Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Variable angle tow (VAT) laminates have previously shown enhanced buckling performance compared to
Available online 31 December 2013 conventional straight fibre laminates. In this study, an analytical method is developed for the buckling
analysis of a novel blade stiffened VAT panel to allow this potential to be more fully exploited. The pre-
Keywords: buckling and buckling analysis, performed on a representative section of a blade stiffened VAT panel, are
Buckling based on a generalised Rayleigh–Ritz procedure. The buckling analysis includes a first order shear defor-
Rayleigh–Ritz mation theory by introducing additional shape functions for transverse shear and is therefore applicable
Stiffened panel
to structures with thick skins relative to characteristic length. Modelling of the stiffener is achieved with
Transverse shear
Variable angle tow
two approaches; idealisation as a beam attached to the skin’s midplane and as a rigidly attached plate.
Comparing results with finite element analysis (Abaqus) for selected case studies, local buckling errors
for the beam model and plate model were found to be less than 3% and 2% respectively, whilst the beam
model error for global buckling was between 3% and 10%. The analytical model provides an accurate
alternative to the computationally expensive finite element analysis and is therefore suitable for future
work on the design and optimisation of stiffened VAT panels.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.12.029
260 B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270
2. Analysis overview valid for global buckling. Despite not representing global jy , local
jy behaviour between stiffener elements is still captured in global
During flight an aircraft wing is subject to bending resulting in buckling modes.
the upper wing cover experiencing compressive loading which can The use of a representative section significantly reduces the
be approximated by uniform end-shortening. In reality, a linear in- problem complexity whilst maintaining sufficient detail to allow
crease in compressive strain from the tip of the stiffener to the results to be applicable to full, multi-stiffener, panels. Reduction
skin’s outer surface would be present, however as the distance of of the problem complexity additionally allows a deeper under-
the stiffened skin from the wing box global neutral axis is signifi- standing and physical insight to be obtained for buckling of stiff-
cantly larger than the depth of the stiffened panel this variation ened VAT panels. Despite the suitability and advantages of the
is considered negligible. Wing covers in general are supported by representative section with the symmetric boundary condition it
spars in the longitudinal direction and ribs in the transverse direc- seldom appears in literature.
tion as shown in Fig. 2. The restraint on the stiffened panel by the Boundary conditions for the representative section are summa-
spars and ribs is complex, however for simplicity they are both as- rised in Fig. 2 and can be split into prebuckling boundary condi-
sumed to provide a simply supported boundary condition (pre- tions and buckling boundary conditions. Further details are
venting out-of-plane displacement of the skin) resulting in provided for the prebuckling and buckling boundary conditions
conservative results. In this study, the spars are additionally as- in Sections 4 and 5 respectively.
sumed to prevent any translation in the y-direction hence inducing
biaxial loading in the panel. Only the skin is assumed to be con- 3. VAT laminates
nected to the ribs which provide a simply supported boundary con-
dition, the stiffener is free to rotate about the skin’s midplane at In this study, the blade stiffener laminate is constrained to
the location of the ribs. straight fibres only and VAT laminates are only considered for
Wing covers supported between spars and adjacent ribs are the skin with the fibre orientation variation in the y-direction.
generally wide and contain several equally spaced stiffeners. When The non-linear fibre orientation for each ply is expressed using
local buckling occurs, under compressive loading, repeating dis- the Lagrange polynomials method proposed by Wu et al. [7] in
placement modes occur between stiffener elements thus allowing the form,
the entire stiffened panel to be modelled by a representative sec- !
X
N1 Y y yj
tion containing a single stiffener element and half a stiffener bay hðyÞ ¼ Tn ð2Þ
either side [42] as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. n¼0 n–j
yn yj
A symmetry condition is required to be enforced along the
skin’s longitudinal edges to model the repeating mode shape, this where yj and yn are the y-coordinates of reference points and the
is achieved by setting coefficient of each term, T n , is the fibre angle at the specific refer-
ence point, yn . For simple interpretation of results all cases used
dw=dy ¼ 0 for model validation only consider a linear variation of fibre angle
ð1Þ and hence the fibre orientation reduces to
cyz ¼ 0
jyj
where w is the out-of-plane displacement of the skin in the z-direction hðyÞ ¼ T 0 þ 2ðT 1 T 0 Þ ð3Þ
and cyz the transverse shear of the skin in the yz-direction. This new
b
boundary condition is henceforth referred to as the symmetric bound- where T 0 and T 1 are the fibre orientations of the skin at the location
ary condition. It should be noted that the use of this representative sec- of the stiffener and symmetric boundary condition respectively and
tion with the symmetry condition is not valid for in-plane shear b is the width of the representative section (distance between stiff-
loading cases or skin laminates with extension-bending (B-matrix), eners) as shown in Fig. 3. The fibre orientation of a VAT ply is des-
extension-shear (A16 ; A26 ) or bending-twisting (D16 ; D26 ) coupling. ignated by hT 0 jT 1 i.
When global buckling occurs the representative section no
longer represents a repeating unit as the boundary condition from 4. Prebuckling analysis
the spar creates a shallow curvature in the y-direction, jy (Fig. 1a).
Global buckling behaviour is, however, dominated by x-direction Herein, the fibre orientation is limited to variations in the y-
curvature, jx , due to the energy required to bend the stiffener, direction only and the stiffened panel is therefore prismatic. For
and the shallow jy has minimal influence on the buckling load. the loading case of end-shortening no coupling or interaction ef-
Hence, the representative section used for the local buckling is also fects exists between the skin and the stiffener and they can be
Fig. 2. Representative section in stiffened panel analysis. Coordinate systems shown are the local skin or global (xyz) and local stiffener (x0 y0 z0 ). Boundary conditions and
loadings with a ⁄ are only used for determining the prebuckling stress field and are removed for the buckling analysis.
262 B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270
ibility and prescribed displacement boundary conditions are ¼ dk wdk ðnÞ ð11Þ
@n2 k¼0
satisfied through minimisation of the total complementary energy.
A brief overview of the procedure is now provided, full details can where K is the number of terms in the series, ck and dk are coeffi-
be found in [43]. cients of the stress function along the boundaries and wck and wdk
For the prebuckling analysis the skin’s loaded transverse edges are admissible functions, here Legendre polynomials are chosen
are subject to uniform end-shortening and the boundary condi- for the admissible functions. Legendre polynomials were chosen be-
tions are cause they enable localised behaviour, due to VAT, to be captured
uðx ¼ a=2Þ ¼ Dx =2 accurately with less terms relative to periodic trigonometric func-
ð4Þ tions [45]. The interior region’s stress function is expressed in the
uðx ¼ a=2Þ ¼ Dx =2
form:
where a is the length of the panel in the x-direction (distance be- X
P1 X
Q 1
tween rib bays), u is the skin in-plane displacement in the x-direc- U1 ðn; gÞ ¼ /pq X p ðnÞY q ðgÞ ð12Þ
tion and Dx the end-shortening applied to both the stiffener and p¼0 q¼0
skin. Similarly, the same uniform end-shortening is applied to the
where P and Q are the number of terms and X p and Y p are admissi-
stiffener’s loaded transverse edges which have the boundary
ble functions in the x and y-directions respectively. To satisfy the
conditions
stress free condition for U1 Legendre polynomials are used with cir-
u0 ðx0 ¼ a=2Þ ¼ Dx =2 culation functions [7,46,47] for X p and Y p ,
ð5Þ
u0 ðx0 ¼ a=2Þ ¼ Dx =2 2
X p ðnÞ ¼ ð1 n2 Þ Lp ðnÞ ð13Þ
0 0
where u is the stiffener in-plane displacement in the x -direction.
The skin’s longitudinal edges, y ¼ b=2, are constrained in y-direc- Y q ðgÞ ¼ ð1 g2 Þ Lq ðgÞ
2
ð14Þ
tion translation, inducing biaxial compression and the boundary
condition applied is where Li is the ith term of the Legendre polynomial. Substituting
Eqs. (8)–(14) into Eq. (7), evaluating the integrals with numerical
v ðy ¼ b=2Þ ¼ 0 ð6Þ
integration and minimising the total complementary energy with
where v is the skin in-plane displacement in the y-direction. The respect to the unknown coefficients the following set of linear equa-
stiffener’s longitudinal edges along the y0 -direction are free to tions, expressed in matrix form, are obtained,
expand. 2 3
U// U/c U/d 2 / 3 2 0 3
The VAT skin considered is confined to laminates with null 6 T 76 7 6
6 U/c Ucc Ucd 7 7
B-matrix terms. The total complementary energy of the VAT skin 4 54 c 5 ¼ 4 Px0 5 ð15Þ
can be expressed using Airy’s stress function [44] as UT/d UTcd Udd d 0
2 !2 !2
ZZ 2 2 2 2
1 4a11 @ U þ 2a12 @ U @ U þ a22 @ U where for example, U/c is the factor of the unknown coefficient c
Ps ¼
2 S @y2 @x2 @y2 @x2 that arises from minimising the total complementary energy with
!2 3 respect to / and Px0 is the constant that arises when minimising
@2 U @2 U @2U @2U @2 U 5 the total complementary energy with respect to c. Further details
þ a66 2a16 2 2a26 2 dydx
@x@y @y @x@y @x @x@y regarding the terms in Eq. (15) can be found in Wu et al. [43]. Solv-
0 1 ing for the coefficients the prebuckled stress distribution of the VAT
Z b=2 " 2 # Z b=2 " 2 #
@ @ U @2 U @ U @2U skin subject to uniform end-shortening is obtained.
2
u v dy þ 2
u v dyA
b=2 @y @x@y b=2 @y @x@y As the stiffener is constrained to contain only straight fibre lam-
x¼a=2 x¼a=2
0 1 inates the prebuckled stress distribution is constant. The free edge
Z a=2 " 2 2
# Z a=2 " 2 2
#
@ U @ U @ U @ U ensures no biaxial stress state is induced in the stiffener and the
@ 2
v u dx þ 2
v u dxA
a=2 @x @x@y a=2 @x @x@y prebuckling stress resultant in the x-direction, N x;st: , is simply ob-
y¼b=2 y¼b=2
1 Ex;st: Ast: Dx
where aij are terms of the skin a ¼ A matrix and U is Airy’s stress Nx;st: ¼ ð16Þ
function. The in-plane displacements, u and v, along the panel
ah
boundaries in Eq. (7) are defined as per the in-plane loading and where Ex;st: is the equivalent Young’s modulus of the stiffener
boundary conditions provided in Eqs. (4)–(6). laminate in the x-direction given by Ex;st: ¼ 1=ða11;st: t st: Þ; Ast: the
B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270 263
XX
M1 N1 Z
cross-sectional area of the stiffener in the yz-plane and h the height @Ln
of the stiffener blade. w¼ Amn ½ðn2 1ÞLm ðg2 1Þ dg þ 1 ð21Þ
m¼0 n¼0
@g
5. Buckling analysis where M and N are the number of terms in the x- and y-directions
respectively and Amn the unknown coefficients. The constant of inte-
The Rayleigh–Ritz energy method is used to solve the buckling gration of the indefinite integral is zero. This series expansion en-
problem for the stiffened panel using the stress distribution ob- sures null out-of-plane displacement at the transverse edges
tained in the prebuckling analysis. The skin is modelled as a thick (n ¼ 1) and null rotation, @w=@ g ¼ 0, along the longitudinal edges
plate and the stiffener is considered with two approaches; a beam (g ¼ 1).
model and a plate model. The unknown functions for the transverse shear, cxz and cyz , are
The boundary conditions applied to the skin are identical for similarly given by:
both the beam model and plate model. In both cases the prebuck- X
E1 X
F1
ling boundary conditions on u; u0 and v are removed for the buck- cxz ¼ Bef Le Lf ð22Þ
ling analysis. During the buckling analysis the skin’s loaded e¼0 f ¼0
where cyz is the transverse shear of the skin in the yz-direction. The where for cxz ; E and F are the number of terms in the x- and y-direc-
skin’s longitudinal edges, y ¼ b=2, are subject to the symmetric tions respectively and Bef the unknown coefficients, and for cyz ; G
boundary condition where rotation along the y-direction and trans- and H are the number of terms in the x- and y-directions respec-
verse shear in the yz-direction are null, hence we have tively and C gh the unknown coefficients.
! !# 1 a=2
6 @ 2 w @ cxz;st:
7
2
@ w @ cyz 2
@ w @ cxz @ cyz PEI;bend ¼ 4Ex;st: Ist:
5dx ð26Þ
þ 2D26 2 dxdy 2 @x2 @x
y¼0
Z Z
1 a=2 b=2 h i
where Ex;st: Ist: is the flexural rigidity of the beam about the y-axis
þ kt sk: Gxz c2xz þ Gyz c2yz dxdy
2 a=2 b=2 and cxz;st: the transverse shear deformation of the beam in the xz-
Z Z " 2 2 #
k a=2 b=2 @ 2 U @w @ 2 U @w @ 2 U @w @w direction. The displacement of the stiffener is constrained to be
þ þ dxdy equal to the displacement of the skin’s midplane, however, the nor-
2 a=2 b=2 @y2 @x @x2 @y @x@y @x @y
mal to the midplane rotation, /xz;st: , and transverse shear displace-
ð20Þ
ment, cxz;st: are free. In reality, the transverse shear displacement
where w is the deflected shape of the skin, cxz and cyz the shear at the interface of the skin and the stiffener must be equal but for
strain in the xz- and yz-directions respectively, Dij the plate bending a FSDT an average over the depth of the section is considered and
stiffness matrix terms which vary over the skin, k the Timoshenko this is not required to be equal for the skin and stiffener.
shear factor which is taken as 5=6 for rectangular sections [39,48], Determination of the stiffener’s equivalent Ex;st: Ist: requires esti-
Gxz and Gyz the transverse shear stiffness in the xz- and yz-directions mation of local neutral axis location. The neutral axis lies some-
respectively and k the loading factor. The total potential energy is where between the midplane of the skin and the mid-height of
then expressed in normalised coordinates. The unknown function the stiffener depending on the relative in-plane and flexural stiff-
w, is represented by a series expansion containing Legendre polyno- ness of the skin and stiffener [49]. For most practical cases the loca-
mials and circulation functions to enforce boundary conditions, tion of the stiffener neutral axis is only slightly above the skin’s
264 B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270
midplane and the assumption that the neutral axis lies on the tion factor. The stiffener buckling strain is calculated with the fol-
skin’s midplane is valid [25]. Thus, lowing closed-form solution [51]
!
tst: h
3 1 n2waves p2 D11;st: 12D66;st:
Ex;st: Ist: ¼ Ex;st ð27Þ crit:;st:;s:s: ¼ þ 2
ð36Þ
3 Ex;st: t st: a2 h
where nwaves is the number of half waves in the longitudinal direc-
The transverse shear strain energy of the beam is given by
tion and D11;st: and D66;st: are in the stiffener’s local coordinate sys-
Z a=2 h i tem (x0 y0 z0 ). Determination of crit:;sk:;s:s: is not possible with a
1
PAG;trans:shear ¼ kAst: Gxz;st: c2xz;st: dx ð28Þ closed-form solution and a full prebuckling and buckling analysis
2 a=2
on the unstiffened VAT skin is required. However, all stiffness
where Gxz;st: is the transverse shear stiffness of the stiffener in the matrices computed for the unstiffened VAT skin are reused in the
xz-direction. The value of Gxz;st: is in the xz-direction for the global full stiffened panel analysis and the computational costs due to this
coordinate system, however when considering the local coordinate additional step are minor.
system of the stiffener as a laminate it is the in-plane shear stiffness The potential energy due to the in-plane loading is simply given
Gx0 y0 ;st: where x0 and y0 are local coordinates of the stiffener laminate by
0 1
(Fig. 2). The layup of the stiffener web significantly influences the Z a=2 2
Adx
PEA;inplane: ¼ ð37Þ
Gxz;st: can vary from 5 GPa (½0 n ) up to 50 GPa (½45 n ) for a typical 2 a=2 @x
y¼0
aerospace grade prepreg. Additionally, the section over which this
shear acts is very stubby, transverse shear deformations for com- where Ex;st: Ast: is the stiffener axial stiffness.
posite plates is considered important for ratios larger than 1/20, The introduction of a beam into the model only requires one
for the case of blade stiffeners the ratio can be larger than 5/1 additional shape function, compared to an unstiffened panel, for
and transverse shear effects in the xz-direction can significantly re- the stiffener transverse shear in the xz-direction, cxz;st: , which is gi-
duce global buckling loads. ven in series expansion by
The torsional restraint of the stiffener is taken into account by X
T1
treating the stiffener as a De Saint Venant torsion bar [48] and cxz;st: ¼ Dt Lt ð38Þ
t¼0
determining the energy due to the beam rotation,
0 1 where T is the number of terms and Dt the unknown coefficients.
Z a=2 2
1 @GJ @ @w c
Adx Substituting Eqs. (19)–(23)and (25)–(38) and the prebuckling solu-
PGJ;tors: ¼ yz
ð29Þ
2 a=2 @x @y
tions, U and N x;st: , into Eq. (24), evaluating the integrals with numer-
y¼0
ical integration and minimising with respect to all coefficients of
where GJ is the effective torsional restraint. For thin blade stiffeners the four shape functions, Amn ; Bef ; C gh ; Dt , a set of linear equations
(t st: =h < 1=10Þ GJ is given by is obtained which are expressed in matrix form,
where crit:;st:;s:s: and crit:;sk:;s:s: are the buckling strains of the stiffener As the stiffener is now being modelled as a plate additional
blade and skin respectively assuming both are simply supported boundary conditions are required. The loaded stiffener’s edges,
along the skin-stiffener attachment line and r is the torsional reduc- x0 ¼ a=2, are simply supported in the stiffener’s local coordinate
B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270 265
system, see Fig. 2, and constrained to have null transverse shear in where I J; ! Z and U V are the number of terms in the x0 - and
the y0 z0 -direction. This boundary condition simulates the stiffened y0 -directions for the wst: ; cx0 z0 ;st: and cy0 z0 ;st: series’ respectively and
panel being connected to another stiffened panel section in the Xij ; btz and suv are the unknown coefficients for the wst: , cx0 z0 ;st:
x-direction and is given by and cy0 z0 ;st: series’ respectively.
wst: ðx0 ¼ a=2Þ ¼ cy0 z0 ;st: ðx0 ¼ a=2Þ ¼ 0 ð43Þ The penalty term in Eq. (41) is analogous to a torsional spring
located along the skin-stiffener attachment line [24,25] and is gi-
where wst: is the stiffener plate out-of-plane displacement in the ven by
z0 -direction and cy0 z0 ;st: the stiffener transverse shear in the 2 3
Z
!2
y0 z0 -direction. Along the skin-stiffener attachment line, y ¼ y0 ¼ 0, kpenalty a=2 4 dw
dw st:
Ppenalty ¼ cyz
cy0 z0 ;st:
5dx ð49Þ
both the skin and stiffener are constrained in out-of-plane 2 a=2 dy y¼0 dy0 y0 ¼0
displacement
where kpenalty is the spring torsional stiffness. The value of kpenalty
wðy ¼ 0Þ ¼ 0;
ð44Þ was determined by increasing the order of kpenalty until convergence
0
wst: ðy ¼ 0Þ ¼ 0 was achieved, in this study 1:0 106 N was found to be sufficient to
To force a node in the skin at y ¼ 0 the constant 1 in the force the compatibility condition.
deflected shape function, Eq. (21), is replaced with a 0. The solution procedure hereafter is the same as for the beam
The plate stiffener total potential energy, Eq. (42), is expanded stiffener model. Substituting Eqs. (19)–(23)and (42)–(49) and the
to prebuckling solutions, U and N x;st: , into Eq. (41), evaluating the
2 !2 integrals with numerical integration and minimising with respect
Z Z 2
1 a=2 h @c
PTPE;platestiffener ¼ 4D11;st: @ wst: x0 z0 ;st: to all six coefficients of the shape functions, Amn ; Bef ; C gh ,
2 a=2 0 @x02 @x0 Xij ; btz ; suv , a set of linear equations in the matrix form of Eq.
!2 (39) are obtained, where Kst: now contains the bending and trans-
@ 2 wst: @ cy0 z0 ;st: verse shear stiffness matrices of the stiffener modelled as a plate
þ D22;st: and Lst: is the stiffener stability matrix due to the in-plane stress
@y02 @y0
! ! field. The vector A contains the coefficients of all the shape
@ 2 wst: @ cx0 z0 ;st: @ 2 wst: @ cy0 z0 ;st: functions,
þ 2D12;st:
@x02 @x0 @y02 @y0
!2 A ¼ ½Amn Bef Cgh Xij btz suv T ð50Þ
@ 2 wst: @ cx0 z0 ;st: @ cy0 z0 ;st:
þ D66;st: 2 0 0 The critical buckling load is given by the lowest eigenvalue of
@x @y @y0 @x0 Eq. (39).
!
2
@ wst: @ cx0 z0 ;st:
þ 2D16;st: 6. Finite element analysis
@x02 @x0 ð45Þ
!
@ 2 wst: @ cx0 z0 ;st: @ cy0 z0 ;st: FEA for the prebuckling and buckling analysis was performed
2 0 0
@x y @y0 @x0 with Abaqus. A script was developed to allow specification of fibre
! orientation for individual elements as per Eq. (2), simulating a VAT
@ 2 wst: @ cy0 z0 ;st:
þ 2D26;st: laminate. The S4R shell element was chosen for the skin and the
@y02 @y0 compatible S4 shell element for the stiffener. The S4 element
!#
@ 2 wst: @ cx0 z0 ;st: @ cy0 z0 ;st: was required for the stiffener due to S4R elements experiencing
0 0
2 0 0 dx dy hour-glassing when subject to in-plane bending as is the case for
@x y @y0 @x0
Z Z stiffener global buckling.
1 a=2 h h i
0 0 Uniform end-shortening to the skin and stiffener transverse
þ ktst: Gx0 z0 ;st: c2x0 z0 ;st: þ Gy0 z0 ;st: c2y0 z0 ;st: dx dy
2 a=2 0 edges was applied as stress perturbation only, thereby allowing
Z Z " 2 # the stiffener to rotate about the skin’s midplane during the buck-
kNx0 ;st: a=2 h @wst: 0 0
þ dx dy ling analysis. The boundary conditions applied as stress perturba-
2 a=2 0 @x0
tion only (prebuckling) were
where cx0 z0 ;st: and cy0 z0 ;st: are the shear strain in the x0 z0 - and y0 z0 -direc- uðx ¼ a=2Þ ¼ u0 ðx0 ¼ a=2Þ ¼ Dx =2
tions respectively, Dij;st: the stiffener plate bending stiffness matrix uðx ¼ a=2Þ ¼ u0 ðx0 ¼ a=2Þ ¼ Dx =2 ð51Þ
terms (constant) and Gx0 z0 ;0 st: and Gy0 z0 ;st: the transverse shear stiffness
in the x0 z0 - and y0 z0 -directions respectively, all in the stiffener’s local
v ðy ¼ b=2Þ ¼ 0
coordinate system. Similarly to the analysis procedure for the skin, For the buckling analysis all stress perturbation (prebuckling)
the total potential energy is expressed in normalised coordinates, boundary conditions were relaxed. Simply supported boundary
n0 ¼ 2x0 =a and g0 ¼ y0 =h, and the unknown functions wst: , cx0 z0 ;st: conditions were applied on the loaded skin transverse edges and
and cy0 z0 ;st: are expanded into the following series, satisfying the re- additionally the rotation of the normal to the midplane in the yz-
quired boundary conditions, direction, /yz , was set to zero. Boundary conditions for the trans-
X
I1 X
J1 verse shear profiles were unable to be directly assigned in Abaqus,
wst: ¼ Xij ½ðn02 1ÞLi ½g0 Lj ð46Þ instead the rotation of the normal to the midplane in conjunction
i¼0 j¼0 with the out-of-plane displacement along edges were used to
achieve the same effect. The boundary conditions along the skin
X
!1 X
Z 1
transverse edges were
cx0 z0 ;st: ¼ btz Lt Lz ð47Þ
t¼0 z¼0 wðx ¼ a=2Þ ¼ /yz ðx ¼ a=2Þ ¼ 0 ð52Þ
X
U1 X
V1 The skin’s longitudinal edges, y ¼ b=2, are subject to the symmet-
cy0 z0 ;st: ¼ suv ½ðn02 1ÞLu ½g0 Lv ð48Þ ric boundary condition where /yz is set to zero
u¼0 v ¼0
266 B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270
For the cases neglecting transverse shear effects setting /yz to zero
The stiffened panel dimensions used for model validation were
is equivalent to setting dw=dy to zero. The loaded stiffener’s edges,
based on Nagendra et al. [29,30]; width (distance between stiffener
x0 ¼ a=2, are simply supported in the stiffener’s local coordinate
bays) 200 mm, length 750 mm and stiffener height 60 mm. Mate-
system and constrained to have null rotation of the normal to the
rial properties of the carbon fibre unidirectional prepreg selected
midplane in the y0 z0 -direction, /y0 z0 ;st: and the boundary conditions
for the study are provided in Table 1. A FEA mesh density of
are
320 60 20 elements in the x-, y- and z-directions respectively
wst: ðx0 ¼ a=2Þ ¼ /y0 z0 ;st: ðx0 ¼ a=2Þ ¼ 0 ð54Þ was selected to achieve converged results. Four layups were con-
sidered for the skin, 45 , quasi-isotropic (QI), VAT h0 j 45 i
The prebuckling stiffness and buckling loads were determined by and VAT h0 j 90 i and three layups for the stiffener 45 , QI
summing nodal forces along the skin and stiffener shell edges at and 0 . Skin and stiffener thicknesses were fixed by first designing
the location of the applied displacement. a 45 skin and QI stiffener panel aiming for local and global buck-
ling to occur at N x;smeared 1:0 kN/mm where N x;smeared is the total
Table 1 load taken by the skin and stiffener per unit panel width. The cho-
Carbon fibre unidirectional prepreg mechanical properties used for case studies. sen thickness for the skin and stiffener was 8 mm.
E11 (GPa) E22 (GPa) m12 (–) G12 (GPa) G13 ¼ G23 (GPa) The layups used for the VAT and 45 laminates were specially
161 11.38 0.32 5.17 3.98 orthotropic ½h; hAS consisting of eight 1 mm thick layers, thus
eliminating extension-shear (A16 ; A26 ), bending-stretching (Bij )
and bending-twisting couplings (D16 ; D26 ). For QI laminates equiv-
alent smeared properties were used to remove stacking sequence
dependence.
The analytical model initially used 5 terms for prebuckling
shape functions ðP Q KÞ, 7 terms for skin and stiffener out-of-
plane deflected shape functions ðM N; I JÞ and 5 terms for skin
and stiffener transverse shear shape functions
ðE F; G H; T; ! Z; U VÞ. However, for cases where conver-
gence was not achieved the number of terms was increased.
The speed of the current semi-analytical method is implemen-
tation and platform specific, however, for all cases in this paper
the computation of the results with the analytical method imple-
mented in MATLAB R2012a was found to require less computa-
tional time than Abaqus FEA. The number of degrees of freedom
used in the analytical model for the buckling analysis ranged from
as little as 49ðM N ¼ 7) for straight fibre cases neglecting trans-
verse shear with the beam stiffener model up to
1026ðM N; I J ¼ 15 and E F; G H; ! Z; U V ¼ 12Þ com-
pared to the FEA having 156,006 degrees of freedom.
7.1. Prebuckling
Fig. 4. Normalised in-plane stress resultant distribution along skin and stiffener
edges for VAT h0 j 45 i skin and 0 stiffener case. Analytical results are obtained
The analytical prebuckling stiffness for all configurations was
using K ¼ 5 and K ¼ 10 for the number of terms in the stress function, U0 , along the
boundary. Due to the sections being prismatic there is no variation in the central found to be in close alignment with FEA with less than 0.3% error
region and results are independent of the number of terms of P and Q. The following in all cases. Due to all cases being prismatic, the in-plane forces
stress resultants not shown on the plot are: N xy;sk: ¼ N y;st: ¼ N xy;st: ¼ 0. per unit length in the y- and xy-direction, N y and N xy respectively,
Table 2
Comparison of local buckling loads between analytical models and FEA.
Layup FEA Analy.: Beam with GJ Analy.: Beam with GJ red: Analy.: Full plate model
N x;local N x;local r N x;local N x;local
Skin Stiff. (kN/mm) (kN/mm) Error (–) (kN/mm) Error (kN/mm) Error (%)
45 45 0.96 0.97 +0.99% 0.95 0.96 +0.63% 0.96 0.06
45 QI 1.14 1.16 +1.80% 0.70 1.14 +0.43% 1.14 0.01
45 0 1.53a a a a a a
1.53a +0.03a
QI 45 2.34 2.38 +2.05% 0.91 2.37 +1.49% 2.33 0.23
QI QI 2.53 2.70 +6.77% 0.47 2.55 +1.16% 2.52 0.07
QI 0 2.49a a a a a a
2.51a,b +0.92a,b
h0 j 45 i 45 1.88 1.94 +3.03% 0.96 1.93 +2.20% 1.90b +0.70b
h0 j 45 i QI 1.91 2.01 +4.99% 0.75 1.94 +1.65% 1.92 +0.39
h0 j 45 i 0 1.98a a a a a a
1.99a,b +0.31a,b
h0 j 90 i 45 2.69 2.76b +2.57%b 0.89b 2.73b +1.15%b 2.68b 0.43b
h0 j 90 i QI 2.92 3.13b +7.15 %b 0.34b 2.96b +1.45%b 2.92b 0.01b
h0 j 90 i 0 2.10a a a a a a
2.14a,c +1.70a,c
Error: <8% <3% <2%
a
Local buckling of the stiffener blade occurred prior to skin buckling, this buckling mode is not predicted with the beam model.
b
Number of terms increased for convergence, PQK ¼ 10, MNIJ ¼ 10 and EFGH!ZUVT ¼ 8.
c
Number of terms increased for convergence, PQK ¼ 12; MNIJ ¼ 15 and EFGH!ZUVT ¼ 12.
B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270 267
Fig. 5. Local buckling mode shapes for VAT h0 j 45 i skin and QI stiffener panel. (a) FEA. (b) Analytical model with beam stiffener (GJred: ). (c) Analytical model with plate
stiffener.
ener transverse shear was neglected, whilst the plate stiffener Layup FEA (kN/mm) Analytical (kN/mm)
model within 1%. Skin Stiff. kglo: N x;glo: N x;glo: Error (%)
All three effects investigated (torsional restraint, skin transverse
45 45 1.54 0.92 0.95 +3.21
shear and stiffener transverse shear) introduce significant error if
45 QI 3.46 2.54 2.67 +5.07
disregarded and should be captured for practical cases of stiffened 45 0 3.72 3.92 4.13 +5.37
panels. The beam stiffener model using GJred: has less error in all QI 45 1.19 0.94 0.97 +3.20
cases compared to the beam stiffener model using the unreduced QI QI 2.91 2.70 2.87 +6.34
GJ, indicating that neglecting stiffener loading when considering QI 0 3.31 4.13 4.46 +8.00
h0 j 45 i 45 0.80 0.97 1.01 +3.48
torsional restraint can be a significant source of error. h0 j 45 i QI 1.95 2.64 2.81a +6.54a
The majority of the local buckling error for the beam stiffener h0 j 45 i 0 2.31 3.87 4.23a +9.46a
model is expected to be due to difficulty in accurately capturing h0 j 90 i 45 1.28 0.95 0.98a +3.36a
the stiffener torsional restraint. More specifically, determining a h0 j 90 i QI 3.15 2.75 2.94a +6.91a
h0 j 90 i 0 3.53 4.21 4.67a +8.46a
value for GJ which is valid for axially loaded stiffeners with trans-
verse shear deformations. Nemeth’s GJ formulation (Eq. (35)) for Error <10%
thick sections used in conjunction with a linear reduction factor a
Number of terms increased for convergence, PQK ¼ 10; MN ¼ 10 and
due to axial loading provides accurate results for the cases EFGHT ¼ 8.
Table 3
Effect of stiffener torsional restraint, skin transverse shear and stiffener transverse shear on FEA local buckling results. The value in the parenthesis is the error compared to the
full FEA including all effects.
Skin Stiff. Full model No torsional restraint No skin transverse shear No stiffener transverse shear
45 45 0.96 0.90 (6.23%) 0.98 ðþ2:74%Þ 0.98 ðþ2:16%Þ
45 QI 1.14 1.10 ð2:83%Þ 1.17 ðþ2:66%Þ 1.14 ðþ1:02%Þ
45 0 1.53a – 1.57 (+2.48%)a 1.53 (+0.14%)a
QI 45 2.34 2.07 ð11:58%Þ 2.43 ðþ3:93%Þ 2.40 ðþ2:70%Þ
QI QI 2.53 2.42 ð3:97%Þ 2.61 ðþ3:29%Þ 2.58 ðþ2:17%Þ
QI 0 2.49a – 2.52 (+1.27%)a 2.57 (+3.14%)a
h0 j 45 i 45 1.88 1.56 ð17:02%Þ 1.91 ðþ1:26%Þ 1.99 ðþ5:38%Þ
h0 j 45 i QI 1.91 1.74 ð8:93%Þ 1.93 ðþ1:18%Þ 1.96 ðþ2:80%Þ
h0 j 45 i 0 1:98a – 2.00 (+1.21%)a 2.00 (+1.15%)a
h0 j 90 i 45 2.69 2.41 ð10:46%Þ 2.77 ðþ2:84%Þ 2.80 ðþ3:82%Þ
h0 j 90 i QI 2.92 2.86 ð1:84%Þ 2.99 ðþ2:49%Þ 2.98 ðþ1:98%Þ
h0 j 90 i 0 2.10a – 2.11 (+0.51%)a 2.19 (+4.45%)a
Error range from full FEA ð18% ! 1%Þ ð0% ! þ5%Þ ð0% ! þ6%Þ
Analytical error – beam stiffener (GJ) <1% <7% <7%
Analytical error – beam stiffener (GJred: ) <1% <2% <4%
Analytical error – plate stiffener <1% <1% <1%
a
Local buckling of the stiffener blade occurred prior to skin buckling. Analytical model errors are compared to FEA when neglecting effects.
B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270 269
Fig. 8. Global buckling mode shapes for VAT h0 j 45 i skin and QI stiffener panel. (a) FEA. (b) Analytical model with beam stiffener.
behaviour indicates that whilst the stiffener alone primarily dic- Results for the analytical models and FEA (Abaqus) were ob-
tates the buckling load it is the overall in-plane stiffness of the pa- tained for selected cases of straight fibre and VAT laminates. For
nel (skin and stiffener) which must be considered when practical configurations the capturing of transverse shear and tor-
determining the buckling strain. sional restraint effects where found to be necessary in obtaining
The inclusion of transverse shear deformation in the xz-direc- accurate results. The beam stiffener model local buckling error
tion (global coordinate system) for the stiffener significantly af- was less than 3% compared to FEA whilst the plate stiffener model
fected results. The transverse shear modulus (xz-direction) of the error was less than 2% compared to FEA. The plate model enabled
stiffener in Eq. (28) is the local in-plane shear modulus (x0 y0 -direc- local modes originating from stiffener blade buckling to be cap-
tion) of the stiffener laminate and hence is dependant on stacking tured and allows the possibility of VAT blade stiffener laminates
sequence. For the material system used this shear modulus can to be explored. However, the plate stiffener model has addtional
range from 5 GPa for a 0 laminate up to 42 GPa for a 45 lami- shape functions and consequently an increased computational cost
nate. Maximising Ex;st: Ist: for global buckling, for fixed geometry, compared to the beam model. Global buckling analysis was per-
is achieved by increasing the proportion of 0 plies in the laminate formed using the beam stiffener model with error for the analytical
and hence transverse shear deformations can become significant. model ranging from 3% to 10% compared to FEA.
For the case of 0 stiffeners the transverse shear deformation re- The developed analytical model provides an accurate alterna-
duces the buckling load by up to 50%. tive to the computationally expensive FEA and is therefore suitable
The assumption of the stiffener’s neutral axis being located at for design and optimisation of stiffened VAT panels. Future work
the skin’s midplane is expected to be the main source of error in will be undertaken to include the stiffener foot in the analysis, im-
global buckling results. In reality, it can be located anywhere be- prove the estimation of the location of the stiffener local neutral
tween the skin’s midplane and mid-height of the stiffener. For axis, trial a wider range of cases and boundary conditions and per-
fixed dimensions and skin laminate the neutral axis shifts away form optimisation studies on the buckling of stiffened VAT panels.
from the skin’s midplane with increasing Ex;st: resulting in an in-
creased error in the global buckling load for the current model. This Acknowledgements
is evidenced by switching, for any fixed skin laminate, from a 45
to QI to 0 stiffener laminate, i.e. increasing Ex;st: , in Table 4. Im- The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the EPSRC
proved estimations of Ex;st: Ist: may be obtained by extending the ap- under its ACCIS Doctoral Training Centre Grant, EP/G036772/1.
proach of Seide [49] who considered the relative stiffness and
flexural rigidity of the skin and stiffener to determine an effective References
Ex;st: Ist: for isotropic stiffened panels. It should be noted that the 0
stiffeners which have the largest error are not practical designs due [1] Kassapoglou C. Design and analysis of composite structures: with applications
to the premature buckling of the stiffener blade. to aerospace structures. Wiley; 2010.
[2] Hyer MW, Charette RF. Use of curvilinear fiber format in composite structure
design. AIAA J 1991;29(6):1011–5.
8. Conclusion [3] Hyer MW, Lee HH. The use of curvilinear fiber format to improve buckling
resistance of composite plates with central circular holes. Compos Struct
1991;18(3):239–61.
In this paper, an analytical model has been presented for the [4] Lopes CS, Gürdal Z, Camanho PP. Tailoring for strength of composite steered-
prebuckling and buckling analysis of novel blade stiffened VAT fibre panels with cutouts. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 2010;41(12):1760–7.
[5] Gürdal Z, Olmedo R. In-plane response of laminates with spatially varying fiber
panels utilising the Rayleigh–Ritz energy method. The buckling
orientations – variable stiffness concept. AIAA J 1993;31(4):751–8.
analysis includes a FSDT and is applicable to practical stiffened pa- [6] Weaver PM, Potter KD, Hazra K, Saverymuthapulle MAR, Hawthorne MT.
nel configurations containing thick sections. The boundary condi- Buckling of variable angle tow plates from concept to experiment. In: AIAA/
tions considered were simply supported for the skin transverse ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 50th structures, structural dynamics, and materials
conference; 2009.
edges and symmetric, with null y-translation, for the skin longitu- [7] Wu Z, Weaver PM, Raju G, Kim BC. Buckling analysis and optimisation of
dinal edges. In all cases, the stiffened panel is subject to uniform variable angle tow composite plates. Thin-Walled Struct 2012;60:163–72.
end-shortening. [8] Setoodeh S, Abdalla MM, IJsselmuiden ST, Gürdal Z. Design of variable-stiffness
composite panels for maximum buckling load. Compos Struct
Prebuckling was performed for the skin and stiffener in isola- 2009;87(1):109–17.
tion, minimising the total complementary energy for the skin [9] IJsselmuiden ST, Abdalla MM, Gürdal Z. Optimization of variable-stiffness
and using a simple Young’s modulus relationship for the stiffener panels for maximum buckling load using lamination parameters. AIAA J
2010;48(1):134–43.
and was found to be in good agreement with FEA. The buckling [10] Raju G, Wu Z, Kim BC, Weaver PM. Prebuckling and buckling analysis of
analysis was performed by minimising the total potential energy variable angle tow plates with general boundary conditions. Compos Struct
of the stiffened panel. The stiffener was modelled with two ap- 2012;94(9):2961–70.
[11] Niu MCY. Airframe structural design. Conmilit Press LTD.; 1988.
proaches; as a beam element and a plate. The beam stiffener model
[12] Yap JWH, Scott ML, Thomson RS, Hachenberg D. The analysis of skin-to-
is applicable to both local and global modes whilst the plate stiff- stiffener debonding in composite aerospace structures. Compos Struct
ener model is only valid for local modes. 2002;57(1–4):425–35.
270 B.H. Coburn et al. / Composite Structures 111 (2014) 259–270
[13] Timoshenko S. Über die stabilitat ät versteifter platten. Eisenbau [32] Butler R, Williams FW. Optimum design features of VICONOPT, an exact
1921;12:147–63. buckling program for prismatic assemblies of anisotropic plates. AIAA J
[14] Weaver PM. Approximate analysis for buckling of compression loaded long 1990:1068.
rectangular plates with flexural/twist anisotropy. Proc Roy Soc A: Math Phys [33] Groh RMJ, Weaver PM, White S, Raju G, Wu Z. A 2D equivalent single-layer
Eng Sci 2006;462(2065):59–73. formulation for the effect of transverse shear on laminated plates with
[15] Bleich F. Buckling strength of metal structures. McGraw-Hill; 1952. curvilinear fibres. Compos Struct 2013;100:464–78.
[16] Qiao P, Davalos JF, Wang J. Local buckling of composite FRP shapes by discrete [34] Reddy JN. Energy and variational methods in applied mechanics. John Wiley
plate analysis. J Struct Eng 2001;127(3):245–55. and Sons; 1984.
[17] Kollár LP. Local buckling of fiber reinforced plastic composite structural [35] Timoshenko S. Theory of elasticity. McGraw-Hill; 1934.
members with open and closed cross sections. J Struct Eng [36] Reissner E. On the theory of bending of elastic plates. J Math Phys
2003;129(11):1503–13. 1944;23:184–91.
[18] Paik JK, Thayamballi AK. Buckling strength of steel plating with elastically [37] Mindlin RD. Influence of rotatory inertia and shear on flexural motions of
restrained edges. Thin-Walled Struct 2000;37(1):27–55. isotropic elastic plates. ASME J Appl Mech 1951;18:31–8.
[19] Bisagni C, Vescovini R. Analytical formulation for local buckling and post- [38] Libove C, Batdorf SB. A general small-deflection theory for flat sandwich plates.
buckling analysis of stiffened laminated panels. Thin-Walled Struct NACA TN-1528; 1948.
2009;47(3):318–34. [39] Dawe DJ, Roufaeil OL. Rayleigh–Ritz vibration analysis of Mindlin plates. J
[20] Mittelstedt C, Beerhorst M. Closed-form buckling analysis of compressively Sound Vib 1980;69(3):345–59.
loaded composite plates braced by omega-stringers. Compos Struct [40] Ko WL, Jackson RH. Combined compressive and shear buckling analysis of
2009;88(3):424–35. hypersonic aircraft structural sandwich panels. NASA TM-4290; 1991.
[21] Williams JK, Stein M. Buckling behavior and structural efficiency of open- [41] Cosentino E, Weaver PM. An enhanced single-layer variational formulation for
section stiffened composite compression panels. AIAA J 1976;14(11): the effect of transverse shear on laminated orthotropic plates. Eur J Mech – A/
1618–26. Solids 2010;29(4):567–90.
[22] Falzon BG, Steven GP. Buckling mode transition in hat-stiffened composite [42] Herencia JE, Weaver PM, Friswell MI. Optimization of long anisotropic
panels loaded in uniaxial compression. Compos Struct 1997;37(96):253–67. laminated fiber composite panels with T-shaped stiffeners. AIAA J
[23] Mittelstedt C. Closed-form analysis of the buckling loads of uniaxially loaded 2007;45(10):2497–509.
blade-stringer-stiffened composite plates considering periodic boundary [43] Wu Z, Raju G, Weaver PM. Buckling of VAT plates using energy methods. In:
conditions. Thin-Walled Struct 2007;45(4):371–82. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 53rd structures, structural dynamics, and
[24] Vescovini R, Bisagni C. Buckling analysis and optimization of stiffened materials conference; 2012.
composite flat and curved panels. AIAA J 2012;50(4):904–15. [44] Washizu K. Variational methods in elasticity and plasticity. Pergamon Press;
[25] Vescovini R. Analytical formulation for buckling and post-buckling analysis 1975.
and optimization of composite stiffened panels. Ph.D. thesis. Politecnico di [45] Wu Z, Raju G, Weaver PM. A comparison of variational, differential quadrature
Milano, Italy. and approximate closed form solution methods for buckling of highly
[26] Seide P, Stein M. Compressive buckling of simply supported plates with flexurally anisotropic laminates. J Eng Mech 2012;139:1073–83.
longitudinal stiffeners. NACA TN-1825; 1949. [46] Jaunky N, Knight NF, Ambur DR. Buckling of arbitrary quadrilateral anisotropic
[27] Block DL, Card MF, Mikulas MM. Buckling of eccentrically stiffened orthotropic plates. AIAA J 1995;33(5):938–44.
cylinders. NASA TN D-2960; 1965. [47] Smith ST, Bradford MA, Oehlers DJ. Numerical convergence of simple and
[28] Steen E. Elastic buckling and postbuckling of eccentrically stiffened plates. Int J orthogonal polynomials for the unilateral plate buckling problem using the
Solids Struct 1989;25(7):751–68. Rayleigh–Ritz method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1999;44(11):1685–707.
[29] Nagendra S, Gürdal Z, Haftka RT, Starnes JH. Buckling and failure [48] Timoshenko S, Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability. McGraw-Hill; 1961.
characteristics of compression-loaded stiffened composite panels with a [49] Seide P. The effect of longitudinal stiffeners located on one side of a plate on
hole. Compos Struct 1994;28(1):1–17. the compressive buckling stress of the plate-stiffener combination. NACA TN-
[30] Nagendra S, Jestin D, Gürdal Z, Haftka RT, Watson LT. Improved genetic 2873; 1953.
algorithm for the design of stiffened composite panels. Comput Struct [50] Nemeth MP. A treatise on equivalent-plate stiffnesses for stiffened laminated-
1996;58(3):543–55. composite plates and plate-like lattices. NASA TP-2011-216882; 2011.
[31] Bushnell D. PANDA2 – program for minimum weight design of stiffened, [51] Kollár LP, Springer GS. Mechanics of composite structures. Cambridge
composite, locally buckled panels. Comput Struct 1987;25(4):469–605. University Press; 2003.