CHAPTER 1.

DESIGN TRADE-OFFS

Design Trade-offs
Starting up the design trade-offs, the designers consider the functionality that can satisfy the economic,
functionality, and sustainability.
Based on the constraints articulated previously, the various decision criteria were derived. Using the model
on trade-off strategies in engineering design presented by Otto and Antonsson (1991), the importance of
each criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5, 5 with the highest importance was assigned and each design
technologys ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability to satisfy the
criterion) was likewise tabulated.
Below is the computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

%difference=

(Higher ValueLower Value)

Equation 4.1
Higher Value

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank( %Difference ) x 10 Equation 4.2

The governing rank was the subjective option of the designers where in the value for the criterions
importance and its ability to satisfy the criterion would be chosen by the designers. Unlike subordinate
ranking, governing rank does not require any calculating.
Three AutoCAD designs have been considered for the trade-offs to be used. The three schematic designs
have a different capabilities of being the most acceptable and most efficient motion-based earthquake
device alarm. Design 1 used Load cell, Design 2 used torque sensor and Design 3 used touch sensor. In
order to find the best component, it was rated using the designers criterion.Each design has been
discussed previously.
After considering the design constraints, the designers came up with the initial rankings on the MotionBased Earthquake Alarm Device. Table 4-1 shows designers raw ranking based on economic,
environmental, and cost constraints.
Table 4-1 Designer Tabulation Form

Decision Criteria

Criterions Importance
(On scale of 0 to 5)

Able to satisfy the criterion

(On scale from -5 to 5)
Design 1
(Iron Ball)

Design 2
(Swinging Ball)

Design 3
(Copper Plate)

Economics (Cost)
Functionality(Sensitivity)

Sustainability (Life Span)

3
5
4
51

3
4

Overall Rank

5
3
5
39

2
4
3
49

Reference: (Otto, 1991)

http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013.

In determining the trade-offs for the designs, the designers assigned respective importance values for each
criterion shown in Table 4-1. The economic constraints or the cost of the device was given importance by
ranking it into the highest value, which were given a five since the device must be low-cost and was
available to manufacture with less expenses. The designers had also taken into consideration the
importance of functionality or the sensitivity of the device and it were considered to be second on the
highest value. Sustainability or the life span of the materials used and it were considered to be the third on
the highest value since the materials has its own capability to stay longer.
TRADE-OFF #1: Economical
Initial Cost Estimate for Design of Motion-Based Earthquake Alarm Device
Table 4-2 shows the over-all cost of the Design 1, 2 and 3. The ranking, stated in the tradeoff table would
be based on the formula that is computed. The total cost for each specific component to be used was
tabulated previously.
Table 4-2 Initial Cost of each component
Design Category
Design 1
Design 2
Design 3

Total
PHP8,250.00
PHP 9,503.00
PHP 2,710.00

Table 4-2 represents the price of the device in the industry and its quantities when manufactured. The
equations mentioned above were considered to calculate for the values of the ability to satisfy the criterion.
Computation for Trade-Offs #1:
To compute the value of the ability to satisfy the criterion the designers need to determine the value of the
subordinate rank. As for the Design 1 (USING IRON BALL):
%difference=

( Using Iron BallUsing Copper Plate )

(Using Iron Ball)

To get the percent difference, subtract the value of the second design that consists of String to the
value of the first design that consists of Iron Ball and divide it into the value of String.

%difference=

82502710
( 8250 )

%difference=0. 672

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank( %difference ) x 10

Subordinate Rank=5 ( 0.672 ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=1.72

Figure 4.1 Subordinate ranking of Iron Ball in economic cost

Figure 4.1 represents the subordinate ranking of the device, Iron Ball, to satisfy the criterion from Table 4-1.
The value calculated signifies the importance of a device in a design project. As the Figure shows, Iron Ball
has the significance of 3.68 which means that it was one of the main components of the device.
The value calculated from the subordinate rank would be tailing in the Table 4-1. To calculate the value of
the criterion of Design 3 (Copper Plate), use equations 2.1 and 2.2:
%difference=

Using StringUsing Copper Plate

( Using String )

%difference=

9,5032710
( 9,503 )

%difference=0. 715

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank( %difference ) x 10

Subordinate Rank=5 ( 0.715 ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=2.15

Figure 4.2 Subordinate ranking of Copper Plate in economic cost

Figure 4.2 represents the similarity to the Load cell, Torque sensor criterion was tailed under Table 3-2. This
shows that Load cell has a higher criterion that it acquires during the calculations. This was due to the
affordability of the device in the market. Considering the value of the Figure 4-1, it shows that in Figure 4-2,
load cell has a higher importance than torque sensor having a value of 3.4 for the economic cost criterion.
TRADE-OFF #2: Manufacturability
Table 4-3 shows the estimated number of days in order to acquire the sensors used for the three designs.
The table is used as the basis of the ranking on Trade-offs in accordance with the computations.
Table 4-3 Availability of the Materials
Design
Design 1
Design 2
Design 3

Sensors
Load cell
Torque sensor
Touch sensor

Days(s) to Acquire
1
7
5

As stated on the previous chapter, manufacturability was one of the most important design constraints
because some of the components may not be available within the country and thus needed to be bought
outside of the country. The estimated days to acquire the desired component are 1 day since the
component is available within the country.
Computation for Trade-Offs #2:

Touch sensor has similarities to Torque sensor when it comes to the availability of the materials. Though the
touch sensor can also be found outside the country, torque sensor is indeed hard to find compared to touch
sensor.Using the equations 4.1 and 4.2, the value of manufacturability criterion can be calculated.
%difference=

( Torque sensor availabilityLoad cell availability )

( Torque sensor availability )

%difference=

( 71 )
(7 )

%difference=0.86
Subordina te Rank=Governing Rank( %difference ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=3( 0.86 ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=5.6 5

Figure 4.3 Subordinate ranking of Load cell sensor in manufacturability

Figure 4.3 shows the computed value acquired for the manufacturability of the Load cell sensor considering
the time it takes to assemble the device on the prototype. From the calculated value, -1.30 represents the
ratio of availability of the material to be used to complete the prototype.
Using the same equations, the value of the Touch Sensor can be calculated as follows:
%difference=

( Touch sensor availabilityLoad cell availability )

( Touch sensor availability )

%difference=

( 51 )
(5 )

%difference=0.8

Subordinate R ank=Governing Rank ( %difference ) x 10

Subordinate Rank=3( 0.8 ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=5

Figure 4.4 Subordinate ranking of Touch sensor in manufacturability

Using the same equation used to compute the value of manufacturability on load cell, Figure 4-4 represents
the computed value for the touch sensor. Considering the value of 5, it represents the ratio of the
availability of the device in the market.
TRADE-OFF #3: Sustainability
Table 4-4 shows the life span or sustainability of each component depending on their quality. The designers
considered another method of computing the sustainability criterion. The criteria were ranked from 1 to 3
wherein 3 is the highest which means it was the best. 2 mean better and 1 means good. The ranking was
based upon the sustainability of the materials that is being used on the design prototype. The basis of
these criteria was taken based on the components accuracy, sensitivity, stability, time it would response,
linearity and their life span.
Table 4-4 Sustainability of components
Criteria

Design 1 (Load Cell)

Accuracy

Design 2 (Torque
Sensor)
1

Design 3 (Touch
Sensor)
2

Sensitivity
Stability
Life Span
Fast Response Time
Linearity
Total

2
3
2
3
2
15

1
2
3
1
3
11

3
1
1
2
1
10

The designers chose the Load cell design to obtain the highest rank due to its availability and sustainability
to be used in the prototype. To calculate the values of the ability to satisfy the sustainability criterion, it was
required to determine the value of the subordinate rank.
Computation for Trade-Offs #3:
By using the same equations from before equations 2.1 and 2.2, the designers were able to compute the
value needed for the said criterion.

%difference=

( Higher valueLower value )

( higher value )

%difference=

( 1510 )
(15 )

%difference=0.33
Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank( %difference ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=4 ( 0.33 ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=0.70 0

Figure 4.5 Subordinate ranking of Load cell based on sustainability

Figure 4.5 shows the acquired values for the subordinate rank for load cell depending on the designers
chosen device to work on the prototype. The calculated value of 0.70 represents the sustainability of the
device according to the designers.
The same equations would be used to compute the said criterion for Touch sensor.
%difference=

( Higher valueLower value )

( higher value )

%difference=

( 1510 )
(15 )

%difference=0.33
Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank( %difference ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=4 ( 0.26 ) x 10
Subordinate Rank=1.4 1

Figure 4.6 Subordinate ranking of Touch sensor based on sustainability

The calculation in Figure 4.6 shows that the load cell design takes advantage in terms of its sustainability. It
has the quality that was needed for the prototype to be completed among other designs presents. The
calculated value of 1.4 shows the sustainability of the touch sensor according to the desired of the
designer.
Summary of Trade-Offs:
Based on the constraints articulated previously, the various decision criteria were derived. Using the model
on trade-off strategies in engineering design presented by Otto and Antonsson (1991), the importance of

each criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5, 5 with the highest importance was assigned and each design
technologys ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability to satisfy the
criterion) was likewise tabulated. Table 5-5 shows the tabulation of the criterion for the design project.
Table 4-5 Tabulation of Trade-offs
Decision Criteria

Economics (Cost)

Functionability
(Sensitivity)
Sustainability (Life Span)
Overall Rank

Criterions Importance
(On scale of 0 to 5)

Able to satisfy the criterion

(On scale from -5 to 5)
Design 1
Design 2
(Torque Sensor)
(Load Cell)

Design 3
(Touch Sensor)

5
3

4
5

2
3

5
4

4
51

5
39

3
49

The designers ranking section depends on the importance of the constraints. The economic criterion was
set to five (5) because the client wants it to be affordable. The sustainability was ranked as the second
highest with the rank of four (4) because the client wants it to have a long life at the same time, the
functionality of the sensors used is accurate, last was the manufacturability criterion which rank as three ( 3)
because the designers wanted all the components to be available in the country and it also considers the
time to process the prototype.
The Table 4-5 shows the values taken from the computation that the designers came up with in order to find
the satisfying value for the trade-offs of each component. The one with the highest value would be chosen
for the design. As seen in the Table 4-5, Design 1 using load cell has the highest overall value among the
other two components based on the computations considering the cost, availability and its sustainability
that was suited for the design.
The designers based the cost of each component depending on the prices of the sensors in the market.
The Design 3 (touch sensor) obtained the highest value since it has the lowest price among others; it was
then followed by Design 1 (load cell) and Design 2 (torque sensor). As for the sustainability of each sensor,
Design 2 (torque sensor) obtained the highest value due to its sustainability while the rest of the sensor
does not, however, even though Design 2 has the highest value of sustainability the designer still choose
Design 1 due to other reasons such as availability. The designers also need to consider the time and
availability of each sensor and based on the manufacturability criterion, Design 1 using Load Cell has
obtained the highest value since the device was available within the country. And since Load Cell has
second to the lowest value when it comes to cost, the designers preferred to use it due to how it fitted for
the design.
Influence of Design Trade Offs in the Final Design
The constraints, trade-offs and standards contributed in the production of this design. In accordance with
the multiple constraints that the designers stated, choosing the right component depends on the
affordability of the materials; the numbers of years that the component may be used without being
replaced; and the availability of the materials in order for the production of the design to meet the deadline.

These constraints became the criteria for the tradeoff table where the comparisons for each sensor to be
used were expressed.
The standards stated in the previous chapter have been considered when measurement for each specific
component and process were taken. The standards stated previously become one of the contributing
factors towards the success of the design.
Design Criterion 1: Economic (Cost)
The costs of each component have been taken into consideration in the development of the design. The
designers anticipated the over-all cost based on the price of each component. The tradeoffs of the sensors
were conducted through calculations to determine the right component to be used. As calculated from the
previous chapter, Table 4-2 shows that touch sensor has the highest scale due to its low cost, however,
even though the touch sensor has the lowest cost, load cell was still chosen for the completion of the
prototype since its available in the country.
Design Criterion 2: Manufacturability (Availability of Materials)
The availability of the material has been taken into consideration for the success of the design therefore the
chosen component must be available to meet the deadline of the production. Table 4-3 shows the different
availability of each component used for trade-offs. The use of load cell has the highest scale due to its
availability within the country.
As calculated in the previous chapter, the load cell is more advisable to use compared to torque sensor and
touch sensor. The designers have chosen load cell knowing that the cost is affordable, sustainable for the
design project and since the device was available in the country. The standards have been the basis that
needs to be considered upon the use of each specific component and process taken by the designers.
Design Criterion 3: Sustainability (Life Span)
The life span of the component was also taken into consideration to make the prototype last a long time.
Table 4-4 shows the life span of each component. The component with the highest value was Design 2
which consists of Torque sensor and this was due to the fact that Torque sensor was more expensive and
therefore has the quality to last longer than the rest. However, the chosen component to complete the
prototype was Design 1 which consists of Load cell because of how affordable it was compared to torque
sensor and due to its availability in the market. Also Design 1 (Load cell) was ranked second for lasting
longer unlike touch sensor.