Real and imaginary parts of the complex viscoelastic modulus

for boron fiber reinforced plastics (BFRP)

Ernest B. Paxson Jr.

Brigham Young University,Provo,Utah 84602

(Received23 April 1974; revised16 November 1974)

The generalviscoelastic
modelwaschosento represent the mechanical properties of boronfiber
reinforcedplastic(BFRP). The experimental
configuration
selectedwas that of a thin beamsubjected
to transversevibration.The mechanicalpropertiesof the beam (in the directionx parallel to the
lengthof the beam)thenmanifestthemselvesin the form of a viscoelastic
complexmodulusE* xx

-Exx + 1Exx. In thisinvestigation

the purposes
wereto measure Exx andE•x (andthe
lossfactor)for BFRP and to comparethe lossfactorsfor BFRP with that for a metallicmaterial
suchas aluminum2024-T4 alloy. Boron laminatesusedin thesestudieswere fabricatedfrom
NARMCO 5505preimpregnated
boronfiberepoxytape.Valuesof storage
modulus
E'x• andloss
modulus
E•'x asa function
of excitation
freqeuncy
arepresented
forthreefiberorientations,
0ø
(undirectional),
+45 o (crossply),
and 90o (all transverse).Also presented
is the damping(or loss)
factor•/xx as a,functionof excitation
frequency for the threeabove-mentionedfiberorientations.
The
valuesobtainedfor dampingfactorare comparedwith thoseobtainedby measuring exponential
decay
of BFRP beams initially excited in the free-free mode of vibration.

SubjectClassification:40.60, 40.22' 35.50.

INTRODUCTION der to compare the data resulting from different methods

of measuring damping. The first of these was measur-
As a result of work accomplished in the Air Force
ing the breadth of the resonance peak at the half-power
Boron program some excellent finite-element procedures
points (3 dB down) on the tip-displacement response
have been developed for analyzing aircraft structural
curves for a cantilever beam subjected to forced vibra-
components which use BFRP as a primary structural
tion at its base support. And, the second of these was
material. These finite-element programs compute an
observing the vibration decay of a beam initially excited
elastic stiffness matrix; and, since this will appear in
in the "free-free" mode.
the analysis of the component for dynamic loadings, the
elastic/viscoelastic correspondenceprinciple could be
applied to arrive at a viscoelastic stiffness matrix in I. RELATIONSHIP OF VISCOELASTIC MODEL
which the elastic parameters have been made complex PARAMETERS TO DYNAMIC MATERIAL
quantities. This modification would allow dynamic prob- PROPERTIES
lems of a vibratory nature (e. g., flutter) to be handled,
thus maximum amplitudes due to forced vibration of a The experimental configuration chosen is illustrated
structural component could be assessed if the numerical in Fig. 1. If one uses thin-beam theory to describe the
values for the complex viscoelastic moduli were known. behavior of the experimental setup, the following differ-
ential equation results:
The purposes of this investigation were (1) to relate
viscoelastic model parameters to the dynamic mechani- 84w 82w
cal properties of boronfiber reinforced plastic (BFRP), E*•I 8x•' +AO• :0, (1)
(2) to establish quantitative values for these parameters where
by experimental measurement, and (3) to compare these
quantities for BFRP with the same parameters for glass A = cross-sectional area of beam,
fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) and a metallic material I = area moment of inertia for cross section,
such as aluminum 2024-T4 alloy.
p= mass density of beam materiM,
Boron laminates used in these studies were fabricated
from NARMCO 5505 preimpregnated boron fiber epoxy E* = complexviscoelasticmodulusin longitudinaldi-
tape by the Manufacturing Research and Development rection of beam,
Department of General Dynamics/Ft. Worth Division, w= displacement of beam transverse to its longitudinal
after which beams of specified length were cut from axis,
each panel.
X =position coordi•te along the length of beam;
One set of experiments involved measuring the tip and the appropriate bound•y condition equations spe-
deflection of a cantilever beam (subject to forced vibra- cialize it to a cantilever beam subject to forced vibra-
tion at its base support) and the phase angle by which the tions at its base support:
tip deflection lags the base displacement. From these
data one may calculate the viscoelastic modulus for giv- w(0, t) = woe• , (2a)
en frequencies of vibration.
Two other sets of experiments were conducted in or-
IE* 3•W
(L,t)=0 (2b)

891 J. Acoust.Soc.Am., Vol. 57, No. 4, April 1975 Copyright¸ 1975 by the Acoustical
Societyof America 891

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 128.97.27.21 On: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:03:37
 892 E.B. PaxsonJr.: Complex modulus for boron reinforced plastics 892

displacement. The amplification factor H is defined as

the ratio of the amplitudes of the tip and base displace-
ments, and it appears in the following form when one
compares Eqs. 5 and 3'

Be-• =1coshe+cos½
+ cosh•O
cos½ '
(6)
In the forced sinusoidal vibration of a cantilever beam
X=O x=L one can measure experimentally the amplification factor
FIG. 1. Cantilever beam subject to transverse vibrations. H and the phase angie lag qbfor various values of fre-
quency w. Knowing H, ½, and to from experimental data,
one is in a position to solve Eq. 6 for ½. Then using
Eq. 4, one can determine the viseoelastie modulus
(0,t)=0, (2c)
. (7)
IE*
• •l•3w
(L,t)=0. (2d) II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
At this point one should note that BFRP is certainly
A major problem in measuring damping was that of
not homogeneous or isotropic, nor does it have the prop-
erties of a mathematical continuum as the differential
insuring that energy losses to the surroundings of the
specimen (e.g., specimen supports, air damping, in-
equation implies. However, the beam problem is one
strumentation pickups) were negligible when compared
dimensional; and, even though the material properties
to the material damping. To assess the accuracy of the
change depending upon how the specimen axis is oriented
experimental technique, measurements of damping were
with respect to the material axis, one can find the me-
conductedon Aluminum2024-T4 since Zenera has pro-
chanical properties of the material in the longitudinal
direction of the beam axis. The mathematical models
vided a proven theory to describe energy loss in metals
used in the elastic design and static stress analysis of
subjectto eyelie strain. In a previouseffort1the accu-
racy of txvo experimental techniques for aluminum beams
BFRP structures have been successful in the past and
was validated; thus, it was felt that these same experi-
this paper seeks to apply an extension of those methods
mental procedures might yield reasonably accurate val-
to the dynamic case. For unidirectional (all 0ø), 0ø-90 ø
ues of damping when applied to BFRP beams.
crossply, and all 90ø fiber orientations with respect to
,
the beam axis, it is felt that the values for E,, will be
A. Forced vibration experiments
reasonably consistent with those that would be found in
a vibrating plate or panel. But, for other fiber angie The technique employed in the forced vibration tests
orientations (e.g., ñ45 ø) it is felt that the cut fibers was similar to that which Granick and Stern s used for
along the beam edge will noticeably influence the re- their damping measurements on aluminum; however,
sponse of the beam-how much, quantitatively speaking, slight modifications we,re employed in attaching BFRP
is not known by the author at this time. There are ex- beams to the shaker table because of basic differences
perimental configurations which can get around the prob- in the two materials. Basedon previousstudies• with
lems of cut fibers (e.g., transverse vibration of long glass fiber reinforced plastics, it was felt that the best
cylindrical tubes), but these require a more complex suited arrangement was a double cantilever with epoxy
theoreti cal analysis. shoulders molded to the beam center on the upper and
lower surfaces (as shown in Fig. 2). The use of epoxy
If one solves the differential equation (Eq. 1) and ap-
shoulders on BFRP specimens permitted a region of low
plies the boundary conditions (Eqs. 2), he will arrive
stress and strain at the mounting interface.
at the following solution for tip deflection at the end of
the beam (see Fig. 1): This BFRP double cantilever was then attached to the
vibrator head of an electrodynamic shaker as shown in
w(L, (cøsh½+cøs½)e•t
t)=w01+eosh½
eos½ ' (3) Fig. 3, andthe assemblywasplacedin a vacuumcharri-
ber which was evacuated to a pressure of 0.2-mm Hg.
where Before testing, each double cantilever was dynamically
balanced to insure equivalent behavior in each leaf. The
_½_[
Aptos
)•/4 (4)

Equation 3 can be written in forms

0.188 in.
w(L, t)= Wo(J-iK) e•øJt,
(s)
w(L,t) =wo•e•½ø•t'•"
, -- I

where/•= J•' +K s and ½= tan'lK/J.

The quantity qbis the phase angle lag between the dis-
placement at the tip of the beam and the support base FIG. 2. Specimen geometry for BFRP beams.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 57, No. 4, April 1975

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 128.97.27.21 On: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:03:37
 893 E.B. Paxson
Jr.:Complex
modulus
for boronreinforced
plastics 893

PHASE

ANGLE

ME_TEE,

AC
'J:o
DC
CONV EI•.TE IP..

FIXED
AC
'f.o
DC LOG
CONVEI2.T Ei•..

r -
05ClLLATOI3 i I

SY•,n'HEStz.
I• DIFFEI•.ENTtAL.
I •

FI•F-QIJENCY
J
.•TANOAI•D
VOLTMETEt• PLOTTEI•

FIG. 3. Forcedvibrationtestsetupfor frequency

sweeptests. Dottedlinesindicateconnections
madeto additional
equipment
for resonant dwell tests.

specimen was considered balanced if both tips reached tip andbase displacement,couldbe read directly from
their maximumamplitudeat exactly the samefrequency the phaseanglemeter in degrees; however, for these
(ñ0.001Hz) andif eachtip hadthe samephaseangle ' experiments it was decided to use the outputvoltage at
reading(ñ0.1ø) with respect to the base supportat reso- the constant level adapter in the control console as a
nance. (In somecasesthe beamsbecameslightlyun- reference voltage for the phase angle meter rather than
balanced when the chamber was evacuated and had to be the doublecantileversupportbaseaccelerometeroutput,
reruned.)
sincethe signallevel was more consistent. Therefore,
1. Forced v/brat/onfrequeny sweep testsan results a phaseangle correctionhad to be appliedto the phase
angle meter readings in order to accountfor the phase
Excitation of the beam was accomplished by driving lag between shaker control instrumentation and accel-
the electrodynamic shaker head with sine wave motion erometer output at the support base.
at each of a number of discrete frequencies whose spec-
trum centered somewhat about the resonant frequency
With amplificationfactor •, phaseangle•b, andfre-
of the first mode of vibration for the double cantilever quencyof vibration coas inputdata (alongwith beam ge-
beam. ometry and density of beam material) to a computer
program, the real (storagemodulus)andimaginary(loss
The block diagram shown in Fig• 3 depicts the basic modulus)parts of the complexviscoelastic moduluswere
relationship of the instrumentation to the experimental calculatedandprinted out for eachtest frequency. Re-
setup. The tip displacements of each cantilever were suitsfrom thesetests are shownin TablesI, II, andIII.
tracked with optical-displacement followers (Opttons)
and the base displacement was measured with a piezo- 2. Forced vibration-resonant dwell testsand results
electric crystal accelerometer. From this data the
amplification factor H was computed from the ratio In this series of experimentsthe drivingforce causing
- displacement amplitude at tip beam vibration was sinusoidal. Peak root stresses in
H- displacement
amplitude
atbase
' (8) the doublecantileverbeamwere evaluatedby measuring
the dynamictip deflection and computingthe stresses
The phase angle lag denotedby the symbol •b, between from the following equation:
,, [

1.?6h
lE* lw(L•
(rr'J.•[1/2(cosh
1.875
- cos1.875)-0.
368(sinh
1.875- sin1.875)]
' (9)

whereh is thethickness
of beam,IE*I themagnitude of doublecantilever), w(L, t)=axthe maximumtip dis-
of viscoelastic modulus, L the length of beam (one lea/ placement of beam, (rr the root stress. The shaker head

J. Acoust.Soc.Am., Vol. 57, No. 4, April 1975

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 128.97.27.21 On: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:03:37
 894 E.B. PaxsonJr.: Complexmodulusfor boron reinforcedplastics 894

TABLE I. 0ø Unidirectional layup, 15 plys, 0.077 in.

Frequency Storage modulus Loss modulus Damping factor Damping factor Max root stress

f, • • •'& n• = • •'•I• •xx= 1. 566/•rnax

(Hz) (lb/in.2)x 106 (lb/in.2)x 104 (x10'4) (x lO'4) ((•/in. •')x 103
34.33 26.5 6.5ñ 0.2 24.8ñ0.8 25.4ñ0.8 29.4
135.02 23.5 6.3ñ0.1 27.0ñ0.5 27.2ñ0.5 29.8
302.40 22.5 8.6 ñ0.5 38.3ñ2.2 38.8ñ2.3 9.8

driving force was adjusted to give approximately the de- occur. Initial excitation of the beam is caused by a
sired peak root stress (at the fundamental mode reso- solenoid with a core translation of 0.6 ino when ener-
nant frequency) by measuring the tip deflection. gized. A helical spring retracts the core when the coil
is deenergized. The displacement of one end of the
For 0 ø -fiber-orientation specimens, the peak root
beam was measured with a noncontracting displacement
stress levels at resonance were adjusted to 14 000 psi.
follower (0ptron). Signalsfrom the Optronwere put
For the + 45 ø and all 90 ø fiber orientations, the peak
through a bandpass filter, + 2.5-Hz centered on the nat-
root stress levels were set at 500 and 1000 psi, respec-
ural frequency of vibration of the beam, and then to a
tively. After establishing the desired peak root stress
light-beam galvanometer strip chart recorder. The nat-
levels at the fundamental resonant frequency for each
ural frequency was changed by varying the length of the
beam, the driving frequencywas then reduced (holding beam.
base displacement at constant amplitude) to a value at
which the amplitude of tip displacement was slightly be- Damping factors were calculated by using the following
low the half-power level. The frequency was then in- expression:
creased in discrete increments (of, typically, 0.020 Hz
for the 0 ø B FRP beams and 1. 000 Hz for the +45 ø and ln(an/ao)
all 90ø B FRP beams) through resonance to the half-
power point (3 dB down) on the other side of reso- where a0 is the amplitude of "zeroth" vibration, an the
nance.
amplitude of "nth" vibration, and results of these tests
are included in Tables VII, VIII, and IX.
Tip displacements were monitored by two Optron dis-
placement followers whose outputs were fed through log
III. COMPARISON OF DAMPING FACTORS FOR BFRP
converters into an X-YY recorder (see Fig. 3). From
the X-YY recorder plots, the damping factor n,, could Plots of the damping factors contained in Tables I-IX
be determined by applying the formula are presented in Fig. 5 for ease in comparing the vari-
ous damping factors calculated in this paper.

IV. DAMPING FACTORS FOR ALUMINUM AND

where Af3 • iS the frequency bandwidth of the resonance
peak at the 3-dB power level and fl is the fundamental
frequency in hertz. Results of these experiments are
included in Tables IV, V, and VI.
B. Free-free vibration experimental procedure and results
The apparatus for the free-free vibration experimen-
tal setup is shown in Fig. 4. The beam was suspended
at the nodal points for the first free-free mode of vibra-
tion by a No. 50 sized cotton thread attached to adjust-
able supports. These supports rested on a rigid bed
which allowed insertion (or removal) of the assembly as
a unit into (or out of) a vacuum chamber. The use of
thread suspension was necessary to decouple the beam
vibrations from the supports; otherwise, a significant
transfer of energy from the beam to the supports can
GLASS FIBER REINFORCED PLASTIC (GFRP)
The curves shown in Fig. 6 were extracted from a
report doneonpreviouswork.4 DampingFactorsfor
Aluminum 2024-T4 alloy and composites fabricated from
3M preimpregnated GFRP tape are shown. The points
designated by t are from experimental data and indicate
the mean and range of values observed for each test.
The solid curve represents theo•"etica[ values of damping
for 2024-T4 as calculated from a formula suggested by
Zener for anaelastic behavior of materials? Dimensions
of beamstestedin these studies4 are comparableto
those presented in this paper.
V. DISCUSSION
As one studies the loss-modulus-versus-frequency
values in Tables I, II, and III, he would note that there

TABLE II. ñ45 ø Crossply layup, 16 plys, 0.083 in.

Frequency E• E• %•
32.25 3.95 7.8 ñ 0.3 197 ñ 7 198ñ8 1.18
106.10 3.65 9.5ñ 0.3 259 ñ 8 260 ñ 8 1.36
153.25 3.70 10.5 ñ 0.5 283 ñ 14 285 ñ 14 0.72

J. Acoust.Soc. Am., Vol. 57, No. 4, April 1975

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 128.97.27.21 On: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:03:37
 895 E.B. Paxson Jr.: Complex modulus for boron reinforced plastics 895

TABLE III. 90ø All transverse layup, 15 plys, 0.076 in.

Frequency q• (rr
29.25 3.87 5.5ñ0.0 144ñ 1 144 ñ 1 1.32
53.20 3.95 6.3ñ0.0 159ñ 1 160 ñ 1 1.44
136.25 2.88 8.3 ñ0.3 290ñ 10 290 ñ 11 0.86
262.00 2.81 8.1ñ0.2 290ñ6 291 ñ 6 0.99

is a wide band of difference between upper and lower
values of loss modulus as calculated from experimental
data. This difference band, of course, carried over
the damping factors calculated from this data. The up-
per values represent observations recorded on one leaf
of a double cantilever beam specimen whereas the lower
values represent observations recorded on the opposite
leaf of the specimen during testing.
The discrepancy in the loss modulus calculated be-
tween opposite leaves of the double cantilever specimen
can be explained if we consider the following.
(1) When a double cantilever beam is subjected to lat-
eral vibrations, one must insure that each leaf is tuned
to the same natural frequency in order that a symmetric
response be obtained. This balancing operation was ac-
complished by removing the correct amount of materiM
from the tip of the "overweight" leaf. For the aluminum
alloy beams (during the "setup" stage of the experiments)
the balancing (or tuning) operation was accomplished
rather easily; however, much more difficulty was en-
countered in balancing the B FRP beams (tuning each leaf
to the same natural frequency). Relative to each fiber
geometry the +45 ø and 90ø specimens were harder to
balance than the 0 ø specimens. The difficulty in balanc-
ing BFRP double cantilever beams appears to stem from
two main factors. The first is that there is a higher de-
gree (as compared to metals) of variability in the me-
chanical properties at corresponding cross sections of
opposite leaves. One could attribute this variability to
differences in void ratio at each cross section along with
differences in fiber-matrix bonding(or debonding)dur-
ing application of cyclic loads on the beam. The second
reason is that other modes of vibration were perhaps ex-
cited at the test frequencies. For example, torsional
modes seem highly probable in the + 45ø specimens be-
cause the material properties are asymmetric
spect to the neutral axis.
(2) One shouldalso notethat calculationsfor E •
E•, and •,• were based on data observed at the funda-
mental frequency for each beam. At frequencies be-
tween each of the fundamental frequencies of the beams
tested,valuesfor E•, E•"•,andr/,:,:
canonlybesuggest-
ed by pattern of calculated values as shown in Fig. 5.
When the experiments were conducted, the beams were
actually tested over a range of frequencies whose center
was about the fundamental frequency for the beam; how-
ever, phase angle measurement for frequencies off reso-
nance were found to be not trustworthy (due most likely
to incorrect accounting for the phase angle lag in the re-
cording instrumentation). Even at resonance one could
not be sure of the accuracy in the phase angle measure-
ments; notwithstanding, it was found that the phase angle
recorded at resonance could be off as much as m 5 ø and
affectthe calculated
valueof lossmodulus
E,• byabout
+ 5%. However, this was not true for the calculated val-
ue of loss modulus for frequencies away from resonance;
because a + 1 ø variation in the measured phase angle
could change the calculated value of loss modulus by
50%-100%! Thus, one might see the reason for pre-
senting E,• values only at the fundamental frequencies of
the beams tested at this time.
A bright spot appears as one notes that the values of
loss modulus for B FRP were essentially the same for
all fiber orientations tested. The author feels that cor-
recting the inadequaciesof the test procedure (e.g., ge-
ometric configurations, phase angle measurements, and,
where possible, the material variability) will show the
loss modulus is the same for all fiber orientations for
beams of a given thickness. Admittedly this is yet to
be confirmed.
Basedon this andpreviousstudies,•'4 it is reasoned
that the values of damping factor determined from the
with re- free-free exponential decay are the most accurate; how-
ever, one is limited to the stress levels at which a free-

VAEIAC TIME.
MARK
GEN
ERATOe..

FIG. 4. Free-free vibration test setup.

,

BANDPASS I•COEOIN6
OPTI?.ON
' 2LE.
NOID ' FILTEI• GALVO

• VACUUNt
CHAMBEI•.

J. Acoust.Soc. Am., Vol. 57, No. 4, April 1975

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 128.97.27.21 On: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:03:37
 896 E.B. PaxsonJr.: Complex modulusfor boron reinforced plastics 896

TABLE IV. 0ø Unidirectional layup, 15 TABLE V. ñ45 ø Crossply layup, 16

plys, 0.077 in. thick. Max root stress plys, 0.083 in. thick. Max root stress
at resonance or -• 14 000 psi. at resonance (Yr-•500 psi.

Natural frequency Damping factor Natural frequency Damping factor

f•
(Hz) (x10'4) (Hz) (x 10'4)
34.4 18.0 32.1 219

135.4 18.9 106.4 217

304.1 18.8 155.0 199

313.0 239

free beam can be excited (typically 500 psi). In general,
the author would suggest that damping factors calculated
from forced vibration measurements are higher than
thos extracted from the free-free
ence in measured damping factors is due to the different
stress distributions in the respective beam specimens
at the location in eachbeam where the maximumbending
moment occurs. In the forced vibration
mum bending moment occurs at the root of the cantilever
beam where also occurs the maximum shear stress;
whereas in the free-free case the maximum bending mo-
ment occurs where there is essentially no shear. There-
fore, in addition to the energy dissipation due to cyclic
method. This differ- tensile and compressive stresses, there would be ener-
gy dissipation due to the cyclic shear stresses--thus
the higher damping factors obtained for forced vibration
tests. The damping factors calculated for 0ø BFRP
case the maxi- beams bear out this conclusion; however, one could not
discern this from the damping factors obtained for the
ñ45 ø and 90ø beams. It is supposedthat difficulty in

DAM PING FACTOI:2,S

BORON FIBE. t2, [2EINFO•CEO PLASTIC

320

260
24O

220
FIG. 5. Comparison of
•oo damping factors for BFRP
obtained by different experi-
•8o
mental procedures.

•4o

120

60

2O
o o ,,o

20 40 60 80 I00 12.0 140 •GO 180 • •20 2• •60 280 9•

J. Acoust.Soc.Am., Vol. 57, No. 4, April 1975

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 128.97.27.21 On: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:03:37
 897 E.B. PaxsonJr.: Complexmodulusfor boron reinforcedplastics 897

TABLE VI. 90ø all transverse layup, 15 TABLE VII. 0ø Unidirectional layup, 15
plys, 0. 076 in. thick. Max root stress plys, 0.077 in. thick.
at resonance or • 1000 psi.
Natural frequency Damping factor
Natural frequency Damping factor fl
f• (Hz) (x 10'a)
(Hz) (x 10'4) 34.2 11.7
29.1 154 140.0 12.3
52.6 165 300.0 13.5
134.2 195
262.8 210

ther experimentaion is conducted on different geometric

tuning opposite leaves of the double cantilever plus exci-
tation of other modes of vibration (e.g., torsional)
would obscure the difference in damping factors obtained
between the two methods of dynamic testing.
The effect of different root stress
variation of damping is ruled out on the basis of two
studies. The first is by Granick andStern,2 andthey de-
termined that damping factors for aluminum did not
change for variations in root stress levels until the root
stress exceeded the yield strength of the material, at
whichtime the dampingfactor increased. In Ref. 1, 0 ø
BFRP laminates were found to have constant damping
factors until the root stresses exceeded 50 000 psi. One
may also note in Table ! that the root stress level for
the 302.40-Hz beam decreased while the damping factor
increased in comparison with the 135.02-Hz beam.
configurations(e.g., vibrating plates, cylindrical tubes).
Additional studies on these different structural geome-
tries would also shed light on the cross-coupling of
modes which seemed to cause difficulties in this investi-
gation. Connecting this with better methods of deter-
mining phase angles would tend to give more consistent
results.
levels as a cause in
Since the results presented herein are for one beam
thickness for each fiber orientation, it is suggested that
the effect of beam thickness on damping factors be in-
vestigated. Temperature buildup may appear as a prob-
lem with the thicker beams, owing to their inability to
dissipate heat as readily as the thinner configurationso
It is also expected that temperature buildup will begin
to occur as higher frequencies are impressed on the
beams. For the range of variables investigated in this
study, temperature buildup did not appear to affect the
results.

The fact that values of loss modulus were similar for

VI. CONCLUSIONS
While the damping factors observed for 0 ø BFRP were
somewhat consistent, the +45 ø and 90ø data can only
suggest approximate values of damping factor until fur-
each of the fiber orientations considered is thought to be
significant. The reason for attempting to find the visco-
elastic modulus of BFRP in the first place stemmed from
the possibility of applyingthe elastic/viscoelastic cor-

DAMPIN6 F AC TO 12...,S

OT H E.1:2,,MATE. R, IA L.•
• 50-

•-• 45-

o
FIG. 6. Damping factors for alumi-
num alloy and glass fiber reinforced
plastics, obtained by the free-free
beam experimental procedure.

• 25

Io-

5-

O. ß I I I I I I I I I I I
IO ?-0 30 40 50 70 I00 200 34)0 500 I000

FEOU--c¾

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 57, No. 4, April 1975

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 128.97.27.21 On: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:03:37
 898 E.B. Paxson Jr.: Complex modulus for boron reinforced plastics 898

TABLE VIII. +45 ø Crossply layup, 16 TABLE IX. 90ø all transverse layup, 15
plys, 0. 083 in. thick. plys, 0. 076 in. thick.

Natural frequency Damping factor Natural frequency Damping factor

fl q= f•
(Hz) ( x 10'4) (Hz) ( x 10'4)
28.3 188 25.0 162

144.5 214 40.0 167

300.0 221 123.3 194

300.0 199

respondence principle to already existent dynamic load- ment of Damping in Fiber Reinforced Plastics," U.S. Army
ing structural analyses. Thus, if further investigation Sci. Conf. P}oc. (June 1968).
confirms that the loss moduli are similar for various 2NealGranickandJesseE. Stern, Material Dampingof Alumi-
mum By A Resonant Dwell Technique, NASA TN D-2893, Clear.
fiber orientations for a given beam thickness and resin
House Fed. Sci. Tech. Inf., Springfield, VA (1965).
system, the design process for flutter conditions would
3ClarenceZener, ElasticityandAnelasticityof Metals(Univ.
be simpler as a result. Chicago P., Chicago, 1965), 5th Impression.
4L. T. Mazza, E. B. Paxson,andR. L. Rodgers,"Measure-
ment of Damping Coefficients and Dynamic Modulus of Fiber
1A. J. Gustafson,E. B. Paxson, and L. T. Mazza, "Measure- Composites," USAAVLABS TN 2 (Feb. 1970).

J. Acoust.Soc. Am., Vol. 57, No. 4, April 1975

Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 128.97.27.21 On: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:03:37