In-situ continuous-fibre additive repair restores damaged thermoplastic composites without a separate adhesive layer, but how load transfer between the parent laminate and printed patch reconstructs load sharing and governs failure remains unclear. This study combines four-point bending tests with a finite element model that represents the parent laminate, printed patch and parent–patch interface and quantifies the distribution of interfacial load transfer. Circular and square in-situ additive repairs recovered 99.3% and 94.0% of the intact stiffness and 91.0% and 84.1% of the intact peak load. Intact specimens failed near the upper loading rollers by compression-side fibre buckling, whereas in-situ repaired specimens failed in the repaired mid-span region through tensile cracking in the parent laminate and separation within the patch; the parent–patch interface remained macroscopically continuous. Finite element analysis showed that interfacial transfer incorporated the printed patch into the flexural load path. The outer step accounted for approximately three-quarters of the longitudinal interfacial-force magnitude, and its non-uniform transfer pattern preceded damage in the adjacent patch. Geometry-specific references showed that the circular–square difference in transfer distribution arose mainly from boundary orientation, with limited additional traction localisation. These findings show that the parent–patch interface formed by in-situ additive repair enables load sharing and substantial flexural recovery, while the process-induced architecture of the continuous-fibre printed patch provides a competing path for damage development, so that the in-situ repaired specimens recover much of the intact performance without restoring the intact failure mode.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: