hybrids a-b
Post on 09-Apr-2018
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
1/21
Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821 www.actamat-journals.com
Designing hybrid materials
M.F. Ashby a,, Y.J.M. Brechet b
a Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, CB2 1PZ Cambridge, UKb L.T.P.C.M., Domaine Universitaire de Grenoble, BP75, 38402 Saint Martin dHeres Cedex, France
Accepted 31 August 2003
Abstract
The properties of engineering materials can be mapped, displaying the ranges of mechanical, thermal, electrical andoptical behavior they offer. These maps reveal that there are holes: some areas of property-space are occupied andothers are empty. The holes can sometimes be filled and the occupied areas extended by making hybrids of two ormore materials or of material and space. Particulate and fibrous composites are examples of one type of hybrid, butthere are many others: sandwich structures, foams, lattice structures and more. Here we explore ways of designinghybrid materials, emphasizing the choice of components, their shape and their scale. The new variables expand thedesign space, allowing the creation of new materials with specific property profiles. 2003 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Designing materials; Hybrid materials; Composites; Sandwich structures; Foams
1. Introduction: hybrid materials
1.1. Extending material-property space
Fig. 1 is an example of a material-propertychart. It shows the thermal conductivities of some2300 different materials, plotted against their
Youngs moduli. It is one of many, each a slicethrough material-property space; the assembly ofall the slices can be thought of as a map of thisspace [1,2]. All the charts have one thing in com-mon: parts of them are populated with materials
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-01223-332-635; fax: +44-01223-332-662. The Golden Jubilee IssueSelected topics in Materials
Science and Engineering: Past, Present and Future, edited byS. Suresh.
1359-6454/$30.00 2003 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1359-6454(03)00441-5
and parts are not. Some parts are inaccessible forfundamental reasons that relate to the size of atomsand the nature of the forces that bind their atomstogether. But other parts are empty even though,in principle, they are accessible. If they wereaccessed, the new materials that are there couldallow novel design possibilities.
One approach to thisthe traditional oneisthat of developing new metal alloys, new polymerchemistries and new compositions of glass and cer-amics so as to extend the populated areas of theproperty charts, but this can be an expensive anduncertain process. An alternative is to combine twoor more existing materials so as to allow a super-position of their propertiesin short, to create ahybrid (Fig. 2). The spectacular success of carbonand glass-fiber reinforced composites at oneextreme, and of foamed materials at another
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
2/21
5802 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 1. A material-property chart of thermal conductivity and Youngs modulus for 2300 materials. Each small circle is a plot ofthese properties for a real material. The large ellipses enclose, approximately, the circles for a given family of materials. A large
area of the chart is empty: there are no materials with high conductivity and low modulus. The challenge is to create hybrids that
fill the hole. (This and the other charts were created using the CES 4 software system, Ref. [42].)
Fig. 2. Hybrid materials combine the properties of two (or
more) monolithic materials, or of one material and space. They
include fibrous and particulate composites, foams and lattices,sandwiches and almost all natural materials. One might imagine
two further dimension: those of shape and scale.
(hybrids of material and space) in filling previouslyempty areas of the property charts is encourage-
ment enough to explore ways in which such
hybrids might be designed. What is the best wayto go about doing so?
1.2. What might we hope to achieve?
Fig. 3 shows schematically the fields occupiedby two families of materials, plotted on a chart
with properties P1 and P2 as axes. Within each fielda single member of that family is identified(materials M1 and M2). What might be achieved
by making a hybrid of the two? The figure showsfour scenarios, each typical of a different class of
hybrid. We consider the case when large values
of P1 and P2 are desirable, low values not. Then,depending on the shapes of the materials and the
way they are combined, we may find any one ofthe following.
The best of both scenario (Point A). The ideal,often, is the creation of a hybrid with the best
properties of both components. There are
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
3/21
5803M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 3. The possibilities of hybridization. The properties of the
hybrid reflect those of its component materials, combined inone of several possible ways.
examples, most commonly when a bulk pro-
perty of one material is combined with the sur-
face properties of another. Zinc coated steel hasthe strength and toughness of steel with the cor-rosion resistance of zinc. Glazed pottery
exploits the formability and low cost of clay
with the impermeability and durability of glass. The rule of mixtures scenario (Point B). When
bulk properties are combined in a hybrid, as in
structural composites, the best that can be
obtained is often the arithmetic average of theproperties of the components, weighted by their
volume fractions. Thus unidirectional fiber com-posites have an axial modulus (the one parallelto the fibers) that lies close to the rule of mix-tures.
The weaker link dominates scenario (Point
C). Sometimes we have to live with a lessercompromise, typified by the stiffness of particu-late composites, in which the hybrid propertiesfall below those of a rule of mixtures, lying
closer to the harmonic than the arithmetic mean
of the properties. Although the gains are lessspectacular, they can still be useful.
The worst of both scenario (point D)notsomething we want.
These set certain fixed points, but the list is not
exhaustive. Other combinations are possible, some
relying on the physics of percolation, others on
atomistic effects. These will emerge below.
1.3. When is a hybrid a material?
There is a certain duality about the way in which
hybrids are viewed and discussed. Some, like filledpolymers, composites or wood are treated as
materials in their own right, each characterized by
its own set of material properties. Otherslike gal-vanized steelare seen as one material (steel) towhich a coating of a second (zinc) has been
applied, even though this could be regarded as a
new material with the strength of steel but the sur-face properties of zinc (stinc, perhaps?). Sand-wich panels illustrate the duality, sometimesviewed as two sheets of face-material separated by
a core material, and sometimesto allow compari-son with bulk materialsas a material with theirown density, flexural stiffness and strength. To callany one of these a material and characterize itas such is a useful shorthand, allowing designersto use existing methods when designing with them.
But if we are to design the hybrid itself, we must
deconstruct it, and think of it as a combination of
materials (or of material and space) in a definedgeometry.
2. The method: A + B + shape + scale
First, a working definition: a hybrid material isa combination of two or more materials in a prede-termined geometry and scale, optimally serving a
specific engineering purpose [3], which we para-phrase as A + B + shape + scale. Here we allow
for the widest possible choice of A and B, includ-ing the possibility that one of them is a gas or sim-
ply space. These new variables expand the designspace, allowing an optimization of properties that
is not possible if choice is limited to single, mono-
lithic materials.The basic idea, illustrated in Fig. 4, is this.
Monolithic materials offer a certain portfolio of
properties on which much engineering design isbased. But if the design requirements are excep-
tionally demanding, no single material may be
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
4/21
5804 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 4. The steps in designing a hybrid to meet given design requirements.
found that can meet them: the requirements lie ina hole in property space. Then the way forward is
to identify and separate the conflicting require-ments, seeking optimal material solutions for each,and then combine them in ways that retain the
desirable attributes of both. The best choice is the
one that ranks most highly when measured by the
performance metrics that motivate the design: min-imizing mass or cost, or maximizing some aspect
of performance (the criteria of excellence). Thealternative combinations are examined and
assessed, using the criteria of excellence to rank
them. The output is a specification of a hybrid interms of its component materials and geometry.
Consider as an example the design of a hybrid
material for long-span power cables. The objec-tives are to minimize the electrical resistance, but
at the same time to maximize the strength sincethis allows a greater span. In multi-objective opti-
mization, of which this problem is an example, itis conventional to express each objective such thata minimum is sought; we thus seek materials with
the lowest values of resistivity, R, and reciprocal
of tensile strength, 1/sts. Fig. 5 shows the result:materials that best meet the design requirements lie
near the bottom left. Those with the lowest resist-
ancecopper, aluminum, and some of theiralloysare not very strong, and the materials thatare strongestdrawn carbon and low-alloy steeldo not conduct very well. Now consider a cable
made by interweaving strands of copper and steelsuch that each occupies half the cross-section.
Assuming the steel carries no current and the cop-per no load (the most pessimistic scenario) the per-
formance of the cable will lie at the point shownon the figureit has twice the resistivity of thecopper and half the strength of the steel. It occupies
a part of property space that was previously empty,
offering performance that was not previously poss-ible.
But while some conflicting requirements can be
met in this way, others need a more inventiveapproach.1 So the question arises: are there general
ways in which material hybridization can be
explored systematically? It is unrealistic to supposethat one method and one tool can solve all such
problems. Instead we examine examples of hybrid
design and attempt to extract principles that could
help tackle other, as yet unformulated problems ofthis class.
3. A + B: selecting components for composites
Aircraft engineers, automobile makers, and
designers of sports equipment all have one thing in
common: they want materials that are stiff, strong,tough and light. The single-material choices that
best achieve this are the light alloys: alloys basedon magnesium, aluminum and titanium. Much
research aims at improving their properties. Butthey are not all that lightpolymers have muchlower densities. Nor are they all that stiffcer-amics are much stiffer and, especially in the form
of small particles or thin fibers, much stronger.These facts are exploited in the subset of hybrids
that we usually refer to as particulate and fibrous composites.
Any two materials can, in principle, be com-
bined to make a composite, and they can be mixed
in many geometries (Fig. 6). In this section, we
1 An interesting example is that of flexible ferromagnets.Monolithic ferromagnetic materials are stiff, metallic or cer-
amic, solids. Elastomeric ferromagnetic hybrids offer several
properties that these monolithic solids do not. The hybrids are
made by mixing up to 30% of sub-micron iron particles into an
elastomer resin before polymerising it. The result is a compliant
ferromagnetic material that has the property that it is mag-
netostrictive, and that its stiffness increases when placed in the
magnetic field because the magnetic dipoles that are induced inthe particles attract one another. The material has a fast (1 ms)
response time, making it suitable for vibration damping.
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
5/21
5805M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 5. Designing a hybridhere, one with high strength and high electrical conductivity. The figure shows the resistivity andreciprocal of tensile strength for 1700 metals and alloys. We seek materials with the lowest values of both. The construction is for
a hybrid of hard-drawn OFHC copper and drawn low alloy steel, but the figure itself allows many hybrids to be investigated [42].
Fig. 6. Schematic of hybrids of the composite type: unidirec-
tional fibrous, laminated fiber, chopped fiber and particulatecomposites. Bounds and limits, described in the text, bracket
the properties of all of these.
restrict the discussion to fully dense, strongly
bonded, composites such that there is no tendency
for the components to separate at their interfaceswhen the composite is loaded, and to those in
which the scale of the reinforcement is large com-pared to that of the atom or molecule size and the
dislocation spacing, allowing the use of con-
tinuum methods.On a macroscopic scaleone which is large
compared to that of the componentsa compositebehaves like a homogeneous solid with its own set
of thermo-mechanical properties. Calculating theseprecisely can be done, but it is difficult. It is mucheasier to bracket them by bounds or limits: upperand lower values between which the properties lie
[47]. The term bound will be used to describea rigorous boundary, one which the value of theproperty cannotsubject to certain assumptionsexceed or fall below. It is not always possible to
derive bounds; then the best that can be done is toderive limits outside which it is unlikely that thevalue of the property will lie. The important point
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
6/21
5806 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
is that the bounds or limits bracket the properties
of all arrangements of matrix and reinforcement
shown in Fig. 6; by using them we avoid the need
to model individual geometries.
3.1. Density
When a volume fraction f of a reinforcement r(density rr) is mixed with a volume fraction (1
f) of a matrix m (density rm) to form a compositewith no residual porosity, the composite density is
given exactly by a rule of mixtures (an arithmetic
mean, weighted by volume fraction)
r frr (1f)rm. (1)
The geometry or shape of the reinforcement does
not matter except in determining the maximumpacking-fraction of reinforcement and thus the
upper limit for f.
3.2. Modulus
The modulus of a composite is bracketed by the
well-known Voigt and Reuss bounds. The upper
bound, Eu, is obtained by postulating that on load-ing the two components suffer the same strain; the
stress is then the volume-average of the localstresses and the composite modulus follows a ruleof mixtures:
Eu f Er (1f)Em. (2)
Here Er is the Youngs modulus of the reinforce-ment and Em that of the matrix. The lower bound,
El, is found by postulating instead that the twocomponents carry the same stress; the strain is the
volume-average of the local strains and the com-
posite modulus is
E1 EmEr
f Em (1f)Er(3)
More precise bounds are possible [8,9], but thesimple ones are adequate to illustrate the method.
3.3. Hybrid design for stiffness at minimumweight
We need a criterion of excellence to assess the
merit of any given hybrid. Here our criterion is
Table 1
Criteria of excellence for minimum weight design
Mode of loading and Stiffness at minimum weight
geometry
Tensile loading of ties E/rBending of beams E1/ 2/rBending of plates E1/ 3/r
stiffness per unit mass, measured by the indices
listed in the table (for derivations see Ref. [2]). If
a possible hybrid has a value of any one of thesethat exceed those of the light alloys, it achievesour goal.
Consider, as an illustration of the method, thedesign of a composite for a light, stiff beam of
fixed section-shape, to be loaded in bending. Theefficiency is measured by the index E1 /2/r shownin Table 1. Imagine, as an example, that the beam
is at present made of an aluminum alloy. Berylliumis both lighter and stiffer than aluminum; ceramics
are stiffer, but not all are lighter. What can these
hybrids offer?Fig. 7 is a small part of the Er property chart.
Fig. 7. Part of the Er property chart, showing aluminiumalloys, beryllium and alumina (Al203). Bounds for the moduli
of hybrids made by mixing them are shown. The diagonal con-
tours plot the criterion of excellence, E1/ 2/r.
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
7/21
5807M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Three groups of materials are shown: aluminum
and its alloys, alumina (Al2O3) and beryllium (Be).
Composites made by mixing them have densities
given exactly by Eq. (1) and moduli that are brack-eted by the bounds of Eqs. (2) and (3). Both of
these moduli depend on volume fraction ofreinforcement, and through this, on density. Upperand lower bounds for the modulusdensityrelationship can thus be plotted onto the Er chartusing volume fraction f as a parameter, as shown
in Fig. 7. Any composite made by combiningaluminum with alumina will have a modulus con-
tained in the envelope for AlAl2O3; the same forAlBe. Fibrous reinforcement gives a longitudinal
modulus (parallel to the fibers) near the upperbound; particulate reinforcement or transverselyloaded fibers give moduli near the lower one.
Superimposed on Fig. 7 is a grid showing the
criterion of excellence E1/ 2/r. The bound-envelopefor Alberyllium composites extends almost nor-mal to the grid, while that for AlAl2O3 lies at ashallow angle to it. Beryllium fibers improve per-formance (as measured by E1 /2/r) roughly fourtimes as much as alumina fibers do, for the samevolume fraction. The difference for particulate
reinforcement is even more dramatic. The lower
bound for AlBe lies normal to the contours: 30%of particulate beryllium increases E1/2/r by a fac-tor of 1.5. The lower bound for AlAl2O3 is,initially, parallel to the E1 /2/r grid: 30% of par-ticulate Al2O3 gives almost no gain. The underly-ing reason is clear: both beryllium and Al2O3increases the modulus, but only beryllium
decreases the density; the criterion of excellence ismore sensitive to density than to modulus.
In Fig. 8 we return to the big picture. It shows
the moduli and densities of metals and polymers,
and, encircled by a broken ellipse, those of highperformance carbon, aramid, PE and glass fibers.The construction illustrated in Fig. 7 leads to famil-ies of polymermatrix composites that lie in theshaded ellipse with that name, and to families ofmetalmatrix composites that lie in the ellipseabove it. Both ellipses occupy areas of property
space that were previously unoccupied by bulk
materials, and it is an important one, enabling thedesign of new lightweight mechanical structures.
Similar methods can be used to select materials
optimum strength, and for tailored values of ther-
mal conductivity, expansion coefficient and spe-cific heat [7]. The properties of specific composites
can, of course, be computed in conventional ways.The advantage of this graphical approach is the
breadth and freedom of conceptual thinking that itallows and the ease of comparison of possible newhybrids with the population of existing materials.
3.4. Percolation: properties that switch on and
off
Fig. 9, a chart of electrical resistivity against
elastic stiffness (here measured by Youngs
modulus), has an enormous hole. Materials thatconduct well are stiff; those that are flexible areinsulators. Consider designing materials to fill thehole; to be more specific, consider designing onethat has low modulus, can be molded like a poly-
mer, and is a good electrical conductor. Suchmaterials find application in anti-static clothing andmats, as pressure sensing elements, even as solder-
less connections.Metals, carbon and some carbides and intermet-
allics are good conductors, but they are stiff andcannot be molded. Thermoplastic and thermoset-
ting elastomers can be molded but do not conduct.How are they to be combined? Metal coating ofpolymers is workable if the product is to be used in
a protected environment, but the coating is easily
damaged. If a robust, flexible, product is needed,bulk rather than surface conduction is essential.
This can be achieved by mixing conducting par-
ticles into the polymer.To understand how to optimize this we need the
concept of percolation. Percolation problems are
easy to define, but not easy to solve. Research
since 1960 has provided approximate solutions tomost of the percolation problems associated with
the design of hybrids (see Ref. [10] for a review).Think of mixing conducting and insulating spheres
of the same size to give a large array. If there are
too few conducting spheres for them to touch, thearray is obviously an insulator. If each conductingsphere contacts just one other, there is still no con-
necting path. If, on average, each touched two,there is still no path. Adding more spheres gives
larger clusters, but they can be large yet still dis-
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
8/21
5808 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 8. Youngs modulus and density for 1850 polymers, metals and fibers (broken ellipse). Combining these to create polymer andmetal matrix composites fills a previously empty hole in material-property space [42].
Fig. 9. When conducting, particles or fibers are mixed into an insulating elastomer, a hole in material-property space is filled.Carbon-filled butyl rubbers lie in this part of the space [42].
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
9/21
5809M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
crete. The array first becomes a conductor when asingle trail of contacts links one surface to the
other, that is, when the fraction p of conducting
spheres reaches the percolation threshold, pc. Forsimple cubic packing pc = 0.248, for close packing
pc = 0.180. For a random array it is somewhere inbetweenapproximately 0.2.2
Make the spheres smaller and the transition issmeared out. The percolation threshold is still 0.2,
but the first connecting path is now thin andextremely deviousit is the only one, out of thevast number of almost complete paths, that actually
connects. Increase the volume fraction and the
number of conducting paths increases initially as
(p
pc)
2
, then linearly, reverting to a rule of mix-tures [13]. If the particles are very small, as much
as 40% may be needed to give good conduction.But a loading of 40% seriously degrades the mold-
ability and compliance of the polymer.
Shape gives a way out. If the spheres arereplaced by fibers, they touch more easily and thepercolation threshold falls. If their aspect ratio is
f = L/d (where L is the fiber length, d thediameter) thento an adequate approximationempirically, the percolation threshold falls from fcto roughly fc/f
1/2 [1418]. Fig. 9 shows the area
of the property chart where these hybrids lie. Withsufficient aspect ratio the percolation thresholdfalls to a few percentage points.
The concept of percolation is a necessary tool
in designing hybrids. Electrical conductivity worksthat way; so too does the passage of liquids
through foams or porous mediano connectedpaths, and no fluid flows; just one (out of a millionpossibilities) and there is a leak. Add a few more
connections and there is a flood. Percolation ideasare particularly important in understanding the
transport properties of hybrids: properties thatdetermine the flow of electricity or heat, of fluid,or of flow by diffusion, specially when the differ-ences in properties of the components are extreme.
Most polymers differ from metals in their electricalconductivity by a factor of about 1020. The dif-
2 These results are for infinite, or at least very large, arrays.Experiments [11,12] generally give values in the range 0.190.22, with some variability because of the finite size of thesamples.
fusion of water through solids differs from the flowrate of water through channels by a similar factor.
It is then that single connections really matter.
Percolation influences mechanical propertiestoo, particularly when mechanical connection is
important, as in arrays of loose powders or fibers.If there are no bonds between the particles or fib-ers, the array has no tensile stiffness or strength.If each particle is bonded to another, or to several
forming discrete clusters, there is still no stiffness
or strength. These only appear when there are con-nected paths running completely through the array.
The plasticity of 2-phase hybrids, too, can be
viewed as a percolation problem. Plasticity may
start in one phase at a low stress, allowing patchesof slip to form, but full plasticity requires that the
slip patches link to give connected paths throughthe entire cross-section of the sample. Mechanical
and electrical percolation can be combined,
exploiting scale. A latex reinforced with a smallvolume fraction of cellulose fibers coated withpolypyrrole to make them conducting, gives a
material with a shear modulus two orders of mag-nitude higher than the rule of mixture predicts
combined with good conduction because of thehigh aspect ratio of the fibers [19]. Here we are
escaping the continuum boundsa topic we returnto later.
3.5. Creating anisotropy
The elastic and plastic properties of bulk mono-
lithic solids are frequently anisotropic, but weakly
sothe properties do not depend strongly on direc-tion. Hybridization gives a way of creating and
controlling anisotropy, and it can be large. We
have already seen an example in Fig. 7, which
shows the upper and lower bounds for the moduliof composites. The longitudinal properties of
unidirectional long-fiber composites lie near theupper bound, the transverse properties near the
lower one. The vertical width of the band in
between them measures the anisotropy.Consider a second example, that of creating
hybrids with anisotropic thermal conductivity. A
saucepan made from a single material when heatedon an open flame, develops hot spots that canlocally burn its contents. That is because the sauce-
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
10/21
5810 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
pan is thin, and heat is transmitted through the
thickness more quickly than it can be spread trans-
versely to bring the entire pan surface to a uniform
temperature. The metals of which saucepans areusually madecast iron, or aluminum or copperhave a isotropic thermal conductivities whereaswhat we clearly want is a thermal conductivity thatis higher in the transverse direction than in thethrough-thickness direction. A bi-layer (or multi-
layer) hybrid can achieve this.
Heat transmitted transversely in a bi-layer sheethas two parallel paths; the total heat transmitted is
a sum of that in each of the paths. If it is made of
a layer of material 1 with thickness t1 and conduc-
tivity l1, bonded to a layer of material 2 with thick-ness t2 and conductivity l2, the conductivity paral-lel to the layers is
lII fl1 (1f)l2 (4)
(a the rule of mixtures), where f= t1/ (t1 + t2). Per-pendicular to the layers the conductivity is
1
l
f
l1
(1f)
l2(5)
(the harmonic mean). Fig. 10 shows l and l plot-ted against f for a bi-layer of copper (l=390W/m K) and cast iron (l = 30 W/m K). For singlematerials the two are equal; layering them gives
Fig. 10. Creating anisotropy. The thermal conductivities of
copper and cast iron are isotropic. Anisotropy is created by
combining them as a bi-layer.
trajectories for l and l that separate. Themaximum separation occurs broadly where each
occupies about half the thickness, where the ratio
of the conductivities (the anisotropy ratio) is 3.8.Mechanical anisotropy is most easily created
and managed through shape. This is the topic ofthe next section.
4. Shape: structures, sandwiches and
segmented assemblies
The shape and configuration of components Aand B of a hybrid play a key role in determiningits properties. Shape can be used to enhance or
diminish stiffness and strength, to impart damagetolerance, andas we have already seentomanipulate the percolation limit.
4.1. Shape efficiency and shape factors
Beams with hollow-box or I-sections are stiffer
and stronger in bending than solid sections of the
same cross-sectional area; so, too, are panels withribs or waffle stiffeners, or those with an expandedcore to create a sandwich (Fig. 11). These are
Fig. 11. Making high-efficiency structures. Shape gives thesections a greater flexural stiffness and strength per unit massthan the solid section from which they are made.
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
11/21
5811M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
examples of the use of shape to increase structural
efficiency. To characterize this we need a metrica way of measuring the structural efficiency of a
section shape, independent of the material of whichit is made. An obvious one is that given by the
ratio j of the stiffness or strength of the shapedsection to that of a neutral reference shape. Fora beam we take the reference shape to be that ofa solid square section with the same cross-sectional
area, and thus the same mass per unit length, as
the shaped section. For a panel, we take it to be asolid, plain panel with the same mass per unit area
as the shaped section, as shown in the figure. Wecall j the shape factor [2,20] and define that for
stiffness je as
je Flexural stiffness of shaped section
Flexural stiffness of reference section(6)
and that for strength jf as
jf Flexural strength of shaped section
Flexural strength of reference section(7)
Shape can be used to reduce flexural stiffnessand strength as well as increase them. Springs, sus-pensions, flexible cables and other structures that
must flex yet have high tensile strength, use shapeto give a low bending stiffness. Low shapeefficiency is achieved by forming the material intostrands or leaves, as suggested Fig. 12. Values of
j for the stiffness of structural sections can be as
Fig. 12. Making low-efficiency structures. Shape gives thesections a lower flexural stiffness and strength per unit massthan the solid section from which they are made.
high as 50; for multi-strand or multi-leaf structures
as low as 0.01.
Note the origins of efficiency. The flanges of the
I-section or the faces of the sandwich panels lie farfrom the neutral axis; they stretch when the section
is loaded in bending. Subdivision, as in Fig. 11,lowers efficiency because the slender strands orleaves bendeasily, but do not stretch when the sec-tion is bent: an n-strand cable is less stiff by a fac-
tor of 3/n than the solid reference section; an n-leaf panel by a factor 1/n2. There is an underlyingprinciple here: stretch dominated structures have
high structural efficiency; bending dominated
structures have low.
4.2. Shape on a micro-scale
The sections of Fig. 11 achieve efficiencythrough their macroscopic shape. Structural
efficiency can be manipulated in another way:through shape on a small scale; microscopic ormicro-structural shape. Wood is an example. Thesolid component of wood (a composite of cellu-lose, lignin and other polymers) is shaped into pris-
matic cells, each cell like the hollow tube of Fig.11. The effect is to disperse the solid component
further from the axis of bending or twisting of thebranch or trunk of the tree, increasing its flexuralstiffness and strength. This is not the only possi-
bility; low efficiency structures give materials withlow stiffness and strength, desirable in cushioningand packaging.
4.3. Ultra-light, low stiffness hybrids
The point has been made that stretching is a stiff
mode of loading, bending is a compliant one. A
material that responds, at the micro-structurallevel, by bending no matter how it is loaded
remotely is much less stiff than one that respondsby stretching. Material made by foaming have
structures that respond in this way.
Fig. 13 shows an idealized cell of a low-densityfoam. It consists of solid cell walls or edges sur-
rounding a void space, each cell with an overall
space-filling shape. Cellular solids are charac-terized by their relative density, which for the
structure shown here (with t ) is
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
12/21
5812 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 13. A cell in a low density foam. When the foam is loaded, the cell edges bend, giving a low-modulus structure.
r
rs t
2 (8)
where r is the density of the foam, rs is the den-sity of the solid of which it is made, is the cellsize, and t is the thickness of the cell edges. A
remote compressive stress s exerts a force F s2 on the cell edges, causing them to bend asshown in the figure, and leading to a bending
deflection d. For the open-celled structure shownin the figure, the bending deflection is given by
dFL3
EsI(9)
where Es is the modulus of the solid of which thefoam is made and I= t4 /12 is the second momentof area of the cell edge of square cross-section, t t. The compressive strain suffered by the cell asa whole is then e = 2d/. Assembling these resultsgives the modulus E = s/e of the foam as
E
Es rrs
2
(10)
(bending dominated behavior)
Since E = Es when r = rs, we expect the constantof proportionality to be close to unitya specu-lation confirmed both by experiment and bynumerical simulation.
A similar approach can be used to model non-
linear properties such as strength. The cell walls
yield when the force exerted on them exceeds their
fully plastic moment
Mf sst
3
4(11)
where ssis the yield strength of the solid of whichthe foam is made. This moment is related to the
remote stress by M
FL
sL3
. Assembling theseresults gives the failure strength s
s
ssrrs
3/2
(12)
(bending dominated behavior)
This behavior is not confined to open-cell foamswith the structure shown in Fig. 14. Most closed-
cell foams also follow these scaling laws. At firstsight an unexpected result because the cell faces
must carry membrane stresses when the foam isloaded, and these should lead to a linear depen-
dence of both stiffness and strength on relative
density. The explanation lies in the fact that the
cell faces are very thin; they buckle or rupture at
stresses so low that their contribution to stiffness
and strength is small, leaving the cell edges to
carry most of the load (for further details, see
Ref. [21]).
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
13/21
5813M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 14. A micro-truss structure and its unit cell.
4.4. Ultra-light, high stiffness hybrids
If conventional foams have low stiffness
because other configuration of the cell edgesallows them to bend, might it not be possible to
devise other configurations in which the cell edgeswere made to stretch instead? This thinking leadsto the idea of micro-truss structures [22,23]. To
understand these we need the Maxwell stability cri-terion.
The condition that a pin-jointed frame of b strutsand j frictionless joints to be both statically andkinematically determined i.e. just rigid [24,25], in
2-dimensions, is:
M b2j 3 0 (13)
and in 3-dimensions is
M b3j 6 0 (14)
If M 0, the frame is a mechanism. It has no
stiffness or strength, but will collapse if loaded. If
its joints are locked (instead of pin-jointed) the barsof the frame bend when the structure is loaded. If,
instead, M 0 the frame ceases to be a mech-anism; its members carry tension or compression
when the frame is loaded, and it becomes a stretch-
dominated structure.These criteria give a basis for the design of
efficient micro-truss structures. For the cellularstructure of Fig. 13 M 0, and it is bending domi-nated. For the structure shown in Fig. 14, however,
M 0 and it behaves as an almost isotropic,
stretch-dominated structure. On average one thirdof its bars carry tension when the structure is
loaded in simple tension, regardless of its direc-
tion. Thus
E
Es
1
3rrs (15)
for isotropic stretch-dominated behavior and
s
ss
1
3r
rs (16)for isotropic stretch-dominated behavior.3
Prismatic structures do even better, provided
they are loaded parallel to the prism axis. Fig. 15shows four such structures which are common innature. It is helpful to think, as before, of the
expansion of a solid bar, shown in the center, togive the structures, with no change of massherethe solid black represents solid material, the dottedareas represent low density foam and the open
areas represent space. The expansion has moved
material away from the axis of bending, increasingthe second moment of area about any axis con-
tained in the plane of the cross-section, and
increasing efficiency in the sense of Eqs. (6) and(7). For these structures the axial modulus and
strength (measured parallel to the prism axis) fol-
3 This assumes that failure occurs by the axial yielding of a
bar. If the bars are slender or have low modulus they may fail
instead by buckling, giving a lower strength.
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
14/21
5814 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 15. Four extensive micro-structured materials which are
mechanically efficient: (a) prismatic cells, (b) fibers embeddedin a foamed matrix, (c) concentric cylindrical shells with foam
between, and (d) parallel plates separated by foamed spacers.
lows Eqs. (15) and (16), but with a constant ofproportionality not of 1/3 but of unity:
E
Es
r
rs (17)for prismatic stretch-dominated behavior and
s
ssrrs (18)
for prismatic stretch-dominated behavior.3
Loaded transversely, however, they are bendingdominated and follow power laws like those of
Eqs. (10) and (12); they are thus exceedingly
anisotropic.
These results are summarized in Fig. 16, inwhich the modulus E is plotted against the den-
sity r. Stretch dominated, prismatic microstruc-tures like wood give moduli that scale as r/rs(slope 1); bending dominated, cellular, microstruc-tures like that of polystyrene foam give moduli thatscale as (r/rs)
2 (slope 2). Given that the density
can be varied through a wide range, this allows
great scope for material design. Note how the useof microscopic shape has expanded the occupied
area of Er space.
4.5. Ultimate efficiency: the sandwich
A sandwich panel epitomizes the concept of ahybrid. It combines two materials in a specifiedgeometry and scaleone forming the faces, theother the coreto give a structure of high stiffnessand strength at low weight (Figs. 11 and 17). Theseparation of the faces by the core increases the
moment of inertia I and the section modulus Z of
the panel with little increase in weight, producingan efficient structure for resisting bending andbuckling loads. Sandwiches are found where
weight-saving is critical: in aircraft, trains, trucksand cars, in portable structures, and in sports
equipment. Nature, too, makes use of sandwichdesigns: sections through the human skull, thewing of a bird and the stalk and leaves of many
plants show a low-density foam-like core separat-
ing solid faces. The faces carry most of the load,so they must be stiff and strong; and they form the
exterior surfaces of the panel so they must tolerate
the environment in which they operate. The coreoccupies most of the volume, it must be light, and
stiff and strong enough to carry the shear stressesnecessary to make the whole panel behave as a
load bearing unit, but if the core is much thickerthan the faces these stresses are small.
So far we have spoken of the sandwich as a
structure: faces of material A supported on a core
of material B, each with its own density and modu-lus. But we can also think of it as a material with
its own set of properties, and this is useful because
it allows comparison with more conventionalmaterials. To do so we must analyze sandwich per-
formance [21,2629]. We shall use, as a criterionof excellence, the bending stiffness per unit width,Sw divided by the mass per unit area, ma.
The bending stiffness of the panel per unit
width, Sw, is given by
Sw (EI)sand (19)
112
(d3 c3)Ef1
1 BEftc
2GcL2
where the dimensions, d, c, t and L are identified
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
15/21
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
16/21
5816 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
This, of course, is an idealization. The core
always shears somewhat, and it does have some
mass; a more precise analysis copes with this [29].
It leads to the performance shown in Fig. 18, whichhas been constructed in the same way as Fig. 7. It
shows the modulus and density of A + B hybrids.The shaded band is bounded by the upper andlower bounds of Eqs. (1)(3), describing particu-late and fibrous composites. The flexural perform-ance of the sandwich is shown as a dashed line; at
its mid-section it lies a factor of 3 above the upperbound rule of mixtures of Eq. (2). The criterion of
excellence for minimum weight design with pre-
scribed bending stiffness, listed in Table 1, is that
of maximizing E
1/3
/r. Contours of this criterionare plotted as diagonal lines on the figure, increas-ing towards the top left. The sandwich out-per-forms all alternative hybrids of A + B.
4.6. Subdivision as a design variable
We have already seen how subdivision can
reduce stiffness (Fig. 12). Here we examineanother way in which it can be used: to impart
damage tolerance. A glass window, hit by a pro-
Fig. 18. Sandwich panels (broken line) extend the range of
flexural modulus per unit mass into areas not occupied bymonolithic materials. Their flexural moduli lie above that pre-dicted by a rule of mixtures by a factor of approximately 3.
jectile, will shatter. One made of small glass
bricks, laid as bricks usually are, will lose a brick
or two but not shatter totally; it is damage-tolerant.
By sub-dividing and separating the material, acrack in one segment does not penetrate into its
neighbors, allowing local but not global failure.That is the principle of topological toughening.Builders in stone and brick have exploited the ideafor thousands of years: both materials are almost
as brittle as glass, but buildings made of themeven those made without cement (dry-stonebuilding)survive ground movement, even earth-quakes, through their ability to deform with some
local failure, but without total collapse.
Taking the simplest view, two things are neces-sary for topological damage tolerance: discreteness
of the structural units, and an interlocking of theunits in such a way that the array as a whole can
carry load. Brick-like arrangements (Fig. 19a) are
damage tolerant in compression and shear, but dis-integrate under tension. Strand and layer-like struc-
tures (shown earlier as Fig. 12) are damage-tolerant
in tension because if one strand fails the crack doesnot penetrate its neighborsthe principle of multi-strand ropes and cables. The jigsaw puzzle con-figuration (Fig. 19b) carries in-plane tension, com-
pression, and shear, but at the cost of introducinga stress concentration factor of about R/r, where
R is the approximate radius of a unit and r that
of the interlock. Dyskin et al. [3032] explore aparticular set of topologies that rely on compress-ive or rigid boundary conditions to create continu-
ous layers that tolerate out-of-plane forces and
bending moments, illustrated in Fig. 19c. This isdone by creating interlocking units with non-planar
surfaces that have curvature both in the plane of
the surface and normal to it. Provided the array is
constrained at its periphery, the nesting shapes lim-its the relative motion of the units, locking them
together. The bending stiffness of the array is pro-portional to the stiffness of the boundary con-
straint, falling to zero as the constraint is relaxed.Topological interlocking of this sort allows the for-mation of continuous layers that can be used for
ceramic claddings or linings to give surface protec-
tion.The damage tolerance can be understood in the
following way. We suppose that the units of the
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
17/21
5817M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Fig. 19. Examples of topological interlocking: discrete, unbonded structures that carry load. (a) Brick-like assemblies of rectangular
blocks carry axial compression (syy), but not tension or shear. (b) The 2-dimensional interlocking of a jig-saw puzzle carries in-planeloads ( sxx, syy, sxy). (c) The units suggested by Dyskin et al., when assembled into a continuous layer and clamped within arigid boundary around its edge, can carry out-of-plane loads and bending moments ( sxz, syz, Mxz, Myz) (Fig. 15(c) derived fromRef. [30]).
structure are all identical, each with a volume Vs,
and that they are assembled into a body of volume
Vt; there are therefore n = Vt/Vs segments. Wedescribe the probability of failure of a segment
under a uniform tensile stress sby a Weibull prob-ability function:
Pf(V,s) 1exp VsmVos
m
o (24)
where m, Vo and so are constants [33,34]. If thebody were made of a single monolithic piece ofthe brittle solid, this equation, with V= Vt, woulddescribe the failure probability. To calculate the
design stress st we set an acceptable value for P,which we call P (say 106, meaning that it is
acceptable if one in a million fail) and invert theequation to give
st so VoVt
ln(1P)1/m (25)Now consider the segmented body. A remote
stress, if sufficiently large, causes some segmentsto fail. We refer to the fraction that has failed as
the damage, D. If loaded such that each segmentcarries a uniform stress s, the damage is simplyPf(Vs,s). If some segments fail, the body as awhole remains intact; global failure requires that afraction D , the critical damage, (say, 10%) must
fail. Inverting Eq. (24) with V= Vs gives the globalfailure stress ss of the segmented body:
ss so
Vo
Vsln(1D)
1/m
(26)
Thus segmentation increases the allowable design
stress from st to s
s , factor of
ssst
nln(1D)ln(1P)
1/mnDP
1/m (27)(expanding the logarithm as a series and retaining
the first terman acceptable approximation forsmall P and D). Both n and D/P are con-
siderably greater than 1, so the equation suggests
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
18/21
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
19/21
5819M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
sm(1f) of the continuum approximation. Fine-grained materials, particularly those with grains of
a few nanometers, exhibit strengths that exceed
those of large-grained bulk samples. Scale, then,can have a profound influence on mechanicalproperties.
Transport properties, too, can be scale depen-dent. The mean-free paths of electrons, phononsand of diffusing atoms and molecules are limited
by the scale of the microstructure when this is
smalla fact exploited in micro-cellular foams togive exceptional thermal insulation. Convection,
acoustic absorption and light scattering, too, are
directly linked to aspects of structural scale.
6. Summary and conclusions
The properties of engineering materials can be
thought of as defining the axes of a multi-dimen-sional space with each property as a dimension.
Sections through this space can be mapped. These
maps reveal that some areas of property-space areoccupied, others are emptythere are holes. Theholes can sometimes be filled by making hybrids:combinations of two (or more) materials, or of
material in space, in chosen configuration andscale. Here we have surveyed conceptual tools forsuggesting and assessing hybrids to fill specifiedneeds. A useful starting point is the concept of a
hybrid as A + B + shape + scale. Successfulhybrids, as a rule, exploit the first three of these;with micron and nanometer scale fabrication tech-
nologies now a reality, it becomes possible to addthe last, opening up wider horizons.
Continuum bounding methods give tools for
scanning the possibilities offered by a set of
hybrids, provided the scale is such that the con-tinuum approximation applies. Shapethe way Aand B are configuredcan extend the populatedareas of property-space in ways that complement
efforts to create new monolithic materials. Dis-
criminating choice of shape can enhance or dimin-ish physical, mechanical, thermal and electrical
properties. Scale introduces a new variable. In
hybrids with structural units that are sub-micron, anew length scale (basically that of the atom) makes
itself evident. Here the bounds break down, and
continuum methods must be replaced by statistical
or dislocation mechanics.
Much, in a short paper such as this, has been
ignored. Fabricating successful hybrids can be dif-ficult and expensive (but so, too, is the alternativeof seeking to develop a new monolithic material).
Part of the difficulty stems from the multitude ofpossible choices: choice of materials, choice of
process to combine them, and choice of the internal
geometry and topology of the constitutive
materials. Part derives from the need to make these
choices in such a way as to optimally meet a set
of design requirements. The hybrid must be both
feasible and optimal.
To explore this design space efficiently optimiz-ation tools are needed. The starting point is a sim-
ple screening of optionsthe obvious way for-ward when the selection space is discrete. Thus it
is possible to create a database of, say, composites
by computing the properties of virtual materials
with 5%, 10%, 15% of reinforcing fibers anddiscrete choices of lay-up; selection proceeds by
rejecting all the combinations that fail to meet the
design requirements. This method becomes
impractical when many material choices and lay-
ups are allowed. When the optimization variablesare continuous (such as the volume fraction of
reinforcement in a composite with pre-chosen
constituents), linear programming or steepest
descent methods can be efficient. When the poten-tial landscape is very rugged, simulated annealingcan offer a practical alternative. When the variables
are both discrete (such as the choice of materials)
and continuous (the thicknesses of face sheets and
core of a sandwich, for instance), a genetic algor-
ithm, which allows an unevenly populated space to
be explored, can be efficient. Refs. [3741]examples of their use in hybrid design.These tools allow promising candidates to be
identified. They need the back-up of expert toolsadvising on the compatibility of the constituents,
the practicality of processes to assemble them into
a hybrid, and the loss of properties (the knock-down factor relating real and ideal hybrids) fora given combination of the materials, architecture
and process.
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
20/21
5820 M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Acknowledgements
The ideas, methods and tools described here
have evolved over the past 15 years. Numerouscolleagues in many countries have (sometimes
unknowingly) stimulated or contributed to thisevolution. Among these we would particularly like
to recognize Profs. Mick Brown, Chris Calladine,
Norman Fleck and David Cebon (all of CambridgeUniversity), Dave Embury (McMaster University,
Canada), Tony Evans (UCSB), John Hutchinson
(Harvard University) and Haydn Wadley (UVA),and Dr. Luc Salvo (University of Grenoble).
References
[1] Ashby MF. On the engineering properties of materials.
Acta Metall 1989;37:127393.[2] Ashby MF. Materials selection in mechanical design, 2nd
ed. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1999.
[3] Kromm FX, Quenisset JM, Harry R, Lorriot T. An
example of multimaterial design. Adv Eng Mater
2002;4:3714.
[4] Watt JP, Davies GF, OConnell RJ. Reviews of geophys-ics and space physics 1976;14:541.
[5] Schoutens JE, Zarate DA. Composites 1986;17:188.
[6] Chamis CC. In: Engineers guide to composite materials.
Materials Park, Ohio, USA: American Society of Metals,
1987:3-83-24.[7] Ashby MF. Criteria for selecting the components of com-
posites. Acta Mater 1993;41:131335.
[8] Eshelby JD. Proc R Soc Lond 1957;A241:376.
[9] Hashin Z, Strikman S. J Appl Phys 1962;33:3125.
[10] Stauffer D, Aharony A. Introduction to percolation theory,
2nd ed. London, UK: Taylor and Francis, 1994 revised.
[11] Fitzpatrick JP, Malt RB, Spaepen F. Phys Lett
1974;A47:207.
[12] Brown LM. A simple model of a metal non-metal tran-
sition. Physics Education 1977;July issue:31820.
[13] Last BJ, Thouless DJ. Phys Rev Lett 1971;27:1719.
[14] Nielsen LE. Thermal conductivity of particulate-filledpolymers. J Appl Polym Sci 1973;17:3819.
[15] Nielsen LE. The thermal and electrical conductivity of
two-phase systems. Ind Eng Chem Fund 1974;13:17.
[16] Bigg DM. Conductive polymeric compositions. Polym
Eng Sci 1977;17:892.
[17] Bigg DM. Mechanical and conductive properties of metal
fibre-filled polymer composites. Composites 1979;April
issue:95100.[18] Yi Y-B, Sastry AM. Analytical approximation of the 2-
dimensional percolation threshold for fiels of over lappingellipses. Phys Rev 2002;E66 066130-1066130-8.
[19] Brechet Y, Cavaille JY, Chabert E, Chazeau L, Dendievel
R, Flandin L, Gautier C. Polymer-based nanocompoosite:
effect of fillerfiller and fillermatrix interactions. Adv
Eng Mater 2001;3(8):571.
[20] Ashby MF. On material and shape. Acta Mater
1991;39:1025.
[21] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular solids, structure and
properties, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
[22] Deshpande VS, Ashby MF, Fleck NA. Foam topology:
bending versus stretching dominated architectures. Acta
Mater 2001;49:103540.
[23] Deshpande VS, Fleck NA, Ashby MF. Effective properties
of the octet-truss lattice material. J Mech Phys Sol
2001;49:174769.
[24] Maxwell JC. On the calculation of the equilibrium and
stiffness for frames. Phil Mag 1864;27:294.
[25] Calladine CR. Theory of shell structures. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1983.[26] Allen HG. Analysis and design of structural sandwich
panels. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1969.
[27] Cordon J. Honeycomb structure. In: Dostal CA, editor.
Engineered materials handbook. Metals Park, Ohio, USA:
ASM International; 1990:7218.
[28] Zenkert D. In: An introduction to sandwich construction.
Solihull, London, UK: Engineering Advisory Services
Ltd., Chameleon Press Ltd, 1995, ISBN 0 947817778.
[29] Ashby MF, Evans AG, Fleck NA, Gibson LJ, Hutchinson
JW, Wadley HNG. Metal foams, a design guide. Oxford,
UK: Butterworth Heinemann, 2000.
[30] Dyskin AV, Estrin Y, Kanel-Belov AJ, Pasternak E.
Toughening by fragmentation: how topology helps. AdvEng Mater 2001;3:8858.
[31] Dyskin AV, Estrin Y, Kanel-Belov AJ, Pasternak E. Topo-
logical interlocking of platonic solids: a way to new
materials and structures. Phil Mag 2003;83:197203.
[32] Dyskin AV, Estrin Y, Pasternak E, Kohr HC, Kanel-Belov
AJ. Fracture resistant structures based on topological inter-
locking with non-planar contacts. Adv Eng Mater
2003;5(3):1169.
[33] Weibull W. J Appl Mech 1951;18:293.
[34] Davidge RW. Mechanical behavior of ceramics. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[35] Curtin WA. Acta Metall et Mater 1993;41:1369.
[36] Shaw MC. The fracture mode of ceramic/metal multilay-
ers: role of the interface. Key Eng Mater 1996;116-
117:26178.
[37] Salvo L, Brechet Y, Pechambert P, Bassetti D, Jantsen A.
Logiciels de selection des composites. Materiaux et Tech-
nique 1998;5:31.
[38] Landru D, Brechet Y. New design tools for materials and
process selection. Materiaux et Techniques 2002;4:6.
[39] Brechet Y, Bassetti D, Landru D, Salvo L. Challenges in
material and process selection. Prog Mater Sci
2001;46:407.
[40] Brechet Y, Ashby MF, Salvo L. Selection des materiaux
et des procedes de mis en oeuvre. Switzerland: Les Presses
-
8/8/2019 Hybrids A-B
21/21
5821M.F. Ashby, Y.J.M. Brechet / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 58015821
Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes de Lausanne,
2002.
[41] Ashby M, Brechet Y, Cebon D, Salvo L. Materials and
process selection strategies. To appear in Advanced
Engineering Materials, 2003.
[42] CES 4. The Cambridge Material Selector, Granta Design,
Cambridge. 2003;(www.Grantadesign.com)
top related