ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 962–969

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Computer aided material selection for circular tubes designed to resist axial
crushing
Annette Meidell
Narvik University College, P.O. Box 385, N-8505 Narvik, Norway

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We consider optimal design of cylindrical shells under axial compression. The main motivation is the
Received 23 May 2008 comprehensive study of Weaver and Ashby [Material limits for shape efficiency. Progress in Materials Science
Received in revised form 1997;41:61–128] concerning tubes designed to resist local buckling, global buckling and yield. In this paper
5 February 2009
we add another mode to this set of possible failure mechanisms, namely axial crushing. This failure-mode
Accepted 5 February 2009
Available online 19 March 2009
turns out to be dominate for many materials in several relevant load-cases. In many cases, taking this mode
into account changes the optimal design substantially. By analyzing the formulae for the failure-modes we
Keywords: obtain piecewise defined functions describing the optimal cross-section and the minimum mass of the tube.
Tubes Combined with advanced computer aided material selection tools like the Cambridge Engineering Selector
Computer aided material selection
(CES), these functions enable us to identify the best possible materials which give the lightest possible tubes.
Failure mechanisms
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Optimal design

1. Introduction
Circular tubes are often used to carry axial-compressive loads.
When the axial force F and the length l of the tube are known the
optimal design problem consists of finding the mean radius r and
the thickness t (within the class which is possible to manufacture)
such that the cross-section area is minimized and no failures
occur. Due to manufacturing reasons t must be larger than some
minimum value which is dependent on the material, the
production method and the expense. For conventional materials
like steel and aluminum alloys, which are easy to form, we can
often ignore these manufacturing constraints since the failure
mechanisms tend to be more critical. Other materials like metal-
matrix composites and polymer composites may be more difficult
to form. For such materials we therefore also have to take into
consideration the manufacturing constraints.
An interesting materials-centered approach to analyze the
efficiency of several cross-sections shapes was introduced by
Weaver and Ashby [1] (see also [2,3] for a generalization to
anisotropic materials). As a basis for their analysis the three
failure mechanisms local buckling, global buckling and yield were
used (see Fig. 1). The paper also allows for the presence of
interactive failure mechanisms albeit in an empirical non-precise
way. Motivated by their method we add another mode to the set
of possible failure mechanisms, namely axial crushing, which
happens to dominate for several relevant values of the load factor
2
F=ðsy l Þ, where sy denotes the yield stress. We demonstrate that
in many cases the optimal design is changed substantially by
taking this failure mechanism into account. In our opinion, the
presentation of how failure-mode charts are constructed, is
performed in a way which is more methodical and structured
(i.e. pedagogical) and such that the appropriate failure regions are
more easily identified. Besides this, the novel feature of this paper
lays in the mathematical treatment of the failure-mode formulae
leading to piecewise defined functions describing the optimal
cross-section and the minimum mass of the tube. These functions
turn out to be particularly useful in conjunction with advanced
computer aided material selection tools like the Cambridge
Engineering Selector (CES). We give concrete examples where
the best possible materials giving the lightest possible tubes are
found by translating our formulae into the language of CES.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we express the
stresses corresponding to the onset of the four failure-modes. The
boundaries between these failure-modes and methods for con-
structing failure-mode charts are discussed in Section 3. In Section
4 we demonstrate that our approach as a rule gives a better safety
margin than more established methods. Given F, l and the
material properties, we develop expressions for the minimum
mass in Section 5. By using these expressions we explain how we
can find the best materials for our design in Section 6. For the
benefit of the reader we have collected some crucial details in
Section 7 on how our method can be implemented into CES in
order to find the optimal material selection. Finally, we have
collected some concluding remarks in Section 8.
2. Failure-stresses

Let us first express the stresses s1 , s2 , s3 and s4 corresponding

E-mail address: am@hin.no to the onset of global buckling, local buckling, yield and axial

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2009.02.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Meidell / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 962–969 963

Fig. 1. Four failure-modes for axial compression of a circular tube: (1) global buckling, (2) local buckling, (3) yield (or fracture), (4) axial crushing.

crushing, respectively, in the quantities F, sf , l, the shape factor More precisely,

f ¼ r=t and Young’s modulus E. Note that f coincide with the
e \
4
elastic shape factor fB, a dimensionless parameter which equals Oi ¼ Oji .
the relation between the bending stiffness of the tube with that of j¼1
a solid circular section. We know that the critical buckling load is
The sets Oji and Oij are complementary and the boundary ði; jÞ
2
p EI between them is found quite easily by solving the equation
F¼ ,
2
l si ¼ sj . By doing this we obtain the following boundaries
2
expressed by the shape factor f and the load factor F=ðsy l Þ:
for simply supported ends, where I  pr 3 t is the corresponding
 
second moment of area. Letting A  2prt denote the cross- F 1:44ð0:5Þ2 E 1
sectional area we then obtain that boundary ð1; 2Þ: ¼ , (2)
sy l 2 p sy f3
F2 F p2 EI F p2 E I F p2 E pr 3 t FEpf F 4 sy  1
s21 ¼ ¼ ¼  ¼ . boundary ð1; 3Þ: ¼ , (3)
A 2 2
A 2
l l
2 2
A l
2
ð2prtÞ2 4l
2 sy l 2 p E f

Hence, the failure stress for mechanism 1, global buckling, is F 25:4 sy  1
boundary ð1; 4Þ: ¼ , (4)
 1=2 sy l 2 p E f2:4
FEpf  
s1 ¼ . E
4l
2 boundary ð2; 3Þ: f ¼ 0:6ð0:5Þ , (5)
sy
Local buckling gives a chessboard shape deformation like that in  
0:6ð0:5Þ E 1=0:3
Fig. 1 (2). According to Young [4, p. 262–63] the failure stress for boundary ð2; 4Þ: f ¼ , (6)
21:7 sy
this mechanism is s2 ¼ 0:6aEt=r, where a in some sense is 2
dependent of r=t (see [5,6]). However, in this paper we will use the boundary ð3; 4Þ: f ¼ ¼ 5:3836. (7)
ð12 Þ1=0:7
approximation a ¼ 12 which is often used in the literature. Thus,
the failure stress for mechanism 2, local buckling, is One way to determine which side of the boundary Oji lays is to
find the limit of sj =si as f ! 0. If this value is less than 1 we
s2 ¼ 0:3Ef1 . know that sj osi for all points on the left-hand side of the
The third failure mechanism, yield, is simply given by boundary ði; jÞ, due to the fact that the solution of the equation
si ¼ sj is unique for any fixed value of the load factor F=ðsy l2 Þ.
s3 ¼ sy . Thus, in this case Oji lays on the left-hand side. Similarly, we obtain
Concerning the fourth failure mechanism, static axial crushing, the reversed conclusion if the limit is larger than 1. We obtain the
there exist several theoretical approaches in the literature. In following limits as f ! 0:
particular, we want to mention the approximate analysis of    
Alexander [7] and Pugsley and Macaulay [8] (see also [9–14]). In p F 1=2 3=2 p F 1=2
E2 f Ef 2
this paper we will use the following simple empirical formula s1 4 l s1 4 l
¼ ! 0; ¼ ! 0,
which was presented in Thornton et al. [15] (see also [16, p. 399]): s2 0:6aE s3 sy
 0:7  0:7  1=2
t 2 p F
s4 ¼ 2sy 2 ¼ 2sy . (1) E2 f1:2
r f s1 4 l
¼ ! 0,
s4 2sy ð2Þ0:7
3. Dominant failure-modes s3 sy f s4 2sy ð20:7 Þf0:3 s3 sy f0:7
¼ ! 0; ¼ ! 0; ¼ ! 0.
s2 0:6aE s2 0:6aE s4 2sy ð2Þ0:7
2
Let Oji denote the set of pairs ðf; F=ðsy l ÞÞ for which the failure-
mode i dominates failure-mode j, i.e. such that si osj . The set Oi of This shows that Oji lays on the left-hand side of the boundary ði; jÞ
2
pairs ðf; F=ðsy l ÞÞ for which the failure-mode i dominates all other for ði; jÞ ¼ ð1; 2Þ, ði; jÞ ¼ ð1; 3Þ, ði; jÞ ¼ ð1; 4Þ, ði; jÞ ¼ ð3; 2Þ, ði; jÞ ¼ ð4; 2Þ
failure-modes is then given by the intersection of the sets fOji g. and ði; jÞ ¼ ð3; 2Þ.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

964 A. Meidell / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 962–969

By using log on each side of the above boundary equation and

setting
!
F
y ¼ log10 ; x ¼ log10 f,
sy l2

we obtain the following six boundary curves for the specific value
of the yield strain sy =E ¼ 3  103 (aluminum):

boundary ð122Þ: y ¼ log10 ð38:197Þ  3x,

boundary ð123Þ: y ¼ log10 ð3:8197  103 Þ  x,
boundary ð124Þ: y ¼ log10 ð4:0321  102 Þ  2:4x,
boundary ð223Þ: x ¼ log10 100 ¼ 2,
boundary ð224Þ: x ¼ log10 91376 ¼ 4:9608,
boundary ð324Þ: x ¼ log10 5:3836 ¼ 0:73107.

These boundaries are drawn in Fig. 2 together with pairs of

numbers ði; jÞ indicating the boundaries ði; jÞ. Note that the number
in each pair is placed on the side of the boundary where the
associated failure mechanism is dominating the other one. In
Fig. 3 we have illustrated the regions for which each of the failure
mechanisms dominating all others. In order to compare we have
Fig. 4. The regions of dominating failure mechanisms for the case sy =E ¼ 3  103
2
(aluminum) when axial crushing is ignored. Here, y ¼ log10 ðF=ðsy l ÞÞ and
x ¼ log10 f.
also illustrated the regions of dominating failure mechanisms
when axial crushing is ignored (see Fig. 4).

4. Comparison

Even though Weaver and Ashby [1] do not consider axial

crushing they use a formula which describes the interaction
between local buckling and yield in the upper part of the failure-
mode map illustrated in Fig. 4. This formula, which was
recommended by the European Convention for Constructional
Steelwork [17], takes the following form:
 
s23 1 2sy 2 2sy
¼1 if o1,
sy 3 3s2 3s2
where s23 denotes the failure stress generated from the interac-
tion between local buckling and yield. In particular, we observe
that this formula gives a reduction of 15% in the failure stress at
1
Fig. 2. The six boundary curves for the specific value of the yield strain sy =E ¼ the boundary ð2; 3Þ at which s2 ¼ sy . Inserting s2 ¼ 0:3Ef into
2
3  103 (aluminum), where y ¼ log10 ðF=ðsy l ÞÞ and x ¼ log10 f. this expression we obtain the formula
 2
s23 1 f sy  f sy 
¼1 if o1.
sy 3 0:45 E 0:45 E
In Fig. 5 we have compared this formula for some relevant values
of sy =E with the one we are using for the same region, namely the
formula s =sy where
8
( > s;
< y  
fp5:3836;

s y ; fp5:3836 0:7
s ¼ ¼ 2
s4 ; f45:3836 > : 2sy f ; f45:3836:

For sy =Eo3  102 we see that s is less than the interaction-

formula s23 in almost all parts of its range of definition except for
a small region around f ¼ 5:38 where s23 is slightly less than s .
In other words, using s instead of s23 as a rule gives a better
safety margin when sy =Ep3  102 , which practically are all
materials except for the elastomers.

5. The mass of the tube

Fig. 3. The regions of dominating failure mechanisms when sy =E ¼ 3  103 In the region i of dominating failure mechanisms a tube made
2
(aluminum), where y ¼ log10 ðF=ðsy l ÞÞ and x ¼ log10 f. of a material with density r which is close to fail will have the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Meidell / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 962–969 965

we obtain the following inverse of (12), which is the optimum

shape factor,
8 !
> 2 1=3 s 9
>
> 1:44ð0:5Þ2 l F y
>
>
> E if p 2:5436  109 ;
>
>
>
p F sy l 2 E
>
> ! !1=2:4
>
> 2 s 9
>
>
> 25:4 s2y l y F
>
> if 2:5436  109 p 2
>
> p E F E sy l
>
< s 
f ¼ fopt ¼ y
> p 0:2365;
>
> ! E
>
> s 
> 4 sy 
2 2
> 4 sy l
>
> if
y
0:2365p 2 p
F
;
>
>
>
> p E F E sy l p E
>
>
>
> 4 sy  F
>
>
>
> 1 if p 2:
: p E sy l
(13)
Fig. 5. The figure shows s =sy (thick curve) and s23 =sy (five thin curves).
Inserting these expressions into (8)–(11) we obtain the follow-
ing expressions for the minimum mass:
8 s 9
mass > 5=3
1:6191F 2=3 l r F
>
> if p
y
2:5436  109 ;
  >
> 1=6 2
F >
> E sy l E
m ¼ Arl ¼ rl. >
>
si >
> 19=12 s 9
>
> 0:6567F 17=24 l r y F
>
< 10=24 7=24
if 2:5436  109 p 2
Hence, we obtain the following expressions for each of the four s E E s yl
mmin ¼ y (14)
failure-regions: >
> s 
>
> p
y
0:2365;
>
>
    2 1=2 >
> E
4 1 r >
> s 
region 1: m ¼
4
ðFl Þ , (8) > Flr
> y F
>
> if 0:2365p 2 ;
p f E : sy E sy l
f r
region 2: m ¼ Fl, (9)
0:3
 E i.e.
r 8  1=9
region 3: m ¼ Fl, (10)
sy >
>
>
5=3
1:6191F 2=3 l r F s10=9
y
  >
> 1=6
if 9 2
p ;
f0:7 r >
> E 2:5436  10 l E
>
>  1=9
region 4: m ¼ Fl. (11) >
> 19=12 10=9
2ð2Þ0:7 sy >
> 0:6567F 17=24 l r F s y
>
> if p
< s10=24 E7=24 2:5436  10 l 9 2 E
This shows that m is decreasing with f in region 1, increasing with mmin ¼
y

f in regions 2 and 4, and constant in region 3. Hence, the optimal >

> F s 2
>
> and p
y
;
>
>
value of the shape factor fopt, which gives the minimum mass for >
>
2
l 0:2365 E
>
>
given a given force F and a given length l, lies on the curve >
> Flr s2y F
>
>
separating region 1 from the other regions. Due to the fact that the >
:s if p :
y E l2 0:2365
mass is independent of f in region 3 all points in this region are
optimal. Hence, we might as well choose f equal to the lowest (15)
possible value as this often is the easiest choice from a
manufacturing point of view. The optimal curve is piecewise
defined by (2)–(4) (i.e. the boundaries ð1; 2Þ, ð1; 3Þ and ð1; 4Þ)
depending on the numerical order of the f-values given by
(5)–(7). The values coincide if sf =E ¼ 5:57  102 . If sf =Eo5:57 
102 then (7) o (5) o (6) and we obtain the following curve for
the optimal design (of the same type as that illustrated in Fig. 3):
8  
> 4 sy 1
>
> if 1ofp5:3836;
>
> p E f
>
>  
>
>  
>
<2
5:4
sy 1 0:3 E 1=0:3
F if 5:3836pfp 1:7 ;
¼ p E f 2:4
2 sy (12)
sy l2 >>
>  
>
> 1:44ð0:5Þ 12
0:3 E 1=0:3
>
> s  if pf:
>
>
>
: p y f3 21:7 sy
E
Noting that
F 4 sy 
¼ for f ¼ 1,
sy l2 p E
F  sy 
¼ 0:2365 for f ¼ 5:3836,
sy l2 E
s 9  
F y 9 0:3 E 1=0:3 Fig. 6. The regions of dominating failure mechanisms for the case sf =E ¼ 7  102 ,
¼ 2:5436  10 for f ¼ , 2
where y ¼ log10 ðF=ðsy l ÞÞ and x ¼ log10 f. Since sf =E45:57  102 failure-mode 4
sy l2 E 21:7 sy will not be dominating at any point in this map.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

966 A. Meidell / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 962–969

Observe that the three vertical boundaries (2,3), (2–4) and (3,4) and
coincide when f ¼ 5:3836 and sf =E ¼ 5:57  102 . If sf =E45:57 8  
102 , the order of these boundaries is reversed compared with the >
>
>
r s10=9
y sy
>
< 149:12 if 0:271p and X5:57  102 ;
case discussed above, i.e. we obtain that (7) 4 (5) 4 (6). This implies E1=6 E E
that we can ignore the failure-mode 4 (see Fig. 6). Hence, we obtain mmin ¼  
>
>
> r sy10=9 sy
the following expression for the minimum mass: >
: 2500 if p0:271 and X5:57  102 :
sy E E
8  1=9
>
>
>
5=3
1:6191F 2=3 l r F sy10=9 (18)
>
< if 2
p ;
E1=6 2:5436  109 l E
Letting sy be equal to the compressive strength the set of all
mmin ¼   (16)
>
> Flr
> sy10=9 F 1=9 10=9
materials satisfying sy =Ep0:271 and 84567ps2y =E may be
>
:s if p 2
:
y E 2:5436  109 l visualized by CES as that illustrated in Fig. 7. The corresponding
calculation of the minimum mass
!
6. Optimal material selection r
mmin ¼ 91:378 10=24 7=24
(19)
s y E
Given F and l, the expressions (15) and (16) enable us to find the
best materials for the design of the tube within any class of is shown in Fig. 8. Since the yield stress sy in (19) comes from (1)
materials with known values of r, E and sy . The CES, developed by (i.e. the failure stress formula for axial crushing which is not
Granta Design Ltd., in conjunction with Cambridge University primarily caused by compressive yielding) we have chosen to let
Engineering Department, is a Windows based PC toolkit which can sy be given by the tension strength in (19) rather than the
assist us in this process. CES contains a database with information compressive strength. We see from Fig. 8 that Boron Carbide, Al-
about more than 2900 of the most common engineering materials 60%C-M40(HM-C-Fibre)-Longitudinal, Beryllium and Bamboo give
(for more information, see [18]). In order to illustrate, let F ¼ low weights. Beryllium is a deadly poison and must be ruled out if
5000 N and l ¼ 0:5 m. For this case (15) and (16) reduces to the tube is supposed to be in human-environments. For manu-
8   facturing reasons we can also rule out Bamboo. Using the
>
>
>
r s10=9
y sy following data for Baron Carbide: sy ¼ 569 MPa, E ¼ 472 GPa,
> 149:12 1=6
> if 0:271p and
>
> E E E r ¼ 2550 kg=m3 , we obtain the values
>
>
>
> p5:57  10 2
; !
>
> !
>
> 2550
< r s10=9 s2y mmin ¼ 91:378
y
mmin ¼ 91:378 10=24 7=24 if p0:271 and 84567p ; ð5:69  108 Þ10=24 ð4:72  1011 Þ7=24
>
> sy E E E
>
>
>
>   2 ¼ 2:0631  102 kg,
>
>
> r sy sy
> 2500
> if p84567 and
>
> sy E E
>
> ! !1=2:4
:
p5:57  102 25:4 ð5:69  108 Þ2 ð0:5Þ2
fopt ¼ ¼ 12:878.
(17) p 4:72  1011 5000

1e+012 Alumina Matrix Composite

High Alloy Steel

1e+011
Boron Carbide

1e+010
Young’s Modulus (Pa) E

Wrought aluminium alloy, 7055, T77511

1e+009

Wrought Magnesium

1e+008
σy/E = 5.57x10-2
Polymethacrylimide Foam: Rigid PMACR (0.200)
1e+007
10/9
σy /E = 0.271
1e+006

100000
2
σy/E = 84567

10000
10000 100000 1e+006 1e+007 1e+008 1e+009 1e+010
Compressive Strength (Pa) σy
10=9
Fig. 7. The material selection shown in the chart is generated from CES and shows the intersection of materials satisfying sy =Ep0:271 and 84567ps2y =E.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Meidell / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 962–969 967

10

1
mmin

Polymethacrylimide Foam: Rigid PMACR (0.200)

Wrought Magnesium

0.1

High Alloy Steel

Wrought aluminium alloy, 7055, T77511
Alumina Matrix Composite
0.01

Boron Carbide

Material Universe:\Ceramic Material Universe:\Composite Material Universe:\Foam Material Universe:\Metal Meterial Universe:\Natural Material Universe:\Polymer
Material groups

10=9
Fig. 8. This chart, which is generated from CES, shows the value of mmin for all materials satisfying sy =Ep0:271 and 84567ps2y =E.

According to CES the maximum possible shape factor for Using that A ¼ 2prt and r ¼ t f this gives us that t and r are given
Baron Carbide is fmax ¼ 15. Therefore it should be possible to by
produce the tube with the optimal shape factor fopt ¼ 12:878. !1=4 !1=4
2 2
Using the following data for Al-60%C-M40(HM-C-Fibre)-Long- Fl Fl f
t¼ 3
; r ¼ . (21)
itudinal: sy ¼ 1100 MPa, E ¼ 250 GPa, r ¼ 2300 kg=m3 , we obtain Ep3 f Ep3
the values
Hence, for Baron Carbide
!
2300
mmin ¼ 91:378 t ¼ 4:471 9  104 and r ¼ 5:7589  103 ,
ð1:1  109 Þ10=24 ð2:5  1011 Þ7=24
and for Al-60%C-M40(HM-C-Fibre)-Longitudinal
¼ 1:7019  102 kg,
t ¼ 3:7680  104 and r ¼ 7:5359  103 .
! !1=2:4
25:4 ð1:1  109 Þ2 ð0:5Þ2
fopt ¼ ¼ 29:069.
p 2:5  10 11 5000 7. Some computational details

However, according to CES the maximum possible shape factor for For those interested in doing similar computations, let us
this material is fmax ¼ 20. We therefore have to reduce the shape briefly explain how we have implemented our data into CES. The
factor to f ¼ 20, which brings us a little to the left in failure region set of materials illustrated in Fig. 7 is obtained by making two
1. Hence, using (8) the new mass becomes ‘‘stages’’ in the same ‘‘project’’ where we choose ‘‘Compressive

 !!1=2 Strength’’ on the horizontal axis and ‘‘Young’s modulus’’ on the
4 1 ð2300Þ2
m¼ ð5000ð0:5Þ4 Þ ¼ 2:0517  102 kg. vertical axis. We create a curve in each stage of type M ¼ E1=s =sy
p 20 2:5  1011 by specifying the ‘‘slope’’ s and choosing the value M (the material
index). Using logarithmic scales this curve will actually be a
Similarly as above we can calculate the minimum mass mmin in straight line. In the first stage we put s ¼ 109 and
the remaining four sets (see e.g. Figs. 9 and 10). It turns out that
10=9
!9=10
these values are significantly larger. Hence, we can conclude that E9=10 sy
the suggested materials are among the best possible for our M¼ ¼ ¼ ð0:271Þ9=10 ¼ 3:24.
sy E
particular example.
The above calculations illustrate that we always should let the In the second stage we put s ¼ 2 and
shape factor be equal to the value f ¼ minffmax ; fopt g. Since this !1=2
gives a tube in failure region 1, the cross-section area will be given E1=2 s2y
M¼ ¼ ¼ ð84567Þ1=2 ¼ 3:44  103 .
by sy E
! In the edit-menu we choose ‘‘Select: above the line’’ in first stage
2 1=2
F 4Fl
A¼ ¼ . (20) and ‘‘Select: below the line’’ in the second stage, which gives us
s1 Epf 10=9
the two sets of materials satisfying sy =Ep0:271 and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

968 A. Meidell / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 962–969

1e+012

1e+011
Wrought aluminium alloy, 5251, O

1e+010
Young's Modulus (Pa) E

1e+009
Alumina Foam (99.8%)(0.8)

1e+008 σy /E = 5.57x10-2
Polymethacryslimide Foam: Rigid PMACR (0.110)

1e+007
10/9
σy /E = 0.271
1e+006

σ2y /E = 84567
100000

10000
10000 100000 1e+006 1e+007 1e+008 1e+009 1e+010
Compressive Strength (Pa) σy

Fig. 9. The material selection shown in the chart shows the intersection of materials satisfying s2y =Ep84567 and sy =Ep5:57  102 .

1
mmin

0.1

Wrought aluminium alloy, 5251, O

Polymethacrylimide Foam: Rigid PMACR (0.110)

Alumina Foam (99.8%)(0.8)

0.01
Material Universe:\Foam Material Universe:\Metal
Material groups

Fig. 10. This chart shows the value of mmin for all materials satisfying s2y =Ep84567 and sy =Ep5: 57  102 .

84567ps2y =E, respectively. CES allows us to take the intersection making a third stage for which all materials are placed along the
between both stages, giving us the set illustrated in Fig. 7. Finally, horizontal axis and mmin along the vertical axis. More precisely, in
we obtain the illustration given in Fig. 8, of the minimum mass the edit-menu, under x-axis/advanced/trees we choose ceramic,
mmin corresponding to the materials in this intersection, by composite, foam, metal, natural and polymer, and y-axis/advanced
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Meidell / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 962–969 969

we insert the formula the optimal achievable design for each of the remaining material-
! candidates among which we choose that with the least weight.
r Finally, we want to add a few comments on the accuracy of
mmin ¼ 91:378 , (22)
s10=24
y E7=24 Thornton’s formula (1). This formula turns out to be material
specific as crushing can involve significant plastic deformation in
by typing ð91:379Þ  ½Density=ðð½Tensile Strength^ð10=24ÞÞ
folded regions in ductile metals, but in composite materials and
ð½Young’ s Modulus^ð7=24ÞÞÞ.
bamboo the failure mechanism is very different with significant
In order to be sure that this formula is used only when
splitting, delamination and multiple brittle crack paths. Hence, it
fopt pfmax we can create a fourth stage choosing fmax (i.e. ‘‘shape
is doubtful that Thornton’s formula is reliable for non-ductile
factor’’ in CES) along the horizontal axis and
metals and brittle materials. Having said this, it is clear that the
! !1=2:4 ! !1=2:4 crushing formula provides a more conservative approach than
25:4 s2y l2 25:4 s2y ð0:5Þ2
fopt ¼ ¼ done previously.
p E F p E 5000

along the vertical axis. Similarly as for the first and second stage
we obtain the materials satisfying fopt pfmax by selecting the
region below the line M ¼ fopt =fmax and M ¼ 1. For the
complementary region fopt Xfmax we make another project
which is almost identical with the previous one with the only
difference that we select the region above the line M ¼ fopt =fmax
and M ¼ 1 and change formula (22) with
    2 1=2
4 1 4 r
m¼ ðFl Þ
p fmax E
    2 1=2
4 1 r
¼ ð5000ð0:5Þ4 Þ .
p fmax E [1] Weaver PM, Ashby MF. Material limits for shape efficiency. Progress in
8. Concluding remarks
First of all we observe that the failure-charts are often changed
substantially by taking the empirical formula (1) for axial
crushing into account (compare e.g. Figs. 3 and 4). As demon-
strated in Section 4, using this failure mechanism gives generally a
better safety margin.
By identifying the materials giving the smallest values of the
mass mmin in each of the five regions described by (15) and (16),
we may quite easily obtain the best materials and the correspond-
ing optimal design of the tube. CES seems to be a perfect tool in
this process. In cases where the maximum shape factor fmax is
less than the optimal shape factor fopt it is clear that (15) and (16)
give a smaller value of the mass than that of realistic tubes which
are strong enough to resist the four failure-modes. In such cases
we may use the formula
    2 1=2
4 1 4 r
m¼ ðFl Þ , [13] Gupta NK, Abbas H. Mathematical modeling of axial crushing of cylindrical
p fmax E tubes. Thin-Walled Structures 2000;38:355–75.
in combination with the computational method described in the
last paragraph of Section 7. Note, however, that the value of fmax
found by CES denotes the maximum shape factor which is
possible to obtain among all tubes, and it may be the case that
this shape factor is unreachable for the corresponding cross-
section area given by (20). The method should therefore be used
with some caution. For example, we may use it in the first step to
reduce the number of material-candidates, and in the next step
investigate the production processes available in order to obtain
Acknowledgments
I thank Professor Steffen Zeuthen for attracting my attention to
formula (1). In addition, I want to thank Professor Dag Lukkassen
for some advises which have improved the mathematical
presentation of my results. Finally, I want to thank an anonymous
referee for several comments and suggestions which have
improved the presentation of this paper.
References
Materials Science 1997;41:61–128.
[2] Weaver PM. Design of laminated composite cylindrical shells under axial
compression. Composites Part B 2000;31:669–79.
[3] Wegst UGK, Ashby MF. The structural efficiency of orthotropic stalks, stems
and tubes. Journal of Materials Science 2007;42:21.
[4] Young W. Roark’s formulas for stress and strain. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1989.
[5] Allen HG, Bulson PS. Background to buckling. London: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[6] Anon., Thin-walled circular cylinders. NASA Report; 1968.
[7] Alexander JM. An approximate analysis of the collapse of thin cylindrical
shells under axial loading. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied
Mathematics 1960;13:10–5.
[8] Pugsley Sir A, Macaulay M. The large scale crumpling of thin cylindrical
columns. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics
1960;13:1–9.
[9] Abramowicz W. The effective crushing distance in axially compressed thin-
walled metal columns. International Journal of Impact Engineering
1983;1:309–17.
[10] Abramowicz W, Jones N. Dynamic axial crushing of circular tubes. Interna-
tional Journal of Impact Engineering 1984;2:263–81.
[11] Al Galib D, Limam A. Experimental and numerical investigation of static and
dynamic axial crushing of circular aluminum tubes. Thin-Walled Structures
2004;42:1103–37.
[12] Gupta NK. Some aspects of axial collapse of cylindrical thin walled tubes.
Thin-Walled Structures 1998;32:111–26.
[14] Pugsley Sir A. The crumpling of tubular structures under impact conditions.
In: Proceedings of the symposium on the use of aluminium in railway rolling
stock. London: Institute of Locomotive Engineers, The Aluminium Develop-
ment Association; 1960. p. 33–41.
[15] Thornton PH, Mahmood HF, Magee CL. Energy absorption by structural
collapse. In: Jones N, Wierzbicki T, editors. Structural crashworthiness.
London: Butterworths; 1983. p. 96–117.
[16] Jones N. Structural impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
[17] ECCS (European Convention for Constructional Steelwork), Second interna-
tional colloquium on stability. Introductory report, Tokyo; 1976. p. 281.
[18] Ashby M. Materials selection in mechanical design. 3rd ed. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; 2005.