This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

**Analysis of Laminated Composite Structures
**

AE/ME/EMech 484

**Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck
**

Variant 11

October 13, 2010

Presented by:

Jeremy O’Hara

O’Hara 1

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

O’Hara 2

find the strains corresponding to the assumed value. This involves design of the laminated plate (skin) simply supported by the stringers. Compare the weight of the plates designed using two materials and two failure criteria with that of the aluminum plate. The mode of failure we are concerned with is the loss of strength. Maximum stress criterion 2. determine the maximum allowable tensile stress resultant Nx that can be applied to the plate (without pressure). Design a plate that is lighter than the aluminum structure. Finding this solution vary the stress resultant. O’Hara 3 . Make the plate symmetric cross-ply laminated or symmetric angle-ply laminated.13 mm Use the following criteria for each design: 1. Figure 1 – Typical Geometry Part 2: For each of four plates designed in Part 1. See Figure 1 for typical geometry.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Section 1 – Problem Statement Redesign the aluminum plate prescribed in Variant 11 (Table 1) using composite materials to achieve the lightest structure capable of carrying the same uniform pressure as the aluminum plate. The thickness of each layer being equal to 0. Part 1: Design the plates using two materials specified in Variant 11 in Table 2 that are capable of carrying the same pressure as the aluminum plate. then determine the stresses in the layers and check the strength. Tsai-Hill criterion * For the uniform comparison all safety factors are taken equal to 1.

9 27 60 Al Aluminum (6061-T6) 271 68. Strength Transverse Comp.2 0.29 -0.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Aluminum Plate Variants Variant 11 a (m) .Material Properties -6 o 5 Carbon/ Epoxy (AS4/3501-6) 1580 142 10.8 h –thickness (m) . Strength Intralaminar Shear Strength Longitudinal Tensile Strain Longitudinal CTE Transverse CTE Fiber Volume Fraction kg/m3 GPa GPa GPa 2076 45 12 5.19 1020 40 60 620 140 60 2.Composite Material Variants Material Properties Material # 1 E-Glass/ Epoxy r E1 E2 G12 n12 sy s1U s2U t12U s1U' s2U' s4 or s5 eLT a1 a2 VF MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa % 10-6/oC 10 / C % Table 3 .3 3.9 0.27 1830 57 71 1096 228 1.5 0.Aluminum Plate Variants Composite Material Variants Variant 11 Materials 1. 5 Table 2 .33 255 290 - Material Description Density Longitudinal Modulus Transverse Modulus In-Plane Shear Modulus Poisson's Ratio Yeild Strength Longitudinal Tensile Strength Transverse Tensile Strength In-Plane Shear Strength Longitudinal Comp.3 7.006 Table 1 .7 30 60 O’Hara 4 .

UV degradation. Hygrothermal effects are neglected. buckling. This analysis is based on static loading conditions. and edge effect stress concentration failures are specifically out of the scope of this analysis.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Section 2 – Scope This analysis is based on Thin Plate Theory and Symmetric Cross Ply Laminate Plate Theory. e. This analysis considers only tensile and compressive failure modes.g. This analysis is limited to the First Ply Failure (FPF) of the laminate. as are any geometric differences (thickness. Further. No residual strength is considered to exist after a ply failure occurs. The analysis is based on an assumption of 100% quality. etc. foreign material. voids. O’Hara 5 . corrosive environments. etc. It is assumed that the material properties used in the analysis are valid at the conditions in which panel is subjected to the loads. The boundary conditions are taken to be simply supported and transverse deflections assumed to be small per the problem statement. or shock loading conditions are considered. It is assumed the panel is free from material or manufacturing defects (delaminations.). the analysis is focused solely on the region of the plate subjected to pure cylindrical bending. ply distortion. More discussion on these two points can be found in Section 7 – Discussion. Shear. Any required modifications to the sub-structure are out of the scope of this document. This analysis is based on mechanical loading failure theory only. cyclic. No dynamic. delamination. The joining of the deck to the substructure is also specifically excluded from this analysis. as are environmental considerations.) between the original design and any alternative. ply splices etc. The analysis is limited to a plate redesign only.

125 = 4 3 The design weight (linear mass) w L .8 = 19125 = 19. 006 . 8 = 13.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Section 3 – Original Aluminum Plate Design The deck is defined per the specifications of Variant 11.33 290 *From Matweb.Aluminum Plate Properties Per given max stress equation: = 3 4 ℎ The design pressure q 0-strength can be found as follows: ℎ = 4 255 10 3 .design can be found as follows: = 2710 .9 .01 / = O’Hara 6 .com 6060-T6 and Alclad 6061-T6 Table 4 . 006 .Density (kg/m ) 255 Strength syeild (MPa) Young’s Modulus E (GPa) * Poisson’s Ratio n* Strength sUTS (MPa)* 68. Aluminum Plate Properties Variant 11 Alloy 6061-T6 a – Plate Width (m) .8 h – Thickness (m) .006 3 2710 r .

33 = 68.9 9 = 7. Argawal. 33 68.554 8 2 1 + .33 =0 = ℎ 12 1 − = = .Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck The isotropic plate may be analyzed using the same methods as composite plates: For Plane-Stress: (from Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites .16) = = = = = 1− = 1− = = 68. =466.762 12 1 −.9 9 = 2.9 9 .639 8 1 −.9 9 1 −.. 33 . Chandrashekhara. 3e. 7. 33 . 006 68. 006 12 1 −. Broutman. 33 .281 ℎ 12 1 − 68.78.241 =0 O’Hara 7 .9 9 .9 9 = 1. eqn’s 5.33 = 459.531 8 . = 68.552 10 1 −. 006 = 1391. 33 .732 10 1 −.33 2 1+ =0 ℎ 1− = = = = = = =0 = = = = = ℎ 1− ℎ 2 1+ = .33 = 2. 006 68. .9 9 .33 = 1.9 9 = 4. 006 68.590 10 2 1 + .

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck = = 5 384 : = = 5 384 [ 121 ] 5 19125 .762 A deflection of 73. 8 = . the analysis method utilized here becomes valid again. If the maximum displacement is constrained to one half plate thickness. it was found that the maximum pressure that can be applied and maintain a half plate thickness displacement (w o =3mm) is q 0-displacment of 782 Pa. O’Hara 8 .0733 384 1391. By using the same equations as before with an iterative approach.3mm exceeds the small deflection constraint on this analysis method and is therefore subject to extreme error and may be unrealistic.

For a simply supported symmetric cross-ply composite plate subjected to cylindrical bending (neglecting short edge effects) the following equations hold: (from pages 121-123 of course notes) For: = 0. = 0. to create a more robust design a minimal number of 90 o plies will be added. = 8 < < = 384 16 − 24 +5 = 0.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Section 4 – Part 1 For the desired composite deck. the ideal layup away from end effects is [0 o ] x . = 0. However. supported by stringer and subjected to a uniform pressure. = 0. 1−4 =0 . =0 For 0 o Plies: (max stress occurs at x=0) = = =0 = = 8 8 1−4 1−4 = = 8 8 = 5 384 = : For 90 o Plies: (max stress occurs at x=0) = = =0 = = 8 8 1−4 1−4 = = 8 8 = 5 384 = : O’Hara 9 .

5x plate thickness. and CE-S is carbon/epoxy satisfying both maximum stress and Tsai-Hill criteria. For each of these plates thickness. The same iterative process was completed and two more additional alternatives were developed. For each of these plates thickness. and CE-S. two Fiberglass/Epoxy (GE-MS and GE-TH) and one Carbon/Epoxy (CE-S). and max deflection were calculated. weight. weight savings. GEMS is a glass/epoxy plate satisfying the maximum stress criteria. one glass/epoxy and one carbon/epoxy (GE-D and CE-D respectively). Both of these plates not only satisfy the strength criteria (max stress and Tsai-Hill) at the both the higher q0-strength and lower q0-displacment they both also maintain a max deflection wo=.5x plate thickness and q0-displacment = 782 Pa from the original design constrained to wo=. GE-TH. It should be noted that the initial alternative designs. weight savings. all have maximum deflections in excess of plate thickness. and max deflection were calculated.5x plate thickness. O’Hara 10 . weight. Additional analysis was completed using a discplacement constraint of wo=.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Analysis is completing using an iterative process varying the ply count and layup until the following strength based failure criteria are satisfied: (from pages 29 and 33 of course notes) Max Stress Criteria − ′ − ′ | < < |<| < < | Tsai-Hill Criterial − − − <1 This initial analysis based on strength based criteria using q0-strength led to three alternative plate designs. GE-MS. GE-TH is glass/epoxy satisfying both maximum stress and Tsai-Hill criteria.

CE-S. CE-D. 3e. eqn’s 5. 6. 6. 7.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Section 5 – Part 2 Part 2 is an academic exercise to determine the maximum stress resultant Nx that can be applied to each plate. the Q matrix for each material and the A and A’ matrices for each layup were calculated: (from Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites . Argawal. All five alternative plates were considered: GE-MS. Chandrashekhara.16.78.20. 6.. GE-TH. GE-D. O’Hara 11 . Broutman.36.9) = = = = = 1− 1− 1− =0 = ℎ −ℎ For symmetric laminates: [ ]= [ Followed by: ][ ] [ ] = [ ][ ] With this relationship established Nx was varied while observing the resulting failure criteria (max stress and Tsai-Hill) until a maximum value was found. To conduct this analysis.

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Section 6 – Results Part 1: Original Aluminum Design Analysis has shown that the existing aluminum deck is designed to be subjected to a uniform pressure q 0-strength of 19. and a deflection under loading of 699 mm. and a deflection under loading of 3 mm. Analysis on the plate with the new constraints yields a uniform pressure q 0-displacement of 782 Pa. and max deflection=. See Table 5 for comparison.61 kg/m.38 mm. and a deflection under loading of 73. The deflection under the max loading exceeds acceptable values for the simple analysis performed here.124kPa. has a linear mass of 5.69%. This plate represents an acceptable design and provides a weight savings of 8. This plate corresponds to the lightest design that satisfies the Maximum Stress Criteria.01 kg/m.4 mm. [07/902/07/902/07/902. and a deflection under loading of 626 mm. and a deflection under loading of 3. The plate thickness is 7. has a linear design mass of 13. The GE-MS plate is a 27-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate. [0 11 /90 5 /0 11 ].5x plate thickness under uniform pressure q 0-displacement . has a linear mass of 5. [0 11 /90 2 ]s. has a linear mass of 11. The plate thickness is 3.01 kg/m. These plates correspond to the lightest design that satisfies the Maximum Stress Criteria and Tsai-Hill Criteria respectively under uniform pressure q 0-strength . It is assumed to be an illegitimate result and a displacement boundary condition is applied limiting the max transverse deflection to 3 mm (one half plate thickness). The plate thickness is 3. Tsai-Hill Criteria.51 mm. O’Hara 12 .87 kg/m. has a linear design mass of 13. Displacement analysis of symmetric cross-ply fiberglass/epoxy plates resulted in one plate.83 kg/m.5]s.3 mm.15 mm. GE-D. The GE-TH plate is a 26-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate. This plate exceeds the deformation limitations of analysis and should be disregarded. Part 1a: Fiberglass/Epoxy Strength analysis of symmetric cross-ply fiberglass/epoxy plates resulted in two plates. FE-MS and FE-TH. The GE-D plate is a 55-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate. This plate exceeds the deformation limitations of analysis and should be disregarded.

has a linear mass of 2. [0 5 /90/0 2 /90]s. however more advanced analysis is required to validate them. CE-D. The CE-S plate is a 18-ply Carbon/Epoxy laminate. has a linear mass of 6.34 mm. and max deflection=. and a deflection under loading of 2. [07/902/07/902/02/90]s. the GE-D deck would be a good choice as well. and a deflection under loading of 703 mm.92%. However it will most likely be the most expensive. The plate thickness is 2.96 kg/m.4 mm. Displacement analysis of symmetric cross-ply carbon/epoxy plates resulted in one plate. The plate thickness is 5.16 mm. This plate exceeds the deformation limitations of analysis and should be disregarded. Other lighter designs may exist that meet all of the design requirements. If cost is a consideration.5 x plate thickness under uniform pressure q 0-displacement .Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Part 1b: Carbon/Epoxy – AS4/3501-6 Strength analysis of symmetric cross-ply carbon/epoxy plates resulted in one plate design that simultaneously satisfies the Maximum Stress Criteria and Tsai-Hill Criteria under uniform pressure q 0-strength . The CE-D plate is a 42-ply Carbon/Epoxy laminate. Further. both of these designs conform to the deflection constraints of the analysis used here. Part 1: Conclusion Either alternative design GE-D or CE-D will meet the design requirements and provide weight saving. O’Hara 13 . This plate represents an acceptable design and provides a weight savings of 46. This plate corresponds to the lightest design that satisfies the Maximum Stress Criteria.90 kg/m. See Table 5 on following page for comparison. From a purely weight reduction point of view the CE-D deck will realize the greatest savings. Tsai-Hill Criteria.

Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Design Comparison .87 8.2 Table 5 .5 (1a) GE-D Fiberglass/ Epoxy 55 (1b) CE .38% 626.34 2.15 11.5]s [05/90/02/90]s 7.Design Comparison – Part 1 O’Hara 14 .2 (1a) GE-TH Fiberglass/ Epoxy 26 [011/902]s 3.92% 699.38 5.Part 1 Design Material Plies Layup Thickness (mm) Linear Mass (kg/m) Weight Savings (%) Deflection (mm) Design .23% 703.3 3 Design .4 [07/902/07/902/07/902.4 2.S Aluminum 6 13 73.46 6.96 77.S Carbon/ Epoxy 18 (1b) CE-D Carbon/ Epoxy 42 [07/902/07/902/02/90]s 5.6 56.51 5.9 46.69% 3.8 55.D Aluminum 6 13 (1a) GE-MS Fiberglass/ Epoxy 27 [011/905/011] 3.92% 2.

104 MN/m. [0 11 /90 2 ]s.869 MN/m. The Nx max by maximum stress is 3. See Table 6 for comparison. The Nx max by maximum stress is 3. The Nx max by maximum stress is 3.5]s. The CE-D plate is a 42-ply Carbon/Epoxy laminate. [0 11 /90 5 /0 11 ].091 MN/m. [0 5 /90/0 2 /90]s. The Nx max by yield strength is 1.784 MN/m. The GE-TH plate is a 26-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate.53 MN/m. For reference the Original Aluminum Design has a plate thickness is 6 mm. The plate thickness is 3. [07/902/07/902/07/902. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 2. The GE-D plate is a 55-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate.16 mm.021 MN/m.403 MN/m. The Nx max by maximum stress is 7. [07/902/07/902/02/90]s. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 7.055 MN/m.15 mm. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 5. The plate thickness is 5.51 mm. The plate thickness is 2.38 mm. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 3. The Nx max by maximum stress is 6.405 MN/m.851 MN/m. The Nx max by Tsai-Hill is 2.074 MN/m.34 mm.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Part 2: Stress Resultant Analysis Computing the maximum Nx Stress resultant that each of the alternative composite decks can withstand yielded the following results: The GE-MS plate is a 27-ply Fiberglass/Epoxy laminate. The CE-S plate is a 18-ply Carbon/Epoxy laminate. O’Hara 15 . The plate thickness is 7. The plate thickness is 3.

091 2.055 2.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Design Comparison .Part 2 O’Hara 16 .Part 2 Design Material Plies Layup Nx (Max Stress) MN/m Nx (Tsai-Hill) MN/m Nx (yield) MN/m Design .5]s 6.074 - Table 6 .784 7.405 3.104 (1b) CE-D Carbon/ Epoxy 42 [07/902/07/902/02/90]s 7.S Aluminum 1.403 (1b) CE .S Carbon/ Epoxy 18 [05/90/02/90]s 3.851 (1a) GE-TH Fiberglass/ Epoxy 26 [011/90/90]s 3.53 (1a) GE-MS Fiberglass/ Epoxy 27 [011/905/011] 3.Design Comparison .869 (1a) GE-D Fiberglass/ Epoxy 55 [07/902/07/902/07/902.021 5.

the validity of the analysis is maintained. However. Due to the findings from the analysis on the initial design. Ignoring the designs with excessive deflections. Boundary Conditions: The boundary conditions were considered to be simply supported per the problem statement. • • • O’Hara 17 . especially high-performance carbon fiber composites. when multiple bays or when fastening across a finite width are considered a clamped condition may be more appropriate as the slope at the edges would need to be zero to prevent discontinuities Displacements: The fact that at the maximum stress condition of the original design the mid-plate deflection is nearly twelve times the plate thickness obviously indicates that small displacement theory is invalid. and any other applicable considerations. Per the problem statement alternative designs utilizing fiberglass/epoxy and carbon/epoxy were developed to withstand the uniform pressure q 0-strength . scrap and rework are all major considerations when looking at a project. This does not match the condition presented here exactly.92% for glass and carbon respectively. If one bay of the deck were considered alone the SS boundary condition would be satisfactory as the supports are an open profile and would allow rotation.. the scope of the analysis is limited. A safety factor should be applied to any calculations that involve mechanical properties to account for manufacturing defects. satisfying the maximum stress and Tsai-Hill failure criteria. The max Nx stress resultant was also calculated as required.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Section 7 – Discussion The original design was analyzed and it was found that the limiting factor was not the maximum stress. Volume may help reduce costs.69% and 46. Material cost. By constraining the maximum deflection to one half the plate thickness. but rather a maximum deflection. Safety Factor: For composites. however. lot-lot variability. To more thoroughly analyze this problem membrane stresses need to be considered. the weight savings that is realizable varies between 8. Composites. For a “real” application additional considerations should be taken into account prior to moving forward with the design: • Cost: The cost considerations need to be carefully studied. tooling. but extended processing times often require large capital expenditures in duplicate tooling to make rate. workmanship and process control heavily influence the final mechanical properties of the components. As expected the thickest carbon/epoxy plate was able to withstand the highest loading. are often prohibitively expensive. two additional designs were also developed to take into consideration the unstated deflection constraint. All of the designs provide weight savings over the original aluminum design.

and GE all vary quite significantly. The redesign of a deck may seem like a simple exercise. Switching to a fiberglass deck poses little risk. CE. an aluminum deck is most likely going to be supported by an aluminum substructure. barrier plies. Additional Failure Modes: Additional modes of failure (buckling. or other methods. The CTE’s of Aluminum. however.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck • Environmental Concerns: Beyond the basic environmental concerns which should always be considered. Without the full design presented. delamination) should be considered before the design is finalized. shearing. shearing failures appear to be the next largest concern. • O’Hara 18 . but if temperature variations are expected an analysis of the entire system is required. This case has two points of special interest CTE and mixed material joints. using a carbon fiber deck over aluminum creates a mixed material interface and can create a serious corrosion issue if not mitigated with surface preparation. Additionally.

Appendix 2 – Sample Calculations The only calculation not sampled in the working document is the generation of A and D matrices for composite materials.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Appendix 1 – Constants and Equations All relevant constants and equations have been presented in the working document. O’Hara 19 . This was completed using an educational laminate analysis program MLAM see Appendix 4. the A B B D matrix by hand is overly cumbersome and is far easier to generate by running a short code or using predeveloped or commercial code. For more than a few (3-5) plies computing.

Inputs are N-plies. Nx is varied until failure criteria are satisfied. and Carbon/Epoxy used in the calculations Aluminum: Worksheet calculating q 0-strength displacement for original aluminum deck • • . layup. Vary layup until failure criteria are satisfied. A -1 . Inputs are N-plies. q 0-displacement . layup. Inputs are Q. and Nx. D11. layup. and Glass Epoxy: Worksheet for developing glass epoxy layup based on q 0-strength. Fiberglass/Epoxy.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Appendix 3– Please see attached excel file “ME 484 Project 2 – OHARA. Inputs are N-plies. D11. Outputs max deflection and linear weight Part 2: Worksheet to calculate Nx max for each plate configuration. Vary layup until failure criteria are satisfied. D11. layup. Outputs max deflection and linear weight Glass Epoxy (Max Disp): Worksheet for developing glass epoxy layup based on q 0-displacement. D11.xlsx” for data. Inputs are N-plies. • • • • O’Hara 20 . Outputs max deflection and linear weight Carbon Epoxy: Worksheet for developing carbon epoxy layup based on q 0-strength. Outputs max deflection and linear weight Carbon Epoxy (Max Disp): Worksheet for developing carbon epoxy layup based on q 0-displacement. Vary layup until failure criteria are satisfied. A. Sheet index: • • Summary: Summary of results Material Properties: Properties of Aluminum. Vary layup until failure criteria are satisfied.

It was distributed for upper-level coursework at McGill during my studies there by Prof. O’Hara 21 .Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Appendix 4– MLAM MLAM is a Classical Laminate Theory calculator developed by Roberto Caniglia in 1992 at McGill University. Lessard and send a copy to you upon request. I can confirm with Prof. It was used it solely to generate the Q. Below are a several screen shots. Larry Lessard. as it has a nicer user interface than the MATLAB program I developed for handling large numbers of plies. A. and D matrices.

Analysis and Performance of Fiber Composites. 3e. 2) Agarwal.com O’Hara 22 . Chandrashekhara. Missouri University of Science and Technology. 3) Matweb. Victor Birman. K. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.Analysis of Laminated Composite Structures .. by Dr. Broutman. LawrenceJ.Project 2: Design of a Composite Deck Appendix 5– References 1) Course notes for ME484 . Bhagwan D. 2006. Fall 2010.