Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

(Composite) In plane principal stress or normal stress?

  1. May 18, 2015 #1
    Hey everybody,

    I went through a discussion with a colleague today about Finite element modeling of composite structures and how to interpret the stress analysis.

    I understand that for isotropic materials, principal stresses could be used against the allowable stresses to see if failure will occur. (or von mises vs yield)

    For composites, would there be a preference of using the in plane principal stress vs using the normal stress? Some research online tells me that there will be times when both of them will be the same value, but sometimes it won't be- when it is not equal, what value should be used?

    Also, when the orientation of the plies in composite materials is not well known, as well as the fiber type (unidirectional, etc), would using principal stress be more accurate or normal stress be more accurate?

    Thanks everybody in advance for your insights.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 23, 2015 #2
    Thanks for the post! This is an automated courtesy bump. Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post?
     
  4. Jun 11, 2015 #3
    Hi,

    I am just trying to learn the same.

    I guess the right way to do it would be fine in plane stresses for each laminate and the compare it with failure criteria.

    And if you don't know the exact fiber directions, how do you model your problem in FEA?

    I am a novice in "Composite" FEA but am willing to learn and contribute.

    We can discuss here or PM me
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: (Composite) In plane principal stress or normal stress?
  1. Plane Stress (Replies: 5)

  2. Principal stress? (Replies: 19)

Loading...