FEMAP CompositesTutorial - 2010

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.
1 Composites Tutorial
Modeling Composites with

Femap 10.1.1
Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved
An Introduction to
The Hows and Whys
George Laird, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal Mechanical Engineer
George.Laird@PredictiveEngineering.com
Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial
Table of Contents
Defining a Laminate Material in Femap .....
Femap Layup Editor ...
p Materials Overview ..
Orthotropic
Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap ...
Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate Model in Femap ...........
Creating the Laminate Material ..
Defining the Laminate Layup
D fi i the
Defining
th Laminate
L i t Property
P
t .
Specifying Material Angles
Post Processing the Results
Using Plate Elements to Model Honeycomb Core Composites .
pp
to Honeycomb
y
Composites
p
..
Classical Plate Theoryy Applied
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
i l Properties
i usedd in
i the
h Example
l
Honeycomb Model using Solid Elements with Laminate Face Skins
Honeycomb Model using Classical Plate Theory ...
Honeycomb Model using Laminate Elements
Results Summary .
Conclusion ..
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

To define a Laminate Material in
Femap, 3 specifications must be
made:
The Composite Layup that is to be
used must be specified
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
pa e s.
panels.
A Failure Theory must also be
specified. If Tsai-Wu is specified,
then the Tsai-Wu interaction
coefficient must also be specified in
th material
the
t i l definition.
d fi iti
Femap Layup Editor
The new layup

Th
l
editor
dit in
i Femap
F
allows for the easy specification of
laminate configurations. This new
editor allows plys to be be edited
individually
y or collectively.
y 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.
Orthotropic Materials
Often times Composites can be modeled as
Orthotropic
p materials. The Nastran Mat8 material
card can be used to simulate orthotropic behavior.
1
The
h above
b
iis an example
l off an orthotropic
h
i material.
i l
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.
Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap
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
E1, E2 and v1-2
v1-2.
There are a number of other values
that can be entered depending upon
what type of analysis is going to be
carried
i d out.
One of the more difficult aspects of working with composites is

getting
i realistic,
li i usable
bl material
i l data.
d
Matt Piatkowski
i k
ki at Heathh 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.
1) HMS B1-002 TY I-TS
2) Graphite Tape
Such limitations and assumptions are very important to quantify. An

FEA model is only as good as the assumptions that go into it.
3) HMS B3-001 TY4 CL1 GR9
Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate

Model in Femap
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.
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
i usedd for
is
f calculating
l l i failure
f il
indexes. There are a number of
indexes Nastran will calculate:
Hill, Hoffman, Tsai-Wu, and
Maximum
i
Strain.
S i Tsai-Wu
i
requires a material dependant
experimentally derived value, it
is in the material definition that
this
hi value
l iis specified.
ifi d
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.
Defining the Laminate Layup

After the orthotropic material
is created,
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
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.
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
i arrived
is
i d at by
b dividing
di idi the
h inter-ply
i
l shear
h stress by
b the
h BondShr
dSh All
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
l in
i the
h laminate
l i
will
ill have
h
an associated
i d failure
f il
index.
i d
The
Th equation
i usedd to calculate
l l the
h
Hoffman index is shown below.
Specifying Material Angles
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
p
as pointing
p
g in the theta direction.
specified
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.
Post Processing the Results

For each element, there are 7 plies
and each of these plies has
associated data, e.g. stresses,
strains,
i failure
f il
indexes.
i d
The
h plot
l 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
wee 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.
1/0.243
41
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.
The inter-laminate
Th
i t l i t bonding
b di
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
elements.
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.
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
be
av o of
o a Honeycomb
o eyco b Core
Co e
Composite.
Classical Plate Theory Applied to

Honeycomb Composites
It iis important
i
t t to
t remember
b that
th t there
th is
i one major
j
assumption made in classical plate theory with
respect to honeycomb composites; it is
assumed that all of the in-plane stresses are
carried by
y the facesheets. The following
g
relationships can be derived:
Membrane Stiffness
Et
K=
1 2
Bending Stiffness
EI '
D=
1 2
T/2
I is the bending moment of Inertia per unit width

3
2d t
1
I'= + d 3
3 2 2 12
If d >>t, then the following can be assumed:
td 2
I'
4
The Nastran
PSHELL
Property Card
Using the PSHELL Card for Honeycomb Panels

PID - Property
P
t ID
MID1 - This entry specifies the material number of
the facesheets.
T - The total thickness of the facesheets.
MID2 - This
Thi entry
t also
l specifies
ifi the
th material
t i l
number for the facesheets.
12I/T3 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 = TD2/4
If the facesheets are relatively thick, then
I = 2/3 [D/2 + T/2]3 D3/12
MID3 This entry specifies the material number of
the honeycomb core.
Ts 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 rhocore
T/2
Using FEMAP to Setup a Honeycomb Panel

Th FEMAP plate
The
l t property
t
definition interface is fairly
easy to use.
The Thickness of the

f
facesheets
h t is
i entered
t d as
usual.
The facesheet material

is specified here.
The bending stiffness can also

be entered, with values
obtained from classical
plate theory equations.
The core material

is specified
here.
Shear thickness, or in the case

of honeycomb panels,
D/T can also
D/T,
l be
b entered.
t d
The mass of the core must also

be added. This is done
through the addition of
Nonstructural mass.
Example 2: Comparing Different Laminate

Modeling Methods
In this example we will build a honeycomb
composite model in three different ways.
1.
2.
3.
Using solid elements for the core,

and laminate elements for the face
sheets.
Using plate elements, which utilize
classical plate theory to represent the
core and face sheets all in one
property.
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.
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.
material
Honeycomb Panel Using Solid Elements for the

Core and Laminate Elements for the Face Sheets
This fi
Thi
first model
d l was bbuilt
il using
i Hex
H elements
l
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.
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.
Deflection results for the solid / laminate model are shown above. The peak
deflection is -0.0139 inches.
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.
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 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
o thee layup,
ayup, computing
co pu g in-plane
pa e
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
p
= 0. Alphay
p y = 0. Alphaxy
p
y = 0.
Alphax
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 106 psi
v = 0.322742
T/2 = 0.1 inches

D
.3
.2
D = 0.3 inches
2. D
3 2
I = 8.167 10
12
BendingStiffness
I
12.
3
T
BendingStiffness = 12.25
.0000045
NSM
D .
NSM = 1.35 10
ts
ts
D
= 1.5
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.
Deflection results for the classical plate theory model are shown above. The
peak deflection is -0.0142 inches.
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.
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.
Deflection results for the laminate model are shown above. The peak
deflection is -0.0137 inches.
Results Summary
Node
Count
Solution
Time
Deflection
% Variance from
Laminate Model
Hex Model
3381
10 s
-0.0139 in
1.43 %
Classical Model
677
5s
-0.0142
0 0142 in
35%
3.5
Laminate Model
677
5s
-0.0137 in
0%
The above
Th
b
table
bl compares the
h results
l from
f
the
h three
h models.
d l The
Th Hex
H andd Laminate
L i
models
d l correlate
l 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
g
y higher
g
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
laminate. The laminate element seems the clear winner,
winner not only for ease of use and low
node count, but because of the many options exclusively available to it.
Conclusion
Three methods
Th
th d for
f analyzing
l i composites
it have
h
been
b
explored
l d in
i this
thi tutorial.
t t i l Each
E h method
th d
has its good points, and some are more generally effective than others. Each has its own set
of assumptions and limitations.
Using
U
i classical
l i l plate
l t theory
th
to
t model
d l honeycomb
h
b panels
l can be
b effective,
ff ti but
b t it certainly
t i l has
h
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 iis ttrue with

A
ith all
ll areas off Finite
Fi it Element
El
t Analysis,
A l i nothing
thi can compensate
t for
f a lack
l k off
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.
George L
G
Laird
id
www.PredictiveEngineering.com

FEMAP CompositesTutorial - 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEMAP CompositesTutorial - 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.

Modeling Composites with

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Defining a Laminate Material in Femap

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Femap Layup Editor

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

The new layup

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

FEMAP requires the entry of 5

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

One of the more difficult aspects of working with composites is

1) HMS B1-002 TY I-TS

Such limitations and assumptions are very important to quantify. An

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

3) HMS B3-001 TY4 CL1 GR9

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

The model to the right is a

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Creating the Laminate Material

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

This model will use a single

Robert M. Mechanics of Composite Materials. New York: Hemisphere, 1975. 70.

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Defining the Laminate Layup

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

The laminate that has been

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Defining the Laminate Property

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

The BondShr Allow also needs

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Specifying Material Angles

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

After the elements are

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

It is important to ensure that all laminate elements

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Post Processing the Results

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

It can be seen that under this

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Using Plate Elements to

Revised 2010 All Rights Reserved

Nastran and Femap both allow for the use

Predictive Engineering Femap 10.1.1 Composites Tutorial

Classical Plate Theory Applied to

I is the bending moment of Inertia per unit width