| Literature DB >> 35631958 |
Hassan Alshahrani1, Tamer A Sebaey2,3.
Abstract
With the development of spread-tow, thin-ply technology, ultra-thin composite laminates could be produced. Composite bolted joints are commonly used on aircraft's load-bearing structures and are considered the main cause of stress concentration. The aim of this research is to investigate the bolted joint behavior of composite laminates that combine thin-plies and conventional thick-plies in a predetermined stacking sequence. The impact of thin-ply placement within the stack on bearing strength, including the onset of damages, is examined. The work involves mechanical tests and fractographic activities to understand the damage mechanisms of the plies and their interactions, and its reflections on the bearing load capacity of the joint for double-lap bolted joints. The results showed an improvement in the bearing strength of up to 19% by inserting the thin-plies inside the laminate. The visual examination of the specimens showed a bearing damage mode for all the tested specimens. The computed tomography scans showed damage mechanisms that mostly occurred with the normal plies, rather than breaking the thin-plies. For the specimens of traditional plies, delaminations were noticed at most of the interfaces. For the one with a block of thin-plies in the middle, all the delaminations were forced to the surface layers with an extra large size. Forspecimens with distributed thin-plies, a higher number of smaller delaminations was recognized.Entities:
Keywords: CFRP composite laminates; bearing; bolted joints; damage mechanisms; spread-tow thin-plies
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631958 PMCID: PMC9143917 DOI: 10.3390/polym14102076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Schematic of the cross-section properties of the three stacking sequences.
Figure 2Sample’s dimensions for double-lap bolted joint.
Figure 3Experimental setup and test fixture for double lap bolted joints.
Figure 4Bearing stress-bearing strain curves of the baseline and the A1 configurations.
Figure 5Bearing stress-bearing strain curves of the Alternative 2 Sample 1 with the most common notation.
Comparison of the bearing chord stiffness, offset strength and ultimate strength of the three configurations.
| Chord Stiffness | Offset Strength | Ultimate Strength | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (MPa) | CoV (%) | Mean (MPa) | CoV (%) | Mean (MPa) | CoV (%) | |
| Baseline | 1316 | 5.37 | 736 | 4.04 | 791 | 2.21 |
| Alternative 1 | 1265 | 9.54 | 747 | 9.72 | 888 | 1.43 |
| Alternative 2 | 1166 | 9.97 | 772 | 1.74 | 940 | 3.30 |
Figure 6Examples of the failure mode associated by the three configurations.
Figure 7Computed Tomography scan of the baseline laminate.
Figure 8Computed Tomography scan of the first alternative (color code is in Figure 7).
Figure 9Computed Tomography scan of the second alternative (color code is in Figure 7).