Characterisation of Composite Materials in Railways For Structural Calculations

Towards a REgulatory FRamework for the usE of
Structural new materials in railway passenger and freight

CarbOdyshells
Grant Agreement no.: 605632
WP 4
Characterization of composite material in railways for
structural calculation
Deliverable: D4.1
Due date of deliverable: M12
Submission date: 07/10/2014
Version: final
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework
Program
Deliverable D4.1 Characterization of composite material in railways for structural calculation
-1-
REFRESCO Deliverable D4.1 was produced by AIRBUS DS and received

contributions from the following members of the consortium:
DLR for monolithic modelling procedure and failure criteria, fatigue modelling
CAF and CETEST (laboratory of CAF)
BOMBARDIER TRANSPORT for junctions (test matrix and modelling)
ALSTOM
This document should be referenced as:
REFRESCO- Characterization of composite material in railways for

structural calculation , Deliverable D4.1
Companies
Names
Dates
WP4 Leader
Lidia Joana ZUBIA
04/09/14
final
T4.1 leader
Sylvain CLAUDEL
18/07/14
final
T4.1 contributor
Jean Philippe LEARD
04/09/14
final
T4.1 contributor
Frederic HALLONET
04/09/14
final
04/09/14
final
T4.1 contributor
cetest
Document
Status
Janko
KREIKEMEIER
issue
T4.1 contributor
Mikel MURGA
04/09/14
final
T4.1 contributor
David LENGERT
07/10/14
final
T4.1 contributor
Patrick RICAUD
04/09/14
final
Visas
-2-
QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION

Issue
Date
Description
Revising
Authorship
Draft Ed 1.1
11/04/2014
Draft version of REFRESCO S.

CLAUDEL
D4.1 for TMT COMMENT
AIRBUS DS
Draft Ed 2
12/06/2014
Draft Ed 2.1
07/07/2014
Final
for 18/07/2014
approval
Draft version of REFRESCO S.

CLAUDEL
D4.1 for TMT COMMENT
AIRBUS DS
Comments to DLR adds
S.
CLAUDEL
AIRBUS DS
Integration of BTs adds on S.
CLAUDEL
joints and finalization
AIRBUS DS
Final
for 04/09/2014
approval
Integration of BTs adds on S.

CLAUDEL
joints
AIRBUS DS
Final
for 07/10/2014
approval
Final comments and add to S.

CLAUDEL
a conclusive chapter
AIRBUS DS
/
/
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Issue
Date
Pages
Comment
11/04/2014
All
Initial issue
12/06/2014
All
Draft Ed 2 includes CAF comments,

CETEST + AIRBUS DS adds
2.1
07/07/2014
All
Comments to DLR adds
final
04/09/2014
All
Integration of BTs adds on joints
Final
07/10/2014
All
Final comments and add to a

conclusive chapter
DISSEMINATION LEVEL
PU
PP
RE
CO
Public
[X]
Restricted to other program participants (including the Commission

Services)
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the
Commission Services)
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the
Commission Services)
-3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
REFERENCE ............................................................................................................ 7
2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 7
3.
GLOBAL CHARACTERISATION LOGIC FOR COMPOSITE MATERIAL ................. 8
4.
STATISTICAL-BASED MATERIAL PROPERTIES.................................................. 10
5.
PROPOSED TESTS MATRICES ............................................................................. 11

5.1
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 11
5.2
STATIC PROPERTIES AND TESTS MONOLITHIC COMPOSITE (UD
LAMINA/LAMINATE)....................................................................................................... 12
5.2.1
Screening test matrix........................................................................................ 12
5.2.2
Qualification test matrix .................................................................................... 13
5.3
STATIC PROPERTIES AND TESTS - SPECIFICITIES FOR A SANDWICH
PANEL (UD LAMINA/LAMINATE) WITH CORE MATERIAL ........................................... 15

5.3.1
Screening test matrix........................................................................................ 15
5.3.2
Qualification test matrix .................................................................................... 16
5.4
FATIGUE PROPERTIES AND TESTS ................................................................. 17
5.4.1
Fatigue characterization and test recommendations: ........................................ 18
5.4.2
Specificities for a sandwich panel with core material ......................................... 19
5.5
6.
JOINTS................................................................................................................ 20
MODELLING PROCEDURE .................................................................................... 24
6.1
6.1.1
Monolithic composite ........................................................................................ 24
6.1.2
Specificities for a sandwich panel with core material ......................................... 32
6.1.3
Static Modelling of Joints .................................................................................. 37
6.2
7.
STATIC MODELLING (*1) ................................................................................... 24
FATIGUE MODELLING........................................................................................ 39
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 42
ANNEX 1 - DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES DESCRIPTION ......44

ANNEX 2 - STANDARDS FOR COMPOSITE TEST ..52
ANNEX 3 COMPLEMENTARY REFERENCES..59
-4-
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 LAMINATE AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENT - MECHANICAL TESTING, SCREENING
PROGRAMME ............................................................................................................................................................... 12
TABLE 2 LAMINATE AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENT - MECHANICAL TESTING, QUALIFICATION
PROGRAMME ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
TABLE 2 LAMINATE AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENT - MECHANICAL TESTING, QUALIFICATION
PROGRAMME (CONT) ............................................................................................................................................... 14
TABLE 3 SANDWICH - MECHANICAL TESTING, SCREENING PROGRAMME ................................... 15
TABLE 4 SANDWICH - MECHANICAL TESTING, QUALIFICATION PROGRAMME ........................... 16
TABLE 5 TEST MATRIX FOR STRUCTURAL JOINT ................................................................................... 22
TABLE 5 (CONT) TEST MATRIX FOR STRUCTURAL JOINT ... ERROR! MARCADOR NO DEFINIDO.23
TABLE 6 - FAILURE CRITERIA AND CORRESPONDING F12 COEFFICIENT........................................... 28
LIST OF FIGURES
FIG.1 - THE PYRAMID OF TESTS FROM MIL-HDBK-17-1F.......................................................................... 9
FIG. 2 - MATERIAL/STRUCTURAL QUALIFICATION....................................................................................... 10
FIG. 3 - LIFETIME DIAGRAM FOR A LAMINATE AT R = 0.1 ......................................................................... 18
FIG.4 - EXAMPLE OF GOODMAN DIAGRAM FOR DIFFERENT R RATIO ................................................ 19
FIG 5. MECHANICAL JOINTS FRICTION AND FITTED GRIP JOINTS ILLUSTRATION ................. 20
FIG. 6 - SAMPLES FOR ADHESIVE SHEAR TESTS ACCORDING TO REF [R5], VALUES IN MM.... 22
FIG 7: - PRINCIPAL SKETCH OF HOMOGENIZATION PROCEDURE. ....................................................... 26
FIG.8 - FLOWCHART OF FAILURE ANALYSIS OF A LAMINATE ................................................................ 28
FIG. 9 - INTERACTION BETWEEN TRANSVERSE TENSILE STRESS AND SHEAR STRESS ........... 29
FIG 10 - STRESS DISTRIBUTION ON THE ACTION PLANE AS INTRODUCED BY PUCK .................. 29
FIG. 11 - EXAMPLE OF BEARING STRESS/STRAIN CURVE........................................................................ 30
FIG. 12 - SANDWICH ELEMENT DEFINITION ................................................................................................... 32
FIG. 13 - LAMINATE FAILURE................................................................................................................................. 33
FIG. 14 - TRANSVERSE SHEAR FAILURE .......................................................................................................... 34
FIG. 15 - LOCAL CORE CRUSHING ...................................................................................................................... 34
FIG. 16 - GLOBAL BUCKLING................................................................................................................................. 34
FIG. 17 - SANDWICH FAILURE MODES............................................................................................................... 35
FIG. 18 - BONDING BETWEEN TWO PIECES IN HYPERMESH ................................................................... 37
-5-
FIG. 19 - STANDARD BOLTED JOINTS WITHOUT INSERT IN HYPERMESH.......................................... 37

FIG 21 - TYPICAL STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADATION IN COMPOSITE (SCHEMATIC) .. 39
FIG. 22 MINERS SUM............................................................................................................................................. 40
FIG. 23 MINERS SUM AND LOAD ORDER ..................................................................................................... 40
FIG. 24: - PERCENT FAILURE RULE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INFLUENCE OF THE
LOADING ORDER, THE NUMBER OF CYCLES AND THE ULTIMATE LEVEL........................................ 41
FIG. 25: - ELASTIC STIFFNESS DEGRADATION AS FUNCTION OF LOAD CYCLES .......................... 41
DEFINITIONS
DSC
differential scanning calorimetry
DMA
dynamic mechanical analysis
CAI
compression after impact
CTE
coefficient of thermal expansion
RH
relative humidity
RT
room temperature
TMA
thermal mechanical analysis
-6-
1. REFERENCE
[R1] :
MIL-HDBK-17-1F from June 2002 - Composite Material Handbook
[R2] :
DOT/FAA/AR-04/24 from June 2004 - A Comparison of CEN and ASTM Test

Methods for Composite Materials
[R3] :
A UNIQUE CRITERION FOR DESCRIBING FAILURE OF FOAM CORE SANDWICH

MATERIALS - A DESIGN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE - J. Feldhusen, S.
Krishnamoorthy]
[R4] :
ISO 13003:2003 (E) - Fibre-reinforced plastics - Determination of fatigue properties

under cyclic loading conditions, 2003
[R5]
DIN 6701-3 (2002): Adhesive bonding of railway vehicles and parts Part 3:
Guideline for construction design and verification of bonds on railway vehicles.
[R6]
DIN EN 1465 (1994): Adhesives, Determination of tensile lap-shear strength of

rigid-to-rigid bonded assemblies.
[R7]
ASTM D 3528-96 (2002): Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of

Double-Lap Shear Adhesive Joints by Tension Loading
[R8]
Zenkert, D. (1997): The Handbook of Sandwich Construction, Engineering

Materials Advisory Services Ltd, UK
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The characterization of composite materials in railways for structural calculations has been
studied and the findings have been included in the deliverable 4.1.
This document proposes:
-
A guideline for determining the properties of a polymer matrix composites system for
a structural application, in order to be able to perform analysis with finite element
modeling.
Several test matrices are proposed, based on the Aeronautic/aerospace state of arts.
This document, and specifically the test matrix hereafter proposed, is mainly based
the Composite Material Handbook in reference [R1] written by the US Department of
Defense which were modified by Airbus Group internal documents. It covers two
kinds of structures using monolithic or sandwich material.
A guideline for determining the modeling procedure of a composite structure as well

as failure criterion, considering both monolithic and sandwich architecture.
A specific chapter is dedicated to junctions. A first test matrix is proposed, as well as

modeling guideline for composite joints.
It concludes that for the mechanical analysis on a composite structure, some changes on the
methodology is needed, primarily due to the heterogeneity and anisotropy of the new
material.
Chapter 3 of this document gives a general overview on the global methodology that is used
for the characterization and testing of composite structures in aeronautic (experimental
building-block approach). The important link between the manufacturing process and the
material properties is also underlined, as well as the effect of the environment.
Chapter 4 underlines specifically the variability of the sources in composite materials, which
justifies the consideration of a statistical based method to establish the design values of
material properties.
-7-
Chapter 5 proposes a selection of relevant tests to characterize the material properties

needed in the most standard structure analysis (in plane stress and strain and standard
elastic theory). The test matrices proposed have to be considered for new materials and
reduced test matrix are proposed for the screening phases of the project.
Chapter 6 proposes a number of preferred failure criterions to consider in the analysis of both
monolithic and sandwich structures. It gives a brief overview on numerical methods available
for calculation of composite structure in static and fatigue and advice for the calculation of
joints with a finite element code.
3. GLOBAL CHARACTERISATION LOGIC FOR COMPOSITE MATERIAL
In comparison with common metallic materials, composite materials are characterized by their
heterogeneity (fiber + matrix at the ply level) and their anisotropy (depending from the
stacking sequence or orientation of each ply at the laminate level).
Moreover, it is well know that the final behavior of a composite material is highly dependent
on :
- its manufacturing process (prepreg, infusion, hand lay-up,) and manufacturing
parameters (curing cycle, ), and not only from the semi-products (fibber, fabric and
matrix) which is made of,
- the unitary thickness of the elementary ply
Other important specificities of composite materials are their sensitivity to out-of-plane loads,
the multiplicity of failure modes and, finally, the lack of universal failure criteria.
As a consequence, the global justification/qualification logic of a composite structure is
generally based on an experimental building-block approach. This building-block approach
can be summarized in the following steps:
1. Generate material basis values and preliminary design allowables.
2. Based on the design/analysis of the structure, select critical areas for subsequent test
verification.
3. Determine the most strength-critical failure mode for each design feature.
4. Select the test environment that will produce the strength-critical failure mode. Special
attention should be given to matrix-sensitive failure modes (such as compression, out-ofplane shear, and bondlines) and potential "hot-spots" caused by out-of-plane loads or
stiffness tailored designs.
5. Design and test a series of test specimens, each one of which simulates a single
selected failure mode and loading condition, compare to analytical predictions (and
adjust analysis models or design allowables as necessary).
6. Design and conduct increasingly more complicated tests that evaluate more complicated
loading situations with the possibility of failure from several potential failure modes. Compare
tests results to analytical predictions and adjust analysis models as necessary.
7. Design (including compensation factors) and conduct, as required, full-scale component
static and fatigue testing for final validation of internal loads and structural integrity. Compare
to analysis.
The building-block approach is shown schematically here below, usually called the pyramid
of tests:
-8-
Fig.1 - The pyramid of tests from MIL-HDBK-17-1F

Inside this pyramid of test, five structural complexity levels have to be considered:
constituent, lamina, laminate, structural element and structural subcomponents.
The material form(s) to be tested, and the relative emphasis placed on each level, should be
determined early in the material data development planning process, and would likely depend
upon many factors, including: manufacturing process, structural application.
While a single level may suffice in rare instances, most applications will require at least two
levels, and it is common to use all five in a complete implementation of the building-block
approach.
Regardless of the structural complexity level selected, physical and chemical properties
characterization of the prepreg (or the matrix, if it is added as part of the process, as with
resin transfer molding) is necessary to support physical and mechanical properties test
results.
The five structural complexity levels cover the following areas:
Constituent Testing:
This evaluates the individual properties of fibers, fiber forms, matrix materials, and fibermatrix preforms.
Key properties, for example, include fiber and matrix density, and fiber tensile strength
and tensile modulus.
Lamina Testing (elementary ply):

This evaluates the properties of the fiber and matrix together in the composite material
form. For the purpose of this discussion, prepreg properties are included in this level,
although they are sometimes broken-out into a separate level. Key properties include
fiber area weight, matrix content, void content, cured ply thickness, lamina tensile
strengths and moduli, lamina compressive strengths and moduli, and lamina shear
strengths and moduli.
Laminate Testing:
Laminate testing characterizes the response of the composite material in a given
laminate design.
Key properties include tensile strengths and moduli, compressive strengths and moduli,
shear strengths and moduli, interlaminar fracture toughness, and fatigue resistance.
Structural Element Testing:

This evaluates the ability of the material to tolerate common laminate discontinuities. Key
properties include open and filled hole tensile strengths, open and filled hole compressive
-9-
strengths, compression after impact strength, and joint bearing and bearing bypass
strengths.
Structural Subcomponent (or higher) Testing:

This testing evaluates the behavior and failure mode of increasingly more complex
structural assemblies.
At this point of the document, we propose to consider that the smaller scale for failure
modes and analysis/calculations will be performed at the lamina (or ply) level. We will
not consider datas for micromechanics calculations for instance, according to actual practises
considered in the aeronautic and space design offices.
As a consequence, the test matrix and material data will focus on lamina testing (at
the elementary ply level), laminate testing and Structural Element Testing at the
material level.
NOTE :
- Constituent testing gives some material data useful for the process and/or for the
material specification acceptance values, but these properties are not directly used
for the structure analysis.
- On the other side, the structural subcomponents (or components) testing are highly
dependent from the application, and will not be considered in the framework of this
document.
The boundaries of the material characterization covered by this document is explicated by the
graphic below:
Physical properties
DSC, DMA,
Basic properties
Strength, Stiffness, Environment
Constituent tests
Lamina tests
Element
Laminate tests
Subcomponent
Component
Full scale test(s)
tests
Laminate performance
Strength, Stiffness
Static/fatigue
Environment
Damage tolerance
Joint
Critical design verification

Boundary conditions
Secondary effects
Size effect
Static/fatigue
Framework of this
Damage tolerance
document
Fig. 2 - Material/structural qualification

4. STATISTICAL-BASED MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Variability in composite material property data may result from a number of sources including
run-to-run variability in fabrication, batch-to-batch variability of raw materials, testing
variability, and variability intrinsic to the material. It is important to acknowledge this variability
when designing with composites and to incorporate it in design values of material properties.
Procedures for calculating statistically-based material properties are not included in this
document. Nevertheless, details on these procedures could be found in the document in ref
[R1] , Volume 1, Chapter 8
This statistical-based method justifies the realization of a minimum number of samples per
material batch Ns and to test a minimum number of material batches Nb.
- 10 -
Batch (or Lot) definition:

For fibers and resin: a quantity of material formed during the same process and having
identical characteristics throughout.
For prepregs/laminate : material made from one batch of fibber and one batch of resin
The following test matrices (see 5) give an indication of the number of samples to perform.
The notation takes into account:
- In the first number : the number of different material batch to test (= Nb),
- In the second number : the number of samples to test for each batch (= Ns).
As an example, 3x5 mean that it is proposed to perform tests from three different material
batches, and with at a minimum five samples for each batch, that mean 15 samples are to be
tested.
5. PROPOSED TESTS MATRICES

The test matrices hereafter proposed have to be considered for new materials and for the
most generic application.
The tests to be performed should be simplified taking into account the existing
knowledge/available user data, and the specific requirements of the application.
5.1
General considerations
In the constitution of the test matrix, it is implicitly considered that the composite material is
mainly loaded by in-plane loads (shell hypothesis). Indeed, this is considered as a best
practice in the design of composite structures. As a consequence, most of the tests are
focused on in-plane mechanical characteristics of the material. In case the structure would be
loaded by a high level of out of plane loads (3D state of stress), specific supplementary tests
should be considered to address this point.
As it has been said above in this document, the performance properties of composite
laminates are directly affected by the specific process used for their manufacturing process. It
is critical that the test specimens manufactured through the various levels of the building
block approach use the same process, representative of the one that will be used in the
manufacturing of the Railway parts.
It is still important to evaluate the resistance of new polymer materials to fluids with which
they might come in contact. In case the material is expected to be used in an application
where fluid exposure occurs for significant time periods at a different temperature, it is
recommended that the test laminates be exposed to the above fluids at room temperature
conditions, and tested over the expected range of service temperatures.
Annex2 gives the list of the existing standards related to composite characterization.
Concerning the standards proposed in the following matrices, AITM standards have not been
selected because they are under the copyright of AIRBUS INDUSTRIE. CEN/ISO standards
have been selected as much as possible. In case CEN/ISO standards are not available,
ASTM standards have been proposed according to document in reference [R1].
For more detail, the document in reference [R2] performs a complete comparison between
CEN and ASTM test methods for composite materials. Moreover, Annexe1 gives, for
information purpose, some generic considerations on the test procedure.
- 11 -
5.2
STATIC PROPERTIES AND TESTS MONOLITHIC COMPOSITE (UD

LAMINA/LAMINATE)
5.2.1 Screening test matrix

The objective of the screening process is to reveal key mechanical property attributes and/or
inadequacies in new material system candidates, while keeping testing to the minimum
number of samples. The screening process identifies, for a particular composite material
system, the critical test and environmental conditions as well as any other special
considerations. Proper test matrix design enables comparison with current production
material systems.
The recommended minimum set of cured laminate mechanical properties for general
application is defined here after:
properties
glass transition
temperature
fibber volume and resin
content
density
cured ply thickness
layup
test type and

direction
test method (1)
DMA
N batch to be tested x
N specimens for each batch
test condition
dry
see EN2743
wet
see
EN2823
EN 6032
1x5
1x5
[0]n or (*)
EN 2564
1x5
[0]n or (*)
ISO 1183-1
1x5
[0]n
1x5
[0]n
min T
RT
1x5
1x5
max T
max T
Tensile strength, tensile

modulus and poisson ratio
[0]n
0 tension
EN 2561 B (or A)
Flexure strength and

modulus (**)
[0]n
4 points flexure
ISO 14125
1x5
1x5
[45]ns
tension
EN 6031
1x5
1x5
[0]n
short beam shear
EN 2563
In plane shear strength

and modulus
Interlaminar shear strength
(ILSS)
bearing strength
open hole tensile strength

open hole compression
strength
Compression after impact
(CAI)
25/25/25/25 (*)
50/20/20/10 (*)
50/20/20/10 (*)
plain
notch
plain
notch
1x5
Representative of the
junction (double lap ASTM D5961
shear, single lap
procedure A and B
shear, screw, rivet)
0 tension
ASTM D5766
0 compression
ASTM D6484
(*)
EN 6038
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
(1) These are recommandations but not to be considered as exclusive test method
(*) : [% at 0 / % at +45 / % at -45 / % at 90] or stacking sequence representative from the design
(**) : not used for mechanical datas. Only to evaluate compressive strength sensitivity to environment (temperature/% moist)
Table 1 Laminate and structural element - Mechanical testing, screening program
- 12 -
5.2.2
Qualification test matrix
properties
glass transition
temperature
layup
[0]n
test type and

direction
DMA
test condition
test method (1)
dry
see EN2743
w et
see
EN2823
EN 6032
5x3
5x3
fibber volume and resin

content
[0]n or (*)
EN 2564
5x3
density
[0]n or (*)
ISO 1183-1
5x3
[0]n
5x5
1x5
1x5
cured ply thickness
in plane coefficient of
thermal expansion
[0]n
TMA
ISO 11359-2
[90]n
moisture diffusivity
[0]n or (*)
ASTM D5229
1x5
thermal diffusivity
[0]n or (*)
ISO 1159-2
1x5
specific heat
[0]n or (*)
ISO 11357-4
1x5
DSC
min T
RT
1x5
5x5
max T max T
Tensile strength and

modulus
[0]n
0 tension
EN 2561 B (or A)
Poisson Ratio
[0]n
0 tension
EN 2561 B (or A)
Tensile strength and

modulus
[90]n
90 tension
EN 2597 B
Compression strength
and modulus
[0]n
0 compression
EN 2850 A (or B)
Compression strength
and modulus
[90]n
90 compression
EN 2850 B
In plane shear strength

and modulus
[45]ns
in plane tension
EN 6031
1x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
[0]n
short beam shear
EN 2563
1x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
Interlaminar shear
strength (ILSS)
25/25/25/25 (*)
bearing strength
10/40/40/10 (*)
50/20/20/10 (*)
Representative of
the junction (double ASTM D5961
lap shear, single
procedure A and
lap shear, screw , B
rivet)
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
5x5
1x5
1x5
5x5
1x5
1x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
5x5
Table 2 Laminate and structural element - Mechanical testing, qualification program
- 13 -
test condition
properties
test type and

direction
layup
test method (1)
wet
see
EN2823
dry
see EN2743
min T
RT
max T
max T
plain
1x5
1x5
notch
1x5
5x5
25/25/25/25 (*)
plain
open hole tensile strength
10/40/40/10 (*)
1x5
0 tension
ASTM D5766
notch
1x5
5x5
5x5
plain
1x5
1x5
1x5
notch
1x5
5x5
5x5
plain
1x5
1x5
notch
1x5
5x5
50/20/20/10 (*)
25/25/25/25 (*)
open hole compression

strength
plain
10/40/40/10 (*)
1x5
0 compression
ASTM D6484
notch
1x5
plain
5x5
5x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
5x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
50/20/20/10 (*)
notch
filled hole tensile strength
filled hole compression

strength

(CAI)
25/25/25/25 (*)
notch
10/40/40/10 (*)
notch
50/20/20/10 (*)
notch
25/25/25/25 (*)
notch
10/40/40/10 (*)
notch
50/20/20/10 (*)
notch
1x5
0 tension
0 compression
ASTM D6742
G2c
5x5
5x5
5x5
EN 6038
5x11 (**)
5x11 (**)
ASTM D5528
3x5
1x5
PREN 6034
3x5
1x5
(*)
G1c
Resistance to agressive
fluid (***)
ASTM D5766
modified according
to MIL-HDBK-17
section 7.4.2.2
short beam shear

(ILSS)
EN 2563
(**) : first 1 batch in both condition, other 4 batches at worst case condition
(***) : optional tests. These include testing of cured laminates after exposure of the laminates to solvents that the part will be subjected to
in actual service.
Table 2 Laminate and structural element - Mechanical testing, qualification program

(continuation)
- 14 -
5.3
STATIC PROPERTIES AND TESTS - SPECIFICITIES FOR A SANDWICH

PANEL (UD LAMINA/LAMINATE) WITH CORE MATERIAL
5.3.1 Screening test matrix

test condition
properties
test type and

direction
layup (2)
test method (1)
min T
tensile strength (out of
plane) and core/skin
junction under tensile load
RT
[(*) / core / (*)]
tensile
ASTM C297
1x5
compresive strength and

modulus (out of plane)
core
compression
ISO 844
1x5
shear strength and

modulus
core
shear
ISO 1922
[(*) / core / (*)]
sandwich flexure
or
shear
ASTM C393
or
ISO 1922 with skin
sandwich long beam

flexure
ASTM D 7249
core/skin junction under

shear load (and shear
strength and modulus)
skin strength and open

[50/20/20/10] /
hole compression strength
core /
(**)
[50/20/20/10] (*)
plain
notch
wet
see
EN2823
dry
see EN2743
max T
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
max T
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
(2) : If the material is designed to be self-adhesive to the core, then these tests should be conducted on cocured panels fabricated
without adhesive. If the material requires an adhesive layer for bonding to the core, then the tests can be conducted on either (or both)
cocured panels or precured skins secondarily bonded to the core, depending on the anticipated design and fabrication methods to be
used with the material.
(**) : instead of the open hole compression characterisation test of the composite skin alone (see matrix 4.2.1)
Table 3 Sandwich - Mechanical testing, screening program
- 15 -
5.3.2 Qualification test matrix

The recommended minimum set of core and cured sandwich mechanical properties for
general application is defined here after:
test condition
properties
test type and

direction
layup (2)
test method (1)
dry
see EN2743
min T
tensile strength (out of

plane) and core/skin
junction under tensile
load
[(*) / core / (*)]
tensile
ASTM C297
compresive strength and

modulus (out of plane)
core
compression
ISO 844
shear strength and

modulus
core
shear
ISO 1922
[(*) / core / (*)]
sandw ich flexure

or
shear
ASTM C393
or
ISO 1922 w ith
skin
core/skin junction under

shear load (and shear
strength and modulus)
[25/25/25/25] /
core /
[25/25/25/25] (*)
skin strength and open
hole compression
strength (**)
[10/40/40/10] /
core /
[10/40/40/10] (*)
[50/20/20/10] /
core /
[50/20/20/10] (*)
filled hole compression

strength (**)
RT
w et
see
EN2823
max T max T
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
1x5
3x5
3x5
1x5
1x5
plain
1x5
1x5
notch
1x5
5x5
plain
notch
sandw ich long

beam flexure
1x5
ASTM D 7249
1x5
plain
notch
[25/25/25/25] /
core /
[25/25/25/25] (*)
notch
[10/40/40/10] /
core /
[10/40/40/10] (*)
notch
[50/20/20/10] /
core /
[50/20/20/10] (*)
notch
1x5
sandw ich long

beam flexure w ith
open hole
5x5
5x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
5x5
1x5
5x5
ASTM D 7249
5x5
5x5
5x5
(2) : If the material is designed to be self-adhesive to the core, then these tests should be conducted on cocured panels
fabricated w ithout adhesive. If the material requires an adhesive layer for bonding to the core, then the tests can be conducted
on either (or both) cocured panels or precured skins secondarily bonded to the core, depending on the anticipated design and
fabrication methods to be used w ith the material.
(**) : instead of the open and filled hole compression characterisation test of the composite skin alone (see matrix 4.2.2)
Table 4 Sandwich - Mechanical testing, qualification program
- 16 -
5.4
FATIGUE PROPERTIES AND TESTS
In the area of fatigue, however, no generalized methodology has yet been devised to predict
laminate behavior from unidirectional specimen data.
Hence, the development of fatigue design values becomes a unique problem for each
application lay-up.
Many studies have been undertaken, and much has been written concerning life prediction for
specific laminates under cyclic loading spectra. Even at this level, empirical methods have
been favored due to the inadequacy of results obtained from cumulative damage models,
fracture mechanics analyses, and other theoretical approaches.
Fatigue data is generated at the design critical test conditions (room temperature, or hot/wet).
The characteristics for fatigue resistance of materials shall be determined with experimental
methods for cyclic loadings associated with static loads under representative service
conditions.
The part of the fatigue curve which is characterized shall cover the domain of use (in term of
number of cycles, stress or strain amplitude and R ratio) see below:
max
S
amp
moy
time
With : R =
min
min
; ampl = (max min ) / 2
max
For instance, R= 0,1 correspond to a pure traction load, R= -1 correspond to a

traction/compression load with moy = 0, R = 10 correspond to a pure compression load.
In general, composite structures are assumed to be less sensitive to dynamic loading than
metallic structures, but general well accepted hypothesis of damage accumulation are still
missing.
The damage itself is therefore strongly influenced by the number of cycles, the ultimate
loading and the order of the loading, i.e. if high load levels are applied onto the laminate
followed by lower leads to earlier failure than vice versa. This point has to be taken into
account when defining the test sequence of a composite structure/substructure under a
representative cycling loading.
- 17 -
5.4.1 Fatigue characterization and test recommendations:

In ref [R4] (for instance), the principal procedure of fatigue investigation for composites is
described.
In the absence of todays existing guidelines for fatigue test specimens, the geometries of
the specimens therefore is based on the standards for quasi static investigations, (e.g.
according to ref [R4]):
for sample in tensile : DIN EN ISO 527-4 or DIN EN ISO 527-5 (for UD)
for samples in flexure samples : ISO 14125, with 4 points flexure preferred in that
case
NOTE : The general lack of todays existing and applied test methods must be seen
within the concentration on single mechanisms under investigation only, e.g.
constitutive behavior at certain stress ratios and/or single damage phenomena
etc. The question of general transferability of results, is not solved yet.
Furthermore, the principal phenomenology of fatigue damage on composite
materials is not understood. This is due to the very complex structure of
composite materials consisting of fiber roving, matrix material and adhesive
layers between fibers and matrix. In the near future, strong experimental effort
has to be spent for the investigation to answer these fundamental.
The determination of fatigue properties is commonly based on lifetime diagram (S-N
curves), energy release rates, residual strength and/or residual stiffness properties, (DIN
50100 - Dauerschwingversuch, 1978). With this, the fatigue strength and the fatigue limit
are estimated by measuring the number of cycles for given stress ratios.
NOTE : Generally, the low cycle fatigue regime (<105 cycles), the high cycle fatigue
regime (<106 cycles) and the very high cycle fatigue regime (>108 cycles) are
distinguished.
For each R ratio defined, the lifetime diagram (S-N curve) shall comprise at least 20
specimens (4 maximum stress or strain levels with 5 samples for each level), for each
representative temperature (see example below):
static strength
R=0.1
Log (
Fig. 3 - Lifetime diagram for a laminate at R = 0.1

For material screening, 8 data points are usually sufficient to establish the preliminary
fatigue curve.
It is frequently useful for the justification to perform test for different R ratio. The results
of such tests can be draw on diagram called Goodman diagram (see fig below)
- 18 -
Fig.4 - Example of Goodman diagram for different R ratio

It would be very costly, in an experimental point of view, to perform test series for a large
number of R ratio. As a consequence, it is usual to perform tests for a limited number.
Nevertheless, the number of R ratio to test for a material/structure depends on the
material database available, on the cyclic load of the application and is finally linked to
the margin policy considered. As a consequence, it is difficult to define or propose to
consider a unique combination of R ratio to test for a generic application. For the most
generic application, it is proposed to test at a minimum R=0,1 and R=-1.
The frequency of the cycling test should not introduce temperature elevation which could
damage the sample. As a consequence it is recommended to not exceed 5Hz.
Nevertheless, it is possible to increase this frequency up to 20/30Hz with an adequate
cooling device.
The failure can be considered at the complete sample separation or at a given level of
stiffness reduction. If the latest failure criterion is considered, a level of stiffness
reduction of 20% is a classical value.
5.4.2 Specificities for a sandwich panel with core material

The reduction of stiffness or stability properties of sandwich structures due to cyclic
fatigue should be considered. This reduction may be caused by:
- a reduction in modulus of elasticity in the facings materials and/or in the core(s)
materials due to various types of damage, e.g. micro cracks
- a local debonding between faces and core at the interface.
As a consequence, specific tests should be performed at the sandwich level, with 4 points
Flexion test according to ASTM D7249 for instance.
- 19 -
5.5 JOINTS
5.5.1 Definition of Joints
In order to limit the number of potential combinations all composite materials to be
considered as quasi-isotropic laminates. If it is not the case, tests should be performed
for each specific stacking sequence.
Bonded Joints (only pure adhesives considered, without any additives like short-fibers)
Both joints for composite vs. composite pieces and composite vs. metal pieces
Adhesives with high Youngs Modulus, low strains (i.e. known as thin-film), best
properties 0.05mm < t < 0.2mm i.e. for epoxy
Adhesives with low Youngs Modulus, high strains (i.e. known as thick-film)
Mechanical Joints
Friction Grip Joints (see illustration fig. 5 here below)

For composite vs. composite pieces, composite vs. metal pieces, composite vs.
metal pieces covered with composite material
o Rivets
o Huck-Bolt Type
Standard bolted joints with insert/reinforcement in laminate (with nuts)

o Screws
Standard bolted joints without insert/reinforcement in laminate (with nuts)
Standard bolted joints with insert/reinforcement in laminate (with nuts)
Tapped thread joints
Fitted Grip Joints (see illustration fig. 5 here below)

For composite vs. composite pieces, composite vs. metal pieces, composite vs.
metal pieces covered with composite material
o Rivets (i.e. blind rivets)
o Huck-Bolt Type
Standard bolted joints with/without insert/reinforcement in laminate (with

nuts)
o Screws
Standard bolted joints with/without insert/reinforcement in laminate (with

nuts)
Fig 5. Mechanical joints Friction and Fitted grip joints illustration
- 20 -
5.5.2 Test matrix

The following test matrix is based on experiences and, if possible, based on
standards from railway engineering. It does not guarantee to be complete since
testing procedures also depend on load cases, on the considered parts (structural
relevant or not) and on the test laboratory. Before testing it has to be specifically
discussed about testing budget/costs, load cases and agreed with the test
laboratory which tests are necessary and possible. Therefore, the following
statements are proposals and tests can be omitted/added in specific cases.
Regarding failure criteria, if there are any restrictions or criteria mentioned in the
standard for a joint type then these are to use instead of/in addition to given failure
criteria in the table.
In general, for static load tests, 5-8 specimen are needed. For fatigue load tests,
for every R-ratio, 15 specimen are necessary on different stress amplitudes in
order to define a Whler-curve.
For bonded joints, some specific points must be taken into account:
-
Temperatures (i.e. 3 different levels) as well as other influencing

mediums such as moisture have a significate effect on joint behavior. As
a consequence, the effect of environment must be considered in the
characterization matrix
Due to peak stress at the edge of the bonded joint, the shear strength is
usually not proportional to the bonded length. As a consequence, the
sample joint design should be as close as possible from the final design.
In the case it is not possible, the local stress distribution along the
bonded joint should be evaluated throw a calculation.
For mechanical joint with composite parts, it must be considered that composite
material is more sensitive to creeping than metal under compressive load. As a
consequence, the loss of pre-load in the screw/rivet have to be considered and
characterized by tests. In the case of highly loaded screw/rivet, the admissible
surface pressure has to be checked. A metallic insert can also be embedded in
the clamping area to improve those points.
- 21 -
Joint Type
Standards
for test
parameters
Sample
Dimensions
Load Type Static (with schematic pictures) (*6)

Tensile/C
ompressi
on
Shear
Load Type
Fatigue, R=
Combined
Other (i.e.
creeping)
0.1
-1 (*3)
X (Creep
tests)
Criteria for joint

verification (*1)
Useful
testing?
Shear Strength,
See DIN6701-3
Bonded Joints (*2)

Adhesives with
high Youngs
Modulus (*4)
DIN 6701, (high strength glue)
DIN 6701-3
Bimodal regulation
(force regulation
DIN 6701-3
X
X
X
X
X
X
amplitude), see
DIN6701-3
*1 In general for composite laminates the following theories are commonly used for evaluation: a) Tsai Wu theory, b) Tsai Hill theory, c) Hoffmans theory, d) Maximum strain theory. Moreover,
critical strains are useful for evaluation
Adhesives with
low Youngs
Modulus
DIN 6701 (low strength glue)

DVS 1618 (app. 3)
see figure 5
X (Creep
tests)
*2 Also ASTM D 3528-96 (2002): Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of Double-Lap Shear Adhesive Joints by Tension Loading can be considered for composites and metal/composite
components
*3 In general, testing negative 'R'-ratios depends on the parts which are considered and especially the loads which are applied, i.e. aerodynamical loads. Therefore, in some cases it is necessary
to consider R=0, or 0.7 and in some rare cases R=-0.5 to -0.7 as well. For compression fatigue R-values (i.e. R=-1.0), the specimen needs to be stiff enough in order to establish compressive
stresses
*4 For structural adhesives (thin-film) only a proposal is given because it is not often performed and therefore cannot generally be confirmed by BT.
*6 The small schematic pictures are used to show how the load is applied in general but are not explicitly describing the sample geometries. These sample geometries vary depending on the joint.
Table 5 Test matrix for structural joint
Fig. 6 - Samples for adhesive shear tests according to ref [R5], values in mm
- 22 -
Joint Type
Sample
Dimensions
Standards
for test
parameters
Load Type Static (with schematic

pictures) (*6)
Tensile/Co
Shear
Combined
mpression
Load Type
Fatigue, R=
0.5
-1 (*3)
Criteria for joint verification (*1)
Useful
testing?
Mechanical Joints (*5)

Friction Grip Joints
Rivets
Huck-Bolt Type
Screws
Fitted Grip Joints

Rivets
Huck-Bolt Type
Screws
For the joint: Loss of preload due to setting or

creeping, Measurement of preload either separately
or during static load tests
For the laminate: i.e. connection between cylindrical
insert and laminate, plastic deformation, fracture
X
X or DVS/EFB
3435
For the joint: Loss of preload due to setting or

creeping, Measurement of preload either separately
or during static load tests
For the laminate: i.e. connection between cylindrical
insert and laminate, plastic deformation, fracture,
bearing stress
X
X or DVS/EFB
3435
(X) VDI2230
(X) VDI2230
*1 In general for composite laminates the following theories are commonly used for evaluation: a) Tsai Wu theory, b) Tsai Hill theory, c) Hoffmans theory, d) Maximum strain theory. Moreover,
critical strains are useful for evaluation
*2 Setting should be investigated no matter if two pure composite parts are joint or if there are inserts (metal) with different surface properties
*3 In general, testing negative 'R'-ratios depends on the parts which are considered and especially the loads which are applied, i.e. aerodynamical loads. Therefore, in some cases it is necessary
to consider R=0, 0.1 or 0.7 and in some rare cases R=-0.5 to -0.7 as well. For compression fatigue R-values (i.e. R=-1.0), the specimen needs to be stiff enough in order to establish compressive
stresses
*4 For structural adhesives (thin-film) only a proposal is given because it is yet not performed and therefore cannot be confirmed by BT.
*5 Screws then can be evaluated according to VDI2230 (no tests necessary), Huck-Bolts according to DVS/EFB 3435 or tests. Strength of rivets has to be proven by tests.
*6 The small schematic pictures are used to show how the load is applied in general but are not explicitly describing the sample geometries. These sample geometries vary depending on the joint.
Table 5 (continuation) Test matrix for structural joint
- 23 -
6. MODELLING PROCEDURE
6.1 STATIC MODELLING (*1)
When modeling composites, two ways can be followed: solid elements or shell elements.
Since the thickness of composites is mostly very small compared to its remaining dimensions
modeling laminates with a certain amount of plies by using solid elements is very expensive
considering model size and solving time.
Therefore in that case, using shell elements for the laminates is probably the best and most
efficient choice. Indeed, 3D models are reduced to their middle surface and meshed with shell
elements. For laminates, it is defined that the laminate layers are bonded together in order to
form a cohesive structure.
In the FE program, a component name for the laminate has to be chosen. After that the
property for laminates is defined and a material is allocated. These properties generate shell
elements where the following characteristics are defined and may be different for every ply:
-
ply number,
amount of plies
material ID of each ply
thickness of each ply
orientation of each ply (i.e. 0, 90 or +-45 degrees)
With this definition, laminates as well as sandwich structures can be mapped.

*1 Modeling composites is not commonly carried out by BT. Therefore, only a proposal is
given here.
6.1.1 Monolithic composite

6.1.1.1 Mixture Rules
The consideration of single fibers within the composite cannot be taken into account directly,
due to extraordinary high computational effort. Instead, the single plies of the laminated
structure have to be modeled as homogeneous continuum.
Homogenization methods or mixture rules are used to define the global behavior on a
sufficient level by neglecting local aspects. The mathematical analysis of a laminated
structure demands the knowledge about the constitutive relations of the single plies, the
definition of a reference placement, the transformation relations for the single plies and the
assumptions about through thickness displacements.
In the aircraft design process the Classical Laminate Theory (CLT) is widely used. The CLT
assumes homogeneous and orthotropic single plies, plane stress state conditions, the ideal
bonding between neighboring plies, linearly shaped membrane displacements and the
negligence of transverse shear strains.
The strains itself can directly be deduced from the membrane displacements via
differentiation. The corresponding stresses are obtained by multiplying the layer wise
constants ply stiffness with the strains. The complete constitutive relation of the laminate is
defined by integration of the layer wise material laws over the thickness of the laminate, which
results in the well-known matrices of membrane stiffness A, coupling stiffness matrix B and
bending stiffness matrix D
- 24 -
N x A11

Ny
N
xy
Mx
M
y
M
xy
A12
A22
A13
A23
A33
B11
B12
B13
D11
Sym.
B12
B22
B32
D12
D22
B13 x

B23 y
B33 xy
.
D13 x

D23 y
D33 xy
(1)
The in-plane characteristics of the lamina EL, ET, GLT and nuLT need to be define to perform
analysis, where E and G are Youngs modulus and shear modulus resp. and the subscripts L,
T denote the longitudinal and transverse fiber direction.
When the elementary properties of the fiber and the matrix are the only datas available, it is
possible to evaluate the properties of the lamina (elementary unidirectional ply) by using the
simplest assumptions for stiffness homogenization:
EL E f (1 ) Em
(2)
LT f (1 ) m
(3)
1 / ET / E f (1 ) / Em
(4)
Where the subscripts f and m denote the fiber and matrix correspondence respectively, and
the fiber volume fraction is denotes by .
Nevertheless, the properties in transverse fiber direction commonly need a correction. In case
of composites containing isotropic fibers, the following formulae for transverse stiffness
moduli were established:
ET
(1 0,85 2 ) Em
Em / E f (1 )1, 25
(5)
ET
0,5(1 )
/ E f 0,5(1 ) / Em
(6)
ET
E f Em
(7)
Em (1 ) E f
ET Em / 1 (1 Em / E f )
(8)
General recommendations when using equations (5) to (8) can not be given. It must be noted,
that the range of results can reach more than 10%. As a consequence, theses formulas
should be considered only unless material characterization of the lamina is available (see
5.2).
NOTE : concerning GLT, it is assumed to be not so different from a material to another (for
epoxy systems). As a consequence, for a early phase of project it is proposed to use
previously characterized value as a first order of magnitude, unless characterization test
results will be available.
IMPORTANT : All the methodologies mentioned above are used to calculate the constitutive
properties of composite materials in 2D conditions, only. The constitutive properties in
thickness direction are not covered by the CLT. For this, advanced mathematical tools, e.g.
analytical and/or numerical homogenization techniques have to be applied.
- 25 -
6.1.1.2 Analytical and Numerical Homogenization Methods for Monolithic

Materials
The use of fibers reinforced composite materials in nowadays aerospace applications, i.e.
glass and / or carbon fibers are embedded into a matrix material, demands a precise
knowledge about the constitutive behavior of the constituents. For this, different analytical and
numerical methodologies were developed during the past decades.
A considerable improvement for the estimation of elastic constants was reached by the works
of (Hashin & Shtrikman, 1962) and (Hashin & Shtrikman, 1963) by the definition of variational
principles for isotropic and anisotropic and heterogeneous multiphase materials. The stress
polarization to account for the difference between the true stress and the stress resulting from
the true strain acting on a homogeneous trial material was introduced.
It must be noted, that for all the approaches mentioned above, the small strain assumption
holds.
In case of very complex microstructures, the use of a representative volume element (RVE) in
conjunction with numerical homogenization scheme is recommended, (Bhlke, 2001),
(Kouznetsova, 2002), (Lubarda, 2002) or (Nemta-Nasser, 1999).
Therefore the RVE must capture the main features of the microstructure and has to represent
a material point on the macrostructure at the same time. This is achieved if the dimensions on
the microscale are orders of magnitudes smaller compared to the structural dimensions,
which is known as scale separation.
The aim of analytical as well as numerical methods to estimate effective material properties is
to obtain macroscopically homogeneous properties from the microscopically very
inhomogeneous constituents, which can be used in structural analysis (see fig. 7 from Gross
& Seelig, 2007).
It must be noticed that RVE method is considered as an advanced method not frequently
used in industry for structure analysis.
Fig 7: - Principal sketch of homogenization procedure.
- 26 -
6.1.1.3 Failure Criteria for Monolithic Composite

Different failure modes can be observed at the failure of a composite material (see some
examples here below):
-
matrix cracking, matrix/fiber debonding
delamination,
fiber failure,
micro-buckling of fibers (under compressive stress)
Failure criteria are used to evaluate the local or global structural behavior, taking into account
the different failure modes as well as the multi axial state of stress of the structure.
6.1.1.4 Failure criteria - First ply failure/ last ply failure

In a composite structure nevertheless, the failure of one ply of a laminate doesnt correspond
systematically to the failure of the laminate. As a consequence, failure criteria of laminates
can be categorized into first ply failure criteria (FPF) and last ply failure criteria (LPF).
FPF are often used due to their very conservative predictions. This is due to the disregard of
further load carrying capabilities of the remaining plies.
Practically, this kind of failure prediction approach is favored in industry due to its simplicity
and robustness.
In contrast to this, LPF predict the failure of the laminate if the strength limit of the last
remaining ply is reached. If the failure criterion of a single ply is reached, a recalculation with
reduced stiffness values is carried out until the last ply of the laminate fails as well. A principal
sketch of the failure analysis of a laminate is depicted in figure 8. The actual state of stress is
assessed with respect to the failure criterion used. If fracture occurs, the user will decide if the
degradation is tolerable or if the stacking sequence has to be changed. The rearranged state
- 27 -
of stress is reassessed and evaluated again until the stress analysis is finished (Knops &
Bge, 2006).
Fig.8 - Flowchart of failure analysis of a laminate

6.1.1.5 Failure criteria - Differential and non-differential failure criteria
Interpolation criteria take into account the general multi axial loading conditions of a
composite. In (Gol`denblat & Kopnov, 1965), a tensorial polynomial description was
introduced, where in reality the restriction to fourth order strength tensors is commonly made,
Fi i Fij i j 1
(14)
where Fi and Fij denote strength tensors of second and fourth order, respectively.
It must be noted that a distinction between fiber cracking and matrix failure cannot be made in
those criterion : the onset of failure itself is predictable, only.
By different choices of the coupling coefficient F12 numerous well established criteria can be
deduced from the general interpolation criterion (see table 1, where RL , RL , RT and RT
denote the longitudinal and transverse tensile and compression strength values, respectively).
Criterion
F12
Tsai-Wu
Hoffmann
0,5 /( RL RL )
Norris
0,5 /( RL RT )
Tsai-Hahn
0,5 / RL RL RT RT
Table 6 - Failure criteria and corresponding F12 coefficient
Beside the interpolation criteria mentioned above, some other criterion where introduced in
order to perform a distinction between fiber fracture and inter fiber fracture. In that case the
inter fiber fracture criterion was introduced, motivated by experimental observations where an
interaction of the transverse tensile stress and the shear stress was noticed (see figure 9).
The fracture limit obviously is reached before the strength values.
- 28 -
Fig. 9 - Interaction between transverse tensile stress and shear stress

Here below will be detailed two of them: Hashin and Puck
In the Hashin criteria (Hashin, Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites, 1980),
failure criteria to distinguish fiber tension (15), fiber compression (16), matrix tension (17) and
matrix compression (18) were developed
2
2
11
12
F T L
X
S
2
11
c
Ff C
X
t
f
2
2

Fmt 22T 12L
Y S
2
Y C

F 22T T
2S
2 S
c
m
(15)
(16)
(17)
2
2

1 22C 12L
S
Y
(18)
Where the superscripts T and C and L denote tension, compression and longitudinal and X, Y
and S are the longitudinal, transverse and shear strength values, respectively.
Puck, in his approach, introduced the concept of fracture process zone (see figure 10), who
established the most prominent criterion to take into account the very complex modes of inter
fiber fracture.
Fig 10 - Stress distribution on the action plane as introduced by Puck

Thus, three different inter fiber fracture modes can be distinguished:
1. Mode A: the fracture is caused by a tensile stress or by a longitudinal shear stress
which leads to a degradation of the Youngs modulus and the shear modulus,
respectively.
2. Mode B: the fracture is caused by a longitudinal shear stress. The transverse
compression stress acts on the same fracture plane as the shear stress,
- 29 -
simultaneously. Hence there is no further crack opening but the fracture surfaces are
pressed on each other.
3. Mode C: if the ratio of compressive normal stress at fracture and the transverse
compressive strength exceeds a value of 0,4, the action plane of the external shear
stress is no more the fracture plane but the fracture occurs on a plane inclined by an
angle FP 0 to the action plane of 2 and 21 .

From the physics point of view the Puck criterion should be preferred due to the introduction
of the fracture process zone. In comparison, the Hashin theory seems to be more
conservative.
6.1.1.6 Failure criteria - Compression Strength for Monolithic Composites

The compression strength of composite materials is dominated by two main reasons: fiber
buckling and composite delamination, (Martinez & Oller, 2009).
A shear buckling mode as well as the extensional buckling mode depending on the fiber
volume fraction was defined by (Rosen, 1965).
Further improvements to describe the compression strength of composite materials can be
found in (Jochum & Grandidier, 2004).
6.1.1.7 Failure criteria Bearing strength

The bearing stress correspond to the applied load P divided by the projected bearing area
onto the area orthogonal to the bearing direction, ie: the product of the nominal bolt diameter
D and the specimen thickness t.
t
_bearing = P / (D x t)
An example of the resulting bearing stress/bearing strain curve is shown in Figure below.
The bearing strain was obtained by normalizing the displacement by the bolt diameter.
The offset bearing strength is the value to consider for calculations. Thus, the 2% offset
measurement, which is the default in the proposed standard (see figure below), correspond to
a ovalisazion of 2% of the hole diameter.
Offset bearing strength
Fig. 11 - Example of bearing stress/strain curve

- 30 -
There is no general consensus as to what the value of the offset bearing strength should be.
The usage in the aerospace industry varies from 1%D for stiff double shear joints, to 4%D for
single shear joints (the latter being a standard for metal bearing tests).
6.1.1.8 Fracture Mechanical Approaches and Further Extensions for

Monolithic Composites
The characterization of cracks within structural components became possible by the definition
of stress intensity factors, (Irwin, 1957). The crack modes due to tension, planar shear and
non planar shear allow the definition of three different stress intensity factors. One drawback
must be seen by the stress singularity at the crack tip where the stress value rise to infinity.
The definition of the J-Integral allows the assessment of linear elastic as well as inelastic
material behavior, (Rice, 1968). Due to the path independence of the integration, the stress
intensity factor can be calculated as
1 2 2
KI
E
(19)
To overcome the problem of stress singularity at the crack tip and to assess especially
delamination phenomena, cohesive zone models can be used, (Dugdale, 1960), (Barenblatt,
1962) or (Camanho, Dvila, & Ambur, 2001). The crack tip is extended to a fracture process
zone where cohesive forces can cause a critical crack opening. Thereafter, the cohesive
forces degrade until the crack surfaces are stress free and the crack further propagates.
Beside the discrete fracture models described above, the continuum damage mechanics
which uses a continuous degradation parameter to describe the loss of stiffness in a material,
can be used. Therefore, the ratio of actual effective area without any defects to the initial area
is assessed. Thus, the actual damage can be quantified in a smeared manner.
The numerical treatment of fracture and damage phenomena was pushed by (Mazars &
Pijaudier-Cabot, 1989) by the introduction of a model to describe the damage localization.
Due to the smeared character not the crack itself but its action on the continuum is modeled.
The use of discrete interface elements based on cohesive zone approaches was pioneered
by (Neeleman, 1987).
NOTE : For implementation issues of cohesive zone approaches into finite element program
(Xu & Needleman, 1993), (Xu & Needleman, 1995), (Ortiz & Pandolfi, 1999), (Ghosh, Ling,
Majumdar, & Kim, 2000), (Camanho, Dvila, & Ambur, 2001), (Camanho & Davila, 2002) or
(Camanho, Davila, & de Moura, 2003) should be quoted.
- 31 -
6.1.2 Specificities for a sandwich panel with core material

A sandwich panel is constituted of a light weight core (isotropic materials such as foams or
orthotropic such as honeycomb, balsa ) embedded between two composite facesheets.
Fig. 12 - Sandwich element definition

The following sandwich parameters are used in the further analysis:
Ffacesheet properties
tf
E1
E2
Ef
G12
facesheet thickness
youngs modulus in longitudinal direction
youngs modulus in transversal direction
youngs modulus geometrical average value equal to pE1 E2
in-plane shear Modulus
12
21
in-plane Poissons ratio

in-plane Poissons ratio
plasticity factor
waviness of facesheet
C core properties
tc
s
Ec
G13
G23
c
d
core height
cell size
compressive modulus (in normal direction)
core shear modulus in longitudinal direction
core shear modulus in circumferential direction
flatwise core compressive strength
total height of sandwich (d=tc + 2 tf)
6.1.2.1 Modeling
Depending on the level of through thickness stresses, choice of 2-D or 3-D elements shall be
made for sandwich panels analysis. If out of plane stresses may be neglected, in-plane 2-D
analysis (shell elements) may be used, otherwise, 3-D elements should be used.
FEA of sandwich structures can be carried out with following element types or combinations:
a single layered shell elements for the entire sandwich material (for in-plane 2-D
analysis)
- 32 -
(layered) shell elements for the faces and solid elements for the core (for 3-D analysis)
solid elements for both faces and core (detailed 3-D analysis,).
The solid modeling could be restrained to local areas of complex geometry, load introduction
where out of plane effects are more significant and require locally more complex modelling.
For the analysis of sandwich structures, special considerations shall be taken into account,
such as:
elements including core shear deformation shall be selected

for honeycomb cores one shall account for material orthotropy, since honeycomb has
different shear moduli in different directions
local load introductions, corners and joints, shall be checked
For many core materials, experimentally measured values of E, G and are not in agreement
with the isotropic formula. In that case, to assure that the shear response of the core will be
described accurately, the measured values for G and shall be used, and the E value shall
be calculated from the formula : E= 2 G (1+).
Modeling of skin laminates uses same methodologies than described chapter 6.1.1.
6.1.2.2 Failure modes and criteria

Failure of a sandwich panel can occur:
In the facesheets
In the core
at the core-facesheets interface
Failure in the facesheets
A laminate failure can occur in facesheets caused by an overstressing (Fig. 13).
Determination of strength allowables for the laminates uses same methodologies than
described chapter 6.1.1.
One can note that allowables material values used in facesheet analysis have to be fully
representative of skin materials real strength, process effects on mechanical characteristics
should be taken into account (for example, co-curing of composite skins on honeycomb may
generate waves on the inner plies of skins and reduce strength) .
Fig. 13 - Laminate failure

Both faces shall be checked for failure, since they will be exposed to different stress states if
exposed to bending loads.
- 33 -
6.1.2.3 Transverse shear of core

This mode is driven by insufficient core shear strength or a low panel thickness (Fig. 14).
Fig. 14 - Transverse shear failure

In many cases the dominant stress in the core material is shear, causing shear yield, ultimate
failure, or tensile failure in 45 to the through thickness direction. In that case, it would be
checked that the through thickness shear stress does not exceed the shear strength.
When the stress state is more complex, a simplified version of Tsai-Wu criterion could be
used for some closed cells foam material: see ref [R3]
Where F1d : compressive strength

F1z : tensile strength
S : shear strength
6.1.2.4 Local core crushing

This mode can be caused at locations with attachments to the panels by a low core
compressive strength (see Fig. 15)
Fig. 15 - Local core crushing

It would be checked that the local compression stress does not exceed the compressive
strength of the core material.
6.1.2.5 Global buckling of sandwich

This mode can be caused by an insufficient membrane or flexural stiffness of the sandwich or
an insufficient core shear rigidity (Fig. 16).
Fig. 16 - Global buckling

The global buckling mode of sandwich panels is checked with same methodologies than
metallic panels.
This analysis shall evaluate carefully:
boundary conditions effects

- 34 -
influence of geometrical imperfections

influence of high load is that could introduce partial damage in the structure (matrix
cracking or delaminations) , modify stiffness of sandwich panels and finally reduce the
buckling loads
6.1.2.6 local buckling modes of sandwich

The five sandwich failure modes represented schematically in Fig. 17 have to be analyzes :
wrinkling lower bound (conservative) / wrinkling intermediate value
dimpling
shear crimping
flexural core crushing
Fig. 17 - Sandwich failure modes

Dimpling occurs only with honeycomb materials (intercellular buckling).
The allowable stresses of the single failure modes are given by :
wrinkling lower bound failure (pessimistic) :
wrinkling intermediate value failure :
- 35 -
where
dimpling failure
shear crimping failure
flexural core crushing failure (fcc)
6.1.2.7 skin/core debonding

This mode is driven by insufficient strength of the interface between skins and core of the
sandwich panel.
It would be checked that :
the out of plane stress at the interface does not exceed the out of plane strength
2
the resultant shear at the interface
13 23
does not exceed the shear strength
If it can be documented that the interface is stronger than the core, core properties can be
used to describe the interface. For many sandwich structures made of foam core the interface
is stronger than the core.
- 36 -
6.1.3 Static Modelling of Joints

6.1.3.1 Bonded Joints
As mentioned before (see 6.1), laminates (as well as metal pieces) are in general modeled
using 2D elements in order to improve solving time.
When bonding two surfaces, no matter if metal or laminate pieces, the adhesive will be
preferably modeled with solid elements (usually 2 elements over the thickness for linear
elastic evaluation), especially when thick-film bonding is used. This is shown in Fig. 18 here
below:
Fig. 18 - Bonding between two pieces in Hypermesh

Between the surfaces, a so called freeze contact is defined. By this function, the bonding
between adhesive and each adjacent layer/piece is defined by identical displacements of the
nodes in this area.
Nevertheless, in case of large models (analysis on a full carbody for instance), simplified
assumption such as no-bonded joint modelization (only perfectly tied) can be assumed in
order to safe calculation time. In that case, analysis of adhesive should be performed with a
detail model.
6.1.3.2 Standard bolted joints without insert

In the first step modeling, standard bolted joints without insert (such as screws, bolts and
rivets) can be done in the following way. 1D elements, with certain properties and cross
sections, are connecting the layers where the connection shall be realized (Beam Element
with increased thickness in order to prevent artificial bending moments). To map the contact
face, which would usually be the bolt head, nut or an underlying washer, so-called 1D rigid
element, are used. This procedure is shown in Fig. 19 here after:
Fig. 19 - Standard bolted joints without insert in Hypermesh

- 37 -
After calculating, the bolt forces are obtained. With these forces, an evaluation with respect to
the according limiting standard (i.e. VDI2230) and values for screws, bolts or rivets can be
undertaken. With respect to composite laminates this procedure is most likely for joints where
small loads are applied.
In a second step, if the bolt connection becomes critical or more relevant, preload to the bolts
and contact between the surfaces can be modeled in order to evaluate the joint more
detailed.
6.1.3.3 Standard bolted joints with Inserts

Joints with inserts in laminates are not commonly modeled by BT. Therefore, the following
simple procedure is a suggestion and needs to be verified by tests as well.
As can be seen in the schematic drawing in Fig. 20 the insert is also modeled with 2D shell
elements with metal material overlapping the 2D shell elements from the composite laminate.
The bolt connection is again modeled as stated in 6.1.3.2 with 1D elements (Rigid 1D
elements and 1D element BEAM). If large thicknesses (i.e. for sandwich structures) are
existing it is recommended to use 3D solid elements instead of 2D shell elements to map the
insert and laminate.
Fig. 20 - Schematic drawing of how to realize standard bolted joints with inserts
- 38 -
6.2 FATIGUE MODELLING

In principal, the distinction between endurance limit and fatigue strength can be made:
In case of endurance limit, the laminate must sustain the maximum load on a continuing
basis,
In case of fatigue strength, a damage accumulation occurs during the loading. The
damage itself is therefore strongly influenced by the number of cycles, the ultimate
loading and the order of the loading.
Fig 21 - Typical strength and stiffness degradation in composite (schematic)

Nowadays, there do not exist general fatigue calculation and assessment methods for
composites, in contrary to metallic domain.
Due to this, the general design philosophy for composite structures in industries is based on
fact that delamination during cyclic loading has to be prevented.
Some stress design limits (depending on material, stacking sequence, process, etc) based
on previous experience are considered in the early phase of the design, and then has to be
consolidated by fatigue tests.
For instance in the aeronautic field, the fatigue load (1 Mcycles) usually correspond to 20 to
30% of the ultimate static load of the composite carbon material, and this level is prone to be
acceptable without knockdown factor after residual strength. This kind of assumption can lead
to conservative design strategies which act against to the lightweight potentials of modern
fiber reinforced composites. Nevertheless, it shall not be considered as a general criterion.
because it could be non-conservative in some other cases (other matrix, composite material
health, stacking sequences,).
In (Degrieck & Van Paepegem, 2001), three categories of fatigue models were defined:
1. Fatigue life models :
These models use information from the S-N curves or Goodman-type diagrams to
propose a fatigue failure criterion. Damage accumulation is not taken into account,
whereas the maximum number of cycles for fatigue failure under fixed loading conditions
is predicted.
One fatigue life model usually considered is given by the Miners sum. In the Miners sum
method, the results of a counting method and constant amplitude fatigue behavior
description are converted into a damage parameter, D. Failure criterion of the laminate
is considered when D>1 (see. Figure 22)
- 39 -
N2
Ni
N1
n
D
i 1
ni
Ni
Fig. 22 Miners sum

The main limitations of this method are:
o the degradation is assumed to be linear,
o the potential effect of load order is not taken into account, that is
Loading A
n1
N1
n2
N2
Loading B
n3
N3
n3
N3
n2
N2
n1
N1
DA = DB
Fig. 23 Miners sum and load order
As a consequence, this method can be sometimes non conservative. Moreover, the
value of the damage parameter only indicates whether or not failure occurred: it does
not relate to a physically quantifiable damage.
Nevertheless, this method is today in use for the fatigue sizing of current area of wind
blades or even helicopter blade for instance, but with integrating specific coefficient
based on tests.
2. Phenomenological models to predict residual stiffness/strength :
These models predict the degradation of elastic properties during fatigue loading, where a
scalar damage variable D=1-E/E0 is commonly used to describe the loss of stiffness. The
damage growth rate is then defined as the derivative dD/dN where N denotes the number
of cycles.
3. Residual strength models:
The residual strength models are distinguished between sudden death models and
wearout models. When the composite is subjected to high load levels within the low-cycle
fatigue regime, the residual strength is initially constant and decreases drastically when
the number of cycles to failure is nearly reached. For this, the sudden death model can be
used to describe this phenomenon. If the composite undergoes a state of stress at low
load levels, the residual strength degrades more gradually and can be described by
wearout models which incorporate the strength-life equal rank assumption, i.e. the
strongest specimen has either the longest fatigue life or the highest residual strength at
runout, (Degrieck & Van Paepegem, 2001).
- 40 -
Damage Level
Damage accumulation
at high load level
Damage accumulation
at low load level
High Loads first

Low Loads first
Number of Cycles
Fig. 24: - Percent failure rule to take into account the influence of the loading order,
the number of cycles and the ultimate level.
Nevertheless, a first step to the mathematical modeling of fatigue behavior by means of finite
element method was carried out by the finite element system Abaqus by means of the Direct
Cyclic Approach (DCA).
Conventional fatigue analysis determines the fatigue limit by means of well-established S-N
curves but does not define the relationship between the number of cycles and the
corresponding level of damage.
In DCA, the fatigue life is calculated by using an appropriate damage evolution relation until
the structures response has stabilized after a number of cycles. Generally, the stabilized
constitutive response of the structure subjected to cyclic loading conditions is achieved by
applying periodic load cycles repetitively to the unstressed structure until a stabilized state is
obtained. The response is calculated at discrete points along the loading history, what makes
the DCA a very effective tool for modelling fatigue life, figure 25.
Fig. 25: - Elastic stiffness degradation as function of load cycles

The degradation of the material properties within the upcoming increment, which spans a
number of load cycles N , are determined by utilizing the solution at each of these discrete
points shown in figure 24. The degraded properties are then further used to evaluate the
solution at the next increment in the load history.
The damage initiation is characterized by the accumulated inelastic hysteresis energy per
cycle. This level of energy in conjunction with material constants are used to predict the
number of cycles needed for the damage in initiation. The damage evolution during further
cycling is extrapolated from the current cycle to the next increment of a number of cycles by
D N N D N
N
c3w c 4 , where c3 and c4 denote material parameters which can be
L
obtained from characteristic Whler curves of the corresponding material and L is a

characteristic length associated with an integration point.
- 41 -
7. CONCLUSION
To perform a mechanical analysis with FEM on a composite structure, such as a
carbodyshell, it is needed to make some changes on the methodology that is used for metallic
structures.
Indeed, heterogeneity and anisotropy of the composite material must be taken into account in
the intrinsic material properties to consider in calculations and also in the analysis theory
itself.
The chapter 3 of this document gives a general overview on the global methodology that is
used for the characterization and testing of composite structures in aeronautic (experimental
building-block approach). The important link between the manufacturing process and the
material properties is also underlined, as well as the effect of the environment (hygrometry
ageing, temperature, etc).
The chapter 4 underlines specifically the variability of the sources in composite materials,
which justifies the consideration of a statistical based method to establish the design values of
material properties.
Based on these preliminary bases, the chapter 5 proposes a selection of relevant tests to
characterize the material properties needed in the most standard structure analysis (in plane
stress and strain and standard elastic theory). The test matrices proposed have to be
considered for new materials and for the most generic application. They should be simplified
taking into account the existing knowledge/available user datas, and of course the specific
requirements of the application. Reduced test matrix are nevertheless proposed for the
screening phases of the project, when a selection between several candidates has to be
done.
Besides, in chapter 5 one sub-chapter is dedicated to elementary fatigue test in current area,
and another to elementary testing of some junctions. It should be noticed that those chapters
are more prone to adaptation/modification depending on the application, as there is a lack of
currently shared methodologies and standards in these fields over the industry.
The chapter 6 proposes some preferred failure criterions to consider in the analysis of both
monolithic and sandwich structures. It also gives a brief overview on numerical methods
available for calculation of composite structure in static and fatigue. Chapter 6 gives also
some advice for the calculation of joints with a finite element code. It should be noticed that
the calculation of fatigue resistance will be more deeply considered in T4.3, which dedicated
to this task.
- 42 -
ANNEX 1 DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES DESCRIPTION

1. Tensile tests
Tensile and tensile shearing tests are performed in a range of different versions.
Tensile Test on Single Filaments (not considered in this document)
The diameter of the individual filaments lies in the micrometer range. The filament is first
secured to a small paper frame according to ISO 11566 and then aligned and fixed in the
clamping mechanism of the testing machine. After cutting through the frame, the
properties can be determined under tensile load.
Tensile Test on Filament Strands (not considered in this document)
Normally, the filament strands are coated in resin first and then cut into lengths. Cap
strips made from cardboard or plastic are glued to the ends so that the tensile force can
be applied evenly to the specimen. Tools such as extensometers are suitable for
measuring elongation.
Fig. 1: Tensile test on filament strands

Tensile Test on Pultruded GFRP Bars (not considered in this document)
Depending on the design and surface structure of the specimen, testing is done with cap
strips on the clamping ends, or without cap strips with special jaw inserts for hydraulic or
pneumatic specimen grips. This test is described in ASTM D 3916.
Fig 2: Tensile Test on Pultruded GFRP Bars

Tensile Test on Unidirectional Laminates
Unidirectional laminates are normally tested longitudinally for fiber strength and
transversely for bond strength. The specimens are reinforced at the ends with cap strips
to avoid jaw breaks. This test, which is described in the ISO, ASTM, EN, AITM, BSS, DIN,
SACMA and CRAG standards, places high demands on the quality of the extension
measurement and on the alignment accuracy.
Fig 3 and 4: Tensile test on laminates

Tensile Test on Multidirectional Laminates
- 43 -
Depending on the size of the textile structure, multidirectional laminates are tested with
large specimen widths of 25 mm or even 50 mm. According to ISO 527-4, the thickness
of the specimen can also be up to 10 mm. Due to the large specimen cross-sections, very
large tensile forces of over 300 kN can occur. To measure strain, strain gages,
mechanical extensometers or optical extensometers can be used.
Notch Tensile Test (Open Hole Tensile)
This test characterizes the influence of a hole on the tensile strength of a laminate. The
result is usually presented as a notch factor, which gives the ratio of damaged to
undamaged specimen
Tensile Test on Bolted Laminates (Filled Hole Tensile)
This test uses the same specimen as the notch tensile test and the hole is closed with a
threaded connection.
2. Compression tests
The compression tests are amongst the most difficult tests and are therefore sometimes
described as the ultimate class of test. Various procedures have become established in
practice
End-loading procedure
This procedure is based on ASTM D 695 and has been further developed in various
standards. It involves loading the specimen longitudinally between two pressure plates. A
buckling support prevents premature failure of the material through bending.
The test consists of two parts:
To measure the compressive modulus, a specimen without cap strips is used.

The strain is determined using a strain gage.
To measure the compressive strength, the specimen is reinforced with cap strips
to avoid premature failure at the force transmission points.
Fig. 5: End-loading procedure
- 44 -
Shear loading
In this procedure, the compressive force is applied by clamping the specimen, i.e. via a
frictional contact. It was standardized in the 1980s in ASTM D 3410 as the Celanese
testing tool with conical clamping elements and further developed in various standards.
Under the Celanese arrangement, deviations in specimen thickness lead to unwanted
linear support of the clamping elements. DIN 65375 and prEN 2850 offer modified
Celanese tools with flat wedges to solve the problem of specimen thickness.
The IITRI developed a similar tool, which nowadays replaces the old Celanese
compression tool in ASTM. This tool - like the predecessor model - works on the wedge
clamping principle. The wedge jaws are first aligned on the specimen outside the
compression tool and then placed into the compression tool.
IMA Dresden developed and patented the hydraulic compression tool HCCF. It has very
good accessibility, simple handling and fixed jaws, which remain precisely aligned to each
other even during the test procedure. The parallel hydraulic specimen clamping is stickslip free, unlike the wedge-based principles. The use of a clip-on extensometer is
possible.
Fig. 6: Shear loading

Combined loading
This procedure is suitable for the testing of fiber composites under the higher loads that
occur with larger specimen cross-sections. Part of the compressive force is loaded via the
specimen clamping, the rest on the ends of the specimen. The length of the specimen is
matched precisely to the length of the jaws. Very high requirements are placed on the
processing of specimen ends, as in the end-loading procedure.
ASTM D 6641 and procedure 2 according to ISO 14126 describe a mechanical testing
tool comprising four elements connected to each other by guide columns. The clamping
force is generated with 8 screws, which are tightened with a torque key. The test device
with integrated specimen is placed between two compression plates in the testing
machine for testing.
An enhancement of the procedure was laid down in the Airbus standard AITM 1.0008
edition 2010, which describes both shear loading and combined loading. The application
of clamping force is described as a hydraulic parallel clamping principle. Studies showed
that more valid break images are achieved when clamping peaks at the transition
between free clamping length and clamping area are avoided by the structural design of
the jaws. In the Airbus standard, this is described as "soft load introduction".
The HCCF test device that meets the requirements of AITM 1.0008. It was tested and
approved in this regard by Airbus in Bremen.
Fig. 6: Combined loading
- 45 -
Notch compression test

Notch compression test (Open Hole Compression)
This test characterizes the influence of a hole on the compression strength of a laminate.
The result is usually presented as a notch factor, which gives the ratio of damaged to
undamaged specimen.
According to Airbus AITM 1.0008 this test is performed with the fixtures of the
compression test.
ASTM and Boeing standards use a 300 mm-long specimen, which is to be clamped in a
hydraulic parallel clamping tool with the aid of a supporting device.
Compression test to bolted laminates (filled hole compression)
This test uses the same specimen as the notch tensile test and the hole is closed with a
threaded connection.
3. Flexural test
3-point flexural test
Fig. 7: 3-point flexural test

3-point flexural tests are very common as they are easy to perform. Flexure can be
measured with the crosshead travel encoder when the machine deformation is
compensated.
The modulus is determined either between 10% and 50% Fmax (EN 2562), or 10% and
25% Fmax (EN 2746), or between two strain limits (ISO and ASTM).
The span-to-thickness ratio is 32:1 in ASTM. ISO uses 20:1 for GRFP and 40:1 for CRFP,
EN standards use 16:1 for GFRP and 40:1 for CFRP. This subjects the specimen to low
shear forces only.
4-point flexural test
Fig. 8: 4-point flexural test

The advantage of the 4-point flexural compared to 3 points setup is :
-
freedom from shear forces in the mid-span area,
the failure area of the specimen is not located in the area where the load is
introduced.
NOTE : In the 3 points flexural tests, the local load introduction under the cylinder can
cause local degradation to the material and affect the results.
- 46 -
The flexural modulus is determined between 0.05 and 0.25% strain (ISO 14125) or 0.1
and 0.3% strain (ASTM D 7264).
The central support span can be 1/3 (ISO 14125) or 1/2 (ASTM D 7264) of the lower
support span.
The span-to-thickness ratio is 32:1 in ASTM. ISO uses 22.5:1 for GFRP and 40.5:1 for
CFRP.
4.
Interlaminar Shear Strength (ILSS)
Fig. 9: Interlaminar Shear Strength (ILSS)

ILSS tests are a typical procedure for monitoring quality and are suitable for the
comparison of materials.
The procedure supplies only apparent shear properties, as peak stresses occur near to
the loading fin.
ILSS tests can be performed by using a sufficiently rigid 3-point bending fixture. The
span-to-thickness ratio of 10 mm is very short. This causes high shearing forces and
relatively low bending moments in the specimen.
5.
Lap shear / In-plane shear

The adhesive strength of a composite is typically characterized by shear tests. Different
types are used to determine the shear properties in single directions.
Lap shear (not considered in this document)
Lap shear tests are suitable for comparative test on laminate adhesives, e.g. with film or
prepregs, as well as for assessing the bond in a laminate.
Horizontally adjustable grips are needed to test simple single-lap shear specimens.
These can be wedge screw grip, screw or pneumatic versions.
Slotted single-lap shear specimens can be tested with symmetrically closing grips. The
EN and the DIN standard specify a support to prevent bending.
Double-lap shear specimens can be tested with simple grips. Slotted double-lap shear
specimens allow the same grip opening on both sides.
The result is an in-plane shear strength.
Fig. 10: Lap shear
- 47 -
In-plane shear
In-plane shear can be produced by performing a tensile or compression test at 45 to
the fiber direction.
The specimens are cut from plates at 45 to the fiber direction.
DMS or extensometers are used to measure longitudinal and transverse extension.
The test method is suitable only for extensions of less than 5%.
Fig. 11: In-plane shear
6. V-notch shear
This test arrangement is used both for in-plane and for interlaminar shear. Each of the six
possible shear planes can be tested separately. Two characteristics of the procedure are
standardized
Losipescu Procedure (not considered in this document)
In this test arrangement, which is described in ASTM D 5379, a specimen notched on
both sides is clamped in a special device which is held longitudinally.
When compressed, this creates a zone of torque-free shear load between the notches.
The fibers must lie parallel or perpendicular to the loading axis.
Strain gages are placed at less than 45 in the direction of the shear plane in order to
determine the shear extension.
Results are shear response, 0.2% offset stress, max. shear stress and secant shear
modulus.
Fig. 12: Losipescu Procedure

V-notch rail shear (not considered in this document)
This procedure is laid down in ASTM D 7078. Compared to the Iosipescu procedure, the
shear surface is relatively large.
Results are shear response, 0.2% offset stress, max. shear stress and secant shear
modulus.
- 48 -
Fig. 13: V-notch rail shear
7. Compression after impact (CAI)

The test sequence in the Compression After Impact test comprises two parts:
The deliberate pre-damaging of a specimen with the aid of an instrumented drop

weight tester.
The static compression test for measuring the residual strength.
Pre-damage
In the instrumented drop weight tester HIT 230F, the specimen is pre-damaged under set
conditions.
The specimens are tensioned on a section of:
76.2 x 127 mm (ASTM, Boeing, SACMA, DIN), 75 x 125 mm (EN, Airbus) or 140 mm
diameter (CRAG). Only the Airbus AITM requires clamping within the section. To simplify
operation, the specimens are tensioned outside the drop weight tester and then inserted
into the testing position.
The pre-damaging procedure can be monitored and assessed using the instrumentation
of the drop weight tester. The first damage peak on the power-time curve also gives a
correlation to the Mode II fracture toughness of the laminate.
CAI compression test
The pre-damaged specimens are tested in a special compression tool to establish the
residual compression strength.
The resulting compression forces are usually very large.
To load the test plates without buckling, special compression tools are used that are
distinct within the standardization:
ASTM, Boeing, SACMA and DIN: All four sides are guided, but not clamped.
ISO, EN and Airbus standards: The upper and lower ends of the specimen are clamped.
The sides are guided with line contact
Fig. 14: Compression after impact (CAI) test
- 49 -
8. Fracture Toughness
Essentially, a distinction is made between three types of mode in the fracture mechanics:
-
Mode I: Crack opening
Mode II: In-plane shear
Mode III: Out-of-plane shear
Fig. 15: Fracture Modes

Mode I
There are various test arrangements for the individual modes. Mode I and Mode II are
usual test procedures, as is Mixed Mode Bending
The test is normally performed with the DCB (Double Cantilever Beam) specimen.
Here, the crack opening is measured as crosshead travel.
The crack's growth is visually tracked on both sides of the specimen.
The test procedures and result evaluations differ depending on the standard applied.
Standards are: ISO 15024, ASTM D 5528, AITM 1-0005, AITM 1-0053, Boeing BSS
7273, CRAG method 600, NASA method RP 1092 ST-5, ESIS TC 4, prEN 6033
(withdrawn)
Fig. 16: Fracture Mode I test.

Mode II
Mode II loads can be generated and measured both in the flexural test, as well as in the
tensile and compression test with notched specimens.
The measurement of the Mode II energy release rate is standardized as a flexural test.
The specimens are designated with SENB (Single End Notch Bending), but ENF (End
Notch flexure) is another common term.
Deflection is measured by the crosshead travel (with stiffness correction), or by means of
a displacement transducer, which is applied centrally.
The crack initiation point is characterized by a force maximum.
- 50 -
At the end of the measurement, the specimen is cooled in liquid nitrogen and then
completely broken to measure the fracture surfaces.
Fig. 17: Fracture Mode II test.

Mixed Mode Bending (MMB) (not considered in this document)
"Mixed Mode Bending" can be measured on unidirectional laminates. This involves
combining Mode I and Mode II.
9. Fatigue test
Fatigue behavior in fiber composites is measured under a range of loads: as a tensile
test, an in-line shear test or at screw or bolt connections.
Different machine types are possible:
Servohydraulically dynamic testing machines, which are able to generate variable

frequencies and amplitudes under different control modes.
Vibrophores, which run at constant frequency in sine-loading. This can be a very
affordable type of test for thin-walled specimens, for which adequate heat
dissipation is guaranteed.
- 51 -
ANNEX 2 STANDARDS FOR COMPOSITE TEST

Type of test
Standards
Description
Tensile Test
ISO 527 - 4
Plastics - Determination of tensile properties - Part 4: Test

conditions for isotropic and anisotropic fibre-reinforced
plastic composites
Tensile Test
ISO 527 - 5
Kunststoffe - Bestimmung der Zugeigenschaften - Teil 5:

Prfbedingungen
fr
unidirektional
faserverstrkte
Kunststoffverbundwerkstoffe
Tensile Test
ISO 4899
Textile-glass-reinforced
thermosetting
Properties and test methods
Tensile Test
ISO 11566
Carbon fibre -- Determination of the tensile properties of

single-filament specimens
Tensile Test
ASTM D 3039
Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials
Tensile Test
ASTM D 4018
Continuous Filament Carbon and Graphite Fiber Tows
Tensile Test
ASTM D 3916
Properties of Pultruded Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic

Rod
Tensile Test
ASTM D 5083
Tensile Properties of Reinforced Thermosetting Plastics

Using Straight-Sided Specimens
Tensile Test
ASTM D 7205
Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix

Composite Bars
Tensile Test
DIN 65378
Prfung von unidirektionalen Laminaten; Zugversuch quer

zur Faserrichtung
Tensile Test
DIN 65469
Faserverstrkte Kunststoffe; Zugversuch an einlagigen

Zugflachprobekrpern Fibre-reinforced plastics; tensile
test of monolayer flat tension specimens
Tensile Test
EN 2561
Unidirektionale Laminate - Zugprfung parallel zur

Faserrichtung Unidirectional laminates - Tensile test
parallel to the fibre direction
Tensile Test
EN 2597
Unidirectional laminates - Tensile test perpendicular to the

fibre direction
Tensile Test
EN 2747
Glass fibre reinforced plastics. Tensile test
Tensile Test
prEN 6035
Faserverstrkte Kunststoffe - Prfverfahren; Bestimmung

der Kerbzugfestigkeit an gekerbten und ungekerbten
Probekrpern
Tensile Test
DIN 29971
Luft- und Raumfahrt; Unidirektionalgelege-Prepreg aus

Kohlenstoffasern
und
Epoxidharz;
Technische
Lieferbedingungen
Tensile Test
Airbus
1.0007
Tensile Test
Boeing BSS 7320
Tensile Testing of Advanced Composites
Tensile Test
SACMA SRM 4R94
Tensile Properties of Oriented Fiber-Resin Composites
Tensile Test
SACMA SRM 9-94
Tensile Properties of Oriented Cross-Plied Fiber-Resin

Composites
Tensile Test
TR 88012 CRAG
Methods 300-303
Tensile Testing
Compression test
ISO 14126
Faserverstrkte
Kunststoffe
Bestimmung
der
Druckeigenschaften in der Laminatebene Fibre-reinforced
plastic composites -- Determination of compressive
properties in the in-plane direction
Compression test
ISO 604
Plastics -- Determination of compressive properties
Compression test
ISO 8515
Textile-glass-reinforced plastics -- Determination of

compressive properties in the direction parallel to the
plane of lamination
Compression test
ISO 3597-3

mechanical properties on rods made of roving-reinforced
resin -- Part 3: Determination of compressive strength
AITM
plastics
--
Faserverstrkte
Kunststoffe
Bestimmung
der
Zugfestigkeit an ungekerbten, offen und geschlossen
gekerbten
Zugproben
Fibre
reinforced
plastics:
determination of notched, unnotched and filled hole tensile
strength
- 52 -
Compression test
ASTM D 3410
Compressive Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite

Materials with Unsupported Gage Section by Shear
Loading (IITRI - setup)
Compression test
ASTM D 695
Compressive Properties of Rigid Plastics
Compression test
ASTM D 6641
Compressive Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite

Materials Using a Combined Loading Compression (CLC)
Test Fixture
Compression test
ASTM C 1358
Monotonic Compressive Strength Testing of Continuous

Fiber-Reinforced Advanced Ceramics with Solid
Rectangular Cross-Section Test Specimens at Ambient
Temperatures
Compression test
DIN 65375
Prfung von unidirektionalen Laminaten; Druckversuch

quer zur Faserrichtung
Compression test
DIN V 65380
Prfung von unidirektionalen Laminaten; Druckversuch

parallel und quer zur Faserrichtung
Compression test
prEN 2850
Unidirektionale Laminate aus Kohlenstoffasern und

Reaktionsharz - Druckversuch parallel zur Faserrichtung
Carbon fibre thermosetting resin unidirectional laminates Compression test parallel to fibre direction
Compression test
JIS K 7076
Testing methods for compressive properties of carbon

fibre reinforced plastics
Compression test
AITM 1-0008
Fibre Reinforced Plastics - Determination of Plain, Open

Hole and Filled Hole Compression Strength.
Compression test
Airbus
46-38
Bestimmung von Druckeigenschaften von CFK-Laminaten

aus
Gewebe-Prepreg,
Prfung
in
Kettoder
Schussrichtung
Compression test
Boeing BSS 7260 type III and IV
Advanced Composite Compression Tests
Compression test
SACMA SRM 1R94
Compressive
Composites
Compression test
SACMA SRM 6-94
Compressive Properties of Oriented Cross-Plied FiberResin Composites
Compression test
RAE-TR
88012
CRAG Method 400
Method of test for longitudinal compression strength and

modulus of unidirectional fibre reinforced plastics
Compression test
RAE-TR
88012
CRAG Method 401
Plain Compression
Compression test
ISO 3597-3

resin -- Part 3: Determination of compressive strength
ASTM D 6264
Measuring the Damage Resistance of a Fiber-Reinforced

Polymer-Matrix Composite to a Concentrated Quasi-Static
Indentation Force
ISO 18352
Carbon-fibre-reinforced plastics -- Determination of

compression-after-impact properties at a specified impactenergy level
ASTM D 7137
Compressive Residual Strength Properties of Damaged

Polymer Matrix Composite Plates
prEN 6038
Bestimmung
der
Schlagbeanspruchung
AITM 1.0010
Determination of compression strength after impact-stress
Boeing BSS 7260 type II
CRAG method 403
SACMA SRM 2R94
Compression after Impact Properties of Oriented FibreResin Composites
DIN 65561
Prfung von multidirektionalen Laminaten; Bestimmung

der Druckfestigkeit nach Schlagbeanspruchung
Compression
indentation
after
Compression
Impact
after
Compression
Impact
after
Compression
Impact
after
Compression
Impact
after
Compression
Impact
after
Compression
Impact
after
Compression
Impact
after
Compression
Impact
after
Compression
Impact
after
NASA
ST-1
QVA-Z10-
RP
1092
Properties
of
Oriented
Fiber-Resin
Restdruckfestigkeit
nach
Compression after Impact
- 53 -
Open hole / Filled hole

tensile
ASTM D 5766
Open-Hole Tensile Strength of Polymer Matrix Composite

Laminates

tensile
ASTM D 6742
Filled-Hole Tension and Compression Testing of Polymer

Matrix Composite Laminates

tensile
Airbus
1.0007
Faserverstrkte
Kunststoffe
Bestimmung
der
Zugfestigkeit an ungekerbten, offen und geschlossen
gekerbten
Zugproben
Fibre
reinforced
plastics:
determination of notched, unnotched and filled hole tensile
strength

tensile
SACMA SRM 5-94
Open Hole Tensile Properties of Advanced Composites

Materials

tensile
NASA
ST-3
Open hole tension

compression
prEN 6036
Bestimmung der Kerbdruckfestigkeit an

ungekerbten und gebolzten Probekrpern

compression
ASTM
D
6484
(Boeing Document
888-10026, Boeing
Document
683079-71)
Open-Hole Compressive Strength of Polymer Matrix

Composite Laminates

compression
ISO/DIS 12817
Fiber-reinforces plastic composites - Determination of

open-hole compression strength

compression
Boeing BSS 7260 Type 1
Open Hole Compression Test

compression
AITM 1-0008
Fibre Reinforced Plastics - Determination of Plain, Open

Hole and Filled Hole Compression Strength.

compression
SACMA SRM 3R94
Open Hole Compression Properties

compression
NASA
ST-4
Open hole compression

compression
RAE-TR
88012
CRAG Method 402
Open hole compression strength

compression
Northrop
1504C
Open Hole Compression Test Method
Flexural tests
ISO 14125
Fibre-reinforced plastic composites - Determination of

flexural
properties
Faserverstrkte Kunststoffe Bestimmung der Biegeeigenschaften
Flexural tests
EN 2562
Unidirectional laminates - Flexural tests parallel to the

fibre direction
Flexural tests
EN 2746
Glass Fibre Reinforces Plastics - Flexural Tests, Three

Point Bend Method
Flexural tests
EN 13706-2
Spezifikationen
fr
pultrudierte
Profile
Prfverfahren und allgemeine Anforderungen
Flexural tests
ISO 3597-2

resin -- Part 2: Determination of flexural strength
Flexural tests
ASTM D 4476
Flexural Properties of Fiber Reinforced Pultruded Plastic

Rods
Flexural tests
ASTM D 790
Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced

Plastics and Eletrical Insulating Materials
Flexural tests
ASTM D 6272
Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced

Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials by Four-Point
Bending
Flexural tests
ASTM D 7264
Flexural Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials
Flexural tests
ASTM D 6415
Measuring the Curved Beam Strength of a FiberReinforced Polymer-Matrix Composite1
Flexural tests
TR 88012 CRAG
Method 200
Flexural modulus and strength of reinforced plastics
Flexural tests
HSR/EPM-D-00393
Four Point Flexural Testing of Composite Materials
Flexural tests
DIN 53390
BIEGEVERSUCH
AITM
RP
RP
1092
1092
NAI-
AN
gekerbten,
Teil
2:
UNIDIREKTIONAL
- 54 -
GLASFASERVERSTAERKTEN RUNDSTAB-LAMINATEN
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
ISO 14130
Determination of apparent interlaminar shear strength by

short beam-method
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
ISO 3597-4

resin -- Part 4: Determination of apparent interlaminar
shear strength
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
ASTM D 2344
Short-Beam Strength of Polymer Matrix Composite

Materials and Their Laminates
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
ASTM D 4475
Apparent Horizontal Shear Strength of Pultruded

Reinforced Plastic Rods By the Short-Beam Method
EN 2377
Glasfaserverstrkte
Kunststoffe;
Prfverfahren
zur
Bestimmung
der
scheinbaren
interlaminaren
Scherfestigkeit Glass fibre reinforced plastics; test
method; determination of apparent interlaminar shear
strength
EN 2563
Kohlenstoffaserverstrkte Kunststoffe - Unidirektionale

Laminate; Bestimmung der scheinbaren interlaminaren
Scherfestigkeit Carbon fibre reinforced plastics Unidirectional laminates; determination of apparent
interlaminar shear strength
JIS K 7078
Apparent Interlaminar Shear Strength of Carbon Fiber

Reinforced Plastics by Three Point Loading Method
SACMA SRM 8-88
Short Beam Shear Strength of Oriented Fiber-Resin

Composites
CRAG method 100
Interlaminar shear strength (ILSS) of reinforced plastics
In-plane shear by LapShear
EN 2243-1
Structural Adhesives Test Methods Part 1 - Single Lap

Shear, Aerospace Series
EN 2243-6
Structural adhesives. Test methods. Part 6. Determination

of shear stress and shear displacement
pr EN 6060
Determination of the Tensile Single Lap Shear Strength
AITM 1-0019
Determination of lap shear tensile strength of composite

joints
Airbus
46-09
QVA-Z10-
Determination of Interlaminar Tensile Shear Strength of

Fiber Composite Structures
Airbus
46-01
QVA-Z10-
DIN 65148
Bestimmung
Zugversuch
ASTM D 3914
In-Plane Shear Strength of Pultruded Glass-Reinforced

Plastic Rod
ASTM D 3846
Standard Test Method for In-Plane Shear Strength of

Reinforced Plastics
CRAG method 102
In-Plane Shear by 45
Laminates test
ISO 14129
Bestimmung des Schermoduls und der Scherfestigkeit in

der Lagenebene mit dem 45 Zugversuch
Laminates test
prEN 6031
Determination of in-plane shear properties (45 tensile

test)
Laminates test
ASTM D 3518
In-Plane Shear Response of Polymer Matrix Composite

Materials by Tensile Test of a 45 Laminate
Laminates test
DIN 65466
Prfung von unidirektionalen Laminaten; Bestimmung der

Schubfestigkeit und des Schubmoduls im Zugversuch
Laminates test
AITM 1-0002
Determination of in-plane shear properties (45 tensile

test)
Laminates test
Airbus
46-22
Bestimmung der Schubeigenschaften im Zugversuch von

45 CFKLaminaten aus unidirektionalem Prepreg
(Tape) oder GewebePrepreg
SACMA SRM 7-94
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
Interlaminar
Strength
Shear
QVA-Z10-
Determination of the Bond Strength of Adhesives

der
interlaminaren
Scherfestigkeit
im
Inplane Shear Properties (45?)
- 55 -
Laminates test
Laminates test
RAE TR 88012
CRAG Method 101
In-plane shear
Laminates test
JIS K 7079
In-Plane Shear Properties of Carbon Fiber Reinforced

Plastics by Plus or Minus 45 Degrees Tension Method
and Two Pairs of Rails Method
Laminates test
ASTM D 3044
Shear Modulus of Wood-Based Structural Panels
In-Plane Shear by plate

twist method
ISO/CD 15310
Fibre-reinforced plastic composites -- Determination of the

in-plane shear modulus by the plate twist method
Specific Shear Tests
ASTM D 4255
In-Plane Shear Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite

Materials by the Rail Shear Method
ASTM D 5379
Shear Properties of Composite Materials by the VNotched Beam Method (Iosipescu)
ASTM D 7078
Shear Properties of Composite Materials by V-Notched

Rail Shear Method
ISO 15310
Fibre-reinforced plastic composites -- Determination of the

in-plane shear modulus by the plate twist method
DIN 53399-2
Testing of reinforced plastics; shear test on plane

specimens Prfung von faserverstrkten Kunststoffen;
Schubversuch an ebenen Probekrpern
Fracture mechanics
ISO 13586
Plastics -- Determination of fracture toughness (GIC and

KIC) -- Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) approach
Fracture mechanics
ISO 15024
Fibre-reinforced plastic composites -- Determination of

mode I interlaminar fracture toughness, GIC, for
unidirectionally reinforced materials
Fracture mechanics
ISO 17281
Plastics -- Determination of fracture toughness (GIC and

KIC) at moderately high loading rates (1 m/s)
Fracture mechanics
ISO/CD 15114
Fibre-reinforced plastic composites -- Determination of

apparent mode II interlaminar fracture toughness for
unidirectionally reinforced materials
Fracture mechanics
ESIS TC 4
Protocol for interlaminar fracture testing of composites
Fracture mechanics
pr EN 6033
Draft Document - Aerospace series - Carbon fibre

reinforced plastics - Test method; determination of
interlaminar fracture toughness energy; mode I, GIC
Fracture mechanics
prEN 6034
Draft Document - Aerospace series - Carbon fibre

reinforced plastics - Test method; determination of
interlaminar fracture toughness energy; mode II,
G<(Index)IIC>
Fracture mechanics
ASTM D 5045
Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness and Strain Energy

Release Rate of Plastic Materials
Fracture mechanics
ASTM D 5528
Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites
Fracture mechanics
ASTM D 6068
Determining J-R Curves of Plastic Materials
Fracture mechanics
ASTM D 6671
Mixed Mode I-Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of

Unidirectional
Fiber
Reinforced
Polymer
Matrix
Composites
Fracture mechanics
ASTM WK22949
New Test Method for Determination of the Mode II

Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional FiberReinforced Polymer Matrix Composites Using the EndNotched Flexure (ENF) Test
Fracture mechanics
ASTM E 1922
Translaminar Fracture Toughness of Laminated and

Pultruded Polymer Matrix Composite Materials
Fracture mechanics
CRAG method 600
Method of Test for Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of

Fibre Reinforced Composites
Fracture mechanics
AITM 1.0005
Determination of interlaminar fracture toughness energy.

Mode I.
Fracture mechanics
AITM 1.0053
Determination of fracture toughness energy of bonded

joints, Mode I, GIC
Fracture mechanics
AITM 1.0006
Determination of interlaminar fracture toughness energy.

Mode II
- 56 -
Fracture mechanics
Boeing BSS 7273
Fracture mechanics
Boeing BMS 8-276
Fracture mechanics
NASA method RP
1092 ST-5
Fracture mechanics
DIN 65563
Thin wall Cylinder
ASTM D 5448
In-Plane Shear Properties of Hoop Wound Polymer Matrix

Composite Cylinders
Thin wall Cylinder
ASTM D 5449
Transverse Compressive Properties of Hoop Wound

Polymer Matrix Cylinders
Thin wall Cylinder
ASTM D 5450
Transverse Tensile Properties of Hoop Wound Polymer

Matrix Cylinders
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
ASTM D 5961
Bearing Response
Laminates
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
ASTM D953-02
Bearing strength
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
ISO/DIS 12815
Fibre-reinforced plastic composites - Determination of

plain-pin bearing strength
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
DIN 65562
Bestimmung der Lochleibungsfestigkeit
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
pr EN 6037
Bearing strength
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
EN 13706-2
Spezifikationen
fr
pultrudierte
Profile
Prfverfahren und allgemeine Anforderungen
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
AITM 1-0009
Determination of Bearing Strength by either Pin or Bolt

Bearing Configuration. Faserverstrkte Kunststoffe;
Bestimmung der Lochleibungsfestigkeit mit einer Stift oder
Schraubenversuchsanordnung
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
AITM 1-0065
Fiber reinforced plastics-Determination of joint strength of

mechanically fastened joints
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
TR 88012 CRAG
Method 700
Bearing strength
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
SACMA SRM 9-89
Bearing Strength Properties of Oriented Fiber-Resin

Composites
Lochleibung
/
Verbindungselemente
ASTM D 7248
Bearing/Bypass Interaction Response of Polymer Matrix

Composite Laminates Using 2-Fastener Specimens
Pull tests
ASTM D 7332
Fastener Pull-Through Resistance of a Fiber-Reinforced

Polymer Matrix Composite
Pull tests
ASTM D 7522
Pull-Off Strength for FRP Bonded to Concrete Substrate
Fatigue
ISO 13003
Fibre-reinforced plastics -- Determination

properties under cyclic loading conditions
Fatigue
ASTM D 3479
Tension-Tension Fatigue of Advanced Composites
Fatigue
ASTM D 6873
Bearing Fatigue Response of Polymer Matrix Composite

Laminates
Fatigue
ASTM D 671
Flexural Fatigue of Plastics
Fatigue
HSR/EPM-D-00293
Tension-Tension Load Controlled Fatigue Testing of

Composite Materials Thermal Mechanical Fatigue (TFM)
Zug
ASTM C297
Standard Test Method for Flatwise Tensile Strength of

Sandwich Constructions
Zug
AITM 1-0025
Flatwise tensile test of composite sandwich panel
Zug
prEN 6062
Fibre Reinforced plastics- Test method- Flatwise tensile

test of composite sandwich panel.
Druck
ASTM C365
Flatwise Compressive Strength of Honeycombs
Druck
ASTM D351
Edge Strength of Honeycombs
Druck
ASTM D 5467
Compressive Properties of Unidirectional Polymer Matrix

Composites Using a Sandwich Beam
Scher
ASTM C273
Core Shear of Sandwich Honeycombs
Scher
Airbus
46-06
Determination of the Shear Strength of Joint Adhesives in

Shear Test of Pipes
QVA-Z10-
Hinged double cantilever beam
of
Polymer
Matrix
Composite
Teil
2:
of fatigue
- 57 -
Scher
DIN 53294
Kernverbunde, Schubversuch
Biege
ASTM C393
Flexural Properties of Sandwich Honeycombs
Biege
DIN 53293
Biegeversuch
Biege
AITM 1.0018
Sandwich flexural test - 4 point bending
Peel
ASTM D1781
Climbing Drum Peel
Peel
ASTM D1876
T-Peel Test
Peel
ASTM D3167
Floating Roller Peel
Peel
Airbus
46-05
QVA-Z10-
Determination of Drum Peeling Force of Adhesives and

Adhesive Prepregs During Drum Peeling Test
Peel
Airbus
46-03
QVA-Z10-
Determination of the Peel Strength of Adhesives in

Floating Roller Peel Tests (Bell)
Fatigue
ASTM C394
Standard Test Method for Shear Fatigue of Sandwich

Core Materials
- 58 -
ANNEX 3 COMPLEMENTARY REFERENCES

6.13, A. (n.d.). Abaqus Anbalysis User's Guide - 6.2.7. Low-cycle fatigue analysis.
(2004). AITM 1-0007 - Determination of Plain, Open Hole and Filled Hole Tensile Strength. Airbus.
(2010). AITM 1-0008 - Determination of Plain, Open Hole and Filled Hole Compression Strength. Airbus.
(2005). AITM 1-0010 - Determination of Compression Strength After Impact. Airbus.
(1997). AITM 1-0019 - Determination of Tensile Lap Shear Strength of Composite Joints. Airbus.
(2009). AITM 1-0065 - Fiber reinforced plastics. Determination of joint strength of mechanically fastend
joints. Airbus.
(2000). ASTM D 3165-00 - Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of Adhesives in Shear by
Tension Loading of Single-Lap-Joint Laminated Assemblies. PA 19428-2959, United States.
(2008). ASTM D 3528-96 - Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of Double Lap Shear Adhesive
Joints by Tension Loading. PA 19428-2959, United States.
(2002). ASTM D 5528-01 - Standard Test Method for Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of
Unidrectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites. PA 19428-2959, United States.
(2006). ASTM D 6671/D 6671M - 06 - Standard Test Method for Mixed Mode I-Mode II Interlaminar
Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites. PA 19428-2959,
United States.
Barenblatt, G. (1962). Mathematical theory of equilibrium of cracks in brittle fracture. Advances in
Applied Mechanics, pp. 55 - 129.
Bhlke, T. (2001). Crystallographic Texture Evolution and Elastic Anisotropy - Simulation, Modeling and
Applications. Shaker Verlag.
Camanho, P., & Davila, C. (2002). Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of
delamination in composite materials. NASA/TM, pp. 1-42.
Camanho, P., Dvila, C., & Ambur, D. (2001). Numerical Simulation of Delamination Growth in
Composite Materials. NASA/TP - 2001 - 211041, pp. 1-24.
Camanho, P., Davila, C., & de Moura, M. (2003). Numerical simulation of mixed-mode progressive
delamination in composite materials. J. Comp. Mat., pp. 1415-1438.
Degrieck, J., & Van Paepegem, W. (2001). Fatigue damage modeling of fibre-reinforced composite
materials: Review. Applied Mechanics Reviews, pp. 279-300.
(1978). DIN 50100 - Dauerschwingversuch. FNM im DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.
(2009). DIN EN 1465. Berlin: DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.
(1997). DIN EN ISO 527-4. Berlin: DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.
(1997). DIN EN ISO 527-5. Berlin: DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.
Dugdale, D. (1960). Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
Solids, pp. 100 - 104.
Eshelby, J. (1957). The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion and related problems.
Proceedings of the Royal Society London - A(241), pp. 367-396.
Ghosh, S., Ling, Y., Majumdar, B., & Kim, R. (2000). Interfacial debonding analysis in multiple fiber
reinforced composites. Mech. Mat., pp. 561-591.
Gol`denblat, I., & Kopnov. (1965). Strength of glass-reinforced plastics in the complex stress state.
Mekhanika Polimerov, pp. 54-59.
Hashin, Z. (1980). Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites. Journal of Applied Mechanics,
pp. 329-334.
Hashin, Z., & Rotem, A. (1973). A Fatigue Criterion for Fiber-Reinforced Materials. Journal of Composite
Materials, pp. 448-464.
- 59 -
Hashin, Z., & Shtrikman, S. (1962). A variational approach to the theory of the elastic behaviour of
polycrystals. J. Mech. Phys. Solids., pp. 343 - 352.
Hashin, Z., & Shtrikman, S. (1963). A variational approach to the theory of elastic behaviour of
multiphase materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, pp. 127 - 140.
Hill, R. (1952). The elastic behaviour of a crystalline aggregate. Proceedings of the Royal Society
London - A(65), pp. 349-354.
Irwin, G. (1957). Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate. Journal of
Applied Mechanics, pp. 361-364.
(2003). ISO 13003:2003 (E) - Fibre-reinforced plastics - Determination of fatigue properties under cyclic
loading conditions.
Jochum, C., & Grandidier, J. (2004). Microbuckling elastic modelling approach of a single carbon fibre
embedded in an epoxy matrix. Comp. Sci. Tech., pp. 2441-2449.
Knops, M. (2008). Analysis of Failure in Fiber Polymer Laminates. Springer.
Knops, M., & Bge, C. (2006). Gradual failure in fibre/polymere laminates. Composite Science and
Technology, pp. 616-625.
Kouznetsova, V. (2002). Computational homogenization for the multi-scale analysis of multiphase
materials. Technische Universitt Eindhoven.
Lubarda, V. (2002). Elastoplasticity Theory. CRC Press.
Martinez, X., & Oller, S. (2009). Numerical simulation of matrix reinforced composite materials subjected
to compression loads. Arch. Comput. Meth. Engng., pp. 357 - 397.
Mazars, J., & Pijaudier-Cabot, G. (1989). Continuum damage theory - application to concrete. J. Engng.
Mech., pp. 345-365.
Needleman, A. (1987). A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. Journal of
Applied Mechanics, pp. 525-531.
Nemta-Nasser, S. (1999). Averaging theorems in finite deformation plasticity. Mechanics of Materials,
pp. 493-523.
Ortiz, M., & Pandolfi, A. (1999). Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for three dimensional
crack-propagation analysis. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng., pp. 1267-1282.
Reuss, A. (1929). Berechnung der Fliessgrenze von Mischkristallen auf Grund der Plastizittsgrenze.
Journal of Applied Mechanics(35), pp. 379-386.
Rice, J. (1968). A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by
notches and cracks. Journal of Applied Mechanics, pp. 379-386.
Rosen, B. (1965). Fibre composite materials. Am. Soc. Metals, pp. 37-45.
Stadie-Frobs, G. (2000). Mikromechanische Beschreibung von duktiler Schdigung mit der Technik
des reprsentativen Volumenelementes. VDI Verlag.
Voigt, W. (1889). ber die Beziehung zwischen den beiden Elastizittskonstanten isotroper Krper.
Wiedmanns Annalen der Physik, pp. 573-587.
Xu, X., & Needleman, A. (1993). Void nucleation by inclusion debonding in a crystal matrix. Modelling
Simul. Mater. Sci. Engng., pp. 111-132.
Xu, X., & Needleman, A. (1995). Numerical simulations of dynamic interfacial crack growth allowing for
crack growth away from the bond line. International Journal of Fracture, pp. 253-275.
- 60 -

Characterisation of Composite Materials in Railways For Structural Calculations

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Characterisation of Composite Materials in Railways For Structural Calculations

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Towards a REgulatory FRamework for the usE of

Structural new materials in railway passenger and freight

Grant Agreement no.: 605632

Due date of deliverable: M12

Submission date: 07/10/2014

Deliverable D4.1 Characterization of composite material in railways for structural calculation

REFRESCO Deliverable D4.1 was produced by AIRBUS DS and received

CAF and CETEST (laboratory of CAF)

BOMBARDIER TRANSPORT for junctions (test matrix and modelling)

This document should be referenced as:

REFRESCO- Characterization of composite material in railways for

Lidia Joana ZUBIA

Jean Philippe LEARD

Deliverable D4.1 Characterization of composite material in railways for structural calculation

QUALITY CONTROL INFORMATION

Draft version of REFRESCO S.

Draft version of REFRESCO S.

Integration of BTs adds on S.

Final comments and add to S.

Draft Ed 2 includes CAF comments,

Comments to DLR adds

Integration of BTs adds on joints

Final comments and add to a

Restricted to other program participants (including the Commission

Deliverable D4.1 Characterization of composite material in railways for structural calculation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 7

GLOBAL CHARACTERISATION LOGIC FOR COMPOSITE MATERIAL ................. 8

STATISTICAL-BASED MATERIAL PROPERTIES.................................................. 10

PROPOSED TESTS MATRICES ............................................................................. 11

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 11

STATIC PROPERTIES AND TESTS MONOLITHIC COMPOSITE (UD

Screening test matrix........................................................................................ 12

Qualification test matrix .................................................................................... 13

STATIC PROPERTIES AND TESTS - SPECIFICITIES FOR A SANDWICH

PANEL (UD LAMINA/LAMINATE) WITH CORE MATERIAL ........................................... 15

Screening test matrix........................................................................................ 15

Qualification test matrix .................................................................................... 16

FATIGUE PROPERTIES AND TESTS ................................................................. 17

Fatigue characterization and test recommendations: ........................................ 18

Specificities for a sandwich panel with core material ......................................... 19

Monolithic composite ........................................................................................ 24

Specificities for a sandwich panel with core material ......................................... 32

Static Modelling of Joints .................................................................................. 37

STATIC MODELLING (*1) ................................................................................... 24

ANNEX 1 - DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES DESCRIPTION ......44

Deliverable D4.1 Characterization of composite material in railways for structural calculation

Deliverable D4.1 Characterization of composite material in railways for structural calculation

FIG. 19 - STANDARD BOLTED JOINTS WITHOUT INSERT IN HYPERMESH.......................................... 37

differential scanning calorimetry

dynamic mechanical analysis

compression after impact

coefficient of thermal expansion

thermal mechanical analysis

Deliverable D4.1 Characterization of composite material in railways for structural calculation

MIL-HDBK-17-1F from June 2002 - Composite Material Handbook

DOT/FAA/AR-04/24 from June 2004 - A Comparison of CEN and ASTM Test

A UNIQUE CRITERION FOR DESCRIBING FAILURE OF FOAM CORE SANDWICH

ISO 13003:2003 (E) - Fibre-reinforced plastics - Determination of fatigue properties

DIN EN 1465 (1994): Adhesives, Determination of tensile lap-shear strength of

ASTM D 3528-96 (2002): Standard Test Method for Strength Properties of

Zenkert, D. (1997): The Handbook of Sandwich Construction, Engineering

A guideline for determining the modeling procedure of a composite structure as well

A specific chapter is dedicated to junctions. A first test matrix is proposed, as well as

[() / core / ()]

[() / core / ()]

[() / core / ()]

[() / core / ()]