Faculty of Engineering Technology

Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

OPTIMIZATION OF TYPICAL AIRPORT TROLLEY STRUCTURE

FOR WEIGHT REDUCTION USING TAGUCHI ORTHOGONAL
ARRAY
Mohd Siddiq1, Ashari Kasmin2, Dalila M Harun3
123
Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia

E-mail: 1msiddiq.aaziz@gmail.com, 2asyari@uthm.edu.my, 3dalila@uthm.edu.my

Abstract
Trolley is a vehicle that has wheel to carry load. There has typical airport trolley that use for
deliver luggage if have operation failure or malfunction at the conveyor system. The size is
large because to support more amount of luggage and it can support load until 1000kg while
the handling is by pushing manually. However, handling it is difficult because the weight of
the structure is heavy and load is applied at the same time. In this study, the authors attempt to
optimize the typical airport trolley structure to reduce the structure weight by application of
Taguchi orthogonal array while the minimum Factor of Safety (FOS) is considered in range 1.2
– 1.5. Taking into account the thickness are main factor of the weight and the structure is
divided into 5 part which are Part A, B, C, D & E, then an orthogonal array L-18(35) is generated.
The static analysis has been conducted and the result is analyse by observation, ranking and
graphical method to identified the optimal design parameter. Found in this study, Part E is
strongly effect the Min FOS and model that using a second level of thickness at Part E will
result in good range of Min FOS. The modelling process of optimal typical airport trolley is
using specification base on the optimal design parameter. Objective of this study can be
achieved where the weight of typical airport trolley can be reduce by 9.1kg and the factor and
level is identified.

Keywords: Trolley, Weight reduction, CAE, Orthogonal array L18.

1.0 Introduction

Trolley is the type of vehicle that has wheels to carry load or things. Usually trolley move by
pushing manually or by using motor powered. There has a typical airport trolley that use for deliver
luggage if have operation failure or malfunction at the conveyor system. This conveyor system
operates automatically but if failure or malfunction, the system has can’t deliver luggage to the
passenger. So the typical airport trolley is use to deliver luggage. The Figure 1 below is a typical
airport trolley that use in airport industry. The characteristic of the structure size that used in airport
is 1.9m x 1.2m x 1.65m. The size is large because to support more amount of luggage until 1000kg
and the handling is using human manually.

Figure 1: Typical airport trolley.

Source: (Mohammad Zulhelmi, 2015)

1
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

The problem is structure of typical airport trolley weight is heavy and if load applied at the
same time, then the total weights become heavier and cause difficulty during handling and moving
the trolley. If the structure of typical airport trolley is more light, the trolley become easier to handle
and moving the trolley. Based on previous project, the project has conducted research on weight
reduction optimization of a typical airport trolley structure design [1]. The method that it used to
optimize and reduce the weight of the trolley is using try and error while the optimization process
is too much part that need to analysis and each part should be test accordance optimum level of
thickness using try and error. However if the optimization process is using additional method, the
process optimization is more systematic and accurate.
In this study, the optimization process is more systematic because the optimization process
is using additional method to facilitate this study. This study is using Taguchi orthogonal array to
consider selected subset of combinations of multiple factors at multiple levels for typical airport
trolley in addition to find the new optimal design that more light for easy to handle the trolley. The
objective of this project is to identify factors that can be controlled of weight typical airport trolley
and to identify level of factor for experiment. Secondly is to optimize and reduce weight of typical
airport trolley using orthogonal array based on Min FOS.

2.0 Literature review

2.1 Structure optimization

Structural optimization process is one application of optimization. The purpose is to find the
optimal structure and common functions to minimize are the mass. This problem is most often
subject to some constraints (force). This optimization is traditionally done manually using an
iterative-intuitive process that roughly consists of the following steps [2]. First a design is suggested
and second the requirement of the design is evaluated, for example by a Finite Element Analysis
(FEA). If the requirements are fulfilled, the optimization process is finished. Else, modifications
are made, a new improved design is proposed and step one and two are repeated. The problem of
structural optimization can be separated in three different areas such as sizing optimization, shape
optimization and topology optimization [3]. The sizing optimization is the simplest form of
structural optimization. The shape of the structure is known and the objective is to optimize the
structure by adjusting sizes of the components.

2.2 Finite Element Analysis

FEA is a computerized method for predicting how a product reacts to real forces and other
physical effects. FEA shows whether a product will break, wear out, or work the way it was
designed. It is called analysis, but in the product development process, it is used to predict what
happen when the product is used. The element analysis works by breaking down a real object into
a large number of finite elements, such as little cubes. Mathematical equations help predict the
behaviour of each element. A computer then adds up all the individual behaviours to predict the
behaviour of the actual object [4].

2.3 Solidworks

Solidworks is a solid modelling that have computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided
engineering (CAE) at one software. CAD is the use of computer systems or workstations to aid in
the creation, modification, analysis, or optimization of a design [5]. This CAD is made for designers
to improve the quality of design and also improve their productivity. CAE is to aid in engineering
tasks and analysis where CAE also include FEA for solving problem of engineering. This software
is for testing characteristic such as material, strength, fatigue and other using engineering methods.

2
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

2.4 Factor of Safety

The factor safety is part of the aspects to be taken into during the design process. The
selection of the safety must be made according to the application or equipment itself. As is known,
the Min FOS on all design is equal to one. Factors safety in the design are often published in
technical standards but there are no specific standards for this analysis and notice that for equipment
such as cranes and vessel, pressure factor safety is specified in the design code. Table 1 below is
list of factor safety based on application [6].
Table 1: List of factor safety based on application.
Application Factor Safety
Used with materials highly reliable where load
and environmental conditions are not severe
1.2 – 1.5
and where weight is an important
consideration.
Used with a trusted materials in which the load
1.5 – 2
and environmental conditions are not severe.
Is used with ordinary materials where the load
2 – 2.5
and environmental conditions are not severe.
Used for brittle materials where the load and
2.5 – 3
environmental conditions are not severe.
Used with materials where the properties
cannot be trusted and where loading and
environmental conditions are not severe, or in 3–4
which materials are believed to be used in a
difficult situation and the environment.

2.5 Orthogonal array

When optimizing process conditions to obtain systematic way, it is necessary to carry out
several steps. First, factors or conditions have to be selected, which predominantly affect the process
results. These selected factors are divided into several levels, and all combinations are usually taken
into account. In this case, the number of all possible combinations corresponds to the number of
needed experiments. Here, orthogonal arrays make it possible to carry out fractional factorial
experiments in order to avoid numerous experimental works as well as to provide shortcuts for
optimizing factors. The orthogonal arrays are determined by the number of factors and levels
considered in the process. They are usually described in the form LA (BC), where A denotes the
number of fractional experiments, B is the number of levels, and C is the number of factors. The
number 2 or 3 is usually selected for the levels [7].

2.6 Previous study

Previous researcher from Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia has run a study about weight
reduction optimization of a baggage trolley structure design [1]. The optimization process is for
improving function and reducing the overall weight of a design. Static analysis is carried out first
to know reaction displacement imposed of the load on the design and then six designs have been
made with different thickness on difference part. Then static analysis is conducted using Solidworks
software of all design and the result is compare with default design. The model that has a
displacement nearest and lowest overall weight compared to default design is selected for
optimization process. By this process the result optimization successful to find optimal thickness
and weight of the luggage trolley design.

3
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

3.0 Methodology

The main step is to create a flow chart showing the method that used throughout the study.
Taguchi orthogonal array is method that helps this analysis to consider a selected subset based on
combination of multiple factors at multiple levels. The static analysis are conducted using a selected
subset of orthogonal array, and the result is determine based on the required range of factor safety
and the lighter weight. The optimum design parameter is selected for the optimal structure model.
Figure 3 shows the flowchart of this study.

3.1 Structure modelling

Structure modelling is the process of model the existing design of typical airport trolley to
the CAD form using Solidworks software. The structure model is model based on original
dimension of typical airport trolley structure where the size is 1.9m length, 1.2m width and 1.65m
height. Weldment feature is used to ease modelling and analyse in Solidworks software as shown
at Figure 4 below.

Start End

Yes
Structure modelling
Lighter than
Identify factor and original weight
level
No

Modelling optimize
Designing experiment
structure

Find optimal design

Static analysis
parameter

Figure 3: Project flowchart. Figure 4: Structure model of typical

trolley in Solidworks.

3.2 Identify factor and level

In this study, the output is to reduce weight of trolley structure and the factor that effect the
weight is the structure itself. The input factor that can be controlled with the structure is the size
and thickness of the tube of structure. But the size of tube structure cannot be change because it will
affect the actual size of structure. So the size of the tube is eliminated and it is define as
uncontrollable input factor while the plate and wheel support also define as uncontrollable input
factor. The structure have five part that difference size and each size have difference thickness.
Therefore, the tube is divided into five part based on the size as shown as Figure 5 below.

4
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

Figure 5: List of part of typical airport trolley.

The level value of thickness is taken from the standard thickness of Weldment in
Solidworks software. Three level is chosen for this study, the original thickness of the structure
trolley is the mid-level while two more level is less and greater than the original thickness. Table 2
shows the table of factor and level for this study.

3.3 Designing experiment

This study consist of five factor and three level and L-18 is the closest suitable orthogonal
array since it accommodates the factor level combination for this study. Table 3 shows the factor
are assigned to the columns of the array, and the integers are refer to the different levels the factor
can take. Each row at the table corresponds to a particular experiment while this study consist five
factor therefore the unassigned columns can be deleted form the array.
Table 2: Factor and level for this study.

Factor / Thickness
No. Size
Parameters Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1 Part A 38x38 2.0 2.3 3.0
2 Part B 38x38 1.2 1.6 2.0
3 Part C 38x75 2.0 2.3 3.0
4 Part D 25x25 1.0 1.2 1.6
5 Part E 25x25 1.0 1.2 1.6

5
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

Table 3: Experiment design for an L-18 orthogonal array.

Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E
Run A B C D E
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 2 2 2
3 1 1 3 3 3
4 1 2 1 1 2
5 1 2 2 2 3
6 1 2 3 3 1
7 1 3 1 2 1
8 1 3 2 3 2
9 1 3 3 1 3
10 2 1 1 3 3
11 2 1 2 1 1
12 2 1 3 2 2
13 2 2 1 2 3
14 2 2 2 3 1
15 2 2 3 1 2
16 2 3 1 3 2
17 2 3 2 1 3
18 2 3 3 2 1

3.4 Static analysis

The experiment in this study is using Solidworks software to performed static analysis to the
structure. The configuration of the experiment should be the same to all 18 model. All connection
of part of the trolley is define as bonded. It make the experiment lot easier because all touching
faces are bonded and the assembly behaves as one part. For fixture geometry, all model structure is
located at wheel base while the force is distributed at the plate face with load 9810N (1000kg).
Figure 6 below shows the fixture geometry and force distribution applied at all 18 model.

Figure 6: Distributed load and fixture geometry applied.

3.5 Find optimal design parameter

Based on the orthogonal array (Table 3), the all 18 model with difference design parameter
will run static analysis and the result is compared with the Min FOS and the overall weight.
Therefore the optimum design parameter for typical airport trolley model is determine from the
result by three method which are observation, ranking and graphical method. Design parameter that
determine by three method is taken for optimal design parameter. The optimal structure model of

6
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

typical airport trolley is model by the chosen design parameter and it is compared with the original
model.

4.0 Results and discussions

Table 4: Result of static analysis.

Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E
Run A B C D E Min FOS Weight (kg)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1.091 130.500
2 1 1 2 2 2 1.276 135.797
3 1 1 3 3 3 1.616 147.128
4 1 2 1 1 2 1.275 134.099
5 1 2 2 2 3 1.615 140.271
6 1 2 3 3 1 1.091 147.078
7 1 3 1 2 1 1.093 137.186
8 1 3 2 3 2 1.273 143.809
9 1 3 3 1 3 1.611 148.292
10 2 1 1 3 3 1.621 139.394
11 2 1 2 1 1 1.090 135.521
12 2 1 3 2 2 1.274 144.651
13 2 2 1 2 3 1.619 139.344
14 2 2 2 3 1 1.090 142.318
15 2 2 3 1 2 1.274 145.926
16 2 3 1 3 2 1.278 142.882
17 2 3 2 1 3 1.615 143.532
18 2 3 3 2 1 1.089 149.014
Following is the result of static analysis that performed on all 18 model. Each model is run
by using the same configuration to get reasonable result. The Min FOS and weight of each static
analysis collected and compared the result. The rate of Min FOS on a scale 1.2 until 1.5 is a normal
value while the scale below than 1.2 is failed because it is below than the minimum value required
and scale above 1.5 is called overdesign because the design is exceeds the Min FOS standard.
Therefore to determine the optimum design parameter, the result is analysed with
observation, ranking and graphical method. The observation method is the simplest analysis that
can perform by looking the output result while the ranking method is analysis to measure the
affected factor and graphical method is analysis for measure the interaction between factors.

4.1 Observation method

The observation method is the simplest method that can performed. The Table 4 is the result
of static analysis and the result is compared by Min FOS value. The required and normal value of
Min FOS for this study is between 1.2 until 1.5 while the below and above of that value is neglected.
Looking at the Min FOS data, it appears that design parameter or run number 2, 4, 8, 12, 15 and 16
are the best because it in good range of Min FOS but it has difference value of weight. On the
analysis, we see that these 6 model have difference level for Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D.
Therefore, the likelihood that this part does not affect the Min FOS but there has one column are at
the same level. On the observation, column E which is Part E are at the same level and it in the best
configuration. Therefore the likelihood that these particular level of this part is in good range of
Min FOS.

7
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

4.2 Ranking method

The ranking method is analysis to measure the affected factor. The static analysis result is re-
organize in ascending order base on Min FOS result as shown at Table 5. From the re-organized
result, Parameter E which is Part E clearly has strong effect on the Min FOS result. Base on the 6
best design parameter, all is used the second level of thickness while the outrange value of Min
FOS is used the first and third level of thickness. From the observation, it may conclude that, using
a second level of thickness at Part E will result in good range of Min FOS.
Table 5: Result of static analysis sort by Min FOS in ascending.
Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E
Run A B C D E Min FOS Weight (kg)
18 2 3 3 2 1 1.089 149.014
11 2 1 2 1 1 1.090 135.521
14 2 2 2 3 1 1.090 142.318
1 1 1 1 1 1 1.091 130.500
6 1 2 3 3 1 1.091 147.078
7 1 3 1 2 1 1.093 137.186
8 1 3 2 3 2 1.273 143.809
12 2 1 3 2 2 1.274 144.651
15 2 2 3 1 2 1.274 145.926
4 1 2 1 1 2 1.275 134.099
2 1 1 2 2 2 1.276 135.797
16 2 3 1 3 2 1.278 142.882
9 1 3 3 1 3 1.611 148.292
5 1 2 2 2 3 1.615 140.271
17 2 3 2 1 3 1.615 143.532
3 1 1 3 3 3 1.616 147.128
13 2 2 1 2 3 1.619 139.344
10 2 1 1 3 3 1.621 139.394
The observations of the ranking method can usually be identified by using first order
statistical data – statistics about each parameter, without considering interaction affects. We call
this the main effect due to a factor X, or ME(X) refer to factor Part E. The easiest ME’s we can
compute are the mean values. Let’s denote ME1(X), ME2(X) and ME3(X) as the mean value of the
output when the factor X was at levels 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Thus:
• ME1(E) = (1.089 + 1.090 + 1.090 + 1.091 + 1.091 + 1.093) / 6 = 1.0906
• ME2(E) = (1.273 + 1.274 + 1.274 + 1.275 + 1.276 + 1.278) / 6 = 1.275
• ME3(E) = (1.611 + 1.615 + 1.615 + 1.616 + 1.619 + 1.621) / 6 = 1.6161
These are consistent with the conclusions above and also with the conclusions form the observation
method.

4.3 Graphical method

The graphical method analysis is for measure the interaction between factors. The graphical
method plots the ME’s and it the simplest case involves plotting the ME for each factor individually.
This yields practically to plot interaction of factor with output measure which are Min FOS. This
method compute the mean output for each combination of each factor. Then result of mean can plot
graph line with keep each factor constant and calculate the mean to generate graph of how the output
varies as the others changes.

8
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

Figure 7: Graphical method for mean analysis of experimental data.

1.63
1.58
1.53
1.48
1.43
Min FOS

1.38
1.33
1.28
1.23
1.18
1.13
1.08
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Part A 1.3267 1.3277
Part B 1.328 1.327 1.326
Part C 1.3295 1.3265 1.3258
Part D 1.326 1.3276 1.3281
Part E 1.0906 1.275 1.6161

Based on the mean values of each factor, the line graph in plotted to know how the output
varies as the others factor changes. This is shown in Figure 7. We got five plotted line which refer
as five factor. The figure shows the four line are nearly parallel, then the likelihood is high that
the four factors have little or no interaction at all and also it has no effect of Min FOS.
While the four line which is factor for Part A, B, C and D, with the blue line which is
factor for Part E, are not parallel. Then the Part A, B, C and D have interaction with Part E. Part
A, B, C and D has no effect but Part E are strongly effect the Min FOS. From the graph, it may
conclude that, the Part E is very important factor that may affect the value of Min FOS.

5.0 Conclusion and recommendation

Based on result of observation, ranking and graph method, the Part E is strongly effect the
Min FOS while the other part are not affect at all. The model that using a second level of thickness
at Part E will result in good range of Min FOS while the first and third level will result outrange
value. With above statement, the Part A, B, C and D will use the low level thickness for the optimal
structure because this factor are not affect the value of Min FOS. While Part E are using second
level of thickness. This is shown in Table 6. The modelling process of optimal typical airport trolley
is using specification base on Table 7 and the modelling process are using Solidworks software.
Figure 8 below show optimum typical airport trolley.
Table 6: Design parameter for factor and level of optimal typical airport trolley.
Factor /
No. Size Thickness
Parameters
1 Part A 38x38 2.0
2 Part B 38x38 1.2
3 Part C 38x75 2.0
4 Part D 25x25 1.0
5 Part E 25x25 1.2

9
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

Figure 7: Comparison of specification typical airport trolley and of optimal typical airport trolley.
Size Thickness Thickness
No. Part Orientation
(mm) Before (mm) After (mm)
1 Part A 38x38 2.3 2.0 Square
2 38x38 1.6 1.2 Square
Part B
3 38x38 1.6 1.2 Square
4 38x75 2.3 2.0 Rectangular
Part C
5 38x75 2.3 2.0 Rectangular
6 25x25 1.2 1.0 Square
Part D
7 25x25 1.2 1.0 Square
8 25x25 1.2 1.2 Square
Part E
9 25x25 1.2 1.2 Square

Figure 8: Structure model of optimal typical airport trolley in Solidworks.

The structure of optimal typical airport trolley is not see the difference because only the
thickness of structure is change. The conclusion is, after conducting this study, the important factor
already known with three method that to determine the optimal design parameter. Part E is strongly
effect the Min FOS the model that using a second level of thickness at Part E will result in good
range of Min FOS. Therefore the optimal structure is already know and the modelling process can
be done. Objective of this study can be achieved where the weight of typical airport trolley can be
reduce by 9.1kg and the factor and level is identified.

10
 Faculty of Engineering Technology
Semester 02, Session 2017/ 2018

Acknowledgement

Alhamdulillah, thanks to ALLAH, with His willing I could complete the project of
Optimization of Typical airport trolley Structure for Weight Reduction Using Taguchi orthogonal
array and this project were undertaken by supervisor, Mr. Ashari Bin Kasmin. I am grateful to have
a supervisor in tactful and comprehensive supervision. I would like to express sincere appreciation
to the co-supervisor, Mrs. Dalila Binti Mohd Harun for the support given throughout the duration
for this project. Last but not least, appreciation also goes to everyone involved directly or indirectly
towards the compilation of this project.

References
[1] Mohamad Zulhelmi bin Zakaria, (2015), Weight Reduction Optimization of a Baggage Trolley Structure
Design.

[2] A.Olason, D.Tidman, (2010), Methology for Topology and Shape Optimization in the Design Process,
Master’s thesis, Chalmers University of Technology.

[3] A.Klarbring, P.W.Christen, (2009), An introduction to structural Optimization, Solid Mechanics and its
Application, Springer Science + Bossiness Media B.V.

[4] S.S.Rao, (2004), The Finite Element Method In Engineering, 4th Edition, Elsevier Science & Technology
Books.

[5] Narayan, K. Lalit (2008), Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing.

[6] The Engineering Toolbox, (2008), Factor of Safety.

Reached from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/factor-safety-fos

[7] Kai Yang and Basem El-Haik, (2003), Taguchi's Orthogonal Array Experiment, in Taguchi’s
Orthogonal Array Experiment, McGraw-Hill, pp. 425.

11