Composite Failure

LARGE COMPOSITE SPACE STRUCTURES:
FAILURE ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENT
Emmett Nelson, Firehole Technologies
Adam Biskner, CSA Engineering
Presented to: Vibration Suppression – Precision Motion Control
AIAA Rocky Mountain Section

AIAA Rocky Mountain Section
January 29th, 2009
1
Structural Failure Test Program
STRUCCTURAL FAAILURE TESTT PROGRAM

• AFRL is directing an investigation to AFRL Static Test Facility
advance the capability of composite
d th bilit f it
failure analysis from the coupon level to
full‐scale structures
• Testing conducted by CSA Engineering in
th AFRL St ti T t F ilit
the AFRL Static Test Facility
• Firehole Technologies provided analysis
using Helius:MCT
• Tested three previously flight qualified
EDU t t
EDU structures to failure
t f il
• CASPAR MPA (Minotaur IV), Atlas V ISA,
and Delta IV PAF Conic ISA
CASPAR MPA
• Compared to failure predictions from
conventional FE models and advanced FE
conventional FE models and advanced FE
M
models to test data
• Evaluating the validity of the design by
comparing the structural capacity to the
flight conditions
g
Delta IV 1780 PAF
• Scaled worst case qualification load
profiles and increased applied load until
structural failure was achieved
• CASPAR and ISA experienced a
CASPAR and ISA experienced a “flight
flight‐
like” composite failure
2
Vibration Suppression – Precision Motion Control
LOAD CONTROL AAND DATA ACQUISITIO
Pump
Hydraulic Service
Manifold (HSM)
Distribution Manifold
(S
(Servo V
Valves)
l )
Actuator
Load Cell
Load
ON
Controller LVDT
UPS
Data Acquisition
System
3
INTEGRAATED INSTRUMENTATTION
• Agilent® data acquisition system
• 256‐channel front‐end
• Fully integrated with the load controller
with MTS software
• All channels recorded at 1% load
intervals or as required
intervals, or as required
• Sensors
• Typical test includes only strain and
displacement
• Able to condition anything with a voltage
output
• Full bridge strain gage based deflection
t
transducers, ranging from 0.25” to 5”
d i f 0 25” t 5”
• Digital video recorded during
loading operations
4
TEST OPERATION
Actuator Control Profile
• Load control parameters are
custom programmed per
t d
experiment
• Parameters are redundantly
reviewed by QA engineer
reviewed by QA engineer
• All channels are controlled
simultaneously in accordance
with a load profile
with a load profile
• Concurrently subjected to 9 limit and
error detectors
Live Data Comparison
• Live data displayed during test 250
• Pl
Plotted against analytical predictions
d i l i l di i H ld P
Hold Points
i
• Test can be paused or aborted at 200
Prediction
any time per engineering request 150
Gauge 1
Gauge 2
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Percent of Flight Load
5
WHO IS CASPAR ?
• Composite Adapter for Shared PAyload Rides
• Multi‐payload adapter (MPA) for Minotaur IV
Vehicle
• Utilizes excess Peacekeeper missile motors to provide low‐
cost LEO launches (~$20 mil.)
• Nominal payload capability of 4000 lbm
• Designed to integrate two primary spacecrafts
(1000‐2000 lbm) per Minotaur launch
• Different design approach than previous MPA’s
• Composite material minimizes payload mass
penalty
• IM7/8552 unidirectional tape
• 2 Identical monocoque shells
• 60 inches tall, 74 inches in diameter
• Integrated composite flanges
Integrated composite flanges
• 62.01” diameter bolt pattern
• One primary stowed, other placed atop adapter
• Requires Latching Lightband (LLB) low shock separation
systems, developed by Planetary Systems Corporation
d l db l S C i
• Bonded only joint between LLB/CASPAR
6
CASP
• Test designed to drive failure in the transitional radius between the conic
section and the aft flange
section and the aft flange
PAR TEST DESIGN
• Shear, moment, and axial load combination balanced to maximize aft
compression while preventing failure in other critical regions
• Max compression at FWD Hg adapter < 3X limit
M i t FWD H d t < 3X li it
• Max tension at lightband < 4X limit
• Maximize aft CASPAR flange compression
opposite access doors (270o)
Critical Forward Adapter Line Load Critical Separation System Line Load Critical Aft Flange (Failure Region) Line Load
Line Load (lbs/in) Line Load (lbs/in) Line Load (lbs/in)
Max Compression at Limit -252 Max Tension at Limit 114 Max Compression at Limit -252
Max Applied Compression -755 Max Applied Tension 440 Max Applied Compression -1421
Predicted Failure -1000
Percent above Limit 564%

M.S. at Max Applied Load 0.00 M.S. at Max Applied Load 0.03 Percent above Predicted Failure 142%
7
CASPAR
• Two axial actuators apply pure
compression (no bending) Test Stack
• Lateral actuator applies moment Applied Loads
R TEST
Actuator
A t t Loads
L d (lbs)*
(lb )*
and shear Lateral AXI090 AXI270
• Axial actuators biased to offload the 35760 -20250 -20250
*A positive load indicates a tensile
weight of the load head and Hg adapter actuator load
• 100% represents flight line load used to
100% represents flight line load used to
design the structure
100 kip Axial
• Failure test includes:
Actuators
• 50% and 100% checkout run
• % f fl d
250% Aft flange strain demonstration
• 884% failure run
44 kip
Load
Lateral Head
Failure Test Profile
900 Actuator
Primary Loads
800
Counter Balance
700 Forward
Limit Load
600 Hg Adapter
500
Peak
400
stress
t in
i
% of L
300
aft flange
200
180° from
100
the door
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Load Step Failure Test Setup
Failure Test Setup
8
ATLAS V
What is This Beast? Test Design
• Atlas V CCB Conical ISA • Test designed to drive failure in the top
V CONIC ISA AND TESST DESIGN

• On all Atlas V 400 series launches corner of the door
f th d
• 12.5 foot diameter to 10 foot diameter, 65 • Failure mode suggested by ULA analysts
inches tall cone • First load case applied to as‐built ISA
• Demonstration unit for lightweight
g g • Failure load represents 200% of the
p
tooling development program greatest FWD Flange Peq in ULA test plan
• Graphite/epoxy and honeycomb mandrel • Limited by the actuator capacities
• Typical composite tooling made from Invar • Second door installed since original door
• Long lead times and expensive
Long lead times and expensive section did not fail
section did not fail
• Heavy and difficult to work with • 180o opposite original door, eliminating
• Currently manufactured in Spain pad up around door
• Creates schedule and cost issues for ULA • Door section cutout using original ATK
g,p ,
tooling , process, and technician
• C
Component redesign render unit obsolete
t d i d it b l t
at the end of a 5 year, $6 million effort • Second load case same as the first,
applied max compression over new door
9
Qualification Test Setup
• Test stack modified from Qualification
ISA TTEST
Configuration
• Forward stiffness simulator removed
• Aft LOx tank simulator removed R
Removed
d
• Center actuator biased to offload the weight of
the load head
• Failure test includes:
Failure test includes:
• 40% and 100% checkout run
• 200% failure run Removed
• As‐built structure successfully withstood 200%
y
load condition Failure Test Setup
• Second door installed
• Second case conducted by reversing the
direction of the applied loads
direction of the applied loads
Load Profile
200%
180%
160%
140% Primary Loads
% of Failure Load
Counter Balance
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Load Step
10
• Produce a composite failure in the test article
FAILURE TEST OBJECTIVES,, AKA SUCCCESS CRITEERIA

• Record critical strain and displacement data at each load step
Record critical strain and displacement data at each load step
• Acquire adequate load, strain, and displacement data such
that quantitative assessment of the load bearing capacity of
the structures can be made and to allow comparison to pre‐
test analytical models
• Identify resulting initial and final failure mechanism
Identify resulting initial and final failure mechanism
• Assemble test results, conclusions, and disseminate to
community
11
ANALYYSIS OBJECCTIVES
Real World Failure Exercise
• Provide blind failure predictions of large composite structures
Provide blind failure predictions of large composite structures
• Predict initial failure, progression, and final failure
• Transfer new technology to the commercial analysis community
• Model entire structure with a single detailed model
• Reasonable time frame (weeks)
• Why Firehole: Under the direction of AFRL, Firehole Technologies
has been developing an advanced composites analysis technology
for several years. The Structural Failure Test program was an great
y p g g
opportunity to validate the software, or learn where improvement
was needed.
12
Firehole Technologies
COMPPANY OVERRVIEW
• Firehole was founded in 2000
• Our mission is to deliver tools and services that enable wide‐spread
application of composite materials leading to lighter, stronger, safer and
more fuel efficient structures
• Two distinct business areas:
Structural Analysis
Structural Analysis Software Development
Software Development
• Firehole is a profitable, employee owned company focused on
delivering more accurate results and a higher degree of confidence in
delivering more accurate results and a higher degree of confidence in
composite simulations
13
Current Products Upcoming Products
FIREHHOLE SOFTW
• Online, searchable database of • Cyclic loading simulation
composite material datasheets for • Currently in Alpha
material selection and comparison
material selection and comparison • Development partnerships with a large
Development partnerships with a large
WARE SOLLUTIONS
Helicopter OEM and a major Naval
contractor
• Multiscale composites
progressive failure technology • Layerwise Finite Element technology
• Simple transition between 2‐D (Shell) and
3‐D (Solid) Elements using the same
( l d) l h
element/model
• Online, micromechanics based
• Composite simulation package for
composite material simulator sustainable industries (Wind Turbine
Blades Hydrogen Fuel Cells Lighter
Blades, Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Lighter
Automobiles)
14
HELIU
US:MCT
Helius:MCT™ is an enhancement to commercial finite element packages
specifically for efficiently improving the accuracy of composite structures
analyses.
analyses
• Uses fiber and matrix stresses to predict failure
• Extremely efficient
• Standard material inputs
d d l
• Easy to adopt
• Always converges
• Proven results
15
CASPAAR: BLIND PPREDICTION
• First attempt at the CASPAR analysis
Model Details
• Continuum shell elements
• 60 + plies through thickness (1
element)
• 15,000 elements
• Handbook material
Handbook material
NS
characterization
• Fixed constraints at boundary
• Continuous run time: overnight
• Entire analysis completed in < 2
l l d
weeks
• Initial matrix failure: 1269% FLL
%
• Initial fiber failure: 1944% FLL
16
CASPAR was successfully tested to ultimate
CASPAAR: FAILURRE TEST
failure on April 14, 2008
% FLL Failure Event
234 IInitial matrix cracking
iti l ti ki
sounds
319‐469 Occasional matrix cracking
noise
470 + Continuous matrix
cracking noise
500 L b d
Lap band gapping
i
644 Door debond
792 Lower radius failure
847 Ultimate failure
17
Model Improvements
CASP
• 3D layer solid elements
PAR : LESSON LEARNED
• 4 elements through thickness
• General mesh refinement
Load Head
• Contact and nodal ties at
Contact and nodal ties at (steel)
54 elements
bolt locations
Test Adapter Forward Adapter
(7075 T7451 Alum.) (IM7/8552)
Code Improvements
Code Improvements 1560 elements
1560 elements 58600 elements
58600 elements
• Convergence algorithm Lightband
Access Doublers (7075 T7451 Alum.)
improved (IM7/8552) 464 elements
558 elements each
Aft Adapter
Aft Adapter
(IM7/8552)
58600 elements
Model Details Base Plate
(steel)
• 122,146 elements 1696 elements
• Continuous run time ~1½ days
• 8 node desktop p.c.
18
Fiber Failure
Matrix Failure
No Failure
UPDAATED ANALYYSIS RESULLTS

% FLL F il
Failure Event
E t
260 Initial matrix failure 520 % FLL

Failure State
Fiber Failure
Matrix Failure
No Failure
261‐480 Matrix failure progression
500 +
500 + Rapid matrix
Rapid matrix failure
failure
progression
740 First fiber failure
800 % FLL
Failure State
Fiber Failure
800 Fiber failure in lower

Matrix Failure
No Failure
radius
980 Ultimate Failure
1300 (discontinuity in load vs
1450 displacement)
840 % FLL
19
3
UPDAATED ANALYYTICAL LOAAD VS DISPPLACEMENTT

2.5
Potential ultimate failure

Displacement (in)
1.5
Compressive D
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Flight Load (%)

Flight Load (%)
20
CASP
PAR: FAILU
Helius:MCT Ultimate
Failure
Ultimate Failure
Lower Radius Failure
URE EVENT COMPARISSON

Helius:MCT Initial
Fiber Failure
Door Debonding
Lapband Gapping
Helius:MCT Initial
Matrix Failure
Initial Matrix Cracking
Occasional Matrix Continuous Matrix

C ki N
Cracking Noise
i C ki N
Cracking Noise
i
21
STRAIN COMPARRISON
IV13153
OV33151 IM22701
IV33151 IM12701
OV73151
IV73151
22
Compressive D
Displacement (in)
0.5
1.5
2.5
0
1
2
3
0
200
Helius:M
MCT Matrix: 2
260
400
600
Helius
s:MCT Fiber: 740
800
CA
ASPAR Ultim
mate: 847
980
Helius:MCT Ultimate: 9
1000
Flight Load (%)

Flight Load (%)
Hashin Matrix:: 1100
1200
Hashin Fiberr: 1300

1400

1600
1800
Hashin Ultim
mate: 1950?
2000
23
PAR FAILURE PREDICTTION COMPARISON

CASP
REASO
ONS FOR DIFFERENCEES
First analytical discontinuity in global stiffness occurs 15% higher than
actual ultimate failure.
• Model does not capture lapband gapping
• Model does not capture door debonding
• Material disorganization occurring at flange radii not captured
Material disorganization occurring at flange radii not captured
• Possibly reduce residual stiffness (ongoing work)
• Difficult to determine where ultimate failure occurs
24
ISA A
• ISA Analysis
ANALYSIS
Model details
• 3D model of entire structure
• 3D layered solid elements
• Multiple elements through thickness
M lti l l t th h thi k
• Coupon material characterization
• Model generation ~ 2 weeks
• 192,000 elements
,
• Continuous run time ~1 ½ days Load Head
‐1440 solid, linear, reduced‐integration
• 8 node desktop p.c. elements (Abaqus:C3D8R)
Forward Adapter/Splice
‐2902 C3D8R elements
Composite Conic
‐186,152 solid, linear, reduced‐
integration, composite elements
(Abaqus:C3D8RC3)
‐These elements have one integration
point per ply
Aft Adapter/Splice
‐1518 C3D8R elements
25
ISA A
ISA As Built Helius:MCT Failure Predictions
AS BUILT HELIUS:MCT FAILURE PREDICTIO

Limit of Load Frame
200% FL Failure of Structure
340% FL
340% FL
ONS
26
ISA A
ISA As Built Test Results
AS BUILT TEEST RESULTTS

The ISA was successfully tested to 200% FL on October 3, 2008.
•The structure responded nearly linearly to the loading.
k bl
•Testing was remarkably quiet.
DOOR233EMIN DOOR233EMAX
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200

0 1400
-500 1200
-1000 1000
1500
-1500 800
µStrain
µStrain
-2000 600
-2500 400
-3000 200
-3500 0
% Flight Load % Flight Load
Experimental Data Firehole Technologies' Predicitons Experimental Data Firehole Technologies' Predicitons
27
MODIIFICATIONSS
Modifications
A second access door was cut into the ISA
•180° opposite original door
ld
•No pad up around new door
•Original ATK tooling was used
•Honeycomb edge potted as original
•Loads were reversed
28
HELIU
Helius:MCT Predictions of Modified ISA
US:MCT PREDICTIONSS OF MODIFIED ISA

Initial fiber failure
180% FL
Initial matrix failure
110% FL
Ultimate Failure
187% FL
29
HELIU
Helius:MCT Predictions of Modified ISA
US:MCT PREDICTIONSS OF MODIFIED ISA

186.72 % Flight Load 187.52 % Flight Load
187.68 % Flight Load
30
VIDEO
• Video
O
31
FAILURE TEST
Failure Test
The modified ISA was successfully tested to failure on October 24 2008
The modified ISA was successfully tested to failure on October 24, 2008.
• 183% Flight Load
• Linear response
• Instantaneous event
• Door corners
Failure initiated at door corners
Rapidly propagated around circumference
32
ISA FAILURE
ISA Failure
Close up of upper door corner
Failure occurred on interior face sheets
33
RESULLTS: INTERIIOR STRAIN
Results: Interior Strain Gauge
2000
ess
Max Stre
Tsai-Wu
1500
Principal Sttrain
N GAUGE
Hashin
1000
CT
Helius:MC
nt
Max P
Experimen
500
E
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
% Load
34
CONCCLUSIONS
• Structural Failure Test Program Successful
• Two large space structures were tested to failure.
Two large space structures were tested to failure
• Analytical results within 15% of ultimate failure on CASPAR
• Analytical blind predictions with 2.5% of ultimate failure on ISA
• Traditional composites analysis technologies over predict failure by a
minimum of 1.5.
“I had anticipated that most large aerospace composite structures were
considerably over‐designed, and this program proved that on all structures
tested With innovative analysis technologies such as Helius:MCT from
tested. With innovative analysis technologies such as Helius:MCT from
Firehole Technologies, I am convinced that these composite structures
could remove as much as 40% mass, which translates into tremendous
savings for many space applications.”
g y p pp
Dr. Jeffry Welsh
Program Director
Chief Tier 3 Division ORS Office
Chief, Tier‐3 Division, ORS Office
35
Yellowstone Park’s Firehole River
BACKUP
COMPPOSITES FAILURE TECHHNOLOGIESS
Composites Failure Technologies
Conventional technologies treat composites like “black aluminum”
• Mask interactions
• Failure single event
l l
• Unusable degradation models
• Exotic material parameters
• Computationally unfeasible
Action in composites occurs in the Fibers OR the Matrix

Action in composites occurs in the Fibers OR the Matrix
37
• Tsai‐Wu
TRADIITIONAL CO
• Extension of Tsai‐Hill or
• Tsai‐Hill
T i Hill H ff
Hoffman to a general stress
t l t
state.
• Extension of von Mises to
• Invariant under coordinate
orthotropic materials.
rotation
OMPOSITE FAILURE CRITERIA

• Hoffman • Use of tensors make
• Extension of Tsai‐Hill for mathematical operations easy
differing tensile and • Biaxial data required to
determine failure parameters
determine failure parameters.
compressive properties
• Simple to use in design • Hashin
• Differentiates between fiber
and matrix failure
d t i f il
• Distinguishes between tensile
and compressive modes
All of these criteria are applied to a homogeneous composite

and neglect the interaction between the fiber and matrix
38
MULTTICONTINUU
Multicontinuum Theory (MCT)
MCT decomposes composite stress into fiber and
matrix stress
• Based on Hill (1963)
• Development @ Univ. of Wyoming since 1988
Development @ Univ of Wyoming since 1988
UM THEOR
Accurately represent material phenomena
RY (MCT)
MCT
Composite Stress
Fiber and Matrix Stress
39
en1
COMPPOSITE UNDDER MECHANICAL LO

Composite Under Mechanical Loading
Composite Stress:
σ11 = 0
Fiber Stress:
σ22 = ‐200 Ksi
σ11f = 108 Ksi
σ33 = ‐200 Ksi
σ22f = ‐205
205 Ksi
Ksi
σ33f = ‐205 Ksi
OADING
Matrix Stress:
σ11m = ‐143 Ksi
= 143 Ksi
σ22m = ‐192 Ksi
3 σ33fm= ‐ 192 Ksi
1 2
40
Slide 40
en1 Update lamina picture

emmett_nelson, 12/15/2008
COMPPOSITE UNDDER THERM
Composite Under Thermal Loading
Composite Stress:
Composite Stress: Fiber Stress:
Fib St
σ11 = 0 σ11f = ‐44.5 (MPa)
σ22 = 0 σ22f = ‐17.25 (MPa)
σ33 = 0 σ33f = ‐17.25
17.25 (MPa)
(MPa)
MAL LOADING
ΔT = ‐216 °C Matrix Stress:
σ11m = 66.75 (MPa)
σ22m = 25.87(Pa)
= 25 87(Pa)
σ33fm= 25.87 (Pa)
3
1 2
41
en2
PROGRESSIVE FAAILURE ANAALYSIS

Progressive Failure Analysis
matrix fiber
failure failure
Material State 1 Material State 2 Material State 3

undamaged matrix,
undamaged matrix, failed matrix,
failed matrix, failed matrix
failed matrix,
undamaged fibers undamaged fibers failed fibers
matrix failure event

σc
fiber failure event

1
2
3
42
Slide 42
en2 Color Code

emmett_nelson, 12/15/2008
FINITEE ELEMENTT IMPLEMENTATION
Finite Element Implementation
=
1 element 11148 elements
Using MCT, a one element model gives the same averaged fiber
and matrix stress as a micromechanics model
43

Composite Failure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Composite Failure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LARGE COMPOSITE SPACE STRUCTURES:

AIAA Rocky Mountain Section

STRUCCTURAL FAAILURE TESTT PROGRAM

Percent above Limit 564%

V CONIC ISA AND TESST DESIGN

FAILURE TEST OBJECTIVES,, AKA SUCCCESS CRITEERIA

847 Ultimate failure

UPDAATED ANALYYSIS RESULLTS

260 Initial matrix failure 520 % FLL

261‐480 Matrix failure progression

800 Fiber failure in lower

UPDAATED ANALYYTICAL LOAAD VS DISPPLACEMENTT

Potential ultimate failure

Flight Load (%)

Lower Radius Failure

URE EVENT COMPARISSON

Initial Matrix Cracking

Occasional Matrix Continuous Matrix

Flight Load (%)

Hashin Fiberr: 1300

Vibration Suppression – Precision Motion Control

PAR FAILURE PREDICTTION COMPARISON

AS BUILT HELIUS:MCT FAILURE PREDICTIO

AS BUILT TEEST RESULTTS

0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200

US:MCT PREDICTIONSS OF MODIFIED ISA

US:MCT PREDICTIONSS OF MODIFIED ISA

Action in composites occurs in the Fibers OR the Matrix

OMPOSITE FAILURE CRITERIA

All of these criteria are applied to a homogeneous composite

COMPPOSITE UNDDER MECHANICAL LO

en1 Update lamina picture

PROGRESSIVE FAAILURE ANAALYSIS

Material State 1 Material State 2 Material State 3

matrix failure event

fiber failure event

en2 Color Code

You might also like