Seeking material properties information 7

[vagulus]

After some time searching the Net I have yet to find some ready-reference to material properties such as density, UTS, Rockwell Hardness, Youngs Modulus, etc.

I have come to the conclusion that there are so many variants within material types (take carbon steel for example), and so many variants in information and tests used, that no-one is game to list on the Net a ready-reckoner claiming to be definitive. Even Machinery's Handbook isn't much help. How, then, does one choose a material for a specific job?

I think of Engineers as rather pragmatic people, so I have to believe that such a ready-reckoner exists. If it does, can someone tell me where to download it?

Thanks

 

[XL83NL]

1. If you need material/grade specific properties, etiher chemical, mechanical, or waht ever, id look in the material specification (e.g. ASTM standard).
2. For other generic purposes (where details or lsight differences dont really matter, since the grade is not known - otherwise one wouldve taken route 1), a simple reference book would do, luike Gere & Timoshenko's Mechanics of Materials.

This is how I deal with it, and how I usually (if not always) succeed.

 

[mp87]

Hi,

there are so many variants within material types (take carbon steel for example)

This variability is one of the challenge that materials engineers have to face. Even when considering the same material with the same nominal composition taken from the same batch, significant scatter can be found in some properties, e.g. fatigue limit.

A simple approach to deal with it is via Ashby plots:

As you can see, each cloud describes the typical scatter of a certain material class. Once you have made your first selection (e.g. steel), you can further refine it until you come to a specific material (e.g. steel -> low alloy steel -> 4140).

 

[desertfox]

Hi

Well if you want specific material properties then you need to start looking at material specifications however that will depend on you're location, in Europe we would use BS EN specifications.
Click on this link it should give you some idea:-

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Matter/Steel_Europe_3.html

 

[mrfailure]

The information you seek is easily available, even on the web. You are just not looking hard enough. Look for technical spec sheets from suppliers. If you are really someone who uses these types of properties, I would suggest - gasp - spending money on a copy of the ASM Handbook desk edition or, even better, join ASM (the handbook is then available free to you on-line with your membership).

 

[CoryPad]

Matweb is a decent free source:

http://www.matweb.com

For Ashby analysis, you can purchase CES Selector software from Granta:

http://www.grantadesign.com/products/ces/

The ASM Handbook series is excellent, and the ASM Alloy Center database is available online with extra info for extra cost:

http://www.asminternational.org/mat.../-/journal_content/56/10192/15468704/DATABASE

 

[mp87]

Another option is Total Materia, which self-proclaims to be the most comprehensive materials database in the world.

It is an excellent source to compare materials from different countries and standards, but I wouldn't rely too much on it for fatigue data.

 

[Maui]

Chapter 17 in [italic]Metallurgy for the Non-Metallurgist, second edition[/italic], is titled, "The Materials Selection Process". It walks you through all of the details and considerations for choosing a material for a particular application, provides relevant graphs and references, a description of standards and codes, as well as examples. It wasn't written as an academic book but it's been purchased by almost 1,000 colleges and universities throughout the world. I don't know where you're located, but you probably don't need to buy a copy because there is likely a college or university library near you that has a copy on their shelves. You can search in your area through the following link:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/metallurgy-for-the-non-metallurgist/oclc/780082219

Maui

 

[EdStainless]

I don't use matweb because the data is from so many different sources it is hard to know if it is comparable.
I have ASM handbooks for most data.
For virtually all steels the density and modulus are within a fraction of a % of each other.
Those are intrinsic properties, they rely only on the composition.
Strength and hardness (are related to each other) depend greatly on thermomechanical history.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

 

[vagulus]

Thanks to all who responded for a very generous and helpful response.
That's given me a lot to work on.

 

[tbuelna]

What every engineer knows is that the material properties they base their design and analysis work on should be traceable to a reliable/acceptable source, such as AMS, ASTM, MMPDS, ASM, etc. Most of the time you will use the material standards defined on the PO from your customer. Normally you will need to pay for copies of these material standards, but that is just part of the cost of doing business.

 

[WKTaylor]

Vagulus

1. Aero engineers have the luxury of Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS-*) handbook [was MIL-HDBK-5 METALLIC MATERIALS AND ELEMENTS FOR AEROSPACE VEHICLE [/indent]STRUCTURES]. This document provides statistically reliable physical and mechanical property data for aerospace alloys. Available thru IHS Standards Expert [subscription] or Battelle Memorial Institute [CD]. -*= revision = [most recent] -09

2. Similar [aerospace quality physical/mechanical property] data is available via the Purdue University** Aerospace Structural Metals Handbook [ASMH]

3. Purdue University** also publishes a similar series of handbooks [3-vol] for 'ordinary' structural metals Structural Alloys Handbook, index as follows...

Volume 1. Wrought steel: Wrought steel selector chart -- Low carbon steels; composition (revised) -- 1020 steel --Medium carbon steels -- High carbon steels -- Low carbon, low alloys steels -- 4130 steel -- 4140 steel -- 4340 steel -- HY-80 steel -- Nickel steels -- 2 1/4 Cr-1 Mo steels. Cast Iron: Selector chart -- Gray iron -- Ductile iron -- White and alloy cast iron -- Malleable iron.
Volume 2. Wrought stainless steel. Selector chart -- UNS S20000 series Cr-Mn stainless steel -- 301 stainless steel -- 304 stainless steel -- 315 stainless steel -- 410 stainless steel -- 430 stainless steel -- Ferritic stainless steel --Duplex stainless steel -- 17-4PH and 15-5PH stainless steels -- 17-7PH stainless steel. Cast steel & cast stainless steel. Carbon and low-alloy cast steel selectro chart -- Cast steel -- Cast stainless steel selector chart -- Cast stainless steel.
Volume 3. Structural steels: Selection of structural steels; overview, guide charts, selector charts -- A 36 -- A 242 -- A 514, A 517 -- A 515, A 516 -- A 537 -- A 572 and related hot-rolled microalloyed steels (A 607, A 656, A 715, A 808 and SAE J 410c) -- A 588 -- A 633 and related steels -- A 710 and related steels -- A 852. Aluminum & aluminum alloys: Selection of structural aluminum and aluminum alloys -- Historical overview of aluminum -- Alloying aluminum -- General characteristics -- Alloy and temper designation system -- References. Wrought aluminum: Wrought aluminum a nd aluminum alloys -- General information -- Mechanical properties -- References -- Selector charts -- Descriptions and data sheets for several wrought aluminum alloys: Alloys 3003, 3004 -- Alloy 5052 -- Alloys 5083, 5086 -- Alloy 6061 -- Alloys 6063, 6463. Cast aluminum: Cast aluminum and aluminum alloys -- General information -- Impregnation of castings -- Welding of aluminum castings -- Alloy designations and alloying aluminum castings for strength and catability -- References and bibliography -- Selector charts -- Descriptions and data sheets for cast aluminum and aluminum alloys. Copper, Cu-Ni, magnesium & titanium: Wrought and cast copper selector chart (brass and bronze) -- Copper-nickel alloys -- Wrought and cast magnesium selector chart -- Wrought titanium selector chart. Appendices: Appendix A Symbols and abbreviations -- Appendix B Test types -- Appendix C The well defined test -- Appendix D SI conversion factors and tables.
Abstract Presents representative data on common structural materials from the more frequently encountered test conditions.
-----
Purdue University**. Center for Information and Numerical Data Analysis and Synthesis [CINDAS].
-----

Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true.
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible.
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion"]
o Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. [Picasso]

 

[JHWC]

Hi Vagulus,

I believe the 2 reliable sources are ASM and ASTM.

It is difficult to download the information without any payment involved, unless you are still a university student. =)

Thanks,
Jeffrey

 

[WKTaylor]

All... bare with me...

1. The problem we face in aero engineering is defining what is: (a) 'authoritative' data [validated/tested, statistically derived, certified by FAA and/or DoD]... as opposed to (b) 'specification' [min] required performance data, alloy specific; (c) 'informative' data that is collected/distilled/averaged from various sources, but not necessarily validated; and (d) 'text-book' data... valid for training and general concept development, but that's all.

For instance, RE MMPDS-*. On the document cover is a very specific statement, which makes it AUTHORITATIVE, thus...

Scientific Source: Metallic Materials design data acceptable to Government procuring or certification agencies.
A joint effort of government, industrial, educational, and international aerospace organizations.

2. Sub-set problems inherent in this discussion on metallic materials data are as follows...

2.1 Usefulness of ‘data’ for general static/dynamic stress calculations.

2.1.1 If the data is limited to Ftu, Fty, e, E and rho [w, density], this drives us all nuts. To analyze in-depth, Fcy, Fsu [and Fsy], Fbru, Fbry, Ec, G, u [mu], K [thermal transmissivity], C thermal density, a [alpha, growth/shrinkage rate based on thermal differences], KIc [plane-strain fracture toughness], KIscc [SCC] threshold, dA/dN... etc… are very important and ‘constants’ for the calculations!!!

2.1.2 REF 2.1.1... noted properties must be 'known' [statistically verified by test] VS every spec-form [sheet, plate, bar, extrusion, forgings, etc] VS 'as manufactured' thicknesses VS L, LT and ST orientations VS edge distance/margins, etc!!!

2.2 Ref 2.1.1 and 2.1.2... Utility and evolution of data over time.

2.2.1 Metallic materials data evolves over time, based on further verification/validation testing, accumulated testing, improvements in OEM fab methods, in-service lessons-learned, etc. While many alloys remain valid/useful/stable for decades, additional testing and real-world usage/problems MUST be factored into the data over-time giving a truer view of every aspect.

2.2.2 In some cases real-world data indicates that: (a) original allowables [physical, mechanical, durability, etc] are overly conservative and can be satisfactorily increased [improved value]; or (b) original allowables are too high and must be reduced to assure conservative margins for safety or wider/wilder statistical variations ; or (c) original allowables did not portray an accurate picture of the real-world material/material-form/temper/etc, and major revisions to allowables… and/or usage recommendations… specific warnings/limitations, imposed criteria, etc are warranted.

2.2.3 Also, there MAY be obvious performance improvements, and/or temper/fab changes... over-time due to evolving OEM fab-processes/controls/spec-requirements/etc... that are worth accounting for. There are many aerospace examples where years of manufacturing/testing have slowly improved the materials [such as precise control of alloying elements, elimination of heat treatment variables, post-processing variables, etc]. This can be a very sticky issue for some of us dealing with +60-year-old aluminum and incorporating freshly made aluminum, same exact alloy/temper/form/etc. The new metals are often notably superior… especially where extensive certification testing is required… waaaay exceeding spec requirements and also exceeding ‘statistical A-Basis’ to consistently meet statistical B-basis allowables. Keeping straight old and new/improved material reliability often helps increase confidence in new repairs and/or modifications and/or replacement parts. NOTE: Specification, A and B Basis for allowables is explained in MMPDS.

2.2.4 Likewise, there MAY be subtle or obvious indications that one-or-more negative properties trump all the others, such as: (a) extreme sensitivity to environmental factors [such as very poor SCC or EXCO resistance]; (b) or EPA/OSHA issues; or (c) fabrication limitations/suitability; etc. Examples of hard lessons learned...
o high sulfur steel toughness issues at deep/arctic cold;
o 7xxx-T6 aluminum alloy(s) environmental sensitivity, such as poor EXCO and SCC resistance.
o beryllium, lithium, lead, uranium, [asbestos] etc… toxicity
o poor heat treatment or forming qualities of certain alloys [tendency for warpage/distortion, etc]

Hmmm late in the day… gotta’ go… I have a 165-mile commute back to Xxxxxxx XX for a short weekend with my bride of 34-years.


Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true.
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible.
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion"]
o Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. [Picasso]

 

[tbuelna]

The mechanical properties for metals listed in MMPDS-01 are mostly defined as minimums. I work on design of aircraft gearboxes, and MMPDS-01 does not include properties for most aluminum/magnesium casting alloys, rolling element bearing steels, or case hardened gear steels commonly used. The design fatigue allowables used for these materials come from AMS or AGMA standards. In order to ensure the properties of these materials meet the required standards, they usually have a test coupon processed with each batch of parts that gets checked.

When it comes to fatigue of metal aircraft structures, surface treatments like shot peening can have a huge effect that is not easy to quantify.

 

[vagulus]

Hey folks
I have never before seen such a response to a question like mine.
This forum is being used as a FORUM.

I am watching with great interest. Thanks

 

[tbuelna]

It's hard to keep up with wktaylor. But here are some examples of what the US FAA FAR part 25 regs say about the material property basis used for analysis of transport aircraft structures:

I hope that helps clarify the issue.