You are on page 1of 44

Materials Selection for Mechanical Design I

A Brief Overview of a Systematic Methodology


Jeremy Gregory
Research Associate Laboratory for Energy and Environment

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection Slide 1

Relationship To Course

A key concept throughout this course is how to select among technology choices

Economic Analysis Cost Modeling Life Cycle Assessment

Focus has been on economic assessment of alternatives How does this fit into larger technology choice problem?
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 2

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Approach Changes as Design Evolves


Market need

Selection Methods
Concept

# of Candidates

Design Detail

Cost Modeling

Embodiment

Economic Analysis

Method Needed for Early Stage

Detail

Production etc.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 3

LCA

What parameters define material selection?


Example: SUV Liftgate

Image removed for copyright reasons. Schematic of components in an SUV liftgate (rear door).

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 4

Attractive Options May Be Found Outside of Expertise


$300 $250 Unit Cost $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 0 25 50 75 100 125 Annual Production Volume (1000s)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Steel Aluminum SMC

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 5

Need Method for Early Material Selection: Ashby Methodology*


Four basic steps 1. Translation: express design requirements as constraints & objectives 2. Screening: eliminate materials that cannot do the job 3. Ranking: find the materials that do the job best 4. Supporting information: explore pedigrees of top-ranked candidates
M.F. Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, 3rd Ed., Elsevier, 2005
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 6

First Step: Translation


Express design requirements as constraints and objectives

Using design requirements, analyze four items: Function: What does the component do?

Do not limit options by specifying implementation w/in function In what manner should implementation excel? Differentiate between binding and soft constraints Which can be modified? Which are desirable?

Objective: What essential conditions must be met?

Constraints: What is to be maximized or minimized?

Free variables: Which design variables are free?


Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 7

Identifying Desirable Characteristics Example: Materials for a Light, Strong Tie

Function:

Support a tension load Minimize mass Length specified Carry load F, w/o failure Cross-section area Material

F
Area, A

F
L

Objective:

Constraints:

Free variables:

Objective: m = AL Constraint: F / A < y

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 8

Identifying Desirable Characteristics Example: Materials for a Light, Strong Tie

Objective: m = AL Constraint: F / A < y Rearrange to eliminate free variable

F
Area, A

F
L

Material Index

m ( F )( L ) y

Minimize weight by minimizing

or

e z i xim a m

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 9

Second Step: Screening


Eliminate materials that cannot do the job Need effective way of evaluating large range of material classes and properties
Steels Cast irons Al-alloys

Metals
Cu-alloys Ti-alloys Alumina Si-carbide PE, PP, PC PS, PET, PVC PA (Nylon) Composites Sandwiches

Ceramics
Si-nitride Ziconia

Polymers
Polyester Epoxy

Hybrids
Lattices Segmented

Soda glass Borosilicate

Isoprene Butyl rubber

Glasses
Silica glass Glass ceramic Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Elastomers
Natural rubber Silicones EVA Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 10

Comparing Material Properties: Material Bar Charts


Steel WC

Youngs modulus (GPa) (Log Scale)

Copper CFRP Alumina Aluminum Zinc Lead PEEK PP PTFE Glass GFRP Fiberboard

Metals

Polymers

Ceramics

Hybrids

Good for elementary selection (e.g., find materials with large modulus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 11

Comparing Material Properties: Material Property Charts


1000 Ceramics Youngs modulus (GPa) 100 Composites 10 Woods Metals 1 0.1 Elastomers 0.01 0.1 1 Density (Mg/m3) 10 100 Foams Polymers

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 12

Screening Example: Heat Sink for Power Electronics

Function:

Heat Sink

1. 2.

Constraints:
Max service temp > 200 C Electrical insulator R > 1020 ohm cm Thermal conductor T-conduct. > 100 W/m K Not heavy Density < 3 Mg/m3

3.

4.

Free Variables:

Materials and Processes


Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 13

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Heat Sink Screening: Bar Chart


WC

Max service temperature (K)

Steel Copper PEEK PP Aluminum Zinc Lead Metals Polymers Ceramics Composites PTFE Fiberboard Glass GFRP Alumina CFRP

200 C

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 14

Heat Sink Screening: Property Chart


1000

Thermal conductivity (W/m K)

Metals 100

Ceramics

R > 1020 cm

> 100 W/m K

10 Composites 1 0.1 0.01 Foams 1 Polymers & elastomers

Electrical resistivity ( cm)

1010

1020

1030

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 15

Example using Granta Software: Automobile Headlight Lens


Function: Protect bulb and lens; focus beam Objective: Photo of headlight Minimize cost removed for copyright Constraints: reasons. Transparent w/ optical quality Easily molded Good resistance to fresh and salt water Good resistance to UV light Good abrasion resistance (high hardness) Free variables: Material choice

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 16

Selection Criteria Limit Stage

Chart from the CES EduPack 2005, Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK. (c) Granta Design. Courtesy of Granta Design Limited. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 17

Property Chart
1e10

Soda-lime glass

1e9

Hardness - Vickers (Pa)

Borosilicate glass
1e8

Cheapest, hardest material is sodalime glass used in car headlights For plastics, cheapest is PMMA used in car tail lights

Concrete
1e7

Polymethyl methacrylate (Acrylic, PMMA)

1e6

100000

10000 0.1 1 10 100

Price (USD/kg)
Chart from the CES EduPack 2005, Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK. (c) Granta Design. Courtesy of Granta Design Limited. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 18

Third Step: Ranking Find the materials that do the job best
What if multiple materials are selected after screening? Which one is best? What if there are multiple material parameters for evaluation? Use Material Index

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 19

Single Property Ranking Example: Overhead Transmission Cable

Function:

Transmit electricity Minimize electrical Resistance

Objective:

Constraints:

L R = e A

Length L and section A are specified Must not fail under wind or ice-load required tensile strength > 80 MPa

Electrical resistivity

Free variables: Material choice


Screen on strength, rank on resistivity
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 20

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Single Property Ranking Example: Overhead Transmission Cable


1e27

Polystyrene (PS) Silica glass Alumina PEEK Epoxies PETE Cellulose polymers

Resistivity (-ohm cm) Resistivity (ohm.cm)

Screening on strength eliminates polymers, some ceramics Ranking on resistivity selects Al and Cu alloys

1e24

1e21

Polyester Polyurethane (tpPUR)

1e18

Isoprene (IR) Wood Silicon Carbide

1e15

1e12

Cork

1e9

Boron Carbide
1e6

The selection
1000

Titanium alloys Low alloy steel Magnesium alloys Aluminium alloys Copper alloys

1e-3

Chart from the CES EduPack 2005, Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK. (c) Granta Design. Courtesy of Granta Design Limited. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 21

Advanced Ranking: The Material Index


The method 1. Identify function, constraints, objective and free variables List simple constraints for screening 2. Write down equation for objective -- the performance equation If objective involves a free variable (other than the material): Identify the constraint that limits it Use this to eliminate the free variable in performance equation 3. Read off the combination of material properties that maximizes performance -- the material index 4. Use this for ranking

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 22

The Performance Equation, P


Functional Geometric Material P = , , requirements, F parameters, G properties, M or P = f ( F , G, M )
Use constraints to eliminate free variable P from previous example of a light, strong tie:

m ( F )( L ) y
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005


Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 23

The Material Index Example: Materials for a stiff, light beam

Function:

F
L
Area, A

Support a bending load Minimize mass Length specified Carry load F, without too much deflection Cross-section area Material

Objective:

Deflection,

Constraints:

Free variables:

Objective: m = AL Constraint: F CEI S= 3 L

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 24

The Material Index Example: Materials for a stiff, light beam

Objective: m = AL Constraint: S = F CEI L3 Rearrange to eliminate free variable 1/ 2 5/ 2 4 F L m= 1/ 2 1/ 2 C E

F
L
Area, A

Deflection,

Material Index

E1/ 2
ze i im x ma
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 25

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Minimize weight by 1/ 2 minimizing E or

Material Index Calculation Process Flow


FUNCTION Tie CONSTRAINTS Beam Stiffness specified Strength specified Fatigue limit Geometry specified Maximum energy storage Minimum eco- impact
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 26

Each combination of

Function Constraint Objective Free variable

has a characterizing material index


Maximize this!

OBJECTIVE Minimum cost Minimum weight

Shaft Column

INDEX
E1/ 2 M =

Mechanical, Thermal, Electrical...


Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Material Index Examples


An objective defines a performance metric: e.g. mass or resistance The equation for performance metric contains material properties Sometimes a single property Either is a Material Index Sometimes a combination

Material Indices for a Beam


Objective: Minimize Mass Performance Metric: Mass

Loading Tension Bending Torsion

Stiffness Limited E/ E1/2/ G1/2/

Strength Limited f/

f2/3/ f2/3/

Maximize!
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 27

Optimized Selection Using Material Indices & Property Charts: Strength


Example: Tension Load, strength limited Maximize: M = / In log space: log = log + log M This is a set of lines with slope=1 Materials above line are candidates
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Ceramics Composites Metals Woods Polymers Elastomers Foams

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 28

Material Indices & Property Charts: Stiffness


Example: Stiff beam Maximize: = 1/2/ In log space: log E = 2 (log + log M) This is a set of lines with slope=2 Candidates change with objective
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Ceramics Composites Metals

Woods

Polymers

Foams

Elastomers

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 29

Material Indices & Property Charts: Toughness

Load-limited

M = KIC Choose tough metals, e.g. Ti M= E Composites and metals compete M = KIC / E Polymers, foams KIC2 /

KIC KIC
2/E

KIC/E
Composites Metals

Energy-limited

Polymers

Woods Ceramics

Displacement-limited

Foams

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 30

Considering Multiple Objectives/Constraints

With multiple constraints:


Solve each individually Select candidates based on each Evaluate performance of each Select performance based on most limiting

May be different for each candidate

With multiple objectives:

Requires utility function to map multiple metrics to common performance measures


Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 31

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Method for Early Technology Screening

Design performance is determined by the combination of:


Materials

Shape Materials Process

Process Shape

Underlying principles of selection are unchanged

BUT, do not underestimate impact of shape or the limitation of process


Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 32

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Ashby Method for Early Material Selection:


Four basic steps 1. Translation: express design requirements as constraints & objectives 2. Screening: eliminate materials that cannot do the job 3. Ranking: find the materials that do the job best 4. Supporting information: explore pedigrees of top-ranked candidates
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 33

Summary

Material affects design based on


Geometric specifics Loading requirements Design constraints Performance objective

Effects can be assessed analytically Keep candidate set large as long as is feasible Materials charts give quick overview; software can be used to more accurately find options Remember, strategic considerations can alter best choice
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 34

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Example Problem: Table Legs

Figure by MIT OCW.

Want to redesign table with thin unbraced cylindrical legs Want to minimize cross-section and mass without buckling Toughness and cost are factors
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 35

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Table Legs: Problem Definition

Function:

Support compressive loads Minimize mass Maximize slenderness Length specified Must not buckle Must not fracture Cross-section area Material

Performance Equation

Objective:

m = r l
2

Constraints:

Pcrit =

EI
2

Free variables:

Er
3

4l

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 36

Table Legs: Material Indices


Use constraints to eliminate free variable, r For slenderness, calculate r at max load

4P m
Functional Requirements

1/ 2

(l )

1/ 2 E

4P r 3
Functional Requirements

1/ 4

(l )

1/ 2

1 E

1/ 4

Geometric Material Parameters Properties

Geometric Material Parameters Properties

Minimize mass by maximizing M1

M1 =
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

E1/ 2

Maximize slenderness by maximizing M2

M2 = E
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 37

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Table Legs: Material Selection

Eliminated

Metals (too heavy) Polymers (not stiff enough)

Ceramics Composites Woods

M1 M2

Possibilities: Ceramics, wood, composites Final choice: wood


Metals

Ceramics too brittle Composites too expensive

Polymers Elastomers

Note: higher constraint on modulus eliminates wood

Foams

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 38

Material Index 1
Silicon
100

Boron carbide

Silicon carbide

CFRP, epoxy m atrix (isotropic) Hardw ood: oak, along grain

Young's Modulus (GPa)

Bam boo
10

Softw ood: pine, along grain


1

Rigid Polym er Foam (LD)

0.1

0.01

1e-3

100

1000

10000

Density (kg/m^3)
Chart from the CES EduPack 2005, Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK. (c) Granta Design. Courtesy of Granta Design Limited. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 39

Material Index 2
Boron carbide CFRP, epoxy m atrix (isotropic)
1e11

Silicon carbide

Hardw ood: oak, along grain Bam boo


1e10

Softw ood: pine, along grain

Young's Modulus (Pa)

1e9

1e8

1e7

1e6

100

1000

10000

Density (kg/m^3)
Chart from the CES EduPack 2005, Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK. (c) Granta Design. Courtesy of Granta Design Limited. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 40

Example: Heat-Storing Wall

Outer surface heated by day Air blown over inner surface to extract heat at night Inner wall must heat up ~12h after outer wall
Figure by MIT OCW.

Sun

Heat Storing Wall

Air flow to extract heat from wall

W Fan

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 41

Heat-Storing Wall: Problem Definition

Function:

Heat storing medium Maximize thermal energy stored per unit cost Heat diffusion time ~12h Wall thickness 0.5 m Working temp Tmax>100 C Wall thickness, w Material

Heat content: Q = w C p T Heat diffusion distance: w = 2at C p = Specific Heat

Objective:

Constraints:

a = Thermal Diffusivity = C p = Thermal Conductivity

Free variables:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 42

Heat-Storing Wall: Material Indices


Eliminate free variable: Q = 2t Ta1/ 2 C p Insert to obtain Performance Eqn: Q = 2t T 1/ 2 a Maximize: M 1 =
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Thickness restriction: w2 a 2t For w 0.5 m and t = 12 h: M 2 = a 3 106 m2 /s

a1/ 2
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 43

Heat-Storing Wall: Material Selection

Eliminated

Foams: Too porous Metals: Diffusivity too high

Possibilities: Concrete, stone, brick, glass, titanium(!) Final Choices


Concrete is cheapest Stone is best performer at reasonable price

Chart from the CES EduPack 2005, Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK. (c) Granta Design. Courtesy of Granta Design Limited. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts


Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 44