Effect of interference installation method on interfacial properties and fatigue failure behavior of bolted composite joints
Source abstract
Abstract
A novel dynamic installation (DI) method is proposed to improve the problems of severe installation damage, small installable interference size, and low installation efficiency of traditional static installation (SI) methods for installing interference bolts in composite bolted structures. The stress distribution and CFRP damage around the hole wall due to interference fitting and subsequent cyclic loading were predicted by finite element simulations. In addition, the fatigue life of DI and SI specimens was evaluated and the fatigue failure mechanisms were discussed. The results showed that the DI method provides a visible improvement in fatigue life, which is about 4 times that of the SI interference specimens and 38 times that of the non-interference specimen. In addition, DI introduces relatively higher average residual compressive stresses than SI, especially at the inlet of the laminate, which also results in a more uniform distribution along the axial direction of DI specimens. Micromorphological analysis of the specimens after fatigue failure indicated that the uniform stress distribution and low initial installation damage at the assembly interface introduced by the DI method during interference fit prevents severe delamination and crack propagation in joints subjected to external cyclic loading, such as the SI specimen. Severe extrusion deformation of the hole wall and matrix crushing are the main failure modes of DI specimens. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the interference installation method of composite materials.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Mechanical stress and fatigue analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Northwestern Polytechnical University
NPU Xuhang Electromagnetic Technology Co., Ltd.
Funding
Key Research and Development Projects of Shaanxi Province · National Commercial Aircraft Manufacturing Engineering Innovation Fund
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2003.11.00510.1016/j.compscitech.2003.11.005 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.00610.1016/j.compositesb.2013.05.006 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.ast.2020.10591710.1016/j.ast.2020.105917 ↗
4. 10.1016/S1369-7021(02)01138-010.1016/S1369-7021(02)01138-0 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.11178810.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111788 ↗
6. Jiang J, Bi Y, Dong H, et al. Influence of interference fit size on hole deformation and residual stress in hi-lock bolt insertion. ARCHIVE Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 1989-1996 (Vols 203-210) 2014; 228(18): 3296–3305.
7. 10.1016/j.triboint.2015.08.04410.1016/j.triboint.2015.08.044 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.10731910.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.107319 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.tws.2022.10964210.1016/j.tws.2022.109642 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2008.11.00510.1016/j.compositesb.2008.11.005 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.01610.1016/j.compstruct.2018.05.016 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.02710.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.027 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.10937810.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109378 ↗
14. 10.1177/073168440707671310.1177/0731684407076713 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.cja.2014.04.01410.1016/j.cja.2014.04.014 ↗
16. Lewis R, Yoxall A, Marshall MB. Comparison of numerical and ultrasonic techniques for quantifying interference fit pressures. ARCHIVE Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 1989–1996 (Vols 203-210) 2008; 222(7): 1125–1130.
17. 10.1177/002199831665853810.1177/0021998316658538 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.01.00910.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.01.009 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11627410.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116274 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.04.02510.1016/j.compstruct.2016.04.025 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.11.00310.1016/j.compositesb.2004.11.003 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.ast.2005.11.00310.1016/j.ast.2005.11.003 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.cja.2018.12.02310.1016/j.cja.2018.12.023 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10625310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106253 ↗
25. Xie MJ, Zhu LP, Shi LZ. Influence of layup sequence on the load bearing of composite laminated structures. Journal of Aeronautics,1991, (12) :18-22.
26. ASTM D5961/D5961M-17. Standard test method for bearing response of polymer matrix composite laminates. American Society for Testing of Materials, 2017.
27. 10.1177/002199831245447810.1177/0021998312454478 ↗
28. Pinho ST Dávila CG Camanho PP et al. Failure models and criteria for FRP under in-plane or three-dimensional stress states including shear non-linearity. No. NASA/TM-2005-213530. 2005.
29. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.06.00810.1016/j.compositesa.2005.06.008 ↗
30. 10.1115/1.156640110.1115/1.1566401 ↗
31. Gerhard W, Boyer RR, Collings EW. Materials properties handbook: titanium alloys. ASM International, 1994.
32. 10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00113-X10.1016/S0266-3538(99)00113-X ↗
33. 10.1016/j.cma.2008.08.00610.1016/j.cma.2008.08.006 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.11810.1016/j.matdes.2015.09.118 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.matdes.2020.10890410.1016/j.matdes.2020.108904 ↗
36. Cui KH. Experiments and simulations of SHPB compression bars for aerospace titanium alloys under high strain rate conditions. Tianjin University, 2013.
37. 10.1016/S0263-8223(98)00103-210.1016/S0263-8223(98)00103-2 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.07.00910.1016/j.matdes.2009.07.009 ↗