CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION:
This construction has often used in lightweight applications such as Lift, EOT crane
beam, vehicle body, aircrafts, marine applications, wind turbine blades. In principle
two approaches exist to develop efficient structures either application of new materials
or the use of new structural design. A proven and well-established solution is the use
of composite materials and sandwich structures. In this way high strength to weight
ratio and minimum weight can be obtained. The sandwich structures have potential to
offer a wide range of attractive design solutions. In addition to the obtained weight
reduction, these solutions can often bring space savings, noise control. Laser-welded
metallic sandwich panels offer a number of outstanding properties allowing the
designer to develop light and efficient structural configurations for a large variety of
applications. These panels have been under active investigations during the last 15
years in the world. Outokumpu has been participating in several collaborative projects
in this area. In Finland the research related to all steel sandwich panels was initiated in
1988 in the Ship Laboratory of Helsinki University of Technology. The first study
focused on the application of sandwich panels in the shell structures of an icebreaker.
Since then in a considerable number of research projects in Finland, such as Shipyard
2000, Weld 2000 and the Kenno – Light Structures Technology Program,
manufacturing, design and optimization of steel sandwich panels have been
investigated. The work is based on several R&D projects driven jointly with VTT
Industrial Systems, technical universities in Finland, stainless steel manufacturer
Outokumpu Stainless Oy as well as Finnish sandwich panel manufacturers. In this
article the results of the earlier mentioned R&D work in steel sandwich structures and
applications is summarized from the stainless steel material point of view. The
research related to design and design optimization of steel sandwich panels has been
summarised by Romanoff and Kujala.

Sandwich panels in general can be classified as composite sandwich and metallic

sandwich panels. Composite sandwich panels consist of non-metallic components such
as FRP, PU foam etc. and are typically applied as load carrying structures in naval
vessels and leisure yachts, and mainly as non-load carrying elements on merchant and
large cruise ships. For metallic sandwich panels there are basically two types of
panels: panels with metallic face plates and bonded core such as SPS panels and

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

1
panels with both metallic face plates and core welded together. The metal material can
be either regular, high tensile or stainless steel, or aluminium alloys. This paper
focuses on steel sandwich panels welded by laser. The steel sandwich panels can be
constructed with various types of cores as summarised in Figure 1. The choice of the
core depends on the application under consideration. The standard cores such as Z-,
tube- and hatprofiles are easier to get and they are typically accurate enough for the
demanding laser welding process. The special cores, such as corrugated core (V-type
panel) and I-core, need specific equipment for production, but they usually result with
the lightest panels. Naturally, during the production process or after welding of
faceplates plates and core together, the steel sandwich panels can also be filled with
some polymer, mineral or rock wool, concrete etc. to improve the behaviour for
specific targets. All kinds of sandwich panels have a number of common benefits, like
good weight to stiffness ratio, high pre-manufacturing accuracy etc. and problems, e.g.
integration in a ship structure, while the various variants also show a number of
specific advantages and disadvantages. Steel sandwich is relatively light and the total
costs are very competitive to other light structures solutions. Typically, normal
strength steel is used with steel sandwich panels as buckling or displacement is the
dominating failure criteria, therefore high strength steel does not usually give any
major benefits. For areas with high demands for corrosion protection or easy
maintenance stainless steel can be also applied. Laser welding require relatively high
investment costs, therefore the price of the panels is strongly related to the volume of
the production. However, as the material costs are smaller due to the decreased weight,
typically the price of the steel sandwich panels/unit area is about the same magnitude
as that of conventionally stiffened steel panels.

Proposals for the construction of sandwich-like components were made in different

industrial branches as early as the 1950’s. However, the application of laser welding
started to be increasingly discussed only after the high power laser sources became
available on the market at more affordable prices. Due to its high energy intensity
resulting in a low heat input and a deep penetration effect, laser welding offers a
number of benefits for the production of all-metal and hybrid-metal sandwich panels.
High pre-fabrication accuracy of the components, high welding speed and the
possibility to connect internal stiffeners with the face sheets from outside have led to a

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

2
wide application of laser welding in the construction of metal sandwich panels. In the
1980s the United States Navy led the development of laser welded sandwich panels
with a robot system at the Navy Joining Centre at Pennsylvania State University. The
development resulted in some prototype panels, first strength tests and first limited
applications, such as antenna platforms on the US Navy ships.

Between the late 1980’s and early 90’s Europe took over the lead in research related to
laser welded sandwich panels. Research was initiated especially in Britain, Germany
and Finland. In Britain the strength of spot welded steel sandwich panels was studied
by the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester. They performed
both theoretical and experimental investigations on the behaviour of steel sandwich
panels under various loading and boundary conditions. A large German project
conducted by Meyer Werft between 1994 and 1999 investigated both the production
and application of sandwich panels in cruise vessels. This led to the development of
the I-Core panels.

In Finland the research related to all steel sandwich panels was initiated in 1988 in the
Ship Laboratory of Helsinki University of Technology. The first study focused on the
application of sandwich panels in the shell structures of an icebreaker. Since then a
considerable number of research projects in Finland, such as Shipyard 2000, Weld
2000 and Kenno – Light Structures Technology Program, investigated manufacturing,
design and design optimisation of steel sandwich panels. The European research
project sandwich joined forces between the main actors in Europe and continued the
development based on previous national projects. The project aimed at enlarging the
field of applications of sandwich panels in various surface transport sectors, by further
improving the sandwich panel properties by implementing local filling material into
the panels, developing and validating reliable design formulations within the design
tool.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

3
 Figure 1.1: Different sandwich structure with various cores.

1.1 Problem Statement:

The demand for bigger, faster and lighter moving vehicles, such as ships, trains, trucks
and buses has increased the importance of efficient structural arrangements. In
principle two approaches exist to develop efficient structures either application of new
materials or the use of new structural design. A proven and well-established solution is
the use of composite materials and sandwich structures. In this way minimum weight
can be obtained. The sandwich structures have potential to offer a wide range of
attractive design solutions. In addition to the obtained weight reduction, these
solutions can often bring space savings, noise control. Steel sandwich panels can offer
10-25 % weight savings compared to the conventional steel structures. The work
carried out includes development of design formulations for the ultimate and impact
strength, analysis of strength for the joints, and development of solutions to improve
the behavior under fire. A number of research projects both at the national and
European level have been ongoing. A summary of the applications, main benefits and
problem areas of the panels as well as available design tools are given. For weight and
cost optimization is also presented proving some of the described benefits of all steel
sandwich panels.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

4
1.2 Objective of Project :
Objective of this project is to increase equivalent stress strength of composite structure
and also reduction of weight of composite structure as compare to conventional steel
structure. For that various methods available to increase strength and reduction of
weight but in this project we considered only two major parameters that have major
influence on strength and reduction of weight. The objective is to increase strength by
varying parameters and find the best to suit requirement and that have maximum
strength and having minimum weight as compare to other conventional structure.
Following are the major objectives of Project.
1. The major objective of the proposed research work is to enhance the equivalent
stress at minimum weight.
2. To propose a material which sustain maximum possible strength at minimum
weight.
3. Analyze Effect of equivalent stress on composite structure.
4. Analyze Effect of weight on composite structure
5. Compare the numerical, experimental result with FEA analysis result.

1.3 Scope of work:

Sandwich panels are modeled in CATIA. The top and bottom plates, core parts
are modeled by using CATIA. The three parts are assembled by using assembling
command. Then the assembled part is saved in STP format and imported to ANSYS
workbench. In ANSYS Workbench the STP format is Imported and geometry will
show three contact pairs. Materials properties are given to the individual part i.e, top
and bottom plates are selected and mild steel properties are given to them. Now by
solving the structure the deflection and von misses stress are noted. By changing the
corrugated core and same is modeled and analyzed the variation in deflection and von
misses and weights are compared.

1.4 Methodology :
In this project Catia is used as CAD software while ANSYS is used for analysis of
equivalent stress and total deformation. The value of total deformation and equivalent
stress which is getting from ANSYS software. And this value is then comparing with

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

5
manual calculation as well as from experimental Universal Testing Machine. Results
were recorded. Then compared Analytical and FEA analysis to conclude results.

1.5 Importance :
• High resistance to fatigue and corrosion degradation.
• High ‘strength or stiffness to weight’ ratio. As enumerated above, weight
savings are significant ranging from 25-45% of the weight of conventional
metallic designs.
• Due to greater reliability, there are fewer inspections and structural repairs.
• Directional tailoring capabilities to meet the design requirements. The fibre
pattern can be laid in a manner that will tailor the structure to efficiently
sustain the applied loads.
• High resistance to impact damage.
• Thermoplastics have rapid process cycles, making them attractive for high
volume commercial applications that traditionally have been the domain of
sheet metals. Moreover, thermoplastics can also be reformed.
• Like metals, thermoplastics have indefinite shelf life.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

6
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW:
A structural sandwich consists of two thin face sheets made from stiff and strong
relatively dense material such as metal or fiber composite bonded to a thick light
weight material called core. This construction has often used in lightweight
applications such as aircrafts, marine applications and wind turbine blades. In this
paper the structural analysis of corrugated sand which panel with stainless steel faces
sheets and mild steel as core is done using Ansys work bench and compressive
strength is compared with experimental value. The model of the curved corrugated
core is done in pro/E and the effect of wave length on strength to weight ratio is
analyzed. The sandwich panel model in PRO/e is efficiently imported into Ansys
workbench structural analysis is done and max stress is observed at top face. A
structural sandwich typically consists of two thin face sheets made from stiff and
strong relatively dense material such as metal bonded to a thick lightweight material
called core. This concept mimics an I beam, but in two dimensions, where the face
sheets support bending loads and the core transfers shear force between the faces in a
sandwich panel under load. Face sheets used in structure are mainly in three forms flat,
lightly profiled and profiled. The face sheets of sandwich panels provide structural
stiffness and protect the core against damage and weathering. During loading the face
sheets take compressive and tensile loads and core transforms shear loads between the
faces and provide high bending stiffness. Sandwich structures are used in applications
requiring high stiffness to weight ratios because for a given weight, the sandwich
structures has a much higher moment of inertia compared to solid or I-beam structures.
Sandwich panels with top and bottom plates as well as the core made up of steel are
called steel sandwich panels. The core structures are of different types according to
core structures the steel sandwich structures are divided some of them are I-core, O-
core with rectangular beams, Vf/V- core with hat or corrugated sheets as a core, web
core, round O-core and X-core with two hats as a core steel sandwich structure with
curved corrugated core made of mild steel and stainless steel face sheets are
considered. For given length and height of the structure increasing the number of
curved waves (3 waves to 4 waves) the strength increases effectively. For increase of
4% weight, the strength is increase to 66% .

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

7
Noor, Burton and Bert state that the concept of sandwich construction dates back to
Fairbairn in England in 1849. Also in England, sandwich construction was first used in
the Mosquito night bomber of World War II which employed plywood sandwich
construction. Feichtinger states also that during World War II, the concept of sandwich
construction in the United States originated with the faces made of reinforced plastic
and low density core. In 1951, Bijlaard studied sandwich optimization for the case of a
given ratio between core depth and face thickness as well as for a given thickness.

An experimental and analytical investigation is carried out to examine the in-plane

compressive response of pyramidal truss core sandwich columns. The identified
failure mechanisms include Euler buckling, shear buckling and face wrinkling. The
operative mechanism is dependent on the properties of the bulk material and geometry
of the sandwich columns and analytical formulae are derived for each of these modes.
Failure maps are constructed for sandwich columns made from an elastic ideally-
plastic material and AISI 304 stainless steel which has a strongly strain hardening
response. Pyramidal core sandwich columns made from 304 stainless steel have been
designed using these mechanism maps and the measured responses are compared with
the analytical predictions. Finally, optimal single layer and multi-layer pyramidal
sandwich column designs that minimize the weight for a given load carrying capacity
are calculated using the developed analytical models for the failure of the sandwich
columns. The results demonstrate that pyramidal core sandwich columns outperform
the currently used hat-stiffened column design. The interest for metallic sandwich
panels with cellular cores (Gibson and Ashby, 1997) has grown rapidly over the last
decade because of their lightweight attributes and their potential for multifunctional
applications (Evans et al., 2001). Metallic sandwich panels have been traditionally
made using stochastic cores such as aluminium alloy foams (Ashby et al., 2000; Bart-
Smith et al., 2001) or micro-architectured lattice materials such as the hexagonal
honeycomb. A number of new metallic core topologies have recently emerged
(Wadley et al., 2003), presenting combinations of properties that make them an
attractive option in sandwich constructions with multifunctional purposes. Three-
dimensional periodic truss cores, such as pyramidal, tetrahedral or octet-truss core
(Deshpande et al., 2001b), have now been recognized to be attractive candidates for
multifunctional ultra-light structures due to their open-cell structure with high nodal

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

8
connectivity (Wallach and Gibson. This study on sandwich panels combines
experimental and analytical results to examine the compressive response of pyramidal
core sandwich construction under in-plane loading. Analytical formulae are developed
for the collapse strength of the columns and the possible collapse modes for these
types of sandwich columns are identified. The analytical formulae are employed to
construct collapse mechanism maps for the sandwich columns made from 304
stainless steel and test geometries that span the range of failure modes are selected
from these maps. The measured collapse loads are in reasonable agreement with the
predictions in most cases. However, significant discrepancies between the
measurements and predictions are observed in some cases: these discrepancies are
attributed to imperfections in the specimens—the effect of imperfections on the
response of the sandwich columns is suggested as a topic for future work. The
analytical formulae are employed to conduct a numerical optimization in order to
determine sandwich column designs that carry a given load at minimum weight. The
optimizations indicate that the solid material properties, viz. an ideally plastic response
versus a strongly strain hardening response strongly influences both the load carrying
capacity and optimal design of the columns and the pyramidal core sandwich columns
have a performance comparable to axially loaded hat-stiffened panels at low collapse
loads. However, the axially loaded hat-stiffened panels out-perform the sandwich
columns at high loads due to the weak face wrinkling collapse mode of the sandwich
columns. We demonstrate via numerical optimizations that the use of a multi-layer
pyramidal core can significantly enhance the performance of the pyramidal core
sandwich columns and match that of the axially loaded hat stiffened panels. Given the
transverse isotropy of the pyramidal core we expect that pyramidal core panels are an
attractive option of situations where biaxial in-plane loading is significant.

Steel Sandwich Plate Systems (SPS) have been used for commercial applications
during the last 15 years. Stairs & staircase landings, bulkheads and decks are the main
application areas of metallic sandwich panels in cruise ships and in other marine
applications. In recent years a wide variety of applications of stainless steel sandwich
panels are used in civil and mechanical engineering as well as in other industrial
sectors. These include floors of buses, walls and floors of elevators, working platforms
in industrial applications and balconies of shipyard. The sandwich structures have

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

9
potential to offer wide range of attractive design solutions. The steel sandwich
structure offer high strength to weight ratio, noise control, high stiffness etc if
compared to traditional steel plate flows. In this work numerical simulation of SPS
floor with all edges clamped, subjected to uniform pressure loading is carried out in
ANSYS workbench. The SPS floor simulation results are compared with traditional
steel plate of with same weight, same area with same boundary conditions and loading.

The corrosion resistance of welded stainless steels in salt spray chamber tests and road
conditions has been studied in several projects (Alenius etal 2002). The salt spray
chamber tests and the field tests consistently showed that the use of proper post-weld
cleaning method is of great importance when subjecting welded stainless steel parts
unprotected to de-icing salt environments. Pickling was demonstrated to be the most
effective post-weld cleaning method. Other methods were clearly less effective. Large
laboratory and field corrosion test programs were performed in the ECSC funded
project “Stainless steels in bus constructions” (Report EUR 20884 EN 2003) which
was coordinated by Outokumpu Stainless Oy. These tests consisted different stainless
steel grades and joint types. The aim of the study was to compare the laboratory test
results with the results of the field tests. Remarkable slighter corrosion took place in
the field tests in Rome, Gibraltar and Madrid compared to the test results obtained in
Helsinki where de-icing salt is used on the roads during the winter season. Corrosion
resistance was classified in ascending order: 1.4003 (Cr12) - CrMn16-7 – 1.4301
(AISI 304) – 304sp (Mo-alloyed). Grade 1.4301 (AISI 304) managed well in these
tests and it could be stated as a preferred grade regarding corrosion resistance. Joints
and crevices are stated as the critical points. In general it can be said that a visual
evaluation gives a good general view of the surface, but a closer microscopic
examination is needed to check the severity of the corrosion. That is the case for
example to identify existence of crevice corrosion. Laser welded stainless steel
sandwich panels have big potential in wide range of attractive design solutions. The
correct design of the details of the sandwich constructions is of great importance as
well as the analysis of deflections, stresses and buckling loads. Joint of sandwich panel
to other sandwich panels or to other structures is one of the key elements in the
practical applications of these constructions. The results of the studies have indicated
that austenitic stainless steel grade 1.4301 (AISI 304) can be used in laser welded

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

10
sandwich panels offering good mechanical properties and corrosion resistance. The
use of higher strength austenitic stainless steel as sandwich panels was shown to be
reasonable when substantial weight reduction of load bearing structures is desired. In
addition to laser welding the development of resistance and spot welding, adhesive
bonding and weld-bonding processes will increase the variety of efficient techniques
in manufacturing of stainless steel sandwich structures in the future.

The local buckling behavior of fully profiled sandwich panels has been based on
polyurethane foams and thicker lower grade steels. The Australian sandwich panels
use polystyrene foam and thinner and high strength steels, which are bonded together
using separate adhesives. Therefore a research project on Australian sandwich panels
was undertaken using experimental and finite element analyses. The experimental
study on 50 foam-supported steel plate elements and associated finite element analyses
produced a large database for sandwich panels subject to local buckling effects, but
revealed the inadequacy of conventional effective width formulae for panels with
slender plates. It confirmed that these design rules could not be extended to slender
plates in their present form. In this research, experimental and numerical results were
used to improve the design rules. This paper presents the details of experimental and
finite element analyses, their results and the improved design rules. The use of
sandwich panels in the construction of building structures offers many advantages as it
leads to structures that are lightweight, cost effective and durable. The sandwich
panels have been used as structural building components in many industrial and office
buildings in Europe and the USA. Their use has now been extended to residential
building construction due to their ability to improve the structural and thermal
performance of the houses. Until recently sandwich panel construction in Australia has
been limited to cold-storage buildings due to the lack of design methods and data.
However, in recent times, the sandwich panels are increasingly used in building
structures, particularly as roof and wall cladding systems.

Structural sandwich panels consist of two strong facings separated by and bonded
rigidly to the centre core of lighter and weaker material. The steel faces of sandwich
panels are generally used in three forms: flat, lightly profiled, and profiled. The faces
of sandwich panels provide architectural appearance and structural stiffness, and

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

11
protect the relatively vulnerable core material against damage or weathering. The faces
take compressive and tensile loads and the core transfers shear loads between the faces
while providing high bending stiffness. Hence, sandwich panels represent an excellent
example of the optimum use of dissimilar materials. Sandwich panels have flexible
cores, and their behaviour is therefore more complex than that of the plain plates.
Therefore it is important to understand the numerous failure modes of sandwich panels
so that appropriate design criteria can be developed. The fully profiled sandwich
panels are susceptible to local buckling effects under loading conditions such as direct
compression, bending, or their combinations. Since the plate elements of the profiled
sandwich panels are supported by foam core, their local buckling behaviour is
significantly better than that of plate elements without foam core. Buckling of the
panels may occur at a stress level lower than the yield stress of steel, but the panels,
particularly those with low b/t ratios, will have considerable postbuckling strength.
Such local buckling and post buckling phenomena are very important in the design of
sandwich panels. During the last decade extensive research has been carried out in
Europe and the USA to investigate the behaviour and design of sandwich panels for
different failure conditions including that of local buckling effects of profiled
sandwich panels. Davies (1987, 1993, 02001), Davies and Hakmi (1990, 1992),
Davies and Heselius (1993), Davies et al. (1991) and Hassinen (1995) have
investigated the local buckling behaviour and developed modified conventional
effective width rules for the plate elements in sandwich panels. In their approach,
current effective width rules (Winter, 1947) developed for the plain plate elements
were extended to sandwich panels using the concept of a modified buckling
coefficient. These design rules are included in the design document “European
Recommendations for Sandwich Panels Part 1: Design” (CIB 2000). However, these
studies and design documents have been based on polyurethane foams and thicker
steels of lower grade, and rely on some empirical factors. Moreover, these rules are
commonly used for low width to thickness (b/t) ratios (< 200) of the plate elements.
But in the sandwich panel construction, b/t ratios can be as large as 600 (Mahendran
and Jeevaharan, 1999) because of the increasing use of thinner steels. Sandwich panels
generally used in Australia comprise of thinner (0.42 mm) and high strength
(minimum yield stress of 550 MPa and reduced ductility) steel faces and relatively
thick polystyrene foam core which are bonded together using separate adhesives. Due

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

12
to these limitations, current design documents are not used for Australian sandwich
panels, particularly for those with higher plate slenderness. There is a need to verify
the applicability of European recommendations to Australian panels in order to
develop the confidence among Australian manufacturers and designers. Therefore a
research project was conducted using a series of laboratory experiments and numerical
analyses to study the local buckling behavior of profiled sandwich panels made of thin
high strength steel faces and polystyrene foam covering a wide range of b/t ratios. In
the first phase, a detailed experimental study on 50 foam-supported plate elements was
conducted. The results showed that the conventional effective width formulae are
adequate for sandwich panels with plate elements that have low b/t ratios, but not for
panels with slender plate elements (Pokharel and Mahendran, 2001). To eliminate this
problem and to improve the understanding of local buckling behaviour further, finite
element analyses (FEA) of sandwich panels were undertaken using ABAQUS. Two
different types of finite element models were developed and used in order to represent
both the experimental sandwich panels and the more realistic sandwich panels used in
building structures. Experimental results were used to calibrate the numerical models.
Both FEA and experimental results were then used to review the current design rules.
Based on the FEA results, a new improved design rule has been developed for the
profiled sandwich panels considering their postbuckling behaviour. The details of the
FEA models, their calibration using relevant experimental results, and the formulation
of new design rules.

Packaging serves a lot of purposes, and would be hard to do without. Packaging

protects the goods during transport, saves costs, informs about the product, and
extends its durability. A transport package is required to be strong and lightweight in
order to be cost effective. Furthermore, it should be recycled because of environmental
and economical concerns. Corrugated board has all of these features. This thesis is
compiled of seven papers that theoretically and experimentally treat the structural
properties and behaviour of corrugated board and containers during buckling and
collapse. The aim was to create a practical tool for strength analysis of boxes that can
be used by corrugated board box designers. This tool is based on finite element
analysis. The first studies concerned testing and analysis of corrugated board in three-
point bending and evaluation of the bending stiffness and the transverse shear

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

13
stiffness. The transverse shear stiffness was also measured using a block shear test. It
was shown that evaluated bending stiffness agrees with theoretically predicted values.
However, evaluation of transverse shear stiffness showed significantly lower values
than the predicted values. The predicted values were based on material testing of
constituent liners and fluting prior to corrugation. Earlier studies have shown that the
fluting sustains considerable damage at its troughs and crests in the corrugation
process and this is probably a major contributing factor to the discrepancy.
Furthermore, the block shear method seems to constrain the deformation of the board
and consistently produces higher values of the transverse shear stiffness than the three-
point-bending test. It is recommended to use the latter method. Further experimental
studies involved the construction of rigs for testing corrugated board panels under
compression and cylinders under combined stresses. The panel test rig, furnishing
simply supported boundary conditions on all edges, was used to study the buckling
behaviour of corrugated board. Post-buckling analysis of an orthotropic plate with
initial imperfection predicted failure loads that exceed the experimental values by only
6-7 % using the Tsai-Wu failure criterion. It was confirmed, by testing the cylinders
that failure of biaxially loaded corrugated board is not significantly affected by local
buckling and that the Tsai-Wu failure criterion is appropriate to use. A method for
prediction of the top-to-bottom compression strength of corrugated board containers
using finite element analysis was developed and verified by a large number of box
compression tests. Up to triple-wall corrugated board is accommodated in the finite
element model. The described FE-method for predicting the top-to-bottom
compressive strength of corrugated containers has been used as the basic component in
the subsequent development of a user-friendly computer-based tool for strength design
of containers. Box performance requirements range from its appearance, to its
mechanical strength and ability to protect its contents. Mechanical properties can be
divided into two categories, those that pertain to rough handling and stacking. Both of
these types are difficult to duplicate accurately in the laboratory. As a consequence,
the box compression test or BCT of an empty container has been widely used as a
means of evaluating container performance. However, in order to distinguish between
factors that govern box performance it is necessary to test the quality of the corrugated
board and its components, maintain good control of conversion operations and
environmental influences such as humidity and load duration. In addition to standard

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

14
testing methods, a future challenge for research is to develop more sophisticated
testing methods that are based on finite element models. Once the roles of liner and
medium behaviour in box performance are properly understood, material properties
can be evaluated by mill and plant personnel so that attention is given to the properties
that govern end-use performance. For example, corrugated containers that are stacked
on top of each other will slowly deform with time until one of the boxes collapses or
the stack falls over. Consequently, the relevance of studying creep behaviour of paper
and board is that it can reduce stacking factors in design of corrugated board packages.
This is a future goal in the development of a userfriendly computer-based tool for
strength design of containers. Finally, this work shows how far it is possible to predict
box performance using an orthotropic linear elastic material model, multi-ply eight
node iso-parametric finite element and the Tsai-Wu failure criterion.

Design and analyses of honeycomb structures are investigated. Primary goal is to

develop an equivalent orthotropic material model that is a good substitute for the
actual honeycomb core. By replacing the actual honeycomb structure with the
orthotropic model, during the finite element analyses, substantial advantages can be
obtained with regard to ease of modeling and model modification, solution time and
hardware resources

the best equivalent model among the approximate analytical models that can be found
in the literature, a comparison is made. First sandwich beams with four different
honeycomb cores are modeled in detail and these are accepted as reference models.
Then a set of equivalent models with the same dimensions is generated. The material
properties of the equivalent models are taken from different studies performed in the
literature. Both models are analyzed under the same loading and the boundary
conditions. In finite element analyses, ANSYS finite element program is used. The
results are compared to find out the best performing equivalent model. After three
major analyses loops, decision on the equivalent model is made. The differences
between the total reaction forces calculated by the equivalent model and the actual
honeycomb model are all found to be within 10%. The equivalent model gives stress
results at the macrov scale, and the local stresses and the strains can not be determined.
Therefore it is deemed that for stress analysis, equivalent model can be used during the

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

15
preliminary design phase. However, the equivalent model can be used reliably for
deflection analysis, modal analysis, stiffness determination and aero-elastic analysis.
Composite materials are widely used in today’s modern world. With the advent of new
materials, production techniques and new application areas, etc. composite materials
have become one of the most attractive areas in engineering. As in many areas of
engineering, generic applications are based on analytical methods and with the
increasing complexity of the geometries, boundary conditions and material, in almost
every case, the use of analytical methods become very tedious if not impossible. At
this point, the use of computational methods comes into picture. With the help of
computational methods, namely finite element method (FEM) for structural analyses,
highly complicated problems can be handled with great accuracy. The disadvantage of
using computational methods is that, in order to get accurate results, too much
computational time is needed, and this increases when the problem becomes more
complex. In addition, FEM models require a detailed study before the model is sent to
the solver. Honeycomb structures (HC), which is a specific type of composite structure
are investigated. HC structures are mostly used in sandwich structures. Because of the
web-type structure of the HC’s, the sandwich structure made from HC’s is relatively
complex from the modeling and analysis point of view. The goal in this post-graduate
study is to generate an orthotropic equivalent model that can be used instead of the
honeycomb structure itself. Thus, a great decrease in the preprocessor time and
computation time can be achieved. The generated equivalent model can be used
mostly in the preliminary design stage of the design process. Because of the nature of
the preliminary design stage, the requirements, the geometries, and the loads of any
kind, change very often, this resolves the problem to get the results for the updated
design. In addition to these, there are many different HC’s with different cell sizes,
wall thicknesses and material that can be readily found on the market. Hence, instead
of using a finite element model that fully models the details, an equivalent model can
be used to reduce the time spent for the analysis of the HC structure. In the following
chapters, it will be seen that the equivalent model gives macro scale results, which
means that in order to get the results for the micro scale, i.e. the stresses on the cell
walls and local displacements, a more detailed 3-D model should be used. In the FEM
analyses, the ANSYS commercial program is used. ANSYS is a very powerful FEM
solver with sophisticated pre- and post- processor capabilities. Although during the

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

16
analyses, version 7.0 and 10.0 are used, the analyses are finalized with the release of
the latest version, v11.0. In the modeling of HC’s, the popular computer aided design
programs NX 3.0 and later on NX 4.0 are used together with the preprocessor module
of ANSYS. The advantages in using NX are the ease of parametric modeling and array
creation, alongside the capability of exporting the model in various file types, like
parasolid and IGES. Lastly, another very significant advantage of NX is the direct
import capability of the NX file to ANSYS without of additional operations is also a
very significant advantage of NX. General information on the composites and
specifically on honeycomb structures will be presented. Sandwich theory will be
introduced and the material properties of the honeycombs will be investigated.
Geometric and finite element modeling of the honeycomb structures will be explained
and the different approaches in modeling will also be discussed. In addition,
honeycomb cores that are subjected to analyses are introduced here. Information on
equivalent modeling, candidate equivalent models, meshing, loading and boundary
conditions is given. Results of the analyses performed for the determination of the
study will be supplied, alongside the problems encountered and solutions proposed,
and finally the “best” equivalent model will be chosen. Chapter, a case study is
performed in order to demonstrate the application of equivalent model; subsequently,
the results are supplied. Finally, in the last chapter, conclusion of the studies is given
and researchers interested in the subject matter are encouraged to do further work.

The research related to ultimate strength of all steel sandwich panels at the ship
laboratory of HUT is reviewed in this paper. The studies include laboratory strength
testing, numerical FEM analysis and development of design formulation for this
panels the ultimate strength is analysed under the hydrostatic loading and under local
point Loading. Three cases be classified for the collapse mode for large loading areas
and for small core plate thickness elastic buckling of the core plate is dominating
collapse modes for thicker plate core welding and buckling are causing the failure the
third type of collapse mode occurs when the face plate is thin, then the applied
ultimate load causes high compressive bending stress on the face plate causing face
plate buckling before the collapse of the core plate. The demand for bigger, faster and
lighter moving vehicles such as sheep trians has increased the demand for the efficient
structural arrangement sandwich construction offer one possibility for efficient

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

17
utilisation of materials the present interest in steels sandwich structure has been
awakened by the developments in laser welding technology enabling efficient
production of this panels.

Studies related to the all steel sandwich panels were initiated at HTU / ship laboratory
in 1988 when the application of all steel sandwich panels as shelf structure of an
icebreaker was analysed ( Tuhkuri, 1991, Tuhkuri, 1993). The application on the shell
of an icebreaker was found to be problematic due to high demand for the local strength
of structures under ice loading

The Thereafter the applications of all steel sandwich panel deck and bulkhead
structure of cruising ship was studied (Kujal et al., 1995, kujala and Tuhkuri, 1995).
The studies include development of design methods with optimization, ultimate and
testing under hydrostatic loading and fire and noise testing of the panels. The steel
sandwich deck and bulkhead structure found to be 30 to 50 % lighter than the
conventional steel grillages. These studies where continued by conducting fatigue test
of the all steel sandwich panels used as a longitudinal bulkhead also the application of
all steel sandwich panels is crane structure is studied by conducting static test for laser
welded beams (Kujala et al., 1996).

The design methods for all steel sandwich panels were further developed in the
research project carried out during the years 1996-1997. The project covered e.g.
Development of composite coatings for Precurved sandwich panels under wheel
loading planned to be used on a railway cargo wagon (Kunjala and Marttilla,1997,
kunjala,1998b), strength analysis of laser welded crane structures (Remes and Kunjala,
1997) and design and fatigue testing of longitudinal joints for sandwich panels planned
to be used as deck structures on a cruising ship (kotisalo,1998,kunjala,1998a,kunjala et
al., 1998). In addition local strength of sandwich panels has been analysed under
concentrated loads (Naar, 1997, Kunjala and Naar, 1998).

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

18
CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTATION:

3.1 Geometry of Specimen:

3.1.1 Circular steel structure Case 1:

Top Plate width (W): 100mm
Top Plate length (L): 100mm
Top Plate thickness (t): 5 mm
Bottom Plate width (W): 100mm
Bottom Plate length (L): 100mm
Bottom Plate thickness (t): 5 mm
Inner diameter of pipe (core) (di): 15mm
Outer diameter of pipe (core) (do): 20.5mm
Length of pipe (core) (L): 100mm
Top and Bottom plate, Core material: Steel Material

Figure 3.1 Geometry of circular steel structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

19
3.1.2 Triangular steel structure Case 2:
Top Plate width (W): 100mm
Top Plate length (L): 100mm
Top Plate thickness (t): 5 mm
Bottom Plate width (W): 100mm
Bottom Plate length (L): 100mm
Bottom Plate thickness (t): 5 mm
Core material size: 25x25x3mm
Top and Bottom plate, core material: Steel Material

Figure 3.2 Geometry of Triangular steel structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

20
3.1.3 Rectangular steel structure Case 3:
Top Plate width (W): 100mm
Top Plate length (L): 100mm
Top Plate thickness (t): 5 mm
Bottom Plate width (W): 100mm
Bottom Plate length (L): 100mm
Bottom Plate thickness (t): 5 mm
Core Plate width (W): 20.5mm
Core length (L): 100mm
Core Plate thickness (t): 3mm
Top and Bottom plate, core material: Steel Material

Figure 3.3 Geometry of Rectangular steel structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

21
CHAPTER 4. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS VALIDATION:
A composite structure typically consists of two thin face sheets made from stiff and
strong relatively dense material such as metal bonded to a thick lightweight material
called core. Where the face sheets support bending loads and the core transfers shear
force between the faces in a panel under load. Face sheets used in structure are mainly
in three forms flat, lightly profiled and profiled. The face sheets of composite structure
provide structural stiffness and protect the core against damage and weathering.
During loading the face sheets take compressive and tensile loads and core transforms
shear loads between the faces.

4.1 Catia Modeling:

CATIA enables the creation of 3D parts, from 3D sketches, sheet metal, composites,
molded, forged or tooling parts up to the definition of mechanical assemblies. The
software provides advanced technologies for mechanical surfacing & BIW. It provides
tools to complete product definition, including functional tolerances as well as
kinematics definition. CATIA provides a wide range of applications for tooling design,
for both generic tooling and mold & die. In Catia I had done all modeling work. Then
this model is converted in to STP file. There are total 6 Nos. of sample. This STP files
will be input for ANSYS.

Figure 4.1 Circular steel structure view in Catia

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

22
 Figure 4.2 Triangular steel structure view in Catia

Figure 4.3 Rectangular composite structure view in Catia

4.2 Meshing In ANSYS:

Meshing of all parts done in ANSYS. Mesh generation is one of the most critical
aspects of engineering simulation. ANSYS Meshing technology has been built on the
strengths of stand-alone, class-leading meshing tools. For meshing of parts element
size selected is 3mm for better results and edges selected for fine tune meshing
purpose at critical area. Because too many cells may result in long solver runs, and too

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

23
few may lead to inaccurate results. ANSYS Meshing technology provides a means to
balance these requirements and obtain the right mesh for each simulation in the most
automated way possible.
This is the most important step in analysis because meshing generally affects the
accuracy & economy of analysis. Element size of 3mm is considered for meshing
purpose. Meshing size is keep same throughout the model.

Figure 4.4 Meshing view of circular steel structure

Figure 4.5 Meshing view of Triangular steel structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

24
 Figure 4.6 Meshing view of Rectangular steel structure

4.3 Preprocessing:
Define element type:- In this specified type of element. Material properties: The
element type requires material properties. Depending upon application the material
properties can be Linear or non linear Material properties. In our case material
properties are linear. Material is considered to be Isotropic i.e. having properties same
in all directions.
4.4 Define geometry:
Now after finishing all background properties actual part in STEP format inserted into
ANSYS . Here we have to assign materials to respected part. Means for upper and
lower plate assign steel. And for core assign material is E-Glass/Epoxy this is material
property is only selected for composite structure. When we take steel composite
structure then upper and lower plate assign steel and for core material assign is steel.
Hence pre processing activity ends.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

25
4.5 FEA result:
4.5.1 Fixed the Support :
In ANSYS Workbench the STP format is Imported and Materials properties are given
to the individual part i.e, top and bottom plates are selected and steel properties are
given to them. Now core is selected and E-Glass/Epoxy properties are given. Now
mesh the geometry as free mapped mesh and structural analysis is done by fixing the
plate at bottom and force is applied at top face of the plate as shown in below fig.

Figure 4.7 Position of fixing bottom plate in circular steel structure

Figure 4.8 Position of fixing bottom plate in Triangular steel structure.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

26
 Figure 4.9 Position of fixing bottom plate in Rectangular steel structure.

4.5.2 Position of Applying force :

Structural analysis is done by fixing the plate at bottom and 10000N force is applied at
top face of the plate in both composite and steel structure as shown in below fig.

Figure 4.10 Position of applying force (10000N) on circular steel structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

27
Figure 4.11 Position of applying force (10000N) on Triangular composite structure

Figure 4.12 Position of applying force (10000N) on Rectangular composite structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

28
4.5.3 Total deformation and Equivalent stress of all structure:
Sample No 1: Circular steel structure.

Figure 4.13 Equivalent stress of Circular steel structure.

Figure 4.14 Total deformation of Circular steel structure.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

29
Sample No 2: Triangular steel structure.

Figure 4.15 Equivalent stress of Triangular steel structure.

Figure 4.16 Total deformation of Triangular steel structure.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

30
Sample No 3: Rectangular steel structure.

Figure 4.17 Equivalent stress of Rectangular steel structure.

Figure 4.18 Total deformation of Rectangular steel structure.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

31
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

5.1 ANSYS result of all sandwich structure Compare between the total weight,
total deformation and Equivalent stress.

Circular Steel Structure

Deformation Equivalent Stress Weight
Sr. No. Force (N)
(mm) (Mpa) (Kg)
1 1000 0.00063382 2.7377
2 2000 0.0012676 5.4754
3 3000 0.0019015 8.2132
4 4000 0.0025353 10.951
5 5000 0.0031691 13.689
1.3114
6 6000 0.0038029 16.426
7 7000 0.0044368 19.164
8 8000 0.0050706 21.902
9 9000 0.0057044 24.639
10 10000 0.0063382 27.377

Table 5.1 Applied force and obtained value of design characteristics using FEA for
Circular Steel Structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

32
 Triangular Steel Structure
Deformation Equivalent Stress
Sr. No. Force (N) Weight (Kg)
(mm) (Mpa)
1 1000 0.00030044 1.3952
2 2000 0.00060088 2.7904
3 3000 0.00090131 4.1856
4 4000 0.0012018 5.5809
5 5000 0.0015022 6.9761
1.1879
6 6000 0.0018026 8.3713
7 7000 0.0021031 9.7665
8 8000 0.0024035 11.162
9 9000 0.0027039 12.557
10 10000 0.0030044 13.952

Table 5.2 Applied force and obtained value of design characteristics using FEA for
Triangular Steel Structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

33
 Rectangular Steel Structure
Sr. Deformation Equivalent Stress Weight
Force (N)
No. (mm) (Mpa) (Kg)
1 1000 0.00017687 0.99194
2 2000 0.00035374 1.9839
3 3000 0.00053061 2.9758
4 4000 0.00070748 3.9677
5 5000 0.00088436 4.9597
0.97717
6 6000 0.0010612 5.9516
7 7000 0.0012381 6.9436
8 8000 0.001415 7.9355
9 9000 0.0015918 8.9274
10 10000 0.0017687 9.9194

Table 5.3 Applied force and obtained value of design characteristics using FEA for
Rectangular Steel Structure.

5.2 Weight comparisons of all structure:

Sr. No. Name of Structure Weight (Kg)

1 Triangular Steel Structure 1.1879
2 Rectangular Glass fibre 0.785
3 Rectangular Steel Structure 0.97717

Table 5.4 Weight comparisons of all structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

34
5.3 Deformation comparison of all steel structure:

Circular steel Triangular steel Rectangular steel

Force
Sr. No. Structure Structure Structure
(N)
(Deformation) (Deformation) (Deformation)
1 1000 0.00063382 0.00030044 0.00017687
2 2000 0.0012676 0.00060088 0.00035374
3 3000 0.0019015 0.00090131 0.00053061
4 4000 0.0025353 0.0012018 0.00070748
5 5000 0.0031691 0.0015022 0.00088436
6 6000 0.0038029 0.0018026 0.0010612
7 7000 0.0044368 0.0021031 0.0012381
8 8000 0.0050706 0.0024035 0.001415
9 9000 0.0057044 0.0027039 0.0015918
10 10000 0.0063382 0.0030044 0.0017687

Table 5.5 Deformation comparison of all steel structure

30 Force vs Deformation
Circular steel
25 Structure
Deformation (mm)

Equivalent
20 Stress (Mpa)
Triangular
15 steel Structure
Equivalent
10 Stress (Mpa)
Rectangular
steel Structure
5
Equivalent
Stress (Mpa)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Force (N)

Figure 5.1 Force Vs Deformation of steel structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

35
5.4 Equivalent Stress comparison of all steel structure:

Circular steel Triangular steel Rectangular steel

Structure Structure Structure
Sr. No. Force (N)
Equivalent Equivalent Stress Equivalent Stress
Stress (Mpa) (Mpa) (Mpa)
1 1000 2.7377 1.3952 0.99194
2 2000 5.4754 2.7904 1.9839
3 3000 8.2132 4.1856 2.9758
4 4000 10.951 5.5809 3.9677
5 5000 13.689 6.9761 4.9597
6 6000 16.426 8.3713 5.9516
7 7000 19.164 9.7665 6.9436
8 8000 21.902 11.162 7.9355
9 9000 24.639 12.557 8.9274
10 10000 27.377 13.952 9.9194

Table 5.6 Equivalent Stress comparison of all steel structure

30 Force vs Equivalent Stress

Equivalent Stress (Mpa)

25 Circular steel
Structure
20 Equivalent
Stress (Mpa)
15

10 Triangular
steel
5 Structure
Equivalent
0 Stress (Mpa)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Force (N)

Figure 5.2 Force Vs Equivalent Stress of steel structure

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

36
In above table shows the deflection, equivalent stress and self weight of investigated
Triangular, Rectangular and Circular composite structure and Triangular, Rectangular
and Circular steel structure. The weight of composite structure is 0.785 kg is small as
compare to the steel structure. The Equivalent Stresses, Total deformation of
Rectangular steel structure is also small as compare to Triangular, circular steel
structure. From above table it is observed that the minimum stress and minimum
deformation is observed in rectangular composite structure when it is compare with
Triangular, Rectangular composite structure.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

37
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION:

The composite structure models in CATIA are efficiently imported into ANSYS
workbench structural analysis is done and max stress and total deflection is observed.
For given span of the structure, decreasing the weight of composite structure also the
strength increases and weight is reduced. The weight of composite structure is
decrease of 19-40% as compares to steel structure. And also increases the strength of
composite structure as compare to steel structure. By comparing rectangular steel
structure with triangular and circular steel structure it is observed that rectangular steel
structure have minimum stresses and also have minimum deflection.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

38
CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES:

[1] DESIGN And Analysis Of Corrugated Steel Sandwich Structures Using Ansys
Workbench 1.A.Gopichand, 2.Dr.G.Krishnaiah, 3.B.Mahesh Krishna, 4.Dr.Diwakar
Reddy.V, 5.A.V.N.L. Sharma International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT) Vol. 1 Issue 8, October – 2012.

[2] O.T. Thomson et al. (eds), sandwich structures 7; advancing with Sandwich
structure and materials, 3-12

[3] Structural response of pyramidal core sandwich columns

Francois Cote , Russell Biagi b, Hilary Bart-Smith b,*, Vikram S. Deshpande
Department of Engineering, Cambridge University, Trumpington Street, Cambridge
CB2 1PZ, UK Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of
Virginia, 122 Engineer’s Way, Charlottesville, VA 22902, USA.

[4] Numerical simulation of steel sandwich plate system (sps) floor

A.Gopichand, 2Dr.G.Krishnaiah, 3D.Krishnaveni, 4Dr.Diwakar Reddy.V International
Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (An ISO
3297: 2007 Certified Organization) Vol. 2, Issue11, November 2013

[5] Jukka Säynäjäkangas and Tero Taulavuori, Outokumpu Stainless Oy, Finland “A
review in design and manufacturing of stainless steel sandwich panels” stainless steel
world oktober 2004.

[6] Finite Element Analysis and Design of Sandwich Panels Subject to Local Buckling
Effects. Narayan Pokharel1 and Mahen Mahendran.

[7] Pentti kujala “ultimate strength analysis of all steel sandwich panels”Rakenteiden
Makaniikka,vol.31 Nrot1-2,1998,s. 32-45

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

39
[8] Tomas Nordstrand,” Basic Testing And Strength Design Of Corrugated Board And
Containers” Division of Structural Mechanics, LTH, Lund University, Box 118, SE-
221 00 Lund, Sweden.

[9] Aydıncak, İlke ” investigation of design and analyses principles of honeycomb

structures”

[10] Ultimate strength analysis of all steel sandwich panels. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka
vol. 31 Nrot 1-2, 1998.

[11] R. S. Khurmi, J. K. Gupta ‘Machine Design’

[12] Bryan Harris ‘Engineering Composite Materials’ The Institute of Materials,

London 1999.

SPCOE,OTUR B.E. (Mechanical)

40