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:
Phase II:
Phase III:
Phase IV:
Phase V:
Phase VI:
Phase VII:

Conceptual Design
Embodiment Design
Detail Design
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

Product
architecture
Arrangement of
physical elements
to carry out
function

Gather
information

Concept
generation

Evaluation of
concept

Internet
Patents
Trade literature

Brainstorming
Functional
decomposition

Decision matrices

Configuration
design

Parametric
design

Detail design

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

Embodiment Design

Robust design
Tolerances
Final dimension
DFM

Detailed drawings
and specifications

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

Concept Generation
and Evaluation

Concept Generation

Evaluation

Problem decomposition

Absolute criteria

Explore fore ideas

Go-no-go screening

External
to team

Internal
to team
Brainstorming

Explore systematically
Morphological chart

Relative criteria
Pugh concept selection
Decision matrix
Analytical hierarchy process

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

Many possible solutions

Analytical process

Nonjudgmental

Movement is made in a
sequential, rule-based manner

Movement is made in a more

random pattern

If a positive decision cannot be

made at a step, progress stop

If a positive decision cannot be

made at a step, thinking jump

Follow most likely decision path

Follows all paths

Deals only with reality as

science know it today

Can create its own reality

Classification and label are rigid

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

Creativity Methods

Mental Block

Perceptual blocks

Stereotyping
Information overload
Limiting the problem
unnecessarily

Cultural blocks
Environmental blocks

Emotional blocks
Fear

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

Intellectual blocks

Brainstorming
Four
1.
2.
3.
4.

fundamental brainstorming principles

Criticism is not allowed.

Ideas brought forth should be picked up by
other people present.
Participants should divulge all ideas entering
their minds without any constraint.
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.

Weight of moving object

11.

2.

Weight of nonmoving object

12.

3.

Length of moving object

13.

4.

Length of nonmoving object

5.

Area of moving object

6.

Area of nonmoving object

7.

Volume of moving object

17.

8.

Volume of nonmoving object

18.

9.

Speed

19.

10.

Force

14.
15.
16.

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 90 o.
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

Parameter number

Inventive principle used

Force

10

13, 28, 15, 19

Durability

15

8, 3, 26, 14

Temperature

17

28, 30, 36, 2

Energy

19

8, 15, 35, 38

Loss of matter

23

10, 13, 28, 38

Quantity of substance

26

10, 19, 29, 38

Improving energy
Degrade parameter

Parameter number

Inventive principle used

Convenient to use

35

28, 35, 30

Loss of time

25

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 cha
nge 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 main
contradiction

Formulate ideal
solution

Method of elimination
of
Physical contradiction

SOLUTION

NO SOLUTION

Knowledge base
of effects

Formulate initial
physical contradiction

Analysis of conflict
domain & resource

Reformulation of
problem statement

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

Rim
1.
2.

Wheels

Spokes

Brakes

Gears

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

Input

Function

Other effects

Output

Nozzle

Fluid flow

Increase velocity of
fluid

Decrease pressure
of fluid

Fluid flow

Motor

Electrical
energy

Convert electrical
energy to rotating
mechanical energy

Thermal energy
generated

Rotating
mechanical
energy

Switch

Mechanical Separate or joint

energy
contact

Flow of electricity
enabled or stopped

Position of
contact moved

Gear

Rotating
Change speed of
Mechanical rotation
energy

Change direction of
rotation

Rotating
Mechanical
energy

Flow of electricity
enabled or stopped

Position of
contact moved

Room
Flow of
thermostat room air

Separate or joint
contact

Wrench

Increase magnitude
of force or torque

Energy

Energy

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

1.0 Open case

1.1 Hold and
grip case

Flat box

Groove box

1.2 Disengage
lock

Friction lock

Inclined plane Magnetic lock Clamp lock

lock

1.3 Expose CD Conventional

hinge

Curved box

One-piece
flex plastic
hinge

Slide-out, like
match box

Lift/lock
device

Padded
cradle

2.0 Extract CD
2.1 Disengage
from securing
system

Conventional
Rosetta

2.2 Grasp CD
and remove

Hand

Case with
handle

Tilt like
shampoo
bottle top

Rubber grip
strips
Clicking hinge
lock

Example CD case
Concept
Subfunction

3.0 Extract leaflet

3.1 Disengage
from securing
system

Tabs

Holding slot

3.2 Remove leaflet Hand

4.0 Replace CD
4.1 Place CD in
securing system

Hand

4.2 Engage
securing system

2-finger push Whole hand

Velcro straps Tab that

swivels

No securing
system

Example CD case
Concept
Subfunction

5.0 Replace leaflet

5.1 Place leaflet in Slide into
securing system
position
5.2 Engage
securing system

Lay in
position

Slide under
Swivel tabs
tabs or in slot

Attach Velcro

Friction
surfaces

Put magnet
together

Slide platen
into position

Put on table

Put on
another CD

Put in special
CD holder

6.0 Close case

6.1 Engage lock
7.0 Store case
7.1 Place case in
desired location

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

Design
Parameters

FR1

DP1

FR2

DP2

FR3

DP3
DP4

Hierarchy of FRs for a metal cutting lathe

Metal
removal
device

Power
supply

Workpiece
rotation
source

Speedchanging
device

Tool
holder

Longitudinal
clamp

Rotation
stop

Workpiece
support and
toolholder

Positioner

Tool
holder

Support
structure

Support
structure

Tool
positioner

Hierarchy of lathe design in physical domain

Lathe

Motor
drive

Head
stock

Clamp

Handle

Gear
box

Tailstock

Spindle
assembly

Feed
screw

Bolt

Pin

Bed

Frame

Tapered
bore

Carriage

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.

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 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.

Corollary 7:

Uncoupled design with less information

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)
b)
c)

It is not feasible? Next question is Why is it not

feasible?
It is conditional it might work if something else
happen?
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
Concept
1

Concept
2

Concept
3

Concept
4

Concept
5

Mfg. cost

Easier opening

Easier to remove
leaflet

Easier to remove CD

Hinge doesnt come

apart

Criterion

Stacking stability

More secure locking

Fits hand better

Std. CD
case

D
A
T
U
M

Measurement Scales
Pairwise Comparison method

Assume 5 design objectives to be compared

Design objectives

Row
total

1
10

Weighted Decision Matrix

11-point scale

Description

Totally useless solution

Very inadequate solution

Weak solution

Poor solution

Tolerable solution

Satisfactory solution

Good solution with a few drawback

Good solution

Very good solution

Excellent (exceed the requirement)

10

Ideal solution

5-point scale

Description

Inadequate solution

Weak

Satisfactory

Good

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

Quality in service
O12=0.4

Cost
O11=0.6

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

Built-up plates welded

Built-up plates riveted

Mag.

Score

Rating

Mag.

Score

Rating

Mag.

Score

Rating

/lb

60

1.44

60

1.44

50

1.62

0.60

2500

2.1

2200

2.70

3000

1.20

Reparability

0.12

Exp

Good

0.84

Excell.

1.08

Fair

0.60

Durability

0.24

Exp.

High

1.92

High

1.92

Good

1.44

Reliability

0.12

Exp.

Good

0.84

Excell.

1.08

Fair

0.60

Time to
produce

0.04

Hr.

40

0.28

25

0.36

60

0.20

Design
criterion

Weight
factors

Unit

Material cost

0.18

Mfg. cost

7.42

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

8.58

Cast steel hook

5.66

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

Built-up plates,
welded steel

Durability

Built-up steel
plates, riveted

Reliability

Cast steel

Hierarchical structure of a crane hook design

Time to
produce

Saatys fundamental scale for pairwise comparison

Intensity of
importance

Definition

Description

Equal importance

Two activities contribute equally to

the objective

Moderate importance

Judgment and experience slightly

favor one activity over another

Strong importance

Judgment and experience strongly

favor one activity over another

Very strong

An activity is favored very strongly

over another

Extreme importance

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

Durability

Reliability

Time to
produce

Material cost

1/5

1/5

Manufacturing
cost

1/3

1/7

1/5

1/3

Durability

1/3

Reliability

1/3

1/3

1/3

Time to
produce

1/7

1/7

1/5

1/7

1/7

Total

11.8

2.14

19.2

4.87

10.47

34

Reparability

Normalized values for square matrix

Material cost Manufacturing Reparability
cost

Durability

Reliability

Time to
produce

Material cost

0.085

0.424

0.028

0.424

0.028

0.012

Manufacturing
cost

0.093

0.467

0.065

0.154

0.154

0.065

Reparability

0.156

0.364

0.052

0.260

0.156

0.010

Durability

0.041

0.616

0.041

0.205

0.068

0.029

Reliability

0.286

0.286

0.031

0.286

0.095

0.013

Time to
produce

0.206

0.206

0.147

0.206

0.206

0.029

Total

0.867

2.363

0.364

1.535

0.707

0.158

Weighting
factor (AVG)

0.144

0.394

0.061

0.256

0.118

0.026

Now construct the decision matrix using previous values given.

Manufacturing cost

Built-up welded plates

Built-up riveted plates

Cast

2500

2200

3000

$/crane hook

400

454

333

Reciprocal x 10-6

0.34

0.38

0.28

Fraction of total

Reparability

Built-up welded
plates

Built-up riveted
plates

Cast

10

Ranking

0.35

0.59

0.06

Fraction of total

Durability

Welded plate

Riveted plate

Cast

Total

Rating (Avg.)

Welded plate

1.00

0.23

1/3

0.22

3.00

0.33

0.78

0.26

Riveted plate

3.00

0.69

1.00

0.65

5.00

0.56

1.90

0.63

Cast

1/3

0.08

1/5

0.13

1.00

0.11

0.32

0.11

Total

4.33

1.00

1.53

1.00

9.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

Final Decision Matrix for the Crane Hook Problem

Design
criterion

Weight
factor

Welded
plate

Riveted
plate

Cast

Welded
plate

Riveted
plate

Cast

Material cost

0.14

0.31

0.31

0.38

0.043

0.043

0.053

Manufacturing
cost

0.39

0.34

0.38

0.28

0.133

0.148

0.109

Reparability

0.06

0.35

0.59

0.06

0.021

0.035

0.004

Durability

0.25

0.26

0.63

0.11

0.065

0.157

0.027

Reliability

0.12

0.33

0.43

0.24

0.040

0.052

0.029

Time to
produce

0.03

0.31

0.49

0.20

0.008

0.013

0.005

Total

1.00

0.31

0.45

0.23

Then riveted plate is the most appropriate alternative for this design