Jornadas SAM - CONAMET - AAS 2001, Septiembre de 2001 1263-1272

1263
SELECTION METHODOLOGIES OF MATERIALS AND MANUFAC-
TURING PROCESS: GUIDELINES AND CASE STUDIES
S.F. Santos, M. Ferrante
Departamento de Engenharia de Materiais, Universidade Federal de So Carlos, 13565-905,
So Carlos - SP, Brasil.
ABSTRACT
The present work discusses some principles of materials selection and examines the dif-
ferent selection criteria and contexts in which this technical activity takes place. Emphasis is
given to the concept of Figures of Merit, and to the methodology employed for its deduction.
The Materials Properties Maps and their integration with the Figures of Merit are introduced
and illustrated by the first of the two case studies here presented whilst the second associates
the methodology of materials selection to process selection, emphasizing the latter issue.
Key words
Materials selection, process selection, materials properties.
INTRODUCTION
Materials selection (MS) is a multidisciplinary activity, which cuts across a large num-
ber of professional expertise. As a consequence, it draws together people with different back-
grounds ranging from the essentially technical to the non-technical, such as marketing for
instance [1].
Motivations for MS can be either the realization of a completely new product or, more
frequently, the substitution of an existing material. In the latter case, better performance and
cost reduction can be the main driving forces for the process, but malfunction, weight reduc-
tion, feasibility of recycling and processability, are also frequent motivations. Taking weight
reduction, for instance, its importance makes of it one of the main targets for design im-
provements and MS, particularly in the automotive industry [2].
Generally any MS event must consider a large number of materials candidates and pre-
mature exclusions have to be avoided. Also, when facing a MS problem, engineers are nor-
mally asked to choose a solution which fulfils more than one objective, that is, not only lower
weight, but (for instance) low cost, good fatigue resistance and better fabricability, as well.
From this two aspects, four main principles have to be followed in order to guarantee the suc-
cess of the MS task.
Adoption of the so called compromise philosophy. It will deal with the fact that there is
no ideal material and that properties have to be combined and optimized. For instance,
often high mechanical strength must side with low fracture toughness.
At the early stages of any selection process a macroscopic approach must be adopted,
mainly in order of not to miss any opportunity. Along the way, new restrictions and ad-
ditional criteria will be applied to the initial group of candidates, restricting it further and
further until the final choice is made.
Interaction of material selection with process selection (PS)
S. F. Santos, M. Ferrante
1264
Adoption of some method of formalization procedure in order to tackle multiple objec-
tives.
The two last mentioned principles are the themes of the present paper and will be devel-
oped using two case studies.
FIGURES OF MERIT AND MATERIALS PROPERTIES MAPS
1. Figures of Merit (FM)
This is one of the most important concepts of MS. It is an algebraic formula expressing
a compromise between two characteristics or properties. In its simplest form a FM, also called
Merit Index (MI), is the property itself, (or the inverse of it), but in most cases a FM is written
as a fraction, where the numerator is the quantity one wishes to maximize and the denomina-
tor the quantity to be minimized.
For instance, taking strength as the design criteria and low weight as the critical MS re-
quirement, the resulting FM is [/] and the most suitable candidate material is the one in
which that ratio is maximized. Alternatively, if two properties have to be maximized, then the
FM is expressed by their product; thus, for each case it is possible to identify or deduce one
(or more) suitable FM. This search is quite simple in some cases, for instance, minimum sec-
tion in a stiffness-limited project is simply equal to E, the Young modulus. In other cases it
has to be deduced, and a general procedure is given below.
Identify the working function of the product or component (what does it do? - supports a
load, transmits heat, damps vibrations?).
State the main objective of the selection; for instance weight reduction, minimum section,
maximum heat storage, etc., and write its corresponding equation.
Write a restriction equation. This relates the product performance to the properties which
control it. The product working function determines the form of this equation, viz. for a
beam it will be the flexure equation.
Identify the free variable, of which a working definition could be: "the one which must be
changed, when service conditions change but the performance must be left unchanged"
For instance, the load applied to a beam is changed but the deflection must not: in this
case one of the dimensions must be modified, usually the most sensitive of the cross sec-
tion. Table 2 illustrates the four steps above described for a number of situations
Once found, the free variable must be eliminated between the objective and the restriction
equations. Thus the former will be expressed in terms of working conditions (forces, for in-
stance) geometric parameters (e.g. cross section dimensions and material parameters (proper-
ties). Rearranging all these parameters according to their nature, a final expression is ob-
tained:
Objective = F x G x [M] (1)
and the parameter or group of parameters in square brackets is the FM.
Jornadas SAM - CONAMET - AAS 2001
1265
2. Materials Properties Maps
As for the properties, they can be looked up in a data
bank, a handbook, or similar. But in order to be able to properly adopt the macroscopic view
earlier mentioned, a graphic form would be preferable.
Table 2. Relations among function, restriction equation and free variable, for
different parts / components.
Part/Component Restriction
equation
Free
variable
Observations
Tie bar (traction)
= F / A A (or r)
If one changes the force main-
taining the same material, that
is, ( = const.), the cross section
must be changed in order to
maintain the same performance
F
plate
= F L
3
/ C E I
thickness h
Same observation. It must be re-
called that in this particular case
performance means "same deflec-
tion under the same force and for
the same dimensions" - except of
course for the free variable (h)
T
1 p t
T
2
pipe, radius r
= p (r / t)
t
(wall
thickness)
Heat exchanger pipe. Temperature
and pressure differences across
the pipe wall
The representation can be substantially improved, and above all, integrated with the MI
concept, if the X and Y co-ordinates are identified with materials properties. This is the base
of the Materials Properties Maps (MPMs) which were developed by M.F. Ashby and consti-
tute one of the most powerful tools for MS [3] Recently, the MPMs were integrated with a
number of databases forming the CES3 software [4].
Case Study N
o
1: Material selection - agricultural implement
Product: support of fertilizer sprayers , as figure 1 shows.
Selection motivation: material substitution (low carbon steel pipe).
Batch number: 50 pairs.
Objectives: low weight, controlled deflection, low cost.
Candidate materials: aluminium alloy 2024T4, GFRP (55% fiber in polyester matrix), CFRP
(55% fiber in polyester matrix).
S. F. Santos, M. Ferrante
1266
Figure 1: Schematic representation of the agricultural implement
Deduction of the figure of merit: the system can be simplified to a cantilever (with cylindrical
hollow shape) under uniform load. Bending stress and deflection are mainly due to the own
weight. Figure 2 is a scheme of the load / deflection due to the bending stresses acting on the
beam.
Figure 2: Schematic representation of the load and deflection
of a cantilever beam under uniform load.
Objective equation:
t r L V m (2)
where V is volume, the material's density, r the pipe radius and t the thickness.
Restriction Equation:
I E
L W
Y

8
4
max
(3)
where W is the distributed load, L the length, E the Young's modulus and I the moment of
inertia. Substituting I in the above equation we have:
t r E
L W
Y
o

3
4
max
2
(4)
The free variable is t, and eliminating it between the equations 2 and 4, results:
]
]
]
]

J
J
J
`
'
'
(
|

3
1
3
1
max
2 4
2
E
Y
t L W
m

(5)
Jornadas SAM - CONAMET - AAS 2001
1267
Where the Figure of Merit is
]
]
]
]

3
1
E
.
Figure 3 is a MPM (E versus ) on which a straight line, with slope 3, was superimposed.
This line represents
]
]
]
]

3
1
E
.
Figure 3: MPM (E versus ).
Table 3 summarizes the relevant properties and the performance of the candidate ma-
terials.
Table 3: Properties and performance of selected materials.
Materials

(Mg/m
3
)
E
(GPa)
E
1/3
/ Cost
(US$/kg)
Mass
(kg)
Product
Cost
(US$/unit)
Maximum
deflection
(mm)
CFRP 1.5 100 3.1 16.50 7.07 116.55 4.5
GFRP 1.8 30 1.7 3.60 8.48 30.53 18
Al alloy 2.8 73 1.5 3.40 13.2 44.88 11.5
Carbon
Steel
7.8 210 0.76 1.00 36.8 36.8 11.18
From the above data, we can carry out the formalization procedure for case study. For
this purpose, it will be used the Pahl & Beitz decision matrix [5], briefly described below:
i) A list of criteria is generated and each criteria is weighted numerically such that the sum of
all weighting factors equals 1;
ii) an "objective tree" is constructed by assigning weighting factors (see figure 4). The first
level represents a simple statement describing the component to be designed and has an entry
value of 1. The second level is a list of the most basic requirements, the third level is a re-
finement of the requirements of the second level and so on. The sum of the weighting factors
of the third level is equal to the weighting factor of the second level item from which they
were derived. The sum of the items of each level is equal to 1.
S. F. Santos, M. Ferrante
1268
Figure 4: "Objective tree" of the sprayers support.
iii) A matrix of alternatives and criteria is constructed, supposing there are k alternatives and n
criteria. The matrix is completed by assigning a value to each criterion for each alternative:
Table 4: values and meanings.
Value () Meaning
0 Unsatisfactory
1 Just tolerable
2 Adequate
3 Good
4 Very good
iv) The number of materials to assign is (k).(n). Each value may be represented by
ij
. Once
all values are assigned, the (k).(n) weighted values (w)
ij
are computed by multiplying each
value
ij
by the associated criteria weighting factor w
j
. Summing all weighted values for alter-
native i produces the overall weighted value (OWV
i
);
v) OWV
i
is the raw score for a given alternative. It is customary to normalize overall
weighted values to 1 by dividing them by the product of the maximum value
max
and the sum
of the weighting factors. The formula of this weighted rating, WR
i
, also known as the
weighted property index, is:
( )

n
j
j
n
j
ij j
i
w
w
WR
1
max
1

(6)
where normally

n
j
j
w
1
1.
Table 5 shows the results of the Pahl & Beitz formalization procedure applied to the
present case study. The largest weighted rating WR
i
was achieved by CFRP followed by
GFRP, Al alloy and carbon steel. These results must be considered carefully, by remembering
that the weighting factors were arbitrarily assigned; indeed, the precise assignment of the
Jornadas SAM - CONAMET - AAS 2001
1269
weighting factors is quite complex. The manufacturing process also includes a number of
constrains to the materials selection procedure; nevertheless, a decision matrix is always a
very useful tool to formalize the materials selection procedure.
Table 5: Results of the Pahl &Beitz method applied to the sprayer support.
Criteria Low weight Low cost Low deflec-
tion
Figure of
merit
WR
i
w
11
= 0.25 w
12
= 0.25 w
13
= 0.5 w
14
= 0.5

11
= 2
12
= 2
13
= 3
14
= 2
Al alloy
w
11
= 0.5 w
12
= 0.50 w
13
= 1.5 w
14
= 1.0
0.875
w
21
= 0.25 w
22
= 0.25 w
23
= 0.5 w
24
= 0.5

21
= 3
22
= 4
23
= 2
24
= 3
GFRP
w
21
=0.75 w
22
=1.0 w
23
= 1.0 w
24
=1.5
1.0625
w
31
= 0.25 w
32
= 0.25 w
33
= 0.5 w
34
= 0.5

31
= 4
32
= 0
33
= 4
34
= 4
CFRP
w
31
= 1 w
32
=0 w
33
=2 w
34
=2
1.25
w
41
= 0.25 w
42
= 0.25 w
43
= 0.5 w
44
= 0.5

41
= 1
42
= 3
43
= 3
44
= 1
Carbon steel
w
41
=0.25 w
42
=0.75 w
43
=1.5 w
44
=0.5
0.75
Case Study N
o
2. Process selection and material selection - brake cylinder
Product: brake cylinder - grey cast iron (SAE J431),
Selection motivation: material substitution.
Batch number: 10.000 parts
Objectives: minimum weight, good surface finish, near-net-shape characteristics, low cost
Candidate materials: aluminium alloy (A356), microalloyed steel (ASTM A487)
Deduction of the figure of merit: the system can be simplified to a cylinder with radius R,
lateral surface area A
s
, wall thickness t, having an internal pressure P. Therefore:
Objective equation:
t A m
s
(7)
Restriction equation:
t
R P

1
(8)
where
1
is the hoop stress. The free variable is t, and eliminating it between the above equa-
tions, results:
]
]
]

R A P m
S
(9)
S. F. Santos, M. Ferrante
1270
where
]
]
]

is the figure o merit.

Table 6 presents the FM, relative weight and cost of the component constructed with
the selected materials.
Table 6: Relevant properties of the component constructed with the candidate materials
Cast iron Alloy Steel Aluminium Alloy
[/] 30 47 70
Relative weight* 1 0.65 0.40
Relative part cost 1 1.20 1.06
(*) For equal strength
The aluminium alloy meets the objective (it can be assumed that the higher cost is offset
by the benefit of lower weight). Next step is PS and the following options will be considered:
Permanent mould
Semi-solid casting (tixocasting)
Forging
Product specifications are as follows:
Weight (max): 2.5 kg; Tolerance: 10 mm/m; Surface finish: 3 m; Wall thickness:
4.0mm.
Table 7 presents the correlation between process (permanent mold casting, tixocasting
and forging), product specifications and materials properties.
Analyzing the data it can be concluded that tixocasting is the more convenient process.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
MS is a technical activity that bridges a number of engineering areas but it also relates
to non-technical issues. The methodology here presented is due to M.F. Ashby and although
originally conceived as an educational tool, it can be safely applied to real situations. The use
of the MPM embodies the so called macroscopic approach and integrates the FM into the se-
lection process. The solution of the two case studies here presented follow the Ashby ap-
proach and are representative of a typical MS process. In the former case it was shown how to
deal with situations in which multiple selection criteria are present. The problem was solved
by making use of a corresponding number of weighting factors and by applying the Pahl and
Beitz decision matrix. The second case study dealt with a combination of MS and PS, empha-
sizing the latter problem. This example could have been made more complex by introducing
additional problems, such as the effect that different manufacturing processes have on the
material properties, fabricability differences among materials and so on. Therefore, although
it can be considered that nowadays MS counts with a relatively satisfactory methodology,
there is still a lot of scope for PS improvement.
Jornadas SAM - CONAMET - AAS 2001
1271
Table 7. Correlation of Processes, Product Specification and Properties
PROCESS Permanent
mould
Tixocasting Forging
Part weight
(kg)
4
3
2
1
0.5
Tolerance
(mm/m)
15
10
2
Surface roughness
( m)
12
8
4
2
1
Wall thickness
(mm)
9
6
3
Machining steps* 18 5 18
Leak rate
(%)
2
1
0
Batch size
(x 10
3
)
20
10
5
PROCESS Permanent
Mould
Tixocasting Forging
(*) Reference [5].
Property range process capability for the corresponding property
Product specification
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Mr. F.J.X. de Carvalho for permission to publish case
study N
o
1 (agricultural implement).
REFERENCES
1. M. Ferrante; S.F. Santos; J.F.R. de Castro. Materials Selection as an interdisciplinary
technical activity: basic methodology and case studies, Materials Research, 3, no.2, 1-9,
2000.
S. F. Santos, M. Ferrante
1272
2. N.A. Gjosten; The next generation of vehicles - a materials challenge, American Institute
of Physics Corporate meeting, October 1995, pg 1.
3. M.F. Ashby, On the engineering properties of materials, Acta Metall, 37, 1273-1293,
1989.
4. Cambridge Engineering Selector, Version 3, Granta Design Ltd., 2000.
5. Pahl, G., Beitz, W.; Engineering Design; a systematic approach, Springer-verlag, 1993.
6. W.L. Winterbottom; Semi-solid forming applications: high volume automotive products,
Metallurgical Science and Technology, 18 (2) 5 - 10, 2001.