SANDWICH COLUMN

Objective:

The purpose of this assignment is to select the material provided and determine the
dimensions of the cross-section to obtain the most cost effective design.

Problem Statement:

Design a sandwich column hinged at both ends and which can sustain a buckling load P.
Three choices of materials for the facings were provided. The core has a material of
honeycomb construction and aluminum alloy 2024. The properties and the relative unit
cost of each material are given in the table below.

Where the .

Given: and .

Facing Material Stress Density Young’s Modulus Relative price per

pound $

1 Aluminum 2024 66 0.100 10.5 10

2 Magnesium Alloy 40 0.065 0.5 15
3 Laminated 30 0.050 2.5 20
Composite

Introduction:

“A sandwich structured composite is a special class of composite materials that is

fabricated by attaching two thin but stiff skins to a lightweight but thick core. The core
material is normally low strength material, but its higher thickness provides the sandwich
composite with high bending stiffness with overall low density.”

The sandwich beam is shown below.

The moment of inertia for the rectangular section is

(1)

(2)

For our case and equation (2) becomes

(3)

But and

Therefore the above equation becomes

(4)

We know that, and substituting the I we get,

(5)

From equation (5) we solve for we get

(6)

For the minimum weight

(7)

The weight is given by

(8)

Multiplying equation (4) by the length and B we get

(9)

Substituting the in the above equation we get

 (10)

With the help of the Maple 14 software the above equation was differentiated and we get,

(11)

From Maple 14 we now solve the above equation for . It came out to be that all the
terms were cancelled out and we get,

(12)

Results:

To obtain the most cost effective design for the sandwich column a Matlab code was
written shown in the appendix and the following calculations was obtained. The table
below shows the most cost effective design which came out to be the Aluminum 2024-
Aluminium 2024.

Core Facing I Mass Relative Cost ,$

Material Material (inch) (inch) (lb) price per
pound $
Aluminum 0.0250 133.39 22.01 0.55 15.85 10 158.51
2024
Aluminum Magnesium 0.0385 28013 52.61 2.02 44.68 15 543.97
2024 Alloy
Laminated 0.0500 560.26 28.19 1.40 16.17 20 188.16
Composite
Table 1: Calculation obtained from the Matlab code
 Mass (lb) vs. facing materials
50
40
30
20 Mass (lb) vs. facing
10 materials

0
Aluminum 2024 Magnesium Alloy Laminated
Composite

Graph 1: Mass for different facing materials

Cost comparison for different facing

material
600

500

400

300

200 Cost vs. facing Material

100

0
Aluminum 2024 Magnesium Alloy Laminated
Composite

Graph 2: Cost for the different facing materials

 Thickness of core vs. facing
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Aluminum 2024 Magnesium Alloy Laminated Composite

tc tf

Graph 3: Thickness of the core material vs. facing material

Discussion:

From the Matlab code the calculations were obtained and graphs were plotted in excel.
From graph 1, we can tell that the difference between the mass (lb) of laminated composite
material and aluminum 2024 is . Whereas, the mass of the magnesium alloy is two
times the mass of the other two facing material. From table 1 and graph 2 we can see that
there is not much of difference between the total cost for the aluminum 2024 and
laminated composite material. The difference between the laminated composite material
and aluminum 2024 is $29.65. While, the total cost for magnesium alloy is thrice the total
cost of the other two facing material.

In addition, from graph 3 we can see that the thickness of the facing material for the
aluminum 2024 and laminated composite material has not much of difference. Whereas,
the thickness of the core for the magnesium alloy material is higher than the other two
materials.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we can say that Aluminum 2024 is cheaper to construct as contrast to the
other materials. Also, laminated composite material can be given a chance against
aluminum 2024 since the difference in cost is just approximately $30.00. On the other
hand, magnesium alloy is expensive compare to other material therefore that will be the
last option to be considered since cost is also a factor. Since magnesium alloy requires
higher moment of inertia compared to aluminum and laminated composite, the cost also
increases. Therefore, the most cost effective design for this sandwich structure is the
aluminum2024- aluminum 2024.

References

Gere, James M (2004). Mechanics of Materials. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Appendix

Matlab code
%Given values
P=6000;
L=48;
B=1;
E_2024=10.5*1000;
E_mag=0.5*1000;
E_comp=2.5*1000;
%Density of the core material
rho_c=0.100/10;
%Facing Material
%Aluminium 2024
rho_2024=0.100;
%Magnesium Alloy
rho_mag=0.065;
%Laminated Composite
rho_comp=0.050;

%Beta
beta_2024=(rho_c)/(4*rho_2024)
beta_mag=(rho_c)/(4*rho_mag)
beta_comp=(rho_c)/(4*rho_comp)

%tc
tc_2024=((2*P*L^2)/(pi^2*E_2024*beta_2024))^(1/3)
tc_mag=((2*P*L^2)/(pi^2*E_mag*beta_mag))^(1/3)
tc_comp=((2*P*L^2)/(pi^2*E_comp*beta_comp))^(1/3)

%tf
tf_2024=tc_2024*beta_2024
tf_mag=tc_mag*beta_mag
tf_comp=tc_comp*beta_comp

%mass
m_2024=L*B*2*tf_2024*rho_2024+L*B*tc_2024*rho_c
m_mag=L*B*2*tf_mag*rho_2024+L*B*tc_mag*rho_c
m_comp=L*B*2*tf_2024*rho_comp+L*B*tc_comp*rho_c

%P_cirtical
pcr_2024=(pi^2*E_2024*beta_2024*tc_2024^3)/(2*L^2)
pcr_mag=(pi^2*E_mag*beta_mag*tc_mag^3)/(2*L^2)
pcr_comp=(pi^2*E_comp*beta_comp*tc_comp^3)/(2*L^2)

%moment of interia
I_2024=(beta_2024*tc_2024^3)/(2)
I_mag=(beta_mag*tc_mag^3)/(2)
I_comp=(beta_comp*tc_comp^3)/(2)

%Total cost in dollar

cost_2024=L*B*2*tf_2024*rho_2024*10+L*B*tc_2024*rho_c*10
cost_mag=L*B*2*tf_mag*rho_2024*15+L*B*tc_mag*rho_c*10
cost_comp=L*B*2*tf_2024*rho_comp*20+L*B*tc_comp*rho_c*10