Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Composites Tutorial
Table of Contents
Defining a Laminate Material in Femap ..... Femap Layup Editor ... p Materials Overview .. Orthotropic Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap ... Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate Model in Femap ........... Creating the Laminate Material .. Defining the Laminate Layup D fi i the Defining th Laminate L i t Property P t . Specifying Material Angles Post Processing the Results Using Plate Elements to Model Honeycomb Core Composites . y Applied pp to Honeycomb y Composites p .. Classical Plate Theory The Nastran PShell Property Card .. Using the PShell Property Card for Honeycomb Composites Using Femap to Setup a Honeycomb Panel Example 2: Comparing Different Laminate Modeling Methods .... Material i l Properties i used d in i the h Example l Honeycomb Model using Solid Elements with Laminate Face Skins Honeycomb Model using Classical Plate Theory ... Honeycomb Model using Laminate Elements Results Summary . Conclusion .. 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 31 34 35
Orthotropic Materials
Often times Composites can be modeled as Orthotropic p materials. The Nastran Mat8 material card can be used to simulate orthotropic behavior.
2
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
1
The h above b i is an example l of f an orthotropic h i material. i l The 1 direction could corresponds to the x direction and the 2 to the y or vise-versa. When deciding which direction is the x and which is the y, what is important is that the chosen convention is adhered to.
One of the more difficult aspects of working with composites is getting i realistic, li i usable bl material i l data. d Matt Piatkowski i k ki at Heath h Tecna inc. provided an example of a material model they have developed. These values were derived through correlating experimental data with FEA models. Built into this material model are a number of assumptions: it is only valid for certain shapes and loading schemes. The model works well in pure flex, but does not work well when a lot of shear or twist is imposed on the structure. Such limitations and assumptions are very important to quantify. An FEA model is only as good as the assumptions that go into it.
2) Graphite Tape
The model to the right is a section of the submarine model shown on the previous page. The original model was built using plate elements, but in this example we will modify it so that the submarine skin is a laminate. The port is composed of solid elements, with an assumed material of steel. The ring of blue elements around the port are plate elements, whose purpose it is to simulate a weld. These plate elements are also assumed to be steel.
Jones,
After the elements are assigned the laminate property, they need to be given a specified angle that corresponds to the primary direction of the layup. The above picture specifies the directions we are interested in specifying. The ring of two elements around the port are to have an orientation tangent to the edge of the port, while all other elements need to point in the vertical direction.
Going to Modify-Update Elements-Material Angle allows the user to specify the laminate direction. In the case above, a cylindrical coordinate system was created, called Cylindrical 1. Using this coordinate system, the inner ring of elements were p as pointing p g in the theta direction. specified
It is important to ensure that all laminate elements have an angle specified. Nastran will not run the analysis if elements are missing an angle specification. Element normals are also important if your laminate model is not symmetric. These must be specified to ensure that element orientation is consistent. On the right is an example where a certain portion of laminate elements have unspecified angles. Often finding where these elements are is a chore. To solve the problem, I created an API script that searches for these elements, then highlights and groups them. The bottom graphic shows this. This API is called Composites Material Angle Checker, and can be downloaded from our website at www.PredictiveEngineering.com/downloads/api.html After loads and boundary conditions are specified, the models is ready to process.
The inter-laminate Th i t l i t bonding b di factor of safety is shown on the right. The bonding index see a maximum at the center of the elements This is what we would elements. expect to see as predicted by classical plate / beam theory. There should be zero shear force on the surfaces and a maximum at the centerline.
Et K= 1 2
Bending Stiffness
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
2d t 1 I'= + d 3 3 2 2 12
If d >>t, then the following can be assumed:
EI ' D= 1 2
td 2 I' 4
3.
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
We will then compare the pros and cons of each methods, and evaluate the results. The models are simply supported, with a body load of 10 Gs. Each configuration is modeled as half symmetric.
The material properties for the face sheets and the core are shown above. The face sheets are graphite composite, while the core is modeled as an isotropic material. material
Honeycomb Panel Using Solid Elements for the Core and Laminate Elements for the Face Sheets
This fi Thi first model d l was b built il using i Hex H elements l for the core, and Laminate elements for the face sheets. The Laminate elements are given an offset of 0.05 to compensate for their thickness.
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
The Layup for the face sheets is shown on the right. The face sheets are 0.1 inches thick being composed of 8 plys, each 0.0125 inches thick. These plys are oriented so as to perform in an isotropic manner.
Deflection results for the solid / laminate model are shown above. The peak deflection is -0.0139 inches.
Honeycomb Panel Using Classical Plate Theory to Represent the Core and Skins in One Property
In this model, plate elements will be used to simulate the behavior of the honeycomb panel. The equations from classical plate theory given on pages 18-21 are used to modify the behavior of the plate element.
The Layup for the face sheets is shown on the right. For this model, we would like to generate a material with equivalent isotropic properties. Luckily, Femap provides a great new option to do this. There is a new option in the Layup Editor called Compute. If this is selected, Femap will compute all the composite properties for o the e layup, ayup, computing co pu g in-plane pa e properties, as well as the A, B and D matrices.
8 Plies - Total Thickness = 0.1
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
The In-Plane properties for the layup are shown on the left. An isotropic material was used based upon these calculations. E = 10.55 X 106 psi v = 0.322742
In-Plane Properties Ex = 10556320. Ey = 10556320. Gxy = 3990317. NUxy = 0.322742 NUyx = 0.322742 p = 0. Alphay p y = 0. Alphaxy p y = 0. Alphax
D = 0.3 inches
I
12
I = 8.167 10
BendingStiffness
I 12. 3 T
NSM
NSM = 1.35 10 ts ts T
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
D = 1.5
For the previously given material properties, the equations on pg. 20 yield the values that have been entered into the plate property definition. Actual Calculations are given above.
Deflection results for the classical plate theory model are shown above. The peak deflection is -0.0142 inches.
Honeycomb Panel Using Laminate Elements for the Core and Face Sheets
The above model uses only laminate elements to simulate the honeycomb composite. The face sheets as well as the core material are all contained in one material property.
The layup for the Honeycomb Composite is shown on the right. This section of the Layup is the top face sheet. This one ply represents the Core. This section of the Layup is the bottom face sheet.
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
What is so nice about the laminate element is its simplicity; in one property, everything can be specified.
Deflection results for the laminate model are shown above. The peak deflection is -0.0137 inches.
Results Summary
Node Count Hex Model Classical Model Laminate Model 3381 677 677 Solution Time 10 s 5s 5s Deflection -0.0139 in -0.0142 0 0142 in -0.0137 in % Variance from Laminate Model 1.43 % 35% 3.5 0%
The above Th b table bl compares the h results l from f the h three h models. d l The Th Hex H and d Laminate L i models d l correlate l most closely, while the classical model deviates by about 3.5 %. All of the results are fairly consistent, but there are other considerations which contribute to deciding which is the best method.
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
The Hex model is accurate, , but has a significantly g y higher g node count and therefore solution time. The classical model has a small node count, but extraneous calculations are required to set up the model. The laminate model has both a low node count and is easy to set up. In addition, the laminate element formulation provides features not available with the other two methods. The laminate element can provide stress on a ply by ply bases as well as ply specific failure indices. Ply bond failure indices are also available with the laminate laminate. The laminate element seems the clear winner, winner not only for ease of use and low node count, but because of the many options exclusively available to it.
Conclusion
Three methods Th th d for f analyzing l i composites it have h been b explored l d in i this thi tutorial. t t i l Each E h method th d has its good points, and some are more generally effective than others. Each has its own set of assumptions and limitations. Using U i classical l i l plate l t theory th to t model d l honeycomb h b panels l can be b effective, ff ti but b t it certainly t i l has h limitations and it should not be construed to be capable of handling all of the general cases that the more expansive laminate theory can. As i A is t true with ith all ll areas of f Finite Fi it Element El t Analysis, A l i nothing thi can compensate t for f a lack l k of f theoretical understanding and good judgment. The forgoing explanations represent a very small piece of the world of composite analysis and is meant only as a brief introduction.
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved