Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Outline
Conflicting objectives
Multi-objective optimisation
Reaching a compromise
Value functions and exchange constants
Weighed-properties method
Case studies
Resources:
M. F. Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design Butterworth Heinemann, 1999
Chapter 9
M. F. Ashby, Multi-objective optimisation in material design and selection
Acta Materialia, vol. 48, pp. 359-369, 2000
M. M. Farag, Quantitative methods of materials selection
Handbook of Materials Selection (M. Kutz) Wiley & Sons, 2002, chap. 1
Metric 1: mass m
A Dominated
solution
B Non-dominated
solution
Trade-off
surface
Light
Heavy
Cheap
Metric 2: cost C
Expensive
Heavy
Metric 1: mass m
Optimum solution
minimising m
Light
Upper limit on C
Metric 2: cost C
Cheap
Expensive
Metric 1: mass m
V = m + C
V2
V4
Contours of
constant V
Decreasing
values of V
Optimum solution,
minimising V
Cheap
plot on it contours of V
(lines of constant V have
slope -1/)
V3
V1
Light
Heavy
Metric 2: cost C
Expensive
V = m + C
m = 1/ C + 1/ V
mass, m
mass, m
Heavier
Heavier
Log scales
Decreasing
values of V
Cheap
Lighter
Lighter
-1/
cost, c
Expensive
Decreasing
values of V
cost, c
Cheap
Expensive
Exchange Constant
V = m + C
V
=
m C
( per kg)
0.5 to 1.5
5 to 20
100 to 500
500 to 2000
1000 to 9000
Find best material for a stiff casing of minimum thickness and weight
Objective 1
Objective 2
Stiff casing
w
Constraints
Stiffness, S
48 E I
w t3
with
S=
I
=
12
L3
Adequate toughness,
Klc > 15 MPa.m1/2
Objective 1
Minimise thickness t
1/ 3
Metric 1
S L3
t =
4Ew
Objective 2
Minimise mass m
1
E1/ 3
1/ 3
Metric 2
(from Part 2.3)
12 S w 2
m=
t
L
m = mass
w = width
L = length
= density
t = thickness
S = required stiffness
I = second moment of area
E = Youngs Modulus
L2 1/ 3 1/ 3
E
E
differs (for the same stiffness) from one made of Mo by the factor
1/ 3
t
E
= o
to
E
The mass differs by the factor
m
E1/ 3
= 1/ 3 . o
mo
E o
to
and
m
mo
M0 = ABS:
0 = 1,2 Mg/m3
E0 = 2,4 GPa
Trade-off plot
Mass
ABS, m/mo
Massrelative
relative totoABS
10
Elastome rs
Trade-off
surface
Additional
constraints:
Le ad
Cu-alloys
PTFE
Ni-alloys
K1c > 15
MPa.m 1/2
Ionomer
ABS
Ste els
PE
PC
Ti-alloys
Wood
suppressed
PMM A
Al-alloys
PP
Al-SiC Composite
Polyester
Nylon
Mg-alloys
CFRP
.
Polymer foams
GFRP
0.1
0.1
Thickness
relative to
Thickness
relative
toABS
ABS, t/to
10
Trade-off plot
The four sectors of a trade-off plot for substitution
Mass Mass
relative
to ABS, m/mo
rel ative to ABS
10
B. Thinner
Trade-off
but heavier
surface
D. Worse by
both metrics
Elastome rs
Lead
Cu-allo ys
PT FE
N i-allo ys
Ion omer
ABS
Steels
PE
PC
Ti-alloys
PM MA
Al-alloys
PP
Polye ster
Nylon
M g-alloys
C FRP
.
C.foams
Lighter
Polymer
GFR P
0.1
A. Better by
both metrics
but thicker
0 .1
10
Thickness relati ve to A BS
Finding a compromise: CFRP, Al and Mg alloys all offer reduction in mass and thickness
Trade-off plot
M = CFRP:
= 1,5
E = 220 GPa
t/t0 = 0,22
m/m0 = 0,28
M = Al alloys:
Mass
relative to ABS, m/mo
Mass relative to ABS
10
Mg/m3
Elastomers
Trade-off
surface
Lead
Cu-alloys
PTFE
Ni-alloys
Ionomer
ABS
Steels
PE
PC
Ti-alloys
PMMA
Al-alloys
PP
Al-SiC Composite
Polyester
Nylon
Mg-alloys
CFRP
E = 75 GPa
t/t0 = 0,31
m/m0 = 0,68
.
Polymer foams
GFRP
= 2,6 Mg/m3
0.1
0.1
10
Specification
Function
Pressure vessel
Objectives
Minimise mass
Minimise cost
Constraints
Free
variables
Pressure p
Wall thickness, t;
Choice of material
2R
L
R = radius
L = length
= density
p = pressure
t = wall thickness
p 2bL p b
=
2tL
t
r =
z =
pe + pi
p
=
2
2
p b2 pb
=
2bt 2t
t <
4
> 4
t
Objective 1
m = 2R L t + 4R2t
2R
= 2R L t 1 +
Aspect ratio
Constraint
Objective 2
Metric 2
Pressure p
2R
pR
=
< y
t
Sf
Eliminate t to give:
Metric 1
m = 2 R 2 L (1 + Q ) p Sf
y
C = Cm m
C
C = 2 R 2 L (1 + Q ) p Sf m
y
R = radius
L = length
= density
p = pressure
t = wall thickness
y= yield strength
Sf = safety factor
Q = aspect ratio 2R/L
Heavy
V2
V3
V4
Contours of
constant V
V1
Metric 1: mass m
V = m + C
Seek material with smallest V:
Evaluate V for each
solution, and rank
Light
or
Make trade-off plot
Decreasing
values of V
Optimum solution,
minimising V
Metric 2: cost C
Cheap
plot on it contours of V
(lines of constant V have
slope -1/)
V
=
mC
Expensive
Exchange Constant
= 20/kg (trucks)
Organics: good +
1e-4
1e-5
1e-6
Decreasing
values of V
1e-5
1e-4
1e-3
0.01
0.1
10
m y,o
=
.
mo y o
o / y,o = 0.03
and
C
m
and
Co
mo
Trade-off plot
Mass relative
to plain
carbon
Density
/ Elastic
limit steel, m/mo
Lead alloys
Trade-off
surface
10
Additional
constraints:
K1c >15 MPa.m1/2
C u-alloys
Zn-alloys
Mild steel
Ni-alloys
High-C steel
Low alloy steel
Al-alloys
0 .1
Mg-alloys
Al-SiC Composite
0. 1
GFR P
CFR P
10
T i-alloys
10 0
V = m + C
V
m m C
= 0
+
C0
C0 m0 C0
V* =
V
m
C
= *
+
Co
mo
Co
mo
Co
m
C
+
mo
Co
Value contour for * = 200 ( = 1000/kg)
Lead alloys
10
Trade-off
surface
1
Cu-alloys
Zn-alloys
Mild steel
Ni-alloys
High-C steel
Low alloysteel
Al-alloys
Mg-alloys
V* Al-SiCComposite
GFRP
0.1
0.1
Mass relative
to plain
carbon
steel, m/m o
Density
/ Elastic
limit
Mass relative
to plain
carbon
steel, m/m o
Density
/ Elastic
limit
Lead alloys
10
Trade-off
surface
1
Mild steel
Ni-alloys
High-C steel
Low alloysteel
Al-alloys
Mg-alloys
Al-SiC Composite
GFRP
0.1
CFRP Ti-alloys
10
Price *toDensity
Elastic limit
Cost relative
plain /carbon
steel, C/Co
100
Cu-alloys
Zn-alloys
V*
0.1
CFRP Ti-alloys
10
Price *toDensity
/ Elastic lim
it C/C
Cost relative
plain carbon
steel,
o
100
= i Vi
i=1
B=
Scaled property
(property to
be maximised)
B=
Scaled property
(property to
be minimised)
= i Bi
i=1
w [kg]
C []
BS 350
0,82
6,00
21,30
F3K20S
1,36
3,83
46,50
V1
V2
V3
B1
B2
B3
B=
Scaled property
(property to be minimised)
B1
B2
B3
BS 350
(0,82/0,82) x 100
(3,83/6,00) x 100
(21,30/21,30) x 100
F3K20S
(0,82/1,36) x 100
(3,83/3,83) x 100
(21,30/46,50) x 100
BS 350
F3K20S
= i B i
i=1
(Properties)
( 3/10 = 0.3 )
= 1.0