region about the crack separately from the one about the edges of the repair, and is known as the twostep method [56]. The presence of the crack and its accompanying adhesive load transfer region  is the  distinguishing characteristic  for  a repair  versus  a  reinforcement,  differentiating between the safe life (outer) and damage tolerance (inner) regions, and allowing significant conveniences to the analyst. The implicit assumption is that the change in compliance introduced by the crack and disbond do not significantly affect load transfer about the edges of the repair. This is justified only for large and stiff repairs, where limited disbonding or crack growth do not greatly affect the interaction of the patch and the greater structure of the aircraft. Figure 1-2 shows these load transfer areas.  10  \u000CLoad Transfer Regions Crack  Figure 1-2: Load transfer regions For a stiff repair the load transfer regions are small compared to the planar dimensions of the patch, effectively become independent, and may be analysed separately [56-60]. The problem then resolves into two steps: (1) finding the stresses in a reinforcement, and (2) determining the state of the repair by introducing a crack and solving the resulting crack bridging problem. This two-step process simplifies the analysis, making closedform solutions feasible. The state of the repair may then be determined by superposition of the reinforcement and fracture mechanics solutions. This process is shown in Figure 13, where (a) shows the stresses in a reinforced plate, (b) shows the stresses resulting from a crack-bridging analysis by applying the crack-plane stresses from (a) as crack-opening stresses, and (c) shows their superposition.  (a)  (b)  (c)  Figure 1-3: Two step method In the first step, the patch acts as a 'reinforcement' and may be considered as a stiffened inclusion. The inclusion attracts load - the larger and stiffer it is, the more load it attracts from the surrounding structure.  Analytical solutions allow the calculation of the  distribution of stresses within and about the stiffened inclusion, providing the stresses in the underlying plate. Due to the reinforcing effect of the patch, these stresses are reduced from the remote applied stresses. In addition to the stresses resulting from the inclusion  11  \u000Canalogy, the reinforcement may experience detrimental bending stresses due to a neutral axis offset, and due to thermal residual stresses from curing of the adhesive. For the second step, a crack is introduced and the reinforcement, now referred to as a 'repair' is modelled as springs bridging the crack. Here, the stresses found in the first step are applied as crack opening tractions and the springs restrict the opening of the crack reduce the stress intensity. This crack-bridging problem occurs often in materials science, and its solution determines the stress intensity at the crack tip and the adhesive stresses near the crack, characterizing the effects of adhesive load transfer about the crack. Rose refined this inclusion analogy and applied it to the crack-patching problem [56], applying the analytical result for a stiffened elliptical inclusion developed by Eshelby [61]. In addition to the stresses resulting from the inclusion analogy, patch bending and process-induced thermal residual stresses may also occur. Patch bending results from the offset in neutral axis caused by the patch, and may be estimated using simple beam theory [44]. Residual stresses occur when the patch application process requires an elevated temperature cure cycle and the patch and plate have differing thermal expansion coefficients. Residual stresses are particularly large for laboratory specimens which are often cured without restraint against thermal expansion. The residual stress in the region of the crack may be calculated by analytical means, where solutions have been provided by Rose [60] for an isotropic repair, by Wang et al [62] for a circular orthotropic repair, and by Albat and R o m i l l y [63] for a tapered repair. These stresses depend upon the cure temperature of the adhesive and the degree of physical restraint available during curing, i.e. whether the cure was accomplished with local heating or immersion in an autoclave and on the support conditions of the cracked plate. Local heating and mechanical restraint can significantly reduce residual stresses. Without support, thermal strains can result in significant bending, or warpage. To calculate the thermal residual strains, it is necessary to know the effective stress free temperature, i.e. the temperature at which thermal residual strains vanish. Albat and R o m i l l y [32] tested an instrumented A M R L specimen, and found an effective stress free temperature of 81 \u00B0C, significantly lower than the oftenused cure temperature. For the second part of the analysis, a crack is introduced and the reinforcement, now referred to as a repair, may be modelled as springs bridging the crack. Here, the stress found in the first step is applied as a crack opening traction and the springs bridging the crack partially prevent the crack from opening, reducing the stress intensity. This crackbridging problem occurs often in materials science. Its solution determines the stress intensity at the crack tip and the adhesive stresses near the crack, and characterises the adhesive load transfer about the crack, allowing the determination of the rate of crack growth and near-crack disbonding. Crack-bridging calculations may be accomplished  12  \u000Cusing finite elements, boundary elements, or analytical solutions based on interpolation between limit states. Exact analytical solutions exist for the limiting cases of a patch over a very short crack or a very long crack. N o exact closed-form solution exists for an arbitrary length crack. For small cracks, the stress intensity closely approaches the basic fracture mechanics solution for a crack with an opening pressure equal to the edge traction found in the first step of the analysis. This solution becomes less valid as the crack length, and hence, the crack opening displacement, increase. In the limit state of a very long crack, the crack opening displacement well away from the crack tip can be considered to be constrained only by the stiffness of the patch bridging the crack, and the state of the crack tip becomes independent  of crack length. Rose [60] has examined this problem and  developed an interpolation model which asymptotically approaches these two limit cases, and provides accurate results for an arbitrary crack length. C o x and Rose [64] have extended this approximate solution to the cases of near-tip reinforcement and elasticperfectly plastic springs. One considerable limitation of this method is that the reinforcement is assumed to act at the faces of the cracks. Baker [3] has investigated the effects of disbonding and temperature on fatigue crack reinitiation and growth. In this study, he developed a few simple relations for estimating the effect of a measured disbond on the crack-tip stress intensity and patching efficiency. Here, the limit case of a long crack is modified to account for the additional compliance of a disbonded portion of patch. The disbonding geometry is limited to a disbond of a constant size extending across the entire patch. Building on this work, Albat and R o m i l l y [65] developed solutions that are applicable for any degree of patch disbonding and include the effect of thermal residual stresses, patch lay-up, and cracked plate geometry. Thermal residual stresses were shown to contribute significantly toward reducing patch efficiency, particularly for laboratory specimens, where little restraint exists during the curing cycle to reduce thermal residual stresses. Clark and R o m i l l y [66] tested this model against a boundary element model and found that the results were valid for a wide range of patch stiffness parameters, and extended the models to include adhesive plasticity and allow the calculation of adhesive stresses and the load carried by the patch. 1.3.4 D a m a g e m e c h a n i c s  Here, we seek to define the best practice for predicting damage growth and failure of the various components of a repair: the plate, the adhesive joint connecting the plate and patch, and the composite patch itself. The damage mechanics of a metal plate, being a topic of undergraduate or graduate courses, are generally well understood. For a cracked plate, fracture and fatigue may be characterized by the stress intensity, but difficulties can arise due to load interaction and crack closure, load spectrum, adverse environments, and  13  \u000Cplasticity or thickness effects. These topics often require the use of experiments for evaluation of structural integrity under realistic conditions; examples are the load spectrum testing of airframes and the use of empirical models for crack-closure. For bonded repairs, Duong and Wang [67] have noted that inadequate methods for characterizing fatigue of cracked plates experiencing bending loads are a significant impediment to life assessment. They have proposed the use of a modified stress intensity, developed by linear interpolation between two limit states where the crack growth rate can be accurately assessed: for a crack experiencing only a membrane stress intensity, and a crack with equal membrane and bending stress intensities. The method provided good results when applied to the analysis of unbalanced repairs. Mechanical analysis of bonded joints is a complex subject, as the adhesive stresses are related to the loading, the bending and extensional stiffness of the adherends, and the elastic/plastic properties and thickness of the adhesive. In general, both shear and peel (transverse normal) adhesive stresses arise. For a repair, it is necessary to assess both the adhesive stresses and the stiffness of the patch as it acts to restrict the opening of the crack. Closed-form elastic and elastic/perfectly plastic solutions for the shear and peel stresses are available for simple geometries, usually developed by modeling the adhesive as a row of shear and extensional springs connecting the adherends. The standard techniques are the shear-lag solution for lap joints developed by Volkerson [67] and the bending analysis of Goland and Reissner [68]. Hart-Smith [69] has used these to develop elastic-plastic failure criteria and analytical closed-form solutions for several practical geometries. Delale et al. [70] and Bigwood and Crocombe [71] have improved on these solutions by including mechanical coupling of the bending and extensional responses of the joint. Coupling occurs due to moments resulting from the adhesive shear stress acting at the adhesive/adherend interface, and from adhesive shear stresses induced by rotation of the adherends under bending. In practice, finite elements are often used to analyse the complex geometries that arise in the design of airframes, with the closed-form equations used to inform the design process. The methods of Hart-Smith have been prevalent in the analysis of bonded repairs. For life assessment, bonded joints are often treated in a safelife manner, where peak stresses are controlled by tapering the adherends, using a long overlap length, and choosing an appropriate adhesive thickness. This approach does not work for a repair, as it is usually not possible to reduce the adhesive stresses near the crack to the point where safe-life methods may be applied. Damage mechanics analysis of bonded joints poses similar challenges. Here, two modes of cracking may occur, cohesive and adhesive. Cohesive failures occur when the adhesive fails by yielding and cracking, while adhesive failures occur at the bond line. There is debate over whether pure interfacial failure can occur or i f it instead occurs by lowenergy fracture of the weaker material due to constraint from the stiffer and (usually)  14  \u000Cstronger material. Adhesive failures should not occur unless a poorly prepared surface results in low durability, as discussed in section 1.2.2. Several different parameters have been used to characterize adhesive fatigue and fracture, including the plastic or elastic strain range [e.g. 59], strain energy release rate [e.g. 38], or stress intensity. The strength and stiffness of an adhesive results from molecular and inter-molecular forces, exhibiting strain-rate, moisture, and temperature sensitivity, while the stresses near the fracture zone are dependent on the joint geometry, including the location of the crack within the adhesive and type of loading. Illustrating the effects of the crack location on fracture, for a boron-epoxy repair, interfacial crack growth may require 230 Jim 3000 Jim  compared to over  for cohesive failure [3].  Fundamentally, the use of energy-based fracture parameters is complicated by the dependence of the stresses on the geometry and composition of the joint. This violates the similarity criterion, whereby in fracture  mechanics it is assumed that cracks have  similarly-shaped stress distributions regardless of crack length, position, or geometry. This explains why different geometries and loading conditions lead to different critical strain energy release rate and disbond growth rate parameters [66, 72], even though the same adhesive has been employed. Strain energy release rates are used to predict fracture and fatigue of materials for which the rate of plastic work with disbond or crack growth is either negligible, or the rate of plastic work is constant, for an increment in crack growth [73]. For bonded joints, this means that there should not be a discernible critical strain energy release rate as a material property - instead, the adhesive must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis where test data must be developed for a particular joint composition. Hart-Smith [69] has noted that strength under static loading depends mainly on the adhesive strain energy, and advocates an energy-density criterion for crack growth, which may necessitate a detailed assessment of the elastic/plastic strains in the adhesive at the tip of the crack. This method explicitly considers the strains near the crack tip, and has been used [2] to develop damage tolerance criteria for bonded joints. A n alternative approach is to use alternating plastic strains, or an approach based on the rate of plastic work with disbond growth. Either alternative directly accounts  for the effects of  geometry. A n additional advantage is that the adhesive shear strength provides a very simple and direct approach with which to include the effects of temperature, loading rate, and environment on disbond growth rates. It is noted that test data is readily available for F M 7 3 M , the adhesive most commonly used in bonded repairs. Strength and fatigue analysis for axial loading of unidirectional composites is relatively straight-forward. Accurate estimates of the ultimate strength of the laminate may be found by considering the strain in the fibres and matrix to be equal, a reasonable assumption for high stiffness laminates with long fibres [74]. For a polymer-reinforced composite such as boron-epoxy, composite failure occurs when the stress in the boron 15  \u000Cfibres reaches its maximum, corresponding to a nominal tensile stress in the orthotropic solid. This is the principal strength of the composite. Fatigue of composites under such loading may be characterized by a stress-life (S-N) diagram, with small reductions in stiffness and strength occurring as the matrix cracks and delaminates near fibre breaks and stress concentrations. When bending is a significant component of the load on the plate, transverse stresses and interlaminar failure have a detrimental effect on fatigue life and strength. Tensile interlaminar stresses develop due to the buckling of fibres on the compression side of the plate, and transverse stresses may cause interlaminar failure. The mechanisms of failure under transverse loading are matrix failure by fracture and interfacial failure, and by fibre splitting i f they are weak in the transverse direction [74]. Stiff fibres lead to stress concentrations in the matrix, causing it to fail before the nominal transverse stress exceeds the strength of the matrix. Models for predicting such failures are often developed by using a periodic fibre distribution to characterize the peak stresses, whereby a stress concentration or strength reduction factor is applied to the matrix and used as a failure criteria for the composite. From mechanical testing and fractography, it has been shown that the exact geometrical distribution of the fibres has a significant role, and more recent attempts to predict failure strength have used finite element analysis to predict the matrix stresses given a randomly determined fibre spacing or by arranging the fibres in a configuration consistent with the manufacturing technique [75]. In all cases, the thrust of the analysis is the same, to predict the stresses in the matrix and fibre given a nominal loading, and then develop failure criteria.  1.3.5 Critical analysis Airworthiness certification of a bonded repair requires the assessment of the resulting structure's damage tolerance considering all plausible damage sources and failure modes, including an inspection plan to detect damage growth before catastrophic failure. Bond durability is a persistent problem, but one that can be ameliorated by adopting best practices in the manufacturing processes and reducing the adhesive stresses to whatever degree possible. Baker [3] has argued that the design of the outer, tapered portion of the patch could be governed by safe life principles, but the fitness of the design can also be assured through damage tolerance analysis, which would ensure adequate life in the instance of an impact or manufacturing flaw. In this region the repair does not vary significantly from other types of bonded joints, and an analysis suitable to certification should be possible by standard methods. It is possible, however, that the inner and outer regions of the repair could be assessed independently, as Denney and M a l l [34] have shown that damage in this outer region can actually improve the efficiency of the repair by reducing stresses in the region of the crack. For the inner part of the repair, applied over the original damaged aircraft structure, three types of damage must be assessed: 1)  16  \u000Ccracking in the structure beneath the repair, 2) disbonding of the adhesive joining the patch to the structure, and 3) interply delamination or composite failure in the region of the crack. The issues that prevent widespread use of the technology are related to these final three forms of damage, with near-crack disbonding and composite failure being issues that have lead to unexpected rapid failure during proof testing and fatigue life assessment. T o address these issues, the damage tolerance assessment must consider all of the following elements, which need to be in place to assure structural integrity of a repair. (1) Loading conditions: assessment of the fatigue loading, service environment, and thermal stresses. The repair must be able to carry the design limit load. (2) Failure modes: the type of damage, location, and mechanisms for growth must be identified. Crack growth and accompanying disbonds are expected, but damage may also arise from process errors (e.g. adhesive voids) or accidents (e.g. impact damage). (3) Damage parameters: means of calculating parameters such as stress intensity that are used to predict damage growth rates with a given service loading and environment. (4) Test data: empirical relations correlating damage growth rates observed in testing with the damage parameter, and structural test data for representative repair specimens. (5) Inspection methods: inspection methods must be qualified to ensure that they can detect the damage and that the inspections will occur often enough to prevent failures. A l l of these elements must be combined to ensure that the structure w i l l meet a set of safety goals, which may be statistical and/or deterministic in nature. A n example of a very broad statistical goal would be a 10~  7  chance of catastrophic failure over the  operational life of the part, which is a rough industry guideline for primary structures. A n example of a deterministic goal would be the specification that the part must be capable of withstanding the design limit load throughout its working life. Widespread use of bonded composite repairs w i l l not occur until all of these elements and a set of acceptable safety goals can be presented in a form that is easy to understand and apply. A n assessment of the service loads in the structure is an element of the analysis. For aircraft manufacturers, load data is available in design and flight test documents. For overhaul and repair facilities, this data is often not available, and loads must be estimated by analysis of the existing structure. Here, the goal is to return the static and fatigue strength without disrupting the flow of load in surrounding structures. When compared to riveted repairs, the only unique issue is the assessment of thermal stresses arising from mismatched thermal expansion coefficients. There are three types of damage growth unique to a bonded repair: 1) substrate cracking and accompanying disbonding, 2) interply delamination, or 3) composite failure. The  17  \u000Cdamage tolerance analysis requires accepted methods by which damage parameters may be calculated and compared with test data in order to predict the life and strength of the repair. The two-step process and the reduction of the mechanics of a repair to a crackbridging problem are fundamental concepts for assessment of these types of damage growth, but several difficulties arise. These include: a) thickness effects in fracture mechanics energy analysis, b) the coupled and geometrically nonlinear membrane and bending responses of the repair, c) difficulties inherent in the stress analysis of hybrid bonded joints, and d) complications in predicting the fracture and fatigue of bending plates, adhesive joints, and interlaminar failure of composites. These problems are inherent to the mechanical analysis of a repair and w i l l be discussed in more detail below. The final element is identification of all damage to the structure, including initial damage, repair application flaws, and damage accrued during subsequent service. The existing damage may be assessed by the conventional means of visual, dye penetrant, and eddy current inspection, with macroscopic defects such as fatigue cracks and corrosion characterized by measured defect sizes and locations. Widespread fatigue damage and/or undetectable discrete cracks must be assumed to exist, and included in the worst possible locations. Guidelines for the design of new aluminum aircraft structures exist whereby small cracks of a specified size are assumed to exist at rivet holes and other stress-raisers, and certification requires life assessment under the assumption that these flaws are present. For widespread damage, undetectable flaws should be assumed to exist at locations adjacent to stress-raisers, and the possibility of crack interaction should be investigated. Several deficiencies may be noted in the application of the two-step analysis process and interpolation model. The first problem is in the analysis of geometrically nonlinear bending of a repair. The two-step method relies on superposition, and, strictly speaking, is only applicable to linear problems. Rose [60] has calculated the long-crack limit for the strain energy release in the presence of nonlinear bending by applying composite beam theory. This calculation provides the total available strain energy but does not separate it into bending and membrane components. A general method is required for the treatment of  geometrically nonlinear  bending.  Perhaps  worse,  energy  methods  have  been  effectively abandoned as Wang and Rose [76,77] have shown that for linear coupled bending and extension, they incorrectly predict the membrane  and bending stress  intensity. A n additional problem arises due to the somewhat arbitrary application of plane stress or plane strain conditions at the crack tip. For extension of generalized plane strain cracked plates, Wang and Rose [78] have shown that, when transverse stresses are considered, the crack tip is effectively in a state of plane strain. For bending of cracked plates, the actual state of the crack tip is less clear. Joseph and Erdogan [79] have noted that classical plate bending models employing the Kirchoff boundary condition lead to  18  \u000Cconflicting definitions of the stress intensity depending on whether a stress- or strainbased definition is employed. Errors greater than 60% have been demonstrated when the classical model is compared to more sophisticated plate bending models that include shear deflections and allow the satisfaction of all three plate bending  boundary  conditions. Wang and Rose [80] have developed a numerical line-spring model for linear coupled bending and extension of repairs, but it employs a plane stress plate extension model and the Reissner plate bending model, both of which neglect the important role of transverse normal stresses. Hence, methods must be made available to properly account for plate thickness effects\" i f energy methods are to be accurately applied and design equations for combined bending and extension to be developed. A s a final point, interpolation solutions such as those originally developed by Rose [60] hold great promise for regulatory purposes and stochastic risk analysis or optimization analyses, but have not been properly developed for the case of coupled extension and bending due to difficulties in developing appropriate long-crack limits. Putting aside issues specific to the analysis of bonded composite repairs, there are difficulties inherent in the stress analysis of hybrid bonded joints which must be accounted for. In particular, it is necessary to include all of the relevant deformation modes particular to orthotropic composite adherends when calculating the stiffness of the repair, the stresses in the adhesive, and the load carried by the composite repair as it acts to restrict the opening of an underlying crack. Complications also exist in the prediction of the fracture and fatigue of bending plates, adhesive joints, and interlaminar failure of composites. It appears that in the absence of a universally acceptable model, the best approach is to characterize the potential for composite failure by calculating the plate loads and hence stresses in the composite, and attempt to reduce them however possible by design. Guidelines for what is an acceptable level of peel stress w i l l develop over time as experience with the technology develops. Finally, there is a deficiency in the available experimental data. The A M R L specimen, which has proven invaluable in the assessment and development of the bonded composite repair technology, has not been tested under varying degrees of bending restraint. Such testing would provide data that may help in the avoidance of unexpected failures due to patch bending. It would also prove to be useful to carry out testing in the manner of Baker [29] whereby lap joint specimens would be tested under varying degrees of bending restraint to examine the response of the repair as it acts to bridge the crack. The best practice when safety is a critical issue is to perform mechanical testing to determine whether transverse failure/delamination is a problem. Analytical modeling and strength prediction remain useful in order to understand the problem and to minimize it. In design, it is always good practice to minimize transverse stresses wherever possible.  19  \u000C1.4 Thesis objectives The objective of this thesis is the development and validation of a basic damage tolerance analysis methodology to assure the structural integrity of a repair, with particular attention to the effects of bending and plate thickness on the crack tip stress intensity, adhesive stresses, and interlaminar composite failure. The desired product is a set of validated engineering equations that capture the relevant physical phenomena in a conservative manner, and are based upon a theoretical analysis of the mechanics of a repair. This necessitates experimental work for the investigation of bonded composite repair failure mechanisms and the validation of developed predictive models, and theoretical work on the fracture of bending plates with reinforced cracks and fracture mechanics of repairs under non-linear bending conditions. This w i l l enable the damage tolerance assessment and certification of a repair. This project falls under a larger research and development program at U B C directed toward certification and widespread use  of bonded repairs  in civilian aviation.  Advancements to this program have been made through the development of design and damage tolerance analysis tools and test methods for repairs. W i t h the assistance of the N R C - I A R , much effort has been applied toward the design, analysis, manufacture, and testing of repair specimens. Assistance and co-operation has also been obtained from the A M R L , who pioneered the use of this technology for military applications. W i t h the completion of a P h . D . dissertation by Andreas Albat and a M . A . S c . thesis by Randal Clark, this thesis marks the third graduate degree devoted to this work. Seven A M R L repair specimens have been constructed, including an instrumented specimen used to study thermal stresses. Procedures for the manufacture and application of repairs have been documented, and the two-step model for double-sided repairs has been extended to include the effects of patch-edge tapering, thermal strains, adhesive plasticity, crackedplate geometry correction factors, and disbonding. The result is a set of validated closedform models suitable for engineering analysis, optimization, or use in codes and standards. The goal of this thesis is to provide a similar analysis capability for singlesided, or unbalanced repairs. The bonded composite repair technology has great potential in the management and life extension of ageing transport airframes. It is now common practice to rebuild and re-fit aircraft to extend their life, often repeatedly. Ultimately, aircraft are retired when the cost of this refurbishment and the requirements for inspection become too onerous or the design of the airframe has become obsolete and is too inefficient to compete with newer models. Other financial factors are also important: e.g. an aircraft maintains its value i f new aircraft of the same type are still being built but may lose a large amount of value i f the line is discontinued. For aircraft in an advanced stage of usage, the consequential defects are well known and documented, and many of them could profitably be returned  20  \u000Cto useful service with a few well-placed bonded repairs. There is also a significant opportunity for the use of repairs on newer aircraft, as when such a defect is initially discovered it is likely that it can be permanently repaired with a bonded patch, instead of being 'managed' using conventional riveted repairs. Obsolete or discontinued aircraft often see service in utility markets, such as cargo transport or forest firefighting and it can be profitable to refit an airframe that has virtually no value as a passenger transport aircraft into a new role. Given the advantages of the bonded repair technology in terms of cost, applications time, and effectiveness, there is a very large market for the application of the technology. A t any given time, there are literally thousands of aircraft that are approaching a refit or retirement, and even most aircraft that are receiving their first overhaul would benefit from bonded repairs for defects that may ultimately manifest themselves into a life-threatening problem i f a riveted patch is employed. This illustrates the importance of realizing an easy-to-use damage tolerance methodology that w i l l allow them to compete against conventional riveted repairs and be more widely used. Several barriers prevent the realization of a comprehensive damage tolerance analysis of a repair as required for certification. Significant limitations exist in our ability to include the effects of finite plate thickness and nonlinear coupled bending and extension on the performance of repairs. Significant issues also affect our ability to predict the strength and rate of fatigue of bending plates, hybrid bonded joints, and composites under transverse  loading. Engineering methods  for analysis of repairs  generally ignore  composite failures, and there is a lack of experimental data available for validation of mechanical models of geometrically non-linear bending of bonded composite repairs and fatigue of hybrid bonded joints. T o address these issues, a program of experimental and theoretical analysis has been carried out, involving the testing of a heavily instrumented repair with and without bending constraints, the construction and testing of representative lap joint specimens, the development of line-spring models for cracked plates that include the relevant through-thickness effects, and the reformulation of the energy methods for repair analysis to allow the calculation of the parameters governing the life of a repair. Chapter two describes the structural testing of an instrumented repair specimen, with and without bending restraint, which is used to validate a three-dimensional finite element model of a repair. The results are used as a basis for the development of a methodology and criteria for damage tolerance substantiation of a repair. The issue of plate thickness effects is addressed in Chapter three by adoption of a generalized plane strain plate model, allowing the analysis of transversally isotropic plates of arbitrary thickness. Engineering equations are developed that relate the stress intensity factor to the strain energy release rate, and the Rose model, a classical model for analysis of repaired plates is shown to hold for a generalized plane strain plate.  21  \u000CIn Chapter four, a series of engineering plate models are developed to illustrate the effects of through-thickness stresses, shear forces, and shear deflection on the bending of cracked transversally isotropic plates. The result is a set of equations relating the bending stress intensity to the strain energy release rate, which are used to extend the Rose model to the analysis of bending in reinforced cracked plates. In Chapter five, the problems of coupled linear bending and extension of a cracked plate repaired with an isotropic patch are addressed. A line-spring model, developed from the results of Chapters three and four, is used to develop a new interpolation model applicable to repaired plates with arbitrary crack lengths. In Chapter six, this model is extended to the analysis of an orthotropic repair by the adoption of more sophisticated bonded joint models that take in to consideration several composite-specific deformation modes and more accurate analysis of the coupling of the extensional and bending responses of an unbalanced joint. In Chapter seven, nonlinear effects  caused by stress-stiffening of the repair are  accounted for by the use of the generalized Rose model, and by the extension of the new interpolation model to the nonlinear analysis of a repair, allowing the calculation of the extensional and bending stress intensity factors under a single-sided repair. In Chapter 8, the results of the work are reviewed in the light of the thesis objectives, topics for future work are discussed, and the contributions of this work are outlined.  1.5 Summary This chapter has introduced the bonded composite repair technology, demonstrated the need for damage tolerance assessment of a repair, identified shortcomings in the understanding of repair mechanics that make it difficult to certify a bonded composite repair, and described the objectives and content of this thesis. This goal of this work is to develop the elements required for the damage tolerance analysis of a repair. Subsequent chapters w i l l describe experimental and analytical work directed toward this result.  1.6 References [1] R. Jones. Assessing and maintaining continued airworthiness in the presence of widespread fatigue damage: an Australian perspective. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 60, 1998, 109-130. [2] R. Jones, W K C h i u , J. Paul. Designing for damage tolerant bonded joints. Composite Structures 25, 1993, 201-207. [3] A A Baker. O n the certification of bonded composite repairs to primary aircraft structure. Proceedings of I C C M - 1 1 , G o l d Coast, Australia, 1997,1-1 to 1-23. [4] A A Baker. Evaluation of adhesives for fibre composite reinforcement of fatiguecracked aluminum panels. S A M P E Journal, March/April, 1979, 10-17.  22  \u000C[5] J Cognard. Influence of water on the cleavage of adhesive joints. International Journal of.Adhesion and Adhesives,8/2, 1988, 93-99. [6] A D Crocombe. Durability modelling concepts and tools for cohesive environmental degradation of bonded structures. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 17, 1997, 229-238. [7] W P deWilde, G VanVinckenroy, L Tirry, A H Cardon. Effects of the environment and curing on the strength of adhesive joints. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 9/2, 1995, 149-158. [8] M Fernando, W W Harjoprayitno, A J Kinloch. A fracture mechanics study of the influence of moisture on the fatigue behaviour of adhesively bonded joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 16, 1996, 113-119. [9] W S Johnston, L M Butkus. Considering environmental conditions in the design of bonded structures: a fracture mechanics approach. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials 21, 1998, 465-478. [10] A N Rider, D R Arnott, A R Wilson, O Vargas. Influence of simple surface treatments on the durability of bonded aluminium alloy plates. Materials Science Forum 189-190, 1995, 235-240. [11] K B Armstrong. Long-Term Durability in Water of A l u m i n i u m A l l o y Adhesive Joints Bonded with Epoxy Adhesives', International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 17, 1997, 89-105. [12] M R Bowditch, SJ Shaw. Adhesive bonding for high-performance Advanced Performance Materials 3, 1996, 325-342.  materials.  [13] N C Cave, A J Kinloch. The effects of silane deposition conditions on the durability of aluminum joints pretreated using 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane. Journal of Adhesion 34, 1991, 175-18. [14] G D Davis, T S Sun, JS Ahearn, J D Venables. Application of surfgace behaviour diagrams to the study of hydration of phosphoric acid-anodized aluminum. Journal of Materials Science 17, 1982, 1807-1818. [15] R P Digby, D E Packham. Pretreatment of aluminium: topography, surface chemistry and bond durability. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 15, 1995, 61-71. [16] L J Hart-Smith. A peel-type durability test coupon to assess interfaces in bonded, cobonded, and co-cured composite structures. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 19, 1999, 181-191. [17] J D Minford. Durability evaluation of adhesive bonded Bonding. Plenum Press, N e w York, U S A , 1991, 239-290.  structures.  Adhesive  [18] P J Pearce, F C Tolan. Epoxy silane - a preferred surface treatment for bonded aluminium repairs. International Conference on Aircraft Damage Assessment and Repair, 1991,188-193. [19] A N Rider, D R Arnott. B o i l i n g water and silane pre-treatment of aluminum alloys for durable adhesive bonding. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 20, 2000, 209-220. [20] W Thiedman, F C Tolan, P J Pearce, C E M Morris. Silane coupling agents as adhesion promoters for aerospace structural adhesives', Journal of Adhesion 22, 1987, 197-210.  23  \u000C[21] J R J Wingfield. Treatment of composite surfaces for adhesive bonding. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 13/3, 1993, 151-156. [22] D R Arnott, P R Pearce, A R Wilson, R J Chester. The effect on mechanical properties of void formation during vacuum bag processing of epoxy film adhesives. Second Pacific International Conference on Aerospace Science and Technology, 1995, 811-816. [23] W D Bascom, R L Cottington. A i r entrapment in the use of structural adhesive films. Journal of Adhesion 4, 1972, 193-209. [24] R J Chester, J D Roberts. V o i d minimization in adhesive joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 9/3, 1989, 129-138. [25] P R Pearce, D R Arnott, A Camilleri, M R Kindermann. Cause and effect of void formation during vacuum bag curing of epoxy film adhesives. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 12/6, 1998, 567-584. [26] A A Baker. Repair efficiency in fatigue-cracked aluminum components reinforced with boron/epoxy patches. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Structures 16/7, 1993, 753-765. [27] A A Baker. Fiber composite repair of cracked metallic aircraft components - practical and basic aspects. Composites 18/4, 1987, 293-308. [28] A A Baker. Bonded composite repair of metallic aircraft components - overview of Australian activities. A G A R D - 79th Meeting of the Structures and Materials Panel. Specialists Meeting: Composite Repairs of Military Aircraft Structures, 1994, 1-14. [29] A A Baker, J D Roberts, L R F Rose. Experimental study of overlap joint parameters relevant to k eduction due to crack patching. 28th National S A M P E Symposium, 1983, 627-639. [30] M D Raizenne, T J Benak, J B R Heath, D L Simpson, A A Baker. Bonded composite repair of thin metallic materials: variable load amplitude and temperature cycling effects. A G A R D - 79th Meeting of the Structures and Materials Panel. Specialists Meeting: Composite Repairs of Military Aircraft Structures, 1994, 5-1. [31] P Hucalek, M D Raizenne, R F Scott. Influences of environment and stress history on the composite patch repair of cracked metallic structures. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Journal. 34/2, 1988, 85-91. [32] A M Albat, D P Romilly, M D Raizenne. Thermal residual strain measurement in a composite repair on a cracked aluminum structure. I C C M - 1 1 , G o l d Coast, Australia, 14th to 18th July 1997, p. VI-279-VI-288. [33] P Poole, D Lock, A Young. Composite patch repair of thick aluminum sections. International Conference on Aircraft Damage Assessment and Repair, 1991, 85-91. [34] J Denney, S M a l l . Characterization of disbond effects on fatigue crack growth behavior in an aluminum plate with a bonded composite patch. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 57, 1997, 507-525. [35] J Denney, S M a l l . Fatigue behaviour in thick aluminum panels with a composite repair. Collection of Technical Papers, 39th Annual A I A A - A S M E - A S C E - A H S Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference 3, 1998, 2434-2443.  24  \u000C[36] J Denney, S M a l l . Effect of disbond on fatigue behavior of cracked aluminum panel with bonded composite patch. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics A I A A 96-1322-CP, A I A A , 1996, 14-21. [37] P K Sharp, J Q Clayton, G Clark. Retardation and repair of fatigue cracks by adhesive infiltration. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 20/4, 1997, 605-614. [38] J K l u g , S Malley, C T Sun. Characterization of fatigue behavior of bonded composite repairs. Journal of Aircraft 36/6, 1999, 1017-1022. [39] R Jones, W K Chiu, R Smith. Airworthiness of composite repairs: mechanisms. Engineering Failure Analsysis 2, 1995, 117-128  failure  [40] F . A . A . Advisory Circular 25.1529-1. Instructions for continued airworthiness of structural repairs on transport airplanes. U . S . Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1991. [41] F . A . A . Advisory Circular 20.107A,. Composite aircraft structure. U . S . Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1984. [42] F . A . A . Advisory Circular 25.571-1C. Damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structures. U . S . Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1998. [43] L Molent, R Jones. Crack growth and repair of muli-site damage of fuselage lap joints. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 44/4, 1993, 627-637. [44] Ratwani M . M . , 1979. Cracked, adhesively bonded laminated structures. Journal 17(9), 988-994.  AIAA  [45] Jones R , Calinan R J , Aggarwal K C , 1983. Analysis of bonded repairs to damaged fibre composite structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 17(1), 37-46. [46] S Naboulsi, S M a l l . Modeling of cracked metallic structure with bonded composite patch using three layer technique. Composite Structures 35, 1996, 295-308. [47] S Naboulsi, S M a l l . Nonlinear analysis of bonded composite patch repair of cracked aluminum panels. Composite Structures 41, 1998, 303-313. [48] F Erdogan, K A r i n . A sandwich plate with a part-through and disbonding crack. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 4, 1972, 449-458. [49] G Dowrick, D J Cartwright, D P Rooke. Boundary effects for a reinforced cracked sheet using the boundary element method. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 12,1990,251-260. [50] A Young, D J Cartwright, D P Rooke. Influence of tapering on the stresses in repair patches. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fracture Mechanics, 1984, 721-737. [51] A Young, D P Rooke, D J Cartwright. A numerical study of balanced patch repairs to cracked sheets. Aeronautical Journal, 1989, 327-334. [52] A Young, D P Rooke, D J Cartwright. Boundary element method for analyzing repair patches on cracked finite sheets. Aeronautical Journal 92, 1988, 416-421. [53] P Poole, D Lock, A Young. Composite repair of thick aluminum alloy sections. International Conference on Aircraft Damage Assessment and Repair, 1991, 85-91.  25  \u000C[54] N K Salgado, M H Aliabadi. The boundary element analysis of cracked stiffened sheets, reinforced by adhesively bonded patches. International Journal for Numerical methods in Engineering 42, 1998, 195-217. [55] P H W e n , M H Aliabadi, A Young. Boundary element analysis of flat cracked panels with adhesively bonded patches. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 69, 2002, 2129-2146. [56] L R F Rose. A n application of the inclusion analogy for bonded reinforcements. International Journal of Solids and Structures 17, 1981, 827-838. [57] L R F Rose. A cracked plate repaired by bonded reinforcements. International Journal of Fracture 18/2, 1982, 135-144. [58] L R F Rose. Crack reinforcement by distributed springs. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 35/4, 1987, 383-405. [59] L R F Rose. Basic concepts in assessing the efficiency of bonded repairs. International Conference on Aircraft Damage Assessment and Repair, Melbourne, Australia, 1991, 202-208. [60] L R F Rose. Theoretical aspects of crack-patching. In: A A Baker, R . Jones. Bonded repair of aircraft structures. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988. [61] J D Eshelby. The determination of the elastic field of an elliptical inclusion, and related problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 2 4 1 , 1957, 376-391. [62] C H Wang, L R F Rose, R Callinan, A A Baker. Thermal stresses in a plate with a circular reinforcement. International Journal of Solids and Structures 37, 2000, 45774599. [63] A M Albat, D P Romilly. Direct linear-elastic analysis of double symmetric bonded joints and reinforcements. Composites Science and Technology 59/7, 1999, 1127-1137. [64] B N C o x , L R F Rose. A self-consistent approximation for crack bridging by elastic/perfectly plastic ligaments. Mechanics of Materials 22, 1996, 249-263. [65] A M Albat. Thermal residual stresses in bonded composite repairs on cracked metal structures. P h . D . thesis, The University of British Columbia, 1998. [66] R J Clark, D P Romilly. Fatigue damage prediction for bonded composite repairs applied to metal aircraft structures. 2001 S A E Transactions - Journal of Aerospace, 10 p. [67] Volkersen O. Rivet strength distribution in tensile-stresses rivet joints with constant cross-section. Luftfahrforschung 1938;15(l):41-47. [68] Goland M and Reissner E . The stresses in cemented lap joints. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions of the A S M E 1944;66:A17-A27. [69] Hart-Smith L J . Stress analysis: a continuum mechanics approach. In: Developments in Adhesives, volume 2, applied science publishers, London, 1973. [70] Delale F , Erdogan F , Aydinoglu M N . Stresses in adhesively bonded joints: a closedform solution. Journal of Composite Materials, 1981;15:249-271. [71] B i g w o o d D A and Crocombe A D . Elastic analysis and engineering design formulae for bonded joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 1989;9(4):229-242. [72] C L i n , K M Lietchi. Similarity concepts in the fatigue fracture of adhesively bonded joints. Journal of Adhesion 21, 1987, 1-24.  26  \u000C[73] D Broek, Elementary engineering fracture mechanics, revised 4 academic publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997.  edition, Kluwer  [74] B D Agarwal, L J Broutman. Analysis and performance of fibre Composites. 2 Edition, John W i l e y and Sons, Inc., N e w York, 1990.  n d  [75] V N Bulsaraa, R Talrejab, J Qua. Damage initiation under transverse loading of unidirectional composites with arbitrarily distributed fibres. Composites Science and Technology, 59, 1999, 673-682. [76] C H Wang, L R F Rose. O n the design of bonded patches for one-sided repair. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Composite materials, G o l d Coast, Australia, 5, 1997, 347-356. [77] C H Wang, R J Callinan, L R F Rose. Analysis of out-of-plane bending of a one-sided repair. International Journal of Solids and Structures 35/14, 1998, 1653-1675. [78] C H Wang, L R F Rose. Bonded repair of cracks under mixed-mode loading. International Journal of Solids and Structures 35/21, 1998, 2749-2773. [79] P F Joseph and F Erdogan. Surface crack problems in plates. International Journal of Fracture 41, 1989, 105-131. [80] C H Wang, L R F Rose. A crack bridging model for bonded plates subjected to tension and bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures 36, 1991, 1985-2014.  27  \u000CChapter 2: Bending of bonded composite repairs: an experimental and finite element design study R. J. Clark and D . P. R o m i l l y University of British Columbia Department of Mechanical Engineering  2.1 Introduction This chapter describes an experimental and finite element study of a bonded composite repair applied to a metallic aircraft structure. The experimental study involves the fatigue testing and fractographic examination of 2024-T3 aluminum plates repaired  with  boron/epoxy composite patches. The two plates are tested simultaneously in a sandwich panel configuration with and without an aluminum honeycomb spacer to provide bending restraint. The specimen was heavily instrumented, with strains being measured on the surface of the patch at many locations, thus allowing the validation of a threedimensional finite element model and an assessment of the effects of geometrically nonlinear bending, buckling, and crack closure on the mechanical response and strength of the repair. The experimental and finite element results illustrate the large influence of bending and composite failure modes on the life and strength of the repair. The authors use the experimental results and the validated finite element analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the methods and data currently available in the open literature for damage tolerance substantiation, and then, by applying probabilistic methods and the principle of compounded conservatism to the findings, propose a new process for classifying bonded repairs and for assigning testing and inspection requirements. A bonded composite patch is a fibre-reinforced epoxy doubler used to reinforce weak structure or repair cracked aircraft structure. The patch acts both to reduce stresses in the underlying structure, and to restrict the opening of cracks that may lie beneath it. These effects and the smooth load transfer inherent to bonding offer the potential for a significant increase in the fatigue life when compared to mechanically fastened repairs. The technology also offers improvements in cost, weight, and inspectability. One of the main barriers to the widespread use of this technology is the lack of a comprehensive process for damage tolerance analysis, particularly regarding the mechanical assessment of the structure in the presence of significant bending loads, which can lead to early failure. The other significant impediment is the assurance of bond line durability for repairs applied in a maintenance and repair facility.  * A version of this chapter will be submitted for publication. R.J. Clark, D.P. Romilly, \"Bending of bonded composite aircraft repairs: an experimental and finite element design study\", A I A A Journal.  28  \u000CFigure 2-1: A bonded repair and a mechanically fastened repair  Many  experiments  have been  performed  to investigate  failure mechanisms,  to  demonstrate the predictive performance of models, and to evaluate repair materials and mechanical phenomena in a repair. A widely used repair specimen is the Australian Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratories ( A M R L ) specimen, which is the type of specimen used for this study. The A M R L test article consists of two repaired plates that are bonded to an aluminum honeycomb support to restrict the bending induced by the neutral axis offset of the repair and to model the support of underlying structures that often exist in the highly stressed regions of an aircraft. Engineering drawings of the A M R L specimen are provided in Appendix B . Baker has published experimental results for  the A M R L specimen that illustrate the effects of cure cycle parameters [1,2],  disbonding [1,3], patch shear deformation  [2,4], adhesive plasticity [4], and test  temperature [1] on performance. In Canada, the A M R L specimen has been used by the National Research Council - Institute for Aerospace Research ( N R C - I A R ) to examine the effects of load spectrum, compressive loading, and adverse environments on patch performance [5,6], and by Albat and R o m i l l y [7] to evaluate thermal strains. W i t h the honeycomb bending restraint, the failure mode of the repair has consistently been continued cracking of the aluminum with accompanying adhesive disbonding. Double lap-shear hybrid bonded joint specimens matching the composition and geometry of the A M R L specimen geometry have been used to investigate the effects of patch shear deformation and adhesive plasticity on the apparent stiffness of the patch in the region of the crack [4], to determine the rate of disbonding in the region of the crack [8], to examine disbonding at the edges of the repair. Patch shear deformation and adhesive plasticity have been shown to reduce patch life by reducing the restraint against crack opening imposed by the repair [4]. It has also been shown that increasing the cure cycle temperature and time can impose two penalties on patch performance; 1) tensile thermal residual stresses from a mismatch in thermal expansion coefficients can accelerate fatigue crack growth, and 2) crack growth retardation is reduced due to annealing of crack tip  29  \u000Cplasticity-induced residual stresses. Sharp, Clayton, and Clark [9] have also examined the effects of adhesive infiltration into the crack, which was found to increase the stress required to open the crack and hence improve fatigue life. Other researchers  have examined both similar and distinctly different types of  specimens to assess the effects of bending on the life of a repair. Poole, Lock, and Young [10] have investigated fatigue damage propagation in thick aluminum plates repaired with graphite/epoxy patches to investigate structural failure behaviour and assess fatigue life. Similar to the A M R L specimen, repaired plates were bonded to a honeycomb core and tested in pairs to restrict bending. They examined the effect of the F A L S T A F F loading spectrum on repair performance, and compared the results to boundary element analyses  that  included the  effects  of  adhesive  plasticity. The  results  showed  improvements on life of a factor of 3.2 for the F A L S T A F F spectrum-loaded specimen, and up to a factor of 17 for a constant-amplitude cyclically loaded specimen when compared  to  an  unrepaired  sheet. Denney and M a l l  [11-13]  have  investigated  boron/epoxy repairs applied to a single side of a thin center-cracked aluminum panel (i.e. an unbalanced repair), where patch bending is a significant factor due to an offset of the neutral axis. They investigated the effect of variously sized disbonds at different locations within the repair, and concluded that disbonds over the crack reduce life whereas disbonds away from the crack are not detrimental. They suggested that disbonds away from the crack may actually increase patch life by reducing the apparent size and stiffness of the patch and hence the amount of load attracted from the surrounding structure. During this testing, failure occurred due to crack growth in the aluminum and little disbonding was noted. K l u g et al. [14] performed a similar test using both thick and thin unbalanced repairs, and noted significant disbonding near the crack and near the edges of the patch for a thick repair and only near the crack for a thin repair. For these specimens, the patch was not tapered, leading to increased stresses about the edge of the repair. In more recent work, Sabelkin et al. [15] performed tests to investigate the effects of a supporting stringer on the life of a single-sided repair applied to a thin cracked aluminum plate. Their results show that the stiffeners have an important role in reducing the stress intensity, and that the thermal residual stresses must be accurately evaluated. A s previously observed for repair of thin plates, they found that disbonding extended only a few millimeters from the edge of the crack. Jones, et al. [16] have presented a thorough review of the failure modes and locations of damage experienced in laboratory and military use of bonded repairs. W h i l e most of the work reported in the literature examines the primary failure modes of the repair, i.e. substrate cracking and accompanying cohesive disbonding of the adhesive, Jones et al. state that any damage tolerance assessment must also include composite failure modes such as fiber failure, adhesive failure, cohesion failure at the patch-adhesive interface,  30  \u000Cadhesive  failure at the  adhesive-substrate interface,  and inter-laminar failure and  delamination. In practice, unexpected failure due to crack growth and disbonding about the crack has not been a problem, as mitigation of this form of crack growth is the primary design goal of the repair and it is well accounted for in the analysis, testing and inspection regimes. Another important factor is that the technology has mainly been limited to double-sided repairs of flat plates, to structures with bending restraint, and to structures with residual strength. Accordingly, unexpected composite failures  have  usually only occurred during laboratory testing for evaluation of a repair, rather than during service. F A A Advisory Circular 25.571-1A identifies the failure modes and locations of damage that must be considered, and requires the assessment of the effects of impact damage, inter-ply delamination, and disbonding on the composite, adhesive, and substrate. This paper describes a unique experimental study investigating the bending mechanics of a bonded composite structural repair tested with and without bending restraint. The specimen is relatively thick and is repaired with a patch of sub-optimal  planar  dimensions, an extreme case that allows the authors to assess the potential effects of induced bending on early failure of the structure. The specimen was comprised of two edge-cracked aluminum panels, each repaired with a boron-epoxy patch arid joined together as an aluminum honeycomb sandwich. Strain results are reported for the fatiguedamaged specimen under both tensile and compressive applied loading, and before and after removal of the honeycomb separating the aluminum panels. Strain data from gauges fitted to the surface of the repair in the region of the crack are used to validate a threedimensional finite element model, allowing the calculation of the stress intensity and the stresses in the adhesive and the patch as it acts to reinforce the cracked plate. Fractographic examination of the failure surfaces of the cracked plate and the composite patch illustrate the failure mechanisms active in a bending repair. It is shown that geometrically nonlinear bending and stress stiffening have a significant role in the type of failure and rate of damage, thus decreasing the time to failure of the structure. In addition, a technique is described for three-dimensional finite element linear elastic  fracture  analysis of a structure experiencing large deflections. The method employs the stressbased definition of the stress intensity factor, meaning that the analyst does not need to assume a state of plane stress or plane strain. Finally, the authors attempt to use the finite element stress intensity factor, adhesive stresses, and composite stresses near the repaired crack to calculate the residual strength of the repair and rate of damage progression in light of the failure modes observed during the fatigue test. It is shown that significant problems remain for the damage tolerance assessment of repairs, particularly in the characterization of the observed composite and adhesive failure modes.  31  \u000C2.2 Experimental study The experimental study involves the fatigue testing of a symmetrical honeycomb sandwich structure, comprised of two edge-cracked aluminum panels, each repaired with a boron-epoxy patch, as shown in Figures 2-2 through 2-4. This specimen was originally developed by the A M R L , and has also been used extensively by both the N R C - I A R . A s described in the introduction, the A M R L specimen has seen extensive use in the evaluation of the bonded composite repair technology for balanced or symmetric doublesided repairs. Without bending, the failure mode of the repair has consistently been found to be continued cracking of the aluminum with accompanying adhesive disbonding. In this study, the authors test the specimen with and without the bending restraint provided by the aluminum honeycomb spacer in order to: 1) investigate the failure mechanics of a repair under bending and 2) to collect strain data to validate models of bending repairs. It should be noted that the A M R L specimen was designed to model a repair applied to cracked plates that are supported by underlying structures (e.g. ribs, stringers, etc.). If designed as a one-sided, or unbalanced repair, a much larger patch would typically be used to reduce the bending loads in the cracked region. A s such, the A M R L specimen without bending restraint provides an extreme test of the technology. Figure 2-2 shows a picture of the instrumented patch and the testing apparatus. A photoelastic coating was applied to the upper half of one of the patches to reveal the distribution of strains and estimate the extent of disbonding. A n A C potential drop probe was used to measure the crack length. Unfortunately, the utility of the potential drop probe was greatly affected by electrical contact between the honeycomb core and aluminum face-sheets, which had been electrically insulated in specimens built by the A M R L . A traveling microscope was used to estimate the degree of disbonding at the edge of the patch. T o investigate the stress distribution within the repair, strain gauges were applied to the specimen by technicians at the N R C - I A R .  32  \u000CFigure 2-2: Experimental apparatus The specimen contains 100 strain gauges, most in 10-gauge strips, located as shown in Figure 2-3. Engineering drawings illustrating the type, orientation, and location of the gauges are included in Appendix B . This chapter will mainly report the strain in gauges located above the repaired crack (location A on the figure), as this region has the greatest influence on cracking and disbonding. The gauges at location B allow the examination of the stresses about the edges of the repair and the gauges at locations C and D measure the strains in the patch as a disbond forms during fatigue testing. The gauges at location E allow the measurement of the strains in the tapered region of the repair and the stresses at the apex of the patch, where a stress concentration in the aluminum plate is known to exist. The remaining gauges allow the assessment of the distribution of the strains in the structure, and allow the analyst to evaluate the grip boundary conditions. Note that the gauges w i l l , in general, over-report any strains caused by bending as due to the thickness of the gauge and the adhesive used to bond it to the structure, particularly when the gauge is applied to the surface of a disbonded portion of the repair, which is fairly thin (-1 mm).  This effect  was taken into consideration during subsequent analysis of the  measured strain data.  33  \u000CFigure 2-3: Strain gauge locations The fatigue testing was carried out with a load (expressed as a remote applied stress) of 138 M P a at an applied stress ratio R = 0.1 and test frequency of 3 H z . Strain measurements were taken at several stages, including at the start of the test and after 175,000 cycles, at which point the honeycomb support joining the specimens was removed to evaluate the bending of a restrained and an unrestrained patch. The initial fatigue pre-crack length was 19.9 mm, and the crack length when the honeycomb was removed was 45 mm, as measured by fractographic examination. A l s o at 175,000 cycles, isopropyl alcohol and ink were injected into the adhesive disbond, revealing a disbond of up to 6.4 m m extending from each side of the crack. Strains were measured during static testing using a Schlumberger Solartron Orion datalogger, 10 gauges at a time, using a 3wire strain guage connection. During each measurement, the strain readings at each location were taken for remote applied stresses ranging from 138 M P a to - 5 5 M P a with the honeycomb support, and from 138 to -28 M P a without the honeycomb support, allowing the evaluation of both non-linear bending and buckling. A complete record of the measured strain gauge data is tabulated in Appendix C . Figure 2-4 shows the deflections of the structure  under maximum tensile and  compressive loads with the honeycomb removed. Under tension the neutral axis of the patch moves to the load line, causing large moments and accompanying adhesive peel stresses. Under compressive loads the structure bows outward, approaching collapse. This clearly demonstrates the large influence of bending on the mechanics of the structure.  34  \u000CFigure 2-4: Bending under tension (left) and compression (right)  Figure 2-5 shows the extent of the disbonding at 175,000 cycles and at failure after 185,000 cycles, revealing that the  specimen  failed  rapidly after removal of the  honeycomb spacer that provided resistance to bending. This demonstrates the need to account for induced bending during damage tolerance assessment of a single-sided repair.  6.4 mm in 175,00 cycles  4.1 mm in 10,000 cycles  Figure 2-5: Adhesive failure surface  The disbond was initiated by the failure of the adhesive that infiltrated the crack during curing, followed by cohesive disbond growth towards the adhesive/composite  interface.  The disbond then grew along the interface with the scrim carrier and boron fibres. Final failure occurred by simultaneous failure of the composite patch and fracture of the  35  \u000Ccracked plate. Figure 2-6 shows the interfacial failure surface. Fibres that failed after removal of the bending restraint remained bonded to the underlying plate and pieces of adhesive remain attached to the boron fibres, indicating high-energy failure and good interfacial bond strength.  11 mm  Figure 2-6: Interfacial failure surface Figure 2-7 shows the failure surface of the aluminum plate. The left picture shows the fatigue pre-crack and the right figure shows the transition from high to low cycle fatigue after removal of the honeycomb at 175,000 cycles. U p to this point the crack front grew at an angle, indicating that bending affected crack growth even before removal of the honeycomb. After removal of the honeycomb, the surface attains rougher appearance and begins to show signs of shear failure.  3.175 mm  crack front  Figure 2-7: The crack face after pre-cracking (left) and after 175,000 cycles (right) Selected strain measurements from this study are used in subsequent sections to validate a finite element model of the tested repair. A complete record of the strain measurements is provided in Appendix C . Strain results w i l l be compared to finite element data in subsequent sections.  36  \u000C2.3 Finite element modeling The authors have constructed a finite element model to simulate the experiments described above. The model was developed using A N S Y S [17], and consists of ' S O L I D 95' 20-node brick elements with 15 node wedges at the crack tip. Table 2-1 shows the material properties used in the model. The Textron 5521 boron-epoxy prepreg composite patch is modeled as an orthotropic solid. The Cytec F M 7 3 M adhesive and 2024-T3 aluminum plate are modelled as isotropic solids, and the aluminum honeycomb spacer is modelled as an orthotropic solid with a young's modulus of 1.86 G P a in the throughthickness direction and very low modulii in all other directions. G , GPa  V  a, jus fc  210.0  7.24  0.21  4.61  \u2014  Patch, transverse  2.5  1.0  0.019  25.87  0.924  Adhesive  2.14  0.805  0.33  50  0.25  Plate  72.4 1.86 0.001  27.2 0.001  0.33 0  23.45 23.45  3.125 6.35  Material  \u00A3,GPa  Patch, longitudinal  Honeycomb  t, mm  Table 2-1: Material properties and dimensions Thermal residual strains imparted by the cure process and operating temperature are a very important consideration for bonded composite repairs, and can be characterized by an effective stress free temperature that accounts for creep of the adhesive and polymer matrix as the specimen is cooled during the cure cycle. For the materials systems and specimen geometry used for this experiment, using a cure temperature of 1 2 1 \u00B0 C , it has been shown that the effective stress-free temperature for this specimen is 81\u00B0 C [7]. The experiments  were  conducted  at  room  temperature  (approximately  20\u00B0 C ) ,  and  accordingly a temperature difference of 61\u00B0 C was applied in the finite element model. Figures 2-8 is a planar view of the model. Inset (a) shows the crack tip elements and (b) shows the aluminum substrate symmetry and pressure boundary conditions for a crack of length a and patch of radius r (-75 mm). T o model the constraint of the grips, the nodes at the loaded edge are forced to move together in the direction of the load. A s in the static testing, the applied stress was varied from  138 to - 5 5 M P a for the double-sided  configuration and 138 to - 2 8 M P a for the single-sided configuration.  37  \u000CFigure 2-8: Finite element mesh, (a) the crack tip and (b) the entire model  The model was solved using a Newton-Raphson method with an iterative solver, large deflections, and stress stiffening. Pivot checking was disabled to allow the use of singularity elements. A user-defined macro generated  singular elements  that were  properly oriented with respect to the crack tip and with mid-side nodes placed at the quarter-point position. A stress-based  method was employed to calculate the stress  intensity through the thickness of the plate, as described in reference 18. The membrane and bending stress intensities K  m  and K  h  were calculated as the average stress intensity  and first moment of the stress intensity through the thickness of the plate, and were obtained by a linear least-squares fit to the stress intensities calculated at the integration point planes near the crack tip. Figure 2-9 shows a three-dimensional view of the finite element model in the region of the repaired crack, illustrating the singular crack tip elements and the layering of the plate, adhesive, and composite patch elements.  38  \u000CFigure 2-9: Three-dimensional view of the cracked region The experimental and finite element strain data are compared in the next section to demonstrate the mechanics of a repair and validate the finite element model.  2.4 Validation For validation, the finite element model was solved in an edge-cracked tension configuration, as shown in Figure 2-8(b). Figure 2-10 compares the finite element model strain results to the strains measured on the outside of the patch, as recorded before the specimen was subjected to fatigue loading. In this section, the distance x from the free edge of the repair w i l l be referred to repeatedly, and is shown on Figure 2-8(b). The finite element model strains have been adjusted to include the effect of gauge thickness, as the strain gauge sensing element is offset from the surface of the repair by a small but not insignificant distance that tends to amplify bending effects. The experimental strains are reported as the average strain for gauges mounted on the patches on either side of the specimen and results are shown for an applied tensile stress of 138 M P a and a compressive stress of -55 M P a . In this case, the crack was 19.9 m m long.  39  \u000C1400  -600 -800 Position x [mm]  Figure 2-10: Strain distribution in undamaged repair The strains determined for the outer surface of the patch are lowest in the region of the crack in both the model and experiments. This is contrary to what might be expected, as load should be diverted to the patch as it bridges the crack, increasing the strain. The cause is induced bending due to the neutral axis offset caused by the crack and the overlying patch, which reduces the surface strain in the patch. Even with the honeycomb support, under tensile loads the structure experienced bending sufficient to noticeably reduce the strains on the outer surface of the patch. After 175,000 cycles, the crack was nearly 45 mm long, and the interface between the patch and underlying cracked plate had a disbond of approximately 5 m m in length. Figure 2-11 shows the adhesive layer mesh, where the grey elements have been removed to impose the disbond condition observed in the fatigue experiment after 175,000 cycles.  Figure 2-11: Adhesive elements in the region of the crack, showing the disbond  40  \u000CSimilar to Figure 2-10, Figure 2-12 shows the surface strains in the patch as it reinforces the cracked plate. It is unfortunate that the strain gauges did not extend far enough to measure the strains at the crack tip, but much can still be made of the results. For both the finite element model and the actual specimen, the strains reach a peak at the free edge of the patch. A traditional centre-cracked repair model would predict a maximum strain at this location, but it should be reached gradually. There are two reasons for this abrupt peak: 1) the edge-cracked geometry of the plate has as significantly lower stiffness than a centre-cracked plate at this location and hence it w i l l shed more load to the patch, and 2) that the disbonded part of the patch has a low bending stiffness and w i l l carry mainly axial loads, an effect that increases when the honeycomb core is removed. The increase in load at the edge of the patch and adhesive edge effects also lead to larger adhesive stresses and a faster rate of disbonding near the free edge. 2000  1500  1000  E  s  500  CA  -500  -1000  Position [mm]  Figure 2-12: Strain distribution, with honeycomb Figure 2-13 shows the surface strains measured by selected gauges plotted against the remote applied stress. The gauges are shown at selected distance from the free edge of the repair. The strains are linear until the applied stress is well into the compressive region, when tensile residual stresses in the substrate are overcome and crack closure reduces the proportion of the load carried by the repair. The distances in the legend are the position of the strain gauges, (i.e. x on Figure 2-8(b)). The finite element results are from a linear model, and do not include crack closure, which is seen to reduce the compressive strains observed in the experimental results when compared to the strains measured under tensile loading.  41  \u000C20GG-  1500  \u2022 Experimental, 1.3 mm A Experimental 19.5 mm x Experimental, 40.3 mm -o-Finite Element, 1.3 mm -A-Finite Element, 19.5 mm -x-Finite Element, 40.3 mm  E  1  c  \"5 to  -1000  Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 2-13: Variation of strains with applied stress, with honeycomb The next stage of testing occurred after the removal of the honeycomb core separating the aluminum plates. The specimen experienced no further fatigue cycling at this point, so the crack and disbond sizes are the same as for the previous case. Figure 2-14 again plots the strain distribution on the surface of the repair. Note that applied tension results in compressive strains on the surface of the patch. The honeycomb provided a large degree of constraint against bending, and now that it has been removed, bending stresses dominate the response of the repair. This bending and the resulting adhesive peel stresses must be accounted for in order to predict the rate at which a repair w i l l fail. After removal of the honeycomb, the maximum applied compressive stress was only -28 M P a , and the patch appeared to be approaching collapse. Here, the effect of the edge-cracked plate geometry combined with the reduced bending stiffness of the disbonded section of the patch is again evident in the dramatically increasing strains near the edge of the patch. It can be seen that crack closure plays a significant role for compressive loading for both the finite element model results and the measured strains, and hence crack-face contact should be included to obtain accurate results under compressive loading.  42  \u000C5000 4000  \u2022 Experimental, 138 MPa A Experimental,-28 MPa -o-Finite element, 138 MPa - a - F i n i t e element, -28 MPa -*-..with contact, -28 MPa  3000 -\\ 2000  -4000 Position [mm]  Figure 2-14: Strains, without honeycomb In Figure 2-15, selected strain results are plotted against applied load. The strains are clearly non-linear without the honeycomb support, and show good agreement except at 40.3 m m , the strain gauge nearest to the crack tip. This discrepancy is likely due to a small amount disbonding near the crack tip or adhesive plasticity, neither of which was included in the finite element model. Both of these effects would act to relieve the severity o f bending of the composite patch as it bridges the crack. The compression results again show the importance of crack closure, which acts to unload the patch near the crack.  43  \u000C-2000-  \u20224000Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 2-15: Variation of strain with applied stress, without honeycomb The finite element model and experimental results capture the geometrically nonlinear mechanical response of the bending repair and demonstrate the importance of bending on the stresses within the patch itself. The importance of modeling the finite geometry of the edge-cracked plate has also been demonstrated, as a significant peak in the patch strains was observed at the edge of the repair. Crack closure was also shown to have a large role under compressive loading, acting to greatly relieve the load carried by the patch. This beneficial effect, however, is offset by the potential for elastic buckling, which appeared to be imminent for the unsupported repair under an applied compressive stress of only 28 M P a . In the next section, this validated finite element model w i l l be used to calculate the residual strength of the repair and to examine factors affecting its fracture strength and fatigue life.  2.5 Residual strength and damage tolerance assessment The fractographic examination illustrates the failure mechanisms at work in the repair. One important observation is that crack growth and disbond growth appear to occur together, which should be expected, as crack growth in the aluminum plate w i l l generally shed load to the patch and promote disbonding. Similarly, disbond or delamination growth w i l l reduce the effective stiffness of the patch as it bridges the crack and promote further cracking in the aluminum. The final failure of the structure occurred by simultaneous fracture of the composite patch and the repaired plate. Another important observation is that composite delamination and composite fracture are significant failure modes when a repair is free to bend, neither of which are often observed in double-sided  44  \u000Crepairs or repairs with bending restraint. It is clear that in order to assess the strength of a one-sided repair, full account must be made of the potential for failure in three areas: a) cracking in the aluminum substrate, b) failure of the adhesive and c) failure of the composite. The following sections address these three areas of concern and place into perspective the relative merits of both existing and proposed methods of evaluation (resulting from the current investigations) for the purposes of damage tolerant design of bonded composite repairs on metallic structures.  2.5.1 Aluminum substrate fracture Figure 2-16 shows ^ a n d K as m  h  predicted by the finite element model for two cases:  i.e. with and without the honeycomb bending restraint. The predicted results reflect the previously experimentally observed nonlinear deformations, with stress-stiffening acting to reduce the rate of increase in stress intensity under larger applied loads. This happens when the structure moves toward the load line and sheds load to regions remote from the crack.  Remote Applied Stress [MPaVm]  Figure 2-16: Membrane and bending stress intensity factors B y L E F M (Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics) criteria, fracture is considered imminent when the sum of K  m  and K  h  exceeds the plane strain fracture toughness, K . lc  aircraft skins, the actual fracture toughness (denoted as K ) c  is often used. K  c  obtained from testing and as it is often significantly greater than K , Xc  For thin is usually  it w i l l result in a  longer critical crack length thus can greatly easing inspection requirements.  The  increasing acceptance of the N A S G R O [19] damage tolerance software package allows  45  \u000Cthe use of a calculated K  c  in most circumstances, but caution is required for short cracks  where the non-singular stresses near the crack-tip are significant. For the 2024-T3 plate used in this investigation K = 34MPaVm ]c  2024-T3 plate N A S G R O provides a K  c  [20], whereas for a 3.175 m m thickness  value that is over twice as large. For the A M R L  specimen with a crack size of 45 mm, K  Xc  is exceeded by K  m  + K with an applied b  remote stress of nearly 90 M P a for unrestrained bending, but requires well over 140 M P a to exceed K with the honeycomb bending restraint present. u  Fatigue is also well characterized by the stress intensity, with crack growth properties being catalogued in well-accepted software tools such as N A S G R O or A F C R A C K . Difficulties can arise due to load interaction and crack closure, load spectrum, adverse environments, and plasticity or thickness effects, often requiring the use of experiments to evaluate crack growth under realistic conditions. Doung and W a n g [21, E q . 5] have characterized crack growth under combined bending and extension using a modified stress intensity, ^ f  m o d  , which, when compared to test data for A L 7 0 7 5 specimens,  demonstrates good results.  is developed by interpolation between two states for  which crack growth can be accurately assessed: 1) a crack experiencing only a membrane stress intensity, and 2) a crack with equal membrane and bending stress intensities. From Figure 2-16 it can be seem that there is a significant increase in  after removal of the  honeycomb. Given that as little as a 15% increase in AK can halve fatigue life, it is apparent that bending has a large role.  2.5.2 Adhesive failure Adhesive failure is dependent on the adhesive stress or strain state that develops as the repair acts to bridge the crack. Figure 2-17 shows the peak shear and peel stresses at the edge of the crack for location A on Figure 2-11. The results exhibit nonlinear behaviour, with the  adhesive  stresses for the unconstrained case nearly vanishing under  a  compressive remote applied stress, where the crack w i l l close as the thermal residual strains are overcome. These results include thermal residual strains in the adhesive using an effective stress-free temperature of 81\u00B0C [7]. It must be noted that in the finite element model, the peel and pressurization stresses vary significantly through the thickness of the adhesive, an observation that other researchers have also observed in bonded joint models. It was not possible to examine this effect in detail with the developed finite element model because of size restrictions on the university version of  ANSYS.  Similarly, finite element results for the adhesive compression in the unrestrained case are likely to be over-reported as no attempt was made to model crack closure between the  46  \u000Csurfaces of the adhesive disbond. Closure of the adhesive crack faces would be expected to act to relieve a portion of the compressive adhesive stresses in the restrained specimen.  Q. S o&gt; in  o&gt; k _  +-&gt;  tn  &gt; '55  CD \u00A3 T3 &lt;  -40  Remote Applied Stress [MPa] Figure 2-17: Adhesive stresses  Adhesive strength depends on whether yielding or fracture is prevalent. In hot and wet conditions, high temperatures and the plasticizing effect of absorbed water act to make yielding dominant. A t low temperatures associated with high altitude flight, fracture becomes prevalent. The main design criterion is the adhesive stress, which should be kept low to ensure that fatigue failures w i l l not initiate and gross yielding w i l l not occur under limit loads. Shear and peel stresses are controlled by using an appropriate adhesive thickness, providing long joint overlap lengths to minimize bending loads and peel stresses, and by tapering the edges of the joint. The strength of the Cytec F M 7 3 M adhesive under various degrees of constraint and for laboratory or hot and wet environmental conditions is well characterized by the work of Chalkley and van den Berg [22] and by Ignjatovic, Chalkley and Wang [23,24]. The failure surface for this adhesive is pressure-dependant,  and is best characterized by the Drucker-Prager cap plasticity  model [23], particularly in the presence of compressive pressurization. It can be seen in Figure 2-17 that compression of the adhesive is not a concern for unbalanced repairs (see the curves for the no constraint case under compressive remote loading), as the crack faces w i l l close and the aluminum w i l l carry the stresses, unloading the adhesive. The authors use a simpler model, based on [22] and [23], whereby the adhesive w i l l obey the Tresca or von Mises criterion under compression, and the modified Tresca or modified von Mises criterion under tensile pressures, thus providing the limit shear yield strength as defined below. 47  \u000C_ f T y  p &lt; OMPa  38.6MP\u00AB  ~ 13S.6MPa -\\A3p  p&gt;  (1)  OMPa  This best fit criterion is plotted in Figure 2-18 along with a second criterion that has been developed to account for environmental effects, and employs a penalty factor of two against both the shear and pressurization stresses, as suggested by Chalkley and Baker [26] for the shear stress allowable. It is noted that R A A F design guidelines allow adhesive loading to 80% of the allowable shear strain [25]. For comparison, allowable shear stress results from A S T M D5656 testing (pure shear) by Chalkley and van den Berg [22] are shown in Figure 2-18 for various environmental conditions. \u2014  -60-  O Tresca [23] \u2022 Von Mises [23] - - Best fit (damage tolerant allowable) Penalty factor (safe life allowable) \u2022 Chalkley and van den Berg [22] - Unrestrained 'load line' - Restrained 'load line'  - 4 0 \u00B0 C , dry Restrained bending c a s e allowable remote applied  50  stress using the damage tolerant criterion is 84 M P a  a. (0 in a&gt; Tn  Unrestrained bending  a&gt; &gt;.  c a s e allowable remote applied stress using the  na&gt;  damage tolerant criterion is 66 M P a  .c  (A 4)  U a&gt; UJ  -15  -10  -5  0  5  10  15  Pressure (MPa) (tensile positive)  Figure 2-18: Adhesive yield criteria andfiniteelement model adhesive stresses The trace or 'load line' of the finite element model adhesive pressurization and shear stresses is plotted in Figure 2-18 for both the restrained bending and unrestrained bending cases. For restrained and unrestrained bending the adhesive should begin to yield under a remote applied stresses of 84 and 66 M P a , respectively. It is apparent that the adhesive was repeatedly loaded into the plastic range during the fatigue testing, and that without bending restraint, significant peel stresses and pressurization developed in the adhesive near the crack, explaining the rapid failure of the repair. Applying the safe life design criterion that includes factors to account for environmental effects, neither of the two cases would result in a useful load carrying capability. It is clear that the safe life allowable stress is very conservative and would be difficult to meet in the presence of a 48  \u000Clong crack under a repair. It is an appropriate criterion, however, in the tapered region where good design can reduce the adhesive stresses. In the region near the crack, environmental concerns are less likely to be critical, and the damage tolerant allowable may be more suitable, perhaps with a reduction such as the 80% of allowable shear strain policy used by the R A A F . One must also assess adhesive fracture and fatigue. Since adhesive strength and stiffness result from molecular and inter-molecular forces which exhibit strain-rate, moisture, and temperature sensitivity, damage tolerance substantiation must include both the detrimental effect of cold temperature on fracture toughness [27] and the effect of high temperatures that induce plasticity and accelerate fatigue crack growth. The use of energy-based  fracture parameters  is complicated by the dependence  of the stress  distribution on the joint loading type, geometry, and material composition. This violates the similarity criterion, whereby it is assumed that cracks have similarly-shaped stress distributions regardless of crack length, position, or geometry and thus explains why inconsistent results can arise when they are used to predict fracture and fatigue [8, 28]. A final complication is that either of two modes of cracking may occur, cohesive and adhesive. Cohesive failures occur when the adhesive fails by yielding and cracking, while adhesive failures occur at the bond line. There is debate over whether pure interfacial failure can occur or i f it occurs by low-energy fracture of the weaker material due to constraint from the stiffer and (usually) stronger material present. But, it is generally agreed that for a well-designed joint, adhesive failures should not occur unless a bond surface has been poorly prepared, i.e. the principle forming the basis for quality assurance testing of bonded joints. These are significant challenges, and in practice test data from specimens with a similar composition, geometry, and loading is required. Many researchers in the bonded composite repair field have been critical of the strain-energy release rate approach to adhesive fatigue and fracture, and other options have been suggested including use of the Hart-Smith plastic strain energy density [29] or plastic strain range [8] approaches. In spite of this criticism, the use of strain energy release rates for specific geometries and loading conditions has provided some excellent results [3037], and a body of literature exists for the Textron 2251 boron prepreg and Cytec F M 7 3 M patch  system  [e.g. 38-40] which  includes information on fatigue  threshold and  environmental effects. Here, the authors test the use of elastic adhesive stresses as a conservative criterion for fracture and fatigue assessment of the adhesive. In a previous round-robin test of bonded joint analysis methodologies for the cracked lap-shear specimen [41], Joseph and Erdogan demonstrated that the opening and shear mode strain energy release rates are related to the peak peel and shear adhesive stresses. This approach builds on the strain energy release rate arguments of Rice [42], an approach which is considered to provide  49  \u000Cexact results for many fracture problems, and has been applied by other researchers [e.g. 8, 43]. The round-robin testing showed that this method of strain energy release rate calculation provides reasonable results when compared to other techniques such as modified crack-closure. Accordingly, the opening and sliding mode strain energy release rates may be calculated from the peel and shear adhesive stresses as follows:  6 , = - ^ ,  For  611=77*-  (  a linear-elastic homogeneous  ' ) B  material, the strain energy release rate may be  converted to a stress intensity using the plane strain relationship, K  2  Thus the adhesive stresses, G,  2 A  and K  = GE / ( l \u2014v^). a  should be more or less equally capable of  predicting fatigue and fracture in the elastic regime for joints of similar composition and loading. In the plastic regime, the elastic-plastic strain energy release rate, J, can be calculated by defining contours outside of the crack tip process zone and using energy arguments to determine the rate of work required for crack extension. J is effectively independent of the state of the process zone unless the plastic strains are sufficient to cause significant changes in the energy state of the elastic region of the specimen. In this case, the method of Erdogan and Joseph w i l l still provide accurate results and the adhesive stresses, G (or / ) , and K based on an elastic analysis are still more or less equally capable of predicting fatigue and fracture. Similarly by the method of Erdogan and Joseph, the strain energy density and adhesive stresses are also simply related for a linear elastic material. Accordingly, while each of these various measures of the state of the adhesive has advantages concerning how it is calculated or assessed from a numerical model or experimental results, and some provide a better representation for an adhesive experiencing creep or gross plasticity, there is in many ways little to choose between them, particularly when one considers that the design criteria w i l l essentially restrict the thickness-averaged  adhesive  stresses to the elastic range. The main difference  is  convention, whereby an analyst w i l l understand a critical stress intensity to imply a material property whereas a strain energy release rate should be understood as a measure of the energy absorbed during the failure of a particular specimen under particular conditions. For repair and overhaul there is not the time, information, or expertise to perform  sophisticated  analysis,  and even  with  conventional  repairs,  simple  and  conservative means are often preferred, even at the expense of increased operational burdens such as higher inspection frequency or early scrapping or rework. Accordingly, the authors w i l l use the available experimental data to test the stress-based adhesive failure criteria. A s a comparison of adhesive failure criteria, Figure 2-19 plots experimental data from several sources against the yield criteria by assuming an adhesive thickness of 0.17 mm,  50  \u000Cwhich is the value used by Butkus and Johnson [39]. The data has been converted from adhesive stresses and strain energy release rates to opening mode ( K , ) and sliding mode (K\u201E)  stress intensities as described above. Given the complex interactions between the  boron fibres, matrix, and adhesive, this conversion does not imply that the actual stress intensity at the tip of a crack has been calculated. The plotted results indicate that the stress-based criteria are conservative in all cases, even when including environmental effects and matrix or interface cracking. It is also seen that, for this adhesive thickness, the yield criterion and room temperature fatigue threshold (including environmental effects) are similar and a criterion based upon the adhesive stresses should be adequate for both fracture and fatigue. Note that Butkus and Johnson used a threshold of 10~ mlcycle , whereas Chalkley and Baker used 6 \u2022 10~ mlcycle. 9  9  1.6  1.4  \u2022  Butkus and Johnson [39] fracture data  \u2022  Cheulk et al [44] fracture data  A  Chalkley and Baker [26] fatigue threshold  - - Damage tolerant allowable (fig. 2-18) 1.2  1  Safe life allowable (fig 2-18)  cold (-40 C), dry  1.0 -  O  Ignjatovic et al [23] yield data  A  Chalkley and van den Berg [22] yield data  r\u2014i  E  as-received thermal  \u2022g  |  n  cycling  R T ( 2 0 C ) , dry  exposed and  0.8  dessicated cold, -54 C  exposed  0  0.6  O  v  \u00BB  fatigue threshold (AG =80 Jim ) 2  T  fatigue threshold (AG =100 T  0.0  0.2  0.4  Jim)  0.6  0.8  1.0  1.2  K, [MPaVm]  Figure 2-19: Comparison of adhesive fracture data and yield criteria For fatigue assessment, it has been proposed by many [e.g. 8, 30, 36] that the adhesive stresses be low enough that disbond growth will not occur. Hart-Smith [45] has also emphasized that well designed bonded joints should designed for an infinite life, and that the locus of failure or weak link in the structure should not be the bond. This proposition arises because adhesive joints exhibit high disbond growth rates that increase very quickly with an increase in the applied fatigue load, and because through good design it is usually possible to reduce the adhesive stresses to the point where fatigue cracking is extremely unlikely. It is suggested that the unmodified adhesive failure criteria be  51  \u000Cemployed in the damage-tolerant region about the repaired crack, and that the safe life criteria (to account for environmental effects) be used for the safe-life region about the edges of the repair. This is in accordance with the definition of the safe life and damage tolerant regions of a repair as defined by Baker [46], but to some degree this runs counter to the advice of Chalkley et al [8], who have suggested that a stress-based approach for fatigue assessment may not be appropriate because in their experiments, the specimens with the highest stresses were not always the ones that failed first. However, given the experimental threshold data shown in Figure 2-19, which by nature accounts for the effects  of local stress raisers (e.g. due to fibre geometry and lay-out, adhesive  imperfection, etc.) that are not included in most repair models, it should be adequate to simply show that limit loads do not result in adhesive stresses that exceed these allowables. This is particularly true i f one considers that the effective once-per-flight fatigue loads (the load that would be applied once per flight cycle to represent all the fatigue damage accrued by the actual fatigue spectrum) are typically well below limit load (usually below 60% of limit load) and that the fatigue threshold data applied is typically for room temperature testing while flight loads w i l l tend to occur at high altitude where the lower temperatures enhance fatigue strength. Accordingly, the authors suggest that a stress-based approach, while imperfect, would still be applicable by the principle of compounded conservatism [47, sec 9.5]. Compounded conservatism is the practice of applying many 'worst-case' conservative assumptions together to ensure safety, and whije it may lead to an inefficient design it does ensure safety in the face of a number of factors that are difficult to quantify (e.g. temperature and environmental effects, fatigue that may be dominated by very local structural details, or stochastic variations in properties or material processes).  2.5.3 Composite fracture and delamination The textbook approach to composite failure analysis is to use interactive failure criteria such as the Tsai-Wu theory [e.g. 48]. These theories extend the energy-based failure criteria that have been successful for homogeneous anisotropic ductile solids to the analysis of heterogeneous  fibre-polymer composites that exhibit fracture-dominated  failure modes. Pioneering data on the application of the Tsai-Wu failure theory is available for boron fibres with an older matrix system [49, 50]. The other general class of failure criteria arise from mechanistic modelling, in which individual failure modes are analysed to form a set of equations that form a failure envelope based upon stresses or strains. The W W F E (World W i d e Failure Exercise) [52] tested several composite failure criteria against a set of tests that are representative of design problems arising in different industries. Interactive theories were found to give good results in most cases, but caution was urged in their application to unidirectional lamina, where unconservative results could be obtained. Most criteria provided reasonable results for the types of problems for  52  \u000Cwhich they were designed, including maximum stress or strain criteria that are often used for specific applications in codes and standards.  It was emphasised that careful  interpretation of the results is required, and that for large deformations or final failure strength, non-linearity and progressive damage are important considerations. Given that for a repair patch, weight optimization is not critical, simple criteria are preferable and adequate when supported by experimental data, and a mechanistic approach expressed in terms of simple stress or strain limits may be preferable. Hart-Smith [51] has made a convincing case that the various constituents and failure modes of the composite should be treated separately, and that interaction should be handled by superposition of loads, allowing the strength of the composite to be assessed through separate analysis of the constituents (fibres, matrix, and interface) under the combined loads (including cure-induced thermal residual stresses in the matrix), leading to a failure envelope comprised of several individual criteria for each constituent. M i c r o mechanical failure models are often only required for the development of engineering design allowables, and resulting individual failure criteria are often quite simple. HartSmith has catalogued the typical failure mechanisms, which after elimination of those that are not relevant to crack patching with a unidirectional patch, are summarized in Table 2-2. Fracture of fibres at flaws and defects, and fibre failure under tensile loads Fibre micro-instability and fibre shear failure under compressive loads Ductile matrix failure under in-plane loads Matrix cracking under transverse-tension (geometry dependent) Interfacial failure between fibre and matrix Interlaminar failure at edges and discontinuities Delamination under impact or transverse shear loads  Table 2-2: Possible composite failure modes for unidirectional patch Within F A A guidance documents and the crack-patching literature, it has been stressed that composite and adhesive failure modes must be addressed. A s the technology has been used primarily in structures with significant bending restraint and primarily tensile loads, composite failure mechanisms other than progressive adhesive disbonding or delamination have rarely been observed. The requirement for fatigue test validation has also provided a definitive control on composite failure modes. W i t h increasing interest in the use of single-sided repairs and wider application of generic repairs without specific tests, it w i l l be necessary to specifically address each composite failure mode, especially considering that single-sided repairs are much more susceptible to composite failures and instability under compressive loads, as demonstrated by the testing carried out by the authors as described above.  53  \u000CGiven that: a) for most boron-epoxy repairs the primary load path is in the primary direction of the patch, b) the aluminum substrate w i l l support out-of-plane loads, c) crack closure w i l l shield the composite patch from the worst of the compressive stresses, and d) the tensile strength of the boron patch is high compared to the underlying aluminum plate, it should generally not be necessary to perform a sophisticated analysis of the many possible failure modes to assess the strength of the composite patch. The margins against both matrix and fibre failure should generally be high, except in the presence of significant bending and peel stresses which may promote matrix cracking (due to transverse stresses) and the failure of fibers on the inner or outer surface of the repair. Transverse loading can result in matrix or interfacial failure as stiff fibers lead to stress concentrations in the matrix, causing it to fail before the nominal transverse stress exceeds the strength of the matrix. From testing and fractography, it has been shown that the exact geometrical distribution of the fibres has a significant role, and a strength reduction factor must be used to develop a failure criterion for the composite [48]. It is suggested that the adhesive stress allowables already cover this assessment of the composite matrix, including the temperature and environmental effects and the stress concentrations in the matrix due to the constraint of the fibres. The adhesive stresses are representative of the critical matrix transverse stresses and the Butkus and Johnson data [39] provides assurance that they w i l l be held to an appropriate level. Under axial loads, for a unidirectional polymer-reinforced composite such as boronepoxy, failure occurs when the stress in the boron fibres reaches its maximum, corresponding to a nominal tensile stress in the orthotropic solid. This is the principal strength of the composite, and Textron product data [53] specifies a tensile strength of 1520 M P a at room temperature and 1450 M P a at elevated temperatures. Fatigue under such loading may be characterized by a stress-life (S-N) diagram, with small reductions in stiffness and strength occurring as the matrix cracks and delaminates near fibre breaks and stress concentrations. When compressive stresses occur (possibly due to bending), transverse stresses and interlaminar failure have a detrimental effect. Tensile interlaminar stresses develop due to the buckling of fibres, and transverse  stresses may cause  interlaminar failure. This form of fibre-buckling is controlled by the adhesive shear yield stress [48]. Textron product data provides a compressive strength of 2930 M P a at room temperature and a much lower 1250 M P a at elevated temperatures. A s the compressive strength is controlled by the matrix shear stress, it is suggested that the lower value be used as a basis for a conservative design allowable. In the experimental work described above, the composite repair was observed to have failed via partial delamination, and ultimately by fracture under combined bending and axial loads at the edge of the disbonded region. The composite stresses at point A of the finite element model are presented in Figure 2-20, where it can be seen that the sum of  54  \u000Cthe membrane and bending stresses is high but does not exceed the principal strength of the composite (as quoted in the paragraph above) for either restrained or unrestrained bending. Some fibre failure was observed in the experiments, and could be explained by either fatigue failure under these relatively high stresses, or due to the adhesive/matrix peel stresses. These adhesive/matrix peel stresses were shown by the authors to be very large after removal of the bending restraint and could act to break individual fibres that come free of the matrix due to delamination. -\u2022{400  (0  Q. 5  10 (0 0)  k_ *-*  &lt;/&gt; 0)  \"55 o Q.  E o o  -200  Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 2-20: Composite stresses Although comparison to the results of this single test is not definitive, it is likely that the principal strength design criteria are adequate for the composite patch itself, so long as the adhesive stress design criteria are adequate to rule out early failure due to transverse stresses. This can be confidently stated because the strength of the boron/epoxy patch is very high relative to the substrate. It may prove to be necessary, however, to develop a knock-down factor to account for fatigue (i.e. to keep the stresses low enough to prevent composite fatigue failures during the life of a patch), but there should generally be a sufficient margin to cover such a strength reduction. Given that the adhesive design criteria adequately covers the possibility of early failure due to high transverse normal or shear stresses in the matrix, and the composite strength accounts for failure from tensile or compressive stresses, early patch failure should only be possible due to impact damage or manufacturing flaws. Currently, low-velocity impact tests are required to determine the susceptibility of a repair to such damage. A s \"best practices\" and the proposed adhesive and composite design criteria w i l l keep the stresses  55  \u000Clow in the bulk of the repair through good design, only low rates of sub-critical damage growth should occur in the event of accidental flaws. One would not expect significant growth of inter-ply or impact damage unless it is accompanied by fiber damage or occurs in a region experiencing significant bending and through-thickness stresses, compressive loads, or very large transfers of load through shear (such as might exist near a repaired crack or about the edges of the patch). In practice, this has proven to be true, with experimental results  suggesting that delamination growth from impact damage or  manufacturing flaws away from load transfer regions is minimal [11]. Accordingly, damage growth should only occur in highly loaded regions such as about the crack and near the edges of the repair, where the stresses have already been controlled through the proposed design criteria.  2.5.4 Synergy of aluminum and composite/adhesive fracture criteria The final failure of the patch as observed in the experimental investigation was via simultaneous fracture of the repair and plate due to the overload of the composite by local bending and axial loads at the edge of the disbond. For symmetric repairs or repairs with significant bending restraint, failure has been observed to occur by fracture of the repaired plate and simultaneous growth of an adhesive disbond through to the edge of the repair, typically with the composite patch itself otherwise being undamaged. It is possible to model either scenario using a detailed finite element analysis, using nodal release and element removal to model the growing crack and disbond, or by generating a new model for every increment in crack growth or disbond growth. The actual residual strength can then be determined by whatever ratio of cracking and disbonding led to a natural balance between the failure of the patch and the repair/adhesive [e.g. 54]. Simplified  finite  element techniques [e.g. 12, 13], boundary element models [e.g. 10], and crack-bridging models [55] have all been used to evaluate the life of a repair with a growing disbond and crack. The authors have recently developed a new crack-bridging model for coupled bending and extension [56] and geometrically non-linear coupled bending and extension [57], which should allow for rapid assessment of unbalanced repairs. The concept of synergy between crack and disbond growth and a natural disbond size, when combined with the allowable stress criteria described above and effective models for combined crack and disbond growth, leads to a new opportunity to simplify the damage tolerance substantiation of a repair. Experience suggests that limited disbonding w i l l often occur near a repaired crack in a highly loaded structure, and that additional analysis w i l l be required to fulfill substantiation requirements and ensure that the patch is sufficiently  large to provide adequate damage tolerance  against  disbonding. It is  suggested that, in the absence of a fatigue test that demonstrates otherwise, one must assume that the adhesive has debonded about the repaired crack to the point where the  56  \u000Cadhesive stresses drop to a threshold value (i.e. the damage tolerant allowable). This w i l l , in effect, result in disbond growth that is controlled by growth of the repaired crack under fatigue loading, where both the crack and disbond size are determined by applying standard L E F M techniques to the crack alone using the as-reinforced stress intensity (i.e. A\"  mod  as demonstrated  above). A s crack growth in the metal substrate is well  characterized, the issue of fatigue crack growth rate prediction for the adhesive is avoided, allowing a rational determination of the inspection criteria.  2.6 Discussion The experiments and the validated finite element analysis demonstrate the potential for early failure of a single-sided bonded composite repair due to induced bending. The tested geometry was initially designed to include bending restraint and did not have a sufficient overlap length to minimize bending loads and adhesive peel stresses. Without bending restraint, failure occurred very rapidly, illustrating the need for adherence to bonded joint design guidelines, particularly the use of sufficient overlap lengths. The observed failure modes included rapid disbonding of the adhesive at the adhesivecomposite interface, fibre breaking, and ultimately simultaneous failure of both the repair and the underlying plate. It is shown that nonlinear analysis techniques are required for the accurate analysis of a repair, and that crack face contact must be modeled to evaluate a repair under compressive loads. These results show that composite and adhesive failure modes must be treated very seriously for single-sided repairs, and the specimen proves to be an extreme test for patch design methods. In the second half of the paper, finite element results for the stress intensity in the underlying plate, the stresses in the adhesive layer, and the composite patch stresses were compared to failure criteria for fatigue, yielding, and fracture. It was shown that the underlying plate can be treated using L E F M , and that adhesive and composite stresses can  be controlled to ensure integrity of the patch. Linear elastic analysis is used to  determine the adhesive stresses and a failure criterion and a method for fatigue assessment is proposed that accounts for adhesive pressurization and places a large penalty on peel stresses. Most of the complications of fatigue and fracture assessment of bonded joints are encapsulated within the proposed allowable stresses, allowing for a relatively simple assessment of the joint. W i t h more experimental work to justify the design allowables, and with appropriate closed-form tools for repair analysis, most repairs should be able to be certified using a simple analysis of this type. The principal strength of the composite was also shown to be an adequate criterion for longitudinal tensile loads in the unidirectional patch. A s the compressive strength of the composite is determined primarily by the shear strength of the matrix, the authors suggest that the high temperature compressive strength be used as the allowable stress in  57  \u000Ccompression. This corresponds to the approach developed by the authors for evaluation of the adhesive and of the composite matrix under transverse loads, whereby it was shown that a simple stress-based criterion is generally adequate for damage tolerance substantiation of a repair. The stress-based adhesive failure criteria were achieved by directly comparing the adhesive yield criteria to fracture criteria via Joseph and Erdogan's definition of the strain energy release rate for a bonded joint. The technique is promising but needs further investigation to validate. Specifically, the adhesive yield criteria under combined peel and shear stresses need to be established under hot and wet conditions, and more fracture strength  and  fatigue  threshold  data  needs  to  be  generated  for  the  aluminum/FM73M/boron-epoxy system considering the effects of adhesive thickness and environment. This would entail a detailed testing program, but would establish an authoritative stress-based design allowable for bonded repairs. A s the practical working range of an adhesive in this application is only 0.125 to 0.250 m m [58], the scope of this additional testing should not be overly expensive or onerous. A n additional problem that needs to be addressed is that, to ensure consistency in the comparison of the test results, Joseph and Erdogan's method should be used throughout. It is noted that the strain energy release rates reported by Butkus and Johnson were calculated using the virtual crack closure technique. Finally, the criteria should be tested against the working stresses in the many repairs that have been accepted for certification through a comprehensive damage tolerance substantiation process, to ensure that the proposed stress-based design criteria is sufficiently  conservative when compared to established practice. The  observation that the composite patch and the repaired plate fail in a synergistic manner, when combined with this simple stress-based design criteria that encapsulates the many complex damage mechanisms that can occur within a repair, leads to a new opportunity to evaluate the design life of a repair and the ability to assign an inspection interval without a detailed analysis of the fatigue response of the adhesive. In this proposed approach it should be assumed that an adhesive disbond w i l l exist that is large enough to reduce the adhesive stresses to the threshold level. The fatigue assessment and damage tolerance substantiation can then be can carried out based on the crack length alone, with the ultrasonic or thermographic inspection of the repair being carried out at the same time as the eddy current inspection of the underlying crack. Based upon the adhesive stress design criteria and the residual strength and fatigue life of the unrepaired crack, it is possible to divide repairs into four categories, as shown in Figure 2-21. B y applying the principle of compounded conservatism and by applying a simple risk assessment to ensure that the safety of the repaired structure is higher than that established during the design of the original damage tolerant structure, it is possible  58  \u000Cto develop acceptance criteria for bonded repairs applied to weakened or damaged structures. Ouadrant B  Ouadrant A adhesive and composite qualifiable by compounded conservatism, using allowable stresses  adhesive and composite not qualifiable by compounded conservatism (eg allowable stresses exceeded near a crack)  and adequate residual strength in unrepaired original siruciuic  adequate residual sirenglh in unrepaired structure  Ouadrant C  Ouadrant I)  adhesive and composite qualifiable by compounded conservatism  adhesive and composite not qualifiable by compounded conservatism  inadequate residual strength in unrepaired original structure (e.g. there is a long crack or a significant corrosion grind-out)  inadequate residual strength in original structure  Figure 2-21: Proposed classification of repairs by DT substantiation requirements Repair designs in Quadrant A have very low working stresses in the composite/adhesive and the underlying structure has adequate residual strength even without the repair. In practice, the working stresses in many transport airframe components are l o w and the structure can tolerate very long (e.g. bay-to-bay) cracks and still survive limit load due to other reinforcing structures such as stringers and frames. Under this scenario, for the repair of a relatively short crack, the authors suggest that the repair may be substantiated without much further work with inspections based on the crack growth predicted in the equivalent unrepaired structure. The only additional work required would be to ensure that load attraction to the patch does not result in early failure in regions about the edge of the repair or in surrounding structures. In Quadrant B , the adhesive stresses are locally high, but the patch is not really required to establish inspection criteria for the underlying structure, as it has sufficient residual strength. This could occur in the event of a small flaw or corrosion grind-out in an area where due to geometric constraints it is not possible to reduce the stresses in the composite/adhesive sufficiently to meet the very stringent design criteria, or for a reinforcement used to strengthen an under-designed but undamaged structure with high working stresses. Here, the adhesive/composite interface is likely to fail in a progressive  59  \u000Cmanner, which could be addressed by re-examining the limit loads to see i f they are due to flight or landing loads (i.e. a fatigue case such as a vertical gust), or whether hot and wet conditions are likely to exist during the limit load maneuver. In the event that such a re-evaluation of the loads is insufficient, then a damage-mechanics analysis of the patch or a static test may be required to demonstrate that the patch itself w i l l have sufficient strength even in a highly damaged state. L i k e in Quadrant A , repairs in Quadrant C have low working stresses, but the underlying structure has significant damage and the reinforcing effect of the patch is required. A n example might be a large fatigue crack emanating from  a stress  concentration in an otherwise lightly stressed fuselage panel. Here, the primary concern is the possibility of an unpredictable early failure of the repair due to poor surface treatment of the aluminum surface for bonding. Quality assurance and bonding procedures minimize the probability of this type of failure, but cannot eliminate it, particularly for one-off repairs applied in the field. In this case, the authors propose the use of 'phenomenological risk assessment' [59] to assign a very conservative probability of failure to the patch and use this to redefine the limit load for the unrepaired structure. B y this method, the repaired structure with an intact patch must be capable of carrying the full limit load, but in the unlikely event of a poorly bonded repair, the underlying structure must be shown to be capable of withstanding the reduced limit load without a patch. The resulting level of safety would still be much higher than the original design because a very conservative probability was used to generate the reduced limit load. B y the tenets of phenomenological risk assessment, a conservative probability is assigned to the likelihood of failure based on expert opinion and regulatory acceptance. If it can be agreed upon that the likelihood of a bond lacking durability is much less than 1 in 100, then that is the likelihood that w i l l be used. Whatever probability is chosen, service experience should be used as a basis for verification where possible. This probability can then be used to redefine the limit load for the unrepaired structure to give credit to the patch. If a gust load case were critical, this would lead to the critical case being defined as the gust that w i l l occur 100 times during the life of the structure. This is consistent with providing a reasonable 'get home' ability to the unrepaired structure, and would work well with the requirement for once-per-flight visual check of the patch. This process of re-evaluation of the limit loads w i l l be called Probabilistic Load Assessment ( P L A ) in the remainder of the chapter. Quadrant D requires a more detailed assessment of a repair design according to the process shown in Figure 2-22.  60  \u000CStart:  Adhesive or matrix issues resolved using representative test data for the service environment or by reassessing the fatigue loads?  yes  Residual strength issues resolved by P L A and/or increased inspections?  Residual strength issues resolved if credit is taken for the repair?  no  Adhesive or matrix issues resolved using actual fatigue spectra and damage mechanics analysis?  yes  Residual strength issues resolved by P L A and/or increased inspections?  yes H  Acceptable, static strength testing and smart patch or initial once-per flight inspection required.  yes  yes  / Acceptable, no testing required.  / Acceptable, fatigue ~H testing required.  no Repair not Acceptable  1*\"  Residual strength issues resolved if credit is taken for the repair?  yes  Acceptable, static strength and fatigue testing and smart patch or initial onceper-flight inspection required.  Figure 2-22: Process for 'Quadrant D' repairs In Quadrant D , the adhesive/composite stresses exceed the stress-based design criteria and the damage in the underlying structure is sufficient to require that the patch be credited in some manner to establish a useful life for the repair. Here, the methods used for damage tolerance substantiation in Quadrants A , B , and C are extended and we find imposed additional requirements for static or fatigue testing, comprehensive damage tolerance analysis, and increased frequency and rigor in inspections, each depending on the particulars of the repair scenario. The use of the methodology and its rationale w i l l be demonstrated by examining two scenarios. The  simplest scenario is one in which both the adhesive stresses and the residual  strength of the structure may be addressed by the methods described for Quadrants B and C . Here, we allow the removal of only one of the many factors leading to the certification of the adhesive and composite by compounded conservatism (e.g. re-assessment of the fatigue loads or the environmental knock-down factor) with the understanding that the likelihood of a patch lacking durability is also very conservative and accordingly the resulting structure w i l l still be much safer than the original design. If P L A is not sufficient and it is required to directly credit the patch to obtain an acceptable life, then additional testing and inspection requirements arise as shown.  61  \u000CA more complex scenario is one in which an accurate damage tolerance analysis of the repair is required to demonstrate adequate patch life. Here, we can no longer rely on simple stress-based criteria for the composite and adhesive, and a detailed fracture mechanics and fatigue analysis under the actual fatigue spectrum is required. Depending upon the residual strength of the structure, we find that a patch can be deemed to be outright unacceptable,  or acceptable  with possibly onerous  inspection and testing  requirements. In this case, we have essentially reverted to the full requirements for certification of composite structures, and detailed testing and analysis are required. Such a repair is likely to be uneconomical unless it is a fleet-wide repair, or is to be applied to an integral component of the aircraft that cannot be removed or replaced.  2.7 Concluding remarks The experimental and finite element results clearly demonstrate the importance of both bending and cracked plate geometry on the mechanics of a bonded composite repair. A s bending plays a critical role in the peel loading of the adhesive and failure of the fibres in the patch, it is critical to include bending effects in the damage tolerance and durability analysis of a repair. The authors have proposed an approach to damage  tolerance  assessment based on a conservative adhesive allowable stress that envelopes information regarding adhesive and composite matrix fatigue and fracture, including environmental effects. It is demonstrated that the hot and wet adhesive static strength represents the critical case for both the adhesive and the composite matrix, and accordingly provides adequate protection against fracture, fatigue, and other environmental effects. A s the method also places a large penalty upon peel stresses, the new criteria should be adequate to protect against poor designs. The authors have also proposed a quadrant classification scheme for repairs, based upon the residual strength of the unrepaired structure and the calculated adhesive and composite stresses. Different damage tolerance analysis methods and requirements for substantiation are outlined for each class of repair. W h i l e more adhesive test data is required (ideally using a consistent method to determine the strain energy release rates), and the effects of adhesive thickness on fracture and fatigue thresholds needs to be assessed with rigor, a process has been established that is applicable to most day-to-day repairs of scratches, dents, oversized holes, and minor corrosion grind-outs which should fall within quadrant A , allowing for rapid design and certification without much more engineering effort than is required for conventional riveted repairs. For more significant repairs, requirements for in-service inspection and testing of representative specimens are assigned by applying probabilistic risk assessment and the principle of compounded conservatism.  62  \u000C2.8 References [I] Baker, A . A . , \"Repair efficiency in fatigue-cracked aluminum components reinforced with boron/epoxy patches\", Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Structures, V o l . 16, Num. 7, 1993, pp. 753-765 [2] Baker, A . A . , \"Fiber composite repair of cracked metallic aircraft components practical and basic aspects\", Composites V o l . 18, N u m . 4, 1987, pp. 293-308 [3] Baker, A . A . , \"Bonded composite repair of metallic aircraft components - overview of Australian activities\", A G A R D - 7 9 Structures and Materials Panel Meeting. Specialists Meeting: Composite Repairs of Military Aircraft Structures, 1994, pp. 1-14 th  [4] Baker, A . A . , Roberts, J.D., Rose, L . R . F . , \"Experimental study of overlap joint parameters relevant to k reduction due to crack patching\". 28th National S A M P E Symposium, 1983, pp. 627-639 [5] Raizenne, M . D . , Benak, T.J., Heath, J.B.R., Simpson, D . L . , Baker, A . A . \"Bonded composite repair of thin metallic materials: variable load amplitude and temperature cycling effects\", A G A R D - 79th Structures and Materials Panel meeting. Specialists Meeting: Composite Repairs of Military Aircraft Structures, 1994, pp. 5-1 [6] Hucalek, P., Raizenne, M . D . , Scott, R . F . , \"Influences of environment and stress history on the composite patch repair of cracked metallic structures\", Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute Journal. V o l . 34, N u m . 2, 1988, pp. 85-91 [7] Albat A . M . , Romilly, D . P . , Raizenne, M . D . , \"Thermal residual strain measurement in a composite repair on a cracked aluminum structure\", I C C M - 1 1 , G o l d Coast, Australia, 14th to 18th July 1997, pp. VI-279-VI-288 [8] Chalkley,P.D., Wang, C . H . , Baker, A.A.,\"Fatigue testing of generic bonded joints\". In: \"Advances in the Bonded Composite Repair of Metallic Aircraft Structure\", Volume 1, Baker A A , Rose L R F , Jones R, Eds. Elesvier, 2002, pp. 103-126. [9] Sharp, P . K . , Clayton, J.Q., Clark, G . , \"Retardation and repair of fatigue cracks by adhesive infiltration\", Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, V o l . 20, N u m . 4, 1997, pp. 605-614. [10] Poole, P., Lock, D . , Young, A . , \"Composite patch repair of thick aluminum sections\", International Conference on Aircraft Damage Assessment and Repair, 1991, pp. 85-91. [II] Denney, J., M a l l , S., \"Characterization of disbond effects on fatigue crack growth behavior in aluminum plate with bonded composite patch\", Engineering Fracture Mechanics, V o l . 57, N u m . 5, 1997, pp. 507-525. [12] Denney, J., M a l l , S., \"Fatigue behaviour in thick aluminum panels with a composite repair\", Collection of Technical Papers, 39th Annual A I A A - A S M E - A S C E - A H S Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference V o l . 3, 1998, pp. 2434-2443. [13] Denney, J., M a l l , S.,\"Effect of disbond on fatigue behavior of cracked aluminum panel with bonded composite patch\", Collection of Technical Papers AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics &amp; Materials Conferences, V o l . 1, 1996, pp. 14-21. [14] K l u g , J., Malley, S., Sun. C.T.,\"Characterization of fatigue behavior of bonded composite repairs\", Journal of Aircraft V o l . 36, N u m . 6, 1999, pp. 1017-1022.  63  \u000C[15] Sabelkin, V . , M a l l , S., Avram, J.B., \"fatigue crack growth analysis of stiffened cracked panel repaired with bonded composite patch\", Engineerin Fracture Mechanics, 73, 2006, 1553-1567. [16] Jones, R., Chiu, W . K . , Smith, R.,\"Airworthiness of composite repairs: failure mechanisms\", Engineering Failure Analysis V o l . 2, 1995, pp. 117-128 [17] A N S Y S 9.0 University Intermediate, Release 9.0, A N S Y S , I n c , Canonsburg, P A , U S A , 2004 [18] Clark, R . J . and Romilly, D . P . , \"Coupled bending and extension of bonded composite repairs\", C A N C O M 2005, August 2005, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Paper No. 41. [19] N A S G R O 4.0, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, U S A , 2002. [20] Anon, \"Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization Handbook\" (formerly M D L - H D B K - 5 ) , Federal Aviation Administration Technical Report. [21] Duong, C . N . , Wang, C . H . , \" O n the characterization of fatigue crack growth in a plate, with a single-sided repair\", Journal of Engineering Material and Technology, V o l . 126, A p r i l 2004, pp. 192-198. [22] Chalkley P., van den Berg, J., \" O n obtaining design allowables for adhesives used in the bonded composite repair of aircraft\", Australian Department of Defense, Defense Science and Technology Organization, D S T O - T R - 0 6 0 8 , 1998. [23] Ignjatovic, M . , Chalkley, P., Wang, C , \"The yield behavior of a structural adhesive under complex loading\", Australian Department of Defense, Defense Science and Technology Organization, D S T O - T R - 0 7 2 8 , 1998. [24] Wang, C . H . , and Chalkley, P., \"Plastic yielding of a film adhesive under multiaxial stresses\", International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives\", V o l . 20, 2000, pp. 155-164. [25] Chester, R.J., Walker, K . F., Chalkley, P . D . , \"Adhesively bonded repairs to primary aircraft structure\", International journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, V o l . 19, 1999, pp. 18. [26] Chalkley, P., and Baker A . A . , \"Adhesives characterization and database\". Chapter 4 in: Advances in the Bonded Composite Repair of Metallic Aircraft Structure\", Volume 1, A . A . Baker, Rose, L . R . F , Jones, R., Eds. Elesvier, 2002, pp. 87-102. [27] W i l k i n s , D . J . , Eisenmann, J.R., Camin, R . A . , Margolis, W . S . , Benson, R . A . , \"Characterizing delamination growth in graphite-epoxy\", Damage in Composite Materials, A S T M S T P 775, K . L . Reifsnider, E d . , American Society for Testing and Materials, 1982, pp. 168-183 [28] L i n , C , Liechti, K . M . , \"Similarity concepts in the fatigue fracture of adhesively bonded joints\", Journal of adhesion, V o l . 21, N u m . 1, 1987, pp. 1-24. [29] Hart-Smith, L . J . , \"Adhesively bonded double lap joints\", N A S A Langley Research Report, N A S A CR-112235, January 1973. [30] M a l l , S., Johnson, W . S . , Everett, R . A . , \" C y c l i c debonding of adhesively bonded composites\". Adhesive joints: formation, characterization and testing: proceedings of an international symposium. Plenum press, New York, 1982, pp. 639-658. [31] Kinlock, A . J . , Osiyemi, S.O., \"Predicting the fatigue life of adhesively bonded joints\", Journal of adhesion, V o l . 43, N u m . 1, 1993, pp.79-90.  64  \u000C[32] Fernlund, G . , Papini, M . , M c C a m m o n d , D . , Spelt, J . K . , \"Fracture load predictions for adhesive joints\", Composites Science and Technology, V o l . 51, 1994, 587-600. [33] Williams, J . G . , \" O n the calculation of energy release rates for cracked laminates\", International Journal of Fracture, V o l . 36, 1988, pp. 101-119. [34] M a l l , S., Ramamurthy, G . , Rezaizdeh, M . A . , \"Stress ratio effect on cyclic debonding in adhesively bonded composite joints\", Composite Structures, V o l . 8, 1987, 31-45. [35] M a l l , S., Y u n , K . T . , \"Effect of adhesive ductility on cyclic debond mechanism in composite-to-composite bonded joints\", Journal of Adhesion, V o l . 23, 1987, pp. 215-231. [36] M a l l , S., Johnson, W . S . , \"Characterization of mode 1 and mixed-mode failure of adhesive bonds between composite adherends\". Composite Materials: Testing and Design (Seventh Conference), A S T M S T P 893, J . M . Whitney, E d . , American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelpia, 1986, pp. 322-334. [37] H w u , C , K a o , C . J . , Chang, L . E . , \"Delamination failure criteria for composite laminates\", Journal of Composite Materials, V o l . 29, N o . 15, 1995, pp. 1962-1985 [38] Valentin, R . V . , Butkus, L . M . , Johnson, W . S . , \" A finite element and experimental evaluation of boron-epoxy doublers bonded to an aluminum substrate\", Journal of Composites Technology and Research, V o l . 20, N o . 2, 1998, pp. 108-119. [39] Butkus, L . M . , Johnson, W . S . , \"Environmental effects on the opening mode fracture behavior of bonded boron-epoxy/aluminum joints\", Proceedings of the American society for composites, 1 1 technical conference, October 7-9, 1996, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 10391048. th  [40] Lubke, K . A . , Butkus, L . M . , Johnson, W . S . , \"Effects of environment on fracture toughness and debond growth of aluminum/FM73/boron-epoxy adhesively bonded joints\", Journal of Composites Technology and Research, V o l . 23, N o . 1, 200, pp. 42-49. [41] Joseph and Erdogan in: Johnson W . S . , \"Stress Analysis of the cracked-lap shear specimen: an A S T M round-robin\", Journal of Testing and Evaluation, V o l . 6., 1987, pp. 303-324. [42] Rice, J . C . \"Stresses in an infinite strip containing a semi-infinite crack\", Journal of Applied Mechanics - Transactions of the A S M E , 1967, pp. 248-249 [43] Krenk, S., \"Energy release rate of symmetric adhesive joints\", Engineering Fracture Mechanics, V o l . 43, N o . 4, 1992, pp. 549-559. [44] Cheulk, P.T., Tong, L . , Wang, C . H . , Baker, A . , Chalkley, P., \"Fatigue crack growth in adhesively bonded composite-metal double-lap joints\", Composite Structures, V o l . 57, 2002, pp. 109-115 [45] Hart-Smith, L J , \"Design and analysis of bonded repairs for metal aircraft structures\". In: \"Bonded repair of aircraft structures\", Baker A A and Jones R, eds. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988, pp.31-47. [46] Baker, A . A . \" O n the certification of bonded composite repairs to primary aircraft structure\". Proceedings of I C C M - 1 1 , G o l d Coast, Australia, 1997,1-1 to 1-23. [47] Anon., \"Composite materials handbook volume 3. Polymer matrix composites materials usage design and analysis\", M I L - H D B K - 1 7 - 3 F , U . S . A . Department of Defense, 2002.  65  \u000C[48] Hull, D., Cliyne, T.W., \" A n Introduction to Composite Materials\", 2 Cambridge University Press, 1996.  nd  Edition,  [49] Pipes, R.B.,\"On the off-axis strength of anisotropic materials\", Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 7, 1973, pp. 248-256. [50] Hashin, Z., \"Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites\", Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 47, 1980, pp. 329-334. [51] Hart-Smith, L.J., \"What textbooks won't teach you about interactive composite failure criteria\", Composite Structures: Theory and Practice, A S T M STP 1383. P. Grant and C.Q. Rousseau, Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, P.A. 2000. pp. 413-436. [52] Sodena P.D., Kaddourb, A.S., Hintonc, M.J., \"Recommendations for designers and researchers resulting from the world-wide failure exercise\". Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 64, 2004, pp. 589-604. [53] Textron Specialty Materials, Boron Epoxy Prepreg Tape-5521 Product Data Sheet, 2 Industrial Avenue, Lowell, M A . [54] Papikanos, P., Tserpes, K.I., Labeas, G., Pantelakis, Sp., \"Progressive damage modeling of bonded composite repairs\", Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 43, 2005, pp. 189-198. [55] Clark, R.J., Romilly, D.P., \"Linear coupled bending and extension of an unbalanced bonded composite repair\", International Journal of Solids and Structures. Vol. 44, 2007, pp. 3156-3176. [56] Clark, R.J., Romilly, D.P., \"Nonlinear mechanics of hybrid bonded joints and bonded composite repairs\", International Journal of Nonlinear Mechanics. Submitted November 2006. [57] Clark, R.J., Romilly, D.P., \"Fatigue Damage Prediction for Bonded Composite Repairs Applied to Metallic Aircraft Structures\", S A E Transactions - Journal of Aerospace, 2001. [58] Okafor, A . , Singh, N . , Enemuoh, U.E., Rao, S.V., \"Design, analysis and performance of adhesively bonded composite patch repair of cracked aluminum aircraft panels\", Composite Structures, Vol. 71, 2005, pp. 258-270 [59] Theofanous, T.G., \"On the proper formulation of safety goals and assessment of safety margins for rare and high-consequence hazards\", Reliability Engineering &amp; System Safety, Vol. 54, 1996, pp. 243-257  66  \u000CChapter 3: Extension of generalized plane strain plates with reinforced cracks* Randal J. Clark, Douglas P. Romilly University of British Columbia, Department of Mechanical Engineering  3.1 Introduction In this chapter, a line-spring model for a transversally isotropic generalized plane strain plate is developed and applied to the analysis of a reinforced crack under extensional loads. The generalized plane strain plate model of Mindlin and Kane, as refined by Kotousov and Wang, is applied to the analysis of a through crack in plates of arbitrary thickness and the governing equations are developed into a hyper-singular line-spring model by the application of Fourier transforms. This line-spring model is first used to develop standard linear-elastic fracture mechanics geometry correction factors to account for the effects of changes in the transverse modulus, Poisson's ratio, and plate thickness on the stress intensity and crack opening displacement. Next, the line-spring model is used to calculate the reinforcing effect of springs bridging the crack faces. In accordance with the Rose model for the analysis of reinforced cracks, the stress intensity and crack opening displacement are shown to become independent of crack length for long cracks, and an interpolation for the stress intensity and crack opening displacement is developed which employs the geometry correction factors developed in the first part of the chapter. This technique allows the inclusion of plate thickness effects in the fracture and fatigue analysis of reinforced cracks. Reinforced cracks occur in a wide range of engineered structures. Examples in the aerospace field include cracking of filamentary composite structures, repair of damaged aluminum panels by the application of adhesively bonded composite repairs, and cracking in hybrid materials such as A R A L L or G L A R E . Crack-bridging is also a common occurrence in other fields. Examples include failure of natural fibrous materials such as wood and engineered wood laminates or bonded composite repair of concrete structures. Crack bridging analysis and line-spring models are also used to evaluate the stress intensity in part-through cracks and in the assessment of crack-tip plasticity. Past efforts to develop line-spring models have employed plane stress or plane strain plate  * A version of this chapter has been submitted for publication. R.J. Clark, D.P. Romilly, \"Extension of generalized plane strain plates with reinforced cracks\", Engineering Fracture Mechanics.  67  \u000Cmodels, in which either the transverse stress or the transverse strain are assumed to vanish. This requires the analyst to assume that the plate is in one of these two limiting states, a problem which is particularly significant during the analysis of a crack bridged by springs, as the portion of the load carried by the reinforcing springs is determined by the ratio of the stiffness of the plate compared to the stiffness of the springs. A plane stress plate has a larger displacement and hence the springs will carry a larger portion of the stresses than in a plane strain plate. In reality, the plate exists in a state between the limiting cases of plane stress and plane strain. T o obtain an accurate assessment of the fatigue and fracture resistance of a reinforced plate, this thickness effect must be included in the analysis. In this chapter, the governing equations for a transversally isotropic generalized plane strain plate are presented and are developed into a line-spring model. The line-spring model is then used to develop linear-elastic fracture mechanics geometry correction factors to account for plate thickness effects and to determine the stress intensity and crack opening displacement for a reinforced crack. These results are used to extend the very successful Rose model for the extension of reinforced cracks to include platethickness effects. The result is a relatively simple set of closed-form equations that can be used to assess the fracture and fatigue performance of reinforced structures and materials without requiring the analyst to make assumptions regarding the transverse stresses in the cracked plate.  3.2 The generalized plane strain plate Kane and Mindlin [1] introduced the generalized plane strain plate model for the analysis of extensional vibrations of plates, where plane stress and plane strain models respectively under and over predict the natural frequencies observed in experimental studies. More recently, Kotousov and Wang [2] have reformulated the model, decoupling the governing partial differential equations and developing fundamental solutions for inplane loading, greatly simplifying its use. They also developed closed-form solutions for circular holes, approximate solutions for notches with circular tips, and a dislocationbased solution for a through-crack [3]. Generalised plane strain is one example out of the many approximate plate theories that exist in the engineering literature. Plate models are usually based on the selection of functions to represent the through-thickness variation of either stresses or strains. If the chosen functions are sufficiently general, the exact solution may result, but this is only practical for the simplest problems. Accordingly, the selection of a plate theory entails the selection of an appropriate form for the transverse strains or stresses. A s an example, the plane stress model assumes vanishing throughthickness stresses and provides the exact result only for the simple case of a plate acting under a uniform or linearly varying stress field. Within the generalized plane strain plate  68  \u000Ctheory, it is assumed that the transverse strain is constant through the thickness o f the plate, and the effects of transverse stresses and strains may be explicitly included in the analysis. The development of the differential equation governing the displacement field for a generalized plane strain plate, as per Kotousov and W a n g [2], is brief and is provided here to introduce the symbols and concepts used in subsequent sections. For a plate of thickness 2h, the displacement field in the plate may be approximated as follows. u (x,y),  u  u =u (x,y)  x  r  y  u  y  =- (x,y) h  (1)  w  This displacement field is illustrated in Figure 3-1, along with a depiction o f typical stress distributions through the thickness of the plate.  40  1  u ( z )  +h  ( )  V A  -h  x,y  Figure 3-1: Distribution of plate displacements and stresses In displacement-based plate theories, the stresses are expressed i n terms of stress resultants or line-forces in the plate. These are obtained by integration through the thickness of the plate.  xx = \\&lt;r &lt;k,  N  a  N  yy  =  \\cr dz, -h yy  N  xy  (2) \u2014h  The transverse normal and shear stresses may also be expressed as stress resultants. The transverse shear stress resultants are defined as the first moments o f the shear stresses taken about the plate centre line, and represent a 'pinching' force. Curvatures in the i n plane stress fields lead to transverse shear stresses and the accompanying normal stresses. u  *  N  =  n  fczz z, d  R =  n  fazdz,  x  R = y  (3)  \\r zdz yz  -h Observing that the plate surfaces are stress free, the equilibrium equations may also be expressed in terms of stress resultants by integration through the thickness. N\u201E,  y  +N  VtX  =0 ,  69  N,  (4)  \u000CThe assumed displacement field satisfies all but one o f the compatibility equations. ~  xx,yy  +e  (5)  =y  yy,xx  I xy,xy  The constitutive equations may also be expressed in terms of the stress resultants. For a transversally isotropic material E = E = E and v = v = v, and the normal strains x  y  x  y  may be expressed as follows: \u00A3 = rr  /V\u201E  .y\u2014HL-y  (6a)  ^ a .  2h  'z  J  '/V.. yy  2h E  E  y  (6b)  E j z  1  (6c)  The shear constitutive equations may be expressed as follows. R  3 xy  x  w  2hG  \u2022  (7)  x  T  2h G, 2  2h G, 2  The equilibrium equations i n the plane of the plate have the same form as for plane stress and plane strain, and one may use an A i r y stress function, &lt;p, to satisfy equilibrium. 0  ',yy  Using  =N  &lt;t&gt; =N yy , 6 =-N &gt;xy  ,  7  xx '  T ,xx  (8)  T  vv '  r ,xv  the average extensional  .  stress i n the plate,  2N = N +N XX  =V &lt;p, the 2  yy  constitutive law for transverse strain (6c) yields an expression for pressurization o f the plate. N =2v N a  + 2E w  t  (9)  l  This result combined with equilibrium in the transverse direction (4) and the constitutive laws for transverse shear (7) lead to the following relationship between w andN. V w\u2014^\u2014w = \u2014\u2014N h G h G 2  z  Defining77 = v ^JE/E z  (10)  2  z  z  , a second condition for w and  arises from compatibility (5). (11)  70  \u000CThe governing differential equation arises by de-coupling equations (10) and (11).  VV-fc VV = 0  (12)  2  Here, it is a parameter characterizing the thickness and properties of the plate. 3 E, k =-^^ \u2014 h G (l-/7 )  (13)  22  2  2  z  The generalized plane strain plate requires three boundary conditions. These are the inplane normal and shear stresses o f the classical plane stress and plane strain plate models, and the transverse shear 'pinching' stress resultant. In the next section this work w i l l be expanded and the problem of a crack in a plate w i l l be solved using a Fourier integral transform, thus allowing the development of a line-spring model for a cracked plate. 3.2.1 A cracked plate Given the governing differential equation, it is possible to develop a solution to the problem o f a cracked plate. T o achieve this, the authors use an integral transform technique in the manner o f Erdogan and Joseph [4,5] in the development of a line-spring model for a Reissner plate [6]. The Fourier transform o f a function and the inverse transform may be defined as follows. f = f(x,a)= \\f(x,y)e dy, ,a&gt;  f = f(x,y) = -\u00B1- \\f{x^e^da  (14)  Applying this transform to the governing equation, it can be expressed as an ordinary differential equation. ( ^ - 3 \u00AB V , _  +3 a ^ - a V ) - ^ , _ - 2 a ^ - r - a V ) = 0  (15)  2  4  Keeping only roots that vanish for x \u2014&gt; \u00B0 o , the solution is ^ =^j(A (a)e\" 1  To  W x  +A (a)xe 2  &gt; k  +A (\u00AB)e- )e-'^Jar, f o  3  R =a +k 2  2  2  (16)  simplify the notation a is assumed to be positive in the remainder o f the  development. T o satisfy symmetry about the crack plane, the shear and pinching stress resultants must vanish. A^(0,y) = -^,(0,y) = 0  (17)  #,(0,y) = 0  (18)  71  \u000CFrom (7), the pinching shear condition requires w (0,y)  = 0. Using equations (10) and  x  (11), w may be expressed in terms of the average in-plane stress. 1  w\u2022  2  (19)  V JV-A^ 2  7] k  2  'J  This leads to an additional symmetry condition. (20)  V&gt;, (0,y)-^ VV, (0,y) =0 2  ; c  ; c  Using the two symmetry conditions (17, 20), two constants may be eliminated from (16), and the stress function takes the following form.  1 _ ^2+X [ A-+\u2014e-^A  0=  p j +  a  Rfi  +  26  l  J  (a) '  2 { a )  P  0 ~  2 k  - k rj  2 2  ^  (21)  To form the line-spring model, the remaining constant must be expressed in terms of the displacement of the crack faces. From compatibility (5) and the constitutive equations (6a,b,d). 1  '  N  N  N  .1  AT  r  2h  \u00A3xx yy  (22)  E 'J z  A n expression for  may be found from equations (9) and (19). This relationship  shows that the pressurization of the plate arises due to curvatures in the in-plane stress field. \"\u00AB=2  VN 2,2 V  (23)  2  Equation (22) may now be expressed as follows. 2hEe^  yy  = 2(1 + v)N\u201E' xy,xy - i*\"yy,xx V _ +' vN \"'xx.xx + ' ^ Jt  v  ajac  V  2  ^  (24)  Next we express the in-plane stresses in terms o f 0, and integrate to find the displacement. A s the displacement must vanish as [x,y]\u2014&gt;\u00B0\u00B0, the integration constant must also vanish.  2hEu &lt;yy x  \u2022  w  k'  (25)  Symmetry requires 0 (0, y) = 0 , and the first and third terms must vanish. Substituting xy  for 0, the crack face displacement may be expressed as follows.  72  \u000ChEu  (0, y) = \u2014 \\a A 2K  (26)  (a)e' da  2  x  iay  2  J  Inverting the Fourier transform.  ~h~E  A (a) = \\u \u201E(t) 2  (27)  e da im  x  Integrating by parts twice, noting that again displacements must vanish as [x, y] \u2014&gt; \u00B0\u00B0, and that the crack opening displacement exists only over the interval of the crack, L. (28)  A (a) = hEJu (t)e dt ica  2  x  A n integral relating the crack opening displacement to  NjO,y)  =  l7t  J\u00A3\\u (t)l \\a\\-2 x  may now be formed.  /3 R)  2  (29)  e '- dadt ai  /3  2  y)  Note the following integral identities, where K is the modified Bessel function o f the 2  second kind. [ae '- da ia(  y)  o  \\a e - da 3  ia(,  y)  0  o  = -\u2014 (t-y)  (30a)  =(t-y)  (30b)  1  (30c)  R  Defining a stress boundary condition o~(y) = -N^ I2h, equation (29) may be written as follows. ~~I  \\  E  r  J.  -1  \\[(t-y)  2k IK  _ 2 1+k {t-yT\\ P  12  A  3  ^M-yl] it (31)  2  fib-y)  Separating equation (31) into singular and regular parts in order to perform numerical integration, one finds the final form of the hyper-singular integral equation.  &lt;r{y) =  k ( * ) \\ r - ^ r + V k L ( k \\ t - \\)]dt {{t-y) 'J 2  2  y  27t\\-ri [ 2  2  73  (32)  \u000CHere,  L(z)  includes the regular part of the integrand and a weak logarithmic  singularity. The logarithmic singularity is embedded in the Bessel function. L(z) = 2  i+^ikto- !-^1 z  03)  z  4  \u2022u  2  Equation (32) may be compared to equations (34) and (35) for plane stress and plane strain respectively provided below.  lK  l(t-y)  (35) Note that the first term of the generalized plane strain solution given by equation (32) matches the plane strain solution given by equation (35). A s the contribution of  L(z)  vanishes (i.e. the crack interval reduces as in the case of a short crack), the plane strain solution is seen to dominate. The thickness effects causing deviations from the plane strain solution evolve from the contributions of L(z).  Failure to account for these effects  can lead to inaccuracies in the cracked plate analysis.  3.2.2 Numerical solution In this section, a collocation method and Chebyshev polynomial expansion are used to develop a line-spring model that will be used to generate geometry correction factors and a crack-bridging model for a reinforced cracked plate. W h i l e applied to a new application, this is similar to the technique used by Erdogan and Joseph to solve the Reissner plate bending problem [4,5], and proceeds as follows. B y expressing the crack opening displacement as a series of Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind, equation (32) may be decomposed into a linear system, solvable for the displacements, and hence the stresses in the plane of the crack. The first step is to normalise the bounds and parameters in the integral equation. Normalising all dimensions with respect to the halfcrack length, a , we define the following parameters. u(r) = u (t) I a, x  r = t/a,  s = yla,  K = ka  (36)  The hyper-singular integral equation then simplifies. \u2014 \u20141 (j{s) = \u2014  E  1  [u(r)\\  f  1  1 ^ + v, K L(rc\\r - s\\) \\dr 2  2  74  (37)  \u000CThe crack face deflection may be expanded using Chebyshev polynomials o f the second kind. u{r) =  W(r)Y f U (r) J  i  (38)  i  Here, W(r) = ^l-r  is the weighting function, U^r) = sin(0' + l)cos  2  (r))/'J\\-r ~,  1  2  and the solution w i l l be expressed in terms of the displacement coefficients, f  r  The  hyper-singular part o f the integral may now be evaluated analytically. ,  [  ^ VTT7^ it *~  (s-r)  x  -(n + l)U (s)  \\s\\&lt;l  n  ( =  \\(n + l)  ( 3 g )  N&gt;1  I  A  V* -i  {  2  The integral equation may now be written in terms of the Chebyshev polynomials. The logarithmic term in L(z) may be calculated analytically, but the regular part requires numerical integration. r 1  n  2,^2  N  U, (s) -  I  L  1  \u2014 \\L(x\\r - j|)W(r)l/,. (rydr  (40)  1=0  B y selecting a set o f collocation points, s , a linear system o f equations results, solvable t  for the coefficients, / . . The linear system may be expressed in the following form.  o- = Af,  Here, L  {j  A  :  \\-lf  (41)  \u2022\u2022J  has the following definition, where V . includes the logarithmic singularity, i  and may be solved analytically, as demonstrated by Erdogan and Joseph [4,5] and by Wang and Rose [7]. L , . = J L(4;. - s | ) + |ln(|r,. - ^W(s)\\J  (s)d --V .  s  -iL  4  1  J  S  (42)  i  4  K  ,i  2  ~2 - r , + - + ln2|j V. . = f i n k - s\\W(s)U . (s)ds = \\ ' T (r )-\\ _* I 7t T (0 2  }  J+2  t  j + 2 'J  j =0 (43) j&gt;0  The regular part requires numerical integration. A n y method is applicable, but for this problem, the authors chose to apply Gauss-Chebychev quadrature, as suggested by  75  \u000CJoseph and Erdogan. This method concentrates the integration points in the region of the crack tip, where the crack opening displacement has the greatest variability. Equation (37) is valid anywhere along the line x = 0, and hence may be used to examine the stresses near the crack tip and calculate the stress intensity. The only terms that contain a  singularity arise from the hyper-singular part of the equation. These  terms may be found by examining equation (39) for the region outside of the domain of the crack. The result follows from the conventional definition of the stress intensity. K = l i m J 2 a a ( r - 1 ) &lt; 7 \u201E (0, r) =  \u201Ev  ; **v  l+  f\u2122  E  Y f.U. (1) =  2(77 -l)to 2  '  f\u2122  Y (i +1)/,  E  (44)  207 -l)to 2  It is now possible to calculate the crack face deflection and the stress intensity for a crack in a generalised plane strain plate using a displacement-based solution.  3.2.3 Geometry correction factors for a cracked plate The displacement-based solution of the cracked plate problem generated above is now available to calculate the stress intensity factor and crack face displacement for a transversally isotropic plate, such that the effects of plate thickness and the material properties through the thickness may be calculated. Table 3-1 shows the properties for some selected transversely isotropic materials that w i l l be used to test the model and develop a set of geometry correction factors. Material  E  (GPa)  V  E  (GPa)  z  (1) Isotropic  71.0  0.5  -  0.5  (2) Isotropic  71.0  0.33  -  0.33  (3) Isotropic  71.0  0.1  -  0.1  (4) Quasi-isotropic boron/epoxy  106  0.12  . 25  (5) Transversely loaded unidirectional boron/epoxy  25  0.019  0.028 0.21  210  Table 3-1: Material properties used to test the GPS model Figure 3-2 shows the generalized plane strain stress intensity results normalized to the classical result, K  = o^jm , and plotted against the crack length. The results match  0  those found by Kotousov and Wang [3], who used a dislocation density method. In the limit,  as  the  K/K =l/^j\\-T]  2  0  crack  length  increases,  all  .  76  of  the  materials  obey  the  limit  \u000C1.2  -isotropic 0.1 - isotropic 0.3 - isotropic 0.5 1.15  - quasi-iso boron/epoxy - trans boron/epoxy  (A C  0&gt; (0 (0 Q&gt;  (A 1.05  -f  100  Crack Length (a/h) Figure 3-2: Stress intensity for a through crack The  stress  intensity  may also  be plotted  against  a  normalised  crack-length,  c = JC^I \u2014 TJ as shown in Figure 3 - 3 . 2  \u2014 o isotropic 0.1 A isotropic 0.3 o isotropic 0.5 0.75 -f  j5  \u2022 quasi-iso boron/epoxy  o u c  o  A trans boron/epoxy /  \u2014 model  '  I  i  1  '  1  t  '  '  i  I I  Q)  3=  T  Q  &gt;.  0.5  V  '35  c a) c (0  (/&gt; a&gt; 5)  0.25  l_\u2014 0.01  0.1  ,\u2014 10  Normalized Crack Length (c)  Figure 3-3: Stress intensity difference plotted against normalized crack length 77  1 100  \u000CHere, c = 1 corresponds to a crack length of approximately one-third of the thickness of the plate. It may be observed that with this normalization, and by taking into account the asymptotic behaviour for long cracks, the difference in stress intensity between the classical solution, K ,  and generalized plane strain plate, K ,  0  d  collapses onto one curve  for all of the tested materials. K  d  {K/K )-l  (45)  0  =  This curve is well approximated by the simple interpolation of equation (46). A s shown in Figure 3-3, this approximate model fits the data very well. J 5  K  d  =  (46)  c +1.5 1 5  This relationship can be developed into an expression for a geometry correction factor. K  .1.5  = 1+  ,1.5  -1  + 1.5  (47)  It is also useful to examine the variation in strain energy release rates. Within the classical plate theories, the strain energy release rate may be expressed in terms of the stress intensity. EL E  plane stress (48) E  plane strain  Kotousov and W a n g [2] have made the observation that all cracks are in a state of plane strain near the crack tip. This occurs because the large stress gradients near the tip of the crack w i l l always pressurize the plate, regardless of the plate thickness. Thus, the plane stress assumption is not valid and only the plane strain relationship is required. A s the crack length becomes very large, Y \u2014 &gt; \\ l ^ \\ - i j k  2  , and the strain energy release rate may  be expressed in terms of the nominal stress intensity as G-Kl  IE.  Similar results may  be developed for the crack face deflection. Figure 3-4 shows the deflection at the centre of the crack normalized to the plane strain result, u = 2a(l - TJ )cT / E . 2  0  78  0  \u000Co isotropic 0.1 A isotropic 0.3 O isotropic 0.5  \u2022 quasi-iso boron/epoxy 3  \u2022  0)  o c  model  0)  I  trans boron/epoxy  0.5 4-  c 0)  E  0&gt;  o ra a.  (0 0.25  0.01  10  0.1  100  Normalized Crack Length (c)  Figure 3-5: Difference in crack face displacement plotted against crack length. In the long-crack limit, u/u  = 1/(1 -TJ ) , and the following normalization collapses the 2  0  results for all of the materials onto one curve, as shown in Figure 3-5.  79  \u000C_ M r f =  (u I u ) - 1 0  (49)  (l/(l-^))-l  Once again, it is possible to develop a simple model that fits the data remarkably well. \u201E1 5  U,  (50)  c +2.5 1 5  This relationship can be developed into a geometry correction factor, Y  d  ,15  Y =d  =l+  c  1 5  Y  +2.5 A X-rf  -1  (51)  The geometry correction factors derived in equations (47) and (51) provide a significant step forward towards the accurate closed-form engineering analysis of cracks in finite thickness plates.  3.3 Crack bridging: a line-spring model This section describes the development of a numerical line-spring model, which is used to test closed-form design equations that utilize the new correction factors for stress intensity, strain energy release rate, and crack face displacement. For a reinforced crack, the springs bridging the crack faces w i l l develop a force countering the applied stresses, acting to partially close the crack faces, as shown in Figure 3-6.  .ttttttt  1 I I 1 I I I I I I  r  G  Figure 3-6: A reinforced crack in a plate. Erdogan and Joseph [4,5] and Wang and Rose [7] have used the same technique to examine this phenomenon for the plane stress case. Including the effect of the springs,  80  \u000Cequation (37) may be rewritten as follows, where k  s  is the line-spring stiffness, or the  stress generated by the springs per unit deflection of a crack face. \u2014  - I E  cr(s)-ak u(s) s  1  = \u2014\u2014  r  Ji,  1  1  \u2022+  \\u{r)\\-  Tj lc L(fc\\r-s\\)\\dr 2  (52)  2  B y expanding w(r) and choosing a set of collocation points, one may develop a linear system of equations, solvable for the crack face displacement. &lt;T =  Af,  A  :  -\u2022 I.J l-n  + ak W(r,)U (r )  :  s  j  (53)  i  2  The stress intensity may be calculated using equation (44). Figure 3-7 shows the results for an isotropic plate with &lt;j = 1 0 M P a , v = 0.5 and \u00A3 = 71.0 GPa.  The results are  shown for a wide range of spring stiffnesses, which are reported in the legend.  0.01  0.1  1  10  100  Normalized Crack Length (a/h)  Figure 3-7: Stress intensity results from the line-spring model It is apparent that stiffer springs lead to lower stress intensities, reaching a limit for long cracks. Applying the method of Rose [8,9], one may analytically determine the limit strain energy release rate for a very long crack. Rose observed that stresses near the crack tip become independent of crack length. Hence, for linear problems, the strain energy released with an increment of crack growth can be found from the difference in stored elastic energy between two strips of material far removed from the crack tip. One strip is located well away from the crack, is undisturbed by the singular stress field near the  81  \u000Ccrack, and has no stored strain energy. The other is over the middle o f the long crack, has energy stored in the springs bridging the crack. The difference in stored energy is given solely by the energy stored in the springs bridging the crack, and the strain energy release rate may be expressed as follows: G  x  =  2JCT  dx-2^k x s  dx = k u  1  s  (54)  =\u2014  A s the crack tip is in a plane strain state, the limit stress intensity ( K ) and an effective x  crack length a  (for a correction factor of Y ) for a long crack may now be defined.  eff  k  GE 1-/7  eff  U  ~  Yin  2  = &lt; T  0  (55)  1  (56)  k (l-rj ) 2  s  Figure 3-8 shows the generalized plane strain results normalized with respect to this limit stress intensity and effective crack length. A s crack length increases, the theoretical limit is observed. Unfortunately, the polynomial expansion used in this study is limited in its ability to resolve this limit state in the case of a very long crack with very compliant springs. In this study, the authors used the first 128 even Chebyshev polynomials.  0.0001  0.001  0.01  0.1  1  10  1000  Normalized Crack Length (a/a ) et(  Figure 3-8: Normalized stress intensity plotted against crack length.  82  \u000CIn  addition to an expression for the limit stress intensity, Rose developed an  interpolation for the stress intensity for an arbitrary length of crack. For the limiting state of a very short crack, the crack opening displacement is small, and the springs bridging the crack cannot develop a large stress to resist the applied load. The stress intensity w i l l be that calculated by considering an un-reinforced crack, given by equation (45). In the long crack limit, the stress intensity w i l l approach the limit given by equation (55). The stress intensity for an arbitrary crack length may then be approximated by a simple interpolation between these limiting states, expressed as follows. K aa eff a+a eff  K.  (57)  Figure 3-9 shows the stress intensity values predicted by the interpolation model normalized to values obtained by numerical analysis. Equation (57) provides results that are low by up to 4%, an error that has also been observed when it is applied to plane stress or plane strain plates. 1.02  0.0001  0.001  0.01  0.1  1  10  100  1000  Normalized Crack Length (a/a ) ef(  Figure 3-9: Comparison of stress intensity predictions. The concepts used to develop expressions for the stress intensity may also be used to estimate  the  crack face  displacements  [10]. A s the crack face  displacement  is  proportional to the stretch and hence the maximum stress in the springs, the maximum crack face displacement is a valuable parameter for estimating the strength of the structure and its resilience to fatigue loading, where performance of the springs may degrade over time. Figure 3-10 shows the crack-face displacement results from the line-  83  \u000Cspring model. Once again, for very weak springs, the results approach the nominal solution for an un-reinforced crack. The limiting behaviour for long cracks is evident in the results for cracks bridged by stiff springs. 1.5 no springs -0.1 G Pa/mm -1.0 GPa/mm -10GPa/mm  E 3.  -100 GPa/mm -1000 GPa/mm  0) E &lt;u o  ta O.  .2 0.5 Q  0.1  0.01  1  10  100  Normalized Crack Length (c)  Figure 3-10: Crack face displacement for various spring stiffnesses. The long-crack limit crack face displacement  is given by  \u2014c / k , 0  s  and the  behaviour for a short crack may be determined from equation (51). One may then develop a simple interpolation between these two limit states: (2YAl-TJ )a/El\\7k ) 2  u. =  s  \"o+\"~~  \u00B0(2Y (\\-Tj )a/E)+{\\/k )~  _  0  (  k + El(lY (1  2  d  _  s  s  5  g  )  -T] )a) 2  d  Figure 3-11 shows the ratio of the interpolation and line-spring model results for crack displacement. Once again, the interpolation model results in a reasonable error, in this case not exceeding 6%. The line-force in the springs is given by N  a  - 2hk u s  r  and may  be used to predict potential rupture or fatigue degradation o f the springs bridging the crack faces.  84  \u000C0.001  0.1  1  10  1000  Normalized Crack Length (a/a ) ef)  Figure 3-11: Comparison of crack face displacement predictions.  3.4 Discussion The generalized plane strain plate model allows one to include the effects of finite plate thickness and transverse stresses caused by curvatures in the stress field in the plate. This is particularly important in the analysis of cracks, which arguably contain the largest stress gradients possible in a real structure. Accordingly, the first important result of the generalized plane strain model is that, at least in terms of the stress resultants, the base of a crack in a plate can always be assumed to be in a state of plane strain. This result is of particularly great importance for the analysis of bridged cracks, where strain energy release rate arguments are used to determine the stress intensity at the reinforced crack tip. This result is also consistent with the definition of the opening mode strain energy release rate as it is used in the analysis of cracks in three-dimensional bodies. The asymptotic behaviour observed for un-reinforced long cracks can be explained as follows: away from the crack tip the stress gradients become small, and the plate is essentially in a state of plane stress. However, the crack tip is still in a state of plane strain, and the plate is effectively stiffened by the transverse pressures around the crack tip. For a long crack, subsequent increases in crack length lead to a dispersion of stresses that can be well-approximated by plane stress analysis, except in the region of the crack tip, where plane strain conditions exist and additional load transfer results due to the 'stiffened' region around the crack tip. The geometry correction factors developed in this paper are a simple extension of the geometry correction factors traditionally used in fracture mechanics, and are a very effective way to deal with this complication.  85  \u000CThe long-crack limit stress intensity factor and the interpolation model developed by Rose offer a very effective method for the analysis of bridged cracks. The manner in which geometry correction factors are included in the model was first introduced by Rose [9]. This form of the interpolation model was shown to be accurate within 5%. This order of error is in line with what has been reported previously by the authors [10], and can be attributed to the approximate nature of the interpolation model, and not to the correction factors introduced in this paper. It is unfortunate that the Chebyshev expansion method is not more effective in dealing with weak springs or very long cracks. Most forms of expansion w i l l result in the same difficulties, as the crack face displacement gradients w i l l always be concentrated at the very tip of the crack under these conditions. This may be alleviated by considering the integral over an open domain (i.e. a semi-infinite crack) and using an appropriate orthogonal expansion, but as the existence of the longrcrack limit is well accepted, there is little practical reason to expend effort in this direction.  3.5 Concluding remarks The authors have developed the generalized plane strain plate model into a hypersingular integral equation relating crack-face deflections to stresses along the plane of the crack. This numerical model has been solved using a collocation method, and the results have been used to develop simple and accurate geometry correction factors to account for the effects of plate thickness and Poisson's ratio on the fracture of through-cracked plates. These geometry correction factors were then used to improve the classical models for  cracked plates reinforced by springs. The resulting closed-form equations  were  validated against the new line-spring model, and shown to be accurate to within 6%, an error which is mostly due to the approximate nature of the original interpolation model used for bridged cracks. The generalized plane strain line-spring model is an improvement upon existing linespring models, and may be used to refine the results for the calculation of stress intensity factors for surface cracks [e.g. 3,4], to include the effects of transverse stresses in Dugdale strip-yield models, and in the analysis of cracks partially reinforced by ligaments bridging the crack faces. The model is based on the assumption of a linearelastic material and is not applicable to problems involving gross plasticity near the crack tip unless the plastic zone is explicitly included as a set of plastic springs or a superposed crack-closing stress applied in the region of the crack tip. The improvements to the Rose model for fracture and fatigue of reinforced cracks are easy to apply, and are useful in many fields including fracture analysis of layered structures, composites, and bonded aircraft repairs.  86  \u000C3.6 References [1] Kane T.R., M i n d l i n R . D . High-frequency extensional vibrations of plates. Journal of Applied Mechanics, v. 55, p. 277-283, 1955. [2] Kotousov A . , Wang C . H . , A generalized plane strain theory for transversally isotropic plates. Acta Mechanica, v. 161, p. 53-64, 2003. [3] Kotousov A . , Wang C H . Fundamental solutions for the generalised plane strain theory. International Journal of Engineering Science, v. 40, p. 1775-1790, 2002. [4] Joseph P.F., Erdogan F. Surface crack problems in plates. International Journal of Fracture, v. 41, pp. 105-131, 1989. [5] Joseph, P.F., Erdogan, F . Plates and shells containing a surface crack under general loading conditions. N A S A C R 178232, N A S A Langley Research Centre, 1987. [6] Reissner E . The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates. A S M E Journal of Applied Mechanics v. 12, pp. A69-77, 1945. [7] Wang, C . H . , Rose, L . R . F . A crack bridging model for bonded plates subjected to tension and bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures, v. 36, pp. 1985-2014, 1999. [8] Rose, L . R . F . A cracked plate repaired by bonded reinforcements. Journal of Fracture, v. 18, n.2, pp. 135-144, 1982.  International  [9] Rose, L . R . F . Theoretical Analysis of crack patching. In: Baker A . A . , Jones R. Bonded Repair of Aircraft Structures. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 77-105, 1988. [10] Clark, R . J . , Romilly, D . P . Fatigue damage prediction for bonded composite repairs applied to metallic aircraft structures. S A E Trans. - Journal of Aerospace, 2001, 10 p.  87  \u000CChapter 4: Transverse shear and pressurization in the bending of reinforced cracks Randal J. Clark and Douglas P. R o m i l l y University of British Columbia Department of Mechanical Engineering  4.1 Introduction The authors develop an 8 -order model for bending of transversally isotropic plates and th  use integral transforms and a collocation method to form a line-spring model for a cracked plate. The 8 -order model allows satisfaction of the three standard plate bending th  boundary conditions; the normal moment, twisting moment, and transverse shear force, and an additional shear stress resultant that allows analysis of transverse normal stresses near the crack tip. The line-spring model is used to develop geometry correction factors for bending of finite-thickness plates, accounting for transverse shear deformation and pressurization of the plate near the crack tip. The line-spring model is then applied to the problem of a plate with a reinforced crack, and the results are used to validate an interpolation solution based on an energy method. W h i l e not explicitly analysed, the models are applicable to many problems, including bending of bonded repairs, fracture and fatigue of composite and layered materials, surface cracks, crack tip plasticity and crack closure or crack face interaction. Plates are important structural elements in applications ranging from aircraft and naval structures to building construction and infrastructure. When compared to the analysis of in-plane loading, plate bending is complicated by transverse shear deformations and transverse loads, leading to higher-order models that are more difficult to solve. For this reason, the construction and analysis of plate bending models has been an ongoing topic, with researchers seeking models that are easy to apply and yet capture the essential characteristics of the three-dimensional behaviour of the plate. Accordingly, a range of models exists for engineering analysis of plates. Selection of the correct model for an application depends upon many factors including the geometry and composition of the plate, whether large stress gradients are present, and on the accuracy required of the analysis.  A version of this chapter has been accepted for publication. R.J. Clark, D.P. Romilly, \"Transverse shear and pressurization effects in the bending of plates with reinforced cracks\", International Journal of Fracture, v 142, 2006, p 81-102.  88  \u000CIn the simplest models, transverse shear deformations are neglected and the Kirchoff boundary condition is used to combine the twisting moment and shear force boundary conditions. The result is a 4 -order governing equation expressed in terms of the th  transverse deflection of the plate. This biharmonic problem is relatively easy to solve, and exact solutions exist for many geometries. More sophisticated models exist that explicitly include all three standard plate bending boundary conditions and account for shear deflections, the most accepted being the 6th-order Reissner [1] and M i n d l i n [2] models. The Reissner model follows from the assumption that the transverse stresses in a plate w i l l assume the through-thickness distribution predicted by simple beam bending, and is an example of a stress-based solution, whereas the M i n d l i n model follows from the assumption of a plane strain form for the displacement field. More sophisticated models may be developed using higher-order functions to approximate the through-thickness variation of the stresses or strains, and require the adoption of extra boundary conditions to solve the arising differential equations. These models usually employ an infinite series expansion of the stresses or strains, and are of interest in the field of fracture mechanics as they allow an accurate assessment of the stresses near a crack tip [e.g. 3]. For most engineering problems, stress gradients are small, and the Reissner and M i n d l i n models are considered adequate. Other examples of applications requiring more advanced models are those involving large stress gradients (e.g. higher frequency vibrations), when failure is governed by through-thickness stresses, or i f there is otherwise the need for very accurate solutions. For plate extension, Kotousov and Wang [4,5] developed a dislocation-density solution for a crack in a generalized plane strain plate and found that, in terms of the stress resultant or average of the through-thickness stresses, the crack tip in plate extension is in a state of plane strain. This is contrary to the common belief that for very thin plates, the crack tip is effectively in a state of plane stress. This observation has consequences for the use of energy methods in fracture mechanics. The pertinent example is the analysis of reinforced cracks, where the strain energy release rate may be calculated analytically, but the conversion to stress intensity requires the assumption of either plane stress or plane strain conditions. Clark and Romilly [6] have used the generalized plane strain plate model to develop a line-spring model and geometry correction factors for extension of cracked plates. The line-spring model was then used to investigate the effects of reinforcing springs bridging the crack faces, and it was found that the  geometry  correction factors could be used to include the effects of plate thickness and transverse material properties on the stress intensity and crack-face deflection, leading to improved accuracy in the analysis of a reinforced crack. The problem of transverse stresses building up near the crack tip also exists for plate bending, but is not often recognized due to the already difficult problem of modelling the shear forces and shear deflections and  89  \u000Cassessing the effects of crack face contact. Accordingly, the fracture mechanics of bending plates is less well understood than for extension. In this chapter, the authors develop an 8 -order plate bending model, which is th  effectively a generalized plane strain model for bending. This is the simplest model possible that includes the effects of both transverse normal stresses and shear deflections. The motivation for this work is to develop a practical line-spring model and corresponding engineering analysis methods that include these two plate thickness effects and allow the calculation of the thickness-averaged bending stress intensity factor. The goal is to expedite the design of bonded composite repairs where the repaired structure consists of plates containing reinforced cracks subjected to bending. The authors achieve this by using the integral transform method of Joseph and Erdorgan [7,8] whereby the new plate bending model is reduced to a hyper-singular integral expressed in terms of the bending stresses along the plane of the crack and the displacement of the crack faces. The line spring model is then used to develop equations suitable for the assessment of plates containing through-cracks and reinforced cracks subjected to bending. The resulting equations are accurate, easy to apply, and include both transverse shear deflection and transverse normal stresses effects.  4.2 Basic plate bending models and fracture In this section, the authors describe four basic engineering plate bending models. These models are similar to the classical plate bending models available in the literature, and form the basis for the 8 -order model developed in subsequent sections. The first two th  employ the Kirchoff or 'effective shear stress' boundary condition, and w i l l be referred to as the plane stress and plane strain plate bending models. In their development, it is assumed that either the transverse stresses or the transverse strains vanish. The Kirchoff boundary condition allows the twisting moment and shear force acting along a cut to be combined, i.e. an artificial condition that satisfies equilibrium but does not allow for the explicit inclusion of the transverse shear forces. For crack problems, these models cannot be trusted. Errors in the range of 60% to 70% may exist, depending on the crack length and the thickness and elastic properties of the plate. Another problem is that while the governing equations are equivalent to those arising in the plane stress and plane strain plate extension models, the Kirchoff boundary condition causes inconsistencies between the stress and displacement based definitions of the stress intensity factor, as observed by Joseph and Erdogan [8]. This occurs because the crack tip is a region o f large stress gradients, and hence it is important to properly account for the zero shear force boundary condition on the edge of the crack. For plane stress bending, the deflection of the crack face and the bending stress at the outer fibre are derived in Appendix D and may be expressed as follows.  90  \u000Co( 1 + v ^ u(y) = 2 \\ja E 3+v  -y  2  ,  2  Jf~p,  o-(y) = CT  y  \\y\\&lt;a  (1)  \\y\\&gt;a  (2)  For plane strain plate bending of transversally isotropic plates, where J] = v ^JEIE z  z  is  an effective Poisson's ratio, the stresses are given by (2), and the crack face deflection is given by: 1  f  u(y) = 2o\\  + 1/  Y l - ^  3+i / - 2 ^ [  2  E  2  ^ v V - y  2  |y|&lt;a  ,  (3)  The two remaining basic models w i l l be referred to as the plane stress shear  deformable plate and the plane strain shear deformable plate. These are formed by including the transverse shear deflection in the analysis. These 6 order bending models th  satisfy all three engineering stress resultants; the normal moment, twisting moment, and transverse shear force. W h i l e the Reissner model assumes that the transverse stresses take the form given by simple beam bending, the plane stress shear deformable plate is somewhat simplified, as the transverse normal stresses are assumed to vanish. The plane strain shear deformable plate is identical to the M i n d l i n plate, where it is assumed that the transverse strains vanish. The Reissner plate is usually considered to be more accurate than the M i n d l i n plate, as the assumed transverse stresses more closely model those found in an actual plate. In the presence of large stress gradients, both the Reissner and M i n d l i n models are far more accurate than the Kirchoff model, but their use in fracture mechanics is limited by assumptions regarding plane stress or strain, similar to the problem that exists for extension of cracked plates. For the limiting case o f a very short crack in the plane stress shear deformable plate, the deflection of the crack face at the outer fibre has the same form as may be found for plane stress plate extension, as derived in Appendix D . 2&lt;T I u(y)=\u2014y]a-y , E  T  T~  2  I  I  \\y\\&lt;a  (4)  Similarly, for a very short crack in the plane strain shear deformable plate, the crack face deflection takes the form for plane strain plate extension. \u00AB(y) = \u2014  -  v  a  - y  \u00BB  \\y\\  ()  &lt;a  5  E For both types of shear deformable plate, the stresses at the base of the crack assume the form given by equation (2). It w i l l be shown in subsequent sections that these basic  91  \u000Cmodels describe limits on the behaviour o f the 8th-order, or generalized plane strain bending model.  4.3 An 8 -order plate bending model th  Here, we develop an 8 -order plate bending model for a transversally isotropic plate, th  allowing the evaluation of both the transverse shear deflections and transverse normal stresses. F o r a plate o f thickness 2h, the displacement field may be approximated by equations (6a,b,c) below. The series expansion of the transverse displacement is truncated to produce an engineering model that requires four boundary conditions and allows the evaluation of the effects of transverse pressurization at the crack tip. x =T *( 'y^&gt;  u  u  u  x  h  =^u  (x,y),  h  u =w(x,y)  +  (6a,b,c)  Lr-u(x,y)  h  The displacement field and the stresses in the plate are illustrated in Figure 4-1. The depicted stresses are a schematic representation intended to illustrate odd or even behaviour and the zero-stress boundary conditions at the edges of the plate.  \u00B0 (Z) Z Z  v&lt;) z  x,y  Figure 4-1: Displacements and stresses for the 8th-order plate bending model For displacement-based theories, stresses are expressed as stress resultants or lineforces. Integrating through the thickness, we find expressions for the moments and shear forces. n M  x x =  n  l^^dz ,  M = \\a zdz yy  yy  -h  ,  M = \\t zdz xy  -h  V = \\r dz, x  n  xz  V = jr dz y  (7a,b,c)  xy  -h  (7d)  yz  -h  These are the loads evaluated in the basic plate models. Pressurization o f the plate may be modelled by integration of the transverse normal stress as shown below.  92  \u000Ci  (7e) -h  A final set of 'pinching shear' stress resultants arise from the transverse shear stresses (resulting from curvatures in the in-plane stress fields) and act to pressurize the plate. K = \\^^ dz , R = 2  y  (7f,g).  \\r z dz 2  yz  \u2014h  The equilibrium equations may similarly be formulated in terms of stress resultants. M,  +M^  a x  =V ,  y  M\u201E, + M ,  X  y  xy x  =V ,  V , +V ,,=-q  y  x x  y  (8a,b,c)  A final equilibrium condition arises from the second moment o f the transverse equilibrium equations, relating the pressurization o f the plate to transverse loads and 'pinching shear stress resultants'. (8d) The constitutive laws for a transversally isotropic material may also be integrated over the thickness, and the stress resultants may be expressed in terms o f the plate displacements.  v (l + v)2  V + TJ  2  M =D  7  r  i-n  M =D\\  .. +  yy  zz  =D  (9a)  v + rj \u2014u +\u2014 l-fi'  \u2014 u, +\u2014  1-TJ  (9b)  z  rr  2  1-v  2  P  1  h  2  \\-TJ  2  r 2  (9c)  \u00AB \u201E +u V  *\u2022*  *\"|J  2h G 2  (9d)  V, = 2G,  (9e)  '  u  h  1  (9f)  The second moment of the transverse shear stress constitutive equations results in expressions for the pinching shears.  93  \u000C3h 1 u +hw +\u2014u *  2Gh  2  x  3  x  (9g)  zx  3h 1 U +hW +\u2014 z,y'  2Gh  2  (9h)  U  y  y  The plate bending constant, D, takes the form for plane strain. \\h  D -  ,2  2 (  \"\\  (10)  \\-v-2if  Substitution o f the constitutive (9) into the equilibrium equations (8) w i l l yield the governing equations for the plate. It proves useful to define the functions 0 and y/. 0 = ,x+ y,y&gt; U  \u00A5 = U ~U  U  X  xy  (11)  yx  Eliminating q from the transverse equilibrium equations (8c,d) yields the following. 0 + hV w + -V u 2  2  z  =0  (12) 2 \\ 77  \\-V-2T] 2 V &lt;t&gt;= \u2014 U +-. r h {l-v)v 2  &lt;*vv  G  (13)  j KG 15  ?  z  z  Adding the derivatives of equations (8a) and (8b), equilibrium in the plane o f the plate, and using equation (8c) to cancel the shear stress resultants leads to the following: (l + v)v 2  ^-VV z  l-Tj  2  h  (14)  =0  Subtracting the derivatives of equations (8a) and (8b) leads to the following additional condition: V -k ys 2  = 0,  2  \u00A5  k  2  3G^  (15)  hG 2  Decoupling equations (12) through (14), we find a fourth order governing equation for 0 along with the second order equation for y/ given by equation (15).  vv-*, vV = o,  i+i/  2  l-77  30v G 2  z  Jh 7] G 2  (16)  2  The governing equation w i l l be expressed in terms o f the average deflection o f the plate. 1 w=\u2014 2h  z  J  f w + \u2014u  -hL  h  1  (17)  dz = w + \u2014u  1  94  \u000CB y equation (12), we note that &lt;p = -hV w, and we find the following expression for w. 2  V w-k V w 6  2  = 0, where k  4  2  =kl  (18)  Equations (18) and (15) form an 8 -order system, requiring four boundary conditions. th  The first three are the normal and twisting moments and the shear force. The fourth is the 'pinching shear'. For \u00A3 acting along a cut a n d f along the outward normal, these are: M =M , ??  Mf =Mz ,  g?  ?  V =V ,  ?  (  R =R  C  ?  (19)  ?  The functions 0 and ^describe the normal and shear deformations of the plate, and lead to a simple derivation o f the governing equations, but are not convenient for calculating the moments or shear forces. F o r this purpose, one may define a stress function. From equilibrium, we note that a function % must exist such that: V =Z. &gt; x  V =- , .  y  y  (20)  Z x  From the definition of y/, and constitutive equations (9e,f), we find the following. V  2 Z  = 2G y  (21)  zV  A differential equation for % may now be found from equation (16). V Z-kp Z 4  =0  2  (22)  Equations (18), (15), and (22) allow the analysis o f transverse shear stresses and pressurization in plate bending.  4.4 Hyper-singular integral equations In this section, the governing equations are reduced to a hyper-singular integral relating the crack face deflection to the bending stresses along the crack plane. The authors apply the integral transform method used by Erdogan and Joseph [7,8] to analyse a Reissner plate. The Fourier transform of a function and its inverse are defined as follows. oo  -  oo  / = f(x,y) = \u2014 [f\\x,a)e^da  / = f(x,a) = \\f(x,y)e &gt;dy , ia  \u2014oo  (23)  \u2014oo  Applying this transform, the governing equations may be written as ordinary differential equations. (w,xax\u00AB  - 3 \u00AB r w , \u00AB \u00AB +3a w, 2  4  -a w)-kl(w, -2a w, +a*w)=0 6  xx  2  xxxx  (^-\u00ABV)-^&gt; = 0  xx  (24)  (25) 95  \u000CKeeping only the roots that vanish as x \u2014&gt; \u00B0 \u00B0 , one finds the following expressions for w and \\j/.  w = \u2014 [(A, (a)e~  + A {d)xe~  Hx  IK  = \u00B1-  \u00A5  w  2  + A (a)e~ ) e da, Kx  iay  3  R  2 w  = a +k 2  (26)  2 w  J  J(B, ( o r ) * \"  v  e-\"\u00BBda,  )  R  = a +k  2  2  \u00A5  (27)  2 y  Symmetry requires vanishing shear stresses along the line of the crack. Accordingly: M (0,y)  = 0,  xy  V (0,y) = 0,  R (0,y) = 0  x  (28a,b,c)  x  From the constitutive equations, the deflections along the line of the crack are limited as follows: u + hw.x = 0 ,  x,y + y,x = 0 ,  U  U  u  x  zx  =0  (29a,b,c)  One must express these in terms of w and y/. The following arise from (29a): 1  ]_  (30)  2  The first symmetry condition arises from (29a) by substitution from (29b) and (30b). y/+2hw,  xy  =0  (31)  T o find the second symmetry condition, we require an expression for M (0,y) xxx  under  the restrictions (29). The following may be obtained from constitutive equation (9a). 2  1-V-2TJ  r,x  \\  (32)  2  The second symmetry condition w i l l then arise from equilibrium equation (8a). r  \\-v-2r, ^ 2  W, =0  (33)  y  A general equation for the transverse displacement arises from equations 13 and 14. 2  z  /i  z  ,2 V * 1-v  1/ i  1  k  2  v  rs\u201E2 A l - ^  2  J  After taking the derivative, the final symmetry condition may be found from (29c).  96  (34)  \u000C1+ v  f  l-v-2/7  ^  (35)  2  Substitution o f (24) and (25) into symmetry conditions (31), (33), and (35) leads to the following restrictions on the integration constants. fl, + 2h^A a  2  3  i  w  l  3  2 (  a  w  2 A  ia \\-v-2r] \u2014 2h  2A a -KR A + 2  (36a)  - A a +A R a\\ = 0  2  x  V[ 1, +, v , ^  \u201E2 r\\  L  R..A, =  (36b)  IB, = 0  I-77  2  (36c)  kl-v  After some manipulation, we find that A, and A, may be expressed as follows. 1 + v^ A -R A\u201E l-v  oA, =-  2  - L 2h  W  B  = - ^ A l - v  i  (37a,b)  2  The symmetry conditions eliminate all but one integration constant, and the crack face rotation,  = \u2014w, (0, y), may now be written in terms of A (a) . x  2n h - v  2  (38)  2  The last integration constant arises from the boundary condition M^(0,y) but one must first find an expression for either u (0,y) xx  or u (0,y). yy  =-M(y),  Transforming  equation (22) and applying the symmetry conditions, the stress function x is given by: 1  -r-iihG.  ~2x\u00B1kl(l-v)  Z  (39)  .(e^'-e-^e-^da  From constitutive equations (9e,f) we find expressions for u  xx  -  X xy  =  U x,x  2  *\u2022 \u2014-flW,xx,  H, y,y  G  -=  ' -hw  Z  2  (  (0, y) and u  y  (0, y).  (40)  xy  yy  J  From (9a), we now find an expression for the boundary condition M ( y ) = -M(0, y) 4h G 2  M(y) =  u  x x  +\u20140  ^  V  2  J  97  (41)  \u000CA n integral equation arises by substituting for u  x x  and w.  1+v ^ - ^ \\f(.a)A e- *da 7&gt;7T 11 - V J  M(y) = -  (42)  ia  2  J  Here, f(a) 3  f(cc) =  is given as follows.  +  \\  v  Aa {a-R )  \\  2  v  +-  1+v  \u2022+\u2022  k a + v) 2  2n  ,  \u00A3  1-77  a 2  -  a4 A  (43)  Rw J  W e may now form a hyper-singular equation for the crack face rotation. Inverting equation (38) we find an expression for integration constant A . 2  (44)  \\ m e da ,ca  -\u00B1= 1-v  2  3  B y substitution, an integral arises relating the moment to the crack face rotation. . h?E M(y)=\u2014jP(t)  TT,  \\f(a)e \u00B0- da ia  (45)  dt  y)  Note the following integral identities, where K  0  and K  2  are modified Bessel functions  of the second kind. -1  \\ a e ^ d a =  (46a)  {t-y)  o  ^\\Ra e' ^da 2  1  (46b)  (t-y)  o  rflr  a  = \u00B1(K (k\\t-  y\\)-K {k\\t-y\\))+  2  *  0  K (k\\t-  (46c)  y\\)  2  4  JaO-y)  da  1+k (t-y) 2  (46d)  K (k\\t-y\\) 2  2  Applying these identities, equation (45) may be written as a hyper-singular integral. The regular and weakly singular parts have been separated into the functions L  M(y):  -tiE 3^(1  -rf)  [Pit)  1  (t-y)  2  ,*&gt;l-7?  2  2 1+V  98  L (k^-y\\) \u00A5  +  and  1  kl7i UkJ\\t-y\\i dt 2  .  (47)  \u000CThe function L  describes the transverse shear deflections, and function  \u00A5  is the same  expression found by the authors [6] for generalized plane strain plate extension, and accounts for the effects of pressurization near the crack tip. L (z) = ~ \u00A5  L(z) = 2 11 + \u2014  4  +  z 3  z  + 4 ( * (z) - K (z)) + ^ z 2  V /\\  12  1  | | ^ 2 U ) - \u2014  -  z 'J  (48)  K (z)  0  2  (49)  \u2014  z  z  Equation (47) may be written in terms of the bending stress in the outer fibre as follows. -hE  &lt;x(y) =  i7t(\\-v )i  2  (t-yf  l  \\+v  L (k \\t-y\\) \u00A5  kl7i L{k \\t-y\\) dt  +  \u00A5  2  w  (50)  The equivalent equations for the four basic bending models are derived in Appendix D .  4.5 Bending of a cracked plate Here, the shear deformable plate models are solved by expanding the crack face deflection into a series of Chebychev polynomials. W i t h this expansion, a set of collocation points may be chosen to form a linear system, solvable for the expansion coefficients. First one must normalize the bounds  and parameters in the integral  equations. W e define the normalized quantities: h  u(r) = \u2014fi(t), n  r = tla,  a  s = yla,  fc = k a,  K =k a w  w  (51)  Equations (52) through (54) show the normalized form of the hyper-singular integrals for the plane stress shear deformable plate, the plane strain shear deformable plate, and the eighth order plate, respectively 1 2n  (r-sY  \\u(r)  2n(\\-J] ) 2  +  2(1 +  -fj ) 2  1/)  1  w  2  \\  1-77 L (K \\r-s\\) l +v j w  (r-s)\u2014  +  (r-s)  f  v  2 +  (52)  ir  w  r  2  2/r(l  \u2014L {K r-s\\)  Hr  1 + 1/ K Jj L(/c \\r-s\\) 2  2  w  w  99  ir  w  (53)  (54)  \u000CThe crack face deflection may be expanded into Chebyshev polynomials o f the second  (r)) / VTT \", with the weight function W(r) = VTT \". 2  kind, \u00A3/,(/-) = sin((/ + l)cos u(r) =  2  (55)  W(rj\u00A3g U (r) l  i  (=0  The hyper-singular part may be evaluated analytically. (n + l)U (s)  \\s\\&lt;\\  n  -Vi+i  ~ L \u2014 i \u2014 \\ 2 \u2014  d  r  =  i ,  As-Js -i  (56)  2  s&gt;\\  s -\\ 2  Equations (52), (53), and (54) may now be written in terms of the expansion. CT (s) = b  g. -\u00B1\u00B1U (s)^ 4x(l + v) to [ 2 4^(1+ i  X-lf  to  { 2  E  A  2  11  7 7  V  (57)-  [L (K \\r-s\\W(r)U (rydr  l  \u00A5  r  t  (58)  4x1 1 + v I_J  '  2  1=0  V  4/r 2 2 27t  I(^(^^-^(^..(ryr v  (59)  1  JL^r-slWirW^dr  Analytical solutions exist for the logarithmic parts o f Z y ( z ) and L ( z ) , but the regular w  parts require numerical integration. The term V , . includes the logarithmic singularity and l  may be solved analytically, as demonstrated by Joseph and Erdogan [7] and by Wang and Rose [9]. T o evaluate the regular part, the authors used Gauss-Chebychev quadrature, as suggested by Joseph and Erdogan. i  L'j = jlL^fC^-s^-M^-s^isWjisyJs  + V.j  (60)  -i i  (61)  100  \u000C- r , ' \u00B1 ln2|j 2 ' T (r l it TM) +  V,, = flnlr. - s\\W(s)U . (s)ds = \\ .  I  1  7=0  +  ]+2  j  (62)  t)  j  &gt;  q  7 + 2 'j  Selecting collocation points s,, a linear system arises, solvable for the coefficients,  gj.  V =Ag  (63)  b  For the three bending models, the coefficient matrix may be expressed as follows. i +l 4tf(l + v)  (64)  i J  u. 11+\" J  (65) J  2 \\  E  1-/7 l+v  jiff  _  2 ^wH  2 jw  (66)  Equations (57), (58), and (59) are valid along the entire line x = 0, and allow the evaluation of the stresses near the crack tip. A s for plate extension, the only terms containing a V r singularity arise from the hyper-singular part of the equation. These terms may be found by examining integral identity equation (56) for the region outside of the crack domain. The results for plane stress and plane strain bending (equations (67) and (68) respectively) follow from the stress-based definition of the stress intensity. The result reported is for the stress intensity in the outer fibre of the plate. K = lim  fixaJr-Y)^  (0, r) =  2  r_&gt;  U, (1) =  (i  8l  ,  Z  = 0  +  l)g,  (67)  i=0  , =j\u2122V^^(o, )^I, /,a,=^Io- o, r  (  +  (68)  For the 8 -order model, in the evaluation of the part of the stress field containing the th  *Jr singularity, the stresses and crack face displacements are related by the equations that arise in the analysis of plane strain plate extension, meaning that the crack tip singular stress field exists in a state of plane strain. This is analogous to the result of Kotousov and Wang [5] for extension of cracked plates. Equations (67) and (68) allow the evaluation of the stress intensity for the various plate bending models. Table 4-1 shows properties for selected transversely isotropic materials that will be used to evaluate them.  101  \u000CE  Material  V  (GPa)  (GPa)  (1) Isotropic  71.0  0.5  -  0.5  (2) Isotropic  71.0  0.33  -  0.33  (3) Isotropic  71.0  0.1  -  0.1  (4) Quasi-isotropic boron/epoxy  106  0.12  25  0.028  (5) Transversely loaded unidirectional boron/epoxy  25  0.019  210  0.21  Table 4-1: Material properties used to test the GPS model Figure 4-2 shows stress intensity results for the plane stress shear deformable bending model, which are normalized to the nominal result K  0  = a *Jm h  and plotted against the  crack length.  0.9  $2  0.8  c  Q&gt;  (0 (0 0)  0.7 + \u2022isotropic 0.1  +-&gt;  CO  isotropic 0.3  0.6  isotropic 0.5 \u2022 quasi-iso boron/epoxy - transverse boron/epoxy  0.5 0.01  0.1  1  10  100  Crack Length (a/h)  Figure 4-2: Stress intensities for shear deformable plane stress bending For a very long crack, the stress intensity reaches a limit that can be calculated according to the following argument. Large stress gradients and hence large shear forces only exist near the crack tip. Thus, for a long crack, shear deflections have a vanishing contribution to the deflection well away from the crack tip, and the plane stress plate model gives the correct result. The strain energy release rate for an increment in crack growth is proportional to the work done by the applied stress on the crack face, which may be calculated considering the deflection given by equation (1). For the plane stress  102  \u000Cshear-deformable plate, the crack tip is in plane stress, and the limit stress intensity follows. (69) The stress intensity result may be plotted against a normalized crack-length, defined as: 3+v  (70)  Applying the normalized crack length and the long crack limit stress intensity, the difference between the plane stress and the plane stress shear deformable plate solutions for stress intensity (i.e. denoted  K) d  collapses onto one curve for all of the tested  materials. K =  {K/K )-\\ 0  (71)  d  \\3 + v  g 0.75  -  U C  a&gt; a&gt; 3= Q  'iii c 0) c  -  0.5 \u2022  -  (0 (0  a&gt; 0.25 CO  0.01  0.1  1  10  Normalized Crack Length (c)  Figure 4-3: Stress intensity difference plotted against normalized crack length  103  100  \u000CUsing a statistical analysis package, equation (72) was fit to K . Figure 4-3 shows that d  this approximate model fits the data reasonably well, with an error not exceeding 2.5% . J.2  K  d  =  (72)  c^+3.5  This relationship can be developed into an expression for a geometry correction factor. c  f  Y= \u2014  = 1-  k  1 2  1+ v  v  (73)  3+ v  &lt; +3.5 2  Similar results may be found for the crack face displacement at the outer fibre of the plate and the centre of the crack. Figure 4-4 shows this displacement normalized to the result for plane stress bending, u = 2a al 0  1  h  Eh.  T  0.9  3 0.8 4| 0.7 + JS Q.  5 0.6 + &lt;D O fl  isotropic 0.1  3n 0.5  isotropic 0.3  +  isotropic 0.5 - \u2022 - quasi-iso boron/epoxy  0.4  - A - transverse boron/epoxy  0.3  I  0.01  I  1\u2014l_L  0.1  10  100  Crack length (a/h)  Figure 4-4: Crack face displacements for shear-deformable plane stress bending The following normalization collapses these results onto one curve (Figure 4-5). _ u = d  (u/u )-\\ 0  l+v 3+v  (74)  -1  104  \u000C1  \u2014 i  T-t  o isotropic 0.1 A isotropic 0.3 o isotropic 0.5  ^0.75  \u2022 quasi-isotropic boron/epoxy \u2022 transverse boron/epoxy  u c  V  \u2014 model  &lt;D i\u2014  0)  !t  2 0.5 c  -  Of  V  0)  E  -  o \u00AB  I  0.25  \u2022  \u2022'  \u2022  M&amp;W&amp;M ytUt^Mv^^  0.01  i  1, . i . . i i i i  1  0.1  !  i  10  100  Normalized crack length (c)  Figure 4-5: Difference in crack face displacements plotted against crack length Once again, one may develop a simple model that fits the data remarkably well. \u00A5  (75)  This relationship can be developed into a geometry correction factor, Y  d  Y  d  =  \u2014  1-  = \\  1+ v  (76)  3+ v  Very similar results are found for the plane strain shear deformable plate. The limit stress intensity factor, crack length normalization,  and geometry correction factors  follow. cr a(\\-ri ) 2  K  0  = c r  h  s [ n n  u =2  ,  h  1+v \\-rf  (77a,b)  0  \\3 + v-2r]  1+v -K &gt;  3 + V-2/7  0  105  2  Ur.  (78a,b)  \u000C3 + V-27]  2  (79)  1+ v V  ,12  Y = \u2014 = lK  ,1.2  k  0  ,1.3  Y =-  = l-  d  ,1.3  + 3.5  1+ v 2  A  Y  + 5X  (80)  3 + v - 2rj  1-  1+ v  (81)  3 + V-2/7'  It was found above that the crack tip is effectively in a state of plane strain, and that the crack face displacement away from the crack tip w i l l approach the displacement given by the plane stress model as the crack length gets very large. The developed 8 -order th  bending formulation allows one to investigate this varying effect of shear and transverse deformations on bending of a cracked plate. Figure 4-6 shows the stress intensity results obtained for the five trial materials analysed. The solid lines are the values obtained from the approximate model that will be developed over the next few pages. The points are data generated by solution of the hyper-singular equation for generalized plane strain plate bending. The nominal solutions follow: &lt;V*(l-?7 ) 2  K = o 4~na , 0  (82)  h  1.1  0.9 (0  c CO  (0  (0  0.8 o A o 0.7 \u2022 A \u2014 0.6 + \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 0.5 0.01  isotropic 0.1 isotropic 0.3 isotropic 0.5 quasi-iso b/epoxy trans b/epoxy isotropic 0.1 model isotropic 0.3 model isotropic 0.5 model quasi-iso b/epoxy model trans b/epoxy model  A A  * o  0.1  10  C r a c k length, a/h  Figure 4-6: Stress intensity for 8th-order plate bending formulation  106  100  \u000CTransverse deformations (the difference between plane stress and plane strain) result in larger stress intensities, whereas shear deflections decrease the stress intensity and ultimately have a larger effect as crack length increases. The true stress intensity arises as a result of the combination of these effects. For an isotropic plate with a large Poisson's ratio, the increase in stress intensity is large enough and occurs at a short enough crack length that it results in a net increase in stress intensity for cracks somewhat smaller than the thickness of the plate. Figure 4-7 shows similar results for the crack face displacement. 1.2 oo o 3  \"3 c 0)  E 0.8 a&gt; o ro o. (A  \"\u20225 o (B  o a  o A 0.6 4- o \u2022 A \u2014 \u2014 0.4 \u2014 \u2014 \u2014  isotropic 0.1 isotropic 0.3 isotropic 0.5 quasi-iso boron/epoxy transverse boron/epoxy) isotropic 0.1 model isotropic 0.3 model isotropic 0.5 model quasi-iso boron/epoxy transverse boron/epoxy  0.2 0.01  0.1  1 C r a c k length, a/h  10  100  Figure 4-7: Crack face displacement for 8th-order plate bending formulation N o convenient normalization exists to collapse these results, but they do approach a limit as crack length increases. The stress intensity and crack face displacement for a long crack follow.  K.  \\\\ + v K V3 + vJ \u2014f  1+ v  n  \\-rf  ,  A  3+ v  l-V  (83a,b)  Figures 4-8 and 4-9 show the generalized plane strain model results normalized to these limit values. The results are plotted against a normalized crack length. |3 + v r  5  (84)  \u00B0 ~^vT+7 v  107  \u000Co isotropic 0.1 A isotropic 0.3 0.75  o*  o isotropic 0.5  of  \u2022 quasi-iso boron/epoxy  CD  o*\u00B0*\u00B0 \u00B0 \u00B0  \u00B0  A trans boron/epoxy  u c d)  N o r m a l i z e d c r a c k length, c  Figure 4-8: Stress intensity difference plotted against normalized crack length  o4 o ^ o i  +o* o  o isotropic 0.1 0.75  of o  oA o 1  A isotropic 0.3 o isotropic 0.5 \u2022 quasi-isotropic boron/epoxy  V  o c tt)  A transverse boron/epoxy  B  0.5 OA o  N o r m a l i z e d c r a c k length, c  Figure 4-9: Crack face displacement plotted against normalized crack length  108  \u000CCorrection factors for the generalized plane strain plate arise by multiplication of the correction factors for shear and transverse deformation. This is indicated by the form of equations (83a,b). For stress intensity, the correction factor is given by the following: f  4  17=1V  Y  1.5  Y  w  k  (85)  V  ( Y =l +  2  u  5  +1.5 , A.  (86)  1-  (87)  K = Y 'Y \"K k  k  0  A similar result may be found for the crack face displacement as shown below. 1.3  y;=i-  ,1.3  J 5  y ; = i+  v1-  1+ v  (88)  3+ v  Y (89)  V^ +2.5 A 5  (90)  u = Y*Y u w  d  0  Equations (85) and (88) only account for transverse shear deformations, and hence one should use the normalized crack length given by c  w v  = KA  \\3 + v  W  . Note that this should  ^Vl+v  not be confused with the normalization given by equation (84) which includes a term to account for pressurization. Figures 4-8 and 4-9 show the results obtained by this method. Equations (87) and (90) allow for a simple engineering analysis for bending of cracked finite thickness plates. A n additional result is that the crack tip is observed to be in a state of plane strain, regardless of plate thickness. In the next section, we w i l l develop a model for a crack bridged by springs, and use these newly developed correction factors for stress intensity, strain energy release rate, and crack face displacement to develop design equations for bridged cracks in plates of arbitrary thickness.  4.6 Comparison to three dimensional finite element results In this section, the thickness-averaged stress intensity and the crack face displacement are compared to the results of a three-dimensional finite element model. The A N S Y S finite element software package was used to analyse bending of a 20 m m crack in an isotropic plate with a Poisson's ratio of 0.495. The plate thickness was varied from 1 m m  109  \u000Cto 64 mm, and both the width and height of a quarter-section of the plate were set at 600 mm, sufficient to minimize the effects finite plate dimensions on the through-thickness averaged bending stress intensity. A coarse model of the plate employs 4 elements through the thickness of the plate, with a finer sub-model employing 10 elements being used in the region of the crack tip. Figure 4-10 shows the planar element distribution for both the coarse model and fine sub-model.  (a) sub model  (b) full model  Figure 4-10: Finite element map showing boundary conditions The crack tip elements are 20-noded solid brick elements collapsed into quarter-point singular wedges. These elements have an edge length of 1.0 mm, which by numerical experimentation was determined to be the smallest element size that could be reasonably used for this crack length. In the numerical experiments, the finite element stress intensity factor results with different sized crack tip elements were compared to the exact plane strain results. The 1 m m crack tip elements lead to an underestimate of the stress intensity of 2.8%. The results presented below were corrected to account for this error. During this verification process, the nodes of the three-dimensional finite element model were constrained in the thickness direction, and a membrane stress was applied to the edge of the model. The stress intensity factor was calculated by the displacement-interpolation method using the displacement of the crack face nodes nearest the crack tip [10, equation 2]. A stress-based  method was not used because of problems with oscillations occurring  through the thickness of the plate, a problem that has been observed by others. Note that in the displacement-interpolation method, as is common in the three-dimensional analysis of cracks, the crack tip is assumed to be in a state of plane strain and the stress intensity is calculated based upon the theoretical plane-strain solution of the displacement of the crack faces. The plate-averaged bending stress intensity factor was calculated by least-  110  \u000Csquares regression to results for each plane of nodes through the thickness of the plate at the crack tip. In this calculation, the nodes at the surface of the plate were given one half the weighting of interior nodes. Figure 4-11 shows the through-thickness variation of the stress-intensity factor for a selected set of the finite element results. 1.0 j  y*&gt;-+  0.9 -  / /  0.8 -  \u2022y? /  /  1 /  /  i^y^x  o.6 %  0.5-j - \u00BB - 2 h = 2 mm ^&gt;-2h = 8 mm ^ 2 h = 32 mm  - a - 2 h = 128 mm 0.0  0  .  1  1  1  1  20  40  60  80  100  k [MPaVmm]  Figure 4-11: Through-thickness variation of the stress intensity Note that the effect of the free edge is apparent at the edge of the plate, resulting in a somewhat reduced stress intensity factor at this location. This effect has been noted by many others [e.g. 3], and its characterization requires a higher order analysis than that presented in this chapter. It is also well known that at the intersection of the crack and the free edge of the plate, the singular stress field does not observe the classical l / V r singularity except for the special case of v = 0 . Figure 4-12 shows the bending stress intensity factor at the edge of the plate as determined by a least-squared fit to the slope of the through-thickness finite element results. The result is compared to the bending stress intensity factor determined by the geometry correction factors for the sixth- and eighthorder models described above. For comparison, additional displacement-interpolation method finite element results are shown in which the crack tip is assumed to exist in a state of plane stress.  Ill  \u000C85  50  -I  ,  ,  ,  0.01  0.1  1  10  1 100  a/h Figure 4-12: Theoretical and finite element bending stress intensities It is readily apparent that the  new eighth-order  model provides a significant  improvement for short cracks in thick plates. For long cracks in thin plates, the results are more difficult to explain and the accuracy of the proposed model is difficult to verify. When comparing the plane stress based displacement-interpolation finite element method to the 6 -order model results, the finite element model predicts a higher stress intensity. th  This demonstrates that some degree of local stiffening and load attraction is occurring that is not predicted by the 6-th order models. Comparing the plane strain based finite element results to the S^-order model, the finite element results are also seen to be higher. The reason for this is that the displacement field predicted using a plane strain model is not identical to that predicted using the 8 -order model except for very short cracks in th  thick plates, particularly as regards the regular and weakly-singular terms in the generalized plane strain formulation. Here, the finite element results must be seen to be in error, as the 8 -order results represent an upper-bound on the actual stress intensity. The th  true solution should lie between the plane-stress based finite element results and the results predicted by the 8 -order model. th  It is possible to show that, as regards the generalized plane strain plate bending singular stress field, the crack tip is in a state of plane strain regardless of the thickness of the plate. Beginning with either of equations (8d) or (9c), it is possible to show that:  112  \u000CB y the method used to determine M (y) in section 4.4, it can also be shown that: Ah Gv  i'  Pit)  \u2022 + weakly singular + reg. terms W  (92)  (t-y)  :  Comparing with (47) and noting that M^(y)  =-M(y),  the singular stresses at the  crack tip are found to obey the following relationship: = 2v,  (93)  A t the crack tip the singular parts of o'^  and a  are equal in magnitude, and  accordingly the generalized plane strain model predicts that, in terms of the plateaveraged quantities  and M^,  the singular stresses at the crack tip exist in a state of  plane strain. This is only true as regards the singular stresses in a small region close to the crack tip, and is in accord with the exact eigenfunction expansion results of Hartranft and Sin [11]. Significant differences between the finite element and the generalized plane strain plate bending model results were noted above which would not be expected i f the crack tip were in a state of pure plane strain. It is possible that the finite element method used is sensitive to the lower-order terms. It is also possible that for very thin plates, the boundary layer at the plate edges begins to become large when compared to the dimensions of the singular region at the crack tip and the region dominated by purely plane strain conditions decreases in size. For the purposes of this chapter, it is unfortunate that the standard finite element approaches to stress intensity factor determination are built upon the assumption of the validity of the plane stress or plane strain states (i.e. classical models) and that a significant amount of engineering judgement is required in order to interpret the results. Figure 4-13 shows a similar improvement in the prediction of the crack  face  displacement at the centre of the crack. Note that the results are very good for both short cracks in thick plates and long cracks in thin plates. Here, the results for the deflection of the crack face at the outer fibre of the plate are also fitted to the slope of the finite element results. Unlike the determination of the stress intensity factor, these results are not subject to interpretation.  113  \u000C6E-06  OE+00 H 0.01  .  \u2022  1  1  0.1  1  10  100  a/h Figure 4-13: Theoretical andfiniteelement model crack face deflections  4.7 Bending of reinforced cracked plates Here we consider the action of springs bridging the crack, developing a line-spring model for a generalized plane strain plate under bending. Figure 4-14 shows a cracked plate in bending reinforced by springs. The goal here is to determine the bending stress intensity for the reinforced crack and to calculate the moment carried by the springs bridging the crack, such that the strength of the plate can be determined.  114  \u000CM or a  b  U U 0 &lt;J (j 0 U U (j M or a  k  Figure 4-14: A bending crack reinforced by springs To account for crack bridging, equation (59) may be modified to include a stress due to the reinforcing springs, which acts to restrict the motion of the crack faces. Here, k  s  is  the line-spring stiffness, or stress generated by the springs on the outer fibre of the plate per unit deflection of the crack surfaces. This definition of the bending spring stiffness leads to line-spring equations with a similar form to that found by Clark and R o m i l l y for plate extension [6].  c (s)\u2014ak u(s) b  =  s  Expanding u(r)  -E  \\u(r)  2n(\\-r] ): L  -,)  2  2  +  1+v  M  ' V  A  (94)  JC Tj L(/c \\r-s\\) 2  2  w  w  and choosing a set of collocation points, equation (94) w i l l reduce to  the linear system cr = Ag . Here, A is expressed as follows, and includes a term to h  account for the springs. r  1  i i +  2  ( 1-/7 2 N 1+ v  2 2 In  , J  +  ak W( )Uj( ) 5  Si  Si  (95)  The generalized plane strain plate bending problem may now be solved for the case of a cracked plate bridged by springs. The stress intensity may be calculated from the expansion coefficients using equation (68). Figure 4-15 shows results for a cracked isotropic plate with cr =10 MPa, h  v = 0.5 and \u00A3 = 72.4 GPa. The results are plotted  for a wide range of spring stiffnesses, as shown in the legend.  115  \u000C2 - - - no springs \u2014\u2022\u20140.1 GPa/mm 1 GPa/mm \u2014 A \u2014 10 GPa/mm \u2014A\u2014100  GPa/mm  \u2014x\u20141000 GPa/mm  P3P5\u2014x\u2014x-!-x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x^-x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014\u00BBi\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x\u2014x 0 0.01  0.1  10  100  Normalized Crack Length (a/h)  Figure 4-15: Stress intensity from the line spring model A s was the case for plate extension, it is apparent that stiffer springs lead to lower stress intensities, reaching a limit for long cracks. Applying the method of Rose [12,13], one may analytically determine the limit strain energy release rate for a very long crack. In this case, we examine the strain energy release rate at the outer fibre of the plate. In the limit of a very long crack reinforced by springs, the energy available for crack growth is given solely by considering the energy balance in the springs bridging the crack under the applied (nominal) bending stresses. The strain energy release rate may be expressed as follows: (96) The equations governing bending are identical to those found for extension. A s the crack tip has been shown to exist in a state of plane strain, the limit stress intensity may now be found. (97) A n effective crack length may also be defined, including factors to correct for plate geometry.  116  \u000C(98)  eff  l  Figure 16 shows the generalized plane strain results normalised with respect to these two theoretical limits. Note that as the crack becomes longer, the stress intensity limit is obeyed. Based on equation 97, the use of the 6 -order Riessner formulation would lead to th  an error in the determination of the long-crack limit stress intensity analogous to the difference between plane stress and plane strain, i.e. on the order of a 5% to 10% increase for most metals.  0.0001  0.001  0.01  0.1  1  10  100  1000  Normalized Crack Length (a/a ) etf  Figure 4-16: Normalized stress intensity plotted against crack length It is also possible to define an interpolation for stress intensity between the limit states of a very short and a very long crack. For a short crack one may use equation (87), developed for an un-reinforced crack. In the long crack limit, the stress intensity w i l l approach that determined by equation (97). The stress intensity for an arbitrary crack length follows.  JC, = Y~Y 'a, k  K aaeff  (99)  1  a + aeff  From equations (98) and (99), the transverse shear correction factor (based on the 6 th  order models) w i l l have a large role for moderately short cracks reinforced by relatively weak springs. In this case, based upon the previous analysis of an unreinforced crack, the  117  \u000Cinclusion of the correction factor may improve the accuracy of the interpolation model by as much as 60%. The effectiveness of the interpolation model for bending may be tested against the line spring model. Figure 4-17 compares the stress intensity predicted by equation (99) normalized with respect to values determined by numerical analysis. The interpolation model is observed to lead- to results that are low by up to 5%, a difference that has also been found for extension of reinforced plates. This over-riding trend in the error is principally due to the form of the interpolation model, but other trends may be noted that result from the interaction of the geometry correction factors and the numerical linespring model. For long cracks, the numerical model cannot accurately model the crack tip and tends to over-predict the stress intensity. A t the same time, shear effects (modelled by the shear correction factor) act to reduce the stress intensity at the crack tip. The observed oscillations are due to the interaction between these effects. 1.02  (0  oc &gt;. \"c5 Q)  C  10 CO  a&gt;  0.0001  0.001  0.01  0.1  1  10  100  1000  Normalized Crack Length (a/a ) eff  Figure 4-17: Stress intensity predicted by line-spring and interpolation models One may apply the same methods to the crack face displacements. Figure 4-18 shows crack-face displacements from the line-spring model. For weak springs, they approach the nominal solution for an un-reinforced crack. The long crack limit is evident for cracks bridged by stiff springs.  118  \u000C0.1  1  10  Normalized crack length (a/h)  Figure 4-18: Crack face displacement for various spring stiffnesses The long-crack limit crack face deflection is u = cr lk . x  b  s  The displacement for short  cracks is given by equation (90). A simple interpolation between these limits is given by: uu  u +u\u201E 0  (2Y Yj(\\-7 )alE\\\\lk ) w  0  _  2  d  1  s  (2Y;Yf(l-rj )a/E)+{\\/k )  CJ  b  (  1  0  0  )  k +E/(2Y;Yf(\\-rj )a)  2  2  s  s  Figure 4-19 shows the ratio of the interpolation model and line-spring model results for crack displacement. This simple interpolation results in an error not exceeding 7%.  119  \u000CThe maximum moment carried by the springs is given by equation (101). (101) Knowledge of this moment can be used to predict rupture or fatigue degradation of the spring materials (e.g. patch repair materials) bridging the crack faces.  4.8 Discussion Similar to the case for extension of cracked plates, for plates in bending the crack tip is subject to very large stress gradients that induce pressurization of the plate near the crack. A s for extension, this pressurization stiffens the plate locally in the region of the crack tip, effectively increasing the local stresses and reducing the overall crack  face  deflections from what would be predicted by models that neglect the build-up of transverse stresses. Different from the case of extension of cracked plates, in the solution of plate bending problems, the transverse shear stresses enter into the equilibrium equations and are accompanied by shear deflections. This additional set of loads and deflections requires the adoption of a higher-order plate model to obtain an accurate solution, particularly for thick plates and plates experiencing large stress gradients. The 8 -order plate model developed in this chapter is the simplest possible model that can th  120  \u000Cinclude both of these effects, and has been used to develop a line-spring model which may now be used anywhere that line-spring models based on classical plate models have been applied, for example in the analysis of bonded composite repairs, surface cracks, crack tip plasticity, and crack closure. The stresses at the base of a crack in bending, expressed in terms of the moment stress resultant, have been shown to exist in generalized plane strain conditions. This study has developed a set of standard engineering geometry correction factors to describe the effects of plate thickness and transverse material properties on the stress intensity and crack face deflection, allowing for a simple and accurate analysis of through-cracks in finite thickness plates. The correction factors account for transverse shear deflections and the effects of transverse stresses caused by curvatures in the stress field in the plane of the plate. This is an important phenomenon in the, analysis of cracks, which contain very large stress gradients. These results are of particular significance for the analysis of bridged cracks, where strain energy release rate arguments are used to determine the stress intensity at the reinforced crack tip, and an appropriate conversion factor is required to determine the stress intensity. These results are in accord with the exact eigenfunction expansion results of Hartranft and Sih [11] and Hartranft [14], who found that the through-thickness stresses are singular and that plane strain conditions should exist at the crack tip, a property which is not possessed by many other approximate theories. Lower-order plate bending theories are also not capable of modelling the local 'stiffening' effect caused by this region of generalized plane strain, and the authors see the 8 -order model as an excellent engineering approach due to its relative ease of th  application and the ability to capture the relevant phenomena in a conservative but reasonably accurate manner. A s for extension, the long-crack limit stress intensity factor and the interpolation model developed by Rose offer a very effective method for the analysis of bending of bridged cracks. The interpolation model for the stress intensity in a repaired crack has been shown to be accurate within 5%, a similar result to that found for extension of reinforced cracks [15,16]. This error is principally attributed to the approximate nature of the interpolation model, and not to the correction factors introduced in this chapter. A t its worst, the interpolation model result for the crack face deflection is low by approximately 7%, a difference which should be accounted for when using the model to predict rupture or fatigue degradation of the spring materials bridging the crack. It is important to note that this study has not addressed the subject of crack closure and crack face interaction, a limitation that is general to any basic cracked-plate plate bending theory. It is widely known that such an interaction will act to reduce the bending stress intensity factor at the tension side of the plate [e.g. 17]. The study of this effect requires the superposition of extensional and bending models for cracked plates, and nonlinear  121  \u000Canalysis is required to determine the area of contact of the crack surfaces. Several approaches exist to address this problem, including the use of line-spring models'[8]. The authors have applied the 8 -order plate bending model to the analysis of linear coupled th  bending and extension of reinforced cracks in a recently accepted paper [15] that could easily be extended to such a nonlinear analysis.  4.9 Concluding remarks The authors have developed a high-order plate model and by the method of integral transforms have developed a hyper-singular integral equation useful for the bending analysis of plates containing cracks. The model allows for the inclusion of both shear i,  deformations of the plate and pressurization of the crack tip under the extreme stress gradients induced by the presence of a crack. The resulting line-spring model and engineering analysis equations for through-cracks and reinforced cracks are applicable to a wide range of plate fracture problems and provide a significant improvement in accuracy over models based on the classical plate models, and thus should be should be widely adopted.  4.10 References [1] Reissner E . The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates. Journal of Applied Mechanics 12, 1945, A69-77 [2] M i n d l i n R . D . Influence of rotary inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic, elastic plates. Journal of Applied Mechanics 18, 1951, 31-38 [3] S i h G . C . A review of the three-dimensional stress problem for a cracked plate, International Journal of Fracture 7, 1971, 39-61 [4] Kotousov A . and Wang C H . Fundamental solutions for the generalised plane strain theory. International Journal of Engineering Science 40, 2002, 1775-1790 [5] Kotousov A . and Wang C H . A generalized plane strain theory for transversally isotropic plates. Acta Mechanica 161, 2003, 53-64 [6] Clark R . J . and R o m i l l y D . P . Reinforced cracks in transversally isotropic generalized pane strain plates. T o be submitted to: Engineering Fracture Mechanics. [7] Joseph P.F. and Erdogan F. Plates and shells containing a surface crack under general loading conditions. N A S A contractor report 178232, N A S A Langley Research Centre, 1987. [8] Joseph P.F. and Erdogan F. Surface crack problems in plates. International Journal of Fracture 41, 1989, 105-131 [9] Wang C H . and Rose L . R . F . A crack bridging model for bonded plates subjected to tension and bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures 36, 1999, 1985-201 [10] He W . J . , L i n Y . , and D i n g H . J . A three-dimensional formula for determining stress intensity factors in finite element analysis of cracked bodies. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 57, 1997, 409-415  122  \u000C[11] Hartranft R . J . and S i h G . C . The use of eigenfunction expansions in the general solution of three-dimensional crack problems. Journal of mathematics and mechanics. 19, 1969,123-138. [12] Rose L . R . F . A cracked plate repaired by bonded reinforcements. Journal of Fracture 18, 1982, 135-144  International  [13] Rose L . R . F . Theoretical Analysis of crack patching. In: A . A . Baker and R. Jones (eds.) Bonded Repair of Aircraft Structures. Martinus Nijhoff, 1988, 77-105 [14] Hartranft R . J . Improved approximate theories of the bending and extension of flat plates. In: G . C . S i h (ed.), Mechanics of Facture 3 - Plates and Shells with Cracks, Noordhoff, 1977, 45-83. [15] Clark R.J. and R o m i l l y D . P . Linear coupled bending and extension of an unbalanced bonded repair. Accepted by: International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2006. [16] Clark R . J . and R o m i l l y D . P . Fatigue damage prediction for bonded composite repairs applied to metallic aircraft structures. S A E Transactions - Journal of Aerospace, paper #2001-01-26, 2001 [17] L i u R., Zhang T., W u X . J . , Wang C H . Determination of stress intensity factors for a cracked shell under bending with improved shell theories. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, A S C E , 19(1), 2006, 21-28  123  \u000CChapter 5: Linear coupled bending and extension of a bonded repair R.J. Clark and D . P . R o m i l l y University of British Columbia Department of Mechanical Engineering  5.1 Introduction A n unbalanced repair is a composite patch bonded to one side of a cracked structure for the purpose of preventing or reducing damage growth in the substrate. A single-sided repair offsets the load path within the structure, inducing out-of-plane bending. This bending increases the stress intensity of the underlying crack and causes adhesive peel stresses and bending of the repair which can, relative to a repair that is restrained against bending, lead to early failure. In this chapter the authors correct the analysis of Wang and Rose [1], developed by using an energy analysis of a single-sided or unbalanced repair applied to a very long crack, to comply with M a x w e l l ' s reciprocal theorem and to account for transverse normal and shear stresses at the crack tip and the accompanying shear deflections. The authors then develop closed-form equations useful for bonded composite repair design and damage tolerance assessment of cracks of arbitrary length by developing a new method for interpolation between this long-crack limit and a shortcrack limit based on the stress intensity and crack face displacements for an unreinforced crack. The interpolation method is then tested against an advanced line-spring model that has been created by using a 6 extension and a new 8  th  th  order generalized plane strain plate formulation in  order formulation in bending, thus allowing for the inclusion of  transverse shear and normal stresses. The closed-form equations are found to be accurate when compared to the line-spring model, and to provide reasonable results when compared to a three-dimensional finite element model of a bonded repair. Inaccuracies are shown to exist principally in the determination of the nominal stresses in the vicinity of the crack. A bonded composite repair consists of a filamentary composite reinforcement that is bonded to a damaged or weakened structure to reduce stresses and prevent or reduce continuing damage growth. Such repairs are an effective method by which to extend the  A version of this chapter has been published. R.J. Clark, D.P. Romilly, \"Linear coupled bending and extension of an unbalanced bonded repair\", International Journal of Solids and Structures, v 44, 2007, p 3156-3176.  124  \u000Clife of aircraft structures, offering advantages in effectiveness, weight, profile, application time, cost, and inspectability when compared to mechanically fastened repairs. Bonded composite repairs have seen significant use in military applications but limited use in civil aviation, primarily due to certification issues. Repairs to primary or structurally significant aircraft structures are required to meet Damage Tolerance (DT) requirements, which  are outlined in F A A Circular 25.571-1C (1998), effectively requiring an  assessment of the residual life of the part and the development of an inspection schedule suitable for the detection of damage before the failure of the structure. Accordingly, models are required for the prediction of the fatigue life and residual strength of repaired structures. In this chapter, the authors develop closed-form equations for the analysis of an unbalanced repair, where the patch is bonded to only one side of a cracked structure, and induces out-of-plane bending by offsetting the load path. Bending increases the stress intensity in the underlying crack and causes adhesive peel stresses and bending of the repair that, i f not properly accounted for in the analysis, could lead to premature failure.  Figure 5-1: Repair configurations: balanced (top) and unbalanced (bottom) A significant body of work exists for the analysis of bonded composite repairs, which can be separated into two broad classes, balanced or double-sided repairs and unbalanced or single-sided repairs (Figure 5-1). Closed-form equations useful for composite repair design and damage tolerance analysis have existed for some time for balanced repairs, in which patches are applied to both sides of a cracked plate or in which the repaired plate exhibits a large degree of bending restraint due to underlying structure. The most significant contributions have been from Rose [2-4], who established an upper limit on  125  \u000Cthe stress intensity for a very long reinforced crack by means of an energy analysis. B y using this long-crack solution as an upper limit and the nominal, or unreinforced solution as a short-crack limit, Rose developed a very effective interpolation for cracks of arbitrary length. Wang and Rose [5] have demonstrated that for extension of reinforced plates the long-crack limit needs to be modified to account for the plane strain conditions present at the crack tip. Clark and R o m i l l y [6] have developed a generalized plane strain line-spring model for plate extension and developed a set of geometry correction factors for finite thickness plates which allows for accurate determination of both the stress intensity and crack opening displacement in balanced repairs. The closed-form equations of Rose have been adapted to the analysis of repairs with finite planar dimensions v i a the inclusion analogy [2], with significant shear lag in the composite patch [7,8], for partially disbonded repairs [9,10], and for tapered repairs [11]. These closed-form methods allow for simplified damage tolerance analysis, reliability assessment, and design optimization of repairs. There is much interest in the application of unbalanced repairs, as often only one face of a structure is exposed. Often the interior structure of the aircraft does not provide restraint against bending, and application of the repair w i l l result in significant out-of plane loading due to a shift in the neutral axis. For balanced repairs, failure typically occurs by progressive cracking and adhesive disbonding. Composite fibre and matrix failures are rare except in the presence of compressive loading or bending induced by geometric details or lack of restraint. For unbalanced repairs, composite failure mechanisms such as interply delamination and fracture are more likely to occur in conjunction with cracking and disbonding. Jones, Chiu, and Smith [12] have reviewed the failure modes and damage locations observed in both laboratory and in-service military use of bonded repairs. They conclude that, besides substrate cracking and cohesive disbonding, damage tolerance assessment should include fibre failure, adhesive failure, cohesive failure at the patch-adhesive interface, adhesive failure at the adhesive-substrate interface, plus interlaminar failure and delamination. These aspects are reflected in the F A A circular, which requires the assessment of the repaired structure, adhesive, and composite repair, including impact damage, inter-ply delamination, and adhesive disbonding. T o streamline the design and certification of repairs, particularly single-sided repairs, closed-form methods are needed to assess the effects of bending on the rate of failure of the repaired structure, but perhaps more importantly, methods are required to assess the life and strength of the repair itself under bending and transverse normal (peel) stresses. Many studies have been carried out in an effort to characterize the effect of bending. The first result is due to Ratwani [13] who developed a bending correction factor by adding the bending stress expected in the outer fibre of the plate to the nominal stresses in the crack plane, allowing the results for a symmetric repair to be applied to a one-sided  126  \u000Crepair. Early finite element studies by Jones [e.g. 7,8] set out the framework by which two-dimensional finite element models of plates can be extended to the analysis of adhesively bonded layered plates. Several studies have focussed on producing numerical methods such as three-layer finite element analyses [14,15], boundary element methods [16], or automated damage growth in fully three-dimensional models [e.g. 17] in order to predict the life of a repaired structure. The focus of this chapter is the development of closed-form methods that are easily adaptable to damage tolerance or reliability analysis and design optimization. A s for the analysis of balanced repairs, Australian researchers have led the field in the development of closed-form methods. Rose [4] developed a bending correction factor for the long-crack case that includes geometrically nonlinear (stress-stiffening) effects by considering the adhesive as providing a rigid bond and applying an energy analysis to determine the strain energy release rate for a very long crack. More recently, Wang and Rose [18] have developed an expression for the total strain energy release rate for a long crack bridged by coupled bending and extensional springs, and a method for separation of this strain energy release rate into the membrane and bending stress intensity components. Unfortunately, by comparison to a threedimensional  finite  element  analysis,  they  concluded  that  their  energy  method  significantly over-predicts the bending stress intensity and thus was not valid or useful for the design of a repair. Wang, Rose, and Calinan [19] went on to develop an analytical approach for separation of the strain energy release rate (expressed as the root-meansquare stress intensity) by assuming that the bending and membrane components act in the same ratio regardless of the length of the crack. B y considering the short-crack limit, where the springs bridging the crack faces do not provide any constraint to the motion of the crack faces, the membrane and bending stress intensity components are linearly related to the membrane and bending stresses in the substrate in the plane of the crack, and this ratio could easily be determined. They continued by developing an interpolation between the long-and short-crack limit solutions for the root-mean-square stress intensity, allowing the membrane and bending stress intensity to be calculated for a crack of arbitrary length. Unfortunately, as this approach assumes that the membrane and bending stress intensities act in the same proportion for any crack length, the validity of the approach must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, particularly i f it is to be extended to non-linear analysis of a repair or to new repair geometries. This approach also provides no information regarding the stresses in the adhesive or the composite patch near the crack. Through the work of Australian researchers (primarily Rose and Wang), closed-form equations exist that establish a conservative upper limit on the root-mean-square stress intensity at the crack tip. Unfortunately, the energy methods that have been very successful for the analysis of tensile loading of double-sided repairs, have otherwise been  127  \u000Cabandoned in favour of line-spring models for analyzing the case of coupled bending and extension [20]. In a recent conference paper, Romilly and Clark [21] stated that a corrected form of the energy method of Wang and Rose [18], which establishes longcrack limits for the membrane and bending stress intensity in a repair, is in fact very accurate when compared to the predictions of generalized plane strain line-spring models which capture the three-dimensional behaviour of the plate near the crack tip. In this chapter, the authors continue by fully describing the line-spring model and using it to validate an interpolation approach that is valid for cracks of arbitrary length. This methodology and the resulting analysis are then tested against a three-dimensional finite element model, demonstrating very accurate results for both the membrane and bending stress intensity and the crack face displacements, which may be related to the stresses in the adhesive and in the composite patch.  5.2 A methodology for damage tolerance assessment In keeping with the two-step approach introduced by Rose [2,3], several elements are required to complete the analysis of a bonded composite repair. The first step is to determine the stresses in the plane of the crack for the prospective repair. Due to load transfer from the plate to the patch, this stress will normally be reduced from the stress in the plate before application of the repair. The second step is to perform an analysis to determine the stress intensity and the stresses in the repair in the region of the crack. To achieve this, it is first necessary to characterize the stiffness of the repair as it acts to restrain the opening of the crack. Once these two steps are completed, a crack-bridging model is used to predict the stress intensity in the plate and the stresses in the adhesive and the composite repair. This is usually achieved by interpolation between limit states developed from an energy analysis of a very long crack bridged by springs and a very short crack without reinforcement. The resulting interpolation solution is applicable to a crack of arbitrary length.  5.2.1 Stress in the crack plane The work of Wang and Rose [1] provides a set of useful expressions for the plate stresses in the vicinity of the crack. By their analysis one can consider that the shear and peel stresses in the adhesive bond joining the repair patch to the plate will vanish in areas remote from the edges of the repair, the plate and repair may be considered to be rigidly bonded, and that the membrane and bending stresses in the plate may be calculated by considering the structure to be a simple composite beam. The neutral axis of the combined structure is offset from the centreline of the repaired plate by a distance z, calculated as follows.  128  \u000C-_S(t +t ) p  r  (1)  2(1 + S)  Z  The moment of inertia of the reinforced plate is then calculated from:  t*  I, =-^ + t z '  12  B  \"  V.l  f  + \u2014 ^- + t \u00A3 \u201E 12 \\2  2  (2)  With these two quantities defined, the membrane and bending stress under a remote applied extensional stress, a\", are given as follows: 1  2~2  \"\\  -+  (3)  l+S  (4)  \" 21,  For nonlinear bending of a repair of large planar extent with low bending restraint, the neutral axis will move to the load line upon the first instance of loading and the moment carried by the patched structure at the crack plane will vanish. In this case, the stresses on the crack plane simplify to CT\u00B0 = a\" /(l + S) and al = 0.  5.2.2 Characterization of crack-bridging springs T o perform the crack-bridging analysis of a repair, it is necessary to model the patch as a set of springs bridging the crack faces. The desired result is a set of spring constants relating the crack-opening stresses to the displacement of the crack face:  (5)  B y inversion of equation (5), the springs may also be characterized using a compliance matrix, as shown below. ' mb  \\ b u  j  \"bin  'bb  (6) K^b  J  The spring compliance coefficients are determined by the analysis of a bonded lap joint that is equivalent in geometry and composition to the cross-section of the repair taken in the region of the crack. The governing equations for a bonded joint under tension and bending are originally from Volkerson [22] and from Goland and Reissner [23], and may be expressed in terms of the adhesive stresses as:  129  \u000CT (x)-K T (x) m  (7)  =0  2  a  a  CT\u2122'(x) + 4K* (J (x) h  a  =0  (8)  The two characteristic parameters K and K describe the shear and bending response M  H  of the joint, and are given as follows:  K  =  2  4G\u201E  1 V  f  (9)  P P  i  V  1  j _ P  D  +  D  (10)  r j  B y applying the boundary conditions at the crack face, the compliance o f the springs bridging the crack faces may be calculated as follows. First, the general solutions to equations (7) and (8), considering only those parts that vanish as x \u2014&gt; \u00BB , are given by:  T (x) = Ae- \" K  (11)  x  a  a (x) = [Bcos{K x) + Csin{K x)]e- \" K  a  b  (12)  x  h  The derivation then follows the method of Wang and Rose [18] with the exception o f the treatment o f the adhesive shear stress boundary condition. The integration constants are determined by the boundary conditions of the joint. O f interest are the displacements under the action of an applied force and moment acting on the plate.  N (0) = -a\u00B0 p  (13)  Jp  M (0) = -&lt;7\u00B0 t /6  (14)  2  p  h  p  The force and moment acting on the reinforcement  are determined considering  equilibrium. N (0) = cr\u00B0J  (15)  p  r  M (0) = CT\u00B0 t /6 + &lt;T j (t +t )/2 2  r  h  (16)  0  p  p  p  r  The final condition is symmetry, which requires the transverse shear forces to vanish. V (0) = V (0) = 0 p  (17)  r  The stresses may be expressed in terms o f the boundary conditions using the adhesive constitutive equations. The process is identical to that of Wang and Rose [1], with the  130  \u000Cexception that here the shear forces are made to vanish according to (17). W a n g and Rose included an extra term to balance the shear stress at the edge of the adhesive layer, T (0), a  which is of minor consequence and will requires C = -B,  vanish in a real joint. Equation  (17)  and the remaining constants are found to be: 1  ,  1  Et  3(f +f,).l  Et  r r  EX  p p  r ~ p  l  m p  1  .1  1  1  r  E t)  E/  r  1+- Dr D  V  (18)  p  (19)  p J  The displacements of the plate are then given by equations (20) and (21).  (0) = % K (0) - vi (0)) = - c r r  \"  m  (0) =  2E\u201E  K \u00A3-B  IE.  b  B  (0) = K (u (0) - u (0))+ u (0) = \u00B1- A + K p  r  h  h  (20)  (21)  2E..  G,.  A t this point, the spring compliance coefficients may easily be found, and are given by equations (22) through (25). 1  1  3(t +t )  Et  Et'  (  K^r  r  p p  .3  mb ~ '  p  J f  (t  r  + 2K \u2022 D H  E rt ^r  E pt J ^p l  J _  J  K  J _  12xv  D.  D p  (23) J  J _  (24)  12IC  K  D  '  +  D  (22)  R  C  l  +t\u201E  , J  t. +t.  = 3c  2DK  U  (25)  mb  A s found by Wang and Rose, c is asymmetric. This asymmetry is required to satisfy M a x w e l l ' s reciprocal theorem, whereby it can be shown that the compliance matrix must obey the relationship c  bm  = 3c . mh  For a linear system, a set of forces is related to a set of  displacements at the points of application of the forces by a symmetric compliance matrix, denoted here as C. u  = [C]F  (26)  131  \u000CFor a moment acting on a plate, the moment may be equivalently expressed as a pair of forces as shown in Figure 5-2. m  'm  Figure 5-2: Equivalency of forces and moments  For the bending and membrane stress distributions shown in Figure 5-2, the equivalent forces are given as follows: (27)  (28) The compliance matrix may now be expressed in terms of the bending and membrane stresses and displacements.  m \\b U  J  c  mm  = t.  c\u201E  n  c,bm  B y M a x w e l l ' s reciprocal theorem, for the spring compliances, c  bm  bh \\ b c, a  Comparison with equation (6) shows that  hm  mh  (29)  3 'J  - C .  =3c .  j  Small variations from this relationship w i l l also  result from approximations made during the derivation of the bonded joint model. For example, the simple analytical models described by equations (7) and (8) do not include bending moments in the adherends caused by adhesive shear stresses acting at the adherend/adhesive  interface. Coupling of extension and bending results only from  equilibrium and compatibility requirements  employed during the application of the  boundary conditions, and small errors w i l l result because the bonded joint model and boundary conditions are inconsistent. Additional minor errors w i l l arise i f the adhesive thickness is ignored during derivation of the bonded joint model but included when one determines the boundary conditions.  132  \u000C5.2.3 Long-crack limit behaviour Within the crack-bridging analysis, the long-crack limit behaviour o f a repair may be determined by energy analysis [3,18], providing a limiting value for the stress intensity in the plate. T o analyze linear coupled bending and extension of a repair, W a n g and Rose [18] have developed an energy method for the separation of the membrane and bending components of the stress intensity in the repaired structure. In this paper, the authors have corrected their method to account for asymmetry of the compliance matrix and the presence of plane strain conditions at the crack tip, as found by Kotousov and Wang [24] for extension of cracked plates, and by Clark and Romilly [25] for plate bending. For consistency with line-spring models developed by Clark and R o m i l l y [6,25], the lineforces acting on the crack faces are expressed in terms of the membrane and bending stresses in the plane of the crack. Rose [2-4] observed that for a very long reinforced crack, the stresses near the crack tip become independent of crack length. The strain energy released with an increment of crack growth may then be found from the difference in stored elastic energy between strips of material far removed from the crack tip. One strip is located over the middle of the long crack, and its displacement is governed by the stretch of the springs bridging the crack. The other is well away from the crack and is undisturbed by the singular stress field near the crack. The difference in stored energy between the two strips is given by the energy stored in the springs bridging the crack. For a very long reinforced crack, the energy available to drive crack growth w i l l then be equal to the strain energy stored in the springs, and is evaluated as follows [18].  G.  = \u2014 \\cr(z)u(z)dz p -t i2 P  2z -tJ2 V  &gt; =  +  mm l  C  (J  \"m+Uby-  t  &gt; A  2  C  m b  (  T m  ^ b  + ^  \\k  ( \u00B0) 3  \"P J C  b b ^ h  Based on the results o f the generalized plane strain models for extension [24] and bending [25] o f plates, the crack tip must be in a state of plane strain. The strain energy release rate at the outer fibre of the plate w i l l have two components, one for bending and one for extension. Here, K and G are the stress intensity and strain energy release rate b  h  at the outer fibre.  ^ \u00B1. lzR  G  Gm+  Gh=  3  2  (  A  i  (31)  K1+-K 3 E\u201E V  2  133  \u000CThe applied stresses are linearly related to the membrane and bending stress intensities.  K\"  (32)  m  bm  A s for the spring compliance matrix, by M a x w e l l ' s reciprocal theorem, the authors w i l l demonstrate that d  = 3d . This is a significant correction to the method o f W a n g and  hm  mh  Rose [18]. Since 1997, it has also been shown that plane strain conditions always exist at the crack tip, and the stress intensity at any point along the crack front can be related to the crack face displacement as follows, where r is the distance from the crack tip.  27t  lim  K  r-&gt;0  4 ( l - 77  2  (33)  u(r)  r  )  In the region of the crack tip, equation (33) can be rewritten as follows: lim  E  CO  Fix  p  4(l-/7 ) V r  r-&gt;0  (34)  m  _ bm  2  d  B y the same argument used for the spring compliances (comparison with equation 29) it can be stated that d  = 3d . Substitution o f (32) into (31) provides a second expression  hm  forG  M  , which is a corrected version of that given by Rose and W a n g [18]. (d  2  E  mb  G  lh)el  +3d mm  \" ~ \u2022 + 2d {d +d )cr CX 1-/7' + {dlb+dl l3\\rl mh  mm  M  hh  (35)  H  b  Repeated differentiation of equations (30) and (35) with respect to the applied stresses w i l l lead to a set of equations solvable for the coefficients of matrix d , as follows:  mh  I-77 d mb  { + bb) d mm  = C&gt;  d  lb + h b 3  d  d  2  /  =  1  2  I-77  (37)  2  E - bbT- T c  3  (36)  2  i  (38)  L  1 - 7]  A unique solution can be found by noting that d , m  leading to a system o f equations  d  h  must be positive and non-zero,  solvable for the coefficients o f matrix  convenient to define three intermediate variables.  134  d.  It is  \u000CA = c\u201E  B =c  I-/7'  r =c  -  p  \"\"X-rf  '\"\"l-Tj ' 1  (39)  Equations (36) through (38) may then be decoupled to form a single equation for d . mm  (d  + JC-A + d \\lA-d 2  mm  2  mm  mm  = SB  (40)  Equation (40) has one positive real root, bounded by upper and lower limits given by-s/A and V A \u2014 C . The correct value of d  mm  may be found in this interval using a  simple root finding procedure. The remaining coefficients of the d matrix follow:  d =^C-A bb  + d\" mm  (41)  B mb  =\u2022  d  (42)  d +d mm  mm  hh  on  The resulting long-crack limit membrane and bending stress intensities follow from equation (32), and the limit spring displacements are given by equation (6). These corrected quantities define the effectiveness  o f a repair and are essential for the  development o f an interpolation applicable to repaired cracks o f arbitrary length.  5.2.4 Interpolation for arbitrary crack lengths This section describes the development of a new engineering model for the stress intensity and crack opening displacement for bridged cracks o f arbitrary length. These quantities may be estimated by developing an interpolation between the long-crack limit solutions given by equations (32) and (6), and the nominal solutions for an unreinforced crack. In both cases, the stresses given by equations (3) and (4) are assumed to act to open the crack. The first step is to establish the short-crack limit, or nominal solutions for a through-thickness crack without reinforcing springs. For finite thickness plates, Clark and R o m i l l y [6,25] have developed a set of geometry correction factors by using generalized plane strain models for extension and bending of plates. These correction factors account for the through-thickness material properties and the thickness of the plate. For the stress intensity, they take the following form:  Y  pres k  \u2022(\u00AB) = ! + v  a 1.5 a  , 5  +1.5 . a .1.2  rshear  a - + 3.5 K 1  2  1  -1  (43)  .4  1 + v.  (44)  3+v  p J  135  \u000CUsing these correction factors, the nominal membrane and bending stress intensityfollow: (45) (46) Equations (47) and (48) provide the necessary geometry correction factors for the maximum displacement of the crack faces, which occurs at the centre of the crack.  V  1.5  Y  (a) = \\ +  d  a +2.5 15  a  f  Y  (a)  13  =h  shear d  1  pres  A  Y  A  1-/7 1  1  (47)  -1 p  J  \\  +  (48)  3 + vp  p J  Without any crack-bridging springs, the extensional and bending displacements o f the crack faces under the action of the crack-opening stresses, t r \u00B0 and cr\u00B0, w i l l then be:  u\u00B0=2Yr(aD  ul =  2Y  -  pres d  a = 2Y,  (a  - )YJ (al \u2014\u2014 )  pres h  hear  hear  (49)  a  dm  '^-a = 2Y.  db  a  (50)  Each of the correction factors is a function of a, a normalized crack length that accounts for the effects  o f the transverse properties and thickness o f the plate. The three  normalized crack lengths characterize the effects  o f transverse normal stresses i n  extension, transverse normal stresses in bending, and transverse shear i n bending, respectively. (51)  2a v \u201E z  pres.  \\5E  p  (52)  =  &lt;P  shear 2a _  n 6G;(3 + v ) p  (53)  These nominal solutions for the stress intensities and displacements provide the shortcrack limit solution. The long-crack limit stress intensities may be calculated using  136  \u000Cequation (32), and the corresponding long-crack limit displacements are given by equation (6). A t this point the authors propose a new method of interpolation between these limits to establish the state of a reinforced crack of arbitrary length. For the case of coupled extension and bending, a very effective interpolation may be achieved by considering the stiffness of both the cracked plate and the crack-bridging springs. Equations (49) and (50) may be inverted to develop expressions for the stiffness of the cracked plate.  k\" m  \\ 1-/7  pJ  k  (54)  2Y a dm  (55)  p  1-/7  pJ  2i&gt;  A stiffness matrix for the as-reinforced crack may now be developed by considering the crack and the patch as a set of springs acting in parallel. The result is an as-reinforced stiffness matrix applicable to repaired cracks of arbitrary length.  k  m  \\b a  j  ~T~  k^  mb  K  mm m  ^bb  +  1f..T  \\  J\\ b  J  U  (56)  B y inverting the combined stiffness matrix of equation (56), a new compliance matrix may be generated for any particular crack length that accounts for the stiffness of the cracked pate:  .To- &gt; 0  ^mbi  \\b U  j  \"bm  _0  (57)  J  The as-reinforced crack face displacements can now be calculated directly, and the asreinforced membrane and bending stress intensity may be calculated by the applying the new compliance matrix to the energy method described in Section 5.2.3. This is a new application of the energy method, which has in the past only been used to calculate longcrack limit solutions. This method of interpolation does not require any assumptions regarding the ratio of the membrane and bending components, overcoming a significant problem with the method of Wang, Rose and Calinan [19]. This new approach to the interpolation allows for the simplified analysis of linear coupled bending and extension of a repair and includes the effects of transverse normal and shear stresses and accompanying shear deflections. It is a valuable tool for patch design and damage tolerance. In subsequent sections, this new interpolation model will be validated against a numerical line-spring model for generalized plane strain plates and against a three-dimensional finite element model of a bonded composite repair. 137  \u000C5.3 A line-spring model for crack-bridging In this section we combine the generalized plane strain crack-bridging models for extension and bending [6,25] to address the problem o f a crack bridged by coupled springs. The results w i l l be used to validate the closed-form equations developed i n Section 5.2 above. The springs bridging the crack are characterized by equation (5), i.e. the stiffness  matrix relating the membrane and bending stresses to the crack face  displacements. Using an approach similar to that of Wang and Rose [1], the line-spring models for extension and bending may be combined to include the effect o f the coupling springs. The significant differences in the current approach are the use o f the generalized plane strain plate models and the choice to express the bending moment and displacement in terms of the crack face displacement and the bending stress in the outer fibre of the plate. The generalized plane strain plate models lead to additional terms that account for pressurization and transverse shear about the crack tip. This leads to the following set o f coupled Fredholm integral equations with hyper-singular integrands that are solvable for the crack face displacements. The left side of the equation is the net crack opening stress along the crack face, and the right side describes the reaction of the plate.  -1  mm Jy) U  k  -k  2K  rE u\u201E(t)  a  p  J  -a  (58)  (t-y)  2  1-JJ  2  +T] (Kr) L (Kr\\t-y\\) 2  '  2  pres  (t-y)  2  &lt;T {y)-k\u00BB\"&gt;(y)_-i'r &gt; 0  E  b  Ub(t)  2x1 l - ? 7  -k ujy) bm  2  Y ^ L* (rf \\t-y\\)  +  2  +  +  ) 7] L 2  2  pres  ear  ear  (K \\t pres  \\it  (59)  - y\\)  In equations (58) and (59), the following parameters characterize the through-thickness properties of the plate. pre,  K  3\u00A3 =  J  (60)  L  G (\\-rj )  l  2  z  2v  15E  z  \u201Epres.  _  p  n  P  (61)  WF (i-/?;) z  -shear  2 3G,  (62)  138  \u000CThe functions L  pres  (z) and L (z)  describe the effects of pressurization and transverse  shear  shear stresses near the crack tip. If the L (z) pres  functions are neglected, the line-spring  model w i l l take the forms for classical plane strain extension and plane strain plate bending with shear deflections (i.e. plate bending according to the M i n d l i n formulation). If the term L  {z) is also removed, then the effects of transverse shear stresses and the  shear  accompanying shear deflections w i l l be removed. The formulation of W a n g and Rose [1] can be recovered by neglecting the pressurization terms, removing the plane-strain modification o f the Young's modulus, and using isotropic rather than isotropic material properties. The functions L {z) pres  and Lf (z) hear  transversely  have the following  form, where K are various orders of modified Bessel functions of the second kind. n  L (z) = 2 l + ^ . K z 'J pres  AO  { z ) ~ - \\ z z  2  (63)  A  L^ (z) = -\u2122+^ + 4{K (z)-K (z)) z z ar  2  0  94  + ^K (z) z  (64)  2  The domain o f the integration in equations (58) and (59) may be normalized with respect to the half-crack length, a, and the displacements expanded using Chebyshev polynomials of the second kind: J7,.(r) = sin((i + l)cos-- (r))/A/T^r I  (65)  r  For this set of orthogonal polynomials, the weight function is given by: W{r) = j \\ - r  (66)  2  Given this expansion, the crack face displacements may now be decomposed as follows:  I  \" \u00AB =?(r)(/,.(r) t  (68)  g i  i  Choosing a set o f collocation points, a coupled linear system may now be defined from equations (58) and (59), which may be solved for the expansion coefficients.  Uric JJU  .  In this system, the matrix coefficients have the following definitions.  139  (69)  \u000CIJ  +  2n  ak W(r )U (r ) mm  i  j  (70)  i  B =ak W(r )U (r ) iJ  mb  i  j  (71)  i  i + K, . .  {aKt )\\{\\-rf}IT shear ear  4K +  J pres.  1+v  (72)  2K  ak W(s )U (s ) hh  i  j  i  D =ak W(r yU ir ) iJ  km  i  J  (73)  l  Analytical solutions exist for the logarithmic parts o f L  (z) and L  sHear  pres  (z), but the  regular parts require numerical integration. The term V, j arises from the logarithmic singularity, and may be solved analytically, as demonstrated by Joseph and Erdogan [26,27] and by W a n g and Rose [1]. T o evaluate the regular part, the authors used GaussChebyshev quadrature, as suggested by Joseph and Erdogan. Z0\"  =  YL^iaK^lr.-ty-lnfa-tytyWjisyis  (74)  + Vu  -i  tfi* = j f L  p r e s  ( a K \u2122 \\ - s \\ ) + j\\n(\\ p  r i  -$W{syUj{s)ds-jV  n  u  K  u  {  j =0  a  ~2  V = Jln|r,-s|VvW,(^M ^  - r , + i + ln2|  (75)  (76)  TM)  j  J  J +  2  &gt;  Q  'j  For the generalized plane strain plate models, the stress intensities in extension and bending may be found from the expansion coefficients in the following manner. (77)  2(l-TJ )tt z  (78)  2(1-^)7=^  These stress intensity results w i l l be compared to the interpolation model results and finite element results in Section 5.4.1. Equation (5) relates the displacement of the crack faces to the line-forces carried by the springs. Expressing the membrane and bending stresses as their line-force equivalents: 140  \u000CN (y) x  x(y)  M  (79)  = 2h{k u (y) + k u am  m  = -h { bn \" (y) i  k  l  m  ab  +  b  (80)  kbb u  b  Given the crack face displacements, these expressions for loading may be used to predict fatigue cracking and/or rupture of the springs (i.e. the patch materials) bridging the crack faces as required for patch design and/or damage tolerance assessment.  5.4 Comparison to finite element models In this section, finite element models are used to determine the capability of the closedform equations. The stress intensities and crack face displacement results from the closed-form equations and the line-spring model are compared to a three-dimensional bonded repair model, and the nominal stresses in the substrate and compliance o f the repair as it bridges the crack are investigated using two-dimensional bonded joint models.  5.4.1 Stress intensity and crack face displacements The authors have developed three-dimensional solid finite element models representing the A M R L (Australian Maritime Research Laboratory) specimen, a specimen type that has been widely adopted for the investigation of bonded repairs [e.g. 9]. The models have been validated against mechanical testing of an instrumented specimen, during which strains were measured at nearly 100 positions on the patch and repaired plate, including 40 strain gauges applied to the face of the repair as it bridges the crack [28]. Figure 5-3(a) shows the model in a large-plate configuration for a crack length of 160 mm. W i t h the appropriate boundary conditions, symmetry allows the use of a one-quarter plate model. The large-plate model is designed to test the closed-form equations and line-spring model for the idealized case from which they where derived. Figure 5-3 (b) shows a close-up of the elements near the crack tip, with elements removed to show the repair patch, epoxy, and plate layers. The crack face is identified by the cross-hatched region.  141  \u000C(a)  (b)  Figure 5-3: Three-dimensionalfiniteelement model of a repair The finite element models were developed in A N S Y S , utilizing three-dimensional 20node brick elements and 15-node wedges. The wedge elements use quarter-point midside nodes to model the singularity at the crack tip, from which the stress intensity was calculated using the stresses at three integration points in the wedges ahead o f the crack tip. This stress-based approach allowed an accurate evaluation o f the stress intensity as it varied through the thickness of the plate. Validation models demonstrated  stress  intensities accurate to within 2% compared to theoretical models corrected for throughthickness effects. Table 5-1 shows the material properties and dimensions used in the finite element models. F o r the purposes of this chapter, the patch was modelled as an isotropic solid to remove the complicating effects  of transverse  shear  and peel  deformations as would otherwise exist in an orthotropic composite. Boron/Epoxy Patch  Property  FM-73M Adhesive  2024-T3 Aluminum Plate  Elastic Modulus, E  210 GPa  2.14 GPa  72.4 GPa  Shear Modulus, G  7.24 GPa  0.805 GPa  27.2 GPa  Poisson's Ratio, V  0.21  0.33  0.33  Thermal Expansion, OC  4.61  Thickness, t  0.924 mm  fie /'C  50.0  jue r\u00B0c  0.25 mm  23.45 /IE /'C 3.125 mm  Table 5-1: Material properties and dimensions The membrane and bending stress intensities are the average stress intensity and the stress intensity at the outer fibre of the plate, respectively, as found from the average and the first moment o f the stress intensity taken through the thickness o f the plate. These  142  \u000Cquantities were calculated using a linear least-squares fit to the stress intensities found at the integration points through the thickness of the plate. T o determine the actual transverse variation of the stress intensity through the thickness of the plate would require the use of many elements, as a thin boundary layer exists at the top and bottom surfaces. However, convergence studies have shown that few elements are required to obtain accurate values for the plate-averaged quantities, K  M  and K . H  The three-dimensional  finite element models employ two elements through the thickness of the plate, enough to ensure that errors due to through-thickness mesh refinement are much smaller than the 2% error resulting from stress intensity determination. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 show the membrane and bending stress intensities predicted by the interpolation model and by the line-spring model when compared to the large plate finite element model, under a remote applied stress of 1 MPa. The nominal results are the membrane and bending stress intensities that would arise i f the patch only acted to reduce the stresses in the underlying plate but did not act to restrict the opening of the crack. For both the interpolation model and the line-spring model, the nominal stresses were calculated using plane strain results from a two-dimensional finite element model (described in Section 5.4.2) and the spring stiffnesses were calculated using the plane strain analytical results from Section 5.2.2. 0 .4  o A  A  A  finite element model interpolation model long-crack limit nominal result  O  line-spring  0 0  50  100 Crack length [mm] Figure 5-4: Membrane stress intensity  143  150  200  \u000C0.25  100  150  200  C r a c k length [mm]  Figure 5-5: Bending stress intensity The interpolation and line-spring models provide very similar results for short cracks but diverge when the crack length becomes large. For long cracks, the line-spring model develops errors due to the increasing importance of the higher order Chebychev polynomials and the errors arising from numerical integration of the regular parts of the hyper-singular integrals. For relatively short cracks with a &lt; 50 mm, the interpolation model membrane stress intensity is lower by less than 2% and the interpolation model bending stress intensity is higher by as much as 10% when compared to the F E M results. This 10% error can be attributed in roughly equal parts to three sources. First, equation (31) slightly over-predicts the nominal stress intensity for this plate, next, very small variations from M a x w e l l ' s reciprocal theorem that arise due to simplifications made during the development of the spring compliance matrix lead to disproportionately large errors for this crack length and last, the interpolation method is approximate and errors of up to 5% should be expected. The finite element results are generally lower than those calculated using either analytical model, a difference that could arise from a number of sources. Using the limited .academic version of A N S Y S , it is difficult to include enough elements in the adhesive layer near the crack, and at the same time model a repaired plate of large planar extent. A n insufficiently dense mesh would cause the repair to appear to be overly stiff and artificially reduce the stress intensity and crack face displacement. Figures 5-6 and 5-7 compare the membrane and bending crack face  displacements  calculated using the interpolation model and the line-spring model to the results of the large-plate finite element model.  144  \u000C200  100 C r a c k length [mm] Figure 5-6: Membrane crack face displacement 1.25  100 C r a c k length [mm]  150  200  Figure 5-7: Bending crack face displacement  The crack displacement results follow a similar trend to that observed for the stress intensities. For short cracks with a &lt; 50 mm, both the interpolation model membrane and bending displacements are lower by less than 4% when compared to the F E M results. For long cracks the interpolation and line-spring model results diverge for the same reasons as stated above. In both cases, interpolation provides reasonable results, and the long145  \u000Ccrack limits established by the energy analysis are obeyed. This contradicts the findings of Wang and Rose [18], who, by comparison to a three-dimensional finite element model, observed that the energy method significantly over-predicts the bending stress intensity and is not a useful approach. This supports the validity o f the modifications described in Section 5.2, i.e. that the crack tip must be considered to be in a state o f plane strain and that M a x w e l l ' s reciprocal theorem must be satisfied in the manner shown. In the next section, a two-dimensional finite element model w i l l be used to examine the effectiveness of the means used to calculate the crack opening pressures and the definition o f the spring constants.  5.4.2 Spring stiffness and nominal stress determination The composite beam model used to calculate the nominal stresses under a repair is, strictly speaking, only applicable to a very large patch without boundary conditions that lead to restraint against bending. The effect of a finite patch applied to a plate with rotational constraints at the grips can be estimated using finite element analysis. Using the same materials and geometry as were used for the large plate finite element model, a two-dimensional finite element model has been developed for this purpose and to calculate the compliance of the repair as it bridges the crack. This model has been validated against load-deflection curves, strain gauge data, and lateral deflections from experiments [29]. Figure 5-8 shows the finite element mesh and boundary conditions for two configurations of the model, one with a crack under the patch (top), and an uncracked version used to calculate the nominal stresses under the repair (bottom). patch  \\ \\  \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\  \\  T/  / / / /  J  ii  \\ 1 1  \\  \\\\  dob  (c)  (b)  Figure 5-8: FE mesh showing the (a) cracked, (b) tapered, and (c) grip regions In this particular analysis, the bonded repair is assumed to be isotropic to eliminate composite deformations that cannot be predicted using the bonded joint equations presented in this chapter. Figure 5-9 shows the nominal stresses predicted by the closedform equations for a remote applied stress of 1 MPa. Both the finite element and closed-  146  \u000Cform equation results are shown for two cases: plane stress and plane strain. It is likely that the correct case is the intermediate one of generalized plane strain, where the structure is allowed to deform uniformly in the transverse direction. For the A M R L geometry, it is seen that the closed-form equations provide reasonable results, but that there are sufficient differences to account for the errors observed in the comparison of the line-spring and interpolation model results to the three-dimensional finite element results. The closed-form equations are seen to generally over-predict the nominal stresses, which would lead to an over-estimate of the stress intensities and crack face displacements.  0.9 \u2022 analytic plane stress EH analytic plane strain E3 finite element plane stress \u2022 finite element plane strain  0.8 0.7  to  w OS  0.6  W  \u00AB\" 0.5  C  S  E  o  o.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0  Figure 5-9: Nominal stresses The other factor that would affect the interpolation results is the calculation of the spring compliances. Figure 5-10 shows a comparison of the spring compliances predicted by the closed-form equations and the finite element model. These displacements were derived by separately applying a uniform membrane stress and a linearly varying bending stress to the face of the crack in the two-dimensional finite element model shown above. Again, the results are shown for two cases, plane stress and plane strain.  147  \u000Ccmb  cmm  cbm  ebb  Figure 5-10: Spring compliances  The closed-form equations are shown to provide very reasonable results, generally slightly under-estimating the stiffness of the patch when compared to finite elements. In the generation of Figures 5-4 to 5-7, the plane stress closed-form equations were used, which when compared to the plane strain results, may demonstrate a slight over-estimate of the compliance of the repair. A s in the determination of the nominal stresses, the actual state of the repair in the idealized large plate case is likely to be one of generalized plane strain, and intermediate to the plane stress and plane strain results. Accordingly, it is difficult to precisely determine what role the spring stiffness equations might contribute to the differences observed between the three-dimensional finite element models and the interpolation and line-spring models.  5.5 Results and discussion Through comparison with three-dimensional finite element results, it has been shown that the line-spring and new interpolation models capture the crack-bridging behaviour of a repair. A l s o through comparison with finite element analysis, it has been shown that the composite beam model may lead to some inaccuracies in the determination of the nominal stresses acting under the repair. Factors affecting its applicability include the length of the repair, the support conditions, and the planar stress state assumed to exist in the repair (i.e. plane stress or plane strain conditions). Some additional complicating effects that have not been investigated for the case of linear coupled bending and extension are the shape of the patch (whereby patches of finite planar geometry are known to generally increase the stresses in the region of the repair) and the effects of a highly anisotropic composite patch. Another pressing issue is that, while the common  148  \u000Cbonded joint model presented in this paper proved adequate in the case of an isotropic repair, the composite nature of a real repair is a complicating factor in the determination of the compliance of the repair as it bridges the crack. The modelling of such a hybrid bonded joint is complicated by many secondary effects such as shear and peel (transverse normal) deformations that act to increase the compliance of the repair, pressurization of the adhesive due to peel stresses, the plane state of the adherends and the adhesive, and the complementary shear deformations resulting from the rapidly changing bending stresses in the patch and plate. These effects can be particularly important in the prediction of failure of the repair by disbonding, where the peel and shear stresses in the adhesive must be known. The alternative to accurately determining the adhesive stresses is to calculate the strain energy release rate of the bonded joint system, which may be safely compared to experimental results for a similar specimen under similar loading conditions to predict fracture and fatigue, but is not directly comparable to any adhesive material property. This would necessitate a significant amount of testing for each new combination of materials or for new loading combinations, which is currently the norm in the development of composite airframe structures. A n additional issue that has not been addressed is the crack closure phenomenon that occurs on the compressive side of the bending plate when the applied tensile loads are not sufficient to prevent closure. This has been identified by Duong and Wang [30] as one of the principal impediments to the prediction of the rate of failure of a cracked plate under tensile and bending loads. They have proposed an effective or modified stress intensity to account for combined bending and tensile loads, but admit that their technique requires further work before it can be used generally. The authors hope that the development of the generalized plane strain plate line-spring models w i l l prove useful in the analysis of this phenomenon. Crack closure would pose a nonlinear contact problem, which could be examined by using a one-dimensional finite element mesh along the crack face instead of using Chebychev polynomials to obtain a numerical solution. Without a method to address this issue, experimental verification or very conservative means should be employed in the prediction of failure, such as simply adding the membrane and bending stress intensities and comparing them to the critical stress intensity for the material or by using them together in the Paris equation. This approach should prove to be conservative, as it w i l l effectively over-predict the energy available for fracture.  5.6 Concluding remarks In this chapter, the authors have, based on a corrected form of the energy method of Wang and Rose, developed a new interpolation model applicable to the analysis of bridged cracks under combined tension and bending. The interpolation model has been tested against a line-spring model of for a generalized plane strain cracked plate and a full  149  \u000Cthree-dimensional analysis of a repaired plate, and proven to be very accurate for the A M R L specimen geometry. Some deficiencies have been noted in the methods used to determine the nominal stresses acting in the regions of the repair and in the extension of linear crack-bridging models to the analysis of unbalanced repairs experiencing stress stiffening, and accordingly the authors urge bonded repair designers to verify their results against finite element models or experiments when thick plates or repairs of limited planar dimensions are analysed. It has also been noted that for an anisotropic composite repair, standard bonded joint models may not be adequate for the determination of the spring compliances or the prediction of disbonding and fracture. Prediction of the rate of failure or ultimate load of the structure is also complicated by the lack of an adequate and widely accepted means of translating the stress intensities or adhesive stresses into crack or disbond fracture or growth rates, which w i l l continue to require the structural testing of repairs (and composite structures in general) to determine their suitability for service.  5.7 References [I] Wang C . H . , Rose L . R . F . A crack-bridging model for bonded plates subjected to tension and bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures 36, 1999, 1985-2014. [2] Rose L . R . F . A n application of the inclusion analogy for bonded reinforcements. International Journal of Solids and Structures 17, 1981, 827-838. [3] Rose L . R . F . A cracked plate repaired by bonded reinforcements. International Journal of Fracture 18(2), 1982, 135-144. [4] Rose L . R . F . Theoretical Analysis of crack patching. In: A . A . Baker and R. Jones (eds.) Bonded Repair of Aircraft Structures. Martinus Nijhoff, 1988, 77-105. [5] Wang C . H . , Rose L . R . F . Bonded repair of cracks under mixed-mode loading. International Journal of Solids and Structures 35(21), 1998, 2749-2773. [6] Clark R.J., R o m i l l y D.P. Reinforced cracks in transversally isotropic generalized pane strain plates. T o be submitted to Engineering Fracture Mechanics. [7] Jones R. Neutral axis offset effects due to crack patching. Composite Structures 1, 1983, 163-174. [8] Jones R., Callinan R . J . , Aggarwal K . C . Analysis of bonded repairs to damaged fibre composite structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 17(1), 1983, 37-46. [9] Baker A . A . Repair efficiency in fatigue-cracked aluminum components reinforced with boron/epoxy patches. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 16(7), 1993, 753-765. [10] Clark R . J . , R o m i l l y D . P . Fatigue damage prediction for bonded composite repairs applied to metallic aircraft structures. S A E Journal of Aerospace, paper # 2001-01-26, 2001. [II] Albat A . M . , R o m i l l y D . P . A direct linear-elastic analysis of double-symmetric bonded joints and reinforcements. Composites Science and Technology 59, 1999, 11271137.  150  \u000C[12] Jones R., C h i u W . K . , Smith R. Airworthiness of Composite Repairs: Failure Mechanisms. Engineering Failure Analysis 2(2), 1995, 117-128. [13] Ratwani M . M . Cracked, adhesively bonded laminated structures. A I A A Journal 17(9), 1979, 988-994. [14] Arendt C , Sun C . T . Bending effects of asymmetric adhesively bonded composite repairs on cracked aluminum panels. Proceedings of the F A A / N A S A International Symposium on Advanced Structural integrity for Airframe Durability and Damage Tolerance, N A S A conference publication 3274, P a r t i , 1994, 33-48. [15] Schubbe, J.J, M a l l , S.S. Modelling of cracked thick metallic structure with bonded composite patch repair using three-layer technique. Composite Structures 45(3), 1999, 185-193. [16] W e n P . H . , Aliabadi, M . H . , Young, A . Boundary element analysis of flat cracked panels with adhesively bonded patches. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 69, 2002, 21292147 [17] Papanikos P., Tserpes K.I., Labeas G . , Pantelakis Sp. Progressive damage modelling of bonded composite repairs. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 43, 2005, 189198. [18] Wang C . H . , Rose L . R . F . O n the design of bonded patches for one-sided repair. Proceedings of the 1 1 Int Conference on Composite materials, G o l d Coast, Australia, 5, 1997, 347-356. th  [19] Wang C . H . , Callinan R . J . , Rose L . R . F . Analysis of out-of-plane bending of a onesided repair. International Journal of Solids and Structures 35(14), 1998, 1653-1675. [20] Rose L . R . F . and Wang C H . Analytical methods for designing composite repairs. Chapter 7 in Advances in the bonded composite repair of metallic aircraft structure. Baker A . A . , Rose L . R . F , Jones R., eds. Elsevier, 2002. [21] R o m i l l y D . P . , Clark R . J . Damage tolerance analysis and testing of unbalanced bonded composite repairs for aluminum airframes. S A E 0 5 - A M T - 4 1 , 2005. [22] Volkersen O. Rivet strength distribution in tensile-stressed rivet joints with constant cross-section. Luftfahrforschung 15(1), 1938, 41-47 [23] Goland M . , Reissner E . The stresses in cemented joints. Journal of Applied Mechanics - Transactions of the A S M E 66, 1949, A 1 7 - A 2 7 . [24] Kotousov A . , W a n g C H . Fundamental solutions for the generalized plane strain theory. International Journal of Engineering Science 40, 2002, 1775-1790. [25] Clark R.J., R o m i l l y D . P . Bending of transversally isotropic generalized plane strain plates with reinforced cracks. Accepted by The International Journal of Fracture, 2006. [26] Joseph P.F., Erdogan F . Surface crack problems in plates. International Journal of Fracture 41, 1989, 105-131. [27] Joseph P.F., Erdogan F . Plates and shells containing a surface crack under general loading conditions. N A S A contractor report 178232, N A S A Langley Research Center, 1987. [28] Clark R . J . , R o m i l l y D . P . Experimental study of a bonded composite repair. 2002 C S M E Forum, M a y 21-24, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 2002.  151  \u000C[29] Clark R . J . , R o m i l l y D . P . Non-linear bending study of hybrid aluminum and boronepoxy bonded joints. C A N C O M 2003, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2003. [30] Duong C . N . , Wang C H . O n the characterization of fatigue crack growth in a plate with a single-sided repair. Transactions of the A S M E 126, 2004, 192-198.  152  \u000CChapter 6: Elastic analysis of hybrid bonded joints and bonded composite repairs* D . P . R o m i l l y and R . J . Clark University of British Columbia Department of Mechanical Engineering  6.1 Introduction In this chapter, the authors extend the closed-form bonded joint linear elastic analysis method of Delale et al [15] and Bigwood and Crocrombie [7] to include the composite deformation mechanisms and the thermal residual strains that arise in hybrid metalcomposite joints such as those presented by bonded composite repairs applied to metallic aircraft structures. The analytical predictions for the adhesive stresses and the compliance are compared to the results of a linear elastic finite element model that has itself been validated by comparison with experimental results. The results are applied to the problem of coupled linear extension and bending of a bonded composite repair applied to a cracked aluminum substrate. The resulting stress intensity factor and crack opening displacement in the repaired plate are compared to the results of a three-dimensional finite element  analysis, and also exhibit excellent results.  Throughout  the  text,  observations are made regarding the practical application of the results to failure prediction in hybrid joints, whereby the authors demonstrate the need for consistency in the analytical methods used to determine the fatigue and failure of composites from the coupon level to the analysis of the final structural details. A bonded composite aircraft repair consists of a composite patch that is adhesively bonded to an underlying aluminum plate. The result is a hybrid structure  with  significantly mismatched adherends that w i l l exhibit significant thermal residual strains and nonlinear deformation (stress stiffening) under applied tensile loads. In the damage tolerance analysis of such a repair, the stiffness of the structure and the stresses in the adhesive and the composite patch all require accurate evaluation. Accordingly, improved methods are required to analyse hybrid bonded joints with mismatched adherends and account for secondary effects such as coupled extensional and bending response, shear deformation, and axial adhesive stresses. In this paper, the authors extend and enhance the elastic analysis of Delale et al. [15] and Bigwood and Crocombe [7] to include the  * A version of this chapter has been accepted for publication. D.P. Romilly, R.J. Clark, \"Elastic analysis of hybrid bonded joints and bonded composite repairs\", Composite Structures.  153  \u000Ceffects of orthotropic adherends, adherend lateral shear deflection, transverse (throughthickness) adherend shear deformation caused by adhesive shear stresses (often termed adherend shear lag), transverse deformation of the adherends caused by adhesive peel stresses (peel lag), adhesive longitudinal stresses, and thermal stresses resulting from coefficient of thermal expansion mismatches, all of which may be included within their analysis method without raising the order of the governing equations. The enhanced hybrid bonded joint analysis method uses a linear elastic analysis to calculate the strength and compliance of the repair in the region of the underlying crack. The strain energy release rate and stress intensity values in the adhesive are then calculated from the stresses in the adhesive using the method of Joseph and Erdogan [ 9 ] , and the results are verified against finite element model results for a single-lap joint geometry. The results are then applied to the linear analysis of a bonded repair to show the effectiveness of the resulting design equations. The elastic analysis of bonded joints is an important subject, particularly in the design of aircraft structures. The accurate evaluation of adhesive stresses has been critical to the application of safe-life and damage  tolerance methodologies to the  airworthiness  certification of such structures. In practice, four general methods are available to reduce the adhesive stresses in a joint: adherend tapering, increasing the adhesive thickness, decreasing the adhesive modulus, and the choice of an adequate overlap length. A l s o , due to the relatively high rate of crack growth in an adhesive joint, it is generally desired to keep the working stresses below a fatigue threshold.  In the bonding of metal sheets,  failure criteria for the sheets are usually easy to obtain and the elastic response of the isotropic adherends is easily modelled. In addition, the plates are often matched in stiffness, reducing the complexity of the analysis. For composite-composite bonded joints, the failure criteria and analysis requirements of the joint become complex as lowenergy composite failure modes (such as interply delamination and  fibre-buckling)  become factors in the life of the structure, and the composite sheets require modeling as orthotropic materials to reflect the composition of the plates. For a composite repair applied to a metal plate, the panels being joined are often well matched in terms of extensional stiffness, but poorly matched in terms of bending stiffness. In addition, composite failure modes are a major concern, and physical testing or reference to physical tests is required to rule them out. For most applications of bonded joining during original manufacture,  whether  metal-metal or composite-composite, designers  take  significant measures to reduce peel stresses (e.g. adherend tapering), thus reducing or eliminating the risk of peel-induced failures. The result is that the original structure can generally be designed according to fail-safe principles. In the application of bonded composite repairs to metal structures, in the region around the repaired crack, the joint cannot be tapered, and it is typically not desirable to increase the thickness or compliance  154  \u000Cof the adhesive to reduce the stresses as this w i l l reduce the crack-stopping ability of the repair. Accordingly, composite delamination or adhesive disbonding may result near the repaired crack. Damage tolerance analysis is therefore necessary, and a method is required to predict the rate of damage progression and the load at failure. Finally, since the joint is typically a hybrid of aluminum and composite materials, the thermal expansion properties of the adherends are mismatched and the joint experiences large thermal residual strains from both patch application and temperature changes in service. In this paper, the authors develop a methodology to allow the accurate evaluation of stresses in hybrid bonded joints. T o demonstrate the utility of the method, the results are applied to the analysis of a bonded composite repair. The methods developed should also be of use in the analysis of other composite-metal joints such as metal inserts for fastening of composite structures.  6.2 Background Bonded joints are widely used in many industries, and accordingly much effort has been expended on characterizing their mechanics. The first effective analyses of the stresses in bonded joints are due to Volkersen [1] and to Goland and Reissner [2], by which the tensile and bending response are assumed to be linear and independent, and second and fourth order ordinary differential equations may be formed and solved for the shear and peel (transverse normal) stresses in the adhesive. In these analyses, the adhesive is assumed to act as a series of shear and tension springs, and the adherends are modelled as simple beams in tension and bending. These models have proven effective in the analysis and understanding of the mechanics of bonded joints. Models based on these equations have been adapted to many applications, usually by examining the boundary conditions specific to the particular application. For composite-composite joints, Renton and Vinson [5] have modified the equations to account for the lay-up of the adherends, and Jones et al. [16] have developed modifications to account for the relatively low in-plane shear stiffness and transverse or peel stiffness of composite adherends. For aluminum aircraft structures, Hart-Smith [e.g. 3] has used the basic bonded joint models to develop widely used design equations and failure criteria considering both elastic and perfectly plastic adhesive response.  In the field of bonded composite repair of aluminum aircraft  structures, Australian researchers have used the methods of Hart-Smith to characterize the strength and stiffness of the repair as it bridges the underlying crack [e.g. 14, 11]. Improved models for bonded joints have been developed to account for secondary effects that lead to coupling of the tensile and bending responses of the structure, to explicitly consider the equilibrium and stress-free boundary condition of the adhesive, and to include variations in the distribution of adhesive stresses through the thickness of the adhesive. Equilibrium requires the shear and bending response of the joint to be  155  \u000Ccoupled, as the adhesive shear stresses act on the face of the adherends and therefore must induce bending. Renton and Vinson [4] have developed a higher-order analytical model to examine the effects of adhesive equilibrium and the stress-free boundary condition, and predicted that the actual peak adhesive shear stress was shifted inboard from the edge of the joint and reduced when compared to the value found by traditional analysis methods. It should be noted that their method did not include coupling of the shear and bending responses of the joint, which has a significant effect on the stress distribution. Using an alternate approach, A l l m a n [6] has expressed the stresses in the joint as a set of stress functions, and, by minimizing the strain energy in the joint, developed solutions that satisfied the adhesive stress free boundary condition and allowed the satisfaction of the full equilibrium equations for the adherends. Adams and M a l l i c k [13] used this approach to develop a simple one-dimensional finite element solution that is easier to apply and to extend to nonlinear or viscoelastic adhesive response than closed-form bonded joint formulations. They found that, while the energy minimization method predicts the vanishing stresses at the edge and the stresses in the bulk of the joint, it generally under-predicts the peak stresses. In other work, Delale et al [15] extended the classical analysis of a bonded joint to include coupling between bending and extension, which resulted in modified constitutive equations for the adhesive that include the longitudinal stresses in the adhesive, derived from the average extensional strains in the adherends. Their results were shown to be accurate when compared to detailed finite element results for the adhesive stresses at the edge of a bonded joint. This allowed them to make the significant observation that it is not important to impose a stress-free boundary condition at the edge of the adhesive, since it is well known that the peak stresses occur at the singularity at the interface of the adherend and adhesive at the extreme edge of the joint. Bigwood and Crocombe [7] subsequently used an equivalent approach to test and develop design equations for bonded joints, but did not include the effects of mismatched adherend thermal expansion coefficients or the presence of adhesive axial stresses in their analysis. In this paper, the authors modify the analysis techniques of Delale et. al., and Bigwood and Crocrombe to characterize the performance of bonded composite repairs. A bonded composite repair consists of a filamentary composite reinforcement that is bonded to a damaged or weakened structure to reduce stresses and prevent or reduce continuing damage growth, as shown in Figure 6-1. When the repair patch is bonded to only one side of a cracked structure, its presence induces significant out-of-plane bending by offsetting the load path. Bending increases the stress intensity in the underlying crack and causes adhesive peel stresses and bending of the repair that, i f not accounted for in the design of the bonded structural repair, could lead to rapid failure.  156  \u000CFigure 6-1: An unbalanced repair There is much interest in the application of unbalanced repairs, as often only one face of a structure is exposed. In many cases the interior structure of the aircraft does not provide significant  restraint  against  bending, potentially leading to rapid disbonding and  composite and/or composite matrix failures. T o design and certify single-sided repairs, closed-form methods are needed to assess the effects of bending on the rate of failure of the repaired structure, but perhaps more importantly, methods are required to assess the life and strength of the repair itself under bending and transverse normal (peel) stresses. Accordingly, the authors seek to develop closed-form solutions for the compliance of the bonded joint (characterizing its ability to stop the growth of the underlying crack) and the stress distribution in the adhesive and the composite repair.  6.3 Linear bonded joint formulation In this section, the elastic analysis of Delale et. al. [15] and B i g w o o d and Crocombe [7] is extended to include phenomena that are critical to the understanding of the mechanics of hybrid composite-metal joints. These phenomena include: shear and peel deformation of the adherends, complementary shear of the adherends caused by the large bending stress gradients near the ends of the joint, pressurization of the adhesive due to out-ofplane and longitudinal constraint, and thermal residual strains. W e begin with the definition of an element of the adherend/adhesive sandwich, the external loads that act upon it, and the internal (adhesive) stresses that hold it together. Figure 6-2 illustrates such an element.  157  \u000CTi + dx-T^x V,+dx-V  Adherend 1  1&gt;x  Mi + dx-M^x  z,w  41 x,u  4T +dxT , 2  2  V +dxV  Adherend 2  2  x  2&gt;x  M +dxM 2  2 l X  Figure 6-2: Hybrid bonded joint element In the analysis that follows, the joint can be analysed in either plane stress or plane strain by choosing 'effective' elastic properties for the adherends and adhesive. The derivation w i l l be carried out assuming that plane stress conditions exist. A simple substitution as follows w i l l produce a plane strain analysis for an orthotropic material. For the plane strain case, it is assumed that the adherends are specially orthotropic, with vanishing through-thickness stresses. plane stress  plane stress  E,.  plane strain'  plane strain  (1 a,b)  Similarly, the shear and transverse modulus for the adherends are expressed as follows. G, =G LT  (2 a,b)  '  For adherends of thickness h, the plate bending stiffness may now be defined. Eyh[ 12  (3 a,b)  12  The strain at the interfaces between adhesive and adherends is given by the following. The third term i n each of the equations accounts for 'shear lag', the deformation o f the adherend caused by the adhesive shear stresses acting on the inner surface. The fourth term accounts for the lateral deformations caused by the shear force in each adherend. 3/z, r , E\\ x  ~2~b~  V,\\,x  (4 a)  8 G, 2G,  158  \u000Cu 2,x  \u2022  Eh 2  Af,  h  3/i, 2 T  + \u2014\u2014- + \u2022 2  2 \u00A3&gt;,  2  8  2,x  G,  (4 b)  2G-,  The curvature at the interfaces between adhesive and adherends has been separated into two parts to include bending and shear deflections. A term has been included to account for deformation caused by peel stresses, or peel lag. These peel deformations should be accompanied by lateral deformations due to the Poisson effect, leading to some additional degree of coupling between the shear and peel responses of the joint. This has been neglected since the inclusion of the primary 'peel lag' term is already very much a secondary effect. t W h x x  _M  =  (5 a,b)  \u00B1  D, 3ft, &amp;a,x  6V, 5G,h  8  t  6V,  3h  2  w.2,x  E,  5G h  2  2  2  8  C7  ax  (6 a,b)  \u00A3,  The shear and peel lag terms are found by assuming a linear variation of stresses in the adherends, as shown in Figure 6-3, and the shear strain w i l l be: u (x,z) =  T(X,Z)  G  1  (V)  &lt; J  &lt;v  The shear contribution to (4 a,b) follows by integration through the thickness. The peel lag terms in (6) follow by assuming a linear variation of transverse stresses. This method is due to Jones et. al. [16] who originally applied it to finite element analysis of repairs.  T  a  4_  (x,D  ^  T (x,z)+dx.r (x,z) a  f\u2014  a  iX  O (x,z) + dx.cr (x z) ay  ay  &gt;  iX  Figure 6-3: Assumed variation of transverse adherend stresses Equations (4-6) describe the behaviour of the adherends. The adhesive is often modelled as independent shear and extensional springs, but one may instead model the adhesive by  159  \u000Cemploying the full form of the constitutive laws to relate the adhesive stresses to the relative displacements o f the adherends.  The last set of equations required to perform the analysis arise from  adherend  equilibrium. T =T , hx  T =-t  a  1&lt;x  (9 c,d)  = -cr,  V,.x =  &lt;T.,  M  = V , - ^ ,  U  (9a,b)  a  M  2  ,  x  =V  2  -^T  (9e,f)  a  To develop the governing equations, it proves convenient to introduce two functions.  y/ = ||CTUdxdx  0 \u2014 jV &lt;\u00A3t, a  (10 a,b)  The governing equations may be found as follows. First, eliminate cr^ from (8 b,c) and then substitute 0,y/ for the peel and shear stresses in (4), (6), (8), and (9). Eliminate the displacements from (8) using (4), (6), and (8), and then eliminate the forces and moments using the equilibrium equations (9). The following ordinary differential equations arise:  K 0 -K 0 o  xx  = -K y,-K,  x  2  K.W,^ ~ K  = -K 0  +K  i\u00A5xx  (11a)  \u00A5xx  7  eW  :XXXX  + K 0^ + K 0 %  9  (lib)  The constants for the shear equation are given as follows, and account for shear lag of the adhesive and adherends, the extensional stiffness of the adherends, shear stresses caused by rotation of the adherends, and shear deformation of the adherends.  K0  =  i + -^ + A_ G  2G,  K =J X  Eh x  x  +  12a)  2  J _ Eh 2  (  2G  a  2  +  M ^  +  4D  X  M ^ \u00B1 0  ( 1 2 b )  4D  2  K =-^\u2014 + -^\u2014 EX E hl  (12c)  2  2  160  \u000C2G, 2 G  (12 d) 2  The constants for the peel equation follow and account for peel lag of the adherends and adhesive, adherend shear deflections, bending deflection, transverse adhesive stresses, and moments resulting from adhesive shear acting on the edge of the adherend. A l l terms that include v arise from the inclusion of the longitudinal adhesive stress, c r ^ . a  *1  * 4  =  2E.  Gh j  J  D,1  D ~ 2 f  =  2  J _  \\  h,  1  yG,/i,  s  (12 e)  2E.T2 1  K  ' 2  0  (12 f)  2  (12 g)  h  /i, G  V  2  h  \u2014 + \u2014 D, D j  (12 h)  2  \\  2  G  J  2vj.  (12 i) K  A  E  E  \\[h +t x  2 2 J h  h +t  a  2  D  a  (12 j) J  2  These defined constants are now available for use in quantifying the parameters of the characteristic equation for the system as developed in the following section.  6.3.1 Solution and boundary conditions Introducing the trial functions &lt;f&gt; = Ae* and y/ = Be* , the characteristic equation for x  x  the system may be found from (11a) and (11 b).  Z -btf +cA -d = 0 6  (13)  2  The coefficients follow. ^_K K X  A  + KK 0  5  +KK 2  KK 0  KQK^  1  3  2  X  A  +  K^Kg  3  S  (14 a)  7  + K K% + K K 0  KK  -K K  4  KK  -  - K  5  3  K  (14b)  7  161  \u000CD  =  K  K  I  6  - K  K  2  KK0  9  (  L  4  C  )  KK  4  3  7  Setting A = &amp; + b/3,the equation (13) may be expressed as a 'depressed' cubic. 2  /i3  b  , be n=a  2  ^  6 +m6 \u2014 n,  m\u2014c  ,  3  3  2b  ....  1  (15)  3  27  The roots of the depressed cubic may be found as follows. Note that q is complex.  ^ + ^V4m +27n 2 18 3  (16)  2  m  \u2014+ iV3| q+\u2014 3q 3?  -  (17)  V  m q + 3tf V  / 3?  The roots of (13) are given by X = \u00B1^0 + b/3 . The solutions for &lt;&gt; / and  follow. (18 a)  i  (18 b) The constants in (18 b) arise from the governing equations (11 a,b). KK 4  a  \u2014  Q  KK 7  3  (19 a)  K K +^(K K +K K ) 3  6  3  KK 3  5  2  4  -K K  S  ]  - \u2014  4  b=  (K K 3  +K K )  5  2  4  (19 b)  \u00B1 3  K K +^(K K +K K ) 3  KT,K  9  6  3  +\u2014  5  2  (K K  4  3  5  +  KK) 2  4  (19 c)  c= K K +^(K K +K K ) 3  6  3  5  2  4  162  \u000CThe adhesive stresses follow easily from the definitions (10 a,b).  The axial adhesive stress may be calculated from (8 b).  E  E  +-d k + h r + T r  (21)  L  vA  *\u201E=-r[*8*-*7*\u00BB]--r  A,  It remains to calculate the constants A, given the forces applied to each end o f each adherend. Here, we w i l l examine the case o f a very long joint, by keeping only those roots that vanish as x \u2014&gt; \u00B0 o . T o obtain the solution for a finite length of joint, one must retain all o f the eigenvalues and consider the forces at the far end o f the joint. F o r the very long joint, the boundary conditions may be expressed as follows. 7/,(0) = r,,  T (0) = T ,  7/(oo) = 7 / 7 /  V,(0) = V , ,  V (0) = V ,  V(oo) = V V  2  2  2  Af,(0) = A f , ,  1+  2  i+  M (0) = M , 2  (22a)  2  (22b)  2  M ( \u00B0 o ) = M , +M + S{T -T )+x{V +V ) (22c)  2  2  ]  2  x  2  The method of B i g w o o d and Crocombe w i l l be used to find the integration constants, thus developing the expressions relating the adhesive stresses to the applied loads. From the derivative o f the adhesive shear constitutive equation (8 a), with substitution for the adherend deflections from equations (4 a,b), the first equation is obtained as  K  o 0 x x  +  K  3 V x x = \u2014  \u2014  1  E\\  3  x  Eh 2  2  \u2014  2D, 2 D  \u2022  ( ) 23  2  From the second derivative o f the adhesive peel constitutive equation (8 c), with substitution o f the adherend shear and bending deflections from equations (5,6) the second equation is obtained as  ~K  s\u00A5ja  -  +  M M = -_ L + - 1 .  A  (24)  2  D  From the third derivative o f the adhesive peel constitutive equation (8 c), with substitution o f the adherend deflections from equations (5) and (6), and equilibrium equation (9), the final equation is obtained. F o r a very long joint with boundary conditions that satisfy equilibrium at x = 0 , equations (23)-(25) allow the definition o f a set of three linear equations that may be solved for the integration constants. For a finitelength joint, equations (23)-(25) must also be defined for the far end, increasing the number of equations from three to six.  163  \u000CV KAI/  -KAI/  41r ,xxxx  -K &lt;f&gt;-K d&gt; Q  5r  +K d)  s  ,xx  9r  =\u2014  %r,xx  V  (25)  + -^-  L  n  IT.xxxx  For loading systems that require the existence of forces or moments acting at a remote part of the joint (i.e. as x \u2014 &gt; \u00B0\u00B0), a complimentary solution is required to satisfy the farfield boundary conditions. For the unbalanced shear condition (V, - V * 0 ) , the limit 2  solution has little physical meaning. Accordingly the complementary solution w i l l be examined in the absence of the shear forces. A s x \u2014&gt; \u00B0\u00B0, the loads carried by the adherends do not vary and adherend equilibrium (8) requires the shear and peel stresses to vanish. The adherend deformations simplify as follows.  h  x  Eh x  i.xx  2  M  2 D,  x  2,,  =  +  M  2  (26 a,b)  2  2  Eh 2  .Ml A'1  -  w  r h  M,  2  (27 a,b) A^2  Vanishing stresses force the adhesive constitutive equations to take the following form. f  u. \u2014 u = 0,  u  U  +  2 , x  U  ^  \"2+VJa  2  = 0  (28 a,b)  These may be expressed in terms of the forces by substitution from (26) and (27).  h M_ h x  Eh 2  l  +  2  2 D  2D,  2  M  2  2  M  x  M  D  x  D  2 = Q  (29 a,b)  2  Equations (29 a,b) and the third parts of equations (22 a,b) form a set of equations from which the force and moment in the adherends may be determined. The results follow.  A\u00B1^V  ( O O ) +  M(OO)) ZM +  D D/  Z =\u2022  l+  Eh  2  1  2  -+  1  h +h  f  +  x  2  ^  2  T =TM-T M,  (30 b)  X  A  =  M, =  iMM-S(T -T )) x  D +D  K  X  D,  A  (30 a)  yD +D ; x  2  2  (30 c)  2  2  (30 d)  - M. L  164  \u000Ch,  h  7  Where S = \u2014 + t\u201E + \u2014 . The adhesive axial stress is given as follows:  hM  hM  2D,  2D 2 J  x  Eh 2  2  x  2  2  (31)  6.3.2 Thermal strains Thermal strains often arise in hybrid composite joints due to the elevated temperature required to cure the adhesive, and due to thermal loading during service. During the cooling phase of the cure cycle for thermally activated adhesives, the temperature w i l l drop below the adhesive glass-transition temperature, T,  and residual strains w i l l  develop. A s creep occurs near T , it is common practice to use an effective stress free g  temperature, T , to assist in the analysis o f a joint. The effective stress free temperature sf  T may be determined from experiments in which a specimen is heated until the warping sf  due to thermal strains is eliminated. Thermal strains may be calculated by adding an additional complementary solution to the homogeneous solution from previous sections. The thermal load, AT, is the difference between T  sf  and the service temperature. One  may calculate the interfacial adherend strains as follows.  h M x  x  3fy T !  Eh x  2,x  l  x 1  x  2  (32 b)  +- \u20142- + \u2014^-*- + a AT 2 D2 8 G L  2  Eh 2  (32 a)  x  \u2014 \u2014\u2014 + a AT 8 G,  2  2  Using this new definition of the extensional strains, the governing equations follow:  ~KJ  = -K y/- K 2  Ktf,^ ~ K  i\u00A5xx  i\u00A5xx  + (or, - a )AT  (33 a)  2  + K y/ = - K ^  + K0  6  s  &lt;xx  +K0 9  (33 b)  The complementary solution requires consideration of polynomials of sufficient order to satisfy the forcing function. A s the temperature is uniform, it is sufficient for &lt;f&gt;, y/ to be constant, and the adhesive stresses w i l l vanish. The method used in the previous section for the remote loading case is applicable, with the adherend deformations described by (32 a,b). The forces are required to obey the following relationships.  M  M  D,  D  x  Eh j 2  2  h,\u2014- + K  2  + {a -a )AT = 0 x  2  J  165  2  (34 a)  \u000CM,  M  2  =0  (34 b)  The remaining consideration is equilibrium. For unrestrained thermal expansion, the net force and moment acting on a cut through the joint must both vanish. T +T =O, X  M +M  2  L  + (T -T )S  2  L  (35 a,b)  = 0  2  A s in the previous section, equations (34) and (35) may be solved for the forces and moments in the adherends. a 1  T = -T = \u2014  x  -a  (36 a)  -AT  2  _ h, + h  7  + s  1  2  D,  +D  2  -2D, 1  D, + D  (36 b,c)  D,  1 2  The axial adhesive stress may be determined from the axial strains.  T  1  .+.  T  hM hM  2  Eh  1  2  2  \u00B1+  2D,  2  +  2  2D,  (a +a -2a )AT x  2  a  The thermal strains w i l l result in adhesive stresses and accompanying  (37) adherend  deflections at the ends of a finite length joint, where the thermal forces and moments on the adherends are required to vanish. These stresses and deflections can be calculated by applying the thermal loads in equations (36 a-c) as boundary conditions in equations (2325). The complete solution w i l l then arise by superposition of the homogeneous and complementary (thermal) solution.  6.3.3 Joint failure Given the techniques presented above, it is possible to calculate the strain energy release rate and stress intensity in the adhesive layer near the end of the joint. The total strain energy release rate is defined as follows, where dA is an increment in the area of the disbond or crack front.  G =^-(W-U) dA  (38)  T  Here, W is the potential of the externally applied loads, and U is the change in stored elastic energy. The standard calculation of G  T  for a very long bonded joint is easily  accomplished. Noting that the state of the joint is self-similar for an increment in disbond length, the energy released by crack extension may be determined by comparing a part of  166  \u000Cthe joint remote from the loaded end to the newly disbonded part. The segment far removed from the loaded end typically has no internal energy or loading, except in the presence of thermal residual strains, and the strain energy stored in the adhesive in the disbonded part is normally very small. G  T  is then given by the energy balance in the  disbonded part o f the adherends. l  T  T  2\\  A  E  2  1  ,  1  G \u2014\u2014  Calculation of G  T  iK  E  1  j +\u2014 2  yG,ft,  JJ )  +  Gh 2  2  1 {Ml \u2014\u2014  1A +  M\\ \\ \u2014D  2  (39)  2  allows prediction of fracture or fatigue given test data for a joint with  a very similar composition and loading. In practice, bonded joints are sensitive to loading mode, i.e. the relative proportions of energy associated with adhesive shear or peel. Consideration of mixed mode loading allows extrapolation of test data to different load cases, but not between joints of differing geometry or composition, even i f the same adhesive is used. The reasoning is that the actual stresses and hence the stress intensity in the disbonding process zone are dependent upon the composition and geometry of the joint, including the adhesive thickness. Joint geometry plays a strong role in determining the actual stresses present in the part given a particular strain energy release rate. Accordingly, it is useful to partition the total strain energy release rate into opening and shear components.  G =G,+ T  G\u201E  (40)  The peel and shear strain energy release rates may be calculated using the method of Joseph and Erdogan [9], which is very convenient for this type of closed-form analysis. In round-robin testing for the Cracked Lap Shear ( C L S ) specimen, this method has been shown to provide results comparable to those obtained by other means, such as finite element analysis employing crack-closure techniques. The C L S specimen exhibits mixedmode loading and non-linearity, and as such is a good test of the validity of the method. A description of the method and its application to this particular problem follows. The strain energy release rate is identical under 'fixed-grip' and 'constant load' conditions for an elastic structure, and hence may be calculated by considering the change in stored elastic energy under 'fixed grip' conditions, where the external loads do no work and dW = 0 . The strain energy release rate is then equal to the change in elastic strain energy for an increment in disbond size. The change in strain energy may be calculated by relaxing the adhesive stresses over an area dA - wdb,  where w is the  width of the joint and db is an increment in the length of the crack. It may be shown that for this condition, the change in strain energy in the adherends does not provide a contribution. A s an example, consider an adherend acting under a shear stress, t  a  'fixed grips' at x = 0 . The force, tensile stress, and strain in the adherend are: 167  with  \u000CT (x) = T WX, ]  (7 (x) = T ^,  a  ]  \u00A3,(x) = T -^\u2014  a  (41)  a  nt  n,  x  x  The change in strain energy in an adherend for an increment in crack growth follows. d  U  l  1  aA  f  d  ,  /  s  W T ,  1  2dA*  T  \u00AB  D  B  2  2 h E t  {  In the limit, this quantity w i l l vanish and only the strain energy released by the adhesive need be considered. The same result occurs for peel stresses and bending o f the adherends. From the adhesive constitutive equations (8 a,b), we find the following.  dU\u201E  G =-\u2014f T  =  Id  dA  ,  e  t\u201E f &lt; -2v a c7 +c7l a  -\u2014lcr (x)e (x)dV  2dA  J  a  a  ay  ax  2 T  ^  G,.  (43)  The separation of the peel and shear components follows by consideration of only the first term or the second term. This is essentially identical to the result found by Rice [12] for the strain energy release rate in an infinite strip containing a semi-infinite crack. In Rice's analysis, the deflection o f the edges of the strip (i.e. the adherend/adhesive interface) is fixed at a constant value, and the energy released with a unit of crack growth is calculated based on the strain energy stored in a section of the strip well away from the crack. In Rice's analysis, the strain energy release rate is converted into stress intensity by applying the appropriate relationship to account for the degree of constraint through the width of the joint, i.e. by assuming a plane stress or a plane strain state. In fracture handbooks, this calculation is considered to be an exact, analytical result. The resulting opening and shear mode stress intensities are: K? =  f(^ -2v C7 C7 +cr ),  t  2  ay  a  ay  W(  ax  K\\ = ^ H  2  (44 a,b)  In practice, the orientation and location of the crack within the adhesive layer, and the inelastic, environmental, and stress history dependent behaviour o f the adhesive make it difficult to determine the precise state o f the crack tip process zone. In addition, joints with a thin adhesive layer w i l l experience elastic constraint in the process zone, resulting in a lower energy failure mode than a joint with a thicker adhesive layer. A s this technique is a direct extension of the practice o f using strain energy release rates, the same limitations on its use w i l l apply, and it w i l l only be applicable when test data is available for similar joints under similar environmental and loading conditions. When failure occurs along or near the adherend/adhesive interface, other issues such as stress concentrations around fibres and the compliance of the adherend may affect the crack tip stress field, and also result in a lower energy failure mechanism. These facts demonstrate the importance of applying a consistent analysis method from the coupon level through to  168  \u000Cthe analysis of structural details on in-service structures, and ensuring that the actual applied loading, geometry, and observed failure modes are also consistent with those input or predicted using the applied analysis.  6.4 Analysis of a bonded composite repair Clark and R o m i l l y [10] have developed design equations for the single-sided repair of cracked plates. The equations extend the analytical methods developed by Rose [14] for repair of cracked plates via double-sided repairs, and are based on a corrected form of the energy method of Wang and Rose [11] for determining the stress intensity for a crack repaired on one side. B y this method, the efficiency of the repair is characterized by determining the stresses present in the reinforced plate in the vicinity of the crack, and then applying these stresses as crack-opening pressures in a crack-bridging analysis to determine the stress intensity for the repaired crack. The inputs to the crack bridging analysis are the stresses under the repair and the compliance of the repair as it bridges the crack. Here, the bonded joint analysis provided in Section 6.3 w i l l be used to determine these quantities and the results w i l l be tested against a two-dimensional finite element model. W i t h these quantities in hand, the crack-bridging models described in [10] w i l l be tested against a three-dimensional finite element model of a repair. The A M R L (Australian Maritime Research Laboratory) specimen w i l l be used to test the effectiveness of the models. This repair test article has been used by the Canadian National Research Council Institute for Aerospace Research ( N R C - I A R ) to evaluate environmental and load spectrum effects and by the authors to investigate thermal loading and structural mechanics. The specimens consist of boron-epoxy composite repairs applied to two cracked panels separated by a honeycomb core, and applied using Cytec F M - 7 3 M film adhesive. The authors have built bonded joint specimens to match the specifications of the A M R L specimen. Figure 6-4 shows the single lap joint specimen, which does not include a honeycomb bending restraint.  BORDN-EPrjXY, 7 PLIES, REVERSED STACKING SEQUENCE, 3 MM DROP-OFF  169  \u000C25.4  1  (-  150.0  -\u2022  -j  304.8 457.2  \u2022  Figure 6-4: Single sided lap joint specimen The material properties for the A M R L and lap joint specimens are summarized in Table 6-1, and w i l l be used throughout the analyses presented below. The repair is made from layers of boron/epoxy. The result is a joint comprised of adherends that are balanced in extensional stiffness but not in bending. Differing thermal expansion coefficients also result in large thermal residual strains. Property  Boron/Epoxy  FM-73M Adhesive  Aluminum Plate  Elastic Modulus (GPa)  E =210  E = 2.14  E = 72.4  Shear Modulus (GPa)  G =7.24  G = 0.805  G = 27.2  Poisson's Ratio  tv = 0.21  v = 0.33  v = 0.33  a = 50.0  a = 23.45  t = 0.25  t = 3.125  L  E =2.5 T  L  G = 1.0 T  L  v  = 0.019  T  Thermal Expansion (fiePC) Thickness  \u00AB \u00AB  L  T  = 4.61 = 25.87  t = 0.924  (mm)  Table 6-1: Material properties and dimensions The chosen adhesive thickness is near the high end of a practical working range of 0.125 to 0.25 m m [17]. This working range has been established because adhesive layers thinner than 0.125 m m tend to result in joints that are not very damage tolerant, while adhesive layers thicker than 0.25 m m are prone to the development o f porosity during curing. Figure 6-5 is an illustration of a two-dimensional finite element model that w i l l be used to test the analytical results from Section 6.3. Three parts of the structure are shown; (a) the cracked region o f the lap joint, (b) the tapered region o f the repair, and (c) the point of application of the load. This model has been validated against load-defection curves, strain gauge results, andlateral deflections obtained from experiments [21].  170  \u000C\\  \\  W W  \\ \\ l\\ \\/ S t 1 ) 1 1 1 ) 1 u^r-T\u2014ri l  \\  I  ! (a)  \\  (b) \\  \\ 1\"1  \\ \\ \\ \\  s/ / 1 1 /  (c) /  i  \\  V  \\  ft  (b)  (c)  Figure 6-5: Lap joint finite element model Results are reported for two versions of the model, the first including a crack under the repair, and the second, an uncracked version used to calculate the stresses under the repair. The model shown at the top of Figure 6-5 shows the cracked configuration, while the model on the bottom shows the uncracked configuration. Removal o f the constraints on the left edge of the aluminum plate allows the crack to be modelled. The cracked configuration allows the investigation of the compliance of the repair and the adhesive stress as the repair bridges the crack.  6.4.1 Nominal stresses The stresses in the repaired plate may be estimated using the two complementary solutions presented in Section 6-3, one for the applied loading, and one for the thermal stresses arising during the curing o f the adhesive or thermal loading during service. The solution for remote loading is not significantly different from the bi-metallic strip model of Timoshenko [20], which has been used by Wang and Rose [11] to determine the stresses in the substrate under a repair. Figure 6-6 shows the nominal stresses for a 1 MPa remote applied stress in the aluminum plate. This applied load is offset from the neutral axis of the repaired plate by a distance z , resulting in a moment that must also na  be included. The loads are given as follows:  2SS &amp; applied ^2  M ( o o ) = - 2 7 r(oo)  1+5  applied 2  (45 a,b)  In Figure 6-6, finite element and closed-form equation results are shown for two cases: plane stress and plane strain. The difference is observed to be slight, as the composite patch is very compliant through both the width and thickness of the repair. The closedform equations provide reasonable results, but there are significant differences due to the bending restraint at the grips of the specimen, which prevent it from bending as freely as the idealized geometry described by the theoretical model.  171  \u000C\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022  CO &lt;/&gt;  CD  analytic plane stress analytic plane strain finite element plane stress finite element plane strain  l_ *-'  \u2022 CO  n  C/&gt;  &lt;T  0\"  m  b  Figure 6-6: Substrate membrane and bending stresses under remote applied tension The thermal stresses under the repair may be calculated by the methods o f Section 6.3.2 using a stress-free temperature of 8 1 \" C for the A M R L specimen [21]. Figure 6.7 shows the magnitude of the membrane and bending stresses in the substrate under the repair at an operating temperature of 20\" C when cured at 121\" C. There are significant differences between the analytic and finite element model predictions, which arise due to two effects: 1) the rotational bending constraints included in the finite element model that simulate the effect of the mechanical grips on the actual test specimen, and 2) the effects of a finite patch and underlying plate. This highlights the importance o f careful modelling of the bending effects and the influence of finite geometries. 80  (0 CO  o  \u2022 analytic plane stress  70  \u2022 analytic plane strain  60  \u2022 finite element plane stress  50  \u2022 finite element plane strain  40 s  i  \"co  30  DC  20 10 0 Ob  Figure 6-7: Substrate residual stresses at 20\" C for a 120\" C adhesive cure cycle  172  \u000CTo determine the effectiveness of a repair, these stresses are assumed to act as crack opening pressures, and the repair is modelled as a set of springs bridging the crack faces.  6.4.2 Spring compliance and adhesive stresses In this section the authors characterize the repair as it acts to bridge the crack in the underlying aluminum plate. The configuration analysed, shown in Figure 6-8, is a singlesided joint in which both adherends are free to bend. T o model the symmetry condition at the centreline of the specimen, the composite repair is constrained in both bending and extension where it bridges the crack (i.e. at x = 0). The quantities of interest for the analysis include: the compliance of the structure under applied tensile and bending loads, the adhesive stresses, the accompanying adhesive strain energy release rates or stress intensity factors, and the stresses in the composite patch as it bridges the crack. The crack face loading shown in Figure 6-8 is a crack opening pressure that arises when the stresses determined in Section 6.4.1 are applied to any cracks that might exist under a repair. -*-X  boron/epoxy \u00B0m+\u00B0b  adhesive  aluminum  Figure 6-8: Model configuration for spring compliances T w o different loads w i l l be applied to the aluminum plate, membrane and bending stresses of \\MPa . Figures 6-9 and 6-10 compare the analytical results of Section 6.3 to adhesive  stresses  determined  by  finite element  analysis for  these two loading  configurations, respectively. The plotted results generally illustrate good  agreement  between predicted adhesive stresses using both the analytical and F E A methods. The notable differences are a small over-prediction of the adhesive peel stresses and a corresponding small under-prediction of the peak shear stresses. There are two likely sources for this error: first, the analytical model does not include the stress-free adhesive boundary condition at x = 0, and second, the through-thickness variation of the adhesive and adherend stresses are assumed to act in a simple manner as shown in Figure 6.3. A s per Delale et al [15] and Joseph and Erdogan [9] this does not preclude the use of this analytical method for the prediction of the failure of the bonded joint. Upon more global comparison of the results presented in the two figures, it is apparent that the stress distribution is dependent on the type of load applied, as well as the geometry and composition of the joint, thus making it difficult to apply fracture mechanics principles to bonded joints in a general manner.  173  \u000C\u00BB  axial - fea  x  peel - fea  o  shear - fea axial - analytic peel - analytic shear - analytic  a a.  4  ^  R  \u00BB  ijm-fl-ft-M  A A 4 A A A A~T  *-x-*-*  Distance from End of Joint (mm)  Figure 6-9: Adhesive stresses developed by an applied membrane load 1.4 A  1.2  axial - f e a  x  peel - f e a  \u2022  shear - fea axial - analytic  1  peel - analytic shear - analytic  0.8 \"a | 0.6 vt vt  \u00A3 0.4 0.2 0  Q q p OQ ..  fl.P . P .  -o 0. 00 .0 .-Q J AA OO .O .O .O .Q . HA O-oO.OLO.O.O.Q.0 ^&gt; ^&gt; &gt;. O .O -O -O  ftCL  i  jQ  -0.2 -0.4 Distance from End of Joint (mm)  Figure 6-10: Adhesive stresses developed by an applied bending load The adhesive stresses resulting from thermal loading with a service temperature of 2 0 \u00B0 C , a cure temperature of 1 2 1 \u00B0 C , and an effective stress-free temperature o f 8 1 \u00B0 C may also be estimated by the methods of Section 6.3, and are shown in Figure 6-11.  174  \u000C10 A  A  A  A  A  A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A  A x o \u2014  axial - fea peel - fea shear - fea axial - analytic peel - analytic shear - analytic  -20 Distance from End of Joint (mm)  Figure 6-11: Adhesive thermal residual stresses For these two configurations, the peel and shear strain energy release rates may be calculated from equation (48), and the resulting stress intensity in the cracking adhesive may be estimated from equation (49). The compliance of the joint as it deflects under membrane and bending loads is calculated from the deflection and rotation of the aluminum plate at the point of application of the loads. It may be characterized according to the following matrix representation, where u  m  is the membrane displacement of the crack face and u is the h  bending displacement at the outer fibre. ' mb  \\\"b ) l^hm  'bh \\ b G  (46)  J  The relative deflections of the adherend/adhesive interface may be determined from the adhesive constitutive equations (8 a,b), however additional terms are required to account for both shear lag and peel lag terms, and the offset between the adhesive/adherend interface and the centreline of the adherends. Considering these effects, the rotation and deflection of the aluminum plate follow.  W2,x =  vj..  h,  vA  2  175  \u2022 + -  .1  h  n  D  2  J  'J  (47 a)  \u000CUl  =  Wl.x  It ^  I+-  h2  (47 b)  J  In Figure 6-12, the compliances calculated using equations (47 a,b) are compared to those calculated using finite element analysis, and are expressed in terms of the crack face displacement per M P a of applied stress. It can be seen that the difference between plane stress .and plane strain is small. Again, this is due to the low transverse stiffness of the patch material. In all cases, the analytical model was found to agree within 2% of the F E A results, thus verifying the accuracy and demonstrating the utility of the developed closed-form equations.  3.0 \u2022 analytic plane stress  0)  ra o.  2.5 2.0  o c  TOd)  w  Q.  E o  \"5 1-5 \"f  D analytic plane strain \u2022 orthotropic plane stress  1  \u2022 orthotropic plane strain  E o  o 5  1 \"  1.0 -\u00A7 0.5 0.0 cmm  cmb  cbm  ebb  Figure 6-12: Repair compliance under membrane and bending loading 6.4.3 Crack bridging analysis Once the crack-opening stresses and spring compliances have been determined for the repair, a crack-bridging analysis may be used to determine both the stress intensity for the repaired crack, and the stresses carried by the adhesive and adherends as the applied patch acts to reinforce the crack. For balanced repairs, Rose [14] observed that for a very long reinforced crack, the stresses near the crack tip become independent of crack length. Here, the strain energy released with an increment of crack growth may be calculated from the difference in stored elastic energy between strips of material far removed from the crack tip. One strip is located over the middle of the long crack, and its deflection is governed by the stretch of the springs bridging the crack. The other is well away from the crack and is undisturbed by the singular stress field near the crack. The difference in stored energy between the two strips is given by the energy stored in the springs bridging the crack, defining a limit value for the stress intensity. Wang and Rose [11] have adapted this method to the case of linear coupled bending and extension, separating the  176  \u000Cmembrane and bending components of the stress intensity. Clark and R o m i l l y [10] have corrected the method to account for asymmetry of the crack-bridging spring compliance matrix, and for the presence of plane strain conditions at the crack tip. Plane strain conditions have been shown by Kotousov and Wang [18] to exist at the crack tip for the extension of cracked plates, and by Clark and Romilly [19] to exist for plate bending. The energy available for cracking is the energy stored in the crack bridging springs far from the crack tip, given as follows.  c cr +2c cr &lt;r,+  (48)  2  k  mm  mb m  b  The strain energy release rate for the plate outer fibre has two components, one for bending and one for extension. Here, K and G are the stress intensity and strain energy h  b  release rate associated with bending at the outer fibre of the plate. (49)  . 3\u00BB  The applied stresses are linearly related to the membrane and bending stress intensities through the matrix expression below.  d \\b K  j  'Si  3d  (50)  mh  Substitution of (50) into (49) provides a second expression forG\u201E (dl+3d )cT 2  2  mh  l-vl  +  m  2d (d +d )cT a mh  m  b  m  + (d +d /3)cr 2  2  mb  (51)  b  2  b  b  Differentiation o f (48) and (51) with respect to the applied stresses results in a set of equations solvable f o r d , allowing the calculation o f the membrane and bending stress intensities for the case of a very long crack. For cracks of arbitrary length, the authors have developed  a closed-form model to predict these values which utilizes an  interpolation approach between this long-crack limit and a short-crack limit found by applying the crack opening stresses to an unreinforced crack [10]. The authors have also developed a three-dimensional finite element model of a repair that has been validated against strain data from mechanical tests of repairs with and without bending restraint. Figures 6-13 and 6-14 compare the three-dimensional finite element results to the longcrack limit stress intensity and the interpolation model stress intensity for the A M R L specimen, using the crack-opening stresses and spring compliances from the analytical models described in Section 6.3.  177  \u000Cfinite element model interpolation model long-crack limit nominal result O  line-spring  0 ^ 50  100  150  200  Crack length [mm]  Figure 6-13: Comparison of membrane stress intensity predictions  100  200  Crack length [mm]  Figure 6-14: Comparison of bending stress intensity predictions Similarly, it is possible to compare the crack face deflection (and hence the spring stretch) from the analytical and finite element models, allowing the calculation o f the predicted stresses in the adhesive and in the repair as it bridges the crack.  178  \u000Cfinite element model interpolation model long-crack limit O  50  100  nominal result line-spring model  150  200  Crack length [mm]  Figure 6-15: Membrane deflection results  Figure 6-16: Bending deflection results The stress intensity is an important parameter for assessing the efficiency of a repair in preventing or reducing crack growth, but the deflection of the aluminum plate is also an important parameter as it can be used to estimate the strength and life of the repair itself. Composite and adhesive failure mechanisms have proven to be active failure modes for single-sided repairs. The loads carried by the repair as it bridges the crack may be calculated from the crack face displacements as follows.  179  \u000CN = h {k u +k u ), 2  m  m  mh  h  M =-r(khmum+khhub)  (52a,b)  o Given these loads, the adhesive stresses, strain energy release rate and stress intensity may be calculated by the methods of Section 6.3. Care must be taken to include all of the applicable stresses when evaluating the stresses in the composite repair as it bridges the crack. The composite repair must bear the thermal and mechanical loads determined by the complimentary solutions presented in Section 6.3.3, the force and moment determined from equations (52 a,b), and the adhesive stresses acting on the patch/adhesive interface. The adhesive peel stress is particularly important, as it acts to pull apart the fibres of the repair in the weaker through-thickness direction.  6.5 Results and discussion When compared to finite element models, the developed closed-form analysis methods for a hybrid joint have been proven effective in characterizing the compliance of the repair as it acts to restrict the opening of a repaired crack. The improved model is necessary as the hybrid joint exhibits composite deformation modes, such as shear and peel lag, which are not critical for the analysis of metallic joints, and which significantly affect the stress distribution and compliance o f the joint. This more complex model is also required due to the unbalanced nature of the joint, which results in additional forms of coupling between the bending and extensional responses that are not accounted for by previous simpler models. The closed-form models also provide a reasonable estimate of the peak stresses in the adhesive. When combined with the repair design equations presented by Clark and R o m i l l y [10], the result is an enhanced, accurate and easily applied damage tolerance assessment approach for hybrid joints and repairs to cracked structures which allows an assessment of both the stress intensity in the underlying plate and the stresses in the adhesive and the composite in the region of the crack. The incorporated closed-form damage tolerance model is very useful for design optimization, life assessment, and probabilistic analysis to determine the effectiveness o f various inspection regimes. To properly utilize the developed damage tolerance approach, several aspects of the analysis require special attention. Examples include the determination o f the nominal stresses acting under the repair for realistic repair geometries, the potential for geometryrelated non-linear response of the hybrid structure, and development of appropriate failure criteria for the repair. The determination of the nominal stresses acting under the repair is often complicated by the need for an accurate assessment of the effects of the boundary conditions and the finite dimensions of the patch and underlying plate. In the practice, this requires the use of finite element modelling or the explicit inclusion of the mechanical boundary conditions and the finite repair geometry within composite beam  180  \u000Cmodels such as the one presented in this paper. Another concern is geometrical non-linear coupling of the extensional loads and bending deflections of the repaired structure. Significant lateral deflections w i l l typically occur due to moments induced by the neutral axis offset from the single-sided repair (particularly in regions of repaired structure where bending restraint is limited), and more locally due to the crack itself. Moments w i l l develop in the structure to counteract any lateral deflections away from the load line of the membrane stresses (tensile loads) about the repair. This non-linear response can have a significant effect on the response of the repair as demonstrated in previous work by the authors [10]. Note that the analysis presented in this paper is applicable only to the linear case, analysis of the non-linear case will require special attention, including the definition of a new long-crack limit strain energy release rate, as first demonstrated by Rose [14]. Additional concerns involve the determination of adequate failure criteria. For bonded joints (as discussed in Section 6.3) there are no adequate means of generally predicting the strength of the repair based on adhesive or matrix material properties without considering the details of its particular application, including such factors such as the composition of the composite, the adhesive thickness, the type of loading and the environmental conditions. The result is that empirical data from testing of the specific joint  composition under  consideration, under  similar  loading and  environmental  conditions, must be used to evaluate the static and fatigue strength of the joint. Uncertainty can also be introduced as a result of the type of analysis used [9] (e.g. linear versus non-linear, three-dimensional versus two-dimensional, analytical versus finite element). For consistency and validation purposes, the same type of analysis should be used to determine the strain energy release rate (or the stress intensity) for the test configuration and for the damage tolerance analysis of the actual structure. Composite-specific failure modes have proven to be very important in the damage tolerance assessment of unbalanced bonded composite repairs and hybrid joints. These failure modes are based on specific failure mechanisms that are typically less understood and thus less certain in their evaluation than is the case for metal-metal joints. There are several components to the stresses in the composite repair as it acts to bridge the crack. The critical location is the adhesive-adherend interface, where both the adhesive peel and shear stresses, and the composite reinforcement plate extension and bending stresses act. Several failure modes are possible for a composite laminate including; a) matrix or matrix/fibre  interface  failure  due  to  excessive  through-thickness  stresses,  b)  reinforcement failure due to compression and buckling, extension and/or bending, and c) general composite failure due to gross overload or fatigue. In the analysis presented in this paper, it was assumed to be sufficient to characterize and control the stresses acting on the composite without considering these separate failure modes. T o properly account for composite failures, significant additional work would be required to determine fatigue  181  \u000Cthresholds for the composite acting under these stresses or to determine the rate of failure at applied loading levels above threshold values.  6.6 Concluding remarks The authors have developed an enhanced, verified, and effective set of closed-form analysis equations for the damage tolerance analysis of metal, composite and hybrid joints and repairs to cracked structure.  Utilizing as a basis the previous analyses of  Delale [15], and B i g w o o d and Crocombe [7], the authors have extended the work to the analysis of a lap joint specimen analogous to a bonded composite repair applied to an aluminum aircraft structure. The enhanced closed-form analysis developed in this paper now accounts properly for many secondary effects, including coupling of the membrane and bending responses of the joint and deformation mechanisms that are particularly important to analysis of bonded joints with composite adherends.  W h i l e several  challenges have been identified which must be addressed before the damage tolerance analysis of bonded composite repairs can be carried out in a general manner, these new analysis tools, when combined with design equations previously developed by the authors, provide an effective, verified and relatively easily applied methodology to perform an accurate linear analysis of a bonded joint or repaired cracked structure experiencing bending and extensional loads. The enhanced  closed-form  equations  developed in this research work provide another major tool in the structural designer's arsenal for the stress and failure analysis of hybrid structures.  6.7 References [1] Volkersen O. Rivet strength distribution in tensile-stresses rivet joints with constant cross-section. Luftfahrforschung 1938; 15(l):41-47 [2] Goland M and Reissner E . The stresses in cemented lap joints. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions of the A S M E 1944;66:A17-A27 [3] Hart-Smith L J . Stress analysis: a continuum mechanics approach. In: developments in Adhesives, 1973. [4] Renton W J and Vinson JR. The efficient design of adhesive bonded joints. Journal of Adhesion 1975;(): 175-193 [5] Renton W J and Vinson J R . Analysis of adhesively bonded joints between panels of composite materials. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Transactions of the A S M E 1977: 44;101-106 [6] A l l m a n D J . A theory for the elastic stresses in adhesive bonded lap joints. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics. 1977;30(4):415-436 [7] Bigwood D A and Crocombe A D . Elastic analysis and engineering design formulae for bonded joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 1989;9(4):229-242 [8] B i g w o o d D A and Crocombe A D . Nonlinear adhesive bonded joint design analysis. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 1990; 10( 1):31 -41  182  \u000C[9] Joseph and Erdogan in: Johnson W S . Stress Analysis of the cracked-lap shear specimen: an A S T M round-robin. Journal of testing and Evaluation 1987;6:303-324 [10] Clark R J and R o m i l l y D P . Linear coupled extension and bending of an unbalanced bonded repair. International Journal of Solids and Structures. Accepted September 2006. [11] Wang C H and Rose L R F . A crack bridging model for bonded plates subjected to tension and bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1999;36:1985-2014 [12] Rice J C . Stresses in an infinite strip containing a semi-infinite crack. Journal of Applied Mechanics - Transactions of the A S M E , 1967;248-249 [13] Adams R D and M a l l i c k V . A method for the stress analysis of lap joints. Journal of Adhesion, 1992;38:199-217 [14] Rose L R F . Theoretical analysis of crack patching. In: A . A . Baker and R . Jones (eds.) Bonded Repair of Aircraft Structures. Martinus Nijhoff, 1988;77-105 [15] Delale F , Erdogan F , Aydinoglu M N . Stresses in adhesively bonded joints: a closedform solution. Journal of Composite Materials, 1981;15:249-271 [16] Jones R, Callinan R J , Aggarwal K C . Analysis of bonded repairs to damaged fibre composite structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 1983; 17(l):37-46 [17] Okafor A , Singh N , Enemuoh U E , Rao S V . Design, analysis and performance of adhesively bonded composite patch repair of cracked aluminum aircraft panels. Composite Structures. 2005:71:258-270 [18] Kotousov A , Wang C H . Fundamental solutions for the generalized plane strain theory. International Journal of Engineering Science 2002;40:1775-1790. [19] Clark R J , R o m i l l y D P . Bending of transversally isotropic generalized plane strain plates with reinforced cracks. International Journal of Fracture. Accepted November 2006. [20] Timoshenko SP. Analysis of bi-metal thermostats. Journal of the Optical Society of America. 1925:11;233-242 [21] Albat A M , R o m i l l y D P , Raizenne M D . Thermal residual strain measurement in a composite repair on a cracked aluminum structure. I C C M - 1 1 , G o l d Coast, Australia, 14th to 18th July 1997:VI:279-288  183  \u000CChapter 7: Nonlinear mechanics of hybrid bonded joints and composite repairs* D . P. R o m i l l y and R. J. Clark University of British Columbia Department of Mechanical Engineering  7.1 Introduction A n experimental investigation of the nonlinear mechanics of a hybrid joint (that is representative  of a bonded composite repair) is used to validate a developed two-  dimensional small strain/large displacement Finite Element (FE) model useful for repair design and Damage Tolerance Analysis ( D T A ) . B y testing the hybrid joint in both the cracked and uncracked configurations under an applied load, the energy available for growth of a long crack in the substrate under a repair can be directly assessed, and is calculated using the Rose model. Based on these results, the developed two-dimensional F E model is shown to provide excellent predictions of the strain energy release rate while further comparison with three-dimensional finite element results also demonstrates the model's ability to provide excellent results for the root-mean-square crack tip stress intensity. Using this validated tool, the authors then develop a nonlinear crack-bridging model and use it to predict the membrane and bending stress intensity, adhesive peel and shear stresses, and composite plate stresses for a repair applied to a crack of arbitrary length. The crack-bridging model is shown to provide reasonable results when compared to the three-dimensional finite element model. A bonded composite repair is illustrated in Figure 7-1, and consists of a fibre-reinforced epoxy patch bonded to a cracked or weakened aircraft structure, offering improvements in life, cost, weight, and inspectability when compared to mechanically fastened repairs. A bonded repair exhibits smoother load transfer, and acts both to reduce stresses in the underlying structure, and to restrict the opening of any cracks. This advanced repair technology is a very valuable addition to the standard methods of aircraft structural repair, often allowing the refurbishment of structures that would otherwise not be repairable. The principal barrier to the widespread use of bonded repairs is the difficulty of performing a comprehensive damage tolerance analysis, particularly under excessive bending, where composite and adhesive failure modes can lead to rapid failure. In previous work [3], the authors have performed a full-scale bonded repair fatigue test which showed that, even for repairs reinforced against bending by an underlying  A version of this chapter has been submitted for publication. D.P. Romilly, R.J. Clark, \"Nonlinear mechanics of hybrid bonded joints and bonded composite repairs\", International Journal of Nonlinear Mechanics.  184  \u000Cstructure, bending strains in the patch and plate are significant and can even exceed those caused by axial loads. For single-sided repairs, geometrically non-linear bending proved to dominate the mechanical response, leading to rapid failure.  Figure 7-1: A bonded repair and a mechanically fastened repair Early in the history of the bonded composite repair technology, Australian researchers [12] used double-lap joint specimens modelled after a bonded composite repair to evaluate bonded joint models, to investigate the effects of patch composition on the compliance of the repair as it acts to reinforce the crack, and to determine the mode and rate of failure of a repair in a simplified geometry. Here, the authors seek to achieve similar goals, but w i l l examine the effects of nonlinear coupled bending and extension on the performance of a repair. In this chapter, the authors investigate the mechanics of hybrid boron/epoxy and aluminum bonded lap joints that are representative of bonded composite repairs. The first half of the paper describes the experimental hybrid joint specimen testing and evaluation, which was used to validate a two-dimensional F E model of the hybrid joint. The specimens were tested with varying degrees of bending restraint and equipped with strain gauges both applied to the surface of the structure and embedded within the boron-epoxy patch, allowing the calculation of bending and tensile loads both near the grips and near the repaired crack at the centre of the specimen. Plots of load versus displacement recorded during pseudo-static  loading of the specimens allow the investigators to  determine the extent to which non-linearity governs the overall behaviour of the joint. Strain-energy considerations then allow the authors to evaluate the effectiveness of each type of joint in stopping or slowing crack growth in a repaired structure. These results, combined with lateral displacements measured using a contacting displacement probe and a linear scanner, illustrate the effectiveness of the F E models of hybrid bonded joints and repairs. The results also illustrate the capability of the Rose model [4], which allows the accurate calculation of the energy available for crack growth for a long crack embedded in the substrate under a repair.  185  \u000CIn the second half of the paper, the authors address two problems: 1) separation of the energy  available for cracking into membrane  and bending  components,  and  2)  determination of the adhesive and composite stresses in the vicinity of the repaired crack. This is achieved using a new nonlinear crack-bridging model. Past approaches to nonlinear analysis of repaired cracks have either employed numerical means such as three-dimensional finite element analysis [e.g. 13,14], or have employed a linear crackbridging model and superposition to arrive at very conservative estimates of the membrane and bending stress intensity factor [7]. Few studies have comprehensively examined the adhesive or composite stresses about a repaired crack under geometrically nonlinear bending and extension, and to the author's knowledge, none have done so using a crack-bridging model. Closed-form models and simple crack-bridging models are highly desirable for the rapid design and damage tolerance evaluation of a bonded repair, as this newer technology must compete against conventional repairs that are generally well-understood and can be designed and assessed with relative ease using wellestablished methods.  7.2 Lap joint experiments The mechanics of hybrid bonded lap joints with varying degrees of bending restraint were investigated by pseudo-statically loading several different types of bonded joint specimens in tension and compression. The tests were carried out using an M T S - 8 1 0 servo-hydraulic loading frame with wedge grips. The remotely applied stress ranged between 0 and 68 M P a , which is about one half of the load range applied during previous fatigue testing of a complete bonded repair [3]. The applied loads were kept low to prevent premature damage to the specimens. The loading was applied slowly, such that the response of the joint could be considered static. The hybrid specimens tested were of three different types, and each type was tested in both a cracked and uncracked configuration. They are illustrated in Figures 7-2 and 7-3. The Single Lap Joint (SLJ) specimen models a single-sided repair, and exhibits no bending restraint. For this specimen, thermal residual strains and the step change in neutral axis position near the crack can be expected to induce significant bending strains. The Double Lap Joint (DLJ) specimen models a symmetric double-sided repair, and is fully restrained against bending. The Honeycomb-Separated Double Lap Joint ( H S - D L J ) specimen experiences partial bending restraint due to a compliant aluminum honeycomb separator bonded between the opposing patched plates. The details of the construction of the specimens are provided in Appendix A .  186  \u000C7 nlifis nf h n r n n - f i n o x v with a rfivfirsfid s t a n k i n n senuennp a n d 3  &gt;  crack  25.4  -150.0-304.8-457.2-  Figure 7-2: Lap joint specimens. From the top: SLJ, DLJ, and HS-DLJ specimens The  S L J specimen  was  instrumented  with  five  strain  gauges in the  cracked  configuration and four gauges in the uncracked configuration. The strain gauges were applied in the region of the grips (location A ) , and near the crack (location B ) . Figure 7-3 shows the locations of these gauges. The gauges are placed on opposite sides of the structure to assess both axial loads and bending moments. The extra gauge on the cracked specimen is embedded in the composite at location B , one ply from the adhesive interface. ^  GAUGE  A  ^  GAUGE  B  E  e  19.0 152.4  Figure 7-3: Strain gauge locations In accord with practice in the field of bonded repairs, the loads applied to the specimens are reported in terms of a remote applied stress. During these tests, a remote tensile stress was applied to the specimens in increments of 0.74 M P a . For each increment, the displacement (stretch), load, and strains were recorded. The load was obtained from the average of the strains recorded at location A . Displacements were measured on each side of the specimen using an M T S - 6 3 2 displacement transducer  and a custom-built  displacement transducer, each with a gauge length of 304.8 mm. For remote applied stresses of 0, 22.7, 45.3 and 68 M P a , the load was held constant while a custom-built contact displacement probe and scanner were used to measured the 187  \u000Clateral deflection of the specimens. The developed probe consists of a cantilevered spring clip instrumented with two strain gauges. Calibration tests show this sensor to be linear to within 1% full-scale over a working range of ~5 m m displacement. The scanner incorporated a stepper motor and belts from a dot-matrix printer to move the probe along the deflected specimen surface. This configuration allowed 400 measurements to be taken along the length of a specimen during each scan. After static testing of the specimens, the authors conducted a set of fatigue experiments to examine the effect of varying degrees of bending restraint on fatigue life and failure mode. Disbond growth was monitored both by the compliance drop method and by ultrasonic inspection. Figure 7-4 shows the rates of failure of the D L J specimen for various cyclic load ranges. In all cases the load ratio was R = 0. This figure shows results measured v i a the compliance drop method. A n initial period of relatively high crack growth is observed under the initial 280,000 cycles of constant-amplitude fatigue loading with a maximum applied stress of 68 M P a . This change in compliance was primarily due to failure of the adhesive bridging the crack faces, rather than by disbonding of the repair itself. For the next 280,000 cycles (with a maximum applied stress of 100 M P a ) , no change in compliance and hence no disbond growth is observed and significant disbonding was only observed when the reversing load exceeded 100 M P a , at which point the rate of disbonding increased rapidly with increasing applied loads. 20  1  n  15  0 to 155 MPa E \u00A3 1 0  o  n UL a  0 to 68 MPa -  0 to 100 MPa  Oto 132 MPaH  &lt;v&lt;\u00BB 100  200  300  400  500  600  700  800  Cycle [1000's]  Figure 7-4: Disbonding of the DLJ specimen Figure 7-5 shows the failure surface of the S L J specimen, which was not constrained against bending. In this test, the adhesive bridge over the crack faces and the innermost  188  \u000Clayer of fibers fractured upon the first cycle of loading, after which the delamination grew through the matrix of the patch. Marks left by dye penetrant indicate the amount of disbonding after an initial 36,000 cycles, and also at 48,000 cycles (i.e. 36,000 + 12,000 cycles) of fatigue loading. Under small applied stresses (see figure labels for values) the delamination grew more than 50 mm in only 60,000 cycles. Another interesting feature of the S L J failure is that significant delamination occurred in only one direction, even though the S L J specimen is symmetric about the crack. This shows that disbonding of unbalanced joints can happen in an unstable manner, i.e. once one part of the joint disbonds, bending strains concentrate and failure can occur more quickly.  36,000 cycles  12,000 cycles  24,000 @ 0-50 MPa 12,000 @ 0-68 MPa  @ 0-80 MPa  Figure 7-5: Failure surface of the SLJ specimen It is apparent that different damage mechanisms and higher disbond growth rates occur in repairs with significantly higher degrees of bending. In these cases, composite patch fatigue and fracture enter into the picture. These composite failure mechanisms require special attention. Certification of one-sided repairs may necessitate additional testing and analysis, possibly resulting in more stringent restrictions on operation and shorter inspection intervals than would be required for two-sided repairs.  7.3 Bonded joint finite element model The authors have constructed a Finite Element Model ( F E M ) of the lap joint specimens using an A N S Y S script. The script allows one to specify the geometry, loading, bending constraint, and amount of disbonding of the joint, and constructs a mesh with a specified base element size. The script performs a non-linear solution and writes strain, lateral displacement, load-displacement, and strain-energy results to a comma-separated variable file. The model uses S O L I D 8 0 2 D 8-node solid elements in plane stress or plane strain, with the honeycomb bending restraint being modelled using M A T R L X 2 7  elements  applied to the bottom edge of the plate. The script calculates the stiffness of each M A T R L X 2 7 element in proportion to the size of the adjacent elements. The D L J  189  \u000Cspecimen was modelled by fixing the bottom edge. Figure 7-6 shows the details of the mesh generated by the script for the uncracked single lap joint. A n underlying crack can be modelled by removing the symmetry constraint on the edge of the plate.  Figure 7-6: FE mesh showing the (a) cracked, (b) tapered, and (c) grip regions The script applies the specified load in a series of steps, which were solved using the full Newton-Raphson method applying adaptive descent, stress stiffening, large displacements, and small strain theory. The patch was modelled as an orthotropic elastic solid, the adhesive as an isotropic elastic/perfectly plastic solid, and the aluminum plate as an isotropic elastic solid. The thermal residual stresses imparted by the patch bonding process were modelled using an effective stress-free temperature of 81\u00B0C. Table 7-1 lists the material properties used in the analysis. The script has also been designed to model a specified length of disbond propagating from the left edge of the model. Property Elastic Modulus (GPa) Shear Modulus (GPa) Poisson's Ratio  Boron/Epoxy Patch Elongitudinal Etransverse  Thermal Expansion (jue/\u00B0C)  7.24  =  G trans verse  = 2.14  E  = 72.4  G = 0.805  G  = 27.2  1-0  =  ^longitudinal  =  0.21  v = 0.33  v = 0.33  a =50.0  a =50.0  0.019  =  &amp; longitudinal &amp; longitudinal  E  Aluminum Plate  2.5  =  Glongitudinal  t^ transverse  210  =  Adhesive  =  =  4.61  25.87  Thickness  7plys, t = 0.924 mm  t = 0.25 mm  t = 3.125 mm  Yield Strain  N/A  0.0739  N/A  Table 7-1: Material properties and dimensions Figures 7-7 and 7-8 compare strain gauge data for the SLJ specimens with strains predicted by the F E M . This specimen is free to bend, and the nonlinear nature of this bending is evident in these figures. Large elastic strains were generated for small loads, followed by more linear behaviour once the specimen's neutral axis had shifted toward the load line. There are several possible sources for the differences between the experimental and F E M results. By numerical experimentation it was found that the compliance of the fibreglass end tabs (modelled with rigid boundary conditions) has 190  \u000Csome effect on the amount of bending, that the finite thickness of the strain gauges tends to amplify the observed bending strains by a small but tangible amount, and that the results are also dependant upon the initial curvature of the specimen. It should also be noted that the specimens had sat for some time before testing, and that a number of static tests had to be performed to set up the apparatus, so creep may have somewhat reduced the residual strains and hence the effective stress-free temperature used in the analysis (based upon results for an unloaded and un-aged specimen [5]) may have been somewhat unrepresentative. For these reasons, it is not possible to achieve as high a high level of correspondence between experimental and numerical results in a nonlinear analysis of this type as one would expect for a monolithic elastic material experiencing small strains and small displacements. The results for location B (at the centre of the specimen) are generally better than the results at location A (near the end tabs). This can be attributed to the sensitivity to the end conditions at location A , whereas the strains at location B are more dependant on the global mechanics of the joint and the behaviour about the embedded crack. Despite these observed differences, the overall trends match quite well, and as will be shown, the lateral deflections and the load-displacement curves obtained from the finite element model and the experimental results prove to match well enough to test some energy methods for bonded composite repair design. 1400  0  10  20  30  40  50  Remote Applied Stress (MPa)  Figure 7-7: Strains for the cracked SLJ specimen  191  60  70  \u000C-200 -I 0  1  , 10  1  20  30  , 50  40  r60  Remote Applied Stress (MPa)  Figure 7-8: Strains for the uncracked SLJ specimen Figures 7-9 and 7-10 plot the scanned position of the outer face of the patch and the deflections predicted by the F E M . The scanner also reads the thickness of the patch and adhesive, explaining the difference between the results. The specimen deflections after correction for the thickness of the patch is presented in Figures 7-11 and 7-12. 2.5  _  2  E E c  1  5  fl) E 0  &lt;u  -EXP: EXP: -EXP: EXP: FEM: FEM: FEM: FEM:  OMPa 22.7 MPa 44.3 M P a 68 MPa 0 MPa 22.7 MPa 44.3 MPa 68 M P a  1  Q. \u00A3 0.5 O  c  1 in  o  o  S-0.5 D&gt; TJ UJ  -1.5 -150  -100  -50  0  50  100  Distance from Specimen Centre-Line (mm)  Figure 7-9: Edge position of cracked SLJ  192  150  \u000CT w o important features should be noted from these figures: 1) the cracked specimen exhibits a sharp bend over the crack, and 2) the change in deflection induced by the applied load markedly decreases with each load increment. The bending over the crack is indicative of the lost bending stiffness due to the underlying crack. This effect has been shown to dramatically accelerate the rate of failure of single-sided bonded repairs [3]. EXP: 0 MPa EXP: 22.7 MPa  Distance from Specimen Centre-Line (mm)  Figure 7-10: Edge position of uncracked SLJ Figures 7-11 and 7-12 plot the lateral deflections of the S L J specimens by subtracting the position at particular loads from the initial, unloaded position.  193  \u000CDistance from Specimen Centre-Line (mm) Figure 7-11: Cracked SLJ lateral deflection  There is reasonably good agreement (generally within 10%) between the experiments and the F E M in these results, and again, the dramatic effect of the crack is evident in the cracked specimen. The change in lateral deflection is proportional to the moments applied to the structure when it is loaded, so this good agreement between the finite element and experimental results indicates that the model is accurate in its depiction of the bending of the lap joint, and hence should provide excellent results for analysing the effects of mixed-mode loading.  194  \u000C1.8  Distance from Specimen Centre-Line (mm) Figure 7-12: Uncracked S L J lateral deflections  Finally, load-displacement curves were generated for each of the specimens. These are plotted in Figure 7-13, where it can be seen that the cracked specimens all exhibited more compliance than the corresponding uncracked specimen, and that both the D L J and H S D L J specimens exhibit nearly linear behaviour. Overall, the difference i n compliance between the D L J and H S - D L J specimens is relatively small, and is not very evident in the load-displacement curves. For the S L J specimen, the deflection was obtained by using the average deflection for the displacement transducers  applied to either side of the  specimen. Similarly, the rotation o f the specimen near the grips can be measured from the difference between the deflections measured by the probes.  195  \u000C10  20  30  40  50  Remote Applied Stress (MPa)  60  70  Figure 7-13: Load vs. displacement curves In the next section, the Rose model for reinforced cracks w i l l be introduced, the loaddeflection data w i l l be used to estimate the stress intensity under a repair, and the results w i l l be compared to those from the two-dimensional bonded joint finite element model.  7.4 Stress intensity calculation: the Rose model The stress intensity is an important life determining factor, and may be calculated using the Rose model. Rose observed that for very long cracks reinforced by springs, the crack opening displacement is restricted only by the springs bridging the crack faces and stresses and strains near the crack tip become independent of crack length. The process is illustrated in Figure 7-14. Here, the strain energy release rate, G \u201E , reaches a limit [4,6,11] that can be calculated from the difference in the total potential energy for strips of the structure taken well away from the crack (Section B - B ) , and over the crack, but far from the crack tip (Section A - A ) .  196  \u000C|-&gt; B - B  [-&gt; A - A  da  -da  i I |I &gt; I j  WIWI  li  IIIII I i i i II i |! IIII I 11111 1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  III  i!i!i' i  n  III  IIIII I  A-A  I  B-B  A-A  B-B  Figure 7-14: The energy method: A-A and B-B show cracked and uncracked joints For a balanced repair there is very little bending, and the work done on and strain energy in the two strips is equal except in the energy balance for the springs bridging the crack. Here, the energy available for crack growth can be determined by calculating the energy required to open the crack faces far from the crack tip. For a plate of thickness 2h bridged by springs o f stiffness k (in Palm), s  and subject to a stress CT acting to open 0  the crack, the energy release rate is defined as follows. G\u201E = Ah \u00A3 adx = 4/i J k xdx = 2hu = 2  s  2_  (1)  A s the springs bridging the crack have little effect for short cracks, interpolation between this long-crack limit and a short-crack limit given by the nominal fracture solution for a crack without reinforcing springs allows an accurate assessment o f the stress intensity for cracks of arbitrary length. Adhesive stresses and plate loads in the composite repair can be estimated in a similar manner [2]. The Rose model has been shown to be accurate for the extension of double-sided or symmetric repairs, and the authors have extended it to the case of linear coupled extension and bending by 1) applying plate bending geometry correction factors to account for transverse shear and pressurization o f the crack tip, 2) correcting the long-crack limit solutions, and 3) developing a new method for interpolation for arbitrary crack lengths [18]. Current means for closed-form nonlinear analysis of one-sided repairs use geometrically nonlinear models to calculate the nominal stresses acting in the repaired plate in the region of the crack, which are then applied as crack-opening stresses i n a linear crack-  197  \u000Cbridging model [7]. This method ignores nonlinear effects due to additional compliance from the crack, which w i l l result in additional lateral deflections of the cracked portion of the structure,  increasing the nonlinearity caused by stress-stiffening.  This existing  approach has been shown to be conservative, and hence is useful for airworthiness evaluation. However, in the case of long cracks this existing approach is prohibitively conservative  and does not allow a reasonable  evaluation of structure life to be  determined. Hence, the existing method is only applicable to short cracks or for lightly loaded parts. The limitations of the existing approach are due to the application of superposition when stresses determined by nonlinear analysis of a repair without a crack are used to calculate the stress intensity using a linear crack bridging model, a principal that cannot be applied in a general manner to nonlinear problems. T o address this, the authors refer to the original basis of the Rose model and apply the full definition of the strain energy release rate, i.e. the difference between the potential of external loads  (W)  and the strain energy stored in the structure (U ). Using this approach, a formulation may be developed which does not rely on superposition. Here, the subscript c refers to the cracked section A - A , and nc refers to the section without a crack, i.e. B - B .  G_=-%-{W-U) da  = -j- (W -W -U +U ) da c  nc  c  nc  (2)  A s before, the strain energy release rate for a long reinforced crack may be calculated by considering a strip of material remote from the crack and a strip taken at the centre of the crack. The potential work done by the applied load is calculated from the difference in the deflection of the two strips at the current value of the applied load. For a plate experiencing an applied tensile load &lt;T , the change in potential for external load is given 0  by the following, where u ,u c  nc  are the deflections of the cracked and uncracked strips,  respectively.  (3)  W= \\cr (u -u )dA 0  c  nc  A  The change in energy stored in the structure may be calculated directly from the stresses and strains in each of the strips. Here, the change in strain energy is given as follows, where V represents the volume of a strip.  (4)  U = \\cr dV ij\u00A3ij  V  For the linear case, W = 2U , and the strain energy release rate may be determined i f either quantity is known. Here, the contribution of externally applied loads may be isolated by examining the load-deflection history and calculating the work done on the cracked and uncracked strips. This is a useful method that can be applied in the  198  \u000Claboratory to determine the effectiveness of a repair by mechanical testing of equivalent lap joints. B y this method, one can use either the experimental or the F E M loaddisplacement results to determine the energy available for cracking. Figure 7-15 shows these results.  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  Load [MPa] Figure 7-15: Change in strain energy The experimental results for the energy available for crack growth have been calculated from strain and deflection data averaged over 100 cycles of loading applied at 2 H z with a sinusoidal waveform. The oscillations in the experimental results for the S L J specimen arise from repeatable fluctuations in the signal from the custom-made  displacement  probe, and are characteristics of the mechanical response of this particular probe under extension. The peak and plateau in the S L J specimen results are due to geometrically non-linear bending. F E M results for higher applied stresses (in the order of 100 M P a - not shown as experimental results extend only to 68 M P a ) show that once stress-stiffening dominates the behaviour of both the cracked and uncracked S L J specimens, the available energy increases in a one-to-one fashion, in the characteristic manner of a linear system as observed for the D L J and H S - D L J specimens. Results from the finite element model for the D L J specimen have been shown for the additional case where adhesive bridging of the crack faces provides additional restraint, reducing the energy available for cracking, and for the case where a significant disbond exists over the crack. In a similar manner, the energy available due to thermal residual stresses can be derived from the F E M results. The authors calculated this energy by summing the elastic strain  199  \u000Cenergy stored in all of the elements in the model. Table 7-2 shows the results. The final column, titled 'Difference', is the energy available for crack growth. Specimen ID  Uncracked  Cracked  Difference  S L J (cracked)  77.46  76.45  1.01  HS-DLJ  87.31  84.63  2.68  DLJ  87.45  85.61  1.84  Table 7-2: Thermal residual elastic strain energy (J/m). The strain energy may be converted into a stress intensity factor by observing the result of Kotousov and Wang [9,10] and Clark and Romilly [15] that, in terms of the plateaveraged membrane and bending stress intensity, the crack tip is always in a state of plane strain. A U is the difference in stored internal energy per unit width, while t and E are the thickness and modulus of the substrate.  \\l-v  2  t  Using the method outlined above, the long-crack limit stress intensity due to thermal residual strains in the honeycomb-separated joint is K  x  well to the result of A\"^ =5.11 MPa4m  =5.23 MPaJm . This compares  found with the classical Rose model [5].  7.5 Comparison to a 3D FE model and mode separation The authors have developed a three-dimensional finite element model of the A M R L specimen [16], which has been validated against strain gauge data from mechanical testing. The model includes nonlinear effects such as stress stiffening and adhesive plasticity. The finite element results presented in this paper for the purpose of verifying the Generalized Rose (GR) model were generated from an idealized geometry, chosen to limit the effects of finite patch and plate size exhibited by the actual A M R L specimen. For this reason, the patch was made to extend uniformly across the entire width of the plate, and the plate width was increased such that it would be much longer than the repaired crack. This geometry is an approximation to the 'infinitely long' patch used to develop the Generalized Rose model. Figure 7-16 shows the geometry employed for the repaired crack, where (a) shows the front view of the entire model and (b) shows a closeup view of the crack-tip region. The left edge of the plate is restrained against rotation but allowed to translate freely. The lower edge and right edge of the plate are restrained to model symmetry, other than the crack face, which is free of restraint. The lower and right edges of the patch are constrained to model symmetry.  200  \u000C(a)  (b)  Figure 7-16: Finite element model (a) front view and (b) crack-tip region. The plate was modeled using two layers of elements, which was found to be sufficient to assess the thickness effects on the membrane and bending stress intensity. The patch was modeled using four elements through the thickness, and the adhesive with one element. The stress intensity through the thickness of the plate was calculated from the stresses at the integration points in the wedge elements along the line of the crack, using quarter-point singular crack tip elements. The membrane and bending stress intensity factors were calculated using a least squares fit of a line to the integration point results. The bending stress intensity was calculated from the slope of the line and the membrane stress intensity was calculated using the intersection with the neutral axis of the plate. T o test the Rose model, these two results were combined using equation (6), by which the root mean square stress intensity, K , ms  is defined.  Figure 7-17 shows the nonlinear variation in K  ms  under a remote applied stress. The  three-dimensional finite element results are shown to approach the long-crack limit obtained from the Rose model. The result obtained through superposition and the application of a linear crack-bridging model is shown to greatly over-predict the stress intensity, particularly for long cracks. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the Rose model for evaluation of one-sided repairs. Note that the results include the effects of thermal residual strains, showing that the method is applicable to repairs experiencing nonlinear bending and the presence of initial stresses.  201  \u000C45  o A o  E  Superposition Long-crack limit Generalized Rose Model 3D FEA: 160 mm crack 3D FEA: 80 mm crack 3D FEA: 40 mm crack  0 0  20  40  60  80  100  120  140  Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 7-17: Nonlinear variation in RMS stress intensity The two-dimensional finite element models used to calculate the external potential and stored energy for the cracked and uncracked strips contain no special elements and are easily extendable to multi-physics analysis including effects such as diffusion of water into the joint. They may also easily be extended to the analysis of a disbonding patch, and to the examination of repairs with different materials, repair thickness, and overlap lengths. For this reason the G R model is seen as a very useful tool for damage tolerance analysis and design of repairs, however the method faces significant challenges. A method is required to separate the membrane and bending stress intensity components to allow prediction of fatigue and fracture, a suitable interpolation is required for finitelength cracks, and means must be developed by which the stresses in the composite repair and the adhesive may be known.  7.5.1 Mode separation In previous efforts, the authors attempted to perform mode separation by separating the energy stored in the structure into components related to bending and extension [18]. Unfortunately, energy-based methods yielded poor results, as it proves to be difficult to come up with a sound means for separating the strain energy in a composite structure into membrane and bending components, particularly for the edge regions where the plate and patch cannot be described by simple composite beam theory. It is also not readily discernable which part of the potential energy of the applied load is related to bending or extension, as the displacement at the point of application of the load results from a  202  \u000Ccombination of bending and tensile modes that cannot be decomposed under the influence of nonlinear effects. Instead, a nonlinear crack-bridging model was developed based upon the linear crack-bridging model [18], which allows the calculation of the membrane and bending stress intensity factors, and the membrane and bending crack face displacements for a crack bridged by springs. For the analysis of a crack with a finite length, the model assumes that the deflection of the crack faces is governed by a linear relationship, where the subscripts m and b stand for membrane and bending components of the stresses, stiffnesses, and displacements. A s examples, k  mm  is the membrane stiffness  of the patch as it bridges the crack, and k is the membrane stiffness of the cracked plate. p  m  0  \\  CT  k^+k  p  \"\u2022mb  ^bm  b J  kbb  +  ^b  1 J\\  (7) U  h  J  To extend this model to the case of nonlinear coupled bending and extension, one must derive a stiffness term for the nonlinear stiffening effects acting upon the repair. Consider a very long composite beam (i.e. a boron-epoxy patch bonded to an aluminum substrate) with one end pinned at the neutral axis and with an applied force T acting at the far end as shown in Figure 7-18. The nonlinear response of the beam is characterized by the parameter X = sign(T)^T  IEI^  , where EI  rp  is the beam bending stiffness of the repaired  plate.  Figure 7-18: Stress-stiffening beam model The rotation at the end of the beam is given as follows: 0 =  M EI  (8)  A  Expressing the rotation in terms of the bending displacement of the outer fibre of the aluminum substrate, u , and expressing the moment in terms of the bending stress in the b  outer fibre, o , h  this may be rewritten as follows.  u =  (9)  h  Here, I is the second moment of area of the aluminum substrate plate alone. A bending stiffness coefficient can now be defined as follows:  203  \u000CW i t h this new bending stiffness term in hand, it is now possible to carry out a nonlinear crack-bridging analysis. A n overview o f the method follows. Step 1: Considering only thermal residual stresses, the nominal membrane and bending substrate stresses (cr\u00B0 and &lt; 7 \u00B0 ) and the composite patch membrane stress ( c r \u00B0 ) at the c  crack plane are determined by the nonlinear analysis of a single lap joint without a crack. Step 2 : A linear crack-bridging analysis is carried out considering only the thermal residual stresses in the crack plane. The deflection results from this analysis are used to calculate the tensile line-force, T , carried by the patch as it bridges the crack under 0  thermal residual stresses alone. T = (k u 0  mm  + k u )t  m  mb  h  + a\u00B0 t  p  (11)  mc r  Step 3: Considering both thermal residual stresses and an applied tensile load, the nominal membrane and bending stresses in the crack plane are recalculated. Step 4: A n initial guess for the total tensile line-force carried by the patch as it bridges the crack is made, as follows: T =ot a  (12)  p  Step 5: Based on the derivation presented above, a nonlinear bending stress-stiffening term is calculated to account for nonlinear effects. Step 6: The crack plane stresses from step 3 are applied as crack-opening stresses in the linear crack-bridging model. The stiffness matrix includes the nonlinear term k +k:  m  \\ \u00B0 b  mh  k-bm  J  bh  k  +  h  k  nl  J  k  mm  k.  +  nl  k  J  (13) \\b u  J  Step 7: The resulting membrane and bending crack opening deflections are used to calculate the actual line-force carried by the patch as it bridges the crack. A correction is made to account for r , which is not considered to contribute to stress stiffening. o  T = (k u mm  m  +k u )t +&lt;j t -T mh  b  p  mc r  (14)  0  Step 8: Return to step 3 using a bisection method to arrive at a new estimate o f the lineforce and iterate towards the solution. The nonlinear bending stiffness term is updated for each iteration. Repeat until the line-force value converges. A t this point, the line-spring  204  \u000Cmodel provides the as-reinforced membrane and bending stress intensity factors and the crack opening displacements at the centre of the crack. This method accounts for the fact that the remote applied load is generally shed from the reinforced region near the centre of the crack, reducing the nonlinear stiffening effects. T o demonstrate the utility of this closed-form interpolation approach, the authors have applied it to a bonded composite repair for a range of finite width cracks. These results are shown in Figures 7-19 through 7-22 where they are compared to threedimensional finite element results for the same repair geometry. A l s o shown are the longcrack limit results found by applying the stresses determined in step 3 to a linear crackbridging analysis. These results are generally very conservative and are labelled as 'superposition' on the figures. The nonlinear long-crack limit results are found by excluding the plate stiffness terms (kg  and kg)  from the nonlinear crack-bridging  analysis. 45  \u00A3 \u00AB  Q.  ID C  - - Superposition Long crack limit -\u2022\u2014 Interpolation: 160 mm crack \u2014A\u2014 Interpolation: 80 mm crack -m\u2014 Interpolation: 40 mm crack -\u2022\u2014 Interpolation: 20 mm crack o FEM: 160 mm crack A FEM: 80 mm crack \u2022 FEM: 40 mm crack o FEM: 20 mm crack  20  40  60  80  100  Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 7-19: Membrane stress intensity.  205  120  140  \u000C25  ~  E  - - Superposition Long crack limit e-\u2014 Interpolation: 160 mm crack -*\u2014 Interpolation: 80 mm crack -\u00AB\u2014 Interpolation: 40 mm crack -\u2022\u2014 Interpolation: 20 mm crack o FEM: 160 mm crack A FEM: 80 mm crack p FEM: 40 mm crack o FEM: 20 mm crack  20  T  10  a. 2&gt;. 15 *-\u00BB '&lt;\u00BB c  H  r, \u00B0 8 H  0  V  140  Remote Applied Stress [MPa] Figure 7-20: Bending stress intensity  250  E  200 \\  o&gt;  |  o  150  n  superposition \u2022Long crack limit - Interpolation: 160 mm crack \u2022 Interpolation: 80 mm crack - Interpolation: 40 mm crack - Interpolation: 20 mm crack FEM: 160 mm crack FEM: 80 mm crack FEM: 40 mm crack FEM: 20 mm crack  Q.  in  '\u20225 100 o c 2 Si  E  20  40  60  80  100  Remote Applied Stress [MPa] Figure 7-21: Membrane crack face displacement  206  120  140  \u000C150  125  E *j* 100 4)  E  s  superposition - Long crack limit - Interpolation: 160 mm crack - Interpolation: 80 mm crack - Interpolation: 40 mm crack - Interpolation: 20 mm crack FEM: 160 mm crack FEM: 80 mm crack FEM: 40 mm crack FEM: 20 mm crack  40  60  80  100  120  140  Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 7-22: Bending crack face displacement A s illustrated in the figures, the results using this closed-form interpolation approach are much more accurate than would be achieved by superposition alone, and should provide much more realistic estimates of the strength and life of a repair, but are not sufficiently accurate to be used alone as a basis for airworthiness certification and cannot be shown to be conservative in a general manner. Accordingly, the authors see this approach as a valuable tool for design optimization and the determination of the effectiveness of a single-sided repair, however they are not yet a replacement for a comprehensive and detailed analysis. The approach involves highly idealized models, particularly in regard to the patch and plate geometry, which are considered to be of infinite planar extent throughout.  A combined approach of design optimization and life assessment by this  crack-bridging model along with verification at selected crack lengths by full threedimensional finite element analysis is suggested as being appropriate.  Comparisons  should also be drawn to test data wherever possible, particularly as regards the evaluation of the strength and life of adhesive and composite.  7.5.2 Adhesive and Composite Failure Given the experimental results described in Section 7.2, the peel stresses in the adhesive and the bending stresses in the composite plate have a central role in the failure of a onesided repair. Reliable methods are required for the prediction of these stresses under the combined effects of thermal residual strains and nonlinear bending. Baseline stresses for the repair of a very long crack may easily be determined from the two-dimensional model of an equivalent cracked lap joint, such as the F E model that was validated in Section 7.3.  207  \u000CThis provides long crack limit values, similar in nature to the long crack limit stress intensity determined by the Rose model. The adhesive and composite stresses for a reinforced crack of arbitrary length may be determined from the crack face displacements calculated in Section 7.5.1 i f one considers the geometrically nonlinear bending to be a function of the greater geometry of the repaired plate, and the local adhesive and composite stresses to be locally linear. In this case, the adhesive stresses may be determined from either the F E results or the closed-form analysis presented by the authors in reference (19). Using the F E results for the tested specimen geometry, the crack opening stress required to develop the displacements calculated in Section 7.5.1 may be calculated as follows: 2.814  m  \u20223.591Y  (15)  Here, the stresses are expressed in units of MPa and the displacements in fJm. Again using the F E results, the adhesive stress may be found as follows:  f&lt;7  u p  \u2014  )  -1.359 4.447  -0.125YcT  (16)  1.206 'J  The results of this calculation are shown in Figures 7-23 and 7-24 where it can be seen that, when compared to three-dimensional F E analysis, the adhesive stresses follow the correct trend and should provide reasonable results for strength and life estimation.  208  \u000C120  100 a  CL  5  (0 (0 &lt;u CO  0) w  JZ  CD  &gt; '35  0)  .c \u2022o  &lt;  20  40  60  80  100  120  140  Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 7-23: Adhesive shear stress 140 Interpolation: 160 mm crack -A\u2014 Interpolation: 80 mm crack - \u2022 - Interpolation: 40 mm crack - \u2022 - Interpolation: 20 mm crack o FEM: 160 mm crack A FEM: 80 mm crack o FEM: 40 mm crack o FEM: 20 mm crack \u2014 2 D FEM  140 Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 7-24: Adhesive peel stress B y a similar technique, it is possible to calculate the stresses in the composite patch. Here, it is possible to calculate the crack bridging component o f the membrane and bending stresses in the patch directly from the resultant force and moment given by the 209  \u000Ceffective crack opening stresses in equation (15). The nominal stresses in the patch may be determined from the two-dimensional model presented in Section 7.3. 0  1 &gt; fa  ^  0  (17)  mc  _0  \\ \u00B0 b  j  \\ bc G  J  'J Figures 7-25 and 7-26 show the results of this calculation. It is again observed that the results follow the correct trends. It must be noted that the patch bending stresses are very high for single-sided repairs, and therefore must be carefully considered during design of the resulting hybrid structural repair. 600  500  n Q.  400  (0 (0 0)  &lt;u c  300  -\u2022\u2014A\u2014 -\u2022-\u2022o A \u2022 o  Interpolation: 160 mm crack Interpolation: 80 mm crack Interpolation: 40 mm crack Interpolation: 20 mm crack FEM: 160 mm crack FEM: 80 mm crack FEM: 40 mm crack FEM: 20 mm crack FEM 2D  (0 k_  XI  E  200  Q)  E JC  100  o  ' (0  Q.  80  100  -100 Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 7-25: Patch membrane stress  210  120  140  \u000C1800  -200  - \u2022 - Interpolation: 160 mm crack  1  j  Remote Applied Stress [MPa]  Figure 7-26: Patch bending stress  7.6 Discussion A set of bonded joint specimens have been designed, built, and tested in order to determine the extent to which bending restraint affects the mechanical response of a repair. The developed approach allows for the direct experimental evaluation of the effects of nonlinear coupled bending and extension on the energy available to drive crack growth in the repair of a long crack. The method requires very precise measurements of the deflection and load carried by the specimen, and the use of two extensometers such that the deflection at the load-line can be calculated. B y comparison to finite element results, the effects of bending restraint, disbonding, and the adhesive bridge over the crack faces are all measurable. The authors see this approach as a very direct means to assess the effect of various materials and patch geometries on repair performance. B y testing materials that are in different conditions (e.g. hot/wet), data regarding the effectiveness of a particular repair strategy can be garnered while tests to determine disbonding rates and failure modes of bonded joint specimens are conducted. The experimental results indicate a change in disbonding mechanism from cohesive failure of the adhesive for a symmetric or double-sided joint to failure at the interface of the patch and adhesive and within the first ply of the composite patch for a single-sided repair that is not restrained against bending. This change in damage mode accompanies a large increase in the rate of disbonding and culminates in the eventual failure of the composite patch due to bending and peel stresses. The detrimental effects of peel stresses  211  \u000Cand bending on the performance of bonded composite repairs is well known, and is warned against both in the literature [e.g. 20] and in F A A circulars, which require the assessment of composite failure modes. The results in this paper verify the importance of geometrically nonlinear bending effects on the strength and life of a repair and provide new means by which they can be assessed in terms of the repaired plate, the adhesive bond, and the composite repair. B y comparison with measured strains, lateral deflections, and load/deflection curves, it has been demonstrated that two-dimensional F E models can easily model the complex behaviour of the single lap joint. Through the Rose model and by comparison with experimental results, it has been shown that developed two-dimensional F E model results provide an accurate assessment of the energy available for crack growth and the rootmean-square stress intensity for a long crack under a single-sided repair. It is also possible to evaluate the adhesive and composite stresses in a repair containing a long crack. Unfortunately, this approach does not provide data for short cracks or cracks of arbitrary length, and as such, while useful for the evaluation and ranking of different repair configurations, is not particularly useful for life assessment and damage tolerance analysis. A s much of the life of a structure occurs during the initial growth of a crack, methods are required to analyse the stress intensity and adhesive/composite stresses for an arbitrary crack length. For this purpose, the authors introduce a nonlinear crackbridging model, which, by comparison to three-dimensional F E models, provides a significant improvement in analytical capability over existing methods. The nonlinear crack-bridging model provides reasonable results that should provide a sound evaluation of the life of the repaired plate. It has not, however, been established that the results are conservative and validation against test data or verification against finite element models is still required, particularly with respect to concerns related to the evaluation of the effects of the planar geometry of the patch and plate. It is proposed that initial analysis and design verification proceed by first designing the best possible bonded joint based on a two-dimensional finite element or analytical bonded joint model. Ideally, the joint should be capable of carrying the entire load in the plate and be designed such that adhesive stresses are below a threshold. Damage tolerance assessment of the repair itself would first be attempted  by the conservative linear crack-bridging method.  Acceptable results at this stage should preclude much additional verification/validation work as the models are inherently very conservative. In cases where such results are not acceptable, it would be necessary to move to the next level of analysis and use the nonlinear crack-bridging model described in this paper to obtain a more realistic assessment of the life of the repair. It is recognized however that, depending on the margins  involved,  significant validation work via finite element  212  analysis  and/or  \u000Ccomparison to test results may still be necessary to ensure the conservatism of the analysis and obtain airworthiness certification. With  a nonlinear crack-bridging model in hand,  it is possible to perform  a  comprehensive damage tolerance assessment of a single-sided bonded repair. It remains to develop a nonlinear bonded joint model suitable for inclusion in a damage tolerance analysis software package, and to develop a process for arriving at allowable stress levels for the adhesive and the composite patch matrix. W i t h these two further pieces in place, it should be possible to optimize and certify repair designs with relative ease, at least for 'easy' cases where stresses are low and/or the plate being repaired is relatively thin such that induced bending is not overly severe. It is likely that complex problems with high stresses or unusual geometries w i l l always require additional experimental verification and in these cases, bonded composite repairs w i l l likely only make sense on a fleet-wide basis or where scrapping of a part is prohibitively expensive or a structural component cannot be removed from the plane.  7.7 Concluding Remarks The goal of damage tolerance analysis is to demonstrate that the structure w i l l retain strength in the presence of detectable damage from known damage sources, and that sufficient inspection regimes have been prescribed to prevent catastrophic failure. B y an experimental and finite element investigation of lap joints that are representative of a one-sided bonded composite repair, it has been confirmed that geometrically nonlinear coupled bending and extension along with adhesive and composite failure modes play a key  role and must be evaluated in a comprehensive manner. However, while well  recognized within the structural repair community, with the exception of performing a full numerical analysis of a particular repair scenario, few design tools exist that can fully assess nonlinear effects in such a manner that a realistic estimate of the life of the repair can be made. Currently there is very little design information present for the evaluation of the adhesive and composite strength under nonlinear bending. To this end, the authors have evaluated the nonlinear Rose model and validated it against both experimental and finite element results. The long-crack limit root-meansquare stress intensity results were shown to be very good. This is sufficient to rank the effectiveness of various repair designs in slowing or stopping the growth of long cracks, but is unfortunately not sufficient for the calculation of the strength of the repair or the rate of crack growth. More capable means are required, as the largest part of the life of a repair w i l l occur when the crack is small, and both the membrane and bending stress intensity factor are required in order to predict the strength and rate of crack growth. This method also does not provide sufficient information to fully evaluate the strength of the adhesive or the composite with short cracks.  213  \u000CBased upon a linear crack-bridging model previously developed by the authors, the authors have developed a new method for the nonlinear analysis of repaired cracks of arbitrary  length.  It  is  an  improvement  over  existing approaches,  allowing the  determination of much improved estimates of the stress intensity in the repaired plate and the stresses in the adhesive and the composite repair. Accordingly, it should provide a better evaluation of the life and strength of a repair. M o r e work is need to develop nonlinear bonded joint models suitable for incorporation into damage tolerance software and in developing stress allowables for the adhesive and composite matrix such that repairs can be easily designed and optimized for damage tolerance.  7.8 References [I] Baker, A . A . Repair Efficiency in Fatigue Cracked A l u m i n u m Components Reinforced with Boron/Epoxy Patches. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 16, 753, 1993. [2] Clark, R . J . and Romilly, D . P . , Fatigue Damage Prediction for Bonded Composite Repairs Applied to Metallic Aircraft Structures. S A E Transactions - Journal of Aerospace (2001). [3] Clark, R . J . and Romilly, D . P . , Experimental Study of a Bonded Composite Repair presented at the 2002 C S M E Forum, Kingston, Ontario, M a y 21-24, 2002. 9 p. [4] Rose, L . R . F . , 1988. Theoretical Analysis of Crack Patching. In: Baker, A . A . , Jones, R., (eds.), Bonded Repair of Aircraft Structures, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp. 77-106 (1988). [5] Albat, A . M . , Thermal Residual Stresses in Bonded Composite Repairs on Cracked Metal Structures, Faculty of Graduate Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, 1998. [6] Rose, L . R . F . , A Crack Repaired by Bonded Reinforcement, International Journal of Fracture, 18(2), 135-144(1982) [7] Wang, C . H . , Rose, L . R . F . , A Crack-Bridging M o d e l for Bonded Plates Subjected to Tension and Bending, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 36, 1985-2014 (1999) [8] Clark, R. J., Romilly, D . P., Non-linear Bending Study of Hybrid A l u m i n u m and Boron-Epoxy Bonded Joints presented at C A N C O M , Ottawa, Ontario, lOp, 2003. [9] Kotousov, A . , Wang, C . H . , Fundamental Solutions for the Generalised Plane Strain Theory, International Journal of Engineering Science, 40, 1775-1790 (2002) [10] Kotousov A . and Wang C H . A generalized plane strain theory for transversally isotropic plates. Acta Mechanica 161 (2003) 53-64 [II] Rose, L . R . F . , A n Application of the Inclusion Analogy for Bonded Reinforcements, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 17, 827-838 (1980) [12] Baker A A , Roberts J D , Rose L R F . Experimental study of overlap joint parameters relevant to k eduction due to crack patching. 28th National S A M P E Symposium, 1983, 627-639.  214  \u000C[13] Sun C T , K u g J, Arendt C . Analysis of cracked aluminum plates repaired by bonded composite patches. A I A A Journal, 34, 369-374, 1996. [14] Naboulsi S, M a l l S. Nonlinear analysis of bonded composite patch repair of cracked aluminum panels. Composite structures 41, 303-313, 1998. [15] Clark R J and R o m i l l y D P . Transverse shear and pressurization effects in the bending of plates with reinforced cracks, accepted by Engineering Fracture Mechanics. [16] Clark R J . Damage tolerance of bonded composite aircraft repairs. P h . D . thesis, University of British Columbia, 2006. [17] Clark, R. J., Romilly, D . P. Coupled bending and extension of bonded composite repairs, presented at C A N C O M , Vancouver, British Columbia, 12p, 2005. [18] Clark, R . J . , R o m i l l y D . P . Linear coupled bending and extension of an unbalanced bonded repair, accepted by International Journal of Solids and Structures. [19] Clark, R . J . , R o m i l l y D . P . Elastic analysis of hybrid bonded joints and bonded composite repairs. Submitted to Composite Structures, October 2, 2006. [20] Jones, R., C h i u , W . R . , Smith, R. Airworthiness of composite repairs: failure mechanisms. Engineering Failure Analysis V o l . 2, 1995, pp. 117-128.  215  \u000CChapter 8: Results, contributions, and future work R.J. Clark  University of British Columbia Department of Mechanical Engineering  8.1 Introduction In this chapter, the author summarizes the results of the work presented in the proceeding chapters, illustrates the objectives that have been met and the contributions to the field, and provides guidance for those who would follow up on the work. The overall objective of the U B C B C R P program is to develop the design methodology, tools, and experimental data required to move the bonded composite repair technology from the military realm into widespread use in the civil aviation repair and overhaul industry. In the literature review in Chapter 1, the author identified damage tolerance analysis requirements and the resulting need for comprehensive fatigue testing of any repair scenario or geometry as a major barrier to the use of the technology in civilian aerospace. In particular, shortcomings in our ability to easily characterize bending and plate thickness effects on: a) the rate of failure of the repaired substrate, and b) the composite patch and adhesive damage mechanisms, were identified as critical  impediments.  Accordingly, the overall objective of this thesis was defined as follows:  'To develop and validate methods for damage tolerance substantiation of bonded composite repairs, with a focus on quantifying the effects of bending and plate thickness\" This objective has been met through a rigorous program of mechanical testing, finite element modelling, and closed-form analytical work that lead to the development of new innovations in the several areas of solid body mechanics, including:  a) fundamental  topics of linear elastic fracture mechanics, b) bonded joint mechanics, c) the analysis of reinforced cracks, d) the development of new engineering methodologies for bonded joint design and e) damage tolerance substantiation of repairs. For the purposes of this final chapter, discussion of this research has been divided into four stages: 1) full-scale patch testing and three-dimensional finite element modelling, 2) development of generalized plane strain plate models for coupled extension and bending of reinforced plates, 3) analysis of orthotropic patches under combined extension and bending, and  216  \u000C4) analysis of bonded repairs experiencing geometrically nonlinear effects. For each of these topics, the author w i l l identify the work that has been done, describe how it fulfills the thesis and program objectives, and then demonstrate its uniqueness or novelty. Following this, the final sections of this chapter have been organized to properly place the contributions of this work in the context of the industrial application of bonded repairs. This discussion addresses the following topics: a) how this work contributes to the program goals and to the aircraft repair and overhaul industry as a whole (the reader is hereby directed to review Table 8.1 for a overview of the design and certification process for an aircraft repair and see how the current work contributes to this process), b) the future work that would be required to bring the bonded repair technology into widespread use, and c) the significance of the contributions of the work. The chapter is then concluded with recommendations regarding the future development of the bonded repair technology.  8.2 Patch testing and finite element analysis The first stage of this portion of the work involved full-scale testing of a heavily instrumented bonded repair specimen (tested with and without bending constraint) and the development of a matching three-dimensional finite element model of a repair. B y observing the damage accrued during fatigue testing, it was found that composite damage mechanisms (i.e. disbonding, interply delamination, and fibre fracture) dominate the response of the repair when bending is not restrained, ultimately leading to rapid failure. The nonlinear nature of the deformations of the structure under combined bending and extension was confirmed by strain data recorded at the critical locations in the patched structure. This data was also used to verify the three-dimensional finite element model of the  repaired  structure,  which  confirmed the  primacy of the  composite  failure  mechanisms. The model results also indicated: a) that the adhesive and matrix stresses, along with bending stresses in the fibres of the composite patch, were all very high under nonlinear bending conditions, b) that under compressive loads crack closure has a large effect on the patch stresses, and c) that the cracked plate geometry plays a large role and leads to increased load transfer to the repair for an edge-cracked plate. In the second half of this work, the test data and the finite element results were used as an example, providing a context in which to explore the failure criteria available for the various components of a repair, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the methods and data currently available in the open literature for damage tolerance substantiation. This enabled the authors to develop stress-based adhesive design allowables for fatigue and fracture that account for both adhesive failure and composite transverse failures. B y applying probabilistic methods and the principle of compounded conservatism to the findings, the authors were able to develop a new repair classification methodology based  217  \u000Cupon the  residual strength  of the underlying structure  and the  stresses in  the  composite/adhesive. This classification scheme allows the repair designer to assign requirements  for testing of specimens (fatigue, static, or both) and for in-service  inspections based upon the actual risk involved in the application of a repair. The fundamental principle involved in this classification scheme is that the repair (including the assigned inspection and testing program) should either: a) result in a level of risk that is significantly lower than that implied by the design of a new damage tolerant structure, or b) that the designer be forced to follow a certification program that corresponds to the full fatigue testing and certification requirements that are imposed during the design of a new composite structure. The combined patch testing and F E M analysis work is important to the objectives of the thesis in many ways. It establishes the composite failure mechanisms as an important consideration for assessing damage tolerance and demonstrates that many different failure modes act concurrently during the failure of a single-sided repair. This conclusion agrees with the views of Jones et al [1] and the F A A [2] that both composite and adhesive failure mechanisms must be fully accounted for in composite repair design to ensure reliability of the repair. The strain data collected during the experimental testing during this research work has proven to be very useful in the validation of finite element models of repairs, and both the finite element and experimental strain data illustrate the importance of nonlinear bending effects, crack-closure, and cracked-plate geometry in the modelling of a repair. The developed and validated finite element model was employed extensively in subsequent chapters, where the closed-form methods for assessment of repairs are developed and tested. Another important contribution of this work was the development of stress-based criteria for adhesive fracture and fatigue, an approach that may bring together diverging views on how best to approach the damage tolerant design of adhesive joints. The developed stress-based criteria and the combined plot of fracture and stress results (Figure 2-19) allows one to bring together all of the following considerations into one set of criteria: 1) the detrimental effects of hot and wet environment on both the yield and fatigue strength of the adhesive, 2) the possibility of fracture under cold conditions, 3) detrimental pressurization and peel stress effects, and 4) a clear definition of safe life and damage tolerant allowables. These effects are difficult to deal with in isolation, imposing a large burden on repair designers.  The  classification  of  repairs  according  to  the  severity  of  the  adhesive/composite matrix stresses and the residual strength of the underlying structure, and the use of probabilistic loads assessment and compounded conservatism overcome  218  \u000Cissues related to bond durability. Overcoming this durability issue through such a classification process should allow the rapid certification of a large variety of non-critical repairs to dents, scratches, over-sized holes, and minor corrosion grind-outs in primary structures without the need for physical testing. This work has provided a very large contribution to the overall goal of the U B C bonded composite repair program by providing a new path by which the burden of damage tolerance substantiation may be relieved for the design of patches for the vast majority of day-to-day repair scenarios in lightly stressed and lightly damaged structure. There are many new and unique elements to this work, starting with the test program itself. In the knowledge of the author, there is only one other set of bonded repair fatigue tests that explicitly tests a repair geometry under varying degrees of bending restraint, i.e. Sabelkin et al, 2006 [13]. The testing carried out for this thesis and the validated finite element models allowed the authors to bring forward many new ideas. The stress-based adhesive criteria is not new, but the observation that it can be used to address most of the major concerns related to fatigue and fracture including mode mixity (the combination of peel and shear stresses) and environmental effects is new. The repair classification scheme and the use of probabilistic loads assessment to overcome adhesive durability concerns are both new and very significant developments for repair design. Probabilistic loads assessment is a new approach by which the emerging concept of 'get home ability' (the ability to safely land in the event that gross damage or failure occurs that w i l l be noticed by the ground crew) can be quantified. This is an emerging supplement/alternative to classical damage tolerance approaches.  8.3 Plate models and linear coupled bending and extension The principal analytical work of this thesis has been two-fold: a) the development of a set of consistent line-spring models for bending and extension of plates and b) the development of a new interpolation model for the case of combined extension and bending of finite-thickness plates. A s described in Chapters 3 through 5, this work had three components: 1) extension of reinforced cracked plates in a generalized plane strain plate, 2) development of a new 'generalized plane strain' plate bending model and its application to the bending analysis of a reinforced cracked plate, and 3) combined bending and extension of a single-sided repair applied to a cracked plate. The first part of the work was the development of a hyper-singular integral equation relating stresses along the plane of a crack with the crack face deflections. The hypersingular equation was developed from the generalized plane strain model of M i n d l i n as refined by W a n g and Kotousov [3,4]. B y orthogonal expansion and the use of a  219  \u000Ccollocation method, this allowed the development of a new line-spring model for cracked generalized plane strain plates. This line-spring model was then used to develop geometry correction factors that account for plate thickness effects and to test their application to crack-bridging problems. The generalized plane strain model was chosen as it is the simplest model that considers the effects of transverse stresses acting about a crack tip, and allows the analyst to avoid the somewhat arbitrary decision as to whether the plate is in a state of plane stress or plane strain. The new line-spring model and geometry correction factors also allow for the proper consideration of thickness effects in cracked plates, and have been used to correct the Rose model for the analysis of reinforced cracks. This contributes to the research objectives by allowing repair designers to properly account for the transverse stresses that build up at the crack tip due to elastic plate thickness effects. The second part of this work involved the development of a new plate bending model following the precepts of the generalized plane strain model for extension. The result was an eighth-order plate bending model which allowed the evaluation of 'pinching shear' forces in addition to the normal moment, twisting moment, and shear force boundary conditions of traditional plate bending models. This allowed the evaluation of throughthickness stresses in regions with large in-plane stress gradients, such as the one that exists near a crack tip. The author proceeded in the manner described above for the case of extension of plates, developing a hyper-singular integral and a line-spring model, by which geometry correction factors accounting for transverse  shear forces and the  accompanying deformations were developed, and the Rose model was extended to the case of bending. There are several significant contributions in this work. The eighth-order plate bending model is new and allows the accurate determination of thickness-effects. The development of the line-spring model, the accompanying geometry correction factors, and the extension of the Rose model to the analysis of cracked plates are new developments and can effectively eliminate errors in the evaluation of the bending stress intensity. It is noted these errors can be as high as 60% using classical plate models. A n additional important result to the field of linear elastic fracture mechanics is the observation that, in terms of the plate bending stress intensity, the crack tip in bending may be considered to be in a state of plane strain. This resolves some inconsistencies observed by Joseph and Erdogan [5] for the use of linear elastic fracture mechanics methods in classical plate bending models, and allows the proper use of energy methods in the analysis of reinforced cracked plates. This is a new and significant result for the field of linear elastic fracture mechanics and for the damage tolerance analysis of cracked plates. The final part of this analytical work is the assessment of combined bending and extension of reinforced plates, whereby the method of Wang and Rose [6,7] was  220  \u000Ccorrected to account for a variety of significant issues: 1) finite plate thickness effects in bending and extension of cracked plates (addressed using the geometry correction factors found above), 2) plane strain conditions that exist at the crack tip in bending of a cracked plate, and 3) the asymmetry of the spring compliance matrix and coupling of the membrane and bending stress intensity factors that is required to satisfy M a x w e l l ' s reciprocal theorem. This corrected method for determination of the limit stress intensity factors was verified by using the new plate models developed in the previous chapters, and was then used to create a coupled line-spring model in the manner of W a n g and Rose [8]. From this work, a new interpolation method was developed that is applicable to any length of crack. The significance of this new method is that it has a clear physical meaning as it is based upon an evaluation of the stiffness of a finite thickness plate containing a finite length crack. The closed-form results using this new interpolation method were verified against results from two- and three-dimensional finite element models, whereby it was shown that errors would arise mainly from the methods used to determine the nominal stresses acting under the repair and the stiffness of the springs. The main contributions of this work are the correction of the energy methods for the analysis of coupled bending and extension of repaired cracks, and the development of a new interpolation method for the analysis of cracks of arbitrary length. These are new and fundamental results that allow the satisfaction of M a x w e l l ' s reciprocal theorem in the analysis of reinforced cracks experiencing combined bending and extension, and allow the analysis of reinforced cracks of arbitrary length using an interpolation technique that is based upon physical phenomena rather than approximations based upon curve fitting. The author expects that this new interpolation model will become the standard analytical technique for the analysis of reinforced cracks.  8.4 Hybrid bonded joints and orthotropic patches The third part of the work involved the development of an advanced closed-form model for the mechanics of a hybrid bonded joint, and is described in Chapter 6. This model includes the coupling of the shear and peel response of the joint, transverse shear deformations, and composite deformation modes (such as the shear and peel compliance of the matrix), and was based on the work of Delale et al [9] and B i g w o o d and Crocombie [10]. The model was validated against two-dimensional finite element model results, and applied to the analysis of a bonded composite repair using the interpolation model developed in previous chapters. The interpolation model results were then compared to three-dimensional finite element models of a bonded repair, demonstrating excellent correlation and predictive capabilities. The developed methods constitute a significant improvement over conventional engineering models for bonded joints that have traditionally been applied to the analysis of composite repairs because they allow a repair designer to account for all of the relevant composite deformation mechanisms.  221  \u000CThis work allows the accurate assessment of both the stiffness of a bonded repair as it acts to bridge the underlying crack, and the adhesive peel and shear stresses (and hence an estimate of the strain energy release rate and stress intensity) acting near the crack. Both of these results are critical to assessing the damage tolerance of a repair, and thus the model is an important contribution to the objectives of this thesis and the bonded composite repair program. This work is new in that it represents the first time that such a comprehensive bonded joint analysis has been applied to the assessment of the effectiveness of a repair, i.e. in that it validates the bonded repair analysis techniques developed in Chapters 3 through 5 for the case of an orthotropic patch.  8.5 Geometrically nonlinear bending Finally, in Chapter 7, mechanical testing of hybrid bonded joint specimens subjected to varying degrees of bending restraint was used to validate a series of two-dimensional finite element models that are representative of repairs. These models, and the threedimensional finite element model applied throughout the thesis, were used to test strategies for the separation of the bending and membrane stress intensity components when nonlinear bending effects dominate the response of a repair. It was found that the generalized Rose model [11] provides an excellent assessment of the total energy available for cracking in the substrate, but no convenient means was found whereby this energy could be separated into membrane and bending components. Instead, the author developed a nonlinear version of the interpolation model to account for stress-stiffening under applied tensile loads. The nonlinear interpolation model yields results that are significantly  more  accurate  than  those  determined  by  existing approaches,  but  unfortunately does not always provide conservative results, a topic that remains to be addressed by subsequent researchers. This work fulfils the objectives of the thesis in several ways. The test data should prove invaluable in the validation of closed-form models for the analysis of combined bending and extension of hybrid joints. Nonlinear effects have been shown by several researchers to be a significant factor in the fracture analysis of joints experiencing combined tension and bending [e.g. 14,15]. Closed form models for bonded joint mechanics w i l l ultimately prove to be very useful in the development of fatigue life assessment computer programs for damage tolerance assessment and optimization of bonded repairs. The fatigue data and finite element models also validate the generalized Rose model for the nonlinear bending of a single-sided repair, allowing it to be used for the evaluation of the limit rootmean-square stress intensity in the cracked plate, an important design parameter. The extension of the new interpolation model for coupled bending and extension of reinforced cracks to include nonlinear effects is pioneering work, and opens up a new avenue for the  222  \u000Canalysis of single-sided repairs. This is an important development as a linear approach w i l l be overly conservative and unworkable for many repair scenarios.  8.6 Contributions and recommendations for future work This work has moved the bonded composite repair technology toward certification and widespread use in several important ways: 1) B y fully incorporating the effects of bending, it demonstrates to regulatory authorities that the mechanics of a patch are well understood, and that the models include all of the relevant physical phenomena that affect the membrane and bending stress intensity and adhesive shear and peel stresses. 2) The closed-form crack-bridging models provide a simple check against finite element model results for real-world, complex repair geometries, easing the requirements for verification of such models. 3) The closed-form crack-bridging models, when combined with the stress-based safe life and damage-tolerant adhesive stress allowables, allow the development of a computer code to predict the fatigue life of a repair and provide a rational method for assigning inspection intervals. 4) The development of stress-based criteria for the adhesive allows the designer to include complicated environmental effects sophisticated elastic-plastic fracture  and assess damage tolerance without a  mechanics  analysis or extensive testing. This  approach conforms to 'best practice' as advocated by Hart-Smith [16], whereby a bonded joint should be designed to not fail by controlling the stresses, using an adequate overlap length to provide a large elastic well and avoid plastic racheting, and ensuring that the joint itself is never the weak link. The bonded joint is just one example of many types of aircraft structures where damage tolerance does not replace other design principles (e.g. good fatigue design) but is instead a supplemental requirement. 5) The repair classification methodology provides a simple risk-based approach to assign damage tolerance substantiation and in-service inspection requirements, which could greatly ease the substantiation requirements for repair of lightly loaded or lightly damaged structures, accounting for a large fraction of repair work. To illustrate how this work fits into the repair design process, Figure 8-1 shows the major steps required to certify a repair from the documentation of a design process to the final certification of an installed repair on an aircraft. A typical timeline for a repair would be the production of a design and engineering drawing within a week or two (possibly produced in parallel with the work done on the aircraft), approval of the static assessment before first flight allowing operation for one year, and final approval of the D T A substantiation report and inspection requirements within that year. T o illustrate how 223  \u000Cthe work in this thesis would be applied, a brief description of the contributions provided by this research work is included for each step where applicable, including the location of the relevant information. From this figure, it is apparent that there are two main types of contributions, those related to the methodology used to approach a repair (primarily addressed in Chapter 2), and those related to modelling of a repair (Chapters 3-7). The modelling work primarily addresses the problem of crack bridging in the different types of situations that might arise for a fuselage or wing-skin repair, where the structure might experience plane extension in areas with a large degree of bending restraint, unrestrained bending, coupled bending and extension, and geometrically nonlinear bending and extension. This allows the calculation of the stress intensity factor in the plate and the stresses in the adhesive and composite, which for the limit load case must all be kept below the design allowables developed as per the methodology document.  Damage  growth would be modelled by applying linear elastic fracture mechanics to the crack alone for repairs that have low adhesive and composite stresses (below allowable limits defined in Chapter 2), and the methods developed in this thesis could lead to very rapid design and certification of a repair. For other repairs (i.e. the 'Quadrant D ' repairs defined in Chapter 2) rigorous physical testing and finite element analysis would likely be required and the repair approval process would not follow this simple schematic or benefit greatly from the methods developed in this thesis.  224  \u000CStep/requirement for repair design (1) B u i l d a methodology document for  Research contribution and location - Developed repair classifications based on  approval by regulator. This document  new proposed D T A substantiation  defines the repair approval process,  requirements (Ch 2.6).  acceptable information sources, terminology, load and spectrum definitions, material property sources and test methods, prescribed inspection procedures, assumed flaw sizes, etc.  - Defined safe life and damage tolerant adhesive allowables (Ch 2.5.2). - Proposed probabilistic loads assessment. (Ch 2.6) for certification of repairs to damaged structure.  (2) Develop materials allowables.  - Proposed/recommended allowables for F M 7 3 M (Ch 2, Equation 1) and Textron 5521 Boron-epoxy (Ch 2.5.3)  (3) Design repair and produce  - Corrected linear crack bridging models  drawings. Use allowables, proper overlap  and developed a new interpolation model  lengths, and simple models to design the  to allow analysis of repairs under linear  repair.  bending and extension (Ch. 3-5).  (4) Static evaluation for preliminary  - Enhanced bonded joint model to  approval. M a y need static test i f existing  evaluate adhesive stresses and patch  structure has low residual strength.  stiffness for crack bridging models (Ch. 6)  (5) Damage tolerance assessment for  - Developed new crack bridging model  final approval. M a y require fatigue test  allowing analysis of geometrically  for 'Quadrant D ' repairs.  nonlinear bending effects (Ch. 7).  (6) Assign inspection requirements.  Table 8-3: Steps for repair design, application, and certification The focus of this thesis has been the development of closed-form models and methods for damage tolerance substantiation that do not require sophisticated or detailed analysis. The alternative is to perform damage tolerance analysis using finite element models, which is very time consuming as that the model must be run with several different damage states to assess the rate of degradation of the repair. This task becomes even more formidable i f the structure experiences effects such as geometrically nonlinear bending, plasticity, or rheological behaviour of the composite or adhesive. It is also timeconsuming i f the structure requires assessment for several different load states or environments - e.g. at cold or hot temperatures, or under different operating conditions  225  \u000C(e.g. during landing, during stable flight, fatigue under a specified load spectrum, or under design limit load). In this regard, the elastic adhesive stress criterion should prove very helpful in minimizing the engineering effort required for certification. Risk assessment and categorization of repairs has proven to be an effective manner of dealing with the issue of bond durability without invoking the requirement for detailed analysis of environmental effects or incurring new process controls or inspection criteria. This work has met its objectives (i.e. to develop and validate methods for damage tolerance substantiation of bonded composite repairs) and advanced the state-of-the-art in many ways, however the greater topic of widespread use of bonded repairs is sweeping and involves the development of easy-to-apply analysis tools and the development of design data for application of repairs in many different scenarios (i.e. involving different materials, geometries, and loading or environmental conditions). W o r k in the area of aircraft structures also requires a very high standard of verification, and significant work is required to develop new methodologies to the point of widespread  acceptance,  representing a scope of work that is well beyond what is possible for a single individual to undertake. Accordingly, some of the elements required for the complete damage tolerance substantiation of a repair are still missing. Significant additional work is required in at least four areas: 1) more test data is required to characterize the effect of the environment on the fracture toughness and fatigue threshold for boron-epoxy/FM73M/aluminum hybrid bonded joints under mixed shear and peel loading and with different adhesive thicknesses to fully develop the stress-based adhesive failure criteria, 2) the new design classification technique and the adhesive stress criteria need to be evaluated against a set of in-service repairs to ensure that they provide conservative results when compared to current practice, 3) significant work is required to improve the nonlinear crack-bridging model and validate it against a wider range of repair geometries, 4) the new crack-bridging models need to be extended to the case of a partiallydisbonded repair and placed into a computer code that employs the new design equations to estimate of fatigue life of the repair and assign inspection criteria, and 5) a compilation of engineering fracture mechanics correction factors for the crack face displacement is required in order to apply the new crack-bridging models to plates with finite geometries (e.g. for a repair applied to an edge-cracked plate). The stress-based design criteria developed in Chapter 2 is particularly promising and probably offers the most immediate rewards in terms of advancing the bonded composite repair technology i f carried further. The development of more test data for the effect of  226  \u000Cthe  environment  on  the  fracture  toughness  and  fatigue  threshold  for  boron-  epoxy/FM73M/aluminum hybrid bonded joints, including a thorough assessment of the effects of mixed shear and peel loading and with different adhesive thicknesses, would allow for the development of a definitive stress-based design criteria for repairs. The development of such a design criteria could overcome the most onerous requirements for the acceptance of a major repair (i.e. physical testing for static strength, fatigue, and impact damage). Ideally, the process would be documented and standardized to promote the development of design data for other repair systems. This would ultimately allow the repair designer to select the ideal repair system for an application from a number of candidates, including epoxy or acrylic adhesives with boron-, carbon-, glass-fibre or G L A R E patches. When combined with the probabilistic loads assessment technique and a system for the categorization of repairs, it should ultimately be possible to certify a typical bonded repair with no more engineering effort than is currently required for a mechanically fastened repair. The repair classification scheme and the probabilistic approach used to handle the adhesive durability issue need to be tested against the current comprehensive damage tolerance substantiation requirements for a repair to ensure that the resulting designs are conservative when compared to existing practice. It would also be extremely helpful to develop a set of reference spectra for various types of aircraft structure that w i l l generally be deemed to be conservative when compared to the actual in-service spectra for a passenger/transport  aircraft. A once-per-flight limit load spectra w i l l generally be very  conservative, but may be too onerous and lead to unreasonably stringent inspection criteria. It may be adequate to assign some fraction of the limit load based upon a survey of existing aircraft. The probabilistic design criteria specified in Chapter 2 is a very effective way to provide an analytical meaning to the ability to 'get home' after the failure of a repair, and accordingly it is a topic with much promise and demands further investigation. Finally, while significant progress has been made in fundamental topics regarding the mechanics of unbalanced repairs and reinforced cracks, additional work is required to finish the task and provide a complete tool kit to repair designers. Specifically, the development of the new nonlinear crack-bridging model is really in its very early stages, and needs to be extended to specific geometries (e.g. finite-sized repairs), validated against a wider range of repair geometries, and extended to the case of partial disbonding about the repaired crack. The linear crack-bridging model can be considered to be much more mature, but also requires extension to the case of a partially-disbonded repair. This could be done by using a boundary element model to test a wide range of practical patch geometries as has been previously done by the author for extension of bonded repairs [12]. Finally, the new design equations should be incorporated into a computer code to  227  \u000Callow rapid estimates of the fatigue life of a repair and to perform risk analysis and assign inspection criteria, and be extended to other cracked plate geometries by cataloguing crack face displacement geometry correction factors. In this thesis, several fundamental barriers preventing widespread use of bonded repairs have been removed, and the author is certain that the future recommended research topics described in this section would quickly move the larger project toward completion and enable the widespread use of bonded composite repairs. Particularly rapid gains would be achieved through further development of the adhesive failure criteria and the repair classification process, allowing the rapid deployment of bonded repairs in a large number of day-to-day repair scenarios for lightly damaged or moderately loaded structures.  8.7 Concluding Remarks This thesis has addressed many fundamental issues in bonding and linear elastic fracture mechanics, and in the engineering problem of certification of bonded repairs of aircraft structures. Significant contributions have been made in: 1) the development of a repair classification process, 2) the introduction of a simplified  stress-based  fracture  and fatigue assessment  methodology for adhesive joints that encapsulates environmental effects, 3) the use of probabilistic loads assessment to treat the issue of adhesive bond durability, 4) the collection of new test data for balanced and unbalanced repairs and hybrid joints, 5) the development of a new plate bending model for cracked plates, 6) the development of simple engineering geometry correction factors to account for plate thickness effects in fracture and fatigue, 7) the correction of the energy method for determining the long-crack limit stress intensity for reinforced cracks experiencing coupled extension and bending, 8) the development of a new interpolation technique for reinforced cracks that has a sound physical basis (i.e. not just a curve fit), 9) the development of a new elastic model for hybrid bonded joints that includes all of the relevant composite deformation modes, 10) experimental and finite element verification of the nonlinear Rose model, and 11) the introduction of a nonlinear crack bridging model for unbalanced repairs  228  \u000CThis work represents a significant advancement in the understanding of the mechanics of bonded repairs and reinforced cracks in general, and the methodology, models, and test data should ultimately enable the widespread use of bonded composite repairs in civilian aircraft. Some recommendations have been made for future work in this field, with the most practical and immediately useful work being the further development of the stressbased adhesive fatigue and fracture methodology (possibly including the development of a standard to encourage the development of design data for other bonded joint systems), the actual application of phenomenological probabilistic methods to the classification of in-service repairs, and the incorporation of the new design equations into a computer code for design and life assessment of bending repairs.  8.8 References [I] R. Jones. Assessing and maintaining continued airworthiness in the presence of widespread fatigue damage: an Australian perspective. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 60, 1998, 109-130. [2] F . A . A . Advisory Circular 25.1529-1. Instructions for continued airworthiness of structural repairs on transport airplanes. U . S . Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1991. [3] A Kotousov, C H Wang. A generalized plane strain theory for transversally isotropic plates. Acta Mechanica, 161, 2003, 53-64. [4] A Kotousov, C H Wang. Fundamental solutions for the generalised plane strain theory. International Journal of Engineering Science, 40, 2002, 1775-1790. [5] P F Joseph and F Erdogan. Surface crack problems in plates. International Journal of Fracture 41, 1989, 105-131. [6] C H Wang, L R F Rose. O n the design of bonded patches for one-sided repair. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Composite materials, G o l d Coast, Australia, 5, 1997, 347-356. [7] C H Wang, R J Callinan, L R F Rose. Analysis of out-of-plane bending of a one-sided repair. International Journal of Solids and Structures 35/14, 1998, 1653-1675. [8] C H Wang, L R F Rose. A crack bridging model for bonded plates subjected to tension and bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures 36, 1991, 1985-2014. [9] Delale F , Erdogan F , Aydinoglu M N . Stresses in adhesively bonded joints: a closedform solution. Journal of Composite Materials, 1981;15:249-271. [10] Bigwood D A and Crocombe A D . Elastic analysis and engineering design formulae for bonded joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 1989;9(4):229-242. [II] L R F Rose. Theoretical aspects of crack-patching. In: A A Baker, R. Jones. Bonded repair of aircraft structures. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988. [12] R J Clark, D P Romilly. Fatigue damage prediction for bonded composite repairs applied to metal aircraft structures. 2001 S A E Transactions - Journal of Aerospace, 10 p.  229  \u000C[13] V Sabelkin, S M a l l , J B Avram, \"Fatigue crack growth analysis of stiffened cracked panel repaired with bonded composite patch\", Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 73, 2006, 1553-1567. [14] W S Johnson, \"Stress Analysis of the cracked-lap shear specimen: an A S T M roundrobin\", Journal of Testing and Evaluation, V o l . 6., 1987, pp. 303-324. [15] G Fernlund, M Papini, D M c C a m m o n d , J K Spelt, \"Fracture load predictions for adhesive joints\", Composites Science and Technology, 51, 1994, 587-600. [16] L J Hart-Smith, \"Design and analysis of bonded repairs for metal aircraft structures\". In: \"Bonded repair of aircraft structures\", Baker A A and Jones R, eds. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988, pp.31-47.  230  \u000CAppendix A: Bonded joint specimen construction This appendix describes the geometry, parts, materials, and manufacture of the lap, double-lap, and cracked lap-shear bonded joint specimens.  A . l Description of specimen types For the purposes of this thesis, four different types of bonded joint specimens were designed, manufactured, and prepared for testing. These have been referred to as the single lap joint specimen (SLJ), the double-lap joint specimen (DLJ), the honeycombseparated double lap joint specimen ( H S - D L J ) , and the cracked lap-shear specimen ( C L S ) . The S L J , D L J , and H S - D L J specimens are of a geometry similar to that of the A M R L specimen, modelling a strip of patch removed perpendicular to the crack. The S L J specimen models a single-sided repair that is free to bend, experiencing mixed-mode loading. The D L J specimen is expected to experience only shear loading, and the H S D L J specimen includes a honeycomb spacer and is built to model the effects of a repair over underlying structure, allowing limited bending and mixed-mode loading. The C L S specimen is commonly used geometry that is used to test mixed mode loading with a moderate opening mode contribution and is popular with researchers investigating fatigue and fracture of adhesive joints. Figures A - l through A - 4 show the geometry of these specimens.  Figure A-l: Single lap joint specimen  Figure A-2: Double lap joint specimen  231  \u000CFigure A-3: Honeycomb separated double lap joint specimen  Figure A-4: Cracked lap-shear specimen The specimens are 1 inch in width, corresponding to A S T M standards for adhesive testing of metal-metal bonded joints. This exceeds the % inch minimum width specified for testing of composites. Tape inserted at the lap edge in the C L S specimen w i l l force disbond initiation in the adhesive layer. The materials and manufacturing techniques for the bonded joint specimens largely match those of the A M R L specimen. The next section specifies the parts and materials required for their manufacture, and subsequent sections go on to explain the methods employed.  A.2 Parts and materials Manufacture of the specimens was accomplished without a jig. The aluminum panels and spacer blocks were held in position using guide holes in the edges of the panels. This outer part of the panel was not used for fatigue testing, in conformance with the A S T M specifications for bonded joint coupons. Plugs inserted in the guide holes aligned and supported the parts. The panels rested on the heads of the aluminum plugs during curing. The  composite 'patches' were supported by high temperature tape, which w i l l also  prevented the adhesive from running. Table A - l lists the parts required for construction of the panels. Figures A - 5 through A - 8 are assembly drawings showing the panels from which the bonded joint specimens were machined. Figures A - 9 through A - l l show the aluminum face sheets and figures A - 1 2 through A - 1 5 show other components necessary for the construction of the panels.  232  \u000CPanel type  Qty  Material  Dimensions  CLS  l l l l l l  Boron 5521/4 tape 2024-T3 A l u m i n u m sheet F M 7 3 M Adhesive Boron 5521/4 tape 2024-T3 A l u m i n u m sheets F M 7 3 M Adhesive  l 2 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 4  Boron 5521/4 tape 2024-T3 A l u m i n u m sheets F M 7 3 M Adhesive Plugs Boron 5521/4 tape 2024-T3 A l u m i n u m sheets F M 7 3 M Adhesive A l u m i n u m honeycomb 6061-T651 A l u m i n u m spacer blocks Plugs  105\"x6\" 10\"x6\"x0.125\" 20\"x0.06 psf 38\"x6\" 18\"x6\"x0.125\" 50\"x6\"x0.06 psf 76\"x6\" 18\"x6\"x0.125\" 64\"x6\"x0.06 psf 76\"x6\" 18\"x6\"x0.125\" 100\"x6\"x0.06 psf 12\"x6\"x0.5\" 3\"x6\"x0.5\"  SLJ  DLJ  HS-DLJ  Table A-4 : Coupon specimen materials  233  \u000C457.2  Notes: 1. S p e c i m e n s  to be m a c h i n e d  2. E n d tabs b o n d e d  from composite  to s p e c i m e n s  after  panel.  machining.  Project  LJ S p e c i m e n  ( A s s e m bly)  Copies  Material  Scale  N/A  Not  DWGjjf  Units Millimeter  1  to  Figure A-5: LJ specimen composite panel assembly drawing  234  Scale  I  Drawn  R. J. Clark  \u000CNotes: 1. Specimens to be machined from composite 2. End tabs bonded to specimens  panel.  after m a c h i n i n g . Project  DLJ S p e c i m e n (Assembly)  Material  Scale  N/A  Not to Scale  1  DWC0  Units  Drawn  Millimeter  R. J. Clark  1  Figure A-6: DLJ specimen composite panel assembly drawing  235  Copies  \u000C457.2  Notes: 1. Specimens to be m a c h i n e d from composite 2. E n d tabs bonded to specimens  after  panel.  machining.  Project  HS-DLJ Specimen Scale  N / A  N o t t o Scale  1  DWG#  Units  Drawn  Millimeter  R . J . Clark  1  Figure A-7: HS-DLJ specimen composite panel assembly drawing  236  (Assembly)  Material  Copies  \u000C254.0  Notes: 1. S p e c i m e n s to be m a c h i n e d f r o m  composite panel.  2. E n d tabs b o n d e d to s p e c i m e n s after  machining.  Project  CLS S p e c i m e n Material  Scale  N / A  Not  DW0#  Units  1  (Assembly) Copies to  M i l l i m e t e r  Figure A-8: CLS specimen composite panel assembly drawing  237  S c a l e  1 Drawn  '  R.  J.  C l a r k  \u000C-0.794  ALL HOLE  H D L E S 6.35  SLIT  SAW CUT  Project  MM DIAMETER  L O C A T I O N S P A T T E R N E D ON S P A C E R  BLDCK  LAP JOINT FACE SHE ET Material  Scale  N / A  Not  DWG#  Units  Drawn  Millimeter  R.  1  Figure A-9: LJ specimen face sheet drawing  238  Copies to  S c a l e  5 J.  Clark  \u000C-0.794 SLIT SAW CUT  ALL HOLES 6.35 MM DIAMETER  Project  HOLE LOCATIONS PATTERNED ON SPACER BLOCK  LAP JOINT FACE SHEET Material  Scale  N/A  Not  DWG#  Units  Drawn  Millimeter  R.  1  Copies to  Scale  Figure A-10: DLJ and HS-DLJ specimen face sheet drawing  239  5 J.  Clark  \u000C254.0  Project  CLS Specimen Plate  Material  Scale  Al 2024-T3 DWG#  Not  1  Units Millimeter  Figure A-ll: CLS specimen face sheet drawing  240  to Scale  Copies 1 Drawn R. J. Clark  \u000C31,75  - 6,35  6,35  Project  Guide Material  Scale  AL 6061-T651  2  2  DWG#  Unite  Drawn  M i l l i m e t e r  R.  1  Figure A-12: Guide plug drawing  241  Copies  J.  C l a r k  \u000CProject  HS-DLJ Spacer Block  Material  Scale  Copies  AL 6061-T651  2  2  DWC#  Units Millimeter  Drawn R. J. C l a r k  1  Figure A-13: HS-DLJ spacer block drawing  242  \u000C304.6  ]  Project  HS-DLJ  HONEYCOMB Scale  HONEYCOMB  Not  DWO#  Units  Drawn  Millimeter  R. J. Clark  1  Figure A-14: HS-DLJ honeycomb drawing  243  Copies  Material  to  Scale  1  \u000C3,175  NOTE;  TYPICAL  TAPER  ANGLE  I S 10.0 + / -  1.0  DEGREES.  Project  End  Scale  Copies  AL 6061-T651  2  2  DWGJ 1  Units  Drawn R. J. Clark  Figure A-15: End tab drawing  244  Tab  Material  Millimeter  \u000CA.3 Panel construction This section describes the construction for the panels shown in figures A - 5 through A - 8 , which was carried out at the Canadian National Research Council Institute for Aerospace Research.  A.3.1 Composite manufacture Before the panels could be built, the composite patches and the C L S panel had to be made from the boron/epoxy prepreg. Figure A - 1 6 shows the workspace for lay-up of the patches. The prepreg was cut to the proper lengths and laid-up in a reversed stacking sequence, starting with the shortest piece and ending with the longest. The patch was cocured with one layer of F M 7 3 M adhesive film to improve the strength of the composite matrix and provide a compatible bond line.  \\  Figure A-16: Workspace for patch lay-up The patch was covered on both sides with peel ply, to allow bleeding of any excessive resin or adhesive, and to provide a clean surface for bonding. Figure A - 1 7 shows the peel ply being applied. Note the solder tabs for the embedded strain gauge.  245  \u000CFigure A-17: Application of peel ply The composite panel for the C L S specimen was formed in the same manner. The prepreg was cut to the proper lengths, laid up one sheet at a time, and rolled to remove any trapped air. A sheet of F M 7 3 M adhesive was rolled onto to bottom of the panel and peel ply was applied to both sides. Figure A - 1 8 shows the workspace and lay-up of these panels, with the placement of an embedded strain gauge shown in figure A - 1 9 .  Figure A-18: Workspace for CLS panel lay-up  246  \u000CFigure A-19: Strain gauge placement (finished panel in background) Five patches were cured in one batch, with the adhesive face down on the tooling plate to provide a flat finish. The C L S panels were cured in a separate batch. The layout of the patches is shown in figure A - 2 0 , and the vacuum bagging and debulking shown in figure A-21.  Figure A-20: Layout on the tool plate  247  \u000CFigure A-21: Vacuum bagging and debulking The composite parts were cured at 121 C for 1 hour. After curing, the final step was grit blasting to remove excess adhesive and to clean any possible contamination from peel ply release agents, and ensuring a clean and compatible bond-line.  A.3.2 Aluminum surface preparation This section details the aluminum surface preparation  procedure,  a process that  determines the durability of the adhesive bond. A reactive epoxy silane process was chosen, matching the  method previously used for construction of seven  AMRL  specimens. There are seven steps: clad removal, degrease, grit blast, silane application, priming, drying/curing, and wedge test. The first step, cladding removal, was carried out at U B C . A n aluminum sanding block and wet 220 grit sand paper were used to remove the 0.079 mm pure aluminum coating on the surface of the 2024-T3 aluminum panels. A second round of grinding with 320 grit paper smoothed the surface in preparation for grit blasting. The sheets were than thoroughly cleaned with running water and clean white paper towels, wiping in one direction only, until little trace of contamination was evident. The parts were then dried and wrapped in Kraft paper for shipment to Ottawa. Degreasing involved a thorough wiping, in one direction only, with clean 'KimTuff wipers' and Methyl Ethyl Ketone ( M E K ) . This procedure was carried out until no trace of contamination was detectable on the wipers. The parts were then wrapped in Kraft paper to protect them from contamination. From this point on, it was attempted not to touch the bonding surfaces. The next step, grit blasting, was carried out immediately prior to application of the silane and primer. The grit blaster was cleaned and filled with new 220 grit aluminum oxide. A l l of the remaining steps were carried out during the same day.  248  \u000CNitrogen, at a pressure of 80 psi, was used for the grit blasting. Figure A - 2 2 shows the grit blaster. Blasting was carried out using longitudinal and perpendicular passes until a uniform 'frosted' appearance was evident. Care was taken to grit blast the edges of the plates to ensure good bonding of excess adhesive about the edges of the joint. The face sheets were then cleaned by nitgrogen blasting and again wrapped in Kraft paper.  Figure A-22: Grit blasting A 1% silane solution was mixed before starting the grit blasting process. Graduated cylinders were used to measure 372 m l of distilled de-ionized water and 3.75 m l of silane to form the solution. A n agitator mixed the solution during the 3 hours required for the grit blasting. A l l containers were rinsed with distilled de-ionized water prior to use. The aluminum parts were placed at a steep angle on a honeycomb block, allowing the silane to run down into a collecting bowl. Silane was applied by a spray dispenser and was wiped down the part with a clean brush. This drives contaminants into the collection bowl. The parts were treated consecutively, maintaining a wetted and water-break free surface for 15 minutes. The parts were treated in groups of four, and were placed on clean Kraft paper once treated.  249  \u000CFigure A-23: Silane application Once all of the parts were treated with silane, and had air-dried until no wetness was visible, they were placed in a temperature-controlled oven at 80 C for 30 minutes. After allowing 30 minutes to cool, the B R 127 corrosion-inhibiting primer was applied in very light strokes transverse to the rolling direction of the plates. The primer had been warmed to room temperature before application, and it was ensured that sufficient M E K was available to clean the spray gun due to the very fast drying time of the primer. The primer was applied in a very thin coating, thinner than recommended by the manufacturer. This thin treatment has been shown by the N R C - I A R to result in the most durable joints. Excess primer has been shown to decrease durability. After application of the primer, the primer was allowed to air-dry for 30 minutes, and then was cured at 121 C for 60 minutes. The parts were then wrapped in Kraft paper and stored until needed for construction of the bonded joint specimens.  A . 3 . 3 Laminated panel construction This section illustrates the method used to construct the H S - D L J laminated panel. The other panels were constructed in an analogous manner. Figure A - 2 4 shows the workspace prior with the components required for the assembly of the panel. The components are placed approximately in the sequence of construction. The first step is to roll the adhesive onto the surface-treated back of the aluminum face sheets, as shown in figure A - 2 5 , following with, the guide plugs were inserted and the honeycomb and spacers were pressed onto the adhesive, as shown in figure A-26. Figures A - 2 7 through A - 2 9 show the application of the adhesive and then the patch to the aluminum plate. The adhesive edges were sealed with tape to prevent excessive run-out and to provide a smooth shape to the adhesive fillet. Figures A - 3 0 through A - 3 2 show the vacuum bagging of the laminated panels and the cured panels after removal from the autoclave.  250  \u000CFigure A-24: Workspace for construction of the HS-DLJ panel  \u000CFigure A-27: Ready to apply the composite patches  Figure A-28: Applying the adhesive  Figure A-29: Applying an instrumented patch  252  \u000CFigure A-30: Double lap joint specimens, ready for vacuum bagging  \u000CStep Clad removal  Clean  Package Grit blasting  Silane treatment  Primer  Procedure Sand with wet 220 grit paper. Wipe in one direction. Sand with 320 grit paper. Wipe in one direction. Water-clean with tap water. Breakfree surface. Air dry overnight. M E K wipe. Package in Kraft paper Clean the grit-blasting unit. Use new aluminum oxide. 690 kPa pressure. Alternate horizontal and vertical passes. Stop when even surface texture Warm silane to room temperature ~1 hr. M i x silane and water. Agitate ~1 hr. Stand specimens on the honeycomb blocks. Apply silane, 10 minutes per side. Heat @ 80 \u00B0C for 30 minutes  Warm primer to room temperature. Mix primer. Support specimens on aluminum bars. Agitate while applying. One pass is adequate. Heat @ 120 \u00B0C for 1 hr.  Materials 220 grit sand paper Kimtuff Wipers 320 grit sand paper flat aluminum sanding block Kimtuff Wipers MEK Gloves Kraft Paper &amp; Masking tape Grit blaster Aluminum oxide 220 grit, 75 micron diameter Nitrogen gas 2.5 ml Silane / sheet 250 ml de-ionised distilled water / sheet polyethylene container w/ dispenser graduated cylinder pipette mixing agitator, sealed magnet honeycomb blocks shallow silane collection bowls fine-haired 1 inch wide paint brush gloves temperature-controlled oven B R 127 Primer Nitrogen gas (@ 345 kPa pressure) Rags Spray gun Aluminum bars to support the specimens Temperature-controlled oven Kraft paper &amp; masking tape Gloves  Table A-5: Aluminum surface preparation  254  \u000CStep  Procedure  Materials  Surface  Aluminum sheets will act as  Preparation  travellers during surface treatment  Curing  Roll adhesive onto aluminum  Release film  plates. Use Teflon foil for 0.75\"  Teflon roller  starter notch. Seal edges with  Teflon foil  tape. Cure @ 80 Degrees C for 8  High temperature tape  hours. Cut into 5 1\" strips.  Autoclave Band saw Milling machine  Testing  Insert wedges. Measure crack length Wait 1 hr. Measure again. Expose @ 65 \u00B0 C , 96% humidity, 1 hr. Measure again. Expose @ 65 \u00B0 C , 96% humidity, 8 hr. Measure again. Split specimens to check for cohesive failure.  Microscope Temperature/humidity chamber Steel wedges  Table A-6: Wedge test procedure  255  \u000CStep Cut prepreg  Procedure Thaw prepreg and adhesive for 1 hour Unroll prepreg with backing down Place perforated release film on top Clamp aluminum template onto prepreg Cut prepreg Place in polyethylene bag Repeat for adhesive Place release film over template Remove release film from prepreg Sequentially roll plies onto template R o l l on a layer of peel ply F l i p over Apply adhesive Apply another layer of peel ply Place in polyethylene bag  Materials Perforated release film A l u m i n u m templates C-Clamps Roller cutter Polyethylene storage bags Gloves  Cure  Put non-perforated release film on plate Place specimen on plate, adhesive down Place 1 layer of perforated release film Place 3 layers of bleeder cloth Place 2 layers of breather cloth Vacuum bag the specimen Autoclave @ 5 0 p s i , 121.1 \u00B0C, 1 hr 2.78 \u00B0C/min, 35 minute transient Grind/cut specimens to the proper size.  NDE  Ultrasonic C-scan  A l u m i n u m plates (0.25 in thick) Non-perforated release film Perforated release film Fiberglass bleeder cloth Breather cloth Vacuum bag /Vacuum fitting Sealant tape Autoclave Grinder Diamond-coated blade / table saw A R I U S , 15 M H z focussed transducer  Lay-up  Perforated release film Template Teflon roller Knife Peel ply Gloves  Table A-7: Composite parts fabrication  256  \u000CStep Prepare Honeycomb Prepare the aluminum Assemble  'Pin' Specimen Place 'Patch'  Cure  Cut Specimens  Procedure M E K rinse the honeycomb Heat @ 50 \u00B0C for 30 minutes Wrap in Kraft paper R o l l adhesive onto face-sheets Use the heat gun i f necessary Press a shim onto a face sheet R o l l honeycomb onto face sheet Press second shim onto face sheet Press on second face sheet Place bolts into guide holes Thread on the nuts, finger tight Bolts w i l l act as locator/ support R o l l adhesive onto specimen Place patch H i g h temperature tape seals the adhesive R o l l over and repeat Put release film on table Put 2 layers of breather cloth on table Place specimen on cloth Loosen nuts Wrap in breather cloth / release film A l l o w room for the vacuum fitting Vacuum bag the specimen Autoclave @ 50 psi, 121 \u00B0C, 1 hr 2.78 \u00B0C/min, 35 minute transient Remove panel from vacuum bag. Sand edges to remove excess adhesive. Cut specimens to appropriate size. Discard edges  Materials MEK Oven Kraft paper Teflon roller Heat gun High-temperature tape Teflon roller  Bolt and nuts  H i g h temperature tape  Perforated release film Bleeder cloth Breather cloth Vacuum bag Vacuum fitting Sealant tape Autoclave  220 grit sand paper Diamond saw  Table A-8: HS-DLJ specimen assembly  257  \u000CStep Prepare the aluminum  Procedure R o l l the adhesive onto the al sheet Use the heat gun i f necessary  Assemble Cure  Press aluminum onto the b/ep panel Wrap in release film and breather cloth Wrap again in breather cloth A l l o w room for the vacuum fitting Vacuum bag the specimen Autoclave @ 50 psi, 121 \u00B0C, 1 hr 2.78 \u00B0C/min, 35 minute transient  Make tabs  Prepare the tabs  Shape tabs  Cut tabs to shape  Glue to specimen  Adhere tabs to specimens  Cut specimens  Remove panel from vacuum bag Sand edges to remove extra adhesive Cut specimens to appropriate size  Materials Teflon roller Heat gun High-temperature tape Perforated release film Bleeder cloth Breather cloth Vacuum bag Vacuum fitting Sealant tape Autoclave E-glass prepreg Non-perforated release film Perforated release film Breather cloth Bleeder cloth Vacuum bag and fitting Grinder 220 grit Sand paper Diamond-coated blade / table saw Non-perforated release film Scrim cloth Hysol E A 9396 Q T adhesive M i x i n g container 220 grit sand paper Diamond saw  Table A-9: CLS specimen assembly  258  \u000CAppendix B: Instrumented repair specimen This appendix provides a description of the A M R L specimen and the locations of the strain gauges on the instrumented A M R L specimen.  B.l A M R L specimen geometry Figure B - l shows the geometry of the A M R L specimen. '&amp;2l  mm  Wxit&amp;tvttmb COM  EDMISnid&amp;Phw in  2&amp; mm)  Aluminum Spacer Block  Figure B-l: AMRL specimen dimensions  B.2 Instrumented specimen Figures B - 2 through B - 4 , below, show the locations of the strain gauges on the instrumented specimen. The gauges in location A , in the crack plane, measure the longitudinal strains in the patch. Over the crack, these strain measurements w i l l directly verify the boundary element model. O n the aluminum adjacent to the patch, the gauges at location B allow an estimate of the stresses in the crack plane at the edge of the patch. This stress distribution is critical to an assessment of the residual strength of a repair with a large crack. It is applied within the analysis as a crack-opening pressure. Ideally, these  259  \u000Cstresses would closely match those determined by the inclusion model employed by Rose in the two-step analysis process for a repair. A t location C , a strip gauge allows the assessment of the validity of the classical theory of bonded joints in the analysis of a repair. A s the disbond grows under this gauge, a history of the stresses in the patch w i l l be generated. The gauges are placed far enough from the edge of the patch to be relatively unaffected  by the free edge. The strain gauge at location D allows an  assessment of the appropriateness of the use of unidirectional springs to model the patch, and w i l l assist in the evaluation of edge effects. Unidirectional springs bridging the crack are the basis of both the boundary element and interpolation models. It is unlikely that this load transfer is significant, due to the extreme anisotropy and low shear modulus of the boron-epoxy patch, but strain data would be useful in the event that models are required to account for shear load transfer within the patch. The free edge w i l l cause adhesive stresses due to the mismatch in Poisson's ratios between the aluminum and boron-epoxy adherends. The strain gauge strips at location E allow an estimate of the stress concentration in the critical area at the tips of the patch. The strain gauges at location F allow an estimate of in-plane bending and its effect on the stress distribution in the crack plane. Finally, the strain gauges at location G allow an assessment of the uniformity of loading of the A M R L specimen. It w i l l allow an assessment of the amount of in-plane bending in the specimen, and on how evenly stresses are distributed across the specimen by the loading grips. Table B - l shows the strain gauge specifications. They have been matched to the thermal expansion coefficient of 2024 aluminum. Locations A, B, D C E F,G  Type 10 gauge strip, transverse grid, 2.03 m m spacing 10 gauge strip, parallel grid, 2.03 m m spacing 10 gauge strip, parallel grid, 2.03 m m spacing General purpose  Manufacturer Micro-Measurements  Catalogue Number EA-13-031 M E - 1 2 0  Micro-Measurements  EA-13-03 I M F - 1 2 0  Micro-Measurements  EA-13-03 I M F - 1 2 0  Micro-Measurements  EA-13-062AK-120  Table B-l: Strain gauge types  260  \u000CN O T E : W I R I N G ,  T O P  H A L P  D P  A N D O T H E R  S P E C I M E N  T E  O B S T R U C T I O N S  B E T O  K E P T N D E  E R E E  D F  S O L D E R  T A B S ,  T E C H N I Q U E S .  Project  INSTRUMENTED ARL SPECIMEN \u2022 Material  Scale  N/A  Not  DWGjjf  Units  Drawn  Millimeter  R.  1  Figure B-2: Instrumented AMRL specimen drawing  261  Copies to  Scale  1 J. Clark  \u000CS P E C I M E N  G A U G E S  M A T R I C E S  G A U G E S  O N  E D G E S  A R E C E N T R E D P L A C E D  A S  E i N C E N T R E C L O S E  A S  L I N E S  P O S S I B L E  T O  E D G E S  Project  ARL SPEC! MEN Scale  N/A  Not to Scale  1  DWG#  Units  Drawn  Millimeter  R. J. Clark  1  Figure B-3: Instrumented ARL specimen drawing, side A  262  (SIDE A)  Material  Copies  \u000CS P E C I M E N  -38.10 1  G A U G E  M A T R I C E S  G A U G E S G A U G E  O N C  E D G E S  P L A C E D  J  76.20  A R E C E N T R E D P L A C E D A S  C L O S E  A S A S  1  U N  T H E C E N T R E  C L O S E  A S  P O S S I B L E  L I N E S  P O S S I B L E T D  G A U G E  T O  E D G E S  A  Project  ARL SPECIMEN (SIDE B) Material  Scale  N/A mat  Not to Scale  1  Units  Drawn  Millimeter  R. J. Clark  1  Figure B-4: Instrumented AMRL specimen drawing, side B  263  Copies  \u000CAppendix C: Test data This appendix contains additional information not presented in the body of the thesis. Specifically, it contains strain gauge data from testing of the patch specimens. This data is presented for other researchers to use for the validation of bonded repair and hybrid joint models. The testing of the repair proceeded in stages, the first stage being the static testing of the instrumented A M R L specimen with an initial crack length of 20 mm. The strain data presented is organized according to the drawings in Appendix B . Applied stress (MPa)  Strains for Connector A1 (microstrain) AM  A1-2  A1-3  A1-4  A1-5  A1-6  A1-7  A1-9  A1-8  A1-10  137.7  1204  1218  1192  1208  1190  0  1288  1329  1219  1148  128.6  1124  1133  1107  1128  1104  0  1200  1235  1133  1071  119.4  1042  1050  1026  1045  1022  0  1111  1141  1048  993  110.2  959  971  947  962  943  0  1023  1054  966  914  101.1  877  887  871  881  860  0  935  964  886  836  92.0  798  808  791  801  783  0  850  878  804  760  82.6  718  726  707  721  704  0  766  786  721  685  73.4  639  642  628  642  622  0  679  697  643  608  64.1  558  560  552  560  543  0  593  610  563  531  55.1  478  481  475  481  466  0  510  524  485  455  45.9  396  400  394  399  387  0  421  435  400  378  36.6  316  321  311  316  309  0  335  346  316  300  27.5  238  236  231  238  228  0  250  255  237  225  18.4  156  157  155  156  152  0  164  170  157  147  9.2  78  77  77  78  74  0  81  84  78  73  0.0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  -9.3  -79  -78  -80  -79  -76  0  -84  -86  -82  -75  -18.6  -156  -155  -158  -157  -151  0  -166  -171  -160  -149  -27.7  r229  -234  -233  -230  -226  0  -245  -254  -234  -218  -36.9  -306  -312  -308  -307  -303  0  -326  -337  -308  -290  -46.2  -385  -386  -381  -386  -374  0  -407  -415  -385  -362  -55.2  -464  -472  -467  -468  -458  0  -496  -514  -474  -444  Table C-l : Strains for connector Al  264  \u000C(MPa) 137.7 128.5 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.8 82.6 73.5 64.2 55.1 45.9 36.9 27.5 18.4 9.1 0.0 -9.3 -18.4 -27.8 -36.9 -46.1 -55.1  A2-1 959 893 824 760 696 629 568 501 440 375 314 246 181 120 62 0 -63 -123 -181 -240 -299 -371  A2-2 840 780 720 660 600 540 490 440 380 330 270 220 160 120 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -310  Strains for Connector A2 (microstrain) A2-6 A2-7 A2-3 A2-4 A2-5 548 746 647 629 585 541 515 691 605 586 639 557 544 503 476 437 463 591 513 496 420 402 537 469 456 362 489 423 412 383 342 328 438 383 370 392 337 329 305 290 254 343 296 286 267 291 253 248 226 216 242 211 202 189 181 193 165 164 150 142 144 120 119 114 102 94 80 82 73 69 48 42 40 38 38 0 0 0 0 0 -44 -44 -40 -33 -35 -93 -82 -78 -73 -68 -139 -124 -121 -110 -105 -147 -142 -183 -165 -158 -223 -205 -198 -182 -179 -277 -252 -222 -243 -226  A2-8 689 645 601 551 504 459 411 365 319 275 225 181 129 88 43 0 -41 -84 -131 -174 -220 -273  A2-10 A2-9 788 982 922 735 854 681 628 788 572 722 655 518 464 592 414 525 361 460 305 394 329 253 259 200 188 146 126 95 49 65 0 0 -62 -46 -121 -95 -145 -186 -197 -249 -244 -312 -308 -392  A3-8 1132 1062 983 905 832 757 679 605 528 453 377 297 219 144 70 0 -73 -148 -221 -295 -373 -465  A3-9 A3-10 1143 1152 1072 1068 990 998 916 913 841 838 759 766 686 688 614 607 533 540 454 459 379 382 301 302 221 226 144 148 72 74 0 0 -75 -75 -152 -147 -227 -223 -302 -299 -377 -381 -472 -468  Table C-2: Strains for connector A2 Applied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.6 119.4 110.0 101.1 92.0 82.7 73.5 64.3 55.0 45.9 36.8 27.5 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.3 -18.6 -27.8 -36.9 -46.1 -55.2  A3-1 1076 1007 938 864 792 724 653 582 515 439 366 290 219 144 71 0 -72 -141 -216 -291 -369 -462  A3-2 1037 971 898 826 759 690 618 554 481 415 345 272 198 132 64 0 -68 -134 -201 -269 -343 -430  Strains for Connector A3 (microstrain) A3-3 A3-4 A3-5 A3-6 A3-7 1023 1037 1077 1118 1141 955 1054 963 1002 1013 882 927 979 895 936 813 819 850 864 900 742 748 780 790 825 671 679 709 713 751 606 610 633 644 674 535 541 567 566 600 468 476 491 494 528 397 404 422 417 449 332 334 347 350 373 264 264 275 275 296 191 198 220 201 196 123 130 134 122 146 62 64 64 57 71 0 0 0 0 0 -66 -66 -68 -69 -73 -135 -128 -137 -143 -143 -201 -196 -205 -214 -218 -268 -274 -294 -265 -280 -337 -336 -348 -353 -372 -424 -464 -420 -436 -442  Table C-3: Strains for connector A3  265  \u000CApplied stress (MPa) 137.7 128.5 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.8 82.7 73.3 64.4 55.1 46.0 36.6 27.5 18.3 9.1 -0.1 -9.2 -18.4 -27.7 -36.9 -46.0 -55.2  A4-1 1234 1152 1069 985 902 823 739 653 576 494 409 326 241 157 79 0 -80 -158 -241 -318 -403 -496  A4-2 1244 1159 1076 994 914 828 750 666 583 501 416 329 245 164 84 0 -76 -161 -239 -323 -409 -501  Strains for Connector A4 (microstrain) A4-7 A4-4 A4-5 A4-6 A4-3 1254 1284 1243 1255 1277 1197 1159 1169 1168 1193 1084 1084 1107 1111 1085 1025 1002 998 998 1020 913 917 933 943 920 832 832 852 855 833 749 747 749 765 773 667 663 666 678 685 597 600 586 583 586 498 498 498 510 515 418 414 418 424 428 330 326 338 339 326 244 249 252 246 246 160 159 163 167 158 77 76 81 85 80 0 0 0 0 0 -84 -80 -85 -81 -85 -164 -164 -164 -168 -160 -247 -244 -246 -251 -249 -332 -334 -332 -323 -331 -408 -417 -417 -423 -418 -508 -498 -507 -511 -516  A4-8 1236 1151 1068 985 905 820 741 657 575 494 411 325 241 160 81 0 -78 -160 -240 -322 -408 -497  A4-9 A4-10 1245 1210 1126 1161 1044 1076 962 992 884 908 827 802 742 722 641 658 564 578 479 495 402 411 316 327 238 243 158 155 79 75 0 0 -80 -81 -158 -161 -244 -239 -318 -324 -408 -401 -496 -486  B1-8 1657 1540 1425 1309 1192 1086 978 865 750 638 528 420 312 207 103 0 -106 -209 -311 -414 -517 -619  B1-9 B1-10 1630 1609 1518 1496 1407 1386 1274 1295 1164 1185 1073 1056 962 949 854 842 734 743 627 636 521 527 421 415 314 308 209 206 107 104 0 0 -104 -100 -204 -204 -309 -306 -406 -408 -510 -505 -604 -608  Table C-4: Strains for connector A4  (MPa) 137.7 128.6 119.4 110.2 100.9 91.7 82.6 73.5 64.2 55.1 45.9 36.8 27.4 18.3 9.1 -0.1 -9.2 -18.4 -27.7 -36.8 -46.1 -55.3  B1-1 1797 1657 1523 1399 1277 1158 1035 916 793 672 560 444 329 219 109 0 -106 -221 -330 -443 -555 -662  B1-2 1769 1644 1523 1401 1281 1163 1044 924 803 684 568 452 338 227 111 0 -116 -229 -340 -449 -560 -668  Strains for Connector B1 B1-3 B1-4 B1-5 1744 1775 1773 1652 1647 1621 1532 1525 1499 1379 1409 1401 1288 1280 1260 1165 1159 1144 1044 1041 1026 927 925 909 806 805 790 691 687 673 571 557 573 459 454 444 342 336 331 228 225 223 117 114 109 0 0 0 -112 -109 -112 -223 -226 -221 -337 -330 -336 -448 -445 -436 -557 -555 -545 -662 -660 -651  (microstrain) B1-6 B1-7 1684 1748 1624 1562 1504 1445 1329 1385 1212 1265 1144 1100 1024 986 907 875 787 761 676 649 559 539 448 428 334 316 212 223 114 107 0 0 -109 -103 -217 -211 -326 -317 -413 -433 -539 -516 -642 -615  Table C-5: Strains for connector Bl  266  \u000C(MPa) 137.7 128.6 119.3 110.3 100.9 91.8 82.6 73.5 64.4 55.1 46.1 36.8 27.5 18.3 9.2 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.8 -36.8 -46.1 -55.1  C1-1 862 807 751 696 636 580 524 467 412 356 300 237 174 115 54 0 -61 -120 -178 -235 -295 -364  C1-2 913 855 795 732 674 613 554 496 439 375 313 249 183 123 62 0 -62 -120 -187 -248 -308 -378  Strains for Connector C1 (microstrain) C1-7 C1-3 C1-4 C1-5 C1-6 1201 898 1000 1015 975 1124 908 836 935 953 841 1044 776 870 886 967 816 781 718 808 662 737 750 719 885 807 604 672 685 658 594 727 546 606 619 487 542 528 649 553 572 426 478 489 463 493 365 412 420 396 333 414 308 347 350 244 262 328 275 278 198 239 182 200 205 121 132 137 133 158 76 60 62 70 66 0 0 0 0 0 -57 -71 -67 -63 -85 -132 -129 -165 -120 -139 -183 -207 -206 -197 -248 -239 -273 -274 -258 -326 -342 -318 -409 -296 -340 -371 -504 -423 -419 -396  C1-8 1217 1139 1058 977 899 820 740 662 584 500 419 332 245 163 83 0 -82 -161 -249 -328 -408 -502  C1-9 C1-10 1172 1543 1444 1091 1011 1342 1242 933 856 1138 779 1035 701 935 623 835 545 735 468 633 392 531 422 310 230 308 154 205 76 100 0 0 -74 -106 -152 -210 -230 -315 -302 -416 -376 -520 -466 -642  C2-8 1364 1283 1192 1106 1020 930 841 753 663 569 478 382 285 189 89 0 -97 -186 -282 -373 -471 -581  C2-9 C2-10 1426 1445 1334 1356 1245 1265 1171 1156 1064 1078 972 983 879 892 787 795 702 696 604 595 501 504 399 405 300 304 196 199 97 96 0 0 -97 -101 -193 -196 -290 -298 -396 -390 -487 -499 -605 -615  Table C-6: Strains for connector CI Applied stress (MPa) 137.6 128:5 119.3 110.2 101.2 91.8 82.6 73.4 64.4 55.1 46.0 36.8 27.7 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.5 -36.8 -46.0 -55.3  C2-1 1023 960 889 825 762 692 623 560 492 422 355 283 208 139 64 0 -74 -140 -212 -282 -357 -441  C2-2 1089 1018 947 881 808 738 666 596 527 449 380 300 226 147 74 0 -72 -146 -217 -297 -368 -463  Strains for Connector C2 (microstrain) C2-3 C2-4 C2-6 C2-7 C2-5 0 1142 1189 0 1294 0 1074 1113 0 1213 1034 1132 0 999 0 0 924 959 0 1048 887 964 0 852 0 0 807 776 0 878 727 0 702 0 798 0 . 654 0 711 626 0 552 575 0 628 0 475 492 0 540 0 395 415 0 450 0 319 328 0 363 0 236 245 0 271 0 157 162 0 178 0 72 77 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 -82 -82 0 -89 0 -154 0 -175 -161 -267 0 -238 -243 0 0 -312 0 -354 -325 0 -398 -407 0 -446 0 -491 -506 0 -552  Table C-7: Strains for connector C2  267  \u000C(MPa) 137.8 128.6 119.5 110.2 101.1 91.7 82.5 73.4 64.2 55.1 45.9 36.8 27.5 18.3 8.6 0.0 -9.2 -18.3 -27.7 -36.9 -45.9 -55.2  D1-1  D1-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Strains for Connector D1 (microstrain) D1-7 D1-4 D1-6 D1-3 D1-5 1342 1319 1366 1299 1323 1272 1262 1213 1203 1206 1178 1177 1127 1119 1121 1037 1089 1085 1043 1030 947 957 1000 1001 955 910 914 870 865 870 824 826 788 781 783 692 701 738 736 703 648 614 610 619 647 559 558 532 525 530 464 440 438 441 462 354 351 371 367 345 262 263 274 277 260 177 179 169 173 185 78 78 80 82 81 0 0 0 0 0 -92 -88 -87 -89 -90 -174 -174 -178 -182 -186 -267 -260 -265 -275 -276 -355 -345 -349 -360 -366 -444 -427 -447 -453 -431 -558 -535 -541 -560 -569  D1-8 1415 1333 1242 1149 1060 965 870 778 686 588 490 390 292 192 87 0 -99 -196 -292 -385 -476 -598  D1-10 D1-9 0 1493 0 1381 0 1285 0 1189 0 1092 996 0 902 0 0 805 0 707 0 611 506 0 0 405 0 301 0 200 89 0 0 0 -101 0 0 -200 -302 0 -396 0 0 -490 -618 0  E1-8 2119 1983 1844 1704 1561 1423 1280 1137 995 854 709 562 417 277 138 0 -137 -275 -410 -544 -678 -839  E1-9 E1-10 2162 2192 2020 2050 1904 1879 1737 1757 1592 1610 1463 1446 1298 1314 1154 1170 1009 1020 874 868 725 726 571 578 422 427 281 282 141 141 0 0 -141 -137 -279 -282 -421 -416 -553 -562 -694 -685 -853 -863  Table C-8: Strains for connector D I Applied stress (MPa) 137.7 128.6 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.8 82.6 73.5 64.2 55.1 46.0 36.6 27.4 18.4 9.2 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.5 -36.9 -46.0 -55.2  E1-1 2227 2082 1933 1789 1644 1498 1351 1208 1058 909 758 604 445 296 149 0 -149 -300 -453 -600 -742 -922  E1-2 2110 1976 1839 1699 1560 1425 1284 1143 1004 865 721 571 425 282 141 0 -141 -285 -429 -563 -703 -869  Strains for Connector E1 (microstrain) E1-3 E1-4 E1-5 E1-6 E1-7 2030 1952 1953 1983 2028 1898 1824 1849 1820 1895 1766 1687 1695 1721 1759 1634 1558 1624 1563 1589 1500 1431 1433 1457 1488 1352 1363 1300 1305 1325 1225 1172 1176 1189 1216 1093 1047 1046 1058 1083 956 946 915 916 925 824 785 787 798 811 690 655 653 667 676 545 522 518 525 537 401 383 386 387 395 268 257 256 256 263 134 129 127 130 132 0 0 0 0 0 -131 -127 -130 -125 -133 -269 -256 -258 -257 -265 -405 -386 -385 -385 -395 -534 -515 -508 -511 -528 -662 -634 -633 -652 -635 -826 -790 -783 -789 -810  Table C-9: Strains for connector E l  268  \u000CApplied stress (MPa) 137.7 128.7 119.3 110.2 100.9 92.0 82.6 73.5 64.2 55.1 46.1 36.6 27.5 18.4 9.1 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.7 -36.8 -46.0 -55.2  F1 1772 1652 1529 1412 1292 1177 1056 938 817 700 582 461 346 233 115 0 -115 -239 -357 -477 -599 -712  F2 1947 1811 1670 1535 1397 1264 1124 986 848 711 580 456 340 230 114 0 -119 -225 -346 -454 -566 -666  Strains F3 2149 2014 1873 1734 1592 1450 1306 1165 1019 877 735 586 434 286 142 0 -139 -267 -399 -533 -667 -826  for Connector F (microstrain) G2 G3 F4 G1 1972 1735 0 1920 1833 1800 1624 0 0 1692 1673 1508 1552 0 1559 1395 0 1425 1430 1283 0 1294 1310 1175 1184 1060 0 1159 1026 1061 948 0 0 892 934 835 760 808 721 0 677 0 630 605 539 485 0 497 404 367 0 373 270 248 0 251 134 125 0 124 0 0 0 0 -118 0 -126 -125 0 -252 -261 -245 -388 -368 0 -380 -523 -495 0 -505 -662 -625 0 -634 -808 -752 0 -746  G4 1792 1678 1559 1442 1325 1212 1095 979 861 745 626 500 377 254 129 0 -120 -250 -377 -505 -633 -760  G5 1923 1787 1651 1523 1390 1259 1128 996 865 737 613 487 363 241 118 0 -128 -248 -372 -489 -608 -726  G6 2011 1869 1724 1588 1451 1318 1180 1043 906 773 642 507 379 255 125 0 -129 -257 -388 -511 -637 -758  Table C-10: Strains for connector F After 175,000 fatigue cycles, the crack had grown to a length of 40 m m and a small disbond had grown under the patch. Tables 11-20 show the strains recorded at this point.  269  \u000CApplied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.6 119.4 110.3 101.1 91.7 82.6 73.5 64.3 55.1 46.0 36.8 27.5 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.5 -36.6 -46.0 -55.2  A1-1 862 809 759 708 647 591 534 477 417 358 299 240 177 116 58 0 -47 -89 -116 -136 -164 -196  A1-2 862 813 761 703 645 592 535 475 413 . 352 295 238 177 121 61 0 -45 -83 -112 -143 -172 -213  Strains for Connector A1 (microstrain) A1-7 A1-4 A1-6 A1-3 A1-5 694 0 619 680 573 578 655 638 535 0 597 496 0 540 609 557 452 0 500 565 521 507 409 0 453 372 0 413 473 461 332 0 370 428 416 329 378 370 0 290 285 331 323 246 0 241 282 210 0 ' 276 199 237 229 173 0 0 159 194 184 136 97 0 116 143 136 92 87 64 0 77 38 45 42 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 -32 -20 0 -27 -31 -54 -59 -62 -38 0 -70 -85 -81 -51 0 -104 -71 0 -86 -100 -112 -128 -130 -81 0 -112 0 -141 -161 -161  A1-8 636 600 558 514 471 429 386 339 292 248 206 166 122 83 40 0 -28 -53 -73 -98 -123 -151  A1-10 A1-9 492 483 453 465 432 423 400 393 368 356 324 332 298 292 258 263 224 231 195 190 157 165 127 135 93 100 61 65 31 32 0 0 -18 -19 -40 -37 -55 -49 -60 -70 -94 -86 -114 -99  A2-8 885 837 786 730 668 607 549 489 425 363 301 232 168 111 53 0 -50 -95 -140 -168 -201 -218  A2-9 A2-10 1206 1548 1447 1137 1057 1339 971 1228 1118 886 802 1004 718 894 632 782 543 669 454 562 367 454 278 351 253 200 129 160 77 63 0 0 -57 -73 -111 -146 -168 -223 -206 -282 -347 -256 -288 -401  Table C-ll: Strains for connector Al Applied stress (MPa) 137.7 128.5 119.5 110.3 101.1 91.8 82.7 73.5 64.2 55.2 45.9 36.6 27.7 18.3 9.2 0.0 -9.3 -18.4 -27.8 -36.9 -46.0 -55.1  A2-1 301 286 264 245 224 203 183 162 138 116 96 73 54 37 19 0 -14 -20 -27 -26 -21 -26  A2-2 360 340 320 300 260 240 210 190 160 140 110 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -30 -30 -30 -40 -40  Strains for Connector A2 (microstrain) A2-3 A2-4 A2-5 A2-6 A2-7 448 596 632 715 525 494 564 600 675 426 396 457 529 560 630 363 424 489 516 586 329 472 389 444 539 491 301 350 403 432 273 315 363 391 443 241 278 322 348 395 207 240 280 302 344 173 202 239 256 293 142 167 197 211 244 160 192 106 131 151 76 107 118 142 96 52 62 71 80 93 26 39 46 31 33 0 0 0 0 0 -18 -33 -39 -23 -31 -27 -52 -60 -74 -35 -30 -83 -108 -45 -70 -127 -26 -41 -75 -95 -140 -20 -31 -76 -106 -97 -144 -8 -25 -70  Table C-12: Strains for connector A2  270  \u000CApplied stress (MPa) 137.7 128.6 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.8 82.6 73.5 64.2 55.2 46.0 36.8 27.5 18.3 9.1 -0.1 -9.2 -18.4 -27.7 -36.8 -46.0 -55.2  A3-1 1658 1555 1445 1335 1225 1113 995 881 769 656 539 428 317 212 105 0 -98 -179 -268 -360 -440 -519  A3-2 1481 1388 1297 1204 1107 1006 907 810 705 603 503 403 299 202 100 0 -95 -175 -262 -350 -428 -512  Strains for Connector A3 (microstrain) A3-7 A3-3 A3-4 A3-5 A3-6 1068 1246 1182 1358 1286 1168 1109 1005 1273 1208 933 1191 1123 1091 1036 863 1102 1041 1012 956 877 793 1014 960 931 722 926 877 846 800 647 789 762 722 839 575 745 702 681 639 617 559 506 653 593 432 563 531 506 481 473 443 423 403 360 354 341 287 375 319 287 266 251 242 215 191 180 170 159 145 102 91 83 85 73 0 0 0 0 0 -84 -82 -67 -90 -73 -134 -121 -165 -153 -148 -249 -229 -222 -199 -181 -333 -307 -294 -264 -238 -291 -409 -374 -359 -321 -427 -380 -341 -488 -443  A3-8 960 901 839 776 711 644 578 516 448 382 319 255 188 126 62 0 -59 -107 -160 -210 -258 -310  A3-9 A3-10 794 880 824 746 768 689 706 635 582 646 528 588 471 528 417 466 406 364 348 311 290 256 203 229 149 174 113 100 60 49 0 0 -52 -47 -79 -92 -138 -119 -181 -154 -222 -191 -266 -230  A4-8 817 760 703 646 590 532 473 419 364 308 253 200 145 96 48 0 -45 -82 -117 -146 -174 -211  A4-9 A4-10 704 766 710 646 655 591 599 540 489 546 490 442 392 439 341 389 334 295 249 282 233 206 187 162 137 118 77 90 44 39 0 0 -41 -34 -78 -70 -110 -103 -142 -141 -182 -175 -234 -215  Table C-13: Strains for connector A3 Applied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.5 119.3 110.2 101.1 92.0 82.7 73.6 64.2 55.1 46.0 36.8 27.5 18.4 9.2 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.8 -36.8 -46.0 -55.1  A4-1 625 584 540 497 455 419 375 328 284 243 202 160 113 73 36 0 -39 -69 -101 -129 -158 -184  A4-2 726 677 630 580 532 478 426 378 329 280 230 183 132 87 43 0 -46 -85 -127 -159 -192 -222  Strains for Connector A4 (microstrain) A4-7 A4-3 A4-4 A4-5 A4-6 910 965 955 949 901 851 903 891 886 840 790 837 827 822 777 771 757 728 762 715 654 666 706 699 692 601 642 624 630 593 542 577 563 561 531 467 482 507 499 500 414 439 433 430 405 354 366 345 376 369 294 302 304 287 315 244 236 250 240 229 174 181 174 181 165 114 107 115 119 120 56 59 57 59 53 0 0 0 0 0 -56 -58 -58 -54 -51 -104 -109 -99 -90 -103 -152 -137 -150 -148 -123 -189 -189 -180 -168 -149 -174 -224 -220 -207 -193 -252 -247 -230 -216 -201  Table C-14: Strains for connector A4  271  \u000CApplied stress B1-1 (MPa) 137.7 78220 128.5 48320 119.4 12320 110.2 55220 101.1 42420 92.1 183920 82.6 47120 73.4 69920 64.3 -3830 55.0 -46670 46.0 10080 36.6 -69741 27.5 330 18.3 26320 9.1 -75585 0.0 0 -9.2 -62453 -18.4 -65415 -27.8 -67011 -36.9 -68111 -46.0 -68970 -55.2 -69888  B1-2 1831 1709 1585 1460 1336 1213 1087 966 843 722 604 480 356 236 115 0 -119 -238 -348 -467 -578 -696  Strains for Connector B1 B1-3 B1-4 B1-5 1835 1842 1861 1711 1710 1747 1587 1586 1615 1478 1461 1460 1337 1341 1345 1219 1218 1216 1090 1087 1090 967 965 971 845 847 848 719 721 728 602 599 607 476 477 486 355 359 362 237 237 244 120 120 119 0 0 0 -117 -118 -121 -232 -236 -239 -350 -349 -346 -468 -462 -465 -577 -570 -573 -687 -695 -688  (microstrain) B1-6 B1-7 1803 1791 1680 1659 1557 1535 1431 1410 1292 1308 1172 1191 1047 1067 944 928 824 815 705 692 577 586 458 463 346 346 230 227 117 114 0 0 -114 -114 -231 -222 -340 -330 -456 -443 -563 -548 -677 -659  B1-8 1718 1605 1490 1372 1256 1139 1021 906 790 675 562 447 332 222 107 0 -112 -223 -327 -437 -540 -651  B1-10 B1-9 1709 1689 1592 1569 1476 1455 1359 1340 1229 1243 1132 1116 1014 998 887 899 777 785 671 661 559 551 438 443 330 329 219 218 112 109 0 0 -107 -108 -213 -218 -322 -317 -432 -424 -532 -525 -632 -641  C1-8 1186 1104 1023 943 866 787 710 632 549 471 390 310 233 156 79 0 -79 -161 -242 -320 -400 -469  C1-10 C1-9 1122 1499 1397 1040 962 1297 884 1198 807 1098 728 1000 651 898 576 796 501 695 429 598 354 497 280 398 206 294 197 138 98 69 0 0 -70 -99 -202 -145 -302 -213 -284 -399 -499 -358 -594 -421  Table C-15: Strains for connector Bl Applied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.5 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.8 82.6 73.4 64.2 55.2 46.0 36.8 27.4 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.7 -36.9 -46.1 -55.2  C1-1 843 785 729 673 617 562 504 446 389 335 279 224 165 109 54 0 -56 -114 -169 -224 -281 -334  C1-2 884 824 764 705 644 585 529 470 409 349 289 230 173 116 57 0 -58 -120 -180 -239 -300 -350  Strains for Connector C1 (microstrain) C1-3 C1-4 C1-5 C1-6 C1-7 871 977 974 958 1183 810 907 1101 909 889 751 844 841 825 1024 691 779 774 760 944 714 633 708 695 865 574 650 642 629 789 514 583 581 563 708 457 516 517 502 627 449 441 400 452 548 377 472 345 389 381 285 324 315 312 393 314 226 261 256 245 182 232 166 191 192 112 128 130 122 155 56 63 64 61 77 0 0 0 0 0 -76 -56 -66 -64 -63 -117 -159 -133 -132 -128 -197 -237 -173 -197 -189 -229 -261 -262 -253 -313 -320 -392 -291 -326 -328 -468 -342 -389 -385 -375  Table C-16: Strains for connector CI  272  \u000C(MPa) 137.7 128.6 119.3 110.2 101.1 92.0 82.6 73.4 64.2 . 55.1 46.1 36.6 27.5 18.3 9.2 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.7 -36.8 -46.2 -55.2  C2-1 1260 1179 1095 1010 929 846 764 678 592 507 423 337 254 169 87 0 -87 -168 -260 -347 -435 -517  C2-2 1400 1305 1216 1123 1028 936 843 749 657 563 469 371 277 185 97 0 -95 -184 -287 -388 -483 -570  Strains for Connector C2 (microstrain) C2-7 C2-4 C2-6 C2-3 C2-5 1977 1621 1735 0 0 1847 1518 1619 0 0 1715 1508 0 0 1410 1583 1302 1393 0 0 1452 1277 0 0 1198 1321 0 1090 1165 0 0 1191 0 982 1047 874 0 1058 0 933 924 818 0 0 763 792 654 702 0 0 585 0 659 0 545 526 0 435 463 0 397 0 328 346 0 217 232 0 263 0 134 112 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -134 0 -111 -118 0 -214 -228 0 -259 0 -357 -399 0 -330 0 -534 0 -442 -481 0 -554 -597 0 -668 0 0 -793 0 -657 -705  C2-8 2002 1866 1735 1599 1464 1332 1197 1064 932 799 666 528 395 263 136 0 -134 -260 -404 -547 -681 -805  C2-9 C2-10 1890 4030 5290 1764 3642 1635 1510 2399 1421 1385 1260 1326 1130 1858 1004 1429 1248 876 752 1206 629 1365 502 1980 376 2489 3734 249 1447 128 0 0 -127 214 -245 -172 -424 -380 -649 -519 -653 -832 -974 -776  D1-8 2015 1884 1745 1612 1477 1340 1208 1071 937 802 664 532 393 261 129 0 -140 -269 -406 -538 -670 -788  D1-9 D1-10 2097 0 0 1959 1819 0 1677 0 1541 0 1394 0 1255 0 1118 0 977 0 836 0 0 695 553 0 413 0 274 0 133 0 0 0 0 -143 -280 0 -425 0 0 -559 0 -701 -822 0  Table C-17: Strains for connector C2 Applied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.6 119.3 110.2 101.1 91:7 82.6 73.5 64.3 55.1 45.9 36.8 27.4 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -27.7 -36.8 -46.1 -55.2  D1-1  D1-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Strains for Connector D1 (microstrain) D1-4 D1-6 D1-7 D1-3 D1-5 1956 1795 1842 1822 1903 1674 1697 1777 1824 1717 1553 1592 1572 1650 1693 1432 1473 1451 1520 1566 1433 1316 1349 1332 1398 1302 1190 1227 1209 1263 1071 1170 1103 1091 1136 1037 955 977 966 1013 834 859 844 884 910 712 733 727 755 775 645 592 611 599 628 472 486 482 499 513 382 355 362 355 373 234 237 247 253 240 124 113 119 117 120 0 0 0 0 0 -134 -124 -124 -125 -131 -244 -241 -256 -255 -238 -370 -367 -360 -387 -393 -508 -516 -489 -484 -481 -637 -649 -618 -607 -597 -749 -759 -728 -710 -706  Table C-18: Strains for connector D I  273  \u000C(MPa) 137.8 128.6 119.3 110.2 101.1 91.7 82.6 73.4 64.2 55.1 46.1 36.6 27.7 18.4 9.1 -0.1 -9.2 -18.4 -27.7 -36.8 -46.0 -55.2  E1-1 2124 1983 1841 1707 1567 1423 1285 1142 999 857 717 569 427 288 142 0 -146 -282 -432 -565 -702 -839  E1-2 2063 1924 1789 1653 1515 1379 1242 1108 969 829 695 557 421 279 144 0 -141 -269 -413 -547 -675 -806  Strains for Connector E1 (microstrain) E1-4 E1-6 E1-7 E1-3 E1-5 1997 1880 1900 1921 1989 1754 1866 1859 1770 1793 1727 1623 1644 1662 1730 1602 1594 1503 1518 1533 1464 1375 1392 1409 1469 1334 1267 1276 1326 1248 1199 1127 1137 1152 1202 1062 1014 1023 1068 999 934 933 873 885 899 802 803 751 757 770 667 627 633 640 673 507 512 534 533 498 402 372 382 386 401 267 251 254 256 269 138 124 130 133 133 0 0 0 0 0 -132 -129 -126 -135 -128 -262 -246 -244 -248 -262 -373 -376 -396 -396 -375 -521 -492 -496 -495 -520 -642 -647 -610 -608 -613 -772 -728 -728 -732 -768  E1-8 2074 1934 1798 1662 1525 1387 1248 1112 972 832 696 557 419 278 141 0 -142 -269 -408 -541 -662 -792  E1-9 E1-10 2144 2112 1975 2004 1834 1859 1721 1694 1579 1555 1411 1433 1275 1293 1132 1148 994 1005 852 863 711 723 574 566 432 427 285 290 148 145 0 0 -141 -145 -276 -282 -414 -424 -547 -559 -687 -674 -822 -806  Table C-19: Strains for connector El Applied stress (MPa) 137.7 128.6 119.3 110.2 100.9 91.8 82.7 73.4 64.2 55.1 45.9 36.6 27.5 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.3 -18.4 -27.8 -36.8 -46.1 -55.2  F1 1743 1634 1514 1401 1285 1168 1051 933 819 699 581 467 352 232 119 0 -111 -230 -346 -455 -568 -685  F2 2009 1875 1744 1609 1479 1351 1219 1081 950 819 683 547 415 281 149 0 -132 -267 -395 -503 -634 -739  Strains F3 2146 2005 1859 1719 1574 1432 1290 1147 999 856 713 567 425 281 141 0 -143 -291 -422 -573 -708 -847  for Connector F (microstrain) F4 G2 G1 G3 1667 1971 1899 0 1781 1572 0 1839 1648 1462 0 1699 1571 1525 1345 0 1398 1232 0 1438 1272 1120 0 1306 1144 1006 0 1173 1041 1017 889 0 892 775 0 913 0 778 761 665 633 551 0 645 441 509 0 516 383 329 0 386 254 224 0 255 112 128 0 126 0 0 0 0 -122 -109 0 -126 -263 -229 0 -256 -340 0 -388 -386 -532 -472 0 -505 -655 -580 0 -635 -795 -705 0 -761  Table C-20: Strains for connector F  274  G4 1780 1658 1539 1418 1298 1182 1062 940 819 704 584 464 348 234 116 0 -118 -236 -356 -487 -604 -733  G5 1973 1836 1701 1571 1436 1307 1177 1046 909 779 650 516 385 254 126 0 -132 -253 -381 -498 -631 -752  G6 2035 1898 1754 1621 1483 1347 1212 1075 941 804 667 534 400 264 130 0 -132 -259 -393 -514 -648 -775  \u000CA t this point, the honeycomb bending restraint was removed.  Applied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.5 119.3 110.2 100.9 91.8 82.7 73.5 64.3 55.1 46.0 36.8 27.4 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.2 -18.6 -23.0  A1-1 -3496 -3406 -3319 -3221 -3114 -2993 -2860 -2700 -2527 -2338 -2107 -1817 -1480 -1109 -668 0 846 1160 1168  A1-2 -3512 -3430 -3337 -3243 -3136 -3017 -2889 -2727 -2550 -2360 -2129 -1835 -1494 -1123 -676 0 861 1184 1219  Strains A1-3 -3684 -3596 -3501 -3395 -3282 -3156 -3017 -2842 -2657 -2462 -2213 -1903 -1550 -1164 -707 0 890 1233 1269  for Connector A1 (microstrain) A1-4 A1-5 A1-6 A1-7 -3648 -3645 0 -4034 -3557 -3556 0 -3937 -3457 -3465 0 -3836 -3365 -3356 0 -3727 -3253 -3242 0 -3606 -3128 -3116 0 -3468 -2989 -2982 0 -3317 -2820 -2810 0 -3131 -2641 -2624 0 -2930 -2446 -2430 0 -2714 -2204 -2190 0 -2445 -1900 -1882 0 -2103 -1546 -1527 0 -1705 -1162 -1151 0 -1281 -705 -702 0 -780 0 0 0 0 884 890 0 992 1240 1221 0 1398 1277 1281 0 1411  A1-8 -4012 -3922 -3821 -3717 -3599 -3467 -3325 -3140 -2940 -2727 -2463 -2121 -1722 -1299 -794 0 1018 1448 1484  A1-9 A1-10 -3838 -3826 -3751 -3739 -3659 -3649 -3554 -3550 -3440 -3438 -3313 -3311 -3174 -3172 -2991 -2997 -2803 -2809 -2601 -2608 -2342 -2354 -2018 -2029 -1639 -1654 -1240 -1248 -762 -764 0 0 960 955 1437 1399 1445 1495  A2-8 -2620 -2567 -2526 -2482 -2428 -2361 -2280 -2200 -2071 -1934 -1755 -1586 -1311 -957 -562 0 756 1491 1635  A2-9 A2-10 -1288 -401 -1299 -456 -1319 -519 -1336 -580 -637 -1348 -1350 -687 -1343 -728 -1332 -764 -1288 -776 -1234 -781 -1148 -759 -1069 -726 -898 -634 -676 -491 -407 -299 0 0 562 457 954 1176 1346 1093  Table C-21: Strains for connector Al  Applied stress (MPa) 137.7 128.5 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.8 82.6 73.5 64.3 55.1 45.9 36.8 27.7 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.2 -18.4 -23.0  A2-1 -4112 -3984 -3875 -3758 -3633 -3488 -3329 -3160 -2944 -2709 -2432 -2146 -1760 -1278 -740 0 921 1569 1586  A2-2 -3750 -3640 -3540 -3440 -3320 -3210 -3070 -2920 -2730 -2520 -2260 -1990 -1640 -1190 -690 0 850 1470 1520  Strains A2-3 -3818 -3714 -3624 -3530 -3424 -3300 -3158 -3008 -2813 -2594 -2329 -2063 -1696 -1234 -717 0 889 1609 1682  for Connector A2 (microstrain) A2-4 A2-5 A2-6 A2-7 -3646 -3722 -3644 -3187 -3550 -3625 -3553 -3112 -3467 -3543 -3473 -3049 -3377 -3455 -3389 -2979 -3281 -3358 -3292 -2902 -3164 -3242 -3178 -2809 -3032 -3108 -3046 -2699 -2889 -2967 -2907 -2581 -2703 -2778 -2720 -2418 -2499 -2569 -2511 -2243 -2250 -2310 -2258 -2026 -1987 -2044 -2009 -1808 -1639 -1686 -1651 -1491 -1193 -1223 -1203 -1090 -689 -705 -699 -636 0 0 0 0 868 903 887 835 1604 1684 1690 1623 1696 1807 1820 1757  Table C-22: Strains for connector A2  275  \u000CApplied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.5 119.3 110.2 101.1 92.0 82.6 73.4 64.4 55.1 45.9 36.8 27.5 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.3 -18.4 -23.0  A3-1 -360 -412 -474 -531 -584 -629 -669 -700 -720 -709 -694 -649 -567 -454 -282 0 426 1023 1189  A3-2 -1697 -1693 -1699 -1700 -1694 -1676 -1646 -1605 -1549 -1456 -1348 -1199 -1006 -771 -456 0 627 1376 1547  Strains A3-3 -2355 -2331 -2317 -2297 -2268 -2221 -2161 -2083 -1983 -1848 -1687 -1484 -1230 -927 -536 0 732 1556 1738  for Connector A3 (microstrain) A3-7 A3-6 A3-4 A3-5 -2552 -2676 -2657 -2914 -2527 -2648 -2648 -2864 -2511 -2626 -2617 -2826 -2780 -2484 -2595 -2591 -2445 -2555 -2556 -2722 -2394 -2500 -2499 -2652 -2427 -2426 -2561 -2325 -2238 -2336 -2332 -2455 -2220 -2214 -2324 -2128 -2073 -2059 -2154 -1983 -1808 -1890 -1873 -1955 -1593 -1660 -1643 -1712 -1320 -1376 -1358 -1410 -989 -1026 -1014 -1054 -577 -601 -565 -584 0 0 0 0 797 790 785 770 1627 1656 1628 1619 1850 1810 1785 1820  A3-8 -2935 -2887 -2844 -2793 -2733 -2657 -2562 -2452 -2318 -2150 -1948 -1702 -1402 -1043 -593 0 780 1546 1684  A3-10 A3-9 -3049 -3198 -2990 -3133 -2939 -3078 -2885 -3013 -2817 -2936 -2734 -2846 -2633 -2734 -2515 -2608 -2373 -2457 -2193 -2266 -1983 -2047 -1727 -1783 -1419 -1463 -1058 -1088 -617 -601 0 0 796 781 1512 1478 1628 1561  A4-8 -2500 -2227 -2197 -2164 -2119 -2063 -1989 -1903 -1792 -1663 -1504 -1312 -1083 -799 -450 0 653 1044 1101,  A4-10 A4-9 -2460 -2684 -2216 -2484 -2187 -2443 -2151 -2394 -2106 -2333 -2049 -2261 -1977 -2171 -1891 -2071 -1780 -1942 -1650 -1794 -1494 -1616 -1302 -1403 -1074 -1150 -794 -848 -444 -467 0 0 661 626 972 1003 1036 1073  Table C-23: Strains for connector A3  Applied stress (MPa) 137.9 128.6 119.3 110.0 100.9 92.0 82.7 73.8 64.2 55.1 45.9 36.6 27.4 18.3 9.2 -0.1 -9.3 -18.4 -23.2  A4-1 -3511 -3079 -3022 -2961 -2883 -2790 -2680 -2553 -2395 -2211 -1991 -1729 -1421 -1042 -587 0 844 1507 1555  A4-2 -3023 -2648 -2606 -2562 -2505 -2433 -2345 -2238 -2105 -1948 -1759 -1533 -1265 -929 -526 0 758 1333 1375  Strains A4-3 -2532 -2203 -2184 -2161 -2126 -2079 -2018 -1938 -1835 -1710 -1552 -1359 -1127 -832 -473 0 685 1206 1256  for Connector A4 (microstrain) A4-7 A4-4 A4-5 A4-6 -2480 -2520 -2414 -2365 -2170 -2197 -2110 -2093 -2154 -2176 -2091 -2075 -2134 -2152 -2069 -2052 -2117 -2036 -2016 -2099 -2049 -2067 -1991 -1965 -1987 -2000 -1930 -1903 -1911 -1918 -1855 -1826 -1809 -1813 -1755 -1727 -1686 -1686 -1634 -1606 -1530 -1528 -1484 -1458 -1337 -1301 -1275 -1339 -1109 -1106 -1077 -1055 -797 -779 -820 -816 -455 -442 -466 -466 0 0 0 0 667 649 645 671 1054 1163 1138 1089 1107 1211 1183 1138  Table C-24: Strains for connector A4  276  \u000C(MPa) 137.7 128.3 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.7 82.7 73.5 64.2 55.2 46.0 36.8 27.7 18.3 9.2 0.0 -9.3 -18.6 -23.0  B1-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  B1-2 1526 1400 1283 1161 1045 929 814 701 590 485 382 279 190 108 39 0 12 56 148  Strains for Connector B1 (microstrain) B1-6 B1-7 B1-3 B1-4 B1-5 1395 1348 1503 1483 1443 1232 1380 1363 1322 1276 1207 1164 1115 1262 1239 1049 1008 1143 1124 1088 974 935 899 1024 1009 862 825 788 907 889 684 797 720 776 750 667 641 617 583 686 572 536 509 486 560 412 392 467 455 442 343 320 300 366 355 217 272 245 235 260 144 180 175 165 151 79 91 83 101 99 34 29 28 36 37 0 0 0 0 0 24 18 17 9 13 60 57 84 61 59 148 138 163 140 126  B1-8 1273 1160 1054 948 844 743 642 .545 452 364 279 197 127 65 22 0 29 67 134  B1-10 B1-9 1142 1210 1039 1103 937 1001 842 899 746 797 648 699 556 605 514 468 383 419 334 302 224 254 155 180 95 110 56 45 12 15 0 0 29 36 68 76 131 131  C1-8 1242 1162 1083 1004 923 840 757 673 588 503 418 331 245 160 74 0 -70 -90 -76  C1-10 C1-9 1315 1806 1694 1230 1582 1145 1062 1469 975 1355 1237 887 1118 800 714 998 623 876 752 530 627 439 348 500 372 258 172 243 83 116 0 0 -107 -75 -101 -156 -90 -151  Table C-25: Strains for connector Bl  Applied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.6 119.4 110.3 101.1 91.7 82.6 73.5 64.3 55.0 45.9 36.8 27.5 18.4 9.1 0.0 -9.2 -18.6 -23.2  C1-1 598 556 514 473 431 389 346 306 265 225 184 143 102 60 25 0 -17 7 38  C1-2 646 601 557 513 470 424 379 332 285 240 195 151 108 68 29 0 -25 -8 22  Strains for Connector C1 (microstrain) C1-4 C1-7 C1-3 C1-5 C1-6 644 765 808 875 1155 600 714 817 1080 755 555 662 700 759 1005 511 611 645 702 930 464 641 854 560 594 419 537 775 505 583 375 453 481 524 698 338 399 425 469 620 541 293 348 368 408 245 296 312 345 463 200 243 255 284 383 157 224 304 191 198 113 139 141 165 224 87 111 144 75 86 36 38 33 53 68 0 0 0 0 0 -57 -21 -30 -36 -43 -4 -67 -18 -32 -41 26 9 -8 -19 -48  Table C-26: Strains for connector CI  277  \u000CApplied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.5 119.4 110.0 101.1 92.0 82.6 73.5 64.4 55.0 46.0 36.8 27.5 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.3 -18.6 -23.0  C2-1 1289 1197 1106 1013 921 830 738 647 559 470 380 292 216 135 65 0 -43 -45 -3  C2-2 1401 1298 1200 1098 1000 899 800 702 604 501 407 317 227 141 70 0 -56 -57 -17  Strains for Connector C2 (microstrain) C2-4 C2-7 C2-3 C2-5 C2-6 0 1527 1543 0 1673 1427 1545 0 1417 0 1424 0 1307 1313 0 0 1195 1213 0 1296 1177 .0 1086 1106 0 0 977 993 0 1055 0 866 897 0 933 0 760 0 814 786 698 0 653 676 0 0 549 562 0 581 0 444 454 0 468 342 352 358 0 0 0 254 0 261 251 0 158 157 0 162 \" 74 0 75 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 -53 -63 0 -53 0 -63 -68 0 -66 0 -20 -28 0 -25  C2-8 1588 1459 1337 1212 1093 975 856 740 628 513 407 307 213 127 57 0 -40 -36 2  C2-9 C2-10 1121 0 1007 0 901 0 0 793 692 0 0 593 492 0 399 0 314 0 0 230 160 0 94 0 41 0 7 0 -14 0 0 0 31 0 77 0 118 0  D1-8 1875 1746 1609 1477 1341 1210 1080 943 814 689 561 437 321 205 103 0 -63 -69 -16  D1-9 D1-10 1986 0 1846 0 1708 0 1565 0 1429 0 1293 0 1152 0 1014 0 878 0 743 0 609 0 479 0 352 0 224 0 115 0 0 0 -81 0 0 -98 -47 0  Table C-27: Strains for connector C2  Applied stress (MPa) 137.7 128.7 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.8 82.6 73.3 64.1 55.1 45.9 36.6 27.7 18.3 9.2 0.0 -9.5 -18.6 -23.0  D1-1  D1-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  Strains for Connector D1 (microstrain) D1-3 D1-4 D1-5 D1-6 D1-7 1556 1624 1621 1722 1791 1438 1505 1507 1595 1663 1326 1382 1472 1532 1383 1205 1404 1263 1266 1342 1092 1277 1148 1146 1219 981 1029 1028 1098 1146 865 910 917 972 1021 753 795 795 848 894 645 677 680 730 765 536 574 644 565 611 431 461 463 494 526 333 351 355 383 405 236 294 250 259 276 142 155 163 171 186 67 77 77 83 94 0 0 0 0 0 -39 -38 -41 -54 -56 -15 -23 -24 -44 -55 47 36 32 16 -2  Table C-28: Strains for connector DI  278  \u000CApplied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.6 119.4 110.0 101.1 91.8 82.6 73.5 64.4 55.1 46.1 36.6 27.4 18.3 9.1 0.0 -9.3 -18.4 -23.0  E1-1 3313 3127 2935 2736 2536 2327 2113 1900 1681 1454 1223 980 737 496 256 0 -237 -438 -498  E1-2 3251 3063 2876 2682 2492 2295 2088 1879 1667 1444 1225 991 749 503 256 0 -242 -458 -524  Strains for Connector E1 (microstrain) E1-7 E1-4 E1-6 E1-3 E1-5 2806 3141 2927 2882 2808 2650 2647 2966 2757 2718 2488 2489 2786 2592 2553 2327 2599 2422 2385 2323 2157 2412 2250 2220 2163 2047 2221 2070 1991 1993 1820 2026 1888 1866 1820 1826 1705 1684 1646 1646 1623 1518 1499 1467 1469 1282 1407 1321 1304 1276 1092 1192 1120 1113 1086 964 905 905 884 888 731 687 689 676 675 496 465 468 465 465 255 241 242 242 245 0 0 0 0 0 -241 -237 -233 -240 -246 -467 -474 -459 -485 -506 -548 -546 -568 -591 -625  E1-8 2807 2644 2484 2321 2162 1995 1822 1648 1470 1283 1099 897 687 473 247 0 -252 -526 -652  E1-10 E1-9 2767 2744 2587 2613 2455 2433 2275 2293 2114 2131 1949 1968 1800 1781 1614 1629 1454 1440 1268 1261 1082 1077 886 881 681 676 471 466 247 248 0 0 -254 -259 -537 -552 -675 -699  Table C-29: Strains for connector El  Applied stress (MPa) 137.8 128.5 119.4 110.2 101.1 91.7 82.6 73.5 64.3 55.1 46.0 36.8 27.5 18.3 9.0 0.0 -9.3 -18.6 -23.2  F1 1903 1778 1655 1533 1416 1297 1175 1053 938 810 688 559 427 294 150 0 -203 -449 -604  F2 2120 1984 1849 1713 1578 1441 1310 1170 1034 900 764 621 475 331 162 0 -227 -521 -718  Strains F3 2584 2432 2282 2130 1981 1819 1666 1507 1341 1171 1002 826 639 442 241 0 -272 -555 -712  for Connector F (microstrain) F4 G2 G1 G3 2169 1876 0 1813 2037 1762 0 1675 1904 1649 0 1541 1770 1532 0 1406 1642 1414 0 1276 1509 1298 0 1144 1374 1185 0 1011 1238 1062 0 878 1104 943 0 751 961 826 0 621 821 705 0 497 671 576 0 371 518 448 0 252 360 313 0 146 189 159 0 48 0 0 0 0 -230 -200 0 -6 -485 -454 0 101 -624 -594 0 210  Table C-30: Strains for connector F  279  G4 2033 1908 1785 1659 1534 1410 1287 1157 1030 903 772 633 492 342 181 0 -225 -505 -667  G5 1824 1684 1549 1416 1287 1149 1020 888 754 623 498 377 258 149 60 0 6 101 206  G6 1842 1697 1558 1418 1284 1147 1011 875 746 610 483 355 237 128 43 0 32 174 318  \u000CAppendix D: Engineering plate models In this appendix, the standard engineering plate models are presented and reduced to the form of a line spring model, demonstrating the methods used to develop the more advanced models in chapters three and four. The six models analyzed are: \u2022  Plane stress extension: a standard plate extension model, developed by assuming vanishing through-thickness stresses.  \u2022  Plane strain extension: a standard plate extension model, developed by assuming vanishing through-thickness strains.  \u2022  Plane stress bending: the Kirchoff-Poisson plate bending model, developed by assuming vanishing through-thickness stresses.  \u2022  Plane strain bending: a new plate bending model, developed by assuming vanishing through-thickness strains.  \u2022  Shear deformable plane stress bending: very similar to the Reissner plate bending model [1], developed by including shear deformations and assuming vanishing through-thickness stresses.  \u2022  Shear deformable plane strain bending: the M i n d l i n plate bending model [2], developed by including shear deformations and assuming vanishing throughthickness trains.  These plate models w i l l be expressed in the form of harmonic partial differential equations. Applying Fourier transforms, they w i l l be used to form hyper-singular integrals for cracked plates that relate the crack face loading to the deflections of the crack faces. Joseph and Erdogan [3,4] have used this technique to analyse cracked plates assuming plane stress plate extension and Reissner plate bending. The more common approach to cracked plate problems is to use Muskhelishvilli's complex variable method [5] in the simplified form presented by Westergaard [6], an approach that cannot easily be extended to the analysis of higher-order plate models. The Fourier transform of a function and the inverse transform may be defined as follows. f = f(x,a)=  \\f(x,y)e dy, iay  f = f(x,y) = \u2014\\f{x,a)e~ *da ia  (la,b)  Applying Fourier transforms to a function / , the following relationships arise, and may be used to reduce the plate models from partial to ordinary differential equations.  280  \u000CJ V  ( / ) ^ =7 . \u201E - \u00AB 7  2  (2a)  2  ]v (/) e^dy  =  ]v (/) e^dy  =/  4  6  - 2a f. 2  xx  + a*J  (2b)  \u201E - 3 \u00AB r / , _ + 3ar 7,\u201E - a 2  4  6  /  (2c)  The general solutions for the arising ordinary differential equations are generally not difficult to find. The next step is to use the symmetry conditions along the line o f the crack to find expressions for the force boundary condition and the crack face deflection. B y inverting the expression for the deflection, an integral equation relating the forces acting on the crack plane to the deflection of the crack faces may be found. These integrals contain terms involving the wavelength, a, and lead to singular and hypersingular expressions. The following integral relationships are required, and arise from the Hadamard finite part of the expression: \\ae '- da= iai  )a e i  (3a)  ^ d a =\u2014 ^ -  i a  ^\\Ra e 2  *  ~ \\ ,  y)  i  a  ^da  o  (3b)  = I ( K (k\\t - y | ) - K (k\\t - y | ) ) + A K (z) 2 Z 2  0  2  (3c)  The resulting hyper-singular integral equations can be solved by expanding the crack face deflections and the crack face loading using Chebychev polynomials o f the second kind. TJ  sin((w + l)acos(r))  ( f ) =  Vi-r  2  These polynomials obey the following integral identity. ,  f  1  Jl-t U (t),  71^  \\x-t)  n  (  n  | (n + ly  1  IJCI &lt; 1  - (n + \\)U (x)  2  4  i\u2014 .  ^  wi \u2014  1  x &gt;1  Joseph and Erdogan [3,4] and Wang and Rose [7] have used this method to form crackbridging models. In subsequent sections, the method is applied to the six plate models  281  \u000Cdescribed above, showing the evolution toward the advanced models resented in chapters three and four.  D . l Plane stress extension The plane stress solution follows by assuming vanishing transverse stresses through the thickness of the plate, and is considered valid for thin plates or thick plates with small stress gradients. The governing equations can be derived from an assumed set of displacements with identical results, but here the displacement method has been used to introduce concepts that w i l l be applied to more advanced models. For a plate of thickness 2h, the displacement field is approximated as shown. u  x  = u  x  ( x , y ) ,  u  = u ( x , y ) ,  u  (6a,b,c)  =\u2014w(x,y) h  Integrating through the thickness, and observing the traction-free surfaces o f the plate, equilibrium reduces to the following three conditions. For models in which the stresses vary through the thickness, the integrated stresses and equilibrium equations w i l l be expressed in terms of stress resultants, or line forces. \u00B0xx,x  + &lt;?xy,y =  0  &gt;  &lt;?yy.y + \u00B0' xy,x =  0  &gt;  ^  =  ( &gt; )  0  7a  D  The compatibility equations reduce to a single condition, automatically satisfied by the assumed displacements. This is a general characteristic of displacement-based solutions. u  +u  (8)  =y  x,xyy  y,xxy  V /  I xy,xy  Given the constant rj = v &lt;JE/ E , the inverted form of the constitutive equations for a Z  z  transversally isotropic material in plane stress may be expressed in the following form.  0 x x = Y ^ W x + \u2122 y , y ] &gt;  &lt; yy=JZ^[ 7  U  y,y  +  V  U  x,x\\&gt;  xy  T  =  G  ( u  x  y  + U  y  J  (9a,b,C)  The transverse displacement is given by the following.  Substituting the constitutive equations  into the equilibrium  equations  yields a  differential system expressed in terms of the displacements. It is convenient to define two functions. ^  = \"  W  + \"  W  .  V  =  U  (Ha,b)  x,y- y,x U  Adding and subtracting the derivatives of equilibrium equations, we find two harmonic equations.  282  \u000CV V =0,  vy  =0  (12a,b)  These form a 4th order system i f required by the boundary conditions, which are the normal and shear stresses acting on a cut. Denoting boundary data as barred quantities, and defining co-ordinates with directions \u00A3 along the boundary and g along the outward normal, the boundary conditions follow. cr  f f  =cT  f ?  ,  (13a,b)  T =T&amp; &amp;  The functions  0,y/ describe the normal and shear deflections o f the plate. The  traditional manner of solving plate extension problems is to note that the equilibrium requires the existence of a stress function, O , which is related to the stresses as follows. \u00B0\"xc=* .  ^ = - &lt; * V  w  \u00B0 =\u00AE,xx  (14a,b,c)  yy  The stress function may now be expressed in terms of the introduced functions &lt;/&gt;, y/. V * =0^+0-  =-^&lt;j&gt;  2  (15)  Substitution into (12a) leads to the biharmonic equation, and y/ becomes redundant. For shear deformable plate bending, this simplification is not possible. V &lt;P = 0  (16)  4  For shear deformable plate bending &lt;&gt; / and y/ are required throughout the solution as the equilibrium equations are not so easily satisfied.  D . l . l A cracked plate in plane stress Using Fourier transforms, we may find the general solution to equation (16). Keeping only the roots that vanish as JC, y \u2014&gt; \u00B0 \u00B0 .  O =  \u2014  ] ( v ~  W  The frequency,  *  +  *A e-W ) e- da x  (17)  iay  2  a, is assumed to be the absolute value in the remainder of the  development. Symmetry dictates that shear stresses vanish along the line of the crack. cV0,y) =-O^(0,y) =0  (18)  The stress function reduces to the following. 0 = \u2014 \"\\(e- +axe- )A m  m  e' da  (19)  iay  l  283  \u000CFrom equilibrium (7a), we note that &lt;T (0, y) = 0 and by constitutive equation (9a): XXX  u  =\u2014!\u2014 0 y,xy  (20)  ^_y  Yx  v  From constitutive equation (9c), u  x  u  = -[\u2014-\u2014 \\b  yy  = -u  '  and we find the following:  y  = -\u2014V &lt;P  (21)  2  The crack opening displacement, u(y) = u (0, y) may now be expressed as follows. x  .yyM  u  = T~ ] ^ a A e-\" da =  L  i  (21)  v  1  Constant A, arises from the boundary condition 0 ^ ( 0 , y) = -&lt;J(y). F r o m (14a) we find an integral expression for the stresses along the crack. a(y)=  \u2014  \\a A e-'\u00B0\u00BBda  (23)  2  1  W e may now form an integral equation for the crack face rotation. Inverting Fourier transform (22), we find an expression for integration constant A , . \u2014a A  = \\u\u201E(t)  3  2  e da  (24)  ictt  Integrating by parts twice and noting that displacements must vanish for |y| \u2014&gt; \u00B0 o ;  \u2014oA  = \\u{t) e \u00B0da  (25)  ic  1  B y substitution, we find an integral relating u(t) to the applied stress. &lt;T(y) = \u2014  fu(r) \\cxe '- da  ^ I  ia(  1  y)  dt  (26)  B y (3a), this may be rewritten as a hyper-singular integral.  A solution may be found by Chebyshev polynomials expansion. For a crack of length 2a, non-dimensional parameters r - t l a and s-yla  284  may be defined and we find:  \u000C5W=if-lr*V 2n a (r-  (28)  s)  M  For &lt;j(s) constant, given u{r) = ^ V l - r C / . ( r ) / i , . , the solution follows from (26). 2  (  2a  / *  0  0  (r-5)  K J-'  2a  2  = ^ E  (30)  The crack face deflection and stresses may now found as follows. \u00AB(y) = \u2014 7 \u00AB - y E 2  , \\y\\&lt;a  1  ( ) 31a  cr(y) = c r ^ \u00A3 E \u00A3 , | y | &gt; \u00AB Vy -a 2  (31b)  2  From classical fracture mechanics, the stress intensity in a plane stress plate may be calculated from the tensile stresses or crack-face deflection. *,=  px(y-a)cr (0,y)  (32a)  x  y \u2014&gt; a Hm  E ^  y-\u00BBaf  2  u (0,y) x  (  3  2  b  )  ^2(y-a)  The stress intensity obeys the classical result.  fc, = CTV/ZB  (33)  B y Irwin [8] the strain energy release rate may be defined as follows, where r is the distance from the crack tip. lim  1 ^  s^o~sl  gx=  &lt;rAr)Ux(r)dr  Noting that y - r + a-6,  (34)  and substituting from (31), we find the classical definition for  the strain energy release rate under plane stress conditions. m^ kl_ =  1  E  (  E  285  3  5  )  \u000CD.2 Plane strain extension The plane strain model follows from the assumption of vanishing transverse strain and is considered to be valid for plates where transverse deformations are restricted by surrounding materials and in regions with very high stress gradients, for example near a crack in a thick plate. Similar to the plane stress solution, the governing equations for plane strain follow from an assumed set of displacements. The transverse strain is assumed to vanish, and the displacement field may be approximated as shown. u =u (x,y), x  u =u (x,y),  x  y  u =0  y  (36a,b,c)  z  W i t h the assumption of constant displacements (and stresses) through the thickness, the three-dimensional equilibrium equations reduce to the following. Here, P is the pressure applied to the surfaces of the plate in order to prevent transverse deformation. CT  +CT  yy,y  xy,x  v  =0,  cr  =  P  '  (37a,b)  The compatibility equations are automatically satisfied, and the inverted form o f the constitutive equations may be expressed in the following form. 2G(l-/7 ) 2  cr  -  1 - V - 2 J ]  u  v +  *\u2022*  1-  2G{\\-T] ) 2  &lt;? =  U  yy  \\ - v - 2 r )  n  1  u  H  (38a)  I  2  -\\  77  2  V + T] \u2014U  ' j  y  yl  1  (38b)  I  2  2G(\\-T] ) 2  (38c)  \\ - v - 2 r f  (38d) Substituting the constitutive equations into the equilibrium equations again yields a fourth order system expressed in terms (p,y/ and equilibrium equations require the existence of a stress function, &lt;t&gt;, expressed as follows. CT  xx  +CT =\u2022 yy  E  (39)  1-V-2/T  A s (/&gt; must obey the harmonic equation, the stress function is biharmonic. V O =0  (40)  4  286  \u000CD.2.1 A cracked plate in plane strain A s for plane stress, the biharmonic equation has the solution given by (14), The solution process is identical, and we may find expressions for the crack face displacement and stresses along the line of the crack. u\u201E(y)  =^ - J - l ^ a ' A ^ d a  a(y) = \u2014 In  (41)  {a Ae~ da 2  (42)  iay  J  \u2014oo  It is straightforward to find an integral relating the crack face displacement to the applied stress. The form differs from (25) for plane stress by a multiplicative constant. *  (  43)  Using the non-dimensional parameters r and s again, (43) becomes: - /  E  - i f  v  \\h  e\\s) = 2n{\\-J]  *  -  T  )a  2  u(r) , ' dr ^(r-s)  ....  (44)  2  Using Chebychev polynomials, the crack face deflection and stresses follow. \u00AB(y) =  2  g  (  r  1  CJ{y) = CT  y  ,  y  a  )  ^  . V Vy -a  r  i  7 \" .  M &lt; \u00AB  (  , |y|&gt;a  4 5  )  (46)  B y classical fracture mechanics, the stress intensity may again be determined from either the tensile stresses or the crack face deflections. fc,=  k  =  1  ' ^27r(y-a)cT {Q,y) y \u2014&gt; a i  (47a)  m  +  lim y-&gt;a\"  x  Jx~  E  u (0,y) x  (  4  ?  b  )  2(\\-Tj )p(y- ) 2  a  The stress intensity for the plane strain plate extension problem follows. k,=a4m  (48)  287  \u000CThe strain energy release rate may be determined from equation (34), and we find the classical definition for the strain energy release rate in a plane strain plate. m ^ \\ l - n ) _fc, (l-/7 ) 2  2  E  2  (  4  9  )  E  Equations (35) and (49) are the expressions used to determine the stress intensity in a cracked plate given a strain energy release rate. W i t h no means to distinguish between states o f plane stress and plane strain, the arbitrary adoption of one equation or the other can lead to significant errors in the calculation of the stress intensity in a cracked plate.  D.3 Plane stress bending The plane stress bending model is developed by neglecting transverse stresses and shear deflections. The result is a fourth order system with two boundary conditions, the normal moment and the effective shear stress (Kirchoff) boundary condition, which uses the equilibrium equations to combine the twisting moment and shear force acting on a cut. The development follows from an assumed form for the displacements i n the bending plate. For a plate of thickness 2h, the displacement field is approximated as follows:  z  2  x = -z ,x(*. y)&gt;  u  w  u y  = ~zw (x, y ) ,  u = w(x, y) + \u2014 -u (x, y) z  h  2  z  (50a,b,c)  The stresses are expressed as stress resultants, or line-forces, i n the plate. Integrating through the thickness of the plate, we find the following expressions:  h  h  xx= foxxtdz .  M = \\&lt;*\u201Ez4z , M ^ = jr^zdz  M  yy  -h  -h  h  (51a,b,c)  -h  h  V = \\r dz, x  h  V = \\t dz  xz  y  -h  (52a,b)  yz  -h  The equilibrium equations may also be formulated in terms of the stress resultants. M^ +M =V , x  xyy  M +M^ =V ,  x  my  x  V +V\u201E=-q  y  XJC  (53a,b,c)  For 7] = v TJE/ E , the inverted form of the constitutive equations for a transversally z  Z  isotropic material may be expressed as follows. It is assumed that cr^ = 0 .  ^xx=-~;\\ xx yyl \u00A3  +V\u00A3  \u00B0 yy = JZ^l  \u00A3  yy + \u00BB] V\u20AC  n +\u00A3 e =-\u2014\u2014i v, \\-v  ( &gt;) 54a  2  vv  (54c)  a  288  b  \u000C*v=GY ,  * =G 7 ,  xy  XZ  Z  r =Gj  XZ  yz  (54d,e,f)  yz  B y integration through the thickness of the plate, the constitutive equations (54a-f) may be used to express the stress resultants in terms of plate displacements. M =-Dh[w +vw \\, xx  xx  yy  M =-Dh[w +vwJ  (55a,b)  V =V =0  (55c,d)  yy  = -Dh(\\ - v)w , xy  x  yy  y  T o satisfy the assumed displacement field, which neglects shear deformations, the shear forces must vanish. T o proceed with the development of the classical model, we proceed despite this inconsistency. The plate bending constant, D, takes the classic form: Ah  2h  2  2  D - \u2014\u2014\u2014G = \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014E  3(l-v)  (56)  3(l-v ) 2  For the case o f no transverse load, the equilibrium equations (53) reduce to the following. M , +2M +M =Q ]a xx  xyxy  (57)  yyyy  Substitution o f the constitutive laws (55) leads directly to the bi-harmonic plate model expressed in terms o f w, the lateral deflection of the neutral axis of the plate.  V w =0  (58)  4  This system requires two boundary conditions, the normal moment M  and the  effective shear force V . The effective shear force or Kirchoff boundary condition arises from the combination o f the applied shear force and twisting moment  boundary  conditions, and provides a means of including the shear force boundary conditions. Denoting boundary data as barred quantities, the boundary conditions follow. M= gi  M  i?  ,V =V + s  (59a,b)  e  The direction \u00A3 is along the boundary a n d ^ is along the outward normal.  D.3.1 Bending of a cracked plate under plane stress conditions Having captured the behaviour o f the bending plate, it is possible to develop a solution to the problem o f a cracked plate. Applying Fourier transforms in the manner used for the plane stress extension, the plate deflection may be expressed as follows. w=\u2014  ](v * * + A xe ) -1  1  W  2  (60)  e'^da.  289  \u000CSymmetry dictates that shear stresses vanish along the line of the crack. F r o m (59b), we may now find the symmetry condition.  V (0,y) + M (0,y) x  = 0.  xyy  (61)  B y substitution from equilibrium equation (53a) and constitutive equations (55a,c) we find the following restriction on the plate deflection w and integration constant A . x  w +(2-v)w  =0,  xxx  aA,=-\\^-A 1-v  (62a,b)  2  The crack face rotation, fi = \u2014 = -w (0, y), may now be expressed in a simple form. x  h \u00A3 ( y ) = - ^ \\-^A e- da 2K l-v  (63)  ,ay  2  J  The final integration constant arises from the boundary condition M^(0,y) = \u2014M(y). From constitutive equation (55a), we find the following.  M ( y ) = \u2014 \\Dh(3 + v)aA e- da  (64)  iay  2  W e may now express the moment along the line of the crack in terms o f the crack face rotation. Inverting Fourier transform (63), we find an expression for A . 2  \u2014A 1-v  = f/J(0 e da  (65)  ioa  2  J \u2014DO  B y substitution, we find the following integral equation.  M(y) = \u2014 (3 + v)(l - v) \\p{t) \\a e - da 4K f ia(  dt  y)  J  (66)  Observing integral identity (3a), this may be rewritten as a hyper-singular integral.  M(y) = ^(3 2K  +  vya-v)lj\u00A3%dt l{t-yf  (68) 3M z  W i t h the bending stress given by a (z) = \u2014 \u2014 , the stress in the outer fibre is given by x  G B  3M  2  2h h and (68) may be expressed as follows.  290  \u000C-Eh  o {z)b  '3 + V V JPit) I  (69)  \u2022dt  2K  This form varies from equation (25) for plane stress extension by a multiplicative constant. Using the non-dimensional parameters r and s, this my be written as: -E(3  + v\\h  &lt; |  p(r)  2n\\\\ 1 + + vv )a )a J-&gt;\u00AB ( rr -- ss ))  (70)  dr 21  Substituting \u00A3}(r) = ^ V l - r c 7 . ( r ) / i . 2  (  and making 0\" (.s) constant, only one term is fc  required to find the solution. 3+ v 1+ v  2K  /i =  2o-  3+ v h  f e  0  1+v  (rsf  n+v^  (71)  (72)  3+ v  The crack face rotation and bending moment may now found as follows. 1 + V^  y-  &lt;J (y) = (J b  h  V  2  y  (73a)  y&lt;a  3+ v j  2  '  (73b)  y &gt;a  -a  From (32a,b), the stress intensity may be determined from either the bending stress or the crack face deflection. The stress- and deflection-based definitions give different results, as noted by Erdogan and Joseph [3,4]. (74a)  &amp;j \u2014 cx yjmi b  1+v  (74b)  3+ v The strain energy release rate follows, where r is the distance from the crack tip. lim Sx =  \u00A3-&gt;0  2 r(j(r)u(r) 5  8  J  1+ v dr = ^ E 3+ v  (75)  The strain energy release rate for plane stress bending is found to differ from the relationship for plane stress plate extension by a multiplicative constant.  291  \u000CD.4 Plane strain bending Similar to the plate extension, one may also develop a plane strain formulation for plate bending. F o r a plate o f thickness 2h, neglecting shear deformations, the displacement field may be approximated as shown. u =-zw (x,y), x  u=-zwJx,y),  x  (76a,b,c)  u=w(x,y)  Again, the stresses are expressed i n terms o f stress resultants (51,52), with an extra term arising to account for pressurization of the plate. (53c)  -h The equilibrium equations for plane stress bending (53) do not change. The constitutive equations for a transversally isotropic material in plane strain are expressed as follows. 2G(l-/7 ) 2  l-v-2/7  1 \u00A3\u201E+ '-\u00A3\u201E]  (77a)  \u00A3  (77b)  V + TJ  2  2  2G(l-/7 ) 2  a = yy \\-v-2ti  2  CT  =  yy  \u00A3  I  1  _ 2^  +  \u00A3  X  V  2Gv(\\ + v) 1-1/-2/7  T =Gr , xy  +^  \u00A3  (77c)  2  * =Gj ,  xy  a  (77d,e,f)  * =G y  a  yz  z  yz  The stress resultants may now be expressed in terms of w by integration.  1  V + TJ  2  M =-Dh  w  xx  \u2014w  H  i-jj M  1  +  V  )  k ,  M  \u2022yyiy  2  P- = -DM  I  +  w  = \u2014 Dh\\ W  yy  0  H  \u2022  w  V + TJ  1  W I  I - / / '\"'j  ^l-v-27 ^ 2  V, M ^ - D ,  T  I-/7  2  v =v =o x  (78a,b)  2  (78c,d)  (78e)  y  Again, strictly speaking, the model is only valid for vanishing shear forces i n the body of the plate. The bending constant takes a different form for plane strain. Ah ( 2  D=  \\-J]  ^  2  (79)  \\-v-2r}  2  292  \u000CB y the same method applied to plane stress bending, the biharmonic equation w i l l arise expressed in terms of the deflection of the plate.  D.4.1 A cracked plate under plane strain bending conditions The solution follows by the same process as for plane stress bending. Symmetry is enforced using the effective shear boundary condition (61) and the deflection must obey the following relationship. V w 2  +  ^l-v-2;;  2  ^  (80)  This leads to the following restriction on integration constant A . l  '  1+v  oA, =-\\  A  (81)  1-V-2TJ  2  The rotation of the crack face and the bending moment may be expressed as follows. ,2  \\  \\A e- da  (82a)  iay  2  \u2022v-2rf -1  r^,f\u201E  M(y) = \u2014  \\Dh\\ 2 +  2TT  j  1+v  ^  - \\xA e' da  I-77  (82b)  m  2  2  Inverting (82a) and substituting into (82b), we find:. \\-V-2T]  2 Y  + A t i ^ W) \"j  2  AK  e '- da dt ia(  a  y)  (83)  B y integral identity (3a), this may be written as a hyper-singular integral.  \\-v-2r]  ]  L  2  1+v  Pit)  2K  -dt  (84)  This may be expressed in terms of the bending stress.  \u2014t \\  ~  E  h  (85)  2K  B y polynomial expansion, the crack face rotation and bending stress may now found in the same manner as for plane stress bending. Y  l +v  Piy) = 2&lt;j  h  3+ V-2/7  2 A  1-7]  2\\ y&lt;a  Eh  293  (86a)  \u000C\u00B0  ( y ) = \u00B0  b  l h  - T = 4 - '  \\y\\  &gt;a  (  8  6  b  )  The stress intensity may now be found from (47a,b). Note that the stress- and deflection-based definitions give different results, as found above for plane stress bending.  k = o 4na x  (87a)  h  \\?&gt; + V-2T]  )  2  The strain energy release rate for plane strain bending differs from the relationship for plane strain plate extension by a multiplicative constant. i+v Y i - ^ ^ Si = l 3+v-2^ X E (  2  (88)  k  2  The inconsistencies observed in the definitions of the stress intensity factors and the strain energy release rate can be addressed by including shear deformations in the plate models, which is the subject of the next section.  D.5 Shear-deformable plane stress bending Here we develop a 6  t h  order model for bending of a shear-deformable plate. The  development follows from the assumption of vanishing transverse stresses. For a plate of thickness 2h, the displacement field may be approximated as shown. x = 7 \"*(\u2022*&gt;)')&gt; n  u =y'uJx,y), h  u  The stress resultants equations  M  ,  u =w(x,y) + ?\u2014u (x,y) h z  M  z  (89a,b,c)  ,V ,V , equilibrium equations, and constitutive X  are identical to those developed for plane stress bending i n equations (51)  through (54). B y integration through the thickness, the constitutive equations may be used to express the stress resultants in terms of the displacements of the plate. M  a  = D[u +vu J, xx  M  y  M xy =^Y~k,  y  yy  +\u00AB,.,],  = D[u +vu \\ yy  V =2G [u x  z  x  (90a,b)  xx  +hw \\ x  V =2G [u +hw \\ y  z  y  (90c,d) (90e)  y  The plate bending constant, D, takes the form for plane stress.  294  \u000CSubstitution of the constitutive equations (90) into the equilibrium equations (53) yields a system of differential equations expressed in terms of the displacements. It proves convenient to define two functions &lt;/),y/ as in ( l l a , b ) Transverse equilibrium then requires (/&gt; to obey the following condition. $ = -hV w  (92)  2  Adding the derivatives of equations (53a) and (53b), equilibrium in the plane of the plate, and using equation (53c) to cancel the shear stress resultants leads to the following.  V  V  =0  (93)  B y subtracting the derivatives of equations (53a) and (53b), one finds: 3C V V-  KY  = ' 0  w  h  e  r  K = TiTT \u2022 n Lr  e  &lt; &gt; 94  From (92) and (93), we find the biharmonic plate model, V w = 0 . The shear 4  deflections result in the additional relationship (94) for y/, resulting in a 6th order system. The three boundary conditions are the normal moment, twisting moment, and shear force. Denoting boundary data as barred quantities, and defining co-ordinates with directions g  along the boundary and g  along the outward normal, the boundary  conditions are: M  gi  =M  i g  , M  4?  =M  f r  ,  V= V . c  (95a,b,c)  C  The functions &lt;p,y/ describe the normal and shear deformations, and lead to a simple derivation of the governing equations, but are not convenient for determining moments or shear forces acting in a plate. Instead, one may define a pair of stress functions. From equilibrium, we note that functions O , x (96a,b,c)  M^^\u00AE  (96a,b)  yy  + \\x, dx,  X  u  s  exist such that.  t  M  y  = 0 ^ - J^Jy,  yy  V = , , x  m  V = - ,  y  y  X  M =-\u00AE xy  xy  x  From the definition of y/, and constitutive equations (90d,e) we find the following. V j = 2G ^  (97)  2  z  A differential equation for x  m  a  y  n  o  w  be found from (94).  295  \u000CV  J - ^ V  4  ^ =0  2  (98)  D.5.1 A shear deformable cracked plate under plane stress conditions B y Fourier transforms, we may find a solution. Keeping roots that vanish as x, y \u2014\u00BB&lt;\u00BB. w = A ~\\{A,e  + A xe )  Mx  e  W  ia)  2  y/ = A \"j(B e~ ) e- da, RrX  da.  whereR  iay  l  (99a)  = a +k .  2  2  w  (99b)  2  Symmetry dictates that shear stresses vanish along the line of the crack. M (0,y)  = 0,  xy  V (0,y) = 0.  (100a,b)  x  Shear equations (90d,e) imply the following restrictions along the line of the crack. U  x , y  +  U  y , x  =  0  U  &gt;  x+  h  w  (101a,b)  .x=0-  The following useful relationships also arise from (101). \"*, =^&gt;  u =~vr  y  (102a,b)  yiX  The first symmetry condition arises from (100a) by substitution from (101a). y/ + 2h =0  (103)  Wxy  From equilibrium equation (54a), we find that M (Q,y) xxx  = 0. Substituting into  constitutive equation (90a), we find the second symmetry condition + { ( ! - \u00BB ' \u00A5 . , =0  (104)  Symmetry then leads to the following restrictions on the integration constants. B + 2h^A a  2  x  }  - A a\\=Q, 2  2A a+ 2  *  ~ 2h  ( 1  \u00A3, = 0  V )  (105a,b)  After some manipulation, we find that A, andfi, may be expressed as follows. (106a,b)  aA,=V  l-Vy  |A , 2  \u00B1 . 2h  1  B  ]  = \u2014 A l-v  2  2  The rotation of the crack face, fl - \u2014w (0, y), may be expressed in a simple form. x  296  \u000C2K  (107)  \\-V  J  The final integration constant arises from the boundary condition M ( 0 , y) = - M ( y ) , H  however one must first find an expression for either u  x x  (0, y) or u  (0, y). This requires  consideration of the stress function % . From equation (98) we find: Z = -^  j(c,\u00AB + C e~ * ) Ha|x  R  (108)  e- da  x  iay  2  F r o m (100b), we find that C, + C = 0 and x  m  a  v  D  e  2  X =  \u2014\\c\\e2K i  H x  -e AeR  i a y  expressed as follows.  da  (109)  From equation (97), we find that. C, = -2(1 - v)DB  x  - -2DhiaA  (110)  2  From constitutive equations (90d,e) we find expressions for u (0, y) and u (0, xx  X, 2G,  -hw ,  u  rr  -  y y  \u2014  \u2022 hw 2G  y  y  y).  (llla,b)  yy  B y constitutive equation (90a), we define the boundary condition M ( y ) = M ( 0 , y) M(y) = -D  (112)  J Substituting for x, w.  2;r  (3 +  v ) a + \u2014 ) a  2  W,e-\"\u00BBda  (113)  W e may now form a hyper singular equation for the crack face rotations. Inverting (107), we find an expression for integration constant A . 2  --?-A  = )j3(t) e dt  (114)  ,a,  2  Substitution into (113) leads to an equation relating the rotation to the bending moment.  297  \u000Ca+  \u2014(a-R )a  2  \u00A5  ,ia(t-y)da dt  (115)  Noting the integral identities (3a-c), this may be rewritten as a hyper-singular integral, resulting in the form found from the Riessner bending model [3,4]. Differences are due to the consideration of a transversely isotropic plate and changes to k  resulting from use of  v  a displacement- rather than stress-based formulation. Denoting z = k (t \u00A5  M{y) =  Dhk  I (l-v) AK  J&gt;)|  2(3 + v) z  +  48 _ z  ^  4  ( z )  _^  ( z )  ) _ 24 ^ z  (z)  y).  V  J  (116)  Separating the strongly singular parts from the Modified Bessel functions, one may define a function L (z) v  from the regular and weakly singular parts such that.  48 4 = -\u2014 + \u2014 + 4{K ( )-K (z))+ z z  L (z) \u00A5  2  Z  0  24 \u2014 K (z) z 2  (117)  The moment along the line x = 0 may now be expressed as follows. -Dhk (\\-v) . , ' 2 ( l + v) (118) + L(z) dt M{y) = T Mti An i Expressed in terms of the bending stress, this may be written in the simpler form. 2  v  1  \u2014,  .  Ghk  2  2(1+ v)  f  v  I  2K  For a short crack, L (z) v  z-  + LM)  (119)  W j  vanishes, and we find the expression for plane stress  extension. Eh 2K  f  P{t) [(t-yY  -dt  (120)  D.6 Shear-deformable plane strain bending Here we develop a plane strain formulation for a shear deformable plate, assuming a form for the displacements by which the transverse strains vanish. z u\u201E=\u2014u (x,y), h x  z u =-u(x,y), h  u =w(x,y) z  (121a,b,c)  The stress resultant and equilibrium equations are identical to equations (51) through (53), and the assumed displacement field satisfies compatibility. The constitutive equations (77) may be used to express the stress resultants in terms of the displacements.  298  \u000CM =D\\  u_  r  V + T]  +  r  l-TJ  ']  2  y  %(1 + V)&gt;  H  U  yy  y-y  yl  1-^  l-v-2/7  + M  ,1  V + 7J \u2014U 1 _2 x.x | 1 ~2 2  M =D\\  -U  1  l - ^~2  (122a,b)  J  2  (122c,d)  , v + \" , J  (122e,f)  V,=2G l\u00AB,+*w.,J z  The plate bending constant, D, takes the form for plane strain bending. ,2  Ah  2r  D=  A  (123) \\-V-2T]  2  The remainder of the derivation is identical to that for shear deformable plane stress bending. The result is the same set of equations, which describe a 6 order system. th  V w = 0.  (124a)  4  3G^  (124b)  hG 2  The stress function x takes the same form. V ^r-&lt;V ^ =0 4  (125)  2  D.6.1 A shear deformable cracked plate under plane strain conditions Differences between the plane stress and plane strain shear deformable plate models arise only from the definition of the constitutive equations (122) and the plate constant (123). Solutions to (124a,b) and (125) are: J _  \\{\\e  + A xe^ ) e~ da.  Hx  x  (126a)  ,ay  2  In y/ = \u2014  j(fl,e~ ) e~ v  X = j^\u00B0\\{c e +C e- * ) Mx  x  R  2  da, where R* = a +k .  iay  x  2  e^da  2  (126b)  (126c)  Symmetry requires M (0, y) = 0 and V (0, y) = 0, leading to the following conditions. x  \\-V-lTJ  1  W+2h =0,  (127a,b,c)  Wxy  299  \u000CObserving these symmetry conditions, equations (126a,b,c) w i l l become: 1  \u00B0\u00B0 (  w=A f 2K 1  x  \\ \u00B1 ^ L V  1 - v - 2TJ 1  0 0  2  \u2014 {4ih 2K_{  V  (128b)  e'^da  (128c)  R  2  % = \u2014[-2ihDaA (e  ,aA e~ * e~ da x  Mx  2  ia&gt;  2  \\-v-2rj  2TZ_1  (128a)  ^ ' e ^ d a .  e  a  2  \\  '  x  The rotation of the crack face, /? = - w ^ O , y), may now be expressed in a simple form.  fly)=J-]  2  i - , ^  (129)  ia  l-v-2TJ  2/r_i  A e' &gt;'da  2  2  The last boundary condition M ( 0 , y) = - M ( y ) may be arises from equation (122a). x t  ,2 2  M(y) = -D  l-V-2/7  y 2G (l-^ ) \" 2  / t  ,  v + 77 , 2  \u2014 /iw  x y  1  z  \"  2  hw  1  (130)  Substituting for %, w.  M(y)  V  -Dh  2+  1+ v  hr + \u2014  (131)  (a-R )a \\A e~ 'da 2  w  ia&gt;  2  2K  Inverting (129) and substituting for A results in an integral equation relating the crack 2  face rotation to the bending moment. \\-v-2rf  2+  b +\u2014  (a-RJa Y '- da 2  a(  y)  dt  (132)  AK  B y (3a-c), a hyper-singular integral arises. Here, z = k (t - y) and Z y ( z ) is unchanged.  M(y):  2  -Dhk  /  1  -V-2T]  4;r  2  A JL  1+V 1-/7  (133)  2  This may be expressed in terms of the stress in the outer fibre. \u2014,  ,  -Ghk  2  ,  f  1+v 1-/7  2  -+ 'Mz) P  300  (134)  \u000CFor a short crack, the regular part vanishes and this reduces to the form for plane strain extension. (135)  D.7 References [1] Reissner E . The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates. Journal of Applied Mechanics 12, 1945, A69-77 [2] M i n d l i n R D . Influence of rotary inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic, elastic plates. Journal of Applied Mechanics 18, 1951, 31-38 [3] Joseph P F and Erdogan F . Surface crack problems in plates. International Journal of Fracture 41, 1989, 105-131 [4] Joseph P F and Erdogan F. Plates and shells containing a surface crack under general loading conditions. N A S A CR178232, N A S A Langley Research Centre, 1987. [5] Muskhelishvilli N I . Some Basic Problems in the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. P. Noordhoff, 1953 [6] Westergaard H M . Bearing Pressures and Cracks. Journal of Applied Mechanics 6, 1939, 49-53 [7] Wang C H and Rose L R F . A crack bridging model for bonded plates subjected to tension and bending. International Journal of Solids and Structures 36, 1999, 1985-2014 [8] Irwin G R . Analysis of Stresses and Strains Near the E n d of a Crack Traversing a Plate. Journal of Applied Mechanics 24, 1957, 361-364  301  \u000CAppendix E: Material properties E . l Boron/Epoxy 5521/4 Laminate Following are the material properties for Textron Specialty Materials Boron 5521/4  Thickness  0.132 m m (0.0052 in)  Resin content (wt.)  33%  Cure cycle  2.2-3.3\u00B0C (4-6\u00B0F) per minute to 120\u00B0C (250\u00B0F) 60 minutes at 120\u00B0C (250\u00B0F)  Cure pressure  345-586 kPa (50-85 psi)  Test temperature  R o o m temperature  Longitudinal Tensile Modulus  210 G P a (30 msi)  Transverse Tensile Modulus  25 G P a  Longitudinal Compressive Modulus  210 G P a (30 msi)  Longitudinal Poisson's Ratio  0.21  Transverse Poisson's Ratio  0.019  Ultimate Tensile Stress  1520 M P a (220 msi)  Ultimate Compressive Stress  2930 M P a (425 msi)  Ultimate Interlaminar Shear Stress  97 M P a (14.1 msi)  Coef. O f Thermal Expansion  4.5 PPM/\u00B0C (2.5 PPM/\u00B0F)  Density  2 g/cm (0.072 lbm/in ) 3  3  Table E-l: Material properties for 5521/4 boron/epoxy  302  \u000CE.2 Aluminum 2024-T3 (A-Basis) Mechanical properties for 2024-T3 aluminum in the rolling direction [98] are;  Thickness  3.175 m m (0.125 in)  Test temperature  R o o m temperature  Tensile Modulus  72.4 G P a (10.5 msi)  Compressive Modulus  73.8 G P a (10.7 msi)  Shear Modulus  27.6 G P a  Poisson's Ratio  0.33  Tensile Y i e l d Stress  331 M P a (48 ksi)  Compressive Y i e l d Stress  276 M P a (40 ksi)  Shear Y i e l d Stress  276 M P a (40 ksi)  Ultimate Tensile Stress  448 M P a (65 ksi)  Table E-2: Material properties for aluminum 2024-T3 (A-basis)  303  \u000CE.3 Adhesive F M 73M The properties for Cytec's F M 7 3 M follow. Note the properties were measured without pre- or post-bond environmental exposure [99].  Thickness  0.25 m m (0.010 in)  Nominal weight  300 g / m (0.06 psf)  Primer  B R 127  Cure cycle  30 minutes to 120\u00B0C  2  60 minutes at 120\u00B0C Cure pressure  280 M P a (40 psi)  Test temperature  24\u00B0C  Shear Modulus  842 M P a (122 ksi)  Elastic Shear Stress  17.3 M P a (2510 psi)  Elastic Shear Strain  0.021  Ultimate Shear Stress  40.9 M P a (5.93 ksi)  Ultimate Shear Strain  0.873  Table E-3: Material properties for adhesive FM-73  304  "@en
<https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0080740>