INTRODUCTION

Product design is an integral part of the wider process of developing new and existing products of every type. The product design process should ideally dovetail with every part of the wider development process, but typically it is much more involved at the beginning of the process than at the end. The issue in context here is a sauce pan which has a multifunctional purpose. Just about every household has at least one frying pan (Novosat, 2006). This is a traditional cooking item that has helped many families create any number of meals throughout recent history. This accessible necessity of the culinary world has been around for quite some time. Even people who claim that they can't boil water have delved into creating interesting dishes by using a frying pan (Novosat, 2006). The aim of this report is to guide the reader through the product development process, 3D digital design and analysis of the case study. The aim of this report will be achieved through the following objectives: Identification of customers needs Writing a product specification Create a selection matrix and rate concepts Create a 3D model of the selected design with the use of Solidworks Validate design of the problem identified from the customer needs required to fulfil the design specification.

BACKGROUND STUDY
Mission Statement: Multifunctional cookware utensil for any contemporary home. Product Description: A quality saucepan that can be used as a frying pan, skillet, wok, saut, paella pan, roasting pan and stockpot. Key Business Goals: Cutting edge cookware technology in Europe Specialise in easy to use, easy care cookware for any contemporary home Save manufacturing cost for effective mass production Serve as a home brand name of cookwares in Europe

Primary Market: Mid-level restaurants Contemporary homes Hotels Capture 50% of cookware utensil sales in primary market

Secondary Market:

Students Campers Small restaurants

Assumptions and Constraints: Virtually unbreakable Light weight Corrosion free Reasonable volume Energy efficient

Stakeholders: Purchasers and users Distributors and resellers Manufacturing operations

IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS
One on one interviews were conducted on colleagues and friends to gather and identify the various needs of the product which was supplemented with a focus group intended for sharing a common customer experience. Table1 shows a customer data template filled in with the customer statement and interpreted needs. Customer: Address: Telephone: Willing to do follow-up? Question/prompt TYPICAL USES Customer Statement I need to use my pan to cook various dishes. I sometimes want the pan to heat faster to reduce my cooking time. I need to know its non toxic. I need to save time washing the pan. I sometimes cook for a large group. Interviewer: Date: Currently uses: Type of user: Interpreted Need The Saucepan is a multipurpose cookware. The Saucepan has excellent heat conduction enabling frying at low heat. The Saucepan is non-toxic. The Saucepan is an easy to clean, easy care cookware. The Saucepan allows the user to cook reasonable volume.

LIKESCURRENT PRODUCT

The handle grip is good. I like that the handle does not adsorb heat. I like the non-stick surface.

The Saucepan handle is comfortable to grip. The Saucepan handle has good insulation. The Saucepan allows the user use minimal cooking oil for a healthier diet. The Saucepan has a top quality non-stick surface. Wont blister, crack or peel. The Saucepan handle is strong enough to withstand the weight. The Saucepan weight is optimized. Less weight. The Saucepan has excellent heat conduction enabling frying at low heat. The Saucepan is oven proof. The saucepan is provided with a lid.

DISLIKES CURRENT PRODUCT

I dont it like it when the non-stick cracks or peel.

I dont like it when the handle feels loose.

I dont like it when it weighs so much. I dont like it when it takes so much time to heat up. Would be nice if I could use it in an oven to SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT save me time. Would be nice if it has a lid to allow me steam food. Table 1

Based on the raw data gathered from customers through the individual and group interview as shown above a hierarchical list of both primary and secondary customer needs for the saucepan is shown below in Table 2. Importance ratings for the needs are indicated with an asterisks (*) symbol. Needs with higher number of *** denotes a critically important need considered by customers. S/N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The Saucepan provides various cooking functions *** It can be used as a frying pan *** It can be used as a wok *** It can be used for deep frying *** It can be used as a saut pan ** It can be used as a food steamer *** The Saucepan is oven proof. The Saucepan lasts a long time *** The saucepan can survive repeated daily use. ** The saucepan resists corrosion when left in damp places. ** Its fine after repeated fall, do not deform easily

10 ** 11 The Saucepan is easy to clean 12 ***

The saucepan is virtually unbreakable. The saucepan wont blister, crack or peel. The saucepan can be cleaned easily. The saucepan does not have any internal rivets to accumulate bacteria. The Saucepan is dishwasher safe. The saucepan has a non-stick surface.

13 *** 14 *** 15 ** The Saucepan looks good 16 *** The Saucepan is presentable and portable 17 *** It will be available at the market. The saucepan is easy to handle 18 *** The size and shape will be suitable users. 19 *** The saucepan does not cut users hand. 20 *** The saucepan comes with a lid. 21 ** The base of the saucepan is flat. 22 *** The saucepan handle is insulated. 23 ** The saucepan weight is just right. 24 The Saucepan is easy to store 25 The Saucepan looks like a professional cookware 26 The Saucepan is energy efficient. The saucepan promotes healthy living The saucepan is ideal for those concerned about the 27 *** toxicity of traditional non-stick. The saucepan promotes fat free cooking. Great for a 28 ** healthy lifestyle or diet. Table 2: List of primary and secondary customer needs

SPECIFICATION
According to Ulrich and Eppinger (2003, p72) product specification is intended to mean the precise description of what the product has to do. The list of product specifications is one of the key information systems used by the team throughout the development process. The aim of a product specification is to ensure that the subsequent design and development of a product meets the needs of the user.

Metric No. 1 2

Need Nos. 23,25,26

Metric Total mass

Imp.

Units

Marginal Value <1.5 <320

Ideal Value <1.1 <300

5 Kg 4 mm

23,25,26 Maximum value for rim diameter

3 4 5 6

23,25,26 Maximum value for base diameter 23,25,26 Maximum height 23,25,26 Gauge

4 mm 4 mm 3 mm

<280 <54 <35

<260 <52 <33 80000 >5 >150 <142 >30 >5 >45

7,9,10 Fatigue life

4 CYCLES 70000- 80000 5 Subj. 4 5 GBP 4 YEARS 5 Subj. 3 mm >3 >150 <160 >30 >4 >40

7 11,15,27,28 Non-stick coating 8 9 10 11 12 26 Coefficient of heat transfer 17 Unit manufacturing cost 7,8,9,10 Time taken for deformation to occur 27 Reaction with food under heat 18,19,22 Maximum length of handle Stiffness at handle pivot (bending 18 strength) 16 Strength of material 16,25 Instils pride

13 14 15

3 KN 5 N 5 Subj.

>1 >5.5x107 >3

>1 >5.5x107 >5 Stainless steel <120 Good Good Good Good

16 17 18 19 20 21

3 Material for construction 12,13,14 Time taken to clean 16,19 Smooth surface finishes 1,2,3,4 Ergonomic assessment 23 Overall dimensions minimised 19 Protruding features/edges rounded Table 3: Product specification

5 Subj. 2 sec 4 Subj. 3 Subj. 3 Subj. 2 Subj.

Stainless steel <120 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Features on scale order of numerical weight of interest (1-5).These are used to access feature weight. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Do not like this product, though the feature is desirable. Like to have the product, even when the feature is not important. Good feature to have, but not necessary. Like a different product though feature is highly desired Excellent feature, dislike products not having this feature

CONCEPT GENERATION
According to Ulrich and Eppinger (2003, p98) a product concept is an approximate description of the technology, working principles, and form of the product. The concept generation process begins with a set of customer needs and target specifications and results in a set of product concepts from which the team will make a final selection (Ulrich and Eppinger 2003, p98).

Concept A: This concept has a light weight, good grip handle, good material as it is an excellent conductor of heat (copper cookware); material is attractive, its able to withstand some punishment. The users do not feel happy using it because copper tends to tarnish. Regardless of its light weight it requires extreme care as the user should be prepared to polish them every often, requires much maintenance.

Concept B: This concept has a light weight, good grip handle, made from aluminium, durable material (does not deform easily), no non-stick coating. It has reasonable volume. It requires little maintenance. Food tends to stick on the surface.

Concept C: This concept has a light weight, good grip handle, made from stainless steel that conducts heat very well, tough and durable material, does not rust, no non-stick coating. It requires little maintenance. Food tends to stick on its surface.

Concept D: This concept has a heavy weight, good grip handle, good heat conduction, good non-stick coating (food will not stick, superb frying qualities), trouble free cleaning, very scratch resistant, extra durable heavy gauge, has a lid, oven proof.

Concept E: This concept has a light weight, good grip handle, double handled, excellent heat conduction, good non-stick coating, dishwasher safe, easy to clean.

COMPARISON & BENCHMARKING

The purpose of this stage is to narrow the number of concepts quickly and to improve the concepts. After careful considerations the team chooses a concept to become the benchmark, or reference concept, against which all other concepts are rated.

A relative score of better than(+), same as(0), or worst than(-) is placed in each cell of the matrix to represent how each concept rates in comparison to the reference concept relative to the particular criterion.

Concepts Selection Criteria

Ease of handling Ease of care Volume of pan Ease of manufacture Rate of heat conduction Functionality A 0 0 + B 0 0 0 0 + C (Reference) 0 0 0 0 0 D + + 0 E + + + 0

Durability Sum +s Sum 0s Sum s Net score Rank Continue? 1 3 3 -2 4 No

1 5 1 0 3 No

0 7 0 0 3 No

5 1 2 3 2 Yes

5 1 1 4 1 Yes

Table 4: concept screening matrix It is deduced from the table that concept D is considered to be bulky and will need a minor modification in its weight reduction, although it has good handles it would limit it from being used in regular ovens and its lid would be difficult to lift if hands are slippery. Concept E is generally good but is degraded by one or two bad features. A combined and improved concept is added to the matrix and ranked along with the original concepts; this new concept will be concept F.

Fig.6 new and revised concept

The table below shows the concept scoring matrix developed by selecting the revised concepts (D, E) and the combined concept (F). This method uses a weighted sum of the ratings to determine concept ranking. While concept D serves as the overall reference concept. Concept D (Reference)
Selection criteria Ease of handling Ease of care Volume of pan Ease of manufacture Rate of heat conduction Functionality Durability weight
10%

E
Rating
4

F
Rating
4

Rating
3

Weighting score
0.30

Weighting score
0.40

Weighting score
0.40

15% 5%

3 3

0.45 0.15

3 4

0.45 0.20

4 4

0.60 0.20

20%

0.60

0.80

0.80

20%

0.60

0.60

0.80

25% 5% Total score Rank Continue?

3 3 2.7 3

0.30 0.30

2 3 2.95 2

0.20 0.30

5 3 3.6 1

0.50 0.30

No

No

Develop

Table 5: concept scoring matrix

3D DESIGN
Analysis from the breakdown and survey gathered from the customer needs above including the product specification, range of concepts and concept selection benchmark has shown concept F emerge as the final design concept. The 3D model of the selected design was designed with Solidworks. Rendered image and engineering drawing showing the product in perspective are attached.

DESIGN VALIDATION
A comprehensive analysis of the product was analysed under several load scenarios. The material used for the design was AISI 347 annealed stainless steel. Resistivity to corrosion, good thermal conductivity and high tensile strength were some of the factors that led to the choice. Solidworks simulation tool was used in the design validation process. Areas of concern where to optimise the design with the lowest possible weight, temperatures in the design, if the design can last many load and unload cycles and concerned if the design handle may yield or break. Static and temperature studies where run on the model although a drop-test and fatigue study would have been included but due to the limitation of the software the studies were done on static and temperature. The model was tested for a maximum force of 5N and temperature of various ranges between 2200C to5000C. Constraints were applied on the handles and base of the pan also temperature was applied at the base of the pan too.

Fig. 7 heat conduction within the body

Fig.8 static nodal stress at 3000C

Fig.9 Static nodal stress at 5000C Results obtained shows that the material has a good thermal conductivity. When the stress levels were compared between 2200C to 4500C there were no significant stress distortions till above 5000C where by significant distortions where noticed at the base of the pan although it did not affect other areas. In pursuit of a reduced weight design the gauge of the pan can be reduced with confidence that the design would not fail. Considering the validation process trade-offs between desired performance characteristics are taken (Ulrich and Eppinger, 2003)

Estimate the manufacturing costs Reduce the costs of components Reduce the costs of assembly Reduce the costs of supporting production

This method aids to determine at a general level which aspects of the design components, assembly, or support are most costly.

CONCLUSION
Findings from this report as identified from the customers needs shows an important concern for a healthy lifestyle or diet which could be achieved from fat free cooking. This traditional cooking item which has been modified will enhance and promote a healthy lifestyle. Information obtained from customers was helpful in generating the concepts, the specification of the product and selection matrix. The static and temperature study done on the model to validate the design shows the quality of the design withstanding more than an operating temperature of 4500C without cracking or peeling and will retain their shape making it safe to be used in an oven, it is energy efficient using a combination of induction cooking and the excellent conductivity in the pan base, welded moulded handles to minimise heat absorption.

REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPY

Novosat, D. (2006) Frying Pans [Online]. Available at: http://ezinearticles.com/?FryingPans&id=248178 (Accessed on: 12/04/10) Ulrich, K.T. & Eppinger, S.D. (2003) Product Design and Development. 3rd edn. Singapore; McGraw-Hill/Irwin