| Literature DB >> 36234282 |
Yu-Ting Lyu1, Tsung-Pin Hung2,3,4, Her-Chang Ay1, Hsiu-An Tsai5, Yih-Cherng Chiang6.
Abstract
Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) has been widely implemented in electric vehicle bodies and aircraft fuselage structures. The purpose of CFRP is to reduce the weight and impart rigidity in the final product. A beam structure is typically used to bear the structural load, and the rigidity of the beam can be changed by arranging the laminated fibers at different angles. In this study, a composite I-beam is used as an example in engineering components. Because the theoretical model of the superimposed composite I-beam is established, the theoretical formula is based on the theoretical assumptions of the two-dimensional composite beam, and is combined with the traditional composite plate theory to analyze the maximum bending stress, strain, and deflection. During the theoretical derivation, it is assumed that the flanges of the I-beams are divided into narrow and wide flanges. The beams are considered as structures of beams and flatbeds. When a narrow flange is loaded in the side, the wide flange has no lateral deformation, and the lateral moments are neglected. Therefore, the accuracy of this formula needs to be verified. The purpose of this study is to verify the accuracy of theoretical solutions for the deflection and stress analysis of composite beams. A finite element analysis model is used as the basis for comparing the theoretical solutions. The results indicate that when the aspect ratio of the beam is >15, the theoretical solution will have better accuracy. Without the addition of the material, when 0° ply is placed on the outermost layer of the flange of the nonsymmetric beam, the effective rigidity of the beam is increased by 4-5% compared with the symmetrical beam. The accuracy range of the theoretical solution for the composite beams can be accurately defined based on the results of this study.Entities:
Keywords: CFRP; UAV; effective stiffness; finite element analysis; laminated composite beam
Year: 2022 PMID: 36234282 PMCID: PMC9570759 DOI: 10.3390/ma15196941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Laminated composite I-beam. (a) Cross section of laminated composite I-beam, and (b) I-beam theory assumptions [22].
Figure 2Matrix distribution of web and flange of I-beam [22].
Figure 3Geometric model and boundary conditions of I-beam.
Figure 4Convergence and divergence analysis of element number of I-beam. (a) Deflection, and (b) normal stress.
Figure 5Laminated I-beam cross section.
Figure 6Symmetrical laminated I-beam. (a) Displacement distribution, and (b) maximum bending stress distribution at the 7th ply of the lower flange.
Figure 7Nonsymmetrical laminated I-beam. (a) Displacement distribution, and (b) maximum bending stress distribution at the 10th layer of the lower flange.
Comparison between theoretical and FEM solutions of symmetrical laminated I-beam.
| Max. Normal Stress (psi) | Max. Deflection (in) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length (in) | Theoretical Analysis Solution | FEM Solution | Theoretical Analysis Solution | FEM Solution | ||
| Narrow Flange | Wide Flange | Narrow Flange | Wide Flange | |||
| 25 | 34,506.087 | 34,514.798 | 34,310.910 | 0.308363 | 0.308342 | 0.302105 |
| 20 | 22,083.896 | 22,089.471 | 21,978.570 | 0.126306 | 0.126297 | 0.125149 |
| 15 | 12,422.191 | 12,425.327 | 12,384.600 | 0.039964 | 0.039961 | 0.040620 |
| 10 | 5,520.974 | 5,522.368 | 5,531.170 | 0.007894 | 0.007894 | 0.008671 |
| 7.5 | 3,105.548 | 3,106.332 | 3,133.002 | 0.002500 | 0.002498 | 0.003072 |
| 5 | 1,380.243 | 1,380.592 | 1,419.221 | 0.000493 | 0.000493 | 0.000827 |
Comparison between theoretical and FEM solutions of nonsymmetrical laminated I-beam.
| Max. Normal Stress (psi) | Max. Deflection (in) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length (in) | Theoretical Analysis Solution | FEM Solution | Theoretical Analysis Solution | FEM Solution | ||
| Narrow Flange | Wide Flange | Narrow Flange | Wide Flange | |||
| 25 | 35,044.783 | 35,070.324 | 34,096.23 | 0.301742 | 0.30172 | 0.289010 |
| 20 | 22,428.661 | 22,445.007 | 21,843.75 | 0.123593 | 0.12359 | 0.119714 |
| 15 | 12,616.122 | 12,625.317 | 12,311.94 | 0.039106 | 0.03910 | 0.0388464 |
| 10 | 5,607.165 | 5,611.252 | 5,502.920 | 0.007725 | 0.00772 | 0.0082852 |
| 7.5 | 3,154.031 | 3,156.329 | 3,120.298 | 0.002444 | 0.00244 | 0.0029312 |
| 5 | 1,401.791 | 1,402.813 | 1,417.687 | 0.000483 | 0.00048 | 0.0008585 |
Figure 8Analysis error comparison of symmetric laminated I-beams under different aspect ratios.
Figure 9Analysis error comparison of nonsymmetric laminated I-beams under different aspect ratios.