A design methodology for mechanically fastened joints

in laminated composite materials

P.P. Camanho
a,
*
, M. Lambert
b
a
DEMEGI, Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
b
Thermal and Structures Division, European Space Agency, ESA-ESTEC, 2200, AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Received 14 December 2005; accepted 5 February 2006
Available online 3 April 2006
Abstract
This paper presents a new methodology to predict the onset of damage, nal failure and failure mode of mechanically fastened joints
in composite laminates. The stress distribution at each ply is obtained using semi-analytical or numerical methods. The elastic limit of the
joint is predicted using the ply strengths and stress distribution in failure criteria. Final failure and failure mode are predicted using point
or average stress models. Standardized procedures to measure the characteristic distances used in the point or average stress models are
proposed. The methodology proposed is applicable in double-shear joints using quasi-isotropic laminates. The predictions are compared
with experimental data obtained in pin- and bolt-loaded joints, and the results indicate that the methodology proposed can accurately
and eectively predict ultimate failure loads as well as failure modes in composite bolted joints.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: B. Strength; E. Joints/joining; B. Fracture; C. Stress concentrations
1. Introduction
Spacecraft structures are ideal applications for laminated
composite materials. Typical spacecraft structures such as
trusses, equipment-panels, optical benches, radiators, solar
array support systems, should have high specic stiness,
low coecient of thermal expansion and dimensional stabil-
ity during the operational lifetime. High-performance com-
posites satisfy these requirements, and also oer the
minimum weight material solution for these structures.
Virtually every large-scale composite structure used in
spacecraft contains joints. The use of joints is due to man-
ufacturing constraints and to requirements related to acces-
sibility to the structure, quality control, structural integrity
assessment and part replacement.
Mechanically fastened joints oer a number of charac-
teristics that make them well suited for joining composite
laminates. For example, mechanically fastened joints are
relatively inexpensive to manufacture and can be disassem-
bled. However, due to the stress concentrations created,
mechanically fastened joints are a source of weakness and
compliance. The use of metallic bolts or rivets and laminate
thickness build-ups at the joints contribute to an excess of
weight of a composite structure.
The brittleness of most composite materials, the possi-
bility of using highly orthotropic laminates, promoting
high stress concentrations, the anisotropy in both stiness
and strength properties have to be taken into account when
designing composite joints. The joint eciencies when
using composites are much lower than the ones obtained
in metallic materials [13]. The joints are often the critical
part of a composite structure; therefore, the soundness of
the joint design procedure used is reected on the overall
weight and cost of the composite structure.
It is important that all the aspects of joint design are well
comprehended. Reliable and general joint design methods
in composite structures are required to avoid unnecessary
weight and both product and in-service cost penalties.
0266-3538/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.02.017
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 225081753; fax: +351 225081315.
E-mail address: pcamanho@fe.up.pt (P.P. Camanho).
www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech
Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020
COMPOSITES
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Due to the enormous range of dierent matrices, bers
and lay-ups available to the designer, the use of purely
empirical design procedures would be prohibitively expen-
sive. Improved stress analysis and strength prediction
methods are required to predict joint stiness, elastic limit
and ultimate failure.
The main objective of this work is to present a novel
methodology to design mechanically fastened joints in
composite laminates, able to predict both the elastic limit
of the joint, i.e., the load at which crack initiation takes
place, and the ultimate failure load of the joint. In addition,
the methodology should be able to identify the common
failure modes of composite bolted joints: bearing, tension
and shear (see Fig. 1).
The most accurate and general models to predict the
onset of damage and ultimate failure of composite struc-
tures are based on the implementation of constitutive mod-
els developed in the context of continuum damage
mechanics in nite element (FE) models [47]. Such models
can accurately predict the mechanical response and resid-
ual strength of composite materials. However, non-linear
FE models require long computing times, especially when
strain-softening constitutive models are used.
The methodology proposed here for the design of com-
posite bolted joints is an alternative to the use of complex
continuum damage models implemented in FE models.
The main characteristics of the design procedure follows
the feedback of the European aerospace industry obtained
in the context of a research project funded by the European
Space Agency [8].
The denition of the model (material properties, lay-up,
joint geometry and loading) and the solutions (loads corre-
sponding to the elastic limit and to ultimate failure, and
failure mode) are obtained in a small amount of time.
The model proposed is therefore well suited for industrial
usage, for a fast denition of design charts, and for eective
parametric studies.
2. Material selection and characterization
The material selected for the investigation is Hexcel
IM7-8552 carbon epoxy unidirectional laminate. This
material is widely used in spacecraft applications such as
pay load adapters in launchers.
The material was cured according to the manufacturers
specications, with temperature stages of 110 C during 1
hour, followed by 180 C for 2 h. The pressure of 7 bar
was applied during all the duration of the cycle. The heat-
ing and cooling rates were 3 C/min.
The ber volume fraction was measured using image
processing techniques resulting in an average value of
59.1%. The relevant material properties were measured
using ASTM standards [911]. Five specimens were used
for each test performed.
The average values of the ply elastic properties mea-
sured in the experimental programme are shown in Table
1. E
1
and E
2
are the longitudinal and transverse Young
modulus, respectively, G
12
is the shear modulus, and m
12
is the major Poisson ratio. Table 1 also shows the standard
used in each test, as well as the standard deviation (STDV),
correlation (CV), and the 95% condence interval obtained
using a t-student distribution (IC).
The ply strengths measured in the experimental pro-
gramme are shown in Table 2. X
T
and Y
ud
T
are the longitu-
dinal and transverse tensile strengths, respectively. X
C
and
Y
C
are the longitudinal and transverse compressive
strengths, respectively. S
ud
L
is the in-plane shear strength.
The values of the transverse tensile strength Y
ud
T
and of
the in-plane shear strength S
ud
L
measured in the test spec-
imens are not used in the methodology proposed. These
properties are meaningless when a thin ply is embedded
in a multidirectional laminate. Under these circumstances,
the transverse tensile and in-plane shear strengths can be as
high as 2.5 times the values measured using unidirectional
test specimens. These strengths are called the in situ
strengths and are calculated using the components of the
fracture toughness and the ply elastic properties.
The in situ strengths are calculated using models previ-
ously proposed [12]. These models use the components of
the fracture toughness for mode I and mode II loading,
G
Ic
and G
IIc
, respectively. To measure the components of
the fracture toughness, double cantilever beam (DCB)
Fig. 1. Joint failure modes.
Table 1
Ply elastic properties
Property Standard Average value STDV CV (%) IC
E
1
(GPa) Ref. [9] 171.42 2.38 1.39 2.95
E
2
(GPa) Ref. [9] 9.08 0.09 1.03 0.12
G
12
(GPa) Ref. [11] 5.29 0.13 2.53 0.17
m
12
Ref. [9] 0.32 0.02 6.18 0.02
Table 2
Ply strengths
Property Standard Average value
(MPa)
STDV
(MPa)
CV
(%)
IC
(MPa)
X
T
Ref. [9] 2326.2 134.1 5.8 95.9
X
C
Ref. [10] 1200.1 145.7 12.1 180.9
Y
ud
T
Ref. [9] 62.3 5.3 8.5 8.4
Y
C
Ref. [10] 199.8 20.5 10.2 25.4
S
ud
L
Ref. [11] 92.3 0.6 0.7 0.8
P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020 3005
[13] and 4-point bending end notched exure (4-ENF) [14]
tests were performed. All fracture mechanics tests per-
formed resulted in stable crack propagation. The compo-
nents of the fracture toughness measured are shown in
Table 3.
After the measurement of the ply elastic properties and
of the components of the fracture toughness it is possible to
calculate the in situ strengths that are used in the analysis
models. The in situ transverse tensile strengths, Y
T
, are cal-
culated as [12]:
For a thin embedded ply: Y
T

8G
Ic
ptK
0
22

1
For a thin outer ply: Y
T
1:79

G
Ic
ptK
0
22

2
For a thick ply: Y
T
1:12

2
p
Y
ud
T
3
where t is the ply thickness, and K
0
22
is dened as:
K
0
22
2
1
E
2

m
2
21
E
1
_ _
2:2 10
4
MPa
1
4
Eq. (1) does not account for the eect of the ber orienta-
tion of the adjoining plies on the energy release rate of a
thin embedded ply [12]. This simplication was proposed
by Dvorak and Laws [15], based on the fact that additional
damage at the interface modify the energy release rate of a
thin embedded ply predicted by the theoretical models.
The in situ shear strengths, S
L
, are obtained as [12]:
S
L

1 b/G
2
12

1=2
1
3bG
12

5
where b is the shear response factor [12], and the parameter
/ is dened according to the conguration of the ply:
For a thick ply: /
12S
ud
L

2
G
12
18bS
ud
L

4
For a thin ply: /
48G
IIc
pt
For an outer ply: /
24G
IIc
pt
6
The non-linear shear response is approximated using the
following polynomial [16]:
c
12

1
G
12
r
12
br
3
12
7
where b denes the non-linearity of the shear stress-shear
strain relation, being equal to zero for a linear shear re-
sponse. Eq. (7) does not represent a constitutive relation,
that would necessarily had to include damage and visco-
plasticity eects. The polynomial represented in (7) is a
simplication of the shear response under monotonic load-
ing that enables the calculation of the in situ shear
strengths.
The shear response factor is calculated from a least-
squares approximation of the test data obtained in the
shear tests. The resulting value is b = 2.98 10
8
MPa
3
.
The resulting in situ strengths are shown in Table 4.
The shear strength in the transverse direction, a material
property required in the failure criteria used, is calculated
as [17,18]:
S
T
Y
C
cos a
0
sin a
0

cos a
0
tan 2a
0
_ _
8
where a
0
is the fracture angle of a ply under pure transverse
compression. Normally, for carbonepoxy and glassepoxy
composites loaded in pure transverse compression the frac-
ture plane is at an angle a
0
of approximately 53 3 [19].
Therefore, the shear strength in the transverse direction is
calculated as S
T
75.3 MPa.
3. Stress distribution under multiaxial loading
The prediction of the elastic limit and ultimate failure of
composite mechanically fastened joints relies on the accu-
rate calculation of the stress distribution at each ply of
the laminate. There are two main procedures to compute
the stress distributions of composite joints under multiaxial
loading: semi-analytical methods based on the theory of
elasticity and numerical models, normally based on Finite
Elements.
The elastic solution for the stress eld in an homoge-
neous, innite composite plate with stress concentrations
corresponding to open or loaded holes can be obtained
using two-dimensional anisotropic theory of elasticity
[20,21]. Assuming plane stress, the equilibrium equations
are satised by dening the components of the stress tensor
using the following derivatives of the Airy stress function
F:
r
xx

o
2
F
oy
2
r
yy

o
2
F
ox
2
r
xy

o
2
F
oxoy
9
The constitutive model can be generally dened as:
e
ij
S
ijkl
r
kl
10
Table 3
Components of the fracture toughness (kJ/m
2
)
Property Average value STDV CV(%) IC
G
Ic
0.2774 0.0246 0.88 0.047
G
IIc
0.7879 0.0803 10.19 0.153
Table 4
In situ strength (MPa)
Ply conguration Y
T
S
L
Thin embedded ply 160.2 130.2
Thin outer ply 101.4 107.0
Thick ply 98.7 113.1
3006 P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020
where S
ijkl
is the linear-elastic compliance tensor of the
laminate.
The compatibility equation is dened as:
o
2
e
xx
oy
2

o
2
e
yy
ox
2

o
2
c
xy
oxoy
0 11
Using (9) and (10) in (11) the generalized bi-harmonic
equation for anisotropic materials is obtained as:
S
22
o
4
F
ox
4
2S
26
o
4
F
ox
3
oy
2S
12
S
66

o
4
F
ox
2
oy
2
2S
16
o
4
F
oxoy
3
S
11
o
4
F
oy
4
0 12
The general solution for the Airy stress function that satis-
es both compatibility and equilibrium is:
F 2RefF
1
Z
1
F
2
Z
2
g 13
where F
1
(Z
1
), F
2
(Z
2
) are arbitrary analytical functions of
the complex variables Z
1
= x + R
1
y and Z
2
= x + R
2
y,
respectively. R
1
and R
2
are constants that characterize
the degree of anisotropy of the material.
In addition to the equilibrium and compatibility equa-
tions, the boundary conditions also need to be satised
by the appropriate denition of the functions F
1
(Z
1
) and
F
2
(Z
2
).
The denition of functions F
1
(Z
1
) and F
2
(Z
2
) for com-
posite materials with open or loaded holes was proposed
by Garbo and Ogonowski [22]. The stress distributions
resulting from the in-plane bearing and by-pass loads
shown in Fig. 2 are obtained by superimposing the solu-
tions for the stress distribution of a laminate with a loaded
hole, represented by a cosinusoidal distribution of contact
tractions, and the stress distribution of a laminate with an
open hole remotely loaded.
The semi-analytical model was implemented in a com-
puter code, BJSFM [23], that is an eective tool for the
stress analysis of composite materials containing stress
concentrations. The semi-analytical model results in a good
approximation of the stress distributions in joints with
width-to-diameter ratios, w/d, equal to or greater than 4,
and end distance-to-diameter ratios, e/d, equal to or
greater than 3 [22,23].
It should also be pointed out that the calculation of the
stress distribution based on the Complex Variable Theory
is valid when there is no bending of the mid-plane of the
laminate (double-shear joints), and when a cosinusoidal
distribution of contact tractions can be assumed (quasi-iso-
tropic laminates and small clearances) [1,3].
After the determination of the distribution of the aver-
age laminate stress, the distribution of the stress and strain
elds at each ply of the laminate can be obtained using
Classical Lamination Theory.
Alternatively, the stress analysis can be performed using
FE methods. FE models have no restrictions regarding the
geometric characteristics of the joints, and can be used to
predict stress distributions in both single- and double-shear
lap joints. Using the strength prediction method proposed
here the only non-linearity that needs to be taken into
account in FE models is the contact between the bolt and
the laminate.
4. Prediction of elastic limit
The elastic limit is dened as the load corresponding to
the onset of damage in any ply of the laminate. The elastic
limit is predicted by applying suitable ply failure criteria,
based on the stress distribution calculated by the analytical
method previously described, and on the ply in situ
strengths shown in Table 4.
4.1. Failure criteria
The LaRC04 failure criteria previously proposed and
described in references [17,18] are used here to predict the
elastic limit. The LaRC04 failure criteria can capture impor-
tant aspects of the physics of fracture of composite plies, such
as the increase of the apparent in-plane shear strength when
moderate values of transverse compression are applied, and
the eect of the in-plane shear stress on ber kinking.
The expressions of LaRC04 failure criteria are estab-
lished in terms of the components of the stress tensor and
of the in situ strengths previously dened (Eqs. (1)(6)).
The details of the failure criteria used are presented in ref-
erences [17,18], and the corresponding equations are
described in the following points.
4.1.1. Transverse (matrix) fracture
4.1.1.1. Tension. The LaRC04 criteria to predict matrix
cracking under transverse tension (r
22
P0) and in-plane
shear are dened as:
Fig. 2. Superposition of load cases.
P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020 3007
1 g
r
22
Y
T
g
r
22
Y
T
_ _
2

r
12
S
L
_ _
2
1 6 0 14
1 g
r
m
22
Y
T
g
r
m
22
Y
T
_ _
2

r
m
22
S
L
_ _
2
1 6 0;
r
11
< 0; jr
11
j < X
C
=2 15
where g is the toughness ratio dened as: g
G
Ic
G
IIc
. r
m
ij
rep-
resent the components of the stress tensor in a frame
aligned with the ber direction:
r
m
11
r
11
cos
2
u r
22
sin
2
u 2jr
12
j sin ucos u
r
m
22
r
11
sin
2
u r
22
cos
2
u 2jr
12
j sin ucos u
r
m
12
r
11
sin ucos u r
22
sin ucos u
jr
12
jcos
2
u sin
2
u
16
The ber misalignment angle u, representing the rotation
of the bers associated with an initial misalignment and
with the applied state of stress [17,18], is calculated as:
u
jr
12
j G
12
X
C
u
c
G
12
r
11
r
22
u
c
tan
1
1

1 4-
S
L
X
C
_ _
_
2-
_

_
_

_
17
with -
S
L
X
C
g
L
. The parameter g
L
is the coecient of
longitudinal inuence dened in [17,18]:
g
L

S
L
cos 2a
0
Y
C
cos
2
a
0
18
with a
0
53.
4.1.1.2. Compression. The failure criteria used to predict
matrix cracking under transverse compression (r
22
< 0)
and in-plane shear are dened as:
s
T
e
S
T
_ _
2

s
L
e
S
L
_ _
2
1 6 0; r
11
PY
C
19
s
mT
e
S
T
_ _
2

s
mL
e
S
L
_ _
2
1 6 0; r
11
< Y
C
20
The eective shear stresses in the fracture plane are dened
as:
s
T
e
hjs
T
j g
T
r
n
cos hi 21
s
L
e
hjs
L
j g
L
r
n
sin hi 22
with h tan
1

jr
12
j
r
22
sin a
. hxi is the McAuley operator dened
as hxi :
1
2
x jxj. The angle a is dened by the plane per-
pendicular to the laminate midplane and the fracture plane
[17].
The components of the stress tensor on the fracture
plane are given by:
r
n
r
22
cos
2
a
s
T
r
22
sin a cos a
s
L
r
12
cos a
_

_
23
The terms s
mT
e
and s
mL
e
are calculated from Eqs. (21)(23)
using the relevant components of the stress tensor estab-
lished in a frame representing the ber misalignment. The
determination of a is performed numerically, in the failure
criteria LaRC04, maximizing Eqs. (19) and (20).
The coecient of transverse inuence, g
T
, is obtained as:
g
T

1
tan 2a
0
24
4.1.2. Longitudinal failure
4.1.2.1. Tension. The failure criterion used to predict ber
fracture under longitudinal tension (r
11
P0) is dened as:
r
11
X
T
1 6 0 25
4.1.2.2. Compression. The failure criterion used to predict
ber fracture under longitudinal compression (r
11
< 0) and
in-plane shear (ber kinking) is established as a function of
the components of the stress tensor in the rotating frame,
dened in Eq. (16).
ELASTIC
PROPERTIES
UD
STRENGTHS
FRACTURE
TOUGHNESS
MISCELLANEOUS
IN-SITU
STRENGTHS
STRESS
ANALYSIS
FAILURE
CRITERIA
ELASTIC
LIMIT
LAY-UP
GEOMETRY
LOADING
Fig. 3. Flowchart for the prediction of the elastic limit.
3008 P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020
The criteria for ber kinking are:
jr
m
12
j g
L
r
m
22
S
L
_ _
1 6 0; r
m
22
< 0 26
1 g
r
m
22
Y
T
g
r
m
22
Y
T
_ _
2

r
m
12
S
L
_ _
2
1 6 0;
r
m
22
P0; jr
11
j PX
C
=2 27
The methodology proposed to predict the elastic limit of
composite bolted joints is based on the application of
LaRC04 failure criteria using the ply elastic stress distribu-
tion, as schematically shown in Fig. 3.
5. Prediction of ultimate failure
The elastic stress distribution combined with ply failure
criteria is used to predict the onset of damage in composite
bolted joints. When using multidirectional laminates the
joint can sustain increasing loads after damage onset as a
result of a process of damage accumulation and load redis-
tribution, and a dierent approach needs to be used to pre-
dict ultimate failure.
Several models using elastic stress distributions to predict
the collapse of composites containing stress concentrations
have been proposed. The concept of an equivalent aw
introducedby Waddoups et al. [24] uses linear elastic fracture
mechanics for the prediction of ultimate failure of compos-
ites containing stress concentrations. Waddoups et al. [24]
considered that the non-critical damage mechanisms occur-
ring before ultimate failure can be lumped into a region of
intense energy, or inherent aw, of length a. The strength
of the laminate containing stress concentration is predicted
using two parameters: the length of the inherent aw, a,
and the unnotched tensile strength of the laminate, X
L
T
.
Two alternative methods were proposed by Whitney
and Nuismer [25]. In the point stress model it is assumed
that ultimate failure occurs when the stress at a given dis-
tance from the hole boundary, r
ot
, reaches the unnotched
strength of the laminate, X
L
T
.
The average stress model [25] uses the averaged stress
over a given distance from the hole boundary, r
ot
, for the
prediction of ultimate failure. In both the point and aver-
age stress models failure is predicted using two parameters:
the characteristic distance in tension r
ot
or r
ot
and the
unnotched strength of the laminate, X
L
T
.
A method based on Whitney and Nuismer concept of
characteristic distance was proposed by Chang et al. [26]
to predict ultimate failure of composite joints. Considering
Fig. 4, two characteristic distances, one in tension (r
ot
) and
one in compression (r
oc
) are used in the denition of the
following characteristic curve:
rh R r
ot
r
oc
r
ot
cos h 28
where R is the radius of the hole, and r
oc
and r
ot
are, respec-
tively, the characteristic distances in compression and in
tension.
Taking into account that for the quasi-isotropic lay-ups
used in the joints nal failure is a result of the accumulation
of ber fractures, a ber failure criteria is applied using the
stress tensor at the points dening the characteristic curve
(point stress model).
The method proposed here is based on Changs charac-
teristic curve [26]. However, the ply failure criteria is
applied using both the components of the stress tensor at
the characteristic curve, and the averaged components of
the stress tensor dened as:
r
av
ij
h
1
r
h
_
Rr
h
R
r
ij
r; h dr 29
where r
h
is the radial distance between the hole boundary
and the characteristic curve at the angular position h.
The use of the average stress model is proposed because
higher accuracies of this model were reported when com-
paring the strength prediction obtained in open-hole lam-
inates with the point stress model [27]. The characteristic
curve associated with the average stress model is dened
as:
rh R r
ot
r
oc
r
ot
cos h 30
where r
ot
and r
oc
are, respectively, the characteristic dis-
tances in tension and compression associated with the aver-
age stress model.
The failure criteria used to predict nal failure is a
modication of the YamadaSun failure criterion [28].
The YamadaSun failure criterion is modied because
it is considered here that the in-plane shear stresses aect
the longitudinal compressive failure, but not the longitu-
dinal tensile failure. The failure criteria used is dened
as:
r
ot
r
oc
Y
X
Fig. 4. Characteristic curve (after [26]).
P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020 3009
r
11
X
T
_ _
1 6 0; r
11
P0
r
11
X
C
_ _
2

r
12
S
L
_ _
2
1 6 0; r
11
< 0
31
for the point stress model, and:
r
av
11
X
T
_ _
1 6 0; r
av
11
P0
r
av
11
X
C
_ _
2

r
av
12
S
L
_ _
2
1 6 0; r
av
11
< 0
32
for the average stress model.
The failure mode is identied by the angle h where the
failure criterion is satised [26]: for 75 6 h 6 90 nal fail-
ure occurs by tension; otherwise, nal failure occurs by
shear or bearing.
The dimensioning procedure to predict ultimate failure
is schematically shown in Fig. 5.
It is clear that the accuracy of the method proposed
relies upon the proper denition of the characteristic dis-
tances in tension and in compression. However, there is
no standard procedure to experimentally measure the char-
acteristic distances. Furthermore, there is no agreement
concerning the dependence of the characteristic distances
on the joint geometry, and on the proper denition of the
ultimate bearing failure.
To dene a standardized procedure to predict ultimate
failure these points are further investigated in the following
sections.
5.1. Characteristic distances in tension
There is no standardized procedure to measure the char-
acteristic distances. In the case of the characteristic distance
in tension the type of test normally used is the open-hole
tensile test specimen. However, there is no denitive exper-
imental evidence on the eects of the specimen geometry
(hole diameter and specimen width) on the values of the
characteristic distance in tension.
In order to verify the dependence of the characteristic
distance in tension on the hole diameter and on the
width-to-diameter ratio, a test matrix dened using
Taguchi design of experiments method [29] is proposed.
Quasi-isotropic laminates manufactured in Hexcel IM7-
8552 carbon ber reinforced plastic (CFRP) with a (90/
0/45)
3s
lay-up are used.
Specimens with three dierent hole diameters (d)
and three dierent width-to-diameter ratios (w/d) were
tested in a MTS servo-hydraulic machine following the
ASTM D-5766 standard [30], according to the test matrix
shown in Table 5. Five specimens were tested for each
geometry.
STRESS
ANALYSIS
AVERAGE
JOINT
ULTIMATE
STRENGTH
LAY-UP
GEOMETRY
LOADING
ELASTIC
PROPERTIES
UD
STRENGTHS
FRACTURE
TOUGHNESS
MISCELLANEOUS
IN-SITU
STRENGTHS
CHARACTERISTIC
CURVE
CHARACTERISTIC
DISTANCE
r
ot
CHARACTERISTIC
DISTANCE
r
oc
Fig. 5. Design procedure-ultimate failure.
3010 P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020
The laminate holes were machined using a procedure
that avoids delaminations in the regions close to the inser-
tion point and the exit of the drill. Sacricial frontal and
backing plates were used between clamped specimens dur-
ing the drilling process. All the test specimens were
machined to class 1 hole quality used in aerospace.
The specimens were inspected to assess the presence of
damage prior to testing using X-rays. Fig. 6 shows the
results of the X-ray inspection in two specimens. No dam-
age was observed in the specimens inspected.
The remote failure stress is dened using the failure load
measured in the tests

P, the laminate thickness (t

L
) and
width (w) as: r
1
yy


P
wt
L
. The remote failure stresses obtained
in the tests performed for the dierent geometries are sum-
marized in Table 6.
The failure mode obtained in all specimens was net-sec-
tion tension. Based on the experimental results presented in
Table 6, and using the ply elastic properties and strengths
previously measured, it is possible to calculate the charac-
teristic distance in tension, as well as to identify the critical
ply, by solving the following equations for each ply:
r
11
x; 0
X
T
1 0 ) r
ot
33
1
xR
_
x
R
r
11
x; 0 dx
X
T
1 0 ) r
ot
34
Eqs. (33) and (34) are normally solved using a polynomial t
of the stress distributions obtained from nite element mod-
els representing the test specimens subjected to the experi-
mentally measured failure load. A more ecient method
to calculate r
ot
and r
ot
, based on closed form solutions, is
proposed here and presented in detail in Appendix A.
The relation between the characteristic distance in ten-
sion and d and w/d is shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
The data processing technique used in the Taguchi
method, and the corresponding assessment of the main
parameters that aect the characteristic distances, is based
on the ANOVA analysis of variance [29].
The data analysis starts by the calculation the sum of
squares for each column of the orthogonal Taguchi matrix
Table 5
Open-hole tension test matrix
Specimen ref. d (mm) w (mm) w/d
OHT1 6 12 2
OHT2 6 24 4
OHT3 6 36 6
OHT4 8 16 2
OHT5 8 32 4
OHT6 8 48 6
OHT7 10 20 2
OHT8 10 40 4
OHT9 10 60 6
Fig. 6. X-ray results.
Table 6
Results of open-hole tensile tests
Specimen r
1
yy
MPa STDV (MPa) CV (%) IC (MPa)
OHT1 252.2 8.8 3.5 10.9
OHT2 372.8 7.9 2.1 9.8
OHT3 438.7 25.3 5.8 31.4
OHT4 247.3 9.1 3.7 11.3
OHT5 366.6 11.1 3.0 13.8
OHT6 375.7 15.1 4.0 18.7
OHT7 260.8 10.8 4.2 13.4
OHT8 344.5 10.2 2.9 12.6
OHT9 373.7 14.1 3.8 17.5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fig. 7. Eect of d on r
ot
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fig. 8. Eect of w/d on r
ot
.
P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020 3011
(SoS), which characterizes the variations of the response
due to the factors considered. The mean square (MS) is
then calculated, and the fundamental ANOVA F-test is
applied to calculate the F-value. Finally, the P-values are
calculated to assess if the parameters considered (d and
w/d) aect the response (the values of the characteristic dis-
tances). A signicance level of 5% was used. This means
that if the P-value results in a value larger than 5% for a
given parameter, that parameter does not aect the
response.
The Taguchi analysis of the results obtained for r
ot
and
r
ot
are shown in Tables 7 and 8, respectively.
From Tables 7 and 8 it can be concluded that both the
hole diameter, d, and the width-to-diameter ratio, w/d,
aect the characteristic distances used in the point and
average stress models because the P-values obtained are
lower than 5%. The eect of the geometry on the values
of the characteristic distances is proved in a systematic
way for the rst time in this work.
Based on a linear regression of the test data, the design
charts shown in Figs. 9 and 10 are proposed for the calcu-
lation of the characteristic distances in tension for joints
with dierent geometries. Specifying the width to diameter
ratio, w/d, and the hole diameter, d, and using Figs. 9 or 10
the value of the characteristic distance in tension can be
easily obtained for general geometries.
5.2. Characteristic distances in compression
5.2.1. Denition of bearing strength
The characteristic distance in compression is associated
with the bearing failure mode. Taking into account that
bearing failure is non-catastrophic, being characterized by
a progressive accumulation of damage and by the corre-
sponding permanent deformation of the hole [31], it is nec-
essary to dene the load corresponding to bearing failure
before calculating the characteristic distance in
compression.
Previous denitions used are the maximum load sus-
tained by the joint, the rst load drop, the onset of non-lin-
earity in the bearing strain-bearing stress relation, or a limit
value for the permanent deformation of the hole [1,32].
However, it is not clear which one of the several proposed
denition should be used.
The proper denition of bearing strength is identied by
testing bolted joints to several loads and assessing the hole
permanent deformation, as well as the damage mechanisms
occurring in the material. Two denitions of the joint bear-
ing strength are investigated: rst non-linearity, corre-
sponding to a 5% decrease of the bearing stiness, and
the load corresponding to an oset bearing strain of 2%
[32,33].
Fig. 11 shows the relation between the bearing stress,
dened as r
b

P
dt
L
, and the bearing strain, dened in [33],
for both bolt and pin-loaded joints tested according to
ASTM D-5961 standard [33]. As shown in Fig. 11 the load
corresponding to the rst load-drop in the bolted joint is
approximately the same as the maximum load of the pin-
ned joints. After the load drop the bolted join can sustain
increasing loads, whereas the pinned joint can only sustain
a small residual load.
Table 7
Results of Taguchi analysis r
ot
Source SoS MS F-value P-value
d 0.086 0.043 5.08 0.0114
w/d 0.533 0.27 31.59 0.0001
Table 8
Results of Taguchi analysis r
ot
Source SoS MS F-value P-value
d 0.34 0.17 3.44 0.0428
w/d 3.09 1.54 31.25 0.0001
Fig. 9. Proposed design chart-point stress model.
Fig. 10. Proposed design chart-average stress model.
3012 P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020
One bolted specimen was tested at several loads,
unloaded, and the permanent bearing deformations at the
several loads were measured using digital image processing.
The relation between the permanent hole deformation and
the bearing stress is shown in Fig. 12.
It can be observed that there is a large increase of the
permanent hole deformation after the bearing stress drop,
occurring at an average value of 753.2 MPa. This perma-
nent deformation is undesirable because it increases the
bolt-hole clearance, which in turn leads to fretting fatigue.
Figs. 1316 show through the thickness micrographies
of the bearing planes dened in Fig. 1 of the specimens
tested up to dierent bearing stresses.
No damage is observed in the specimen loaded to a
bearing stress of 466.7 MPa. The specimen loaded until
the onset of non-linearity, corresponding to an average
bearing stress of 684.0 MPa, shows matrix cracks as well
as the initiation of ber kink bands. Extensive matrix
cracking and ber kinking are observed in the specimens
loaded to bearing stresses of 737.8 and 870.7 MPa. These
. . . . . . . . .
Fig. 11. Bearing stress-bearing strain relation for bolted and pinned
specimens.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fig. 12. Relation between the bearing stress and the permanent hole
deformation.
Fig. 13. Micrography of the bolted joint specimen at r
b
= 466.7 MPa
(e
b
= 2%).
Fig. 14. Micrography of the bolted joint specimen at the onset of non-
linearity, r
b
= 684.0 MPa.
P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020 3013
damage mechanisms interact, forming through-the-thick-
ness shear cracks, clearly visible in Figs. 16 and 15.
The suggested denition of ultimate bearing strength is
the rst non-linearity in the bearing stress-bearing strain
relation. Using such a denition it is possible to increase
the load in both bolted and pinned joints before the load
drops to lower values. Furthermore, there are no shear
cracks in the material, and the resulting permanent hole
deformation is small (0.3%).
5.2.2. Calculation of characteristic distances
It is known that the bearing strength of a composite
laminate depends on the lateral support provided in the
bolt-bearing region [13]. In order to quantify the variation
of the characteristic distances when changing the joint con-
guration, two dierent types of experimental tests were
proposed: pin-bearing tests, where no clamping pressure is
applied in the bolt-bearing region of the laminate, and
bolt-bearing tests, corresponding to an applied torque
T = 2.2 Nm using washers with diameter d
w
.
The test method proposed for the measurement of the
characteristic distances in compression is the ASTM
D-5961 standard [33]. The test matrices for the measure-
ment of the characteristic distances in compression are
shown in Tables 9 and 10.
The bearing strengths, corresponding to the onset of
non-linearity, measured for the bolt and pin-loaded joints
are shown in Tables 11 and 12, respectively.
After performing the bearing tests and measuring the
bearing strength, the characteristic distances in compres-
sion are calculated by solving Eqs. (35) (point stress model)
and (36) (average stress model)
Fig. 15. Micrography of the bolted joint specimen at r
b
= 737.8 MPa
(e
b
= 4%).
Fig. 16. Micrography of the bolted joint specimen at r
b
= 870.7 MPa
(e
b
= 2% oset).
Table 9
Bolt bearing test matrix
Ref. d (mm) w (mm) w/d e (mm) d
w
(mm) e/d
BBT1 6 36 6 18 12 3
BBT2 8 48 6 24 13 3
BBT3 10 60 6 30 14.5 3
Table 10
Pin bearing test matrix
Ref. d (mm) w (mm) w/d e (mm) e/d
PBT1 6 36 6 18 3
PBT2 8 48 6 24 3
PBT3 10 60 6 30 3
Table 11
Ultimate bearing stress for the bolt-bearing test specimens
Specimen r
b
MPa STDV (MPa) CV (%) IC (MPa)
BBT1 747.1 5.9 0.8 41.1
BBT2 740.4 23.6 3.2 29.3
BBT3 701.9 23.6 3.4 29.3
3014 P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020
r
11
0; y
X
C
_ _
2

r
12
0; y
S
L
_ _
2
1 0 ) r
oc
35
1
yR
_
y
R
r
11
0; y dy
X
C
_ _
2

1
yR
_
y
R
r
12
0; y dy
S
L
_ _
2
1 0 ) r
oc
36
The distribution of the components of the stress tensor
along the bearing plane dened in Fig. 1, r
ij
(0,y), are ob-
tained from a nite element model representing the speci-
men under the bearing failure load. The FE model was
developed using Abaqus software [34]. Linear shell ele-
ments were used to represent the composite, the bolt was
represented by a rigid surface, and frictionless contact con-
ditions were used. The ply stresses were obtained at the
nodes belonging to the bearing plane. The functions
r
ij
(0, y) used in Eqs. (35) and (36) were approximated using
a polynomial t of the nodal stresses.
Tables 13 and 14 show the values of the characteristic
distances for the bolt-and pin-bearing tests.
Based on the calculation of the characteristic distances
in compression, it is possible to dene the design charts
shown in Figs. 17 and 18.
Figs. 17 and 18 show that the characteristic distances in
compression are a function of the hole diameter, increasing
for larger hole diameters.
6. Validation
The accuracy of the proposed methodology is assessed
by comparing the predictions with experimental data. A
test plan for the generation of experimental data for dier-
ent joint congurations, promoting dierent failure modes,
is dened.
The test plan consists in both double-shear lap joints,
bolted, i.e. with a 2.2 N m clamping pressure applied by
washers, and pinned (no clamping pressure applied).
Quasi-isotropic (90/0/45)
3s
IM7-8552 CFRP laminates
are used.
The geometry of the test specimens used in the dierent
double-shear joint congurations is shown in Table 15. The
test specimens were loaded in tension according to ASTM
D-5961 standard [33].
The characteristic distances used in the predictions are
calculated using the design charts shown in Figs. 9, 10,
17 and 18. Table 16 shows the characteristic distances cal-
culated for all the specimens tested.
Table 12
Ultimate bearing stress for the pin-bearing test specimens
Specimen r
b
MPa STDV (MPa) CV (%) IC (MPa)
PBT1 697.0 17.5 2.5 21.7
PBT2 686.0 47.3 6.9 58.8
PBT3 724.5 24.2 3.3 30.0
Table 13
Characteristic distances in compression for the bolt-bearing tests
Specimen r
oc
(mm) r
oc
mm
BBT1 1.82 4.42
BBT2 2.40 5.78
BBT3 2.76 6.49
Table 14
Characteristic distances in compression for the pin-bearing tests
Specimen r
oc
(mm) r
oc
mm
PBT1 1.64 3.83
PBT2 2.13 4.96
PBT3 2.90 6.93
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fig. 17. Characteristic distance in compression for the point stress model:
bolted joint.
.
.
.
.
.
Fig. 18. Characteristic distance in compression for the average stress
model: bolted joint.
Table 15
Geometry of double shear test specimens (B: bolted; P: pinned)
Ref. d (mm) w (mm) w/d e (mm) e/d
DSBFB/P 7 42 6 21 3
DSTFB/P 6 12 2 24 12
DSSFB/P 6 36 6 9 12
P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020 3015
The methodology developed is used to predict the ulti-
mate failure load of the joints that failed by bearing (spec-
imens DSBFB and DSBFP) and by bearing/shear
(specimens DSSFB and DSSFP). It is worth noting that
the specimens DSSFB/P suered a combined bearing/
shear failure: the specimens were loaded until the bearing
stiness decreased 5% (bearing failure) before failing by
shear.
The stress distribution of the specimens that failed by
tension (specimens DSTFB and DSTFP) is obtained from
a FE model. The width-to-diameter ratio of these
specimens is equal to 2, which is a value that results in
inaccurate predictions of the stress distribution using
semi-analytical models (w/d < 4). For the remaining speci-
mens the ply stress distribution is obtained from a semi-
analytical model [23].
The dierent failure modes obtained in the experimental
tests are shown in Fig. 19.
Table 17 compares the ultimate bearing strength, r
b
,
predicted using the point stress model with the experimen-
tal data obtained for the dierent failure modes. Table 18
compares the bearing strength predicted using the average
stress model with the experimental data.
The predictions correlate well with the experimental
data. Using the point stress model the maximum relative
error obtained was 22.4%, for a pinned specimen which
failed in tension. The maximum absolute error obtained
using the average stress model was 8.2%. Higher accuracy
of the average stress model was also reported in the
strength prediction of specimens containing open holes
[27].
6.1. Parametric studies
The methodology developed can be used to dene the
failure envelopes of open-hole specimens and bolted joints,
under general loading conditions, in an eective way.
This section presents some parametric studies that illus-
trate the potential of the methodology proposed to predict
the mechanical response of composite bolted joints. All the
examples use a (90/0/45)
3s
IM7-8552 CFRP laminate.
6.1.1. Open-hole specimen
The rst case investigated corresponds to specimens
containing an open hole and loaded under multiaxial ten-
sion, PX and PY (Fig. 20). The specimens have the same
width-to-diameter ratio, w/d = 4, but dierent hole
diameters.
Figs. 20 and 21 show the failure envelopes (elastic limit
and ultimate failure) predicted using the methodology pro-
posed here for specimens with 6 mm and 8 mm diameter
holes subjected to multiaxial loading.
Table 16
Values of the characteristic distances (mm)
Specimen ref. r
ot
r
ot
r
oc
r
oc
DSBFB 0.61 1.38 2.10 5.05
DSTFB 0.30 0.66 1.86 4.53
DSSFB 0.58 1.33 1.86 4.53
DSBFP 0.61 1.38 1.91 4.47
DSTFP 0.30 0.66 1.59 3.70
DSSFP 0.58 1.33 1.59 3.70
Fig. 19. Failure modes.
Table 17
Comparison between predictions and experimental data-point stress
model (MPa)
Specimen Failure mode Experimental Predicted (%)
DSBFB Bearing 695.2 716.9 3.1
DSSFB Bearing/shear 701.8 730.9 4.1
DSTFB Tension 526.5 563.8 7.1
DSBFP Bearing 706.3 684.5 3.1
DSSFP Bearing/shear 699.4 677.3 3.2
DSTFP Tension 460.5 563.8 22.4
Table 18
Comparison between predictions and experimental data-average stress
model (MPa)
Specimen Failure mode Experimental Predicted (%)
DSBFB Bearing 695.2 723.3 4.0
DSSFB Bearing/shear 701.8 740.0 5.4
DSTFB Tension 526.5 483.3 8.2
DSBFP Bearing 706.3 687.1 2.7
DSSFP Bearing/shear 699.4 679.4 2.9
DSTFP Tension 460.5 483.3 4.9
3016 P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020
Figs. 20 and 21 show that the method proposed can pre-
dict the energetic size eect usually called hole size eect
[27]. This eect is characterized by the reduction of the ulti-
mate strength of the specimens when increasing the size of
the hole, keeping w/d, and consequently the stress concen-
tration factor, constant. Clearly, this eect does not occur
for the denition of the elastic limit.
6.1.2. Bearingby-pass failure envelope
Fig. 22 shows failure envelopes predicted for bearing
by-pass loading. The parameter b
1
is the ratio between
the by-pass stress, dened as r
by-pass
= PX/(wt
L
), and the
bearing stresses: b
1
= r
by-pass
/r
b
.
It can be observed that bearing failure occurs for values
of b
1
between 0.0 and 0.4. For higher values of b
1
there is a
change of failure mode, from one of bearing to one of ten-
sion. This is caused by the increased by-pass stresses. The
trends predicted are in agreement with the failure envelopes
for a bolted joint under bearing and by-pass stresses
obtained at NASA-Langley using a special test-rig [35].
The change of failure mode (bearing cuto) was also
observed in the experiments [35].
It can be concluded that the methodology proposed can
represent the mechanical behavior of a composite bolted
joint under bearing and tensile by-pass load. It should be
noted that the characteristic distances for the material
tested at NASA are not available, so it is only possible to
perform a qualitative comparison between the two sets of
results.
The characteristic distances in compression for net-com-
pression failure of the specimen were not measured in the
experimental programme. Therefore, the predictions for
the bearing and compressive by-pass loads are not pre-
sented in Fig. 22. The characteristic distance in compres-
sion for net-compression failure can be obtained from
open-hole test specimens loaded in compression.
It should also be noticed that for high by-pass compres-
sive loads there is dual contact between the bolt and the
laminate. Under this circumstance, it is not possible to
use the semi-analytical models to predict the stress distribu-
tions because such models assume contact along only half
of the surface of the hole. Under dual contact between
the bolt and the laminate the stress distribution should be
obtained using contact algorithms implemented in non-lin-
ear FE codes.
7. Conclusions
A new procedure for dimensioning double-shear
mechanically fastened joints in advanced composite materi-
als is proposed. The method is applicable to double-shear
bolted or pinned joints under uniaxial or multiaxial
loading.
Fig. 20. Failure envelopes for an open-hole test specimen under multiaxial
loading, d = 6 mm.
Fig. 21. Failure envelopes for an open-hole test specimen under multiaxial
loading, d = 8 mm.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fig. 22. Failure envelopes for a bolted joint under bearing and by-pass
loads.
P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020 3017
New standardized procedures to measure the character-
istic distances in tension and in compression used in the
model are proposed. The statistical analysis of the experi-
mental results showed that the characteristic distances in
tension are a function of both the hole diameter and spec-
imen width. Design charts to calculate the characteristic
distances in tension are proposed.
Based on the experimental data obtained in both
bolted and pinned joints, the suggested denition for ulti-
mate bearing strength is the bearing stress corresponding
to the onset of the non-linear response in the bearing
stress-bearing strain relation. A composite joint loaded
to an oset bearing strain of 2%, or up to the maximum
load sustained by the joint, is extensively damaged in the
bolt-bearing region, and present high permanent deforma-
tions of the hole. It is also concluded that the character-
istic distances in compression are a function of the
clamping conditions applied to the joint and of the hole
diameter.
The methodology proposed can be used to design
mechanically fastened joints in a fast and eective way.
The predictions obtained result in a good agreement with
the experimental data: failure loads and failure modes
correlate well with experimental data. It is also observed
that the average stress model provided more accurate pre-
dictions than the ones obtained using the point stress
model.
The methodology proposed can be eectively used to
generate design charts for both composite bolted or pinned
joints, and for composite panels containing open holes
under multiaxial loading.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the European Space Agency
under the Project ESTEC/16813/02/NL/PA.
The contribution of Mr. Miguel Figueiredo for the de-
sign of experiments using the Taguchi method is
acknowledged.
Appendix A. Closed form solution to calculate r
ot
and r
ot
A new analytical solution for calculating the character-
istic distances in tension of quasi-isotropic laminate is
proposed.
The laminate compliance matrix is dened as [36]:
a

t
L
A
1
A:1
where t
L
is the total laminate thickness and the matrix [A]
relates the in-plane forces per unit length to the mid-plane
strains.
Considering Fig. A.1, the distribution of the average
stress, along the x-axis, r
yy
(x, 0), is obtained as [27]:
r
yy
x; 0 R
K
r
1
yy
2
2 n
2
3n
4
K
1
T
35n
6
7n
8
; x Pr
A:2
where n
R
x
; K
1
T
is the stress concentration factor of an
innite plate containing a circular hole of radius R, and
R
K
is the nite width correction factor. These parameters
are dened as [27]:
K
1
t
1

2
A
22

A
11
A
22
_
A
12

A
11
A
22
A
2
12
2A
66
_ _

A:3
R
K

K
T
K
1
T

312R=w
212R=w
3

1
2
2R
w
M
_ _
6
K
1
T
3
1
2R
w
M
_ _
2
_ _
_
_
_
_
_
_
1
A:4
where w is the plate width, A
ij
are the components of the
laminate in-plane stiness matrix, and M is dened as:
M
2

1 8
312R=w
212R=w
3
1
_ _
_
1
22R=w
2

A:5
r
1
yy
is the remote tensile stress, calculated by dividing the
applied load P by the cross-section area of the specimen.
Assuming that there is no bending, the midplane strains,
{e
0
}, are dened as:
fe
0
g a

frg A:6
For the geometry under investigation, Fig. A.1,
r
xy
(x, 0) = c
xy
(x, 0) = 0. Assuming r
xx
(x, 0) 0 yields:
fe
0
x; 0g
e
0
x
e
0
y
0
_

_
_

12
r
yy
a

22
r
yy
0
_

_
_

_
A:7
The assumption of r
xx
(x,0) 0 is expected to have a small
eect onthe solutionobtainedfor a quasi-isotropic laminate.
The following equation is used to calculate the ply stres-
ses in global coordinates:
frx; 0g
K
x

Q
k
fe
0
x; 0g A:8
where

Q
K
is the plane stress transformed reduced stiness
matrix for the Kth ply in the global coordinate system. To
calculate

Q
K
it is necessary to dene the reduced stiness
matrix [Q]. The individual components of [Q] are:
Fig. A.1. Geometry under investigation.
3018 P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020
Q
11

E
1
1 m
12
m
21
A:9
Q
12

m
12
E
2
1 m
12
m
21
A:10
Q
22

E
2
1 m
12
m
21
A:11
Q
66
G
12
A:12
The matrix

Q
K
is calculated as:

Q
k
T
1

1
QT
2

k
A:13
The matrices [T
1
] and [T
2
] are used for the transformation
of the stress and strain tensors, and are dened as:
T
1

m
2
n
2
2mn
n
2
m
2
2mn
mn mn m
2
n
2
_

_
_

_ A:14
T
2

m
2
n
2
mn
n
2
m
2
mn
2mn 2mn m
2
n
2
_

_
_

_ A:15
where m = cos(h) and n = sin(h). The angle h is dened in
Fig. A.1.
The stresses are calculated in local (material) coordi-
nates as:
frx; 0g
K
1
T
1

K
frx; 0g
K
x
A:16
The correspondent components of the stress tensor are:
r
K
11
r
yy
m
2

Q
11
a

12


Q
12
a

22
n
2

Q
16
a

12


Q
22
a

22

_
2mn

Q
16
a

12


Q
26
a

22

A:17
r
K
22
r
yy
n
2

Q
11
a

12


Q
12
a

22

_
m
2

Q
16
a

16


Q
22
a

22
2mn

Q
16
a

12


Q
26
a

22

A:18
r
K
12
r
yy
mn

Q
11
a

12


Q
12
a

22
mn

Q
16
a

16


Q
22
a

22

_
m
2
n
2

Q
16
a

12


Q
26
a

22

A:19
where r
yy
is given by Eq. (A.2).
The characteristic distance, r
ot
, may be determined by
solving the following equation:
r
K
11
X
T
1 A:20
The distribution of the longitudinal stress is given by Eq.
(A.17). Considering a quasi-isotropic laminate, K
1
T
3,
and the positive, real root of (A.20) is given by:
n
0

W 24WX
T
23W
2

1=2
6W

A:21
with:
W R
K
r
1
yy
D; and A:22
D m
2

Q
11
a

12


Q
12
a

22
n
2

Q
16
a

12


Q
22
a

22

2mn

Q
16
a

12


Q
26
a

22
A:23
The characteristic distance can be calculated using:
r
ot
Rn
1
0
1 A:24
The average characteristic distance, r
ot
, is calculated by
solving the following equation:
1
r
ot
_
Rrot
R
r
K
11
dx X
T
A:25
It is convenient to perform the following change of vari-
able: n = R/x. Considering a quasi-isotropic laminate,
K
1
T
3, and the average stress criterion, Eq. (A.25) is
established as:

n
ot
W
21 n
ot

_
n
ot
1
2
n
2
1 3n
2
_ _
dn X
T
A:26
Solving (A.26):
n
ot

2
1
3
10
4
W
2
2
W
2

1
3
2
1
3

2
3
_ _
3W
1
3
A:27
with:

W
2
4
19W 27X
T
3

3
p

18W
2
38WX
T
27X
2
T
_

A:28
The characteristic distance for the average stress criterion
can be calculated using:
r
ot
Rn
1
ot
1 A:29
References
[1] Camanho PP. Application of numerical methods to the strength
prediction of mechanically fastened joints in composite laminates,
PhD thesis, Centre for Composite Materials, Department of Aero-
nautics, Imperial College London, UK; 1999.
[2] Hart-Smith LJ. Design and analysis of bolted and riveted joints in
brous composite structures, Douglas Paper 7739, 115, McDonnell
Douglas Corporation; 1986.
[3] Camanho PP, Matthews FL. Stress analysis and strength prediction
in FRP joints: a review. Composites Part A 1997;28:52947.
[4] Turon A, Camanho PP, Costa J, Davila CG. An interface damage
model for the simulation of delamination under variable-mode ratio
in composite materials, NASA/TM-2004-213277, National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration; 2004.
[5] Camanho PP, Matthews FL. A progressive damage model for
mechanically fastened joints in composite laminates. J Compos Mater
1999;33:224880.
[6] Maim P, Camanho PP, Mayugo JA, Davila CG. A thermodynam-
ically consistent damage model for advanced composites, NASA/TM,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration [in press].
[7] Turon A, Camanho PP, Costa J, Davila CG. A damage model for the
simulation of delamination in advanced composites under variable-
mode loading. Mech Mater [in press].
[8] Camanho PP, Portela PM, Melro AR, Lambert M. Enhanced design
methods for mechanically fastened joints in composite structures. In:
Proceedings of the European conference on spacecraft structures,
materials and mechanical testing. Noordwijck, The Netherlands:
European Space Agency; 2005.
[9] Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix
composite materials, ASTM D 3039/D 3039M-00. West Conshohoc-
ken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020 3019
[10] Standard test method for compressive properties of unidirectional or
cross-ply berresin composites, ASTM D 3410-87. West Conshohoc-
ken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
[11] Standard test method for in-plane shear response of polymer matrix
composite materials by test of a 45 laminate, ASTM D 3518/
3518M-94. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM).
[12] Camanho PP, Davila CG, Pinho ST, Iannucci L, Robinson P.
Prediction of in-situ strengths and matrix cracking in composites
under transverse tension and in-plane shear. Composites Part A
2006;37:16576.
[13] Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of
unidirectional ber-reinforced polymer matrix composites, ASTM D
5528-01. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM).
[14] Martin R, Elms T, Bowron S. Characterization of mode II delam-
ination using the 4ENF. In: Proceedings of the 4th European
conference on composites: testing and standardisation, Lisbon; 1998.
[15] Dvorak GJ, Laws N. Analysis of progressive matrix cracking in
composite laminates II. Fisrt ply failure. J Compos Mater
1987;21:30929.
[16] Hahn HT, Tsai SW. Nonlinear elastic behaviour of unidirectional
composite laminate. J Compos Mater 1973;7:10210.
[17] Davila CG, Camanho PP, Rose CA. Failure criteria for FRP
laminates. J Compos Mater 2005;39:32345.
[18] Pinho ST, Davila CG, Camanho PP, Iannucci L, Robinson P. Failure
models and criteria for FRP under in-plane or three-dimensional
stress states including shear non-linearity, NASA Technical Memo-
randum 213530. USA: National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion; 2005.
[19] Puck A, Schu rmann H. Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means
of physically based phenomenological models. Compos Sci Technol
1998;58:104567.
[20] Lekhnitskii S. Anisotropic plates. New York: Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers; 1968.
[21] de Jong T. Stresses around pin-loaded holes in elastically orthotropic
or isotropic plates. J Compos Mater 1977;11:31331.
[22] Garbo SP, Ogonowski J. Eect of variances and manufacturing
tolerances on the design strength and life of mechanically fastened
composite joints, Tech. Rep. AFWAL-TR-81-3041, vol. 1, McDon-
nell Aircraft Company; 1981.
[23] Ogonowski J. Eect of variances and manufacturing tolerances on the
design strength and life of mechanically fastened composite joints,
Tech. Rep. AFWAL-TR-81-3041, vol. 3, McDonnell Aircraft Com-
pany; 1981.
[24] Waddoups ME, Eisenmann JR, Kaminski BE. Macroscopic fracture
mechanics of advanced composite materials. J Compos Mater
1971;5:44654.
[25] Whitney JM, Nuismer RJ. Stress fracture criteria for laminated
composites containing stress concentrations. J Compos Mater
1974;8:25365.
[26] Chang FK, Scott RA, Springer GS. Strength of mechanically fastened
composite joints. J Compos Mater 1982;16:47094.
[27] Tan SC. Stress concentrations in laminated composites. Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, USA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.; 2004.
[28] Yamada SE, Sun CT. Analysis of laminate strength and its
distribution. J Compos Mater 1978;12:27584.
[29] Taguchi G, Konishi S. Taguchi methods: orthogonal arrays and
linear graphs. Allen Park, Michigan, USA: ASI Press; 1987.
[30] Open hole tensile strength of polymer composite laminates, ASTM D
5766/D 5766M-02a. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
[31] Camanho PP, Bowron S, Matthews FL. Failure mechanisms in
bolted CFRP. J Reinfor Plast Compos 1998;17:20533.
[32] MIL-HDBK-17, Military handbook, Polymer matrix composites. US
Department of Defense; 1994.
[33] Standard test method for bearing response of polymer matrix
composite laminates, ASTM D 5961/D 5961M-01. West Conshohoc-
ken, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
[34] Abaqus 6.5 Users manual. Pawtucket, RI, USA: Abaqus Inc.; 2005.
[35] Crews JH, Naik RA. Combined bearingbypass loading on a
graphite/epoxy laminate. Compos Struct 1986;6:2140.
[36] Herakovich CT. Mechanics of brous composites. New York: Wiley;
1998.
3020 P.P. Camanho, M. Lambert / Composites Science and Technology 66 (2006) 30043020