2103-314 Mechanical System Design II

By Asst. Prof. Dr. Kaukeart Boonchukosol

The Product Design Process

Design Process; the basic module

General Information

Specific Information

Design Operation

Outcome

No

Feedback loop

Evaluation

Yes

Go to The Next Step

Exploring the alternating system

Formulating the mathematical model

Example of Design Operation

Specifying specific parts

Selecting a material

Some kind of Information

Manufacturers catalogue
Handbook data

National standard
Technical paper Experience

Problem Solving Methodology

Definition of the problem Gathering of information Generation of alternative solutions Evaluation of alternatives Communication of the result

Definition of the Problem

Gathering Information

What do I need to find out? Where can I find it and how can I get it? How credible and accurate is the information? How should the information be interpreted for my specific need? When do I have enough information? What decision result from the information?

Detailed Description of Design Process

Morphology of Design
Phase I: Conceptual Design Phase II: Embodiment Design Phase III: Detail Design Phase IV: Phase V: Phase VI: Phase VII: Planning for Manufacture Planning for Distribution Planning for Use Planning for Retirement of the Product

Phase I: Conceptual Design

Identification of customer needs Problem definition Gathering information Conceptualization Concept selection Refinement of the PDS Design review

Phase II: Embodiment Design

Product architecture Configuration design of parts and components Parametric design of parts and components

Conceptual Design
Define problem
Problem statement Benchmarking QFD PDS Project planning

Gather information
Internet Patents Trade literature

Concept generation
Brainstorming Functional decomposition

Evaluation of concept
Decision matrices

Product architecture
Arrangement of physical elements to carry out function

Configuration design
Prelim. selection of material and mfg. Modeling and sizing of parts

Parametric design
Robust design Tolerances Final dimension DFM

Detail design
Detailed drawings and specifications

Embodiment Design

Phase IV: Planning for Manufacture

1.
2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

Designing specialized tools and fixtures Specifying the production plant that will be used Planning the work schedules and inventory control Planning the quality assurance system Establishing the standard time and labor costs for each operation Establishing the system of information flow necessary to control the manufacturing operation

Need Identification

Types of Design Project

Variation of an existing product Improvement of an existing product Development of a new product for a lowvolume production run Development of a new product for mass production One-of-a-kind design

How to Gathering Information from Customer

Interview with customer Focus group Customer surveys Customer complaints

Levels of Customer Requirements

Expecters: the basic attribute that one would expect to see in the product Spokens: the specific features that the customers say they want in the product Unspokens: the product attributes the customer does not generally talk about, but are nevertheless are important to him or her Exciters or delighters: the features that make the product unique and distinguish it from the competition

Quality Function Deployment

QFD is a planning and problem-solving tool that is finding growing acceptance for translating customer requirements into the engineering characteristics of a product. Group decision-making activity Graphical representation using a diagram called House of Quality

Correlation Matrix

Engineering Characteristics

Customer Requirement What

Relationship Matrix

Competitive assessment

Absolute Importance Relative Importance Technical Competitive Assessment Technical Difficulty

Target Value

Importance Rating

Engineering Characteristics

Part Characteristics

Engineering Process Characteristics Parameters

Customer Requirements

Target Values

Customer Requirements

Target Values

Product Planning

Part Deployment

Manufacturing Planning

Production Planning

Concept Generation and Evaluation

Concept Generation
Problem decomposition

Evaluation
Absolute criteria

Explore fore ideas

Go-no-go screening

External to team

Internal to team Brainstorming

Relative criteria Pugh concept selection Decision matrix Analytical hierarchy process

Explore systematically Morphological chart

Best concept

Creativity
Develop a creative attitude Unlock your imagination Be persistent Develop an open mind Suspend your judgment Set problem boundary

Vertical and lateral thinking

Vertical thinking

Lateral thinking

Only one correct solution Analytical process

Movement is made in a sequential, rule-based manner If a positive decision cannot be made at a step, progress stop Follow most likely decision path Deals only with reality as science know it today Classification and label are rigid

Many possible solutions Nonjudgmental

Movement is made in a more random pattern If a positive decision cannot be made at a step, thinking jump Follows all paths Can create its own reality Reclassifies objects to generate ideas

Invention

Invention is something novel and useful, being the result of creative thought. Classified into 7 categories
1.

2.
3. 4. 5.

6.
7.

The simple or multiple combination Labor-saving concept Direct solution to a problem Adaptation of an old principle to an old problem to achieve a new result Application of a new principle to an old problem Application of a new principle to a new use Serendipity

Psychological View of Problem Solving

Four-stage model

Preparation: The element of the problem are examined and their relations are studied. Incubation: You sleep on the problem. Inspiration: A solution or a path toward the solution suddenly emerges. Verification: The inspired solution is checked against the desired result.

Creativity Methods

Mental Block

Perceptual blocks

Emotional blocks
Fear

Stereotyping Information overload Limiting the problem unnecessarily

Cultural blocks Environmental blocks

of risk taking Unease with chaos Adopting a judgmental attitude Unable or unwilling to incubate

Intellectual blocks

Brainstorming
Four
1.

fundamental brainstorming principles

Criticism is not allowed. 2. Ideas brought forth should be picked up by other people present. 3. Participants should divulge all ideas entering their minds without any constraint. 4. A key objective is to provide as many ideas as possible within a relatively short time.

Stimulation of ideas

Combination: What new ideas can arise from combining proposes and functions? Substitution: What else? Who else? What other place? What other time? Modification: What to add? What to subtract? Change color, material, motion, shape? Elimination: Is it necessary? Reverse: What would happen if we move it backward? Turn it upside down? Inside out? Other use: Is there a new way to use it?

Creative Idea Evaluation

Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)

TRIZ is Russian acronym Developed by Genrich Altshuller and his coworkers in Russia, since 1946 About 1.5 million patents were studied, and discovered that only a few dozen inventive principles were used for solving the problems

Five levels of problem solutions

Level 1:
Level 2: Level 3: Level 4: Level 5:

Routine design solutions arrived at methods well known in the specialty area. 30% Minor correction to an existing system by methods know in the industry. 45% Fundamental improvement to an existing system which resolve contradictions within the industry. 20% Solution based on application of new scientific principle to perform the primary function of the design. 4% Pioneering inventions based on rare scientific discovery. 1%

TRIZ is aimed at improving design concept at levels 3 and 4

Engineering Parameters used

1.
2. 3. 4.

Weight of moving object

Weight of nonmoving object Length of moving object Length of nonmoving object

11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

5.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Area of moving object

Area of nonmoving object Volume of moving object Volume of nonmoving object Speed Force

19.
20.

Tension, Pressure Shape Stability of object Strength Durability of moving object Durability of nonmoving object Temperature Brightness Energy spent by moving object Energy spent by nonmoving object

Engineering Parameters used

21.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30.

Power Waste of energy Waste of substance Loss of information Waste of time Amount of substance Reliability Accuracy of measurement Accuracy of manufacturing Harmful factors acting on object

31.
32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

Harmful side effects Manufacturability Convenience of use Repairability Adaptability Complexity of device Complexity of control Level of automation Producibility

The Inventive Principles

1.
2. 3. 4.

5.
6. 7. 8.

Segmentation Extraction Local quality Asymmetry Combining Universality Nesting Counterweight

9.
10. 11. 12.

13.
14. 15. 16.

Prior counteraction Prior action Cushion in advance Equipotentiality Inversion Spheroidality Dynamicity Partial or overdone action

The Inventive Principles

17.

18. 19. 20.

21.

22.

Moving to a new dimension Mechanical vibration Periodic action Continuity of useful action Rushing through Convert harm into benefit

23.
24. 25. 26. 27.

28.

Feedback Mediator Self-service Copying An inexpensive shortlived object instead of an expensive durable one Replacement of a mechanical system

The Inventive Principles

29.

30.

31.
32. 33.

34.

Use of a pneumatic or hydraulic construction Flexible film or thin membranes Use of porous material Change the color Homogeneity Rejecting and regenerating part

35.

36.

37.
38. 39.

40.

Transformation of physical and chemical states of an object Phase transition Thermal expansion Use strong oxidizers Inert environment Composite materials

Example
A metal pipe was used to pneumatically transport plastic pellets. A change in the process required that metal powder now be used with the pipe instead of plastic. The harder metal powder causes erosion of the inside of the pipe at the elbow where the metal particles turn 90o. Conventional solutions to this problem might include reinforcing the inside of the elbow with an abrasionresistant hard-facing alloy, providing for an elbow that could be easily replaced after it has corroded, or redesigning the shape of the elbow. However, all of these solutions require significantly extra costs, so a more creative solution was sought.

Solution

What is the main function of our elbow?

To

change the direction of flow of metal particle

What we want to improve?

Increase

the delivered particles speed (parameter 9) Reduce the energy required (parameter 19)

Solution
Improving speed
Degrade parameter
Force Durability Temperature Energy Loss of matter Quantity of substance

Parameter number
10 15 17 19 23 26

Inventive principle used

13, 28, 15, 19 8, 3, 26, 14 28, 30, 36, 2 8, 15, 35, 38 10, 13, 28, 38 10, 19, 29, 38

Improving energy
Degrade parameter Parameter number Inventive principle used

Convenient to use
Loss of time

35
25

28, 35, 30
15, 17, 13, 16

Solution

By counting the frequency of inventive principles suggested, the Principle 28 is the most cited (4 times). The others Principles cited are 13(3), 15(3), and 38(3). Then Principle 28 shall be firstly considered.

Solution

The full description of Principle 28 is 28 Replacement of a mechanical system

Replace a mechanical system by an optical, acoustical, or odor system. b) Use an electrical, magnetic, or electromagnetic field for interaction with the object. c) Replace fields. Example: (1) stationary field change to rotating field; (2) fixed fields become fields that change in time; (3) random fields change to structural one. d) Use a field in conjunction with ferromagnetic particles.
a)

Then possible solution may be placing a magnet at the elbow to attract and hold a thin layer of powder that will serve to absorb the energy of particles navigating the 90o bend, thereby preventing erosion of the inside wall of the elbow.

Algorithm of Inventive Problem Solving

Original problem statement Formulate technical contradiction Formulate initial physical contradiction

Formulate main contradiction

Formulate ideal solution

Analysis of conflict domain & resource

Method of elimination of Physical contradiction

NO SOLUTION

Reformulation of problem statement

SOLUTION

Knowledge base of effects

Conceptual Decomposition

It is common tactic to decompose the problem into smaller parts. Connections of elements in terms of structure and function within the blocks shall be stronger than those between the blocks. There are two main approaches

Decomposition in the physical domain Functional decomposition

Decomposition in the Physical Domain

Bicycle

Frame

Seat

Wheels

Brakes

Gears

Rim
1. 2.

Spokes

Tire

Decompose the product into subassemblies and components that are essential for the all functioning of the product. Need to understand the interactions and connections that each of these subassemblies and elements has with each other. The connection can be physical, energy, or force connection.

Functional Decomposition
Function is in the nature of a physical behavior or action Function tells us that what the product must do. The process of functional decomposition describes the design problem in term of a flow of energy, material, and information.

Functionality of some common device

Device Nozzle Motor Input Fluid flow Function Increase velocity of fluid Convert electrical energy to rotating mechanical energy Other effects Decrease pressure of fluid Thermal energy generated Output Fluid flow

Electrical energy

Rotating mechanical energy

Switch
Gear

Mechanical Separate or joint energy contact

Rotating Change speed of Mechanical rotation energy Flow of room air Energy Separate or joint contact Increase magnitude of force or torque

Flow of electricity enabled or stopped

Change direction of rotation Flow of electricity enabled or stopped

Position of contact moved

Rotating Mechanical energy Position of contact moved Energy

Room thermostat Wrench

1 Open case

2 Extract CD

3 Extract leaflet

4 Replace CD

5 Replace leaflet

6 Close case

7 Store case

Generating Design Concept

Morphological Chart

1. 2. 3.

Proposed by Zwicky Steps to follow Arrange the functions and subfunctions in logical order List for each subfunction how Combine concepts

Example CD case
Concept Subfunction 1 1.0 Open case 1.1 Hold and grip case 1.2 Disengage lock Flat box Friction lock Groove box Curved box Case with handle Rubber grip strips Clicking hinge lock 2 3 4 5

Inclined plane Magnetic lock Clamp lock lock One-piece flex plastic hinge Slide-out, like match box Tilt like shampoo bottle top

1.3 Expose CD Conventional hinge 2.0 Extract CD 2.1 Disengage from securing system 2.2 Grasp CD and remove Conventional Rosetta Hand

Lift/lock device

Padded cradle

Example CD case
Concept Subfunction 1 3.0 Extract leaflet 3.1 Disengage from securing system Tabs Holding slot Velcro straps Tab that swivels No securing system 2 3 4 5

3.2 Remove leaflet Hand 4.0 Replace CD 4.1 Place CD in securing system 4.2 Engage securing system Hand 2-finger push Whole hand

Example CD case
Concept Subfunction 1 5.0 Replace leaflet 5.1 Place leaflet in Slide into securing system position 5.2 Engage securing system Lay in position Attach Velcro 2 3 4 5

Swivel tabs Slide under tabs or in slot

6.0 Close case

6.1 Engage lock 7.0 Store case 7.1 Place case in desired location Put on table Put on another CD Put in special CD holder Friction surfaces Put magnet together Slide platen into position

The combinations of these concepts generate many possible solutions for the design. There are 162,000 combinations in this design.

Assume that 5 concepts are drawn from the previous chart.

Concept 1: Conventional square box (1), with the incline plane lock (2) and a slide-out matchbox (3) for a hinge. The CD is secured with a conventional rosetta (1) while the leaflet is secured with tab (1). Concept 2: A streamline curved box to fit the hand (3), with a friction lock (2) and a conventional hinge (3). The CD is secured in padded elastomer cradle (3) and the CD case are designed to stack flat (2). Concept 3: The box is grooved to the shape of the finger (2), with a magnetic lock (3) and conventional hinges (1). A new lift/lock secures the CD (2). The leaflet fits in a slot in the top of the case (2). Concept 4: A standard square box (1) with magnetic lock (3) and conventional hinges (1). The CD is secured with a padded cradle (3), while the leaflet is secured with Velcro straps (3). Concept 5: A curved box (3) with inclined plane lock (2), with a slide-out matchbox (3). The CD is held by a rosetta (1) and the leaflet fits into a slot (2). The cases are designed to stack (2).

Axiomatic Design
Developed by Professor Nam Suh and his colleagues at MIT Focus around 2 design axioms

Axiom 1: The independent axiom Maintain the independence of functional requirements (FRs). Axiom 2: The information axiom Minimize the information content.

Mapping process of Suhs concept

Functional Requirements FR1 FR2 FR3

Design Parameters DP1 DP2 DP3 DP4

Hierarchy of FRs for a metal cutting lathe

Metal removal device

Power supply

Workpiece rotation source

Speedchanging device

Workpiece support and toolholder

Support structure

Tool positioner

Tool holder

Positioner

Support structure

Longitudinal clamp

Rotation stop

Tool holder

Hierarchy of lathe design in physical domain

Lathe

Motor drive

Head stock

Gear box

Tailstock

Bed

Carriage

Spindle assembly

Feed screw

Frame

Clamp

Handle

Bolt

Pin

Tapered bore

7 corollaries are derived from the 2 axioms mentioned before

Corollary 1: Decoupling of a coupled design Decouple or separate parts or aspects of a solution if FRs are coupled or become interdependent in the proposed design. Corollary 2: Minimize FRs Minimize the number of FRs and constraints. Integration of physical parts Integrate design features in a single physical part if FRs can be independently satisfied in the proposed solution. Use of standardization Use standardized or interchangeable parts if the use of these parts is consistent with the FRs and constraints. Corollary 5: Use of symmetry Use symmetric shapes and/or arrangement if they are consistent with the FRs and constraints. Symmetrical parts require less information to manufacture and to orient in assembly. Corollary 6: Largest tolerance Specify the largest allowable tolerance in stating FRs. Uncoupled design with less information

Corollary 3:

Corollary 4:

Corollary 7:

Seek an uncoupled design that requires less information than coupled designs in satisfying a set of FRs.

Evaluation

Comparison Based on Absolute Criteria

1. Evaluation based on judgment of feasibility of the design. Concept should be into one of three categories:
a) It is not feasible? Next question is Why is it not feasible? b) It is conditional it might work if something else happen? c) Looks as if it will work, then it seems worth to work further.

Comparison Based on Absolute Criteria

2. Evaluation based on assessment of technology readiness. The technology used in the design must be mature enough not to need any additional research. Their indicators are
a) b) c) d) e) Can the technology be manufactured with known processes? Are the critical parameters that control the function identified? Are the safe operating latitude and sensitivity of the parameters known? Have the failure modes been identified? Does hardware exist that demonstrates positive answers to the above four questions?

Comparison Based on Absolute Criteria

3. Evaluation based on go-no-go screening of the customer requirements.
After a design concept has passed filters 1 and 2, the emphasis shifts to establishing whether it meets the customer requirements framed in the QFD Each requirement must be transformed into a question to be addressed to each concept. The questions should be answerable as either yes (go), maybe (go), or no (no-go). The emphasis is not on a detail examination but on eliminating any design concepts that clearly not able to meet an important customer requirement.

Pughs Concept Selection Method

1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Choose the criteria by which the concepts will be evaluated Formulate the decision matrix Clarify the design concept Choose the datum concept Run the matrix Evaluate the rating Establish a new datum and rerun the matrix Plan further work Second working session

Example of CD case
Criterion
Mfg. cost Easier opening Easier to remove leaflet Easier to remove CD Concept 1 S + S S + S + Concept 2 S S + S S S Concept 3 S S + S S + Concept 4 S + + S S + Concept 5 S + S + + + D A T U M Std. CD case

Hinge doesnt come apart

Stacking stability More secure locking

Fits hand better

+

S
3

+
2

+
3

S
3

+
5

0
5

1
5

1
4

1
4

1
2

Measurement Scales
Pairwise Comparison method
Design objectives A B C D E A 0 1 1 0 B 1 0 0 0
Assume 5 design objectives to be compared

C 0 1 1 1

D 0 1 0 0

E 1 1 0 1 -

Row total 2 3 1 3 1 10

Weighted Decision Matrix

11-point scale 0 Description Totally useless solution 0 Inadequate solution 5-point scale Description

1
2 3 4 5 6 7

Very inadequate solution

Weak solution 1 Poor solution Tolerable solution Satisfactory solution Good solution with a few drawback Good solution 3 Good 2 Satisfactory Weak

8
9 10

Very good solution

Excellent (exceed the requirement) 4 Ideal solution Excellent

Example of Steel Crane Hook

A heavy steel crane hook, for use in supporting ladles filled with molten steel as they are transported through the steel mill, is being designed. Three concepts have been proposed: (1) built-up from steel plates, welded together; (2) built-up from steel plates, riveted together; (3) a monolithic cast-steel hook.
The design criteria investigated are (1) material cost, (2) manufacturing cost, (3) time to produce another if one fails. (4) durability, (5) reliability, (6) reparability. Crane hook O1=1.0

Oxyz here are weighted factors

Cost O11=0.6

Quality in service O12=0.4

Matl cost O111=0.3

Mfg. Cost O112=0.5

Reparability O113=0.2

Durability O121=0.6

Reliability O122=0.3

Time to produce O123=0.1

Weighted Decision Matrix for a steel hook

Design criterion Material cost Mfg. cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to produce Weight factors 0.18 0.60 0.12 0.24 0.12 0.04 Built-up plates welded Unit Mag. /lb $ Exp Exp. Exp. Hr. 60 2500 Good High Good 40 Score 8 7 7 8 7 7 Rating 1.44 2.1 0.84 1.92 0.84 0.28 7.42 Mag. 60 2200 Excell. High Excell. 25 Score 8 9 9 8 9 9 Rating 1.44 2.70 1.08 1.92 1.08 0.36 8.58 Mag. 50 3000 Fair Good Fair 60 Score 9 4 5 6 5 5 Rating 1.62 1.20 0.60 1.44 0.60 0.20 5.66 Built-up plates riveted Cast steel hook

Mag. = Magnitude Exp. = Experience Excell. = Excellent

Analytical Hierarchy Process, AHP

Multicriteria decision process introduced by Saaty

Suited to hierarchically structural system Can work with both numerical and intangible and subjective factors Use pairwise comparison of the alternatives

Example of crane hook design using AHP approach

Crane hook design

Material cost

Manufacturing cost

Reparability

Durability

Reliability

Time to produce

Built-up plates, welded steel

Built-up steel plates, riveted

Cast steel

Hierarchical structure of a crane hook design

Saatys fundamental scale for pairwise comparison

Intensity of importance 1 3 5

Definition Equal importance Moderate importance Strong importance

Description Two activities contribute equally to the objective Judgment and experience slightly favor one activity over another Judgment and experience strongly favor one activity over another

7 9

Very strong Extreme importance

An activity is favored very strongly over another The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible

2, 4, 6, 8

These rating are used to compromise between the above values.

Square matrix to determine weighting factors

Material cost Manufacturing Reparability cost Material cost Manufacturing cost Reparability Durability Reliability Time to produce Total 1 5 1/3 5 1/3 1/7 1/5 1 1/7 1/3 1/3 1/7 3 7 1 5 3 1/5

Durability 1/5 3 1/5 1 1/3 1/7

Reliability 3 3 1/3 3 1 1/7

Time to produce 7 7 5 7 7 1

11.8

2.14

19.2

4.87

10.47

34

Normalized values for square matrix

Material cost Manufacturing Reparability cost Material cost 0.085 0.424 0.028 Durability 0.424 Reliability 0.028 Time to produce 0.012 1

Manufacturing cost Reparability

Durability Reliability Time to produce Total Weighting factor (AVG)

0.093 0.156
0.041 0.286 0.206

0.467 0.364
0.616 0.286 0.206

0.065 0.052
0.041 0.031 0.147

0.154 0.260
0.205 0.286 0.206

0.154 0.156
0.068 0.095 0.206

0.065 0.010
0.029 0.013 0.029

1 1
1 1 1

0.867 0.144

2.363 0.394

0.364 0.061

1.535 0.256

0.707 0.118

0.158 0.026

6 1

Now construct the decision matrix using previous values given.

Built-up welded plates Manufacturing cost 2500 400 0.34 Built-up riveted plates 2200 454 0.38 Cast 3000 333 0.28 $/crane hook Reciprocal x 10-6 Fraction of total

Built-up welded plates Reparability 6 0.35

Built-up riveted plates 10 0.59

Cast

1 0.06

Ranking Fraction of total

Durability Welded plate Riveted plate Cast Total

Welded plate 1.00 3.00 1/3 4.33 0.23 0.69 0.08 1.00

Riveted plate 1/3 1.00 1/5 1.53 0.22 0.65 0.13 1.00

Cast 3.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 0.33 0.56 0.11 1.00

Total 0.78 1.90 0.32 3.00

Rating (Avg.) 0.26 0.63 0.11 1.00

Final Decision Matrix for the Crane Hook Problem Cast 0.38 0.28 0.06 0.11 Cast 0.053 0.109 0.004 0.027

Design criterion Material cost Manufacturing cost Reparability Durability

Weight factor 0.14 0.39 0.06 0.25

Welded plate 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.26

Riveted plate 0.31 0.38 0.59 0.63

Welded plate 0.043 0.133 0.021 0.065

Riveted plate 0.043 0.148 0.035 0.157

Reliability
Time to produce Total

0.12
0.03 1.00

0.33
0.31

0.43
0.49

0.24
0.20

0.040
0.008 0.31

0.052
0.013 0.45

0.029
0.005 0.23

Then riveted plate is the most appropriate alternative for this design