Materials Science and Engineering, A 163 (1993) 51-59 51

Materials and cross-sectional shapes for bending stiffness

J. S. Huang
Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101 (Taiwan)
L. J. Gibson
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
(USA)
(Received October 8, 1992; in revised form November 9, 1992)

Abstract

A strategy has been developed for selecting the materials and cross-sectional shapes of elastic beams for bending stiffness.
A dimensionless shape factor is used to measure the efficiency of a cross-sectional shape; the maximum shape factor is
limited either by local buckling or by yielding. The maximum shape factors for tubes, I sections and sandwich sections
have been examined and compared with one another. The optimum cross-sectional shape, which gives the highest shape
factor, has been identified for various materials: metals and alloys, glasses and ceramics, and rigid polymers. For a
minimum weight beam, the choice of material and cross-sectional shape depends on the solid material properties and the
design parameters, including the required bending stiffness, loading configuration and minimum load capacity.

1. Introduction minimizes weight for a given bending stiffness, load

The stiffness of an elastic beam, its resistance to
deformation under an applied load, depends on the
Young's modulus of the solid from which the beam is
made and on the shape of its cross-section. Materials
which minimize the weight of the beam for a given
bending stiffness are those with a high value of E 1/2/p,
where E is the Young's modulus and p is the density
[1, 2]. Cross-sectional shapes which minimize weight
are those with a high value of the shape factor
(1)B e = 4JrI/A 2, where I is the moment of inertia and A
is the area of the cross-section [3]. The factor is defined
such that a solid circular section has a shape factor of
one (Fig. l(a)); sections with higher shape factors are
lighter for the same bending stiffness.
The shape factor of a thin-walled tube, for example,
is the ratio of its radius to its wall thickness r/t; if
bending stiffness were the only consideration, the
shape factor would be maximized (and the weight mini-
mized) by selecting the tube of the largest radius and
thinnest wall thickness. In practice, such a tube would
buckle or yield locally at very small loads; in general,
there is also some minimum load capacity that the
member must resist without failing in some way. As a
result, the maximum shape factor of the tube depends
on the material properties of the solid from which it is
made.
In this paper, we have examined the selection of the
cross-sectional shape for a flexural member which
capacity and span; tubes, I beams and sandwich beams
have been compared. The results suggest that these
shapes can give high shape factors; the maximum shape
factor for each beam depends on the mechanical prop-
erties of the solid material and on the design param-
eters. For beams made from metals and alloys, glasses
and ceramics, or rigid polymers, a maximum possible
shape factor for a given bending stiffness can be iden-
tified.
2. Maximum shape factor
The bending stiffness of an elastic beam, SB, is the
ratio of the applied force, P, to the central deflection of
the beam, 6:
P B1EI BIE~BeA 2
SB-6- ~3 - 4jrg3 (1)
where g is the span of the beam and B l is a constant
which depends on the loading configuration (Table 1).
In eqn. (1), the area of the beam can be expressed in
terms of the design parameters and the shape factor:
4 7tSBg -~ 1/2
A= (2)
BIE~B ~
Using eqn. (2) to represent the area of the beam gives

I)921-5093/93/$6.00 © 1993 - Elsevier Sequoia. All rights reserved

52 J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson / Materials and cross-sectional shapes for bending stiffness

TABLE 1. Constants for bending of beams factor is:

Mode of loading B1 B2 B3 B4 4~I r
~Be A2 t (4)
Cantilever, end load 3 1 1 1
Cantilever, uniform load" 8 2 2 1 Since A = 2 n r t = 2Zq~Bet2, the thickness and the radius
Simply-supported, central load 48 4 4 2 of the tube can be expressed in terms of the design
Simply-supported, uniform loada 76.8 8 8 2 parameters and the shape factor of the tube (from eqns.
Fixed ends, central load 192 4 8 2
Fixed ends, uniform loada 384 8 12 2 (2) and (4)):

"P= qg; here q is a uniform distributed load per unit length of

beam. t =[sJ311"
LnB,E(~ e)3 (5)
( SB~ 3~)Bel 1/4
r= - ~1E ] (6)

b
(a)
O (b)
b
The maximum shape factor of the tube for a given
material is limited either by buckling or by yielding.
The required moment for buckling failure is [4]:

Mbuckling __ Pg
B3 _ ( 1 -E v z) rt2 (7)

Here B 3 is a constant which depends on the loading

configuration (Table 1), and v is the Poisson's ratio of
the solid material. Substituting eqns. (5) and (6) into (7)

hi L
gives the shape factor (assuming v = 0.3):

*B3=0.543EI/5 / ~ -] (8)

(c) (d) Similarly, the required moment to cause the tube to

Fig. 1. Cross-sectional shapes of beams. yield is:

Myielding -- /19e -- 7~tr2ay (9)

the mass of the beam: B3

[ 4~SBg3 ] 1/2 p2 ]lj2 Here Oy is the yield strength of the solid material;
g= failure occurs when the extreme fiber stress of the tube
J L -?J reaches the yield strength. Substituting eqns. (5) and (6)
(3) into (9) gives the shape factor for yielding failure:
The lightest beam is that with the highest value of a 4 (SB3B34~5
E ~ a e / p 2 for a given set of design parameters (SB, g (I)Be = Yg~''~ / ~ (10)
and B 1) [3].
The maximum shape factor of a beam, however, is The maximum shape factor of the tube depends on
limited by the onset of local buckling or yielding. the design parameters (SB, P, ?, B 1, B3) and the
Different cross-sections might have different failure material properties (E, ay) (eqns. (8) and (10)). The
mechanisms, and consequently different maximum functions a and f of the design parameters and the
shape factors. We begin by studying the shape factors material properties are defined as:
for tubes, I sections and sandwich sections, for a
required bending stiffness. The optimum shape for a 4
O'y (11)
beam of given stiffness is then identified to minimize its a - - E3
mass.
and
2.1. M a x i m u m shape factor of a tube 3 4 5
For a tubular beam (Fig. l(b)), of cross-sectional SB B3 l
(12)
area A = 2 n r t and moment of inertia I = Jrr3t, the shape
 J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson / Materialsand cross-sectionalshapesfor bendingstiffness 53

The smaller value between eqns. (8) and (10), for a metrical factors of Q and h/tw. Flange yielding, flange
given set of ct and f, is the maximum shape factor of the buckling, web yielding and web buckling are the pos-
tube. A design map for the maximum shape factor of sible failure modes which should be considered.
tubes is shown in Fig. 2.
The maximum shape factor for candidate materials 2.2.1. Flange yielding
for a tube can be found from Fig. 2. For example, an Since the cross-sectional area of the 1 beam is
aluminum tube ( E = 6 9 GPa, a = 7 . 8 x 10 - 3 N m -2) A =2btf+ htw =(2f2 + 1)(h/tw)tw 2, the thickness of the
has OB~=318 for buckling failure and q~B~=25 for web can be expressed as (from eqns. (2) and ( 13)):
yielding failure for f = 103 m 2 N-~; the maximum shape
factor of the aluminum tube is 25. Commercially avail- -647r3Sj3 ( ~ + ~ 1 1 2 ( 2 f 2 + 1 ) 6 ] 1/4 (14)
able metal tubes have shape factors in the range of tw= BIE(O,e) 3 ~2 12]
20-70.
The required moment to cause the I beam to yield
2.2. Maximum shape factor of an I beam can be calculated from the elementary strength of
For an I beam (see Fig. l(c)), with A =2btf+ htw and materials:
I = btfh2/2 + twh3/12, the shape factor is:
M =--B3= Oy b6 h 6 = °t Q + -6)ltw)-- tw (15)
OB~ /t 2 - 4 ~ 6+ tf+l
tw ] 2 ] [ h tw
(o 1)
=4 r 2+12 (2n+l (13)
Substituting eqns. (13) and (14) into (15) gives the
shape factor:

Oy (SB-'g"B3
o , e = 16~r Q + (2Q+ 1)-2 ~ (16)
where if2 = btf/h&; b and t~ are the flange width and
thickness; h and t,~ are the web height and thickness.
The maximum shape factor is related to the geo- 2.2.2. Flange buckling
The critical flange buckling stress is [4]:

10 4
°cr=KE/I(1-v2)(b/2]]2, tf ] J
E-10 3 GPa

E=I0 2 GPa
(17)
E=101 GPa

gzl0 0 GPa where K is a buckling coefficient depending on the

I03
E = 1 0 -1 G P a boundary conditions. A conservative buckling coeffi-
E~I0 2 GPa cient, corresponding to one free and three simply-
supported edges (K=0.35), is assumed. Flange
buckling occurs when the flange compressive stress
exceeds the critical buckling stress; the required
10 2 applied moment is (assuming v = 0.3):

m
M=B~=Oc, b t f h + ~ - } : l . 5 4 Q + 6 a2E t~3

(18)
10 1
Substituting eqn. (14) into (18), gives

OB~=3.05~ [( :)°
Q+ f ~ ( 2 Q + l ) -la

1000-5 10-2 10-1 10 0 10 I 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Ihl. .
×[-|\o, E / B~p~ ] (19)
DESIGN PARAMETER, f (m2/N)

Fig. 2. Maximumshape factor of tubes. The lines of higher slope

correspond to failure by plastic yielding while those of lower 2.2.3. Web yielding in shear
slope correspond to failure by elastic buckling. The required applied shear force to cause the web to
54 J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson / Materialsand cross-sectionalshapesfor bendingstiffness
yield is: yielding and flange buckling. The shape factor
increases with the geometrical factor ff~. In practice,
1/3 < Q < 1; the maximum shape factor for flange
=0 2 (20) yielding is obtained by assuming if2 = 1 in eqn. ( 16):
B4 ~tw]
where B 4 is a constant which depends on the loading
e;--7.6p/ 8 e4 /
/ <241
configuration (see Table 1). The shape factor is
obtained by substituting eqns. (13) and (14)into (20):
Similarly, the maximum shape factor for flange buck-
1.34~ Oy2 (SB~p3B42/ ling is obtained from eqn. (19)(if2 = 1 and h/b = 3):
OBe--(2ff2+ 1)2 E / ~ } (21)
[S 3gSB 4~1/9
2.2.4. Web shear buckling
OBe=N'9EI/9 / ~113~3 ) (25)
The web shear buckling strength for the boundary
condition of four simply-supported edges which gives a The maximum shape factor for web yielding is
conservative buckling coefficient, is [4]: (Q=I):
4.4E
rc~-(1_ v2)(h/tw)2 (22)
oBe=0.47 Oy2 [SBe3B421
--El Bl P2 } (26)

Web shear buckling occurs when the web shear stress The maximum shape factor for web buckling is (~ = 1 ):
reaches the critical buckling stress, giving:
( SB•3 B4211/5
OBe=I'7E'/5 k B ~ ] (27)
dpBe=4.N23r(Q+l)4/5(2Q+l)-2E1/5(~) ~/5
Since the maximum shape factor of I beams for web
(23)
yielding and buckling has a different dependence on
design parameters and material properties, two new
2.2.5. Design maps of maximum shape factor
functions of the design parameters and material prop-
Figure 3 shows the maximum shape factor for the
erties are defined:
cases of Q = 0.1, f~ = 1 and f~ = 10 for both flange
2
fl=ay (28)
18 4
E
//
t SBB42g 3
st
a - l O -I N/m s /
g B1p2 (29)
e
E-100 GPa .~ / w , s , "w
t ,,,'"
105 a , ' ' ' I ' ~ ~ **w,ww Figure 4 shows the maximum shape factor for the cases
Buckling
~=i0 of ff~= 0.1, 1 and 10 for web buckling and yielding; the
............yielding shape factor increases with decreasing f~.
~ ~ Buckling
A design map of the maximum shape factor of I
~0 2 n=l beams for flange yielding and buckling (eqns. (24) and
Yielding
(25)) in terms of the design parameters, f, and material
m ~ Buckling properties, a and E, is shown in Fig. 5. A design map
Q-O.1 of the maximum shape factor of I beams for web yield-
J ..... Yielding

101 t
I ~=0.I ing and buckling (eqns. (26) and (27)) is shown in Fig.
6. For a given material, the shape factor for each failure
// mode can be obtained from Figs. 5 and 6; the smaller
/J value is the maximum shape factor of the I beam.

,0~0:s.;.;:~;-;:i.;0/!'7; i7; <;; ~T;~~; ~;; ~~; ~;o8 2.3. Maximum shape factor of a sandwich beam
DESIGN PARAMETER, f (m2/N) A sandwich beam is composed of a lightweight foam
Fig. 3. Shape factor of I beams with Q = 0.1, 1 and 10 for flange core and two stiff faces (see Fig. l(d)). Gibson [5]
yielding and buckling. proposed an optimum design for sandwich beams
 J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson / Materials and cross-sectional shapes for bending stiffness 55

10 4

~=10 5 N/lll 2 / (/ / •
;=103 GPa
E=I00 GPa / /

]=i0 ~ GPa

=i01 GPa

=i0 e GPa
/ i~ ~F" l,i,,, Buckling
:/.-/ o.o -10 : GPa

=I0 2 GPa
10 2 ~f I / ..:
.:/" " I I I I," Buckling

s-/I / ...-'- -- ........

I0 I
///
,, /.,' I /..
,~,,
/ ...'"

"""
..........

.....
o.o
Yieldtng
O=0. 1
t °°" :~
t °" .::
I °-° .:"
°~&° /
,o" I .'
°° t

10 7 I0 6 10 5 1 0 - 4 1 0 - 3 1 0 - 2 10-1 10 0 I0 1 10 2 10 3 10 4

DESIGN PARAMETER, g (m2/N)

Fig. 4. Shape factor of I beams with if2=0.1, 1 and 10 for web

,v I
yielding and buckling. ,v ,~ ,~ ,v ,v ,~ ,v ,u lu

DESIGN pARAMETER, g (m2/N)

10 4
Fig. 6. Maximum shape factor of 1 beams for web yielding and
buckling.

,i03 G P a
~i02 G P a
10 3
=i01 GPa
=10 ° GPa
t=O'32g BIO.42B22 ~tor/ (31)
=10 -I GPa
=i0 2 G P a

(32)
10 2

where B 2 is again a constant which depends on the

m loading geometry (see Table 1 ); E,., pf, Es and ps are the
Young's modulus and density of the face and the solid
core materials respectively. The shape factor of the
10 I
sandwich beam, ¢~B~=Ztc2/2bt, can be rewritten as
(from eqns. (30) and(31)):

*~=90.8 [ B' 3 \PJ TEf iSBb4) ] (33)

100
Ic

DESIGN PARAMETER, f (m2/N)

Note that there is no consideration of failure mode
Fig. 5. Maximum shape factor of I beams for flange yielding and in the optimum design and the beam width is regarded
buckling. as a given design parameter. From eqn. (33), it is seen
that the shape factor increases with decreasing beam
width. The maximum shape factor, however, is limited
giving the core thickness, c, the face thickness, t, and either by face yielding, by face wrinkling or by core
the core relative density, Pc /Ps, which minimize the shear yielding. In this study, b is taken as a variable to
weight for a given stiffness: obtain a maximum shape factor at which possible
failure modes occur for the smallest loading capacity. It
(30) is found that the minimum beam width is obtained
c = 4"3g [ B ~ - 2- El2 when face yielding occurs; detailed results are given in
56 J. S. Huang,L. J. Gibson / Materialsand cross-sectionalshapesfor bendingstiffness
Appendix A. The minimum beam width is: 10 4

bmin=O.O8P'B,3B2EsEf3 (pfy 1 (34)

B35 Oyf5~5 \Ps] SB 4

where ayf is the yield strength of the face material.

10 3
Substituting eqn. (34) into (33), gives the maximum
shape factor of the sandwich beam:

.Be= 329 °y~ {SB3B34g5I

Ef3 / B3p4 ] (35)

®m 10 2
In deriving the maximum shape factor of sandwich ,e,
beams (eqn. (35)), only the mass of faces and the d
o
bending deflection are considered. If the mass of the
core and the core shear deformation have been taken
into account, an equivalent shape factor should be used
in order to make a comparison between the sandwich
10 1
beam and other beams. It is found that the equivalent
shape factor is 1/75 of the shape factor in eqn. (35); a
detailed calculation is shown in Appendix B. The
equivalent maximum shape factor of the sandwich
beam is:

(dPBe)eq=4.4~ {SB3B34~pS' 10~0-3 10-2 10-~ 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 5 10 7 10 8

I B13P4 (36)
DESIGN PAP./kNETERf f (rrt2/N)

A design map of the equivalent maximum shape
factor of sandwich beams in terms of the functions of
the design parameters, f, and material properties, a, is
shown in Fig. 7.
3. Selection of materials and cross-sectional shapes
From the above studies, it is found that the maxi-
mum shape factor of an elastic beam for bending stiff-
ness depends on design parameters (SB, P, g, B1, B2,
B3, B4) and material properties (E and Oy); the maxi-
mum shape factor for tubes, I beams and sandwich
beams are summarized in Table 2. The maximum
shape factors of tubes, I beams and sandwich beams
can be compared for particular classes of materials.
The results are shown in Figs. 8-10.
For metals and alloys, the Young's modulus is
between 70 GPa and 350 GPa; E 1/9 is between 16 and
19 (N m-a) 1/9. In constructing Fig. 8 we take a value of
17.5 (N m-e) U9. The best shapes for metals and alloys
are 1 beams and sandwich beams.
For ceramics and glasses, we use the fracture
strength instead of the yield strength in maximizing the
shape factor as they fracture before yielding. A similar
map is constructed and shown in Fig. 9 (assuming
E 1/9= 17.5 (N m-2)1/9); again I beams and sandwich
beams are the best shapes.
Fig. 7. Equivalent maximum shape factor of sandwich beams.
The maximum shape factor for rigid polymer tubes
and I beams is shown in Fig. 10; sandwich beams with
polymer faces are uncommon and are not considered
here. For rigid polymers, 1 GPa< E < 5 GPa; as a
result, 10 (N m-2)U9<E]/9<12 (N m-2) 1/9 and 63
(Nm-Z)L/5<E1/5<87 (N m-Z) US. The maximum
shape factor for rigid polymers is constructed and
shown in Fig. 10 by assuming E 1/9 = 11 (N m-2) 1/9 and
E 2/5 = 75 (N m - 2)1/5
For a combination of given design parameters (S~, P,
g, B1, Be, B 3 and B4) and candidate material properties
(p, E, Oy),the maximum shape factor of a beam can be
obtained: from Figs. 6 and 8 for metals and alloys; from
Figs. 6 and 9 for ceramics and glasses; from Figs. 6 and
10 for rigid polymers. The maximum shape factor of
each candidate material can be found easily from the
figures; the most efficient beam is the one made from
the material with the highest value of EdPBe/p2.
4. Discussion
For beams in which the maximum shape factor is
limited by local buckling, the shape factor might be
increased by suppressing local buckling. A tube, for
 J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson / Materials and cross-sectional shapes for bending stiffness 57

TABLE 2. Maximum shape factor for tubes, 1 beams and sandwich beams

Shape Maximum shape factor

Tubes yielding qb,~'=0-543E"' k Bl3p4 ] =0'543E'::f':5

buckling

ov4 [S 3/5B 4\
I beams flange yielding

flange buckling qbB~=8"9E'/'~ k Bi3p4 ]

¢~.~ = 0.47 £ (SB ~P3B42/

web yielding E k B , P " /=0.47fig

web buckling • ~'=l.7E': ~ B, p2 J =l.7El'~g I':

4 , 3 4 S
Sandwich beams (qb~)~q - 4.4 ~ [5. B3 g l . . . .

10 4 10 4
I
/ /
i
I /
I

/ I
iI
i
iI

#
t 11 i
I
, , / I
t / i / t i i
10 3 / l 10 3 i
t t / t i
,' , /
i
i
i

/ ' ~' : i

i / i i
i
, , , ~ : : i
, .~ : :
' ; ~ : : :
,, ~' : : : : : : :
102 : : " : : : : : :
10 2
~m ®m : : :
,e, o
o: ~: • • • : :
,v: ~: ~- " - .-" " ~: : :
do

~u :
•
7:
u:
~:
o:
%:
\: :
: :
:
:
: # • !! .:
U : o : ~ ,

]0 1 1
:
.
:
•
:
~ :
o.
7,:
~.
~: ~ :
7" ~ "
:
:
:
.
I0 1
i f: :: /
: ,. ~:
Sandwich Beam-Fracture
.: : o.." ~.." :
: :.: ~I ,~" •
: : i I Beam-Bucklinq
: : 7,: ~: ........................
: : ~: ......
: : - ~- ..............
: :
: : : : 7: ...... ~ B...~.~d~g : =" =" I Beam-Fracture
: : : U: : : : :
. ........ : ........ .. ........ - ....... . ...... -
...... : ......• .......: ........ • .........................................................
'°°,o-. ,o-. ,o-, ,oO ,o-, ,o-. 7o~ 7o~ ?o~ 7o6 7o~ ;o. 10 0- 3 i'OZ_~" 10-_1 i0- 0 i0- T 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 TO 8

DESIGN PARAMETER, f (m2/N) DESIGN PARAMETER, f (m2/N)

Fig. 8. Maximum shape factor for metals and alloys. Fig. 9. Maximum shape factor for glasses and ceramics.
58 J.S. Huang, L. J. Gibson
I Belm'Bac~llng
• mm,,, I~am-Yieldlng
Tuba- Buc~lln~
10 3
10 2
c .,./
10 1
2:
: ~:
: 7:
10010-3 i0--2 I0-I I0 0 10 1 10 2 10 3
DESIGN PARAMETER, f (m2/N)
Fig. 10. Maximum shape factor for rigid polymers.
example, may be filled with a foam of high enough
density to suppress the buckling failure; the maximum
shape factor is then only limited by yielding (eqn. (10)).
However, it can be shown that sandwich beams are
more efficient than foam-filled tubes in a minimum
weight design for bending stiffness (from eqns. (10) and
(36)).
The maximum shape factor of a beam could be
limited by manufacturing and dimensional constraints
in addition to the failure modes of local buckling and
yielding. Steel beams with shape factors of 30 are
common. But such high shape factors cannot be
achieved in wood: in practice, manufacturing tech-
niques can set an upper limit to the shape factor. There
may also be constraints to the maximum size of the
beam; dimensional constraints should be taken into
account in maximizing the shape factor. Table 3 lists
the maximum shape factor for beams subject to a
dimensional constraint.
The design charts (Figs. 6, 8-10) are useful in the
selection of cross-sectional shapes for a given set of
design requirements. They can also guide the micro-
structural design of cellular materials, which deform
primarily by bending of the cell walls [6]. Currently
available foams have cell walls which are triangular or
rectangular in cross-section; both have a shape factor
/ Materials and cross-sectional shapes for bending stiffness
T A B L E 3. Maximum shape factor for beams subject to a
dimensional constraint
Shape Maximum shape factor
xBiE(rmax) 4
Tubes qbae -- Sag 3
BiE(hmax) 4
I beams
qbBe 8.42SBt3
Bi Ef( cmax)4
Sandwich beams qbBe = 75(qbae)eq = 0.266
SBL 3
Note: rmax is the maximum radius of a tube; hmax is the maximum
height of an I beam; and Cmax is the maximum core thickness of a
sandwich beam.
around 1. The charts indicate that the shape of the cell
walls could be dramatically improved (and the effi-
ciency of the cellular material increased) if the shape of
the cell walls could be controlled. I section cell walls
may be difficult to manufacture. Tubular and sandwich
cell walls can be made, however.
10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8
5. Conclusions
The selection of a material and cross-sectional shape
for the minimum weight design of a beam of a required
bending stiffness has been considered. A dimensionless
shape factor is used to measure the efficiency of a
cross-sectional shape. The maximum shape factors for
tubes, I beams and sandwich beams, limited by the
onset of local buckling and yielding, have been exam-
ined. The analysis suggests that the maximum shape
factor of each beam depends on the design parameters
and the mechanical properties of the solid material
from which the beam is made. A series of design charts
of maximum shape factors for various materials,
including metals and alloys, glasses and ceramics, and
rigid polymers, has been developed. The optimum
shape for a given material can be easily identified from
the design charts.
Acknowledgment
Financial support of the Army Research Office
Program in Advanced Construction Technology
(Grant Number D A A L 03-87-K-0005) is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
1 J. A. Charles and F. A. A. Crane, Selection and Use of
Engineering Materials, Butterworth, London, 2nd edn., 1989.
 J. S. Huang, L. J. Gibson / Materialsand cross-sectionalshapesfor bendingstiffness 59

2 M. F. Ashby, On the engineering properties of materials, Acta Substituting eqns. (30), (31) and (32)into (A2), gives
Metall.,37(1989) 1273-1293.
3 M. E Ashby, Materials and shape, Acta Metall. Mater., 39
(1991) 1025-1039. 1 l,
4 R. N. White, P. Gergely and R. G. Sexsmith, Structural Pf,,- b,13 0.4B,3B: \,0d ~]
Engineering,Vol. 3, Wiley, New York, 1974.
5 L.J. Gibson, Optimization of stiffness in sandwich beams with
rigid foam cores, Mater.Sci. Eng., 67 (1984) 125-135. x ~ \Pd ~ } (A8)
6 L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby, CellularSolids: Structureand
Properties,Pergamon, Oxford, 1988.
The maximum beam width at which face wrinkling
occurs is obtained from eqn. (A8):
Appendix A
0.914g 3B33ps2SB4
bfw= x 3 2 (A9)
Three different failure modes are considered: face P B~B[ pf E.
yielding, face wrinkling and core shear yielding. For
each possible failure mode, the maximum applied load If bfy/bfw < 1, the minimum beam width at which face
is related to the geometrical parameters and material yielding occurs will give the maximum shape factor of
properties: the sandwich beam. From eqns. (A7) and (A9), the
ratio bfy/bfwis obtained:

bfy
bf~-3"4°k
.{BIB20,414(p__f]4(Ks]2 (gf)5
~ ) \Pd ~E,} \ayZ!
(~_)8 (A10)

. . {.
G"-v'3/t~3°clTjtzf
. . . .
tzs k Ps ] (A2) (0.4BIBz/B32) < 8.5, pf ~--p~, Es/E f ~ 0.02,
Here, 1.2 <
Ef/Oyf~lO00 and 6/g =0.01; the ratio bfy/bfw is less
[,, ,\3/~ than one.
P~=O.31B4bcaysl~,, ) (A3)
Appendix B
where Oyf and O'ys a r e the yield strength of the face and
the solid core respectively. In order to determine the The deflection owing to shearing deformation is
dominant failure mode which gives the minimum beam twice that owing to bending deformation for the opti-'
width, comparisons between these three possible mum design [5]; the stiffness of the sandwich beam can
failure modes are made. The ratio of the loading be expressed in terms of the applied force and the
capacity for face yielding to that for core shear yielding deflection owing to bending deformation:
is:
P Bl EfI Bj Ef ~
Ply -- B3( t / ~ )O'yf SB . . . . (B1)
(A4) 3(~bending 3~,3 12~,3 ~B AI=
P,~ 0.31B4Oy~(p~*/p~)3/2
where Af is the cross-sectional area of the faces. It ts
Substituting eqns. (31 ) and (32) into (A4), gives also found that the mass of the core is four times that of
the face in the optimum design of sandwich beam [5].
Hence, the mass of the sandwich beam is m = 5pfAfg.
P~, ~ \Or's] \tof/\Ef]J The mass can be rewritten in terms of the design
Here, 0.33 < (B3-Bz/B 42 Bl) < 1.6, Oyf ~'~ Oys, Ps "~'Pf and parameters and material properties from eqn. (B 1 ):
Es/Ef= 1/50; the ratio Pfy/Pcs is less than one. There-
fore, face yielding occurs before core shear yielding.
[4;rSBgS]~/2175pf2 ]l/2
Substituting eqns. (30) and (31 ) into (A1), gives: m = L ~ j LE,¢, el (B2)

Note that there is a difference between eqns. (3) and

P'v= l'38gB3°yt b~/5 SBa (p~]2 1 ]~/s
0.4B 3B2 \Pfl ~ } (A6) (B2). In order to make a comparison between sandwich
beams and other beams (tubes and I beams), an equiv-
The minimum beam width at which face yielding alent shape factor of sandwich beams is introduced and
occurs is obtained from eqn. (A6): defined as:

O.08PSB,3B2E~Ef3 (pf]2 1 (IDBe

bf,.- ~ " (A7) (~J)~q - 75 (B3)
• ILJ'~ Oyf ~" \Ps] SB 4