Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Design, analysis, fabrication, and testing of composite grid-stiffened panels MARK

for aircraft structures
⁎
Sonell Shroff, Ertan Acar, Christos Kassapoglou
Aerospace Structures & Computational Mechanics, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Grid stiffened panels promise increased damage tolerance with reduced weight. Recent progress in automated
Grid structures manufacturing of composites has made it possible to produce such panels at low cost and thus has made them a
Composites competitive alternative to traditional skin-stiffened or sandwich panels. Fuselage skin panels typical of a 150
Manufacturing passenger aircraft were designed using an iterative process combining finite element models and local special
Failure
purpose analysis methods. 40 cm by 30 cm panels, representing the final design, were fabricated using vacuum
Impact damage
assisted resin transfer moulding. Pristine and impact damaged panels were tested in compression to failure. A
progressive failure model was used to predict the extent and type of damage during impact. It was then com-
bined with the global finite element model to obtain residual strength predictions. Analytical predictions were
very close to test results. The fabrication method showed good quality and consistency and, when automated,
can be used for production.

1. Introduction
Grid stiffened panels can be used as an alternative to conventional
stiffened skin design for fuselage of civil aircraft because of significant
weight savings as a result of efficient load distribution between the
grids that stiffen the skin and the skin itself. In early applications [1],
the geodesic fuselage, the predecessor of the grid-stiffened skin, was
built with a fabric shell to behave as an aerodynamic cover while the
load was carried by the Duralumin geodesic frame. More recently, with
the use of composites, the grid and skin can be designed such that there
is an efficient load distribution between the two, where the grid bears
most of the loads, and the skin is an aerodynamic cover that is able to
resist localised loads such as impact [2,3]. Grid stiffened structures are
inherently highly damage tolerant due to multiple load paths present.
Damage is typically limited to a single cell in the grid and grid-skin
debonding remains confined to only a small section of the structure [4].
Smaller bay areas in the grids are known to increase the impact re-
sistance according to experimental studies when compared to conven-
tional structures [5]. A higher in-plane stiffness and 28% lower de-
flections when compared to an equivalent panel made of sandwich
structures [6] suggests it can be a good alternative design concept in
certain applications.
Composite grid-stiffened panels were hard to implement in the past
because of high manufacturing cost and concerns about quality control.
They have an inconsistent fibre volume fraction because, if continuous
fibres are used across grid intersections with no local height increase,
the nodes end up with a higher fibre volume fraction than the rest of the
grid due to doubling locally the amount of material. In case the panel is
produced with pre-impregnated fibre tapes, the nodes also have excess
resin that must be compacted in the mould adequately or removed after
curing [7]. When produced with the resin infusion technique, in-
adequate vacuum leads to voids and slow manufacturing process [8].
With the development of automated fabrication methods of composites,
grid stiffened panels are back in the forefront as a viable alternative to
conventional designs [9,10]. This means that issues of concern such as
the ones mentioned above must be well understood and quantified. To
that end, a program was undertaken to evaluate the structural perfor-
mance of composite grid-stiffened structures with emphasis on their
damage tolerance.
2. Baseline definition
A 150-passenger aircraft is considered as the baseline example. The
conventional stringer-frame architecture is replaced by a grid-stiffened
design. The fuselage components, such as the floor beams, frames and
attachments are optimized to relieve the loads in the fuselage skin.
First, panels with low, intermediate and high loads are isolated and
designed separately using a grid-stiffened configuration. Each panel
typically has several critical load cases, maximum compression, max-
imum shear, or combined biaxial loading and shear, depending on

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: c.kassapoglou@tudelft.nl (C. Kassapoglou).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.06.006
Received 23 September 2016; Received in revised form 19 May 2017; Accepted 7 June 2017
0263-8231/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Shroff et al.
aircraft manoeuvres and mission scenarios. For each of these load cases,
different configurations are used and the geometry is optimized for
minimum weight checking for (a) strength, (b) buckling of the panel as
a whole, (c) buckling of skin between ribs, (d) column buckling of ribs
and (e) crippling of ribs (local buckling followed by failure in the post-
buckling regime). Note that all checks involving strength are based on
first ply failure using the Tsai-Hill failure criterion where the strength
values are reduced to account for material scatter, environmental ef-
fects, and damage. These are simplified failure predictions as opposed
to more detailed criteria used later in Section 5. During this process,
isogrid and anisogrid pattens are examined. It is interesting to note that
the grid-stiffened designs came out lighter than traditional skin stif-
fened panels for load cases with significant loading in more than one
directions. Axial and transverse loads are more effectively transferred
with grid members in two directions and, for high shear loads, inclined
ribs allowed removing skin plies and led to a weight lower than that for
the traditional skin-stiffened panel. The main challenge with some of
the grid-stiffened designs was to have acceptable manufacturing cost.
The resulting designs for the low, medium, and high load cases are
manually blended with each other so a single pattern can be applied to
all. This involves adjustments for manufacturability such as matching
the angle of grids which are not aligned with the fuselage axis and
fixing the grid height to a single value across panels irrespective of load
intensity. As a result, a small weight penalty is incurred compared to
the individually optimized panels but the ease of fabrication is greatly
improved. Finally, a highly loaded panel section of the fuselage is ex-
tracted for detailed design and the loads acting on this panel are in-
vestigated. This demonstration panel is shown in Fig. 1.
The extracted local panel is loaded under combined compression
and shear of 430 N/mm and 75 N/mm respectively. The compression
load is found to be roughly six times higher than the shear load, and is
therefore considered to be the more significant one to evaluate the
design and fabrication process selected here.
3. Fabrication process
Automated fibre placement techniques are developed for a variety
of multidirectional, steered and tailored composite panels. The most
common processes use pre-impregnated fibre tows that can be placed or
stacked to build a grid of the required height, however, there is an
excessive material build-up at nodal intersections that has to be avoided
by highly compacting material at the nodes and/or spreading the tows
around the intersection area to maintain a consistent grid height. The
fibre volume fractions at each intersection tend to vary and the panel,
therefore, lacks consistency. Another difficulty with this process is the
requirement of an autoclave for the curing processes, which limits the
size and shape of the part that can be manufactured, and increases the
cost of the production process. Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer
Fig. 1. Generic grid stiffened fuselage, with the optimized half and pull-out of the local
panel selected for demonstration.
236
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246
Moulding (VARTM) is a suitable alternative for manufacturing of grid-
stiffened panels. In this process, the resin is drawn into a preform solely
under vacuum without the use of high amount of heat or pressure. This
makes the process inexpensive to produce large, complex and high
quality parts in one step. VARTM can be successfully used to produce
grid-stiffened panels of high quality with minimum void content, if the
infusion process can be controlled and the parameters influencing the
infusion process are understood.
Coupled with VARTM, automated dry fibre placement followed by
out-of-autoclave curing for production processes is expected to be the
most cost effective way in the near future. Fibre placement heads with
advanced capabilities and variable tow width handling are being de-
veloped and improved constantly [10]. To support the technique, new
materials are being developed by major composite material suppliers.
Considering these possibilities for future automation and mass pro-
duction of complex grid geometries and shapes of parts, dry fibre pla-
cement followed by vacuum infusion was chosen as the manufacturing
method in this study. The panels were produced as a proof of concept,
and therefore, did not make use of a robotic fibre placement head. The
fibre used was continuous and placed by hand. The fibre was also held
in tension to maintain its form and shape due to lack of tack or “binder”
between the adjacent layers.
An open-mould infusion process was selected with a female mould,
to place the fibres into, to prepare a preform, followed by infusion of a
room-temperature resin so that the flow was easy and uniform without
the application of heat. This allowed close monitoring of the process to
facilitate improvement for consecutive panels. An out-of autoclave
curing process was used such that the panel was cured at room tem-
perature followed by a post cure cycle in an oven. Literature has shown
that the quality of the parts produced by either curing process, is similar
[11] and in fact, in some applications, the out-of autoclave cycle has
been reported to have lower void content [12]. In addition, other
benefits over autoclave curing such as no tearing or leaking of vacuum
bag under autoclave pressure and easier compaction of thin skin sec-
tions make this an attractive alternative.
A 3D printed plastic lattice or grid was used to produce a silicone
rubber mould with the Silastic S green elastomer (Fig. 2a), due to its
superior flexibility and strength combination. The thermal expansion
coefficient measured for the silicone rubber tooling is approximately
342 × 10−6 mm/mm-°C resulting in a maximum expansion of
0.376 mm in the thickness direction and 0.94 mm in the width direction
for large mould pockets when post- cured at 80 °C. This mould was
cured at room temperature for 12 h before fibre placement. The same
rubber mould was used to produce all 6 panels and remained intact for
further repeated use showing no discernible damage.
The carbon fibre tows used in this process were continuous and
since they were hand laid, a suitable pattern was used so as to prevent
breaking the fibre and to save time. This “weaving” or placement pat-
tern was facilitated with a table with pins at desired locations. A CAD
model of this table with the mould assembly is shown in Fig. 2b. The
dotted lines with arrows show the pattern used in weaving the fibre
through the mould grooves. The carbon fibre was wrapped around
hand-held spools which were used to place continuous dry fibres in the
grooves. The fibres were wound around the pins on the placement table
to keep them straight and flat between adjacent layers. Placement of the
fibres took place in a clean room with controlled temperature and
moisture. In this process 6 mm wide dry Torayca T700S carbon fibre
tows were used.
After the placement was complete, the dry fibre skin layup was
placed on the mould to cover the grid. One meter wide unidirectional
Torayca T300 carbon tape plies were cut to size for the skin layup. The
assembly was prepared with bleeder and vacuum tubes and was placed
on a plate and vacuum bagged (Fig. 2c). The mould was kept under
vacuum for 6 h to ensure removal of most of the trapped air bubbles
between the fibre layers.
A room temperature resin, Epikote 04908 was used for infusion of
S. Shroff et al.
the panel. The complete infusion process lasted 2 h at room tempera-
ture. The panel was left to cure for 12 h. Subsequently, post curing was
carried out at 80 deg C for 4 h.
4. Destructive and non-destructive evaluation of part quality
The quality of the fabricated parts was investigated by measuring
the variation in grid height, width and skin thickness. In addition, fibre
volume fraction of the panels was measured at several locations and
micrographs of section cuts provided additional information at critical
regions such as nodal intersection.
The variation in grid height, width and skin thickness over the
length of the fabricated panels is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Summary
results are also given in Table 1. Panels 1 and 2 consistently show high
deviations from the reference height (see Fig. 3) indicated by the hor-
izontal line at 21.37 mm for all three grid types. The standard deviation
of the grid heights for the six panels (see Fig. 5 and Table 1) shows a
steep improvement as compared to Panel 1 in the dimensional tolerance
of the part. The standard deviation of the grid height for the last panel
(panel 6) is between six and seven times smaller that of the first panel
(panel 1). Panels 4, 5 and 6, fabricated in that order, show steadily
improving dimensional tolerance and consistency along the length and
width of the panels as manifested by the decrease in scatter around the
nominal value.
The width variation for the grids is shown in Fig. 3b, wherein, the
width of Panel 2 is seen to have a maximum variation along the length
of the grid, as well as far from reference width. Panel 2 has been found
to have the lowest quality due to excessive air bubbles accumulated
inside the vacuum setup. This caused zones of lower resin content, and
237
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246
Fig. 2. Manufacturing Process. (a) Mould is made from silicone
rubber with an assembly of 3D printed grids; (b) Winding table is
prepared and dry carbon fibre tows are placed in the grooves; (c)
VARTM is carried out with a room temperature resin; (d) Cured
panel.
hence the grids were narrower than required.
It is interesting to point out that, unlike the grid height and width
values which were more or less equally distributed above and below the
nominal or reference value, the skin thickness was mostly higher than
the reference value (see Fig. 4). A possible reason for this one-sided
thickness variation is the lack of sufficient pressure on the silicone
mould during the infusion and curing: The silicone rubber expands by a
small amount because the temperature is higher than the room tem-
perature. Over larger skin pockets, the pressure on the skin is greater
than over smaller skin pockets. This difference in pressure allows larger
resin rich areas or air pockets to remain in the skin. This pressure can
be, however, made more uniform by applying a caul plate minimizing
the problem and resulting in a skin thickness closer to the reference
value.
The part quality improved as the process parameters such as
number and location of inlets, vacuum outlets, and, flash to remove
excess air in the preform, were improved. The standard deviation in the
grid width improves towards the last panel, Panel 6. One of the most
important effects on the grid cross-sections in terms of dimensions is
that of the silicone rubber mould. The stiffened panel can either be post-
cured at a higher temperature of 40° with the silicone rubber mould and
a caul plate to minimize rubber expansion, or post-cured without the
rubber mould. The fabrication results show that the latter option is
better for the panel dimension, because, panels 5 and 6 were both post-
cured without the silicone rubber mould around them and show a
maximum coefficient of variation of 1.4% and 2.5% for the grid height
and width respectively and this deviation is consistent for all three grid-
types as shown in Fig. 5.
The fibre volume fraction was measured using the burn-out process
S. Shroff et al.
Fig. 3. Variation in grid height and width compared to nominal (reference) value. a. Variation in grid height. b. Variation in grid width.
of cured reinforced resin using ASTM standard D2584-02. An average
fibre volume fraction in the grid away from nodal intersections was
found to be approximately 35% with an average of 0.75% voids.
Maximum void content was measured as 0.8%. At the intersections or
grid nodes, the average fibre volume fraction was found to be 47% with
0.5% voids. Usually, the fibre volume at grid intersections is higher
than this value. However, in the present design, up to an extra 1 mm
238
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246
wider allowance was provided in the tooling at the nodes and in a
transition region 5 mm into and out of each node to spread the tows of
material and minimize the tendency for thickness build-up at the node
itself. The fibre volume measurements in this region did not include the
extra 1 mm worth of material and this reduces the fibre volume. The
highest void content there was measured as 1.2%. This fibre volume
fraction must be improved for better strength properties of the grid and
S. Shroff et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246

pressure and debulked to remove the trapped air between the different
layers. In that case, more fibre layers can be placed inside the grid
groove. A higher tension force in the fibre tows during placement is
expected to reduce the waviness in the fibre tows as is seen in the
current process (Fig. 7a). The fibre tension was not measured and
hence, there was no way of checking for consistency in the current
process.

5. Analysis model

Fig. 4. Variation in skin thickness compared to reference thickness.
intersections. The low fibre volume fraction is partly a result of using a
hand-placement method with slit tapes that were slightly wider than
the grooves in the mould because the standard tow available from the
supplier was slightly different than the width of the grid members de-
termined by optimization. Folding of the tape, insufficient compaction
and debulking are some of the possible causes of lower fibre volume
fraction than the target value of 50%. Better control of the process can
lead to a higher fibre volume fraction. The fibre, matrix and void vo-
lume fractions at various locations in panel 6 are reported in Fig. 6.
Eighty (80) micrographs were made at various locations in the
panel, especially the grid intersections to investigate voids and wavi-
ness of the fibres. The micrographs of three grid intersections are shown
in Fig. 7a. The waviness of the stacked fibres is visible in the left most
image, whereas the other two images are for an angled intersection and
show the fibre pattern to be more uniform. The micrograph shown in
Fig. 7b belongs to a longitudinal grid section far away from an inter-
section. Some small voids, and large resin rich areas can be seen in this
image.
The non-destructive evaluation was done on the panel using a phase
array ultrasonic system [13] and a C-scan setup to investigate part
quality on pristine panel and to determine the level of damage after
impact testing. The phase array ultrasonic system clearly showed the
poorly infused areas of the earlier fabricated panels which were later
investigated with section cuts to verify the ultrasonic scans. This
method of investigation helped determine the problem areas to improve
the fabrication process further.
The manufacturing process can be improved in the future with the
goal of increasing the fibre volume fraction by using the width of the
fibre tows as the grid width for the design and an automated tape fibre
placement process, such that the tows are compacted using sufficient
The finite element model was created in ABAQUS and care was
taken to model the grid stiffened panel as manufactured along with its
material properties. The fibre volume fractions from the destructive
evaluation of the panel were used to calculate the moduli, strength and
other material properties of the panel. For strength, this was done using
micromechanics and assuming plane stress conditions, no voids, and
perfect bonding between fibres and matrix. The resulting strength va-
lues for 35% fibre volume were as shown in Table 2 below.
The grid intersections needed accurate representation, since there is
double the number of carbon fibre layers stacked on top of each other at
this location. The grid layup was modelled in two ways to investigate
the effect of the modeling technique. The first included calculating
equivalent properties for a sub-laminate of two plies of adjacent or-
ientation angles. For example, for an intersection of 0° and 90°, prop-
erties for an equivalent ply of layup 0/90 were calculated and used as
input. In the second approach, the grid height was divided into double
the number of elements through the thickness, with a single through-
the-thickness element for each ply orientation. In the second case, it
was also necessary to gradually reduce the properties of the regions in
the grid adjacent to the grid intersections. Comparison between the two
approaches showed that the first method was simpler to model and
more reliable. It did not show any stress discontinuities for a converged
mesh as opposed to the second method. Therefore, the first method was
implemented in the final model.
The grid stiffened panel was modelled with two independent parts –
the skin and the grid. The skin was a 14-ply laminate with a stacking
sequence of (45/−45/04/90)S and the unidirectional grids are shown
in Fig. 8. The skin and grid are connected with a tie constraint. The
mesh was created using reduced integration solid elements with one
element through the thickness of each ply. A distortion control was used
to prevent the elements at the free edges from exhibiting large distor-
tions causing a premature failure of the analysis. For the compression
test, the edges of the panel up to the first grid transverse to the loading
were constrained to move only in the loading direction to represent the
potting added to the edges of the panel in the experiments as shown in
the Fig. 8. The edges parallel to the load were left free whereas the

Table 1
Nominal value, average, and standard deviation (SD) of grid height and width and skin thickness of panels 3 through 6.

Panel 3 Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6

Attribute Nominal Average SD Average SD Average SD Average SD

* SD = Standard Deviation

Grid height
Longitudinal 21.37 21.32 0.73 21.3 0.14 21.53 0.13 21.23 0.11
Circumferential 21.37 22.17 0.63 21.2 0.24 21.81 0.27 21.17 0.09
Helical 21.37 21.54 0.13 21.4 0.24 21.61 0.15 21.47 0.19

Grid width
Longitudinal 3.8 3.76 0.09 3.77 0.1 3.78 0.05 3.67 0.09
Circumferential 3 2.98 0.16 3.05 0.15 3.06 0.06 2.86 0.1
Helical 3.8 3.73 0.05 3.9 0.05 3.81 0.05 3.79 0.1

Skin thickness 1.4 1.42 0.06 1.48 0.06 – – – –

**All dimensions are in mm.

239
S. Shroff et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246

Fig. 5. Standard deviation in grid height and width.

Fig. 6. Measured volume fractions in panel 6. a. At grid locations. b. At grid intersections.

bottom edge was fully constrained. A displacement load was applied on
the top edge to simulate a pure compression loading. In case of the
impact simulation, the potted and constrained edges were modelled as
simply supported, reflecting the assumptions made in the tests.
Fibre reinforced plastics are typically expected to exhibit a linearly
elastic material behaviour up to the point of damage initiation. The
evolution of this damage is often reported to be accompanied by a
sudden loss in stiffness in the composite laminate. The damage accu-
mulates and, eventually, final failure of the composite laminate occurs.
Damage progression depends largely upon laminate parameters, and it
can be captured in detail if a suitable material model is developed
coupled with a robust failure criterion and stiffness degradation model.

Fig. 7. Micrographs at various grid locations (with

voids marked with circles and resin rich areas
marked with rectangles). a. Grid intersections. b.
Grid away from intersection.

240
S. Shroff et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246

Table 2
Calculated strength properties at 35% fibre volume.

Property Value

Tensile Strength in 1-direction, 1715 MPa

Compression Strength in 1-direction 72.25 MPa
Tensile Strength in 2-direction 514.5 MPa
Compression Strength in 2-direction 2261.54 MPa
Shear strength in 12-direction 120 MPa
Shear strength in 13-direction 120 MPa

Although composite materials have suitable specific strength and stiff-

ness as compared to metals used in aerospace applications, they lose a
lot of their weight advantage when damaged. A tool drop during
maintenance can cause a barely visible impact damage (BVID) on thin
laminates used as the fuselage skin that can easily escape a visual in-
spection that should call for repair. Hence, it is important to study the
behaviour of such materials under damage events that a visual in-
spection can easily miss.
An analysis model [14] that captures onset of damage as well as its
evolution until final failure using a combination of failure criteria,
Hashin [15], for fibre failure, and Puck [16] for matrix failure, along
with an energy release rate-based approach to predict delamination,
were applied to the finite element model to predict progressive failure
under impact and subsequent compression loads. The failure model is
presented in Fig. 9. The failure criteria are used in combination with a
degradation model such that when failure is predicted, the stiffness of
the element region is reduced by a certain amount. This degradation
model is a modified Lee [17], Hwang and Sun [18] model with varied
degradation for different failure modes and is presented in Fig. 10. The
specific values used in Fig. 10 are the result of a detailed sensitivity
study by Shroff and Kassapoglou in [14].
The general procedure followed in the progressive failure analysis is
as follows:

• At initial state, the stiffness matrix of the model is computed

• A displacement consistent with the selected impact load is applied
on the finite element model
• The strain state of the model is obtained from ABAQUS
• The stiffness matrix and stress state of the model are updated using
the strain update
• The fibre and matrix failure criteria are applied to check for failure.
If failure occurs, the applicable degradation factor from Fig. 10 is
used to update the stiffness matrix Fig. 9. Failure criteria used in the finite element based analysis model.
• The 3D strain energy is computed to check for delamination damage
using Eq. (6). If failure occurs, the applicable degradation factor is
applied to update the stiffness matrix again

Fig. 8. Dimensions and boundary conditions of the compression tested panel.

241
S. Shroff et al.
Fig. 10. Degradation model. (Note: Cij are the ply-level stiffnesses in (no summation on
indices i, j = 1, 2, 3).
• If no failure occurs, an increased load is applied and the process is
repeated
• Final failure is predicted when the total strain energy of the model
drops signifying no load transfer through the structure
Upon simulating an impact on a grid stiffened composite panel, it
was observed that when the impact energy was such that the damage
was contained within a skin pocket, the area delineated by adjacent
grid members, the final compression failure load was within 10% of the
undamaged failure load. This implies that the load in the damaged skin
can be effectively redistributed to the surrounding grid members with
little effect on the overall load carrying capacity. This is a verification of
the damage tolerance of grid-stiffened structures. The strength reduc-
tion was higher if adjacent skin pockets were damaged by impact. Then,
the load transfer from the skin overloaded the grid members adjacent to
the impacted skin pockets. In either case, the section of the skin con-
taining the impact site was assumed to carry no load. The load was
assumed to be redistributed over the grids and the pristine skin section.
Using the predicted total load carried by the grids and the buckling load
of the skin pockets from the finite element model, a redistribution ratio
could be determined. The progressive damage model was used to pre-
dict the damage initiation loads which, in combination with the re-
distribution ratio, could predict the failure load of the single or multiple
impacted panel under compression. The final failure load of a panel
with two impacted skin pockets was found to be 7.5% lower than one
with a single impacted skin pocket.
Sensitivity studies based on grid pocket sizes using an orthogrid
stiffened panel under impact [14], showed that using realistic boundary
conditions, the damage size can be reduced by making the skin pocket
sufficiently small before the damage progresses through the grid, at the
same impact energy. This should be further explored for isogrid and
anisogrid stiffened panels for a robust prediction.
6. Tests and post-test evaluation
The compression and impact tests were carried out at the Delft
Aerospace Structures and Materials Laboratory (DASML), at the
Technical University of Delft, The Netherlands. The compression tests
were performed on a servo-hydraulic compression test bench with a
capacity of 600 kN under deflection control. The setup was equipped
with Linear Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) to measure
cross head displacements. The strain gauges on the grid side of the
panel were connected to a Keithly Data Acquisition System, whereas
VIC-3D (Correlated, 2013), a Digital Image Correlation (DIC) system
was setup and calibrated to measure the displacement and strain on the
skin surface during the test at various load levels. The experimental
setup is shown in Fig. 11a.
The impact tests were performed on an impact drop tower with a
capacity of 1600 J energy level. A spherical steel impactor with a
242
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246
diameter of 16 mm was dropped with a total mass of 3.23 kg from a
height of 0.47 m and 0.63 m for a low velocity impact of 15 J and 20 J
energy levels at locations 1 and 2 respectively shown in Fig. 11b. The
final dimensions of the impacted panel taking into account the
boundary conditions are also shown.
The six panels produced using vacuum infusion were cleaned and
cut to the final dimensions at all four edges using a diamond wheel
cutter. Each panel was then potted with potting agent Rencast TM CW-
2418/Renr HY5160. The horizontal faces of the potting were milled flat
to ensure uniform compression in the test bench. The geometry of the
finished panel is shown in Fig. 11c. The flat skin side of the panel was
then painted to create a speckle pattern for a DIC while strain gauges
were placed on specific locations on the grid side of the panel on both
the grid and the skin surfaces. The location of the strain gauges is shown
in Fig. 11d. For impact, the free edges of the panel were constrained to
imitate simply supported boundary conditions. Therefore, Aluminium
jigs with a “C” cross-section were machined to fit in the potted length of
the panel and slide in to support the free edges of the grid stiffened
panel. The jigs were then held in position using clamps.
During the compression test, strain measurements were taken at
0 kN load level to use as reference. The loading was applied manually in
steps of 10 kN at lower load levels, 5 kN at medium load levels and
2.5 kN at higher load levels, close to the expected failure loads as
predicted by the FE analysis. At higher load levels, a series of sounds
were heard indicating matrix crushing, limited fibre breakage and de-
lamination in the layers of the skin. The load levels were recorded,
however, the exact location of the sound source was not detected.
Finally, the panels failed due to grid-skin separation with a very loud
sound. Strain versus load curves with strain results from a sample lo-
cation on the panel on the grid side (measured with a strain gauge) and
on the skin side (measured with the DIC) from the test are shown in
Fig. 12a. The force versus displacement diagram measured with the
LVDTs is given in Fig. 12b for panels 1, 2 and 6. This diagram also
indicates the load levels at which the sounds were heard during the test.
All these observations have been compared to the finite element pre-
dictions of failure instances and show less than 1% difference in the
load levels at which these failures are predicted to initiate in the finite
element model.
The impact-tested panels showed very little surface damage under
15 J impact. More damage with visible fibre slits was evident at 25 J
impact and as shown in Fig. 13. Post-test NDI evaluations were also
carried out. The impacted panel was C-scanned using a C-scan built in-
house at the DASML in Delft. The images of the C-scan can be seen in
Fig. 14a and b. The damage diameter from the C-scan was then com-
pared to the predicted results from the FE analysis.
7. Comparisons of analytical predictions to test results
Undamaged specimens: The approach described in the analysis sec-
tion was used to predict failure for undamaged specimens. The pre-
dicted failure sequence, shown in Fig. 15, was as follows (a) Matrix
cracks at or near 95.44 kN (b) Delaminations at or near 103.5 kN (c)
Broken fibres at 119.9 kN.
The non-destructive c-scan of panel 6 did not show significant voids
in the skin pockets. Still, in order to better determine material prop-
erties and manufacturing consistency, the fibre volume fraction of the
panel was measured in various locations of the panel. The finite ele-
ment model was subsequently modified with the updated material
properties in the grids and skin for a better comparison of the experi-
mental results. A comparison of the out of plane displacement of the
section A-A marked on the panel in Fig. 11c from the DIC results with
the finite element predictions agreed very well for load levels higher
than 50 kN and agreed well with lower load levels. A comparison of the
out of plane displacements for section A-A for load levels of 60 kN and
100 kN show that the behaviour of the panels under the compression
load is very well predicted for both cases with a maximum error of less
S. Shroff et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246

Fig. 11. Test specimen configuration. a: Compression test setup on the skin side. b: Final dimensions, boundary conditions and impact locations of test panel. c: Final potted test panel
dimensions. d: Strain gauge locations on grid side.

than 8% for the 100 kN load level. The predicted out of plane dis-
placement versus panel length curve is compared to the test result in
Fig. 16.
To understand the effect of impact, the grid stiffened panel was
impacted on the skin side of the panel, at the centre of each skin pocket.
The energy levels were selected, such that the damage does not go past
the surrounding grids. Finite element models were created to predict
impact damage areas with varying levels of impact energy at skin
pockets. A phase array ultrasonic system and the c-scan setup were used
to measure the impact damage size for the tested panels. The damage
sizes for the various impacts are shown in Fig. 17. The finite element
predictions are also shown in the figure and are marked by circles. The
experimental data is from different grid stiffened panels manufactured
in separate stages and the skin pocket impacts did not come from the
same global sample. These factors contribute to the scatter at energy
levels of 15 J and 20 J. The FE predictions for the impact damage sizes
are overestimated for the lower energy levels up to 15 J. The difference
of the damage areas for higher energy levels is approximately 7%,

Fig. 12. Typical test results from the compression test. a. Strain versus load. b. Load versus displacement.

243
S. Shroff et al.
Fig. 13. Photograph of 25 J impact damage on panel 4 (skin side).
whereas at lower energy levels, the difference was found to be between
35% and 80%.
The phased array system used for the measurement of damage sizes
was operated manually and therefore, introduces an error, however,
this error cannot be estimated unless better ultrasonic scans are made
with calibrated automated systems. The C-scan also showed scatter in
the images, due to the interference of water splashing from the grids
back on to the skin during the scan. Hence, more precise measurements
have to be made in the future with equipment more suited to the stif-
fened panel with high grids. Despite this error, the largest difference of
80% in the damage area prediction with the FE model, is too large to be
attributed to just a measurement error. Another reason for this dis-
crepancy is the fact that infusion was not perfect at the impact loca-
tions. As a result the skin had lower stiffness there and, under impact,
would absorb more energy by deflecting than by damage predicted by
the model.
8. Discussion and conclusions
The use of progressive damage prediction in a finite element based
analysis has led to the conclusion that the failure in the composite panel
initiates due to matrix cracking in the skin in the vicinity of the grid
interfaces. When these matrix cracks propagate and reach ply inter-
faces, they cause delaminations in the skin. The delaminations then
cause loss of stiffness in the region, ultimately overloading the grid-skin
interface. Here, the normal and shear stresses exacerbated by the mo-
ment due to the eccentricity between the grid and the skin, lead to
244
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246
ultimate failure by grid-skin separation. This failure sequence predicted
by the FE model was reproduced in the tests. The awareness of the
failure sequence can now be incorporated in to design practices to delay
or prevent early failure such that the ultimate failure is also delayed.
For example, the matrix cracks appearing in the skin can be delayed
or prevented by optimizing the skin laminate layup so that the propa-
gation of the matrix cracks leading to delamination are delayed. Even
with an optimized skin laminate, the delaminations at the grid-skin
interface, still remain a big threat to the strength of the panel. The
design must, therefore, consider the grid cross-section, size and shape as
design parameters to prevent the excessive shear stresses and stiffness
differences at the interfaces. The grid orientation and density, as con-
cluded by various previous researchers [19–22], still remain important
design parameters.
The grid stiffened design is very damage tolerant as also proven by
the analysis and tests of skin pocket-impacted panels. The impact da-
mage does not affect the failure strength of the panel as long as a single
impacted pocket is isolated and is located at least two bays away from
another impacted pocket. The proximity of multiple damage sites and
their effect on the static and fatigue performance of a panel will be an
important research focus in the near future.
Grid stiffened structures are being currently manufactured using
filament winding processes, in combination with autoclave manu-
facturing [2]. These structures can potentially be produced by an out-
of-autoclave automated tape placement method. Alternatively, dry fibre
placement can also be used to prepare preforms of these structures to be
vacuum infused later and cured in an oven [23]. The difficulty in the
first method of tape placement, is the production of the grid intersec-
tions. A choice has to be made to allow height build-up, or differentially
compress the material so the pressure at intersections is higher, or steer
around and intersection, or even alternately cut fibres to keep the
height constant. Out of autoclave processed prepreg tapes are now
available that can reduce the cost of curing. The difficulty with dry
preform fabrication process is the increased cost of dry fibre tows that
must have a layer of binder material to hold the fibres in place and in
tension during the placement process.
The analytical predictions discussed in the current paper have
shown a good agreement with literature and with results of tests con-
ducted by the authors. The final failure load is very accurate, however,
the actual damage sizes differing by as much as 80% but typically
within 30% of the test results can still be further improved by im-
proving the finite element analysis. The current approach used the Puck
Fig. 14. Ultrasonic inspection results showing impact damage
and manufacturing defects. a: C-Scan of Panel 2 with multiple
impact damage and manufacturing defects. b: C-Scan of Panel 6
with single impact damage.
S. Shroff et al. Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246

Fig. 15. Progression of damage in Panel 6.

Fig. 16. Compression test of undamaged panels compared with the analytical model.

only be done by introducing the manufacturing parameters as a design

input. The current production method also poses limitations in grid
height, density and orientation. Improved automated hardware will
also allow steered fibre paths for optimum performance.
Finally, difficulties with non-destructive inspections to identify the
locations and extent of the damage are an area that must be addressed if
grid-stiffened structures are to break into the mainstream. Once the grid
exceeds a certain minimum height, the C-scan equipment needs to be
improved beyond what is currently commercially available to detect
any damage at all through the thickness and at the grid-skin intersec-
tion.
Fig. 17. Comparison of damage area of impact test with finite element predictions.
References
failure criterion for the matrix based failures. It has been found to
[1] D. Paul, D. Pratt, History of flight vehicle structures 1903–1990, J. Aircr. 41 (5)
perform better than other failure criteria, however, the delamination
(2004) 969–977.
based on fracture energy can be further improved by taking into ac- [2] V.V. Vasiliev, V.A. Barynin, A. Razin, Anisogrid composite lattice structures – de-
count mode mixity to make the prediction even more accurate. velopment and aerospace applications, Compos. Struct. 94 (2012) 1117–1127.
Understanding of the behaviour of composite grid stiffened panels [3] H.J. Chen, S.W. Tsai, Analysis and optimum design of composite grid structures, J.
Compos. Mater. 30 (4) (1996) 503–534.
and low cost manufacturing with consistent quality have improved a lot [4] D.J. Baker, D.R. Ambur, J. Fudge, C. Kassapoglou, Optimal design and damage
in recent years. The automated production process needs improving tolerance verification of an isogrid structure for helicopter application, AIAA/
and further development in terms of accuracy and precision. This can ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 44,

245
S. Shroff et al.
2003.
[5] V.D. Muthyala, Composite Sandwich Structure with Grid Stiffened Core (Thesis),
Louisiana State University, 2007.
[6] T.E. Meink, Composite grid vs. composite sandwich: a comparison based on payload
shroud requirements, IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1, pp. 215–220, 1998.
[7] S.M. Huybrechts, T.E. Meink, P.M. Wegner, J.M. Ganley, Manufacturing theory for
advanced grid stiffened structures, Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 33 (2) (2002)
155–161.
[8] S.K. Mazumdar, Composites Manufacturing: Materials, Product and Process,
Engineering, CRC Press, 2012.
[9] F. Chinesta, A. Leygue, B. Bognet, Ch Ghnatios, F. Poulhaon, F. Bordeu,
A. Barasinski, A. Poitou, S. Chatel, S. Maison-Le-Poec, First steps towards an ad-
vanced simulation of composites manufacturing by automated tape placement, Int.
J. Mater. Form. 7 (1) (2014) 81–92.
[10] A. Levy, J. Tierney, D. Heider, P. Lefebure, D. Lang, Simulation and optimization of
the thermoplastic automated tape placement (ATP) process, Proc. SAMPE (2012).
[11] A.T. Nettles, J.R. Jackson, Compression after impact strength of out-of-autoclave
processed laminates, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 32 (24) (2013) 1887–1894.
[12] J.K. Sutter, L. Kenner, L. Pelham, et al., Comparison of autoclave and out-of-auto-
clave composites, in: Proceedings of the 42nd International SAMPE symposium and
technical conference (42nd Proceedings), 2010.
[13] L.W. Schemmer Jr., Fundamentals of ultrasonic phased arrays, Mod. Phys. Lett. 22
(11) (2008).
246
Thin-Walled Structures 119 (2017) 235–246
[14] S. Shroff, C. Kassapoglou, Progressive failure modelling of impacted composite
panels under compression, Submitt. to: Compos. Part B (2014).
[15] Z. Hashin, Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites, ASME J. Appl. Mech.
47 (1980) 329–334.
[16] A. Puck, Festigkeitsanalyse von Faser-matrix-Laminaten: modelle fur die Praxis,
Hanser (1996) (ISBN 9783446181946).
[17] J.D. Lee, Three dimensional finite element analysis of damage accumulation in
composite laminate, Compos. Struct. 15 (1982) 335–350.
[18] W.C. Hwang, C.T. Sun, Failure analysis of laminated composite by using iterative
three dimensional finite element method, Compos. Struct. 33 (1989) 41–47.
[19] E. Wodesenbet, S. Kidane, S. Pang, Optimization of buckling loads of grid stiffened
composite panels, Compos. Struct. (2003).
[20] N. Jaunky, N. Knight, D. Ambur, Formulation of an improved smeared stiffener
theory for buckling analysis of grid-stiffened composite panels, Compos. Part B:
Eng. 27 (5) (1996) 519–526.
[21] N. Jaunky, N. Knight, D. Ambur, Optimal design of grid-stiffened composite panels
using global and local buckling analyses, in: Proceedings of the 37th AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference and
Exhibit, pp. 2315–2325, 1976.
[22] Z. Gürdal, G. Gendron, Optimal design of geodesically stiffened composite cylind-
rical shells, Compos. Eng. 3 (12) (1993) 1131–1147.
[23] G. Totaro, F. De Nicola, Recent advance on design and manufacturing of composite
anisogrid structures for space launchers, Acta Astronaut. 81 (2) (2012) 570–577.