60 CHAPTER 4: Material Property Charts

Low alloy steel WC

High carbon steel BC Young’s modulus
1000 SiC
Stainless steel Alumina
Ti-alloys Al-SiC composite
CFRP
100 Cu-alloys

Young’s modulus E (GPa)

Zn-alloys Acetal, POM Glass ceramic
Al-alloys Polyester, rigid Silica glass
10 Mg-alloys Soda-lime glass
PS ABS GFRP
PUR Plywood
1 PC PE
PP
PTFE
10−1 Ionomer

EVA
10−2
Polyurethane
Natural rubber (NR)
10−3 Neoprene
Metals Polymers Ceramics Hybrids MFA, 09
10−4

FIGURE 4.1
A bar chart showing modulus for families of solids. Each bar shows the range of modulus offered by
a material, some of which are labeled.

104 m/s
Modulus – Density Ceramics
1000
Composites
3 × 103
Natural
100
materials
103
Young’s modulus E (GPa)

10
Metals 3 × 102
1
102 m/s
Polymers
10−1 Foams
Longitudinal
wave speed
10−2

10−3
Slope = 1
Elastomers
MFA, 09
10−4
10 100 1000 10,000
Density ρ (kg/m3)

FIGURE 4.2
The idea of a material property chart: Young’s modulus E is plotted against the density ρ on log scales.
Each material class occupies a characteristic field. The contours show the longitudinal elastic wave
speed v = ðE/ρÞ1/2 .
 4.2 Exploring Material Properties 61

Al2O3 Steels
Young’s modulus – Density SiC Ni alloys
Technical Ti alloys WC
1000 Si3N4
ceramics B4C
Al alloys W alloys
Composites CFRP
Cu alloys
100 Glass
Bamboo Mg alloys
Wood GFRP Metals
// grain
PMMA Polyester Lead alloys
10 Natural PA Concrete
Young’s modulus E (GPa)

Zinc alloys
Longitudinal materials PEEK
wave speed PS PET Nontechnical
Wood Epoxies ceramics
104 m/s ⊥ grain PC
1 PP
Rigid polymer Leather PE PTFE E1/3
foams ρ
Polymers
E1/2
10−1 ρ
Foams E
ρ
3 EVA Silicone
10 m/s
elastomers
10−2
Cork Polyurethane Guide lines for
Isoprene minimum mass
Neoprene design
10−3
Flexible polymer
foams
Butyl
Elastomers
rubber
2
10 m/s MFA, 09
10−4
10 100 1000 10,000
Density ρ (kg/m3)

FIGURE 4.3
Young’s modulus E plotted against density ρ. The heavy envelopes enclose data for a given class of material. The diagonal
contours show the longitudinal wave velocity. The guide lines of constant E/ρ, E1/2/ρ, and E1/3/ρ allow selection of materials for
minimum weight, deflection-limited, design.

of sound in a solid depends on E and ρ; the longitudinal wave speed v, for

instance, is

1/2
E
v=
ρ
or (taking logs)
log E = log ρ + 2 log v

For a fixed value of v, this equation plots as a straight line of slope 1 in

Figures 4.2 and 4.3. This allows us to add contours of constant wave velocity to
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 67

10,000
Ceramics
Strength – Density Si3N4 Ti alloys
Steels Metals
Metals and polymers: yield strength, σ y Composites SiC Al2O3 Ni alloys
Ceramics, glasses: modulus of rupture, MOR Al alloys Tungsten
Elastomers: tensile tear strength, σ t CFRP alloys
1000
Composites: tensile failure, σ t
Mg alloys Tungsten
Polymers and
GFRP carbide
elastomers
PEEK
PA
PC Copper
100 PMMA alloys
Natural Woods, ll
PET
Strength σ f (MPa)

materials
PP
PE
10 Rigid polymer Woods, ⊥
foams Zinc alloys
Lead alloys

Foams
1
Concrete
Butyl Silicone Guide lines for
rubber elastomers minimum mass
Cork design

0.1
σf
ρ
σf2/3
Flexible polymer ρ σf1/2
foams ρ
MFA, 09
0.01
10 100 1000 10,000
Density ρ (kg/m3)

FIGURE 4.4
Strength σf plotted against density ρ (yield strength for metals and polymers, compressive strength for ceramics, tear strength
2/3 1/2
for elastomers, and tensile strength for composites). The guide lines of constants σf /ρ, σ f /ρ, and σ f /ρ are used in minimum
weight, yield-limited, design.

the symbol σ f for all of these, despite the different failure mechanisms
involved, to allow a first-order comparison.
The range of strength for engineering materials, like the range for the modulus,
spans many decades: from less than 0.01 MPa (foams, used in packaging and
energy-absorbing systems) to 104 MPa (the strength of diamond, exploited in
the diamond-anvil press). The single most important concept in understanding
this wide range is the lattice resistance or Peierls stress. It is the intrinsic resistance
of the structure to plastic shear. Plastic shear in a crystal involves the motion of
dislocations. Pure metals are soft because the nonlocalized metallic bond does
little to hinder dislocation motion, whereas ceramics are hard because their
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 69

1000 WC
B4C
Modulus – Strength Technical SiC W alloys Metals
Al2O3
ceramics
Metals and polymers: yield strength, σy AlN Ni alloys
Ceramics, glasses: modulus of rupture, MOR
Silicon Steels
Elastomers: tensile tear strength, σt
Composites: tensile failure, σt Cu alloys
Silica glass
100 Ti alloys
Soda glass CFRP
Yield before Lead alloys Cast irons
buckling Brick Zinc alloys
Stone
Concrete
Al alloys
Mg alloys
Nontechnical
Young’s modulus E (GPa)

ceramics
Wood GFRP Composites
10
Phenolic
PA Polymers
Yield strain Epoxies
σf PMMA
= 10−4 PC
E Foams Polyurethane
1 PS
Rigid polymer PP
Design
foams PE
guide lines
PTFE

10−3 Ionomers
Leather
0.1 σf
Silicone
elastomers E σ f3/2 σ 2
f
EVA E Buckling
E
Polyurethane before yield
Cork
Elastomers
−2 −1
10 10 1 10 MFA, 09
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Strength σ f (MPa)

FIGURE 4.5
Young’s modulus E plotted against strength σf. The design guide lines help with the selection of materials for springs, pivots,
knife-edges, diaphragms, and hinges; their use is described in Chapters 5 and 6.

polymers, flexural strength (modulus of rupture) for ceramics, tear strength

for elastomers, and tensile strength for composites and woods; the symbol
σf is used for them all. Contours of yield strain or fracture strain, σf/E (mean-
ing the strain at which the material ceases to be linearly elastic), appear as a
family of straight parallel lines.
Examine these first. Engineering polymers have large yield strains of between
0.01 and 0.1; the values for metals are at least a factor of 10 smaller.
Composites and woods lie on the 0.01 contour, as good as the best metals.
Elastomers, because of their exceptionally low moduli, have values of σf/E
larger than any other class of material: typically 1 to 10.
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 71

The specific stiffness–specific strength chart

Many designs, particularly those for things that move, call for stiffness and
strength at minimum weight. To help with this, the data of the previous
chart are replotted in Figure 4.6 after dividing, for each material, by the
density; it shows E/ρ plotted against σf/ρ. These are measures of “mechanical
efficiency,” meaning the use of the least mass of material to do the most
structural work.
Composites, particularly CFRP, lie at the upper right. They emerge as the
material class with the most attractive specific properties, one of the reasons
for their increasing use in aerospace. Ceramics have exceptionally high
stiffness per unit weight, and their strength per unit weight is as good as

1
Specific modulus – Specific strength
Technical
Metals and polymers: yield strength, σy B4C Si3N4
Ceramics, glasses: modulus of rupture, MOR SiC ceramics
Al2O3
Elastomers: tensile tear strength, σt AlN
Composites: tensile failure, σt Composites
Silicon
10−1 WC
Yield before Nontechnical CFRP
Silica glass
Soda glass
buckling
Specific modulus E/ρ (GPa/(kg/m3))

ceramics Al alloys
Stone Brick Steels
Mg alloys
Ti alloys
Concrete
Metals
10−2 Cast irons
Wood
GFRP
Zinc alloys
Cu alloys
Yield strain
PA
Lead alloys
σf
= 10−4 PMMA Polymers
E PC
10−3 Epoxies

PS Design
PP guide lines
PE

Foams Ionomers
10−3 PTFE σf
Rigid polymer
10−4 foams
Leather
E
Cork σ f3/2
σ f2
E
EVA E Buckling
Polyurethane
before yield
10−2 Elastomers
10-1 Silicones
10−5
MFA, 09

10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 1

Specific strength σ f /ρ (MPa /(kg/m3))

FIGURE 4.6
Specific modulus E /ρ plotted against specific strength σf /ρ. The design guide lines help with the selection of materials for lightweight
springs and energy-storage systems.
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 73

1000
Fracture toughness – Modulus Toughness
Gc = kJ/m2
100
Ni alloys
Metals Cu alloys
Ti alloys
Steels
10
100 Design Zinc alloys
guide lines Composites Al alloys W alloys
Fracture toughness K1c (MPa.m1/2 )

Natural Mg alloys 1
materials
Lead alloys Cast
PP PC
Wood irons
0.1
Leather
10 2 ABS Si3N4
K1c /E Polymers and SiC
elastomers 0.01
K1c /E CFRP
GFRP
EVA Al2O3
Polyurethane Brick WC
Silicone Ionomers B4C
elastomers 0.001
1 Butyl PTFE Silicon
rubber
Stone
Technical
Epoxies Silica
Concrete Soda ceramics
PS glass
Cork glass
Nontechnical
0.1 ceramics
Lower limit
Foams for K1c

Rigid polymer Flexible polymer

foams foams MFA, 09
0.01
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Young’s modulus E (GPa)

FIGURE 4.7
2
Fracture toughness K1c plotted against Young’s modulus E. The family of lines is of constant K1c /E (approximately G1c, the fracture
energy or toughness). These, and the guide line of constant K1c /E, help in design against fracture. The shaded band shows the lower
limit for K1c.

where G is the energy release rate. Using the standard relation K = (EG)1/2
between G and stress intensity K, we find
K ≥ ð2 E γÞ1/2 (4.6)
Now the surface energies, γ, of solid materials scale as their moduli; to an
adequate approximation γ ≈ E ro/20, where ro is the atom size, giving
 1/2
r
K ≥E o (4.7)
20
We identify the right-hand side of this equation with a lower-limiting value
of K1c, when, taking ro as 2 × 10−10 m,

ðK1c Þmin  ro 1/2

=  3 × 10−6 m1/2 (4.8)
E 20
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 75

1000
Fracture toughness – Strength Plastic zone 1000 100 10
size, dy, mm Low alloy
steels
Metals
Yield before Stainless steels
fracture 1
Ni alloys W alloys
Cu alloys
100
Design Al alloys Carbon 0.1
guide lines steels
Fracture toughness K1c (MPa.m1/2)

Zinc alloys Ti alloys

Mg alloys Cast 0.01
2 irons
K1c /σf Composites
Lead alloys Wood
10
Leather PP CFRP
K1c /σf Nontechnical Ionomers
Brick
PE GFRP Si3N4
ceramics PTFE
PA SiC
PC Technical
Silicone Stone ABS Al2O3
ceramics
elastomers B4C
PMMA WC
1 PS Phenolic
Concrete Silicon
Butyl rubber Silica glass

Flexible polymer Epoxies

foams Soda glass
Cork Polymers and
Polyurethane elastomers
0.1
Isoprene
Neoprene Fracture
Foams
Rigid polymer before yield
foams MFA, 09
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Strength σ f (MPa)

FIGURE 4.8
Fracture toughness K1c plotted against strength σf. The contours show the value of K1c
2
/π σ 2f —roughly the diameter dy of the process
zone at a crack tip. The design guide lines are used in selecting materials for damage-tolerant design.

Figure 4.8, fracture toughness plotted against strength, shows that the size of
the zone, dy (broken lines), varies from atomic dimensions for very brittle
ceramics and glasses to almost 1 meter for the most ductile of metals. At a
constant zone size, fracture toughness tends to increase with strength, as
expected. It is this that causes the data plotted in Figure 4.8 to be clustered
around the diagonal of the chart.
Materials toward the bottom right have high strength and low toughness;
they fracture before they yield. Those toward the top left do the opposite: they
yield before they fracture.
The diagram has application in selecting materials for the safe design of
load-bearing structures. Examples are given in Sections 6.10 and 6.11.
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 77

10
Neoprene Elastomers Loss coefficient – Modulus
Butyl rubber Silicone
Isoprene elastomers η E = 0.04 GPa
Polyurethane
1 EVA Leather Ionomers
Polymers
PTFE
PE
PP Lead alloys
ABS
Concrete
10-1 Epoxies
Loss coefficient η, at 30°C

Brick
Wood Mg alloys
Flexible polymer
Metals
foams Cork
Foams Rigid polymer Ti alloys
foams CFRP
10-2 PS
PC Cast irons
PMMA
PET
Nontechnical Steels
ceramics Stone
GFRP
10-3
Composites W alloys
Zinc alloys
Al alloys Al2O3
Cu alloys WC
10-4
Technical
ceramics
Soda glass SiC

Silica glass
10-5 MFA, 09 Si3N4

-3
10 10-2 10-1 1 10 100 1000
Young’s modulus E (GPa)

FIGURE 4.9
The loss coefficient η plotted against Young’s modulus E. The guide line corresponds to the condition η = C E.

low, and the damping is high. This accounts for the obvious inverse depen-
dence of η on E for polymers in Figure 4.9; indeed, to a first approximation,
4 × 10−2
η=
(4.10)
E
(with E in GPa) for polymers, woods, and polymer-matrix composites.

Vibration damping
A metal is sought for mountings to damp vibration of a small machine tool. Use Figure 4.9 to
find the metal with the greatest value of the damping coefficient η to use for the mountings.

Answer
Lead or lead alloys are the best choice.
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 79

Electrical resistivity ρe (Ω.m)

10−8 10−4 1 104 108 1012 1016 1020
1000
T-conductivity – Resistivity
Metals SiC
Boron Silicon
Cu alloys
carbide
Tungsten Al nitride
Al alloys carbide Technical
Zn alloys ceramics
100
W alloys
Mg alloys
Thermal conductivity λ (W/m.K)

Steels
Lead alloys
Stainless
steels Al2O3
10 Si3N4

Ti alloys Glass Glasses

Soda ceramic
ZrO2 glass
Stone Silica glass
CFRP
Concrete
1 Line of
λ = C/ρe Polymers and PET
Composites elastomers PA GFRP
PE

Wood
Leather

0.1
Natural
PS
materials PP PMMA
Cork Neoprene
Butyl
Flexible
rubber
Rigid polymer foams
polymer foams Foams MFA, 09
0.01
1 104 108 1012 1016 1020 1024 1028
Electrical resistivity ρe ( μ Ω.cm)

FIGURE 4.10
Thermal conductivity λ plotted against electrical resistivity ρe. For metals the two are related.

by its reciprocal, the resistivity ρe (SI units: Ω.m, units of convenience μΩ.cm).
The range is enormous: a factor of 10 28 , far larger than that of any other
property. As with heat, the conduction of electricity in metals is proportional
to the density of carriers, the electrons, and their mean-free path, leading to
the Wiedemann-Franz relation

1
λ∝κ= (4.12)
ρe
The quantities λ and ρe are the axes of Figure 4.10. Data for metals appear at
the top left. The broken line shows that the Wiedemann-Franz relation is
well obeyed.
But what about the rest of the chart? Electrons do not contribute to
thermal conduction in ceramics and polymers. Heat is carried instead by
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 81

The thermal conductivity–thermal diffusivity chart

Thermal conductivity, as we have said, governs the flow of heat through a
material at steady state. The property governing transient heat flow is the
thermal diffusivity, a (units: m2/s). The two are related by

λ
a = (4.14)
ρ Cp

where ρ in kg/m3 is the density. The quantity ρ Cp is the volumetric specific

heat (units: J/m3.K). Figure 4.11 relates thermal conductivity, diffusivity, and
volumetric specific heat, at room temperature.

1000
T-conductivity – T-diffusivity Volume-specific heat Cu alloys
107
ρ Cp (J/m3.K) Al alloys
Zn alloys
W alloys 106
Metals Mg alloys
Ni alloys Silicon
100 Carbon
steels SiC
Cast
irons AlN
WC
Thermal conductivity l (W/m.K)

Stainless
steels B4C 105
Ti alloys Lead
alloys Technical
10 ceramics
Nontechnical Stone Si3N4 Al2O3
ceramics
Concrete

Polymers and Soda glass ZrO2

λ
elastomers a
Brick
CFRP
1 Epoxies
PTFE Composites λ
PC
PVC Silicone a1/2
PMMA GFRP elastomers
PP Wood
Neoprene
0.1 Flexible polymer
Isoprene
foams
Butyl rubber Guide lines for
Cork thermal design

Rigid polymer
foams
Foams MFA, 09
0.01
10−8 10−7 10−6 10−5 10−4
2
Thermal diffusivity a (m /s)

FIGURE 4.11
Thermal conductivity λ plotted against thermal diffusivity a. The contours show the volume-specific heat ρCv. All three properties vary
with temperature; the data here are for room temperature.
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 83

λ (W/m) = 103
Large thermal Neoprene PA PET α T-expansion – T-conductivity
1000 strain mismatch
Butyl rubber
PC Polymers and 104 105 106
Flexible polymer elastomers
foams Silicone
elastomers
Foams
PE
Thermal expansion α ( μ strain/K)

ABS
100
Metals 107
Ni alloys
Steels
Epoxies Stainless Pb alloys Zn alloys Mg alloys
GFRP steels Al alloys
Soda
Ti alloys Cu alloys
PMMA glass
Concrete
Rigid polymer
foams
10 Wood
W alloys
ZrO2
AlN
Al2O3 SiC
Natural Silicon
Borosilicate Si3N4 WC
materials glass
104 CFRP
1
Composites Technical
Silica ceramics
glass

Invar
Small thermal
strain mismatch
λ
α (W/m) = 10
7
105 106 MFA, 09
0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Thermal conductivity λ (W/m.K)

FIGURE 4.12
The linear expansion coefficient α plotted against the thermal conductivity λ. The contours show the thermal distortion parameter
λ/α. An extra material, the nickel alloy Invar, has been added to the chart; it is noted for its exceptionally low expansion at and
near room temperature, useful in designing precision equipment that must not distort if the temperature changes.

the temperature is raised, the anharmonicity of the bond pushes the atoms
apart, increasing their mean spacing. The effect is measured by the linear
expansion coefficient
1 d‘
α= (4.17)
‘ dT

where ‘ is a linear dimension of the body.

The expansion coefficient is plotted against the thermal conductivity in
Figure 4.12. It shows that polymers have large values of α, roughly 10 times
greater than those of metals and almost 100 times greater than those of
ceramics. This is because the Van der Waals bonds of the polymer are very
anharmonic. Diamond, silicon, and silica glass (SiO2) have covalent bonds
that have low anharmonicity (that is, they are almost linear elastic even at
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 85

1000
Isoprene 0.01 0.1 α E = 1 MPa /K 10 T-expansion – Modulus
Silicones Elastomers Polymers
PTFE PE PP
Polyurethane Ionomers ABS
EVA PC
Cork

PEEK
100 Phenolic
Thermal expansion α ( μ strain/K)

Leather Metals
PET PMMA
Flexible polymer PS Mg alloys
foams Acetal Lead GFRP Zinc alloys
Epoxies alloys
Al alloys
Concrete Cu alloys
Cast irons

Foams Steels
Ti alloys
Rigid polymer Wood Al2O3
10 foams AlN

Natural WC

materials SiC
10
W alloys
B4C
Nontechnical
Soda
ceramics Stone Brick glass Si3N4
Silicon
1 CFRP
Composites
Technical
Silica glass ceramics
MFA, 09 α E = 0.01 MPa/K 0.1

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Young’s modulus E (GPa)

FIGURE 4.13
The linear expansion coefficient α plotted against Young’s modulus E. The contours show the thermal stress created by a
temperature change of 1°C if the sample is axially constrained. A correction factor C is applied for biaxial or triaxial
constraint (see text).

One more useful fact. The moduli of materials scale approximately with
their melting point, Tm:
100 k Tm
E (4.19)
Ω
where k is Boltzmann’s constant and Ω is the volume per atom in the struc-
ture. Substituting this and equation (4.15) for ρ Cp into equation (4.18) for
α gives
γG
α = (4.20)
100 Tm
—the expansion coefficient varies inversely with the melting point. Equiva-
lently, the thermal strain for all solids, just before they melt, depends only
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 87

2000
Max service temperature
Silicon carbide
Aluminum nitride
Zirconia Ceramic foams
Tungsten alloys
Maximum service temperature (°C)

Boron carbide
1500
Alumina
Silica glass
Nickel-based Silicon nitride
superalloys Brick
Tungsten carbide
1000 Glass ceramic
Stainless steel
Silicon
Low alloy steel
Titanium alloys PTFE Al-SiC composite
500
Carbon steel Polyester, rigid Concrete
Silicone CFRP
Stone GFRP
PA PP Plywoods
Cu-alloys PE PS PUR
PVC Borosilicate glass
Al-alloys Soda glass
Mg-alloys PC
0 Neoprene Woods
Zn-alloys PET ABS Polymer foams
EVA
Lead alloys
Metals Polymers Ceramics Hybrids MFA, 09

FIGURE 4.14
The maximum service temperature—the temperature above which a material becomes unusable.

Friction and wear

God, it is said, created materials but the devil made surfaces. Surfaces are the
source of many problems. When surfaces touch and slide, there is friction;
where there is friction, there is wear. Tribologists—those who study friction
and wear—are fond of citing the enormous cost, through lost energy and worn
equipment, for which these two phenomena are responsible. It is certainly true
that, if friction could be eliminated, the efficiency of engines, gear boxes, drive
trains, and the like, would increase. If wear could be eradicated, they would
also last longer. But before accepting this negative image, one should
remember that without wear pencils would not write on paper or chalk on
blackboards; without friction, one would slither off the slightest incline.

Use temperature for stainless steel

Stainless steel is proposed for use as part of a structure operating at 500ºC. Is it safe to do so?

Answer
Figure 4.14 shows that the maximum use temperature for stainless steel is in the range
700 to 1,100°C. Use at 500°C appears to be practical.
88 CHAPTER 4: Material Property Charts

Tribological properties are not attributes of one material alone but of one
material sliding on another with, almost always, a third in between. The
number of combinations is far too great to allow choice in a simple, sys-
tematic way. The selection of materials for bearings, drives, and sliding seals
relies heavily on experience. This experience is captured in reference sources
(for which see Appendix D). In the end it is these that must be consulted.
But it does help to have a feel for the magnitude of friction coefficients and
wear rates and to have an idea of how these relate to material class.
When two surfaces are placed in contact under a normal load Fn and one
is made to slide over the other, a force Fs opposes the motion. This force
is proportional to Fn but does not depend on the area of the surface. This is
the single most significant result of studies of friction, since it implies that
surfaces do not contact completely but only touch over small patches, the
area that is independent of the apparent, nominal area of contact An. The
coefficient friction μ is defined by
Fs
μ= (4.22)
Fn
Approximate values for μ for dry, unlubricated, sliding of materials on a
steel counterface are shown in Figure 4.15. Typically, μ ≈ 0.5. Certain mate-
rials show much higher values, either because they seize when rubbed
together (a soft metal rubbed on itself with no lubrication, for instance) or

10
Butyl rubber
Coefficient of friction
Natural rubber
Coefficient of friction on dry steel μ

Lead
alloys Borosilicate
glass
Cu alloys WC Cast
1 irons
PA
Low carbon PP
steels Soda Leather
glass PMMA
Al alloys
PS
Wood
0.1
PE

PTFE
μ for boundary lubrication = 0.01–0.1
μ for full hydrodyamic lubrication = 0.001–0.01
MFA, 09
0.01

FIGURE 4.15
The friction coefficient μ of materials sliding on an unlubricated steel counterface.
90 CHAPTER 4: Material Property Charts

10−4
10−3 Dimensionless Wear rate – Hardness
wear constant K = kaH
Cu alloys
10−5
10−4 Al alloys
Low carbon
steels Metals
Wear-rate constant ka (1/(MPa))

10−6
10−5 PTFE Medium carbon steels
Stainless steels
High carbon steels
10−7
10−6 Low alloy steels

Tool steels
WC
10−8
10−7
Unfilled
thermoplastics PE
10 −9
PP PA
PMMA SiC
Polymers and Cast
PC Silica glass
elastomers irons Bronze Al2O3
10−10 Filled Technical
thermoplastics
ceramics
MFA, 09
10−11
10 100 1000 10,000 100,000
Hardness H (MPa)

FIGURE 4.16
The normalized wear rate kA plotted against hardness H, here expressed in MPa rather than Vickers (H in MPa = 10 Hv).
The chart gives an overview of the way in which common engineering materials behave.

P are those with the lowest value of ka, that is, those nearest the bottom of
the diagram. On the other hand, an efficient bearing, in terms of size or
weight, will be loaded to a safe fraction of its maximum bearing pressure,
that is, to a constant value of P/Pmax; for these, materials with the lowest
values of the product ka H are best.

Cost bar charts

Properties like modulus, strength, and conductivity do not change with
time. Cost is bothersome because it does. Supply, scarcity, speculation, and

Materials for bearings

Use Figure 4.16 to find two metals and two polymers that offer good wear resistance at
constant bearing pressure.

Answer
The figure suggests bronze, cast iron, polycarbonate (PC), and nylon (PA) as good choices.
 4.3 The Material Property Charts 91

inflation contribute to considerable fluctuations in the cost per kilogram of

a commodity like copper or silver. Data for cost per kg are tabulated for
some materials in daily papers and trade journals; those for others are
harder to come by. Approximate values for the cost of materials per kg, and
their cost per m3, are plotted in Figures 4.17(a) and (b). Most commodity

Aluminum nitride Price per unit weight

PEEK Ceramic foam
Titanium alloys Boron carbide
100
Silicon nitride
Tungsten alloys CFRP
Tungsten carbide
Nickel alloys GFRP
PTFE Alumina
Rigid polymer foam
Tin alloys Zirconia
Silicone Metal foam
Stainless steel Silicon carbide
10 PU Nylon SMC
Magnesium alloys
Epoxy Silica glass DMC
Price ($/kg)

Copper alloys PET

Zinc alloys Neoprene PS Soda glass
Lead alloys PC PMMA Borosilicate Flexible polymer foam
PP
Aluminum alloys ABS glass
EVA Paper and cardboard
1 PE Softwood
Low alloy steels
PVC Brick Hardwood
Carbon steels
Cast irons Stone Plywood

0.1
Cement

Concrete

Metals Polymers Ceramics Hybrids MFA, 09

0.01
(a)

106 Tungsten alloys Aluminum nitride Price per unit volume

Tungsten carbide
Titanium alloys
Nickel alloys Boron carbide
PEEK Silicon nitride
Tin alloys Zirconia
105 Alumina CFRP
Stainless steel Silicon carbide
PTFE GFRP
Lead alloys
Silica glass Ceramic foam
Silicone Silicon
Copper alloys
Price ($/m3)

Polyurethane SMC
Zinc alloys DMC
104 Magnesium Nylon
alloys PMMA Metal foam
Low alloy steels PET Borosilicate
Carbon steels Neoprene EVA glass
PC PE
Aluminum alloys Soda glass Paper
Epoxy Woods
Cast irons ABS
103
PS PVC Brick
Stone
PP
Rigid polymer foam
Cement
Plywoods
102
Concrete Flexible polymer foam

Metals Polymers Ceramics Hybrids MFA, 09

(b)

FIGURE 4.17
(a) The approximate price/kg of materials. Commodity materials cost about $1/kg; special materials cost much more.
(b) The approximate price/m3 of materials. Polymers, because they have low densities, cost less per unit volume than
most other materials.
 4.4 Summary and Conclusions 93

Technical
Modulus – Relative cost/volume Stainless steels Si3N4 B4C WC
SiC ceramics
10,000
Al2O3
Silicon W alloys
Carbon steels AlN
Nontechnical Zinc alloys
ceramics Cast irons Metals
Al alloys E1/3
100 Ti alloys
Stone Soda glass Cv,R
Concrete Brick
Young’s modulus E (GPa)

Silica glass CFRP

Mg alloys
Lead alloys
E1/2
Composites Cv,R
// grain Epoxies GFRP
10
Natural PMMA
Acetal E
materials PS
PP PC PEEK Cv,R
Wood
⊥ grain Polyurethanes Polymers
1 Rigid polymer ABS Ionomers
foams
Foams PE
Guide lines for
Flexible PTFE
polymer Leather
minimum cost
0.1 foams design
EVA
Polyurethane

Silicone elastomers
0.01
Elastomers
MFA, 09

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Relative cost per unit volume Cv,R

FIGURE 4.18
Young’s modulus E plotted against relative cost per unit volume Cv,R. The design guide lines help selection to maximize
stiffness per unit cost.

It must be emphasized that the data plotted here and in Figure 4.18 are less
reliable than those in other charts and are subject to unpredictable change.
Despite this dire warning, the two charts are genuinely useful. They allow
selection of materials using the criterion of “function per unit cost.” An example
is given in Section 6.5.

4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The engineering properties of materials are usefully displayed as material
selection charts. Eighteen of them are introduced in this chapter; more appear
in later ones. The charts summarize material properties in a compact, easily
accessible way, showing the range spanned by each material family and class.
By choosing the axes in a sensible way, more information can be displayed.
A chart of modulus E against density ρ reveals the longitudinal wave velocity
ðE/ρÞ1/2 . A chart of fracture toughness K 1c against modulus E shows the
94 CHAPTER 4: Material Property Charts

10,000
Strength – Relative cost/volume Composites
Stainless
Al2O3 steels SiC CFRP Si3N4 Metals
Ti alloys
Zinc alloys Mg alloys
Carbon steels W alloys
1000
Cast irons

Al alloys WC
Natural
materials AlN
Epoxies B4 C
100 ABS
PS
PEEK Technical
Wood // grain
Strength σ f (MPa)

GFRP ceramics
PP Silica glass
Nontechnical PE Silicon
Ionomers
ceramics Stone Cu alloys
10 Brick PTFE
Rigid polymer
foams Lead alloys
Flexible ⊥ grain Leather
polymer
foams Concrete Silicone
Polymers and
elastomers elastomers
1
Neolprene
Guide lines for
minimum cost
Foams design
Cork
0.1

σf σf2/3 σf1/2
Cv,R Cv,R Cv,R MFA, 09
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 1000
Relative cost per unit volume Cv,R

FIGURE 4.19
Strength σf plotted against relative cost per unit volume Cv,R. The design guide lines help selection to maximize strength per unit cost.

toughness G1c. A chart of thermal conductivity λ against diffusivity, a, also

gives the volume-specific heat ρCv. A chart of strength, σf, against modulus, E,
shows the energy-storing capacity, σ 2f /E, and there are many more.
The most striking feature of the charts is the way in which members of a
material class cluster together. Despite the wide range of modulus and density
of metals (as an example), the clusters occupy a field that is distinct from that
of polymers or that of ceramic, or that of composites. The same is true of
strength, toughness, thermal conductivity, and the rest: The fields frequently
overlap, but they always have a characteristic place within the whole picture.
The position of the fields and their relationship can be understood in simple
physical terms. The nature of the bonding, the packing density, the lattice resis-
tance, and the vibrational modes of the structure are themselves a function of