CES EduPack Case Studies:

Process Selection

Professor Mike Ashby

Department of Engineering
University of Cambridge

© M. F. Ashby, 2014
For reproduction guidance, see back page

This case study document is part of a set based on Mike Ashby’s books to help introduce students to materials, processes and
rational selection.
The Teaching Resources website aims to support teaching of materials-related courses in Design, Engineering and Science.
Resources come in various formats and are aimed primarily at undergraduate education.
www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com 1
M.F. Ashby 2014

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

About These Case Studies

These case studies were created with the help of Prof. Yves Brechet, Prof. David Embury, Dr. Norman Fleck, Dr. Jeff Wood,
and Dr. Paul Weaver. Thanks also to Mr. Ken Wallace, the Director of the Cambridge University Engineering Design Centre
and to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for their support of research into Materials Selection.
We are indebted to Ericka Jacobs for her help with proof reading the final manuscript, editing the graphics, and laying-out
the entire book.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 1
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

Contents

1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 The Design Process ................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 From Design Requirements to Constraints ............................................................................ 3

2 Spark Plug Insulator ................................................................................................... 4

2.1 The Selection .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Conclusions and Postscript..................................................................................................... 9

3 Car Bumper .............................................................................................................. 10

3.1 The Selection ........................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Conclusions and Postscript................................................................................................... 14

4 Aluminum Cowling ................................................................................................... 15

4.1 The Selection ........................................................................................................................ 16
4.2 Conclusions and Postscript................................................................................................... 19

5 Manifold Jacket ........................................................................................................ 20

5.1 The Selection ........................................................................................................................ 21
5.2 Conclusions and Postscript................................................................................................... 24

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 2
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

1 Introduction
This document is a collection of case studies in Materials Selection. They illustrate the use of a novel selection
methodology, and its software-implementation, the CES EduPack™. It is used to select candidate materials for a
wide range of applications: mechanical, thermal, electrical, and combinations of these. Each case study
addresses the question: out of all the materials available to the engineer, how can a short list of promising
candidates be identified?
The analysis, throughout, is kept as simple as possible whilst still retaining the key physical aspects which
identify the selection criteria. These criteria are then applied to materials selection charts created by
CES EduPack, either singly, or in sequence, to isolate the subset of materials best suited for the application. Do
not be put off by the simplifications in the analyses; the best choice of material is determined by function,
objectives and constraints and is largely independent of the finer details of the design. Many of the case studies
are generic: those for beams, springs, flywheels, pivots, flexible couplings, pressure vessels and precision
instruments are examples. The criteria they yield are basic to the proper selection of a material for these
applications.
There is no pretence that the case studies presented here are complete or exhaustive. They should be seen as
an initial statement of a problem: how can you select the small subset of most promising candidates, from the
vast menu of available materials? They are designed to illustrate the method, which can be adapted and
extended as the user desires. Remember: design is open ended — there are many solutions. Each can be used
as the starting point for a more detailed examination: it identifies the objectives and constraints associated
with a given functional component; it gives the simplest level of modeling and analysis; and it illustrates how
this can be used to make a selection. Any real design, of course, involves many more considerations. The
'Postscript' and 'Further Reading' sections of each case study give signposts for further information.

1.1 The Design Process

1. What are the steps in developing an original design?
Answer
• Identify market need, express as design requirements
• Develop concepts: ideas for the ways in which the requirements might be met
• Embodiment: a preliminary development of a concept to verify feasibility and show layout
• Detail design: the layout is translated into detailed drawings (usually as computer files), stresses
are analyzed and the design is optimized
• Prototyping: a prototype is manufactured and tested to confirm viability

1.2 From Design Requirements to Constraints

2. Describe and illustrate the “Translation” step of the material selection strategy.
Answer
Translation is the conversion of design requirements for a component into a statement of function,
constraints, objectives and free variables.

FUNCTION What does the component do?

OBJECTIVE What non-negotiable conditions must be met?
CONSTRAINTS What is to be maximized or minimized?
FREE VARIABLE What parameters of the problem is the designer free to change?

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 3
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

2 Spark Plug Insulator

The anatomy of a spark plug is shown schematically in Figure 2-1. It is an assembly of components, one of
which is the insulator. This is to be made of a ceramic, alumina, with the shape shown in the figure: an
axisymmetric-hollow-stepped shape of low complexity. It weighs about 0.05 kg, has an average section
thickness of 2.6 mm and a minimum section of 1.2 mm. Precision is important, since the insulator is part of an
assembly; the design specifies a precision of 0.2 mm and a surface finish of better than 10 μm and, of course,
cost should be as low as possible.

Figure 2-1. Spark Plug Insulator

Table 2-1. Spark Plug Insulator: design requirements

Material Class ceramics
Process Class primary, discrete
Shape Class prismatic-axisymmetric-hollow-stepped
Mass 0.05 kg
Minimum Section (thickness) 1.2 mm
Precision (Tolerance) 0.2 mm
Surface Finish (Roughness) 10 μm
Batch Size 100,000

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 4
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

2.1 The Selection

We set up five selection stages, shown in Figures 2–2 through 2–6. The first (Figure 2-2) combines the
requirements of material and mass. Here we have selected the sub-set of ceramic-shaping processes which can
produce components with a mass range of 0.04 to 0.06 kg bracketing that of the insulator.

Figure 2-2. A chart of mass range against material class. The box isolates – from the processes which can shape
fine ceramics – the ones which can handle the desired mass range.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 5
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

The second stage (Figure 2-3) establishes that the process is a primary one (one which creates a shape, rather
than one which finishes or joins) and that it can cope with the section-thickness of the insulator (1 to 4 mm).

Figure 2-3. A chart of section thickness range against process class. The chart identifies primary processes
capable of making sections in the range 1–4 mm.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 6
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

The third stage (Figure 2-4) deals with shape and precision: processes capable of making 'prismatic-
axisymmetric-hollow-stepped' shapes are plotted, and the selection box isolates the ones which can achieve
tolerances better than 0.2 mm.

Figure 2-4. A chart of tolerance against shape class. The chart identifies processes capable of making
'prismatic-axisymmetric-hollow-stepped' shapes and are capable of achieving tolerances of 0.2 mm or better.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 7
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

The fourth stage (Figure 2-5) deals with process class and surface finish: primary shaping processes are plotted,
and the selection box isolates the ones which can achieve roughness less than 10 μm.

Figure 2-5. A chart of roughness against process class

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 8
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

The previous stages allowed the identification of processes which satisfy the design requirements for the
insulator. The final stage (Figure 2-6) allows the most suitable processes to be identified by considering
economic batch size. Table 2-2 shows the results.

Figure 2-6. A chart of economic batch size against process class. The labeled processes are the ones which
passed all the selection stages. The box isolates the ones which are economic choices for the insulator.

Table 2-2. Processes for the spark plug insulator

Die pressing and sintering
Powder injection molding (PIM)

Because of the large batch size desired, the most suitable processes are die pressing and powder injection
molding (PIM). CVD — though technically feasible — is a slow process and therefore not suited for such high
production volumes.

2.2 Conclusions and Postscript

Because of the constraint of the material of the insulator, only three processes were successful. One of them —
CVD — is not economically feasible. The insulator is commercially made using pressing followed by sintering.
According to the selection, PIM may be a competitive alternative. More detailed cost analysis would be
required before a final decision is made. Spark plugs have a very competitive market and, therefore, the cost of
manufacturing should be kept low by choosing the cheapest route

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 9
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

3 Car Bumper
The materials used for car bumpers (Figure 3-1) have evolved with time. Originally, they were made from
electroplated steel then aluminum was used. Starting from the 1980s, plastics were introduced: glass-
reinforced polyesters and polyurethanes, modified polypropylene and blends of thermoplastic polyesters and
polycarbonates. Plastic bumpers have the advantage of being lighter than their metal counterparts and they
are better able to absorb energy in minor collisions without permanent damage.

Figure 3-1. A Car Bumper

A typical car bumper is made from glass-reinforced polyester. It weighs between 4 and 10 kg and has a
minimum section thickness of 5 mm. The shape could be described as either a sheet (since the thickness is
uniform) or a 3-D solid shape. The surface finish for the bumper should be 0.4 μm or better. The design
requirements are listed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Car Bumper: design requirements

Material Class composite (thermoset-matrix)
Process Class primary, discrete
Shape Class 3-D-solid or sheet-dished-non-axisymmetric-shallow
Mass 4 – 10 kg
Minimum Section (thickness) 5 mm
Surface Finish (Roughness) 0.4 μm
Batch Size 100,000

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 10
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

3.1 The Selection

Figure 3–2 through 3–5 show the selection for a car bumper. Figure 3-2 shows the first of the selection stages:
a bar chart of mass range against material class. Thermosets and polymer-matrix composites are selected from
the material class menu. The selection box for the bumper is placed at a mass in the range 4–10 kg. Many
processes pass this stage.

Figure 3-2. A chart of mass range against material class. The box isolates processes which can shape thermoset
composites and can handle the desired mass range.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 11
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

We next seek the subset of processes which can produce the shape (described as either a 'sheet-dished-
nonaxisymmetric-shallow' or a '3-D-solid shape') and the desired section thickness. The corresponding chart is
divided into two sections corresponding to each shape (Figure 3-3). In each section, the processes which can
make that particular shape are plotted. The selection box specifies the requirement of a section thickness of
about 5 mm which is within the capability of many processes.

Figure 3-3. A chart of section thickness range against shape class. The chart identifies processes which can
make 'sheet-dished-nonaxisymmetric-shallow' or '3-D-solid' shapes with sections of about 5 mm.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 12
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

The next selection stage is shown in Figure 3-4. It is a bar chart of surface roughness against process class
selecting primary from the process class menu. The selection box specifies a smoothness requirement of
0.4 μm or better. This is a demanding requirement of which many processes are not capable, as seen in the
figure. Open-mold composite processes such as hand lay-up and spray-up fail for that reason.

Figure 3-4. A chart of roughness against process class. The box isolates primary processes which are capable of
roughness levels of 0.4 μm or better.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 13
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

One further step is required in order to identify the processes which can produce the bumper cheaply. The
appropriate chart (Figure 3-5) is that of economic batch size against process class. Only discrete processes are
plotted on the chart. The selection box specifies a batch size of 100,000 for the bumper. Processes which have
passed all the previous selection stages are labeled. The ones which can produce the bumper economically are
listed in Table 3-2.

Figure 3-5. A chart of economic batch size against process class. The box identifies the processes which are
economic for a batch size of 100,000.

Table 3-2. Processes for the car bumper

BMC molding
Compression molding
Injection molding – thermosets
SMC molding
Transfer molding

3.2 Conclusions and Postscript

Several processes are technically capable of making the bumper (though the manufacturing cost varies greatly).
The competitive ones for a large batch size of 100,000 bumpers are transfer molding, injection molding,
compression molding, BMC and SMC molding.
Commercially, several processes are used depending on the volume of production: injection molding is used for
high volume cars, whereas reaction injection molding and compression molding are used for medium volume
production. The decisive factor is obviously the batch size.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 14
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

4 Aluminum Cowling
A thin-walled aluminum cowling is shown in Figure 4-1. It weighs about 0.1 kg and has a nearly uniform section
thickness of 1 mm. The shape is a dished sheet. A tolerance of 0.4 mm is desired. The number of cowlings
required is 10. The design requirements for the cowling are listed in Table 4-1. What process could be used to
make it?

Figure 4-1. An aluminum cowling

Table 4-1. Aluminum cowling: design requirements

Material Class light alloy (aluminum)
Process Class primary; discrete
Shape Class sheet (dished-axisymmetric-deep-nonreentrant)
Mass 0.08 kg
Minimum Section (thickness) 1 mm
Tolerance 0.4 mm
Batch Size 10

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 15
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

4.1 The Selection

The selection has four stages, shown in Figures 4–2 through 4–5. Figure 4-2 shows the first. It is a chart of
section thickness against material class. Only processes which can handle aluminum (selected on the x-axis) are
plotted. The selection box specifies processes which can produce a section thickness of about 1 mm. Most
casting processes are eliminated by this stage.

Figure 4-2. A chart of section thickness range against material class. The box isolates processes which can
shape light alloys and create 1 mm sections

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 16
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

Figure 4-3 shows the second selection stage: it is a bar-chart of mass range against shape class, selecting
'Sheet-dished-axisymmetric-deep-nonreentrant' from the shape class menu. A selection box for the cowling is
shown on it; the box brackets the mass of 0.08 kg. This stage identifies the processes which satisfy the second
set of design requirements. Those which pass include some sheet forming processes.

Figure 4-3. A chart of mass range against shape class. Processes capable of making dished-axisymmetric-deep
sheet shapes are plotted and the box specifies processes capable of making a mass of 0.08 kg.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 17
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

A third stage is required as shown in Figure 4-4. This is a chart of tolerance against process class. Primary
processes are selected; the selection box specifies a tolerance of 0.4 mm or better. This isolates the processes
which satisfy the tolerance requirement.

Figure 4-4. A chart of tolerance range against process class. The box isolates primary processes which can
produce tolerance levels of 0.4 mm or better.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 18
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

The previous stages isolated the processes which satisfy the design requirements for the cowling. It remains to
identify — from those — the ones which can produce the cowling cheaply. The appropriate chart (Figure 4-5) is
that of economic batch size against process class. Only processes which can produce discrete components are
plotted on the chart. The selection box specifies a batch size of 10. Processes which have passed all the
previous selection stages are labeled. The ones which would be economical for the desired batch size are listed
in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2. Processes for the aluminum cowling

Spinning

Figure 4-5. A chart of economic batch size against process class. The box isolates processes which can
economically produce the desired batch size

4.2 Conclusions and Postscript

Three processes are capable of making the aluminum cowling. Those are the labeled ones in Figure 4-5.
However, only spinning (which is the way the cowling is commercially made) can produce the desired batch
size economically. The small batch size means that processes requiring expensive tooling are not economic.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 19
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

5 Manifold Jacket
The component, shown in Figure 5-1 is a manifold jacket used in a space vehicle. It is to be made of nickel. It is
large — weighing about 7 kg — and has a 3D-hollow shape. The section thickness is 2–5 mm. The requirement
on precision is strict (precision = 0.1 mm). Because of its limited application, only 10 units are to be made.
Table 5-1 lists the requirements.

1
Figure 5-1. Manifold Jacket (source: Bralla )

Table 5-1. Manifold Jacket: design requirements

Material Class nonferrous metal
Process Class primary, discrete
Shape Class 3D-hollow-transverse features
Mass 7 kg
Minimum Section (thickness) 2 – 5 mm
Precision (Tolerance) 0.1 mm
Batch Size 10

1
Bralla, J. G. (1986), 'Handbook of Product Design for Manufacture', McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 20
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

5.1 The Selection

The application of the process selector to this problem is shown in Figures 5-2 to 5-5. The results are listed in
Table 5-2 on page 24. Figure 5-2 shows the first of the selection stages: a bar chart of mass range against
material class, choosing non-ferrous metal from the material class menu. The selection box is placed at a mass
in the range 5–10 kg. Many processes pass this stage, though, of course, all those which cannot deal with non-
ferrous metals have been eliminated.

Figure 5-2. A chart of mass range against material class. The box isolates processes which can shape non-
ferrous alloys and can handle the desired mass range.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 21
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

We next seek the subset of processes which can produce 3D-hollow shapes with transverse features and the
desired section thickness. '3D-hollow-transverse features' is selected as the shape class on the x-axis and
section range was chosen as the y-axis in Figure 5-3. The selection box specifies the requirement of a section
thickness in the range 2–5 mm. Again, many processes pass, though any which cannot produce the desired
shape has failed.

Figure 5-3. A chart of section thickness range against shape class. The chart identifies processes capable of
making 3D-hollow shapes having transverse features with sections in the range 2–5 mm.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 22
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

The next selection stage is shown in Figure 5-4. It is a bar chart of tolerance against process class selecting
'primary shaping processes' from the process class menu. The selection box specifies the tolerance
requirement of 0.1 mm or better. Very few processes can achieve this precision.

Figure 5-4. A chart of tolerance against process class. The box isolates primary processes which are capable of
tolerance levels of 0.1 mm or better.
The last selection stage (Figure 5-5) involves a consideration of the cost of manufacture. The selection box
specifies a batch size of 10 units. The processes which passed all the previous selection stages are labeled. The
ones which can produce the desired number of components most economically are listed in Table 5-2.

Figure 5-5. A chart of economic batch size against process class. The box isolates a batch size of 10 units.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 23
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 CES EduPack Case Studies: Process Selection

Table 5-2. Processes for the manifold jacket

3d ceramic-mold prototyping
Electroforming (large-scale)
Investment casting (manual)

5.2 Conclusions and Postscript

Electroforming and investment casting emerged as suitable candidates for making the manifold jacket. The
small number of units required for such a limited application as a space shuttle, does not justify the investment
in more expensive automated processes. A more detailed cost analysis is needed before a final decision is
made.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com page 24
© M.F. Ashby 2014
 Author
Professor Mike Ashby
University of Cambridge, Granta Design Ltd.
www.grantadesign.com
www.eng.cam.ac.uk

Reproduction
These case studies are Open Educational resources. You can
reproduce these resources in order to use them with students.
However they remain copyright Professor Mike Ashby and Granta
Design. Please make sure that Mike Ashby and Granta Design are
credited on any reproductions. You cannot use these resources for
any commercial purpose.

Accuracy
We try hard to make sure these resources are of a high quality. If
you have any suggestions for improvements, please contact us by
email at teachingresources@grantadesign.com.

Open Educational Resources include:

 Interactive Case Studies
 Getting Started Guides
 Materials Property Charts
 Engineering Data Booklets
You can register for a user name and password for these resources here:
http://teachingresources.grantadesign.com

Other Resources Available:

 25 PowerPoint lecture units
 Exercises with worked solutions
 Recorded webinars
 Posters
 White Papers
 Solution Manuals

© M. F. Ashby, 2014

Granta’s Teaching Resources website aims to support teaching of materials-related courses in Engineering, Science and Design.
The resources come in various formats and are aimed at different levels of student.
This resource is part of a set of resources created by Professor Mike Ashby and Granta design to help introduce materials and materials
selection to students.
The website also contains other resources donated by faculty at the 700+ universities and colleges worldwide using Granta’s CES EduPack.
The teaching resource website contains both resources that require the use of CES EduPack and those that don’t.

www.teachingresources.grantadesign.com