Composites

Modeling
Assignment

Saibudeen, Babar Khan (2839130)

M.Sc., COMMAS

Contents
1

Introduction

Elastic modulus and Failure properties of a ply

2.1 Longitudinal modulus, E1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Transverse modulus, E2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Inplane shear modulus, G12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Poisson ratio, 12 and 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Failure properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Longitudinal tensile strength, F1t . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 Longitudinal compressive strength, F1c . . . . . . . . . .
2.8 Transverse tensile and compressive strength, F2t and F2c
2.9 Inplane shear strength, F6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.10 Mechanical properties of a ply . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Maximum deflection from classical beam bending formula

Deflection from FEA

Failure analysis

Resin infusion simulation in the beam

10

Conclusion

12

List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Mechanical properties of Resin and Fibre .

Actual stress distribution in the RVE [1] . .
Screenshot of the results from LAP software
Deflection of the laminate . . . . . . . . . .
Failure analysis of the beam with hole . . .
First ply failure of the beam with hole . . .
Resin filling time for the given BC . . . . .
Resin filling time under 1 hour . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. 1
. 3
. 7
. 9
. 9
. 10
. 11
. 11

Figure 1: Mechanical properties of Resin and Fibre

Introduction

The problem has a hollow beam with the dimensions of 40 mm width, 80 mm height and
400 mm length. The material is made of composites with symmetric lay-up, which differ
in their angle of orientation, made out of T300 carbon fibre and Hexcel 8551-7 epoxy resin.
The lay-up of the plies are [0, 90, 45, 45]s. Each ply has a thickness of 0.25 mm. It is a
cantilever beam which is one end being fixed and the other end being free. A pressure load
of 0.000625 kN/mm2 is applied to the upper beam surface. The questions of the problem are
addressed in the following sections.

Elastic modulus and Failure properties of a ply

The material properties for the fibre and the resin are given in the figure 1. Using these values,
the elastic modulus and failure properties for the ply are calculated by using micromechanics. There are different models, namely Rule of Mixtures (ROM), Hopkins-Chamis model and
Halpin-Tsai relation, available to calculate these properties. Each model has a different way of
modeling the Representative Volume Element (RVE) for the composite and so the mechanical
properties calculated are different for each modeling.
2.1

Longitudinal modulus, E1

The longitudinal modulus E1 is calculated from the Rule of Mixtures. The modeling of the
modulus is good and give a reasonable result. This gives the formula,
E1 = Ef Vf + Em Vm

(1)

where,
Ef
Em
Vf
Vm

2.2

: Longitudinal modulus of fibre

: Modulus of matrix
: Fibre volume ratio
: Matrix volume ratio

Transverse modulus, E2

The transverse modulus E2 is calculated from the Hopkins-Chamis model with the equation 2.
[
]

(
)
Vf

E2 = Em 1 Vf +
(2)
1 Vf (1 Em /Ef 2 )
where,
Ef 2 : Transverse modulus of fibre
The modeling of the fibre and the matrix by Rule of Mixture method does not represent the
exact model of RVE. The stress distributions in both models is very different due to the stress
concentrations introduced by the stiff cylindrical fibre. The greater proportion of stiff fibre
material at location A (see figure 2), leads to lesser deformation here and a greater estimate for
E2 . This is not represented in Rule of Mixtures and so it is a limitation.
The Hopkins-Chamis model considers the representation of the fibre as a simple square
which is a reasonable assumption compared to the assumption of Rule of mixture.
The Halpin-Tsai relation also give a good estimate for the transverse modulus and it is a
semi-empirical formula. Therefore, it requires an empirical curved fitting parameter.
2.3

Inplane shear modulus, G12

The inplane shear modulus G12 calculation is underestimated by the Rule of Mixture. The
Hopkins-Chamis and Halpin-Tsai models give better results. For a UD ply, G12 = G13 . Here,
it is calculated using Hopkins-Chamis method which is given by
[
]

(
)
Vf

(3)
G12 = Gm 1 Vf +
1 Vf (1 Gm /Gf 12 )

Figure 2: Actual stress distribution in the RVE [1]

where,
Gf 12 : Inplane shear modulus of fibre

2.4

Poisson ratio, 12 and 21

The Poisson ratio 12 and 21 are calculated from Rule of Mixture and it is reasonable for
design purposes.
12 = f 12 Vf + m Vm
1
Vf
Vm
=
+
21
21f
m
2.5

(4)
(5)

Failure properties

For the failure properties, theories have been developed for UD plies using simple mechanics of
materials approaches. This has not been as successful as micromechanics stiffness models since
accurate modeling of stress and strain distributions are not possible. The other problems are
complex interactions of fibre and matrix failure (which occur at different strains) and statistical
variations in materials properties. Therefore, they are not very reliable and usually macromechanical failure models with coupon test data are used. This is the important limitation of
micromechanics in calculation of failure properties.
3

2.6

Longitudinal tensile strength, F1t

For the longitudinal tensile strength F1t with the fibre dominated (high Vf ) failure case, the
equation used is

F1t = f Vf + m
(1 Vf )
(6)
where,
f : tensile strength in fibre
m : tensile strength in matrix

2.7

Longitudinal compressive strength, F1c

For the longitudinal compressive strength F1c , three criteria are considered and the least failure
load is used.
Fiber micro-buckling
It is triggered by fibre misallignment from manufacturing. The buckling load is given by
the first equation (eq. 7) for in-phase (shear) mode and the second equation (eq. 8) for out
of phase (extension) mode
Gm
F1c =
(7)
1 Vf

Vf Em Ef
(8)
F1c = 2Vf
3(1 Vf )
Transverse tensile rupture due to Poisson effect
Assuming a maximum strain failure criteria, the failure stress F1c is given by the equation
9
E1 T2ult
F1c =
(9)
12
Shear failure without buckling
This is the minimum of the three cases presented and so it can be directly used as the
failure value of E2 and the strength is calculated from the equation 10
F1c = 2 (f ult Vf + mult Vm )
where,
f ult : ultimate shear strength of fibre
mult : ultimate shear strength of matrix

(10)

2.8

Transverse tensile and compressive strength, F2t and F2c

This method utilises Stress Concentration Factor (SCF), F to calculate the ultimate transverse
tensile strength. It is given by
F =

d
s

Em
Ef 2

]
1 +1

mult
F

F2t = E2

(11)
(12)
(13)

The same is done for F2c with a different value for mult . The SCF is the same for both tension
and compression cases. The modeling is not so good because the true stress distribution is far
more complex than in the idealised unit cell model which is a limitation.
2.9

Inplane shear strength, F6

This uses an identical approach and formulae as those used to derive F2t . The equation is given
as
Fs =

d
s

1
Gm12
Gf 12

F2t = G12

]
1 +1

m12ult
Fs

(14)
(15)
(16)

2.10 Mechanical properties of a ply

The formulae given above were used to find out the mechanical properties of the complete ply
with the properties of fibre and resin from the figure 1. They are given in the table 2.1.

Maximum deflection from classical beam bending formula

The classical beam bending formula for the cantilever is given as

=

ql4
ql2
+
8D 2F

(17)

Parameters of the composite

Longitudinal elastic modulus
Transverse elastic modulus
Shear modulus
Poisson ratio
Poisson ratio
Longitudinal tensile strength
Longitudinal compressive strength (Transverse splitting)
Longitudinal compressive strength (shear)
Transverse tensile strength (SCF=2.56)
Transverse compressive strength (SCF=2.56)
Shear strength (SCF=4.07)

Notation
E11
E22
G12
12
21
F11t
F11c
F11c
F22t
F22c
F12

Value
128.89
7.63
3.69
0.28
0.33
1.395
2.648
1.151
0.131
0.268
0.046

Unit
kN/mm2
kN/mm2
kN/mm2

kN/mm2
kN/mm2
kN/mm2
kN/mm2
kN/mm2
kN/mm2

Table 2.1: Mechanical properties of the composite

where,
q : distributed load
D : Flexural rigidity, EI
F : Shear rigidity, GA

The elastic modulus of the laminate (with various lay-ups) is calculated from the LAP software. The elastic properties and failure properties of the laminate is given with the angles of
fibre orientation. Then the program is run and the elastic modulus and failure properties are
obtained (figure 3). Here, the Membrane stiffnesses are used instead of Flexural since all the
sections are in compression or tension eventhough the beam undergoes bending. The second
moment of inertia for the box cross section is calculated as
BD3 bd3
12
= 18.90GN mm2

D=

where,
B : Width of the beam Cross Section
D : Height of the beam CS
b : Width of the inner empty beam CS
d : Height of the inner empty beam CS

Figure 3: Screenshot of the results from LAP software

The shear rigidity (only web is considered to carry the shear) is calculated as
F = 2(Gxy )w tw bw
= 2 18.453 2 76
= 5609.712kN
Thus from the formula 17, the maximum deflection at the free end for the cantilever box beam
is turned out to be = 4.58mm

Deflection from FEA

The cantilever box laminate beam is modeled in Visual CRASH-PAM and is run to obtain the
deflection from Finite Element Analysis. The following procedure is followed.
1. Initially in Visual Crash MESH, the corner nodes for the entire structure is defined by
using Node By XYZ locate and then by using 2D3/4 point mesh, a mesh is created
with the element size of 2 mm. A fine mesh is chosen so as to capture the failure, which is
done later, correctly in the fixed edge and around the hole. Here, no thickness is considered
for the structure as it is a shell structure will be given later.
2. Then the model is used in Visual Crash PAM. All DOFs of the free edge in the origin is
fixed and the other edge is left free. This is applied by the menu Crash Loads Displacement BC. Then the pressure load is applied over the top surface of the beam by using
7

the option Crash Loads Pressure Face where the pressure load of 0.000625 kN/mm2
is given.
3. Then the ply cards for the UD is defined using Crash Materials Composites Ply. The
ply type is chosen as ITYP=1. The max Stress criteria is selected by these values, IFAIL
NP= 1 and FAILTYP= 5. Then the option FAILDAM= 0 is selected to just visualise the
damage values. Also the elastic modulus and failure parameters are entered which was
found out in the Question 1. The shear modulus in 12, 23 and 13 planes are considered the
same. Similarly, the positive and negative shear strength in 12, 23 and 13 are considered
to be the same.
4. Then the Material Editor is opened by the option Crash Materials Structural and
then the type 131 Multilayered Orthotropic BiPhasic is selected. The ILAY is selected as
1 and then NOPER is given as 8. Each ply is given a thickness, a fibre angle and an id for
the ply. Here, 8 plies are given with the thickness and angles. To get the contour of Ply
Maximum Stress Criterion, an auxillary variable, each ply id was given the number 26,
which is the auxiliary variable for Ply Maximum Stress Criterion.
5. Now the ply is converted into layer by the command Convert Ply to Layer
6. Now the part is linked with the material id, thickness is given and the reference fibre
direction is given in the axis direction of the beam.
7. The control parameters are set starting with RUNEND as 1.0.
8. The model should be in IMPLICIT method. Then add the controls ICTRL with ERFOUTPUT as 3 for storing both curve and contour data and ICOMPRES as 0 for turning
off the compression of the file. In the control ECTRL, the SHELL FORMULATION is
given as 6, which is the element formulation. Under the ICTRL, the ANALYSIS TYPE
is given as STATIC and LINEAR.
9. Then the model is run in PAM-CRASH and the results are then post-processed.
The deflection which was obtained is shown in the figure 4. The maximum deflection obtained is 4.69 mm. Therefore, the deflection is different from the one calculated by the classical bending cantilever hollow beam equation, which 4.58 mm. The increase in FEA could
be attributed to the 3D nature of the problem in FEA whereas the classical bending formula
considers the beam to be a line (ie it gives deflection of the neutral axis) and it calculates the
deflection based on the material properties and load. Thus, the poisson ratio and edges may
influence the result in the FEA. Further, each cross section of the box beam may act locally as
a beam owing to the applied pressure. This can be seen in the figure 4 where the centre of the
CS of the beam has more deflection than the places nearer to the local edge.

Figure 4: Deflection of the laminate

Figure 5: Failure analysis of the beam with hole

Failure analysis

Now, the model used in the above section is changed by including a central hole of diameter 60
mm. It is done by using the option 2D Hole on 2D mesh. The holes have their centre at the
coordinates (400, 0, 40)and(400, 40, 40). In the dialog box, No. of Rings is given as 6, Total
Ring Width as 7 and No. of Elems. in Each Ring as 116 with no biasing. Then, the model is
run and analysed.
From the figure 5, we can see the maximum factor of Ply Maximum Stress Criterion for
the ply which attained the maximum factor out of the remaining plies. Therefore, the ultimate
pressure which causes the first ply failure is obtained by
Ultimate pressure to cause first ply failure = 0.654 0.000625
= 0.00095566 kN/mm2

Figure 6: First ply failure of the beam with hole

Thus, the first ply failure will occur if this load is applied to the structure and it is shown in the
figure 6. The first ply failure occurs in the third ply of the lay-ups. Here, the factor 1 is reached
which shows that the failure has onsetted.

Resin infusion simulation in the beam

The model which was used in the previous section is used to simulate the resin infusion in
PAM-RTM. The following steps were followed.
1. After importing the file in PAM RTM, the quad mesh is converted into triangular shell
mesh by the option Mesh Transform Split Quads. Then the mesh is scaled to operate
in metres instead of mm, by the option Mesh Transform Scale where a value of 0.001
is given for the axes.
2. Now, the Groups are defined to define the pressure boundary conditions later. First, a free
edge of the beam is selected by using the Selection (plus) button and then by the menu
path Selection Pick Boundary. After the edge is highlighted, the menu path Groups
Create is used to classify it as a separate Group. The same is done for the other edge and
the boundaries of the two holes.
3. Under the Numerical heading, Save filling factor and Save pressure are checked.
4. Under the Materials Resins section, Resin viscosity at 23 C is given as 0.35 P a s under
the option Value orFunction.
5. Then under the Materials Reinforcements Default fabric section, permeability is
given as 1e 11 m2 for all directions since the fabric is considered isotropic.
6. Then under the Zones section, the porosity and the thickness are given as 0.5 and 0.002
mm respectively.
10

Figure 7: Resin filling time for the given BC

Figure 8: Resin filling time under 1 hour

7. Now, under the Boundary conditions section, new pressure boundary condition is created
by giving the left edge group ID and a value of 1 bar = 1e5 N/m2 . The same is done for
the right edge with a pressure value of 0 bar ie., vacuum. The simulation is run and the
results are seen.
From the figure 7, we can see that filling time for the resin over the complete structure took
15348/3600 = 4.263 hours, which is the infusion time. Therefore, if a resin solidifies into gel
after 2 hours, the infusion will not be successful and it will go beyond the hole but it will not
reach the other edge as seen from the figure 7 with 6.14e3 7.67e3 seconds.
To have the infusion time under 1 hour, the pressure boundary conditions are changed. The
edges of the holes are given 1 bar and the free edges of the beam in vacuum state. Now, the
infusion time of resin is reduced to 2909/3600 = 0.808 hour (from figure 8), which is less
than an hour. If the same BCs are reversed for this problem, the infusion time came around
4162/3600 = 1.1567 hours

11

Conclusion

The method to calculate the ply properties from the fibre and resin properties are learned and
then calculated. Then the properties for the composite material is calculated from the LAP
software to calculate the deflection analytically. Later it is compared with the values from the
FEA. Then a hole is inserted and then the ultimate pressure for the structure is found out. Then
a RTM simulation is done to find out the resin infusion time and the boundary condition with
the infusion time under 1 hour.

References
[1] Pickett, Anthony., Composites Modelling, IFB 2013-2014.

12