Design Process

Obtain applied loads

Obtain material properties
Come up with a structural configuration
Analyze structural configuration to

check if
concept is
manufacturable
verify analysis
by tests

meet loads without failure (static and fatigue)

minimize weight
minimize cost
optimize other quantities (frequency, radar signature,
etc.)

Iterate

Fit, form, function;

No failure under
load;

Design
Reqts

Design Process
Taxi, take-off,
flight, land,
crash

Producibility
trials

Applied
loads

Preliminary
design

Structural
configuration

Test

Analysis of
Structural
configuration

Meet loads
and design
reqts?
N

Material
properties
Strength,
Stiffness,
Density

More than 50% and, sometimes, as much as

70% of the cost is locked in during preliminary
design!!

Design has
desirable
attributes?

Done

Applied Loads and Usage

Different users perform the same maneuver differently
resulting in different loads
95th percentile (or some other high percentile) of max
load occurring in maneuver simulation) to cover most
cases
Load

nominally same maneuver

simulated many times

Peak
loads
max load during one simulation

Entry

Exit

Time

Load

95th
percentile

Material
Variability (scatter)
raw material
manufacturing
etc.

A,B-Basis
values

Environmental effects
Effect of damage
mean

Material scatter
Typical Uni-directional Gr/E (0 deg)
Compression

B-Basis

A-Basis

Tension

Material scatter
B-Basis (10th percentile): 90% of the
strength tests will have higher failure load
A-Basis (1 percentile): 99% of the strength
tests will have higher failure load
typically, A-Basis is used for single-load path primary
structure and B-Basis is used for multiple-load path primary
or secondary structure (failure does not lead to loss of
vehicle)

Effect of environment
Typical Uni-directional Gr/E
Strength
(MPa)

ambient

2000

tension

1800

wet

1600

compression

1400
1200
1000
800
600

CT

400

RT

200

ET

-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Temperature (deg C)

knockdown due to environment (=separation between

red horizontal lines): 5-30% depending on property

Effect of damage
Compression loading(1)
Undam/damaged
damaged/undam
compr strength

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Flawed hole
Porosity
Delamination
Impact

10

20

30

40

50

70 mm

60

Damage diameter (mm) or void content (%)

%

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

(1) Whitehead, R.S., Lessons Learned for Composite Structures, Proc First NASA Advanced
Composites Technology Conference, Seattle WA, 1990, pp 399-415

Effect of Damage (contd)

Design structure to take ultimate load in presence
of Threshold Of Detectability or Barely Visible
Impact Damage
Design structure to take limit load in presence of
(some) Visible Damage (VD) (e.g. 6 mm dia hole)
If TODload capability / VDload capability <1.5, TOD is
critical; otherwise, VD is critical
strength
TOD load
VD load

TOD VD

damage

Design value
mean with worst
environmental
effects undamaged

mean with worst

environmental effects
and worst damage

5-20%

B-Basis
design value

Depending on
material and
property

A-Basis
design value

10-35%
design values

mean RTA
undamaged

depending on
material and
property

Strength

Cutoff strains (or stresses)

Combine worst effects for material scatter,
environment, and damage
Mean undamaged failure strain (compression)
~ 11000 microstrain (0.011)
Worst
Knockdown
source

Knockdown
fraction

Environment
(ETW compr or
shear)

0.8

Damage (BVID)

0.65

Material scatter
(CV~11%)

0.8

Cutoff strain value=

11000 x 0.8 x 0.65 x
0.8 =4576 microstrain
(=0.0045 mm/mm)
Independent of loading
case, environment, layup,
etc.=> conservative
(CV=std. dev/mean x 100)

Weight comparison: Al versus

composites
Aluminum (7075T6)

Quasi-Isotropic
Gr/Epoxy

Gr/E layup
used in compr*

Density (kg/m^3)

2777

1611

1611

Youngs modulus
(GPa)

68.9

48.2

71.7

Compr. (yield)
failure strain (s)

5700

4576

~4500

Compr. failure
stress (MPa)

392.7

220.8

~322.6

* [45/-45/02/90]s

including knockdowns for material

scatter, environment and damage

Aluminum is, typically, stronger than Gr/E but also has

higher density

Weight comparison: Al versus

composites
Weight , W t ( Area)
at failure,
F
Fa
fail a t
wt
w fail
W

WGr
W Al

fail

fail

Gr

Al

Fa
w fail

( Area)
QI/Al

WGr
W Al
black Aluminum!

1.03

[45/-45/02/90]s/Al

0.706

29.4% savings!

Some added considerations of the

design process
out-of-plane
failure

Material capability
(strength, stiffness)
Configuration
performance (different
failure modes)

Conservative(1)
analysis to
determine stresses
and strains
eccentricity
driven

Failure criteria
Cutoff values

local (bay)
buckling

(1) Reasonably conservative, reasonably accurate and fast tends to be preferable to very accurate
but computationally very expensive methods

Some added considerations of the

design process
out-of-plane
failure

Material capability
(strength, stiffness)
Configuration
performance (different
failure modes)

Conservative(1)
analysis to
determine stresses
and strains
eccentricity
driven

Failure criteria
Cutoff values

Discuss failure modes briefly and how some of

them are difficult to pick-up in analysis
Discuss problems with failure criteria

local (bay)
buckling

Segway into cutoff values

(1) Reasonably conservative, reasonably accurate and fast tends to be preferable to very accurate
but computationally very expensive methods

Related issues/considerations
Being able to obtain accurate stresses and/or strains is
not enough to quantify failure correctly and thus not
enough to generate a good design
Need to know the failure mode in advance
Design to specific failure mode(s) and not on the basis of
highest stress in a model
e.g. buckling vs crippling analysis
Buckling of bays vs buckling of plate (isogrid)
Interlaminar stresses require much higher mesh density in FE
model so a model could be good from every other respect but if
you did not know the possibility of delamination you would not
capture the critical failure mode (e.g. skin-stiffener separation,
stiffener termination)

Modelling issues (e.g. fasteners, BCs between ss and

clamped, etc)

Multiplicity and interaction of failure

modes (lugs)
Net section
failure

Bearing, (hole elongates and

material ahead of pin fails) and
net section failure combined
Shearout, (shear failure ahead of
pin hole along loading plane) and
net section failure combined

Delamination

Even for a simple detail

like a lug, the multiplicity
of failure modes can
make failure prediction
extremely difficult. FE
cannot help much.

Multiplicity and interaction of failure

modes (sandwich structure)
A

sandwich under
compression at
failure

Wavy shape of facesheet can lead to:

material failure of the facesheet (bending combined with compression)-A
material failure of the adhesive (tension, compression, shear)- A, B
material failure of the core (tension, compression, shear)

Stability driven/related failure of the facesheet

facesheet buckling (plate on elastic foundation)
wrinkling
intra-cellular buckling
etc.

5.2.2

Governing Equations - Linear

(Cartesian coordinates)

Equilibrium (no body forces)

x xy xz

0
x
y
z
xy y yz

0
x
y
z
xz yz z

0
x
y
z

or in terms of force and moment resultants:

N x N xy

0
x
y
N xy N y

0
x
y
Q x Q y

0
x
y

M x M xy
Qx

x
y
M xy M y
Qy

x
y

Governing Equations (contd)

Stress-strain equations (e.g. per ply)
x E11

y E12
z E13

yz 0
xz 0

xy E16

E12
E 22
E 23

E13
E 23
E33

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
E 26

0
0
E36

E 44
E 45
0

E 45
E55
0

E16
E 26
E36

0
0

E66

z,3

x

y
z

yz
xz

xy

y,2

x,1

or, in terms of force and moment resultants

N x A11
N
y A12
N xy A16

M
x B11
M y B12

M xy B16

A12
A22
A26
B12
B22
B26

A16
A26
A66
B16
B26
B66

B11
B12
B16
D11
D12
D16

(e.g. per laminate)

B12
B22
B26
D12
D22
D26

B16
B26
B66

D16
D26

D66

xo
o
y
xy o

xy

Mxy
x
Mx

Mx
y

My

Mxy

My

Governing Equations (contd)

Strain-displacement equations
2w
x 2
x
2w
y 2
y

u
x
x
v
o
y
y
u v
xy o

y x
o

xy

x x x
o

2w
2
xy

y y o y
xy xy o xy

17 eqns in the 17 unknowns: u, v, w, Nx, Ny, Nxy,

Mx, My, Mxy, Qx, Qy, x, y, xy, x, y, xy

Governing Equations (contd)

eliminating strains and forces and moments (e.g. Jones section
5.2.2):
2u
2u
2u
2v
2v
2v
A11 2 2 A16
A66 2 A16 2 ( A12 A66 )
A26 2
xy
xy
x
y
x
y
3w
3w
3w
3w
B11 3 3B16 2 ( B12 2 B66 )
B26 3 0
x
x y
xy 2
y
2u
2u
2u
2v
2v
2v
A16 2 ( A12 A66 )
A26 2 A66 2 2 A26
A22 2
xy
xy
x
y
x
y
3w
3w
3w
3w
B16 3 ( B12 2 B66 ) 2 3B26
B22 3 0
x
x y
xy 2
y

4w
4w
4w
4w
D11 4 4 D16 3 2( D12 2 D66 ) 2 2 4 D26
x
x y
x y
xy 3
4w
3u
3u
3u
3u
D22 4 B11 3 3B16 2 ( B12 2 B66 )
B26 3
y
x
x y
xy 2
y
3v
3v
3v
3v
B16 3 ( B12 2 B66 ) 2 3B26
B22 3 0
x
x y
xy 2
y

(no body force)

Governing Equations (contd)

if in-plane forces Nx, Ny, Nxy 0, additional terms from Fz=0
z

Qx

Q x
dx
x

Nx
pz

Nyx

N x
dx
x

Q x Q y
2w

Nx 2
x
y
x

px

2w
2w
2 N xy
Ny 2
xy
y
w
w
px
py
p z LHS
x
y

Nx
Qx

4w
4w
4w
2w
2w
2w
D11 4 2( D12 2 D66 ) 2 2 D22
pz N x
Ny
2 N xy

xy
x
x y
y 4
x 2
y 2
w
w
px
py
x
y

Governing Equations (contd)

to see how additional terms are derived, consider Fz
force at two ends
z

Fz
Nx

Qx
Nxy

Qy

pz
px

Nxy

pz
px

Ny

py

Fz

Fz
dx
x
x

Fz N x

w
w
w
w
dy Qx dy Q y dx N y
dx N xy
dx N xy
dy
x
y
x
y

Example:
Composite plate under localized in-plane load

Motivation: Stiffener termination

F

Stiffened
panel

Transitioning
into flat panel
1
h
y

Simplified
problem to
be solved

b
x

Objectives
determine

the stresses in the plate so they can be used in

some form of failure criterion to predict failure
determine the length and width w of the region where
stresses exceed significantly their far-field values (near the
point of load application) to get an idea of the geometry of
the region that needs reinforcement (doubler)
design transition region for load introduction into the plate
to be used in further analysis

Stresses do not vary appreciably

from far-field stresses

Stresses vary appreciably from

far-field stresses

Concentrated load acting on composite

plate solution(1)
Assumptions
Homogeneous orthotropic plate
Layup is symmetric (B matrix=0)
Layup is balanced (no stretching/shearing coupling=>
A16=A26=0)
There is no twisting/bending coupling (D16=D26=0)
Plate is sufficiently long and wide so solution is not
affected by boundary proximity

(1) Kassapoglou, C., and Bauer, G., Composite Plates Under Concentrated Load on One
Edge and Uniform Load on the Opposite Edge, Mechanics of Advanced Materials and
Structures, 17, 2010 pp 196-203

Derive governing PDE

stress-strain eqns
Nx A11 x A12 y
Ny A12 x A22 y
Nxy A66 xy

averaged over plate thickness H

A11
A
x 12 y
H
H
A
A
y 12 x 22 y
H
H
A
xy 66 xy
H

1
h

a
b
x

Governing PDE (contd)

No dependence on out-of-plane
coordinate z:

0
z

out-of-plane stresses xz= yz= z=0

equilibrium eqns have the form:
x xy

0
x
y
xy y

0
x
y

Governing PDE (contd)

1
h

Solving for the strains

x
y

HA22 x HA12 y
A11 A22 A12

HA11 y HA12 x
A11 A22 A12

xy H

xy

A66

Eliminating the displacements from the straindisplacement equations gives the strain compatibility:
2 xy

2
2 x y

xy
y 2
x 2

Substituting for the strains in the strain compatibility eqn:

2
2
2 y
2 y
2 x
2 x
A11 A22 A12 xy
A22
A12
A11
A12
2
2
2
A66
xy
y
y
x
x 2

Governing PDE (contd)

Use stress equilibrium equations and successive
differentiations to substitute in the above equation
2
4 x A11 A22 A12
A12 4 x
A22 4 x

2
0
2 2
4
4
A11 x y
A11 y
x
A11 A66

1
h

or:

4 x
4 x
4 x
2 2
0
4
4
x
x y
y

a
b
x

Boundary Conditions
1
h

x ( x 0) 0

0 y

bh
bh
and
yb
2
2
bh
bh
for
y
2
2

F
Hh
F
x ( x a) o
bH
y ( y 0) y ( y b) 0

x ( x 0) 1

applied
load
a

reaction

xy ( x 0) xy ( x a) xy ( y 0) xy ( y b) 0

Stress-free
condition

Solution of PDE
Assume solution of the form (fn unknown)
x f n ( x) cos

ny
b

Substituting, fn is found to satisfy the eqn:

2

2
d 4 fn
n d f n
n

fn 0
4
2
b
b
dx

dx

from which, fn=Cex with

1 n
2

4
2 b

combining, the final form of the solution is

ny
Fourier cosine series at
Ko A e C e cos
any given x!
b

n 1

1 x

2 x

Solution of PDE (contd)

only the two solutions with negative real parts
are used (decaying exponentials) provided the
plate is long enough; otherwise, all four
solutions must be used
a constant Ko is introduced to get the most
general form of the solution

Determination of all stresses

using equilibrium equations and boundary
conditions (except at x=0) the stresses are found
to be:

x Ko An e x

n 1

1 x
2ny
e cos
2
b

2ny
b
x
x
1 An 1e 1 2 e 2 1 cos

n 1 2 n

b
2ny
1 x
2 x

1 An e e sin
b
n 1 2n

xy

a
b
x

only even terms contribute to the solution

Ko and An are still unknown

Boundary condition at x=0

Ko and An are determined as Fourier cosine
series coefficients:
F
Ko
bH

average of x at any x
location

1x 1 2 x
2qy
2ny
2qy

(
x

0
)
cos
dy

A
e

e
cos
cos
dy

x
o
n
0

b
2
b
b

x 0
0
b

x(x=0)

An

F 2
2
nh
cos n sin
hH 2 1 n
b

F/(Hh)

bh
2

bh
2

y
y=b