Team33_MOMLab_project

EML3301C Mechanics of Materials Project: Composite Beam 4-Point Bending

C. Kunka, J. Mevers, A. Fite, N. Sanchez, Students EML3301C

Abstract This project requires design of a composite beam that has maximum stiffness in 4-point-bend loading within mass and size constraints. The beam is judged on maximum stiffness, prediction validity, and use of materials. Predictions of load/displacement, load/strain, and failure load/mode are made using composite beam theory. The VI reads load from the Instron load cell, displacement from an LVDT, and strain from a strain gauge to characterize beam performance. [1] I. INTRODUCTION

omposite beams are versatile and relatively inexpensive compared to uniform materials. Our team demonstrates advantages of composites through a small-scale composite beam within various constraints. The beam must have a cross section not greater than 55 cm x 100 cm, not fall between 29 cm supports, and not exceed 400g. The beam must have at least three layers, two materials, and glue as the only fastener. The objective is to maximize bending stiffness (EI), predict displacement and strain, and to use materials and geometry to their fullest potential.

Fig. 1. Four-point bending shear/moment diagrams [3].

Fig. 1. Four-point bending setup [2].

Fig 1 shows the loading conditions. Since maximum deflection occurs between the rollers at the center, the center is the design region. To minimize central deflection, we first analyze internal forces within the beam (Fig. 2). In the center, the shear force is zero and the bending moment is constant (pure bending). Normal stress at any point in the center region is a linear function of vertical distance from the neutral axis (Eq. 1). (1) Eq. 1 shows the primary load-bearing sections of the beam are the areas closest to top and bottom surfaces. Therefore, the stiffest materials should be placed at the top and bottom of the

beam. The core material can be less stiff but must not significantly deform under load. With the general concept established, geometry is further refined to fit the project description. The beams length has to be at least 29 cm to stay on supports. Materials are often available in 1-ft lengths (30.5 cm), which we find to be sufficient to prevent slipping from the supports. Cross section decisions were based on area moment of inertia (affects stiffness), layer adhesion, and ease of analysis. An I-beam maximizes height but has a small bonding area. Since failure probably occurs due to delamination, a basic rectangular cross section was selected. Other concerns are indentation of supports in the middle and buckling. The final design has three layers: steel, polyurethane foam, steel. The total size is 1 x 2.125 x 12 (2.5 cm x 5.3 cm x 30.5 cm). The steel is precision-ground (.001) ASTM36 steel (1018) because of its high elastic modulus (207 GPa) and well-defined properties. Carbon fiber and 6061-T6 aluminum are both less dense than 1018 steel but have smaller moduli. Polyurethane has excellent density and a small modulus but will bear only a small percentage of the load. Selected materials are relatively inexpensive. Cyanoacrylate glue (left to set under clamping pressure) bonds the layers together. Composite beam theory requires material constants and surface interactions. Steels modulus is assumed constant among all alloys and taken as 207 GPa. Polyurethane foam data sheets vary by supplier, so is tested in 3-point-bend and

Team33_MOMLab_project pure compression to solve for material properties. The glue shear strength is tested with a shear test between steel sheet metal (most likely failure surface). Discussion section shows all predictions and comparison to actual failure. II. PROCEDURE A. Beam Assembly and Cost Two pieces of 24" long A36 Steel were cut in half to yield four 12" steel bars. Each steel bar was sanded down and degreased with alcohol. The prototype beam was assembled by liberally applying cyanoacrylate glue to the 1" wide side of a urethane foam piece. A steel bar was aligned and pressed firmly to the foam. This process was repeated to bond another tests were also performed. Modulus of elasticity can also be calculated from those tests using Hookes Law. 48 (2)

Fig. 5. Single-lap shear test specimen.

Fig. 6. Steel after shear test. Notice the slipping lines on the left. Fig. 4. Final beam clamps.

steel bar to the opposite side of the foam. The beam was then clamped and left to dry for 48 hours (Fig. 4). Once dry, the beam was sanded down to remove excess glue from the top and bottom. The final beam was created the same way as the

A single lap shear test was performed for the cyanoacrylate glue between two pieces of steel (Fig 5). The steels smooth surface causes the failure on its side rather than the polyurethane. This test is useful for determining the shear strength of the glue on steel. Also, this steel is 1095 rather than the 1018 used in the beam, so this test is only an estimate. A four point bending test was performed on a prototype beam (Fig. 9). This prototype is the exact same design as the final beam. This preliminary test was performed to ensure

prototype with the remaining foam and steel pieces. The total cost of the beam assembly, including preliminary tests, was $31.43. Table I details the prices of the materials. With the exception of the A36 Steel used for the beams, all materials were provided. A. Preliminary Tests Professor Ridgeway performed a 3-point bending test for the polyurethane foam (Fig. 4). This test allows calculation of the polyurethane modulus of elasticity according to Eq. 2 and the slope of stress versus strain graph. Two compression
Fig. 7. Preliminary Beam Test.

Fig. 8. Failure of preliminary beam. Fig. 4. Polyurethane foam sample undergoing a three point bending test

Team33_MOMLab_project nothing unusual happened and to see rough estimates of maximum load. As predicted, failure occurred immediately after delamination of the steel from the glue. The delamination occurred because the rollers (load transmitters) locally deformed the top steel (Fig. 10). Maximum load was 7.28 kN. The official 4-point bending test was performed in the same manner as the preliminary test, but in this case the beam was instrumented with 2 LVDTs and a strain gage (bottom center). The strain gauge was applied according to the instructions in lab 2a. The LVDTs should accurately measure displacement while the strain gauge accurately measures composite strain. Fig. 9 shows the failure. The VI block diagram is Fig. 10. The VI directly calculated cross-head displacement, beam central displacement, and beam central

Fig. 11. Polyurethane foam in three point bending test.

Fig. 9. Final beam failure. Foam sheared, and delamination occurred.

Fig. 12. Shear test of steel glued to steel with AC glue.

Fig. 10. Final test VI block diagram.

strain through provided calibration data. The resulting curves are Eq. 3 and Eq. 4. 1.1967( . . 2.9941( III. RESULTS The polyurethane 3-point bending test data is represented in Fig. 11. The calculated modulus is 0.248 GPa. The polyurethane compression tests yielded modulus values of 0.204 GPa and 0.180 GPa. Polyurethane foam behaves better in compression according to a government study [4], so these moduli are dubious. Therefore, the polyurethane modulus from the bending test will be used for the prediction of the composite beam. ) + 5.6598 ) + 13.7919 (3) (4)

Fig. 13. Final 4-pt. bending load versus displacement (green, blue, purple) compared to predicted load versus displacement (red).

Fig. 14. Final 4-pt. bending strain versus load (blue) compared to predicted strain versus load (red).

Team33_MOMLab_project Results from the shear test are shown in Fig. 12. Some strain occurred in the steel, and the steel slipped from the clamps (Fig. 6), but the maximum shear stress value is accurate: (13 1) MPa. Finally, the official 4-point bending test results are displayed in Fig. 13 Fig. 14. Fig. 13 is load versus displacement. Fig. 14 is strain versus displacement. Predicted curves from Discussion section are also included. The load was aligned with the strain and displacement by aligning cross head displacement from an LVDT and the Intstrons reported cross head displacment. IV. DISCUSSION Composite beam theory and preliminary experiments allow prediction of displacement/load, strain/load, and failure load. First, the neutral axis is determined according to Eq. 5. Although the beams on top and bottom are similar, their exact dimensions are not the same. Micrometer measurement show small differences. ( ( ) ) (5)

4 Stress within a layer in section BC is Eq. 13. These stresses will be compared to the individual material stresses using Distortion Energy Theory (Von Misses). Since pure bending essentially creates uniaxial tension, yield strengths and fracture strengths are easily determined. ( ) ( ) (13)

Assuming the layers remain rigidly attached (no delamination), composite strain is the smaller strain calculated from Eq. 14. The smaller strain will be from the outer material (steel). When delamination occurs, the stress immediately breaks core material, so no more strain occurs. (14)
TABLE III PREDICTED COMPOSITE BEAM PARAMETERS

Individual area moments of inertia are calculated according to Eq. 6. Note that y is measured from neutral axis. + 12 Composite stiffness is Eq. 7. ( ) ( ) (7) (6) Predicted composite properties and RSS uncertainties are Table III. The shear strength is shear between layers. Note that Eq. 8 Eq. 12 are functions of load. Since failure criteria are unknown, the calculated properties are functions of load. All uncertainties are calculated using RSS uncertainty. Uncertainties are: load cell 0.005*load, calipers 0.001, micrometer 0.0001, ruler 0.01, and voltage 4.28 mV. Due to the prototype beam test, the failure is known to be caused by delamination of top steel layer from the polyurethane between the supports. Using the shear test data and the calculated maximum shear stress per force (Table III), predicted failure load is (8.51) kN. The prototype beam withstood 7.3 kN, but that failure was also due to roller indentation. After rollers indented, the area over which the shear stress acted was reduced, so maximum load was reduced. Also, the shear test was conducted on a slightly different steel alloy. Therefore, the final beam is expected to withstand 7.3 kN. However, the final beam broke at only 5.4 kN. This failure occurred below predicted failure and the prototype beams
TABLE IV EXPERIMENTAL COMPOSITE BEAM PARAMETERS

Assuming no slipping of supports, deflections in 4-point bending test are Eq. 8 Eq. 10. Supports are at points A and D; loads are at points B and C. Distance between load and support is a = 100 mm; distance between supports is l = 290 mm. Note that deflection is a function of load. 6 6 ( (3 24 +3 +3 (4 3 ) 3 ) 3 ) (8) (9) (10)

Shear within layers is Eq. 11. However, this shear stress is insignificant compared to shear between layers (Eq. 12). Note: s=steel, p=polyurethane. (11) 2( ) (12)

Team33_MOMLab_project failure due to inaccurate construction procedures. The failure occurred because of delamination and shear stress in the foam. The steel surface was too smooth or did not have sufficient glue. This test was less accurate than the prototype test. Table IV shows results for the desired parameters (EI, y, ). Fig 13 shows a large difference between the expected and experimentally determined displacement/load ratio. The predicted ratio is 560% greater (-0.000447 to -0.000079) than the experimental value. Note that the two different slopes in the experimental data are pre-delamination and postdelamination. The dramatic difference in expected values could be attributed to modeling error and construction error. Most likely, the fracture at the beginning of the test caused large displacement. Fig. 14 shows measured ratio of micro-strain to load was again lower than predicted valuesin this case, a 42% decrease from the predicted value. Both the experimental and predicted value followed a linear fit, with slopes of 0.2209 and 0.1298, respectively. The consistent over-estimation of material properties indicates global error. Preliminary data for the polyurethane core was obtained from a three-point bending test. There is some small error in the assumed steel modulus, but that error is accounted for in its uncertainty. The two most likely candidates for inaccuracies are modeling error and imperfect assembly methods. The pieces may not have been perfectly rectangular, and the glue interface was not nearly as strong as in the shear test. Material imperfections could also affect the results. Finally, the stiffness calculations were excellent. According to composite beam theory, stiffness was 11200600 N-m2. The experimental value for composite stiffness was calculated using the measured modulus of the beam under 4-point bending. Using the beam displacement versus load data, EI = 1120090 N-m2. The experimental uncertainty is due to the load cell uncertainty and geometry uncertainty. To improve the design, we would use lower density wood in place of polyurethane foam to further increase the moment of inertia. We were initially concerned about buckling and stress concentrations with a wood core, but multiple other teams demonstrated that it was not as great of a concern as we had predicted. We would also take great care to ensure that the layers are left to bond under tighter and more uniform clamping pressure. The final test beam had both a smaller than required mass (325g vs. 400g) and height (53 mm vs. 100 mm), so there was room for improvement on the current design. However, we felt that a simple beam composed of materials with uniform and consistent properties would be most suited to accurately predicting performance. We believed that stacking on additional material to improve the height would make the beam more unstable and overall not was worth the risk of buckling. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] S. Banks, EML3301C Mechanics of Materials Laboratory Final Group Project, Fall 2012, class handout, 2012. Available: http://www.mech.utah.edu/~rusmeeha/labNotes/comPix/4pt Beam.gif, accessed 1 DEC 12. Available : http://www.mech.utah.edu/~rusmeeha/labNotes/com Pix/ prelab3-1.gif. accessed 1 DEC 12. [4] S.H. Goods, C. L. Neuschwanger, C. Henderson, D.M. Skala. Mechanical Properties and Energy Absorption Characteristics of a Polyurethane Foam, SAND97-8490-UC-404 Unlimited Release, Printed MAR 1997.