Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EFFECT OF PIN REINFORCEMENT ON BUCKLING OF DELAMINATED
SANDWICH BEAMS
BY
BRIAN T. WALLACE
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2000
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the contribution that both my advisors, Dr. Peter Ifju
and Dr. Bhavani Sankar, have made to my academic career. Both gentlemen have
become personal friends as well as offering academic and professional guidance.
I would also like to thank Ryan Merrit for his contribution to this effort. Ryan
conducted the fracture toughness experiments contained in this study as part of the
University Scholars Program here at the University of Florida.
I should also recognize the contribution that my family has made to my academic
success. Their support and patience has played a key role in my achievement.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………….. ii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………….…………. v CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….………… 1 1.1 Motivation……………………………………………….…………. 1 1.2 Literature Survey…………………………………………………... 4 2 MATERIALS AND SPECIMEN FABRICATION…………………….. 6 2.1 Material Systems…………………………………………………… 6 2.2 Specimen Preparation……………………………………………… 7 3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY…………………………………………….. 12 3.1 Experimental Setup………………………………………………… 12 3.2 Preliminary Study………………………………………………….. 13 3.3 Edgewise Compressive Loading…………………………………… 19 3.4 Circular Delamination Testing…………………………………….. 30 3.5 Effect of Reinforcement on Mode I Fracture Toughness………….. 33 3.6 Experimental Results/Discussion………………………………….. 35 4 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING…………………………….………… 41 4.1 Geometric Modeling……………………………………………….. 41 4.2 Material Modeling……………………………………….………… 46 4.3 Finite Element Analysis…………………………………………… 50 4.4 FEA Results/Discussion…………………………………………… 53
iv
5 DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK………………………………… 67 5.1 Discussion…………………………………………………………. 67 5.2 Future Work……………………………………………………….. 75 REFERENCES …………………………………………………………… 78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………… 80
v
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering
EFFECT OF PIN REINFORCEMENT ON BUCKLING OF DELAMINATED
SANDWICH BEAMS
By
Brian T. Wallace
December 2000
Chair: Bhavani Sankar Co-chair: Peter Ifju Major Department: Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science
The purpose of this thesis was threefold: to better understand the buckling
behavior of delaminated sandwich structures, to develop a reinforcement technique to
increase the post-buckling load of these beams, and to develop a method to accurately
model the behavior of delaminated sandwich beams. Experiments were conducted to
identify the effect of geometric parameters on the ultimate post-buckling load. These
specimen configurations then were reinforced using two methods. The first method was a
traditional Z-pin method using cylindrical graphite pins. The second method, “C-
pinning,” was developed during the course of this study. “C-pinning” involves using
reinforcement that is integral with the facesheets. In order to accurately predict the
behavior of sandwich beams, a nonlinear finite element study also was conducted. It was
determined that a nonlinear analysis that considers plastic deformation in the facesheet
provided good correlation between modeling and experimental data.
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation The drive to create structures that are lighter and stronger has led to tremendous
interest in sandwich construction. The availability of advanced core materials and
improved bonding techniques has allowed for more efficient sandwich structures. The use
of laminated composites, such as graphite/epoxy, for facesheet materials has extended the
range of strength and stiffness for these types of structures.
One barrier to the widespread acceptance of sandwich structures is debonding of
the facesheet. Debonding of the facesheet can occur during manufacture or service.
Structures with debonded facesheets have significantly lower load carrying capacity. In
severe cases, the reduced capacity can drop below the service loads leading to a
catastrophic failure. This phenomenon is especially true when the sandwich beam is
loaded in axial compression.
Delamination is a problem associated with all types of laminated materials. In a
sandwich structure, this problem typically is encountered at the facesheet/core interface.
Honeycomb core materials are attractive because of their high specific strength.
Unfortunately, they also provided little surface area for bonding resulting in a weak
facesheet/core interface. During the service life of a structure, debonding of the facesheet
from the core can occur. There are several common instances where this debonding can
occur including foreign matter being inserted inadvertently during manufacturing, tool-
drop during maintenance operations, and impact events, especially for aerospace
structures.
2
Advanced composite materials are a new class of materials. Traditional materials
such as wood, concrete, and steel have been in use for hundreds of years. The behavior
of these materials has been well characterized. This understanding of the behavior of a
material system leads to confidence among the engineers who specifies materials. For
advanced composite materials to gain widespread acceptance, there are several major
hurdles to overcome. One of the technical challenges in the use of composite materials is
improving the through-the-thickness strength of laminated composite structures.
Laminated composites have high in-plane stiffness and strength but weak interlaminar
strength. It is this weak interlaminar strength that results in delamination problems.
Figure 1-1. The X-33 technology demonstrator from NASA and Lockheed Martin
suffered a failure of its sandwich composite fuel tank.
The technical problems associated with laminated composites affected even the
most recent, high-tech projects. NASA is currently working with Lockheed Martin to
develop the X-33. The X-33 is a technology demonstrator and precursor to the
VentureStar Single-Stage-To-Orbit vehicle. The original X-33 design called for a
composite honeycomb fuel tank designed and built by Lockheed Martin SkunkWorks and
3
Alliant TechSystems (Hazen 2000). Unfortunately, during the first full pressurization test
the tank failed. A portion of the external facesheet delaminated. The failure is believed
to be the result of cryo-pumping that occurs during cryogenic loading of the fuel tank.
The tank holds liquid hydrogen at -425 degrees fahrenheit. This failure ignited
controversy within the project as to the safety and reliability of composite sandwich
structures. Engineers disagreed about the statistical significance of test data from
coupons and how well that information scaled to a full size structure. The design was
since changed to include an aluminum fuel tank.
Two techniques to improve the through-the-thickness properties of laminated
composites, including sandwich construction emerged in recent years: stitching and Z-
pinning. Through-the-thickness stitching has been shown to improve through-the-
thickness properties, particularly Mode I fracture toughness (Sharma and Sankar, 1996).
Aramid and glass yarns are commonly used to provide continuous reinforcement to a
laminated composite. This continuity of reinforcement reduces the introduction of stress
concentrations into the structure. One major limitation to the use of stitching of large
scale structures is that stitching requires access to both sides of a structure. Being able to
access both sides of today's large, complex sandwich structures may be impractical or
impossible. The use of composite materials allows for monolithically casting an aircraft
fuselage. To stitch a structure this size would require a stitching machine as large as the
aircraft itself. Structures that have complex geometries may be impossible to stitch
regardless of size.
The effects of Z-pinning of composite sandwich structures is the focus of this
project. The Z-pinning involves the insertion of individual pins through-the-thickness of
a laminate or sandwich structure. This project investigated the effect of reinforcement
and reinforcement spacing on the buckling load of a debonded sandwich beam.
4
1.2 Literature Survey
Many studies were performed to understand buckling of delaminated composite
beams and plates. Much of the early work was done in the area of laminated composites
and more recently was extended to sandwich structures.
Early analytical work dealing with the effects of delaminations on the ultimate
load capacity of beam-plates was done by Simitses et al. (1985). Yin et al. (1986)
worked in the same area but included the post-buckling behavior and energy release rate
calculations to predict delamination growth. Kassapagolou (1988) used a series solution
approach to solve for large deflections in a delaminated facesheet specimen. The
delaminations in this study were between facesheet plies, not at the facesheet/core
interface. The effect of elliptical delaminations on buckling and post-buckling was
studied.
The compressive failure of sandwich panels with different core materials was
studied by Minguet (1987). The study identified three failure modes: core failure,
facesheet debond, and facesheet fracture. The test results were used to develop non-
linear failure models for each of the observed failure modes. An analysis of various
numerical techniques for determining the buckling load of delaminated sandwich panels
was considered by Sleight and Wang (1995). The results from the various techniques
were compared to plane finite element analysis. The authors determined that accurate
models could be generated using 2-D, plane strain finite element analysis. Hwu and Hu
(1992) extended the work of Yin et al. (1986) to include delaminated sandwich beams.
This model provides good results for beams that fail in global buckling modes.
Kardomateas (1990) performed an experimental study aimed at understanding the
buckling and post-buckling of delaminated Kevlar/epoxy laminates. During the study,
the load-displacement behavior, deformed shape, and crack growth were recorded.
Avery (1998) and Avery and Sankar (2000) performed a parametric experimental
5
study to quantify the effect of facesheet thickness, core thickness, delamination length,
and core density had on the ultimate post-buckling load of a delaminated sandwich beam.
The delaminations in this study were at the facesheet/core interface. A Graeco-Latin
Square test plan was used to derive a test matrix from which the influence of each
parameter could be calculated. Narayanan (1999) performed a non-linear finite element
analysis study of the specimens used by Avery. During the finite element analysis, the
influence of core yielding and crack propagation on the post-buckling behavior of
delaminated sandwich beams was explored.
All the complexities of the current study have been previously investigated
individually. However, to gain a strong understand of reinforcement of delaminated
sandwich beams, all factors must be consider simultaneously to capture the interactions
between them. The current study aims to evaluate the performance of pin reinforcement
in sandwich beams with a delamination at the facesheet/core interface.
6
CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND SPECIMEN FABRICATION
2.1 Materials System
A typical sandwich construction consists of a high stiffness, facesheet material
separated by a lightweight core. By providing this separation between the facesheets, the
stiffness of a sandwich structure can be 30 times higher than a monocque structure of the
same weight (Zenkert, 1997). The advantages of using sandwich structures must be
weighed against the additional problems associated with these structures. Poor resistance
to localized loading and poor interlaminar strength are two main concerns for designers of
sandwich structures.
In this study, the facesheet material used was a plain weave, graphite epoxy pre-
preg material manufactured by Cytec-Fiberite (HMF 5-322/97714AC). The core material
was an aramid honeycomb core from Euro-Composites. Core materials used in this study
were 0.25, 0.375, and 0.5 inch thick. All core materials had a 0.125 inch cell diameter. A
typical delaminated sandwich beam is shown in Figure 2-1. Manufacturer’s data for the
facesheet material is shown in Table 2-1.
Figure 2-1. A typical sandwich beam showing edge to edge delamination at the
facesheet/core interface.
7
Table 2-1. Manufacturer’s data for Cytec-Fiberite HMF 5-322/97714AC used for facesheet material
Tensile strength 97 ksi
Tensile Modulus 7.7 Msi
Flatwise tensile strength 693 psi
Fiber volume fraction 0.59
2.2 Specimen Preparation
The methods used to reinforce specimens in this study can be divided into two
categories: Z-pins and “C-pinning”. Z-pins are cylindrical, graphite/epoxy pins. “C-
pinning” involves inserting strips of uni-directional, graphite/epoxy pre-preg into the
sandwich construction pre-form.
In the case of Z-pins, the reinforcement was cured prior to being introduced into
the sandwich pre-form. The Z-pins in this study were constructed from 6-K graphite fiber
tows from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty. Since the Z-pins were to be co-cured with the
sandwich pre-form, the resin selected for manufacturing pins must not degrade at the cure
temperature of the sandwich composite. A room temperature cure resin would degrade at
elevated temperature leading to poor adhesion between the pins and the facesheets. A
Shell Epoxy system was chosen using SU-3 resin, Curing Agent W, and 828 Resin mixed
to a ratio of 3:3:7 by weight.
The fiber tows were wetted out in a vacuum oven. The wetted fibers were then
transferred to a fixture which was used to apply tension and could be rotated to twist two
individual tows together to form 12K graphite/epoxy rods. These rods were
approximately 0.03" in diameter. The cured rods were then cut to form graphite/epoxy
8
pins used for reinforcement. Typical sandwich construction techniques were used in
preparing the pre-forms. Individual facesheets were layed-up and mechanically debulked.
The Nomex® honeycomb core was cut to the appropriate panel dimensions and facesheets
were applied. Prior to applying the second facesheet, a strip of non-porous Teflon® was
inserted to create a delamination of the appropriate length. The resulting delamination
extends across the width of the specimen and lies at the facesheet/core interface. Once the
delaminated sandwich beam was assembled, pins were inserted through-the-thickness as
shown in Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2. Z-pins inserted through-the-thickness of sandwich pre-form. An aluminum
fixture was used to allow a pilot hole to be punched through the preform prior to inserting the graphite pins. The fixture forced the facesheet to remain flat while the pins were inserted.
The second method of translaminar reinforcement used in this study was “C-
pinning.” This reinforcement technique is illustrated in Figure 2-4. With this
reinforcement technique, initially a single ply of facesheet material was applied to each side
of the honeycomb core. Again, a thin strip of nonporous Teflon® was applied underneath
one facesheet to create the appropriate delamination. Using a small sewing needle, thin
strips of uni-directional, graphite-epoxy pre-preg were inserted through-the-thickness of
the sandwich beam. The pre-preg strips are cut leaving 1/8 inch section protruding from
either side of the beam. This procedure was repeated until the entire beam had been
9
reinforced at the proper spacing. The exposed pre-preg was folded flat and the remaining
facesheet plies were applied to the sandwich beam. With this reinforcement technique, the
head of the pin is now integral with the facesheet.
Figure 2-3. “C-pinning” technique involves insertion of uncured, uni-directional pre-preg
strips through-the-thickness of the sandwich beam during lay-up.
After the sandwich panels were layed-up and the appropriate type and spacing of
reinforcement was inserted, the sandwich pre-form was vacuum bagged. A flat aluminum
tool was covered with non-porous Teflon®. The panel was placed on the tool and a
second layer of non-porous Teflon® was applied over the specimen. In a typical vacuum
bagging procedure for composite panels, a layer of bleeder material is inserted to allow
excess resin to flow out and increase the fiber-volume fraction of the cured panel. In this
case, the bleeder material was intentionally omitted to allow excess resin to flow into the
structure. This excess resin helps to secure the pins in the facesheet. Next, a layer of
breather material was placed on top of the panel and tool to allow for a complete vacuum
over the entire sandwich panel. After placing dam tape around the perimeter of the tool,
the vacuum bag and valve are applied. Care is taken to ensure that the bag is applied so
Outer plies
Inner ply
“C-pinning” reinforcement
Outer plies
10
that it is kept as flat as possible to avoid wrinkling. If the bag wrinkles when the vacuum
is applied, a resin-rich crease will be formed in the sandwich panel. Prior to curing, the
complete vacuum bag assembly is tested to ensure a good seal. A typical panel was 5
inches by 10 inches and when cured would yield five specimens. A completed vacuum bag
assembly is shown in Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-4. Specimens with vacuum applied prior to curing in modified convection oven.
The sandwich panels were cured in a modified convection oven. An electronic
controller regulated the temperature and pressure during the curing cycle. The curing
profile used in this study is shown in Figure 2-5. A three stage curing cycle was used. In
the first stage, the vacuum was applied and the temperature ramped at 5 degrees per
minute until reaching 260º F. During the second stage, the vacuum is maintained and the
temperature is held constant at 260º F for 4.5 hours. The third stage was a cool-down
stage. The oven used in this study did not have the ability to adjust the cooling rate. The
specimens were cooled back to room temperature, and the vacuum was released.
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (minutes)
Tem
pera
ture
(F
)
Figure 2-5 Curing cycle used for all specimens in this study.
After curing the 5 inch by 13 inch sandwich panels were cut into 4 inch by 2 inch
compression specimens using a diamond coated masonry saw. Prior to testing the
specimens were maintained in an environmental chamber for conditioning. The specimens
were conditioned at 23ºC and 50% relative humidity in accordance with ASTM C364.
12
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
3.1 Experimental Setup
All tests were performed on an MTI Phoenix 30,000 lb, screw-driven, testing
machine. A PC-based data acquisition system was used to collect load and displacement
information. A Revere 12,000 lbs. capacity load cell was used for load measurements. A
Lucas-Schaevitz, 2000HR LVDT was used for displacement measurements. Compression
tests were run in displacement control using the ASTM recommended crosshead velocity
of 0.02 inch/min.
The fixtures used in the edgewise compressive loading tests, shown in Figure 3-1,
were constructed to provide a fixed boundary condition to the bottom 0.5 inch of the
specimen. This configuration is consistent with both the previous experimental and
numerical studies on which this work is based. The fixture constructed for this study did
not apply lateral force to the specimen, it merely restricted lateral displacement of the
specimen.
The attachment of the LVDT to the fixture, shown in Figure 3-2, is an important
consideration in taking accurate displacement measurements. The fixture design allowed
for attachment of the LVDT as close as possible to the edge of the specimen. The upper
attachment point for the LVDT was integral with the plate that contacts directly with the
specimen. The lower LVDT bracket was adjustable to provide a means for alignment of
the core and rod. The lower bracket was attached to the side of the fixture just below the
bearing surface of the fixture. By attaching the LVDT close to the bearing surfaces, errors
due to the compliance of the fixtures and testing machine can be eliminated. Aluminum
13
tabs were attached to the specimens to prevent crushing of the ends of the facesheet. The
tabs were 0.125 inch thick, 0.5 inch tall, and 2.0 in wide.
Figure 3-1. The loading fixture used in the preliminary and edgewise compressive studies.
Without a specimen, the LVDT can be observed behind the fixture.
3.2 Preliminary Study Preliminary testing was performed using experimental sets defined in Avery
(1998). Four sets were chosen for this study. The sets chosen were considered
representative of the design space from Avery. The four sets were Set 6, 8, 13, and 15.
The properties for these sets are shown in Table 3-1. These four sets represented the
permutations of thick/thin facesheet and thick/thin core. This subset was chosen to
investigate the effects if pin reinforcement over a wide spectrum of sandwich structure
configurations.
14
Figure 3-2. A rear view of the loading fixture used in this study shows how the LVDT
was attached to avoid the introduction of machine compliance in the displacement measurements.
Figure 3-3. Edgewise compressive test specimen in the testing fixture.
15
The purpose of the preliminary study was to gain some initial understanding of the
effect of pin reinforcement on the buckling of delaminated sandwich beams. This
understanding was then used to develop an improved technique for reinforcing sandwich
beams. An experimental baseline was created by choosing a subset of the work done by
Avery (1998).
Table 3-1. Parameters used in preliminary study. The set numbers correspond to those
used in Avery (1998).
Set Facesheet thickness
(in) Core thickness
(in) Core density
(pcf)
Delamination length
(in)
6 3 x 0.0087 0.25 6 1.0
8 3 x 0.0087 0.50 3 2.0
13 7 x 0.0087 0.50 6 0.5
15 7 x 0.0087 0.25 3 1.5
Table 3-2. Experimental results for Z-pin reinforced specimens from Avery.
Set Non-reinforced (# of specimens)
COV
Graphite pin reinforced,
0.5 inch spacing (# of specimens)
COV % Increase in ultimate
load
6 495 (16) 12.4 637 (11) 19.5 28
8 320 (5) 8.4 495 (7) 24.4 54
16
During the preliminary study, both experimental and numerical studies were being
performed concurrently. While the numerical study included all four sets from Avery, the
preliminary experimental study focused on Sets 6 and 8. Both non-reinforced specimens
and specimens reinforced with Z-pins were considered in the preliminary study. Table 3-2
shows the experimental results for the four categories of specimens considered.
Much of the early work in this study involved specimens from Set 6. This set had
3 ply facesheets, a 0.25 inch core thickness, 6 pcf core density, and a 1 inch delamination
length. The average failure load for non-reinforced specimens was 495 lb/in. Specimens
reinforced with Z-pins at 0.5 inch pin spacing failed at 637 lb/in. This represented an
average increase in ultimate load of 28%. Some typical load vs. end-shortening curves for
Set 6 are shown in Figure 3-4. The failure mode for all specimens was pin pullout.
Before failure, local buckling occurred between adjacent pins. Visually, a pin cushion
effect could be observed. The pins were providing reinforcement to the structure locally,
however, transverse displacement between the pins was not restricted. Failure would
occur when the pin force reached the critical pin pullout force for the facesheet thickness.
Specimens for Set 8 from Avery were also tested. This set had 3 ply facesheet
thickness, 3.0 pcf core density, 0.5 inch core thickness, and a 2 inch delamination length.
Non-reinforced specimens from this set failed at only 320 lb/in. Reinforcing the specimens
with 0.5 inch reinforcement spacing increased the failure load to 495 lb/in. Z-pin
reinforcement was able to provide a 54% increase in ultimate load.
17
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
End-shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 3-4. Typical load vs. end-shortening curves for Set 6 Z-pin reinforced and non-reinforced specimens.
During the course of this study, a new reinforcement technique was developed.
“C-pinning”, as described in Chapter 2, involves inserting reinforcement during the lay-up
of the sandwich structure. The reinforcement is co-cured with the sandwich panel. The
resulting pins are integral with both facesheets, significantly increasing the critical pin
pullout force.
Set 6 specimens reinforced with the “C-pinning” technique showed significant
increases in ultimate load. These results are shown in Table 3-3. The ultimate failure load
of specimens with 0.5 inch reinforcement spacing was 65% higher than the non-reinforced
specimens. Specimens with 0.25 inch reinforcement spacing exhibited an increase of
257%. The ultimate failure load used for comparisons is the average failure load for non-
reinforced specimens that came from the same panels as the “C-pinning” reinforced
specimens themselves.
The failure mechanism of “C-pinning” reinforced specimens was different from the
Z-pin reinforced specimens. While a “pin cushion” effect was visible in the Z-pin
18
reinforced specimens, this was absent in the “C-pinning” specimens. The effect of
reinforcement was not as localized as it had been in earlier tests. The “C-pinning”
specimens actually restricted the local buckling of the delaminated region. There was a
combination of local buckling in the delaminated region as well as global buckling of the
beam itself.
The local buckling effects seen in the Z-pin reinforced specimens was not totally
absent in the C-pin reinforced specimens. It was present during the test but was not the
trigger that led to the collapse of the sandwich beams. Two competing modes were
present during the tests, a local buckling of the delaminated portion of the facesheet and a
global buckling of the beam. This reinforcement method restricted the displacement of the
facesheet and arrested the local buckling mode.
Table 3-3. Failure load and coefficient of variations for Set 6 specimens with “C-pinning” reinforcement.
Reinforcement spacing (inch)
Failure load (lb/in)
COV (%)
0.25 1252 6.4
0.5 580 10
Non-reinforced 350 3.1
19
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
End-shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 3-5. Typical load vs. end-shortening curves for Set 6 with and without “C-
pinning” reinforcement. The high-density reinforcement is far superior to both the low density reinforcement as well as the non-reinforced.
3.3 Edgewise Compressive Loading
Avery used a Graeco-Latin Square factorial plan to organize tests. This approach
provided a method to determine the influence of four parameters on the ultimate load.
The four parameters investigated were facesheet thickness, core thickness, core density,
and delamination length. Analysis of the results was made difficult by the fact that no two
experimental sets differed by only one parameter. It was impossible to make a one-to-one
comparison between any two data sets.
Without a strong foundation of understanding of buckling of delaminated sandwich
structures, a parametric study of their behavior is difficult to conduct. The inclusion of pin
reinforcement into sandwich structures only increases the complexity of their behavior.
To better understand the buckling of reinforced sandwich structures, a simpler, more
streamlined test matrix was created. The test matrix is shown in Table 3-4. In this test
20
matrix, delamination length and pin spacing were the only parameters varied. Based on
the results of the preliminary study, “C-pinning” was chosen as the reinforcement
technique to be investigated. The delamination lengths considered were 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5
inch. The pin spacings considered in this study were 0.25 and 0.5 inch. Non-reinforced,
no-delamination specimens were included to provide a baseline. A few off-design sets
were included to investigate the influence of thick facesheets on this particular type of
reinforced sandwich beam. All specimens in the current study have 3 ply facesheet, a core
thickness of 0.375 inch, and a core density of 6 pcf. The dimensions for all specimens
were 2 inch wide by 4 inch tall. Experimental results are shown in Table 3-5.
Typical load vs. end-shortening curves for all experimental sets in the edgewise
compressive loading study are shown in Figure 3-6 through Figure 3-17.
As expected, the ultimate load of a delaminated sandwich beam decreased with
increasing delamination length. In the case of low density reinforcement, the short
delamination specimens (H30) carried an ultimate load of 997 lb/in. A medium length
delamination (H31) reduced the ultimate load to 965 lb/in. The ultimate load dropped to
841 lb/in. when a long delamination (H35) was created. In the case of high density reinforcement, the benefits of translaminar
reinforcements were similar. A specimen with a short delamination (Q30) had an ultimate
load of 1524 lb/in. The medium delamination case (Q31) carried 1346 lb/in. A high
density reinforcement, long delamination (Q35) was able to carry 1158 lb/in.
The ultimate post-buckling load also increased as pin density increased. A non-
reinforced sandwich beam with a short delamination (N30) had an ultimate load of 962
lb/in. This is just 62% of the non-delaminated beam’s ultimate load of 1537 lb/in. With
low density pin reinforcement (H30), the ultimate load increased slightly to 997 lb/in. A
significant increase was observed when the pin spacing was decreased to 0.25 in. A
21
sandwich beam with high density pin reinforcement had an ultimate load of 1524 lb/in.
This trend of increasing load with increasing reinforcement density was repeated over all
delamination lengths in this study.
In all cases, the failure of these specimens was sudden and catastrophic. There
were no outward signs of failure prior to collapse. In some cases, intermittent internal
cracking could be heard prior to failure. This is most likely due to minor variations in the
fixation of the pin/facesheet interface. Pins with poor interface conditions would tear
away from the facesheet internally. Ultimately, a failure mechanism similar to pin-pullout
occurred. Rather than a cylindrical Z-pin being pulled from the facesheet, the head of the
“C-pinning” reinforcement was torn from beneath the facesheet.
Crack propagation along the facesheet/core interface occurred during testing.
Whether or not crack propagation occurred prior to collapse of the sandwich beam could
not be determined experimentally.
22
Table 3-4. Test matrix used during edgewise compressive loading study.
Set Facesheet Thickness (in) Reinforcement spacing
(in) Delamination length
(in)
ND 3 x 0.0087 n/a n/a
N30 3 x 0.0087 n/a 0.50
N31 3 x 0.0087 n/a 1.00
N35 3 x 0.0087 n/a 1.50
Q30 3 x 0.0087 0.25 0.50
Q31 3 x 0.0087 0.25 1.00
Q35 3 x 0.0087 0.25 1.50
H30 3 x 0.0087 0.50 0.50
H31 3 x 0.0087 0.50 1.00
H35 3 x 0.0087 0.50 1.50
N75 7 x 0.0087 n/a 1.50
Q75 7 x 0.0087 0.25 1.50
23
Table 3-5. Experimental results for edgewise compressive loading study.
Experimental Set Failure load
(lb/in) # of specimens COV
ND 1537 4 12.5
N30 962 5 24.1
N31 579 5 10.4
N35 681 5 23.4
N75 2055 5 22.4
Q30 1524 4 30.7
Q31 1346 5 20.8
Q35 1158 5 8.52
Q75 3416 5 7.20
H30 997 5 24.6
H31 965 5 7.0
H35 841 5 16.0
24
Panel ND
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
) ND_01
ND_02
ND_03
ND_04
ND_05
Figure 3-6 Load vs. end-shortening curves for non-reinforced, no-delamination specimens with 3 ply facesheets (ND).
Panel N75
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
) N75_01
N75_02
N75_03
N75_04
N75_05
Figure 3-7. Load vs. end-shortening curves for non-reinforced specimens with 7 ply
facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (N75).
25
N30 Panel
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
End shortening (in)
Load
(lb
/in) N30_01
N30_02
N30_03
N30_04
N30_05
Figure 3-8. Load vs. end-shortening curves for non-reinforced specimens with 3 ply
facesheets and a 0.5 inch delamination (N30).
N31 Panel
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
N31_01
N31_02
N31_03
N31_04
N31_05
Figure 3-9. Load vs. end-shortening curves for non-reinforced specimens with 3 ply
facesheets and a 1 inch delamination (N31).
26
N35 Panel
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
) N35_01
N35_02
N35_03
N35_04
N35_05
Figure 3-10. Load vs. end-shortening curves for non-reinforced specimens with 3 ply
facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (N35).
H30 Panel
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
) H30_01
H30_02
H30_03
H30_04
H30_05
Figure 3-11. Load vs. end-shortening curves for specimens with 0.5 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 0.5 inch delamination (H30).
27
H31 Panel
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
H31_01
H31_02
H31_03
H31_04
H31_05
Figure 3-12. Load vs. end-shortening curves for specimens with 0.5 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1 inch delamination (H31).
H35 Panel
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
) H35_01
H35_02
H35_03
H35_04
H35_05
Figure 3-13. Load vs. end-shortening curves for specimens with 0.5 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (H35).
28
Panel Q30
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
) Q30_02
Q30_03
Q30_04
Q30_05
Figure 3-14. Load vs. end-shortening curves for specimens with 0.25 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 0.5 inch delamination (Q30).
Panel Q31
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
) Q31_01
Q31_02
Q31_03
Q31_04
Q31_05
Figure 3-15. Load vs. end-shortening curves for specimens with 0.25 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1 inch delamination (Q31).
29
Panel Q35
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Q35_01
Q35_02
Q35_03
Q35_04
Q35_05
Figure 3-16. Load vs. end-shortening curves for specimens with 0.25 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (Q35).
Panel Q75
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Q75_01
Q75_02
Q75_03
Q75_04
Q75_05
Figure 3-17. Load vs. end-shortening curves for specimens with 0.25 inch reinforcement
spacing, 7 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (Q75).
30
3.4 Circular Delamination Testing
The delamination introduced during both the preliminary study and the edgewise
compressive loading study was an edge-to-edge delamination at the facesheet/core
interface. This type of delamination problem is useful for research purposes but is not
necessarily representative of delamination due to damage. Typical delamination in
structures that are in service are, more often, circular in shape and internal to the
structure. In the case of aerospace sandwich structures, these types of delaminations are
often the result of impact damage such as bird strikes or tool drops. Since these types of
damage are difficult to detect and repair, it is important for the sandwich structure to have
increased resistance to impact damage.
Fabrication of circular delamination specimens was similar to that of the edge-to-
edge delamination specimens. Rather than inserting a Teflon® strip the length of the
panel, a 1 inch circular piece of non-porous Teflon® was placed onto the facesheet prior
to applying the facesheet to the core. The outer surface of the facesheet was marked so
that the position of the delamination was known after the facesheet was applied. Once the
facesheet was applied, the delamination was no longer visible. After the panel was cured,
specimens were cut based on the facesheet markings. Using the outer markings assured
that the delamination was in the center of the specimen. The outer markings also served
as a guide when inserting pin reinforcement. Earlier results had shown that pin placement
can have a measurable impact on the performance of the reinforcement.
Circular delamination specimens had the same material properties as the specimens
presented earlier. The size of the circular delamination specimens was increased to
accommodate an internal delamination. The width of the specimens was 3 inch. This
larger width allowed for a 1 inch delamination with 1 inch of undamaged facesheet/core
interface from the delamination to the free edge. Creating a 1 inch delamination in the
previous specimen configuration of 2 inch width would be subject to edge effects and not
31
accurately portray the full-scale behavior of this type of sandwich structure.
The panel nomenclature used for this part of the study was as follows: C3N for
non-reinforced circular delamination panels, C3H for 0.5 inch reinforcement spacing
circular delamination panels, and C3Q for 0.25 inch reinforcement spacing circular
delamination panels.
The experimental results of testing circular delamination panels are shown in Table
3-6. These results were consistent with those in the earlier studies. Non-reinforced
specimens carried an ultimate load of 1210 lb/in. As was the case earlier, the reinforced
specimens showed a significant increase in capacity. Circular delamination specimens with
0.5 in reinforcement spacing had an ultimate load of 1630 lb/in. High density pin
reinforced, circular delamination specimens (C3Q) had an ultimate load of 1611 lb/in.
Load vs. deflection curves for all circular delamination specimens are shown in
Figure 3-18 through Figure 3-20.
Table 3-6. Experimental results for circular delamination specimens.
Experimental Set Failure load (lb/in) (# of specimens)
COV
C3N 1210 (3)
22.7
C3H 1630 (2)
15.8
C3Q 1611 (3)
4.7
32
Panel C3N
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
C3N_01
C3N_02
C3N_03
Figure 3-18. Load vs. deflection curves for non-reinforced specimens with 3 ply
facesheets and a 1 inch circular delamination (C3N).
Panel C3H
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
C3H_01
C3H_02
C3H_03
(facesheet cracked near top end)
Figure 3-19. Load vs. deflection curves for specimens with 0.5 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1 inch circular delamination (C3H).
33
Panel C3Q
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
End shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
C3Q_01
C3Q_02
C3Q_03
(tab failure)
Figure 3-20. Load vs. deflection curves for specimens with 0.25 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1 inch circular delamination (C3Q).
3.5 Effect of Reinforcement on Mode I Fracture Toughness
The issue of the effect of pin reinforcement on the Mode I Fracture Toughness of a
composite sandwich structure was also considered in this study. Specimens were
fabricated with a 1 inch delamination at one end by placing a strip of non-porous Teflon
at the facesheet/core interface. Each specimen was 1 inch wide and 6 inches long. A
double cantilever beam test fixture was used to apply the loads.
The results were consistent with the author’s expectations. Non-reinforced and
reinforced specimens were fabricated using a core material with a density of 3 pcf. Non-
reinforced specimens using a core material with a density of 6 pcf were also fabricated.
The non-reinforced 3 pcf specimens had a fracture toughness of 6.0035 lb-in/in2. Low
density pin reinforcement increased the fracture toughness by 21% to 7.29325 lb-in/in2. A
34
more significant increase was observed with high density (1/4 inch pin spacing). High
density reinforced specimens had a fracture toughness of 9.20925 lb-in/in2, a 53% increase
over the non-reinforced specimens.
The 6 pcf (stiff) core material specimens had an average fracture toughness of
3.598 lb-in/in2. This was only 60% of the 3 pcf core material specimens. Lower density
core materials tend to be more compliant. This compliance absorbs energy under loading
and contributes to a higher fracture toughness. The stiff core does not deform and the
energy is concentrated at the facesheet/core interface. The results for the 6 pcf core
material represent the average of 6 specimens. The test sets that used 3 pcf core material
represent the average of 8 specimens per set.
Mean Value for Fracture Toughness
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
G (
lb-i
n/in
2 ) 3 pcf non-reinforced
3 pcf 1/2 in spacing
3 pcf 1/4 in spacing
6 pcf non-reinforced
Figure 3-21 Average experimental results for fracture toughness of pin reinforced and non-reinforced specimens.
35
3.6 Experimental Results/Discussion
This study focuses on increasing the post-buckling load of delaminated sandwich
beams. In order to understand the effect of translaminar reinforcement, it is important not
only to know the failure load of the delaminated beam but also to know the theoretical
failure for the non-delaminated case. Using these values, it is possible to evaluate the
effectiveness of the reinforcement techniques presented. Simply comparing the reinforced
specimen to the non-reinforced only gives insight into the increase in ultimate load from
the damaged state. To understand how effective a technique is in terms of restoring the
structure to it’s original capacity, the ultimate failure load of the undamaged specimen
must also be considered. In the next chapter, a finite element model will be developed to
predict the response of sandwich beams with and without reinforcement or delamination.
Whitney (1987) presents the following equation for the critical buckling load of an
undamaged sandwich composite.
+−
=2
2
1
1'
ππ
SS
crNNcr
where
213
112
2
11 ,'ahG
DS
aDcrN ==
π
Theoretical buckling loads are shown in Table 3-7. Values for specimens from both the
preliminary study and the edgewise compressive study are presented. The values
presented are ultimate buckling loads for specimens with the same geometric configuration
as the states set but without the delamination. An ideal reinforcement technique could
restore the delaminated sandwich beam to its theoretical maximum buckling load.
36
Table 3-7. Theoretical buckling loads for specimens from preliminary and edgewise
compressive studies. These sets listed in the figure represent the same geometric configurations as previous sets without delaminations.
Set Buckling load
(lb/in)
6 2323
8 8905
ND 5092
ND7 12113
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Delamination length (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
N
H
Q
Figure 3-22. Graphic representation of the relationship between ultimate load and delamination length.
37
The technique of inserting Z-pins through-the-thickness of the sandwich composite
was able to increase the ultimate load of a delaminated sandwich beam. However, pin
pullout type failures presented some limitations to their ability to improve the load
capacity of the beam. Two important curves can be derived from the results of this study.
The first curve, shown in Figure 3-22, represents the relationship between load and
delamination length. The second curve, shown in Figure 3-23, illustrates the relationship
between load and reinforcement spacing.
In a Z-pin reinforced sandwich structure, the Z-pins transfer load from the
damaged facesheet to the undamaged facesheet. In the case of Z-pins, this load transfer is
done by shear. The critical pin pullout force is a function of the surface area of the head
of the pin. There are basically two options to increase the critical force for this type of
pin: increase the diameter of the pin or increase the density of reinforcement. Neither of
these alternatives are particularly
desirable for laminated composites. In the case of lightweight aerospace structures,
reducing the thickness (and therefore the weight) of the facesheet is a design goal. This
presents the designer with a tradeoff: reducing the thickness reduces weight but decreases
the effectiveness of the translaminar reinforcement.
The preliminary study showed that translaminar reinforcements can be effective in
increasing the ultimate buckling load, however they do not present an ideal solution. The
mechanism by which the pin transfers load, as discussed above, presents one major limit to
the effectiveness of this technique. Another limitation lies in the fact that the Z-pins
protrude entirely through-the-thickness of the laminate. Many applications for structural
38
sandwich composites are in pressurized structures, such as fuel tanks. Inserting
reinforcement through the vessel wall to provide translaminar reinforcement creates other
problems. The point where the pin protrudes through the facesheet becomes a crack
nucleation site. Again, a designer is faced with an undesirable decision. If the pin
diameter is increased the through-the-thickness properties, the amount of damage done to
the laminate is increased. All of the techniques described reduced the in-plane properties
of the composite to some extent.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Reinforcement spacing (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
0.5 in
1.0 in
1.5
Figure 3-23. Graphic representation of the relationship between ultimate load and
reinforcement spacing.
The “C-pinning” technique was developed during this study to overcome some of
the limitations of Z-pin reinforcement. By fabricating specimens such that the
reinforcement is integral with the facesheet, the critical pin pullout force is no longer a
function of the surface area of the pin. Since the pin is internal to the facesheet, the
stresses being developed are distributed over a larger portion of the structure. The
39
laminate/pin/laminate interface is much stronger than the pin/facesheet interface. In this
study, the facesheets were relatively thin. In a large structure with thick facesheets, the
designer has the depth of reinforcement as an additional design variable when developing a
reinforced structure.
By co-curing the “C-pinning” reinforcement with the sandwich panel, problems
associated with fabrication of Z-pin reinforced panels can be avoided. Adhesion problems
between the cured Z-pins and the uncured sandwich preform can be avoided.
The advantages of using “C-pinning” reinforced was evident in the experimental
data. By using high density reinforcement, a sandwich beam with a short delamination
was able to carry 99% of the ultimate load of the undamaged sandwich beam.
The experimental results for the edgewise compressive study showed that C-
pinning has promise as a method of translaminar reinforcement. There was one anomaly
in the non-reinforced data. The results for Sets N30, N31, and N35 should have been a
monotonically decreasing function. The ultimate load should have decreased as
delamination length increased. The expected result was realized in all other data sets. In
the nonreinforced data, this was not the case. There are two possible explanations, either
the N31 value is too low or the N35 value is too high.
One possible explanation for the discrepancy is the influence of the fixture on
specimens with a long delamination. In this study, the overall specimen length was 4
inches. With 0.5 inch of fixed boundary condition on either end, there was only 3 inches
of unsupported distance. In specimens with a 1.5 inch delamination, there is only 0.75
inch between the edge of the delamination and the fixture. This is in the ideal case. If the
delamination is slightly longer is either direction this problem will be exaggerated. It is
possible when working with honeycomb core that slight misalignment of the Teflon strip
or poor bonding between the core and facesheet can result in a delamination that is slightly
longer than predicted. If the poor adhesion takes place, the next adhesive boundary is one
40
cell diameter (0.125 inch) away. As the distance between the edge of the delamination
and the fixture decreases, the influence of the fixed boundary condition changes. The
specimen will become artificially stiffer as the distance decreases.
The trends evident in the edgewise compressive study were reflected in the circular
delamination study. The results indicate that the increases in ultimate post-buckling load
observed in the edge-to-edge delamination panels can be realized in specimens that more
closely mimic real world damage. Specimens with 0.5 inch reinforcement spacing showed
a 34.7% increase in ultimate load. The trend of increasing ultimate load with increasing
pin density did not hold in the case of circular delamination specimens. Circular
delamination specimens showed only a 33% increase in ultimate load. This result would
suggest that there is an upper limit to pin density. Beyond this upper limit, the pins no
longer increase the ultimate post-buckling load. The data set available from this study is
not large enough to develop a conclusion about the relationship between pin density and
allowable crack length.
One factor that was not studied was the effect that the pins had on the in-plane
properties of the sandwich beams. The failure modes observed during the testing indicate
that this did not play a role in the failure of the specimens studied. However, in order to
develop a complete understanding of the buckling of delaminated sandwich beams, this
issue should be explored.
During the experimental study, pin reinforcement was repeatedly shown to
increase the ultimate post-buckling load of a sandwich beam. The “C-pinning” technique
developed during this study proved to be the most effective technique for reinforcing these
types of structures.
41
CHAPTER 4 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
A detailed finite element analysis of the post-buckling behavior of delaminated
sandwich beams was conducted in conjunction with the experimental study described
earlier. The purpose of the finite element analysis was to develop a model that could
accurately predict the post-buckling behavior of a delaminated sandwich beam. Another
goal of the study was to evaluate the effect that geometric parameters, such as
delamination length and reinforcement spacing, had on the ultimate buckling load of the
beams.
The models in this study were generated using MCS/PATRAN. The analysis and
post-processing of finite element results were performed using ABAQUS/Standard and
ABAQUS/Post, respectively.
4.1 Model Generation
The generation of the finite element models used in this study can be broken into
four main steps: geometric modeling, element generation, load/boundary conditions, and
material modeling. The first three steps will be covered in this section. The formulation
of an appropriate material model for sandwich beams is considered in the following
chapter.
Geometric modeling involves the creation of points, curves, and surfaces that
define the shape and dimensions of the specimen being studied. All specimens in this
42
study were 2 inches by 4 inches. The thickness dimension of the specimens was varied
during the preliminary study. Core thickness and facesheet thickness were two of the
parameters varied during the preliminary study. The combination of these two
parameters determined the overall thickness of the specimen. During the edgewise
compressive study, the core thickness and facesheet thickness did not vary. All
specimens had a core thickness of 0.375 inch and a facesheet thickness of 3 plies (0.0261
inch).
The first step in building the model is to create points by assigning a set of
Cartesian coordinates that describe the location of the point. Once the appropriate
number of points has been created, the points are then connected by curves. The curves
are created by specifying both an initial and a terminating point.
At this point in the process, a wireframe representation of the specimen exists. To
move from a wireframe representation to a solid model, the curves are used to define
surfaces. The edge method was used in this study. In this method, four edges are
specified to define the surface boundaries. The advantage of the edge method is that it
allows for a surface to be generated from four curves without regard to the normal vector
for each curve. A positive, normal vector is assumed and combined with the four
specified curves to generate a surface. After the surfaces have been created, the
geometric definition of the model is complete.
Once the geometry has been established, the finite element work begins. Creating
a finite element mesh in PATRAN is a two-step process. First, a mesh seed is defined for
every curve in the model. A mesh seed divides each curve into segments. These
segments will determine the shape and distribution of the mesh.
43
When creating a mesh seed, the user has the option of using a uniform mesh seed,
a one-way bias seed, or a two-way bias seed. In order to create a purely rectangular mesh
in which all the elements have the same size, a uniform mesh would be applied to all
sides of the surface. Using a one-way bias mesh seed allows for the creation of mesh
refiement toward one end of a surface while leaving a sparse mesh at the opposite end.
This technique of biasing is beneficial by allowing a more localized mesh refinement.
Rather than increase drastically the computational effort required by refining the mesh
over the entire model, a one-way bias mesh seed can refine the mesh in a particular
region of interest. Two-way bias mesh seed works in much the same way. The main
difference between one-way and two-way bias is that the mesh can be refined in both
directions simultaneously. Care must be taken in defining the mesh seed to avoid
creating elements that have a high aspect ratio.
The second step in the finite element phase of the model generation is to create
the actual mesh. The specimens in this study were modeled using eight-node, bi-
quadratic plain strain elements. All the sandwich beam models in this study have a unit
width. The assumption of a plane strain condition is consistent with the structural
applications of composite sandwich structures.
After creating a mesh on each surface, a number of duplicate nodes existed. To
remove these duplicate nodes, an "equivalence" method was applied. During
equivalencing, the model is traversed and any nodes that fall within a tolerance cube are
merged into one node. The tolerance value can be specified by the user in terms of the
dimensional units of the model. If a large number of nodes will be collapsed, PATRAN
generates a warning message to verify that the tolerance value is correct.
44
Interface cracks can be inserted using the "equivalence method". When removing
duplicates nodes, the user has the option to specify both a value for the tolerance cube
and a list of nodes to exclude from the "equivalence" operation. In the current study, the
nodes at the facesheet/core interface that fell within the crack boundaries were excluded
from this process. All other duplicate nodes along the interface were removed.
The load and boundary conditions used in the models were intended to represent
the actual conditions from the experiments. Figure 4.1 shows both the experimental
setup and the finite element model equivalent. In the model, one end of the specimen
was fixed and lateral displacement was restricted for 0.5 inches along either side. The
other end of the specimen was modeled to correspond to the crosshead end of the
experimental specimen. In order to distribute the load over the entire thickness of the
model, a multi-point constraint was used. A linear relationship was created between all
the nodes along the left end of the model and the node at the top left corner of the model.
This created a dependency in which all nodes along the edge were forced to have the
same u displacement as the one independent node. Any displacement boundary condition
could then be applied to the independent node. This type of boundary condition
simplifies greatly the modeling of axial compressive loading fixtures.
Three different techniques were used in understanding the effects of pin
reinforcement. In the first model, the pins were modeled as truss elements and located
between the inner surfaces of the face sheets. These pins were normal to the facesheets.
This model was designed to create an interaction between the facesheets. This concept
was based on the idea that local buckling of the delaminated facesheet would create an
axial force in the pin, which would then be transferred to the undamaged facesheet. This
45
reinforcement model produced only minor increases in load carrying capacity, regardless
of pin size or spacing.
Figure 4-1. Comparison of load/boundary conditions in experiments and FEM. Length
of constrained end was 0.5 inch.
In the second model, the reinforcement was inclined with respect to the normal to
the facesheets. This arrangement created a truss type structure within the sandwich
beam. Although this arrangement could not be realized in practice since the damage
done to the core would far outweigh any advantage the reinforcement might provide, it
did show a significant increase in the load carrying capacity. This model yielded
tremendous insight into the behavior of the sandwich structure with translaminar
reinforcements. This model indicates that the effect of transverse stiffness of the
reinforcement, rather than the axial stiffness of the reinforcement, is critical to increasing
the compressive load carrying capacity of the beam.
46
In the third model, the reinforcement was modeled as shear-deformable beam
elements, thus providing flexural as well as transverse shear stiffness. The reinforcement
penetrated both facesheets thus connecting the outer surfaces of both facesheets and
restricted rotation at the pin/facesheet connection. This model closely represents the test
specimens. Further, the interaction between the facesheets and reinforcement can be
predicted in this model. Since reinforcement now protruding into the facesheet, the beam
element model also provided additional information about the effect pin reinforcement
had on the stress distribution in the facesheet.
In all models, the pins were inserted at either 0.25 or 0.5 inch spacing in a rectangular array.
4.2 Material Modeling
The ability to accurately model the behavior of sandwich structures has been
hindered by the difficulty in describing the behavior of the core material. This study, like
other previous studies (Narayanan, 2000), attempts to model the core as a continuum. In
actuality, honeycomb core materials are a structure rather than a continuum. Honeycomb
structures undergo phenomenon such as buckling or cell wall collapse that cannot be
explicitly captured in a continuum model. Rather, the continuum model is adjusted so
that the structural effects are mimicked.
During the preliminary study, the facesheets were modeled as isotropic materials.
While the core material was modeled as an elastic orthotopic material. The effects of
plasticity were not considered during this study. The numerical results of the preliminary
study are shown in Table 4-1. The correlation between the results in Table 4-1 and
experimental results is poor. From these results, it was clear that a better representation
47
of the material behavior needs to be develop. The test matrix of the edgewise
compressive loading study was determined to be a better test bed for development of a
new approach.
Table 4-1. FEM results for preliminary study
Set 6 8 13 15
0.25 inch pin spacing
2156 1256 9734 3161
0.5 inch pin spacing
943 678 8652 1964
No pins 894 398 8512 1613
During the edgewise compressive study, the addition of plasticity in the material
model was explored. The load/displacements results from early models were
qualitatively similar to experimental results. However, the finite element models were
failing at consistently higher loads. A comparison of experimental results and linear
elastic finite element models is shown in Figure 4-2. Plastic deformation in either the
core, the facesheet or both were considered as possible explanations for the premature
failure.
The simplest option for describing plasticity in an ABAQUS model is to use the
default *PLASTIC option . The default case for this commands assumes isotropic
plasticity. The arguments that must be specified are yield stress and plastic strain. This
option allows for the definition of the flow rule as a function of temperature, however,
temperature dependence was not considered in this study. With only one yield
48
stress/plastic strain pair specified, an elastic-perfectly plastic material model is created.
A more complex flow rule can be created by specifying more yield stress/plastic strain
pairs. Since the complex flow rule is defined in terms of discrete values, ABAQUS will
interpolate linearly between specified pairs.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
FEM
Experimental
Figure 4-2. Experimental and linear elastic finite element results were only qualitatively
similar in the preliminary study. To determine the yield stress for material model, the no delamination case was
used as a reference case. The experimental failure load for this set was 1537 lb/in. The
models used to determine the proper yield stress values for facesheet plasticity and core
plasticity are shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3, respectively.
Determining the appropriate yield stress for facesheet plasticity involved
analyzing models with yield stresses ranging from 15 ksi to 60 ksi. An iterative
49
approach was used to bracket the optimal value. In the case of facesheet plasticity, the
optimal yield stress was determined to be 28 ksi. A model using only facesheet plasticity
and a yield stress of 28 ksi had an ultimate load of 1534 lb/in.
Determining the appropriate yield stress for core plasticity models followed the
same approach. Yield stresses ranging from 15 psi to 40 psi were analyzed until a value
of 34 ksi. was determined to be optimal. A model using only core plasticity and a yield
stress of 34 psi had an ultimate load of 1524 lb/in.
The default plasticity option uses isotropic plasticity regardless of what type of
elastic material definition is present. At the onset of yield, the material switches from an
elastic orthotopic material to an isotropic plastic material. This method requires that a
material yield the same in all directions. While this technique can capture the onset of
yield, a method to accurately represent the post-yield behavior must be explored.
Table 4-2. Determination of ultimate yield stress using facesheet plasticity in non-delaminated model.
Yield stress (ksi)
Failure load (lb)
15 854
25 1380
27 1483
28 1534
30 1636
45 2401
60 3175
50
Table 4-3. Determination of ultimate yield stress using core plasticity in non-delaminated model.
Yield stress
(psi) Failure load
(lb/in)
15 795
20 1021
25 1196
30 1394
34 1524
35 1558
40 1709
4.3 Finite Element Analysis
The finite element analyses performed in this study fall into two types: linear
buckling analysis and non-linear post-buckling analysis. The non-linear post-buckling
analyses including both geometrical and material non-linearities.
The linear buckling analysis demonstrated the effect of delamination length and
reinforcement spacing on the buckling loads and mode shapes of the specimens. During
the linear buckling analysis, the first three eigenvalues and their corresponding mode
shapes were obtained. Some typical mode shapes are shown in Figure 4-3. These mode
shapes would be used to create imperfections to trigger buckling in the non-linear
analysis.
The non-linear post-buckling analysis was performed to simulate compressive
testing of delaminated sandwich beams with and without reinforcement. Most of the
analyses were performed according to the following method:
1) An eigenvalue buckling analysis was performed to determine the possible buckling
loads and mode shapes.
51
2) The mode shape from the linear buckling analyses was used as an imperfection in the
non-linear post-buckling analysis. The imperfection created a perturbed geometry
required for the post-buckling analysis. To create this imperfection, the mode shape
must be multiplied by an appropriate scale factor. The scale factor used in this study was
based on facesheet thickness. Typically 10% of the facesheet thickness was sufficient to
trigger buckling and obtain convergence of the solution.
3) A geometrically non-linear load displacement analysis of the delaminated sandwich
beam was performed using the Riks method.
Figure 4-3. Typical mode shapes obtained during linear buckling analysis.
52
The Riks algorithm is an incremental, iterative solution strategy to solve
geometrically non-linear problems in buckling and post-buckling. The Riks algorithm is
based on the Newton-Rhapson method. This method is used in non-linear finite element
analysis because it is both accurate and minimizes computation time. Rather than apply
an incremental displacement and determine the load at which a stable equilibrium is
obtained, the Riks algorithm using load magnitude as an additional unknown. In order to
track the progress of the solution, an additional quantity known as the 'arc length' is
maintained. This algorithm can provide solution for both stable and unstable problems.
Loading in the Riks algorithm is proportional. All loads that exist at the
beginning of an analysis step will be treated by ABAQUS as "dead" loads. Loads applied
during the current step will be ramped according to the load proportionality factor from
the "dead" load value to the reference load value. There are several cases in which the
analysis will be terminated:
1) The minimum arc length value has been violated. 2) The maximum arc length value has been violated. 3) The reference load has been reached. 4) The maximum numbers of iterations has been reached. When solving this type of problem, the tangent stiffness matrix will become
singular when the solution reaches an instability point. Conventional algorithms have
difficulty in traversing these instability points. A goal of non-linear finite element
analysis is to be able to trace both the pre and post-critical load path of the structure. By
using load magnitude as an additional unknown, the Riks algorithm is able to traverse
these instability points.
Not all models were analyzed using the imperfection-based method. A second,
similar method was used to model the effect of misalignment of a specimen during
53
testing. In this case, no linear buckling analysis was performed. Instead, an additional
loading step was added to non-linear model. This additional load step consisted of a
lateral displacement of one end of the specimen. The displacement was intended to
simulate the effect of misalignment of the loading fixture during compressive testing.
Figure 4-4 shows the non-linear model after the initial misalignment has been applied.
The displacement of the 'misaligned' model in Figure 4-4 has been magnified for
visibility.
Figure 4-4. Nonlinear finite element model after simulated misalignment has been
applied.
4.4 FEA Results/Discussion
Before embarking on the experimental program, it was decided to perform some
preliminary finite element analysis in order to under the effects of pin reinforcement in
sandwich beams. The purpose of the finite element study was to determine the
effectiveness of pin reinforcement and the effect of pin spacing on suppressing the
buckling of debonded facesheets.
The first reinforcement model used truss elements that did not penetrate the
facesheet. This type of reinforcement model did not restrict rotation at the pin/facesheet
interface but rather used a pin-pin connection. It was quickly determined that this model
did not accurately represent the reinforcement behavior or boundary condition and the
model was discarded.
54
The second reinforcement model involved inserting reinforcement that was
inclined with respect to the facesheet. This reinforcement scheme created a truss type
structure internal to the sandwich beam. The truss-type reinforcement model drastically
increased the ultimate failure load. This model yielded tremendous insight into the
mechanism by which translaminar reinforcement can be effective. Figure 4-5 shows the
load vs. end-shortening curve for the inclined pin model. Also shown are curves for the
delaminated, non-reinforced and the no-delamination specimens. These two additional
curves provide an upper and lower bound to the sandwich beam performance.
Previous models with reinforcement at nodal points showed little or no increase in
ultimate load. Models in which reinforcement did not fall at nodal points showed
increased load but not as significant as the increases seen in models using the inclined
pins. The advantage of the inclined pin model is the component of stiffness that restricts
axial displacement of the facesheet. The type of reinforcement provides both lateral and
axial stiffness. It was initially thought that restricting the lateral displacement of the
facesheet was key in increasing the ultimate post-buckling load. However, both
modeling and experiments suggest that the restriction of axial displacement is more
important.
The model that was determined to best represent both the pin/facesheet boundary
conditions as well as the reinforcement behavior was the third model. This model used
shear deformable beam elements to represent the reinforcement.
55
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
End-shortening (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Inclined
N31
ND
Figure 4-5. Load vs. end-shortening curve for sandwich beam with inclined pin
reinforcement. During the preliminary study, the initial finite element results were discouraging.
Modeling of Set 6 specimens using beam elements to model the reinforcement showed
only minor increases in ultimate load. A reinforcement spacing of 0.5 inch resulted in an
increased of ultimate load of 28%.
This results turned out to be an anomaly. The delamination length in Set 6 is 1
inch. Since the delamination is centered in the model, using a 0.5 inch reinforcement
spacing would result in three pins falling within the delaminated region. One pin would
fall at each crack tip while the third pin would fall at the centerline of the delamination.
The mode shape for Set 6 was locally symmetric. In this particular case, the pins were
located at nodal points. These points have only transverse displacement, not axial
displacements. This result reinforces the belief that restriction of axial displacement of
the facesheet is critical in increasing the load carrying capacity of the sandwich beam.
56
A point of confusion between experimental and numerical results is the
observation from models that a sandwich beam with 0.5 inch reinforcement spacing has
minimal increase in ultimate load, while experimental data show an increase of 28%.
This discrepancy is the result of human factors in the manufacture of specimens. In the
finite element models, the placement of reinforcement is ideal. Pins are located exactly at
nodal points. In the fabrication of specimens, the location of pins has some small
variance. This variance, no matter how small, can have an impact on the effectiveness of
the reinforcement. This sensitivity to pin placement is consistent with the results of the
inclined pin reinforcement. The reinforcement is most effective if placed where the axial
displacement of the facesheet is maximum. Figure 4-6 shows the axial displacements of
the delaminated facesheets after buckling.
In the preliminary study, only the elastic material model was considered. The
correlation between finite element results and experimental results was poor. The
relative error between experimental and numerical results is presented in Table 4-4.
These results clearly indicate that a purely elastic model is not capable of capturing the
complex behavior of delaminated sandwich structures.
For the sake of comparison, the specimens used in the edgewise compressive
study were modeled using the elastic material model. The results again were
significantly higher than the experimental failure load.
Models that used a linear elastic material model for both the core and facesheet
consistently overpredicted the ultimate post-buckling load of a delaminated sandwich
beam. This approach did not capture the complex behavior of the sandwich structure.
One possible cause of the failure was yielding of the constituent materials. Three cases
57
of yielding were considered: yield in the facesheet, yield in the core, and yield in both
facesheet and core. Table 4-6 shows the finite element results using an elasto-plastic
material model for the facesheet, core or both facesheet and core. Load vs. deflection
curves for the results of finite element modeling considering facesheet plasticity are
shown in Figures 4-6 through Figure 4-17.
In several cases using plasticity in both the facesheet and the core, the ultimate
post-buckling load was lower than either the case of facesheet-only or core-only
plasticity. At first glance, this would seem incorrect. Typically, the value is lower than
that of core-only plasticity. This phenomenon occurs when the facehsheet begins to yield
and the stresses are redistributed. If the core material is also considered as elasto-plastic,
the core will almost immediately yield and failure of the specimen will occur. This is not
seen in the case of facesheet-only plasticity because the specimen continues to take load
even after the onset of yield in the delaminated facesheet.
In the case of Set Q35, the ultimate post-buckling load for facesheet plasticity is
lower than that for core plasticity. Because the high density reinforcement allows the
specimen to maintain its stiffness, the specimen fails in a globally symmetric mode. In
this situation, the facesheet stresses are much higher than the core stresses. Therefore,
the introduction of facesheet plasticity will have a drastic and immediate effect on the
ultimate load.
58
Table 4-4. Finite element results for edgewise compressive study using elastic material model.
Model Linear buckling
load (lb/in)
Post-buckling load
(lb/in)
Experimental failure load
(lb/in) % difference
N30 1816 2746 962 -65
N31 644 1328 579 -56
N35 324 659 681 -3
H30 1816 1852 997 -46
H31 1468 1360 965 -29
H35 1350 1290 841 -35
Q30 3105 2746 1524 -44
Q31 3020 2891 1346 -53
Q35 2776 2696 1158 -57
ND 5313 5059 1537 -69
N75 2913 3154 2055 -35
Q75 8212 7953 3416 -57
59
Table 4-5. Finite element results for the edgewise compressive study using an elasto-
plastic material model.
Set Facesheet plasticity
Core plasticity
Both
N30 1022 722 718
N31 849 438 438
N35 602 367 367
H30 1022 722 718
H31 1002 767 828
H35 982 852 828
Q30 1397 1322 1253
Q31 1396 1241 1199
Q35 1374 1428 1277
ND 1534 1524 1498
ND7 3486 1179 1179
N75 2312 1266 1261
Q75 3473 2946 2364
60
ND Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-6. Load vs. deflection curve for non-delaminated, non-reinforced specimens
(ND).
ND7 Results
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-7. Load vs. deflection curve for non-delaminated, non-reinforced specimen with
7 ply facesheets (ND7). This set was included in the finite element modeling to characterize the effect of pin reinforcement on specimens with thick facesheets.
61
N75 Results
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-8. Load vs. deflection curve for non-reinforced specimen with 7 ply facesheet
and a 1.5 inch delamination (N75).
N30 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-9. Load vs. deflection curve for non-reinforced specimen with 3 ply facesheets
and a 0.5 inch delamination (N30).
62
N31 Results
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-10. Load vs. deflection curve for non-reinforced specimen with 3 ply facesheets
and a 1 inch delamination (N31).
N35 Results
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-11. Load vs. deflection curve for non-reinforced specimen with 3 ply facesheets
and a 1.5 inch delamination (N35).
63
H30 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-12. Load vs. deflection curve for a specimen with 0.5 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 0.5 inch delamination (H30).
H31 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
D i s p l a c e m e n t ( i n )
Figure 4-13. Load vs. deflection curve for a specimen with 0.5 inch reinforcement spacing, 3 ply
facesheets and a 1 inch delamination (H31).
64
H35 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-14. Load vs. deflection curve for a specimen with 0.5 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (H35).
Q30 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-15. Load vs. deflection curve for a specimen with 0.25 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 0.5 inch delamination (Q30).
65
Q31 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Figure 4-16. Load vs. deflection curve for a specimen with 0.25 inch reinforcement
spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1 inch delamination (Q31).
Q35 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
D i s p l a c e m e n t ( i n )
Figure 4-17. Load vs. deflection curve for a specimen with 0.25 inch reinforcement spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (Q35).
66
Q75 Results
0
5 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 5 0 0
2 0 0 0
2 5 0 0
3 0 0 0
3 5 0 0
4 0 0 0
0 .0 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 2 0 .0 3 0 .0 4 0 .0 5
D i s p l a c e m e n t ( i n )
Figure 4-18. Load vs. deflection curve for a specimen with 0.25 inch reinforcement
spacing, 7 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (Q75).
67
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK
5.1 Discussion The experimental program conducted during this study set out to quantify the
effects of pin reinforcement on the post-buckling behavior of delaminated sandwich
beams. In the process of this investigation, a new technique for sandwich beam
reinforcement was developed. The technique developed is called "C-pinning". It differs
from traditional pin reinforcement techniques by creating reinforcement that is integral
with the facesheet. The experimental study has shown that the "C-pinning" technique is
effective in increasing the ultimate post-buckling load of sandwich beams. This
technique has also been shown to be far superior to the traditional, cylindrical Z-pin.
Insight was also gained into how the reinforcement of the delaminated sandwich
beam occurs. Both modeling and experimental results suggest that the restriction of axial
displacements is key to increasing the ultimate post-buckling load. Rather than having a
uniform force distribution among pins, reinforcement in a region of large axial
displacement will carry a significantly higher portion of the load than reinforcement that
is at or near a nodal point in the buckled shape.
In general, the comparison of models using facesheet plasticity and experimental
results provided good correlation. The only aberration in the experimental data was in
Set N31, as discussed in Chapter 3. All the models with 0.5 and 1.0 inch delamination
lengths had relative errors of less than 10% when compared to experimental data. The
68
models with longer delamination lengths had slightly higher relative errors but were still
below 20%. It is reasonable to assume that as the delamination length increases, the role
that the core material plays in predicting the ultimate post-buckling load increases. As
the delamination length increases, locally symmetric buckling modes become dominant.
These mode shapes have large mid-plane rotations, which lead to high compressive
stresses in the core. Eventually, these compressive stresses lead to cell wall collapse and
core crushing.
Table 5-1 Relative error between models using facesheet
plasticity and experimental results.
Set FEM
Facesheet plasticity
Experimental Relative error
N30 1022 962 -6.24
N31 849 579 -46.63
N35 602 681 11.60
H30 1022 997 -2.51
H31 1002 965 -3.83
H35 982 841 -16.77
Q30 1397 1524 8.33
Q31 1396 1346 -3.71
Q35 1374 1158 -18.65
ND 1534 1537 0.20
ND7 3486
N75 2312 2055 -12.51
Q75 3473 3416 -1.67
69
The consideration of plastic deformation of the facesheet seems to provide good
correlation with experimental data over a range of delamination lengths and
reinforcement spacings. The combination of plastic material model and shear-
deformable pin model is a reasonable method of predicting the complex behavior of
reinforced, sandwich structures. Figures 5-1 through Figure 5-12 show comparisons
between the experimental results from the edwise compressive loading study and the
finite element analysis. From the figures, good correlation between experimental and
modeling can be observed for both ultimate failure load and initial tangent stiffness
across the range of geometric configurations.
ND Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-1. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for non-delaminated, non-reinforced specimens with 3 ply facesheets (ND).
70
N75 Results
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-2. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for non-reinforced
speccimens with 7 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (N75).
N30 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-3. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for non-reinforced
specimens with 3 ply facesheets and a 0.5 inch delamination (N30).
71
N31 Results
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-4. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for non-reinforced specimens with 3 ply facesheets and a 1 inch delamination (N31).
N35 Results
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-5. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for non-reinforced
specimens with 3 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (N35).
72
H30 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-6. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for specimens with 0.5
inch reinforcement spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 0.5 inch delamination (H30).
H31 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-7. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for specimens with 0.5
inch reinforcement spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1 inch delamination (H31).
73
H35 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-8. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for specimens with 0.5
inch reinforcement spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (H35).
Q30 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-9. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for specimens with 0.25
inch reinforcement spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 0.5 inch delamination (Q30).
74
Q31 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Displacement (in)
Lo
ad (
lb/in
)
Experimental
FEM
Figure 5-10. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for specimens with
0.25 inch reinforcement spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1 inch delamination (Q31).
Q35 Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
D i s p l a c e m e n t ( i n )
Expe r imen ta l
F E M
Figure 5-11. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for specimens with
0.25 inch reinforcement spacing, 3 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (Q35).
75
Q75 Results
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
D i s p l a c e m e n t ( i n )
Expe r imen ta l
F E M
Figure 5-12. Comparison of FEM results and experimental results for specimens with
0.25 inch reinforcement spacing, 7 ply facesheets and a 1.5 inch delamination (Q75).
5.2 Future Work An obvious next step in the experimental program would be to re-test the non-
reinforced specimens. This would confirm or deny the assumptions made in Chapter 3
about the source of the discrepancy between Sets N31 and N35. To investigate the
influence of specimen length on the results presented here, the specimens used in this
study could be lengthened so that the delaminated region represented a small portion of
the overall length of the specimen.
By using longer specimens, it would be possible to investigate the behavior of
long delaminations. Delaminations that are much larger than the reinforcement spacing
may have a different behavior. In this type of configuration, problems associated with
76
nodal points would be lessened. This arrangement would also increase the number of
pins per specimen providing more robust reinforcement.
Additionally, now that a reasonably accurate method of predicting the ultimate
post-buckling load of delaminated sandwich beams exists, this method could be applied
to a more complicated test matrix. The influence of parameters such as core density and
core thickness could be revisited. While the method presented here provide good results,
the complex interaction of facesheet and core will certainly change as the specimen
geometry changes. The influence of geometric parameters on both the performance of
pin reinforcement and the applicability of the model presented here should be
investigated.
While "C-pinning" has been shown to be effective in increasing the post-buckling
load, it's effect on the in-plane properties of the sandwich beam were not quantified in
this study. While the "C-pinning" technique is less intrusive than the Z-pin technique, it
still does some level of damage to the facesheet. The effects of the reinforcement on
tensile strength and bending stiffness should be investigated.
The “C-pinning” technique developed in this study has not been implemented in
commercial manufacturing of sandwich structures. Due to the complex nature and
custom configurations common in composite structures, the fabrication of the structures
is often labor intensive and expensive. “C-pinning” adds another dimension to the
complexity of manufacturing this type of structure.
Automating the process of “C-pin” reinforcement involves being able to insert the
pre-preg through-the-thickness of the sandwich panel and cut the reinforcement to the
appropriate length. Current technology in automated tape-laying machines and cutters
77
would be useful in manufacturing this type of part. Whether the facesheet material was
cut to the appropriate dimensions by an automated cutter or put in place by a tape-laying
machine, the manufacture of the core/1-ply sub-assembly could easily be automated.
Inserting the pins would require a stitching machine that included a cutter whose actuator
was parallel to the surface of the sandwich preform. During the downstroke of the
stitching machine, the lower arm of the cutter would insert next to the pre-preg. When
the stroke is complete and the needle has returned to the up position, the pre-preg would
be cut between adjacent pins by the lower arm. This technique is similar to traditional
stitching but would include an additional step break the continuity of the stitch material,
thus forming individual pins.
78
REFERENCES
Avery, J.L., 1998, “Compressive Failure of Delaminated Sandwich Composites,” Master
of Science thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Avery, J.L., and Sankar, B.V., 2000, “Compressive Failure of Sandwich Beams with
Debonded Facesheets,” J. Composite Materials, 34(14): 1176-1199. Hazen, Judith Ray, “Composite Hydrogen Tank is under investigation,” High
Performance Composites, 8(1): 9-13. Hwu, C., and Hu, J.S., 1992, “Buckling and Post-Buckling of Delaminated Composite
Sandwich Beams,” AIAA Journal, 30(7): 1901-1909. Kardomateas, G.A., 1990, “Postbuckling Characteristics in Delaminated Kevlar/Epoxy
Laminates: An Experimental Study,” J. Composites Technology and Research, 12(2): 85-90.
Kassapoglou, C., 1988, “Buckling, Post-Buckling and Failure of Elliptical Delaminations
in Laminates under Compression,” Composite Structures, I9: 139-159. Minguet, P., Dugundji, J., and Lagace, P.A., 1987, “Buckling and Failure of Sandwich
Plates with Graphite-Epoxy Faces with Various Cores,” J. Aircraft, 25(4): 372-379.
Narayanan, Manickam, 1999, “Finite Element Analysis of Debonded Sandwich Beams
Under Compression,” Master of Science thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics and Engineering Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Sharma, S.K., and Sankar, B.V., 1996, "Damage Growth in Stitched Graphite/Epoxy
Laminates under Mode I Fracture and Compression Loading," Proceedings of the Aerospace Division, AD-52: 39-50.
Simitses, G.J., S. Sallam and W.L. Yin, 1985, “Effect of Delamination of Axially Loaded
Homogeneous Laminated Plates,” AIAA Journal, 23(9): 1437-1444. Sleight, D.W., and Wang, J.T., 1995, “Buckling Analysis of Debonded Sandwich Panel
Under Compression,” NASA Tech Memorandum 4701.
79
Whitney, James M., 1987, Structural Analysis of Laminated Anisotropic Plates, Technomic Publishing Co., Stamford, CT.
Yin, W.-L., S.N. Sallam and G.J. Simitses, 1986, “Ultimate Axial Load Capacity of a
Delaminated Beam-Plate,” AIAA Journal, 24(1): 123-128. Zenkert, D., 1997, The Handbook of Sandwich Construction, Engineering Materials
Advisory Services, Warley, UK.
80
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH I was born in Orlando, FL, on July 5, 1974. I am the younger of two sons born to
Guy and Patty Wallace. My brother, Shawn, and parents still reside in Orlando. I
married Robin Book of Fernandina Beach, FL, on August 15, 1998. My son, Parker, was
born on November 13, 1998, and my daughter, Taylor, was born on April 26, 2000.
I graduated from William R. Boone High School in June 1992. While pursuing a
bachelor’s degree in civil engineering, I was employed by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and
Jernigan and the Florida Department of Transportation Structural Research Center. This
practical engineering experience has been beneficial during my career as a graduate
student. I earned my bachelor’s degree from The Florida State University in December
1997. In January 1998, I began my graduate studies in the Aerospace Engineering,
Mechanics, and Engineering Science department at the University of Florida. My
research into delaminated sandwich structures over the last two years is represented by
this thesis. This thesis was defended on November 7, 2000.
I am concurrently pursuing a Master of Engineering in computer engineering. I
plan to graduate from computer engineering in December 2001.