CHAPTER 6

Selection of Feasible Alternative Materials using Weighted Average Method

6.1 Introduction
One of the most important aspects of product design is material selection. The primary purpose
of the material selection process is to identify the best solutions for the product's materials. When
it comes to Smart Blind Stick, we must choose the right materials to make them better and more
efficient. However, deciding which materials are suitable for this product is a challenging issue.
It's a multi-attribute decision-making challenge in engineering design. Complexity arises from
the interrelationships between various engineering parameters and selection. We apply the
weighted average method to offer a clear, methodical, and logical way for making the best
material selection decisions. To determine the integrated weights of importance of the attributes,
it takes into account both the objective weights of importance of the attributes and the subjective
preferences of the decision-maker.

6.2 Structural Parts of Smart Blind Stick

Our product's structural parts are listed below:
1. Handle
2. Frame (base and body)
3. Control board
4. Microcontroller circuit
5. Sensor
6. Battery
7. Stopper
8. Wires
9. Screws and so on.
Here, we need to manufacture- handle, frame, etc. In addition, we'll also purchase other parts.
6.3 Material Selection for Handle, Frame (base and body)

6.3.1 Determination of Relative Importance of Goals Using Digital Logic Method (Table-6.1.1)

Relative
Number of Positive Decisions, Positive emphasis
Selection N=n(n-1)/2=7(7-1)/2=21 decisions co-efficient
Criteria (α)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Cost 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.238

Mass density 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 0.143

Modulus of 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.048
elasticity

Machinability 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.143

Availability 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.095

Coefficient of 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.143
thermal
expansion

Strength 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 0.190

Total number of positive decisions 21 Σα=1

6.3.2 Calculation of Performance Index (Table-6.1.2)

ALUMINIUM MILD STEEL

Selection Weighting Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted
criterion factor, (α) property, (β) score, (αβ) property, (β) score, (αβ)
Cost 0.238 100 23.8 60 14.28
Mass density 0.143 100 14.3 34.52 4.94
Modulus of 0.048 34.52 1.66 100 4.8
elasticity
Machinability 0.143 100 14.3 66.67 9.52
Availability 0.095 100 9.5 75 7.125
Coefficient of 0.143 47.83 6.84 100 14.3
thermal expansion
Strength 0.190 100 19 79.29 15.10
Material
Performance ∑αβ= 89.4 ∑αβ= 70.07
Index, γ

Result:

Material Performance Index is the greatest for Aluminium (89.4). So, we should use
Aluminium for the Handle and Frame (base and body).

6.3.3 Material properties* (Table-6.1.3)

Property Aluminium Mild Steel
Mass Density (kg/m3) 2,710 7850
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 69 210
Coefficient of thermal expansion (1/°C) 2.3×10−5 1.1 ×10−5
Strength (psi) 75000 59465

6.3.4 Numerical Values (rating) for Cost, Availability, and Machinability (Table-6.1.4)
Selection criterion ALUMINIUM MILD STEEL
Cost 3 5
Availability 4 3
Machinability 3 2
6.3.5 Values of Standards (Table-6.1.5)

Very high 5
High 4
Medium 3
Low 2
Poor 1

Formula used:
1. For goals: Modulus of elasticity, Machinability, Availability, and Strength–

Numerical value of property

Scaled Property, β = × 100
Maximum value of list

2. For goals: Cost, Mass density, and Coefficient of thermal expansion–

Minimum value of list
Scaled Property, β = × 100
Numerical value of property

6.4 Qualitative analysis of material selection for parts (Table-6.2.1)

Section Parts Material Alternative Reasons Behind
Selected Material Selection
Cost-effective, easily
Handle ALUMINIUM MILD available than MILD
STEEL STEEL, more modulus
Main Body of elasticity resulting in
stronger and better
Frame (base and ALUMINIUM MILD weight-bearing
body) STEEL capability than
MILD STEEL

6.5 Conclusion
The method of product design relies heavily on the material selection process. Here, we did our
best to select materials that would make our "Smart Blind Stick" both affordable and effective. It
was simple to assess the process capabilities of different materials based on their initial
configurations, service life, and other factors using the performance index. We chose the
materials in an average manner using the Weighted Average Method. It will take into account all
of the resources that will be used or consumed at the same time. Thus, among the possibilities,
we identified the appropriate materials for our product using systematic procedures based on the
Weighted Average Method.

References:
For Aluminium:
[1] https://www.thyssenkrupp-materials.co.uk/density-of-aluminium.html
[2] https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.html
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/linear-coefficient-of-expansion
[4] https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2863

For Mild Steel:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_steel
[2]https://steeloncall.com/what-is-young-s-modulus-of-steel#:~:text=Young's%20modulus
%20(or%20modulus%20of%20elasticity)%3A&text=Young's%20modulus%20of%20carbon
%20steels,GPA%20and%203045%20KSI%20approximately.
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/linear-coefficient-of-expansion
[4] https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6115