Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Jocelyn M . Seng
Longitudinal Transverse
EX j
" =-- EY
......
Longitudinal Transverse
Compression Compression
Fig. 30.2 Coupon tests to determine the nine material constants used to characterize an anisotropic material.
0 0
Shear test
(30.3)
1
E =-a,
E,
Laminated plate theory 689
Defining the plane stress stiffness matrix [QJ = laminate, x, y, s and 1,2,6 are interchangeable.
[SI-', another form of eqn (30.3) is Material properties are specified with
respect to the on-axis coordinates. The proper-
ties of an off-axis ply, anything other than 0
degrees, can be calculated by transforming the
properties of the 0-degree ply. The angle of
transformation, 8, is equal to the ply angle
shown in Fig. 30.3, where 1 and 2 are the lam-
inate axes and x and y are the rotated ply axes.
8 is positive counterclockwise from the 1-axis
to 90°, and negative clockwise to -90".
Y
l o 0 E, J
This calculation of the plane stress stiffness
matrix [Q]for a single ply is the starting point
of laminated plate theory, once the engineer- 1
ing constants have been experimentally
determined.
where rn = cos 8, n = sin 8. A summary of some with the [Q] matrix, the S12(and SJ, terms
other useful transformation relations is given reflect the deformation in the direction per-
in Section 30.7. It is clear from these relations pendicular to the direction of loading, and are
that when 8 = 0, then Q,, = Q,, = 0, which commonly referred to as the ‘component due
means shear and extension are uncoupled, i.e. to Poisson’s effect’ (implying the major
shear loading only causes shear deformation, Poisson’s ratio). The S,, and S2, (and S,, and
and extensional loading causes extensional S62)terms reflect the amount of shear deforma-
deformation with Poisson’s effect but no shear tion under extensional loading, and are
deformation. commonly referred to as ’coupling terms’.
Using the off-axis plane stress stiffness coef- Unlike the off-axis unidirectional ply shown in
ficients, the constitutive relations of eqns (30.4) Fig. 30.4@), the 0-degree unidirectional ply
and (30.3) can be generalized to a ply of any shown in Fig. 30.4(a) does not exhibit any
orientation: shear deformation under extensional loading.
30.2.3 KINEMATICS
Kinematics is the study of movement and
depends solely on geometry, not on material
properties. Since composite laminates are
and inversely often thin two-dimensional structures, plate
theory is used to simplify the three-dimen-
sional behavior. Plate theory tries to account
for stretching and bending behavior relative to
the midplane of the laminate.
The key assumption of plate theory is that
normals remain normal, straight and
For example, a physical interpretation is unstretched. In practical terms, the plies in the
shown in Fig. 30.4. In general, the terms on the laminate are assumed to be completely
diagonal (S,,, S,, S,) reflect the amount of bonded to each other, allowing no interlami-
deformation in the direction of loading. As nar shear. Some other assumptions are that the
Fig. 30.4 Extensional loading of (a) a unidirectionalply and (b) an off-axis ply and their associated off-axis
stiffness matrix.
Laminated plate theory 691
w = wo(x,y) (30.7)
Based on the Kirchhoff assumptions, Fig. 30.5
shows the deformation of a cross section of the
plate in the x-z plane, relative to the x-direc-
tion
u = uo-z-
aw0
ax (30.8) 30.2.4 STRESS RESULTANTS
Similarly, the displacement along the y-axis is Just as beam theory defines net tensile force,
shear force, and moment, relating everything
Y = Y,-Z-
awo (30.9) to the neutral axis, plate theory defines stress
aY resultants and moment resultants to eliminate
Based on the definition of strains, any z-direction dependence and to relate
au auo azw, everything to the midplane, as shown in Fig.
& =-=--z- (30.10) 30.6. Ply stresses along each loading direction
1 ax ax a x 2 are summed for the laminate:
(30.12)
2
M-
Undeformed Deformed
Cross Section Cross Section
Fig. 30.6 Force and moment resultants acting on a
Fig. 30.5 Extension and bending deformation. plate.
692 Laminate design
These resultants can be rewritten in terms of A,, indicates the relationship between longi-
strain by substituting in the constitutive rela- tudinal in-plane load, N,, and the
tions. Putting the two-part expression for longitudinal extension, E;;
strains, eqn (30.11), into the constitutive rela- A,, indicates the coupling between longitu-
tions, eqn (30.6), and substituting the resulting dinal in-plane load, N,, and the extension
stress expression into the definitions for the in the transverse direction, E;, (the tradi-
resultants, eqn (30.12), tional Poisson's effect);
A,, indicates the coupling between longitudi-
{N] = [A] (E'} + [B](K) (30.13) nal in-plane load, N,, and the in-plane
shear, E;;
A, indicates the relationship between in-
plane shear load, N,, and the in-plane
All Bll 1' 2 B16 shear distortion, E;;
2' 1 2'2 B26 B,, indicates the coupling between transverse
'61 '62 '66
in-plane load, N,, and the twist, K ~ ;
B, indicates the relationship between in-
1
'1 1' 2 1
'6 Dll D12 D16
plane shear load, N6, and the twist, K ~ ;
B21 '22 B26 D21 D26 D12 indicates the coupling between longitudi-
6' 1 B62 '66 D61 D62 D645 nal bending load, MI, and the transverse
bending curvature, K,;
(30.14) D, indicates the relationship between twisting
moment load, M6, and the twist angle, K ~ .
The ply stacking sequence has no effect on the
[AI = IIQldz (30.15) A matrix coefficients, which reflect in-plane
behavior. However, since the B and D matrix
coefficients are a function of z, they are depen-
dent on the stacking sequence.
There are two unique physical situations
that deserve mention. When the laminate is
symmetric about its midplane, the B coeffi-
cients are zero, which means that there is no
It can be shown that A,, = A,,, B,, = BZ1, D,,= coupling between in-plane loads and curva-
DZ1,etc. Equation (30.14)represents the funda- tures, nor between bending loads and
mental relationships in laminated plate theory. in-plane deformations. Another common sit-
The 6 x 6 matrix is the laminate stiffness uation is when the A,, and A,, coefficients are
matrix. zero (usually in the presence also of all the €3
A composite with unidirectional plies lami- coefficients being zero): this arises when a
nated in different directions (a generally laminate is balanced, i.e. there are an equal
anisotropic material) under an inplane load number of off-axis plies in the +8 and 4
may stretch, bend and twist, as a result of directions and they have equal thickness. In
extensional/ shear coupling. By comparison, a this case, there is no coupling between exten-
metal structure will stretch only under an sion loads and shear strain. If, in addition,
inplane load, bend only under flexure, and those +8 and 4 plies are effectively the same
twist only under torque. Each matrix coeffi- distance from the midplane, then the corre-
cient in eqn (30.14) relates a particular sponding B and D matrix coefficients tend
resultant to a strain expression. For example, toward zero.
Laminated plate theory 693
Most laminates used today are symmetric a flexural contribution, then it must be added
to eliminate or reduce any tendency of the
structure to warp unexpectedly. Most lami-
nates are also balanced, often because it is
erroneously thought to be necessary to pre-
vent the structure from warping. A balanced
laminate is really only necessary in situations
with reversible shear loading conditions. The off-axisply strains can be transformed to
on-axis ply strains for each ply and their signif-
icance can be evaluated per a failure criterion
30.2.5 RESULTING STRAIN STATE (refer to the relations given in Section 30.7).
Knowing the laminate stiffness matrix and the
applied loads, the resulting strains can be
computed. The strains are obtained by invert-
ing the stiffness matrix and multiplying by the
input load. Instead of inverting the 6 x 6 stiff-
[Et
Es I
=.
i
m2
n2
n2
m2
-mn
mn
2mn -2mn m2-n2
f:
., I (30.19)
ness matrix, however, it is sometimes possible where, as before, m = cos 8, n = sin 8. One step
to simplify the analysis even further. If the further, the on-axis ply stresses can be obtained
laminate is symmetric about the midplane so by multiplying the on-axis ply strains by the
that the B coefficients are identically zero, then ply stiffness matrix [Q] as shown in eqn (30.6).
the in-plane (described by N, [A], E ) and bend- The laminate engineering constants, which
ing problems (described by M I [D], IC)become have meaning with symmetric laminates only,
uncoupled. In this case, it is much easier to are calculated from the compliance matrix and
invert two 3 x 3 stiffness matrices to get the are useful for comparison to the properties of
compliance matrices (see also Section 30.7 for other materials, such as metals
the explicit terms to invert a matrix)
[a] = [AI-’
I
‘EP ‘11 ‘12 ‘16 ‘IN, ’
= a12 aZ a26 N2 (30.17) [a*] = [a]h (30.21)
E;
\E: ‘16 ‘26 ‘66. tN6 ,
The summation process can be used to deter- X' = transverse tensile strength,
mine the effective laminate expansion Y = longitudinal compressive strength,
coefficients. Y' = transverse compressive strength,
The hygrothermal load, sometimes called S = shear strength. (30.24)
non-mechanical load, can be computed by
The maximum ply strain values can be inter-
multiplying the laminate stiffness by the
preted by dividing the above strengths by the
hygrothermal strain (i.e. laminate thermal
appropriate ply stiffness coefficient.
expansion coefficients multiplied by the
change in temperature). The stress induced by cx* = max longitudinal tensile strain,
moisture absorption can be accounted for sim- E ~ ' *= max longitudinal compressive strength,
ilarly by using PAC in place of aAT. Thus, the E * = max transverse tensile strength,
non-mechanical loading in the laminate can be Eyf* =
Y
max transverse compressive strength,
expressed as E,* = max shear strength. (30.25)
Laminate strength is function of material (ply)
strength and the constraints on the ply within
the laminate. Thus, failure is best assessed at
the ply level. The proper interpretation, how-
ever, of the significance of the applied stress
relative to the material strength is still
debated. Maximum stress and maximum
strain failure criteria are common wherein the
applied stress or strain value is compared
directly to the strength value. A review of fail-
ure criteria has been published4.
The mechanical and non-mechanical loads, N Early laminate failure theories fail to
and W , can be added together to determine account for Poisson's effects and interaction
the total load experienced by the laminate. between loads in orthogonal directions (a
complex load condition). For example, the
major weakness of both the maximum stress
30.4 FAILURE CRITERIA
and the maximum strain failure criteria are
The ultimate objective in any structural design their inability to couple stress, or strain, com-
is to create a structure able to withstand ponents in determining the ultimate failure of
deflections or loads without failing. The initial a ply. It is important to understand that the
concern is to remain below a prescribed deflec- longitudinal tensile failure of a ply is affected
tion as part of stiffness criteria. Once these not only by the longitudinal load, but also by
criteria are satisfied, the focus shifts to a the magnitude of applied transverse loads. As
strength criterion, such that applied stress a result, stress interaction criteria are widely
must not exceed laminate strength. used throughout the industry to determine ply
Composite materials normally possess dif- failure in a laminate.
ferent strengths when loaded in either tension
or compression. The following represent the
minimum number of strength properties nec- 30.4.1 QUADRATIC FAILURE CRITERION
essary to characterize a unidirectional or fabric
Tsai developed a two-dimensional stress inter-
ply. They are determined using material
action failure criterion and predicted the
coupon tests, previously outlined in Fig. 30.2.
strength of an orthotropic ply subjected to
X = longitudinal tensile strength, combined stresses or strains. This analysis
696 Laminate design
takes into account the effects of other stress before failure occurs);
components on the strength in any one direc- R < l failure has already occurred (i.e. occurs
tion. Tsai postulated a criterion in stress space prematurely at some point below the
consisting of the sum of linear and quadratic applied stress or strain) and the applied
scalar products as follows: stress or strain level can not be attained
(e.g. if R = 0.5, then only half the
F ‘1DOI
1
+ Ftp1I 1 i, j = x, y, s (30.26)
applied stress can be sustained).
or, in expanded form,
Equation (30.28) is substituted into eqn (30.26)
and the solution of this quadratic equation can
be obtained.
+ ( F p x + Fyuy)I1
[ F I , ~ l ~ ~+][F,u,]
R‘ R -1 = 0 (30.29)
Note that Fxs = Fys= F, = 0, and the six strength
parameters are interpreted from the ply i, j = x, y, s
strength values (reviewed in Section 30.8):
The positive and negative roots of the qua-
dratic equation can be found and represent
failure of the laminate in tension and compres-
sion (where the absolute value of the negative
1
F = - root is used), respectively.
s
2
Failure envelopes can be plotted to show
laminate strength for any combination of
1 1 1 1
F = -- - F = -- - (30.27) loads. Instead of the stress space representa-
x x y Y Y’ tion, however, the examination of failure
The stress interaction term, Fx,*, can have a envelopes in strain space is a useful alterna-
value of -1 I Fx; < 1although is recommended tive. The representation of failure envelopes in
to be -1/2. When F,; = -1/2, the quadratic fail- strain space is preferred because strain is usu-
ure criterion is a general case of the von Mises ally specified in laminated plate theory. Strain,
criterion (Section 30.8.2). unlike stress, is at most a linear function of the
Instead of simply evaluating the failure cri- thickness. Furthermore, failure envelopes are
terion to determine if the laminate failed, it is fixed in strain space, and are independent of
useful to consider a nondimensional ratio to other plies with different angles which may
provide a perspective of the significance of the exist in a laminate. Thus, they can be regarded
applied stress relative to material strength. as material properties. Another additional
Tsai defines the strength ratio, R, such that advantage of strain space is that the axes are
dimensionless.
beyond the FPF can be formulated using a ply of the preselected orientations results in a
degradation model. Two possible methods are quasi-isotropic laminate. This is the perfor-
recommended: first, the simplified microme- mance baseline, because load-carrying fiber is
chanics model based on the modified in effectively all directions. Laminate perfor-
rule-of-mixtures relations can be used. Plies mance can only be improved beyond that of a
with transverse cracks are replaced by plies quasi-isotropic laminate as fiber is biased into
with reduced matrix modulus, Em. load directions, since, of course, fiber would
Micromechanics translates the effect of the never be put in unnecessary directions.
altered constituent material properties to the Heretofore, quasi-isotropic laminates have
ply level, e.g. how a change in the matrix mod- been used because they give properties like
ulus affects the shear and transverse modulus those of metals, and predictable responses that
of the unidirectional ply. Degraded plies are are familiar, although they are not optimal in
modeled by quasi-homogeneous plies so that strength-to-weight or stiffness-to-weight
laminated plate theory can be reapplied to ratios. Many laminates used today on aircraft
determine the ply stresses and ply strains. structures tend to be of this type. In general,
Another approach for the prediction of however, the more directional the loading, the
post-FPF strength can be based on macrome- bigger the payoff possible with anisotropic tai-
chanics, without resorting to micromechanics. loring.
The degradation factor (DF) is applied directly To improve on the performance obtained
to the transverse and shear modulus, as well with a quasi-isotropic laminate, the cost to
as the major Poisson's ratio. The exact value design and analyze the anisotropic part (using
for the degradation factor must be determined the tools like those discussed in this chapter) is
empirically.A value between 0.1 and 0.3 is rec- unfortunately often thought not to be worth
ommended. If the degradation factor is given the additional weight savings. This attitude is
a value close to zero, the quadratic failure cri- commonly rationalized by worry about holes,
terion can be made to resemble the maximum increase in work associated with more compli-
strain criterion and results in a generally con- cated fiber placement (preform assembly), etc.
servative estimation of laminate strength. In practice, laminate designs, if not quasi-
isotropic, are certainly still symmetric about
30.5 LAMINATE DESIGN
the midplane, balanced (equal quantity of -8
and +8 plies), and orthotropic. Capitalizing on
To simplify the analysis, it is commonly initially the benefits of anisotropy will probably occur
specified that a laminate will be constructed of in other industries first before being adopted
plies oriented with fibers in a few preselected by the more conservative aircraft industry.
directions, where only the percentage distribu- An exception to traditional aircraft laminate
tion in each orientation must then be design is the X-29 experimental aircraft, which
determined. Laminates with plies distributed demonstrated a unique attribute of anisotropy
every 45" are called n/4 laminates (plies can be (Fig. 30.8). The basis for this design lies in the
in the 0, 45, 90 or 4 5 directions. Ply orienta- important assumption that the 1,2,6 axes are
tions are usually specified as a value between usually the primary load directions for the
-90 and 90". For example, instead of identifying laminate. With the coordinate system for load-
the orientation as 135, the laminate orientation ing changed to be 20" off a designated
is more commonly called 45", although they laminate system, it can be shown that the lam-
are the same). Another class of laminates are inate behavior in flexure and torsion is
called n/3, where plies are placed every 60" coupled. In fact, twisting will result with flex-
(plies can be in the 0, 60 or -60 directions). In ural loading, even though the material would
both cases, an equal percentage of plies in each normally behave as most metals. This is the
698 Laminate design
principle used on the X-296. The normal ten- the laminate. Composite materials are not
dency for forward swept wings to diverge at merely a light-weight substitute for heavy-
increasing speeds was counteracted by this weight metals. Structural performances which
laminate design: the increase in lift creates a are not possible with metals are easily achiev-
decrease in angle of attack, as the laminate able. Examples of such unique properties
twists in the direction opposing the forces. include Poisson’s ratios greater than unity or
It is conceivable that in the future the even negative, bending-twisting coupling, and
graphite golf shafts currently gaining in popu- zero or negative coefficients of thermal expan-
larity could be tailored to the individual golfer. sion (CTE). The problems and examples below
The same coupling principle could be applied. illustrate the engineering constants of angle-
A golfer’s tendency to consistently slice the ply and related laminates. Examples of large
ball might allow the designer to customize a and negative Poisson’s ratios and examples of
golf shaft which not only bends, but also bend-twist coupling are also given.
twists slightly under the bending load of the
bad swing.
30.5.2 UNUSUAL POISSON’S RATIOS
Personal computer software based on a com-
30.5.1 UMQUE BEHAVIOR
puter spreadsheet allows rapid sensitivity
The most unique features of composite materi- studies and parametric analysis of the behav-
als are the highly direction-dependent ior of laminates. Laminated plate theory with
properties. Highly coupled deformation and micromechanics is programmed into ’Mic-
load-carrying capability can be designed into Mac/In-Plane’2. A companion charting tool,
Fig. 30.8 Top view of the Grumman X-29 aircraft with wings that twist under flexure to counteract the
detrimental aerodynamic effects.@ NASA)
Laminate design 699
'Chart-quick', can be used to plot variation of Table 30.1 Material property data for three differ-
CTE as a function of independent variables (0, ent carbon fiber systems: IM6/Epoxy, T300/5208
E,,, E,, vf, etc.). For the following problems and M40J/F584
and examples, the carbon fiber reinforced
polymer material data used are shown in lM6/ T300/ M40J/
Epoxy 5208 F854
Table 30.1.
Figure 30.9(a) shows the engineering con- Longitudinal tensile
stants for a unidirectional laminate as it is modulus, E x (Msi) 29.44 26.27 32.8
rotated from the on-axis. The Poisson's ratio, vx, Transverse modulus,
of a 0" laminate is approximately 0.3. With EY(Msi) 1.62 1.49 1.2
increasing angle of the off-axis laminate, the Poisson's ratio 0.32 0.28 0.26
Poisson's ratio decreases. The Poisson's ratio of
a 90" laminate is effectively zero, because con- Shear modulus, Es (Msi) 1.22 1.04 0.66
traction in the transverse direction is Longitudinal CTE, a1 -0.14
constrained by the fibers. Transverse CTE, a2 15
Figure 30.9(b) shows the engineering con-
stants for an angle-ply laminate. It is interesting Volume fraction V,(%) 66 70 62
to observe the very large Poisson's ratio of 1.32
for a [ S O ] laminate. A value of greater than one
implies that the transverse dimensional change image' of the longitudinal modulus, Ex.
is more than in the dimensional change in the Figure 30.10(a) shows the engineering con-
longitudinal direction of loading. stants for cross-ply laminates. For any given
When the ply angle is either 0 or 90", the laminate, the longitudinal modulus, Ex, and
laminates (and consequently the values for the the transverse modulus, E , are equal. The
engineering constants) in Figs. 30.9(a) and Poisson's ratio, vx, of a [d/90] laminate is
30.9(b) are the same. In both Figs. 30.9(a) and approximately zero, because of the presence of
30.9(b), the transverse modulus, E,, is a 'mirror fibers in the transverse direction. The largest
15.00 1 15.00 1
'
7.50 0.5 7.50 0.5
0.00 0 0.00 0
15 30 45 60 75
Fig. 30.9 Engineering constants of IM6/epoxy laminates as a function of 6 for (a) off-axis unidirectional [e],;
and (b) mgle-ply [+el,.
700 Laminate design
22.50
15.00
7.50
0.00
15 30 45 60 75 15 30 45 60 75
Ply Angle, 8 (degrees) Ply Angle, 8 (degrees)
(4 (b)
Fig. 30.10 Engineering constants of IMG/epoxy laminates as a function of 19for (a) cross-ply [I9,(0+ 90)],,;
and @) LO,, * qs.
Poisson's ratio is 0.55 for a [*45] laminate. The laminate exhibits a very large Poisson's ratio
shear modulus, E , is a maximum, of course, of 1.32, when compared with that of an
for the [*45] laminate. isotropic material (0.3). Besides the unique
Figure 30.10(b) shows the engineering con- Poisson's ratio behavior, it is also important to
stants for laminates with 50% 0" plies and 50% examine the values of the other coupling coef-
angle-plies. With the exception of the trans- ficients.
verse modulus, the results are similar to those
for the angle-ply laminate shown in Fig. EXAMPLE
30.9(b).When the ply angle is 90", the values
for the engineering constants in Figs. 30.10(a) Table 30.2 considers the resulting deforma-
and 30.10(b)are the same. tions on coupon specimens under load, and
Figures 30.11(a) and 30.11(b)show the engi- Fig. 30.12 indicates the relative magnitude of
neering constants for some unusual laminates. deformation due to large and negative
When the ply angle, 8, is 15", Fig. 30.11(a) Poisson's ratios.
shows an off-axisunidirectional laminate and
Fig. 30.11(b)shows an angle-ply. For all other 30.5.3 STIFFNESS AND COUPLING
ply angles, the laminates are unbalanced.
From Fig. 30.11(a),it can be observed that the It is useful to look at the A, B, D stiffness matri-
[15/60Is laminate exhibits an extremely large ces of some simple laminates. For ease of
negative Poisson's ratio of -0.32, meaning the comparison, the stiffness matrices can be nor-
laminate will expand in the transverse direc- malized to have units of [force/length2]by
tion under longitudinal tension loading and defining
compress in the transverse direction under [A*]= [ A ] / h , [B*] = 2[B]/h2,
longitudinal compressive loading. From Fig.
30.11(b), it can be observed that the [-15/30Is
Laminate design 701
,r”
Modulus
Ratio (Msi) Ratio
30.00 T ’ T 2
30’00 T
22.50 22.50 1.5
1
15.00 15.00 1
0.00 0 0.00 0
Fig. 30.11 Engineering constants of IM6/epoxy laminates as a function of 8 for (a) [15/8],s; and (b)
[-w~I,.
Table 30.2 Strains, deformations and strength ratio (based on first-ply-failure) of 10 in x 1 in x 0.1 in spec-
imens under 1000 lb longitudinal load, N,
Fig. 30.12 Relative deformation of 10 x 1 x 0.1 in specimens under 1000 lb load along the centerline (lami-
nates are IM6/epoxy, unless otherwise indicated).
702 Laminate design
A four-ply laminate consisting of two 0" and B* matrix with nonzero terms. The first and
two 90" plies can be combined into four differ- fourth laminates are balanced and so the A*16
ent laminates. From Table 30.3 it can be and A*26coefficients are zero. For the second
observed that while the A* matrix remains and third laminates which differ by the sign of
unchanged through varied ply stacking the off-axis plies, the stiffness behavior differs
sequences, large differences arise in the B* and only in that the A*16,A*26,D*,6 and D*26coeffi-
D*matrices. cients are of opposite signs.
From Table 30.4 it can be observed that only Table 30.5 displays different quasi-isotropic
the fourth laminate is unsymmetric and has a laminates. Note that the normalized A* matrix
Table 30.3 Normalized stiffness coefficients for four IM6/epoxy laminates, in units of Msi
- 6.997
:]I0
' 0 0 0 ' ' 0 0 3.499 0 0 - 0 0 '
[B*] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3.499 0 0 -6.997 0
, o 0 o , , 0 0 0 0 o * , 0 0 0 .
26.129 0.525 0 . ' 5.138 0.525 0 ' ' 15.634 0.525 0 . .15.634 0.525 0 '
0.525 5.138 0 0.525 26.129 0 0.525 15.634 0 0.525 15.634 0
0 0 1.220. . 0 0 1.220, , 0 0 1.220, 0 0 1.220,
Table 30.4 Normalized stiffness coefficients for four IM6/epoxy laminates, in units of Msi
I
' 19.463 3.692 0 ' ' 19.463 3.692 3.499 19.463 3.692 -3.499- 9.297 6.859 0
[A*] 3.692 5.469 0 3.692 5.469 3.499 3.692 5.469 -3.499 6.859 9.297 0
, o 0 4.387. , 3.499 3.499 4.387 .-3.499 -3.499 4.387 . , 0 0 7.555 *
IB"1
* o
0
, o
0
0
0
:I
0 J
0
0
o
0
0
0 :ll!
0
0
0
0
: [:
0
0
0
3.499 3.499
3.499
3.499
0 I
II
27.087 1.316 0.656 27.087 1.316 0.875 27.087 1.316 -0.875 9.297 6.859 0
1.316 2.597 0.656 1.316 2.597 0.875 1.316 2.597 -0.875 6.859 9.297 0
0.656 0.656 2.012 0.875 0.875 2.012 -0.875 -0.875 2.012 0 0 7.555
Laminate design 703
Table 30.5 Normalized stiffness coefficients for four IM6/epoxy laminates, in units of Msi
1[
I
12.466 3.692 0 12.466 3.692 0 12.466 3.692 0 12.466 3.692 0
3.692 12.466 0 3.692 12.466 0 3.692 12.466 0 3.692 12.466 0
0 0 4.387 0 0 4.387 0 0 4.387 I O 0 4.387
I
20.932 3.098 1.312 20.2115 2.504 1.968 18.194 2.782 3.735 22.001 1.932 0.737
3.098 5.188 1.312 2.504 7.094 1.968 2.782 8.558 2.208 1.932 6.451 1.956
1.312 1.312 3.793 1.968 1.968 3.200 3.735 2.208 3.477 0.737 1.956 2.628
terms are equivalent for all quasi-isotropic Multiplying out the strains, = a , , ~ , , E2 =
laminates. This means all have the same stiff-
a12N2/ ‘6 = a16N1
ness to weight ratio. (iii) Evaluate the displacements by integrating
The differences between these laminates the strains. (Note that for the tube,
thus manifests themselves only in how they
dd)
behave in bending. E =r-.)
dx
PROBLEM
Find the amount that an anisotropic 20-layer
[0/30], T300/5208, 3 in diameter, 12 in tube
1 Eldx = l:$dx = l:llNldx - u = allNIL
SOLUTION
1 L
(i) Compute the laminate stiffness matrix and -
+@ = a , 6 ~ l R
invert to get the compliance matrix: R
I
62.563 -26.647 -64.893
[a*] = -26.647 563.836 -224.518
-64.893 -224.518 495.374
@ = -U*16
N- L = x 100 x 12/1.5
64 893L
-
h ‘R 0.1
= -0.52 x radian = -0.03 degree
704 Laminate design
16.00 16.00 -r
14.00 14.00
12.00 1200
10.00 10.00
8.00 am
6.00 600
-0
c
4.00
200
4.00
200
C
a,
._
0 0.00 0.00
0 -200
p 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90
-200
0 Ply Angle, 0 (degrees) -4.00
(b)
Fig. 30.13 Coefficient of thermal expansion of M40J/F584 laminates as a function of 8 for (a) off-axis undi-
rectional [e,],; and (b) angle-ply [&J,.
0
4.00 --
c
c 200 --
comDosite
AT<O
Fig. 30.15 Result of different coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE), a,for metal and composite cylindri-
cal sections under two thermal load cases.
706 Laminate design
During a uniaxial compression test of a 0 familiar from isotropic materials. The most
degree unidirectional laminate, a, = X' and a common form of the von Mises criterion is
= as = 0 and the failure criterion in eqn (30.Blf probably the equation written in terms of the
reduces to principal stresses in three dimensions7.
FxxX'-FxX = 1 (30.B3) (a,- a,)' + (a, - a,), + (a,- a,)*= %2yield
Solving the two equations given by eqns
(30.B7)
(30.B2) and (30.B3) for two unknowns, F,, and
F,, yields For plane stress a, = 0, eqn (30.B7) becomes
1 a: - ala2+ a; = a*,,d (30.B8)
Fxx = xx'
Instead of computing the principal stresses,
(30.M)
11 the von Mises criterion in eqn (30.B8) can also
F =--- be written in terms of a general stress state that
x X' includes a shear stress contribution
Similarly for the transverse direction, a 90
- aXay+ 0; + 30: = (30.B9)
degree unidirectional laminate can be experi-
mentally evaulated under uniaxial tension (ay Now, for comparison, the quadratic failure cri-
= Y, a, = as =0) and compression (ay= Y', a, = terion is repeated here
as = 0).
Substituting each test situation into the qua-
FxXa:+ 2Fya,uy + FW$ + Fssa:+ Fp, + Fyay= 1
dratic failure criterion and solving the two
(30.B10)
equations, the resulting two unknown coeffi-
cients, Fw and Fy,would be where
1 1
1
1
1
F =- (30.B5) F = F = - (30.Bll)
Yy' Yy'
~
YY xx XX' YY
1 1 1
F =--- Fss = 7 Fy=F*yd(Fx,FYY)
!I Y Y' S
For a shear test, a, = S and the resulting coeffi- 1 1 1 1
cient is F =--- F =---
X X ' Y Y Y'
1
F ss = -s2 (30.B6) We can recover the von Mises failure criterion
for isotropic materials when F*y = -1/2 and
The sixth coefficient, F ,must be determined by setting the strengths to be the same in all
empirically from biaxiar tests such that directions
FXY= F*&&) X = X' = Y = Y', S = X/d3 (30.B12)
To have a closed failure envelope, Fey must be where the 43 factor is the result of the von
between -1 and 1. Mises invariant. Substituting expressions in
eqn (30.B12) into those of eqn (30.Bll) and
then rewriting eqn (30.B10) results in
30.8.2 RECOVERING VON MISES CRITERION
It may be useful to review the quadratic failure
0; - O ~ O ~+ +ai = x2 (30.B13)
criterion and make it less of a mathematical which matches eqn (30.B9).
abstraction by comparing it with what is