Menu

Discussion Forum

New Discussion
Filter

Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.

Composite Sandwich Model

Posted Sep 12, 2019, 11:26 a.m. EDT Structural & Acoustics, Materials 1 Reply

Emre Gungor
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Hello Everyone, What I'm supposed to for modelling sandwich composite modelling? I have been trying to modelling sandwich types below;

type-1: (0,90)2/Isotropic Core/(0,90)2 type-2: as(0,90)2/Orthotropic Core/(0,90)2

But, I'm not sure for my modelling approach about above stack types. Should I select 'shell' or 'layered shell' physics? or Should I modelled GFRP as a surface? should I modelled core as a solid or surface? or each indiviual layers be must as a single layer? I' m sharing images of different modelling types.

1 Reply Last Post Sep 13, 2019, 3:36 a.m. EDT
Pawan Soami COMSOL Employee

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 5 years ago Sep 13, 2019, 3:36 a.m. EDT

Dear Emre,

You can use different modeling approaches for such type of problems. The choice of modeling approach depends on several parameters including accuracy, computation time, layer thickness, desired postprocessing results etc.

Let's assume you are not very much interested in core details and it is sufficiently thin where shell theory is valid, then you can use only Shell physics. This equivalent theory and thus faster and works well for thin layers.

Let's assume core is thick enough but still with constant thickness, then you can use only Layered Shell physics. This solves in thickness direction and thus more accurate however computationally more expensive.

In both the above mentioned approaches, you will draw only single geometric boundary and Layered Material Stack can be used to model various layers and core material. You can refer wind_turbine_composite_blade to see such type of modeling.

Let's assume you are core is thick and having varying thickness, then you can use following approaches:

  • Layered Shell + Solid + Layered Shell
  • Shell + Solid + Shell

In both the above mentioned approaches, you will draw only core geometry and shell or layered shell can be defined on its top and bottom boundaries.

There can be more combinations and I have explained some of the common cases.

Best regards,
Pawan Soami

Dear Emre, You can use different modeling approaches for such type of problems. The choice of modeling approach depends on several parameters including accuracy, computation time, layer thickness, desired postprocessing results etc. Let's assume you are not very much interested in core details and it is sufficiently thin where shell theory is valid, then you can use only Shell physics. This equivalent theory and thus faster and works well for thin layers. Let's assume core is thick enough but still with constant thickness, then you can use only Layered Shell physics. This solves in thickness direction and thus more accurate however computationally more expensive. In both the above mentioned approaches, you will draw only single geometric boundary and Layered Material Stack can be used to model various layers and core material. You can refer wind_turbine_composite_blade to see such type of modeling. Let's assume you are core is thick and having varying thickness, then you can use following approaches: * Layered Shell + Solid + Layered Shell * Shell + Solid + Shell In both the above mentioned approaches, you will draw only core geometry and shell or layered shell can be defined on its top and bottom boundaries. There can be more combinations and I have explained some of the common cases. Best regards, Pawan Soami

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL® software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via the Support Center for a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.

Suggested Content