112 Chapter 3 / Materials Selection

Example 3.1 Materials Selection: Rank-Ordered-Data Table Method

It is desired to select a material for a proposed design for the crankshaft to be used in a
new, compact, one-cylinder air compressor. The crankshaft is to be supported on two main
bearings that straddle the connecting rod bearing. A preliminary analysis has indicated that
the most probable failure modes of concern are fatigue, wear, and yielding. Projected pro-
duction rates are high enough so that cost is an important consideration. Select a tentative
material for this application.
Solution
Following the five-step process of 3.4, a specification statement is first formulated as follows:
The crankshaft for this application should be short, compact, relatively rigid, fatigue
resistant, wear resistant at the bearing sites, and capable of low cost production.
Using this specification statement as a basis, the “special needs” column of Table 3.1
may be filled in as shown in Table E3.1A.
Surveying these results, special needs have been identified for items 1, 6, 10, and 14.
For these special needs, Table 3.2 provides the corresponding performance evaluation in-
dices shown in Table E3.1B.
Materials data for these particular performance indices are given in Table 3.3, 3.9,
3.13, 3.18, and 3.19. Making a short list of candidate materials from each of these tables
results in the following array:

TABLE E3.1A Table 3.1 Adapted to Crankshaft Application

Crankshaft Application Requirement Special Need?
1. Strength/volume ratio Yes
2. Strength/weight ratio No
3. Strength at elevated temperature No
4. Long-term dimensional stability at elevated temperature No
5. Dimensional stability under temperature fluctuation No
6. Stiffness Yes
7. Ductility No
8. Ability to store energy elastically No
9. Ability to dissipate energy plastically No
10. Wear resistance Yes
11. Resistance to chemically reactive environment No
12. Resistance to nuclear radiation environment No
13. Desire to use specific manufacturing process No
14. Cost constraints Yes
15. Procurement time constraints No

7
For example, CMS (see ref. 3) and PERITUS (see ref. 4). CMS implements the Ashby chart selection
procedure discussed in 3.5, allowing successive application of up to six selection stages. PERITUS supports
the rank-ordered-data table method discussed in 3.4, with selection based on requesting “high,” “medium,” or
“low” values for pertinent properties.
8
See 1.10.
 Matching Responsive Materials to Application Requirements: Rank-Ordered-Data Table Method 113
TABLE E3.1B Performance Evaluation Indices for
Special Needs
Special Need Performance Evaluation Index
1. Strength/volume ratio Ultimate or yield strength
6. Stiffness Modulus of elasticity
10. Wear resistance Hardness
14. Cost constraints Cost/unit weight; machinability

For high-strength/volume (from Table 3.3):

Ultra-high-strength steel Medium-carbon steel
Stainless steel (age hardenable) Stainless steel (austenitic)
High-carbon steel Yellow brass
Graphite-epoxy composite Commercial bronze
Titanium Low-carbon steel
Ceramic Phosphor bronze
Nickel-based alloy Gray cast iron

For high stiffness (from Table 3.9):

Tungsten carbide Steel
Titanium carbide Stainless steel
Molybelenum Cast iron

For high hardness (from Table 3.13):

Diamond Case-hardened low-carbon steel
Sapphire Ultra-high-strength steel
Tungsten carbide Titanium
Titanium carbide Gray cast iron

For low material cost (from Table 3.18):

Gray cast iron Acrylic
Low-carbon steel Commercial bronze
Ultra-high-strength steel Stainless steel
Zinc alloy

For good machinability (from Table 3.19):

Magnesium alloy Medium-carbon steel
Aluminum alloy Ultra-high-strength steel
Free-machining steel Stainless-steel alloy
Low-carbon steel Gray cast iron
Surveying these five lists, the materials common to all the lists are:
Ultra-high-strength steel
Low-carbon steel (case hardened)
Gray cast iron
For these three candidate materials the specific data from Tables 3.3, 3.9, 3.13, 3,18
and 3.19 are summarized in Table E3.1C.
114 Chapter 3 / Materials Selection

Example 3.1 TABLE E3.1C Evaluation Data for Candidate Materials

Continues
Candidate Material
Ultra-High- Low-Carbon Steel Gray
Evaluation Index Strength Steel (case hardened) Cast Iron
Ultimate strength, Su, psi 287,000 61,000 50,000
Yield strength, Syp, psi 270,000 51,000 —
Modulus of elasticity, E, psi 30 * 106 30 * 106 13 -24 * 106
Hardness, BHN 560 650 262
Cost, dollars/lb 0.65 0.50 0.30
Machinability index 50 65 40

Because the specification statement emphasizes short and compact design, the signif-
icantly stronger ultra-high-strength steel is probably the best candidate material; however,
the case-hardened low-carbon steel is probably worth a more detailed investigation since
it has a higher surface hardness (better wear resistance), is cheaper, and is more easily ma-
chined prior to heat treatment. If compact design were not an issue, cast iron would prob-
ably be the best choice.
116 Chapter 3 / Materials Selection

Example 3.2 Materials Selection: Ashby Chart Method10

A preliminary design is being formulated for a solid cylindrical tension rod of diameter d
and fixed length L. The rod is to be used in a spacecraft application where weight, strength,
and stiffness are all important design considerations. It is to be subjected to a static axial
force, F. A safety factor of n d is desired. The preliminary design analysis has indicated that
the most probable failure modes are force-induced elastic deformation and yielding.
Further, engineering management has directed that ductile materials be used in this appli-
cation. Using the Ashby charts shown in Figures 3.1 through 3.6, select a tentative mate-
rial for this application.
10
This example adapted from ref. 3, courtesy of M. F. Ashby.
 Matching Responsive Materials to Application Requirements: Ashby Chart Method 117
TABLE E3.2A Table 3.1 Adapted to Spacecraft Tension Rod Application

Tension Rod Application Requirement Special Need?

1. Strength/volume ratio Maybe
2. Strength/weight ratio Yes
3. Strength at elevated temperature No
4. Long-term dimensional stability at elevated temperature No
5. Dimensional stability under temperature fluctuation No
6. Stiffness Yes
7. Ductility No
8. Ability to store energy elastically No
9. Ability to dissipate energy plastically No
10. Wear resistance No
11. Resistance to chemically reactive environment No
12. Resistance to nuclear radiation environment No
13. Desire to use specific manufacturing process No
14. Cost constraints No
15. Procurement time constraints No

Solution
Following the step-by-step procedure of 3.5, a specification statement may be formulated
as follows:
The tension rod for this application should be light, stiff, and strong.
Using this specification statement as a basis, the special needs column of Table 3.1
may be filled in as shown in Table E3.2A.
Surveying these results, special needs have been identified for items 1, 2, and 6. For
these special needs, Table 3.2 provides the corresponding performance evaluation indices
as shown in Table E3.2B.
The performance requirements of the tension rod may be described functionally by an
equation of the form11

application geometrical material

p = requirements, , requirements, , properties
J PA Q PG Q PM QK

TABLE E3.2B Performance Evaluation Indices for

Special Needs

Special Need Performance Evaluation Index

1. Strength/volume ratio Ultimate or yield strength
2. Strength/weight ratio Ultimate or yield strength/density
6. Stiffness Modulus of elasticity

11
See ref. 3, p. 58 ff. for a more complete description of this procedure.
12
Experience has shown that each of these parameter groups is usually independent of the others and therefore
mathematically “separable.”
118 Chapter 3 / Materials Selection

Example 3.2 For the tension rod under consideration, it will be assumed that the three groups of pa-
Continues rameters are separable12 and therefore the relation above may be reexpressed as

p = f1(A)f2(G)f3(M) (1)

Based on this, the optimum subset of materials for the tension rod can be identified
without solving the entire design problem.
Using the specification statement formulated above, the material selected should be
strong, stiff, and light. An expression for the mass of the rod may be written as m  AL
 (d2/4)L, where d is the rod diameter, L is the length of the rod, and  is the mass den-
sity of the material.
The diameter of the cross section must be large enough to carry the load F, without
yielding, and provide a design safety factor of nd. Therefore F/A  Syp/nd. Combining this
with the expression for mass, where A  m/L results in

r
m = (n dF )(L)a b (2)
Syp

It is interesting to note that this expression has the “separable function” format out-
lined in (1) and that the material-based performance index for this case is, therefore f3(M)
 Syp/nd.
A similar expression may be developed based on the need for the rod to be stiff
enough to safety carry the load without excessive elastic deformation and to provide a
safety factor nd . Since the diameter of the rod must be large enough to carry the load, F,
without exceeding the critical elastic deformation, ( L)crit , and provide a design safety
factor nd,

F (¢L)crit
= Ee = Ea b
A nd L

where E is Young’s modulus of elasticity and e is the axial strain. Substituting A  m/L
into this expression results in

(nd F) A L2 B r
m = a b
(¢L)crit E

Like (2), this expression has the function format of (1), so the materials-based per-
formance index for this case is f 3(M)  E/. Materials data for the performance parame-
ters f3(M ) and f 3(M) correspond to the Ashby charts of Figures 3.1 and 3.2. These charts
are reproduced again in Figures E3.2A and E3.2B, where each chart has been marked up
to isolate a small region that contains materials having a good combination of properties
for meeting the pertinent performance-parameter requirements.
Since performance parameters f3(M) and f 3(M) are both degree 1, a line constructed
parallel to the dashed lines having a slope of 1 will be used for narrowing the charts rela-
tively small number of candidate materials.
Material candidates common to both lists include:

Steel Titanium Aluminum

Ceramics Composites

Because Engineering management has directed that ductile materials be used for this
application, ceramics are dropped from this list.
 Matching Responsive Materials to Application Requirements: Ashby Chart Method 119
1000
1. MODULUS-DENSITY
DIAMOND WC-Co
YOUNGS MODULUS E
SiC Si3N4 ENGINEERING
(G = 3E/8; K = E)
CERAMICS
B
Be ALUMINAS
Si W-ALLOYS
SIALONS ZrO2 Mo ALLOYS
BeO
CFRP STEELS Ni ALLOYS
SEARCH UNIPLY Ge Cu ALLOYS
100 POTTERY
REGION Ti ALLOYS
Zn ALLOYS
KFRP Al ALLOYS
GFRP GLASSES
CFRP TIN
ROCK, STONE ALLOYS
1/2 ENGINEERING LAMINATES CEMENT, CONCRETE
E
 (m/s) COMPOSITES GFRP LEAD
KFRP ALLOYS
POROUS
104 ASH Mg
OAK CERAMICS
ALLOYS
10 FIR PINE ENGINEERING
Youngs modulus, E (GPa)

PARALLEL MEL ALLOYS

TO GRAIN PC
BALSA PS EPOXIES
WOOD
PRODUCTS PMMA
PVC
WOODS NYLON
3  103 ENGINEERING
PP
ASH POLYMERS
1.0 OAK POLYESTERS
PINE
HDPE
Lower E limit FIR
for true solids PTFE E Guide lines for
PERPENDICULAR
LDPE  =C minimum weight
TO GRAIN
SPRUCE design
BALSA
PLASTICISED
PVC
103
0.1 POLYMERS
FOAMS
E 1/3
3  102 HARD PU
E 1/2  =C
BUTYL
 =C

ELASTOMERS
CORK
SILICONE
SOFT
BUTYL
0.01
0.1 0.3 1.0 3 10 30
Density,  (Mg/m3)

Figure E3.2A
Reproduction of Figure 3.1 showing an acceptable subset of engineering alloys for the tension rod application.

Surveying Figure E3.2A, the group of better material candidates includes:

Steel Aluminum
Titanium Ceramics
Molybdenum Composites
Tungsten
120 Chapter 3 / Materials Selection

Example 3.2
Continues

10,000
SiC DIAMOND
2. STRENGTH-DENSITY Si3N4
Metal and polymers: yield strength ENGINEERING SIALONS
ZrO2 ENGINEERING
Ceramics and glasses: compressive strength CERAMICS ALLOYS
Elastomers: tensile tear strength B CERMETS
Composites: tensile failure Al2O3
Si Ge
GLASSES MgO

UNIPLY CFRP STEELS

GFRP
1000
KFRP
ENGINEERING CFRP POTTERY W ALLOYS
Ti
COMPOSITES Be ALLOYS Mo
GFRP ALLOYS
LAMINATES CAST
SEARCH IRONS
REGION KFRP Ni ALLOYS
Mg Al ALLOYS
ALLOYS Cu ALLOYS
STONE,
NYLONS ROCK
ASH Zn
100 OAK PMMA ALLOYS
PINE PP
FIR ENGINEERING
Strength, S (MPa)

MEL
PARALLEL ALLOYS
PVC
TO GRAIN WOOD PS
EPOXIES LEAD
PRODUCTS
BALSA POLYESTERS ALLOYS
PTFE
WOODS OAKASH
PERPENDICULAR HDPE POROUS
PINE CEMENT,
TO GRAIN FIR CERAMICS
PU CONCRETE
10
LDPE ENGINEERING
POLYMERS
BALSA SOFT Guide lines for
SILICONE
BUTYL minimum weight
ELASTOMERS design

POLYMERS
FOAMS
CORK
1

S S 2/3 S 1/2
=C
 =C 
=C 

0.1
0.1 0.3 1.0 3 10 30
Density,  (Mg/m3)

Figure E3.2B
Reproduction of Figure 3.2 showing an acceptable subset of engineering alloys for the tension rod application.

Similarly, from Figure E3.2B, the group of better material candidates includes:
Cermets Aluminum
Steel Ceramics
Nickel Composites
Titanium