Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites: Part A
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A


15-year service experience
Ivan Grabovac a,*, David Whittaker b
a
b

Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Department of Defence, 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermans Bend, Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
Thales Australia, Garden Island, NSW 2011, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 25 July 2008
Received in revised form 10 October 2008
Accepted 6 November 2008
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
A. Carbon bre
B. Adhesion
Ship repair

a b s t r a c t
The carbon bre composite overlays (patches) installed on a Royal Australian Navy frigate to inhibit the
recurrence of superstructure fatigue cracking have been in service for 15 years now. The service life these
composite repairs have accumulated is now sufcient for the ship to have gone through several complete
maintenance cycles. The ship has also had a major upgrade/modication programme and been exposed
to a full range of environmental conditions while it has served on its many active deployments. This
paper examines the success of this repair methodology in the light of ship owners expectations. These
expectations have two major aspects which are addressed here.
The rst is the effectiveness of the composite repair in restoring the strength and function of the damaged structure, the cost and timeliness in effecting that repair and the disruption incurred prior to and
during the repair.
The second aspect to determining the success of the composite repair is more long term. This comprises
the durability and repairability of the composite repair itself, including the availability of clear, objective,
and documented criteria for inspecting the repair in future years and authorising its continued service.
Furthermore, the ease with which the repair itself can be removed and replaced to facilitate subsequent
maintenance work or modications to the parent structure, and the ability to survey the parent structure
behind the repair all make up this second facet. Unfortunately, this aspect is less obvious to the repair
team but quickly becomes apparent to the ongoing custodians of the structure. These custodians are also
the ones most likely to be authorising the repair method to be used for similar damage in the future and
so they are important stakeholders to keep on side.
This paper reviews the service history of the carbon bre overlays since their installation and comments on both the short and long term success of the repair methodology.
Crown Copyright 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Steel and aluminium ships, like any other dynamically loaded
metal structure, will always have the potential to fatigue and crack.
The preferred method for dealing with this is by prevention, with
careful design seeking to keep stresses below the fatigue strength
through the use of thicker material, expansion joints, etc., and prudent detailing eliminating stress concentrations by rounding corners, staggering openings, etc. Yet, in spite of these efforts, over
the life of a vessel we can anticipate some cracking, particularly
for high performance vessels such as warships.
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has a rigorous programme of
structural inspections for their ships managed by the Centre for
Maritime Engineering (CME) who maintain a centralised database
of all defects, including cracking and rectication work. Effective
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +613 9626 8252; fax: +613 9626 8409.
E-mail address: Ivan.Grabovac@dsto.defence.gov.au (I. Grabovac).

monitoring and recording, however, is only part of the strategy


used by prudent ship operators to guard against the potential catastrophic failures associated with fatigue. The rest involves access
to effective permanent and temporary repairs for cracks in vessels.
Permanent repairs for cracking inevitably involve some modication of the vessel. The steps involve reanalysing the structure in
the way of the crack to conrm the source of the cracking (typically
excess loading or stress concentration), redesigning the detail to
remove the same (e.g. by moving an opening, adding a bracket,
increasing a radius, etc.) and installation of the approved
modication.
The process can be lengthy and expensive. Installing structural
modications invariably involves removing equipment, typically
heavy specialised electronic equipment whose size and geometry
prompted the design compromises that led to the cracking in the
rst place. Maintenance availabilities long enough to allow completion of the modication work usually occur only every 5 years
at the docking rets. Also the modication/design approval process

1359-835X/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

has to be rigorous to ensure function, access, and maintainability is


not compromised. In addition, the commercial process of scoping
work, accepting the quotation from the designer, acceptance of
the design work, scoping and putting out for tender the fabrication
work to t the modication, etc., take time during which the vessel
is in service and the crack is growing.
Temporary repairs that actually arrest the crack growth are
required. Unfortunately, traditional temporary repairs such as drilling a hole at the crack tip or grinding out the crack and re-welding
do not always work. Adding additional material by welding on a
bracket or doubler plate can sometimes work for a while but can
also be as intrusive as a permanent repair and for aluminium,
welding reduces the strength of the parent metal. The only temporary repair that can be regarded as reliably effective for fatigue
cracks is to crop out some of the surrounding metal along with
the crack and replace with new. Although this resets the number
of load cycles to zero on the fatigue clock it does not remove the
structures predisposition to fatigue in that area and some redesign
and modication will be required at some time. Therefore, a more
effective method of temporary repair is required.
This paper describes such an effective alternate method of
repairing and preventing cracks on ships by bonding a composite
overlay (patch) over the parent metal. The majority of the supporting evidence presented is from a trial on an RAN frigate where 2
such overlays have now been in service for in excess of 15 years.
When that trial was started such a method was considered unconventional for ships, but over the intervening years, quite independently, its use has slowly increased.
2. Background
The interest in using the composite materials for an unconventional repair (strengthening) of ship structure was rst expressed
by the RAN back in the mid-80s. The FFG-7 Class frigates, due to
the geometry of their continuous aluminium superstructure, displayed cracking problems early in their service [1]. Of particular
concern was the neck-down area at the Frame 196 on 02-Deck
which was found to be a region of high stress concentration. To
overcome this problem, structural alterations were made by installation of two major USN (United States Navy) modications to the
Class. The rst modication strengthened the highly stressed area
by increasing the plate thickness and the second softened major
stress concentrations by staggering the change in plate thickness.
The retro-t of these modications to the rst of the RAN FFGs
were major tasks that had to be conducted in stages spaced over
several maintenance availabilities.
However, at that time the RAN was also considering an alternative solution to the problem for which the work by Dr. Alan Baker
at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO),
involving the composite patching of the primary and secondary
aircraft structures, was clearly an inspiration [2].
In response to RAN interest, the DSTO in close collaboration
with the RAN designed two carbon bre (CF) composite overlays
for trial aboard HMAS Sydney, Fig. 1a. These were intended for
application by adhesive bonding on the most stressed part of 02Deck spanning the area between Frame 188 and 212 on Port and
Starboard, Fig. 1b. Therefore, the main purpose of CF overlays
was to further strengthen the 02-Deck and reduce or eliminate
the recurrence of cracking in the area. The overlays were designed
to reduce the peak stress in the region of 75.6 MPa [3] by up to 20%.
This was achieved through laboratory development work on materials and processes [46] resulting in installation of both overlays
by DSTO in 1993 [7].
This technology was demonstrated in service onboard HMAS
Sydney. During the 15 years of service, vital experience was gained

that included repairs which in turn proved effective in restoring


the strength and durability of composite overlays. During this period the only crack that propagated directly in the region of the
patches occurred where a portion of a patch de-bonded. Once this
de-bonding was repaired this crack did not reappear. This outcome
is considered as a success that met the RANs objective.
3. Overlay design, major components and application
3.1. Design
A schematic diagram, Fig. 2a, shows the size, construction and
major components of the composite overlay used in the trial. The
CF composite is the structural component designed to withstand
service load. The load is transmitted from the structure to the overlay through adhesive layer which forms an interface between the
CF composite and the aluminium deck, Fig. 2b.
The orientation of the load-carrying carbon layer was determined by the direction of the crack growth and the nature of the
loading. Previous history and analysis has shown [1] there was a
propensity for Mode I cracks (fracture due to tension) to occur
across the width of superstructure and especially around the
knuckle on 02-Deck (Frame 196). Consequently, the carbon bre
overlays were located on the weather-deck between Frame 188
and 212 on Port and Starboard side and oriented parallel to the
ships longitudinal axis, that is, they were placed on the top of
the superstructure where it began to narrow, Fig. 1b.
The strength of the carbon overlay needed to encounter the
peak fatigue stress (75.6 MPa) in the region of the superstructure
required a unidirectional laminate consisting of 25 plies, each ply
having the weight/area = 300 g/m2 [5]. This strength requirement
was based on the Finite Element (FE) modelling and a series of fatigue test results involving dynamic cycling of large fatigue specimens strengthened with 25-ply carbon composite. A rather
conservative factor of safety of 2 was applied at the time [5]. However, in more recent work the FE analysis showed that only 15 such
plies are needed to achieve the optimal strength [8] which produces the required 20% reduction in the superstructure stress level
(i.e. approximately 60 MPa).
3.2. Components
The overlay consists of four distinctive parts i.e. adhesive interface, carbon bres, GRP layer and edge seal, all designed with a
specic role. The performance of all, however, is conditional upon
a durable adhesion to the aluminium surface which is the key factor of this technology. This condition is met by preparation of an
aluminium surface as outlined below.
3.2.1. Surface preparation
Surface preparation of aluminium deck consisted of two simple
processes (a) grit blasting followed by (b) application of an adhesion promoter.
The grit blasting process was carried out once all the surface
contaminants such as paint, dirt, oil, etc. had been removed. Usually, a non-metallic, mineral abrasive was used (i.e. Mesh #24) to
achieve white metal nish (Class 3) [9]. Such prepared surface
should attain a uniform appearance resulting in a prole of about
6080 lm. This process activates and greatly increases the surface
area allowing good resin wetting for mechanical interlocking,
Fig. 3a.
The adhesion promoter was an aqueous solution of organofunctional silane (about 1% in methanol) used in this application
as a coupling agent between the metal substrate and the matrix resin [10]. This solution was applied by brush to a freshly blasted

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Port
overlay
Starboard
overlay
Weld at
Frame 196

ck

02-de

ck

01-de

Fore
k
in dec

Ma

Fig. 1. Composite strengthening of ship structure, (a) HMAS Sydney leaving the Sydney harbour, (b) location of composite overlays on 02-Deck.

GRP edge area

Edge seal

CF composite

Carbon fibre direction


1000

1200

GRP protective layer

5000

5200

Edge seal

GRP layer

CF composite

Aluminium 02-deck

Adhesive bondline

Fig. 2. (a) Overlays components and dimensions (mm) plan view, (b) Overlays cross-sectional view.

Silane reaction with metal (-Si-O-M)

Resin Matrix

Silane polymerisation (-Si-O-Si-)


Silane reaction with resin (-Si-O-R)
M-

Metal surface reactive site

R-

Resin matrix reactive site

Si
O
M

O
O

Si
O
O
M

Si
O
M

R
O

O
O

Si
O
M

Si
O
M

Aluminium Surface

Fig. 3. Schematics of surface preparation and bonding to metal, (a) surface prole after grit blasting, (b) chemical reactions of organo-functional silane and (c) completed
metalresin bond.

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

surface and allowed to evaporate at ambient or elevated temperature for about 2 h. Once the solution wets the surface, the silane
molecule reacts with a receptive site on the metal surface. Concurrently, the silane also polymerises in reaction with other silane
molecules thus creating a hydrophobic, cross-linked lm which
inhibits corrosion of the metal. The nal step of silane reaction
with resin matrix was completed once the resin is used to form
adhesive interface (bond-line). This was shown to be a selective
process as not all types of silanes produce strong and durable
bonding with the resin matrices available to composite industry,
Fig. 3b [4,6]. In this instance, a methacrylate silane solution was
found to be the most suitable adhesion promoter when used with
vinyl ester resin. This was determined following a series of Boeing
wedge tests [11] to assess bond durability of specimens exposed to
hot/wet (50 C, 96% RH) and simulated marine (35 C, 5% salt fog)
environments.
After preparation of the adhesive interface and following an
overnight resin cure at ambient temperature, the nal product is
shown in Fig. 3c. The surface bonding is not only achieved by silane
coupling, which combines resin and metal, but also the resin that
permeates and wets a large surface area of metal which upon resin
cure provides elaborate mechanical interlocking. When protected
from external elements such a bond should provide good performance over an extended period of time.
3.2.2. Adhesive interface
The adhesive interface or bond-line is composed of modied
vinyl ester resin [4,12] and scrim material used to control thickness
uniformity. The interface is usually close to 1 mm in thickness
which is sandwiched between the carbon overlay and aluminium.
Its principal role is to provide durable adhesion, transmit local service loads and provide physical barrier preventing direct contact of
carbon bres with aluminium deck thus avoiding possible galvanic
corrosion. Furthermore, the resin dielectric property was also a
pre-requisite to achieve resin post-cure by low-voltage (100 V),
electrical heating process [12]. The adhesive bond-line thickness
of about 1 mm was found suitable for this purpose since its breakdown voltage exceeds 18 kV/mm.
3.2.3. Carbon bres
The carbon bres that provide overlay strength and thus reinforcement to the structure are good thermal and electrical conductors. When used on metal structure such as ship, provisions for
avoiding electrical contact must be made to avert galvanic corrosion in presence of an electrolyte (i.e. seawater). Otherwise, the
aluminium deck will preferentially corrode since its electro-chemical potential ( 0.70 to 0.90 V) lies at the anodic or active end of
galvanic series [13].
3.2.4. GRP layer
The glass reinforced plastic (GRP) layer does not contribute to
overlay strength and is intended solely for protection of the underlying CF composite against marine environment, impact and abrasion. The GRP layer was also bonded to aluminium deck at the
edges which gave a sacricial area all round, Fig. 2a. This excess
GRP material provides some edge resistance to water ingress but,
as shown in service [7], this interface required additional sealing
for long-term resistance against exposure to the marine
environment.
3.2.5. Edge seal
The seal around overlay perimeter was produced using a twopart elastomeric sealant. This was found suitable for providing
long-term protection against water ingress at the deck/adhesive/
GRP interface. Early in the trial the edge sealing provided by a coat
of paint alone was found to be inadequate. The GRP layer especially

around its periphery loses the bonding strength due to combined


effects of saline conditions and thermal cycling (thermal expansion
different to aluminium).
3.3. Application
In general, a bonded composite overlay may be used as either a
method for structural reinforcement or alternatively a crack repair.
As structural reinforcement, the composite overlay is simply
bonded to a sound structure containing no fractures. Its principal
purpose in such cases is to prevent anticipated degradation of
the structure that would otherwise develop such defects.
If the structure is already weakened by cracks being present, it
may still be repaired effectively using an overlay. In case such as
this the progress of structural degradation is arrested or signicantly slowed down. The preferred process is to grind out the crack
and re-weld and then grind the weld at to afx the patch. This
method is far more effective than simply grinding out the crack
and re-welding alone.

4. Service history (19932008)


A complete service history of bonded composite overlays
aboard HMAS Sydney is summarised in Table 1. The record starts
in April 1993 and covers the period to date. The data consists of
all the activities undertaken by the DSTO Research Team and
Thales Australia performing either the overlay inspection or repair
work.
4.1. Inspections
As indicated in Table 1, there were seven inspections made over
the service period. Initially, the inspections were more frequent
due to a lack of knowledge on service performance; however, at
the later stage with gradual accumulation of experience and
build-up of condence the inspections were less frequent owing
partly to composite overlays good performance. The methods of
inspections in the beginning involved some kind of instrumental
non-destructive evaluation (NDE) technique as the concerns of
the composite overlays de-bonding from the deck prevailed [14].
Later, the inspections were simple, quick and inexpensive involving a visual and/or acoustic test such as tap testing to detect the
presence of delamination or de-bonding. This approach was found
to be more suitable and yet adequate and simple enough for the
shipyard maintenance staff to carry out.
4.2. Repairs
In 15 years of service, a total of four repairs were made to the
composite overlays. One repair was a non-structural restoration
involving only the sacricial edges of the GRP protective layers
(Table 1, A5). The other three interventions were all structural repairs. Of those, two can be classied as dockyard inicted damage
that occurred during the ship maintenance or upgrade activities
(Table 1, A7 and A10). The other may be regarded as environment
initiated damage affecting the bonding at the overlay/deck interface which went unnoticed over a length of time (Table 1, A9).
The repairs were always carried out using the original materials
and fabrication steps [15]. A brief summary of all repairs including
the damage contributing factors and other related information is
given below.
4.2.1. Non-structural repair January 1996
Following the RAN feedback relating to some de-bonding of
composite overlays from the deck especially around the edges, an

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

Table 1

Cause of action

Type of damage

Method of
inspection

Location

Inspection/repair size

Probable cause of
defect

Work done

Comment

Length
of
service

A1.

April
1993

Recurrence of fatigue
cracking in
aluminium
deck plating.
02-Deck, Port

Structural parent
structure

02-Deck, Port

5m1m

Reinforcement of
aluminium alloy
superstructure with CF
composite overlay

Installed by DSTO
Research Team

Start

A2.

April
1993

Recurrence of
fatigue cracking in
aluminium
deck plating. 02-Deck,
Starboard

Structural parent
structure

02-Deck,
Starboard

5m1m

Reinforcement of
aluminium
alloy superstructure with
CF composite overlay

Installed by DSTO
Research Team

Start

A3.

February
1994

Service/maintenance

Nil

C-Scan,
ultrasonic aw
detector

02-Deck, Port
and Starboard

5m1m

Inspection of composite
overlays

No problems identied
on either Port or
Starboard overlay
inspected by DSTO

10
Months

A4.

October
1995

Service/maintenance

Non-structural, small
edge-located disbonds

C-Scan,
ultrasonic aw
detector

02-Deck, Port
and Starboard

5m1m

Inspection of composite
overlays

No structural problems
identied on either Port
or Starboard overlay
inspected
by DSTO

2 Years,
6
months

A5.

January
1996

Partial de-bonding
from
deck plating, all
around

Non-structural
composite overlay

02-Deck, Port
and Starboard

Perimeter, of both
overlays: length: 12 m
width: 0.2 m

Combination of
marine, mechanical abrasion
and impact effects

Repairs to edges of GRP


composite protection layer

Enhanced edge-sealing
system developed and
applied by DSTO

2 Years,
9
months

A6.

November
1997

Service/Maintenance

Nil

Portable CScan

02-Deck, Port
and Starboard

5m1m

Inspection of composite
overlays

No problems identied
on either Port or
Starboard overlay,
inspected by DSTO

4 Years,
7
months

A7.

January
1998

Mechanical damage
to
the composite overlay
by
a high pressure water
jet equipment

Structural composite
overlay

02-Deck, Port,
inner side midlength

0.9 m  0.6 m

Mechanical abrasion during


the maintenance work

Repairs to restore
functional
integrity of CF composite
overlay

Repairs carried out


by DSTO

4 Years,
9
months

A8.

May 2000

Service/maintenance

Nil

Visual

02-Deck, Port
and Starboard

5m1m

Inspection of composite
overlay

No problems identied
on either Port or Starboard
overlay, inspected by DSTO

7 Years,
1 month

A9.1

July 2001

Bond failure at the


outside edge between
composite overlay
and
deck plating. Crack
length approximately
0.2 m

Structural composite
overlay

Visual

02-Deck, Port
outer side, midlength

Combination of marine,
mechanical abrasion and
impact effects

Inspection of the defect


only. Temporary repairs
carried out
by RAN to stop water
ingress.

Repairs scheduled for the


next
ship availability

8 Years,
3
months

A9.2

August
2002

Repairs of bonding failure


between composite overlay
and deck plating on Port
side

Repairs carried out by a


contractor under DSTO
supervision

9 Years,
4
months

A10.1

November
2004

Nil

Inspection and repairs


delayed ship unavailable.
Inspection scheduled for
July 2005

11 Years,
1 month

A10.2

July 2005

Visual and
acoustic
method

Inspection of the defects


only

12 Years,
3
months

A10.3

November
2005

A11.

June 2007

Repairs of the defects on


both,
Port and Starboard side
Inspection of composite
overlays

Inspection of damage
completed, repair scheme
developed for November
2005
All repairs completed by
a contractor under DSTO
supervision
No problems identied
on either Port or Starboard
overlay. Inspected by Thales
(Australia)

Damage reported for


both,
Port and Starboard
composite
overlays

Service/maintenance

Both, structural and nonstructural composite


overlay

Nil

Visual

Approximately 2 m  1 m

02-Deck, Port
and Starboard

02-Deck, Port
and Starboard

Various locations of small


size damage

5m1m

Dockyard activities during the


ships major upgrade

12 Years,
7
months
14 Years,
2
months

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Date

Entry

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

Service performance summary - bonded composite overlays, HMAS Sydney (19932008).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
6

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Location of
composite overlay
Fig. 4. Typical maintenance work activity on 02-Deck.

inspection was carried out in October 1995 (Table 1, A4). The


assessment revealed that parts of the sacricial area of the GRP
protective layer had failed to adhere to the deck. Evidence was also
found to show that if no repair was carried out, the adhesion of the
composite structural part would be affected. Designing a durable
adhesion at the GRP edge/deck interface was always a concern
throughout the development work, especially for the perimeter
edges which were considered to be the most vulnerable parts to
damage. The main reason for such unease was the composite overlays exposure to all elements (solar heating/cooling, water effect,
salt corrosion, mechanical impact and abrasion due to walking
and working on top of it, Fig. 4). The condition of the composite
overlays as found in January 1996 is shown in Fig. 5. Small incidence of bonding failures due to environmental exposure is evident including a part of the edge missing most probably due to
mechanical interference (insets, Fig. 5).
For the most effective repair it was decided to remove the sacricial GRP edges all around the overlay (Port and Starboard) for their

renewal. This decision was based on the fact that there were too
many small areas of edge disbonds scattered around each of the
12 m perimeters. Certain steps in the course of the repair are shown
in Fig. 6. The steps (ac) relate to the removal of damaged material,
surface preparation and edge reconstruction, respectively. Fig. 6d
shows the sealant material being introduced for the rst time to seal
the edges at the interface between the GRP sacricial edge and the
aluminium deck plate. This step was not originally planned during
the overlay installation process in April 1993. However, after about
2 years in service the surface paint coating alone was found inadequate to prevent edge degradation, therefore this additional protection was developed and applied in all subsequent repairs. The
sealant material is a commercially available, two-part polysulphide
elastomer. In laboratory evaluation this product was found to adhere
well to both the aluminium surface and the composite overlay. It also
displayed good resistance to seawater, various hydrocarbon products, solar radiation and could easily be applied, cured and painted
as required. The nal material lay-up and conguration is shown
schematically in Fig. 7.
Initially, the GRP edge resistance to cracking and adhesion failure
was overestimated because unrealistic reliance was placed on surface paint coating. On the 02-weather-deck, which is exposed to all
elements, the coating was found to crack after about 1218 months
allowing water ingress and causing it to ake from the deck surface.
The other contributing factor was a large difference in thermal
expansion between the GRP and the aluminium deck, e.g. the thermal expansion coefcient for E-glass bre = 5  10 6 K 1 and aluminium = 23  10 6 K 1. The magnitude of this problem appears
to be reduced by using the polysulphide sealing applied directly to
aluminium plate and the GRP edge area, Fig. 7. Normally, two coats
are applied and between them a glass tape is inserted for tear resistance. If no damage is made to this most peripheral part of the composite overlay, the edges remain protected for a long time
irrespective of the condition of paint coating. However, that was
not always the case when mechanical interference was involved,
see below, Sections 4.2.24.2.4.
4.2.2. Structural repair January 1998
The rst structural repair of damage to the Port composite overlay was successfully carried out in January 1998. The damage was
made during the scheduled maintenance work on the 02-Deck

Fig. 5. Examples of degraded edges due to effect of environment and mechanical abrasion.

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Fig. 6. Non-structural repair January 1996, (a) removal of degraded material, (b) preparations for edge repair, (c) edge reconstruction and (d) sealed and restored edge
conguration.

when using water jet equipment for removal of the surface paint.
The rotary tool consisting of water jet nozzles operating at high
pressure (approximately 276 MPa) accidentally cut through the
thickness of composite overlay. In the process, the load-carrying
carbon plies were severely affected and required repair. Some of
the repair steps undertaken including the magnitude of the damage are shown in Fig. 8 and a schematic diagram with all the materials and geometry used in the repair of composite overlay is given
in Fig. 9. The damage to the overlay was a through-thickness type
therefore the repair procedure required a total restoration from the
metal surface to the GRP protective layer. The carbon bre plies
were replaced ply-for-ply in a step-wise ush repair mode whereby each step represented a 4-ply thickness. A total of six steps were
made (only three steps are shown in Fig. 9). The size of replacing
plies was made to t the area prepared for the repair.
The damage caused to Port overlay by mechanical equipment
was purely accidental. During the ship maintenance work involving surface recoating, it is a normal practice to employ high efciency equipment for cleaning a metal surface of remaining

GRP protective layer


reconstruction

Primer coat
Edge seal
reconstruction

CF Composite

Aluminium Deck Plate

25

25

50

100 - 150

Fig. 7. Overlay edge reconstruction schematic diagram (carbon bre crosssectional view).

surface paint and other contaminants. When the overlays were initially installed on the 02-Deck, the perimeter of each was marked
with a 25-mm wide white border frame. On subsequent deck recoating this marker, indicating overlay edge, was omitted therefore
no clear visual guidance existed warning the operator of changing
surface conditions. Regarding the repair shown in Fig. 9, this method was primarily developed for efciency and in-eld practicality.
The modied step-wise technique used 4-ply steps instead of only
1-ply as commonly employed in aerospace repairs involving the
thin skin composite structures. This approach signicantly reduced
the time of repair and made it easier especially in this case involving through-thickness damage to a 25-ply CF laminate. This method of overlay repair proved fully effective in service and it did not
require any further attention.
4.2.3. Structural repair August 2002
Early in July 2001 the RAN reported water ingress into the compartment below on the Port side through the deck plating which
was located near the overlay centre part. This fault was considered
unusual since there was no visual mechanical damage to the composite overlay or the deck plating to allow water passage. On closer
inspection of the fault area, a length approximately 200 mm of
composite boundary was found de-bonded from the deck, Fig. 10.
It was establish that this failure was attributed to three major factors: (i) The boundary seal strip at the fault area was missing, presumably removed at some stage during the service of the deck
area, and covered with coats of paint. (ii) As shown in Fig. 10 (inset)
this composite region lies next to a depression in the deck topography where water tends to accumulate. (iii) Failure to notice the
damage and carry out repair to the sealing strip. It should be mentioned, however, that during the earlier repair in January 1996
(Section 4.2.1) all edges were sealed and care was taken especially
in this area to prevent water affecting the overlay.
A lack of seal would most probably initiate edge de-bonding
from the deck as experienced during the rst 2 years in service.
In this case, it was not known for how long this edge was without

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
8

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Fig. 8. Structural repair January 1998, (a) water jet cleaning tool bottom view, (b) damage made to composite overlay, (c) preparations for repair and (d) reconstruction of
carbon plies.

the seal and likewise, the conditions of exposure (moisture, salinity


and temperature) which would have had a major inuence on
adhesion failure at the composite/deck interface. On this occasion,
only a temporary repair was carried out by the RAN to stop water
ingress into the compartment below.
In May 2002 at ships next maintenance period, preparations for
full repair commenced. The overlay affected part was removed,
Fig. 11a, and ultimately about 2 m length of overlay middle part
prepared for repair in August 2002, Fig. 11b. Prior to overlay repair,
Fig. 11c and d, the cracks in the deck plate were re-welded. The
overlay repair itself was simply a repeat of the work carried out

GRP protective
layer

Scrim

in January 1998 (Section 4.2.2) differing only in size and location


of repair. This restoration was also successfully completed and
no follow-up was required.
It is believed that as a consequence of overlay failure to adhere
to the deck, 1 crack in the deck plate formed. This is shown on
engineering drawing, Fig. 19, designated as S54/S65. There was
also an additional crack adjoined to overlays outside edge
designated S86. (An engineering account as to the cause of their
formation is presented in Section 4.4.) A picture of the hairline
crack (S54/S65) thought responsible for water entering the space
below is shown in Fig. 12.

Step length=100 mm
Step height=4 plies

CF Composite

Adhesive

Ply-for-ply composite
reconstruction

Metal plate

Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of composite overlay repair (half-thick composite shown only side view).

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Fig. 12. Crack in the deck plate found under overlay in 2001.

Fig. 10. Overlay condition and location of edge failure.

4.2.4. Structural repair November 2005


During the recent ships upgrade project both overlays (Port
and Starboard) on 02-Deck received various kinds of damage.
The overlays condition following the inspection is briey illustrated in Fig. 13. As a result of various work activities around
and on the surface of both overlays this time the damage was
more extensive. For example, it included not only the edges
but also some delamination and through-thickness cuts, followed
by welding performed in the close proximity to composite overlay, Fig. 13(df). The degree and the type of damage varied between the two overlays, Fig. 14a, therefore the corresponding

repair strategy was developed by rationalising and combining


damaged areas as summarised in Fig. 14b. For example, on the
Port side the damaged areas D2 and D3 (Fig. 14a) were combined into a single repair area R2 and R3 (Fig. 14b) and so on.
This approach has simplied the task and improved the quality
of repair. Again in this instance, emphasis was placed on reconstruction of overlay termination geometry, i.e. the taper. This issue was addressed successfully right at the start in 1993 and is
considered important to prevent stress concentration in adjacent
areas of the structure and to avoid delamination and peel stresses in the laminate. The taper is simply formed by a successive
ply drop-off method (i.e. decrease in length) when all the plies
are stacked up and is usually aligned with the principal axis of
stress acting on the structure. The angle (h) is typically around
5. The geometry of a repair (i.e. R2 and R3) terminating in a taper is shown in Fig. 15.

Fig. 11. Structural repair August 2002, (a) initial cut-out, (b) nal preparations for overlay repair, (c) reconstruction of carbon plies and (d) vacuum bag consolidation and
resin cure.

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
10

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Fig. 13. A collage of damage type suffered by overlays on Port and Starboard side, (a) delamination and abrasion on Port side, (b and c) damage to overlays by various abrasive
tools, (d) location of life raft atop Starboard overlay, (e and f) cuts through overlay thickness to weld life rafts anchor point and feet to deck plate.

Overall, the repairs performed in November 2005 (Fig. 14b)


included:
Port
GRP edge repair including the seal strip (R1).
Repair to CF composite including GRP edges and sealing
strip (R2 and R3).
Starboard
The work involved only the restoration of damage to GRP
edges and sealing material (R4R9).
Through-thickness holes drilled and cuts made were not
repaired only sealed (R10 and R11).

In summary, the damages inicted to both overlays during the ship


upgrade project are seen so far as some of the best examples of human
interference when no special instructions or warnings are provided.
With this repair the following observations are worth noting:
(a) Care should be taken in correctly diagnosing delamination in
thick laminated overlays. In this instance, the NDE data
obtained on the Port side by using the tap test was correctly
located but incorrectly interpreted as being an adhesive failure, i.e. de-bonding at the overlay/deck interface. In fact, the
delamination was found at about half-thickness i.e. 1012th
carbon ply (full thickness 25 plies) thus the adhesion to the
deck plate was intact hence a half-thick overlay serviceable.

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

11

(c) Close inspection of the overlays physical condition was


made in the vicinity of welding points. The concern was a
very small distance (approximately 25 mm) of these cuts
to the welding spots where high temperatures are generated. Normally, temperatures in excess of approximately
150 C could seriously affect both the adhesive bond and
the composite overlay. Surprisingly, no such damage as
burning or scorching marks was found on either the bondline or CF composite.

4.3. Other repair issues


4.3.1. Time, disruption and cost of repair
The issues considered in this section are specic to processes
and materials used in the repairs that are carried out for the rst
time therefore they are not optimised yet. For these reasons the
information provided is indicative only of the time needed to affect
the repair, likely disruption to ships operation schedule and the
approximate cost applicable at the time of repair.
Time and disruption These important issues in conducting a repair were estimated in Table 2. The gures relate to work directly
connected with repair. The repair time was always within the
scheduled ship visiting time to port and at no time was the ship
held back affecting its return to service. The only time of concern
was the initial installation of overlays in 1993. In addition to 14
days of work, there were additional 7 days spent on preparation
involving temporary removal of equipment, erection of rain shelter, installation of diversion barriers for surface rain water, etc. In
general, the time needed for most composite repairs can be estimated provided a prior assessment is possible. For all external
work, these predictions vary subject to weather conditions.
Cost The cost to defence is approximated (where possible) and
it relates to materials and equipment only. These costs are obviously subject to change with time. For example, the cost of unidirectional (UD) carbon bre in the early 90s was around AU$55 for a
linear metre (1-m wide), area-weight = 300 g m 2. For the same
material in 2002 the cost was around AU$35. Considering the
labour, this project is regarded as a RAN scientic demonstrator
therefore all the work phases were done by the DSTO scientists
directly involved with the project from start. Exceptions to this
were the last two repairs (August 2002 and November 2005) which
were contracted out by Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO).

Fig. 14. Structural repair November 2005, (a) a summary of all damage inicted
to overlays on Port and Starboard side, i.e. D1D11, (b) repair strategy for both
overlays.

(b) The through-thickness damage caused to the Starboard


overlay by installation of a life raft could not be repaired.
The owner would not consider relocation of a life raft. Considering a small length of cuts made across the bres, the
overall loss of local strength was considered acceptable
under the circumstances. In this case, the cavities created
by these cuts were simply lled in with the sealant material.
As mentioned earlier, a conservative factor of safety was
added to the original design which signicantly increased
overlay strength [8].

4.3.2. Repairability and documentation


Repairability A repair to composite overlays is reasonably simple although it does require certain technical skills and knowledge,
especially the knowledge in the use of advanced materials including surface preparation and bonding to metal is essential. Most
general purpose GRP repairers have insufcient knowledge, training and equipment to conduct these types of repairs. Therefore, defect assessment, NDE, resin infusion, vacuum bagging, grit blasting,
surface preparation, etc. are some of the operations those contractors are lacking and more often than not short-cuts are done. For a
durable repair such practice is not acceptable especially when the
bonding to a metal surface is made for structural applications.
However, for a competent composite specialist such repairs are
usually not a problem.
Documentation The ofcial RAN documentation describing the
repair methodology is not available yet. The RAN has a specic procedure to deal with such engineering issues and any changes/additions to the repair methodology are categorised as conguration
change. Still, there is scientic information on the subject published by DSTO. The references include articles that cover all the
development stages, overlays installation, and including the time
in service. In addition, there is more detailed DSTO documentation

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
12

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Composite
thickness, (b)

Taper angle, ( )

Taper length, (a)

a
b

CF Composite

Deck Plating

l
Ply 'drop-off' length, (l)
Fig. 15. Schematic diagram of overlays end taper (side view).

Table 2
Overlay repairs cost and other details (excluding labour).
Overlay installation/repair

Disruption to Ship Service

Removal equipment and


xtures

Damages or
injuries

Repair duration,
(persons)

Cost to defence (AU$)


(Materials, consumables,
equip. hire, etc.)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
*

Overlays installation
March/April 1993
Repair January 1996
Repair January 1998
Repair August 2002
Repair November 2005

Work done during ships


scheduled visit to port
As above
As above
As above
As above

Some surface equipment


temp. removed
None
None
None
None

None

21 Days (5)

3040 K (Est. 1993)

None
None
None
None

10 Days (2)
3 Days (2)
4 Days (2)
8 Days (3)

34 K
<3 K
5 K
NA*

NA not available, work arranged by DMO.

available on materials, processes and repair for this technology but


only for internal use and licensee information.

Deck (Port and Starboard). For example, the 600 mm crack found
on the Starboard side, Fig. 17, was re-welded and, following overlay installation to strengthen the area, has not reappeared since

4.3.3. Service inspection and maintenance


Inspections The RAN ships are well maintained and serviced
for which a set schedule exists. Regarding the maintenance of overlays, the DSTO scientists together with the dockyard contractor
(Thales Australia) used every opportunity for inspection. This occurred on average every 18 months during the ship scheduled visit
to port. From experience collated so far, the composite overlays can
be left in operation on a ship for years even under most demanding
conditions the marine environment can offer.
Maintenance If no damage is inicted, the overlays generally
need little maintenance. Often during the deck recoating work it
is advisable to refresh the surface paint. Questions were raised
regarding the paint cracking and aking away from the overlay
surface, Fig. 16. As shown, these paint failures have nothing to
do with overlays but are simply a result of many layers being
applied one on top of the other, without old ones being taken
off. However, carefully removing the old paint coat by using a
steel brush and the like is relatively simple task. Care should
be exercised not to cause damage to underlying GRP layer or
the edge seal strip.
4.4. Deck cracking on HMAS Sydney
The engineering records show that all pre-existing faults in deck
plate were rectied by welding before overlays installation on 02-

Fig. 16. Navy non-skid coating applied to overlay (insets: appearance after service
exposure).

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

13

Fig. 17. Deck crack discovered in 1993 before installation of Starboard overlay.

Fig. 18. Starboard section of 02-Deck, with relative locations of Ship Alterations 86 and 146, deck cracks and CF overlay.

1993. This was conrmed in the most recent review of cracks on


02-Deck that covered the period between 1997 and 2007 for all
the RAN FFG warships still in active service.
A summary of the results of the review for the Starboard area on
HMAS Sydney, housing the CF overlay, is given in Fig. 18. Evidently,
there were no cracks under the overlay but a few appeared in an
adjoining area, of which S37 was the closest. This crack was entered into the database in 1999 although its presence dates back
to pre-1993. In all these years with CF overlay in its proximity
the crack did not advance.
It is noted that this crack (and others on the Port side, see below) lies in the weld line region related to two USN modications

known as Ship Alterations (S/A 86 and S/A 146). These were carried
out around 1985 and 1991, respectively, with the purpose of
addressing the cracking problems around Frame 196 by inserting
new thicker plate(s) into the structure.
Crack review of the Port section produced different results. For
the same period, the database shows 2 cracks (S54/S65 and S86)
registered in May 2001 and located underneath or adjacent to
the overlay, Fig. 19. These are also thought to be associated with
welding for S/A 86 and S/A 146. (Note the two numbers, i.e. S54
and S65, represent two separate surveys of the same crack. The
S54 is the number of the initial survey which identied the crack
prior to the removal of partly de-bonded Port patch. The S65 is

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
14

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

the number of the subsequent survey once access to the metal substrate was made available during the patch repair.)
The crack S86 which is located outside, but close to the overlay,
was reported as static (not growing) for the period 19952005. In
2006 it was rectied by grinding out and re-welding.
More signicant is the crack S54/S65 that occurred directly
underneath the de-bonding of the Port overlay. It is noted that
this occurred not only along a weld but at a point where there
are three changes in the thickness of the underlying plate, i.e.

(i) 9.519 mm, (ii) 9.512.7 mm and (iii) 12.719 mm. These
changes of thickness manifest themselves on the upper side of
the plate where the overlay is tted. The consequent draping
of the carbon plies over such undulation results in the overlay
having to resist longitudinal loads through bending normal to
its plane as well as tension, Fig. 20.
This combined loading case was extensively covered during
the materials evaluation phase [5,6] for which no problems were
identied even when the loading was double that measured in

Fig. 19. Engineering drawing of 02-Deck; Port, showing USN modications, location of cracks and outline of CF overlay.

Weld

4xT to 2xT min

CF Overlay

T
T - Difference in thickness between plates

Fig. 20. Schematics and moment diagram of combined loading on overlay at the weld region between two plates of different thickness.

Table 3
RAN ships, FFG-7 Class in active service.
Vessel

1.
2.
3.
4.

HMAS
HMAS
HMAS
HMAS

Sydney
Darwin
Melbourne
Newcastle

Date commissioned

Number of cracks period 19972007 incl.


In superstructure

In patch location

January 1983
July 1984
February 1992
December 1993

95
39
83
70

1 (S54/S65)
2 (D5, D32)
1 (M78)
0

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

this highly stressed part of deck. However, for reasons described


earlier (Section 4.2.3) a portion of overlay de-bonded from the
deck in this critical region. This de-bonding not only reduced
the effective stiffness of the patch in the longitudinal direction,
but may also have had the effect of adding a Mode III loading
(out-of-plane shear, tearing) to any Mode I crack that may have
been there already.
Therefore, combining the individual effects of (i) heat affected
zone in the weld, (ii) the coincidence of cracks appearing in the
plate area with multiple changes in thickness and (iii) a reduction
in patch effective stiffness in the area, the likelihood of cracking as
noted for S54/S65 is high. Perhaps, the easiest method to minimise
the chances of further cracking in this region may be to avoid overlay degradation and de-bonding which leads to reduction in its
effective stiffness. In any new applications it would be an added
advantage if overlay bonding is performed to as at a surface as
practicable. However, this is not a mandatory requirement for this
resin system which was specially developed to account for such instances in which the resin in the adhesive is also exposed to some
tensile loading [5,6].
Finally, the authors suggest caution in the interpretation of survey results. The discovery of cracks on a plain grey deck is no easy
task and is very dependant on the skill of the surveyor and the acuity of his vision. Cracks on the 02-Deck are typically only hairline in
width when they are rst discovered and noted for monitoring.
Consequently, some judgement needs to be exercised in assuming
a crack appeared only shortly before it was discovered.
4.5. Deck cracking on other ships in Class
From this trial alone it is hard to prove the overlays ability to
arrest and prevent cracks in metal structures. For that the reader
is referred to other work such as the FE analysis [8] and early laboratory trials [5]. Apart from only two overlays of limited size
being tted to one of four vessels, statistically the sample population is considered insignicant especially in view that, one ship had
its aluminium structure modied twice and the other three were
built to modied designs to address and x the cracking problems
of this Class. What is an interesting statistic to note however, is
that for the period of 19972007 inclusive, the four vessels experienced an average of 72 reported fractures in areas of their superstructure unrelated to where the overlays and structural
modications were tted, Table 3. As expected, the greatest number of cracks occurred on the older ships. An exception to this is the
older vessel HMAS Darwin, which was home-ported on the West
Coast of Australia, showing lower number of cracks over that period. The others were based on the East Coast. Although HMAS Darwin had less cracks overall it had more cracks in the critical area
(one Port and one Starboard) compared with a ship of a similar
age, HMAS Sydney.
With the oldest FFG (HMAS Sydney) entering its 25th year in
RAN service, its nominal 15-year design life has well and truly expired. This vessel recently completed a major weapons upgrade
and it is anticipated to be required by the RAN for another 10 years.
In 2001 the Centre for Maritime Engineering approved a new set
of standard repairs for the myriad of recurring cracks that had become evident up to that point in time. These repairs to date have
been reasonably effective for the areas they apply to. However, in
2001 the RAN trial of carbon overlays had not progressed for long enough to justify their inclusion in that set of standard repairs.
As the vessels have aged, the cracking has occurred in areas
away from the original hot spots in the narrow section of the
upper deck of the superstructure. Typical locations for the current
wave of cracks are stress concentrations in superstructure longitudinal bulkheads, less stressed portions of the upper superstructure deck (02-Deck) and the narrower portions of the lower

15

superstructure deck (01-Deck). Certainly, enough time has elapsed


for the standard crack repairs for this Class to be updated on the
basis of the latest survey data.

5. Overlay technology issues


5.1. Service durability
5.1.1. Environment
At sea, the 02-Deck receives signicant proportion of tensile
and compressive forces due to hull longitudinal bending especially
in heavy seas which characterise waters south of our continent.
The waters north of Australia are calmer but can be very unpredictable including cyclonic winds with heavy rain, and high seas. The
surface temperatures (mid-summer) are generally much higher
and can reach up to 80 C on a ship surface in the northern ports
[16]. As our continent lies under the hole in the ozone layer, the
ship also receives a considerable amount of UV radiation from
the sun.
While in port for maintenance activities the 02-Deck is in constant use either as a walkway or a work area. Often the same area is
used for cargo ofoad by overhead crane and erection of scaffolding during the service to main mast. Under those conditions the
overlays are mostly exposed to abrasion and impact.
Meanwhile, both overlays (Port and Starboard) are still in service and functioning as originally designed. The time since installation has exceeded 15 years. The ship has gone through several
complete maintenance cycles and overlays have been repaired several times as discussed earlier. Fortunately, no structural damage
occurred to the Starboard overlay therefore, its primary adhesion
to 02-Deck was unaffected in all that time.
5.1.2. Repairs
A total of four repairs to overlays were made. Of those, two were
due to a combined effect of service and environment (Sections
4.2.1 and 4.2.3) and the other two due to a human interference.
However, all of those repairs were carried out in a different location, which implies that the quality of repair work was satisfactory
to restore overlay function without a need for repair rework. In all
repairs identical materials and procedures were employed. Therefore, within the scope of repair work done there are indications
that the work and processes applied produce an acceptable and
durable repair to composite overlays.
5.2. Reduction in the cost of ownership
With the increased affordability of carbon bre suitable for
marine use, applying a carbon overlay is now a far less exotic repair
than it used to be. The maintenance Naval Architect/Engineer can
now (for Mode I and Mode II, in-plane shear fractures) use layers
of carbon to reinforce a weak zone and compensate for the annealing effect in aluminium at a re-welded crack. However the most
graphic demonstration of how the Carbon Patches can be a more
cost effective solution in comparison to modifying the metal structure underneath was provided by S/A 146. Experience found that
the original modication S/A 86 which thickened the aluminium
structure in the areas of high stress concentration did not stagger
the change in thickness in small enough increments. The second
modication S/A 146 added interim changes in thickness to the
aluminium plate and rounded out some of the sharp corners in
the structure. In contrast, the equivalent detail in the carbon patch,
tapering the fore and aft end of the carbon layers, was achieved
with a pair of scissors prior to lay-up.
Furthermore, a major repair is much more affordable if it can be
delayed and scheduled in with other work. The main cost of a re-

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
16

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

pair is not the materials or labour required to perform the repair


itself, but the labour involved in shutting down and removing
equipment for access and the reduced utilisation rate of the vessel
spending less time in service. The trial has demonstrated that carbon overlay repairs can be carried out effectively with no disruptions and on time allowing those who manage the maintenance
of vessels to obtain this saving without risk. In addition, it was
demonstrated what is required for these overlays to hold on until
the next major maintenance cycle (up to 5 years) or if that is
missed, the next maintenance cycle (another 5 years).
The current generation of older combatants came from a time
when tools such as FE analysis allowed designers to make them
lighter by reducing the plate thickness of their superstructure to
a minimum. For those vessels, new repair options are now
needed as these ships have their length of service extended
and are pressed into roles well beyond those anticipated in the
1970s. The carbon overlays not only provide a lightweight durable repair, the trial has demonstrated that they can be readily removed and easily replaced when other work is required.
Surprisingly, the overlays showed good damage resistance to service loads, impacts and even when hot work (welding) is performed nearby. In general, their presence on a ship does not
push up the cost of other work.
The above points seem to make sense when taking the FFG-7
Class as an example. Of the 51 FFGs built for the USN, 30 still remain in active service with that navy, with no anticipated replacement at this stage. Of those no longer in service with the USN,
many are now seeing continued service with other navies, e.g. Bahrain (1), Egypt (4), Poland (2), Turkey (8 with 2 more expected this
year), Pakistan (believed to have requested 6). The rst of this Class
was the Oliver Hazard Perry commissioned by the USN from 1978
until 1997 (20-years service), the oldest still in service with the
USN is the John L. Hall commissioned in 1982 (currently 26 years
of service) however, the oldest in service with any navy is the
ORP Gen. T. Kosciuszko commissioned in the USN as Wadsworth
in 1978 (currently 30 years of service). This is an impressive service
history for a vessel designed to strict weight limits and built to a
price. Nor can one describe this Class as now an obsolete weapons
platform with the newest example ROCS Tian Dan built in Taiwan
and commissioned into their navy in 2004 (only 4 years old).
6. Discussion
In the course of service demonstration the composite overlays
were inspected seven times and received a total of four repairs.
Of those, two repairs were necessary due to overlay degradation
caused by a combination of service and environment while the
other two repairs were needed due to human interference occurring in port at ship maintenance time. It is noted, however, that
all repairs were carried out quickly and inexpensively during ship
scheduled call to port and no activity associated with overlays has
ever affected operation of the ship.
The defects caused by service/environment factors were corrected in due course; modications were made, demonstrated
and problems did not reappear. However, for those caused by
humans, the contributing factors remain unresolved. In early service days the periphery of both overlays were clearly marked
with white line (see Figs. 4 and 5), but over time and due to frequent surface recoating that information got lost and both overlays blended with their surroundings thus visually became an
integral part of aluminium deck. At maintenance time these
were treated as the rest of deck surface and, as shown before,
received a rather harsh treatment. The lack of instruction for
the maintenance crew plus regular changes of ship ofcers did
not help the cause.

Considering the conditions the overlays were exposed to over


such a long time in service, the authors are condent that all the
likely problems related to design/materials/processes, expected
to surface-up in such application, were identied and corrected
and modications demonstrated. It is believed that this technology
has now matured by overcoming one big Milestone the long-term
marine durability. The other important Milestone of achieving clear
and convincing evidence of composite usefulness in repairing and
strengthening the ship structure has partially been achieved for the
reasons explained above.
6.1. Performance indicators
There are essentially twofold expectations from this technology
demonstrator. One is to serve the interest of Vessel Owner and its
maintenance contractors which is focused on overlays ability to arrest the existing and prevent the development of new cracking in a
ship structure. The other is that of the Technology Developer which,
in addition, is keenly interested in overlays marine exposure and
durability aspect.
6.1.1. Outcomes of interest to Vessel Owner
A summary of relevant indicators include:
The Standard overlay showed faultless performance no deck
cracking under or in adjacent areas over a 15-year service on
an active RAN ship.
This overlay received two successfully completed non-structural repairs.
A large crack in butt-weld between plates of changing thickness
(Fig. 17) after re-welding and overlay reinforcement did not
reappear.
A small crack to fore side of starboard overlay (S37, Fig. 18 in
existence before 1993) appears to be arrested since it did not
advance in size.
The overlay showed damage tolerance to cuts made in structural carbon laminate needed to weld support frame for installation of a life raft.
The welding operations carried out in close proximity caused no
visible damage to overlay. The mass of surrounding aluminium
structure appears to act as an effective heat sink.
The Port overlays performance did not match that of its counterpart although it served as a useful means to demonstrate
and qualify a variety of overlay repairs. It received three structural and one non-structural repairs. Each repair was able to
restore overlays full function and on time.
The deck non-skid coating is fully compatible with the surface of GRP layer. One application seems enough for many
years of service. It will not crack and ake-off with time as
on aluminium surface. On recoating, it needs only one coat
for visual refreshment. If multiple coats of paint accumulate
on top of overlay the paint will crack and aking will start,
see Fig. 16.

6.1.2. Additional outcomes of interest to Technology Developer


Durability and marine exposure indicators include:
Extensive experience of composite durability gained in bonded
structural hybrid conguration.
The resin system displayed outstanding durability, toughness
and tolerance to impact and peel forces especially at overlays
ends.
The marine paint system provided inadequate protection to
water ingress at the composite metal interface.

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

The interface without any protection shows susceptibility to


failure due to probable synergistic effects of materials thermal
expansion in the presence of saline conditions.
The use of edge sealant prevents the onset of interface bond
failure the failure mechanism appears to be sensitive primarily to the presence of seawater. On inspection, after years in service the bond at the interface protected by a sealant appears in
good order in spite of edges being exposed in service to full
extent of differential thermal expansion between composite
and aluminium.

6.2. Lessons learned

The effect of environment can inuence bond degradation at the


overlay/deck interface especially around the perimeter after
prolonged exposure to elements. Protection must be provided
by sealing the edges of overlay to prevent failure of adhesion
to the metal structure.
At maintenance time, most of the damage to overlays was
inicted by human interaction. The problem can easily be overcome by issuing a relevant set of instructions to the maintenance crew. However, this must be initiated at the CME level
to be fully effective; otherwise, instructions given by scientists
are on a personal level and usually last until next change of
crew.
For surface recoating work of composite overlays a set of instructions are also needed. This is to avoid unnecessary work and
waste of materials as explained earlier. A most suitable method
of removing old paint coats from the overlay top surface needs
to be explored.
The urgent need to add composite patches to the existing repertoire of approved repairs for fatigue cracking.

7. Conclusion
The trial conrmed that the carbon bre patch/overlays meet
the ship owners short and long term expectations for a ship repair
and are a useful addition to the repertoire of the Naval Architect
faced with cracking problems for a ship in service.
In reviewing the trial against the ship owners short term expectations the following points were addressed:
The carbon patch was effective in restoring the strength and
function of the damaged structure. During their 15 years of service the only crack that reappeared under the patch occurred
where the bonding of one of the patches had failed. This problem was addressed and neither the de-bonding nor the crack
has reappeared. In addition the FE and laboratory work done
in support of the trial clearly show the effectiveness of this
method of repair.
The cost and timeliness in effecting the carbon patches was demonstrated during their installation and subsequent repairs. The
labour required was at the low end of what could be expected
of a comparable aluminium repair and the material costs, though
not large, have since dropped considerably. The materials
required are available commercially and the lead times required
for organising the repair are no longer than that required to organise materials and qualied welders for an aluminium repair.
There were no additional disruptions to other activities as a
result of installing or repairing the patches. The grinding out
and re-welding cracks prior to the carbon patch installation
required all of the precautions and permits associated with

17

hot work onboard a ship. The installation of the patches themselves did not require any of the restrictions, safety precautions
or shielding of equipment required for aluminium welding. The
only requirements are ensuring adequate ventilation and
extraction when performed below decks and restricting access
during the patches installation and ambient cure overnight.
The ship owners longer term expectations were met as follows:
Durability The life of the patches to date, 15 years on a
weather-deck, clearly shows that the RANs need for a durable
repair can be met.
Repairability of the composite patch itself During the trial the
carbon patches have been successfully repaired on four
occasions.
The availability of clear, objective and documented criteria for
inspecting the carbon patch repairs Such criteria are well documented in the technical literature and this was used in the trial
for planning the repairs.
The ease with which the patches can be removed Paradoxically,
the source of the damage experienced by the carbon patches
during their 15 years of service is one of the things that made
the trial a success. The patches can be easily removed with
the abrasive blasting equipment used in preparing the substrate
for painting. Unless attacked by such equipment or an angle
grinder, correctly tted patches appear able to remain in service
indenitely.
The ability to survey the structure behind the repair Looking at the
cracks that have manifested themselves near or under the
patches during the trial, it can be reasonably presumed that any
cracks under the patches will be unlikely to grow unless there
has been some failure of the edge seal leading to de-bonding.
Traditional management of temporary repairs that included
drilling holes at crack tips, re-welding the same crack repeatedly,
or adding some arbitrary bracket to reduce a stress concentration
is just not adequate. The lead time required for a Class-wide modication demands that effective interim measures are available
that relieve crews of the disconcerting sight of crack growing in a
bulkhead or deck-head while at sea. The carbon bre overlay is
now a solution that works if applied correctly.
If carbon bre patches were endorsed as an approved temporary
repair then the required service history would be quickly built up to
access their suitability as a permanent repair. This could be
achieved by close collaboration between the Vessel Owner, the
Technology Developer and the maintenance contractor which, if
pursued, would lead to higher performance and more cost-effective
patches/overlays than those used in this trial. In the longer term,
the requirement exists for industry to develop an enduring capability in the technology in order to facilitate its future implementation.
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to acknowledge the following stakeholders,
whom the information presented in this paper is of interest:
DSTO Management, for their continuing interest and support to
the project.
Thales Australia Naval, for long-term dockyard assistance and
overlay inspections.
FFG System Program Ofce RAN, for the review of the
manuscript.
The Centre for Maritime Engineering, for access to their survey
database and their interest in the outcome of this long-term
trial.

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
18

I. Grabovac, D. Whittaker / Composites: Part A xxx (2009) xxxxxx

Likewise, the authors would like to thank the following individuals


for their assistance in providing data and reviewing the paper:
Dr. Richard
Jackson
Graeme
Emerton
David Cox
Subrata
Majumder
Dr. Stuart
Cannon
Dr. Christine
Scala

Thales Australia
Senior Hull Maintenance Ofcer, Centre for
Maritime Engineering Department of Defence
Chief Engineer, Amphibious & Aoat Support
System Program Ofce Department of Defence
Platform Systems Manager, FFG Upgrade Project,
FFG System Program Ofce Department of
Defence
Head, Surface Ship Structures, DSTO
Research Leader, AMSS, DSTO

References
[1] Toman R. CCB proposal for recommended solution to the FFG-7 Class
superstructure cracking issue. In: Royal Australian Navy Report, PMS 399.11;
1984.
[2] Baker AA. Summary of work on applications of advanced bre composites at
the Aeronautical Research Laboratories. Aust Compos 1978;9(1):116.
[3] Hay W, Kihl DP. Results of full scale trials on USS GALLERY (FFG-26) in support
of FFG-7 Class superstructure cracking investigation. David W. Taylor Naval
Research and Development Centre, Ship Structures Division Report, 4
December, 1984, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

[4] Grabovac I, Pearce PJ, Baker AA. The use of advanced composites to combat
superstructure fatigue. In: Maritime technology 21st century, November 25
27. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne; 1992.
[5] Grabovac I, Bartholomeusz RA, Baker AA. Composite reinforcement of a ship
superstructure project overview. Composites 1993;24(6):5019.
[6] Grabovac I, Pearce PJ, Baker AA, Bartholomeusz RA. Carbon bre composite
reinforcement of aluminium superstructure. In: Proceedings of the ninth
international conference on composite materials (ICCM-9), Madrid, Spain, July
1216, vol. 6. Woodhead Publishing; 1993. p. 293300.
[7] Grabovac I, Pearce PJ, Camilleri A, Challis K, Lingard J. Are composites suitable
for reinforcement of ship structures. In: The 12th international conference on
composite materials (ICCM-12), Paris, France, 1999.
[8] Guzsvny G, Grabovac I. Composite overlay for fatigue improvement of a ship
structure. In RINA, advanced marine materials & coatings, London, UK,
February 2223, 2006. Available from: http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/
publications/4465/RINA%20Paper-Composite%20nal10mirror%20pages%20(2).pdf.
[9] AS1627.4-2002. Metal nishing preparation and pre-treatment of surfaces,
part 4: abrasive blast cleaning. Standards Australia (ISO. 8504-2:2000);
2005.
[10] Marsden J. Organofunctional silane coupling agents. In: Skeist I, editor.
Handbook of adhesives. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1990. p. 536.
[11] ASTM-D3762. Standard Test Method for adhesive-bonded surface durability of
aluminium (Wedge Test), ASTM standards, vol. 15.06, sec. 15, ASTM
Philadelphia; 1990. p. 268.
[12] Grabovac I. Composite reinforcement for naval ships: concept design, analysis
and demonstration. In: School of applied sciences: science, engineering and
technology. Ph.D. Thesis, Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University; 2005.
[13] Drexter SC. Galvanic corrosion. Mas Note [cited 2008 March]. Available from:
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/seagrant/publications/images/corrosion.pdf.
[14] Scala CM, Burke SK, Pearce PJ, Grabovac I. NDE for composite reinforcement
and repair of ship superstructure. In: AINDT/NZNDTA conference the Pacic
rim in focus, Auckland, New Zealand, 1997.
[15] Grabovac I. Bonded composite solution to ship reinforcement. Compos A Appl
Sci Manuf 2003;34A(9):84754.
[16] Challis KE, Hall DJ, Hilton PR, Paul DB. Thermal stability of structural PVC
foams. Cell Polym 1986;5:10321.

Please cite this article in press as: Grabovac I, Whittaker D, Application of bonded composites in the repair of ships structures A ...,
Composites: Part A (2009), doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2008.11.006

Potrebbero piacerti anche