Textoguia

gico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey Instituto Tecnolo Campus Toluca
Product design:
techniques for reliability, robustness and optimization
Class Notes Carlos Miranda V. Dr. Jose
v. January 2008
Copyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.
Preface
It is widely recognized that to develop successful products, systems or services it is extremely important to follow a structured product development process. Although each company follows a process tailored to its specic needs, in general the start of a product development process is the mission statement for the product. It identies the target markets for the product, provides a basic functional description of the product, and species the key business goals of the eort. The end of the development eort occurs when the product is launched and becomes available for purchase in the market place. The dierent activities that take place during the product development process can be grouped into ve phases: Concept development, system-level design, detail design, testing and renement, and production ramp-up. During the detailed design and the testing and renement phases, product optimization, robustness and reliability becomes critical. As many powerful techniques have appeared to make a product more optimal, robust and reliable, it is necessary to know how they work and how can they be applied to design products that exceed customer expectations and minimize costs. The present notes have been prepared for the courses of Design Methodologies and Product Design that I teach. Although these notes are far from complete and therefore may contain many mistakes and inaccuracies, they evolve term after term and with the help and suggestions of my students are continuously improved. Once these notes are mature, it is my desire to publish them to reach a wider audience and receive further comments. If you have any feedback, suggestions or have detected any mistakes, or simply would like to assist me or contribute in this eort, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will be very happy to hear from you. Jos e Carlos Miranda Research Center for Automotive Mechatronics School of Engineering and Architecture
Contents
The product design process
1
2 2 3 6 7 8 9
1 The Engineering Design Process 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Denition of design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The design process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identifying customer needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Establishing the design requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concept generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concept selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Concept testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Preliminary design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Detailed design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.10 Design optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.11 Production planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.12 Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.13 Good design practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
iv 2 Identifying customer needs 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 18
Customer satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Gather data from customers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Interpret raw data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Organization of needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Design statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3 Benchmarking and Product Specications 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
32
Benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Setting product specication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Quality Function Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 The House of Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4 Concept Generation 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
54
Establishing product functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Generation of ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 The morphological chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 TRIZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5 Concept Selection 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
97
Estimating Technical Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Concept screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Concept scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Concept Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
v 6 Detailed design 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 118
Product Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Geometry and layout renement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Trends for the design process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Some important design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
II Techniques for reliability, robustness and optimization 146

7 Reliability in Design 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 147
The concept of reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 StrengthLoad Interference theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Block Diagram Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Fault Tree Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Failure Mode and Eect Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 158
8 Design of Experiments using the Taguchi Method 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7
Basics of Design of Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Investigating eects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Modifying orthogonal arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Comments about Taguchis approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Common orthogonal arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
vi 9 Robust Design 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 208
Quality through design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Quality loss function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Noise factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Signaltonoise ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Parameter design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Tolerance design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 238
10 Response Surface Method
10.1 Overview of the method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 10.2 Steepest ascent method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 10.3 Local exploration method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 10.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 11 Optimum design 11.1 Optimum design 262 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
11.2 Problem formulation
11.3 Solution by the graphical method
11.4 Lagrange multipliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 11.5 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 11.6 Solving problems with Excel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 12 Design for Six Sigma 291
12.1 Six Sigma vs. Design for Six Sigma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

vii 12.2 Identify requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 12.3 Characterize the design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 12.4 Optimize the design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 12.5 Verify the design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Part I The product design process
CHAPTER The Engineering Design Process
1.1
Denition of design
The word design has had dierent meanings over the last decades. While sometimes a designer is considered to be the person drafting at the drawing board or in the computer, the word design really conveys a more engineering and analytical sense. Design is much more than just drafting. Suh (1990) denes design as the creation of synthesized solutions in the form of products, processes or systems, that satisfy perceived needs through the mapping between functional requirements and design parameters. In the scope of the previous denition, functional requirements (FRs) respond to the question of what a product must do or accomplish. On the other hand, design parameters (DPs) respond to the question of how the functional requirements will be achieved. What relates the domain of functional requirements to the domain of design parameters is design (see gure 1.1). It should be noted that although design parameters should fulll the functional requirements, the mapping between them is not unique. For a set of functional requirements may be several design parameters that fulll those functional requirements. Another, less technical, denition of design is the one promulgated by ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology):
3
WHAT? List of Functional Requirements
1.2 The design process

HOW? List of Design Parameters
design
Figure 1.1: Design is the process of mapping functional requirements to design parameters.
Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision making process (often iterative) in which the basic sciences, mathematics and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and evaluation. . . It is essential to include a variety of realistic constraints such as economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics and social impacts.
Although several denitions of design may be found, the last one highlights one of the main diculties associated with design: its truly multidisciplinary nature. Design involves several, if not all, dierent departments in a given company (see gure 1.2). Design engineers should always be aware of this condition, involving in the design process the expertise of people of dierent disciplines.
1.2
The design process
There are many dierent maps or models of the design process. Some of these models describe steps and their sequence as they occur in the design process. Some other models try to dene or prescribe a better or more appropriate pattern of activities. Cross (1994) describe some of these models.

Mechanical Engineering Purchasing Product Design Marketing Industrial Design Manufacture Engineering Electronic Engineering
Figure 1.2: Engineering design core disciplines. 1.2.1. Design process models Probably the most simple model of the design process is the one shown in gure 1.3, where only four general stages are outlined.
Another relatively simple model is presented by Ullman (1992) who suggest to view the design as problem solving. When solving a given problem, ve basic actions are taken: 1. Establishment of need or realize there is a problem to be solved. 2. Understanding of the problem. 3. Generation of potential solutions for it. 4. Evaluation of the solutions by comparing the potential solutions and deciding on the best one. 5. Documentation of the work. While it is possible to see design as problem solving, it is important to realize that most analysis problems have one correct solution whereas most design problems have many satisfactory solutions. A more detailed model, which involves all steps of the design process, is presented in gure 1.4. As shown, this model divides design process in 5 phases: Concept development, System-Level design, Detail design, Testing and renement and Production. Each phase has one or more steps. It is important to realize that this model is general and may be necessary to follow dierent paths in one or more phases depending on the project at hand.
Exploration
Generation
Evaluation
Communication
Figure 1.3: A simple model of the design process with 4 stages.
Independently of the model, it is generally agreed that the design process should always start with the recognition of a need. After the need has been recognized it is necessary to consider alternatives for its solution, which is done during the concept development phase. Here the statement of the problem is taken and broad solutions to it are generated. This phase presents the greatest chance for improvements and hence is specially imperative to be objective, open to new ideas and recognize when changes are needed. Once the best ideas have been selected, preliminary design may start to further evaluate those ideas. In this phase testing may be of great help to dierentiate good ideas from regular ones. After a design has been nally selected, detailed design begins to incorporate every feature that the design may need to incorporate. Hence, a very large number of small but essential points should be decided. After the detailed design has been re-evaluated and tested, production planning may be started and nal products tested for nal acceptance. In what follows the dierent steps in the design process are discussed more in depth.
1.3 Identifying customer needs

Phase 1: Concept Development Recognition of need
Conceptualization Phase 2: System-Level Design Phase 3: Detail Design
Feasibility assessment
Preliminary design cost analysis / redesign
Phase 4: Testing and Refinement Phase 5: Production
Development testing
Detailed design Qualification testing
Production planning and Tooling design
Acceptance testing
Production
Figure 1.4: Detailed model of the design process.
1.3
Identifying customer needs
The need to design a new product may come from dierent sources: consumers, organizations or governments. The need may also sometimes be substituted for an idea of a product with possibilities of becoming commercially successful. Eide et al. (1988) state that in industry, it is essential that products sell for the company to survive. In as much as most companies exist to make a prot, prot can be considered to be the basic need. Therefore, a bias toward prot and economic advantage should not be viewed as a selsh position because products are purchased by people who feel that they are buying to satisfy a need which they perceived as real. The consumers are ultimately the judges of whether there is truly a need. Identifying the needs of the costumer is one of the most important steps in the design process and is, at the same time, one of the most dicult since is not unusual to nd that the customer does not know exactly what features the product must have. Once the needs have been specied together with the costumer, this information is used to guide the design team in establishing design parameters, generating concepts and selecting the best one of them.
1.4 Establishing the design requirements
According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) the process of identifying customer needs includes ve steps:
1. Gather raw data from customers. 2. Interpret the raw data in terms of customers needs. 3. Organize the needs into a hierarchy of primary and secondary needs. 4. Establish the relative importance of the needs. 5. Reect on the results and the process.
1.4
Establishing the design requirements
As was briey discussed above, when the design engineer is rst approached with a product need, it is very unlikely that the customer will express clearly what is needed. In most occasions it is only know what is wanted in a very general way without idea of the particularities involved. The starting point for a design engineer is to turn an ill-dened problem with vague requirements into a set of requirements that are clearly dened. This set of product requirements may change as the project advances, so it is convenient to clarify them at all stages of the design process. For the product requirements to be helpful, they must be translated to technical specications that are precise, easily understood and can be measure by means of one or more design variables. Ulrich & Eppinger state that A specication consists of a metric and a value. Table 1.1 shows some examples of metrics and their values. Several tools can be used to establish product specications. Although simple to apply, the objectives tree and decision tree methods oer a clear and useful starting format for such a statement of requirements and their relative importance. As will be discussed later, other more sophisticated and more useful method is Quality Function Deployment (QFD).
1.5 Concept generation Metric

The product must be . . . easy to install durable easy to open able to resist impacts able to work in cold weather Average time for installation < x seg. Must withstand 10x cycles Opens with a force of max. x newtons. Withstand drops from x meters. Operation possible at -x C.
8 Value
Table 1.1: Examples of metrics and their value.
1.5
Concept generation
According to French (1985) in this phase the statement of the design problem is taken and broad solutions are generated in the form of schemes. It is the phase that makes the greatest demands on the designer, and where there is more scope for striking improvements. It is the phase where engineering science, practical knowledge, production methods and commercial aspects need to be brought together. It is also the stage where the most important decisions are taken. In the scope of design, a concept is an abstraction, an idea that can be represented in notes and/or sketches and that will eventually become a product. It is generally recognized that, for a given product, several ideas (sometimes hundreds of them) should be generated. From this pool of ideas, a couple of them will merit serious consideration for further evaluation and development. The concept generation stage can be divided into 4 steps: 1. Clarication of the problem. 2. Gathering of information. 3. Use and adaptation of design team s knowledge. 4. Organization of teams thinking. Although concept generation is an inherently creative process, it is possible to use some techniques to improve it like functional decomposition and generation of concepts from functions. Although sources for conceptual ideas come
9
100 80 60 40 20 0 Final Manufacturing Cost Influence on Final Manufacturing Cost
1.6 Concept selection

Overhead Labor Material Design
Figure 1.5: Design inuence on manufacturing cost (After Ullman, 1992). primarily from the designers own expertise, it can be enhanced through the use of books, experts, lead engineers, patent search, brainstorming and current designs.
1.6
The purpose of concept selection is assessing the feasibility of concepts to ensure that they are achievable technically and economically. The feasibility of the concept is based on the design engineers knowledge. As in the generation of concepts, the design engineer can rely in tools like the decision-matrix method to compare and evaluate concepts. The importance of the concept selection phase cannot be understated. It is known that decisions made during the design process have the greatest eect on the cost of a product for the least investment. In gure 1.5, the cost of design and its inuence in manufacturing cost for an automotive project is shown. From the gure it can be stated that the decisions made during the design process have the greatest eect on the cost of a product for the least investment. Typically, around 70% to 80% of the manufacturing cost is committed by the end of the conceptual phase of the design process. The
Percent
Concept selection
1.6 Concept selection

Design changes
10
Company A
Company B
Begin design
Release for production
Time
Figure 1.6: Engineering changes in automobile development (After Ullman, 1992).
importance of concept evaluation cannot be underestimated. Also, the generation and evaluation of concepts have a great eect on the time it takes to produce a new product. Figure 1.6 shows the number of design changes made by two automobile companies with dierent design strategies. Company A made many changes during the early stages of the design process as a result of the iterative process of generation and evaluation of concepts. Company B made just a few changes in the initial stage, but was still making changes later in the process, even when the product was released for production. The advantage gained by company A is clear since changes made late in the process are far more expensive than changes made in early stages. The evaluation of concepts to nd its viability may occur not only during concept development, but throughout the design process. This will lead to the so called Design process paradox (Ullman, 1992). The design process paradox states that during the design process, the knowledge about the design increases as the project runs in time and the design team gains understanding of the problem at hand. Hence, the knowledge of the design team is at its top when the design process is at its end. Although this seems natural, it is important to realize that, by the end of the process, most decisions have already been made.
11
100 80 60 Percent 40 20 0 Time into design process Design freedom Knowledge about the design problem
1.7 Concept testing
Figure 1.7: The design process paradox (After Ullman, 1992). This increased knowledge at the end of the project tempt most design teams to feel the need of re-doing the project now that they fully understand it. Unfortunately, economics almost always drive the design process, and second chances rarely exist. Figure 1.7 shows the dilemma above. At the beginning of the process, the design team has the most freedom since no decisions have been made. As time goes by, knowledge increases as a result of the design time eorts, but freedom is lost since decisions have been made and changes are increasingly expensive to perform.
1.7
Concept testing
Concept testing is closely related to concept selection. It is used to gather opinions and information from potential customers about one or more of the selected concepts that may be pursued. It can also be used gather information about how to improve an specic product and to estimate the sales potential of the product. Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) suggest to divide the concept testing into 6 steps: 1. Denition of the purpose of the concept test.
1.9 Detailed design 2. Choosing of a survey population. 3. Choosing of a survey format. 4. Communication of the concept. 5. Measurement of customer response. 6. Interpretation of results.
12
Both concept selection and concept testing are used to narrow the possible concepts under consideration. Concept selection relies in the work and judgment of the development team. Concept testing is based in data gathered directly from potential customers.
1.8
Preliminary design
The preliminary design stage or embodiment design stage, lls the gap between design concept and detailed design. According to French, in this phase the schemes are worked up in greater detail and, if there is more than one, a nal choice between them is made. There is (or should be) a great deal of feedback from this phase to the conceptual design phase. Is during this stage of the design process that the overall system conguration is dened. Extensive engineering documentation in the form of schemes, diagrams, layouts, drawings, notes or other types of documents is generated to provide control over the project and to ensure better communication and integration between dierent engineering disciplines involved on the design eort. The preliminary design helps to obtain more precise design requirements involving analysis, benchmarking, literature search, experience, good judgment and, if necessary, testing. The renement of the project also helps to have a better estimate of the project cost and required time for completion.
1.9
Detailed design
After the preliminary design stage has been carried out, it is necessary to go into the details of the design in order to better understand the concepts. Detail
13
1.10 Design optimization
design is mostly concerned with the design of the subsystems and components that make up the entire design. Because of the latter, this stage is sometimes divided into two independent parts, System-level design and the detail design itself. In the system-level design the product arquitecture is dened and decomposition of the product into subsystems and components takes place. These components may be integrated circuits, resistors, shafts, bearings, beams, plates, handles, seats, etc., depending on the nature of the product under development. Here, geometric layouts of the product and functional specications for each subsystem are stated. The detail design phase includes the complete specication of each independent part such as geometry, materials and tolerances and identies all those parts that will be purchased from suppliers. In this stage, the control documentation of the product is generated, including technical drawings, part production plans and assembly sequences.
1.10
Design optimization
To be added.
1.11
Production planning
This stage initiates with the identication of the machines, tooling and processes required to manufacture the designed product. Technical data such as dimensions, tolerances, materials and surface nishes among others are evaluated to determine the appropriate assembly sequence for the manufacturing operations. According to Ertas and Jones (2000), typical tasks included in the production planning include: 1. Interpretation of design drawings and specications. 2. Selection of material stock. 3. Selection of production processes. 4. Selection of machines to be used in production.
1.12 Documentation 5. Determination of the sequence of operations. 6. Selection of jigs, xtures, tooling and reference datum.
14
7. Establishment of tool cutting parameters, such as speed, depth and feed rate. 8. Selection of inspection gauges and instruments. 9. Calculation of processing time. 10. Generation of process documentation and numerically controlled machine data. Once the production planning has been made and all the decisions regarding production have been taken, a production ramp-up is made using the intended production system. The purpose of the production ramp-up is to evaluate the correctness of the production plan, the tooling and the assembly sequences to follow as well as to identify possible aws before going to a full-scale production.
1.12
Documentation
Engineers feel most of times burdened with the idea of documenting their designs. The preparation of documents describing the design process and the reasons behind decisions taken is oftenly seen as as an activity that does not directly contribute to the design. Other times documentation is seen as an unattractive task that does not involve any challenge at all. Nevertheless, documentation is as important as any other in the task in the design process. Product documentation is important not only in terms of instructions to user, maintainers or others, but is imperative for purposes like legal protection or future product redesign. Keeping track of the ideas developed and decisions made in a design notebook is essential. It is advisable to keep, for patent or legal purposes, a notebook with dated pages that is sequentially numbered and signed. In this notebook, all information related to the design such as sketches, notes, calculations and reasons behind decisions should be included. The notebook does not have to be neat, but certain order has to be kept. When design information like plots, photocopies, drawings or results of analyses are too large or bulky to keep in
15 Good Design
1. Works all the time 2. Meets all technical requirements 3. Meets cost requirements 4. Requires little or no maintenance 5. Is safe 6. Creates no ethical dilemma
1.13 Good design practices Bad Design

1. Stops working after a short time 2. Meets only some technical requirements 3. Costs more than it should 4. Requires frequent maintenance 5. Poses a hazard to user 6. Fullls a need that is questionable
Table 1.2: Characteristics of good design versus bad design. After Horenstein (1999). the notebook, a note stating what the document is, a brief summary of its contents and where it is led should be written. When the design eort has concluded, standard drawings or computer data les of components showing all the information necessary for the production of the product have to be generated. This drawings usually include written documentation regarding manufacturing, assembly, quality control, inspection, installation, maintenance and, retirement.
1.13
Good design practices
The goal for the introduction of models for the design process is to provide a guideline to help the engineer/designer to achieve a better product through the use of good design practices. As experience would tell, in most occasions it is not dicult to tell either as engineer or consumer, a good design from a bad design. Table 1.2 show some general characteristics of good design versus bad design. 1.13.2. Good design Horenstein (1999) highlights the traits of good engineer versus bad design design engineer and bad design engineers. Acengineer cording to Horenstein, a good engineer: Listens to new ideas with an open mind.
1.13.1. Good design versus bad design
1.13 Good design practices
16
Considers a variety of solution methodologies before choosing a design approach. Does not consider a project complete at the rst sign of success, but insists on testing and retesting. Is never content to arrive at a set of design parameters by trial and error. Use phrases such as I need to understand why and Lets consider all the possibilities. A Bad Engineer: Thinks he/she has all the answers; seldom listens to the ideas of others. Has tunnel vision; pursues with intensity the rst approach that comes to mind. Ships the product out the door without thorough testing. Use phrases such as good enough and I dont understand why it wont works; so-and-so I it this way. Equates pure trial and error with engineering design. Green (1992) summarizes skills that seem to mark the expert designer in domains of routine design. Supplying context. The requirements seldom provide enough information to create a design. This occurs in part because the client himself does not know precisely what he/she wants. However, another problem is that the stated requirements imply several other, unstated, requirements. The expert can read between the lines and supply context that reduces the search space. Decision ordering. Strategic knowledge is a major part of the designers expertise. The expert designer is able to make decisions in the correct order to avoid spending much time in backtracking and revising. Decision ordering is important because it rank constraints. The experts decision ordering set constraint values in some optimal sequence. Heuristic classication. Although the overall design problem may be ill-structured, it usually contains some well-structured components. Some decisions fell into
17
1.13 Good design practices
the heuristic classication paradigm (here, heuristic means problem-solving techniques that utilize self-education techniques, as the evaluation of feedback, to improve performance). The designer begins by listing requirements, both stated and unstated, and maps them to design parameters which enables him/her to choose a set of design classes. Parameter abstraction. Much of routine design requires to simultaneously manage a large collection of variable values. This can be a very complex cognitive task since it requires the expert to maintain a large amount of information in working memory. Experts are able to reduce the complexity of the problem by abstracting only the most important parameters, treating related parameters as single entities whenever possible.
References
1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons. 2. Eide, A., Jenison, R., Mashaw, L. & Northup, L. (1998) Introduction to Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill. 3. Ertas A. & Jones, J. (1996) The Engineering Design Process, second ed., John Wiley & Sons. 4. Horenstein, M. (1999) Design Concepts for Engineers, Prentice-Hall. 5. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall. 6. Ouyang, S., Fai, J., Wang, Q. & Johnson, K. Quality Function Deployment. University of Calgary Report. 7. Pugh, S. (1990) Total Design, Addison Wesley. 8. Suh, N. (1990) The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press. 9. Ullman, D. (1992) The Mechanical Design Process, McGraw-Hill. 10. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
CHAPTER Identifying customer needs
If a new or redesign product is to be successful, it should fulll the needs of the customer. Unfortunately, the process of nding which are the real needs to be fullled is not a straightforward one. According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000), the goals of a method for comprehensively identifying a set of customer needs should be: 1. Ensure that the product is focused on customer needs. 2. Identify latent or hidden needs as well as explicit needs. 3. Provide a fact base for justifying the product specication. 4. Create an archival record of the needs activity of the development process. 5. Ensure that no critical customer need is missed or forgotten. 6. Develop a common understanding of customer needs among members of the development team. The main purpose of identifying customer needs is to create a direct information link between customers and developers. The involvement of members of the design team (specially engineers and industrial designers) results essential as they must have a clear view of how the product will be used by the end
19
2.1 Customer satisfaction
user. This direct experience will help the design team not only to discover the true needs of the customer, but also to create better concepts and to evaluate them in a more accurate form. In this chapter, the next 5 steps to eectively identify customer needs will be discussed: 1. Gather raw data from customers. 2. Interpret the raw data. 3. Organize the needs into a hierarchy. 4. Establish the relative importance of the needs. 5. The review of the process and its results.
2.1
Customer satisfaction
In order to satisfy customers, a given product must fulll customer expectations about it. Even when nding which features are wanted by the customer is a dicult task since customers usually not mention them directly, customer satisfaction translates to the implementation in a given product as much desired features as possible. In order to better understand this relationship, the Kano diagram may be of help. The Kano model shown in gure 2.1, shows the relationship between customer needs and satisfaction in an easy to appreciate diagram ranking the customer satisfaction from disgusted to delighted. The lower curve in Kanos diagram is called the basic performance curve or expected requirements curve. It represent the essentially basic functions or features that customers normally expect of a product or service. They are usually unvoiced and invisible since successful companies rarely make catastrophic mistakes. However, they become visible when they are unfullled. The upper curve in Kanos diagram is called the delighted performance curve or exciting requirements curve. They are a sort of out of the ordinary functions or features of a product or service that cause wow reactions in customers.
2.1.1. The Kano diagram

Customer Satisfaction Delighted
c an e urv C e
20
Delighted Performance Curve
rm rfo e P ted ec p Ex
Fully Implemented Absent Function Basic Performance Curve
Disgusted
Figure 2.1: Kano diagram of customer satisfaction. After Otto & Wood (2001).
They satisfy customers when fullled. But they do not leave customers dissatised when left unfullled. And they are invisible to customers since they are not even known. The center line of the Kano diagram is called the one-to-one quality or linear quality line. It represents the minimum expectation of any new product development undertaking. It is related also to performance type issues such as faster is better. These represent what most customers talk about. Thus, they are visible to the company and its competitors. The expected requirements and exciting requirements provide the best opportunity for competitive advantage. Hence, ways to make hem visible and then deliver on them are needed. Kanos diagram is often interpreted simply as a relationship model of expected quality vs. excited quality. What is really important, however, is that the target of customer satisfaction can not only invisible but also moving. Customer expectations increase over time. This calls for a more complex analysis and deeper market understanding.
21
2.1.2. Types of customer According to Otto & Wood (2001) customer needs needs may be protably considered in general categories based on how easy the customer can express them and how rapidly they change. They can be classied in three categories: rst, direct and latent needs which consider observability, second, constant and variable needs which consider technological changes and nally, general and niche needs which consider variance in the consumers. Direct needs These are the needs that, when asked about the product customer have no trouble declaring as something they are concerned about. These are easily uncovered using standard methods as the one that will be described hereafter. Latent needs These are the needs that typically are not directly expressed by the customer without probing. Customer typically do not think in modes that allow themselves to express these needs directly. Latent needs are better characterized as customer needs, not of the product, but of the system within which the product operates. Other products, services or actions currently satisfy the needs directly. Yet, these needs might be fullled with a developing product, and doing so can provide competitive advantage. Constant needs These needs are intrinsic to the task of the product and always will be. When a product is used, this need will always be there. Such needs are eective to examine with customer needs analysis, since the cost can be spread over time. Variable needs These needs are not necessarily constant; if a foreseeable technological change can happen, these needs go away. These needs are more dicult to understand through discussions with the customer, since the customer may not understand them yet. General needs These needs apply to every person in the customer population. It is necessary for a product to fulll these needs if it is to compete in the existing market. Niche needs These needs apply only to a smaller market segment within the entire buying population.
2.2 Gather data from customers
22
2.2
Gather data from customers
In order to obtain information from customers, several methods are available: interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, observing the product in use and nally, be the customer oneself. In what follows, a brief description of each one together with pros and cons is given. Interviews One or more members of the design team interview a number of customers, one at a time. Interviews are generally carried out in the environment of the costumer where the product is used. They typically last for one to two hours. Questionnaires A list of important concerns, questions and criteria is prepared by the design team and sent to selected customers. Although this type of survey is quite useful at later stages of the design process, at this stage they do not provide enough information about the use environment of the product. It is also important to notice that not all needs may be revealed using this method. Focus groups A group of 8 to 12 customers participate in a discussion session facilitated by a moderator. Focus groups are typically conducted in a special room equipped with a two-way mirror allowing several members of the development team to observe the group. It is desired for the moderator to be a professional market researcher, but a member of the development team can also perform as moderator. Observing the product in use When watching a customer using an existing product or perform a task for which a new product is intended, details about customer needs can be reveled. Observation may be passive, leaving the customer to use the product without any direct interference or can be carried out along with one of the design team members allowing the development of rsthand experience about the use of the product. Be the customer In many situations, members of the design team may perform as users of existing competitor products or, in later stages of the design process, of prototypes. Although this method is very cost eective and relatively easy to perform as no persons outside the design team are involved, it posses two main problems. First, members of the design team may not have the required skills or experience to accurately evaluate the product, and second, they may feel biased towards certain characteristics of the product.
23
Lead Users Occasional User Frequent User Heavyduty User Users

Retailer or Sales Outlet Service Centers
Figure 2.2: Customer selection matrix. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
From the above methods, research carried out by Grin and Hauser (1993) reports that conducting interviews is the most cost and eort eective method. According to their report, one 2-hour focus group reveals about the same number of needs as two 1-hour interviews. They also report that interviewing nine customers for one hour each will obtain over 90% of the customer needs that would be uncovered when interviewing 60 customers. These gures where obtained when a single function product was being considered, and may change when considering multi-function products. According to Ulrich & Eppinger, as a practical guideline for most products, conducting fewer than 10 interviews is probably inadequate and 50 interviews are probably too many.
2.2.1. Selecting customers
Selecting customers is not always a straightforward activity as many dierent persons may be considered a customer. Consider, for example, all those products that are purchased by one person and used by another. In all cases, it is important to gather information from the end user, and then gather information from other type of customers and stake-holders. A customer selection matrix like the one shown in gure 2.2, is useful for planning exploration of both market and customer variety. It is recommended that market segments be listed on the left side of the matrix while the dierent types of customers are listed across the top. The number of intended customer contacts is entered in each cell to indicate the depth of coverage.
24
2.2.2. Conducting Ulrich and Eppinger provide some general hints for eecInterviews tive customer interaction. First, they suggest to sketch an interview guide that help to obtain an honest expression of needs. This can not be stressed enough, the goal of the interview is to obtain customer needs, not to convince the customer of what he or she really wants. Some helpful questions and prompts to use are: When and why do you use this type of product? Walk us through a typical session using the product. What do you like about the existing products? What do you dislike about the existing products? What issues do you consider when purchasing the product? What improvements would you make to the product? Second, they suggest the following general hints for eective interaction with customers: Go with the ow. If the customer is providing useful information, do not worry about conforming to the interview guide. The goal is to gather information data on customer needs, not to complete the interview guide in the allotted time. Use visual stimuli and props. Bring a collection of existing and competitors products, or even products that are tangentially related to the product under development. At the end of a session, the interviewers might even show some preliminary product concepts to get customers early reactions to various approaches. Suppress preconceived hypotheses about the product technology. Frequently customers will make assumptions about the product concept they expect would meet their needs. In these situations, the interviewers should avoid biasing the discussion with assumptions about how the product will eventually be designed or produced. When customers mention specic technologies or product features, the interviewer should probe for the underlying need the customer believes the suggested solution would satisfy.
25
2.2 Gather data from customers Have the customer demonstrate the product and/or typical tasks related to the product. If the interview is conducted in the use environment, a demonstration is usually convenient and invariably reveals new information. Be alert for surprises and the expression of latent needs. If a customer mentions something surprising, pursue the lead with follow-up questions. Frequently, an unexpected line of questioning will reveal latent needs important dimensions of the customers needs that are neither fullled nor commonly articulated and understood. Watch for nonverbal information. The design process is usually aimed at developing better physical products. Unfortunately, words are not always the best way to communicate needs related to the physical word. This is particularly true of needs involving the human dimensions of the product, such as comfort, image or style. The development team must be constantly aware of the nonverbal messages provided by customers. What are their facial expressions? How do they hold competitors products?
2.2.3. How to document There are four main methods for documenting ininteractions teractions with customers: Notes Handwriting notes are the most common method of documenting an interview. If a person is designated as notetaker, other person can concentrate in eectively questioning the customer. The notetaker should try to capture the answers of the customer in a verbatim form. If the notes from the interview are transcribed inmediately after it, a very close account of the interview can be obtained. Audio recording Audio recording is probably the easiest way of documenting and interview. Unfortunately, many customers feel intimidated by it. Another disadvantage is that transcribing the recording into text is very time consuming. Video recording Video recording is the usual way of documenting focus group sessions. It is also very useful for documenting observations of the customer in the use environment and the performance of existing products. Still photography Even when dynamic information cannot be captured by it, still photography can be used to capture high quality images. It also has

Customer Data: Project/Product Name Customer: Address: Willing to do follow up? Type of user: Question Customer Statement Interviewer(s): Date: Currently uses: Interpreted Need Importance
26
Figure 2.3: Customer data template. After Otto & Wood (2001).
the advantage of being inexpensive and easy to do. One useful aid in the collection of data from a customer interview is a customer data template. A customer data template, like the one shown in gure 2.3, helps to record questions, answers and comments. The template can be lled during the interview or inmediately afterwards. In the rst column, the question prompted is recorded. In the second column, a verbatim description of the answer and comments given by the customer is recorded. In the third column, the customer needs implied by the raw data are written. Special attention must be given to clues that may identify potential latent needs like humorous remarks, frustrations or non-verbal information. In the last column, linguistic expressions of importance that the customer may have used are recorded. The importance may be expressed in terms of words like must, good, should, nice or poor. According to Otto & Wood, a must is used when a customer absolutely must have this feature, generally when it is a determining criterion in purchasing
27
2.3 Interpret raw data
the product. Must ratings should be used very sparingly; only a few must s per customer interview is a good rule. A very important customer need should have a good importance rating. Needs that are presumed should have at least a should rating. If the customer feels the product should satisfy this requirement, it is important enough for the design team to consider it. The nice category is for customer needs that would be nice if the product satised them but are not critical.
2.3
Interpret raw data
At this point, customer needs are expressed in terms of verbatim written statements. Every customer comment or observation as expressed in the customer data template may be translated into any number of customer needs. It has been found that multiple analysts may translate the same interview notes into dierent needs, so it is convenient for more than one team member to be involved in this task. Ulrich & Eppinger provide ve guidelines for writing need statements. They recognize the rst two as fundamental and critical to eective translation, and the remaining three as guidelines to ensure consistency of phrasing and style across all team members. Table 2.1 shows examples to illustrate each guideline.
Express the need in terms of what the product has to do, not in terms of how it might do it. Customers often express their preferences by describing a solution concept or an implementation approach; however, the need statement should be expressed in terms independent of a particular technological solution. Express the need as specically as the raw data. Needs can be expressed at many dierent levels of detail. To avoid loss of information, express the need at the same level of detail as the raw data. Use positive, not negative, phrasing. Subsequent translation of a need into a product specication is easier if the need is expressed as a positive statement. This may not apply in those occasions when the statement is expressed more naturally in negative terms.
2.4 Organization of needs

Guideline What not how Customer Statement Why dont you put protective shields around the battery contacts? I drop my screwdriver all the time. Need Statement - Right The screwdriver battery is protected from accidental shorting. The screwdriver operates normally after repeated dropping. The screwdriver operates normally in the rain.
28
Need Statement - Wrong The screwdriver battery contacts are covered by a plastic sliding door. The screwdriver is rugged.
Specicity
Positive not negative
It doesnt matter if its raining; I still need to work outside on Saturdays. Id like to charge my battery from my cigarette lighter.
The screwdriver is not disabled by the rain.
An attribute of the product
The screwdriver battery can be charged from an automobile cigarette lighter. The screwdriver provides an indication of the energy level of the battery.
An automobile cigarette lighter adapter can charge
Avoid must and should
I hate it when I dont know how much juice is left in the batteries of my cordless tools.
The screwdriver should provide an indication of the energy level of the battery.
Table 2.1: Examples illustrating the guidelines for writing need statements for a cordless screwdriver (After Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000). Express the need as an attribute of the product. Wording needs as statements about the product ensure consistency and facilitates subsequent translation into product specications. Avoid the words must and should. The words must and should imply a level of importance for the need. After all the customer comments have been translated into need statements, the design team ends up with a group of maybe tens or even hundreds of need statements. At this point, some may be similar, other may not be technological feasible, and others may express conicting needs. In the following section, methods for organizing and classifying these needs are presented.
2.4
Organization of needs
In order to work eectively with all the customer needs, it is necessary to classify them in groups of equal or similar statements. Each group may be subsequently sorted out in a list according to the relative
2.4.1. Classication of needs
29
2.4 Organization of needs
importance of each need in the group. Each group list typically consists of a set of primary needs, each one of which will be characterized by a set of secondary needs and if needed, tertiary needs. This process of sorting and classication is normally performed by the design team. Nevertheless, it also exists the possibility of leaving this task to a group of selected customers. According to Otto and Wood, this approach prevents the customer data from being biased by the development team. The classication of needs can be done without many diculties following the next steps: 1. Write each need on a small card. 2. Group similar needs eliminating redundant statements. 3. Choose a descriptive name for each group. 4. Review the process and consider alternative ways of grouping the statements. When working with dierent customer segments, cards with dierent color labels can be used to distinguish between them. The sorting and classication process can also be done separately for each customer segment observing dierences in both the needs themselves and their organization. The latter approach is best suited when the segments are very dierent in their needs and when there is the question if just one product may suit the needs of all segments. 2.4.2. Determination of relative importance of needs As of now, the classication of needs does not provide any information regarding the relative importance that the customer place on dierent needs. Each customer need has an importance expressed by the own customer during the interview. It is expected that dierent customers will feel dierent regarding the importance of features according to their own use of the product. An elementary approach to establish the relative importance of needs is to rst construct a set of normalized weightings by comparing the number of subjects who mention a need versus the total number of subjects. Hence, the
2.5 Design statement Importance Must Good Should Nice not mentioned Ranking 1 9 7 5 3 0 Ranking 2 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0
30
Table 2.2: Two dierent ranking systems for the importance of needs. interpreted importance rank of the i th customer need can be obtained from Ri = number of times mentioned number of subjects (2.1)
It is important to have in mind that the above method may raise inconclusive results as it mainly measures the obviousness of the need as opposed to its importance. Therefore, needs that may be obvious but not important may be ranked high as opposed to important needs that may not be obvious. A more correct approach, is to include in the ranking the importance statements given by the customer during the interview. In order to do so, it is necessary to convert the subjective importance ratings into numerical equivalents. A typical transformation is shown in table 2.2. Once the mapping has been carried out, the importance assigned to each customer need can be calculated as: average rating number of times mentioned (2.2) Ri = number of subjects Although a better method of ranking customer needs, the previous method has also its own aws as it still may hide important needs that were reveled by only few customers but were not seen by the rest.
2.5
Design statement
After grouping and ranking customer needs, a better idea of the design problem is at hand. To keep a clear idea of the direction of the design process, the design
31
2.5 Design statement
team may issue what is called a Design statement, design brief or mission statement. A design statement includes a brief description of the product, key business goals, target markets, assumptions and constraints and stakeholders: Description of the product A brief description typically includes the key customer benets of the product avoiding implying a specic product concept. Key business goals. These goals generally include goals for time, cost, quality and market share. Other goals may be added as deem appropriate. Target markets. Identies the primary as well as secondary markets that should be considered during the design process. Assumptions and constraints. In some projects is necessary to make assumptions in order to keep a project of manageable scope and size. In other occasions, time, cost or even feature constraints are known from the beginning of the product. Stakeholders. It is always convenient to list all the stakeholders in order to handle subtle issues that may appear during the development process. Stakeholders are all the groups of people who are aected by the success or failure of the product. The list usually begins with the end user and the customer who makes the buying decision about the product. Stakeholders also include the customers residing within the rm such as the sales force, the service organization and the production departments.
References
1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons. 2. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall. 3. Pahl, G. and Beitz W. (2001) Engineering Design - A systematic Approach. Second Ed. Springer. 4. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process. Third Ed. McGraw-Hill. 5. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Second Ed. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
CHAPTER Benchmarking and Product Specications
Benchmarking the competition as an activity in the product development process overlaps many of the other activities as it generates data that is important to understand a product and forecast its future development. This activity cannot be understated, product developers must learn from competitors. Companies must avoid the Not-Invented-Here (NIH) syndrome that presents when engineers at a company choose not to use technology developed outside it as it is considered to not be of any good. This may cause a product to fail, as it leaves the design teams and companies behind as new technology emerges at the marketplace. Design teams must understand the importance of newly introduced technology by competitors and be ready to respond. Benchmarking allows to meet this goal. It is also an important step in establishing engineering specications.
3.1
Benchmarking
There are two main purposes for studying existing competitive products: rst, creates an awareness of what products are already available, and second, reveal opportunities to improve what already exists. Design teams must be aware not only on what other products oer, but also how other competitors provide similar products. As Otto & Wood (2001) clearly state, when engineers think
33
3.1 Benchmarking
they understand their product by mere self-inspection, they are closing doors to a wide array of alternative possibilities. A famous example of understanding the competition is that of Xerox Corporation. When in 1979 Xerox marketshare in the copy machines segment was rapidly decreasing, its engineers pondered the following question: How in the world could the Japanese manufacture in Japan, ship it over to the United States, land it, sell it to a distributor who sells it to a dealer who marks up the cost to the nal customer, and the price the customer pays is about what it would cost us to build the machine in the rst place? (Jacobson and Hillkirk, 1986). Even when at the time Xerox was not able to analyze and understand competitors product, production and distribution, they have now competitive benchmarking activities. These activities allows them to focus on how to be successful, rather than how competitors can be better than them. In order to understand the competition, design teams must tear down and analyze competitive products. This activity must be done periodically, not only supporting new design eorts but also developing a continuous understanding of trends and directions in technology development. Many large companies have entire departments devoted only to benchmarking activities. These departments provide insight not only on new technological developments, but also in the position of the companys products in the marketplace in terms of quality, value and performance. Benchmarking activities are vital at all stages of the product development as they: provide a way to understand what needs other products are satisfying provide means to establish product specications ensuring that products goals superpass existing competition help in the concept generation stage providing best-in-class concepts help to incorporate in the detailed design new and improved design features of the best-in-class products help to nd the best-in-class components and suppliers According to Otto & Wood (2001), product benchmarking can be carried out following the next steps:
3.1 Benchmarking 1. Form a list of design issues 2. Form a list of competitive or related products 3. Conduct an information search 4. Tear down multiple products in class 5. Benchmark by function 6. Establish best-in-class competitors by function 7. Plot industry trends
34
3.1.1. Form a list of design A list of issues must be developed for comparaissues tive benchmarking. Further, this list should be continually revised and updated. With a focus for benchmarking eorts, an ecient exploration path may be pursued. The result is a reduction in wasted time and resources. 3.1.2. Form a list of competitive or related products Considering the design issues and product function in product development, the next step is to examine retailer stores and sales outlets for products that demonstrate these issues. For a product, it is necessary to list all competitors and their dierent product models. In addition, all related products in their portfolio should be listed. If the competitors have a family of products under a common platform (they use identical components for some aspects of each product but dierent components for niche demands), detailed information about this should be included as it indicate the competitors preferred market segments and compromises made for other market segments. This step should only be an identication of the competitors in the form of company names and product names. With a complete set of dierent products, vendors and suppliers to examine, the list should be screened by highlighting the particular competitors that appear most crucial for the design team to fully understand. This step serves as basis for the next step, conducting an information search.
35 3.1.3. Conduct an information search
3.1 Benchmarking
The information search is a step of great importance. In order to benchmark a piece of hardware, the design team must gather as much information about the product as possible. Any printed article that mentions the product, its features, its materials, the company, manufacturing locations or problems, customers, market reception or share, or any other information will be useful. Because of the proliferation of computerized databases and the World Wide Web, a good library is essential. There is a generous amount of information available about all business operations. Before starting any design activity, a team must understand the market demand for product features and what the competition is doing to meet it. A design team should gather information on the products and related products the functions they perform the targeted market segments All keywords associated with these three categories should be formed and used in informational searches. Sources of information can be quite varied. Most businesspersons are perfectly happy to discuss the market and noncompetitive business units. Although most businesspersons will not provide strategic information about their own companies, many people are happy to tell all about their competitors. Suppliers will usually discuss their customers as they can, if it appears that the requester might provide an additional sale. The key is always to be open, honest and ethical when questioning for information. Once people understand that a design team is designing a new product or redesigning an existing one, they naturally want to get involved with new orders and will help the team as far as they legally can. Pursuit of information beyond that point is unethical and not necessary. Most people are happy to share information, and so simple honesty and a friendly attitude can get team members along way. Sources of information can be divided in two main groups: public sources that are freely accessible, and market research databases that are accessible through a fee. Public sources of product information include:
3.1 Benchmarking
36
Libraries University libraries are lled with technical engineering modeling references. Many libraries that does not have a large book count, have access to other larger libraries where information may be found and retrieved through inter-library loans. Thomas Register of Companies This set of documents is a yellow pages for manufacturing-related business. The Thomas Register list vendor by product name (http://www.thomasregister.com ). Consumer Reports Magazines These magazines survey and test a number of common consumer products. Useful data are available for customer needs, qualitative benchmarking, engineering specications, and warranty andmaintenance information. If a given product is not covered in the magazines, other products can provide analogies as a starting point. (http://www.consumerreports.com/, http://www.profeco.gob.mx/new/html/revista.htm ). Trade Magazines Consumer trade magazines such as Car and driver, Byte, Consumer Electronics, JD Powers and Associates, and others provide comparative studies of products within a eld. Such studies are very useful to understand how a given product compares with the competition and to understand important customer and technical criteria. Patents After examining trade journals and uncovering which competitors have new innovations, gathering the patents on these new innovations explains much. Patent searches based on company names are dicult since companies typically bury their patents by ling them under the individual names of designers. Uncovering the individual patents is usually through rened topical searches, and hence, as much information as possible should be at hand when doing the research. Patent information may be obtained from the Classication and Search Support System (CASSIS) of from Web sites such as http://www.patents.ibm.com/. Market Share Reporter Published every year by International Thomson Publishers, this book summarizes the previous market research of Gale Research, Inc. It is composed of market research reports from the periodicals literature. It includes corporate market shares, institutional shares and brand market shares. National Bureau of Standards This U.S. government branch provides, among other things, national labor rates for all major countries. This inforCopyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.
37
3.2 Setting product specication
mation proves very useful for determining competitors manufacturing costs. Census of Manufactures Taken every 5 years by the U.S. Department of Commerce, this census includes statistics on employment, payroll, inventories, capital expenditures, and selected manufacturing costs. Also, the supplemental Current Industrial Reports lists production and shipment data on industries and some products. Moodys Industry Review Taken every 6 months, this survey provides key nancial information, operating data, and ratios on about 3,500 companies. Companies as an industry group may be compared with one another group or groups. 3.1.4. Some comments about benchmarking Even when benchmarking can help to understand the market, forecast trends and identify key innovations and technology, one complaint about it is that always provide lagging information. Hence, it is argued that market leaders can nd little or no information at all through this practice. Nevertheless, it should be realized that very few market leaders constantly produce leading technology in a market. Markets are always evolving and the opportunity for a competitor to produce new exciting technology is always latent. One way market leaders can benet from benchmarking is from focusing it on components rather than in products. Components benchmarking may allow them to introduce new technology in components that are not directly developed by them. One problem is commonly associated with benchmarking is the chasing the competition syndrome. This problem presents when benchmarking is only used to see what the competition is doing rather than to help the development of new competitive products.
3.2
Setting product specication
After benchmarking, one next step is to use the information gathered up to this point to set targets for a new product development eort. Specications for a new product are quantitative, measurable criteria that the product should be designed to satisfy. In order to be useful, each specication should consist of a
38
metric and a value. This value can be a specic number or a range. Examples are: 50 Hz, 30-40 N, > 10 dB, etc. In general terms, specications fall into two categories, functional requirements and constraints. As discussed before, functional requirements or engineering design specications are statements of the specic performance of a design, what the device should do. On the other hand, constraints are external factors that limit the selection of the characteristics of the system or subsystem. Constraints are not directly related to the function of the system, but apply across the set of functions for the system. In many situations, constraints can drive the design process of a product and should be established only after critical evaluation. Setting specications is generally not a straightforward task, and specications are usually checked several times during the design process. Several concepts may be derived from a customer requirement giving rise to dierent engineering specications. Take for example a lid that can be either screwed or pushed to close a container. Both solutions will give way to dierent engineering specications since in the rst case to screw is related to torque and in the second one to push is related to force. In this case, early concept-independent criteria such as opening ease may be rened later into performance specications for the selected concept. In those specications that are not expected to change during the design process, margins in target values of 30% at the beginning of the design process are commonly expected. In any case, it is primordial for each specication should be measurable, and testing and verication of it should be possible at any stage. If for any reason, a specication is not testable and quantiable, it is not a specication. Ulrich and Eppinger (2000) suggest to consider a few guidelines when constructing the list of specications: Specications should be complete. Ideally each customer need would correspond to a single specication, and the value of that specication would correlate perfectly with satisfaction of that need. In practice, several specications may be necessary to completely reect a single customer need. Specications should be dependent, not independent, variables. As do customer needs, specications also indicate what the product must do, not how the specications will be achieved. Designers use many types
39
3.2 Setting product specication of variables in product development; some are dependent, such the mass of a product and other are independent, such as the material used to manufacture the product. In other words, designers cannot control mass directly because it arises from other independent decisions the designer will make, such as dimensions and material choices. Metrics specify the overall performance of a product and should therefore be the dependent variables in the design problem. By using dependent variables for the specications, designers are left with the freedom to achieve the specications using the best approach possible. Specications should be practical. It does not serve the team to devise a specication for a given product that can only be measured by a scientic laboratory at a cost of several thousand dollars. Ideally, specications will be directly observable or analyzable properties of the product that can be easily evaluated by the team. Some needs cannot easily be translated into quantiable specications. Needs like the product instills pride may be critical to success, but are dicult to quantify. In this cases the team simply repeats the need statement as a specication and notes that the metric is subjective and would be evaluated by a panel of customers. The specications should include the popular criteria for comparison in the marketplace. Many customers in various markets buy products based on independently published evaluations (see examples of sources in the previous section). If the team knows that its product will be evaluated by the trade media and knows what the evaluation criteria will be, then it should include specications corresponding to these criteria.
With the above guidelines, a specication list like the ones shown in tables 3.1 and 3.2 can be generated. In order to help with the search for relevant design specications, an approach known as Specication List Generation can be of some help. Specication List Generation uses the decomposition method to obtain a list of general specications from latent needs such as safety, regulations and environmental factors. Each specication can be labeled as a required demand or a desirable wish to communicate its level of importance.
3.2.1. Specication Lists
40
To identify specications, the table 3.3 devised by Franke (1995) provides a good starting point. In order to apply Franke approach follow the next steps: 1. Compile specications and constraints and label them accordingly. Start with specications and follow with constraints. 2. Determine if each of the functional requirements and constraints is a demand or wish. 3. Determine if each of the functional requirements and constraints are logically consistent. Check for obvious conicts. Check that specications are technically and economically feasible. 4. Quantify wherever possible. 5. Determine detailed approaches for ultimately testing and verifying the specications during the product development process. 6. Circulate specications for comment and/or amendment inside and outside the development team and evaluate comments and amendments.
41
M. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
N. 1,3 2,6 1,3 1,3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16,17 17,18 19 19 20 20
Metric
Imp 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 2 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5
Units dB N g s N-s/m mm mm kN/m kg kN/m in mm List in s list Subj. US s cycles s list hours cycles binary kN
Attenuation from dropout to handlebar at 10 Hz Spring preload Maximum value from the Monster Minimum descent time on test track Damping coecient adjustment range Maximum travel (26 in. wheel) Rake oset Lateral stiness at the tip Total mass Lateral stiness at brake pivots Headset sizes Steertube length Wheel sizes Maximum tire width Time to assemble to frame Fender compatibility Instills pride Unit manufacturing cost Time in spray chamber without water entry Cycles in mud chamber without contamination Time to disassemble/assemble Special tools required for maintenance UV test duration to degrade rubber parts Monster cycles to failure Japan Industrial Standards test Bending strength (frontal loading)
Table 3.1: List of metrics for a mountain bike suspension. The relative importance of each metric and the units for the metric are shown. M. and N. are abbreviations for the number of specication and the need it comes from. Subj. is an abbreviation indicating that a metric is subjective. (Adapted after Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000).
42
Date
Demand/ Wish
Design specication
Test/ Verication
Functional Requirements 1/25 1/25 D D Provide thrust for maximum height (velocity > (20 m/s) Maintain stable vertical ight path (less than 0.25 m deviation from vertical path) Constraints 1/25 D Rocket length 15 cm Verify with engr. drawings during concept generation, detail design, etc. 1/26 D No detachable part less than 5 cm in diameter Verify with dimensional check of engr. drawings Bernoulli and conservation of momentum analysis Flight tests with prototype Design of experiments
Table 3.2: Specication sheet template, example of a toy rocket product (partial). Adapted after Otto & Wood (2001).
Specication category Geometry Kinematics Forces Material Signals Safety Ergonomics Production Quality Control Assembly Transport Operation Maintenance Costs Schedules
Description Dimensions, space requirements, . . . Type and direction of motion, velocity, . . . Direction and magnitude, frequency,load imposed by, energy type, eciency, capacity, conversion, temperature Properties of nal products, ow of materials, design for manufacturing Input and output, display Protection issues Comfort issues, human interface issues Factory limitations, tolerances, wastage Possibilities for testing Set by DFMA or special regulations or needs Packaging needs Environmental issues such as noise Servicing intervals, repair Manufacturing costs, material costs Time constraints
Table 3.3: Categories for searching and decomposing specications (After Franke, 1995).
43
3.3 Quality Function Deployment
With QFD Effort Traditional approach
Time Design Details Process Production
Figure 3.1: Traditional vs. QFD design approaches (After Ouyang et al.
3.3
Quality Function Deployment
As discussed before, it is not uncommon that designers nd themselves working a problem only to nd out later that they were solving the wrong one. An ecient designer must try by all possible means to dene the correct problem at the beginning or discover the problem at earliest possible moment. The Quality Function Deployment technique provides a methodological way to do it. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) originated in Japan as a help to translate customer requirements into technical requirements throughout the development and production of a product. It originated in Japan in the 1970s as the Kobe supertanker company wanted to develop the logistics for building complex cargo ships. Professors were asked to create a technique that would ensure that each step of the construction process would be linked to fullling a specic customer requirement. Using this technique, Toyota was able to reduce the costs of bringing a new car model to the market by 60 percent and to decrease the time required for its development by one third. As shown in gure 3.1, QFD requires more eort on the design stage, but as most design aws are catched early in the design process, later stages are less prone to fail or require adjustments or redesigns. Qualify Function Deployment has four distinct phases: design, details, process and production. As shown in gure 3.2, in the Design phase, the customer
44
HOWS
Design Requirements HOWS Parts Requirements HOWS Process Requirements HOWS WHATS Product Requirements Production Requirements
WHATS
Customer Requirements
WHATS
Design Requirements
1
Design
WHATS
Parts Requirements
2
Details
3
Process
4
Production
Figure 3.2: The four phases of QFD. From customer requirements to client satisfaction. The hows on each House of Quality becomes the whats in the next. helps to dene the requirements for the product or service. In the Details phase, design parameters (hows ) carried over the design phase become the functional requirements (whats ) of individual part details. In the Process phase, the processes required to produce the product are developed. Once more, the design parameters of the details phase become the functional requirements of the process phase. Finally, in the Production phase, the design parameters of the process phase become functional requirements for production. As discussed above, QFD can be applied all the way through the design process from concept to production using the same principles on each phase. It is generally agreed that the QFD technique is most valuable at the early design stages where customer requirements have to be translated to engineering targets. The QFD technique uses six steps to do this translation: 1. Identifying the customer(s). 2. Determining customer requirements. 3. Determining relative importance of the requirements. 4. Competition benchmarking.
45
3.3 Quality Function Deployment 5. Translating customer requirements into measurable engineering requirements. 6. Setting engineering targets for the design.
Each step will be reviewed in more detail, but before going any further is convenient to highlight that: No matter how well a design team thinks it understand a problem, it should employ the QFD method. Customer requirements must be translated into clear engineering targets involving measurable quantities. The QFD technique may be applied to the whole design as well as to subsystems or subproblems. It is important to rst worry about what needs to be designed and, once the problem is fully understood, to worry about how it will be designed. 3.3.1. Identication of costumers customer to satisfy. Independently of how many customers may be, it is essential to realize that the customer, and not the engineer, is the one driving the product development process. Many times the engineer has a mental picture of how the product should be like and how it should perform, picture that may be very dierent from what the customer really wants. On the other hand, may products have been poorly received by the customers simply because the engineer failed to identify accurately the customers desires. 3.3.2. Determination of costumers requirements The determination of customer requirements should be made through customers surveys or evaluation of similar existing products. Customer requirements should be made in the customers own words such as fast, easy, durable, light, strong, etc. As much as possible, customer requirements should be stated in positive terms.
Sometimes is not only not clear what the customer wants, but also who the customer is. Furthermore, is very common to nd that there is more than one
46
In order to facilitate understanding, requirements may be grouped in types like performance requirements, appearance requirements, safety requirements, and so on. If the customer has specic preference for one given type, determining the relative importance of dierent requirements may be easier to do. 3.3.3. Determination of Not all requirements will be regarded as equally relative importance of the important to customers. For example, easy to requirements use may be more important for the customer than easy to maintain, and easy to maintain may be regarded as more more important than good looking. On the other hand, some requirements like safe to use, may be regarded as absolute requirements rather than relative preferences. In order to design eectively, the design team should know which attributes of their product design are the ones that most heavily aect the perception of the product. Hence, it is necessary to establish the relative importance of those attributes to the customers themselves. 3.3.4. Competition Sometimes customers often make judgment about prodbenchmarking uct attributes in terms of comparisons with other products. One screwdriver, for example, may have better grip than others or another screwdriver may seem more durable. Given that customers are not generally experts, they may compare dierent attributes by observation of what some products achieve. If the product is to be well positioned in a competitive market, the design team must ensure that its product will satisfy customer requirements better than competitor products. Therefore, the performance of the competition of those product attributes that are weighted high in relative importance should be analyzed. 3.3.5. Conversion of customer needs into engineering requirements Once a set of customer requirements have been selected due to its importance, it is necessary to develop a set of engineering requirements that are measurable.
Some of these engineering requirements, or design specications, may be cleared dened from the beginning. One example is the weight that a chair must withstand. Others, may be more dicult to characterize as will be measurable by
47
3.4 The House of Quality
dierent means. In the case of a chair that is to be easily assembled by the customer, easily may be measured in terms of the number of tools needed for the assembly, the number of parts to be assembled, the number of steps needed for the assembly or the time needed for the assembly. In this step, every eort should be made in order to nd all possible ways in which a customer requirement may be measured. 3.3.6. Setting engineering The last step in the process is setting the engitargets neering targets. For each engineering measure determined in the previous step, a target value will be set. This target values will be used to evaluate the ability of the product to satisfy customer requirements. Two actions will be needed, to examine how the competition meets the engineering requirements, and to establish the value to be obtained with the new product. Best targets are established using specic values. Less precise, but still usable, are those targets set within some range. Another type, extreme values, are targets set to a minimum or maximum value. Although extreme type targets are measurable, they are not the best since they give no clear information of when the performance of a new product is acceptable. Here, evaluation of the competition can give at least some range for the target value.
3.4
The House of Quality
After the rst stages of the design process have been carried out, several pieces of information are available to the design team. Without proper guidance, the team may feel that is lost in a see of information. The Quality Function Deployment, and more specically, the House of Quality (HOQ), can help the design team to dene the following pieces of information: 1. The specications of the product. 2. How the competition meets the goals. 3. What is important from the point of view of the customer. 4. Engineering specications to work toward.
48
There are two points that are worth considering before constructing the House of Quality to a design problem. First, no matter how well it is taught that a design problem is understood, the design team should employ the QFD method for all original design or redesign projects. Second, the QFD technique can be applied to an entire product and its sub-systems. To construct the House of Quality, the following steps should be followed: 1. Identify the customers. 2. Determine the requirements of the customers. 3. Determine the relative importance of the requirements. 4. Perform a benchmarking activity to determine how competition satisfy the customers. 5. Generate engineering specications. 6. Set engineering targets. 7. Relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specications. 8. Identify relationships between engineering requirements. This house provides in a single picture all the pieces of information gathered by the design team and their relationships. As shown in gure 3.3, the house has many rooms, each containing valuable information. The rst step for documenting information in the House of Quality is to determine the customer requirements and its relative importance. This information can be registered in the rst room of the house: customer requirements. This room relates to what the customers want. The next step is to write down the information regarding the benchmarking activities carried out in the second room of the house: Customer targets and ratings. This room relates to now vs. what or how the customer are currently being satised. In this step, each competing product must be compared with the requirements of customers, rating each existing design on a scale of 1 to 5:
49
Correlation Matrix How vs How
Engineering Design Specifications HOW
Importance Rating
Customer Requirements WHAT
Relationship Matrix What vs How
Targets How Much
Figure 3.3: Template for the House of Quality. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The The The The The product product product product product does not meet the requirement at all. meets the requirement slightly. meets the requirement somewhat. meets the requirement mostly. fullls the requirement completely.
The benchmarking step is very important as it shows opportunities for both product improvement and gain in market share. If all the competition rank low on one requirement, that is clearly an opportunity, specially if the customer ranked that specic requirement as essential.
Customer Targets and Ratings Now vs. What
3.4 The House of Quality Indicator Meaning Strong relationship Some relationship Small relationship Blank Indicates no relationship Strength 9 5 3 0
50
Table 3.4: Symbols used to indicate the level of relationship between customer requirements and engineering design specications.
After the engineering specications have been generated, each one can be written in the third room of the house: engineering design specications. This room relates how customer requirements will be measured to ensure satisfaction. Hand in hand with the previous room is the targets room, which specify how much should be achieved. In this room all the target values related to each one of the engineering design specications are stated. In many cases, extreme values for the delighted and disgusted states of customer satisfaction are also included for each specication. After the previous steps have been carried out, only two more steps are missing, to relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specications and to identify relationships between engineering requirements. To relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specications, the room at the center of the house, the relationship matrix, is used. In this matrix, each cell represents how an engineering specication relates to a customer requirement. Although many parameters can measure more than one customer requirement, the strength of the relationship can vary. The strength of the relationship is represented through the specic symbols shown in table 3.4. To nish with the procedure, the roof of the house, the correlation matrix is lled. Here, the relationship between dierent engineering specications is shown. The idea of the roof is to show that as one works to meet one specication, you may be having a positive or negative eect on others. For this purpose, the symbols shown in table 3.5 may be used. As the above steps are completed, the House of Quality lls up. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show two dierent examples of houses of quality for two dierent products.
51 Indicator + Meaning Strong positive correlation Some positive correlation Some negative correlation
3.4 The House of Quality Strength 9 3 -1 -3
Strong negative correlation
Table 3.5: Symbols used to indicate the level of correlation between engineering design specications. 3.4.1. Comments on QFD One hint for eectively using the House of Quality and the house of quality is that the matrix should not grow too large. If the house is larger than 50 rows and columns, then the design team should operate at dierent levels in the product. Another is to devote QFD as much time as needed. It may appear that QFD slows down the design process, but it does not. Time spent developing information is returned in time saved later in the process. Finally, it should be kept also in mind that QFD is a tool to build consensus. It is a tool to ensure that a variety of specications from dierent areas converge to a successful product.
References
1. Jacobson, G. & Hillkirk, J. (1986) Xerox: American Samurai. 2. Franke, H. J. (1975) Methodische Schritte beim Klaren konstruktiver Aufgabenstellungen. Konstruktion. 27, 395-402. 3. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall. 4. Ullman, D. (2001) The Mechanical Design Process. Third Ed. McGrawHill. 5. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Second Ed. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
52
Temperature of water in sleeping basket
Hottest temperature outside container
Time water is in contact with tea
Temperature of exiting hot tea
Mr. Coffee Iced Tea Maker
Stronger tea Easy to add ice Easy to add tea Easy to clean Easy to store Brew larger amount Contain steam Technical Difficulty Measurements Units Object Target values Objective Measures West Bend Mr. Coffee WB Coffee Maker Old Fashion Way Powered Tea Technical Importance Absolute Relative
9 5 5 3 3 2 2 3
C
4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 1
3
1 2 3 3 3 2 4
5 2 2 2 5 4 2
5 2 2 4 5 4 5
3
44
3
0 5 1 5 5 5 45
3
3
2
qt ? 100 ? ?
sec cup C
sec sec sec ft3 30 0.2
98 8.0
98 << 4.75 88 ? 98 99 na 83 8 na 5 na 81 4.75 ? 0 ?
20 0.4 2 20 0.2 2
20 0.4 1.5 240 na 60 27 na 36
na hot na 25
na 100 na 25
63 45
27 18
Figure 3.4: House of quality for iced tea maker (partial). After Otto & Wood (2001).
West Bend Iced Tea Maker 1 3 3 3 3 3 1
West Bend Coffee Maker
Volume of water in tank
Time needed to add tea
Time to clean product
Largest size of brew
Old Fashion Way
Powdered Tea
Total Volume
53
Max accel on 2.5 cm standard pothole
Max accel on 5.0 cm standard pothole
Energy transmitted on standard road
Max acceleration on standard street
Amount of change in spring rate
Amount of change in damping
# number of tools to adjust
Riders that notice pogoing
Rider weight range
# of tools to adjust
Rider height range
Environment Adjustability Performance
Smooth ride on streets Eliminate shock from bumps No pogoing Easy to adjust for different weights Easy to adjust for different heights Easy to adjust ride hardness No noticeable temperature effect No noticeable dirt effect No noticeable water effect Units BikeE CT Mountain Bike Recumbent Target (delighted) Target (disgusted)
% 95 35 50 30 50 gs gs gs % lbs in # # % %
1 1 5 5 5 1 5 5 5
3 2 2 3 3 1 4 4 5
0.4 1.6 3.0 0.0 100 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 20 0.1 0.7 0.9 40 30 40 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.4 0.5 100 100 6.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.0 50 50 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Figure 3.5: House of quality for suspension system (partial). Adapted from Ullman (2003).
Mountain Bike 3 4 1 2 3 3 4 4 5
Recumbent
BikeE CT
CHAPTER Concept Generation
Up to now, all energies have been focused to understand the design problem and to develop its specications and requirements. The goal now is to generate concepts that will lead to a quality product. A concept may be dened as an idea that is suciently developed to evaluate the physical principles that govern its behavior (Ullman, 2003). Hence, concepts must be rened enough to evaluate their form and the technologies needed to realize them. Concepts can be represented in rough sketches, ow diagrams, set of calculations or textual notes. In any case, each concept must contain enough details so the functionality of the idea can be ensured. Sometimes, design begins with a concept to be developed into a product. This is considered to be a weak philosophy and generally does not lead to quality design. In order to minimize changes later in the process, it is normally expected that the concept generation scheme should take 20-25 percent of the design process. It is very important for the design team to generate as many concepts as possible, following the old advice: Generate one idea, and it will probably be a poor one. Generate twenty ideas, and you may have a good one. It is a natural tendency to generate concepts as the design process progress, as it is naturally to associate ideas with things that we already known. This
55
4.1 Establishing product functions

Basic Methods Brainstorming 635 Method
Concept generation methods
The Morphological Chart
Logical methods
TRIZ (TIPS) Axiomatic design
Figure 4.1: Some concept Generation methods. creates a tendency for designers to take their rst idea and start to rene it toward a product. This is considered a very weak practice. In order to avoid the previous problems, various methods aimed to generate concepts are presented here. Some may be more complicated to follow or have their particular value. In any case, it is a decision of the design team which to follow. Figure 4.1 shows the methods that will be discussed in this chapter. It is important to recall once more the importance of information gathering. Considered the rst method for concept generation, this activity should be really the starting point of any concept generation method. This activity will include the search for documented ideas on solving problem functions that will increase the scope of possible solution generated by the design team. In the last chapter several sources of information were reviewed in the scope of the benchmarking activity. This sources are also valid here, and gure 4.2 shows a summary of them.
4.1
Establishing product functions
In order to generate concepts for a product, the rst step is to determine what functions does the product must do in order to fulll customer needs. There are several methods for this. Two commonly used methods are the Objectives Tree Method and the Functional Decomposition Method. Both are explained in what follows.

Benchmarking Nature Analogies Product Function Product Architecture Patents Journals Information Sources Published media Product Information Textbooks Consumer Products Periodicals Goverment Reports Professionals in Field People Customers Experts
56
Figure 4.2: Information sources for concept generation. Many of this information can be found through the World Wide Web. 4.1.1. The objectives tree method The objectives tree method oers a clear and useful format for such a clarication of customer need statements in form of objectives. It also shows in a diagrammatic form the ways in which dierent objectives are related to each other and the hierarchical pattern in which they are organized. As with many methods in the design process, the objectives tree is not as important as the procedure for arriving at it. One way to start making vague statements more specic is to try to simple specify what it means. Consider the following example provided by Cross (1994) where an objective for a machine tool must be safe. This objective might be expanded to mean: 1. Low risk of injury to operator. 2. Low risk of operator mistakes. 3. Low risk of damage to work-piece or tool 4. Automatic cut-out on overload.
57
Machine must be safe
How Low risk of injury to operator Low risk of operator mistakes Low risk of damage to workpiece or tool Why Automatic cutout on overload
Figure 4.3: Hierarchical diagram of relationships. After Cross (1994). These dierent statements can be generated simply at random as the design team discusses about the objective. The types of questions that are useful in expanding and clarifying objectives are simple ones like why do we want to achieve this objective? and what is the problem really about?. Some authors also include questions like How can we achieve it? starting to give some insight about how the objectives may be accomplished. This gives way to statements like automatic cut-out on overload which are not objectives by themselves but means of achieving certain objectives. Nevertheless, it is dicult to avoid making concessions reducing the scope of the possible solutions that may be generated in later stages of the design process. For this reason, in the approach followed here, everything related to the how to accomplish objectives will be left to the concept generation stage. As the list of objectives is expanded, it becomes clear that some are at higher levels of importance than others. This relative importance may be represented in a hierarchical diagram of relationships as shown in gure 4.3. In some cases, the relative position of each statement in the diagram may be a source of disagreement between the dierent members of the design team. However, exact precision of relative levels is not important, and most people can agree when only a few levels are being considered. At this point, it is important to notice that the level of importance of the statement should not be confused with the level of importance of the customer need. Here, importance is related to the statements written to try to clarify
4.1 Establishing product functions one objective, which correspond to one customer need.
58
In many cases, dierent people will draw dierent objectives trees for the same problem or the same set of objective statements. The tree diagram simply represents one perception of the problem structure. It is only a temporary representation, which will probably change as the design process proceeds. One more elaborated example of an objective tree is shown in gure 4.4 where the objectives tree for the design of a car door is shown. The procedure of building an objectives tree can be summarized using the following steps: 1. Prepare a list of design objectives. 2. Order the list into sets of higher-level and lower-level objectives. 3. The expanded list of objectives and sub-objectives is grouped roughly into hierarchical levels. 4. Draw a diagrammatic tree of objectives showing hierarchical relationships which suggest means of achieving objectives. 4.1.2. The functional From the objectives tree method, it is clear that dedecomposition method sign problems can have dierent levels of generality or detail. Hence, the level at which the problem is dened is crucial and it is always appropriate to question the level at which the design problem is posed. On the other hand, focusing too narrowly on a certain level may hide a more radical or innovative solution. In any way, it is useful to have means of considering the problem level at which a design team is to work. It is also very useful if this can be done considering the essential functions that a solution will be required to satisfy. This approach leaves the design team free to develop alternative solution proposals that satisfy the functional requirements. The function decomposition method oers such means of considering essential functions and the level at which the problem is to be addressed. The essential functions are those that the device, product or system to be design must satisfy, independently what physical components might be used to fulll them.
59
The starting point of this method is to clarify what is the main purpose of the design. As it has been up to now, it is important what has to be achieved by the new design and not how is going to be achieved. The most simple way of representing this main purpose is to draw a black box which converts certain inputs into desired outputs (see gure 4.5). This black box contains all the functions which are necessary for converting inputs into outputs. At this point, it is preferable to try to make this overall function as broad as possible, avoiding to start with a narrow function that limits the range of possible solutions. In order to establish in an accurately way the required inputs and outputs as well as the system boundary which denes the function of the product or device, questions like where do the inputs come from?, what are the outputs for?, what is the next stage of conversion?, etc. can be made to the customer. Usually the conversion of the set of inputs into the set of outputs is a complex set of tasks occurring inside the black box. This complex set of tasks must be broken down into sub-tasks or sub-functions which linked together by their inputs and outputs satisfy the overall function of the product or device being designed. As this necessary sub-functions are establish, the black box is redraw as a transparent box (see gure 4.6). According to Pahl and Beitz (2001), anyone setting up a function structure ought to bear the following points in mind: 1. First derive a rough function structure with a few sub-functions from what functional relationships you can identify in the requirements list, and then break this rough structure down, step by step, by the solution of complex sub-functions. This is much simpler than starting out with more complicated structures. In certain circumstances, it may be helpful to substitute a rst solution idea for the rough structure and then, by analysis of that rst idea, to derive other important sub-functions. It is also possible to begin with subfunctions whose inputs and outputs cross the assumed system boundary. From these it is possible to determine the inputs and outputs for the neighboring functions, in other words, work from the system boundary inwards. 2. If no clear relationship between the sub-functions can be identied, the search for a rst solution principle may, under certain circumstances, be based on the mere enumeration of important sub-functions without
60
logical or physical relationships, but if possible, arranged according to the extent to which they have been realized. 3. Logical relationships may lead to function structures through which the logical elements of various working principles (mechanical, electrical, etc.) can be anticipated. 4. Function structures are not complete unless the existing or expected ow of energy, material and signals can be specied. Nevertheless, it is useful to begin by focusing attention on the main ow because, as a rule, it determines the design and is more easily derived from the requirements. The auxiliary ows then help in the further elaboration of the design, in coping with faults, and in dealing with problems of power transmission, control, etc. The complete function structure, comprising all ows and their relationships, can be obtained by iteration, that is, by looking rst for the structure of the main ow, completing that structure by taking the auxiliary ows into account, and then establishing the overall structure. 5. In setting up function structures it is helpful to know that, in the conversion of energy, material and signals, several sub-functions recur in most structures and should therefore be introduced rst. Essentially, the generally valid functions are described next. Conversion of energy: Changing energy for instance, electrical into mechanical energy. Varying energy components for instance, amplifying torque. Connecting energy with a signal for instance, switching on electrical energy. Channeling energy for instance, transferring power. Storing energy for instance, storing kinetic energy. Conversion of material: Changing matter for instance, liquefying a gas. Varying material dimensions for instance, rolling sheet metal. Connecting matter with energy for instance, moving parts. Connecting matter with signal for instance, cutting o steam. Connecting materials of dierent type for instance, mixing or separating materials.
61
4.1 Establishing product functions Channelling material - for instance, mining coal. Storing material - for instance, keeping grain in a silo. Conversion of signals: Changing signals for instance, changing a mechanical into an electrical signal, or a continuous into an intermittent signal. Varying signal magnitudes for instance, increasing a signals amplitude. Connecting signals with energy for instance, amplifying measurements. Connecting signals with matter for instance, marking materials. Connecting signals with signals for instance, comparing target values with actual values. Channelling signals for instance, transferring data. Storing signals for instance, in data banks. 6. In the case of mechanical devices, table 4.1 can be a good starting point to identify functions. 7. For the application of micro-electronics, it is useful to consider signal ows as shown in gure 4.4. This results in a function structure that suggests clearly the modular use of elements to detect (sensors), to activate (actuators), to operate (controllers), to indicate (displays) and, in particular, to process signals using microprocessors. 8. From a rough structure, or from a function structure obtained by the analysis of known systems, it is possible to derive further variants and hence to optimize the solution, by: braking down or combining individual sub-functions; changing the arrangement of individual sub-functions; changing the type of switching used (series switching, parallel switching or bridge switching); and shifting in the system boundary. Because varying the function structure introduces distinct solutions, the setting up of function structures constitutes a rst step in the search for solutions.
4.1 Establishing product functions Absorb/remove Actuate Amplify Assemble/disassemble Change Channel or guide Clear or avoid Collect Conduct Control Convert Couple/interrupt Direct Dissipate Drive Hold or fasten Increase/decrease Interrupt Join/separate Lift Limit Locate Move Orient Position Protect Release Rectify Rotate Secure Shield Start/stop Steer Store Supply Support Transform Translate Verify
62
Table 4.1: Typical mechanical design functions. After Ullman (2003). 9. Function structures should be kept as simple as possible, so as to lead to simple and economical solutions. To this end, it is also advisable to aim at the combination of functions for the purpose of obtaining integrated function carriers. There are, however, some problems in which discrete functions must be assigned to discrete function carriers, for instance, when the requirements demand separation, or when there is a need for extreme loading and quality. The procedure to follow to establish the required functions and the system boundary of a new design can be stated using the following steps: 1. Express the overall function for the design in terms of the conversion of inputs and outputs. 2. Break down the overall function into a set of essential subfunctions. 3. Draw a block diagram showing the interaction between subfunctions. 4. Draw the system boundary. The system boundary denes the functional limits for the product or device to be designed.
63
4.2 Generation of ideas
In order to eectively apply the functional decomposition method, the following guidelines should be followed: 1. Document what not how. 2. Use standard notation when possible. 3. Consider logical ows. 4. Match inputs and outputs in the functional decomposition. 5. Break the function down as nely as possible. One simple example that can be used to illustrate the process of functional decomposition is that of a tea maker (Cross, 1994). The fundamental process to be achieved by such a machine is to convert cold water and tea leaves into hot tea as illustrated in gure 4.8. Some transparent box models of the tea maker are shown in gure 4.9. These models represent three alternative processes by which the overall function can be achieved. After considering them, the designer settled on the rst process where various necessary auxiliary functions became apparent, specially regarding the control of the heating and brewing processes. 4.1.3. Functional Analysis Systems Technique (FAST) To be added.
4.2
Generation of ideas
To be added 4.2.1. Brainstorming Brainstorming is a group-oriented technique aimed to generate as many concepts as possible. The procedure is quite simple and has the advantage that a committed team can create a large number of ideas from dierent points of view. The guidelines for brainstorming are as follows: 1. Form a group with 5 to 15 people.
4.2 Generation of ideas
64
2. Designate a person to work as facilitator to prevent judgments and encourage participation by all. Although some authors state that the facilitator should also be a contributor. Other suggest that the facilitator should only guide and record the session avoiding further participation. The latter allows the designation of the most participate person of the team as facilitator to encourage other team members to participate actively. 3. Brainstorm for 30-25 minutes. The rst 10 minutes are generally devoted to introduce the problem at hand. The next 20-25 minutes sees the most generation of ideas, and during the last 10 minutes a sharp decline in ideas may happen. 4. Do not allow the evaluation of ideas, just the generation of them. This is very important. Ignore any comments about the usefulness, validity or value of any idea. 5. Avoid conning the group to experts in the area, that may limit the introduction of new ideas. 6. Avoid hierarchically structured groups. Bosses, supervisors and managers should not be included in many of the sessions. Some hints may be used to stimulate new thinking and the generation of new ideas: Make analogies, think what other devices solve a related problem, even if they are applied to an unrelated area of application. Wish and wonder. Think wild. Sometimes silly, impossible ideas, give way to useful ones. Use related and unrelated stimuli. First, use photos of objects or devices that are related to the problem at hand. Next, use photos of objects unrelated to the problem. This activity usually gives way to new ideas. Set quantitative goals. Set a reasonable number of concepts and do not leave the session until you have achieve them. For a group session, individual targets of 10 to 20 concepts is reasonable.
65 4.2.2. Silent brainstorming 4.2.3. The 6-3-5 method To be added.
4.3 The morphological chart
One of the two main disadvantages with brainstorming is that rst, all ideas are conveyed by words. Second, the generation of ideas can be dominated by one or two team members. The 6-4-5 method forces equal participation by all. The guidelines for the 6-3-5 method are also very simple: 1. Arrange teams around a table. Although 6 members are optimal, a number between 3 and 8 should suce. 2. Establish a specic function of the product to work with. 3. Ask each member to draw in a sheet of paper two lines in order to create three columns. After that, ask each member to write, 3 ideas, one on each column, about how the function could be fullled. Ideas can be communicated by words, sketches or both. 4. After 5 minutes of working in the concepts, pass the sheets of papers to the right. 5. Give the participants another 5 minutes to add other three ideas to the list. 6. After completing a cycle stop to discuss the results and nd the best possibilities. It is important to mention that there should be no verbal communication in this technique until the end. This rules forces interpretation of the previous ideas only from what it is on the paper.
4.3
The morphological chart
The aim of the morphological chart is to generate a complete range of alternative design solutions for a product widening the search for potential new solutions. It is based on the use of identied functions to foster ideas and has two parts. First, to generate as many concepts as possible. Second, to
66
combine the individual concepts into overall concepts that meet all functional requirements. The procedure to create and use a morphological chart is quite simple and can be summarized as follows: 1. List the features or functions that are essential to the product. Each function will be a row of the chart. The list of functions should contain all the features that are essential to the product, at an appropriate level of generalization. If a QFD procedure has been already performed, the list of customer requirements can be used as the list of functions. 2. For each feature or function, list the means by which it may be achieved. These lists will be the columns of the chart. Lists might include new ideas as well as known solutions. 3. After the chart has been lled out, identify feasible combinations of subsolutions. Each combination will be a possible solution to identify. Figure 4.10 shows an example of a morphological chart for a hand nailer presented by Ullrich & Eppinger (2000). The rows in the table correspond to the functions identied by the design team: convertion of electrical energy to translational energy, acummulation of translational energy and application of translational energy to the nail. The entries in each column correspond to possible solutions for the function at hand. It is important to notice that in order for the chart to be most useful, the items in the list of functions should all be at the same level of generality, and they should be as independent of each other as possible. The list should not be too long, however, and no more than 10 functions should be considered. Some authors advice to use no more than 4 functions at a time. If some functions are to be disregarded for this matter, the development team must clearly understand the risks and tradeos of not taking them into consideration. It is also advisable to arrange solution principles so that the columns create logical grouping, for example, of mechanical type, of electrical type, etc. Also, sketches should be used whenever possible to convey as much information as possible. Finally, consideration should be given only to solutions that meet the estimated engineering specications.
67
Once the chart is lled with solutions to all the specic functions listed, the next step is to consider combinations from the range of all possible solutions. Usually a large number of combinations is possible, although restrictions apply as not all combinations of solutions are possible, for example, combinations that have intrinsic incompatibilities should be discarded. It is essential to analyze very carefully each option before rejecting it. The design team must have in mind that, initially many combinations may not seem to provide a practical solution to the problem at hand, specially to the inexperienced designer. In the example shown in gure 4.10, 24 combinations can be found from the concepts generated ( 423). Figures 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 show the sketch of four possible solutions arising from the combination of concepts. The rst solution, shown in gure 4.11, is due to the combination the concepts solenoid, spring and Multiple impacts. The second solution, shown in gure 4.12, results from the combination of rotary motor with transmission, spring and multiple impacts. The third, fourth and fth solutions, shown in gure 4.13, arise from the combinations of concepts rotary motor with transmission, spring and single impact. Two examples of morphological charts are presented by Cross (1994). The rst one is concerned with nding alternative versions of the conventional forklift truck used for lifting and carrying loads. In the second one, alternatives for the design of a welding positioner are explorer. Regarding the nding of alternative versions of a lifting truck, the essential features of the truck are: 1. Means of support which allows movement. 2. Means of moving the vehicle. 3. Means of steering the vehicle. 4. Means of stopping the vehicle. 5. Means of lifting loads. 6. Location of the operator. The morphological chart generated for the above functions is shown in gure 4.14 where one possible solution is highlighted. It is interesting to note that
4.4 TRIZ
68
there are 90 000 possible combinations in the chart, although, some of them obviously, are not possible or include incompatible concepts. In the second example, alternatives for the design of a welding positioner, a device used to support and hold a workpiece and locating it in a suitable position are explored. Figure 4.15 shows the morphological chart for this case where several concepts are described by means of sketchs and text. One possible combination of concepts is indicated by the zig-zag line through the chart.
4.4
TRIZ
The Teoriya Resheniya Izobreatatelskikh Zadatch (TRIZ) or Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS), was developed by Genrikh S. Altshuller in the former U.S.S.R. at the end of the 1940s. The TRIZ theory is based on the idea that many of the problems that engineers face contain elements that have already been solved, often in a completely dierent industry for a totally unrelated situation that uses an entirely dierent technology to solve the problem. Based on this idea, Altshuller collaborated with an informal collection of academic and industrial colleagues to study patents and search for the patterns that exist. After spending 1500+ person-years studying at rst around 400,000 patents (today the database extend up to 2.5 million patents), Altshuller discovered that they could be classied into ve categories: 1. basic parametric advancement 2. change or rearrangement in a conguration 3. identifying conicts and solving them with known physical properties 4. identifying new principles 5. identifying new product functions and solving them with known or new principles. The rst two categories were designated as routine design, meaning that they do not exhibit signicant innovations beyond the current technology. The last three categories represent designs that included inventive solutions. He also
69
Degree of inventiveness Apparent solution Minor improvement Major improvement New concept Discovery Percent of solutions 32% 45% 18% 4% 1% Source of knowledge Personal Knowledge Knowledge within company Knowledge within industry Knowledge outside industry All that is knowable
4.4 TRIZ
Approximate number of solutions to consider 10 100 1000 100,000 1,000,000
Level
1 2 3 4 5
Table 4.2: Levels of Inventiveness. noted that as the importance of the innovation increased, the source of the solution required broader knowledge and more solutions to consider before an ideal one could be found. Table 4.2 summarizes this idea.
4.4 TRIZ
70
Provide opening Enable in/out Open door Push/pull door Pivot door
Close door Keep weather out Povide seal Safe direction
When open
Correct amount
Provide protection Against injury When closing
Safe force
Resist impact Resist damage
Provide safety
When closed
Safe interior
Strong latch Against theft Inaccessible lock
Provides latch Latches securely Secure handle
Figure 4.4: Objectives tree for a car door. After Pugh (1991).
71
4.4 TRIZ
Black Box
Inputs
Function
Outputs
Figure 4.5: A black box system model. After Cross (1994).

Transparent Box
Subfunction
Subfunction
Subfunction
Subfunction
Inputs
Function
Outputs
Figure 4.6: A transparent box model. After Cross (1994).
Operate
User
Indicate
Process (control)
Detect
Technical system
Activate
Figure 4.7: Basic signal ow functions for modular use in micro-electronics. After Pahl and Beitz (2001).
4.4 TRIZ
72
Cold water (measured quantity) Tea begin BREWED Tea leaves (measured quantity)
Hot tea
Tea leaves (waste)
Figure 4.8: Black box model of the tea brewing process. After Cross (1994).
(a)
Water Water is heated Energy Tea leaves Water and tea united Tea is infusing Tea and water are separated
Tea
Leaves
(b)
Water Water is heated Energy Tea leaves Tea leaves are wetted Tea leaves are immersed
Tea
Leaves
(c)
Water Water is heated Energy
Concentrate and water are united
Tea
Figure 4.9: Three alternatives to the transparent box model for the tea brewing process. After Cross (1994).
73
4.4 TRIZ
Convert Electrical Energy to Translational Energy Accumulate Energy Apply Translational Energy to Nail
Rotary motor with transmission
Linear Motor
Solenoid
Rail gun
Spring
Moving mass
Simgle impact
Multiple impacts
Push nail
Figure 4.10: Morphological table for a hand-held nailer. Adapted from Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
Linear Motor
Solenoid
Rail gun
Spring
Moving mass
Simgle impact
Multiple impacts
Push nail
1111111 0000000 000000 111111 0000000 1111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 0000000 1111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 0000000 1111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 0000000 1111111 000000 111111 0000000 1111111 000000 111111 0000000 1111111 000000 111111 0000000 1111111
Figure 4.11: Concept 1. Solenoid compressing a spring which is then released repeatedly in order to drive the nail with multiple impacts. Adapted from Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
4.4 TRIZ
74
Linear Motor
Solenoid
Rail gun
Spring
Moving mass
Simgle impact
Multiple impacts
Push nail
11111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11111
1 0 1 0 0 1
Figure 4.12: Concept 2 showing a possible combination of a motor with a transmission, a spring and multiple impacts. The motor repeatedly winds and releases the spring, storing and delivering energy over several hits. Adapted from Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
75
4.4 TRIZ
Linear Motor
Solenoid
Rail gun
Spring
Moving mass
Simgle impact
Multiple impacts
Push nail
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1111 0000 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
MOTOR
11111111 00000000 00 11 11 11 00 00 00 11 00 11 00 00 11 11
CAM
TRIGGER
Figure 4.13: Concept 3, 4 and 5 showing possible combinations of a motor with a transmission, a spring and a single impact. The motor winds a spring, accumulating potential energy which is then delivered to the nail in a single hit. Adapted from Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
4.4 TRIZ
76
Feature Support Propulsion Power Transmission Steering Stopping Lifting Operator Wheels Driven wheels Electric Gears and shafts Turning wheels Brakes Hydraulic ram Seated at front Track Air thrust Petrol Belts Air thrust Reverse thrust Rack and pinion Seated at rear
Means Air cushion Moving cable Diesel Chains Rails Ratchet Screw Standing Chain or rope hoist Walking Remote control Slides Linear induction Bottled gas Hydraulic Steam Flexible cable Pedipulators
Figure 4.14: Morphological chart for a forklift truck, with one possible combination of sub-solutions picked out by the dashed line (After Cross, 1994).
77
4.4 TRIZ
Action Principles / Families of Function carriers Partial Functions ENABLE connection with workpiece
4 Force locking (friction)
Form interlocking
mechanical screw or bolt wedge pneumatic hydraulic magnetic
ENABLE rotational movement
Rotational guidance sliding journal bearing cylinder rolling bearing sphere fulcrum pin position hang from above
ENABLE tilting movement
11111 00000 00000 11111

straight line guidance bearing, sliding or rolling hold directly by hand, weight of workpiece
ENABLE height adjustment
0000 1111 111 0000 1111 000 000 111 0 1 0 1 0 1

screw thread form interlocking hole pin ratchet mechanism
lever mechanism
11 00 00 11
force locking (friction) screw within screw with wedge, guidance washer brake block
LOCK state
DRIVE (by hand)
with mechanical advantage device Direct gear wheel pair rack and pinion helical gears (crossed) band, lever worm and rope, eccentric wormwheel chain cam
CONTROL of movement
through drive mechanism
through locking (ratchet)
Show position line scale
mechanical optical pointer scale electronic
mechanical stop
Figure 4.15: Morphological chart for a welding positioner, with one possible combination of sub-solutions picked out by the zig-zag line (After Cross, 1994).
4.4 TRIZ
78
PROBLEM TO SOLVE
Find contradictions
Contradiction Matrix
SOLUTION
Apply Inventive Principles
1 2 3 4 n Inventive Principles
TRIZ
Figure 4.16: TRIZ methodology. Based on his studies, Altshuller observed some trends in historical inventions: Evolution of engineering systems develops according to the same patterns, independently of the engineering discipline or product domain. These patterns can be used to predict trends and direct search for new concepts. Conicts and contradictions are the key drivers for product invention. The systematic application of physical eects aids invention, since a particular product team does not know all physical knowledge. In this regard, Altshuller noticed that almost all invention problems involved in one way or another the solution to a contradition. By contradition it is understood a situation in which the improvement of one feature means detracting another. The quality of the invention was in most occasions related to the quality of the solution to the contradiction. Based on this premise, Altshuller devised TRIZ. The goal of using TRIZ is to nd those contradictions that makes the design problem hard to solve.
79
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Weight of movable object Weight of stationary object Lenght of movable object Lenght of stationary object Area of movable object Area of xed object Volume of movable object volume of stationary object Speed Force Stress or pressure Shape Stability of the objects composition Strength Durability of a moving object Durability of a stationary object Temperature Illumination intensity Use of energy by moving object Use of energy by stationary object 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Power Waste of energy Loss of substance Loss of information Waste of time Quantity of substance Reliability Measurement accuracy Manufacturing precision Harmful action at object
4.4 TRIZ
Harmful eect caused by object Ease of manufacture Ease of operation Ease of repair Adaptation Device complexity Measurement or test complexity Degree of automation Productivity
Table 4.3: TRIZ 39 design parameters. Then, use the 40 inventive principles of TRIZ to generate ideas to overcome this problem. The 40 inventive principles were found by Altshuller to be the underlying principles behind all patents. This procedure is depicted in gure 4.16. Applying TRIZ principles allows the innovation without having to wait for inspiration. Practitioners of the TRIZ theory have a very high rate of developing new, patentable ideas.
4.4 TRIZ
80
4. Lenght of a stationary object
1. Weight of a movable object
7. Volume of movable object
What should be improved? 1. Weight of a movable object 2. Weight of a stationary object 3. Length of movable object 4. Lenght of a stationary object 5. Area of movable object 6. Area of stationary object 7. Volume of movable object 8. Volume of stationary object 9. Speed 10. Force 11. Stress or pressure 12. Shape 13. Stability of the objects composition 14. Strength 15. Durability of a movable object 16. Durability of a stationary object 17. Temperature 18. Illumination intensity 19. Use of energy by moving object 20. Use of energy by stationary object
15
8 10 1
29 17 38 34 35 30 13 15 17 4 2 29 35
29
2 5 35 14 2
8 10 10 36 10 14
1 35
29 34
40 28
15 38 18 37 37 40 35 40 19 39 8 10 13 29 13 10 26 39 19 35 10 18 29 14 13 8 35 8 2 14 4 17 10 4 28 10 1 35 35 29 30 19 30 10 15 4 34 35 1 18 10 15 35 36 36 37 29 4 15 35 6 35 1 15 28 10 4 1 39 35 40 1 18 7 35 2 34 28 38 34 36 37 36 37 29 8 1 8 1 40 1 8
8 15 29 34 35 28 40 29 2 17 29 4 30 2 26 29 40 19 14 2 28 13 38 8 37 18 1 28 13 14 8 9 36 2 1 7 8 14 18 4 17 35 10 19 14 35 2 14 14 15 18 4 26 7 9 39
7 17 4 35 17 7 10 40 7 14 17 4
10 29 15 34 15 7 35 2
1 14 13 14 39 37 5 34 11
2 36 28 29
4 13 39 2 38
2 18 24 35 37 29 30 34 15 7 29 34 1 18 15 9 2 36 13 28 6 35 36 35 36 4 7 21 36 37 12 37 18 37 15 12 6 35 35 24 14 13 28
6 18 35 15 28 33 18 21 10 35 35 10 11 40 34 21 35 4 35 33 40 33 1 18 4 18 4 10 30 13 17 15 10 2
15 19 38 40 18 34
1 18 13 17 19 28 10 19 10
10 36 13 29 35 10 35 37 40 10 18 36 29 40 26 2 39 1 19 1 3 4 1 5
1 10 15 10 15 5 34 4 10 2 11 39 13 3 34 3 17 19
14 16 36 28 36 37 10 4 10 7 37 15 22 35
8 10 15 10 29 34 13 14 21 35 26 39 13 15 1 28 1 15 15 14 2 19 9 6 27 19 16 6 38 32 19 1 32 12 18 2 8 31 19 9 6 27 2 32 9 35 19 32 16 12 28 1 40 35 9 8 40 26 5
2 35 15 35 10 34 15 34 18 37 40 10 14 35 22 1
28 10 34 28 33 15 10 35 2 19 39 35 40 28 18 21 16 40 9 14
9 40 10 15 14 10 2
8 13 10 18 10 3 3 35 19 5 16 2 19 27
40 15 27 34 31
8 35 28 26 40 29 28
7 17 15 26 14
3 14 18 40 35 40 35 3 14 26 13 3 28 25 35 39 3 35 23
19 30 35 34 38
36 22 22 35 15 19 15 19
3 35 35 38 34 39 35 39 18 19 32 26 15 19 25 40 18 4 2 10 35 13 18 13
2 28 35 10 35 39 14 22 36 30 19 8 3 21 19 6 35 16 26 23 14 12 2 35 21 2 36 37 25 29 10 13 26 19
1 35
2 19 32 32 32 30 32 3 27 19 13 17 24 27 4 29 18
Figure 4.17: TRIZ contradiction matrix.Continued.
13. Stability of the objects composition
2. Weight of a fixed object
5. Area of movable object
8. Volume of fixed object
What is deteriorated?
3. Length of fixed object
6. Area of fixed object
11. Stress or pressure
12. Shape
10. Force
9. Speed
81
4.4 TRIZ
15. Duration of moving objects operation
19. Energy expense of movable object
16. Duration of fixed objects operation
20. Energy expense of fixed object
What should be improved? 1. Weight of a movable object 2. Weight of a stationary object 3. Length of movable object 4. Lenght of a stationary object 5. Area of movable object 6. Area of stationary object 7. Volume of movable object 8. Volume of stationary object 9. Speed 10. Force 11. Stress or pressure 12. Shape 13. Stability of the objects composition 14. Strength 15. Durability of a movable object 16. Durability of a stationary object 17. Temperature 18. Illumination intensity 19. Use of energy by moving object 20. Use of energy by stationary object 3
28 27 5 28 2 10 27 8 35 19 14 28 26 15 6 29 34
34 2
6 4 19 6
29 19 1 38 32
25 12 34 31 28 1 8 24 35
13 36 6
5 35 8
10 24 10 35 35
3 26
18 40 31 35
18 31 34 19 3 31 18 19 15 19 18 19 5 1 35 7 6 2 4
20 28 18 31 35 26 18 26 24 15 2 29 14 29 30 6 4 22 2 13 18 29 35
27 28 19 35 19 32 22 32 10 15 32 19
10 15 10 20 19 6
18 22 28 15 13 30 35 29 1 35 39 23 10 12 8 24 35
1 35 3 2
3 2 16
35 3
25
28 10 28 24 26 30 29
38 18 15 15 32 19 32 19 13
19 10 15 17 10 35 30 26 26 4 32 18 30 26 2 17 32 17 7 30 35 30 6 7 6 39
40 14 40 9 9 8 14 6 35 4 38 3 19 14 3
10 35 39 34 39 10 13 35 10 18 2
10 14 30 16 10 35 2 18 39 6
19 30 38 15 7 17 15 26 14 35 5 35 10 19 2 14 27 9 3 18 19 3 40 27 9 25
18 40 4 29 30
15 36 39 2 10 39 35 34
13 18 13 16 34 10
34 10 7 35 16 35 3 32 18 10 19 29 38 10 37 14 29 36 18 36 37 36 10 14 36 4 14 34 36 22 10 17 35 27 15 32 35 29 3 29 10 35 35 17 19 28 10 27 20 10 3 28 20 3 10 16 31 35 28 3 1 6 19 1 26 17 35 38 34 23 19 18 16 18 3 31 35 1 21 18 30 39 28 18 10 40
35 34 35 6 4 28 30 10 13 8 36 2 35 10 21 35 39 19 2 19 32 32 35 1 32 3 27 15 10 19 28 6 35 35 18 4 19 15 35 38 19 17 1 10 14 24 10 37 6 34 14 13 19 27 4
19 35 14 20 10 13 13 26 38 2 36 37 18 37 10 35 2 14 4 2 32 35 14 2 10 26 35 35 28 19 10 35 38 16 29 18 27 31 39 6 6 25 14 19 35 28 38 35 5 40 16 19 35 14 15 8
36 10 36 3 37 35 29 3 2 5 14
30 14 14 26 10 40 17 15 9 13 27 39 3 27 3 26 27 3 10
22 14 13 15 2
10 35 35 23 32 40
30 40 35 28 31 40 28 27 10 3 18 27 16 10 18 38
30 10 35 19 19 35 35 19 35 2 39 19 18 36 40
10 30 19 3 22 40 39 35 19 2 6 5 9 35 19 28 35 35 6 18 19
19 18 36 40 32 19 35
32 30 19 15 21 16 3 32 19 15 14 19 19 2 35 32 17 1 15
14 21 17 21 36 19 16 13 1 1 6 19 12 22 35 24 28 27 18 31
17 25 35 38 29 31
1 32 35 32 6
19 24 2 3
37 18 15 24 18 5
Figure 4.18: TRIZ contradiction matrix. Continued.
26. Quantity of substance
24. Loss of information
23. Loss of substance
22. Waste of energy
25. Waste of time
17. Temperature
18. Illumination
14. Strength
21. Power
4.4 TRIZ
82
31. Harmful effect caused by object
29. Manufacturing precision
30. Harmful action at object
28. Measurement accuracy
38. Degree of automation 2 26 7
32. Ease of manufacture
37. Measurement or test complexity
36. Device complexity
33. Ease of operation
34. Ease of repair
What should be improved? 1. Weight of a movable object 2. Weight of a stationary object 3. Length of movable object 4. Lenght of a stationary object 5. Area of movable object 6. Area of stationary object 7. Volume of movable object 8. Volume of stationary object 9. Speed 10. Force 11. Stress or pressure 12. Shape 13. Stability of the objects composition 14. Strength 15. Durability of a movable object 16. Durability of a stationary object 17. Temperature 18. Illumination intensity 19. Use of energy by moving object 20. Use of energy by stationary object
3 11 1 28 27 28 35 22 21 22 35 27 28 35 3 27 8 3 35 26 26 18 18 27 31 39 1 28 4 3 32 3 32 35 26 28 2 40 4 14 1 2 16 27 28 1 35 32 3 35 17 22 37 1 29 37 17 24 2 32 1 10 32 22 33 17 2 28 1 29 27 2 22 1 18 39 9 17 27 13 1 36 2 6 1 35 10 28 18 26 10 1 2 19 35 22 28 1 15 17 15 1
27 29 5
26 30 28 29 26 35 35 3 36 34 26 32 18 19 24 37 10 25 28 19 35 1 26 26 2 1 28 15 35 26 39 17 15 35
24 28 11 15 8 13 2 32 28 11 29 4 10 25 3 1 1
27 19 15 1
10 14 28 32 10 28 1 29 40 28 29 15 29 32 28
29 15 29
1 28 14 15 1 35 1
17 26 14 4 30 14 26
16 26 24 26 24 24 16 28 29
15 17 2
9 26 28 2
15 17 15 13 15 30 14 1 13 15 16 36 16
36 14 30 10 26 35 23 10 15 17 7 16 24 34 35 37 10 2
18 39 26 24 13 16 10 1 40 16 16 4 29 1 40
26 18 28 23 34 2 30 18 4
1 18 2
18 36 39 35 40 15 13 10 30 12 1 2 25 16 27 35 40 1 19 27 35 28 2 4 24 35 13 32 28 34 2 1 15 37 1 3 1 35 11 1 28 15 1 25 11 2
25 26 25 28 22 21 17 2
15 29 26 1 1 31
29 26 35 34 10 6 2 2 17 26 3 34 10 18 2 35 3 28 35 37 35 37 17 26 34 10 8 23 35 40 3 29 35 10 14 10 35 17 14 19 20 10 16 38 32
40 11 28
35 10 34 39 30 18 35
11 35 28 32 10 28 1 3 35 35 10 28 29 1 10 13 6 19 35 25 16 1 13 11 3 11 2 13 34 27 10 26 6 40 24 19 35 32 19 24 3 10 24 11 15 3 32 19 21 3 11 27 32 10 36 23 1 1 6 3 16 3 3 40 18 27 3 28 3
15 10 10 28
24 32 25 35 23 35 21 8 35 13 3 2 33
13 12 28 27 26
4 34 27 16
15 17 26 35 36 37 18 20 10 18 10 19 35 19 1 35 2 37 28 39
13 21 23 24 37 36 40 18 36 24 18 1 35 22 2 37 2 35 27 18 16 35 1
36 35 24 10 14
10 40 28 32 32 30 22 1
32 32 15 2 13 1 1 15 29 10 16 34 2 3 27 1 3 13 2 10 2 27
16 29 15 13 15 1 1 35 35 22 1 13 27 3 15 40 19 29 6 25 14 1 6 35 27 26 2 15
17 28 26 30 10 32 28 2
35 24 35 40 35 19 32 35 2 18 30 27 39 27 18 35 15 35 11 3 37 1 22 2 27 22 15 21 39 27 1 17 1 40 33 22 33 22 35 26 27 26 27 4 35 2 2 24 32 39 28 26 19 35 27 6 30 4 16 22
15 35 30 2
22 26 39 23 35 28
32 40 27 11 15 3 2 2 12 27 29 10 1
35 10 4
16 40 33 28 16 22 4 35 10 1
29 35 39 35
18 2 16 6 13
17 3
15 28 35 31 19 16 35 26 2 16 12 28 35 1 6 25 10
32 15 19 35 19 19 35 28 26 15 17 15 1 13 16 19 15 15 17 2 35 28 26 19 35 1 19 22 1
32 32 15 2
2 29 35 38 32 2 19 35 16 25
17 28 13 16 27 28
10 2
22 37 18
39. Productivity
35. Adaptation
27. Reliability
83
4.4 TRIZ
4. Lenght of a stationary object
1. Weight of a movable object
7. Volume of movable object
What should be improved? 21. Power 22. Waste of energy 23. Loss of substance 24. Loss of information 25. Waste of time 26. Quantity of substance 27. Reliability 28. Measurement accuracy 29. Manufacturing precision 30. Harmful action at object 31. Harmful effect caused by the object 32. Ease of manufacture 8
36 19 26 1 19 6 35 6 7 6
10 2 6 38
19 38 17 32 35 6 13 38 38 15 26 17 7 7 17 30 30 18 23 10 18 1
30 6 25
15 35 26 2 2 38 16 35 36 38
22 10 29 14 35 32 2 40 15 31 14 2 39 6 3 36 29 35 2 5 14 30 40
38 31 17 27 35 37 15 6 35 6 19 28 18 9 13 7
36 35 35
18 7 29 3 2 5
14 29 10 28 35 2 26 26
39 10 13 14 15 22 26 32
23 40 22 32 10 39 24 10 24 10 35 1 35 5
10 31 39 31 30 36 18 31 28 38 18 40 37 10 3 30 26 30 16 10 35 2
10 20 10 20 15 2 37 35 26 5 35 6 3 8 29 27 26 29 14 3 10 15 9 28 14 4 16
30 24 26 4 14 5 5 29
35 16
10 37 36 37 4 36 5 34 28 3 4 14 3
10 35 3
16 17 4 40 4
34 10 32 18 29 10 2 35 14 24 24 6 35
34 17 22 5 17 40
15 14 2
18 15 20
35 29 35 14 10 36 35 14 15 2 21 35 8 28 10 24 35 1 35 19 16 11 6 32 34 36 28 6 32 40 22 1 3 35 35 40 27 39 28 11 13 28 32 35 13 30 18 35 24
18 31 18 35 35 18 10 40 8
15 29 17 10 32 35 3 28 11 14 16 40 4 3 16 32 3 32 3
11 28 10 3 28 13 32 2 32 24 32
32 35 28 35 28 26 32 28 26 28 26 28 32 13 26 28 25 26 5 13 18 27 9 22 21 2 28 32 28 35 10 28 22 17 1 2 32 28 33 2 1 18 22 1 17 2
29 32 28 25 10 10 28 28 19
3 35 32 30 30 18
29 37 10
29 32 18 36 2 27 2 22 1
22 23 34 39 21 22 13 35 22 2 17 2 40 1 40 16 4 1 30 18 35 28 35 28 2 35 4 3 8 23 1 1 35 1 10 14 28 2 18 3 4 20 35
27 39 13 24 39 4 19 22 35 22 17 15 15 39 1 28 29 1 25 2 2 1 6 39 16 22 27 1 13 1 27 1
33 28 39 35 37 35 19 27 35 28 39 18 37 18 39 40 26 12 1 40 27 18 1 12 11 13
33 35 1
29 15 17 13 1 17 28 3 1 16
16 40 13 29 35
35 13 35 12 35 19 1 18 18 13 28 13 2 34 9
15 16 36 13 13 17 27 33. Ease of operation 34. Ease of repair 35. Adaptation 36. Device complexity 37. Measurement or test complexity 38. Degree of automation 39. Productivity 13 15 1 27 2 6 25 13 12
37 13 27 1 32 15 34 32 35 29 28 30 1 2 1 13 2 4 8 14 22 35
17 18 16 1
13 16 15 39 35 15 39 31 34 18 15 13 16 25 25 2 32 29 7 14 1 13 16 2 13 2 6 35 11 29 36 34 26 1 6 39 29 1 35 13 16 6 35 37 34 10 10 2 35 35 30 15 16 15 35
35 11 35 11 10 25 31 19 15 35 1 29 16 29 2 26 1 15 8
35 10 15 17 35 16 15 37 35 30 16 34 10 26 16 19 1 29 13 2
26 30 2 27 26 6
19 26
34 36 35 39 26 24 13 16 17 26 26 24 28 13 28 1
28 15 17 19 39 39 30 13
36 28 35 36 27 13 11 22 35 13 35 15 32 18 1 1 10 36 14
18 17 30 16 4 17 14 13 34 31 17 7
16 26 31 16 35 40 19 37 32 1 28 10 2
28 26 28 26 14 13 23 18 35 35 10 28 17 35 26 28 27 18 4 24 37 15 3 28 38 26 7
30 14 10 26 10 35 2
28 15 10 37 10 10 35 3 34 40 22 39
13. Stability of the objects composition
2. Weight of a fixed object
5. Area of movable object
8. Volume of fixed object
3. Length of fixed object
6. Area of fixed object
11. Stress or pressure
12. Shape
10. Force
9. Speed
4.4 TRIZ
84
15. Duration of moving objects operation
19. Energy expense of movable object
16. Duration of fixed objects operation
20. Energy expense of fixed object
What should be improved? 21. Power 22. Waste of energy 23. Loss of substance 24. Loss of information 25. Waste of time 26. Quantity of substance 27. Reliability 28. Measurement accuracy 29. Manufacturing precision 30. Harmful action at object 31. Harmful effect caused by the object 32. Ease of manufacture
26 10 19 35 16 28 26 10 38
14 16
6 16 13 6
6 3 38
10 35 28 27 10 19 35 20 4 38 18 38 2 37 10 6 32 7 19 35 27 19 10 10 18 7 25 15 18 6
26. Quantity of substance 34 18 3 35 38 18 16 40 3 6 29 31 24 39 1 1 24 2 28 35 15 27 10 27 29 18 35 38
24. Loss of information 4 10 21 1 29
23. Loss of substance
22. Waste of energy
17 25 19 19 38 1 7 32 15
19 37
35 28 28 27 27 16 21 36 1 31 40 3 10 29 3 18 18 38 39 31 13 10 19
35 18 28 27 28 27 35 27 24 5 12 31 18 38 2 31 10 19 19 10
35 10 10 24 24 26 24 28 28 32 35 35 18 24 26 3 24 28 35 38 18 16
20 10 28 20 35 29 1 35 3 35 3 39 40 10 13 19 6 17
19 35 38 1 34 29 3 16 18 31 27 19 1 3 32 32 32 2 19 1 24 10 2 6
35 20 10 5 10 6 35 35 7 25 26 31 35 3 32 32 2 6 27 2
28 18 28 18 10 16 21 18 26 17 19 18 14 35 3 11 28 2 3 28 6 32 3 32 27 40 18 35 22 15 17 1 37 1 22 2 1 3 22 33 1 33 28 40 33 35 2 33 31 16 22 2 27 1 18 1 25 25 13 4 32 13 6 34 10 10 40 31 25 6 24
18 32 10 39 28 32 18 6 10 24 35 29 39 31 28 10 24 19 40 2 34 33 2 2
35 34 27 3 10 26 6
35 11 32 21 17 36 23 21 11 10 11 10 35 10 28 10 30 21 28 26 32 10 16 13 32 35 31 24 34 2 28 32 32 32 26 32 30 28 18 34
28 6
28 24 32 19 26 3
27 3
19 22 21 22 33 22 22 10 35 18 35 33 35 2 22 2 35 21 35 10 1 22 3
27 22 37 31 2 35 19 22 2 18 4 18 27 1 12 24
15 35 15 22 21 39 22 35 19 24 2 24 39 32 6 27 1 1 13 2 16 27 2 3 2 13 6 35 26 1 13 27 2 8 19 24
35 16 27 26 28 24 28 26 1 27 1 13 24 15 1 28 16 22 19 35 29 13 29 28 16 32 2 32 13 38 19 16 26 27 13 17 1 10 15 1
19 35 15 34 32 24 35 28 35 23 18 16 34 4 10 4 24 27 22 10 34 35 32 1 10 25 10 25 35 28 3 6 19 28 32 4 28 12 35
10 32 4 33. Ease of operation 34. Ease of repair 35. Adaptation 36. Device complexity 37. Measurement or test complexity 38. Degree of automation 39. Productivity 32 40 29 3 3 1 2 28 8 9
35 34 2 2 10 13
11 11 29 1 28 27 13 1 35 28 15
15 10 15 1 32 2 19 1 29
32 19 34 27 18 15 15 10 1 2 13
35 3 32 6 2 28 27 3
13 10 4
17 24 17 27 2
20 19 10 35 35 10 30 34 13 2 35 3 28 29 1
19 29 25 34 3 9
24 35 38 19 35 19 1 28 2 27 10
18 35 33 18 28 3
15 28 25 39 6 25 13 6
35 35 16 26 26 2 19
16 10 15 19 10 24 27 22 32 9 18 5 29 35 35 23 5 23 35 30
23 28 35 10 35 33 24 28 35 13
29 28 35 10 20 10 35 21 26 17 35 10 1 10 18 2 18 16 38 28 10 19 1
35 20 28 10 28 10 13 1
25. Waste of time
17. Temperature
18. Illumination
14. Strenght
21. Power
29 13 3
85
4.4 TRIZ
31. Harmful effect caused by the object
29. Manufacturing precision
30. Harmful action at object
28. Measurement accuracy
38. Degree of automation 17 2 3
32. Ease of manufacture
37. Measurement or test complexity
36. Device complexity
33. Ease of operation
34. Ease of repair
What should be improved? 21. Power 22. Waste of energy 23. Loss of substance 24. Loss of information 25. Waste of time 26. Quantity of substance 27. Reliability 28. Measurement accuracy 29. Manufacturing precision 30. Harmful action at object 31. Harmful effect caused by the object 32. Ease of manufacture 5 1 1
19 24 32 15 32 2 26 31 2 11 10 32 35
19 22 2 31 2 35 2 18 2
35 26 10 26 35 35 2 34 22 10 1 15 34 32 28 2 2 27 22 4 28 32 1 10 34 10 35 29 2 27 17 1 40 35 1 1 24 35 2 2 13 1 35 32 2 19
19 17 20 19 19 35 28 2 30 34 16 7 23 35 3 15 23
28 35 34 28 10 29 35 10 23 13 23 15
10 34 34
21 22 21 35
10 29 16 34 35 10 33 22 10 1 10 28 23 4 18 3
35 15 10 35 10 35 18 35 10 28 35 28 24 10 13 18 35 33 35 35 28 6 3 29 18 28 24 28 32 10 35 30 32 15 3 13 3 27 8 35 13 29 27 35 27 10 29 18 24 1 28
39 35 31 28 24 31 30 40 34 29 33 22 10 10 21 32 1 28 32 28 18 34 3 2 33 30 35 33 22 18 39 34 4 3 35 29 1
24 34 27 2
10 30 24 34 24 26 35 18 35 22 35 28
28 40 28 32 3 11 23 11 23 1
29 31 40 39 35 27 10 25 10 25 29 11 32 27 35 35 2 2 40 40 26 33 6 17 28 24 3 26 28 4 8
11 13 35 13 35 27 40 11 13 1 32 13 35 27 35 26 24 28 2 26 2 18
27 29 38 10 34
22 26 39 10 25 18 17 34 13 11 2 32 25 10 10 36 34 26 35 23 28 39 2
10 34 32 28 10 34 28 32 26 28 10 18 18 23 32 39 3 22 31 13 24 22 35 18 39 28 35 1 10 28 34 15 1 28 32 1 1 12 3 7 35 15 10 15 1 37 28 37 28 24 5 12 12 25 35 26 35 26
11 32 27 24 28 33 26 28 2 40 23 26 10 18 3 1 33 4 35 17 34 26 24 2
25 35 10 35 11 22 19 23 19 33 22 31 29 40 29 40 34 19 1 3 2 1 21 2 28 8 27 1 11 1
40 39 26 12 18
24 2 32 2 25 2 12 1 1 31 1 21 5 1 13 5
35 1
13 27 26 6 1 16 12 17 35 1 13 11 15 29 1 37 28
13 16 11 19 15 1 35 1 12 16 4 13 29 15 28 37 12 26 1 32 1 16
33. Ease of operation 34. Ease of repair 35. Adaptation 36. Device complexity 37. Measurement or test complexity 38. Degree of automation 39. Productivity
17 27 25 13 1 8 1 8 1 28 8 32 1 40 2 16 13 24 1 10 11 10 10 2 35 13 35 5 13 35 2
12 26 15 34 32 25 714
34 35 23 28 39 25 10 35 10 2 16 35 11 32 31 29 40 22 19 2 29 28 33 2
34 35 1 13 10 6 28
11 10 26 15 13 15 34 1 1 16 7 1 5
27 34 35 28 37 12 17
26 26 24 22 19 19 1
27 26 27 13 9 26 24 28 2 26 1
10 34 32 32 28 10 34 18 23 35 1 10 32 1
27 40 26 24
15 15 10 15 24 34 27
34 21 35 18
11 29 12 1 13 28 1 35 27 4 1 32 1 34 3 24 7
11 27 28 26 28 26 2
35 10
22 35 35 22 35 28 1
35 12 17 35 18 5
10 38 34 28 18 10 13 24 18 39 2
19 10 25 28 37 28 24 27 2
39. Productivity
35. Adaptation
27. Reliability
4.4 TRIZ 4.4.1. 39 design parameters
86
From the patents studied, Altshuller extracted 39 design parameters that cause conict. These 39 parameters are listed in table . To eectively use these parameters, it is necessary to nd those two that are cause of conict in a given design. Consider for example that a non-moving mechanical component needs to be lighter but remain as strong. From the 39 design parameters, nd the principle that needs to be changed, in this case, Weight of stationary object (principle #2). Then nd the parameter that is negatively aected, in this case, Strength (principle #14). Then, using the contradictions matrix shown in gure 4.22, nd those inventive principles that are candidates to solve the conict. From the contradictions matrix, the inventive principles that solve the contradiction between Weight of a stationary object and Strenght are 2, 10, 27 and 28. 4.4.2. Forty inventive Once the matrix has been used to nd those inventive principles principles candidates to solve the engineering contradiction, they can be applied to generate solutions for the problem at hand. These inventive principles can also be used independently of the contradiction matrix as a source of ideas to solve conicts. The forty TRIZ design principles to solve engineering conicts are: 1. Principle of segmentation Divide an object into independent parts that are easy to disassemble. Increase the degree of segmentation as much as possible. Examples: Sectional furniture, modular computer components, folding wooden ruler, food processor. Garden hoses can be joined together to form any length needed. Drill shafts. 2. Principle of removal Remove the disturbing part or property of the object. Remove the necessary part or property of the object. Examples:
87
4.4 TRIZ To scare birds from buildings and airports, reproduce the sound of a scare bird using a tape recorder. Hovercraft. 3. Principle of local quality Change the structure of the object or environment from homogeneous to non-homogeneous. Have dierent parts of the object carry out dierent functions. Place each part of the object under conditions most favorable for its operation. Examples: Fuselage skin of commercial airplanes. Stapler. A pencil and an eraser in one unit. 4. Principle of asymmetry Make an object asymmetrical. Increase the object asymmetry. Examples: Eccentric weight on motor creates vibration. 5. Principle of joining Merge homogeneous objects or those intended for contiguous (adjacent) operations. Combine in time homogeneous or contiguous operations. Examples: TV/VCR, Cassette tape heads. The working element of a rotary excavator has special steam nozzles to defrost and soften frozen ground in a single step. 6. Principle of universality Let one object perform several dierent functions.
4.4 TRIZ Remove redundant objects. Examples:
88
Sofa which converts from a sofa in the daytime to a bed at night. Fingernail clipper. 7. The nesting principle Place one object inside another, which in turn is placed in a third, etc. Let an object pass through a cavity into another. Examples: Telescoping antenna, stacking chairs. Mechanical pencil with lead stored inside. 8. Principle of counterweight Compensate for the weight of an object by joining it with another object that has a lifting force. Compensate for the weight of an object by interaction with an environment providing aerodynamic or hydrodynamic forces. Examples: Boat with hydrofoils, hot air balloon. Rear wings in racing cars to increase the pressure from the car to the ground. 9. Principle of preliminary counteraction Perform a counter-action to the desired action before the desired action is performed. Examples: Reinforced concrete column or oor. Reinforced shaft. 10. Principle of preliminary action Perform the required action before it is needed.
89
4.4 TRIZ Set up the object such that they can perform their action immediately when required. Examples: Cutter blades ready to be snapped o when old. Correction tape.
11. Principle of introducing protection in advance Compensate for the low reliability of an object by introducing protections against accidents before the action is performed. Examples: Fuses, electric breakers. Shaft couplers. Shoplifting protection by means of magnetized plates in products. 12. Principle of equipotentiality Change the conditions such that the object does not need to be raised or lowered. Examples: Pit for change oil, Loading dock, airport gate. 13. Principle of opposite solution Implement the opposite action of what is specied. Make a moving part xed and the xed part mobile. Turn the object upside down. Examples: Abrasively cleaning parts by vibrating the parts instead of the abrasive. Lathe, Mill. 14. Principle of spheroidality Switch from linear to curvilinear paths, from at to spherical surfaces, etc.
4.4 TRIZ Make use of rollers, ball bearings, spirals. Switch from direct to rotation motion. Use centrifugal force. Examples: Computer mouse. Screw lift. 15. Principle of dynamism
90
Make the object or environment able to change to become optimal at any stage of work. Make the object consist of parts that can move relative to each other. If the object is xed, make it movable. Examples: A ashlight with exible neck. Bicycle drivetrain and derailer. 16. Principle of partial or excessive action If it is dicult to obtain 100% of a desired eect, achieve somewhat more or less to greatly simplify the problem. Examples: Raincoats, snowboards. 17. Principle of moving into a new dimension Increase the degrees of freedom of the object. Use a multi-layered assembly instead of a single layer. Incline the object or turn it on its side. Use the other side of an area. Examples:
91
4.4 TRIZ A computer mouse where a 2D screen is transformed into a horizontal mouse pad. A composite wing where loads are in only one direction per layer.
18. Use of mechanical vibrations Make the object vibrate. Increase the frequency of vibration. Use resonance, piezovibrations, ultrasonic, or electromagnetic vibrations. Examples: Vibrating casting molds. Quartz clocks. 19. Principle of periodic action Use periodic or pulsed actions, change periodicity. Use pauses between impulses to change the eect. Examples: Hammer drill. Emergency ashing lights. 20. Principle of uninterrupted useful eect Keep all parts of the object constantly operating at full power. Remove idle and intermediate motions. Examples: Steam turbine, mechanical watch. 21. Principle of rushing through Carry out a process or individual stages of a process at high speeds. Examples:
4.4 TRIZ
92
Cutting thin wall plastic tubes at very high speeds so cutting action occurs before deformation. 22. Principle of turning harm into good Use harmful factor to obtain a positive eect. Remove a harmful factor by combining it with other harmful factors. Strengthen a harmful factor to the extent where it ceases to be harmful. Examples: Medical debrillator. Use of high frequency current to heat the outer surface of metals for heat treatment. 23. The feedback principle Introduce feedback. If feedback already exists, reverse it. Examples: Air conditioning systems. Noise canceling devices. 24. The go between principle Use an intermediary object to transfer or transmit the action. Merge the object temporarily with another object that can be easily taken away. Examples: Gear trains. 25. The self service principle The object should service and repair itself. Use waste products from the object to produce the desired actions. Examples:
93 Nail resistant tires. 26. The copying principle
4.4 TRIZ
Instead of unavailable, complicated or fragile objects, use a simplied cheap copy. Replace an object by its optical copy, make use of scale eects. If visible copies are used, switch to infrared or ultraviolet copies. Examples: Rapid prototyping. Crash test dummies. Measure shadows instead of actual objects. 27. Cheap short life instead of expensive longevity Replace an expensive object that has long life with many cheap objects having shorter life. Examples: Inkjet printer heads embedded in ink cartridges. Cardboard box. 28. Replacement of a mechanical pattern Replace a mechanical pattern by an optical, acoustical or odor pattern. Use electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic elds to interact with the object. Switch from xed to movable elds changing over time. Go from unstructured to structured elds. Examples: CD player. Microwave oven. Crane with electromagnetic plate. 29. Use of pneumatic or hydraulic solutions Replace solid parts or an object by gas or liquid. Examples:
4.4 TRIZ Power steering. Bubble envelopes. 30. Using exible membranes and ne membranes
94
Replace customary constructions with exible membranes and thin lm. Isolate an object from outside environment with thin lm or ne membranes. Examples: Dome tent. High Altitude Balloon. 31. Using porous materials Make the object porous or use porous elements. If the object is already porous, ll the pores in advance with some useful substance. Examples: Running shoe soles. Air lters. 32. The principle of using color Change the color or translucency of an object or its surroundings. Use colored additives to observe certain objects or processes. If such additives are already used, employ luminescence traces. Examples: Transparent bandage. Roadway signs. 33. The principle of homogeneity Interacting objects should be made of the same material, or material with identical properties. Examples: Shaft and bushing. 34. The principle of discarding and regenerating parts
95
4.4 TRIZ Once a part has fullled its purpose and is no longer necessary, it should automatically be discarded or disappear. Parts that become useful after a while should be automatically generated. Examples: Multistage rockets. Bullet castings.
35. Changing the aggregate state of an object Change the aggregate state of an object, concentration or density, the degree of exibility or its temperature. Examples: Heat packs. Light sticks. 36. The use of phase changes Use phenomena occurring in phase changes like change of volume and liberation or absorption of heat. Examples: Fire extinguisher. 37. Application of thermal expansion Use expansion or contraction of materials by heat. use materials with dierent thermal expansion coecients. Examples: Thermometers. Bimetallic plates. 38. Using strong oxidation agents Replace air with enriched air or replace enriched air with oxygen. Treat the air or oxygen with ionizing radiation. Use ionized oxygen or ozone. Examples:
4.4 TRIZ Metal forming ovens. Torch cutting. 39. Using an inert atmosphere Replace the normal environment with an inert one. Carry out the process in a vacuum. Examples: Aluminum cans for beverages. Arc welding. 40. Using composite materials Replace a homogeneous material with a composite one. Examples: Steel belted tires. wings. Tennis racquets.
96
High performance aircraft
References
1. Altshuller, G. S. (1984) Creativity as an exact science. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, U.S.A. 2. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons. 3. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall. 4. Pahl, G. and Beitz W. (2001) Engineering Design - A systematic Approach. Second Ed. Springer. 5. Ullman, D. (2001) The Mechanical Design Process. Third Ed. McGrawHill. 6. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Second Ed. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
CHAPTER Concept Selection
In the previous chapter some methods to generate potential solutions for a design problem where reviewed. Normally, a design team should generate tens or even hundred of ideas. Clearly not all ideas will lead to a successful product. However, at this point in time, with few information at hand, it is not possible to say which concept is best. In concept selection the goal is to expend the least amount of time and resources on deciding which concepts have the best chances to become a successful product. Concept selection requires the evaluation, of concepts with respect to some criteria comparing their relative strengths and weaknesses in order to select one or more concepts for further evaluation and testing. Here, evaluation should be understood as the process of comparison and decision making. The concept selection phase usually requires at least three steps: 1. Estimate the technical feasibility of the concepts. All those concepts that are regarded as not feasible or ill-conceived are quickly discarded. 2. Concept screening. Concepts are compared roughly in relative terms against a common reference concept. Those that do not oer any advantage or fail to fulll the requirements of the customer are discarded. 3. Concept scoring. A more detailed comparison is carried out including more information about the concepts for ner resolution.
98
Concepts
Design Brief Generation Feasibility Judgment
Generation and Screening
Screening and Scoring
Screening and Scoring
Development and Testing
Final Concept Testing
Figure 5.1: Concept selection is an iterative process that goes through dierent phases and is closely related to concept generation and concept testing.
The last to steps are usually done in an iterative fashion, where concepts are discarded and some other are combined to generate new concepts. After sucient iterations have been carried out, the team goes to the next stage: concept testing. Figure 5.1 depicts the above procedure. The iterative behavior of the design cycle is perhaps better represented by the design-build-test cycle shown in gure 5.2. In the diagram, two dierent design cycles are represented by the inner and outer loops. The rst loop represent the design cycle when new or complex technologies are being use. In this case, building a physical model and testing it is the only approach possible. The outer loop represent a more common approach where no physical devices are build until the very end of the process. Here, the time and expense of building physical models is eliminated by developing analytical models and simulating the concept before anything is build. All the iterations occurs without building any prototypes as all ideas are represented by means of analytical models and graphical representations, usually with the help of computers. Regardless of which design path is chosen, several benets arises when a structured approach is followed to select concepts. Probably the most most important is that because concepts are compared against customer needs, the selected concept is likely to be focused on the customer. Other benets may include a reduced time to product introduction and eective decision making.
99
DESIGN
Design prototypes
5.1 Estimating Technical Feasibility

Simulatable technology Iterate Analytical models and graphical drawings to refine concept and product
BUILD
Build prototypes with each closer to the final product Build final product
Iterate
Test physical protoypes
TEST
Figure 5.2: Design evaluation cycles. After Ullman (2003).
5.1
Estimating Technical Feasibility
When concepts are generated, members of the design team may experience feelings about the idea that can be grouped in three main reactions: 1. It will never work 2. It may work depending on something else 3. It is an idea worth considering The above judgments regarding technical feasibility are based on the experience of the design team and the individual engineers and their ability to estimate correctly. In general, it is safe to say that the more experience, the more chances the decision will be reliable at this point. Fortunately, estimating is a skill that any person can learn and cultivate to a very good degree. According to Otto and Wood (2001), the estimating skill of an engineer is dependent mainly on familiarity with dimensional units and with the dierent values along the dimensions. This familiarity takes place in two dierent levels of abstraction. First, perceived units like length or mass usually represent no problem as everyone can associate their dimensions with day-to-day experiences. On the other hand, derived units like energy or power, usually
100
represent a problem to estimate as dierent people will give values that can vary by orders of magnitude. What allows an engineer to become more familiar with derived dimensions is to associate them with known values. For example, one might realize that 2000W is 3hp, the common power for a lawnmower; or that 0.1MPa is 1atm, the atmospheric pressure at sea level. It is said that a skilled engineer will have at least three readily understood reference levels for every dimensional unit such as power, energy, pressure, force, acceleration, etc. Table 5.1 shows some approximated values for dierent units to be used as reference. The gut feeling reactions to the generated concepts are worth exploring since they have dierent implications and may induce the individual or design team to discard potentially good ideas or adapt potentially dangerous ones. It will never work. Before discarding concepts that appears to be infeasible or unworkable, consider it briey from dierent points of view before reject it. As a guideline, before rejecting the concept answer the following questions: Why it is not technologically feasible? Does it meet the requirements of the customer? Is the concept dierent from the rest? Is the concept an original idea? To answer the rst two cases, where more attention is deserved, the methods described later in this chapter will be of help. In the case of the last two, it is worth analyzing if the reaction is a product of resistance to change or the not invented here syndrome. It may work depending on something else. This reaction is product of a doubt in the design team due to internal or external requirement that may be judged to be either non-existent or not ready for consideration. Typical question to be made in order to get insight of this reaction are: Is the technology needed available? Is the technology ready for production? Is all information needed readily available? Is is dependent on other parts of the product?
Power (W) Ant crawling up a wall at 1cm/s: 33W atom: 0.08N 0.1m/s LED: 40mW 2 mJ kinetic energy 103 MPa 1 10W gravity: 1J. A small apple falling 1m: 1J kinetic energy Bright light bulb: 100W Typical household appliance: 100-1000W Small lawn mower engine: 2000W D-sized battery: 80kJ
6
Energy (J) Moving 5g snail: 0.56J kinetic energy over 2 winter months: 106 kg proton in hydrogen hand: 0.3m/s2 snow accumulation rate 30m of paper: 40 between electron and 109 MPa a regular clock hour hour hand: 20m/s. 10 thickness: 1 1 piece Electrostatic attraction Centripetal acceleration of Tip speed of a wrist watch Human hair Moon surface: 0.13 (kg) (N) (MPa) (m/s2 ) (m/s) (m)
101
Mass
Force
Pressure
Acceleration
Velocity
Length
106
103 Bee in ight: Penny: 3g atmosphere: 0.8 hand: 1 mm/s2 0.04N 103 MPa. Mars a regular clock minute minute hand: 1mm/s Speed of tide rising from low to high: 0.1 mm/s Fast car acceleration: 3m/s2 . Hard braking car: 7m/s2 . Earth gravity at sea level: 9.8m/s2 Falling body after 1/10s: 1m/s. Walking speed: 1.5m/s Grape: 10g Piece of paper, weight: Blood pressure: 16 Centripetal acceleration of
Tip speed of a wrist watch
Book cover thickness: 2mm
Small ashlight: lifted 1m in 1kg compression pressure: 1.3 MPa appliance buttons: 7N Piston engine large snack: Finger force for 1atm = 0.10MPa
A small apple
Small meal or a
Small apple, weight: 1N
10m underwater: 0.10 MPa
Persons height: 2m
100 114J kinetic energy 70kg person: 100N pressure: 3.5MPa
140km/hr fast ball:
Average
Bag of potatoes, weight:
Piston engine ring
Humans black out: 40 m/s2 . Belly opping hard in water from a 10m diving board jump, causing broken bones: 100m/s2 .
Highway speed: 30m/s Jetliners: 250m/s
Soccer eld length: 100m Height of the Statue of Liberty: 93m
103 Energy eectively extractable from a AA battery: 1kJ 5000kg Elephant: 1300kg weight: 1.5kN Mid-sized car: Two small people,
Pressure to create a diamond: 5GPa Deep ocean trench: 0.11GPa
Marble dropped from 1m stopping in sand, Head-on car collision occupant deceleration: 10km/s2 . Bullet red from a rie: 60km/s2
3 times the speed of sound: 1km/s
Width of a small town: 5km
10 to a small town: 1MW Automotive Battery: 5MJ

9
Electrical power 1 MJ kinetic energy Ocean liner: 107106 kg Aircraft carrier: 0.5109 kg Saturn V or Space Shuttle: 0.2 GN thrust 300,000kg loaded: thrust.
Car @ 130km/h:
A 747 fully
Boeing 747: 1MN
Center of the Earth: 0.40 106 MPa
Projectile red from a rail gun: 800km/s2
Voyager 1 traveling in outer space: 17km/s
Dallas, TX to Denver, CO or Boston MA to Pittsburgh PA: 1000km Center of the sun: 20 109 MPa Centrifugal acceleration of light trapped in a black hole: 21013 m/s2 Speed of light in vacuum: 3108 m/s Earth to moon: 3.84109 m

Electrical power plant: 1GW 30 knots: 9.9 GJ kinetic energy 91,400 tons @ USS Nimitz
10
Table 5.1: Approximate reference values on dierent dimensions (adapted). After Otto & Wood (2001).
5.2 Concept screening
102
In the rst two cases, the technology needed should be carefully examined to see if it is available and if it is already mature or can be by the time the product reach production. In the third case, serious consideration should be given to decide if it is worth waiting for more information to become available. Finally, in the last case, it should be pondered if other parts of the product could be modied to accommodate the intended design without causing a delay in the design process. It is an idea worth considering. This is generally the hardest case to evaluate, since knowledge and experience are an important part for the evaluation of its feasibility. The methods described later in the chapter will help to develop a deeper knowledge about the concept in order to evaluate it.
5.2
Concept screening
Concept screening is a technique based on a method developed by Stuart Pugh and is also known as Pugh concept selection method (Pugh, 1990). The main idea of the technique is to narrow the number of concepts quickly comparing the concepts between themselves based on common criteria and to improve the concepts whenever possible. Concept screening is based on the following steps: 1. Choose the criteria for comparison. 2. Choose which concepts will be evaluated. 3. Decide on a reference concept to be used as a datum. 4. Prepare the selection chart. 5. Rate the concepts. 6. Rank the concepts. 7. Combine and improve the concepts. 8. Select one or more concepts. Step 1: Choose the criteria for comparison. To start, it is necessary to know the basis on which the dierent concepts will be compared with each
103
other. During QFD, an eort was made to develop a set of customer requirements. This requirements are generally well suited to be used as a criteria for comparison. In some cases, when the concepts are well rened, engineering targets may be used instead. Step 2: Choose which concepts will be evaluated. After concept generation several options where available. These options where narrowed down discarding those concepts that were not technically feasible. From the options left, choose the group to be evaluated. If more than 12 concepts are to be considered, the design team can vote to select the 12 concepts that will be compared. Step 3: Decide on a reference concept to be used as a datum. To select a reference concept or datum, the design team can follow several approaches. If the company already has a current product, it may serve well as a well understood concept. Other option is to use a competitive product that the team wish to superpass. Pugh (1990) recommends using as a datum the concept that the team vote best. Step 4: Prepare the selection chart. Once the criteria for comparison, the concepts that will be evaluated and the datum all have been chosen, the next step is to prepare the selection chart. For that purpose the template shown in gure 5.3 can be of help. Step 5: Rate the concepts. To rate the concepts, compare them against the datum using a very simple scale. It is recommended to use a + if the concept is better than the datum for the current criterion, a if the concept is worse than the datum and a 0 or an S (same) if the concept is judged to be about the same as the datum or there is some ambivalence. If the decision matrix is carried out in a spreadsheet use +1, 0 and 1 for scoring. It is advisable to to rate every concept on one criterion before moving to the next. Step 6: Rank the concepts. After all the concepts have been rated for each one of the criterion, four scores are generated: the number of +s, the number of s, the number of 0s and the net score. The net score is obtained subtracting the number of s from the number of +s. To rank the concepts, simple use the one with the best net score as 1, the next one as 2 and so forth. Step 8: Combine and improve the concepts. After the concepts have been rated and ranked, the design team should verify the validity of the results. Some recommendations for the interpretation of results are pointed out by

Concepts Datum Selection Criteria Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6 Criterion 7 Sum +s Sum 0s Sum s Net Score Rank Continue? Concept B Concept C Concept D Concept E
104
Concept F
Figure 5.3: Template for the Pugh selection chart. Ullman (2003): If a concept or group of similar concepts has a good overall total score or a high + total score, it is important to notice what strengths they exhibit, that is, which criteria they meet better than the datum. Likewise, groupings of scores will show which requirements are especially hard to meet. If most concepts get the same score on a certain criterion, examine that criterion closely. It may be necessary to develop more knowledge in the area of the criterion in order to generate better concepts. In many occasions, concepts can be combined to improve them. Here, to help visualize if concepts can be combined, Ullrich and Eppinger suggest to answer the following questions: Is there a generally good concept which is degraded by one bad feature?
105
Can a minor modication improve the overall concept and yet preserve a distinction from the other concepts? Are the two concepts which can be combined to preserve the better than qualities while annulling the worse than qualities? If any improved concepts arose from combination, these are added to the selection chart and ranked along the original concepts. Step 9: Select one or more concepts. Once the above steps have been carried out, and the design team is satised with their understanding of each concept, its strengths and weaknesses, it is time to decide which concepts should be selected for further renement and analysis. The design team should also clarify if issues need to be investigated further before a nal decision can be made. In addition, decisions should be made if the screening matrix has provided enough resolution and if another round of concept screening should be performed. If concept screening has not provided enough resolution, concept scoring should be applied next. la An example of a Pugh chart for the redesign of a coee grinder is shown in gure 5.4. In this example, presented by Otto & Wood (2001), the goal was to evaluate dierent concepts all restricted to the use of a chopper. Several ideas were developed to improve the grinder, focusing on cleaning functions. The criteria for the redesign evaluation gathered directly from customer needs and engineering specications are as follows: Cost: unit manufacturing cost (development and delivery costs were not considered). Measured in $. Store grinder: facility to put away in a cabinet out of sight. Measured in cm3 . Put in beans: Time elapsed between the beans are in a bag until the chopper switch can be activated. Measured in seconds. Take out coee: Time elapsed between removing all grounds until all the coee is poured into a coee maker. Measured in seconds. Power setup: Time elapsed between the grinder is plugged in until the switch can be activated. Measured in seconds.
106
Removable Unit
Removable Chamber
Removable Blade
Washable
Scraper
Selection Criteria Cost Store Grinder Put in Beans Take Out Coffee Power Setup Cleanable Development Risk Sum +s Sum 0s Sum s Net Score Rank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 + + 0 _ 0 _ + 3 2 2 1 1 _ + _ _ 0 0 _ 1 2 4 3 4 + + _ _ 0 _ + 3 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 3
Figure 5.4: Pugh chart for coee mill redesign concepts regarding cleanability. Adapted from Otto & Wood (2001). Cleanable: Time or steps needed from the point where the coee has been taken out until the point of being spotless. Measured in number of steps or seconds. Development risks: Diculty getting a working alpha prototype. Measured in number of potential faults or diculties. From the chart some conclusions could be drawn. First, the power setup criteria does not distinguish between concepts as all of them were about the same. Therefore, although it was an important criterion for the product, it did not impact cleanability, and was dropped from further discussion. Next, the removable blade concept was clearly ahead of the rest and was a natural
107 candidate for further development.
5.3 Concept scoring
5.3
Concept scoring
Concept scoring is a technique very similar to concept screening and it is used when increased resolution will better dierentiate among concepts. In this method, the teams weight the relative importance of the selection criteria and focuses on more rened comparisons with respect to each criterion. The steps to use the method are as follows: 1. Choose the criteria for comparison. 2. Choose which concepts will be evaluated. 3. Decide on whether only one concept will be used as a datum or, if different concepts will be used as reference for dierent criteria. 4. Prepare the selection chart and decide the weight for each criterion. 5. Rate the concepts. 6. Rank the concepts. 7. Combine and improve the concepts. 8. Select one or more concepts. As most of the steps are identical to the concept screening ones, only those dierent will be discussed next. Step 3: Decide on whether only one concept will be used as a datum or if dierent concepts will be used as reference for dierent criteria. Although a single reference concept can be used for the comparative ratings of all criteria as in the screening method, this is not always appropriate. Unless by pure coincidence the reference concept is of average performance relative to all criteria, the use of the same reference concept for the evaluation of each criterion may lead to what is known as the scale compression eect. Consider, for example, that the reference concept to be used as datum is better than the rest in 1 criterion. If this is the case, all the concepts could be evaluated only as same as or worse than, eectively compressing the evaluation scale to 2/3. This eect applies independently of the scale used, as
5.3 Concept scoring

Concepts
108
Datum Selection Criteria Ease of use Readability of settings Ease of handling Dose metering accuracy Durability Ease of manufacture Portability Total Score Rank Continue? Weight Rating Weighted Score Rating
B Weighted Score Rating
C Weighted Score Rating
D Weighted Score
Figure 5.5: Template for a concept scoring matrix.
it will be seen later. For this reason, many times dierent concepts are used as reference for dierent criteria. Step 4: Prepare the selection chart and decide the weight for each criterion. The selection charts for the scoring method is very similar to Pugh charts with two exceptions. First, for each criterion, it includes its weight. Second, the chart includes two columns per concept: rating and weighted score. A template for an scoring chart is shown in gure 5.5. The weight for each criterion is usually dened as the percentage of importance that the criterion has relative to the other criteria. Each percentage is dened such that the sum of all dierent percentages is 100%. An example illustrating the use of weights is shown in gure 5.6 where three dierent cars are compared in base to four dierent criteria: fuel consumption, cost of spare parts, simplicity of servicing and comfort. Each criterion has its own weight dened by some chosen rules: fuel consumption weight is 50%, the cost of spare parts has a weight of 20%, easy to maintain 10% and nally, comfort 10%. It is easy to see in this example that the sum of all weights is 100%. In many ocassions, the selection of the right weighting factors can be a cumbersome task, specially if many dierent criteria have to be taken into account. One alternative is to use a objectives tree that includes weighting for each criterion. To show how objectives trees are constructed, consider the objective
109
Car A Selection Criteria Low fuel consumption Low cost of spare parts Easy to maintain High comfort Weight 50% 20% 10% 20% Parameter Miles per galon Cost of 5 typical parts Simplicity of servicing Comfort rating Total Score Rank Value 33 18 Very simple Poor Rating Score 2 7 5 2 3.3 2 1.0 1.4 0.5 0.4 Value 40 22 Com plicated Very good Car B
5.3 Concept scoring

Car C Value 36 28 Average Good Rating Score 3 2 3 4 3.0 3 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.8
Rating Score 4 5 2 5 4.2 1 2.0 1.0 0.2 1.0
Figure 5.6: Scoring matrix for three alternative motorcars. Adapted from Cross (1994).
tree in gure 5.7. Each criterion in the objectives tree is represented by a circle or box with three numbers on it. At the top of each box, a number represents the level of the criterion. For example, the set of criteria is level 1, representing a weight of 100% or 1. If there are three main criteria, then the rst would be represented by the number 11, the second by the number 12, the third by the number 13, an so on. If the second criterion, number 12 has two criterions that must be considered, then the rst one will be identied by the number 121 and the second one by the number 122. If the criterion identied by the number 121 has to be divided into two dierent criteria, then the rst would be 1211 and the second one 1212. The objectives three can have as many levels as necessary. The second number, at the lower left side of the box, indicates the weight of the factor to whom it belongs. The third number, at the lower right end, is result of the multiplication of the weight of the criterion times the weight factor of its parent box. This product gives the contribution of the criterion to the total 100%. This procedure is better explained through an example. The above objectives tree was constructed to aid in the selection of weighting factors for the selection of a mechanical component. The main factors for the selection of the component were specied as how safe the component was (criterion 11), its mechanical behaviour (criterion 12) and and its cost of manufacturing (criterion 13). Since these three factors must add 100%, or 1 for short, then 1.0 have to be divided between these factors. It was decided that safety accounted
5.3 Concept scoring

1
1.0 1.0
110
11
0.25 0.25
12
0.60 0.60
13
0.15 0.15
121
0.75 0.45
122
0.25 0.15
131
0.30 0.05
132
0.70 0.11
1211
0.50 0.22
1212
0.50 0.22
1.0 = 0.25
+ 0.22
0.22
+ 0.15
0.05
0.11
Figure 5.7: An objetive tree with weighting factors.
for 0.25, mechanical behavior for 0.60 and cost of manufacturing for 0.15. Mechanical behavior was divided in two criteria, rst, strenght (121) which accounted for 0.75 of the original 0.60 specied for mechanical behavior, and second, freedom from resonance (122) which accounted for 0.25 of the original 0.60. It is important to stress at this point that the sum of weights of factors which have the same parent and are at the same level must be 1.0 or 100% (here 0.75 + 0.25 = 1.0). It was considered to divided strenght further into two more specic criteria, both with the same weight, stiness (1211) and maximum allowable stress in the component (1212). Carrying out the products, the nal weight for stiness is 0.22, which is the same value for the maximum stress criterion.
111
TEST RIG
BOTTOMRIGHT HINGE SCORING MATRIX
Selection Criteria Safety Stiffness Max. allowable stress Freedom from resonance Cost of tooling Cost of materials Weight 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.05 0.11 Total Score Rank Continue? Reference Rating Weighted Score Rating B Weighted Score Rating CONCEPTS C
5.3 Concept scoring
D Weighted Score Rating Weighted Score
Figure 5.8: An objetive tree with weighting factors. Finally, the cost of manufacturing was divided into two more specic costs: cost of tooling (131) and cost of materials (132). Cost of tooling had a weight of 0.30 whereas the cost of materials had a weight of 0.70. Hence, cost of tooling nal weight is 0.05 and the nal weight for cost of materials is 0.11. As nal observation about objectives trees, it is important to notice that the sum of weights of each level is always 1 as shown in gure 5.7 for the nal level. In gure 5.8 the nal template for the scoring matrix for this problem is presented. Step 5: Rate the concepts. Similar to the procedure followed in the screening method, here each concept is rated using a simple comparative scale. As more detail is needed, a more detailed rating scale is generally used. A common option is to use a 5 levels scale:
Relative performance Much worse than reference Worse than reference Same as reference Better than reference Much better than reference
Rating 1 2 3 4 5
5.3 Concept scoring

Do Nothing Renuzit Air Freshner Rating Score 70 52 70 0 57 5 35 13 9 0 Baking Soda Cedar Chips Vented Walls
112
Activated Carbon
Selection Criteria Performance (olfactory distance ft) Cost Ease of replacement Frequency of Replacement
Weight 50% 25% 13% 12% Total Score Rank
Rating Score 0 100 100 100 50 6 0 25 12.5 12.5
Rating 70 76 90 50 71 2
Score 35 19 11 6
Rating 80 84 40 67 74 1
Score 40 21 5 8
Rating 20 100 100 100 61 3
Score 10 25 13 13
Rating 90 20 20 67
Score 45 5 3 8 61 4
Figure 5.9: Concept scoring matrix for the selection of odor control alternatives. Adapted from Otto & Wood (2001).
Sometimes a 10 or more levels scale is used, but its use is discouraged as it requires more time and eort. For example, gure 5.10 presents a scoring matrix for an outpatient syringe where four dierent concepts are been evaluated. Note that in this example a 5 levels scale is being used and that dierent concepts serve as datum for dierent criteria. This example is dierent from the one presented in gure 5.6 where a 10 levels scale is used. Step 6: Rank the concepts. Once the ratings have been specied for each criterion, the weighted score is obtained multiplying the rating for the weight of the criteria. The total score for each concepts is simply the sum of all weighted scores. Finally, each concept is given a rank corresponding to its total score. Another example showing a more elaborated scoring matrix is presented by Otto & Wood (2001). The matrix, shown in gure 5.9, helped the design team to evaluate between dierent alternatives to control the odors in a cat litter box. The careful reader should notice that the rating scale used in this example goes from 0 to 100, which at rst sight may look unnecessary. Nevertheless, in this case a 0-100 scale was chosen as the team had high-quality information about the relative performance of each concept regarding each one of the criteria. This high-quality information is usually gathered directly from testing and experimentation, and it is not inuenced by the opinion of the design team members.
113
5.4 Concept Testing
5.4
Concept Testing
In the concept selection process, it is very likely that some form of customers response will be needed in order to further discuss the possibilities of the proposed concepts. In order to communicate the idea of the concept and to measure the response of the customer, in some cases simple verbal descriptions or drawings will suce. In other cases, there is no other choice but to create physical prototypes of the product. This testing will give a better idea on the feasibility of the concepts and the sales potential of the product. Concept testing is carried out to facilitate decision-making during nal concept selection stages, generally after some detailed design has been done. Concept testing is not necessary when: time required to test the concept is large relatively to the product life cycle. cost of testing is large relative to the cost of actually launching the product. Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) presents a 6 steps methodology for testing product concepts: 1. Denition of the purpose of the concept test. 2. Choosing of a survey population. 3. Choosing of a survey format. 4. Communication of the concept. 5. Measurement of customer response. 6. Interpretation of results. In this initial step, the design team should clarify what questions they want to answer with the test. It is essential to dene what the test or experiment is for. Some typical questions are:
5.4.1. Concept testing purpose
5.4 Concept Testing Which of several alternatives should be pursued? How the concept may be improved to better meet customer needs? Approximately how many units are likely to be sold? Should development be continued? 5.4.2. Choosing a survey population
114
It is necessary to dene the number of possible customers to survey and in what market segments they will be. This selection is carried out in a similar fashion as the selection of customers in the Identifying customer needs phase. It is important, however, to have in mind that concept testing is a much more expensive activity. The most important question to answer is how large the survey population should be. Some useful guidelines are outlined next. Factors favoring a smaller sample size: Test occurs early in the concept development process. Test is primarly intended to gather qualitative data. Surveying potential customers is relatively costly in time and money. Required investment to develop and launch the product is relatively small. A relatively large fraction of the target market is expected to value the product.
Factors favoring a larger sample size: Test occurs later in the concept development process. Test is primarily intended to assess demand quantitatively. Surveying customers is relatively fast and inexpensive. Required investment to develop and launch the product is relatively high.
115
5.4 Concept Testing
A relatively small fraction of the target market is expected to value the product. Concept tests can be done in the early stages of the development process to solicit feedback on the basic concept. 5.4.3. Choosing a survey format The following formats are commonly used in concept testing:
face-to-face interaction telephone postal mail electronic mail internet It is important to realize that each of these formats presents risks of sample bias. 5.4.4. Communicating the concept The way in which the concept will be surveyed, is closely related to the way in which the concept will be communicated. Communication of the concept can be carried out by the following means: verbal descriptions sketch photos and renderings storyboard video simulation interactive multimedia physical appearance models working prototypes
5.4 Concept Testing 5.4.5. Measure customer response
116
Most concept test surveys rst communicate the product concept and then measure customer response. Although is good practice to include questions to measure customer response to product concepts, in many occasions concept test generally attempt to measure purchase intent. A useful scale to measure purchase intent may be: Denitely would buy Probably would buy Might or might not buy Probably would not buy Denitely would not buy 5.4.6. Interpreting results Usually interpretation is straightforward if the design team is just comparing two or more concepts. It is important, though, to be sure that customers understood the key dierences among concepts.
References
1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons. 2. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall. 3. Pugh, S. (1990) Total Design, Addison Wesley. 4. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process, Third Edition. McGrawHill. 5. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
117
5.4 Concept Testing
Concepts A Master Cylinder Weighted Score 0.15 0.45 0.2 0.75 0.3 0.6 0.3 2.75 4 No B Lever Stop Weighted Score 0.15 0.6 0.3 0.75 0.75 0.6 0.3 3.45 1 Develop C Swash Ring Weighted Score 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 3.10 2 No D Dial Screw Weighted Score 0.2 0.45 0.5 0.75 0.45 0.4 0.3 3.05 3 No
Selection Criteria Ease of use Readability of settings Ease of handling Dose metering accuracy Durability Ease of manufacture Portability
Weight 5% 15% 10% 25% 15% 20% 10% Total Score Rank Continue?
Rating 3 3 2 3 2 3 3
Rating 3 4 3 3 5 3 3
Rating 4 4 5 2 4 2 3
Rating 4 3 5 3 3 2 3
Figure 5.10: Concept scoring matrix for an outpatient syringe. The reference points for each criterion are signied by bold rating values. Adapted from Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
CHAPTER Detailed design
As a design task, concept embodiment is perhaps the one that is most identied with engineers as in this phase of the design process the choice of components, interfaces, materials, dimensions, shapes, tolerances, surface nishes, union methods, manufacturing and assembly processes, etc., are carried out. In order to make wise choices, engineers should be able to understand thoroughly the design, its functionality, objectives and constraints. Is in this stage where engineers apply their skills in mathematics and basic science. Regardless of size, complexity or cost, products must be eectively modeled, tested and, whenever possible, rened. Methods for concept embodiment must aid in this process.
6.1
Product Architecture
Product architecture is the the denition of the layout of systems, sub-systems and components according to their functional purposes. This denition of the layout of the product must also deal with what interfaces are necessary between components, sub-systems and systems. Product architecture allows the design to be divided so building blocks can be assigned to individuals, teams or suppliers in order to permit parallel detailed design, testing and renement.
119
Product Architecture Type Integral Product Handheld vegetable peeler Wooden pencil Kitchen knife Swiss Army Knife PC computer Modular Black and Decker cordless drill Tinkertoys Derivatives Fisted vegetable peeler #1, #3 lead pencils Kitchen knife set Complex knives More RAM, devices VersaPak line of power tools Theme sets
6.1 Product Architecture

Product Architecture for the Product and Common Derivatives Type Fixed unsharing Modular platform Modular platform Modular platform Adjustable for purchase Modular platform Adjustable for use Characteristics Shares no common components Differing lead hardness Parametric handle size Expanding width Standard interfaces Common battery Common motor Standard interfaces Component variety
Figure 6.1: Product architecture examples. After Otto & Wood (2001).
Product architecture is also related what is called portfolio architecture. Portfolio Architecture relates to a group or family of products, where design strategy revolves around how to share components or subsystems across products in the portfolio. Figure 6.1 shows some examples of product and portfolio architecture. In general terms, product architecture can be divided in two main types: integral architecture and modular architecture. Each type has its own advantages and disadvantages as shown in gure 6.2. A product has an integral architecture when no attempt is made to divide functions into components or systems resulting in on a very small number of physical elements carrying out all functions of the product. Integral architecture is common for high-volume products where cost is not reduced through sharing components but through easiness of assembly. This results in products with fewer components but much function sharing. Modular product architecture is the result of dividing product functions into a similar number of blocks or modules that perform a limited set of functions. Ideally, a one-to-one correspondence between modules and functions is achieved. In practice, modularity is not strict, and generally speaking, products are neither fully modular or fully integral. Rather, a given product will present more or less modularity than another comparative product. According to Ulrich (1995), modular architecture can be classied in three
6.1.1. Types of product architecture

Pros Improves device reconfigurability Increases the device variety and speed of introduction for new devices Modular architecture Improves maintainability and serviceability of device Decouples development tasks (and manufacturing to some extent) Harder for competitors to copy design Tighter coupling of team with less interface Integral architecture problems Increases system performance Possible reduction in system cost Modular design may be more expensive than integral design Hinders change of design in production Reduces the variety of devices that can be produced Reduces device performance Cons May make devices look too similar
120
Makes imitation of device easier by competitors
Figure 6.2: Comparison of modular and integral architectures. After Otto & Wood (2001). types: slot, bus and sectional. These three types, shown in gure 6.3, are explained next. Slot-modular architecture. Each of the interfaces between modules in a slot-modular architecture is of a dierent type from the others, so that the various modules in the product cannot be interchanged. An example of this type of architecture are products that are to be assembled by the customer and are constructed in such a way that any given module can t in only one place. Bus-modular architecture. In a bus-modular architecture, there is a common bus to which the other modules connect via the same type of interface. An example of bus-modular architecture are the oppy drive, DVD, CDRW and battery that connects to a bay in a laptop using the same interface. Sectional-modular architecture. In a sectional-modular architecture, all interfaces are of the same type, but there is no single element to which all the other modules attach. The assembly is built up by connecting the modules each other via identical interfaces. An example may be modular oce furniture that can be arrange in dierent ways depending on the modules used. Slot-modular architectures are the most common type of modular architecture because for most products, dierent modules require dierent interfaces to
121
SlotModular Architecture
BusModular Architecture
SectionalModular Architecture
Figure 6.3: Three types of modular architectures. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) accommodate unique interactions with the rest of the system. 6.1.2. Implications of the architecture Even when the architecture of a product is initially dened, at least informally, since the concept generation stage, formal decisions are made during the embodiment design phase. Product architecture is one of the development decisions that plays a major impact in the ability to deliver a variety of products with standard components that allows better product performance, manufacturability and maintenance.
Product change Modules are the building blocks of the product and the architecture denes how this blocks relate to the function of the product and how the blocks interact with each other. If each module is responsible for certain isolated functions, it would be possible to replace or change any given module without aecting the rest of the product. The contrary is true for an integral architecture, where changing one part of the product may have an inuence in the functions carried out by the rest of it. Some of the motives for product change are: Upgrades Add-ons Adaptation Wear Consumption Flexibility in use and reuse.
6.1 Product Architecture Product variety
122
Product variety refers to the amount of dierent products that any given company can manufacture over a period of time. Product variety generally respond to market needs, as consumers want distinctive products. Product architecture can help to achieve a large product variety for a minimum overhead in its cost. An example is Swatch watches, where hundreds of dierent combinations can be achieved choosing dierent components during assembly.
Component standardization Component standardization is the use of the same components or modules in multiple products. This standardization allows the manufacturer to minimize cost and increase quality through the production of larger volumes and the rened design of such common components. An example are cars within same or sister companies that share many parts and subsystems.
Product Performance Product performance is related to how well the nal product meets customer requirements in terms of intended functions. Some examples of typical performance measures are speed, acceleration, eciency, life, accuracy and noise. Here, architecture can facilitate the optimization of performance characteristics by means of integration and function sharing. Function sharing refers to the implementation of multiple functions through a single module or component. Function sharing can help to optimize a design, but trade os in the advantages of modular architecture have to be considered by the design team.
Manufacturability As discussed above, product architecture can inuence the manufacturing cost through product variety and component standardization. In addition, many decisions regarding the architecture of a product inuence the easiness of manufacturing as many complicated modules can be produced in larger volumes to reduce cost or many functions can be implemented in a single module to reduce either parts or manufacturing operations.
123 6.1.3. Establishing the architecture
Due to the importance of product architecture in subsequent steps of the product design process, it should be thoroughly discussed by the team design and established in a cross-functional fashion. At the end of this step, an approximate geometric layout of the product, description of the major modules and documentation about the interaction between modules should be obtained. Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) suggest to follow a four steps approach that will be illustrated using a DeskJet printer as an example. The four recommended steps are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Create a schematic of the product. Cluster the elements of the schematic. Create a rough geometric layout. Identify the fundamental and incidental interactions.
Step 1: Create a schematic of the product. A schematic is a diagram showing the constituent elements of a product as understood by the design team. It is important that the schematic reects the best understanding of the team, although great detail is not necessary at this step. For the purpose of establishing product architecture, some authors recommend to aim for fewer than 30 elements in the schematic. It also should be realized that there is not a unique schematic for any given product, so the team should generate several alternatives to select from. In gure 6.4 The schematic for a DeskJet printer is shown. Many elements in the schematic represent physical components such as the print cartridge, while other elements represent functional elements such as store output. Functional elements are those that have not yet been reduced to physical concepts or components, requiring further discussion by the design team in order to achieve a nal decision about how they will be implemented. On the other hand, components that have been reduced to physical components are generally those that are central to the basic product concept that the team has generated and selected. Step 2: Cluster the elements of the schematic. In this step, the objective is to assign the dierent elements in the schematic into specic modules. As in the previous step, the assignment of elements into modules is not unique, and the design team will be faced with dierent viable alternatives that can range from the few to the hundreds.
124
Enclose Printer Print Cartridge Provide Structural Support Position Cartridge in XAxis
Accept User Inputs
Display Status
Store Output
Position Paper in YAxis Control Printer
Store Blank Paper
"Pick" Paper
Supply DC Power
Flow of forces or energy Flow of material Flow of signals or data
Communicate with Host
Command Printer
Connect to Host
Figure 6.4: Schematic of the DeskJet printer. Note the presence of both functional elements (e.g., Store Output) and physical elements (e.g., Print Cartridge). For clarity, not all connections among elements are shown. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
125
Enclosure Enclose Printer Print Cartridge Provide Structural Support Chassis Position Cartridge in XAxis User Interface Board Accept User Inputs Display Status
Store Output
Position Paper in YAxis Control Printer Power Cord and "Brick" Supply DC Power
Store Blank Paper Paper Tray
"Pick" Paper Print Mechanism
Flow of forces or energy Flow of material Flow of signals or data
Communicate with Host
Command Printer Host Driver Software
Connect to Host Logic Board
Figure 6.5: Clustering the elements into modules. Nine modules make up this proposed architecture for the DeskJet printer. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
126
One method to manage such complexity is for each element to be assigned to its own module and then to cluster elements when advantageous. Some factors worth considering when clustering elements are: Geometric integration and precision. In some cases, it is convenient to cluster elements that control certain functions that are related between themselves. Elements requiring precise location or close geometric integration can often be best designed if they are part of the same module. In the case of the DeskJet, this principle would suggest clustering the elements associated with positioning the cartridge and the paper. Function sharing. When a single device can implement several dierent functions, it is best to cluster the related components together. For the DeskJet it was believed that that the status display and the user controls could be incorporated into the same component. Capability of vendors. If a specic vendor is know for its capacity in developing and manufacturing certain components, it is best if those components are cluster together. This will help the vendor to integrate more eciently the said components. Similarity of design or production technology. When two or more components are designed or manufactured using the same or similar technology is best to cluster them in order to save costs. An typical example of the application of this principle is the clustering of several electronic devices into a single circuit board. Localization and change. If the design team anticipates that a component will suer several changes over time, it is best to isolate that component into its own module. In the case of the DeskJet, the engineers decided that the printer would suer cosmetic shape modications and decided to isolate the enclosure into its own module. Accommodate variety. If some components of the product will be changed to satisfy dierent market or operative conditions, it is best to isolate these components in a module that can be easily replaced. For the Deskjet, the engineers decided to isolate the components associated with the DC power supply as the printer was going to be sold in dierent parts of the world with dierent power standards.
127
Enabling standardization. When a component or components can be used in dierent products, it is best to isolated them in separate module or modules. This allows the higher production of the elements in the module. An example of this standardization is the printer cartridge in the DeskJet printer. Portability of the interfaces. Some interactions are more easily transmitted over large distances than others. For example, it is easier to transmit electric or light signals over a distance than mechanical forces and motions. It is also true for the transmission of uid connections. As a result, it is easier to separate elements with electronic and uid interactions. In the case of the DeskJet, the exibility of electrical interactions allowed the design team to cluster control and communication functions into the same chunk. On the other hand, the design team was constrained by the geometric and mechanical interactions of the paper handling mechanism. Step 3: Create a rough geometric layout. The next step once the general components have been arranged in modules, is to generate a general geometric layout to analyze if the proposed distribution is physically possible. This rough sketch can be made out of foam or cardboard, or even as a rough 3-D computer model, as it is not necessary to include great detail. Nevertheless, it should be sucient to decide whether component and interface distributions are possible. An example of a geometric layout for the DeskJet printer is shown in gure 6.6. In this example, the design team realized that there was a trade o between the height of the machine and how much paper could be stored in the paper tray. In many cases, the design team may decide that the geometric layout or the clustering chosen are not feasible. In this cases, components may be assigned to dierent modules. Step 4: Identify the fundamental and incidental interactions. It is common practice to divide the design so each module can be assigned to an specic person or team. Since the dierent modules interact in one way or another, dierent persons or teams have to constantly coordinate their activities and exchange information. To facilitate this interaction, interactions between modules have to be identied.

User interface board
128
Logic board print cartridge
Paper tray
Print mechanism
Chassis
Enclosure
Logic board
Print cartridge Roller/guide Paper Paper tray Chassis
Figure 6.6: Geometric layout of the printer. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) there are two types of interactions between modules. First, fundamental interactions are those corresponding to the lines on the schematic that connect the chunks to one another (see Figure 6.4). This interaction is planned and is fundamental to the operation of the system. Second, incidental interactions, are those that arise because of particular geometric or physical implementation of modules. In the Deskjet example, the vibration from the actuator in the paper tray could interfere with the precise location of the print cartridge in the xaxis. Even when the principal interaction between modules were described in the schematic, incidental ones should be documented apart. When the system includes a reasonable small number of incidental interactions (less than 10),
129
Enclosure

User Interface Board
Styling Vibration Thermal Distortion
Paper Tray
Print Mechanism
Logic Board
Host Driver Software
Thermal Distortion RF Shielding
RF Interference
Chassis
Power Cord and "Brick"
Figure 6.7: Incidental interaction graph. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) an incidental interaction graph is convenient. Figure 6.7 shows an example of an interaction graph regarding the DeskJet example. This graph shows that vibration and thermal distortion are two incidental interactions that may aect the performance of the print mechanism. The design team should be careful to address these issues. To dene the interactions between modules, ows in material, energy and signals must be investigated and rened at each module boundary. These ows usually dene the interactions and the boundaries dene the interfaces. According to Cutherell (1996), four types of interactions are typically investigated: 1. Material interactions: solid, liquids, or gases that ow from one module to the next. 2. Energy interactions: energies that must be transmitted or shielded between modules. 3. Information interactions: signals (tactile, acoustic, electrical, visual, etc.) that must be processed from one module to the next, and 4. Spatial interactions: geometrical dimensions, degrees-of-freedom, tolerances, and constraints that must be maintained between modules.
6.2 Geometry and layout renement
130
6.2
Geometry and layout renement
In the quest of creating a robust product, two main activities take place once rough concepts have been generated and selected: 1. rening the geometry and architecture of the product, 2. systems modeling toward detail design. Take for example the electric wok presented by Otto & Wood (2001) shown in gure 6.8. In this case the design team was faced with the task of improving an existing product. As shown, the original concept of the wok evolved to a new one that included more advanced controls and congurations accommodating improved product cleaning and storage. As a result of the embodiment design phase, components, parts, assemblies and interfaces were clearly dened, from both geometrical, and functional points of view. Another example of the result of embodiment design is shown in gure 6.9, where an exploded view of the PrestoTM hot air popcorn popper is shown. In any case, the embodiment process include the following tangible documentation: detailed drawings, exploded views, assembly diagrams, tool designing, manufacturing process plans, tolerance design, packaging, maintenance and warranty information and users manual.
In order to generate the above documentation, some guidelines described next may be followed. The main objective of these guidelines is to transform a concept sketch into rened geometry and material choices focusing on the functional performance of the product, including all relevant engineering specications.
131
Figure 6.8: Embodiment example of a new electric wok concept. (a) Original wok concept. (b) Original product realization. (c) Evolved wok concept. (d) Realization of new product concept. After Otto & Wood (2001) In the embodiment design phase, specic layouts and parameters are generated in order to logically chose a given concept from a number of solution alternatives that have been developed. Ideally, the result of this phase is a single developed concept, in its denitive form, for the product or each subsystem dened including: geometric layout material composition quality and manufacturability issues economics
In practice, the design team may be faced with the situation that further renement of the selected concepts is needed before commitment for a single solution occurs.
132
Figure 6.9: Embodiment example of the PrestoTM hot air popcorn popper. After Otto & Wood (2001)
133
In this situation, parallel development of the concepts should be carried out. It is important to try to select one nal concept as soon as possible in order to direct more resources for the development of the nal product. Without doubt, the main challenge of embodiment design is that when parameters in the dierent subsystems or modules change, they usually aect other subsystems or modules, they propagate. This behavior is the result of having parameters that are highly coupled between product subsystems/modules. This scenario means that embodiment design activities of the dierent subsystems/modules must be carried out simultaneously and iteratively. As one change is made, its eects in the other subsystems/modules are studied and, if acceptable, the change is approved and its eects mitigated. The process stop when the performance of the product becomes acceptable. In order to deal with these complex characteristics of embodiment design, Pahl & Beitz (1996) suggest a general process to iteratively rene the geometry and layout of a product from an abstract form to a well-dened one. Figure 6.10 illustrates this general process. The process begins dening customer needs and the engineering specications that fulll them. Critical specications/requirements that will drive the embodiment process are identied. Some examples of critical specications are: size and geometric specications material specications arrangement specications After critical specications have been selected, the next step is to draw a scale sketches of the product. These sketches should have enough detail to incorporate all critical aspects of the alternatives but care should be taken to avoid over-constraining the models. These drawings includes the following items: maximum/minimum dimensions of the product clearance between relative subsystems/modules installation paths general arrangement of components relative to one another.
1. Concept Using the engineering specifications, identify crucial requirements Define the spatial form with preliminary scale drawings Identify the main functional modules
Develop preliminary layouts possibilities for the module placement
Evaluate against customer, technical, robust, safety, and business case criteria
Select and effective layout for module placement 3. Preliminary Layout
2. Concept Layout
Complete form design with detailed drawings Engineer the dimensions of components
Fill in the spatial form with scale drawings Inventory required supporting functionality Check for robustness and errors
Figure 6.10: A general process for concept embodiment. After Pahl & Beitz (1996)

Develop possible layouts for supporting functions Select an effective layout 4. Definitive Layout
Prepare parts lists (BOM), assembly drawings, part drawings, product process plans
134
135
6.3 Trends for the design process
Once the sketches have been completed, it should be verify that each product subsystem, module, part or assembly fullls its intended function completely. Also, the dierent sketches should be checked for possible geometry simplications and function sharing. Based on the results, alternative sketches should be generated if needed. Next, ranges of geometric, materials, and other variables should be established and listed for each subsystem/module. Also, decisions regarding the possible use of standard components in each subsystem/module should be made. This process stage is nished by choosing between alternative layouts using the product specications. The scale drawings are updated with the choices made. As the next stage, additional functions that may be needed to carry out support and auxiliary requirements should be identied. Then, rough layouts for these additional functions should be developed ensuring the compatibility of all subassembly interfaces. This task usually requires the use of standards, mathematical models, design guidelines and experimentation in order to determine all appropriate parameters. At the same time, the product should be evaluated against customer, technical, robust, safety an economic criteria and the layout should be checked to estimate potential faults. The embodiment process concludes with the testing of physical prototypes and the design of appropriate tooling.
6.3
Trends for the design process
In the last decades technology has brought profound changes in the way engineers design. Computational tools together with methods to increase the communication with all parts involved in the life cycle of a product have shortened signicantly the amount of time needed to put a initial concept or idea into the market as a nal product. From all the techniques that are or have been applied, concurrent engineering and computer aided tools have been most signicant. 6.3.1. Concurrent engineering Traditionally, design, manufacturing and marketing activities have taken place sequentially rather than concurrently or simultaneously. The designer team would spend large amounts of time analyzing components and preparing detail drawings for

Market Specifications Concept Design Detail Design Manufacture Sell
136
Iterations
Figure 6.11: Depiction of concurrent engineering in the design process. After Pugh (1991).
a new product. After the design was considered satisfactory, the design team forwarded the information to the manufacturing team who would, once more, spend large amounts of time guring out how to manufacture the product according to design specications. After facilities and manufacturing processes were ready for production, the marketing team began to prepare a marketing strategy based on the product features. Although may seem logical at rst, this linear scheme proved to be inadequate. In many occasions the design team ended up with a product that was dicult to manufacture and even dicult to sell. Great eorts were wasted (and sometimes still are) doing re-designs to improve manufacturing and to add features to improve the marketing of the product. To avoid the previous problems it is best to include members of the manufacturing and marketing divisions into the design team from the conceptual stages of the design process. The inclusion of the members will help to achieve a better decisions to avoid design features that are dicult to manufacture or no desirable from the marketing point of view. This approach, that may also include members from other areas like distribution and disposal, is called Concurrent Engineering. Kalpakjian & Schmidt (2001) dene Concurrent Engineering as a systematic approach integrating the design and manufacture of products, with a view towards optimizing all elements involved in the life cycle of the product. Life cycle means that all aspect of the product, such as design, development, production, distribution, use, disposal, and recycling, are considered simultaneously. The basic goals of concurrent engineering are to reduce changes in a products design and engineering to reduce the time and costs involved in taking the product from its design concept to its production and its introduction into the marketplace. Figure 6.11 shows a simple design process models that makes emphasis in the interaction between phases due to the use of concurrent
137
111111 000000 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111
Bad
111111 000000 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111 000000 111111
Good
11 00 00 11 000 111 000 111 00 11 00 11 000 111 000 111 0011 11 00 000 111 000 111 00 11 00 11 000 111 000 111 0011 11 00 000 111 000 111 0011 11 00 000 111 000 111
Bad
11 00 00 11 00 11 00 0011 11 00 11 00 11 00 0011 11 00 11 0011 11 00

Good
Bad
Good
Figure 6.12: Design considerations for assembly. engineering principles. 6.3.2. Design for manufacture and assembly As discussed above, while designing a product, several disciplines must be taken into account. One of those disciplines that is specially bounded to the design process is manufacturing. Many times new products have been designed only to nd out that the technology needed for its manufacturing was not readily available. Hence, each component of the product must be designed not only to fulll engineering requirements but also to be easily and cheaply manufactured. This emphasis is called design for manufacture, and it groups selection of materials, manufacturing methods, planning, assembly, testing and quality assurance. The design team must be capable of evaluating the impact that design changes have in manufacturing processes. After the individual parts have been manufactured, they usually have to be assembled to make the nal product. The importance of the assemblies cannot be understated, in many products assembly takes the largest time of the manufacturing process. Much can be done during the design phase to make the assembly as simple and fast as possible. Figure 6.12 shows some good and bad design practices regarding assemblies. 6.3.3. Design for the environment During the centuries the impact that humans have in the environment has grown steadily as both, populations and its needs, increase. In the last decades, the awareness about the consequences of extracting resources and dumping waste without control has modied the way engineers design. If populations is to keep enjoying the advantages of technological advances and

Material extraction Material Processing
138
Waste managment
Manufacturing
Use
Recycle
Remanufacture
Reuse
Figure 6.13: Stages of a product life cycle. After Otto & Wood (2001).
higher standards of living for the centuries to come, products must have little or no impact in the environment. Design for environment (DFE) is a product design approach for reducing the impact of products on the environment. Most of the times, the impact of products into the environment is thought of in terms of their disposal. Nevertheless, products have an impact during all of its life cycle from the extraction of the materials it is made from up to their disposal (see gure 6.13). Products can have adverse impact on the environment during their manufacture through the use of polluting processes, the use of high amounts of raw materials, or the need of high quantities of energy. They can also have different levels of impact on their disposal due to large half-lives or the need of large amounts of energy for their destruction. As shown in gure 6.13 there are many opportunities for recycling, remanufacturing and reuse to reduce environmental impact. Unfortunately, products that are designed without this vision in mind are dicult to remanufacture, reuse or even recycle. Designers must use all their knowledge and creativity to create products that are environmentally friendly products throughout their manufacture, packaging, transportation, use and disposal. 6.3.4. CAD, CAM, CAE and CIM Nowadays, computers are an integral part of the conceptual, renement, evaluation and production phases of the design process either as engineering or management tools. The use of computers has greatly simplied the representation, study and construction of analytical models through Computer Aided Design (CAD), Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM).
139
These tools use computer software to assist in the creation and revision of engineering drawings and models (CAD), manufacturing (CAM), and analysis (CAE) of new products. The use of CAD/CAM/CAE tools avoids the need of making costly illustrations, models and prototypes, shortening the time needed to bring a new product from concept to production. Although these tools may be applied in dierent parts of the design process, they are better suited for certain parts of the process (see gure 6.14). Regarding Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), Egan and Greene (1989) state that the appearance of CIM is based on the recognition that steps in the development of a manufactured product are interrelated and can be accomplished eectively and eciently by using computers. CIM provides a mean to integrate all the steps in the manufacturing process taking into account processes, specications, instructions and data that need to be controlled and organized.

Definition of product need; marketing information
140
Conceptual design and evaluation; feasibility study
Design analysis; codes/standards review; physical and analytical models
Computer Aided Design (CAD) Computer Aided Engineering (CAE)
Prototype production; testing and evaluation
Production drawings; instruction manuals
Material specification; process and equipment selection; safety review
Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) Computer Aided Process Planning (CAPP)
Pilot production
Production
Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM)
Inspection and quality assurance
Packaging; marketing and sales literature
Product
Figure 6.14: The use of computer aided tools in the dierent steps of the design process (after Kalpakjian & Schmid, 2001).
141
6.4 Some important design considerations
6.4
Some important design considerations
When designing products, several considerations must be taken into account. For the inexpert designer, this considerations may or may not be obvious sources for requirements, parameters and targets. In what follows, three design considerations, whose importance may depend on the project at hand, are briey discussed. 6.4.1. Product distribution Most of the times, when designing a new product, the design team does not pay much attention in how the product will be distributed. Decisions regarding packaging, transportation and shelf stocking are taken after the product has been designed. Nevertheless, design features that could be avoided may increase the distribution cost due to the need of special packaging, transportation or shelfs. Design teams must do everything at their hands to avoid this situations that unnecessarily increase the cost of the product. Taking into account the distribution of the product is specially important when redesigning a product. Generally speaking, companies looking for an existing product of better features are unwilling to make extensive modications to the existing distribution infrastructure. In this cases, product distribution will be a major source of requirements. 6.4.2. Design for after life It is normally assumed for most engineering products, that after it has completed its useful life, the product will be removed from its original installation, retired and dispose of. Nevertheless, in many occasions the product is put to some second use that is dierent from its original purpose. Consider for example, an empty 20 lts. (4 Gal.) bucket that is used as a step. The problem arises as this second use was not included in the initial design specications and is therefore not accounted for in the design process. The result may be failure and personal injury leading to product liability litigation. The fact that a certain product was used in a way never intended by the original design may not be of importance on the court. Courts seem to focus on whether the failure was foreseeable and not whether there was negligence or ignorance. The best the design team can do is to try to foresee both use and misuse an make provision in the design for credible failures.
142
6.4.3. Human factors in Almost every product that is designed will interact design with humans whether during manufacture, operation, maintenance, repair or disposal. Operation is probably the most important since it will involve the largest span of interaction. Considering operation, a good product will be the one that becomes an extension of the users motor and cognitive functions. To achieve this, human machine interaction features should be included as parameters in the design process from early stages. In order to translate functional requirements into design parameters, the study of ergonomics has produced a body of anthropometric (human measure) data that can be used in designing anything that involves interaction between a human and a product. As anyone will agree, humans bodies come in a variety of shapes and sizes, which makes somewhat dicult to design a product to t absolutely everybody. Nevertheless, human measure can be well represented as normal distributions. This last feature makes it possible to dene parameters to t, let say, 90% percent of the population. In many occasions, to be able to design for such a high percentage of the population it is required to include adjustable features to the product. One typical example is the way in which seat and steering wheel positions can be altered in many cars to adapt the height and size of the driver. Other three ways in which humans may interact with products is as a source of power (for example when opening a door), as a sensor (for example reading a dashboard) or as a controller (for example the operating a CD player). In the rst case, information about the average force that a human can provide (or is expected to provide) is vital toward a successful product. In the second case, if the human is expected to be able to read information is important that the person has only one way to interpret the data. In the third way, a product must be designed so there is no ambiguities in the form in which the product operates. For the product to be easy to interact with, there must be only one obviously correct thing to do for every action that is required.
143
6.4.4. Embodiment A second method to supplement the general embodchecklist iment process, is the application of the embodiment checklist developed by Pahl & Beitz shown in table 6.1. This table provides a systematic approach to apply proven design principles during the embodiment phase. The objective of the list is to ensure robustness, clarity, simplicity and safety in a product. The checklist involves categories of possible engineering specications, where each category has a set of basic questions that should be exhaustively applied to the product and the dierent subsystems/modules as they are being detailed. It should be noted that mathematical models or physical prototypes may be needed to eectively answer each of the questions.
References
1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons. 2. Crow, K. (2002) Failure Modes and Eects Analysis (FMEA), DRM Associates, www.npd-solutions.com. 3. Cutherell, D. (1996) Product Architecture. Chap 16. in The PDMA handbook of new product development, edited by M. Rosenau, Jr. et al. New York: Wiley. 4. Kalpakjian, S. & Schmid, S. (2001) Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, fourth ed., Prentice-Hall. 5. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall. 6. Pahl, G. and Beitz W. (2001) Engineering Design - A systematic Approach. Second Ed. Springer. 7. Pugh, S. (1990) Total Design, Addison Wesley. 8. SAE (2002) Potential Failure Mode and Eects Analysis in Design (Design FMEA) and Potential Failure Mode and Eects Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) and Eects Analysis for Machinery (Machinery FMEA). SAE Standard J1739. 9. Stamatis, D. H. (1995) Failure Mode and Eect Analysis - FMEA from Theory to Execution. ASQ Quality Press. 10. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process, Third Edition. McGrawHill. 11. Ulrich, K. (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing rm. Research Policy, 24, 419-440. 12. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Irwin
6.4 Some important design considerations McGraw-Hill.
144
145
Embodiment Function Checklist issue

Are the customer needs satised, as measured by the target values? Is the stipulated product architecture and function(s) fullled? What auxiliary or supporting functions are needed?
Working principles
Do the chosen form solutions (architecture and components per function) produce the desired eects and advantages? What disturbing noise factors may be expected? What byproducts may be expected?
Layout, geometry and materials
Do the chosen layout, component shapes, materials, and dimensions provide minimal performance variance to noise (robustness), adequate durability (strength), ecient material usage (strength-to-mass ratio), suitable life (fatigue), permissible deformation (stiness), adequate force ows (interfaces and strength concentrations), adequate stability, impact resistance, freedom from resonance, unimpeded expansion and heat transfer, and acceptable corrosion and wear with the stipulated service life and loads?
Energy and kinematics
Do the chosen layout and components provide ecient transfer of energy (eciency), adequate transient and steady state behavior (dynamics and control across energy domains), and appropriate motion, velocity and acceleration proles?
Safety Ergonomics
Have all of the factors aecting the safety of the user, components, function, operation, and the environment been taken into account? Have the human-machine relationships been fully considered? Have unnecessary human stress or injurious factors been predicted and avoided? Has attention been paid to aesthetics and economic analysis of the production process, capability, and suppliers?
Quality control Assembly
Have standard product tolerances been chosen (not too tight)? Have the necessary quality checks been chosen (type, measurements, and time)? Can all internal and external assembly operations be performed simply, repeatedly, an in the correct order (without ambiguity)? Can components be combined (minimize part count) without aecting modular architectures and functional independence of the product?
Transport Operation Life cycle
Have the internal and external transport conditions and risks been identied and solved? Have the required packaging and dunnage been designed? Have all of the factors inuencing the products operation, such as noise, vibration, and handling been considered? Can the product, its components, its packaging be reused or recycled? Have the materials been chosen and clumped to aid recycling? Is the product easily disassembled?
Maintenance Costs Schedules
Can maintenance, inspection, repair, and overhaul be easily performed and checked? What features have been added to the product to aid in maintenance? Have the stipulated cost limits been observed? Will additional operational or subsidiary costs arise? Can the delivery dates be met, including tooling? What design modications might reduce cycle time and improve delivery?
Table 6.1: Checklist for embodying a product concept. Adapted from Pahl & Beitz (1996).
Part II Techniques for reliability, robustness and optimization
CHAPTER Reliability in Design
To be added.
7.1
The concept of reliability
To be added.
7.2
StrengthLoad Interference theory
To be added.
7.3
Block Diagram Analysis
To be added.
7.5 Failure Mode and Eect Analysis
148
7.4
Fault Tree Analysis
To be added.
7.5
Failure Mode and Eect Analysis
The notion of a reliable product comes from two dierent parts. First, there is the minimization of performance variation across dierent environments and user conditions. Second, is the assurance that the product will work as intended, without falling short of a given set of customer expectations. The rst part is achieved through customer quality. The second part is achieved through the more fundamental engineering quality. With the latter, it is ensured that the product has adequate strength, reliability and failure prevention. Traditionally, reliability has been achieved through extensive testing at the end of the design process. A better idea is to design from the early design stages incorporating the concepts of quality and reliability. Historically, engineers have not been very good at designing with reliability and quality. In most occasions, engineers use a safety factor as a way of making up for all the possible failure modes that were not considered in the design. As the engineer had less idea of what could go wrong with the product, the larger the safety factor that the engineer would use. Unfortunately, as stated in the Mechanical Engineering magazine: A large safety factor does not necessarily translate into a reliable product. Instead, it often leads to an overdesigned product with reliability problems. Failure Mode and Eect Analysis (FMEA) is an analytical methodology used as means for analyzing potential reliability problems early in the product design process, where it is easier and cheaper to take corrective actions. FMEA is used to identify potential failure modes, determine their eect on the use of the product, and identify counter-actions to correct them. FMEA focuses on the entire product and not just in the dierent components and interfaces, although failure modes may be related to specic components or interfaces.
149 7.5.1. Types of FMEA
There are several types of FMEAs, each one with its own focus and objectives. Independently of the task at hand, FMEA should always be used whenever failures would mean potential harm or injury to the user. The types of FMEA are: System FMEA: focuses on global system functions Design FMEA: focuses on components and subsystems Process FMEA: focuses on manufacturing and assembly processes Service FMEA: focuses on service functions Software FMEA: focuses on software functions 7.5.2. FMEA Usage According to the Society of Automotive Engineers (2002), FMEA supports the product development process in reducing the risk of failure by: aiding in the objective evaluation of design requirements and design alternatives aiding in the initial design for manufacturing and assembly requirements increasing the probability that potential failure modes and their eects on system operation have been considered in the design/development process providing additional information to aid in the planning of through and ecient design improvements and development testing providing an open issue format for recommending and tracking risk reducing action providing future references to aid in analyzing eld concerns, evaluating design changes, and developing advanced designs Properly used, FMEA provides the engineer with several benets that include (Crow, 2002): Improve product/process reliability and quality
7.5 Failure Mode and Eect Analysis Increase customer satisfaction
150
Early identication and elimination of potential product/process failure modes Prioritize product/process deciencies Capture engineering/organization knowledge Emphasizes problem prevention Documents risk and actions taken to reduce risk Provide focus for improved testing and development Minimizes late changes and associated cost Catalyst for teamwork and idea exchange between functions In order to eectively apply FMEA, the greatest challenge that the design team faces is to anticipate what might go wrong with a product. While anticipating every possible failure mode is almost always impossible, the development team should generate a detailed list of potential failures. Some questions that may help in this task are (Stamatis, 1995): 1. What does the product do and what are its intended uses? 2. How does the product perform its function? 3. What raw materials and components are used to build the product? 4. How, and under what conditions does the product interface with other products? 5. What by-products are created by the product or by the use of the product? 6. How is the product used, maintained, repaired, and disposed of at the end of its useful life? 7. What are the manufacturing steps in the production of the product? 8. What energy sources are involved and how?
151
9. Who will use or be in the vicinity of the product, and what are the capabilities and limitations of these individuals? The above questions should be aimed to gather information in order to address six basic questions: 1. What could fail or go wrong with each component of the product? 2. How or why can the part fail to meet its engineering specications? 3. What circumstances could cause the failure? 4. To what extent might it fail? 5. What are the potential hazards produced by the failure? 6. What steps should be implemented to prevent the failure? 7.5.3. Step by step Design The use of FMEA is straightforward consisting FMEA Analysis of a series of steps. Following the procedure suggested by Otto & Wood (2000), the 10 steps procedure is explained in what follows. Step 1: List each subassembly and component number, along with the basic functions or function chains of the component. The component numbers may be referenced from a products bill of materials. Likewise, the component functions should be consistent with the functional models and architecture developed for a product. Any functions listed for a component should concisely represent the design intent. Environmental and operational parameters, such as temperature, humidity, and pressure ranges, should be listed to clarify this intent. Step 2: Identify and list the potential failures for each product component. Simple prototype models and brainstorming techniques can aid in identifying potential failure modes. Likewise, sketches, storyboards, free-body diagrams, force-ow diagrams, and process-ow diagrams can help in understanding the physics of a failure mode. Tables 6.1 and 7.1 should be used to check for typical problems with components and product systems. For any listed failure mode, the idea is that the failure could occur, but not that will necessarily occur for the product under consideration.
152
Step 3: List possible potential causes or mechanisms of the failure modes. Example causes include tolerance stack-up, assembly errors, poor maintenance, impact loading, overstressing, and so forth. These causes will provide insights into modeling of the failure mode. They will also indicate appropriate preventive measures that might be adopted.
153
List of example failure modes Corrosion Fracture Material Yield Electrical short Open Circuit Buckling Resonance Fatigue Deections or deformations Seizure Burning Misalignment Stripping Wear Binding Overshooting Ringing Loose Leaking Ingress Vibrations Whirl Sagging Cracking Stall Creep Thermal expansion Oxidation UV deterioration Acoustic noise Scratching and hardness Unstable Loose ttings Unbalanced Enbrittlement Loosening Scoring Radiation damage Delamination Erosion Thermal shock Thermal relaxation Bonding failure Starved for lubrication Staining Inecient Fretting Thermal fatigue Sticking Intermittent system operation Egress Surge
Table 7.1: Abbreviated list of example failure modes. After Otto & Wood (2000).
154
Step 4: List the potential eects of the failure, including impact on the environment, property, or hazards to human users. Example eects include noise, poor appearance, ying debris, unpleasant odor, erratic operation and so forth. Step 5: Rate the likelihood of occurrence (O) of the failure. The ratings should be on a scale of 1-10 as given by:
1 2/3 4/5/6 7/8 9/10
No eect Low (relatively few failures) Moderate (occasional failures) High (repeated failures) Very high (failure is almost inevitable)
Step 6: Estimate the potential severity (S) of the failure and its eect. Again, a 1-10 scale should be used. The following meanings are associated with this scale:
1 2 3 4/5/6 7/8 9/10
No eect Very minor (only noticed by discriminating customer) Minor (aects very little of the system; notice by average customer) Moderate (most customers are annoyed) High (causes a loss of a primary function; customers are dissatised) Very high and hazardous (product becomes inoperative; customers are angered; the failure may result in unsafe operation and possible injury)
Step 7: List current or expected design controls/test for detecting (D) the failure before the product is released for production. A 1-10 scale is used to assess detection:
155 1 2 3 4/5/6 7/8 9/10 Almost certain High Moderate
Moderate most customers are annoyed Low Very remote to absolute uncertainty
Step 8: Calculate the Risk Priority Number (RPN). An RPN prioritizes the relative importance of each failure mode and eect on a scale of 1-1000. It can be calculated with the following relation: RPN = (S) (O) (D) A 1000 rating implies a certain failure that is hazardous and harmful and will occur, whereas a 1 rating is a failure that is highly unlikely and unimportant. Rating above 100 will occur, whereas ratings below 30 become reasonable for typical applications. It is important to notice that the RPN scale is nonlinear in risk. Step 9: Develop recommended actions for the failure modes, assign responsibilities to appropriate parties and team members, and set a schedule for implementing the actions. Corrective actions should be rst developed for the highest ranked failure modes based on the RPN. Example actions include revised component or subassembly design, revised test plan or material specication, design of experiments and prototypes, etc. These actions should be specic. Step 10: Implement the corrective actions, update the S-O-D ratings, and recalculate the RPN for the updated design. The process and results of the FMEA should be documented, perhaps with the help of a template like the one shown in gure 7.1.
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS Design FMEA Process FMEA

Name/Department/Supplier/Telephone Current situation Failure Consequence Failure Cause Proposed test steps O S D RPN Suggested remedial measures By (Name/Department/Telephone)
Component name
Improved situation Applied steps O S D RPN
Figure 7.1: FMEA Template.

Failure Location Failure Type
156
157
References
1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons. 2. Crow, K. (2002) Failure Modes and Eects Analysis (FMEA), DRM Associates, www.npd-solutions.com. 3. Cutherell, D. (1996) Product Architecture. Chap 16. in The PDMA handbook of new product development, edited by M. Rosenau, Jr. et al. New York: Wiley. 4. Kalpakjian, S. & Schmid, S. (2001) Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, fourth ed., Prentice-Hall. 5. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall. 6. Pahl, G. and Beitz W. (2001) Engineering Design - A systematic Approach. Second Ed. Springer. 7. Pugh, S. (1990) Total Design, Addison Wesley. 8. SAE (2002) Potential Failure Mode and Eects Analysis in Design (Design FMEA) and Potential Failure Mode and Eects Analysis in Manufacturing and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) and Eects Analysis for Machinery (Machinery FMEA). SAE Standard J1739. 9. Stamatis, D. H. (1995) Failure Mode and Eect Analysis - FMEA from Theory to Execution. ASQ Quality Press. 10. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process, Third Edition. McGrawHill. 11. Ulrich, K. (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing rm. Research Policy, 24, 419-440. 12. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
CHAPTER Design of Experiments using the Taguchi Method
8.1
Basics of Design of Experiments
When a person is faced with the task of solving a problem which answer is not know, many dierent alternatives or ideas for its solution may appear based on those factors that are regarded as important in the problem at hand. If no better ideas arise, trial and error procedures are generally employed until a satisfactory solution is found. Although trial and error may seem as a simple approach, as it is evident to any person that has tried to solve a problem in this way, the procedure has many drawbacks. First, trial and error generally lack of any structure and solution attempts are carried out changing the problem variable randomly. Second, it takes a long time to nd a satisfactory solution, if one is ever found! Third, it is dicult to assess if the solution found is the optimal one. Fourth, and most importantly, trial and error procedures are prohibitively expensive to carry out as several failing attempts are usually needed to nd a solution. From the above, it is obvious that trial and error procedures are not well suited for scientic purposes. Hence, a structured, reliable and ecient methodology to carry out tries or experiments is needed. The discipline of Design of Experiments, or DoE for short, is responsible for answering this question.
159
8.1 Basics of Design of Experiments
In order to carry a designed experiment it is recommended to follow a simple procedure: 1. Dene the problem. 2. Design the experiment. 3. Setup the experiment. 4. Gather data. 5. Analyze data. These steps will be analyzed next. 8.1.1. Dene the problem In this step the problem to be solved is clearly understood. The variables, or factors, that aect its behavior are determined and the shape and value of an acceptable solution is determined. Although this step may be seen as obvious, it is the most critical part of a designed experiment. In many ocassions it is dicult not only to determine which factors are relevant and which not, but also what is the required output, or response, for the experiment. Whenever possible, attempts should be made to solve the problem analytically. Even when too many assumptions and/or simplications were needed to solve it analytically, the formulas used can of great help providing, rst, an insight into the nature of the problem and second, an idea of around where the solution should be found. This would help the scientist to determine factors and numerical values to be used in order to reduce the number of experiments to run. 8.1.2. Design the experiment Once the problem has been fully understood, the next step it to design the experiment. Here, design the experiment involves the determination of what factors and values should be varied during the experiments and what response or responsed will be measured. It also involves the selection of how the experiment will be carried out: it will be done numerically using methods like Finite Elements or Boundary Elements, it will be done experimentally, using a full size test rig, a combination of both approaches, etc. Next, it is necessary to dene how many runs will be carried out and how the inputs (factors) will be varied. One simple and eective albeit long approach, is to use a factorial design.
8.1 Basics of Design of Experiments Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Factors 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
160
Table 8.1: 23 factorial design table.
In a factorial design the response to all possible combinations of factor levels is measured. The number of all possible combinations of k factors, each with n dierent levels to be tested, is nk . Consider for example a problem that has three dierent factors and it is desired to test the response of the system when each factor is varied between two dierent values. Since there are three dierent factors to take into account, k = 3. Furthermore, since each factor will take only two dierent values, n = 2. Hence, the number of experiments to run is 23 = 8. Table 8.1 shows all the required runs representing the low value of any factor by the number 1 and its higher value by the number 2. The choice between two, three or more levels for each one of the factors is based on the type of response that is required from the experiment. If two levels are chosen, then making it a 2k factorial design, the response of the system will be forced to be linear. If three levels are chosen (a 3k experiment), then the response will be forced to be quadratic, and so on. It is responsability of the person designing the experiment to choose the right number of levels needed in order to mimic the nature of the response of the problem. If the response of the problem is thought to be of cubic nature, then four levels should be considered for each factor. Figure 8.1 shows graphically the dierent in response from a 2k and a 3k experiments. One of the main advantages of carrying out factorial designs, is that all possible
161
Linear response estimated with 2 factor levels Response variable Response variable
8.1 Basics of Design of Experiments

Quadratic response estimated with 3 factor levels 2
2 1
3 1
Control variable
Control variable
Figure 8.1: Dierence in the response variable between a two-level factor and a three-level factor. interactions between factors the eect of one factor depending on the value of some of the other factors are taken into account. Their main disadvantage is the number of experiments that have to be done, consider for example, six factors with 3 levels each: 36 = 729 experiments to run! As the number of experiments needed for a factorial design increases rapidly as the number of factors increases, an alternative is needed in order to make complex experiments managable. Full nk factorial designs allow the estimation of all main eects eects that depend on only one factor as well as 2way interactions, 3-way interactions and so on until n-way interactions. Here interaction means interdependece between two or more main eects. One way to reduce the number of experiments needed is to give up the ability to estimate interactions, especially higher order, by confounding them with each other. Confounding two or more factors means that the eects of these factors on a response variable cannot be distinguished from one another. Factorial designs where not all runs are performed are called fractional factorial designs. Confounding higher order interactions signicantly reduces the number of experiments to carry out. Nevertheless, the question of which experiments to run has to be answered. This is not an easy question, as the selection must be specied in such a way that desired eects are not aected by interactions and undesired eects are confounded with each other. Many alternatives exists to answer this question. One alternative that has become increasingly popular for its simplicity and eectivness is the use of Taguchis Method for designed experiments which will be discussed in detail in the next section. The interested reader is encourged to consult the references by Montgomery (1997) or Berger and Maurer (2002) to review other methods.
8.1 Basics of Design of Experiments 8.1.3. Setup the experiment
162
In this step the experiment is prepared either by means of existing equipment, a test rig or a numerical simulation. The experiment should be isolated as much as possible from all possible external inuences. Also, care must be given to ensure that any factor can be modied without interfering with the others and that the response variable can be measured eectively. It is of great importance that the response variable is always something that can be quantied by just one number, as it will make the analysis more much easier. If by the nature of the problem, the response variable cannot be represented by just one number, it is strongly recommended to nd an alternative way to quantify it. Consider for example that the neck of aluminum cans wrinkle during its manufacturing process as shown in gure 8.2. As it is an undesirable feature, a engineering team is assigned to determine its probable causes and to modify the process to reduce it. The team decides to design an experiment using the amount of wrinkling as the response variable. The question is now how to quantify the amount of wrinkling in a single number? Clearly, the more the nal shape of the neck deviates from a perfect circle, the more the wrinkling. In this case the team decided to use the dierence in the arc length between the nal shape and a circle of the average radius along the neck. If there are no wrinkles, the dierence would be zero. On the other hand, the more wrinkling, the greater the dierence. As it shown in the example, there are times when the person or team designing the experiment must gure out how to measure and/or quantify the response variable. There is no magic formula and one form will have always advantages and disadvantages over others. It is important when desiging experiments to clearly understand the problem and the tradeos of decisions taken.
Desired shape Wrinkled can
A A
Figure 8.2: Wrinkled neck in an aluminum can.

163 Experimental Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Factors A 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 B 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 D 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1
8.1 Basics of Design of Experiments Mean Response y11 y21 y31 y41 y51 y61 y71 y81 y91 y12 y22 y32 y42 y52 y62 y72 y82 y92 y13 y23 y33 y43 y53 y63 y73 y83 y93 Response y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 y7 y8 y9
Table 8.2: Layout of gathered data for an experiment with 4 factors (A, B and C ) and 3 repetitions based on the L9 orthogonal array. 8.1.4. Gather data Once the setup for the experiment is ready, the experimental runs are carried out, each one with the factor levels specied in the experimental design matrix. The output in every response variable of interest is registered on each case. If the experimental design requires repetitions, they are carried out until all experiments have been run and registered. After all experimentation is nished, all the information gathered can be conveniently arranged as shown in table 8.2. 8.1.5. Analyze data following questions: How the factor levels aect the response? Is there any relevant interaction between factors? How can the response be predicted from factors values? Which factors values will give the best response? In the following sections the methodology used to answer these and other questions will be discussed in detail.
The nal step is to analyze the data gathered from the experimental runs. The analysis typically answers the
8.2 Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs Array L4 (2 ) L8 (27 ) L12 (2 ) L16 (2 ) L31 (231 ) L9 (34 ) L18 (2 3 ) L27 (313 ) L36 (2 3 ) L36 (23 313 ) L32 (21 49 ) L16 (4 ) L25 (56 ) L50 (21 511 )
5 11 12 1 7 15 11 3
164
Description 3 two-level factors 7 two-level factors 11 two-level factors 15 two-level factors 31 two-level factors 4 three-level factors 1 two-level and 7 three-level factors 13 three-level factors 11 two-level and 12 three-level factors 3 two-level and 13 three-level factors 1 two-level and 9 four-level factors 5 four level factors 6 ve level factors 1 two-level and 11 ve-level factors
Table 8.3: Common orthogonal arrays
8.2
Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs
Taguchi showed that if experimental runs are chosen appropriately, there is no need to run full factorial experiments. The basis for Taguchis method are the orthogonal arrays, which show what factors levels must be selected each time to do the fewest possible runs. The main idea is to concentrate only on those few runs that are vital for the analysis. Table 8.3 shows the most common experimental design orthogonal arrays. These arrays can be found at the end of the chapter. Orthogonal arrays are named under the convention Ln where the L comes from Latin square and the n represents the number of rows in the array. As usual, each row represent an experiment to carry out and each column represent the factors (or interactions) of interest.
165
8.2 Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs Experiment 1 2 3 4 Factors 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1
Table 8.4: L4 (23 ) Orthogonal Array.

3 1 2
Figure 8.3: Linear graph for L4 array. The simplest orthogonal array, the L4 array, is shown in table 8.4. This orthogonal is suitable to run a 3 two-level factors experiment. As it can be seen, it requires only 4 runs, compared to a full 23 factorial design that would require 8 runs. Only half the work! As experiments become more large and complex, the use of orthogonal arrays becomes more convenient. Consider for example a design to study the eects of 15 two-level factors. An orthogonal array suited for this study, the L16 requires 16 experiments whereas a full factorial design would require 32,768 experiments! A design to study the eects of 13 three-level factors using orthogonal arrays would require 27 runs using the L27 array; a full factorial design would require 1,594,323 experiments. An orthogonal array is a fractional factorial experimental matrix that is orthogonal and balanced. Here, the balance property has two meanings. First it means that every column is balanced, that is, each level of the factor appears the same number of times. For example, in the L4 array any column will have 2 1 levels and 2 2 levels. The second meaning is that any two columns in the array are also balanced, having the same number of combinations of levels. The reader is encouraged to check both balance properties with any of the orthogonal arrays presented in section 8.7. Other important property of orthogonal arrays is that any two columns of an orthogonal array form a two-factor complete factorial design. Each orthogonal array has one or more linear graphs associated with it. The objective of the linear graph is to show in a friendly way the interaction beCopyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.
8.3 Investigating eects
166
tween columns. Figure 8.1 shows the linear graph for the L4 array, where dots represent factors and lines connecting them represent interactions. In this sense, the linear graph for the L4 array shows that columns 1 and 2 should be assigned to factors, lets say A and B , and that column 3 should be assigned (or left blank as it will be discussed later) to the interaction AB . Linear graphs can also be of help choosing the right array for a given experimental setup. As shown in table 8.3, the number of standar orthogonal arrays is limited and as such, may seem very limited as not all experimental designs may t exactly into one of the Ln arrays available. Although it is possible to create new arrays from the standard ones, in most ocassions there is no need to do so. Consider for example a experimental design with 4 two-level factors. In this case, the L4 is limited to 3 factors and the L8 is designed for seven two-level factors. In this case, the L8 array can be used. Looking at the linear graphs shown in gure 8.11, main factors can be assigned to columns 1, 2, 4 and 7. Once factors are assigned to these columns, the 8 experiments are carried out normally taking into account for each experimental run the levels of each of the 4 factors. It is important to notice that if a factor is assigned to a column reserved for interactions, its main eect cannot be estimated independently from the other factors. Nevertheless, If there is the certainty that there are no possible interactions between factors, then they can be assigned to any column independently if they are reserved for interactions or not.
8.3
Investigating eects
It has been said that the strategy behind design of experiments is to gather the most valuable data with the least amount of experimental runs. In the Taguchi methodology, the analysis of information gathered from the experiments can be carried out in four steps: Estimation of eects where the eect that factors have in the average response are studied. Factor inuence where the amount of inuence that each factor has on the response is quantied.
167
Analysis of interactions where the amount of interaction between factors is investigated. Prediction where a mathematical model of the experiment is developed and the optimal values of factors for a given response are obtained. Taguchi recommends to start analyzing the experiment results using means and plots to keep simplicity. The rst step of the analysis should be to calculate the average of the response variable for a given factor level. Consider for example the experiment shown in table 8.2. For this case, the mean response, or main eect, when factor A is at level 1 can be found as: A1 = (y 1 + y 2 + y 3 )/3 as the factor A takes the low level at experimental runs 1, 2 and 3. Similarly, the main eect when factor A is at level 2 can be found through the responses y 4 , y 5 and y 6 as this factors takes the intermediate level at experimental runs 4, 5 and 6: A2 = (y 4 + y 5 + y 6 )/3 (8.2) (8.1) 8.3.1. Estimation of eects
The main eect of any factor at any level can be found likewise. For example, the mean response when factor C is at level 3 is calculated as C 3 = (y 3 + y 5 + y 7 )/3 as the factor C takes the level 3 at runs 3, 5 and 7. Once the mean response of the dierent factors at the dierent levels has been obtained, it is possible to determine the signicance of each factor. To determine the signicance of a factor it is only necessary to plot the main eects of each factor versus the values of its levels. Figure 8.4 shows the three possible types of eect of factor A on the average response. The rst possibility is that the value for the average response remains almost constant along the dierent levels of factor A. In this case, factor A has no appreciable eect over the response. The second possibility is that the values for the average response forms a line with slope dierent from zero. In this case, factor A has a linear eect on the response. Finally, the third possibility is for the values to resemble a quadratic function, or if the factor has more than 3 levels,
(8.3)

Average response
168
A1
A2
A3
A1
A2
A3
A1
A2
A3
Linear effect of factor A
No significant effect of factor A
Non-linear effect of factor A
Figure 8.4: Eect of factor on response variable.
a non-linear function. In this case the eect of factor A on the response is non-linear. The dierent types of responses call for dierent criteria to select what factor level may be better. When the factor has no signicant eect, the optimum level may be selected in terms of cost or convenience. When the eect is linear, the factor can be used to shift response towards a target. Finally, if the eect is non-linear, the value chosen may be around the at part of the curve, so small changes in the value of the factor do not aect the overall response. The above criteria assumes that interactions between factors are insignicant, so changing the value of one factor has no eect on the others. When interactions are presumed to be present, it makes no sense to change the value of factors independently. In such a case, it is necessary to study how interactions aect the average response. 8.3.2. Factor inuence From the above discussion, it is clear that dierent responses represent dierent strategies towards obtaining a given target for the response variable. The question of how factors aect the response has been answered, but the question of how strong the eect is has been not. For example, it may be irrelevant that a factor has a non-linear eect over the response, if let say, that said factor aects the response in just 1%. Hence, it is important to see the percent inuence of each factor.
169
To show the procedure to obtain the percent inuence of each factor consider the example results shown in table 8.5. Experiment 1 2 3 4 Factors A 1 1 2 2 B 1 2 1 2 C 1 2 2 1 Response 6 8 12 10
Table 8.5: L4 sample experiment. The rst step is to calculate the total eects of factors. The total eect of a factor is obtained by adding the results containing the eects of the factor at each level. For the example being studied, A1 = 6 + 8 = 14 B1 = 6 + 12 = 18 C1 = 6 + 10 = 16 A2 = 12 + 10 = 22 B2 = 8 + 10 = 18 C2 = 8 + 12 = 20
(8.4)
The second step is to compute the correction factor CF used for calculations of all sums of squares. It remains constant for all constants and is computed as 36 36 T2 = = 324 (8.5) CF = N 4 where T is the sum of all results (6 + 8 + 12 + 10) and N is the total number of experiments. The third step is to compute the total sum of squares using the formula
N
ST =
i=1
Yi2 CF (8.6)
= (62 + 82 + 122 + 102 ) CF = 344 324 = 20 where Yi is the response for the i-th experiment.
170
The fourth step is to obtain the factor sums of squares for each one of the factors using the formula
NL
Sf =
l=1
Fl2 CF NF l
(8.7)
where Sf is the sum of squares for the factor f , N L are the number of levels for the factor, Fl is the total eect of factor F for the level l and NF l is the number of experiments ran with factor F at level l. For the example at hand, SA = = A2 A2 1 + 2 CF NA1 NA2 142 222 + 324 2 2 (8.8)
= 98 + 242 324 = 16 SB = =
2 B1 B2 + 2 CF NB 1 NB 2
182 182 + 324 2 2
(8.9)
= 162 + 162 324 = 0 SC = =

2 C1 C2 + 2 CF NC 1 NC 2
162 202 + 324 2 2
(8.10)
= 128 + 200 324 = 4 Finally, the percent inuence of the factor Pf , can be obtained as the ratio between the factor sums of squares and the total sum of squares Pf = Sf 100 ST (8.11)
171 where for the example being studied are PA = = SA ST 16 100 20
(8.12)
= 80% SB ST 0 100 20 (8.13)
PB = =
= 0% SC ST 4 100 20 (8.14)
PC = =
= 20% As expected PA + PB + PC = 100%. The above results show that factor A has the most impact on the response and factor B has no impact whatsoever on the response. By design orthogonal arrays are unable to study all potential interactions between the dierent factors. Specially, third-way interactions are completely neglected. It is the responsability of the person designing the experiments to identify any interactions that may be of interest. This selection of interactions may be a consequence of prior experience or pure engineering judgment. It is best when interactions are identied before the experiment, nevertheless the knowledge about the problem itself is limited at this point in time and there is no certainty about what interactions, if any, are of interest. For this reason, Taguchi suggest to neglect all interactions and run the experiment
8.3.3. Analysis of interactions

Average response B1 B2 B3
172
A1
A2
A3
A1
A2
A3
A1
A2
A3
No interaction
Synergistic interaction
Antisynergistic interaction
Figure 8.5: Possible types of interaction. normally. After the values of the response are available, a simple procedure can be followed to detect if there are any interactions of interest. To detect the interactions, lets say between factors A and B , the average response of factor B at the dierent levels are plotted against the values of factor A. Depending on the experiment, one of three dierent cases may appear. These dierent cases are shown in gure 8.5. The rst case is when there is no interaction between the two factors. In this case the lines plotted do not intersect and are parallel to each other. In the second case, a synergistic interaction appears. In this case there is some interaction as the lines are not parallel although they never intersect. Here the interaction at least gives some idea of its tendency. In the third case, an antisynergistic interaction appears, and there is no clear idea of how the interaction behaves. In this case, further study of the interaction is necessary. To explain the above procedure, consider that an experiment based on the L8 array shown in table 8.2, has been carried out. Furthermore, consider that the experiment has been done with 4 factors and that all interactions have been neglected. Once the mean response of all experimental runs y1 to y9 are available, the mean responses of two factors can be plotted against each other to check if there is any interaction between the two. Consider for example, that the interactions between factor A and factor C are to be explored. To plot the average response of factor C with respect to factor
173 C1 A1 A2 A3 y1 y6 y8 C2 y2 y4 y9 C3 y3 y5 y7
Table 8.6: Interactions AC . D1 C1 C2 C3 y1 y9 y5 D2 y6 y2 y7 D3 y8 y4 y3
Table 8.7: Interactions CD. A, it is necessary to check the response of the dierent levels of factor C to the dierent levels of factor A. From table 8.2, the average response of factor C1 when factor A is at level 1 is y1 . Similarly, the average response of factor C1 when factor A is at level 2 is y6 . Finally, the average response of factor C1 when factor A is at level 3 is y8 . The procedure is repeated for the average response of factors C2 and C3 . The results of the interaction can be arranged into a matrix as shown in table 8.6. Then the average responses are plotted against each other to obtain a plot similar to the ones shown in gure 8.5. The same steps are followed to check for any possible two-way interaction. The reader is encouraged to review the interaction matrix between factors C and D. As mentioned before, in some cases it is necessary to study a given interaction in more detail. To explain how interactions are studied following Taguchis approach, consider now a very simple experiment consisting of two factors, namely A and B , each one with two levels each. Furthermore, consider that the interaction between the two factors, AB is of interest. For this case, the L4 orthogonal array seems adequate as from the linear graph shown in gure 8.3 column 3 may be used to estimate interactions. Hence, the experiment can be carried out using table 8.8. For this problem, the experiment would be carried out normally, varying the levels of factors A and B and registering the values for the response variable.
8.3 Investigating eects Experiment 1 2 3 4 A 1 1 2 2 B 1 2 1 2 AB 1 2 2 1 Response y1 y2 y3 y4
174
Table 8.8: L4 orthogonal array with 2 factors and 1 interaction. As the interaction does not play a part in the setup and run of the experiment, some people recommend to leave all interaction columns blank to avoid any possible confusions. To estimate the eects of the interaction AB , the same procedure used to estimate main eects can be used. For example, the main eect when AB is at level 1 can be obtained as AB 1 = (y 1 + y 4 )/2 Similarly, the average response when AB is at level 2 can be found as AB 2 = (y 2 + y 3 )/2 (8.16) (8.15)
The main eects of AB can be plotted against its levels in a similar manner as the main eects of factors are plotted. If the plot is a horizontal line, then the eect of the interaction between A and B is not signicant. On the other hand, if the plot resembles a linear or non-linear eect, then the optimum values of A and B have to be determined based on the combined eect of both. 8.3.4. Prediction In most occasions the objective of a design of experiments is to estimate optimum values for the factors given a desired level of the response variable. For that matter, it is necessary to obtain a matematical model of the experiment. Typically, this is done through a multiple linear regression by least squares. Consider that you have an experiment with four factors, namely A, B , C and D, that is ran n times. A matematical model of the experiment could be described by: y = 0 + 1 A + 2 B + 3 C + 4 D + (8.17)
175
where i are coecients that must be found from the experimental data and is the error in the model. Since the previous equation should approximate all the observations done, the above model can be applied to any run i of the experiment, yi = 0 + 1 Ai + 2 Bi + 3 Ci + 4 Di + i (8.18)
where Ai is the value of the factor A at experiment i and the other terms are interpreted similarly. It is important to note that the coecients are constants and do not change since only one equation should be used to model the experiment. In general, for k factors, the matematical model can be described by the equation yi = 0 + 1 Xi1 + 2 Xi2 + 3 Xi3 + + n Xik + i
k
(8.19)
= 0 +
j =1
j Xij
where Xi is the i-th factor. The least squares method consists of choosing the s in such a way that the sum of squares of the errors i is minimized. The least squares functions L is described as
n
L =
i=1 n
2 i
k
(8.20)
=
i=1
Y i 0
j =1
j Xij
The least squares function must be minimized with respect to 0 , 1 , . . . , k . 0 , 1 , . . . , k must satisfy, Therefore, the least squares estimations L 0 L j
n k
= 2
0 , 1 ,..., k n j =1
0 yi
j =1 k
j Xij
=0
(8.21)
= 2
0 , 1 ,..., k j =1
0 yi
j =1
j Xij
Xij = 0
j = 1, 2, ..., k
8.3 Investigating eects The previous equations can be simplied and extended into
n n n n
176
0 n
n
1
i=1 n
Xi1 Xi21
i=1
2
i=1 n
Xi2
+ +
k
i=1 n
Xik
=
i=1 n
yi Xi1 yi
0
i=1
Xi1 + . . .
1 . . .
2 +
i=1 n
k Xi1 Xi2 + + . . . Xik Xi2 + +

i=1 i=1
Xi1 Xik = . . .
2 Xik i=1 i=1 n
. . . Xik yi
0
i=1
1 Xik +
i=1
2 Xik Xi1 +
=
i=1
The above equations can be expressed in matrix form as n n n n 0 yi Xi1 Xi2 Xik n i=1 i =1 i =1 i =1 n n n n n 2 X X X y X X X X i 1 i i 1 i 2 i 1 ik i 1 i 1 1 = i=1 (8.22) i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . n n n n n . k X y X X X X X . . X2
ik ik i1 ik i2 ik ik i i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
If the matrix multiplications are carried out, the previous equations are obtained. The careful reader will notice that the coecient matrix is symmetric and that the elements on the main diagonal are the sums of squares of the factors and that the elements outside the diagonal are the sums of the crossproducts of factors. k coeThe above matrix system can be solved to obtain the values of the cients. Once these values are available, the regression model is given by
k
y i = 0 +
j =1
j Xij
i = 1, 2, . . . , n
(8.23)
The dierence between the observation yi and the adjusted value y i is called residual and is usually represented by the letter e ei = yi y i
(8.24)
177
8.4 Modifying orthogonal arrays
The residuals are a very eective way to check the quality of the regression since the larger the residual, the poorer the quality of the model.
8.4
Modifying orthogonal arrays
Under many circumstances, the engineer faces the challenge to carry out experiments that cannot be accommodated directly by one of the standard orthogonal arrays. On these occasions, only two options exist: either change the choice of levels for one or more factors, or modify one orthogonal array to suit the specic needs of the experiment. When changing the number of levels for the factors is not an option, orthogonal arrays can be modied using one of three dierent techniques: downgrading a column, upgrading a column or compounding factors. As the compounding factors technique usually leads to loss of information in the factors eects, it will not be reviewed here. Interested readers can refer to the book by Fowlkes and Creveling (1995). 8.4.1. Column Column downgrading is the easiest way to modify an orthogdowngrading onal array. Consider for example that an experiment will be carried out where 3 factors have three levels and one factor has only two levels and no interactions are to be studied. The smallest orthogonal array that can accommodate -without modication- such an experiment, is the L18 array. Clearly, having to carry out 18 experiments is too much, specially if it is considered that an L9 array accommodates four factors of three levels each as shown in gure 8.9. In this case, it makes more sense, to downgrade one of the columns so it takes a two levels factor. The procedure is simple: just change the higher value of the level and substitute it by a dummy level which can be any of the values of the factor. For the example under consideration, this means taking the level 3 of the column and change it for either 1 or 2. Figure 8.10 shows the L9 array after the introduction of a dummy level in column 1. When performing the experiment, the decision about what level value substitute for the dummy level, can be made entirely on the experiment merit. Although it is true that more experiments with the same level will increase the quality of the results for that level of the factor at hand, usually it makes
8.4 Modifying orthogonal arrays Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 B 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 D 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1
178
Table 8.9: L9 Orthogonal Array more sense to consider other variables such as the facility to carry out the experiment, cost associated with one level or the other, and so on. 8.4.2. Column upgrading
179
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A 1 1 1 2 2 2 d d d
B 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
C 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2
D 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1
Table 8.10: L9 Orthogonal Array after column downgrading. The dummy level is represented by d.
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
Table 8.11: L8 orthogonal array
180
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Factors 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
Table 8.12: L8 orthogonal array after column upgrading.
181 Factor A: Injection pressure (MPa) B : Mold temperature ( C) C : Cycle time (seconds) Low 1.75 85 25 High 2.25 105 35
8.5 Examples
Table 8.13: Factors and levels for the problem of strenght of bumpers.
8.5
Examples
A manufacturer of automotive bumpers is trying a new material to increase the energy absorbed by the bumper during a crash. Although the manufacturing process for the new material behaves dierent from others known by the company, it is believed that from the dierent factors aecting the process, the three that are controllable and critical are: injection pressure (MPa), mold temperature ( C) and cycle time (seconds). As this is a rst approach into the problem, it has been decided to neglect interactions. The response variable has been selected as the specic energy absorption of the bumper in kJ/kg. It has been decided to carry a 2 level experiment with the above factors. For that purpose, the L4 array seems adequate. In the current process the manufacturing process is set to a pressure of 2 MPa, a mold temperature of 95 C and a cycle time of 30 seconds. The selected high and low levels of each factor are described in table 8.13. With the above information the matrix for the experiment is shown in table 8.14. Note that the low and high values for the experiment have been substituted and the results of the experiment are included. Once the results of the experiments are available, it is possible to start with the analysis of the gathered data. The estimation of the main eects for this problem is as follows. For the injection pressure, factor A,
8.5.1. Strenght of bumpers
A1 = (2.5 + 3.2)/2 = 2.85 A2 = (2.7 + 2.9)/2 = 2.80

(8.25)
8.5 Examples For the mold temperature, factor B , B 1 = (2.5 + 2.7)/2 = 2.60 B 2 = (3.2 + 2.9)/2 = 3.05 For the time cycle, factor C , C 1 = (2.5 + 2.9)/2 = 2.7 C 2 = (3.2 + 2.7)/2 = 2.95
182
(8.26)
(8.27)
The plots of the main eects for each factor are shown in gure 8.6. From the plots is easy to see that the injection pressure has practically no eect over the specic energy absorbed by the bumper. On the other hand, the mold temperature has the larger eect followed by the cycle time. Both factors increase the energy absorbed as the their values increase. The next step is to obtain the percent inuence of each one of the factors. Following the procedure shown in 8.3.2, the percent inuence can be computed from the next steps: A1 = 2.5 + 3.2 = 5.7 B1 = 2.5 + 2.7 = 5.2 C1 = 2.5 + 2.9 = 5.4 CF = A2 = 2.7 + 2.9 = 5.6 B2 = 3.2 + 2.9 = 6.1 C2 = 3.2 + 2.7 = 5.9
(8.28)
11.3 11.3 T2 = = 31.9225 N 4
(8.29) (8.30)
ST = (2.52 + 3.22 + 2.72 + 2.92 ) 31.9225 = 0.2675 Experimental run 1 2 3 4
Injection Mold Cycle Specic pressure temperature time energy absorbed 1.75 1.75 2.25 2.25 85 105 85 105 25 35 35 25 2.5 3.2 2.7 2.9
Table 8.14: Experimental matrix for the problem of strenght of bumpers.

183 SA = 5.72 5.62 + 31.9225 2 2
8.5 Examples (8.31)
= 0.0025 5.22 6.12 + 31.9225 2 2
SB =
(8.32)
= 0.2025
SC =
5.42 5.92 + 31.9225 2 2
(8.33)
= 0.0625 0.0025 100 0.2675
PA =
(8.34)
= 0.94% 0.2025 100 0.2675
PB =
(8.35)
= 75.70% 0.0625 100 0.2675
PC =
(8.36)
= 23.36% From the percent inuence, the temperature mold clearly is the factor of major inuence in the process. As mentioned, it is always important to check for interactions.
8.5 Examples
184
Specific Energy Absorbed (kJ/kg)
3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2 1.75 1.875 2 2.125 2.25
Injection Pressure (MPa)
3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2 85 90 95 100 105 Mold Temperature (C)
3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2 25 27.5 30 32.5 35 Cycle Time (s)
Figure 8.6: Plot of the main eects of the three factors for the problem of strength of bumpers.
185
100 Influence(%) 80 60 40 23.4 20 0 0.9 A B Factor C 75.7
8.5 Examples
Figure 8.7: Percent inuence of injection pressure (factor A), mold temperature (factor B ) and cycle time (factor C ). Figure 8.8 shows the interactions plots between injection pressure and mold temperature (interaction AB ), mold temperature and cycle time (interaction BC ), and injection pressure and cycle time (interaction AC ). From the plots it can be observed that, judging from the almost parallel lines, there is practically no interaction between the mold temperature and the cycle time. On the other hand, there is interaction between the injection pressure and the mold temperature and there is a strong interaction between the injection pressure and the cycle time. Therefore, the problem should be studied further including interactions AB and AC . The nal step of the analysis is to obtain a prediction model for the problem using a least squares regression. As there are only four factors, the mathematical model for the experiment will have the form 0 + 1 A + 2 B + 3 C y = (8.37)
The least squares regression can be performed using either a purpose-specic software as MINITAB or a spreadsheet program such as Excel, OpenOce or Gnumeric. The reader is encourage to read and learn to use any of this software to do regressions.
8.5 Examples
186
3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2 1.75 1.875
Mold Temperature 1 Mold Temperature 2
2.125
2.25
3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2 85
Cycle Time 1 Cycle Time 2
90
95
100
105
Mold Temperature (C)

3.5 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.3 2 1.75 1.875 2 2.125 2.25
Cycle Time 1 Cycle Time 2
Figure 8.8: Plot of the interactions AB , BC and AC for the problem of strength of bumpers.
187 From the obtained: model for
8.5 Examples regression analysis, the following values for the coecients are 0 = 0.1375, 1 = 0.1, 2 = 0.0225 and 3 = 0.025. Hence, the the experiment is given by y = 0.1375 0.1 A + 0.0225 B + 0.025 C (8.38)
remembering that A is the injection pressure, B is the mold temperature and C is the cycle time. The above model ts perfectly the data of the problem, that is, the residual of between the estimated and real responses is zero. This is a consequence of having just one observation and considering only a linear behavior, which the linear least squares regression is capable of estimate without error. The above analysis shows that the best response is obtained when the value for the injection pressure is kept at its lowest possible value and the mold temperature and cycle time are kept at their maximum possible values. 8.5.2. Disk brake noise The data for this problem was taken from Dunlap, Riehle and Longhouse (1999). Disk brake noise continues to be a problem in the automotive industry. After some use, the brakes are prone to produce dierent types of sounds during breaking. One of the low frequency noises occurring during decelaration is groan. To better understand the interaction of raw materiales on sustained groan, Delphi Chassis Systems engineers carried out designed experiments. One of the objectives was to nd the percent inuence of the dierent factors on the response. The experiment was carried out taking into account four factors: ller, ber, lube and abrasive. The response variable was chosen as the average number of stops with caliper acceleration level greater than 1g. Although the original design included the full factorial experiment, consider here that only the interactions llerber, llerlube and llerabrasive are of interest. Since the experiment has four factors and three interactions, and each factor has two levels, the L8 array seems appropriate. From the corresponding linear graphs, shown in gure 8.11, the option would be to set the four factors in columns 1, 2, 4 and 7. Since the ller is part of the three interactions of interest, it should be set in column 1. If the type of ber is set in column 2, then the interaction llerber, should be placed at column 3. Similarly, if lube is placed at column 4, then the interaction between lube and ller should be set in column 5. Finally, the last factor, the type of abrasive, must be
8.5 Examples Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 B 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 AB 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 C 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 AC 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 AD 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 D 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
188
Table 8.15: Experimental matrix for the example of disk brake ingredients including interactions. Factor A is ller type, factor B is ber type, factor C is lube and factor D is the abrasive used. Data taken from Dunlap, Riehle and Longhouse (1999). placed in column 7 so the interaction llerabrasive is set in column 6. The experimental matrix is shown in table 8.15. To carry out the experiment is necessary to set every factor to the corresponding level according to the experimental matrix. The results in the response variable are shown in table 8.16. Once the information is available, then the inuence of the dierent factors and interactions on the response can be quantied. As explained before, the rst step to quantify the percent inuence is to calculate the main eect of all factors and interactions. For example, the main eects of factor A and interaction A B can be found from the experimental matrix shown in table 8.15 as A1 = y 1 + y 2 + y 3 + y 4 = 8.5 A2 = y 5 + y 6 + y 7 + y 8 = 31 AB1 = y 1 + y 2 + y 7 + y 8 = 31 AB2 = y 3 + y 4 + y 5 + y 6 = 8.5 The main eects of all other factors and interactions can be calculated similarly and are: B1 = 2, B2 = 37.5, C1 = 20, C2 = 19.5, D1 = 28, D2 = 11.5, AC1 = 12.5, AC2 = 27, AD1 = 18.5, AD2 = 21.
189 Experimental run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A Filler 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 B Fiber 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 C Lube 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 D Abrasive 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
8.5 Examples
Response 0.5 0.5 0.25 7.25 0 1 19.25 10.75
Table 8.16: Experimental matrix for the example of disk brake ingredients excluding interactions. As before, the correction factor and the total sum of squares are obtained from CF = 39.5 39.5 T2 = = 195.03 N 8 (8.39)
ST = (0.52 + 0.52 + 0.252 + 7.252 + 02 + 12 + 19.252 + 10.752 ) 195.03 (8.40) = 345.22 The sums of squares for every factor and interaction are computed accordingly, for example, SA = 8.52 3.12 + 195.03 4 4 (8.41)
= 63.28 SAB = 312 8.52 + 195.03 2 2 (8.42)
= 63.28 The sums of squares for all the other factors and interactions are: SB = 157.53, SC = 0.03, SD = 34.03, SAC = 26.28, SAD = 0.78. From these values, the
8.6 Comments about Taguchis approach

50 Influence(%) 40 30 20 10 0 A B 0.0 C D Factor AB AC 18.3 9.9 18.3 7.6 0.2 AD 45.6
190
Figure 8.9: Percent inuence of factors and interactions for the disk brake noise problem. Factor A is the ller, factor B is the ber, factor C is the lube and factor D is the abrasive. inuence of all factors and interactions can be computed. The nal results are shown graphically in gure 8.9. From the results, the ber type has the greatest inuence on the response, followed by the ller and the interaction between ber and ller. Also, the lube has no eect whatsoever as the llerabrasive interaction.
8.6
Comments about Taguchis approach
The Taguchi approach to design of experiments, albeit very convenient, is not perfect. The simplicity of its approach comes for a price. In previous discussions it has brought to the attention of the reader that orthogonal arrays neglect third-way interactions and confound two-way interactions with main eects. This confounding can lead to inaccuracies as the signicance of main eects depends on the interactions. Hence, conclusions drawn from orthogonal array requires that interactions eects are insignicant. In this regard, help can be obtained from the use of linear graphs. Linear graphs provide an easy way to identify how factors, and interactions between them, should be assigned to the dierent columns in the orthogonal array. If the assignment of factors and interactions to columns in the array is chosen carefully, then two-way, and even sometime three-way interactions, can be studied. Taguchi suggests to drop the study of interactions, especially if their behavior is not known in advance, at the rst stages of the experiment. The rationale
191
8.6 Comments about Taguchis approach
behind this suggestion being that interactions are in most occasions dicult to quantify and the eort is better spent if more factors are included rather than interactions. If interactions are found to be signicant, then more detailed experiments can be carried out. Taguchi also emphasizes the use of a conrmation run to verify that the optimal values chosen for the experiment are indeed optimal. Another advantage of the Taguchi approach is that the number of runs to performe for a given experiment is minimal. Althought this is the case in most occasions, pure fractional matrices are sometimes smaller with the advantage that main eects can be kept from confounding. Unfortunately, many engineers nd dicult to design their own optimal experimental matrices or do not have the time to do it. With this in mind, it is much better a non-optimal experimental design done, that an optimal one that is not carried out! As with many engineering methods, judgment should be the rst tool. Never trust any method without understanding how it works and what disadvantages it provides. Remember there is no such thing as a free lunch!
References
1. Berger, P.D. and Maurer, R.E. (2002) Experimental Design with applications in management, engineering and the Sciences. Duxbury Thomson-Learning. 2. Dunlap, K.B., Riehle, M.A. and Longhouse, R.E. (1999) An investigative overview of automotive disc brake noise. Brake Technology and ABS/TCS Systems (SP-1413). SAE International Congress and Exposition. Detroit, USA. 3. Montgomery, D.C. (2000) Design and Analysis of Experiments. 5th Edition. Wiley Text Books, New York. 4. Phadke, M.S. (1989) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice-Hall. 5. Roy, R.K. (2001) Design of experiments using the Taguchi approach. 16 steps to product and process improvement. John Wiley & Sons.
8.7 Common orthogonal arrays
192
8.7
Common orthogonal arrays
Experiment 1 2 3 4
Factors 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1
3 1 2
Figure 8.10: Linear graph for L4 array.
193
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 7 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
1 3 3 5 7 4 (2) 1 5 6 2 6 (1)
2 4 7
194
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Factors 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 4 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1
3,4 1 2
195
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 6 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 7 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 8 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 9 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 10 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Table 8.20: L12 (211 ) Orthogonal Array. The interaction between any two columns is partially confounded with the rest. Do not use if interactions must be estimated.
196
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 6 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 7 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 9 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 10 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 11 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 12 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 13 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 14 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 15 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
197
1 3 9 2 13 11 6 5 10 4 12 (!) 8 7 15 12 14
15
14 13 1
9 11
10
6 (2)
7 3 2
13 9
11 12 15 14 4 2 5
15 13
14 12
7 9 6 8
11 10 (4)
10
8 (3)
8 9 10 12 11 13 15 14 (6) 6 1 3 2 7
12
15
14
13
10 (5)
11
198
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2 4 3 2 1 4 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 5 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2
3,4,5
199
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 5 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 6 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 7 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 8 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1
Table 8.23: L18 (21 37 ) Orthogonal Array. Interaction between columns 1 and 2 is orthogonal to all columns and can be estimated without sacricing any column. Interaction between any other pair of columns is confounded partially with the remaining columns.
200
3,4,5,6
1 9 10 12 13 3,4 6,7 1
2 3,4 6,7 9,10 5 8 11
8,11 (1)
5 (2)
12,13
201
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 3 4 5 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 1 2 5 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 1 4 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 1 5 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 1 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 4 5 1 2 3 3 4 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 1
Table 8.24: L25 (56 ) Orthogonal Array. To estimate the interaction between columns 1 and 2, all other columns must be empty.
8.7 Common orthogonal arrays Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 8 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 9 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 10 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 11 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 12 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 13 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2
202

203
Experiment 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 ] 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Factors
204
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 i 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 5 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2 4 3 2 1 6 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 3 4 1 2 4 3 2 1 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 7 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 2 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 2 I 4 3 4 3 2 1 8 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 2 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 2 1 4 3 9 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 3 4 1 2 2 i 4 3 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 10 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2
Table 8.27: L32 (21 49 ) Orthogonal Array.
205
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 8 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 10 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 12 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 13 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 14 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 15 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 16 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 17 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 18 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 19 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 20 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 21 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 22 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 23 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3

Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 8 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 9 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 10 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 11 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 12 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 13 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 14 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 15 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 16 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 3
206
207
Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 3 4 5 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 3 4 5 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 1 2 5 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 1 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 1 2 5 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 1 5 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 1 2 5 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 1 7 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 4 5 1 2 3 3 4 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 1 4 5 1 2 3 3 4 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 8 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 4 5 1 2 3 3 4 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 1 5 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 1 3 4 5 1 2

9 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 1 4 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 4 5 1 2 3 10 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 4 5 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 1 4 5 1 2 3 11 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 5 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 1 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 12 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 5 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5

CHAPTER Robust Design
9.1
Quality through design
The main philosophy of quality engineering is that quality can be built into a product during its design phase rather than controlled during its manufacturing process. The fundamental stone behind this philosophy is Robust Design. Robust Design is an engineering methodology whose objective is to create high-quality, cost-eective products that perform well during its useful life independently of how and under which circumstances are used. These external circumstances that are outside the control of the design engineering are called noise. Robust design increases the quality of products minimizing the eect of noise on the performance of the product. The robust design methodology relies on two powerful tools: orthogonal arrays to carry out designed experiments, and signal-to-noise ratios to measure quality. Since robust design is a tool inteded to increase quality of products, it is important to discuss what quality means here. To give a clearer idea of how quality should be measure, consider the next case. At the end of the 70s, consumers in the United States showed a preference for televisions sets made by Sony Japan over those ones made by Sony America in San Diego. The preference seemed strange at rst since both plants worked with exactly the same designs and exactly the same tolerance. In 1979, the Asahi newspaper showed a study of this problem. In the study, the newspaper showed a distribution plot of the
209
Color density of new T.V. sets Sony Japan
9.1 Quality through design
Sony USA
m-5 D C B
m A B
m+5 C
Color Density D Grade
Figure 9.1: Distribution of color density in television sets. (From the Asahi, April 17, 1979). level of color density of sets made by Sony Japan and Sony America. Color density was chosen as the objective function as it is commonly used to quantify the quality of TV sets. The plot, reproduced in gure 9.1, showed that the color density distribution of TV sets were very dierent. Sony Japan had an almost normal distribution around the target value m with approximately 0.3 percent of TV sets out of tolerance limits. On the other hand, Sony America had a uniform distribution around tolerance limits with no TV sets out of tolerance limits. So, if Sony America had no units outside tolerance limits, while Sony Japan had 0.3 percent of shipped outside them, how it was then possible for the consumers to prefer sets from Sony Japan? The response to this question lays on how quality is measured. Depending on the deviation from the target m, TV sets are ranked as grade A, if color densitiy is within m 1, and ranked B, C and D as color density deviated progressively from target m. From gure 9.1 it is clear that Sony Japan shipped much more grade A TV sets and far fewer grade C sets than Sony America. Hence, in average, the quality of TV sets from Sony Japan was better, and therefore, customers had a preference for sets from Sony Japan. The above example shows the dierence between being focused on meeting tolerances rather than being focused on meeting the target. Cleary, being focused on meeting the target seems to be a better alternative to measure quality of products. In order to do so eectively, the concept of quality loss must be studied.
9.2 Quality loss function
210
9.2
Quality loss function
From the previous example it is clear that when the objective characteristic from a given product deviates from a target value m, it will loss some performance. Consider for example a connecting rod which objective function is to have a nominal diameter. It is clear that if the diameter is too small compared to its target, the rod will be loose and may not work. On the other hand, if the diameter is too large, then the rod will not t. Also, as the diameter of the rod deviates from its target value, it may require a larger eort to make it work when assembled. Hence, everytime a the objective characteristic y of a product deviates from its target value, some nancial loss L(y ) will occur. As engineering specications are always written as m 0 , one may be tempted to feel that while the objective characteristic is between the range (m 0 ) and (m + 0 ), there is no nancial loss as the product is equally good for the customer, independently on the deviation from the target m. This representation of quality loss can be represented as a step function as shown in gure 9.2, L(y ) = 0 if |y m| 0 (9.1)
A0 otherwise where A0 is the cost of replacement or repair. The step function is unable to quantify the quality loss when an objective characteristic of a product deviates from its target value but is still within tolerance limits. As shown in the example of Sony TVs, this model is faulty and should be avoided. Consider now the following approach suggested by Taguchi. When y meets the target value m, the loss L(y ) will be at minimum. Under ideal conditions, the nancial loss can be assumed to be zero under this circumstance L(m) = 0 (9.2)
As the nancial loss will be at a minimum, then the value of the rst derivative of the function should also be zero at this point L (m) = 0
(9.3)
211
Step Quality Loss

L(y) Quality Loss Function ($) A0
y m0 Nominal the best A0 m m+0 L(y) Quality Loss Function ($)
y m0 m m+0
Figure 9.2: Models for quality loss functions: step function (top) and quadratic function (bottom). If the loss function is expanded through a Taylor series expansion around the target value m, the following equation is obtained L(y ) = L(m) + L (m) L (m) (y m) + (y m)2 + 1! 2! (9.4)
or taking into account that L(m) = 0, L (m) = 0 and neglecting high-order terms L (m) L(y ) = (y m)2 (9.5) 2! Thus, the loss function can be written as a squared term multiplied by a constant k L(y ) = k (y m)2 (9.6) The above view of quality loss is shown in gure 9.2. As the objective function deviates from its target, the quality loss increases, independently of if the
212
objective characteristic is within or out of tolerances. Of course, if the objective characteristic is outside tolerance limits, the product should be considered defective. Now, it is only necessary to dene the constant k . Taguchi suggests to compute it in terms of the replacement or repair cost, A0 , and the magnitude of the deviation from the target value 0 , as k= A0 0 (9.7)
Consider once more the example of the transmission shaft where the target length is 300mm. If the shaft is longer or shorter by 2mm, then it has to be reworked for a cost of $12. For this case, the quality loss function is given by L(y ) = 12 (y 300)2 = $ 6(y 300)2 2 (9.8)
From the above equation it is clear that even when the shaft has a deviation of 1, and is within tolerance, a nancial loss occurs as L(301) = $ 6. 9.2.1. Other types of loss The quadratic loss function discussed above is called functions nominalthebest and is only useful when the quality characteristic y has a nite target value and the quality loss incurred when y deviates from the target m is the same on either side of the target, i.e. the function is symmetrical. In many ocassions the quality loss function must accommodate situations different from the above. In that case, other type of functions dierent from nominalthebest are needed. Other commonly used loss functions are explained next and shown in gure 9.3. Smallerthebetter This type of characteristic is useful for those situations when the characteristic function can never take negative values, its ideal value is equal to zero and as its value increases its performance becomes progressively worst. An example of this behavior is the pollution from an automobile or the leak of uid in a reservoir tank. This type of function is obtained from equation (9.6) substituting m = 0, L(y ) = ky 2
(9.9)
213
L(y) Quality Loss Function ($) Smaller the better

L(y) Quality Loss Function ($)
A0 Larger the better A0 0 0 y 0 y
Nominal the best A0
Axisymmetric Loss Function A0
m0
m+0
m0
m+0
Figure 9.3: Dierent quality loss functions. Larger-the-better Some characteristics, like the durability of a mechanical component, do not take negative values, their worst value is zero and as it becomes larger, its performance is progressively better. Its ideal value is zero and reach the point of zero loss at innity. This behavior is inversely proportional to the smallerthebetter type. Hence, the quality loss function for this type of problems is obtained substituting y by 1/y in function 9.9 1 (9.10) L(y ) = k y2 In this type of problems, 0 is taken as the limit below which the product will fail and A0 is the repair or replacement cost, then the constant k , is determined by k = A0 2 0 (9.11)
Asymmetric loss functions Sometimes the deviation of a quality characteristic on one direction makes more harm than in the other. In those cases, two dierent constants k can be specied and the quality loss
9.3 Noise factors function could be approxmated as L(y ) = k1 (y m)2 , y > m k2 (y m)2 , y m
214
(9.12)
9.3
Noise factors
As mentioned before, the goal of robust design is to create product that perform well under all circumstances, despite external and internal uncontrollable inuences, that is, despite noise. Noise factors can generally be classied in three groups: Outer noise or external noise, groups all environmental factors such as humidity, temperature, pressure, dust, magnetism, vibration, supply voltage, electromagnetic interference and human error during operation of the product. Inner noise or deterioration, refers to changes within the product during its useful life due to wear, tear, etc. Product noise or unit-to-unit variation refers to the inevitable variation that exists between one unit and the next when manufactured. In table 9.1, the strategies to deal with the three dierent class of noise at dierent levels of the organization is shown. The table indicates, for example, that the eect of all types of noises can be reduced during the system design but only manufacturing imperfection can be reduced by the manufacturing department. It is important to notice that not only components or products must be robust to withstand noise. Manufacturing processes should also be robustly designed to make them resistant to external noise, inner noise (tool wear) and product noise.
215
Noises Outer Inner Strategy (environmental eects) (deteriorative eects) Manufacturing imperfections
Department
Technology departments Modify: 1. System design 2. Parameter design 1. Tolerance design Modify: 1. System design 2. Parameter design 3. Tolerance design Modify: 1. Process management 2. Product management Modify: 1. After-sale service X X X X X X X R R X X X X X X R R R N R R R R R R R R
Development and design
Production Technology
On-line departments
Manufacturing
Marketing
R: The eects of this type of noise can be reduced in this department using the strategy indicated. N: Although the eects of this type of noise can be reduced, it is not recommended to do so at this stage. X: The eects of this type of noise cannot be reduced in this department using the strategy indicated.
9.3 Noise factors
Table 9.1: Sources of noise and the corresponding strategies for managing the noise in each department. (After Taguchi, 1993).
9.4 Signaltonoise ratios
216
9.4
Signaltonoise ratios
In the eld of communication engineering, a common performance ratio is the signal-to-noise ratio. A ignaltonoise ratio, or S/N ratio, combines a performance characteristic with its sensitivity to noise factors to measure the quality of a design. Because of this characteristic, signaltonoise rations are ideal to measure quality loss when noise factors are to be taken into account. One of the main contributions of Taguchi was to extend the use of signal tonoise ratios to non-communication engineering. As it will be shown next, all signaltonoise ratios involve the use of logarithms, as logarithms allow the transformation of a multiplicative relationship into an additive one which smooths out non-linearities and interactions. As with quality loss functions, three diferent S/N ratios have been developed to use depending on its intended behavior: nominalthebest, smallerthe better and largerthebetter. These three S/N ratios are computed from the following formulas: Nominalthebest S/N = 10 log where = (yi /n), 2 = 1/(n 1) observations. Smallerthebetter S/N = 10 log 1 n
2 yi
2 2
(9.13)
(yi )2 and n is the number of
(9.14)
Largerthebetter S/N = 10 log 1 n 1 2 yi (9.15)
The key characteristic of the S/N ratios is that maximizing them will in all cases minimize the quality loss function L(y ).
217 Factors Experiment A 1 2 3 4 . . . N 1 1 1 2 4 B 1 2 3 1 4 AB 1 2 3 1 1 . . . 1 y11 y21 y31 y41 yN 1
9.5 Parameter design Replicates 2 y12 y22 y32 y42 yN 2 . . . n y1n y2n y3n y4n . . . yN n S/N 1 2 3 4 . . . N
Table 9.2: An experimental setup using S/N ratios. Consider for example the experimental setup shown in table 9.2. In this example the experiments have been replicated and several dierent responses yN n have been recorded. Instead of using the average response as a measure of the output of the experiments, a suitable signaltonoise ratio may be selected. Once more, remembering that maximizing the S/N ratio will minimize the corresponding quality loss function.
9.5
Parameter design
Robust design involves ensuring that a given design will perform as expected regardless of the noise factors that may aect it. One answer to this problem may be to isolate the product from noise. This option may be either expensive or even impossible as isolating some products like cars or other types of vehicles. Other option may be to compensate for the noise, for example, including in the product control systems. Although this option is more real, is still expensive and not applicable to all cases. One third option, the one that Taguchi suggest, is to minimize the eect of noise in the product. The question now remains how to include those noise factors in the design. Taguchi suggested that noise factors can be managed similarly to design factors, including their eect in the experimental setup through an orthogonal array. This technique, called Taguchi robust parameter design allows to explore the eect of noises in the design in a ecient and simple way. A graphical
9.5 Parameter design

Input
218
Design Factors (controllable)
Product or Process
Noise Factors (uncontrollable)
Quality Characteristic
Output
Figure 9.4: The Taguchi robust parameter design.
description of the Taguchi method is shown in gure 9.4. The rst step in the robust parameter design technique is to select the factors and/or interactions to be included in the designed experiment and to select an appropriate orthogonal array in exactly the same way as it has been done until now. This orthogonal array of design factors receives the name of inner or design array. Next, the technique suggests to select those noise factors that are believed to aect the design the most and assign numeric values in a range as it is done with design (controllable) factors. Depending on the number of noise factors and the levels of interest, a suitable orthogonal array has to be selected as if the experiment consisted only of noise factors. This orthogonal array receives the name of outer or noise array. Once the inner and outer orthogonal arrays have been selected, both arrays are coupled in a single designed experiment as shown in table 9.4. Each replica of the experiment will involve including certain levels of each one of the noise factors selected as specied by the inner array. Overall, if there are N design factors and M noise factors, then M N experiments must be run. Consider for example a designed experiment involving 4 independent factors, namely A, B , C and D, each one with three levels. Furthermore, consider that the design is aected by mainly by three noise factors, E , F and G, and that 2 levels are to be considered on each.
219
9.5 Parameter design Outer (Noise) Array Experiment 1 1 1 Inner (factors) Array Control Factors Experiment A 1 2 3 4 . . . N 1 1 1 2 4 B 1 2 3 1 4 AB 1 2 3 1 1 . . . y11 y21 y31 y41 yN 1 y12 y22 y32 y42 yN 2 . . . y1m y2m y3m y4m . . . yN m S/N 1 2 3 4 . . . N 1 2 1 2 2 M 2 2 1 Noise P . . . R
Table 9.3: Experimental setup using inner and outer arrays. As there are 4 design factors, each one with three levels, a L9 array seems appropriate. On the other hand, for the three two-level noise factors, an L4 array is sucient. The resulting setup for the experiment with these two arrays is shown in table 9.4. From the setup of the experiment, as each experiment of the inner array is carried out multiple times, each one with a dierent combination of factors, the variation among the responses yn1 to yn4 must be caused by the noise factors. One advantage of measuring the response through S/N ratios is that since the S/N ratio is computed for each experiment of the inner array, a higher S/N ratio will indicate less sensitivity to the eects of noise factors. Once the experiments have been carried out, the selection of optimal values for the design factors can be carried out as done before but remembering that if signaltonoise ratios are used, then optimal values will be found maximizing the response independently of the S/N formula used. The selection of factor
9.5 Parameter design Outer L4 Array Experiment 1 1 1 Inner L9 Array Control Factors Experiment A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 B 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 D 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 y11 y21 y31 y41 y51 y61 y71 y81 y91 y12 y22 y32 y42 y52 y62 y72 y82 y92 y13 y23 y33 y43 y53 y63 y73 y83 y93 y14 y24 y34 y44 y54 y64 y74 y84 y94 S/N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 4 2 2 1 Noise E F G
220
Table 9.4: Experimental setup using a L9 inner array and a L4 outer array. levels that maximize the response can be done as usual from main-eects plots. Nevertheless, it is of extreme importance to select the S/N ratio formula that ts the response of the problem at hand, either nominalthebest, smaller thebetter or largerthebetter. As of now, the discussion about robust design have been centered in minimizing the eects of noise in the design. For that purpose, the S/N ratio has been selected as a convenient choice to minimize the quality loss. From the concept of quality loss, this reduction means, in fact, to reduce product variation in order to keep most products around a given target. This idea is shown graphically in gure 9.5a. But what can be done when the reduction in variation is done around the wrong target? This case, shown in gure 9.5b, calls for a
221
9.5 Parameter design
Reduce variation
Shift mean to target
m=T
Figure 9.5: Steps to reduce the quality loss. dierent strategy. In order to reduce variability in the product and keep the mean in target, Phadke (1989) suggest the following strategy: 1. Evaluate the eects of the control factors under consideration on average response and S/N. 2. For factors that have a signicant eect on S/N, select the levels that maximize S/N. 3. Select any factor that has no or little eect on S/N but has a signicant eect on the mean function as an adjustment factor. Use the adjustment factor to bring the mean function on target. 4. For factor that have no or little eect on S/N and the mean function, choose any level that is more convenient from the point of view of other considerations, such as other quality characteristics and cost. Although the above methodology provides some insight into the optimization problem, it requires the nding of a factor that has little or no eect on the S/N but has at the same time a signicant eect on the mean.
9.7 Examples
222
Sometime the problem at hand has more than one response variable of interest. For those cases the above strategy cannot be applied verbatim. Phadke et al. (1983) have suggested the following two steps strategy: 1. Separately determine the control factors and their optimum levels corresponding to each response variable. if there is a conict between the optimum levels suggested by the dierent repsonse variables, use engineering judgment to solve the conict. 2. Select a factor that has the smallest eect or no eect on the S/N ratio for all response variables but has a signicant eect on the mean levels. This is called mean adjustment/signal factor. Then, set the level of adjustment factor so that the mean responses are on target. As it can be observed the above strategy is not very dierent from the oneresponse optimization strategy. Nevertheless, it requires much more careful application.
9.6
Tolerance design
To be added.
9.7
Examples
(Antony et al., 2001) A company wants to investigate the possibility of using lightweight plastics in a modern braking system and decided to carry out a Taguchis experiment. The production process consists of a heated die, which is then forced down by air pressure onto a valve body forming a plastic lip into which a retaining ring is inserted. A schematic view of the process is shown in gure 9.6. The purpose of the experiment was to obtain the parameters of the process that maximized the pull-out strenght. From the many variables aecting the process, ve were selected as critical. The choice of control factors and levels is described in table 9.5. As the objetive
9.7.1. Use of plastics in braking systems
223
Force Pre-heated die Metal insert Thermoplastic moulding Servo valve body
9.7 Examples
Figure 9.6: Schematic view of the industrial process. of the experiment was to obtain the factors levels that maximized the pull-out streght, this quantity, it was natural to select this quantity as response variable. As temperature was the most critical factor, the engineering team working on the problem decided to use four levels for this factor. As the other four factors had only two levels, the orthogonal array that was closer to t the experiment needs was the L16 . Nevertheless, it had to be modied to t a four-levels factor. A common technique to t a column with more levels is to merge two or more columns in the array. The rst step in this technique is to identify the degrees of freedom associated with each level. As the degrees of freedom for each factor is the number of levels it has minus one, then, a two-levels factor has one degree of freedom and a four-levels factors has three degrees of freedom. In order to maintain the balance in the array, to t a four-levels column, three two-levels columns have to be merged. In that way, three one-degree-of-freedom columns are merged to t one three-degrees-of-freedom column. For the problem under study, it was decided to merge columns 2, 4 and 6. If these columns are isolated, each row will fall in one of the following combinations: 1-1-1, 1-2-2, 2-1-2 or 2-2-1. Each combination can be now assigned to one of four levels of the new factor. For example, 1-1-1 1, 1-2-2 2, 2-1-2 3 and 2-2-1 4.
9.7 Examples
224
Level Control factor Die temperature (A) Hold time (B) Batch no. (C) Maximum force (D) Force application rate (E) kN kN/sec Units
1 180 5 1 6 5
2 200 15 2 7 1
3 220
4 240
sec
Table 9.5: Design factors for the Taguchi experiment.
Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
A 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
C 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
D 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
E 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
BE 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
y1 2.18 2.68 2.46 2.92 2.83 3.61 3.31 4.02 3.08 3.07 3.35 3.46 3.42 3.56 4.33 4.77
y2 2.10 2.65 2.57 2.59 2.74 3.22 3.40 3.98 3.14 2.97 3.15 3.21 3.81 3.70 4.90 4.70
y3 2.14 2.67 2.52 2.76 2.79 3.42 3.36 4.00 3.11 3.02 3.25 3.34 3.62 3.63 4.62 4.74
y 2.14 2.67 2.52 2.76 2.79 3.42 3.36 4.00 3.11 3.02 3.25 3.34 3.62 3.63 4.62 4.74
S/N 6.61 8.52 8.01 8.78 8.90 10.64 10.52 12.04 9.85 9.60 10.23 10.45 11.14 11.19 13.25 13.51
Table 9.6: Experimental layout for the study.
225
9.7 Examples
Signal to Noise Ratio
5 12.5 5 11.5 5 10.5 5 9.5 8.5 5 A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2
Figure 9.7: Factor eects on the signaltonoise ratio.
Average pull-out strength (kN)
2 4.2 8 3.8 4 3.4 3 2.6 6 A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2
Figure 9.8: Factor eects on the average response.
9.7 Examples
70 60 Influence(%) 50 40 30 20 10 0 A B C D Factor 4.8 4.0 0.1 E 0.0 1.5 28.6 61.0
226
BE Error
Figure 9.9: Percent inuence of the design factors.
The experimental setup from the modied orthogonal array and its results are shown in table 9.6. Notice that three repetitions of each run were carried out and that the pull-out strength is measured in kN. To determine the optimum conditions, the level of each factor has to be chosen in such a way that the maximum pull-out strength is achieved together with the minimum variation. Hence, optimal condition is achieved selecting the levels of each factor that yields the highest S/N ratio. Figure 9.7 shows the response in the S/N ratio for the dierent factors. From the plot, it is clear that factors A and B have the most inuence in the S/N response and that optimal levels based on S/N are obtained with A4 , B2 , C2 , D2 , and E1 . For this problem, the same conclusions can be drawn from plots of main eects in average response, shown in gure 9.8, as the levels that maximize the average pull-out strength, remains A4 , B2 , C2 , D2 , and E1 . To complete the analysis is always recommendable to check the percent inuence of factors. For this problem, the percent inuence in the singal-to-noise ratio is shown in gure 9.9. As expected, factors A and B has the most inuence with 61% and 29% percent, respectively. Factors C and D have a very small inuence with 4.8% and 4%, and factor E and the interaction BE have a negligible inuence as their contribution is respectively 0.11 and 0.01%.
227 9.7.2. An injection moulding process
9.7 Examples
(Modied from Reddy et al., 1998) A company manufactures a large range of plastic mouldings from household to large industrial products. The company has experimented some complaints from customers regarding an agitator used in washing machines. The agitator, depicted schematically in gure 9.10, is respnsible for the movement of clothes inside the washing tub. The product is moulded in polypropylene and is tted on to a serrated shaft spline and locked in position with a screw. After some initial investigation, it was observed that the problem was mainly due to lack of keeping dimensions, specically in the outer-diameter and pullout strength. It was decided to use Taguchis parameter design methodology to bring the process on target. To ensure success, three response variables were taken into account: outer diameter, height and pull-out strength. The engineering team dealing with the problem identied seven control factors relevent to the investigation. These seven factors are: mould temperature (A), injection pressure (B), hold-on pressure (C), injection time (D), holding time (E), cooling time (F) and ll time (G). In order to keep the experiment of manageable size, it was decided to use only two levels per factor. The choice of levels of each factor is shown in gure 9.7. Also, the team decided to neglect interactions for the sake of simplicity and use instead conrmation or verication experiments to avoid misleading conclusions.
Washer Tub
Agitator
Figure 9.10: Washing machine agitator.
9.7 Examples
228
Level Control factor Mould temperature (A) Injection pressure (B) Hold-on pressure (C) Injection time (D) Hold-on time (E) Cooling time (F) Fill time (G) Units
1 35
2
2 50 150 120 50 33 100 17
kg/cm sec sec sec sec
110 70 30 23 50 7
kg/cm2
Table 9.7: Control factors and their levels for the agitator experiment.
Outer diameter Exp. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean 329.30 329.41 329.45 329.48 329.48 329.45 329.43 329.60 S/N 65.88 65.08 64.02 66.89 60.29 67.89 72.12 69.57
Height Mean 113.21 114.07 113.20 113.54 113.88 114.05 113.85 113.72 S/N 52.99 58.83 43.29 45.17 47.79 50.21 52.21 52.75
Pull-out force Mean 3.00 1.66 1.69 2.12 2.77 1.48 2.13 2.58
Table 9.8: Summary of responses for the agitator experiment.
229
9.7 Examples
From the choice of factors and levels, a L8 orthogonal array was selected. To make the experiment more robust, it was conducted in the presence of three noise factors, namely two dierent operators, two shifts, and raw materials from two dierent vendors. As all noise factors had two levels, a L4 array was appropriate as noise array. The recorded response from the experiments is described in table 9.8. As the objective of the experiment was to minimize variance and bring the process mean on target for the outer diameter and height responses, the nominal-thebest case was selected to compute the S/N ratio for these quality characteristics. Although it was desirable to minimize the pull-out force, it was decided to deal with this response after the previous two had been optimized. From the results obtained, the percent inuence or percent contribution for each factor on each response, either average or in terms of the S/N ratio, were calculated. The results are presented in gures 9.11 and 9.13 for the outer diameter. For the height, the results are presented in gures 9.15 and 9.17 for the S/N ratio and the average response, respectively. For the pull-out force, the percent inuence of factors in the average response is shown in gure 9.19. In all cases all those factors with a small contribution were pooled into error to avoid misleading results with the ANOVA. The main eects plots for the outer diameter in terms of the S/N ratio and the average response are shown in gures 9.12 and 9.14, respectively. For the height, the main eects plot in terms of the S/N ratio is shown in gure 9.16 and in terms of the average response is shown in gure 9.18. Finally, the main eects plot for the average pull-out force is shown in gure 9.20. From the results for the outer diameter it can be concluded that for the S/N ratio, factors B and C have a moderate eect and contributes around 20% each. Factor G, ll time, has the most inuence with a 22.18%. From the main eects plot for the S/N ratio, factor G has again the most inuence. The optimum levels for the most signicant factors are B2 , C1 and G1 . For the average response, factor A, mould temperature, and the ll time have the most signicant eect with a contribution of around 30% each. Factors C and F have a moderate eect and factor E has the least inuence on the response. From the main eects plot, factors A, B, D and G cause all a relatively large change in the average response.
9.7 Examples
230
50 Influence(%) 40 30 20 10 0 A B C Factor G Error 4.0 20.8 20.4 22.2 32.7
Figure 9.11: Percent of inuence of control factors in the S/N ratio for the outer diameter. Factors D, E and F were pooled.
68.5 5 67.5 5 66.5 5 65.5 64.5 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2
G1
G2
Figure 9.12: Plots of main eects for the outer diameter using S/N.
231
9.7 Examples
50 Influence(%) 40 30 20 10 0 A C E F G Error Factor 12.5 4.2 12.5 7.2 34.4 29.3
Figure 9.13: Percent of inuence of control factors in the average response for the outer diameter. Factors B and D were pooled.
Average outer diameter (mm)
5 329.5 5 329.475 5 329.45 5 329.425 329.4 4 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2
G1
G2
Figure 9.14: Plots of main eects for the outer diameter using the average response.
9.7 Examples
232
From the above results, factors B, C and G can be treated as control factors as they have a relatively large inuence in the S/N response. Factors A and F are the best candidates as adjustment or signal factors since they cause an important eect on the average response but have a little eect on the S/N ratio. Analyzing the results for the height, it can be observed that for the S/N ratio, factor C, hold-on pressure, has by far the largest percent contribution with almost 67%, follow by factor B, injection pressure with almost 20% and factor D, injection time, with almost 8%. All other factors have a very small contribution. From the main eects plot for the S/N ratio, factors B and C have most inuence in the S/N ratio and have both level 1 as their optimal. Regarding the average response for the height, factor A has a relatively high inuence with 32.5%. Factors D and E have a moderate inuence of around 20%. Factors B and F have a small inuence of around 10%. From the main eects plot, factor A has the most inuence and factor C the least. From the above results, factors C, B and D are the control factors for the height and factors D, E and F are the best candidates to be adjustment factors for the same response. For the pull-out force, results indicate that factor F, cooling time, has the largest inuence with almost 70%. Factors C and D have a relatively small contribution of 10 and 17%. All other factors have almost no contribution. From the main eects plot it can be observed that a change in the cooling time causes a large change in the average force required to remove the agitator from the shaft. The above analyses show that factors B, C and G can be used as control factors while factors A and F can be used as adjustment factors for the problem considering that all three responses, outer diameter, height and pull-out force have to be considered. The nal selection of levels have to be carried out taking into account the above results and considering the nature of the industrial process when contradictory results are at hand. Consider for example the injection pressure (factor B). In terms of the S/N ratio, factor B has to be at level 2 for optimal response in the outer diameter. Nevertheless, from the height S/N results, factor B has to be at level 1. Hence, it is necessary to consider more information in order to decide which level is best for the process.
233
9.7 Examples
80 66.6 Influence(%) 60 40 20 0 B C D 19.2 8.0 1.3 E 2.0 F 2.9 Error
Factor
Figure 9.15: Percent of inuence of control factors in the S/N ratio for the height. Factors A and G were pooled.
56 54 52 2 50 0 48 46 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Figure 9.16: Plots of main eects for the height using S/N.
9.7 Examples
234
50 Influence(%) 40 30 20 10 0 A B D E F Error Factor 11.4 32.5 22.7 19.5 9.7 4.2
Figure 9.17: Percent of inuence of control factors in the average response for the height. Factors C and G were pooled.
Average height (mm)
9 113.9 8 113.8 7 113.7 6 113.6 113.5 5 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2
G1
G2
Figure 9.18: Plots of main eects for the height using the average response.
235
9.7 Examples
80 Influence(%) 60 40 20 0 1.1 A C D Factor 9.9 17.0
69.9
2.2 F Error
Figure 9.19: Percent of inuence of control factors in the average response for the pull-out force. Factors B, E and G were pooled.
average pull-out force (kg/cm2)
2.7 2.5 2.3 3 2.1 1.9 1.7 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Figure 9.20: Plots of main eects for the pull-out force using the average response.
9.7 Examples
236
In this case, the engineering team concluded the following: Higher injection pressure is the main cause of built-in-stress in the end product. Such stresses may increase the vulnerability of the parts to the wear and tear of daily use. If high pressure is exerted on the material and released too soon, some of the material will move out of the mould into the runners and sprue, owing to relief from the state of compression resulting in still greater nal shrinkage. As shrinkage will increase the necessary force to retire the agitator, it was decided to set the injection pressure at level 1. From similar analyses the engineering team found the following nal results: Mould temperature (A) = 50 C (level 2). Injection pressure (B) = 110 kg/cm2 (level 1). Hold-on pressure (C) = 70 kg/cm2 (level 1). Injection time (D) = 30 sec (level 2). Hold time (E) = 33 sec (level 2). Cooling time (F) = 100 sec (level 2). Fill time (G) = 7 sec (level 1). The above combination of factors is not in the array of experimental runs, so verication experiments were carried out yielding good results both in terms of getting target values and reducing variability. The interested reader is encouraged to read the full paper for more details.
References
1. Antony, J., Warwood, S., Fernandes, K. & Rowlands, H. (2001) Process optimisation using Taguchi methods of experimental design. Work Study, 50, pp. 51-57. 2. Fowlkes, W.Y. & Creveling, C.M. (1995) Engineering methods for robust product design. Using Taguchi Methods in Technology and Product Development. Addison-Wesley.
237
9.7 Examples
3. Phadke, M.S., Kackar, R.N., Speeney, D.V. & Grieco, M.J. (1983) O-line quality control integrated circuit fabrication using experimental design. The Bell System Technical Journal, 62, pp. 1273-309. 4. Phadke, M.S. (1989) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice-Hall. 5. Reddy, P.B.S., Nishina, K. & Subash Babu, A. (1998) Taguchis methodology for multi-response optimization. A case study in the Indian plastics industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15, pp. 646-68. 6. Roy, R.K. (2001) Design of experiments using the Taguchi approach. 16 steps to product and process improvement. John Wiley & Sons. 7. Taguchi, G. (1993) Taguchi on robust technology development: bringing quality engieering upstream. ASME Press. 8. Yang, L. & El-Haik, B. (2003) Design for Six Sigma. A roadmap for Product Development. McGraw-Hill.
CHAPTER Response Surface Method
10
10.1
Overview of the method
From the previous chapters, Taguchi methodology presents itself as a very attractive methodology to eectively and conveniently design robust products and processes. Nevertheless, Taguchi methodology is not infallible as it is possible to miss an optimal setup as the methodology usually involves large changes in the design factors and therefore, it looks for optimal points in a discrete space rather than in a continuous space. To clarify the idea, imagine that an engineer/scientist has setup a single factor experiment. He or she carry out the experiment setting values for the control factor within a pre-established range selecting the minimum (1), middle (2) and maximum (3) points in the range. After the values for the response variable are registered, the engineer/scientist nds that the factor level that maximizes the response is 3 (see gure 10.1a). To be sure, he or she nds a interpolated function by means of a least-squares regression and nds that eectively, the optimum level for the control factor is 3, as shown in the gure 10.1b. As there is a feeling that the optimal point found does not provide the best response, the engineer/scientist decides to carry one more experiment, this time using values for the control factors near the optimum found. After the experiments are run, the engineer/scientist realized that the previous experiment missed the optimal value and that the real optimum is on the new level 2 (see gure
239
False optimum
10.2 Steepest ascent method

False optimum False optimum
True optimum
x1
x2
x3
x1
x2 Interpolation
x3
x1
x2
x3
Discrete points
Closing intervals
Figure 10.1: Missing an optimal point in a single factor experiment. 10.1c. The engineer/scientist goes home happy thinking that he/she found the true optimal, not realizing that the true optimal has not been found yet. The above story shows one disadvantage of using discrete values for design factors: the true optimum may be missed. To solve this problem, one option is to try to use continuous values for the design factor. Albeit not as ecient as using discrete values, using continous values would assure that the true optimum would be found in most cases. The Response Surface Method (RSM) aims at solving the above problem in the most ecient possible way. The name response surface comes from the fact that it is possible to represent responses as surfaces, where then a maximum or minimum can be looked for. In many ocassions, analyses involve two factors at a time, and a three-dimensional surface or contour map can be used to represent the problem (see gure 10.2).
10.2
Steepest ascent method
10.2.1. Single factor problem
The process of searching for an optimal solution can be illustrated using a single factor. In RMS, it is customary to designate factors by the letter X with a subindex 1, 2, etc., to stress that now factors are treated as continuous variables rather than discrete ones. Using this notation, in the followCopyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.
10.2 Steepest ascent method ing example the response y will be a function of a single factor X1 .
240
241
Figure 10.2: Three-dimensional response surface and corresponding contour map.

y
242
X1-0
Figure 10.3: A response curve with an initial condition X10 . Since one of advantages of the Response Surface Methodology is that it can be applied to a running system without having to stop production, consider that the system is running at some initial condition X10 as shown in gure 10.3. The objective of the procedure is to nd the point of optimal response which in this case is the maximum response. The standard approach in RMS is to nd for points of maximum response. When the point of interest is a minimum, then the response is simply multiplied by 1. Starting from the initial condition X10 , in this simple problem the maximum is either at the right or left. To nd which side to go, consider that the process is varied slightly to nd the values of the responses in the vecinity of X10 . These additional points, represented by crosses in gure 10.4, allows the calculation through linear regression analysis of the slope at point X10 . It is important to remember that the response curve is not known in advance and that several observation may have to be carried if there is scatter in the data. If the slope at condition X10 is positive, that means that the maximum is at the right, since the response increases in that direction. This direction that points to the condition of maximum response is called the direction of steepest ascent. When the slope is negative, then the condition of maximum response will be at the left. In general, this slope will only be accurate in the vecinity of the condition X10 , but is good enough to show which direction to follow. Once the direction of steepest descent has been found, the following step is to run an experiment with a new condition X11 = X10 X1 , where the sign depends on the direction to follow.
243
y
Slope X1-0 x
Figure 10.4: Tangent line at initial condition X10 .

y
Steepest Ascent
X1-0
X2-0
X3-0
X4-0
X5-0
X6-0
X7-0
X8-0
Figure 10.5: Looking for a maximum point in the steepest ascent direction. The above procedure is repeated several times until the response stops increasing as shown in gure 10.5. If the response stops increasing, it is because we are at the optimum, or near it. If the new computed slope diers in sign from the previous ones, then the point of maximum response is between the last two chosen conditions. In this case, small increments of X1 can used to hunt for the point of maximum response. 10.2.2. Two factors problem The above example, although simple in nature, presents how RMS works toward nding an optimum point and the procedure followed can be applied regardless of the number of factors. Consider now a more complicated problem with two factors.
244
X1-0
10
X2-0
5
10 10 5 0 5 10
Figure 10.6: A response surface with an initial condition (X10 , X20 ). In this case, the response is not a curve but a surface. As in the single factor problem, starting point of the procedure is an initial condition, in this case, (X10 , X20 ) since two factors namely, X1 and X2 , are considered. Figure 10.6 shows this starting point representing the unknown response surface as a contour map. Next, it is necessary to nd the steepest ascent direction, which in this case is a vector. Similarly to the procedure followed in the single factor problem, the steepest ascent direction can be found by observing the response in the vecinity of (X10 , X20 ) as shown in gure 10.7, and computing a multiple-variable linear regression analysis. Since this case involves a two-factor problem, at least three additional points are required for the linear regression analysis to work. From the linear regression, two slopes will be found, one with respect to factor X1 and one with respect to parameter X2 . The direction of steepest ascent can be found from the slopes as follows: If the slope with respect to factor Xn is positive, then the direction of steepest ascent is to the positive direction.
245
X1-16
10
X2-16
10 10 5 0 5 10
Figure 10.7: Additional sample points at the vecinity of condition (X10 , X20 ) and steepest ascent vector. If the slope with respect to factor Xn is negative, then the direction of steepest ascent is to the negative direction. Since the two slopes with respect to X1 and X2 are available, then it is possible to nd not only the direction of steepest ascent but the vector of steepest ascent. This vector will point in which direction the maximum appears to be. Naturally, this direction will be accurate only in the vecinity of the of (X10 , X20 ). From the direction found, a new set of conditions (X1i , X2i ) must be found until the response stops increasing as sketched in gure 10.8. When two or more factors are taken into account, the direction of the increments taken to generate the new condition, in this case (X11 , X21 ), has to agree with the vector of steepest ascent. In order to do that, increments for the factors must be chosen accordingly.
246
X1-27
10
X2-27
10 10 5 0 5 10
Figure 10.8: Tangent line in the direction of steepest ascent and the new condition (X11 , X21 ) found.
X1-29
10
X2-29
10 10 5 0 5 10
Figure 10.9: Steepest ascent vector at condition (X11 , X21 ).
247
In order to obtain the increments for the factors, typically the factor with the largest magnitude of slope is chosen rst and a desired value for the increment is selected. Then, the increment in the other factor is calculated so the direction of the vector of increment agrees with the direction of the vector of steepest ascent. Suppose for example, that the largest slope is for factor X1 . Then, an increment X1 will be chosen taking into account the characteristics of the process and the corresponding increment X2 will be calculated. In this fashion, new conditions (X1i , X2i ) can be generated. Once the response stops increasing, then it is necessary to nd a new vector of steepest ascent and repeat the procedure to hunt of the optimum as shown in gure 10.9. 10.2.3. The climber analogy In many occasions, the Response Surface Method of nding maximums is compared to a climber that wants to reach the top of a mountain that is covered by dense fog. As the climber does not know exactly where the top is, he or she needs to rely in his/her instruments to nd the way. If the climber has an altimeter and a compass, he/she measure the altitute in some points around his/her current position, and determines in which direction the altitude increases the most. With the help of the compass, the climber proceeds to climb in the same direction until he/she notices that altitude is not gained anymore. With the help of the altimeter, the climber takes several measurements of altitude in points nearby. With this information, the climber nds once more the direction where the altitude increases the most and starts to climb again following that direction until he/she notices that altitude fails to increase. Repeating the procedure, the climber will eventually reach the top. Although one may argue that the procedure is not very ecient, it is important to notice that surely is faster than trial and error and somehow guarantees that a peak (maximum) will be found. At this point is important to mention that as an expert climber will observe, to nd a peak does not necessarily means that one has reached the top of the mountain as another higher peak may be close by. 10.2.4. Coded variables In the procedure described above, it is necessary to carry out a regression analysis to nd the direction of steepest ascent. As explained above, this regression is performed on selected points laying on the vecinity of a condition (X1i , X2i ). Unfortunately, the regression may contain factors of very dierent units and ranges, reason for which it is not convenient to perform the regression in the raw data. Instead, all data must be normalized before the regression analysis is done.
248
10
10 10
5 5 0 10 5 0 5 10 10 5 0
Figure 10.10: The climber analogy. It is convenient to normalize data in the range 1 to +1 so all factors aect the response in the same way. To convert any factor X into a coded variable , the simple following formulas may be used: X =2 X X Xmid-value Xmax Xmin (10.1)
where Xmid-value = (Xmax Xmin )/2 and Xmax and Xmin is the maximum and minimum values for factor X to consider. As it has been discussed, once the regression has been carried out and the vector of steepest distance has been found, it is necessary to select an increment in the factors. This increment can be selected in terms of the coded variables. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to transform the increment in terms of coded variables into an increment in terms of the original physical units in order to setup the next experiment. This backwards transformation is given by X = Xmax Xmin X 2 (10.2)
is the selected increment where X is the increment in physical units and X in coded units.
249
10.2.5. Finding the vector As explained above, two of the key points of the and increments of steepest Response Surface Method are to nd the vector ascent of steepest ascent and to obtain the chosen increment in the same direction. Fortunately, once the results of the regression analysis are available, these two key points are easy to carry out. Considering a two-factors problem, after the regression analysis is performed, an equation of the form 1 + 2 X 2 y = 0 + 1 X (10.3)
is available. Mathematically speaking, the 1 and 2 factors are the slopes 1 and X 2, with respect to X y = 1 X1 y = 2 X2 (10.4)
and therefore the vector of steepest ascent would be described by y y , 1 X 2 X (10.5)
Now, it is necessary to choose the desired increment based on both experience and the process itself. Assuming that the largest slope is in factor X1 , then it 1 as base increment. To keep the increment is convenient to select a given X vector in the same direction as the vector as steepest ascent, the increment in any other factor Xn can be calculated from n = X 1 (y/ Xn ) X 1) (y/ X (10.6)
Since these increments are in coded variables, it is necessary to transform them into increments in physical variables. This transformation can be carried out accordingly using equation (10.2). As sometimes the selection of the magnitude of the increments is not easy, some authors suggest to follow the next strategy. Suppose that from linear regression the following linear model can be established: y = 0 + 1 X 1 + 2 X 2 + + k X k
(10.7)
10.3 Local exploration method From the above model, the next coordinate to analyze can be obtained as Xinew = Xiold + i
k 2 k j =1
250
(10.8)
where Xiold is the current value for the Xi factor, Xinew is the next value for Xi after one increment and is the step length. When no better choice for the step length is available, = 1 is a common selection. From the above formula,
k 2 it is clear that the increment is given by i / j =1 k . It is left to the reader to study the equivalence of this procedure to the one shown earlier.
10.3
Local exploration method
After a search for the point of maximum point using the steepest ascent method has been carried out, and the engineer/scientist feels that the optimum point should be close by, then the method of local exploration may be a better choice. Consider gure 10.11. In the case depicted, the steepst ascent method would require to obtain a new direction of steepest ascent, to select an increment, and advance looking for the point where the response starts to diminish. This procedure can become both tedious and long, specially for problems with multiple factors. When the maximum point is near, the method of local exploration is better suited to nd it in a quick and eective way. The method of local exploration requires to carry out a designed experiment to t a non-linear regression model into the reponse to look for the point of maximum yield. Once the non-linear model is obtained, standard exploration and calculus techniques may be used to nd the optimum point. In general, three dierent types of designed experiments are preferred for local exploration: Central Composites Designs (CCD), Box-Behnken designs and D-Optimal designs. In some occasions, Taguchi arrays may also be used due to their simplicity. In what follows, CCD and Box-Behnken designs will be discussed.
251
y
10.3 Local exploration method

Local Exploration
x X1-0 X2-0 X3-0 X4-0 X5-0 X6-0 X7-0 X8-0
Figure 10.11: Region of the response where the maximum lays.
10.3.1. Central Composite Designs
Central Composites Designs (CCD) are a combination of factorial or fractional factorial designs with a group of centerpoints and a group of secondary points that allows the estimation of second order eects. The points belonging to the secondary group receive the name of axial points. If the factorial design points are usually at a distance 1 unit from the center of the design, axial points are at a distance where || < 1. The exact value of depends on the specic factorial design choosen. The layout of a CCD experiment is shown in gure 10.1. The rst part of the layout consists of N F factorial design points. Here, full factorial or fractional factorial designs may be used. In the second part, N C centerpoints are specied. The number of centerpoints in the design depends on the number of repetitions required to obtain a predition of the error in the model. In general, the more centerpoints are selected, the lower the prediction error will be. Finally, the number of axial points, N A, is always twice the number of factors. The CCD layout may be represented graphically as depicted in gure 10.12 for a two factors design. As shown, the CCD layout is a combination of factorial points, centerpoints and axial points.
The value of used for the axial points is chosen so the experimental design has a rotatable property. When a design is rotatable, then the variance of the predicted value of the response is only function of the distance between the point of interest and the center of the design, that is, there is no preferential

Factorial points
252
+!
+1
Center points
0
Axial points
!1
+! +! !1
0 +1 +!
Figure 10.12: Central Composite Design (CCD). direction in the experiments prediction. Since there is no knowledge on in what direction the maximum point may be, it is desirable not to set by design a direction of preference. Rotatables design, are therefore, a better choice. To have a rotatable central composite design, the value of is a function of the number of experimental runs in the factorial portion of the design, 1 = (N F ) 4
(10.9)
Values for for designs including two to six factors are shown in table 10.2.
253
Factors Point type Factorial Design Points Experimental Point 1 2 . . . NF Centerpoints 1 2 . . . NC Axial Points 1 2 . . . NA X1 1 1 1 1 0 0 . . . 0 0 X2 1 1 1 1 0 0 . . . 0 0 0
Table 10.1: Layout of Central Composite Designs.
10.3 Local exploration method Number of factors 2 3 4 5 6 Factorial design 22 2

3
254 1.414 1.682 2.000 2.378 2.828
24 25 2
6
Table 10.2: Values for for dierent factorial designs. One disadvantage of rotatable central designs is that they require to consider ve levels for each factor: , 1, 0, +1, +. In many cases, this requirement makes CCD designs dicult to implement or carry out. One alternative is to set = 1 to reduce the number of levels involved in the experimental design. These designs are called face-centered central composite designs. Although this type of setup requires only three levels for each factor, it looses the CCD rotatable property. For these cases, Box-Benhken designs provide another convenient alternative. 10.3.2. Box-Behnken Designs Box-Behnken designs are quadratic independent designs that do not contain an embedded full or fractional factorial design. Hence, in this design, experimental runs are at the center and at midpoints of edges of the design space. Figure 10.13 shows graphically a Box-Behnken design for three factors. The levels for each one of the factors are specied in table 10.3. Apart from the advantage that experimental designs require only three levels for each factor, another one is that Box-Behnken designs are rotatable or nearly rotatable. Table 10.4 presents the Box-Behnken design for four factors. It is important to notice that in this type of designs centerpoints are added as usual to lower the prediction error.
255
X1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 . . . 0
X2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 . . . 0
X3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 . . . 0
Table 10.3: Box-Behnken design for three factors.
Figure 10.13: Graphical representation of a Box-Behnken design for three factors.

256
X1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . 0
X2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 . . . 0
X3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 . . . 0
X4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 . . . 0
Table 10.4: Box-Behnken design for four factors.
257
10.4 Examples
10.3.3. Single response Once the experimental design layout has been choosen, model creation and the experimental runs have been carried out, it is time to create a quadratic model that can be analyzed in order to nd the optimum response point. In general, a quadratic model can be described as:
k k
y = 0 +
i=1
i xi +
i=1
ii x2 i +
i<j
ij xi xj +
(10.10)
The above equation can be rewritten in matrix form as: y = X + (10.11)
where y is the response vector, X is the factor or information matrix and is the coecent vector. In order to nd the coecient vector , a least-squares t for multiple linear regression can be obtained from = (X X)1 X y (10.12)
Once coecients are found, the model is complete and can be analyzed using standard calculus techniques in order to nd the point of maximum yield.
10.4
Examples
10.4.1. Chemical process response
(Yang & El-Haik, 2003). In a given chemical process, the two most important factors are temperature and reaction time. The response surface method is selected to obtain the point that maximizes yield. To carry out experiments, a central composite layout is used where = 1.414. The summary of experimental runs is shown in table 10.5. From the experimental results, the information matrix in coded variables X and the response vector y are
10.4 Examples
258
Coded variables X1 1 +1 1 +1 0 0 0 0 0 1.414 +1.414 0 0 X2 1 1 +1 +1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.414 +1.414
Natural variables Temperature, C 170 230 170 230 200 200 200 200 200 157.58 242.42 200 200 Reaction Time, min 300 300 400 400 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 279.3 420.7 Yield 64.33 51.78 77.30 45.37 62.08 79.36 75.29 73.81 69.45 72.58 37.42 54.63 54.18
Table 10.5: Experimental layout for the chemical process example.
259
10.4 Examples
X=
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.414 1.414 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.414 1.414
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64.33 51.78 77.30 45.37 62.08 79.36 y = 75.29 73.81 69.45 72.58 37.52 54.63 54.18
(10.13)
where the information matrix is given by the column vectors = X 1 1 X 2 X

2 1 X 2 2 X
1X 2 X
(10.14)
is X )1 X y, the coecient vector Solving the system (X = [72.0 11.78 0.74 7.25 7.55 4.85]T (10.15)
Hence, the prediction model is described by the quadratic equation 1 + 0.74X 2 7.25X 2 7.55X 2 4.85X 1X 2 y = 72.0 11.78X 1 2 The response surface predicted by the model is shown in gure 10.14. In order to nd the point that either maximizes or minimizes the predicted k response, it is necessary to nd the point where all partial derivatives y / X are equal to zero. The rst partial derivative is y 1 4.85X 2 11.78 = 14.5X 1 X
(10.16)
(10.17)
10.4 Examples
260
Figure 10.14: Predicted response surface for the chemical reaction problem. The second partial derivative is y 2 4.85X 1 = 0.74 15.1X 2 X Hence, the system of equations to solve is: 1 4.85X 2 11.78 = 0 14.5X 2 4.85X 1 = 0 0.74 15.1X 1 and X 2 yields Solving for X 1 = 0.9285 X 2 = 0.3472 X (10.20) (10.18)
(10.19)
Subsituting these values into the predicted response model yields the maximum response: y = 72.0 11.78 (0.9285) + 0.74 (0.3472) 7.25 (0.9285)2 7.55 (0.3472)2 4.85 (0.9285) (0.3472) = 77.597
(10.21)
261
10.4 Examples
The nal step is to convert the coded temperature and reaction time to physical variables, X1 = X1 high + X1 low 1 X1 high X1 low +X 2 2 230 170 230 + 170 + (0.9285) = 172.14 = 2 2 X2 high + X2 low 2 X2 high X2 low +X 2 2 300 + 400 400 300 = + (0.3472) = 367.36 2 2
(10.22)
X2 =
(10.23)
Hence, the conditions that maximize the yield are a temperature of 172.14 C and 367.36 minutes of reaction time.
References
1. Berger, P.D. and Maurer, R.E. (2002) Experimental Design with applications in management, engineering and the Sciences. Duxbury Thomson-Learning. 2. Montgomery, D.C. (2000) Design and Analysis of Experiments. 5th Edition. Wiley Text Books, New York. 3. Myers, R.H. & Montgomery D.C. (1995). Respose Surface Methodology. Process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley series in Probability and Statistics. 4. Yang, L. & El-Haik, B. (2003) Design for Six Sigma. A roadmap for Product Development. McGraw-Hill.
CHAPTER Optimum design
11
In many occasions, a design team is faced with the task to provide a design that is not only good but also optimal. Here, optimal may be understood as the condition where a certain characteristic or group of characteristics are at its best. As it has been discussed previously, a good design is a design that will work as intended, fullling customers expectations. But a design that satisfy the needs of the customer may not necessarily be one that minimizes cost or maximizes certain desired characteristic. Such a design is called optimal design. The dierence between these two types of designs is shown graphically in gure 11.1. Optimization is a branch of applied mathematics and in this chapter, some optimization techniques will be applied to maximize/minimize desired characteristics in engineering designs.
11.1
Optimum design
In order to optimize a given problem, three steps are needed. First, the problem must be thoroughly understood. Second, it is necessary to formulate the problem in order to create a model that can be subject to optimization. Third, using an optimization technique, the selected characteristic(s) are maximized or minimized.
263
11.1 Optimum design
Good design
Optimal design work as intended
work as intended
vs
minimizes cost maximizes performance
Figure 11.1: Dierence between a good design and an optimal design.
Design variables Problem Formulation Objective/Cost function Design constraints equalities inequalities domain of solution
Standard model/ Mathematical model
constrained unconstrained
Graphical method Optimization Analytical methods Numerical methods
Figure 11.2: Path to optimization.
264
In gure 11.2, a brief conceptual map of the path to optimization is presented. First during the problem formulation, design variables, those variables that will be changed in order to maximize/minimize the desired characteristic are identied. Then, the characteristic to be optimized is expressed in mathematical form. The resultant mathematical expression is called objective function or design function. In this step, design constraints are also identied. A design constraint is a condition that limit the possible values that design variables may take in order to consider physical or technical limitations. Design constraints may come in the form of solution domain limitation, equalities or inequalities. The second step is to use all the above equations to create a model that can be optimized. This model is usually constructed as the union of design variables, objective functions and constraints. The nal step is to optimize the problem using a given technique. Simple problems involving one, two or even three variables can be optimized using a graphical method. More complicated models are optimized using numerical techniques such as Newton-Rhapson, Simplex or Steepest descent methods.
11.2
Problem formulation
In order to show how problems may be formulated, four dierent examples will be shown. The examples include simple problems of structural optimization. Consider the problem of a truss structure with two members shown in gure 11.6. The optimization problem is to design the structure in order to minimize its weight. The structure must avoid yield and buckling. As with any truss problem, the rst step is to sketch the free-body diagram and perform summation of forces in both x and y directions. From the diagram shown in gure 11.7, summation in forces become F1 cos + F2 cos = 0 F1 sin + F2 sin = W 11.2.1. Truss optimization
(11.1) (11.2)
265
h l s/2 l
s/2
Figure 11.3: A truss problem.

F1 F2 W
Figure 11.4: Body forces diagram for the truss problem. From the gure sin = s/2 l cos = h l (11.3)
Solving equations (11.1) for F1 and F2 yields F1 = where l = W Wl = 2 sin 2s F2 = W Wl = 2 sin 2s (11.4)
h2 + (s/2)2 .
To specify the design, it is necessary to choose a cross-sectional shape for each member. Although the choice of a standard shape like the ones shown in gure 11.8, limits the generality of the solution, it helps to maintain the complexity of the problem to a minimum. Suppose that cross-section (3) is selected for both members. Since weight must be minimized, then the mass of the structure can be specied as the objective function which value must be at a minimum. Hence, the objective function for
266
d di do (1) (2) b (3) b t1 d t1 d d b
b (4)
t2 (5)
t2 (6)
Figure 11.5: Some cross-sectional areas for structural members. the problem is mass = density volume = A1 l + A2 l = (b1 t1 2d1 t1 + t2 1) + (b2 t2 2d2 t2 + t2 2)
h2 + (s/2)2 h2 + (s/2)2
(11.5) (11.6)
where is the density of the material, Ai is the cross-sectional area, bi , di and ti are the width, height and thickness of the cross-section for the i-th member. As the structure must withstand yield, then F1 A1 < Yt F2 A2 < Yc
(11.7)
where Yt is the yield stress at tension and Yc is the yield stress at compression.
267
Considering the calculation of areas, the above restrictions become Wl (b1 t1 2d1 t1 + t2 1 ) < Yt 2s Wl (b2 t2 2d2 t2 + t2 2 ) < Yc 2s
(11.8)
It is necessary to state that all dimensions dening the cross sectional areas cannot be zero or negative. Hence, the next restrictions arise bi > 0 di > 0 ti > 0 and ti < b/2 bi di (11.9) (11.10) (11.11) (11.12) (11.13)
As the lower member is subject to compression, it is necessary to check for buckling. The critical load for a column with pinned ends is Pcr = 2 EI L2 (11.14)
where E is the Young Modulus of the material and I is the moment of inertia. From the critical load formula, the buckling condition restriction becomes F2 < 2 EI L2 (11.15)
For the cross-sectional area selected, a rectangular tube, the moment of inertia can be computed as follows I= bd3 (b 2t)(d 2t)3 12 12 (11.16)
Hence, the restriction becomes 2E F2 < bd3 (b 2t)(d 2t)3 12 12 s 2 h2 + 2
(11.17)
11.2 Problem formulation Finally, the problem can be stated as: Minimize: S = (b1 t1 2d1 t1 + t2 1) + (b2 t2 2d2 t2 + t2 2) subject to: bi di ti ti bi > > > < 0 0 0 b/2 di h2 + (s/2)2 h2 + (s/2)2
268
Wl (b1 t1 2d1 t1 + t2 1 ) < Yt 2s 2E Wl (b2 t2 2d2 t2 + t2 2 ) < Yc 2s
bd3 (b 2t)(d 2t)3 12 12 2 s h2 + 2
< F2
11.2.2. Beverage can optimization
A company want to verify that the aluminum beverage can that they manufacture is optimal from the cost point of view. Since most of the production cost is associated to the material needed to manufacture the can, it has been decided that an optimal can would have the least material which in turn translate into having the least possible surface area. In order to use current production and handling facilities, the can must fulll the following restrictions (Arora, 1989): The diameter of the can should be more than 3.5 and less than 8 cm. The height of the should be more than 8 cm and less than 18 cm.
269
The can capacity should be 400ml (400 cm3 ). Do not consider the top of the can. As the surface area should be minimized, it is necessary to consider the surfaces covering the cylinder and bottom of the can. Hence, surface area can be calculated from (11.18) S (d, h) = d2 + dh 4 where d is the diameter of the can and h is its height. Now, the volume of the can must also be considered as it has to be equal to 400 cm3 . The volume of a cylinder is given by (11.19) V (d, h) = d2 h 4 With the above equations and the restrictions stated, the optimization problem can be formulated as: Minimize: S (d, h) = subject to: 3.5 8.0 8.0 18.0 2 dh V (d, h) = 4 11.2.3. Tubular column Consider the design of a tubular column completely xed at its lower end. The design objective is to minimize the weight of the column. To design a column is necessary to consider failure by yielding and failure by buckling. Failure by yielding occurs when the compression stress is larger than the yielding stress of the material. Failure by buckling occurs when the compression force acting on the column is larger than the critical load for the beam. Since the weight of the column has to be minimized, it is possible to set as an objective function to minimize the total mass of the column. The mass of the beam is given by 2 2 mass = h (Ro Ri ) (11.20)
2 d + dh 4
d d h h
270
where is the density of the material, h is the height of the column and Ro and Ri are the outer and inner radius of the column. Since the column must withstand yield, then F < Y 2 R2 ) (Ro i
(11.21)
where F is the force that the column must support and Y is the yield stress for the material. Now, since the critical load of the column must not be exceeded, it is necessary to fulll in the design F < Pcr F < 2 EI 4h2 2E F < 4 4 (R Ri ) 4 o 4h2 (11.22)
where E is the Young Modulus of the material and I is the moment of inertia of the cross-sectional area. Finally, the inner radius Ri must be greater than zero and less than Ro and optionally, a minimum wall thickness can be specied Ri 0 Ro > Ri Ro Ri tmin
(11.23) (11.24)
Hence, the optimization problem can be formulated as: Minimize:

2 2 S (Ro , Ri ) = h (Ro Ri ) Copyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.
271 subject to: Ri Ro Ro Ri F 2 R2 ) (Ro i 2E 4 4 ) (R Ri 4 o 4h2
0 > Ri tmin < Y
> F
11.2.4. Rectangular beam
As another example, consider now that a beam of solid rectangular cross-sectional area subject to shear and bending forces must be optimized (Arora, 1989). The bending and shear stress in the beam can be computed from = = 6M bd2 (11.25)
3V (11.26) 2bd where is the bending stress, is the shear stress, M and V are the moment and shear force acting on the beam and b and d are the base and depth of the rectangular cross-section. Another restriction is that the depth of the beam must not exceed twice its base. The above problem can be easily formulated as follows. First, as the beam must have a minimum cross-section, the objective function becomes cross-section = b d Second, since the beam must withstand a bending stress M , then a > 6M bd2 (11.28) (11.27)
where a is the maximum allowable bending stress for the beam. Third, since the beam must also withstand shear stress, then a > 3V 2bd (11.29)
11.3 Solution by the graphical method where a is the maximum allowable shear stress for the beam.
272
With the above information, the problem can be summarized into minimize: S (b, d) = bd subject to: d < 2b 6M a > bd2 3V a > 2bd
11.3
Solution by the graphical method
One simple yet eective method to solve optimization problems is the so called graphical method. This method relies in plotting the restrictions and objective function to determine regions, curves and points of optimal solution. The method is one of the best ways to gain insight of the problem at hand. Unfortunately, as it relies on plotting all the dierent functions and restrictions, it is only of practical use with two-variables problems and in some cases threevariable problems. To explain how the graphical method works, the last three optimization problems shown in the last section will be solved by this method. 11.3.1. Beverage can problem Minimize: S (d, h) = 2 d + dh 4 (11.30) From the previous section, the beverage can problem can be formulated as:
273 subject to restrictions r1 to r5 : r1 r2 r3 r4 r5
d 3.5 d 8.0 h 8.0 h 18.0 = 400 = d2 h 4 = = = =
(11.31) (11.32) (11.33) (11.34) (11.35)
The rst step towards the solution of an optimization problem is to identify the variables that will be used to plot. For this problem, diameter will be used as the abscissas axis (x-axis) and height will be used as the ordinates axis (y -axis). The second step to solve an optimization problem graphically is to plot all the restrictions involved in the problem. In this case, restrictions r1 to r4 are limits to the solution domain. Hence, any possible solution must be in the windows 3.5 d 8.0 and 8.0 h 18.0. Such solution domain is shown in gure 11.6. The last restriction r5 , which sets a volume restriction of 400cm3 , can be plotted as a function of d 400 (11.36) h(d) = d2 4 From gure 11.6 it can be seen that the restriction divides the domain window in two parts. Below the curve r5 lay all the possible solution where volume is less than 400cm3 . Above the same curve, lay all possible solutions where V is larger than 400cm3 . As practically speaking the can may have a volume of more than 400cm3 , the feasible region for the solution is the region to the right of the r5 curve. If, on the other hand, the can must have exactly a volume of 400cm3 , then all possible solutions lay on the curve r5 . The third step is to plot dierent possible solutions that fulll the objective function S (d, h). In order to plot possible solutions, it is necessary to assume a given nal surface area. The objective function 11.30 can be plotted as S h(d) = 2 d 4 d
(11.37)
where S is the value chosen as a guess for the nal surface.

274
18
16 height [cm] Feasible region 14
12 r5 S=250 cm S=315 cm S=400 cm 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 diameter [cm] 7 7.5 8
10
Figure 11.6: Graphical solution of the beverage can. In gure 11.6, chosen values of S = 250, S = 315 and S = 400 where chosen as possible solutions. As all these curves represent solutions to the optimization problem, it is necessary to check which curve give values of d and h that are in the feasible region and are closer to the restriction curve r5 . For this problem, it seems like the point d = 8 and h = 8 give a possible solution as it lays on the curve r5 and intersects with the possible solution curve S = 250. To verify the selected point, d = 8 and h = 8 can be substituted in the volume equation. Using equation 11.19, it can be veried that the volume gives 402cm3 , which closely satisfy the volume restriction. These two values give a nal surface area of 251cm2 . If the proposed solution is not accurate enough, then more accurate values for the diameter and the height can be obtained plotting the area near point (8,8). 11.3.2. Tubular column Consider the tubular column problem described in problem the previous section. Furthermore consider that the column must have a height of 5m, support a load of 25kN and that it will be build from steel having the following properties:
275
E = 110GPa, Y = 120MPa and = 2700 kg/m3 . As stated in the previous section, this problem can be stated as: Minimize:
2 2 ) Ri S (Ro , Ri ) = h (Ro
(11.38) (11.39) (11.40) (11.41)
subject to: r0 = Ri 0 r1 = Ro > Ri F r2 = < Y 2 R2 ) (Ro i 2E r3 = 4 4 ) (R Ri 4 o >F 4h2
(11.42)
In order to plot restrictions and possible solutions, it is possible to select the inner radius as abscissas and the outer radius as ordinates. The r0 and r1 restrictions limit the solution domain to the rst quadrant of the coordinate system. If plotted, the r1 restriction will draw a 45 from (0,0) limiting the feasible region to the upper part of the quadrant as shown in gure 11.7. The r2 and r3 restrictions will further limit the solution domain, although the restriction will only be of importance for values of the inner radius between 0 and 0.04 since farther away the three restrictions are very close together. Restrictions r2 and r3 can be plotted respectively as Ro (Ri ) = Ro (Ri ) =
4
F 2 + Ri Y 16F h2 4 + Ri 3E
(11.43) (11.44)
Finally, curve lines for solutions S = 10 and S = 20 were plotted to look for points of optimal solution. These two solutions are shown in gure 11.8 where only the area of interest is shown. From the plots it can be observed that the optimal solution must lay between 10 and 20kg since both curves cross the curve of restriction r3 . Hence, the optimal value for the inner radius must be between 0.02 and 0.04 meters and for the outer radius between 0.02 and 0.04 meters. Further plots of S with values for the inner radius slightly smaller than 10kg would help to nd the point of optimal solution.
276
0.1
outer radius [m]
0.08 Feasible region 0.06
0.04 r1 r2 r3 S=10 kg S=20 kg 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 inner radius [m] 0.08 0.1
0.02
Figure 11.7: Graphical solution of the tubular column. 11.3.3. Rectangular beam problem The problem of nding the minimum cross-sectional area of a rectangular beam subject to a bending moment and shear force can be formulated as S (b, d) = bd subject to: r1 = d < 2b 6M r2 = a > 2 bd 3V r3 = a > 2bd as it was discussed in the previous section. As both base and width must be positive, then the solution domain is restricted to the rst quadrant of the coordinate system, which in this case was selected to have the width in the abscissas and depth as the ordinates. The rst restriction, d < 2b, draws a straight dividing line limiting the feasible region
(11.45)
(11.46) (11.47) (11.48)
277
0.03 Feasible region 0.025 outer radius [m] 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 r1 r2 r3 S = 5 kg S = 10 kg S = 20 kg 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 inner radius [m]
Figure 11.8: Area of interest for the tubular column problem. to the lower part of the quadrant as shown in gure 11.10. The second and third restrictions, plotted as d(b) = and 6M a b (11.49)
3V a 2b further limit the region of feasible solution. d(b) =
(11.50)
Consider now the values of M = 40 103 Nm, V = 150 103 N, a = 10 106 Pa and a = 2 106 Pa. After plotting the three restrictions, the feasible solution is bounded rst by r1 . Then, it is bounded by r3 until it crosses the curve of r2 where the latter becomes the limit of the feasible region. After plotting possible solutions with S = 0.1m2 and S = 0.2m2 , it is clear that all solutions are parallel to r3 and hence, the curve describing this restriction holds all possible solutions for the problem between the crossings with r1 and r2 . Any point (b, d) laying in this curve between these two crossing will be a point of optimal solution.
11.4 Lagrange multipliers
278
0.8 depth [m]
r1 r2 r3 S=0.1 m S=0.2 m
0.6 Feasible region 0.4
0.2
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 width [m] 0.8 1
Figure 11.9: Graphical solution of the rectangular beam.
11.4
Lagrange multipliers
Lagrange multipliers or Lagrangian multipliers are a very powerful method to deal analytically with mathematical optimization problems with constraints. Consider that it is necessary to nd the local maximum or minimum point of a function of several variables subject to one or more constraints. In order to nd this local extrema, the method introduces an unknown scalar variable, called the Lagrange multiplier, for each one of the constrains. These new variables are used to generate a linear system of equations that can be solved to nd the local extremum. For an extremum of the function f (x, y ) to exist on g (x, y ), the gradients of f and g must line up. The gradient is a vector that shows the direction that the function increases. This vector is horizontal, i.e. it has no z -component. Consider the example shown in gure 11.10. The bold line shows the interception between the surfaces f (x, y ) = xy 2 and g (x, y ) = x2 + 2y . The extremum of f subject to g can be found nding the directions of the gradients of f and
279
6 0 6 1.5 1 2 0.5 1.5 0 1 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2
1.5
Figure 11.10: Intersection between f (x, y ) = xy 2 and g (x, y ) = x2 + 2y . g. To show how Lagrange multipliers work, consider a simple example in two dimensions. In order to minimize a function f (x, y ) it is necessary to set its partial derivatives to zero f =0 x f =0 y (11.51)
and solve simultaneously the two equations to nd the point (x, y ) that maximize or minimize f . If there is a constraint g (x, y ) = 0, then g (x, y ) is a line or curve in the x, y plane. The problem is to nd nd the maximum/minimum f along g . The point that maximizes/minimizes f subject to g has two properties: The gradient f is perpendicular to the line of constant g (x, y ) since f is stationary here.
280
The gradient g is also perpendicular to the line of constant g (x, y ) since by construction g (x, y ) = 0. Hence, if f and g may have dierent magnitudes but must point in the same direction, therefore it is possible to write f = g where is a proportionality constant called Lagrange multiplier. The expression f + g = 0 is usually expressed as F = 0 since F = 0, then all partial derivatives of F are zero. In order to solve the problem it is just necessary to set F x F y F = 0 = 0 = 0 (11.54) (11.53) (11.52)
and solve simultaneously these three equations. When there is more than one restriction, F becomes f + 1 g1 + 2 g2 + + n gn = 0 To solve the problem, the derivatives become F = 0 xi F = 0 j As an example, consider that the function f (x1 x2 ) = (x1 1.5)2 + (x2 2)2
(11.55)
(11.56)
(11.57)
281 wants to be minimized subject to the condition g (x1 x2 ) = x1 + x2 2 = 0 For the above functions, F is given by
(11.58)
F = (x1 1.5)2 + (x2 2)2 + (x1 + x2 2) and the partial derivatives are therefore F = + 2 x1 3 = 0 x1 F = + 2 x2 4 = 0 x2 F = x 1 + x2 2 = 0
(11.59)
(11.60)
The above three equations can be solved simultaneously yielding x1 = 0.75 and x2 = 1.25 with = 1.5. 11.4.1. Inequalities and Lagrange multipliers given in the form g (x) 0 (11.61) For these cases, it is possible to transform an inequality to an equality using what is called a slack variable. Slack variables transform the constraints into gi + s2 i = 0 (11.62) In many occasions, constraints come in the form of an inequality. Lagrange multipliers can also accommodate these common cases when a constraint is
where s2 takes care of the fact that s2 must be always non-negative since the constraint is of the form g (x) 0. There is an additional necessary condition for the Lagrange multipliers of the form given as j 0 (11.63) where j is the Lagrange multiplier for the j th inequality constraint. If the constraint is inactive at the optimum, its associated Lagrange multiplier is zero. If it is active (gi = 0) then the associated j must be non-negative..
11.4 Lagrange multipliers Consider now the function used in the previous example f (x1 , x2 ) = (x1 1.5)2 + (x2 1.5)2 In this occasion it is desired to minimize f subject to the inequality g (x1 , x2 ) = x1 + x2 2 0 Using the slack variable s, the constraint g can be expressed as g (x1 , x2 ) = x1 + x2 2 + s2 0 and therefore F becomes F (x1 , x2 ) = (x1 1.5)2 + (x2 1.5)2 + (x1 + x2 2 + s2 ) The partial derivatives of F with respect to xi , and s are F x1 F x2 F F s = + 2 x1 3 = 0 = + 2 x2 4 = 0 = x1 + x2 2 + s 2 = 0 = 2s = 0
282
(11.64)
(11.65)
(11.66)
(11.67)
(11.68)
Solving the above system of equations yields the following solution = 1.5; s2 = 0; x1 = 0.75; x2 = 1.25 (11.69)
From the above example, the solution procedure can be stated as nding F = 0 xi F = 0 j F = 0 sn
(11.70)
283 and then solve the resultant system of equations.
11.5 Examples
For problems involving inequalities it is important that the Kuhn-Tucker (KT) necessary conditions are fullled including that f and gi are functions with continuous rst partial derivatives along the curves gi = 0 and gi = 0 at any point on the curve. These conditions ensures that the solution of the Lagragian multipliers is a minimum or maximum. One very useful property of Lagrange multipliers is that the larger the value of , the larger the eect on the objective function optimum.
11.5
Examples
Consider once more the beverage can problem discussed in the previous sections. The problem can be formulated as minimizing: S (d, h) = 2 d + dh 4 (11.71)
11.5.1. Beverage can
subject to restrictions r1 to r5 : r1 = d 3.5 r2 = d 8.0 r3 = h 8.0 r4 = h 18.0 r5 = 400 = d2 h 4 (11.72) (11.73) (11.74) (11.75) (11.76)
The problem can be easily solved using Lagrange multipliers. Suppose that at this time that there are no minimum or maximum diameter and height restrictions. For this specic case, f and g become f := 2 d + dh 4 2 dh 4 (11.77) (11.78)
g := 400
11.5 Examples As F = f + g , the partial derivatives of F are F d dh = + h d 2 2 F h F = d d2 4 d2 h 4
284
= 400
(11.79)
Solving the above equations for d, h and gives d = 10.06cm and h = 5.03cm for a total surface of 238.50cm2 . Although this surface is less than the minimum of 251cm2 found with the graphical method, the value for the diameter is not suitable for a beverage can. Taking into account the restriction that the diameter of the can cannot be larger than 8 cm, the problem can be re-formulated in terms of two restrictions g1 and g2 (11.80) g1 := 400 d2 h 4 g2 := 8 d + s2 (11.81) 2 where s2 is the slack variable that considers the inequality in restriction r2 . With these restriction, F becomes F = f + 1 g1 + 2 g2 and its derivatives are given by d dh1 F = 2 + h d 2 2 F h = d d2 1 4 (11.82)
F d2 h = 400 1 4 F = s2 2d+8 2 F = 2 2 s2 (11.83) s2 Solving the above equations yields d = 8 and h = 25/ = 7.96 for a total surface of 250.26cm2 which is the same value found with the graphical method.
285 11.5.2. Rectangular beam problem
11.5 Examples
Consider now the problem of nding the minimum cross-sectional area of a rectangular beam subject to a bending moment and shear force. As discussed before, the problem can be stated as S (b, d) = bd subject to: r1 = d < 2b r 2 = a > r3 6M bd2 3V = a > 2bd (11.85) (11.86) (11.87) (11.84)
Using the above formulation and Lagrange multipliers the problem can be expressed as f + 1 g1 + 2 g2 + 3 g3 = 0 (11.88) where f = bd g1 = a g2 6M + s2 1 bd2 3V + s2 = a 3 2bd (11.89)
g3 = 2 b d + s2 3 Hence, the partial derivatives of F become F b F d = d + 23 + = b 3 + 6M 1 3V 2 + 2 b 2 d2 2b d
12M 1 3V 2 + bd3 2bd2
F 6M = a + s 2 1 1 bd2 3V F = a + s2 2 2 2bd F = 2 b d + s2 3 3
11.6 Solving problems with Excel
286
F = 21 s1 s1 F = 22 s2 s2 F = 23 s3 s3 (11.90)
Solving for b and d using the values M = 40 103 Nm, V = 150 103 N, a = 10 106 Pa and a = 2 106 Pa yields b = 0.2371m and d = 0.4743m for a total cross sectional area of 0.1125m2 .
11.6
Solving problems with Excel
Simple optimization problems can be solved quickly and easily using a spreadsheet with a Solver tool as the one integrated to Microsoft Excel c . In this section, the problems of the beverage can and the rectangular beam will be solved using this tool. In Excel, the solver must be activated on the Tools menu under Complements. After the solver has been activated, it will appear directly on the same Tools menu. 11.6.1. Beverage can In order to solve the problem, the rst step is to add the data to Excel as it done normally. For clarity it is recommended to dene separately the objective function, the variables and the restrictions as shown in gure 11.11. As the objective function for this problem is S (d, h) = /4d2 + dh, then the value of cell B4 will be =B7*B8. Note that cells B7 and B8 have at this time initial guesses for b and d. Restrictions R1 to R5 must also be computed from cells B7 and B8 as the solver will check that the values of these cells fullls their corresponding restriction. Once the spreadsheet has been constructed, the next step is to call the solver tool. When selected, the Solver windows will appear as shown in gure 11.12. The solver requires four pieces of information in order to solve a problem. First, it needs to know which cell contains the objective function, in this case B4. Second, it needs to now if the solver must maximize the value of the objective
287
Figure 11.11: Data for the optimization problem of a beverage can.
function, minimize it or make it equal to a given value. Next, the values that the solver can change must be specied. In the problem at hand, that is the cells containing the values of d and h, that is, cells B7 and B8. Finally, the solver must be made aware of the restrictions for the problem. In order to add restrictions to the solver, it is necessary to click the Add button at the right of the restrictions eld. When clicked, a gure like the one shown in gure 11.13 will appear. To add a restriction is necessary to specify in what cell is the value that computes the restriction and the cell where the value of the restriction has been entered and the relation between them. For example, for the volume restriction, /4d2 h = 400, the volume from the values of d and h is computed in cell B11 whereas the value of the restriction, 400, is specied in cell D11. As this restriction is an equality, the sign = must be selected from the drop-down menu between the cell elds. After all restrictions have been entered, the solver can be started clicking on the Solve button at the top right corner of the window. The solver will change the values of d and h until it nds a minimum value for the objective function. In this case the solver nds the values of d = 7.97cm and h = 8cm for a total surface area of 250.53cm. This value is consistent with with the solutions found through the graphical and Lagrange multipliers methods.
288
Figure 11.12: Solver window with all the information needed to solve the problem of the beverage can.
Figure 11.13: Adding a restriction for the problem.
289
Figure 11.14: Data for the optimization problem of a rectangular beam. The optimization of the cross-sectional area of the rectangular beam can be carried out in a similar fashion as the beverage can optimization problem. The spreadsheet for this problem is shown in gure 11.14. For this case, the spreadsheet includes also the data for the problem, that is, the momentum and shear force applied to the beam as well as the yield strength and shear yield of the material. After entering the objective function S (b, d) = bd in cell D4, the problem variables in cells D7 and D8 and the restrictions given in equations (11.85) in cells D13, D14 and D15, the problem is ready to solve. Figure 11.15 shows the solver windows with all the information of the problem. With the above information, Excel nds optimal values of b = 0.2890 and d = 0.3892 for a minimal cross sectional area of 0.1125 cm. Please not that this value is also consistent with the solutions found through the graphical and Lagrange multipliers methods. 11.6.2. Rectangular beam problem
References
1. Arora, J.S. (1989) Introduction to optimal design. McGraw-Hill international editions.
290
Figure 11.15: Solver window for the problem of a rectangular beam. 2. Papalambros, P.Y. & Wilde, D.J. (2000) Principles of optimal design. Modeling and computation. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. 3. Yang, L. & El-Haik, B. (2003) Design for Six Sigma. A roadmap for Product Development. McGraw-Hill.
CHAPTER Design for Six Sigma
12
To be added.
12.1
Six Sigma vs. Design for Six Sigma
To be added.
12.2
Identify requirements
To be added.
12.3
Characterize the design
To be added.
12.5 Verify the design
292
12.4
Optimize the design
To be added.
12.5
Verify the design
References

Textoguia

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Textoguia

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

gico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey Instituto Tecnolo Campus Toluca

Class Notes Carlos Miranda V. Dr. Jose

Copyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.

The product design process

Concept testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Preliminary design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Detailed design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

iv 2 Identifying customer needs 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 18

3 Benchmarking and Product Specications 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

4 Concept Generation 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Establishing product functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Generation of ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 The morphological chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 TRIZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5 Concept Selection 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

v 6 Detailed design 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 118

Some important design considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

II Techniques for reliability, robustness and optimization 146

Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 238

10 Response Surface Method

11.2 Problem formulation

11.3 Solution by the graphical method

12.1 Six Sigma vs. Design for Six Sigma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Copyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.

Part I The product design process

Copyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER The Engineering Design Process

1.2 The design process

The design process

1.2 The design process

1.2 The design process

Figure 1.3: A simple model of the design process with 4 stages.

1.3 Identifying customer needs

Conceptualization Phase 2: System-Level Design Phase 3: Detail Design

Preliminary design cost analysis / redesign

Phase 4: Testing and Refinement Phase 5: Production

Detailed design Qualification testing

Production planning and Tooling design

Figure 1.4: Detailed model of the design process.

Identifying customer needs

1.4 Establishing the design requirements

Establishing the design requirements

1.5 Concept generation Metric

Table 1.1: Examples of metrics and their value.

1.6 Concept selection

1.6 Concept selection

Release for production

Figure 1.6: Engineering changes in automobile development (After Ullman, 1992).

1.7 Concept testing

1.10 Design optimization

1.13 Good design practices Bad Design

Good design practices

1.13.1. Good design versus bad design

1.13 Good design practices

1.13 Good design practices

Copyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER Identifying customer needs

2.1 Customer satisfaction

2.1.1. The Kano diagram

2.1 Customer satisfaction

Delighted Performance Curve

Fully Implemented Absent Function Basic Performance Curve

2.1 Customer satisfaction

Copyright c 2009 Dr. Jos e Carlos Miranda. All rights reserved.

2.2 Gather data from customers

Gather data from customers

2.2 Gather data from customers