Buckling and Post-Buckling Behaviors of a Variable Stiffness Composite Laminated Wing Box Structure
- 472 Downloads
The buckling and post-buckling behaviors of variable stiffness composite laminates (VSCL) with curvilinear fibers were investigated and compared with constant stiffness composite laminates (CSCL) with straight fibers. A VSCL box structure was evaluated under a pure bending moment. The results of the comparative test showed that the critical buckling load of the VSCL box was approximately 3% higher than that of the CSCL box. However, the post-buckling load-bearing capacity was similar due to the layup angle and the immature status of the material processing technology. The properties of the VSCL and CSCL boxes under a pure bending moment were simulated using the Hashin criterion and cohesive interface elements. The simulation results are consistent with the experimental results in stiffness, critical buckling load and failure modes but not in post-buckling load capacity. The results of the experiment, the simulation and laminated plate theory show that VSCL greatly improves the critical buckling load but has little influence on the post-buckling load-bearing capacity.
KeywordsVariable stiffness composite laminates Post-buckling capacity Interfacial debonding Classical laminated plate theory
This investigation was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (No. 2017JM5018), National Science Foundation of China (No. 51305351) and the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (No. 20136102120031). The authors would also like to deliver their sincere thanks to the editors and anonymous reviewers.
- 1.Blom A W. Structural performance of fiber-placed, variable-stiffness composite conical and cylindrical shells[M]. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology, (2010)Google Scholar
- 5.Guerdal Z, Olmedo R.: Composite laminates with spatially varying fiber orientations: variable stiffness panel concept[C]//Proceedings of the AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC 33rd structures, structural dynamics and materials conference. 2, 798–80 (1992)Google Scholar