I hate to be pedantic, but the use of the generic terms "composites" and "delamination" can lead to entirely confusing outcomes. Many people uderstand the term "composites" to mean a laminated material fabricated from fibres and resin, while others (including unfortunately the FAA) include adhesive bonding in that terminology.
Similarly, many people use the term "delamination" to describe the separation between plies in a laminated composite, while others also use the term to include a separation at a bonded joint. Again, these are distinctly different failure modes with different causes. Delamination in a laminated composite is often associated with impact damage, while disbonding of an adhesive bond is often a direct result of manufacturing processes and in most cases has little to do with the service history (even if manufacturers often try to blame the user).
The Concorde failure referred to in the previous posts is a classic case of this confusion. The report assigns the failure to bonding issues, not delaination of laminated composite materials.
These are two enitrely different technologies in which the only common factor is that the stuff used is initially sticky and is cured by heat. There are very distinct differences in design methodology, materials, processing methods, training and failure modes. Just because a technician knows how to laminate a composite component does not necessarily imply competency in surface preparation to bond that component. So why do people still continue to use poor and confusing terminology?
