A novel method for materials selection in mechanical

design: Combination of non-linear normalization and a

modied digital logic method
B. Dehghan-Manshadi
a
, H. Mahmudi
b
, A. Abedian
a
, R. Mahmudi
c,
*
a
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
c
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11365-4563, Tehran, Iran
Received 30 March 2005; accepted 29 June 2005
Available online 15 August 2005
Abstract
In this investigation, a novel numerical method is proposed for materials selection. This method is based on the well known
weighting factor approach while combining non-linear normalization with a modied digital logic method. The proposed mathemat-
ical functions and their applicability to the materials selection process is veried by examining two case studies in mechanical design
and comparing the results with those obtained from the classical weighted property method. It is concluded that the new approach is
capable of providing more reasonable selections as opposed to those obtained from the existing method.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Selection for material properties (H); Weighting factors (H); Performance indices (H)
1. Introduction
In general, in the area of decision making trusting the
intuition is more common than using any kind of
numerical approach. However, in those areas such as
materials selection in which there are numerous dierent
choices and many various criteria inuencing the selec-
tion, a more precise approach would be required. In
the manufacture of mechanical parts, a knowledge of
materials properties, cost, design concepts and their
interactions is required. The large number of available
materials, together with the complex relationships be-
tween the various selection parameters, often make the
selection process a dicult task. When selecting materi-
als, a large number of factors should be taken into ac-
count. These factors range from mechanical, electrical
and physical properties to corrosion resistance and eco-
nomic considerations. In mechanical design, however,
mechanical properties are of prime concern. The most
important material properties usually encountered in
materials selection processes are strength, stiness,
toughness, hardness, density and creep resistance.
Perhaps the rst step in the material selection se-
quence is to specify the performance requirements of
the component and to broadly outline the main materi-
als characteristics and processing requirements [1].
Accordingly, certain classes of materials may be elimi-
nated and others chosen as probable candidates for
making the component. The relevant material properties
are then identied and ranked in order of importance.
Optimization techniques may then be used to select
the optimal material. Several quantitative selection pro-
cedures have been developed to analyze the large
amount of data involved in the selection process so
that a systematic evaluation can be made. Ashby [2]
0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2005.06.023
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 8012999; fax: +98 21 8006076.
E-mail address: mahmudi@ut.ac.ir (R. Mahmudi).
www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes
Materials and Design 28 (2007) 815
Materials
& Design
introduced materials selection charts which allows the
identication, from among the full range of available
materials, the subset most likely to perform best in a gi-
ven application. He has also used a multi-objective opti-
mization method to compromise between several
conicting objectives in materials selection [3]. In this
approach, trade-o allows the identication of an opti-
mal trade-o surface on which the best choices lie. More
recently, he has reviewed the selection strategies for
materials and processes proposing four basic steps of
translating design requirements, screening, ranking and
nally searching for supporting information about
proper candidate materials [4].
A number of knowledge-based and intelligent data
base systems has also been developed for materials selec-
tion in mechanical design. These systems are suitable
tools for searching and not for calculations. They nd
a solution that is already stored in the data base by fast
retrieval of the stored data [57]. Another approach to
materials selection problems is the weighted properties
method (WPM) which is used when several properties
should be taken into consideration. This numerical
method ranks the candidate materials on the basis of
their performance indices, calculated from simple math-
ematics [1].
In the present investigation, a new numerical method
is proposed to select materials for mechanical design.
This method, which is based on the WPM, uses a new
digital logic (DL) together with a non-linear approach
for scaling the properties. The capabilities of this meth-
od are discussed and compared with those of the WPM
for two example problems in mechanical design.
2. Selection methods
2.1. The existing WPM
In the well known WPM, each material property is
assigned a certain weight, depending on its importance.
A weighted property value is obtained by multiplying
the scaled value of the property by the weighting factor
(a). The individual weighted property values of each
material are then summed to give a comparative materi-
als performance index (c). The material with the highest
performance index (c) is considered as the optimum for
the application. In the cases where numerous material
properties are specied and the relative importance of
each property is not clear, determinations of the weight-
ing factors (a) can be largely intuitive, which reduces the
reliability of selection. This problem can be solved by
adopting a systematic approach to the determination
of a.
Using the DL approach, evaluations are arranged
such that only two properties are considered at a time.
Every possible combination of properties or perfor-
mance goals is compared and no shades of choice are re-
quired, 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 1.
In comparing two properties or performance goals,
the more important goal is given numerical one (1)
and the less important is given zero (0). The total num-
ber of possible decisions is N = n(n 1)/2, where n is the
number of properties or goals under consideration. A
relative emphasis coecient or weighting factor, a, for
each goal is obtained by dividing the number of positive
decisions for each goal into the total number of possible
decisions (N). In this case

a 1. For scaling candi-
date material properties each property is scaled so 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 scaled proportionally. For a given
property, the scaled value (Y) for a given candidate
material is equal to
Y
numerical value of property
maximum value in the list
100. 1
For properties like cost, corrosion or wear loss, weight
gain in oxidation, density, etc., a lower value is more
desirable. In such cases, the lowest value is rated as
100 and Y is calculated as
Y
minimum value in the list
numerical value of property
100. 2
Table 1
Determination of relative importance of performance goals using the DL method [1]
Goals Number of possible decisions [N = n(n 1)/2] Positive decisions Relative emphasis coecient (a)
*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 1 0 1 3 0.3
B 0 1 0 1 2 0.2
C 0 0 1 0 1 0.1
D 1 1 0 0 2 0.2
E 0 0 1 1 2 0.2
*
a
positive desicions
N
.
B. Dehghan-Manshadi et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 815 9
For material properties that can be represented by
numerical values, application of the above procedure
is simple. However, with properties like corrosion and
wear resistance, machinability and weldability, etc.,
numerical values are rarely given and materials are usu-
ally rated as very good, good, fair, poor, etc. In such
cases, the rating can be converted to numerical values
using an arbitrary scale. For example, a corrosion resis-
tance rating of excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor
can be given numerical values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respec-
tively. Then, the material performance index is
c

n
i1
Y
i
a
i
; 3
where i is summed over all the n relevant properties.
2.2. The proposed method
2.2.1. Modication of the digital logic approach
There exist some disadvantages in both digital logic
and the scaling procedure of the previous method. In
the DL method, the least important goal or property
is given zero (0) in all comparisons; therefore, the posi-
tive decisions for such a goal and its relevant weighting
factor, a, would be zero (0). This implies that this prop-
erty will be expelled from the material selection process
and does not play any role in the selection process. In
the method suggested here, however, we assign a value
of one (1) to the less important property and three (3)
to the more important one, when two properties are
considered at a time (Table 2). By doing this, the least
important property still remains in the selection list. An-
other striking advantage of the method is that two prop-
erties with equal importance can have equal numerical
values of two (2). This is not possible in the original
DL method, which assigns either zero (0) or one (1) to
any pair of properties.
2.2.2. Non-linear normalization
In any selection method which uses weighting of
properties, the ranking is based on the performance indi-
ces calculated from scaling candidate material proper-
ties. For the WPM, the scaling or normalization is
done by means of a linear function which yields scaled
properties (Y) between 0 and 100. In the proposed meth-
od, however, two dierent non-linear functions are sug-
gested for the normalization purpose
Y a
1
lnb
1
X c
1
; 4
Y a
2
ln
b
2
X
c
2

; 5
where Y is the scaled property, X is the numerical value
of property and a
1
, a
2
, b
1
, b
2
, c
1
and c
2
are constants. Eq.
(4) is for those properties for which a higher value is
desirable while, Eq. (5) is proposed for properties for
which a lower value is of prime concern.
The main task in the new method is the determination
of the constants a
1
, a
2
, b
1
, b
2
, c
1
and c
2
. For Eq. (4), this
should be done using boundary conditions of Y = 100
at X = 0 and Y = +100 at X = X
max
. This equation is
plotted in Fig. 1. As it can be observed, another bound-
ary condition is needed to obtain the constants in Eq.
(4). This is related to the intersection of the curve with
the X axis, parameter X
c
, which enables the designer
to assign a critical value to the property less than which,
the scaled property becomes negative and thus the per-
formance index is reduced. Therefore, the third bound-
Table 2
Determination of relative importance of performance goals in the proposed method
Goals Number of possible decisions [N = n(n 1)/2] Positive decisions Relative emphasis coecient (a)
*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 3 3 3 2 11 0.275
B 1 1 1 1 4 0.100
C 1 3 2 1 7 0.175
D 1 3 2 1 7 0.175
E 2 3 3 3 11 0.275
*
a
positive desicions
N
; N
0
2nn 1.
Fig. 1. A schematic representation of non-linear normalization func-
tions for those properties for which a higher value is desirable.
10 B. Dehghan-Manshadi et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 815
ary condition would be Y = 0 at X = X
c
. Solving the
three mentioned conditions, the constants are obtained
as follows:
a
1

100
ln
Xc
X
max
X
c
; 6
b
1

X
max
2X
c
X
c
X
max
X
c

; 7
c
1

X
c
X
max
X
c
. 8
According to the proposed equation, the scaled property
function is indeterminate at X = X
max
/2. To evaluate the
determinate form of the function, the LHopitals rule is
used. The obtained function would be of the following
form:
Y
200X
X
max
100. 9
The nal relationships for this case are then
Y a
1
lnb
1
X c
1
for X
c
6 X
max
=2;
Y
200X
Xmax
100 for X
c
X
max
=2.

10
A similar approach can be followed for the properties
for which a lower value is desirable. Eq. (5) is schemat-
ically plotted in Fig. 2. Again, the boundary conditions
are Y = +100 at X = X
min
and Y = 100 at X !+1.
The critical value for the intended property is X = X
c
at Y = 0. The three needed constants are calculated as:
a
2

100
ln
X
min
X
min
Xc
; 11
b
2

X
2
c
2X
min
X
c
X
min
X
c
; 12
c
2

X
min
X
min
X
c
. 13
Similar to the previous case, the same procedure should
be followed to obtain the determinate form of the scaled
property function at X = 2X
min
Y
200X
min
X
100. 14
The nal relationships for this case are then
Y a
2
ln
b
2
X
c
2

for X
c
6 2X
min
;
Y
200X
min
X
100 for X
c
2X
min
.

15
Substituting the corresponding constants into Eqs. (10)
and (15) would enable the designer to calculate the
scaled properties and consequently the performance
indices for the ranking of candidate materials.
3. Verication of selection methods
The existing WPM and the proposed method can be
applied to some known examples in mechanical design
and the results could be compared with each other.
Accordingly, two case studies: (i) the cryogenic storage
tank for transportation of liquid nitrogen and (ii) the
spar for the wing structure of a Human-Powered Air-
craft (HPA) are considered.
3.1. Cryogenic storage tank for transportation of liquid
nitrogen
As a rst step, the performance requirements of the
storage tank should be translated into material require-
ments. In addition to having good weldability and pro-
cessability, lower density and specic heat, smaller
thermal expansion coecient and thermal conductivity,
and adequate toughness at the operating temperature,
the material should be suciently strong and sti. With
seven properties to evaluate, the total number of deci-
sions would be 21. Based on the DL and the modied
DL methods, dierent decisions are made, as shown in
Tables 3 and 4. The weighting factors can thus be calcu-
lated using the relationships given in Tables 1 and 2. The
resulting weighting factors are also given in Tables 3 and
4. As can be seen, toughness is given the highest weight
followed by density. The least important properties are
thermal conductivity, and specic heat; other properties
are in between.
The properties of a sample of the candidate materials
are listed in Table 5. The next step in the weighted prop-
erties method is to scale the properties given in Table 5.
For the present application, materials with higher
mechanical properties are more desirable and highest
values in toughness, yield strength, and Youngs modu-
lus are considered as 100. Other values in Table 5 are
rated in proportion. On the other hand, lower values
of specic gravity, thermal conductivity, thermal expan-
Fig. 2. A schematic representation of non-linear normalization func-
tions for those properties for which a lower value is desirable.
B. Dehghan-Manshadi et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 815 11
sion coecient, and specic heat are more desirable for
this application. Accordingly, the lowest values in the ta-
ble were considered as 100 and other values rated in pro-
portion according to Eq. (2). The performance indices,
which are calculated according to Eq. (3) and ranking
of candidate materials, are given in Table 6.
A similar procedure can be adopted for the proposed
method using Eqs. (10), (15), and the X
c
values specied
by the designer. The calculated scaled properties to-
gether with the weighting factors given in Table 4 are
used in Eq. (3) to obtain the performance indices, as
shown in Table 6. It is observed that the WPM predicts
that stainless steel 301 would have the best performance
followed by titanium alloy, Inconel 718, stainless steel
310, aluminium alloys and brass. The same ranking is
predicted by the new method for the rst ve choices.
However, the performance indices for the last three
choices are negative according to the new method. This
implies that the proposed approach expels the possibility
of selecting both aluminium alloys and brass for this
application while, the old method ranks them as possible
choices at the end of the list.
Table 3
Application of digital logic method to cryoneic tank problem [1]
Goals Number of possible decisions Positive
decisions
Weighting
factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Toughness 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 0.214
Yield strength 0 1 0 0 1 1 13 0.155
Youngs modulus 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 0.119
Density 0 1 1 1 1 1 16 0.190
Thermal expansion coecient 0 1 1 0 1 1 13 0.155
Thermal conductivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.083
Specic heat 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0.083
Table 4
Application of modied digital logic method to cryoneic tank problem
Goals Number of possible decisions Positive
decisions
Weighting
factors
Critical
value (X
c
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Toughness 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 0.28 150
Yield strength 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 0.14 400
Youngs modulus 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 0.05 90
Density 1 3 3 3 3 3 5 0.24 5
Thermal expansion
coecient
1 2 3 1 3 3 4 0.19 16.5
Thermal conductivity 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.05 0.10
Specic heat 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0.05 0.13
Table 5
Properties of candidate materials for cryogenic tank [1]
Materials 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Toughness
index
a
Yield
strength (MPa)
Youngs
modulus (GPa)
Density
g/cm
3
Thermal
expansion
b
Thermal
conductivity
c
Specic
heat
d
Al 2024-T6 75.5 420 74.2 2.80 21.4 0.370 0.16
Al 5052-O 95 91 70 2.68 22.1 0.330 0.16
SS 301-FH 770 1365 189 7.90 16.9 0.040 0.08
SS 310-3AH 187 1120 210 7.90 14.4 0.030 0.08
Ti-6Al-4V 179 875 112 4.43 9.4 0.016 0.09
Inconel 718 239 1190 217 8.51 11.5 0.310 0.07
70Cu-30Zn 273 200 112 8.53 19.9 0.290 0.06
a
Toughness index,T, is based on UTS, yield strength YS, and ductility e, at 196 C. T = (UTS + YS)e/2.
b
Thermal expansion coecient is given in 10
6
/C. The values are averaged between RT and 196 C.
c
Thermal conductivity is given in cal/cm
2
/cm/C/s.
d
Specic heat is given in cal/g/C. The values are averaged between RT and 196C.
12 B. Dehghan-Manshadi et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 815
3.2. Spar for the wing structure of a Human-Powered
Aircraft (HPA)
Spar is the major element of the wing in any aircraft.
This element that acts as a beam is extended across the
wing of aircraft and is joined to fuselage. This part tol-
erates all of the aerodynamic and static loads applied di-
rectly and indirectly on the wing. Due to the limited
allowed weight of the structures in ultra light aircrafts,
particularly Human-Powered Aircrafts (HPA) material
selection and design of their parts are of considerable
importance [8].
The main properties for materials used in spar struc-
ture are Youngs modulus, tensile strength, compressive
yield strength and especially the specic gravity. Here,
there are six properties and thus, 15 possible decisions
for which all weighting factors are calculated according
to both methods, as shown in Tables 7 and 8. In this
case study, specic gravity is the main property with
the highest weight followed by young modulus and ten-
sile strength. The next three properties have the same
importance and weighting factors of 0.070 and 0.116
in the old and new methods, respectively.
The properties of a group of the candidate materials
are listed in Table 9. After scaling the properties and
considering the weighting factors, the performance indi-
ces are calculated for both methods and shown in Table
10. It can be inferred from this table that the ranking of
the rst ve choices are the same in both selection meth-
ods. Carbon-63% epoxy stands rst and E-glass73%
epoxy in the fth place, Ti alloys and S-glass70% epoxy
continuous bers in between. The main dierence be-
tween two selection methods is that in the old approach
Balsa wood stands in the sixth place, being above Al
7075T6 and Al 2024T4 which are well known aero-
space materials, while the new method suggests that Bal-
sa with a negative performance index stands one from
the bottom of the list and cannot be considered as a pos-
sible choice for the spar of an aircraft. This is a reason-
able and obvious result that is not observed by the old
WPM. The cause of such a misleading prediction is that
the WPM which is based on a linear scaling method,
overestimates the contribution of the low density of Bal-
sa wood to its overall performance. The proposed meth-
od, however, uses a non-linear function which shows
saturation in scaled property for all conditions. This re-
duces the eect of a specically low or high property va-
lue in the total performance evaluation. Furthermore,
the possibility of having negative scaled properties such
as young modulus and strength of Balsa levels o the
pronounced eect of its low density.
4. Summary and conclusions
The new method proposed in this paper has some sig-
nicant advantages over the previous WPM. The MDL,
in comparison with the existing DL method, does not
have the elimination problem of the least important cri-
terion. Using non-linear functions for normalizing the
Table 6
Performance index and ranking of candidate materials according to two methods
Materials WPM New method
Performance index (c) Rank Performance index (c) Rank
Al 2024T6 42.2 5 1.17 5
Al 5052O 40.1 6 8.75 7
SS 301FH 70.9 1 47.40 1
SS 3103AH 50.0 4 31.88 4
Ti6Al4V 59.8 2 43.52 2
Inconel 718 53.3 3 33.44 3
70 Cu30 Zn 35.9 7 3.07 6
Table 7
Application of digital logic method to an HPA spar problem
Goals Number of possible decisions Positive decisions Weighting factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Price 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.07
Tensile strength 1 0 0 1 1 3 0.20
Youngs modulus 1 1 0 1 1 4 0.27
Density 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.33
Compressive strength 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.07
Creep resistance 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.07
B. Dehghan-Manshadi et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 815 13
data, helps to achieve more reasonable results by not
emphasizing on any of the high and low extremes. The
use of a critical value in the proposed method plays a
very vital role since it enables the designer to inuence
the decision making process. In fact, this change is to-
ward making the procedure an intelligent one by signif-
icantly enhancing the human role in the selection
process. The possibility of obtaining a negative perfor-
mance index in the new method implies that the material
is eliminated from the list since it has not been a suitable
choice for the specic application. Finally, the applica-
bility of the new method in mechanical design has been
veried by two case studies. For the cryogenic tank, the
new results are matching the acceptable answers pro-
vided by the existing method while, for the wing spar
of the HPA, the new method oers much more reason-
able solutions as compared to the questionable results
obtained from the old method.
Table 8
Application of modied digital logic method to an HPA spar problem
Goals Number of possible decisions Positive decisions Weighting factors Critical value (X
c
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Price 1 1 1 2 2 7 0.116 20
Tensile strength 3 1 1 3 3 11 0.183 1000
Youngs modulus 3 3 1 3 3 13 0.216 60
Density 3 3 3 3 3 15 0.250 3
Compressive strength 2 1 1 1 2 7 0.116 40
Creep resistance 2 1 1 1 2 7 0.116 2
Table 9
Properties of candidate materials for an HPA spar
Materials 1 2 3 4 5 6
Price Tensile
strength (MPa)
Youngs
modulus (GPa)
Density
gr/cm
3
Compressive
strength (MPa)
Creep
Resistance (25 C)
Al 7075-T6 3.5 581 70.0 2.6 581 Good
Al 2024-T4 3.5 425 72.5 2.6 425 Good
Ti-6Al-4V 21 1008 112.0 4.4 1008 Excellent
Ti-2Fe-3Al-10V 22 1295 120.0 4.5 1295 Excellent
E-glass 73%-Epoxy 2.6 1642 55.9 2.17 410 Average
E-glass 56%-Epoxy 2.5 1028 42.8 1.97 290 Weak
E-glass 65%-Polyester 2.5 340 19.6 1.8 90 Weak
S-glass 70%-Epoxy Continuous Fibers 9 2100 62.3 2.11 550 Average
S-glass 70%-Epoxy Fabric 8 680 22.0 2.11 180 Average
Carbon 63%-Epoxy 45 1725 158.7 1.61 900 Average
Aramid 62%-Epoxy 20 1311 82.7 1.38 300 Average
Balsa 6 28.5 7.0 0.22 17.5 Average
Table 10
Performance index and ranking of candidate materials according to two methods
Materials WPM New method
Performance index (c) Rank Performance index (c) Rank
Al 7075-T6 33.62 8 30.48 6
Al 2024-T4 31.73 9 27.28 8
Al-4V-Ti 43.45 3 38.81 3
Ti-2Fa-3Al-10V 49.13 2 44.49 2
E-glass 73%-Epoxy 40.19 5 34.07 5
E-glass 56%-Epoxy 31.08 10 17.42 9
E-glass 65%-Polyester 19.82 12 3.73 12
S-glass 70%-Epoxy Continuous bers 42.43 4 35.32 4
S-glass 70%-Epoxy Fabric 20.32 11 2.76 10
Carbon 63%-Epoxy 70.56 1 46.72 1
Aramid 62%-Epoxy 38.10 7 27.57 7
Balsa 40.53 6 0.85 11
14 B. Dehghan-Manshadi et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 815
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Mr. Hesam Mahmudi for his help-
ful suggestions.
References
[1] Farag M. Materials selection for engineering design. Prentice-Hall;
1997. p. 227234..
[2] Ashby MF. Materials selection in conceptual design. Mater Sci
Tech 1989;5(6):51725.
[3] Ashby MF. Multi-objective optimisation in material design and
selection. Acta Mater 2000;48:35969.
[4] Ashby MF, Brechet YJM, Cebon D, Salvo L. Selection
strategies for materials and processes. Mater Design 2003;25:
5167.
[5] Trethewey KR, Wood RJK, Puget Y, Roberge PR. Development
of a knowledge-based system for materials management. Mater
Design 1998;19:3956.
[6] Amen R, Vomacka P. Case-based reasoning as a tool for materials
selection. Mater Design 2001;22:3538.
[7] Chen JL, Sun SH, Hwang WC. An intelligent data base system for
composite material selection in structural design. Eng Fract Mech
1995;50:93546.
[8] Mahmudi H, Dehghan-Manshadi B, Mahmudi R. Materials
selection for the wing structure of a Human-Powered Aircraft
(HPA). In: Proceeding of 1st international and 3rd biennial
conference of aerospace engineering, Tehran, Iran, 2000. p. 1405
13.
B. Dehghan-Manshadi et al. / Materials and Design 28 (2007) 815 15