Material Selection for Design of Floor Joints of Three Different Applications

By: Samyukta Gade

Peter Gonsalves Jennifer Suiter

Team Mate-asaurus

April 22, 2010

Executive Summary The goal of this project is to address the design of floor joists for three different applications. The three applications are lightweight substructure of a military aircraft cabin, floor joists for low-cost housing, and low environmental impact substructure for a modern office building. The primary function of all three applications is to support loads in bending, but the secondary functions vary customer needs. This report covers the methodology of how the material selection process was carried out for each application. In particular, the functions, objectives and constraints are identified in each application. This led to the selection of appropriate performance indices, which allowed us to select suitable materials using CES software. Finally, we used the Ashby Selection method to limit the number of choices for each application. This list was narrowed to the best choice using a weighted property index selection method.

A. Lightweight Substructure of Military Aircraft Cabin

A.1 Introduction
A.1.1 Needs Statement - We desire a lightweight material that can support a load (F) without deflecting too much ( L). The customer for the lightweight substructure of a military aircraft cabin is the military. A.1.2 Function Statement - The function of the floor joist is to support a load (F) in bending. A.1.3 Objective - The objective is to minimize the weight of the substructure of the military aircraft cabin. A.1.4 Constraints - The floor joists must support a bending load (F) without deflecting too much ( L). While some deflection is expected, too much deflection could result in uneven floor and result in damage to joist/fuselage interface, or even propagate crack growth in the floor joists themselves.

A.2 Materials Selection

A.2.1 Model & Performance Indices - The Ashby Selection Method was chosen as the model for choosing material choices because it selects the materials that maximize a desired performance index. This is accomplished by plotting one property against another and mapping out the fields in property-space occupied by each material class. The performance index for this application is a stiffness limited design at minimum mass, meaning we seek to achieve the highest Youngs Modulus (E) along with the least amount of density ( ). The performance index for a beam in bending with fixed length and shape specified, but section area free is E1/2 / , where E is the Youngs Modulus (Pa) and is the density (kg/m3) of the material. Using CES software, we used this performance index to narrow our material selection to the five best materials (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Diagram using CES that shows the five best materials using a performance index for a stiffness-limited design with minimum mass: four different types of Balsa and a carbon fiber composite.

A.2.2 Material Properties Used in Selection Process After we used to the performance index to get the five best materials for our design, we chose additional attributes to assist in narrowing our choice to the best one. This was done using a Weighted Property Index Selection Method. Aside from the property index, three other attributes were determined to be of significant importance in a substructure of a military aircraft cabin: mechanical loss coefficient, fracture toughness, and thermal expansion coefficient. We selected mechanical loss coefficient because we felt it would be important to minimize vibrations through the aircraft fuselage. Fracture toughness is very important because we do not want cracks to grow under the weight of the load during the vibrations of air travel. Also, the thermal expansion coefficient was selected because we expect the aircraft to be subjected to extreme temperature changes from low to high altitude, so limiting expansion/contraction would be desirable. A.2.3 Weighted Property Index Selection Method Comparing the performance index and each other attribute to each other (Table I), we were able to get weighted values. Our performance index was given a weighted value of 0.543 because we felt this was the most important. This was followed by fracture toughness at 0.298. We used CES to get the actual values for these attributes, and took an average for

those values that were given as a range. Each property was then normalized, and multiplied by the weighted value we determined. The final W.P.I. showed that the carbon fiber composite was the best choice, receiving a value of 81.09. This far outperformed the four different density balsas that it was matched against.
Table I Weighted Property Index Method for Lightweight Substructure of Military Aircraft Cabin

A.2.4 Sensitivity Analysis - After analysis of the W.P.I. table, we realize that the reason the carbon fiber composite had the best value (81.09) by a large factor is because it had the best fracture toughness and thermal expansion. The performance index had the most weight, but the carbon fiber composite performed fairly well to the better balsa choices. The weighting factor for fracture toughness and thermal expansion are .298 and .114, respectively. The carbon fiber composite completely dominated these attributes (100 compared to 4.1 for fracture toughness and 100 compared to 50 for thermal expansion). The domination of these attributes, despite having the lowest mechanical loss coefficient, makes us believe that the carbon fiber composite is currently identified as the best choice.

A.3 Recommendations and Conclusions

According to our weighted factors, the best choice for material for the lightweight substructure of the military aircraft cabin is a cyanate ester/high modulus carbon fiber composite. This material significantly scored far greater than the other four choices (which were all types of Balsa).

B. Floor Joists for Low-Cost Housing

B.1. Introduction
B.1.1 Needs Statement - We desire a low-cost material that can support a load (F) without deflecting too much ( L). The Low-cost housing is intended for low-income families.

B.1.2 Function Statement - The function of the floor joist is to support a load (F) in bending. B.1.3 Objective - The objective is to minimize cost of the floor joists. B.1.4 Constraints - The floor joists must support a bending load (F) without deflecting too much ( L). While some deflection is expected, too much deflection could result in uneven floor and result in damage to walls (i.e. cracks) that are touching the floor joists, or even propagate crack growth in the floor joists themselves.

B.2 Materials Selection

B.2.1 Model & Performance Indices - The Ashby Selection Method was chosen as the model for choosing material choices because it selects the materials that maximize a desired performance index. This is accomplished by plotting one property against another and mapping out the fields in property-space occupied by each material class. The performance index for this application is a stiffness limited design at minimum cost, meaning we seek to achieve the highest Youngs Modulus (E) along with the least amount of density ( ) and cost (Cm). The performance index for a beam in bending with fixed length and shape specified, but section area free is E1/2 / (*Cm), where E is the Youngs Modulus (Pa), is the density (kg/m3), and Cm is the cost ($/kg) of the material. Using CES software, we used this performance index to narrow our material selection to the five best materials (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Diagram using CES that shows the five best materials using a performance index for a stiffness-limited design with minimum cost: five different types of concrete.

B.2.2 Material Properties Used in Selection Process After we used to the performance index to get the five best materials for our design, we chose additional attributes to assist in narrowing our choice to the best one. This was done using a Weighted Property Index Selection Method. Aside from the property index, three other attributes were determined to be of significant importance in the floor joists of lowincome housing: mechanical loss coefficient, fracture toughness, and thermal expansion coefficient. We selected mechanical loss coefficient because we felt it would be important to consider the vibrational damping of sound. Fracture toughness is very important because we do not want cracks to grow under the weight of the load of furnished and occupied houses. Also, the thermal expansion coefficient was selected because we expect the houses to be subjected to temperature changes depending on the time of day and season of the year, so limiting expansion/contraction would be desirable. B.2.3 Weighted Property Index Selection Method - Comparing the performance index and each other attribute to each other (Table II), we were able to get weighted values. Our performance index was given a weighted value of 0.532 because we felt this was the most important. This was followed by fracture toughness at 0.307. We used CES to get the actual values for these attributes, and took an average for those values that were given as a range. Each property was then normalized, and

multiplied by the weighted value we determined. The final W.P.I. showed that the aerated concrete was the best choice, receiving a value of 67.51. This only slightly outperformed super sulphate cement (64.85) and high volume fly ash concrete (57.95).
Table II Weighted Property Index Method for Floor Joists of Low Income Housing

B.2.4 Sensitivity Analysis The W.P.I. chart shows that we have the best gamma value for aerated concrete. This is because aerated concrete had the best value for the performance index which had a weighting factor of 0.53. Since the second best gamma value was very close to the gamma value for aerated concrete we decided to change some of our rankings to see if it would create a significant change in the end result. Thermal expansion was very similar for all materials, so this had little impact in the final W.P.I. Similarly, mechanical loss coefficient was equally poor in the top choices. Finally, it must be considered that low cost is the objective and aerated concrete was almost 50% superior to the second best choice, even though it had the second worst fracture toughness.

B.3 Recommendations and Conclusions

According to our weighted factors, the best choice material for the low cost housing is aerated concrete. The second best material, super sulphate cement (concrete), scored close to the aerated cement; however, sensitivity analysis showed that aerated concrete is a more robust choice.

C. Low Environmental Impact Substructure for a Modern Office Building

C.1. Introduction
C.1.1 Needs Statement - We desire a material that has a low eco-indicator value that can support a load (F) without deflecting too much ( L). The customer for the

modern office building is a company that has the need for an office space with low environmental impact. C.1.2 Function Statement - The function of the floor joist is to support a load (F) in bending. C.1.3 Objective - The objective is to minimize the environmental impact of the substructure of a modern office building. C.1.4 Constraints - The floor joists must support a bending load (F) without deflecting too much ( L). While some deflection is expected, too much deflection could result in uneven floor and result in damage to walls (i.e. cracks) that are touching the floor joists, or even propagate crack growth in the floor joists themselves.

C.2 Materials Selection

C.2.1 Model & Performance Indices - The Ashby Selection Method was chosen as the model for choosing material choices because it selects the materials that maximize a desired performance index. This is accomplished by plotting one property against another and mapping out the fields in property-space occupied by each material class. The performance index for this application is a stiffness limited design at minimum eco impact, meaning we seek to achieve the highest Youngs Modulus (E) along with the least amount of density ( ) and eco-indicator (Ie). The performance index for a beam in bending with fixed length and shape specified, but section area free is E1/2 / (*Ie), where E is the Youngs Modulus (Pa), is the density (kg / m3), and e is the eco-indicator (millipoints / kg) of material. Using CES software, we used this performance index to narrow our material selection to the five best materials (Figure 3).

Figure 3 - Diagram using CES that shows the five best materials using a performance index for a stiffness-limited design with eco-indicator: four different types of balsa and aerated concrete.

C.2.2 Material Properties Used in Selection Process After we used to the performance index to get the five best materials for our design, we chose additional attributes to assist in narrowing our choice to the best one. This was done using a Weighted Property Index Selection Method. Aside from the property index, three other attributes were determined to be of significant importance in the floor joists of lowincome housing: mechanical loss coefficient, fracture toughness, and thermal expansion coefficient. We selected mechanical loss coefficient because we felt it would be important to consider the vibrational damping of sound in an office environment. Fracture toughness is very important because we do not want cracks to grow under the weight of the load of a furnished and occupied office building. Also, the thermal expansion coefficient was selected because we expect the building to be subjected to temperature changes depending on the time of day and season of the year, so limiting expansion/contraction would be desirable. C.2.3 Weighted Property Index Selection Method - Comparing the performance index and each other attribute to each other (Table III), we were able to get weighted values. Our performance index was given a weighted value of 0.54 because we felt this was the most important for this application. This was followed by

fracture toughness at 0.253. We used CES to get the actual values for these attributes, and took an average for those values that were given as a range. Each property was then normalized, and multiplied by the weighted value we determined. The final W.P.I. showed that low density balsa was the best choice, receiving a value of 83.2. This only slightly outperformed the three other balsas on the list that had values around 80. All balsas outperformed aerated concrete.
Table III Weighted Property Index Method for Low Environmental Impact Substructure for Office Building

C.2.4 Sensitivity Analysis After using the Ashby selection method we ended up with 4 different types of balsa wood and aerated concrete. In this evaluation we treated each type of balsa wood as a different material. Since some of the properties within the different balsa wood had the same values, the end gamma values ended up being very close. Although the values were close Balsa 0.09 - 0.11 ended up with the highest gamma value. This is because it had the best performance index value and the weighting factor for the performance index was 0.53. If we changed the ranking of the attributes being considered, balsa .09-0.11 still results as the best choice.

C.3 Recommendations and Conclusions

Although the many different balsa woods had very similar gamma values, the best choice of material would be balsa 0.09-0.11, which happens to be the least dense material. Sensitivity analysis shows that this choice is robust. All four density materials have the same cost, so the least dense has the least environmental impact.