Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 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?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 2

Approach Changes as Design Evolves


Market need

LCA

Detail

Method
Needed for
Early Stage
Cost Modeling

Design Detail

Embodiment

# of Candidates

Concept

Economic Analysis

Selection Methods

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

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 3

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
Steel
Aluminum
SMC

Unit Cost

$250
$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

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?

Objective: What essential conditions must be met?

In what manner should implementation excel?

Constraints: What is to be maximized or minimized?

Do not limit options by specifying implementation w/in


function

Differentiate between binding and soft constraints

Free variables: Which design variables are free?

Which can be modified?


Which are desirable?

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:

Objective:

Length specified
Carry load F, w/o failure

Free variables:

Area, A

Minimize mass

Constraints:

Support a tension load

Cross-section area
Material

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

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

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


m ( F )( L )
y

Minimize weight by
minimizing

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

F
L

Area, A

Material Index

or

e
z
i
xim
a
m

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
PE, PP, PC
PS, PET, PVC
PA (Nylon)

Alumina
Si-carbide

Ceramics
Si-nitride
Ziconia

Composites
Sandwiches

Hybrids

Polymers
Polyester
Epoxy

Lattices
Segmented
Soda glass
Borosilicate

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

Isoprene
Butyl rubber

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

Comparing Material Properties:


Material Bar Charts
WC

Youngs modulus (GPa)


(Log Scale)

Steel
Copper

CFRP
Alumina
GFRP

Aluminum
Zinc
Lead

PEEK
PP

Glass

Fiberboard

PTFE

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

Youngs modulus (GPa)

Ceramics
100
Composites
Woods

10

Metals
1

Foams

Polymers

0.1
Elastomers

0.01

0.1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Density

(Mg/m3)

10

100

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 12

Screening Example:
Heat Sink for Power Electronics

Function:

1.
2.

3.

4.

Heat Sink

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

Free Variables:

Materials and Processes

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 13

Heat Sink Screening: Bar Chart


Max service temperature (K)

WC

Steel
Copper

Alumina

CFRP

PEEK
PP
Aluminum

200 C

GFRP

PTFE
Fiberboard

Zinc
Lead
Metals

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Glass

Polymers

Ceramics

Composites

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 14

Heat Sink Screening: Property Chart


Thermal conductivity (W/m K)

1000

R > 1020 cm

Ceramics

Metals
100

> 100 W/m K

10
Polymers &
elastomers

Composites
1
0.1
0.01

Foams
1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

1010

1020

Electrical resistivity ( cm)

1030

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
Soda-lime glass

1e10

Cheapest, hardest
material is sodalime glass used
in car headlights

Hardness - Vickers (Pa)

1e9

Borosilicate glass
1e8

Concrete
1e7

For plastics,
cheapest is PMMA
used in car tail
lights

Polymethyl methacrylate (Acrylic, PMMA)

1e6

100000

10000
0.1

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:

Objective:

Minimize electrical Resistance

Constraints:

Transmit electricity

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

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 20

Single Property Ranking Example:


Overhead Transmission Cable
1e27

Polystyrene (PS)
Silica glass

Ranking on
resistivity selects
Al and Cu alloys

Epoxies

Alumina
PEEK

PETE
Cellulose polymers

1e21

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

Screening on
strength eliminates
polymers, some
ceramics

1e24

Polyester
Polyurethane (tpPUR)

1e18

Isoprene (IR)
Wood

1e15

Silicon Carbide
1e12

Cork

1e9

Boron Carbide
1e6

The selection
1000

Titanium alloys
Low alloy steel

1e-3

Magnesium alloys
Aluminium alloys
Copper alloys

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:

Length specified
Carry load F, without too
much deflection

Free variables:

L
Area, A

Minimize mass

Constraints:

Support a bending load

Objective:

Cross-section area
Material

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Deflection,

Objective:
m = AL
Constraint:
F CEI

S= 3

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


4F

m=
1/ 2 1/ 2

C E

F
L
Area, A

Minimize weight by
1/ 2
minimizing
E or

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Deflection,

Material Index

E1/ 2


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

Material Index Calculation Process Flow


Each combination of

FUNCTION
Tie

CONSTRAINTS
Beam

Shaft
Column

Mechanical,
Thermal,
Electrical...
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Stiffness
specified

Function
Constraint
Objective
Free variable

Maximize
this!
OBJECTIVE
Minimum cost

Strength
specified

Minimum
weight

Fatigue limit
Geometry
specified

has a
characterizing
material index

INDEX
E1/ 2
M =

Maximum energy
storage
Minimum
eco- impact
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 26

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

Tension

Stiffness
Limited
E/

Strength
Limited
f/

Bending

E1/2/

f2/3/

Torsion

G1/2/

f2/3/

Loading

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

Woods

Foams

Metals

Polymers

Elastomers

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 29

Material Indices & Property Charts:


Toughness

Load-limited

Energy-limited

M = KIC
Choose tough
metals, e.g. Ti
KIC2 /

M=
E
Composites and
metals compete

Displacement-limited

KIC/E

KIC

Composites

2/E

KIC

Polymers

Metals

Woods Ceramics

Foams

M = KIC / E
Polymers, 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

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 31

Method for Early Technology Screening

Design performance is
determined by the
combination of:

Shape
Materials
Process

Underlying principles of
selection are unchanged

Materials

Process
Shape

BUT, do not underestimate


impact of shape or the
limitation of process

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 32

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

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 34

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

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 35

Table Legs: Problem Definition

Function:

Objective:

Minimize mass
Maximize slenderness

Performance Equation

m = r l
2

Constraints:

Support compressive loads

Length specified
Must not buckle
Must not fracture

Free variables:

Pcrit =

EI
2

Er
3

4l

Cross-section area
Material

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
1/ 2

4P
m


Functional
Requirements

(l )


E1/ 2

Geometric
Material
Parameters Properties

Minimize mass by
maximizing M1

M1 =

E1/ 2

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

For slenderness,
calculate r at max load
1/ 4

4P
r 3

Functional
Requirements

(l )

1/ 2

1/ 4

1
E

Geometric Material
Parameters Properties

Maximize slenderness
by maximizing M2

M2 = E
Materials Systems Laboratory
Materials Selection I Slide 37

Table Legs: Material Selection

Eliminated

Possibilities: Ceramics,
wood, composites
Final choice: wood

Metals (too heavy)


Polymers
(not stiff enough)

Ceramics too brittle


Composites too
expensive

Note: higher constraint


on modulus eliminates
wood

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005

M1

Ceramics
Composites
Woods

M2
Metals

Polymers

Foams

Elastomers

Materials Systems Laboratory


Materials Selection I Slide 38

Material Index 1
Silicon

Boron carbide

Silicon carbide

CFRP, epoxy m atrix (isotropic)

100

Young's Modulus (GPa)

Hardw ood: oak, along grain


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

Silicon carbide

CFRP, epoxy m atrix (isotropic)


1e11

Hardw ood: oak, along grain


Bam boo

Young's Modulus (Pa)

1e10

Softw ood: pine, along grain

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

Sun

Air flow to
extract heat
from wall

Heat Storing Wall

W
Fan

Figure by MIT OCW.

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:

Objective:

Maximize thermal energy


stored per unit cost

Constraints:

Heat storing medium

Heat diffusion time ~12h


Wall thickness 0.5 m
Working temp Tmax>100 C

Free variables:

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

a = Thermal Diffusivity =
C p
= Thermal Conductivity

Wall thickness, w
Material

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:

Thickness restriction:

Q = 2t Ta1/ 2 C p

w2
a
2t
For w 0.5 m and t = 12 h:

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

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