Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.

3 Composites Tutorial
Modeling Composites with
FEMAP 9.3
An Introduction to
The Hows and Whys
Jared Ellefson, MSME
Staff Analyst, Predictive Engineering
Jared.Ellefson@PredictiveEngineering.com
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Table of Contents
3
4
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
27
31
34
35
Defining a Laminate Material in Femap 9.3 ...
Femap 9.3 Layup Editor ..
Orthotropic Materials Overview
Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap 9.3 .
Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate Model in Femap 9.3 ..... .
Creating the Laminate Material ..
Defining the Laminate Layup
Defining the Laminate Property .
Specifying Material Angles
Post Processing the Results
Using Plate Elements to Model Honeycomb Core Composites .
Classical Plate Theory Applied to Honeycomb Composites ..
The Nastran PShell Property Card ..
Using the PShell Property Card for Honeycomb Composites
Using Femap to Setup a Honeycomb Panel
Example 2: Comparing Different Laminate Modeling Methods ....
Material Properties used in the Example
Honeycomb Model using Solid Elements with Laminate Face Skins
Honeycomb Model using Classical Plate Theory ...
Honeycomb Model using Laminate Elements
Results Summary .
Conclusion ..
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Defining a Laminate Material in FEMAP 9.3
To define a Laminate Material in
FEMAP 9.3, 3 specifications must be
made:
The Composite Layup that is to be
used must be specified. These
Layups are defined using the Layup
Editor.
A Bond Shear Allowance must also
be specified. The value represents
the bond strength between the bonded
laminate sheets. This value is used to
calculate a factor of safety against
shear failure between laminate
panels.
A Failure Theory must also be
specified. If Tsai-Wu is specified,
then the Tsai-Wu interaction
coefficient must also be specified in
the material definition.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
FEMAP 9.3 Layup Editor
The new layup editor in FEMAP 9.3
allows for the easy specification of
laminate configurations. This new
editor allows plys to be be edited
individually or collectively. It also
allows each ply to be moved around
in the layup, as well as easy editing
of ply thickness and angle.
A compute button has also been
added that allows the user to calculate
and display the A, B and D matrices
which represent the laminate
behavior. These matrices are
calculated and then displayed in the
messages window.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Orthotropic Materials
Often times Composites can be modeled as
Orthotropic materials. The Nastran Mat8 material
card can be used to simulate orthotropic behavior.
The above is an example of an orthotropic material.
The 1 direction could corresponds to the x direction
and the 2 to the y or vise-versa. When deciding
which direction is the x and which is the y, what is
important is that the chosen convention is adhered to.
1
2
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
FEMAP requires the entry of 5
values:
2 Youngs Moduli for the materials
primary directions.
A 1-2 Shear Modulus
2 Transverse Shear Moduli, 1z & 2z
The 1-2 Poisson Ratio, the 2-1
Poisson Ratio is not required. The
symmetry of the material stress
tensor allows FEMAP to calculate it
based upon E1, E2 and v1-2.
There are a number of other values
that can be entered depending upon
what type of analysis is going to be
carried out.
Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap 9.3
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
1) HMS B1-002 TY I-TS
2) Graphite Tape
3) HMS B3-001 TY4 CL1 GR9
One of the more difficult aspects of working with composites is
getting realistic, usable material data. Matt Piatkowski at Heath Tecna
inc. provided an example of a material model they have developed.
These values were derived through correlating experimental data with
FEA models. Built into this material model are a number of
assumptions: it is only valid for certain shapes and loading schemes.
The model works well in pure flex, but does not work well when a lot
of shear or twist is imposed on the structure.
Such limitations and assumptions are very important to quantify. An
FEA model is only as good as the assumptions that go into it.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate
Model in Femap 9.3
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
The model to the right is a
section of the submarine model
shown on the previous page.
The original model was built
using plate elements, but in this
example we will modify it so
that the submarine skin is a
laminate.
The port is composed of solid
elements, with an assumed
material of steel. The ring of
blue elements around the port
are plate elements, whose
purpose it is to simulate a weld.
These plate elements are also
assumed to be steel.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Creating the Laminate Material
This model will use a single
material for the laminate plies.
The properties are those of a
Graphite/epoxy composite

.
The Limit Stress/Strain section
is used for calculating failure
indexes. There are a number of
indexes Nastran will calculate:
Hill, Hoffman, Tsai-Wu, and
Maximum Strain. Tsai-Wu
requires a material dependant
experimentally derived value, it
is in the material definition that
this value is specified.
We will use Hoffmans criteria,
so this value isnt necessary for
our analysis.

Jones, Robert M. Mechanics of Composite Materials. New York: Hemisphere, 1975. 70.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Defining the Laminate Layup
After the orthotropic material
is created, the Layup Editor
can be used to define how the
laminate plies are situated.
The laminate that has been
defined on the right consists of
7 plys, each 0.2 inches thick.
The primary direction of the
plies varies by 90.
This is a fairly simple
configuration. Often the
individual plies are different
materials, the top and bottom plies being composed of a somewhat tough material while the
inner plies are more light-weight. Configurations such as these impart a large area moment of
inertia while remaining light weight.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Defining the Laminate Property
We are now just a short jump
away from having a laminate
property defined. The
laminate definition requires the
user to specify which Layup
will define the the laminate.
The BondShr Allow also needs
to be specified if a bond factor
of safety is desired. The value
is arrived at by dividing the inter-ply shear stress by the BondShr Allow.
It is here that the Failure theory is also specified. This example will use Hoffmans theory.
These failure theories produce failure indexes. An index greater than 1 denotes failure. Each
ply in the laminate will have an associated failure index. The equation used to calculate the
Hoffman index is shown below.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
After the elements are
assigned the laminate
property, they need to be
given a specified angle that
corresponds to the primary
direction of the layup. The
above picture specifies the
directions we are interested
in specifying. The ring of
two elements around the
port are to have an
orientation tangent to the
edge of the port, while all
other elements need to point
in the vertical direction.
Going to Modify-Update
Elements-Material Angle
allows the user to specify the laminate direction. In the case above, a cylindrical coordinate system
was created, called Cylindrical 1. Using this coordinate system, the inner ring of elements were
specified as pointing in the theta direction.
Specifying Material Angles
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
It is important to ensure that all laminate elements
have an angle specified. Nastran will not run the
analysis if elements are missing an angle
specification. Element normals are also important if
your laminate model is not symmetric. These must be
specified to ensure that element orientation is
consistent.
On the right is an example where a certain portion of
laminate elements have unspecified angles. Often
finding where these elements are is a chore. To solve
the problem, I created an API script that searches for
these elements, then highlights and groups them. The
bottom graphic shows this. This API is called
Composites Material Angle Checker, and can be
downloaded from our website at
www.PredictiveEngineering.com/downloads/api.html
After loads and boundary conditions are specified, the
models is ready to process.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
For each element, there are 7 plies
and each of these plies has
associated data, e.g. stresses,
strains, failure indexes. The plot on
the right is that of the maximum
failure index for each element.
It can be seen that under this
loading condition, the Hoffman
failure criterion predicts a
maximum index of 0.243. This
value is well below 1, and therefore
we can infer that this portion of the
vessel is quite safe.
It should be noted that this is a
failure index, NOT a factor of
safety. Hoffmans equation is not
linear, and should not be
Construded to imply that the
structure has a factor of safety of
1/0.243 or ~ 4.1.
In order to generate a factor of safety, Hoffmans equation needs to be solved in its quadratic form.
See Daniel, Isaac M., and Ori Ishai. Engineering Mechanics of Composite Materials. New York: Oxford, 1994. 120-124.
Post Processing the Results
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
The inter-laminate bonding
factor of safety is shown on the
right. The bonding index see a
maximum at the center of the
elements. This is what we would
expect to see as predicted by
classical plate / beam theory.
There should be zero shear force
on the surfaces and a maximum
at the centerline.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Using Plate Elements to
Model Honeycomb Composites
Nastran and Femap both allow for the use
of the PShell property card for
honeycomb composites. This section of
the tutorial deals with how Classical Plate
Theory can be used to define a plate
element which reasonably replicates the
behavior of a Honeycomb Core
Composite.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Classical Plate Theory Applied to
Honeycomb Composites
T/2
D
It is important to remember that there is one major
assumption made in classical plate theory with
respect to honeycomb composites; it is
assumed that all of the in-plane stresses are
carried by the facesheets. The following
relationships can be derived:
2
1
=
Et
K
2
1
'

=
EI
D
3
3
12
1
2 2 3
2
' d
t d
I

+ =
4
'
2
td
I
Membrane Stiffness
Bending Stiffness
I is the bending moment of Inertia per unit width
If d >>t, then the following can be assumed:
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
The Nastran
PSHELL
Property Card
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Using the PSHELL Card for Honeycomb Panels
PID - Property ID
MID1 - This entry specifies the material number of
the facesheets.
T - The total thickness of the facesheets.
MID2 - This entry also specifies the material
number for the facesheets.
12I/T
3
The inertia of the facesheets is entered
here. If the facesheets are thin, and the core is
thick, then it can be assumed that:
I = TD
2
/4
If the facesheets are relatively thick, then
I = 2/3 [D/2 + T/2]
3
D
3
/12
MID3 This entry specifies the material number of
the honeycomb core.
T
s
This value is the shear thickness and in the
case of a honeycomb core, is D.
NSM Non Structural Mass must be added to the
card. For a honeycomb core,
NSM = D rho
core
T/2
D
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Using FEMAP to Setup a Honeycomb Panel
The FEMAP plate property
definition interface is fairly
easy to use.
The Thickness of the
facesheets is entered as
usual.
The bending stiffness can also
be entered, with values
obtained from classical
plate theory equations.
Shear thickness, or in the case
of honeycomb panels,
D/T, can also be entered.
The facesheet material
is specified here.
The core material
is specified
here.
The mass of the core must also
be added. This is done
through the addition of
Nonstructural mass.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Example 2: Comparing Different Laminate
Modeling Methods
In this example we will build a honeycomb
composite model in three different ways.
1. Using solid elements for the core,
and laminate elements for the face
sheets.
2. Using plate elements, which utilize
classical plate theory to represent the
core and face sheets all in one
property.
3. Using a laminate element which will
encompass the face sheets as well as
the core all in one property.
We will then compare the pros and cons of each methods, and evaluate the results.
The models are simply supported, with a body load of 10 Gs. Each configuration is modeled as
half symmetric.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
The material properties for the face sheets and the core are shown above.
The face sheets are graphite composite, while the core is modeled as an
isotropic material.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Honeycomb Panel Using Solid Elements for the
Core and Laminate Elements for the Face Sheets
This first model was built using Hex elements
for the core, and Laminate elements for the
face sheets.
The Laminate elements are given an offset of
0.05 to compensate for their thickness.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
The Layup for the face sheets is shown
on the right. The face sheets are 0.1
inches thick being composed of 8 plys,
each 0.0125 inches thick. These plys are
oriented so as to perform in an isotropic
manner.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Deflection results for the solid / laminate model are shown above. The peak
deflection is -0.0139 inches.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Honeycomb Panel Using Classical Plate Theory to
Represent the Core and Skins in One Property
In this model, plate elements will be used to simulate the behavior of the honeycomb panel. The
equations from classical plate theory given on pages 18-21 are used to modify the behavior of the
plate element.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
The Layup for the face sheets is
shown on the right. For this model,
we would like to generate a material
with equivalent isotropic properties.
Luckily, Femap 9.3 provides a great
new option to do this. There is a
new option in the Layup Editor
called Compute.
If this is selected, Femap will
compute all the composite properties
for the layup, computing in-plane
properties, as well as the A, B and D
matrices.
8 Plies - Total Thickness = 0.1
In-Plane Properties
Ex = 10556320. Ey = 10556320. Gxy = 3990317.
NUxy = 0.322742 NUyx = 0.322742
Alphax = 0. Alphay = 0. Alphaxy = 0.
The In-Plane properties for the layup are shown
on the left. An isotropic material was used
based upon these calculations.
E = 10.55 X 10
6
psi
v = 0.322742
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
T/2 = 0.1 inches
D = 0.3 inches
For the previously given material properties, the equations on pg. 20 yield the values that
have been entered into the plate property definition. Actual Calculations are given above.
D .3
T .2
I
2
3
D
2
T
2
3
.
D
3
12
I 8.167 10
3
=
BendingStiffness 12
I
T
3
.
BendingStiffness 12.25 =
.0000045
NSM D
.
NSM 1.35 10
6
=
ts D
ts
T
1.5 =
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Deflection results for the classical plate theory model are shown above. The
peak deflection is -0.0142 inches.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Honeycomb Panel Using Laminate Elements for
the Core and Face Sheets
The above model uses only laminate elements to simulate the honeycomb composite. The face
sheets as well as the core material are all contained in one material property.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
The layup for the Honeycomb
Composite is shown on the right.
This section of the Layup is the
top face sheet.
This one ply represents the Core.
This section of the Layup is the
bottom face sheet.
What is so nice about the laminate element is its simplicity; in one property, everything can be
specified.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Deflection results for the laminate model are shown above. The peak
deflection is -0.0137 inches.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Results Summary
0 % -0.0137 in 5 s 677 Laminate Model
3.5 % -0.0142 in 5 s 677 Classical Model
1.43 % -0.0139 in 10 s 3381 Hex Model
% Variance from
Laminate Model
Deflection Solution
Time
Node
Count
The above table compares the results from the three models. The Hex and Laminate models correlate most
closely, while the classical model deviates by about 3.5 %. All of the results are fairly consistent, but there
are other considerations which contribute to deciding which is the best method.
The Hex model is accurate, but has a significantly higher node count and therefore solution time. The
classical model has a small node count, but extraneous calculations are required to set up the model. The
laminate model has both a low node count and is easy to set up. In addition, the laminate element
formulation provides features not available with the other two methods. The laminate element can provide
stress on a ply by ply bases as well as ply specific failure indices. Ply bond failure indices are also
available with the laminate. The laminate element seems the clear winner, not only for ease of use and low
node count, but because of the many options exclusively available to it.
Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial
Conclusion
Three methods for analyzing composites have been explored in this tutorial. Each method
has its good points, and some are more generally effective than others. Each has its own set
of assumptions and limitations.
Using classical plate theory to model honeycomb panels can be effective, but it certainly has
limitations and it should not be construed to be capable of handling all of the general cases
that the more expansive laminate theory can.
As is true with all areas of Finite Element Analysis, nothing can compensate for a lack of
theoretical understanding and good judgment. The forgoing explanations represent a very
small piece of the world of composite analysis and is meant only as a brief introduction. It is
hoped that what is contained in this tutorial can function as a good foundation from which to
build.
Jared Ellefson
Email: Jared.Ellefson@PredictiveEngineering.com
Phone: 541.760.2955