Trace a game-changing discovery

Similar documents
Hygrothermal stresses in laminates

Non-conventional Glass fiber NCF composites with thermoset and thermoplastic matrices. F Talence, France Le Cheylard, France

Composites Design and Analysis. Stress Strain Relationship

FINITE ELEMENT AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF NOVEL CONCEPT OF 3D FIBRE CELL STRUCTURE

LAMINATION THEORY FOR THE STRENGTH OF FIBER COMPOSITE MATERIALS

QUESTION BANK Composite Materials

Computational Analysis for Composites

DESIGN OF LAMINATES FOR IN-PLANE LOADING

Mechanics of Composite Materials, Second Edition Autar K Kaw University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

Effect of Thermal Stresses on the Failure Criteria of Fiber Composites

Tensile behaviour of anti-symmetric CFRP composite

BIAXIAL STRENGTH INVESTIGATION OF CFRP COMPOSITE LAMINATES BY USING CRUCIFORM SPECIMENS

Chapter 2 - Macromechanical Analysis of a Lamina. Exercise Set. 2.1 The number of independent elastic constants in three dimensions are: 2.

Understand basic stress-strain response of engineering materials.

Open-hole compressive strength prediction of CFRP composite laminates

THREE DIMENSIONAL STRESS ANALYSIS OF THE T BOLT JOINT

Materials and Structures. Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

Modeling and Simulations of Aircraft Structures Stiffness, Damage, and Failure Prediction for Laminated Composites

A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge

Comparison of Ply-wise Stress-Strain results for graphite/epoxy laminated plate subjected to in-plane normal loads using CLT and ANSYS ACP PrepPost

EVALUATION OF DAMAGE DEVELOPMENT FOR NCF COMPOSITES WITH A CIRCULAR HOLE BASED ON MULTI-SCALE ANALYSIS

9 Strength Theories of Lamina

Chapter 3 Micromechanical Analysis of a Lamina Ultimate Strengths of a Unidirectional Lamina

Influence of the filament winding process variables on the mechanical behavior of a composite pressure vessel

Finite element analysis of drilled holes in uni-directional composite laminates using failure theories

Analysis of Composite Pressure Vessels

Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures, and Intelligent Mechanical Systems

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Mechanics of Composite Materials, Second Edition Autar K Kaw University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

An overview of Carbon Fiber modeling in LS-DYNA. John Zhao October 23 th 2017

Online publication date: 23 October 2010

Lecture 8. Stress Strain in Multi-dimension

Mechanical Properties of Materials

Predicting Failure of Multiangle Composite Laminates

A synergistic damage mechanics approach to mechanical response of composite laminates with ply cracks

Composite models 30 and 131: Ply types 0 and 8 calibration

Effects of mesostructure on the in-plane properties of tufted carbon fabric composites

PROMAL2012 SOFTWARE PACKAGE A USER GUIDE

PRELIMINARY PREDICTION OF SPECIMEN PROPERTIES CLT and 1 st order FEM analyses

Effect of damage on performance of composite structures applications to static and fatigue strength predictions. Christos Kassapoglou

Getting Started with Composites Modeling and Analysis

Fracture Mechanics of Composites with Residual Thermal Stresses

Composite Structural Mechanics using MATLAB

A Stress Gradient Failure Theory for Textile Structural Composites. Final Technical Report submitted to ARO

Effects of Resin and Fabric Structure

Impact and Crash Modeling of Composite Structures: A Challenge for Damage Mechanics

Anisotropic modeling of short fibers reinforced thermoplastics materials with LS-DYNA

Samantha Ramirez, MSE. Stress. The intensity of the internal force acting on a specific plane (area) passing through a point. F 2

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF DAMAGE IN THERMOPLASTIC COMPOSITE MATERIALS

Effect of Specimen Dimensions on Flexural Modulus in a 3-Point Bending Test

A HIGHER-ORDER BEAM THEORY FOR COMPOSITE BOX BEAMS

Crash and Impact Simulation of Composite Structures by Using CAE Process Chain

Fig. 1. Circular fiber and interphase between the fiber and the matrix.

THE ROLE OF DELAMINATION IN NOTCHED AND UNNOTCHED TENSILE STRENGTH

Constitutive Equations

Passive Damping Characteristics of Carbon Epoxy Composite Plates

Calculation of Damage-dependent Directional Failure Indices from the Tsai-Wu Static Failure Criterion

Out life 30 days at 70 F (21 C) Shelf life 6 months at 40 F (4 C) 12 months at 0 F (-18 C)

LAMSS-COMPOSITES. Note: MATLAB compiler runtime 9.1 is required to run LAMSS_COMPOSITES_V1.0. Step2: Download LAMSS-COMPOSITES_V1.zip.

MULTI-SCALE MODELING OF TRIAXIAL WOVEN FABRICS. APPLICATION TO SATELLITE ANTENNA

Passive Damping Characteristics of Carbon Epoxy Composite Plates

Module III - Macro-mechanics of Lamina. Lecture 23. Macro-Mechanics of Lamina

Module 7: Micromechanics Lecture 25: Strength of Materials Approach. Introduction. The Lecture Contains. Effective Transverse Modulus

The Challenges of Natural Fibres. as Engineering Composite. Reinforcements

3D Elasticity Theory

Material Characterization of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Laminate Using Virtual Fields Method

RATE-DEPENDENT OFF-AXIS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF A UNIDIRECTIONAL CARBON/EPOXY LAMINATE AT HIGH TEMPERATURE

A RESEARCH ON NONLINEAR STABILITY AND FAILURE OF THIN- WALLED COMPOSITE COLUMNS WITH OPEN CROSS-SECTION

Prediction of The Ultimate Strength of Composite Laminates Under In-Plane Loading Using A Probabilistic Approach

Crashworthy Design of Composite Structures Using CAE Process Chain

THE MUTUAL EFFECTS OF SHEAR AND TRANSVERSE DAMAGE IN POLYMERIC COMPOSITES

Composite Laminate Modeling

NONLINEAR CONTINUUM FORMULATIONS CONTENTS

STRESS DISTRIBUTION AND STRENGTH PREDICTION OF COMPOSITE LAMINATES WITH MULTIPLE HOLES BRIAN ESP. Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

Module 5: Laminate Theory Lecture 17: Laminate Constitutive Relations. The Lecture Contains: Laminate Constitutive Relations

PREDICTION OF BUCKLING AND POSTBUCKLING BEHAVIOUR OF COMPOSITE SHIP PANELS

Fracture Mechanics, Damage and Fatigue: Composites

Long-term Life Prediction of CFRP Structures Based on MMF/ATM Method

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF A LAYERED COMPOSITE CYLINDER USING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MACRO- AND MICROSTRUCTURE

A STRUCTURE DESIGN OF CFRP REAR PRESSURE BULKHEAD WITHOUT STIFFENERS

Crashworthiness of Composite Structures with Various Fiber Architectures

PLY WAVINESS ON IN-PLANE STIFFNESS OF COMPOSITE LAMINATES

F ( C) Cure Epoxy Resin System. Out life 30 days at 70 F (21 C)

Available online at ScienceDirect. Physics Procedia 63 (2015 ) 54 60

Composite Structures. Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

MODELING OF THE BEHAVIOR OF WOVEN LAMINATED COMPOSITES UNTIL RUPTURE

Finite element modelling of infinitely wide Angle-ply FRP. laminates

2 Experiment of GFRP bolt

FLEXURAL RESPONSE OF FIBER RENFORCED PLASTIC DECKS USING HIGHER-ORDER SHEAR DEFORMABLE PLATE THEORY

COMPARISON OF PLATE MODELS FOR ANALYSIS OF LAMINATED COMPOSITES

Prediction of Elastic Constants on 3D Four-directional Braided

Multiscale Approach to Damage Analysis of Laminated Composite Structures

Design of Hybrid Composites for Axial loads with Zero Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

A NEW STRENGTH TENSOR BASED FAILURE CRITERION FOR ANISOTROPIC MATERIALS

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENGINEERING RESEARCH, DINDIGUL Volume 2, No 1, 2011

3900 PREPREG SYSTEM. Mechanically Stable Mechanical working life of product is over 40 days, allowing for lay-up of large parts.

Crashworthiness of composite structures: Experiment and Simulation

Module-6: Laminated Composites-II. Learning Unit-1: M6.1. M 6.1 Structural Mechanics of Laminates

3900 PREPREG SYSTEM. Mechanically Stable Mechanical working life of product is over 40 days, allowing for lay-up of large parts.

An integrated approach to the design of high performance carbon fibre reinforced risers - from micro to macro - scale

Failure analysis of serial pinned joints in composite materials

Transcription:

Trace a game-changing discovery Stephen W. Tsai Stanford University October 5, 2015

Topics Why trace? The one and only unifying constant Theory of trace simple; easy to understand C-Ply by Stanford/Chomarat bi-angle NCF Homogenization optimizable; high-speed ATL Unit circle failure criterion Trace-based sizing method power of C-Ply Conclusions

How Many Data Points? In netting analysis that is applied to pressure vessels and pipes, fiber strength is the one and only design validation calculated from burst pressure: the answer is one Carbon fibers are known to be anisotropic but we know only the longitudinal fiber stiffness and strength: the answer is one as before, plus one for stiffness With trace, laminates become universal

Dominant 11 Component in 2- & 3-D Trace-normalized stiffness: Universal [0] Q 11 * = 0.885; 1.3% 2D: Plane stress E 1 * = 0.880; 1.3% 0.880 0.735 = 1.20 = 3D/2D 2D Trace, GPa C 11 * = 0.752; 2.1% E 1 * = 0.735; 2.1% 3D: Plane strain 3D Trace, GPa

Material Selection for Weight Savings

Relative Cost of Hybrid Laminates Linear correlation with trace, but not with E x or others Trace Hybrid = v 1 Trace 1 + v 2 Trace 2 +

Black Aluminum vs Trace: 15 CFRP E x = 0.88 Trace Black aluminum vs Trace Ply stiffness E y ν x E s Unit circle X Ply strength X Y Y S (Trace) (e x, e x ) (Unit circle) (Universal) (Universal) Universal Laminates So much simpler: 4:1 5:2 15:1 15:1 15:1

Topics Why trace? The one and only unifying constant Theory of trace simple; easy to understand C-Ply by Stanford/Chomarat bi-angle NCF Homogenization optimizable; high-speed ATL Unit circle failure criterion Trace-based sizing method power of C-Ply Conclusions

Tensors and Traces for Composites Stress components σ i Strain components ε i Stiffness: Q ij, A ij, D ij, C ij, Failure criterion in stress space: F ij, F i where F ij σ i σ j + F i σ i = 1 Failure criterion in strain space: G ij, G i where G ij ε i ε j + G i ε i = 1 G ij = Q ik Q jl F kl. G i = Q ij F j 2D 3D Tr [σ] = σ 1 + σ 2 + σ 3 = pressure Tr [ε] = ε 1 + ε 2 + ε 3 = Δ volume Tr [Q] = Q 11 + Q 22 + 2Q 66 = Tr [A*] = A 11 * + A 22 * + 2A 66 * = Tr [D*] = D 11 * + D 22 * + 2D 66 * Tr [C] = C 11 + C 22 + C 33 + + 2C 66 Tr [F]= F 11 + F 22 + F 66 /2 Tr {F} = F 1 + F 2 Tr [G] = G 11 + G 22 + 2G 66 Tr {G} = G 1 + G 2

Evolution: Universal Constants [0] CFRP Ply engineering constants Plane-stress stiff matrix Trace Trace-normalized Average = Universal Trace = Q 11 + Q 22 +2Q 66

E 1 master ply, GPa 0.888; 2.1% 0.873; 2.5% CFRP tape tens 2% CFRP tape compr 0.471; 1.2% 0.472; 1.3% CFRP fabric tens CFRP fabric compr 0.423; 1.3% 2% 0.433; 1.5% GFRP fabric tens CFRP braid tens Multiple CFRP, GFRP: RT-dry, cold-dry, hot-dry, hot-wet - Good correlation No correlation GFRP fabric compr CFRP braid compr

Composition of Trace: Carbon, Kev, Glass (88, 5, 3)% (88, 6, 3)% (70, 15, 7)% Q yy Q ss Q xx Carbon/epoxy Kevlar 49/epoxy E-glass/epoxy Q xx * Q yy * Q ss * Q xy *

Universal ply: Transversely isotropic [0] Fiber Matrix In-plane PLANE STRESS Q 11 = 88% Q 22 Q 66 Fiber Matrix C 11 = 75% C 22 C 66 In-plane: 86% PLANE STRAIN Out-of-plane: 14% C 44 C 55 C 33 Transverse shear Transverse stiffness Q 22 + 2Q 66 = 12% = matrix controlled Sub-trace (out-of-plane) = C 33 + 2(C 44 + C 55 ) = 14% Trace 2D Q 11 = 88% = Fiber controlled Trace 3D Sub-trace (in-plane) = C 11 + C 22 +2C 66 = 86% 13

E x in GPa E x of [0] E 1 in GPa E 1 of [π/4] E x /Trace E 1 /Trace Trace in GPa Trace in GPa 0.880, cv = 1.33% 0.337, cv = 0.10%

Ascending 2D and 3D Trace: CFRP 2D/3D trace, GPa

Dominant 11 Component in 2- & 3-D Trace-normalized stiffness: Universal [0] Q 11 * = 0.885; 1.3% 2D: Plane stress E 1 * = 0.880; 1.3% 0.880 0.735 = 1.20 = 3D/2D 2D Trace, GPa C 11 * = 0.752; 2.1% E 1 * = 0.735; 2.1% 3D: Plane strain 3D Trace, GPa

Dominant 11 Component in 2- & 3-D Trace-normalized stiffness: Universal [π/3],[π/4], E 1 * = E 2 * = 0.336; 0.1% Q 11 * = 0.371; 0.1% 2D: Plane stress 0.336 0.281 = 1.20 = 3D/2D Q 66 * = 0.129; 0.1% A 11 * = A 22 * = 0.323; 0.5% 2D Trace, GPa E 6 * = 0.129; 0.1% 0.129 0.107 = 1.20 = 3D/2D E 1 * = E 2 * = 0.281; 0.4% A 66 * = 0.107; 0.1% A 33 *= 0.057; 0.5% 3D: Plane strain E 6 * = 0.107; 0.1% A 44 * = A 55 * = 0.020; 0.2% E 3 * = 0.053; 0.5% 3D Trace, GPa

Components: 2D Universal Laminates Universal laminate stiffness [0/90] [Quasi-iso] [0/±45] [0/±45/0] 2D Trace, GPa 2D Trace, GPa T700 C-Ply 55 AS4/MTM45 T700/2510 T4708/MR60H T650/epoxy AS4/3501 T700 C-Ply 64 T300/F934 T800S/3900 IM7/8552 T800/Cytec IM7/MTM45 T300/5208 15 Individual CFRP IM7/977-3 IM6/epoxy T700 C-Ply 55 AS4/MTM45 T700/2510 T4708/MR60H T650/epoxy AS4/3501 T700 C-Ply 64 T300/F934 T800S/3900 IM7/8552 T800/Cytec IM7/MTM45 T300/5208 15 Individual CFRP IM7/977-3 IM6/epoxy

Universal Laminate Constants Generated from classical laminated plate theory, and universal [0] derived from average of 15 CFRP Universal laminates Universal [0] [0/90] [π/4] [0 7 /±45/90] [0/±45 4 /90] [0/±45] [0/±45/0] [0/±30] [0/±30/0] [±12.5] E 1 * E 2 * E 6 * ν 21 Trace

Components: 3D Universal Laminates C 33 * = 0.057 C 33 * = 0.057 C 33 * = 0.057 In-plane: 0.86 Out-plane: 0.14 C 55 * = 0.021 C 44 * = 0.021 C 66 * = 0.026 C 22 * = 0.41 C 11 = C 22 = 0.405 C 11 * = 0.41 C 55 * = 0.021 C 44 * = 0.021 C 66 * = 0.11 C 22 * = 0.32 C 11 * = 0.32 C 55 * = 0.022 C 44 * = 0.019 C 66 * = 0.14 C 22 * = 0.18 C 11 * = 0.41 [0/90] [π/3], [π/4], [0/±45] 3D Trace, GPa

Components: 3D Universal Laminates C 33 * = 0.057 C 33 * = 0.057 C 33 * = 0.057 In-plane: 0.86 Out-plane: 0.14 C 55 * = 0.024 C 44 * = 0.017 C 66 * = 0.059 C 22 * = 0.16 C 11 * = 0.58 C 11 = C 22 = 0.405 C 55 * = 0.020 C 44 * = 0.020 C 66 * = 0.16 C 22 * = 0.27 C 55 * = 0.025 C 44 * = 0.016 C 66 * = 0.087 C 22 * = 0.083 C 11 * = 0.604 C 11 * = 0.27 [0 7 /±45/90] [0/±45 4 /90] [0 2 /±30] 3D Trace, GPa

Topics Why trace? The one and only unifying constant Theory of trace simple; easy to understand C-Ply by Stanford/Chomarat bi-angle NCF Homogenization optimizable; high-speed ATL Unit circle failure criterion Trace-based sizing method power of C-Ply Conclusions

[0/25] Flip over Unique NCF at Chomarat Shallow angles, wide range ply thicknesses with high quality from tow spreading, noninvasive stitching, hybrid, [-25/0] [20 ϕ 30]

Wide-range GSM to Meet Requirement 160 120 80 40 0 Laminate thickness in mil

Thick-thin Combinations of C-Ply Thin [0]; thick [ϕ] Thin [0]; thin [ϕ] Thick [0]; thin [ϕ] [ϕ] or [-ϕ] [ϕ] or [-ϕ] [ϕ] or [-ϕ] [ϕ] or [-ϕ] [0] [0] [0] Black Alum C-Ply laminates [0] [0/±45/90] [0/±ϕ] [0/±ϕ/90] [0/±ϕ/±ψ/90] 1-axis 4-axis 1-axis 2-axis 2-axis

Layup: 4-axis [0] thk vs 2-axis [0/45] thn/thk [0] [90] [45] [-45] Jim Hecht of MAG More exact estimate: 2.7X faster for thin ply; 5.4X for thick ply 4-axis Unitape layup Time, min 2-axis [0/45] thin-ply layup Laminate length, m

High Speed Layup of Thick-thin C-Ply Starting C-Ply 1-axis layup 1:0 5X 2-axis layup 2:1 3X 2-axis layup 1:1 2X [0/ϕ 2 ] - Thin-Thick (33/67/0) 150 gsm High shear [0/±ϕ] 2 = [π/3] 2 for ϕ = 60 (33/67/0) [(0/±ϕ) 2 /(±ψ/90)] 2 Ψ = 90 - ϕ (22/67/11) [0/±ϕ/±ψ/90] 2 = [π/6] 2 for ϕ = 30 (17/66/17) [0/ϕ] - Thin-Thin (50/50/0) 150 gsm Regular [0 2 /±ϕ] (50/50/0) [(0 2 /±ϕ) 2 /±ψ 2 /90 2 ] Ψ = 90 - ϕ (33/50/17) [0 2 /±ϕ/±ψ/90 2 ] = [π/4] 2 for ϕ = 45 (25/50/25) [0 2 /ϕ] - Thick-Thin (67/33/0) 150 gsm Low shear [0 4 /±ϕ] (67/33/0) [(0 4 /±ϕ) 2 /±ψ/90 4 ] Ψ = 90 - ϕ (44/33/22) [0 4 /±ϕ/±ψ/90 4 ] Ψ = 90 - ϕ (33/33/33) 27

Universal Stiffness Components: C-Ply Universal laminate stiffness E 1 * 1:0 2:1 1:1 [0/±ϕ] 2 [0/ϕ 2 ]; [0/-ϕ 2 ] Thin-thick High shear [0/±30] [0/±45] E 1 * 1:0 2:1 1:1 E 6 * [π/3] = 0.13 [0 2 /±ϕ] [0/ϕ]; [0/-ϕ] Thin-thin Regular A;sk [0/±30/0] [0/±45/0] [π/6] [π/3] = 0.34 [π/4] E 1 * 1:0 2:1 1:1 E 6 * [0 4 /±ϕ] [0 2 /ϕ]; [0 2 /-ϕ] Thick-thin Low shear Off-axis angle ϕ

Topics Why trace? The one and only unifying constant Theory of trace simple; easy to understand C-Ply by Stanford/Chomarat bi-angle NCF Homogenization optimizable; high-speed ATL Unit circle failure criterion Trace-based sizing method power of C-Ply Conclusions

[0 5 /±45 3 ] (45/55/0) Black Aluminum Design: Bricky Cannot be optimized; manufacturing nightmare E 1 * = 0.45 E 6 * = 0.14 0.466 0.138 0.268 0.187 E 1 * = 0.22 E 6 * = 0.20 E 1 * = 0.28 E 6 * = 0.16 [0/±45 2 ] 0.277 [0/±45 2 /90] (20/80/0) 0.161 (17/66/17)

C-Ply: Black Aluminum Replacement E 1 * [0/±ϕ] 2 [0/ϕ 2 ]; [0/-ϕ 2 ] Thin-thick High shear 1:0 [0/±35] [0/±45] Trace-normalized stiffness 2:1 1:1 E 6 * Layup ratio 0.45 [0 5 /±45 3 ] 0.14 [0/±45 2 ] 0.22 0.20 0.28 0.16 [0/±45 2 /90] Off-axis angle Off-axis angle

Topics Why trace? The one and only unifying constant Theory of trace simple; easy to understand C-Ply by Stanford/Chomarat bi-angle NCF Homogenization optimizable; high-speed ATL Unit circle failure criterion Trace-based sizing method power of C-Ply Conclusions

Evoluation: Unit Circle Failure Envelope T700/2510; E m * = 0.15: Fiber dominated omni envelope One unit circle in strain for all CFRP, all ply angles σ 2 Unit circle Unit circle σ 1 Unit circle in stress for IM7/977-3 [π/4] only

Safety Factor R; Failure Index k

Universal Stress-Strain Curves for CFRP ε 1 /e x Trace-normalized X As-built 74% Hard [π/4] Metal* Soft ε 1 /e x Soft Metal* [π/4] 64% 78% As-built Hard Trace-normalized X Metal*: Specific stiffness of Al, Ti and Fe (normalized by density)

Comparison Unit Circle vs WWFE Data Unit circle Data: WWFE

Ply-by-Ply vs Homogenized Plate Ply-by-ply R (i) of a laminated anisotropic or orthotropic plate R FPF R (i) R = strength ratio = safety factor Runit circ E Homogeneous anisotropic plate: one R 1 = 1/a 11 *, E 2 = 1/a 22 *,... from trace Unit circle: e x and e x

Topics Why trace? The one and only unifying constant Theory of trace simple; easy to understand C-Ply by Stanford/Chomarat bi-angle NCF Homogenization optimizable; high-speed ATL Unit circle failure criterion Trace-based sizing method power of C-Ply Conclusions

Direct Weight and Layup Rate Method Universal virtual laminates Boundary-value problem Unit circle: failure index k (p) Multiple load Essential ply properties Uniax tens Uniax comp Tapered thickness: k (p) max Layup/zone selection Weight/Layup rate Stiffness correction Material selection Material ranking

k-based Taper

Examples of 1- and 2-axis Layup 1-axis 1:0 layup: Homogenized, single ply drop 2-axis 2-axis: 2:1 layup: 1 to Homogenized, 1 ratio 2-axis single ply drop 2-axis 2-axis 1:1 layup: Homogenized, single ply drop

Examples of Transition between Layups Ply sequence 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 [0 2 /90] [0] 2-axis [0/90] [0] 2-axis [0/90/0 2 /90 2 ] [0 2 /90] 2-axis Transition from 2:1 to 2:0; 67% axial Transition from 2:2 to 2:0; 50% axial Transition from 3:3 to 4:2; 50% axial 2-axis layup Transition 2 or 1-axis layups

Cases Investigated Universal laminate stiffness E 1 * 1:0 2:1 1:1 [0/±ϕ] 2 [0/ϕ 2 ]; [0/-ϕ 2 ] Thin-thick High shear [0/±30] [0/±45] E 1 * 1:0 2:1 1:1 E 6 * [π/3] = 0.13 [0 2 /±ϕ] [0/ϕ]; [0/-ϕ] Thin-thin Regular A;sk [0/±30/0] [0/±45/0] [π/6] [π/3] = 0.34 [π/4] E 1 * 1:0 2:1 1:1 E 6 * [0 4 /±ϕ] [0 2 /ϕ]; [0 2 /-ϕ] Thick-thin Low shear Off-axis angle ϕ

2- and 3-zone Layup

Weight Reduction and Layup Speed Aluminum C-Ply layup 4-axis layup Weight Aluminum Black Al C-Ply

Cost Reduction: Weight/speed of C-Ply Ranking insensitive among values of exponents Distinct regions between black aluminum and C-Ply Black aluminum: by unitape C-Ply Linear = Wt/speed Wt 2 /speed Wt/speed 2

Material Selection for Weight Savings

Topics Why trace? The one and only unifying constant Theory of trace simple; easy to understand C-Ply by Stanford/Chomarat bi-angle NCF Homogenization optimizable; high-speed ATL Unit circle failure criterion Trace-based sizing method power of C-Ply Conclusions

Traditional vs Trace-based Pyramids Traditional building blocks Trace-based: just like metals Composite components Coupons from pristine laminates As-designed: pristine As-built: with defects Need one and only one universal ply data from [0] for each CFRP Reduce coupons to one [0] and uniaxial tests Unleash choices of laminates (not just 4), and Include processing defects in as-built coupons

Black Aluminum vs Trace: 15 CFRP E x = 0.88 Trace Black aluminum vs Trace Ply stiffness E y ν x E s Unit circle X Ply strength X Y Y S (Trace) (e x, e x ) (Unit circle) (Universal) (Universal) Universal Laminates So much simpler: 4:1 5:2 15:1 15:1 15:1

Relative Cost of Hybrid Laminates Linear correlation with trace, but not with E x or others Trace Hybrid = v 1 Trace 1 + v 2 Trace 2 +

Online, Live Composites Design Workshop XI February 1-5, 2016; noon to 4 PM PST; 20 hours + homework US$1,200 including hardcover and e-books, composites app MS Excel-based MicMac s and other practical design tools All sessions recorded/downloadable for individual viewing Widely recognized as the best online training; no travel Optional official transcript of 3 credit CE hours for extra fee Must-learn trace that has revolutionized composites testing