Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Analysis of Laminated Composite Structures

AE/ME/EMech 484

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Variant 11

October 13, 2010

Presented by:

Jeremy OHara

OHara 1

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Executive Summary
This study analyzes the existing design of an 6061-T6 aluminum deck and provides weight saving alternative designs fabricated from composite materials. The parameters for the initial aluminum design and the materials for consideration for the redesign are specified per Variant 11 and are outlined in Tables 1-3 of the problem statement. Analysis of the existing design shows a target weight (linear mass) of 13.01 kg/m for the deck. The design pressure q 0 was also evaluated for the existing design. Using a maximum strength analysis generated a q 0-strength of 19.124 kPa, however, this analysis leads to extreme mid-plate deflections (in excess of the plate thickness). Limiting the deflection to one half of the plate thickness leads to a q 0-displacement of 782 Pa.

q 0-displacement was used for displacement based plate development.

Design pressure q 0-strength was used for the strength based plate development, while

For the Fiberglass/Epoxy option, three plates were developed: GE-MS, GE-TS, and GE-D. These plates satisfy the maximum strength criteria, Tsai-Hill Criteria, and half-thickness displacement criteria respectively, with the GE-D satisfying all criteria simultaneously. The GE-D plate provides an 8.69% weight savings over the original aluminum design. For the Carbon/Epoxy option, two plates were developed: CE-S and CE-D. The CE-S plate satisfies the maximum strength criteria and Tsai-Hill Criteria simultaneously, and the CE-D satisfies half-thickness displacement criteria as well as all strength criteria. The CE-D plate provides a 46.9 % weight savings over the original aluminum design. Part 2 is an academic exercise in which all of the plates were analyzed to find the maximum stress resultant Nx that could be applied before failure. Complete results can be found in Section 6 Results.

OHara 2

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Section 1 Problem Statement

Redesign the aluminum plate prescribed in Variant 11 (Table 1) using composite materials to achieve the lightest structure capable of carrying the same uniform pressure as the aluminum plate. See Figure 1 for typical geometry. This involves design of the laminated plate (skin) simply supported by the stringers. The mode of failure we are concerned with is the loss of strength. Part 1: Design the plates using two materials specified in Variant 11 in Table 2 that are capable of carrying the same pressure as the aluminum plate. Compare the weight of the plates designed using two materials and two failure criteria with that of the aluminum plate. Design a plate that is lighter than the aluminum structure. Make the plate symmetric cross-ply laminated or symmetric angle-ply laminated. The thickness of each layer being equal to 0.13 mm Use the following criteria for each design: 1. Maximum stress criterion 2. Tsai-Hill criterion * For the uniform comparison all safety factors are taken equal to 1.

Figure 1 Typical Geometry

Part 2: For each of four plates designed in Part 1, determine the maximum allowable tensile stress resultant Nx that can be applied to the plate (without pressure). Finding this solution vary the stress resultant, find the strains corresponding to the assumed value, then determine the stresses in the layers and check the strength.

OHara 3

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Aluminum Plate Variants Variant 11 a (m) .8 h thickness (m) .006

Table 1 - Aluminum Plate Variants

Composite Material Variants Variant 11 Materials 1, 5

Table 2 - Composite Material Variants

Material Properties
Material # 1 E-Glass/ Epoxy r E1 E2 G12 n12 sy s1U s2U t12U s1U' s2U' s4 or s5 eLT a1 a2 VF MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa % 10-6/oC 10 / C %
Table 3 - Material Properties
-6 o

5 Carbon/ Epoxy (AS4/3501-6) 1580 142 10.3 7.2 0.27 1830 57 71 1096 228 1.29 -0.9 27 60

Al Aluminum (6061-T6) 271 68.9 0.33 255 290 -

Material Description Density Longitudinal Modulus Transverse Modulus In-Plane Shear Modulus Poisson's Ratio Yeild Strength Longitudinal Tensile Strength Transverse Tensile Strength In-Plane Shear Strength Longitudinal Comp. Strength Transverse Comp. Strength Intralaminar Shear Strength Longitudinal Tensile Strain Longitudinal CTE Transverse CTE Fiber Volume Fraction kg/m3 GPa GPa GPa

2076 45 12 5.5 0.19 1020 40 60 620 140 60 2.3 3.7 30 60

OHara 4

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Section 2 Scope
This analysis is based on Thin Plate Theory and Symmetric Cross Ply Laminate Plate Theory. Further, the analysis is focused solely on the region of the plate subjected to pure cylindrical bending. The boundary conditions are taken to be simply supported and transverse deflections assumed to be small per the problem statement. More discussion on these two points can be found in Section 7 Discussion. The analysis is limited to a plate redesign only. Any required modifications to the sub-structure are out of the scope of this document, as are any geometric differences (thickness, etc.) between the original design and any alternative. The joining of the deck to the substructure is also specifically excluded from this analysis. This analysis is limited to the First Ply Failure (FPF) of the laminate. No residual strength is considered to exist after a ply failure occurs. This analysis considers only tensile and compressive failure modes. Shear, buckling, delamination, and edge effect stress concentration failures are specifically out of the scope of this analysis. This analysis is based on static loading conditions. No dynamic, cyclic, or shock loading conditions are considered. This analysis is based on mechanical loading failure theory only. Hygrothermal effects are neglected, as are environmental considerations, e.g. corrosive environments, UV degradation, etc. It is assumed that the material properties used in the analysis are valid at the conditions in which panel is subjected to the loads. The analysis is based on an assumption of 100% quality. It is assumed the panel is free from material or manufacturing defects (delaminations, voids, foreign material, ply distortion, ply splices etc.).

OHara 5

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Section 3 Original Aluminum Plate Design

The deck is defined per the specifications of Variant 11.

Aluminum Plate Properties Variant 11 Alloy 6061-T6 a Plate Width (m) .8 h Thickness (m) .006 3 2710 r - Density (kg/m ) 255 Strength syeild (MPa) Youngs Modulus E (GPa) * Poissons Ratio n* Strength sUTS (MPa)* 68.9 .33 290

*From Matweb.com 6060-T6 and Alclad 6061-T6

Table 4 - Aluminum Plate Properties

Per given max stress equation:

3 4

The design pressure

q 0-strength can be found as follows: = 4 255 10 3 . 006 .8 = 19125 = 19.125

4 3

The design weight (linear mass)

w L - design can be found as follows: = 2710 . 006 . 8 = 13.01 /

OHara 6

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

The isotropic plate may be analyzed using the same methods as composite plates: For Plane-Stress: (from Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites , 3e., Argawal, Broutman, Chandrashekhara, eqns 5.78, 7.16)

= = = =

= 1 =

1 =

68.9 9 = 7.732 10 1 . 33

68.9 9 .33 = 2.552 10 1 . 33 = 68.9 9 = 2.590 10 2 1 + .33

2 1+ =0 1 = =

= = = = =0 = = = =

= 1 2 1+

. 006 68.9 9 = 4.639 8 1 . 33 .33 = 1.531 8

. 006 68.9 9 1 . 33

. 006 68.9 9 = 1.554 8 2 1 + .33

=0

12 1 = =
.

68.9 9 . 006 = 1391.762 12 1 . 33 .33 = 459.281

12 1

68.9 9 . 006 12 1 . 33
. .

=466.241

=0

OHara 7

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

= = 5 384

= =

5 384

121

5 19125 . 8 = .0733 384 1391.762

A deflection of 73.3mm exceeds the small deflection constraint on this analysis method and is therefore subject to extreme error and may be unrealistic. If the maximum displacement is constrained to one half plate thickness, the analysis method utilized here becomes valid again. By using the same equations as before with an iterative approach, it was found that the maximum pressure that can be applied and maintain a half plate thickness displacement (w o =3mm) is q 0-displacment of 782 Pa.

OHara 8

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Section 4 Part 1
For the desired composite deck, supported by stringer and subjected to a uniform pressure, the ideal layup away from end effects is [0 o ] x . However, to create a more robust design a minimal number of 90 o plies will be added. For a simply supported symmetric cross-ply composite plate subjected to cylindrical bending (neglecting short edge effects) the following equations hold: (from pages 121-123 of course notes)

For: = 0; = 0; = 8

<

<
= 384 16 24 +5

= 0; = 0; 14

=0 ; = 0; =0

For 0 o Plies: (max stress occurs at x=0) = = =0 = = 8 8 14 14 = = 8 8 = 5 384

For 90 o Plies: (max stress occurs at x=0) = = =0 = = 8 8 14 14 = = 8 8 = 5 384

OHara 9

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Analysis is completing using an iterative process varying the ply count and layup until the following strength based failure criteria are satisfied: (from pages 29 and 33 of course notes) Max Stress Criteria

< < |<|

< < |

Tsai-Hill Criterial

<1

This initial analysis based on strength based criteria using q0-strength led to three alternative plate designs, two Fiberglass/Epoxy (GE-MS and GE-TH) and one Carbon/Epoxy (CE-S). GEMS is a glass/epoxy plate satisfying the maximum stress criteria, GE-TH is glass/epoxy satisfying both maximum stress and Tsai-Hill criteria, and CE-S is carbon/epoxy satisfying both maximum stress and Tsai-Hill criteria. For each of these plates thickness, weight, weight savings, and max deflection were calculated. It should be noted that the initial alternative designs, GE-MS, GE-TH, and CE-S, all have maximum deflections in excess of plate thickness. Additional analysis was completed using a discplacement constraint of wo=.5x plate thickness and q0-displacment = 782 Pa from the original design constrained to wo=.5x plate thickness. The same iterative process was completed and two more additional alternatives were developed, one glass/epoxy and one carbon/epoxy (GE-D and CE-D respectively). Both of these plates not only satisfy the strength criteria (max stress and Tsai-Hill) at the both the higher q0-strength and lower q0-displacment they both also maintain a max deflection wo=.5x plate thickness. For each of these plates thickness, weight, weight savings, and max deflection were calculated.

OHara 10

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Section 5 Part 2
Part 2 is an academic exercise to determine the maximum stress resultant Nx that can be applied to each plate. All five alternative plates were considered: GE-MS, GE-TH, GE-D, CE-S, CE-D. To conduct this analysis, the Q matrix for each material and the A and A matrices for each layup were calculated: (from Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites , 3e., Argawal, Broutman, Chandrashekhara, eqns 5.78, 7.16, 6.20, 6.36, 6.9)

= = = = =

1 1 1

=0

For symmetric laminates:

[ ]= [
Followed by:

][ ]

[ ] = [ ][ ]
With this relationship established Nx was varied while observing the resulting failure criteria (max stress and Tsai-Hill) until a maximum value was found.

OHara 11

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Section 6 Results
Part 1: Original Aluminum Design Analysis has shown that the existing aluminum deck is designed to be subjected to a uniform pressure q 0-strength of 19.124kPa, has a linear design mass of 13.01 kg/m, and a deflection under loading of 73.3 mm. The deflection under the max loading exceeds acceptable values for the simple analysis performed here. It is assumed to be an illegitimate result and a displacement boundary condition is applied limiting the max transverse deflection to 3 mm (one half plate thickness). Analysis on the plate with the new constraints yields a uniform pressure q 0-displacement of 782 Pa, has a linear design mass of 13.01 kg/m, and a deflection under loading of 3 mm.

Part 1a: Fiberglass/Epoxy Strength analysis of symmetric cross-ply fiberglass/epoxy plates resulted in two plates, FE-MS and FE-TH. These plates correspond to the lightest design that satisfies the Maximum Stress Criteria and Tsai-Hill Criteria respectively under uniform pressure q 0-strength . The GE-MS plate is a 27-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate, [0 11 /90 5 /0 11 ]. The plate thickness is 3.51 mm, has a linear mass of 5.83 kg/m, and a deflection under loading of 626 mm. This plate exceeds the deformation limitations of

analysis and should be disregarded.

The GE-TH plate is a 26-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate, [0 11 /90 2 ]s. The plate thickness is 3.38 mm, has a linear mass of 5.61 kg/m, and a deflection under loading of 699 mm. This plate exceeds the deformation limitations of

analysis and should be disregarded.

Displacement analysis of symmetric cross-ply fiberglass/epoxy plates resulted in one plate, GE-D. This plate corresponds to the lightest design that satisfies the Maximum Stress Criteria, Tsai-Hill Criteria, and max deflection=.5x plate thickness under uniform pressure q 0-displacement . The GE-D plate is a 55-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate, [07/902/07/902/07/902.5]s. The plate thickness is 7.15 mm, has a linear mass of 11.87 kg/m, and a deflection under loading of 3.4 mm. This plate represents an acceptable design and provides a weight savings of 8.69%. See Table 5 for comparison.

OHara 12

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Part 1b: Carbon/Epoxy AS4/3501-6 Strength analysis of symmetric cross-ply carbon/epoxy plates resulted in one plate design that simultaneously satisfies the Maximum Stress Criteria and Tsai-Hill Criteria under uniform pressure q 0-strength . The CE-S plate is a 18-ply Carbon/Epoxy laminate, [0 5 /90/0 2 /90]s. The plate thickness is 2.34 mm, has a linear mass of 2.96 kg/m, and a deflection under loading of 703 mm. This plate exceeds the deformation limitations of

analysis and should be disregarded.

Displacement analysis of symmetric cross-ply carbon/epoxy plates resulted in one plate, CE-D. This plate corresponds to the lightest design that satisfies the Maximum Stress Criteria, Tsai-Hill Criteria, and max deflection=.5 x plate thickness under uniform pressure q 0-displacement . The CE-D plate is a 42-ply Carbon/Epoxy laminate, [07/902/07/902/02/90]s. The plate thickness is 5.16 mm, has a linear mass of 6.90 kg/m, and a deflection under loading of 2.4 mm. This plate represents an acceptable design and provides a weight savings of 46.92%. See Table 5 on following page for comparison.

Part 1: Conclusion Either alternative design GE-D or CE-D will meet the design requirements and provide weight saving. Further, both of these designs conform to the deflection constraints of the analysis used here. Other lighter designs may exist that meet all of the design requirements, however more advanced analysis is required to validate them. From a purely weight reduction point of view the CE-D deck will realize the greatest savings. However it will most likely be the most expensive. If cost is a consideration, the GE-D deck would be a good choice as well.

OHara 13

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Design Comparison - Part 1

Design Material Plies Layup Thickness (mm) Linear Mass (kg/m) Weight Savings (%) Deflection (mm) Design - S Aluminum 6 13 73.3 3 Design - D Aluminum 6 13 (1a) GE-MS Fiberglass/ Epoxy 27 [011/905/011] 3.51 5.8 55.38% 626.2 (1a) GE-TH Fiberglass/ Epoxy 26 [011/902]s 3.38 5.6 56.92% 699.5 (1a) GE-D Fiberglass/ Epoxy 55 (1b) CE - S Carbon/ Epoxy 18 (1b) CE-D Carbon/ Epoxy 42 [07/902/07/902/02/90]s 5.46 6.9 46.92% 2.4

[07/902/07/902/07/902.5]s [05/90/02/90]s 7.15 11.87 8.69% 3.4 2.34 2.96 77.23% 703.2

Table 5 - Design Comparison Part 1

OHara 14

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Part 2: Stress Resultant Analysis Computing the maximum Nx Stress resultant that each of the alternative composite decks can withstand yielded the following results: The GE-MS plate is a 27-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate, [0 11 /90 5 /0 11 ]. The plate thickness is 3.51 mm. The Nx max by maximum stress is 3.091 MN/m. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 2.851 MN/m. The GE-TH plate is a 26-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate, [0 11 /90 2 ]s. The plate thickness is 3.38 mm. The Nx max by maximum stress is 3.055 MN/m. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 2.869 MN/m. The GE-D plate is a 55-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate, [07/902/07/902/07/902.5]s. The plate thickness is 7.15 mm. The Nx max by maximum stress is 6.021 MN/m. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 5.403 MN/m. The CE-S plate is a 18-ply Carbon/Epoxy laminate, [0 5 /90/0 2 /90]s. The plate thickness is 2.34 mm. The Nx max by maximum stress is 3.405 MN/m. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 3.104 MN/m. The CE-D plate is a 42-ply Carbon/Epoxy laminate, [07/902/07/902/02/90]s. The plate thickness is 5.16 mm. The Nx max by maximum stress is 7.784 MN/m. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 7.074 MN/m. For reference the Original Aluminum Design has a plate thickness is 6 mm. The Nx max by yield strength is 1.53 MN/m.

See Table 6 for comparison.

OHara 15

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Design Comparison - Part 2

Design Material Plies Layup Nx (Max Stress) MN/m Nx (Tsai-Hill) MN/m Nx (yield) MN/m Design - S Aluminum 1.53 (1a) GE-MS Fiberglass/ Epoxy 27 [011/905/011] 3.091 2.851 (1a) GE-TH Fiberglass/ Epoxy 26 [011/90/90]s 3.055 2.869 (1a) GE-D Fiberglass/ Epoxy 55 [07/902/07/902/07/902.5]s 6.021 5.403 (1b) CE - S Carbon/ Epoxy 18 [05/90/02/90]s 3.405 3.104 (1b) CE-D Carbon/ Epoxy 42 [07/902/07/902/02/90]s 7.784 7.074 -

Table 6 - Design Comparison - Part 2

OHara 16

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Section 7 Discussion
The original design was analyzed and it was found that the limiting factor was not the maximum stress, but rather a maximum deflection. Per the problem statement alternative designs utilizing fiberglass/epoxy and carbon/epoxy were developed to withstand the uniform pressure q 0-strength ., satisfying the maximum stress and Tsai-Hill failure criteria. Due to the findings from the analysis on the initial design, two additional designs were also developed to take into consideration the unstated deflection constraint. All of the designs provide weight savings over the original aluminum design. Ignoring the designs with excessive deflections, the weight savings that is realizable varies between 8.69% and 46.92% for glass and carbon respectively. The max Nx stress resultant was also calculated as required. As expected the thickest carbon/epoxy plate was able to withstand the highest loading. For a real application additional considerations should be taken into account prior to moving forward with the design: Cost: The cost considerations need to be carefully studied. Material cost, tooling, scrap and rework are all major considerations when looking at a project. Composites, especially high-performance carbon fiber composites, are often prohibitively expensive. Volume may help reduce costs, but extended processing times often require large capital expenditures in duplicate tooling to make rate. Boundary Conditions: The boundary conditions were considered to be simply supported per the problem statement. This does not match the condition presented here exactly. If one bay of the deck were considered alone the SS boundary condition would be satisfactory as the supports are an open profile and would allow rotation. However, when multiple bays or when fastening across a finite width are considered a clamped condition may be more appropriate as the slope at the edges would need to be zero to prevent discontinuities Displacements: The fact that at the maximum stress condition of the original design the mid-plate deflection is nearly twelve times the plate thickness obviously indicates that small displacement theory is invalid. By constraining the maximum deflection to one half the plate thickness, the validity of the analysis is maintained, however, the scope of the analysis is limited. To more thoroughly analyze this problem membrane stresses need to be considered. Safety Factor: For composites, workmanship and process control heavily influence the final mechanical properties of the components. A safety factor should be applied to any calculations that involve mechanical properties to account for manufacturing defects, lot-lot variability, and any other applicable considerations.

OHara 17

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Environmental Concerns: Beyond the basic environmental concerns which should always be considered. This case has two points of special interest CTE and mixed material joints. The CTEs of Aluminum, CE, and GE all vary quite significantly. The redesign of a deck may seem like a simple exercise, but if temperature variations are expected an analysis of the entire system is required. Additionally, an aluminum deck is most likely going to be supported by an aluminum substructure. Switching to a fiberglass deck poses little risk, however, using a carbon fiber deck over aluminum creates a mixed material interface and can create a serious corrosion issue if not mitigated with surface preparation, barrier plies, or other methods. Additional Failure Modes: Additional modes of failure (buckling, shearing, delamination) should be considered before the design is finalized. Without the full design presented, shearing failures appear to be the next largest concern.

OHara 18

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Appendix 1 Constants and Equations

All relevant constants and equations have been presented in the working document.

Appendix 2 Sample Calculations

The only calculation not sampled in the working document is the generation of A and D matrices for composite materials. This was completed using an educational laminate analysis program MLAM see Appendix 4. For more than a few (3-5) plies computing, the A B B D matrix by hand is overly cumbersome and is far easier to generate by running a short code or using predeveloped or commercial code.

OHara 19

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Appendix 3
Please see attached excel file ME 484 Project 2 OHARA.xlsx for data. Sheet index: Summary: Summary of results Material Properties: Properties of Aluminum, Fiberglass/Epoxy, and Carbon/Epoxy used in the calculations Aluminum: Worksheet calculating q 0-strength displacement for original aluminum deck

, q 0-displacement , and

Glass Epoxy: Worksheet for developing glass epoxy layup based on q 0-strength. Inputs are N-plies, layup, D11. Vary layup until failure criteria are satisfied. Outputs max deflection and linear weight Glass Epoxy (Max Disp): Worksheet for developing glass epoxy layup based on q 0-displacement. Inputs are N-plies, layup, D11. Vary layup until failure criteria are satisfied. Outputs max deflection and linear weight Carbon Epoxy: Worksheet for developing carbon epoxy layup based on q 0-strength. Inputs are N-plies, layup, D11. Vary layup until failure criteria are satisfied. Outputs max deflection and linear weight Carbon Epoxy (Max Disp): Worksheet for developing carbon epoxy layup based on q 0-displacement. Inputs are N-plies, layup, D11. Vary layup until failure criteria are satisfied. Outputs max deflection and linear weight Part 2: Worksheet to calculate Nx max for each plate configuration. Inputs are Q, A, A -1 , and Nx. Nx is varied until failure criteria are satisfied.

OHara 20

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Appendix 4 MLAM
MLAM is a Classical Laminate Theory calculator developed by Roberto Caniglia in 1992 at McGill University. It was distributed for upper-level coursework at McGill during my studies there by Prof. Larry Lessard. It was used it solely to generate the Q, A, and D matrices, as it has a nicer user interface than the MATLAB program I developed for handling large numbers of plies. Below are a several screen shots. I can confirm with Prof. Lessard and send a copy to you upon request.

OHara 21

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Appendix 5 References
1) Course notes for ME484 - Analysis of Laminated Composite Structures , by Dr. Victor Birman. Missouri University of Science and Technology. Fall 2010. 2) Agarwal, Bhagwan D., LawrenceJ. Broutman, K. Chandrashekhara. Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites. 3e. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2006. 3) Matweb.com

OHara 22