Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


Trace a must have tool.

Trace a must have tool.

RE: Trace a must have tool.

It is. Really only good for stiffness. Useless for strength.

RE: Trace a must have tool.

This would be useful, if it can be independently verified and shown to truly be an invariant.

But this statement seems incorrect and/or misleading:

"The implications of these universal connections
 are far-reaching. One of the most important is that 
for testing. We no longer have to start from scratch
 with each new material and conduct thousands of
 hours of coupon tests to establish design allowables. If we have already tested and established the design allowables for one CFRP material, we can, in fact, derive the allowables data for all other CFRP materials, using simple mathematical calculations based on the ratio between the traces of the materials."

The thing is, getting the elastic properties for a material is not very expensive and does not require very much testing. Lamination theory, which is well accepted, can then be used to determine the elastic properties for all the layup variations (and also provides additional components that may be necessary for analysis). But more importantly, the testing that DOES require "thousands of hours of coupon tests" is for strength properties (NOT elastic properties). Trace has no application to strength, as SWComposites stated. So the quoted statement, which seems to be the top claim, seems to be null and void...and misleading. That also makes me wonder just how extensive the supporting test database is. Since there is no physical foundation (at least not stated), one would need quite a bit of test data to claim it is truly an invariant.

*EDIT: I ran some sample problems with classical lamination theory. The trace worked *somewhat* OK for a lot of layups (same material system), but it was not truly an invariant and was in error by up to 10% (probably more if I tried various material systems). The claimed ability to extend this other material systems, using properties from one material system, would be expected to have additional error. That claim seems especially questionable unless there was a significant test database to support it. So I am not sure what practical use this could have. Perhaps someone else could run some additional studies.


Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close