Experimental and numerical analysis of repaired stiffened carbon fiber-reinforced plastics panels under compression

Abstract

Stiffened carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) panels have been widely used in the aerospace industry due to their high weight-specific mechanical properties but they are also susceptible to impact damage. Therefore, the research on the effects of various defects and repair methods on the damaged stiffened CFRP panels is of paramount importance. This paper presents an experimental and numerical study on the compression behavior of stiffened CFRP panels containing two types of initial defects with three repair methods i.e. mechanical repair, adhesively bonded repair, and scarf patch repair. Quasi-static compression mechanical tests were first performed on physical specimens. The buckling and post-buckling behaviors of the specimens were analyzed through experimental results. The finite element models were developed and validated through experimental results, based on which parametric studies on the influences of various delamination and repairing parameters to the load-carrying capacity of the stiffened CFRP panel were performed. The experimental and numerical results reported in this paper can serve as a general guideline for the selection of the most suitable repair method for various defected stiffened CFRP panels.

Keywords

Stiffened CFRP panel delamination debonding adhesively bonded repair scarf patch repair

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Patel

Case

. Durability of a graphite/epoxy woven composite under combined hygrothermal conditions. Int J Fatigue 2000; 22: 809–820.

Mittelstedt

. Closed-form buckling analysis of stiffened composite plates and identification of minimum stiffener requirements. Int J Eng Sci 2008; 46: 1011–1034.

Kassapoglou

. Stress determination at skin-stiffener interfaces of composite stiffened panels under generalized loading. J Reinf Plast Compos 1994; 13: 555–571.

Zhu

Yan

Chen

et al.

Effect of the stiffener stiffness on the buckling and post-buckling behavior of stiffened composite panels–Experimental investigation. Compos Struct 2015; 120: 334–345.

Riccio

Raimondo

Fragale

et al.

Delamination buckling and growth phenomena in stiffened composite panels under compression. Part I: an experimental study. J Compos Mater 2014; 48: 2843–2855.

Orifici

de Zarate Alberdi

Thomson

et al.

Compression and post-buckling damage growth and collapse analysis of flat composite stiffened panels. Compos Sci Technol 2008; 68: 3150–3160.

Hicks

Mullineux

Berry

et al.

Energy method for modelling delamination buckling in geometrically constrained systems. Proc I IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 2003; 217: 1015–1026.

Kim

Hong

. Buckling and postbuckling behavior of composite laminates with a delamination. Compos Sci Technol 1997; 57: 557–564.

Crisfield

Davies

GAO

et al.

Progressive delamination using interface elements. J Compos Mater 1998; 32: 1246–1272.

10.

Mikulik

Kelly

Prusty

et al.

Prediction of flange debonding in composite stiffened panels using an analytical crack tip element-based methodology. Compos Struct 2008; 85: 233–244.

11.

Riccio

Raimondo

Di Caprio

et al.

Delamination buckling and growth phenomena in stiffened composite panels under compression. Part II: a numerical study. J Compos Mater 2014; 48: 2857–2870.

12.

Degenhardt

Kling

Rohwer

et al.

Design and analysis of stiffened composite panels including post-buckling and collapse. Comput Struct 2008; 86: 919–929.

13.

Raimondo

Riccio

. Inter-laminar and intra-laminar damage evolution in composite panels with skin-stringer debonding under compression. Composites Part B: Eng 2016; 94: 139–151.

14.

Krueger

. Virtual crack closure technique: history, approach, and applications. Appl Mech Rev 2004; 57: 109–143.

15.

. Delamination and transverse crack growth prediction for laminated composite plates and shells. Comput Struct 2016; 177: 39–55.

16.

Heslehurst

Analysis and modelling of damage and repair of composite materials in aerospace. In: Bull

(ed). Numerical analysis and Modelling of Composite Materials, Netherlands: Springer, 1996, pp. 27–59.

17.

Matthews

Kilty

Godwin

. A review of the strength of joints in fibre-reinforced plastics. Part 2: adhesively bonded joints. Comp 1982; 13: 29–37.

18.

Myhre

Beck

. Repair concepts for advanced composite structures. J Aircr 1979; 16: 720–728.

19.

Zhao

Nie

Guo

et al.

Compression performance of composite stiffened panel after stiffener repair. J B Univ Aeronaut Astronaut 2014; 6: 021–021.

20.

Myhre

Labor

. Repair of advanced composite structures. J Aircr 1981; 18: 546–552.

21.

Hassan

Mohamedien

Rizkalla

. Finite element analysis of bolted connections for PFRP composites. Composites Part B: Eng 1996; 27: 339–349.

22.

Soutis

. Design and performance of bonded patch repairs of composite structures. Proc IMechE, Part G. J Aerospace Engineering 1997; 211: 263–271.

23.

Baker AA, Chester RJ, Hugo GR, et al. Scarf repairs to graphite/epoxy components. In: AGARD conference proceedings 550, 79th meeting of the structures and materials panel on composite repair of military aircraft structures, Seville, Spain, 3 October–5 October 1994, pp.1–12.

24.

Goh

Georgiadis

Orifici

et al.

Effects of bondline flaws on the damage tolerance of composite scarf joints. Compos, Part A 2013; 55: 110–119.

25.

Benyahia

Albedah

Bouiadjra

. Analysis of the adhesive damage for different patch shapes in bonded composite repair of aircraft structures. Mater Des 2014; 54: 18–24.

26.

Riccio

Ricchiuto

Di Caprio

et al.

Numerical investigation of constitutive material models on bonded joints in scarf repaired composite laminates. Eng Fract Mech 2017; 173: 91–106.

27.

Gunnion

Herszberg

. Parametric study of scarf joints in composite structures. Compos Struct 2006; 75: 364–376.

28.

Talebi

Abedian

. Optimization of composite patch repair for maximum stability of crack growth in an aluminum plate. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 2016; 0: 1–12.