Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 51–58

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Failure analysis of FRP sandwich bus panels by finite

element method
Hwai-Chung Wu*, Bin Mu, Kraig Warnemuende
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Wayne State University, 5050 Anthony Wayne Drive, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
Received 2 January 2002; accepted 2 May 2002

Abstract
The weakest part of fiber reinforced polymer composites (FRP) sandwich structures is commonly the interfacial zone between layers.
Under service loading, delamination failure will be most likely to initiate from these interfaces. Typical failure analysis for such sandwich
structures usually depends on the modeling details of the interface. In this paper, the sandwich panel was modeled as separated layers with
appropriate constrains imposed between them. These constrains guaranteed a smooth stress transfer from the skins to the core. The proposed
FEM model was applied to simulate the failure behavior of a FRP sandwich panel that is used in bus body. The simulation results were
compared with other numerical predictions and the experiment. It was concluded that this model is very efficient computationally for
analyzing the failure issues of FRP sandwich structures.
q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A. Fiber reinforced polymer; B. Finite element method; C. Buckling; D. Laminates

1. Introduction interactions between material constituents, particularly when

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite sandwich
structures are composed of two FRP skins and one light-
weight core to reduce weight and to increase flexural stiffness
and energy absorbability. The use of FRP sandwich structures
in automotive structural components has grown steadily. For
instance, a glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) sandwich
material has been used in the transit bus vehicles [1]. This
FRP sandwich has been designed to perform as a lightweight
structural material without the need for an additional steel
framework cage. The material is a three-layer laminate
consisting of two outer layers of randomly oriented short
glass fiber reinforced epoxy resin and a sandwiched layer of
corrugated paper ‘honeycomb’. The two outer most layers
(skins) have a thickness of 3.175 mm (1/8 in.) and
1.5875 mm (1/16 in.), respectively, and the middle layer is
25.4 mm (1.0 in.) thick (Fig. 1). Each layer of this FRP bus
panel laminates can be assumed orthotropic. The material
parameters are shown in Table 1 [2].
To analyze a sandwich structure, many challenging issues
need to be addressed such as the complexity of the mechanical
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 1-313-577-0745; fax: þ1-313-577-3881.
E-mail address: hcwu@ce.eng.wayne.edu (H.C. Wu).
1359-8368/03/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 9 - 8 3 6 8 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 9 - 0
applied loads produce local damage and sequential failure.
The mechanisms of failure in FRP sandwich structures are
entirely different from that of conventional steel structures.
Static/dynamic failure involves matrix cracking, fiber
buckling and rupture, and layer delamination in an inter-
related manner. The complexity of the mechanical response
of FRP sandwich structures presents great difficulties in
predicting reliably composite’s performance and hence leads
to conservative designs and expensive test programs.
Nevertheless, finite element method (FEM) is becoming a
very popular and powerful tool for simulating an engineering
system. To be effective, the selected material constitutive
relationships should be able to describe the stress state in the
FRP sandwich structures faithfully.
At present, there are two FEM approaches to deal with
analysis of FRP sandwich laminates, integral method and
layered method.
1.1. Integral approach
An integral method treats the entire laminates as one
equivalent layer. Among the many proposed integral
methods, it can be classified into three groups on the basis
of the principle used, i.e. classical theory, first-order theory
52 H.-C. Wu et al. / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 51–58
Fig. 1. Cutaways of the sandwich GFRP material used in the transit
vehicles.
and refined theory. The classical theory neglects the effects
of shear strain, normal strain and normal stress in the
transverse direction, hence generally good for thin plates [3].
The first-order shear deformation theory was first developed
by Reissner [4] and Mindlin [5] for moderately thick plates.
It accounted for the transverse shear effect on plates by
assuming the normal of the plate before deformation remains
a straight line after the deformation but no longer being the
normal. The first-order theory has been widely applied to
investigate advanced sandwich constructions because of its
simplicity. For example, Librescu and Hause [6] studied the
post-buckling behavior of flat and curved sandwich panels
by the first-order theory with geometrical nonlinearities.
Both weak and strong core sandwich structures were studied.
In the former case, the core was capable of carrying
transverse shear stresses only, whereas in the latter case,
the core could carry both tangential and transverse shear
stresses. However, the first-order theory, which ignores the
effects of cross-sectional warping, leads to an unrealistic
(constant) variation of the transverse shear stress through the
thickness. Development of refined theories, which incorpor-
ate high-order modes of transverse cross-sectional defor-
mation and account for 2D/3D state stresses has been
attempted in recent years. Mallikarjuna and Kant [7,8]
emphasized on establishing the credibility of high-order
theories with different displacement models in free vibration
analysis of laminated composite and sandwich plates.
A relatively simple isoparametric C 0 finite element
Table 1
Material parameters for the FRP sandwich bus panels
E11 E22 G12 G13 G23
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Skin 1117 1117 424 821 821
Core – – 27 27
formulation was presented. They found that the effect of
including higher-order degrees of freedom in the transverse
direction was not appreciable, but the inclusion of the
higher-order in-plane degrees of freedom did improve
the predicted response of the laminates. Correia et al. applied
the above displacement fields [7] to the optimal design of
composite laminates [9]. Among the refined theories, a
notable layerwise method, assuming an approximation of the
displacements in the transverse direction, was developed
[10 –12]. Using this method in which the three-dimensional
elasticity theory was reduced to a two-dimensional laminate
theory Reddy [12] presented a general displacement fields.
The classical, first-order and higher-order theories could all
be derived as special cases from his model.
In the integral method, all the orthotropic material
parameters are integrated along the transverse direction
according to the laminate theory [13,14]. This method is
efficient in computation and good for overall performance
predictions. The disadvantage of this method is that it
neglects the individual material properties and mechanical
behavior of the adhesive interface between each layer,
which may be the weakest place of a FRP sandwich
laminated structure. It is therefore most likely not able to
describe the correct damage process and locations between
layers. Though the layerwise models [10 – 12] might be able
to analyze delamination, the implementation might be rather
complex.
1.2. Layered approach
On the other hand, a layered method treats material
parameters of each composite lamina separately. It
considers each layer as an independent structure and the
computation proceeds layer by layer. It has the ability to
analyze the mechanical interaction between lamina, hence
capable of predicting local failure.
In the past two decades, such a layered method has been
employed by many researchers in their delamination analysis
of composite laminates [15 –22]. In their works, two distinct
approaches have been used. One approach is to treat a
delaminated plate as a 3D solid and to use 3D solid FEM
[15 –17]. The other treats the delaminated plate as a 2D plate
and to use 2D plate FEM [18 – 22]. The 3D FEM modeling is
potentially more accurate if the mesh schedule is suitable.
However, the main drawback is the computational efficiency
if a layer is very thin such as adhesive layer and requires a
very dense 3D element mesh. Such 3D modeling is typically
not efficient for delaminated structures. On the other hand,
some researchers have used 2D FEM to analyze delamina-
tion, debonding and buckling problems. Among them, Wang
et al. [18] used this approach to model debonding as a skin-
u12 stiffener. Sankar and Rao [19] used offset plate elements to
model delamination and derived an expression for the
J-integral. Rose [20] adopted the shear lag theory in
0.316
the adhesive interface to derive an analytical solution of
–
the stress intensity factors of repaired aluminum plates. Jones
 H.-C. Wu et al. / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 51–58 53

and Callinan [21] studied the external patched structures by

modeling the interfacial adhesive layer as an elastic
continuum using 2D panel elements. Arendt and Sun [22]
proposed a simple FEM model by assuming the interfacial
adhesive layer as a spring layer. This interfacial spring layer
was modeled as only to transfer shear stress related to the
relative displacement of its adherends. Their models gave a
good agreement with their experimental data. In these
researches on adhesively bonded composite repair problems,
some kinds of ‘interfacial element’ are introduced to deal
with those very thin adhesive layers. It was concluded that if
these interfacial elements were able to model the true stress
state there, the mechanical behavior of the structure could be
precisely simulated.
Fig. 2. Cross-sectional view of the layered model.

2. Proposed layered FEM model to be able to transfer shear, tension, compression and
moment.
Since Arendt’s and Sun’s research [22] focused on the Shear stress in the upper interfacial layer (Fig. 2)
patched structural repair the interfacial adhesive layer was

›u ›w
not supposed to undertake large scale bending deformation. txz ¼ Ggxz ¼ G þ ¼ tð1Þ ð2Þ
xz þ txz
›z ›x
However, in our project, the bus panels are designed for
 ð2Þ
›v ›w
large flexural deformations under compression, hence the tyz ¼ Ggyz ¼ G þ ¼ tð1Þ
yz þ t ð2Þ
yz
›z ›y
interface layer should be able to transfer all of the possible
forces and moments. Indeed, our study to be discussed later where
indicates that moment transferability of the interface is very
›u u 2 u3
important. In the proposed FEM model herein, each lamina txz ð1Þ ¼ G ¼G 2
(skin or core) is modeled as a Mindlin shell structure [23]. ›z te
The interfaces between lamina are assumed to be able to ›w
txz ð2Þ ¼G ¼ 2Gðu3y 2 u2y Þ
transfer shear, tension, compression and moment. ABAQUS ›x
›v v 2 v3 ð2aÞ
is employed to implement this FEM model. The results are tyz ð1Þ ¼G ¼G 2
compared with those predicted by the integral method and ›z te
experimental data. ›w
tyz ð2Þ ¼G ¼ 2Gðu3x 2 u2x Þ
It is assumed in our model: ›y

† Material is homogeneous and linearly elastic in each te is the thickness of the epoxy interface and u is the rotation
layer; degree of freedom of the shell node.
† Displacement in z-direction is small and interfacial layer It can be seen from Eqs. (2) and (2a) that the first part of
is under anti-plane shear and shear stress throughout the the shear stress relates to relative displacement of the
plate thickness is uniform. adherends, and the second part relates to relative rotation of
the adherends. From Fig. 2, the displacement relationship
For the FRP sandwich bus panel analyzed here, high between the top skin and the corresponding interfacial layer
transverse shear deformation can be expected, therefore the can be expressed as:
first-order shear deformation shell theory is adopted in ts tp
modeling the FRP skins and paper core [23]. The u2 ¼ u1 2 u ; u3 ¼ u4 þ u
2 1y 2 4y ð2bÞ
displacement field is given by t tp
v2 ¼ v1 þ s u1x ; v3 ¼ v4 2 u4x
uðx; y; zÞ ¼ u0 ðx; yÞ þ zcx ðx; yÞ ð1Þ 2 2
vðx; y; zÞ ¼ v0 ðx; yÞ 2 zcy ðx; yÞ Suppose u1x < u2x ; u3x < u4x and u1y < u2y ; u3y < u4y ; then
the following expressions can be obtained:
wðx; y; zÞ ¼ wðx; yÞ 

 

 
G t tp
where u, v, w are displacement components in the x, y, z txz ¼ u1 2 s 2 te u1y 2 u4 þ þ te u4y
te 2 2
directions, respectively; cx and cy are rotations of the cross- 

 

 
G ts tp
section about the x and y axis; and u0 and v0 are tyz ¼ v1 þ 2 te u1x 2 v4 2 þ te u4x
displacement components at the midplane of the plate. te 2 2
The interfaces between the skins and the core are assumed ð3Þ
54 H.-C. Wu et al. / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 51–58

So, the shear force in the upper interfacial layer is



 

 
ts tp
Fxz ¼ k u1 2 2 te u1y 2 u4 þ þ te u4y
2 2


 

 
t tp
Fyz ¼ k v1 þ s 2 te u1x 2 v4 2 þ te u4x
2 2
ð4Þ
k is defined below.
Similarly, the shear stress in the lower interfacial layer
can be written as:


 

 
G tp tk
txz ¼ u4 2 2 te u4y 2 u7 þ þ te u7y
te 2 2


 

 
G tp tk Fig. 3. Nonlinear spring stiffness (if tensile strain exceeds the rupture strain,
tyz ¼ v4 þ 2 te u4x 2 v7 2 þ te u7x the spring is broken; on the other side, if compressive strain exceeds the
te 2 2
maximum, the spring becomes a rigid bar).
ð5Þ
ð1 2 gÞEA w4 2 w7
So, the shear force in the lower interfacial layer is: Fz ¼ ð9aÞ


 

  ð1 þ gÞð1 2 2gÞ te
tp tk
Fxz ¼ k u4 2 2 te u4y 2 u7 þ þ te u7y Eqs. (9) and (9a) can be also implemented in ABAQUS by
2 2


 

  using the spring element (SPRING2). However, this spring
tp tk element should have a nonlinear property, because if the
Fyz ¼ k v4 þ 2 te u4x 2 v7 2 þ te u7x
2 2 tensile strain exceeds the maximum, the stiffness of this
ð6Þ spring should drop to zero due to rupture whereas if the
compressive strain exceeds the maximum, the skin layers
Eqs. (4) and (6) can be implemented in ABAQUS by using
would touch the core layer and then contact information
the spring element (SPRING2) with a stiffness constant
should be provided (Fig. 3). Within the range of the
k, k ¼ GA=4te where A is the area of a 4-node shell
maximum strains, the spring stiffness equals to
element. Normal stress in the interfacial layer can be
written as ð1 2 gÞEA
k¼
8 4ð1 þ gÞð1 2 2gÞte
> 1
>
> 1x ¼ ðsx 2 gðsy 2 sz ÞÞ
>
> E Moment transfer in the top and low interfacial layer can be
>
< 1 given as
1y ¼ ðsy 2 gðsz 2 sx ÞÞ ð7Þ ( (
>
> E Mx ¼ aðu1x 2 u4x Þ Mx ¼ aðu4x 2 u7x Þ
>
>
>
> and ð10Þ
: 1 ¼ 1 ðs 2 gðs 2 s ÞÞ My ¼ bðu1y 2 u4y Þ My ¼ bðu4y 2 u7y Þ
z
E z x y

where a and b are stiffness parameters and can be

where g is the Poisson ratio of the epoxy interface.
determined experimentally. Eq. (10) can be implemented
Suppose 1x ¼ 1y ¼ 0 then:
in ABAQUS using the flexible joint element (JOINTC).
ð1 2 gÞE
sz ¼ 1 ð7aÞ
ð1 þ gÞð1 2 2gÞ z
So
ð1 2 gÞEA w2 2 w3
Fz ¼ ð8Þ
ð1 þ gÞð1 2 2gÞ te
ð1 2 gÞEA w5 2 w6
Fz ¼ ð8aÞ
ð1 þ gÞð1 2 2gÞ te
where Eqs. (8) and (8a) show the normal force in the
upper and lower interface layer, respectively.
Suppose w1 ¼ w2 ; w3 ¼ w4 ¼ w5 and w6 ¼ w7 Eqs. (8)
and (8a) can be rewritten as:
ð1 2 gÞEA w1 2 w4
Fz ¼ ð9Þ
ð1 þ gÞð1 2 2gÞ te Fig. 4. The ElDorado three point bending test and the FEM predictions.
 H.-C. Wu et al. / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 51–58 55

Fig. 5. Compression of the FRP bus panel showing interface delamination between the skin and the core.

From Eqs. (4), (6), (9) and (10), it can be seen that the by a MTS 810 system under a displacement control. The
temporary interfacial nodes, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are eliminated coupon specimens were 75 £ 75 mm2 (3 £ 3 in.2). A typical
(Fig. 2). The shear forces, tensile or compressive forces and failure mode from the compression tests involved delamina-
moments in the interface can be expressed in terms of the tion between the FRP skins and paper core as shown in
degrees of freedom of the shell nodes in the skins and core. Fig. 5. In the test, the thicker skin was first debonded
This significantly increases the computation efficiency of outwards at a location about 1/4 to 1/3 distance from the
the current model. edge of the specimen when the compressive load reached its
maximum. The delamination propagated rapidly and
through the interface between the thicker skin and the
3. Simulation results and discussion paper core. Then the specimen was crashed. Multiple failure
modes, such as buckling and rupture of the samples might
Before launching a full-scale numerical simulation, the exist. The purpose of the FEM simulation is to find a
proposed model was used to simulate three point bending particular failure mode corresponding to the lowest external
tests with two extreme conditions: perfect rigid bonding load, i.e. true testing failure load. Herein both the integral
between layers and totally debonding between layers. The model based on the integral method (first-order theory)
three point bending test results [1] were used to verify [13,14] and the proposed layered model were employed first
the FEM predictions (Fig. 4). In this three bending test, the to simulate the overall compressive behavior. Then the
size of the samples was 73.66 £ 304.8 mm2 (2.9 £ 12 in.2). layered model was used to investigate the possible failure
Instron MTS 1.09 was used at a ramp rate of 5.08 mm/min locations at the interface. The numerical predictions of the
(0.2 in./min). The maximum external load was conveniently sample’s overall compressive behavior are shown in Fig. 6.
obtained by a linear static calculation process in the ABAQUS The global critical buckling status was determined by the
(point A in Fig. 4) by assuming a perfect bonding condition energy criterion. The buckling load is around 25 MPa
between the skins and the core. In the linear static (3.6 ksi). It can be seen that both models predict the overall
calculation, ABAQUS did not consider any geometrical and
compressive behavior of this FRP sandwich panel well.
material nonlinearities. After the maximum external load, a
sudden load drop was observed from the experiment. The
specimen still had some residual strength. Some local
delamination between the FRP skins and the paper core was
observed in the specimens at this point. However, no
detailed description of this observed delamination was
given in the report. Here we considered an extreme case in
the FEM simulation, i.e. assuming a complete debond
between the FRP skins and the paper core. The FEM
prediction was marked point B in Fig. 4. It can be found that
the experimental data approach point B at large mid-span
displacements, i.e. severe delamination that is close to a
complete delamination assumption used in the FEM
simulation.
The model then was employed to predict the compressive
behavior of the same sandwich sample and to locate
the initial failure position. The compression test was done Fig. 6. FEM simulations for compression of FRP bus panels.
56 H.-C. Wu et al. / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 51–58
Fig. 7. Compressive buckling loads given by experiment and FEM.
Fig.REL-P 7 compares the ultimate loads determined by the
experiment and by the FEM models. In Fig. 7, the layered
model-1 neglected the effect of moment transfer in the
interface, i.e. neglecting Eq. (10) and layered model-2
Fig. 8. Buckling modes of FRP bus panel under compression.
neglected the effect of not only Eq. (10) but also the second
part of the shear stress in Eqs. (2) and (2a). (The second part
relates to relative rotation of the adherends.) It can be found
that there is a large difference between the predictions by the
layered model and the layered model-1, while the predic-
tions by the layered model-1 and the layered model-2 are
very similar (within a 3% difference). This suggests that the
moment transfer in the interface plays a very important role
in the mechanical behavior of the FRP sandwich structures.
Though this epoxy interface is very thin (around 0.01 in.),
neglecting its moment transferability would lead to a large
discrepancy in the strength prediction. However, the
influence of the second part in the shear stress term
(Eq. (2)) is quite limited. Considering that it is very easy to
implement this second part of Eq. (2) in ABAQUS , even the
final improvement of the prediction is not significant, it will
be beneficial to include this part. Since both this moment
transfer equation and the second part of the shear stress term
are related to the rotation of interface, it can be concluded
that relative rotation of the interfacial layer is important, at
least in the case investigated here. The ultimate buckling
loads predicted by the integral model and the layered model
 H.-C. Wu et al. / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 51–58
considering all normal, shear, and moment at the interface
agree quite well with the experimental results. All predicted
compressive failures are dominated by buckling, not by
static strength.
Buckling modes simulated by the FEM models are
shown in Fig. 8. All the three simulated modes by the
layered model, layered model-1 and integral model are very
similar. However, only the layered model is able to predict
precisely the stress state at the interface. In the interface, the
maximum tensile stress occurs at the edge of the specimen
and the maximum shear stress occurs at about 1/4 of the
specimen from the top edge, both on the thicker skin side.
Under compression, delamination between the skin and the
paper core due to global buckling would initiate when the
maximum shear stress exceeded the corresponding shear
strength. Subsequently tensile failure in the interface would
occur at the top boundary of the compressed sample (Fig. 5)
due to the maximum tensile stress exceeding the
corresponding tensile strength. This simulation agrees well
with the experimental observation (Fig. 5).
4. Conclusion
It is difficult to analytically predict the performance of
the FRP sandwich composites especially when local
damage and failure develop. To lower analysis cost and to
have an accurate prediction capability of FRP structural
performance, it is highly desired to use computer simu-
lations instead of conducting full-scale tests. For accurate
numerical simulation of composite panels, the FEM model
should describe a true stress state in the structure.
The proposed layered FEM model assumes the skins and
the middle core as Mindlin plates, and the interfacial epoxy
layer can transfer normal stresses, shear stresses and
moments. It has been demonstrated that the concept of
this model is clear and the mathematical computation is
simple. The variables in the interfacial layer can be
completely eliminated. As a result, the computation
efficiency is greatly improved.
From the simulations, it can be concluded that the
proposed layered model is able to not only predict the
overall mechanical behavior of the FRP sandwich struc-
tures, but also to analyze local failure issues, such as
location of failure initiation point and failure modes. The
overall mechanical behavior predicted by the layered model
is similar to that by the first-order integral model. The
moment transferability of the interface is found to be very
important in the numerical simulation process.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Urban and Public
Transportation Passenger Transportation Division of
the Michigan Department of Transportation. Mr Jerome
57
Jonson is the program manager; his valuable insights and
assistance are greatly appreciated. We are also indebted
to Mr John Resnik and Mr Ken Huser of ElDorado
National for their very useful discussions and for
providing the composite panels used in this study. The
authors want to thank you the reviewers for their useful
suggestions.
References
[1] ElDorado National. Mechanical test composite bus panels. Exper-
imental Report; 1992.
[2] Wu HC, Mu B, Warnemuende K. Fiberglass reinforced plastic
composite bus body structural integrity analysis. Final report to the
Michigan Department of Transportation, the Urban and Public
Transportation Passenger Transportation Division and the Michigan
Transit Center for Excellence; 2001.
[3] Lekhnitskii SG. Theory of elasticity of an anisotropic elastic body.
San Francisco: Holden-Day; 1963.
[4] Reissner E. The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending
of elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1945;12:A69–A77.
[5] Mindlin RD. Influence of rotary inertia and shear deformation on
flexural motions of isotropic elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1951;
18:31–8.
[6] Librescu L, Hause T. Recent developments in the modeling and
behavior of advanced sandwich constructions: a survey. Compos
Struct 2000;48:1–17.
[7] Mallikarjuna, Kant T. A critical review and some results of recently
developed refined theories of fiber-reinforced laminated composites
and sandwiches. Compos Struct 1993;23:293– 312.
[8] Mallikarjuna, Kant T. Free vibration of symmetrically laminated
plates using a high order theory with finite element technique. Int J
Numer Mech Engng 1989;28:1875– 89.
[9] Correia VMF, Soares CMM, Soares CAM. Design sensitivity analysis
and optimal design of composite structures using higher order discrete
models. Engng Optim 1997;29:85–111.
[10] Botello S, Oñate E, Canet JM. A layer-wise triangle for analysis of
laminated composite plates and shell. Comput Struct 1999;70:
635–46.
[11] Reddy JN. Mechanics of laminated composite plates—theory and
analysis. Boca Raton: CRS Press; 1997.
[12] Reddy JN. A generalization of two-dimensional theories of
laminated composite plate. Commun Appl Numer Meth 1987;3:
173 –80.
[13] Jones RM. Mechanics of composite materials. New York: McGraw-
Hill; 1975.
[14] Whitney J. Structure analysis of laminated anisotropic plates. Oxford:
Pergamon Press; 1987.
[15] Riccio A, Scaramuzzino F, Rerugini P. Embedded delamination
growth in composite panels under compressive load. Composites, Part
B 2001;21:209–18.
[16] McCarthy MA, Wiggenraad JFM. Numerical investigation of a crash
test of a composite helicopter subfloor structure. Compos Struct 2001;
51:345–59.
[17] Choi Y, Chang FK. A model for predicting damage in graphite/epoxy
laminate composites resulting from low velocity impact. J Compos
Mater 1992;26:2134 –67.
[18] Wang JT, Raju IS, Davila CG, Sleight DW. Computation of strain
energy release rate for skin-stiffener debonds modeled with plate
elements. 34th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, La Jolla, CA, USA; 1992.
p. 1680–92.
58 H.-C. Wu et al. / Composites: Part B 34 (2003) 51–58

[19] Sankar BV, Rao VS. A plate finite element for modeling delamina-
tion. J Reinforced Plastics Compos 1993;12:227–36.
[20] Rose LRF. A cracked plate repaired by bonded reinforcements. Int J
Fract 1982;18:135–44.
[21] Jones R, Callinan RJ. Finite element analysis of patched cracks.
J Struct Mech 1979;7:107–30.
[22] Arendt C, Sun CT. Bending effects of unsymmetric adhesively
bonded composite repairs on cracked aluminum panels. FAA/
NASA International Symposium, Hampton, VA, Part I; 1994.
p. 33–48.
[23] Zienkiewicz OC. Finite element method. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1989.