FIoor Joist MateriaI SeIection

The Studmuffins:
Steven Crump
Daniel Garcken
Kevin Wilkins

Summary
The objective of this report is to select materials for three different floor joist
applications. The three floor joist applications include a lightweight substructure of a
military aircraft cabin, floor joists for low-cost housing, and a low environmental impact
substructure for a modern office building. Through Saaty's pair wise comparison the
important properties were assigned weighting factors. Other properties such as toxicity
or flammability were used as screening factors to refine the pool of ideal materials.
The objectives for each application were represented by property indices and used
with CES graphical analysis to select five materials that optimize the objective. Then a
weighted property index (WP) of these five optimal materials was used to select the
single most optimal material.

eeds Statement for MiIitary Aircraft FIoor Joists
The military needs a material for aircraft floor joists that must have a fixed length L,
have a fixed cross-section of square geometry, support a bending load F, endure this
load without deflecting too much or fracturing, and consist of minimum mass possible.
The aircraft is being designed to comprise of close fitting parts and assemblies that
can be drastically affected by changes in size from thermal sources. For this reason,
the material used should ideally have a very low thermal expansion coefficient. The
material the material must have a resistance to flammability, as the military does not
want fires within the aircraft. For this project the budget of the military will be assumed
to be limitless, therefore the manufacturability will not be limited by cost of
manufacture but by ease of manufacture; for a beam's case, the material must be able
to be shaped into a long prismatic shape. The material must also be non-toxic.
Function of the Joists
Support bending load (F)
Objective of the MateriaI SeIection
Minimize mass (therefore minimizing weight)
Design Constraints
Fixed length (L)
Fixed cross-section geometry (square: height = width = d)
Free variabIes
Cross-section dimension (d)
Performance ModeI and Index

propcrty to mInImIzc
= (F)(L)

E
N
Indcx to maxImIzc
=
E
1
2
p



MateriaI Properties
Performance index of young's modulus over density, thermal expansion, and
manufacturability. Yield strength, fracture toughness, and fatigue strength could all be
important properties for selecting a material. However, these properties will not be
included in the Saaty's pair wise method because they, much like the index, have
interdependence with young's modulus and/or density. To include properties such as
yield strength, a second index would be required; this further complicates the selection
process. For this part of the report as well as the other two parts, these properties will
be excluded from the selection process.
CLS Graph
1hls graph shows Lhe colored ldeal maLerlals 1he gray clrcles are noL ldeal for Lhls appllcaLlon
1he separaLlng llne has a slope of Lwo and Lwo maLerlals on Lhe llne have equal performance

Density (lb/in3)
0.00S 0.01 0.02 0.0S 0.1 0.2
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
1
0

6

p
s
i
)
0.1
1
10
100
Aerated concrete
Balsa (l) (ld)
Boron carbide (H!P)
Cyanate ester/HN carbon fiber, UD composite, 0 lamina
Class foam (0.13)
Saaty's Compar|son Method for Determ|n|ng We|ght|ng Iactors
fLer analyzlng Lhe CLS graph of Lhe performance lndex Lhe flve Lop maLerlals were four
dlfferenL Lypes of balsa wood and a cyanaLe esLer (hlgh sLrengLh) carbon flber 1o examlne a
broader range of maLerlals only one Lype of balsa wood was chosen ll 8alsa wood has
slmllar shorLcomlngs for example coefflclenL of Lhermal expanslon and flammablllLy 8ecause
flammablllLy ls dlsasLrous ln an alrplane balsa wood ls noL mosL ldeal cholce Lherefore Lhe
balsa group was narrowed down Lo one slngle balsa maLerlal 1hls allows oLher maLerlals such
as boron carblde glass foam and aeraLed concreLe Lo be lncluded ln Lhe selecLlon process
allowlng a broader range of maLerlal properLles Lo be consldered ln Lhe analysls 1he sloped
llne was shlfLed downward Lo lnclude a broader scope of maLerlals 1he maLerlals added Lo
Lhe llsL of opLlmum maLerlals lncluded 8erylllum whlch was subsequenLly removed from Lhe
pool of posslble maLerlals as lL falls Lhe requlremenL of belng nonLoxlc ln deLermlnlng Lhe
welghLlng facLors for each properLy analysls of Lhe CLS graph deLermlned values for Lhe
performance lndex daLa from CLS provlded Lhe Lhermal expanslon coefflclenL for each
maLerlal and Lhe value for manufacLurablllLy was deLermlned by wheLher or noL Lhe maLerlal
can be shaped lnLo prlsmaLlc shapes (lnformaLlon LhaL was avallable Lhrough CLS) ln Lhe case
of hlgh sLrengLh carbon flber Lhe shapes CLS llsLed as produclble for carbon flber were only
flaL sheeLs Lvery oLher maLerlal could be produced as prlsmaLlc shapes 1hese maLerlals were
asslgned a value of 1 for manufacLurablllLy whlle carbon flber was asslgned a value of 03 1hls
value ls noL a perfecL represenLaLlon of Lhe manufacLurablllLy of carbon flber buL Lhe
selecLlon process would requlre more lnformaLlon LhaL was noL avallable ln CLS Lo selecL
manufacLurablllLy raLlngs more accuraLely
esu|ts
1he CLS graph revealed Lhe Lop flve maLerlals for Lhe selecLlon 1he SaaLy's comparlson and
welghLed properLy lndex meLhods revealed cyanate ester carbon f|ber as belng Lhe opLlmal
cholce for a llghLwelghL sLlff appllcaLlon ldeal for alrcrafL 1hls seems reasonable from Lhe
sLandpolnL of common experlence as well as whaL was deLermlned from Lhe comparlson
meLhods lLhough carbon flber had Lhe lowesL value for manufacLurablllLy lLs value for Lhe
performance lndex was Lhe besL and lLs value for Lhermal expanslon was Lhe besL lor Lhls
appllcaLlon manufacLurablllLy was asslgned a very low welghLlng facLor 1hls ls largely due Lo
Lhe facL LhaL Lhe mlllLary has almosL a llmlLless budgeL Carbon flber may be harder Lo
manufacLure lnLo usable sLrucLures such as floor [olsLs because lL ls produced ln sheeLs
Powever lL ls able Lo be shaped lnLo sLrucLures oLher Lhan sheeLs wlLh enough money and
Lechnology whlch Lhe mlllLary ls noL shorL of
8alsa wood was deLermlned Lo be Lhe nexL besL maLerlal 8alsa's value for Lhe performance
lndex was very close Lo carbon flber's value (93 of carbon flber's lndex value) 8uL 8alsa's
Lhermal expanslon coefflclenL was much hlgher (33 Llmes larger Lhan carbon flber's Lhermal
expanslon coefflclenL) and Lhls pushed balsa Lo second place llammablllLy would have
screened ouL balsa however Lhere are measures Lhe can be Laken for reduclng Lhe rlsk of
flres lor example a flame proof maLerlal could poLenLlally be applled Lo Lhe surface of Lhe
balsa wood 8y proLecLlng balsa from flame flammablllLy becomes a non lssue and lL can be
dlsregarded from Lhe selecLlon properLles
Ceramlc boron carblde was Lhe nexL mosL favorable maLerlal due Lo lLs llghL welghL and sLlff
aLLrlbuLes lLhough boron carblde ls much sLlffer Lhan balsa wood lL ls relaLlvely heavler
compared Lo balsa wood and Lherefore lLs performance lndex decreased (80 of carbon
flber's value)
eraLed concreLe and glass foam Lurned ouL Lo be Lhe leasL favorable maLerlals 1he
properLles of each LhaL were compared ln Lhe Wl were qulLe slmllar 1he performance lndex
value was conslderably lower LhaL carbon flber ln boLh maLerlals Class foam would requlre a
large quanLlLy of maLerlal Lo be equally as sLlff as carbon flber nd alLhough glass foam ls less
masslve per unlL volume lLs raLlo of sLlffness Lo mass ls much lower whlch means LhaL more
overall mass ls requlred for Lhe same sLlffness 1he same can be sald for concreLe
D|scuss|on
1hls selecLlon process alLhough lgnorlng a mulLlLude of leglLlmaLe maLerlal properLles sLlll
produced a reasonable maLerlal Lo be used lf oLher performance lndlces were lnLegraLed lnLo
Lhe process Lhe ouLcome may show carbon flber ls more obvlously Lhe ldeal maLerlal lL may
show LhaL carbon flber ls noL Lhe correcL cholce aL all Powever by applylng even one
performance lndex a more leglLlmaLe concluslon arlses Lhan by comparlng relaLed properLles
lndlvldually
-eeds Statement for Low cost hous|ng
company LhaL produces low cosL houslng needs floor [olsLs LhaL musL have a flxed lengLh L
have a flxed crosssecLlon of square geomeLry supporL a bendlng load l endure Lhls load
wlLhouL deflecLlng Loo much or fracLurlng and a mlnlmum cosL 1hls company would prefer
uslng maLerlals LhaL also have hlgher values for fracLure Loughness and yleld sLrengLh for
sLrucLural and longevlLy reasons 1hls company wanLs Lo make low cosL homes LhaL are
durable and wlll noL fall aparL afLer only a few years of use 1he [olsLs need Lo be able Lo
wlLhsLand Lhe forces produced durlng earLhquakes and remaln compleLely lnLacL 1he [olsLs
musL be nonflammable nonLoxlc and ldeally a low coefflclenL of Lhermal expanslon 1he
low cosL houslng ls golng Lo be used ln a reglon LhaL sees drasLlc changes ln LemperaLure and
Lhe company does noL wanL Lhe bulldlng Lo fall due Lo changes ln [olsL slze from LemperaLure
1he [olsL maLerlal musL also be able Lo be consLrucLed on slLe easlly Lo reduce consLrucLlon
cosLs
Iunct|on of the Io|sts
SupporL bendlng load (l)
Cb[ect|ve of the Mater|a| Se|ect|on
Mlnlmlze cosL
Des|gn Constra|nts
llxed lengLh (L)
llxed crosssecLlon geomeLry (square helghL wldLh d)
Iree var|ab|es
CrosssecLlon dlmenslon (d)

erformance Mode| and Index

propcrty to mInImIzc
= (F)(L)
pC
m
E
N
Indcx to maxImIzc
=
E
1
2
pC
m


Mater|a| ropert|es
1hermal expanslon manufacLurablllLy yleld sLrengLh fracLure Loughness flammablllLy
LoxlclLy also lncludlng Lhe performance lndex llsLed above
CLS Graph
1hls graph shows Lhe flve maLerlals LhaL lle Lo Lhe Lop and lefL of Lhe dlagonal llne of slope 2
Saaty's a|rW|se Compar|son
1he alrwlse comparlson daLa sheeL and Wl allowed lndlvldual maLerlal properLles Lo be
compared for each of Lhe flve maLerlals selecLed from CLS Some properLles had quanLlLaLlve
values LhaL could be compared whlle oLher properLles llke flammablllLy and LoxlclLy were
only used Lo screen ouL maLerlals LhaL falled Lo meeL Lhe needs lL worked ouL LhaL all of Lhe
Lop flve maLerlals LhaL maxlmlzed Lhe performance lndex all were nonLoxlc and non
flammable or ln Lhe case of asphalL concreLe self exLlngulshlng whlch ls sLlll accepLable lL ls
lmporLanL Lo Lhe user Lo make a producL LhaL wlll survlve earLhquakes and years of use
however Lhe appllcable properLles are relaLed Lo Lhe elasLlc modulus and cannoL be
descrlbed accuraLely wlLhouL uslng anoLher performance lndex 1hermal expanslon was Laken
Density * Price
S0 100 200 S00
Y
o
u
n
g
's

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
C
P
a
)
S
10
20
S0
100
200
Aerated concrete
Concrete (st ructural lightweight)
High volume fly ash concrete
Concrete (super sulfate cement)
Asphalt concrete
lnLo conslderaLlon ln Lhe selecLlon process Lhe maLerlal wlLh Lhe lowesL coefflclenL of Lhermal
expanslon ls Lhe besL cholce arL of Lhe deslgn requlremenLs ls mlnlmlzlng deflecLlon
maLerlal LhaL wlll expand or conLracL a slgnlflcanL amounL wlLh changes ln LemperaLure wlll
cause Lhe floor Lo deflecL elLher Lhrough buckllng and make Lhe [olsL experlence a hlgher
bendlng load or maklng Lhe walls experlence a bendlng load ln one dlrecLlon or anoLher
noLher lssue LhaL could affecL Lhe user ls Lhe level of dlfflculLy assoclaLed wlLh Lhe
manufacLurlng a [olsL lL ls lmporLanL Lo noLe LhaL manufacLurablllLy ln Lhls case ls deflned as
ease ln creaLlng a long prlsmaLlc shape 1he values asslgned for manufacLurablllLy are
unrelaLed Lo Lhe cosL of Lhe maLerlal as glven ln CLS and are noL dependanL on Lhe
performance lndex
esu|ts and Sens|t|v|ty Ana|ys|s
1he general sLraLegy was Lo rank Lhe needs ln order of lmporLance and roughly choose a
scaled raLlng Maxlmlzlng Lhe lndex Look Lhe blggesL prlorlLy and was chosen Lo represenL
abouL 70 of Lhe flnal declslon 1he properLy LhaL Look nexL prlorlLy was Lhermal expanslon aL
abouL 20 and manufacLurablllLy aL abouL 10
lL was deLermlned from Lhe Wl LhaL aerated concrete was Lhe besL cholce for Lhls pro[ecL
beaLlng every one of Lhe oLher maLerlals by far 1hls resulL makes sense as Lhe performance
lndex was more heavlly welghLed Lhan any oLher properLy 1he coefflclenL of Lhermal
expanslon for aeraLed concreLe also happens Lo be Lhe besL (lowesL) value of all maLerlals
consldered WlLh lncludlng oLher properLles llke yleld sLrengLh and fracLure Loughness Lhe
resulL ls changed drasLlcally wlLh Lhe opLlmal cholce ls very close beLween aeraLed concreLe
and concreLe (super sulfaLe cemenL) Powever for Lhls appllcaLlon of Lhe Wl meLhod only
one lndex could be consldered so Lhese properLles had Lo be omlLLed


-eeds Statement for Low Lnv|ronmenta| Impact Cff|ce I|oor Io|sts
company LhaL focuses on havlng an envlronmenLally frlendly lmage needs a maLerlal for
floor [olsLs ln an offlce bulldlng LhaL musL have a flxed lengLh L have a flxed crosssecLlon of
square geomeLry supporL a bendlng load l endure Lhls load wlLhouL deflecLlng Loo much or
fracLurlng be cosL effecLlve nonflammable and be as envlronmenLally frlendly as posslble
Iunct|on of the Io|sts
SupporL bendlng load (l)
Cb[ect|ve of the Mater|a| Se|ect|on
Mlnlmlze envlronmenLal lmpacL
Des|gn Constra|nts
llxed lengLh (L)
llxed crosssecLlon geomeLry (square helghL wldLh d)
Iree var|ab|es
CrosssecLlon dlmenslon (d)
erformance Mode| and Index

propcrty to mInImIzc
= (F)(L) _
pIe
E
]
N
Indcx to maxImIzc
=
E
1
2
pI

Mater|a| ropert|es
1he performance lndex llsLed above (le embodled energy) 1hermal expanslon cosL and
recyclablllLy (measured ln percenL of maLerlal recycled ?leld sLrengLh would have been
added Lo lnsure LhaL Lhe load could acLually be safely held wlLhouL plasLlcally deformlng buL
Lhose would have been relaLed Lo Lhe ob[ecLlve performance model whlch ls beyond Lhe
scope of Lhls reporL llammablllLy was used Lo screen ouL flammable maLerlals buL as you wlll
noLlce none of Lhe maLerlals chosen by CLS graphlcal analysls were flammable

Density*Embodied energy, primary production
S00 1000 2000 S000
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
C
P
a
)
2
S
10
20
S0
100
200
S00
Limestone(2.66)
Aerated concrete
High volume fly ash concrete
Sandstone(2.61)
Slate
CLS Graph

y utilizing CES Graphical analysis, 5 materials were determined to maximize the performance
index above all other known materials. Those included: Aerated concrete, High volume fly ash
concrete, Limestone, Sandstone, Slate.
Saaty's Pair Wise Comparison
The same method was used as was used for the proceeding sections in this report.
ResuIts
The results of the WP indicated that the best material for this application was aerated
concrete, by a good margin. t scored at least 1
st
or 2
nd
best material on every category.
Although it was second in the ranking for the objective performance index, it also was the best
in recyclability which was weighted heavily due to the needs of the user in increasing
sustainability. The secondary choices were much closer and would be very sensitive to
fluctuation of the weighting factors.
ConcIusion and Recommendations
1he resulLs deLermlned ln each scenarlo don'L necessarlly accuraLely reflecL Lhe user's needs
as Lhey were deLermlned wlLhouL uslng fracLure Loughness faLlgue sLrengLh and yleld
sLrengLh ln Lhe Wl 1hls ls because Lhey would requlre addlLlonal performance lndlces When
fracLure Loughness and yleld sLrengLh are lncluded lnLo Lhe declslon Lhe opLlmal cholce may
change 1here would need Lo be more research lnLo looklng lnLo Lhe effecL of fracLure
Loughness and yleld sLrengLh Lo geL an accuraLe ldea of whaL maLerlal ls really Lhe besL for Lhe
appllcaLlon lL ls concelvable LhaL Lhe resulL could be slgnlflcanLly dlfferenL lncorporaLlng
mulLlple performance lndlces would be beneflclal Lo chooslng a maLerlal LhaL fulflls all of Lhe
user's needs and ls Lhe recommended nexL sLep
















Se|ect|on rocess 1ab|es for ||ghtwe|ght a|rcraft
Saatys a|rw|se compar|son
Index (L(1]2)]p) 1herma| Lxpans|on Manufacturab|||ty
Index (L(1]2)]p) 100 300 300
1herma| Lxpans|on 033 100 200
Manufacturab|||ty 020 030 100
1ota| 133 430 800

-orma||zed Saaty's

Index
(L(1]2)]p)
1herma|
Lxpans|on
Manufacturab|||ty
Avg We|ght|ng
Iactor
Index (L(1]2)]p) 0632 0667 0623 0648
1herma| Lxpans|on 0217 0222 0230 0230
Manufacturab|||ty 0130 0111 0123 0122
1ota| 1 1 1 1

We|ghted roperty Index
Index (L(1]2)]p) 1herma| Lxpans|on Manufacturab|||ty WI
We|ght|ng
Iactor
0648 0230 0122
Mam
3
]kg stra|n]I
eraLed
ConcreLe
6738 03762 328 00211 1 03004
8alsa 11069 09467 361 00308 1 07427
8oron Carblde 9288 07943 1803 00617 1 06311
Plgh SLrengLh
Carbon llber
11692 1 01113 1 03 09389
Class loam 7443 06367 4773 00233 1 03401


SeIection TabIes for Low cost housing
Saaty's Pair-wise comparison

ormaIized Saaty's
(L1]2)](pCm)
1herma|
Lxpans|on Manufacturab|||ty
Avg We|ght|ng
Iactor
(L1]2)](pCm) 0714 0789 0336 0686
1herma| Lxpans|on 0143 0138 0333 0211
Manufacturab|||ty 0143 0033 0111 0102
1ota| 1 1 1 1000

Weighted Property Index
(L1]2)](pCm) 1herma| Lxpans|on Manufacturab|||ty WI
We|ght|ng
Iactor 0686 0211 0102
((M3)*Gpa(1]2))]USD stra|n]C -]A
eraLed
ConcreLe 00893 1 93 1 1 1 0999
sphalL
ConcreLe 00484 0341993281 13 0730769231 03 03 0376999699
ConcreLe
(SLrucLural
llghLwelghL) 00431 0303039194 93 1 03 03 0608436887
ConcreLe
(Super
sulfaLe
cemenL) 00414 0463603823 10 093 03 03 0369483393
Plgh
volume fly
ash
concreLe 00332 0394176932 123 076 03 03 0481763373





(L1]2)](pC
m
)
1herma|
Lxpans|on Manufacturab|||ty
(L1]2)](pCm) 100 300 300
1herma| Lxpans|on 020 100 300
Manufacturab|||ty 020 033 100
1ota| 140 633 900
SeIection TabIes for Low EnvironmentaI Impact Office

Saaty's Pair-Wise Comparison

ormaIized Saaty's
Cost (L1]2)](pIe)
1herma|
Lxpans|on ecyc|ab|||ty
Avg
We|ght|ng
Iactor
Cost 0122 0103 0333 0094 0163
(L1]2)](pIe) 0488 0313 0267 0366 0438
1herma|
Lxpans|on 0024 0128 0067 0037 0069
ecyc|ab|||ty 0366 0236 0333 0283 0310
1ota| 1 1 1 1 1

Weighted Performance Index
Cost (L1]2)](pIe) 1herma| Lxpant|on ecyc|ab|||ty WI
We|ght|ng
Iactor 0163 0438 0069 031
uS$/kg (Cpa*m3)/M! sLraln/ C

recycled
eraLed
ConcreLe 007233 1 033 0630932381 93 0326313789 137 1 0798292
Plgh vol lly
sh Conc 010373 0699277108 023 0297619048 123 04 137 1 0387892
LlmesLone 07273 0099723086 084 1 3 1 141 010291971 037316
SandsLone 03183 0139922834 0343 0410714286 14 0337142837 141 010291971 0267463
SlaLe 0786 0092302799 0246 0292837143 11 0434343433 707 031603839 0340316

Cost (L1]2)](pIe) 1herma| Lxpans|on ecy|ab|||ty
Cost 100 020 300 033
(L1]2)](pIe) 400 100 400 200
1herma|
Lxpans|on 020 023 100 020
ecy|cab|||ty 300 030 300 100
1ota| 820 193 1300 333