CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

Material Specification and Evaluation of

the mechanical support structure for
CMS Forward Tracker
CMS TN/95-087
June, 95
S. Claes, W. Van Doninck, L.Van Lancker
IIHE* , Vrije Universiteit Brussel

ABSTRACT
In the present report, an overview is given of the design specifications of a
possible mechanical support structure for the forward MSGC tracker of the
CMS detector.
The choice of a carbon fiber-epoxy composite material is commented. Results of
finite elements analyses and of tests performed on first samples are also given.

Interuniversity Institute for High Energies,Brussels,Belgium

-1-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3

1. MATERIAL CHOICE....................................................................................................................... 3

2. MECHANICAL DESIGN.................................................................................................................. 9

3. MATERIAL TESTS......................................................................................................................... 11
3.1. INTRO............................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2. SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................... 11
3.3. TESTS ............................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Density....................................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.2. Tensile Tests ............................................................................................................................. 12
3.3.3. Bending Tests ........................................................................................................................... 14
3.3.4. Specific Values ......................................................................................................................... 16
3.4. CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 17
4. THE PROTOTYPE COMPOSITE SANDWICH PANEL........................................................... 18

5. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 22

6. LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................... 23

7. LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................ 24

8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 25

-2-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

INTRODUCTION
The tracker cavity of CMS extends from =-3m to +3m and radially up to R=1.2m
its detailed layout is given elsewhere (ref. TP).In the forward and backward tracker
regions, 9 detection planes on either side of the interaction region are equipped with
Micro Strip Gas Counters (MSGC) only. The mechanical support structure of such a
detection plane is the subject of the present report.
Like in the barrel part, the wheel concept has been retained for the structure. The
diameter of such a forward wheel is 2.4 meter and over this large area a structural
stability of better than 20 m is required. The material budget, in terms of radiation
lengths, of the entire tracker is to be kept to a minimum. The requirements of stiffness,
structural stability and lightness, quickly lead to the choice of a composite material

1. MATERIAL CHOICE
Figures 1 to 7 and tables 1 and 2 show a compilation of several characteristics for a
selection of engineering materials. Several of them can be used as guidelines for minimum
weight design.
Besides the lightness of the structure, the following points have to be considered as well
for the structural support material of the tracker wheels: stiffness, strength and
structural stability under gravitational, radiation and thermal loads; high tolerance to
moisture; unaffected by the presence of an intense magnetic field (4 Tesla).All these
requirements have lead to the choice of a carbon fiber-honeycomb composite sandwich
panel for the construction of a forward tracker wheel.

Fig. 1: Youngs Modulus E plotted against density

-3-

Fig. 2: Youngs Modulus E plotted against Strength

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

Fig. 3: Strength plotted against density

Fig. 4: Comparative plot of density

Commercially available carbon fibers exist with strengths varying from 1400 to
3500MN/m2. On laboratory scale, samples up to 7500MN/m2 have been produced. The
Youngs modulus (E) of commercial carbon fibers ranges from 130 up to 590 GN/m2.For
advanced composites with low to average heat exposure, epoxy resins are used to
manufacture the carbon fiber prepregs

Fig. 5: Tensile strength and stiffness

of a variety of fibers

Fig. 6: Specific strength and stiffness of fibers

and isotropic materials

Fig. 7: Specific strength and stiffness of a variety of fibers

-4-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

Table 1

Table 2

As show in figure 8 ,advanced composites have far better fatigue behavior when exposed
to repeated mechanical loads as compared to metals. They are however sensitive to
pressure loads.
Fatigue of composites can results in fiber rupture, cracks in the epoxy matrix,
disassembly of fibers etc.... Together these failures can lead to intolerable loss of stiffness
or strength.

Fig. 8: Fatigue behavior of composite materials

Fibers, with the exception of Kevlar, are known not to absorb moisture but most epoxy
resins do absorb moisture up to 80% by weight [6].This leads to swelling of the structure
-5-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

in all directions and even if moisture is removed by a thermal cycle, microcracks in the
epoxy matrix remain. A protection of the carbon fiber panel with non permeable foils or
coatings is therefore highly desirable as indicated in figures 9 to 14.

Hrs. exposed at 100% R. H.

Fig. 9: Dimensional change of resin due to

moisture absorption

Fig. 10: Absorbed moisture vs. Tg

L/L

R. T. Strength Retention

Temp (F)

Exposure time (days)

Fig. 11: Retention of strength vs. Temp and

moisture absorption

Fig. 12: Dimensional change vs. exposure

time to humidity

Laminate Mass Change (%)

250 Resins

350 Resins

F155
5209
2544

F161
3501
5208
Source: NASA

Exposure time (years)

Fig. 13: Moisture absorption by composites

during ground exposure

The thermal expansion of carbon fiber structures is negligible along the fiber direction
since the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is close to zero. For the direction
perpendicular to the fiber orientation the CTE can be up to 30.10-6/c [7].Laminar
structures with several fiber orientations can be achieved with essentially zero thermal
expansions. Figures 14 and 15 show a compilation of thermal properties of several
engineering materials.

-6-

CMS TN/95-087

Fig. 14: Thermal conductivity vs. thermal diffusivity

I.I.H.E Brussels

Fig. 15: Linear expansion coefficient vs. Youngs modulus

-7-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

The price of carbon fibers has come down substantially since their introduction during the
sixties as show in figure 16 and table 3. In parallel to this reduction the mechanical
properties have improved [8].The main producers of carbon fibers are: Union Carbide
(USA),Gourtoulds Ltd (GB),Serofin (France),Hitco (Germany),Kureka (Japan) among
others.

Fig. 16: Price evolution for composites

Table 3

Concerning the radiation length, it is necessary to maximize the rigidity which could be
expressed in general terms as the product of the Youngs modulus E and the length L.[5]
Taking into account the necessary minimization of the multiple scattering, the product
EX depends only upon the material. Figure 17 shows most of the best representatives of
materials available on the market. Figure 18 shows the effective radiation length against
Youngs modulus. The lines show the locations of points for which Leff*E=constant. The
value of the constant increases towards the upper right.
0

Fig. 17: EX 0 for some materials

Fig. 18: Radiation Length vs. Youngs Modulus

-8-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

2. MECHANICAL DESIGN
Each forward wheel is a back to back assembly of two carbon fiber-honeycomb composite
discs, each holding 5 concentric rings of wedge shaped MSGCs. Continuous sensitivity of
the detector surface is aimed for by staggering the front and back rings along R, and by
frameless, edge to edge, assembly of the MSGC substrates around .

Figure 19: Back-toBack mouting of sanwich disks

Along these design lines finite element analyses have been performed using the ANSYS
engineering program, to investigate the following points:
a) The choice of the structural fibers.
Table 4 indicates that the optimal performance with respect to mechanical
deformations is obtained with carbon fiber.
Material

Weight (kg)
-

Displacement in x
[m]
- 1.18

Displacement in y
[m]
- 5.5

Boron fiber
4 layers, 1mm total
Kevlar
4 layers, 1mm
total
Carbon fiber
4 layers, 1mm
total
Carbon fiber
8 layers, 1mm
total

3.4

- 2.66

- 11.1

4.04

- 1.6

- 6.47

4.04

- 0.7

- 2.75

Table 4

-9-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

b) The optimum suspension point location for the forward wheels:

For this calculation an 8 layer carbon fiber structure with a total thickness of
1mm has been considered. Table 5 indicates that the optimal suspension is
situated around 40 from the horizontal axis. If a horizontal suspension is
envisaged, as in the barrel design the gravitational sag grows to 5 m.
Max displacement in m
ux= 0.85
uy= 5.14
= 0.849
= 4.423
= 0.777
= 4.25
= 0.749
= 3.58
= 0.710
= 3.51
= 0.7.29
= 2.91
= 0.687
= 2.859
= 0.724
= 2.504
= 0.704
= 2.754
= 0.677
= 2.54
= 0.642
= 2.952
= 0.586
= 2.878
= 0.554
= 3.444
= 0.792
= 3.498
=1
= 4.233
= 1.222
= 4.291

Degree
0
5.625
11.25
16.875
22.5
28.125
33.75
39.3
45
50.625
56.25
61.875
67.5
73.125
78.75
84.375

Table 5
The following calculations were done with a sandwich panel where the honeycomb core is
replaced by rohacell. Calculations are done with a disc without substrates.
Fiber thickness is 0.125 ,2 layers at 0 and 90. Core thickness is 4mm. Fixation point at
0.
Material core

Weight in
kg

Honeycomb

5.08

Max.
displacement in
m
4.85

Max. stress
calculated

Manufactory
values

Fibers: 0.57MN/m2
Core: 6144 N/m2

Fibers:
Tensile strength
1150 MN/m2
Flexural strength
1200 MN/m2
Core:
Strength L dir.
1.64 MN/m2
Strength W dir.
0.9 MN/m2

Rohacell 51

4.84

4.75

Fibers : 0.57 MN/m2

Core : 2429 N/m2

Core:
Tensile and
flexural strength
1.6 MN/m2
Compress strength
0.8 MN/m2

Rohacell 51Wf

4.84

4.75

Fibers:0.578 MN/m2
Core: 2215 N/m2

Table 6
Our present choice is honeycomb because:
Little information exists about radiation hardness of Rohacell
Rohacell is more sensitive for water absorption.
-10-

idem

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

3. Material Tests
3.1. Introduction
Both for validation of present F.E.M.1 results, on which a major part of the mechanical
design will be based, and as an evaluation of current production methods for sandwich
panels, we have initiated a prototype-phase. In the first stage of this phase, we have built
samples of several candidate-sandwiches. In the following report, two of these samples
will be compared for their usability in the forward tracker.

3.2. Specimen Description.

The specimen under investigation are the following:
1) a sandwich constituted of CIBA-GEIGY's FibreDux920 prepreg and
Nomexhc4/60 honeycomb, in following layering: [O,90,hc]symm.
2) a sandwich constituted of Advanced Composite's LTM25/T300 prepreg and
Nomexhc4/60 honeycomb, in following layering: [0,90,+45,-45,hc]symm.
Both lay-ups can be visualized as follows:
21 m
Alu 12 m
0
=> FD Prepreg
90

=> LTM Prepreg

HoneyComb

Fig. 20: Lay-up of panels

In the following table, the properties of the constituent prepreg materials are listed.

E1
E2
12
G12
f
1
2

LTM25
126
9
0.25

FD920
120
8.6
0.34

GPa
GPa

2.14
58

4.5
60

GPa
%

-0.1

-0.45

10-6/C

40

28

10-6/C

120
223
g/m2
80
150
mm
table 7: Constituent material properties

After lay-up in a clean room, both panels where cured in an autoclave, within the limits of
their prescribed curing cycli.

F.E.M.: Finite Element Method

-11-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

3.3. Tests
3.3.1 Density
As explained before on, the radiation length is one of the main selection criteria for the
materials used in the tracker. As density and radiation length are related, it is an easy to
use intermediate criterion.
A rough prediction of the density of the composites can be made, starting from the surface
densities provided by the manufacturers (cfr. table 8).
By a simple system of measuring and weighing sets of samples, a good idea is given of the
density of the panels for comparison with the predictions. Results of these measurements
are also displayed in table 8.

# of plies
8
2
4
1

Sandwich specimen 1 (LTM)

Type
Surf. Density
g/m2 per ply
LTM25 prepreg
120
Alu 21 mm
57
LTM25A gluefilm
150
Honeycomb
260

# of plies
4
2
4
1

Sandwich specimen 2 (FD)

Type
Surf. Density
g/m2 per ply
FD920 prepreg
225
Alu 12 mm
33
FM73 gluefilm
150
Honeycomb
260

Calculated

Total kg/m2
Density kg/m3

1.934
411

Calculated

Total kg/m2
Density kg/m3

1.78
389

Measured

Total kg/m2
Density kg/m3

2.16
461

Measured

Total kg/m2
Density kg/m3

1.89
414

Table 8: Density calculations and measurements

We see differences of the order of 10% between calculated and measured densities, which
may be attributed to a number of causes (absorption of moisture during cutting in waterprotected diamond saw, optimistic estimations of properties by furnishers, ...). This is a
phenomenon not negligible in a critical design such as for CMS, therefore all selected
materials should be submitted to similar tests.

3.3.2. Tensile Tests

Specimen were prepared from both panels. We examined three sets, each cut in a
different direction, respectively at 0, 45 and 90 from the reference direction, as shown
in figure 21. Tabs to introduce the stresses smoothly and to prevent damaging by the
clamps, were attached to each specimen.

90
0
45

Fig. 21: Test specimen orientation

The tensile tests were performed on the INSTRON 4505 test facilities, located at the
Department for Structural Analysis at the V.U.B., Brussels.
-12-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

In figure 22, one of the typical Stress-Strain diagrams produced by the measurement
systems is shown.
70
60

Stress (MPa)

50
40

LTM
FD

30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

Strain (%)

Fig. 22: Example of a Stress-Strain curve, resulting from a tension test.

The slope of these curves gives the modulus of the materials. In table 9, averaged moduli
and yield stresses are presented for both sandwiches, for different angles from the
reference direction.

E tsw
(GPa)
0
45
90

LTM

ty

FD

(MPa)
4.81
6.45
0
4.49
1.69
45
4.34
7.67
90
Table 9: Moduli and yield stresses

-13-

LTM

FD

61.9
63.7
57.7

63.9
30.8
78.0

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

Or, graphically and extrapolated for other angles: figure 23.

Apparent
Tensile
Tensile
Modulus
Modulus
(GPa)
(GPa)

Apparent
Yield
Yield
Stress
Stress
(MPa)
(MPa)

8.00
315

270

80.00
45

6.00

315

4.00

40.00

2.00

20.00

0.00

90

270

135

225

45

60.00

0.00

90

135

225
LTM

180

180
FD

Fig. 23: Plot of Moduli and Yield stresses of table 9

3.3.3. Bending Tests

Three point bending tests were performed. A picture is shown below (Figure 24).

Fig. 24: View of a 3-point bending test

-14-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

Typical Stress-Strain curve is shown in figure 25.

140
120
Stress (MPa)

100
80

LTM

60

FD

40
20
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Strain (%)

Fig. 25: Typical - curves for bending

Table 10 summarizes the properties of the sandwiches resulting from the tests. It needs to
be stressed that Moduli were calculated at the beginning of the curves, assuming
homogenous material.

E tsw
(GPa)
0
45
90

LTM

FD

10.3
9.8
10.0

10.6
4.3
15.2

ty
(MPa)
0
45
90

LTM

FD

124
118
102

88
62
133

Table 10: Moduli and Yield stresses in bending

Or, graphically: figure 26.

Yield Stress (MPa)

Modulus (GPa)

0
150.00

20.00
315

315

45

15.00

45

100.00

10.00
50.00

5.00
270

0.00

90

225

270

90

225

135

180

0.00

LTM

135

180

FD

Fig. 26: Plot of Moduli and Yield stresses of table 6.

-15-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

3.3.4. Specific Values

Having both moduli and densities available, lets us calculate the specific stiffness, which
is as mentioned earlier, an important selection criterion. Specific moduli, which are
spec
=E
defined as E
, for both sandwiches are listed in table 11, and plotted in figure 27.

E spec

Tension
0
10.4
15.6

LTM
FD

45
9.7
4.1

Bending
90
9.4
18.5

0
22.3
25.5

45
21.2
10.26

90
21.7
36.6

Table 11: Specific stiffness (in MPa.m3/kg)

Specific Modulus in Tension

Specific Modulus in Bending

20.00
315

270

40.00
45

15.00

315

10.00

20.00

5.00

10.00

0.00

90

225

270

135

180

45

30.00

0.00

90

225
LTM

135

180

FD

Fig. 27: Plot of Specific Stiffness (in MPa.m3/kg)

-16-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

3.4. Calculations
Calculations using a F.E.M. numerical model, simulating the tension tests, give a good
idea of material properties in between the sampling directions (cfr fig. 28). They also
validate to some extent the procedures used in the F.E.M. analysis. The values in fig. 28a

are calculated according to E = , where can be derived from the input values, and
can be calculated from the ANSYS output. Those in fig 28b are the results of the formula
F.l3
for one-sidedly blocked beams: E = 3.I. . Here, the length of the beam l and the moment
of inertia I are geometrically defined, a force F is applied and the sag is calculated by
ANSYS. Table 12 gives us the F.E.M. results in the measuring directions.
Tensile Tests

LTM

0
45
90
Bending Tests

FD
Measure
d
4.8
4.5
4.3

FEA

Measure
d
10.3
9.8
10.0

FEA

7.0
7.0
7.0

0
45
90

LTM

0
45
90

Measure
d
6.5
1.7
7.7

FEA

Measure
d
10.6
4.3
15.2

FEA

8.3
2.4
8.3

FD

18.6
16.8
17.9

0
45
90

20.0
5.8
18.2

Table 12: Results of FEA compared to experimental results (Moduli in GPa)

1.00E+10
315

2.50E+10

8.00E+09

45

315

6.00E+09

1.50E+10

4.00E+09

1.00E+10

2.00E+09

5.00E+09

0.00E+00

270

40

2.00E+10

90

0.00E+00

270

90

LTM
225

135

FD

225

180

135

180

Tension

Bending

Fig. 28: F.E.M. estimation of properties.

-17-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

4. THE PROTOTYPE COMPOSITE SANDWICH

PANEL
The interest of a sandwich construction with respect to a solid laminate is illustrated in
fig 29

Fig. 29: Relative Stiffness of sandwich constructions

The light weight core (e.g. honeycomb) is covered on both faces with a thin skin (e.g.
carbon fiber laminates).The mechanical properties of such a sandwich construction
depend strongly on the properties of the skins, the thickness of the core, the adhesive
films used between core and skins, the pressure and temperature during curing process
etc....
For the prototype panel of the forward tracker wheel of CMS the following material
choices were made:
The core : NOMEX paper honeycomb of 4mm thickness [12]
Suplier: Euro-Composites systems
Type: ECA 3.2 - 64
The skins: 4 layers of unidirectional carbon fiber epoxy prepregs. Fiber diameter 70m
Supplier: Advance Composites Group
Type: LTM25 (80 gr/m2) [11]
The adhesive films:
Epoxy adhesive
Supplier: Advance Composite Group
Type: LTM25A (150 gr/m2)
The Alu. face sheets:
Aluminum foil of 21m thickness
Supplier: Reynolds
Type: Ref.nr50627
-18-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

The production technique used for the manufacture of the laminated composite sandwich
panels illustrated in figure 30 and is as follows.
Alu21 m
Gluefilm
0
90
45

=> LTM Prepreg

-45
Gluefilm
HoneyComb

Fig. 30: Schematic ply lay-up

The honeycomb core, cut to the required dimensions (2.5 x 2.5 m2) is laid flat on the
supported wooden plate (thickness 50 mm) and the adhesive film is applied to the top
surface of the honeycomb. Four layers of carbon fiber prepreg are then applied with
respective fiber orientations at -45 and +45 (angle plies) and 0 and 90 (cross plies).
An adhesive film is then applied between the carbon fibers and the final face sheet; an
aluminum foil of 21m thickness. This adhesive film not only improves adhesion but
prevents corrosion phenomena to occur between the carbon fiber and the aluminum. This
laminar structure is covered with a vacuum bag and the whole assembly is turned over
and put on a supporting glass plate (thickness 10mm),bringing the honeycomb on top.
Exactly the same procedure is then followed for the second laminated skin.

Fig. 31: View on the preparation of the sandwich

Perfect symmetry with respect to the midplane has to be maintained to ensure the
flatness of the panel after curing.
-19-

CMS TN/95-087

I.I.H.E Brussels

The role of the aluminum face sheets is threefold in our particular application:
a) To prevent moisture absorption by the epoxy matrix.
b) To prevent outgassing of adhesive films and epoxy resins.(In our present design the
composite sandwich panel also constitutes a gas barrier for the MSGC detector gas)
c) To surround the detectors and their front end electronics by a Faraday cage to prevent
pick up noise.
For the curing of the laminate structure the technique of vacuum bag molding has been
used. The panel is situated in between the two glass plates ( to prevent asymmetric
cooling of the sandwich panel).Peel plies between the panel and the glass plates prevent
adhesion of the structure to the glass plates and bleeder cloths around the perimeter
absorb the excess epoxy resin during the curing process in the autoclave. The entire
assembly is embedded in a vacuum bag. Bleeder cloths between the glass and the vacuum
bag ensure a uniform distribution of the vacuum across the glass plates. Considering the
large size of the structure vacuum was applied about 10 hours prior to the curing process
in the autoclave at the SABENA plant in Brussels. During the cycle the overpressure of 2
bars is maintained ,while the vacuum is released after 15 minutes inside the autoclave.
The curing temperature for the prototype panel was 80C. during 10 hours. The entire
assembly is then slowly cooled down inside the autoclave see figure 32.

Fig. 32: Curing Cycle

Very similar thermal properties have to be ensured at both sides of the panel to avoid
deformations.
The 1 cm thick glass plates at both sides of the composite sandwich ensure this
requirement. Figure 33 shows the support table with the panel inside the vacuum bag
just after the whole assembly is being removed from the autoclave. Figure 34 shows the
final square prototype panel.

-20-

CMS-TN xxx

I.I.H.E Brussels

Fig. 33: Sandwich coming out of SABENAs autoclave

Fig. 34: Square Prototype Sandwichpanel

-21-

CMS-TN xxx

I.I.H.E Brussels

5. CONCLUSIONS
Through F.E.M. analyses and measurements performed on samples of carbon fiberhoneycomb composite structures it has been shown that such structures are suited for
light weight constructions of extreme stiffness.
Their use is envisaged for the forward MSGC wheels of the CMS central tracker.
First full size structures have been produced using the technique of vacuum bag molding
and autoclave curing.

-22-

CMS-TN xxx

I.I.H.E Brussels

6. List of Figures
FIG. 1: YOUNGS MODULUS E PLOTTED AGAINST DENSITY ...................................................................... 3
FIG. 2: YOUNGS MODULUS E PLOTTED AGAINST STRENGTH ..................................................................... 3
FIG. 3: STRENGTH PLOTTED AGAINST DENSITY ....................................................................................... 4
FIG. 4: COMPARATIVE PLOT OF DENSITY ................................................................................................... 4
FIG. 5: TENSILE STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS ............................................................................................... 4
FIG. 6: SPECIFIC STREGTH AND STIFFNESS OF FIBERS ................................................................................ 4
FIG. 7: SPECIFIC STREGTH AND STIFFNESS OF A VARIETY OF FIBERS .......................................................... 4
FIG. 8: FATIGUE BEHAVIOR OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS ............................................................................ 5
FIG. 9: DIMENSIONAL CHANGE OF RESIN DUE TO ....................................................................................... 6
FIG. 10: ABSORBED MOISTURE VS. TG ...................................................................................................... 6
FIG. 11: RETENTION OF STRENGTH VS. TEMP AND .................................................................................... 6
FIG. 12: DIMENSIONAL CHANGE VS. EXPOSURE......................................................................................... 6
FIG. 13: MOISTURE ABSORPTION BY COMPOSITES ..................................................................................... 6
FIG. 14: THERMAL CODUCTIVTY VS. THERMAL DIFFUSIVITY ..................................................................... 7
FIG. 15: LINEAR EXPANSION COEFFICIENT VS. YOUNGS MODULUS ............................................................ 7
FIG. 16: PRICE EVOLUATION FOR COMPOSITES .......................................................................................... 8
FIG.17: EX0 FOR SOME MATERIALS ........................................................................................................... 8
FIG. 18: RADIATION LENGTH VS. YOUNGS MODULUS ............................................................................... 8
FIG. 19: BACK-TOBACK MOUTING OF SANWICH DISKS .............................................................................. 9
FIG. 20: LAYUP OF PANELS...................................................................................................................... 11
FIG. 21: TEST SPECIMEN ORIENTATION.................................................................................................... 12
FIG. 22: EXAMPLE OF A STRESS-STRAIN CURVE, RESULTING FROM A TENSION TEST............................... 13
FIG. 23: PLOT OF MODULI AND YIELD STRESSES OF TABLE 9.................................................................. 14
FIG. 24: VIEW OF A 3-POINT BENDING TEST ............................................................................................. 14
FIG. 25: TYPICAL - CURVES FOR BENDING ........................................................................................... 15
FIG. 26: PLOT OF MODULI AND YIELD STRESSES OF TABLE 6. ................................................................. 15
FIG. 27: PLOT OF SPECIFIC STIFFNESSES (IN MPA.M3/KG)...................................................................... 16
FIG. 28: F.E.M. ESTIMATION OF PROPERTIES........................................................................................... 17
FIG. 29: RELATIVE STIFFNESSES OF SANDWICH CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................ 18
FIG. 30: SCEMATIC PLY LAY-UP .............................................................................................................. 19
FIG. 31: VIEW ON THE PREPARATION OF THE SANDWICH ......................................................................... 19
FIG. 32: CURING CYCLE .......................................................................................................................... 20
FIG. 33: SANDWICH COMING OUT OF SABENAS AUTOCLAVE............................................................... 21
FIG. 34: SQUARE PROTOTYPE SANDWICHPANEL ..................................................................................... 21

-23-

CMS-TN xxx

I.I.H.E Brussels

7. List of Tables
TABLE 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 8
TABLE 4 .................................................................................................................................................... 9
TABLE 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 10
TABLE 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 10
TABLE 7:

CONSTITUENT MATERIAL PROPERTIES ...................................................................................... 11

TABLE 8: DENSITY CALCULATIONS AND MEASURMENTS ......................................................................... 12

TABLE 9: MODULI AND YIELD STRESSES ................................................................................................. 13
TABLE 10: MODULI AND YIELD STRESSES IN BENDING............................................................................ 15
TABLE 11: SPECIFIC STIFFNESSES (IN MPA.M3/KG) ................................................................................ 16
TABLE 12: RESULTS OF FEA COMPARED TO EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (MODULI IN GPA)....................... 17

-24-

CMS-TN xxx

I.I.H.E Brussels

8. REFERENCES
[1] The compact muon solenoid, status report and milestones.
CERN/LHCC 94-20
24 may 94
[2] M.F. Ashby Materials selection in mechanical design
Institute of metals London 1988
[3] A. Kelly 1987 Phil. Trans Roy. Soc.
London A322 409-423
[4] Composites Volume 1
Engineering Material Handbook ASM International
[5] C. Hauviller Advance Materials for high precision detectors
[6] S. Foeg / SH Introduction to advance composite structures
Technical services ALS 6-22-82
[7] D. Van Hemelrijck Contribution to the development of thermoelasticity for the
experimental mechanics of composite systems VUB 1992
[8] Niel W. Hansen Carbon fibers
Hercules Aerospace company
[9] I. Verpoest Cursusboek Compositematerialen
[10] Hexcel Technical service bulletins-honeycomb TSB 124
Bonded honeycomb sandwich constructions
[11] The advance composite group England
PSD 1039/12 93/2
[12] Euro-composites systems Luxembourg
Technical notes

-25-