REHAB Tech- Monash Rehabilitation Technology Research Unit assume no liability for any

claim of adverse effects resulting from misapplication of the information presented here in.
While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the guide no responsibility or liability
will be taken for any inaccuracies.

REHABTech is finance and supported by

In collaboration with

Copyright 1998
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Requests for permission to make copies of any part of the work should be addressed to:

REHAB Tech- Monash Rehabilitation Technology Research Unit

C/- C.G.M.C.
260 - 294 Kooyong Road
CAULFIELD VIC 3162
AUSTRALIA
Email rehab.tech@eng.monash.edu.au
Laminated Socket Properties Project.
Written by Kaisha Smith in collaboration with Ross Stewart and with assistance from
David Stone, Bill Contoyannis and John Cumbo.
Project definition.
The project aim was to achieve objective, comparative results for a defined range of "typical" laminations used
in Prosthetics and Orthotics and be able to determine the strengths of some of the layups currently used in the
industry.

Method.
Lamination manufacture. To determine the "typical" lamination/s which would be manufactured and tested, a
survey of a number of Victorian Prosthetic and Orthotic centres was conducted.
From the survey, a single "typical" lamination layup was unable to be defined, and three "typical" laminations
were chosen (Layups 1, 2, 3). Another lamination layup which was manufactured, was defined by Rehab-Tech
following discussion on ideal layups for strength etc (Layup 4).
All laminations were manufactured with Acrylic resin. We attempted to vary the fibre/resin ratio by increasing
and decreasing the amount of resin used. (see Table)
Lamination Layup Aim The laminations were manufactured on a PVC pipe (100
1 Nyglass * 1 Normal mm diameter and 500 mm in length)
Fibreglass * 6 Laminating on the PVC pipe resulted in the tension in the
Nyglass * 1 fibres being more uniform than laminating a patellar tendon
2 Nyglass * 8 Normal bearing socket.
3 Cotton stockinette * 2 Normal The lamination was removed from the PVC pipe by
Fibreglass * 6 "tapping" off the laminate cylinder and were cut to size for
Cotton stockinette * 2
testing.
4 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Normal
Filler * 2
Testing of the laminations. For the compression test a 50
Fibreglass x-weave * 2 mm length of lamination cylinder was used whilst a 200
Nylon stocking mm length of lamination (approximately 78 mm in width)
5 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Resin rich was tested for the flexural test. Each test piece (both
Filler * 2 compression and flexural) was weighed and measured. The
Fibreglass x-weave * 2 compression test gave an indication of comparative
6 Nyglass * 8 Resin rich lamination strength whilst the flexural test provided us with
7 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Fibre rich results which can be related to the clinical situation of
Filler * 2 socket loading.
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
8 Nyglass 8 Fibre rich
Conclusion.
Three factors seem to govern how a lamination performs in compression and flexion: 1. lamination thickness; 2.
fibres used; and 3. volume fraction. All laminations were able to carry a very large load in compression, 2500N;
however it seems there are laminations that can be recommended where certain properties required. ie. socket
loads mainly in compression (low activity level patient) - any of the layups tested could be used, however socket
loads in compression and flexion (high activity patient) - Layup 4 ( optimum) should be used.
Lamination 2 (8 * Nyglass) performed poorly in the tests conducted. Although it recorded a flexural modulus
on par with the other laminations, its recorded values for stiffness in compression and flexion and flexural
modulus were the lowest of all other laminations. Therefore it is recommended that Layup 2 not used.
Although the volume fraction can be varied, clinically it is not worth the effort beyond that which can be easily
achieved with current methods. Due to thickness and fibre type having more effect on the "stiffness" (recorded
values of compression and flexural modulus in this project) of a lamination. Increasing the thickness of a
lamination by using a filler in the lamination is recommended to increase the "stiffness" of the lamination.
The best layup tested is the following Fibreglass x-weave * 2, Filler * 2, Fibreglass x-weave * 2.

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 2

CONTENTS
CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
PROJECT DEFINITION. .................................................................................................................................. 4
METHOD........................................................................................................................................................... 4
Lamination manufacture....................................................................................................................... 4
TESTING OF THE LAMINATIONS. ............................................................................................................... 8
Compression tests................................................................................................................................. 8
Flexural tests. ....................................................................................................................................... 9
RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................... 10
TECHNICAL RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 11
COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS. .................................................................................................................. 11
FLEXURAL TEST RESULTS........................................................................................................................... 14
Flexural Test Set up ............................................................................................................................. 14
CONCLUSIONS OF TECHNICAL RESULTS................................................................................................. 20
DISCUSSION. ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Volume fractions. (refer to Table 2 for figures) ................................................................................... 21
Density of laminations. (refer to Table 2 for figures)........................................................................... 21
Lamination stiffnesss - Compression test. (refer to Graph 1 for figures)............................................. 22
Lamination stiffnesss - Bending test. (refer to Graph 4 and 5............................................................. 22
Lamination thicknesses. (refer to Table 4 for figures and Graph 3) ..................................................... 22
CONCLUSION. ................................................................................................................................................. 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................. 24
APPENDIX 1. - SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES. ........................................................................ 25
APPENDIX 2. - TEST LAMINATION DETAILS............................................................................................ 31
APPENDIX 3. - LAMINATION TEST PIECES DETAILS. ............................................................................ 33
APPENDIX 4. - CALCULATIONS OF VOLUME FRACTIONS.................................................................... 34
............................................................................................................................................................................ 35
APPENDIX 5. - COMPRESSION TEST GRAPHS. .........................................................................................43
APPENDIX 6. - FLEXURAL TEST GRAPHS. ................................................................................................ 44
APPENDIX 7. - .................................................................................................................................................. 45
CALCULATIONS OF 2ND MOMENT OF INERTIA FOR ARC CROSS SECTION .................................... 45
CALCULATION OF STRESS AND MODULAS FOR FLEXION TEST ....................................................... 45
APPENDIX 8. - SAMPLE CALCULATION OF YOUNG MODULAS FOR COMPRESSION. .................... 55
APPENDIX 9. - BUDGET FOR PROJECT. ..................................................................................................... 56

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 3

PROJECT DEFINITION.
The project aim was to achieve objective, comparative results for a defined range of "typical" laminations used
in Prosthetics and Orthotics and be able to determine the strengths of some of the layups currently used in the
industry.
A lamination, in Prosthetics and Orthotics, is a composite consisting of filler material held together by a resin
matrix. A resin transfer lamination method is used to laminate sockets in Prosthetics and Orthotics. The material
layup is positioned between two PVA bags - an inner and outer. The inner bag is positioned on the cast or object
over which the lamination will be formed, dividing the lamination from the object allowing easier removal of the
lamination. Expelling air from the layup of materials through applying vacuum (achieved through the positioning
of the outer bag which prevents air from being drawn in and resin from escaping) allows a complete lamination
matrix to be formed.
A layup may comprise of several different materials eg. w layers of dacron, x layers of stockinette, y layers of
glass fibres and z layers of stockinette. Resin is available in several types - the two most commonly used in
Prosthetics and Orthotics being acrylic and polyester. The layup and the amount and type of resin used in a
Prosthetic or Orthotic lamination is dependent on the lamination requirements ie. the requirements of the
amputee. eg. the extremely active trans femoral amputee with a laminated socket has quite different requirements
to the below-elbow amputee.
For the purposes of this project the lamination we refer to is, the lamination manufactured for a trans tibial
socket.

METHOD.

Lamination manufacture.

To determine the "typical" lamination/s which would be manufactured and tested, a survey of a number of
Victorian Prosthetic and Orthotic centres was conducted. Those surveyed were:
* Caulfield General Medical Centre - 3 prosthetists
* Orthopaedic Techniques - 1 prosthetist
* Ballarat Queen Elizabeth - 1 prosthetist
* St Vincents Hospital - 1 prosthetist
* Royal Childrens Hospital - 1 prosthetist
* Austin Hospital (Royal Talbot) - 1 prosthetist
* Anne Caudel Centre (Geelong) - 1 prosthetic technician
The survey questions, a summary of the responses can be found in Appendix 1.
From the survey, variations in laminations in both layup and resin used between facilities and prosthetists can
be seen. Although similarities in the reinforcing products, resin types and % catalyst used exist, a single "typical"
lamination layup was unable to be defined, and three "typical" laminations were chosen. The three "typical"
layups (all manufactured with Acrylic resin) were:
- Layup 1 1 layer Nyglass, 6 layers Fibreglass stockinette, 1 layer Nyglass
- Layup 2 8 layers Nyglass
- Layup 3 2 layers Cotton stockinette, 6 layers Fibreglass stockinette, 2 layers Cotton
stockinette
Another lamination layup which was manufactured, was defined by Rehab-Tech (following discussion on ideal
layups for strength etc):
- Layup 4 2 layers Fibreglass cross-weave, 2 layers "filler" (cotton stockinette),
2 layers Fibreglass cross-weave
By using more and then less resin in laminations with the same layup, it was predicted that the fibre/resin ratio
would decrease and increase. As well as the four above mentioned layups (which will be referred to as
Laminations 1, 2 3, and 4 respectively), four other laminations were manufactured - two laminations - 5 (Layup
4) and 6 (Layup 1) using 100 gm more resin than the previous four laminations and two laminations - 7 (Layup 4)
and 8 (Layup 1) using 50 gm less resin. (see Table 1)

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 4

 Lamination Layup Aim
1 Nyglass * 1 Normal
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
2 Nyglass * 8 Normal
3 Cotton stockinette * 2 Normal
Fibreglass * 6
Cotton stockinette * 2
4 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Normal
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
Nylon stocking
5 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Resin rich
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
6 Nyglass * 8 Resin rich
7 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Fibre rich
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
8 Nyglass 8 Fibre-rich
Table 1.

The resin and materials used to manufacture the laminations were determined from the survey (a summary can
be found in Appendix 1). The products used were:
Nyglass - IPOS 0413 = 4"
Fibreglass stockinette - 616G3 = 10
Cotton stockinette - IPOS 0410 = 4"
Fibreglass cross-weave - 616G13 = 8
Acrylic resin - Orthocryl (80:20) 611H19
Resin catalyst - 617P37 = 0,150
PVA bags = 8"
The laminations were manufactured on a PVC pipe (100 mm diameter and 500 mm in length). The cylindrical
shape was determined firstly by the testing facility at Monash University and secondly by the diameter of the
material required so the fibres would be placed under tension. Laminating on the PVC pipe resulted in the
tension in the fibres being more uniform than in the lamination of a patellar tendon bearing socket because of the
cylindrical shape.
In order to prevent pooling of the resin, one end of the PVC pipe was rounded by filling a silicon liner with
plaster. Figure 1 shows how this was achieved. Each of the four PVC pipes were modified in this way.

Figure 1.

In order to achieve vacuum, the unplastered end of the PVC pipe was capped with a PVC cap, and vacuum
holes were drilled approximately 50 mm above the cap edge. A brass vacuum connection was also placed into
the PVC pipe, approximately 25 mm above the cap edge. (see Figure 2)

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 5

 Figure 2.

The cap was taped onto the PVC pipe to eliminate air from being drawn into the pipe. A PVA bag was then
pulled over the PVC pipe. After having difficulty in removing Laminations 1 and 2, the following laminations
had the PVA bag was taped just above the vacuum holes under stretch, and the pipe and plaster vaselined before
pulling on the PVA bag. The layup materials (with one end stitched - see Figure 3) were then pulled onto the
pipe and placed under tension (sometimes requiring to be taped down if they did not stretch the required 300 mm
(250 mm of good lamination was required for testing) - see Figure 4)

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

The weight of all layup materials used was recorded throughout the layup process.
Once all layup materials had been pulled onto the pipe, another PVA bag was pulled over the layup and taped
below the vacuum holes which were covered with dacron.
At this point the layup was ready to laminate. The resin was measured and the catalyst measured and added.
Once the catalyst had been mixed well into the resin, the vacuum was turned on and the resin poured between the
two bags. (see Figure 5)

Figure 5.

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 6

 The resin was drawn through the layup by the vacuum, with some of the resin forced into the top of the layup to
keep the resin being drawn through, level on each aspect of the pipe. The outside bag was tied off above the
resin once the resin had been poured in to prevent air from being drawn in. (see Figure 6) Once the resin had
reached approximately 300 mm below the plaster cone the outside bag was tied off a second time with the
remaining resin proximal to the plaster cone above this tie. (see Figure 6)

Figure 6.

The resin in the lamination was then "strung" through the layup materials. For laminations 1 - 4 the resin was
"pulled" through the layup materials to the extent that there was no areas of pooling ie. excess resin could not be
seen above the layup materials. Laminations 5 and 6 were manufactured to have more resin in the lamination
than Laminations 4 and 1. In these laminations the resin was not "pulled" through the layup materials but it was
manipulated so that areas of pooling did not occur. In these laminations, it could be clearly seen that there was a
significant amount of resin between the outside PVA bag and the outer layup material. For the laminations (7
and 8) which were manufactured to have less resin in the lamination, the resin was "pulled" through the layup
materials until there was no excess resin in the lamination. Once there was no areas of pooling the lamination
was left to harden.
The lamination was removed from the PVC pipe in the following manner. The outer PVA bag was removed
and then the cast cutter was used to cut the lamination through to the PVC pipe at a point approximately 300 mm
below the proximal edge of the PVC pipe. (see Figure 7) The distal end of the lamination was removed from the
pipe and then the rest of the lamination tapped off the pipe with a hammer and plastic block. (An attempt was
made to blow the first lamination off the PVC pipe but it was decided that after this lamination became a
projectile that it was not the safest means of removing the lamination. Lamination 2 proved some what difficult
to tap off, and as a result (as mentioned previously) the PVC pipe was vaselined before the inside PVA bag was
pulled over the pipe.)

Figure 7.

The first attempt at laminating Layup 3 was on a very humid and hot day. The hot day and a new tin of resin are
thought to be the factors causing the PVC pipe to softened and distort (the vacuum collapsed the cylindrical
shape). As a result, less catalyst was used in subsequent laminations.
A second attempt at laminating Layup 4 was made after a hole in the outside bag in the first attempt resulted in a
soft lamination.
Once the eight laminations were completed, they were cut to test size using a lathe and a band saw by David
Stone. (see Figure 8)

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 7

 Figure 8.

For the compression test a 50 mm length of lamination was used whilst a 200 mm length of lamination was used
for the flexural test.
Each test piece (both compression and flexural) were weighed and measured, the values for which can be found
in Appendix 2.

The compression test gives an indication of comparative lamination strength whilst the flexural test provided us
with results which can be related to the clinical situation of socket loading.

TESTING OF THE LAMINATIONS.

Testing of the lamination pieces was completed with the use of a Instrom TT-BM testing machine. (located at
Monash University) A compression and flexural test was performed on each lamination type.

Compression tests.
The compression test piece (see Figure 8) was positioned in the Instrom TT-BM on the cross-head. The
machine variables (full scale load, cross-head speed - the speed at which the lamination piece was loaded onto
the bottom load cell - and chart speed) were then set and the lamination piece compression. The Instrom
produced a graph detailing load versus displacement. The graphs for the compression tests can be found in
Appendix 5.
The variable settings for each test were as follows:
* Trial 1 - Lamination 3 test piece - the full scale load was set to 5,000N. The cross-head speed was 1
cm/min or 1 mm/6 sec. The chart speed was 20 cm/min, from which we can calculate the rate of compression of
the lamination piece ie. for every 20 mm of chart movement, 1 mm of compression of the piece occurred.
* Trial 2 - Lamination 3 test piece. The full scale load was increased to 10,000N and the chart speed
was increased to 50 cm/min (50 mm chart movement : 1 mm compression of lamination piece). The cross-head
speed remained the same as in Trial 1.
* Tests 1 - 8 tested Lamination pieces 1 - 8 (not in numerical order). The full scale load was increased
to 25,000N whilst the cross-head speed and chart speed remained unchanged from Trial 2.

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 8

Flexural tests.
Figure 9 shows the position of the lamination piece for the flexural test. See Appendix 6 for the graphs from the
flexural tests.

Three Point Flexion Test

L
2

Sample 25 mm dia rod

Load Cell

Figure 9.

The variables for each lamination piece were:

* Trial 1 - Lamination 1 test piece. Full scale load was set at 5,000N, cross-head speed at 1 cm/min (1
mm/6 sec) and chart speed at 20 cm/min (20 mm chart movement for 1 mm compression).
* Trial 2 - Lamination 5 test piece. Full scale load and chart speed remained unchanged however the
cross-head speed was increased to 5 cm/min (5 mm/6 sec).
* Tests 1 and 2 tested Laminations 1 and 2. The conditions were as those which were used in Trial 2.
* Tests 3 - 8 tested Laminations 3 - 8. In these tests the full scale load was increased to 25,000N but the
cross-head and chart speeds remained the same.

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 9

RESULTS.
Summary of lamination fibre volume fraction
and density
Lamination Layup Aim Vf c
(gm/cm3)
1 Nyglass * 1 Normal 0.301 1.454
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
2 Nyglass * 8 Normal 0.172 1.371
3 Cotton stockinette * 2 Normal 0.350 1.341
Fibreglass * 6
Cotton stockinette * 2
4 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Normal 0.395 1.587
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
Nylon stocking
5 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Resin rich 0.377 1.456
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
6 Nyglass * 1 Resin rich 0.267 1.340
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
7 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Fibre rich 0.482 1.674
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
8 Nyglass * 1 Fibre rich 0.400 1.433
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
Table 2.

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 10

TECHNICAL RESULTS

Ross Stewart

COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS.

Eight sample laminations were tested for compression loading. The samples were cylindrical in shape with a
inner radius of 51.5 mm. The outer radius varied upon the lamination. The length of each sample was 50 mm.
The force deflection plots for all laminations produced a linear profile. All laminations carried loads in
compression of 25,000 Newtons.

Summary of results for

Compression loading.

Lamination Layup Aim Vf Cross k stiffness - E

Sectional compression compression
Area
mm2 N/mm GPa
1 Nyglass * 1 Normal 0.301 777 11364 0.731
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
2 Nyglass * 8 Normal 0.172 825 11037 0.669
3 Cotton stockinette * 2 Normal 0.350 870 11520 0.662
Fibreglass * 6
Cotton stockinette * 2
4 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Normal 0.395 991 12019 .606
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
Nylon stocking
5 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Resin rich 0.377 1200 12500 0.519
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
6 Nyglass * 1 Resin rich 0.267 1040 12500 0.602
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
7 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Fibre rich 0.482 807 11160 0.691
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
8 Nyglass * 1 Fibre-rich 0.400 670 11363 0.847
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
Table 3. See Appendix 4 and 8 for calculations of Volume fraction and Modulas.

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 11

 Laminate Compression Stiffness
N/mm
12600

12400

12200

12000

11800

11600

11400

11200

11000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Fibre Volume Fraction

Lamination 1 Lamination 2 Lamination 3 Lamination 4

Lamination 5 Lamination 6 Lamination 7 Lamination 8

Graph 1.

From Table 1, no real difference in stiffness between the eight laminations is apparent. The resin rich
laminations (Laminations 5 and 6) displayed a higher stiffness in compression than the laminations with a higher
volume fraction of fibres (Laminations 7 and 8). This is attributed to the resin rich laminations having a greater
cross sectional area.
The cross sectional area seemed to dominate the laminate stiffness - those with larger cross sectional areas
having a higher stiffness. The order of stiffness seems to be linked directly to the order of largest cross sectional
area, rather than laminate composition. This is expected, due to the structural properties, in compression, being
influenced by the matrix or resin type. As the type resin is constant with all of the laminates tested, the geometric
properties would be the most influencing factor. Laminate 2 is an exception to this and displays a poor laminate
stiffness under compression.
Regardless of fibre volume fraction or laminate type, all samples exhibited less than 10% difference in laminate
stiffness under compression.

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 12

 Compression Modulas
Modulas
GPa
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Fibre Volume Fraction

Lamination 1 Lamination 2 Lamination 3 Lamination 4

Lamination 5 Lamination 6 Lamination 7 Lamination 8

Graph 2

The effect of varying the fibre volume fraction followed what would be predicted by theory.

Ec=EfVf+EmVm Rule of mixtures

This predicts a linear change in Ec with Vf. As Vf increases Ec increases as Ef>>Em. This is clearly seen in
Table ?? for both lamination types for which we varied the volume fraction.
The magnitude of the modulus appears to be of far smaller values than expected.

Laminated Socket Properties Project. 13

FLEXURAL TEST RESULTS.
Flexural Test Set up
A three point flexural test was conducted. Due to the some of the fibres being in a tubular format ( for ease in
prosthetic manufacture), the test samples were constructed on the same round mandrel as the for the compression
test samples. This allowed the fibres to be in the same format as would occur in a regular laminated socket.
These were cut length ways to a arc cross section (see fig 10). A rectangular cross section would have been
preferred.

Three Point Flexion Test Test Sample Cross Section

Y
176 mm
53.8 mm

88 mm
o
96
X

40 mm
51.5 mm

Sample 25 mm dia rod

Load Cell

Figure 10

Sectional Properties Of The Flexion Test Samples

Lamination Layup Aim Vf Thickness I11
mm x 103
mm4
1 Nyglass * 1 Normal 0.301 2.347 5.45
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
2 Nyglass * 8 Normal 0.172 2.489 8.01
3 Cotton stockinette * 2 Normal 0.350 2.621 5.86
Fibreglass * 6
Cotton stockinette * 2
4 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Normal 0.395 2.977 6.14
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
Nylon stocking
5 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Resin rich 0.377 3.597 12.5
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
6 Nyglass * 1 Resin rich 0.267 3.114 11.9
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1
7 Fibreglass x-weave * 2 Fibre rich 0.482 2.438 7.53
Filler * 2
Fibreglass x-weave * 2
8 Nyglass * 1 Fibre-rich 0.400 2.032 5.04
Fibreglass * 6
Nyglass * 1

Table 4
 Lamination thicknesses
thickness
mm
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lamination
Graph 3

The force deflection plots for the three point flexion tests were not linear as expected. There are two possible
causes for this;
The section shape caused problems in the tests as local buckling occurred across the sample width. The
changing the cross sectional properties. Effecting both maximum stress and stiffness values (see equations
below)
The sample slipping over the supports as deflection increased, causing an increase to the sample length.
Effecting the stiffness of the value (see equations below).
My
=
I
48 EI
K = 3 , Rourke and Young table 3, 1e.
l
Both of these problems would be more apparent in a less rigid sample which is demonstrated by the results. No
sample fractured, although excessive deformation is apparent, with a maximum load occurring, failure being of a
buckling nature.
Even though the test did not produce the desired results, as far as specific fracture stress and flexural Modulas,
the properties of the samples can still be effectively gauged against one another.
Values for the test samples flexion stiffness, maximum stress and modulas have been calculated assuming a linear
force deflection plot, using the initial slope (tangent of plot) of the force deflection plot.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

15
 "Laminate Flexion Stiffness"
Comparing different Layups
1800.00
Lam 4

1600.00

1400.00

Lam 7
1200.00
Stiffness, N/mm

1000.00
Lam 5

800.00

Lam 1
600.00
Lam 1

Lam 2
400.00
Lam 3 Lam 8

200.00

0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Volume Fraction Vf

Lam 1 Lam 2 Lam 3 Lam 4 Lam 5 Lam 1 Lam 7 Lam 8

Graph 4.
The Rehab Tech suggested or optimum, laminate (lamination 4, 5 &7) displayed a higher stiffness than any of the
other laminates. This laminate has a stiffness more than thirty percent higher than any of the others tested.

Laminate Flexion Stiffness

Effect Of Fibre Volume Fraction
1800.00
Stiffness,
Lam RT
N/mm
1600.00

1400.00

Optimal Lam RT
1200.00

1000.00

Lam RT
800.00

600.00 Lam A
Lam A
Typical
400.00
Lam A

200.00

0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Volume Fraction

Graph 5.

The strength and modulas of a sample should increase with an increase in fibre volume fraction. This should
produce an increase in stiffness with an increase in fibre volume fraction. This did not occur for the Typical

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

16
lamination. As with the compression tests stiffness is greatly influenced by the thickness of the test sample.
Therefore resin rich, but thicker samples generally performed better than samples with a higher volume fraction,
but smaller thickness. The optimal lamination had mixed results varying the volume fraction. The optimum
lamination still out performed the typical prosthetists lamination.

Summary Of Flexion Stiffness Results

Values in italics are for the initial slope of the force deflection plots

Lamination Layup Vf k
stiffness -
flexion
N/mm
1 Typical 0.301 566.67
2 0.172 434.78
3 0.350 375.00
4 Optimum 0.395 1666.67
5 Optimum 0.377 909.09
6 Typical 0.267 625.00
7 Optimum 0.482 1250.00
8 Typical 0.400 366.67
Table 5

Flexural Modulus
Comparing Different Layups
50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

Lam 4
30.0
Modulas GPa

25.0

20.0
Lam 7

15.0

Lam 1
10.0
Lam 5
Lam 8
Lam 2 Lam 6 Lam 3
5.0

0.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Volume Fraction Vf
Lam 1 Lam 2 Lam 3 Lam 4 Lam 5 Lam 6 Lam 7 Lam 8

Graph 6.

Similar to the stiffness, the optimum laminate (Lamination 4) has a much higher modulus than the other
laminations in flexion.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

17
 Flexural Modulas
Comparing The Effects Of Volume Fraction

50.0

45.0

40.0

35.0

Lam RT
30.0
Modulas GPa

25.0 Optimal

20.0

Lam RT
15.0

Lam A
10.0
Typical Lam A
Lam RT
Lam A
5.0

0.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Volume Fraction Vf

Graph 7

The effect of fibre volume fraction does not appear to greatly influence the modulus. This goes against the
theory where the rule of mixtures predicts a linear increase in modulus with an increase in fibre volume fraction.
Ec=EfVf+EmVm Rule of mixtures
A possible increase is apparent in the optimum lamination however in the typical lamination a slight decrease is
apparent going against the theory. A possible reason for the loss may be due to the fibreglass used in this
lamination having few fibres aligned in the direction of loading, resulting in the matrix carrying a large part of
the load.
Summary Of Flexural Modulas

Lamination Layup Vf E
flexion
GPa
1 Typical 0.301 11.8
2 0.172 6.2
3 0.350 7.3
4 Optimum 0.395 30.8
5 Optimum 0.377 8.3
6 Typical 0.267 5.9
7 Optimum 0.482 18.9
8 Typical 0.400 8.3
Table 6.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

18
 Maximum Flexural Stress
Compression

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

-5

-10
Lam 2

Lam 6 Lam 8
-15

Lam 3
Stress MPa

Typical
-20

Lam 1
Lam 7
-25

Optimal
Lam 5
-30

-35

Lam 4
-40
Volume Fraction Vf

Lam 1 Lam 2 Lam 3 Lam 4 Lam 5 Lam 6 Lam 7 Lam 8

Graph 8.
Maximum Flexural Stress
Tension

60

Lam 4

50

40

Optimal
Stress MPa

30
Lam 1 Lam 7

Lam 3
20
Typical
Lam 8
Lam 5
10
Lam 2 Lam 6

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Volume Fraction Vf

Lam 1 Lam 2 Lam 3 Lam 4 Lam 5 Lam 6 Lam 7 Lam 8

Graph 9.
As expected the optimum lamination again carried a larger magnitude ( Note graph 8 is a negative scale) of load
than the other laminations. Almost double the stress of the others.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

19
Again the rule of mixtures can be applied to maximum stress criteria.
c=fVf+mVm Rule of mixtures
Even though the results do not produce a linear line as expected the maximum stress does increase with fibre
volume fraction in tension. The reverse is true for compression ( f >> m, therefore c should increase with an
increase in fibre volume fraction).

Summary Of Maximum Stress Due To Bending

Lamination Layup Aim Vf Maximum Stress Stress

Load compression tension
(Bending
Moment)
Nm MPa MPa
1 Typical Normal 0.301 15.84 -22.8 26.6
2 Normal 0.172 10.12 -10.9 8.02
3 Normal 0.350 14.74 -17.4 20.9
4 Optimum Normal 0.395 34.1 -39.2 54.4
5 Optimum Resin rich 0.377 41.8 -30.3 14.8
6 Typical Resin rich 0.267 19.228 -14.2 9.67
7 Optimum Fibre rich 0.482 24.2 -24.4 24.6
8 Typical Fibre-rich 0.400 9.68 -13.7 15.7
Table 7

CONCLUSIONS OF TECHNICAL RESULTS

The optimised lay up had better structural characteristics than the other laminations tested. This was very
apparent in the flexural results. The effect of fibre volume fraction is inconsistent in the laminations tested.
Although in the optimal lamination there was a general trend to follow the rule of mixtures. However no
lamination with a fibre volume fraction below 30 to of 35 % was very effective. The wall thickness of the
lamination seemed to dominate the structural variables. With thicker laminations of the same layup being
stronger than thinner laminations (reverse of rule of mixtures). This does not mean a thick poor lamination is
better than a thinner better fibre lamination.

The method of testing the laminations gave good qualitative results, however quantitative values are dubious.
Especially for flexural testing. The flexural tests should have been performed with a rectangular cross section
samples, with a method to stop slipping used.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

20
DISCUSSION.
Volume fractions. (refer to Table 2 for figures)
The aim for laminations 5 and 6 and laminations 7 and 8 was to decrease and increase the volume fraction (or
the resin : fibre ratio). It was expected that by varying the amount of measured resin used in the laminations, the
volume fraction could be changed. The volume fractions for Laminations 4, 5, 7 and 1, 6, 8 where the measured
amount of resin was increased and then decreased, show that the volume fraction could be changed, however the
amount of increase and decrease in volume fraction could not be controlled.
Where the measured amount of resin used was 50 gm less (Laminations 7 and 8) the volume fraction increased
0.087 from 0.395 to 0.482 and 0.099 from 0.301 to 0.400 respectively. The decrease in volume fraction for
Laminations 5 and 6 (where the measured resin was 100 gm than the corresponding laminations (4 and 1)) was
much less than those reported where the amount of measured resin was increased. The volume fractions being
0.018 and 0.034 respectively.
Of Laminations 1 - 4, where the amount of measured resin remained constant whilst the layup materials
changed, it is interesting to note the differences in volume fractions recorded. The Laminations in increasing
order of volume fraction recorded are: Laminations 2, 1, 3, and 4. If we compare the number of layers in each
layup, Lamination 1 - 8, Lamination 2 - 8, Lamination 3 - 10, and Lamination 4 - 6, we can see that it is the type
of material/s in the layup that cause the difference in the amount of resin absorbed in the lamination rather than
the number of layers, as Lamination 2 had the same number of layers as Lamination 1 and less than Lamination 3
however its volume fraction was considerably lower than the other three Laminations mentioned. It could be said
of the material Nyglass that it "holds" or absorbs more resin than the other materials used in the layups.
It is also interesting to note that all Laminations with Layup 4 (ie. 4, 5 and 7) consistently had a higher volume
fraction than Layups 1, 2 and 3. Thus it could be said of this layup that it "hold" or absorbs less resin than the
other materials used.

Density of laminations. (refer to Table 2 for figures)

The density of the lamination tells us the mass per unit volume of each lamination. All laminations had a
density in the range of 1.34 to 1.674 g/cm 2. Generally the optimal designed lamination had a higher density.
This would be expected as they had a higher volume fraction of fibres to resin. The larger number of heavier
fibres account for this. Where weight is a factor to be considered in a lamination, one would chose the
lamination with the best density to strength ration, or specific strength and specific modulas. Again the optimal
lamination is the best with significant advantages over the other laminations.

Lamination Density Spec stiffness Spec E

g/cm 2 N/mm/ (g/cm 2) GPa/( g/cm 2)
1 1.45 389.73 7.77
2 1.37 317.13 6.00
3 1.34 279.64 5.04
4 1.59 1050.20 17.29
5 1.46 624.38 8.76
6 1.34 466.42 7.36
7 1.67 746.71 14.37
8 1.43 255.87 5.70

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

21
Lamination stiffnesss - Compression test. (refer to Graph 1 for figures)
In the compression tests the highest stiffness value of 12500 N/mm was recorded by Laminations 5 and 6 -
manufactured to be resin rich. This is most likely due to these laminations exhibiting a bigger cross-sectional
area (see Table 3), however the difference in cross-sectional area between all eight laminations was less than
12%. The differences between Laminations 5 and 6 occur only in the layup as the amount of resin measured for
use was 100 gm more than the corresponding layups used in Laminations 4 and 1 respectively. The layup for
Lamination 5 was 4 fibreglass cross-weave layers and 2 layers of filler whilst Lamination 6s layup consisted of 2
layers of Nyglass and 6 layers of fibreglass stockinette. Thus the difference in stiffness values in compression
could be due to either the difference in cross-sectional area across the eight laminations or the layup type.
Lamination 2 (8 layers of Nyglass) confounds the clarity of the idea that the higher stiffness value is possibly
due to the higher cross-sectional area because although it did not record the lowest cross-sectional area, it did
obtain the lowest stiffness value of all eight laminations -a stiffness of 11037.53 N/mm. Laminations 1, 7 and 8
all recorded a lower cross-sectional area than Lamination 2 however, they all obtained higher stiffness values.
A relationship between the volume fraction obtained in the Lamination and the stiffness value recorded is
apparent in Laminations 4, 5 and 7 where the amount of measured resin used was varied in an attempt to vary the
volume fraction. In these three laminations, the higher the stiffness value recorded the lower the volume fraction.
The other three laminations where we attempted to vary the volume fraction (Laminations 1, 6 and 8) almost
show the same relationship. Lamination 6 had the lowest volume fraction of the three laminations and it recorded
the highest stiffness value however Laminations 1 and 8 recorded the same stiffness value even though the
volume fractions for each were 0.301 and 0.400 respectively. Further tests of Laminations where the volume
fraction has been varied, I feel would prove that this relationship exists.

Lamination stiffnesss - Bending test. (refer to Graph 4 and 5

In bending the optimum lamination out performed any of the other laminations tested. Even though the effect of
different volume fractions did not vary the stiffness value as expected for these laminations at all three volume
fractions tested ( laminations 4,5,7) the optimal was significantly stiffer.

Lamination thicknesses. (refer to Table 4 for figures and Graph 3)

As expected Laminations 5 and 6, which were manufactured to be resin rich, recorded the highest thickness
when compared to the other six laminations. In comparison to the same layups (Laminations 4 and 1) these two
laminations were 0.620 mm and 0.767 mm thicker respectively.
Lamination 8 was the thinnest lamination of all eight laminations which is understandable as it was one of the
laminations to be manufactured as resin "dry" (less resin than its corresponding layup - Lamination 1)
The two laminations manufactured as resin "dry" - Laminations 7 and 8 - recorded measurements of 2.438 mm
and 2.032 mm respectively. These measurements were 0.539 mm and 0.315 mm thinner than their corresponding
layups - Laminations 4 and 1.

An extension of this project could involve testing different resin types.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

22
CONCLUSION.
Three factors seem to determine how a lamination performs in compression and flexion. These are: 1. the
thickness of the lamination; 2. the fibres used in the layup; and 3. the volume fraction. In straight compression
thickness is the governing factor closely followed by material type, and lastly volume fraction. Although all
laminations were able to carry a very large load, 25000N. It is apparent that there are laminations that can be
recommended where certain properties are required. Where the socket loads will be mainly loads in compression
ie. the low activity level patient, it seems any of the layups tested could be used, however where the loads will be
not only in compression but in flexion as well ie. high activity patient, Layup 4 ( the optimal lamination) would
be the layup to use. Layup 4 outperformed all other layups in flexural modulus values.
It would seem that the thicker we can make the lamination the "stiffer" it can become. This is shown by the two
resin rich Laminations (5 and 6) recording the highest stiffness value in compression by 481N from Lamination 4
which was the 3rd thickest lamination, and Lamination 5 recording the highest stiffness value by 10.9N in the
flexural test. The thickness of a lamination could be increased through the use of a filler rather than resin which
occurred in this case, which has a low density so as not to increase the weight of the lamination in the process of
increasing the stiffness.
Layup 4 (Laminations 5, 4 and 7 in increasing order of volume fraction) recorded the highest stiffness values in
flexion - between 28.3 and 52N more than the other laminations. Thus where a lamination requires stiffness in
flexion then Layup 4 is recommended.
Lamination 2 (8 * Nyglass) performed poorly in the tests conducted. Although it recorded a flexural modulus
on par with the other seven laminations, its recorded values for stiffness in compression and flexion and flexural
modulus were the lowest of all other laminations. Therefore Layup 2 is not recommended.
The volume fraction can be varied by using more or less measured resin, however we cannot accurately control
the resulting volume fraction. Increasing the volume fraction (Laminations 7 and 8) did have an effect on the
recorded values of compression and flexural modulus however the thickness and material type seem to have a
greater influence. So apart from ensuring the lamination is not resin rich, no extra procedures are required to
maximise this property.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

23
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nui, M. C. Y.. 1992. Composite AirFrame Structures. The Technical Book Company, LA.

Roark. R.J., Young. W. C.. 1976. Formulas For Stress And Strain 5th Ed. McGraw-Hill
Book Company.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

24
APPENDIX 1. - SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES.

Survey questions.

In relation to a "typical" trans tibial laminated socket manufactured by your centre:

* What type of resin do you use?
Product name:
Supplier:
Catalogue no.:
*Do you mix your resin eg. flexible and rigid?
%s using:
*What % catalyst do you use?
%:
* What type of reinforcing material do you use?
Product name:
Supplier:
Catalogue no.:
* Do you strengthen areas of the lamination?
Areas strengthened:
Position in layup:
* What is the order of your layup?
eg. PVA. bag, 2 layers dacron, 2 layers stockinette, 6 layers glass fibre etc.
* What is the thickness of your "typical" socket?
No. of ml:
* What is the ratio of resin to fibres in you "typical" socket?
:
*Does each prosthetist vary in the type of lamination or does the centre have a set lamination
procedure?

Laminaed Socket Properties Project.

25
A summary of survey responses.

Centre Resin used Mix of resin % catalyst Reinforcement Strengthened Layup order Thickness Resin :
Fibres
CGMC Acrylic 80% rigid & Recommended Fibre glass Distal end - pt of 1 * 1/2 oz dacron 3 mm (2 mm to ? (is aware
Reis Surgical 20% flexible & a little bit Nyglass fastening for 2 Nyglass thin) that should
(Helmut Reis) Carbon fibre endo. Fibre glass or be more
- Prosthetists SC wings - pt. of carbon fibre - fibres and
vary. rivets and extend includes less resin
down to strengthening
hamstrings 2 Nyglass
(stress conc. Fibre glass
area) 2 Nyglass
7 - 8 pantihose
CGMC Orthocryl N/A Otto Bock Glasseide- 12 cm Wings - mid 2 Nyglass 3 - 4 mm ? (use 300 ml
(80/20) Powder (617 Nyglass (IPOS) - 6 popliteal to 1 Glass tube resin)
Standard unless P37) inch proximal brim 1 Nyglass
patient is heavy Glass
reinforcement
1 Nyglass
1 Glass tube
2 Nyglass
CGMC Orthocryl - N/A 3% Fibreglass Wings 2 Perlen stockinette 3 - 4 mm 400 gm
80:20 stockinette Distal end 6 Fibreglass
Generally the Degussa Woven carbon Popliteal area stockinette (stretch)
same layup, Degaplast fibre stockinette Around 4R63 2 Fibreglass
some slight IPOS stretch nylon attachment stockinette
variations stockinette 2 - 4 stretch nylon
Fibreglass stretch stockinette
stockinette
 Centre Resin used Mix of resin % catalyst Reinforcement Strengthened Layup order Thickness Resin :
Fibres
St Vs Orthocryl Varies 3 - 4% Fibre glass - roll Around 4R63 2 Cotton < 5 mm (3 - 4 ? (generally
Lamination between 30% form attachment stockinette - twist mm) uses 400 -
Set layup resin - rigid and rigid and 70% top 500 ml and
Acrylic resin - flexible and 6 Fibreglass - lets resin
flexible 40% rigid and varies draw itself)
60% flexible 2 Cotton
stockinette - twist
top (sometimes 0 or
1 (cosmetic))

Grace McKellar Polyester - N/A Polyester - 15 - Fibre glass weave 1/2 way up wings Experimenting at 3 mm (2.5 - 3
(Geelong) 80:20 (if rushed 18 ml for 500 Fibre glass mat and at popliteal the moment mm)
- acrylic) ml resin fossa level Interims -
Phil uses Acrylic - 2 stockinette
Set layup Orthocryl Bombed off 6 fibreglass weave
(dependent of
weight of pat.)
5 -6 layers fibre
glass mat between
fibreglass layers
Definitives -
4 fibreglass weave
2 fibreglass
stockinette

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 27

 Centre Resin used Mix of resin % catalyst Reinforcement Strengthened Layup order Thickness Resin :
Fibres
Royal Acrylic - N/A Varies 0/90 strand mat Distal for endo. 4 Nyglass Depends 2.5 mm ? Knows
Childrens Orthocryl depending on 0/90 fibre glass attachment 4 tape/mat under at AP about less
Hospital Sometimes temperature 1.5 tape Prox. and distal 4R63 resin more
epoxy 80:20 - 2% Carbon fibre tape to deepest point 4 layers tape/mat - fibres
Set layup - one (acrylic) Nyglass AP hole cut in middle
person facility Some polyester? Not usually on and forced over
SC wings, rely 4R63 and tied
on Nyglass 2-3 tape/mat AP
4 Nyglass
Fine stockings
Orthopaedic Acrylic - N/A 1 - 2% or max. Nyglass trikot P.M.L. wings Nyglass Trikot - Approx. 3 mm
Techniques Degaplast 80:20 3% dependent (PTB) no of layers
Layups vary but on humidity P.M.L. wings dependent on
usually due to and distal cap weight and
patient weight with Blatchford activity.
and activity components 10 layers normally
level
Queen Orthocryl N/A 2% Fibre glass matting Proximal brim Perlon 3.5 - 4 mm
Elizabeth woven (300g) and distal if Nyglass layers
Ballarat required Fibreglass
Layup varies dispensed between
dependent on Nyglass and Perlon
activity and
weight of
patient and if
endo. or
exoskeletal

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 28

 Centre Resin used Mix of resin % catalyst Reinforcement Strengthened Layup order Thickness Resin :
Fibres
Austin Acrylic - Just rigid 2 - 3% (as Fibreglass matting Prox. trim in 1 layer dacron 2 - 3 mm 400 ml per
Orthocryl 80:20 directed) PTS and distal extra dacron PTB
Set procedure around anchor - proximally
between 4 - 6 10 layers Nyglass
layers

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 29

A summary of suppliers and catalogue numbers of materials used.
Centre Resin Supplier
Catalogue Reinforcing Supplier Catalogue
no. material no.
CGMC Acrylic Reis Helmut Reis Fibreglass RF Services?
Surgical Nyglass Otto Bock
Carbon fibre cross
weave
CGMC Orthocryl Otto Bock 617 H19 Glasseide 12 cm Otto Bock 616 G3 = 12
Nyglass (IPOS) 6" Massons I 0867
CGMC Orthocryl Otto Bock 617 H19 Fibreglass stock. Otto Bock 616G3/616G1
Degussa Reis Woven CF stock. Otto Bock 3
Degaplast Surgical IPOS stretch nylon Massons /616G14
stockinette 04 series
Fibreglass stretch Massons
nylon stockinette
St Vs Orthocryl - Otto Bock 617 H19 Fibreglass - Otto Bock 616 G3 =
lamination cylindrical roll form (width)
Acrylic resin -
flexible
Geelong Polyester - 80:20 Fibreglass mat
Royal Orthocryl - 80:20 Otto Bock 0/90 strand mat Reis surgical
Childrens Sometimes epoxy Nyglass stock. Local
Fibreglass tape
Carbon fibre tape
Orthopaedic Acrylic - Reis Nyglass Tikot Otto Bock 623T9=10 -
Techniques Degaplast Surgical 12 or 15 cm
Queen Orthocryl Otto Bock 617 H19 = Fibreglass matting RF services
Elizabeth 4600 Nyglass
Ballarat
Austin Orthocryl Otto Bock 617 H19 Fibreglass matting Otto Bock 616 G4
Nyglass

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 30

APPENDIX 2. - TEST LAMINATION DETAILS.
Test Lamination Material Weight Resin Catalyst Offcut (gm) Test "sockets"
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
Lamination 1 Nyglass 1 22 350 7 Material 414
Fibreglass 1 32 12
Fibreglass 2 24 Resin
Fibreglass 3 27 16
Fibreglass 4 26 Lamination
Fibreglass 5 26 38
Fibreglass 6 25
Nyglass 2 22
Lamination 2 Nyglass 1 22 400 8 Material 383
Nyglass 2 22 39
Nyglass 3 22 Resin
Nyglass 4 23 15
Nyglass 5 21 Lamination
Nyglass 6 22 191
Nyglass 7 22
Nyglass 8 22
Lamination 3 Cotton stockinette 1 11 350 7 Material 487
Cotton stockinette 2 12
Fibreglass 1 31 Resin
Fibreglass 2 27 10
Fibreglass 3 29 Lamination
Fibreglass 4 29 74
Fibreglass 5 27
Fibreglass 6 30
Cotton stockinette 3 11
Cotton stockinette 4 12
Lamination 4 Fibreglass x-weave 1 98 350 3 Material 607
Fibreglass x-weave 2 99 27
Filler 1 20 Resin
Filler 2 19 13
Fibreglass x-weave 3 98 Lamination
Fibreglass x-weave 4 98 135
Nylon stocking 11
Lamination 5 Fibreglass x-weave 1 100 450 6 Material 730
Fibreglass x-weave 2 99
Filler 1 26 Resin
Filler 2 29 9
Fibreglass x-weave 3 100 Lamination
Fibreglass x-weave 4 97 169

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 31

Test Lamination Material Weight Resin Catalyst Offcut (gm) Test "sockets"
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
Lamination 6 Nyglass 1 25 450 6 Material 538
Nyglass 2 27
Nyglass 3 25 Resin
Nyglass 4 30 9
Nyglass 5 37 Lamination
Nyglass 6 25 122
Nyglass 7 26
Nyglass 8 26
Lamination 7 Fibreglass x-weave 1 100 300 5 Material 541
Fibreglass x-weave 2 97
Filler 1 27 Resin
Filler 2 25 9
Fibreglass x-weave 3 98 Lamination
Fibreglass x-weave 4 98 200
Lamination 8 Nyglass 1 24 300 3 Material 403
Nyglass 2 27
Nyglass 3 30 Resin
Nyglass 4 32 9
Nyglass 5 29 Lamination
Nyglass 6 30 106
Nyglass 7 26
Nyglass 8 25

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 32

APPENDIX 3. - LAMINATION TEST PIECES DETAILS.
Lamination Test "sockets" Test pieces
no.
Total weight (gm) Compression Test Flexural Test Offcut
(gm) (gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
Lamination 1 414 57 55 55 117
Lamination 2 383 55 49 58 94
Lamination 3 487 61 55 56 60 110
Lamination 4 505 76 74 97 102
Lamination 5 730 94 71 83 96 188
Lamination 6 538 74 65 91 117
Lamination 7 541 64 65 88 126
Lamination 8 403 50 47 46 48 96

Test pieces Compression width Flexural length

All pieces 50 mm 200 mm
Compression diameter (") Flexural width
Lamination 1 0.09, 0.094, 0.09, 0.096, 0.092 78 mm
Lamination 2 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.095, 0.095 77 mm
Lamination 3 0.104, 0.104, 0.103, 0.105, 0.1 77.5 mm
Lamination 4 0.114, 0.124, 0.118, 0.115, 0.115 77.5 mm
Lamination 5 0.137, 0.145, 0.145, 0.142, 0.139 78 mm
Lamination 6 0.12, 0.123, 0.124, 0.126, 0.12 77 mm
Lamination 7 0.108, 0.087, 0.092, 0.093, 0.1 78 mm
Lamination 8 0.075, 0.075, 0.085, 0.083, 0.082 78 mm

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 33

APPENDIX 4. - CALCULATIONS OF VOLUME FRACTIONS.
Sample calculation for laminate 1
wc = 227g Total weight of sample
L = 201mm Length of sample
0.09 + 0.094 + 0.09 + 0.096 + 0.092
t=( ) 25.4
5
t = 2.347mm Average Thickness of sample

{
vc = L ( R 2 r 2 ) } Volume of the sample
R = 51.5mm + t R = 53.8mm Outside radius of the sample
r = 51.5mm Inside radius of the sample
vc = 156cm 3
wc
c = Density of the sample
vc
c = 1.45g / cm 3
m = 1.2 g / cm 3 Density of the resin (acrylic)
w f = 96 g Weight of fibres in the sample
w m = wc w f w m = 131g
wf wm
Wf = Wm =
wc wc
W f = 0.423 Wm = 0.577 Weight fraction of fibres and resin
c
Vm = V f = Vc Vm
m
V f = 0.3 Vm = 0.7 Volume Fraction of fibres and resin.

Material Weight, grams length, mm

Stockinette 4 180
Filler 7 150
Fibreglass 8 120
Sock
Fibreglass X 19 100
weave
Nyglass 7 180

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 34

Laminate 1
wc 227 .g
L 201 .mm

0.09 0.094 0.09 0.096 0.092 .

t inch
5
t = 2.347 mm
r 51.5 .mm

R r t
L. R r .
2 2
vc
3
v c = 156.125 cm

wc
c g
vc c = 1.454
3
cm

g
m 1.2 .
3
cm

wf 96 .g

wm wc wf
w m = 131 g
wf wm
Wf Wm
wc wc

W f = 0.423 W m = 0.577

c
Vm .W Vf 1 Vm
m m

V f = 0.301 V m = 0.699

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 35

Laminate 2
wc 242 .g
L 214 .mm

0.100 0.100 0.100 0.095 0.095 .

t inch
5
t = 2.489 mm
r 51.5 .mm

R r t
L. R r .
2 2
vc
3
v c = 176.535 cm

wc
c g
vc c = 1.371
3
cm

g
m 1.2 .
3
cm

wf 66.67 .g

wm wc wf
w m = 175.33 g
wf wm
Wf Wm
wc wc

W f = 0.275 W m = 0.725

c
Vm .W Vf 1 Vm
m m

V f = 0.172 V m = 0.828

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 36

Laminate 3
wc 238 .g
L 204 .mm

0.104 0.104 0.103 0.105 0.100 .

t inch
5
t = 2.621 mm
r 51.5 .mm

R r t
L. R r .
2 2
vc
3
v c = 177.437 cm

wc
c g
vc c = 1.341
3
cm

g
m 1.2 .
3
cm

wf 99.7 .g

wm wc wf
w m = 138.3 g
wf wm
Wf Wm
wc wc

W f = 0.419 W m = 0.581

c
Vm .W Vf 1 Vm
m m

V f = 0.35 V m = 0.65

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 37

Laminate 4
wc 412 .g
L 262 .mm

0.114 0.124 0.118 0.115 0.115 .

t inch
5
t = 2.977 mm
r 51.5 .mm

R r t
L. R r .
2 2
vc
3
v c = 259.671 cm

wc
c g
vc c = 1.587
3
cm

g
m 1.2 .
3
cm

wf 223.6 .g

wm wc wf
w m = 188.4 g
wf wm
Wf Wm
wc wc

W f = 0.543 W m = 0.457

c
Vm .W Vf 1 Vm
m m

V f = 0.395 V m = 0.605

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 38

Laminate 5
wc 356 .g
L 203 .mm

0.137 0.145 0.145 0.142 0.139 .

t inch
5
t = 3.597 mm
r 51.5 .mm

R r t
L. R r .
2 2
vc
3
v c = 244.504 cm

wc
c g
vc c = 1.456
3
cm

g
m 1.2 .
3
cm

wf 173.2 .g

wm wc wf
w m = 182.8 g
wf wm
Wf Wm
wc wc

W f = 0.487 W m = 0.513

c
Vm .W Vf 1 Vm
m m

V f = 0.377 V m = 0.623

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 39

Laminate 6
wc 331 .g
L 238 .mm

0.120 0.123 0.124 0.126 0.120 .

t inch
5
t = 3.114 mm
r 51.5 .mm

R r t
L. R r .
2 2
vc
3
v c = 247.072 cm

wc
c g
vc c = 1.34
3
cm

g
m 1.2 .
3
cm

wf 113.7 .g

wm wc wf
w m = 217.3 g
wf wm
Wf Wm
wc wc

W f = 0.344 W m = 0.656

c
Vm .W Vf 1 Vm
m m

V f = 0.267 V m = 0.733

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 40

Laminate 7
wc 342 .g
L 253 .mm

0.108 0.087 0.092 0.093 0.100 .

t inch
5
t = 2.438 mm
r 51.5 .mm

R r t
L. R r .
2 2
vc
3
v c = 204.35 cm

wc
c g
vc c = 1.674
3
cm

g
m 1.2 .
3
cm

wf 215 .g

wm wc wf
w m = 127 g
wf wm
Wf Wm
wc wc

W f = 0.629 W m = 0.371

c
Vm .W Vf 1 Vm
m m

V f = 0.482 V m = 0.518

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 41

Laminate 8
wc 196 .g
L 204 .mm

0.075 0.075 0.085 0.083 0.082 .

t inch
5
t = 2.032 mm
r 51.5 .mm

R r t
L. R r .
2 2
vc
3
v c = 136.781 cm

wc
c g
vc c = 1.433
3
cm

g
m 1.2 .
3
cm

wf 97.5 .g

wm wc wf
w m = 98.5 g
wf wm
Wf Wm
wc wc

W f = 0.497 W m = 0.503

c
Vm .W Vf 1 Vm
m m

V f = 0.4 V m = 0.6

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 42

APPENDIX 5. - COMPRESSION TEST GRAPHS.
Example of the raw data received from the testing machine.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 43

APPENDIX 6. - FLEXURAL TEST GRAPHS.
Example of the raw data received from the testing machine.

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 44

APPENDIX 7. -
CALCULATIONS OF 2ND MOMENT OF INERTIA FOR ARC
CROSS SECTION
CALCULATION OF STRESS AND MODULAS FOR FLEXION
TEST

1 1 Rourke & Young Table 1.19

Y
y1
3t t2 t3
Y R I11 = R3t (1 + 2 3)
2R R 4R
r 2 sin 2
( + sin cos )

t 3 sin 2 t t2
{1 + 2 })}
X
+(
t R 6R
_ 3R2 {2 }
y R
2 sin t 1
y2 y1 = R[1 (1 + )]
3 R 2 t
_ 1 R
x
2 sin t 2 sin 3 cos
y2 = R[ + (1 )( )
3 ( 2 )
t R 3
R

My
=
I
Fl
M=
4
48 EI
K = 3 , Rourke and Young table 3, 1e.
l

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 45

 Sample Calculation
t = 2.347mm
R = 515. + t = 538
. mm
y 40
= sin 1 = sin 1 = 0.84rads
r .
538
I11 = 5.7 103 mm4
y1 = 7.5mm
y2 = 8.5mm

360 N 176mm
M= = 15.8 Nm
4
15.8 Nm 8.5mm
tension =
5.7 103 mm4
tension = 23.6 Nm
15.8 Nm 7.5mm
compression =
5.7mm4
compression = 19.5 Nm

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 46

Laminate 1
t 2.2.mm

R 51.5.mm t
y 40.mm

y
asin = 0.84
R
2 3
t t t
A 1 3.
2 .R R
2
4 .R
3

2
sin ( )
B sin ( ) .cos ( ) 2.

2 2
2. sin ( ) . t t
C t 1
6.R
t 2 R
3.R . . 2
2
R

R .t .( A .B
3
Iy C)

3 4
I y = 5.453 10 mm
sin ( ) . t 1
y1 R. 1 2. 1
3 . R t
2
R
sin ( ) t . 2.sin ( ) 3 . .sin ( )
y2 R. 2 . 1
t R 3 .
3 . . 2
R
y1 y1 y 1 = 7.928 mm y 2 = 5.842 mm

W max 250.N l 176.mm

l
M W max. M = 11 N.m
4
y1 y2
1 M. 2 M.
Iy Iy

1 = 22.8 Mpa 2 = 26.6 Mpa

N
K 567.
mm

3
l
Ek K.
48.I y E k = 11.8 Gpa

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 47

Laminate 2
t 2.4.mm

R 51.5.mm t
y 42.mm

y
asin = 0.893
R
2 3
t t t
A 1 3.
2 .R R
2
4 .R
3

2
sin ( )
B sin ( ) .cos ( ) 2.

2 2
2. sin ( ) . t t
C t 1
6.R
t 2 R
3.R . . 2
2
R

R .t .( A .B
3
Iy C)

3 4
I y = 8.012 10 mm
sin ( ) . t 1
y1 R. 1 2. 1
3 . R t
2
R
sin ( ) t . 2.sin ( ) 3 . .sin ( )
y2 R. 2 . 1
t R 3 .
3 . . 2
R
y1 y1 y 1 = 7.928 mm y 2 = 5.842 mm

W max 250.N l 176.mm

l
M W max. M = 11 N .m
4
y1 y2
1 M. 2 M.
Iy Iy

1 = 10.885 Mpa 2 = 8.02 Mpa

N
K 435.
mm

3
l
Ek K.
48.I E k = 6.166 Gpa
y

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 48

Laminate 3
t 2.4.mm

R 51.5.mm t
y 40.mm

y
asin = 0.836
R
2 3
t t t
A 1 3.
2 .R R
2
4 .R
3

2
sin ( )
B sin ( ) .cos ( ) 2.

2 2
2. sin ( ) . t t
C t 1
6.R
t 2 R
3.R . . 2
2
R

R .t .( A .B
3
Iy C)

3 4
I y = 5.858 10 mm
sin ( ) . t 1
y1 R. 1 2. 1
3 . R t
2
R
sin ( ) t . 2.sin ( ) 3 . .sin ( )
y2 R. 2 . 1
t R 3 .
3 . . 2
R
y1 y1 y 1 = 7.123 mm y 2 = 8.558 mm

W max 325.N l 176.mm

l
M W max. M = 14.3 N .m
4
y1 y2
1 M. 2 M.
Iy Iy

1 = 17.388 Mpa 2 = 20.893 Mpa

N
K 375.
mm

3
l
Ek K.
48.I E k = 7.271 Gpa
y

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 49

Laminate 4
t 2.8.mm

R 51.5.mm t
y 39.5.mm

y
asin = 0.815
R
2 3
t t t
A 1 3.
2 .R R
2
4 .R
3

2
sin ( )
B sin ( ) .cos ( ) 2.

2 2
2. sin ( ) . t t
C t 1
6.R
t 2 R
3.R . . 2
2
R

R .t .( A .B
3
Iy C)

3 4
I y = 6.138 10 mm
sin ( ) . t 1
y1 R. 1 2. 1
3 . R t
2
R
sin ( ) t . 2.sin ( ) 3 . .sin ( )
y2 R. 2 . 1
t R 3 .
3 . . 2
R
y1 y1 y 1 = 7.048 mm y 2 = 9.789 mm

W max 775.N l 176.mm

l
M W max. M = 34.1 N .m
4
y1 y2
1 M. 2 M.
Iy Iy

1 = 39.158 Mpa 2 = 54.383 Mpa

N
K 1667.
mm

3
l
Ek K.
48.I E k = 30.847 Gpa
y

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 50

Laminate 5
t 3.mm

R 51.5.mm t
y 43.75.mm

y
asin = 0.932
R
2 3
t t t
A 1 3.
2 .R R
2
4 .R
3

2
sin ( )
B sin ( ) .cos ( ) 2.

2 2
2. sin ( ) . t t
C t 1
6.R
t 2 R
3.R . . 2
2
R

R .t .( A .B
3
Iy C)

4 4
I y = 1.249 10 mm
sin ( ) . t 1
y1 R. 1 2. 1
3 . R t
2
R
sin ( ) t . 2.sin ( ) 3 . .sin ( )
y2 R. 2 . 1
t R 3 .
3 . . 2
R
y1 y1 y 1 = 8.833 mm y 2 = 4.326 mm

W max 975.N l 176.mm

l
M W max. M = 42.9 N.m
4
y1 y2
1 M. 2 M.
Iy Iy

1 = 30.334 Mpa 2 = 14.855 Mpa

N
K 909.0.
mm

3
l
Ek K.
48.I y E k = 8.3 Gpa

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 51

Laminate 6
t 3.3.mm

R 51.5.mm t
y 43.mm

y
asin = 0.902
R
2 3
t t t
A 1 3.
2 .R R
2
4 .R
3

2
sin ( )
B sin ( ) .cos ( ) 2.

2 2
2. sin ( ) . t t
C t 1
6.R
t 2 R
3.R . . 2
2
R

R .t .( A .B
3
Iy C)

4 4
I y = 1.194 10 mm
sin ( ) . t 1
y1 R. 1 2. 1
3 . R t
2
R
sin ( ) t . 2.sin ( ) 3 . .sin ( )
y2 R. 2 . 1
t R 3 .
3 . . 2
R
y1 y1 y 1 = 8.557 mm y 2 = 5.832 mm

W max 450.N l 176.mm

l
M W max. M = 19.8 N .m
4
y1 y2
1 M. 2 M.
Iy Iy

1 = 14.191 Mpa 2 = 9.672 Mpa

N
K 625.
mm

3
l
Ek K.
48.I E k = 5.946 Gpa
y

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 52

Laminate 7
t 2.7.mm

R 51.5.mm t
y 41.mm

y
asin = 0.858
R
2 3
t t t
A 1 3.
2 .R R
2
4 .R
3

2
sin ( )
B sin ( ) .cos ( ) 2.

2 2
2. sin ( ) . t t
C t 1
6.R
t 2 R
3.R . . 2
2
R

R .t .( A .B
3
Iy C)

3 4
I y = 7.527 10 mm
sin ( ) . t 1
y1 R. 1 2. 1
3 . R t
2
R
sin ( ) t . 2.sin ( ) 3 . .sin ( )
y2 R. 2 . 1
t R 3 .
3 . . 2
R
y1 y1 y 1 = 7.588 mm y 2 = 7.654 mm

W max 550.N l 176.mm

l
M W max. M = 24.2 N .m
4
y1 y2
1 M. 2 M.
Iy Iy

1 = 24.395 Mpa 2 = 24.609 Mpa

N
K 1250.
mm

3
l
Ek K.
48.I E k = 18.861 Gpa
y

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 53

Laminate 8
t 2.mm

R 51.5.mm t
y 40.mm

y
asin = 0.845
R
2 3
t t t
A 1 3.
2 .R R
2
4 .R
3

2
sin ( )
B sin ( ) .cos ( ) 2.

2 2
2. sin ( ) . t t
C t 1
6.R
t 2 R
3.R . . 2
2
R

R .t .( A .B
3
Iy C)

3 4
I y = 5.037 10 mm
sin ( ) . t 1
y1 R. 1 2. 1
3 . R t
2
R
sin ( ) t . 2.sin ( ) 3 . .sin ( )
y2 R. 2 . 1
t R 3 .
3 . . 2
R
y1 y1 y 1 = 7.016 mm y 2 = 7.979 mm

W max 225.N l 176.mm

l
M W max. M = 9.9 N .m
4
y1 y2
1 M. 2 M.
Iy Iy

1 = 13.79 Mpa 2 = 15.682 Mpa

N
K 367.
mm

3
l
Ek K.
48.I E k = 8.275 Gpa
y

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 54

APPENDIX 8. - SAMPLE CALCULATION OF YOUNG
MODULAS FOR COMPRESSION.
F
= E=
A
= Normal Stress, F = Force, A = Cross section area of sample
L
E = Youngs Modulas, = Strain =
L
A = 776.8mm2

F FL
E= =
A A L
F
K = Stiffness =
L
K = 11364 N / mm
KL
E=
A
E = 0.73Gpa

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 55

APPENDIX 9. - BUDGET FOR PROJECT.
PVC pipes and caps - $31.60
Laminations - $320.2822
Display sockets - $90.5998
Extra Lamination Materials - $105.6271
Total - $548.1091

Laminations.

Cost of Material Price Amount Cost of

Laminations Material
Nyglass 1gm @ $0.1055 664 gm 70.052
Fibreglass 1gm @ $0.0644 333 gm 21.4452
Cotton stockinette 1gm @ $0.0555 46 gm 2.53
Fibreglass x-weave 1gm @ $0.0653 1182 gm 77.1846
Filler - cotton stockinette 1gm @ $0.0499 146 gm 7.2854
Resin 1gm @ $0.033 2950 gm 97.35
Catalyst 1gm @ $0.079 45 gm 3.555
PVA bag 1 bag @ $2.555 16 40.88
Total cost $320.2822

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 56

Display Sockets.

Display Material Weight Resin Catalyst Total weight

sockets (gm) (gm) (gm) (gm)
Socket 1 Nyglass 1 15 201 4 206
Yellow Fibreglass 1 23 Colour - 10
Fibreglass 2 22
Fibreglass 3 23
Fibreglass 4 20
Fibreglass 5 21
Fibreglass 6 17
Nyglass 2 16
Socket 2 Nyglass 1 13 175 4 198
Green Nyglass 2 12 Colour - 5
Nyglass 3 12
Nyglass 4 12
Nyglass 5 12
Nyglass 6 12
Nyglass 7 12
Nyglass 8 12
Socket 3 Cotton stockinette 1 9 200 4 218
Orange Cotton stockinette 2 8 Colour - 10
Fibreglass 1 19
Fibreglass 2 17
Fibreglass 3 20
Fibreglass 4 23
Fibreglass 5 17
Fibreglass 6 18
Cotton stockinette 3 8
Cotton stockinette 4 9
Socket 4 Fibreglass x-weave 1 44 199 4 303
Paisley Fibreglass x-weave 2 39
Filler 1 10
Filler 2 10
Fibreglass x-weave 3 45
Fibreglass x-weave 4 48
Nylon stocking 10

Cost of Sockets Material Price Amount Cost of Material

Nyglass 1gm @ $0.1055 128 gm 13.504
Fibreglass 1gm @ $0.0644 240 gm 15.456
Cotton stockinette 1gm @ $0.0555 34 gm 1.87
Fibreglass x-weave 1gm @ $0.0653 176 gm 11.4928
Filler - cotton stockinette 1gm @ $0.0499 20 gm 0.998
Resin 1gm @ $0.033 775 gm 25.575
Catalyst 1gm @ $0.079 16 gm 1.264
PVA bag 1 bag @ $2.555 8 20.44
Total cost $90.5998

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 57

Extra Lamination Materials.

Material Amount used

Nyglass 29 gm
Cotton Stockinette 45 gm
Fibreglass 254 gm
Fibreglass x-weave 423 gm
Filler 49 gm
Resin 971 gm
Catalyst 15 gm
PVA bags 8

Cost of Sockets Material Price Amount used Cost of Material

Nyglass 1gm @ $0.1055 29 gm 3.0595
Fibreglass 1gm @ $0.0644 254 gm 16.3576
Cotton stockinette 1gm @ $0.0555 45 gm 2.475
Fibreglass x-weave 1gm @ $0.0653 423 gm 27.6219
Filler - cotton stockinette 1gm @ $0.0499 49 gm 2.4451
Resin 1gm @ $0.033 971 gm 32.043
Catalyst 1gm @ $0.079 15 gm 1.185
PVA bag 1 bag @ $2.555 8 20.44
Total cost $105.6271

Laminaed Socket Properties Project. 58