Return-Path: Received: from scratchy.itsnet.com ([192.41.96.2]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-44819U2500L250S0) with ESMTP id AAA25172 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 12:32:40 -0400 Received: from scottdah (92-79.dialup.itsnet.com [192.41.92.79]) by scratchy.itsnet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA20871 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:32:36 -0600 (MDT) From: "Scott Dahlgren" To: "___Lancair list" Subject: fiberglass & carbon fiber Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:35:42 -0600 Message-ID: <000f01bde8a2$898b5dc0$275b29c0@scottdah> Importance: Normal X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> John Cooper, here are the answers to some of your questions: >"But what about the Young's Modulus of the spruce longerons (E=1,500,000) >vs. the Young's Modulus of the fiberglass fuselage (E=10,600,000), hmmm? >This is a much bigger ratio than between glass-epoxy and carbon fiber >(E=35,000,000). Shouldn't the "stiffer" glass-epoxy fuselage break before >the spruce longerons in the standard design?" The answer is that the spruce (or foam, or honeycomb) are the core materials in composite construction and are designed to take no tension or compression parallel to the major load, or loads acting along the major axis. The core material is deliberately matched to be a lower modulus to allow the outer material (glass, or carbon) to take all loads along the major axis, while increasing the beam thickness or stiffness. The core materials feel only the shear, tension, and compression loads that act perpendicular to the load axis, which are very small. That's why you can use foam as a structural material. It allows composite construction to be both light and stiff. >"And wouldn't the epoxy (E=2500) joining the two layers fail long before >either the glass-epoxy or the carbon fiber failed?" The epoxy, spruce and other core materials never fail in major axis shear because in comparison to the carbon or glass their modulus is too low to create any load stress within the core under strain. The stresses along the top of the longeron along the major (load bearing) axis for .003" of flexing strain are: material modulus stress glass - 45 deg. lay-up 3.1 MSI 9,300 psi carbon - uni lay-up 19.0 MSI 60,000 psi epoxy 2500 9 psi (lay-up configuration governs the lay-up's modulus, which is lower than the pristine filament values you listed). You can see in this example that the glass holds very little load. At the transition point (where the carbon ends) for a 60,000 psi load to continue into the glass (and it must) would require .050" strain in the glass fibers. The transition is not instantaneous so there is strain transition that breaks the part, just like the sheet/patch example in my last post . When an extra layer of carbon is added atop the glass, it will load along the major axis along with fiberglass with equal strain. The loads the epoxy are holding are perpendicular to the load axis, not parallel, and will hold the glass and carbon together (major axis) so that they can break each other, not delaminate. This is what allows weak core materials to hold two layers of stiff material together allowing them to create strength and stiffness along the load/major axis. >"Yes, the worst that will happen to my plane is that cracks develop where >the epoxy holding the carbon fiber to the pre-preg fails in shear, in which >case I am back to the "standard" strength and will have to repaint my plane." Hoping for a bad lay-up is not a good bet. Uni-carbon fiber is bonded directly to fiberglass shear webs (cores) regularly to make spars for aircraft. When bonded correctly they do not delaminate in shear when loaded past their limit. They break. A common cause of structural failure and weakening, as reported by the EAA, is due to beefing up, not messing up. I think it is safest to stick to the plans when it comes to complex structural applications such as monocoque construction, unless you can do the analysis. Martin Hollmann's "Composite Aircraft Design" has an excellent section on modeling strain and subsequent stress using maximum strain failure theory, broken down into simple matrix equations. He also has this compiled as a computer program. If you read this you will see some good examples of what I am talking about. hope this helps.. Scott Dahlgren