Quantitative Methods of Materials Selection

Initial screening of materials can be achieved by first classifying their

performance requirements into two main categories:
• Rigid, or go-no-go, requirements
• Soft, or relative, requirements
(Non-discriminating parameters & discriminating parameters)
Rigid requirements are those that must be met by the material if it is to be
considered at all. Such requirements can be used for the initial screening of
materials to eliminate the unsuitable groups:

For example, metallic materials are eliminated when selecting materials for an
electrical insulator.
If the insulator is to be flexible, the field is narrowed further as all ceramic
materials are eliminated.
Other examples could be - Corrosion resistance and machinability.

Any merit in exceeding the fixed value will not make up for deficiency in another
parameter.
Examples of manufacturing process rigid requirements include batch size,
production rate, product size and shape, tolerances, and surface finish.
 Compatibility between the manufacturing process and the material is also an
important screening parameter. For example, cast irons are not compatible with
sheet metal-forming processes.
Other examples of the material rigid requirements include behavior under
operating temperature, resistance to corrosive environment, ductility, electrical
and thermal conductivity or insulation, and transparency to light or other waves.
Non discriminating parameters are requirements that must be met if the material
is to be used at all- example availability or general level of ductility.

All these parameters do not permit comparison or quantitative

discrimination- quantitative values can be assigned
Soft, or relative, requirements ( or discriminating parameters) are those
that are subject to compromise and trade-offs. Examples of soft
requirements include mechanical properties, specific gravity, and cost.
Soft requirements can be compared in terms of their relative importance,
which depends on the application under study – thus quantitative values can
be assigned.
After narrow down of the field of possible candidate materials to those
that do not violate any of the rigid requirements, one should start searching
the material(s) that best meet the soft or relative requirements for best
selection.
There are three quantitative methods for the evaluation of different
solutions:

i) cost per unit property (CUP) method,

ii) weighted properties (WP) method,

iii) digital logic (DL) method.

Cost per Unit Property Method
The cost per unit property method is suitable for initial screening in applications
where one property stands out as the most critical service requirement. As an
example, consider the case of a bar of a given length (L) to support a tensile
force (F). The cross-sectional area (A) of the bar is given by

A = F/S
where S is the working stress of the material, which is related to its YS divided
by an appropriate factor of safety.
The cost of the bar (C′) is given by C’= C AL = C  FL/S ,where C is the cost
of the material per unit mass, ρ is the density of the material

Since F and L are constant for all materials, comparison can be based on the
cost of unit strength, which is the quantity (Cρ)/S. Materials with lower cost
per unit strength are preferable.
.
If an upper limit is set for the quantity (Cρ)/S, then materials satisfying this
condition can be identified and used as possible candidates for more detailed
analysis in the next stage of selection.
The working stress of the material in Equations above is related to the
static YS of the material since the applied load is static. If the applied
load is alternating, it is more appropriate to use the fatigue strength of
the material. Similarly, the creep strength should be used under loading
conditions that cause creep.

Equations similar to Equation above can be used to compare materials on the

basis of cost per unit stiffness when the important design criterion is the
deflection in the bar. In such cases, S is replaced by the elastic modulus of the
material, E. Equations can also be modified to allow comparison of different
materials under loading systems other than uniaxial tension.
 Formulas for estimating cost per unit property (Different loading condition)

S= allowable /working stress

The main limitation of the CUP method is that only one requirement
( property) is considered as the most critical service requirement.
Case Study 9.2: Selecting a Beam Material for Minimum Cost Problem

Consider a structural member in the form of a simply supported beam of rectangular

cross section. The length of the beam is 1 m (39.37 in.), the width is 100 mm (3.94
in.), and there is no restriction on the depth of the beam. The beam is subjected to a
concentrated load of 20 kN (4409 lb), which acts on its middle. The main design
requirement is that the beam should not suffer plastic deformation as a result of load
application. Use the information given in Table to select the least expensive material
for the beam.
Solution
Calculated using the expression
(Cρ)/S1/2

both the steels are suitable

Special features such as

lightweightedness
or corrosion – not mentioned

If the weight of the beam that can carry the load is calculated for different materials

AISI 1020>AISI 4140>Aluminium 6061> Epoxy glass

 Weighted Property Method
In the weighted property method, each material requirement, or property, is assigned
a certain weight, depending on its importance to the performance of the part in
service. A weighted property value is obtained by multiplying the numerical value
of the property by the weighting factor (α). The individual weighted property values
of each material are then summed to give a comparative material performance
index (γ). Materials with the higher performance index (γ) are considered more
suitable for the application.
Digital Logic Method
In the cases where numerous material properties are specified and the relative
importance of each property is not clear, determinations of the weighting
factors, α, can be largely intuitive, which reduces the reliability of selection.
The digital logic approach can be used as a systematic tool to determine α.
In this procedure, evaluations are arranged such that only two properties are
considered at a time. Every possible combination of properties or goals is
compared, and no shades of choice are required, only a yes or no decision for
each evaluation. To determine the relative importance of each property or goal,
a table is constructed, the properties or goals are listed in the left-hand
column, and comparisons are made in the columns to the right, as shown in Table.

When numerous materials properties are specified and relative importance

of each property is not clear, determination of weighting factors can largely
be sensitive which in turn will reduce the reliability of selection. DL approach can
solve this problem to find the weighting factors.
In comparing two properties or goals, the more important goal is given numerical
one (1) and the less important is given zero (0). The total number of possible
decisions N = n(n − 1)/2, where n is the number of properties or goals under
consideration.
A relative emphasis coefficient or weighting factor, α, for each goal is obtained by
dividing the number of positive decisions for each goal (m) by the total number of
possible decisions (N). In this case Σα = 1.
The weighting factor for each property, which is indicative of the importance of one
property as compared to others are obtained by dividing the numbers of positive
decisions given to each property by the total number of decisions as shown in Table .
Performance Index/ Weighted Property Index
In its simple form, the weighted property method has the drawback of having to
combine unlike units, which could yield irrational results. This is particularly true
when different mechanical, physical, and chemical properties with widely
different numerical values are combined. The property with higher numerical
value will have more influence than is warranted by its weighting factor. This
drawback is overcome by introducing scaling factors. Each property is so scaled
that its highest numerical value does not exceed 100. When evaluating a list of
candidate materials, one property is considered at a time. The best value in the
list is rated as 100 and the others are scaled proportionally. Introducing a
scaling factor facilitates the conversion of normal material property values to
scaled dimensionless values. For a given property, the scaled value, B, for a given
candidate material is equal to

For properties such as cost, corrosion or wear loss, and weight gain in oxidation, a
lower value is more desirable. In such cases, the lowest value is rated as 100 and B
is calculated as
 For material properties that can be represented by numerical values, application
of the procedure discussed is simple. However, with properties such as corrosion
and wear resistance, machinability and weldability, and esthetic quality, numerical
values are rarely given and materials are usually rated as very good, good, fair,
poor, etc. In such cases, the rating can be converted to numerical values using a
relative scale. For example, corrosion resistance ratings of excellent, very good,
good, fair, and poor can be given numerical values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively.

After scaling the different properties, the material performance index (γ) can be
calculated as

where i is summed over all the n relevant properties.

Cost (stock material, processing, finishing, etc.) can be considered as one of the
properties and then given the appropriate weighting factor. However, if there
are a large number of properties to consider, the importance of cost may be
emphasized by considering it separately as a modifier to the material
performance index (γ). In the cases where the material is used for space filling,
cost can be introduced on per unit volume basis. A figure of merit (M) for the
material can then be defined as
where
C is the total cost of the material per unit weight (stock, processing, finishing, etc.)
ρ is the density of the material.
The cost of material should be emphasized when there are a large
number of properties in the selection process which will lead to the
further modification of the performance index of the material.

Therefore, a figure of merit (FOM) for the material can then be

calculated using the following formula:

where C = total cost of material per unit mass;  = density of material.

Alternatively, figure of merit can be calculated based on cost of unit
strength (CUS) as we discussed. The FOM then become:

where, c´ is the relative cost of the material and it is defined as the

ratio of the price per unit mass of the material and low carbon steel.
When an important function of the material is to bear stresses, it may be more
appropriate to use the cost of unit strength instead of the cost per unit volume.
This is because higher strength will allow less material to be used to bear the load
and the cost of unit strength may be a better representative of the amount of
material actually used in making the part. In this case, Equation is rewritten as

where C′ is determined from Table 9.2 depending on the type of loading. This
argument may also hold in other cases where the material performs an important
function such as electrical conductivity or thermal insulation. In these cases, the
amount of the material and consequently the cost are directly affected by the
value of the property.

****When a large number of materials with a large number of specified

properties are being evaluated for selection, the weighted property method can
involve a large number of tedious and time-consuming calculations. In such cases,
the use of a computer would facilitate the selection process. The steps involved in
the weighted property method can be written in the form of a simple computer
program to select materials from a bank. The type of material information needed
for computer-assisted ranking of alternative solution is normally structured in the
form of databases of properties such as those published by ASM, as will be
described . An interactive program can also include the digital logic method to
help in determining the weighting factors.
 Selecting the Optimum Material for a Cryogenic Storage Tank
Problem
It is required to select the optimum material for a large cryogenic storage tank
to be used in transporting liquid nitrogen gas.
Analysis
An important rigid requirement for materials used in cryogenic applications is
that the material must not suffer ductile–brittle transition at the operating
temperature, which is about −196°C (−320.8°F) in this case. This rules out all
carbon and low alloy steels and other bcc materials, which suffer ductile–brittle
transformation at low temperatures. Fcc materials do not usually become unduly
brittle at low temperatures. Many plastics are also excluded on this basis.
Processability is another rigid requirement. As welding is normally used
in manufacturing metal tanks, good weldability becomes a rigid requirement.
Availability of materials in the required plate thickness and size is also another
screening factor.

As a first step, the performance requirements of the storage tank should be

translated into material requirements. In addition to having adequate
toughness at the operating temperature, the material should be sufficiently
strong and stiff. With a stronger material, thinner walls can be used, which
means a lighter tank and lower cool down losses.
 Thinner walls are also easier to weld. Lower specific gravity is also important as
the tank is used in transportation. Lower specific heat reduces cooldown losses,
lower thermal expansion coefficient reduces thermal stresses, and lower
thermal conductivity reduces heat losses. The cost of material and processing
will be used as a modifier to the material performance index, as given in
Equation

The digital logic method is used to determine the weighting factors. With seven
properties to evaluate, the total number of decisions = N(N − 1)/2 = 7(6)/2 = 21.
The different decisions are given in Table.

The weighting factor can be calculated by dividing the number of positive

decisions given to each property by the total number of decisions. The resulting
weighting factors are given in Table.
Toughness is given the highest weight followed by density. The least important
properties are Young’s modulus, thermal conductivity, and specific heat; other
properties are in between.
The properties of a sample of the candidate materials are listed in Table.
The YS and Young’s modulus correspond to room temperature that is conservative
as they generally increase with decreasing temperature
The next step in the weighted property method is to scale the properties given in
Table 9.7. For the present application, materials with higher mechanical
properties are more desirable, and highest values in toughness, YS, and Young’s
modulus are considered as 100. Other values in Table 9.7 are rated in proportion.
However, lower values of specific gravity, thermal expansion coefficient, thermal
conductivity, and specific heat are more desirable for this application.
Accordingly, the lowest values in the table were considered as 100 and other
values rated in proportion according to Equation 9.4. The scaled values are given in
Table 9.8. The table also gives the performance index that is calculated according
to Equation 9.5.
The performance index shows the technical capability of the material without
regard to the cost. In this case, stainless steels are the optimum materials. It
now remains to consider the cost aspects by calculating the figure of merit (M).
In the present case, it is more appropriate to use Equation 9.7 as the primary
function of the tank material is to bear stresses. The formula for a thin-walled
pressure vessel is given in Table 9.2 as where S is the YS.
The values of the relative cost, cost of unit strength, performance index, figure
of merit, M, and the ranking of the different materials are shown in Table 9.9.
The results show that full hard stainless steel grade 301 is the optimum material
followed by Al 2014-T6.
In the procedure discussed, the strength and density were considered twice:
once in calculating the performance index (γ) and another time in calculating the
cost of unit strength. This procedure may have overemphasized their effect on
the final selection. This could be justifiable in this case as higher strength and
lower density are advantageous from the technical and economic points of view.