-
1
- #1
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Trace a must have tool. 1
- Thread starter berkshire
- Start date
- Status
SWComposites
Aerospace
It is. Really only good for stiffness. Useless for strength.
ESPcomposites
Aerospace
This would be useful, if it can be independently verified and shown to truly be an invariant.
But this statement seems incorrect and/or misleading:
"The implications of these universal connections are far-reaching. One of the most important is that for testing. We no longer have to start from scratch with each new material and conduct thousands of hours of coupon tests to establish design allowables. If we have already tested and established the design allowables for one CFRP material, we can, in fact, derive the allowables data for all other CFRP materials, using simple mathematical calculations based on the ratio between the traces of the materials."
The thing is, getting the elastic properties for a material is not very expensive and does not require very much testing. Lamination theory, which is well accepted, can then be used to determine the elastic properties for all the layup variations (and also provides additional components that may be necessary for analysis). But more importantly, the testing that DOES require "thousands of hours of coupon tests" is for strength properties (NOT elastic properties). Trace has no application to strength, as SWComposites stated. So the quoted statement, which seems to be the top claim, seems to be null and void...and misleading. That also makes me wonder just how extensive the supporting test database is. Since there is no physical foundation (at least not stated), one would need quite a bit of test data to claim it is truly an invariant.
*EDIT: I ran some sample problems with classical lamination theory. The trace worked *somewhat* OK for a lot of layups (same material system), but it was not truly an invariant and was in error by up to 10% (probably more if I tried various material systems). The claimed ability to extend this other material systems, using properties from one material system, would be expected to have additional error. That claim seems especially questionable unless there was a significant test database to support it. So I am not sure what practical use this could have. Perhaps someone else could run some additional studies.
Brian
But this statement seems incorrect and/or misleading:
"The implications of these universal connections are far-reaching. One of the most important is that for testing. We no longer have to start from scratch with each new material and conduct thousands of hours of coupon tests to establish design allowables. If we have already tested and established the design allowables for one CFRP material, we can, in fact, derive the allowables data for all other CFRP materials, using simple mathematical calculations based on the ratio between the traces of the materials."
The thing is, getting the elastic properties for a material is not very expensive and does not require very much testing. Lamination theory, which is well accepted, can then be used to determine the elastic properties for all the layup variations (and also provides additional components that may be necessary for analysis). But more importantly, the testing that DOES require "thousands of hours of coupon tests" is for strength properties (NOT elastic properties). Trace has no application to strength, as SWComposites stated. So the quoted statement, which seems to be the top claim, seems to be null and void...and misleading. That also makes me wonder just how extensive the supporting test database is. Since there is no physical foundation (at least not stated), one would need quite a bit of test data to claim it is truly an invariant.
*EDIT: I ran some sample problems with classical lamination theory. The trace worked *somewhat* OK for a lot of layups (same material system), but it was not truly an invariant and was in error by up to 10% (probably more if I tried various material systems). The claimed ability to extend this other material systems, using properties from one material system, would be expected to have additional error. That claim seems especially questionable unless there was a significant test database to support it. So I am not sure what practical use this could have. Perhaps someone else could run some additional studies.
Brian
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question