Referencia: Suh, Nam. The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press. 1990.

3.2 Definition of Axioms, Corollaries, Theorems, FRs, DPs

By definition, axioms are fundamental truths that are always observed to be valid and for which there are no
counterexamples or exceptions. Axioms may be hypothesized from a large number of observations by noting the
common phenomena shared by all cases; they cannot be proven or derived, but they can be invalidated by
counterexamples or exceptions.
A theorem is a proposition that may not be self-evident but that can be proved from accepted axioms. It is
therefore equivalent to a law or principle. Consequently, a theorem is valid if its referent axioms and deductive
steps are valid.
Corollaries are propositions that follow from axioms or other propositions that have been proven. Again,
corollaries are shown to be valid or not valid in the same manner as theorems.
FRs are defined in Chapter 2 as a minimum set of independent requirements that completely characterize the
functional needs of the product design in the functional domain. By definition, each FR is independent of other
FRs. If one FR depends on another, then they are equivalent and logically identical.
DPs are the key variables that characterize the physical entity created by the design process to fulfill the FRs.
3.3 Design Axioms
There are two design axioms that govern good design. Axiom 1 deals with the relationship between functions
and physical variables, and Axiom 2 deals with the complexity of design. These axioms can be stated in a variety
of semantically equivalent forms. The declarative (or procedural) form of the axioms is (Suh, 1984):
Axiom 1
The Independence Axiom
Maintain the independence of FRs.
Axiom 2
The Information Axiom
Minimize the information content of the design.
Axiom 1 states that during the design process, as we go from the FRs in the functional domain with DPs in the
physical domain, the mapping must be such that a perturbation in a particular DP must affect only its referent
FR. Axiom 2 states that, among all the designs that satisfy the Independence Axiom (Axiom 1), the one with
minimum information content is the best design. As discussed in Chapter 2, the term "best" is used in a relative
sense, since there are potentially an infinite number of designs that can satisfy a given set of FRs. Axioms 1 and
2 may be restated as follows.
Axiom 1

The Independence Axiom

Alternate Statement 1: An optimal design always maintains the independence of FRs.

Alternate Statement 2: In an acceptable design, the DPs and the FRs are related in such a way that specific DP
can be adjusted to satisfy its corresponding FR without affecting other functional requirements.
Axiom 2

The Information Axiom

Alternate Statement: The best design is a functionally uncoupled design that has the minimum information
content.

Let us now return to the refrigerator door design discussed in Chapter 1. The question is: if there are two FRs for
the refrigerator door -- that is, access to the stored food and minimal energy loss -- is the vertically hung door a
good design? We can see that the vertically hung door violates Axiom 1, because the two specified FRs (i.e.,

access to the contents and minimum energy use) are coupled by the proposed design. When the door is opened
to take out milk, cold air in the refrigerator escapes and gives way to the warm air from outside.
What, then, is an uncoupled design that somehow does not couple these two FRs? One such uncoupled design
of the refrigerator door is the horizontally hinged and vertically opening door used in chest-type freezers. When
the door is opened to take out what is inside, the cold air does not escape since cold air is heavier than the
warm air. Therefore, this type of chest freezer door does satisfy the first axiom.
We may note here that when we refer to the satisfaction of the FRs, the solution is understood to satisfy the
original FRs within a certain tolerance band; that is, even in the case of the chest-type refrigerator door, there is
some convective loss upon removal of the contents. However, if the FR is stated so that the energy loss is to be
less than 10 calories per opening of the door, and if the energy loss associated with the chest refrigerator does
satisfy this requirement, then it is an acceptable solution.
Throughout this book, design will be separated into three groups: uncoupled, coupled, and decoupled (or quasicoupled) designs. An uncoupled design satisfies Axiom 1, whereas a coupled design renders some of the
functions dependent on other functions, and thus violates Axiom 1. A coupled design may be decoupled; when
the coupling is due to an insufficient number of DPs in comparison with the number of FRs that must be kept
independent, we may accomplish this by adding extra components, which increases the number of DPs. A
decoupled design may be inferior to an uncoupled design in the sense that it may requir( additional information
content. The differences between these designs ar( discussed further in this chapter.
In order to clarify the significance of Axiom 1, let us consider two more examples qualitatively.
Example 3.1. Zero and Gain Control of a Recorder
Many recorders for capturing data during engineering experiments have two important FRs: the control of gains
and the control of zero. This is typically done by turning two knobs, which represent the DPs. To set the zero and
gain, one knob is turned to set the zero, and the other to control the gain. However, when the gain is set, one
finds the zero has changed; therefore, one must go back to the first knob and reset the zero; this in turn changes
the gain. The process has to be repeated until the zero and the gain reach the desired values. This is a typical
example of a coupled system. There is nothing that one can do about this, short of modifying the analog electric
circuit, or replacing it with a digital circuit (Wilson et al., 1979).
Example 3.2: Decoupling of a Single Screw Extruder
A single screw extruder for processing thermoplastics consists of a helical screw, housed in a cylindrical barrel
which is typically warmed by electrical heaters. When the screw rotates, plastic granules are fed into the barrel
section from the hopper (see Fig. 3.1). These granules are compacted in the screw channel, due to the relative
motion between the plastic pellets and the barrel in the helical channel of the screw. The compacted plastic solid
bed is then sheared near the solid bed-barrel interface. The solid bed melts due to the shear work, as well as to
the heat transfered from the barrel to the plastic.
The molten plastic is then pumped by the screw out of the extruder. The extrudate is then pushed through a die,
which is normally attached to the extruder at its exit, to make an extrudate with a constant profile. The FRs of the
extruder are the pumping rate and the temperature of the extrudate.
Is this a coupled machine? Why? If it is, can we decouple the extruder system so that the flow rate and
temperature. of ihe extrudate can be controlled independently? That is, can we create an uncoupled or
decoupled extruder system?

Solution
The single screw extruder is a coupled system, since the screw speed affects both the temperature and the
pumping rate of the extrudate. Furthermore, the barrel temperature affects not only the extrudate temperature,
but also the pumping rate, since the viscosity of plastics also depends on temperature. (For a detailed analysis,
see Tadmor and Gogos, 1979, and Appendix 3A.) Therefore, the flow rate of plastics fluctuates, and there are
occasional surges that reduce the product quality and increase the waste.
The system can be made into a decoupled system by inserting a precision positive displacement pump, such as
the gear pump shown in Fig. 3.2. First the speed of the gear pump is set to control the pumping rate, then the
screw speed is adjusted to control the extrudate temperature. This solution has decoupled the function of flow
rate control from the function of temperature control by inserting a gear pump in the physical arrangement of the
hardware. (For a detailed analysis, see McKelvey, 1984; and Appendix 3B.)
Functional coupling should not be confused with physical coupling, which is often desirable as a consequence of
Axiom 2. Integration of more than one function in a single part, as long as the functions remain independent,
should reduce complexity. An example that illustrates the use of physical integration without compromising
functional independence is the bottle/can opener design discussed in Example 3.3.

Example 3.3: Bottle/Can Opener Design

Suppose that we are interested ir) designing a simple, low cost bottle/can opener that can be operated manually.
The FRs of the device are

FRI: Open beverage bottles.

FR2: Open beverage cans.
By definition, the two FRs are independent, but no mention is made of concurrency; that is, we sometimes wish
to open a bottle or a can, but not both simultaneously.
Solution
A simple device that satisfies the above set of FRs is shown in Fig. 3.3. This is a very simple opener that can be
made by stamping a sheet metal strip. In this design the means for achieving the two FRs independently are
embodied in the same physical device rather than in two separate components. Therefore, minimal information
content is required to manufacture the device.
Are the FRs coupled by the design? The design does not couple the FRs, because the act of opening cans does
not interfere with or compromise the requirement of opening bottles. The FRs would be coupled only if there
were an FR to open bottles and cans simultaneously, which is not the case here. The two separate functions are
fulfilled by one physical piece, but without functional coupling. Physical integration without functional coupling is
advantageous, since the complexity of the product is reduced, in line with Axiom 2.
The examples given in this section are rather qualitative, since so far quantitative measures of functional
coupling and complexity have not been given. Chapter 4 discusses functional coupling in greater detail, and the
issue of complexity is treated more extensively in
Chapter 5.
Before leaving this section, it should be noted again that the identification of the ultimate optimal design having
minimum information content cannot be guaranteed; also, there is no method for generating all potential
designs. We can only identify the best design on a relative basis among those proposed, using Axioms I and 2.
However, the ability to eliminate unacceptable or unpromising ideas in their early stages enhances the creative
part of design, and reduces the cost of development and the chance for failure.

3.4 Corollaries
In the preceding section we have shown that, as a consequence of Axiom I and Axiom 2, physical integration is
desirable when the FRs can be kept independent. This result can be used in other contexts, and therefore can
be called a corollary. From the two axioms of design, many
corollaries can be derived as a direct
consequence of the axioms. These corollaries may be more useful in making specific design decisions, since
they can be applied to actual situations more readily than can the original axioms. They may even be called
design rules, and are all derived from the two basic axioms.
Corollary 1 (Decoupling of Coupled Design)
Decouple or separate parts or aspects of a solution if FRs are coupled or become interdependent in the designs
proposed.
Corollary 2 (Minimization of FRs)
Minimize the number of FRs and constraints.
Corollary 3 (Integration of Physical Parts)
Integrate design features in a single physical part if FRs can be independently satisfied in the proposed solution.
Corollary 4 (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 symmetrical shapes and/or arrangements if they are consistent with the FRs and constraints.
Corollary 6 (Largest Tolerance)
Specify the largest allowable tolerance in stating FRs.
Corollary 7 (Uncoupled Design with Less Information)
Seek an uncoupled design that requires less information than coupled designs in satisfying a set of FRs.
Figure 3.4 shows the relationship between these corollaries and the axioms. It shows that Corollary 1 is a direct
consequence of Axiom 1, whereas Corollaries 3, 6, and 7 are derived from Axioms 1 and 2. Corollaries 2, 4, and
5 are derived from Axiom 2. Some of these corollaries are self-evident, but others have much deeper
implications than is apparent.

Corollary 1 states that functional independence must be ensured by decoupling if a proposed design couples
the FRs. Decoupling does not necessarily imply that a part has to be broken into two or more separate physical
parts, or that a new element has to be added to the existing design. Functional decoupling may be achieved
without physical separation, although in some cases such physical decomposition may be the best way of
solving the problem. Corollary 3 states that, as long as the FRs are not coupled by the physical integration of
parts, the integration strategy should be followed if it reduces the information content of the design.
Corollary 2 states that as the number of FRs and constraints increases, the system becomes more complex and
thus raises the information content. This implies that the conventional adage, "My design is better than yours
because it does more than was intended," is misguided. A design should fulfill the precise needs defined by the
FRs--nothing more and nothing less. Similarly, a process that fulfills more functions than are specified will be
more difficult to operate and maintain than one that meets only the stated FRs. Reliability may also decrease
when a machine fulfills more FRS than are required, because of the increased complexity.
Corollary 3 states that the number of physical parts should be reduced in order to decrease the information
content, if this can be done without coupling FRs. However, mere physical integration is not desirable if it results
in an increase of the information content or in the coupling of FRS. A good example of physical integration which
is consistent with Corollary 3 is the bottle/can opener design discussed in Example 3.3.
Corollary 4 states a well-known design rule: use standard parts. In order to reduce inventory and minimize the
information required for manufacture and assembly, special parts should not be used if standard parts can fulfill
the FRs. Furthermore, the number of standard parts should be minimized so as to decrease the inventory costs
and simplify inventory management, per
rollary 3. Interchangeable parts allow for the reduction of inventory,
as well as the simplification of manufacturing and service operations; that is, they reduce the information content.
This is even more the case if the design permits generous tolerances.
Corollary 5 is self-evident. Symmetrical parts require less information to manufacture and to orient in assembly.
Not only should the shape be symmetrical whenever possible, but hole locations and other features should be
placed symmetrically to minimize the information required during manufacture and use.

Corollary 6 deals with tolerances. Since it becomes increasingly difficult to manufacture a product as the
tolerance is reduced, more information is required to produce parts with tight tolerances. On the other hand, if
the tolerance is too large, then the error in assembly may accumulate such that FRs cannot be satisfied.
Therefore, the specification of tolerances should be made as large as possible, but should remain consistent
with the likelihood of producing functionally acceptable parts. The correct tolerance band is that which minimizes
the overall information content. When the tolerance band is too large, the information content will increase since
the subsequent manufacturing processes will require more information. Excess tolerances reduce reliability and
thus increase the need for maintenance; this contributes to the increased information content.
Corollary 7 states there is always an uncoupled design that involves less information than a coupled design.
This corollary is a consequence of Axioms 1 and 2. If this corollary were not true, then Axioms 1 and 2 must be
invalid. The implication of this corollary is that if a designer proposes an uncoupled design which has more
information content than a coupled design, then the designer should return to the "drawing board" to develop
another uncoupled or decoupled design having less information content than the coupled design.
In addition to these corollaries, there can be many others. Whatever proposition can be derived from the
preceding axioms and corollaries is also a corollary.