Design of Lightweight Web Core

Sandwich Panels and Application

to Residential Roofs
Casey R. Briscoe
April 27, 2010

Roof Panel Concept

Conventional Construction:

Panelized Construction:

Roof Panel Requirements

Structural requirements

Long unsupported spans

Transverse distributed loads

Thermal insulating requirements

Durability considerations

Limits of Foam Core Panel Design

Minimum panel depth vs. panel length:

Foam Core Panel

Web Core Panel

Foam core panels limited to short spans

Webs allow the design of longer panels with reduced depth
4

Web Core Panel Limit States

Panel Deflection

Thermal R-Value
Te
kw

kc
Ti

Te
Rc

Rw
Ti

Web Core Panel Limit States

Face Sheet Buckling
Web Flexural Buckling

Buckling of the Face

Sheet into the Webs

Panel Deflection

Web Shear Buckling

Thermal R-Value
Te

kw

kc
Ti

Bearing Stress Failure

Te

Core Shear Failure

Rc

Rw
Ti

Web Shear Buckling

Panel Loading:

q
a

Model as plate on
Pasternak foundation
Analysis in three steps
1. Plate buckling model
2. Foundation model
3. Application to panels

Buckled Web:
b

y
x

a
7

Plate Buckling Model

Plate:
y

ss

Foundation:

ss
ss

ss

Minimum potential energy

Assume deflection function

Obtain set of equations of

the form

x
fP

z
fW

Solve for

Plate Buckling Model Solutions

Buckling Mode Shapes:

Solutions for :

Foundation increases buckling strength significantly

9

Elastic Foundation Model

Panel Cross Section

b
p

Web
p/2

Symmetry
(fixed base)

Symmetry

Foam dissipates the deformation caused by web buckling:

Shallow foundation
(closely-spaced webs)

Deep foundation
(widely-spaced webs)

10

Elastic Foundation Model

Infinitely deep foundation
Exponential decay

Determine foundation constants using energy methods

Applicable for deep foundations

11

Elastic Foundation Model:

Range of Applicability

Validated using FEA

Panel designs

Close web
spacing

Wide web
spacing

Model valid for

12

Shear Buckling: Application to Panels

Finite Element Model:
Symmetry

q (uniform over
entire surface)

Buckling load
Buckling coefficient

x
z

a/2
Uy = 0 on x = 0

, compare to
13

Shear Buckling FE Results

Buckling Mode Shapes:

Buckling Coefficients:

Face sheets provide rotational restraint

Buckling strength predictions conservative (1020%)

Reasonable agreement for design
14

Web Core Roof Panel Design

Loads and R-value

requirement climate
dependent
Three representative cases
Designs determined by a
subset of limit states

Web shear buckling

Face sheet buckling
Panel Deflection
Thermal performance

15

Effect of Limit States on Design

Example:

Load 1576 N/m2

R-value 5.3 m2-K/W
Assume 2.0 mm face sheets
and 1.2 m web spacing

Feasible designs shaded

Minimum depth design

Depth to meet structural requirements: 176 mm

Depth to meet structural and thermal requirements: 282 mm
Using stainless steel webs: 190 mm
16

Limits of Foam Core Panel Design

Minimum panel depth vs. panel length:

Foam Core Panel

Web Core Panel

Webs allow the design of longer panels with reduced depth

Thermal requirement important for design
17

Conclusions

Structural and thermal requirements must be considered

for roof panel design

Foam has a major impact on local failure modes

Use webs to reduce the impact of foam creep on performance

Thin, widely-spaced webs to minimize impact on thermal
insulating performance
Modeled successfully as an elastic foundation
Order of magnitude increase in local buckling strength

Web core panels are a viable design option for roofs

18

19

Shear Buckling Prototype Test

20

Shear Buckling Prototype Test

Load-Deflection Behavior:

Buckling Mode:

21

Bearing Stress Failure

Plastic failure mechanism

Web crippling
Core crushing
Assume effects independent

Factors affecting strength

include:

Load/geometric imperfections
Stress concentrations/residual
stresses
Support location (end vs.
interior)

Yield line
hD
hD

Plastic Hinge

LD

22

Bearing Strength Models

Mechanism Solution:

Yield line mechanism solution

Strength contributions:
Web crippling strength

Foam failure

Modified AISI Equation:

Based on unified empirical web

crippling equation

Simplified core crushing term

Web crippling strength

Foam failure

Models predict 80% of strength is from foam crushing

23

Bearing Strength Validation

Prototype Test Results:

Model Comparison:

Roberts model
and data

UMN model and data

Core crushing strength insensitive to web imperfections

Reduced variability in strength compared to webs with no foam

May allow smaller safety factors compared to current practice
24

Shear Buckling FE validation

vs. a/hc:

vs. p/a:

25

Bearing Stress Models

Analytical vs. Semi-Empirical:

Contribution from Foam:

Analytical web crippling strength prediction higher than semi-empirical

Semi-empirical model predicts larger contribution from core crushing
Both models predict 80% of strength is from core crushing
26

Design Comparison

Compare designs based on

material cost

Stainless steel webs

Two-layer (carbon steel webs)
Truss core panels

Web core panels lighter weight

and comparable or lower panel
depth than truss core
Truss core panels allow lowest
cost

6090% of web core material

cost is due to foam
Truss core panels use almost
50% less foam than web core
27

Flexural Web Buckling

Model core as elastic foundation (same as shear buckling)

Determine using minimum potential energy
Shear buckling strength always lower than flexural buckling strength

Buckling Mode Shapes:

Solutions for :

28

Tradeoff between Depth and Weight

Stainless steel webs

166 N/m2

88 mm

Particularly significant with stainless steel webs

Minimum weight preferred for design
29

Minimum Weight Designs

Panel Depth (mm)

Panel Weight (N/m2)

Carbon Steel Webs

Climate I

285

205

Climate II

379

243

Climate III

----

----

Stainless Steel Webs

Climate I

270

204

Climate II

324

223

Climate III

398

263

30