Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6 Exercises Solutions 2010 PDF
6 Exercises Solutions 2010 PDF
6 Exercises with
Worked Solutions
Cambridge
University
Version MFA 10
Adapted from the Solution Manual to Materials selection in mechanical design, 4th edition,
Prof. Mike Ashby Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, CB2 1PZ.
Contents
E1. Introduction to exercises
E2. Material evolution in products
E3. Devising concepts
E4. Using material properties
E5. Using material selection charts
E6. Translation: constraints and objectives
E7. Deriving and using material indices
E8. Multiple constraints and objectives
E9. Selecting material and shape
E10. Hybrid materials
E11. Selecting processes
E12. Materials and the environment
These exercises are designed to develop facility in selecting 3. A request for a selection based on one material index alone (such
materials, processes and shape, and in devising hybrid materials when
no monolithic material completely meets the design requirements. as M = E 1 / 2 / ρ ) is correctly answered by listing the subset of
Each exercise is accompanied by a worked solution. They are materials that maximize this index. But a request for a selection of
organized into the twelve sections listed on the first page. materials for a component – a wing spar, for instance (which is a
light, stiff beam, for which the index is M = E 1 / 2 / ρ ) – requires
The early exercises are easy. Those that follow lead the reader
more: some materials with high E 1 / 2 / ρ such as silicon carbide,
through the use of material properties and simple solutions to
mechanics problems, drawing on data and results contained in the are unsuitable for obvious reasons. It is a poor answer that
CES EduPack and the booklet “Useful Approximate Solutions to ignores common sense and experience and fails to add further
Standard Problems”; the use of material property charts; techniques for constraints to incorporate them. Students should be encouraged
the translation of design requirement to identify constraints and to discuss the implications of their selection and to suggest further
objectives; the derivation of indices, screening and ranking, multi- selection stages.
objective optimization; coupled choice of material and shape; devising
hybrids; and the choice of materials to meet environmental criteria.
Electric fan pulling air stream through Axial fan drawing air stream between
paper or cloth filter in portable unit
charged plates, in portable unit
C1 Entrain in air stream
and filter
C4 Entrain in air
Central pump and filter linked to stream, trap
rooms by ducting Central fan with electrostatic collector,
linked to rooms by ducting
C3 Evaporation
Confined, utilising heat-pipe technology
C4 Radiation
Radiation to cooled surface, from high emissivity
surface to highly absorbent surface
Answer. The strain difference caused by difference in thermal E4.7 A flywheel with a radius R = 200 mm is designed to spin up to
expansion, α , when the temperature changes by ∆T is 8000 rpm. It is proposed to make it out of cast iron, but the casting
(
∆ε = α PMMA − α Low C steel ∆T) shop can guarantee only that it will have no crack-like flaws greater
than 2a = 2 mm in length. Use the expression for the maximum
From the CES EduPack, stress in a spinning disk in UASSP, 7, that for the stress intensity at a
small enclosed crack from UASSP, 10 and data for cast iron from the
α PMMA = 117x 10-6/C and α Low C steel = 12.3 x 10-6/C CES EduPack to establish if the flywheel is safe. Take Poisson’s ratio
ν for cast iron to be 0.33.
giving ∆ε = 4.2 x 10-3. The modulus of PMMA from the CES
EduPack is E = 3.0 GPa. The equation given in the question then
Answer. The maximum tensile stress in a spinning disk is
predicts a tensile stress in the window of σ = 19 MPa. (3 +ν ) ρ ω 2 R 2
σ max = , and K 1 = σ max πa ≤ K 1c
8
for a contained crack. Here ω = 2 π W / 60 radians/sec when W is
the rotational velocity in rpm. Inserting the data from the question and
E4.6 The PMMA window described in Exercise 4.5 has a contained the mean values for density ρ = 7150 kg/m3 and K 1c = 38 MPa.m1/2
crack of length 2a = 0.5 mm. If the maximum tensile stress that is from the CES EduPack, we find the maximum that the rotational
anticipated in the window is σ = 20 MPa, will the crack propagate? velocity that will just cause the cracks to propagate is 4350 radians/s,
Choose an appropriate equation for crack propagation from UASSP, 10 or 41,600 rpm. The flywheel is safe.
and data for the fracture toughness K 1c of PMMA from the CES
EduPack to calculate the length of crack that is just unstable under this
tensile stress.
Surprisingly, the nylon casing has a lower material cost than that made
of cast iron.
Material Comment
Alumina Al203 Alumina is the most widely used of all
Silicon nitride Si3N4 technical ceramics (spark plugs, circuit
Boron carbide, B4C boards…) All ceramics are brittle – they
Silicon carbide, SiC have low values of fracture toughness K1c
Aluminium Nitride, and toughness G1c .
AlN
Slope 3
E5.7 Do titanium alloys have a higher or lower specific strength E5.9 Are the fracture toughness, K1c, of the common polymers
(strength/density, σ f / ρ ) than the best steels? This is important polycarbonate, ABS, or polystyrene larger or smaller than the
engineering ceramic alumina, Al2O3? Are their toughness
when you want strength at low weight (landing gear of aircraft,
mountain bikes). Use a σ f / ρ chart to decide. G1c = K12c / E larger or smaller? A K1c –E chart will help.
Answer. The guide line for σ f / ρ on the strength – density chart of Answer. Most polymers have a lower fracture toughness, K1c, than
Figure 4.4, if drawn through titanium alloys shows that they have a alumina. Their toughness, G1c = K12c / E , however, are much
much the higher specific strength than any steel, even though the larger. Even the most brittle of polymers, polystyrene, has a
best steel are as strong.. toughness G1c that is nearly ten times greater than that of
Material σ f /ρ (MPa/(kg/m3)) x 103 alumina. The values in the table are read using the K1c axis to
Titanium alloys 54 - 270 read off values of fracture toughness, and the G1c = K 12c / E
Steels 32 - 190 contours to read off values of toughness.
2
Material K1c (MPa.m1/2) G1c (kJ/m )
Polycarbonate 2.1 – 4.6 0.5 - 8
ABS 1.2 – 4.3 1-8
Polystyrene 0.7 – 1.1 0.25 – 0.7
Alumina, Al2O3 3.3 – 4.8 0.04 – 0.07
Answer. The chart shows just two classes of polymer with maximum
service temperatures greater than 2000C. They are listed below.
Material Comment
Polytetrafluorethylene, PTFE (Teflon) is used as non-stick
PTFE coatings for cooking ware, easily surviving
the temperatures of baking and frying.
Silicone elastomers Silicones are polymers with a Si-O-Si chain
structure instead of the C-C-C chain of
polyolefins. They are more stable than
carbon-based polymers, but expensive.
E6.2 A material is required to manufacture office scissors. Paper is an Function • Heat exchanger
abrasive material, and scissors sometimes encounter hard Constraints • Maximum service temperature, Tmax > 120 C
obstacles like staples. List function and constraints; set the • Good thermal conductor
objective to “minimize cost” and the free variables to “choice of • Resistance to corrosion in salt water:
material”. good/excellent
• Sufficient strength to support the pressure of
the super-heated water
Answer. To resist abrasive wear the scissors must have blades of • Ability to be rolled to sheet or tube
high hardness. In cutting, they will sooner or later encounter a • Adequate ductility to allow shaping, ε f > 2%
staple or other hard obstruction that would chip a brittle blade – Objective • Minimize material cost
some toughness is required. These two parameters help reduce
wear, but there are other factors that influence it, so it is sensible
Free variables • Choice of material
to specify good wear resistance. Finally, the scissors must be
formed – if the handles are integral with the blades, they must be
forged or stamped from sheet, requiring the ability to be processed
in this way.
and C p is the specific heat of the material of the core (in J/kg.C)
and ρ is its density (in kg/m3). Thus the most compact storage
heater is one made from a material with a high C p ρ . Even a
small storage heater contains a considerable quantity of core (that
is why they are heavy), so it is probable that an objective will be to
minimize its cost per unit volume. If, however, space were critical,
maximizing C p ρ might become the objective.
Answer.
The model. A thin, taut wire slackens and sags when the strain
due to thermal expansion,
ε th = α∆T
exceeds the elastic strain caused by the pre-tension,
σ
ε pt = .
E
Figure E3
M1 = E
Figure E4 (b) The design requirements for part (b) are listed below
Function • Self-loaded cantilever beam
Constraints • Length L specified
• Section t x t specified
Objective • Minimize the deflection, δ
Free variables • Choice of material only
Where C m is the cost/kg of the material* of the column. It will (a) a circular plate of radius a carrying a central load W with a
prescribed stiffness S = W / δ and of minimum mass, and
buckle elastically if F exceeds the Euler load, Fcrit , given in the
question. Eliminating A between the two equations, using the (b) a hemispherical shell of radius a carrying a central load W with
definition of I, gives: a prescribed stiffness S = W / δ and of minimum mass, as shown
1/2
⎛4F⎞ ⎛C ρ⎞ in the figures.
C ≥ ⎜ ⎟ H 2 ⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟
⎝ nπ ⎠ ⎝ E 1/2 ⎠
E1 2
M=
Cm ρ
*
Cm is the cost/kg of the processed material, here, the material in the form of a
circular rod or column.
The selection. Applying the constraint on K 1c and formability, Derive a material index for the selection of a material for this
and ranking by the index M using the CES EduPack Level 1 or 2 application. Note that this is a problem with two free variables: b
database gives the top-ranked candidates listed below. and t; and there are two constraints, one on safe deflection δmax and
the other on stiffness S. Use the two constraints to fix free
variables. The table catalogs the requirements.
Material Comment Function • Leaf spring for truck
Aluminum alloys The obvious candidate – good thermal Constraints • Length L specified
conductor, adequately stiff and strong, and easy
• Stiffness S specified
to work.
• Maximum displacement δ max specified
Copper alloys Here the high thermal diffusivity of copper is
dominating the selection. Objective • Minimize the mass
Free variables • Spring thickness t
• Spring width b
• Choice of material
x ≈ (2a t )1 / 2
Figure E10
where a = λ / ρ C p is the thermal diffusivity. Substituting this
Function • High heat-transfer rocket fins value of x in the previous equation gives
Constraints • All dimensions specified (Ts − Ti )
• Must not suffer surface melting during ( )
q = λ ρ C p 1/ 2
exposure to gas at 1700 C for 0.3 sec. 2t
Objective • Minimize the surface temperature rise where ρ is the density and C p the specific heat of the material
during firing
of the fin.
• Maximize the melting point of the material
Proceed by equating the two equations for q, solving for the
Free • Choice of material
variables surface temperature Ts to give the objective function. Read off
the combination of properties that minimizes Ts ; it is the index for
the problem.
This is tricky. Heat enters the surface of the fin by transfer from
the gas. If the heat transfer coefficient is h, the heat flux per unit The selection is made by seeking materials with large values of
area is the index and with a high melting point, Tm . If the CES software
q = h ( T g − Ts ) is available, make a chart with these two as axes and identify
materials with high values of the index that also have high melting
where Ts is the surface temperature of the fin – the critical points.
quantity we wish to minimize. Heat is diffuses into the fin surface
by thermal conduction.
h Tg t + λ ρ C p Ti
Ts =
h t + λ ρCp
M1 = λ ρ C p
and index that often appears in problems involving transient heat flow.
Melting is also made less likely by choosing a material with a high
melting point Tm . The second index is therefore
M 2 = Tm
The selection. The figure shows the two indices, created using the
CES EduPack Level 2 database. The top-ranked candidates are listed
below.
Material Comment
Silicon carbide, SiC Silicon carbide out-performs all metals except
tungsten, and is much lighter. If used, its
brittleness would have to be reckoned with..
Copper alloys The exceptional thermal conductivity of copper
is dominating here – it is able to conduct heat
away from the surface quickly, limiting the
surface heating.
Aluminum alloys An attractive choice, since Al-alloys are also
light
Aluminum – Silicon This metal matrix composite has almost the
carbide MMC thermal conductivity of aluminum and is stiffer
and stronger.
Over-constrained problems are normal in materials selection. Often it A tie, of length L loaded in tension, is to support a load F, at
is just a case of applying each constraint in turn, retaining only those minimum weight without failing (implying a constraint on strength)
solutions that meet them all. But when constraints are used to or extending elastically by more than δ (implying a constraint on
eliminate free variables in an objective function, the “active constraint” stiffness, F / δ ). The table summarises the requirements.
method must be used. The first three exercises in this section illustrate
problems with multiple constraints.
The remaining two concern multiple objectives and trade-off methods.
When a problem has two objectives – minimizing both mass m and
cost C of a component, for instance – a conflict arises: the cheapest
solution is not the lightest and vice versa. The best combination is Figure E11
sought by constructing a trade-off plot using mass as one axis, and
cost as the other. The lower envelope of the points on this plot defines
the trade-off surface. The solutions that offer the best compromise lie Function • Tie rod
on this surface. To get further we need a penalty function. Define the
penalty function Constraints • Must not fail by yielding under force F
• Must have specified stiffness, F/δ
Z = C + αm • Length L and axial load F specified
where α is an exchange constant describing the penalty associated Objective • Minimize mass m
with unit increase in mass, or, equivalently, the value associated with a Free variables • Section area A
unit decrease. The best solutions are found where the line defined by • Choice of material
this equation is tangential to the trade-off surface. (Remember that
objectives must be expressed in a form such that a minimum is sought;
then a low value of Z is desirable, a high one is not.)
When a substitute is sought for an existing material it is better to work (a) Establish two performance equations for the mass, one for
with ratios. Then the penalty function becomes each constraint, from which two material indices and one coupling
equation linking them are derived. Show that the two indices are
C m ρ ρ
Z* = + α* M1 = and M2 =
Co mo E σy
in which the subscript “o” means properties of the existing material and and that a minimum is sought for both.
the asterisk * on Z* and α* is a reminder that both are now (b) Use the CES EduPack to produce a graph which has the
dimensionless. The relative exchange constant α* measures the indices as axes, to identify candidate materials for the tie (i)
fractional gain in value for a given fractional gain in performance. when δ /L = 10-3 and (ii) when δ /L = 10-2, like in Figure E12.
Answer. The derivation of performance equations and the indices they contain is laid out here:
F E A F ⎛ρ⎞ ρ
Stiffness constraint = m1 = L2 ⎜ ⎟ M1 = (1)
δ L δ ⎝E⎠ E
m= AL ρ
Substitute for A
⎛ ρ ⎞ ρ
Strength constraint F = σ y A m2 = L F ⎜ ⎟ M2 = (2)
⎜σ y ⎟ σy
⎝ ⎠
δ
= 10 - 3
L
δ
= 10 -2
L
The tensile stress in the wall of a thin-walled pressure vessel (UASSP, 11) is
∆p R
σ=
2t
Equating this first to the yield strength σ y , then to the fracture strength K 1c / πc and substituting for t in
the objective function leads to the performance equations and indices laid out below.
∆pR ⎡ρ⎤ ρ
Yield constraint σ= ≤σy m1 = 2 π ∆ p.R 3 ⋅ ⎢ ⎥ M1 = (1)
2 t ⎣ σy ⎦ σy
Substitute for t
m = 4 π R 2t ρ
∆pR K 1c ⎡ ρ ⎤ ρ
Fracture constraint σ= ≤ m 2 = 2 π ∆p ⋅ R 3 (π c )1 / 2 ⎢ ⎥ M2 = (2)
2 t πc ⎣ K 1c ⎦ K 1c
Substitute for t
The coupling equation is found by equating m1 to m2, giving a relationship between M1 and M2:
M 1 = ( πc)1/2 M 2
On the (logarithmic) graph of the material indices, the coupling line therefore is log M1 = log (π c)1/2 + log M2
The position of the coupling line depends on the detection limit, c1 for cracks, through the term (π c)1/2.
(c) Use the EduPack to produce a graph with the two indices as
(a) Proceed as follows
axes. Express M2 in terms of M1 and plot coupling lines for
(1) Write down an expression for the material cost of the column – its selecting materials for a column with F = 105 N and H = 3m (the
mass times its cost per unit mass, Cm. same conditions as above), and for a second column with F = 103
N and H = 20m.
(2) Express the two constraints as equations, and use them to
substitute for the free variable, D, to find the cost of the column
that will just support the load without failing by either mechanism
(3) Identify the material indices M1 and M2 that enter the two equations
for the mass, showing that they are
π 2 EI
F≤
H2
The right-hand side is the Euler buckling load in which E is Young’s
Figure E16 modulus. The second moment of area for a circular column is
π 4
I= D
64
The subsequent steps in the derivation of performance equations are
laid out on the next page:
Substitute for D
π D2 ⎡C ρ ⎤
Crushing constraint Ff ≤ σc C1 = F H ⎢ m ⎥ (1)
4 ⎣ σc ⎦
π
C = D 2 H Cm ρ
4
Substitute for D
π 2 EI π 3 D4 E 2 ⎡C ρ ⎤
Buckling constraint F ≤ = C2 = F 1/2 H 2 ⎢ m ⎥ (2)
H2 64 H 2 π 1/2 ⎣ E 1/2 ⎦
⎡C ρ ⎤
The first performance equation contains the index M 1 = ⎢ m ⎥ , the second, the index
⎣ σc ⎦
⎡C ρ ⎤ ~
M 2 = ⎢ m ⎥ . This is a min-max problem: we seek the material with the lowest (min) cost C
1/2
⎣E ⎦
which itself is the larger (max) of C1 and C2. The two performance equations are evaluated in
~
the Table, which also lists C = max ( C 1 , C 2 ). for a column of height H = 3m, carrying a load F =
105 N. The cheapest choice is concrete.
Couplin
g
Large F/H2
Small F/H2
(c) Use the EduPack to produce a graph with axes of m/mo and C/Co,
like the one in Figure E18 below. Mild steel (here labelled “Low
carbon steel”) lies at the co-ordinates (1,1).
m ⎛ ρ ⎞⎛ σ y ,o ⎞ C ⎛ ρ ⎞⎛ σ y ,o ⎞
=⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ and = ⎜ Cm ⎟⎜ ⎟
mo ⎜σ y ⎟⎜ ρ o ⎟ Co ⎜ σ y ⎟⎜ C m ,o ρ o ⎟
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
⎛C ρ ⎞
C = C m m = 2πR 2 L p ( 1 + Q )⎜ m ⎟
⎜ σy ⎟
⎝ ⎠
from which the mass and cost relative to that of a low-carbon steel
(subscript “o”) tank are
m ⎛ ρ ⎞⎛ σ y ,o ⎞
=⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ and
mo ⎜σ y ⎟⎜ ρ o ⎟
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
C ⎛ ρ ⎞⎛ σ y ,o ⎞
= ⎜ Cm ⎟⎜ ⎟
Co ⎜ σ y ⎟⎜ C m ,o ρ o ⎟
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠
(b) To get further we need a penalty function:. The relative penalty
function
m C
Z* = α* +
mo Co
Figure E18 This is evaluated for Low alloy steel and for CFRP in the table below, for
α* = 1 (meaning that weight carries a low cost premium) – Low alloy
Answer. (a) The mass m of the tank is steel has by far the lowest Z*. But when it is evaluated for α* = 100
(meaning that weight carriers a large cost premium), CFRP has the
m = 2πR L t + 4π R 2 t = 2πR L t ( 1 + Q ) lowest Z*.
where Q, the aspect ratio 2R/L, is fixed by the design requirements. The (c) The figure shows the trade-off surface. Materials on or near this
surface have attractive combinations of mass and cost. Several are
stress in the wall of the tank caused by the pressure p must not exceed σ y ,
better low-carbon steel. Two contours of Z* that just touch the trade-off
is the yield strength of the material of the tank wall, meaning that line are shown, one for α* = 1, the other for α* = 100 – they are curved
because of the logarithmic axes.
pR
σ = ≤σy The first, for α* = 1 identifies higher strength steels as good choices.
t
This is because their higher strength allows a thinner tank wall. The
Substituting for t, the free variable, gives contour for α* = 100 touches near CFRP, aluminum and magnesium
alloys – if weight saving is very highly valued, these become attractive
solutions.
www.grantadesign.com/education/resources © Granta Design 2010 - 45 -
Material Density ρ Yield strength Price per /kg Z *, Z *,
3 * *
(kg/m ) σc (MPa) Cm ($/kg) α =1 α = 100
Mild steel 7850 314 0.66 2 101
Low alloy steel 7850 775 0.85 1.03 45.6
CFRP 1550 760 42.1 5.2 13.4
Figure E20
(a) Evaluate the shape factor φ Be for stiffness-limited design in (b) The shape-efficiency factor for bending failure for the square
bending of a square box section of outer edge-length h = 100mm box section is
and wall thickness t = 3mm. Is this shape more efficient than one h
made of the same material in the form of a tube of diameter 2r = φ Bf = = 5.8
t
100mm and wall thickness t = 3.82 mm (giving it the same mass
That for the tube is
per unit length, m/L)? Treat both as thin-walled shapes.
3 r
f φ Bf = = 4.33
(b) Make the same comparison for the shape factor φ B for 2π t
strength-limited design. The box is more efficient than the tube, and both are roughly 5
times stronger in bending than a solid square section of the same
area (and thus mass per unit length).
Figure E21
h1 / 2 h2 / 2
I = 2 ∫ y 2 h1 dy − 2 ∫ y 2 h2 dy
0 0
=
1 4
12
(
h 1 − h 42 ) =
2 3
th
3 1
and
Figure E22
A = h12 − h22 ≈ 4 h1 t
Answer.
(a) The shape factor for elastic bending of a tubular beam (left- Assembling these results, and inserting h1 = 10t gives
hand figure) is defined by 1 h1
φ Be = =5
12 I 2 t
φ Be =
A2
where I is the second moment of area and A is the area. The
second moment of area, I, of the tube about the axis shown as a
dotted line is
π π
I = (5 t )4 − (4 t )4 = 92.25 π t 4
4 4
Its cross section area is A = π (5 t )2 − π (4 t )2 = 9 π t 2
12 I
from which φ Be = = 4.35
A2
2/3
⎛⎜ φ f σ ⎞⎟
B f ⎠ (d) The beam of length L, loaded in bending, must support a
M = ⎝ specified load F without failing and be as light as possible. Its
ρ
mass m is
where σ f is the failure stress and ρ the density of the material of m = AL ρ (1)
f
where A is the area of its cross section. Failure occurs if the load
the beam, and φ B is the shape-efficiency factor for failure in exceeds the moment
bending. M = Zσ f (2)
Answer. where Z is the section modulus . Replacing Z by the shape-
f
(a) The section modulus, Z, of the tube about the axis shown as factor φ B = 6 Z / A 3 / 2 gives
a dotted line is
σf f
Z =
I
=
I
= 18.45 π t 3 M = φ A3 / 2 (3)
y max r 6 B
Substituting this into equation (1) for the mass gives
(here y max is the distance of the outer surface from the neutral
axis),from which ρ
6Z m = (6 M )2 / 3 L
φ Bf = = 2.31 ⎛⎜ φ f σ ⎞⎟
2/ 3
(4)
A3 / 2 ⎝ B f ⎠
The best material-and-shape combination is that with the
(b) The second moment, Z, of the channel about the axis shown
greatest value of the index
as a dotted line is
I
Z = = 49.2 t 3 ⎛⎜ φ f σ ⎞⎟ 2 / 3
5t ⎝ B f ⎠
M =
ρ
Figure E23
Attribute Value
Beam stiffness SB 7.2 x 105 N/m
Mass/unit length 1 kg/m
m/L
Beam length L 1m
Beam material 6061 aluminum alloy
Material density ρ 2670 kg/m3
Material modulus E 69 GPa
Bridge and construction date* F = mg A = m / Lρ φ Be (b) A shaft of length L, loaded in torsion, must support a specified
6
(10 N) torque T* without failing and be as cheap as possible. Section
(m2)
shape is a variable and “failure” again means the first onset of
Royal Albert bridge, Tamar, 10.6 0.97 49.3 plasticity. Derive the material index. The table summarizes the
Saltash UK (1857) requirements.
6.5 0.62 65.4
Carquinez Strait bridge,
California (1927) 8.5 0.74 74.8
Function • Cheap shaft
Chesapeake Bay bridge,
Maryland USA (1952) Constraints • Specified failure torque T*
• Length L specified
Objective • Minimum material cost C
The results show that “structured structures” (trusses, rib-stiffened Free variables • Choice of material
structures) can offer very large shape efficiencies. Note how the • Section shape and scale
efficiency has grown over time.
⎛⎜ φ f σ ⎞⎟ 2 / 3
B f ⎠
M3 = ⎝
ρ
Figure E24
(b) Show, by direct calculation, that the conclusions of part (a) are
consistent with the idea that to minimize mass for a given stiffness
one should maximize E * / ρ * with E * = E / φ Be and ρ * = ρ / φ Be .
2/3
Figure The higher the value of ⎛⎜ φ Bf σ ⎞
f ⎟⎠ / ρ the lighter is the beam.
⎝
The ranking is the same.
( Eφ Be )1/2
Cylindrical tubing is available from stock in the following materials M=
and sizes. Use this information and the material index to identify ρ
the best stock material for the column of the stand.
Material E ρ (kg/m3) M
(GPa)
φ Be 1/2 3
(GPa /Mg/m )
Aluminum alloys 71 2700 4 - 14 6.2 - 11.7
Steel 210 7900 10 - 21 5.8 - 8.2
Copper alloys 120 8900 10 - 13 3.9 – 4.4
Polycarbonate (PC) 3 1200 3.3 - 6.7 2.6 – 3.7
Various woods 8-15 500 - 800 1 3.5 – 7.7
Aluminum offers the highest index and thus the lightest stalk.
Steel is the next best choice, then wood.
Zσ f h 1
ψ Bf = = =
Z s σ f ,s t (ρ / ρ s )1 / 2
The shape-efficiency factor for strength is equal to the reciprocal
Figure E28 of the square root of the relative density.
E10.2 Use the chart of Figure E29 to explore the relative potential of
Magnesium – E-glass-fiber composites and Magnesium –
Beryllium composites for light, stiff structures.
Thermal Conductivity
~
λ u = fλr + (1 − f )λm
Figure E30
~ λr + 2λm − 2 f (λm − λr )
λ L = λm
λr + 2λm + f (λm − λr )
Subscript ‘u’: upper bound; subscript ‘L’: lower bound
Panel
Answer.
m
(a) The equivalent density ρ~ is ρ~ = a = 265 kg / m 3
d
~ ~ 12 EI
The equivalent modulus E is E = = 15.8 GPa
bd3
t 4M f
The equivalent strength σ f is σ~ f = = 125 MPa
bd2
(b) See opposite. Yes, the flexural properties of the panel lie in an
area of property space not occupied by monolithic materials.
(b) Do the same thing for strength, using the flexural strength index alone competes with wood, bamboo and palm.
Al-alloy Al-alloy
GFRP
GFRP
For this project use the CES EduPack Level 3 Database, and under CFRP
Spring steel
‘subset’ select “All materials” (instead of “All bulk materials”). Then
create a custom subset which includes natural materials (under
Hybrids), natural fibers and particulates, and the materials featured in
the question. Cu 2% Be
The table lists the moduli and strengths of spring materials. Plot these
onto a copy of the E − σ f chart for the materials in the custom subset
you created above, and compare their energy-storing performance with
that of natural materials, using the σ 2f / E as the criterion of choice.
Here σ f is the failure stress, E is Young’s modulus and ρ is the
density.
Cortical
bone (L)
(a) Cement
(b) Wood
(c) Polypropylene
(d) Steel
(e) Copper.
Figure E32
Figure E33
(b) Use the CES EduPack to identify possible processes to make (b) Applying the constraints and eliminating processes that fail a
the casing. constraint leaves resin transfer molding as the prime choice.
Figure E35
Answer. The table lists mean values of embodied energy and carbon
footprint, per kg, for the two materials. The last two columns show the
values per chair. If the difference in lifetime is ignored, the two chairs
do not differ significantly in embodied energy, but they do in carbon
release. If the longer life of the cast iron chair is recognized by dividing
the values by the life in years (to give energy and carbon per chair-
year) the cast iron chair wins easily.
The Modulus – Embodied energy chart: the one for stiffness at
minimum embodied energy.
Figure E37
www.grantadesign.com/education/resources © Granta Design 2010 - 83 -
The resulting indices are Answer. The objective function for the energy of the panel, H , is the
σ 2y / 3 volume Lbh times the embodied energy of the material per unit volume,
E1/ 2
M1 = and M2 = ρHp :
H pρ H pρ
H = bhLρ H p
The selection can be implemented using the CES EduPack software,
by making a chart with the stiffness index as one axis and the strength Its failure load F must be at least F * , where
index as the other. The materials that best meet both criteria lie at the Iσy
top right F = C2 ≥ F*
hL
E12.5. Show that the index for selecting materials for a strong panel Here C 2 is a constant that depends only on the distribution of the loads
with the dimensions shown in Figure E.38, loaded in bending, with and I is the second moment of area, which, for a rectangular section, is
minimum embodied energy content is that with the largest value of
b h3
σ 1y / 2 I =
M = 12
H pρ
We can reduce the energy H by reducing h , but only so far that the
where H p is the embodied energy of the material, ρ its density and stiffness constraint is still met. Combining the last two equations and
solving for h gives
σ y its yield strength. To do so, place a constraint on failure load F
1. / 2
⎛ 12 F * L ⎞
requiring that it exceed a chosen value F * where h≥⎜ ⎟
⎜ C2b σ y ⎟
Iσy ⎝ ⎠
F = C2 > F*
hL Using this to eliminate h in the objective function gives
where C2 is a constant and I is the second moment of area of the 1/ 2
⎛ 12 F * L3 b ⎞ ρHp
panel H ≥ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ C2 ⎟ σ 1y / 2
b h3 ⎝ ⎠
I =
12 .
The quantities F * , L , b and C 2 are all specified; the only freedom of
choice left is that of the material. The best materials for a strong panel
with the lowest embodied energy are those with the smallest values of
ρHp
Mp =
σ 1y / 2
Figure E38
www.grantadesign.com/education/resources © Granta Design 2010 - 84 -
E12.6. The makers of a small electric car wish to make bumpers out of
a molded thermoplastic. Which index is the one to guide this
selection if the aim is to maximize the range for a given battery
storage capacity? Plot it on a Strength / Density chart, and make
a selection.
σ 2y / 3
M =
ρ
Material E H pρ φ Be
M1
(b) Repeat the procedure, this time for strength, creating the (GPa) (GPa1/2/GJ/m3)
3
appropriate index for strength-limited shaped beams at (GJ/m )
minimum energy content by adapting equation 9.28. Wood 10 5.25 2 0.86
Concrete 35 14.5 2 0.57
Steel 210 238 15 0.23
What do you conclude about the relative energy-penalty of design
with wood and with steel?
(b) The index for an energy efficient beam of prescribed strength
is, f
2/3
Material Density Modulus Strength Energy Hp ⎛⎜ φ f σ ⎞⎟
φ Be φ Bf
ρ kg/m3 E GPa σ f MPa MJ/kg ⎝ B f ⎠
M2 =
H pρ
Soft wood 700 10 40 7.5 2 1.4
Reinforced 2900 35 10 5 2 1.4 f
concrete Where φ B is the shape factor for failure in bending. The next
Steel 7900 210 200 30 15 4 table shows that, as before, wood is the most efficient material.
Material σf H pρ φ Be
M2
3 (MPa2/3/GJ/m3)
(MPa) (GJ/m )
Wood 40 5.25 1.4 2.8
Concrete 10 14.5 1.4 0.4
Steel 200 238 4 0.36
0
Book 5: Projects Using CES EduPack
100
a ls
et
oy n
M
al gste
s
n
Tu
ys
id n
lo
rb te
100
al
ca ngs
s
ys
Ni
el
e
Tu
Ste
a lo
Ti
3
2O
Co
ic
s
Si
Al
m
ra
10
Ce
al iC
RP Al S
s
oy
s
te
si
CF
1
po
ys
m
y
lo
o
Co
al
d P P PA PE FRP
al
g
ad
M
Le
EK
PE
s
y
sig m r
de um es fo
0.1
ty
al
m an
n ass
nc
si
im lin
Zi
M C
to rs
s
en
in e
A
as e
m uid
M
el lym
-D
G
Po
th
1
oo
te
re
0.0
W
ng
nc
Co
re
100
er l
at ra
to e
ls
0
ers
as n
m tu
el ilico
ia
0
m
Na
100
S
ru utyl
WC
er
Me
B
bb
tals loys
W al WC els Ni al
Ste loys
r
s me
loys
100 W al
am ly
Ni al
fo po
ys
rk
lo SiC
d
O3
Al2 Ti allo 100
gi
Co
Ste ys
Young's modulus, E (GPa)
Ri
Cu els Al ys
Young's modulus, E (GPa)
er
ls
am
s lym
hnic s B4C
s AlN
mical ta
am po
Me
CFR
Fo
Tecramic ys
fo ble
10 P
s
i
ex
Cas
10
Fl
t iro
ce Al alloP
sity
a choice of 4 textbooks from Professor Mike Ashby, and a range of
Co ns Sili ys
allo
D en
mp Al al ca R
osit loys
glas CF Lead
E Sod s Mo
es Mg allo a gl
dulu s- ites
dulu pos Glassloys
ass
1 ys
s-
Lead
mo om ys
E
E
GFR
Epo PA
xies
P
allo
ys
Bric
k
Sto
Str
e ngth
You
ng's
C al
Mg P
GF
R
este
r Con
cr
Zin
ete
c allo
E
1/3
1
other resources including advice, lectures, projects, exercises, and
10-1 PM ne
Yie d Poly EK
PE T
MA Woo
Poly
me
rs
PC
PS
Con
cr
No
n
ete
ld
buckbefore
ling PM
PA
MA
// gr
ain
PE ies
Epox
PC
E
1/2 10
-1
handouts. Download resources from www.grantadesign.com/education/.
ce-traechn ral nd
10-2 D
guidesign
PP
mic ical Natu PS PTFE rs a E
PE
rials me ers -2
Polalystom
e lin s PP
es PTF ate PE 10
E m her e
Rig Leat
EVA id po T grain
10-3 Pol
yu reth
ane
foam lym
s er din
gitu d
Lon spee
wave
al
elas
cone s
Sili tomer
ide ma
Gu imum n
min desig
s fo
line ss
r
10
-3 GRANTA MI and CES Selector are Granta's industrial products for
4 m/s er
10-4
Buc
befo kling
re yi
eld
Ela
sto
me
rs
Cor
k
Foa
ms
10 id po
Rig ams
fo
lym
EVA
Poly
uret
e
hane
10
-4 materials information management and materials selection.
100 Neo
pren
00 k
Neo Cor
pren Flex s rene
100 ible m Isop
Foa
e
0 Sili
foampolym
s er 10
But elascone yl
tom 3 But er
Str 100
yl rubb ers
er Isop 10 lymer rubb
en rene
xibl
e po
gth 10 Fle s
foam 1
,σ
f (M
Pa 1
) 0.1
0.1 2
10
0.01
M A T E R I A L I N S P I R A T I O N
UK/Int’l T +44 1223 518895 USA T (800) 241-1546 France T 08 00 76 12 90 Germany T 0800 182 5026
F +44 1223 506432 F (216) 274-9812 F 01 53 01 69 66 F 01805 4820 151 002