Shear Failure of Adhered Polystyrene (to Aluminum)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the shear failure of adhered polystyrene (Styrofoam SM) to aluminum in a composite metal panel assembly due to thermal expansion discrepancies. The previous engineer's oversight led to the foam detaching from the metal panels as the calculated allowable temperature differential (dT) for shear failure was determined to be only 2.39°C, which is deemed insufficient. The correct approach involves comparing the thermal strain differences between the aluminum and foam rather than directly applying thermal stress to the foam interface. Relevant resources include a NASA report and an academic paper for further insights.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thermal expansion coefficients
  • Knowledge of Young's Modulus and its application in material science
  • Familiarity with shear strength concepts in materials
  • Basic principles of thermal stress calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the thermal expansion coefficients of polystyrene and aluminum
  • Study the relationship between thermal strain and shear failure in composite materials
  • Examine the NASA report on thermal expansion properties of foam
  • Review the academic paper on simplified analysis of thermal stress in adhered materials
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, material scientists, and project managers involved in composite material design and analysis, particularly those addressing thermal expansion issues in adhered systems.

banfillb
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
Hi All,

So here's the problem. A project I am working on has a composite metal panel assembly, which a previous engineer designed. The metal panels are simply glued to the polystyrene (styrofoam sm). The problem is that the previous engineer did not consider the difference in thermal expansion between the foam and the aluminum, and the foam has begun to fail in shear, and detach from the metal panels.

I'm putting together a report basically laying out the problem, and what I want to find is a temperature gradient which is "allowable" before the styrofoam will shear.

Basically what I have done is set the thermal stress due to restricting thermal expansion (σ=EαdT) equal to the shear strength of the styrofoam (452kPa) and solved for the dT...which ended up coming out to 2.39degC...which seems extremely low to me.

Any suggestions on where I have gone wrong? The only thing I can think of is that I can't directly use the thermal stress due to restriction of thermal expansion directly as a shear force...not sure.

Thanks,
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Thermal stress (σ) created by thermal expansion resistance will be calculated using the following formula:
σ=E∙α∙dT
Where: σ= Thermal Stress (kPa)
E= Youngs Modulus (GPa)
α= Thermal Expansion Coefficient (m/(m℃))
dT= Temperature Differential (℃)
The thermal stress (σ) value will then be compared to the shear strength of the Styrofoam SM. If σ>F_v, then shear failure will occur.

The thermal stress (σ) will then be set to the shear strength (F_v) of Styrofoam SM in order to find the minimum temperature differential which shearing in the Styrofoam SM will occur.
CALCULATIONS:

σ=E∙α∙dT
σ=(3x10^6 kn/m^2 )(63x10^(-6) m/(m℃))(100℃)
σ=18,900 kPa
σ>F_v
∴, shearing WILL occur

452kPa=(3x10^6 kn/m^2 )(63x10^(-6) m/(m℃))∙dT
dT=2.39℃
∴, shearing will occur at any temperature differential greater than 2.39℃
 
You seem to have calculated the stress in the steel assuming it cannot expand, and then applied all that stress across the interface to the styrofoam.

That is the wrong thing to do (and your temperature difference is obviously much too small).

It would make more sense to find the difference in thermal strain between the metal and the foam (caused by the different expansion coefficients) and compare that with the elastic strain at which the foam will fail.

But the measured data here http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070008201_2007006834.pdf seems to imply the thermal expansion of the foam is very nonlinear (and large, and irreversible) above about 100 C.
 
You can probably simplify the analysis in that PDF, since I would guess Young's modulus for the foam is negligible compared with aluminum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
15K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
962