Composite Load Capacity Analysis via Strain Invariant Theory

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Composite structural members are difficult to analyze for failure prediction due to their anisotropic material properties and complex multi-material configurations, requiring extensive testing for accurate load capacity determination, which is costly and time-consuming.

Innovation Solution

A system and computer program product that analyzes the load capacity of composite members by generating strain tensors, critical strain invariants, and damage instability data, allowing for the calculation of critical load without destructive testing, using strain invariant failure theory (SIFT) and probabilistic analysis to determine material and geometric variations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If conventional failure analysis techniques are used for composite structural members, then material properties can be analyzed, but accurate failure prediction is difficult due to anisotropic properties and complex multi-material configurations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefailure prediction accuracyVSAvoidanalysis complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the composite material into distinct phases (matrix phase and fiber phase) with different material properties. Each phase is analyzed separately using phase-specific strain invariants, allowing the complex anisotropic behavior to be broken down into manageable components that can be evaluated independently and then combined for overall failure prediction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent transforms the failure analysis from using conventional stress-based parameters to using strain invariant parameters. This parameter transformation allows the analysis to account for anisotropic properties and complex configurations by using parameters that remain constant under coordinate transformations, thereby improving prediction accuracy without proportionally increasing analysis complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If extensive destructive testing is conducted to determine load capacity, then accurate load capacity determination is achieved, but the process becomes costly and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveload capacity determination accuracyVSAvoidtesting time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary failure analysis through computational methods using strain invariant theory before conducting any physical testing. By calculating critical strain invariants and damage instability conditions computationally, the methodology identifies likely failure modes and locations in advance, allowing subsequent physical testing to be focused and minimized rather than requiring extensive destructive testing of multiple components.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces the mechanical destructive testing system with a computational analysis system based on strain invariant theory. Instead of physically loading and destroying multiple composite members to determine load capacity, the methodology uses mathematical models and computational algorithms to predict failure conditions, thereby eliminating the need for extensive physical testing while maintaining accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple alternative designs are evaluated, then optimized design with minimized weight and cost can be achieved, but the number of designs that can be evaluated is limited by testing requirements

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedesign evaluation capabilityVSAvoiddesign evaluation throughput
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces physical testing with computational strain invariant analysis, enabling rapid evaluation of multiple alternative designs. The computational methodology can assess different configurations, materials, and geometries without requiring physical prototypes, thereby dramatically increasing design evaluation throughput while maintaining accuracy and allowing for optimized design selection.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent enables efficient design evaluation by using strain invariant parameters that can be computed rapidly for different design configurations. By formulating failure criteria in terms of strain invariants rather than requiring full-scale structural testing, the methodology allows designers to quickly assess multiple alternatives and select optimized designs with minimized weight and cost.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP1955224B1System and computer program product for analyzing and manufacturing a structural member having a predetermined load capacity
Publication Date: 2019.01.09 THE BOEING CO
  • EP1955224B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP1955224B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP1955224B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A system and computer program product for analyzing a load capacity of a composite member are provided. The system includes devices or modules for receiving model data that is characteristic of a configuration and load condition of a structural member and material data that is characteristic of material properties of a material of the structural member. The model data is analyzed to generate analysis data including strain tensors for a plurality of nodes of the structural member. Enhanced analysis data is generated, including a critical strain invariant value representative of a material of the structural member. The enhanced analysis data is further analyzed according to a strain invariant failure theory to generate results data representative of load conditions that result in damage instability in the structural member and a likely location, direction, and/or path of progression of the instability.