Design and Analysis of a GFRP Sandwich Panel subjected to

Anchor Point Loading Conditions

A Project Report


BY


SRIVATSAN A.V 2008H141056P DESIGN ENGINEERING




Prepared in partial fulfillment of the

PRACTICE SCHOOL-2 COURSE


AT


VESTAS TECHNOLOGY R&D, CHENNAI




A PRACTICE SCHOOL II STATION OF





BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI
(JUNE, 2010)

II


BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
PILANI (RAJASTHAN)
Practice School Division

Station: Vestas Technology R&D

Centre: Chennai

Duration: 06
th


January 2010 to 18
th
June 2010

Date of Start: 06
th


January

Date of Submission: 10
th
June 2010

ID No. /Name: 2008H141056P/ Srivatsan.A.V

Discipline: Design Engineering

Name and Designation Of the expert: Mr. Dhanabal Raguraman,
Deputy Manager, Nacelle & Hub
Name of the PS Faculty: Mr. K. Venkataraman

Keywords: Composite materials, Sandwich structures, Nacelle covers,
Anchor points, GFRP
Project Areas: Composite Materials, Design & Analysis


Signature of Student Signature of PS Faculty

Date Date
III

BIRLA INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE
PILANI (RAJASTHAN)

PRACTICE SCHOOL DIVISION

Response Option Sheet

Station: Vestas Technology R&D

Centre: CHENNAI

ID No. & Name: 2008H141056P, SRIVATSAN.A.V

Title Of the Project: DESIGN OF GFRP COMPOSITE SANDWICH PANEL
SUBJECTED TO ANCHOR POINT LOADING CONDITIONS

Usefulness of the project to the on-campus courses of study in various disciplines. Project
should be scrutinized keeping in view the following response options. Write Course No.
And Course Name against the option under which the project comes.
Refer Bulletin for Course No, and Course Name.



Signature of Student Signature of Faculty
Code No. Response Options Course No. & Name
1. A new course can be designed out of this
project
NO
2. The project can help modification of the
course content
Of some of the existing courses.
YES

MATERIALS
TECHNOLOGY&TESTING
3. The project can be used directly in some of
the existing Compulsory Discipline
courses (CDC) /Disciplines Compulsory
Discipline courses (DCOC) / Emerging
Area (EA) etc. Courses

YES

FRACTURE MECHANICS
4. The project can be used in preparatory
courses like Analysis and Application
Oriented Courses (AAOC)/ Engineering
Science (ES)/ Technical Art (TA) and Core
Courses.

NO
5. This project cannot come under any of the
above-mentioned options as it relates to the
professional work of the host organization.
NO
IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I offer my sincere thanks to the management of Vestas Technology R&D, Chennai for giving
me this opportunity to work on this project as part of the PS-2 program.

I would like to thank Mr. Etekamba Okon Willie, Mr. Siva Kumar, Mr. Gopan P.R and Mr.
Anu Sharma for giving me the opportunity to work on this project in the Nacelle & Hub team.

I would like to thank Mr. Dhanabal Raguraman for assigning me this project and mentoring
me during the course of this project by giving vital inputs throughout the course of my
project.

I thank Mr. Padmanathan Sudalaimuthu for giving me vital inputs and support which helped
me in the course of this project.

I thank Mr. Achuthan Babu, Mr. Manikandan Rajagopal and Mr. N Guruguhan of Blades
division for giving me valuable inputs and support in the course of this project.

I thank Mr. Umashankar Keecheril Ayyappan and Mr. Ravi Kishore Chaganti of Tower and
Structures division for their support in the course of this project.

I sincerely thank Mr. K. Venkataraman (PS faculty) and BITS PS division for giving me
valuable inputs for the completion of the project and being a source of constant support and
encouragement.

I would also like to thank other members in Nacelle & Hub team namely, Mr. Raghavendra
Babu Karanam, Mr. Gnanasagar Vaithilingam, Mr. Venkatesh Krishnan, Mr. Pradeep B, Mr.
Amalan Paul Samuel, Mr. Mohanraj Kathiresan, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Mr. Pravin Savant
for guiding me during the project by giving valuable suggestions.

I also thank my PS mate Mr. Jagan Mohan Ponnada, for supporting me during the course of
the project.

V






ABSTRACT


The nacelle of a wind turbine contains the prime components of a wind turbine generator.
Due to weight considerations, the nacelle covers are made up of composite sandwich
structures. During service the personnel access the roof of these nacelles and they hook
their safety harness to a special component on the cover called Anchor Points to prevent
an unexpected fall. In the case of an accidental fall, the reliability of these anchor point
means life or death of a person. This present work aims to design a suitable structural
configuration of a sandwich panel, exclusively for the suddenly applied loading
conditions that is offered by the anchor points. International standards and certifying
bodies demand that the panel to qualify a load twenty four times the load offered by the
actual weight of a person.

In this work the theoretical design and Finite Element analysis of the sandwich panel is
done. The design is based on specific loading conditions given by Anchor Points that the
panel must meet prior to failure under the load. Selection of materials to be used for the
facing and core are done based on given requirements. With the materials chosen, the
facing sheet and the core are analyzed and response is studied and checked for failure by
using the multi point constraint option in ANSYS software. This work will aid in the
design of the nacelle cover.










VI










LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS



CIM Continuous Improvement Management
AP Anchor Points
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
PFA Personnel Fall Arrest
SA Safety Alert
ECR Engineering Change Request
ECO Engineering Change Order





















VII


List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Wind turbine layout 2
Figure 2.1 Anchor Points on a nacelle roof 4
Figure 2.2 Anchor points arresting a fall 5
Figure 4.1 Schematic illustrations of common composite reinforcements 8
Figure 4.2 Loads on a plate 13
Figure 4.3 z-coordinates of the individual layers through a laminate 13
Figure 4.4 Sandwich Panel loading 15
Figure 5.1 Calculation of Ply properties 19
Figure 5.2 Calculation of Laminate Properties 19
Figure 6.1 Vacuum Assisted Resin transfer Molding 20
Figure 7.1 Direction of Anchor Point Loading 21
Figure 8.1 Simply supported Boundary Condition 23
Figure 9.1 Meshing and Boundary conditions 28
Figure 9.2 Deflection observed 29
Figure 9.3 Facing Stress 29
Figure 9.4 Core Shear Stress Without edge effects of Layer 2 30
Figure 9.5 Anchor Point Loading 31
Figure 9.6 MPC-Meshing and Loading conditions 32
Figure 9.7 Equivalent Stress in layer 1 33
Figure 9.8 Equivalent Stress in layer 2 33
Figure 9.9 Equivalent Stress in layer 16 34
Figure 9.10 Equivalent Stress in layer 17 34
Figure 9.11 Stresses along the X direction 35
Figure 9.12 Shear Stress in layer 9 Core 35





VIII

List of Tables

Table 5.1 Properties of different core 18
Table 5.2 Properties of the Fiber 18
Table 8.2 Output Parameters 25
Table 8.3 Partial safety factors 25
Table 8.4 Check for design loads versus material's resistance 25
Table 8.5 Validation theoretical model 26























IX

Nomenclature
a = Panel length
A = Area of applied load
b = Beam width
D = Panel bending stiffness
E
C
= Compression modulus of core
E
f
= Modulus of elasticity of facing skin
F = Maximum shear force
G
C
= Core shear modulus - in direction of applied load
h = Distance between facing skin centres
k
b
= Beam - bending deflection coefficient
k
S
= Beam - shear deflection coefficient
l = Beam span
M = Maximum bending moment
P = Applied load
P
b
= Critical buckling load
q = Uniformly distributed load
S = Panel shear stiffness
t
C
= Thickness of core
t
f
= Thickness of facing skin
V = Panel parameter (used for simply supported plate)
d = Calculated deflection
s
C
= Core compressive stress
s
CR
= Critical facing skin stress
s
f
= Calculated facing skin stress
t
C
= Shear stress in core
m = Poissons Ratio of face material
l = Bending correction factor for Poissons Ratio effect

X

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV
ABSTRACT V
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS VI
LIST OF FIGURES VII
LIST OF TABLES VIII

NOMENCLATURE IX

1. COMPANY PROFILE 1
1.1. DEPARTMENT PROFILE 1
1.2. WIND TECHNOLOGY 1
1.3. MAIN COMPONENTS OF A WIND TURBINE 2
1.3.1. ROTOR 2
1.3.2. TOWER 2
1.3.3. NACELLE 3
2. INTRODUCTION 4
2.1. PURPOSE 5
3. LITERATURE SURVEY 6
4. COMPOSITE MATERIALS 7
4.1. BASIC COMPOSITE THEORY 7
4.2. TYPES OF COMPOSITES 8
4.3. POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITES 9
4.4. CLASSICAL LAMINATION THEORY OF COMPOSITES 11
4.5. SANDWICH STRUCTURES 14
4.5.1. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA 15
4.5.2. FACING/SKIN DESIGN 16
4.5.3. CORE DESIGN 16
5. MATERIAL SELECTION 17
5.1. CORE 17
5.2. LAMINATES 18
5.2.1. FIBRES 18
XI

5.2.2. RESIN SYSTEM 18
5.2.3. CALCULATION OF PLY AND LAMINATE PROPERTIES 19

6. MANUFACTURING PROCESS 20
7. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 21
7.1. PARTIAL SAFETY FACTOR METHOD 22
8. THEORETICAL CALCULATION 23
8.1. VALIDATION OF THE THEORETICAL MODEL 26
9. FEA VALIDATION 27
9.1. PREPROCESSING MODEL VALIDATION 27
9.2. POST PROCESSING - MODEL VALIDATION 28
9.3. PREPROCESSING MULTI POINT CONSTRAINT 31
9.4. POST PROCESSING MULTI POINT CONSTRAINT 33
9.5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 36
10. CONCLUSION 37
11. REFERENCE 38
12. APPENDIX 40D
LOADINGS 12
11.1.1. TE JOINT ANALYSIS 12
11.2. S P A R C A P T O S H E L L J O I N T
1 3
11.2.1. GEOMETRY AND LOADINGS 13
11.2.2. SPAR CAP TO SHELL JOINT ANALYSIS 23
12. COHESIVE ZONE MODELING 15
13. FRACTURE MECHANICS BASED METHODS 17
17
17
1

1. Company Profile

Vestas, a leading wind turbine manufacturer, has its research and development centre at
Chennai. The Chennai centre is on the IT corridor, spread over 60,000 sq ft, has started
with more than 140 employees, which number will go up to 500 engineers in the next
four years. Vestas Indian subsidiary is headquartered in Chennai along the IT corridor,
close to where the R&D centre is located. Vestas Chennai R&D centre will support the
global engineering research and development activities, working all over the value chain.
The engineers work on the most attractive projects in the value chain mechanical,
aerodynamics, material research and electronics.

1.1 Department Profile
NHD is responsible for the layout of the Nacelle and Hub with focus on Volume of
Control, Volume of Activity and Weight balance. NHD is responsible for the Internal
Crane and Covers plus all auxiliary components. It is responsible for the conditioning
(Heating/Cooling, Ventilation and Air Condition) and corrosion protection of the Nacelle
and its systems and components. NHD is responsible for integrating systems, modules
and components in future WTG projects for the Nacelle and Hub.

1.2 Wind Technology
Wind is a form of solar energy. Winds are caused by the uneven heating of the
atmosphere by the sun, the irregularities of the earth's surface, and rotation of the earth.
Wind flow patterns are modified by the earth's terrain, bodies of water, and vegetation.
Humans use this wind flow, or motion energy, for many purposes: sailing, flying a kite,
and even generating electricity.
The terms wind energy or wind power describes the process by which the wind is used to
generate mechanical power or electricity. Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy in the
wind into mechanical power. This mechanical power can be used for specific tasks (such
as grinding grain or pumping water) or a generator can convert this mechanical power
into electricity.
2

1.3 Main Components of a Wind turbine
1.3.1 Rotor
Structurally, the rotor of a wind turbine consists of a number of subsystems. Based on the
definition that the rotor comprises all rotating parts of the unit outside the nacelle, these
subsystems are the rotor blades, the hub, and the blade pitch mechanism, all three of
which are largely autonomous components with regard to their design, their operation
and the manufacturing techniques used. The rotor hub and the blade pitch mechanism
represent traditional mechanical engineering. Depending on the design, the blade pitch
system and its control system are only partly rotor components. Rotor blade technology is
associated more with lightweight aeronautical engineering than with conventional
mechanical engineering.



Figure 1.1 Wind turbine layout

1.3.2 Tower
The high tower is an essential component of the horizontal-axis turbine, a fact which can
be both an advantage and a disadvantage. The costs, which can amount to up to 20%of
the overall turbine costs, are, of course, disadvantageous. As the height of the tower
increases, transportation, assembly and erection of the tower and servicing of the
components also become increasingly more difficult and costly. On the other hand, the
specific energy yield of the rotor also increases with tower height.
3

1.3.3 Nacelle

In almost all turbines, the components of the mechanical drive train and of the electric
generator are housed in a closed nacelle. Some smaller turbines make do without it. A
completely closed housing could become redundant in case of a complete integration of
the drive train components, for example by mounting the rotor bearings directly on the
gearbox. After all, the nacelle does represent a considerable cost factor. On the other
hand, many practical reasons speak for a closed nacelle, particularly in large turbines.

The nacelle cover is made of fiberglass. Hatches are positioned in the floor for lowering
or hoisting equipment to the nacelle and evacuation of personnel. The roof section is
equipped with wind sensors and skylights which can be opened from inside the nacelle to
access the roof and from outside to access the nacelle. The nacelle cover is mounted on
the girder structure.

The project mainly focuses on this nacelle cover and the anchor points on them, which
arrests the fall of a person.





















4

2. Introduction

The main function of the Anchor points present on the top of the nacelle covers is to
arrest the fall of the service personnel. Service personnel while accessing the roof for
carrying out the service on the wind turbines, hook on their personal protective
equipment on to metallic members attached to the nacelle roofs. Generally the Anchor
devices are made of sheet metal and a hole is drilled in to the composite cover and
mounted. The attachment between the anchor points and the composite cover can be
called as bolted joints. There are many ways in which the failures may happen in the case
of bolted joints such as, the bearing failure, fastener pull out, shear out failure and so on.
The load bearing capacity of the composite structure used should be sufficient to prevent
these failures. The nacelle covers are made of sandwich structures, with a foam core
sandwiched between two facings, made of composite laminates with specific fiber
orientation and stacking sequence. The laminates are of equal thickness to ensure uniform
flexure behavior of the sandwich structure.
The entire top portion of the nacelle roof contains many such anchor points. This is so
designed to ensure that service personnel have access to the complete part of the nacelle
during service. The following picture effectively explains the number of the anchor
points in a wind turbine nacelle.

Figure 2.1 Anchor Points on a nacelle roof

5

2.1 Purpose
The main objective of this work is to come up with a suitable design for the sandwich
panel that could withstand a load of 36 kN. This project is of top priority to Vestas Wind
Systems A/S, as it means life or death of the service personnel.
The anchor points have to be wisely designed to effectively and uniformly transfer the
incident load to the nacelle cover. The nacelle covers structural configuration should be
wisely designed with sufficient load bearing capacity to offer resistance to this load. The
following picture, which depicts a mock up exercise, explains in detail about the exact
function that the anchor points perform in a nacelle.











Figure 2.2 Anchor points arresting a fall
The panel which is fixed on to a fixture has to qualify both static and dynamic test
offered to it by specific test procedures. In the static test, the anchor point is subjected to
a specific loading cycle for a certain amount of time and the local regions surrounding the
anchor points are studied for the kind of deformation. In the dynamic test, the anchor
point is attached to a dead weight by a chain or wire rope and is suddenly dropped from a
specific height. This simulates the dynamic loading condition on to the anchor point-
nacelle cover assembly.
6

3. Literature Survey
Sandwich composites are widely employed in modern mechanical design, not only in the
field of aeronautical constructions, where they have initially been developed, but also in
the fields of land transports and wind energy. Almost the entire visible components of a
wind turbine excepting the tower are made from composite materials. The facing sheets
carry axial tensile and compressive stresses and the core material sustains shear and
compressive stresses normal to the panel. The core to facing bonding adhesive rigidly
joins the facing sheets and core materials and allows them to act as a single entity with a
high torsional and bending rigidity [25]. Because of their main features, such as the high
flexural resistance and stiffness [17], the high impact strength [18,19], the high corrosion
resistance [20] and the low thermal and acoustics conductivity [2122], sandwich
structures are in fact preferred over conventional materials in various industrial
applications. Although large number of research projects have been performed by various
authors, the design of structural elements made from sandwich composites is often a
difficult task. This is mainly because a reliable strength prediction needs the preliminary
knowledge of the mechanical behaviour of skins and core, as well as of the peculiar
damage mechanisms [2324] and failure criteria that can be used under a complex
loading. The goal of the present work is to come up with the design of a sandwich panel
which can take a load of 36kN. The structural configuration of the sandwich panel is to
be used in the design of nacelle covers








7

4. Composite Materials

4.1 Basic Composite Theory
A Composite Material is a materials system composed of a mixture or combination of
two or more micro- or macro-constituents that differ in form and chemical composition
and which are essentially insoluble in each other. Composites involve two or more
component materials that are generally combined in an attempt to improve material
properties such as stiffness, strength, toughness, etc.; the resulting properties are largely
dependent on the distribution, relative amounts and geometries of the constituents.

Composites consist of two or more phases that are usually processed separately and then
bonded, resulting in properties that are different from those of either of the component
materials. Polymer matrix composites generally combine high-strength, high-stiffness
fibers (graphite, kevlar, etc.) with low-density matrix materials (epoxy, polyvinyl, etc.) to
produce strong & stiff materials that are lightweight. Laminates are generally built up
from multiple layers of lamina; the fibers within each lamina are generally parallel, but
laminates usually contain lamina with their fibers oriented in various directions. Each
lamina is an anisotropic layer with properties varying as a function of fiber angle.
Loading along the fibers (longitudinal) is modeled as Isostrain while loading
perpendicular to the fibers (transverse) is modeled as Isostress; these two directions
generally represent the extremes in material behavior. Fiber and matrix material property
data can be used to predict/approximate the properties of laminated composites using the
Rule of Mixtures. In this investigation, the elastic modulus of composites loaded at
various angles with respect to the fiber direction will be predicted, tested and discussed.
The burn-off method will be applied to determine the fiber volume of the composites
being investigated, and ultimate strength and elastic modulus results will be compared
with those of metals and polymers.




8

4.2 Types of composites
The 3 basic types of composites are identified as
1) Particle-Reinforced (Aggregates)
2) Fiber-Reinforced (Continuous Fiber or Chopped Fiber)
3) Natural Composites (Examples: Wood and Bone)

Figure 4.1 Schematic illustrations of common composite reinforcements

Today, the most common man-made composites can be divided into three main groups:
Polymer Matrix Composites (PMCs) These are the most common and will be
discussed here as this work comes under this category. Also known as FRP - Fiber
Reinforced Polymers (or Plastics) these materials use a polymer-based resin as the
matrix, and a variety of fibers such as glass, carbon and aramid as the reinforcement.
Metal Matrix Composites (MMCs) - Increasingly found in the automotive industry,
these materials use a metal such as aluminium as the matrix, and reinforce it with fibres,
or particles, such as silicon carbide.
Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMCs) - Used in very high temperature environments,
these materials use a ceramic as the matrix and reinforce it with short fibres, or whiskers
such as those made from silicon carbide and boron nitride.

9

4.3 Polymer matrix composites
Resin systems such as epoxies and polyesters have limited use for the manufacture of
structures on their own, since their mechanical properties are not very high when
compared to, for example, most metals. However, they have desirable properties, most
notably their ability to be easily formed into complex shapes. Materials such as glass,
aramid and boron have extremely high tensile and compressive strength but in solid
form these properties are not readily apparent. This is due to the fact that when stressed,
random surface flaws will cause each material to crack and fail well below its theoretical
breaking point. To overcome this problem, the material is produced in fibre form, so
that, although the same number of random flaws will occur, they will be restricted to a
small number of fibres with the remainder exhibiting the materials theoretical strength.
Therefore a bundle of fibres will reflect more accurately the optimum performance of the
material. However, fibres alone can only exhibit tensile properties along the fibres length,
in the same way as fibres in a rope.

It is when the resin systems are combined with reinforcing fibres such as glass, carbon
and aramid, those exceptional properties can be obtained. The resin matrix spreads the
load applied to the composite between each of the individual fibres and also protects the
fibres from damage caused by abrasion and impact. High strengths and stiffnesses, ease
of moulding complex shapes, high environmental resistance all coupled with low
densities, make the resultant composite superior to metals for many applications. Since
PMCs combine a resin system and reinforcing fibres, the properties of the resulting
composite material will combine something of the properties of the resin on its own with
that of the fibres on their own.

Overall, the properties of the composite are determined by:

i) The properties of the fibre
ii) The properties of the resin
iii) The ratio of fibre to resin in the composite (Fibre Volume Fraction)
iv) The geometry and orientation of the fibres in the composite
10


The ratio of the fibre to resin derives largely from the manufacturing process used to
combine resin with fibre, as will be described in the section on manufacturing processes.
However, it is also influenced by the type of resin system used, and the form in which the
fibres are incorporated. In general, since the mechanical properties of fibres are much
higher than those of resins, the higher the fibre volume fraction the higher will be the
mechanical properties of the resultant composite. In practice there are limits to this, since
the fibres need to be fully coated in resin to be effective, and there will be an optimum
packing of the generally circular cross-section fibres. In addition, the manufacturing
process used to combine fibre with resin leads to varying amounts of imperfections and
air inclusions. Typically, with a common hand lay-up process as widely used in the boat-
building industry, a limit for FVF is approximately 30-40%. With the higher quality,
more sophisticated and precise processes used in the aerospace industry, FVFs
approaching 70% can be successfully obtained.

The geometry of the fibres in a composite is also important since fibres have their highest
mechanical properties along their lengths, rather than across their widths. This leads to
the highly anisotropic properties of composites, where, unlike metals, the mechanical
properties of the composite are likely to be very different when tested in different
directions. This means that it is very important when considering the use of composites to
understand at the design stage, both the magnitude and the direction of the applied loads.
When correctly accounted for, these anisotropic properties can be very advantageous
since it is only necessary to put material where loads will be applied, and thus redundant
material is avoided. It is also important to note that with metals the properties of the
materials are largely determined by the material supplier, and the person who fabricates
the materials into a finished structure can do almost nothing to change those in-built
properties. However, a composite material is formed at the same time as the structure is
itself being fabricated. This is a FUNDAMENTAL distinction of composite materials and
MUST always be considered during design and manufacturing stages.


11

4.4 Classical Lamination Theory of Composites
The purpose of this section is to go through the theory describing the behaviour of
laminated composites called classic laminate theory (CLT). This is the basis for the
software called ComposIT by Bureau Veritas, which is used in the later part of the report
in the calculation of the PLy and the laminate elastic properties. It is also used in the
synthesis, section 9, to adjust material properties so that the computed strains resemble
the experimentally found strains.
In classic lamination theory (CLT) the individual layers are treated as having material
values, both stiffness and strength independent of each other. The stiffness matrix (also
denoted Q) of the individual layer describes the relation between the strains in the layer
and the stresses in it.

Equation 1: Lamina Stiffness matrix for an orthotropic material. (Jones, 1999, p. 71)
Note that there are five independent values defined in Equation 1: E1, E2, G12, 12 and
21. According to (Jones, 1999, p. 72):

Thereby four independent in-plane stiffness properties (E1, E2, G12 and 12) are
necessary to define an orthotropic layer, like the UD layers in the mats. For isotropic
layers

Thereby two independent stiffness properties (E and v) are necessary to define an
isotropic layer like the CSM layers and polyester layers in the mats.
The stiffness matrix is defined in the fibre coordinate system: The 1-direction defines the
fibre direction and the 2-direction is the in-plane perpendicular direction to the first. This
12

can be seen in Figure 2. Therefore the stiffness matrix must be rotated to the laminate or
global direction according to Equation 2.

Layer (1-2) and Laminate/Global (x-y) coordinate systems

Equation 2: Transformation of stiffness matrix to global coordinates. Jones pp. 75-76, eq.
2.76, 2.77, 2.82
The global stiffness matrices are combined for all layers to a so-called ABD-matrix for
the plate. The ABD-matrix describes the plate stiffness, i.e. the relation between the
loading of the plate (See Figure 3) and the response in terms of strains and curvatures. In
fact the ABDmatrix is a gathering of three matrices (A, B and D):

Note that in the tests only Nx is applied to the specimens
A: Extension stiffness. Relation between force resultants (N) and in-plane strains ()
B: Bending extension coupling stiffness. Relation between force resultants (N) and
curvatures () and relation between moment resultants (M) and in-plane strains ().
D: Bending stiffness: Relation between moment resultants (M) and curvatures () of the
plate.
The ABD-matrix is calculated by adding the individual stiffness matrices of the layers
directed in the x-direction with the contribution of the thickness of the individual layers
as seen in Equation 3.
13


Figure 4.2 Loads on a plate

Equation 3: Calculation of A, B and D values. z is the coordinates in the thickness
direction as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4.3 z-coordinates of the individual layers through a laminate.


14


ABD-matrix of a laminate. (Jones, 1999, p. 244) is given by the above matrix.

4.5 Sandwich Structures
Single skin laminates, made from glass, carbon, aramid, or other fibers may be strong,
but they can lack stiffness due to their relatively low thickness. Traditionally the stiffness
of these panels has been increased by the addition of multiple frames and stiffeners,
adding weight and construction complexity.
A sandwich structure consists of two high strength skins separated by a core material.
Inserting a core into the laminate is a way of increasing its thickness without incurring
the weight penalty that comes from adding extra laminate layers. In effect the core acts
like the web in an I-beam, where the web provides the lightweight separator between
the load-bearing flanges. In an I-beam the flanges carry the main tensile and compressive
loads and so the web can be relatively lightweight. Core materials in a sandwich structure
are similarly low in weight compared to the materials in the skin laminates.

Engineering theory shows that the flexural stiffness of any panel is proportional to the
cube of its thickness. The purpose of a core in a composite laminate is therefore to
increase the laminates stiffness by effectively thickening it with a low-density core
material. This can provide a dramatic increase in stiffness for very little additional
weight.

Figure shows a cored laminate under a bending load. Here, the sandwich laminate can be
likened to an I-beam, in which the laminate skins act as the I-beam flange, and the core
materials act as the beams shear web. In this mode of loading it can be seen that the
15

upper skin is put into compression, the lower skin into tension and the core into shear. It
therefore follows that one of the most important properties of a core is its shear strength
and stiffness.

Figure4.4 Sandwich Panel loading

In addition, particularly when using lightweight, thin laminate skins, the core must be
capable of taking a compressive loading without premature failure. This helps to prevent
the thin skins from wrinkling, and failing in a buckling mode.

4.5.1 Structural Design Criteria
Sandwich structures should be designed to meet the following structural criteria:
Skin facings should be sufficiently thick to withstand tensile, compressive and in-plane
shear stresses induced by the design loads.
The core should have sufficient strength to withstand transverse shear stresses induced
by the design loads.
The core should have sufficient flexural and shear stiffness to avoid excessive
deflections.
The core should be sufficiently thick and have sufficient shear stiffness to prevent panel
(or general) buckling of the sandwich under load.
Compressive modulus of the core and compressive strength of the facings should be
sufficient to prevent wrinkling of the faces under design loads.
The core should have sufficient compressive strength to resist crushing by design loads
acting normal to the panel facings or flexure induced compressive stresses.
Material strength in the vicinity of cut-outs and attachments should be sufficient to
prevent failure in these regions of stress concentrations.

16

4.5.2 Facing/Skin Design
Under flexural (or bending) loads one face is in tension and the other is compression. If
the stresses in either facing exceed the corresponding ultimate stresses of the constituent
materials of the facings, then the sandwich panel will fail in a catastrophic manner. In
design calculations, the strength verification of the facings is usually carried out by
comparing the stresses caused by external loads with the allowable stresses for the
constituent materials of the facing. The allowable stresses are obtained by dividing the
strengths by suitable factors which take into account the variable properties of the
materials, the approximations in structural design, accidental loads, fatigue performance,
etc. When the calculated stresses exceed the allowable stresses, a change in sandwich
design is required.
Use a material with higher allowable stresses (i.e. strengths) for the facing;
Increase facing thickness, thus reducing the applied stresses; or
Increase core thickness, thus reducing the applied stresses (preferred method).
Note: A higher density (i.e. stiffer) core does not affect the stresses in the facings.

4.5.3 Core Design
If the shear stress induced in the core is greater than the shear strength of the core
material the core will fail, resulting in failure of the sandwich structure. As before, the
allowable shear stress is obtained by dividing the shear strength of the core by a suitable
safety factor. When the calculated shear stress exceeds the allowable shear stress, a
change in sandwich design is required. In such a case, the following is recommended
Use a core material with higher allowable shear stress; or
Increase the core thickness (preferred method).
Note: Using a different material for the skins or increasing skin thickness has no affect
on the shear stress in the core.







17

5. Material Selection
A sandwich can be correlated to a system where different subsystems interact to form a
stiff structure. Unlike a plate of steel or aluminium where there is only one isotropic layer,
here the layers of materials interact with each other at different levels depending on their
orientation and individual properties. The various parts of a sandwich are to be looked
into, the requirements of each part and their selection on the basis of fulfillment of those
requirements. This selection of materials is done by an iterative process, followed by the
calculations. It should be noted that at this stage of the project, the cost based
considerations are not done, as that involves contacting the individual supplier for
individual quotes.

5.1 Core
The requirements on the core of a sandwich say that it should have low density, high
compressive and shear strength, and high shear modulus and be thermally stable. It
should also posses a good resistance to water penetration and have good fatigue strength.

DIAB is a popular choice for cores and hence the calculations are carried out using
information from their product catalogues. The Divinycell structural foam cores offer
good mechanical properties; they are classified as H, HT, HP, HCP and HD grade. The
HCP core is strong and heavy and unsuitable for this purpose. Further the H, HP and HT
grade of cores are split into cores of different densities and strengths.
End grain Balsa (i.e. grains oriented in the through thickness direction) is an efficient
core, providing good strength with low density. The major problem with Balsa is
susceptibility to water penetration, leading to swelling, debonding and rotting. DIAB also
has DNV approval on the Balsa cores. They have mainly three kinds of Balsa cores, but
all three of them are heavy when compared to the available PVC cores. Hence only the H
series cores have been taken into consideration. All calculations have been performed
with the H100 core.



18


Property Unit H60 H100
Nominal Density Kg/m
3
60 100
Tensile Strength MPa 1.8 3.5
Tensile Modulus MPa 75 130
Shear Strength MPa 0.76 1.6
Shear Modulus MPa 20 35
Table 5.1 Properties of different core
5.2 Laminates
A face or a laminate consists of a resin system and the fibres that are embedded into it. A
laminate comprises of plies or laminas that are built up of a fibres and resins. The fibre
that could be used for making the faces of structure should be light and strong.

5.2.1 Fibres
The fibres are responsible for taking a majority of tensile and compressive loads. An
initial investigation into the kind of fibres that can be used for this project resulted in E-
glass, S-glass, Carbon fibre and Aramid Kevlar. The poor compressive strength of
Aramid acted as a catalyst in disregarding it. The major advantage of E-glass is that it is a
high strength and low cost material. The high strength S glass has slightly better
mechanical properties than E-glass and is also more expensive. Cost considerations limit
the use of Carbon fibres. Some properties of the fibre materials in consideration are as
follows
Property Unit E-Glass
Youngs Modulus GPa 72.4
Poissons Ratio 0.2
Shear Modulus GPa 30
Mass/m
2
of fiber g/m
2
600
Table 5.2 Properties of the Fiber

5.2.2 Resin System
The most commonly used resin in marine applications is polyester. It is moderately
priced and is easy to handle. Vinyl ester, Phenolics and Epoxies are also used depending
on the application. In case of a fire, a phenolic based laminate would burn on the outside
19

forming a char. This char prevents the burning of the inner material. Their initial physical
strength is slightly lower than the polyesters however, in the case of a fire; they are
capable of maintaining their strength for a longer time period and to a higher temperature.
But being very viscous, phenolics also exhibit issues when it comes to infusion. The
various physical properties of the resins studied are
Property Unit Polyester Epoxy
Density Kg/m3 1210 1200
Youngs Modulus GPa 3.6 3.0
Poissons Ratio - 0.36 0.37
Table 5.3 Properties of the Resin
5.2.3 Calculation of Ply and Laminate Properties
The properties of ply is calculated using rule of mixtures and this is done by ComposeIT
software by Bureau Veritas figure 5.1. For using in the theoretical calculation the
laminate properties are also computed in figure 5.2.
o
Figure 5.1 Calculation of Ply properties









Figure 5.2 Calculation of Laminate Properties
20

6. Manufacturing Process

The sandwich panels are made with Vacuum Assisted Resin transfer Molding. This is
superior to the conventional Hand layup technique.


Figure 6.1 Vacuum Assisted Resin transfer Molding

Large steel moulds are made with the shape of the covers. These moulds can be used
800-1000 times before they must be replaced. First the gel coat is applied on the mould
surface. Then the outer fibre mats, cut into size of the mould, are laid into the gel coat.
On top of that the plates of foam are placed and then the inner fibre mats. A layer of peel
ply is laid on top of the fibres with a net or a cloth mat above to soak excess resin. On top
of all, a vacuum bag is placed and sealed at the edges to create an airtight space around
the mats and foam. A pipe is inserted under the vacuum bag at each end of the mould.
One is connected to the polyester resin and the other to a vacuum pump. The vacuum
pump is started causing around 80% vacuum in the mould, thereby pulling the resin
through the mould imbedding the fibres and the foam. In addition it also removes most of
the air inclusions in the laminate. When all mats and plates are imbedded, the vacuum
pump is stopped. The cover hardens in the mould for some hours before it is taken out.



21

7. Design Considerations


Figure 7.1 Direction of Anchor Point Loading
1. The roof of the nacelle cover is modular by nature and is connected to the metal
frame by a single row of bolts, [6] claims that such a connection needs to be
considered as simply supported condition.
2. The panel is considered as a beam in place of a shell
3. The effective youngs modulus of the laminate is calculated with the ComposIT
software, Bureau Veritas, by taking in to consideration the resins (polyester)
properties also.
4. A panel of length 2000 mm and breadth 600 mm is considered for the calculations
5. There are several load cases acting on the nacelle cover such as wind load, snow
load, personnel loading and so on, out of which only anchor point loading
conditions are considered
6. Thickness of the top and bottom facings are assumed to be same, t
1
= t
2
= t
f

7. The structure is considered to be symmetric about the neutral axis.
8. The Lay-up chosen should be approximately quasi-isotropic (i.e. based on 0
o
,
45
o
and 90
o
plies) [7],[8].
9. The grouping of the 90
o
and the 0
o
ply should be avoided [8]
10. The thickness of the facing is increased by increasing the number of quasi-
isotropic laminates
11. Two quasi isotropic layups are used on either side of the core. Hence that gives us
the stacking sequence as [90/-45/45/0/90/-45/45/0/CORE/0/45/-45/90/0/45/-45/90]
22

12. The curvature of the nacelle roof is not considered in the design
13. The Anchor Points should carry a load of 22.2 kN [10] for use in North America
and this load varies between countries. In this project the design is done for a load
of 36 kN.

7.1 Partial safety factor method
The limit state function can be separated into load and resistance functions S and R so
that the condition becomes [1]

The resistance R generally corresponds with the maximum allowable design values of
material resistance, hence R(fd) = fd, whilst the function S for ultimate strength analysis
is usually defined as the highest value of the structural response, hence S(Fd)=Fd. The
equation then becomes

F
k
- Design Load
f
k
- Resistance offered by material

f
- Partial Safety factor for load = 1

m -
Partial safety factor for materials = 2.4

n
- Partial safety factor for consequence of failure = 1










23

8. Theoretical Calculation
The procedure for calculation is iterative by nature; the steps adopted in the calculation
are as given below. Initially a set of values are assumed and then the output are compared
to the allowable limits. Based on the comparison increment or decrement is done and
final set of values are arrived upon. The following calculations show the final set of
values arrived upon. Initially a H60 core was considered and one quasi-isotropic plate of
1.868 mm was considered for the facing. Based on the system response to the increment
was done and the same are tabulated in the table 9.1. In order to validate the calculation a
simple stacking sequence is taken and calculated and compared with ANSYS. After the
validation the Anchor Point loading conditions are applied through multi point constraint
option.
I. Define loading conditions
II. Define panel type
III. Define physical/space constraints
IV. Calculate






Figure 8.1 Simply supported Boundary Condition
Formulas
1. Bending Stiffness - D

2. Shear Stiffness S

3. Net Deflection = Bending Deflection + Shear Deflection

24

4. Facing Stress

5. Core Stress

Input Units Nomenclature

E
f
1.386E+10 Pa Effective Youngs Modulus of the facing sheet

t
f
0.003736 m Facing thickness

h 0.045 m Distance between facing skins = tf + tc

Gc 35000000 Pa Shear modulus of the core

K
b
0.0208333 Beam - bending deflection coefficient
SSB
Ks 0.25 Beam - shear deflection coefficient
SSB
P 36000 N Load acting on the Anchor Point

L 2 m Length of the beam

b 0.6 m Beam width

M 18000 Nm Maximum bending moment - (P*l)/4
SSB
F 18000 N Maximum shear force
SSB
t
c
0.041264 m Core thickness

1

8.28E+8
Pa Maximum facing stress of facing material

1

1.6E+6
Pa Maximum core shear strength

Table 8.1 Input Parameters




25

Output
Bending stiffness - D 31456.933 Nm2

Shear stiffness - S 945000 N

Bending Deflection 0.190737 m 190.737 mm
+
Shear Deflection 0.0190476 m 19.04762 mm
=
Net Deflection = Bending def + Shear
def 0.2097846 m 209.7846 mm

Facing Stress 178443969 Pa 178.444 Mpa

Core Stress 666666.67 Pa 0.666667 Mpa

Table 8.2 Output Parameters

Based on the partial safety factor method explained in the previous chapter, the constants
for the partial safety of various parameters are obtained from [1]. They are substituted in
the following equation and compared.

f Partial Safety factor for load 1

m
Partial safety factor for materials - composites 2.4

n
Partial safety factor for consequence of failure 1
Table 8.3 Partial safety factors

1. Check for facing Stress

Units Design Stress Permitted stress Compare & Decide

Mpa 178.444 345 Safe

2. Check for core shear stress

Mpa 0.666667 0.6666667 Safe
Table 8.4 Check for design loads versus material's resistance

26

8.1 Validation Of The Theoretical Model
For the sake of validation, a simple sandwich structure is taken with the core between two
unidirectional plies on top and bottom [0/CORE/0]. This validation is mandatory to
determine, how good the theoretical model depicts the actual system.
Input Units Converted Input Units Nomenclature

E
f
38.325 GPa E
f
3.83E+10 Pa
Effective Youngs Modulus of the
facing sheet

t
f
0.467 mm t
f
0.000467 m Facing thickness

h 40 mm h 0.04 m Distance between facing skins = tf + tc

G
c
40 MPa G
c
40000000 Pa Shear modulus of the core

K
b
0.020833 K
b
0.020833 Beam - bending deflection coefficient
SSB
K
s
0.25 K
s
0.25 Beam - shear deflection coefficient
SSB
P 3.6 KN P 3600 N Load acting on the Anchor Point

L 2 m L 2 m Length of the beam

b 0.6 m b 0.6 m Beam width

M 1800 Nm Maximum bending moment

F 1800 N Maximum shear force

t
c
39.533 mm t
c
0.039533 m Core thickness


Bending stiffness - D 8590.932 Nm2

Shear stiffness - S 960000 N

Bending Deflection 0.069841 m 69.84108 mm
+
Shear Deflection 0.001875 m 1.875 mm
=
Net Deflection = Bending deflection
+ Shear deflection 0.071716 m 71.71608 mm

Facing Stress 1.61E+08 Pa 160.5996 Mpa

Core Stress 75000 Pa 0.075 Mpa
Table 8.5 Validation theoretical model
27

14. FEA Validation

9.1 Preprocessing Model Validation
The dimensions of the panel 2m X 0.6m
The edges are simply supported
Load applied 3600 N
Meshing Element edge length 0.025 m
SHELL91 is chosen - The core is assumed to carry all of the transverse shear,
while the faceplates carry none; conversely, the faceplates are assumed to carry
all (or almost all) of the bending load. Only SHELL91 has this sandwich option.
No of layers = 3 [0/CORE/0]
Keyopt K6 = 1
Keyopt K8 = 1
Keyopt K9 = 1
Keyopt K11 = 1
Under Real constants put Tk = thickness of the ply = 0.467mm
Material property of the core is given for H100 as given in matweb website
Unidirectional Ply properties is given from the values computed by the
ComposeIT software











28












Figure 9.1 Meshing and Boundary conditions

9.2 Post Processing - Model Validation
The overall deflection of the system is given by the displacement vector sum
The facing stress and the shear stress are also plotted and matched with the
theoretical results



29


Figure 9.2 Deflection observed

Figure 9.3 Facing Stress
30



Figure 9.4 Core Shear Stress without edge effects of Layer 2

Comparing these ANSYS values to the theoretical model validates the theoretical model
Output Theoretical ANSYS
%
Variation
Net Deflection = Bending
def + Shear def 0.071716 m 71.71608 mm 67.1 mm 6.436609

Facing Stress 1.61E+08 Pa 160.5996 Mpa 152 mpa 5.354667

Core Stress 75000 Pa 0.075 Mpa 0.07774 Mpa -3.65333
Table 9.1 Comparison between theoretical and actual values

Hence we infer that the theoretical model represents the system in consideration. Hence
using this model, a panel could be designed which can take the said 36kN load. The
Anchor Points sets up a load on to the system in a unique manner. Hence the system is
that is designed for the point loading condition is tested for anchor point loading
condition and allowable limits are checked.

31

9.3 Preprocessing Multi Point Constraint
In order to simulate the anchor point loading conditions, the exact assembly of the anchor
points with composite covers has to be done and proper contact constraints has to be set
between the bolt and the composite cover.










Figure 9.5 Anchor Point Loading

However, since the system in focus is the composite cover, similar boundary conditions
are simulated using multi point constraints at 51 mm above the sandwich panel. Exactly
at the centre of the panel at a height of 51mm, a pilot node is created and the nodes in the
base of the anchor points are attached to that pilot node. When a force is setup on the
pilot node, it is transferred to the nodes below. A force of 36kN is set up along the x
direction in the pilot node.
The dimensions of the panel 2m X 0.6m
The edges are simply supported
Load applied 3600 N
Meshing Element edge length 0.025 m
SHELL91 is chosen - The core is assumed to carry all of the transverse shear,
while the faceplates carry none; conversely, the faceplates are assumed to carry
all (or almost all) of the bending load. Only SHELL91 has this sandwich option.
No of layers = 3 [0/CORE/0]
Keyopt K6 = 1
32

Keyopt K8 = 1
Keyopt K9 = 1
Keyopt K11 = 1
Under Real constants put Tk = thickness of the ply = 0.467mm
Material property of the core is given for H100 from the website matweb
Unidirectional Ply properties is given from the values computed by the
ComposeIT



Figure 9.6 MPC-Meshing and Loading conditions






33

9.4 Post Processing Multi Point Constraint













Figure 9.7 Equivalent Stress in layer 1













Figure 9.8 Equivalent Stress in layer 2
34


Figure 9.9 Equivalent Stress in layer 16


Figure 9.10 Equivalent Stress in layer 17
35


Figure 9.11 Stresses along the X direction














Figure 9.12 Shear Stress in layer 9 Core
36

9.5 Results and Discussion

The value of the facing stress and the core shear stresses are well with in the permitted
limits. In the theoretical calculations the allowable stress are computed with
m =
2.4. That
was without considering stress concentration caused by the holes. Since the analysis done
here is specifically for the Anchor Point Loading conditions, the stress concentration
needs to be considered and according to [1]
m
has to be incremented by 2 in this regard.
Hence the new value becomes
m
= 4.4. Hence the new allowable limits are Facing Stress
= 188.181 MPa and the core shear stress = 0.363 MPa.

From figures 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11 it can be inferred that the facing stress of the system was
found to be 20.2 MPa compared to the allowed 181.181 MPa
By observing the plots it can be inferred that the resistance offered by the system is much
uniformly distributed about the base of the anchor point in the plate and it does not get
transferred to the edges. Hence the load acting on the system is locally transferred in an
effective way and the design is safe from the facing materials perspective.

From figure 9.13, it can be inferred that the shear stress is 0.074 MPa which is well below
the permitted limit of 0.363 MPa and hence it can be said that the core is safe.

Since the facing stress and the core shear stress are within limits, it can be said that the
said sandwich structure is qualified. Optimization of this design has to be done before
implementing in the actual nacelle.








37

10. Conclusion
1. Thus the theoretical calculation for the sandwich panel was done for the given
loading conditions.
2. The model was validated using ANSYS with a variation of 10% between the
theoretical and the actual.
3. To simulate the anchor point loading condition, multi point constraints was used and
a force of 36000 N was applied to a pilot node that is connected to all the nodes of the
anchor points base area.
4. The loading that is applied on to the composite cover is distributed in a uniform
manner, which can be seen from the plots.
5. The observed stresses caused by the load are well within the allowable limits thereby
qualifying the design.
















38

11. Reference

1. Standards: IEC 61400-1 Standard for Wind Turbines; 3rd edition, 2005;DS/EN
ISO 527-4

2. Determination of tensile properties part 4: Test conditions for isotropic and
orthotropic fibre-reinforced plastic composites; 1. Edition, 1996; DS/EN ISO
14126

3. Determination of compressive properties in the in-plane direction Fibre reinforced
plastic composites 1. Edition 1999

4. Jones, Robert M.; Mechanics of Composite Materials,2nd edition, 1999;ISBN 1-
56032-712-X

5. Kreyszig, Erwin, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 8th Edition, 1999; ISBN
0-471-33328-X

6. "Plastics Products Design Handbook" by Mr. Marcel Dekker, McGill Corporation

7. Composites Engineering Handbook, Editor Mallick, P.K., Marcel Dekker,
1997.

8. Military Handbook, Polymer Matrix Composites, Volume 3 Materials Usage,
Design and Analysis, MIL-HDBK-17-1E, 1994.

9. EN795/1995 - EN795/A1:1999 Protection against fall from heights-anchor
devices requirements and testing

10. ANSI/ASSE Z359.1-1992(R1999) Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest
Systems

11. EN 795: 1996 Protection against falls from heights Anchor devices
Requirements and Testing
12. EN 50308: 2004 Wind turbine Protective measures Requirements for design,
operation and maintenance
13. B.T. Astrom, Manufacturing of Polymer Composites, Chapman & Hall, 1992
14. Issac M Daniel and Ori Ishai, Engineering mechanics of composite materials;
Oxford Publishers; 2006
15. Bruhn EF. Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures. Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN: S.R. Jacobs and Associates, Inc.; 1973. p. C12.1C12.52

39

16. Hexcel Corporation. Design Handbook for Honeycomb Sandwich Structures.
Technical Service Bulletin #123. Huntington Beach, CA: Hexcel Corporation;
1970.

17. Vinson JR. The behaviour of sandwich structures of isotropic and composite
materials. Westport: Technomic; 1999.

18. Mines RAW, Worrall CM, Gibson AG. Low velocity perforation behaviour of
polymer composite sandwich panels. Int J Impact Engng 1998;21(10):85579.

19. Torre L, Kenny JM. Impact testing and simulation of composite sandwich
structures for civil transportation. Compos Struct 2000;50:25767.

20. Kootsookos A, Burchill PJ. The effect of the degree of cure on the corrosion
resistance of vinyl ester/glass fibre composites. Composites A 2004;35:5018.

21. Allard JF. Propagation of sound in porous media: modelling sound absorbing
materials. Elsevier Applied Science; 1993.

22. Sahraoui S, Mariez E, Etchessahar M. Mechanical testing of polymeric foams at
low frequency. Polym Test 2001;20:936.

23. Anderson, Melvin S. Optimum proportions of truss core and webcore sandwich
plates loaded in compression. NASA TN D-98; 1959.

24. Steeves CA, Fleck NA. Material selection in sandwich beam construction. Scripta
Mater 2004;50:13359.

25. Hexcel Corporation. Design Handbook for Honeycomb Sandwich Structures.
Technical Service Bulletin #123. Huntington Beach, CA: Hexcel Corporation;
1970.












40

Appendix A





















41

Appendix B










42