Introduction

Materials selection is a crucial aspect of design and development, involving the thorough
evaluation of various factors to determine the most suitable materials for a specific application or
design. This detailed process considers a wide range of characteristics, including mechanical
properties, chemical compatibility, thermal stability, cost, manufacturability, and environmental
impact.

The main goal of materials selection is to find materials that meet the desired performance
requirements while optimizing essential factors such as strength, durability, weight, and aesthetics.
To accomplish this, engineers and designers must carefully assess the unique characteristics of
different materials, including metals and alloys, polymers, composites, and ceramics.

A thorough materials selection process involves the evaluation of several key factors, including:

 Mechanical properties, such as strength, toughness, and hardness

 Chemical compatibility, including resistance to corrosion and degradation
 Thermal stability, encompassing the ability to withstand extreme temperatures
 Cost, including material expense, production costs, and potential for cost savings
 Manufacturability, considering the ease of fabrication, processing, and assembly
 Environmental impact, including sustainability, recyclability, and eco-friendliness

By carefully weighing these factors, engineers and designers can identify materials that meet the
desired performance requirements while optimizing for key performance indicators. This, in turn,
can lead to the creation of innovative and efficient solutions that:

 Enhance product performance, improving functionality, efficiency, and reliability

 Prolong lifespan, extending the life of the product or structure
 Reduce costs, minimizing material expenses, production costs, and maintenance
 Promote sustainability, creating eco-friendly solutions that reduce environmental impact

Ultimately, the materials selection process plays a critical role in the development of innovative
and efficient solutions that meet the desired performance requirements while minimizing
environmental impact.

1|Page
Ceiling Fan Blades

Ceiling fans have been a common feature in both residential and commercial spaces for decades,
offering a cost-effective and energy-efficient way to circulate air and regulate indoor climates.
With a growing focus on sustainable living and reducing carbon footprints, the demand for energy-
efficient ceiling fans has become increasingly important. The design of the fan blade is a crucial
element, significantly influencing the fan's aerodynamic performance, energy consumption, and
overall efficiency.

Despite their widespread use, ceiling fan blades have historically received limited research and
development attention, with most designs being based on traditional empirical methods. However,
recent advancements in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and numerical optimization
techniques present new opportunities for the systematic design and optimization of ceiling fan
blades.

Fig 1: A ceiling fan made of Aluminum

This project aims to investigate the material uses and material efficiency characteristics of ceiling
fan blades, with a focus on optimizing blade design for improved performance. Through a
combination of numerical testing on materials, and multi-objective optimization, this study seeks
to develop novel blade designs that minimize energy consumption while maximizing airflow and
aerodynamic efficiency. The findings of this project have the potential to contribute significantly
to the development of more sustainable and efficient ceiling fan technologies.

2|Page
Task
Ceiling fan blades can be made from a variety of materials, including particleboard, fiberboard,
plastic, hardwood, or vinyl. They can be made in a variety of colors, patterns, textures, and styles;
as well as a design to match any room decor.

Primarily different types of alloy steel are being used in ceiling fan blades. But it varies sometimes
according to its demand in the market, and model variations.

Based on industry trends, we can make some general observations:

 Metal: A significant portion, possibly 60-70%, with aluminum being more popular than
steel due to its lighter weight.
 Plastic: It is likely the most common material due to affordability and ease of production.
Estimates suggest plastic blades hold a majority share, somewhere around 20-30%.
 Wood: While offering a classic look, wood blades are likely a smaller segment, potentially
around 5-10% due to higher cost and moisture concerns.
 Other Materials: Bamboo, glass, and resin blades are a niche market and likely only
account for a small fraction (less than 5%) of total production.

Others
8%

Wood & Natural Fiber Materials Used

11%

Steel & Aluminum

Plastic
Wood & Natural Fiber
Plastic
Others
19%
Steel & Aluminum
62%

Fig 02: Materials used for the production of the body of the Ceiling Fan Blades

3|Page
Meeting Multiple Constraints and Conflicting Objectives
Material selection is a multifaceted process that involves reconciling multiple constraints and
objectives. In many cases, these constraints and objectives are at odds with each other, making it
challenging to identify an optimal solution. There are two primary categories of material selection
problems:

Category 1: Single Objective with Multiple Constraints

In this category, there is a singular design goal, such as minimizing cost or reducing weight, that
needs to be accomplished while adhering to multiple constraints. These constraints might include
factors such as stiffness, fatigue strength, toughness, geometry, and thermal conductivity, among
others. The solution involves sequentially applying these constraints, eliminating materials that do
not satisfy them, and then ranking the remaining candidates based on their performance in
achieving the primary objective.

Category 2: Multiple Objectives with Conflicting Constraints

In this category, there are multiple objectives that must be balanced, such as minimizing weight
and cost. The challenge lies in the fact that the material that best meets one objective may not be
the same as the one that best meets another. To resolve this conflict, designers can employ various
strategies, including:

 Weighted Objectives: Assigning relative importance to each objective based on its

significance.
 Fuzzy Logic: Using fuzzy logic to quantify the uncertainty and imprecision associated with
each objective.
 Active Constraint Method: Identifying the most critical constraints and optimizing them
first.
 Penalty Function Method: Combining conflicting objectives into a single penalty function,
which is then minimized.

To effectively utilize these strategies, it is essential to express all objectives as quantities to be

minimized. This convention enables designers to eliminate subjectivity and make informed
decisions based on objective criteria.

4|Page
 Fig 03: Strategies for tackling selection with multiple constraints and conflicting objectives

By acknowledging the complexity of material selection and employing these strategies, designers
can make informed decisions that balance conflicting constraints and objectives, ultimately leading
to the development of optimal materials and products.

Trade-off Strategy

Optimizing Material Selection: Balancing Cost and Mass

When selecting a material, it's essential to consider multiple performance metrics, such as cost
(P1) and mass (P2), while meeting specific constraints like maximum service temperature and
corrosion resistance. In optimization theory, a solution refers to a viable material choice that
satisfies all constraints, but may not be optimal for either objective.

5|Page
Fig 04: Multiple objectives – We seek the material that minimizes mass and cost. Each bubble is
a solution – a material choice that meets all constraints. The trade-off surface links
nondominated solutions

Visualizing the Trade-Off

Figure 04 illustrates the relationship between P1 and P2 for various material solutions, with each
bubble representing a unique solution. The plot reveals that solutions that minimize P1 do not
necessarily minimize P2, and vice versa. Some solutions, like point A, are suboptimal, as all
solutions within the attached box have lower values for both P1 and P2. These solutions are
considered dominated by others.

On the other hand, solutions like point B have a unique characteristic: no other solution exists with
lower values for both P1 and P2. These solutions are referred to as non-dominated solutions. The
line or surface that connects these solutions is called the nondominated or optimal trade-off
surface. The corresponding values of P1 and P2 for these nondominated solutions form the Pareto
set.

Optimal Compromise

The solutions that lie on or near the trade-off surface offer the best compromise between cost and
mass. These solutions should be prioritized, while the others can be rejected. By identifying the
nondominated solutions, designers can make informed decisions that balance competing
objectives and constraints, ultimately leading to the selection of optimal materials.

6|Page
  From the trade-off surface, we found some suitable materials. These are:-

 High strength Steel

 Aluminum, 518.0, die-cast

 Magnesium, AE4, cast

 ABS (20% carbon fiber, EMI shielding, conductive)

 Market analysis indicates that a value of 𝛼* =0.45 is appropriate for general consumers,
while a value of α*= 40 is suitable for premium-class consumers.

 From a value of α*, we calculate the relative penalty function Z*.

Relative Penalty Functions

When we seek a better material for an existing application, it is more helpful to compare the new

material choice with the existing one. To do this we define a relative penalty function;

𝐶 𝑚
𝑍∗ = + 𝛼∗
𝐶0 𝑚0

in which the subscript “o” means properties of the existing material and the asterisk “*” on Z* and

α* is a reminder that both are now dimensionless. The relative exchange constant α* measures the

fractional gain in value for a given fractional gain in performance.

7|Page
Fig 05: A relative trade-off plot, useful when exploring the substitution of existing material with
the aim of reducing mass or cost or both

Fig 05 shows the relative trade-off plot, here on linear scales. The axes are C/Co and m/mo. The
material currently used in the application appears at the coordinates (1,1). Solutions in Sector A
are both lighter and cheaper than the existing material, those in Sector B are cheaper but heavier,
those in Sector C are lighter but more expensive, and those in Sector D, are uninteresting. Contours
of Z* can be plotted onto the figure. The contour that is tangent to the relative trade-off surface
again identifies the optimum search area. As before, when logarithmic scales are used, the contours
of Z* become curves. So, if values for the exchange constants are known, a completely systematic
selection is possible.

CES Edu Pack

It isn't just software; it's a portal to the fascinating world of materials! Developed by Granta Design,
this software empowers students and educators in engineering and design to explore and
understand the vast array of materials and their properties. Imagine a treasure trove of information
on everything from a metal's strength to a plastic's heat resistance. CES Edu Pack offers just that
– a comprehensive database that categorizes materials based on their mechanical, thermal,

8|Page
electrical, and even environmental properties. But it doesn't stop there! This software goes beyond
data. It allows users to compare materials side-by-side, considering factors like cost, performance,
how sustainable they are, and even how readily available they might be. Interactive charts, graphs,
and visualizations bring these comparisons to life, making it easy to understand how materials
behave and perform under different conditions. With a user-friendly interface and intuitive tools,
CES Edu Pack isn't just informative, it's engaging. Students can delve into real-world design
scenarios, experiment with different materials, and ultimately make informed choices for their
projects. This hands-on approach fosters materials literacy, a crucial skill for engineers and
designers. For educators, CES Edu Pack has become a powerful teaching tool. They can create
interactive exercises that challenge students to think critically about material selection. This active
learning experience sparks curiosity and helps students truly grasp the importance of choosing the
right material for the job. In a nutshell, CES Edu Pack plays a vital role in promoting sustainable
and optimized material selection. It equips future engineers and designers with the knowledge and
skills to make informed choices that not only benefit their creations but also consider the
environmental impact.

Project Strategy

Fig 06: Project strategy

9|Page
Design Requirements
Table 01: Design requirements of the project

Functions Ceiling Fan Blades

Objectives  Mass Minimization

 Cost Minimization

Constraints  Specified Length & Width

 Stiffness

Free Variables • Choose of Materials

• Thickness

Development of Performance Matrices

Performance matrices are developed from the constraints and objectives considered in this project.

Fig 07: Schematic representation of bending stiffness

10 | P a g e
Development of Relative Penalty Function

Materials Exploration
From market analysis it is found that 𝛼∗ = 0.45 is applicable for general consumers and 𝛼∗ =40 is
applicable for premium class consumers.

11 | P a g e
The potential of alternative materials for the ceiling fan blades is explored using the CES Edu Pack
2013 visualization software. Steps involved in this exploration;

Step 1: C/Co and m/mo are plotted on the X-axis and Y-axis respectively.

Step 2: Limit of fracture toughness (≥ 2*106 Pa. m0.5) is applied.

Step 3: Limit of yield strength – elastic limit (≥ 2*107 Pa) is applied.

Step 4: Qualified materials are identified.

Step 5: The trade-off curve has been drawn.

Step 6: Z* contours are plotted using 𝛼∗ = 0.45 and 𝛼∗ = 40.

Fig 8: Qualified materials are identified

Fig 9: Trade-off curve has been drawn & Z* contours are plotted using 𝛼∗ = 0.45 and 𝛼∗ = 40

12 | P a g e
Materials Selection

Final Selection: Aluminum

We are targeting general consumers who want to compromise the weight for better quality at a
cheaper price.

4 Quadrant Chart

Fig 10: 4 Quadrant Chart

A 4 Quadrant Chart is a valuable tool in material selection, enabling the visualization and
comparison of various material properties. This chart is segmented into four quadrants, each
depicting a distinct combination of material characteristics. Generally, the first quadrant displays

13 | P a g e
the material's strength or performance on the y-axis, while the x-axis represents its cost or price.
This chart helps identify materials that offer high performance at a low cost. The second quadrant
plots a material's density on the y-axis against its strength or performance on the x-axis. This
quadrant is also known as the "Section area-density chart." To use it, you mark the density value
for a particular material by drawing a vertical line from the first quadrant.

The third and fourth quadrants are not explicitly defined for material selection, but they could
potentially be used to plot other material properties, such as durability, corrosion resistance, or
environmental impact. By using a 4 Quadrant Chart, engineers and designers can quickly identify
the most suitable materials for a specific application, considering multiple factors and properties.

Single Property Chart

Fig 11: Single property Chart

A Single Property Chart serves as a tool for selecting materials by visually representing and
comparing their properties based on a single key attribute, such as strength, density, corrosion
resistance, or thermal conductivity. By plotting material data on a chart where the y-axis shows
property values and the x-axis displays material names or identifiers, designers and engineers can
effectively rank materials, identify exceptional cases, streamline choices, and make informed
decisions. This chart facilitates rapid and efficient evaluation of materials based on a critical
property, aiding in the selection of the most appropriate material for specific applications.

14 | P a g e