Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116 www.elsevier.

com/locate/compstruct

Design, manufacture and analysis of a thermoplastic composite frame structure for mass transit
Haibin Ning, Uday Vaidya *, Gregg M. Janowski, George Husman
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1530 3rd Avenue South, BEC 254, Birmingham, AL 35294-4461, United States Available online 5 June 2006

Abstract Thin-walled composite sub-elements possess excellent properties, including high specic strength, lightweight, internal torque and moment resistance which oer opportunities for applications in mass transit and ground transportation. In the present work, an open section thin-walled thermoplastic composite frame segment (sub-element) of a mass transit bus was designed, analyzed and manufactured to replace a conventional metal-based design. Three cross-section congurations, rectangular, V-shape and rounded C-shape, were considered, and dierent lamina stacking sequences, (0/90)6, [45/(0/90)2]s, and [45/(0/90)]3 were compared. Carbon ber/polyphenylene sulphide (carbon/PPS) was the material choice, and single diaphragm forming (SDF) process was adopted to manufacture the frame segment. In-plane compression testing was conducted on the manufactured carbon/PPS composite frame to validate the nite element analysis results. A successful design concept to manufacture strategy of the open thin-walled carbon/PPS thermoplastic composite frame segment was demonstrated. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thermoplastic composites; Carbon ber; Polyphenylene sulphide (PPS); Mass transit; Thin-walled structure

1. Introduction Polymer matrix composites (PMCs) are being used extensively in aerospace and transportation due to their superior specic modulus and strength. By introducing them into mass transit applications, composites help to increase fuel eciency and decrease maintenance costs due to their low weight. Various components have been designed and manufactured for ground transportation including structural roof panels in high-speed railway coaches, bus structures, front cabins of high-speed locomotives, and non-structural interior panels [1]. Composites have also been featured in the structural body shell of mass transit buses. For example, the CompoBusTM, introduced through the technology developed by Tillson Pearson, Inc. (TPI), and now produced by North American Bus Industries (NABI), is manufactured from two glass ber
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 205 934 9199; fax: +1 205 934 8485. E-mail address: uvaidya@uab.edu (U. Vaidya).

reinforced vinyl-ester resin face sheets with balsa core monocoque shells. This non-metallic bus is more than 30% lighter than a typical conventional 9 m bus and requires 60% less power to run [2]. Thermoplastic composites have been successfully introduced into a wide range of applications previously lled by thermoset composites. In general, thermoplastics have superior impact resistance, high toughness and ease of shaping and recycling compared to thermosets. These property advantages are usually observed when thermoplastics are utilized as composite matrices. The use of thermoplastic composites had been limited historically due to impregnation diculties and high temperature processing requirements. A variety of processes have been developed in recent years to improve the impregnation of reinforcing bers with thermoplastic polymers. These methods include (but are not limited to) FulcrumTM thermoplastic composite technology [3], commingled thermoplastic fabric [4], powder/sheath-ber bundles [5], lm stacking [6], powder pre-impregnation [7], wet processing method [8], Direct

0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.036

106

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

ReInforcement Fabrication Technology (DRIFT) [9], and lament winding [10]. Superior impact resistance and large volume production potential make thermoplastic composites particularly attractive as structural materials in mass transit, rail and ground vehicles, military and aircraft structures. They have excellent potential to maintain integrity following an impact event because they do not exhibit catastrophic failure. In this paper, the design, manufacture and analysis of a thin-walled frame segment of a carbon ber reinforced polyphenylene sulphide (PPS) thermoplastic composite is discussed. The frame segment represents a sub-element of a mass transit bus. Dierent geometries were considered in the design of the frame and the various stacking sequences of carbon/PPS pre-preg (also referred to as preform) were compared. The frame segment was fabricated using a single diaphragm forming approach and subsequently tested in compression as a partial design verication. The process-induced microstructure of the carbon/ PPS composite is also analyzed. 2. Background and literature review Thin-walled beam sub-elements with open and closed cross-sections are used extensively in the aerospace industry, both as direct load carrying members and as stieners in panel constructions [11]. In a conventional mass transit bus, steel frames are used for the load-bearing body structure. However, with the increasing importance of improving transportation eciency, composites have been introduced in mass transportation systems to replace metallic parts and structures. In transportation applications, stringent design requirements call for structural frame members to possess high strength, stiness, and high damage resistance in conjunction with less weight. Thermoplastic polymers have a critical role as the matrix in these composites. Among various candidate thermoplastics, such as PPS, polypropylene (PP), and polyamide (nylon), PPS has excellent tensile strength and exural modulus. Furthermore, PPS has good solvent and chemical resistance as a result of its semi-crystalline structure [12,13] and a high temperature resistance (continuous service temperature approximately 220 C) compared to other polymers. Good ame resistance also makes it a preferred material for structural applications. Fiber reinforced PPS has been utilized in aerospace and other applications, such as high-performance pumps [14]. Ghaseminejhad [15] compared the impact behavior and damage tolerance of carbon ber reinforced PPS to carbon ber reinforced polyetheretherketone (carbon/PEEK). The author reported that carbon/PEEK panels showed an ability to conne damage zones, whereas carbon/PPS panels exhibited a high resistance to perforation through the mechanism of extensive delamination. Manufacturing parameters have also been examined. For example, spring-back of ber reinforced PPS composite parts can be minimized and the post forming strength can be maxi-

mized by reducing the preheating time and increasing the forming temperature [16]. PPS is semi-crystalline, and the crystallinity plays an important role in the end-properties of PPS and PPS-based composites. Freddy and Lee [17] found that higher annealing temperatures and longer annealing times resulted in an increased critical buckling load due to an increase in the degree of crystallinity which resulted in an increased axial compressive modulus and in-plane shear modulus. Boey et al. [12] found that the values of the creep stress and strain rate of ber reinforced PPS composites decreased exponentially with the percentage of crystallinity. The creep deformation for composite samples with 20% and 40% ber were relatively similar, despite the dierences in the amount of ber reinforcement. In carbon/PPS composites, Cole [18] found that aging PPS in air at temperatures near its melting point causes structural changes which result in a lower ultimate degree of crystallinity and a lower melting point. Composite thin-walled structures with open proles have been used in aerospace structures [19]. They oer advantages of higher internal torque and moment resistance at reduced weight [20]. Fiber reinforced polymer composite materials oer additional advantages such as corrosion resistance and improved fatigue life and hence can provide further optimization of strength and weight requirements for open-prole sections [20]. Rand [21] found that open thin-walled orthotropic composite beams are much more sensitive to in-plane warping than similar isotropic beams which substantially modies the bending stiness of the beams and creates an upper limit for applied loads. Bauld [11] developed a theory to analyze the buckling behavior of laminated curved beams with open sections made from ber reinforced laminates with midplane symmetry by extending classical thin-walled theory for isotropic materials. Bank [22] used a modied beam theory to describe the combined bending and twisting of anisotropic composite material open-section beams subjected to pure bending and transverse loading. He and coworkers [23,24] found that there existed a good correlation between experimental, nite element analysis, and theory for the twisting and bending deection of a composite beam. Maddur [20] analyzed the dynamic response of open-prole sections made of laminated composite materials using modied rst order shear deformation theory without violating the assumption of zero mid-plane shear strain. Wang et al. [25] studied buckling and post-buckling behavior of thin-walled structures made of laminated composite materials and found good agreement between numerical and experimental results. Sheet forming technology has been widely used for manufacturing thin-walled thermoplastic composite products. There are four types of sheet forming technology: match die forming [26], roll forming [27], stretch forming [28], and diaphragm forming [29]. One or more diaphragms, typically silicone rubber lm, are required in the diaphragm forming method. During processing, pressure is applied to

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

107

3. Design of thin-walled thermoplastic composite The design of the thin-walled thermoplastic composite frame segment is based on several factors that include: (a) the consideration of the cross-section proles, (b) stacking sequence of the thermoplastic composite pre-preg and, (c) conformability to the mating/joining structural member such as side body panel segment [37]. The concept of the frame and side body panel is shown in Fig. 1. The body panel is a sandwich structure constructed with a thermoplastic honeycomb core and face sheets made of glass ber reinforced polypropylene on both exterior and interior surfaces. The work on the body panel, including the design, analysis and manufacture, is presented in detail in the reference [37]. The structural response of the frame segment with dierent cross-section proles, including rectangular, V-shape and rounded C-shape was compared using nite element analysis (FEA). These three cross-section proles are shown in Fig. 2. The nal component conguration was determined from analysis on the three basic stacking sequences, namely, (0/90)6, [45/(0/90)2]s, and [45/(0/90)]3. 3.1. Linear static analysis The geometries of the three proles, rectangular, 120 Vshape and rounded C-shape, were created in Pro/Engineer 2001 (Pro/E) as shown in Fig. 2 and then imported into Altair Hypermesh 6.0 as IGS les for subsequent nite element analysis (FEA). SHELL 99 was used as the element type for the pre-processing in the Hypermesh 6.0. The mesh was imported as a CWD le to ANSYS 7.0 for FEA. The length, height and the width of the three proles were kept identical for comparison purpose. TowFlex TFF-CPPS-103 12K carbon/2 2 Twill/PPS was selected as the material for both modeling and eventual manufacturing. It is a continuous fabric reinforced thermoplastic fabric which has a woven 2 2 twill 12K carbon ber tow impregnated with PPS powder. It has a resin content of 43% by weight and 49% by volume [38]. The length, height and the width of the frame segment was 914 mm (3600 ), 63.5 mm (2.500 ), and 215.1 mm (8.4700 ), respectively. The element used in the analysis was a layered structural shell, SHELL99. This element has six degrees of

Fig. 1. Concept of the bus body panel and the frame.

the heated pre-preg such that it is consolidated and forced to conform to a die or a tool. The advantage of this forming process is that the diaphragm stretches and keeps the preform in tension during forming, and thereby prevents compressive instabilities such as wrinkling, splitting and local material thinning. There are several variations of the diaphragm forming process. Double diaphragm forming is widely used and is derived from both vacuum forming of thermoplastic sheet and superplastic forming of metals, such as aluminum [29]. It is a process where an unconsolidated pre-preg is placed between two diaphragms. Vacuum is applied in the chamber formed by a mold and the bottom diaphragm. The system is heated to the processing temperature of the thermoplastic, and the pre-preg is consolidated into the mold under hydrostatic pressure [2935]. Single diaphragm forming (SDF) was developed by Olsen [36] as another technique to manufacture thermoplastic products. The dierence between this forming process and double diaphragm forming is that one of the diaphragms is replaced by a tool. Thermoplastic pre-pregs are placed between the tool and the single diaphragm, which can be silicone rubber or Upilex, a polyimide lm [31,34]. Vacuum is applied between the diaphragm and tool, and pressure is applied above the diaphragm to consolidate the pre-pregs. SDF process was adopted in this work.

Fig. 2. (a) Rectangular prole; (b) 120 V-shape prole; (c) rounded C-shape prole with the same length, a, the same width, b, and the same height, c.

108 Table 1 Material properties of carbon/PPS Elastic modulus EX (GPa) 64 EY (GPa) 64 EZ (GPa) 7.2

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

Poissons ratio mXY 0.3 mXZ 0.25 mYZ 0.25

Shear modulus GXY (GPa) 5 GXZ (GPa) 3 GYZ (GPa) 3

freedom at each node, namely, translation in the nodal x, y, and z directions, and rotations about the nodal x, y, and zaxes. Eight nodes, layer thicknesses, and orthotropic material properties dene the element. Sixteen layers of woven carbon/PPS were used in the construction of the laminated frame segment for analysis. Orthotropic material properties of the carbon/PPS laminate included elastic modulus in the x, y and z directions, Poissons ratio in the xy, yz, and xz directions, and shear modulus in the xy, yz, and xz directions, respectively. The nominal properties were obtained from the manufacturer and are listed in Table 1. The loading and boundary conditions were kept constant for all three proles for FEA. The nodes at one end of the frame were xed for rotation and translation in all directions (x, y and z). Fig. 3 shows representative loading and boundary conditions. A pressure of 24 MPa was applied at the other end. The 24 MPa pressure was based on the weight of a representative bus, total number of the frames that would form the support structure, and the cross-sectional area of each frame. The force was distributed along the top nodes to simulate longitudinal compression as shown in Fig. 3. The end nodes where a vertical force was applied were restricted from out-of-plane translation to simulate a pinned boundary condition. Table 2 lists the results from ANSYS analysis for the three proles. The results indicate that the third principal stress, r3, which is along the thickness direction, had the highest value, 69.3 MPa, 69.9 MPa, and 74.7 MPa, for all three proles (the rectangular, 120 V-shape, and rounded C-shape proles), respectively. The analysis also showed

that the rounded C-shape and the 120 C V-shape prole has the lowest maximum TsaiWu ratio, which is directly related to the strength of the structure. The TsaiWu ratio criterion states that failure occurs when A11 r2 2A12 r1 r2 A22 r2 A66 s12 B1 r1 B2 r2 P 1 1 2 1

Based on the FEA results, it was determined that the rounded C-shape frame structure would be the best candidate for the bus frame structure because it has the lowest TsaiWu failure ratio, 0.49. In addition, the carbon/PPS frame segment had the required conformability to the geometry of the thermoplastic glass/polypropylene body

Table 2 ANSYS results for the three proles with a 24 MPa applied pressure Rectangular Stress applied (MPa) Force applied Per Node (N) r1 (MPa) r2 (MPa) r3 (MPa) s (MPa) Max. deection (mm) TsaiWu ratio 24 544 5.84 10.9 69.3 25.8 0.4 0.62 120 V-shape 24 548 6.41 13.6 69.9 20.9 0.4 0.49 Rounded C-shape 24 577 4.26 13.9 74.7 26.4 0.4 0.49

Fig. 3. Loading and boundary conditions of the rectangular frame structure.

Fig. 4. (a) 1905 mm frame with loading and boundary conditions; (b) transverse load to initiate pure buckling; (c) transverse load to initiate torsion buckling.

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116 Table 3 Stress and deection produced at the critical buckling load Max. principal stress 1 (r1) (MPa) (0/90)6 [45/(0/90)2]s [45/(0/90)]3 61.9 58.7 59.1 Max. principal stress 2 (r2) (MPa) 58.9 57.3 56.6 Max. principal stress 3 (r3) (MPa) 65.0 57.2 69.4 Max. In-plane shear stress (s) (MPa) 23.4 33.1 22.8 Max. TsaiWu ratio 0.64 0.53 0.70

109

Max. out-of-plane deection (mm) 5.4 5.4 5.9

panel segment (reported in [37]) to which it mates. Furthermore, the gradual contours of the rounded C-shape prole make it amenable to the SDF processing. 3.2. Non-linear analysis: Buckling Following the initial study from the linear analysis, work was extended to a geometric non-linear analysis of only the rounded C-prole. Geometric non-linear analysis was carried out on the rounded C-shape prole of 1905 mm (7500 ) length representing the entire length of the single frame structure as shown in Fig. 1. A non-linear layered structural shell, SHELL 91, was used for FEA. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node, namely, translation in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z-axes. Eight nodes, ber direction angles, average or corner layer thicknesses, and orthotropic material properties dene the element. The same orthotropic material properties that were used in the linear analysis (Table 1) were utilized for the non-linear analysis. Pure buckling analysis was carried out to evaluate the performance of the three stacking sequences of pre-pregs in this paper. The three congurations have the same boundary and loading conditions as shown in Fig. 4(a). All nodes at one end are restrained for rotation and translation in all directions. A vertical force of 15 kN based on the bus weight and number of the structural frames, was distributed evenly along the top nodes to simulate in-plane loading. The nodes were restricted from out-of-plane translation to simulate a pinned boundary condition at the end where the load was applied. A load of magnitude equal to 5% of the vertical load, i.e. 750 N, was applied horizontally in the transverse direction to initiate buckling in the frame member as shown in Fig. 4(b). Six layers of the woven ber (0/90 balanced weave or 45 balanced weave) were considered for all of the laminated frame congurations. Each woven fabric layer was modeled as two individual layers. A total of 12 plies were used for the three dierence stacking sequences, namely (0/90)6, [45/(0/90)2]s, and [45/(0/90)]3. The principal stress directions correspond to the local shell element coordinates (x, y, and z respectively). Table 3 shows the results of the non-linear analysis for the three stacking sequences. It indicates that the (0/90)6 and [45/(0/90)2]s congurations had similar maximum out-of-plane displacement, which was approximately 5.4 mm. The [45/(0/90)2]s had the lowest TsaiWu ratio, 0.53.

The critical load for the three stacking sequences at which the deformation reaches non-linearity is shown in Fig. 5. This gure also shows that the (0/90)6 conguration possesses higher rigidity among the three due to its higher load-to-displacement ratio, 50,144 N/mm, while the [45/ (0/90)]3 conguration attains failure at the largest displacement. The three laminate congurations were also analyzed for torsion-buckling mode. The boundary conditions were identical to the ones in the pure buckling mode in Fig. 4(a). A load for initiating torsion buckling was applied at the center of the frame with loads acting in opposite directions as shown in Fig. 4(c). Table 4 shows the results of the torsion buckling analysis. The load vs. deection of the three laminate congurations under torsion-buckling analysis is shown in Fig. 6. The results indicate that the (0/90)6 and [45/(0/90)2]s congurations have similar TsaiWu ratio, 0.55 and 0.53 respectively. The (0/90)6 conguration has the lowest maximum out-of-plane deection, 5.0 mm. 3.3. Non-linear analysis: Compression Non-linear analysis was also carried out on a 914 mm (3600 ) frame segment with six consolidated layers of carbon/PPS pre-preg. The shorter length (914 mm) as opposed to 1905 mm used in the buckling analysis was to induce compression failure in the frame segment. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the performance of the frame during in-plane compression. A load of 30 kN, determined after trials of analysis, was applied on one end of the frame
30000 25000 20000 Load (N) 15000 10000 5000 0 0.0
(0/90)6 [45/(0/90)2]s [45/(0/90)]3

0.2

0.4 Displacement (mm)

0.6

0.8

Fig. 5. Load vs. displacement for the pure buckling mode.

110

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

Table 4 Stress and deection produced at the critical buckling load in torsion Max. principal stress 1 (r1) (MPa) (0/90)6 [45/(0/90)2]s [45/(0/90)]3 49.9 38.9 51.0 Max. principal stress 2 (r2) (MPa) 48.7 52.2 51.8 Max. principal stress 3 (r3) (MPa) 73.4 61.6 72.4 Max. in-plane shear stress (s) (MPa) 21.2 33.7 23.7 Max. TsaiWu ratio 0.55 0.53 0.72 Max. out-of-plane deection (mm) 5.0 5.7 6.3

20000 18000 16000 14000 Load (N) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 Displacement (mm)
(0/90)6 [45/(0/90)2]s [45/(0/90)]3

0.80

1.00

Fig. 6. Load vs. displacement for the torsion buckling mode. Fig. 8. Out-of-plane stress contour developed at failure load.

Fig. 7. Out-of-plane (buckling) displacements developed at failure load.

towards the other end. The boundary conditions were identical to the ones used in pure buckling and torsion buckling analysis. From the FEA result, failure occurred in the frame when the load reached to 25 kN. At the failure, out-of-plane displacements were formed. The largest outof-plane displacement appeared to be 5.2 mm and occurred at the geometrical center as shown in Fig. 7 and the maximum out-of-plane principal stress was found to be 98.2 MPa at the failure as shown in Fig. 8. 4. Manufacturing The rounded C-shape prole with six layers of 0/90 carbon/PPS plain woven architectures was chosen for man-

Fig. 9. Aluminum tool attached with three heating elements for manufacturing the frame structure.

ufacturing based on the FEA results. An aluminum mold was designed consistent with the geometry of the rounded C-shape frame segment as shown in Fig. 9. Due to dimension limitations of the molding press, the length of the tool was determined to be 914 mm (3600 ) instead of the full length of one single frame, 1905 mm (7500 ). The aluminum mold (equipped with cartridge heaters) was placed in a compression molding press of 400 metric ton capacity. The same press was also for manufacturing the body panel segment reported in our earlier work [37]. Thermal insulation is critical for maintaining the pre-pregs at 320 C

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

111

Fig. 10. SDF used for manufacturing the frame structure.

(608 F), the processing temperature of PPS. Ceramic blocks were placed underneath the mold for insulating purposes. The SDF process was used in manufacturing the thin-walled carbon/PPS frame segment. A schematic of the SDF processing setup is shown in Fig. 10. Carbon/ PPS pre-pregs were placed on the aluminum tool, equipped with heaters. A pressure of 344 kPa and a vacuum of 85 kPa were used to process the frame. The part was maintained at a temperature of 320 C for 50 min to obtain good consolidation and then cooled to room temperature. A representative carbon/PPS frame segment manufactured by the SDF process is shown in Fig. 11. 5. Mechanical testing and design verication Samples were cut from a typical carbon/PPS frame segment for exural testing and low velocity impact (LVI) testing. 5.1. Flexural testing Flexural testing was conducted according to ASTM D 790M. Five carbon/PPS samples with dimensions of 50 25 2 mm3 were prepared from the at portion of the frame as shown in Fig. 11. The testing was carried out on a screw operated universal testing machine with a cross-head motion rate of 0.85 mm/min. The results of the exural testing are shown in Table 5. The average exural modulus and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the SDF processed carbon/PPS composite was found to be 28.50 GPa and 322.63 MPa, respectively. There was no visible ber breakage on the tensile face while apparent ber fracture is observed around the loading line on the com-

Fig. 11. A representative carbon/PPS frame segment manufactured by the SDF process.

pression face. A typical load vs. displacement plot for exural test of a carbon/PPS specimen is shown in Fig. 12(a). The failure mode was wrinkling on the compression face and debonding between the plies, as shown in the Fig. 12(c) and (d), respectively. Multiple peaks in the loaddisplacement curve of Fig. 12(a) indicate debonding

112

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

Table 5 Summary of exural test on carbon/PPS specimens Specimen 1 2 3 4 5 Modulus (GPa) 22.54 26.85 33.60 30.63 28.88 UTS (MPa) 255.94 295.30 374.55 367.86 319.49 Statistical data Mean Standard error Standard deviation Minimum Maximum Modulus (GPa) 28.50 1.86 4.15 22.54 33.60 UTS (MPa) 322.63 22.30 49.86 255.94 374.55

Fig. 12. (a) Load vs. Displacement plot for the exural test; (b) exural specimen with the dimension of 25 50 mm2; (c) the wrinkling failure on the loading position; (d) side view of the specimen showing the debonding.

25 Energy (joule) 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 Time (msec) 8

Energy Load

5 4 3 2 1 0 10 Load (KN)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 13. (a) Impacted carbon/PPS specimen with the punctuation; (b) energy vs. time and load vs. time plot of LVI test.

between the plies. The rst peak is due to the wrinkling on the compression face, and the other peaks are attributed to debonding of the plies. 5.2. Low velocity impact (LVI) testing LVI samples with dimension 100 100 mm2 were cut from the at portion of the carbon/PPS frame segment (Fig. 11). The testing was conducted using a Dynatup 8250 impact-testing machine. A hemispherical shaped head tup of diameter 19.5 mm was used. A representative plot of energy vs. time and load vs. time is shown in Fig. 13(a). The failure mode was mainly tensile fracture, as shown in Fig. 13(a). Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) (TGA 2950, Du Pont Instruments) and dierential scanning calorimetry (DSC)

(DSC Q100, TA Instruments) were conducted on samples from the frame segment to obtain the degree of crystallinity (DOC) and degradation temperature of PPS. Figs. 14 and 15 show the TGA and DSC results of carbon/PPS produced by the SDF process. The heat of fusion of PPS (43% by weight in the carbon/PPS) was found to be 52.6 J/g. The heat of fusion of 100% crystalline PPS was estimated to be 80 J/g according to the work by Lovinger and coworkers [39]. Therefore, it was estimated that the DOC of the PPS matrix in the carbon/PPS frame is 66% based on DOC DH =DH f 2

where DH is the change of heat of fusion from temperature T1 to temperature T2 and DHf: heat of fusion for a 100% crystalline PPS. The TGA graph shows that the degradation temperature is 420 C at room temperature.

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

113

Fig. 14. TGA showing the degrading temperature, 420 C.

Fig. 15. DSC of carbon/PPS showing that the change of heat of fusion of PPS in the carbon/PPS is 52.6 J/g.

Microstructural analysis was conducted on the carbon/ PPS specimens. The samples were cut from the at and the curved portion of the frame segment and mounted in epoxy resin. After polishing, the carbon/PPS specimens

were examined under microscope. The representative micrographs in Fig. 16 show that there is excellent impregnation between the carbon bers and the PPS matrix.

114

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

of the experiment was to validate the design and FEA presented earlier. The frame segment was potted in alumina lled epoxy at both ends in order to provide two parallel loading surfaces and alignment required for loading under compression. Care was taken to prevent buckling failure and to promote failure primarily in compression. A dial gage was attached at the geometrical center transverse to the frame segment to record transverse deection, if any. The carbon/PPS frame segment was placed in the testing frame supported on rubber plates on both sides to prevent its movement. Fig. 17 shows the carbon/PPS component before and after failure. 6. Analysis and discussion: Component verication Barreling was initially noted along the length of the carbon/PPS frame segment at the early stages of loading in the compression test. As the load increased, small ripples (local out-of-plane deformation) were observed at the geometric center of the frame as was predicted in FEA (Fig. 7). The local crippling mode (ripple formation) was dominant indicating the frame segment underwent in-plane compression. The failure occurred at a load of 34 kN. This experimental failure load was 36% higher than the predicted failure load, which was 25 kN from FEA. Fig. 18 compares the compression load vs. deection of the carbon/PPS frame for the experiment and FEA. The gure shows that the experimental deection is larger than the FEA prediction at the same load. The dierence was attributed to the boundary conditions achieved in experimental compression testing and the dierence in thickness. 6.1. Weight savings The weight of a 700 mm (2700 ) frame segment from the Pro/E solid model was estimated to be 1 kg. The 700 mm (2700 ) segment length was chosen because it matches (and mates) to the manufactured glass/polypropylene (glass/ PP) body panel segment in our previous work [37]. The weight of the as-manufactured frame segment manufactured was measured to be 0.9 kg. An equivalent steel frame (as it exists on present buses) providing the same functions and load-bearing is approximately 10 kg [40]. Hence, the carbon/PPS, thermoplastic composite solution provides weight-saving on the order of 90%. In addition, the design can be made exible by adding or decreasing layers of the pre-pregs for dierent vehicle sizes and needs. 7. Conclusions
Fig. 16. Microstructure of carbon/PPS frame: (a) at portion; (b) curved portion; and (c) higher magnication of at portion.

5.3. Component verication The carbon/PPS frame segment produced by the SDF approach was subjected to a compression test. The purpose

In this work, an open thin-walled carbon ber reinforced polyphenylene sulde composite frame structure for a mass transit bus was designed, manufactured and analyzed successfully. Finite element analysis (FEA) of the frame congurations was carried out with the aid of Pro/Engineer 2001, HypermeshTM, and ANSYS. A frame with an open cross-section featuring a rounded C-shape

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116

115

Fig. 17. (a) Frame attached with dial gage prior to testing; (b) frame showing buckling failure after testing.

Acknowledgements
18000 16000 14000 Load (N) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 1 2 Deflection (mm) 3 4
Analysis Experiment

The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support from the Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation project # FTA-AL-26-7001 and technical assistance from the National Composite Center (NCC), Kettering Ohio. The authors express their thanks to Chad Ulven, Selvum Pillay, Juan C. Serrano, Andrew Grabany and Patrick Moriarty for their assistance. References
[1] Potluri P, Kusak E, Reddy TY. Novel stitch-bonded sandwich composite structures. Compos Struct 2003;59:2519. [2] Vaidya UK, Samalot F, Pillay S, Janowski GM, Husman G, Gleich K. Design and manufacture of woven reinforced glass/polypropylene composites for mass transit oor structure. J Compos Mater 2004;38(21):194972. [3] DHooghe EL, Edwards C. Thermoplastic composite technology: tougher than you think. Adv Mater 2000;12(23):18658. [4] Van West BP, Pipes RB, Advani SG. The consolidation of commingled thermoplastic fabrics. Polym Compos 1991;12:41727. [5] Ye L, Friedrich K. Processing of thermoplastic composites from powder/sheath-bre bundles. J Mater Process Technol 1995;48: 31724. [6] Gamstedt EK, Berglund LA, Peijs T. Fatigue mechanisms in unidirectional glass-bre-reinforced polypropylene. Compos Sci Technol 1999;59:75968. [7] Price RV. Production of impregnated rovings. US Patent # 03742106, 1973. [8] Goguelin M. Reinforced thermoplastics sheet and its manufacturing process. US Patent # 05008306, 1991. [9] Hartness T, Husman G, Koenig J, Dyksterhouse J. The characterization of low cost ber reinforced thermoplastic composites produced by the DRIFT process. Composites: Part A 2001;32(8): 115560.

Fig. 18. Load vs. deection plot of carbon/PPS under compression (experiment vs. analysis).

prole with the stacking sequence of (0/90)6 was adopted for manufacturing, after dierent modes such as pure buckling mode and torsion buckling mode were analyzed. The frame segment was successfully manufactured using polyphenylene sulde powder pre-impregnated carbon fabric and the single diaphragm forming process. The microstructural investigation indicated that adequate consolidation resulted from the low-cost single diaphragm process. The compression testing of the frame segment validated the design and analysis. Flexure and low velocity impact tests on coupons of single diaphragm formed carbon polyphenylene sulde composites indicated primarily tensile dominated fracture behavior. A high degree of crystallinity was noted in these specimens.

116

H. Ning et al. / Composite Structures 80 (2007) 105116 [26] Krebs J, Friedrich K, Bhattacharyya D. A direct comparison of matched-die versus diaphragm forming. Composites: Part A 1998;29A:1838. [27] Henninger F, Friedrich K. Production of textile reinforced thermoplastics proles by roll forming. Composites: Part A 2004;35:57383. [28] Lim TC, Ramakrishna S, Shang HM. Axisymmetric sheet forming of knitted fabric composite by combined stretch forming and deep drawing. Composites: Part B 1999;30:495502. [29] OBradaigh CM, Mallon PJ. Eect of forming temperature on the properties of polymeric diaphragm formed thermoplastic composites. Compos Sci Technol 1989;35:23555. [30] Krebs J, Bhattacharyya D, Friedrich K. Production and evaluation of secondary composite aircraft components a comprehensive case study. Composites: Part A 1997;28A:4819. [31] Bersee HEN, Beukers A. Diaphragm forming of continuous bre reinforced thermoplastics: inuence of temperature, pressure and forming velocity on the forming of Upilex-R diaphragm. Composites: Part A 2002;33:94958. [32] Monaghan MR, Mallon PJ. High temperature mechanical characterization of polyimide diaphragm forming lms. Composites: Part A 1998;29:26572. [33] Channer KJ, Cosgri W, Smith GF, Okoli OI. Development of the double RIFT diaphragm forming process. J Reinforced Plastics Compos 2002;21:162935. [34] Pantelakis SG, Baxevani EA. Optimization of the diaphragm forming process with regard to product quality and cost. Composites: Part A 2002;33:45970. [35] Walczyk DF, Hosford JF, Papazian JM. Using recongurable tooling and surface heating for incremental forming of composite aircraft parts. J Manufact Sci Eng 2003;125:33343. [36] Olsen SH. Single diaphragm forming of drapeable thermoplastic impregnated composite materials. US Patent # 05037599, 1991. [37] Haibin Ning, Gregg M. Janowski, Uday Vaidya, George Husman. Thermoplastic sandwich structure design and manufacturing for the body panel of mass transit vehicle. Compos Struct, in press, doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.090. [38] www.hexcelcomposites.com. [39] Lovinger AJ, Davis DD, Padden Jr FJ. Kinetic analysis of the crystallization of poly(p-phenylene sulphide). Polymer 1985;26(11): 1595604. [40] Husman G, Vaidya UK, Janowski GM, Serrano JC. FTA report FTA-AL-26-7001-2004.1, July 2004.

[10] Henninger F, Homan J, Friedrich K. Thermoplastic lament winding with online-impregnation. Part B. Experimental study of processing parameters. Composites: Part A 2002;33:167788. [11] Bauld N, Tzeng L. A Vlasov theory for ber-reinforced beams with thin-walled open cross sections. Int J Solids Struct 1984;20: 27797. [12] Boey F, Lee TH, Khor KA. Polymer crystallinity and its eect on the non-linear bending creep rate for a polyphenylene sulphide thermoplastic composite. Polym Test 1995;14:42538. [13] Fernandez I, Blas F, Frovel M. Autoclave forming of thermoplastic composite parts. J Mater Process Technol 2003;143144:2669. [14] Using polyphenylene sulphide in high-performance pumps. World Pumps 2002, 2002. p. 2731. [15] Ghaseminejhad MN, Parvizi-Majidi A. Impact behaviour and damage tolerance of woven carbon bre-reinforced thermoplastic composites. Construct Build Mater 1990;4:194207. [16] Boey F, Lua AC, Yue CY. Hot forming of a polyphenylene sulphide composite. J Mater Process Technol 1993;38:32735. [17] Boey F, Lee TH. Eect of matrix crystallinity on the buckling failure of a PPS thermoplastic composite. Polymer Testing 1994;13:4753. [18] Cole KC, Noel D, Hechler JJ. Crystallinity in PPS carbon composites: a study using diuse reection FT-IR spectroscopy and dierential scanning calorimetry. J Appl Polym Sci 1990;39: 1887902. [19] Jung SN, Lee JY. Closed-form analysis of thin-walled composite Ibeams considering non-classical eects. Compos Struct 2003;60:917. [20] Maddur SS, Chaturvedi SK. Laminated composite open prole sections: rst order shear deformation theory. Compos Struct 1999;45:10514. [21] Rand O. Nonlinear in-plane warping deformation in elastically coupled open thin-walled beams. Comput Struct 2001;79: 28191. [22] Bank LC. Modications to beam theory for bending and twisting of open-section composite beams. Compos Struct 1990;15:93114. [23] Bank LC, Coe E. A modied beam theory for bending and twisting of open-section composite beams Numerical verication. Compos Struct 1992;21:2939. [24] Smith SJ, Bank LC. Modications to beam theory for bending and twisting of open-section composite beams Experimental verication. Compos Struct 1992;22:16977. [25] Wang C, Pian T. Hybrid semiloop element for buckling of thin-walled structures. Comput Struct 1988;30:8116.