Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.

1 Composites Tutorial

Modeling Composites with Femap 10.1.1

An Introduction to The Hows and Whys
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

George Laird, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Mechanical Engineer George.Laird@PredictiveEngineering.com

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 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

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Defining a Laminate Material in Femap

To define a Laminate Material in Femap, 3 specifications must be made: The Composite Layup that is to be used must be specified specified. These Layups are defined using the Layup Editor. A Bond Shear Allowance must also be specified. The value represents the bond strength between the bonded laminate sheets. This value is used to calculate a factor of safety against shear failure between laminate pa e s. panels. A Failure Theory must also be specified. If Tsai-Wu is specified, then the Tsai-Wu interaction coefficient must also be specified in th material the t i l definition. d fi iti

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Femap Layup Editor

The new layup Th l editor dit in i Femap F allows for the easy specification of laminate configurations. This new editor allows plys to be be edited individually y or collectively. y It also allows each ply to be moved around in the layup, as well as easy editing of ply thickness and angle. A compute button has also been added that allows the user to calculate and display the A, B and D matrices which represent the laminate behavior. These matrices are calculated and then displayed in the messages window.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap

FEMAP requires the entry of 5 values: 2 Youngs Moduli for the materials primary directions. A 1-2 Shear Modulus 2 Transverse Shear Moduli, 1z & 2z The 1-2 Poisson Ratio, the 2-1 Poisson Ratio is not required. The symmetry of the material stress tensor allows FEMAP to calculate it based upon E1 E1, E2 and v1-2 v1-2. There are a number of other values that can be entered depending upon what type of analysis is going to be carried i d out.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

1) HMS B1-002 TY I-TS

2) Graphite Tape

3) HMS B3-001 TY4 CL1 GR9

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate Model in Femap

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Creating the Laminate Material

This model will use a single material for the laminate plies. The properties are those of a Graphite/epoxy composite. The Limit Stress/Strain section i used is d for f calculating l l i failure f il indexes. There are a number of indexes Nastran will calculate: Hill, Hoffman, Tsai-Wu, and Maximum i Strain. S i Tsai-Wu i requires a material dependant experimentally derived value, it is in the material definition that this hi value l i is specified. ifi d We will use Hoffmans criteria, so this value isnt necessary for our analysis.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Jones,

Robert M. Mechanics of Composite Materials. New York: Hemisphere, 1975. 70.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Defining the Laminate Layup

After the orthotropic material is created, created the Layup Editor can be used to define how the laminate plies are situated. The laminate that has been defined on the right consists of 7 plys, each 0.2 inches thick. The primary direction of the plies varies by 90 90. This is a fairly simple configuration. Often the individual plies are different materials, the top and bottom plies being composed of a somewhat tough material while the inner plies are more light-weight. Configurations such as these impart a large area moment of inertia while remaining light weight.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Defining the Laminate Property

We are now just a short jump away from having a laminate property defined. The laminate definition requires the user to specify which Layup will define the the laminate. The BondShr Allow also needs to be specified if a bond factor of safety is desired. The value i arrived is i d at by b dividing di idi the h inter-ply i l shear h stress by b the h BondShr dSh All Allow. It is here that the Failure theory is also specified. This example will use Hoffmans theory. These failure theories produce failure indexes. An index greater than 1 denotes failure. Each ply l in i the h laminate l i will ill have h an associated i d failure f il index. i d The Th equation i used d to calculate l l the h Hoffman index is shown below.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

Specifying Material Angles

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

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

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Post Processing the Results

For each element, there are 7 plies and each of these plies has associated data, e.g. stresses, strains, i failure f il indexes. i d The h plot l on the right is that of the maximum failure index for each element. It can be seen that under this loading condition, the Hoffman failure criterion predicts a maximum index of 0.243. This value is well below 1, and therefore we e can infer that this portion of the vessel is quite safe. It should be noted that this is a failure index, NOT a factor of safety. Hoffmans equation is not linear, and should not be Construded to imply that the structure has a factor of safety of 1/0 243 or ~ 4.1. 1/0.243 41 In order to generate a factor of safety, Hoffmans equation needs to be solved in its quadratic form.
See Daniel, Isaac M., and Ori Ishai. Engineering Mechanics of Composite Materials. New York: Oxford, 1994. 120-124.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Using Plate Elements to Model Honeycomb Composites

Nastran and Femap both allow for the use of the PShell property card for honeycomb composites. This section of the tutorial deals with how Classical Plate Theory can be used to define a plate element which reasonably replicates the behavior be av o of o a Honeycomb o eyco b Core Co e Composite.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Classical Plate Theory Applied to Honeycomb Composites

It i is important i t t to t remember b that th t there th is i one major j assumption made in classical plate theory with respect to honeycomb composites; it is assumed that all of the in-plane stresses are carried by y the facesheets. The following g relationships can be derived: Membrane Stiffness
T/2 D

I is the bending moment of Inertia per unit width

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

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

The Nastran PSHELL Property Card

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Using the PSHELL Card for Honeycomb Panels

PID - Property P t ID MID1 - This entry specifies the material number of the facesheets. T - The total thickness of the facesheets. MID2 - This Thi entry t also l specifies ifi the th material t i l number for the facesheets. 12I/T3 The inertia of the facesheets is entered here. If the facesheets are thin, and the core is thick, then it can be assumed that: I = TD2/4 If the facesheets are relatively thick, then I = 2/3 [D/2 + T/2]3 D3/12 MID3 This entry specifies the material number of the honeycomb core. Ts This value is the shear thickness and in the case of a honeycomb core, is D. NSM Non Structural Mass must be added to the card. For a honeycomb core, NSM = D rhocore
T/2

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Using FEMAP to Setup a Honeycomb Panel

Th FEMAP plate The l t property t definition interface is fairly easy to use. The Thickness of the f facesheets h t is i entered t d as usual. The bending stiffness can also be entered, with values obtained from classical plate theory equations. Shear thickness, or in the case of honeycomb panels, D/T can also D/T, l be b entered. t d The facesheet material is specified here. The core material is specified here. The mass of the core must also be added. This is done through the addition of Nonstructural mass.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Example 2: Comparing Different Laminate Modeling Methods

In this example we will build a honeycomb composite model in three different ways. 1. 2. Using solid elements for the core, and laminate elements for the face sheets. Using plate elements, which utilize classical plate theory to represent the core and face sheets all in one property. Using a laminate element which will encompass the face sheets as well as the core all in one property.

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.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

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

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Deflection results for the solid / laminate model are shown above. The peak deflection is -0.0139 inches.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Honeycomb Panel Using Classical Plate Theory to Represent the Core and Skins in One Property

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

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.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

T/2 = 0.1 inches

D T .3 .2 2. D 3 2 T 2 3
3

D = 0.3 inches
I

12

I = 8.167 10

BendingStiffness

I 12. 3 T

BendingStiffness = 12.25 .0000045 D . 6

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.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Deflection results for the classical plate theory model are shown above. The peak deflection is -0.0142 inches.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Honeycomb Panel Using Laminate Elements for the Core and Face Sheets

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

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.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Deflection results for the laminate model are shown above. The peak deflection is -0.0137 inches.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

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

George L G Laird id www.PredictiveEngineering.com