Scope
Current status on design legistationBackground
Methodologies for design
Development of design rules
Product properties and performance versus prescribed requirements
Case studies multimaterial applications
Identification of essential design criteria for which designers need further guidanceNeed for new codes for multimaterial applications
The main aim of cluster 6 "design criteria" is to establish easy to use guidelines to provide a set of relevant design criteria for the application of multi materials.
The current status on design legislation is discussed by introducing methodologies of design and developments in design rules. To get a better understanding of the problems related to design criteria for multimaterial applications various case studies are worked out for five different industry sectors. Basis on these case studies the most essential design criteria for which engineers need further guidance in the use of multimaterials are identified. For these design criteria to use of standards and codes within the five identified sectors of industry is discussed. Finally the lack of available design rules for multimaterial applications is discussed.
Back to Contents
The design of an optimal product is a complex process. Engineers start with the conceptual phase, which will end up with a number of potential outline solutions and the definition of the so called objective functions. The formulation of potential outline solutions is a mixture of experience, insight and creativity by the engineer. It is imperative that the design engineer fully understands the physical / functional requirements of the product as they can put constraints on material selection, design, manufacturing technique etc. After the conceptual phase engineers continue with the optimization phase, which will result in a final design. To show formally that this final design fulfils the design criteria, engineers will make a validation.
To optimise and validate a solution, the engineer has to show that the properties and performances of the product fulfil the prescribed requirements. If this is the case, it is stated that the product fulfils its design criteria.
The term design criterion used in the DOGMA project is defined as: "Property or performance of a product which has to fulfil a prescribed requirement".
In the following sections various multimaterial related products and their applications are reviewed by the cluster 6 partners. The following table presents a general summary of this study.
|
Multi Material |
Industry Sector |
Physical / Functional Requirements |
Official Standards / Guidelines |
|
- composite materials- laminates - sandwiches - joints |
- building - civil - automotive - trailer - railway - ship - offshore - other marine structures- container - aerospace - pressure vessels |
- loads:
- reaction to fire - stiffness - vibrations - accelerations - creep - environmental effects:
- costs - weight - manufactoring - maintenance - re-use of materials- health and safety issue- aesthetic - size |
- authority: - government - classification societies - customers defined - rules and convention: - laws - standards & codes - engineering practise |
Various methodologies for product design have been developed over the years. An example of a practical approach is the mix of creative and systematic methods proposed by Nigel Cross (Engineering Design Methods, Second Edition - Strategies for Product Design, John Wiley & Sons, UK, 1994). It is essentially concerned with problem formulation, conceptual and embodiment design, rather than the detail design. The proposed methodology, summarized in table 6.1, involves seven steps in the design process. Each of these steps applies to a widely used rational method.
|
Stage |
Relevant design method |
|
1. Clarifying objectives |
Objective tree Aim: To clarify design objectives and sub-objectives, and the relationship between them. |
|
2. Establishing functions |
Function analysis Aim: To establish the functions required, and the system boundary of a new design. |
|
3. Setting requirements |
Performance specification Aim: To make an accurate specification of the performance required for a design solution |
|
4. Determining characteristics |
Quality function deployment Aim: To set targets to be achieved for the engineering characteristics of a product, so that they satisfy customer requirements. |
|
5. Generating alternatives |
Morphological chart Aim: To generate the complete range of alternative design solutions for a product, and hence to widen the search for potential new solutions. |
|
6. Evaluating alternatives |
Weighted objectives Aim: To compare the utility values of alternative design proposals, on the basis of performance against differentially weighted objectives |
|
7. Improving details |
Value engineering Aim: To increase or maintain the value of a product to its purchaser whilst reducing its cost to its producer |
The case study on cast polymer concrete supplies a good illustration of the potential of this methodology. It also shows that a proper use of design criteria is essential for a successful design of a multimaterial.
The use of design rules has a long tradition. The paper "Development of Design Rules" presents an overview of these historical developments. It also introduces the nowadays widely accepted limit state concept, and discusses the partial safety factor approach.
Back to Contents
Product properties and performance versus prescribed requirements
Case studies multimaterial applications
Overview of case studies selected by industrial partners:
|
Component |
Sector of industry |
Case study |
|
Sandwich panel structure |
Aerospace |
A320 fairing |
|
Building |
Floor and wall panels |
|
|
Marine |
Front composite structure of a catamaran |
|
|
Transport |
Cab back wall partition |
|
|
Adhesive bonded joint |
||
|
Building |
FRP glue laminated wood beam |
|
|
Marine |
Joint of composite structure and metal hull |
|
|
Transport |
Joining a slot into a wall partition of a toilet module |
A320 fairing
This is a kevlar/honeycomb structure which is located at the junction between the fuselage, designed to cover internal components and to provide an aerodynamic surface which shape matches with other structures on the wing and fuselage. It comprises a multilayer lay-up of kevlar oriented at 0°, 90°, ±45° over a Nomex heoneycomb structure. The honeycomb is bonded to the kevlar, and the whole system is cured in a tool in an autoclave. The fairing is bolted to the rest of the structure. The structure is made from kevlar, because this location on the aircraft is likely to sustain bird strike, and so must therefore have good impact performance. The design must balance various requirements, with cost/weight an important design driver, usually in an iterative fashion, and dictated in part by experience gained over the lifetime of the component. As a general rule the design must satisfy the CAA requirement that new materials should not subject an aircraft to higher risk than they accept ith existing materials.
Floor and wall panels
In e.g. Finland sandwich panels are used in big halls, like ice-hockey or football halls. The sandwich structure has the following layering:
a) Epoxy coated steel plate (or some other metal/laminate)
b) Polystyrene or mineral wool insulation
c) Epoxy coated steel plate (or some other metal/laminate)
These steel panels are usually glued with a polyurethae adhesive at room or elevated temperature under pressure.
Design criteria:
Stiffness: Maximum deflection according to the code
- Wall L/150 of L/100 if the temp. difference is over 40°C
- Floor/Roof L/150 or L/100
- Floor also creep and moisture deformation
Strength:
- Shear strength of the core
- Face (strength and buckling)
Fire: For example a particle board is added between a surface and a core
High temperature and high moisture decrease the material properties of a core
Creep of core material (and perhaps also the creep of an adhesive)
Dimensioning: e.g. Fd=Fg+Fg, creep+Fsnow+Fsnow, creep+Fwind+Ftemp.
Transport and assembly loads
Front composite structure of a catamaran
An example is the front structure of Stena HSS1500 Fast Catamaran. Some details of those fronts are:
- 6.75 m length
- 8.4 m height
- 38 m width
- 15 ton weight (2/3 of the simular size of an aluminium structure)
- 16 kg/m2 area weight
- design load: pressure load from weather conditions (no wave loads allowed)
- construction: sandwich shell structure supported with aluminium pillars
- joints: connected to aluminium ship hull via bolted seam
The engineer is confronted with a wide variety of problems during the process of design of this example of a multimaterial product. In "Design of front composite structure of a catamaran" some reflections of a ship builder are given.
Cab back wall partition
This is a sandwich panel between the driver's cab and the passenger area. One design currently in use consists of:
a) Melamine laminate
b) Steel plate
c) Birch plywood, dricon treated (18 mm)
d) Melanine laminate
Relevant standards containing some of the main performance requirements are:
BS EN 438 (high pressure laminate)
BS 6853 (fire performance for railway vehicles)
GMRT 2120
GM/TT0179
FRP glue laminated wood beam
Objective: The new concept allows decrease in the cross section of the beam or we are able to use lower quality wood.
Concept: The concept is that we glue a FRP laminate (Carbon, glass etc.) between the outermost gluelines.
Design criteria:
Stiffness: Maximum deflection according to the building code is:
- roofs (cold): L/120 or L/96 (pre camber)
- roofs (warm): L/200 or L/120
- Floors: L/200 or L/240
- Bridges: L/400 or L/320
Loads: Long, medium and short term loads
Creep: Material properties
Strength: Also shear strength if h³ l/2
Glue: A combination of shear strength and wood failure (Bdg. Code)
If the beam is not so heavy, the transportation and assembly is easier.
Joint of composite structure and metal hull
See case matching sandwich panel structure case study. All joints between the sandwich panels are bonded and overlaminated.
Joining a slot into a wall partition of a toilet module
A slot is adhesively bonded in a sandwich panel structure made of:
a) High pressure laminate (0.8 mm)
b) Glass fibre impregnated with phenolic adhesive (0.6 mm)
c) Polyetherimide foam (16.8 mm)
d) Glass fibre impregnated with phenolic adhesive (0.6 mm)
e) High pressure laminate (0.8 mm)

Identification of essential design criteria for which designers need further guidance
Basis on the above stated case studies a large variety of design criteria related to the application of multimaterials has been identified by the cluster 6 partners. The following nine topics have been covered:
1) Cost
2) Reliability
3) Weight
4) Mechanical performance
5) Fire performance
6) Environmental performance
7) Product shape
8) Production
9) Life time
Each of these topics cover various issues. All these issues could be important in certain situations, but the cluster 6 partners had to limit their work to time constrains. For this reason only the issues with the highest priority are selected, as indicated in the following table.
|
Costs |
||
|
1a) |
Production and development |
|
|
1b) |
Material qualification |
|
|
1c) |
Tooling |
|
|
1d) |
Assembly |
|
|
1e) |
Plant modification |
|
|
1f) |
Amortisation |
|
|
Reliability |
||
|
2a) |
Safety level |
|
|
>>> |
2b) |
Design life |
|
2c) |
Product life |
|
|
2d) |
Live expectation |
|
|
Weight |
||
|
>>> |
3a) |
Reduction |
|
Mechanical preformance |
||
|
4a) |
Fatigue |
|
|
4b) |
Impact (crash) |
|
|
4c) |
Lightning strike |
|
|
4d) |
Bending, in plane loads, shear |
|
|
4e) |
(Hydro-)Dynamic behaviour |
|
|
4f) |
Creep |
|
|
>>> |
4g) |
Stiffness & deflection |
|
4h) |
Linear vs. non-linear behaviour |
|
|
4i) |
Stress concentration due to stiffness variation |
|
|
4j) |
Adhesive bonding |
|
|
>>> |
Fire performance |
|
|
5a) |
Flammability |
|
|
5b) |
Fire resistance |
|
|
5c) |
Fire partitioning |
|
|
Environmental performances |
||
|
>>> |
6a) |
Humidity and moisture |
|
6b) |
Chemical resistance |
|
|
6c) |
High temperature, temperature |
|
|
6d) |
UV (discoloration, blistering) |
|
|
6e) |
Potential difference (corrosion im multimaterial joints) |
|
|
Product shape |
||
|
7a) |
Tapered sections and compound contours |
|
|
7b) |
Joint design |
|
|
Production |
||
|
8a) |
Lead time |
|
|
>>> |
8b) |
Quality assurance (MTRL) |
|
8c) |
Health risk |
|
|
8d) |
Assembly and joining |
|
|
>>> |
8e) |
Manufactoring methods |
|
8f) |
Handling large components |
|
|
8g) |
Loads occuring during joining process |
|
|
Life time |
||
|
9a) |
NDT |
|
|
9b) |
Repair |
|
|
9c) |
Disassembly, dismantling |
|
|
9d) |
Abrasion (vandalism) |
|
|
9e) |
Damage tolerance |
Back to Contents
To identify relevant standards and handbooks related to the above identified six design criteria the cluster 6 partners collected and discussed various documents. This has been done for the aerospace, automotive, building, marine and transport sectors of industry. To limite the number of documents only the case studies mentioned in section 6.3 were considered.
In the aerospace industry the existing standards are very general and it is much more common for componies to follow their own detailed design criteria and procedures. These findings are illustrated by the "
Discussion of documents used by British Aerospace in view of the six identified design criteria". This is also the case for the automotive industry, which have its own criteria for quality assurance and durability not always driven by legislation. In contrast it is noted that in building and civil industries there is a long history behind the use of common standards. For example the application of sandwich panels for wall and roof structures is well known. The "Preliminary European recommendation for Sandwich Panels with Additional Recommendations for Panels with Mineral Wool Core Materials" (CIB Report Publication 148, reprint November 1995) can be seen as a state-of-the-art standard within the building industry. Many of the railway industry design criteria are based upon construction standards. The "Discussion of documents used by Adtranz in view of the six identified design criteria" provides detailed considerations. The situation for the marine industry is that the classification societies have developed their own standards. Unless the fact that within the various sectors of industry the status of standards differs significantly, it is found that there is conformation about gapes in knowledge about design criteria for multimaterial applications.Overview of general gaps of knowledge
|
Selected design criteria |
Identified gaps of knowledge about design criteria for multimaterial applications |
|
Design life (reliability) |
Prediction of fatigue performance |
|
Prediction of creep due to long-term loads |
|
|
Weight production |
In principle not a gap of knowledge: design driven criterion |
|
Stiffness and deflection (mechanical performance) |
Actual material properties of multimaterials |
|
Present requirements are sometimes related to the used material; reconsideration of targets necessary |
|
|
Fire performance |
Tests are (too) expensive, More experience necessary to develope guidelines |
|
Humidity and moisture |
Prediction of durability (design life, degradation effects, use of accelerated ageing tests) |
|
Influence of used materials |
|
|
Manufactoring methods and QA |
Procedure for manufacturing and inspection |
Back to Contents
There is a strong need for new codes for multimaterial applications. This is, because the bias of existing codes towards the use of traditional materials making it particularly difficults to introduce new materials. Non-material specific procedures are required to verify new materials and multimaterial combinations. A transfer of knowledge between the different industry sectors might be helpfull to new design rules. This means that generic design criteria have to be developed for multimaterials, which exceed the industry sectors.
Prefered process of developing new codes for design:
