Contents lists available at www.icmem.

tk

Manufacturing Engineering & Management TheProceedings

Experimental and Numerical Stress-strain Analysis of Composite Beams

PetarSmiljanic1AleksandarSedmak2DzindoEmina2EmilVeg3
1 2 3

CompanyProblemBelgrade FacultyofMechanicalEngineering,UniversityofBelgrade InnovationCenterofFacultyofMechanicalEngineeringBelgrade

ARTICLEINFO:
Category:Shortcommunication Received:15September2012/Revised:24October2012/Accepted:24October2012

Keywords:(incausalorder)
Adhesive Compositebeams Compositematerials Bondedjoints Stressstrain

Abstract:
A structural member composed of two or more dissimilar materials joined together to act as a unit. There are two main benefits of composite action in structural members. First, by rigidly joining the two parts together, the resulting system is stronger than the sum of its parts. Second, composite action can better utilize the properties of each constituent material. Composites consisting of resin matrices reinforced with discontinuous glass fibers and continuous glassfiber mats are widely used in truck and automobile componentsbearinglightloads.

Citation:SmiljanicP.,etal.:ExperimentalandNumericalStressstrainAnalysisofCompositeBeams,2ndInternationalConferenceManufacturingEngineering&Management2012,(2012), p.167169,ISBN9788055312163

INTRODUCTION
Material systems are composed of a mixture or combination of two or more constituents that differ in form or material composition and are essentially insoluble in each other. In principle, composites can be constructed of any combination of two or more materials metallic, organic, or inorganic; but the constituent forms are more restricted. A number of matrix materials are available, including carbon, ceramics, glasses, metals, and polymers. Advanced composites possess enhanced stiffness and lower density compared to fiberglass and conventional monolithic materials, [12]. While composite strength is primarilyafunctionofthereinforcement,theabilityofthe matrix to support the fibers or particles and to transfer loadtothereinforcementisequallyimportant,[35].Also, the matrix frequently dictates service conditions, for example, the upper temperature limit of the composite. Composites consisting of resin matrices reinforced with discontinuous glass fibers and continuous glassfiber mats are widely used in truck and automobile components bearing light loads, such as interior and exterior panels, pistons for diesel engines, drive shafts, rotors, brakes, leaf springs,wheels,andclutchplates. This material has enabled the development of load bearing components with structural fasteners, ease of manufacturing, assembly and reducing weight. The solution was the use of composite beams wood of poor quality, thus creating significant advantages over laminated wood beams, both in price and in ease of manufacturing, purchasing materials and preparation time. The most important characteristic in this case is the rigidityoftheappliedmaterialanditselasticmodulus.

Birchplywood

Epoxy
Fig.1Birchplywoodstripsgluedtofirbyepoxyadhesive.

Fir

Sikaflex221 Carbonsteel

EXPRERIMENTALRESULTS
The experimental part includes the following: composite woodenbeamsreinforcedwithsteelbands.Twosetswere done with three identical pieces of different composite beams: a)Carbonsteelstripsreinforced,boxedfirbeam. b)Carbonsteelstripsreinforcedfirsolidbeam. Geometrical and technological characteristics of compositebeams:

Fig.2 Fir and carbon steel strips bonded by elastic polyurethaneglue,SIKAFLEX221. Materialsusedinthepreparationofcompositebeamsand their characteristics are very important. To create a beam, inaccordancewiththebasic ideaofthebeamssupporting thedevelopmentoflowcost,adequatecapacityandalow degree of complexity of production, the following materials were used: Low carbon steel in the form of strips and sheets (cut into strips), St35, shaped by cold rolling, and fir wood category III. Polyurethane glue SIKAFLEX 221st was used as adhesive. It is a single component material which hardens in contact with moisture from the air. Fir wood beams were cut to size, figures12.Thecuttingmode,thelengthandarrangement of rings and the presence of nodes, was not taken care of in the process of choosing the right wood for the experiment. Testing of adhesives is done 48 hours after

167

P. Smiljanic, et al.

Experimental and Numerical Stress-strain Analysis of Composite Beams

bonding. Testing was performed by simple three point bending. The applied forces and Flexion were recorded. ResultsaregiveninTab.1 Tab.1Appliedforcesandmeasuredflexions
Beam box Beam box Beam box Force(N) 33.35 284.10 2700.00 Flexion (mm) 0.14 1.04 7.13 Fracturecausedbythe forceonthebeam. Result

Analysisofstressandstrainatthehighestload. Results of numerical analysis are presented in Tables 35 andFigures37. Tab.3Studyresults

Selection Units SumX SumY SumZ Resultant set EntireBody N 0.206856 4905.35 0.105957 4905.35

Tab.4FreeBodyForces
Selection Units SumX SumY SumZ Resultant set Entire N 8.77008e 0.0019229 0.000738807 0.00206181 Body 005

NUMERICALANALYSIS Numerical analysis was performed by the finite element method.PolyurethaneglueSIKAFLEX221andPlaincarbon steelpropertiesaregiveninTab.2. Tab.2Materialproperties
Materialname: Description: MaterialModelType: DefaultFailureCriterion: PropertyName Value Elasticmodulus 3e+6 Poisson'sratio 0.48 Shearmodulus 1.5e+6 Massdensity 1200 Tensilestrength 1e+6 Compressivestrength 1e+6 Yieldstrength 1e+6 SIKAFLEX221 Polyurethane LinearElasticIsotropic MaxvonMisesStress Units ValueType N/m^2 Constant NA Constant N/m^2 Constant kg/m^3 Constant N/m^2 Constant N/m^2 Constant N/m^2 Constant PlainCarbonSteel LinearElasticIsotropic MaxvonMisesStress Units ValueType N/m^2 Constant NA Constant N/m^2 Constant kg/m^3 Constant N/m^2 Constant N/m^2 Constant Fir LinearElasticIsotropic MaxvonMisesStress Units ValueType N/m^2 Constant NA Constant N/m^2 Constant kg/m^3 Constant N/m^2 Constant N/m^2 Constant N/m^2 Constant Birchplzwood(3layer)

Tab.5FreeBodyMoments
Selection Units SumX set Entire N m 0 Body Name Type Min VON: 0.0032756 Stress1 vonMises (MPa) Stress Node:6810 URES: Displa Resultant 0mm cement1 Displace Node:6299 ment 6.92548 ESTRN: e006 Strain1 Equivalen Element: tStrain 646 VON:von 0.003275 Stress2 Mises (MPa) Stress Node:6810 SumY 0 SumZ 0 Resultant 1e033 Location (0.592 mm, 47.69mm, 449.9mm) (22.26mm, 37.7mm, 449.6mm)

Location Max (19.9431mm, 376.31 52.9717mm, (MPa) 110.626mm) Node:266 18.6643 (20mm,25.3 mm mm,0mm) Node: 6291

Materialname: MaterialModelType: DefaultFailureCriterion: PropertyName Value Elasticmodulus 2.1e+11 Poisson'sratio 0.28 Shearmodulus 7.9e+10 Massdensity 7800 Tensilestrength 3.9983e+8 Yieldstrength 2.2059e+8

(16.4459mm, 0.430787 (4.929mm, 15.1398mm, Element: 59.27mm, 3.22413mm) 2131 669.86mm) (19.9431mm, 376.31 (0.592 mm, 52.9717mm, (MPa) 47.69mm, 110.626mm) Node:266 449.9mm)

Materialname: MaterialModelType: DefaultFailureCriterion: PropertyName Value Elasticmodulus 1.3e+010 Poisson'sratio 0.39 Shearmodulus 7.9e+010 Massdensity 390 Tensilestrength 7.9e+007 Yieldstrength 4.6e+007 Compressivestrength 4.0e+007

Fig.3 F=284N; VonMissesStresses

Materialname: MaterialModelType: LinearElasticOrthotropic DefaultFailureCriterion: MaxvonMisesStress PropertyName Value Units ValueType Elasticmodulus 1.39e+10 N/m^2 Constant Poisson'sratioxy 0.697 NA Constant Poisson'sratioxz 0.42 NA Constant Shearmodulus 7.0e+8 N/m^2 Constant Massdensity 620 kg/m^3 Constant Tensilestrengthx 1,0e+7 N/m^2 Constant Tensilestrengthy 1,02279e+8 N/m^2 Constant Compressivestrengthx 6,7e+6 N/m^2 Constant Compressivestrengthy 5,63e+7 N/m^2 Constant Yieldstrength 7.6e+7 N/m^2 Constant

Fig.4 F=284N;VonMissesStressesdetailedview.

168

Experimental and Numerical Stress-strain Analysis of Composite Beams

P.Smiljanic, et al.

DISCUSSION
The results of numerical calculations of load and deformation of the composite beam were confirmed by testing the beam samples. In the boxbeam bending, support distance was 900 mm, and the geometric characteristics of the beam were exactly the same as in the numerical model. Deformation was measured in the middle of the tested beam. That was also the position of theappliedload.Examinationofthesolidbeamwasdone inthesameway,withthesamesupportspanof900mm. In examining the boxbeam there was a fracture at the buckling force of 2700 N and deflection of 7.13 mm. Force values are higher because of greater rigidity of the beam materials. For the force range from 1962 N to 4905 N and the deflection of 5mm13.2mm there was no beam fracture. The force values, for corresponding deflection, are different from the numerically obtained due to higher stiffness of the wooden beam materials. In the beam bending test we were able to determine the mechanical propertiesofusedmaterials.

Fig.5F=284N;Beamdeformation.

CONCLUSIONS
Analyses were performed with at the maximum loaded beams. Value of the force at which the fracture zone was created has caused greater deformation than the calculated one. The reason is beam buckling under the force, and the assumption that the numerical model of birch plywood is anisotropic. Examination of the solid wooden beam was done in the same way, with the same range. Force values are higher because of higher beam material modulus. The study confirms the characteristics of calculation capacity. Increase of the beam deflection is proportional to the increase in bending force. The values for the corresponding deflection of force are different from the numerically obtained due to higher stiffness of theusedwoodenbeams. We can notice that the distributions of stressesdue to the different elasticity modulus are not equal. This is a basic idea for usage of composite beams. This allows us beam calculationthetomaximizepotentialofusedmaterials. Data were obtained for samples of materials, which may not fully correspond to those included in testing. Using low quality wood material as bearer filling, gives significant advantage in comparison to laminated wood bearings in terms of price, producing simplicity, material acquisitionandproductiontime.

Fig.6F=284N;Equivalentstrain.

REFERENCES
[1] Zdenek P. Baant, Fellow, ASCE, L. Vtek, Compound Size Effect In Composite Beams With Softening Connectors. I: Energy Approach, Journal Of EngineeringMechanicsNovember1999 [2] Chi Kin Iu Inelastic finite element analysis composite beams on the basis of the plastic hinge approach, EngineeringStructures(2008)Volume:30 [3] Bob Matthews Applied Stress Analysis Section XI CompositeMaterials [4] Hastin,Z.AnalysisofCompositeMaterials,Journalof AppliedMechanics,Vol.50/481,September1983 [5] David L. McDanels Analysis of stressstrain, fracture, andductulybehaviorofaluminiummatrixcomposites containg discontiunuos silicon carbide reinforce ment, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, Vol. 16, No 6, (1985), 11051115.

Fig.7F=284N;TotalStrainEnergy.

169