Material Selection for Automotive Brake Disc: Case Study 2

Materials for Automotive brake disc : load , friction & wear from moving parts
at very high velocity, temperature generated during friction, hostile environment

Material used for brake systems should have : stable and reliable frictional
and wear properties under varying conditions of load, velocity, temperature &
environmental factors

A material to withstand high friction and less abrasive wear, the high
temperature that evolved due to friction.

Weight, manufacturing process ability and cost are also important factors
those are needed to be considered during the design phase.
Initial screening can be performed using Ashby’s material selection chart and
based on the properties, potential candidate materials for automotive brake
disc are selected as: ( ie after rigid or go-no-go requirements)
• Gray cast iron (GCI)
• Ti-alloy (Ti-6Al-4V)
• 7.5 wt% WC and 7.5 wt% TiC reinforced Ti-composite (TMC)
• 20 % SiC reinforced Al-composite (AMC 1)
• 20 % SiC reinforced Al–Cu alloy (AMC 2).

The numerical value of the each property of each candidate material is shown
The properties and decision numbers are shown in Table (1) and corresponding
weighting factors for each property is shown in Table (2)
The values of the scale properties of each material along with corresponding
performance index (PI) calculated using the following equations is shown in Table 5.9..

Finally, figure of merit (FOM) and ranking of the candidate materials for the
application of automotive brake rotor system were calculated and given in tabular
form. From the Table, it can be seen that AMC 2 material showed highest PI
followed by GCI..
From the Table, it can be seen that AMC 2 material showed highest PI followed
by GCI. Finally, selection of optimum materials must be done. After narrowing
down the field of possible candidate materials to those that do not violate any of
the rigid requirements, one should start searching the material that best meet
the soft requirements for optimum selection
MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION

The substitution is an activity through which a product , a material or a process is

replaced by a more suitable alternative. An important consideration in making a
substitution decision is the relative value which includes the price ratio,
substitution costs and customers propensity to substitute.

The common reasons for materials substitution include:

● Taking advantage of new materials or processes

● Improving service performance, including longer life and higher reliability
● Meeting new legal requirements
● Accounting for changed operating conditions
● Reducing cost and making the product more competitive
Generally, a simple substitution of one material for another does not produce an
optimum solution. This is because it is not possible to realize the full potential of a
new material unless the component is redesigned to exploit its strong points and
manufacturing characteristics.
Manufacturers and engineers are always on the lookout for new materials and
improved processes to use in manufacturing better products and thus maintain
their competitive edge and increase their profit margin.
For example, in the automotive industry, the effort to reduce weight to
improve fuel economy and to comply with tighter governmental regulations on
safety and emission has led to the introduction of increasing amounts of
plastics and composite materials in place of the traditionally used steels.
However, suppliers of the traditional materials are trying to regain some of the
lost ground by introducing higher-strength steels and prefinished sheets. ( this
is also a substitution process)
This competition among materials makes it necessary to periodically perform a
materials audit to determine whether the material used in making a given
component should be substituted.

Reaching a decision on substitution can be complicated and may involve materials

engineers, designers, manufacturing engineers, as well as marketing and
purchasing personnel ( variety of professionals involved).

The process can be further complicated if future investment plans for new plants
and equipments are involved.

Unless the substitution process is carried out methodically, it can lead to

confusion, delays, unnecessary expense, or even the wrong decision being made.
Company policies- powerful arguments for not changing the status quo,
requirement of regulatory/ safety clearances. However, engineering products
are subject to continual evolution to meet increased performance demands and to
lower manufacturing costs.
Following is a brief description of some of the quantitative methods that are
available for making decisions in materials substitution.
Pugh Method

The Pugh method is useful as an initial screening method in the early stages
of design. In this method, a decision matrix is constructed as shown in Table.
Each of the properties of a possible alternative new material is compared with
the corresponding property of the currently used material and the result is
recorded in the decision matrix as ( + ) if more favorable,(- ) if less favorable,
and (0) if the same. (qualitative comparison of each alternative to a
reference datum alternative , criterion by criterion)
The decision on whether a new material is better than the currently used
material is based on the analysis of the result of comparison, i.e., the total
number of (+), (-), and (0). New materials with more favorable properties than
drawbacks are selected as serious candidates for substitution and are used to
redesign the component and for detailed analysis.
It is also used in conceptual design because it needs least amount of detailed
information.
New materials with more favorable properties than drawbacks are selected as
serious candidates for substitution and are used to redesign the component
and for detailed analysis.
 Redesign of Helical Steel Spring

The Pugh decision method is used to select a replacement material for a

helical steel spring in a wind-up toy train.

Present material : Hard drawn Steel ASTM A227

The alternatives to the currently used ASTM A227 class I hard-drawn

steel wire are the same material in a different design geometry, ASTM
A228 music spring-quality steel wire, and ASTM A229 class I steel wire,
quenched and oil tempered. ( same chemical composition)

In the decision matrix that follows, if an alternative is judged better

than the datum, it is given a +, if it is poorer it gets a –, and if it is
about the same it is awarded an S, for “same.” The +, –, and S
responses are then totaled.
Cost–Benefit Analysis

The cost–benefit analysis is more suitable for the detailed analysis

involved in making the final material substitution decision. Because new
materials are usually more complex and often require closer control and
even new technologies for their processing, components made from such
materials are more expensive.
This means that for materials substitution to be economically feasible, the
economic gain as a result of improved performance B should be more
than the additional cost incurred as a result of substitution C:
B – C > 1
For this analysis it is convenient to divide the cost of materials substitution C
into:

● Cost Differences in Direct Material and Labor.

New materials often have better performance but are more expensive. When
smaller amounts of the new material are used to make the product, the increase in
direct material cost may not be as great as it would appear at first. Cost of labor
may not be an important factor in substitution if the new materials do not require
new processing techniques and assembly procedures. If, however, new processes
are needed, new cycle times may result and the difference in productivity has to be
carefully assessed.
● Cost of Redesign and Testing: Using new materials usually involves
design changes and testing of components to ensure that their
performance meets the requirements. The cost of redesign and
testing can be considerable in the case of critical components.

Cost of New Tools and Equipment: Changing materials can have

considerable effect on life and cost of tools, and it may influence the
heat treatment and finishing processes. This can be a source of cost
saving if the new material does not require the same complex
treatment or finishing processes used for the original material. The
cost of equipment needed to process new materials can be
considerable if the new materials require new production facilities as
in the case of replacing metals with plastics.
The gains as a result of improved performance B can be estimated based on the
expected improved performance of the component, which can be related to the
increase in performance index of the new material compared with the currently
used material. Such increases include the saving gained as a result of weight
reduction or increased service life of the component.
B = A (γn- γo )
where γn , γo performance indices of the new and original materials, respectively
.
A = benefit of improved performance of the component expressed in
dollars per unit increase in material performance index γ.
Substitute material that gives the highest ( % Ct %) can be selected
if it has clear advantage over the currently used material.
 where
C is the total cost of the material per
unit weight (stock, processing, finishing,
etc.) ρ is the density of the material.
Figure of Merit (FOM)

where, c´ is the relative cost of the material and it

is defined as the ratio of the price per unit mass of
the material and low carbon steel
 1/E
Earlier lecture’ s Case study
 Selecting the Optimum Material for a Cryogenic Storage Tank
Problem
It is required to select the optimum material for a large cryogenic storage tank
to be used in transporting liquid nitrogen gas.
Analysis
An important rigid requirement for materials used in cryogenic applications is
that the material must not suffer ductile–brittle transition at the operating
temperature, which is about −196°C (−320.8°F) in this case. This rules out all
carbon and low alloy steels and other bcc materials, which suffer ductile–brittle
transformation at low temperatures. Fcc materials do not usually become unduly
brittle at low temperatures. Many plastics are also excluded on this basis.
Processability is another rigid requirement. As welding is normally used
in manufacturing metal tanks, good weldability becomes a rigid requirement.
Availability of materials in the required plate thickness and size is also another
screening factor.

As a first step, the performance requirements of the storage tank should be

translated into material requirements. In addition to having adequate
toughness at the operating temperature, the material should be sufficiently
strong and stiff. With a stronger material, thinner walls can be used, which
means a lighter tank and lower cool down losses.
 Thinner walls are also easier to weld. Lower specific gravity is also important as
the tank is used in transportation. Lower specific heat reduces cooldown losses,
lower thermal expansion coefficient reduces thermal stresses, and lower
thermal conductivity reduces heat losses. The cost of material and processing
will be used as a modifier to the material performance index, as given in
Equation

The digital logic method is used to determine the weighting factors. With seven
properties to evaluate, the total number of decisions = N(N − 1)/2 = 7(6)/2 = 21.
The different decisions are given in Table.

The weighting factor can be calculated by dividing the number of positive

decisions given to each property by the total number of decisions. The resulting
weighting factors are given in Table.
Toughness is given the highest weight followed by density. The least important
properties are Young’s modulus, thermal conductivity, and specific heat; other
properties are in between.
The properties of a sample of the candidate materials are listed in Table.
The YS and Young’s modulus correspond to room temperature that is conservative
as they generally increase with decreasing temperature
The next step in the weighted property method is to scale the properties given in
Table 9.7. For the present application, materials with higher mechanical
properties are more desirable, and highest values in toughness, YS, and Young’s
modulus are considered as 100. Other values in Table 9.7 are rated in proportion.
However, lower values of specific gravity, thermal expansion coefficient, thermal
conductivity, and specific heat are more desirable for this application.
Accordingly, the lowest values in the table were considered as 100 and other
values rated in proportion according to Equation 9.4. The scaled values are given in
Table 9.8. The table also gives the performance index that is calculated according
to Equation 9.5.
The performance index shows the technical capability of the material without
regard to the cost. In this case, stainless steels are the optimum materials. It
now remains to consider the cost aspects by calculating the figure of merit (M).
In the present case, it is more appropriate to use Equation 9.7 as the primary
function of the tank material is to bear stresses. The formula for a thin-walled
pressure vessel is given in Table 9.2 as where S is the YS.
The values of the relative cost, cost of unit strength, performance index, figure
of merit, M, and the ranking of the different materials are shown in Table 9.9.
The results show that full hard stainless steel grade 301 is the optimum material
followed by Al 2014-T6.
In the procedure discussed, the strength and density were considered twice:
once in calculating the performance index (γ) and another time in calculating the
cost of unit strength. This procedure may have overemphasized their effect on
the final selection. This could be justifiable in this case as higher strength and
lower density are advantageous from the technical and economic points of view.