Composite Structures 93 (2011) 1217–1224

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Ultimate strength of pin-loaded composite laminates: A limit analysis approach

Oualid Limam a,⇑, Gilles Foret b, Hatem Zenzri a
a
University of Tunis El Manar, Laboratoire de Génie Civil, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, BP 37, 1002 le Belvédère, Tunis, Tunisia
b
Université Paris-Est, Laboratoire Navier, CNRS, 6–8 Avenue Blaise Pascal, Champs-sur-Marne, 77455 Marne-la-vallee Cedex 2, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A simplified approach to determining the ultimate strength of a pin-loaded composite laminate (PLCL),
Available online 11 November 2010 based on limit analysis theory, is presented. The composite laminate is treated as a multilayered deform-
able three-dimensional solid. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis and kinematic fields that include
Keywords: discontinuities in plies and interfaces are used to predict the bearing strength of pin-loaded composite
Laminates laminate. An analytical estimation of the ultimate failure load is obtained. The theoretical predictions
Joints are compared to available experimental results. The effects of the geometry and the number of interfaces
Interface
on PLCL strength are also examined.
Failure mechanism
Failure load
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Delamination

1. Introduction ysis approach to pin-loaded steel plates assuming these macro-

Mechanical joints are commonly used for the assembly of com-
posite laminate structures, and since joint failure can lead to pre-
mature failure of the structure, their strength is an important
design consideration.
In mechanical joints, loads can be transferred from one element
to another through discrete high-modulus components (the fasten-
ers); these loads are taken out by the fastener-laminate contact
surface. Due to the significance of the problem, several approaches
have been used to predict the stresses, failure strengths and failure
mechanisms of composite laminates containing pin-loaded hole.
Several works have highlighted the importance of width (W),
end distance (E), hole diameter (D), and laminate thickness (h) in
joint strength [1,4] (Fig. 1). Collings [2,3] demonstrated that the
tensile strength of a single-hole joint is strongly dependent on
ply orientation. Postec et al. [5] study the influence of the number
of inter-ply interfaces on the bearing rupture of riveted composite
assemblies. The term ‘‘interface’’ must here be understood as the
separation between two differently oriented plies. Other parame-
ters, like clamping pressure in riveted joints and the contact angle,
have also an effect on joints strength [3].
On the macro-level, a composite laminate can be regarded as a
homogeneous plate. On this level, in a PLCL, mainly, three macro-
failure mechanisms can be considered: Net section tension (or/
and) shear and bearing. This macro description is also considered
for pin-loaded steel plates. Aceti et al. [6] have applied a limit anal-
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +216 71 872 729.
E-mail address: oualid.limam@enit.rnu.tn (O. Limam).
failure mechanisms.
On the meso-level, a composite laminate can be described as a
multi-layered three-dimensional continuum. Rupture can be better
understood by examining the meso-failure modes in each layer as
a function of the geometry and the stacking sequences. Further-
more, several experimental results have demonstrated that delam-
ination has a large impact on the damage progression that leads to
the final failure of a mechanical composite joint. Camanho and
Matthews [7] highlighted the importance of three-dimensional ef-
fects on the performance of mechanically fastened joints in CFRP
that fail by bearing. They proposed a three-dimensional finite-ele-
ment analysis in which the delamination onset criterion is applied
at each interface. Binnur [8] used the scanning electron microscope
to examine damage in a PLCL. He concluded that failure of the
specimens takes the form of delamination between plies, fiber
buckling, and fiber and matrix fractures. Suemasu et al. [9] and
Postec et al. [5] also observed delamination between plies.
Most of the analytical methods developed to evaluate the bear-
ing strength of PLCL are based on two-dimensional models and lin-
ear elasticity. Generally, the complex functions method is used to
establish elastic solutions [10–13]. Nonlinear finite-element mod-
els use a progressive damage analysis [1,4,5,8–10,14]. Researchers
are still working on modelling inelastic phenomena for composite
laminates. A new methodology has recently been proposed by
Camanho and Lambert [15] to predict the onset of damage, final
failure, and the failure mode of mechanically fastened joints in
composite laminates. The transverse tensile and in-plane shear
strengths used in the model are higher than those measured on
unidirectional test specimens. These strengths are called the
‘in situ’ strengths.

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.11.002
1218 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 1217–1224

ey low the complete load/strain path [21] and is extended to the yield
h ey design for imperfectly plastic behaviour [22,23]. When physically
observed failure mechanisms are considered analytically, the
α
upper-bound approach yields a good prediction of the ultimate
E
failure load.
er
ex ex 2. The mechanical model
eθ
D
L The composite laminate is modelled as a multi-layer domain
with n anisotropic layers (Fig. 2). It is a cylindrical domain X of
R3, with a plane base x  R2 and n layers (or plies). Each layer is
W designed as a cylindrical domain Xi with a thickness ei. The overall
P
thickness is denoted by h ¼ ni¼1 ei . (ex, ey, ez) is an orthogonal basis
vector of X with (ex, ey) 2 x and X = x  [0, h]. The respective
Q
cylindrical domains for the different layers are denoted
hP i
i1 i Pi i
Fig. 1. A pin-loaded laminated composite.
Xi ¼ x  i¼1 e ; i¼1 e for the layers i 2 {2, . . . , n} and
X1 = x  [0, e1] for the layer 1. The interface between two adjacent
layers is represented by the surface Xi \ Xiþ1 . The displacement
In general, the final failure of a composite laminate structure oc- rate and stress fields are respectively denoted u _ and r, where an
curs at a load considerably higher than the load that causes the over single bar denotes a vector and a two over bars denote a sec-
first ply failure. Unless a damaged ply completely delaminates ond order tensor. The components of u _ ð
xÞ and rðxÞ for 
x 2 X are
from the rest of the laminate, it will still contribute to its strength. respectively denoted u_ a ð xÞ and rab ð xÞ with a, b 2 {x, y, z}. The strain
To predict the final failure load, the interface contribution to over-  
_ u_ a @ u_
rate is denoted eðe_ ab ðx; y; zÞ ¼ 12 @@b þ @ ab with a, b 2 {x, y, z}).
all strength has to be taken into account. A first approach proposed
by Talreja [16] introduced nonlinear behaviour at the interface be-
tween plies. A simplified multi-layer plate model to evaluate the 3. The upper bound theorem of limit analysis [21–24]
interfacial stresses responsible for delamination and interfacial
sliding has also been proposed, by Diaz Diaz et al. [17] and by Li- A displacement rate field u_ is said to be kinematically admissi-
mam et al. [18]. Tests done on carbon-epoxy laminates reveal plas- ble (KA) when it satisfies boundary conditions.
tic interface sliding before delamination [17]. Consider a virtual KA field. An upper bound of the applied load
This paper focuses mainly on estimating the final strength of a Q follows from
PLCL and to study the effects of the geometry and number of inter-
_ Þ 6 Pd ðu
Q  qðu _ Þ ð1Þ
faces on PLCL strength. A simplified analytical approach based on
the upper bound theorem of limit analysis is presented. Similar ap- where Q  qðu _ Þ is the external power delivered by the applied load Q,
proach has been applied to a free-edge composite laminate under _ Þ is the displacement rate associated to Q and Pd ðu
qðu _ Þ is the max-
unidirectional load [18]. First, a theoretical mechanical model for imum resisting work.
a multi-layer 3D domain is presented. The 3D domain is a cylindri- The conditions imposed by the strength capacities of the mate-
cal domain composed of n layers, assuming anisotropy and apply- rial define the elementary maximum resisting work (p function) as
ing a meso-failure criterion in each layer and interface. The upper _
a function of the value of e at the point  x in X:
bound theorem of limit analysis is applied by treating macro-fail- n o
ure mechanisms as a combination of meso-failure modes including pðx; eðxÞÞ ¼ Sup rðx : e_ ðxÞÞ=rðxÞ 2 GðxÞ ð2Þ
ply rupture and interface sliding. _
The limit analysis approach has also been used to predict the where rðx : eðxÞ ¼ rab ð
xÞe_ ba ðxÞ (summation on repeated subscripts)
ultimate strength of multi-layer beams and plates (in bending) 
and GðxÞ is the failure criterion at the point x.
[19,20] and of pin-loaded steel plates [6]. The limit analysis theo- When considering a discontinuous displacement rate, the jump
rem approximates the ultimate load capacity with no need to fol- of this displacement rate through a surface C is denoted

e i +1
h
ei

ez Ω i +1 (Pli i+1)
ey Ω i (Pli i)
Ω i ∩ Ω i +1 = ω
ex (Interface)

Fig. 2. A multi-layer domain with n anisotropic layers.

 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 1217–1224 1219

 
u_ ð
xÞ ¼ u _ ð _ ð
xþ Þ  u x Þ, where  xþ and 
x are two vectors in the 4.2. Failure criteria
open neighbourhood of x, with ð  xþ  x Þ  n
 ð
xÞ > 0 and
x  
ð xþ Þ  n
 ðxÞ < 0; n  ð
xÞ is a unit vector normal to C at  x. In this A simplified modified quadratic Tsai-Wu failure criterion
case, the elementary maximum resisting work (p function) is a describing a piecewise continuous surface in the stress space is
 
function of the value of u _ ð
xÞ at the point x in C: assumed in each ply (i). A local orthogonal system ðei1 ; ei2 Þ is de-
n o fined, where ei1 is in the fibre orientation direction and ei2 is in
  
pðx; u_ ðxÞ ; nðxÞÞ ¼ Sup _ ðxÞ  rðxÞ  n
u  ðxÞ=rðxÞ 2 GðxÞ ð3Þ the orthogonal direction. In ply i, the fibre orientation is denoted
by hi (Fig. 3).
In the local coordinate system ðei1 ; ei2 ; ez Þ, the stress field is de-
where rðxÞ  n xÞ ¼ rab ðxÞnb ðxÞ (summation on repeated subscripts).
 ð
noted ri ðriab ðx1 ; x2 ; zÞÞ; with a, b 2 {1, 2, 3}. In the domain Xi which
For any virtual displacement rate filed u _ the maximum resisting
represents ply (i), the piecewise continuous surface written in the
work is then expressed by:
local coordinate system is given by:
Z  Z
   2  2  2
Þ ¼
Pd ðu pðx; eðxÞÞdX þ pðx; u_ ðxÞ ; nðxÞÞdC ð4Þ ri11 ri22 ri12
X C þ þ ¼ 1 if ri11  0 and ri22  0 ð6Þ
Xt Yt S
In the case where all Gð
xÞ are convex it has been proved that the
 2  2  2
exact theoretical failure load can be reached applying (Eq. (1)) to ri11 rc22 ri12
all KA fields. þ þ ¼ 1 if ri11  0 and ri22  0 ð7Þ
Xc Yc S
When a KA field corresponds to a blocks rigid motion then e ¼ 0
 2  2  2
and the maximum resisting work becomes ri11 ri22 ri12
þ þ ¼ 1 if ri11  0 and ri22  0 ð8Þ
Z Xc Yt S
 
Þ ¼
Pd ðu pðx; u_ ðxÞ ; nðxÞÞdC 
ri11
2 
ri22
2 
ri12
2
C
þ þ ¼ 1 if ri11  0 and ri22  0 ð9Þ
Xt Yc S
The limit analysis theory has been extended by Salençon [22] to
the yield design for imperfectly plastic behaviour.
The longitudinal tensile and compressive strengths are denoted
In practice, if experimentally observed failure mechanisms are
Xt and Xc, respectively. The transverse tensile and compressive
treated as virtual KA fields, the upper-bound approach yields to a
strengths are denoted Yt and Yc respectively and the in-plane shear
good prediction of the ultimate failure load.
strength is denoted S. A correction factor to allow for the nonlinear
effect of shear on the failure surface and fibre breakage can also be
4. Application to a pin-loaded composite laminate
introduced on the failure criteria [25].
In the domain Xi \ Xi+1 representing the interface between ply
4.1. Geometry and boundary conditions
(i) and ply (i + 1), a limit criterion is considered on the inter-lami-
nar shear stress, as follows
Consider a rectangular fibre-composite laminated plate of
thickness h and width W with a hole of diameter D. The hole is jrxz j  s and jryz j  s ð10Þ
at a distance E from the free edge of the plate. The configuration
Between laminas, the inter-laminar shear strength is denoted s.
of a composite plate is shown in (Fig. 1). A y-direction tensile load
Q is applied at y = L. All plies have the same thickness, denoted e.
4.3. Failure mechanisms
The cylindrical hole is loaded by an infinitely rigid pin having
the same diameter (Fig. 1). A frictionless contact is considered.
4.3.1. Meso-failure modes in a given ply
Boundary conditions on the displacement rate are then given by:
In a given ply (i) rigid block meso-failure mechanisms are as-
sumed. In these mechanisms, Xi is divided into two rigid zones:
_ ðxÞ  er ðaÞ ¼ 0
u
a static zone denoted by X i and a moving zone denoted by Xi .
þ
h p pi D D
for a 2  ; and x ¼  cos aex þ  sin aey þ zez The upper half of the cylindrical hole opposed by the pin remains
2 2 2 2 in frictionless contact with Xi and verifies the KA boundary condi-
with z 2 ½0; h ð5Þ tion (Eq. (5)). An example is given in Fig. 4.
A displacement rate associated with the applied load Q is im-
where a is the angle between ey and er defined in (Fig. 1). posed at y = L to all rigid zones Xþ i with i 2 {1, . . . , n}. This is a
y-direction displacement rate, denoted as follows:

ez _ Þ ¼ A  ey
qðu ð11Þ
where A is an arbitrary parameter.
The KA displacement rate field written in the basis vector (ex,
ey, eZ) is then given by
 in X and u
_ ¼ 0
u _ ¼ A  ey in Xþi for all i 2 f1; . . . ; ng ð12Þ
ey i

The displacement rate discontinuity through the surface X \ X

i
þ
i

θi  i is given by the jump

having normal vector n
e i2  
_ ¼ A  ey
u ð13Þ
ex
When plies fail, ply i slides over ply i + 1, leading to delamination.
e1i The corresponding inter-laminar displacement rate discontinuity,
through the interface Xi \ Xi+1 within the normal vector ez, is given
Fig. 3. A local orthogonal coordinate system for each ply i. by the different jumps
1220 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 1217–1224

Meso-mode 1 Meso-mode 2
i
e 2

u=0 e 1i
Ωi− u.e r = 0

Ωi−

Ωi+ u = Ae y
Ωi+
u = Ae y

ey Fibre
Orientation
−
ex Discontinuity surface Ω i ∩ Ω i+

Fig. 4. Two typical failure meso-modes in a given ply i.

 
_ ¼ Aey between Xþiþ1 and Xi
u ð14Þ sumed in the neighbourhood and close to the upper half of the
  cylindrical hole.
u  between Xþ and Xþ
_ ¼ 0 ð15Þ
iþ1 i
 
u  between X and X
_ ¼ 0 ð16Þ
iþ1 i
 
_ ¼ Aey between X and Xþ
u iþ1 i ð17Þ
Thus the delamination zone between Xi and Xi+1 is given by
ðXþ   þ
iþ1 \ Xi Þ [ ðXiþ1 \ Xi Þ. ⎡0 ⎤
Theoretically, the number of meso-failure modes that can be [u] = ⎢⎢A⎥⎥
considered is infinite. ⎣⎢0 ⎦⎥
In the present simple kinematical approach, for each ply two
typical meso-failure modes are considered (Fig. 4). The two
meso-failure modes chosen are denoted meso-modes 1 and 2.

4.3.1.1. Meso-failure mode 1 (in a given ply). This ply failure mode,
⎡0 ⎤
defined in Fig. 4, leads to a discontinuity surface X þ
i \ Xi parallel
to the fibre direction. This mode corresponds physically to net sec-
[[u ]]= ⎢⎢0⎥⎥ Delamination
⎣⎢0⎦⎥ Zone
tion tension (or/and) shear of a given ply (i). In the particular case
of (0°) ply orientation, meso-failure mode 1 is presented in Fig. 5.

Q
4.3.1.2. Meso-failure mode 2 (in a given ply). This ply failure mode
corresponds physically to rupture under local compression (bear- Fig. 6. Example of displacement rate field at the interface between (0°) ply (meso-
ing). It is defined in Fig. 4. To model this ply failure mode, X
i is as-
mode 1) and (90°) ply (meso-mode 1).

θ = 0° θ = 90°
Ply i Ply i+1

⎡0 ⎤
⎡0 ⎤ Ω − u = ⎢⎢0⎥⎥
Ωi−+1
u = ⎢⎢0⎥⎥
i
⎣⎢0⎦⎥
⎢⎣0⎥⎦

Ωi+
Ωi++1
⎡0 ⎤
⎡0 ⎤ u = ⎢⎢A ⎥⎥
u = ⎢⎢A ⎥⎥ ⎢⎣0 ⎥⎦
⎣⎢0 ⎦⎥ ey
Q Fibre orientation Q
ex

Fig. 5. Displacement rate field in (0°) ply (meso-mode 1) and (90°) ply (meso-mode 1).
 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 1217–1224 1221

4.3.1.3. Delamination between tow successive plies. Fig. 6 presents a By using Eq. (3) and writing vectors in the coordinate system
first example of the delamination zone (ðXþ   þ
iþ1 \ Xi Þ [ ðXiþ1 \ Xi Þ), ðei1 ; ei2 Þ, Eq. (21) becomes
between two successive (0°) and (90°) plies failing in meso-mode
 !
! !
X cos hi ri11 ri12 0
1. The surface area of delamination is (W  D)  (E). Qþ ¼ Supr 2G   ðXi \ Xþi Þ
Another example of the delamination zone between a (45°) ply i2E1
sin hi ri12 ri22 1

 !
!
(meso-mode 1) and a (45°) ply (meso-mode 1) having a surface XZ p
2 cos hi ri11 ri12 cosða  hi Þ
area 2  ðWDÞ
2
 ðWDÞ
2
is presented in Fig. 7. þ Supr 2G  
i2E2 p2 sin hi ri12 ri22 sinða  hi Þ
4.3.2. Macro-failure mechanisms  Xn1
D i
The KA displacement rate field representing the macro-failure  e da þ ððXi \ Xþiþ1 Þ [ ðXþi \ Xiþ1 ÞÞs ð22Þ
2 i¼1
mechanism results from a combination of various meso-failure
Rp Rp
modes in each layer of the multilayered medium. with 2 p j cosða  hi Þjda ¼ 2 p j sinða  hi Þjda ¼ 2.
2 2
Applying the upper bound theorem of limit analysis, an upper Considering failure criteria (Eqs. (6)–(9)), (Eq. (22)) becomes
bound of the final failure load Q+ of the pin-loaded laminate is ob- !
X  
tained and given by: Qþ ¼ Sup ri cos hi ri12 þ sin hi ri22 Xi \ Xþi
ri
Z ð 22 Þ2 þð 12 Þ2 61
þ   i2E1 Yt S
_ Þ ¼
Q  A ¼ P d ðu pðx; u_ ðxÞ ; nðxÞdC ð18Þ 0
C X 
þ @Sup  2  i 2 ri11 cos hi þ ri12 sin hi
ri ri r
where the total surface of displacement rate discontinuities in plies i2E2 ð X11 Þþ Y22 þ 12 61
c c S
and interfaces is given by 1
 
 i
þr cos hi þ r sin hi De i iA
C¼ [ Xi \ Xi þ
12 22
i2½1;...;n
 
  X
n1
 
[ [ Xþiþ1 \ Xi [ Xiþ1 \ Xþi ð19Þ þ Xi \ Xþiþ1 [ Xþi \ Xiþ1 s ð23Þ
i2½1;...;n1
i¼1

XZ  The upper-bound approach becomes a minimization problem.

Qþ ¼ p x; cos hi ei1 þ sin hi ei2 ; ei2 dC
i2E1 ðX
i
\Xþ
i
Þ There are N = 2n possible values of failure load Q+ corresponding
XZ  to N different KA fields or macro-failure mechanisms arising from
þ p x; cos hi ei1 þ sin hi ei2 ; er dC the combination of meso-failure modes.
ðX \Xþ Þ
i2E2 i i The number of macro-failure mechanisms can be reduced by
X
n1
 assuming the same failure mode for plies having the same
þ Xi \ Xþiþ1 [ ðXþi \ Xiþ1 Þ s ð20Þ orientation.
i¼1

where E1  f1; . . . ; ng and E2 ¼ 1; . . . ; n n E1 are the sets of subscripts 5. Application and comparison with experimental results
of plies failing in the first and second meso-modes, respectively.
The second meso-mode assumes that X þ
i \ Xi tends in limit to The present analysis is compared with available experimental
the upper half of the cylindrical hole. Writing tensors in the local data for composite pinned joints, made of a [(45/0/45/0/90/0/
orthogonal coordinate system ðei1 ; ei2 Þ, the upper bound of the final 45/0/45/0)2]s AS4/3501-6 graphite/epoxy laminate with steel
failure load is then given by: pins, tested by Lessard et al. [26]. The strengths of AS4/3501-6 lam-
X   inates are given in Table 1. The calculated strength of a pin-loaded
Qþ ¼ p x; cos hi ei1 þ sin hi ei2 ; ei2  Xi \ Xþi
i2E1
laminate is defined as follows:
XZ p
2  D r¼
Q
ð24Þ
þ p x; cos hi ei1 þ sin hi ei2 ; er ei da hD
i2E2 p2 2
where Q is the failure load.
X
n1
  þ
 þ 
The experimental results of Ref. [26] are summarized in Tables
þ X \X i iþ1 [ X \X
i iþ1 s ð21Þ
2 and 3. The diameter, length, and thickness of the plate are
i¼1
D = 6.35 mm, L = 15.24 mm, and h = 5.84 mm, respectively.
⎡0 ⎤ Consider only three typical macro-failure mechanisms, defined
[[u ]]= ⎢⎢0⎥⎥ as follows:
⎣⎢0⎦⎥
Macro-mechanism 1: All plies fail in meso-mode 1.
Macro-mechanism 2: All plies fail in meso-mode 2.
⎡0 ⎤
[[u ]]= ⎢⎢A⎥⎥ Macro-mechanism 3: (0°) plies fail in meso-mode 1 and (45°),
(45°) and (90°) plies fail in meso-mode 2.
⎢⎣0 ⎥⎦

The respective failure loads (Eq. (23)) are given by:

⎡0 ⎤ Q þ1 ¼ 40EeS þ 4ðW  DÞeY t

[[ ]]
u = ⎢⎢0⎥⎥
 
W D

W D
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
⎣⎢0⎦⎥ Delamination þ 16 min ;E þ e Y 2t þ S2 þ 30sD
2 2
Zone
þ 8ðW  DÞEs ð25Þ
 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
16
Fig. 7. Example of displacement rate field at the interface between (+45°) (mode 1) Q þ2 ¼ De 20 X 2c þ S2 þ 4 Y 2c þ S2 þ pffiffiffi X 2c þ 4S2 þ Y 2c ð26Þ
and (45°) (mode 1) plies. 2
1222 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 1217–1224

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
16 Consider macro-mechanism 1 and macro-mechanism 2. The
Q þ3 ¼ 40EeS þ pffiffiffi X 2c þ 4S2 þ Y 2c De þ 4 Y 2c þ S2 De
2 respective failure loads for ( þ 45) laminates (Eq. (23)) are as
! follows:
D2
þ 38 DE  p s ð27Þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
8 ðW  DÞ2
Q þ1 ¼ 8ðW  DÞe Y 2t þ S2 þ N0 s ð29Þ
 2
where e is the ply thickness and D is the delamination surface be- qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
8
tween a (0°) ply and a (45°) ply failing in meso-mode 1, given by: Q þ2 ¼ De pffiffiffi X 2c þ 4S2 þ Y 2c ð30Þ
2
ðW  DÞ
D ¼ ðW  DÞE if E P and
2
2 2
2000
ðW  DÞ ðW  DÞ E ðW  DÞ Maco-mechanism 2
D¼ Eþ þ ifE 6 ð28Þ 1800
2 8 2 2 Macro-mechanism 3
1600
Figs. 8 and 9 give the strengths predicted by the three macro-failure Macro-mechanism 1

Strength (MPa)
1400
mechanisms with varying E/D and W/D ratios, respectively. The
present model predicts that the strength of a pin-loaded laminate 1200
decreases as the E/D and W/D ratios decrease. The first macro-fail- 1000
ure mechanism gives the minimum strength when these ratios 800
are small, while the second and third macro-failure mechanisms
600
give the minimum strength when these ratios are higher.
400
Figs. 10 and 11 compare theoretical and experimental strengths
with varying E/D and W/D ratios, respectively. The theoretical and 200
experimental results are in accordance if it is assumed that the 0
shear strength at the delaminated interface is about s ¼ 1:5 MPa. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In order to study the influence of the number of interfaces, the E/D
present analysis is also compared with available experimental data
for composite riveted joints tested by Postec et al. [5]. Composite Fig. 8. Theoretical strengths with varying E/D ratio (W/D = 4).

joints are made from ½þ452 =  452 s ; ½ð þ 45Þs 2 , ½ð þ 45Þ2 s ,
½902 =02 s ; ½ð90=0Þs 2 and [(90/0)2]s glass/epoxy laminates having
respectively two, four, six, two, four and six interfaces. The term 2500
‘‘interface’’ must here be understood as the separation between Macro-mechanism 2
two differently oriented plies. The strengths of the unidirectional 2000 Macro-mechanism 3
laminate studied are given in Table 1. Specimens have a fixed
Macro-mechanism 1
Strength (MPa)

thickness h = 5.3 mm, a diameter D = 6 mm and fixed ratios E/

D = W/D = 6. The fixtures and composite coupons are in contact 1500
through two cylindrical shoulders directly machined on the fix-
tures (diameter Ds = 13 mm). 1000

500

Table 1
Strengths of laminates. 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Laminates Xt (GPa) Xc (GPa) Yt (GPa) Yc (GPa) S (GPa)
AS4/3501-6 1.86 1.48 0.05 0.21 0.06
W/D
Glass/epoxy 1.317 0.729 0.05 0.163 0.05
Fig. 9. Theoretical strengths with varying W/D ratios (E/D = 5).

Table 2
Experimental bearing strengths and failure modes for pin-loaded AS4/3501-6 [(45/0/45/0/90/0/45/0/45/0)2]s laminates with varying W/D ratios.

Joint type W (mm) W/D E (mm) E/D Bearing strength (MPa) Experimental maco-failure mode
Lj1 12.7 2 31.75 5 680 Tension
Lj2 19.05 3 31.75 5 945 Bearing
Lj3 25.4 4 31.75 5 986 Bearing
Lj4 31.75 5 31.75 5 976 Bearing

Table 3
Experimental bearing strengths and failure modes for pin-loaded AS4/3501-6 [(45/0/45/0/90/0/45/0/45/0)2]s laminates with varying E/D ratios.

Joint type W (mm) W/D E (mm) E/D Bearing strength (MPa) Experimental macro-failure mode
Lj5 25.4 4 6.35 1 320 Shear
Lj6 25.4 4 9.525 1,5 600 Shear
Lj7 25.4 4 12.7 2 802 B/s
Lj8 25.4 4 19.05 3 900 Bearing
Lj9 25.4 4 25.4 4 990 Bearing
Lj10 25.4 4 107.95 5 980 –
 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 1217–1224 1223

1200 850

1000 750
Strength (MPa)

800

Strength (MPa)
650

600
550

400
The. 450
Macro-mechanism 1
200 Exp.
350 Exp.

0 Macro-mechanism 2
0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 250
0 2 4 6 8
E/D
Number of interfaces
Fig. 10. Comparison between theoretical and experimental results with varying E/D
ratio (W/D = 4). Fig. 12. Comparison of theoretical and experimental results with number of
interfaces: ð 45Þ laminates.
1100
1000
950
900
Strength (MPa)

800 850
700

Strength (MPa)
750
600
500 Exp.
650
400 The.

300 550
Macro-mechanism 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
Macro-mechanism 2
W/D 450
Exp.
Fig. 11. Comparison between theoretical and experimental results with varying W/ 350
D ratio (E/D = 5). 0 2 4 6 8
Number of interfaces
The respective failure loads for (90/0) laminates (Eq. (23)) are:
Fig. 13. Comparison of theoretical and experimental results with number of
Q þ1 ¼ 4ðW  DÞeY t þ 8EeS þ N0 ðW  DÞEs ð31Þ interfaces: (0/90) laminates.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Q þ2 ¼ 4De X c þ S2 þ 4De Y 2c þ S2 ð32Þ
Macro-failure mechanism 1 predominates as the W/D and E/D
where N0 is the number of interfaces. ratios decrease, while macro-failure mechanisms 2 and 3 predom-
In order to take into account the clamping pressure, the maxi- inate as these ratios increase.
mum resisting work due to friction is introduced. Assuming a Cou- Macro-failure mechanism 1 predominates as the number of
lomb friction in the clamping surface (Eqs. (29)–(32)) become: interfaces decreases, while macro-failure mechanism 2 predomi-
Dc nates as the number of interfaces increases.
Q þc þ
1 ¼ Q1 þ p tan Uc ð33Þ Firstly, the present analysis is compared with available experi-
2 c
Q þc þ
¼ Q 2 þ Dc pc tan Uc ð34Þ mental data for composite pinned joints with varying E/D and
2
W/D ratios. The limit analysis approach can correctly predict the
where pc, Uc and Dc and are respectively clamping pressure, the an- experimental strength of a PLCL by proposing a practical and
2 2
gle of friction and the clamping surface given by Dc ¼ pDs 2 pD . simple analytical expression.
Figs. 12 and 13 compare the experimental and theoretical re- Secondly, the present analysis is compared with available
sults (Eqs. (33) and (34)) assuming s = 1.5 MPa, pc = 67 MPa and experimental data for riveted joints with varying the number of
Uc = 30°. The present approach predicts increasing strength as interfaces. In order to take into account the clamping pressure in
the number of interfaces increases. riveted joints, the maximum resisting work due to friction is intro-
duced. The present analysis can predict increasing strength as the
6. Conclusion number of interfaces increases.

A simplified model based on the upper bound theorem of limit Acknowledgements

analysis and using a three dimensional model is proposed to
estimate final failure loads of a PLCL. Two meso-failure modes
are assumed at the level of a given ply. Meso-mode 1 corresponds
to in-plane (tension (and /or) shear) failure and meso-mode 2
describes a local compression (bearing). The boundary conditions
are those of frictionless contact between the cylindrical hole and
the composite laminates.
The macro-failure mechanisms results from a combination of
various meso-failure modes in each ply including delamination.
The authors thank professors Coutellier D and Whitworth HA
for providing details of experimental results.
References
[1] Wang HS, Hung CL, Chang FK. Bearing failure of bolted composite joints. Part I:
experimental characterisation. J Compos Mater 1996(30):1284–313.
[2] Collings TA. The strength of bolted joints in multi-directional CFRP laminates.
Composites 1977(8):43–54.
1224 O. Limam et al. / Composite Structures 93 (2011) 1217–1224
[3] Camanho PP, Matthews FL. Stress analysis and strength prediction of
mechanically fastened joints in FRP: a review. Composites Part A
1997;28(A):529–47.
[4] Okutan B, Karakuzu R. The strength of pinned joints in laminated composites.
Compos Sci Technol 2003;63(6):893–905.
[5] Postec M, Deletombe E, Delsart D, Coutellier D. Study of the influence of the
number of inter-ply interfaces on the bearing rupture of riveted composite
assemblies. Compos Struct 2008;84:99–113.
[6] Aceti R, Ballio G, Capsoni A, Corradi L. A limit analysis study to interpret the
ultimate behaviour of bolted joints. J Construct Steel Res 2004;60:1333–51.
[7] Camanho P, Matthews F L. Delamination onset prediction in mechanically
fastened joints in composite laminates. J Compos Mater 1999; 33(10):
906–27.
[8] Binnur Gören Kiral. Effect of the clearance and interference-fit on failure of the
pin-loaded composites. Mater Des 2010;31:85–93.
[9] Suemasu H, Takahashi H, Ishikawa T. On failure mechanisms of composite
laminates with an open hole subjected to compressive load. Compos Sci
Technol 2006;66:634–41.
[10] Nanda Kishore A, Malhotra SK, Siva Prasad NF. Failure analysis of multi-pin
joints in glass fibre/epoxy composite laminates. Compos Struct 2009;91(3):
266–77.
[11] Echavarrıa C, Haller P, Salenikovich A. Analytical study of a pin-loaded hole in
elastic orthotropic plates. Compos Struct 2007;79:107–12.
[12] Aluko O, Whitworth HA. Analysis of stress distribution around pin loaded
holes in orthotropic plates. Compos Struct 2008;86(4):308–13.
[13] Zhang K, Ueng C. Stresses around a pin-loaded hole in orthotropic plates with
arbitrary loading direction. Compos Struct 1985;3:119–43.
[14] Dano ML, Gendron G, Picard A. Stress and failure analysis of mechanically
fastened joint in composite laminates. Compos Struct 2000;50:287–96.
[15] Camanho PP, Lambert M. A design methodology for mechanically fastened
joints in laminated composite materials. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66:
3004–20.
[16] Talreja R. A damage mechanics analysis of interlaminar cracking in
composites. Key Eng Mater 1989;37:21–34.
[17] Diaz Diaz A, Caron JF. Interface plasticity and delamination onset prediction.
Mech Mater 2006;38(7):648–63.
[18] Limam O, Foret G, Ehrlacher A. Ultimate strength of free-edge composite
laminates under tensile loading: a limit analysis approach. Composites Part B
2006;37:286–91.
[19] Limam O, Foret G, Ehrlacher A. RC two-way slabs strengthened with CFRP
strips: experimental study and a limit analysis approach. Compos Struct
2003;60:467–71.
[20] Dallot J, Sab K, Foret G. Limit analysis of periodic beams. Eur J Mech – A/Solids
2009;28(1):166–78.
[21] Johansen KW. Yield line theory. London: Cement and Concrete Association;
1962.
[22] Salençon J. An introduction to the yield design theory and its applications to
soil mechanics. Eur J Mech A/Solids 1999;9(5):477–500.
[23] Frémond M, Friaà A. Analyse limite, comparaison des méthodes statique et
cinématique. CR Acad Sci 1978;286:107–10.
[24] Friâa A, Zenzri H. Mécanique des Milieux continus: Modélisation des
comportements non linéaires et Calcul des structures Anélastiques,
Polycopié de cours : Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis, 1998.
[25] Belingardi G, Gugliotta A, Vadori R. Numerical simulation of fragmentation of
composite material plates due to impact. Int J Impact Eng 1998;21(5):335–47.
[26] Lessard LB, Poon C, Fahr A. Composite pinned joint failure modes under
progressive damage. In: 5th European conference on composite materials,
Bordeaux, 1992. p. 49–54.