Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.

3 Composites Tutorial

Modeling Composites with

FEMAP 9.3
An Introduction to
The How’s and Why’s
Jared Ellefson, MSME
Staff Analyst, Predictive Engineering
Jared.Ellefson@PredictiveEngineering.com
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Table of Contents
Defining a Laminate Material in Femap 9.3 …….…………………………………….. 3
Femap 9.3 Layup Editor ……………………………………….………………………. 4
Orthotropic Materials Overview ………………………………………… …………… 5
Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap 9.3 ………………………… ……………. 6
Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate Model in Femap 9.3 …...…………….. …. 8
Creating the Laminate Material ……………………………………….. 10
Defining the Laminate Layup ………………………………………… 11
Defining the Laminate Property ………………………………………. 12
Specifying Material Angles …………………………………………… 13
Post Processing the Results …………………………………………… 15
Using Plate Elements to Model Honeycomb Core Composites ………………………. 17
Classical Plate Theory Applied to Honeycomb Composites .…………. 18
The Nastran PShell Property Card …………………………………….. 19
Using the PShell Property Card for Honeycomb Composites ………… 20
Using Femap to Setup a Honeycomb Panel …………………………… 21
Example 2: Comparing Different Laminate Modeling Methods ……….……………... 22
Material Properties used in the Example ……………………………… 23
Honeycomb Model using Solid Elements with Laminate Face Skins … 24
Honeycomb Model using Classical Plate Theory ……………………... 27
Honeycomb Model using Laminate Elements ………………………… 31
Results Summary ………………………………………………………. 34
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………….. 35
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Defining a Laminate Material in FEMAP 9.3

To define a Laminate Material in

FEMAP 9.3, 3 specifications must be
made:
• The Composite Layup that is to be
used must be specified. These
Layups are defined using the Layup
Editor.
• A Bond Shear Allowance must also
be specified. The value represents
the bond strength between the bonded
laminate sheets. This value is used to
calculate a factor of safety against
shear failure between laminate
panels.
• A Failure Theory must also be
specified. If Tsai-Wu is specified,
then the Tsai-Wu interaction
coefficient must also be specified in
the material definition.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

FEMAP 9.3 Layup Editor

The new layup editor in FEMAP 9.3

allows for the easy specification of
laminate configurations. This new
editor allows plys to be be edited
individually or collectively. It also
allows each ply to be moved around
in the layup, as well as easy editing
of ply thickness and angle.

A compute button has also been

added that allows the user to calculate
and display the A, B and D matrices
which represent the laminate
behavior. These matrices are
calculated and then displayed in the
messages window.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Orthotropic Materials
Often times Composites can be modeled as
Orthotropic materials. The Nastran Mat8 material
card can be used to simulate orthotropic behavior.

2
1
The above is an example of an orthotropic material.
The 1 direction could corresponds to the x direction
and the 2 to the y or vise-versa. When deciding
which direction is the x and which is the y, what is
important is that the chosen convention is adhered to.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Defining an Orthotropic Material in Femap 9.3

FEMAP requires the entry of 5
values:
• 2 Young’s Moduli for the material’s
primary directions.
• A 1-2 Shear Modulus
• 2 Transverse Shear Moduli, 1z & 2z
• The 1-2 Poisson Ratio, the 2-1
Poisson Ratio is not required. The
symmetry of the material stress
tensor allows FEMAP to calculate it
based upon E1, E2 and v1-2.

There are a number of other values

that can be entered depending upon
what type of analysis is going to be
carried out.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

1) HMS B1-002 TY I-TS

One of the more difficult aspects of working with composites is
getting realistic, usable material data. Matt Piatkowski at Heath Tecna
inc. provided an example of a material model they have developed.

These values were derived through correlating experimental data with

FEA models. Built into this material model are a number of
assumptions: it is only valid for certain shapes and loading schemes.
The model works well in pure flex, but does not work well when a lot 2) Graphite Tape
of shear or twist is imposed on the structure.

Such limitations and assumptions are very important to quantify. An

FEA model is only as good as the assumptions that go into it.

3) HMS B3-001 TY4 CL1 GR9

 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Example 1: Creating a Submarine Laminate

Model in Femap 9.3
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

The model to the right is a

section of the submarine model
shown on the previous page.
The original model was built
using plate elements, but in this
example we will modify it so
that the submarine ‘skin’ is a
laminate.

The port is composed of solid

elements, with an assumed
material of steel. The ring of
blue elements around the port
are plate elements, whose
purpose it is to simulate a weld.
These plate elements are also
assumed to be steel.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Creating the Laminate Material

This model will use a single
material for the laminate plies.
The properties are those of a
Graphite/epoxy compositeψ.

The Limit Stress/Strain section

is used for calculating failure
indexes. There are a number of
indexes Nastran will calculate:
Hill, Hoffman, Tsai-Wu, and
Maximum Strain. Tsai-Wu
requires a material dependant
experimentally derived value, it
is in the material definition that
this value is specified.
We will use Hoffman’s criteria,
so this value isn’t necessary for
our analysis.

ψ
Jones, Robert M. Mechanics of Composite Materials. New York: Hemisphere, 1975. 70.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Defining the Laminate Layup

After the orthotropic material
is created, the Layup Editor
can be used to define how the
laminate plies are situated.

The laminate that has been

defined on the right consists of
7 plys, each 0.2 inches thick.
The primary direction of the
plies varies by 90º.

This is a fairly simple

configuration. Often the
individual plies are different
materials, the top and bottom plies being composed of a somewhat tough material while the
inner plies are more light-weight. Configurations such as these impart a large area moment of
inertia while remaining light weight.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Defining the Laminate Property

We are now just a short jump
away from having a laminate
property defined. The
laminate definition requires the
user to specify which Layup
will define the the laminate.

The BondShr Allow also needs

to be specified if a bond factor
of safety is desired. The value
is arrived at by dividing the inter-ply shear stress by the BondShr Allow.

It is here that the Failure theory is also specified. This example will use Hoffman’s theory.
These failure theories produce failure indexes. An index greater than 1 denotes failure. Each
ply in the laminate will have an associated failure index. The equation used to calculate the
Hoffman index is shown below.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

After the elements are

Specifying Material Angles
assigned the laminate
property, they need to be
given a specified angle that
corresponds to the primary
direction of the layup. The
above picture specifies the
directions we are interested
in specifying. The ring of
two elements around the
port are to have an
orientation tangent to the
edge of the port, while all
other elements need to point
in the vertical direction.

Going to Modify-Update
Elements-Material Angle
allows the user to specify the laminate direction. In the case above, a cylindrical coordinate system
was created, called Cylindrical 1. Using this coordinate system, the inner ring of elements were
specified as pointing in the theta direction.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

It is important to ensure that all laminate elements

have an angle specified. Nastran will not run the
analysis if elements are missing an angle
specification. Element normals are also important if
your laminate model is not symmetric. These must be
specified to ensure that element orientation is
consistent.

On the right is an example where a certain portion of

laminate elements have unspecified angles. Often
finding where these elements are is a chore. To solve
the problem, I created an API script that searches for
these elements, then highlights and groups them. The
bottom graphic shows this. This API is called
Composites Material Angle Checker, and can be
downloaded from our website at
www.PredictiveEngineering.com/downloads/api.html

After loads and boundary conditions are specified, the

models is ready to process.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Post Processing the Results

For each element, there are 7 plies
and each of these plies has
associated data, e.g. stresses,
strains, failure indexes. The plot on
the right is that of the maximum
failure index for each element.

It can be seen that under this

loading condition, the Hoffman
failure criterion predicts a
maximum index of 0.243. This
value is well below 1, and therefore
we can infer that this portion of the
vessel is quite safe.

It should be noted that this is a

failure index, NOT a factor of
safety. Hoffman’s equation is not
linear, and should not be
Construded to imply that the
structure has a factor of safety of
1/0.243 or ~ 4.1.
In order to generate a factor of safety, Hoffman’s equation needs to be solved in it’s quadratic form.
See Daniel, Isaac M., and Ori Ishai. Engineering Mechanics of Composite Materials. New York: Oxford, 1994. 120-124.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

The inter-laminate bonding

factor of safety is shown on the
right. The bonding index see a
maximum at the center of the
elements. This is what we would
expect to see as predicted by
classical plate / beam theory.
There should be zero shear force
on the surfaces and a maximum
at the centerline.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Using Plate Elements to

Model Honeycomb Composites

Nastran and Femap both allow for the use

of the PShell property card for
honeycomb composites. This section of
the tutorial deals with how Classical Plate
Theory can be used to define a plate
element which reasonably replicates the
behavior of a Honeycomb Core
Composite.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Classical Plate Theory Applied to

Honeycomb Composites
It is important to remember that there is one major T/2

assumption made in classical plate theory with

respect to honeycomb composites; it is
D
assumed that all of the in-plane stresses are
carried by the facesheets. The following
relationships can be derived:

Membrane Stiffness I’ is the bending moment of Inertia per unit width

3
Et 2⎛d t ⎞ 1
K= I'= ⎜ + ⎟ − d 3
1 −ν 2 3 ⎝ 2 2 ⎠ 12
Bending Stiffness If d >>t, then the following can be assumed:

EI ' td 2
D= I'≈
1 −ν 2 4
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

The Nastran
PSHELL
Property Card
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Using the PSHELL Card for Honeycomb Panels

PID - Property ID T/2

MID1 - This entry specifies the material number of

the facesheets.
D
T - The total thickness of the facesheets.
MID2 - This entry also specifies the material
number for the facesheets.
12I/T3 – The inertia of the facesheets is entered
here. If the facesheets are thin, and the core is
thick, then it can be assumed that:
• I = TD2/4
If the facesheets are relatively thick, then
• I = 2/3 [D/2 + T/2]3 – D3/12
MID3 – This entry specifies the material number of
the honeycomb core.
Ts – This value is the shear thickness and in the
case of a honeycomb core, is D.
NSM – Non Structural Mass must be added to the
card. For a honeycomb core,
NSM = D • rhocore
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Using FEMAP to Setup a Honeycomb Panel

The FEMAP plate property

definition interface is fairly
easy to use.
The Thickness of the The facesheet material
facesheets is entered as is specified here.
usual.
The bending stiffness can also The core material
be entered, with values is specified
obtained from classical here.
plate theory equations.
Shear thickness, or in the case The mass of the core must also
of honeycomb panels, be added. This is done
D/T, can also be entered. through the addition of
Nonstructural mass.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Example 2: Comparing Different Laminate

Modeling Methods
In this example we will build a honeycomb
composite model in three different ways.

1. Using solid elements for the core,

and laminate elements for the face
sheets.
2. Using plate elements, which utilize
classical plate theory to represent the
core and face sheets all in one
property.
3. Using a laminate element which will
encompass the face sheets as well as
the core all in one property.

We will then compare the pros and cons of each methods, and evaluate the results.
The models are simply supported, with a body load of 10 G’s. Each configuration is modeled as
half symmetric.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

The material properties for the face sheets and the core are shown above.
The face sheets are graphite composite, while the core is modeled as an
isotropic material.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Honeycomb Panel Using Solid Elements for the

Core and Laminate Elements for the Face Sheets

This first model was built using Hex elements

for the core, and Laminate elements for the
face sheets.

The Laminate elements are given an offset of

0.05 to compensate for their thickness.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

The Layup for the face sheets is shown

on the right. The face sheets are 0.1
inches thick being composed of 8 plys,
each 0.0125 inches thick. These plys are
oriented so as to perform in an isotropic
manner.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Deflection results for the solid / laminate model are shown above. The peak
deflection is -0.0139 inches.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Honeycomb Panel Using Classical Plate Theory to

Represent the Core and Skins in One Property

In this model, plate elements will be used to simulate the behavior of the honeycomb panel. The
equations from classical plate theory given on pages 18-21 are used to modify the behavior of the
plate element.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

The Layup for the face sheets is

shown on the right. For this model,
we would like to generate a material
with equivalent isotropic properties.

Luckily, Femap 9.3 provides a great

new option to do this. There is a
new option in the Layup Editor
called Compute.
If this is selected, Femap will
compute all the composite properties
for the layup, computing in-plane
properties, as well as the A, B and D The In-Plane properties for the layup are shown
matrices. on the left. An isotropic material was used
8 Plies - Total Thickness = 0.1 based upon these calculations.
In-Plane Properties
E = 10.55 X 106 psi
Ex = 10556320. Ey = 10556320. Gxy = 3990317.
v = 0.322742
NUxy = 0.322742 NUyx = 0.322742
Alphax = 0. Alphay = 0. Alphaxy = 0.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

T/2 = 0.1 inches

D .3
T .2
D = 0.3 inches
3 3
2. D T D
I
3 2 2 12
3
I = 8.167 10

I
BendingStiffness 12.
3
T

BendingStiffness = 12.25

ρ .0000045

NSM D .ρ
6
NSM = 1.35 10
ts D
ts
= 1.5
T

For the previously given material properties, the equations on pg. 20 yield the values that
have been entered into the plate property definition. Actual Calculations are given above.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Deflection results for the classical plate theory model are shown above. The
peak deflection is -0.0142 inches.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Honeycomb Panel Using Laminate Elements for

the Core and Face Sheets

The above model uses only laminate elements to simulate the honeycomb composite. The face
sheets as well as the core material are all contained in one material property.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

The layup for the Honeycomb

Composite is shown on the right.

This section of the Layup is the

top face sheet.

This one ply represents the Core.

This section of the Layup is the

bottom face sheet.

What is so nice about the laminate element is its simplicity; in one property, everything can be
specified.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Deflection results for the laminate model are shown above. The peak
deflection is -0.0137 inches.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Results Summary
Node Solution Deflection % Variance from
Count Time Laminate Model
Hex Model 3381 10 s -0.0139 in 1.43 %
Classical Model 677 5s -0.0142 in 3.5 %
Laminate Model 677 5s -0.0137 in 0%

The above table compares the results from the three models. The Hex and Laminate models correlate most
closely, while the classical model deviates by about 3.5 %. All of the results are fairly consistent, but there
are other considerations which contribute to deciding which is the ‘best’ method.

The Hex model is accurate, but has a significantly higher node count and therefore solution time. The
classical model has a small node count, but extraneous calculations are required to set up the model. The
laminate model has both a low node count and is easy to set up. In addition, the laminate element
formulation provides features not available with the other two methods. The laminate element can provide
stress on a ply by ply bases as well as ply specific failure indices. Ply bond failure indices are also
available with the laminate. The laminate element seems the clear winner, not only for ease of use and low
node count, but because of the many options exclusively available to it.
 Predictive Engineering FEMAP 9.3 Composites Tutorial

Conclusion
Three methods for analyzing composites have been explored in this tutorial. Each method
has its good points, and some are more generally effective than others. Each has its own set
of assumptions and limitations.

Using classical plate theory to model honeycomb panels can be effective, but it certainly has
limitations and it should not be construed to be capable of handling all of the general cases
that the more expansive laminate theory can.

As is true with all areas of Finite Element Analysis, nothing can compensate for a lack of
theoretical understanding and good judgment. The forgoing explanations represent a very
small piece of the world of composite analysis and is meant only as a brief introduction. It is
hoped that what is contained in this tutorial can function as a good foundation from which to
build.

Jared Ellefson
Email: Jared.Ellefson@PredictiveEngineering.com
Phone: 541.760.2955