PSI - Issue 60

A.M. Sreenath et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 256–263 A. M. Sreenath and R. V. Prakash / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2024) 000–000

258

45)]₂ₛ as the material. Two different damage sources (i.e., low-velocity impact and a drill hole) were considered. Three different damage configurations and three damage treatment methods were considered in the study. A total of 21 configurations were simulated in this study. The configurations considered are given in the Table -1

Table 1. Variables used in the study

Variable Name

Variation sub-class

Source of Damage

i. Low-velocity Impact ii. Circular hole

Damage Area Treatment

i. No treatment ii. Epoxy Filling iii. Filling with chopped fiber composites

Repair configurations

i. No Patching ii. Patch at the Top iii. Patch at the Bottom iv. Patching on both sides

2.1 Specimen Configurations In case of a rectangular specimen, the failure location in a load test may be near to the gripping area due to the additional stress developed due to the gripping. In case of the impacted specimen, the failure location will be at the impacted region, where the griping effect is not prominent. The hourglass specimen geometry was chosen to ensure that the failure location all specimens are at the same location for an even comparison. The geometry of the specimen used for the testing is shown in Figure 1. A schematic representation of the three patch configurations is also shown in the same figure. This analysis considered two different damage patterns: low-velocity impact damage and damage created by a circular hole of 10 mm diameter. The impact energy is taken as 10 J such that the impact does induce some damage, but the specimen is not entirely broken, so the repair is possible. The damage removal area is considered as a circular hole of 10 mm diameter so that this covers the significantly damaged areas. The 10 mm hole diameter in the specimen also gives enough area outside to attach the external patch. The damage treatment area is chosen as a circle with a diameter of 10 mm to ensure an even comparison between the two types of damage.

Fig. 1: a) Geometry of the specimen b) repaired specimen with patch on the top c) repaired specimen with patch on the bottom and d) repaired specimen with patch on both the surfaces The impact damage was simulated using commercial finite element (FEM) Software ABAQUS® 2019. The model used for simulating impact and the damage distribution obtained by the impact simulation is shown in Figure