Mengunakan metode

kuantitatif dalam proses

seleksi bahan
Nidia Lestari
Prinsip pemilihan bahan
1. Analisa karakteristik bahan yang
dibutuhkan
2. Menciptakan solusi alternatif,
memetakan dan mengklasifikasikan
kadindat bahan yang dibutuhkan
3. Mengunakan metode kuantitatif dalam
proses seleksi bahan
4. Menemukan sumber informasi yang
akurat dari sifat bahan yg sesuai
Weighted Property Method
In most applications, the selected
material should satisfy more than one
more than one functional requirement
In this method each material
requirement (or property) is assigned
a certain weight (which depends on its
importance to the performance of the
design)
Weighted Property Method
This method attempts to:
Quantify how important each desired
requirement is determining by a
weighting factor (a)
Quantify how well a candidate
material satisfies each requirement is
determining by a scaling factor (b)
Ranking of Attributes
Attributes are characteristics that can
be described to distinguish one item
from another
Some attributes are more important
that others. Determining the relative
importance of the various properties
assigned to these attributes is
therefore necessary if this method is
to be used
Ranking of Attributes
There are two steps for ranking
attributes:
rank in order of importance with no
consideration of how important one
attribute is to another
a weight is assigned to the
importance of each attribute
Weighting factors
It is desirable to quantify the relative
importance of the attributes
One attribute may be very much more
important than another, while others
may be quite similar in importance
The relative importance is shown by
using a point scale that does not
exceed 100 points
Weighting factors
e.g; if strength is 4 times as important
as cost, it will be represented by an 80
/ 20 division
Weight 4 times as important as
strength, corrosion is 2 /3 the
importance of strength, etc
 4/6.91

Property 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 Ratio Weight

Weighting1 of 20attributes
Strength 60 50 80 1 0.14

Density 2 80 4 0.58

Corrosion 3 40 0.66 0.10

Colour 4 50 1 0.14

Cost 5 20 0.25 0.04

Total 6.91 1.00

The scaling factor (b)
The relative merit of each property of the
candidate material may be incorporated by
assigning the value of 100 (%) to the best
material in that property category
The best material may either have the
largest value of the given property or the
smallest
For example;
High Strength is given 100
Low density or low corrosion rate are given 100
Comparing and ranking alternatives I
Weighted properties method I
In this method each material
requirement 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).
Comparing and ranking alternatives I
Weighted properties method I
If a high property value is desirable
(e.g. strength):

If a low property value is desirable

(e.g. density, cost, corrosion loss)
Comparing and ranking alternatives I
Weighted properties method I
The weighted property values of each
material are then summed to give a
performance index (g). The material with
the highest performance index (g) is
optimum for the application.
Material performance index

where i is summed over all the n relevant

properties.
Digital Logic Method
In the cases where numerous material
properties are specied and the relative
importance of each property is not clear,
determinations of the weighting factor a can
be largely intuitive, which reduces the
reliability of selection.
The digital logic approach can be used as a
systematic tool to determine a.1 In this
procedure evaluations are arranged such
that only two properties are considered at a
time.
1 M. M. Farag, Materials Selection for Engineering Design,
Prentice-Hall, London, 1997.
Digital Logic Method
Every possible combination of properties or
goals is compared and no shades of choice
are required, only a yes (1) or no (0)
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 4.1.
 Digital Logic Method
In comparing two properties or goals, the more
important goal is given the number 1 and the
less important is given as 0. The total number of
possible decisions is N = n (n-1)/2, where n is
the number of properties or goals under
consideration.
A relative emphasis coefcient or weighting
factor a for each goal is obtained by dividing the
number of positive decisions for each goal (m)
into the total number of possible decisions (N).
In this case Sa = 1
 Comparing and ranking alternatives I
The Digital Logic Method
Table 4.1. Determination of the relative importance
of goals using the digital logic method
Goals Number of positive decision N = n(n-1)/2 Positive Relative
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 decision Emphasis
(1/2) (1/3) (1/4) (1/5) (2/3) (2/4) (2/5) (3/4) (3/5) (4/5) (m) Coefficient a
1 1 1 0 1 3 0.3
2 0 1 0 1 2 0.2
3 0 0 1 0 1 0.1
4 1 1 0 0 2 0.2
5 0 0 1 1 2 0.2
Total number of positive decisions (N) 10 S a = 1.0

Back to previous
Comparing and ranking alternatives I
The Digital Logic Method
To increase the accuracy of decisions based on
the digital logic approach, the yesno evaluations
can be modied by allocating gradation marks
ranging from 0 (no difference in importance) to 3
(large difference in importance).
In this case, the total gradation marks for each
selection criterion are reached by adding up the
individual gradation marks.
The weighting factors are then found by dividing
these total gradation marks by their grand total.
Comparing and ranking alternatives I
Taking cost into consideration
Cost can be considered as one of the
properties and given a weighting factor or
considered separately as a modifier to the
material performance index (g).
In the cases where the material is used for
space filling, cost can be introduced on per
unit volume basis. A figure of merit (M) for
the material can then be defined as:
 Comparing and ranking alternatives I
Taking cost into consideration

CS = cost of unit strength = (C r)

C = total cost of the material per unit weight
(stock, processing, finishing, ...etc)
= density of the material.
Case study 2. Selecting the optimum
material for a cryogenic storage tank

Materials requirements:
used in cryogenic applications for
liquefied nitrogen gas must not suffer
ductile-brittle transition at -196 oC
Using stronger material gives thinner
walls, which means a lighter tank, lower
cool down losses, and easier to weld.
Lower specific gravity gives lighter tank.
Case study 2. Selecting the optimum
material for a cryogenic storage tank
Lower thermal expansion coefficient
reduces thermal stress.
Lower thermal conductivity reduces heat
losses.
Lower specific heat reduces cool down
losses.
The cost of material and processing will
be used as a modifier to the material
performance index.
 Table 4.2 Application of digital logic
method to cryogenic tank problem
P Decision number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 0 1 0 0 1 1
3 0 0 0 0 0 1
4 0 1 1 1 1 1
5 0 1 1 0 1 1
6 0 0 1 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 1
P = Property
1 = Toughness, 2 = Yield Strength, 3 = Youngs Modulus,
4 = Density, 5 = Expansion, 6 = Conductivity,
7 = Specific Heat
Table 4.3 Weighting factors for
cryogenic tank

Property Positive decisions Weighting factor

1 Toughness 6 0.28
2 Yield Strength 3 0.14
3 Youngs Modulus 1 0.05
4 Density 5 0.24
5 Expansion 4 0.19
6 Conductivity 1 0.05
7 Specific Heat 1 0.05
Total 21 1.00
 Table 4.4 Properties of candidate
materials for cryogenic tank
Material Toughness Yield Strength Youngs Specific
Index a Modulus Gravity
Al 2014-T6 75.5 420 74.2 2.8
Al 5052-O 95 91 70 2.68
SS 301-FH 770 1365 189 7.9
SS 301-3/4FH 187 1120 210 7.9
Ti-6Al-4V 179 875 112 4.43
Inconel 718 239 1190 217 8.51
70Cu-30Zn 273 200 112 8.53

a Toughness index, TI, is based on UTS, yield

strength YS, and ductility e, at -196 oC (-321.8 oF)
TI = (UTS+YS) e /2
 Table 4.5 Properties of candidate
materials for cryogenic tank
Material Thermal Expansion b Thermal Conductivity c Specific Heat d
Al 2014-T6 21.4 0.37 0.16
Al 5052-O 22.1 0.33 0.16
SS 301-FH 16.9 0.04 0.08
SS 301-3/4FH 14.4 0.03 0.08
Ti-6Al-4V 9.4 0.016 0.09
Inconel 718 11.5 0.31 0.07
70Cu-30Zn 19.9 0.29 0.06

b Thermal expansion coefficient is given in 10-6/oC.

The values are averaged between RT and -196oC.
c Thermal conductivity is given in cal/cm2/cm/oC/s.
d Specific heat is given in cal/g/oC. The values are
averaged between RT and -196oC.
 Table 4.6 Scaled values of properties
and performance index minimized
maximized

= (75.5/770 )x 100 = (9.4/21.4 )x 100

Material Scaled property (b) Performance Index (g)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Al 2014-T6 10 30 34 96 44 4.3 38 42.2
Al 5052-O 12 6 32 100 43 4.8 38 40.1
SS 301-FH 100 100 87 34 56 40 75 70.9
SS 301-3/4FH 24 82 97 34 65 53 75 50.0
Ti-6Al-4V 23 64 52 60 100 100 67 59.8
Inconel 718 31 87 100 30 82 5.2 86 53.3
70Cu-30Zn 35 15 52 30 47 5.5 100 35.9
P = Property, Weight factor (a)
1 = Toughness (0.28), 2 = Yield Strength (0.14),
3 = Youngs Modulus (0.05), 4 = Density (0.24), 5 = Expansion (0.19),
6 = Conductivity (0.05), 7 = Specific Heat (0.05)
Performance index calculation
g =
Al 2014-T6
(10x0.28)+(30x0.14)+(34x0.05)+(96x0
.24)+(44x0.19)+(4.3x0.05)+(38x0.05)
= 2.8 + 4.2 + 1.7 + 23.04 + 8.36 +
0.215 + 1.9
= 42.215
 Table 4.7 Cost, figure of merit, and
ranking of candidate materials
Material Relative Cost of unit Performance Figure Rank
Cost a Strength (x100) Index Of Merit

Al 2014-T6 1 0.67 42.2 62.99 2

Al 5052-O 1.05 3.09 40.1 12.98 6
SS 301-FH 1.4 0.81 70.9 87.53 1
SS 301-3/4FH 1.5 1.06 50.0 47.17 3
Ti-6Al-4V 6.3 3.20 59.8 18.69 4
Inconel 718 5.0 3.58 53.3 14.89 5
70Cu-30Zn 2.1 8.96 35.9 4.01 7

a Cost base on Al 2014-T6

Could you please download the
files at kampus.akprind.ac.id
Weighted Property Index Method
Step 1
Each material property (criteria) is
assigned a weighting factor (wi)
between 0 and 1 relative to its
importance to the overall design.
Pair-wise comparison
Saatys comparision
Weighted Property Index Method
Step 2
Property values for each alternative are
normalized by a scaling factor, usually the
largest value among all alternatives.
If a high property value is desirable (e.g.
strength):

If a low property value is desirable (e.g.

density):
Weighted Property (Performance)
Index Method Step 3
Weighted property index is calculated
by multiplying the scaling factor by the
weight factor. Then the summed for
the criteria.
Performance Index Method
Example
The material selection for the legs of a
table is being evaluated on the basis
of the following properties: (1) density,
(2) stiffness, (3) cost, (4) production
energy, and (5) CO2 production.
What information do we need?
Performance Index Method
Example
Alternatives
Bamboo, Cast iron, Low carbon steel, and Oak
Property Values
Weighting Factors (How do we determine
these?)
Your/design teams intuition (good)
Pair-wise comparison (better)
Saatys Scale for Pair-wise comparison (best)