School of Digital, Technologies and Arts

Department of Engineering

Advanced Materials & Quality (MECH71010)

Submitted to: Kudakwashe Diana Oniko

Submitted on: 5th May 2023

Name: Karachi F. Nwaobia
Student ID:22024543
MSc Mechanical Engineering and Sustainable Energy
Technologies
Contents
1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Materials used for longboard decks.............................................................................................5
1.2 Function and Mechanical loading................................................................................................6
1.3 Properties considered in selecting materials for a longboard deck..............................................6
1.4 The selection strategy..................................................................................................................7
1.4.1 Objectives.................................................................................................................................7
1.4.2 Ashby Translation......................................................................................................................7
Screening:......................................................................................................................................9
2.0 Applying Material Index.................................................................................................................11
2.1 Mathematical derivation of material indices.............................................................................11
2.2 Ranking......................................................................................................................................12
2.3 Documentation..........................................................................................................................15
3.0 THE SYNTHESIZER..........................................................................................................................19
3.1 Sandwich panel Model..............................................................................................................20
3.1.1. Face material.....................................................................................................................21
3.1.2 Core material......................................................................................................................21
3.1.3 Sandwich panel creation.....................................................................................................21
3.2 Multi-Layer Material Model.......................................................................................................23
3.2.1 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................24
3.2.2 Multi-layer material creation..............................................................................................24
3.3 Improvement of hybrids............................................................................................................26
Addition of Carbon and S-Glass fibre...............................................................................................26
3.3.1 Carbon fibre............................................................................................................................26
3.3.2 S-Glass fibre............................................................................................................................26
3.4 Sandwich Improvement.............................................................................................................27
3.5 Multi-layer material Improvement.............................................................................................28
3.6 Result of Hybrid Improvement...................................................................................................28
4. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................29
4.1 Material suitability.....................................................................................................................29
4.2 Limitation of the selection strategies and the synthesizer tool..................................................31
4.3 Material environmental impact and sustainability.....................................................................32
4.4 Advanced material that can be used for Longboard deck design...............................................34
5.0 Reference.......................................................................................................................................35
6.0 Appendix........................................................................................................................................37
List of figures
Figure 1:A Longboard............................................................................................................................5
Figure 2Materials used for longboard decks (EduPack, 2022)...............................................................5
Figure 3:Mode of loading......................................................................................................................6
Figure 4:Launching the Level 3 Eco Design............................................................................................7
Figure 5:Property chart of young’s modulus E against density ρ on logarithmic scales.........................8
Figure 6:Suitable....................................................................................................................................8
Figure 7:The query interface, imposing the constraints that the modulus is 0.001 GPa and the
maximum use temperature is greater than 60°C and minimum use temperature of -200°C.................9
Figure 8:Materials left after screening...................................................................................................9
Figure 9:Materials left after screening.................................................................................................10
Figure 10:Property chart of young’s modulus E against density ρ enclosed in an envelope................10
Figure 11:Index line M=3.....................................................................................................................12
Figure 12:The index M=E^(1⁄3)⁄ρ, describing the objective of stiffness at minimum weight, plotted on a
chart....................................................................................................................................................13
Figure 13:A bar chart of the Tensile strength (MPa) of Materials left from translation.......................14
Figure 14:A bar chart of the Young’s modulus of materials left from translation................................14
Figure 15:A bar chart of the Mechanical Loss coefficient of materials left from translation................15
Figure 16:Comparative Table of material composition........................................................................15
Figure 17:Comparative Table of material mechanical composition.....................................................16
Figure 18:Property chart of young’s modulus E against density ρ of Translation with bamboo as
refence material..................................................................................................................................17
Figure 19:Hybrid materials (Ashby, M. F. et al., 2010)..........................................................................19
Figure 20:Synthesizer interface (Ashby, M. F. et al., 2010)...................................................................20
Figure 21:Sandwich Panel (Ashby, Michael F., 2011)...........................................................................20
Figure 22:Input window for sandwich model with balsa set as face-sheet and EPS foam as core.......22
Figure 23: Modulus density chart showing sandwich material created...............................................22
Figure 24:multi-layer material (EduPack, 2022)...................................................................................23
Figure 25:Forces acting on a multi-layer (EduPack, 2022)....................................................................23
Figure 26:Input window for Multi-layer model with balsa and EPS foam............................................25
Figure 27:Modulus density chart showing Multi-layer material created.............................................25
Figure 28: Input window for sandwich model with carbon and S-glass fibre set as face-sheet and EPS
foam as core........................................................................................................................................27
Figure 29:Modulus density chart showing hybrid Multi-layer material created..................................28
Figure 30:Modulus density chart showing hybrid material created.....................................................29
Figure 31:Youngs modulus chart of synthesized material, bamboo and material translation..............30
Figure 32:comparative Table of hybrid multi-layer materials...............................................................30
Figure 33:comparative Table of hybrid multi-layer materials...............................................................31
Figure 34:comparison was done on the primary production energy, CO2 and water of layers model
and compared with bamboo...............................................................................................................32
Figure 35:comparison was done on the primary production energy, CO2 and water of sandwich
model and compared with bamboo....................................................................................................33
Figure 36::chart of CO2 footprint.........................................................................................................33
Figure 37: chart of Embodied energy...................................................................................................34

List of Tables
Table 1:Translation Table.......................................................................................................................7

1.0 Introduction
A longboard is a type of skateboard, where the board is both larger and longer than the
traditional skateboards. It is used for downhill racing and slalom racing. Slalom is a weave
through a set of traffics cones. The main body of the skateboard is the deck and it mostly
similar in dimension and characteristics a skateboard, but longer with larger wheels
(Liu and Coote, 2018)
. The deck's ends are shallow, enabling a smaller turning radius, while the wheels
are substantially bigger for better traction. While cruise boards are designed for trick-based
riding, longboards are better for street riding (commuting). The main function of the deck is
to safely support the user as they stand on the skateboard. The deck should be strong
enough to support the user while in motion without breaking while the trucks are often
wide to improve stability.

Figure 1:A Longboard

1.1 Materials used for longboard decks.

Bamboo, CFRP and plywood emerged as best products for longboard decks in an ANSYS
selection process (EduPack, 2022). However, Aramid fibre (Kevlar), s-grade glass fibres, maple
wood, birch, foams etc can be used for longboard decks (Prentiss et al., 2011). These materials
are selected based on their strength, stiffness modulus of elasticity, prices and resistance to
a wide range of temperatures.

Figure 2Materials used for longboard decks (EduPack, 2022)

1.2 Function and Mechanical loading

The function of the deck is to safely support the user. The longboard deck is very much like a
panel in bending. It is subjected mainly bending strain during their use (FOTIN et al., 2016).
The bending stiffness indicates how much it will bend when a load is applied. A high bending
stiffness indicates that the board will bend less when a load is applied. Longboard
skateboarders will either jump on a completely completed board's middle or press their foot
firmly into the board's centre to gauge the rigidity of the board.

Figure 3:Mode of loading

3
bh MY
The moment of inertia is calculated by I = and stress δ=
12 I

Where I=moment of inertia, b= width, h=height, δ =tensile stress, M=moment, Y=

perpendicular distance.

1.3 Properties considered in selecting materials for a longboard deck.

Strength is considered a crucial property because the longboard deck must be strong enough.
However, the following performance limiting properties must be considered during material
selection for a longboard deck.

Stiffness: This is the ability of material to resist deformation when load is applied. A low deck
stiffness will cause high deflection which can make riding unstable (Liu and Coote, 2018)

Compressive strength (core) and Tensile strength (fibre): longboard deck with high compressive and
tensile strength will be more durable, reliable, and safe for riders, and will perform better in a variety
of riding conditions (Ashby, M. F., Cebon, Bream, Cesaretto and Ball, 2010) .

Fracture toughness: The longboard must be comparatively good to resist crack propagation during
operation (Liu and Coote, 2018)

Fatigue strength: the longboard deck must have long life span resulting to longer fatigue cycles
(Hibbeler and Yap, 2013)

Price: Generally, higher-priced longboards are made from better quality materials, have better
construction, and may come with more advanced features that can enhance performance.

Density: This is the mass per unit volume of a substance ( mkg )

3 . A low-density material reduces the

overall weight of the longboard thus making it easy to carry.

Mechanical loss coefficient: a measure of energy dissipation due to damping

(Varszegi, Takacs and Stepan, 2017)
1.4 The selection strategy

1.4.1 Objectives
The objective of study is to:

Maximize the cubic root of the young’s modulus, over the density while considering damping.

1.4.2 Ashby Translation

Table 1:Translation Table

Function ρ
M=
Panel in bending 1
E3
Constraints Fixed geometry
Density < 3000 kg/m3
Service temperature: -200C- +600C
Young’s modulus: >0.001GPa
Resistance to rain and salt water:
Limited/Acceptable/Excellent
Objectives Minimize weight.
Stiffness-limited design
Absorb vibration
Free variables Thickness
Material combination

Figure 4:Launching the Level 3 Eco Design

 Figure 5:Property chart of young’s modulus E against density ρ on logarithmic scales

Figure 5 shows a property chart of young’s modulus E against density ρ on logarithmic

scales. The range of axes satisfies the limit for all materials that met the set limit or
constraint. It can be deduced from the plot that a sub-range associated to a family is smaller
than the full range of that property. A family is enclosed in an envelope with bubbles
enclosing classes and subclasses.

Figure 6:Suitable
In Figure 6 situatable custom subset from the material universe was applied. This reduces
the number of materials that pass the limit for the longboard deck requirement from 4190
to 1148.

Figure 7:The query interface, imposing the constraints that the modulus is 0.001 GPa and the
maximum use temperature is greater than 60°C and minimum use temperature of -200°C.

Screening: This process involves applying attribute limits that eliminates candidate materials
that cannot be selected for application because they possess attributes that lie outside the
limits set by constraints above. In figure 7, multiple constraint was applied. The limit
function is used to eliminate candidate materials that do not possess attributes set by the
constraint.

Figure 8:Materials left after screening.

 Figure 9:Materials left after screening.

Figure 8 shows 871 materials were left after screening. Figure 10 below, shows a property chart
of young’s modulus E against density ρ on logarithmic scales. The range of axes satisfies the
limit for all materials that met the set limit or constraint. It can be deduced from the plot
that a sub-range associated to a family is smaller than the full range of that property. A
family is enclosed in an envelope with bubbles enclosing classes and subclasses.

Fibers and particulates 3000kg/m^3

1000

Search Region
100
Young's modulus (GPa)

10 Natural materials
Composites
1

Natural fibers
0.1
Foams
0.01

0.001 0.001GPa

Honeycombs
1e-4
10 100 1000 10000
Density (kg/m^3)

Figure 10:Property chart of young’s modulus E against density ρ enclosed in an envelope.

The dotted green lines on the horizontal and vertical axes show the stiffness and density
limit set by the constraint.

2.0 Applying Material Index

2.1 Mathematical derivation of material indices
Where t=thickness w=width L=length F=force A=AreaM=mass ρ=density
S=stiffness
m= ALP → m=wtLρ … … … … … … … … . ( 1 )

F
S=
δ
3
FL
The objective is to minimize bending of the board when loaded. Objective equation: δ =
CEI
Where C=constant, δ = deflection of the beam
C 1 EI
Therefore, s= 3
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. (2 )
L
3 3
Wt C1 Ew t
I= 3 , equation 2 becomes S= 3
L 12 L
Eliminating the free variable t from objective function we have;

( ) EL … … … … … … … … … … … .. (3 )
1
12 S L 12 S
3
3
3
t= = 1
C 1 Ew C1 w 3

(( )E)
1
12 S L
Inserting t in equation (1) we have; m= wLρ
3
C1 w 1
3

( )
2 1 1
3 3 3 3
w L 12 S ρ
m= 1 1
3
C E3

Our objective = High stiffness E and less density ρ. Therefore, our material index M is;
ρ
M 1= 1
… … . (4 )
3
E
 1
3
Taking the reciprocal of equation (4) becomes; M = E … … … .. ( 5 )
1
ρ
Rearranging the equation into the general straight line equation y=mx+c and taking logs.
log E=3 logp+3 log M 1

Our second objective M2 will be to minimize vibrations. Therefore, we multiply equation (5)
by the mechanical loss coefficient Ƞ.
1
Ƞ∗E 3
M 2= … … …... ( 6 )
ρ

1 1
E 3 and Ƞ∗E 3 are measures of the excellence or material indices for selecting material
M 1= M 2=
ρ ρ
for light, stiff and quality damping structures.

2.2 Ranking
The next stage was to rank the materials that maximise the component's performance from
the subset of those that already meet the constraints. By selecting a slope of 3 as derived
from the equations above, the E-ρ chart is used to show materials that maximize
performance.

Figure 11:Index line M=3

 Figure 12:The index M=E^(1⁄3)⁄ρ, describing the objective of stiffness at minimum weight, plotted on a chart

1
3
Figure 12 shows index M = E , describing the objective of stiffness at minimum weight,
❑
ρ
E
plotted on a chart. All the materials that lie on the same line of constant perform equally
ρ
well as a light, stiff component; those that are below the line have lower performance.
Those materials that are above the line perform better. The material that has the greatest
E
value of C= (i.e increasing the value of c towards the search region) is the best choice
ρ
(Ashby, Mike, 2021). From the selection process, Balsa (Ochroma spp.) (0.09-0.11) ranked as
the best choice.

Figure 13:A bar chart of the Tensile strength (MPa) of Materials left from translation.

The bar chart in figure 13 above shows the comparison of tensile strength of materials left.
Balsa excelled greatly in tensile strength compared to EPS and PVC foams.

Figure 14:A bar chart of the Young’s modulus of materials left from translation
Figure 14 shows the bar chart of comparison of young’s modulus of materials left after
translation. Again, balsa has a very high stiffness compared to the foams on the lower right-
hand corner of the chart.

Figure 15:A bar chart of the Mechanical Loss coefficient of materials left from translation.

The bar chart in figure 15 show a result of comparison of the mechanical loss coefficient of
materials left after translation. Expanded PS foams excelled greatly in ability to absorb
vibration. However, Balsa had the least damping property thus cannot be considered a good
vibration-reduction material.

2.3 Documentation
The materials remaining after the translation process were compared on a table with the
reference material (bamboo) used in the production of a long board. This comparison gives
an insight on the mechanical property of these materials and their suitability for a longboard
deck.

Figure 16:Comparative Table of material composition

 Figure 17:Comparative Table of material mechanical composition

Figure 17 above show a comparative analysis of the mechanical properties of the materials
left with reference to a bamboo which is a traditional material for longboard deck
manufacture. The table show that the materials left after translation had low mechanical
properties in compared to bamboo. Balsa was ranked next to bamboo in young’s modulus
with an average young’s modulus of 2.3GPa which is very poor compared to bamboo. All
materials left after translation had yield strength less than 10MPa. Which very low compared
to bamboo with an average yield strength of 38MPs. The compressive and tensile strength of
all materials left was relatively poor compared to bamboo. The materials had very low
impact and fracture properties which made not a good fit for longboard deck design.
 Figure 18:Property chart of young’s modulus E against density ρ of Translation with bamboo as refence material

Balsa wood is a natural cellular material with excellent stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-
weight ratios as well as superior energy absorption characteristics.
(Da Silva and Kyriakides, 2007)
. Under compression in the axial direction the material exhibits a linearly elastic regime
that terminates by the initiation of failure in the form of localized kinking. Buckling and kink
band formation are two major failure modes in dynamic loading
(Vural and Ravichandran, 2003)
. However, in applications for shock absorption and impact damage protection, they are
frequently used as sandwich core materials (Ashby, Michael F. and Gibson, 1997). Balsa as
monolithic material cannot be used for a longboard deck rather it can be combined with
materials to form a hybrid.
PVC cross-linked foam is commercially available in industry, and excels in compression
strength, durability, and fire resistance, as well as low cost and density. In terms of
consumption globally, rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) foam is recognised as being second to
polyurethane foam (Khoshnoud, Wolgamott and AbuZahra, 2018)
Expanded polystyrene foam constitutes high stiffness and moisture resistance, as well as low
cost and density; however, compression strength is relatively low. (Beju and Mandal, 2017)
Polymethacrylimide foam, also known as PMI foam, is a type of high-performance closed-
cell foam material with a high strength-to-weight ratio. It is made from polymethacrylimide
resin, which is polymerized with a blowing agent to create a foam structure.
PMI foam is known for its excellent mechanical properties, including high stiffness, strength,
and fatigue resistance. It is also highly resistant to temperature and chemical exposure,
making it suitable for use in a wide range of industries, including aerospace, automotive,
marine, and sports equipment. commonly used in the production of sandwich panels. It is
also used as a core material for composite structures. The cost PMI foam makes it not
suitable for a longboard (Li et al., 2021).

The materials left after translation might not be good enough for a longboard deck as
monolithic materials. However, they can be combined in the right proportion to produce a
hybrid material that would pass all the constraints for a longboard deck design.
3.0 THE SYNTHESIZER
The synthesizer tool combines of two or more materials from the MaterialUniverse in CES
Selector (or the equivalent Advanced Level 3 materials database in CES EduPack) to create a
hybrid material with attributes not offered by one material alone
(Ashby, M. F., Cebon, Bream, Cesaretto and Ball, 2010)
. It uses synthesizer continuum and micro-mechanical models to
predict the overall properties of each configuration. Hybrid materials are materials that
merge or blend the characteristics of two or more monolithic materials, or one material and
space. The tool facilitates quick evaluation of a variety of configurations and the materials
used to create them. The hybrids can analyse using standardized testing. By combining two
or more materials, a longboard deck is made more stable, harder and more rigid
(Liu and Coote, 2018)
.

Figure 19:Hybrid materials (Ashby, M. F. et al., 2010)

Hybrid materials may include composites made up of fibers and particles, foams and lattices,
sandwiches, and even naturally occurring materials.
 Figure 20:Synthesizer interface (Ashby, M. F. et al., 2010)

The synthesizer was used to create new materials using the Translation done above. Bamboo
was used as reference material (Benchmark) as shown in figure 20 above because of its
history as a traditional material for the manufacture of a longboard deck. (Kamberg, 2016).
Sandwich and layer models were used for this project. Below are examples of materials
created using the synthesizer tool.

3.1 Sandwich panel Model

A sandwich panel has two face sheet materials and separated by a core material which
epitomizes the hybrid concept and allows comparism with monolithic materials. The
sandwich panel model creates a structure with high bending stiffness and strength at a low
weight, by combing two materials in a specific geometry and scale, structured so that one
forms the face-sheet and the other the core. The model allows the user to select a range of
thickness of core and face-sheet, panel span and values that characterize the mode of
loading.

Figure 21:Sandwich Panel (Ashby, Michael F., 2011)

3.1.1. Face material
According to (Jansson, Olsson and Sörelius, 1989) ,The faces of a sandwich panel can be made
from nearly any structural material that is available as a thin sheet of material. This gives the
designer an opportunity to efficiently utilize materials to its ultimate limit (Zenkert, 1995).
Face sheet material ought to be of high mechanical properties, good environmental
resistance and aesthetic.
3.1.2 Core material
This material is the most important part of sandwich panels even though it might not appear
as such at first glance. To add as little weight to the sandwich as possible, the core must have
a low density (Zenkert, 1995). In addition to low density, the properties of interest include
stiffness perpendicular to surface, thermal insulation, shear modulus and strength.

The sandwich panel model makes the following assumptions:

 A balanced sandwich made of the same materials. It assumes that same materials
are used for face-sheet with the same thickness.
 Face-sheet to core bonding is perfect. i.e., a uniformly supported face-sheet over its
entire surface.
 Face-sheets remain flat under loading (absence of telegraphing or dimpling in cores).
 Little or no contribution of Adhesive properties on panel properties (no shear
deformation occurs between face-sheet and core.

3.1.3 Sandwich panel creation

By clicking on the synthesizer and selecting sandwich panel, a sandwich creation process
began. The source records show the user input window for selection of face-sheet and core
materials. To achieve a desirable result for sandwich panels, it Is imperative to choose a stiff,
strong material for the thin faces and a lightweight material for core.
(Ashby, M. F., Cebon, Bream, Cesaretto and Ball, 2010)

As shown in figure 22 below, balsa was selected for face-sheet material and EPS foam
selected as core. The range of values of 1-4 mm was selected for face-sheet and 10mm core
were entered in the user-input window for model variables. EPS foam was selected over PVC
for because it has a higher mechanical loss coefficient of 0.1-0.3 compared to 0.05-0.15 of
PVC foam.
A simply supported panel with central load was selected for a sandwich panel to
characterize the mode of loading of a longboard deck and a span of 1m was selected for
model parameter.
A name was given to the materials and a new sandwich panel was created. (An additional
information on constituent materials, model configuration and in-plane properties are found
in appendix 1).
Figure 22:Input window for sandwich model with balsa set as face-sheet and EPS foam as core.

Figure 23: Modulus density chart showing sandwich material created.

The Youngs moduli of sandwich panels with balsa as face-sheet are displayed as an arc of
orange ellipses to the lower left corner of the chart as shown in figure 23 above. The
criterion for measuring how good the hybrid material is the index M=3 (for selecting a stiff,
lightweight panel with good energy absorption ability. The optimum material is identified by
a contour that is tangent to the arch of the sandwich. The result shows that the best
sandwich material ranks on the same line with our best option from the translation process.
The model was run multiple times choosing different configurations (thickness and face-
sheet) and foams. However, the results generated results that populated the lower left-hand
1
3
side of the M = E .
1
ρ
However, our target is to create a material that ranks very high in Youngs modulus with
minimum density. Therefore, the multilayer model was explored.

3.2 Multi-Layer Material Model

The performance of laminates made from a variety of materials, thicknesses, and layers is
predicted by the Multi-layer Materials models. The goal of multi-layer material design is to
incorporate the characteristics of various materials into a single structure. An example is
combining the strength and stiffness of one material with a light weight, to produce a multi-
layer material that is stiff, strong, and light weight.

Figure 24:multi-layer material (EduPack, 2022)

The performance of the finished laminate can be significantly impacted by the relative
positions of the various layers. For instance, during bending, the top surface is subject to
compressive loads whereas the bottom surface is subject to tensile loads. These loads,
which are greatest at the outside surfaces, decrease to zero at the neutral axis. Shear loads,
on the other hand, are zero at the outside surfaces and reach their peak at the neutral axis.

Figure 25:Forces acting on a multi-layer (EduPack, 2022)

The flexural performance of multi-layer laminates is often determined by the tensile and
compressive properties of the outer layers since the amount of shear loading is typically an
order of magnitude lower than the tensile/compressive loads at the outer surfaces.
The following assumptions have been made by the model in determining calculations for the
multi-layered model:
3.2.1 Assumptions
In-plane and through-thickness characteristics of a layered material change significantly due
to its structure. A selection project can only specify one direction. As a result, the figures
listed on the material datasheet represent performance in the direction that is most crucial
for design. If they are in-plane or through thickness, the direction-important properties are
specified. The through-thickness properties are exceptions.

 Perfect interfacial bonding between layers with no interfacial delamination occurring

when under loading.
 Little or no adhesive property contribution to overall panel properties.
 No shear in the equations for flexural strength and stiffness.
 It assumes there is no thermal reflection at the boundaries between layers which is a
possibility in ceramics and metals.
 The multi-layer is loaded with the top layer in compression and the bottom layer in
tension in the calculations for flexural strength; the failure stress is determined as the
stress at which any one of the layers fails.
The assumptions made imply that these models are unsuitable for estimating the
performance of laminates, such as sandwich panels with low density cores, where
considerable degrees of shear deformation can occur in any of the layers.

3.2.2 Multi-layer material creation

By clicking on the synthesizer and selecting multi-layer materials, a multi-layer material
creation process began. The source records show the user input window for selection of
materials for each layer. Due to the anisotropic nature of the multi-layer, the order of the
materials is important. Layer 1 is the bottom layer in the calculations for flexural modulus
and strength, and it is assumed that when loaded, the top face will be in compression and
the bottom face will be in tension. A 7-layer multilayer material was selected.
As shown in figure 26 a balsa was selected as face-sheet because it provides high stiffness
and strength while also being lightweight. With EPS foam distributed in between each layer
of balsa because of its excellent damping characteristics. According to
(Wan, Li and Zheng, 2016)
, It is important to note that optimal thickness and arrangement of damping materials
improves damping and general performance of the board. The arrangement and
configuration of materials is shown in figure 26 below. (An additional information on
constituent materials, model configuration and in-plane properties are found in appendix 2).
 Figure 26:Input window for Multi-layer model with balsa and EPS foam.

After the materials and configurations were applied, the layers were named. The model
created new records, and the records were saved in the database. The blue dot above the
arc of the sandwich shows the new 7-layers model created.

Figure 27:Modulus density chart showing Multi-layer material created

The result shows that the best layer material ranks on the same line with my best sandwich
hybrid and on the same line with the best option from the translation process.
The model was run multiple times choosing different configurations (thickness and face-
sheet) and foams. However, the results generated results that populated the lower left-hand
1
3
side of the M = E .
1
ρ

3.3 Improvement of hybrids

Polymer matrix composites (PMCs) have excellent stiffness and strength and lower in weight
(Karthik et al., 2023). Fibre-reinforced composites have greater properties such as Youngs
modulus, tensile strength, yield strength compared to conventional materials.
(Ramesh et al., 2023)

A range of fibres were explored with the goal of improving the materials from our
translation with stiffness, density and vibration.

Addition of Carbon and S-Glass fibre

3.3.1 Carbon fibre
Modern fibre reinforced composites like carbon fibre used to reduce the weight of
longboard (Fleischmann et al., 2018). According to (Fleischmann et al., 2018), Longboards decks
are made of carbon fibre due to its strength, stiffness, lightweight, vibration damping
properties, and durability.
As shown in figure ujh a unidirectional layup carbon fibre was selected as face-sheet because
it provides high stiffness and strength while also being lightweight. The use of a
unidirectional carbon fibre layup allows for higher pop and manoeuvrability while keeping
sufficient stiffness in the transverse direction for stability during landings. In addition to its
mechanical properties, carbon fibre also has an attractive appearance that makes the deck
appealing. (An additional information on constituent materials, model configuration and in-
plane properties are found in appendix 3).
Balsa wood was used as the second and fourth layer to increased stiffness, improved
strength-to-weight ratio, and enhanced shock absorption (Vural and Ravichandran, 2003).
An expanded PS foam was used as middle layer. The reason is because it is lightweight and
provides excellent shock absorption, which can help reduce vibration. It has good insulation
properties which regulates the temperature during use (Tang et al., 2019). In addition, it is a
durable material.
3.3.2 S-Glass fibre
Cellular materials and fibres are often utilized in sandwich panel creation for shock
attenuation and impact damage protection protect applications
(Ashby, Michael F. and Gibson, 1997)
. Longboards sandwich panels made with S glass firbres as reinforcement displays
better performance than a basla longboard because it possees a comparable tensile strength
and exhibits superior fatigue strength. Additionallly, glass fibres have a silicate network
which increases tensile strength while maintaining adequate linear expansion
(Batabyal, Nayak and Tripathy, 2018)
.
S glass fibre was selected because it exhibits similar strength properties to popular
alternatives like carbon fibre. The silicate bond length which constitutes majority of the
firbre is longer than those formed by carbon atoms meaning that glass fibre elongates more
thus a larger fatigue strength than carbon fibre. Also, it has a higher tensile strength because
its shorter silicon-oxygen bonds (Batabyal, Nayak and Tripathy, 2018).

3.4 Sandwich Improvement

Figure 28: Input window for sandwich model with carbon and S-glass fibre set as face-sheet
and EPS foam as core.

Figure 28 above, shows sandwich materials created from carbon fibre (pink colour) and S-
glass fibre (aqua colour). The model was run for carbon and S-glass fibre and their epoxies.
The result show that the result show that carbon and S-glass fibres performed better than
their epoxies.
From the results generated, a sandwich material with carbon fibre as face-sheet performed
better than S-glass fibre in stiffness and density. The carbon fibre had a density of 422-
447kg/m3 and a stiffness of 117-140 GPa while the S-glass had a density of 490-507 kg/m 3
and a stiffness of 16.2-17.4 GPa. However, the S-Glass had a greater Flexural strength
(modulus of rupture) than the carbon fibre. It had an MOR of 290-346 MPa while carbon
fibre had an MOR of 262-317 MPa.
3.5 Multi-layer material Improvement

Figure 29:Modulus density chart showing hybrid Multi-layer material created

Figure 29 above shows multi-layer materials created from carbon fibre (blue colour) and S-
glass fibre (red colour). The model was run for carbon and S-glass fibre and their epoxies.
The result show that the result show that carbon and S-glass fibres performed better than
their epoxies.
From the results generated, a multi-layered material with carbon fibre as face-sheet
performed better than S-glass fibre in stiffness and density. The carbon fibre had a density of
413kg/m3 and a stiffness of 138GPa while the S-glass had a density of 480kg/m 3 and a
stiffness of 16.5GPa. Also, Carbon fibre had a greater Flexural strength (modulus of rupture)
than the S-Glass fibre. It had an MOR of 473 MPa while S-glass fibre had an MOR of 59.1
MPa.

3.6 Result of Hybrid Improvement

The model was run for both sandwich and Multi-layer using different configuration and
materials. The carbon fibre with 5-layers and varying thickness gave the best improvement.
The result supports the literature by (Wan, Li and Zheng, 2016)that the number of layers and
material orientation has significant impact on the result. The 5-layers gave a better result
compared to the 7-Layers. Also materials must be arranged symmetrically to avoid
mechanical losses and impact on the rider (Varszegi, Takacs and Stepan, 2017). (An additional
information on constituent materials, model configuration and in-plane properties are found
in appendix section).
4. Conclusion
4.1 Material suitability
A traditional material (bamboo) was benchmarked as reference material as shown in Figure
30 below. The modelled materials have greater mechanical properties than bamboo. Also,
1
3
from figure 30 of M = E chart, it can be seen that all modelled materials possess greater
1
ρ
value of M=3 than our reference material.

Figure 30:Modulus density chart showing hybrid material created.

Also, a chart of Youngs modulus was used to compare the stiffness of all modelled materials,
reference material and the materials left from our translation. Result show that the
modelled materials excelled greatly in Youngs modulus compared to the reference material
and materials left from the translation process as seen in figure 31 below.
 Figure 31:Youngs modulus chart of synthesized material, bamboo and material translation.

Also, the modelled multi-layer materials were compared to the reference material in terms
of properties. The result show that the 5-layer materials gave the best results. Although the
7-layer materials had low modulus of rupture, results show that all modelled layers are
suitable for a longboard deck.

Figure 32:comparative Table of hybrid multi-layer materials

Also, the modelled sandwich materials were compared to the reference material in terms of
properties. The result show that the carbon fibre materials gave the best results. The results
show that all modelled layers are suitable for a longboard deck.

Figure 33:comparative Table of hybrid multi-layer materials

4.2 Limitation of the selection strategies and the synthesizer tool

Limitation of selection strategies: One limitation of the software is the reliance on pre-
exiting database. i.e, there remains a plethora of unexplored materials due to their
unavailability on the software.
Another limitation is the software in ability to consider a wide range of factors in its
selection approach.
Additionally, environmental consideration on extreme conditions is not fully explored.
Limitation of the synthesizer tool
The synthesizer presents approximate analyses of materials properties which might not be
accurate. These predictions need to be validated using standardized testing. Eg. FEA and
other standardized testing methods.
In the comparison phase between newly modelled materials and reference materials, a lack
of material property data for the newly modelled data was observed. Material properties
like tensile strength, mechanical loss coefficient and durability were missing and that
resulted in a limited comparison scope.
4.3 Material environmental impact and sustainability
The life cycle analysis of a material is used to measure the environmental impact of a
product throughout its life cycle based on environmental factors for product, process or
activity from the creation of product to their final disposal (Lee, O'Callaghan and Allen, 1995).
The environmental impact of the materials used for the manufacture of a longboard deck
can be based on the production of material, product manufacture, product use and product
disposal.
The individual materials are considered as follows:

 Carbon fibre: carbon fibre production is energy intensive because it relies heavily on
fossil fuels which results in greenhouse gas emissions. However, the recyclability of
CFRP gives good reason to consider that the trade-off between its strength and
durability in various application and its environmental impact (Harris, 2017)
 S-Glass fibre: productions require a significant amount of energy and emission which
can contribute t environmental impact. Recyclability of s-glass fibre is difficult which
result in incineration thus, causing environmental pollution. Also, there are health
risks associated to exposure to harmful chemical in product manufacture
(Bobba, Leman and Babu, 2021)
.
 Balsa: Balsa is sustainable and eco-friendly because its carbon capture ability. Overall,
balsa is environmentally friendly and sustainable.
 EPS foams: EPS foams have low carbon footprint and no production waste. It is a cost
-effective lightweight material. Environmental impact of EPS may come from
ingredients. However, is considered extremely inert (Beju and Mandal, 2017).

A comparison was done on the primary production energy, CO2 and water of sandwich and
layers model and compared with bamboo. The result show that CFRP has the highest CO2
footprint production when compared to S-Glass fibre and bamboo which had the footprint.

Figure 34:comparison was done on the primary production energy, CO2 and water of layers model and compared with
bamboo
Figure 35:comparison was done on the primary production energy, CO2 and water of sandwich model and compared with
bamboo

Figure 36::chart of CO2 footprint

 Figure 37: chart of Embodied energy

Overall, a material is considered sustainable when it can meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
(De Ron, 1998)
. The product is not sustainable because it meets the need of the present with
guarantee of its ability to sustain the future generation due to its environmental impact.
This product can be improved exploring eco-friendly materials that have little or no effect on
the planet and guarantees the existence of the future generation.

4.4 Advanced material that can be used for Longboard deck design.
Graphene: Kevlar can be used in combination with other materials, such as carbon fibre, to
create a composite material that is even stronger and more resistant to impact and abrasion.
However, graphene has a unique property as a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a
hexagonal lattice. Graphene has exceptional mechanical properties, such as high strength
and stiffness, and could potentially be used to reinforce other materials in the longboard
deck design. Its remarkable properties have led to many promising research and
development projects aimed at commercializing its use in a range of products
(Novoselov et al., 2012)
.
5.0 Reference
Ashby, M.F. (2011) 'Chapter 5-materials selection—the basics', Materials selection in mechanical design,
Fourth edn.Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, , pp. 97-124.
Ashby, M.F., Cebon, D., Bream, C., Cesaretto, C. and Ball, N. (2010) 'The CES Hybrids Synthesizer–A
White Paper', .
Ashby, M.F., Miller, A., Rutter, F., Seymour, C. and Wegst, U. (2021) 'Granta EduPack for Eco Design-A
White Paper', .
Ashby, M.F. (2011) 'Materials Selection in Mechanical Design. Burlington, MA', .
Ashby, M.F. and Gibson, L.J. (1997) 'Cellular solids: structure and properties', Press Syndicate of the
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, , pp. 175-231.
Ashby, M. (2021) 'Granta EduPack White Paper Teaching Materials and Processes to First and Second
Year Students', .
Batabyal, A., Nayak, R.K. and Tripathy, S. (2018) 'Evaluation of mechanical properties of glass fibre and
carbon fibre reinforced polymer composite', Journal of Communication Engineering & Systems, 8(2), pp.
66-74.
Beju, Y.Z. and Mandal, J.N. (2017) 'Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam: preliminary characteristic
evaluation', Procedia engineering, 189, pp. 239-246.
Bobba, S., Leman, Z. and Babu, B.H. (2021) 'Environmental effects on the mechanical properties of E-
glass and S-glass fiber epoxy composite ring specimens used in aircraft fuel pipes', Incas Bulletin, 13(4),
pp. 17-24.
Da Silva, A. and Kyriakides, S. (2007) 'Compressive response and failure of balsa wood', International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 44(25-26), pp. 8685-8717.
De Ron, A.J. (1998) 'Sustainable production: the ultimate result of a continuous
improvement', International Journal of Production Economics, 56, pp. 99-110.
EduPack, C. (2022) 'Granta Design Ltd', Cambridge UK (www.grantadesign.com/education), .
Fleischmann, M., Ehemann, C., Kaufmann, J. and Cebulla, H. (2018) Optimization of Lightweight Axles
for an Innovative Carving Skateboard Based on Carbon Fiber Placement. MDPI, pp. 253.
FOTIN, A., LUNGULEASA, A., COȘ EREANU, C. and BRENCI, L. (2016) 'Research on using Plywood
made from domestic species of wood for longboard manufacturing', Pro ligno, 12(3), pp. 34-41.
Harris, M. (2017) 'Carbon fibre: the wonder material with a dirty secret', The Guardian: London, UK, .
Hibbeler, R.C. and Yap, K.B. (2013) Statics. Pearson.
Jansson, J., Olsson, K. and Sörelius, S.E. (1989) Fiber Reinforced Plastics: Thermosets. Materials,
Methods, Environment. Swedish Tech Books, Swedish Building Centre [Teknisk litteraturtjänst ….
Kamberg, M. (2016) Longboarding. The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.
Karthik, K., Rajamani, D., Venkatesan, E.P., Shajahan, M.I., Rajhi, A.A., Aabid, A., Baig, M. and Saleh,
B. (2023) 'Experimental Investigation of the Mechanical Properties of Carbon/Basalt/SiC
Nanoparticle/Polyester Hybrid Composite Materials', Crystals, 13(3), pp. 415.
Khoshnoud, P., Wolgamott, J.C. and Abu‐Zahra, N. (2018) 'Evaluating recyclability of fly ash reinforced
polyvinyl chloride foams', Journal of Vinyl and Additive Technology, 24(2), pp. 154-161.
Lee, J.J., O'Callaghan, P. and Allen, D. (1995) 'Critical review of life cycle analysis and assessment
techniques and their application to commercial activities', Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 13(1),
pp. 37-56.
Li, J., Wang, A., Qin, J., Zhang, H., Ma, Z. and Zhang, G. (2021) 'Lightweight polymethacrylimide@
copper/nickel composite foams for electromagnetic shielding and monopole antennas', Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing, 140, pp. 106144.
Liu, H. and Coote, T. (2018) Skateboard deck materials selection. IOP Publishing, pp. 012170.
Novoselov, K.S., Fal′ ko, V.I., Colombo, L., Gellert, P.R., Schwab, M.G. and Kim, K. (2012) 'A roadmap
for graphene', Nature, 490(7419), pp. 192-200.
Osei-Antwi, M., De Castro, J., Vassilopoulos, A.P. and Keller, T. (2013) 'Shear mechanical
characterization of balsa wood as core material of composite sandwich panels', Construction and Building
Materials, 41, pp. 231-238.
Prentiss, A.M., Skelton, R.R., Eldredge, N. and Quinn, C. (2011) 'Get Rad! The evolution of the
skateboard deck', Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(3), pp. 379-389.
Ramesh, V., Karthik, K., Arunkumar, K., Unnam, N.K., Ganesh, R. and Rajkumar, C. (2023) 'Effect of
sawdust filler with Kevlar/basalt fiber on the mechanical properties epoxy–based polymer composite
materials', Materials Today: Proceedings, 72, pp. 2225-2230.
Roylance, D. (2001) 'Finite element analysis', Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, .
Tang, N., Lei, D., Huang, D. and Xiao, R. (2019) 'Mechanical performance of polystyrene foam (EPS):
Experimental and numerical analysis', Polymer Testing, 73, pp. 359-365.
Varszegi, B., Takacs, D. and Stepan, G. (2017) 'Stability of damped skateboards under human
control', Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 12(5).
Vural, M. and Ravichandran, G. (2003) 'Dynamic response and energy dissipation characteristics of balsa
wood: experiment and analysis', International Journal of Solids and Structures, 40(9), pp. 2147-2170.
Wan, H., Li, Y. and Zheng, L. (2016) 'Vibration and damping analysis of a multilayered composite plate
with a viscoelastic midlayer', Shock and Vibration, 2016.
Wang, H., Lee, H.P. and Du, C. (2021) 'Analysis and optimization of damping properties of constrained
layer damping structures with multilayers', Shock and Vibration, 2021, pp. 1-11.
Zenkert, D. (1995) 'An introduction to sandwich structures', .
6.0 Appendix

Figure 38:appendix 1: layer creation with translated materials

Figure 39:sandwich of carbon fibre UD lay-up preg

Figure 40layer of s- glass 5 layers

Figure 41layeers of balsa and EPS &layers

Figure 42layers of balsa EPS 7 layers

Figure 43carbon fibre UD -layup snadwich#

Figure 445-layer balsa and EPS foam