Design of Lightweight Web Core
Sandwich Panels and Application
to Residential Roofs
Casey R. Briscoe
April 27, 2010
Roof Panel Concept
Conventional Construction:
Panelized Construction:
Roof Panel Requirements
Structural requirements
Long unsupported spans
Transverse distributed loads
Thermal insulating requirements
Durability considerations
Limits of Foam Core Panel Design
Minimum panel depth vs. panel length:
Foam Core Panel
Web Core Panel
Foam core panels limited to short spans
Webs allow the design of longer panels with reduced depth
4
Web Core Panel Limit States
Panel Deflection
Thermal R-Value
Te
kw
kc
Ti
Te
Rc
Rw
Ti
Web Core Panel Limit States
Face Sheet Buckling
Web Flexural Buckling
Buckling of the Face
Sheet into the Webs
Panel Deflection
Web Shear Buckling
Thermal R-Value
Te
kw
kc
Ti
Bearing Stress Failure
Te
Core Shear Failure
Rc
Rw
Ti
Web Shear Buckling
Panel Loading:
q
a
Model as plate on
Pasternak foundation
Analysis in three steps
1. Plate buckling model
2. Foundation model
3. Application to panels
Buckled Web:
b
y
x
a
7
Plate Buckling Model
Plate:
y
ss
Foundation:
ss
ss
ss
Minimum potential energy
Assume deflection function
Obtain set of equations of
the form
x
fP
z
fW
Solve for
Plate Buckling Model Solutions
Buckling Mode Shapes:
Solutions for :
Foundation increases buckling strength significantly
9
Elastic Foundation Model
Panel Cross Section
b
p
Web
p/2
Symmetry
(fixed base)
Symmetry
Foam dissipates the deformation caused by web buckling:
Shallow foundation
(closely-spaced webs)
Deep foundation
(widely-spaced webs)
10
Elastic Foundation Model
Infinitely deep foundation
Exponential decay
Determine foundation constants using energy methods
Applicable for deep foundations
11
Elastic Foundation Model:
Range of Applicability
Validated using FEA
Panel designs
Close web
spacing
Wide web
spacing
Model valid for
12
Shear Buckling: Application to Panels
Finite Element Model:
Symmetry
q (uniform over
entire surface)
Buckling load
Buckling coefficient
x
z
a/2
Uy = 0 on x = 0
, compare to
13
Shear Buckling FE Results
Buckling Mode Shapes:
Buckling Coefficients:
Face sheets provide rotational restraint
Buckling strength predictions conservative (1020%)
Reasonable agreement for design
14
Web Core Roof Panel Design
Loads and R-value
requirement climate
dependent
Three representative cases
Designs determined by a
subset of limit states
Web shear buckling
Face sheet buckling
Panel Deflection
Thermal performance
15
Effect of Limit States on Design
Example:
Load 1576 N/m2
R-value 5.3 m2-K/W
Assume 2.0 mm face sheets
and 1.2 m web spacing
Feasible designs shaded
Minimum depth design
Depth to meet structural requirements: 176 mm
Depth to meet structural and thermal requirements: 282 mm
Using stainless steel webs: 190 mm
16
Limits of Foam Core Panel Design
Minimum panel depth vs. panel length:
Foam Core Panel
Web Core Panel
Webs allow the design of longer panels with reduced depth
Thermal requirement important for design
17
Conclusions
Structural and thermal requirements must be considered
for roof panel design
Foam has a major impact on local failure modes
Use webs to reduce the impact of foam creep on performance
Thin, widely-spaced webs to minimize impact on thermal
insulating performance
Modeled successfully as an elastic foundation
Order of magnitude increase in local buckling strength
Web core panels are a viable design option for roofs
18
19
Shear Buckling Prototype Test
20
Shear Buckling Prototype Test
Load-Deflection Behavior:
Buckling Mode:
21
Bearing Stress Failure
Plastic failure mechanism
Web crippling
Core crushing
Assume effects independent
Factors affecting strength
include:
Load/geometric imperfections
Stress concentrations/residual
stresses
Support location (end vs.
interior)
Yield line
hD
hD
Plastic Hinge
LD
22
Bearing Strength Models
Mechanism Solution:
Yield line mechanism solution
Strength contributions:
Web crippling strength
Foam failure
Modified AISI Equation:
Based on unified empirical web
crippling equation
Simplified core crushing term
Web crippling strength
Foam failure
Models predict 80% of strength is from foam crushing
23
Bearing Strength Validation
Prototype Test Results:
Model Comparison:
Roberts model
and data
UMN model and data
Core crushing strength insensitive to web imperfections
Reduced variability in strength compared to webs with no foam
May allow smaller safety factors compared to current practice
24
Shear Buckling FE validation
vs.
a/hc:
vs.
p/a:
25
Bearing Stress Models
Analytical vs. Semi-Empirical:
Contribution from Foam:
Analytical web crippling strength prediction higher than semi-empirical
Semi-empirical model predicts larger contribution from core crushing
Both models predict 80% of strength is from core crushing
26
Design Comparison
Compare designs based on
material cost
Stainless steel webs
Two-layer (carbon steel webs)
Truss core panels
Web core panels lighter weight
and comparable or lower panel
depth than truss core
Truss core panels allow lowest
cost
6090% of web core material
cost is due to foam
Truss core panels use almost
50% less foam than web core
27
Flexural Web Buckling
Model core as elastic foundation (same as shear buckling)
Determine using minimum potential energy
Shear buckling strength always lower than flexural buckling strength
Buckling Mode Shapes:
Solutions for :
28
Tradeoff between Depth and Weight
Stainless steel webs
166 N/m2
88 mm
Particularly significant with stainless steel webs
Minimum weight preferred for design
29
Minimum Weight Designs
Panel Depth (mm)
Panel Weight (N/m2)
Carbon Steel Webs
Climate I
285
205
Climate II
379
243
Climate III
----
----
Stainless Steel Webs
Climate I
270
204
Climate II
324
223
Climate III
398
263
30
