r p clarke 1

Dep't Civil Eng, UWI.

MATERIALS OR SYSTEMS
EVALUATION AND SELECTION

Materials evaluation and selection can be done via unstructured or structured approaches. The
former is more common and is based mainly on the experience of the individual guided by the
stated or implied requirements which are then matched with the properties of the available
materials. By a process of elimination a set of viable options are arrived at and the final selection
made by more refined considerations. Frequently however, the final choice is made merely on
the individual’s familiarity with the optional materials. The structured approach to materials
evaluation and selection parallels the modern process of tender evaluation and selection of
contractors. This approach is more amenable to computer automation and can therefore result in
a faster, more reliable, and consistent process. The software can range in sophistication from a
set of simple spreadsheets, to a comprehensive application incorporating a database and
quantitative management tools such as Decision Theory.

Materials evaluation and selection is really concerned with two major areas: (1) the evaluation of
a new material and (2) the evaluation and selection of materials for use in a new project.
New materials can actually be separated into two distinct categories: (a) those that are
manufactured to meet an existing standard and (b) those that are unique in that no standard exists
against which they can be measured and therefore require an investigation and assessment as to
the claims of the manufacturer.

New materials that fall into the first category are readily evaluated against a product standard.
Good product standards are the result of systematic technical research efforts combined with
committee work such as ASTM and ANSI American standards, and the BSI and EN standards for
the UK and Europe. These standards establish suitable physical and/or chemical properties that
for the most part have a direct relation to performance. Through use these standards are upgraded
as additional knowledge of a product's performance is obtained from the field. New products that
are claimed by the manufacturer as meeting a product standard can therefore be quite readily
evaluated against the product standard.

New products marketed without comprehensive reference to product standards require a more
generalised evaluation and/or selection methodology. There is, however, a basic tool that can be
utilized to establish a rational approach for the investigation and evaluation of materials,
products, and systems for which there are either no known standards, nor a set of comprehensive
standards that entire cover the material. This tool is the performance concept in which
performance requirements are listed in terms of properties or characteristics.

In this section, basic general considerations towards the formulation of a structured approach to
materials evaluation and selection is presented for the more general case of a new material or
product not manufactured to meet specific standards.
r p clarke 2
Dep't Civil Eng, UWI.

General Procedure

The general procedure can be described as:

1. Identify performance required

2. Establish evaluation criteria
3. Acquire test results where not available
4. Acquire historical information
5. Select a range of optional materials or products
6. Develop an evaluation matrix for each optional material
7. Select the material with the highest rating

In the next section item 5 is expanded on. At this point it is important to note that the evaluation
and selection processes, though having different objectives are similar.

When evaluating a material for a specific application, the objective is to determine the relevant
capabilities of the material in terms of the required properties. Hence the essence of the
evaluation process is determining how the material responds to tests in terms of the required
properties. For example, for using concrete roofing, a property deemed necessary for checking
may be its thermal transmittance. This property can then be evaluated via an appropriate test.
Hence one may be able to say that a concrete roof has poor thermal transmittance properties
thereby concluding the evaluation (for that property).

When selecting a material for a specific application the essence of the process is comparing the
evaluated properties of the material with threshold values that represent necessary performance
levels.

Selection

As we examine the concept of performance we recognize that a structured approach to materials

evaluation and selection can be achieved based on the development of matrices. The system for
rational evaluation consists of two basic ingredients: (1) a checklist consisting of several broad
qualitative headings or performance requirements that are then expanded to a series of
subordinate properties or characteristics and (2) a method of assessing and measuring the
performance characteristics or criteria. A matrix can then be prepared that permits the user to
subject any new material to comprehensive investigation and evaluation. The checklist's broad
qualitative headings can be reduced to eleven major performance requirements as follows:

1. Structural serviceability
2. Fire safety
3. Habitability
4. Durability
5. Practicability
6. Compatibility
7. Maintainability
8. Code Acceptability
9. Economics
10. Local availability
11. Functionality
r p clarke 3
Dep't Civil Eng, UWI.

To understand each of these major performance requirements or "attributes" the following

generalizations can be made for each category.

1. Structural Serviceability. Includes resistance to natural forces such as wind and

earthquake; structural adequacy and physical properties such as strength, compression,
tensile forces, shear, and behavior against impact and indentation.

Note: For specific "materials" where structural serviceability is not a

factor, the investigation into this performance requirement is not applicable.

2. Fire Safety. Includes resistance against the effects of fire such as flame propagation, burn
through, smoke, toxic gases, etc.

3. Habitability. Includes livability relative to thermal efficiency, acoustic properties, water

permeability, optical properties, hygiene, comfort, light and ventilation, etc.

4. Durability. Includes ability to withstand wear, weather resistance such as ozone and UV,
dimensional stability, etc.

5. Practicability. Ability to surmount field conditions such as transportation, storage,

handling, tolerances, connections, site hazards, etc.

Note.- Transportation of huge prefabricated elements will require investigation with respect to
roads, bridges, and tunnels to assure passage. Investigation of tolerances of dissimilar
elements such as a concrete frame or a structural steel frame to receive precast concrete or
metal and glass curtain walls.

6. Compatability. Ability to withstand reaction with adjacent materials in terms of chemical

interaction, galvanic action, ability to be coated, etc.

Note: In using a sealant will it stain adjacent surfaces, will there be any chemical interaction
with other backup materials?

7. Maintainabili!y. Ease of cleaning, repairability of punctures, gouges and tear, recoating

etc.

Note: For factory baked-on paint finishes, are there any satisfactory retouching materials to cover
scratches or other minor defects resulting from installation or use?

8. Code Acceptability. Includes review of code and manufacture's claims as to code

compliance.

9. Economics. Includes installed costs, maintenance costs, budgetary limitations. May also
include results of cost/benefit analysis, NPV, or other economic evaluation indices.

10. Local Availability. Considers whether the material must be imported and if so, the lead
time required.

11. Functionality. Considers its ease of use or user-friendliness.

r p clarke 4
Dep't Civil Eng, UWI.

Each of these groups can be expanded in terms of properties of give a comprehensive list. In
actual use, the list may be shortened to suit the specific case.

A matrix can then be developed comprising of the aforementioned headings 1 to 11 in column-1,

the properties in column-2, the test method in column-3, the test result in column-4, the threshold
value in column-5, and an indication that the test result satisfies the threshold value (e.g. a “tick”
mark), in column-6.

If an evaluation is being performed, only columns 1 to 4 are required.

The following is an example evaluation for a product called “Siporex” (a lightweight concrete)
for use as an exterior wall.

Evaluation of Siporex as a an External Wall

Property Test Method Result

1. Structural1.1Impact resistance ASTM E-72, Section 13

Stability 1.2 Modulus of rupture ASTM C683
1.3 Support for attached Bookshelf at 40 lb/lin. ft
loads
1.4 Wind resistance Apply 50 lb/sq. ft for I min
and report damage
1.5 Compressive load ASTM E-72, Section 7
1.6 Pull-out resistance Analysis or physical
simulation
1.7 Seismic resistance Analysis or computation
1.8 Cut-out for service Analysis or physical
elements-mechanical simulation
electrical
1.9 Puncture resistance
1.10 Resistance to point Fed. Test Method Std. 406,
impact Method 1074.
2. Fire Safety 2.1Fire endurance ASTM E19 8 in. block-4 hrs.
2.2Flame spread ASTM E84
2.3 Smoke developed ASTM E84
2.4Toxicity Animal inhalation test

3. Habitability 3.1Thermal Properties

3. 1.1 Thermal"K" factor ASTM C177 0.81
conductivity
3.1.2 Thermal expansion ASTM E228 4.5 x 10-6
3.1.3 Thermal shock Rapid heating and cooling
3.2 Acoustic Properties
3.2.1 Sound transmission ASTM E90
3.2.2 Sound reverberation ASTM C423
3.2.3 Sound absorption ASTM C423
3.3 Water
Permeability
3.3.1 Water absorption ASTM C140
3.3.2 Permeability Fed. Spec. TT-P-0035 (E514)
3.3.3 Water vapor ASTM C355
transmission
3.3.4 Moisture Expansion ASTM C426 0.07
and Drying
shrinkage
r p clarke 5
Dep't Civil Eng, UWI.

Note: Since the material will take on water it is essential to protect elements from condensed moisture that could
impair structural adequacy through deterioration. Provide adequate vapor barriers, ventilation, breathing
coatings, etc. to keep moisture out or to expel moisture.

4. Durability 4.1 Resistance to

wear
4.1.1 Abrasion resistance ASTM C501
4.1.2 Resistance to Pencil hardness test
scratching
4.2 Weathering
4.2.1 Weather resistance ASTM C217
4.2.2 Freeze-thaw ASTM C666
4.2.3Acid resistance ASTM D543
4.2.4 Appearance after ASTM G-23
weathermeter test

4.3 Adhesion of coatings

4.3.1 Delamination ASTM C481

Note: Since resistance to wear and weathering appear to be low, applied coatings and coverings are essential.
Recommended coatings and coverings must be chosen and selected to safeguard the basic material from the
effects of wear and weather.

5. Practicability 5.1 Transport

5.1.1 Limitations with Analysis/physical simulation
respect to size,
weight, handling

5.2 Storage on site

5.2.1 Protective against Must be protected from water
elements
5.3 Handling during installation
5.3.1 Abrasion Patching methods essential to
overcome these problems
5.3.2 Breakage
5.3.3 Scaring
5.4 Field tolerances
5.4.1 Corrective measures Material readily cut in field.
5.5 Dimensional stability
5.5.1 Warpage due to: Analysis/physical situation
Heat
Wetting
5.6 Connections
5.6.1 Inserts
Note.- Inserts must be corrosion resistant. Connections must develop pull-out resistance anticipated.

6. Maintenance 6.1 Compatibility of

Coatings
6.1.1 Interaction
6.1.2 Delamination
6.2 Graffiti Resistance
6.2.1 Ability to resist and
clean
6.3 Indentation and Puncture
6.3.1 Patching Materials

Note. Recommended coatings must be investigated to ascertain compatibility and resistance to graffiti
attack. Patching methods must be simple and effective.
r p clarke 6
Dep't Civil Eng, UWI.

7. Compatability 7.1 Jointing

Materials
7.1.1 Adherance of Fed. Spec. TT-S-227
sealants
7.1.2 Staining of sealants
7.2 Coatings
7.2.1 Ability to receive ASTM C481
and retain coatings
7.3 Galvanic Interaction or
Corrosion Resistance of inserts
and attachments
7.3.1 Steel Physical simulation
7.3.2 Aluminum tests
7.3.3 Wood
7.3.4 Metallic conduit

Note.- Applied coatings, sealants, inserts and adjacent materials must be investigated for compatibility.

Evaluation of Siporex as a Floor-Ceiling-Roof and Partition

Note.- See Requirements for Siporex as an Exterior Wall Material. Add the following requirements.

Requirement Criterion Test Method Results

1. Acoustic 1.1Impact Sound Topping Machine ISO R140

properties
2. Structural 2.1Impact Resistance ASTM E72
2.2Occupancy Loads
2.3Deflection
2.4Concentrated Loads

3. Compatibility
3.1 Adhesive Floor
Cover
3.2 Chemical Resistance
4. Habitability
4.1Floor Coverings Fed Spec.
Moisture Protection TI-C-00555

Final Decision

The selection process allows the formation of a group of optional materials for the case in
question. To complete the aforementioned general procedure an evaluation matrix must be
established for each option. This is because the final decision is actually a collective decision
made by the various members of the Project Team.

Weighting factors are determined based on consultation with the Owner and a numerical rating
system is determined for each item in the evaluation matrix. The evaluation matrix consists of
two main areas – the objective evaluation based on the test results and historical information, and
a subjective evaluation based on the views of the key members of the Project Team.

The total points are tallied and an average rating determined by dividing the total points by the
number of main requirements headings (in our case this equals 11). An evaluation matrix is
prepared for each material, and the one with the highest average rating is the final choice.
r p clarke 7
Dep't Civil Eng, UWI.

A rating system can be as follows:

8 = Excellent satisfaction
7 = Good satisfaction
6 = Average satisfaction
5 = Moderate satisfaction
4 = Poor satisfaction
3 = No satisfaction
2 = Very unsatisfactory
1 = Totally incompatible
0 = No relation
X = Unknown

The following is what an evaluation matrix can look like for the case of Brand X for application
as a Roof Insulating Material.

Hence for “Brand X” the final rating is 576/11 = 52.36