Use of Composites as

Alternative Materials
in Ship Structures
A thesis
Submitted to the Naval Architecture and Marine
Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering – Alexandria University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

by

Basem E. Tawfik

May 2017
 Use of Composites as Alternative Materials in Ship
Structures

Presented by
Basem E. Tawfik

for the degree of

Master of Science

in
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering

Examiners' Committee: Approved

Prof. Dr. Heba Wael Leheta ………………

Prof. Dr. Heba El Kelany ………………
Prof. Dr. Adel Abdelhalim Banawan ………………
Prof. Dr. Ahmed Mohamed Elhewy ………………

Vice Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

Advisors' Committee:

Prof. Dr. Heba Wael Leheta ……………

Prof. Dr. Tarek Elsayed .……………
Prof. Dr. Ahmed Mohamed Elhewy ……………
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before all I would like to thank “Allah” for his blessings for being able to finish this
research.

This research work was a tough yet Joyful experience in which I owe the inspiration
of the subject to Prof. Heba Wael Leheta and the encouragement of my advisors, Prof.
Ahmed Elhewy and Prof. Tarek Elsayed. For all that; kindly accept my sincere appreciation
and thanks.

On the other hand, I would like to express my deep great thanks and gratitude to my
beloved wife Sara, without her understanding, encouragement and support I wouldn’t have
been able to finish the thesis. At last, my parents deserve a particular note of thanks: your
kind and warm love, as always, served me well.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ xii
NOMENCLATURE .........................................................................................xiv
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................xvi
CHAPTER 1 :INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2 :OVERVIEW OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS ............................... 3
2.1.BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................3
2.2.DEFINITION OF COMPOSITES .............................................................................4
2.3.TYPES AND CLASSIFICATION OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS ......................5
2.3.1.Particle-Reinforced Composites .....................................................................5
2.3.2.Fiber-Reinforced Composites .........................................................................7
2.3.3.Structural Composites: ....................................................................................9
2.3.4.Hybrid Composites .......................................................................................12
2.3.5.Advanced Composites ..................................................................................13
2.4.CONSTITUENT MATERIALS ..............................................................................14
2.4.1.Reinforcement ...............................................................................................14
2.4.1.1.Reinforcement Construction ......................................................................14
2.4.1.2.Fiber Types ................................................................................................15
2.4.1.2.1.Glass Fibers ............................................................................................16
2.4.1.2.2.Carbon and Graphite Fibers ..................................................................17
2.4.1.2.3.Aramid Fibers .........................................................................................17
2.4.1.2.4.Extended chain polyethylene fibers ........................................................18
2.4.2.Matrix............................................................................................................23
2.4.2.1.Thermosets .................................................................................................25
2.4.2.1.1.Epoxies ....................................................................................................25
2.4.2.1.2.Bismaleimides .........................................................................................26
2.4.2.1.3.Polyimides ...............................................................................................26
2.4.2.1.4.Polyesters and vinyl esters ......................................................................26
2.4.2.1.5.Cyanate esters .........................................................................................27
2.4.2.1.6.Phenolics .................................................................................................27
2.4.2.2.Thermoplastics ...........................................................................................27
2.4.3.Core Materials...............................................................................................28
2.4.3.1.Balsa ..........................................................................................................29
2.4.3.2.ThermosetFoams ........................................................................................30
2.4.3.3.SyntacticFoams ..........................................................................................30
2.4.3.4.Cross Linked PVC Foams ..........................................................................31
2.4.3.5.Linear PVC Foam ......................................................................................31
2.4.3.6.Honeycomb ................................................................................................32
2.4.3.7.PMI Foam ..................................................................................................32
2.4.3.8.FRP Planking .............................................................................................32
2.4.3.9.Plywood .....................................................................................................33
2.5.ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS ....33
2.5.1.Strength and Stiffness Advantages ...............................................................34

ii
 2.5.2.Cost Advantages ...........................................................................................37
2.5.3.Weight Advantages .......................................................................................39
2.5.4.Disadvantages ...............................................................................................40
2.6.MARKET DEMAND FOR COMPOSITE MATERIALS ......................................41
2.7.PRODUCTION (MANUFACTURING) METHODS.............................................42
2.7.1.Hand Lay-Up ................................................................................................43
2.7.2.Spray-Up .......................................................................................................44
2.7.3.Filament Winding .........................................................................................45
2.7.4.Pultrusion ......................................................................................................46
2.7.5.Vacuum Bag Molding ...................................................................................47
2.7.6.SCRIMP ........................................................................................................48
2.7.7.Autoclave Molding .......................................................................................49
2.7.8.Resin Transfer Molding ................................................................................50
2.7.9.Compression Molding...................................................................................51
CHAPTER 3 : MECHANICS OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS ...........................53
3.1.INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................53
3.1.1.Mechanical Response ...................................................................................55
3.1.2.Coordinate System ........................................................................................56
3.2.MACROMECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF A LAMINA .......................................59
3.2.1.Stress–Strain Relationships...........................................................................59
3.2.2.Engineering Constants for Orthotropic Materials .........................................62
3.2.3.Strength Criteria for an Orthotropic Lamina ................................................64
3.2.3.1.“Maximum Stress” Failure Criterion........................................................65
3.2.3.2.“Maximum Strain” Failure Criterion .......................................................66
3.2.3.3.Quadratic Failure Criterion ......................................................................66
3.3.MICROMECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF A LAMINA .........................................67
3.3.1.Elastic Properties ..........................................................................................68
3.3.2.Lamina Strength ............................................................................................69
3.4.MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF A LAMINATE .................................................70
3.4.1.Classical Lamination Theory ........................................................................71
3.4.1.1.Lamina Stress-Strain Behavior ..................................................................71
3.4.1.2.Strain and Stress Variation in a Laminate.................................................72
3.4.1.3.Resultant Laminate Forces and Moments .................................................74
3.4.2.Strength of Laminates ...................................................................................77
3.4.3.Computer Laminate Analysis .......................................................................79
3.4.4.Carpet Plots ...................................................................................................80
CHAPTER 4 : COMPOSITES APPLICATIONS IN SHIP STRUCTURES ..........83
4.1.INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................83
4.2.MATERIALS AND PRODUCTION METHODS ..................................................85
4.3.COMPLETE COMPOSITE HULLS .......................................................................89
4.3.1.Recreational Industry ....................................................................................89
4.3.1.1.Power racing boats ....................................................................................89
4.3.1.2.Sail racing boats ........................................................................................92
4.3.1.2.1.The Volvo Ocean Race ............................................................................92
4.3.1.2.2.Volvo Ocean 65 Race Boat .....................................................................93
4.3.1.3.Pleasure yachts ..........................................................................................96
4.3.1.3.1.Evviva......................................................................................................96
4.3.1.3.2.SuperSport ..............................................................................................97

iii
 4.3.1.3.3.(M5) Mirabella V ....................................................................................99
4.3.1.3.4.Tûranor Solar Yacht Hull .....................................................................100
4.3.2.Commercial Industry ..................................................................................102
4.3.2.1.SSC study .................................................................................................103
4.3.2.2.Passenger ferries .....................................................................................103
4.3.2.2.1.Composite Ferries for USA Market ......................................................104
4.3.2.2.2.Composite Ferry vs. Aluminum Ferry ..................................................105
4.3.2.3.Wave star Energy system .........................................................................106
4.3.2.4.FRP lifeboat .............................................................................................108
4.3.3.Naval Vessels ..............................................................................................108
4.3.3.1.Patrol boats..............................................................................................110
4.3.3.2.Mine counter measure vessels (MCMV) ..................................................111
4.3.3.2.1.Landsort / Koster Class MCMV............................................................112
4.3.3.3.Corvettes ..................................................................................................114
4.3.3.3.1.Visby class Corvettes ............................................................................114
4.3.3.3.1.1.Materials ............................................................................................115
4.3.3.3.1.2.Construction technique ......................................................................116
4.4.COMPOSITE PARTS ...........................................................................................117
4.4.1.Superstructures............................................................................................118
4.4.1.1.DDG-1000 Zumwalt class .......................................................................118
4.4.1.2.Passenger ship’s Superstructure .............................................................122
4.4.1.3.Superstructure of a RoRo vessel ..............................................................126
4.4.2.Hatch Covers...............................................................................................128
4.4.2.1.Oshima ECO-Ship 2020...........................................................................128
4.4.2.2.M/V Nordic Oshima .................................................................................129
4.4.3.Propellers ....................................................................................................129
4.4.3.1.Alkmaar-class mine hunter ......................................................................130
4.4.3.2.QinetiQ propeller .....................................................................................132
4.4.3.3.Nakashima Propeller ...............................................................................133
4.4.4.Rudders .......................................................................................................135
4.4.4.1.Composite twisted Rudders ......................................................................135
4.4.5.Propulsion Shafts ........................................................................................137
4.4.5.1.Early trials ...............................................................................................138
4.4.5.2.JIME Research .........................................................................................138
4.4.5.3.Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle power systems .......................................139
4.4.6.Advanced Enclosed Mast System ...............................................................140
4.5.MARINE COMPOSITES ROADBLOCKS ..........................................................143
CHAPTER 5 : CASE STUDY (MARINE HATCH COVERS FOR LARGE
VESSELS) ...................................................................................................... 144
5.1.INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................144
5.2.DESIGN KEYS ....................................................................................................145
5.3.PARTICULARS OF SELECTED VESSEL .........................................................145
5.4.CALCULATION OF DESIGN LOADS ...............................................................147
5.5.DESIGN OF STEEL HATCH COVERS ..............................................................148
5.6.DESIGN OF COMPOSITE HATCH COVERS ...................................................150
5.6.1.Work Flow ..................................................................................................150
5.6.2.Modeling .....................................................................................................151

iv
 5.6.3.Meshing and Setting the Boundary conditions in Ansys
Mechanical ...........................................................................................................153
5.6.4.Selection of Composite Material ................................................................156
5.6.5.Material Setup and Laminate Orientation in ACP-Pre ...............................157
5.6.6.Assigning Thicknesses to Structural Members ...........................................159
5.6.7.Defining Failure Criteria in Ansys ACP-Post.............................................160
5.6.8.Calculation of Member’s Thickness ...........................................................163
5.6.9.Analysis and Post Processing .....................................................................164
5.6.9.1.Strengthening Approach ..........................................................................164
5.6.9.1.1.Composite cover design ........................................................................164
5.6.9.1.2.Analysis results and discussion.............................................................165
5.6.9.2.Weight Reduction Approach ....................................................................167
5.6.9.2.1.Composite cover design ........................................................................167
5.6.9.2.2.Analysis of results and discussion ........................................................169
5.7.COST ANALYSIS ................................................................................................171
5.7.1.Manufacturing Cost ....................................................................................171
5.7.1.1.Steel Hatch cover .....................................................................................171
5.7.1.2.Composite hatch cover.............................................................................172
5.7.2.Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) ..............................................................172
5.8.SUMMARY ....................................................................................................173
CHAPTER 6 :CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK .. 175
REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 177
ARABIC SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 186

v
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Relationships between Classes of Engineering Materials Showing the Evolution
of Composites [Harris Bryan 1999] ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 2-2 Principal Composite Materials [Vinson et al. 2004] .......................................... 6
Figure 2-3 A Classification Scheme for the Various Composite Types [Callister 2001].... 6
Figure 2-4 Various Types and Orientation of Fibrous Composites [Mallick 2008] ............ 8
Figure 2-5 A Laminate Made-up of Laminae with Different Fiber Orientations [Reddy
2004] .................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2-6 Schematic Diagram Showing the Construction of a Honeycomb Core Sandwich
Panel [Callister 2001] ........................................................................................................ 11
Figure 2-7 Efficiency of the Sandwich Structure [Campbell 2010] .................................. 11
Figure 2-8 A Cross Section of a High-Performance Snow Ski [Callister 2001] ............... 12
Figure 2-9 Some Fiber Construction Forms [Campbell 2010] .......................................... 15
Figure 2-10 Unidirectional and Woven Cloth Prepreg [Campbell 2010] .......................... 16
Figure 2-11 Tensile Stress–Strain Diagrams for Various Reinforcing Fibers [Mallick 2008]
........................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2-12 Specific Strength and Modulus of Some Commercially Important Fibers
[Campbell 2010] ................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 2-13 Comparison of Thermoset and Thermoplastic Polymer Structures [Campbell
2010] .................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 2-14 Cost Versus Performance for Core Materials [Campbell 2010] .................... 28
Figure 2-15 Balsa Cell Geometry [Greene 1999] .............................................................. 29
Figure 2-16 Syntactic Core Construction [Campbell 2010] .............................................. 31
Figure 2-17 Translation from Constituent Properties to Lamina to Laminate Properties
[Jones 1999] ....................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 2-18 Strength and Stiffness of Composite Materials and Metals [Jones 1999] ..... 36
Figure 2-19 Life-Cycle Cost Elements [Jones 1999]......................................................... 38
Figure 2-20 The Relative Importance of Metals, Polymers, Composites, and Ceramics as a
Function of Time. The Diagram is Schematic and describes neither Tonnage nor Value.
The Time Scale is Nonlinear [Gibson 1994] ..................................................................... 42
Figure 2-21 Comparison of Composite Manufacturing Techniques [Potter 1996] ........... 43
Figure 2-22 Schematic of the Hand Lay-up Process [Gurit 2013] .................................... 43
Figure 2-23 Schematic of the SPRAY-UP Process [Gurit 2013] ...................................... 44
Figure 2-24 Schematic of the Filament Winding Process [Gurit 2013] ............................ 45
Figure 2-25 Schematic of the Pultrusion Process [Callister 2001] .................................... 46
Figure 2-26 Schematic of the Vacuum Bag Molding Process [Gurit 2013] ...................... 47
Figure 2-27 Schematic of SCRIMP [Gurit 2013] .............................................................. 48
Figure 2-28 A schematic of Autoclave molding process [Gurit 2013].............................. 49
Figure 2-29 A Schematic of Resin Transfer Molding Process [Gurit 2013] ..................... 50
Figure 2-30 Schematic of the Compression Molding Process [Mazumdar 2002] ............. 51
Figure 3-1 Material with Three Planes of Symmetry [Kollar eta al. 2003] ....................... 53

vi
Figure 3-2 The Levels of Analysis for a Structure Made of Laminated Composite [Kollar
eta al. 2003]........................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 3-3 Mechanical Behavior of Various Materials [Jones 1999] ................................ 56
Figure 3-4 The Global x, y, z and Local x1, x2, x3 Coordinate Systems [Kollar eta al. 2003]
........................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3-5 The x, y, z and x1, x2, x3 Coordinate Systems and the Corresponding
Displacements [Kollar eta al. 2003] .................................................................................. 57
Figure 3-6 The Stresses in the Global x, y, z and the Local x1, x2, x3 Coordinate Systems
[Kollar eta al. 2003] ........................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3-7 Stresses on an Element [Jones 1999] ............................................................... 59
Figure 3-8 Typical Failure Modes of Composites [Kollar 2003] ...................................... 64
Figure 3-9 Load-Displacement Curve of a Composite Part [Kollar 2003]........................ 65
Figure 3-10 Representative Volume Element Loaded in the 1-Direction [Jones 1999] .... 68
Figure 3-11 The Basic Questions of Laminate Analysis ................................................... 70
Figure 3-12 Geometry of Deformation in the x-z Plane [Jones 1999] .............................. 73
Figure 3-13 Hypothetical Variation of Strain and Stress through the Laminate Thickness
[Jones 1999] ....................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 3-14 In-Plane Forces on a Flat Laminate [Jones 1999] .......................................... 75
Figure 3-15 Moments on a Flat Laminate ......................................................................... 75
Figure 3-16 Geometry of an N-Layered Laminate [Jones 1999]....................................... 76
Figure 3-17 Laminate Strength-Analysis Elements [Jones 1999] ..................................... 77
Figure 3-18 Analysis of Laminate Strength and Load-Deformation Behavior [Jones 1999]
........................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 3-19 Carpet Plots for [0°, ±45°, 90°] Kevlar Epoxy Laminates [Gibson 1994] .... 81
Figure 4-1 Marine Industry Reinforcement Material Use [Greene 1999] ......................... 86
Figure 4-2 Marine Industry Reinforcement Style Use....................................................... 87
Figure 4-3 Marine Industry Resin System Use .................................................................. 87
Figure 4-4 Marine Industry Core Material Use ................................................................. 88
Figure 4-5 Building Processes within the Marine Industry ............................................... 88
Figure 4-6 Dubai Grand Prix in 2012 [Class-1 2012] ....................................................... 90
Figure 4-7 Earthrace Power Boat [Greene 2013b] ............................................................ 91
Figure 4-8 The Route of the 2014-15 Volvo Ocean Race [Volvo Ocean Race 2016d] .... 92
Figure 4-9 Volvo Ocean 65 Race Boat During Manufacture by Vacuum Bagging Infusion
in Italy [Farr Yacht Design 2012] ...................................................................................... 93
Figure 4-10 A 3D Model of Volvo Ocean 65 Boat [Volvo Ocean Race 2016a] ............... 95
Figure 4-11 Volvo Ocean 65 Boat in Real Operation [Scuttlebutt 2013] ......................... 96
Figure 4-12 M/Y Evviva [Super yachts 2016b]................................................................. 97
Figure 4-13 MY Supersport 48M [Morpheus London 2015] ............................................ 98
Figure 4-14 MY Supersport 72M [Palmer johnson 2016b] ............................................... 99
Figure 4-15 M5, Ex Mirabella V [Super yachts 2016c] .................................................. 100
Figure 4-16 MY Turanor PlanetSolar [Greene 2013b] .................................................... 101
Figure 4-17 Design Characteristics of Turanor Solar Yacht [Black 2011b] ................... 102

vii
Figure 4-18 LCC Comparison on High Speed Ferry [Petersson 2004] ........................... 104
Figure 4-19 Comparison between Aluminum and CFRP Ferries [Arcadia-alliance 2016]
......................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 4-20 A Comparison of Carbon Footprint Reduction of the 2 Ferries [Arcadia-alliance
2016] ................................................................................................................................ 106
Figure 4-21 Wave Star Energy System [Wavestar 2016] ................................................ 107
Figure 4-22 Example Photos Showing the Production Process from Danish Yachts [Danish
composites 2015] ............................................................................................................. 107
Figure 4-23 A Totally Enclosed GRP Lifeboat [Norsafe 2016] ...................................... 108
Figure 4-24 Plot of Vessel Length against Year of Construction for All-Composite Patrol
Boats, MCMV and Corvettes [Mouritz 2001] ................................................................. 109
Figure 4-25 The Skjold Class Patrol Boat [Greene 2013b] ............................................. 110
Figure 4-26 Landsort Class MCMV [Naval-technology 2016a] ..................................... 113
Figure 4-27 One of the Landsort Class MCMV during Construction [Naval-technology
2016a] .............................................................................................................................. 113
Figure 4-28 HMS Nykoping K34, Visby Class Corvette of Swedish Navy during a Visit to
Gothenburg [Ships and harbours 2013] ........................................................................... 115
Figure 4-29 USS Zumwalt [Naval-technology 2016c] .................................................... 119
Figure 4-30 The Deckhouse of USS Zumwalt [LeGault 2010] ....................................... 120
Figure 4-31 The Composite Deckhouse during Construction [Composites World 2013]
......................................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 4-32 Completed Composite Deckhouse [Greene 2013b] .................................... 122
Figure 4-33 M/S Norwegian Gem [Evegren et al. 2011] ................................................ 123
Figure 4-34 Illustration of the Design Changes Made to the Norwegian Gem to Form the
Novel Design of the Norwegian Future [Evegren et al. 2011] ........................................ 124
Figure 4-35 The Cruise Ship Norwegian Gem and the Structure (Marked) Intended for
Reconstruction in FRP Composite from Deck 11 and up [Evegren et al. 2011] ............. 124
Figure 4-36 The Maximum Modelled Hogging for the Existing Norwegian Gem (top), the
Norwegian Future (mid) and the Norwegian Future with Increased Deck Plating (bottom)
[Evegren et al. 2011] ........................................................................................................ 125
Figure 4-37 Characteristics of Vessel under Study [Petersson 2004] ............................. 127
Figure 4-38 A Demonstration of the Reduction in VCG after Implementing Composite
Superstructure [Petersson 2004] ...................................................................................... 127
Figure 4-39 An Illustration Showing the Proposed Solution for Oshima ECO-Ship 2020
[Mori 2011] ...................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 4-40 Nordic's M/V Nordic Oshima Panamax Vessel [Ship Technology 2015] ... 129
Figure 4-41 The Composite Propeller Blade, Attached to the Bronze Blade Foot that Forms
the Interface with the Existing Metallic Propeller Hub [Black 2011a] ........................... 130
Figure 4-42 Airborne Composites' Composite Blades for Controllable-Pitch Ship Propeller
Illustration [Black 2011a] ................................................................................................ 131
Figure 4-43 The Completed Prototype Blades Are Shown Installed on a Minehunter’s
Propeller Hub [Black 2011a] ........................................................................................... 132

viii
Figure 4-44 CFRP after Installation on MV “Taiko Maru” [Marex 2016] ..................... 134
Figure 4-45 Twisted Rudder on the USS Bulkeley [Griffiths 2006] ............................... 135
Figure 4-46 Internal Design of the Hybrid Steel/Composite Twisted Rudder ................ 136
Figure 4-47 Carbon Fiber Propulsion Shaft [Greene 2013a] ........................................... 137
Figure 4-48 Lamination of the Hybrid Composite Shaft [Sunahara et al. 1992]............. 139
Figure 4-49 Composite Driveshafts on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle [Mason 2004]
......................................................................................................................................... 139
Figure 4-50 An Insight View of the AEMS [Greene 2013c] ........................................... 141
Figure 4-51 AEMS on San Antonio Class LPD-17 [Greene 2013c] ............................... 141
Figure 4-52 AEMS During Installation, the Enclosed Radar System Still Visible [Greene
2013c] .............................................................................................................................. 142
Figure 4-53 Applications of composite structures to naval ships [Mouritz et al. 2001].. 142
Figure 5-1 An Overview of the Case Study Vessel. ........................................................ 145
Figure 5-2 Arrangement of ship’s Cargo Holds and Covers ........................................... 146
Figure 5-3 An Example Showing the difference between Hatch Cover Design According to
IACS UR S21 and ILLC 66 ............................................................................................. 147
Figure 5-4 Construction of Steel Hatch Cover Number 1 ............................................... 150
Figure 5-5 Project Schematic .............................................................................. 151
Figure 5-6 Geometry of the Hatch Cover .............................................................. 151
Figure 5-7 Side Faces Creation in Sketch Mode..................................................... 152
Figure 5-8 Tree Outline in DesignModeler ........................................................... 152
Figure 5-9 Ansys Mechanical Project Outline ....................................................... 153
Figure 5-10 Details of Mesh Settings ................................................................... 154
Figure 5-11 The Final Meshed Geometry ............................................................. 154
Figure 5-12 A Representation of Element Quality Mesh Metric ............................... 155
Figure 5-13 A Representation of Skewness Mesh Metric ........................................ 155
Figure 5-14 Boundary Conditions Applied to the Hatch Cover ................................ 156
Figure 5-15 Outline of Composite Material Setup in Ansys ACP-Pre........................ 157
Figure 5-16 Properties of the Lamina ................................................................... 157
Figure 5-17 Chosen Laminate Orientation ............................................................ 158
Figure 5-18 Properties of a Laminate ................................................................... 158
Figure 5-19 Laminate Orientation ....................................................................... 159
Figure 5-20 Modeling Ply Groups Layout............................................................. 159
Figure 5-21 A Representation of the Properties of “Stiff-In” Ply Group .................... 160
Figure 5-22 An Illustration of the Elements of “Stiff-In” Ply Group ......................... 160
Figure 5-23 Post Processing Elements Layout ....................................................... 161
Figure 5-24 Failure Criteria Definition ................................................................. 161
Figure 5-25 Failure Element Setup ...................................................................... 162
Figure 5-26 Deformation Element Setup .............................................................. 162
Figure 5-27 Scantling Criteria for the Composite Hatch Cover. ................................ 163
Figure 5-28 Thickness of Composite Hatch Cover. ................................................ 165
Figure 5-29 Thickness of Reinforcements at the Connections between Sides and Stiffeners
...................................................................................................................... 165
Figure 5-30 IRF of Tsai Wu and Pucks Failure Theories on Composite Hatch Cover .. 166
Figure 5-31 Deformation of Composite Hatch Cover.............................................. 166

ix
Figure 5-32 Thickness of Composite Hatch Cover Number 1 .................................. 168
Figure 5-33 Thickness of Reinforcements at the Connections between Sides and Stiffeners
...................................................................................................................... 168
Figure 5-34 IRF of Tsai Wu and Pucks Failure Theories on Composite Hatch Cover
Number 1 ........................................................................................................ 169
Figure 5-35 Deformation of Composite Hatch Cover Number 1 ............................... 170
Figure 5-36 Comparison of Steel and Composite Hatch Cover Weights .................... 171
Figure 5-37 Distribution of Hand Layup Costs for HLU Process [Haffner 2002] ........ 172
Figure 5-38 An Illustration of the Concept of Break-Even Analysis (alternative A:
Composite, Alternative B: Steel) ......................................................................... 174

x
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Table 2-1 Structural performance ranking of conventional materials [Daniel et al. 1994] . 3
Table 2-2 Fiber and wire properties [Jones 1999] ............................................................... 7
Table 2-3 Description of various forms of reinforcements [Greene 1999] ....................... 15
Table 2-4 Properties of Selected Commercial Reinforcing Fibers [Mallick 2008] ........... 21
Table 2-5 Relative characteristics of thermoset resin matrices [Campbell 2010] ............. 25
Table 2-6 Comparative data for some sandwich core materials [Greene 1999] ................ 29
Table 2-7 Characteristics of some foam sandwich materials [Campbell 2010] ................ 32
Table 3-1 Stress notations [Kollar eta al. 2003] ................................................................ 58
Table 3-2 Strain notations [Kollar eta al. 2003] ................................................................ 58
Table 3-3 Typical input and output variables for laminate analysis programs [Greene 1999]
........................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 4-1 Specifications of the Earthrace boat [Earthrace 2008] ...................................... 91
Table 4-2 Specifications of the Volvo Ocean 65 boat [Volvo Ocean Race 2016b] .......... 94
Table 4-3 Principal particulars of MY Evviva [Super yachts 2016b] ............................... 97
Table 4-4 Particulars of MY Supersport 48M [Palmer johnson 2016a] ............................ 98
Table 4-5 Particulars of MY Supersport 72M [Palmer johnson 2016b]............................ 99
Table 4-6 Particulars of M5 [Super yachts 2016c] .......................................................... 100
Table 4-7 Perceived limitations of FRP in ships [Horsmon 1993] .................................. 103
Table 4-8 Survey of GRP mine counter measure vessels in-service or under construction as
at 3/12/1999 [Mouritz 2001]. ........................................................................................... 112
Table 4-9 Principal particulars of USS Zumwalt [Naval-technology 2016c] ................. 118
Table 4-10 The modelled ability to manage global forces in different design solutions
[Evegren et al. 2011] ........................................................................................................ 126
Table 5-1 Principal particulars of selected vessel ............................................................ 146
Table 5-2 Calculated hatch covers loads as per IACS UR S21 ....................................... 148
Table 5-3 Hatch Covers Dimensions ............................................................................... 149
Table 5-4 Weights of steel hatch covers .......................................................................... 149
Table 5-5 Composite material properties......................................................................... 156
Table 5-6 Design thickness of hatch cover components.................................................. 164
Table 5-7 Design thickness of the components of hatch cover number 1. ...................... 167
Table 5-8 Steel and composite covers weights and weight reduction value ................... 170
Table 5-9 Summary of basic life cycle cost analysis ....................................................... 173

xi
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAAV Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle
ACP Ansys Composite Preppost
AEM/S Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor System
ASROC Anti-Submarine Rocket
ASTM American Society For Testing And Materials
B/E Break-Even
BMIS Bismaleimides
CC Carbon-Carbon
CCA Cellular Cellulose Acetate
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics
CLT Classical Lamination Theory
CMC Ceramic Matrix Composites
CNC Computer Numerical Control
CSMS Chopped Strand Mats
DMAC Dimethylactamide
DMF Dimethylformamide
DMSO Dimethylsufoxide
DNV Det Norske Veritas
DWT Dead Weight
EFV Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
EMI Electromagnetic Interference
EMS Electro-Magnetic Signature
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FEM Finite Element Model
FRP Fiber-Reinforced Plastics
GRP Glass Reinforced Plastics
HLU Hand Lay-Up
HMS Her Majesty's Ship
HSC High Speed Craft
IACS International Association Of Classification Societies
ILLC 66 International Load Line 1966
IMO International Maritime Organization
IR Infrared

xii
 IRF Inverse Reserve Factor
JIME Japan Institute of Marine Engineering
LCC Life Cycle Cost
LCCA Life Cycle Cost Analysis
MCA Maritime And Coastguard Agency
MCMV Mine Counter Measure Vessels
MLU Mid-Life Upgrades
MMC Metal Matrix Composites
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MY Motor Yacht
NAB Nickel-Aluminum-Bronze
NMP N-Methylpyrrolidone
NVH Noise, Vibration, And Harshness
PJ Palmer Johnson
PMC Polymer Matrix Composites
PMI Polymrthacrylimide
PVA Polyvinyl Acetate
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RNLN Royal Netherlands Navy
RORO Roll-On Roll-Off
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
RTM Resin Transfer Molding
SCRIMP Seemann Composites Resin Infusion Molding Process
SOLAS Safety Of Life At Sea
SSC Ship Structures Committee
UK United Kingdom
US United States
USS United States Ship
VARTM Vacuum-Assisted Resin Transfer Molding

xiii
 NOMENCLATURE
Aij Laminate Extensional Stiffness
Bij Laminate Bending-Extension Coupling Stiffness
Cij Stiffness Matrix
Dij Laminate Bending Stiffness
Ei Young's (Extension) Moduli in i Direction (Pa)
F Strength Parameter of Quadratic Failure Criterion
Gij Shear Moduli in the i j (i, j = 1, 2, 3) Plane (Pa)
Kf Volume Fraction of the Fibers
Km Volume Fraction of the Matrix
L Freeboard Length, as defined in Regulation 3 of Annex I to the
1966 Load Line Convention (m)
ℓ The Greatest Span of Primary Supporting Members
Mi Moment per Unit Width of the Cross Section of the Laminate in
the i Direction
Ni Force per Unit Width of the Cross Section of the Laminate in
the i Direction
P Pressure Load on Ship’s Hatch Cover (kN/m2)
PFP Pressure at the Forward Perpendicular (kN/m2)
PHi Pressure Load on Hatch cover Number i (kN/m2)
Qij Transformed Reduced Stiffnesses
S+i Tensile Strength in the i Direction (MPa)
S+i j Shear Strength in the i j (i, j = 1, 2, 3) Plane (MPa)
S−i Compressive Strength in the i Direction (MPa)
Sij Compliance Matrix
V Volume of the Composite (m3)
Vm Volume of the Matrix (m3)
Vf Volume of the Fiber (m3)
x Distance of the mid length of the hatch cover under examination
from the forward end of L (m)
αf Thermal Expansion Coefficient of the fibers (°C−1)
αi Thermal Expansion Coefficient of the Composite in the i
Direction (°C−1)
αm Thermal Expansion Coefficient of the Matrix (°C−1)
γij Engineering Shear Strain in the i j (i, j = 1, 2, 3) Plane
εi Normal Strain in i Direction
η+i Allowable Tensile Strain in the i Direction
η+ij Allowable Shear Strain in the i j (i, j = 1, 2, 3) Plane

xiv
η−i Allowable Compressive Strain in the i Direction
νij Poisson's Ratio (Extension-Extension Coupling Coefficient)
ρ Density of the Composite (t/m3)
ρf Density of the Fiber (t/m3)
ρm Density of the Matrix (t/m3)
σi Normal Stress in i Direction (pa)
τij Shear Stress in the i j (i, j = 1, 2, 3) Plane (pa)
Ө Fiber Orientation Angle (Degree)

xv
 ABSTRACT
Composite material enables the combination and tailoring of its constituents best
properties in order to achieve efficient and smart structures. Through the past decades
composite materials have found their place in various marine applications in secondary and
principal structures as well. Composites are currently used in the construction of boats’ and
ships’ hulls, propellers, rudders, hatch covers, superstructures, funnels, mast systems,
foundations and many other applications.

In the present thesis, the principal types and classifications of composites have been
introduced and the various possible constituents have been described. Furthermore, the
benefits and demerits of composites have been discussed. Moreover, composites’ unique
production methods have been summarized. Then, the main mechanics and design concepts
have been shortly reviewed in order to form a basic background that can be used as a tool
in composite structural design. After that, a review of the current composites applications
in marine industry has been conducted for commercial, pleasure and naval fields, the review
has been conducted on complete composite hull vessels and also on composite parts.

As a case study, the application of composites as an alternative material for marine

steel hatch covers has been studied. Two separate approaches have been considered;
“weight reduction approach” and “strengthening approach”. For both approaches finite
element analysis (FEA) was performed using ANSYS software. Critical design parameters
of the composite hatch cover and FEA are discussed in details. Regarding the weight
reduction approach; steel hatch covers of a bulk carrier were replaced by composite covers
and a weight reduction of 44.32 % was achieved leading to many benefits including fuel
saving, Deadweight Increment and lower center of gravity of the vessel. For the
strengthening approach; the foremost hatch cover was strengthened to withstand 150% of
the load required by IACS for safer navigation while no change in weight was made
between the steel and composite covers. Results show that both approaches are feasible and
advantageous.

xvi
 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
Composite materials are a unique type of materials where the complete
advantageous properties of their constituents can be utilized, based on the field of
application, design conditions and desired serviceability. The field of composite materials
science is rich and full of design varieties and potentials. In depth study is needed in order
to understand the relevant design aspects, methodology and tools of composites; since they
are largely different than those for traditional construction materials such as steel and
aluminum.

The objectives of the present thesis are:

1. Provide a general overview of composite materials’ types, classifications, various

constituents, smart usage and production methods. Then consequently summarize
the basic mechanics concepts, formulas and design tools of advanced structural
composites to form a basic background.

2. Review the various current applications of composites in principal and secondary

marine structures with a focus on the advantages and benefits of using composites
in those applications.

3. Present composite hatch covers as a case study of composites applications in marine

structures and elaborate the potentials of replacing traditionally steel made hatch
covers, using two design approaches (strengthening and weight reduction).

4. Performing a detailed structural design of the composite hatch cover, that will
incorporate:

o The selection of the most convenient composite material type and

constituents.

o Design of composite material construction form and orientation.

o Developing a method for scantling and calculating members’ thickness.

o The process of selection and application of composite structural failure

criteria.

5. Conducting a Life Cycle Cost analysis for steel and composite hatch covers in order
to assess the economic impact of using composites as an alternative material in
marine hatch covers structures.

This thesis consists of five chapters progressively covering the relevant aspects of
composite materials basics, mechanics, design and structural marine applications as
follows:

 Chapters 1 and 2 are an introduction and overview of structural composite materials

and also provide a comprehensive revision of composites. In these chapters, the

1
 types and constituents of composite materials are briefly discussed. The advantages
of composites which make them special to designers are highlighted in order to
elaborate the attractive aspects of composites.

 It was also necessary to introduce composite manufacturing methods since it is

essential for the composite designer to consider the production method of the
designed structural part during the design process. Some of the common composite
manufacturing methods were discussed briefly.

 In chapter 3, the unique anisotropic mechanical responses, characteristics and

strength of composites are discussed on both Macroscopic and Microscopic scales.
Usually, this subject is contained in large reference books; however, the efforts were
focused on summarizing the principals of composite mechanics while explaining its
main concepts.

 In Chapter 4, the applications of composites in marine field are elaborated, the type
of used fiber, matrix and manufacturing method is discussed in addition to the
advantages accomplished using composites in each particular application. In this
chapter, several textbooks, journal papers, magazine articles, news and white papers
were used and referenced in order to identify the current state of marine applications
of composites. The application of composites to marine structures was categorized
using 2 main principal categories:

o Composite hulls, where the hull, superstructures and other relevant structure
are manufactured by composite materials. This category includes
recreational industry, commercial industry and naval vessels.

o Composite parts, where the hull is not necessarily made of composites, while
other parts such as rudders, propellers, masts, etc. are constructed using
composite materials.

 After realizing the power of structural composites in previous chapters; a case study
is presented in chapter 5, where the concept, detailed design and economic and
engineering advantages of using composites in the construction of marine hatch
covers for large vessels were presented. In order to perform the structural analysis
on the composite hatch cover, “Ansys Composite PrepPost 2015” was used.

 Finally, life cycle economic analysis was done to realize the economic benefits from
using composite material in hatch cover construction. It was proved that the
composite hatch cover (on a life cycle scale) is more economical than the traditional
steel made hatch cover.

2
CHAPTER 2 : OVERVIEW OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS
2.1. BACKGROUND
Materials are deep-seated in our daily life more than most people realize.
Transportation, housing, clothing, communication, recreation, food production. And
virtually every segment of everyday lives is influenced to one degree or another by
materials. Historically, the development and advancement of societies have been intimately
tied to the members’ ability to produce and manipulate materials to fill their needs. In fact,
early civilizations have been designated by the level of their materials development (i.e.,
Stone Age, Bronze Age) [Callister 2001].

Solid materials have been conveniently grouped into three basic classifications:
metals, ceramics, and polymers. This scheme is based primarily on chemical makeup and
atomic structure, and most materials fall into one distinct grouping or another, although
there are some intermediates [Callister 2001]. Each group of materials has some
characteristic properties that are more distinct for that group. In the case of ceramics one
must make a distinction between two forms, bulk and fiber [Daniel et al. 1994].

Table 2-1 presents a list of properties and a rating of the three groups of materials
with regard to each property. The advantage or desirability is ranked as: superior (+ +),
good (+), poor (-), and variable (v).

Table 2-1 Structural performance ranking of conventional materials [Daniel et al. 1994]

3
 Thus, for example, metals are superior with regard to stiffness and hygroscopic
sensitivity, but they have high density and are subject to chemical corrosion (-). Ceramics
in bulk form have low tensile strength and toughness (-) but good thermal stability, high
hardness, low creep, and high erosion resistance (+). Ceramics in fibrous form behave very
differently from those in bulk form and have some unique advantages. They rank highest
with regard to tensile strength, stiffness, creep, and thermal stability (+ +). The biggest
advantage that polymers have is their low density (+ +), but they rank poorly with respect
to stiffness, creep, hardness, thermal and dimensional stability, and erosion resistance (-)
[Daniel et al. 1994].

Many of our modern technologies require materials with unusual combinations of

properties that cannot be met by the conventional metal alloys, ceramics, and polymeric
materials. This is especially true for materials that are needed for aerospace, underwater,
and transportation applications. For example, aircraft engineers are increasingly searching
for structural materials that have low densities, are strong, stiff, and abrasion and impact
resistant, and are not easily corroded. This is a rather formidable combination of
characteristics. Frequently, strong materials are relatively dense; also, increasing the
strength or stiffness generally results in a decrease in impact strength [Callister 2001].

The observations above show that no single material possesses all the advantages
for a given application (property) and that it would be highly desirable to combine materials
in ways that utilize the best of each constituent in a synergistic way [Daniel et al. 1994].

2.2. DEFINITION OF COMPOSITES

A composite material can be defined as a combination of two or more materials that
results in better properties than those of the individual components used alone. The two
constituents are a reinforcement and a matrix [Campbell 2010]. In contrast to metallic
alloys, each material retains its separate chemical, physical, and mechanical properties since
the constituents are combined at a macroscopic level and are not soluble in each other
[Greene 1999].

The reinforcing phase provides the strength and stiffness. In most cases, the
reinforcement is harder, stronger, and stiffer than the matrix. The matrix phase materials
are generally continuous [Campbell 2010].

Ideally, the properties of engineering materials should be reproducible and

accurately known. And since satisfactory exploitation of the composite principle depends
on the design flexibility that results from tailoring the properties of a combination of
materials to suit a particular requirement, we also need to be able to predict those properties
successfully. At the present time some of the more important engineering properties of
composites can be well predicted on the basis of mathematical models [Harris Bryan 1999].

Figure 2-1 gives a clearer idea of the scope for ingenuity which is available to the
Materials Scientist and subsequently to the Design Engineer.

4
 Figure 2-1 Relationships between Classes of Engineering Materials Showing the Evolution of
Composites [Harris Bryan 1999]

2.3. TYPES AND CLASSIFICATION OF COMPOSITE

MATERIALS
Through the many classification schemes for composite materials we can find a
matrix based classification such as the classification shown in figure 2-2, where the
important types of advanced composites can be depicted in the pie chart below, which
describes the five principal types of advanced composite material in wide use. The
composite types cited in figure 2-2 include Polymer Matrix Composites (PMC), Metal
Matrix Composites (MMC), Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMC), Carbon-Carbon (CC) and
Hybrids consisting of a combination of the previously mentioned matrices [Vinson et al.
2004].

One simple Reinforcement based scheme for the classification of composite

materials is shown in figure 2-3, which consists of three main divisions: particle-reinforced,
fiber-reinforced, and structural composites; also, at least two subdivisions exist for each
[Callister 2001].

2.3.1. Particle-Reinforced Composites

The Reinforcement phase for particle-reinforced composites consists of particles of

various sizes and shapes randomly dispersed within the matrix. Because of the randomness
of particle distribution, these composites can be regarded as quasi homogeneous on a scale

5
larger than the particle size and spacing and quasi-isotropic. Particulate composites may
consist of nonmetallic particles in a nonmetallic matrix (concrete, glass reinforced with
mica flakes, brittle polymers reinforced with rubber like particles); metallic particles in
nonmetallic matrices (aluminium particles in polyurethane rubber used in rocket
propellants); metallic particles in metallic matrices (lead particles in copper alloys to
improve machinability); and nonmetallic particles in metallic matrices (silicon carbide
particles in aluminium) [Daniel et al. 1994].

Figure 2-2 Principal Composite Materials [Vinson et al. 2004]

Figure 2-3 A Classification Scheme for the Various Composite Types [Callister 2001]

6
2.3.2. Fiber-Reinforced Composites

For fiber-reinforced composites, the Reinforcement phase has the geometry of a

fiber (i.e., a large length-to diameter ratio). Technologically, the most important composites
are those in which the Reinforcement phase is in the form of a fiber. Design goals of fiber-
reinforced composites often include high strength and/or stiffness on a weight basis. These
characteristics are expressed in terms of specific strength and specific modulus parameters,
which correspond, respectively, to the ratios of tensile strength to specific gravity and
modulus of elasticity to specific gravity. Fiber-reinforced composites with exceptionally
high specific strengths and moduli have been produced that utilize low-density fiber and
matrix materials [Callister 2001].

Long fibers in various forms are inherently much stiffer and stronger than the same
material in bulk form. For example, ordinary plate glass fractures at stresses of only 20
MPa, yet glass fibers have strengths of 2800 to 4800 MPa in commercially available forms
and about 7000 MPa in laboratory-prepared forms. The geometry and physical makeup of
a fiber are somehow crucial to the evaluation of its strength and must be considered in
structural applications. More properly, the paradox of a fiber having different properties
from the bulk form is due to the more perfect structure of a fiber. In fibers, the crystals are
aligned along the fiber axis. Moreover, there are fewer internal defects in fibers than in bulk
material. For example, in materials that have dislocations, the fiber form has fewer
dislocations than the bulk form [Jones 1999].

2.3.2.1. Properties of Fibers

A fiber is characterized geometrically not only by its very high length-to-diameter

ratio but by its near-crystal-sized diameter. Strengths and stiffness of a few selected fiber
materials are arranged in increasing average S/ρ and E/ρ in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 Fiber and wire properties [Jones 1999]

The common structural materials, aluminum, titanium, and steel, are listed for the
purpose of comparison. However, a direct comparison between fibers and structural metals
is not valid because fibers must have a surrounding matrix to perform in a structural
member, whereas structural metals are "ready-to use". Note that the density of each material
is listed because the strength-to-density and stiffness-to-density ratios are commonly used

7
as indicators of the effectiveness of a fiber, especially in weight-sensitive applications
[Jones 1999].

There can be no doubt that fibers allow us to obtain the maximum disadvantages of
using a material in fiber form. Fibers alone cannot support longitudinal compressive loads
and their transverse mechanical properties are generally not as good as the corresponding
longitudinal properties. Thus, fibers are generally useless as structural materials unless they
are held together in a structural unit with a binder or matrix material and unless some
transverse reinforcement is provided. Fortunately, the geometrical configuration of fibers
also turns out to be very efficient from the point of view of interaction with the binder or
matrix [Gibson 1994].

Figure 2-4 illustrates the various types and orientation of fibrous composites.

Figure 2-4 Various Types and Orientation of Fibrous Composites [Mallick 2008]

2.3.2.2. Discontinuous or short-fiber composites

Contain short fibers or whiskers as the reinforcing phase. These short fibers, which
can be fairly long compared with the diameter, can be either all oriented along one direction
or randomly oriented. In the first instance the composite material tends to be markedly
anisotropic or, more specifically, orthotropic, whereas in the second it can be regarded as
quasi-isotropic. Discontinuous fiber-reinforced composites have lower strength and
modulus than continuous fiber-reinforced composites [Daniel et al. 1994].

8
2.3.2.3. Continuous fiber composites

These are reinforced by long continuous fibers and are the most efficient from the
point of view of stiffness and strength. The continuous fibers can be all parallel
(unidirectional continuous fiber composite), can be oriented at right angles to each other
(crossply or woven fabric continuous fiber composite), or can be oriented along several
directions (multidirectional continuous fiber composite). In the latter case, for a certain
number of fiber directions and distribution of fibers, the composite can be characterized as
a quasi-isotropic material [Daniel et al. 1994].

2.3.3. Structural Composites:

A structural composite can be composed of both homogeneous and composite

materials, the properties of which depend not only on the properties of the constituent
materials but also on the geometrical design of the various structural elements. Laminar
composites and sandwich panels are two of the most common structural composites
[Callister 2001].

2.3.3.1. Laminar Composites

A "lamina" or ply is a typical sheet of composite material. It represents a

fundamental building block. A fiber-reinforced lamina consists of many fibers embedded
in a matrix material. Often, coupling (chemical) agents and fillers are added to improve the
bonding between fibers and matrix material and increase toughness. The fibers can be
continuous or discontinuous, woven, unidirectional, bidirectional, or randomly distributed
(see figure 1-4). Unidirectional fiber-reinforced lamina exhibit the highest strength and
modulus in the direction of the fibers, but they have very low strength and modulus in the
direction transverse to the fibers. A poor bonding between a fiber and matrix results in poor
transverse properties and failures in the form of fiber pull out, fiber breakage, and fiber
buckling [Reddy 2004].

A "laminate" is a collection of laminae stacked to achieve the desired stiffness and

thickness. For example, unidirectional fiber-reinforced laminae can be stacked so that the
fibers in each lamina are oriented in the same or different directions (see Figure 2-5). The
sequence of various orientations of a fiber-reinforced composite layer in a laminate is
termed the "lamination scheme" or "stacking sequence". The layers are usually bonded
together with the same matrix material as that in a lamina. If a laminate has layers with
fibers oriented at 30° or 45°, it can take shear loads. The lamination scheme and material
properties of individual lamina provide an added flexibility to designers to tailor the
stiffness and strength of the laminate to match the structural stiffness and strength
requirements. Laminates made of fiber-reinforced composite materials also have
disadvantages. Because of the mismatch of material properties between layers, the shear
stresses produced between the layers, especially at the edges of a laminate, may cause
delamination. Similarly, because of the mismatch of material properties between matrix and
fiber, fiber de-bonding may take place. Also, during manufacturing of laminates, material
defects such as interlaminar voids, delamination, incorrect orientation, damaged fibers, and
variation in thickness may be introduced. It is impossible to eliminate manufacturing
defects altogether; therefore, analysis and design methodologies must account for various
mechanisms of failure [Reddy 2004].

9
 Figure 2-5 A Laminate Made-up of Laminae with Different Fiber Orientations [Reddy 2004]

2.3.3.2. Sandwich panels

Sandwich panels, considered to be a class of structural composites, consist of two

strong outer sheets, or faces, separated by a layer of less-dense material, or core, which has
lower stiffness and lower strength. The faces bear most of the in-plane loading, and also
any transverse bending stresses. Typical face materials include aluminum alloys, fiber-
reinforced plastics, titanium, steel, and plywood. Structurally, the core serves two functions.
First, it separates the faces and resists deformations perpendicular to the face plane.
Secondly, it provides a certain degree of shear rigidity along planes that are perpendicular
to the faces. Various materials and structures are utilized for cores, including foamed
polymers, synthetic rubbers, inorganic cements, as well as balsa wood. Another popular
core consists of a ‘‘honeycomb’’ structure—thin foils that have been formed into
interlocking hexagonal cells, with axes oriented perpendicular to the face planes. The
material of which the honeycomb is made may be similar to the face material. Figure 2-6

10
shows a cutaway view of a honeycomb core sandwich panel. Sandwich panels are found in
a wide variety of applications; they include roofs, floors, and walls of buildings; and, in
aircraft, for wings, fuselage, and tailplane skins [Callister 2001].

Figure 2-6 Schematic Diagram Showing the Construction of a Honeycomb Core Sandwich Panel
[Callister 2001]

As shown in figure 2-7, sandwich construction, especially honeycomb core

construction, is extremely structurally efficient, particularly in stiffness-critical
applications. Doubling the thickness of the core increases the stiffness over seven times
with only a three percent weight gain, while quadrupling the core thickness increases
stiffness over 37 times with only a six percent weight gain [Campbell 2010].

Figure 2-7 Efficiency of the Sandwich Structure [Campbell 2010]

11
2.3.4. Hybrid Composites

A relatively new fiber-reinforced composite is the hybrid, which is obtained by

using two or more different kinds of fibers in a single matrix; hybrids have a better all-
around combination of properties than composites containing only a single fiber type. A
variety of fiber combinations and matrix materials are used, but in the most common
system, both carbon and glass fibers are incorporated into a polymeric resin. The carbon
fibers are strong and relatively stiff and provide a low-density reinforcement; however, they
are expensive. Glass fibers are inexpensive and lack the stiffness of carbon. The glass–
carbon hybrid is stronger and tougher, has a higher impact resistance, and may be produced
at a lower cost than either of the comparable all-carbon or all-glass reinforced plastics.
There are a number of ways in which the two different fibers may be combined, which will
ultimately affect the overall properties. For example, the fibers may all be aligned and
intimately mixed with one another; or laminations may be constructed consisting of layers,
each of which consists of a single fiber type, alternating one with another. In virtually all
hybrids the properties are anisotropic [Callister 2001].

Figure 2-8 A Cross Section of a High-Performance Snow Ski [Callister 2001]

When hybrid composites are stressed in tension, failure is usually non-catastrophic

(i.e., does not occur suddenly). The carbon fibers are the first to fail, at which time the load
is transferred to the glass fibers. Upon failure of the glass fibers, the matrix phase must

12
sustain the applied load. Eventual composite failure concurs with that of the matrix phase.
Principal applications for hybrid composites are lightweight land, water, and air transport
structural components, sporting goods, and lightweight orthopedic components [Callister
2001].

One example of a relatively complex laminated structure is the modern ski (see
figure 2-8) in this illustration, a cross section of a high-performance snow ski, are shown
the various components. The function of each component is noted, as well as the material
that is used in its construction.

2.3.5. Advanced Composites

The term ‘‘advanced composite’’ means specifically this combination of very

strong and stiff fibers within a matrix designed to hold the fibers together. This type of
composite combines the extreme strength and stiffness of the fibers and, owing to the
presence of the matrix, shows much greater toughness than would otherwise be obtainable
[Mortensen 2007].

13
2.4. CONSTITUENT MATERIALS
For the following sections of the thesis, the focus will be on fiber reinforced
Polymer Matrix composites. These materials are used in the greatest diversity of composite
applications, as well as in the largest quantities, in light of their room-temperature
properties, ease of fabrication, and cost.

2.4.1. Reinforcement

Fibers are the principal constituents in a fiber -reinforced composite material. They
occupy the largest volume fraction in a composite laminate and share the major portion of
the load acting on a composite structure. Proper selection of the fiber type, fiber volume
fraction, fiber length, and fiber orientation is very important, since it influences the
following characteristics of a composite laminate [Mallick 2008]:

 Density

 Tensile strength and modulus

 Compressive strength and modulus

 Fatigue strength as well as fatigue failure mechanisms

 Electrical and thermal conductivities

 Cost

2.4.1.1. Reinforcement Construction

Reinforcement materials are combined with resin systems in a variety of forms to

create structural laminates [Greene 1999]. Table 2-3 provides definitions for the various
forms of reinforcement materials. Figure 2-9 illustrates some of these fiber construction
forms.

14
 Table 2-3 Description of various forms of reinforcements [Greene 1999]

Figure 2-9 Some Fiber Construction Forms [Campbell 2010]

2.4.1.2. Fiber Types

The main types of common reinforcement materials are listed as follows with brief
description of their characteristics.

15
2.4.1.2.1. Glass Fibers

Glass fibers are the most common of all reinforcing fibers for polymeric matrix
composites (PMC). The principal advantages of glass fibers are low cost, high tensile
strength, high chemical resistance, and excellent insulating properties. The disadvantages
are relatively low tensile modulus and high density (among the commercial fibers),
sensitivity to abrasion during handling (which frequently decreases its tensile strength),
relatively low fatigue resistance, and high hardness (which causes excessive wear on
molding dies and cutting tools). The two types of glass fibers commonly used in the fiber-
reinforced plastics (FRP) industry are E-glass and S-glass. Another type, known as C-glass,
is used in chemical applications requiring greater corrosion resistance to acids than is
provided by E-glass. E-glass has the lowest cost of all commercially available reinforcing
fibers, which is the reason for its widespread use in the FRP industry. S-glass, originally
developed for aircraft components and missile casings, has the highest tensile strength
among all fibers in use. However, the compositional difference and higher manufacturing
cost make it more expensive than E-glass. A lower cost version of S-glass, called S-2-glass,
is also available. Although S-2-glass is manufactured with less-stringent nonmilitary
specifications, its tensile strength and modulus are similar to those of S-glass [Mallick
2008].

The basic commercial form of continuous glass fibers is a strand, which is a

collection of parallel filaments numbering 204 or more. A roving is a group of untwisted
parallel strands (also called ends) wound on a cylindrical forming package. Rovings are
used in continuous molding operations, such as filament winding and pultrusion. They can
also be preimpregnated with a thin layer of polymeric resin matrix to form prepregs.
Prepregs are subsequently cut into required dimensions, stacked, and cured into the final
shape in batch molding operations, such as compression molding and hand layup molding
[Mallick 2008] (see figure 2-10).

Figure 2-10 Unidirectional and Woven Cloth Prepreg [Campbell 2010]

Chopped strands are produced by cutting continuous strand s into short lengths. The
ability of the individual filaments to hold together during or after the chopping process
depends largely on the type and amount of the size applied during fiber manufacturing
operation. Strands of high integrity are called ‘‘hard’’ and those that separate more readily
are called ‘‘soft.’’. Chopped strands ranging in length from 3.2 to 12.7 mm (0.12 5–0.5 in.)

16
are used in injection-molding operations. Longer strands, up to 50.8 mm (2 in.) in length,
are mixed with a resinous binder and spread in a two-dimensional random fashion to form
chopped strand mats (CSMs). These mats are used mostly for hand layup moldings and
provide nearly equal properties in all direction s in the plane of the structure. Milled glass
fibers are produced by grinding continuous strands in a hammer mill into length s ranging
from 0.79 to 3.2 mm (0.031–0. 125 in.). They are primarily used as a filler in the plastics
industry and do not possess any significant reinforcement value [Mallick 2008].

Glass fibers are also available in woven form, such as woven roving or woven cloth.
Woven roving is a coarse drapable fabric in which continuous rovings are woven in two
mutually perpendicular directions. Woven cloth is weaved using twisted continuous
strands, called yarns. Both woven roving and cloth provide bidirectional properties that
depend on the style of weaving as well as relative fiber counts in the length (warp) and
crosswise (fill) directions. A layer of woven roving is sometime s bonded with a layer of
CSM to produce a woven roving mat. All of these forms of glass fibers are suitable for hand
layup molding and liquid composite molding [Mallick 2008].

2.4.1.2.2. Carbon and Graphite Fibers

Carbon and graphite fibers are the most prevalent fiber forms used in high-
performance composite structures. They can be produced with a wide range of properties.
They generally exhibit superior tensile and compressive strength, have high moduli, have
excellent fatigue properties, and do not corrode. Although the terms are often used
interchangeably, graphite fibers are subjected to heat treatments above 3000 F (1650 °C),
have three-dimensional ordering of their atoms, have carbon contents greater than 99
percent, and have elastic moduli (E) greater than 50 msi (345 GPa). Carbon fibers have
lower carbon contents (93 to 95 percent) and are heat treated at lower temperatures
[Campbell 2010].

Carbon and Graphite fibers are commercially available with a variety of tensile
modulus values ranging from 207 GPa (303106 psi) on the low side to 1035 GPa (1503106
psi) on the high side. In general, the low-modulus fibers have lower density, lower cost,
higher tensile and compressive strengths, and higher tensile strains-to-failure than the high-
modulus fibers. Among the advantages of carbon fibers are their exceptionally high tensile
strength–weight ratios as well as tensile modulus–weight ratios, very low coefficient of
linear thermal expansion (which provides dimensional stability in such applications as
space antennas), high fatigue strengths, and high thermal conductivity (which is even higher
than that of copper). The disadvantages are their low strain-to-failure, low impact
resistance, and high electrical conductivity, which may cause ‘‘shorting’’ in unprotected
electrical machinery. Their high cost has so far excluded them from widespread commercial
applications. They are used mostly in the aerospace industry. Carbon fibers are
manufactured from two types of precursors (starting materials), namely, textile precursors
(PAN) and pitch precursors [Mallick 2008].

2.4.1.2.3. Aramid Fibers

Aramid fibers are highly crystalline aromatic polyamide fibers that have the lowest
density and the highest tensile strength-to-weight ratio among the current reinforcing fibers.
Kevlar 49 is the trade name of one of the aramid fibers available in the market. As a

17
reinforcement, aramid fibers are used in many marine and aerospace applications where
lightweight, high tensile strength, and resistance to impact damage (e.g., caused by
accidentally dropping a hand tool) are important. Like carbon fibers, they also have a
negative coefficient of thermal expansion in the longitudinal direction, which is used in
designing low thermal expansion composite panels. The major disadvantages of aramid
fiber-reinforced composites are their low compressive strengths and difficulty in cutting or
machining. Although the tensile stress–strain behavior of Kevlar 49 is linear, fiber fracture
is usually preceded by longitudinal fragmentation, splintering, and even localized drawing.
In bending, Kevlar 49 fibers exhibit a high degree of yielding on the compression side. Such
a non-catastrophic failure mode is not observed in glass or carbon fibers, and gives Kevlar
49 composites superior damage tolerance against impact or other dynamic loading. One
interesting application of this characteristic of Kevlar 49 fibers is found in soft lightweight
body armors and helmets used for protecting police officers and military personnel [Mallick
2008].

Kevlar 49 fibers do not melt or support combustion but will start to carbonize at
about 4278 °C. The maximum long-term use temperature recommended for Kevlar 49 is
1608 °C. They have very low thermal conductivity, but a very high vibration damping
coefficient. Except for a few strong acids and alkalis, their chemical resistance is good.
However, they are quite sensitive to ultraviolet lights. Prolonged direct exposure to sunlight
causes discoloration and significant loss in tensile strength. The problem is less pronounced
in composite laminates in which the fibers are covered with a matrix. Ultraviolet light-
absorbing fillers can be added to the matrix to further reduce the problem. Kevlar 49 fibers
are hygroscopic and can absorb up to 6% moisture at 100% relative humidity and 238 °C.
The equilibrium moisture content (i.e., maximum moisture absorption) is directly
proportional to relative humidity and is attained in 16–36 h. Absorbed moisture seems to
have very little effect on the tensile properties of Kevlar 49 fibers. However, at high
moisture content, they tend to crack internally at the preexisting micro voids and produce
longitudinal splitting [Mallick 2008].

A second-generation Kevlar fiber is Kevlar 149, which has the highest tensile
modulus of all commercially available aramid fibers. The tensile modulus of Kevlar 149 is
40% higher than that of Kevlar 49; however, its strain-to-failure is lower. Kevlar 149 has
the equilibrium moisture content of 1.2% at 65% relative humidity and 228 °C, which is
nearly 70% lower than that of Kevlar 49 under similar conditions. Kevlar 149 also has a
lower creep rate than Kevlar 49[Mallick 2008].

2.4.1.2.4. Extended chain polyethylene fibers

Extended chain polyethylene fibers, commercially available under the trade name
Spectra, are produced by gel spinning a high-molecular-weight polyethylene. Gel spinning
yields a highly oriented fibrous structure with exceptionally high crystallinity (95%–99%)
relative to melt spinning used for conventional polyethylene fibers [Mallick 2008].

Spectra polyethylene fibers have the highest strength-to-weight ratio of all

commercial fibers available to date. Two other outstanding features of Spectra fibers are
their low moisture absorption (1% compared with 5%–6% for Kevlar 49) and high abrasion
resistance, which make them very useful in marine composites, such as boat hulls and water

18
skis. The melting point of Spectra fibers is 1478 °C; however, since they exhibit a high
level of creep above 1008 °C, their application temperature is limited to 808 °C–908 °C.
The safe manufacturing temperature for composites containing Spectra fibers is below 1258
°C, since they exhibit a significant and rapid reduction in strength as well as increase in
thermal shrinkage above this temperature. Another problem with Spectra fibers is their poor
adhesion with resin matrices, which can be partially improved by their surface modification
with gas plasma treatment. Spectra fibers provide high impact resistance for composite
laminates even at low temperatures and are finding growing applications in ballistic
composites, such as armors, helmets, and so on. However, their use in high-performance
aerospace composites is limited, unless they are used in conjunction with stiffer carbon
fibers to produce hybrid laminates with improved impact damage tolerance than all-carbon
fiber laminates [Mallick 2008].

A number of commercially available fibers and their properties are listed in Table
2-4. The first point to note in this Table is the extremely small filament diameter for the
fibers. Since such small sizes are difficult to handle, the useful form of commercial fibers
is a bundle, which is produced by gathering a large number of continuous filaments, either
in untwisted or twisted form. The untwisted form is called strand or end for glass and Kevlar
fibers and tow for carbon fibers. The twisted form is called yarn. Tensile properties listed
in Table 2-4 are the average values reported by the fiber manufacturers. One of the test
methods used for determining the tensile properties of filaments is the single filament test.
In this test method, designated as ASTM D3379, a single filament is mounted along the
centerline of a slotted tab by means of a suitable adhesive. After clamping the tab in the
grips of a tensile testing machine, its midsection is either cut or burned away [Mallick
2008].

The tension test is carried out at a constant loading rate until the filament fractures.
From the load-time record of the test, tensile properties are determined. Tensile stress–strain
diagrams obtained from single filament test of reinforcing fibers in use are almost linear up
to the point of failure, as shown in figure 2-11.

19
Figure 2-11 Tensile Stress–Strain Diagrams for Various Reinforcing Fibers [Mallick 2008]

20
Table 2-4 Properties of Selected Commercial Reinforcing Fibers [Mallick 2008]

21
22
 They also exhibit very low strain-to-failure and a brittle failure mode. Although the
absence of yielding does not reduce the load-carrying capacity of the fibers, it does make
them prone to damage during handling as well as during contact with other surfaces. In
continuous manufacturing operations, such as filament winding, frequent fiber breakage
resulting from such damages may slow the rate of production [Mallick 2008]. A graph of
specific strengths versus specific moduli is given in figure 2-12.

Figure 2-12 Specific Strength and Modulus of Some Commercially Important Fibers [Campbell 2010]

2.4.2. Matrix

The roles of the matrix in a fiber -reinforce d compo site are [Mallick 2008]:

 to keep the fibers in place,

 to transfer stresses between the fibers,

 to provide a barrier against an adverse environment, such as chemicals and moisture,

and

 to provide the composite with toughness, damage tolerance, and impact and
abrasion resistance.

The matrix plays a minor role in the tensile load-carrying capacity of a composite
structure. However, selection of a matrix has a major influence on the compressive, inter
laminar shear as well as in-plane shear properties of the composite material. The matrix
provides lateral support against the possibility of fiber buckling under compressive loading,
thus influencing to a large extent, the compressive strength of the composite material. The
interlaminar shear strength is an important design consideration for structures under

23
bending loads, whereas the in-plane shear strength is important under torsional loads
[Mallick 2008].

The interaction between fibers and matrix is also important in designing damage-
tolerant structures. Finally, the processing and defects in a composite material depend
strongly on the processing characteristics of the matrix. For example, for epoxy polymers
used as matrix in many aerospace composites, the processing characteristics include the
liquid viscosity, the curing temperature, and the curing time [Mallick 2008]. The properties
of the matrix also determine the maximum usage temperature, resistance to moisture and
fluids, and thermal and oxidative stability [Campbell 2010].

Polymeric matrices for advanced composites are classified as either thermosets or

thermoplastics. Thermosets are low molecular weight, low viscosity monomers (≈2000
centipoise) that are converted during curing into three-dimensional crosslinked structures
that are infusible and insoluble. Crosslinking (see figure 2-13) results from chemical
reactions that are driven by heat generated either by the chemical reactions themselves for
example, exothermic heat of reaction, or by externally supplied heat. As curing progresses,
the reactions accelerate and the available volume within the molecular arrangement
decreases, resulting in less mobility of the molecules and an increase in viscosity. After the
resin gels and forms a rubbery solid, it cannot be remelted. Further heating causes additional
crosslinking until the resin is fully cured. Since cure is a thermally driven event requiring
chemical reactions, thermosets are characterized as having rather long processing times. In
contrast, thermoplastics are not chemically crosslinked with heat and therefore do not
require long cure cycles. They are high molecular weight polymers that can be melted,
consolidated, and then cooled [Campbell 2010].

Figure 2-13 Comparison of Thermoset and Thermoplastic Polymer Structures [Campbell 2010]

Since thermoplastics do not crosslink, they may be subsequently reheated for

forming or joining operations; however, due to their inherently high viscosity and high
melting points, high temperatures and pressures are normally required for processing
[Campbell 2010].

24
2.4.2.1. Thermosets

Thermoset composite matrices include polyesters, vinyl esters, epoxies,

bismaleimides, cyanate esters, polyimides, and phenolics (see Table 2-5).

Table 2-5 Relative characteristics of thermoset resin matrices [Campbell 2010]

Polyesters, epoxies, bismaleimides, and cyanate esters are all classified as addition
curing polymers, while polyimides and phenolics are condensation-curing systems. The
most distinct difference between the two types of reactions is that condensation reactions
give off water or alcohol, while addition-curing reactions do not give off a by-product. The
evolution of water and/or alcohols during curing presents a volatile management problem.
If these by-products are not removed prior to the resin gelling or setting up, voids and
porosity in the cured matrix will occur. Thus, condensation curing systems are much more
difficult to process than addition-curing systems [Campbell 2010].

2.4.2.1.1. Epoxies

Epoxies currently are the dominant resins used for low and moderate temperatures
(up to 275 °F or 135 °C), they are the most common matrix material for high-performance
composites and adhesives. They have an excellent combination of strength, adhesion, low
shrinkage, and processing versatility. Commercial epoxy matrices and adhesives can be as
simple as one epoxy and one curing agent; however, most contain a major epoxy, one to
three minor epoxies, and one or two curing agents. The minor epoxies are added to provide

25
viscosity control, impart higher elevated temperature properties, and provide lower
moisture absorption or to improve toughness [Campbell 2010].

2.4.2.1.2. Bismaleimides

Bismaleimides are used primarily in the temperature range of 275–350 °F (135–175

°C). Bismaleimides (BMIs) were developed to bridge the temperature gap between epoxies
and polyimides with dry Tg in the range of 430 to 600 °F (220 to 315 °C) and use
temperatures of 300 to 450 °F (150 to 230 °C). They process very similarly to epoxies by
curing through addition reactions at 350 to 375 °F (175 to 190 °C). To obtain their high-
temperature properties, they are given freestanding post cures at 450 to 475 °F (230 to 245
°C) to complete the polymerization reactions. Bismaleimide composites can be processed
by autoclave curing, filament winding, and resin transfer molding. The tack and drape of
most BMIs are quite good due to the liquid component of the reactants. Since BMIs process
at the same temperature (such as 350 °F or 175 °C) and pressures (in this case 100 psig) as
epoxies, conventional nylon bagging films, bleeder and breather materials, and other
expendables can be used. In contrast, the higher-temperature traditional polyimide materials
usually require higher temperature cures (600 to 700 °F or 315 to 370 °C) and higher
pressures (in this case 200 psi or higher), resulting in more expensive and difficult tooling
and bagging materials [Campbell 2010].

2.4.2.1.3. Polyimides

Polyimides are high-temperature matrix materials intended for usage temperatures

as high as 500 to 600 °F (260 to 315 °C). Polyimides can be thermoplastics or thermosets.
They are normally condensation-curing systems. The condensation systems give off water
or water and alcohol, which causes a severe volatile management problem during cure. If
the volatiles are not removed prior to resin gellation, they become entrapped as voids and
porosity that lower the matrix-dependent mechanical properties. In addition, polyimides are
usually formulated with high-temperature solvents, such as dimethylformamide (DMF),
dimethylactamide (DMAC), N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), or dimethylsufoxide (DMSO),
which must also be removed either prior to or during the cure cycle. Polyimides are much
more difficult to process than epoxies or BMIs. They require high processing temperatures
(such as 600 to 700 °F or 315 to 370 °C), long cure cycles, and higher pressures (such as
200 psig). Volatiles and voids are always potential problems when processing polyimides
[Campbell 2010].

2.4.2.1.4. Polyesters and vinyl esters

Which can be used at approximately the same temperatures as epoxies, are used
extensively for commercial applications but rarely for high-performance composite
matrices, although lower in cost than epoxies, polyesters generally have lower temperature
capability, lower mechanical properties and inferior weathering resistance, and they exhibit
more shrinkage during cure [Campbell 2010]. The two basic polyester resins used in the
marine industry are orthophthalic and isophthalic. The ortho resins were the original group
of polyesters developed and are still in widespread use. They have somewhat limited
thermal stability, chemical resistance, and processability characteristics. The iso resins
generally have better mechanical properties and show better chemical resistance. Their
increased resistance to water permeation has prompted many builders to use this resin as a

26
gel coat or barrier coat in marine laminates [Greene 1999]. Vinyl ester resins are unsaturated
resins prepared by the reaction of a monofunctional unsaturated acid, such as methacrylic
or acrylic, with a bisphenol diepoxide. The resulting polymer is mixed with an unsaturated
monomer, such as styrene. The handling and performance characteristics of vinyl esters are
similar to polyesters. Some advantages of the vinyl esters, which may justify their higher
cost, include superior corrosion resistance, hydrolytic stability, and excellent physical
properties, such as impact and fatigue resistance. It has been shown that a 20 to 60 mil layer
with a vinyl ester resin matrix can provide an excellent permeation barrier to resist blistering
in marine laminates [Campbell 2010].

2.4.2.1.5. Cyanate esters

Cyanate esters are a relatively new class of resins that were designed to compete
with both epoxies and bismaleimides. Cyanate esters are often used in applications
requiring low dielectric loss properties, such as antennas and radomes. They are potential
substitutes for both epoxies and BMIs with dry Tgs ranging from 375 to 550 °F (190 to 290
°C). However, due to a rather limited market and an inherently expensive monomer, they
are expensive materials. The prepreg is also susceptible to moisture pickup that can produce
carbon dioxide during cure. Their adhesion, or bondability, is inferior to that of epoxies.
The cured laminates exhibit lower moisture absorption than epoxies or BMIs and are
inherently flame resistant [Campbell 2010].

2.4.2.1.6. Phenolics

Phenolics are high temperature systems that offer outstanding smoke and fire
resistance and are frequently used for aircraft interior components. Phenolics are normally
very brittle and exhibit large shrinkage during cure. They are also used for high-temperature
heat shields, due to their excellent ablative resistance, and as the starting material for C-C
composites because of their high char yield during graphitization [Campbell 2010].

2.4.2.2. Thermoplastics

Thermoplastics have one- or two-dimensional molecular structures, as opposed to

three-dimensional structures for thermosets. The thermoplastics generally come in the form
of molding compounds that soften at high temperatures. Polyethylene, polystyrene,
polypropylene, polyamides and nylon are examples of thermoplastics. Their use in the
marine industry has generally been limited to small boats and recreational items. Reinforced
thermoplastic materials have recently been investigated for the large scale production of
structural components. Some attractive features include no exotherm upon cure, which has
plagued filament winding of extremely thick sections with thermosets, and enhanced
damage tolerance [Greene 1999]. The structural difference between thermosets and
thermoplastics yields some insight into the potential advantages of thermoplastics. Since
thermoplastics are not crosslinked, they are inherently much tougher than thermosets.
Therefore, they are much more damage tolerant and resistant to low-velocity impact
damage than the untoughened thermoset resins used in the early to mid-1980s. However,
as a result of improved toughening approaches for thermoset resins, primarily with
thermoplastic additions to the resin, the thermosets available today exhibit toughness
somewhat comparable to that of thermoplastic systems. Since thermoplastics are fully
reacted high molecular weight resins that do not undergo chemical reactions during cure,

27
the processing for these materials is theoretically simpler and faster. Thermoplastics can be
consolidated and thermoformed in minutes (or even seconds), while thermosets require long
cures (hours) to build molecular weight and crosslink through chemical reactions. However,
since thermoplastics are fully reacted, they contain no tack and the prepreg is stiff and
boardy. In addition, competing thermoset epoxies are usually processed at 250 to 350 °F
(120 to 175 °C), while high performance thermoplastics require temperatures in the range
of 500 to 800 °F (260 to 425 °C). This greatly complicates the processing operations,
requiring high-temperature autoclaves or presses and bagging materials that can withstand
the higher processing temperatures [Campbell 2010].

2.4.3. Core Materials

The basic concept of a sandwich panel is that the facings carry the bending loads
(tension and compression), while the interior sandwich or core carries the shear loads, Core
materials include metallic and nonmetallic honeycomb core, balsa wood, open and closed
cell foams, and syntactics. Honeycomb cores are more expensive than foam cores but offer
superior performance. This explains why many commercial applications use foam cores,
which are also easier to work with, while aerospace applications use the higher-
performance but more expensive honeycombs. A relative strength-stiffness comparison of
different core materials is shown in figure 2-14 [Campbell 2010]. Table 2-6 summarizes
the physical properties of a common grade of some Sandwich Core Materials.

Figure 2-14 Cost Versus Performance for Core Materials [Campbell 2010]

28
 Table 2-6 Comparative data for some sandwich core materials [Greene 1999]

2.4.3.1. Balsa

End grain balsa's closed-cell structure consists of elongated, prismatic cells with a
length (grain direction) that is approximately sixteen times the diameter (see Figure 2-15).

Figure 2-15 Balsa Cell Geometry [Greene 1999]

In densities between 6 and 16 pounds/ft3 (0.1 and 0.25 gms/cm3), the material
exhibits excellent stiffness and bond strength. Stiffness and strength characteristics are

29
much like aerospace honeycomb cores Although the static strength of balsa panels will
generally be higher than the PVC foams, impact energy absorption is lower. Local impact
resistance is very good because stress is efficiently transmitted between sandwich skins
[Greene 1999].

2.4.3.2. Thermoset Foams

Foamed plastics such as cellular cellulose acetate (CCA), polystyrene, and

polyurethane are very light (about 2 lbs/ft3) and resist water, fungi and decay. These
materials have very low mechanical properties and polystyrene will be attacked by
polyester resin. These foams will not conform to complex curves. Use is generally limited
to buoyancy rather than structural applications. Polyurethane is often foamed in-place when
used as a buoyancy material [Greene 1999].

2.4.3.3. Syntactic Foams

Syntactic foams are made by mixing hollow microspheres of glass, epoxy and
phenolic into fluid resin (see figure 2-16) with additives and curing agents to form a
moldable, curable, lightweight fluid mass. Omega Chemical has introduced a sprayable
syntactic core material called SprayCore TM. The company claims that thicknesses of 3/8"
can be achieved at densities between 30 and 43 lbs/ft3. The system is being marketed as a
replacement for core fabrics with superior physical properties [Greene 1999]. Syntactic
cores generally have much higher density than honeycomb, with densities ranging from 30
to 80 pcf (480 to 1300 kg/m3). The higher the percentage of the microballoon filler, the
lighter and weaker the core becomes [Campbell 2010].

30
 Figure 2-16 Syntactic Core Construction [Campbell 2010]

2.4.3.4. Cross Linked PVC Foams

Polyvinyl chloride foam cores are manufactured by combining a polyvinyl

copolymer with stabilizers, plasticizers, cross-linking compounds and blowing agents. The
mixture is heated under pressure to initiate the cross-linking reaction and then submerged
in hot water tanks to expand to the desired density. Cell diameters range from .0100 to .100
inches (as compared to .0013 inches for balsa). The resulting material is thermoplastic,
enabling the material to conform to compound curves of a hull. PVC foams have almost
exclusively replaced urethane foams as a structural core material, except in configurations
where the foam is “blown” in place. A number of manufacturers market cross-linked PVC
products to the marine industry in sheet form with densities ranging from 2 to 12 pounds
per ft3. As with the balsa products, solid sheets or scrim backed block construction
configurations are available [Greene 1999].

2.4.3.5. Linear PVC Foam

Airex® and Core-Cell® are examples of linear PVC foam core produced for the
marine industry. Unique mechanical properties are a result of a non-connected molecular
structure, which allows significant displacements before failure. In comparison to the cross

31
linked (non-linear) PVCs, static properties will be less favorable and impact will be better.
For Airex® individual cell diameters range from .020 to .080 inches [Greene 1999].

The most widely used structural foams are summarized in Table 2-7.

Table 2-7 Characteristics of some foam sandwich materials [Campbell 2010]

2.4.3.6. Honeycomb

Various types of manufactured honeycomb cores are used extensively in the

aerospace industry. Constituent materials include aluminum, phenolic resin impregnated
fiberglass, polypropylene and aramid fiber phenolic treated paper. Densities range from 1
to 6 lbs/ft3 and cell sizes vary from 1/8 to 3/8 inches. Physical properties vary in a near
linear fashion with density. Although the fabrication of extremely lightweight panels is
possible with honeycomb cores, applications in a marine environment are limited due to the
difficulty of bonding to complex face geometries and the potential for significant water
absorption. The Navy has had some corrosion problems when an aluminum honeycomb
core was used for ASROC housings [Greene 1999].

2.4.3.7. PMI Foam

Rohm Tech, Inc. markets a polymrthacrylimide (PMI) foam for composite

construction called Rohacell®. The material requires minimum laminating pressures to
develop good peel strength. The most attractive feature of this material is its ability to
withstand curing temperatures in excess of 350°F, which makes it attractive for use with
prepreg reinforcements [Greene 1999].

2.4.3.8. FRP Planking

Seemann Fiberglass, Inc. developed a product called C-Flex® in 1973 to help

amateurs build a cost effective one-off hull. The planking consists of rigid fiberglass rods
held together with unsaturated strands of continuous fiberglass rovings and a light fiberglass
cloth. The self-supporting material will conform to compound curves. Typical application
involves a set of male frames as a form. The planking has more rigidity than PVC foam

32
sheets, which eliminates the need for extensive longitudinal stringers on the male mold. A
1/8 inch variety of C-Flex® weighs about 1/2 pound dry [Greene 1999].

2.4.3.9. Plywood

Plywood should also be mentioned as a structural core material, although fiberglass

is generally viewed as merely a sheathing when used in conjunction with plywood.
Exceptions to this characterization include local reinforcements in way of hardware
installations where plywood replaces a lighter density core to improve compression
properties of the laminate. Plywood is also sometimes used as a form for longitudinals,
especially in way of engine mounts. Concern over the continued propensity for wood to
absorb moisture in a maritime environment, which can cause swelling and subsequent
delamination, has precipitated a decline in the use of wood in conjunction with FRP. Better
process control in the manufacture of newer marine grade plywood should diminish this
problem. The uneven surface of plywood can make it a poor bonding surface. Also, the low
strength and low strain characteristics of plywood can lead to premature failures when used
as a core with thin skins. The technique of laminating numerous thin plies of wood
developed by the Gougeon Brothers and known as wood epoxy saturation technique
(WEST® System) eliminates many of the shortcomings involved with using wood in
composite structures [Greene 1999].

2.5. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF COMPOSITE

MATERIALS
The advantages of composites are many, including:

 Lighter weight [Campbell 2010].

 The ability to tailor the layup for optimum strength and stiffness [Campbell 2010].

 The fatigue strength (endurance limit) is much higher for composite materials. Steel
and aluminum alloys exhibit good fatigue strength up to about 50% of their static
strength. Unidirectional carbon/epoxy composites have good fatigue strength up to
almost 90% of their static strength [Campbell 2010].

 High corrosion resistance. Iron and aluminum corrode in the presence of water and
air and require special coatings and alloying. Because the outer surface of
composites is formed by plastics, corrosion [Mazumdar 2002] and chemical
resistance are very good [Campbell 2010].

 In-service monitoring or online process monitoring with the help of embedded

sensors. This feature is used to monitor fatigue damage in aircraft structures or can
be utilized to monitor the resin flow in an RTM (resin transfer molding) process.
Materials with embedded sensors are known as “smart” materials [Campbell 2010].

 Net-shape or near-net-shape parts can be produced with composite materials. This

feature eliminates several machining operations and thus reduces process cycle time
and cost [Campbell 2010].

33
  Reduced assembly costs (with good design practice) due to fewer detail parts and
fasteners [Campbell 2010].

 Good impact properties, Glass and Kevlar composites provide higher impact
strength than steel and aluminum. Long glass fiber provides three to four times
improved impact properties than short glass fiber composites [Jones 1999].

 Noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) characteristics are better for composite
materials than metals. Composite materials dampen vibrations an order of
magnitude better than metals. These characteristics are used in a variety of
applications, from the leading edge of an airplane to golf clubs [Jones 1999].

Advanced composite materials have two major advantages, among many others:
improved strength and stiffness, especially when compared with other materials on a unit
weight basis. For example, composite materials can be made that have the same strength
and stiffness as high-strength steel, yet are 70% lighter. Other advanced composite
materials are as much as three times as strong as aluminum, the common aircraft structural
material, yet weigh only 60% as much. Moreover, composite materials can be tailored to
efficiently meet design requirements of strength, stiffness, and other parameters, all in
various directions. The strength and stiffness advantages, cost advantages, and weight
advantages are discussed in the following sections [Jones 1999].

2.5.1. Strength and Stiffness Advantages

Consider some of the advantages of fiber-reinforced composite materials. Very high

strength and stiffness are about the most common advantages that come to mind. We often
express those strength and stiffness properties not in absolute terms, but in relative terms
by dividing them by the density. Those strength-to-density and stiffness-to-density
quotients are simply manners of expressing what we call specific strength and specific
modulus or specific stiffness that are particularly attractive when weight-sensitive
structures are addressed [Jones 1999].

First, we examine how the properties of the composite material constituents, fiber
and matrix, generally contribute to the lamina properties and, subsequently, how laminae
properties influence the laminate properties. We plot vertically the strength and horizontally
the stiffness or the modulus in Figure 2-17 on translation from constituent properties of the
composite material to the level of the lamina and then finally to the level of the laminate
[Jones 1999].

Typically, the fibers used in advanced composite materials are very high in strength
and often very high in modulus. Next, we put those fibers in a matrix material that is
typically low in strength and low in stiffness to create a unidirectionally reinforced lamina.
Such a lamina is a layer that has substantially different strengths and stiffnesses in different
directions. The strength and stiffness in the fiber direction are the highest properties.
However, perpendicular to the fibers, that is, at 90°, the lowest properties exist with some
variation in between as the angle varies from 0° to 90°. In fact, it is possible to get even
lower stiffness and strength properties than the 90° properties at some off-axis angle
generally in the vicinity of 60° with some composite materials. At 90°, the lamina stiffness
and strength are much more like the matrix properties than the fiber properties, whereas, at

34
0° to the fiber direction, the properties are fiber dominated. A laminate is a bonded mixture
of variously angled laminae, and we expect the laminate properties not to be as high as
those of the 0° lamina nor as low as those of the 90° lamina, but some value in between.
Actually, the zone marked laminate in figure 2-9 must include both the 0° and the 90° cases
because we can make a laminate, if we so choose, with all 0° fibers, i.e., all 0° layers. At
some place in the zone labelled laminate, what is called an isotropic point or biaxially
isotropic point exists as some measure of equal in-plane properties in at least two directions
in terms of stiffness and strength. The so-called biaxially isotropic laminate is an artificial
laminate that is simply used as a basis for comparison of one composite laminate to another
or of a composite material to a metal [Jones 1999]. The type of properties plot in figure 2-
9 is the basic scheme that we will use for comparative purposes.

Figure 2-17 Translation from Constituent Properties to Lamina to Laminate Properties [Jones 1999]

A representation of the strength and stiffness of many materials on the basis of

effectiveness per unit weight is shown in figure 2-18.

35
 Figure 2-18 Strength and Stiffness of Composite Materials and Metals [Jones 1999]

The properties of common structural metals are denoted by open squares. Various
forms of advanced composite materials are denoted by three types of circles: fibers alone
are represented with open circles; laminae with unidirectional fibers are shown as circles
with a vertical line in them; and laminae with equal numbers of fibers in two perpendicular
directions are shown with circles with a horizontal and vertical line in them. Obviously, the
most effective material lies in the upper right-hand corner of the figure. Fibers alone are
stiffer and stronger than when placed in a matrix. However, as we have already seen, the
fibers are not used without a matrix because of the important advantages of the combination
of fibers in a matrix. Also, unidirectional configurations are stiffer and stronger in the fiber
direction than biaxially isotropic configurations in either of the two directions. Practical
laminates lie somewhere between unidirectional and biaxially isotropic configurations.
Let's compare various forms of specific composite materials with structural-grade metals.
The metals each occupy only one point on a specific strength versus specific stiffness curve,
e.g., the open squares in figure 1-18. We need not consider their constituents, and there are
no orientation aspects, so only one point is necessary to represent their stiffness and,
simultaneously, their strength. However, for composite materials, strong directionally
dependent factors must be accounted for. The bulk metals considered for structural
applications are steel, titanium, and aluminum in the lower left-hand corner of the Figure
and beryllium in the lower right-hand corner. Now, contrast those bulk metal properties
with the properties of a high-modulus graphite fiber which is up and to the right about as
far as possible in the figure. Observe that the graphite looks terrific at first glance. However,
we cannot use graphite in strictly a fiber form. We must drop back from the capabilities of
the fiber form to the unidirectional laminate form at least, if not perhaps back more toward
the biaxially isotropic laminate. And the real practical application is some place in between
these two simple composite laminates. A unidirectional laminate can be used in certain
special applications. For example, all the fibers can be aligned in the axial direction of a
strut or column to take advantage of every possible capability of a graphite-epoxy

36
composite material in that particular loading environment. However, for aircraft wings, all
the fibers cannot be oriented in one direction. Multiple fiber orientations must be used to
achieve the proper balance of strength and stiffness necessary to accommodate loads from
various directions. Certainly the loads might be larger in one direction than another, and we
would then prejudice the fiber system to accommodate the higher load levels. We simply
cannot do that prejudicing of directional properties with a metal structure. We must accept
uniform all-around properties with a metal structure (unless we add stiffeners) [Jones 1999].

A wide variety of materials is depicted in figure 2-10, e.g., both high-strength

graphite-epoxy and high-modulus graphite-epoxy which naturally is further to the right on
the figure than is high-strength graphite-epoxy. Generally, high-modulus graphite-epoxy is
obtained by a higher graphitization temperature of the graphite fibers than high-strength
graphite. Boron falls fairly close to high-strength graphite. Beryllium is over to the right in
fiber form and much lower on the chart in bulk metal form. The fiber form of beryllium is
much stronger, i.e., up higher in the figure, than the bulk form of beryllium. Thus, a
beryllium fiber composite material has a significant advantage over bulk beryllium in
strength. Beryllium fibers in a composite form lead to loss in stiffness to some extent
because we have had to use a less-stiff matrix material to surround the beryllium fibers, but
we still have a considerable strength advantage.

In contrast, we see fiberglass to the left in the figure, which is extremely strong, but
not very stiff. When we put the glass fibers in a usable form, namely a unidirectional
composite material, we get the same specific stiffness as ordinary structural metals, but
fiberglass does have a higher specific strength. Fiberglass in the biaxially isotropic form
has about the same specific strength as steel or titanium, but higher than aluminum.
However, fiberglass has a lower specific modulus than any of the conventional metals.
Thus, we would typically use glass in a strength-critical application whereas any of the
graphites, even the high strength-graphites, would be used in stiffness-critical applications.
In summary, for a stiffness-critical application, we would use graphite-epoxy. For a
strength-critical application, we might use glass-epoxy or Kevlar-epoxy.

The duality of the plot in figure 2-10 is important. That is, stiffness is often equally
important and sometimes even more important than strength.

2.5.2. Cost Advantages

Decreasing the cost of a material per weight unit of structure depends on increasing
manufacturing experience in a given process and on developing new, more effective
manufacturing technologies, among other factors. The raw material graphite fibers fell from
several hundred dollars a pound ($600-800/kg) in the early 1970s to $20 per pound ($40/kg)
in 1990 due to increased manufacturing experience and to the increased efficiencies of
large-scale production. On the other hand, boron fibers, also several hundred dollars per
pound ($600-800/kg) in the early 1970s, cost about $100 per pound ($200/kg) in 1980
because of inherent technological limitations [Jones 1999].

Various elements must be considered in the cost of a structure or an object. We first

consider an element on which many people often focus too much attention, and that is the
raw material cost. However, raw material cost is only one small element in the whole
process of determining the true cost of an object over its lifetime of use. Different materials

37
have different associated costs to design a structure. A certain amount of money is required
to fabricate or manufacture the object. Different amounts of money are required to assemble
parts that are made in various ways. Similar-appearing parts of different materials might
require very different fastening techniques. The first three elements mentioned constitute
the initial cost of the object. Whenever the object comes out the door of the factory, what
we pay for it is the initial cost. When we add to that initial cost the operating and
maintenance costs over the life cycle of the object as in figure 2-19, then we begin to get a
true picture of the real cost of the object. Using only the initial cost to govern all decisions
is totally unrealistic; operating and maintenance costs must be taken into account [Jones
1999].

Figure 2-19 Life-Cycle Cost Elements [Jones 1999]

Often the operating costs are lower for a composite structure than for a metallic
structure. Thus, we can automatically afford to pay more for the initial cost of the composite
structure in order to achieve those lower operating costs as long as the key element, the life-
cycle cost, is lower for composite structures [Jones 1999].

The life-cycle cost is made up of those initial costs mentioned, plus operating costs
and maintenance costs, but less the salvage value as in figure 2-11. Then, we must perform
a cost analysis of the whole system and ask: which is the least-expensive choice? And if we
pay at the beginning, we might very well have a lower life-cycle cost in many situations
with composite structures. The development of composite structures is getting to the point
where some applications of composite structures have both a lower initial cost and a lower
operating cost. Thus, the life-cycle cost is very much more favorable for composite
structures than it is for some metal structures.

The operating cost includes items like fuel and other consumables. Maintenance
costs are obviously repairs and periodic reworking of the structure [Jones 1999].

The final category is the salvage value. What is the object worth at the end of its
life? Consider an aluminum airplane for which some scrap value exists at the end of its
useful life. When the structure is no longer suitable to be flown, and there we sit with a pile
of aluminum, we can retrieve some salvage value. However, that value is not really
significant in comparison to the original cost. Admittedly, with a composite structure, there
is no salvage value at all if the structure is made entirely of some composite materials. There

38
is nothing that we can do with the structure when we are through with it as a structure. If
we made the object, for example, with graphite-epoxy, then after the epoxy matrix is cured
(epoxy is a thermoset polymer which means that curing is a one-way process), the
composite material takes that cured shape permanently. We cannot melt the structure down
and make it into anything else. At that point, the plane is a pile of junk with zero salvage
value (in fact, you would have to pay someone to take it away). However, even the salvage
value of the aluminum aircraft is not enough higher than zero relative to the initial cost to
make the salvage value a strong consideration in the overall economic analysis [Jones
1999].

Why are the various cost elements being described? Because you need to have a
feeling for the comparisons that you must make in structural design in order to decide which
material is best for your particular application. One of the primary considerations in
structural design is always cost. A material might appear very efficient when expressed in
terms of weight, but we must usually think of cost as well. The cost competitiveness of
composite materials is generally best in applications to weight-sensitive structures simply
because the specific strength and specific modulus of composite materials are typically very
high when compared to ordinary structural metals. That is, composite materials are
especially effective in weight-sensitive structures [Jones 1999].

Cost advantages of composite materials are obtained when we have and recognize
the sometimes easier fabrication concepts for advanced composite structures than exist for
metals. Generally, all cost advantages or cost comparisons are becoming more favorable
for composite structures with increasing production rates of composite raw materials and
composite parts. Those advantages and production rates go hand in hand, so if we develop
new technology for production of composite materials, that new technology will drive down
the cost of composite structures [Jones 1999].

Labor cost in a structure is directly related to part count. If part count can be reduced,
then labor costs (and inventory costs) will decrease. Composite structures are generally
composed of many fewer parts than are metal structures. Integral part design and fabrication
techniques reduce fastener count and bonding operations. Thus, composite structures can
have cost elements that are considerably lower than those for metal structures. Often, the
manufacturing processes involved for composite structures fabrication are greatly
simplified as compared to those for metal structures. Reduced part count results in a much
lower assembly cost and overall reduction in the factory labor hours [Jones 1999].

Composite materials are not claimed to be a cure-all for every application or even
necessarily competitive with other materials. However, there are many instances in which
composite materials are uniquely well-suited because of their peculiar fabrication
processes.

2.5.3. Weight Advantages

What are the benefits of saving weight in a structure? Generally, we can choose
from several alternatives. First, we can directly transfer weight savings into savings of fuel
so that more efficient operating conditions result. Or else we can carry a heavier load of
fuel and increase the range of an aircraft, ship or truck. Or some combination of the two is
possible. Further consequences of decreased weight of an airplane are that engine thrust,

39
wing area, and fuel can then be decreased. For example, for fighters, a 1-lb (0.45 kg)
decrease in a part could lead to a 2.5-lb (1.13 kg) total weight decrease. For spacecraft, the
total weight decrease is even larger. An observation: every pound of structural weight saved
in a satellite means more propellant can be carried, and that results in a longer-life satellite
because the weight that can be put into orbit is usually fixed by the booster capacity. If we
make a higher percentage of that satellite weight fuel rather than structure, then the satellite
will serve longer [Jones 1999].

2.5.4. Disadvantages

Disadvantages of composites include high raw material costs and usually high
fabrication and assembly costs, adverse effects of both temperature and moisture, poor
strength in the out-of plane direction where the matrix carries the primary load,
susceptibility to impact damage and delaminations or ply separations [Campbell 2010].

The major cost driver in fabrication for a composite part using conventional hand
lay-up is the cost of laying up or collating the plies. This cost is generally 40 to 60 percent
of the fabrication cost, depending on part complexity. Assembly cost is another major cost
driver, accounting for about 50 percent of the total part cost. As previously stated, one of
the potential advantages of composites is the ability to cure or bond a number of detail parts
together to reduce assembly costs and the number of required fasteners. Temperature has
an effect on composite mechanical properties. Typically, matrix-dominated mechanical
properties decrease with increasing temperature. Fiber-dominated properties are somewhat
affected by cold temperatures, but the effects are not as severe as those of elevated
temperature on the matrix-dominated properties [Campbell 2010].

An important design factor in the selection of a matrix resin for elevated-

temperature applications is the cured glass transition temperature. The cured glass transition
temperature (Tg) of a polymeric material is the temperature at which it changes from a
rigid, glassy solid into a softer, semiflexible material. At this point, the polymer structure
is still intact but the crosslinks are no longer locked in position. Therefore, the Tg
determines the upper use temperature for a composite or an adhesive and is the temperature
above which the material will exhibit significantly Structural Composite Materials reduced
mechanical properties. Since most thermoset polymers will absorb moisture that severely
depresses the Tg, the actual use temperature should be about 50 °F (30 °C) lower than the
wet or saturated Tg. Composites are susceptible to delaminations (ply separations) during
fabrication, during assembly. During fabrication, foreign materials such as prepreg backing
paper can be inadvertently left in the lay-up. During assembly, improper part handling or
incorrectly installed fasteners can cause delaminations. In service, low-velocity impact
damage from dropped tools or forklifts running into aircraft can cause damage. The damage
may appear as only a small indentation on the surface but it can propagate through the
laminates, forming a complex network of delaminations and matrix cracks. Depending on
the size of the delamination, it can reduce the static and fatigue strength and the
compression buckling strength. If it is large enough, it can grow under fatigue loading.
Typically, damage tolerance is a resin-dominated property. The selection of a toughened
resin can significantly improve the resistance to impact damage. In addition, S-2 glass and
aramid fibers are extremely tough and damage tolerant. During the design phase, it is

40
important to recognize the potential for delaminations and use sufficiently conservative
design strains so that a damaged structure can be repaired [Campbell 2010].

2.6. MARKET DEMAND FOR COMPOSITE MATERIALS

There are many reasons for the growth in composite applications, but the primary
impetus is that the products fabricated by composites are stronger and lighter. Today, it is
difficult to find any industry that does not utilize the benefits of composite materials. The
largest user of composite materials today is the transportation industry, having consumed
1.3 billion pounds of composites in 2000. Composite materials have become the materials
of choice for several industries. In the past three to four decades, there have been substantial
changes in technology and its requirement. This changing environment created many new
needs and opportunities, which are only possible with the advances in new materials and
their associated manufacturing technology. In the past decades, several advanced
manufacturing technology and material systems have been developed to meet the
requirements of the various market segments. Several industries have capitalized on the
benefits of composite materials. The vast expansion of composite usage can be attributed
to the decrease in the cost of fibers, as well as the development of automation techniques
and high-volume production methods. For example, the price of carbon fiber decreased
from $150.00/lb in 1970 to about $8.00/lb in 2000. This decrease in cost was due to the
development of low-cost production methods and increased industrial use [Mazumdar
2002].

The relative importance of the basic materials in a historical context (measured by

the distance between the line representing a particular material and the line next to it) has
been presented as shown schematically in fig. 2-20, in which the steadily increasing
importance of polymers, composites, and ceramics and the decreasing role of metals is
shown clearly.

41
 Figure 2-20 The Relative Importance of Metals, Polymers, Composites, and Ceramics as a Function
of Time. The Diagram is Schematic and describes neither Tonnage nor Value. The Time Scale is
Nonlinear [Gibson 1994]

2.7. PRODUCTION (MANUFACTURING) METHODS

Unlike most conventional materials, there is a very close relation between the
manufacture of a composite material and its end use. The manufacture of the material is
often actually part of the fabrication process for the structural element or even the complete
structure [Jones 1999]. It is essential to know how these materials are made. This is because
with composites, we design and build not only the structure, but also the structural material
itself. The selection of a fabrication process obviously depends on the constituent materials
in the composite, with the matrix material being the key (i.e., the processes for polymer
matrix, metal matrix, and ceramic matrix composites are generally quite different). In this
brief summary of fabrication processes only those processes that are used for polymer
matrix composite fabrication will be discussed [Gibson 1994].

The most common technique used for large structures such as boat hulls, is the open
mold process. Specifically, hand lay-up or spray-up techniques are used. Spray-up of
chopped fibers is generally limited to smaller hulls and parts [Greene 1999]. A comparison
of the 5 most common processes is shown in figure 2-21.

42
 Figure 2-21 Comparison of Composite Manufacturing Techniques [Potter 1996]

2.7.1. Hand Lay-Up

A contact mold method suitable for making boats, tanks, housings and building
panels for prototypes and other large parts requiring high strength. Production volume is
low to medium [Greene 1999].

Figure 2-22 Schematic of the Hand Lay-up Process [Gurit 2013]

A pigmented gel coat is first applied to the mold by spray gun for a high-quality
surface. When the gel coat has become tacky, fiberglass reinforcement (usually mat or
cloth) is manually placed on the mold. The base resin is applied by pouring, brushing or
spraying. Squeegees or rollers are used to consolidate the laminate, thoroughly wetting the
reinforcement with the resin, and removing entrapped air. Layers of fiberglass mat or

43
woven roving and resin are added for thickness. Catalysts and accelerators are added to the
resin to cure without external heat. The amounts of catalyst and accelerator are dictated by
the working time necessary and overall thickness of the finished part. The laminate may be
cored or stiffened with PVC foam, balsa and honeycomb materials to reduce weight and
increase panel stiffness (see figure 2-22) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are General-purpose, room-temperature curing polyesters

which will not drain or sag on vertical surfaces. Epoxies and vinyl esters are also used
[Greene 1999].

Usual Molds are Simple, single-cavity, one-piece, either male or female, of any size.
Vacuum bag or autoclave methods may be used to speed cure, increase fiber content and
improve surface finish [Greene 1999].

The major Advantages are: Simplest method offering low-cost tooling, simple
processing and a wide range of part sizes. Design changes are readily made. There is a
minimum investment in equipment. With good operator skill, good production rates and
consistent quality are obtainable [Greene 1999].

2.7.2. Spray-Up

A low-to-medium volume, open mold method similar to hand lay-up in its

suitability for making boats, tanks, tub/shower units and other simple medium to large size
shapes such as truck hoods, recreational vehicle panels and commercial refrigeration
display cases. Greater shape complexity is possible with spray-up than with hand lay-up
[Greene 1999].

Figure 2-23 Schematic of the SPRAY-UP Process [Gurit 2013]

44
 Fiberglass continuous strand roving is fed through a combination chopper and spray
gun. This device simultaneously deposits chopped roving and catalyzed resin onto the mold.
The laminate thus deposited is densified with rollers or squeegees to remove air and
thoroughly work the resin into the reinforcing strands. Additional layers of chopped roving
and resin may be added as required for thickness. Cure is usually at room temperature or
may be accelerated by moderate application of heat. As with hand lay-up, a superior surface
finish may be achieved by first spraying gel coat onto the mold prior to spray-up of the
substrate. Woven roving is occasionally added to the laminate for specific strength
orientation. Also, core materials are easily incorporated (see figure 2-23) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are general-purpose, room-temperature curing polyesters,

low-heat-curing polyesters [Greene 1999].

Usual Molds are simple, single-cavity, usually one-piece, either male or female, as
with hand lay-up molds. Occasionally molds may be assembled, which is useful when part
complexity is great [Greene 1999].

The major Advantages are: Simple, low-cost tooling, simple processing, portable
equipment permits on-site fabrication, virtually no part size limitations. The process may
be automated [Greene 1999].

2.7.3. Filament Winding

A process resulting in a high degree of fiber loading to provide extremely high

tensile strengths in the manufacture of hollow, generally cylindrical products such as
chemical and fuel storage tanks and pipe, pressure vessels and rocket motor cases [Greene
1999].

Figure 2-24 Schematic of the Filament Winding Process [Gurit 2013]

45
 Continuous strand reinforcement is utilized to achieve maximum laminate strength.
Reinforcement is fed through a resin bath and wound onto a suitable mandrel (pre-
impregnated roving may also be used). Special winding machines lay down continuous
strands in a predetermined pattern to provide maximum strength in the directions required.
When sufficient layers have been applied, the wound mandrel is cured at room temperature
or in an oven. The molding is then stripped from the mandrel. Equipment is available to
perform filament winding on a continuous basis (see figure 2-24) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are Polyesters and epoxies [Greene 1999].

Usual Molds are mandrels of suitable size and shape, made of steel or aluminum
form the inner surface of the hollow part. Some materials are collapsible to facilitate part
removable [Greene 1999].

The major Advantages are: the process affords the highest strength-to-weight ratio
of any fiberglass reinforced plastic manufacturing practice and provides the highest degree
of control over uniformity and fiber orientation. Filament wound structures can be
accurately machined. The process may be automated when high volume makes this
economically feasible. The reinforcement used is low in cost. Integral vessel closures and
fittings may be wound into the laminate [Greene 1999].

2.7.4. Pultrusion

A continuous process for the manufacture of products having a constant cross

section, such as rod stock, structural shapes, beams, channels, pipe, tubing and fishing rods
[Greene 1999].

Figure 2-25 Schematic of the Pultrusion Process [Callister 2001]

Continuous strand fiberglass roving, mat or cloth is impregnated in a resin bath,

then drawn through a steel die, which sets the shape of the stock and controls the fiber/resin
ratio. A portion of the die is heated to initiate the cure. With the rod stock, cure is effected
in an oven. A pulling device establishes production speed (see figure 2-25) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are general-purpose polyesters and epoxies [Greene 1999].

Usual Molds are hardened steel dies [Greene 1999].

46
 The major Advantages are: the process is a continuous operation that can be readily
automated. It is adaptable to shapes with small cross-sectional areas and uses low cost
reinforcement. Very high strengths are possible due to the length of the stock being drawn.
There is no practical limit to the length of stock produced by continuous pultrusion [Greene
1999].

2.7.5. Vacuum Bag Molding

Mechanical properties of open-mold laminates can be improved with a vacuum-

assist technique. Entrapped air and excess resin are removed to produce a product with a
higher percentage of fiber reinforcement [Greene 1999].

Figure 2-26 Schematic of the Vacuum Bag Molding Process [Gurit 2013]

A flexible film (PVA or cellophane) is placed over the completed lay-up, its joint
sealed, and a vacuum drawn. A bleeder ply of fiberglass cloth, non-woven nylon, polyester
cloth or other absorbent material is first placed over the laminate. Atmospheric pressure
eliminates voids in the laminate, and forces excel resin and air from the mold. The addition
of pressure further results in high fiber concentration and provides better adhesion between
layers of sandwich construction. When laying non-contoured sheets of PVC foam or balsa
into a female mold, vacuum bagging is the technique of choice to ensure proper secondary
bonding of the core to the outer laminate (see figure 2-26) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are Polyesters, vinyl esters and epoxies [Greene 1999].

Molds are similar to those used for conventional open-mold processes [Greene
1999].

The major Advantages are: Vacuum bag processing can produce laminates with a
uniform degree of consolidation, while at the same time removing entrapped air, thus
reducing the finished void content. Structures fabricated with traditional hand lay-up
techniques can become resin rich, especially in areas where puddles can collect. Vacuum
bagging can eliminate the problem of resin rich laminates. Additionally, complete fiber

47
wet-out can be accomplished when the process is done correctly. Improved core-bonding
is also possible with vacuum bag processing [Greene 1999].

2.7.6. SCRIMP

Figure 2-27 Schematic of SCRIMP [Gurit 2013]

SCRIMP stands for “Seemann Composites Resin Infusion Molding Process.” The
SCRIMP process is performed under a high vacuum, whereby all of the air is removed from
constructed, pre-cut or preformed dry reinforcement materials. After this material is
compacted by atmospheric pressure, a resin matrix is introduced to completely encapsulate
all the materials within the evacuated area. The main difference between SCRIMP and
vacuum-bagged prepreg is that with the SCRIMP method, the fabrics, preforms and cores
are placed in the mold dry, prior to the application of any resin and a high vacuum is used
to both compact the laminate and also to draw and infuse the resin into the composite (see
figure 2-27) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are Polyesters, vinyl esters and epoxies [Gurit 2013].

Molds are similar to those used for conventional open-mold processes [Greene
1999].

The major Advantages are: there a nil void content due to the high vacuum, also the
accurate placement of cores and selective reinforcements is enhanced by the ability to
inspect the orientation of all components of the composite under vacuum without time
constraints Much lower tooling cost due to one half of the tool being a vacuum bag, and
less strength being required in the main tool. In addition, Cored structures can be produced
in one operation [Greene 1999].

48
2.7.7. Autoclave Molding

A pressurized autoclave (effectively a pressurized oven) is used for curing high-

quality components at elevated temperatures under very controlled conditions. A greater
laminate density and faster cure can be accomplished with the use of an autoclave [Greene
1999].

Figure 2-28 A schematic of Autoclave molding process [Gurit 2013]

Most autoclaves are built to operate above 200°F, which will process the 250 to
350°F epoxies used in aerospace applications. The autoclaves are usually pressurized with
nitrogen or carbon dioxide to reduce the fire hazard associated with using shop air. Most
autoclaves operate at 100 psi under computer control systems linked to thermocouples
embedded in the laminates (see figure 2-28) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are mostly epoxies incorporated into prepreg systems and
high-temperature aerospace systems [Greene 1999].

Laminated structures can be fabricated using a variety of open- or close-mold

techniques [Greene 1999].

The major Advantages are: very precise quality control over the curing cycle can be
accomplished with an autoclave. This is especially important for high temperature cure
aerospace resin systems that produce superior mechanical properties. The performance of
these resin systems is very much dependent on the time and temperature variables of the
cure cycle, which is closely controlled during autoclave cure [Greene 1999].

49
2.7.8. Resin Transfer Molding

Resin transfer molding is an intermediate-volume molding process for producing

reinforced plastic parts and a viable alternative to hand lay-up, spray-up and compression
molding [Greene 1999].

Figure 2-29 A Schematic of Resin Transfer Molding Process [Gurit 2013]

Most successful production resin transfer molding (RTM) operations are now based
on the use of resin/catalyst mixing machinery using positive displacement piston-type
pumping equipment to ensure accurate control of resin to catalyst ratio. A constantly
changing back pressure condition exists as resin is forced into a closed tool already
occupied by reinforcement fiber. The basic RTM molding process involves the connection
of a meter, mix and dispense machine to the inlet of the mold. Closing of the mold will give
the predetermined shape with the inlet injection port typically at the lowest point and the
vent ports at the highest (see figure 2-29) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are Polyesters, vinyl esters, polyurethanes, epoxies and nylons
[Greene 1999].

RTM can utilize either “hard” or “soft” tooling for molding, depending upon the
expected duration of the run. Hard tooling is usually machined from aluminum while soft
tooling is made up of a laminated structure, usually epoxy [Greene 1999].

The major Advantages are: the close-mold process produces parts with two finished
surfaces. By laying up reinforcement material dry inside the mold, any combination of
materials and orientation can be used, including 3-D reinforcements. Part thickness is also
not a problem as exotherm can be controlled. Carbon/epoxy structures up to four inches
thick have been fabricated using this technique [Greene 1999].

50
2.7.9. Compression Molding

A high-volume, high-pressure method suitable for molding complex, high-strength

fiberglass-reinforced plastic parts. Fairly large parts can be molded with excellent surface
finish. Thermosetting resins are normally used [Greene 1999].

Figure 2-30 Schematic of the Compression Molding Process [Mazumdar 2002]

Matched molds are mounted in a hydraulic or mechanical molding press. A weighed

charge of sheet or bulk molding compound, or a “preform” or fiberglass mat with resin
added at the press, is placed in the open mold. In the case of preform or mat molding, the
resin may be added either before or after the reinforcement is positioned in the mold,
depending on part configuration. The two halves of the mold are closed, and heat (225 to
320°F) and pressure (150 to 2000 psi) are applied. Depending on thickness, size, and shape
of the part, curing cycles range from less than a minute to about five minutes. The mold is
opened and the finished part is removed. Typical parts include: automobile front ends,
appliance housings and structural components, furniture, electrical components, business
machine housings and parts (see figure 2-30) [Greene 1999].

Usual Resin Systems are Polyesters (combined with fiberglass reinforcement as

bulk or sheet molding compound, preform or mat), general purpose flexible or semi-rigid,
chemical resistant, flame retardant, high heat distortion; also phenolics, melamines,
silicones, dallyl phtalate, and some epoxies [Greene 1999].

Usual Molds are single- or multiple-cavity hardened and chrome plated molds,
usually cored for steam or hot oil heating: sometimes electric heat is used. Side cores,

51
provisions for inserts, and other refinements are often employed. Mold materials include
cast of forged steel, cast iron, and cast aluminum [Greene 1999].

The major Advantages are: highest volume and highest part uniformity of any
thermoset molding method. The process can be automated. Great part design flexibility,
good mechanical and chemical properties obtainable. Inserts and attachments can be
molded in. Superior color and finish are obtainable, contributing to lower part finishing
cost. Subsequent trimming and machining operations are minimized [Greene 1999].

52
 CHAPTER 3 : MECHANICS OF COMPOSITE
MATERIALS
3.1. INTRODUCTION
The mechanics of materials deal with stresses, strains, and deformations in
engineering structures subjected to loads [Mallick 2008]. The physical behavior of
composite materials is quite different from that of most common engineering materials that
are homogeneous and isotropic. Metals will generally have similar composition regardless
of where or in what orientation a sample is taken. On the other hand, the makeup and
physical properties of composites will vary with location and orientation of the principal
axes [Greene 1999]. As a result, the mechanics of fiber-reinforced composites are far more
complex than that of conventional materials [Mallick 2008].

A material is called “homogeneous” if its properties are the same at every point or
are independent of location [Mallick 2008]. In contrast, composite materials are often both
“inhomogeneous” (or “nonhomogeneous” or “heterogeneous” - the three terms can be used
interchangeably) and non-isotropic (orthotropic or, more generally, anisotropic) [Jones
1999].

A material is “anisotropic” when its properties at a point vary with direction or

depend on the orientation of reference axes. If the properties of the material along any
direction are the same as those along a symmetric direction with respect to a plane, then
that plane is defined as a plane of material symmetry. A material may have zero, one, two,
three, or an infinite number of planes of material symmetry through a point. A material
without any planes of symmetry is called general anisotropic (or aeolotropic). At the other
extreme, an isotropic material has an infinite number of planes of symmetry. Of special
relevance to composite materials are “orthotropic” materials (a shortened term for
orthogonally anisotropic [Vinson et al. 2004]), i.e., materials having at least three mutually
perpendicular planes of symmetry (See figure 3-1). The intersections of these planes define
three mutually perpendicular axes, called principal axes of material symmetry or simply
principal material axes [Daniel et al. 1994].

Figure 3-1 Material with Three Planes of Symmetry [Kollar eta al. 2003]

53
 Composite materials can be viewed and analyzed at different levels and on different
scales, depending on the particular characteristics and behavior under consideration [Daniel
et al. 1994]., A schematic diagram of the various levels of consideration and the
corresponding types of analysis is shown in figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2 The Levels of Analysis for a Structure Made of Laminated Composite [Kollar eta al. 2003]

At the constituent level the scale of observation is on the order of the fiber diameter,
particle size, or matrix interstices between reinforcement. “Micromechanics” is the study
of the interactions of the constituents on this microscopic level. It deals with the state of
deformation and stress in the constituents and local failures, such as matrix failure (tensile,
compressive, shear), fiber failure (tensile, buckling, splitting), and interface/interphase
failure (debonding). Micromechanics is particularly important in the study of properties
such as strength, fracture toughness, and fatigue life, which are strongly influenced by local
characteristics that cannot be integrated or averaged. Micromechanics also allows the

54
prediction of average behavior at the lamina level as a function of constituent properties
and local conditions [Kollar eta al. 2003].

At the lamina level it is usually more expeditious to consider the material

homogeneous, albeit anisotropic, and use average properties in the analysis. This type of
analysis is called “Macromechanics” and considers the unidirectional lamina as a quasi
homogeneous anisotropic material with its own average stiffness and strength properties.
Failure criteria may be expressed in terms of average stresses and overall lamina strengths
without reference to any particular local failure mechanisms. This approach is
recommended in the study of the overall elastic or viscoelastic behavior of composite
laminates or structures, which assumes material continuity [Kollar eta al. 2003].

At the laminate level the Macromechanical analysis is applied in the form of

lamination theory dealing with overall behavior as a function of lamina properties and
stacking sequence. Finally, at the component or structure level, methods such as finite
element analysis coupled with lamination theory give the overall behavior of the structure
as well as the state of stress in each lamina [Kollar eta al. 2003].

Use of the two concepts of Macromechanics and Micromechanics allows the

tailoring of a composite material to meet a particular structural requirement with little waste
of material capability. The ability to tailor a composite material to its job is one of the most
significant advantages of a composite material over an ordinary material. Perfect tailoring
of a composite material yields only the stiffness and strength required in each direction (no
more). In contrast, an isotropic material is, by definition, constrained to have excess
strength and stiffness in any direction other than that of the largest required strength or
stiffness [Jones 1999].

3.1.1. Mechanical Response

The inherent anisotropy (most often only orthotropy) of composite materials leads
to mechanical behavior characteristics that are quite different from those of conventional
isotropic materials [Jones 1999]. The behavior of isotropic, orthotropic, and anisotropic
materials under loadings of normal stress and shear stress is shown in figure 3-3 and
discussed in the following paragraphs.

For isotropic materials, application of normal stress causes extension in the direction
of the stress and contraction in the perpendicular directions, but no shearing deformation.
Also, application of shear stress causes only shearing deformation, but no extension or
contraction in any direction [Jones 1999].

For orthotropic materials, like isotropic materials, application of normal stress in a

principal material direction (along one of the intersections of three orthogonal planes of
material symmetry) results in extension in the direction of the stress and contraction
perpendicular to the stress. The magnitude of the extension in one principal material
direction under normal stress in that direction is different from the extension in another
principal material direction under the same normal stress in that other direction. Application
of shear stress causes shearing deformation, but the magnitude of the shearing deformation
is totally independent of the various Young's moduli and Poisson's ratios. That is, the shear

55
modulus of an orthotropic material is, unlike isotropic materials, not dependent on other
material properties [Jones 1999].

Figure 3-3 Mechanical Behavior of Various Materials [Jones 1999]

For anisotropic materials, application of a normal stress leads not only to extension
in the direction of the stress and contraction perpendicular to it, but to shearing deformation.
Conversely, application of shearing stress causes extension and contraction in addition to
the distortion of shearing deformation [Jones 1999].

3.1.2. Coordinate System

Continuous fiber-reinforced composite materials (and structures made of such

materials) often have easily identifiable preferred directions associated with fiber
orientations or symmetry planes. It is therefore convenient to employ two coordinate
systems: a local coordinate system aligned, at a point, either with the fibers or with axes of
symmetry, and a global coordinate system attached to a fixed reference point [Kollar eta al.
2003] (Figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4 The Global x, y, z and Local x1, x2, x3 Coordinate Systems [Kollar eta al. 2003]

56
 The local and global Cartesian coordinate systems are designated respectively by
x1, x2, x3 and the x, y, z axes. In the x, y, z directions the displacements at a point A are
denoted by u, v, w, and in the x1, x2, x3 directions by u1, u2, u3 [Kollar eta al. 2003] (figure
3-5).

Figure 3-5 The x, y, z and x1, x2, x3 Coordinate Systems and the Corresponding Displacements [Kollar
eta al. 2003]

In the x, y, z coordinate system the normal stresses are denoted by σx, σy, and σz and
the shear stresses by τyz, τxz, and τxy (figure 3-6). The corresponding normal and shear strains
are εx, εy, εz and γyz, γxz, γxy, respectively [Kollar eta al. 2003].

Figure 3-6 The Stresses in the Global x, y, z and the Local x1, x2, x3 Coordinate Systems [Kollar eta al.
2003]

57
 In the x1, x2, x3 coordinate system the normal stresses are denoted by σ1, σ2, and σ3
and the shear stresses by τ23, τ13, and τ12 (figure 3-6). The corresponding normal and shear
strains are ε1, ε2, ε3, and γ23, γ13, γ12, respectively. The symbol γ represents engineering shear
strain that is twice the tensorial shear strain, γi j = 2εi j (i, j = x, y, z or i, j = 1, 2, 3) [Kollar
eta al. 2003].

A stress is taken to be positive when it acts on a positive face in the positive

direction. According to this definition, all the stresses shown in figure 3-6 are positive.

The preceding stress and strain notations, referred to as “engineering notations”.

Other notations, most notably tensorial and contracted notations, can frequently be found
in the literature. The stresses and strains in different notations are summarized in Tables 3-
1 and 3-2.

Table 3-1 Stress notations [Kollar eta al. 2003]

Table 3-2 Strain notations [Kollar eta al. 2003]

The angle between the positive x axis and the 1-axis is called the fiber orientation
angle and is represented by Ө. The sign of this angle depends on the right-handed coordinate
system selected. If the z axis is vertically upward to the lamina plane, Ө is positive when
measured counterclockwise from the positive x. In a 0° lamina, the principal material axis

58
1 coincides with the loading axis x, but in a 90° lamina, the principal material axis 1 is at a
90° angle with the loading axis x [Mallick 2008].

3.2. MACROMECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF A LAMINA

A lamina is the basic building block in laminated fiber-reinforced composite
materials. Thus, knowledge of the mechanical behavior of a lamina is essential to the
understanding of laminated fiber-reinforced structures. The macromechanical behavior is
the behavior when only averaged apparent mechanical properties are considered, rather than
the detailed interactions of the constituents of the composite material [Jones 1999].
For small deflections, the linear elastic analysis of anisotropic composite material
structures requires the use of the equilibrium equations, strain-displacement relations, and
compatibility equations, which remain the same whether the structure is composed of an
isotropic material or an anisotropic composite material. However, it is very necessary to
drastically alter the stress-strain relations, also called the constitutive relations, to account
for the anisotropy of the composite material structure. A quantitative understanding of the
virtues of using composite materials in a structure is found through deriving systematically
the anisotropic elasticity tensor matrix [Vinson et al. 2004].

3.2.1. Stress–Strain Relationships

The generalized Hooke's law relating stresses to strains can be written in contracted
notation as [Jones 1999]:

σi = Cij εj i,j = 1, ... ,6 (3.1)

Where σi are the stress components shown on a three-dimensional cube in x, y, and

z coordinates in figure 3-7, Cij is the stiffness matrix, and εj are the strain components.

Figure 3-7 Stresses on an Element [Jones 1999]

59
 The above equation can be written in matrix form where the stiffness matrix is
symmetric and hence has only 21 independent constants. At this point, note that the
stiffnesses and compliances are not described with mnemonic notation, but are
unfortunately reversed in common usage. The stiffness and compliance components will be
referred to as elastic constants [Jones 1999].

Where Sij is the compliance matrix defined by the inverse of the stress strain
relations, namely the strain-stress relations are [Jones 1999]:

εi = Sij σj i,j = 1, ... ,6 (3.2)

In Matrix Form stress strain relations are [Jones 1999]:

𝛔𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝐂𝟏𝟒 𝐂𝟏𝟓 𝐂𝟏𝟔 𝛆𝟏

𝛔𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟐 𝐂𝟐𝟐 𝐂𝟐𝟑 𝐂𝟐𝟒 𝐂𝟐𝟓 𝐂𝟐𝟔 𝛆𝟐
𝛔𝟑 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝐂𝟐𝟑 𝐂𝟑𝟑 𝐂𝟑𝟒 𝐂𝟑𝟓 𝐂𝟑𝟔 𝛆𝟑
𝛕𝟐𝟑 = (3.3)
𝐂𝟏𝟒 𝐂𝟐𝟒 𝐂𝟑𝟒 𝐂𝟒𝟒 𝐂𝟒𝟓 𝐂𝟒𝟔 𝛄𝟐𝟑
𝛕𝟑𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟓 𝐂𝟐𝟓 𝐂𝟑𝟓 𝐂𝟒𝟓 𝐂𝟓𝟓 𝐂𝟓𝟔 𝛄𝟑𝟏
[𝛕𝟏𝟐 ] [𝐂𝟏𝟔 𝐂𝟐𝟔 𝐂𝟑𝟔 𝐂𝟒𝟔 𝐂𝟓𝟔 𝐂𝟔𝟔 ] [𝛄𝟏𝟐 ]
The relations in equation (3.3) are referred to as characterizing anisotropic materials
(anisotropic means without isotropy) because there are no planes of symmetry for the
material properties. An alternative name for such an anisotropic material is a triclinic
material.

Also strain stress relations for anisotropic materials are [Jones 1999]:

𝛆𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝐒𝟏𝟒 𝐒𝟏𝟓 𝐒𝟏𝟔 𝛔𝟏

𝛆𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟐 𝐒𝟐𝟐 𝐒𝟐𝟑 𝐒𝟐𝟒 𝐒𝟐𝟓 𝐒𝟐𝟔 𝛔𝟐
𝛆𝟑 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝐒𝟐𝟑 𝐒𝟑𝟑 𝐒𝟑𝟒 𝐒𝟑𝟓 𝐒𝟑𝟔 𝛔𝟑
= (3.4)
𝛄𝟐𝟑 𝐒𝟏𝟒 𝐒𝟐𝟒 𝐒𝟑𝟒 𝐒𝟒𝟒 𝐒𝟒𝟓 𝐒𝟒𝟔 𝛕𝟐𝟑
𝛄𝟑𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟓 𝐒𝟐𝟓 𝐒𝟑𝟓 𝐒𝟒𝟓 𝐒𝟓𝟓 𝐒𝟓𝟔 𝛕𝟑𝟏
[𝛄𝟏𝟐 ] [𝐒𝟏𝟔 𝐒𝟐𝟔 𝐒𝟑𝟔 𝐒𝟒𝟔 𝐒𝟓𝟔 𝐒𝟔𝟔 ] [𝛕𝟏𝟐 ]
If there is one plane of material property symmetry, the stress-strain and strain-stress
relations reduce to [Jones 1999]:

𝛔𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟏𝟔 𝛆𝟏

𝛔𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟐 𝐂𝟐𝟐 𝐂𝟐𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟐𝟔 𝛆𝟐
𝛔𝟑 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝐂𝟐𝟑 𝐂𝟑𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟑𝟔 𝛆𝟑
𝛕𝟐𝟑 = 𝛄𝟐𝟑 (3.5)
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟒𝟒 𝐂𝟒𝟓 𝟎
𝛕𝟑𝟏 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟒𝟓 𝐂𝟓𝟓 𝟎 𝛄𝟑𝟏
[𝛕𝟏𝟐 ] [𝐂𝟏𝟔 𝐂𝟐𝟔 𝐂𝟑𝟔 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟔𝟔 ] [𝛄𝟏𝟐 ]

60
 𝛆𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟏𝟔 𝛔𝟏
𝛆𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟐 𝐒𝟐𝟐 𝐒𝟐𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟐𝟔 𝛔𝟐
𝛆𝟑 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝐒𝟐𝟑 𝐒𝟑𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟑𝟔 𝛔𝟑
𝛄𝟐𝟑 = 𝛕𝟐𝟑 (3.6)
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟒𝟒 𝐒𝟒𝟓 𝟎
𝛄𝟑𝟏 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟒𝟓 𝐒𝟓𝟓 𝟎 𝛕𝟑𝟏
[𝛄𝟏𝟐 ] [𝐒𝟏𝟔 𝐒𝟐𝟔 𝐒𝟑𝟔 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟔𝟔 ] [𝛕𝟏𝟐 ]
Where the plane of symmetry is z = 0 (or the 1-2 plane). Such a material is termed
monoclinic and has 13 independent elastic constants.

If there are two orthogonal planes of material property symmetry for a material,
symmetry will exist relative to a third mutually orthogonal plane. The stress-strain and
strain-stress relations in coordinates aligned with principal material directions are [Jones
1999]:

𝛔𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛆𝟏

𝛔𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟐 𝐂𝟐𝟐 𝐂𝟐𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛆𝟐
𝛔𝟑 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝐂𝟐𝟑 𝐂𝟑𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛆𝟑
𝛕𝟐𝟑 = 𝛄𝟐𝟑 (3.7)
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟒𝟒 𝟎 𝟎
𝛕𝟑𝟏 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟓𝟓 𝟎 𝛄𝟑𝟏
[𝛕𝟏𝟐 ] [ 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟔𝟔 ] [𝛄𝟏𝟐 ]

𝛆𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛔𝟏

𝛆𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟐 𝐒𝟐𝟐 𝐒𝟐𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛔𝟐
𝛆𝟑 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝐒𝟐𝟑 𝐒𝟑𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛔𝟑
𝛄𝟐𝟑 = 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟒𝟒 𝟎 𝟎 𝛕𝟐𝟑 (3.8)
𝛄𝟑𝟏 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟓𝟓 𝟎 𝛕𝟑𝟏
[𝛄𝟏𝟐 ] [ 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟔𝟔 ] [𝛕𝟏𝟐 ]

And are said to define an “orthotropic” material. Note that there is no interaction
between normal stresses σ1, σ2, σ3 and shearing strains γ23, γ31, γ12 such as occurs in
anisotropic materials. Similarly, there is no interaction between shearing stresses and
normal strains as well as none between shearing stresses and shearing strains in different
planes. Note also that there are now only nine independent constants in the stiffness matrix
[Jones 1999].

If at every point of a material there is one plane in which the mechanical properties
are equal in all directions, then the material is called transversely isotropic. If, for example,
the 1-2 plane is the plane of isotropy, then the 1 and 2 subscripts on the stiffnesses are
interchangeable. The stress-strain relations have only five independent constants [Jones
1999]:

61
 𝛔𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛆𝟏
𝛔𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟐 𝐂𝟏𝟏 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛆𝟐
𝛔𝟑 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝐂𝟏𝟑 𝐂𝟑𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛆𝟑
𝛕𝟐𝟑 = 𝛄𝟐𝟑 (3.9)
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟒𝟒 𝟎 𝟎
𝛕𝟑𝟏 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐂𝟒𝟒 𝟎 𝛄𝟑𝟏
[𝛕𝟏𝟐 ] [ 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 (𝐂𝟏𝟏 − 𝑪𝟏𝟐 )/𝟐] [𝛄𝟏𝟐 ]
𝛆𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛔𝟏
𝛆𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟐 𝐒𝟏𝟏 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛔𝟐
𝛆𝟑 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝐒𝟏𝟑 𝐒𝟑𝟑 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝛔𝟑
𝛄𝟐𝟑 = 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟒𝟒 𝟎 𝟎 𝛕𝟐𝟑 (3.10)
𝛄𝟑𝟏 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝐒𝟒𝟒 𝟎 𝛕𝟑𝟏
[𝛄𝟏𝟐 ] [ 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 (𝐒𝟏𝟏 − 𝑪𝟏𝟐 )/𝟐] [𝛕𝟏𝟐 ]

3.2.2. Engineering Constants for Orthotropic Materials

Engineering constants (sometimes known as technical constants) are generalized

Young's moduli, Poisson's ratios, and shear moduli. These constants are measured in simple
tests such as uniaxial tension or pure shear tests. Thus, these constants with their obvious
physical interpretation have more direct meaning than the components of the relatively
abstract compliance and stiffness matrices [Jones 1999].

The engineering constants are generally the slope of a stress-strain curve (e.g., E =
σ / ε) or the slope of a strain-strain curve (e.g., ν = - εy / εx for σx = σ and all other stresses
are zero). Thus, the components of the compliance (Sij) matrix are determined more directly
than those of the stiffness (Cij) matrix. For an orthotropic material, the compliance matrix
components in terms of the engineering constants are [Jones 1999]:
𝟏 −𝝂𝟐𝟏 −𝝂𝟑𝟏
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎
𝑬𝟏 𝑬𝟐 𝑬𝟑
−𝝂𝟏𝟐 𝟏 −𝝂𝟑𝟐
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎
𝑬𝟏 𝑬𝟐 𝑬𝟑
−𝝂𝟏𝟑 −𝝂𝟐𝟑 𝟏
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎
𝑬𝟏 𝑬𝟐 𝑬𝟑
[𝑺𝒊𝒋 ] = 𝟏 (3.11)
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎
𝑮𝟐𝟑
𝟏
𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎
𝑮𝟑𝟏
𝟏
[ 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎 𝟎
𝑮𝟏𝟐 ]

Where,

E1, E2, E3 = Young's (extension) moduli in the 1-, 2-, and 3-directions.

62
 νij = Poisson's ratio (extension-extension coupling coefficient), i.e., the negative of
the transverse strain in the j-direction over the strain in the j-direction when stress is applied
in the i-direction, for σi = σ and all other stresses are zero.

G23, G31, G12 =shear moduli in the 2-3, 3-1, and 1-2 planes.

Because the stiffness and compliance matrices are mutually inverse, it follows by
matrix algebra that their components are related as follows for orthotropic materials [Jones
1999]:

𝑆22 𝑆33 −𝑆 2 23 𝑆13 𝑆23 −𝑆12 𝑆33 𝑆12 𝑆23 −𝑆13 𝑆22
𝐶11 = 𝐶12 = 𝐶13 =
𝑆 𝑆 𝑆

𝑆33 𝑆11 −𝑆 2 13 𝑆12 𝑆13 −𝑆23 𝑆11 𝑆11 𝑆22 −𝑆 2 12

𝐶22 = 𝐶23 = 𝐶33 =
𝑆 𝑆 𝑆

1 1 1
𝐶44 = 𝐶55 = 𝐶66 = (3.12)
𝑆44 𝑆55 𝑆66

Where

𝑆 = 𝑆11 𝑆22 𝑆33 − 𝑆11 𝑆23 2 − 𝑆22 𝑆13 2 − 𝑆33 𝑆12 2 + 2𝑆12 𝑆23 𝑆13 (3.13)
In Equation (3.12), the symbols C and S can be interchanged everywhere to provide
the converse relationship. The stiffness matrix, Cjj for an orthotropic material in terms of
the engineering constants is obtained by inversion of the compliance matrix Sij in equation
(3.11) or by substitution in equations (3.12 and 3.13) [Jones 1999].

The nonzero stiffnesses in equation (3.7) are:

1−𝜈23 𝜈32 1−𝜈13 𝜈31
𝐶11 = 𝐶22 =
𝐸2 𝐸3 𝛥 𝐸1 𝐸3 𝛥

𝜈21 −𝜈31 𝜈23 𝜈12 −𝜈32 𝜈13 𝜈32 −𝜈12 𝜈31 𝜈23 −𝜈21 𝜈13
𝐶12 = = 𝐶23 = =
𝐸2 𝐸3 𝛥 𝐸1 𝐸3 𝛥 𝐸1 𝐸3 𝛥 𝐸1 𝐸2 𝛥

𝜈31 −𝜈21 𝜈32 𝜈13 −𝜈12 𝜈23 1−𝜈21 𝜈21

𝐶13 = = 𝐶33 =
𝐸2 𝐸3 𝛥 𝐸1 𝐸2 𝛥 𝐸1 𝐸2 𝛥

𝐶44 = 𝐺23 𝐶55 = 𝐺31 𝐶66 = 𝐺12 (3.14)

Where
1−𝜈12 𝜈21 −𝜈23 𝜈32 −𝜈31 𝜈13 −2𝜈21 𝜈32 𝜈13
𝛥= (3.15)
𝐸1 𝐸2 𝐸3

63
3.2.3. Strength Criteria for an Orthotropic Lamina

Failure of fiber-reinforced composites may be caused by fiber buckling, fiber

breakage, matrix cracking, delamination, or by a combination of these factors [Kollar 2003]
(Figure 3-8).

Figure 3-8 Typical Failure Modes of Composites [Kollar 2003]

Designers would be well served by mechanism-based (physical) theories that would

indicate the load at which failure occurs as well as the mode of failure. Although such
theories have been proposed none is as yet at the stage where it could be applied in practical
engineering design. Instead, frequently, ply–stress based failure theories are used [Kollar
2003].

Here, we present three failure criteria for composites based on the aforementioned
concept: the maximum stress, the maximum strain, and the quadratic failure criteria. These
criteria offer results that are sufficiently accurate for many (but by no means all) problems
of practical interest. For this reason, in spite of their shortcomings, they are relevant to the
engineer. Nonetheless, the reader is warned to be aware of the following significant limits
of the criteria listed above [Kollar 2003]:

 Each criterion provides only the load at which first-ply failure occurs, that is, the
load at which the linear load-displacement curve first changes (figure 3-9). Under
the load set that causes first-ply failure, the laminate does not necessarily fail
because other undamaged plies can still carry load. As the applied loads are
increased beyond those at which first-ply failure occurs, there will be a sequence of
ply failures until the load set is reached at which every ply has failed. The loads at
ultimate failure may be considerably higher than at first-ply failure. Therefore,
criteria based on first-ply failure are conservative.

64
 Figure 3-9 Load-Displacement Curve of a Composite Part [Kollar 2003]

 None of the criteria sheds light on the failure mechanism or indicates the mode of
failure.
 None of the criteria provides acceptable results for every condition of practical
interest.
 Each criterion requires data, some of which are difficult to measure.
 Each criterion applies in regions inside the composite away from discontinuities
such as holes, cracks, and edges.

The final goal of a failure criterion envelope that is in agreement with an actual
strength envelope would readily enable designing structural elements made with composite
materials [Jones 1999].

3.2.3.1. “Maximum Stress” Failure Criterion

Frequently, for orthotropic materials and for transversely isotropic materials under
plane-stress condition, a so-called “maximum stress” criterion is used. In applying this
criterion we use the x1, x2, x3 coordinate system aligned with the direction of orthotropy
(figure 3-6). The normal stresses in the x1, x2, x3 directions and the shear stresses in the x1–
x2, x3–x1, x2–x3 planes are compared with the corresponding strengths. Failure does not
occur if none of the stresses exceeds the strengths [Jones 1999].

For an orthotropic material, no failure occurs when all of the following conditions
are met [Jones 1999]:

𝑆1− < σ1 < 𝑆1+ |𝜏23 | < 𝑆23

𝑆2− < σ2 < 𝑆2+ |𝜏13 | < 𝑆13

𝑺− +
𝟑 < 𝛔𝟑 < 𝑺𝟑 |𝝉𝟏𝟐 | < 𝑺𝟏𝟐 (3.16)

Where S+i and S−i are the tensile and compressive strengths in the i
direction and S+i j are the shear strengths in the i j (i, j = 1, 2, 3) plane.

65
 Two important points are to be made here as follows [Jones 1999]:

1. The “maximum stress” criterion differs from the quadratic failure criterion.
2. The “maximum stress” failure criterion for composites differs from the maximum
(normal or shear) stress criterion used for isotropic materials. The reason is that for
isotropic materials the maximum (normal or shear) stress failure criterion is based
on the maximum values of the stresses at a point. On the other hand, for composite
materials the “maximum stress” failure criterion is based on the stress components
in the orthotropy directions where the stresses are not necessarily the highest.

Despite the aforementioned shortcomings, the maximum stress criterion for

composites has the advantage that it does not require knowledge of the interaction strength
parameters [Jones 1999].

3.2.3.2. “Maximum Strain” Failure Criterion

Frequently, for orthotropic materials and for transversely isotropic materials under plane-
stress condition, a so-called maximum strain criterion is used. In applying this criterion we
use the x1, x2, x3 coordinate system aligned with the direction of orthotropy (Figure 3-6).
The normal stresses in the x1, x2, x3 directions and the shear stresses in the x1–x2, x3–x1, x2–
x3 planes are compared with the corresponding maximum allowable strains. Failure does
not occur if none of the strains exceeds the allowable strains [Jones 1999].

For an orthotropic material, no failure occurs when all of the following conditions are met
[Jones 1999]:

𝜂1− < ϵ1 < 𝜂1+ |𝛾23 | < 𝜂23

𝜂2− < ϵ2 < 𝜂2+ |𝛾13 | < 𝜂13

𝜼− +
𝟑 < 𝛜𝟑 < 𝜼𝟑 |𝜸𝟏𝟐 | < 𝜼𝟏𝟐 (3.17)

Where η+i and η−i are the allowable tensile and compressive strains in the xi direction, and
η+ij are the allowable shear strains in the xi–xj (i, j = 1, 2, 3) planes.

In general, the strain components above do not necessarily correspond to the maximum
strain at the point. Therefore, this is not a true maximum strain failure criterion and is not
equivalent to the maximum strain failure criterion for isotropic materials, where failure is
based on the maximum value of the strain components at the point [Jones 1999].

3.2.3.3. Quadratic Failure Criterion

The quadratic failure criterion includes stresses up to the second power. The
quadratic failure criterion states that no failure occurs when the inequality below is satisfied.

66
This criterion and some of its simplified forms are variously referred to as Tsai-Wu, Hill,
or Tsai–Hill failure criterion [Jones 1999].

For an orthotropic material the quadratic failure criterion becomes [Jones 1999]:

F1 σ1+F2 σ2+F3 σ3+F11 σ12+ F22 σ22+ F33 σ32+ F44 τ232+ F55 τ132+ F66
τ122+2(F12 σ1 σ2+ F13 σ1 σ3+ F23 σ2 σ3) < 1. (3.18)

where σ1, σ2, . . . , τ12 are the components (in the x1, x2, x3 coordinate system) of the
stress at the point of interest, that is, the stress that results from the applied loads, and the
F’s are strength parameters that depend on the material. No failure occurs when the left-
hand side of Eq. (18) is less then unity. This means that the resultant stress is inside the
failure surface. The strength parameters must be determined by tests [Jones 1999].

3.3. MICROMECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF A LAMINA

Micromechanics is used to estimate the mechanical and hygrothermal properties of
composite materials from the known values of the properties of the fiber and the matrix
[Kollar 2003].

It is not our intent to discuss the numerous available models. Instead, we focus on
the “rule of mixtures” which is the simplest and most intuitive approach and is useful for
introducing concepts.

The key feature of the mechanics of materials approach is that certain simplifying
assumptions must be made regarding the mechanical behavior of a composite material in
order to get an effective solution. The derivation of micromechanics equations is based on
the assumption that [Jones 1999]:

 The ply and its constituents behave linearly elastic until fracture.
 Bonding is complete between fiber and matrix.
 Fracture occurs in one of the following modes:
 Longitudinal tension.
 Fiber compression
 Delamination
 Fiber microbuckling
 Transverse tension
 Intralaminar shear.

The objective of all micromechanics approaches is to determine the elastic moduli

or stiffnesses or compliances of a composite material in terms of the elastic moduli of the
constituent materials. For example, the elastic moduli of a fiber-reinforced composite
material must be determined in terms of the properties of the fibers and the matrix and in
terms of the relative volumes of fibers and matrix [Jones 1999].

For the representative volume of a lamina as shown in figure 3-10, the following
equations describe the basic geometric relationships of composite micromechanics [Greene
1999]:

67
 Figure 3-10 Representative Volume Element Loaded in the 1-Direction [Jones 1999]

ρ, ρf, ρm are the densities of the composite, fibers and matrix.

V, Vf, V m are the volumes of the composite, fibers and matrix.

ρ = ρf Vf + ρm Vm (3.19)

Kf = Vf / V the volume fraction of the fibers. (3.20)

Km = Vm / V the volume fraction of the matrix. (3.21)

Noting that Kf + Km = 1

3.3.1. Elastic Properties

When an orthotropic material is in a plane stress state the relationships between the
stresses and strains involve the four elastic constants E1, E2, ν12 and G12. In addition to these
coefficients, when considering thermo-elasticity the coefficients of thermal expansion α1
and α2 are also required [Decolon 2002].

The equations for relating elastic properties are given below [Decolon 2002].
Properties in the 3-axis direction are the same as the 2-axis direction because the ply is
assumed transversely isotropic in the 2-3 plane.

𝐸1 = 𝐾𝑓 𝐸𝑓 + 𝐾𝑚 𝐸𝑚 (3.22)

𝐸𝑓 𝐸𝑚
𝐸2 = (3.23)
𝐾𝑚 𝐸𝑓 + 𝐾𝑓 𝐸𝑚

𝜈12 = 𝐾𝑓 𝜈𝑓 + 𝐾𝑚 𝐸𝜈𝑚 = 𝜈13 (3.24)

Where νf, νm are Poisson's ratios of the fibers and Matrix.

68
 𝐺𝑓 𝐺𝑚
𝐺12 = (3.25)
𝐾𝑚 𝐺𝑓 + 𝐾𝑓 𝐺𝑚

𝐾𝑓 𝛼𝑓 𝐸𝑓 + 𝐾𝑚 𝛼𝑚 𝐸𝑚
𝛼1 = (3.26)
𝐾𝑓 𝐸𝑓 + 𝐾𝑚 𝐸𝑚

Where αf, αm are thermal expansion coefficient of the fibers and Matrix.
𝜈𝑚 𝐸𝑓 + 𝜈𝑓 𝐸𝑚
𝛼2 = 𝐾𝑓 𝛼𝑓 + 𝐾𝑚 𝛼𝑚 + 𝐸𝑓 𝐸
(3.27)
+ 𝑚
𝐾𝑚 𝐾𝑓

3.3.2. Lamina Strength

Prediction of the strength of fiber-reinforced composite materials has not achieved

the near-esoteric levels of the stiffness predictions studied in the preceding sections.
Nevertheless, there are many interesting physical models for the strength characteristics of
a matrix reinforced by fibers. Most of the models represent a very high degree of integration
of physical observation with the mechanical description of a phenomenon [Jones 1999].

The equations for approximating composite strength properties are based on the
fracture mechanisms outlined above under micromechanics geometry. Three of the fracture
modes fall under the heading of longitudinal compression. It should be emphasized that
prediction of material strength properties is currently beyond the scope of simplified
mathematical theory. The following approximations are presented to give insight into
which physical properties dominate particular failure modes [Greene 1999].

Approximate longitudinal tension:

𝑆11𝑇 = 𝐾𝑓 𝑆𝑓𝑡 (3.28)

Approximate fiber compression:

𝑆11𝐶 = 𝐾𝑓 𝑆𝑓𝑐 (3.29)

Approximate transverse tension:

𝐸𝑚
𝑆22𝑇 = [1 − (√𝐾𝑓 − 𝐾𝑓 ) (1 − )] 𝑆𝑚𝑡 (3.30)
𝐸𝑓

Approximate transverse compression:

𝐸𝑚
𝑆22𝐶 = [1 − (√𝐾𝑓 − 𝐾𝑓 ) (1 − )] 𝑆𝑚𝑐 (3.31)
𝐸𝑓

Approximate intralaminar shear:

𝐺𝑚
𝑆12𝑆 = [1 − (√𝐾𝑓 − 𝐾𝑓 ) (1 − )] 𝑆𝑚𝑠 (3.32)
𝐺𝑓

69
 Where S stands for strength and subscripts t, c and s stand for tension, compression
and shear respectively.

3.4. MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF A LAMINATE

A laminate is two or more laminae bonded together to act as an integral structural
element (see, for example, Figure 3-11).

Figure 3-11 The Basic Questions of Laminate Analysis

The two basic questions of laminate analysis are:

1. What are the conditions that the laminae must meet to be a laminate?
2. How will a laminate respond to loading, i.e., imposed forces and moments?

The various laminae are oriented with (local) principal material directions at
different angles to the global laminate axes to produce a structural element capable of
resisting load in several directions. The stiffnesses and strengths of such a composite
material structural configuration are obtained from the properties of the constituent laminae
by procedures derived in this section. Those procedures enable the analysis of laminates
that have individual laminae with principal material directions oriented at arbitrary angles
to the chosen or natural axes of the laminate. As a consequence of the arbitrary laminae
orientations, the laminate might not have definable principal directions.

The reason laminae are combined to create a laminate is to achieve the largest
possible bending stiffness for the materials used.

The fundamental analysis of a laminate can be explained, in principle, by use of a

simple two-layered cross-ply laminate (a layer with fibers at 0° to the x-direction on top of
an equal-thickness layer with fibers at 90° to the x-direction).

Imagine that the layers are separate but are subjected to a load Nx in the x-direction.
The force Nx is divided between the two layers such that the x-direction deformation of

70
each layer is identical. That is, the laminae in a laminate must deform alike along the
interface between the layers or else fracture must exist. Accordingly, deformation
compatibility of layers is a requirement for a laminate.

3.4.1. Classical Lamination Theory

Classical lamination theory consists of a collection of mechanics of materials type

of stress and deformation hypotheses that are described in this section. By use of this theory,
we can consistently proceed directly from the basic building block, the lamina, to the end
result, a structural laminate [Jones 1999].

Because of the stress and deformation hypotheses that are an inseparable part of
classical lamination theory, a more correct name would be “classical thin lamination
theory”, or even “classical laminated plate theory”. We will use the common term classical
lamination theory, but recognize that it is a convenient oversimplification of the rigorous
nomenclature. In the composite materials literature, classical lamination theory is often
abbreviated as CLT [Jones 1999].

First, the stress-strain behavior of an individual lamina is expressed in equation form

for the kth lamina of a laminate. Then, the variations of stress and strain through the
thickness of the laminate are determined. Finally, the relation of the laminate forces and
moments to the strains and curvatures is found where the laminate stiffnesses are the link
from the forces and moments to the strains and curvatures.

3.4.1.1. Lamina Stress-Strain Behavior

The stress-strain relations in principal material coordinates for a lamina of an

orthotropic material under plane stress are [Jones 1999]:

𝛔𝟏 𝐐𝟏𝟏 𝐐𝟏𝟐 𝟎 𝛆𝟏
[ 𝛔𝟐 ] = [𝐐𝟏𝟐 𝐐𝟐𝟐 𝟎 ] [ 𝛆𝟐 ] (3.33)
𝛕𝟏𝟐 𝟎 𝟎 𝐐𝟔𝟔 𝛄𝟏𝟐
Or, in terms of engineering constants,

𝐸1 𝐸2
𝑄11 = 𝑄22 =
1 − 𝜈12 𝜈21 1 − 𝜈12 𝜈21
𝜈12 𝐸2 𝜈21 𝐸1
𝑄12 = = 𝑄66 = 𝐺12 (3.34)
1− 𝜈12 𝜈21 1− 𝜈12 𝜈21

In any other coordinate system in the plane of the lamina, the stresses are [Jones
1999]:

𝛔𝐱 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟏𝟏 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟏𝟐 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟏𝟔 𝛆𝐱
[ 𝛔𝒚 ] = [̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟏𝟐 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟐𝟐 𝐐𝟐𝟔 ] [ 𝛆𝐲 ]
̅̅̅̅̅ (3.35)
𝛕𝒙𝒚 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟏𝟔 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟐𝟔 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟔𝟔 𝛄𝐱𝐲

71
 Where the transformed reduced stiffnesses, Qij are given in terms of the reduced
stiffnesses [Jones 1999]

̅̅̅̅̅
Q 4 2 2 4
11 = Q11 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃 + 2(Q12 + 2Q 66 )𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃 + 𝑄22 𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃

̅̅̅̅̅
Q 2 2 4 4
12 = (Q11 + Q 22 − 4 Q 𝟔𝟔 ) 𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃 + Q12 (𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 + 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃)

̅̅̅̅̅
Q22 = Q11 𝑆𝑖𝑛4 𝜃 + 2(Q12 + 2Q66 )𝑆𝑖𝑛2 𝜃 𝐶𝑜𝑠 2 𝜃 + 𝑄22 𝐶𝑜𝑠 4 𝜃
̅̅̅̅̅
Q 3
16 = (Q11 − Q12 − 2Q 𝟔𝟔 ) 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜃𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃 + (Q12 − Q 22
+ 2Q𝟔𝟔 )𝑆𝑖𝑛3 𝜃𝐶𝑜𝑠𝜃
̅̅̅̅̅
Q26 = (Q11 − Q12 − 2Q𝟔𝟔 ) 𝑆𝑖𝑛3 𝜃𝐶𝑜𝑠𝜃 + (Q12 − Q22
+ 2Q𝟔𝟔 )𝑆𝑖𝑛𝜃𝐶𝑜𝑠 3 𝜃
̅̅̅̅̅
Q66 = (Q11 + Q22 − 2Q𝟏𝟐 − 2Q𝟔𝟔 ) 𝑆𝑖𝑛2 𝜃𝐶𝑜𝑠 2 𝜃 + Q𝟔𝟔 (𝑆𝑖𝑛4 +
𝐶𝑜𝑠 4 𝜃) (3.36)

The stress-strain relations in arbitrary in-plane coordinates are useful in the

definition of the laminate stiffnesses because of the arbitrary orientation of the constituent
laminae. Both Equations (3.34) and (3.35) can be thought of as stress-strain relations for
the kth layer of a multilayered laminate. Thus, Equation (3.35) can be written as [Jones
1999]:

̅ ]k {ε}k
{𝛔}k = [𝐐 (3.37)

3.4.1.2. Strain and Stress Variation in a Laminate

Knowledge of the variation of stress and strain through the laminate thickness is
essential to the definition of the extensional and bending stiffnesses of a laminate. The
laminate is presumed to consist of perfectly bonded laminae. Moreover, the bonds are
presumed to be infinitesimally thin as well as non-shear-deformable. That is, the
displacements are continuous across lamina boundaries so that no lamina can slip relative
to another. Thus, the laminate acts as a single layer with very special properties that later
we will see constitute a structural element [Jones 1999].

Accordingly, if the laminate is thin, a line originally straight and perpendicular to

the middle surface of the laminate, i.e., a normal to the middle surface, is assumed to remain
straight and perpendicular to the middle surface when the laminate is deformed, e.g., bent,
extended, contracted, sheared, or twisted. Requiring the normal to the middle surface to
remain straight and normal under deformation is equivalent to ignoring the shearing strains
in planes perpendicular to the middle surface, that is, γxz = γyz = 0 where z is the direction
of the normal to the middle surface in Figure 3-12 (note that γxz and γyz are the angles that
a deformed normal would make with the deformed middle surface). In addition, the normals
are presumed to have constant length so that the strain perpendicular to the middle surface
is ignored as well, that is, εz = 0 [Jones 1999].

72
 The foregoing collection of assumptions of the behavior of the single layer that
represents the laminate constitutes the familiar Kirchhoff hypothesis for plates and the
Kirchhoff-Love hypothesis for shells [Jones 1999].

Figure 3-12 Geometry of Deformation in the x-z Plane [Jones 1999]

The implications of the Kirchhoff hypothesis on the laminate displacements u, v,

and w in the x, y, and z directions are derived by use of the laminate cross section in the x-
z plane shown in figure 3-13. The displacement in the x-direction of point B from the
undeformed middle surface to the deformed middle surface is Uo (the symbol 'nought' (o)
is used to designate middle-surface values of a variable) [Jones 1999].

The laminate strains have been reduced to εx, εy, and γxy by virtue of the Kirchhoff
hypothesis. That is, εz = γxz = γyz = 0. For small strains (linear elasticity), the remaining
strains are defined in terms of displacements as [Jones 1999]:
𝐨
𝛆𝐱 𝛆𝐱 𝐤𝐱
𝐨
[ 𝛆𝐲 ] = [ 𝛆𝐲 ] + z [ 𝐤 𝐲 ] (3.38)
𝛄𝐱𝐲 𝐨
𝛄𝐱𝐲 𝐤 𝐱𝐲
Where the middle-surface strains are
𝛛𝐮𝐨
𝐨
𝛆𝐱 𝛛𝐱
𝐨 𝛛𝐯𝐨
[ 𝛆𝐲 ] = 𝛛𝐲
(3.39)
𝐨
𝛄𝐱𝐲 𝛛𝐮𝐨 𝛛𝐯𝐨
[ 𝛛𝐲 +
𝛛𝐱 ]

73
 and the middle-surface curvatures are

∂2 wo
kx ∂x2
∂2 wo
[ ky ] = ∂y2
(3.40)
k xy ∂2 wo
[2 ∂x ∂y]

By substitution of the strain variation through the thickness, Equation (3.38), in the
stress-strain relations, Equation (3.37), the stresses in the kth layer can be expressed in terms
of the laminate middle-surface strains and curvatures as [Jones 1999]:
𝛔𝐱 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐 𝟏𝟏
̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟏𝟐 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟏𝟔 𝛆𝐱
𝐨
𝐤𝐱
𝐨
𝛔 ̅̅̅̅̅
[ 𝐲 ] = [𝐐𝟏𝟐 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟐𝟐 𝐐𝟐𝟔 ] [[ 𝛆𝐲 ] + 𝐳 [ 𝐤 𝐲 ]]
̅̅̅̅̅ (3.41)
𝛕𝐱𝐲 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟏𝟔 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟐𝟔 ̅̅̅̅̅
𝐐𝟔𝟔
𝐨
𝛄𝐱𝐲 𝐤 𝐱𝐲
𝐤 𝐤

The θij can be different for each layer of the laminate, so the stress variation through
the laminate thickness is not necessarily linear, even though the strain variation is linear.
Instead, typical strain and stress variations are shown in Figure 3-13 where the stresses are
piecewise linear (I.e., linear in each layer, but discontinuous at boundaries between
laminae) [Jones 1999].

Figure 3-13 Hypothetical Variation of Strain and Stress through the Laminate Thickness [Jones 1999]

3.4.1.3. Resultant Laminate Forces and Moments

The resultant forces and moments acting on a laminate are obtained by integration
of the stresses in each layer or lamina through the laminate thickness, for instance [Jones
1999]:

𝒕⁄𝟐
𝑵𝑿 = ∫−𝒕⁄𝟐 𝝈𝒙 𝒛 𝒅𝒛 (3.42)

Note in figure 3-13 that the stresses vary within each lamina as well as from lamina
to lamina, so the integration is not trivial. Actually, Nx is a force per unit width of the cross
section of the laminate as shown in figure 3-14.

74
 Figure 3-14 In-Plane Forces on a Flat Laminate [Jones 1999]

Similarly, Mx is a moment per unit width as shown in figure 3-14. However, Nx,
etc., and Mx' etc., will be referred to as forces and moments with the stipulation of 'per unit
width' being dropped for convenience. The entire collection of force and moment resultants
for an N-layered laminate is depicted in figures 3-14 and 3-15 and is defined as [Jones
1999]:

Figure 3-15 Moments on a Flat Laminate

𝑵𝒙 𝝈𝒙 𝝈𝒙
𝒕⁄𝟐 𝒁
[ 𝑵𝒚 ] = ∫−𝒕⁄𝟐 [ 𝝈𝒚 ] 𝒅𝒛 = ∑𝑵 𝒌 𝝈
𝒌 = 𝟏 ∫𝒛𝒌−𝟏 [ 𝒚 ] 𝒅𝒛 (3.43)
𝑵𝒙𝒚 𝝉𝒙𝒚 𝝉𝒙𝒚
𝒌

and

𝑴𝒙 𝝈𝒙 𝝈𝒙
𝒕⁄𝟐 𝒁
[ 𝑴𝒚 ] = ∫−𝒕⁄𝟐 [ 𝝈𝒚 ] 𝒛 𝒅𝒛 = ∑𝑵 𝒌 𝝈
𝒌 = 𝟏 ∫𝒛𝒌−𝟏 [ 𝒚 ] 𝒛 𝒅𝒛 (3.44)
𝑴𝒙𝒚 𝝉𝒙𝒚 𝝉𝒙𝒚
𝒌

Where zk and zk-1 are defined in the basic laminate geometry of Figure 3-16.

75
 Figure 3-16 Geometry of an N-Layered Laminate [Jones 1999]

Equations (3.43) and (3.44) can be written as [Jones 1999]:

𝐨
𝑵𝒙 𝑨𝟏𝟏 𝑨𝟏𝟐 𝑨𝟏𝟔 𝛆𝐱 𝑩𝟏𝟏 𝑩𝟏𝟐 𝑩𝟏𝟔 𝐤 𝐱
𝐨
𝑵
[ 𝒚 ] = [𝑨𝟏𝟐 𝑨𝟐𝟐 𝑨𝟐𝟔 ] [ 𝐲 ] + [𝑩𝟏𝟐
𝛆 𝑩𝟐𝟐 𝑩𝟐𝟔 ] [ 𝐤 𝐲 ] (3.45)
𝑵𝒙𝒚 𝑨𝟏𝟔 𝑨𝟐𝟔 𝑨𝟔𝟔 𝛄𝐨𝐱𝐲 𝑩𝟏𝟔 𝑩𝟐𝟔 𝑩𝟔𝟔 𝐤 𝐱𝐲
𝐨
𝑴𝒙 𝑩𝟏𝟏 𝑩𝟏𝟐 𝑩𝟏𝟔 𝛆𝐱 𝑫𝟏𝟏 𝑫𝟏𝟐 𝑫𝟏𝟔 𝐤 𝐱
𝐨
[ 𝑴𝒚 ] = [𝑩𝟏𝟐 𝑩𝟐𝟐 𝑩𝟐𝟔 ] [ 𝛆𝐲 ] + [𝑫𝟏𝟐 𝑫𝟐𝟐 𝑫𝟐𝟔 ] [ 𝐤 𝐲 ] (3.46)
𝑴𝒙𝒚 𝑩𝟏𝟔 𝑩𝟐𝟔 𝑩𝟔𝟔 𝛄𝐨𝐱𝐲 𝑫𝟏𝟔 𝑫𝟐𝟔 𝑫𝟔𝟔 𝐤 𝐱𝐲

Where,
𝑁

𝐴𝑖𝑗 = ∑ (𝑄̅𝑖𝑗 )𝐾 (𝑍𝐾 − 𝑍𝐾−1 )

𝑘=1

𝑁
1
𝐵𝑖𝑗 = ∑ (𝑄̅𝑖𝑗 )𝐾 (𝑍𝐾2 − 𝑍𝐾−1
2
)
2
𝑘=1

𝑁
1
𝐷𝑖𝑗 = ∑ (𝑄̅𝑖𝑗 )𝐾 (𝑍𝐾3 − 𝑍𝐾−1
3
) (3.47)
3
𝑘=1

In equations (3.45), (46), and (3.47), the Aij are extensional stiffnesses, the Bij are
bending-extension coupling stiffnesses, and the Dij are bending stiffnesses.

76
 In conclusion, classical lamination theory enables us to calculate forces and
moments if we know the strains and curvatures of the middle surface (or vice versa). Then,
we can calculate the laminae stresses in laminate coordinates. Next, we can transform the
laminae stresses from laminate coordinates to lamina principal material directions. Finally,
we would expect to apply a failure criterion to each lamina in its own principal material
directions [Jones 1999].

3.4.2. Strength of Laminates

All strength criteria for composite laminates depend on the strengths in the laminae
principal material directions, which likely do not coincide with laminae principal stress
directions. Therefore, the strength of each lamina in a laminate must be assessed in a
coordinate system that is likely different from those of its neighboring laminae. This
coordinate mismatch is but one of the complications that characterizes even a macroscopic
strength criterion for laminates. The main factors or elements that are peculiar to laminate
strength analysis are shown in several categories in figure 3-17. There, the cure and use
conditions affect the state of the material that is used in the laminate. For example, the
difference between the stress-free, elevated-temperature, curing temperature and the service
temperature causes thermal or residual stresses. Similarly, the difference between curing
moisture content and service moisture content causes moisture stresses as does the
difference between moisture contents at any two different times. Moisture diffuses
throughout epoxy matrix materials at a far slower rate (months) than temperature (minutes).
In some cases, the history of environmental effects such as temperature and moisture must
be considered [Jones 1999].

Figure 3-17 Laminate Strength-Analysis Elements [Jones 1999]

The analysis of stresses in the laminae of a laminate is a straightforward, but

sometimes tedious, task. The stresses were seen to be a linear function of the applied loads

77
if the laminae exhibit linear elastic behavior. Thus, a single stress analysis suffices to
determine the stress field that causes failure of an individual lamina. That is, if all laminae
stresses are known, then the stresses in each lamina can be compared with the lamina failure
criterion and uniformly scaled upward to determine the load at which failure occurs [Jones
1999].

The overall procedure of laminate-strength analysis, which simultaneously results

in the laminate load-deformation behavior, is shown schematically in figure 3-18.

Figure 3-18 Analysis of Laminate Strength and Load-Deformation Behavior [Jones 1999]

There, load is taken to mean both forces and moments; similarly, deformations are
meant to include both strains and curvatures. The analysis is composed of two different
approaches that depend on whether any laminae have failed. If no laminae have failed, the
load must be determined at which the first lamina fails (so-called first-ply failure), that is,
violates the lamina failure criterion. In the process of this determination, the laminae
stresses must be found as a function of the unknown magnitude of loads first in the laminate
coordinates and then in the principal material directions [Jones 1999].

The proportions of load (I.e., the ratios of Nx to Ny, Mx to My, etc.) are, of course,
specified at the beginning of the analysis. The load parameter is increased until some
individual lamina fails. The properties of the failed lamina are then degraded in one of two
ways: (1) totally to zero if the fibers in the lamina fail or (2) to fiber-direction properties if
the failure is by cracking parallel to the fibers (matrix failure). Actually, because of the
matrix manipulations involved in the analysis, the failed lamina properties must not be zero,
but rather effectively zero values in order to avoid a singular matrix that could not be
inverted in the structural analysis problem. The laminate strains are calculated from the
known load and the stiffnesses prior to failure of a lamina. If one or more laminae have
now failed, new laminate extensional, bending-extension coupling, and bending stiffnesses
are calculated [Jones 1999].

78
 Laminae stresses are recalculated to determine their distribution after a lamina has
failed (the stresses in the remaining laminae must increase to maintain equilibrium). Then
we must verify that the remaining laminae, at their increased stress levels, do not fail at the
same load that caused failure of the lamina in the preceding cycle through the analysis. That
is, can the laminae stresses be successfully redistributed among the un-failed layers? If no
more laminae fail, then the load can be increased until another lamina fails, and the cycle
is repeated. In each cycle, the increased stresses caused by failure of a lamina must be
verified not to cause an instantaneously progressive failure, that is, where the laminae all
successively fail at the same load. When such a multiple failure occurs, the laminate is said
to have suffered gross failure. Note that the lamina failure criterion was not mentioned
explicitly in the discussion of figure 3-18. The entire procedure for strength analysis is
independent of the actual lamina failure criterion, but the results of the procedure, the
maximum loads and deformations, do depend on the specific lamina failure criterion. Also,
the load-deformation behavior is piecewise linear because of the restriction to linear elastic
behavior of each lamina. The laminate behavior would be piecewise nonlinear if the
laminae behaved in a nonlinear elastic manner [Jones 1999].

When designing with conventional isotropic materials, the problem of material

selection is usually solved by simply looking up the appropriate properties of candidate
materials in a handbook. The selection of a composite laminate design can be a formidable
task, however, due to the large number of available fiber and matrix materials and the
endless variety of laminate configurations. Fortunately, the laminate selection process can
be accelerated by the use of computer software for laminate analysis and by the use of so-
called carpet plots [Gibson 1994].

3.4.3. Computer Laminate Analysis

In order to use the laminate analysis equations which were derived and discussed
earlier, extensive matrix algebra is obviously required. In addition, proper evaluation of
laminate designs requires numerous repetitive calculations resulting from changes in
loading conditions, material properties, and/or laminate geometry. These computational
requirements are ideally suited for solutions by digital computers, and a variety of software
packages for laminate analysis now exist [Gibson 1994].

There are a number of structural analysis computer programs available for

workstations or advanced PC computers that use finite-element or finite-difference
numerical methods and are suitable for evaluating composites. In general, these programs
will address [Greene 1999]:

 Structural response of laminated and multidirectional reinforced composites;

 Changes in material properties with temperature, moisture and ablative
decomposition;
 Thin-shelled, thick-shelled, and/or plate structures;
 Thermal-, pressure- traction-, deformation- and vibration-induced load states;
 Failure modes;
 Non-linearity;
 Structural instability; and
 Fracture mechanics.

79
 The better programs are based on laminated plate theory and do a reasonable job of
predicting first ply failure in strain space [Greene 1999].

Table 3-3 illustrates a typical range of input and output variables for computer
laminate analysis programs. Some programs are menu driven while others follow a
spreadsheet format. Once material properties have been specified, the user can “build” a
laminate by selecting materials and orientation. As a minimum, stresses and strain failure
levels for each ply will be computed. Some programs will show stress and strain states
versus design allowables based on various failure criteria. Most programs will predict
which ply will fail first and provide some routine for laminate optimization. In-plane loads
can usually be entered to compute predicted states of stress and strain instead of failure
envelopes [Greene 1999].

Table 3-3 Typical input and output variables for laminate analysis programs [Greene 1999]

3.4.4. Carpet Plots

Although computer software gives the designer great flexibility in the selection of
materials and laminate geometries, graphical representations which show the range of
properties which can be attained with different laminate configurations are also helpful.
One type of graphical representation, known as a carpet plot, is particularly useful [Gibson
1994].

80
 For example, if the ply orientations in a laminate are restricted to certain angles such
as 0° , ±45°, and 90°, then a carpet plot can be generated which shows how a given laminate
property depends on the percentages of the plies at the various orientations [Gibson 1994].

Examples of carpet plots based on a Kevlar/epoxy laminate are shown in figure 3-

19 for Ex , Gxy , vxy and ax respectively. The bottom axis shows the percentage of ±45°
reinforcement. “Iso” lines within the graphs correspond to the percentage of 0° and 90°
reinforcement. The resultant mechanical properties are based on the assumption of uniaxial
loading (hence, values are for longitudinal properties only) and assume a given design
temperature and design criterion [Gibson 1994].

Figure 3-19 Carpet Plots for [0°, ±45°, 90°] Kevlar Epoxy Laminates [Gibson 1994]

81
 Carpet plots have been a common preliminary design tool within the aerospace
industry where laminates typically consist of a large number of thin plies. Additionally,
out-of plane loads are not of primary concern as is the case with marine structures. An
aerospace designer essentially views a laminate as a homogeneous engineering material
with some degraded mechanical properties derived from carpet plots. Typical marine
laminates consist of much fewer plies that are primarily not from unidirectional
reinforcements. Significant out of plane loading and high aspect ratio structural panels
render the unidirectional data from carpet plots somewhat meaningless for designing FRP
marine structures [Greene 1999].

82
 CHAPTER 4 : COMPOSITES APPLICATIONS IN SHIP
STRUCTURES
4.1. INTRODUCTION
Composite materials have been used in a wide variety of structural and non-
structural marine applications almost from the time of their introduction as commercial
materials and their use for such, applications is constantly growing [Agrawal 1990]. The
process of introducing and/or developing structural materials for ship construction is
endless. For centuries, wood was the main shipbuilding material until shipbuilders realized
that ships built in iron or steel were stronger, lighter and easier to maintain than those made
of wood. By the beginning of the 1880s wooden ships were regarded as expensive and
obsolete [Evangelista et al. 2013].

It was largely the pressures of the newfangled electronics industry that encouraged
improved composites. The old insulators gutta -percha, waxed paper, shellac, and ceramics
(which had been adequate for the ordinary telegraph-line voltages)-weren't up to the job as
we began using higher currents. The Belgian chemist Leo Baekcland found in 1906 that
reacting phenol and formaldehyde would produce a reasonably tough and somewhat water-
resistant resin. It wasn't until many months later that he realized that adding fibers (in this
case, in powdered form) to his brittle resin would generate superior strength. The result was
Bakelite, the first "modern" high-tech composite and the beginning of our contemporary
plastics revolution. From here on, it was a regular, ongoing process to increase strength,
stiffness, and weather resistance in these new, highly moldable composite. All sorts of
binder/chemical combinations were tried along with all manner of fibers, until the benefits
of the combination of fiber glass and polyester resins were realized [Gerr 2000].

Upon realizing its potential advantages; composites were first used immediately
after the Second World War in the construction of small personnel boats for the US Navy.
These boats proved to be stiff, strong, durable and easy to repair, and these attributes led to
a rapid expansion of composite use in other types of US naval craft between the mid-1940s
and 1960s [Mouritz et al. 2001].

During the 1960s composites (in particular, Glass Reinforced Plastic) were widely
used in boat building industry for both recreational and commercial sectors. Through the
following decades advances in materials, fabrication techniques and design tools have
forced the application of composites to wide ranges. Early FRP boat builders relied on
“build and test” or empirical methods to guarantee that the hulls they were producing were
strong enough. Because fiberglass was a relatively new boatbuilding material, designers
tended to be conservative in the amount of material used [Greene 1999].

Even wider range of applications of composites to Naval Vessels was achieved in

using composites for superstructures, advanced mast systems, bulkheads, decks, propellers,
propulsion shafts and rudders in addition to internal equipment and fittings, such as engine
parts, heat exchangers, equipment foundations, valves, pumps, pipes and ducts [Mouritz et
al. 2001].

83
 Naval Vessels are not limited by civil codes and regulations, on the other hand,
Civil Shipbuilding is regulated by national authorities (the flag state) as well as international
organizations, in particular the IMO (International Maritime Organization). In the end, the
flag state has to accept the ship design if the ship shall be allowed to sail but usually the
flag state leaves this task to a classification society (DNV, Lloyds, Bureau Veritas....) in
terms of requirements for mechanical properties and design. However, the flag state usually
provides general safety regulations for the ship, including fire safety, and these regulations
are based on the IMO code SOLAS (Safety of life at sea). The IMO also has a particular
set of regulations for high speed crafts provided in the HSC-code2. Such crafts are defined
by a minimum speed/displacement quotient but also by requirements for land based safety
support. Until recently SOLAS prohibited the use of combustible materials in construction
of the hull, superstructures, structural bulkheads, decks and deckhouses. By requiring
(Chapter II-2 reg.11) "The hull, superstructures, structural bulkheads, decks and
deckhouses shall be constructed in steel or equivalent materials.....”; where “Steel or
equivalent” means first of all ”non-combustible” construction materials, which in principle
is the same as inorganic materials. This phrase was originally put in the SOLAS code to
prevent the use of wood for ship building [Hertzberg 2009].

In July (2002) a new SOLAS regulation 17 (part F), “Alternative design and
arrangements” appeared that made it possible to use a functionally based safety design
instead of the earlier design based solely on prescriptive rules. This new regulation opens
up for the possibility of using any construction materials provided the same level of safety
can be demonstrated as if the standard materials defined by the prescriptive regulations had
been used for ship design. A problem, however, is that no safety level is defined in SOLAS,
i.e. the code provides a set of prescriptive rules but no measure of what the usage of these
rules means with regards to safety. Therefore, not only will it be necessary to demonstrate
safety of the new design but also to develop a methodology for demonstrating safety
equivalence with a prescriptive-based design [Hertzberg 2009] [IMO 2014].

SOLAS also defines (Ch X) high speed crafts (HSC’s) with safety regulation given
by the HSC-code that does allow non-steel construction materials provided that they are
“fire restricting”. This means that they must pass a large scale fire test according to ISO
97053 with tough requirements on the amount of heat released and smoke produced by the
material when submitted to the heat from a gas burner. The HSC code first appeared in
1994 and has further evolved in response to the need for regulations concerning this
particular craft and is perhaps more modern than many other parts of SOLAS, at least with
regards to the possibility to use new construction materials [Hertzberg 2009].

Another area with a strong need for fire safety requirements at sea is the offshore
industry. The IMO regulation for offshore construction is the MODU (Mobile Offshore
Drilling Units) code4 (which first appeared in 1979) and it can be seen that many
requirements for fire safety on offshore constructions resemble the requirements for ships.
However, in the code (Ch 9.1.2.) it is stated that: “Units constructed of other materials”
(than steel) “may be accepted provided that in the opinion of the administration they provide
an equivalent standard of safety” [Hertzberg 2009].

Serious efforts have been done to overcome the above mentioned challenges
regarding fire safety requirements. In particular; “SP Technical Research Institute of

84
Sweden” has developed an alternative design and arrangement for hatch covers structures
of a bulk carrier vessel, which succeeded to satisfy the fire safety objectives of SOLAS
Chapter II-2 and subsequently has been granted an approval by Panama flag which is a
SOLAS contracted government and one of the leading flags in the shipping world
[Composites world 2015]. This achievement has opened the door for further composite
materials applications on commercial vessels and can be a beginning of a new era where
composite structures will take their important role in commercial shipping.

There could hardly be a greater contrast than between the ‘bucket and brush’ era of
the 1950s and the leading edge of marine composite construction today. Modern
performance craft are highly and precisely engineered. Structural engineers, the new marine
aristocracy, use computer-aided design, computational fluid dynamics and other software
to define vessels virtually before they are produced for real. They also use software to
deliver laminate specifications. Manufacturers carry out lamination under close
environmental control, using technical textiles or prepregs [Marsh 2006].

In the following sections, the current applications of composite materials will be

discussed categorized by the type of application, the focus will be on the important
achievements and the light will be shed on the contribution composite materials imply on
each application; furthermore, a discussion on the difficulties facing the application of
composites in marine industry follows.

4.2. MATERIALS AND PRODUCTION METHODS

Through the years wide range of production techniques and materials have been
developed and used in marine industry, presented in the following figures which are the
result of an industrial survey in the United States [Greene 1999]. Figure 4-1 represents the
percent of manufacturers using various reinforcement materials. The widely used material
in hulls is the Glass fibers (E-glass) followed by Kevlar and carbon fibers respectively.

While glass fiber is the strongest and the most economical material between other
composites, the main advantage of carbon and Kevlar fibers upon glass is their relatively
higher stiffness, thus, reduced deflections [Greene 1999].

Figure 4-2 illustrates percent of manufacturers using various reinforcement styles

used in marine industry, Woven Rovings are the most reinforcement style used for large
marine structures because they are available in fairly heavy weights (24 ounces per square
yard is the most common), which enables a rapid buildup of thickness. Also, directional
strength characteristics are possible with a material that is still fairly drapable. Impact
resistance is enhanced because the fibers are continuously woven [Greene 1999].

85
 Figure 4-1 Marine Industry Reinforcement Material Use [Greene 1999]

Knitted reinforcement fabrics provides greater strength and stiffness per unit
thickness as compared to woven rovings. They provide the advantage of having the
reinforcing fiber lying flat versus the crimped orientation of woven roving fiber.
Additionally, reinforcements can be oriented along any combination of axes. Superior glass
to resin ratios are also achieved, which makes overall laminate costs competitive [Greene
1999].

Typical applications for unidirectionals include stem and centerline stiffening as

well as the tops of stiffeners. Entire hulls are fabricated from unidirectional reinforcements
when an ultra-high performance laminate is desired [Greene 1999].

The percent of manufacturers using various resin systems is represented in figure 4-

3. Polyester resins are the simplest, most economical resin systems that are easiest to use
and show good chemical resistance. Almost one half million tons of this material is used
annually in the United States. Some advantages of the vinyl esters, which may justify their
higher cost, include superior corrosion resistance, hydrolytic stability, and excellent
physical properties, such as impact and fatigue resistance, in addition to blistering
resistance. Epoxy resins show the best performance characteristics of all the resins used in
the marine industry. The high cost of epoxies and handling difficulties have limited their
use for large marine structures [Greene 1999].

86
Figure 4-2 Marine Industry Reinforcement Style Use

Figure 4-3 Marine Industry Resin System Use

87
 The percent of manufacturers using various core materials is represented in Figure
4-4.

Figure 4-4 Marine Industry Core Material Use

The most common technique used for large structures such as boat hulls, is the open
mold process. Specifically, hand lay-up or spray-up techniques are used. Spray-up of
chopped fibers is generally limited to smaller hulls and parts. Figure 4-5 shows the results
of an industry survey indicating the relative occurrence of various manufacturing processes
within the marine industry.

Figure 4-5 Building Processes within the Marine Industry

88
 Marine composites applications are applied on a full scale to marine structures to
create a complete composite structure, or on a partial scale; were only composite parts have
been added to a structure constructed from another structural material to form a hybrid
construction.

4.3. COMPLETE COMPOSITE HULLS

Marine type composites have been applied to marine structures ranging from large
and very expensive yachts, to highly loaded utilitarian landing craft, to submersibles
[Horsmon 1993]. They vary in size, materials and building techniques based upon their
field of application. Fifty years ago, marine composites were almost exclusively fiberglass,
a combination of E-glass reinforcement and polyester resin. Today, high performance
reinforcements, such as carbon fiber and Kevlar, are combined with advanced resin systems
to produce very strong, lightweight structures that were not possible fifty years ago.
Fortunately, design methodologies and manufacturing processes have also advanced
[Greene 2013b].

Through the following topics, examples will be presented for vessels that have been
completely constructed using composite materials, those vessels have taken full benefits
from Composite favorable properties including high strength to weight ratios and low
magnetic and radar signature.

4.3.1. Recreational Industry

Recreational marine vessels include racing, pleasure yachts and canoes which are
not built preliminarily for commercial benefits. Fiberglass construction has been the
mainstay of the recreational boating industry since the mid. 1960s. After about 20 years of
development work, manufacturers seized the opportunity to mass produce easily
maintained hulls with a minimum number of assembled parts. Much of the early FRP
structural design work relied on trial and error, which may have also led to the high attrition
rate of startup builders [Greene 1999]. Nowadays other composite materials are taking the
place fiberglass seeking for more stiffness and weight reduction.

Current leading edge marine composite manufacturing technologies are driven by

racing vessels, both power and sail. Racing sail and power events not only force a builder
to maximize structural performance through weight reduction, but also subject vessels to
higher loads and greater cycles than would normally be seen by vessels not operated
competitively (some races speed exceeds 200 mph) [Greene 1999].

4.3.1.1. Power racing boats

Racing powerboats employ advanced and hybrid composites for a higher

performance craft and also driver safety. They include a wide range of vessel’s types
depending on the type and range of the race [Greene 1999].

For the sake of driver’s safety some manufacturers designed a safety cell cockpit
for the racing boat driver. The safety cell is constructed of carbon and aramid fibers with
aramid honeycomb core. This structure can withstand a 100 foot drop test without
significant damage. During the Sacramento Grand Prix, three drivers in safety cell

89
equipped boats survived injury from accidents. The cell was designed by Fothergill
Composites Inc. [Greene 1999].

As an example of powerboat races, Class 1 is considered one of the most spectacular

motorsports in the world. A Class 1 raceboat is twin-engined catamaran and can reach
speeds in excess of 257 km/h (160 mph), with V12 engines limited in performance to 850 hp
at 7600 rpm and V8 engines limited in performance to 850 hp at 6100 rpm. All boats are
limited by a minimum weight of 4950 kg. Each boat in the Class 1 fleet is approximately
12-14m in length, 3.5m wide, and constructed using composite materials of Kevlar and
carbon fibers [UIM 2016].

Figure 4-6 is a scene from Dubai grand Prix in 2012, where it can be seen the level
of impact the vessel is subjected.

Figure 4-6 Dubai Grand Prix in 2012 [Class-1 2012]

Another example of a power racing boat is “Earthrace” which holds the record for
a powerboat to circumnavigate the globe at just under 61 days. The boat was run on 100%
biofuel, claiming a net carbon zero footprint in order to draw attention to the need for
renewable fuels and sustainable living [Greene 2013b].

Earthrace was built in Auckland, New Zealand, by Calibre Boats, who specialize in
high-tech composite boatbuilding. The hull is made from sandwich composites using 40
mm of PVC foam core sandwiched between three layers of carbon inside and out, with a
layer of Kevlar for impact resistance on the outside [Greene 2013b]. The boat was fully
submersible, able to cut through 15-metre (49 ft) waves and go 7 m (23 ft) underwater
[Rotkop 2008]. Figure 4-7 represents the forward view of the boat.

90
 Figure 4-7 Earthrace Power Boat [Greene 2013b]

The specifications of the boat is listed in table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Specifications of the Earthrace boat [Earthrace 2008]

Type: Trimaran

Dry Weight: 14 ton

Length: 78 ft (24 m)

Beam: 23 ft (7.0 m)

Draught: 4 ft (1.3 m)

Depth: 14 ft (4.3 m)

2 × 400 kW (540 hp) Cummins

Propulsion:
Mercruiser

Gearboxes: ZF 305A (single speed)

Speed: Claimed Top Speed: 40 knots

(75 km/h)

Range: at 25 knots 2,000 nm (2,700km) from

12,000 litres 3,000 gal) of fuel capacity

Complement: 4–8

91
 In late 2009, it was announced that the boat, now repainted black and named “Ady
Gil”, would be participating in anti-whaling operations under the lead of the Sea Shepherd
Conservation Society. During operations in the Southern Ocean, the vessel and the Japanese
whaling support vessel MV Shōnan Maru 2 collided on January 6, 2010, resulting in loss
of the Ady Gil's bow and one injured crew member. The crew of the Ady Gil were removed
from the damaged vessel and the salvage operation was abandoned, with the vessel sinking
the next day [ABC 2010].

4.3.1.2. Sail racing boats

These are sail racing boats racing around a course marked by buoys or other fixed
navigational devices or racing longer distances across open water from point-to-point. It
can involve a series of races when buoy racing or multiple legs when point-to-point racing.
Like power racing boats they vary in size and specifications, depending upon the type and
course of the race. The major races of today can be classified as offshore, ocean, around the
world, and inshore racing all adhering to one set of rule, but diverse handicapping standards
[Steward et al. 2000]. One of the most notable characteristics of sail racing boat is its long
masts, which is usually longer than the boat length and is carrying a huge wind load.

4.3.1.2.1. The Volvo Ocean Race

A good example is the Volvo Ocean Race which is the world’s longest professional sporting
event and leading offshore sailing competition. It began in 1973 as the Whitbread Round
the World Race, but much has changed since the first boats left England at the start of the
first edition. However, the essence of the race remains the same and it is well established
as one of the big three global sailing events in the world along with the America’s Cup and
the Olympic Games [Volvo Ocean Race 2016c].

Figure 4-8 The Route of the 2014-15 Volvo Ocean Race [Volvo Ocean Race 2016d]

92
 Since the first race, the boats have become faster, the crews are professional sailors
at the top of their game, and the technology. However the sea never changes and the race
around the world is still a human challenge and a battle against the elements. For weeks at
a time, the sailors endure conditions ranging from freezing cold to searing heat, while waves
constantly slam the boat [Volvo Ocean Race 2016c].

In 1998, Volvo became the new owner of the race, and renamed it the Volvo Ocean
Race. The 2017-18 edition will be the 13th edition. The Volvo Ocean Race moved from
England in 2010 and has been based in Alicante, Spain since then. The waterfront Race
Headquarters contains the state-of-the-art Race Control, from where the boats are tracked
continuously around the world using sophisticated maritime technology and satellite
communications. Figure 4-8 illustrates the route of the race [Volvo Ocean Race 2016d].

4.3.1.2.2. Volvo Ocean 65 Race Boat

The teams will compete in the Volvo Ocean 65 one-design, a class of identical boats
that cannot be modified in any way. The boats will be completely level and there will be no
advantage to be gained in racing a first or second-generation boat [Volvo Ocean Race
2016f].

Obviously for such special route a superior boat is a necessity, the hull of the boat
is made of woven biaxial carbon fibers using vacuum bag infusion on male mold in “Italy”
as shown in figure 4-9 and then Nomex phenolic resin honeycomb core is used to form a
sandwich construction, while the deck was built in “France” using woven carbon prepregs
[Volvo Ocean Race 2016g], carbon fiber mast was built by “Southern Spars” in “New
Zealand” using 202 pieces of Carbon Fiber pre-preg in each mast tube, and an additional
52 patches (structural reinforcements) and Precision laid carbon complexes (pieces) using
Southern’s CNC fiber plotter [Volvo Ocean Race 2016e]. All the parts were finally
assembled in “England”.

Figure 4-9 Volvo Ocean 65 Race Boat During Manufacture by Vacuum Bagging Infusion in Italy
[Farr Yacht Design 2012]

93
 Table 4-2 Specifications of the Volvo Ocean 65 boat [Volvo Ocean Race 2016b]

Hull Length (ISO 8666) 20.37 m (66 ft)

Length waterline (design) 20.00 m (65 ft)

Length overall (inc. bowsprit) 22.14 m (72ft)

Hull Beam overall (ISO 8666) 5.60 m (18.4 ft)

Max Draft (Keel on CL) 4.78 m (15.8 ft)

Boat Weight (empty) 12,500 kg (27,557 lb)

Canting keel to +/- 40 degrees

Keel arrangement
with 5 degrees of incline axis

Twin forward daggerboards,

Daggerboards
inboard triangulation

Twin fixed rudders - composite

Rudders
stocks

Rig Height 30.30 m (99.4 ft)

Twin topmast backstays and

Rig Arrangement
checkstays with deflectors

Bowsprit Length 2.14 m (7ft)

Mainsail Area 163 m2

Maximum downwind speed 30 knots

To meet the required bending moment (~7,000 kg/m) and compression loads
(49,800 kg) that could be imposed on the hollow mast shells, a 3.8-mm thick wall was built
up from prepreg supplied by Gurit (Zurich Oerlikon, Switzerland), made from its SE84
epoxy resin system and high-modulus (377 GPa) M40J carbon fiber from Toray Industries
(Tokyo, Japan). For longitudinal (0°) fibers running top to bottom on the mast, heavier 300-
g/m2 prepreg was used. “The predominant compression and bending loads in the mast rely

94
primarily on compressive stiffness and strength, so about 70% of the fiber is in the
longitudinal direction” Because shear forces are smaller in comparison, lighter 150-
g/m2 fiber was used for ±45° and 90° off-axis prepregs. To achieve the rigorous
performance levels the racing teams would need, the mast also required significant
detailing: Unidirectional, and in some cases, woven, prepreg patches reinforced areas
exposed to high stress concentration and unusual stiffness demands around fittings, holes
and, for example, the top of the mast. The masts were layed up in two identical female
molds and cured in an autoclave at 120°C [Dawson 2015].

The main specifications of the boat can be found in Table 4-2.

Volvo Ocean 65s are built to a design by Farr Yacht Design (USA), responsible for
five winning entries in 11 previous editions of the event. The original seven boats were
built by a consortium of four boatyards in Italy (Persico), France (Multiplast), Switzerland
(Decision) and the UK (Green Marine), however any subsequent boats required for the
2017-18 Race will be built solely by (Persico) in Italy [Volvo Ocean Race 2016c].

Figures 4-10 and 4-11 represents the complete hull of the Volvo Ocean 65 boat.

Figure 4-10 A 3D Model of Volvo Ocean 65 Boat [Volvo Ocean Race 2016a]

95
 Figure 4-11 Volvo Ocean 65 Boat in Real Operation [Scuttlebutt 2013]

4.3.1.3. Pleasure yachts

The composite yacht market is developing at a fast pace. Large ocean-going cruising
yachts are capable of record breaking performances thanks to the continuing development
in technology, materials and design, yet they are also required to have a luxurious fit-out.
Pleasure yachts are not subjected to the same high loads encountered by racing boats and
are not required to sail with ultra-high speed, therefore; they can be constructed on bigger
sizes [Meunier et al. 2009].

The number of super yachts built has increased over the last 30 years. There has
been a steady growth in boats over 30 m, but in the last 5 years orders for boats (motor and
sail) over 50 m has more than doubled. Although the majority of orders is for motor boats.
Such large yachts are generally built using steel, aluminum and/or composite materials
[Meunier et al. 2009].

Large composite sailing yachts, such as the 75m sloop Mirabella V launch in
November 2003, the 45m light displacement all carbon fiber sloop “Visione” delivered in
2003, the high performance carbon fiber Wally 50m yacht delivered in 2010 or the high
performance 60m Panamax Ketch project constructed at Baltic yachts clearly indicate the
trend for larger yachts to be built using composite materials [Meunier et al. 2009].

4.3.1.3.1. Evviva

Evviva is the largest GRP fully foam-cored boat built in North America. Kevlar®
and carbon reinforcements were used where needed, as were Nomex® honeycomb cores for
interior furniture [Greene 1999], (see figure 4-12). The vessel was delivered in 2006
followed by other vessels based on the same model, including “Harmony” (50 m length)
[Super yachts 2016a].

96
 Figure 4-12 M/Y Evviva [Super yachts 2016b]

Evviva's light ship displacement of 420,000 pounds permits a cruising speed of 25

knots and top end speed of 30.6 knots with two MTU 16V396's. The owner wanted a gel
coat finish throughout, which required building the boat from over 180 female molds.
Molded components included tanks, air plenums, genset exhaust ducts, and freezers
[Greene 1999]. The principal particulars of the vessel can be seen in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Principal particulars of MY Evviva [Super yachts 2016b]

Built Length Builder

2006 49.71m (163'1"ft) Westport
Guests Beam Naval Architect
12 9.17m (30'1"ft) William Garden
Cabins Draft Interior Designer
6 Cabins 2.20m (7'2"ft) Donald Starkey

4.3.1.3.2. SuperSport

Designed by Palmer Johnson and owned by Timur Mohamed, the former first-class
cricketer, SuperSport 48 is a 48 m yacht that is considered the largest carbon composite
super yacht ever built [White 2012], (See figure 4-13 and Table 4-4).

97
 Figure 4-13 MY Supersport 48M [Morpheus London 2015]

48M features an innovative wave-piercing monohull design. The hull and

superstructure were built by Norwegian sub-contractor “Brødrene Aa” then shipped to
Palmer Johnson's yard in the US for finishing. The hull design places a priority on
performance and fuel savings, powered by twin MTU 16V 2000 M94 engines, the 48
SuperSport is delivering speeds up to 32 knots with 50 per cent greater fuel efficiency than
similar vessels [Merl 2014].

Table 4-4 Particulars of MY Supersport 48M [Palmer johnson 2016a]

Length Over All 49 metres

Beam Over All 11 metres
Gross Tonnage 490
Main Engines MTU 16V 2000 M94
Class and Register DNV, MCA LY3
Fuel Capacity 25,000l , 40,000l Ext
Max Speed 32 knots.
Hull Carbon Fiber
Superstructure Carbon Fiber
Guest 12
Crew 9

The hull design also supports an impressive 11 metre beam, which allows for
enhanced stability and 30 per cent more interior living space than previous builds. A notable
design feature in Palmer Johnson's SuperSport series are the sponsons on either side of the

98
yacht's aft end, which add to the overall beam. She is the first to be delivered in PJ's new
SuperSport series, introduced at Monaco Yacht Show in 2012, along with a smaller and
longer 72 meter version [Merl 2014], (See figure 4-14 and Table 4-5).

Figure 4-14 MY Supersport 72M [Palmer johnson 2016b]

Table 4-5 Particulars of MY Supersport 72M [Palmer johnson 2016b]

Length Over All 72 metres

Beam Over All 14.5 metres
Gross Tonnage 1305
Main Engines MTU 12V 4000 M90
Class and Register DNV, MCA LY3
Transatlantic 20 knots.
Max Speed 27 knots.
Hull Carbon Fiber
Superstructure Carbon Fiber
Guest 14
Crew 17

4.3.1.3.3. (M5) Mirabella V

M5 is a sloop-rigged super yacht launched in 2003 as Mirabella V, Mirabella V is

the largest single masted sailing vessel in the world. She is almost 60% longer and 2.6 times
heavier than the next largest sloop. Her mast height is 35% taller than both the tallest and
largest sail training vessel, the Russian ship Sedov and the current tallest yacht the Ron
Holland 64m SY Felicita West. Despite her size and interior appointments Mirabella V has
been developed with sailing performance as a priority [Holland et al. 2003]. This luxury
yacht has a GRP hull and 1 deck made from teak. This custom lifting keel yacht is equipped
with an ultra-modern stabilization system which reduces roll motion effect and results in a
smoother more enjoyable cruising experience. This 75.22 m (246'9"ft) Performance Sloop

99
has a total of 36000.0 sq.m. of sail made by Stratis by Doyle Sails, which give the vessel
an air draft of 10.86m (35'7"ft). The luxury sailing yacht's furling system includes Lewmar
winches. M5 is built to comply to MCA and DNV standards [Super yachts 2016c], (See
figure 4-15 and Table 4-6).

Figure 4-15 M5, Ex Mirabella V [Super yachts 2016c]

Table 4-6 Particulars of M5 [Super yachts 2016c]

Built | Refit Length Builder

2004 | 2013 75.22m (246'9"ft) Vosper Thornycroft
Guests Beam Naval Architect
14 14.82m (48'7"ft) Ron Holland Design
Cabins Draft Interior Designer
7 Cabins 10.86m (35'7"ft) Ron Holland Design
Crew Speed Exterior Designer
15 14.00 Knots Ron Holland Design

4.3.1.3.4. Tûranor Solar Yacht Hull

The Turanor PlanetSolar, is a 31 meter wave piercer catamaran with approximately

537 square meters of solar panels on its deck that powers 2 electric motors that drive highly
efficient carbon fiber propellers. Designer Craig Loomes from New Zealand specified
advanced carbon fiber hull construction to achieve a 65,000 kg displacement. The boat was
completed by the Kiel, Germany yard of Knierim Yachtbau in 2010 and completed a
circumnavigation voyage in May 2012 [Greene 2013b].

100
 Figure 4-16 MY Turanor PlanetSolar [Greene 2013b]

During the design, estimates were made of the vessel’s weight and load
distributions. Typical of most yacht designs, the structural analysis was conducted without a
global finite element analysis (FEA) model. Instead, LOM Ocean relied on its own in-house
spreadsheets to optimize the composite laminates. According to the designer, each vessel
element was analyzed as part of an integrated spreadsheet program that incorporated the
algorithms associated with load prediction, laminate mechanical property predictions, panel
and beam bending, shear, skin wrinkling, stiffness and buckling, as required, after inputting
part geometries and load distributions. The company’s large database of mechanical test
data, derived from many years of laboratory analysis, formed the basis of the property
predictions [Black 2011b].

The structural design of the demihulls, center hull and deck shells relied on quasi-
isotropic laminates, with 0°/90° woven plies in the outside skins for increased impact and
abrasion tolerance. There is a 60 percent bias in the 0°/90° orientation, with the remainder
at ±45° to the principal panel direction. Emphasis was placed on meeting or just slightly
exceeding the GL strain limit requirements, using as little material as possible to arrive at
the final structure. The outside skin thickness in the center hull is just 2.2 mm/0.09 inch.
The skin is a combination of double-bias carbon fiber fabric and some uni tapes over a 50-
mm/2-inch thick high-density polyvinyl chloride (PVC) foam core (figure 4-17) [Black
2011b].

The structural design of the curved legs that connect the center hull to the demihulls
was relatively simple, the legs incorporate a box beam structure designed to carry bending
and shear imposed by the buoyancy of the demihulls reacting the weight of the center hull.

101
Each leg’s box beam tapers and transitions up into a major transverse bulkhead that spans
the center hull. Although the bulkhead skins are relatively thin, (~1.2 mm/0.048 inch,
placed over 40-mm/1.6-inch thick PVC foam core), patching or overlapping of each ply
during wet layup of the joint that connects the box beam to the bulkhead effectively
transitions the load over a larger area and reduces local strains in the area of the intersection
[Black 2011b].

Figure 4-17 Design Characteristics of Turanor Solar Yacht [Black 2011b]

The center hull’s 11 bulkheads, in turn, add very stiff, robust structural elements
that distribute major loads to the hull (via their connections to the hull sides) and to the long
stringers that run under the flat main deck. Those stringers must carry slam loads when
large waves impact the underside of the center hull. The demihulls are longitudinally
framed rectangular sandwich panels with 2.2-mm/0.085-inch thick skins form the hulls’
surface. Its composite design has proved seaworthy and sunworthy showing that solar
power has a bright future for marine propulsion [Black 2011b].

4.3.2. Commercial Industry

The use of fiberglass construction in the commercial marine industry has flourished
over time for a number of different reasons. Initially, long-term durability and favorable
fabrication economics were the impetus for using FRP. More recently, improved vessel
performance through weight reduction has encouraged its use. Since the early 1960s, a key
factor that makes FRP construction attractive is the reduction of labor costs when multiple

102
vessels are fabricated from the same mold. Various sectors of the commercial market use
composites including utility boats, passenger ferries, fishing vessels and lifeboats. Activity
levels have traditionally been driven by the economic factors that influence the vessel's use,
rather than the overall success of the vessels themselves [Greene 1999].

4.3.2.1. SSC study

An old but still relevant report by the Ship Structures Committee (SSC) investigated
the possibility of constructing a 143 m (470 ft) cargo vessel of FRP. Most of the design
exercise was done as a direct conversion of the existing steel vessel. The FRP vessel that
resulted from this study was not optimized to increase the moment of inertia of the midships
section, so using a material tensile modulus (the compressive modulus is nearly the same)
of only 2 x 104 MPa (2.9 x 106 psi), deflections of the hull girder were five times that of
the steel structure. The report theorized that a deflection of two times that of steel would
have been acceptable. However, with use of available modem materials and fabrication
methods, this deflection limit could be met. With increased use of unidirectional material
applied by the SCRIMTM or a high efficiency impregnator (11), a 3.8 x 104 MPa (5.5 x
106 psi) tensile modulus is possible. If the midship section is optimized for maximum
moment of inertia, by reducing hatch size or increasing the depth 10 per cent, the result is
a bending stiffness half that of the steel vessel. A number of other limitations listed in the
SSC report have been overcome by materials presently available. Table 4-7 compares these
former limitations to current solutions [Horsmon 1993].

Table 4-7 Perceived limitations of FRP in ships [Horsmon 1993]

4.3.2.2. Passenger ferries

Conventional ferries are being replaced by fast ferries, due to improved economic
conditions, increased leisure time, demands for faster travel, and more comfort and safety,
air congestion, reduced pollution, and higher incomes [Greene 1999].

103
 In a study by “Kockums AB”, a comparison between 3 construction alternatives for
a 128 m passenger ferry have been assessed, the 3 alternatives were [Petersson 2004]:

 Steel (Hull) / Aluminum (superstructures)

 All Aluminum
 All CFRP Sandwich

A life cycle cost (LCC) analysis was done through a lifetime period of 25 years, the
results (figure 4-18) show that, although the acquisition costs of the composite construction
is slightly above steel and aluminum, however; the LCC for composites is 22% lower and
the study states that up to 30 % savings in LCC are possible [Petersson 2004].

Figure 4-18 LCC Comparison on High Speed Ferry [Petersson 2004]

4.3.2.2.1. Composite Ferries for USA Market

American ferries carry approximately 200 million passengers annually, according

to the Passenger Vessel Association, and that number is likely to rise significantly as urban
areas like New York, Seattle and San Francisco add new ferry lines to help combat
congestion. That’s good news for Arcadia Alliance, a new partnership between Front Street
Shipyard in Belfast, Maine, and Brodrene Aa of Hyen, Norway, which will produce the
first-ever CFRP ferries for the U.S. market [O'Leary 2016].

The new catamaran-style, high-speed passenger ferries will travel at speeds of 25

knots or more and carry up to 149 people. Larger ferries are out of the question for now,
because Coast Guard regulations only allow composite hulls on these smaller ‘T-class’
vessels [O'Leary 2016].

Arcadia Alliance is located in Belfast, Maine, with 80 percent ownership by Front Street
Shipyard and 20 percent by “Brodrene Aa”.

104
 The ferries will be built at Front Street’s 82,000-square-foot indoor shipyard.
“Brodrene Aa” will provide the design and engineering, as well as the molds for the first
few ferries [O'Leary 2016].

The entire outer shell of the ferries will be CFRP, including the hull and
superstructures, such as decks and the pilot house. Interior areas will have composite and
aluminum seats, lightweight aluminum interior panels, carpeting and other traditional
components. It will take 13 to 14 months and hundreds of CFRP parts to build each ferry.
The parts will feature a carbon fiber sandwich fabricated using a lightweight structural foam
core and several layers of carbon fiber structural material that are vacuum infused with a
vinyl ester resin system [O'Leary 2016].

The hull will be fabricated from a single mold, while superstructure components
will be constructed from large, flat panels measuring up to 42 x 12 feet. Once completed,
the panels will be cut to create doors, windows and other openings. It’s planned to purchase
a CNC waterjet cutting machine to save time and reduce noise. After they are cut to shape,
the panels will be fitted into place and taped together with vinyl ester and carbon by hand.
Front Street will use vacuum lifters to move the largest panels from the molds to the waterjet
cutting machine and then onto the shop floor [O'Leary 2016].

4.3.2.2.2. Composite Ferry vs. Aluminum Ferry

As a case study, Arcadia Alliance, investigated the scenario of The M/S Terningen
which is a carbon fiber ferry built to replace the M/S Ladejarl, built of aluminum, for ferry
operator Kystekspressen. Figure 4-19 shows the particulars of both vessels [Arcadia-
alliance 2016].

Figure 4-19 Comparison between Aluminum and CFRP Ferries [Arcadia-alliance 2016]

105
 A significant propulsion power reduction can be observed, leading to about 40%
reduction in fuel consumption and 40% reduction in carbon footprint (figure 4-20), while
maintaining the same speed and number of passengers [Arcadia-alliance 2016].

Figure 4-20 A Comparison of Carbon Footprint Reduction of the 2 Ferries [Arcadia-alliance 2016]

4.3.2.3. Wave star Energy system

The Wave Star® Energy marine hydrokinetic energy concept was invented by
sailing enthusiasts Niels and Keld Hansen in 2000. The challenge was to create a regular
output of energy from ocean swells and waves that are 5-10 seconds apart. This was
achieved with a row of half-submerged buoys, which rise and fall in turn as the wave passes,
forming the iconic part of Wavestar’s design. This allows energy to be continually produced
despite waves being periodic [Wavestar 2016], (figure 4-21).

The buoyancy of the float is 20-40 times its dry weight, made possible by composite
construction [Greene 2013b]. The Energy Dome's were designed and constructed to
withstand the swells and waves from some of the harshest oceans. The half-submerged
buoys, which rise and fall in turn as the wave passes generates energy which is then fed
back into the energy grid. They have also been designed to withstand the strongest storms
[Danish composites 2015].

106
 Figure 4-21 Wave Star Energy System [Wavestar 2016]

Using an advanced composite sandwich construction, the Dome is 3.58 m in height

and 5.628 m in width with an approximate weight of 2,900kg [Danish composites 2015],
(figure 4-22).

Figure 4-22 Example Photos Showing the Production Process from Danish Yachts [Danish composites
2015]

107
4.3.2.4. FRP lifeboat

The first FRP lifeboats were built in Holland in 1958 when Airex® foam core made
its debut in a 24 foot vessel. The service profile of these vessels make them ideally suited
for FRP construction in that they are required to be ready for service after years of sitting
idle in a marine environment. Additionally, the craft must be able to withstand the impact
of being launched and swinging into the host vessel. The ability to economically produce
lightweight hull and canopy structures with highly visible gelcoat finishes is also an
attribute of FRP construction [Greene 1999], (figure 4-23).

As an example, Balmoral Glassfibre Limited – Aberdeen produces its self-righting,

totally-enclosed, motor-propelled survival craft for the offshore oil industry, manufactured
in glass reinforced plastic using fire-retardant resins. The craft ranges in size (6.2-8.75 m )
and can carry 21-66 people respectively. As part of the certification trials, the survival craft
was required to withstand 30 m high kerosene flames and temperatures of
1150°C. Throughout the fire test, the temperature inside the craft never exceeded 27°C
[Plymouth 2016].

Some manufacturers utilize the Chopper Gun in construction, such as watercraft

America, where; hull and canopy construction utilizes a spray lay-up system with MIL-
1140 or C19663 gun roving. Resin is MIL-R-21607 or MIL 7575C, Grade 1, Class 1, fire
retardant with Polygard iso/npg gelcoat finish. Each pass of the chopper gun is manually
consolidated with a roller and overlaps the previous pass by one third of its width. Quality
control methods ensure hardness, thicknesses and weight of the finished laminate [Greene
1999].

Figure 4-23 A Totally Enclosed GRP Lifeboat [Norsafe 2016]

4.3.3. Naval Vessels

As explained earlier in this chapter, naval vessels are not constrained by civil
regulations such as SOLAS, which restricts the use of composites in ship’s hull and
structural components; therefore, the use of composites as hull’s building material is
frequent and famous in most Navies. It all started in USA, when GRP small boats were

108
constructed after the 2nd world war. By the time of the Vietnam War there were hundreds
of such personnel boats, river patrol boats and landing craft as well as several
reconnaissance craft in-service amounting to over 3000 composite craft. By the 1970s mine
hunting ships were being built of composites for the Royal Navy, Royal Swedish Navy and
Norwegian Navy and the Dutch Navy started to build pilot boats and landing craft of
composite. This period marked the beginning of the application of composites to large naval
structures. In recent years the improved design, fabrication and mechanical performance of
low-cost composites has led to an increase in the use of composites for large patrol boats,
hovercraft, mine hunters and corvettes. Figure 4-24 presents the results of a survey on the
length of naval vessels built entirely of composite between the years 1945 and 2000.
Lengths have increased steadily with time, and currently there are all-composite naval ships
up to 80-90 m long and with the advance of construction techniques and reduction in
composite shipbuilding cost, the lengths are expected to increase [Mouritz 2001].

Generally, European Navies have shown an early advancement in larger Composite

vessels compared to US Navy. European navies have embraced composite ship technology
wholeheartedly, mainly because of the presence of sea mines placed during past conflicts.
Dozens of large composite craft have been fabricated in Norway, Sweden and the U.K. for
a diverse customer group. Because U.S. waters have never been mined, the U.S. Navy has
been slower to accept all-composite construction. But major mine damage to vessels during
the Desert Storm conflict in the Persian Gulf has accelerated U.S. development of naval
composites [Black 2003].

This section is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all composite naval vessels,
therefore; only the relevant vessels representing the advances in composite technology will
be presented.

Figure 4-24 Plot of Vessel Length against Year of Construction for All-Composite Patrol Boats,
MCMV and Corvettes [Mouritz 2001]

109
4.3.3.1. Patrol boats

Figure 4-25 The Skjold Class Patrol Boat [Greene 2013b]

Composites have been used for the construction of naval patrol boats since 1960s.
The first all-GRP patrol boats were built for the US Navy in the early 1960s and were used
on rivers in the Vietnam War. During the 1970s and 1980s the use of composite materials
in small patrol boats gradually increased and up to 2001 there were over 300 boats in-
service. Most GRP patrol boats are less than 10 m long and 10 tons displacement.
Nevertheless, many countries are now showing an interest in building all-composite patrol
boats up to ~ 55 m in length and 300 tons in full-1oad disp1acement for offshore operations
[Mouritz 2001].

The largest all-composite naval patrol boat is the Skjold class vessel operated by the
Royal Norwegian Navy, (figure 4-25). The Skjold is an air surface effect ship with a
catamaran hull form that is 46.8 m long, 13.5 m wide and 270 tons full-load displacement.
Water jets propel the patrol boat and lift fans reduce the draft to 2.6 m to achieve a top
speed of 57 knots in calm water and 44 knots in Sea State 3 [Mouritz 2001].

The Skjold represents the new breed of Fast Patrol/Missile torpedo boats built by
Umoe Mandal A/S in Norway between 1999 through 2006. DIAB core materials are used
throughout the vessel providing lightweight performance and low electro-magnetic
signature (EMS). Rohacel foam is used where elevated temperature performance is required
[Greene 2013c].

Skjold’s boat builders used a sandwich composite instead of steel or aluminum alloy
because they found it simplified the construction of the hull and superstructure. The
composite also provides a high strength-to weight ratio, good impact properties and low
infrared, magnetic and radar cross-sectional signatures. When using only GRP materials it
is necessary to incorporate conducting materials (e.g. copper mesh) to provide

110
electromagnetic shielding to sophisticated electronic equipment used on the boat which
adds to the construction cost. Extensive use of carbon laminates gives the required high
stiffness in structures such as beam frames, mast and support base to the gun. The carbon
fiber used in the superstructure also provides some electromagnetic shielding. The Skjold
has been fitted with an array of 56 fiber Bragg grating sensors to provide real-time
information on the strain levels generated during sea trials [Mouritz 2001].

4.3.3.2. Mine counter measure vessels (MCMV)

Naval ships designed for locating and destroying sea mines are known as mine
counter measure vessels (MCMV). Obviously, nonmetallic material in hull construction is
essential in order to avoid magnetic sea mines.

These vessels were originally wood built until the widespread use of Composites
occurred post World War II. Many trials were performed in USA and UK to construct a
reliable MCMV. The first MCMV successfully built using composites was HMS Wilton in
1973, which at 46.6 m long and 450 tons full-load displacement was then the largest all-
GRP ship, the outstanding success of HMS Wilton led to a rapid expansion in the use of
composites, and since the early 1980s over 200 all-composite MCMV have been
constructed.

Table 4-8 lists the different types of MCMV currently in-service or under
construction and many are over 50 m long with displacements at full load exceeding 600
tons [Mouritz 2001]. The numbers in Table 4-8 should have already increased.

The types of hulls used in building MCMVs are “stiffened single skin”, which,
consists of transverse frames and longitudinal composite girders that are adhesively bonded
in the transverse and longitudinal directions to a pre-laminated GRP hull, “Sandwich
Construction” and “unframed monocoque”, where, construction does not utilize a hull
framing system. Instead an extremely thick skin (up to 0.15-0.20 m) of GRP is used to
obtain the required hull stiffness and underwater shock resistance, the decks and main
bulkheads also contribute to the stiffness of monocoque ships [Mouritz 2001].

111
 Table 4-8 Survey of GRP mine counter measure vessels in-service or under construction as at
3/12/1999 [Mouritz 2001].

4.3.3.2.1. Landsort / Koster Class MCMV

The Swedish shipbuilding company, Kockums (formerly Karlskronavarvet) has

constructed seven Landsort Class minehunters for the Swedish Navy, which is 47.5 m
length and 360 tons in displacement, (figure 4-26) [Naval-technology 2016a].

The first of class, the Landsort (M 71), was commissioned in 1984, followed by the
Arholma (M 72), Koster (M 73), Kullen (M 74), Vinga (M 75), Ven (M 76) and Ulvon (M
77) which were commissioned between 1984 and 1992. In January 2005, Kockums became
a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems of Germany [Naval-technology 2016a].

112
 Figure 4-26 Landsort Class MCMV [Naval-technology 2016a]

The Singapore Navy also operates four Landsort Class minehunters. The first ship,
Bedok (M 105), was built by Karlskronavarvet. Three other ships, Kallang (M 106), Katong
(M 107) and Pungol (M 108) were prefabricated in Sweden and transferred to Singapore
for final assembly at Singapore Shipbuilding. All four ships were commissioned in October
1995 [Naval-technology 2016a].

The Landsort is made of glass-fiber-reinforced plastic (GRP) Sandwich composite

developed by the Swedish Navy and Karlskronavarvet, which is highly durable, easy to
repair and fire and shock-resistant [Naval-technology 2016a], (figure 4-27).

Figure 4-27 One of the Landsort Class MCMV during Construction [Naval-technology 2016a]

113
 Kockums received a contract for the mid-life upgrade of the other five vessels in
December 2004. The upgrade includes improved command systems, weapon systems and
sonars, new air defence systems and a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) with a
minehunting capability [Naval-technology 2016a].

Work began in May 2005 on HMS Koster, to be followed by HMS Vinga and Ulvon
then Landsort and Arholma. HMS Koster began sea trials in January 2008. HMS Vinga
was initially delivered in August 2008 but returned to dock for further upgrades. The two
vessels were handed over to the Swedish Navy in March 2009 and the mid-life upgrades
(MLUs) were completed in August 2008. The upgraded vessels were reclassified as the
Koster Class [Naval-technology 2016a].

4.3.3.3. Corvettes

Corvettes are the smallest class of surface combatant warships (the warship class
above the corvette is that of the frigate), it is generally employed by national navies in force
projection and national defense roles including surveillance, combat, mine laying, mine
counter measures, and anti-submarine warfare operations. The longest naval ships currently
being built from composite material are corvettes [Lamb 2003].

4.3.3.3.1. Visby class Corvettes

The Visby Class of stealth corvettes were built for the Swedish Navy by the Swedish
company Kockums (a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems of Germany) [Naval-
technology 2016b].

FMV (the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration) and Karlskrona Shipyard

signed the contract for design and construction of the Visby Class Corvette in October 1995
[Lindblom 2003]. Construction began in 1996 at Kockums' Kalrskrona yard. The lead ship
of the class, Visby (K31), was launched in June 2000 and was delivered to the FMV in June
2002 for fitting with weapons and combat systems. The second, HMS Helsingborg (K32),
was launched in June 2003 and delivered in April 2006. Harnosand (K33) was launched in
December 2004. HMS Visby and Harnosand were officially delivered to the FMV in June
2006 [Naval-technology 2016b].

The other hulls are: Nykoping (K34), (figure 4-28), launched in August 2005 and
delivered in September 2006, and Karlstad (K35), launched in August 2006 [Naval-
technology 2016b].

Two corvettes, HMS Helsingborg and Harnosand, were delivered to the Swedish
Navy in December 2009. The Swedish Navy has cancelled an option on a sixth vessel
(Uddevalla K36) [Naval-technology 2016b].

The 72m long ship, with a crew of 43 people, is a 600 tonnes multi-purpose vessel
developed by FMV capable of various tasks such as surface attack operations, mine
hunting, mine laying, anti-submarine warfare and patrol duty at speeds exceeding 35 knots
[Lindblom 2003].

114
Figure 4-28 HMS Nykoping K34, Visby Class Corvette of Swedish Navy during a Visit to Gothenburg
[Ships and harbours 2013]

Furthermore, the ship’s hull fulfils the following performance requirements

[Lindblom 2003]:

 Low weight
 High Stiffness and strength
 High impact resistance and damage tolerance
 High shock resistance from underwater detonations
 Low radar signature
 Low magnetic signature
 Low acoustic signature
 Low IR (Infrared) signature
 EMI (Electromagnetic interference) shielding
 Low maintenance cost

4.3.3.3.1.1. Materials

The chosen material concept can be summarized as, Skins: HS-carbon >2.0%
elongation, 12K knitted non-crimp fabric, rubber-modified vinylester, Core: PVC-foam,
standard and ductile versions [Lindblom 2003].

115
 Carbon fiber was the best choice to meet all of the project objectives. The hull had
to be extremely lightweight, yet strong and rigid enough to withstand wave slam loads
generated by high speeds in North Atlantic seas, as well as shock loads caused by exploding
mines. Kockums selected a high-strength Toray Industries Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) T700 fiber
for its elongation-at-break of 2 percent, which is higher than that of other intermediate-
modulus fibers. DeVold AMT AS (Langevåg, Norway) converts the T700 fibers into
stitched nonwoven multiaxials (essentially multiple plies of unidirectional fibers, with each
ply in a different orientation, held together by stitching) for the sandwich skins, in widths
that range from 1.3m to 3.2m/50 inches to 126 inches. The fiber architecture of the
multiaxials varies depending on the strength requirements of each area of the hull, and can
incorporate as many as 40 plies oriented to deliver the required performance specifications
while maintaining ease of use [Black 2003].

Vinyl ester resin, toughened with rubber additives, was chosen for the infusion
process, because it achieves higher strength properties than polyester and has a lower
viscosity than epoxy, for rapid wetout during infusion. An issue with carbon fiber is that
traditionally it has been "sized" or treated during production with materials compatible only
with epoxy resins, making it difficult to laminate with polyesters or vinyl esters. Toray
worked with the shipyard to develop a modified fiber sizing for compatibility with the vinyl
ester resin [Black 2003].

An important part of the design was the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) structural
foam core manufactured by DIAB (Laholm, Sweden). DIAB's Divinycell foam was
specified throughout the entire vessel, while ductile Divinycell HD grade was used for the
more highly stressed areas below the waterline. The tougher, higher-density HD foam has
the capability to absorb large quantities of energy, with a shear strain at failure of
approximately 45 percent. This ductility enables the vessel to absorb shock loads without
fracturing or delaminating [Black 2003].

Numerical models were developed to optimize the craft's structure. Optimization

runs were performed using ANSYS software from ANSYS Inc. (Canonsburg, Pa., U.S.A.),
showing that a cored carbon fiber sandwich structure was as cost-effective as a glass
laminate hull, because only one-third the material was needed to achieve the same strength.
Multiple model iterations using different methods have been done for calculating hull loads
[Black 2003].

4.3.3.3.1.2. Construction technique

The shipyard used a vacuum-bag and resin-infuse large sandwich panels, up to 60

m /635 ft2 in size, using an in-house infusion technique, known as KVASI, which stands
2

for Kockums vacuum-assisted sandwich infusion. DIAB supplies its "kerfed" or grid-
scored core sheets that allow resin flow paths during infusion. The core sheets themselves
are bonded together with a high-strength, very high-elongation adhesive. Reichhold Inc.
(Research Triangle Park, N.C., U.S.A.) vinyl ester resin is introduced on the underside of
the panel, with vacuum on the upper side of the panel, and resin flows through the core
channels for complete wet-out of the upper and lower skins. After cure, the sandwich panels
are water jet cut to produce several parts, then butted together, adhesively bonded and over-
laminated to form the vessel hull and bulkheads. 60 percent by weight (50 percent by

116
volume) fiber content is achieved using infusion, with less than 1 percent voids [Black
2003].

The flat panel parts are joined together to form precise, faceted hull and
superstructure shapes. Once all sections are joined, the entire vessel is postcured at
60°C/166°F in a heated oven-like enclosure for improved strength properties. The smooth,
flat surfaces reduce radar signature by reflecting radar signals in specific directions. The
ship's stealth characteristics are greatly enhanced by the total absence of metallic fasteners
or metal railings and ladders. The PVC foam core helps insulate the ship's acoustic and heat
signals. Because of carbon's conductivity, the ship requires no additional electromagnetic
(EM) shielding to hide its communications signatures [Black 2003].

The high-tech Visby corvettes are outfitted with embedded accelerometers and
strain gauges in the most highly stressed areas of the hull. The sensors transmit real time
stress and strain data to the captain, who can adjust speed as needed to avoid undue stresses.
Sea trials in bad weather conditions have shown that actual measured loads are close to
those predicted by the numerical models. Slamming load peak pressure is close to predicted
but somewhat shorter in duration, which means that structural assumptions are on the safe
side. With added phenolic/glass insulation and intumescent coatings on the interior
bulkheads, the ship meets all International Maritime Organization (IMO) fire safety
requirements, as verified by fire testing [Black 2003].

4.4. COMPOSITE PARTS

Rather than using composites to build the whole vessel, it can be used effectively in
the construction of other components. The result will be a hybrid construction that will
benefit from the favorable composite characteristics and (in the same time) will keep the
desired metallic hull stiffness and fire resistance.

Referring again to the relevant report by the Ship Structures Committee (SSC)
“Feasibility Study of Glass Reinforced Plastic Cargo Ship”; it was concluded that it is
feasible to use GRP (and similarly other composites) instead of steel for a number of the
following large structural components on a cargo ship [Scott et al. 1971] :

 Deckhouse
 Hatch covers
 King posts
 Edible oil tank boundaries
 Bulwarks
 Bulkheads - structural
 Bulkheads - non-structural
 Decks which are not part of the hull girder
 Immersed portion of bow and stern

Through the years, it has been proved via technical studies and developed material
and manufacturing technologies that the above components (and many other components)
can be replaced with composites materials to produce efficient and superior components.

117
Again we emphasize that the relevance of the advantages of composite materials is strongly
dependent upon the type and field of application.

In the following sections the applications of composites to some of the above

mentioned components will be discussed in addition to some other components that were
not included in the study.

4.4.1. Superstructures

Superstructures can have a considerable amount of weight, especially for certain

types of vessels such as passengers and RORO vessels; therefore, considering reducing the
superstructure weight by using lighter materials is of great interest.

A very good example is the deckhouse of “multi-mission destroyers, the DDG-1000

Zumwalt class”.

4.4.1.1. DDG-1000 Zumwalt class

The Zumwalt class had its genesis in 2001, when the Navy announced the DD(X)
program would supersede the DD 21 project. Unlike traditional destroyers, which primarily
engage in offshore anti-air and undersea warfare, the new ships also were to provide support
for land attack and ground forces [LeGault 2010]. USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) is a guided
missile destroyer of the United States Navy, see Table 4-9 and figure 4-29. She is the lead
ship of the Zumwalt class and the first ship to be named for Admiral Elmo
Zumwalt. Zumwalt has stealth capabilities, having a radar cross-section akin to a fishing
boat despite her large size [Patterson 2014].

Table 4-9 Principal particulars of USS Zumwalt [Naval-technology 2016c]

Class and type: Zumwalt-class destroyer

Displacement: 14,564 tons

Length: 600 ft (182.9 m)

Beam: 80.7 ft (24.6 m)

Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)

 2 × Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines (35.4 MW

each) driving Curtiss-Wright electric generators.

 2 × Rolls-Royce RR4500 turbine generators (3.8 MW

Propulsion: each).

 2 × propellers driven by electric motors.

 Total: 78 MW (105,000 shp).

Speed: 33.5 knots (62.0 km/h; 38.6 mph)

118
 Figure 4-29 USS Zumwalt [Naval-technology 2016c]

The ship design includes an upper-section deckhouse 155 ft long by 60 ft wide by

40 ft high (47.244 m by 18.3m by 12.2m) constructed with panels and beams made of
carbon fiber/vinyl ester skins and balsa and/or foam cores, contains advanced radar systems,
and a mission planning/control center. The ship also features a composite helicopter hanger
built of the same material, as well as an integrated composite ballistic screen [LeGault
2010] (figure 4-30).

Huntington Ingalls Industries makes the 1,000 ton composite deckhouses in a

special facility in Gulfport, Mississippi and ships them by barge to Bath Iron Works in
Maine, where the ships are assembled and launched [LeGault 2010].

The DDG-1000 project’s team evaluated a multitude of material combinations,

generating more than 6,000 individual test articles over a period of 10 years. Ultimately,
the team settled on a sandwich construction, featuring balsa supplied by Alcan Baltek Corp.
(Northvale, N.J.) between skins made from Toray T700 12K FOE carbon fiber, supplied by
Toray Carbon Fiber America Inc. (Flower Mound, Texas), and 510A vinyl ester resin from
Ashland Inc. (Dublin, Ohio). Sigmatex Inc. (Benicia, Calif.) wove the T700 fiber into three
different types of fabric: a noncrimp ±45° stitched material at a weight of 410 g/m², a
bonded unidirectional material at 680 g/m², and a plain-weave 0°/90° fabric at 300 g/m²
[LeGault 2010].

119
 Figure 4-30 The Deckhouse of USS Zumwalt [LeGault 2010]

Alcan Baltek supplies balsa in three different densities: 10 lb/ft³, 15 lb/ft³ and 20
lb/ft³, but for panels that require unusually high shear strength, a 33 lb/ft³ syntactic foam is
used as the core. Navy tests showed that a balsa-core sandwich contained fire spread better
than those cored with foam or honeycomb. So it does a better job of insulating the opposite-
side skin, unlike foam, which softens and transfers heat more readily. On the other hand,
unlike honeycomb core, wood cells are terminal or closed in the thickness direction, so
balsa requires no intermediate barrier material to prevent ingress of resin during infusion,
keeping cost down and ensuring that the balsa core retains its low weight. For the most part,
the composite panels are flat, a design outcome dictated in part by a desire to keep down
tooling costs, where most of the tooling is flat, thus requiring fewer specially designed tools.
There are exceptions to this such as, beams, which have depth and shape [LeGault 2010].

The performance of the carbon-fiber fabric/resin system was confirmed by the

construction of a 1/3-scale model of the deckhouse, which then was tested at China Lake
Naval Air Weapons Station in California’s Mojave Desert. Then the construction of the
full-size superstructure commenced. Here, the project is breaking new ground by molding
some of the largest panels ever built by the vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding
(VARTM) process. Panels as large as 120 ft long by 60 ft wide (36.6m by 18.3m) were
processed at the NGSB Gulfport facility, and can take up to 12 hours to infuse with resin
[LeGault 2010].

Tools are typically coated with a tooling-release agent prior to the lay down of the
external reinforcing fabrics, balsa core and interior fabrics. A woven glass cloth peel ply

120
also is usually placed on the tool or external side of the panel. The cloth is peeled off after
infusion and cure, providing a clean, bondable surface for secondary bonding and assembly.
A stainless steel mesh also is integrated into the fabric on the external skin, providing
electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding and a lightning ground in the otherwise
nonconductive panels. The skins, which can comprise several different types of fabric, are
approximately 0.125 inch/3.2 mm thick, while the balsa cores range from 2 to 3 inches
(50.8 mm to 76.2 mm) thick, depending on structural and functional requirements. For
example, the noncrimp, ±45° stitched fabric is used in combination with the 0°/90° plain-
weave fabric in a typical wall panel to create a “quasi-isotropic” effect, which provides
roughly uniform stiffness and strength in all directions. The reason a quasi-isotropic
approach is used in the design for these panels is that it gives a high-strength-to-low-weight
ratio that’s critical [LeGault 2010].

The infused and cured panels are assembled by means of laminate step-downs or
“scarfs” that facilitate vertical-to-vertical and horizontal-to-horizontal bonds, with wedge
blocks between vertical and horizontal panels. Structural putty is used to affix the wedge
block between the 90°angle formed by the panels, and the block is wrapped in carbon fiber
fabric and infused with resin [LeGault 2010], (see figure 4-31 ).

Figure 4-31 The Composite Deckhouse during Construction [Composites World 2013]

In October 2012, Huntington Ingalls announced delivery of the composite

deckhouse for the destroyer Zumwalt, the first in its class. It is considered to be the largest
composite structure ever built [Greene 2013b], (figure 4-32). On 7 December 2015,
Zumwalt began her sea trial preparatory to joining the Pacific Fleet [Composites World
2013].

121
 Figure 4-32 Completed Composite Deckhouse [Greene 2013b]

4.4.1.2. Passenger ship’s Superstructure

In 2011, SP technical research institute of Sweden, published a research under the

title “LASS-C; Lightweight construction of a cruise vessel” where the existing cruise ship
the Norwegian Gem, (figure 4-33) a large cruise vessel (294 m), built in 2007 by Meyer
Werft and owned by NCL, was studied in the project. It provides amenities for about 3000
passengers and 1200 crew and consists of 15 decks. The upper five decks were redesigned
with a sandwich construction from a lightweight core separating two laminates of FRP
(Fiber Reinforced Polymer) composite material as part of the project. The previous
structure consisted of steel and some aluminum parts [Evegren et al. 2011].

Realistic weight calculations were carried out to determine the potential benefits of
the lightweight design but also some further investigations were necessary to account for
the introduced novelty. A very important complication brought in by the new design,
compared to previous projects, was the inclusion of decks taking part in the global strength,
i.e. constituents of the hull girder. Previous projects have focused on designs where the
lightweight construction applications only needed to account for their own weight, wind
loads and possibly joints between an upper deck house and the main hull construction.
Interfering with the original hull girder design invokes to investigate implications of the
new material through finite element model analysis [Evegren et al. 2011].

122
 Figure 4-33 M/S Norwegian Gem [Evegren et al. 2011]

Further ship specifications are [Evegren et al. 2011]:

 gross register tonnage: 93 530;

 overall length: 965 feet;
 max beam: 105 feet;
 draft: 28 feet;
 engines: diesel electric; and
 cruise speed: 25 knots.

The Norwegian Gem was used as basis when Meyer Werft formed the conceptual
design of a new ship, the Norwegian Future. The starting point for the new design was to
gain new spaces by building the upper structures in FRP composite but with the prerequisite
to keep the same center of gravity (stability criteria will be fulfilled). The result was a design
where decks 1-10 are identical to those on the Norwegian Gem. However, the layout of the
remaining upper decks was changed by adding a third of a deck with 86 cabins. It was
inserted in the position of the previous front third of deck 12. This implies that the front
third of all previous decks above deck 11 were shifted upwards [Evegren et al. 2011], as
seen in Figure 4-34.

123
 Figure 4-34 Illustration of the Design Changes Made to the Norwegian Gem to Form the Novel
Design of the Norwegian Future [Evegren et al. 2011]

The design expansion is possible since all load-bearing structures of the upper decks
from deck 11 will be made in lightweight FRP composite instead of steel. The main
introduced difference in fire safety is that the material is combustible, as opposed to steel
which by definition is non-combustible. Figure 4-35 marks the part of the superstructure on
the Norwegian Gem that has been redesigned in FRP composite and, hence, shows the
proportions of the reconstruction on the Norwegian Future.

Figure 4-35 The Cruise Ship Norwegian Gem and the Structure (Marked) Intended for
Reconstruction in FRP Composite from Deck 11 and up [Evegren et al. 2011]

Finite Element Model (FEM) analyses were carried out by Meyer Werft and
Kockums AB in order to assess the ability of the FRP construction to manage global
stresses.

124
 To simplify the procedure and the loading conditions that the model was tested by,
only one still water loading condition was chosen. It was scaled to fulfil the maximum and
minimum still water limit curve. The same procedure was used for the wave loading; one
wave load case was scaled to achieve the maximum hogging and sagging wave bending
moments. After solving the hogging and sagging, load cases were created by adding the
scaled parts of still water and wave, which provided the results presented in Table 4-10 and
figure 4-36 [Evegren et al. 2011].

Figure 4-36 The Maximum Modelled Hogging for the Existing Norwegian Gem (top), the Norwegian
Future (mid) and the Norwegian Future with Increased Deck Plating (bottom) [Evegren et al. 2011]

125
Table 4-10 The modelled ability to manage global forces in different design solutions (Hogging Values
in mm) [Evegren et al. 2011]

The decks of the Norwegian Future were strengthened to fulfil the global stress and
buckling requirements. The increase of 91 mm or 26% in vertical deflection of the keel line
in the maximum hogging load case is, however, still a lot. The buckling of the bulkheads
could be solved by using buckling stiffeners. A 26% increase in defection would lead to a
necessary re-dimensioning of all local details which are critical with regard to fatigue
[Evegren et al. 2011].

Much work was carried out in the project and some of the most concrete results are
listed below [Evegren et al. 2011]:

 The FRP composite structures will reduce the weight with approximately 1200 tons.
However, 400 tons of steel is estimated to be needed in order to strengthen the steel
hull. The remaining 800 tons of weight comes to use for the additional third of a
deck (FRP composite structures - 265 tons) and its outfitting (86 cabins, 350 m2
public spaces, technical spaces - 535 tons). Altogether the new ship will have a
weight of 43 130 tons, and thereby just about the same weight as the Norwegian
Gem (43 150). The vertical center of gravity will be equal for the two vessels but
the longitudinal center of gravity will be slightly different, which can be adjusted
by modified load cases or a different layout.
 Weight calculations show that using FRP composites instead of steel/aluminum for
the five upper decks on the cruise vessel Norwegian Gem give the possibility to
increase the number of cabins by almost 100 (200 Passengers), as it is possible to
add more than a third of a deck. The new ship design, titled “Norwegian Future”,
keeps original significant ship parameters, such as displacement and longitudinal
and vertical centers of gravity.
 From the economic life cycle calculations the most advantageous of the compared
alternatives was to manufacture the superstructure in FRP composite and to make
use of the weight reductions by adding more cabins. This alternative resulted in a
break-even after 2.5 years, with a resulting additional net income per additional
passenger of 107.5 $/day. This yields a total increased income of 7 740 000 $/year.

4.4.1.3. Superstructure of a RoRo vessel

During a study by Kockums AB, the superstructure of the vessel in figure 4-37 is
proposed to be replaced by a composite superstructure. Through the study, the composite
GRP Sandwich superstructure was found to weigh 300 tons, compared to 600 tons for steel
superstructure. Furthermore; the vertical location of center of gravity of the vessel
significantly reduced when using the GRP superstructure (figure 4-38), thus the composite
superstructure offered an increase in stability of the vessel and increased payload and/or
less fuel consumption [Petersson 2004].

126
 Figure 4-37 Characteristics of Vessel under Study [Petersson 2004]

Figure 4-38 A Demonstration of the Reduction in VCG after Implementing Composite

Superstructure [Petersson 2004]

127
4.4.2. Hatch Covers

Composite hatch covers provide both economical and performance advantages,

especially for ships designed with large hatch covers such as bulk carriers and container
carriers.

In depth study of the application of composites on commercial ship’s hatch covers

will be discussed in Chapter 5, however, in the current section two of the major
developments in this field will be introduced.

4.4.2.1. Oshima ECO-Ship 2020

About the middle of 2011, Oshima Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and DNV announced that
they have completed the first milestone of a joint programme to develop the ECO-Ship in
the future. Oshima ECO-Ship 2020 is a LNG-fuelled Open Hatch Bulk Carrier (OHBC)
assuming 2020 delivery to study various technical components and combinations using the
ship as a concrete test-bed. The ECO-Ship 2020 is aiming at energy-efficient,
environmental friendliness, and flexible operation and cost-effectiveness, (figure 4-39)
[SEA-Japan 2011].

Figure 4-39 An Illustration Showing the Proposed Solution for Oshima ECO-Ship 2020 [Mori 2011]

The ship concept is equipped with large pontoon hatch covers made of a
combination of glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) sandwich construction. The total weight of
hatch cover is less than half of the traditional steel hatch cover weight [Mori 2011].

The ECO-Ship has four large capacity electric driven jib cranes for efficient cargo
handling operations. The cranes can be used to move the above mentioned light weight
hatch covers, thus eliminating the need for complex hydraulic deck system [Mori 2011].

128
4.4.2.2. M/V Nordic Oshima

On December 11, 2014 SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden (SP, Borås,

Sweden) announced that combustible, fiber-reinforced, lightweight composites have been
approved for the first time for use in a SOLAS ship. Compared with steel hatches, the
lightweight composites will make the 225m-long and 32m-wide ship lighter. It also reduces
fuel consumption and emissions, while eliminating corrosion [Ship technology 2015].

Panama's flag authority has accepted a design where fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP)
hatches will replace steel hatches. This new development will see the fiber reinforced
plastic composite replace steel hatches during vessel conversion. SP research and fire risk
analyses have helped make this possible, the design was produced by the Japanese shipyard
Oshima and approved by DNV-GL [Ship technology 2015].

In September 2014, Nordic's M/V Nordic Oshima was delivered from Oshima
Shipyard in Japan (Figure 4-40). The first vessel in a series of four Panamax new-builds,
Nordic Oshima, is classed with the highest commercial Ice-class of 1A [Ship technology
2015].

Figure 4-40 Nordic's M/V Nordic Oshima Panamax Vessel [Ship Technology 2015]

4.4.3. Propellers

The use of composite propellers have found its way in naval vessels and recently
for commercial vessels as well.

Propellers for naval ships and submarines have traditionally been made of nickel-
aluminum-bronze (NAB) alloy because of its excellent corrosion resistance and high yield
strength. There are a number of problems associated with the properties of NAB. The
material is expensive to machine into the complex shape of a propeller blade. NAB
propeller blades are prone to fatigue-induced cracking and have relatively poor acoustic
damping properties that can lead to noise problems from vibration. The use of composites
as alternative will make use of the following benefits [Mouritz et al. 2001]:

 Reduced fabrication cost (but only if a large number of blades are manufactured)

129
  Reduced through-life maintenance costs
 Reduced wear on gearbox/shaft
 Weight savings
 1mproved vibration damping properties
 Improved fatigue performance
 Reduced corrosion
 Increased cavitation inception speeds by using thick and flexible blades
 Lower electrical/magnetic signatures
 Lower noise signatures

4.4.3.1. Alkmaar-class mine hunter

Airborne Composites (The Hague, The Netherlands), a composites design and

manufacturing firm, was awarded a contract by the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) in
2004 to develop a prototype composite naval propeller, it faced a complex design brief. The
RNLN wanted to explore a composite replacement for metallic propellers on its Alkmaar-
class mine hunting vessels to decrease the ships’ magnetic, electric and acoustic signatures;
In addition to the potential for improvement in fuel efficiency and a reduction in galvanic
hull corrosion. The RNLN contract specified that the prototype propeller have the same
diameter and strength characteristics as the minehunters’ baseline propeller of
nickel/aluminum/bronze (NAB) alloy [Black 2011a].

Airborne designed and build five composite blades that replaced the NAB blades
and interface with the existing controllable-pitch NAB hub. The propeller diameter is
2.5m/8.125 ft, with a power output of 1.4 MW. For the blade-to-hub attachment, Airborne
team designed a bronze “blade foot”, a circular metal part made to fit inside the hub bearing,
which has a small, rectangular recess that accepts the composite blade root. A radial bolt
secures the blade root in the foot [Black 2011a], (figure 4-41).

Figure 4-41 The Composite Propeller Blade, Attached to the Bronze Blade Foot that Forms the
Interface with the Existing Metallic Propeller Hub [Black 2011a]

Finite element analysis (FEA) was undertaken to determine the stresses in the blade
foot and the blades under operational load conditions, using MSC. Marc from MSC.
Software (Santa Ana, Calif.). A modal analysis for vibration response also was conducted.
Because the composite blades tended to deform under loads more than metal blades, the

130
deformed geometry was used in the analysis of the propeller’s hydrodynamic performance.
The root area at the blade foot was found to be the critical part of the design. To ensure
adequate stiffness in the root region and ability to transfer loads between the blades and the
hub, a series of tests were developed with a simplified model of the connection to determine
the best design approach [Black 2011a].

Based on the models and initial lab tests, Airborne selected a blade structural design
that comprises a glass fiber/epoxy core and carbon fiber/epoxy skins, with dry fabrics that
account for the stresses at the root. The core and fabrics were assembled in a proprietary
layup and infused with epoxy resin. A polyurethane coating, applied to the demolded
blades, provides impact protection and reduces algae growth. In keeping with Airborne’s
philosophy of efficient manufacturing processes, the blades were designed to be produced
to net shape via resin transfer molding (RTM) to reduce postmold finishing, (figure 4-42)
[Black 2011a].

Figure 4-42 Airborne Composites' Composite Blades for Controllable-Pitch Ship Propeller Illustration
[Black 2011a]

Full-scale blade prototypes were subjected to laboratory testing to 120 percent of

operation loads. After successful lab results, the blades were delivered to the RNLN in
September 2010 and installed for sea trials, (figure 4-43).

131
 The project has definitely shown that a large, controllable-pitch composite propeller
is technically feasible.

Lab tests showed, and on-ship testing, thus far, have verified, that composite
propellers have no negative effects on hydrodynamic performance or cavitation-inception
properties. Despite the fact that blade deflections under load are greater than those of the
NAB baseline, they have no negative effects on hydrodynamic performance or cavitation-
inception properties. Notably, propeller weight has been reduced by a substantial 70
percent. Further, cathodic protection measures are no longer necessary to retard hull
corrosion, and the nonmagnetic composite increases mine hunting safety [Black 2011a].

In fact, Airborne reports that the RNLN has been so impressed by the results of the
prototype testing that it has commissioned a follow-up study to further investigate the
unintended benefits of the more flexible blades. It turns out that the blade tips change pitch
as they bend under dynamic loads, so the tips actually are moving slightly slower than the
rest of the propeller when the blades are deflected. Airborne believed, and has conducted
computer modeling to verify, that this condition delays the onset of cavitation and leads to
quieter operation. In addition, Airborne contended that the pitch change also has the
potential to increase ship fuel efficiency by a few percent, which could lead to substantial
cost savings in large oceangoing vessels [Black 2011a].

Figure 4-43 The Completed Prototype Blades Are Shown Installed on a Minehunter’s Propeller Hub
[Black 2011a]

4.4.3.2. QinetiQ propeller

QinetiQ's (Rosyth, U.K.) prototype propeller is the world's largest composite marine
propeller with a 2.9-m/9.5-ft diameter (the largest in metal is about 9m/29.5 ft). The blades

132
are solid laminates with centermost plies of carbon fiber, however, glass is also used on the
inner and outer surfaces to isolate the carbon from the environment and to provide some
increased impact resistance on the blade. A tough polyurethane coating further isolates the
carbon fiber. This is required because of the combination of a seawater environment and
direct bolting and bonding to metal. The blade design was a retrofit solution which needed
to be joined back onto a nickel-aluminum-bronze hub [Mason 2004].

QinetiQ developed proprietary techniques that enabled resin transfer molding

(RTM) of the blades whilst maintaining structural performance in key areas, such as the
leading and trailing edges. Dowty Propellers (div. of Smiths Aerospace, Cheltenham, U.K.)
fabricated the blades, using RTM tools built by Delcam (Birmingham, U.K.).
Reinforcement fabrics were supplied by Selcom Srl (Treviso, Italy). Huntsman Advanced
Materials (Brewster, N.Y., U.S.A., formerly Vantico) provided an epoxy resin suitable for
RTM. Wärtsiä Propulsion (Drunen, The Netherlands) manufactured the nickel-aluminum-
bronze hub and blade stubs. The stubs have a rectangular cross-section and the hub features
recesses that accommodate the blade roots. This design ensures proper load transfer from
the blades. The composite blades are expected to reduce propeller corrosion and last the
full 25-year life expectancy of the ship. In that time, a nickel-aluminum-bronze blade would
be replaced several times. Noting that the composite blades experience less wear from
cavitation. The use of the lighter composite material means that the blades could be thicker
without significantly adding weight to the propeller, thicker blades offer the potential for
improved cavitation performance, thus reducing vibration and underwater signatures.
Furthermore, the blades weigh 35 percent less than comparable metal blades, reducing
wear-and-tear on system components such as gears and bearings [Mason 2004].

The composite propeller was designed to warship standards and installed on

QinetiQ's 90m/295-ft long RV Triton trimaran warship prototype, the world's largest motor-
powered triple-hull vessel. During sea trials completed in 2003, strain gauges were fitted to
two of the blades and connected to a data logging system in the propeller tail cone. Gathered
data will be used to validate the propeller's hydrodynamic and structural design models and
to assess the acoustic performance of a rotating composite structure and evaluate the aft-
end galvanic environment. The tests confirmed that the composite design provides a smooth
take-up of power and reduces vibration on the main shaft compared to conventional
propellers. In addition, cavitation inception speed was 30 percent higher than that of
traditional, thinner metal blades. The propeller is most likely to be taken up by mine hunters,
frigates and destroyers but could be adapted to any class of vessel. In addition, the
technology is applicable to submarines [Mason 2004].

4.4.3.3. Nakashima Propeller

In May 2014, Classification society ClassNK and Nakashima Propeller have

successfully installed a carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) propeller on the main
propulsion system of a merchant vessel. The CFRP propeller was manufactured by
Nakashima with support from ClassNK. It was installed on the Taiko Maru, a domestic 499
GT chemical tanker of Sowa Kaiun YK of the Marugame-based Koa industry company
[Classnk 2015], (figure 4-44).

133
 The CFRP propeller was first fitted as part of the side thruster installation on the
499 gt chemical tanker Taiko Maru in 2012. Based on the successful performance of the
CFRP propellers installed on the vessel, shipowner Sowa Kaiun YK decided to extend the
use of the CFRP propeller technology to its main propulsion system, making the vessel the
first merchant ship in the world to use a CFRP propeller for its main propulsion system
[Classnk 2015].

Figure 4-44 CFRP after Installation on MV “Taiko Maru” [Marex 2016]

CFRP exhibits the same or more strength compared to the aluminum-bronze

composite materials used in conventional propellers. Taiko Maru’s new CFRP main
propeller features an enlarged diameter (2.12m in place of 1.95m diameter of the original
NAB propeller) thanks to its ultra-lightweight composition (60 percent less than
conventional NAB propellers), providing the chemical tanker with higher propulsion
efficiency. Sea trials on Taiko Maru confirmed that the shaft power required by a merchant
ship featuring a CFRP propeller was reduced by 9 percent compared to conventional metal
propellers at the same cruising speed. It was also reported that the use of the propeller
resulted in a noticeable decrease of onboard noise caused by hull vibration, most likely
attributable to the greater flexibility of the propeller blades which distribute flow pressure
evenly across their surface to greatly lower the occurrence of cavitation [Classnk 2015].

134
 On 28 August 2015, based on the knowledge obtained through this joint RandD
project, ClassNK summarized the requirements for the approval of the manufacturing
process for composite propellers and the testing/ inspections in the world’s first Guidelines
on Composite Propellers (Part on Manufacturing/ Product Inspection) [Classnk 2015].

4.4.4. Rudders

Composite ship rudders are being developed because they are expected to be up to
50% lighter and 20% cheaper than existing metal rudders. The US Navy is using composite
rudders on their Avenger class mine counter measures vessels [Mouritz et al. 2001].

4.4.4.1. Composite twisted Rudders

Ship rudders located behind large propellers experience a flow stream that varies in
“angle of attack” from top to bottom. It’s better to align the entire rudder with the water
flowing by it, Dr. Young T. Shen of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Div.
(NSWCCD, Bethesda, Md.) developed a "twisted rudder" design for USS Bulkeley that
incorporates a varying angle of attack from top to bottom (figure 4-45) one that conforms
more closely to the actual water flow pattern. The goal is to delay the onset of cavitation-
induced corrosion/erosion damage. However, this shape is very difficult and costly to build
out of steel. In 2001, Structural Composites in Melbourne, FL. awarded a contract to build
and test composite twisted rudders for DDG-51-class destroyers [Griffiths 2006].

Figure 4-45 Twisted Rudder on the USS Bulkeley [Griffiths 2006]

Hybrid steel/composite rudders have been designed. The design includes a steel
inner structure in the top portion of the rudder, provided by Maritime Applied Physics Corp.
(Baltimore, Md.), which is transited to a foam-cored composite sandwich structure that

135
features internal shear webs and an external surface of glass/vinyl ester composites,
fabricated by Structural Composites [Griffiths 2006].

For this project, Structural Composites has used its Recirculation Molding process.
A variation on light RTM, Recirculation Molding injects resin at relatively low pressure
beginning at the lowest point of the mold, counterbalanced by a peristaltic pump that draws
only 15 inches of vacuum (about half that drawn in conventional VARTM) through
strategically placed vents. The method permits comolding of the steel "skeleton" and
composite sandwich in a single molding cycle.

Core material forms made of 7 lb/ft3 (110 kg/m3) polyurethane foam (BASF,
Central, S.C.) were used to fill in the general structure around the steel skeleton. On the
full-size rudder, sections of formed polyurethane core are bisected by shear webs (vertical
blue ribs in the Figure 4-46) made from biaxial (±45°) glass fabric. The composites skins
and steel structure are bonded with Plexus MA-310 supplied by ITW Plexus (Danvers,
Mass.). The core, shear webs and steel skeleton are wrapped with (nominally) 25 plies
(alternated at near 0° and 90° angles) of E-LM 1810 Uni, a reinforcement fabric consisting
of unidirectional E-glass fibers (18 oz/yd2) stitched to 1.0 oz/ft2 binder-free chopped strand
mat, from Vectorply Corp, (Phenix City, Ala), with strategically placed EnkaFusion 8004
infusion media, supplied by Colbond (Enka, N.C.). Because the rudder is infused vertically,
reinforcements are tacked in place using Infuzene Vacuum Infusion Enabler (Westech
Aerosol Corp., Port Orchard, Wash.), a spray-on material designed to solubilize during
infusion and disperse in the resin to prevent binder-related interference with fiber/resin
adhesion [Griffiths 2006].

Figure 4-46 Internal Design of the Hybrid Steel/Composite Twisted Rudder

136
 The full-scale rudder assembly is then encased in the mold and infused with 8100-
50 vinyl ester resin from Interplastic Corp. Thermoset Resins Div. (St. Paul, Minn.)
catalyzed with Luperox DHD-9 from Arkema (Philadelphia, Pa.). This design provides
multiple benefits for the Navy. On the MCM Rudder program, the use of composites
enabled a 50 percent reduction in rudder weight from 5,772/lb to 2,820/lb. Use of a lighter
rudder also affects the trim of the vessel, permitting removal of counter-weighting ballast
from the bow. The yacht-quality rudder surface offers less form drag, which translate to
reduced fuel consumption. More importantly, the rudder's cavitation-reducing twist
minimizes erosion damage and significantly reduces maintenance costs [Griffiths 2006].

4.4.5. Propulsion Shafts

Composites are expected to offer a number of important benefits over metal when
used in propulsion systems, including lower cost, reduced weight, lower magnetic
signature, better noise damping properties and superior corrosion resistance [Selvaraju et
al. 2011. It is anticipated that propulsion shafts made from carbon fiber/epoxy and glass
fiber/epoxy composites have the potential to be 25-80% lighter than a steel shaft of similar
size [Mouritz et al. 2001] and will reduce life cycle cost by at least 25% because of fewer
problems associated with corrosion and fatigue [Selvaraju et al. 2011]. Ship designers
expect a composite shaft to also suppress the transmission of noise from machinery and
propellers due to the intrinsic damping properties of composite materials. Hence the
acoustic signature of the vessel would be reduced. Being non-magnetic, composite shafts
will also reduce the magnetic signature of a vessel [Mouritz et al. 2001].

An Example of carbon fiber propulsion shaft is shown in figure 4-47.

Figure 4-47 Carbon Fiber Propulsion Shaft [Greene 2013a]

137
4.4.5.1. Early trials

The idea of using propulsion shafts made of composites was tested in the 1980s,
when the US Navy successfully tested a prototype carbon/epoxy shaft on a patrol vessel
(YP-654 class) in the 1980s [Mouritz et al. 2001]. A small-diameter (2.5 inch) filament-
wound composite propulsion shaft is being evaluated in a trial aboard a Naval Academy
yard patrol vessel (YP-654 class). After three years and 3,000 hours of testing under all
possible maneuvering conditions, including crashback operations, the composite shaft has
shown no degradation of strength or materials characteristics in the seawater environment
[Doyle 1989]. Encouraging results from the YP trial, laboratory torsion and fatigue testing,
and analytical studies employing finite-element stress-analysis techniques, have led to
RandD efforts to develop a Navy-standard composite shafting “base laminate,” design and
procurement specifications, and metal/composite coupling technique suitable for the largest
diameter shafting systems. Laboratory evaluations with small diameter composite shafts
have demonstrated their torsional loading and fatigue capabilities, and have shown the joint
to a metal flange or propeller as the consistent weak point in the system [Wilhelmi 1986].

In 1989 US navy replaced the 20 tonne, 10 m long, 0.68 m diameter steel propeller
shaft of the Sacramento class support ship with a composite shaft that is up to 80% lighter
and 50% cheaper to fabricate [Wilhelmi 1986].

Norway has composite propeller shafts fitted to its Skjold and Rauma 2000
(Hamina) classes of fast patrol boat [Mouritz et al. 2001].

4.4.5.2. JIME Research

In 1993, “Japan Institute of Marine Engineering (JIME)” published a research work

where, a CFRP intermediate shaft for marine use has been studied for adaptability. First,
the various experiments of the mechanical properties was carried out for the practical use
by using scaled models of CFRP shafts. And then, a conventional steel-made shaft of a
small ship was replaced by a CFRP one and sea-trial tests were performed for evaluating
torsional stress and hull vibration. Last, from these data they designed the optimum CFRP
intermediate shaft of 80,000 DWT Tanker and were able to verify that this advanced shaft
should be practical for marine use and has the same function as a conventional steel-made
highly elastic assembly of the propulsion shafting [Sunahara et al. 1992].

CFRP shafts for this research was manufactured using Filament winding method
and a (GRP, CFRP) hybrid design of the shaft was considered, (figure 4-48), the shaft is
2.100 m Length, outside diameter 52 mm, inside diameter 41 mm. For the 80,000 DWT
Tanker, the shaft dimension have been designed to be 520 mm in outside diameter and 40
mm in inside diameter, provided that the shaft length was made equal to the steel shaft
length of 7.150 m [Sunahara et al. 1992].

138
 Figure 4-48 Lamination of the Hybrid Composite Shaft [Sunahara et al. 1992]

4.4.5.3. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle power systems

In 2003, the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) renamed its Advanced Amphibious
Assault Vehicle (AAAV), dubbing it the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). The EFV's
power systems also rely on carbon composites. For each vehicle, ACPT Inc. (Huntington
Beach, Calif., U.S.A.) is making three carbon/epoxy driveshafts (two marine and one
automotive). The driveshafts are 70 percent lighter than steel driveshafts [Mason 2004],
(figure 4-49).

Figure 4-49 Composite Driveshafts on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle [Mason 2004]

139
 Stress analysis determines a driveshaft diameter that ensures low torsional vibration
and a resonance signature that does not interfere with operational speeds. EFV marine shafts
are about 1 m/3 ft long with a diameter of approximately 15 cm/6 inches, and the EFV
automotive shaft is approximately 1.2 m/4 ft long, but with a smaller diameter (around 13
cm/5 inches) because the torque is lower. Wall thickness then is ascertained to provide
adequate stiffness and buckling strength under expected loads. EFV driveshafts require
about four times greater thickness than typical automotive driveshafts to meet the torque
requirement [Mason 2004].

The shafts are fabricated with McClean Anderson (Schofield, Wis., U.S.A.)
filament winding equipment, using an ACPT resin formulation. Cure temperature is
175°C/350°F. To prevent galvanic interactions, ACPT uses an electrical insulating material
between the carbon composite and metal interface and a corrosion-resistant coating on the
metal couplings and other connecting metal components. A proprietary metal flange
attaches the driveshaft to the shear plate assembly and gear coupling in the drivetrain
[Mason 2004].

4.4.6. Advanced Enclosed Mast System

Composites were first used in masts in the 1960s when steel masts aboard US Navy
Communications ships~ USS Wright and USS Saipan, were replaced with GRP masts that
stood 10--25 m high. Conventional steel truss masts, with their open structure and
protrusions) are a source of interference to the ship’s own radar and communication
systems. Steel masts also increase the radar signature and are prone to corrosion [Mouritz
et al. 2001].

Renewed interest in composite masts for warships occurred in the early 1990s. A
study by Critchfield et al. in the early 1990s showed that composite masts could overcome
many of the problems experienced with steel masts. A one-half scale, 11 m tall prototype
truss mast was constructed of a hybrid composite containing S2-g1ass fibers for maximum
ballistic performance and carbon fibers for high stiffness. They found that a composite mast
would be 20-50% lighter than an aluminum mast of the same size. The composite mast was
also expected to have better fatigue resistance, eliminate corrosion, and improve the
performance of mast sensors by reducing electrical blockages compared to a steel mast of
similar size. The composite mast was also able to meet the US Navy requirements for
vibration, air blast and ballistic damage resistance [Mouritz et al. 2001].

In 1995, the Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor (AEM/S) project represents a chance

for the U.S. Navy to evaluate the first large-scale composite component installed onboard
a surface combatant [Greene 1999]. The Navy’s Advanced Enclosed Mast System (AEM/S)
was developed as a method to enclose a ship’s vast array of radars and sensors typically
exposed on masts. The composite AEM/S structure allows routine maintenance to be
performed in any weather and also reduces the ship’s radar signature. The faceted nature of
the AEM/S structure provides the necessary flat surfaces for mounting phased array
antennas. Figure 4-50 shows how frequency selective surfaces are used to control what
signals are transmitted through the structure [Greene 2013c].

140
 Figure 4-50 An Insight View of the AEMS [Greene 2013c]

The AEM/S was fielded as an Advanced Technology Demonstrator (ATD) on the

on the USS Arthur W. Radford (DD 968) in 1997 and endured 100‐mph plus winds and an
accidental ship collision. The AEM/S is now the baseline design used on the LPD‐17 class
of ships [Greene 2013c].

The Advanced Enclosed Mast/Sensor (AEM/S) is an 87-foot high, hexagonal

structure that measure 35 feet across. The 40-long ton structure was fabricated in two
halves using the SCRIMP process. Conventional marine composite materials, such as E-
glass, vinyl ester resin and balsa and foam cores are utilized throughout the structure.
Because mechanical joints were engineered into both the middle and the base of the
structure, a lot of analytical and testing focused on bolted composite joints [Greene 1999].
(Figures 4-51 and 4-52) represents the AEMS on LPD-17 class navy vessel.

Figure 4-51 AEMS on San Antonio Class LPD-17 [Greene 2013c]

141
 Figure 4-52 AEMS During Installation, the Enclosed Radar System Still Visible [Greene 2013c]

A summary of composite components on a navy vessel can be found in figure 4-53.

Figure 4-53 Applications of composite structures to naval ships [Mouritz et al. 2001]

142
4.5. MARINE COMPOSITES ROADBLOCKS
Composites have been in use in marine industry for more than 60 years, they offer
formidable advantages for high-integrity maritime structures. However, there have been a
number of ‘roadblocks’ preventing these materials, at least at the more engineered end of
the spectrum, from fulfilling their full potential [Marsh 2010].

There have been many materials and construction techniques limitations that
initially held back the spread of application of composites in marine industry such as low
stiffness, abrasion resistance and secondary bonding of structural parts using adhesives
(which was considered as the weakest part of the technology), however, those limitations
are considered as perceived. For example, well developed bonding techniques and
guidelines were developed and very strong adhesives were introduced [Horsmon 1993]

Through the years, considerable progress has been made on understanding the
behavior of these materials and the tailored structures under mechanical, thermal and fire-
induced load scenarios. Processing and production considerations too have received much
attention leading to a capability of constructing quite complex, multi-material, large, three-
dimensional assemblies capable of sustaining extreme loads. Nevertheless there is still an
air of conservatism and even hesitation in specifying polymer composite-based solutions
for several applications. This is owed to doubts about new ways to use existing materials
or to use new and existing materials in new applications [Nicolais et al. 2011].

The replacement of naval structures, components and machinery made with steel,
aluminum alloy or bronze with composites has in most cases been a difficult and slow
process. Metals perform extremely well in most applications. Designers, builders and
operators of naval vessels have a great deal of confidence and experience with metals. Thus
only applications where composites have the strong potential to reduce acquisition and
through-life maintenance costs, and improve ship stability and performance are likely to be
used instead of metal [Mouritz et al. 2001].

This implies the need for further work for enhanced application and use of
composite materials in marine applications.

143
 CHAPTER 5 : CASE STUDY (MARINE HATCH COVERS
FOR LARGE VESSELS)
5.1. INTRODUCTION
In certain ship types such as Bulk Carriers and Containerships, the size of the hatch
opening is very large compared to deck area. Modern containerships have wider hatch
opening in order to increase the number of below deck stacks, which also lowers the center
of gravity of the cargo and enhances the overall efficiency by providing additional useable
capacity. In bulk carriers, large size hatch opening contributes easy loading and unloading
of cargoes which is usually transferred by grabs. Typically, hatch breadth ranges from
approximately 45% to 60% of ship’s breadth and hatch length ranges from approximately
57% to 67% of hold length [Lamb 2003]. Some ambitious efforts have been done to reduce
the weight of the steel hatch cover of such vessels, which resulted in relatively low weight
reduction percentage [Um et al. 2015].

Furthermore; in a Formal Safety Assessment Report published in MSC 74/5/X,

IMO considers the risk of foremost (No. 1) hatch cover failure as a major risk factor related
to Fore-end watertight integrity of a bulk carrier. The study also suggests that, at least, the
foremost hatch cover can be designed to a 30% increase in IACS UR S21 design loads
[MSC 74/5/X 2001].

For such ships, Steel Hatch Covers can be replaced by composite covers using 2
different approaches based on the designer's aims and the advantages of each approach:

 The aim to reduce Hatch Covers weight (Weight Reduction Approach), where the
composite hatch cover design is based on the same loads of the equivalent steel
hatch cover; a weight reduction of 40 – 54 % can be achieved [Scott et al. 1971]
[Hertzberg 2009, p 155] [Li et al. 2012] resulting in the following advantages:
o Reducing weights of hatch covers will decrease the height of the center of
gravity of the ship and subsequently improve ship’s stability.
o As an economic advantage, the reduction in weight (i.e. reduced draft) can
lead to an increase in payload or to a reduction in ship’s fuel consumption
[Um et al. 2015].
o Although the composite hatch cover’s initial cost is higher than that of the
steel cover, the life cycle cost of the composite cover is more competitive;
since it is corrosion free, which means less maintenance cost and effort are
required [Li et al. 2012].
 The aim to increase the strength of the hatch cover (strengthening approach), while
maintain the same weight. The composite hatch cover can be designed to sustain
more loads than the steel cover, providing more safety for the ship and its cargo
[Kunal et al. 2010]; especially for bulk carriers where the hatch cover is considered
as a primary barrier for water ingress [Lloyd’s … 1998] [Yao et al. 2003]. The
foremost hatch cover will be strengthened, where majority of hatch cover damages
due to heavy weather take place [Lloyd’s … 1998].

144
5.2. DESIGN KEYS
Literature review reveals that few papers where published covering the use of
composite materials in marine hatch covers [Kunal et al. 2010] [Li et al. 2012] in addition
to a Chinese invention patent [TANG 2012], however, none of them discussed the
“complete details” of the structural design of the composite hatch cover, or even the choice
of composite material or design keys affecting the cover’s design effectiveness.

There are many design variations that have to be considered in designing the
composite hatch cover. The structure can be in the form of single skin stiffened structure or
sandwich configuration. The structure could potentially be made up using different fiber
types, fiber architectures and weaves, resins and core materials; there could be further
variations owing to volume fractions and geometric/topological layouts [Blake et al. 2009].

The factors affecting the design of the Marine composite hatch cover can be
summarized in the below points [Vinson et al 2004]:

 Composite Material Selection, where the designer should choose the material based
on several factors including the nature of loads and Economic Constraints.
 The ply sequences and orientation of fibers, based on the boundary conditions.
 Structural arrangement details; in the case of the hatch cover, the number and
spacing of internal longitudinal and horizontal stiffeners is an essential parameter.

Structural analysis were performed on a typical bulk carrier, where two approaches
were used to analyze and demonstrate the benefits of using marine composite hatch cover.
FEM analysis has been performed using ANSYS Mechanical and ANSYS COMPOSITE
PREPPOST (ACP) 2015 Software.

5.3. PARTICULARS OF SELECTED VESSEL

The selected vessel (figure 5-1) is a middle size bulk carrier of 82,221 tons
deadweight and total cargo holds capacity of 97,186.1 m3, the main particulars of the vessel
as shown in the Table 5-1.

Figure 5-1 An Overview of the Case Study Vessel.

145
 Table 5-1 Principal particulars of selected vessel

Principal Particulars

1. Principal dimensions
Length over all 228.99 m

Length between perpendiculars. 222.000 m

Breadth mld 32.260 m

Depth mld 20.030 m

Design Load Draft mld 12.200 m

2. Tonnage, class, etc.

Gross tonnage 43,189

Net tonnage 27,291

Class Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NKK)

Notation NS* (BC-A) (ESP), MNS*, MO

Navigation area Ocean going

Speed 14.5 Kts

The ship is provided with 7 cargo holds and each cargo hold is provided with its
own steel hatch opening and cover, see figure 5-2. The hatch covers are of the sliding type
(side rolling) [Lamb 2003], which consists of 2 parts sliding to the sides using hydraulic
equipment.

Figure 5-2 Arrangement of ship’s Cargo Holds and Covers

146
5.4. CALCULATION OF DESIGN LOADS
The covers are designed according to IACS unified requirement (UR S21), which
is in excess of International Load Line 1966 (ILLC 66) requirements; especially for the
design of forward hatch covers, see Figure 5-3 [Lloyd’s… 1998].

Figure 5-3 An Example Showing the difference between Hatch Cover Design According to IACS UR
S21 and ILLC 66

The details of the formula for calculation of hatch covers loads as per IACS UR
S21.2. are shown below.

For ships of 100 m in length and above:

𝐏𝐅𝐏 – 𝟑𝟒.𝟑 𝐗
𝐏 = 𝟑𝟒. 𝟑 + [ ] (𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 − ) ≥ 𝟑𝟒. 𝟑 , for hatchways located at the freeboard
𝟎.𝟐𝟓 𝐋
deck. (5.1)

Where:

PFP = pressure at the forward perpendicular = 49.1 + (L-100)a

a = 0.0726 for type B freeboard ships, 0.356 for ships with reduced freeboard.

L = freeboard length, in m, as defined in Regulation 3 of Annex I to the 1966 Load

Line Convention as modified by the Protocol of 1988, to be taken not greater than 340 m.

x = distance, in m, of the mid length of the hatch cover under examination from the
forward end of L.

147
 On the other hand, the vertical deflection of primary supporting members is to be
not more than the value in this equation:

Defl. ≤ 0.0056ℓ (5.2)

Where ℓ is the greatest span of primary supporting members.

From figures 5-2 and 5-3, we can see that the load on the hatch cover depends on
the longitudinal location of the cover; therefore, the load on hatch cover number one is
higher than the load on hatch cover number two and so on up to 0.25 of the length measured
from forward perpendicular.

Table 5-2 contains the resulting loads after applying the equation on the selected
vessel.

Table 5-2 Calculated hatch covers loads as per IACS UR S21

Cover Number Load Cover Number Load

PH1= 67.79 KN m2 PH2= 41.64 KN/m2

PH3= 34.30 KN/m2 PH4= 34.30 KN/m2

PH5= 34.30 KN/m2 PH6= 34.30 KN/m2

PH7= 34.30 KN/m2

Permissible deflection on hatch cover Number 1 81.31 mm

Permissible deflection on hatch cover Number 2, 3, 4, 101.25 mm

5, 6 and 7

Hold Number 4 is used as a ballast hold; therefore, hydrostatic pressure of 29.49

2
KN/m on cover number 4 is considered.

5.5. DESIGN OF STEEL HATCH COVERS

The material used for the manufacture of steel hatch covers is High Tensile Steel
32K, approved by the classification society. The dimensions of the covers are shown in
Table 5-3.

148
 Table 5-3 Hatch Covers Dimensions

Hatch number Cover size (L (mm) x B (mm))

Number 1 14,520 x 14,040

Number 2 18,080 x 15,640

Number 3 18,080 x 15,640

Number 4 18,080 x 15,640

Number 5 18,080 x 15,640

Number 6 18,080 x 15,640

Number 7 18,080 x 15,640

Since (according to IACS UR S21) the load is depending on the location of the
cover; the weights of hatch covers 1 and 2 are different than remaining covers. Table 5-4
represents weight of each steel hatch cover in addition to the weight of the fittings.

Fittings include hydraulic system components, piping, chains and quick closing
cleats.

Table 5-4 Weights of steel hatch covers

Weight Table (Kg)

Item Hatch Number Total

Weight
6 4 3,5,7 2 1

Construction 59,840 66,745 59,840x3 64,290 50,420 420,815

Fittings on cover 1,090 1,380 1,075x3 1160 1080 7,935

on coaming 1,210 1,895 1,210x3 1,225 1,195 9,155

Packing 208 208 208x3 208 174 1,422

Total 62,348 70,228 62,333x3 66,883 52,869 439,327

=186,999

149
 As an example, figure 5-4 shows the construction of hatch cover Number 1.

Figure 5-4 Construction of Steel Hatch Cover Number 1

5.6. DESIGN OF COMPOSITE HATCH COVERS

The composite hatch cover design is based on the same loads calculated according
to IACS UR S21. The same basic dimensions of steel hatch covers were used.

In designing the composite cover a single skin construction was chosen for the sake
of simplicity and initial cost reduction. The cover consists of top and sides plates reinforced
by longitudinal and transverse blade stiffeners.

5.6.1. Work Flow

In Ansys workbench version 15, the work is distributed between program modules.
The data is transferred and processed through each module and the user is free to create the
layout that will serve the system in the best way.
The modules used for the analysis are:
 Engineering Data: it is a resource for material properties used in an analysis
system, where the data related to material properties can be created, saved, and
retrieved.
 DesignModeler: this is the module that allows the designer to model and design the
geometry. It can be used to begin drawing 2D sketches, modeling 3D parts, or
uploading 3D CAD models for engineering analysis preprocessing.
 Ansys Mechanical: in this module, the boundary condition can be defined, the
meshing is created and adjusted; the analysis is performed and the results can be
viewed.

150
  ACP-Pre: In the pre-processing mode, all composite definitions can be created and
are mapped to the geometry (FE mesh). These composite definitions are transferred
to the FE model and the solver input file.
 ACP-Post: in this module, after a completed solution and the import of the result
file(s), post-processing results (failure, safety, strains and stresses) can be evaluated
and visualized.
Figure 5-5 illustrates the project schematic. In this layout, the engineering material
data, the geometry, mesh and Model boundary condition are shared between the different
modules. The Settings and composite material orientation data are transferred from ACP-
Pre to Ansys Mechanical, where the analysis are carried out, then the solution data are
transferred to ACP-Post to be evaluated against the failure criteria.

Figure 5-5 Project Schematic

5.6.2. Modeling
Using the tools provided in DesignModeler, the hatch cover geometry has been
modeled, starting by 2D sketches then applying geometrical operations to create a geometry
consists of many surface bodies. Figure 5-6 illustrates the final geometry of the cover.

Figure 5-6 Geometry of the Hatch Cover

151
 Faces have been created on the sides of the cover in vicinity of each stiffener, in
order to facilitate selecting those faces in the subsequent modules and changing the
thickness of those faces, without altering the thickness of the rest of the side’s plates. Figure
5-7 is showing the process of creating the faces in sketch mode.

Figure 5-7 Side Faces Creation in Sketch Mode

Figure 5-8 Tree Outline in DesignModeler

152
 It is essential to note that, the number of longitudinal and transverse stiffeners is
dependent on the results of the analysis according to the criteria in section 5.6.8., this means
that after performing the analysis the number of initial stiffeners can be increased or
decreased. In this specific design, the initial number of the stiffeners was 5 in each direction,
then after performing the analysis, the number has been increased to 8, in order to keep the
maximum deflection of the hatch within allowable limits.
At this stage, the thickness of each surface were not specified, since it will be
specified in the upcoming module (Ansys Mechanical), then it will be verified after
performing the analysis. Figure 5-8 represents the tree outline used to create the geometry.
Ansys Workbench system transfers the geometry and the material data (material
data will be discussed in 5.6.4.) to Ansys Mechanical (where the meshing and Boundary
conditions will be defined) and to Ansys ACP.

5.6.3. Meshing and Setting the Boundary conditions in Ansys Mechanical

The outline of the project in Ansys Mechanical is presented in figure 5-9, where it
can be seen that no changes have been done to the default settings of “Global coordinate
system” and “Connections”. On the other hand, it is very beneficial to create a set of
“Named Selections”, which will be used in Ansys ACP-Pre to distinguish between the
various groups of the structural elements in the geometry.

Figure 5-9 Ansys Mechanical Project Outline

The imported layered section has appeared after the composite section data is
adjusted in Ansys ACP-Pre (will be discussed later in this chapter).

153
 In general (compared to CFD), Finite Element structural analysis does not require a
very fine mesh, accordingly, a course mesh could have been used; However, in order to
ensure the quality of the analysis, a medium sized elements have been used. The meshing
settings is presented in figure 5-10 and the meshed geometry is illustrated in figure 5-11.

Figure 5-10 Details of Mesh Settings

Figure 5-11 The Final Meshed Geometry

154
 Using the Ansys mechanical Quality control metrics, the Mesh can be verified to
ensure that error in analysis results will be minimized. In particular, Element Quality (up to
1) and Skewness (less Skewness is better) metrics were used, figures 5-12 and 5-13
represents the results of the mesh metrics.

Figure 5-12 A Representation of Element Quality Mesh Metric

Figure 5-13 A Representation of Skewness Mesh Metric

In Static Structural section, a simple support type was assigned to the lower four
edges of the hatch cover sides. On the other hand, a pressure load has been applied to the
exterior faces of the cover with the appropriate value from the values calculated before (see
figure 5-14).

155
 Figure 5-14 Boundary Conditions Applied to the Hatch Cover

5.6.4. Selection of Composite Material

The material selected for the construction of the composite hatch cover is “E-Glass
fibers, Silenka, 1200tex” which consists of unidirectional continuous fibers, see Table 5-5.

Table 5-5 Composite material properties

Material: E-Glass fibers, Silenka, 1200tex

ρ: 1.964 T/M3 Ply Type: Uni-Directional

E1: 45,600 MPa E2: 16,200 MPa E3: 16,200 MPa

ν12: 0.278 ν13: 0.4 ν23: 0.4

G12: 5,830 MPa G31:5,785.7 MPa G23: 5,785.7 MPa

The selection of composite material was based on [Soden et al. 1998] that gives
details of the input data and a description of the laminates provided to all participants in an
exercise to predict the strength of composite laminates ”the worldwide failure exercise”
[Hinton et al. 2004]. A fiber volume fraction of 0.6 is used. Material data in Table 5-5 has
been entered in Ansys Workbench Material Data module.

E-Glass material was chosen over S-Glass, carbon fibers and other composite
materials due to its relatively low cost in order to achieve the most economic gain [Greene
1999].

156
5.6.5. Material Setup and Laminate Orientation in ACP-Pre

In Ansys ACP-Pre, the composite material data was setup as shown in the layout in
figure 5-15. A lamina of 0.5 mm unidirectional continuous fibers is used, figure 5-16 shows
some of the properties of the lamina (Fabric) which have been extracted by Ansys
Composite Preppost. It is clear that the modulus of elasticity is different in x and y directions
since the material is anisotropic.

Figure 5-15 Outline of Composite Material Setup in Ansys ACP-Pre

Figure 5-16 Properties of the Lamina

157
 The orientation chosen for the laminate is 0, 45, -45, 90, 90, -45, 45, 0 of Even
Symmetry (figure 5-17), Furthermore, figure 5-18 shows the properties of the laminate,
where it can be seen that the laminate is quasi-isotropic, where the modulus of elasticity in
x and y directions are not different anymore.

Figure 5-17 Chosen Laminate Orientation

Figure 5-18 Properties of a Laminate

158
 Figure 5-19 summarizes the orientation of the laminate, the total thickness of a
laminate is 4 mm.

Figure 5-19 Laminate Orientation

5.6.6. Assigning Thicknesses to Structural Members

Using Modeling Ply Groups, the thickness of the laminate (4 mm) had been
multiplied in order to build up the required thickness. Figure 5-20 is showing the groups
created in ACP-Pre, these groups has been created using the “Named Selections” previously
defined in Ansys Mechanical and has been transferred to ACP under the name “Elements
Sets”. Each ply group is given an orientation and thickness.

Figure 5-20 Modeling Ply Groups Layout

Figure 5-21 represents an example for Modeling Ply Properties, where the Oriented
Element sets and Material have been chosen and the number of layers is defined. Figure 5-
22 illustrates the elements selected to define the Group named “Stiff In”.

159
 Figure 5-21 A Representation of the Properties of “Stiff-In” Ply Group

Figure 5-22 An Illustration of the Elements of “Stiff-In” Ply Group

The rest of the structural elements have been assigned in Ply Groups and their
thicknesses have been defined (initially) and can be changed if necessary as per the method
described in section 5.6.8.

5.6.7. Defining Failure Criteria in Ansys ACP-Post

Failure criteria are functions that describe a failure envelope and the output of the
function is the Inverse Reserve Factor (IRF). IRF is a measure of where the load point is in
relation to the failure envelope. IRF defines the inverse margin to failure. Load divided with
IRF is equal to the failure load. IRF >1 discloses failure [ANSYS… 2015, p. 154 and 155].
Tsai-Wu [Tsai et al. 1971] and Puck [Puck et al. 2002] failure criteria have been used to

160
assess the failure in the composite hatch cover, while the biggest IRF value is taken into
account.

In Ansys ACP-Post, a failure criteria and a solution containing a failure check and
deformation check have been created. This layout can be seen in figure 5-23.

Figure 5-23 Post Processing Elements Layout

In the failure criteria object definition, Tsai-Wu and Puck failure criteria were
chosen (Figure 5-24). Then, in the Solution drop menu, a failure element has been created
to study “All Elements” taking into accounted the previously specified failure criteria
(Figure 5-25). Similarly, a deformation check has been created (Figure 5-26).

Figure 5-24 Failure Criteria Definition

161
 Figure 5-25 Failure Element Setup

Figure 5-26 Deformation Element Setup

162
5.6.8. Calculation of Member’s Thickness

Figure 5-27 Scantling Criteria for the Composite Hatch Cover.

In order to effectively calculate the thickness of each hatch cover members the
criteria described by the flow chart in figure 5-27 were implemented [Tawfik et al. 2016].
In process 1, an initial scantling shall be used, this scantling can be based on the
scantling of the steel hatch cover with some increase in members’ thicknesses. Then, IRF

163
(Inverse Reserve Factor) of the structure shall be calculated using the structural failure
envelope of Tsai-Wu and Puck failure criterion. If the maximum IRF of any member is
more than 1, this means that this member is not complying with the failure criteria and that
its thickness have to be increased. On the other hand, if the maximum IRF in the member
is not exceeding 0.9, this means that this member thickness is over than required and that
its thickness shall be reduced. This process shall produce members that are complying with
the relevant failure envelopes but in the same time not adding unnecessary weight to the
structure.
In Process 2, the structure shall be tested against the vertical deflection criteria in
equation number 2. If the structure doesn’t meet the criteria, then the thickness of the
relevant structural members shall be increased, however, if this will affect the conditions of
process 1, an increase in the number of stiffeners can be considered. After that, process 1
shall be repeated in order to make sure that the structure is still in compliance.

5.6.9. Analysis and Post Processing

5.6.9.1. Strengthening Approach

A composite hatch cover with the same weight as the steel one, can withstand higher
loads than required by IACS UR S21.

5.6.9.1.1. Composite cover design

Summary of the thickness of each component of the hatch cover Number 1 are
presented in Table 5-6 and shown in figures 5-28 and 5-29.
Table 5-6 Design thickness of hatch cover components

Component Thickness (mm)

Top plate 48

Side plates 56

Stiffener plates Number 1, 2, 6 and 7 56

Stiffener plates Number 3, 4 and 5 68

Reinforcements at the end of stiffener plates

136
Number 1, 2, 6 and 7

Reinforcements at the end of stiffener plates

148
Number 3, 4 and 5

Reinforcements at sides connections with plate

136
stiffeners

164
 Figure 5-28 Thickness of Composite Hatch Cover.

Figure 5-29 Thickness of Reinforcements at the Connections between Sides and Stiffeners

The weight of the composite hatch cover is 50.551 tons, which is (approximately)
the same weight of the steel hatch cover. In addition, the weights of the hydraulic system
and equipment are omitted.

5.6.9.1.2. Analysis results and discussion

The load applied on the hatch cover is 101,708.949 Pa, which is 1.5 the load
specified by IACS UR S21.
The maximum Inverse Reserve Factor IRF after applying Tsai Wu and Pucks failure
theories on the cover is 0.946.

165
 The maximum deflection in the cover is 67.047 mm, while the maximum allowed
deflection by IACS UR S21 is 81.31 mm. Figures 5-30 and 5-31 summarize the above
results.
The CPU Computation time for the analysis is 1410 seconds.

Figure 5-30 IRF of Tsai Wu and Pucks Failure Theories on Composite Hatch Cover

Figure 5-31 Deformation of Composite Hatch Cover

166
5.6.9.2. Weight Reduction Approach
The weight reduction approach aims to replace the steel hatch cover with a much
lower weight composite hatch cover.

5.6.9.2.1. Composite cover design

Since the loads on hatch covers Number 1, 2 and 4 are different than the loads on
the rest of the hatch covers (Number 3, 5, 6 and 7), the design of those hatch covers will be
different in order to withstand the extra load.
A summary of the thickness of each component of the hatch cover Number 1 can
be seen in Table 5-7 and figures 5-32 and 5-33.

Table 5-7 Design thickness of the components of hatch cover number 1.

Component Thickness (mm)

Top plate 28

Side plates 32

Stiffener plates Number 1, 2, 6 and 7 40

Stiffener plates Number 3, 4 and 5 48

Reinforcements at the end of stiffener plates

96
Number 1, 2, 6 and 7

Reinforcements at the end of stiffener plates

104
Number 3, 4 and 5

Reinforcements at sides connections with plate

88
stiffeners

167
 Figure 5-32 Thickness of Composite Hatch Cover Number 1

Figure 5-33 Thickness of Reinforcements at the Connections between Sides and Stiffeners

168
 The load applied on the hatch cover Number 1 is 68,000 Pa, which is the same load
specified by IACS UR S21.
The weight of the composite hatch cover is 32.62 tons, which is 35% of the weight
of the steel hatch cover. In addition, the weights of the hydraulic system and equipment are
omitted.
The same analysis was performed on all other hatch covers.

5.6.9.2.2. Analysis of results and discussion

The maximum Inverse Reserve factor IRF after applying Tsai Wu and Pucks failure
theories in the cover is 0.93.
The maximum deflection in the cover is 78.274 mm, where the maximum allowed
deflection by IACS UR S21 is 81.31 mm. Figures 5-34 and 5-35 summarize the above
results.
The CPU Computation time for the analysis is 1530 seconds.

Figure 5-34 IRF of Tsai Wu and Pucks Failure Theories on Composite Hatch Cover Number 1

169
 Figure 5-35 Deformation of Composite Hatch Cover Number 1

The same analysis was made to hatch covers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and all of the IRFs
and deformation values were found within allowable limits.

Weights of composite hatch covers and weight reduction values are summarized
in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8 Steel and composite covers weights and weight reduction value

HC HC HC HC HC HC HC
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number
01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Steel Cover
50.42 64.29 59.84 66.745 59.84 59.84 59.84
Weight (t)
Composite Cover
32.62 37.43 31.55 38.04 31.55 31.55 31.55
weight (t)
Reduction
35.30% 41.78% 47.28% 43.00% 47.28% 47.28% 47.28%
Percentage
Total Steel Covers
420.815
Weight (t)
Total Composite
234.291
Covers weight (t)
Total Weight
44.32%
Reduction (%)

170
 From above results, the total weight of composite hatch covers equal to 55.68 %
of the total weight of the steel hatch covers. Figure 5-36 summarizes the new weights.

Comparison of Weights
70

60

50
Weight (t)

40

30 Steel
Composite
20

10

0
HC No. HC No. HC No. HC No. HC No. HC No. HC No.
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Axis Title

Figure 5-36 Comparison of Steel and Composite Hatch Cover Weights

5.7. COST ANALYSIS

Cost analysis can play a vital role in choosing between steel and composite materials
for the marine hatch cover. For a ship structure, steel is the most economical material when
just looking at the manufacturing cost. But from a life cycle perspective the cost for
operation and maintenance are as important as the acquisition cost. A decrease in structural
weight, by using a light weight material, can result in reduced fuel consumption, increased
payload, increase of speed and increased range. All these factors then will affect the cost
during operation [Hertzberg 2009]. The initial and life cycle cost will be calculated for both
the steel and composite cover and a comparison between the two of them will be done to
emphasize the economic impact of the use of composites in marine hatch covers.

5.7.1. Manufacturing Cost

5.7.1.1. Steel Hatch cover

For the steel hatch covers, the steel plate price is about 1,100 $/ton (Li et al. 2012].
Total weight of steel hatch cover is 420.815 t and its material cost is 462,896.5 $ which is
accounted for 43% of the total acquisition cost, so the total manufacturing cost of the steel
hatch covers is 1,076,503 $.

171
5.7.1.2. Composite hatch cover
The manufacturing cost of the composite hatch cover is estimated using Process-
based cost models. This concept distinguishes between variable and fixed costs and relates
them to individual production steps [Haffner 2002]. The cover can be constructed using
many construction methods, however, Hand Lay-Up (HLU) has been selected for
construction of the composite hatch cover being the simplest manufacturing method
offering low-cost tooling, simple processing and a wide range of part sizes [Greene 1999].
For a hand lay-up process the total cost components are as shown in figure 5-37, where the
material cost is accounted as about 31% of total cost [Haffner 2002].

Figure 5-37 Distribution of Hand Layup Costs for HLU Process [Haffner 2002]

According to [Haffner 2002] the average cost of E-Glass is between 1,763.7 –

2,204.6 $/t and the average cost of Epoxy is between 3,747.9 - 4,409.3 $/t taking into
account that a fiber volume fraction of 0.6 is used (which means that the composite material
consists of 40 % Epoxy and 60 % fibers). Total weight of composite hatch covers is 234.291
tons, consequently the material cost is 723,127 $ which is (as previously stated) accounted
for 31% of the total manufacturing cost. Therefore, the total manufacturing cost of
composite hatch covers is equal to 2,332,667 $.

5.7.2. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

Due to the weight saving that has been afforded by the usage of composite material
in lieu of steel, the 82,221 ton DWT vessel under study can carry an additional cargo of
186.524 tons. The economic life length is set to 20 years and according to [Brooks 2008]
the cost of transportation is about 500 $/ton.year, therefore, the economic gain during life

172
time of the vessel is equal to 1,865,250 $ which is covering more than the difference
between the initial cost of steel and composite covers. Furthermore, the composite hatch
cover experiences zero corrosion and operates with better sealing performance, which will
lead to additional saving in maintenance cost and less risk of cargo damage, which results
in less cargo loss\damage claims [Hansen 2008]. The summary of the basic LCCA can be
found in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9 Summary of basic life cycle cost analysis

Comparison Item Steel hatch covers Composite hatch covers

Total weight (T) 420.815 234.291

Material cost ($) 462,896.5 723,127

Total manufacturing cost ($) 1,076,503 2,332,667

1,865,250 + (Less
Economic gain through
----- Maintenance cost, less
economic life length ($)
cargo damage claims)

5.8. SUMMARY
Through the chapter, the various aspects of the use of composite materials in hatch
cover have been demonstrated supported by design details and cost analysis. Hatch covers
of a vessel can be strengthened in order to withstand additional cargo and severe weather
loads without increasing the lightship weight of the vessel, in addition, the ship managers
will benefit from the reduced maintenance costs of hatch covers.
On the other hand, a vessel can load more cargo while using the same draft it was
using before converting its hatch covers to composite material and in the same time (since
it is about 40 % lighter), composite hatch covers are more easy to handle using the ship’s
own cargo gear or using smaller port facilities. As a matter of fact, vessels equipped with
composite hatch covers can be designed with smaller and lighter cargo handling equipment
which will be leading to more weight savings and additional cargo capacity.
Furthermore, basic life cycle cost analysis proved that composite hatch covers are
economically competitive through their economic life time. Although that steel hatch cover
acquisition costs are less expensive than the composite cover, the extra payload and reduced
maintenance costs through the time will compensate for the difference in initial cost until a
break-even (B/E) point occurs where the cost of the two design alternatives (steel and
composites) are equal. At the break-even point the cost for operating the composite hatch
cover will increase slower than the cost of operating the steel hatch cover and starting from
this point the initial investment of the composite hatch cover will start to pay off, see figure

173
5-38. Also environment will benefit through lower emissions due to reduced fuel
consumption.

Figure 5-38 An Illustration of the Concept of Break-Even Analysis (alternative A:

Composite, Alternative B: Steel)

Therefore, composite Hatch cover can be considered as a revolutionary alternative

for traditional metallic steel hatch cover. The usage of composite hatch cover has been
found beneficial for both weight reduction and strengthening approaches. The economic
advantages, additional strength and low maintenance costs of the composite cover can
encourage ship’s owners and managers to replace their existing steel covers, taken into
account that SOLAS fire resistance requirements (Ch. II-2, Reg. 17) be satisfied.
Future research will result in optimizing the design of the composite hatch covers,
which can lead to more weight saving and/or more hatch cover strengthening. On the other
hand, more research is needed to reveal new areas suitable for composites to replace metals
on board ships and offshore structures.

174
 CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FUTURE WORK
In this thesis, composite materials were presented as an alternative to metallic
materials in marine structures. Through the chapters, it was shown that composites have
many advantages that qualify them to take the place of metals in many marine applications.
With clever and functional design, those advantages can be translated into high
performance and economic gain.

It has been shown that, in marine industry, composites already gained a

progressively increasing role where composites have been used in building complete hulls
for power and sailing racing boats, power and sailing pleasure yachts, relatively small
commercial vessels, wave energy systems, lifeboats and small and medium size naval
vessels. On the other hand, it was proved that using composites in constructing auxiliary
structures while using metals in hull construction is beneficial. Some of the examples
discussed for such a hybrid construction are superstructures, propellers, rudders, propulsion
shafts and advanced enclosed mast systems. It was shown also that carbon and Kevlar fiber
(nowadays) have been used extensively in high performance marine structures, taking the
place of the traditional glass fiber composites.

Composite hatch cover for large marine vessel was considered as a study case,
where a composite hatch cover for an 82,221 tons deadweight bulk carrier was designed
and analyzed. The design of the composite hatch cover was performed on 2 bases. The 1st
was the “strengthening approach” where the load capacity of the hatch cover was upgraded
to 150% of the loads the steel hatch cover can withstand (as required by IACS), without an
increase in the hatch cover weight. Thus, using the high strength to weight ratio
characteristic of composites, the level of safety against flooding in large marine vessels can
be increased. The 2nd was the “weight reduction approach” were the weight of the hatch
cover was reduced to 55.68% of the steel hatch cover leading to better stability and fuel
consumption reduction.

Furthermore, the life cycle cost (LCC) of the marine composite hatch cover was
found lower than steel hatch covers through the reduction of maintenance costs, since the
persistent problem of hatch cover corrosion has been eliminated by using composite
materials.

During the past few decades composites applications in marine structures have seen
major advancements, however, the field of composites is rich and full of research potentials
that can encourage the extensive use of composites in marine structural applications. The
following suggested factors and key areas for future research needs to be studied, in order
to find innovative solutions:

 Strength prediction; the field of predicting the strength of fiber-reinforced

composite materials is still in need of fundamental enhancements, mechanism-
based (physical) theories need to be developed to ensure enhanced confidence in
theoretical modelling capabilities.

175
  Fire resistance; one of the main roadblocks of composites is its combustibility,
although Swedish researchers have already figured out how to comply SOLAS fire
safety regulations, more research is still needed in this field.
 Recycling of composites and Life Cycle Assessment; the understanding of the
environmental impact of a product will encourage better industrial practice and be
more adaptable in order to exceed current legislation which is becoming
increasingly strict and requires manufacturers to take more responsibility for their
production and products.
 Nano composites; the application of Nano composites in marine industry can open
the gate for enhancing the characteristics of the used laminates and can provide new
solutions to the marine composites industry.
 Standardization; an undesirable feature of composite structures is variability, even
between copies of the same basic structure produced at different ship and boat yards.
The lack of industry Standards for manufacturing and repair of marine composites
is one of the main roadblocks, in addition to the lack of design rules, empirical data
and simple-to-use models for optimizing the design of large, complex loadbearing
structures.
 Embedded sensors; optimizing the concepts of embedded sensors for Structural
Health Monitoring is essential for ensuring the safe operation of marine composites
and to maximize and extend the life of these components.
 New application areas; in addition to composite hulls and existing composite
structural parts, further research work is need to identify new areas of applications
for composite materials in marine industry.

The future of composites applications in marine industry is promising and hopeful,

the day will come when every ship (regardless of size and type) has a composite material
part implemented in its main and vital components, continuous improvements and
innovative researches will make that day come soon.

176
 REFERENCES
ABC (2010), Ady Gil sinks after whaling skirmish, ABC News Online, Available from:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-01-08/ady-gil-sinks-after-whaling-
skirmish/1201896

Agrawal J.P. (1990), Composite materials, Defence Scientific Information and

Documentation center, Ministry of defense (DESIDOC), Delhi.

ANSYS Composite PrepPost User’s Guide (2015), ANSYS, Inc., Release 16.0, P 154-
155.

Arcadia-alliance (2016), case-study-kystekspressen, available from: http://arcadia-

alliance.com/case-study-kystekspressen/

Black Sara (2003), Fighting Ships Augment Combat Readiness with Advanced
Composites, High-Performance Composites, Gardener Business media, September
2003.

Black Sara (2011a), Composite propeller for Royal Navy minehunter, High-
Performance Composites, Gardener Business media, September 2011.

Black Sara (2011b), Designing the largest solar-powered yacht, High-Performance

Composites, Gardener Business media, November 2011.

Blake J. I.R., Shenoi R. A., Das P. K. and Yang N. (2009), The application of reliability
methods in the design of stiffened FRP composite panels for marine vessels, Ships and
Offshore Structures, Taylor and Francis Group, 4:3, pp. 287-297.

Brooks D. (2008), Regional Cooperation, Infrastructure and Trade

Costs in Asia, ADBI Working Paper 123, Tokyo Asian Development
Bank Institute. Available from:
http://www.adbi.org/workingpaper/2008/12/04/2762.regional.cooper
ation.infrastructure.trade.costs/

Callister William D., Jr. (2001), Fundamentals of Materials Science and Engineering,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc, ISBN 0-471-39551-X.

Campbell, F.C. (2010), Structural Composite Materials. ASM International, ISBN-10:

0-61503-037-9.

Class-1 (2012), World power boat championship- Dubai Grand Prix 2012 Season,
Union Internationale Motonautique – UIM, Available from: http://www.class-
1.com/photos.asp?eventid=84&seasonid=2012&type=All&dayid=0

177
Classnk (2015), Classnk Releases World-First Guidelines on Composite Propellers,
ClassNK_magazine 74th Edition, JLA media, December 2015.

Composites World (2013), Future of Huntington Ingalls composites facility in doubt,

available from: http://www.compositesworld.com/news/future-of-huntington-ingalls-
composites-facility-in-doubt

Composites world (2015), Breakthrough for FRP composites to replace steel

hatches on ships, Available from:
http://www.compositesworld.com/news/breakthrough-for-frp-composites-to-
replace-steel-hatches-on-ships, [22 January 2015].

Daniel Isaac M. and Ishai Ori (1994), Engineering Mechanics of composite materials,
Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-507506-4.

Danish composites (2015), Wave Energy Dome, available from:

http://www.danishcomposites.com/#!wave-energy-dome/c22qf

Dawson Donna (2015), Volvo 65: Identical and optimal composite spars and rigging,
Composites World, Gardener Business media, available from:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/volvo-65-identical-and-optimal-composite-
spars-and-rigging

Decolon Christian (2002), Analysis of comp structures, Hermes Penton Ltd, London,
ISBN 1 9039 9602 3.

Doyle Timothy J., Kornbau Raymond W., and Smookler Arthur L. (1989), Surface Ship
Machinery-A Survey of Propulsion, Electrical, and Auxiliary System Development,
David W. Taylor Naval research and Development center-US Navy, pp. 33-34.

Earthrace (2008), Boat Specifications, Earthrace Conservation Organization, Available

from: http://www.earthraceworldrecord.com/index.php?section=18

Evangelista Joe, Wade Stewart H., Swaim Caryln and P. Rife. James (2013), The
History of the American Bureau of Shipping 150th Anniversary, 7th Edition, ABS,
Houston, ISBN 0-943870-03-8.

Evegren Franz, Hertzberg Tommy, Rahm Michael (2011), LASS-C; Lightweight

construction of a cruise vessel, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, SP Report
2011.

Farr Yacht Design (2012), Episode 3: Farr Yacht Design | Volvo Ocean Race 2014-15,
Volvo Ocean Race, YouTube video, 7 November, available from:
https://youtu.be/NqzjMc_xBjg

178
Gerr Dave (2000), The Elements of boat strengths for builders, designers and owners,
International Marine/Mcgraw-Hill, Camden, ISBN 0-07-023159-1.

Gibson Ronald F. (1994), Principles Of Composite Material Mechanics, McGraw-Hill,

Inc., ISBN O-07-023451-5.

Greene Eric (1999), Marine Composites, 2nd edition, Eric Greene and Associates,
Annapolis, MD, ISBN 0-9673692-0-7.

Greene Eric (2013a), Composite Component Design-Case Studies, Webb Institute, Eric
Greene associates Inc, available from:
http://www.ericgreeneassociates.com/images/Composite_Component_Design_-
_Case_Studies.pdf

Greene Eric (2013b), Marine Composites Reducing weight, Cost and maintenance,
Marine technology, April 2013, SNAME, pp 28-35.

Greene Eric (2013c), Naval Ship Design Considerations, Webb Institute, Eric Greene
associates Inc, available from:
http://www.ericgreeneassociates.com/images/Naval_Ship_Design_Considerations.pdf

Griffiths Bob (2006), Rudder Gets New Twist with Composites, Composites
Technology, Gardener Business media, August 2006.

Gurit holding (2013), Gurit Guide to Composites V5, Gurit Holding AG, available
from: http://www.gurit.com/guide-to-composites.aspx

Haffner Sascha M. (2002), Cost modeling and design for manufacturing guidelines for
advanced composite fabrication, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), PhD
Thesis.

Hansen Ragnar E. (2008), GRP hatch covers for large seagoing ships-Design
challenges and solutions, Hansen engineering and consulting, E-Lass
Meeting, available from: http://www.e-
lass.eu/en/Documents/PapenburgMarch2014/Panamax%20GRP%20hatch%2
0cover-%20R%20Hansen.pdf

Harris Bryan (1999), Engineering Composite Materials, The Institute of Materials,

London.

Hertzberg Tommy, Editor. (2009), LASS-Lightweight Construction Applications at

Sea, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden. SP Report 2009:13, ISBN 978-91-
85829-97-2.

179
Hinton M. J., Kaddour A. S. and Soden P. D., Editors (2004), Failure Criteria in Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Composites: The World-Wide Failure Exercise, Elsevier, ISBN:
0-08-044475-X.

Holland Ron; Stott John (2003), Aspects of yacht design For 75M sloop Mirabella V,
Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA) international conference, the modern
yacht : 17-18 September 2003, ISBN 0903055910.

Horsmon Albert W., Jr. (1993), Composites for Large Ships, The National Shipbuilding
Research Program, Ship Production Symposium, Sponsored by the Hampton Roads
Section SNAME.

IMO (2014), SOLAS - International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, Ch. II-2,
Reg. 11-2, 17.

Jones Robert M. (1999), Mechanics of Composite Materials, 2nd Edition. Taylor and
Francis, Philadelphia, ISBN: I-5G032-712-X.

Kollar Laszlo p. and Springer George S. (2003), Mechanics of Composite Structures,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN-10 0-521-80165-6.

Kunal K., Kannan C. and Surendran S (2010), Hatch cover analysis of capesize bulk
carriers and suggestions for alternate materials. Proceedings of MARTEC 2010, The
International Conference on Marine Technology, 11-12 December 2010, BUET,
Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Lamb Thomas, Editor. (2003) Ship Design and Construction. The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME), ISBN 0-939773-40-6.

LeGault Michael R. (2010), DDG-1000 Zumwalt: Stealth warship, Composites

Technology, February 2010.

Li Jun, Wu Nanhuo, Tang Youhong, Zhao Chengbi, Li Deyu, Lin Wei and Liang Fulin
(2012), Application of Composite Materials to Large Marine Hatch Cover, Advanced
Materials Research, Vols. 560-561, pp. 809-815.

Lindblom Fredrik (2003), Use of Composites in the Visby Class Stealth Corvette,
ACMC/SAMPE Conference on Marine Composites Plymouth, 11-12 September 2003
(ISBN 1-870918-02-9).

Lloyd’s Register (1998), Bulk Carriers-an Update, Technical Planning and

Development Department, Lloyd’s Register, London.

Mallick P.K. (2008), Fiber-reinforced Composites Materials, Manufacturing, And

Design, CRC Press.

180
Marex (2016), Propulsion's Composite Future, The Maritime Executive, Available
from: http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/propulsions-composite-future

Marsh George (2006), 50 years of reinforced plastic boats, Elsevier, Vol. 50, pp. 16-19.

Marsh George (2010), Marine composites –drawbacks and successes, Reinforced

Plastics, Elsevier, JULY/AUGUST 2010, pp. 18-22.

Mason Karen (2004), Carbon composites move beyond racing yachts into commercial
and military marine applications, High-Performance Composites, Gardener Business
media, September 2004, Available from:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-composites-move-beyond-racing-
yachts-into-commercial-and-military-marine-applications

Mazumdar Sanjay K. (2002), Composites-Manufacturing, Materials, Product And

Process Engineering, CRC Press, ISBN 0-8493-0585-3.

Merl risa (2014), Palmer Johnson launches 48m SuperSport superyacht, Boat
International magazine, Boat International Media, July 2014, available from:
http://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/news/palmer-johnson-launches-48m-
supersport-superyacht--20971

Meunier Marion and Fogg Rod (2009), Challenges Associated With Design and Build
of Composite Sailing Super Yachts, Design, Construction and Operation of Super and
Mega Yachts Conference Genoa, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA), 1-
2 April, 2009.

Mori Shigehiro (2011), Challenge to energy saving bulk carriers (An example of
Builder’s Activity), Oshima ship Building co., Marine Engineering innovation Center,
8 November 2011.

Morpheus London (2015), A New Generation of Sport Yachts, Morpheus London,

Available from: http://morpheuslondon.com/dispatches/a-new-generation-of-sport-
yachts

Mortensen A. Editor (2007), Concise Encyclopedia of Composite Materials, Elsevier,

ISBN-13: 978-0-08-045126-8.

Mouritz A.P., Gellert E, Burchill P., Challis K. (2001), Review of advanced composite
structures for naval ships and submarines, Journal of Composite Structures, Vol. 53(1),
pp. 21-42.

MSC 74/5/X (2001), Bulk carrier safety-formal safety assessment-fore-end watertight

integrity, 20 February 2001, submitted by IACS.

181
Naval-technology (2016a), Landsort / Koster Class Minehunter-Sweden, Available
from: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/landsort/landsort1.html

Naval-technology (2016b), Visby Class-Sweden, Available from: http://www.naval-

technology.com/projects/visby

Naval-technology (2016c), DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer,

United States of America, Available from: http://www.naval-
technology.com/projects/dd21

Nicolais Luigi, Meo Michele, Milella Eva, Editors (2011), Composite Materials A
Vision for the Future, Springer.

Norsafe (2016), Norsafe conventional lifeboats, Norsafe AS, Available from:

http://www.norsafe.com/Products/Conventional

O'Leary Melissa (2016), CFRP Ferries Poised to Make Waves, Composites

Manufacturing, American Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA), May/June
2016, pp. 9-11.

Palmer johnson (2016a), 48M Supersport, palmer johnson yachts, Available from:
http://www.palmerjohnson.com/48m

Palmer johnson (2016b), 72M Supersport, palmer johnson yachts, Available from:
http://www.palmerjohnson.com/72m

Patterson Thom Patterson and Lendon Brad Lendon (2014), Navy's stealth destroyer
designed for the video gamer generation, CNN International, Available from:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/14/tech/zumwalt-operations-center

Petersson Robert (2004), Naval Composite Technology Transfer, kockums AB, 2004
JEC Composite Show and conference.

Plymouth (2016), composite Materials and Structures for the Marine Environment.
Case studies, University of Plymouth, Available from:
https://www.fose1.plymouth.ac.uk/sme/composites/marine.htm

Potter Kevin (1996), Introduction to Composite Products, Springer Netherlands, ISBN

978-0-412-73690-2.

Propulsion's Composite Future (2016), The Maritime Executive, The Maritime

Executive publishing company, 26 March 2016, available from: http://www.maritime-
executive.com/features/propulsions-composite-future

182
Puck A., Kopp J., and Knops M. (2002), Failure analysis of FRP laminates by means
of physically based phenomenological models, Comp. Sci. Technology Vol. 62, pp.
1633-1662.

Reddy J.N. (2004), Mechanics of laminated composite plates and shells, 2nd Edition.
CRC Press LLC.

Rotkop Noa (2008), Earthrace: Setting a new world record, The Future of Things, 11
January 2010, available from: http://thefutureofthings.com/6153-earthrace-setting-a-
new-world-record

Scott Robert J. and Somella John H (1971), Feasibility study of glass reinforced plastic
cargo ship, Ship structure committee, SSC-224.

Scuttlebutt (2013), scuttlebutt sailing news, Available from:

http://cdn.sailingscuttlebutt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/vo65.jpg

SEA-Japan (2011), Oshima launches ECO-Ship 2020 for LNG-fueled ship, SEA-Japan,
Japan Ship Exporters' Association, Vol. 348, Aug. - Sept. 2011, pp. 5.

Selvaraju S. and Ilaiyavel S. (2011), Applications of Composites in Marine Industry,

Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, Technical journals online Group, Vol.
II/Issue II/April-June 2011, pp. 89-91.

Ship technology (2015), Nordic Bulk Carriers’ ship to feature plastic composite
hatches, 22 January 2015, available from: http://www.ship-
technology.com/news/newsnordic-bulk-carriers-ship-to-feature-plastic-composite-
hatches-4494950

Ships and harbours (2013), Visby Class Corvette, Available from:

http://www.shipsandharbours.com/picture/number23334.asp

Soden P. D., Hinton M. J. and Kaddour A. S. (1998), Lamina Properties, Lay-Up

Configurations and Loading Conditions for A Range of Fiber-Reinforced Composite
Laminates, Composites Science and Technology, Elsevier, Vol. 58, pp. 1011–1022.

Steward Sue and Anthony (2000), Top Yacht Races of the World, London, New
Holland, ISBN 1859743943.

Sunahara Seiichi, Nakagawa Kenichiro, Fujii Nobuhiko and Yoshikawa Mitsuaki

(1992), Development of ACM-made Intermediate Shaft, Journal of the Marine
Engineering Society in Japan (MESJ), Translated version, Vol. 27, No. 9, Jun. 8, 1992.

Super yachts (2016a), Harmony Yacht, Superyachts.com, Available from:

http://www.superyachts.com/motor-yacht-8917/harmony.htm

183
Super yachts (2016b), Evviva Yacht, Superyachts.com, Available from:
http://www.superyachts.com/motor-yacht-7468/evviva.htm

Super yachts (2016c), M5 Yacht (ex: Mirabella V), Superyachts.com, Available from:
http://www.superyachts.com/sail-yacht-3272/m5.htm

Tang Youhong Li Jun. (2012), Light hatch cover for large or medium ship , Chinese
Patent CN202574567U.

Tawfik Basem E., Leheta Heba, El Hewy Ahmed and Elsayed Tarek (2016), Weight
reduction and strengthening of marine hatch covers by using composite materials,
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 9,
pp. 185–198, available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2016.09.005

Toppan Andrew (2001), World Navies Today-Africa-Egypt, available from:

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/africa/egypt.htm

UIM (2016), Offshore Rules 2016, Union Internationale Motonautique –

UIM, Available from:
https://www.uimpowerboating.com/Documents/RuleBook/UIM%20Offshore
%20rulebook%20-%20ed.%20Apr%202016.pdf

Um Tae-Sub and Roh Myung-Il (2015), optimal dimension design of a hatch cover for
lightening a bulk carrier, Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng., Elsevier, 7, pp. 270-287.

Vinson Jack R. and Sierakowski Robert L. (2004), The Behavior of Structures

Composed of Composite Materials, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Isbn: 1-4020-0904-
6.

Volvo Ocean Race (2016a), Innovative features, Volvo Ocean Race, S.L.U, available
from: http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/boat/14_Innovative-features.html

Volvo Ocean Race (2016b), Main technical specifications, Volvo Ocean Race, S.L.U,
available from: http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/boat/11_Main-technical-
specifications.html

Volvo Ocean Race (2016c), What is the Volvo Ocean Race?, Volvo Ocean Race, S.L.U,
available from: http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/what-is-the-volvo-ocean-race.html

Volvo Ocean Race (2016d), Review 2014-15, Volvo Ocean Race, S.L.U, Available
from: http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/route.html

Volvo Ocean Race (2016e), The rigs, Volvo Ocean Race, S.L.U, Available from:
http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/boat/31_The-rigs.html

184
Volvo Ocean Race (2016f), It's not just about the boat, Volvo Ocean Race, S.L.U,
Available from: http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/boat/36_It-s-not-just-about-the-
boat.html

Volvo Ocean Race (2016g), The design and build consortium, Volvo
Ocean Race, S.L.U, Available from:
http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/boat/41_The-design-and-build-
consortium.html

Wavestar (2016), Unlimited Clean Energy with the Wavestar Machine, available from:
http://wavestarenergy.com

White Caroline (2012 ), Palmer Johnson Super Sport 48m, Boat International magazine,
Boat International Media, October 2012, available from:
http://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/editorial-features/palmer-johnson-super-
sport-48m--281

Wilhelmi George F., Appleman William M. And Loo, Francist T.C. (1986), Composite
Shafting for Naval Propulsion Systems, Naval Engineers Journal, Vol. 98, pp. 129–136.

Yao Tetsuya, Magaino Atsushi, Koiwa Toshiro, Sato Shugo (2003), Collapse strength
of hatch cover of bulk carrier subjected to lateral pressure load, Marine Structures,
Elsevier, Vol.16, pp. 687–688.

185
 ‫الملخص‬
‫عن طريق إستخدام المواد المركبة يتمكن المصممون من إستغالل أحسن الخواص الموجودة بمكوناتها مم‬
‫يؤدي إلى تصميم منشآت ذكية و فعالة ‪ ،‬في الرسالة التي بين يديكم ‪،‬تم تقديم المواد المركبة كبديل للمواد المعدنية في‬
‫المنشآت البحرية‪ .‬و قد تم بيان المزايا التي تقدمها المواد المركبة مم يؤهلها لتحل محل المواد المعدنية في العديد من‬
‫التطبيقات ‪ ،‬حيث أنه مع التصميم الماهر و الذكي سوف تتحول هذة المزايا إلى أداء فعال و جدوى إقتصادية عالية‪.‬‬

‫تم التعريف بأنواع و تصنيفات المواد المركبة كما تم أيضا وصف المكونات المركبة لكل نوع من األنواع ‪،‬‬
‫ثم بعد ذلك تم مناقشة المزايا التي تقدمها المواد المركبة كما تم كذلك الحديث عن بعض العيوب التي يجب أخذها في‬
‫اإلعتبار خالل التصميم‪ .‬عالوة على ذلك ‪ ،‬تمت مناقشة طرق التصنيع الفريدة للمواد المركبة و التي يجب على المصمم‬
‫اإلختيار منها‪.‬ثم تم استعراض المبادئ األساسية لميكانيكا المواد المركبة و طرق التصميم التي تشكل األدوات الالزمة‬
‫لمباشرة تصميم المنشآت المكونة من المواد المركبة‪ .‬بعد ذلك ‪ ،‬تمت مراجعة التطبيقات الحالية للمواد المركبة في‬
‫المجاالت البحرية التجارية ‪ ،‬الترفيهية و الحربية أيضا‪ .‬و قد تمت كذلك المراجعة على المنشآت البحرية المصنوعة كليا‬
‫أو جزئيا من المواد المركبة‪ .‬حيث أنه تم توضيح أن المواد المركبة تلعب دورا واسعا اليوم في بناء الهياكل الكاملة‬
‫للقوارب الشراعية و ذات المحركات أيضا في مجاالت السباق و الترفيه و بعض السفن التجارية الصغيرة‪ .‬كما أنها‬
‫تستخدم في بناء العديد من المكونات اإلضافية في السفن المصنوعة من المعادن مثل الرفاصات ‪ ،‬الدفة ‪ ،‬أغطية العنابر‬
‫‪ ،‬المداخن ‪ ،‬المنشآت الفوق سطحية ‪ ،‬أنظمة الصواري ‪ ،‬القواعد و العديد من التطبيقات األخرى‪ .‬كما تم أيضا اإلشارة‬
‫إلى أن ألياف الكاربون و الكيفالر (‪ )Kevlar‬يتم إستخدامها بكثافة في التطبيقات التي تطلب أداءا عاليا لتحل محل ألياف‬
‫الزجاج الذي يستخدم بصورة تقليدية في المنشآت البحرية‪.‬‬

‫تم تقديم المواد المركبة كمواد بديلة لصناعة أغطية العنابر كحالة بحثية ‪ ،‬حيث أن أغطية العنابر الخاصة‬
‫بسفينة بضاعة صب حمولة ‪ 12228‬طن قد تم تصميمها بأستخدام المواد المركبة‪ .‬و قد تم إستخدام منهجين منفصلين‬
‫في تصميم أغطية العنبر البحرية المركبة‪ .‬المنهج األول هو "منهج التقوية" حيث تم زيادة الحمل على غطاء العنبر‬
‫األمامي بما يعادل ‪ %851‬من الحمل الذي يتم تصميم الغطاء لتحمله (كما هو مطلوب من هيئات التصنيف البحرية)‬
‫بدون زيادة في وزن الغطاء عن طريق إستغالل خاصية "القوة العالية مقابل الوزن" التي تتميز بها المواد المركبة ‪ ،‬مم‬
‫يؤدي إلى زيادة معامل األمان ضد غرق العنبر في السفن الكبيرة‪ .‬المنهج الثاني هو "منهج تخفيف الوزن" حيث تم‬
‫تصميم أغطية العنابر بحيث يكون وزنها ‪ %55.51‬من وزن األغطية المعدنية و بالتالي تؤدي إلى تحسين إتزان السفينة‬
‫و تقليل إستهالك الوقود‪.‬‬

‫عالوة على ذلك تم دراسة "تكلفة دورة حياة" أغطية العنابرالمبنية من المواد المركبة و مقارنتها بتكلفة دورة‬
‫حياة أغطية العنابر المعدنية ‪ ،‬حيث أكدت النتائج على أن تكلفة دورة حياة األغطية المصنوعة من المواد المركبة أقل‬
‫بسبب زيادة تكاليف صيانة األغطية المعدنية لتكرار حدوث مشاكل الصدأ و هو ما ال يحدث في المواد المركبة‪.‬‬

‫و على الرغم من النجاح و اإلنتشار الحالي الذي حققته المواد المركبة في المجال البحري فإن المجال ما زل‬
‫مفتوحا و مليئا باإلمكانات للعديد من التطبيقات الجديدة المبتكرة في جميع الفروع البحرية‪.‬‬

‫‪186‬‬
 ‫استخدام المواد المركبة كمواد بديلة في المنشآت البحرية‬

‫رسالة علمية‬

‫مقدمة الى قسم الهندسة البحرية و عمارة السفن بكلية الهندسة – جامعة االسكندرية‬

‫استيفاء للدراسات المقررة للحصول على درجة‬

‫ماجستير العلوم‬

‫فى‬

‫عمارة السفن و الهندسة البحرية‬

‫مقدمة من‬

‫باسم السيد توفيق‬

‫مايو ‪2187‬‬

‫‪187‬‬