2206565 ES195 Coursework

Contents
Case Study 1 2
Scenario 2
Requirements 2
Performance Indices and Limits 2
Material Selection using Edupack 3
Shaping Process 8
Eco Audit 9
Underpinning Science 9
Selection 10
Case Study 2 11
Scenario 11
Requirements 11
Performance Indices and Limits 11
Material Selection using Edupack 13
Shaping Process 15
Eco Audit 16
Underpinning Science 17
Selection 17
Materials Testing Lab: Mechanical 18
Materials Testing Lab: Electrical 18
References 19
Case Study 1
Scenario
The aim is to choose the most appropriate material to be used for the core of a stator of an electric motor for an
efficient, durable, and relatively lightweight E-bike, and the associated manufacturing process.

Requirements
The requirements for the stator to meet the criteria are: [1]

- Able to produce an alternating magnetic field to make the motor work.

- To be not too heavy that the bike is unpleasant to use.
- To maintain a narrow gap between the stator and motor but not risk the two components coming into
contact in the event that the stator heats up and expands.
- To be formed in the required shape economically.
- To have a sufficiently long working lifetime.
- Suited to be mass produced.

Performance Indices and Limits

The material properties that should necessarily be considered are:

- Magnetism
- Density
- Thermal Expansion Coefficient
- Ability to be formed easily
- Corrosion resistance
- Recyclability
- Carbon footprint

Limits:

- Magnetic

Figure 1: Edupack chart for material selection using imposed limits

Material Selection using Edupack
Plotting Thermal Expansion Coefficient against Density, with the limit that the material must be magnetic, potential
materials can be seen. A few materials have been highlighted as candidates however the materials to the left,
highlighted in blue (PP 10-12% stainless steel fibre and ABS 6% stainless steel fibre) have a far too high Thermal
Expansion Coefficient so are ignored. The remaining materials are:

1. Ferrite P (Co-Ni-Zn ferrite)

2. Cast Iron, austentitic (nodular), EN GJSA XNiCr30 3
3. Soft Magnetic Alloy, 2.5 Si-Fe
4. Air melted magnetic iron
5. High alloy steel, Kovar, annealed

Use of a table enables a comparison of the shortlisted materials: [2]

Cast iron, austenitic Air melted magnetic iron Soft magnetic alloy, High alloy steel, Kovar, Ferrite P (Co-Ni-
(nodular), EN GJSA XNiCr30 3 2.5 Si-Fe annealed Zn ferrite)

General information
Condition Annealed

UNS number F43006 K94610

US name D5 to ASTM A439 AMS 7726 (wire), AMS

7727 (bars & forgings) ,
AMS 7728 (sheet strip
plate), ASTM F15
EN name DIN 17745 - SEW 385,
GX3NiCo29-17,
X3NiCo29-18, NiCo 29-
18, BS ISO 19960
EN number 1.3981

Included in Materials Data for

Simulation
Materials Data for Simulation Magnetic alloy, core iron Magnetic alloy, Alloy steel, Kovar
name silicon core iron B

Composition overview
Form Bulk material Bulk material Bulk material Bulk material Other

Material family Metal (ferrous) Metal (ferrous) Metal (ferrous) Metal (ferrous) Ceramic
(technical)
Base material Fe (Iron) Fe (Iron) Fe (Iron) Fe (Iron) Oxide

Composition detail (metals, ceramics and glasses)

Al (aluminum) (%) 0 0 0 - 0.5 0 - 0.01 0

C (carbon) (%) 0-3 0 - 0.01 0 - 0.02 0 - 0.05 0

Co (cobalt) (%) 0 0 0 16 - 18 0

Cr (chromium) (%) 0 - 0.2 0 0 0 - 0.2 0

Cu (copper) (%) 0 - 0.5 0 0 0 - 0.2 0

Fe (iron) (%) 72.2 - 80 99.9 96.7 - 97.8 50.5 - 56 0

Mg (magnesium) (%) 0 0 0 0 - 0.01 0

Mn (manganese) (%) 6-7 0 0 0 - 0.5 0

Mo (molybdenum) (%) 0 0 0 0 - 0.2 0

Ni (nickel) (%) 12 - 14 0 0 28 - 30 0

P (phosphorus) (%) 0 - 0.08 0 0 0 - 0.03 0

S (sulfur) (%) 0 0 0 0 - 0.03 0

Si (silicon) (%) 2-3 0 - 0.1 2.25 - 2.75 0 - 0.2 0

Ti (titanium) (%) 0 0 0 0 - 0.01 0

Zr (zirconium) (%) 0 0 0 0 - 0.01 0

Price
Price (GBP/kg) 1.58 - 2.05 0.571 - 0.751 0.589 - 0.781 12 - 15.6 0.698 - 0.766

Price per unit volume 11400 - 14900 4510 - 5930 4600 - 6130 99900 - 131000
(GBP/m^3)

Physical properties
Density (kg/m^3) 7250 - 7300 7890 - 7900 7800 - 7860 8320 - 8400 4800

Mechanical properties
Young's modulus (GPa) 140 - 145 207 205 - 209 135 - 141 124

Young's modulus with 140

temperature (GPa) #
Specific stiffness (MN.m/kg) 19.2 - 19.9 26.2 26.2 - 26.7 16.1 - 16.9 25.8

Yield strength (elastic limit) 210 - 260 165 414 345 - 410 48
(MPa)
Yield strength with 336
temperature (MPa) #
Tensile strength (MPa) 390 - 460 283 517 517 - 621 48

Specific strength (kN.m/kg) 28.9 - 35.7 20.9 52.7 - 53.1 41.3 - 49.1 10

Elongation (% strain) 15 - 25 48 35 25 - 42 0.04

Tangent modulus (MPa) 1280 584 860 1110 48

Compressive modulus (GPa) 135 - 141

Compressive strength (MPa) 225 - 275 269 - 325 490 - 593 345 - 410 410 - 415

Flexural modulus (GPa) 140 - 145 135 - 141 124

Flexural strength (modulus of 210 - 260 321 - 385

rupture) (MPa)
Shear modulus (GPa) 54 - 58 50.4 - 53

Shear strength (MPa) 388 - 466

Bulk modulus (GPa) 101 - 110 123 - 129

Poisson's ratio 0.27 - 0.28 0.29 - 0.3 0.286 - 0.315 0.312 - 0.322 0.25
Shape factor 24 65 43 15

Hardness - Vickers (HV) 135 - 180 86 - 95 157 - 173 127 - 180 650

Hardness - Rockwell B (HRB) 38 85 68 - 82

Hardness - Brinell (HB) 120 - 170

Elastic stored energy 156 - 235 65.8 410 - 418 434 - 606 9.29
(springs) (kJ/m^3)
Fatigue strength at 10^7 175 - 230 267 - 311
cycles (MPa)
Fatigue strength model 163 - 248 235 - 354
(stress amplitude) (MPa) #

Impact & fracture properties

Fracture toughness 22 - 30 307 - 371
(MPa.m^0.5)
Toughness (G) (kJ/m^2) 3.47 - 6.19 688 - 990

Thermal properties
Melting point (°C) 1130 - 1380 1440 - 1460

Maximum service 400 - 450 468 - 488

temperature (°C)
Minimum service -80 - -55 -273
temperature (°C)
Thermal conductivity 12 - 13 73 72 - 74 17 - 17.6 4.2
(W/m.°C)
Specific heat capacity 460 - 490 460 419 - 502 431 - 448 1050
(J/kg.°C)
Specific heat capacity with 451
temperature (J/kg.°C) #
Thermal expansion coefficient 17.9 - 18.5 11 13.2 4.6 - 5.5 8 - 10
(µstrain/°C)
Thermal expansion coefficient 5.93
with temperature (µstrain/°C)
#
Thermal expansion coefficient 20
with temperature_Reference
temp (°C)
Thermal shock resistance (°C) 80.8 - 101 72.5 150 - 153 479 - 613 38.7 - 48.4

Thermal distortion resistance 0.657 - 0.717 6.64 5.45 - 5.61 3.14 - 3.77 0.42 - 0.525
(MW/m)
Latent heat of fusion (kJ/kg) 265 - 280 268

Electrical properties
Electrical resistivity 80 - 120 10 - 13 40 46.7 - 51.4 1e12 - 1e13
(µohm.cm)
Electrical resistivity with 43.5
temperature (µohm.cm) #
Electrical conductivity 1.44 - 2.16 13.3 - 17.2 4.31 3.35 - 3.69 1.72e-11 - 1.72e-
(%IACS) 10
Electrical conductivity with 2.19e6
temperature (Siemens/m) #
Galvanic potential (V) -0.52 - -0.44 -0.51 - -0.43 -0.51 - -0.43 -0.47 - -0.39

Magnetic properties
Magnetic type Magnetic Magnetic Magnetic Magnetic Magnetic

Remanent induction Br (T) 0.35 - 0.55 1.3 0.04

Saturation induction Bs (T) 2.15 - 2.16 2.05 0.215

Coercive force Hc (A/m) 47.7 - 67.6 27.9 278

Maximum permeability 6000 - 8000 18000 40

Curie temperature (°C) 770 735 350 - 360

Magnetic B-H curve (T) # 1.61 1.48

Optical, aesthetic and acoustic properties

Transparency Opaque Opaque Opaque Opaque Opaque

Acoustic velocity (m/s) 4390 - 4470 5120 5110 - 5170 4020 - 4110 5080

Mechanical loss coefficient 0.0014 - 0.002 0.0003 - 0.0005

(tan delta)

Healthcare & food

Food contact Conditional No No Yes No

Restricted substances risk indicators

RoHS 2 (EU) compliant
grades?
REACH Candidate List 0 0 0 0 0
indicator (0-1, 1 = high risk)
SIN List indicator (0-1, 1 = 0 0 0 0 0
high risk)

Critical materials risk

Contains >5wt% critical Yes No No Yes No
elements?
Abundance risk level Medium Very low Very low Medium

Sourcing and geopolitical risk High Low Medium Medium

level
Environmental country risk High Low Medium Low
level
Price volatility risk level Medium Medium Medium Medium

Conflict material risk level None None None Caution

Processing properties
Metal casting Acceptable Unsuitable

Metal cold forming Unsuitable Excellent

Metal hot forming Unsuitable Excellent

Metal press forming Unsuitable Excellent

Metal deep drawing Unsuitable Unsuitable

Machining speed (m/min) 30.5 45.7 25.6 8.23

Weldability Good Good Good Excellent

Weldability_Notes Preheating and post weld Preheating and post weld heat Preheating and post Preheating and post weld
heat treatments are treatments may be required weld heat treatments heat treatments may be
required may be required required
Carbon equivalency 0.667 - 4.03 0 - 0.043 0.075 - 0.112

Durability
Water (fresh) Excellent Acceptable Acceptable Excellent

Water (salt) Acceptable Limited use Limited use Excellent

Weak acids Excellent Unacceptable Limited use Excellent

Strong acids Limited use Unacceptable Unacceptable Acceptable

Weak alkalis Excellent Limited use Acceptable Excellent

Strong alkalis Acceptable Unacceptable Limited use Excellent

Organic solvents Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Oxidation at 500C Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable Excellent

UV radiation (sunlight) Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Galling resistance (adhesive Excellent Unacceptable Unacceptable Limited use

wear)
Flammability Non-flammable Non-flammable Non-flammable Non-flammable

Corrosion resistance of metals

Pitting and crevice corrosion Low (<20)
resistance
Stress corrosion cracking Highly susceptible Not susceptible Not susceptible Slightly susceptible

Stress corrosion Rated in chloride; May be Rated in chloride; May be Rated in chloride; Rated in chloride; Other
cracking_Notes susceptible in halide, susceptible in halide, ammonia, May be susceptible in susceptible
ammonia, nitrogen, acidic, nitrogen, acidic, caustic, halide, ammonia, environments: Hydrogen
caustic, carbonate carbonate environments nitrogen, acidic, sulfide
environments caustic, carbonate
environments

Primary production energy, CO2 and water

Embodied energy, primary 46.7 - 51.5 20.3 - 22.3 29.7 - 32.8 411 - 453 15.6 - 17.2
production (virgin grade)
(MJ/kg)
Embodied energy, primary 26.9 - 31.8 12.8 - 14.9 17.4 - 20.4 195 - 238 15.6 - 17.2
production (typical grade)
(MJ/kg)
CO2 footprint, primary 4 - 4.41 2.19 - 2.42 3.04 - 3.35 12.4 - 13.7 0.84 - 0.929
production (virgin grade)
(kg/kg)
CO2 footprint, primary 2.27 - 2.68 1.27 - 1.51 1.68 - 2 6.31 - 7.6 0.84 - 0.929
production (typical grade)
(kg/kg)
Water usage (l/kg) 78.1 - 86.4 42.4 - 46.8 44.7 - 49.4 107 - 119 16.4 - 18.1

Processing energy, CO2 footprint & water

Casting energy (MJ/kg) 10.2 - 11.2

Casting CO2 (kg/kg) 0.763 - 0.843

Casting water (l/kg) 19.3 - 28.9

Roll forming, forging energy 2.66 - 2.94 4.65 - 5.13 3.1 - 3.5
(MJ/kg)
Roll forming, forging CO2 0.199 - 0.22 0.348 - 0.385 0.24 - 0.26
(kg/kg)
Roll forming, forging water 2.69 - 4.03 3.54 - 5.31 2.9 - 4.3
(l/kg)
Extrusion, foil rolling energy 5.03 - 5.56 9.01 - 9.95 6 - 6.6
(MJ/kg)
Extrusion, foil rolling CO2 0.377 - 0.417 0.675 - 0.746 0.45 - 0.5
(kg/kg)
Extrusion, foil rolling water 3.7 - 5.55 5.4 - 8.1 6.1 - 6.4
(l/kg)
Wire drawing energy (MJ/kg) 18.1 - 20 33 - 36.4 22 - 24

Wire drawing CO2 (kg/kg) 1.35 - 1.5 2.47 - 2.73 1.64 - 1.81

Wire drawing water (l/kg) 6.81 - 10.2 12.4 - 18.6 8.2 - 12.3

Metal powder forming 35.9 - 39.6

energy (MJ/kg)
Metal powder forming CO2 2.69 - 2.97
(kg/kg)
Metal powder forming water 39.1 - 58.6
(l/kg)
Vaporization energy (MJ/kg) 10900 - 12000 10700 - 11800

Vaporization CO2 (kg/kg) 815 - 901 804 - 886

Vaporization water (l/kg) 4530 - 6800 4460 - 6690

Coarse machining energy 0.8 - 0.884 0.831 - 0.918 1.13 - 1.25 0.9 - 1
(per unit wt removed)
(MJ/kg)
Coarse machining CO2 (per 0.06 - 0.0663 0.0623 - 0.0688 0.0846 - 0.0936 0.068 - 0.075
unit wt removed) (kg/kg)
Fine machining energy (per 3.72 - 4.12 4.03 - 4.45 7.01 - 7.75 4.8 - 5.2
unit wt removed) (MJ/kg)
Fine machining CO2 (per unit 0.279 - 0.309 0.302 - 0.334 0.526 - 0.581 0.36 - 0.39
wt removed) (kg/kg)
Grinding energy (per unit wt 6.97 - 7.71 7.59 - 8.38 13.5 - 15 9 - 10
removed) (MJ/kg)
Grinding CO2 (per unit wt 0.523 - 0.578 0.569 - 0.629 1.02 - 1.12 0.68 - 0.75
removed) (kg/kg)
Non-conventional machining 109 - 120 107 - 118
energy (per unit wt removed)
(MJ/kg)
Non-conventional machining 8.15 - 9.01 8.04 - 8.86
CO2 (per unit wt removed)
(kg/kg)

Recycling and end of life

Recycle

Embodied energy, recycling 11.1 - 12.3 5.9 - 6.52 7.9 - 8.73 58.1 - 64.2
(MJ/kg)
CO2 footprint, recycling 0.875 - 1 0.464 - 0.512 0.621 - 0.686 4.56 - 5.05
(kg/kg)
Recycle fraction in current 49.4 - 54.6 49.4 - 54.6 49.4 - 54.6 49.4 - 54.6
supply (%)
Downcycle
Combust for energy recovery

Landfill

Biodegrade

Geo-economic data for principal component

Principal component Iron Iron Iron Iron

Typical exploited ore grade 45.1 - 49.9 45.1 - 49.9 45.1 - 49.9 45.1 - 49.9
(%)
Minimum economic ore 25 - 70 25 - 70 25 - 70 25 - 70
grade (%)
Abundance in Earth's crust 41000 - 63000 41000 - 63000 41000 - 63000 41000 - 63000
(ppm)
Abundance in seawater 0.0025 - 0.003 0.0025 - 0.003 0.0025 - 0.003 0.0025 - 0.003
(ppm)
Annual world production, 2.23e9 2.23e9 2.23e9 2.23e9
principal component
(tonne/yr)
Reserves, principal 1.59e11 1.59e11 1.59e11 1.59e11
component (tonne)

Links
Elements in this material 5 2 3 0 0

Nations of the World 12 12 12 0 0

ProcessUniverse 85 100 125 71 16

Producers 7 11 17 17 2

Reference 34 13 8 18 0

Shape 24 0 0 0 4

Full Datasheet view view view view view

#Functional Parameters
Temperature (°C) 23
Stress Ratio -1
Number of Cycles (cycles) 1e7
Magnetic field intensity (A/m) 1e3
Table 1: Edupack comparison table for five shortlisted materials

Comparing price, the High alloy steel, Kovar, annealed is significantly greater than the other 4 (12-15.6 GBP/kg) and
thus would increase the total cost of the stator and thus the E-bike.

All of the materials but Ferrite P (Co-Ni-Zn ferrite) are able to be recycled, however High alloy steel, Kovar has a very
high embodied energy (58.1 – 64.2 MJ/kg) and carbon footprint (4.56 – 5.05 kg/kg) compared to the other materials.

In addition, according to Edupack, of the 5 materials, only Ferrite P (Co-Ni-Zn ferrite) and Soft Magnetic Alloy, 2.5 Si-
Fe are already used in a similar application to a stator, so Cast Iron, austenitic (nodular), EN GJSA XNiCr30 3, Air
melted magnetic iron and High alloy steel, Kovar, annealed are no longer considered.

Finally, from research, an alloy with more silicon in it is desirable for a stator. [3] From the comparison table it can be
seen that the Soft Magnetic Alloy, 2.5 Si-Fe contains the highest percentage of Silicon with 2.25-2.75%. This makes
sense as the Edupack search states that this material is commonly used in stators.
Shaping Process
Limits:

- Suitable for Metals

- Shapes into flat sheet due to the laminations of the stator core being flat sheets.

Figure 2: Relative cost index vs Economic batch size for processing routes

With the imposed limits, figure 2 was formed.

The ideal process would be the one which has the lowest Relative cost index per unit and the highest economic
batch size, hence appearing in the bottom right of the graph. The most suitable process therefore is Sheet stamping,
drawing and blanking.

Eco Audit
By conducting an eco audit, it can be seen that the “Use” phase is responsible for most of the CO2 emissions.

Another observation is that the CO2 footprint in the “Material” phase is greatest for the High alloy steel, Kovar,
annealed, however it also has the greatest End of Life potential. The Cast iron has the next highest CO2 footprint,
with the Soft magnetic alloy and Air melted magnetic iron in third and fourth but with very similar CO2 footprints,
although their End of Life potential is the lowest.
Figure 3: Eco audit for five shortlisted materials

Underpinning Science
A stator can also be considered as a magnetic core. A magnetic core is a soft magnetic material.

A soft magnet is a highly permeable material that can be used to concentrate a magnetic field within itself to create
a much stronger magnetic field than a coil alone. [4]

A magnetic material is magnetic due to its electrons in the atoms. Each electron is like its own little magnet with a
North and South pole. If all the electrons are lined up with all of the North poles facing the same way and all of the
South poles facing the same way, the material produces its own magnetic field. [5]

Figure 4: Diagram of the magnetic field produced by an electron [6]

When a magnetic material is magnetised one way, it will not fall back down to no magnetisation when the magnetic
field is removed. It must be forced, by a magnetic field in the opposite direction, back to zero.

This effect causes a loop in a B-H graph when B is the magnetic flux density of the material and H is the imposed
magnetising force.
 Figure 5: Hysteresis loop for an arbitrary magnetic material [7]

The magnetisation required in the opposite direction to return the magnetisation of the material back to zero causes
a loss in efficiency. The most efficient magnets aim to reduce this loss. A smaller loss is represented by a more linear
relationship between B and H and a low level of residual magnetism. This can be easily visualised by a hysteresis loop
with a smaller area. [7]

Eddy currents are small currents of electricity which flow within a conductor in circles.[8] They are induced by a
change in the magnetic field experienced by the material due to Lenz’s law which states that a change in the
magnetic field in a conductor will induce a voltage that will oppose the change. [9] Therefore, a current induced in a
core will produce its own magnetic field that will oppose the imposed magnetic field from the coil. This is a cause of
inefficiency so Eddy current must be reduced.

A method for reducing Eddy currents is to incorporate laminations into the core to separate layers of magnetic
material. This “breaks the circuit” and prevents eddy currents from circulating in the core. [10]

Addition of Silicon to steel improves the softness of a magnetic material by increasing the electrical resistivity of the
core. This helps reduce losses as the greater resistance of the material reduces the Eddy currents. [11]

Selection
Based off the research I have conducted, I would select Soft magnetic alloy, 2.5 Si-Fe as a suitable material for the
application of the stator for the electric motor of an E-bike.

The corresponding process route that I would select is Sheet stamping, drawing, and blanking.

Case Study 2
Scenario
The aim is to choose the most appropriate material to be used for floor panels for a multi-storey building and the
associated manufacturing process.
Requirements
The requirements for the floor panels to meet the criteria are: [1]

- Strong enough to cope with the load of people and furniture.

- Abundant in sufficient volumes.
- Thin enough to not waste space.
- Thermally insulative to reduce energy wastage.
- Light enough that the building can support their weight.

Performance Indices and Limits

The material properties that should necessarily be considered are:

- Flexural modulus (Young’s modulus)

- Yield strength
- Density
- Thermal conductivity

Limits:

- Price < 5 GBP/kg

- Young’s modulus > 1.0 GPa
- Yield strength > 2 MPa

The values for the limits on Young’s modulus and Yield strength are calculated using the Solver function in Edupack
for a 1 x 1 metre square panel of thickness 30 mm baring a distributed load of 5kN producing a maximum deflection
of 5mm. [2]

5kN/m2 is a typical upper limit for the load experienced by a floor. This takes into account heavy furniture and
equipment, such as office equipment, as well as people. [12]

Performance indices:

For the performance index, it is desired that mass is minimised while Flexural modulus is maximised. The
performance index for such scenario is as follows.

For a panel of Length L, Width w and Height h:

L3 F
E=
4 w h3d
Where:

E = Flexural modulus

F = Force applied

d = Deflection

m=ρAh
ρ = Density

A = Area (Lxw)

With Length, Width specified and Height unspecified:

m
h=
ρA
 3 3 3
L FA ρ
E= 3
4 wd m

m 3=
4 wd E ( )
L3 F A 3 ρ 3

( ) ( Eρ )
1
F
m=LA 3
4 wd 1
3

To minimise mass:

ρ
Minimise 1
E3
1

Or maximise E3
ρ
1
E3
=C
ρ
1
log E 3 −Logρ=LogC
LogE=3 Logρ + LogC

Therefore, gradient is 3 in this case (m = 3)

Figure 6: Edupack chart for material selection using imposed limits

Material Selection using Edupack

Using the performance index derived earlier and the limits, this graph is formed. The notable materials are:
 - Palm (0.35)
- Cedar (chamaecyparis thyoides)
- Fir (abies balsamea)
- Spruce (picea glauca)
- Pine (pinus strobus)

From the material profiles on Edupack, it can be seen that all of the five materials are used for some sort of
constructional purpose, with a typical use for Fir being “subflooring”.

A comparison table helps to assess the differences between the five shortlisted materials. [2]
Pine (pinus Spruce (picea Cedar (chamaecyparis Palm (0.35) Fir (abies balsamea) (l)
strobus) (l) glauca) (l) thyoides) (l)

General information
Included in Materials Data for Simulation
Materials Data for Simulation name Wood, Palm

Composition overview
Material family Natural (wood) Natural (wood) Natural (wood) Natural (wood-like) Natural (wood)
Base material Wood (softwood) Wood (softwood) Wood (softwood) Wood (other: monocot, Wood (softwood)
bark)
Renewable content (%) 100 100 100 100 100

Composition detail (polymers and natural materials)

Wood (%) 100 100 100 100 100

Price
Price (GBP/kg) 0.503 - 1.01 0.503 - 1.01 1.51 - 2.01 0.503 - 1.01 0.503 - 1.01
Price per unit volume (GBP/m^3) 176 - 432 181 - 443 483 - 788 126 - 483 176 - 432

Physical properties
Density (kg/m^3) 350 - 430 360 - 440 320 - 390 250 - 480 350 - 430

Mechanical properties

Impact & fracture properties

Thermal properties
Glass temperature (°C) 77 - 102 77 - 102 77 - 102 77 - 102 77 - 102
Maximum service temperature (°C) 120 - 140 120 - 140 120 - 140 120 - 140 120 - 140
Minimum service temperature (°C) -73 - -23 -73 - -23 -73 - -23 -73 - -23 -73 - -23
Thermal conductivity (W/m.°C) 0.18 - 0.21 0.18 - 0.22 0.16 - 0.2 0.17 - 0.2 0.18 - 0.21
Specific heat capacity (J/kg.°C) 1660 - 1710 1660 - 1710 1660 - 1710 1660 - 1710 1660 - 1710
Thermal expansion coefficient (µstrain/°C) 2 - 11 2 - 11 2 - 11 2 - 11 2 - 11
Thermal shock resistance (°C) 326 - 1810 298 - 1650 411 - 2280 225 - 1260 293 - 1620
Thermal distortion resistance (MW/m) 0.0177 - 0.0973 0.0181 - 0.0997 0.0162 - 0.0896 0.0167 - 0.0923 0.0177 - 0.0973

Electrical properties

Magnetic properties

Optical, aesthetic and acoustic properties

Restricted substances risk indicators

Critical materials risk

Durability
Water (fresh) Limited use Limited use Limited use Limited use Limited use
Water (salt) Limited use Limited use Limited use Limited use Limited use
Weak acids Limited use Limited use Limited use Limited use Limited use
Strong acids Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Weak alkalis Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Strong alkalis Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Organic solvents Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Oxidation at 500C Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
UV radiation (sunlight) Good Good Good Good Good
Flammability Highly flammable Highly flammable Highly flammable Highly flammable Highly flammable

Primary production energy, CO2 and water

Embodied energy, primary production 14.8 - 16.3 14.8 - 16.3 14.8 - 16.3 11.6 - 12.8 14.8 - 16.3
(virgin grade) (MJ/kg)
Embodied energy, primary production 14.8 - 16.3 14.8 - 16.3 14.8 - 16.3 11.6 - 12.8 14.8 - 16.3
(typical grade) (MJ/kg)
CO2 footprint, primary production (virgin 0.247 - 0.273 0.247 - 0.273 0.247 - 0.273 0.574 - 0.633 0.247 - 0.273
grade) (kg/kg)
CO2 footprint, primary production 0.247 - 0.273 0.247 - 0.273 0.247 - 0.273 0.574 - 0.633 0.247 - 0.273
(typical grade) (kg/kg)
Water usage (l/kg) 665 - 735 665 - 735 665 - 735 665 - 735 665 - 735

Processing energy, CO2 footprint & water

Recycling and end of life

Recycle
Downcycle
Combust for energy recovery
Heat of combustion (net) (MJ/kg) 20.7 - 22.1 20.7 - 22.1 20.7 - 22.1 19.8 - 21.3 20.7 - 22.1
Combustion CO2 (kg/kg) 1.76 - 1.85 1.76 - 1.85 1.76 - 1.85 1.69 - 1.78 1.76 - 1.85
Landfill
Biodegrade

Links
Table 2: Edupack comparison table for five shortlisted materials

Observation of the comparison table shows that of the 5 materials, Cedar is the most expensive at 1.51-2.01 GBP/kg
compared to .503-1.01 GBP/kg for the other 4.

None of the materials are considered to be recyclable, however Palm has a lower embodied energy than the rest
with 11.6-12.8 MJ/kg compared to 14.8-16.3 MJ/kg. Despite this, Palm has the highest CO2 footprint with 0.574-
0.633 kg/kg, over double the CO2 footprint of the others which have 0.247-0.273 kg/kg.

Cedar has the lowest thermal conductivity with 0.16-0.2 W/m◦C, while Palm has the next lowest with 0.17-0.2
W/m◦C and the rest are 0.18 – 0.21 W/m◦C.

Finally, the least dense material is the Palm with a density of 250-480 kg/m³. Cedar has a density of 320-390 kg/m³,
Pine and Fir have a density of 350-430 kg/m³ and Spruce has a density of 360-440 kg/m³.

Shaping Process
No shaping process suitable for “natural materials” have a record of “Cost model and defaults” so a graph of Relative
Cost Index versus Economic Batch Size cannot be formed. [2]

However, using the limits:

 - Compatible with natural materials
- Flat sheet shape
- Machining process

the following processes were given:

- Band sawing
- Circular sawing
- Cropping and guillotining
- Drilling
- Laser-cutting
- Waterjet cutting

Putting these processes in a graph of Cutting speed versus Economic batch size only shows Band sawing and Circular
sawing however, of these, Circular sawing shows a similar Economic batch size to Band sawing however has a
superior cutting speed.

Figure 7: Cutting speed vs Economic batch size for processing routes

Eco Audit
An eco audit of the five materials can show the environmental impact of each during various phases of their life. [2]
 Figure 8: Eco audit of Energy for five shortlisted materials

The figure shows that the material stage is the most energy intensive for all materials, with Palm having the lowest
energy, likely sue to it being the odd one out as it the only material that is not considered a wood on Educpack. The
energy for the rest of the stages are all equal for each material and none of the materials have an End of Life
potential as none of them are considered recyclable.

Figure 9: Eco audit for CO2 Footprint for five shortlisted materials

This figure shows that the CO2 Footprint for the Manufacture stage is the greatest with all of the materials being
equal. This will be due to the fact they are all woods or wood-like materials so will involve very similar manufacturing
processes.

This figure also shows that while Palm has the highest CO2 Footprint for the Material stage, and the CO2 Footprints
for each material in the Transport and Disposal stage are equal.
Underpinning Science
Softwoods are made of two fundamental
components, tracheids and parenchyma, while
hardwoods are made of vessel members, fibres
and parenchyma.

Softwoods re predominantly composed of

tracheids which are cells that mainly run
longitudinally i.e. parallel to the axis of the trunk,
and are on average 3-5mm long. The parenchyma
cells are more like a brick in their structure and are
much smaller at 0.1-0.2mm in length and 0.01-
0.05mm in width.

These long tracheid cells are a source of strength

in the wooden beam in the direction of the grain,
however against the grain, a piece of wood is far
less strong and will split more easily when a load is Figure 10: Diagram of different cell types in wood [13]
applied. [13]

This is why plywood is such a popular material. Plywood uses thin layers of wood, glued together in alternating
directions in terms of grain so that no one direction is weaker than another.

Selection
Based off the research I have conducted, I would select Fir (abies balsamea) (l) as a suitable material for the
application of the floor panels for a multi-storey building.

The corresponding process route that I would select is Circular sawing.

Materials Testing Lab: Mechanical

Group Cohort Edupack

4EFGH Average Data
Yield Strength in MPa (Steel) 307.7 307 255-355
Ultimate Tensile Strength in MPa (Steel) 452.7 442.25 379-532
Elongation in % (Steel) 43.3 44.55 25-45
Yield Strength in MPa (Aluminium) 192.8 118 65.1-252
Ultimate Tensile Strength in MPa
(Aluminium) 293.6 230.2 151-323
Elongation in % (Aluminium) 14.7 21.35 4.3-23
Yield Strength in MPa (Brass) 397.0 402.3 100-296
Ultimate Tensile Strength in MPa (Brass) 548.2 517.5 280-511
Elongation in % (Brass) 25.0 16.1 15-52
Yield Strength in MPa (Copper) 360.8 346.17 50-340
Ultimate Tensile Strength in MPa (Copper) 392.6 418 211-380
Elongation in % (Copper) 18.7 13.1175 6-50

The results shown in figure display a similar set of values for most sets of properties between the group results and
the cohort average. The notable variations however are the Yield Strength for Aluminium for which the group result
was 192.8 MPa but the cohort average was much lower with 118 MPa. This difference may be due to an random
experimental error due to the equipment or the person recording the data.

Compared to the Educpack data the group results were very similar but differed significantly in one area. Steel,
Aluminium and Copper present similar results, however the Yield Strength for Brass from the group results is 397
MPa but the information on Edupack states that it is 100-296 MPa. Despite this, the cohort average of 402.3 MPa is
also much higher so one would expect that this difference will be due to the data on Edupack being for a different
Brass alloy than the one used in the experiment.

Materials Testing Lab: Electrical

Experimental Results Edupack Data

Resistivity / nΩm Nichrome 870 1020 - 1140
Copper 12.6 17.4 - 50.1
Relative Permittivity / F Fibre Glass 4.19 4.86 – 5.17
m−1 PVC 1.80 3 – 3.2
Capacitance / nF PCB 1.02 N/A
PVC 0.73 N/A
Inductance / mH 10 turns 0.647 N/A
20 turns 2.36 N/A
References

[1] ES195 main coursework (5).pdf Coursework Briefing Sheet, University of Warwick School of Engineering (2022)

[2] Ansys Granta EduPack | Software for Materials Education Level 3 Aerospace

[3] Fe-Si steel. transformer steel, electrical steel, soft magnetic, inhibition, Goss texture, microstructure, EBSD,
texture (dierk-raabe.com) Raabe, DR (2023) Electrical steels – Iron-Silicon Transformer Steels
[4] What Is a Magnetic Core? (with pictures) (aboutmechanics.com) Palmer, LRP (2023) What Is a Magnetic Core?
[5] What Makes a Material Magnetic? | Sciencing Ayers, CA (2018) What Makes a Material Magnetic?
[6] https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/electromagnetic-fields07/glossary/ghi/
geomagnetic-field.htm
[7] Hysteresis in magnetic materials (gsu.edu) Nave, RN, Hysteresis
[8] What are Eddy Currents? (magcraft.com) Magcraft (2015) What are Eddy Currents?
[9] Faraday's Law (gsu.edu) Nave, RN, Lenz’s Law
[10] Silicon Steel - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics Garrison Jr, WMG (2001) Encyclopaedia of Materials: Science
and Technology
[11] Stator Cores - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics Harrington, DBH (2003) Encyclopaedia of Physical Science and
Technology (Third Edition)
[12] Engineering students' guide to multi-storey buildings - SteelConstruction.info Engineering students’ guide to
multi-storey buildings
[13] Wood - Microstructure | Britannica Britannica, Wood as a material