0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

54 visualizzazioni14 pagineFEM in Composites

Feb 03, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

FEM in Composites

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

54 visualizzazioni14 pagineFEM in Composites

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

Modeling

Assignment

M.Sc., COMMAS

Contents

1

Introduction

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

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Failure analysis

10

Conclusion

12

List of Figures

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

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

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.

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

: 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

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 )

where,

Gf 12 : Inplane shear modulus of fibre

2.4

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

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

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

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

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)

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.

=

ql4

ql2

+

8D 2F

(17)

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.