Minimum weight design of sandwich beams with

honeycomb core of arbitrary density

Annette Meidell
Narvik University College, P.O. Box 385, N-8505 Narvik, Norway

Abstract
We consider minimum weight optimization of sandwich beams for a
given stiness. The core consists of regular hexagonal honeycomb structure of arbitrary density. We present a simple algorithm for estimating
all design parameters. Concrete examples are also given.

Introduction

Engineering and mathematical aspects of the homogenization theory have been

considered in number of paper, see e.g. [2], [3], [6] and the references therein.
An elementary introduction to the homogenization method is given in the book
Persson et. al. [8].
In this paper we consider minimum weight optimization of sandwich beams
with regular hexagonal honeycomb core structure of arbitrary density. Both
facings consist of a material with Youngs modulus Ef and density f . The cellwall material in the core is an isotropic material with plain strain bulk modulus
K, shear modulus G and density . The objective function (to be minimized
for a given stiness) is the total mass m, and the free variables are the facethickness tf , the distance between the centroids of the faces d ( tc ) and the
volume fraction of the cell-wall material v. In order to calculate the stiness of
the sandwich beam, we have to know the eective longitudinal shear modulus
of the core GL . Moreover, if the core is relatively sti, we also need to know
the value of the eective transversal Youngs modulus of the core ET (i.e. the
eective Youngs modulus in the x1 -direction and x2 -direction). By using FEMcomputations and homogenization techniques, an approximate formula for GL
was obtained in [7]. Despite its simplicity it turns out that this formula is valid
with error less than 0.25% for any volume fraction. Combining some recent
approximate formulae for the transversal bulk and shear moduli obtained in [1]
with a general formula of Hill [4] we also obtain a relatively simple approximative
formula for ET with error less than 1% for any volume fraction. By playing with
these formulae we find an approximative formula for the stiness of the beam
from which we can deduce a simple algorithm for estimating the values of d, v
and tf which minimizes the mass of the beam for a given stiness. It turns out
1

Figure 1: Sandwich beam with regular hexagonal honeycomb core.

that the problem can be divided into 3 cases depending on the required stiness
and the material properties. We also consider the case when constraints on d
and v are added to the minimization problem.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we establish all eective parameters of the eective stress-strain relation in the core. The general minimum
weight problem is considered in Section 3. In Section 4 we simplify this problem and present the solutions for the case when no constraints on d and v are
assumed. The case of medium sti beams is studied in more detail in Section
5. In Section 6 we use the general solution to consider the case when the facings
are made of carbon fiber reinforced plastic and the cell-wall material in the core
is polystyrene. Constrained problems are considered and exemplified in Section
7. Finally, we have collected the proofs of our main results in an Appendix.

Stiness properties of the core

In the case when the eective stress-strain relation in

KT + GT KT GT l 0
h 11 i
h 22 i KT GT KT + GT l 0

h 33 i l
l
n 0

h 12 i = 0
0
0
GT,45

h 23 i 0
0
0
0
h 13 i
0
0
0
0

the core is of the form

0
0
he11 i

0
0
he22 i

0
0 he33 i

h 12 i
0
0

GL 0 h 23 i
h 13 i
0
GL
(1)
(where hi denotes the local average taken over a small representative volume
element of the structure), we say that the eective stiness matrix on the right
side satisfies square symmetry. The inverse of this matrix takes the form
1

ET EL 0
0
0

ET
T
L
T

L
E E1

0
0
0

T
T
L
L

0
0
0
E EL E1
(2)
L
L
L

,
1
0
0
0
0
0
G

T,45

1
0
0
0
0
0
G
L
1
0
0
0
0
0
G
L

ET ,

EL ,

described by the Youngs moduli

the Poissons ratios T , L and the

shear moduli GT,45 , GL . Using this, it is possible to obtain the relations

4
1
1
4 ( L )2
= + +
,

ET
GT
K
EL

(3)

4 T
1
1
4 ( L )2
=

.
ET
GT
K
EL

(4)

Moreover, using the exact same approach as Hill [4] did for the the case GT =
GT,45 and utilizing the fact that the core is built up by only one material, we
find that L = and EL = vE. For such composite structures it is also possible
to show that

1
1
1
1
=
+ A1
+
,
(5)
KT
K
K
G

1
1
1
1
=
+ A2
+
,
(6)

GT
G
K
G

1
1
1
1
=
+ A3
+
,
(7)

GT,45
G
K
G
where A1 , A2 and A3 are constants which only depend on the geometry of the
structure (see Vigdergauz [9]). By (3), (5) and (6), we obtain that

4
1
1
4 2
=
(A
+
A
+
1)
+
+
.
1
2

ET
K
G
vE
3

Recalling that G and K are related to the Youngs modulus E and Poissons
ratio by the formulae
K=
we finally obtain that

E
,
2 (1 + ) (1 2)

ET =

G=

E
,
2 (1 + )

E
(A1 + A2 + 1) (1 2 )

2
v

(8)

(9)

For hexagonal honeycombs the following approximate formulae were presented

in [1]:

!

2 !
1
t
t
3 l
,
(10)

1 0.099263
0.27239
A1
2
t
2
l
l

3

3
l
l
1

+
(1 0.31343 tl +

4
t
t
2

if
0 tl 0.957,

t 2
t 3
0.36676 l + 0.22223 l )
A2

1.235 tl 1.5305 tl 1.732

if 0.957 tl 1.732,
(11)
where the relative cell-wall thickness t/l (see Figure 1) is related to the volume
fraction v by the formula

t
(12)
= 3 1 1v .
l

Both of these approximation formulae have proven to hold with maximum

error less than 1% for all volume fractions. This is verified by performing FEMcomputations with very high accuracy for a large number of volume fractions.
Moreover, arguing exactly as in [1] concerning the eective bulk and shear moduli we are able to show that we obtain almost the same accuracy for ET if we
replace A1 and A2 in (9) by (10) and (11). We may certainly also obtain an
explicit formula for KT , GT and T /ET with a similar accuracy by making use
of (4), (5), (6), (10) and (11).
By using FEM-computations and homogenization techniques, the following
approximate formula for hexagonal honeycombs was obtained in [7]:
GL

52Gv
.
(2 v) (4v 2 + 4v + 52)

(13)

Despite its striking simplicity it turns out that this formula is valid with error
less than 0.25% for any volume fraction.
Since the core structure in Figure 1 possesses hexagonal symmetry, the
eective elastic properties of the structure become transversely isotropic, i.e.
GT,45 = GT in (1) (see e.g. [5]). We can therefore obtain explicit formulae for
all elements in the compliance matrix (2) and certainly also for all elements in
eective stiness matrix in (1).
4

The general minimum weight problem

We recall that the maximum deflection of the sandwich beam is the sum of
deflection due to pure bending and pure shear deformation (see e.g. [10]), i.e.
= b + s ,
where
b =

(14)

P L3
PL
and s =
.
B1 (EI)eq
B2 (AG)eq

Here, P is the fource, L is the lenght of the beam and B1 and B2 are positive
constants depending on the loading- and boundary conditions. The equivalent
flexural rigidity (EI)eq is given by
(EI)eq =

Ef bt3f
E bt3 Ef btf d2
+ T c +
6
12
2

(15)

and the equivalent shear rigidity is given by

(AG)eq =

bd2 GL
.
tc

(16)

Expressed in terms of tf , tc and v we obtain that the compliance of the beam

(the inverse of the stiness) /P multiplied with b (the width) is given by
b
E t3
=
f f
P
B1
6 +

L3
(v)t3
ET
c

12

Ef tf (tc +tf )2
2

L
(t +t )2 G (v)
B2 c f tc L

(17)

where the expressions for ET (v) and GL (v) are given in the previous section.
The compliance /P and all other parameters in this expression are assumed
to be fixed except for tc , tf and v. Our task is to minimize the mass m, or
equivalently m/b (since b is fixed):
m
= 2f Ltf + vLtc
b
| {z } | {z }
facings

(18)

core

with the free variables tc > 0, tf > 0 and 0 < v 1, under the constraint (17).
This task is a matter of constraint nonlinear programming, and a numerical
solution can be found by choosing appropriate computational methods. Such
computations are not within the scope of this paper. Instead, we will consider
a simplified constraint minimization problem for which the solution (tc , tf , v)
is obtained quite easily. Inserting this approximate solution into (17) and (18)
enables us to estimate the accuracy of our calculations.

The simplified minimum weight problem

If tf << tc and tc Ec << tf Ef we have that (EI)eq can be reduced to

Ef btf d2
.
2

(EI)eq

(19)

Moreover, if tf << tc , the shear rigidity clearly reduces to

(AG)eq bdGL .

(20)

If we insert (19) and (20) into (14) we obtain that the compliance of the beam
/P is given by

L
2L3
+
,
(21)
=
2
P
B1 Ef btf d
B2 bdGL
from which we can deduce that
tf =
Moreover, the fact that

2L3

B1 Ef d2 b P

L
B2 dG
L

(22)

52

4v 2 + 4v + 52 1 < 0.02

for 0 v 1 motivates the following approximation of GL given in (13):

GL = G

v
2v

(which coincide with the Hashin-Strikman upper bound for the shear modulus).
Thus, the weight per unit depth w = m/b is given by

w=

m
= 2f Ltf + vLd = 2f L

b
B E
d2 41 Lf4
f

2L3

B1 Ef d2 b P

1

b P d 4

B1 Ef
v
3
f L B2 G 2v

L
B2 (dG
L)

+ vLd.

+ vLd =

(23)

The minimum weight solutions v, d (and hence also tf by using (22)) are
found as follows (for verification, see the Appendix).
Case 1 If

3
b <
P
8

B1 Ef
2f B23 G3

then d = Ld1 , where d1 is the only solution to the fourth order equation

2

1
1

B1 Ef
=0
(24)
b
2 b
d1 +
+
d21
d1
P
B2 G
4f
P
B2 G
satisfying

b
d1
> 0.
P
B2 G

In this case v = 1.
Case 2 If
3
8

1
B1 Ef
b <
2f B23 G3
P
2

then

and

d= q

B1 Ef
2f B23 G3

(25)

B1 Ef
2B2 f G

v =4 12

,
2B2 G b P

!
2B2 f G

B2 G b
.
B1 Ef
P

(26)

In this case, d ranges from

4L
db = q

B1 Ef
2f B2 G

(corresponding to v = 1) and (corresponding to v = 0).

Case 3 If
1
2

B1 Ef
<b
3
3
2f B2 G
P

then the function wopt () defined by

wopt (d) = min w(v, d),
0v1

decreases in its whole region of definition and converges to its limit

2L2

B2 G b P

as d . Moreover, the volume-fraction

s
!
8f
L
1
2
v= d
+
b P L + B1G d B1 Ef B2 G B2 G

(27)

vanishes as d . Consequently, there are no minimum-solutions in this

case.
7

Remark 1 For Case 2, we have the simple relation

d=

db
v

(28)

(see Appendix). This shows that the combination of d and v making the weight
w minimal when b/P belongs to the interval (25) are those making mc /b equal
b
to dL,
where mc is the mass of the core material, i.e.
s
2f B2 G
mc
4L2
2
= 4L
.
= Ldv = q
B
E

1 f
b
B1 Ef
2f B2 G

It is interesting to note that this value is independent of d and v, and maybe

more interesting, that it is independent of b/P , i.e. it is independent of the
required stiness of the beam.

Remark 2 We may certainly also minimize the total cost of the sandwich by
replacing f and with f cf and c, respectively, where cf and c are the costs
per kg of the face material and the cell-wall material, respectively.

On Case 2

Let us discuss some other aspects of Case 2. From (26) we have that
s

1
v
B1 Ef
b =
1
.
P
2B2 f G 2B2 G
4
Hence, by (22) and the relation (28)
4L
,
d= q
B E
v 21 Bf2 G

(29)

we obtain that

Lv
.
tf = q
B1 Ef f
2 2B2 G

(30)

Substituting v with (26) we also obtain

s
!

2 b P G2 B22
B2 G

.
tf = 4L
2B1 Ef f
B1 Ef
Moreover, by (29) and (30) we find the simple relation
d
8 f
= 2 .
tf
v
8

(31)

We now get that the mass of facings mf (divided with b) is given by

s
2L2 vf
2f B2 G
2
mf = 2tf Lf = q
=L v
.
2B1 Ef f
B1 Ef
B2 G

Recalling that the mass of the core is given by

s
2f B2 G
mc
,
= 4L2
b
B1 Ef
we obtain that

v
mf
= .
mc
4
Let us now say some words about the validity of our simplified model. It is
easy to see that the first term of (15) is less than p % of the second term if
2
100 tf
< p.
3
d
According to (31) this condition is satisfied if
2

100 v 2
< p.
3
8f

(32)

The third term of (15) is less than p % of the second term if

ET t3c 100
< p.
Ef tf d2 6

(33)

Using that tc = d tf we obtain from (31) the relation

3
3

1
t3f
8
E
2
T
3

1
8
E
v
2
T
v
100
100
ET tc 100
=
=
.

f
f 2
Ef tf d2 6
6
6
Ef tf 8 v2 tf
Ef 8 v2

Thus, in order to obtain that the third term of (15) is less than p % of the
second term, we must fulfill the following condition:
3

ET 8 v2f 1 100
< p.
(34)

f 2
6
Ef 8 v2
Finally, we have that the error obtained by using (15) is less than p % if
100
i.e.
100

tf
< p,
d

v2
< p.
8 f
9

(35)

An example

Let us consider the case when both ends of the beam are built in. For this case
B1 = 192 and B2 = 4. We assume that the facings are made of carbon fiber
reinforced plastic CFRP with Youngs modulus Ef = 138 GN/m2 and density
f = 1600 kg/m3 . The cell-wall material in the core is assumed to be made
of Polystyrene PS with Youngs modulus E = 3.370 GN/m2 , density = 1330
kg/m3 and Poissons ratio = 0.34; hence with corresponding shear modulus
G=

E
= 1.2575 GN/m2 .
2(1 + )

Let us first calculate the dimensionless parameter

s
s
B1 Ef
(192) (138) (1330)
=
= 46.79.
2f B2 G
2 (1600) (4) (1.2575)
By inserting the above parameters into (25) we obtain Case 2 if
3.488 m2 /GN b

4.651 m2 /GN.
P

For this case we obtain from (26), (29) and (30) the relations

v = 4 0.86 b
,
P
d=

L
,
v (11.698)

and
tf =

Lv
.
93.58

For example, if b/P = 4 m2 /GN,

v = 0.56, d =

L
L
, tf =
.
6.5509
167.11

Using (12), (11), (10) and (9), in that order, we find that
2

ET = 0.95365 GN/m .
For these values (32), (34) and (35) are satisfied for p = 0.05%, p = 2.6% and
p = 3.9%, respectively.
For the case

b 3.488 m2 /GN
P
we obtain by (24) that d = Ld1 , where d1 is the solution of the equation

2

2
b
=0
(36)
2 b
d1 + 0.198 81 + 5506.2
d1 0.198 81d1
P
P
10

Figure 2: The optimal value of d/L versus the compliance b/P in the case when the
facings are made of CFRP and the cell-wall material in the core is made of polystyrene.
satisfying

b
d1 0.198 81 > 0.
P

In Figure 2 we have plotted the curve of d/L as function of b/P. This is done
by solving (24) for a number of values of b/P 3.488 and by plotting the
function
d
1

(37)
=
L
4 0.86 b P (11.698)
in the interval 3.488 b/P 4.651.

Adding constraints

When the compliance

1
b <
P
2

B1 Ef
,
2f B23 G3

it appears that db is the smallest obtainable value of d making the weight minimal
(see the Appendix). If the relative thickness
4
db
=q
B
1 Ef
L

2f B2 G

is too large, we must consider to use a dierent design than a sandwich beam,
e.g. a truss structure. A dierent way is to reduces the relative thickness by
11

adding a constraint on d of the type

d dmax .

7.1

Constraints on d

From our discussion at the end of the Appendix we obtain the following minimum weight solutions v, d (and hence also tf by using (22)).
Case 1 Let

3
b <
P
8

B1 Ef
.
2f B23 G3

If


2

!2
dmax

1
1
B1 Ef
dmax
dmax
2 b
b

+
+
P
L
B2 G
4f
P
L
B2 G
L
(38)
is positive and

dmax
1
b

> 0,
P
L
B2 G
then d = Ld1 , where d1 is the only solution to the fourth order equation


2

1
1

B1 Ef
2 b
=0
b
d1 +
+
d21
d1
P
B2 G
4f
P
B2 G
satisfying

(39)

1
b
d1
> 0.
P
B2 G

Otherwise, d = dmax . For both alternatives, v = 1.

Case 2 If
3
8
then

and

B1 Ef

1
b <
2f B23 G3
P
2

d = min dmax , q

v = min 1, d
bP L +

1
B2 G

s
L

B1 Ef
2B2 f G

B1 Ef
,
2f B23 G3

2B2 G b P

s
!)
8f
L
2
+
.
d B1 Ef B2 G B2 G

12

(40)

Case 3 If
1
2

7.2

B1 Ef
<b ,
3
3
2f B2 G
P

then we put d = dmax (due to the fact that wopt () is decreasing in its
region of definition) and
(
s
!)
8f
1
L
2
v = min 1, d
+
.
b P L + B21G d B1 Ef B2 G B2 G

Constraints on d and v

Due to manufacturing reasons, v can certainly not be chosen arbitrarily small.

A thin walled honeycomb-core also gives rise to several failure mechanisms, like
cell-wall buckling, face wrinkling etc. In practice, for Case 2 and 3 we therefore
have to make sure that the value of v which comes out of the above algorithm
is larger than a safe value vmin > 0.
By the discussion at the end of the Appendix we find that adding both
constraints
d dmax and v vmin ,
gives a solution (d, v) to the minimum-mass problem which simply is the same
solution as that given in Subsection 7.1, provided vu vmin . Otherwise it is the
pair (d0 , vmin ) where
d0 = min {dmax , Ld1 }
and d1 is the only solution to the fourth order equation


2

2 vmin
B1 Ef vmin
2 vmin

2 b
+
d1 = 0 (41)
b
d1 +
d21
P
B2 Gvmin
4f
P
B2 Gvmin
satisfying

2 vmin
b
> 0.
d1
P
B2 Gvmin

Note that dmax Ld1 if

2 b
P

dmax 2 vmin B1 Ef vmin

+
+
L
B2 Gvmin
4f

and

b
P

dmax
L

dmax
2 vmin
b
> 0.

P
L
B2 Gvmin

Otherwise, dmax < Ld1 .

13

!2
2 vmin dmax

0
B2 Gvmin L
(42)

7.3

Example

We consider the same example as in Section 6, but add the constraints d

dmax = L(1/6.5509) and v vmin = 0.08. It is clear that d/L will be constant
and equal to dmax /L = 1/6.5509 0.15 in two intervals. There are two values
of b/P where d/L change from this constant value, one in the interval 0
b/P 3.488 and another in the interval 3.488 b/P 4.651 (see Figure 3).
The first one is found by solving (36) with respect to b/P for d1 = 1/6.5509,
i.e.

2
!2
1

1
0.199
= 0,
2 b
+0.199+(5506)
b
P
6.5509
P
6.5509
6.5509
(43)

1
b
0.199 > 0,
P 6.5509
which gives b/P = 1.6163. The second one is found by solving (37) with respect
to b/P for d/L = 1/6.5509, i.e.
1
1

,
=
6.5509
4 0.86 b P (11.698)

which gives b/P = 4.

The expression (40) is now written as follows:
(
)
L
8 + 8.283 6
d 8.497
v = min 1, 3 d
.
10 b P L + 4.141 8

(44)

The value of b/P making v = 0.08 (in the region where d/L = 1/6.5509 ) is
found from the equation
(6.5509) 8.4978 + 8.283 6
1
= 0.08,
103 b P 6.5509
+ 4.141 8

i.e.

63.952

= 0.08,
b P 152.65 + 4.141 8

which gives

= 5.2096.
P
For b/P > 5.2096 we have that d/L = min {1/6.5509, d1 } , where d1 is found
by solving (41), which now takes the form
b

2 b
P

d1 + 4.7714 + 440.50

b
P

14

d21

(4.7714) d1
= 0, (45)

b
d1 4.771 4 > 0. (46)
P

Figure 3: The optimal value of d/L versus the compliance b/P when the constraints
d/L < 0.15 and v > 0.1 are added, the facings are made of CFRP and the cell-wall
material in the core is made of polystyrene.

Putting d1 = 1/6.5509 into (45) and (46) we find the value of b/P making the
left side of (45) change sign from negative to positive, namely b/P = 36.407.
Adding the results obtained in Section 6 we obtain the following solution

(d, v) =

(0.15, 1)
(d0 , 1)

if
0 b/P 1.61,
if
1.61
b/P 3.49,

1
, 4 0.86 b P
if 3.49 b/P 4.00,
b (11.698)
(40.86
( P ))

63.952
0.15, b 152.65+4.141
if 4.00 b/P 5.21,
8
( P)
(0.15, 0.08)
if 5.21 b/P 36.41,
(d00 , 0.08)
if
36.41 b/P,

where d0 (= d1 ) is the solution of (36) and d00 (= d1 ) is the solution of (45).

Acknowledgements. I thank Professor Dag Lukkassen for some advises
which have improved the mathematical presentation of my results.

References
[1] G. Beeri, D. Lukkassen, A. Meidell, Estimating the Vigdergauz constants
for regular hexagonal honeycombs. To appear in: Composites Part B.
[2] S. Berggren, D. Lukkassen, A. Meidell and L. Simula, On stiness properties of square honeycombs and other unidirectional composites, Composites
B. 32, 6, 503-511, 2001.
[3] J. Bystrm, J. Helsing and A. Meidell, Some computational aspects of iterated structures, Composites Part B., Vol 32/6, 485-490, 2001.
15

[4] R. Hill, Theory of mechanical properties of fibre-strengthened materials-I.

Elastic behaviour, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 12,
199-212, 1964.
[5] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Theory of elasticity. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1986.
[6] D. Lukkassen, L.-E. Persson, P. Wall, Some engineering and mathematical
aspects on the homogenization method. Composites Engineering 5, 5, 519531, 1995.
[7] A. Meidell, The out-of-plane shear modulus of two-component regular honeycombs with arbitrary thickness. In: Mechanics of Composite Materials
and Structures (eds. C.A. Mota Soares, C.M. Mota Soares and M.J.M.
Freitas), NATO ASI, Troia, Portugal, Vol. III, 367-379, 1998.
[8] L.E. Persson, L. Persson, N. Svanstedt and J. Wyller, The homogenization
method: An introduction, Studentlitteratur, Lund, 1993.
[9] S. Vigdergauz, Complete elasticity solution to the stress problem in a planar grained structure. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids 4(4), 407-441,
1999.
[10] D. Zenkert, An Introduction to Sandwich Construction, EMAS, 1995.

Appendix
Let us now verify the formulae for the minimum values stated in Section 4. By
(23) we have that
1
w= 2
+ kvd,
(47)
rd sv d
2v

where
r=

B1 Ef
4f L4

i.e.
w=

, s=

B1 Ef
, k = L,
4f L3 B2 G

v
+ kvd.
d (v (rd + s) 2s)

(48)

(49)

Noting that v/ (d (v (rd + s) 2s)) is the mass of the facings, we obtain that
d (v (rd + s) 2s) > 0, i.e. that 2s/ (rd + s) < v. Therefore, by the expression
2ds
w
=
2 + kd,
v
d2 (v (rd + s) 2s)
we find that the only possible 0-value for w/v is obtained when
r
2s
d (v (rd + s) 2s) =
,
k
16

(50)

i.e.
1
v=
rd + s

r
!
1 2s
+ 2s .
d k

(51)

We therefore find that

q
2s

<
0
if
0
<
d
(v
(rd
+
s)

2s)
<

k ,

q
w
=
0
if
d (v (rd + s) 2s) = 2s
k ,

v
q

2s
> 0 if
k < d (v (rd + s) 2s) .

(52)

In addition, we must satisfy the condition v 1. Hence, using (49), (50) and
(51) , we obtain that for a fixed d, the minimum value of w(, d), denoted wopt (d),
is given by

wopt (d) =

1
d((rds))

1+2d 2sk+2skd2
d(rd+s)

+ kd

2
( 2skd+1)
= rd2 +sd

Dierentiating we obtain that

(2rds)

2 + k
d2 ((rds))
0

wopt (d) =
( 2skd+1)(d(s 2sk2r)s)

q
if 0 < d (rd s) < 2s
,
q k
if
d (rd s) 2s
k .

(rd2 +sd)2

Due to the fact that

(2rd s)

d2 ((rd s))

rd (rd s)
d2 ((rd s))

q
if 0 < d (rd s) < 2s
,
q k
if
d (rd s) 2s
k .

1
2 + d2 (rd s)
d ((rd s))

(53)

(54)

(55)

we clearly see that the first expression in the piecewise-defined function (53),
(2rd s)

d2 ((rd s))

+ k,

is increasing in d. This shows that the first expression in (53),

1
+ kd,
d ((rd s))
has at most one local minimum and no local maxima in that interval.
It is clear from the second expression in (54) that the second expression in
(53),
2

2skd + 1
,
(56)
rd2 + sd
17

is decreasing in d if s 2sk 2r 0. Similarly, if s 2sk 2r > 0, i.e.

we obtain that

1
s 2sk > r,
2

(57)

s
d=
s 2sk 2r

(58)

is the only positive local minimum-point of (56). On the other hand, (58) has
to be in the range of definition of (56)
p in order to be a local minimum of wopt ,
i.e. we must have that d (rd s) 2s/k. This condition is satisfied for

3s 2sk
r
.
(59)
8
Indeed, if (59) is satisfied, then
4
s

.
d=
s 2sk 2r
2sk
Hence,

4
2s
3s 2sk 4

d (rd s)
(
s) =
.
8
k
2sk
2sk

We may therefore conclude that (58) is the only local minimum of the second
expression in (53) in its range of definition if (57) and (59) are satisfied, i.e.
1
3
s 2sk r s 2sk,
2
8

(60)

and non minimum-points in its range of definition if r is outside this interval.

We also note that in this interval, we obtain from (51) that
r
!
1 2s
1
v=
+ 2s =
rd + s d k

i.e.

1
s
s 2sk2r

+s

1
s
s 2sk2r

!
2s
+ 2s =
k

2s 2sk 4r
s 2sk 2r

+ 2s =
2sk
s s 2sk r

4
s 2sk 2r 4
s 2sk 2r

s 2sk r

=
,
s
2sk
2sk
s s 2sk r

s 2sk 2r 4

.
v=
s
2sk
18

Thus we find the simple relation

4
v=
.
d 2sk
p
For the crucial case d (rd s) = 2s/k, i.e. when

s
r
1
1
d=
s + s2 + 4r 2 s ,
2r
k

the first expression in (54) takes the value

(2rd s)

d2

1
2r 2r

s+

((rd s))

+k =

(2rd s)
2s
k

!
!
q
s2 + 4r 2 k1 s s

2s
k

+k =

+k =
r

s2 + 4r
2s
k

q
2 k1 s

+ k.

Thus if r (3/8) s 2sk we obtain that

r

q
2 k1 s
k s2 + 4 38 s 2sk
(2rd s)
+k
+ k = 0.
2s
d2 ((rd s))2
Combined with the fact that the first
expression in (54) is increasing in d (see
above), this shows that for r (3/8) s 2sk, the first expression in (53)
has no
minimum-values in its range of definition. Conversely, if r < (3/8) s 2sk then
we obtain that
(2rd s)
+k >0
(61)
d2 ((rd s))2
p
for d (rd s) = 2s/k, and since the left side obviously is negative for small values of d (rd s), it follows similarly that it has exactly one zero, and hence, the
first expression in (53) has exactly one minimum-point in its range of definition.
Summing up,we obtain the following solutions depending on the value of r:
If r < (3/8) s 2sk then v = 1 and d is the only solution to the equation
(2rd s)

d2 ((rd s))2

+k =0

(62)

satisfying d (rd
s) > 0.

If (3/8) s 2sk r < (1/2) s 2sk then

s
.
d=
s 2sk 2r
19

(63)

and
v=

s 2sk 2r 4

.
s
2sk

If (1/2) s 2sk r then wopt () is decreasing in its whole region of definition

and converges to its limit 2sk/r as d . Moreover, the volume-fraction
r
!
1
1 2s
v=
+ 2s
(64)
rd + s d k
vanishes as d .
Using (48) we find that (62) can be written as follows


2

L
L
B1 Ef
2 b
= 0.
b
d+
+ d2
d

P
B2 G
4f L3
P
B2 G
It is easy to see that the solution d = d1 L, where d1 is the solution corresponding
to the case L = 1, i.e.

2
1

2
= 0,
b
d1
d1
P
B2 G

1
b
d1
> 0.
P
B2 G

From (55) we note that if r < (3/8) s 2sk and the compliance b/P is
reduced, i.e. that

B1 Ef

r=
b
4
4f L
P

2 b
P

1
B1 Ef
d1 +
+
B2 G
4f

is reduced, then the minimum-point d has to increase (in order to make

the
left side of
(55) maintain its value k). On the other hand, if (3/8) s 2sk
d,
r < (1/2) s 2sk and the compliance b/P reduces, then the minimum-point

given by the formula (63), reduces. This shows that for r < (1/2) s 2sk the
smallest obtainable value of d making the weight minimal is
4
,
db =
2sk

which is obtained for r = (3/8) s 2sk.

If we add the constraint d dmax , where dmax is a fixed positive number,
it is possible to show that there always exists a solution denoted (d0 , v 0 ) to the
minimum-problem for all positive values of r. This solution is simply the pair
(du , vu ) obtained in the unconstrained case provided du dmax , otherwise it is
the pair (dmax , v0 ) where
(

!)
r
1
1
2s
v0 = min 1,
+ 2s
.
rdmax + s dmax k
20


This formula is easily seen by (52). Note that for the case r < (3/8) s 2sk we
do not need to solve the fourth other equation (62) in order to see whether this
solution is less than dmax or not. Since the left side of (62) increases with d, it
is enough to evaluate the sign of
(2rdmax s)

d2max

((rdmax s))

+ k.

If this value is negative, then dmax < du , and if this value is positive, then
dmax > du .
If we in addition add the constraint v vmin > 0, there also exists a solution
denoted (d00 , v 00 ) to the minimum-mass problem. This solution is simply the pair
(d0 , v 0 ) obtained above provided vu vmin , otherwise it is the pair (d0 , vmin )
where
d0 = min {dmax , d }
and d = d is the value making (47) minimal for v = vmin . This value is found
exactly as we found the solution of (62) except that we have to replace s with
(2 v) s/v and k with kv. More precisely, d is the only solution to the equation
(2rd s )

d2

((rd s ))2

+ k = 0

(65)

satisfying d (rd s ) > 0, where s = (2 vmin ) s/vmin and k = kvmin .

Similarly as above we do not need to solve (65) in order to see whether this
solution is less than dmax or not, and we find that dmax < d if
(2rdmax s )

d2max

((rdmax s ))2

is negative and vice versa.

21

+ k