Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Introducing a novel method for materials selection in mechanical design using Z-transformation in statistics for normalization of material properties
K. Fayazbakhsh, A. Abedian *, B. Dehghan Manshadi, R. Sarfaraz Khabbaz
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-8639, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Optimum materials selection is a very important task in design process of every product. There are various materials selection methods like Ashbys method or digital logic methods such as DL and MDL. In the present research work the Z -transformation method is proposed for scaling the material properties to overcome the shortcoming of MDL method. The results show that despite the simple scaling function used, the ranking procedure is as powerful as MDL method and even it is superior to MDL when it ranks the less important materials existing among a list of candidate materials. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 10 January 2009 Accepted 4 April 2009 Available online 12 April 2009 Keywords: H. Selection for material properties H. Weighting and ranking factors H. Performance indices

1. Introduction It is estimated that more than 40,000 useful metallic alloys and probably close to that number of nonmetallic engineering materials such as plastics, ceramics and glasses, composite materials, and semiconductors to exist. This large number of materials and enormous number of manufacturing processes available to the engineers, coupled with the complex relationships between different selection parameters, often make the selection of materials for a given component a difcult task. Mainly, based on quantitative and qualitative properties of materials, different materials selection approaches have been proposed and practiced by different researchers. Ashby et al. [1] have provided a comprehensive review of the strategies or methods for materials selection. From this study three types of materials selection methodology could be identied. These are: (a) free searching based on quantitative analysis with the most famous being the graphical engineering selection method or the ranking method [2,3], (b) checklist/questionnaire based on expertise capture like the reports [48] which are knowledge-based and intelligent data base systems or like [9] which is a structured set of questions that eventually end up with an optimal design solution, and (c) inductive reasoning and analog procedure [10]. Since a materials selection process could be considered as a decision making problem, the neural network, a kind of articial intelligence [11], or the fuzzy logic approach [12] have been used for dealing with qualitative material properties. Also, in this direction some fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods like [13]
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 66164947; fax: +98 21 66022731. E-mail address: Abedian@sharif.edu (A. Abedian). 0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.04.004

or multiple attribute decision making methods like [14] or the Technique of ranking Preferences by Similarity to the Ideal Solution method (TOPSIS) [15] have been proposed by other researchers. Furthermore, the environmental costs [16] or the dimensions of technology, economy and environment [17] have been included in the single decision making tools. Even, compatibility of a component with the linked components in an assembly has been considered [18] or the process of selection has been divided to two stages, i.e. discrimination and optimization to minimize the number of qualitative decisions [19]. However, most of these systems and methods appear to be complex and knowledge intensive. In this row, a variety of quantitative selection procedures have also been developed to analyze the large amount of data involved with the materials selection processes so that a systematic evaluation could be established. For example, Ashby [20,21] has introduced materials selection charts. He has also proposed a multiobjective optimization method for compromising between several conicting objectives [22]. Garton et al. [23] used Fatigue Property Charts to select the optimal class or subclass of materials in minimum weight design for innite fatigue life. Another approach to materials selection problems is the Weighted Properties Method (WPM). This numerical method ranks the candidate materials on the basis of their performance indices calculated from simple mathematics [24]. In cases where numerous material properties are involved and the relative importance of each property is not clear, determination of the weighting factors (a) can be largely intuitive, so that the reliability of the selection method is highly reduced. As a result, the Digital Logic (DL) approach was proposed for determination of a [25]. The DL Method was then modied by Manshadi et al. [26] due to existing aws in the scaling procedure. This new method was proposed by considering nonlinear

K. Fayazbakhsh et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404

4397

normalization combined with some modications in the existing digital logic approach. Even though a good amount of research work had been carried out on materials selection in the past, a simple and systematic scientic method or mathematical tool which can guide user organizations in taking a proper material selection decision is still a need. Therefore, in this paper, a new normalization function for MDL method is proposed. Besides, the capabilities of this new normalization function are discussed and compared with those of the MDL through three example problems in mechanical design and lightweight naval structures. 2. Method description In materials selection problems, for when several material properties should be taken into account, the weighted property method and later on the digital logic methods (DL & MDL) have shown to be quite effective. Basically, in these methods, each material property is assigned a certain weight depending on its relative importance to the others. Using DL approach, evaluations are arranged such that only two properties considered at a time. In comparing two properties or performance goals, the more important goal is given a numerical value of (1) and the less important one is given (0). However, for the modied digital logic (MDL) method, a value of (1) is assigned to the less important property and the value of (3) to the more important one. In this method, two properties with equal importance receive equal numerical values of (2). Then the weighting factor (a) for each property is found by summing up the positive decisions that every property receives divided by the total positive decisions that all the material properties are P ai 1 for each material would be obtained. given. In this way Then the performance index c for each candidate material is found by using the following equation:

for denition of XC makes the process user knowledge dependent and as was discussed in [26], for XC = Xmax/2, the nonlinear scaling function would become indeterminate and as a result it is replaced with a linear function. In the following subsection a new normalization function is proposed to replace the nonlinear normalization functions used in MDL method. This simplies the calculations, has most accordance with statistic normalization, and increases the reliability of MDL method with eliminating the previously mentioned XC. It is obvious that in MDL method, the normalization functions or scaling functions have no background in statistics and do not accord with it in any way. For the new method, the same weighting factor (a) as for MDL method is incorporated due to its ability in providing better comparison of material properties and their level of importance compared to DL method. 3. The bases of the proposed normalization function In this paper the Z-transformation in statistics science is proposed for standard scaling or normalization [27] of materials properties. The Z-value is a dimensionless quantity which is dened by the following equation:

Xl

where X represents an individual raw score that is to be standardized, r is the standard deviation of the population, and l is the mean of the population. Here, r and l are calculated by the following equations:

v u N u1 X rt X i l2 N i1

n X i1

ai Y i

N X1 X2 XN 1 X Xi N i 1 N

where Yi is the scaled value of each property of a material with respect to the other candidate materials for the given product. This scaling is done linearly or nonlinearly for DL and MDL methods, respectively. Although MDL method has eliminated the weighting and scaling aws in WPM and DL methods, it may still need some modications to nd higher power or efciency in nal ranking of the candidate materials. These modications may target the methods complications, time consuming calculations, or user unfriendly matters involved with the employed nonlinear scaling functions, should either be claimed by some users. Furthermore, the dependency of the scaling or normalization functions to the denition of the critical value for each material property (i.e. XC) and also its ratio to the maximum value of the corresponding property may justify the modication attempts. It should be noted that the need
Table 1 Candidate materials properties for cryogenic storage tank (case I) [26]. Materials Al 2024-T6 Al 5052-O SS 301-FH SS 310-3AH Ti6Al4V Inconel 718 70Cu30Zn
a b c d

where N represents the number of candidate materials. The materials performance indices are calculated by Eq. (1), respectively [26]. It should be noted that in case, higher value of a property is of interest, Eq. (2) will be considered. However, for the properties that the lower value is of interest, Eq. (2) is used with a negative sign as indicated in the following equation:

Xl

Here, for verication of the proposed function, three test cases are studied and the results will be compared with the results obtained by MDL method. The case studies are involved with materials selection for a cryogenic storage tank, the spar for wing structure of a human powered aircraft (HPA), and a high speed naval craft.

1 Toughness indexa 75.5 95 770 187 179 239 273

2 Yield strength (MPa) 420 91 1365 1120 875 1190 200

3 Youngs modulus (GPa) 74.2 70 189 210 112 217 112

4 Density (kg/m3) 2800 2680 7900 7900 4430 8510 8530

5 Thermal expansionb 21.4 22.1 16.9 14.4 9.4 11.5 19.9

6 Thermal conductivityc 1.55 1.38 0.167 0.126 0.067 1.30 1.21

7 Specic heatd 669.4 669.4 334.7 334.7 376.6 292.9 251

Toughness index, T, is based on UTS, yield strength YS, and ductility e, at 196 C. T = (UTS + YS)e/2. Thermal expansion coefcient is given in 106/C. The values are averaged between RT and 196 C. Thermal conductivity is given in 106 J/m2/m/C/s. Specic heat is given in J/kg/C. The values are averaged between RT and 196 C.

4398

K. Fayazbakhsh et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404

4. Verication of the method 4.1. Test case (I): cryogenic storage tank This example problem is one of the problems that is widely tested by other materials selection methods. This is reanalyzed here using the Z-transformation method. Since this tank is designed for transportation of liquid nitrogen, the candidate materials should have good weldability and processability, lower density and specic heat, smaller thermal expansion coefcient and thermal conductivity,

adequate toughness at the operating temperature, and also the material should be sufciently strong and stiff. Table 1 presents the properties of the candidate materials for the cryogenic tank. Also, Table 2 shows the calculations for a. It should be noted that here, the same weighting factors as MDL method are used for the Z-transformation method. Finally, the performance index (c) for each material is calculated using Eq. (1). It should be stated that here Yi is calculated using Eqs. (2) or (5) for the Z-transformation method. It is reminded again that linear scaling and nonlinear scaling functions are used for calculating Yi by DL

Table 2 Application of modied digital logic method to cryogenic storage tank (case I). Goals Number of possible decisions 1 Toughness Yield strength Youngs modulus Density Thermal expansion coefcient Thermal conductivity Specic heat 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Positive decisions 18 13 10 16 13 7 7 Weighting factors (a) 0.214 0.155 0.199 0.19 0.155 0.083 0.083

Table 3 Performance index and ranking of candidate materials for cryogenic storage tank using MDL and Z-transformation method (case II). Materials The method of Manshadi et al. [26] Performance index (c) Al-2024-T6 Al-5052-O SS 301-FH SS 310-3AH Ti6Al4V Inconel 718 70Cu30Zn 1.2 8.8 47.7 31.9 43.5 33.5 3.1 Rank 5 7 1 4 2 3 6 Z-transformation method Performance index (c) 0.56 0.65 0.78 0.26 0.39 0.27 0.49 Rank 6 7 1 4 2 3 5

Table 4 Scaled property values performed by MDL method for cryogenic storage tank (case I). Materials 1 Y1 Toughness 33.3 22.9 100 12.1 9.6 26.2 34.1 125 2 Y2 Yield strength 3.3 68.4 100 81.7 59.9 87.3 39.3 224 3 Y3 Youngs modulus 15.2 19.4 80.7 95.3 20 100 20 281 4 Y4 Density 90.1 100 38.4 38.4 14 43 43.1 41.2 5 Y5 CTE 25.5 28.1 2.7 17.2 100 54.1 19.2 95.8 6 Y6 Thermal conductivity 53.9 50.1 47.9 63.9 100 47.9 45.6 14.4 7 Y7 Specic heat 17.6 17.6 55.5 55.5 39.9 74.9 100 290

Al 2024-T6 Al 5052-O SS 301-FH SS 310-3AH Ti6Al4V Inconel 718 70Cu30Zn Sum

Table 5 Scaled property values performed by Z-transformation method for cryogenic storage tank (case I). Materials 1 Y1 Toughness 0.84 0.75 2.34 0.33 0.37 0.10 0.06 0 2 Y2 Yield strength 0.70 1.39 1.30 0.78 0.26 0.93 1.16 0 3 Y3 Youngs modulus 1.13 1.21 0.83 1.18 0.49 1.30 0.49 0 4 Y4 Density 1.33 1.37 0.72 0.72 0.67 0.96 0.97 0 5 Y5 CTE 1.07 1.22 0.08 0.46 1.55 1.09 0.74 0 6 Y6 Thermal conductivity 1.16 0.89 1.06 1.13 1.23 0.75 0.62 0 7 Y7 Specic heat 1.54 1.54 0.51 0.51 0.26 0.77 1.03 0

Al 2024-T6 Al 5052-O SS 301-FH SS 310-3AH Ti6Al4V Inconel 718 70Cu30Zn Sum

K. Fayazbakhsh et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404

4399

and MDL methods, respectively [26]. Table 3 presents the calculated c and the corresponding ranking of the candidate materials using both of the applied methods. As it is seen, interestingly, the
Table 6 Candidate materials properties for HPA (case II) [26]. Materials Al-7075-T6 Al-2024-T4 Ti6Al4V Ti2Fe3Al10V E-glass 73%Epoxy E-glass 56%Epoxy E-glass 65%Polyester S-glass 70%Epoxy continuous ber S-glass 70%Epoxy Fabric Carbon 63%Epoxy Aramid 62%Epoxy Balsa 1 Price 3.5 3.5 21 22 2.6 2.5 2.5 9 8 45 20 6 2 Tensile strength (MPa) 581 425 1008 1295 1642 1028 340 2100 680 1725 1311 28.5

Z-transformation provides the same ranking of the candidate materials as MDL method except for the two of the candidate materials, i.e. choices 5 and 6 of MDL method are switched by

3 Youngs modulus (GPa) 70.0 72.5 112.0 120.0 55.9 42.8 19.6 62.3 22.0 158.7 82.7 7.0

4 Density (kg/m3) 2600 2600 4400 4500 2170 1970 1800 2110 2110 1610 1380 220

5 Compressive strength (MPa) 581 425 1008 1295 410 290 90 550 180 900 300 17.5

6 Creep resistance Good Good Excellent Excellent Average Weak Weak Average Average Average Average Average

Table 7 Application of modied digital logic method to HPA (case II). Goals Number of possible decisions 1 Price Tensile strength Youngs modulus Density Compressive strength Creep resistance 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 4 2 5 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7 11 13 15 7 7 0.116 0.183 0.216 0.250 0.116 0.116 Positive decisions Weighting factors (a)

Table 8 Performance index and ranking of candidate materials for HPA using MDL and Z-transformation method (case II). Materials The method of Manshadi et al. [26] Performance index (c) Al-7075-T6 Al-2024-T4 Ti6Al4V Ti2Fe3Al10V E-glass 73%Epoxy E-glass 56%Epoxy E-glass 65%Polyester S-glass 70%Epoxy continuous ber S-glass 70%Epoxy Fabric Carbon 63%Epoxy Aramid 62%Epoxy Balsa 20.9 17.7 31.5 38.5 31.8 11.6 12 35.2 4.9 46.1 25.3 7.3 Rank 7 8 5 2 4 9 12 3 10 1 6 11 Z-transformation method Performance index (c) 0.007 0.090 0.030 0.216 0.173 0.196 0.548 0.341 0.401 0.591 0.182 0.292 Rank 7 8 6 3 5 9 12 2 11 1 4 10

Table 9 Scaled property values performed by MDL method for HPA (case II). Materials 1 Y1 Price 83.1 83.1 2.1 4.2 98 100 100 36.8 42.5 33.2 0 56.5 560.5 2 Y2 Tensile strength 40.7 56.3 0.8 27.8 59.5 2.7 64.9 100 31 67 29.3 97 3.05 3 Y3 Youngs modulus 12.7 15.8 58.8 66.5 5.5 24 61.6 3 57.4 100 27.8 85.4 50.7 4 Y4 Density 5.2 5.2 13.7 14.5 11.9 15.5 18.9 12.9 12.9 23.1 28.9 100 206.4 5 Y5 Compressive strength 76.8 67.7 92.7 100 66.7 56.7 23 75.2 42.9 89.5 57.7 22.8 726 6 Y6 Creep resistance 50 50 100 100 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 200

Al-7075-T6 Al-2024-T4 Ti6Al4V Ti2Fe3Al10V E-glass 73%Epoxy E-glass 56%Epoxy E-glass 65%Polyester S-glass 70%Epoxy continuous ber S-glass 70%Epoxy Fabric Carbon 63%Epoxy Aramid 62%Epoxy Balsa Sum

4400

K. Fayazbakhsh et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404

Z-transformation method. The reason for this ranking alternation will be explained latter. However, this nding (i.e. similarity in ranking of the materials by the two methods) is very exciting because the scaling done here is very easy and straight forward compared to MDL method. It should be highlighted that this small difference in ranking by the two methods is in fact another important advantage of the Z-transformation over MDL method which for clear explanation the second test case (i.e. the human powered aircraft (HPA)) should be discussed rst. However, at this stage, for better understanding of the subject matter, only a brief discussion on the scaled property values provided by the two methods is presented. Here, Tables 4 and 5 present Yi for the candidate materials by MDL and Z-transformation, respectively. As it is seen, the sum of

the members of each column of Table 5 is the same and equal to zero. This is expected because the Z-transformation method has its roots in statistics and the standard scaling performed by the method must have such a characteristic. However, as Table 4 shows, the summations of members of each column, which are the scaled properties of the candidate materials performed by nonlinear functions of MDL method, are neither zero nor equal to one another. This fact under some conditions may adversely affect the calculation of performance index (c) which uses the scaled property values and the weighting factors (a), see Eq. (1). When sums of the scaled property values of the candidate materials, as explained above, are not equal, the material property corresponding to the column with higher sum value will have more inuence on

Table 10 Scaled property values performed by Z-transformation method for HPA (case II). Materials 1 Y1 Price 0.7 0.7 0.72 0.8 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.26 0.34 2.68 0.64 0.50 0 2 Y2 Tensile strength 0.72 0.98 0.01 0.47 1.05 0.02 1.12 1.81 0.56 1.19 0.50 1.64 0 3 Y3 Youngs modulus 0.03 0.09 1.01 1.19 0.30 0.61 1.15 0.15 1.09 2.10 0.32 1.44 0 4 Y4 Density 0.27 0.27 1.86 1.94 0.10 0.28 0.43 0.16 0.16 0.60 0.80 1.82 0 5 Y5 Compressive strength 0.21 0.21 1.36 2.13 0.25 0.58 1.11 0.12 0.87 1.07 0.55 1.31 0 6 Y6 Creep resistance 0.71 0.71 1.77 1.77 0.35 1.41 1.41 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0

Al-7075-T6 Al-2024-T4 Ti6Al4V Ti2Fe3Al10V E-glass 73%Epoxy E-glass 56%Epoxy E-glass 65%Polyester S-glass 70%Epoxy continuous ber S-glass 70%Epoxy Fabric Carbon 63%Epoxy Aramid 62%Epoxy Balsa Sum

Table 11 Candidate materials properties for high speed craft (case III) [28]. Materials 1 Yield strength (MPa) 234.4 137.9 268.9 379.2 1496.2 220.6 2 Youngs modulus (GPa) 204.1 67 67 204.1 227.5 53.9 3 Fire resistance High Low Avg. High Low Very high 4 Repairability 5 Resistance to corrosion Low High High High Very high Very high 6 Fabrication cost Avg. Low Avg. Very high Very high Very low 7 Risk 8 Density (kg/m3) 7800 2700 1800 5200 1800 2500 9 Overall potential for weight saving None High Very high High Very high High

Grade A Steel Single Skin Aluminum (A5086-H34) Aluminum Sandwich (honeycomb core) LASCOR Steel Composite (CFRP) Carbon w/Vinyl Ester Resin DUCTAL (UHP2C)

Very high High Avg. Avg. Avg. Very high

Low Avg. Avg. High Avg. Very high

Table 12 Quantitative values for material properties using Raos fuzzy conversion scale for high speed craft (case III). Materials 1 Yield strength (MPa) 234.4 137.9 268.9 379.2 1496.2 220.6 2 Youngs modulus (GPa) 204.1 67 67 204.1 227.5 53.9 3 Fire resistance 0.665 0.335 0.5 0.665 0.335 0.745 4 Repairability 5 Resistance to corrosion 0.335 0.665 0.665 0.665 0.745 0.745 6 Fabrication cost 0.5 0.335 0.5 0.745 0.745 0.335 7 Risk 8 Density (kg/m3) 7800 2700 1800 5200 1800 2500 9 Overall potential for weight saving 0 0.665 0.745 0.665 0.745 0.665

Grade A Steel Single Skin Aluminum (A5086-H34) Aluminum Sandwich (honeycomb core) LASCOR Steel Composite (CFRP) Carbon w/Vinyl Ester Resin DUCTAL (UHP2C)

0.745 0.665 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.745

0.335 0.5 0.5 0.665 0.5 0.745

K. Fayazbakhsh et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404

4401

the performance index (c) than the expected amount warranted by its weighting factor. The effect of this phenomenon will be explained in details in the next subsection. 4.2. Test case (II): spar of a human powered aircraft (HPA) This test example was used for explaining the advantage of MDL over DL method in [26] where it was shown that balsa was wrongly preferred over the titanium alloys for the spar application by DL method. This was then shown to happen due to linear scaling of the properties done by DL method. In fact, the method does not adequately emphasize on the large or small differences that may exist between the properties of the candidate materials. Also, the way of calculation of the weighting factors (a) by DL method was found to be responsible for this problem. It should be noted that

both of the mentioned reasons were then taken care of by the modications considered in MDL method. Here, this example is resolved by using MDL and the Z-transformation methods to shed more light on the advantages of the newly proposed method. Tables 6 and 7 show the details of the candidate materials for the mentioned application and calculations of the weighting factors for MDL method, respectively. Also, calculation of performance indices and ranking of the candidates materials done by MDL and Z -transformation methods are shown in Table 8. A quick look at this table shows that except choices 1, 7, 8, 9, and 12, the rest of the rankings done by MDL and Z-transformation methods are different. For example, materials ranked 2 and 3 by MDL are switched by Z-transformation method. Also, E-glass 73%Epoxy is ranked 4th by MDL while the 4th ranked material by Z-transformation method is Aramid 62%Epoxy. These could

Table 13-1 Application of modied digital logic method to high speed craft (case III) (115). Goals Yield strength Youngs modulus Fire resistance Repairability Resistance to corrosion Fabrication cost Risk Density Overall potential 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 2 6 3 7 1 8 1 9 3 1 10 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 11 3 12 2 13 3 14 1 15 1

Table 13-2 Application of modied digital logic method to high speed craft (case III) (1636). Goals Fire resistance Repairability Resistance to corrosion Fabrication cost Risk Density Overall potential 16 1 3 17 3 1 3 1 3 3 18 1 19 3 20 1 21 1 22 1 3 23 1 3 2 3 3 24 2 25 1 26 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Table 13-3 Application of modied digital logic method to high speed craft (case III). Goals Yield strength Youngs modulus Fire resistance Repairability Resistance to corrosion Fabrication cost Risk Density Overall potential Positive decisions 19 17 12 11 10 18 11 22 24 Weighting factors (a) 0.132 0.118 0.0833 0.0763 0.0694 0.125 0.0763 0.153 0.167 Critical value (XC) 34 10,000 0.335 0.665 0.665 0.335 0.335 2.7 0.665

Table 14 Performance index and ranking of candidate materials for high speed craft using MDL and Z-transformation method (case III). Materials The method of Manshadi et al. [26] Performance index (c) Grade A Steel Single Skin Aluminum (A5086-H34) Aluminum Sandwich (honeycomb core) LASCOR Steel Composite (CFRP) Carbon w/Vinyl Ester Resin DUCTAL (UHP2C) 3.22 0 8.07 4.5 28.66 33.15 Rank 5 4 6 3 2 1 Z-transformation method Performance index (c) 0.485 0.017 0.164 0.107 0.188 0.245 Rank 6 3 5 4 2 1

4402

K. Fayazbakhsh et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404

be fairly explained by considering Tables 9 and 10 which illustrate the scaled property values obtained by nonlinear scaling functions of MDL and Z-transformation methods, respectively. As it is seen in these Tables, like the previous case study, sum of the column members or scaled values of each one of the properties are the same and equal to zero for the Z-transformation, while they are different for each property for MDL method. But, how this phenomenon affects the ranking is explained here. As Table 7 shows, for HPA example, the density with a = 0.25 appears to be the most important factor for c calculation for this test case. However, based on Table 9, sum of the scaled density of the candidate materials (206.4) is lower compared to sums of the two other scaled properties (i.e. price and compressive strength). This can strongly affect the ranking by MDL. As it is seen, MDL ranks Ti2Fe3Al10V second and Sglass 70%Epoxy continuous ber third despite the larger density of the earlier compared to the latter (i.e. more than twice). In other words, when a is not the only factor inuencing c calculations the price property with a = 0.116 and sum scaled values of 560 (see Table 9) may have more inuence on the calculations than the density. However, Z-transformation replaces the above ranking because with this method only a values affect the c calculations due to standard scaling of the properties of the candidate materials which provides equal values for sum of the scaled properties (all are zero) as given in Table 10. With the same reasoning, the Z-transformation method ranks Aramid 62%Epoxy better than E-glass 73%Epoxy while it is opposite in MDL method. This is done despite much higher price and smaller tensile strength of AramidEpoxy composite compared to E-glassEpoxy. The much larger density of E-glass 73%Epoxy, and also its corresponding a = 0.25 do not help MDL ranking

because of the methods inherent problem with property scaling explained earlier. It should also be mentioned that negative sum values of the scaled properties make the situation worst. This could be better understood if one compares the sums of the scaled property values for the two HPA and cryogenic tank examples. As it is seen in Table 4, there is no negative sum value for the cryogenic tank and also sum values of all the scaled properties are not much different. However, one negative sum value and large difference between sums of the scaled values for HPA are seen in Table 9. That is why a little or no serious effect seen on the ranking results for the cryogenic tank by both methods. It should be noted that as explained in the previous subsection, only materials ranked 5 and 6 by MDL method for the cryogenic tank are replaced by the Z-transformation method. The MDL method ranks 70Cu30Zn 6 despite its much better toughness and Youngs modulus compared to Al 2024-T6 which is ranked 5. As the calculations show, the respective a values for the mentioned properties are 0.214 and 0.199 which are the highest a values for the cryogenic tank. Again, this change in materials ranking by MDL method occurs due to the way of scaling done by this method which makes sum values of the scaled properties to be different. 4.3. Test case (III): high speed naval craft Typically, the structural weight of a ship is about one-third of its displacement. Thus, making the potential for substantial weight saving when considering light-weight materials over traditional steel construction [28]. High Performance light-weight materials can provide as much as 40% reduction in a ship structural weight

Table 15 Scaled property values performed by modied digital logic method for high speed craft (case III). Materials 1 Y1 Yield strength 21.3 0 27 41.3 100 18.9 209.5 2 Y2 Youngs modulus 82 0 42.7 82 0 100 265.3 3 Y3 Fire resistance 100 0 48.9 48.9 48.9 100 309.7 4 Y4 Repairability 72.4 0 0 0 100 100 57.4 5 Y5 Resistance to corrosion 46.9 0 46.9 68.2 68.2 100 132.7 6 Y6 Fabrication cost 100 0 0 32.1 0 41.2 124.1 7 Y7 Risk 72.6 0 100 56.6 100 12 33.7 8 Y8 Density 72.6 0 100 56.6 100 12 90.8 9 Y9 Overall potential for weight saving 100 0 100 0 100 0 109

Grade A Steel Single Skin Aluminum (A5086-H34) Aluminum Sandwich (honeycomb core) LASCOR Steel Composite (CFRP) Carbon w/Vinyl Ester Resin DUCTAL (UHP2C) Sum

Table 16 Scaled property values performed by Z-transformation method for high speed craft (case III). Materials 1 Y1 Yield strength 0.471 0.676 0.398 0.164 2.21 0.501 0 2 Y2 Youngs modulus 0.887 0.925 0.925 0.887 1.202 1.127 0 3 Y3 Fire resistance 0.763 1.265 0.251 0.763 1.265 1.254 0 4 Y4 Repairability 5 Y5 Resistance to corrosion 2.161 0.203 0.203 0.203 0.776 0.776 0 6 Y6 Fabrication cost 0.072 0.962 0.072 1.250 1.250 1.393 0 7 Y7 Risk 8 Y8 Density 9 Y9 Overall potential for weight saving 2.215 0.321 0.626 0.321 0.626 0.321 0

Grade A Steel Single Skin Aluminum (A5086-H34) Aluminum Sandwich (honeycomb core) LASCOR Steel Composite (CFRP) Carbon w/Vinyl Ester Resin DUCTAL (UHP2C) Sum

1.209 0.497 0.971 0.971 0.971 1.209 0

1.560 0.309 0.309 0.941 0.309 1.547 0

1.907 0.535 0.807 0.731 0.807 0.490 0

K. Fayazbakhsh et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404

4403

when compared with traditional plate and beam steel construction. In this case, the system is a light-weight high-speed vessel. In particular, the materials selection is sought for the structural components of the ship such as hull plating, superstructure panels, decks, and beams. Therefore the participant material properties are: yield strength, Youngs modulus, re resistance, repairability, resistance to corrosion, fabrication cost, risk, mass density, and overall potential for weight savings. It should be noted that this example problem has been already solved by Torrez [28] using MDL method. Here, the Z-transformation is employed to show the power of the method. The properties of the candidate materials and the corresponding quantitative values for the qualitative properties are presented in Tables 11 and 12. As stated in [28], Raos fuzzy score conversion scale has been used to convert the qualitative values to quantitative values. Here, there are nine properties (n = 9), therefore the number of possible decisions would be N = n(n 1)/2 = 36. Tables 13-113-3 present the weighting factor calculation for MDL method along with XC for each property. Finally, Table 14 illustrates ranking of the candidate materials for both MDL and Z-transformation methods. Interestingly, the rst and second choices of materials are the same for both methods. However, due to the reasons discussed before, choices 3 and 4 and also 5 and 6 made by MDL are switched by the Z-transformation method. For example, MDL picks up LASCOR Steel as the third choice instead of Single Skin Aluminum which is ranked third by Z-transformation. This is done despite higher density of LASCOR (almost twice) compared to that of the Single Skin Aluminum. It should be noted that three of the properties for this material, i.e. re resistance, Youngs modulus, and yield strength, are superior to the Single Skin Aluminum candidate. However, Z-transformation method replaces the ranking of these two materials. This seems to be done because of the absolute superiority of the material density. It could be easily understood if one compares the scaled property values done by MDL and Z-transformation methods, which are shown in Tables 15 and 16, respectively. As it is seen, sum of the materials scaled density by MDL is 90.8, while for re resistance, Youngs modulus, and yield strength this value is 309.7, 265.3, and 209.5, respectively. These values are at least 23 times of the same quantity for density. This huge difference does not allow the value of a for density (a = 0.153) to play a reasonable role in calculating the performance index for the Single Skin Aluminum. Also, the huge negative sum value of the scaled fabrication cost (with a = 0.125) adversely affects the MDL ranking. As a result, the differences in ranking of candidate materials performed by both methods are more pronounced than the last two test cases.

ods are capable of readily identifying the materials with some distinguished properties from a bunch of candidate materials. This similarity in ranking results for some test cases even happens for most of the candidate materials. However, the advantages of Z-transformation method is more illustrated when ranking materials for which it is not very easy to identify any superiority in properties of the candidate materials. This advantage of the Z-transformation method is more appreciated by the designers because most of the time the trades off between some properties, which are the result of designers engineering knowledge, pursue them to make use of the lower ranked materials. In such situations, Z-transformation method is more reliable than the MDL method. This is done due to more proper scaling of the material properties by the Z-transformation method. This is because the method has its scaling roots in statistics. As a result, a factor would be the only parameter that inuences the calculations of performance index (c). It should be noted that based on the reviewed examples in this study, sometimes the border of this advantage of Z-transformation method is distributed to even second ranked choice materials done by other methods. So, it makes worthy to consider this new method. However, if only the rst ranked material from among a list of candidate materials is of interest, the choice of the ranking method is not of much importance.

References
[1] Ashby MF, Brechet YJM, Cebon D, Salvo L. Selection strategies for materials and processes. Mater Des 2004;25:5167. [2] Ashby MF. Materials selection in mechanical design. New York: Pergamon Press; 1992. [3] Ashby MF, Johnson K. Materials and design: the art and science of materials selection in product design. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann; 2002. [4] Trethewey KR, Wood RJK, Puget Y, Roberge PR. Development of a knowledge based system for materials management. Mater Des 1998;19:3956. [5] Amen R, Vomacka P. Case-based reasoning as a tool for materials selection. Mater Des 2001;22:3538. [6] Chen JL, Sun SH, Hwang WC. An intelligent data base system for composite material selection in structural design. Eng Fract Mech 1995;50:93546. [7] Sapuan SM. A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Mater Des 2001;22:68795. [8] Edwards KL. Selecting materials for optimum use in engineering components. Mater Des 2005;26:46973. [9] Zha XF. A web-based advisory system for process and material selection in concurrent product design for a manufacturing environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2005;25(34):23343. [10] Amen R, Vomacka P. Case-based reasoning as a tool for materials selection. Mater Des 2001;22:3538. [11] Takuma M, Shibasaka T, Teshima T, Iwai Y, Honda T. Study on support system for materials selection in the design process. Trans JSME C 1994;60(574):294300 [in Japanese]. [12] Sarfaraz Khabbaz R, Dehghan Manshadi B, Abedian A, Mahmudi R. A simplied fuzzy logic approach for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Mater Des 2008. [13] Liao TW. A fuzzy multi criteria decision making method for material selection. J Manuf Syst 1996;15:112. [14] Shanian A, Savadogo O. A material selection model based on the concept of multiple attribute decision making. Mater Des 2006;27:32937. [15] Shanian A, Savadogo O. TOPSIS multiple-criteria decision support analysis for material selection of metallic bipolar plates for polymer electrolyte fuel cell. J Power Sources 2006;159:1095104. [16] Chen RW, Navin-Chandra D, Kurfess T, Prinz FB. A systematic methodology of material selection with environmental considerations. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE international symposium on electronics and the environment, San Francisco, CA, USA; 1994. p. 2527. [17] Ribeiro I, Pecas P, Silva A, Henriques E. Life cycle engineering methodology applied to material selection, a fender case study. J Clean Prod 2008;16:188799. [18] Bamkin RJ, Piearcey BJ. Knowledge-based material selection in design. Mater Des 1990;11(1):259. [19] Sandstrom R. An approach to systematic materials selection. Mater Des 1985;6:32837. [20] Ashby MF. Materials selection in conceptual design. Mater Sci Tech 1989;5(6):51725. [21] Esawi AMK, Ashby MF. Systematic process selection in mechanical design. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ASME design engineering technical conference, Irvine, CA, USA, August 1822, 1996. p. 18.

5. Concluding remarks In comparison to MDL method, the Z-transformation method: 1. Technically uses a very simple function for scaling the material properties. 2. Uses a similar function for scaling the properties that their minimum are important as those which their maximum are important with only multiplying the function with a negative sign. 3. There is no need for dening XC as in MDL method. This greatly reduces the dependency of the method to the user knowledge. 4. With eliminating XC, there is no indeterminate point for the scaling function. It is reminded that at XC = Xmax/2 the nonlinear scaling functions for MDL method were found indeterminate and the user was obliged to perform linear scaling at this point. 5. Interestingly, both methods act closely in ranking the candidate materials. For example, in all three test examples the materials ranked rst are the same by both methods. In fact, both meth-

4404

K. Fayazbakhsh et al. / Materials and Design 30 (2009) 43964404 [26] Manshadi BD, Mahmudi H, Abedian A, Mahmudi R. A novel method for materials selection in mechanical design: combination of non-linear normalization and a modied digital logic method. Mater Des 2007;28:815. [27] Richard J, Larsen, Marx Morris L. An introduction to mathematical statistics and its applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.; 1981. [28] Torrez JB. Light-weight materials selection for high-speed naval craft. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2007.

[22] Ashby MF. Multi-objective optimization in material design and selection. Acta Mater 2000;48:35969. [23] Garton DA, Kang KJ, Fleck NA, Ashby MF. Materials selection for minimum weight fatigue design. Theor Concept Numer Anal Fatigue 1992:35976. [24] Farag M. Materials selection for engineering design. Prentice-Hall; 1997. [25] Farag MM. Materials selection for engineering design. London: Prentice Hall Europe; 1997.