FIoor Joist MateriaIs SeIection for MiIitary Aircraft Cabin,

Low-Cost Housing, and Low EnvironmentaI Impact Office

BuiIdings








Team Flomax:
Greg Olsen, Griffin Beemiller, Kyle Logan





4/20/2010











n this report, the goal of team Flomax was to select the best possible material for
each of the three applications, based upon the specific needs of these applications. The
needs were translated into a function statement, objectives, and constraints. The Ashby
selection method was used to narrow down the selection to five materials which were
best suited for the application. A weighted performance index was then used to narrow
down the five materials to one candidate for the design.

The results are as follows:

Military aircraft cabin substructure: Aerated Concrete
Aerated concrete is a foamed concrete that is stiff and has a density that is low enough
for an aircraft application.

Low-cost housing floor joists: High Volume Fly Ash Concrete
High Volume Fly Ash Concrete is the byproduct of coal-burning power plants making it
very inexpensive to manufacture, while being very durable as it is still found in
structures built by the Romans.

Low environmental impact substructure for office buildings: Birch (betula verrucosa)
Birch is a hardwood that is amongst the stiffest of renewable materials.





Lightweight substructure of a miIitary aircraft cabin

Need: To provide the military with lightweight aircraft floor joists that will support
a load

without deflecting too much.
Function: To support bending load F
Objective: Minimize density
Constraint: Must not deflect too much/stiffness/Young's modulus, fixed cross section,
fixed length

MateriaIs SeIection:
The joist of the aircraft cabin has a fixed length L and width w. The height of the joist is
free, so the performance index used was E
1/3
/p. Materials were plotted on a graph of
Young's Modulus vs. density. All materials that were flammable or toxic were eliminated
because they would be unsafe for an aircraft application. The resulting graph is shown
below in Figure 1.









Figure 1

A line with a slope of three, taken from the performance index, was moved to the top left
of the graph until only five materials were selected. These were aerated concrete,
aluminum-SC foam(0.07), aluminum-SC foam(0.16), phenolic foam: closed cell(0.035),
and phenolic foam: closed cell(0.080). These materials were compared on a weighted
performance index based on cost, material processing energy, fracture toughness, and
tensile strength. Cost was included because even the military has a budget, however
the military budget is large so cost was not weighted heavily. Material processing
energy was included because it shows how easily the material is processed into the
desired shape. Fracture toughness was included and weighted heavily because if the
beam were fracture the airplane would crash. Tensile strength was also included and
Density (kg/m3)
10 100 1000 10000
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
P
a
)
10000
100000
1e6
1e7
1e8
1e3
1e10
1e11
1e12
weighted heavily because the plane will have to endure large stresses when landing
and during flight. The results of this performance index are shown below in %abIe 1.
%abIe 1
Cost
Mater|a|
rocess|ng Lnergy
Iracture
1oughness
1ens||e
Strength

Cost 1000 1000 0167 0123
Mater|a|
rocess|ng Lnergy 1000 1000 0200 0143
Iracture
1oughness 6000 3000 1000 0300

1ens||e Strength 000 7000 2000 1000

1ota|
1600
0 14000 3367 176



Cost
Mater|a|
rocess|ng Lnergy
Iracture
1oughness
1ens||e
Strength
Average
We|ght
Iactor

Cost 0063 0071 0030 0071 0064
Mater|a|
rocess|ng Lnergy 0063 0071 0039 001 0069
Iracture
1oughness 0373 0337 0297 023 032

1ens||e Strength 0300 0300 0394 0366 0340

1ota| 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000



Mater|a| Cost
Mater|a| rocess|ng
Lnergy lrocture 1ouqhness 1ens||e Strength WI
0064 0069 032 0340
$ !$ a*ln1$2 a
Aerated Concrete 00 10000 2100000 10000 6000000
11000000
0
1000
0 721
A|um|numS|C
foam (07) 2190 03 4200000 3000 11000000 10000000 909 174
A|um|numS|C
foam (16) 130 032 4200000 3000 40000000 30000000 4343 60
heno||c Ioam
c|osed ce|| (03S) 1040 00
131000000
0 016 370000 21000000 1909 10
heno||c Ioam
c|osed ce|| (080) 1040 00
131000000
0 016 170000 63000000 3909 334


Based on this weighted performance index, aerated concrete was the best material of
the five selected. When the weighting factors were altered, aerated concrete still had
the highest rating. However, when fracture toughness was increased enough aluminum
SiC foam would beat aerated concrete. With any other change to the weighting factors
aerated concrete had the highest rating because it was the best in cost, tensile strength,
and material processing energy.

ConcIusions
f aerated concrete is used for this application it should be considered that the fracture
toughness for concrete is relatively low and may not be safe for use in aircraft
applications.

FIoor joists for Iow-cost housing
Need: Provide low-cost housing contractors with floor joists that will support a given
load without deflecting too much
Function: To support bending load
Objective: Minimize cost
Constraint: Must be stiff enough to not deflect too much; fixed length

The performance index was set up to maximize stiffness and minimize the cost of the
material by graphing young's modulus on the y- axis and cost on the x-axis in
Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES). Because the beams will be used in houses,
materials that are highly flammable and toxic were limited out of the selection process.
The beam was not limited to a particular height so it was determined using appendix B
that the performance index needed for the particular application was H =
L
13
C
m
. The
resulting graph is shown below in Figure 2.



Figure 2


Using the performance index a line with slope three was plotted on the graph and used
to determine the five best materials for the application. These materials included
asphalt concrete, concrete (pozzolona cement), concrete (conducting), concrete (super
sulfate cement), and high volume fly ash concrete. With these five materials a
weighting performance index was conducted using Ashby's material selection process.
The properties that were found to be important were density, material processing
energy, tensile strength, and fracture toughness. These properties were weighted
Price (USD/kg)
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1e6
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
P
a
)
10000
100000
1e6
1e7
1e8
1e3
1e10
1e11
1e12
against each other and compared to the individual property values of the materials. The
results are shown below in %abIe 2.

%abIe 2
ens|ty
Mater|a|
rocess|ng Lnergy
Iracture
1oughness
1ens||e
Strength

ens|ty 1000 0300 0111 0111
Mater|a|
rocess|ng Lnergy 2000 1000 0143 0111
Iracture
1oughness 9000 7000 1000 3000

1ens||e Strength 9000 9000 0333 1000

1ota| 21000 17300 137 4222



ens|ty
Mater|a|
rocess|ng Lnergy
Iracture
1oughness
1ens||e
Strength
Average
We|ght
Iactor

ens|ty 004 0029 0070 0026 0043
Mater|a|
rocess|ng Lnergy 0093 0037 0090 0026 0067
Iracture
1oughness 0429 0400 0630 0711 0342

1ens||e Strength 0429 0314 0210 0237 0347

1ota| 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000






Mater|a| ens|ty (kg]m3)
Mater|a| rocess|ng
Lnergy (I]kg) Iracture 1oughness 1ens||e Strength (a) WI
0043 0067 0342 0347
$3 !$
(a*1$2
) a
Aspha|t Concrete
2000
0 737 2100000 10000 100 000 30000000 1200 143
Concrete
(ozzo|ona
cement)
26000
0 462 2100000 10000 43000000 10000
16000000
0 6400 6
Concrete
(conduct|ng)
26000
0 462 2100000 10000 43000000 10000
16000000
0 6400 6
Concrete (super
su|fate cement)
26000
0 462 2100000 10000 43000000 10000
24000000
0 9600 979
n|gh vo|ume f|y
ash concrete
22000
0 10000 2100000 10000 43000000 10000
23000000
0
1000
0 1000

Through the Ashby Material Selection Process it was determined that high volume fly
ash concrete is the best material choice for floor joists in low cost housing.
Sensitivity anaIysis
The two properties with the highest weighting factors in the WP were fracture
toughness and tensile strength. High volume fly ash concrete and super sulfate cement
concrete ranked very highly in these categories and therefore were the two best ranking
materials. However high volume fly ash concrete is less dense than super sulfate
concrete cement and has a slightly higher tensile strength which gave it the upper edge.
Asphalt concrete is the densest material and it has a very low fracture toughness which
made it the worst candidate for the floor joists. Because all the materials are concrete
based, they all had the same material processing energy and therefore material
processing energy was not a factor in determining a final material.

ConcIusion
f the project manager chooses to use high volume fly ash for the floor joists it should be
considered that concrete isn't always the easiest material to process. A wood material
could prove to be easier to form into beams and be cheaper in the long run for the floor
joists.

Low environmentaI impact substructure for a modern office buiIding
Need: Provide modern office building contractor with floor joists that will support
a given load without deflecting too much with minimal environmental impact
Function: To support bending load
Objective: Minimize CO
2
footprint
Constraint: Must be stiff enough to not deflect too much, fixed length
MateriaIs SeIections:
Assuming that the height of the beam is free, the performance indicy given from
Appendix B is H =
L
13
L
CO2 ]tprnt
. This indicy attempts to maximize the material's Young's
modulus while minimizing the CO
2
footprint. When this indicy was graphed on
Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) the graph shown in Figure 3 was the result.
Figure 3


Given the large number of materials for this application, a limit was created for the
graph, excluding all materials that are non-renewable and toxic (or slightly toxic). With
this limit a completely new graph was the result. t is shown in Figure 4 below.



"2 footprint, primary production (kg/kg)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
P
a
)
10000
100000
1e6
1e7
1e8
1e3
1e10
1e11
1e12
Figure 4


From this graph a line was drawn with a slope of 3 (this slope was taken from the indicy
equation). The line was moved to the top left until only 5 materials were left lying above
the line. These five materials included Bamboo (longitudinal), Birch (betula verrucosa),
Oak (Quercus Falcata var pagoaefolia), Oak (quercus spp.) and Spruce (picea abies).
With these five materials a Weighted Performance ndex was conducted using Ashby's
materials selection. The properties that were found to be important for the given
application were Cost, Materials Processing Energy, Fracture Toughness and Tensile
Strength. These properties were then weighted and compared to the individual
material's properties. The results are shown below in %abIe 3.


"2 footprint, primary production (kg/kg)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
P
a
)
10000
100000
1e6
1e7
1e8
1e3
1e10
1e11
1e12
%abIe 3

Cost
Mater|a|
rocess|ng
Lnergy
Iracture
1oughness
1ens||e
Strength

Cost 1000 0200 0123 0123
Mater|a|
rocess|ng
Lnergy 3000 1000 0333 0300
Iracture
1oughness 000 3000 1000 1000

1ens||e Strength 000 2000 1000 1000

1ota|
2200
0 6200 243 2623




Cost
Mater|a|
rocess|ng
Lnergy
Iracture
1oughness
1ens||e
Strength
Average
We|ght
Iactor

Cost 0043 0032 0031 004 0044
Mater|a|
rocess|ng
Lnergy 0227 0161 0136 0190 0179
Iracture
1oughness 0364 044 0407 031 0409

1ens||e Strength 0364 0323 0407 031 036

1ota| 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000



Mater|a| Cost
Mater|a| rocess|ng
Lnergy Iracture 1oughness 1ens||e Strength WI

0044

0179

0409

036


$ !$ a*ln1$2 a
8amboo
(|ong|tud|na|) 212 441 32300000 10000 700000000 470
3200000000
0
1000
0 36
8|rch (betu|a
verrucosa) 141 673 32300000 10000
1490000000
0 10000 370000000 17 624
Cak (quercus
Ia|cata var
pagoaefo||a) 093 10000 32300000 10000 00000000 337
1200000000
0 3730 33
Cak (quercus
spp) 1100 64 32300000 10000 1090000000 732
1620000000
0 3063 399
Spruce (p|cea
ab|es) 141 673 32300000 10000 440000000 293 9330000000 2922 32

Through an extensive analysis it was determined that Birch (betula verrucosa) wood is
the best fitting material for the given application.



Sensitivity AnaIysis:
The results of the WP were heavily weighted on the properties: Fracture Toughness
and Tensile Strength. These were found to be most important in order to maintain the
strength of the office building and prevent permanent deformation or fracture. Since all
of the materials had equal processing energy, the property did not play contribute to the
selection of the best material. f the CES graph had not been limited through renewable
resources and toxicity, different materials would have showed up in the WP. The best
candidate through the WP received a score of 62.4 out of 100 which is not very high.
Bamboo was also very close behind birch and could be considered for this application
since it has a higher tensile strength.

ConcIusion:
f the project manager chooses to follow the recommendation to use birch for the
application, it should be considered that birch is highly flammable and has limited use
when exposed to water. The project manager may also consider bamboo for the
application since the results of the WP were somewhat sensitive.