These two techniques the coupled equation method and value analysis allow the deriva tion of a value

function that describes as objectively as possible the abilit y of a given material to meet a complex set of requirements. However, the extra information required to operate these methods are not always available. An alter native is to identify the relative importance of the various criteria. One way i s to assign weighting factors to each objective, but they are heavily dependent on the judgement of the person assigning the weights. This can be partly overcome by the used of Fuzzy logic . The requirements in terms of properties or performance indices are expressed with some flexibility: for instance a minimum Young modul us is required, with a tolerance of 5% and a given strength with a tolerance of 20%. This allows for the possibility to trade off one property for another in a complex design. Another approach is to propose to the designer solutions that are at the margin of his requirements and to ask for a qualitative react ion to these solutions. The computer will then build an aggregation function (i.e. it will select a weighted average of the various criteria, arithmetic mean, geo metric mean or more complex functions) which would give a reaction similar to th at of the designer. This method, which has been implemented in the software Fuzzy mat w22,23x, bypasses the difficulty of identifying a priori the weighting coeffi cient. However, it introduces in the procedure some subjectivity, while the coupl ed equationsyvalue analysis approach is totally the objective. 4.2. Strategies to explore the solution space When a evaluation function has been defined from a quantitative analysis of the se t of requirements, it is necessary to explore the solution space. Several techni ques have been used; the most efficient one depends on the nature of the solutio n space. When the solution space is a finite list of discrete materials and processes (su ch as the data bases of CES), the most efficient way to explore this solution sp ace is a simple screening algorithms : the evaluation function is calculated for ea ch admissible solution of the database (i.e. all those that have passed the firs t screening stage) and the solutions are ranked in order of decreasing efficienc y (CES 4, 2002) w24x. When the solution space is in principle infinite, but continuous (such as for in stance in the case of optimizing the composition of a glass for a given set of r equirements on its properties) standard optimization techniques such as the Simp lex algorithm or steepest gradient methods perform efficiently the job of findin g the optimum of the evaluation function w22x. When the solution space is infinite but non-continuous (such is the case for com posite materials optimization or sandwich structure optimization, where the mate rials choice is discrete and the geometrical variables is continuous) genetic al gorithms have proved to be effective w23 25x. 5. Developing specialized software tools All the methodologies described in this paper have been applied at one time or a nother to the selection of materials and processes. Table 1 lists existing selec tion tools built with the different strategies. Free-search tools using strategy 1 are well suited for the early stages of design and have the ability to sugges t innovative solutions. As the design becomes more specific, more focused tools are needed. Some couple search methods with micro-mechanical models to gen erate the space of possible solutions (for instance for optimizing composite mat erials or sandwich structures). Others use the questionnaire approach . Recently, t he analogy strategy has been illustrated on a selector for joining processes w17x. The key issue is here to develop a tool to measure the proximity between cases . Cluster analysis and Multi- dimensional scaling (MDS) are possible strategies . Another possibility is to take advantage of existing knowledge to structure th

e cases by their positions on trees corresponding to a predefined questionnaire (l ike the material and process trees of Fig. 3) and to measure the distance betwee n cases by the distance between their positions in the tree w26x. From these examples, a number of simple rules for developing specialized softwar e have been identified. The databases for a free search strategy are be st constructed with a hierarchical structure like that of Fig. 3. The databases should not have any missing information, all the families of the database should be represented and the attributes should be identical for all the elements of t he database, allowing comparability. The questionnaire approach requires that all the questions should be meaningful and referenced for all the elements of the da tabase. A structure like that of Fig. 13 allows that all the questions are asked , but all are not necessarily answered; the discrimination increases with the nu mber of answers. A structure like that of Fig. 14, by contrast, requires that al l questions are answered, and in a prescribed order, giving high discrimination pr ovided all the answers area known. The variety of applications is representative both of the versatility of the pro cedures and of the variety of requirements encountered at various stages in the design procedure w36x. If the general methods can be applied in the first stage s of the design procedure, the question of expertise is central to the further s tages. Two questions have to be answered. What is the most efficient way of stor ing this expertise: a well-structured questionnaire or a rich database of cases with an appropriate exploring algorithm to guide the analogies? How can the stor ed expertise be a source of information for innovative design without being an e ncouragement to conservatism? Both these questions are still to be answered. 6. The future There are many unsolved problems in the field of optimal selection and many c hallenges in adapting the methods to meet specific requirements. Most requir e that a greater degree of modeling be incorporated into the selection procedure s. The purpose of this last section is to outline pending questions requiring mo re research and to stimulate readers to contribute to this field. 6.1. Finite time design and expertise retrieval The selection methods described thus far do not include a consideration of compo nent life. As a general rule, life is limited by creep, by fatigue, by corrosion or by wear. The first two depend only on the properties of the material and the way it is loaded; data for creep and fatigue behavior can be stored in data -structures like those already described. Corrosion and wear are more difficult because they depend not only on the properties of the component-material but als o on those of the environment in which it is used (the corrosive medium) or the counter-face on which it rubs and the lubricant (if there is one) in between. Methods exist for safe design with a given material under conditions of creep, fatigue, corrosion or wear w37x. However, selection is more difficult it require s that the response of all candidate materials are simultaneously evaluated and compared. The only practical way forward is to develop semi-empirical models ( con stitutive laws ) for each mode of failure, fitting them to the incomplete data ava ilable in compilations such as those of the ASM (2002) Handbooks w38x or the NIM S (2002) data sheets w39x and others like them. Selection follows procedures tha t are parallel to those already described, with provision for the operator to en ter the design conditions the temperature and design life in the case of creep or the R-value and fatigue life in the case of fatigue, allowing allowable stresses to be calculated. These allowables then replace the elastic limit in the indices for minimum mass and minimum cost design outlined in Section 3.1. Examples of t he implementation of this method for creep and fatigue can be found in CES4 w24x .

Corrosion and wear present greater challenges, as yet incompletely resolved exce pt in narrow application domains such as the design of aircraft structures for which comprehensive data-sets can be assembled. Much information about both is available only as expertise , recorded as design guidelines about material compa tibility and preferred geometry ( avoid metal couples when aqueous corrosion is a possibility , sliding aluminum on steel can lead to scuffing , Titanium alloy X is susceptible to stress-corrosion cracking in salt water , liquid at rest in a con tainer can lead to water-line corrosion ). Such information is readily stored as t ext; the challenge is to capture, index and retrieve it accurately and at the re levant point in the design. 6.2. Process selection and modeling The process selection strategies described thus far rely on pre-stored attributes of the process, which include the materials it can treat, the sha pes it can create and the characteristics of the finished product its surface fini sh, tolerance, etc. This enables screening to isolate those processes that that can meet the requirements, using the wide-ranging free-search method of Secti on 3.1 or higher resolution in a narrower domain using the questionnaire-based method of Section 3.2. However, neither of these captures the full complexity of the material process interaction. Here, too, modeling is the way forward the mo deling of interest here is that which is instrumental in selecting the process. Thus, modeling of the heat transfer from object to mould, in injection molding, allows prediction of the time before the mould can be opened and the part ejecte d. This time (and thus the rate of production) can be decisive in decidin g whether injection molding is economically viable. Intelligent process selection could go further, predicting the process settings required for a given application. As an example: laser welding can be used to bu tt-weld many metals, but the optimal laser power and tracking velocity depend on the metal and on the plate thickness and the condition of its surface. Modeling can capture this information and if based on physical understanding can allow ext rapolation to suggest optimal conditions even when no real data are available w4 0x. Thus, the need here is for coupling between process selection and process modeling. It is unlikely that a general format can be found in this directi on, but welding technologies and surface treatments are promising fields of appl ication for this approach. 6.3. Interfacing of the materials and process selection tools with geometric mod eling and dimensioning tools Material and process selection are one part of a larger process that of choosing t he shape and dimensions of a component. Ideally, these activities should be coup led so that the geometric modeling correctly scales dimensions and creates featu res that make the best use of the material and the process and avoids those that do not. Many materials databases have the ability to export data in a format ac cepted by finite element packages. However, this passive coupling is only a first step; it does not deal efficiently with the coupling between the shape, material and process. Car wheels, for instance, can be made in cast aluminum and in stamped and welded steel, but they are so made in totally different shapes t o match the capabilities of very different processes. There is a need for an acti ve coupling between FE calculations, CAD tools and the materials and process sele ctor. A requirement here is the ability of the CAD tool to recognize features, a nd an ability to index processes and materials with the features that they can c reate. In this way the designer can be warned of the restrictive nature of featu res that might then be changed and the materials selector can be warned of the r estrictions that a commitment to a given process places on the design. 6.4. Multi-materials selection

When no single material can meet all the design constraints or offer sufficientl y high performance, a solution may be found by combining two or more materials t o form a hybrid multi-material . Materials selection is incomplete if it fails to deal with the possibility of selecting woven composites, sandwiches or multi-l ayers. This requires the ability to optimize simultaneously materials choice and multi-materials geometry. Three questions need to be addressed: when is a m ulti-material approach necessary because of the incompatibilities of the set of requirements? What are the relevant type geometries worth investigating (cables, sandwiches and stiffened plates, filled tubes, etc.) and their advantges? What are the optimal choices for the materials and the dimensions of the chos en geometry? Partial solutions to these problems exist, but an overall strategy is still to be developed and implemented into software. The whole question is of critical importance when redesign is considered: it is important to start from the functional analysis and to evaluate the possible multi-materials solutions a t the same level of generality with which the free search methods currently deal w ith a single material selection (see for instance Kromm et al. w41x).