08-083-01 Final Report Rev00 With Attachments PDF

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Waterslide Laminate Optimization
Prepared for:
FormaShape
Prepared by:
_______________________________________
Steve Crouch
Principle Engineer, Aerospace Sector EIT
Composites Innovation Centre Manitoba Inc.
Approved by:
_______________________________________
Mike Hudek, P.Eng.
Aerospace / Civil Infrastructure Manager
Composites Innovation Centre Manitoba Inc.
Rev 0.0
9 July, 2010
Disclaimer:
1.1
In receiving the following report (08-083-01-R00/ Waterslide Laminate Optimization), the Receiving Party acknowledges
that: (i) it shall not be considered or construed to be certified engineering design concepts, data/information,
specifications or processes: (ii) the Receiving Party shall be responsible for the implementation of any suggestions or
recommendations herein; and (iii) the Receiving Party specifically disclaims and releases the CIC from any liability for
the implementation or use of this information.
1.2
This Mechanical Data contains preliminary information, which involves risks and uncertainties. A number of factors
could cause actual testing and application results to differ materially from those specified.
300-78 Innovation Drive, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 6C2

Phone: (204) 262-3400
Fax: (240) 262-3409
Email: CIC@compositesinnovation.ca
22
WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.
MECHANICAL TESTING................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.
Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.
Materials...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1......Laminate.................................................................................................................................. 4
2.2.2......Core Materials ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.3.
Test Program............................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1......Laminate.................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3.2......Core......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4.
Results ........................................................................................................................................ 6
2.4.1......Laminate.................................................................................................................................. 6
2.4.2......Core......................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5.
Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 8
3.
LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 8

3.1.
Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.
Baseline Laminates..................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.
Construction Cost Assumptions .................................................................................................. 9
3.4.
Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................. 9
3.5.
Results ...................................................................................................................................... 10
3.5.1......Laminate Comparison ........................................................................................................... 10

3.5.2......Finite Element Model............................................................................................................. 11
3.5.3......Cost Comparison................................................................................................................... 16
3.5.4......Optimized Laminate Configurations ...................................................................................... 17
3.6.
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Finite Element Model Setup......................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Deformed Baseline Model ........................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3: X-X Stress in Filled Chop Layer................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4: Y-Y Stress in Filled Chop Layer................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: X-Y Shear in Filled Chop Ply ....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Failure Index Plot for Filled Chop Ply .......................................................................................... 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Laminate Materials.......................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Core Materials................................................................................................................................. 5
Table 3: Laminate Tests................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 4: Core Test Matrix.............................................................................................................................. 6
Table 5: Laminate Test Results .................................................................................................................... 6
Table 6: Core Shear Test Results................................................................................................................. 7
Table 7: Flatwise Compression Test Results................................................................................................ 7
08-083-01-R00
Page 2 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Table 8: Edgewise Compression Test Results ............................................................................................. 7

Table 9: Poisson's Ratio Test Results .......................................................................................................... 7
Table 10: Flexural Test Results .................................................................................................................... 7
Table 11: Baseline Laminates....................................................................................................................... 9
Table 12: Laminate Cost Data ...................................................................................................................... 9
Table 13: Baseline Laminate Comparison .................................................................................................. 11
Table 14: Optimized Laminate Configuration.............................................................................................. 16
Table 15: Comparison of Baseline and Optimized Laminates.................................................................... 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A: CIC Test Summaries Coefficient of Thermal Expansion and Burn-off Tests
Appendix B: ITC Test Summary Laminate Tests
Appendix C: ITC Test Summary Core Tests
08-083-01-R00
Page 3 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
The Composites Innovation Centre (CIC) was contracted to perform a series of mechanical tests to
characterize core materials used by FormaShape, a division of White Water Composites Ltd. and an
optimization of three laminates used in the production of waterslide flumes for FormaShape.
Mechanical testing was also performed on the fibreglass materials used in FormaShapes slides to
supply material properties for the optimization analysis. This report is split into two sections. The first
focuses on the mechanical testing of the core and structural laminates, and the second focuses on the
analysis and optimization of the three waterslide laminates.
2. MECHANICAL TESTING
2.1.
Overview
Mechanical testing was performed at Composites Innovation Centre (CIC) as well as Industrial
Technology Centre (ITC) to characterize properties of materials used by FormaShape in
production. The testing scope in the original project plan was limited to determining properties
of materials being used in the structural analysis to ensure accurate material assumptions
were used. An additional test program was later added to the project to characterize
properties of core materials used by FormaShape to aid in future design efforts. Sample
preparation for all tests was performed at CIC with the exception of strain gauging, which was
performed by ITC.
2.2.
Materials
2.2.1.
Laminate
Three (3) fibreglass materials were provided by FormaShape for mechanical testing.
The materials tested and identification used in testing are provided in Table 1.
Material
Identifier
Iso Chop
A
Filled Chop
B
Woven Roving
C
Table 1: Laminate Materials
Testing of the woven roving was performed in both the 1 and 2 (warp and weft)
directions. The two panels of fibreglass chop were thought to have similar properties
in the 1 and 2 directions but samples taken from each direction to verify this
assumption with the intent to carry out further tests if results were not consistent.
2.2.2.
Core Materials
Four (4) core materials were provided by FormaShape for testing at ITC. Material
descriptions and designations used throughout testing are provided in Table 2.
08-083-01-R00
Page 4 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Material
Balsa
White Foam
Green Foam
Honeycomb
Dry Balsa*
Identifier
A
B
C
D
E
* Dry Balsa was used in flatwise compression testing only for comparison between impregnated and dry
material properties.
Table 2: Core Materials
2.3.
Test Program
2.3.1.
Laminate
Mechanical testing performed on the laminate samples was focused on properties
required for the optimization analysis included in the project. The properties selected
were tension, compression, in-plane shear, and coefficient of thermal expansion
(CTE). Strain gauges were used in tension, compression, and shear testing. Burnoff testing was performed on off-cuts from the test panels to provide resin and fibre
content of the materials tested. All testing took place at ambient conditions. A list of
the mechanical tests performed material is shown in Table 3.
Test
Tension
Compression
In-Plane Shear
CTE
Constituent
Content
Standard
ASTM D638
ASTM
D6641
ASTM
D7078
ASTM E831
ASTM
D3171
Coupons/Material
5
5
Location
ITC
ITC
5*
3
3
ITC
CIC
CIC
*5 coupons of iso and filled chop materials were tested in in-plane shear, 4 coupons of woven roving were
tested due to limitations on the amount of material available with sufficient flatness to expect valid results.
Table 3: Laminate Tests
2.3.2.
Core
Mechanical testing was performed on core samples and sandwich panels provided
by FormaShape. All core tests were performed at ITC at ambient conditions. Tests
were focused on loading conditions typically observed in the slide structure to provide
FormaShape with relevant data for future designs. A matrix outlining the core tests
and number of samples for each test is shown in Table 4.
08-083-01-R00
Page 5 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Test
Core Shear
Edgewise Compression
Flatwise Compression
Flexural Strength
Short Beam Shear*
Poisson's Ratio of
Honeycomb
Standard
ASTM C273
ASTM C364
ASTM C365
ASTM C393
ASTM
D2344
ASTM
D6790
B
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Material
C
5
5
5
5
D
5
5
5
5
5
*The balsa core material (material A) was originally tested for shear using ASTM C273 however the high
shear strength of the core material resulted in failure of the samples at the bond to the text fixture.
Additional tests to determine core shear were carried out using a short-beam flex test (ASTM D2344) to
induce shear failure in the core as opposed to ASTM C273.
Table 4: Core Test Matrix

2.4.
Results
2.4.1.
Laminate
A summary of the laminate test results is shown in Table 5. Test reports for CTE and
constituent tests performed at CIC are available in Appendix A. Test summaries from
ITC are available in Appendix B.
Property
Tensile Strength (ksi)
Tensile Modulus (Msi)
Compressive Strength (ksi)
Compressive Modulus (Msi)
In-Plane Shear Strength (ksi)
In-Plane Shear Modulus
(Msi)
Poisson's Ratio (tension)
Poisson's Ratio
(compression)
CTE (in/in/F*E-6)
Resin Content (wt%)
Fibre Content (wt%)
Material
A
14.8
1.2
15.1
1.46
13.3
B
8.73
1.18
26.9
1.35
8.78
C - direction 1
32.3
2.47
40.1
3.09
7.55
C- direction 2
25.7
2.31
45.5
2.79
7.55
0.9
0.349
0.91
0.322
0.97
0.178
0.97
0.159
0.415
16.15
64%
36%
0.374
20.13
57%
43%*
0.213
13.73
34.8%
65.2%*
0.175
11.54
*Burn-off results for panels B and C contain filler. See section 2.5 for detailed description of results
Table 5: Laminate Test Results

2.4.2.
Core
Summaries for the core test results are shown in Tables 6-10. The average values
shown in the body of this report have been adjusted to not include results that are
considered significant outliers. A test summary report showing all results is available
in Appendix C. Detailed test results for each sample have been provided to
FormaShape.
08-083-01-R00
Page 6 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Material
Balsa
White
Foam
Green
Foam
Honeycomb
Material
Balsa
White
Foam
Green
Foam
Honeycomb
Dry Balsa
Shear Strength (psi)

758
Shear Modulus (ksi)

33.4
117
6.1
130
62.2
Table 6: Core Shear Test Results
Flatwise Compressive
Strength (psi)
3.9
2.3
Flatwise Compressive
Modulus (ksi)
2180
140
207
20.4
163
170
2300
Table 7: Flatwise Compression Test Results
22.2
19
167
Edgewise
Compressive Strength
(ksi)
15.8
Material
Balsa
White
Foam
11.1
Green
Foam
10.9
Table 8: Edgewise Compression Test Results
Material
Poisson's Ratio
Honeycomb
0.03
Table 9: Poisson's Ratio Test Results
Material
Balsa
White
Foam
Green
Foam
Honeycomb
08-083-01-R00
Shear Stress at Failure
Flexural
Modulus
285
Facing Stress at Failure

16.7
128
6.2
437
6.6
3.6
382
260
131
69.4
Table 10: Flexural Test Results
Page 7 of 22
651
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
2.5.
Discussion
During the original tensile testing of the B samples, a number of strain gauges failed resulting
in incorrect modulus reading and no poissons ratio information. Additional tests were
performed on spare samples to obtain tensile modulus and poissons ratio results. Tensile
strength values in the spare sample testing were noticeably higher than some results from the
original set of tests. Another set of 5 coupons were cut from the panel and repeat testing was
performed. The repeat test results were consistent with the results observed with the spare
sample tests implying that some samples from the original set were taken from an area of
poor laminate quality. Results from all tests are shown in the ITC test report in Appendix B.
The original tensile samples have Sample ID#s B-T-1 through B-T-5. Tests performed on the
spare samples have ID#s B-T-6 through B-T-9, and the repeat tests have ID#s B-R-1 through
B-R-5. Test results from the suspect batch of samples have not been included in the reported
values.
Compressive testing for panels B and C showed unexpectedly high values for maximum
compressive strength of panel B and maximum compressive strength in the 2 direction of
panel C. The resin used in panel B was not specified so it is not known if it contains a resin
with higher compressive strength than panel A, or if the filler content contributed to the high
strength. Test results from the compressive data for panel C in the 2 direction were higher
than strength in the 1 direction. Neither data set appears to have significant variability which
could skew the results so it appears the test results are valid.
Panel constituent tests performed on panels B and C contain filled resin and require the input
of a filler content to produce accurate results. An estimate of 40-50% filler was provided by
FormaShape but it was noted that the exact content in the panel may not be well-known. The
results can be adjusted by subtracting the estimated filler amount from the fibre weight. For
example, if the resin in material B is filled 28.5% by weight (0.4:1 mix ratio), the total filler
percentage is (0.4)*57%=22.8%. This value is subtracted from the fibre content to give an
actual fibre content of 43%-22.8%=20.2% fibre by weight.
The thermoplastic honeycomb tested for poissons ratio showed much lower values than
expected but produced consistent results across test samples. After reviewing the results and
test panels, it was determined the low poissons ratio is mainly a result of the core construction
and low stiffness. The honeycomb core contains a number of splices which have much higher
stiffness than the surrounding core material. With the low stiffness of the main core material,
the core splices restrict the core from deforming in a manner typical of high poissons ratio
honeycomb materials. In addition to the core splices, the top and bottom surfaces of the core
are covered in a cloth material which restricts the core from deforming even further. The
surface cloth on the sample panels could not be removed from the core without causing
damage. It was determined that the low poissons ratio observed is reflective of how the
material will perform in service due to the inherent restrictions in the materials movement
caused by the construction.
3. LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS

3.1.
Overview
CIC was provided with laminate schedules and descriptions of previous analysis performed for
reference. Details of assembly were provided for a typical slide comprised of the laminates
and used in a simplified finite element analysis (FEA) performed on a slide section provided by
08-083-01-R00
Page 8 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
FormaShape. The goal of the optimization analysis was to decrease component cost while
using the same materials and maintaining strength and stiffness of the component.
Information on material and manufacturing costs were provided by FormaShape to be used for
comparison between the baseline and alternate laminate designs. Material properties for the
laminate materials were taken from the mechanical test results described in Section 2 of this
report.
3.2.
Baseline Laminates
Three (3) laminate schedules were provided to CIC for assessment. The three sections were
labelled LS100, LS101, and LS103. Descriptions and slide locations of the laminate are given
in Table 11. The first layer in each laminate is on the inside surface of the waterslide, which is
the surface the water flows against.
Layup
LS100
LS101
LS103
3.3.
Schedule
Slide Locations
1.00 mm Iso Chop
Un-cored body sections
0.75 mm Woven Roving
1.75 mm Filled Chop
1.5 mm Iso Chop
Flanges with bolted
Connections
2.75 mm Filled Chop
1.00 mm Iso Chop
Cored body sections
9.5 mm Balsa Core
1.75 mm Filled Chop
Table 11: Baseline Laminates
Construction Cost Assumptions

Laminate cost estimates were obtained from FormaShape and used to perform a basic cost
comparison between the baseline and alternate laminate designs. Cost data used for material
and labour cost of applying the materials is shown in Table 12.
LAYER
THICKNESS MATERIALS LABOUR

(MM)
($/M2)
($/M2)
CHOP/ISO
17.25
21
CHOP/FIL
14.75
21
WR/FIL
0.75
11.5
21
CORING
12.7
40
19
Table 12: Laminate Cost Data
3.4.
Analysis Methodology
A series of steps were performed to assess the quality of baseline and alternate laminate
designs. Lamina properties obtained from test data were entered into CompositePro laminate
08-083-01-R00
Page 9 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
analysis software to obtain baseline structural properties. Dummy loads were applied to each
to determine baseline relative strengths in a simple bending case. The loading in this case
were only used for comparative purposes so an arbitrary moment of 1 lb*in/in was used to
obtain a comparative factor of safety for the design. The moment was applied in both the
positive and negative directions to determine the relative strength in both loading directions.
This data was required in the event that the finite element model showed areas of different
loading directions. To establish a factor of safety, a first ply failure criteria was used. Due to
the simplified loading case in the comparison, a simple max-stress criteria was used as the
results would be very similar to a combined loading criteria (i.e.: Tsai-Wu). The simplified
laminate analysis was used to determine how susceptible the laminate was to different loading
situations and to provide information on what modifications could be made to the laminate to
improve the performance. Alternate laminate configurations were compared with the baseline
laminates in an attempt to maintain stiffness and strength while potentially removing material
to reduce cost. Bending stiffness of the laminates was compared using the bending moment
of inertia assuming a plate of unit length.
Following the basic comparative analysis to identify potential laminate improvements, a model
was produced in Siemens NX to compare the flume construction with both the baseline and
alternate laminates. A solid model of a straight section of the Family River Raft slide was
provided by FormaShape along with assembly drawings for the slide structure at Hickory
Creek showing the site layout and support locations. For comparative purposes the slide
sections E13 and E14 from drawing 205 of the Hickory Creek drawing package were used.
This area of the slide comprises of two straight sections with a support on either end.
Geometry of the interaction between the slide and yoke (support) was modeled based on the
assembly drawings. For simplicity the slide was assumed to be fixed at the surface contacted
by the yoke. To reduce complexity in the model one straight section of the slide was used in
the analysis and a symmetry constraint was applied to the model at the connection to the
second straight section. A load of 1020 lbs was applied centered at the connection between
the two sections representing the maximum distance between supports. This load represents
a raft with 8 riders each weighing 170 lbs with a multiplication factor of 1.5 to account for
impact and/or eccentricity of loads. The rider weight estimate was obtained from ASTM
F2291 Practice for Design of Amusement Rides and Devices and the multiplication factor
was obtained from the document Strength Calculations for WhiteWater Waterslides. The
loading situation was used only as a comparison between the original and alternate slide
designs and not meant to be used for qualification or detailed strength estimation purposes.
3.5.
Results
3.5.1.
Laminate Comparison
i. Baseline Laminate Analysis

The baseline laminate analysis showed that the critical ply in all three laminates was
the filled chop layer when the laminates were flexed to put this layer in tension.
When the laminates were flexed in the opposite direction higher factors of safety are
found since the filled chop performs very well in compression but is relatively weak in
tension compared with the iso chop. In the baseline laminates the filled chop layer is
on the backside of the laminate and the iso chop layer is on the inside of the
laminate, which is in contact with the water. The baseline laminate bending stiffness
and first ply failure factors of safety with positive and negative dummy moments
applied are shown in Table 13.
08-083-01-R00
Page 10 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Laminate
Bending Stiffness
(N*m^2)
Positive Dummy
Moment
Factor of Safety
Ply
Negative
Dummy Moment
Factor of Safety
Ply
3.5.2.
LS100
LS101
LS103
30.4
88
1074
28
filled chop
(tension)
56
filled chop
(tension)
239
filled chop
(tension)
50
100
520
iso chop
iso chop
iso chop
(tension)
(tension)
(tension)
Table 13: Baseline Laminate Comparison
Finite Element Model

A finite element model of a straight section of the slide was prepared and loaded as
described in Section 3.4 of this report. The model was produced using plate
elements to allow for laminate schedules to be modified without requiring remodelling
sections of the structure. An illustration of the model setup is shown in Figure 1.
Loading is shown in red and boundary condition locations are shown in blue.
Figure 1: Finite Element Model Setup
08-083-01-R00
Page 11 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
i. Baseline Model
Results from the baseline configuration model were used to determine stress flows and
deformation in the slide under a typical loading condition. This information was used to
validate the assumptions used in the optimization strategy and provide more detailed
information of interactions between sections of the structure to determine which areas
could be altered without having a negative effect on the performance. Deformation
results from the baseline analysis can be seen in Figure 2. Model deformations have
been exaggerated for clearer illustration.
Figure 2: Deformed Baseline Model

As can be seen in the deformation results, the primary mode of deformation causes
the upper sections of the slide to curl inwards and twist the flanged section along the
top of the slide. The flange connecting the next slide section is also caused to bend
inwards during this loading case. It was recognized that these sections of the slide
may not be able to undergo much modification without impacting the flexural properties
of the structure.
Results showing stress flows in the critical ply (filled chop) are shown in Figures 3-6.
The laminate X direction is oriented along the length of the slide and the Y direction is
oriented across the width.
08-083-01-R00
Page 12 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Figure 3: X-X Stress in Filled Chop Layer
Figure 4: Y-Y Stress in Filled Chop Layer
08-083-01-R00
Page 13 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Figure 5: X-Y Shear in Filled Chop Ply
Figure 6: Failure Index Plot for Filled Chop Ply

The results show that the highest stresses in the structure are tensile stresses in the
filled chop layer, which also has the lowest strength. The stress profile validates the
assumption that the laminates in the main body of the laminate are most susceptible to
failure in the filled chop layer, primarily due to tensile stresses.
08-083-01-R00
Page 14 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
ii. Alternate Configuration Limitations

Alternate laminate designs obtained in the CompositePro analysis were loaded into the
finite element model to assess their suitability to replace existing configurations.
During the analysis a number of trends were observed which limited the scope of the
laminate optimizations that could be explored. The following limitations were observed
during the analysis:
When the slide deforms in flex the flange area is loaded in a transverse
bending mode. Modifications to the laminate structure without adding extra
material do not contribute to restricting deformation in this direction and any
reduction in material increases the flexural deformation of the structure while
increasing stresses. It was determined that the flanges connecting FRP
sections should not be modified if the flexural characteristics of the structure
are to be maintained.
Modifications to the flanges running along the top of the structure can impact
the flexural stiffness of the structure due to the deformation shown in Figure 2.
It was found that to allow material to be removed from the main body laminate,
without increasing the flexural deformation of the slide, these flanges need to
be kept at full thickness.
In order to increase support for the filled chop material without impacting
stiffness, the woven roving layer should be moved as close to the back side of
the laminate as possible. For material to be able to be removed from the main
body laminate this needs to be accomplished so that the thinner laminate has
sufficient support.
iii. Optimized Configuration

The configuration determined to provide maximum benefits within the cost, strength,
and stiffness constraints is shown in Table 14.
08-083-01-R00
Page 15 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Layup
LS100-M
Schedule
Slide Locations
1.00 mm Iso Chop
Un-cored body sections
1.00 mm Filled Chop
0.75 mm Woven
Roving
LS100
1.0mm Iso Chop
Upper flange section
0.75 mm Woven
Roving
1.75 mm Filled Chop
LS101
1.5 mm Iso Chop
Flanges with bolted
0.75 mm Woven
Roving
Connections
2.75 mm Filled Chop
LS103-M 1.00 mm Iso Chop
Cored body sections
9.5 mm Balsa Core
1.75 mm Filled Chop
0.75 mm Woven
Roving
Table 14: Optimized Laminate Configuration
The flanges have not been modified to reduce material since this results in increased
deformation of the slide with very little decrease in cost. The flanges running along the
top of the slide also remain unchanged as a reduction in material increases bending
deformation in the slide and a greater net benefit in cost can be achieved by reducing
the thickness of the main body laminate. With the reduced thickness in the main body
laminate the stiffness of the flanges is required to maintain similar flexural properties.
The main body un-cored laminate (LS100) was modified to move the woven roving to
the backside of the laminate to support the critical filled chop ply in tension. This
modification permitted an increase in the bending strength of the LS100 laminate and
permitted 0.75mm of the filled chop layer to be removed from the laminate without
reducing the bending strength of the laminate. With the woven roving moved to the
backside of the laminate, the bending stiffness of the laminate was not greatly
reduced. The cored body sections of the slide are major contributors to flexural
stiffness of the slide. Thus, it was found that any removal of material from these
sections resulted in a significant increase in bending deformation. However, the cored
section was optimized by moving the woven roving to the backside of the laminate.
This resulted in an improvement in bending strength when the backside of the slide is
in tension without any significant change in stiffness
For the loading case tested, the overall bending deflection of the modified slide design
is increased by 5.5% while the maximum bending strength when the backside of the
slide is in tension was increased in the cored and un-cored sections.
3.5.3.
Cost Comparison
Cost information provided by FormaShape was used to estimate the production cost
benefits from the optimized slide configuration. The assumptions used in the cost
comparison are listed in Section 3.3 of this report. The material reduction of 0.75 mm
filled chop represents a cost savings of $5.53 per square meter of LS100 main body
08-083-01-R00
Page 16 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
laminate. The straight section slide component contains 5.67 square meters of the
laminate for a material cost saving of $31.36. This represents a 6% material cost
saving or a 2.4% total production cost saving.
3.5.4.
Optimized Laminate Configurations

For reasons described in section 3.5.2.ii the optimization efforts were focused on the
cored and un-cored body laminates. It was assumed that the iso chop layer must
remain on the inside of the slide, which is in contact with the water. Since the critical
ply in both laminates was the filled chop layer when the laminates are flexed to put
this layer in tension, the best option to improve the strength performance of the
laminates is to bias the reinforcing woven roving ply towards the filled chop layer to
improve the tensile performance of the backside of the laminate. Because the
performance of the iso chop in compression is much better than the filled chop is in
tension, moving the additional reinforcement to the backside of the laminate has a
net benefit to the laminate performance even though the iso chop sees a higher
compressive load. While the strength of the laminates can be increased significantly
by moving the woven roving layer towards the backside of the laminate, excess
material could not be removed in most laminates due to the significant impact
thickness has on bending stiffness.
Equivalent engineering properties of the alternate laminate configurations were
compared with the baseline laminate properties to compare flexural stiffness and the
same dummy load was applied to the laminates for a basic strength comparison.
The basic laminate comparison provided information on potential laminate options to
improve strength but was not sufficient to provide relevant information on the flexural
stiffness performance. The majority of modifications to the baseline laminates
resulted in a net loss of bending stiffness for the individual laminate so the
deformation of the structure in the FEA model was used to compare the baseline
flexural stiffness with the alternate laminates since reductions in flexural stiffness in
some laminates will not have a large impact on the overall flexural stiffness
performance of the slide.
The optimized laminates for the cored and un-cored body sections are compared with
the baseline laminates bending stiffness and first ply failure factors of safety with
positive and negative dummy moments applied are shown in Table 15.
08-083-01-R00
Page 17 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Laminate
Bending Stiffness
(N*m^2)
Positive Dummy
Moment
Factor of Safety
Ply
Negative
Dummy Moment
Factor of Safety
LS100-OPT
LS103
LS103-OPT
30.4
19.8
1074
888
28
filled chop
(tension)
34
Iso chop
(compression)
239
filled chop
(tension)
275
Iso chop
(compression)
50
34
520
269
iso chop
Iso chop
iso chop
Iso chop
(tension)
(tension)
(tension)
(tension)
Table 15: Comparison of Baseline and Optimized Laminates
Ply
3.6.
LS100
Discussion
The laminate evaluation revealed that while the strength of laminates in the structure can be
increased by changing material locations, the flexural stiffness of the system can be greatly
reduced by even minor changes. It was found that small modifications to the laminate
configuration resulted in significant increases in slide deformation. As a result, the main
limiting factor for the laminate analysis was maintaining flexural stiffness of the structure.
Thus for the baseline laminate configurations provided, the opportunity for optimization while
maintaining flexural performance was quite limited.
Examination of the slide structure and stress flows revealed some opportunities for further
investigation into production alternatives. However, the modifications required were outside
the scope of this project. Potential areas of future improvement are outlined below:
08-083-01-R00
The stiffened core sections in the laminate body cause stress concentrations in the
surrounding thin laminates with the highest stress concentration occurring between
the bolted flange and the first cored section. To remove the stress concentrations it
may be desirable to replace the stiffened core sections with a continuous thinner core
material over the body section of the laminate. With the material cost information
available for this project, expanding the core area could not be done economically and
differences between labour required to prepare a number of smaller cored sections
compared with laying down a full core sheet could not be compared. With a larger
portion of the slide section stiffened it may be possible to remove additional structural
material while maintaining flexural properties. It is anticipated the primary cost
reductions with this potential improvement would be from manufacturing efficiencies.
The filled chop layer showed significantly lower strength than the iso chop layer in
tension and was the critical ply in all laminates subjected to simplified loading as well
as the slide FEA model. Further investigation into alternative resin systems or testing
laminates with different levels of filler may assist in increasing the performance of the
slide laminates.
The woven roving tested with a filled resin also showed results which are lower than
could be expected from laminates with a less filled system, mainly when loaded in
tension. Testing of a hand layup 18 oz woven roving for a previous project at CIC
showed a tensile strength of 55ksi and modulus of 3.4Msi as compared to 32 ksi
tensile strength and 2.47 Msi tensile modulus of the filled woven roving layer
Page 18 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
08-083-01-R00
measured in this report . Investigation into using an unfilled woven roving in the slide
laminates may allow for additional material removal to offset the higher resin cost.
It is recognized that the cost savings that could be realized through optimization of the
individual laminates alone were not substantial. It is anticipated that an optimization
effort that involved a thorough analysis of the slide structure under representative
design loads and permitted the designer to optimize the slide flange and core
geometry would have more success at reducing cost. Initial discussions have
indicated that potential areas for improvement are the flanges connecting slide
sections and surrounding regions, modifying the core stiffener layout, and applying
alternate materials to the structure.
Page 19 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Appendix A
CIC Test Summaries Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
and Burn-Off Testing
08-083-01-R00
Page 20 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
Test Type
TMA Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Test # 1/4
Test Date
Project Number
03 February 2010
Sample:
08-083-01
Test Personnel
Lisa Hibbert
W.A. #
NA
ASTM E 831 TMA CTE

APPLICABLE CONTRACTS, DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS
Company
Document
ASTM
Company
Document
E831-06
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Source
Formashape
Material(s)
Unfilled polyester hand laminating resin, chop strand mat
Description
Medium brown translucent flat panel
No. of Specimen
Post Cure Time & Temperature
NA
SPECIMEN PREPARATION
Action
Description
Cut to rough size
Cut to rough dimensions with band saw and carbide grit blade
Trim to final test dimensions
Trimmed to final dimensions with diamond wafering blade
SPECIMEN CONDITIONING
Temperature
40C
Time
2Hrs
Humidity
NA
Temperature
21C
Time
Cool to ambient
Humidity
NA
TEST PARAMETERS, EQUIPMENT AND METHOD

Parameter
Setup
TMA
TA Instruments Q400
Probe Type
Standard flat-tipped expansion
Purge Gas
Nitrogen @50Lpm
Cooling Medium
Refrigerant (TA Instruments MCA 70)
Preload Force
0.100N
Test Load
0.100N
Ramp Rate
5C/min
Midpoint Temperature
5C
Lower and Upper Temperatures*
-40 to 50C
*Temperatures used for calculating CTE coefficient, not machine trial limits.
SPECIMEN TEST INFO AND RESULTS

Test Results
Specimen ID
Comments
Test Axis
Specimen
Dimensions (mm)
CTE (in/inF)
CTE (m/mC)
A-2
NA
10.0069 x 10.03 x 6.6
16.06
28.90
A-3
NA
9.9775 x 10.02 x 6.4
16.40
29.52
A-4
NA
9.9335 x 9.93 x 6.6
15.98
28.76
Average
16.15
29.06
Std. Deviation
0.22
0.40
Cv (%)
1.4
1.4
Form # cc Rev 0.0 24 Feb 2009
A1 omitted because temperature limits

redefined.
Test Type
Test # 2/4
Test Date
Project Number
03 February 2010
Sample:
08-083-01
Test Personnel
Lisa Hibbert
W.A. #
NA
ASTM E 831 TMA CTE

Company
Document
ASTM
Company
Document
E831-06
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Source
Formashape
Material(s)
Filled polyester hand laminating resin, chop strand mat (unknown filler type and %)
Description
Cream colored opaque flat panel
No. of Specimen
NA
Action
Description
Cut to rough size
Temperature
40C
Time
2Hrs
Humidity
NA
Temperature
21C
Time
Cool to ambient
Humidity
NA

Parameter
Setup
TMA
TA Instruments Q400
Probe Type
Purge Gas
Nitrogen @50Lpm
Cooling Medium
Preload Force
0.100N
Test Load
0.100N
Ramp Rate
5C/min
5C
-40 to 50C

Test Results
Specimen ID
Comments
Test Axis
Specimen
Dimensions (mm)
CTE (in/inF)
CTE (m/mC)
B-1
NA
10.0057 x 10.02 x 5.6
22.31
40.16
B-2
NA
9.9746 x 10.03 x 5.5
17.66
31.79
B-3
NA
9.9981 x 10.05 x 5.6
20.43
36.78
Average
20.13
36.24
Std. Deviation
2.34
4.21
Cv (%)
11.6
11.6
Test Type
Test # 3/4
Test Date
Project Number
04 February 2010
Sample:
08-083-01
Test Personnel
Eugene Rothwell
C-warp
W.A. #
NA
ASTM E 831 TMA CTE

Company
Document
ASTM
Company
Document
E831-06
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Source
Formashape
Material(s)
Bi-directional glass, filled polyester resin (filler type and % unknown)
Description
White opaque flat panel
No. of Specimen
NA
Action
Description
Cut to rough size
Temperature
40C
Time
2Hrs
Humidity
NA
Temperature
21C
Time
Cool to ambient
Humidity
NA

Parameter
Setup
TMA
TA Instruments Q400
Probe Type
Purge Gas
Nitrogen @50Lpm
Cooling Medium
Preload Force
0.100N
Test Load
0.100N
Ramp Rate
5C/min
0C
-40 to 40C

Test Results
Specimen ID
Comments
Test Axis
Specimen
Dimensions (mm)
CTE (in/inF)
CTE (m/mC)
C-warp-1
warp
9.9966 x 9.98 x 6.7
14.54
26.17
C-warp-2
warp
10.0042 x 9.95 x 6.7
12.99
23.39
C-warp-3
warp
9.9803 x 10.03 x 6.5
13.66
24.59
Average
13.73
24.72
Std. Deviation
0.78
1.39
Cv (%)
5.6
5.6
Test Type
Test # 4/4
Test Date
Project Number
04 February 2010
Sample:
08-083-01
Test Personnel
Eugene Rothwell
C-weft
W.A. #
NA
ASTM E 831 TMA CTE

Company
Document
ASTM
Company
Document
E831-06
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Source
Formashape
Material(s)
Bi-directional glass, filled polyester resin (filler type and % unknown)
Description
White opaque flat panel
No. of Specimen
NA
Action
Description
Cut to rough size
Temperature
40C
Time
2Hrs
Humidity
NA
Temperature
21C
Time
Cool to ambient
Humidity
NA

Parameter
Setup
TMA
TA Instruments Q400
Probe Type
Purge Gas
Nitrogen @50Lpm
Cooling Medium
Preload Force
0.100N
Test Load
0.100N
Ramp Rate
5C/min
0C
-40 to 40C

Test Results
Specimen ID
Comments
Test Axis
Specimen
Dimensions (mm)
CTE (in/inF)
CTE (m/mC)
C-weft-1
NA
9.9920 x 10.01 x 6.8
11.24
20.24
C-weft-2
NA
9.9931 x 10.07 x 6.7
12.56
22.60
C-weft-3
NA
9.9417 x 10.02 x 6.6
10.83
19.50
Average
11.54
20.78
Std. Deviation
0.90
1.62
Cv (%)
7.8
7.8
Sample:A2
RunDate:03Feb201011:44
Instrument:TMAQ400V22.1Build27
20
DimensionChange(m)
10
50.00C
Alpha=28.90m/(mC)
10
20
40.00C
30
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
UniversalV4.5ATAInstruments
Sample:A3
10
50.00C
Alpha=29.52m/(mC)
DimensionChange(m)
10
20
40.00C
30
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
Sample:A4
20
DimensionChange(m)
10
50.00C
Alpha=28.76m/(mC)
10
40.00C
20
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
Sample:B1
20
10
DimensionChange(m)
50.00C
Alpha=40.16m/(mC)
10
20
40.00C
30
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
Sample:B2
20
DimensionChange(m)
10
50.00C
Alpha=31.79m/(mC)
10
20
40.00C
30
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
Sample:B3
40
DimensionChange(m)
20
50.00C
Alpha=36.78m/(mC)
20
40.00C
40
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
Sample:Cwarp1
20
DimensionChange(m)
10
40.00C
Alpha=26.17m/(mC)
10
40.00C
20
60
40
20
20
Temperature(C)
40
60
80
Sample:Cwarp2
20
DimensionChange(m)
10
40.00C
Alpha=23.39m/(mC)
10
40.00C
20
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
Sample:Cwarp3
20
DimensionChange(m)
10
40.00C
Alpha=24.59m/(mC)
10
40.00C
20
60
40
20
20
Temperature(C)
40
60
80
Sample:Cweft1
10
DimensionChange(m)
40.00C
Alpha=20.24m/(mC)
10
40.00C
15
20
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
Sample:Cweft2
20
DimensionChange(m)
10
40.00C
Alpha=22.60m/(mC)
10
40.00C
20
60
40
20
20
Temperature(C)
40
60
80
Sample:Cweft3
15
DimensionChange(m)
10
40.00C
Alpha=19.50m/(mC)
10
40.00C
15
80
60
40
20
Temperature(C)
20
40
60
80
Test Type
Test #
Constituent Content of Composite Materials - Burn

off Method
Sample ID
Test Date
1 of 3
Project Number
A1, A2, A3
11 March, 2010
Test Personnel (Primary)
08-083-01
Test Personnel 2
Lisa Hibbert
W.A. #
Eugene Rothwell
n/a
ASTM D3171 TEST SUMMARY

Company
Document
ASTM
ASTM D3171 - Procedure G
ASTM
ASTM D7922
CIC
Burn Off.doc
Industries Involved
Liaison
CIC
Contact Information
Eugene Rothwell
262-3400 ext. 210
SAMPLE INFORMATION
FormaShape sample A
# Specimens
Resin
Polyester
Material(s)
Fibreglass
Reinforcement
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Action
Description
Cut specimen to size using bandsaw, sand edges to remove debris
Cut specimen to size
SAMPLE CONDITIONING
Temperature
110C
1hr
Time
Temperature
n/a
Humidity
Time
Humidity
TEST PARAMETERS
565C
Burn Off Temperature

TEST RESULTS
Density
Specimen ID
g/cm3
Fibre Content
Wf
4hrs
Burn Off Time
Resin Content
Vf
Wr
Vr
Flow Medium Content

Wfm
Vfm
A1
1.43
36.3
63.7
N/A
N/A
A2
1.43
35.6
64.4
N/A
N/A
A3
1.43
36.2
63.8
N/A
N/A
Average
1.43
36.0
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
64.0
#DIV/0!
Filler Content
Wflr
Vflr
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Voids
Vv
#DIV/0!
Test Type
Test #

off Method
Sample ID
Test Date
2 of 3
Project Number
B1, B2, B3
11 March, 2010
08-083-01
Test Personnel 2
Lisa Hibbert
W.A. #
Eugene Rothwell
n/a

Company
Document
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM D7922
CIC
Burn Off.doc
Industries Involved
Liaison
CIC
Contact Information
Eugene Rothwell
262-3400 ext. 210
SAMPLE INFORMATION
FormaShape sample B
# Specimens
Resin
Polyester
Material(s)
Fibreglass
Reinforcement
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Action
Description
Action
Description

SAMPLE CONDITIONING
Temperature
110C
1hr
Time
Temperature
n/a
Humidity
Time
Humidity
TEST PARAMETERS
565C

TEST RESULTS
Density
Specimen ID
g/cm3
Fibre Content
Wf
4hrs
Burn Off Time
Resin Content
Vf
Wr
Vr
Flow Medium Content

Wfm
Vfm
B1
1.53
43.3
56.7
N/A
N/A
B2
1.53
43.3
56.7
N/A
N/A
B3
1.52
42.5
57.5
N/A
N/A
Average
1.53
43.0
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
57.0
#DIV/0!
Filler Content
Wflr
Vflr
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Voids
Vv
#DIV/0!
Test Type
Test #

off Method
Sample ID
Test Date
3 of 3
Project Number
C1, C2, C3
16 March, 2010
08-083-01
Test Personnel 2
Lisa Hibbert
W.A. #
Eugene Rothwell
n/a

Company
Document
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM D7922
CIC
Burn Off.doc
Industries Involved
Liaison
CIC
Contact Information
Eugene Rothwell
262-3400 ext. 210
SAMPLE INFORMATION
FormaShape sample C
# Specimens
Resin
Polyester
Material(s)
Reinforcement
Fibreglass
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Action
Description
SAMPLE CONDITIONING
Temperature
110C
1hr
Time
Temperature
Humidity
Time
n/a
Humidity
TEST PARAMETERS
TEST RESULTS
Density
g/cm3
Specimen ID
565C
Burn Off Time
Fibre Content
Wf
Resin Content
Vf
Wr
Vr
4hrs
Flow Medium Content

Wfm
Vfm
C1
1.83
64.8
35.2
N/A
N/A
C2
1.82
64.2
35.8
N/A
N/A
C3
1.85
66.6
33.4
N/A
N/A
Average
1.84
65.2
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
34.8
#DIV/0!
Filler Content
Wflr
Vflr
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Voids
Vv
#DIV/0!
22

FINAL REPORT
Appendix B
ITC Test Summary Laminate Testing
08-083-01-R00
Page 21 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
22

FINAL REPORT
Appendix C
ITC Test Summary Core Testing
08-083-01-R00
Page 22 of 22
Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010
Report
CIC Sandwich Core Material Testing (08-083
(08 083-01)
Report Number
13171-1
13171 Rev A
Prepared for
Mr. Steve Crouch

Composites Application EIT
Composites Innovation Centre
300-78
300
Innovation Drive
Winnipeg MB R3T 6C2
scrouch@compositesinnovation.ca
Daniel D. Godin, C.E.T.
Project Technologist - Mechanical
E--mail: dgodin@itc.mb.ca
Phone: (204) 480-0339
480
Fax: (204) 480-0357
480
ITC Project Manager
Report Date:
25 May 2010
Prepared by: ____________________________

Daniel D. Godin, C.E.T.
Project Technologist - Mechanical
Reviewed by: ____________________________

Michael Thomlinson, M. Sc. P.Eng.
Mechanical Engineer
Notes:
1. This document contains the expression of the
t professional opinion of the Industrial Technology Centre (ITC) as to the matters set out
herein, using its professional judgement and reasonable care, based on the information available, the methodology, procedures and
techniques used, ITCs assumptions and constraints in place at the time of preparation.
2.
It is to be read in the context of the Agreement

greement between ITC and the Client. This document is solely for the purpose stated in the
Agreement and for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Client, whose rremedies
emedies are limited to those set out in the Agreement.
Agreement
3.
This document is to be read as a whole, and sections or parts thereof should not be relied upon out of context. This document may not be
reproduced, except in full, without written approval of ITC
ITC.
4.
Thiss document refers only to the particular material, device or other subject referred to in the document. No representation is being made
regarding other similar articles.
5.
ITC will retain samples for a period of ninety (90) days after testing unless otherwise
otherwise advised by the client. After this period, samples
will be disposed of.
6.
Any use of this document by a third party or any reliance on or decisions taken based upon it are the responsibility of the third
t
party.
ITC accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this
document.
7.
ITC shall not be used in connection with any advertisements, offer or sale of any product process or service without the prio
prior written
consent of ITC.
/Report: CIC Sandwich Core Material Testing (08-083-01)
Introduction
The Composites Innovation Centre (CIC) is performing evaluations on a
series of different types of sandwich core material samples. They came to the
Industrial Technology Centre (ITC) for help in performing the materials tests.
Scope of Work
Perform the testing as requested by the client and provide the client with the
test data as well as a brief engineering summary test report.
Procedure
There were 5 series of tests to be performed on different types of sandwich
materials.
All sample preparation was performed by CIC.
ASTM C273 Core Shear Testing
Shear test with extension gauges for shear stress and modulus.
ASTM C364 Sandwich Edgewise Compressive Strength Testing
Compression test to calculate the edgewise compressive stress of the
materials.
ASTM C365 Sandwich Flatwise Compressive Strength Testing
Compression test to calculate the flatwise compressive stress of the materials.
ASTM C393 Sandwich Flexural Strength Testing
Flexural test to calculate the core shear stress, beam bending stress of the
materials.
ASTM D2344 Short Beam Shear Testing
Flexural test to calculate the short beam shear stress of the materials.
ASTM D6790 Poissons Ratio of Honeycomb Core Testing
Calculate Poissons ratio of bare honeycomb material.
Results
The samples were tested in the lab ambient conditions of between 22C and
23C and relative humidity of between 19% and 30%. Only a summary of the
data was requested by the client. All other information was not required by
the client.
25 May 2010
13171-1 Rev A
Page 2 of 7
Table 1: Edgewise Compression Test Results

Sample ID
A-C-1
A-C-2
A-C-3
A-C-4
A-C-5
0.640
0.643
0.632
0.635
0.625
Average
Standard Deviation
Sample ID
B-C-1
B-C-2
B-C-3
B-C-4
B-C-5
Thickness
(in)
0.678
0.656
0.672
0.678
0.674
Average
Standard Deviation
Sample ID
C-C-1
C-C-2
C-C-3
C-C-4
C-C-5
Thickness
(in)
Thickness
(in)
0.665
0.695
0.685
0.692
0.690
Average
Standard Deviation
25 May 2010
Width
(in)
Edgewise Compressive
Strength (psi)
Failure Mode
2.008
2.010
2.010
2.010
2.009
16,159
15,093
15,973
16,552
15,007
15,757
679
End Failure
End Failure
Core Compression
Core Compression
Face Sheet Compression
N/A
N/A
Width
(in)
Strength (psi)
Failure Mode
1.998
1.996
1.998
1.998
2.000
12,714
7,067
8,627
10,179
11,126
9,942
2,187
Core Shear
Overall Panel Buckling
Core Shear
Core Shear
Core Shear
N/A
N/A
Width
(in)
Strength (psi)
Failure Mode
1.925
1.904
1.927
1.927
1.902
10,511
11,278
10,673
11,052
10,861
10,875
303

Facesheet Compression
N/A
N/A
13171-1 Rev A
Page 3 of 7

Sample
ID
Thickness
(in)
Width
(in)
A-T-1
A-T-2
A-T-3
A-T-4
A-T-5
2.050
1.964
1.950
1.924
1.944
Average
Standard Deviation
1.970
2.051
2.050
2.050
2.050
Sample
ID
Thickness
(in)
Width
(in)
B-T-1
B-T-2
B-T-3
B-T-4
B-T-5
2.030
1.954
1.960
1.940
1.955
Average
Standard Deviation
2.050
2.050
2.046
2.050
2.046
Sample
ID
Thickness
(in)
Width
(in)
C-T-1
C-T-2
C-T-3
C-T-4
C-T-5
1.896
1.957
2.063
2.099
1.945
Average
Standard Deviation
2.097
2.056
2.080
1.968
1.998
25 May 2010
Flatwise
Compressive
Strength (psi)
2% Deflection
Stress (psi)
Compressive
Modulus (psi)
2,084
2,141
2,399
2,080
1,223
1,985
446
1,912
2,114
2,388
1,902
1,184
1,900
446
145,535
149,782
145,090
119,377
112,392
134,435
17,211
Flatwise
Compressive
Strength (psi)
2% Deflection
Stress (psi)
Compressive
Modulus (psi)
223
213
204
188
208
207
13
220
164
167
168
165
177
24
24,373
23,127
20,164
17,177
17,191
20,406
3,315
Flatwise
Compressive
Strength (psi)
2% Deflection
Stress (psi)
Compressive
Modulus (psi)
152
184
146
186
148
163
20
140
179
140
184
184
165
23
20,660
22,379
22,270
22,345
23,521
22,235
1,021
13171-1 Rev A
Page 4 of 7

Sample
ID
Thickness
(in)
Width
(in)
D-T-1
D-T-2
D-T-3
D-T-4
D-T-5
1.958
2.020
2.052
2.008
1.904
Average
Standard Deviation
2.050
2.045
2.055
2.055
2.050
Sample
ID
Thickness
(in)
Width
(in)
E-T-1
E-T-2
E-T-4
E-T-5
E-T-6
1.934
1.990
2.005
2.013
1.980
Average
Standard Deviation
1.990
2.025
1.991
1.978
1.955
Flatwise
Compressive
Strength (psi)
2% Deflection
Stress (psi)
Compressive
Modulus (psi)
109
225
197
203
114
170
54
95
223
183
190
101
158
57
13,307
21,952
22,927
23,594
13,382
19,032
5,225
Flatwise
Compressive
Strength (psi)
2% Deflection
Stress (psi)
Compressive
Modulus (psi)
942
2,279
1,469
2,734
2,732
2,031
798
934
2,228
1,410
2,614
2,681
1,973
770
90,646
163,121
130,941
193,053
182,044
151,961
41,591
Table 3: Short Beam Shear Test Results

Sample
ID
A-S-1
A-S-2
A-S-3
A-S-4
A-S-5
Width
(in)
Thickness
(in)
2.035
0.607
2.045
0.640
2.020
0.620
2.045
0.630
2.045
0.625
Average
Standard Deviation
25 May 2010
Peak Load
(lbf)
Short Beam
Strength (psi)
Tangent Modulus (psi)
524
1457
1251
1426
1053
1142
381.2
318
835
749
830
618
670.1
215.4
13,476
35,794
32,212
36,270
29,497
29,450
9,348
13171-1 Rev A
Page 5 of 7
Table 4: Sandwich Flexural Test Results

Sample
ID
Width
(in)
A-F-1
A-F-2
A-F-3
A-F-4
A-F-5
2.045
2.045
2.036
2.038
2.049
Sample
ID
Width
(in)
B-F-1
B-F-2
B-F-3
B-F-4
B-F-5
2.040
2.042
2.040
2.006
2.130
Sample
ID
Width
(in)
C-F-1
C-F-2
C-F-3
C-F-4
C-F-5
1.880
2.008
2.060
2.030
2.015
Sample
ID
Width
(in)
D-F-1
D-F-2
D-F-3
D-F-4
D-F-5
2.025
2.045
2.060
2.045
2.050
25 May 2010
Thickness
(in)
0.628
0.630
0.630
0.630
0.624
Average
Standard Deviation
Thickness
(in)
0.675
0.652
0.662
0.665
0.664
Average
Standard Deviation
Thickness
(in)
0.700
0.690
0.695
0.700
0.690
Average
Standard Deviation
Thickness
(in)
0.655
0.665
0.674
0.650
0.665
Average
Standard Deviation
Core Shear
Stress (psi)
Facing Bending
Stress (psi)
Modulus
(kpsi)
261.3
292.2
301.9
299.6
270.6
285.1
18.2
15,740
17,391
17,151
17,421
15,643
16,669.3
899.3
654.9
679.4
620.9
648.0
650.4
650.7
20.8
Core Shear
Stress (psi)
Facing Bending
Stress (psi)
Modulus
(kpsi)
119.5
122.8
133.4
133.2
131.5
128.1
6.5
5775
6079
6146
6596
6508
6220.7
334.5
409.8
392.9
441.4
472.7
467.9
436.9
35.1
Core Shear
Stress (psi)
Facing Bending
Stress (psi)
Modulus
(kpsi)
116.4
138.7
132.4
136.7
131.7
131.2
8.8
5760
6363
6789
6584
7318
6562.8
571.5
355.3
407.1
375.8
380.2
392.9
382.3
19.4
Core Shear
Stress (psi)
Facing Bending
Stress (psi)
Modulus
(kpsi)
64.6
71.1
80.1
66.3
65.1
69.4
6.5
3802
3467
3907
3583
3257
3603.4
260.0
225.6
274.3
300.2
256.5
245.8
260.5
28.3
13171-1 Rev A
Page 6 of 7
Table 5: Core Shear Test Results

Sample
ID
Width
(in)
B-S-1
B-S-2
B-S-3
B-S-4
B-S-5
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
Sample
ID
Width
(in)
C-S-1
C-S-2
C-S-3
C-S-4
C-S-5
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
Sample
ID
Width
(in)
D-S-1
D-S-2
D-S-3
D-S-4
D-S-5
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
Length
(in nom.)
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
Average
Standard Deviation
Length (in nominal)
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
Average
Standard Deviation
25 May 2010
Length (in nominal)
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
Average
Standard Deviation
Thickness
(in nom.)
Peak Load
(lbf)
0.670
0.670
0.670
0.670
0.670
1391
1315
1455
1367
1584
1422
103.4
Thickness (in
- nominal)
Peak Load
(lbf)
0.690
0.690
0.690
0.690
0.690
1558
1593
1591
1538
1538
1564
27.2
Thickness (in
- nominal)
Peak Load
(lbf)
0.660
0.660
0.660
0.660
0.660
720
773
889
928
754
813
90.5
13171-1 Rev A
Core Shear
Modulus (psi)
6,142
6,142
5,828
N/A
6,142
6,063
157.0
Ultimate Shear
Strength (psi)
Core Shear
Modulus (psi)
3,894
4,205
4,077
3,555
3,555
3,857
297.4
Ultimate Shear
Strength (psi)
Core Shear
Modulus (psi)
2,148
2,043
2,856
2,114
2,220
2,276
330.2
Ultimate Shear
Strength (psi)
115.9
109.6
121.3
113.9
125.0
117.1
6.1
129.8
132.8
132.6
128.2
128.2
130.3
2.3
60.0
58.0
74.1
61.7
57.3
62.2
6.9
Page 7 of 7

08-083-01 Final Report Rev00 With Attachments PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

08-083-01 Final Report Rev00 With Attachments PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

300-78 Innovation Drive, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3T 6C2

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 8

Construction Cost Assumptions .................................................................................................. 9

Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................. 9

3.5.1......Laminate Comparison ........................................................................................................... 10

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Table 8: Edgewise Compression Test Results ............................................................................................. 7

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Table 2: Core Materials

Table 3: Laminate Tests

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Table 4: Core Test Matrix

Table 5: Laminate Test Results

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Shear Strength (psi)

Shear Modulus (ksi)

Shear Stress at Failure

Facing Stress at Failure

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

3. LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Construction Cost Assumptions

THICKNESS MATERIALS LABOUR

Table 12: Laminate Cost Data

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

i. Baseline Laminate Analysis

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Finite Element Model

Figure 1: Finite Element Model Setup

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Figure 2: Deformed Baseline Model

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Figure 3: X-X Stress in Filled Chop Layer

Figure 4: Y-Y Stress in Filled Chop Layer

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Figure 5: X-Y Shear in Filled Chop Ply

Figure 6: Failure Index Plot for Filled Chop Ply

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

ii. Alternate Configuration Limitations

iii. Optimized Configuration

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Rev:0.0, 09 July, 2010

WATERSLIDE LAMINATE OPTIMIZATION

Optimized Laminate Configurations