See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308873749

Bridging design and engineering in terms of materials selection

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 409

5 authors, including:

Lore Veelaert Kim Ragaert

University of Antwerp Ghent University
14 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   416 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sara Hubo Els Du Bois

Ghent University University of Antwerp
14 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

H2020 PolyCE View project

ReMOULD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kim Ragaert on 10 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bridging design and engineering in terms of materials selection
L. Veelaert & E. Du Bois
Antwerp University, Antwerpen, Belgium
[email protected], [email protected]
K. Ragaert, S. Hubo & K. Van Kets
Ghent University, Gent, Belgium

ABSTRACT: With the emergence of new materials, such as mixed recycled polymers or bio-based plastics,
the available set of materials is rapidly growing both in type and number. It no longer suffices to rely on expe-
rience with familiar materials, which makes the selection of a material for a specific application a lengthy and
expensive process. From the perspective of engineering, extensive research is already available. Only recent-
ly, a countermovement emerged with a focus on user-interaction and sensorial properties. Both perspectives
lead to several approaches to support the product development process, concentrating either on technical ma-
terial data or on the product - user interface. This research aims to focus on the iterative product design pro-
cess based on the idea of life cycle thinking, which helps to determine specifications on all product aspects
(i.e. technical, sensorial and intangible). Consequently, this paper elaborates on the exploration of various
contrasts between engineers and designers, numbers and fuzzy labels, detailed and conceptual design, data
and knowledge, objective and subjective properties… Our main objective lies in bridging both engineering
and user-centred aspects and their interrelations, towards a framework to support industrial design engineers
in their material selection in all phases of the design process.

1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 Context of the research project “Design from

Recycling”
1.1 Context & new materials
This exploratory literature research is a first step in
With the emergence of new materials, such as mixed the ongoing TETRA (Technology Transfer by insti-
recycled polymers, bio-based plastics etc., the avail- tutions of higher educations) project “Design from
able set of materials is rapidly growing both in type Recycling”, conducted by the University of Antwerp
and number (Roth et al. 1994). In 2010, researchers (Product Development) and the University of Ghent
estimated that there are over 80,000 technical mate- (Applied Materials Science). Design from Recycling
rials in the world (Jahan et al. 2010). It no longer is a new approach within the concept of circular
suffices to rely on experience with familiar materi- economy that examines to what extent a new prod-
als, which makes the selection of a material for a uct can be produced from an existing flow of recy-
specific use a lengthy and expensive process cled polymers, and the design specifications this en-
(Karana et al. 2008). tails (Ragaert 2016). In this project, the aim is to
Nowadays, industrial design engineers face more answer the research question: “How do we design
considerations about materials than before since specifically with recycled polymers?”. The chal-
both product consumption and the diversity of mate- lenge is to apply recycled polymers in high quality
rials increased (Forester 1988). Nevertheless, new products instead of in low-grade applications. Obvi-
materials often struggle to get adopted after their in- ously, in order to be able to convince designers to
troduction to the competitive market (Maine et al. apply these new materials in their products, we have
2005). For instance, this is the case with recycled to understand what type of data they should receive
polymers from post-consumer waste that require a at the different phases of their design process.
specialised design method to encourage its use by The purpose of this research project is to provide
designers (Ragaert 2016). Flemish SMEs with the necessary knowledge and
support to design and manufacture more and better
products from recycled polymers and to quantify the
sustainable character of these products.
1.3 Aim of the research perspective.
This paper summarises a first explorative research In addition, the results should also indicate the
that is needed to understand how to convince de- potential to greatly improve the material selection
signers to use new materials in their products. At methodology, and aid the researchers and decision
first, we had to understand the materials selection makers in applying the approaches effectively.
process and its different influencing factors.
Materials selection aims to transform the prod- 1.5 Structure of the paper
ucts’ specifications, requirements, intentions and de-
sign drivers into a list of required material proper- The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 sum-
ties, in order to be able to find a corresponding marises the literature review upon current materials
material. selection, considering the materials selection process
Since we interact with these materials through (Section 2.1), the available resources (Section 2.2),
products, it has made product designers take into ac- and is concluding with the most remarkable con-
count not only technical but also sensorial and in- trasts between engineers and designers (Section 2.3).
tangible aspects. The products’ materials should In Section 3, these conclusions are linked with the
meet the technical qualifications, appeal to the sens- product design process and more information on the
es of the consumer and attribute specific meanings current materials selection approach in the design
(Karana et al. 2008). Consequently, in materials se- process is given.
lection, both perspectives of technical engineering Based upon these explorative actions, in the dis-
and user-centred design should be taken into ac- cussion in Section 4, a first list of specifications is
count. formulated towards a framework for supporting ma-
This research aims to identify the contrasts and terial selection in all phases of the design process.
differences between user-centred designers, industri- Finally, the paper ends with a concluding part (Sec-
al design engineers and engineers in terms of (cur- tion 5).
rent) materials selection as a first step towards com-
plete materials selection support and knowledge
upon the type of data that is needed. 2 REVIEW UPON CURRENT MATERIALS
SELECTION

1.4 Research approach 2.1 Materials selection process

In general, a framing methodology of research in de- As more and more materials are available today,
sign context will be applied to further explore the they each bring along their own characteristics, ap-
design process and analyse how designers currently plications, advantages, and limitations (Rao &
tackle their materials selection using literature re- Davim 2008). Hence materials selection, or “the
search; in order to identify when and which infor- process of choosing the best material for a particular
mation is needed in product design about possible design” (Sapuan 2001, p.691), is considered a time-
materials e.g. recycled polymers, and how this consuming and costly process. This results in multi-
should be provided to appeal to their designerly ple applicable materials and requires a final balance
manner of thinking. Moreover, it is important to between advantages and disadvantages. The difficul-
consider how this differs from the currently provided ty of this materials selection lies in its multi-
information, which is primarily from an engineering objective character (Zarandi et al. 2011). When
choosing the optimal material, designers and engi-

Table 1. Comparison of five materials selection processes in literature.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Chiner 1988) (Farag 2002) (Ashby et al. 2004) (Jalham 2006) (Van Kesteren et al. 2006)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Screening Definition Initial Translation of Preselection Formulation of
of design
______________ screening design requirements phase material criteria
Analysis of
material properties
______________ _________________ _________________
Screening of Screen using Making a set of
candidate materials constraints candidate materials
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ranking Evaluation and Developing Rank using Selection phase Comparing
decision for and comparing objectives candidate materials
optimal solution alternatives
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Selection Verification Selecting Seek supporting Post-selection Choosing
tests optimum solution information
_________________ _______________ candidate material
phase
Final material Techno-economic
choice phase
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
neers have to consider a list of important criteria or tools and methods. In addition, a distinction was
attributes; “factors that influence the selection of a made between information and inspiration resources.
material for a given application” (Rao & Davim Information resources provide a large amount of
2008, p.751). In short, materials selection is an in- technical data usually through numerical and textual
terdisciplinary effort (Jahan et al. 2010) that com- descriptions. By contrast, inspiration resources elab-
bines social, economic and environmental domains orate on a limited selection of materials, but faster
(Zarandi et al. 2011). and more visual. This allows users to really explore
By mechanical engineers, this selection process is and discover new materials, which of course makes
commonly addressed analytically (e.g. Ashby 1999; it highly attractive for designers, especially in the
Farag 1989; Cornish 1987). Hence, a material is se- early design stages. (Ramalhete et al. 2010)
lected when a match is found between the objectives
and constraints related to the product requirements, Table 2. Overview of existing resources for materials selection.
______________________________________________
and an existing material and its properties that are Information Inspiration
_____________________________________________
found through screening databases. In a later phase, Software CES Selector, Design InSite,
they test the combination of a particular product & databases CAMPUS Plastics, Materia, MatériO,
with a material (Van Kesteren 2008). MatWeb Material Connexion
__________________________________
In literature, multiple approaches can be found CES Products, Materials and Processes
_____________________________________________
suggesting an ideal material selection process, see Tools Ashby charts, MDD, MOM
Table 1. Similar for all approaches is that screening & methods MSA MiPS
_____________________________________________
(or materials identification) and ranking are two vital
steps in the materials selection (Jahan et al. 2010; 2.2.1 Software & databases
Deng & Edwards 2007), concluded with the final se- Ramalhete et al. (2010, p.2277) define software as
lection. “an application that manages the information of one
Furthermore, Ashby & Johnson (2002) propose or several databases, and the kind of information de-
four complementary methods for materials selection: pends on the used database”. The best-known and
‘analysis’, ‘synthesis’, ‘similarity’ and ‘inspiration’. widely used software is CES (Cambridge Engineer-
The analysis method is already explained above and ing Selector) of Granta Design. When identifying
requires “information about characteristics of avail- applicable materials, it takes into account functions,
able materials”. The synthesis method implies the constraints and objectives. (Jahan et al. 2010; Piselli
exploration of the necessary requirements in already et al. 2015).
existing products and solutions, and requires “infor- Databases provide “information regarding one or
mation about previous materials solutions”. The sim- several materials families and their properties”
ilarity method tries to find other useful materials (Ramalhete et al. 2010, p.2277). An online database
based upon an equivalent attribute profile and thus offers advantages such as large capacity, rapid re-
requires the same information as the analysis meth- trieval and easy access on multiple levels. However,
od. Finally, the inspiration method requires a prod- information databases are rarely sufficient in early
ucts-with-materials database to encourage randomly design stages since the values of properties are not
creative thinking. (Van Kesteren 2008, pp.44-45) known yet (Van Kesteren 2008; Sapuan 2001).
Two extensive examples are CAMPUS (2016) -
2.2 Resources focused on the plastics industry suppliers - and
MatWeb (2016). The latter is one of those searcha-
This section gives a brief overview of currently ex- ble databases and consists of data and specs sheets
isting resources to facilitate the materials selection for over 115,000 materials such as polymers, metals,
process, in particular focusing on the screening. ceramics etc. From the perspective of designers, it
During the last decades, researchers concluded rather represents an overwhelming amount of num-
that information on engineering materials can be bers, which requires a certain degree of technical
presented in two categories (Trethewey et al. 1998): knowledge.
‘Data’ is the result of measurements that can be pre- Although CES is primarily information based,
sented in numbers, and is currently stored for design they recently pre-released the ‘Products, Materials
engineers in material databases. ‘Knowledge’ repre- and Processes database’ (Granta 2016) that relies on
sents the interpretation of and connections between products being the bridge between properties, and
items of data and is mostly expressed in plain lan- thus combines both information and inspiration ad-
guage. It can only be exchanged with designers us- vantages. The database shows inspirational example
ing artificial intelligence systems, such as products to explore and offers both an engineer’s
knowledge-based systems and case-based reasoning and a designer’s view, shifting from technical to
tools. (Dodd & Fairfull 1989; Sapuan 2001) general and aesthetic properties.
To give an overview of existing resources, we or- Yet, the first to couple a product application with
ganised them in the two categories, see Table 2: on its materials and processes was Design InSite
one hand databases and software, on the other hand (Design InSite n.d.; Ramalhete et al. 2010). Howev-
er, the information is very limited and the website ers to systematically involve meaning considerations
has an out dated layout which slightly negates the in their materials selection process”, i.e. meaning
designer’s need for visual inspiration. The interest- driven materials selection. It incorporates a collec-
ing benefit is the use of keywords to support the ex- tion of materials examples together with a list of 76
ploration. meanings that can be conveyed to a user through the
To continue, there are three material databases for expressive characteristics of a products’ material.
inspiration; Material ConneXion (n.d.), MatériO (Karana 2010)
(n.d.) and Materia (2016). Each of them offers both Building on this, Karana et al. (2015) also devel-
an online and physical library. However, they focus oped the MDD method (Material Driven Design),
only on new and innovative materials that are rather which offers a structure for the design process based
applicable in interior and architecture design, instead upon a (new) material and focuses on how to create
of in the design of daily products and industrial pro- meaningful material experiences. Therefore it com-
cesses such as injection moulding. As regards to the bines both a technical and experiential characterisa-
interface and usability, they are all good applications tion since “this requires qualifying the material not
for attracting designers. For example, MatériO offers only for what it is, but also for what it does (Manzini
the possibility to adjust the size of the images ac- 1986), what it expresses to us, what it elicits from us
cording to the desired amount of information (Karana et al. 2014), and what it makes us do
(thumbnails, cards, sheets and pages) and allows us- (Giaccardi & Karana 2015)” (Karana et al. 2015,
ers to create folders and save particular materials. p.37).
With Materia, designers can select filters that in-
volve technical as well as sensorial properties for
which they use labels instead of exact numbers. The 2.3 Concluding upon the different perspectives in
associated tags of each material encourage users to material selection
randomly explore the materials. To sum up, there are currently several tools used in
materials selection processes by designers. However,
2.2.2 Tools & Methods they are mostly engineering based tools, which are
Perhaps the best-known tool is the graphical Ashby dominated by numerical (and technical, quantifiable)
charts collection, on which the CES software tool is material data that is mostly of use in system or de-
based. Although it visualises the relationship be- tailed design phases of new product development.
tween two or three (technical) properties, it manages However, the competitive market has made product
to legibly and clearly summarise both extensive ma- designers consider some intangible aspects besides
terial data and the connections between. Hence, the- the technical and sensorial ones. Using these intan-
se charts are very useful for early screening, espe- gibles, designers aim to express their intentions,
cially across multiple material classes. (Ashby & such as product personality, user-interaction, mean-
Johnson 2003; Jahan et al. 2010; Piselli et al. 2015; ings, emotions, appearance, and perceptions (Ashby
Rognoli 2010) & Johnson 2002; Van Kesteren et al. 2007; Crilly et
The MSA model (Materials Selection Activities) al. 2004; Arabe 2004). Recent research by Karana et
is constructed by Van Kesteren (2008, p.79) to al. (2009) showed association of certain materials
“teach young product designers a structure for mak- with certain meanings such as aggressive, profes-
ing considered material choices for a new design” in sional, and sexy.
user-centred design projects. It shows the link be- In contrast to the fact that there a several material
tween the design process and the materials selection selection databases available, the existing materials
activities. The advantage is that it helps to break selection sources neither consider, nor offer a sys-
down this complex process into seven parts, both tematic way for involving these intangible character-
basic and supporting activities, yet it does not pro- istics into the materials selection process (Karana et
vide the needed information on materials to make ef- al. 2008).
fective decisions. (Van Kesteren 2008) As Ashby & Johnson (2002) state: for engineers,
However, to support this inclusion of user- it is easy to access to information they need - hand-
interaction, Van Kesteren et al. (2007) also proposed book, selection software, advisory services from ma-
three MiPS tools (Materials in Product Selection): terial suppliers - and to analyse and optimise codes
the Picture, the Sample and the Question tool. It as- for safe, economical design. However, they add that,
sists to develop an equal mindset for both client and at this point, product designers are disappointed that
designer in terms of the user-interaction aspects and they do not have equivalent support for other charac-
thus sensorial properties for the new product. In a teristics.
later stage, this “material profile” can then be con-
verted to corresponding technical characteristics.
(Van Kesteren et al. 2007)
The MoM tool (Meanings of Materials) by Kara-
na et al. (2010, p.2933) aims to “encourage design-
3 MATERIALS SELECTION IN THE DESIGN so the design is ready for production. Regarding ma-
PROCESS terials selection, detailed information and datasheets
are needed to support engineers with sufficient in-
As materials selection is part of the broader design formation. At the detailed design phase, the com-
process, focus was put on when materials selection plete datasheet of material and production character-
occurs and how designers deal with it. Materials se- istics is needed. Thus, together with the level of
lection enters at every stage of the design process detail, the material reasoning evolves from material
(Sapuan 2001). Charles (1989) has stressed that in families through material classes to complete mate-
the development of a product, materials selection rial specifications (Van Kesteren 2010).
plays an important role, just as design and manufac-
turing, and that all these activities are interrelated.
Product designers follow a structured design meth- 4 DISCUSSION
odology, or sequence of design phases, in which
they reason from function to product form (Van Based upon this exploration we experience a lack in
Kesteren 2008; Roozenburg & Eekels 1995). In gen- continued materials selection support throughout the
eral, each methodology follows these four steps: design process, which might also be harmful for the
Front End of Innovation, Conceptual design, System introduction of new materials. In this discussion
design (or Embodiment design) and Detailed design. Section, we aim to look ahead to identify specifica-
tions for a new framework to support material selec-
tion over the whole product design process.
Currently, materials are seen as the features of a
physical structure, and as a result they are consid-
ered only after conceptual design stage, such as in
System/Embodiment design or Detailed design
(Deng & Edwards 2007). Compared to this, studies
Figure 1. Coupling the design perspectives with the design pro- appoint that approximately 70% of the product life
cess. cycle costs are decided during conceptual design
(Kota & Lee 1993). Consequently, a new framework
Reconsidering the perspectives from user-centred should focus on supporting product design regarding
designers and engineers can be coupled to the design materials selection from the start of the design pro-
process. As visualised in Figure 1, there is a connec- cess.
tion between the moment in the design process and The design process requires significant engineer-
the importance of the engineering and the UCD per- ing experience, intuition and creativeness. To tackle
spective. Moreover, each phase requires a different the problem of missing fuzzy early information, the
level of material characteristics. During the Front ‘designers’ approach currently succeeds based on
End of Innovation, search fields and opportunities the re-use of design experience (Avramenko &
are explored to describe the specifications, require- Kraslawski 2006). Materials are mostly chosen by
ments, intentions and wishes (Pasman 2003) of all trial and error or simply on the basis of what has
stakeholders for the future product from a user- been used before and what they are familiar with,
centred perspective. At this moment, relatively low and this approach frequently works (Jahan et al.
detailed information is needed with a high level of 2010; Sapuan 2001). However, when design re-
linkage to other products due to the incompleteness quirements exceed the constraints of such material
of data. With regards to materials selection, some of properties, concurrent engineering teams must con-
these fuzzy specifications should be converted to a sider alternative materials (Prasad 1997).
list of required material properties, both in terms of However abundant and available knowledge is
technical and sensorial aspects. nowadays, for product designers it is very challeng-
Based upon the design brief and the items to de- ing to find and select the most relevant knowledge
velop, a plurality of quick designs is sketched during for a specific situation (Jambak & Vergeest 2005).
the Conceptual design phase in order to generate Kwasitsu (2003) reports that design engineers regu-
multiple concepts, using morphological diagrams larly face problems such as ‘not knowing where to
and trade-offs to select and evaluate the different look’ and ‘information overload’.
concepts. In the System design phase, the concept Scholars in the materials and design domain un-
will be further developed on a functional, system derline the need for a materials selection tool to sup-
level. A first validation or preliminary testing is un- port designers in their materials selection activities
dertaken to evaluate the different ‘total systems’. at early stages of the design process (i.e. concept
Finally, during Detailed design the chosen system creation) (Karana et al. 2008; Ashby & Johnson
is completely defined and the detailed engineering 2002; Sonneveld 2007; Van Kesteren 2008), taking
must be done; the final materials are selected and into account all the product life cycle phases, specif-
technical drawings of the CAD model are provided
ically with a view to environmental impact (Deng & Obviously, further research is focusing on the de-
Edwards 2007). velopment of a framework for a tool to support de-
It emphasises the translation of the entire set of signers in materials selection throughout the whole
specifications or ‘fuzzy labels’ into a bundle of design process. In addition, to support the integra-
communicable properties. In the context of design tion and acceptance of new materials, further re-
education (Rognoli 2010; Pedgley 2010) and the search is needed to identify those material character-
Light.Touch.Matters project (Wilkes et al. 2016), istics that are important in each phase, to know what
communication issues between materials (science type of knowledge or data is seen as overload, and to
and) engineering and design disciplines were report- develop the framework and verify it in an industrial
ed. For instance, there is no clear correlation be- design engineering context.
tween the qualitative, experiential descriptions and
the measurable, physical material properties. With-
out the risk of losing a great deal of information, it 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
might not be possible to translate a materials’ quality
into only one, quantifiable property. (Wilkes et al. This research is part of the TETRA project (150151)
2016) “Design from Recycling” and is funded by IWT, the
Flemish Agency for Science and Technology.
This project is closely linked with the industry
5 CONCLUSIONS and is being supported by various partners such as
Samsonite, Recticel, Quadrant, Eco-oh!, Galloo
Extensive research on materials selection is already Plastics, Vanheede, Suez-Sita, Pilipili, Voxdale,
available from the perspective of materials scientists Fosfor, Deceuninck, Govaerts Recycling, Beaulieu,
and engineers. Only recently, a countermovement Cabka&IPS, VDS-Technics, VKC Centexbel, En-
emerged with a focus on user-interaction and senso- VOC, Fisch and OVAM. We would like to thank
rial properties. Both perspectives lead to several ap- them for their input and ratification concerning this
proaches to structure the design process, contrasting research.
technical material data with data that concern the in-
terface between user and product.
In this research, an exploration was done of the 7 REFERENCES
various contrasts between engineers and designers in
materials selection, the evaluation of the currently Arabe, K.C., 2004. Materials’ central role in product
available tools and methods and the complex inte- personality. Thomas Net Industrial News Room,
gration in the design process. In conclusion, we can March.
formulate the following propositions towards a Ashby, M. & Johnson, K., 2002. Materials and Design:
bridging framework for industrial design engineers The art and science of material selection in product
design.
concerning materials selection: Ashby, M. & Johnson, K., 2003. The art of materials
Proposition 1: Materials can be identified by tan- selection. Materials Today, 6(12), pp.24–35.
gible (mechanical, thermal, electronic…), sensorial Ashby, M.F., 1999. Materials selection in mechanical
(feeling, smell, texture, sound, hardness…) as well design. Second edi., Oxford: Butterworth-
as intangible characteristics (product personality, us- Heinemann.
er-interaction, meanings, emotions, appearance, and Ashby, M.F. et al., 2004. Selection strategies for
perceptions through the material of a product). materials and processes. Materials & Design, 25(1),
Proposition 2: Designers’ specifications include pp.51–67.
these technical, intangible, and sensorial aspects that Avramenko, Y. & Kraslawski, A., 2006. Similarity
are important for materials selection. concept for case-based design in process
Proposition 3: Materials selection should be taken engineering. Computers and Chemical Engineering,
into account from the early design phases in order to 30(3), pp.548–557.
CAMPUS, 2016. CAMPUSplastics. Available at:
have an impact on the product life cycle cost and to http://www.campusplastics.com/ [Accessed May
support the conceptualisation. 20, 2016].
Proposition 4: Different types of information are Charles, J., 1989. Interaction of design, manufacturing
needed for designers at the different phases of the method, and material selection. Materials science
design process. Consequently, ideal materials selec- and technology.
tion evolves during the design process, giving more Chiner, M., 1988. Planning of expert systems for
specific data towards the end of the process. materials selection. Materials and Design, 9(4),
Proposition 5: To support designers in the early pp.195–203.
design phases, materials selection should support a Cornish, E., 1987. Materials and the Designer, New
designers’ way of thinking based on the re-use of York: Cambridge University Press.
design experience. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. & Clarkson, P.J., 2004. Seeing
things: Consumer response to the visual domain in
 product design. Design Studies, 25(6), pp.547–577. Selection Approach for Product Designers. METU
Deng, Y.M. & Edwards, K.L., 2007. The role of Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 27(2), pp.321–
materials identification and selection in engineering 338.
design. Materials and Design, 28(1), pp.131–139. Van Kesteren, I.E.H., 2008. Selecting materials in
Design InSite, Design InSite. 2014. Available at: product design (Doctoral dissertation). Available at:
http://designinsite.dk/ [Accessed May 18, 2016]. http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid:23ad12d6-
Dodd, G. & Fairfull, A., 1989. Knowledge-based systems f7a3-485b-be42-797256b9e5bc/.
in materials selection B. Dysen & D. Hayhurst, Van Kesteren, I.E.H., Kandachar, P. & Stappers, P.J.,
eds., London: The Institute of Metals. 2006. Activities in selecting materials by product
Farag, M.M., 2002. Quantitative methods of materials designers. Proceedings of the international
selection. In M. Kutz, ed. Handbook of materials conference on advanced design and manufacture.
selection. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 466– Van Kesteren, I.E.H., Stappers, P.J. & de Bruijn, J.C.M.,
488. 2007. Materials in Products Selection: Tools for
Farag, M.M., 1989. Selection of Materials and including user-interaction in materials selection.
Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Design., International Journal of Design, 1(3), pp.41–55.
UK: Prentice Hall. Kota, S. & Lee, C.L., 1993. General Framework for
Forester, T., 1988. The materials revolution: Configuration Design: Part 1 - Methodology.
Superconductors, new materials, and the Japanese Journal of Engineering Design, 4(4), pp.277–289.
challenge. Kwasitsu, L., 2003. Information-seeking behavior of
Giaccardi, E. & Karana, E., 2015. Foundations of design, process, and manufacturing engineers.
Materials Experience. In Proceedings of the 33rd Library and Information Science Research, 25(4),
Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in pp.459–476.
Computing Systems - CHI ’15. New York, New Maine, E., Probert, D. & Ashby, M., 2005. Investing in
York, USA: ACM Press, pp. 2447–2456. new materials: A tool for technology managers.
Granta, 2016. CES EduPack - Products, Materials and Technovation, 25(1), pp.15–23.
Processes database. Available at: Manzini, E., 1986. The Material of Invention, Milan,
http://www.grantadesign.com/education/editions/pr Italy: Arcadia Edizioni.
oducts.htm [Accessed May 18, 2016]. Materia, 2016. Global network in the area of innovative
Jahan, A. et al., 2010. Material screening and choosing materials. Available at: http://materia.nl/ [Accessed
methods - A review. Materials and Design, 31(2), May 18, 2016].
pp.696–705. Available at: Material ConneXion, We help companies leverage
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.08.013. material innovation to create better products and
Jalham, I.S., 2006. Decision-making integrated experiences. 2015. Available at:
information technology (IIT) approach for material http://www.materialconnexion.com/ [Accessed May
selection. International Journal of Computer 18, 2016].
Applications in Technology, 25(1), p.65. MatériO, The material library your projects deserve.
Jambak, M. & Vergeest, J., 2005. An empirical study of Available at: https://materio.com/ [Accessed May
context knowledge in engineering design practice. 18, 2016].
Bases XVI, IOS. MatWeb, 2016. Online Materials Information Resource.
Karana, E., 2010. How do Materials Obtain Their Available at: http://www.matweb.com/ [Accessed
Meanings? METU Journal of Faculty of May 18, 2016].
Architecture, 27(2), pp.271–285. Pasman, G., 2003. Designing with precedents (Doctoral
Karana, E. et al., 2015. Material Driven Design (MDD): dissertation). Delft University of Technology.
A Method to Design for Material Experiences. Pedgley, O., 2010. Invigorating Industrial Design
International Journal of Design, 9(2). Available at: Materials and Manufacturing Education. METU,
http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/arti 27(2), pp.339–360.
cle/view/1965. Piselli, A., Garbagnoli, P. & Curto, B. Del, 2015.
Karana, E., Hekkert, P. & Kandachar, P., 2010. A tool for Innovative Light Shapes: An Educationa
meaning driven materials selection. Materials and Experience on Materials And Manufacturing
Design, 31(6), pp.2932–2941. Available at: Technologies’ Selection Tools. INTED2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.12.021. Proceedings, pp.3748–3758.
Karana, E., Hekkert, P. & Kandachar, P., 2008. Material Prasad, B., 1997. Concurrent engineering fundamentals,
considerations in design: a survey on crucial integrated product development, volume II, New
material aspects used by product designers. Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Materials and Design, 29, pp.1081–9. Ragaert, K., 2016. Trends in mechanical recycling of
Karana, E., Hekkert, P. & Kandachar, P., 2009. Meanings thermoplastics. Kunststoff Kolloquium Leoben,
of materials through sensorial properties and pp.159–165. Available at:
manufacturing processes. Materials and Design, https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/7205827.
30(7), pp.2778–2784. Available at: Ramalhete, P.S., Senos, A.M.R. & Aguiar, C., 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.09.028. Digital tools for material selection in product
Karana, E., Pedgley, O. & Rognoli, V., 2014. Materials design. Materials & Design, 31(5), pp.2275–2287.
Experience: Fundamentals of materials and design, Rao, R. V. & Davim, J.P., 2008. A decision-making
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann. framework model for material selection using a
Van Kesteren, I.E.H., 2010. A User-centred Materials combined multiple attribute decision-making
 method. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 35(7-8), pp.751–760.
Rognoli, V., 2010. A Broad Survey on Expressive-
Sensorial Characterization of Materials for Design
Education. Journal of th Faculty of Architechure -
METU, (2), pp.287–300.
Roozenburg, N.F.M. & Eekels, J., 1995. Product design:
Fundamentals and Methods, Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Roth, R., Field, F. & Clark, J., 1994. Materials selection
and multi-attribute utility analysis. Journal of
Computer-Aided Materials Design, 1(3), pp.325–
342.
Sapuan, S., 2001. A knowledge-based system for
materials selection in mechanical engineering
design. Materials & Design, 22(8), pp.687–695.
Sonneveld, M., 2007. Aesthetics of tactile experiences,
Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of
Technology.
Trethewey, K. et al., 1998. Development of a knowledge-
based system for materials management. Materials
& design, 19(1-2), pp.39–56.
Wilkes, S. et al., 2016. Design tools for interdisciplinary
translation of material experiences. Materials &
Design, 90, pp.1228–1237.
Zarandi, M.H.F. et al., 2011. A material selection
methodology and expert system for sustainable
product design. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 57(9-12), pp.885–903.

View publication stats