Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 09/24/1998 - 23:34 Forums: LML Archive From: John Cooper <heyduke [at] digital.net> Subject: Carbon vs. Glass Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:34:40 -0400 To: <lancair.list [at] olsusa.com> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Scott-- Yeah, yeah, I've heard all that before... But what about the Young's Modulus of the spruce longerons (E=1,500,000) vs. the Young's Modulus of the fiberglass fuselage (E=10,600,000), hmmm? This is a much bigger ratio than between glass-epoxy and carbon fiber (E=35,000,000). Shouldn't the "stiffer" glass-epoxy fuselage break before the spruce longerons in the standard design? And wouldn't the epoxy (E=2500) joining the two layers fail long before either the glass-epoxy or the carbon fiber failed? Yes, the worst that will happen to my plane is that cracks develop where the epoxy holding the carbon fiber to the pre-preg fails in shear, in which case I am back to the "standard" strength and will have to repaint my plane. Post a Reply Carbon vs. Glass Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 09/26/1998 - 00:44 From: Guy Buchanan <bnn [at] compuserve.com> Sender: Guy Buchanan <bnn [at] compuserve.com> Subject: Carbon vs. Glass Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 20:44:30 -0400 To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver [at] compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailing-List: lancair.list [at] olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> John, Some data for your inquiry: Material Modulus Comp. Linear strain Stress to failure Spruce perp. 1.57 msi (flex) 5.6 ksi 0.4% to grain E-glass/epoxy 2.4 msi (comp) 44 ksi 1.8% equal 0/45/90/-45 E-glass/epoxy 2.72 msi (comp) 64 ksi 2.4% equal 0/90 Low mod carbon/epoxy 5.37 msi (comp) 34 ksi 0.6% equal 0/45/90/-45 Low mod carbon/epoxy 7.15 msi (comp) 52 ksi 0.7% equal 0/90 Low mod carbon/epoxy 9.97 msi (comp) 64 ksi 0.6% 70% uni Thus, in a pure tug the spruce will fail first, the carbon second, and the glass last. However, when you build a sandwich panel with a symmetric laminate, and then add higher stiffness material to one face, you CAN shift the neutral exis faster than you increase the section inertia, thereby reducing the section modulus and therefore the beam bending strength. More importantly to the fastidious, the coefficients of thermal expansion between carbon and glass are quite different (0.02e-6 v 8.6e-6 mm/(mm-C)) meaning that temporary, and possibly permenant, deformations will show at each modification, making your beautiful Lancair look, ahem, shall we say, lumpy? (Permenant deformations occur because of shrinkage, temporary because of temperature and humidity changes.) Food for thought, Guy Buchanan Buchanan & Newcomer reply Carbon vs. Glass Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 09/26/1998 - 17:17 From: John Cooper <heyduke [at] digital.net> Subject: Carbon vs. Glass Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:17:33 -0400 To: <lancair.list [at] olsusa.com> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Guy-- Thanks for the numbers. They were more useful than the ones I was using, since they apparently reflected the "layed-up" condition rather than just the strength of the fibers themselves. I am assuming that "msi" means "million pounds per square inch", right? Also, I just got back from the hangar where I was working on the center console "lids". I remeasured the distance from the engine CG to the main spar and it was 52", not 40". I reverified that the longeron-to-spar distance was in fact 17" (to the bottom of the spar). So the 52" dimension makes the stress in the longerons 900# per G, not 706# as in my previous post. 450# per longeron per G... Using your Young's Modulus numbers: spruce=1.57mpsi glass=2.42mpsi carbon=9.97mpsi the ratios normalize to 1 : 1.54 : 6.35 instead of the figures that I used in the last post, which were 1 : 7 : 21 Recalculating using my original areas, I get: AE(spruce) = 1 x 0.56 AE(glass) = 2.42 x 0.12 = 0.29 AE(carbon) = 9.97 x .12 = 1.20 sum of above = 2.05 So therefore the percent of load carried by each material is: Spruce .56/2.05 = 27% Glass .29/2.05 = 14% Carbon 1.20/2.05 = 59% For the original configuration (without carbon fiber): Spruce = .56/0.85 = 66% Glass = .29/0.85 = 34% reply Carbon vs. Glass Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 09/26/1998 - 18:01 From: Guy Buchanan <bnn [at] compuserve.com> Sender: Guy Buchanan <bnn [at] compuserve.com> Subject: Carbon vs. Glass Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:01:37 -0400 To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver [at] compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailing-List: lancair.list [at] olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> All, Error in my last post. "Spruce perp. to grain" should have read "Spruce parallel to grain." Sorry for the confusion. Scott, your responses are on the mark, but I think you slipped some zeros in your epoxy modulus. I get a range closer to 500,000 psi. That would make your epoxy stress be only 1800 psi so your example still holds true. Also, I hope noone ever reinforces with purely unidirectional carbon. It has great stiffness but lousy strength. Guy Buchanan Buchanan & Newcomer reply Post a Reply You must have JavaScript enabled to use this form. Your name Subject Comment * Switch to plain text editorMore information about text formats Text format Filtered HTMLPlain text Filtered HTMLWeb page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.Each email address will be obfuscated in a human readable fashion or, if JavaScript is enabled, replaced with a spam resistent clickable link. Email addresses will get the default web form unless specified. If replacement text (a persons name) is required a webform is also required. Separate each part with the "|" pipe symbol. Replace spaces in names with "_".Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h1> <h2> <h3>Lines and paragraphs break automatically.Plain textNo HTML tags allowed.Each email address will be obfuscated in a human readable fashion or, if JavaScript is enabled, replaced with a spam resistent clickable link. Email addresses will get the default web form unless specified. If replacement text (a persons name) is required a webform is also required. Separate each part with the "|" pipe symbol. Replace spaces in names with "_".Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.Lines and paragraphs break automatically. Attachments Add a new file Files must be less than 512 MB.Allowed file types: jpg jpeg gif png txt doc docx xls xlsx pdf ppt pptx pps ppsx odt ods odp mp3 mov mp4 m4a m4v mpeg avi ogg oga ogv weba webp webm. Leave this field blank
Carbon vs. Glass Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 09/26/1998 - 00:44 From: Guy Buchanan <bnn [at] compuserve.com> Sender: Guy Buchanan <bnn [at] compuserve.com> Subject: Carbon vs. Glass Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 20:44:30 -0400 To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver [at] compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailing-List: lancair.list [at] olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> John, Some data for your inquiry: Material Modulus Comp. Linear strain Stress to failure Spruce perp. 1.57 msi (flex) 5.6 ksi 0.4% to grain E-glass/epoxy 2.4 msi (comp) 44 ksi 1.8% equal 0/45/90/-45 E-glass/epoxy 2.72 msi (comp) 64 ksi 2.4% equal 0/90 Low mod carbon/epoxy 5.37 msi (comp) 34 ksi 0.6% equal 0/45/90/-45 Low mod carbon/epoxy 7.15 msi (comp) 52 ksi 0.7% equal 0/90 Low mod carbon/epoxy 9.97 msi (comp) 64 ksi 0.6% 70% uni Thus, in a pure tug the spruce will fail first, the carbon second, and the glass last. However, when you build a sandwich panel with a symmetric laminate, and then add higher stiffness material to one face, you CAN shift the neutral exis faster than you increase the section inertia, thereby reducing the section modulus and therefore the beam bending strength. More importantly to the fastidious, the coefficients of thermal expansion between carbon and glass are quite different (0.02e-6 v 8.6e-6 mm/(mm-C)) meaning that temporary, and possibly permenant, deformations will show at each modification, making your beautiful Lancair look, ahem, shall we say, lumpy? (Permenant deformations occur because of shrinkage, temporary because of temperature and humidity changes.) Food for thought, Guy Buchanan Buchanan & Newcomer reply
Carbon vs. Glass Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 09/26/1998 - 17:17 From: John Cooper <heyduke [at] digital.net> Subject: Carbon vs. Glass Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 13:17:33 -0400 To: <lancair.list [at] olsusa.com> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Guy-- Thanks for the numbers. They were more useful than the ones I was using, since they apparently reflected the "layed-up" condition rather than just the strength of the fibers themselves. I am assuming that "msi" means "million pounds per square inch", right? Also, I just got back from the hangar where I was working on the center console "lids". I remeasured the distance from the engine CG to the main spar and it was 52", not 40". I reverified that the longeron-to-spar distance was in fact 17" (to the bottom of the spar). So the 52" dimension makes the stress in the longerons 900# per G, not 706# as in my previous post. 450# per longeron per G... Using your Young's Modulus numbers: spruce=1.57mpsi glass=2.42mpsi carbon=9.97mpsi the ratios normalize to 1 : 1.54 : 6.35 instead of the figures that I used in the last post, which were 1 : 7 : 21 Recalculating using my original areas, I get: AE(spruce) = 1 x 0.56 AE(glass) = 2.42 x 0.12 = 0.29 AE(carbon) = 9.97 x .12 = 1.20 sum of above = 2.05 So therefore the percent of load carried by each material is: Spruce .56/2.05 = 27% Glass .29/2.05 = 14% Carbon 1.20/2.05 = 59% For the original configuration (without carbon fiber): Spruce = .56/0.85 = 66% Glass = .29/0.85 = 34% reply
Carbon vs. Glass Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 09/26/1998 - 18:01 From: Guy Buchanan <bnn [at] compuserve.com> Sender: Guy Buchanan <bnn [at] compuserve.com> Subject: Carbon vs. Glass Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 14:01:37 -0400 To: <Blind.Copy.Receiver [at] compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Mailing-List: lancair.list [at] olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> All, Error in my last post. "Spruce perp. to grain" should have read "Spruce parallel to grain." Sorry for the confusion. Scott, your responses are on the mark, but I think you slipped some zeros in your epoxy modulus. I get a range closer to 500,000 psi. That would make your epoxy stress be only 1800 psi so your example still holds true. Also, I hope noone ever reinforces with purely unidirectional carbon. It has great stiffness but lousy strength. Guy Buchanan Buchanan & Newcomer reply
Carbon vs. Glass
Submitted by Anonymous on
Carbon vs. Glass
Submitted by Anonymous on
Carbon vs. Glass
Submitted by Anonymous on
Post a Reply