Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

Materials Selection

for
Mechanical Design II

A Brief Overview of a Systematic


Methodology
Material and Shape Selection

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection II – Slide 1
Method for Early Technology Screening
‰ Design performance is
determined by the
combination of: Materials
ƒ Shape
ƒ Materials
Process
ƒ Process
‰ Underlying principles of
selection are unchanged Shape
ƒ BUT, do not underestimate
impact of shape or the
limitation of process

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 2
Material and Shape Selection
‰ Performance isn't just about materials - shape can
also play an important role
‰ Shape can be optimized to maximize performance
for a given loading condition
‰ Simple cross-sectional geometries are not always
optimal
ƒ Efficient Shapes like I-beams, tubes can be better
‰ Shape is limited by material
ƒ Wood can be formed only so thin
‰ Goal is to optimize both shape and material for a
given loading condition
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 3
Loading Conditions and Shape

‰ Different loading F
σ= F F
conditions are A
Area A
δ Tension : Tie

enhanced by F

maximizing different σ=
My
I
geometric properties Area A moment I Bending : Beam
δ

‰ Area for tension r


Tr T T
τ=
‰ Second moment for J θ

Twisting : Shaft
compression and Area A polar moment J

bending nπ2 EI F F
Fcrit =
‰ Polar moment for l2
Compression : Column
torsion Area A moment I

Figure by MIT OCW.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 4
Shapes and Moments
t t

2ro 2ri
h h h

b 2ro b b

Area bh πr 2
π ( ro2 − ri 2 ) 2t ( h + b ) 2t ( h + b )

bh3 π π
Second
Moment 12 4
r4
4
( ro
4
− ri 4
) 1 3 ⎛ b⎞ 1 3 ⎛
h t ⎜1 + 3 ⎟
6 ⎝
b⎞
h t ⎜1 + 3 ⎟
h⎠ 6 ⎝ h⎠

Polar π π
( )
4
bh3 ⎛ b⎞ 2tb 2 h 2 ⎛ t ⎞ 2 3⎛ h⎞
⎜ 1 − 0.58 ⎟ r 4
r 4
− ri 4
⎜1 − ⎟ bt ⎜ 1 + 4 ⎟
Moment 3 ⎝ h⎠
2 2
o (h + b) ⎝ h ⎠ 3 ⎝ b⎠

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 5
Shape Factor Definition
‰ Shape factor measures efficiency for a
mode of loading given an equivalent cross-
section
ƒ “Efficiency”: For a given loading condition,
section uses as little material as possible
‰ Defined as 1 for a solid cross-section
ƒ Higher number is better, more efficient
S For elastic cases:
φ =
e φ = shape factor
S = stiffness of cross-section under question
So So = stiffness of reference solid cross-section

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 6
Shape Factor for Elastic Bending
S EI I
φ = =
e
B =
So EI o I o
Reference solid cross-section Compare sections
4 2
bo Ao of same area ⇒
bo Io = = Ao = A
12 12
bo

I 12 I
φ = = 2
e
B
Notice that shape factor is
dimensionless
Io A
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 7
I-Beam Elastic Bending Shape
t
Factor
t = 0.125
bo h h=3
b=1
bo b

Ao = bo2 A = 2t ( h + b )
bo = 1 A = 1 = Ao
Ao = 1 1 3 ⎛ b⎞
I = h t ⎜ 1 + 3 ⎟ = 1.125
For these dimensions, the shape
6 ⎝ h⎠
increased stiffness over 13 times while 12 I
using the same amount of material! φB = 2 = 13.5
e

A
Is this design possible in all materials?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 8
Materials Limit Best Achievable Shape
Factor
‰ Shape efficiency dependent on material
‰ Constraints: manufacturing, material properties, local buckling
ƒ For example, can’t have thin sections of wood
‰ Values in table determined empirically
‰ Note: previous design not possible in polymers, wood (φeB)=13.5
Bending Torsion
Material (φ )
e
B max (φ )
e
T max

Structural Steels 65 25
Aluminum Alloys 44 31
GFRP and CFRP 39 26
Polymers 12 8
Woods 6 1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 9
Shape Factors and Material Indices
Example: Bending Beam
Mass: m = AL ρ
F CEI
Bending Stiffenss: S = ≥
δ L3
I 12 I
Shape Factor: φBe = = 2
Io A
C E e 2
Replace I in Stiffness using φBe : S = φ A
3 B
12 L
1/ 2 ⎡ ⎤
⎛ 12 S ⎞ ρ
Eliminate A from mass using stiffness: m = ⎜ ⎟ L5 / 2 ⎢ ⎥
(⎢ φeE ) ⎥
1/ 2
⎝ C ⎠
⎣ B ⎦
(φBe E )
1/ 2
E1/ 2
Material Index: M = Previously: M =
ρ ρ

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 10
Shape Factors and Material Indices: Beams
Objective: Minimize Mass

Performance Metric: Mass

Stiffness
Loading Strength Limited
Limited
Tension E/ρ σf/ρ
Bending (φeBE)1/2/ρ (φfBσf)2/3/ρ
Torsion (φeTG)1/2/ρ (φfTσf)2/3/ρ

Maximize!

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 11
Shape Factors Affect Material Choice
‰ Shape factors can Ceramics
dramatically improve
Composites
performance for a M with φ=1

given loading M with φ=10 Metals

condition
Woods
‰ The optimal Polymers
combination of shape
Elastomers
and material leads to Foams
the best design

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 12
Example Problem: Bicycle Forks

Photos of bicycle forks removed for copyright reasons.

‰ Bicycle forks need to be lightweight


‰ Primary constraint can be stiffness or
strength
‰ Toughness and cost can be other
constraints
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 13
Bicycle Forks: Problem Definition
‰ Function:
ƒ Forks - support Objective: m = AL ρ
bending loads Mym FLym
Constraint: σ = = ≤σ f
‰ Objective: L I I
ƒ Minimize mass Free Variables:
‰ Constraints: F π r4
Solid Tube: A = π r 2
I=
ƒ Length specified 4
ƒ Must not fail Hollow Tube: A ≈ 2π rt I ≈ π r 3t
(strength constraint)
4 πZ I
‰ Free variables: Shape: φ = 3/ 2
B
f
Z=
A ym
ƒ Material
ƒ Area: Tube radius OR
thickness OR shape
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 14
Material Indices: Shape specified
Free variable definition important
Solid Section Hollow Section Hollow Section
Free Variable: Area Free Variable: Radius Free Variable: Thickness
Mym Mym Mym
σ= ≤σ f σ= ≤σ f σ= ≤σ f
I I I
4 FL FL FL
σf ≥ 3 σf ≥ 2 σf ≥ 2
πr πr t πr t
Solve for r: Solve for r: Solve for t :
⎛ 4 FL ⎞
1/ 3
⎛ FL ⎞
1/ 2
FL
t=
r =⎜ r =⎜
⎜ πσ f ⎟⎟ ⎜ π tσ f ⎟⎟ π r 2σ f
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Substitute into m:
Substitute into m: Substitute into m:
L2 ⎡ ρ ⎤
⎡ ρ ⎤ ⎡ ρ ⎤ m = 2F ⎢ ⎥
( )
1/ 2
m = π 1/ 3 ( 4 F ) L2 / 3 ⎢ 2 / 3 ⎥ m = ( 4π F ) L3t
2/3 1/ 2
⎢ 1/ 2 ⎥ r ⎢⎣ σ f ⎥⎦
⎢⎣ σ f ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ σ f ⎥⎦
⎡σ f ⎤
⎡ σ 2f / 3 ⎤ ⎡ σ 1/f 2 ⎤ Maximize: M = ⎢ ⎥
Maximize: M = ⎢ ⎥ Maximize: M = ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ρ ⎦
⎢⎣ ρ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ρ ⎥⎦
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 15
Material Index with Shape Free
FLym FL FL 4 π Substitute into m:
σf ≥ = = f 3/ 2
I Z φB A ⎡ ⎤
ρ
( )
2/3
5/ 3 ⎢ ⎥
Solve for A: m= 4 πF L
⎛ FL 4 π ⎞
2/3 (
⎢ φ f σ 2/3 ⎥
⎣ B f ⎦ )
A=⎜ f ⎟⎟
⎜ φB σ f
⎝ ⎠ Maximize: M = ⎢ B f(
⎡ φ f σ 2/3 ⎤
⎥ )
⎢ ρ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 16
Material indices with shape factors change
material selection
* **
Material σf (MPa) ρ (Mg/m3) φ fB σf2/3/ρ (φfBσf)2/3/ρ
Spruce (Norwegian) 80 0.51 1 36 36
Bamboo 120 0.7 2.2 35 59
Steel (Reynolds 531) 880 7.82 7.5 12 45
Alu (6061-T6) 250 2.7 5.9 15 48
Titanium 6-4 955 4.42 5.9 22 72
Magnesium AZ 61 165 1.8 4.25 17 44
CFRP 375 1.5 4.25 35 91

*Material Index w/out shape factor **Material Index with shape factor

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 17
Strength Constraint
Age-hardening w rought Al-alloys Medium carbon steel
Titanium alloys

1e9 CFRP, epoxy m atrix (isotropic)

Wrought m agnesium alloys

Hardw ood: oak, along grain


Tensile Strength (Pa)

1e8
Softw ood: pine, along grain

Bam boo

1e7

1e6

100 1000 10000


Density (kg/m^3)

Chart from the CES EduPack 2005, Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK. (c) __________
Granta Design. Courtesy of Granta Design Limited. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 18
Stiffness Constraint
Medium carbon steel
Age-hardening w rought Al-alloys
CFRP, epoxy m atrix (isotropic)
1e11
Wrought m agnesium alloys
Hardw ood: oak, along grain
Bam boo
1e10
Young's Modulus (Pa)

Softw ood: pine, along grain

1e9

1e8

1e7

1e6

100 1000 10000


Density (kg/m^3)

Chart from the CES EduPack 2005, Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK. (c) __________
Granta Design. Courtesy of Granta Design Limited. Used with permission.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 19
Example of Material Selection including
Shape: Floor Joists
Wood beam Steel I-beam

Material for floor joists


Density (g/cm3) ~0.58 ~7.9
Modulus (GPa) ~10 ~210
Material Cost ($/kg) ~$0.90 ~$0.65
φeB 2.0-2.2 15-25
* E1/2/Cmρ ~6.1 ~2.8

** (φeBE)1/2/Cmρ ~8.8 ~12.6

*Material Index w/out shape factor **Material Index with shape factor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts Materials Systems Laboratory
©Jeremy Gregory and Randolph Kirchain, 2005 Materials Selection – Slide 20