ME480/580: Materials Selection Lecture Notes for Week One Winter 2007

MATERIALS SELECTION IN THE DESIGN PROCESS

Reading: Ashby Chapters 1, 2, and 3. Reference: Kenneth G. Budinski, Engineering Materials: Properties and Selection Fifth edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT Ashby does a nice job of setting the historical context of the development of materials over the years with Figure 1.1. Note: Change from NATURAL materials (on left) toward MANUFACTURED materials (on right) toward ENGINEERED materials (near future). We have an increasingly large number of materials to deal with, on the order of 120,000 at present! Other books for general reading on the history and development of materials science and engineered materials are:
J. E. Gordon, The New Science of Strong Materials, or Why You Don't Fall Through the Floor, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. M. F. Ashby and D. R. H Jones, Engineering Materials Parts 1, 2, and 3, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK. F. A. A. Crane and J. A. Charles, Selection and Use of Engineering Materials, Butterworths, London, UK. P. Ball, Made to Measure: New Materials for the 21st Century, Princeton University Press, 1997.

MATERIALS PROPERTIES Before we can discuss the appropriate selection of materials in design, we have to have a foundation of what we mean by "materials properties". Both Budinski and Ashby provide lists of these in the texts. For example:

Page 1

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

This is a pretty complete list. Budinski discusses these in his chapter 2, and Ashby has his own definitions and discussion in chapter 3 in which he breaks the materials down into six categories: METALS, POLYMERS, CERAMICS, ELASTOMERS (which Budinski groups with plastics), GLASSES (which Budinski groups with ceramics), and HYBRIDS (or composite materials). In all, about 120,000 different materials with property values ranging over 5 orders of magnitude! The importance of these chapters is that unless you have a clear idea of how a property value is measured (see Homework One), you cannot properly use the property for calculations in mechanical design. To these properties, we will add two other important materials properties: COST, and ENERGY CONTENT. MATERIALS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS Different authors have different ideas about how the design process should work. Budinski's design strategy is found in figure 18-1.

Page 2

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

BUDINSKI FIGURE 18.1 NOTES: 1. 2. 3. 4. Calculations in the first block! Analysis is important! Analysis appears multiple times throughout design process. Materials selection is in the last step. Iteration?

Page 3

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

In my opinion, Ashby uses a better design strategy, especially in terms of materials selection. He breaks the design flow path into three stages, called CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, EMBODIMENT DESIGN, and DETAIL DESIGN (see figure 2.1). CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: All options are kept open. Consideration of alternate working principles. Assess the functional structure of your design. EMBODIMENT DESIGN: Use the functional structure to ANALYSE the operation. Sizing of components. Materials down-selection. Determination of operational conditions. DETAIL DESIGN: Specifications written for components. Detailed analysis of critical components. Production route and cost analysis performed.

How does materials selection enter into Ashby's process? (Figure 2.5) Materials selection enters at EVERY STAGE, but with differing levels of CONSTRAINT and DETAILED INFORMATION. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: Apply PRIMARY CONSTRAINTS (eg. working temperature, environment, etc.). (Budinski figure 18-2 has a good list of primary constraints to consider.) 100% of materials in, 10-20% candidates come out. EMBODIMENT DESIGN: Develop and apply optimization constraints. Need more detailed calculations and Need more detailed materials information. 10-20% of materials in, 5 candidate materials out.

Page 4

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

DETAILED DESIGN: High degree of information needed about only a few materials. May require contacting specific manufacturers of materials. May require specialized testing for critical components if materials data does not already exist. CLASS APPROACH Two different philosophies here: Budinski: get familiar with a set of basic materials from each category, about seventyfive in total, and these will probably handle 90% of your design needs (see Figure 18-8). Ashby: look at all 120,000 materials initially, and narrow your list of candidate materials as the design progresses. Materials selection has to include not only properties, but also SHAPES (what standard shapes are available, what shapes are possible), and PROCESSING (what fabrication route can or should be used to produce the part or raw material, eg. casting, injection molding, extrusion, machining, etc.). It can also include ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. The point is that the choice of materials interacts with everything in the engineering design and product manufacturing process (see Ashby figure 2.6). In the remainder of this course we will develop a systematic approach to dealing with all these interactions and with looking at the possibilities of all 120,000 of these materials based on the use of MATERIALS SELECTION CHARTS as developed by Ashby. Flow of the course:

Optimization of selection without considering shape effects. Optimization of selection considering shape effects. Materials property data sources. Specific materials classes.

SELECTION CHARTS (Ashby chapter 4) 1. Performance is seldom limited by only ONE property. EXAMPLE: in lightweight design, it is not just strength that is important, but both strength and density. We need to be able to compare materials based on several properties at once.

Page 5

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

2. Materials don't exhibit single-valued properties, but show a range of properties, even within a single production run. EXAMPLES: The elastic modulus of copper varies over a few percent depending on the purity, texture, grain size, etc. The mechanical strength of alumina (Al2O3) varies by more than a factor of 100 depending on its porosity, grain size, etc. Metal alloys show large changes in their mechanical and electrical properties depending on the heat treatments and mechanical working they have experienced. Because of these facts, we can produce charts such as this selection chart from Ashby:

There is a tremendous amount of information and power in these charts. First of all, they provide the materials property data as "balloons" in an easy to compare form. Secondly, other information can be displayed on these charts.

Page 6

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

EXAMPLE: the longitudinal wavespeed of sound in a material is given by the equation

" E% V =$ ' # !&

log (V ) =

1/2

Rewrite this equation by taking the base-10 logarithm of both sides to get:
1 # log ( E ) ! log ( " ) % & or log ( E ) = 2 log (V ) + log ( " ) . 2$

This is an equation of the form Y = A + BX, where: Y = log(E), A = constant = 2log(V) = y-axis intercept at X = 0, B = slope = 1, and X = log(). This appears as a line of slope = 1 on a plot of log(E) versus log(). Such a line connects materials that have the same speed of sound (constant V).

Page 7

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

EXAMPLE: The selection requirement for a minimum weight design (derived next time) is to maximize the ratio of

log ( E ) = 2 log ( C ) + 2 log ( ! ) , Y = A + BX.

E 1/2 1 = C = constant, which leads to log ( E ) = log ( C ) + log ( ! ) , or ! 2

This is a straight line of slope = 2 on a plot of log(E) versus log(). Such a line connects materials that will perform the same in a minimum weight design, that is, all the materials on this line have the same value of the constant, C.

End of File.

Page 8

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

ME480/580: Materials Selection Lecture Notes for Week 1 Winter 2007

PERFORMANCE INDICES
Reading: Ashby Chapters 4 and 5.

Materials Selection begins in conceptual design by using PRIMARY CONSTRAINTS non-negotiable constraints on the material imposed by the design or environment. Examples might include "must be thermally insulating", or "must not corrode in seawater". These take the form of "PROPERTY > PROPERTYcritical", and appear as horizontal or vertical lines on the selection charts.

NOTE: Don't go overboard on primary constraints. They are the easiest to apply and require the least thought and analysis, but they can often be engineered around, for example, by active cooling of a hot part, or adding corrosion resistant coatings. After initial narrowing, you should develop PERFORMANCE INDICES. DEFINITIONS: PERFORMANCE:

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION:

Page 9

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

CONSTRAINT:

PERFORMANCE INDEX:

In the following, we will assume that performance (p) is determined by three factors: FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (carry a load, store energy, etc.) GEOMETRICAL REQUIREMENTS (space available, shape, size) MATERIALS PROPERTIES

What we want to do is OPTIMIZE our choice of materials to maximize the performance of the design subject to the constraints imposed on it. We will further assume that these three factors are separable, so that the performance equation can be written as:

If this is true, then maximizing performance will be accomplished by independently maximizing the three functions f1, f2, and f3. f1 is the place where creative design comes in.

f2 is where geometry can make a difference.

f3 is the part we're most interested in. When the factors are separable, the materials selection doesn't depend on the details of f1 or f2! This means we don't have to know that much about the design to make intelligent materials choices.

Page 10

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

Our first step is to maximize performance by only considering f3 (selection of materials without shape effects). Later on we'll look at adding in the shape effects by maximizing f2f3. EXAMPLE ONE: Design a light, strong tie rod. The design requirements are:

to be a solid cylindrical tie rod length L load F safety factor Sf minimum mass

Let's start by doing this the "old" way:

OLD WAY: PART ONE

1) CALCULATIONAL MODEL to use in the analysis (pretty simple for this example).

2) We know an equation for the failure strength of a tie rod:

We know F and Sf, we can always look up f, so we can find the right cross sectional area, A. In the past, this part has always been made in our company from STEEL, so look up f(steel) = 500 MPa. Now we know what the smallest area will be:

Page 11

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

3) Now we can find the mass of the rod:

From our analysis, we can see that by choosing a higher strength steel, we can use a smaller A and thereby reduce our mass. Our recommendation: use a high strength steel.

OLD WAY: PART TWO

A new engineer comes along and she says "Wait...the design constraint says minimum mass, and your analysis shows that we can lower the mass by going to a lower density material. Let's use a high strength Al alloy instead of steel."

MASS (Aluminum) / MASS (Steel) = 60%. Our recommendation: use a high strength aluminum. What's wrong with these two approaches? Nothing really. They both rely on established tradition in the company, and the use of "comfortable" materials. They both also ASSUME a material essentially at the outset.

Page 12

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

ASHBY APPROACH (OPTIMIZATION)

Looking at this list of requirements, we start with 1) CALCULATIONAL MODEL to use in the analysis

2) Determine the MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE (MOP), p. In this case, we have been told that the goal is to get a part that has a minimum mass.

NOTE: p is defined so that the larger it is the better our performance-maximize p. This is our OBJECTIVE FUNCTION. NOTE also that Ashby defines p to be either minimized or maximized, just so long as you keep track of which one it is. I prefer to always define it to be maximized, so that it maximizes performance.

3) IDENTIFY the parameters in our analytical model and MOP: L= A= = F= 4) Write an equation for the CONSTRAINED variables: (we have to safely carry the load F)

Page 13

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

5) Rewrite the constraint equation for the free variable and substitute this into the MOP:

6) Regroup into f1, f2, and f3

To maximize p we want to choose a material that maximizes the ratio ( / ) = M = PERFORMANCE INDEX. NOTE: We don't need to know anything about F, or A, to choose the best material for the job! EXAMPLE TWO: Design a light, stiff column. The design requirements are:

slender cylindrical column length L fixed compressive load F safety factor Sf minimum mass

1) CALCULATIONAL MODEL to use in the analysis

Page 14

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

2) MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE (MOP), p. Minimum mass again.

3) IDENTIFY the parameters in our analytical model and MOP: L= A= = F= 4) CONSTRAINT equation: (no Euler buckling of this column)

5) Rewrite the constraint equation for the free variable and substitute this into the MOP:

6) Regroup into f1, f2, and f3

7) PERFORMANCE INDEX=

Page 15

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

RECIPE FOR OPTIMIZATION 1) Clearly write down the design assignment/goal. 2) Identify a model to use for calculations. 3) Determine the measure(s) of performance with an equation (weight, cost, energy stiffness, etc.) 4) Identify the FREE, FIXED, PROPERTY, and CONSTRAINT parameters. 5) Develop an equation for the constraint(s). 6) Rewrite the CONSTRAINT equation for the FREE parameters in the MOP. 7) Reorganize into f1, f2, f3 functions to find M. NOTES: i) M is always defined to be maximized in order to maximize performance. ii) A full design solution is not needed to find M! You can do a lot of materials optimization BEFORE your design has settled into specifics.
End of File.

Page 16

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

ME480/580: Materials Selection Lecture Notes for Week 1 Winter 2007

MATERIALS OPTIMIZATION WITHOUT SHAPE

Reading: Ashby Chapter 5, 6.

RECIPE FOR OPTIMIZATION 1) Clearly write down the design assignment/goal. 2) Identify a model to use for calculations. 3) Determine the measure(s) of performance with an equation (weight, cost, energy stiffness, etc.) 4) Identify the FREE, FIXED, PROPERTY, and CONSTRAINT params. 5) Develop an equation for the constraint(s). 6) Rewrite the CONSTRAINT equation for the FREE parameters in the MOP. 7) Reorganize into f1, f2, f3 functions to find M. NOTES: i) M is always defined to be maximized in order to maximize performance. ii) A full design solution is not needed to find M! You can do a lot of materials optimization BEFORE your design has settled into specifics. EXAMPLE THREE: Mirror support for a ground based telescope. Typically these have been made from glass with a reflective coating--the glass is used only as a stiff support for the thin layer of silver on the top surface. Most recent telescopes have diameters in the 8-10 m range, and are typically limited by the mirror being out of position by more than one wavelength of the light it is reflecting (). The design requirements are that the mirror be large, and that it not sag under it's own weight by more than 1- when simply supported. Since the mirror will need to be moved around to point it in the right direction, it needs to be very light weight. DESIGN ASSIGNMENT:
Page 17

Circular disk shaped mirror support Size = 2r lightweight deflects () under own weight by less than .
W. Warnes: Oregon State University

MODEL:

MOP: minimize mass

PARAMETERS: r= t= = = CONSTRAINT EQUATION: (use the helpful solutions in the appendix)

APPLY TO MOP:

CAUTION: m (mass) appears in the constraint equation. We will need to eliminate it.

Page 18

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

Since MOP is minimum mass, p=1/m:

APPLYING PERFORMANCE INDICES TO SELECTION CHARTS Use the telescope mirror support as an example. We use Ashby's CHART 1 (E versus ). We could apply PRIMARY CONSTRAINTS and say that, in order for the design to work, the modulus must be E > 20 GPa, and the density, < 2 Mg/m3.

End up with materials such as CFRP, and we're stuck with expensive candidate materials.

Page 19

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

" E% OR: we can use the performance index from above: M = $ 3 ' #! &

1/2

E 1/2 = 3/2 : !

Which gives us a line of slope = 3 on a log(E) versus log() plot (Chart 1). How do we plot this on the chart? Start with an X-Y point, say X = log(density) log() = log(0.1 Mg/m3) = -1 Y = log(modulus) = log(E) = log(0.1 GPa) = -1 Now, for every unit in X we go up three units in Y (slope = 3). one unit in X gives X = log() = 0, which gives = 1.0 Mg/m3, and three units in Y gives Y = log(E) = 2, which gives E = 100 GPa. This is a line of slope = 3. Ashby helps us out with some guide lines for common design criteria.

Page 20

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

NOTES: 1) This line connects materials with the SAME PERFORMANCE INDEX for this design (same value of M). What are the units of the performance index? It will be different for every design situation, but for the telescope example:

Let's just use M =

[GPa ]1/2
! Mg $ # m3 & " %
3/2

Look at our line-- it passes through the point E = 0.1 GPa, = 0.1 Mg/m3.

It also passes through the point E = 100 GPa, = 1 Mg/m3.

This means that all materials on this line will perform the same, and should be considered as equal candidates for the job.

Page 21

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

2) As we move the line, we change the value of the performance index (M), and thus the PERFORMANCE of the material in this design. For example, if we move the line to the lower right to the point E = 1000 GPa, = 5 Mg/m3

! $ # GPa1/2 & These materials do not perform as well as the first set with M = 10 # 3/2 & . # Mg 3 & # & m " %

3) As we move to larger E and smaller , does M increase or decrease?

Remember, we have to keep the line slope equal to three, or we won't have an equi-index line. We want high performance, so we keep shifting the line to the upper left until we only have a small set of materials above the line -- THESE are the CANDIDATE materials for this design. We find a lot of materials that perform AS WELL AS OR BETTER THAN the composites! 4) As M changes, what does that mean?

so a material with an M = 4 weighs HALF that of a material with an M = 2, but TWICE an M = 8. By maximizing M, we minimize the mass... just what our design calls for.

Page 22

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

5) We stated earlier that we can use any of these ratios for M:

M=

E 1/2 E E 1/ 3 or M = or M = . ! 3/2 !3 !

Let's check to see if that makes sense:

E 1/2 ! 3/2
CHART: CHART:

E !3
CHART:

E 1/ 3 !

SLOPE:

SLOPE:

SLOPE:

UNITS OF M:

UNITS OF M:

UNITS OF M:

Page 23

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

6) Reality Check Number One: This optimization procedure has given us the BEST PERFORMING MATERIALS given our stated objective (measure of performance) and constraint. But are the answers sensible? How do we know? Look back at the derivation. All but one of the parameters are known (FIXED) or are determined by the optimization process (MATERIAL PROPERTIES). To check the design, it is important to use the materials that have been suggested to determine the value of the free parameter, t in this case, to see if it is indeed sensible. For a first check, let's compare the relative thicknesses needed for the different materials to function in the design: From the derivation, we know:

Solve for t to get the free parameter as a function of the other parameters in the design:

The relative thickness of two competing materials is given by:

For several candidate materials, we have the following property data (obtained from the Ashby chart #1): E [GPa] 100 30 4 0.1 [Mg/m3] 2.2 1.5 0.8 0.2 ( / E) [ s2 / m2 ] 2.2X10-8 5 X10-8 2 X10-7 2 X10-6 ( / E)1/2 [s/m] 1.48X10-4 2.24 X10-4 4.5 X10-4 1.4 X10-3

Glass Composites Wood Products Polymer Foams

Page 24

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

Compare these materials against a "standard" material; for instance, glass has been commonly used in this application. Material Composites Wood Products Polymer Foam t / t(glass), or how much thicker than glass the mirror must be.

NOTE that all four of these materials PERFORM the samethey have the same value of M and the same performance (MASS). But, because they have different properties, they have different values of the free parameter needed to make them work.

7) Reality Check Number Two: So, we know the relative thicknesses, but what about the actual thicknesses? To find these, we need to have values for all of the FIXED and CONSTRAINT parameterswe need to know more about the design. Let's pick some reasonable values: r= g = 9.8 m/s2 = From the analysis, we know t =

Material Glass Composites Wood Products Polymer Foam

t = Mirror Thickness [m]

Page 25

W. Warnes: Oregon State University

WOW! These are HUGE!!! What went wrong? Two important points here. FIRST, the optimization process tells you the best materials for the job. It doesn't guarantee that your design will work. It is quite possible that the design cannot be built to work using existing materials. If this is the case, what are your options? GIVE UP, or REDESIGN. SECOND, the design requirements, calculational model, or constraint equations may be wrong or too simple to accurately describe the design. Your options are: GIVE UP, CHECK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, or REDESIGN.

In this case we know an 8 m mirror has been constructed from glass that is only about 1 m thick and that it works. How could we redesign to reduce the thickness needed for the mirror? One option:

Now the model must change, perhaps to a simple beam like this, or something more complex.

(NOTE - for the simple beam model shown above, the performance index turns out to be the same, which yields the same materials for the selection process. Changing to a more realistic model or design changes the constants in the equations, but not the best choice of materials. Woooo...cool!)
End of File.

Page 26

W. Warnes: Oregon State University