You are on page 1of 4

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Scripta Materialia 68 (2013) 4–7


www.elsevier.com/locate/scriptamat

Viewpoint Paper

Designing architectured materials


Mike Ashby
Engineering Department, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

Available online 3 May 2012

Abstract—Architectured or “hybrid” materials are combinations of two or more materials or of materials and space, configured in
such a way as to have attributes not offered by any one material alone. This paper describes the rationale for creating architectured
materials and criteria for deciding which combinations and configurations show the most promise.
Ó 2012 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Materials; Architecture; Hybrid

1. Holes in the material–property space lighter, stiffer structures. The arrow thus defines a vector
for material development.
Material properties can be “mapped” as material
property charts, of which Figure 1 is an example. There
are many possible charts – any pair of the properties (or 2. Architectured or hybrid materials
combinations of them) in Table 1 can be presented in
this way. All the charts have one thing in common: parts Hybrid materials are combinations of two or more
of the space are populated with materials but other parts materials, or of materials and space (Fig. 2), assembled
are not: there are holes. Some parts of the holes are inac- in such a way as to have the attributes not offered by any
cessible for fundamental reasons but others are simply one material alone [2]. Particulate and fibre composites
empty, even though, in principle, they could be filled. are examples of one type of hybrid, but there are many
Is anything to be gained by developing materials (or others: sandwich structures, foams, lattice structures,
material combinations) that lie in these holes? To answer segmented structures, zero expansion materials, and
this we need criteria of excellence to assess the merit of more. Thus to consider the potential of hybrid materials
the new material or combination. These criteria are pro- it is necessary to emphasize the choice of components
vided by material indices, material properties or prop- and their relative volume, their configuration and the
erty groups that characterize engineering performance. way they are connected to each other. The new variables
They have been described fully elsewhere [1]. If one of expand the design space, allowing the creation of new
the newly developed materials or combinations has a va- “materials” with specific property profiles (Table 2).
lue for any one of these criteria that exceeds that of One approach to filling holes, a long established one,
existing materials it has the potential to enhance engi- is that of developing new metal alloys, new polymer
neering performance. chemistries and blends, and new compositions of glass
The axes of Figure 1 are the Young’s modulus E and and ceramic so as to create monolithic materials that ex-
density q. The property combinations E/q, E1/2/q and pand the populated areas of the property charts. How-
E1/3/q are the criteria of excellence for selecting materi- ever, being long established they are well tried and the
als for light, stiff structures, i.e. ties, beaks and panels. gains tend to be incremental, rather than step-like. An
They are fully explained in Ashby [1]. A grid of the lines alternative is to combine two or more existing materials
of one index, E1/3/q, is plotted in Figure 1. The arrow in a chosen architecture so as to allow superimposition
lies normal to the merit lines. If the filled areas can be of their properties, in short to create hybrids. The great
expanded in the direction of the arrow (i.e. to greater success of carbon and glassfibre reinforced composites,
values of E1/3/q) the materials so created will enable at one extreme, and of synthetic foamed materials, at
another (hybrids of material and space), in filling the
previously empty areas of the property chart is an
E-mail: mfa2@eng.cam.ac.uk

1359-6462/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.04.033
M. Ashby / Scripta Materialia 68 (2013) 4–7 5

Figure 2. Hybrid materials combine the properties of two (or more)


monolithic materials, or of one material and space.
Figure 1. The modulus–density space, with the contours of the specific
modulus E/q. Part of the space is occupied by material, while part is
empty (the “holes”).
Table 2. The design variables of the architected (hybrid) design.
Components The choice of materials to be combined
encouragement to explore ways in which such hybrids Relative volumes The volume fraction of each component
can be designed. Configuration The shapes and relative placing of the
Figure 3 shows examples of architectured materials. components
Composites combine two materials in differing configu- Connectivity The number of connections between
rations to exploit the stiffness and strength of fibres and components
particles when embedded in a polymer or metal matrix. Scale The length-scale of the structural unit
Cellular materials, foams and lattices, mix material and
space, but with differing connectivities. Strand struc-
tures, cables and ropes, subdivide the material to allow
flexibility with high tensile strength and electrical or combination of materials and configuration the hybrid
thermal conductivity. Segmented structures link ceramic outperforms existing materials the occupied area of the
segments to retain their heat and chemical resistance material property space has been extended. To be able
with a tolerance of local mechanical damage. Sandwich to do that we need models.
structures combine stiff faces with a light weight core to
form panels and shells with high flexural stiffness and
strength. Multilayers (packaging and architectural sys- 3. The role of modelling in designing architectured
tems) combine the properties of materials to create films materials
with controlled permeability to gases, moisture and light
and structural panels (walls, roofs and interior separa- The best approach for screening the options is one of
tors) that combine materials for strength with control breadth rather than precision. The aim is to assemble
of heat, moisture, light and sound. methods to allow the properties of alternative hybrids
But how are we to compare a hybrid, a sandwich to be scanned and compared with those of monolithic
structure for example, with monolithic materials such materials, seeking those that best meet a given set of de-
as polycarbonate or titanium? To do this we must think sign requirements. Once materials and a configuration
of the foam, sandwich or multilayer (as examples) not as have been chosen standard methods, optimization rou-
a combination of different materials but as a single tines and finite-element analyses, can be used to refine
“material” in its own right, with its own set of effective them. However, what the standard methods are not
properties. It is these that allow the comparison. It is good at is a quick scan of alternative combinations.
then possible to judge hybrids by the same criteria of That is where the approximate methods in which mate-
excellence as monolithic materials. If for a given rial, configuration and connection become the variables

Table 1. Material properties.


General and Eco Mechanical (1) Mechanical (2) Thermal Electrical
Price Moduli Elongation Melting point Conductivity
Density Yield strength Fatigue strength Specific heat Dielectric constant
Embodied energy Tensile strength Fracture toughness Thermal conductivity Dielectric strength
Carbon footprint Hardness Damping coefficient Expansion coefficient Loss coefficient
6 M. Ashby / Scripta Materialia 68 (2013) 4–7

Matrix

Reinforcement

Unidirectional Laminates Short fiber Particulate

Foam cell Lattice cell Strand structures Segmented structures

Material
A
Faces: material A B
C
D
Core: material B E

Sandwich panels Multi-layers

Figure 3. Examples of architectured materials with differing configurations and connectivities.

The method is best illustrated by an example. Models


exist for the stiffness and mass of a sandwich panel as a
function of the properties and dimensions of the materi-
als of the faces and core [1,4,6,7]. From these an equiv-
alent flexural modulus and equivalent density (mass/
volume) are derived. The values are calculated for a gi-
ven choice of materials for the face and core, using val-
ues of the relative thicknesses of the two. The values,
when plotted on a material property chart of flexural
modulus and strength, map out the trajectory (Fig. 4),
allowing comparison with conventional materials that
already appear on it.
The criterion of excellence for a light panel with high
1=3
flexural (bending) stiffness is Ef =q, where Ef is the flex-
ural modulus. The bigger the value of this quantity, the
lighter is the panel for a given bending stiffness. A con-
1=3
tour of Ef =q is shown in Figure 4 as a dashed-dotted
line. The point at which this contour just touches the
Figure 4. A modulus–density chart with the modeled properties of a
trajectory identifies the optimum ratio of face sheet to
CFRP coated polymer foam–core sandwich panel. The combination core thickness. The trajectory in Figure 4 passes through
offers a flexural modulus per unit mass that exceeds that of conven- a “hole”; in which the optimum panel lies. It has ex-
tional materials. tended the boundaries of conventional material property
space.

pay off. And here we are fortunate. Approximate analyt-


ical models for almost all of the equivalent properties of 4. Computer aided design of architectured materials
the configurations shown in Figure 3 already exist (sum-
marized in Ashby [1] and detailed in Ashby and Brechet Tools now exist to make exploration of architectured
[3], Gibson and Ashby [4], Deshpande et al. [5], Zenkert materials easier. A typical tool [7] contains approximate
[6], and Ashby et al. [7]), allowing hybrid materials to be models for the equivalent properties in Table 1 for a set
plotted on the same material property charts as mono- of predefined configurations, such as those in Figure 3,
lithic materials. together with a database of the properties of potential
As might be expected, the equivalent properties of hy- component materials from which to make the hybrid.
brid materials lie on a trajectory with end-points at the The user selects from the material database one of the
materials that are combined to make them. The models predefined configurations and materials from which to
give the shape of the trajectories. Steps along the trajec- make a hybrid, and is then prompted to enter a range
tory correspond to the relative volume fractions of the of values for the relevant parameters (relative densities,
two (or more) components. The appropriated criterion relative volumes, or face and core thicknesses). The tool
of excellence then allows the optimal volume fractions then creates a set of records for the equivalent properties
to be identified. of the architectured materials defined in this way. It
M. Ashby / Scripta Materialia 68 (2013) 4–7 7

further allows charts like those in Figures 1 and 4 to be References


created, on which the virtual materials now appear as
trajectories. Criteria of excellence can be applied to iden- [1] M.F. Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design,
tify the optimum choice. The merit of such a tool is that fourth ed., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 2010.
it allows rapid exploration of a range of configurations [2] F.X. Kromm, J.M. Quenisset, R. Harry, R. Lorriot, T.
and wide material choices, allowing the user to zero in Lorriot, in: Proceedings of the Euromat ’01, Rimini, 2001.
[3] M.F. Ashby, Y. Brechet, Acta Mater. 51 (19) (2003) 5801–
on promising combinations, which can later be refined 5821.
by conventional methods. [4] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, Cellular Solids, Structure and
Properties, second ed., Cambridge University Press, Cam-
Acknowledgements bridge, 1997.
[5] V.S. Deshpande, M.F. Ashby, N.A. Fleck, Acta Mater. 49
I would like to recognize the insights and suggestions (2001) 1035–1040.
that have been provided by discussions with Profs. An- [6] D. Zenkert, An Introduction to Sandwich Construction,
thony Evans, John Hutchinson, Norman Fleck, Vikram Chameleon Press, London, 1995.
[7] M.F. Ashby, D. Cebon, C. Bream, C. Cesaretto, N. Ball,
Deshpande, Yves Brechet, David Embury, and David The CES Hybrids Synthesizer – A White Paper, Granta
Cebon. Design, Cambridge, 2010.

You might also like