Composites
Composites
(OP)
I am trying to find information regarding CFRP unfolding.
Can anyone help me?
Many thanks.
Can anyone help me?
Many thanks.
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS Come Join Us!Are you an
Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums!
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Posting GuidelinesJobs |
|
RE: Composites
RE: Composites
I was reviewing a composite design allowables document and came up with F33t, F33c & F13 values for "Unfolding". Are these values then the max allowed for interlaminar tension, compression & shear respectively to prevent "delamination"?
RE: Composites
RE: Composites
perhaps it means "opening of a curved laminate"?
The F33t, F33c & F13 values might cover for delamination depending on how they were determined and from what type of test and whether the test included intentional flaws in the peak stress area. Ideally the test specimen would be very similar to the structural detail you are analyzing. If it is not, then the values very likely do not provide a good prediction of delamination onset. Fracture mechanics based methods are much more accurate for delamination prediction compared to stress based methods
SW
RE: Composites
I also have not come across 'unfolding' in any sort of technical sense.
F33t, F33c are the through thickness direct stress directions, F13 is through thickness shear. The 33 and 13 nomenclature probably indicates that the 'F's are 'material' values, so that they are for a laminate with all its plies at 0 degrees (Z and X would usually indicate 'laminate' directions as opposed to material).
F33c is somewhat controversial. If it's for unidirectional plies the failure mechanism is by what I've heard some people call 'log-rolling,' where the fibres can roll over one another as the resin fails. A real laminate (or one made of fabric) is quite a lot stronger than F33c for a UD.
As SW says, F33t is also somewhat controversial. If it's for a laminate failing in 33 tension up due to a corner radius opening up then there is a quarter corner bend test standard. However, it's quite variable in its values and when damage is introduced *very* variable.
RE: Composites
From the test data that I have seen, F33t is all over the place, even without flaws. That being said, what are your thoughts on the Chang-Springer interaction? With the interlaminar shear playing a relatively small role (generally), can you confidently determine an interaction between interlaminar shear and tension (when the tension allowable varies considerably)? I suppose it is a relatively conservative form so it should be OK. If nothing else, it is a typical type of interaction, but I just wonder if the physics really hold up and if you can really prove it.
I will have another go at the paper by Chang and Springer, but I wonder if they addressed some of the papers which reported significant scatter. This is largely an academic question I suppose, but interesting to me nonetheless.
Brian
www.espcomposites.com
RE: Composites
RE: Composites
It works ok only if the "allowable" F33 and F13 values are backed out of curved laminate test data using the criteria and the allowable values are only used in analysis of similar structure (same thickness, radius, etc). And the curved laminate test specimens should have intentional flaws (delam's) in the radius to avoid high scatter and unconservative results.
SW
RE: Composites
It is also used in an ESDU (don't have the number off hand). If memory serves me correctly, the original paper by Chang-Springer assumed that F22t = F33t, which seems to be a poor assumption even without a flaw (and a very poor assumption as an engineering solution). Actual implementations don't assume this, as you have stated.
I suppose it was a guess at an interaction, like many other failure criteria, but there is nothing particularly special about the physics of it. It seems most of these sorts of failure criteria are just guesses and then they try to prove them later. Some of them just so happen to fit test data better than others and hence become used more often.
What I have wondered is if just using the interlaminar tension component would be good enough (neglecting the interlaminar shear). If the F33 allowable is then backed out using that assumption, I suspect it would work pretty well (i.e. non interactive failure criterion).
Brian
www.espcomposites.com
RE: Composites
To the OP gkstress: still quite curious as to what 'unfolding' may be.
RE: Composites
I am currently developing software to handle a curved laminate, which is why I am interested in it.
http://www.espcomposites.com/software/eRadius.html
I am debating whether or not to just address a pure moment or include the shear component. I don't think the shear component is a very big driver, but it makes solving the stress state more challenging. Anyway, if you have any other good info, let me know.
Brian
www.espcomposites.com
RE: Composites
From my understanding the term 'unfolding'(not frequently used) describes composite curved angle delamination onset as a result of through thickness stresses. I am currently researching in order to get a better understanding of this phenomenon.
ESPComposites thanks for the software link, very useful tools.