In this work, the influence of repair angle on the bending strength recovery of scarf patch repaired composites with a honeycomb sandwich structure was experimentally and numerically investigated. The repair angle played an important role in the bending strength recovery of the scarf patch repaired composites. The optimum technical parameter of repair angle was found to be 30:1, while the bending strength recovery value could be as high as 99.6%. Besides, the repair simulation model was established based on finite element analysis to predict the failure load of repaired honeycomb sandwich composites with various repair angles. The simulation results agreed well with the experimental data, with a maximum error of 4.99%. The simulation model was further optimised using Kriging model, and the error between the predicted and tested results was only 4.49%. This model could significantly contribute to avoiding repeated experiments, allowing repair angle to be optimised, and maximally recovering the preliminary performance of the composites.
GuermaziN, HaddarN, ElleuchK, Investigations on the fabrication and the characterization of glass/Epoxy, carbon/Epoxy and hybrid composites used in the reinforcement and the repair of aeronautic structures. Mater Des. 2014; 56: 714–724.
2.
YooJ, TruongV, ParkM, Parametric study on static and fatigue strength recovery of scarf-patch-repaired composite laminates. Compos Struct. 2016; 140: 417–432.
3.
ZhangY, LinX, ChenW, Synthesis of Y2O3-ZrO2-SiO2 composite coatings on carbon fiber reinforced resin matrix composite by an electro-plasma process. Appl Surf Sci. 2016; 371: 504–511.
4.
GhayoorH, MarsdenCC, HoaSV, Numerical analysis of resin-rich areas and their effects on failure initiation of composites. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf. 2019; 117: 125–133.
5.
MaranonA, RuizPD, NurseAD, Identification of subsurface delaminations in composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol. 2007; 67: 2817–2826.
6.
TruongV, KwakB, RoyR, Cohesive zone method for failure analysis of scarf patch-repaired composite laminates under bending load. Compos Struct. 2019; 222: 110895.
7.
BhatiaGS, JeJ, BalaganesanG, The role of patch-parent configurations on the tensile response of patch repaired carbon/epoxy laminates. Polym Test. 2018; 70: 413–425.
8.
DenneyJJ, DirectorateFD, AirW, Characterization of disbond effects on fatigue crack growth behavior in aluminum panel with bonded composite patch. Eng Fract Mech. 1997; 57 ( 5 ): 507–525.
9.
FengW, XuF, XieW, Hygrothermal aging effects on the mechanical behavior of scarf-repaired composite laminates. J Adhes. 2019; 96 ( 14 ): 1223–1257.
10.
TieY, HouY, LiC, An insight into the low-velocity impact behavior of patch-repaired CFRP laminates using numerical and experimental approaches. Compos Struct. 2018; 190: 179–188.
WhittinghamB, BakerAA, HarmanA, Micrographic studies on adhesively bonded scarf repairs to thick composite aircraft structure. Compos Part A. 2009; 40 ( 9 ): 1419–1432.
13.
KatnamKB, Da SilvaLFM, YoungTM.Bonded repair of composite aircraft structures: a review of scientific challenges and opportunities. Prog Aerosp Sci. 2013; 61: 26–42.
14.
PsarrasS, LoutasT, GalanopoulosG, Evaluating experimentally and numerically different scarf-repair methodologies of composite structures. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2020; 97: 102495.
15.
WangCH, GunnionAJ.On the design methodology of scarf repairs to composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol. 2008; 68: 35–46.
16.
XiaoquanC, BaigY, RenweiH, Study of tensile failure mechanisms in scarf repaired CFRP laminates. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2013; 41: 177–185.
17.
UpretiS, SinghVK, KamalSK, Modelling and analysis of honeycomb sandwich structure using finite element method. Mater Today Proc. 2020; 25: 620–625.
18.
ForaboschiP.Three-layered sandwich plate: exact mathematical model. Compos Part B. 2013; 45: 1601–1612.
19.
BatistaM.An elementary derivation of basic equations of the Reissner and Mindlin Plate theories. Eng Struct. 2010; 32: 906–909.
20.
WangX, WangY.Static analysis of sandwich panels with non-homogeneous soft-cores by novel weak form quadrature element method. Compos Struct. 2016; 146: 207–220.
21.
LibrescuL, HauseT.Recent developments in the modeling and behavior of advanced sandwich constructions: a survey. Compos Struct. 2000; 48: 1–17.
22.
KumarA, ChakrabartiA.Failure mode analysis of laminated composite sandwich plate. Eng Fail Anal. 2019; 104: 950–976.
23.
LiS, SitnikovaE, LiangY, The Tsai-Wu failure criterion rationalised in the context of UD composites. Compos Part A. 2017; 102: 207–217.
24.
YuY, YingL, HouW, Failure analysis of adhesively bonded steel corrugated sandwich structures under three-point bending. Compos Struct. 2018; 184: 256–268.
25.
TrikiE, GauvinC.Stress state analysis and tensile-shear fracture criterion in combined puncture and cutting of soft materials. Eng Fail Anal. 2019; 106: 104140.
26.
HeX.A review of finite element analysis of adhesively bonded joints. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2011; 31 ( 4 ): 248–264.
27.
CostaJ, PronzatoL, ThierryE.Nonlinear prediction by Kriging, with application to noise cancellation. Signal Process. 2000; 80: 553–566.
