PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias

Toubia

Parametric Study of Sandwich Panel Buckling in Composite Wind Turbine Blades

Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson*, and Elias Toubia *Corresponding author: steven.donaldson@notes.udayton.edu
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469. USA ABSTRACT: A parametric study of the buckling performance of composite wind turbine blade regions with thin symmetric laminated sandwich rectangular panels, subjected to uniform axial shell edge compression loads is presented. The research focused on the critical buckling load and strain levels with core material parameters, such as transverse core shear modulus and core thickness, for rectangular sandwich strips with long aspect ratios. Both flat and curved-section models were considered. The buckling design plots generated provide an insight into optimal core solutions for efficient designs. NOMENCLATURE a = length of the panel, m b = width of the panel, m c = core thickness, m k = panel curvature ratio, % (arc height divided by the panel width) l = curve length, m r = radius, m t = facing thickness on one surface, m h = overall thickness of sandwich C0 = normalized core thickness (core thickness divided by total facing sheet thickness) 1, 2, 3 = general coordinates. (1:longitudinal direction; 2: width direction; 3: direction normal to the panel planform) r, t, z = cylindrical coordinates. (r: radial direction normal to panel; t: curve angle direction; z: longitudinal direction)

U1, U2, U3 = displacement in 1, 2, 3 direction Ur, Uz, Ut = displacement in r, z, t direction Pcr= critical buckling end load (=eigenvalue), N/m cr = critical buckling end strain, % E1, E2, E3 = Moduli of elasticity G13 = Core transverse shear modulus in 1-3 plane, Pa G23 = Core transverse shear modulus in 2-3 plane, Pa 12 , 21, 23 = Poisson's ratios N1 = Uniform compressive end load, N/m

INTRODUCTION
Renewable energy sources continue to increase as a percentage of global energy production. This trend is dominated by wind energy and is the result of both an increase in the number of turbines installed, as well as the increasing diameter of turbine rotors with the corresponding energy output per turbine (Roczek, 2010). As a consequence of this design strategy, the blade structures are becoming increasingly thinwalled, such that buckling problems in the blade panels must be addressed (Lund, Johansen, 2008). In general, the wind turbine blade works in much the same way as the steel I-beam, except that there are shells around the outside that form the aerodynamic shape and resist buckling and torsional loads (WE Handbook- 3- Structural Design). Utility-scale wind turbine blades use extensive sandwich construction, in both the aerodynamic shells and shear webs. To meet stiffness constraints such as deflection limits, the fiber composite materials in the broad unsupported spans of shell and shear web laminates are stiffened through the use of sandwich construction to prevent local deformation and buckling. In blade structures, the largest single role of the sandwich core is to assure adequate stability of the large panel regions against buckling. As such, the most significant attributes of the core materials are the transverse

shear modulus and the core thickness. Since core materials are generally available in a wide range of weights, mechanical properties, and cost, a study focused on the shell core is appropriate. Several related and valuable plate buckling studies and wind turbine blade preliminary design studied have been done in this area. General wind turbine blade optimization methods are discussed and presented in (Roczek, 2010, Lund, Johansen, 2008 and Lund, 2005). Structural reliability and mechanical behavior predictions for blade materials are reported in reference (Mishnaevsky et al., 2011). A preliminary design study of an advanced 50 m blade for utility wind turbines is presented in reference (Jackson et al., 2005) Closed form, exact solutions for the buckling of simply supported, rectangular, orthotropic plates under different load conditions are given in (Narita, Leissa, 1990, Leissa, 1985). Many nondimensional buckling parameters were generated by Nemeth and Weaver (Nemeth, 1995, Nemeth 2004, Weaver, Nemeth, 2007) for long or infinitely long symmetrically laminated anisotropic rectangular plates subjected to various combined load conditions. Theoretical prediction of buckling loads for cyclic sandwich shells under axial compression with laminated facings and foam core is presented in (Morovvati, 2011). Although many researchers have investigated the buckling of simply supported laminated composite plates, the early buckling analysis works focused on anisotropic plate

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

excluding sandwich plates or shells. Therefore, it is useful to perform a parametric study of both flat and curved section strips representing different characteristic regions of sandwich laminates in blades. A parametric study of the buckling performance of core materials on the basis of transverse shear modulus and thickness, within a given design domain (a fixed set of laminate designs and critical buckling loads) is presented. This will provide insight into optimal core solutions. This study considers both flat and curved-section rectangular sandwich strip models with long aspect ratios, which provide close approximations to the buckling loads and mode shapes (wavelengths) expected in the sandwich panel regions of the blades. Considering the design process and the characteristic strains in axial compression conditions, the buckling trends are on the basis of both critical buckling load and strain. A complete parametric study using practical design properties does not appear to exist in the literature, and was therefore the goal of this study. The results of the present work in practical design optimization studies would then involve assessing the cost and weight of various core products as an indication of optimal thickness values, then comparing the cost and weight of the various solutions.

assumed that all layers of the panel were perfectly bonded together and thus the displacements were continuous throughout the thickness. The model of the panel strips were built in ABAQUS 6.10 with elements of S4R (ABAQUS Users Manuals, Version 6.10). For the flat-section model, there were a total of 1111 nodes and 1000 elements used. The curved section model used 1313 nodes and 1200 elements. This mesh density was established in a prior convengence study by Toubia (Toubia, 2008). The general boundary condidtions of the sandwich panel models are shown in Figure 1. In the flat-section model, on the loaded edge, U2 = U3 = 0. The long edges have U2 = U3 = 0, and the far end has U1 = U2 = U3 = 0. In the curved-section model, on the loaded edge, Ut = Ur = 0. In this initial study, the load profile was assumed to be uniform across the ends (later studies to examine non-uniform loading are appropriate). The long edges have Ut = Ur = 0, and the far end has Ut = Ur = Uz = 0. The analyzed material data and panel model information can be found in Table 1 and Table 2. The facing material used in this study is E_TLX 5500 (E_TLX5500, 15 December 2011.) which is [0/45/-45] E-glass material commonly used as composite reinforcement in wind turbine blade shell regions. Four representative core materials (M1 to M4) are selected to cover the prevalent material shear modulus range. The critical buckling eigenvalues were found by buckling analysis using ABAQUS, and then applied in the linear analysis approach to obtain the critical buckling strains. Sample dominant buckling mode shapes are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

ANALYSIS AND DESCRIPTION Finite Element Analysis

In setting up the model, two panel models (flat and curved-section) were considered to represent different regions of the blade shell. It was

Figure 1. General bounduary conditions of the infinitely long strip of the panel (1, 2, 3) and shell (r, t, z)

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

Figure 2. ABAQUS buckling wavelength result for flat-section sandwich panel model

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

Figure 3. ABAQUS result for high aspect ratio curved-section sandwich panel model a) with no rigid ends and b) rigid ends included

Closed Form Solution Validation

The flat-section model result was validated by the closed form solutions provided by Allen (Allen, 1969) for orthotropic sandwich panels (valid for flat plates only). The infinitely long curved plate solution for isotropic plates was found in Gambhir (Gambhir, 2004). Since the S4R element in ABAQUS is a soft shell element, rigid ends were required in the sandwich panel models to get more accurate buckling eigenvalues. The validated results can be seen in Figure 4. The core transverse shear moduli, G13 and G23, are studied because they are the core properties that have the most significant effect on panel buckling (Toubia, 2008). As shown in Figure 4, for a core with high transverse shear modulus G13, the FEA result and analytical solutions converge. When the core shear modulus is too low, the local skin buckling wrinkling mode is dominant. As shown in Table 1, the lowest shear modulus studied has a value of G13 of 20 MPa (less than a 5% deviation from the closed form solution), while the highest had a value of 250 (essentially no deviation).

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

Figure 4. Flat model FEA result compare with the closed form solution

FEA compare with closed form solution 1200 1100 FEA S4R 1000 ANALYTIC 900 AL 800 700 600 500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 G13 (MPa)
Flat Panel Core Thickness Study
Figure 5 shows the effects of increasing the core transverse shear modulus (M1 through M4), increasing the number of facing layers (1 layer facing to 5), and increasing the core thickness (C0 is the core thickness divided by the facing thickness) on the critical buckling load, N1. Figure 5 illustrates that a higher transverse shear modulus increases critical buckling load. It is also clear that both increasing the number of facing layers, as well as increasing the core thickness lead to increases in the critical buckling load. Note that while increasing the thickness of the core, the critical buckling loads increase faster in the cases with higher transverse core shear modulus. Also, for increased core thickness, a higher number of layer facing results in rapid increases in critical buckling load. Figure 6 depicts similar trends for the laminate critical strain values: transverse shear modulus of the core, core thickness, and number of facing layers are the dominant aspects in sandwich panel buckling resistance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The local buckling phenomenon, such as core shear crimping and skin wrinkling, are discussed in references (Eringen, 1952, Vinson, 1999). The core thickness and shear modulus must be adequate to prevent the panel from buckling or failing under end compression loads. The compressive modulus of the facing skin and the core compression strength must both be high enough to prevent a skin wrinkling failure. Since the anayzed skin material is sufficently stiff, local skin failure was not taken into consideration herein (Toubia, 2008). Each of the curves in the subsequent plots were created from five or six individual calculation points. Since no dramatic shape variations were observed in the results, for clarity the individual data points are not shown, but smoothed lines are presented.

Figure 5. Critical buckling load versus normalized core thickness C0 for all five facing layers and all four core materials. Flat-section. 1m width sandwich panel.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 3 5
Normalized core thickness C0

Critical Buckling Load N1*105 (N/m)

Critical Buckling Load Nx*109 (N/m)

11

13

15

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

Figure 6. Critical buckling strain versus core thickness for all five facing layers and all four core materials. Flat-section. 1m width sandwich panel.

Note that the strain is dependent on Ncr/2t (assuming half of the load is carried by top and bottom skin, t is the thickness of each the skin, Ncr is N/m per linear width b). For a low modulus core, core shear instability (shear crimping) governs the buckling load. The shear modulus is not stiff enough to engage the top and bottom skin. So if we look at the formula: cr=G*h/(2t) (core shear instability formula for isotropic core), and = (strain, )*E, and = (Ncr/2(bt))= (strain, )*E, then Ncr/2t decreases as strain decreases. Since Ncr increases as the skin

thickness increases, Ncr is divided by the number of plies, this number decreases for the low modulus core. As for the stiffer core, the shear modulus is high enough that the core is coupling and engaging the skins to effectively carry the buckling load, therefore global buckling occurs. The more the number of plies is increased, the more the structure is straining, until an asymptotic line is reached that the buckling cannot go beyond, until the shear modulus is increased.Figure 7 separates the results by core type (M1-M4).

Figure 7. Critical buckling strain versus core thickness for core material M1, M2, M3, M4. Flat-section. 1m width sandwich panel
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 20 25 30 35 40 45 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 20 25 30 35 40 45

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 20 25 30 35 40 45

1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 20 25 30 35 40 45

In Figure 8, the width of the panel was increased from 1m to 5m to width increases to around 3m due to global flexibility. Strain is not depict the panel width effect. For each core thickness, the upper curve shown because, for the flat panel, the critical buckling strain is the same is 5 layers, the lowest is 1 layer. Note the critical buckling loads drop regardless of panel width. faster with increasing core shear modulus. The trends level off as the Figure 8. Critical buckling load versus panel width for material M1, M2, M3 M4 in 20, 30, 40mm core thickness. Flat-section. 1m, 3m, 5m width sandwich panel. For each core thickness, the upper curve is 5 layers, the lowest is 1 layer.
12 10 8 15 6 10 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 0 1 35 30 25 20 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 25 20

30 25

To gain insight into the critical buckling strain versus core transverse shear modulus relationship, additional hypothetical core materials (see Table 3) are introduced in Figure 9. Note core material M3 is an

unbalanced core with a shear modulus G13=108 Mpa and G23=72 Mpa. All other core materials are balanced (G13 = G23). Compared with core material Q1, M3 has an 8% increase in G13 and 28% decrease in G23,

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

the result is approximately 9.6% maximum decrease in buckling strain. For core material Q5, the shear modulus is the same as Q4 but up to 28.6% decrease in material elastic modulus. The result is only maximum 3.3% decreased in buckling strain. The results indicate that in sandwich buckling resistance, the core transverse shear modulus is a major characteristic aspect, while the material elastic modulus has

negligible effect on the critical strain level.The trends are almost constant when the core shear modulus increases. Critical buckling strains are proportional with the increase in core thickness. As such, core thickness is another major aspect in sandwich buckling resistance.The results are expanded in Figure 10 to include additional face sheet layer combinations.

Figure 9. Critical buckling strain versus core transverse shear modulus in 20, 30, 40mm core. 1 facing layer. Flat-section sandwich panel.

0.9 Critical buckling strain (%) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20 40 60
M 1 M 2 M 1 M 1 M 2 Q1

1 facing
Q2 Q3

Q5

40m
Q4 M 4

M Q1 Q3 Q5 Q4 Q3 Q5 Q4

M 2

M Q1 M

30mm
M 4

20mm
M 4

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Transverse shear modulus

Figure 10. Critical buckling strain versus core transverse shear modulus in 20, 30, 40mm core. All 5 facing layers. Flat panel. 1m width

1 0.9 Critical buckling strain (%) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20 70 120 170 Transverse shear modulus (Mpa) 220 20mm 30mm
5 layer 4 layer 3 layer 2 layer 1 layer 5 layer 4 layer 3 layer 2 layer 1 layer

40mm

5 layer 4 layer 3 layer 2 layer 1 layer

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

10

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

Curved Panel Curvature Ratio and Core Thickness Study

In the curved-section sandwich panel models (see Figure 11), the results clearly indicate that the buckling loads increase quickly with curvature of the plate, core thickness, and number of facing layers. It is also shown that the critical curvature ratio exists for a fixed core material and thickness, where the trends of the critical buckling loads reach a high point and then level off. Local buckling occurs after that. For the lower shear modulus core materials, the critical curvature ratio occurs earlier than those with high shear modulus. In the practical design, it reveals those sandwich panels made of lower shear modulus

core materials are not suitable to be made with large curvature ratio to resist buckling. Alternatively, when the core shear modulus is high, the trend is still upward (no critical point is reached). For the critical buckling strains in the curved-section panel models (Figure 12), the plots show that the strains decrease and then increase as the curvature of the plate increases. The results of variations in the transverse shear modulus in curved-section sandwich panel models are shown in Figure 13. The critical buckling strain increases when the core thickness and section curvature ratio increases

Figure 11. Critical buckling load versus panel curvature ratio for core material M1, M2, M3, M4 in 20, 30, 40mm core thickness and all five facing layers. Curved-section panel.
14 12 10 20 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 25

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

11

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

Figure 12. Critical buckling strain versus panel curvature ratio for core material M1, M2, M3, M4 in 20, 30, 40mm core thickness and all five facing layers. Curved-section panel.

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

1.2 1 0.8 0.6

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

12

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

Figure 13. Critical buckling strain versus transverse shear modulus in 5%, 10%, 25% curvature, 20mm core, Curved panel, all 5 layers.

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20

20mm Core 25%

5 layer 4 layer 3layer 2 layer

Critical buckling strain (%)

10%

5%

5 layer 4 layer 3layer 2 layer 1 layer 5 layer 4 layer 3layer 2 layer 1 layer

70 120 170 Transverse shear modulus (Mpa)

220

PRELIMINARY DESIGN EXAMPLE

A. approximately 27mm thickness of core M4 with 5 facing layers; B. approximately 33mm thickness of core M3 with 1 facing layers; Figure 14 shows a repeat of Figure 6 to be used as a design example. C. approximately 41mm thickness of core M4 with 2 facing layers; In this example, the critical buckling design strain has been previously chosen based on other factors (maximum blade deflection, joining, Based on the cost and weight of facing materials and core materials, the damage tolerance, etc.), and required to be equal to or greater than optimal choice can be made to minimize or balance the cost and the 0.5%. Several combinations of core selection, core thickness, and weight of the structure. facing thickness are depicted in Figure 14 (only three are shown of a possible 12 curve intersections): Figure 14. Critical buckling strain versus core thickness for all five facing layers and all four core materials. Flat-section. 1m width sandwich panel.

1.2 Critical buckling strain 1

b=1m M 1 M 2
5 layer 4 layer 1 layer 2 layer 3 layer 4 layer 5 layer

0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0 20

A 25

B 30 35 Core thickness 40 45

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

13

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

CONCLUSIONS
A finite element based study of the buckling of composite sandwich panels (as seen in wind turbine blade shells) was conducted to examine the sensitivity of critical buckling load and strain levels to multiple design parameters, including the core transverse modulus, core thickness, number of facing layers, panel width, and panel curvature. The results of this project provide a more efficient preliminary design method to assess sandwich panel buckling in wind turbine blade design. The results from this study in practical design optimization would involve assessing the variables listed above, then comparing the cost and weight of the various solutions toward the design objectives such as minimizing cost or weight.

Leissa AW. Buckling of laminated composite plates and shell panels. Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories 1985, Final Report, No. AFWAL-TR-85-3069. Lund E, Johansen LS, On Buckling Optimization of a Wind Turbine Blade. Mechanical Response of Composites, Computational Methods in Applied Sciences 2008, Volume 10, 243-260. Lund E. On Structural Optimization of Composite Shell Structures Using a Discrete Constitutive Parametrization. Wind Energy 2005; 8:109124. Mishnaevsky, L., Brndsted, P., Nijssen, R., Lekou, D. and Philippidis, T. Materials of large wind turbine blades: recent results in testing and modeling. Wind Energy 2011. Morovvati MR. Buckling of Generally Anisotropic Sandwich Shells. American Society of Composites 26th Annual Technical Conference 2011, 1143. Narita Y, Leissa AW. Buckling studies for simply supported symmetrically laminated rectangular plates. Int. J. Mech. Science 1990, Volume 32, No. 11, 909-924. Nemeth MP. Buckling Behavior of Long Anisotropic Plates Subjected to Combined Loads. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center 1995, 1-37. Nemeth MP. Buckling of long compression-loaded anisotropic plates restrained against inplane lateral and shear deformations. Thin-Walled Structures 2004. Volume 42 639685. Roczek A. Optimization of trailing edge sandwich panels for a wind turbine blade. 9th International Conference on Sandwich Structures 2010. Toubia EA. Web buckling behavior under in-plane compression and shear loads for web reinforced composite sandwich core, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Dayton 2008, available at: Vinson JR. The behavior of sandwich structures of isotropic and composite materials. TECHNOMIC Publishing Company, Inc 1999. WE Handbook- 3- Structural Design. Available at: Weaver PM, Nemeth MP. Bounds on Flexural Properties and Buckling Response for Symmetrically Laminated Composite Plates. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 2007, 1178-1191

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The discussions with Fred Stoll of Milliken & Co. are gratefully appreciated.

REFERENCES
ABAQUS Users Manuals, Version 6.10 (Volume I-III, Hibbitt: Karlson and Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, RI.) Allen HG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich panels. Pergamon Press, Oxford 1969. E_TLX5500. http://www.vectorply.com/pdf/e-tlx%205500.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2011. Eringen AC. Bending and buckling of rectangular plates. Proceedings of the first U.S. National congress of applied mechanics, ASME New York 1952. 381-390. Gambhir ML. Stability analysis and design of structure. Springer 2004. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1537815401&Fmt=7&clientI%2 0d=79356&RQT=309&VName=PQD. Accessed 15 December 2011. http://www.gurit.com/files/documents/3_Blade_Structure.pdf Jackson, K, Zuteck, M, van Dam, C, Standish, ., Berry, D. Innovative Design Approaches for Large Wind Turbine Blades. Wind Energy 2005; 8:141171.

Table 1: Candidate Material Properties

Face/Core E_TLX 5500 (face sheet) M1 M2 M3 M4 E1 MPa 21400 50 100 284 400 E2 MPa 10000 50 100 250 400 50 100 210 400 E3 MPa 0.4 0.33 0.2 0.39 0.2 0.22 0.2 0.25 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 12 13 23 G12 MPa 6000 20 30 146 250 G13(G1) MPa 3740 20 50 108 250 G23(G2) Mpa 3740 20 50 72 250

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

14

PARAMETRIC STUDY OF SANDWICH PANEL BUCKLING IN COMPOSITE WIND TURBINE BLADES Shicong Miao, Steven Donaldson, and Elias Toubia

Table 2: Panel Model information Variables Number of facing layers analyzed Thickness of each layer (m) Range of core thickness (m) Range of panel width b (m) Range of panel curvature ratio (%) Aspect ratio (length/width; a/b) Shell edge load (N/m) Table 3: Additional Core Material Properties Face/Core Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 E1 MPa 150 200 250 350 250 E2 MPa 150 200 250 350 250 E3 MPa 150 200 250 350 250 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 12 13 23 G12 MPa 100 120 150 200 200 G13(G1) MPa 100 120 150 200 200 G23(G2) Mpa 100 120 150 200 200 Range 1~5 0.0015 0.02~0.045 1~5 0~25% 5 1 Description Increased by 1 Increased by 0.0015 Increased by 0.005 1m, 3m, 5m Flat, 5%, 10%, 25% Constant Uniformly distributed

AcademyPublish.org Journal of Engineering and Technology Vol.2, No.2

15