International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering

Vol. 1, Issue. 3, June 2015

ISSN (Online): 2394-8868

Architectural Conceptualisation Methodology Of

Electronic Control Unit Casing
1

Sohan Sontakke, 2 Choudhari C.S

Department of Mechanical Engineering, AISSMS
College of Engineering, Pune, INDIA
Abstract ECU Casing encloses Printed circuit board (PCB) for
protection foreign conditions. Architecture Conceptualization is
an important phase of product de velopment architecture of ECU
Casings. Paper explains the methodology for architecture
selection which involves steps such as layout optimization,
Material Category, Manufacturing Category, Production Process,
And Material Grade. S tatistical analysis tool is used for
comparison of all dependant parameters and its applicability in
each step of architecture selection.

without any warpage. The sealing design is conceptualised by

the target requirement against water and dust ingress protection.
Figure 1 elaborates the broad level architecture of electronic
control unit assembly. This includes PCB assembly, ECU
Casing which is dissipating the heat to atmosphere. Integrated
gasket takes over PCB assembly, bottom plastic cover and ECU
Casing [1].

I. INT RODUCT ION

ECU Casing encloses Printed circu it board (PCB) for
protection against components from Thermal Damage, Dust
and Water ingress, Vibrations.
The design methodology of ECU Casing involves various
Phases of product cultivation from processing of inputs till
validation of the product. Requirement Analysis being first
phase, analyses all PCB requirements, mechanical
requirements. Architecture Conceptualization being second
phase, analyses layout optimization, Material Category,
Manufacturing Category, Production Process, Material Grade.
Design being third phase, analyses all aspects of Engineering
Design, Manufacturing Design, and Feasibility Design.
Validation being fourth phase includes prototyping, physical
testing and Optimization. This Paper concentrates on second
phase only [1].
II.

Fig. 1. Broad Level Architecture of Electronic Control Unit .

A RCHIT ECT URE CONCEPT UALIZAT ION

B. Material Category selection:

Material type decision matrix helps in analysing material
type to be used for all co mponents in the assembly by cross functional study between functional parameters that each
component should adhere to and deliverable parameters that are
expected from co mponent to accomplish production targets.
Decision Matrix Rating methodology which is applicable to all
matrixes in the document is as per attached table no 1. Rating 1
indicates poor performance of a product in the respective
category and Rating 5 indicates highest performance of a
product in the respective category. In functional parameters
(structural, thermal, durability properties) rating (1-5) increases
with the property but in case of cost, rating (1-5) decreases with
increase in cost [1].

A. Scheme / Layout optimization:

Scheme includes finalization of orientation and sizing of
components in the assembly. It is decided after analysis of
requirement.
For
comp lying
thermal
requirements,
amplification of the surface area and good thermal conductivity
material is required. For co mplying vibration requirement, PCB
must be isolated from metal interfaces by rubber material. For
complying sealing requirement, Gasket must be designed with
proper resting on metal surface. For complying packaging
requirement, production process with less part to part variation
should be ensured.
Surface area of fins must be sufficient to control the
temperature of electronic co mponents below safe limit. The
PCB should be packaged such that it will be hold firmly

TABLE 1. DECISION M AT RIX M ET HODOLOGY

23

International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering

Vol. 1, Issue. 3, June 2015
ISSN (Online): 2394-8868
lags in cost per unit due to wall thickness constraints in casting
and thermal properties. Copper being thermally excellent lags
due to heavy cost.

Performance
Poor
Average
Good
Very Good
Excellent

Structural
Cost
0- 100 MPA
200- above Rs
100-200 MPA
150-200
Rs Per
Per Kg
200-300 MPA
120-150
KgRs Per
300-400 MPA
70-120KgRs Per
400-Above
0-70 Rs
KgPer Kg
MPA
Material type decision mat rix (Table 2) establishes
comparative analysis between alu miniu m, copper and cast iron
against functional and deliverable parameters.
In structural co mparison, cast iron leads the segment for a
same cross section, hence rated to 5, In Thermal properties
comparison, copper stands out with highest point. Durability
refers to behaviour of materia l in fatigue. Cast iron is famous
for its damp ing properties, hence highly rated. In terms of cost,
copper is worst and cast iron is best. In terms of weight,
alu min iu m is lightest of all. Alu miniu m is easily
manufacturable in large number of quantities. The main
competition is between cast iron and alumin iu m. In functional
parameters, cast iron leads alu min iu m. But due to its lagging in
deliverable parameters, aluminium stands out.

C. Manufacturing Category selection:

Manufacturing category decision matrix helps in analysing
Manufacturing type to be imp lemented for all co mponents in
the assembly by cross-functional study between functionality,
quality, cost per unit, tooling cost and lead time.
Manufacturing category is subjected to number of components
to be developed. If the component is to be launched in three
quantitative stages, matrix for all three stages gives different
results [1].
Manufacturing category decision matrix (Table 3)
establishes comparative analysis between casting sub -types
such as casting up to final shape, casting to rough form and
light machin ing, casting to rough form and heavy machining
against functionality, quality, cost per unit, tooling cost, lead
time. No. of co mponents plays an important role in matrix
formation. Two matrixes with different no. of co mponents are
analysed.
Prototyping is done to evaluate the product design, which
needs few co mponents in short time. Hence, the manufacturing
option should be able to deliver few co mponents in shortest
time. In functionality and quality, final casting is rated high.
But rat ing lowers in terms of tooling cost and lead time. Rough
casting and heavy machin ing will deliver product with quality
lower than the final casting, hence rated low. But, the tooling
cost and lead time will be least and hence rated highest. Rough
casting with heavy mach ining stands highest in the matrix with
18 points.

TABLE 2. M AT ERIAL TYPE DECISION M AT RIX

Total
24
21
23

TABLE 3. M ANUFACT URING OPT ION DECISION M AT RIX

(BASED ON PRODUCT ION ST AGE ONLY 10 COMPONENT S)

Casting
Fig 2. Material T ype Decision Matrix.

Fig. 2, g ives more clarity. Cast iron (marked in green) peaks

in some points but overall area occupied by alumin iu m
(marked in blue) is mo re. Hence alu min iu m stands out of all
these due to inherent characteristics in thermal, cost and mass
production feasibility. Cast iron being structurally very good

24

Final Casting
Rough Casting
light machining
Rough Casting
heavy machining

17

17

18

Total

Lead Time

5
2
3

Tooling Cost

5
4
2

Cost per
unit

4
2
5

Weight per
unit
Mass
Production
Feasibility

Cost per
unit

Durability
Properties
3
4
5

Quality

4
5
3

Functionality

3
4
5

Deliverable
Parameters

Manufacturi
ng Process

Alumin.
Copper
um
Cast Iron

Thermal
Properties

Structural
Properties

Functional
Parameters

Sub-Types

Rating
1
2
3
4
5

International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering

Vol. 1, Issue. 3, June 2015
ISSN (Online): 2394-8868
Fig 4. Manufacturing Option Decision Matrix ( 2000 components per month)

Fig. 4, gives more clarity. Final casting (marked in blue)

covers more area than other options (colours) proving final
casting as a best option.
D. Production Process Selection:
Production Process Decision mat rix helps in analysing
Process type by cross-functional study between component
functional parameters such as Minimu m Wall Th ickness,
Dimensional Stability, Casing Defects/ Porosity, Roughness,
Aesthetics, Machining Allowances [1].
Production Process Selection matrix (Table 5) co mpares the
processes. High pressure die casting leads all processes in all
parameters, hence rated highest.

Fig. 3. Manufacturing Option Decision Matrix ( 10 components)

Fig. 3, gives more clarity. Rough casting (marked in brown)

covers more area than other options (colours). Hence, the best
option is to make a rough casting and heavy machining.

Tooling Cost

Lead Time

19

18

Rough Casting
heavy machining

17

16

Shell Sand
Low Pressure

3
4

3
4

3
4

3
4

3
4

3
4

18
24

High Pressure

29

Sum

Aesthetics

Machining
Allowances

Roughness

Casing
Defects

Total

Quality

Cost per
unit

Functionality

Sub-Types

Manufacturin
g Process
Casting

Types of
casting

TABLE 4. M ANUFACT URING OPT ION DECISION M AT RIX

(BASED ON PRODUCT ION ST AGE - 2000 PER MONT H)

Final Casting
Rough Casting
light machining

Gravity

Min. Wall
Thickness

For production stage (2000 Per Month), the ratings for cost per
unit, quality and functionality proves very important. Final
casting leads with rating of 5 in major parameters . In
functionality and quality, final casting is rated highest. But
rating lowers in terms of tooling cost and lead t ime. Rough
casting and heavy machining quality rated lowest in
functionality, quality and per unit, cost. Final casting stands
highest in the matrix with 19 points.

Dimensional
Stability

TABLE 5. PRODUCT ION PROCESS DECISION M AT RIX.

Fig. 5. Production Process Decision Matrix

Fig. 5, gives better clarity. Purple colour of high pressure

die casting covers maximu m area, hence leading the segment.
E. Material Grade Selection:
Material Grade decision matrix helps in selecting Material
Grade to be used by cross -functional study between Process
Feasibility, Cost, Structural, Properties, Thermal, Properties,
and Availability [1].
Material Grade Selection matrix (Tab le 5) highlights the
applicability of LM 20 material due to excellent combination
of cost, structural and thermal characteristics. For high
pressure die casting process feasibility, all materials in the

25

International Journal of Mechanical Civil and Control Engineering

Vol. 1, Issue. 3, June 2015
ISSN (Online): 2394-8868
matrix are good, hence at same level in matrix. In terms o f
structural and thermal properties, LM 20 leads other grades.

LM 2
LM 6
LM 20
LM 24
LM 25

5
4
5
4
5

3
4
5
4
4

4
4
5
3
5

2
2
5
4
4

4
4
4
4
5

Sum

Availability

Thermal
Properties

Structural
Properties

Cost

Process
Feasibility

TABLE 6. M AT ERIAL GRADE DECISION M AT RIX.

18
18
24
19
23

Fig. 6. Material Grade / Composition Decision Matrix.

Fig. 6, gives better clarity. Red colour of LM 20 covers

maximu m area, hence leading the segment.

Acknowledgment
I am beholden to my co-author /mentor /guide Prof. C. S.
Choudhari fro m AISSMS Co llege of Engineering, Pune for
his valuable Suggestions. I am sincerely gratefu l to him for
sharing truthful and illu minating views on number of issues
related to the project. I am using this opportunity to express
my grat itude to all staff and Head of mechanical engineering
department of AISSMS College of Engineering, Pune for
their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticism
and friendly advice during the project work.
REFERENCES
[1]. Sohan Sontakke and Pankaj Kumar, Design and Development of
Electronic Control Unit Casing of Electric Hybrid Transmission
System Presented at SIAT 2015, SAE paper no. 2015-26-0120.
[2]. V. Krishnan and Karl T . Ulrich, Product Development Decisions:
A Review of the Literature

26