Advertisement

Computational Approach Toward Advanced Composite Material Qualification and Structural Certification

  • Frank Abdi
  • J. Surdenas
  • Nasir Munir
  • Jerry Housner
  • Raju Keshavanarayana
Chapter

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is to perform accurate simulation of physical tests using multi-scale progressive failure analysis (PFA) and to simulate the scatter in the physical test results by using probabilistic analysis. The multi-scale analysis is based on a hierarchical analysis, where a combination of macro-mechanics and micro-mechanics is used to analyze material and structures in great detail. To calculate the correct micro-mechanical constituent properties for the multi-scale analysis, a three-step process is used: (1) calibration step, (2) verification step, and (3) probabilistic analysis step. The discussion in this chapter will focus mainly on the use of FAA composite material certification requirements and estimation of mechanical and fracture properties of composites; A-basis and B-basis allowable properties generation that are recognized as statistical in nature; and categories of damage tracking for composite structure under service.

Keywords

Failure Load Residual Strength Coupon Test Federal Aviation Administration Virtual Testing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Design Considerations for Minimizing Hazards Caused by Uncontained Turbine Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Rotor and Fan Blade Failures, Advisory Circular 20–128, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 1988Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Z. Hashin, “Analysis of Stiffness Reduction of Cracked Cross-Ply Laminates,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 25, 1986, pp. 771–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Laws and G.J. Dvorak, “Progressive Transverse Cracking in Composite Laminates,” J. Compos. Mater., Vol. 22, 1988, pp. 900–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y.M. Han and H.T. Hahn, “Ply Cracking and Property Degradations of Symmetric Balanced Laminates Under General In-plane Loading,” Compos. Sci. Technol., Vol. 35, 1989, pp. 337–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.J. Nuismer and S.C. Tan, “Constitutive Relations of a Cracked Composite Lamina,” J. Compos. Mater., Vol. 22, 1988, pp. 306–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.H. Allen, C.E. Harris, and S.E. Groves, “A Thermo-Mechanical Constitutive Theory for Elastic Composites with Distributed Damage,” Int. J. Solids Struct., Vol. 23, 1987, pp. 1301–1338MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Zhang, J. Fan, and C. Soutis, “Analysis of Multiple Matrix Cracking in [±θm/90n]s Composite Laminates – Part 2: Development of Transverse Ply Cracks,” Composites, Vol. 23, No. 5, Sept. 1992, pp. 299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S.L. Donaldson, R.Y. Kim, and R.E. Trejo, “Damage Development in Laminates Mechanically Cycled at Cryogenic Temperature,” 43rd AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Palm Spring, CA, AIAA-2004-1774, April 2004Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    X. Su, F. Abdi, and R.Y. Kim, “Prediction of Micro-Crack Densities in IM7/977-2 Polymer Composite Laminates Under Mechanical Loading at Room and Cryogenic Temperatures,” AIAA/SDM 46, Austin, Texas, 2005Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Abdi, Q. Li, D. Huang, and V.S. Sokolinsky, “Progressive Failure Dynamic Analysis for Composite Structures,” 9th Japan International SAMPE Symposium & Exhibition (JISSE-9), Tokyo, Nov 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Abdi, D. Huang, M. Khatiblou, and C. Chamis, “Impact and Tension After Impact of Composite Launch Space Structure,” Sampe Conference Paper, 2001Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Garg and G. Abumeri, “Assessment of Residual Strength in Impacted Composite Panels,” JEC 2007 Journal PublicationGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Abe, J. Ymaki, and Y. Yuroshiyama, “Determination of Bending Characteristics of CFRP Beam Using Progressive Fracture Model,” Japan Society of Automotive Engineering, September 2007Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Abe and Y. Yuroshiyama, “Examination of Dynamic Bending Characteristics of a CFRP Beam Using Progressive Fracture Model,” Japan Society of Automotive Engineering (JSAE) Annual Congress (spring), 2008Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 25, Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 1993Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Damage-Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Structure, Advisory Circular 25.571-1A, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC,1986Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Personal communication with Mr. Joseph R. Soderquist, FAA damage tolerance contact, 9 August 1996Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Sutton, “A Proposed Method of Compliance to Damage Tolerance Requirements for Commercial Aircraft Composite Primary Wing Structure,” Sixth NASA/DoD Advanced Composite Technology Conference, Anaheim, CA, NASA-CP-3326, Vol. 1, Part 1, 1996, p. 159Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Composite Aircraft Structure, Advisory Circular 20-107A, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 1984Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P.L.N. Murthy and C.C. Chamis, “Integrated Composite Analyzer (ICAN): Users and Programmers Manual,” NASA-TP-2515, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, 1986Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Sutton et al., “Design, Analysis, and Tests of Composite Primary Wing Structure Repairs,” Fifth NASA/DoD Advanced Composites Technology Conference, Seattle, WA, NASA-CP-3294, Vol. 1, Part 2, 1995, p. 916Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Personal communication with Mr. Bob Walters at Boeing, B2 Bomber damage tolerance contact, 12 August 1996Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D.G. Moon and J.M. Kennedy, “Post-Impact Fatigue Response of Stitched Composites,” Composite Materials: Fatigue and Fracture – Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1230, R.H. Martin, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1995., pp. 351–367Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Moon, F. Abdi, and B. Davis, “Discrete Source Damage Tolerance Evaluation of S/RFI Stiffened Panels,” Sampe Conference Paper, 1999Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    F. Abdi, “Fire Resistance Simulation of Horizontal Flat Sandwich Panel and Deck-Bulkhead T-Joint Assembly with Temperature and Pressure Loads,” Contract No: N00014-02-M-0213 April 30, 2001Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Z. Qian, F. Abdi, R. Miraj, A. Mosallam, R. Iyer, J.-J. Wang, T. Logan “The Post-fire Residual Strength of Composite Army Bridge,” 4th International Conference on Composites in Fire (CIF-4), New Castle England, September, 2005Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Qian and F. Abdi, “The Residual Strength of Composite Army Bridge after Fire Exposure,” AIAA-2006-1842, Newport, RI, May 1–5, 2006Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Miraj, Z. Qian, and F. Abdi, “Fire Resistance Simulation of Loaded Deck Sandwich Panel and Deck–Bulkhead Assembly Structures,” ONR 2006 Journal PublicationGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Mossallam, F. Abdi, and J. Qian, “Service Fire Resistance Simulation of Loaded deck Sandwich Panel and Deck Bulk Head Assembly Structure,” http://www.elsevier.com/copyright, Elsevier Journal Publication, 2007, 1359-836815, 2007.02.2002
  30. 30.
    A. Mossallam, F. Abdi, J. Qian, and R. Miraj, “Residual Strength of Composite Army Bridges Exposed to Fire,” Book Chapter, CDCC 2007, Third International Conference on Durability and Field Applications of Fiber reinforced Polymer (FRP), Composites for ConstructionGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Mosallam, F. Abdi, and R. Miraj, Post Fire Residual Strength of Composite Army Bridge, JEC, Canada, Feb 2008Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Huang, F. Abdi, and A. Mossallam, Comparison of Failure Mechanisms in Composite Structure, SAMPE 2003 Conference PaperGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Garg, G.H. Abumeri, and D. Huang, “Predicting Failure Design Envelop for Composite Material System Using Finite Element and Progressive Failure Analysis Approach,” Sampe 2008 Conference Paper, Long beach, CA, May 2008Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    GENOA User Manual, http://www. ascgenoa.com
  35. 35.
    F. Abdi, L. Minnetyan, and C. Chamis, “Durability and Damage Tolerance of Composites,” Book Chapter 8- Composites, Welded Joints, and Bolted Joints, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2000Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    De Xie, M. Garg, D. Huang, and F. Abdi, “Cohesive Zone Model for Surface Cracks using Finite Element Analysis,” AIAA-2008-106742, Chicago, Illinois, April, 2008Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    De Xie, Z. Qian, D. Huang, and F. Abdi, “Crack Growth Strategy in Composites under Static Loading,” 47th AIAA-2006-1842, Newport, RI, May 1–5, 2006Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    D. Xie, A.G. Salvi, A.M. Waas, and A. Caliskan, “Discrete Cohesive Zone Model to Simulate Static Fracture in 2D Triaxially Braided Carbon Fiber Composites,” J. Compos. Mater., Vol. 40, 2006, pp. 2025–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    D. Xie and A.M. Wass, “Discrete Cohesive Zone Model for Mixed-mode Fracture Using Finite Element Analysis,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 73, 2006 pp. 1783–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    F. Abdi, T. Castillo, and E. Shroyer, “Risk Management of Composite Structure” Book Chapter 45, CRC Handbook, January 2005Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    F. Abdi and X. Su “Progressive Failure Analysis of RLV Laminates of IM7/PETI-5 – at High, Room, and Cryogenic Temperatures,” 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, April 7--10, 2003Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    K.S. Whitley and T.S. Gates, “Thermal/Mechanical Response and Damage Growth in Polymeric Composites at Cryogenic Temperatures," 43rdAIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS /ASC- AIAA-2002-1416 Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Denver, Co, 2001Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    T.F. Johnson. and T.S. Gates, “Temperature Polyimide Materials in Extreme Temperature Environments," 42ndAIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS /ASC Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Seattle, WA, 2001Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    R. Rice, R. Randall, J. Bakuckas, and S. Thompson, “Development of MMPDS Handbook Aircraft Design Allowables,” Prepared for the 7th Joint DOD/FAA/NASA Conference on Aging Aircraft, September 8–11, New Orleans, LA, 2003Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    DOT/FAA/AR-03/19, Final Report, “Material Qualification and Equivalency for Polymer Matrix Composite Material System: Updated Procedure,” Office of Aviation Research, Washington, D.C. 20591, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, September 2003Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Department of Defense Handbook-OF Polymer Matrix Composites, “Volume 1. Guideline For Characterization of Structural Materials,” MIL-HDBK-17-1E, Volume 1of 3, 23 January 1997, Superseding MIL-HDBK-17-1D, 25 February, 1994, Approved for Public Release, distribution unlimitedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    G. Abumeri, M. Garg, and M. Taleghani, “A Computational Approach for Predicting A- and B-Basis Allowables for Polymer Composites,” SAMPE -2008, Memphis Tennessee, September, 2008Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    M.R. Talagani, Z. Gurdal, F. Abdi, and S. Verhoef, “Obtaining A-basis and B-basis Allowable Values for Open-Hole Specimens Using Virtual testing,” AIAAC-2007-127, 4. Ankara International Aerospace Conference, 10–12 September, 2007 – METU, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    JAMS 2006, “Full-Scale Damage Tolerance of Composite Sandwich Structures,” report, p. 11, K.S. Raju, National Institute for Aviation ResearchGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Test Plan – JAMS, “Full-Scale Damage Tolerance of Composite Sandwich Structures,” report p. 15–17, J.S. Tomblin & K.S. Raju, National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260-0093, 2007Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    JAMS, “Full-Scale Damage Tolerance of Composite Sandwich Structures,” report, J.S. Tomblin & K.S. Raju, National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260-0093, 2007Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J.S. Tomblin, Damage Tolerance Testing and Analysis Protocols for Full-Scale Composite Airframe Structures Under Repeated Loading, Wichita State University, WichitaGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    AGATE-WP3.3-033051-131, “A – Basis and B – Basis Design Allowables for Epoxy – Based Prepreg, TORAY T700SC-12 K-50C/#2510 Plain Weave Fabric [US Units],” J. Tomblin, J. Sherraden, W. Seneviratne, and K.S. Raju, National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260-0093Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Abdi
    • 1
  • J. Surdenas
    • 1
  • Nasir Munir
    • 2
  • Jerry Housner
    • 3
  • Raju Keshavanarayana
    • 4
  1. 1.Alpha STAR CorporationLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.North Grumman CorporationEl SegundoUSA
  3. 3.Analytical EnterprisesArlingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Aerospace Engineering/NationalInstitute for Aviation Research (NIAR), Wichita State UniversityWichitaUSA

Personalised recommendations