Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28

KUL-34.

4700: LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES

DESIGNING OF LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURE CAPABLE OF


TAKING ONE PERSON LOAD

GROUP MEMBERS:

Filippo Galli (Student ID: 518482)


Muhammad Junaid Akhtar (Student ID : 545390)
Raphael Oliveira (Student ID : 518660)
Ghulam Hassan (Student ID : 546373)
1

DESIGN PROBLEM

The idea of this practical work is to design and prepare a weight optimized support structure.
The support must withstand the weight of the team leader for 3 seconds without failure and
without touching a reference ground level (30 mm). See image no. 1.
The bearing distance is 1000 mm and the full length of the support must cover 1050 mm.
The test supports are 150 mm wide and 30 mm high. See image no. 1.
The test loading will be applied with a standardized plywood plate.
The standardized plywood plate must be attached to the structure with minimum of two
M6x25 mm bolts. See image no. 2.

Figure 1: General Diagram for problem statement

Figure 2: Attachment on the top of the structure

CONCEPT DESIGN & EXPECTED LOADING CASE


We went for relatively simplified engineering approach to get the best possible load/weight ratio.
Triangular truss structure are the best suit for such problem as shown in the figure # 3.

F = 735.75 N
Frames in compression

Support restricting
vertical movement.

Longitudinal beams
in tension
Figure 3: Concept Model for the design case & expected stress vectors

We have assumed that the person weight would be approx. 75 Kg uniformly distributed on the top
of the structure. Based on this loading, ideally, our frames should be in compression and longitudinal
beams should be in tension. The frames should be analyzed for the buckling loads as well.
In reality, it will have slightly disorientated loading as the person would be step up and obviously, it
wont be a stable loading.

MATERIAL SELECTION
Once, we have developed the approximate stress vectors. We can take advantage of the composite
directional properties to select the appropriate material for our design.
REINFORCEMENTS:
The mechanical properties for the selected materials were taken from Esacomp 4.4.
Reinforcements Lamina Property Sheet
Fiber Type
E1
E2
Poisson Ratio G12
GPa GPa
GPa
Interglass 92145, UD Fiber
30
8
0.3
3.2
Hexforce 1202, Twill Weave 20.5 20.5
0.11
3.2

G31
GPa
3.2
3.1

G23
GPa
3.07692
3.1

Density
g/m2
220
290

Reason for choosing unidirectional glass fiber material


The tensile strength and modulus of a unidirectional oriented fiber-reinforced composites are
maximum when these properties are measured in the longitudinal direction of fibers. As we stated
above that we tension at the longitudinal beams of the structure so unidirectional glass fiber
(Interglass 92145) in that region.
Reason for choosing twill weave glass fiber
Since, we have slight variable loads at the frames in real life case. We have decided to use woven
fabric having same E1 and E2 properties at the frames. Then, we had two options:
1. Plain Weave
2. Twill Weave
We decided to go with twill weave as it provides better strength properties as compared to plain
weave.

RESIN:

Type

Resin Property Sheet


Density @ 25o C Viscosity @ 25o C

Applicability

Epoxy Araldite 5052

g/cm
0.94

1000-1500 cps

Wet lay-up, Resin Transfer


Moulding, Pressure Moulding

Reason for using Epoxy Araldite 5052


Epoxy Araldite 5052 has excellent mechanical and dynamic properties after ambient cure with
potential for even higher properties after post cure at elevated temperatures, high temperature
resistance, and can be easily used during wet layup process or vacuum assisted layup process
because it provides easy impregnation for reinforcement materials.
4


ADHESIVE:
We have selected Scotch Weld DP-190 as an adhesive in our design and the reasons are mentioned
below:
Reason of Using Scotch Weld DP-190

Delivers extended work-life, providing additional time for adjustment.


Provides tough, strong bonds through high shear and peel strength.
Capable of bonding to a wide variety of different materials.
Application: For smaller or intermittent applications
Formulated with low viscosity for easy dispensing.
90 minute work life

CORE MATERIALS
Following core material has been used in our design:
Type
Airex C 51.60; PUR
Diab Balsa

Core Property Sheet


Elastic Modulus Poisson Ratio Thickness
GPa
mm
0.0145
0.45
20
4.1
0.23
16

Density
kg/m3
60

90

Reason of Using PUR Airex C 51.60


High impact resistance (non-brittle failure mode)
Good fatigue resistance
Superior bond strength
Low resin absorption
Low Price: 15 /kg
We are using PUR as core material with twill reinforcement material along the compressive chord
length of our design model, the main reason is due to its low price than PVC.
Reason of Using Bala Wood

Fast and easy to process.


Exceptional shear and compressive strength.

LAMINATE THICKNESS
The property data had similar mechanical properties but different laminate thickness. So we
calculated laminate thickness using following formulation:
1
=

Interglass 92145, UD Fiber: 0.31 mm


Hexforce 1202, Twill Weave: 0.41mm
5

DESIGN CALCULATION
The procedure we follow consist in a first analysis of the most simplified possible structure that can
be analytically solved. This structure can be considered as a truss structure, made of beams and pin
joints. It is simply supported by the standard support and, in this phase we consider the reactions of
the constrains as punctual forces acting in the pins as it is shown in the following picture. Also the
force due to the weight of the persons standing on the structure is a punctual force in this phase.

Figure 4: Truss structure in 2D case with applied force and stress vectors

The internal reactions in such a structure are just in-plane forces: tension in the longitudinal and
transverse beams of the base, and compression in the 4 beams connecting the point of application
of the force to the base.
In order to evaluate them we built a MATLAB code (in attachment) based on the equilibrium
equations, that are enough to solve this structure. Our results are:
F = 735.75 [N] Force applied due to the weight of one person
N_ beams = -414.98 [N] Compressive internal reaction in the 4 beams
N_hor_long = 367.88 [N] Tensile internal reaction in the 2 longitudinal base beams
F_hor_transv = 55.18 [N] Tensile internal reaction in the 2 transverse base beams
Once we calculated these values we have to define a rough design for our structure: theoretically our
structure (since we have just in-plane reactions) can be made just by unidirectional glass reinforced
fiber layers. However, in our real structure we do not have ideal pin joints but the real joints can also
transmit moments, and there is also a shear reaction, reflecting in shear stresses. But most important
is that buckling must not occur in the compressed beams. So we decide to use;
Unidirectional glass reinforced fiber for the 2 longitudinal beams of the base, which also in
the real case we expect that are loaded just in tension since the vertical component of forces
are concentrated in the constrains.
Balsa wood as a core for the 2 transverse beams, covered with a layer of unidirectional glass
reinforced fiber as shown in the lamination detail sheet. Balsa is used to create a stable

support for the structure and transmit the vertical component of the force to the support in
compression. The cover layer is applied to carry the horizontal force acting in these beams.
A sandwich structure for the 4 inclined beams/frames. This is due to the fact that such a
structure is very resistant to moments stresses and shear and, of course, is much safer in
terms of buckling. The foam used for the core will be discussed later but for the face we
decide to use twill woven fabric GFRP because in the real case we can have also non parallel
stresses and so such a configuration should be safer.

ANALYTICAL CALCULATION
Once we have the internal forces, we assume that all the in-plane forces are transmitted through
the GFRP layers (this is valid also for the sandwich structure, in fact the properties of the core are
much smaller than the faces for this kind of load).
Then we fix a coefficient of safety, in this analysis we fix:
= 1.5
This is a bigger than the usual value used for lightweight structures (1.25), but this is a very simplified
structure, so our coefficient must take into account also this, in addition to the fact that the values
of maximum stresses we have from ESACOMP regarding the twill-fibers reinforced laminate are
slightly different from the one that is used.
Once we fixed this we divide the internal force by the area of the resistant area that is:
=

( )

Where:
N is the internal force
t is the thickness of a layer
b is the width
n is the unknown number of layers requires
Now we check in ESACOMP the maximum values in tension and in compression for each part and,
with this data, we can refer to a criterion to evaluate the exact number of layers.
The criterion we choose is the MAXIMUM STRESS: this because we have just one stress component
in this ideal case.
Therefore;
= |

Where
Maximum stress for the actual stare of stress

Actual stress
7

In this equation the only unknown is the n of layers and it can be calculated:
For this case, since the load is not so big, it comes out that 1 layer is enough for the each beam in the
base and that we need 1 layer per face for the sandwich structure in the 4 beams.
At this point some consideration are necessary:
For the transverse beam in covering the balsa wood support one layer is more than enough
since we do not have big stresses
For the longitudinal ones we decide to use 2 layers, in order to create a much more stable
joint with the transverse beam by joining together the 2 layers, one above and one below the
Balsa wood core.
Since the sandwich beam are compressed we have to check the global and local stability
before to accept this result.

The following step is, therefore, the calculation of the buckling stability in the compressed beams:
We follow the procedure explained during classes to check the global stability of a sandwich beam
and then the local buckling of the face. We skip all the demonstration, widely described during classes
and exercise sessions, and we just report calculations:
The formulation of the critical load for thin face sandwich beams is the following:

Where:
D Bending Stiffness
S Shear Stiffness
l length of the beam
The formulation of the critical load for thick face sandwich beams is the following:

Where
Euler buckling load for a face
8

After the analysis of global stability we have to check the local one by calculating the coordinate to
enter the provided graph and getting in order to evaluate the critical stress following this
procedure:

Once we have we can enter one table (in this case one between the second and the third), check
the most critical case, the one providing the minimum and evaluate . Here there are
calculations for some different solutions of foam and layer and, at the end we will choose the best
solution.

1 layer per face and core foam C70


= 414.98
_ = 602.98
_ = 602.98
= 0.12
1 = 0.55
_ = 300.67

1 layer per face and core foam C51


= 414.98
_ = 464.34
_ = 464.65
= 0.26
1 = 0.56
_ = 71.14

We can do some considerations: if we use the cheaper foam buckling we have a very small margin
while in the other case we have a bigger margin but not big enough (1.5) as our target one that
takes into account all the uncertainties. So, since we have a lot of uncertainties up to now, we
decide to use 2 layers per face.

2 layer per face and core foam C70


= 414.98
_ = 1178.74
_ = 1178.76
= 0.25
1 = 0.57
_ = 310.97

2 layer per face and core foam C51


= 414.98
_ = 803.91
_ = 804.00
= 0.52
1 = 0.68
_ = 86.17

__ = .
10

CONSIDERATIONS
The local buckling seems to be very far from the critical case. About the global stability, that is more
critical considering the high length of beams with respect to the other dimensions now we reach
reasonable safety factors:
70 = 2.78
51 = 1.91
Both of them are very conservative compared to the previous case, but it was too hazardous
considering all the uncertainties due to strong simplifications. We will decide later, after the
calculation of the deflection what the best choice is.
Another thing that should be noticed is that there is almost no difference between the critical loads
in the case of thick and thin faces; this means that the approximation with thin faces is good.
DEFLECTION CALCULATION
At first, we estimate the vertical deflection of the point where the force is applied. In this simplified
structure the easiest method for doing this calculation is referring to the Principle of Virtual Works,
since we have just normal forces acting along the beams.
We do not explain the detailed procedure; the main idea is that, if we refer to an auxiliary structure,
with the same geometry of ours and a virtual force acting along the actual displacement of our real
structure (that is our unknown), the work produced by that external virtual force is equal to the work
produced by the internal reaction acting along the displacements of each beams. So in the following
equation the only unknown is the vertical displacement.

1 =

Where:
d
l
(N /EA)*dx
N*
1*

is the unknown displacement


is the length of each beam
is the punctual displacement of a point in a beam
is the reaction in the beam in the auxiliary structure
is the magnitude of the virtual force

The results of the calculation is:


= .
In this calculation, we neglected the contribution of the 2 transverse beams since both the
deformation and the forces are very small. Also the core component is not considered since all
longitudinal loads are carried by faces according to our assumptions. The choice of this material will
be done after the FEM evaluation, where we can see that the deflection is not influenced so much
11

also in FEM analysis. So we can anticipate that, according to the consideration explained later, we
choose the cheaper PUR foam core, since there is no an apparent need to choose the PVC foam and,
in this case, we can also achieve an additional reduction of the final weight and cost.
So at the end our final results for our final structure are from analytical calculations are:

__ = .
__ = .
__ = .
= .
_ _ = .
= . ( )

12

FEA CALCULATIONS
We decided to use a shell model in order to reduce the computational load with respect to a more
accurate solid model. We used abaqus CAE 6.14 for our analysis. Shell model can be seen below:

Figure 5: Shell Model of the structure

Material properties were defined for each lamina and elastic case was assumed. Then, composite
plies with model using conventional lay-up module. See the images for a longitudinal beam as typical
stack plot.

Figure 6: 2 x layers of unidirectional glass plies in the middle of longitudinal beams

13

Figure 7: 2 x layers of unidirectional glass plies with balsa core at the ends of longitudinal beams

After defining geometry, we add the load since the plate is not so big we assume that the weight is
equally distributed along the top surface;
75 [] [/ 2]
=
= 32700
0.152 []
Then, we have to fix the boundary conditions: our structure simply supported in the ends, therefore,
in order to reproduce it in the FEM model we draw a line in the contact point and we constrain the
vertical displacement of that line. In this small rotations rotate around that axis are allowed, in the
real situation.

Figure 8: Boundary conditions and applied pressure

However, the clamp the internal bonds between beams so relative rotations are constrained. This is
more conservative then the real case and, for this, we expect a slightly lower deflection.

14

Then, after fixing all the properties of sections and material, we choose a proper dimensions of mesh
with some trials and finally 10mm mesh size was selected in order to have reliable results in a
reasonable computational time.

Figure 9: Hex-Dominated Mesh with created keeping mesh size to 10mm.

Results of FEA are shown below:

Figure 10: Stress state in S11 axis

15

Figure 11: Stress vectors in S11 axis

Figure 12: Stress state in S22 axis

As comes out from pictures, stresses are closed to the ones we have calculated analytically and they
are more or less constant along beams, so we can conclude that, with approximations due to the
mesh and the simplification of the geometry, our results are reliable. It should be noticed that in the
sandwich beams there is also a small stress component in transversal direction; this is due to the fact
that we do not have ideal pins and the load is not punctual. But since it is small and we have a great
margin in that beam we can assume that our structure is still safe without an additional reference to
an interactive criterion.

16

The next step is the evaluation of the deflection in the point of application of load:

Figure 13: Deflection in U2 direction using PVC core

Figure 14: Deflection in U2 direction using PUR core

Also in this more realistic case we can see that the deflection is not much influenced by the core
material. However, because of in the real case some load is carried also by core, we can see that with
a reduction of core properties, we are approaching the values we found analytically (i.e. 1.68 mm).
Since, this result shows that in both of cases we have a deflection far away from the limits (i.e. 10mm),
there is no reason for choosing the more expensive one, increasing the cost and weight of the
structure.
So we choose the PUR FOAM core.

17

MANUFACTURING PROCESS
The manufacturing of this model will be divided in three major parts:
1. Top Plate
2. Frame Support
3. Base Plate

Figure 15: Complete Assembly

These three major parts will be manufactured and then, assembled together using above mentioned.
Top Plate:
The first major part is the top plate, a sandwich structure that consists of three minor parts: A
laminate layer of twill weave glass fiber, a balsa wood core and another laminate layer of twill weave
glass fiber, as it can be seen in the image below:

Figure 16: Exploded view of the Top Plate

18

The balsa wood core will be cut out of a balsa plate and drilled to make the holes for the screws that
will fix the standard support to our structure. For the laminate layers will be used the wet lay-up
without vacuum bagging to reduce the cost of the process as it not considered as major structural
member. See lamination sheet for details.
Once, the part is cured. Cutting, grinding and drilling process will be performed to make the part in
accurate dimensions.
Frame Support:
This major part consists of four sandwich frame bars that will connect the top plate to the base plate.
Each one of the bars as composed of two layers of twill weave glass fiber epoxy laminate, a PUR foam
core and two layers of twill weave glass fiber epoxy laminate, this can be seen in the image below:

Figure 17: Exploded view of the Frame Support

The foam core and the glass fibers will be cut firstly in rectangular shape with the required
dimensions. This sandwich structure will be manufactured using wet lay-up process with vacuum
bagging, which will provide a bigger volume fraction to the laminate, increasing its properties. We
are expecting to achieve around 40% volume fiber fraction. In this process, we first place the 1st layer
of glass fiber and then resin with applied using rollers, then we place the second layer and again,
roller are applied to make them compact and spread the resin all over the layer. Then, we place the
core and resin is applied. Similarly, last two layers are placed. Once, the layers are impregnated, we
apply vacuum bag to further apply pressure to consolidate it and increase the volume fiber fraction.
See lamination sheet for details.
Once, the part is cured. Cutting and grinding process will be performed to make the part in accurate
dimensions.
Base Plate:
The last major part, base plate, is the part that provide support for the whole structure. It consists of
one balsa wood core in each extremity that will make contact with the standard support, these cores
have a small layer on top of them and are connect by other two top and two bottom laminate layer
in tape shape. These parts are shown below in the image.
19

Figure 18: Exploded view of the Base Plate

The balsa core will be cut as in the other core parts of the model and the little rectangle laminate
layer will be placed and cured above these balsa supports. After that the laminate layers in tape
shape will cut and cured in the designed position to connect the two cores and make a single
structure, the base plate. For these laminate parts will be used the wet lay-up method with vacuum
bagging as well. See lamination sheet for details.
Once, the part is cured. Cutting and grinding process will be performed to make the part in accurate
dimensions.
Final Assembly
In the end the three major parts are assembled together to compose the model, this connections will
be made with Scotch Weld DP-190. First of all the frame support bars will be attached to the base
plate in the desired angles and then the top plate will be bond in the top of the frame bars.

Figure 19: Assembly of the structure

20

COST & WEIGHT ESTIMATES


In this phase we evaluate the final weight and cost of our structure. We built a MATLAB code as
attached in appendix II that calculates the volumes and then the weight of each component and part.
Here, we list the weight and the cost of each component and the final weight and cost of the
structure:
-

Weight of 4 x Sandwich Beams = 0.1576 kg


Cost of Sandwich Beams =3.1408

Weight of Balsa core = 0.0540 kg


Cost of Balsa core = 3.0240

Weight longitudinal tapes =0.0364 kg


Cost longitudinal tapes =0.8195

Weight transverse reinforcement layers =0.0065 kg


Cost transverse reinforcement layers =0.1463

Weight insert in bonding =0.0104 kg


Cost insert in bonding = 0.1036

Weight cover layers for support = 0.0258 kg


Cost cover layers for support =0.5806

Summary
Total mass of the beam [g]
Total material cost of the beam []

300
7.82

21

TESTING & RESULTS

Maximum deflection & comparison with the calculations:

When we assembled the different parts of the structure (i.e. the 4 sandwich beams, the base made
of the two cured tapes and the balsa supports, and the top plate) using epoxy and structural adhesive,
we cured the joints with a weight of 5 kg on the top in order to maintain a pre-tension of horizontal
cured tapes and a proper compression on joints. Unfortunately, when we removed the preload after
curing we had a big elastic return that had not structural consequences, but that caused a deflection
of 4mm before that every part started working properly (so just with a very small load). Therefore,
we decide not to take into account this displacement in the final comparison between
analytical/numerical value and experimental one, since is due to imprecision in manufacturing. Our
predicted value was about 1.56mm with FEM model and 1.68mm with analytical calculations
(through the principle of virtual works). If we look at the following pictures the initial value of height
is about 102.0mm as shown in figure # 20. After the application of load it is about 107.5mm.
Therefore the total deflection is:
107.5 101.5 = 6.0.
If we remove the displacement due to the elastic return we get the deflection of the structure with
an initial pre-tension that was what we calculated:
6.0 4.0 = 2.0
Therefore, with the approximation due to the not very precise measurements done, we can say that
what we get was very closed to our expectations.

Figure 20: Initial Position of the top plate bottom end

Figure 21: Final Position after loading

22

Failure mode for the beam

When we tried to increase the load by adding 5 kg per time, we reached the maximum load of 180
kg before failure. This is coherent with our calculations: according to the analytical evaluation we
found that the most critical condition was the global buckling of the sandwich beams, where we had
a safety factor =1.9 with a load of 75 kg. Since we use beams with a bigger width (about 27 mm
against the designed 20 mm), our structure was expected to carry more than double design load and
in fact what happened was exactly as we predicted, and the failure occurred in the sandwich beams,
where we have the most critical condition. More difficult is defining the failure mode: by analyzing
the broken structure and the video we did we could see that, after an important deformation of the
beams, one failed and the failure area was featured by a big delamination between the core and the
faces and by the breakage of the core material as shown in the figure # 22 and 23.. This can be caused
by different phenomena: maybe the predicted global buckling occurred or maybe local buckling was
responsible of this; however this can be also due to some shear stress that we did not take into
account in the ideal case (when we supposed the joints as perfect pin joints), but that was present
for sure, since our joints were very rigid (they did not deform after such a very big load) and they
were able to transmit also shear and moment to the beams.

Figure 22: Initial Failure Point

Figure 23: Core Breakage follows

23

Improvements in the design on the bases of experiment

Based on the experimental results, we can have following modification in our design to make it
more engineering efficient:
-

Since, our structure carried more load than expected. We can reduce the dimensions of the
frame to make the structure even lighter and cheaper.
If we apply the lamination on all the four side of the frame. Then, we can reduce the effect
of the delamination which was the initial failure point.
Since shear and buckling can be one of the causes of the failure, we can go with PVC core
instead of PUR core. But, we will get more expensive and heavier structure.
Cost of the beam

Using the same Matlab code, we can enlarge the dimensions of each component taking into account
the waste of material. Here the list of components, with approximate initial dimensions of parts
before the refining and grinding:
-

2 UD tapes: 1100*30 mm
2 balsa wood supports: 80*170 mm
2 UD layers for support: 80*170 mm
4 sandwich beams: total dimension of cured part, 300*700 mm
Balsa top plate: 160*160 mm
2 layers twill cover for balsa top plate: 180*180 mm
Twill reinforcements for joints: 6 cured layers of 150*30 mm
Additional and wasted epoxy resin: about 150 g

To this we theoretically should add the cost of the vacuum bag used for the curing of beams, the
cost of peel and bleeder plies and the cost of structural adhesive but we are not able to evaluate
them right now.
25 7,8
This increment is mainly due to the bigger width of the beams, to the amount of wasted epoxy and
to the additional balsa wood used that is rather expensive.

24

APPENDEX I
% CODE FOR CHECKING GLOBAL AND LOCAL STABILITY
%Data structure
h=250; %mm
l=500; %mm
w=150;
alpha=atan(h/sqrt((l)^2+(w/2)^2));
l_beam= sqrt(h^2+(sqrt(l^2+(w/2)^2))^2)*10^(-3);

%m

mass=75; %kg
F= 9.81*mass; %N
%Data sandwich structure
E_xf= 20500;
%Mpa
%cycom 381 e-glass fibre 300 FAW 50%
E_xc=10;
G_xz_core= 5;
n=1; % number of layers
t= 0.41*n;
c= 20; % thickness of core
b= 20; % width of the core
h=2*t+c;

%Calculation
F_support= F/4;
N = F_support/(sin(alpha)) %[N] compression
d=(h+c)/2;
D = (E_xf*t*d^2*0.5 + (2*E_xf*t^3)/12 + (E_xc*c^3)/12)*b*10^(-6);% N*m^2
D_face=2*(E_xf*t^3/12)*b*10^(-6);
S= ((G_xz_core*d^2)/c)*b;
% global buckling
PE=(pi^2*D)/l_beam;
%euler buckling load
PEf=(pi^2*D_face)/l_beam; %euler buckling load face
Pcr_thin= 1/((1/PE)+(1/S)); % thin face
Pcr_thick= PE * (1+(PEf/S)+(PEf^2/(PE*S))) / (1+(PE/S)-(PEf/S)), %thick face

%local bucking
ro= (t/c)*(E_xf/E_xc)^(1/3)
%B1 from tables
B1=input('Type B1
');
sigma_cr=B1*E_xf^(1/3)*E_xc^(2/3);
disp(sigma_cr)

25

%EVALUATION OF REQUIRED NUMBER OF LAYERS AND STRESSES


%Data structure
h=250; %mm
l=500; %mm
w=150;
alpha=atan(h/sqrt((l)^2+(w/2)^2));
beta=atan((w/2)/l);
mass=75; %kg
F= 9.81*mass; %N
%Data beams
E_xf= 32880; %Mpa
t= 0.31;
b_long= 20;
b_transv=50;
b_beam=20;
sigma_max=780; %MPa
sigma_max_fab=225;
safety=1.3;

%compression

%Calculation
F_support= F/4;
N = F_support/(sin(alpha));
F_hor=N*cos(alpha);
F_hor_long=F_hor*cos(beta);
F_hor_transv=F_hor*sin(beta);

%[N] compression
%
%

tension
tension

%% horizontal
syms n
sigma_tape= F_hor_long/(b_long*t*n);
eqn= safety== sigma_max/sigma_tape;
number_layers_tape= ceil(eval(solve(eqn,n)));
sigma_actual_tape=F_hor_long/(2*number_layers_tape*b_long*t);
%% transverse
syms n
sigma_transv= F_hor_transv/(b_transv*t*n);
eqn= safety== sigma_max/sigma_transv;
number_layers_transv= ceil(eval(solve(eqn,n)));
sigma_actual_transv=F_hor_transv/(number_layers_transv*b_transv*0.25);
%% beams
syms n
sigma_beam= N/(b_beam*0.41*2*n);
eqn= safety== sigma_max_fab/sigma_beam;
number_layers_beam= ceil(eval(solve(eqn,n)));
sigma_actual_beam=N/(2*number_layers_beam*b_transv*0.41);

26

APPENDEX II
% EVALUTATION OF ELEMENT/TOTAL WEIGHT AND COST
%weight sandwich
%data
l_beam=0.564;
w_beam=0.02;
t=0.00041;
n_layers=2;
t_face=n_layers*t;
t_core=0.02;
Vf=0.4;
Vm=1-Vf;
ro_core=60;
%80
ro_glass=(1740); %g/m^2 290
ro_epoxy=(1.17)*1000; %g/cm^3
cost_core=15; %50
cost_glass=20;
cost_epoxy=25; % /kg

V_gfrp= 2* (t_face*w_beam*l_beam);
weight_gfrp= V_gfrp* (Vf*ro_glass + Vm*ro_epoxy);
V_core=t_core*w_beam*l_beam;
weight_core=ro_core*V_core;
weight_beams=(weight_core + weight_gfrp)*4
final_cost_glass= V_gfrp*Vf*ro_glass*cost_glass;
final_cost_epoxy= V_gfrp*Vm*ro_epoxy*cost_epoxy;
final_cost_core= weight_core*cost_core;
final_cost_beams=(final_cost_glass+final_cost_epoxy+final_cost_core)*4
%cost of balsa in base + support
cost_balsa=56;
%/kg
ro_balsa=90; %kg/m^3
t_balsa=0.016;
l_balsa=0.15;
w_balsa=0.05;
l_support=0.15;
V_balsa=2*t_balsa*l_balsa*w_balsa + t_balsa*l_support^2;
weight_balsa=V_balsa*ro_balsa
final_cost_balsa= weight_balsa*cost_balsa
%cost of support cover twill
V_cover= t*2*l_support^2;
weight_cover= V_cover* (Vf*ro_glass + Vm*ro_epoxy)
cost_glass_cover= V_cover*Vf*ro_glass*cost_glass;
cost_epoxy_cover= V_cover*Vm*ro_epoxy*cost_epoxy;

27

final_cost_cover= cost_glass_cover+cost_epoxy_cover;
%cost of tapes
l_tape=1.05;
w_tape=0.02;
n_layers_tape=2;
t_tape=0.00031;
V_tape=2*t_tape*l_tape*w_tape*n_layers_tape;
weight_tape= V_tape* (Vf*ro_glass + Vm*ro_epoxy)
final_cost_glass_tape= V_tape*Vf*ro_glass*cost_glass;
final_cost_epoxy_tape= V_tape*Vm*ro_epoxy*cost_epoxy;
final_cost_tape=final_cost_glass_tape+final_cost_epoxy_tape;
%cost additional gfrp transversal beams+ joint protection
cost_tape_unit=final_cost_glass_tape/(2*l_tape);
weight_insert= (V_tape* (Vf*ro_glass + Vm*ro_epoxy)/(2*l_tape))*(6*0.1)
final_cost_insert= 6*0.1*cost_tape_unit
V_transv=2*0.00031*0.15*0.05;
weight_transv= V_transv*(Vf*ro_glass + Vm*ro_epoxy);
final_cost_transv=V_transv*(Vf*ro_glass*cost_glass+Vm*ro_epoxy*cost_epoxy);
total_cost=final_cost_beams+final_cost_balsa+final_cost_tape+final_cost_insert+fi
nal_cost_transv+final_cost_cover;
total_weight=weight_beams+weight_balsa+weight_cover+weight_tape+weight_transv+wei
ght_insert;

28

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen