Use of Mycelium Core to Form a Sustainable Composite
Beam for the 2015 SAMPE Bridge Competition
OPTIONAL
LOGO HERE
Ryan C. Granger (’15), Mechanical Engineering
Advisor: Ronald B. Bucinell, Ph.D., P.E.
Summary
Design
The Society for the Advancement of Materials
and Process Engineering (SAMPE) holds an
annual competition that allows students to
design, build, and test a miniature structural
bridge using composite materials. In previous
years, Union College has sent two students to
these competitions (Rob Wagner in 2013 and
Michael Allan in 2014). This years competition
will be held in Baltimore, MD on May 20, 2015.
The beam for competition will have a skeletal mycelium fungus as its core, but for implementation
purposes, the first few beams were manufactured with a balsa wooden core to become familiar with the
manufacturing process. The orientation of the FlaxPreg material was the same that was used in last
years competition. On the top and bottom of the flanges, five plies of FlaxPreg laminate was applied in
the orientation of 45°/0°/90°/0°/45°. For the webbing of the beam, three layers of the FlaxPreg laminate
was applied in the orientation of 45°/-45°/45° [3]. The orientation of the FlaxPreg laminates can be seen
in figure 1.
The beam will be entered in the natural fiber Ibeam category intended for a 3,000 lbf load.
The beam will consist of a skeletal mycelium
core, wrapped in a natural fiber FlaxPreg
material.
The use of skeletal mycelium
reduces the overall weight of the beam while
the FlaxPreg provides the structural strength of
the beam. The FlaxPreg is cured using an
autoclave at 230°F for two hours while being
vacuumed bagged.
The goal of this years beam was research the
benefits thickening the webbing of the beam
and create an adjustable support that support
the flanges of the beam during the
manufacturing process. [1]
Previous beam designs have seen a common failure
in the webbing of the beam due to the shear stresses.
It was believed that thickening the webbing of the
beam will reduce the stress in the web when the load
is applied to the beam.
In order to test this
hypothesis, Solidworks simulations and optimization
was performed in order to determine a core thickness
for the web and flanges of the beam.
Composite modeling was performed in Solidworks
using a method called CAD conditioning [4][5]. A
beam with a non-dimensional thickness was created
and the thicknesses and orientations of each FlaxPreg
laminate was applied using the composites options in
Solidworks, Which can be seen in figure 2. The
thicknesses of the flanges were set as a variable
thickness from 1/8” to 3/8” in increments of 1/8”.
Similarly, the thickness of the web was set to a
variable thickness from 1/8” to 3/8” in increments of
1/16”. Next Solidworks optimization was performed in
order to which web thickness is ideal for the beam.
Table 1 shows the results from the Solidworks
optimization.
Solidworks optimizations has proved the hypothesis
that increasing the core thickness of the web reduces
the shear stress in the beam. A core thickness of 3/8”
was decided for the web of the beam and a core
thickness of 1/4” was decided for the flanges of the
beam.
Introduction
A composite material is a material that is made
up from two or more other substances which
give properties, in combination, that are not
available from any of the ingredients alone [2].
Common composites that have been used for
years include concrete and laminated glass.
Recently, the use for composites made from
fiber materials, called fiber reinforced plastic
(FRP), has increased in the automotive and
aerospace industries as well as in sporting
goods due to the lightweight and structural
properties of the material.
This project was split into three processes:
Research, manufacturing, and testing.
Research was gathered through solidworks
simulations to determine whether of not
thickening the web of the beam increased its
structural properties. Next, the manufacturing
process was modified from previous years’ in
order to assure a straight beam was made.
Finally, the beam was tested using a 20,000 lb
load cell, located in the Mechanics Lab in
Butterfield, to determine the structural
properties of the manufactured beam.
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008
www.PosterPresentations.c
om
Testing
Figure 1 – A cross-sectional view of the beam showing the
orientation of the FlaxPreg Laminates
Figure 5 – The testing apparatus used to test the beam (left) and
failure in the core of the beam at 566 lbf (right).
Future Work
Figure 2 – The Composite Options window during the optimization
process.
Table 1 – Results for the beam optimization using Solidworks
Design Study feature
Component
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Units
name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Flange
Thickness
in
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.125
0.25
Web
Thickness
in
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.1875
0.1875
0.1875
0.25
0.25
Shear in
Web
ksi
254.33
174.39
132.55
212.74
153.08
116.98
185.03
137.42
Flange
Thickness
in
0.375
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.125
0.25
0.375
Web
Thickness
in
0.25
0.3125
0.3125
0.3125
0.375
0.375
0.375
Shear in
Web
ksi
107.39
164.72
125.23
99.562
149.02
115.37
93.002
The first few beams were manufactured using a balsa wooden core instead of a skeletal mycelium core in
order to become familiar with the manufacturing process. Balsa wood was cut to size and glued using
Elmer’s wood glue and 90-degree corner clamps. Epoxy fillets were applied to the joints were the flanges
contact the web in order to reduce the stress concentrations at those locations. The FlaxPreg laminates
were laid up on the beam in their orientations. Next the vacuum bagging process began to assure the
beam had even pressure while the beam is curing in the autoclave.
Once the beam has reached vacuum, the
beam is placed into the autoclave, where the
FlaxPreg material cures for two hours at 230°F.
The first beam tha was manufactured did not
use the flange supports. The second beam did
use the flange supports and resulted in a much
straighter beam. Figure 4 shows the two
manufactured beams.
Failure in the core of the beam is believed to
be due to the high stress concentration areas
where the beam is supported. A core made out
of the skeletal mycelium fungus and a hard
wood will used for the beam during
competition. A hard wood will be used at the
locations where the beam is supported to
reduce the amount of stress. The final beam
will be taken to Baltimore, MD on May 20, 2015
to compete in the 2015 SAMPE Bridge
Competition.
Component
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
Units
name
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Manufacturing
Once the beam is vacuumed bagged, the
flange supports was wedged between the
flanges to reduce the risk of the beam warping
while it cures. Figure 3 shows the beam
vacuum bagged and the supports wedged
between the flanges.
The second manufactured beam was tested
using a 20,000 lb compression Load Sell
located in the Mechanics Lab in Butterfield. A
testing apparatus similar to the one in the
SAMPE Bridge Competition was used to test
the beam. The apparatus was designed by
Michael Allan (‘14). The beam was tested at
0.2 inches per minute until failure. The beam
saw failure in the middle of the web core at just
566 lbf. Figure 5 below shows the testing
apparatus used and how the beam failed.
Refernces
1 - LINEO. FLAXPREG , 2012. LINEO.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/
b41c93_5bc52b45954a358a6d6e4199cac74f38.pdf?
dn=2013-TDS- FlaxPreg.pdf (accessed October 6, 2014).
2 - Forbes Aird. Fiberglass & Other Composite Materials,
First Edition ed.; Penguin Group: New York, New York,
USA, 2006.
3 - Allan, M. Construction of a Sustainable Composite
Beam for the 2014 SAMPE Bridge Competition; Senior
Project; Union College: Schenectady, 2014.
4 - YouTube, G. SOLIDWORKS Simulation - Shell
Elements for Frames Tutorial, 2011.
Youtube.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=VAoaF7KaL_Q (accessed October 27, 2014).
5 - Corp, M. SolidWorks Simulation Composite Materials
101, 2013. YouTube.
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4dV7DlwwOI
(accessed October 27, 2014).
Figure 3 – The adjustability of the flange supports (left) and the
flange supports wedged in between the flanges.
Acknowledgements
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Figure 4 – The first beam manufactured without the adjustable
flange supports (left) and the second manufactured beam using the
flange supports (right).
Professor Ronald B. Bucinell
Michael Allan (‘14)
Rob Wagner (‘13)
Rhonda Becker
Paul Tomkins