Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110893

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Pull-off tests of CFRP T-joints with conventional and 3D reinforced fillets T

⁎
Tomas Ekermann, Stefan Hallström
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Dept. of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, Teknikringen 8, SE 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A study of T-joints made of CFRP prepreg is presented where the joints contain either conventional uni-direc-
3D weave tional (UD) fillets or fillets with three-dimensional (3D) woven reinforcement in the joint cavity. Both pristine
3D textile and impacted specimens are tested experimentally in a pull-off load case. The T-joints with UD fillets are
Damage tolerance stronger but also show greater spread in strength than T-joints with 3D fillets. The higher strength is attributed to
Impact damage
the UD fillets’ ability to deform transversely to their length direction and efficiently adapt to the T-joint cavity
Thermal contraction
Residual stress
before curing. The 3D fillets do not admit the same level of transverse shape adaptability and if their cross
sections do not fit the geometry of the T-joint cavity sufficiently well, local stress concentrations could emerge
that reduce the strength of the T-joint. The UD fillets on the other hand are believed to be sensitive to manu-
facturing flaws causing the greater spread in strength. That in turn is attributed to a lack of crack-arresting
capability in the UD fillet. The 3D fillets however have excellent crack-arresting properties due to their multi-
directional fibre architecture. With a few exceptions the impact damages did not significantly affect the strength
of the T-joints tested in this study.

1. Introduction
When joining two composite laminates, perpendicular to each other,
a T-joint is formed (see Fig. 1). In the studied case, T-joints are built by
attaching a laminate (here called a web) perpendicular to another (here
called a skin) by letting the web split into two equally thick flanges
forming a double sided L, where the two flanges are attached to the
skin. Since the splitting is done with a certain curvature, a cavity is
created at the root of the web, between the web, the flanges and the
skin. That cavity is commonly filled with some added material during
manufacturing, referred to in the literature as an insert, deltoid, noodle,
filler or fillet, and in the following called a fillet. In the aerospace in-
dustry, the fillet often consists of a uni-directional (UD) prepreg lamina
that (in its B-staged condition) is rolled transversely to its fibre or-
ientation into a noodle-like shape and pre-formed under pressure to fit
the T-joint cavity. The pre-formed fillet is then assembled with the web
and skin, with its fibres aligned along the fillet cavity, and co-cured
with the rest of the T-joint.
In cases where the T-joint is subjected to an external tensile force
along the web (pull-off load), the load is transferred from the web to the
skin, partly through the fillet area, the matrix layers surrounding the
fillet and the matrix layers between the flanges and the skin. Since there
are no continuous fibres connecting the web and the skin, the joint
between them is rather weak, compared to the in-plane strength of the
laminates. This connection is primarily loaded in the plane of the tensile
force, which is where the fillet is positioned. Therefore failure of the T-
joint in most cases initiates in the fillet region, particularly in the in-
terface between the fillet and the curved part of the flanges [1,2].
Studies also show that failure could start in the curved part of the web
for specific stacking sequences [2,3].
Several attempts have been made to improve the strength of T-
joints. There are two comprehensive reviews provided by Trask et al.,
and more recently by Sápi et al., that summarise the current status of
research in this area [2,4]. The geometry of T-joints has proven to have
a large effect on their strength [1,2,5–7]. Rispler et al. [5] and Cope and
Pipes [1] showed an increased strength for T-joints with increased
flange radius. This was also supported by Kumari and Sinha [6] but
they also concluded that a smaller radius is favourable since it decreases
the fillet area. Hence an optimal radius, for each T-joint geometry,
could be found to maximise its strength. Trask et al. [2] studied the
influence of fillet filling ratio, and the effect it has on the T-joint geo-
metry and on the strength. It was shown that the filling ratio of the fillet
affects both the strength and the failure process in the T-joint.
The effect of using different fillet materials has also been studied
[5,8,9]. Rispler et al. [5] tested T-joints without a fillet, with a con-
ventional UD fillet and a UD fillet wrapped with a layer of UD fibres,
transverse to the fillet extension. They showed that the fillet itself has a
negative influence on the T-joint strength for T-joints with thin webs

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: stefanha@kth.se (S. Hallström).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.110893
Received 9 January 2019; Received in revised form 15 April 2019; Accepted 22 April 2019
Available online 26 April 2019
0263-8223/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Ekermann and S. Hallström Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110893

Fig. 1. Specimen used in pull-off tests. Left: A sketch showing parts and dimensions in mm. The dashed line shows were the specimens were cut after testing. The
holes indicate where the bolts are positioned to fix the specimen in the test rig. Right: A specimen fixed in the test rig.

(< 10 mm), which was motivated by the fillets introducing geometric
imperfections to the flanges. That effect was shown to decrease for
increased flange radius and increased flange thickness. For thicker
flanges (> 10 mm) that effect vanished and it was then shown that
using a fillet was beneficial. The UD fillet transversely wrapped with
UD-fibres was then shown to have 22% higher strength than the con-
ventional UD fillet. Cui [9] did a parametric study with a finite element
(FE) model of a T-joint subjected to a pull-off load case. He studied how
the stiffness of the fillet and the radius of the flange affected the T-joint
strength and showed that an increased flange radius increases the
strength, but not for fillets with low stiffness. He concluded that the
stiffness of the fillet should be matched to the flange radius.
An issue that appears to have received little attention in the lit-
erature is thermal shrinkage and residual stresses. After curing, com-
posite T-joints are typically cooled down which causes thermal con-
traction. If the T-joint would be isotropic and unconstrained, this
contraction would be uniform in the whole T-joint, but since the
thermal contraction is anisotropic and the material orientations vary
within the T-joint, the contraction varies spatially and in different or-
ientations. There are also typically constraints from moulds used in the
manufacturing. This mismatch could create residual tensile stresses in
the fillet and the critical flange/fillet interface, which in turn could
lower the strength of the T-joint.
Three-dimensionally (3D) reinforced composites contain fibres or-
iented in (more or less) three orthogonal directions, thereby lacking the
weaker transverse direction, which is characteristic for laminated
composites. Compared to laminated (2D) composites, the 3D fibre or-
ientation generates a higher stiffness and strength in the third direction
and also inhibits thermal expansion (or shrinkage) in that direction.
Consequently, 3D reinforcement could increase the strength of the
cured fillet. Li et al. [10] state that 3D reinforcement in fillets, ac-
complished by 3D braids, increased the failure initiation load of T-joints
by 36% compared to UD fillets, with reference to a work that is not
publicly available (and thus not very useful as a reference). This in-
crease was attributed to the 3D fillets remaining intact during loading
due to their high transverse strength, high multi-directional loading
capacity and high damage tolerance. Given the above, 3D reinforced
fillets seem promising, which motivates further research in this area.
On these grounds, a pilot study was performed where T-joints with
fillets containing 3D-woven reinforcement were tested and compared to
T-joints with conventional UD fillets. The specimens with 3D-reinforced
fillets did not perform better than corresponding reference specimens
with conventional (UD) fillets but they showed remarkably low spread
compared to the ones with UD fillets. Since the results were considered
promising a more extensive test series was initiated, which is presented
in this paper.
In this study different 3D woven fillet pre-forms are produced and
used in T-joints made of prepreg laminates. 3D fillets with mainly
horizontal, vertical or both horizontal and vertical weft are produced to
investigate the influence of various directional properties on the T-joint
strength. T-joints with conventional UD fillets are also manufactured for
reference tests. The different T-joints are loaded in pull-off tests to
compare their out-of-plane strength. The results are discussed and some
conclusions are presented, partly also supported by the results from the
pilot study, although the specimen configurations differed slightly be-
tween the two series. Since the pilot study plays a role here and has not
been published elsewhere it is also briefly included in the presentation.
2. Test set-up
A total of 24 T-joint specimens, having the dimensions shown in
Fig. 1, are manufactured and tested. They consist of three different
parts; a web, a skin and a fillet; co-cured into T-sections. Prior to
testing, 11 of the specimens are impacted in the middle of the skin,
right under the root of the web, with a semi-spherical impactor of
15 mm diameter and an impact energy of 90 J, causing delaminations in
the skin. During the impact the specimens are clamped in the web. The
damage of the impact is studied with ultra-sonic inspection from which
the delaminated areas are measured. Delaminations in the skin reduce
its bending stiffness, causing the skin laminate to deflect more when
loaded. The purpose of impacting some of the specimens is to in-
vestigate the damage tolerance of the T-joints.
The specimens are tested in an Instron 4505 universal test machine
and the load is measured with a 100 kN load cell. The skin is clamped
under two steel plates, fixed to the test machine’s cross-head with two
bolts each (Fig. 1). During testing, the cross-head is displaced at a
constant speed of 2 mm/min until final failure. Images of one of the
cross sections of the T-joints are recorded at 0.5 Hz, using a GOM
Aramis 5 M Rev. 02 Digital Image Correlation (DIC) system, for sub-
sequent visualisation and analysis of the displacement and strain fields
on the monitored surfaces.
3. Material
The web and skin are made of stacked carbon fibre/epoxy prepreg
laminas (HexPly 6376 resin system with Toho Tenax HTS fibres) with
the layup presented in Table 1, where the 90°-ply orientation coincides
with the global x-direction, i.e. being parallel with the extension of the
T-joint. The thickness of each lamina is 0.13 mm. The web has a quasi-
isotropic layup and the skin has a 0°-dominated layup. In this study
specimens with six different fillet types are tested. All fillet types are
presented in Table 2, showing one reference UD fillet and five different

2
T. Ekermann and S. Hallström Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110893

Table 1 structure, a model of a 3D fillet is shown in Fig. 2. The differences

Layup of the laminates in the pull-off test specimens. among the 3D fillets is that one has mainly horizontal weft (fillet type
Part Layup 3Dh), one has mainly vertical weft (fillet type 3Dv) and one has both
vertical and horizontal weft (fillet type 3Dhv). As default, 12 k yarns are
Skin [90/0/0/0/0/45/−45/0/0/0/0/90/0/0/ used in the warp and 6 k yarns are used in the weft. Additionally, 12 k
45/−45/0/0/90/45/−45/90/45/−45]s2
weft yarns are used in fillet type 3Dh12k for comparison. Fillet type
Web [0/0/90/90/−45/−45/−45/45/45/45/90/0/0/0/0/90/45/
3Dhv is also woven with stuffer yarns, placed in parallel with the warp
45/45/−45/45/90/90/−45/45/90/90/45/45/−45/−45/−45/ yarns, but then pulled out after weaving, creating a looser and more
90/0/0/0/0/90/−45/−45/−45/45/45/45/90/90/0/0] formable fillet, in the following called fillet type 3Dhvs (Fig. 2). The
weave patterns and yarn sizes come from compromises between making
the fillet fit the T-joint cavity and keeping the manufacturing effort
Table 2 reasonably simple.
Properties of the fillets. In the weaving pattern blue yarns are warp, red are The fillet type UD is manufactured according to aerospace industry
horizontal weft and green are vertical weft. For fillet type 3Dhvs the yellow
practice while the 3D fillet types are woven to their final cross-section
circles indicate where stuffer yarns were positioned, prior to removal.
shapes and pre-impregnated with the same epoxy resin that is used in
Fillet type Yarn size Specimens the prepreg laminates. A custom-built pultrusion machine is used to
(impacted)
pre-impregnate the 3D fillets with resin. The 3D fillet preforms are
Weaving pattern Warp H-weft V-weft wm
weighed before and after pre-impregnation, and the matrix weight
fraction wm , is derived as
UD – – – – 2 (2) –
3Dh 12 k 6k 6k 2 (2) 0.36 wm = (Wi − Wf )/ Wi , (1)

where Wi is the weight of the pre-impregnated preform and Wf is the

3Dv6k 12 k 6k 6k 3 (0) 0.44
weight of the dry fibre preform. wm is presented for all 3D fillet types in
3Dv12k 12 k 12 k 12 k 2 (3) 0.45
Table 2, where it is seen that fillet types 3Dh and 3Dhv have lower and
fillet type 3Dhvs has higher matrix weight fraction than the other
3Dhv 12 k 6k 6k 2 (2) 0.37 preforms. The sparser weave in fillet type 3Dhvs facilitates more matrix
in the preform while the lower content of matrix in fillet types 3Dh and
3Dhvs 12 k 6k 6k 2 (2) 0.50 3Dhv is assumed to come from the yarns not being fully impregnated
(explained and discussed further in Section 5). After pre-impregnation,
the fillets are assembled with skins and webs and co-cured in an au-
toclave at 180°C.
types of 3D-reinforced fillets. The carbon fibre preforms in the 3D fillets
are manufactured using a “true” 3D weaving process developed by
Khokar [11], where a grid of warp yarns is fully interlaced with both 4. Pilot study
horizontal and vertical weft yarns. For visualisation of the weave
A pilot test series on T-joints with 3D-reinforced and UD fillets was

Fig. 2. A model of the fillet type 3Dhv made with the textile pre-processor TexGen [12] for visualisation of the yarn architecture. Blue yarns are warp, red are
horizontal weft and green are vertical weft. The upper right view also shows the position of the stuffer yarns in fillet type 3Dhvs.

3
T. Ekermann and S. Hallström
Fig. 3. Load-displacement curves for all specimens from the tests. Solid lines represent the unimpacted specimens while dashed lines represent the impacted
specimens.
conducted prior to this investigation. Four specimens of each config-
uration were tested. The specimen dimensions, manufacturing and load
case were very similar to the ones presented in this work but with some
minor differences; the specimens had slightly different layup of the skin
laminate and there was a layer of adhesive film in between the fillet and
the surrounding laminates. A full description of the pilot series is
however not considered motivated in this presentation since the results
are only presented to give further statistical support to some of the
findings in this work, since some trends are very consistent for the two
series.
5. Results and discussion
The load-displacement curves from the tests are presented in Fig. 3.
The general response of all specimens can be described by the following
sequence:
1. An initial increase in slope of the load-displacement curve leading to
a virtually constant (linear) regime,
2. At a cross-head displacement of 0.7–0.8 mm and a load of 12–20 kN
the load levels out and only the displacement increases,
3. After about 0.3 mm further displacement, the load picks up again
and continues to increase, virtually at the same rate as in the first
linear regime. A second linear regime continues until final failure
happens abruptly.
The plateaus in the curves (regime 2) are believed to come from
slippage during the tests. The load in the z-direction is at first (regime 1)
transferred from the upper fixture into the specimen’s web through
friction, generated by the tightened bolts. In regime 2 the external load
reaches a level where the friction forces are exceeded. The bolts have
some play in the holes of the web, allowing for some displacement due
to slippage at virtually constant external load, until contact is obtained
between the bolt and the hole edge of the web. In regime 3 the load is
recovering, now primarily transferred to the web by the bolts.
The failure load from the tests is presented in Table 3. The un-im-
pacted specimens with fillet type UD show considerably higher average
failure load (37–60%), than those with 3D fillets, but the spread is also
considerably higher. Although it is not justified to use standard devia-
tions for the limited number of specimens in the test series, such
measures are 6–50 times higher in the UD case than for specimens with
4
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110893
Table 3
Failure loads of the specimens divided into fillet types.
Fillet type Failure load [kN]
Not impacted Impacted
UD 55.12, 37.02 38.72, 17.04
3Dh 27.18, 30.14 31.67, 29.34
3Dv 31.13, 31.71, 27.86 –
3Dv12k 33.34, 33.68 30.55, 31.93, 31.65
3Dhv 25.41, 27.87 28.01, 26.53
3Dhvs 28.19, 29.55 16.56, 24.93
3D fillet types.
For comparison, results from the pilot series on four specimens with
fillets, resembling the 3Dhv in this study, and four corresponding spe-
cimen with UD fillets are presented. The failure load and standard de-
viation of failure load of the T-joints was 38.9 ± 7.7 kN for the UD
references and 38.0 ± 0.6 kN for the specimens with 3D fillets, i.e. the
average strength was similar while the standard deviation differed with
more than a factor of 12 in favour of the specimens with 3D fillets. As
mentioned above, the two series are not directly comparable due to
minor differences in the specimens but the trends are strikingly con-
sistent.
DIC analysis is used to evaluate strains and detect damage on the
monitored surfaces of the specimens. It is found that the highest strains
occur in the y-direction in the upper part of the fillet area, as shown in
Fig. 4. All un-impacted specimens with fillet types 3Dv and 3Dv12k
show cracks initiating at 64–92% of the failure load, starting in the area
with the highest strain and propagating upwards in the web and
downwards into the fillet, in between the two warp columns at the
centre of these configurations (Table 2). The other 3D fillet types all
show cracks initiating at 92–100% of the failure load in the areas with
the highest strains. The un-impacted specimens with UD fillets show no
signs of crack propagation prior to final failure. That might indicate
crack initiation being crucial in the UD fillets while for the 3D fillets
cracks might initiate and arrest before ultimate load.
After testing, all specimens are cut in half at the location indicated
by the dashed line in Fig. 1, and the cross section surfaces are polished
and studied in a microscope. Fig. 5 shows images from the microscope,
one for each fillet type. Specimens with fillet type UD show smooth
fillet/web interfaces, while all specimens with 3D fillet types show
T. Ekermann and S. Hallström
Fig. 4. Major strain distribution (colors) and major strain direction (arrows)
just before failure on the cross section of a specimen with fillet type UD. The
contour of the fillet is indicated by a black dashed line for better visualisation.
coarser fillet/web interfaces. Specimens with fillet types 3Dh and 3Dhv
show what is believed to be dry spots in the middle of the yarns, in-
dicating that these fillets were not fully impregnated during the pre-
impregnation. Presence of such dry spots coincides with lower matrix
weight fraction of these fillets (Table 2).
There are minor differences in failure load between the different
Fig. 5. Microscope images of one fillet of each type, taken after testing the specimens to failure. The arrows in the images of specimens with fillet type 3Dhv and 3Dh
point at fibre bundles that appear to be incompletely impregnated in the middle.
5
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110893
cases with 3D fillets, but since the spread within most of the cases is
even lower the differences between the cases could still be considered
statistically sound. By just considering the failure loads, it seems that
having mainly vertical reinforcement is favourable since fillet types
3Dv and 3Dv12k show the highest failure loads. However, these fillet
types also show cracks initiating at a lower load level. The presence of
dry spots in the yarns of fillet types 3Dh and 3Dhv probably has a ne-
gative effect on the initiation of failure but it does not seem to affect the
ultimate load significantly. How well the fillets fit in the cavity could
also affect the failure load and it differs between the fillet types. In
Fig. 5) it is seen that 3Dhvs has an asymmetric dislocation in the T-joint
cavity and 3Dhv seems a bit bulky. Considering all these factors, it is
too uncertain to conclude which of the tested 3D fillet types is the most
favourable.
The difference in failure load between specimens with UD and 3D
fillets is great, as is the spread within the respective case. There is no
clear evidence for the reason behind these differences, but the results
are deemed consistent in spite of the relatively low number of speci-
mens. The difference in spread is also very consistent with the results
from the previous pilot study, although the average failure load for UD
and 3D was virtually identical in that case. A plausible explanation for
the differences in strength and spread could however be formulated
through logical reasoning based on the experimental results and ob-
servations. Fig. 6 intends to illustrate this explanation.
T. Ekermann and S. Hallström
failure does not start elsewhere. The horizontal dashed arrows indicate potential strength improvements of the T-joints. The failure strength of the matrix is indicated
on the axis by the dotted vertical line. Note that the matrix failure load has been placed at an estimated position on the axis.
It is believed that the fitting of the fillets into the T-section is of
major importance. When the UD fillets are subjected to heat and
pressure during the curing cycle they flow out and fill the cavity very
well, since there are no transverse fibres preventing such deformation.
The virtually perfect fit, which is clearly seen in the microscope images
(Fig. 5), creates an even pressure on the flange/fillet interface allowing
resin to surround the fillet in a sufficiently thick layer to promote good
adhesion, thus enabling a strong interface. The matrix strength is then
expected to govern the strength of the whole T-joint (second bar from
the top in Fig. 6).
The 3D fillets on the other hand, have a higher shape integrity, due
to their transverse reinforcement, and do not deform as easily when
subjected to heat and pressure. Therefore their fit to a great extent
depends on how well their as-manufactured geometry matches the
shape of the T-joint cavity. If their fit is insufficient, enhanced contact
pressure may develop locally on the interface between the fillet and the
surrounding laminates. If the local pressure becomes high at such
contact points, the matrix material might be squeezed out locally
creating areas in the flange/fillet interface and in the fillet where
neighbouring fibres are brought into direct contact with little or no
matrix in between, i.e. locations where damage could initiate. That
phenomenon would have a negative effect on the failure strength of the
T-joint, which could possibly explain the lower failure load of speci-
mens with 3D fillets (the topmost bar in Fig. 6), compared to the spe-
cimens with UD fillets. Improving the fit of the 3D fillets may on the
other hand strengthen the interface, ideally to the same level as for the
case with the UD fillets, then being governed primarily by the matrix
strength (Fig. 6).
It is also believed that cracks, initiating at imperfections in UD fil-
lets, could grow unimpeded and lead to premature failure. Therefore
the strength of the UD fillets could be below the matrix strength (bot-
tommost bar in Fig. 6), but possible to increase by improving their
manufacturing quality. For 3D fillets, the multi-directional and inter-
laced fibres prevent cracks that initiate inside the fillet to grow, making
them less sensitive to voids or imperfect impregnation. It is therefore
assumed that the ultimate strength of the 3D fillets can exceed the
matrix strength (second bottommost bar in Fig. 6), which implies that
T-joints with 3D fillets are most likely to fail in the flange/fillet
Fig. 7. Major strain fields of the poorly performing UD (left) and 3Dhvs (right) specimens at loads of about 4 kN, i.e. 92–100% 25% of the ultimate load.
6
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110893
Fig. 6. A bar plot describing the presented hy-
pothesis. The bars show at what load and where the
failure happens, in the flange/fillet interface or in
the fillet, above or below the Failure load line re-
spectively. The topmost and bottommost bars show
the average failure load and standard deviation of
the un-impacted specimens from the experimental
tests, jointly for all 3D cases and for the UD case,
respectively. The two bars in the middle show at
what load failure would initiate in an ideal flange/
fillet interface of a T-joint with a UD fillet or with
an ideal 3D fillet, respectively, considering that
interface. The low standard deviation for specimens with 3D fillets is
then explained by the failure happening in the flange/fillet interface,
while the high standard deviation for specimens with UD fillets could
be a result of uneven quality and high sensitivity to imperfections. This
explanation is also supported by the results from the pilot tests, where
the spread for the case with the 3D fillets was indeed small, while the
specimens with UD fillets showed considerably higher spread. As
mentioned all specimens with fillet types 3Dv and 3Dv12k showed
cracks initiating inside the fillet prior to failure, and that might be
because they lack horizontal reinforcement in the part of the fillet
where there are high horizontal strains (Fig. 4). Since these cracks do
not lead to immediate following failure, the interlaced fibres seem to
arrest cracks from propagating in the fillet.
The tested specimens are in general not much affected by the impact
damage. The failure load of the impacted specimens is similar or mar-
ginally lower than for un-impacted ones, with a few exceptions. One of
the UD specimens and one of the 3Dhvs specimens show significantly
lower failure load than their counterparts, i.e. 17.0 kN and 16.6 kN,
respectively. The second impacted 3Dhvs specimen also shows greater
reduction of failure load than all other 3D specimens, although not as
much as the first. The impacted specimens with fillet type UD show on
average a great reduction of failure load compared to the un-impacted
specimens but considering the great spread for the un-impacted UD
specimens and the fact that the strongest impacted UD specimen shows
a slightly higher failure load than the weakest un-impacted specimen, it
is more fair to judge the weakest impacted specimen to be extreme.
Fig. 7 presents the major strain field at a low load of the poorly
performing UD and 3Dhvs specimens. It reveals that strain concentra-
tions, and probably cracks, occur at rather low loads, suggesting that
these specimens have some permanent damage in the fillet region
stemming from the impact event. For the poorly performing UD spe-
cimen the damage extent from impact is also significantly larger than
for the other specimens, judging from the ultrasonic inspection per-
formed before testing. This is not the case for the poorly performing
3Dhvs specimen, which instead shows a deviating response during
testing (Fig. 3). For illustration, the failure load from all impacted
specimens is quantified and plotted in Fig. 8 with respect to two
parameters; the delaminated area and the slope of the load-deflection
T. Ekermann and S. Hallström
curve of the first linear region (Fig. 3), from the tests. It is seen that the
low failure load of the specimen with fillet type UD coincides with a
large delaminated area, while the low failure load of the specimen with
fillet type 3Dhvs coincides with a low slope of the load-deflection curve.
Apart from these two poorly performing specimens, there are no
visible signs of damage from the impact on the fillets. Therefore the
greater extent of impact damage on the poorly performing specimens
are not attributed to the fillets as such, but simply a statistical variation
of the damage from the impact event. However, fillets with any kind of
flaws or high residual stresses might be more susceptible to impact
damage.
6. Conclusions
The implications of using 3D fillets in composite T-joints are ana-
lysed and presented. Experiments show higher failure load for T-joints
with UD fillets than for ones with 3D fillets, while the standard de-
viation in failure load is considerably lower for those with 3D fillets
than those with UD fillets. The assumption that fillets with 3D woven
reinforcement could have a positive effect on the T-joint strength due to
their lower thermal contraction after curing is unfortunately not pos-
sible to verify in this study. It is believed that there are other factors
influencing the results, and a hypothesis for these which is consistent
with the observed results is formulated. It suggests that the quality of
manufacturing is of great importance for the T-joint strength. UD fillets
are believed to be particularly sensitive to imperfections, while the
tested 3D reinforced fillets were not able to fully adapt geometrically to
the T-joint cavity, hence reducing the strength of the flange/fillet in-
terface. The considerably lower standard deviation in failure load of T-
joints with 3D fillets is attributed to their ability to arrest cracks, thus
preventing them from propagating in the fillets.
It is obvious that the strength of the fillet area is bounded by the
strength of the matrix material unless the flange/fillet interface is also
reinforced. To approach this theoretical strength limit one either needs
to manufacture flawless UD fillets or 3D fillets with perfect fit to the T-
joint cavities, realised e.g. by weave architectures that are better tai-
lored to the T-joint cavities. The experimental results also show small,
but statistically sound, differences in strength for some of the different
3D fillets. However, since other factors than the weaving patterns also
vary between the different configurations these results remain incon-
clusive.
The low spread in the strength of the tested T-joints suggests that
using 3D woven preforms as fillets in composite T-joints could admit
lower safety margins than designers use for T-joints today. The 3D
Composite Structures 223 (2019) 110893
Fig. 8. The failure load (area of bubbles and
numbers [kN]) of the impacted specimens are
plotted as a function of the delaminated area and
the slope of the load-deflection curve. A lower
slope corresponds to a lower bending stiffness of
the skin, which is an indicator of more sub-
stantial impact damage. The colors of the bub-
bles indicate the fillet type.
weaving technique is a continuous production technique which to-
gether with a continuous pre-impregnation of the fillets could poten-
tially offer a cost-effective alternative to the conventional UD fillets that
are used in the aerospace industry today.
Data availability
The raw data required to reproduce these findings cannot be shared
at this time due to legal or ethical reasons. The processed data required
to reproduce these findings cannot be shared at this time due to legal or
ethical reasons.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Biteam AB for providing the 3D
fillet preforms, Elitkomposit AB for pre-impregnation of the 3D fillet
preforms and SAAB for assembly and curing of the T-joint specimens.
The work was financially supported by VINNOVA through the projects
GF Demo and SweDemo.
References
[1] Cope R, Pipes R. Design of the composite spar-wingskin joint. Composites
1982;13:47–53.
[2] Trask R, Hallett S, Helenon F, Wisnom M. Influence of process induced defects on
the failure of composite t-joint specimens. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf
2012;43(4):748–57.
[3] Hélénon F, Wisnom M, Hallett S, Trask R. Numerical investigation into failure of
laminated composite t-piece specimens under tensile loading. Compos Part A: Appl
Sci Manuf 2012;43(7):1017–27.
[4] Sápi Z, Butler R, Rhead A. Filler materials in composite out-of-plane joints – a re-
view. Compos Struct 2019;207:787–800.
[5] Rispler AR, Steven GP, Tong L. Failure analysis of composite t-joints including in-
serts. J Reinf Plast Compos 1997;16(18):1642–58.
[6] Kumari S, Sinha P. Finite element analysis of composite wing t-joints. J Reinf Plast
Compos 2002;21:1561–85.
[7] Panigrahi SK, Pradhan B. Delamination damage analyses of FRP composite spar
Wingskin joints with modified elliptical adhesive load coupler profile. Appl.
Compos. Mater. 2008;15:189–205.
[8] Gillespie JW, Pipes RB. Behavior of integral composite joints-finite element and
experimental evaluation. J Compos Mater 1978;12:408–21.
[9] Cui H. Delamination and debonding failure of laminated composite t-joints. Delft
University of Technology; 2014. (Ph.D. thesis).
[10] Li X, Liu Z, Hu L, Wang Y, Lei B, Huang X. Numerical investigation of t-joints with
3d four directional braided composite fillers under tensile loading. Appl. Compos.
Mater. 2017;24:171–91.
[11] Khokar N. 3d-weaving: theory and practice. J. Text. Inst. 2001;92(2):193–207.
[12] Brown LP, Sherburn M. Texgen v3.9.0. Zenodo 2017.