Neel Nadpara

MSE 5336
HW Project 2

Part 1: Derivation of material index

Design Requirements Table:
Function Fuselage
Fuselage must not deflect do to internal pressure (Stiffness-limited design)
Constraints
Geometry: thin wall cylinder (pipe)
Objective Minimize mass
Choice of Material
Free Variables
Cross Sectional Area (A)

The mass of the pipe is given by:

𝑚 = 2𝑅𝑡𝐿
The deflection of the pipe under an internal pressure (P) is given by:
𝑃𝑅 2
 =
𝐸𝑡
Solve for t by rearranging deflection equation:
𝑃𝑅 2
𝑡=
𝛿𝐸
Substitute t into the equation for mass:
𝑃𝑅 2 2𝜋𝑅 3 𝑃 2𝜋𝑅 3 𝑃𝐿𝜌
𝑚 = 2𝜋𝑅𝑡𝐿𝜌 = 2𝜋𝑅 ( ) 𝐿𝜌 = 𝐿𝜌 =
𝛿𝐸 𝛿𝐸 𝛿𝐸
Rearrange variables and to put the material properties into proper form:
𝟐𝝅𝑹𝟑 𝑷 𝝆
𝒎=( ) (𝑳) ( )
𝜹 𝑬
The material index:
𝝆
𝒎=( )
𝑬
Maximize for the Ashby Chart
𝜌
𝑚=( )
𝐸
−1
𝜌 −1
𝑚 =( )
𝐸
𝑬
𝑴=( )
𝝆
Part 2: Tabulate the material index
Table of Material Properties:
Density Material Index4
Youngs Modulus
Fuselage Material 𝒌𝒈 𝑬
(𝑬, (𝑮𝑷𝒂)) (𝝆, (𝒎𝟑)) (𝑴 = (𝝆))

Aluminum Alloys1 68-82 2500-2900 0.0278

2
Al Alloy 5083 71 2660 0.0267
Al Alloy 50862 71 2650 0.0268
Carbon Fiber Reinforced
69-150 1500-1600 0.0706
Polymer1
Magnesium Alloys1 42-47 1700-2000 0.02405
Titanium Alloys1 90-120 4400-4800 0.0228
3
Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al 101.4 4840 0.0209
Note:
1) General for Alloy group data (“Aluminum Alloys”) was obtained from Appendix A of Materials
Selection in Mechanical Design by Michael F. Ashby
2) ASM Metals Handbook Desk Edition Second Edition (1998) edited by Joseph R. Davis.
3) https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=9423
4) For the material index, the average values were used when a range is indicated for calculations

Material Index
0.08
0.0706
0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04
0.0278 0.0268 0.0267
0.03 0.02405 0.0228 0.0209
0.02

0.01

0
Ranking of Materials:
Ranking Fuselage Material Material Index
1 CFRP 0.0706
2 Aluminum Alloy 0.0278
3 Al Alloy 5086 0.0268
4 Al Alloy 5083 0.0267
5 Magnesium 0.02405
6 Titanium 0.0228
7 Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al 0.0209

Ashby Chart of Materials (Index Line Slope = 1):

Part 3: Manufacturability
Ranking of Material Manufacturability:

Overall
Ran Castability/ Forma Machin Weld Solder/Br
Materials Manufacturab
king Moldability bility ability ability azability
ility

Non Age-hardenable
1 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 3.7
Aluminum Alloys

Wrought Magnesium
2 4.5 2.5 5 4 2.5 3.7
Alloys

3 Titanium Alloys 3 3 2 4.5 1.5 2.8

4 CFRP 4.5 0 2 0 0 1.3

In order to select materials, it is important to understand their processability. Processability

describes how easy or difficult it is to shape, join, and finish a given material. Thus, the processability of
materials can directly correlate to the overall manufacturability of a material.
The material data sheets from the CES software were reviewed for the specific material groups
in regards to processability. Since there are no data sheets for aluminum alloys 5083 and 5086, non-age
hardenable aluminum alloys were selected as alloys 5083 and 5086 are non-age hardenable aluminum
alloys. Additionally, since there was no data sheet specifically for titanium alloy Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al, the
general data sheet for titanium alloys was used to evaluate manufacturability.
There were five key criteria that was used to evaluate the manufacturability of the individual
materials: castability/moldability, formability, machinability, weldability, and solder/brazability.
Castability is determined by the properties of metals in their molten state and their solidification
characteristics such as fluidity, shrinkage, resistance to hot tearing. Moldability is the relative ease or
difficulty to shape polymers by processes such as injection molding or compression molding. For
purposes of this analysis, since we have both polymers and metals to be considered: castability and
moldability were considered equivalent processes for different families of materials. Formability
describes the ability to deform metals into specific geometry. Machinability describes the relative ease
or difficulty of machining a material. Machinability is measured based of tool wear, cutting forces,
cutting speed, and difficulty of achieving good surface finishes. Weldability describes the relative ease or
difficulty of producing sound welds with a given material. Solderability/Brazability describes the relative
ease or difficulty of producing sound solder or braze joints with a given material. The individual values
for each type of processing are based on an empirical ranking system from 1 (process not
recommended) to 5 (excellent processability).
 The ranking shows that the best manufacturability may be seen in the following order: 1) non-
age hardenable aluminum alloys 2) wrought magnesium alloys 3) titanium alloys 4) CFRP. This was
determined by averaging all of the individual processing characteristics to evaluate the overall
manufacturability. Non-age hardenable aluminum alloys and wrought magnesium alloys ended up in a
tie, however it was determined that since aluminum alloys show better formability that they would be
advantageous in an application where the materials would likely have to be formed into cylinders. CFRP
was ranked last since the material has very few manufacturing possibilities (limited to molding and
machining).
With this said, there are some specific challenges with these materials themselves and with
manufacturing a fuselage that the CES software does not effectively account for. Titanium alloys are
listed with a weldability of 4.5, however many precautions must be taken to weld titanium. If titanium
alloys are not cleaned properly and if gas coverage is not appropriately maintained, the alloy will likely
form undesirable phases that may lead to failure in service. Magnesium alloys are difficult to form into
the geometry of a fuselage and they often require heat treatment to meet their full mechanical
properties. With something the size of a fuselage performing heat treatment will be rather difficult.
Moreover, both titanium and magnesium alloys typically require inert atmospheres for high quality
castings. There also exists a common industry notion that titanium alloys are very difficult to machine.
The CES software gives titanium alloys a machinability of 2. However, advances in tooling have made
machining much easier in these alloys and many complex titanium parts are machined with relative ease
every day. Aluminum alloys are stated to have a brazability of 2.5, however multi-clad braze alloys and
the vacuum furnace brazing process allows aluminum to be brazed regularly. CFRP can effectively be
joined with adhesives instead of welding or brazing which the software does not account for.
Despite this, the overall ranking provided is valid. It is just important to acknowledge that there
are other things that should be considered beyond what the simple emphatical data that CES software
provides.
Part 4: Material Index with Cost
Design Requirements Table:
Function Fuselage
Fuselage must not deflect do to internal pressure (Stiffness-limited design)
Constraints
Geometry: thin wall cylinder (pipe)
Minimize mass
Objective
Minimize cost
Choice of Material
Free Variables
Cross Sectional Area (A)

The mass of the pipe is given by:

𝑚 = 2𝑅𝑡𝐿
The deflection of the pipe under an internal pressure (P) is given by:
𝑃𝑅 2
 =
𝐸𝑡
Solve for t by rearranging deflection equation:
𝑃𝑅 2
𝑡=
𝛿𝐸
The cost of the material is a function of mass:
𝐶 = 𝑚𝐶𝑚
Factor cost into mass equation:
𝑚 = 2𝑅𝑡𝐿𝐶𝑚
Substitute t into the equation for mass:
𝑃𝑅 2 2𝜋𝑅 3 𝑃 2𝜋𝑅 3 𝑃𝐿𝜌𝐶𝑚
𝑚 = 2𝜋𝑅𝑡𝐿𝜌𝐶𝑚 = 2𝜋𝑅 ( ) 𝐿𝜌𝐶𝑚 = 𝐿𝜌𝐶𝑚 =
𝛿𝐸 𝛿𝐸 𝛿𝐸
Rearrange variables and to put the material properties into proper form:
𝟐𝝅𝑹𝟑 𝑷 𝝆𝑪𝒎
𝒎=( ) (𝑳) ( )
𝜹 𝑬
The material index:
𝝆𝑪𝒎
𝒎=( )
𝑬
Maximize for the Ashby Chart
𝜌𝐶𝑚
𝑚=( )
𝐸
−1
𝜌𝐶𝑚 −1
𝑚 =( )
𝐸
𝑬
𝑴=( )
𝝆𝑪𝒎
Table of Material Properties:
Material Index4
Youngs Modulus 𝒌𝒈 5 𝑼𝑺$
Fuselage Material Density (𝝆, (𝒎𝟑)) Cost ( 𝒌𝒈 ) 𝑬
(𝑬, (𝑮𝑷𝒂)) (𝑴 = (𝝆𝑪 ))
𝒎

Aluminum Alloys 1
75 2700 2.2 0.012626263
Al Alloy 50832 71 2660 2.2 0.012132604
Al Alloy 50862 71 2650 2.2 0.012178388
Carbon Fiber 39.5 0.001788485
109.5 1550
Reinforced Polymer1
Magnesium Alloys1 44.5 1850 3.25 0.007401247
Titanium Alloys1 105 4600 23.5 0.000971323
Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al3 101.4 4840 23.5 0.000891507
Note:
1) General for Alloy group data (“Aluminum Alloys”) was obtained from Appendix A of Materials
Selection in Mechanical Design by Michael F. Ashby
2) ASM Metals Handbook Desk Edition Second Edition (1998) edited by Joseph R. Davis.
3) https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=9423
4) For the material index, the average values were used when a range is indicated for calculations
5) All cost data obtained from Appendix A of Materials Selection in Mechanical Design by Michael
F. Ashby

Material Index
0.014
0.0126
0.0122 0.0121
0.012

0.01

0.008 0.0074

0.006

0.004
0.0018
0.002 0.0010 0.0009

0
Ranking of Materials:
Ranking Fuselage Material Material Index
1 Aluminum Alloys 0.012626263
2 Al Alloy 5086 0.012178388
3 Al Alloy 5083 0.012132604
4 Magnesium Alloys 0.007401247
5 CFRP 0.001788485
6 Titanium Alloys 0.000971323
7 Ti-13V-11Cr-3Al 0.000891507

Ashby Chart of Materials (Index Line Slope = 1):

Part 5: Additional Materials
Bamboo- Bamboo has an extremely low density of 700 kg/m3 and an acceptable Young’s modulus of
17.5 GPa. Thus, per the material index of M=(E/ρ) the index would be 0.025. Thus, due to the low
density of the bamboo coupled with the acceptable Young’s modulus the overall mass may be
minimized while minimizing the deflection. While Bamboo has been used in structural applications such
as buildings, it is not common to see it used on aircraft. This is likely due to the difficulty of turning it
from its natural geometry of a hollow tube to a thin plate that can be used to form the skin of a
fuselage. Also, like many natural materials if the proper processing is not applied, the material will
decompose rather quickly. Bamboo is also difficult to be able to consistently obtain the same
mechanical properties with since it is a natural material and the level of NDT needed on such a project
would be cumbersome. However, bamboo can be used as internal strengtheners/stiffening members
such as ribs.

Hardwood (along grain)- Hardwood has a relatively low density of 940 kg/m3 and an acceptable Young’s
modulus of 22.9 GPa. Thus, per the material index of M=(E/ρ) the index would be 0.0244. Thus, due to
the relatively low density of the hardwood combined with the acceptable Young’s modulus the overall
mass may be minimized while minimizing the deflection. Hardwood used to be used to manufacture
planes earlier in history. In fact, the Wright Brothers plane was made of wood. However, it is likely not
used today since natural materials make obtaining consistent mechanical properties difficult and the
NDT would be rather cumbersome. Also, wood is more difficult to manufacture into the desired shapes
compared to most metals. Despite this, wood is very inexpensive and is a renewable resource.

Age-hardening Al-alloys (Alloys 2024 and 7XXX series)- The problem description listed alloys 5083 and
5086 which are non-age hardenable. However, age-hardening aluminum alloys also exist. Age-
hardenable aluminum alloys have a relatively low-density of 2700 kg/m3 and a good Young’s modulus of
74 GPa. Thus, per the material index of M=(E/ρ) the index would be 0.0274. Age-hardening aluminum
alloys such as 2024 and 7XXX series have been used in aerospace for many years and have been the
backbone of the industry. The material has a good performance index while being very manufacturable.
Aluminum is relatively inexpensive and can be cast, formed, welded, and machined relatively easily.
However, the size of parts is limited and welding may lead to additional operations since the
components would require a solutioning and ageing treatment to obtain the full mechanical properties.

Low Alloy Steel- Low alloy steel has a density of 7700 kg/m3 which is higher than any of the light alloys.
However, low alloy steel has a high Young’s modulus of 211 GPa. Thus, per the material index of
M=(E/ρ) the index would be 0.0274. Thus, despite the relatively high density of the low alloy steel, the
high Young’s modulus still allows the overall mass to be minimized while minimizing the deflection. For
this reason, airframes often use 4140 chrome-molybdenum steel tubing. The material is also rather
inexpensive, formable, machinable, and weldable adding to its advantages. However, it is rather heavy
and lacks the corrosion resistance of other materials such as titanium.

Stainless Steel- Stainless steel has a density of 7850 kg/m3 which is higher than any of the light alloys.
However, stainless steel has a high Young’s modulus of 199.5 GPa. Thus, per the material index of
M=(E/ρ) the index would be 0.0254. Thus, despite the relatively high density of the stainless steel, the
high Young’s modulus still allows the overall mass to be minimized while minimizing the deflection.
Stainless steel is also relatively formable, machinable, and weldable while offering very good corrosion
resistance. It is likely not used on airframes as often as other alloys since low alloy steels can provide
better mechanical properties and light alloys provide better strength per unit weight.

Ashby Chart of Materials (Index Line Slope = 1):

Part 6: NDE of Materials

Aluminum Alloys- The surface inspection method should be visual inspection and penetrant inspection.
Visual inspection should be able to identify any major surface indications such as large cracks. Penetrant
inspection should be able to detect less obvious surface defects such as small cracks or surface
discontinuities. The volumetric inspection should be either radiograph or ultrasonic inspection.
Volumetric inspection would depend on the type of processing the alloy has received. Cast products
should be radiographically inspected as the defects will likely be porosity and the large grain sizes may
hinder ultrasonic inspection from being performed. Wrought products such as plate are more likely to
have cold laps or other more linear discontinues that would best be identified using ultrasonic
inspection with compression or shear wave techniques.

Magnesium Alloys- The surface inspection method should be visual inspection and penetrant
inspection. Visual inspection should be able to identify any major surface indications such as large
cracks. Penetrant inspection should be able to detect less obvious surface defects such as small cracks or
surface discontinuities. The volumetric inspection should be either radiograph or ultrasonic inspection.
Volumetric inspection would depend on the type of processing the alloy has received. Cast products
should be radiographically inspected as the defects will likely be porosity and the large grain sizes may
hinder ultrasonic inspection from being performed. Wrought products such as plate are more likely to
have cold laps or other more linear discontinues that would best be identified using ultrasonic
inspection with compression or shear wave techniques.
Titanium Alloys- The surface inspection method should be visual inspection and penetrant inspection.
Visual inspection should be able to identify any major surface indications such as large cracks. Penetrant
inspection should be able to detect less obvious surface defects such as small cracks or surface
discontinuities. Eddy current inspection is also often used with thin titanium parts such as heat
exchanger tubes to find defects. The volumetric inspection should be either radiograph or ultrasonic
inspection. Volumetric inspection would depend on the type of processing the alloy has received. Cast
products should be radiographically inspected as the defects will likely be porosity and the large grain
sizes may hinder ultrasonic inspection from being performed. Wrought products such as plate are more
likely to have cold laps or other more linear discontinues that would best be identified using ultrasonic
inspection with compression or shear wave techniques.

Low Alloy Steels- The surface inspection method should be visual inspection and magnetic particle
inspection. Visual inspection should be able to identify any major surface indications such as large
cracks. Magnetic particle inspection should be able to detect less obvious surface defects such as surface
discontinuities or slightly subsurface cracks. The volumetric inspection should be either radiograph or
ultrasonic inspection. Since steels have fine grain structure and are often acoustically similar to other
steels, ultrasonic inspection may be performed on castings as well. In many critical applications such as
pressure vessels, both ultrasonic and radiographic methods are used since they can complement each
other in finding indications. Radiography can find porosity very well while ultrasonic inspection can find
linear defects more easily.

Stainless Steels (assumed 300 series austenitic stainless steel)- The surface inspection method should be
visual inspection and penetrant inspection. Visual inspection should be able to identify any major
surface indications such as large cracks. Penetrant inspection should be able to detect less obvious
surface defects such as small cracks or surface discontinuities. The volumetric inspection should be
radiography. Ultrasonic inspection is likely going to be difficult due to large grain size. However,
radiography should be able to identify any indications. In very critical applications more sensitive
variants of radiography such as X-ray-CT may be employed.

Wood/Bamboo- The surface inspection method should be visual inspection which should yield any gross
and obvious objectionable conditions. Then, the difficulty comes when determining the additional
inspections. In the case of a beam where a minimum modulus is desired a bending proof test may be
used to determine structural adequacy. In more critical applications where knots and such must be
identified, X-ray-CT may be employed.

CFRP- The surface inspection method should be visual inspection which should yield any gross and
obvious objectionable conditions. In many of these composites the most likely defect and the most
critical one to find is delamination. Delamination may be found using neutron radiography which can
identify the presence of inclusion and water leading to poor adhesion. Ultrasonic inspection may also be
employed which when using A-scan can identify flaws such as delamination.
Part 7: Property Determination
For the material index there were three properties used in the problem: Young’s modulus, density, and
cost.

Young’s modulus- Young’s modulus may be measured experimentally by running a tensile test and using
data from the stress-strain curve. The relation between the stress and strain can then be used to
calculate Young’s modulus.
𝐹
𝜎
𝐸= = 𝐴
𝜖 Δ𝐿
𝐿0
However, moduli measured as slopes of stress strain curves are inaccurate by upwards of a factor
of 2 lower than the actual value. This is due to the contributions of to the strain from anelasticity,
creep, and other factors. Thus, accurate moduli are measured dynamically by measuring the
velocity of sound waves in the material or by exciting the natural vibrations of a beam or wire.

Density- Density would be measured the same way it was done in Archimedes’ time. The mass
would be measured by weighing the material in air. Then the volume would be measured by
either by using dimensions and math or by using a displacement approach. The density is then
𝑚
calculated by the following formula: 𝜌 = 𝑉 . The error in measuring density would most likely
come from the slight differences in material composition and the accuracy/precision of the
instruments used to conduct the measurements.

Cost- The price of materials will span a wide range depending on market availability/demand,
the difficulty of the material to obtain, the amount that will be bought, etc. Cost is a very difficult
property to calculate as it is variable depending on the market as a whole. Also, additional
processing such as getting a material forged versus cast will impact cost. Heat treatment and
other processing will also affect cost. Overall, this is the one of the most error prone properties to
use when doing material selection but it may prove useful in generating a gauge.
Part 8: Reflection
This effort allowed me to understand and learn how to derive material indexes and then use
them to aid in materials selection. Until I performed the derivation of the material index, I did not fully
understand how material indexes are obtained. However, doing the exercise once and then again by
factoring in cost allowed me to understand this process. Also, this exercise allowed me to understand
how to use the software effectively. Originally, I had only used the basic features such as plotting one
property against another. However, factoring cost showed me that I could use the axis similar to an
Excel formula and factor in multiple features such as cost into a tradition material property chart. I also
learned that the software has an empirical ranking system for processing which is useful to determine
the manufacturability of materials. This project also had me consider some materials that I do not
usually work with. I rarely work with composites and natural materials such as wood in my work, so it is
a nice change to be able to learn more about them. It is also interesting to see situations where they
would excel in based on material indices. Considering different types of NDE for these materials is also
interesting since in my day to day we usually only use traditional methods of radiography and ultrasonic
inspection. Thus, it is interesting to consider things such as X-ray-CT.