Professional Documents
Culture Documents
School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7 Canada
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, 29 Oxford, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
c
Rolls-Royce Canada, 9500 Cote de Liesse, Lachine, QC, H8T 1A2 Canada
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 November 2010
Accepted 27 July 2012
Available online 4 August 2012
Keywords:
Design
Materials selection
Analytic network process
a b s t r a c t
Using the Analytic Network Process (ANP), this article aims at presenting a new concept for multicriteria
material selection by means of allowing feedback and interactions within and between sets of design criteria and alternatives. The approach and its advantages are discussed using a multicriteria material selection case study on non-metallic gears under multifunctional design requirements (thermal performance,
mechanical performance, and weight). In particular, it is shown how the selection of material alternatives
under different criteria can be viewed as a network problem, as opposed to a conventional hierarchical
decision-making process. The effect of different weighting factors of criteria clusters on the nal solution
is also discussed.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Historically, metallic materials have been used in high-risk
components such as airframes and engines. This was originally a
successful strategy and allowed aerospace manufacturers to offer
competitive high performance products. However, as producers
of new materials began to develop lighter and more structurally
sound components, the use of conventional metallic materials
underwent a decreasing trend [1]. In particular, the high
strength-to-weight and high stiffness-to-weight properties of plastics, polymer-based composites and hybrid materials made them
attractive alternatives for structural applications over a wide range
of service conditions [24]. To take full advantage of lightweight
materials, however, their selections should be made with expert
knowledge and care, which is often a challenging task due to the
variety of possible solutions and trade-offs between properties of
candidate materials in complex applications. As a rst step during
decision-making, designers experience and analysis tools are normally used to shortlist the candidate materials. Recently, Aceves
et al. [5] presented a methodology to identify short lists of structural materials from a large number of alternatives, taking into account conicting design objectives and constraints. In particular,
their work described a conceptual framework to aid designers in
selecting an optimum design of composite structures from a large
number of candidate materials that perform differently under
selected criteria including cost and weight.
After a short listing procedure, designers are often left with a
few candidate materials that show no apparent dominance over
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 250 807 9652; fax: +1 250 807 9850.
E-mail address: abbas.milani@ubc.ca (A.S. Milani).
0261-3069/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.07.057
each other. For instance, one material can outperform another under a particular set of criteria, but may lack under the rest of criteria. This situation is more pronounced when a large number of
design criteria must be satised simultaneously under a multitude
of design requirements (thermal, mechanical, cost, etc.). Ashby recommended material selection charts for a wide range of engineering applications [6,7]. The material selection procedure in this
method is based on two or three performance indices per chart.
A methodology for material selection of hybrid materials, as well
as generic materials, has also been presented by Ashby and Brchet
[7]. In their work, possible ways of designing hybrid materials are
explored with an emphasis on the shape and scale of mechanical
components. It is discussed how the introduced shape parameters
can expand the design boundaries and allow the development of
new materials with specic property proles. Applications of the
original Ashby method for light materials is also found in a number
of other earlier works; see, e.g., [8] for the design and material
selection of aluminum metal matrix composites. In a more recent
version of the method [9], a technology management concept
was introduced to select suitable materials taking into account
engineering and economic criteria. The Investment Methodology
for Materials (IMMs) introduced in [9] enabled the identication
of promising materials in an early stage of design, as well as a
successful exploitation and material substitution for critical
components.
Valdevit et al. [10] developed a material selection protocol for
lightweight actively cooled panels where failure maps were used
to allow direct comparison of materials thermal and mechanical
performances. Namely, failure maps were presented for candidate
high-temperature superalloys and ceramic matrix composites.
The developed protocol was used for the material selection of a
623
CA1 1 is the average performance value of A1 under the criteria C1, normally taken from materials handbooks, material properties databases or via mechanical tests. Similarly, C A22 is the average
performance value of A2 under the criteria C2. In the above approach, one should notice that criteria weights are xed and they
cannot vary, even if there is additional information that the designer may possess on each alternative. Formally, in this case the
decision is made in hierarchy, meaning that the upper-level decision elements such as criteria can affect the lower-level elements
such as alternatives, but not vice versa. The ANP concept, on the
other hand, sees the problem as a network where the importance
624
Level1:
Level 2:
Cluster 1: C1
Goal
(G)
Goal
(G)
Cluster 2:
C2
Criteria
(f1, f2,)
Criteria
(f1, f2,)
Inner
dependence
Cluster 3: C3
Level 3:
Alternatives
(A1, A 2,)
Alternatives
(A1, A 2,)
(a)
A feedback: outer
dependence
(b)
Fig. 1. Example of the structural difference between a hierarchy and a network: (a) a three-level hierarchy and (b) a three-cluster network.
625
The current efforts in aerospace industries for the design of sensitive components involve the treatment of a number of functional
requirements at the same time. These include reducing fuel consumption, cost, weight and enhancing the operability [16]. One
of the most signicant strategies for weight and cost reduction
and enhancing an aircraft performance is realized by simplifying,
integrating or partly eliminating secondary power systems [28].
The secondary power systems are normally used to run the electrical systems of the aircraft, for sensor actuations, environmental
control systems, audiovideo systems, etc. (Fig. 3). They can also
include subsystems, such as gearboxes, lubrication systems,
hydraulic pump/control systems, and pneumatic starting systems
via an auxiliary power unit/APU. In older aircrafts, these subsystems are relatively large, heavy and require excessive pipe work
and cabling. They are often made of machined or forged steels with
626
Table 1
Properties of the selected candidate materials [29].
Characteristic property at 20 C
Unit
Index
Nylon 12
A1
Nylon 66
A3
Delrin
A4
Effect on performance
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of thermal expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
g/cm3
C
W/mK
./C
MPa
MPa
MPa
.
.
MPa
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
1.01
100
0.29
110
1.6
20
40
7
10
0.3
1.23
100
0.29
30
3.1
18
50
7
15
0.85
1.14
100120
0.23
85
3.2
25
60
7
10
1
1.42
100
0.31
110
3.5
25
70
7
10
1.3
+
+
+
+
+
+
ScoreAi
n
X
pij wj
where pij is the normalized value of material Ai under the jth criterion (i = 1, . . ., 4 and j = 1, . . ., 10); wj are the criteria weights. The
ensuing AHP scores and ranks for the four candidate materials are
given in Table 5 (the rest of this table will be discussed in the subsequent section).
3.2. Results of the Analytic Network Process (ANP)
As discussed in Section 1, ANP is an extension of AHP to allow
feedback and interactions between decision elements. Let us add
a feedback relationship between the alternatives and the criteria
in the given material selection problem to allow solving more complex decision situations by the designer. Fig. 5 shows an ANP structure of the problem where arrows between the criteria and
alternatives are now two-sided. The direction of the arrows represents the context of the pair-wise comparisons in the analysis. For
example, an arrow from f1 to A2 and A3 would ask: With respect to
the density criterion, how does Fiber Reinforced Nylon compare to
Nylon 66? Recalling test data in Table 2, and considering objective
weighting, the latter comparison yields 0.2402/0.2592 = 0.926. On
the other hand, an arrow from A2 to f1 and f4 would ask: Given the
Fiber Reinforced Nylon material, how signicant (or reliable) is its
density performance compared to its coefcient of thermal expansion performance? The inclusion of the reverse question (feedback) gives an opportunity to the decision maker to include more
details that he/she may have on each alternative. We may now
consider two different scenarios as follows.
627
Fig. 4. The AHP hierarchal structure employed in the non-metallic gear material selection case study.
Table 2
Normalized decision matrix (benet-type).
Criteria
Index
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of thermal expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
Nylon 12
Nylon 66
Delrin
A1
A2
A3
A4
0.2925
0.2439
0.2589
0.1437
0.1404
0.2273
0.1818
0.2500
0.2727
0.0870
0.2402
0.2439
0.2589
0.5268
0.2719
0.2045
0.2273
0.2500
0.1818
0.2464
0.2592
0.2683
0.2054
0.1859
0.2807
0.2841
0.2727
0.2500
0.2727
0.2899
0.2081
0.2439
0.2768
0.1437
0.3070
0.2841
0.3182
0.2500
0.2727
0.3768
Fig. 5. The ANP structure employed in the case study (each node of a given cluster is connected to all nodes of the other cluster).
628
Table 3
(Weighted) supermatrix for the network of Fig. 5 with feedback.
Coefcient
of expansion
Dynamic
modulus
Surface
fatigue
strength
Bending
fatigue
strength
Slope of SN
curve (surface)
Slope of SN
curve
(bending)
Dynamic
modulus
at 100 C
Nylon
12
Nylon 12
ber
reinforced
Nylon 66
Delrin
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.259
0.259
0.205
0.277
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.144
0.527
0.186
0.144
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.272
0.281
0.307
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.227
0.205
0.284
0.284
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.182
0.227
0.273
0.318
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.273
0.182
0.273
0.273
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.087
0.246
0.290
0.377
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Coefcient
of expansion
Dynamic
modulus
Surface
fatigue
strength
Bending
fatigue
strength
Slope of SN
curve (surface)
Slope of SN
curve
(bending)
Dynamic
modulus
at 100 C
Nylon 12
Nylon 12
ber
reinforced
Nylon
66
Delrin
Density
f1
f2
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.293
0.240
0.259
0.208
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.244
0.244
0.268
0.244
Thermal
conductivity
Table 4
Limit matrix obtained for the network of Fig. 5 with feedback.
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
Nylon 12
Nylon 12 ber reinforced
Nylon 66
Delrin
Index
Density
Max
operating
temp
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
Nylon 12
Nylon 12 ber reinforced
Nylon 66
Delrin
Max
operating
temp
Thermal
conductivity
Index
629
Table 5
Scores and ranking of alternative materials in design scenario 1.
Nylon 12
A1
Nylon 12 ber
reinforced
A2
Nylon 66
Delrin
A3
A4
AHP
0.21
0.105
4
0.266
0.133
2
0.256
0.128
3
0.268
0.134
1
ANP
Score
Rank
0.105
4
0.133
2
0.128
3
0.134
1
Table 6
Weighted supermatrix for AHP solution of design scenario 1.
Goal
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
Nylon 12
Nylon 12 ber reinforced
Nylon 66
Delrin
Index
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
G
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.293
0.240
0.259
0.208
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.244
0.244
0.268
0.244
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.259
0.259
0.205
0.277
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.144
0.527
0.186
0.144
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.272
0.281
0.307
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.227
0.205
0.284
0.284
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.182
0.227
0.273
0.318
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.273
0.182
0.273
0.273
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.087
0.246
0.290
0.377
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 7
Limit matrix for AHP solution of design scenario 1.
Goal
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
Nylon 12
Nylon 12 ber reinforced
Nylon 66
Delrin
Index
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
G
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
0
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.105
0.133
0.128
0.134
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.293
0.240
0.259
0.208
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.244
0.244
0.268
0.244
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.259
0.259
0.205
0.277
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.144
0.527
0.186
0.144
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.272
0.281
0.307
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.227
0.205
0.284
0.284
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.182
0.227
0.273
0.318
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.273
0.182
0.273
0.273
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.087
0.246
0.290
0.377
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
630
Table 8
Unweighted supermatrix for ANP solution of design scenario 2.
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of thermal expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
Nylon 12
Nylon 12 ber reinforced
Nylon 66
Delrin
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.293
0.240
0.259
0.208
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.244
0.244
0.268
0.244
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.259
0.259
0.205
0.277
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.144
0.527
0.186
0.144
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.272
0.281
0.307
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.227
0.205
0.284
0.284
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.182
0.227
0.273
0.318
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.273
0.182
0.273
0.273
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.087
0.246
0.290
0.377
1.000
0.273
0.545
0.182
0.082
0.136
0.102
0.204
0.408
0.068
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.182
0.273
0.545
0.408
0.082
0.102
0.204
0.068
0.136
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.545
0.273
0.182
0.136
0.204
0.102
0.068
0.082
0.408
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.273
0.545
0.182
0.136
0.102
0.204
0.068
0.082
0.408
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 9
Weighted supermatrix for ANP solution of design scenario 2.
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of thermal expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
Nylon 12
Nylon 12 ber reinforced
Nylon 66
Delrin
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.293
0.240
0.259
0.208
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.244
0.244
0.268
0.244
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.259
0.259
0.205
0.277
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.144
0.527
0.186
0.144
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.272
0.281
0.307
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.227
0.205
0.284
0.284
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.182
0.227
0.273
0.318
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.273
0.182
0.273
0.273
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.087
0.246
0.290
0.377
0.500
0.068
0.136
0.045
0.020
0.034
0.026
0.051
0.102
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
0.045
0.068
0.136
0.102
0.020
0.026
0.051
0.017
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
0.136
0.068
0.045
0.034
0.051
0.026
0.017
0.020
0.102
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
0.068
0.136
0.045
0.034
0.026
0.051
0.017
0.020
0.102
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 10
Limit matrix for ANP solution of design scenario 2.
Density
Max operating temp
Thermal conductivity
Coefcient of thermal expansion
Dynamic modulus
Surface fatigue strength
Bending fatigue strength
Slope of SN curve (surface)
Slope of SN curve (bending)
Dynamic modulus at 100 C
Nylon 12
Nylon 12 ber reinforced
Nylon 66
Delrin
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
f9
f10
A1
A2
A3
A4
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
0.250
0.040
0.051
0.035
0.024
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.020
0.032
0.123
0.130
0.127
0.119
Table 11
Global scores and ranking of materials in design scenario 2 using ANP and with equal
criteria weights (note that this scenario is not possible to solve with AHP).
ANP
Score
Rank
Nylon 12
Nylon 66
Delrin
A1
A2
A3
A4
0.123
3
0.130
1
0.126
2
0.119
4
in the given ANP structure, one for criteria and one for alternatives,
and thus the summation of nal scores for each cluster in the
supermatrix is 0.5). From the results in Table 5, we can notice that
the AHP and ANP solutions have become identical under Scenario
1. In other words, the problem denitions of Figs. 4 and 5 are
Results
Nylon
12 (A1)
Nylon 12 ber
reinforced (A2)
Nylon
66 (A3)
Delrin
(A4)
(1, 0, 0)
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
0.146
1
0.110
3
0.086
4
0.115
4
0.123
3
0.120
3
0.167
1
0.117
3
0.133
3
0.130
1
0.129
2
0.109
4
0.138
2
0.126
1
0.127
2
0.104
4
0.113
2
0.156
1
0.124
2
0.119
4
(0, 1, 0)
(0, 0, 1)
(1/3, 1/3, 1/3)
(0.5, 0.25, 0.25)
relative importance can change from one material to another. Practically, this can be due to the fact that for the decision maker, some
material properties are more important than others. In the given
example, the designer suggests that the mass reduction is of primary importance, while the mechanical and thermal performances
are secondary. For convenience, criteria performances are grouped
into three clusters as shown in Fig. 6.
Using a direct weight assignment method [17], the initial designers (subjective) weights with the respect to the decision clusters are assumed to be:
Mass criteria cluster (fi, i = 1) ? subjective (DM) weight: 0.50
Thermal criteria cluster (fi, i = 2, 3, 4) ? subjective (DM) weight:
0.25 (i.e., each 0.25/3)
Mechanical criteria cluster (fi, i = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) ? subjective
(DM) weight: 0.25 (i.e., each 0.25/6)
Remark: There are several weighting methods in the literature
that can be used in MADM problems [17]. As addressed earlier,
two main categories of these weightings methods are subjective
methods and objective methods. In the subjective methods, the
DM has a direct role in determining the weights (such as the direct
weighting procedure, the digital logic/DL approach or its modied
version/MDL, and the revised Simos procedure). Example application of these methods in material selection can be found in earlier
works [3335]. In the objective weighting methods (such as the
mean method and entropy methods [17], standard deviation method, and the method of criteria importance through inter-criteria
correlation/CRITIC), the DM has no role and the weights are derived based on the material data. A more recent category includes
a mixed subjectiveobjective weighting that was developed in
[36]. In the current study, the direct weighting procedure was chosen as a basic illustrative method, assuming that the DM is experienced enough to dene the relative importance of the clusters
based on related design and material selection constraints. In aerospace applications, weight saving is of primary interest [28] (hence
a 50% relative importance was assigned for density). The thermal
performance of gears (under surface contact cycles during the service) and their mechanical performance under dynamic loads were
considered as secondary criteria (each given a 25% importance).
The latter assignment was due to the fact that secondary power
systems normally experience much lower temperature and
mechanical loads as compared to the primary power systems that
are used for propulsion.
Given an alternative material, also let us consider that the designer in the current scenario wishes to assign an additional
weighting scheme over the criteria values. There are different situations where this need may arise, one of which was discussed in
Section 2.2. Here, we assume that he/she would like to give more
emphasis to the criterion under which a given material performs
631
632
[9] Maine E, Probert D, Ashby M. Investing in new materials: a tool for technology
managers. Technovation 2005;25.
[10] Valdevit L, Vermaak N, Zok FW, Evans AG. A materials selection protocol for
lightweight actively cooled panels. J Appl Mech 2008;75.
[11] Sadagopan D, Pitchumani R. Application of genetic algorithms to optimal
tailoring of composite materials tailoring. Compos Sci Technol 1998;58.
[12] Thurston DL, Carnahan JV. Fuzzy ratings and utility analysis in preliminary
design evaluation of multiple attributes. ASME J Mech Des 1992;114.
[13] Karandikar HM, Mistree F. Tailoring composite materials through optimal
selection of their constituents. ASME J Mech Des 1992;114.
[14] Fitch PE, Cooper JS. Life cycle energy analysis as a method for material
selection. ASME J Mech Des 2004;126.
[15] Seepersad CC, Allen JK, McDowell DL, Mistree F. Robust design for
multidisciplinary and multiscale applications. ASME J Mech Des 2006;128.
[16] Fayazbakhsh K, Abedian A. Materials selection for electronic enclosures in
space environment considering electromagnetic interference effect. Adv Space
Res 2010;45.
[17] Yoon KP, Hwang C. Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage
Publications; 1995.
[18] Milani AS, Shanian A. Gear material selection with uncertain and incomplete
data: material performance indices and decision aid model. Int J Mech Mater
Des 2006;3.
[19] Jahan A, Ismail MY, Sapuan SM, Mustapha F. Material screening and choosing
methods a review. Mater Des 2010;31.
[20] Saaty TL. The analytic network process: decision making with dependence and
feedback. RWS Publications; 1996.
[21] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process, planning, priority setting, resource
allocation. McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[22] Dweiri F, Al-Oqla PM. Material selection using analytical hierarchy process. Int
J Comput Appl Technol 2006;26.
[23] Rao RV. A decision making methodology for material selection using an
compromise ranking method. Mater Des 2008;29.
[24] Rao RV, Davim JP. A decision-making framework model for material selection
using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 2008;35.
[25] Yksel I, D Deviren M. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT
analysis a case study for a textile rm. Informat Sci 2007;177.
[26] Ashby MF. Materials selection in mechanical design. Pergammon Press; 1992.
[27] Srikar VT, Spearing SM. Materials selection for microfabricated electrostatic
actuators. Sens Actuat A 2003;102.
[28] Newman R. The more electric engine concept. SAE Technical Paper # 2004-013128, World Aviation Congress & Exposition, NV, USA; 2004.
[29] Hofmann D. Design and stress analysis of spur and helical gears. British Gear
Association, UK: Teaching Pack on Gear Technology; 1990.
[30] Crippa G, Davoli P, Gorla C. Design of plastic gears for power transmission, in:
56th Annual technical conference, ANTEC, Atlanta; 1998, pp. 29983002.
[31] Pril L, Mackerle J. Finite element analyses and simulations of gears and gear
drives: a bibliography 19972006. Eng Comput 2008;25.
[32] Paris PC, Erdogan F. A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. J Basic Eng
1963;55.
[33] Milani AS, Shanian A, Madoliat R, Nemes JA. The effect of normalization norms
in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material
selection. Struct Multidiscipl Optimizat 2005;29.
[34] Dehghan-Manshadi B, 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.
[35] Shanian A, Milani AS, Carson C, Abeyaratne RC. A new application of ELECTRE
III and revised Simos procedure for group material selection under weighting
uncertainty. Knowl-Based Syst 2008;21.
[36] Jahan A, Mustapha F, Sapuan SM, Ismail Md Y, Bahraminasab M. A framework
for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2012;58.