Air Force Life Cycle

Management Center
Finite Element Analysis of
Bonded Repairs and
Analysis Methods for the
ASIP Engineer  
02  DEC  2015  
Lawrence “Charlie” Stoker
AFLCMC/WWAEJ
801-586-7161
lawrence.stoker@us.af.mil

Distribu(on  A:  Approved  for  Public  Release.    Distribu(on  is  unlimited  (Reference  #  2015-­‐09-­‐14_WWA-­‐011  Case  Number:  75ABW-­‐2015-­‐0034).  
 Outline

n Background  
n Star(ng  Points  
n Method  of  Repair  
n Method  of  Analysis  
n  3D  FEM  with  Bonded  Repairs  
• NX  Glue  and  Extrac(on  
n  Point  Loads  (TLAP)  
n  SIF  Calcula(on  and  Extrac(on  
n Future  Development  
n Ques(ons  

2  
 Acknowledgements

n B-­‐1  SPO  
n  Bob  Lee  (Boeing)  
n  Ryan  Rowten  (USAF)  

n SwRI  
n  Sco^  Carlson  

n A-­‐10  ASIP  
n  Mark  Thomsen  (USAF)  
n  Bob  Pilarczyk  (USAF)  

3  
 Acronyms

n CTOD:  Crack  Tip  Opening  Displacement  

n FEA:  Finite  Element  Analysis  
n FEM:  Finite  Element  Model  
n GTAC:  Global  Technical  Access  Center  
n SIF:  crack  (p  Stress  Intensity  Factor  
n SPO:  System  Program  Office  
n TLAP:  Total  Load  At  a  Point  

4  
 Background

n B-­‐1  Fa(gue  Test  Currently  Taking  Place  

n Experienced  a  High  Number  of  Cracks  in  Lower  
Wing  Skin  
n Contacted  A-­‐10  ASIP  for  Support  

5  
Background

6  
 Starting Points

n  Solid  model  

n  None.    A-­‐10  ASIP  modeled  the  wing  plank  in  2.5  days.    Bonded  
repairs  and  addi(onal  repair  geometry  as  needed,  all  in-­‐house.  
n  Standard  Bonded  Repair  Methodology  
n  Limited.    Two  presenta(ons  from  the  2015  Aircrad  
Airworthiness  and  Sustainment  Conference  provided  a  
methodology  using  other  FEA  sodware.  
• Finite  Element  Study  of  Fa1gue  Crack  Growth  in  an  Aluminum  Fuselage  
Panel  Repaired  with  Adhesively  Bonded  Patches  
-­‐  Chadha,  Bakuckas,  Awerbuch,  &  Tan  
• Evalua1on  of  Adhesively  Bonded  Repairs  to  Fuselage  Structure  
Subjected  to  Environmental  Condi1ons  
-­‐  Lei,  Tian,  Bakuckas,  Won,  Freisthler,  Greene,  Brewer,  Awerbuch,  &  Tan  
n  One  paper  from  1999  
• Stress  Concentra1ons  Around  Bonded  Repairs  
-­‐  Vlot,  Verhoeven,  Ipenburg,  Siwpersad,  &  Woerden  

7  
 Starting Points

n Standard  Bonded  Repair  Methodology  (cont.)  

n  A-­‐10  ASIP  pioneered  a  path  forward  based  on  
research,  experimenta(on,  and  conversa(ons  with  
Siemens  NX  GTAC  support.  
n SIF  Solu(ons  for  Bonded  Repairs  in  Thick  
Structure  
n  None.    Complex  geometry  of  the  B-­‐1  wing  plank  
required  specialized  and  custom  treatment.  

8  
 Method of Repair

n Aluminum  Wing  Skin  

n Steel  Repair  Strap  
n  Aluminum  “Tab”  Repair  Strap  at  stepped  sec(ons  

n Bond  Material  
n  EA  9696  

9  
 Method of Repair

Repair  doubler  

Tab  repair  

Repair  doubler  

Bond  layers  

10  
 Method of Repair

Bond  regions  

What  is  the  load  and  how  is  it  distributed?  

11  
 Method of Analysis

n Assump(ons  
n  A  “good  bond”  which  is  homogenous  and  evenly  
distributed.  
n  Residual  stresses  imparted  by  the  hea(ng  and  
curing  process  are  ignored.  
• This  has  been  incorporated  in  other  analyses.  
n  The  bond  layer  behaves  elas(cally  within  limit  
loads  (necessary  for  NX’s  “Glue”  command).  
n Sodware  
n  Siemens  NX  8.5.3  
n  NX  Nastran  8.5  

12  
 Method of Analysis

n Solid  Model  
n  For  the  sake  of  modeling,  model  repairs  with  
coincident  faces  (i.e.  it  is  not  necessary  to  model  
the  space  between  components).  
n  Cut  faces  are  used  to  parse  the  model  into  smaller,  
manageable  sizes  for  SIF  extrac(on  later.  
n  Other  geometric  idealiza(ons  or  edits  (split  faces,  
omission  of  certain  fasteners)  are  incorporated  for  
data  extrac(on  with  the  end  goal  in  mind.  

13  
 Method of Analysis

n Why  make  mul(ple  small  models?  

n  SIF  formula(on  and  extrac(on  does  not  currently  
exist  within  NX  Nastran.  
n  Allows  for  higher  refinement  at  crack  (ps.  
n  Allows  for  ul(mately  faster  run  (mes.  

14  
 Method of Analysis

n NX  “Glue”  Parameters  

n  The  glue  feature  was  for  users  who  had  bonded  
components,  but  did  not  want  to  physically  model  
the  bond.    
n  Two  methods  for  spring  rate:  
• 1/Length  
• Inferred  s(ffness  
• Force/(Area*Length)  
• Explicit  s(ffness  

15  
 NX Glue

n Nastran  calculates  spring  rate,  K  as  

𝐾=𝑒∙𝑑𝐴  
n  e:  penalty  factor  
n  dA:  area  
n For  the  engineer,  only  “e”  needs  to  be  
specified  
n “e”  can  be  defined  as  
𝑒=​𝐸/​𝑙↓0    
n  E:  Young’s  modulus  of  bond  material  
n  l0:  thickness  of  the  bond  

16  
 NX Glue

Glue  Region   Bond  Thickness   “e”  Value  

Repair  and  Skin   0.005”   277300  psi/0.005  in  =  5.546E7  lbs/in3  
Repair  and  Tab  Repair   0.05”   277300  psi/0.05  in  =  5.546E6  lbs/in3  
Tab  Repair  and  Skin   0.005”   277300  psi/0.005  in  =  5.546E7  lbs/in3  

17  
NX Glue

18  
 Extracting Bond Forces

n Grid  Point  Force  or  Glue  Force?  

n  Glue  Force!  
• Grid  point  force  pulls  internal  nodal  forces  in  addi(on  to  
the  glue  imparted  forces.  
• Glue  force  reports  the  loads  imparted  by  the  glue  only.  

19  
Extracting Bond Forces

Note:  associated  to  underlying  geometry,  not  a  

single  bond  layer.    The  glue  force  for  the  Wing  
Plank  is  iden(cal  in  magnitude  and  opposite  in  
direc(on  from  the  Repairs.    Choose  wisely!  20  
Extracting Bond Forces

21  
 Extracting Bond Forces

n Nastran  writes  data  to  Excel  as:  

 
 
 
n StressCheck  has  a  Translate  Points  tool  to  turn  
point  data  into  a  useable  format.  
n  However,  you  must  manually  change  the  exported  
data  into  the  following  format:  

22  
 Extracting Bond Forces

n StressCheck  TranslatePoints  

23  
 Point Loads

n StressCheck’s  “Global-­‐Local”  load  technique:  

n  TLAP  
• Total  Load  At  a  Point  
n  Import  translated  points  data  (.sci  file)  into  a  .scp  
file  
n  Apply  TLAP  to  the  faces  

24  
 TLAP Setup

Then  toggle  the  “Loca(ons”  check  box  

25  
TLAP Setup

26  
 TLAP Setup

Press  ctrl+shid  and  drag  a  box  around  

27  
the  loca(ons  
 TLAP Setup

Accept  and  the  loads  will  be  applied  

28  
 TLAP Setup

n TLAP  applica(on  was  repeated  for  all  faces  

where  a  loads  extrac(on  was  employed.  
n For  regions  with  a  known  applied  load,  that  
same  load  was  applied  to  the  model.  
n If  working  with  a  center  sec(on  of  a  part,  TLAP  
is  the  most  effec(ve  method  to  retain  load  
redistribu(on  throughout  the  part.  

29  
 TLAP Setup

Note  non-­‐uniform  stress  

30  
 TLAP Validation

n Using  the  same  constraints  in  StressCheck  as  

NX:  

NX   StressCheck  
31  
 TLAP Validation

n Checking  displacements  (akin  to  CTOD):  

Deforma(on
(in) NX StressCheck
X -­‐0.01 -­‐0.01
Point  1 Y -­‐0.032 -­‐0.033
Z 0.0004 -­‐0.0001
X -­‐0.01 -­‐0.0095
Point  2 Y -­‐0.033 -­‐0.032
Z 0.0004 0.0005

Reasonable  agreement  between  methods.    Differences  arise  due  to  the  glue  
force  “idealiza(on.”   32  
 SIF Calculation and Extraction

n Refer  to  exis(ng  documenta(on  

n  Standardized.  
n  Sodware  such  as  StressCheck  can  perform  this  
step.  
n  Take  SIFs  and  implement  into  a  crack  growth  
sodware  like  AFGROW  or  NASGRO.  

33  
 Future Development

n Incorporate  thermal  residual  stresses  

n Explore  SIF  calcula(on  within  Siemens  NX  
n  h  vs.  p-­‐level  solvers  
n  p-­‐discre(za(on  

34  
Questions?

35  
BACKUP SLIDES

36  
 TLAP Validation

n Using  the  same  constraints  in  StressCheck  as  

NX:  

NX   StressCheck  
37  
 Value Added to the USAF

n “Thank  you,  Sco^  and  team…This  is  definite  a  

challenging  problem  and  appreciated  for  all  the  help  
along  the  way  since  day-­‐1  and  stepped  up  to  provide  
analy(c  solu(on  to  the  cracking  configura(on.”  [sic]  –
Bob  Lee,  Boeing  B-­‐1  
n “On  behalf  of  the  B-­‐1  SPO,  I  would  like  to  second  Bob's  
comments.    You  and  your  team's  efforts  have  been  
extremely  valuable  to  the  B-­‐1  FSFT  program  and  have  
provided  solu(ons  that  were  otherwise  not  available  to  
us…Your  team  has  been,  and  con(nues  to  be,  a  cri(cal  
part  of  the  B-­‐1  FSFT  effort.    Thank  you  again  for  all  your  
hard  work  on  this  project.”  –Ryan  Rowten,  USAF  B-­‐1  
Structures  Lead  
38