Weikeong Teng 0703555 FYP Report

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Weikeong TENG 0703555
MEng in Mechanical Engineering
Comparison of Composite material with Finite Element Analysis
Final Year Project 2010/ 2011
Supervisor: Dr Phil Harrison
1|Page
Abstract
This project will give a brief overview of composite materials. Three possible composite
manufacturing methods that can fabricate bike frame are discussed. Twintex specimen made
from vacuum bagging is tested using British Standard (BS) test guides. This is compared
against FEA which is used to predict the specimen property.
The second part of the project deals with manufacturing a composite bike. It discusses how the
bike mould gets coated with primer and lacquer. Additionally, the bike frame in CAD drawing
was converted from a solid geometry part to a surface geometry. This was imported from IGES
format into Abaqus to produce the shell bike frame. Finally, FEA was performed on the
composite bike at basic level of analysis.
2|Page
Table of Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 9
1. Introduction of the Project ..................................................................................................10
1.1 Objective .....................................................................................................................11
2. Introduction to composites .................................................................................................12
2.1 Composite materials ...................................................................................................12
2.1.1 Fibre reinforcements ............................................................................................12
2.1.2 Matrix ...................................................................................................................12
2.1.3 Laminates ............................................................................................................12
2.2 Fibre architecture ........................................................................................................13
2.2.1 Fibre Volume fraction ...........................................................................................13
2.2.2 Rule of mixtures ...................................................................................................13
2.2.3 Halpin- Tsai equations .........................................................................................14
2.3 Micromechanical composite property ..........................................................................15
3. Manufacturing processes ...................................................................................................17
3.1 Wet layup ....................................................................................................................18
3.2 Vacuum bagging .........................................................................................................19
3.3 Vacuum infusion .........................................................................................................20
4. Bike mould .........................................................................................................................21
4.1 Steps to complete coating of bike mould .....................................................................22
4.2 Manufacturing process for the bike frame ...................................................................23
4.3 Bike ribs ......................................................................................................................24
4.4 Trial test on sample mould ..........................................................................................25
4.4.1 Sample mould without lacquer coating .................................................................25
4.4.2 Sample mould with lacquer coating......................................................................26
5. Composite specimen Test ..................................................................................................27
5.1 Twintex specimen .......................................................................................................27
5.2 Three Point Bend Test ................................................................................................28
5.2.1 Bending results in the force deflection .................................................................29
5.2.2 Bending results in flexural stress strain ................................................................30
3|Page
5.3 Tensile Test ................................................................................................................31
5.3.1 Tensile results in force displacement ...................................................................32
5.3.2 Tensile results in stress strain ..............................................................................33
6. Numerical Analysis ............................................................................................................34
6.1 Hand calculation: Three point bend test ......................................................................34
7. Finite Element Analysis ......................................................................................................37
7.1 FEA: Three point bend ................................................................................................38
7.1.1 Case 1 (Laminates at [0, 90, 45, -45, 90, 0] °) ......................................................38
7.1.3 Case 3 (Loading force) ........................................................................................45
7.1.4 Comparison FEA: Three point bend cases...........................................................49
7.1.5 Comparing the bending results of FEA to experiment ..........................................50
7.2 FEA Tensile: ...............................................................................................................51
7.2.4 Comparison FEA: Tensile Cases .........................................................................61
7.2.5 FEA Tensile: steel ................................................................................................62
7.2.6 Comparing the tensile results of FEA to experiment.............................................63
8. Things need to be done before FEA: bike frame ................................................................64
8.1 Shell geometry from SolidWorks .................................................................................64
8.2 Importing CAD file in Abaqus ......................................................................................66
8.2.1 Importing bike frame using ACIS format...............................................................67
8.2.2 Importing bike frame using IGES format ..............................................................68
9. FEA: Bike frame .................................................................................................................69
9.1 Errors occurred in the simulation of bike frame ...........................................................69
9.2 Solution to solve the errors .........................................................................................70
9.3 Successful simulated bike frame with random loading magnitude ...............................73
9.4 Triangular (Tri) mesh elements ...................................................................................74
10. Discussion ......................................................................................................................75
11. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................76
12. Future works ..................................................................................................................77
Reference .................................................................................................................................78
4|Page
Appendices ...............................................................................................................................79
Appendix A: Ribs drawings (all dimensions are in mm) .........................................................79
Appendix B: Mesh density .....................................................................................................81
Appendix C: Extract surface geometry from CAD model in SolidWorks .................................83
Appendix D: Solution for ‗layup orientation was coincided to the shell normal‘ errors ............85
Appendix E: Steps for the Bike frame in FEA.........................................................................88
Appendix F: Mesh type Tri elements .....................................................................................93
List of Tables
Table 1: Property of e-glass and polypropylene ........................................................................15

Table 2: Micromechanical property of the composite lamina .....................................................15
Table 3: Comparison of composite property between Biaxial and Twintex ................................16
Table 4: Comparison of Three point bend results ......................................................................50
Table 5: Comparison of tensile results ......................................................................................63
5|Page
List of figures
Figure 1: Schematic of Wet layup [8].........................................................................................18

Figure 2:Schematic of Vacuum bagging [9] ...............................................................................19
Figure 3: Schematic of Vacuum infusion [10] ............................................................................20
Figure 4: Physical data of ebaboard60-1 [11] ............................................................................21
Figure 5: Mould coated with primer Figure 6: Mould coated with lacquer .............................22
Figure 7: Ribs in half bike shell .................................................................................................24
Figure 8: Primer mould Figure 9: Vacuum bagging Figure 10: Specimen..............25
Figure 11: Mould with lacquer Figure 12: Hand wet layup Figure 13: Coating was ripped .26
Figure 14: Twill woven Twintex material ....................................................................................27
Figure 15: Top surface: dull textile Figure 16: Base surface: flat shiny.................................28
Figure 17: Bend specimen ........................................................................................................28
Figure 18: Bend specimen on the bending machine ..................................................................28
Figure 19: Bend test_ force deflection .......................................................................................29
Figure 20: Bend test_ flexural stress strain ...............................................................................30
Figure 21: Dog-bone tensile specimens ....................................................................................31
Figure 22: Tensile specimen clamped in test jig ........................................................................31
Figure 23: Tensile test_ force displacement ..............................................................................32
Figure 24: Tensile test_ stress strain .........................................................................................33
Figure 25: Schematic of a beam on two supports......................................................................34
Figure 26: Schematic 2nd moment of area in rect. .....................................................................34
Figure 27: Schematic of tensile structure ..................................................................................36
Figure 28: Bend specimen with partition lines ...........................................................................38
Figure 29: Material property setting ...........................................................................................38
Figure 30:Case 1_Composite layup ..........................................................................................39
Figure 31: Symmetric and antisymmetric angle-ply laminates [2] ..............................................39
Figure 32 Seeds alone the edges of the parts ...........................................................................40
Figure 33: Supports BC is highlighted in red .............................................................................40
Figure 34: Supports BC.............................................................................................................40
Figure 35: Mid-span BC is highlighted in red .............................................................................41
Figure 36 Mid-span BC .............................................................................................................41
Figure 37: Bend specimen in displacement ...............................................................................41
Figure 38: Bend specimen in resultant force .............................................................................42
Figure 39: Bend specimen Case 1: stress strain ......................................................................42
Figure 40: Case 2_Composite layup .........................................................................................43
Figure 43: Loading points represent in red dots ........................................................................45
Figure 44: Supports BC is highlighted in red .............................................................................46
Figure 45:Supports BC..............................................................................................................46
Figure 46: Load condition is highlighted in red dots ...................................................................46
Figure 47 Load condition...........................................................................................................46
6|Page
Figure 48: Bend specimen in displacement ...............................................................................47
Figure 51: Comparisons of bending test ....................................................................................49
Figure 52: Tensile specimen .....................................................................................................51
Figure 53: Material property setting ...........................................................................................52
Figure 54: Composite layup ......................................................................................................52
Figure 55: Mesh tensile specimen .............................................................................................53
Figure 56: Bottom BC of tensile specimen ................................................................................54
Figure 57: Reference point BC of Tensile specimen .................................................................54
Figure 58: Top BC of tensile specimen .....................................................................................55
Figure 59: Tensile model in displacement Figure 60: Tensile model in reaction force ............56
Figure 61:Tensile specimen Case 1_stress strain .....................................................................56
Figure 62: Case 2_tensile Composite layup ..............................................................................57
Figure 63: Tensile specimen Case 2_stress strain ....................................................................57
Figure 64: Load condition of the tensile specimen.....................................................................58
Figure 65: Bottom BC of tensile specimen ................................................................................58
Figure 66: Reference point BC of Tensile specimen .................................................................59
Figure 67: Top BC of tensile specimen .....................................................................................59
Figure 68: Tensile specimen in displacement Figure 69: Tensile specimen in reaction force .60
Figure 70: Tensile specimen Case 3_stress strain ....................................................................60
Figure 71: Comparisons of Tensile test .....................................................................................61
Figure 72: Top BC of tensile steel .............................................................................................62
Figure 73:Steel specimen stress strain .....................................................................................62
Figure 74: Bike frame with rear suspension housing Figure 75: Rear suspension housing...64
Figure 76: Bike frame after removing the suspension housing ..................................................64
Figure 77: Half Bike frame in solid geometry .............................................................................65
Figure 78: Half Bike frame in shell geometry .............................................................................65
Figure 79: Bike frame model and error message.......................................................................67
Figure 80: Bike frame shell model .............................................................................................68
Figure 81: Error message .........................................................................................................69
Figure 82: Fibre and normal directions overlapped with each other...........................................70
Figure 83: Before correction_ red circles highlights the changes errors.....................................71
Figure 84: After correction_ yellow circles highlights the changes made. ..................................72
Figure 85: Bike frame in displacement, U2 ................................................................................73
Figure 86: Bike frame in reaction force, RF2 .............................................................................73
Figure 87: Triangular element mesh of the bike frame ..............................................................74
7|Page
List of figures in Appendices
A 1: Bottom rib1 drawing ...........................................................................................................79

A 2: Bottom ribs 2 drawing ........................................................................................................79
A 3: Rear rib drawing ................................................................................................................80
A 4: Top rib drawing ..................................................................................................................80
B 1: Bending test No of elements against RF ............................................................................81

B 2: Bending test No of elements Against RF ...........................................................................81
B 3: Tensile no of elements against RF .....................................................................................82
B 4: Tensile no of elements against RF .....................................................................................82
C 1: Offset surface function .......................................................................................................83

C 2: Offset parameters ..............................................................................................................83
C 3: Hide the solid body ............................................................................................................84
C 4: Verify the surface body ......................................................................................................84
D 1: Identify the region with errors.............................................................................................85

D 2: Fibre orientation with the error ...........................................................................................85
D 3: Edit composite layup .........................................................................................................86
D 4: Ply orientation before amendment D 5: Ply orientation after amendment .....................86
D 6: Region with errors .............................................................................................................87
E 1: Import parts .......................................................................................................................88

E 2: Create parts from IGES file ................................................................................................88
E 3: Create datum E 4: Type of datum system ......................................................88
E 5: Partition .............................................................................................................................89
E 6: Edit material property .........................................................................................................89
E 7: 5 region for the composite layup ........................................................................................90
E 8: Seedlings on the bike geometry .........................................................................................91
F 1: Seeding on the part............................................................................................................93

F 2: Element type ......................................................................................................................93
F 3: Mesh controls ....................................................................................................................94
F 4: Mesh Tri element on the bike .............................................................................................94
8|Page
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank several people for their help, advices throughout the duration of the project.
My supervisor, Dr Phil Harrison for his guidance and patience, and also provide resources
during the project.
Mr. John Davidson for his help in performing the experiments and tabulated the experiment data
for the project.
Mr. Brian Robb and the technical workshop staff for their work on making the ribs.
Mr John Kitching (Acre Rd wind tunnel) for his help in completing lacquer coating on the left bike
moulds.
Qusai Hatem (Post grad) for sharing his experiences in Simpleware and give me advice
modelling in FEA.
Farag Ali (Post grad) for his guidance and help us in the composite manufacture process.
Niall Morton for his help in verifies and comparing in the experiment and in FEA results.
9|Page
1. Introduction of the Project
The whole aim of the project is to design and manufacture a composite wheelchair. The project
itself will cover a broad foundation of engineering prospects from creating a new design of
composite wheelchair, manufacturing a composite wheelchair, using finite element analysis
(FEA) to predict the product‘s performance at its service conditions, and finally testing the
composite wheelchair to validate the results from FEA.
In order for us to achieve this goal we have to start from entry level. First, we needed to
understand the general overview on composite materials. The composites manufacturing
processes were briefly discussed which included their advantages and disadvantages.
Composites specimens were made during the course of the project and were tested to obtain its
mechanical property. With the use of FEA, the results were compared and verified against test
results, and learn how accurate the FEA can predict the performance of the structures or
products in working environments.
In this part of project, the main focus was manufacturing a composite bike frame. As the
wheelchair is like a box of trusses, the bike frame is more ideal as it is a single-piece space
frame. This would make it easier to obtain the mechanical property through the testing.
Manufacturing a composite bike would also cover all aspects of design process, manufacturing
process, simulating bike frame in its service environments in FEA and testing the bike frame
physically.
Hence, this project would be a perfect foundation and reference for the future work in design
and manufacture of a composite wheelchair.
10 | P a g e
1.1 Objective
This project will cover,
 Brief overviews on Composite materials
 Learn composite manufacturing processes in the market
 The steps for preparing bike tooling mould
 Physical testing: Three point bend and Tensile testing
 Numerical analysis: Hand calculations and FEA
 Compare results of Physical testing with Numerical analysis
 Model composite bike frame in shell geometry in FE
 Fabrication of the composite bike
 Testing the bike frame (tensile or compression tests and etc.)
11 | P a g e
2. Introduction to composites
2.1 Composite materials
Composites are made up of at least two materials. Reinforcement (fibres, particles, flakes, and
fillers) provides stiffness and strength to the composite structure, while embedded in Matrix for
bonding. When composites are well-engineered, they exhibit better mechanical properties than
would each individual material. Composites are known for its high stiffness and strength to
density ratio. In this project, the main focus is on Polymer Matrix Composites [1] (PMCs) which
is based on polymer matrix: thermoset and thermoplastic commonly reinforced with glass or
carbon fibres.
2.1.1 Fibre reinforcements
Fibre reinforcements have high stiffness and low density. Its main function is to carry the loads
along their longitudinal directions. Carbon and glass are used extensively in polymer matrix
composites.
2.1.2 Matrix
The functions of the matrix are to transfer stresses between the fibres reinforcement and protect
the fibres from any mechanical or environmental damages. The popular resin matrices are
epoxy, polyester, polyurethane, and vinyl ester.
2.1.3 Laminates
Laminates are composite materials that are stacked in different layers/ plies of fabric
reinforcement materials to give them the specific character of a composite to perform a specific
function. Composite fabric configurations are in continuous fibre, plain woven or twill woven.
12 | P a g e
2.2 Fibre architecture
2.2.1 Fibre Volume fraction
Fibre volume fraction identified the actual volume content of fibre in a composite [3].
The fibre volume fraction is calculated as
𝜌𝑚 𝑤𝑓
𝑓= (2.1)
𝜌𝑓 𝑤𝑚 + 𝜌𝑚 𝑤𝑓
Where
f = Volume fraction of fibers
Wf = Weight of fibers
Wm = Weight of matrix
ρf = Density of fibers
ρm = Density of matrix
2.2.2 Rule of mixtures
The composite stiffness is simply a weight mean between moduli of the two components,
depending only on the fibre volume fraction [2]. It is also applicable to Poisson‘s ratio.
𝐸1 = 1 − 𝑓 𝐸𝑚 + 𝑓𝐸𝑓 (2.2)
𝑣12 = 1 − 𝑓 𝑣𝑚 + 𝑓𝑣𝑓 (2.3)
Where
f = Volume fraction of fibers
E1 = Young‘s modulus along longitudinal direction
Ef = Young‘s modulus of fibers
Em = Young‘s modulus of matrix
v12 = Poisson‘s ratios
vf = Poisson‘s ratios of fibers
vm = Poisson‘s ratios of matrix
13 | P a g e
2.2.3 Halpin- Tsai equations
Halpin–Tsai equations are a set of empirical expressions that enable the property of a
composite material to be expressed in terms of the properties of the matrix and reinforcing
phases together with their proportions and geometry [2].The equations were accurate estimates
in most cases.
𝑀 1 + 𝜉𝑛𝑓 (2.4)
=
𝑀𝑚 1 − 𝑛𝑓
Where
𝑀𝑓
+ 1
𝑀𝑚 (2.5)
𝑛= 𝑀𝑓
− 1
𝑀𝑚
In the above equations M = composites modulus (e.g. E2, G12, or ν23), Mf = fibre modulus (e.g.
Ef, Gf, νf), and Mm = matrix modulus (e.g. Em, Gm, νm). The parameter ξ is a measure of fibre
reinforcement in the composite and depends on various conditions such as loading and fibre
packing geometries.
14 | P a g e
2.3 Micromechanical composite property
The composite specimens (Twintex) for testing were made from E-glass and polypropylene.
However, there is no information on the property of the raw materials (E-glass and
polypropylene filaments) on the Twintex website. Therefore, the generic E-glass [4] and
polypropylene [5] properties were taken from the online material information resource- MatWeb.
Since the micromechanical property of Twintex was calculated using genetic materials; as a
result its calculated property would be off its original property.
The table below has shown the genetic materials property which was needed for the composite
calculation.
f, Volume fraction of fiber: 0.35
Ef, Young’s modulus of fiber: 72.4GPa
Em, Young’s modulus of matrix: 1.21GPa
Vf, Poissons ratio of fibre: 0.2
Vm, Poissons ratio of matrix: 0.3
Gf, Shear modulus of fibre: 30GPa
Gm, Shear modulus of the matrix: 0.538GPa
Table 1: Property of e-glass and polypropylene
A single (uniaxial, continuous fibre) lamina property can be calculated from the equations (2.3),
(2.4), and (2.5). The lamina property would be used in the material selection in finite element
(FE) modelling.
E11 (Pa) E22 (Pa) v12 G12 (Pa) G13 (Pa) G23 (Pa)
2.61E+10 3.02E+09 2.65E-01 1.09E+09 1.09E+09 1.15E+09
Table 2: Micromechanical property of the composite lamina
15 | P a g e
First of all, the calculated property was based on a single uniaxial lamina. Twintex are twill
woven fabrics which are biaxial, crimped laminates. There was no reference or online material
that could calculate biaxial woven composite fabric. Composite materials were tested to
determine their properties. In order to compare the property of Twintex, biaxial non-crimped
laminates was used. The properties of two unidirectional lamina stack in the orientation of
[0/90]° were averaged to give the ‗estimated biaxial laminates property‘. In the table shown
below, the tensile modulus between estimated biaxial and Twintex were quite close. However,
the possions ratio and shear modulus differences were significant.
Comparison: Biaxial Twintex [7]

E11 14.56GPa 14 GPa
E22 14.56GPa 13 GPa
v12 0.265 0.1
G12 1.09GPa 1.7 GPa
G13 1.09GPa 1.8 GPa
G23 1.15GPa 1.7 GPa
Table 3: Comparison of composite property between Biaxial and Twintex
16 | P a g e
3. Manufacturing processes
There are wide variety manufacturing processes available to the composites manufacturer for
selection and production of the cost efficient products. Each fabrication process has its
advantages and disadvantages. The manufacturing team needs to consider several factors
before selecting the most efficient manufacturing process [6]. The factors are listed below:
 User needs
 Performance requirements
 Size of the product
 Surface complexity
 Appearance
 Production rate
 Total production volume
 Economic targets
 Limitations
 Labor
 Materials
 Tooling/assembly
 Equipment
This part of project focuses on three feasible manufacturing processes for the fabrication of
composite bike frame: Wet Layup, Vacuum Bagging and Vacuum Infusion. The next few pages
will describe and identify the advantages and disadvantages of each process. This is followed
by a discussion on the ideal manufacture method for the bike frame.
17 | P a g e
3.1 Wet layup
Figure 1: Schematic of Wet layup [8]
Resins are impregnated by hand into fibers/fabrics on the mould. With the use of the rollers or
brushes, air bubbles are removed and resin is evenly distributed across the fabrics. The
laminates are left to cure in room temperature or oven [8].
Advantages
i) Easy and commonly used method
ii) Low cost tooling
iii) Wide choice of suppliers and material types
Disadvantages
i) Resin mixing, laminate resin contents, and laminate quality are reliant on the skills and
experiences.
ii) High void contents in the finish product.
18 | P a g e
3.2 Vacuum bagging
Figure 2:Schematic of Vacuum bagging [9]
Vacuum bagging is an extension of the wet layup process where pressure is applied to the
laminates in order to improve its consolidation. This is achieved by sealing a vacuum film over
the wet laid-up laminate and onto the mould. The air under the bag is extracted by a vacuum
pump and thus up to one atmosphere of pressure can be applied to the laminate to consolidate
[9].
Advantages
i) High fibre content laminates can be achieved than the Wet layup process.
ii) Lower void contents are achieved.
iii) Better fibre wet-out due to pressure and resin flow throughout laminates.
Disadvantages
i) Adds cost both in labor and in disposable materials
ii) A higher level of skill is required by the operators
iii) Mixing and control of resin content still largely determined by operator skill
19 | P a g e
3.3 Vacuum infusion
Figure 3: Schematic of Vacuum infusion [10]
In vacuum infusion, fabrics are stacked to the desired laminates orientation. The fibre stack is
then covered with peel ply and breather fabric. The resin flow channels were placed precisely
over the mould. The whole mould is vacuumed, allowing resin to flow into the laminate. The
resin was distributed uniformly across the whole laminate aided by resin flowing easily through
the channels [10].
Advantages
i) Much lower tooling cost due to one half of the tool being a vacuum bag, and less
strength being required in the main tool.
ii) Large components can be fabricated.
iii) Cored structures can be produced in one operation.
Disadvantages
i) Relatively complex process to perform well.
ii) Resins must be low in viscosity, thus comprising mechanical properties.
iii) Un-impregnated areas can occur resulting in scrapping the whole product.
20 | P a g e
4. Bike mould
The common composite bikes are composite fabrics, wrapped around core foam that holds the
bike shaped. This could be another approach for manufacturing composite bike. The idea is to
create the male bike half tooling moulds. Then, by using one of mentioned manufacturing
processes, the left and right composite bike shells produced were bonded together using
adhesive. Thus, a hollow coreless bike frame is produced.
The bike frame was designed by a previous FYP student (Alan Easdale). The bike mould was
CNC out of tooling foam, ebaboard60-1 [11]. The ebaboard60-1 properties were high in
strength, good edge strength, high heat resistance, good resistance against solvent and very
well workable (contains no abrasive fillers).
Figure 4: Physical data of ebaboard60-1 [11]
The right side of the bike mould was coated with cellulose lacquer in the last FYP. Alan was not
able to complete the left side of the bike mould with the coating in time, because the left bike
mould was damaged. In this project, Niall Morton and I would need to prepare and prime the left
bike mould at the garage in the James Watt building and John Kitching would finish off the
lacquer coating in Acre Rd wind tunnel.
21 | P a g e
4.1 Steps to complete coating of bike mould
Steps taken to finish coating the bike mould:
1. Wet-sand the whole mould with 240 or 480 grade of sand papers.
2. Using blower or damp cloth to removes and dust, basically to keep it clean.
3. Spray cellulose/ acrylic primer (purchased by Niall) evenly on the mould in a well
ventilated room when possible, and then leave the mould to dry.
4. Repeated step 1 to step 3 about 3 to 4 times, till the mould has achieved desired
smoothness.
5. It is best to use a spray gun to apply a thin layer of cellulose lacquer as the final
protective coat.
6. Sand lightly by using 800 grades sand paper to smooth lacquer coat.
Figure 5: Mould coated with primer Figure 6: Mould coated with lacquer
22 | P a g e
4.2 Manufacturing process for the bike frame
The surface geometry of the bike mould is quite complex. Performing vacuum infusion is a
challenge - planning resin distribution channels along the complex geometry takes lots of
experience. Due to lack of skills and experiences, there will be a high percentage that the resin
will not be distributed uniformly on the composite fabrics across the mould. Thus the laminates
would be scrapped and materials would be wasted.
Therefore, it is the best to fabricate the bike frame using Vacuum Bagging. The advantage with
vacuum bagging is using the brushes to apply the resin on fabrics. The composite fabrics can
be wetted uniformly and even at the curvature edges. Any excess resin can be absorbed by
breather cloth and extracted through vacuum hose. With 1 atmospheric pressure, laminates are
consolidated in the curing process.
23 | P a g e
4.3 Bike ribs
Bike frame will be made from bonding two composite shells. Ribs are necessary since the bike
shells will be bonded together and need to be properly aligned. The ribs should be made out of
low density material which does not add too much weight on the bike. In project context, the ribs
were made from ebaboard60-1. The position of the ribs was picked out of convenience. Each rib
was designed to have a 5mm thickness. The dimensions of the ribs were taken from the bike
CAD drawing depends on the ribs position on the bike. Hence, the bike frame is of non-uniform
geometry. The ribs drawing can be found in Appendix A. The ribs are in blue while attached to
the left half bike frame in grey as shown in the figure below.
Tri rib
Top rib
Rear rib Bottom rib 1
Bottom rib 2
Figure 7: Ribs in half bike shell
24 | P a g e
4.4 Trial test on sample mould
Before the composite bike was fabricated using the bike moulds, a couple of trial tests on the
sample moulds (e.g. mould with primer coating and the other mould with lacquer coating) were
tested to ensure the laminates could be removed cleanly with ease.
4.4.1 Sample mould without lacquer coating
In the first test, a flat piece was cut out from the ebaboard60-1, the same material as the bike
mould which had the exact number layers of primer but without lacquer coat as shown in Figure
8. Vacuum bagging was chosen to make the laminates for the trial test, and it doubled as a
practise session to work with composites. While cleaning the surface using acetone, the primer
coating dissolved and was removed at the same time. This concluded that acetone should not
be used to clean the bike mould. Nevertheless, the test continued with rest of the steps for
vacuum bagging. The materials used for the laminates were plain woven E-glass fabrics and
epoxy. The laminates were left to cure in the oven at 85°c. After 7 hours or so for curing, as you
can see in the Figure 9, the breather cloth did not fully absorb the excess resin from the wet
laminates. There were dry patches left over the breather clothes. Thus, the laminates had high
void contents at the same area of the dry patches. Laminates had to be forcefully torn off as
they were stuck onto the mould. As the result shown in Figure 10, the primer coating was ripped
off with laminates and the laminates were scrapped.
Figure 8: Primer mould Figure 9: Vacuum bagging Figure 10: Specimen
25 | P a g e
4.4.2 Sample mould with lacquer coating
In the second test, the other side on the sample mould was coated with the exact layers of
primer and lacquer shown in Figure 11. The mould was waxed and applied with PVA release
agent beforehand the test. The test was to determine whether laminates would be able to
release from the mould. Hand wet- layup in Figure 12 was used to make the laminates in this
test. The laminates used were plain woven E-glass fabrics and epoxy. They were left to cure in
the oven at 85°c. After the laminates were cured in the oven, there were small bubbles
underneath the lacquer coating. This might indicate that lacquer was unfit for high temperature
usage. It seems that with a dry corner on peel ply, removing laminates from the mould was
much manageable. However, the specimen still ripped off the lacquer coating completely as in
the Figure 13.
Figure 11: Mould with lacquer Figure 12: Hand wet layup Figure 13: Coating was ripped
The above occurrence will be discussed with John Kitching. Hopefully, John will have some
answers to it. He might have other suggestions for protective coatings to use on the mould.
26 | P a g e
5. Composite specimen Test
The mechanical property of the composite laminates can be determined through a series of
tests. In the context of this project, three point bend and tensile tests were performed on the
composite specimen. Both test methods were conducted strictly, following the British Standard
institute (BSI) test guides:
Glass fibre reinforced plastics — Flexural test — three point bend method (BS EN 2746:1998)
Glass fibre reinforced plastics —Tensile test (BS EN 2747:1998)
5.1 Twintex specimen
Twintex is a commingled E-glass and polypropylene filaments, pre-impregnated material [7].

The advantage of using Twintex is that the manufacturing method will be a mess free process
as there is no involvement using the low viscosity resin in the process. As heat was applied onto
the Twintex, the polypropylene filaments melted and bonded the E-glass filaments together, and
with pressure, the laminates have better consolidation. Figure 14 is a twill woven Twintex
material was shown below.
Figure 14: Twill woven Twintex material
27 | P a g e
Specimen was made from 3 plies of Twintex which were stacked at fibre orientation of [0/90,
45/-45, 90/0] °. Specimen was fabricated by using vacuum bagging. The cured specimen had
two textile finish surfaces. One was the dull wavy textile at the top surface of the specimen. The
other was the shiny flat was at the base surface.
Figure 15: Top surface: dull textile Figure 16: Base surface: flat shiny
5.2 Three Point Bend Test
According to BS- three point bend method (BS EN 2746:1998). Specimen dimensions were
3mm x 15mm x 20mm (h x w x l). The test was conducted on the 4 piece of specimen with the
results averaged. The radius of supporting beam and loading nose were 9.5mm which was too
big for the specimen. Specimen was compressed by loading cell at the mid-span. The speed of
the downward force was travelled at 1.5 mm/ min.
Figure 17: Bend specimen
Figure 18: Bend specimen on the bending machine

28 | P a g e
5.2.1 Bending results in the force deflection
In the graph below, specimens 1 and 4, and specimens 2 and 3 had similar characteristics.
The curve shows the linearity where the specimen held the loading, and the spiky curve shows
some fibres started to fail and absorbed the energy locally in the laminates. The cause of fibre
pull-out and delamination was due to weak bonding. Thus, delamination is a kind of failure as it
develops inside the laminate. However there will not be any obvious damage on the surface.
Why were the maximum linear forces different? It might be that the preparation of composite
specimen was not cut and finished, exposing the lamina to damage at the cut-edges. This
resulted in broken fibres around the edges and causes failure and damage to propagate.
The standard deviation (SD) bending force applied was 378N, and SD deflection distance was
2.76mm
3 Point Bend Test: Twintex

480
430
380
330
Force (N)
280
230
180
Specimen1
130 Specimen2
80 Specimen3
Specimen4
30
-20
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Deflection (mm)
Figure 19: Bend test_ force deflection
29 | P a g e
5.2.2 Bending results in flexural stress strain
Flexural stress is the stress at the surface of the material in the middle of the span of the
specimen between supports at any time during the test.
3𝐹𝐿 (5.1)
𝜎𝑓 =
2 𝑏 ℎ2
Where
σf= flexural stress (MPa)
F = forced applied (N)
L = length of span (mm)
b = width of specimen (mm)
h = thickness of specimen (mm)
Flexural modulus is the slope of the tangent at the origin of the stress strain curve calculated
from the force deflection curve.
𝐿3 ∆𝐹 (5.2)
𝐸𝑓 =
4 𝑏 ℎ3 ∆𝑑
The SD flexural stress was 201.5MPa and SD flexural modulus was 9.08GPa.
3 Point Bend Test: Twintex

280
FLEXURAL STRESS (MPa)
230
180
130
80 Specimen 1
Specimen 2
30 Specimen 3
Specimen 4
-0.01
-20 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
STRAIN
Figure 20: Bend test_ flexural stress strain
30 | P a g e
5.3 Tensile Test
According to BS - tensile test (BS EN 2747:1998). The tensile test was conducted on the 4
pieces of dog- bone shape specimens, and then the results were averaged. The speed of the
pulling force was travelled at 2 mm/ min. Specimen was clamped at the ends tightly, and the
gauge length was approximately 60mm.
Figure 21: Dog-bone tensile specimens
Figure 22: Tensile specimen clamped in test jig
31 | P a g e
5.3.1 Tensile results in force displacement
In the graph below, specimens 1 and 4, and specimens 2 and 3 had similar characteristics.
During the loading, laminates were able to withstand a load as shown in the linear rise in the
loading force. The fibres continue to accumulate damage until some local failures in the
laminate causes it to no longer sustain load, causing the whole specimen to fail.
The average tensile force was 4.8kN and average displacement was 3.57 mm.
Tensile Test: Twintex

6000
5000
4000
Force (N)
3000
specimen1
2000
specimen2
specimen3
1000 specimen4
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-1000
Displacement (mm)
Figure 23: Tensile test_ force displacement
32 | P a g e
5.3.2 Tensile results in stress strain
Tensile stress is tensile load experienced by the specimen at any moment during the test, per
initial unit cross sectional area within the free length.
𝐹 (5.2)
𝜎=
𝑏ℎ
Modulus of elasticity is quotient of the tensile stress and corresponding strain within the linear
area.
𝜀 = ∆𝐿 𝐿 (5.3)
𝑜
𝐸=𝜎 𝜀 (5.4)
The average stress was 106MPa and average tensile modulus was 1.81GPa. The average
tensile modulus was a lot smaller than the flexural modulus, which should not be the case. It
should fall in the range of approximate 20% more than flexural modulus. The tensile test did not
conduct with strain gauges on the specimen. Thus, the strain could not be verified. Perhaps the
change in the gradient near the start of the test might be to due to slipping of the specimens
which cannot be verified. From the initial gradient, the tensile modulus calculated was 4GPa.
Tensile Test: Twintex

140
120
100
Stress (MPa)
80
60
Specimen 1
40 Specimen 2
Specimen 3
20
Specimen 4
0
-0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
-20
Strain
Figure 24: Tensile test_ stress strain

33 | P a g e
6. Numerical Analysis
Before modelling in the FEA, it is always best to represent actual product with a simple
schematic drawing and calculating the results from hand calculation. Hand calculated results
can help to validate the results from the FEA.
6.1 Hand calculation: Three point bend test
A beam structure is placed on two supports and force is applied in the middle span.
F
Figure 25: Schematic of a beam on two supports

FL (6.1)
M=
4
Where
M = Bending moment
F = Force acting on the beam
L = Length of the beam
Second moment of area

b bd3
I= (6.2)
12
N.A.
d
Figure 26: Schematic 2nd moment of area in rect.
Where
I = second moment of area
b = breadth of cross section
d = depth of cross section
34 | P a g e
From General Bending equation
M σ E (6.3)
= =
I y R
My
σ=
I
FL d 12
= . .
4 2 bd3
3FL (6.4)
σ=
2bd2
From the bend experiment, the average applied bending force was 378N.
3. 378. 48
σ=
2.15. 32
The bending stress was σ = 201.6MPa
In the bending FEA, when a bend force of 378N was applied on the bend model, the expected
the stress was 201.6MPa. If the FE stress did not matched, the simulation would be wrong.
35 | P a g e
6.2 Tensile test
The tensile structure is fixed at one end, while a pulling force is applied on the other.
Figure 27: Schematic of tensile structure
F
σ=
bh
From the experiment, the average applied tensile force was 4.8kN.
4800
σ=
15. 3
The tensile stress was σ = 106.7 MPa
In the tensile FEA, when a tensile force of 4.8kN applied on the tensile model, the expected
stress was 106.7MPa. If the FE stress did not matched, the simulation would be wrong.
36 | P a g e
7. Finite Element Analysis
FEA is a numerical model of design product with any material that will be simulated to mimic the
stresses that might occur in the physical environment. It is able to provide analyses for specific
results such stress, stiffness, displacement and etc. This numerical modeling technique has
helped manufacturers save cost as they can virtually test their product without creating a mock-
up product for testing. FEA is used to verify the proposed design of a product and determine
modifications to meet the specifications or service conditions.
FE models can be made either in solid or planar shell geometry. 3D solid structure is limited due
to the fixed dimensions. However, in a planar shell part, the thickness can be defined and
amend as needed in the section function. This is a major advantage. In this instance, in
designing a composite bike the number layers of laminates will change the wall thickness and
the stiffness of the bike frame. If the bike is modeled as a solid part, the wall thickness would be
fixed and unchangeable in FE. Therefore, all models are designed in the planar shell geometry.
Starting from modeling on bend test and tensile test in FEA, would familiarize myself to the
functions and characteristics in modeling composite material parts in Abaqus. Eventually, I
would be confident in modeling composite bike for the later part of project.
37 | P a g e
7.1 FEA: Three point bend
Three different sets of analyses were simulated in FEA bending. Case 1, the composite layup
angles were [0, 90, 45, -45, 90, 0] °. Case 2, the layup angles were changed to [90, 0, 45, -45,
0, 90] °. A bend specimen would be subjected to compression loading at the top surface, while
bottom of the specimen was subjected to tensile loading. Case 3, by using the load to generate
similar service conditions in the bending test, it would help to verify whether the analysis steps
were correct or not.
7.1.1 Case 1 (Laminates at [0, 90, 45, -45, 90, 0] °)
The bending specimen was model in 3D deformation, planar shell geometry. The specimen
dimensions were length 60mm by width 15mm.The model was partitioned to create supports
and mid-span that would be assigned to its boundary conditions which would be discussed later.
Figure 28: Bend specimen with partition lines
In the material property setting, material type was set to lamina. Composite material property
was taken from the Halpin-Tsai calculations.
Figure 29: Material property setting

38 | P a g e
Modelling the specimen in 3 plies twill woven composite in FE was impossible. The next option
was to model the specimen in 6X unidirectional lamina ply, with each ply 0.5mm thick to form
the wall thickness of 3mm. The orientation of the laminates was set [0, 90, 45, -45, 90, 0] °to
become an antisymmetric angle-ply laminates shown in Figure 28. A bend specimen, at the top
of the specimen was compressed while bottom was subjected to tensile. Thus, outer fibre angle
orientation would affect the bending results. At 0 ° lamina at outer surface, the specimen tends
to handle more bending force.
Figure 30:Case 1_Composite layup
Figure 31: Symmetric and antisymmetric angle-ply laminates [2]
39 | P a g e
Meshing in FE, seeds were markers that position along the edges of the part. Quadrilateral
element S8R5 (8-node curved thin shell, reduced integration, using five degrees of freedom per
node) was assigned in the composite specimen. The mesh density can be modified to its
specified target by changing the number of seeds on the edge. The mesh density would not
affect the results as the reaction forces were only found to vary by 0.0003% with higher mesh
densities. This can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 32 Seeds alone the edges of the parts
The specimen resting on the supports is able to bend around the supports when being push
onto the mid-span. For the supports‘ boundary condition, U3= 0, where specimen was held at
fixed level, the specimen was only able to move along X and Y directions. Whereas when UR1=
UR3= 0 the specimen could not be distorted by twisting, but could rotate at Y-axis.
Figure 33: Supports BC is highlighted in red
Figure 34: Supports BC
40 | P a g e
For the mid-span‘s boundary condition, U3= -0.00276m, the specimen was displaced at an
average of 2.76mm in the 3 point bend test.
Figure 35: Mid-span BC is highlighted in red
Figure 36: Mid-span BC
In the figure of specimen in displacement below, specimen was pushed down and rotated at the
supports axis. This was like the actual three point bend test, how the specimen would behave in
the test.
Figure 37: Bend specimen in displacement
41 | P a g e
To get the total resultant force for FEA, sum of all force at the nodes along mid-span were
required.
Figure 38: Bend specimen in resultant force
As the graph had shown, this was a linear system. The resultant force was 722.8 N. The
young‘s modulus of this composite specimen calculated to be 17.8GPa.
FE: Bend test

450
400
FLEXURAL STRSS (MPa)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
STRAIN Bending Case 1
Figure 39: Bend specimen Case 1: stress strain
42 | P a g e
In Case 2, every features and functions of the bend specimen remained the same as Case 1.
The only change made was the laminates orientation. Twill woven lamina is a biaxial fabric.
Thus, the orientation of the laminates could be set in [90, 0, 45, -45, 0, 90] °. Now, 90°
laminates were the outer surface of the model. This affected the stiffness of the model.
Figure 40: Case 2_Composite layup
43 | P a g e
The displacement was the same as in Case 1. However, the force applied to depress the
specimen was half the value of Case 1.
The resultant force was 355.4N. The young‘s modulus of this composite specimen calculated to
be 8.8GPa. The model stiffness was reduced by half as compared to Case 1. The results will be
discussed further in the comparison of FEA bending.
FE: Bending test

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
44 | P a g e
7.1.3 Case 3 (Loading force)
In Case 3, the model was set in the way where loading force was applied in the mid-span unlike
Case 1 where BC was set to displace the specimen. By using the SD force calculated from the
bending experiment, it would create similar testing conditions to bending test. This would
determine the effects on the specimen and overall results in FE. Thus, the results would relate
better to bending test.
Loading points were created in sets under the assembly module using nodes which would be
needed for loading condition.
Figure 43: Loading points represent in red dots
45 | P a g e
The specimen resting on the supports is able to bend around the supports when being push
onto the mid-span. For the supports‘ boundary condition, U3= 0, where specimen was held at
fixed level, the specimen was only able to move along X and Y directions. Whereas when UR1=
UR3= 0 the specimen could not be distorted by twisting, but could rotate at Y-axis.
Figure 44: Supports BC is highlighted in red
Figure 45: Supports BC
To represent the applied force at the mid-span, concentrated force was used. The average
bending force 378N was distributed uniformly between loading points in the mid-span. 378N
divided into six, each node would have 63N.
Figure 46: Load condition is highlighted in red dots
Figure 47: Load condition
46 | P a g e
In the figure of specimen in displacement below, specimen was pushed down and rotated at the
supports axis. The specimen was displaced 1.45 mm deep in the middle.
Figure 48: Bend specimen in displacement
However, there was no reaction force on the mid-span. Therefore, the resultant force was taken
from the sum of total force acting at nodes along the two supports.
47 | P a g e
In the results, the resultant force was 378N and tensile stress worked out to be 201.6MPa. Both
the force and stress were the same value as in the hand calculation: bending test. Thus, the
analytical steps to perform in FEA were correct. The young‘s modulus of this composite
specimen was calculated to be 17.4GPa. The tensile modulus was about the same as in the
Case 1. The result was expected, as both cases had the same material property.
FE: Bending test

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
48 | P a g e
7.1.4 Comparison FEA: Three point bend cases
Case 1 had double the stiffness than Case2. In a bend specimen, the top surface of specimen
was compressed while bottom surface was under tensile loading. Thus, the outer-fibre angle
orientation would affect the stiffness. When 0 ° lamina (longer fibre length) was at outer surface,
the specimen was be able to withstand higher bending force. While 90 ° lamina (shorted fibre
length) was at outer surface, specimen could handle half amount of bending force in Case 1.
This proves that the laminates orientation had a huge effect on the stiffness of the model in the
bending condition.
Case 1 and 3 had same stiffness value even though they were performed in different load and
boundary conditions. This is expected since both the bend specimens had same material
property and laminates orientation.
Bending test
450
400 Bending Case 1

Bending Case 2
350
Bending Case 3
300 SD from bending test

250
200
150
100
50
0
-0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
-50
STRAIN
Figure 51: Comparisons of bending test
49 | P a g e
7.1.5 Comparing the bending results of FEA to experiment
The three point bend FEA had created a high and low boundary for the composite‘s modulus.
The results had taken into account the possible laminates layups that could represent the twill
woven composite. The mean modulus in FEA was 13.25GPa which was 45% higher than the
bending test‘s standard deviation (SD) modulus.
The material which I used in the composite specimen was Twintex, a biaxial crimped fabric. In
crimped fabric, the higher the crimp percentage in the fabric, the lower in the stiffness modulus
[12]. In FEA, I used uniaxial lamina. Hence, the FEA modulus was higher than experiment
modulus.
Since the material property used in FEA already had discrepancies from the Twintex material
property, the percentage of error accumulated in the simulation, resulting in huge differences in
the results between FEA and experiment.
Three point bend modulus (GPa)

Experiment Specimen 1 9.8
Specimen 2 9.2
Specimen 3 8.5
Specimen 4 8.8
Standard deviation 9.08
FEA
0/90,45/-45,90/0 Case 1 17.8
90/0,45/-45,0/90 Case 2 8.7
Loading 378N Case 3 17.7
Table 4: Comparison of Three point bend results
50 | P a g e
7.2 FEA Tensile:
Three sets of analysis were performed in FEA tensile. Case 1, the composite layup angles were
[0, 90, 45, -45, 90, 0] °. Case 2, the layup angles were changed to [90, 0, 45, -45, 0, 90] °.
Basically, in different laminates layups would identify whether the FEA tensile results would be
affected. Case 3 uses the loading force to generate similar service conditions in the tensile test.
This could also help verify whether perform FEA steps were correct a not.
The tensile specimen was model in 3D deformation, planar shell geometry. The specimen
model dimensions were length 60mm by width 15mm, FEA was focused on the specimen
gauge length. A datum coordinate (local coordinate) and reference point was created, as
highlighted in red in the figure showed below.
Figure 52: Tensile specimen
51 | P a g e
In the material property setting, material type was set to lamina. Composite material property
was taken from the Halpin-Tsai calculation.
Figure 53: Material property setting
The layup orientation was set to datum coordinate that the lamina would be aligned to the
desired axis on the specimen. The orientation of the laminates was set [0, 90, 45, -45, 90, 0] °,
the laminates are antisymmetric.
Figure 54: Composite layup
52 | P a g e
Quadrilateral element S8R5 (8-node curved thin shell, reduced integration, using five degree of
freedom per node) was assigned in the tensile specimen. The mesh density would not affect the
results as the reaction forces only found to vary by 0.0002% with higher mesh densities. This
can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 55: Mesh tensile specimen
The tensile specimen was held down at the bottom end and pulled at the top end in the actual
tensile test. To mimic the test environments, three boundary conditions were defined in the FE
simulation.
53 | P a g e
1st BC, bottom of the specimen was fixed in all axis, except X-axis was allowed to move.
Figure 56: Bottom BC of tensile specimen
2ndBC, reference point in the mid of the bottom edge was set to encastre, lost all its degree of
freedom. The node of bottom edge of specimen would be fixed.
Figure 57: Reference point BC of Tensile specimen
54 | P a g e
3rd BC, top edge was fixed to prevent the edge from twisting from the pulling force. The
specimen was set to displace for 3.57mm in Y-axis.
Figure 58: Top BC of tensile specimen
The tensile model was displaced to 3.57mm. The resultant force was the sum of all forces of the
nodes along the top edge of the model.
55 | P a g e
Figure 59: Tensile model in displacement Figure 60: Tensile model in reaction force
The resultant force was 32.4kN. The stress was 720.8MPa. The young‘s modulus of the tensile
specimen calculated to be 12.1GPa.
FE: Tensile test

800
700
600
500
Stress
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Strain Tensile case 1
Figure 61: Tensile specimen Case 1_stress strain
56 | P a g e
In Case 2, the tensile specimen layup orientation was [90, 0, 45, -45, 0, 90] °. The layup might
affect the stiffness of the model just like the Case 2_bend test.
Figure 62: Case 2_tensile Composite layup
The resultant force was 32.4kN. The stress was 720.8MPa. The young‘s modulus of the tensile
specimen calculated to be 12.1GPa. For tensile test, the layup orientation did not have any
effect on the stiffness.
FE: Tensile test

800
700
600
500
Stress
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
strain Tensile case 2

57 | P a g e
7.2.3 Case 3 (Loading force)
The tensile model was subjected to tensile force at the top edge. In load condition, a pulling
force of 4800N (SD pulling force in the tensile experiment) was applied across the top edge of
0.015m. Using shell edge load condition, the magnitude was 320kN/m which was calculated
from 4.8kN/ 0.015m.
Figure 64: Load condition of the tensile specimen
The tensile specimen was held down at the bottom end and pulled at the top end in the actual
tensile test. To mimic the test environments, three boundary conditions were defined in the FE
simulation.
1st BC, bottom of the specimen was fixed in all axis, except X-axis was allowed to move.
Figure 65: Bottom BC of tensile specimen
58 | P a g e
2ndBC, reference point in the mid of the bottom edge was set to encastre, lost all its degree of
freedom.
Figure 66: Reference point BC of Tensile specimen
3rd BC, top edge was fixed to prevent the edge to twist from the pulling force. As the laminates
were antisymmetric, the specimen would twist when force is applied.
Figure 67: Top BC of tensile specimen
59 | P a g e
The overall tensile displacement was 0.53mm. The resultant force was the sum of the total
reaction force at bottom edge.
Figure 68: Tensile specimen in displacement Figure 69: Tensile specimen in reaction
force
The resultant force was 4.8kN. The tensile stress was 106.7MPa. This matches the hand
calculation from the tensile results (refer to Chapter 6.2 tensile test). The young‘s modulus of
the tensile specimen was calculated to be 12.1GPa.
FE: Tensile test

120
100
80
Stress
60
40
20
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Strain Tensile case 3
60 | P a g e
7.2.4 Comparison FEA: Tensile Cases
Case 1 and 2 had the same value for the young‘s modulus 12Gpa even though the tensile
specimens were differences in their laminates orientation. This shows that tensile result can be
influenced by the geometry of the model but not the laminates orientation.
As compared to the experiment, the modulus obtained in FEA was much higher. In order to
verify the steps performed in FEA, material property of composite was replaced by steel.
Once the forces applied onto the steel specimen was obtained, the stress could be calculated
and, with the known strain, tensile modulus could be calculated by using Hooke‘s law. Tensile
modulus of the steel specimen would be tabulated and compared to the modulus input in the
material property. If both tensile moduli were matched, the steps in performing FEA for tensile
would be correct.
Tensile test
800
700
600
500
Stress
400 Tensile case 1

300 Tensile case 2
200 Tensile case 3

SD from tensile test
100
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Strain
Figure 71: Comparisons of Tensile test
61 | P a g e
7.2.5 FEA Tensile: steel
The tensile specimen model remains unchanged but the material property was changed to
steel. Its young‘s modulus was 200GPa and Poisson ratio was 0.3. The boundary condition of
the top edge was set to displace 4mm in Y axis.
Figure 72: Top BC of tensile steel
The resultant force was 600kN. The stress was 13.3GPa. The young‘s modulus of the steel
specimen calculated 200GPa. Thus, the steps in performing FEA were correct. This meant the
values from the tensile experiment might be wrong.
FE: Tensile test

12000
10000
8000
Stress
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Strain Steel specimen
Figure 73:Steel specimen stress strain

62 | P a g e
7.2.6 Comparing the tensile results of FEA to experiment
The FEA tensile results were comparatively higher than tensile experiment. Since the steps
performed in the FEA were proven to be correct, the errors stems from the tensile experiment.
In the experiment, strain was not measured by any apparatus such as strain gauges. However,
it was calculated from change in length divided by the original gauge length of specimen.
Previous FYP tensile experiments [13] were used to evaluate its tensile modulus. The previous
FYP specimens were a tensile tube made of 5 plies of e-glass at [0/90] ° layup orientation. The
tube had an inner diameter of 0.038m and wall thickness of 0.001m and length of 0.1m. The
modulus was calculated from Hooke‘s law.
All the tensile experiment‘s results had much lower value modulus than in FEA. Comparing the
modulus between tensile and bend tests, the modulus were far apart which should be the Case.
Just maybe, the tensile test platform was not compliant to composite testing. The only way to
justify the tensile modulus results in the experiments would be to perform another test with
biaxial strain gauges attached onto the tensile specimens.
Tensile modulus (GPa)

Experiment Specimen 1 2.04
specimen 2 1.63
specimen 3 1.58
specimen 4 1.99
Tensile tube[13] Test 3 and 4 1.8
Test 5 1.16
FEA
0/90,45/-45,90/0 Case 1 12.1
90/0,45/-45,0/90 Case 2 12.1
Loading F 4.8kN Case 3 12.1
Table 5:Comparison of tensile results
63 | P a g e
8. Things need to be done before FEA: bike frame
8.1 Shell geometry from SolidWorks
The CAD of bike is quite complex (provided by Alan Easdale). There is a part that had to be
removed to house the rear suspension due to its angular edges. The angular part was
considered as bad geometry in Abaqus. It would create errors in the simulation as the region
would be badly meshed.
Figure 74: Bike frame with rear suspension housing Figure 75: Rear suspension housing
Figure 76: Bike frame after removing the suspension housing
64 | P a g e
The solid bike frame needs to be converted into surface entities. Surface geometry was required
to import in FE, as shell geometry would be much preferred in the bike analysis. The surface
geometry was extracted from the solid bike frame part by using the offset surface under
surfaces function in SolidWorks. The original bike surface was offset by 0mm to create a copy of
the surface. The steps taken to produce the surfaces can be found in Appendix C. The bike
surface was saved in either SAT or IGS format, which could be imported in Abaqus.
Figure 77: Half Bike frame in solid geometry
Figure 78: Half Bike frame in shell geometry
65 | P a g e
8.2 Importing CAD file in Abaqus
Since SolidWorks can save the parts/ sketches in either IGES-format file (.igs files) or ACIS-
format file (.sat files), it is best to find out which format would be more appropriate for importing
the CAD in Abaqus.
ACIS-format file has multiple parts. Abaqus is able to import every individual part or merge the
parts as a whole. However, parts of mixed modelling space from an ACIS-format file, such as
solids and axisymmetric surfaces, cannot be imported. In addition, parts of mixed type, such as
deformable bodies and discrete rigid surfaces, cannot be imported [14].
For IGES-format file containing multiple parts, Abaqus can import them as a single part. An
imported IGES part forms the base feature of a new part in Abaqus/CAE. This base feature
cannot be modified directly, but additional features can be added to it, such as a solid extrusion
or a blind cut [15].
66 | P a g e
8.2.1 Importing bike frame using ACIS format
When importing the bike frame as a single shell part using ACIS format, the model contained
invalid geometry. The model was still invaild after trying to repair the invalid geometry by either
‗convert to analytical‘ or ‗convert to precise‘.
Figure 79: Bike frame model and error message.
67 | P a g e
8.2.2 Importing bike frame using IGES format
IGES format was used to import bike frame as a whole. Apparently, the model imported in
Abaqus was a total success, steps can be found in Appendix E. Thus, it would be best to import
the bike frame in IGES format file. Actually, which format to choose was quite subjective. It
depended on how the parts you want to model in FEA and the complexity of the geometry CAD
file. Since FE is dimensionless, it would follow the dimension of the CAD drawing. The CAD
drawing of the bike was in mm.
Figure 80: Bike frame shell model
68 | P a g e
9. FEA: Bike frame
After successfully importing the bike frame into Abaqus, I tried to set up the functions for the
simulation such as material property that was used in the FEA in bending and tensile: composite
layup would be 6 plies of uniaxial laminates at [0, 0, 90, 90, 0, 0] ° and random compressive
loading magnitude of 1000N at the seat post and some boundary conditions to encastre the
front tube and gear pedal regions.
9.1 Errors occurred in the simulation of bike frame
The simulation was terminated due to an error of 15 elements in its layup orientation that
overlapped with the shell normal shown in Figure 81.
Figure 81: Error message
69 | P a g e
9.2 Solution to solve the errors
I went through every composite layout orientation in the five regions to identify ―15 elements its
layup orientation that overlapped with the shell normal‖. I zoomed into each region where the
fibre and normal could be distinguished easily until I identified the spot where the fibre and
normal direction overlapped each other (as shown in Figure82 by the red circle).
Figure 82: Fibre and normal directions overlapped with each other.
70 | P a g e
In the example shown, composite layup 4 was the main cause for the error. The 90° lamina
conflicted with the shell normal. To resolve this, the datum coordinates of 90° lamina was
changed from ‗Datum csys-7.3‘in Figure 83 to ‗Datum csys-7.2‘ in Fig 84, changing the normal
direction. The full steps can be found in Appendix D.
Figure 83: Before correction_ red circles highlights the changes errors.
71 | P a g e
Figure 84: After correction_ yellow circles highlights the changes made.
72 | P a g e
9.3 Successful simulated bike frame with random loading magnitude
Once the errors were fixed, I was able to perform the simulation on the bike to obtain the FEA
results. The full steps to complete the analysis can be found in Appendix E.
Figure 85: Bike frame in displacement, U2
Figure 86: Bike frame in reaction force, RF2
73 | P a g e
9.4 Triangular (Tri) mesh elements
Using the tri elements to mesh the bike frame would be a better choice. In the Figure 87, the
mesh was much more uniformly distributed across the bike geometry. However, the number of
elements that were created exceeded the Abaqus teaching license. I believe the simulation will
get better results than the quadrilateral mesh elements. Steps for mesh the tri elements can be
found in Appendix F.
Figure 87: Triangular element mesh of the bike frame
74 | P a g e
10. Discussion
Material:
Twintex is a twill woven fabric which is crimped. Throughout the project, all calculation of
composite micromechanical property and FEA were based on uniaxial fabric.
Bending test:
The supports and loading nose should use smaller radius as their radius are proportion to the
thickness of the test specimen. It may affect the bending magnitude of the specimen which
could change the modulus slightly, making the test data more accurate.
Tensile test:
The tensile experiment results were too low as compared to the flexural modulus. It is best to re-
run the tensile test with strain gauges.
FEA in tests:
In FEA, I used uniaxial lamina to compensate for the woven fabric that I could not model in
Abaqus. At least, I know the steps took to perform the analysis were correct, because I had
verified those steps by replacing the material with steel. I had also verified the FEA results to the
hand calculation results and they matched.
75 | P a g e
Comparison of results:
There was a huge discrepancy in the bending results of the experiments and the FEA. This was
due to the material property and the factor in the crimped Twintex fabrics. The tensile results
could not be verified as there might be errors in the tensile test experiment, making the
comparison invalid. It could be better, if the FEA results managed to match the experiment
results.
FEA of composite bike:
The analysis for the composite bike was barely started. As I was new to SolidWorks, time was
lost while trying to convert the solid bike geometry to surface geometry. Additionally, there were
errors in the fibre orientations conflicting with shell normal. Fortunately, I managed to resolve
this but I ran out of time to do a proper and complete FE analysis on the bike frame.
11. Conclusion
This project covered most of its objectives, i.e. making the composite specimen using vacuum
bagging, testing the composite specimen in bending and tensile, and validating the experiment
results with FEA. However, it was unable to produce the bike frame FEA, make the composite
bike and test it. This was due to the time needed to familiarise myself with the materials and
program such as Abaqus. Hence, I spent the full semester learning the functions of the Abaqus,
working out the right steps to perform composite analysis, getting the results sorted out,
validating them and briefly started on the bike analysis. I wish for more time to carry on working
on this project as I managed to solve the error in the modelling bike.
76 | P a g e
12. Future works
To the next Final Year Project student:
 Find out more about the crimped fabric and whether it will decrease their properties
compared to uniaxial fabric, if you are dealing with woven composite materials.
 If not, best to work with uniaxial or biaxial non-crimped fabrics. Things will be slightly
more simplified. From the point of view, the experiment results will be more compatible
to the FEA results.
 When working with tensile test, try to test the specimens with strain gauges. This will
ensure identification of any slippage in the test.
 You might do a couple more tests on the flat mould to ensure the laminates can be
removed cleanly from the mould. Regardless, you should still be able to manufacture the
composite bike
 Use FE to model the laminates on the bike. This will predict the deformation in the bike
geometry. With this knowledge, you will be able to figure out the layup orientations to
use in fabrication of the composite bike frame.
77 | P a g e
Reference
[1] Hull, D. And Clyne, T. W, 1996, an introduction to composite materials, 2nd Edition,
Cambridge University press.
[2] Staab, George H, 1999, Laminar composites, Butterworth- Heinemann
[3] Fibre volume [online] available at http://composite.about.com/library/glossary/f/bldef-
f2200.htm [accessed on 10 January 2011]
[4] E-Glass Fiber, Generic [online] Available at:
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=1202140c34e8443bbf273862e24c5
f0e [Accessed on 19 October 2010]
[5] Overview of materials for Polypropylene Copolymer [online] Available
at:http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=d9c18047c49147a2a7c0b0bb17
43e812 [Accessed on 19 October 2010]
[6] Composites Basics: Composites Manufacturing [online] Available at:
http://www.mdacomposites.org/mda/psgbridge_cb_mfg_process.html [accessed on 10 January
2011]
[7] Twintex® Fabrics, Physical Properties for FEA modelling [online] Available at:
http://www.ocvreinforcements.com/Pages/Physical_Properties_for_FEA_Modeling.asp
[Accessed on 11January 2011]
[8] Wet layup [online] available at: http://www.netcomposites.com/education.asp?sequence=56
[Accessed on 11January 2011]
[9] Vacuum bagging [online] available at:
http://www.netcomposites.com/education.asp?sequence=57 [Accessed on 11 January 2011]
[10] Vacuum infusion [online] available at:
http://www.netcomposites.com/education.asp?sequence=61 [Accessed on 11 January 2011]
[11] ebaboard60-1[online] Available at:
http://www.ebalta.co.uk/products/product_datasheets/ebaboard/modelling_boards/datasheet_uk
_ebaboard_60-1.pdf [Accessed on 12 January 2011]
[12] Sulzer Textil Limited Switzerland, 2001, Fabric Structure, Properties and Testing
[13]Alan Easdale, Manufacture of a carbon composite wheelchair-part1
[14] Abaqus/CAE User's Manual/ 10.7.4 importing parts from an ACIS-format file
[15] Abaqus/CAE User's Manual/ 10.7.7 importing a part from an IGES-format file
78 | P a g e
Appendices
Appendix A: Ribs drawings (all dimensions are in mm)
A 1: Bottom rib1 drawing
A 2: Bottom ribs 2 drawing

79 | P a g e
A 3: Rear rib drawing
A 4: Top rib drawing
80 | P a g e
Appendix B: Mesh density
In bending test,
Bending test
No of elements Reaction Force (N)
100 722.677
30 722.917
14 723.094
B 1: Bending test No of elements against RF
BENDING TEST
723.2
723.1
REACTION FORCE (N)
723
722.9
722.8
722.7
722.6
722.5
722.4
100 30 14
NO OF ELEMENTS BEND TEST
B 2: Bending test No of elements Against RF
81 | P a g e
In tensile test,
Tensile test
No of elements Reaction Force (N)
100 32437.2
30 32444.1
14 32452.6
B 3: Tensile no of elements against RF
TENSILE TEST
32455
32450
REACTION FORCE
32445
32440
32435
32430
32425
100 30 14
NO OF ELEMENTS TENSILE TEST
B 4: Tensile no of elements against RF
82 | P a g e
Appendix C: Extract surface geometry from CAD model in SolidWorks
Step 1: Select the offset surface function.
C 1: Offset surface function
Step 2: In the offset parameters, enter 0mm in the distance setting. The offset faces pick those
faces which you are interested in. Done to click the green tick.
C 2: Offset parameters
83 | P a g e
Step 3: The surface was generated in the model tree. In order for you to see the surface body,
the solid body needs to be hidden.
C 3: Hide the solid body
Step 4: Just to verify the surface body is the geometry that you are interested.Done!
C 4: Verify the surface body
84 | P a g e
Appendix D: Solution for ‘layup orientation was coincided to the shell normal’ errors
Step 1: Identify the region for the composite layup where fibre and normal directions were
coincided with each other. They were identified in the red circles below.
D 1: Identify the region with errors
Step 2: Identify the error from its source (i.e. which ply does the error belong to).They are
highlighted in the blue.
D 2: Fibre orientation with the error
85 | P a g e
Step 3: To correct the error, select the ply and right click to amend to the coordinates system
(csys).
D 3: Edit composite layup
Step 4: In the ply orientation, change the normal direction by choosing either Axis 1 or Axis 2.
D 4: Ply orientation before amendment D 5: Ply orientation after amendment
86 | P a g e
Step 5:You might need to check for the conflicing normal again. Now all the fibre orientations
are orthoganal to the shell normal. Done !
D 6: Region with errors
87 | P a g e
Appendix E: Steps for the Bike frame in FEA
Step 1: Bike frame was being imported using IGES format.
E 1: Import parts
Step2: Create part from IGES file; change the stitches tolerance from 1 to 0.1(by trial and error).
Then select topology to be shell.
E 2: Create parts from IGES file
Step3: Create local coordinates which will be the orientation of the laminates. Go to toolbar,
select the datum. I chose the datum type as csys and the method to identify the
coordinates I use 3 points. I work with rectangular coordinate system.
E 3: Create datum E 4: Type of datum system
88 | P a g e
Step 4: Create partition the frame. This is where you have to decide on the region for the layup
orientation.
E 5: Partition
Step 5: Edit material property (lamina).
E 6: Edit material property
89 | P a g e
Step 6: Create no. of composite layups which is depended on the no of regions and type of
lamina you be doing. In this bike frame, I had distinct 5 regions for the composite layup,
and the same layup orientation for the 5 regions.
E 7: 5 region for the composite layup

90 | P a g e
Step 7: Edit Composite layup. Create the no. of plies for the region. In the bike frame, you need
to set local coordinates for the fibre direction using the csys and remember to set the
normal direction.
Step 8: Set the normal in the fibre orientation, refer to Appendix D.
Step 9: Global seeds are given by default.
E 8: Seedlings on the bike geometry
91 | P a g e
Step 10: Quadrilateral element S8R5 (8-node curved thin shell, reduced integration, using five
degree of freedom per node) was assigned in bike frame.
Step 11: Mesh the bike frame
Step 12: Load and boundary condition will vary that depended on what you are trying to
simulate in FEA. Finally, run the simulation. Done!
92 | P a g e
Appendix F: Mesh type Tri elements
Step 1: Assign global seeding to the part.
F 1: Seeding on the part
Step 2: Choice of element type
F 2: Element type
93 | P a g e
Step 3: Mesh controls choose tri.
F 3: Mesh controls
Step 4: Mesh the part. Done!
F 4: Mesh Tri element on the bike
94 | P a g e

Weikeong Teng 0703555 FYP Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weikeong Teng 0703555 FYP Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Weikeong TENG 0703555

MEng in Mechanical Engineering

Comparison of Composite material with Finite Element Analysis

Final Year Project 2010/ 2011

Supervisor: Dr Phil Harrison

Table 1: Property of e-glass and polypropylene ........................................................................15

Figure 1: Schematic of Wet layup [8].........................................................................................18

A 1: Bottom rib1 drawing ...........................................................................................................79

B 1: Bending test No of elements against RF ............................................................................81

C 1: Offset surface function .......................................................................................................83

D 1: Identify the region with errors.............................................................................................85

E 1: Import parts .......................................................................................................................88

F 1: Seeding on the part............................................................................................................93

This project will cover,

 Brief overviews on Composite materials

 Learn composite manufacturing processes in the market

 The steps for preparing bike tooling mould

 Physical testing: Three point bend and Tensile testing

 Numerical analysis: Hand calculations and FEA

 Compare results of Physical testing with Numerical analysis

 Model composite bike frame in shell geometry in FE

 Fabrication of the composite bike

 Testing the bike frame (tensile or compression tests and etc.)

2.1 Composite materials

2.1.1 Fibre reinforcements

2.2.1 Fibre Volume fraction

2.2.2 Rule of mixtures

𝑣12 = 1 − 𝑓 𝑣𝑚 + 𝑓𝑣𝑓 (2.3)

f, Volume fraction of fiber: 0.35

Ef, Young’s modulus of fiber: 72.4GPa

Em, Young’s modulus of matrix: 1.21GPa

Vf, Poissons ratio of fibre: 0.2

Vm, Poissons ratio of matrix: 0.3

Gf, Shear modulus of fibre: 30GPa

Gm, Shear modulus of the matrix: 0.538GPa

Table 1: Property of e-glass and polypropylene

Comparison: Biaxial Twintex [7]

Table 3: Comparison of composite property between Biaxial and Twintex

Figure 1: Schematic of Wet layup [8]

i) Easy and commonly used method

ii) Low cost tooling

iii) Wide choice of suppliers and material types

ii) High void contents in the finish product.

Figure 2:Schematic of Vacuum bagging [9]

ii) Lower void contents are achieved.

i) Adds cost both in labor and in disposable materials

ii) A higher level of skill is required by the operators

Figure 3: Schematic of Vacuum infusion [10]

ii) Large components can be fabricated.

iii) Cored structures can be produced in one operation.

i) Relatively complex process to perform well.

ii) Resins must be low in viscosity, thus comprising mechanical properties.

Figure 4: Physical data of ebaboard60-1 [11]

Steps taken to finish coating the bike mould:

Rear rib Bottom rib 1

Figure 7: Ribs in half bike shell

4.4.1 Sample mould without lacquer coating

Figure 8: Primer mould Figure 9: Vacuum bagging Figure 10: Specimen

5.1 Twintex specimen

Twintex is a commingled E-glass and polypropylene filaments, pre-impregnated material [7].

Figure 14: Twill woven Twintex material

5.2 Three Point Bend Test

Figure 17: Bend specimen