PD 1

Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey
Campus Toluca
Preface
It is widely recognized that to develop successful products, systems or services it

is extremely important to follow a structured product development process. Al-
though each company follows a process tailored to its specific needs, in general the
start of a product development process is the mission statement for the product.
It identifies the target markets for the product, provides a basic functional descrip-
tion of the product, and specifies the key business goals of the effort. The end of
Product design: the development effort occurs when the product is launched and becomes available
for purchase in the market place. The different activities that take place during the
techniques for robustness, reliability and product development process can be grouped into five phases: Concept development,
optimization system-level design, detail design, testing and refinement, and production ramp-up.
During the detailed design and the testing and refinement phases, product optimiza-
tion, 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 there-
fore may contain many mistakes and inaccuracies, they evolve term after term and
with the help and suggestions of my students are continuously improved. Once
Class Notes these notes are mature, it is my desire to publish them to reach a wider audience
Dr. José Carlos Miranda V. 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 effort, please do not hesitate to contact me. I
will be very happy to hear from you.
José Carlos Miranda

v. Spring 2006
Research Center for Automotive Mechatronics
jmiranda@itesm.mx
Copyright 2006
c Dr. José CarlosMiranda. Todos los derechos reservados. Copyright 2006
c Dr. José CarlosMiranda. Todos los derechos reservados.
CHAPTER 1
The Engineering Design Process
Part I
1.1 Definition of design
The product design process
The word design has had different 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) defines 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 definition, 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 require-
ments will be achieved. What relates the domain of functional requirements to
the domain of design parameters is design (see figure 1.1). It should be noted
that although design parameters should fulfill the functional requirements, the
mapping between them is not unique. For a set of functional requirements
may be several design parameters that fulfill those functional requirements.
Another, less technical, definition of design is the one promulgated by ABET

(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology):
Copyright 2006
3 1.2 The design process 1.2 The design process 4
WHAT? HOW?
Mechanical
Engineering
List of List of Electronic
Purchasing Engineering
Functional design Design
Requirements Parameters Product
Design
Marketing Manufacture
Engineering
Figure 1.1: Design is the process of mapping functional requirements to design Industrial
parameters. Design
“Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, Figure 1.2: Engineering design core disciplines.
or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision making process
(often iterative) in which the basic sciences, mathematics and engi- 1.2.1. Design process Probably the most simple model of the design process
neering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet models is the one shown in figure 1.3, where only four general
a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of design stages are outlined.
process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis,
analysis, construction, testing and evaluation. . . It is essential to Another relatively simple model is presented by Ullman (1992) who suggest to
include a variety of realistic constraints such as economic factors, view the design as problem solving. When solving a given problem, five basic
safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics and social impacts.” actions are taken:
1. Establishment of need or realize there is a problem to be solved.

Although several definitions of design may be found, the last one highlights 2. Understanding of the problem.
one of the main difficulties associated with design: its truly multidisciplinary 3. Generation of potential solutions for it.
nature. Design involves several, if not all, different departments in a given
4. Evaluation of the solutions by comparing the potential solutions and
company (see figure 1.2). Design engineers should always be aware of this
deciding on the best one.
condition, involving in the design process the expertise of people of different
disciplines. 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.
1.2 The design process
A more detailed model, which involves all steps of the design process, is pre-
sented in figure 1.4. As shown, this model divides design process in 5 phases:
There are many different maps or models of the design process. Some of these Concept development, System-Level design, Detail design, Testing and refine-
models describe steps and their sequence as they occur in the design process. ment and Production. Each phase has one or more steps. It is important
Some other models try to define or prescribe a better or more appropriate to realize that this model is general and may be necessary to follow different
pattern of activities. Cross (1994) describe some of these models. paths in one or more phases depending on the project at hand.
Copyright 2006
c Dr. José Carlos Miranda. Todos los derechos reservados. Copyright 2006
c Dr. José Carlos Miranda. Todos los derechos reservados.
Phase 1:
Concept Recognition of need
Development
Exploration
Conceptualization
Phase 2:
System-Level
Design
Feasibility
assessment
Generation Phase 3:
Detail
Design
Preliminary design
cost analysis / redesign

Evaluation
Development Detailed design
Phase 4: testing Qualification testing
Testing and
Refinement
Communication Production planning
Phase 5: and Tooling design
Production
Acceptance testing Production

Figure 1.3: A simple model of the design process with 4 stages.
Figure 1.4: Detailed model of the design process.
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 be substituted for an idea of a product with possibilities of becoming commer-
recognized it is necessary to consider alternatives for its solution, which is done cially successful.
during the concept development phase. Here the statement of the problem is Eide et al. (1988) state that in industry, it is essential that products sell for
taken and broad solutions to it are generated. This phase presents the greatest the company to survive. Inasmuch as most companies exist to make a profit,
chance for improvements and hence is specially imperative to be objective, profit can be considered to be the basic need. Hence, a bias toward profit
open to new ideas and recognize when changes are needed. and economic advantage should not be viewed as a selfish position because
Once the best ideas have been selected, preliminary design may start to further products are purchased by people who feel that they are buying to satisfy a
evaluate those ideas. In this phase testing may be of great help to differentiate need which they perceived as real. The consumers are ultimately the judges
good ideas from regular ones. After a design has been finally selected, detailed of whether there is truly a need.
design begins to incorporate every feature that the design may need to incor- Identifying the needs of the costumer is one of the most important steps in
porate. Hence, a very large number of small but essential points should be the design process and is, at the same time, one of the most difficult since is
decided. After the detailed design has been re-evaluated and tested, produc- not unusual to find that the customer does not know exactly what features
tion planning may be started and final products tested for final acceptance. the product must have. Once the needs have been specified together with the
In what follows the different steps in the design process are discussed more in costumer, this information is used to guide the design team in establishing
depth. design parameters, generating concepts and selecting the best one of them.
According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) the process of identifying customer

1.2.2. Identifying customer The need to design a new product may come needs includes five steps:
needs from different sources: consumers, organizations
or governments. The need may also sometimes 1. Gather raw data from customers.
Copyright 2006
Metric Value 1.2.4. Concept generation According to French (1985) in this phase the state-
ment of the design problem is taken and broad
The product must be . . .
solutions are generated in the form of schemes. It is the phase that makes the
easy to install Average time for installation < x seg. greatest demands on the designer, and where there is more scope for striking
durable Must withstand 10x cycles improvements. It is the phase where engineering science, practical knowledge,
easy to open Opens with a force of max. x newtons. production methods and commercial aspects need to be brought together. It
is also the stage where the most important decisions are taken.
able to resist impacts Withstand drops from x meters.
able to work in cold weather Operation possible at -x◦ C. In the scope of design, a concept is an abstraction, an idea that can be rep-
resented in notes and/or sketches and that will eventually become a product.
Table 1.1: Examples of metrics and their value. 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
2. Interpret the raw data in terms of customers needs. them will merit serious consideration for further evaluation and development.
3. Organize the needs into a hierarchy of primary and secondary needs. The concept generation stage can be divided into 4 steps:
4. Establish the relative importance of the needs.
5. Reflect on the results and the process. 1. Clarification of the problem.
2. Gathering of information.
1.2.3. Establishing the As was briefly discussed above, when the design en- 3. Use and adaptation of design team’ s knowledge.
design requirements gineer is first approached with a product need, it is 4. Organization of team’s thinking.
very unlikely that the customer will express clearly
what is needed. In most occasions it is only know what is wanted in a very Although concept generation is an inherently creative process, it is possible to
general way without idea of the particularities involved. use some techniques to improve it like functional decomposition and genera-
tion of concepts from functions. Although sources for conceptual ideas come
Hence, the starting point for a design engineer is to turn an ill-defined problem
primarily from the designer’s own expertise, it can be enhanced through the
with vague requirements into a set of requirements that are clearly defined.
use of books, experts, lead engineers, patent search, brainstorming and current
This set of product requirements may change as the project advances, so it is
designs.
convenient to clarify them at all stages of the design process.
For the product requirements to be helpful, they must be translated to tech- 1.2.5. Concept selection The purpose of concept selection is assessing the
nical specifications that are precise, easily understood and can be measure by feasibility of concepts to ensure that they are achiev-
means of one or more design variables. Ulrich & Eppinger state that “A spec- able technically and economically. The feasibility of the concept is based on
ification consists of a metric and a value.” Table 1.1 shows some examples of the design engineer’s knowledge. As in the generation of concepts, the design
metrics and their values. engineer can rely in tools –like the decision-matrix method– to compare and
evaluate concepts.
Several tools can be used to establish product specifications. Although simple
to apply, the objectives tree and decision tree methods offer a clear and useful The importance of the concept selection phase cannot be understated. It is
starting format for such a statement of requirements and their relative impor- known that decisions made during the design process have the greatest effect
tance. As will be discussed later, other more sophisticated and more useful on the cost of a product for the least investment. In figure 1.5, the cost
method is Quality Function Deployment (QFD). of design and its influence in manufacturing cost for an automotive project
Copyright 2006
Overhead
Design changes
100 Labor Company A
Material
80 Design
60
Percent
Company B
40
20
0 Begin Release for Time

Final Influence on
design production
Manufacturing Final Manufacturing
Cost Cost
Figure 1.6: Engineering changes in automobile development (After Ullman,
Figure 1.5: Design influence on manufacturing cost (After Ullman, 1992). 1992).
is shown. From the figure it can be stated that the decisions made during
the design process is at its end. Although this seems natural, it is important
the design process have the greatest effect on the cost of a product for the
to realize that, by the end of the process, most decisions have already been
least investment. Typically, around 70% to 80% of the manufacturing cost is
made.
committed by the end of the conceptual phase of the design process. Hence
the importance of concept evaluation. 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.
Also, the generation and evaluation of concepts have a great effect on the time
Unfortunately, economics almost always drive the design process, and second
it takes to produce a new product. Figure 1.6 shows the number of design
chances rarely exist.
changes made by two automobile companies with different design strategies.
Figure 1.7 shows the dilemma above. At the beginning of the process, the
Company A made many changes during the early stages of the design process
design team has the most freedom since no decisions have been made. As time
as a result of the iterative process of generation and evaluation of concepts.
goes by, knowledge increases as a result of the design time efforts, but freedom
Company B made just a few changes in the initial stage, but was still making
is lost since decisions have been made and changes are increasingly expensive
changes later in the process, even when the product was released for produc-
to perform.
tion. 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.
1.2.6. Concept testing Concept testing is closely related to concept selection.
The evaluation of concepts to find its viability may occur not only during It is used to gather opinions and information from
concept development, but throughout the design process. This will lead to the potential customers about one or more of the selected concepts that may be
so called Design process paradox (Ullman, 1992). The design process paradox pursued. It can also be used gather information about how to improve an
states that during the design process, the knowledge about the design increases specific product and to estimate the sales potential of the product.
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 Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) suggest to divide the concept testing into 6 steps:
Copyright 2006
100 integration between different engineering disciplines involved on the design

Knowledge about
the design problem effort.
80
The preliminary design helps to obtain more precise design requirements in-
Percent
60 volving analysis, benchmarking, literature search, experience, good judgment
and, if necessary, testing. The refinement of the project also helps to have a
40 better estimate of the project cost and required time for completion.
Design
20 freedom 1.2.8. Detailed design After the preliminary design stage has been carried
out, it is necessary to go into the details of the design
0
in order to better understand the concepts. Detail design is mostly concerned
Time into design process
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 inde-
Figure 1.7: The design process paradox (After Ullman, 1992).
pendent parts, System-level design and the detail design itself.
1. Definition of the purpose of the concept test. In the system-level design the product arquitecture is defined and decomposi-
tion of the product into subsystems and components takes place. These com-
2. Choosing of a survey population. ponents may be integrated circuits, resistors, shafts, bearings, beams, plates,
3. Choosing of a survey format. handles, seats, etc., depending on the nature of the product under develop-
4. Communication of the concept. ment. Here, geometric layouts of the product and functional specifications for
each subsystem are stated.
5. Measurement of customer response.
6. Interpretation of results. The detail design phase includes the complete specification of each independent
part such as geometry, materials and tolerances and identifies all those parts
Both concept selection and concept testing are used to narrow the possible that will be purchased from suppliers. In this stage, the control documentation
concepts under consideration. Concept selection relies in the work and judg- of the product is generated, including technical drawings, part production
ment of the development team. Concept testing is based in data gathered plans and assembly sequences.
directly from potential customers.
1.2.9. Production planning This stage initiates with the identification of the
1.2.7. Preliminary design The preliminary design stage or embodiment de- machines, tooling and processes required to man-
sign stage, fills the gap between design concept ufacture the designed product. Technical data such as dimensions, tolerances,
and detailed design. According to French, in this phase the schemes are worked materials and surface finishes among others are evaluated to determine the
up in greater detail and, if there is more than one, a final choice between them appropriate assembly sequence for the manufacturing operations. According
is made. There is (or should be) a great deal of feedback from this phase to to Ertas and Jones (2000), typical tasks included in the production planning
the conceptual design phase. include:
Is during this stage of the design process that the overall system configura-
1. Interpretation of design drawings and specifications.
tion is defined. Extensive engineering documentation in the form of schemes,
diagrams, layouts, drawings, notes or other types of documents is generated 2. Selection of material stock.
to provide control over the project and to ensure better communication and 3. Selection of production processes.
Copyright 2006
13 1.2 The design process 1.3 Quality Function Deployment 14
4. Selection of machines to be used in production.

With QFD
5. Determination of the sequence of operations.
Effort
6. Selection of jigs, fixtures, tooling and reference datum. Traditional approach
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 ma-
Time
chine data. Design Details Process Production
Once the production planning has been made and all the decisions regarding Figure 1.8: Traditional vs. QFD design approaches (After Ouyang et al.
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 When the design effort has concluded, standard drawings or computer data
follow as well as to identify possible flaws before going to a full-scale produc- files of components showing all the information necessary for the production
tion. of the product have to be generated. This drawings usually include written
documentation regarding manufacturing, assembly, quality control, inspection,
installation, maintenance and, retirement.
1.2.10. 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 1.3 Quality Function Deployment
the design. Other times documentation is seen as an unattractive task that
does not involve any challenge at all.
It is not uncommon that designers find themselves working a problem only
Nevertheless, documentation is as important as any other in the task in the to find out later that they were solving the wrong one. An efficient designer
design process. Product documentation is important not only in terms of must try by all possible means to define the correct problem at the beginning
instructions to user, maintainers or others, but is imperative for purposes like or discover the problem at earliest possible moment. The Quality Function
legal protection or future product redesign. Deployment technique provides a methodological way to do it.
Hence, keeping track of the ideas developed and decisions made in a design Quality Function Deployment (QFD) originated in Japan as a help to trans-
notebook is essential. It is advisable to keep, for patent or legal purposes, late customer requirements into technical requirements throughout the devel-
a notebook with dated pages that is sequentially numbered and signed. In opment and production of a product. It originated in Japan in the 1970’s as
this notebook, all information related to the design such as sketches, notes, the Kobe supertanker company wanted to develop the logistics for building
calculations and reasons behind decisions should be included. The notebook complex cargo ships. Professors were asked to create a technique that would
does not have to be neat, but certain order has to be kept. When design ensure that each step of the construction process would be linked to fulfilling
information like plots, photocopies, drawings or results of analyses are too a specific customer requirement.
large or bulky to keep in the notebook, a note stating what the document is,
a brief summary of its contents and where it is filed should be written. Using this technique, Toyota was able to reduce the costs of bringing a new car
Copyright 2006
15 1.3 Quality Function Deployment 1.3 Quality Function Deployment 16
The QFD technique uses six steps to do this translation:

HOWS
Design
Requirements 1. Identifying the customer(s).
HOWS
Parts
2. Determining customer requirements.
WHATS
Requirements
Requirements
Customer
1 3. Determining relative importance of the requirements.
HOWS
Process
WHATS
Requirements Requirements
2 4. Competition benchmarking.
Design
HOWS
Production
WHATS
Design Requirements
Requirements
5. Translating customer requirements into measurable engineering require-
3
Parts
WHATS
Details
ments.
Requirements
4
Product
Process 6. Setting engineering targets for the design.
Production
Each step will be reviewed in more detail, but before going any further is
Figure 1.9: The four phases of QFD. From customer requirements to client convenient to highlight that:
satisfaction. The hows on each House of Quality becomes the whats in the
next.
• No matter how well a design team thinks it understand a problem, it
should employ the QFD method.
model to the market by 60 percent and to decrease the time required for its • Customer requirements must be translated into clear engineering targets
development by one third. As shown in figure 1.8, QFD requires more effort involving measurable quantities.
on the design stage, but as most design flaws are catched early in the design
• The QFD technique may be applied to the whole design as well as to
process, later stages are less prone to fail or require adjustments or redesigns.
subsystems or subproblems.
According to Ouyang et al., Qualify Function Deployment has four distinct
phases: design, details, process and production. As shown in figure 1.9, in the • It is important to first worry about what needs to be designed and, once
Design phase, the customer helps to define the requirements for the product the problem is fully understood, to worry about how it will be designed.
or service. In the Details phase, design parameters (hows) carried over the
design phase become the functional requirements (whats) of individual part 1.3.1. Identification of Sometimes is not only not clear what the customer
details. In the Process phase, the processes required to produce the product are costumers wants, but also who the customer is. Furthermore,
developed. Once more, the design parameters of the details phase become the is very common to find that there is more than one
functional requirements of the process phase. Finally, in the Production phase, customer to satisfy.
the design parameters of the process phase become functional requirements for
production. 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
As discussed above, QFD can be applied all the way through the design pro- process. Many times the engineer has a mental picture of how the product
cess from concept to production using the same principles on each phase. It should be like and how it should perform, picture that may be very different
is generally agreed that the QFD technique is most valuable at the early de- from what the customer really wants. On the other hand, may products have
sign stages where customer requirements have to be translated to engineering been poorly received by the customers simply because the engineer failed to
targets. identify accurately the customers’ desires.
Copyright 2006
17 1.3 Quality Function Deployment 1.4 Some important design considerations 18
1.3.2. Determination of The determination of customer requirements should 1.3.5. Conversion of Once a set of customer requirements have been
costumers requirements be made through customers surveys or evaluation of customer needs into selected due to its importance, it is necessary to
similar existing products. Customer requirements engineering requirements develop a set of engineering requirements that are
should be made in the customer’s own words such as “fast”, “easy”, “durable”, measurable.
“light”, “strong”, etc. As much as possible, customer requirements should be
stated in positive terms. Some of these engineering requirements, or design specifications, may be cleared
defined from the beginning. One example is the weight that a chair must with-
In order to facilitate understanding, requirements may be grouped in types like stand. Others, may be more difficult to characterize as will be measurable by
performance requirements, appearance requirements, safety requirements, and different means. In the case of a chair that is to be “easily assembled” by the
so on. If the customer has specific preference for one given type, determining customer, “easily” may be measured in terms of the number of tools needed
the relative importance of different requirements may be easier to do. 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 effort should be made in order to find all possible ways in
1.3.3. Determination of Not all requirements will be regarded as equally which a customer requirement may be measured.
relative importance of the important to customers. For example, “easy to
requirements use” may be more important for the customer 1.3.6. Setting engineering The last step in the process is setting the engi-
than “easy to maintain”, and “easy to maintain” targets neering targets. For each engineering measure de-
may be regarded as more more important than “good looking”. On the other termined in the previous step, a target value will
hand, some requirements like “safe to use”, may be regarded as absolute re- be set. This target values will be used to evaluate the ability of the product
quirements rather than relative preferences. to satisfy customer requirements. Two actions will be needed, to examine how
the competition meets the engineering requirements, and to establish the value
In order to design effectively, the design team should know which attributes
to be obtained with the new product.
of their product design are the ones that most heavily affect the perception
of the product. Hence, it is necessary to establish the relative importance of Best targets are established using specific values. Less precise, but still usable,
those attributes to the customers themselves. 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
1.3.4. Competition Sometimes customers often make judgment about prod-
competition can give at least some range for the target value.
benchmarking uct attributes in terms of comparisons with other prod-
ucts. 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 different attributes by 1.4 Some important design considerations
observation of what some products achieve.
If the product is to be well positioned in a competitive market, the design When designing products, several considerations must be taken into account.
team must ensure that its product will satisfy customer requirements better For the inexpert designer, this considerations may or may not be obvious
than competitor products. Therefore, the performance of the competition of sources for requirements, parameters and targets. In what follows, three design
those product attributes that are weighted high in relative importance should considerations, whose importance may depend on the project at hand, are
be analyzed. briefly discussed.
Copyright 2006
19 1.4 Some important design considerations 1.5 Good design practices 20
1.4.1. Product distribution Most of the times, when designing a new prod- process from early stages.
uct, the design team does not pay much atten-
tion in how the product will be distributed. Decisions regarding packaging, In order to translate functional requirements into design parameters, the study
transportation and shelf stocking are taken after the product has been de- of ergonomics has produced a body of anthropometric (human measure) data
signed. Nevertheless, design features that could be avoided may increase the that can be used in designing anything that involves interaction between a
distribution cost due to the need of special packaging, transportation or shelfs. human and a product. As anyone will agree, humans bodies come in a variety
Design teams must do everything at their hands to avoid this situations that of shapes and sizes, which makes somewhat difficult to design a product to fit
unnecessarily increase the cost of the product. absolutely everybody. Nevertheless, human measure can be well represented
as normal distributions.
Taking into account the distribution of the product is specially important when
redesigning a product. Generally speaking, companies looking for an existing This last feature makes it possible to define parameters to fit, let say, 90%
product of better features are unwilling to make extensive modifications to the percent of the population. In many occasions, to be able to design for such a
existing distribution infrastructure. In this cases, product distribution will be high percentage of the population it is required to include adjustable features
a major source of requirements. 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.
1.4.2. Design for after life It is normally assumed for most engineering prod-
ucts, that after it has completed its useful life, the Other three ways in which humans may interact with products is as a source
product will be removed from its original installation, retired and dispose of. of power (for example when opening a door), as a sensor (for example reading
Nevertheless, in many occasions the product is put to some second use that is a dashboard) or as a controller (for example the operating a CD player).
different from its original purpose. Consider for example, an empty 20 lts. (4
Gal.) bucket that is used as a step. In the first 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
The problem arises as this second use was not included in the initial design case, if the human is expected to be able to read information is important that
specifications and is therefore not accounted for in the design process. The the person has only one way to interpret the data. In the third way, a product
result may be failure and personal injury leading to product liability litigation. must be designed so there is no ambiguities in the form in which the product
The fact that a certain product was used in a way never intended by the operates. For the product to be easy to interact with, there must be only one
original design may not be of importance on the court. Courts seem to focus obviously correct thing to do for every action that is required.
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.
1.5 Good design practices
1.4.3. Human factors in Almost every product that is designed will interact
design with humans whether during manufacture, opera-
tion, maintenance, repair or disposal. Operation is 1.5.1. Good design versus The goal for the introduction of models for the
probably the most important since it will involve the largest span of interac- bad design design process is to provide a guideline to help
tion. the engineer/designer to achieve a better prod-
uct through the use of good design practices. As
Considering operation, a good product will be the one that becomes an ex- experience would tell, in most occasions it is not difficult to tell either as en-
tension of the user’s motor and cognitive functions. To achieve this, human– gineer or consumer, a good design from a bad design. Table 1.2 show some
machine interaction features should be included as parameters in the design general characteristics of good design versus bad design.
Copyright 2006
21 1.5 Good design practices 1.5 Good design practices 22
Good Design Bad Design • Equates pure trial and error with engineering design.
1. Works all the time 1. Stops working after a short time
2. Meets all technical requirements 2. Meets only some technical requirements Green (1992) summarizes skills that seem to mark the expert designer in do-
mains of routine design.
3. Meets cost requirements 3. Costs more than it should
4. Requires little or no maintenance 4. Requires frequent maintenance Supplying context. The requirements seldom provide enough information to
create a design. This occurs in part because the client himself does not know
5. Is safe 5. Poses a hazard to user
precisely what he/she wants. However, another problem is that the stated
6. Creates no ethical dilemma 6. Fulfills a need that is questionable requirements imply several other, unstated, requirements. The expert can
Table 1.2: Characteristics of good design versus bad design. After Horenstein “read between the lines” and supply context that reduces the search space.
(1999). Decision ordering. Strategic knowledge is a major part of the designers’ ex-
pertise. The expert designer is able to make decisions in the correct order
1.5.2. Good design Horenstein (1999) highlights the traits of good to avoid spending much time in backtracking and revising. Decision ordering
engineer versus bad design design engineer and bad design engineers. Ac- is important because it rank constraints. The expert’s decision ordering set
engineer cording to Horenstein, a good engineer: constraint values in some optimal sequence.
Heuristic classification. Although the overall design problem may be ill-structured,

• Listens to new ideas with an open mind. it usually contains some well-structured components. Some decisions fell into
• Considers a variety of solution methodologies before choosing a design the heuristic classification paradigm (here, heuristic means problem-solving
approach. techniques that utilize self-education techniques, as the evaluation of feed-
back, to improve performance). The designer begins by listing requirements,
• Does not consider a project complete at the first sign of success, but both stated and unstated, and maps them to design parameters which enables
insists on testing and retesting. him/her to choose a set of design classes.
• Is never content to arrive at a set of design parameters by trial and error. Parameter abstraction. Much of routine design requires to simultaneously man-
age a large collection of variable values. This can be a very complex cognitive
• Use phrases such as “I need to understand why” and “Let’s consider all task since it requires the expert to maintain a large amount of information in
the possibilities”. working memory. Experts are able to reduce the complexity of the problem by
abstracting only the most important parameters, treating related parameters
A Bad Engineer: as single entities whenever possible.
• Thinks he/she has all the answers; seldom listens to the ideas of others.
• Has tunnel vision; pursues with intensity the first approach that comes References
to mind.
• Ships the product out the door without thorough testing. 1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons.
2. Eide, A., Jenison, R., Mashaw, L. & Northup, L. (1998) Introduction to
• Use phrases such as “good enough” and “I don’t understand why it won’t Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill.
works; so-and-so I it this way.” 3. Ertas A. & Jones, J. (1996) The Engineering Design Process, second ed.,
Copyright 2006
23 1.5 Good design practices
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.
CHAPTER 2
9. Ullman, D. (1992) The Mechanical Design Process, McGraw-Hill.
10. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Irwin
McGraw-Hill. Identifying customer needs
If a new or redesign product is to be successful, it should fulfill the needs of the

customer. Unfortunately, the process of finding which are the real needs to be
fulfilled 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 specification.
4. Create an archival record of the needs activity of the development pro-

cess.
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 informa-

tion 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
Copyright 2006
25 2.1 Customer satisfaction 2.1 Customer satisfaction 26
user. This direct experience will help the design team not only to discover the Delighted
Satisfaction
e
Customer
true needs of the customer, but also to create better concepts and to evaluate urv
c eC
them in a more accurate form. an
rf orm
d Pe
In this chapter, the next 5 steps to effectively identify customer needs will be cte
pe
discussed: Delighted Performance Curve Ex
Fully Implemented
1. Gather raw data from customers. Function
Absent
2. Interpret the raw data.
Basic Performance Curve
3. Organize the needs into a hierarchy.
4. Establish the relative importance of the needs.
5. The review of the process and its results.
Disgusted
Figure 2.1: Kano diagram of customer satisfaction. After Otto & Wood (2001).
2.1 Customer satisfaction
In order to satisfy customers, a given product must fulfill customer expecta-

tions about it. Even when finding which features are wanted by the customer
is a difficult task since customers usually not mention them directly, customer
satisfaction translates to the implementation in a given product as much de- They satisfy customers when fulfilled. But they do not leave customers dis-
sired features as possible. In order to better understand this relationship, the satisfied when left unfulfilled. And they are invisible to customers since they
Kano diagram may be of help. are not even known.
2.1.1. The Kano diagram The Kano model shown in figure 2.1, shows the The center line of the Kano diagram is called the one-to-one quality or lin-
relationship between customer needs and satisfac- ear quality line. It represents the minimum expectation of any new product
tion in an easy to appreciate diagram ranking the customer satisfaction from development undertaking. It is related also to performance type issues such
disgusted to delighted. as “faster is better.” These represent what most customers talk about. Thus,
they are visible to the company and its competitors. The expected require-
The lower curve in Kano’s diagram is called the basic performance curve or ments and exciting requirements provide the best opportunity for competitive
expected requirements curve. It represent the essentially basic functions or advantage. Hence, ways to make hem visible and then deliver on them are
features that customers normally expect of a product or service. They are needed.
usually unvoiced and invisible since successful companies rarely make catas-
trophic mistakes. However, they become visible when they are unfulfilled. Kano’s diagram is often interpreted simply as a relationship model of expected
quality vs. excited quality. What is really important, however, is that the tar-
The upper curve in Kano’s diagram is called the delighted performance curve or get of customer satisfaction can not only invisible but also moving. Customer
exciting requirements curve. They are a sort of “out of the ordinary” functions expectations increase over time. This calls for a more complex analysis and
or features of a product or service that cause “wow” reactions in customers. deeper market understanding.
Copyright 2006
27 2.1 Customer satisfaction 2.2 Gather data from customers 28
2.1.2. Types of customer According to Otto & Wood (2001) customer needs 2.2 Gather data from customers
needs may be profitably considered in general categories
based on how easy the customer can express them
and how rapidly they change. They can be classified in three categories: first, In order to obtain information from customers, several methods are available:
direct and latent needs which consider observability, second, constant and interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, observing the product in use and
variable needs which consider technological changes and finally, general and finally, be the customer oneself. In what follows, a brief description of each
niche needs which consider variance in the consumers. one together with pros and cons is given.
Direct needs These are the needs that, when asked about the product Interviews One or more members of the design team interview a number of
customer have no trouble declaring as something they are concerned about. customers, one at a time. Interviews are generally carried out in the environ-
These are easily uncovered using standard methods as the one that will be ment of the costumer where the product is used. They typically last for one
described hereafter. to two hours.
Latent needs These are the needs that typically are not directly expressed Questionnaires A list of important concerns, questions and criteria is pre-
by the customer without probing. Customer typically do not think in modes pared by the design team and sent to selected customers. Although this type
that allow themselves to express these needs directly. Latent needs are better of survey is quite useful at later stages of the design process, at this stage they
characterized as customer needs, not of the product, but of the system within do not provide enough information about the use environment of the product.
which the product operates. Other products, services or actions currently It is also important to notice that not all needs may be revealed using this
satisfy the needs directly. Yet, these needs might be fulfilled with a developing method.
product, and doing so can provide competitive advantage.
Focus groups A group of 8 to 12 customers participate in a discussion
Constant needs These needs are intrinsic to the task of the product and session facilitated by a moderator. Focus groups are typically conducted in a
always will be. When a product is used, this need will always be there. Such special room equipped with a two-way mirror allowing several members of the
needs are effective to examine with customer needs analysis, since the cost can development team to observe the group. It is desired for the moderator to be
be spread over time. a professional market researcher, but a member of the development team can
also perform as moderator.
Variable needs These needs are not necessarily constant; if a foreseeable
technological change can happen, these needs go away. These needs are more Observing the product in use When watching a customer using an ex-
difficult to understand through discussions with the customer, since the cus- isting product or perform a task for which a new product is intended, details
tomer may not understand them yet. 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
General needs These needs apply to every person in the customer popula- out along with one of the design team members allowing the development of
tion. It is necessary for a product to fulfill these needs if it is to compete in firsthand experience about the use of the product.
the existing market.
Be the customer In many situations, members of the design team may
Niche needs These needs apply only to a smaller market segment within perform as users of existing competitor products or, in later stages of the
the entire buying population. design process, of prototypes. Although this method is very cost effective 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.
Copyright 2006
29 2.2 Gather data from customers 2.2 Gather data from customers 30
Retailer or Service 2.2.2. Conducting Ulrich and Eppinger provide some general hints for effec-
Lead Users Users
Sales Outlet Centers Interviews tive customer interaction. First, they suggest to sketch
an interview guide that help to obtain an honest expres-
Occasional User
sion 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
Frequent User
wants. Some helpful questions and prompts to use are:
Heavy−duty User
• When and why do you use this type of product?
Figure 2.2: Customer selection matrix. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000). • 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?
From the above methods, research carried out by Griffin and Hauser (1993)
reports that conducting interviews is the most cost and effort effective method. • What improvements would you make to the product?
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 Second, they suggest the following general hints for effective interaction with
nine customers for one hour each will obtain over 90% of the customer needs customers:
that would be uncovered when interviewing 60 customers. These figures where
obtained when a single function product was being considered, and may change
when considering multi-function products. According to Ulrich & Eppinger, • Go with the flow. If the customer is providing useful information, do not
as a practical guideline for most products, conducting fewer than 10 interviews worry about conforming to the interview guide. The goal is to gather
is probably inadequate and 50 interviews are probably too many. 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 com-
2.2.1. Selecting customers Selecting customers is not always a straightfor-
petitors’ products, or even products that are tangentially related to the
ward activity as many different persons may be
product under development. At the end of a session, the interviewers
considered a “customer”. Consider, for example, all those products that are
might even show some preliminary product concepts to get customers’
purchased by one person and used by another. In all cases, it is important to
early reactions to various approaches.
gather information from the end user, and then gather information from other
type of customers and stake-holders. • Suppress preconceived hypotheses about the product technology. Frequently
customers will make assumptions about the product concept they ex-
A customer selection matrix like the one shown in figure 2.2, is useful for pect would meet their needs. In these situations, the interviewers should
planning exploration of both market and customer variety. It is recommended avoid biasing the discussion with assumptions about how the product
that market segments be listed on the left side of the matrix while the different will eventually be designed or produced. When customers mention spe-
types of customers are listed across the top. The number of intended customer cific technologies or product features, the interviewer should probe for
contacts is entered in each cell to indicate the depth of coverage. the underlying need the customer believes the suggested solution would
satisfy.
Copyright 2006
31 2.2 Gather data from customers 2.2 Gather data from customers 32
• Have the customer demonstrate the product and/or typical tasks related Customer Data: Project/Product Name
Customer: Interviewer(s):
to the product. If the interview is conducted in the use environment, a Address: Date:
demonstration is usually convenient and invariably reveals new informa- Willing to do follow up? Currently uses:
Type of user:
tion. Question Customer Statement Interpreted Need Importance
• 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 fulfilled
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’ prod-
ucts?
Figure 2.3: Customer data template. After Otto & Wood (2001).
2.2.3. How to document There are four main methods for documenting in-
interactions teractions with customers:
Notes Handwriting notes are the most common method of documenting an the advantage of being inexpensive and easy to do.
interview. If a person is designated as notetaker, other person can concentrate
in effectively questioning the customer. The notetaker should try to capture One useful aid in the collection of data from a customer interview is a customer
the answers of the customer in a verbatim form. If the notes from the interview data template. A customer data template, like the one shown in figure 2.3,
are transcribed inmediately after it, a very close account of the interview can helps to record questions, answers and comments. The template can be filled
be obtained. during the interview or inmediately afterwards.
Audio recording Audio recording is probably the easiest way of docu- In the first column, the question prompted is recorded. In the second column,
menting and interview. Unfortunately, many customers feel intimidated by it. a verbatim description of the answer and comments given by the customer is
Another disadvantage is that transcribing the recording into text is very time recorded. In the third column, the customer needs implied by the raw data are
consuming. written. Special attention must be given to clues that may identify potential
latent needs like humorous remarks, frustrations or non-verbal information. In
Video recording Video recording is the usual way of documenting focus the last column, linguistic expressions of importance that the customer may
group sessions. It is also very useful for documenting observations of the have used are recorded. The importance may be expressed in terms of words
customer in the use environment and the performance of existing products. like must, good, should, nice or poor.
Still photography Even when dynamic information cannot be captured by According to Otto & Wood, a must is used when a customer absolutely must
it, still photography can be used to capture high quality images. It also has have this feature, generally when it is a determining criterion in purchasing
Copyright 2006
33 2.3 Interpret raw data 2.4 Organization of needs 34
the product. Must ratings should be used very sparingly; only a few must’s Guideline Customer Statement Need Statement - Right Need Statement - Wrong
per customer interview is a good rule. A very important customer need should
“What” not “how” “Why don’t you put The screwdriver battery is The screwdriver battery
have a good importance rating. Needs that are presumed should have at least a protective shields around protected from accidental contacts are covered by a
the battery contacts?” shorting. plastic sliding door.
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 Specificity “I drop my screwdriver all
the time.”
The screwdriver operates
normally after repeated
The screwdriver is rugged.
is for customer needs that would be nice if the product satisfied them but are dropping.
not critical. Positive not negative “It doesn’t matter if it’s The screwdriver operates The screwdriver is not
raining; I still need to work normally in the rain. disabled by the rain.
outside on Saturdays.”
An attribute of “I’d like to charge my The screwdriver battery can An automobile cigarette
the product battery from my cigarette be charged from an lighter adapter can charge
lighter.” automobile cigarette
2.3 Interpret raw data lighter.
Avoid “must” “I hate it when I don’t know The screwdriver provides an The screwdriver should
and “should” how much juice is left in indication of the energy provide an indication of
the batteries of my level of the battery. the energy level of the
At this point, customer needs are expressed in terms of verbatim written state- cordless tools.” battery.
ments. Every customer comment or observation as expressed in the customer

data template may be translated into any number of customer needs. It has Table 2.1: Examples illustrating the guidelines for writing need statements for
been found that multiple analysts may translate the same interview notes into a cordless screwdriver (After Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000).
different needs, so it is convenient for more than one team member to be
involved in this task. • Express the need as an attribute of the product. Wording needs
as statements about the product ensure consistency and facilitates sub-
Ulrich & Eppinger provide five guidelines for writing need statements. They sequent translation into product specifications.
recognize the first two as fundamental and critical to effective translation, and
the remaining three as guidelines to ensure consistency of phrasing and style • Avoid the words must and should. The words must and should
across all team members. Table 2.1 shows examples to illustrate each guideline. imply a level of importance for the need.
• Express the need in terms of what the product has to do, not After all the customer comments have been translated into need statements,
in terms of how it might do it. Customers often express their pref- the design team ends up with a group of maybe tens or even hundreds of need
erences by describing a solution concept or an implementation approach; statements. At this point, some may be similar, other may not be technological
however, the need statement should be expressed in terms independent feasible, and others may express conflicting needs. In the following section,
of a particular technological solution. methods for organizing and classifying these needs are presented.
• Express the need as specifically as the raw data. Needs can be

expressed at many different levels of detail. To avoid loss of information, 2.4 Organization of needs
express the need at the same level of detail as the raw data.
• Use positive, not negative, phrasing. Subsequent translation of a 2.4.1. Classification of In order to work effectively with all the customer
need into a product specification is easier if the need is expressed as a needs needs, it is necessary to classify them in groups of
positive statement. This may not apply in those occasions when the equal or similar statements. Each group may be sub-
statement is expressed more naturally in negative terms. sequently sorted out in a list according to the relative
Copyright 2006
35 2.4 Organization of needs 2.5 Design brief 36
importance of each need in the group. Each group list typically consists of a set Importance Ranking 1 Ranking 2
of primary needs, each one of which will be characterized by a set of secondary
Must 9 1.0
needs and if needed, tertiary needs.
Good 7 0.7
This process of sorting and classification is normally performed by the design Should 5 0.5
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 Nice 3 0.3
the customer data from being biased by the development team. not mentioned 0 0
The classification of needs can be done without many difficulties following the Table 2.2: Two different ranking systems for the importance of needs.
next steps:
interpreted importance rank of the ith customer need can be obtained from
1. Write each need on a small card. number of times mentioned
Ri = (2.1)
number of subjects
2. Group similar needs eliminating redundant statements.
It is important to have in mind that the above method may raise inconclusive
3. Choose a descriptive name for each group.
results as it mainly measures the obviousness of the need as opposed to its
4. Review the process and consider alternative ways of grouping the state- importance. Therefore, needs that may be obvious but not important may be
ments. ranked high as opposed to important needs that may not be obvious.
A more correct approach, is to include in the ranking the importance state-

When working with different customer segments, cards with different color ments given by the customer during the interview. In order to do so, it is
labels can be used to distinguish between them. The sorting and classifica- necessary to convert the subjective importance ratings into numerical equiva-
tion process can also be done separately for each customer segment observing lents. A typical transformation is shown in table 2.2.
differences in both the needs themselves and their organization. The latter
approach is best suited when the segments are very different in their needs Once the mapping has been carried out, the importance assigned to each cus-
and when there is the question if just one product may suit the needs of all tomer need can be calculated as:
segments. average rating × number of times mentioned
Ri = (2.2)
number of subjects
2.4.2. Determination of As of now, the classification of needs does not pro-
relative importance of vide any information regarding the relative impor- Although a better method of ranking customer needs, the previous method
needs tance that the customer place on different needs. has also its own flaws as it still may hide important needs that were reveled
Each customer need has an importance expressed by only few customers but were not seen by the rest.
by the own customer during the interview. It is expected that different cus-
tomers will feel different regarding the importance of features according to
their own use of the product. 2.5 Design brief
An elementary approach to establish the relative importance of needs is to
first construct a set of normalized weightings by comparing the number of After grouping and ranking customer needs, a better idea of the design problem
subjects who mention a need versus the total number of subjects. Hence, the is at hand. To keep a clear idea of the direction of the design process, the design
Copyright 2006
37 2.6 Clarifying customer needs 2.6 Clarifying customer needs 38
team may issue what is called a design brief or mission statement. A design 2.6.1. The objectives tree The objectives tree method offers a clear and use-
statement includes a brief description of the product, key business goals, target method ful format for such a clarification of customer
markets, assumptions and constraints and stakeholders: need statements in form of objectives. It also
shows in a diagrammatic form the ways in which different objectives are re-
lated to each other and the hierarchical pattern in which they are organized.
• Description of the product A brief description typically includes the As with many methods in the design process, the objectives tree is not as
key customer benefits of the product avoiding implying a specific product important as the procedure for arriving at it.
concept.
One way to start making vague statements more specific is to try to simple
• Key business goals. These goals generally include goals for time, cost, specify what it means. Consider the following example provided by Cross
quality and market share. Other goals may be added as deem appropri- (1994) where an objective for a machine tool must be ‘safe’. This objective
ate. might be expanded to mean:
• Target markets. Identifies the primary as well as secondary markets 1. Low risk of injury to operator.
that should be considered during the design process.
2. Low risk of operator mistakes.
• Assumptions and constraints. In some projects is necessary to make
assumptions in order to keep a project of manageable scope and size. In 3. Low risk of damage to work-piece or tool
other occasions, time, cost or even feature constraints are known from 4. Automatic cut-out on overload.
the beginning of the product.
These different statements can be generated simply at random as the design
• Stakeholders. It is always convenient to list all the stakeholders in
team discusses about the objective. The types of questions that are useful in
order to handle subtle issues that may appear during the development
expanding and clarifying objectives are simple ones like ‘why do we want to
process. Stakeholders are all the groups of people who are affected by
achieve this objective?’ and ‘what is the problem really about?’.
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. Some authors also include questions like ‘How can we achieve it?’ starting to
Stakeholders also include the customers residing within the firm such as give some insight about how the objectives may be accomplished. This gives
the sales force, the service organization and the production departments. way to statements like ‘automatic cut-out on overload’ which are not objectives
by themselves but means of achieving certain objectives.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid making concessions reducing the scope

of the possible solutions that may be generated in later stages of the design
2.6 Clarifying customer needs 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.
One step further in the determination of customer needs is to try to clarify As the list of objectives is expanded, it becomes clear that some are at higher
all the customer need that were grouped, classified and prioritized. In fact, it levels of importance than others. This relative importance may be represented
is very helpful to have the clearest possible idea of the customer needs at all in a hierarchical diagram of relationships as shown in figure 2.4.
stages of the design process. These customer needs, that will guide the design
process, should be expressed in a form which is easily understood and which In some cases, the relative position of each statement in the diagram may be
can be agreed by both, client and designer. a source of disagreement between the different members of the design team.
Copyright 2006
Machine must
be safe
How Provide
opening
Low risk Low risk Low risk of
of injury to of operator damage to Enable Pivot
operator mistakes workpiece or tool in/out door
Open
Why door
Push/pull
Automatic door
cut−out on
overload
Close
door
Figure 2.4: Hierarchical diagram of relationships. After Cross (1994). Keep
weather out
Povide
However, exact precision of relative levels is not important, and most people seal Safe
can agree when only a few levels are being considered. direction
At this point, it is important to notice that the level of importance of the When Correct
statement should not be confused with the level of importance of the customer open amount
need. Here, importance is related to the statements written to try to clarify
one objective, which correspond to one customer need. Provide Safe
protection force
In many cases, different people will draw different objectives trees for the same Against When
problem or the same set of objective statements. The tree diagram simply injury closing Resist
impact
represents one perception of the problem structure. It is only a temporary Resist
representation, which will probably change as the design process proceeds. damage
Safe
Provide
One more elaborated example of an objective tree is shown in figure 2.5 where safety When interior
the objectives tree for the design of a car door is shown. closed
Provides
The procedure of building an objectives tree can be summarized using the Strong latch
Latches
following steps: latch
securely
Against Secure
theft handle
Inaccessible
lock
Figure 2.5: Objectives tree for a car door. After Pugh (1991).
Copyright 2006
1. Prepare a list of design objectives.

Black Box
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

Inputs Function Outputs
into hierarchical levels.
Figure 2.6: A ‘black box’ system model. After Cross (1994).
4. Draw a diagrammatic tree of objectives showing hierarchical relation-
ships which suggest means of achieving objectives.
Transparent Box
2.6.2. The functional From the objectives tree method, it is clear that de- Subfunction Subfunction
decomposition method sign problems can have different levels of generality
or detail. Hence, the level at which the problem is
defined 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 Subfunction Subfunction
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 Inputs Function Outputs
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 Figure 2.7: A ‘transparent box’ model. After Cross (1994).
the functional requirements.
The function decomposition method offers such means of considering essential are the outputs for?, what is the next stage of conversion?, etc. can be made
functions and the level at which the problem is to be addressed. The essential to the customer.
functions are those that the device, product or system to be design must satisfy, Usually the conversion of the set of inputs into the set of outputs is a complex
independently what physical components might be used to fulfill them. set of tasks occurring inside the black box. This complex set of tasks must
The starting point of this method is to clarify what is the main purpose of the be broken down into sub-tasks or sub-functions which linked together by their
design. As it has been up to now, it is important what has to be achieved by inputs and outputs satisfy the overall function of the product or device being
the new design and not how is going to be achieved. The most simple way of designed. As this necessary sub-functions are establish, the black box is redraw
representing this main purpose is to draw a ‘black box ’ which converts certain as a ‘transparent box ’ (see figure 2.7).
inputs into desired outputs (see figure 2.6). This black box contains all the According to Pahl and Beitz (2001), anyone setting up a function structure
functions which are necessary for converting inputs into outputs. ought to bear the following points in mind:
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 1. First derive a rough function structure with a few sub-functions from
possible solutions. In order to establish in an accurately way the required what functional relationships you can identify in the requirements list,
inputs and outputs as well as the ‘system boundary’ which defines the function and then break this rough structure down, step by step, by the solution
of the product or device, questions like where do the inputs come from?, what of complex sub-functions. This is much simpler than starting out with
Copyright 2006
more complicated structures. In certain circumstances, it may be helpful • Storing energy – for instance, storing kinetic energy.
to substitute a first solution idea for the rough structure and then, by
analysis of that first idea, to derive other important sub-functions. It is Conversion of material:
also possible to begin with subfunctions whose inputs and outputs cross
the assumed system boundary. From these it is possible to determine the • Changing matter – for instance, liquefying a gas.
inputs and outputs for the neighboring functions, in other words, work • Varying material dimensions – for instance, rolling sheet metal.
from the system boundary inwards.
• Connecting matter with energy – for instance, moving parts.
2. If no clear relationship between the sub-functions can be identified, the • Connecting matter with signal – for instance, cutting off steam.
search for a first solution principle may, under certain circumstances,
be based on the mere enumeration of important sub-functions without • Connecting materials of different type – for instance, mixing or
logical or physical relationships, but if possible, arranged according to separating materials.
the extent to which they have been realized. • Channelling material - for instance, mining coal.
3. Logical relationships may lead to function structures through which the • Storing material - for instance, keeping grain in a silo.
logical elements of various working principles (mechanical, electrical,
etc.) can be anticipated. Conversion of signals:
4. Function structures are not complete unless the existing or expected flow • Changing signals – for instance, changing a mechanical into an elec-
of energy, material and signals can be specified. Nevertheless, it is useful trical signal, or a continuous into an intermittent signal.
to begin by focusing attention on the main flow because, as a rule, it
• Varying signal magnitudes – for instance, increasing a signal’s am-
determines the design and is more easily derived from the requirements.
plitude.
The auxiliary flows then help in the further elaboration of the design, in
coping with faults, and in dealing with problems of power transmission, • Connecting signals with energy – for instance, amplifying measure-
control, etc. The complete function structure, comprising all flows and ments.
their relationships, can be obtained by iteration, that is, by looking first • Connecting signals with matter – for instance, marking materials.
for the structure of the main flow, completing that structure by taking the
auxiliary flows into account, and then establishing the overall structure. • Connecting signals with signals – for instance, comparing target
values with actual values.
5. In setting up function structures it is helpful to know that, in the conver-
• Channelling signals – for instance, transferring data.
sion of energy, material and signals, several sub-functions recur in most
structures and should therefore be introduced first. Essentially, the gen- • Storing signals – for instance, in data banks.
erally valid functions are described next.
Conversion of energy: 6. In the case of mechanical devices, table 2.3 can be a good starting point
to identify functions.
• Changing energy – for instance, electrical into mechanical energy.
• Varying energy components – for instance, amplifying torque. 7. For the application of micro-electronics, it is useful to consider signal
flows as shown in figure 2.5. This results in a function structure that
• Connecting energy with a signal – for instance, switching on elec- suggests clearly the modular use of elements to detect (sensors), to acti-
trical energy. vate (actuators), to operate (controllers), to indicate (displays) and, in
• Channeling energy – for instance, transferring power. particular, to process signals using microprocessors.
Copyright 2006
Absorb/remove Dissipate Release

Actuate Drive Rectify
Operate User Indicate Amplify Hold or fasten Rotate
Assemble/disassemble Increase/decrease Secure
Process Change Interrupt Shield
(control)
Channel or guide Join/separate Start/stop
Clear or avoid Lift Steer
Detect Technical Activate Collect Limit Store
system
Conduct Locate Supply
Control Move Support
Convert Orient Transform
Figure 2.8: Basic signal flow functions for modular use in micro-electronics.
After Pahl and Beitz (2001). Couple/interrupt Position Translate
Direct Protect Verify
8. From a rough structure, or from a function structure obtained by the Table 2.3: Typical mechanical design functions. After Ullman (2003).
analysis of known systems, it is possible to derive further variants and
hence to optimize the solution, by:
The procedure to follow to establish the required functions and the system
• braking down or combining individual sub-functions; boundary of a new design can be stated using the following steps:
• changing the arrangement of individual sub-functions;
1. Express the overall function for the design in terms of the conversion of
• changing the type of switching used (series switching, parallel switch- inputs and outputs.
ing or bridge switching); and
2. Break down the overall function into a set of essential subfunctions.
• shifting in the system boundary.
3. Draw a block diagram showing the interaction between subfunctions.
Because varying the function structure introduces distinct solutions, the
setting up of function structures constitutes a first step in the search for 4. Draw the system boundary. The system boundary defines the functional
solutions. limits for the product or device to be designed.
9. Function structures should be kept as simple as possible, so as to lead to

In order to effectively apply the functional decomposition method, the follow-
simple and economical solutions. To this end, it is also advisable to aim
ing guidelines should be followed:
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, 1. Document what not how.
when the requirements demand separation, or when there is a need for 2. Use standard notation when possible.
extreme loading and quality.
3. Consider logical flows.
Copyright 2006
Cold water
Hot tea
(measured quantity)
Tea begin
BREWED
Tea leaves
Tea leaves
(measured quantity) (waste)
Figure 2.9: Black box model of the tea brewing process. After Cross (1994).
4. Match inputs and outputs in the functional decomposition.

(a) Water Tea
5. Break the function down as finely as possible. Water is Water and Tea is Tea and water
heated tea united infusing are separated
Energy
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 Tea leaves Leaves
to be achieved by such a machine is to convert cold water and tea leaves into
hot tea as illustrated in figure 2.9. (b) Water Tea
Water is Tea leaves
Some transparent box models of the tea maker are shown in figure 2.10. These heated are immersed
models represent three alternative processes by which the overall function can Energy
be achieved. After considering them, the designer settled on the first pro-
Tea leaves Leaves
cess where various necessary auxiliary functions became apparent, specially
regarding the control of the heating and brewing processes.
(c) Water Tea leaves
are wetted Tea
Water is Concentrate and
heated water are united
References Energy
1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons. Figure 2.10: Three alternatives to the transparent box model for the tea brew-
2. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse ing process. After Cross (1994).
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.
Copyright 2006
3.1 Benchmarking 50
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 Corpo-

ration. When in 1979 Xerox marketshare in the copy machines segment was
rapidly decreasing, its engineers pondered the following question: “How in the
CHAPTER 3 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 final customer, and the price the customer pays is about what it
would cost us to build the machine in the first place?” (Jacobson and Hillkirk,
1986). Even when at the time Xerox was not able to analyze and understand
Benchmarking and Product Specifications competitor’s 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 an-
Benchmarking the competition as an activity in the product development pro- alyze competitive products. This activity must be done periodically, not only
cess overlaps many of the other activities as it generates data that is important supporting new design efforts but also developing a continuous understanding
to understand a product and forecast its future development. This activ- of trends and directions in technology development. Many large companies
ity cannot be understated, product developers must learn from competitors. have entire departments devoted only to benchmarking activities. These de-
Companies must avoid the Not-Invented-Here (NIH) syndrome that presents partments provide insight not only on new technological developments, but
when engineers at a company choose not to use technology developed outside also in the position of the company’s products in the marketplace in terms of
it as it is considered to not be of any good. This may cause a product to fail, quality, value and performance.
as it leaves the design teams and companies behind as new technology emerges Benchmarking activities are vital at all stages of the product development as
at the marketplace. they:
Design teams must understand the importance of newly introduced technology
by competitors and be ready to respond. Benchmarking allows to meet this • provide a way to understand what needs other products are satisfying
goal. It is also an important step in establishing engineering specifications.
• provide means to establish product specifications ensuring that products
goals superpass existing competition
• help in the concept generation stage providing best-in-class concepts

3.1 Benchmarking
• help to incorporate in the detailed design new and improved design fea-
tures of the best-in-class products
There are two main purposes for studying existing competitive products: first,
creates an awareness of what products are already available, and second, reveal • help to find the best-in-class components and suppliers
opportunities to improve what already exists. Design teams must be aware
not only on what other products offer, but also how other competitors provide According to Otto & Wood (2001), product benchmarking can be carried out
similar products. As Otto & Wood (2001) clearly state, when engineers think following the next steps:
Copyright 2006
51 3.1 Benchmarking 3.1 Benchmarking 52
1. Form a list of design issues 3.1.3. Conduct an The information search is a step of great importance. In
information search order to benchmark a piece of hardware, the design team
2. Form a list of competitive or related products must gather as much information about the product as
possible. Any printed article that mentions the product, its features, its ma-
3. Conduct an information search terials, the company, manufacturing locations or problems, customers, market
reception or share, or any other information will be useful. Because of the
4. Tear down multiple products in class proliferation of computerized databases and the World Wide Web, a good li-
brary is essential. There is a generous amount of information available about
5. Benchmark by function all business operations. Before starting any design activity, a team must un-
derstand the market demand for product features and what the competition
6. Establish best-in-class competitors by function is doing to meet it. A design team should gather information on
7. Plot industry trends • the products and related products
• the functions they perform

3.1.1. Form a list of design A list of issues must be developed for compara-
issues tive benchmarking. Further, this list should be • the targeted market segments
continually revised and updated. With a focus
for benchmarking efforts, an efficient exploration path may be pursued. The
result is a reduction in wasted time and resources. All keywords associated with these three categories should be formed and used
in informational searches.
3.1.2. Form a list of Considering the design issues and product function Sources of information can be quite varied. Most businesspersons are perfectly
competitive or related in product development, the next step is to exam- happy to discuss the market and noncompetitive business units. Although
products ine retailer stores and sales outlets for products that most businesspersons will not provide strategic information about their own
demonstrate these issues. For a product, it is neces- companies, many people are happy to tell all about their competitors. Sup-
sary to list all competitors and their different product models. In addition, pliers will usually discuss their customers as they can, if it appears that the
all related products in their portfolio should be listed. If the competitors requester might provide an additional sale. The key is always to be open,
have a family of products under a common platform (they use identical com- honest and ethical when questioning for information. Once people understand
ponents for some aspects of each product but different components for niche that a design team is designing a new product or redesigning an existing one,
demands), detailed information about this should be included as it indicate they naturally want to get involved with new orders and will help the team as
the competitor’s preferred market segments and compromises made for other far as they legally can. Pursuit of information beyond that point is unethical
market segments. and not necessary. Most people are happy to share information, and so simple
This step should only be an identification of the competitors in the form of honesty and a friendly attitude can get team members along way.
company names and product names. With a complete set of different products, Sources of information can be divided in two main groups: public sources that
vendors and suppliers to examine, the list should be screened by highlighting are freely accessible, and market research databases that are accessible through
the particular competitors that appear most crucial for the design team to a fee.
fully understand. This step serves as basis for the next step, conducting an
information search. Public sources of product information include:
Copyright 2006
53 3.1 Benchmarking 3.2 Setting product specification 54
Libraries University libraries are filled with technical engineering modeling mation proves very useful for determining competitors manufacturing costs.
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 Census of Manufactures Taken every 5 years by the U.S. Department of
inter-library loans. Commerce, this census includes statistics on employment, payroll, inventories,
capital expenditures, and selected manufacturing costs. Also, the supplemental
Thomas Register of Companies This set of documents is a “yellow pages” Current Industrial Reports lists production and shipment data on industries
for manufacturing-related business. The Thomas Register list vendor by prod- and some products.
uct name (http://www.thomasregister.com).
Moody’s Industry Review Taken every 6 months, this survey provides key
Consumer Reports Magazines These magazines survey and test a number financial information, operating data, and ratios on about 3,500 companies.
of common consumer products. Useful data are available for customer needs, Companies as an industry group may be compared with one another group
qualitative benchmarking, engineering specifications, and warranty andmain- and against industry average.
tenance information. If a given product is not covered in the magazines, other
products can provide analogies as a starting point. 3.1.4. Some comments Even when benchmarking can help to understand the
(http://www.consumerreports.com/, about benchmarking market, forecast trends and identify key innovations
http://www.profeco.gob.mx/new/html/revista.htm). and technology, one complaint about it is that always
provide lagging information. Hence, it is argued that market leaders can find
Trade Magazines Consumer trade magazines such as Car and driver, Byte,
little or no information at all through this practice.
Consumer Electronics, JD Powers and Associates, and others provide com-
parative studies of products within a field. Such studies are very useful to Nevertheless, it should be realized that very few market leaders constantly
understand how a given product compares with the competition and to under- produce leading technology in a market. Markets are always evolving and
stand important customer and technical criteria. the opportunity for a competitor to produce new exciting technology is always
latent. One way market leaders can benefit from benchmarking is from focusing
Patents After examining trade journals and uncovering which competitors
it on components rather than in products. Components benchmarking may
have new innovations, gathering the patents on these new innovations explains
allow them to introduce new technology in components that are not directly
much. Patent searches based on company names are difficult since companies
developed by them.
typically “bury” their patents by filing them under the individual names of
designers. Uncovering the individual patents is usually through refined top- One problem is commonly associated with benchmarking is the “chasing the
ical searches, and hence, as much information as possible should be at hand competition” syndrome. This problem presents when benchmarking is only
when doing the research. Patent information may be obtained from the Clas- used to see what the competition is doing rather than to help the development
sification and Search Support System (CASSIS) of from Web sites such as of new competitive products.
http://www.patents.ibm.com/.
Market Share Reporter Published every year by International Thomson

Publishers, this book summarizes the previous market research of Gale Re- 3.2 Setting product specification
search, Inc. It is composed of market research reports from the periodicals
literature. It includes corporate market shares, institutional shares and brand
market shares. After benchmarking, one next step is to use the information gathered up to this
point to set targets for a new product development effort. Specifications for a
National Bureau of Standards This U.S. government branch provides, new product are quantitative, measurable criteria that the product should be
among other things, national labor rates for all major countries. This infor- designed to satisfy. In order to be useful, each specification should consist of a
Copyright 2006
55 3.2 Setting product specification 3.2 Setting product specification 56
metric and a value. This value can be a specific number or a range. Examples of variables in product development; some are dependent, such the mass
are: 50 Hz, 30-40 N, > 10 dB, etc. of a product and other are independent, such as the material used to
manufacture the product. In other words, designers cannot control mass
In general terms, specifications fall into two categories, functional requirements directly because it arises from other independent decisions the designer
and constraints. As discussed before, functional requirements or engineering will make, such as dimensions and material choices. Metrics specify the
design specifications are statements of the specific performance of a design, overall performance of a product and should therefore be the dependent
what the device should do. On the other hand, constraints are external fac- variables in the design problem. By using dependent variables for the
tors that limit the selection of the characteristics of the system or subsystem. specifications, designers are left with the freedom to achieve the specifi-
Constraints are not directly related to the function of the system, but apply cations using the best approach possible.
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 • Specifications should be practical. It does not serve the team to
critical evaluation. devise a specification for a given product that can only be measured
Setting specifications is generally not a straightforward task, and specifications by a scientific laboratory at a cost of several thousand dollars. Ideally,
are usually checked several times during the design process. Several concepts specifications will be directly observable or analyzable properties of the
may be derived from a customer requirement giving rise to different engineer- product that can be easily evaluated by the team.
ing specifications. Take for example a lid that can be either screwed or pushed
to close a container. Both solutions will give way to different engineering spec- • Some needs cannot easily be translated into quantifiable spec-
ifications since in the first case to screw is related to torque and in the second ifications. Needs like “the product instills pride” may be critical to
one to push is related to force. In this case, early concept-independent criteria success, but are difficult to quantify. In this cases the team simply re-
such as “opening ease” may be refined later into performance specifications for peats the need statement as a specification and notes that the metric is
the selected concept. In those specifications that are not expected to change subjective and would be evaluated by a panel of customers.
during the design process, margins in target values of ±30% at the beginning
of the design process are commonly expected. • The specifications should include the popular criteria for com-
parison in the marketplace. Many customers in various markets buy
In any case, it is primordial for each specification should be measurable, and products based on independently published evaluations (see examples of
testing and verification of it should be possible at any stage. If for any reason, sources in the previous section). If the team knows that its product will
a specification is not testable and quantifiable, it is not a specification. be evaluated by the trade media and knows what the evaluation crite-
ria will be, then it should include specifications corresponding to these
Ulrich and Eppinger (2000) suggest to consider a few guidelines when con- criteria.
structing the list of specifications:
• Specifications should be complete. Ideally each customer need 3.2.1. Specification Lists With the above guidelines, a specification list like
would correspond to a single specification, and the value of that specifica- the ones shown in tables 3.1 and 3.2 can be gen-
tion would correlate perfectly with satisfaction of that need. In practice, erated. In order to help with the search for relevant design specifications, an
several specifications may be necessary to completely reflect a single cus- approach known as Specification List Generation can be of some help.
tomer need.
Specification List Generation uses the decomposition method to obtain a list
• Specifications should be dependent, not independent, variables. of general specifications from latent needs such as safety, regulations and en-
As do customer needs, specifications also indicate what the product must vironmental factors. Each specification can be labeled as a required demand
do, not how the specifications will be achieved. Designers use many types or a desirable wish to communicate its level of importance.
Copyright 2006
To identify specifications, 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 specifications and constraints and label them accordingly. Start

M. N. Metric Imp Units
with specifications and follow with constraints.
1 1,3 Attenuation from dropout to handlebar at 10 Hz 3 dB
2. Determine if each of the functional requirements and constraints is a 2 2,6 Spring preload 3 N
demand or wish. 3 1,3 Maximum value from the Monster 5 g

4 1,3 Minimum descent time on test track 5 s
3. Determine if each of the functional requirements and constraints are log- 5 4 Damping coefficient adjustment range 3 N-s/m
ically consistent. Check for obvious conflicts. Check that specifications 6 5 Maximum travel (26 in. wheel) 3 mm
are technically and economically feasible. 7 5 Rake offset 3 mm

8 6 Lateral stiffness at the tip 3 kN/m
4. Quantify wherever possible. 9 7 Total mass 4 kg
10 8 Lateral stiffness at brake pivots 2 kN/m
5. Determine detailed approaches for ultimately testing and verifying the 11 9 Headset sizes 5 in
specifications during the product development process. 12 9 Steertube length 5 mm
13 9 Wheel sizes 5 List
6. Circulate specifications for comment and/or amendment inside and out- 14 9 Maximum tire width 5 in
side the development team. 15 10 Time to assemble to frame 1 s
16 11 Fender compatibility 1 list
7. Evaluate comments and amendments. 17 12 Instills pride 5 Subj.
18 13 Unit manufacturing cost 5 US
19 14 Time in spray chamber without water entry 5 s
3.2.2. Quality function Up to this point, several pieces of information are
20 15 Cycles in mud chamber without contamination 5 cycles
deployment available to the design team. Without proper guid-
21 16,17 Time to disassemble/assemble 3 s
ance, the team may feel that is “lost in a see of infor- 22 17,18 Special tools required for maintenance 3 list
mation”. One technique that is commonly used to help in the design process 23 19 UV test duration to degrade rubber parts 5 hours
is Quality Function Deployment (QFD). One of the main advantages of the 24 19 Monster cycles to failure 5 cycles
QFD method is that it is organized to develop the major pieces of information 25 20 Japan Industrial Standards test 5 binary
necessary to understand a design problem: 26 20 Bending strength (frontal loading) 5 kN
Table 3.1: List of metrics for a mountain bike suspension. The relative impor-
tance of each metric and the units for the metric are shown. “M.” and “N.”
are abbreviations for the number of specification and the need it comes from.
“Subj.” is an abbreviation indicating that a metric is subjective. (Adapted
after Ulrich & Eppinger, 2000).
Copyright 2006
1. The specifications of the product.

Date Demand/ Design specification Test/
2. How the competition meets the goals.
Wish Verification
Functional Requirements 3. What is important from the point of view of the customer.
1/25 D Provide thrust for maximum height Bernoulli and conservation
(velocity > (20 m/s) of momentum analysis 4. Engineering specifications to work toward.
1/25 D Maintain stable vertical flight path (less Flight tests with prototype
than 0.25 m deviation from vertical path) Design of experiments
Constraints There are two points that are worth considering before applying QFD to a
1/25 D Rocket length ≤ 15 cm Verify with engr. drawings design problem. First, no matter how well it is taught that a design problem
during concept generation, is understood, the design team should employ the QFD method for all original
detail design, etc. design or redesign projects. Second, the QFD technique can be applied to an
1/26 D No detachable part less than Verify with dimensional entire product and its sub-systems.
5 cm in diameter check of engr. drawings
To apply the QFD methodology, the following steps should be followed:
Table 3.2: Specification sheet template, example of a toy rocket product (par-
tial). Adapted after Otto & Wood (2001).
1. Identify the customers.
2. Determine the requirements of the customers.
Specification category Description 3. Determine the relative importance of the requirements.

Geometry Dimensions, space requirements, . . .
4. Perform a benchmarking activity to determine how competition satisfy
Kinematics Type and direction of motion, velocity, . . .
Forces Direction and magnitude, frequency,load imposed by, energy type,
the customers.
efficiency, capacity, conversion, temperature
5. Generate engineering specifications.
Material Properties of final products, flow of materials, design for manufacturing
Signals Input and output, display 6. Set engineering targets.
Safety Protection issues
Ergonomics Comfort issues, human interface issues 7. Relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specifications.
Production Factory limitations, tolerances, wastage
Quality Control Possibilities for testing 8. Identify relationships between engineering requirements.
Assembly Set by DFMA or special regulations or needs
Transport Packaging needs
Applying the above steps builds what is known as the house of quality. This
Operation Environmental issues such as noise
house provides in a single picture all the pieces of information gathered by the
Maintenance Servicing intervals, repair
design team and their relationships. As shown in figure 3.1, the house has
Costs Manufacturing costs, material costs
Schedules Time constraints
many rooms, each containing valuable information.
Table 3.3: Categories for searching and decomposing specifications (After

Franke, 1995).
Copyright 2006
The first step for documenting information in the house of quality is to deter-
mine the customer requirements and its relative importance. This information
can be registered in the first 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
Correlation being satisfied.
Matrix
How vs How 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:
Engineering Design
Specifications 1. The product does not meet the requirement at all.
HOW 2. The product meets the requirement slightly.
3. The product meets the requirement somewhat.
4. The product meets the requirement mostly.
5. The product fulfills the requirement completely.
Importance Rating
Customer Targets
Now vs. What The benchmarking step is very important as it shows opportunities for both
and Ratings
Customer Relationship product improvement and gain in market share. If all the competition rank low
Requirements Matrix
WHAT What vs How on one requirement, that is clearly an opportunity, specially if the customer
ranked that specific requirement as essential.
After the engineering specifications have been generated, each one can be writ-
ten in the third room of the house: engineering design specifications. 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
Targets
How Much much should be achieved. In this room all the target values related to each
one of the engineering design specifications are stated. In many cases, extreme
values for the delighted and disgusted states of customer satisfaction are also
Figure 3.1: Template for the House of Quality. included for each specification.
After the previous steps have been carried out, only two more steps are missing,
to relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specifications and
to identify relationships between engineering requirements.
To relate the requirements of the customers to engineering specifications, the

room at the center of the house, the relationship matrix, is used. In this matrix,
Copyright 2006
Indicator Meaning Strength 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
Strong relationship 9
in mind that QFD is a tool to build consensus. It is a tool to ensure that a
Some relationship 5 variety of specifications from different areas converge to a successful product.
Small relationship 3
Blank Indicates no relationship 0
Table 3.4: Symbols used to indicate the level of relationship between customer
References
requirements and engineering design specifications.
1. Jacobson, G. & Hillkirk, J. (1986) Xerox: American Samurai.
Indicator Meaning Strength 2. Franke, H. J. (1975) Methodische Schritte beim Klaren konstruktiver Auf-
gabenstellungen. Konstruktion. 27, 395-402.
⊕ Strong positive correlation 9
3. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engi-
+ Some positive correlation 3 neering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall.
- Some negative correlation -1 4. Ullman, D. (2001) The Mechanical Design Process. Third Ed. McGraw-
Strong negative correlation -3 Hill.
5. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Second
Table 3.5: Symbols used to indicate the level of correlation between engineering Ed. Irwin McGraw-Hill.
design specifications.
each cell represents how an engineering specification 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 specific symbols shown in table 3.4.
To finish with the procedure, the roof of the quality house, the correlation
matrix is filled. Here, the relationship between different engineering specifica-
tions is shown. The idea of the roof is to show that as one works to meet one
specification, you may be having a positive or negative effect 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 fills up. Figures 3.2 and
3.3 show two different examples of houses of quality for two different products.
3.2.3. Comments on QFD One hint for effectively 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 different levels in the product. Another
is to devote QFD as much time as needed. It may appear that QFD slows
Copyright 2006
Temperature of water in sleeping basket
Hottest temperature outside container
Max accel on 2.5 cm standard pothole

Max accel on 5.0 cm standard pothole
Time water is in contact with tea
Energy transmitted on standard road

Max acceleration on standard street
Temperature of exiting hot tea
Amount of change in spring rate

Mr. Coffee Iced Tea Maker
West Bend Iced Tea Maker
Amount of change in damping

West Bend Coffee Maker
Volume of water in tank
Time needed to add tea
# number of tools to adjust

Time to clean product
Riders that notice pogoing

Largest size of brew
Old Fashion Way
Rider weight range

Powdered Tea
# of tools to adjust
Rider height range
Total Volume
Mountain Bike
Recumbent
BikeE CT
Stronger tea 9 4 1 5 5 1
Easy to add ice 5 3 2 2 2 3
Environment Adjustability Performance

Smooth ride on streets 1 3 3
Easy to add tea 5 3 3 2 2 3 Eliminate shock from bumps 1 2 4
Easy to clean 3 3 3 2 4 3 No pogoing 5 2 1
Easy to store 3 4 3 5 5 3 Easy to adjust for different weights 5 3 2
Brew larger amount 2 3 2 4 4 3 Easy to adjust for different heights 5 3 3
Contain steam 2 4 4 2 5 1 Easy to adjust ride hardness 1 1 3
Technical Difficulty 3 4 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 No noticeable temperature effect 5 4 4
Measurements Units C sec cup C sec sec sec ft3 qt No noticeable dirt effect 5 4 4
Object Target values 98 8.0 3 44 0 30 0.2 3 ? No noticeable water effect 5 5 5
Objective West Bend 98 << 4.75 88 5 20 0.4 2 100 Units % gs gs gs % lbs in # # % %
Measures Mr. Coffee ? 8 4.75 ? 1 20 0.2 2 ? BikeE CT 95 0.4 1.6 3.0 0.0 100 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
WB Coffee Maker 98 na 0 ? 5 20 0.4 1.5 ? Mountain Bike 35 0.1 0.4 0.5 20 30 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Old Fashion Way 99 5 na hot 5 240 na na 100
Recumbent 50 0.1 0.7 0.9 40 40 6.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Powered Tea na na na 25 5 60 na na 25 Target (delighted) 30 0.1 0.4 0.5 100 100 6.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Technical Absolute 83 81 63 45 45 27 36 27 18 Target (disgusted) 50 0.2 0.7 1.0 50 50 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Importance Relative 1 2 3 4 4 6 5 6 8
Figure 3.3: House of quality for suspension system (partial). Adapted from
Figure 3.2: House of quality for iced tea maker (partial). After Otto & Wood Ullman (2003).
(2001).
Copyright 2006
4.1 Brainstorming 68
Brainstorming
Basic Methods
6−3−5 Method
Concept
generation methods The Morphological Chart
CHAPTER 4
TRIZ (TIPS)
Logical methods
Axiomatic design
Concept Generation Figure 4.1: Some concept Generation methods.
creates a tendency for designers to take their first idea and start to refine it
toward a product. This is considered a very weak practice.
Up to now, all energies have been focused to understand the design problem In order to avoid the previous problems, various methods aimed to generate
and to develop its specifications and requirements. The goal now is to generate concepts are presented here. Some may be more complicated to follow or have
concepts that will lead to a quality product. A concept may be defined as their particular value. In any case, it is a decision of the design team which to
an idea that is sufficiently developed to evaluate the physical principles that follow. Figure 4.1 shows the methods that will be discussed in this chapter.
govern its behavior (Ullman, 2003). Hence, concepts must be refined enough
to evaluate their form and the technologies needed to realize them. Concepts It is important to recall once more the importance of information gathering.
can be represented in rough sketches, flow diagrams, set of calculations or Considered the first method for concept generation, this activity should be
textual notes. In any case, each concept must contain enough details so the really the starting point of any concept generation method. This activity will
functionality of the idea can be ensured. include the search for documented ideas on solving problem functions that will
increase the scope of possible solution generated by the design team.
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 In the last chapter several sources of information were reviewed in the scope
design. In order to minimize changes later in the process, it is normally ex- of the benchmarking activity. This sources are also valid here, and figure 4.2
pected that the concept generation scheme should take 20-25 percent of the shows a summary of them.
design process.
It is very important for the design team to generate as many concepts as

possible, following the old advice:
4.1 Brainstorming
Generate one idea, and it will probably be a poor one.
Generate twenty ideas, and you may have a good one. Brainstorming is a group-oriented technique aimed to generate as many con-
cepts as possible. The procedure is quite simple and has the advantage that
It is a natural tendency to generate concepts as the design process progress, a committed team can create a large number of ideas from different points of
as it is naturally to associate ideas with things that we already known. This view. The guidelines for brainstorming are as follows:
Copyright 2006
69 4.1 Brainstorming 4.2 The 6-3-5 method 70
Benchmarking 5. Avoid confining the group to experts in the area, that may limit the
introduction of new ideas.
Nature
Analogies Product Function 6. Avoid hierarchically structured groups. Bosses, supervisors and man-
Product Architecture agers should not be included in many of the sessions.
Patents
Some hints may be used to stimulate new thinking and the generation of new
Journals
ideas:
Information Published Product Information
Sources media Textbooks
Consumer Products Periodicals • Make analogies, think what other devices solve a related problem, even
Goverment Reports if they are applied to an unrelated area of application.
Professionals in Field
• Wish and wonder. Think wild. Sometimes silly, impossible ideas, give
People Customers
way to useful ones.
Experts
• 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
Figure 4.2: Information sources for concept generation. Many of this informa-
unrelated to the problem. This activity usually gives way to new ideas.
tion can be found through the World Wide Web.
• Set quantitative goals. Set a reasonable number of concepts and do
1. Form a group with 5 to 15 people. not leave the session until you have achieve them. For a group session,
individual targets of 10 to 20 concepts is reasonable.
2. Designate a person to work as facilitator to prevent judgments and en-
courage participation by all. Although some authors state that the fa-
cilitator should also be a contributor. Other suggest that the facilitator
should only guide and record the session avoiding further participation. 4.2 The 6-3-5 method
The latter allows the designation of the most participate person of the
team as facilitator to encourage other team members to participate ac-
tively. One of the two main disadvantages with brainstorming is that first, all ideas
are conveyed by words. Second, the generation of ideas can be dominated by
3. Brainstorm for 30-25 minutes. The first 10 minutes are generally devoted one or two team members. The 6-4-5 method forces equal participation by all.
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 The guidelines for the 6-3-5 method are also very simple:
ideas may happen.
1. Arrange teams around a table. Although 6 members are optimal, a
4. Do not allow the evaluation of ideas, just the generation of them. This number between 3 and 8 should suffice.
is very important. Ignore any comments about the usefulness, validity
or value of any idea. 2. Establish a specific function of the product to work with.
Copyright 2006
71 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 72
3. Ask each member to draw in a sheet of paper two lines in order to create Approximate
Degree of Percent of Source of number of
three columns. After that, ask each member to write, 3 ideas, one on Level
inventiveness solutions knowledge solutions to
each column, about how the function could be fulfilled. Ideas can be consider
communicated by words, sketches or both.
1 Apparent 32% Personal 10
4. After 5 minutes of working in the concepts, pass the sheets of papers to solution Knowledge
the right. 2 Minor 45% Knowledge 100
improvement within company
5. Give the participants another 5 minutes to add other three ideas to the 3 Major 18% Knowledge 1000
list. improvement within industry
4 New 4% Knowledge 100,000
6. After completing a cycle stop to discuss the results and find the best concept outside industry
possibilities. 5 Discovery 1% All that is knowable 1,000,000
Table 4.1: Levels of Inventiveness.

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
4. identifying new principles
ideas only from what it is on the paper.
5. identifying new product functions and solving them with known or new
principles.
4.3 TRIZ
The first two categories were designated as “routine design”, meaning that they
do not exhibit significant innovations beyond the current technology. The last
The Teoriya Resheniya Izobreatatelskikh Zadatch (TRIZ) or Theory of Inven- three categories represent designs that included inventive solutions. He also
tive Problem Solving (TIPS), was developed by Genrikh S. Altshuller in the noted that as the importance of the innovation increased, the source of the
former U.S.S.R. at the end of the 1940’s. The TRIZ theory is based on the solution required broader knowledge and more solutions to consider before an
idea that many of the problems that engineers face contain elements that have ideal one could be found. Table 4.1 summarizes this idea.
already been solved, often in a completely different industry for a totally unre-
lated situation that uses an entirely different technology to solve the problem.
Based on this idea, Altshuller collaborated with an informal collection of aca-
demic and industrial colleagues to study patents and search for the patterns
that exist.
After spending 1500+ person-years studying at first around 400,000 patents

(today the database extend up to 2.5 million patents), Altshuller discovered
that they could be classified into five categories:
1. basic parametric advancement

2. change or rearrangement in a configuration
3. identifying conflicts and solving them with known physical properties
Copyright 2006
73 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 74
1 Weight of movable object 21 Power

2 Weight of stationary object 22 Waste of energy
PROBLEM 3 Lenght of movable object 23 Loss of substance
Find
TO contradictions 4 Lenght of stationary object 24 Loss of information
SOLVE Contradiction
Matrix 5 Area of movable object 25 Waste of time
6 Area of fixed object 26 Quantity of substance
7 Volume of movable object 27 Reliability
8 volume of stationary object 28 Measurement accuracy
9 Speed 29 Manufacturing precision
10 Force 30 Harmful action at object
1
Apply 2 11 Stress or pressure 31 Harmful effect caused by object
3
SOLUTION Inventive 4 12 Shape 32 Ease of manufacture
Principles n
Inventive
13 Stability of the object’s composition 33 Ease of operation
Principles 14 Strength 34 Ease of repair
15 Durability of a moving object 35 Adaptation
TRIZ
16 Durability of a stationary object 36 Device complexity
Figure 4.3: TRIZ methodology. 17 Temperature 37 Measurement or test complexity

18 Illumination intensity 38 Degree of automation
Based on his studies, Altshuller observed some trends in historical inventions: 19 Use of energy by moving object 39 Productivity
20 Use of energy by stationary object
• Evolution of engineering systems develops according to the same pat- Table 4.2: TRIZ 39 design parameters.
terns, independently of the engineering discipline or product domain.
These patterns can be used to predict trends and direct search for new
concepts. 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
• Conflicts and contradictions are the key drivers for product invention. underlying principles behind all patents. This procedure is depicted in figure
4.3.
• The systematic application of physical effects aids invention, since a par-
ticular product team does not know all physical knowledge. Applying TRIZ principles allows the innovation without having to wait for in-
spiration. Practitioners of the TRIZ theory have a very high rate of developing
In this regard, Altshuller noticed that almost all invention problems involved new, patentable ideas.
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 de-
tracting 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 find those contradictions that makes the design problem hard to solve.
Copyright 2006
75 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 76
15. Duration of moving object’s
19. Energy expense of movable

4. Lenght of a stationary object
1. Weight of a movable object
16. Duration of fixed object’s

7. Volume of movable object
20. Energy expense of fixed

13. Stability of the object’s
2. Weight of a fixed object
5. Area of movable object
8. Volume of fixed object
26. Quantity of substance

What is deteriorated?
3. Length of fixed object
24. Loss of information

6. Area of fixed object
23. Loss of substance

11. Stress or pressure
22. Waste of energy
25. Waste of time

composition
17. Temperature
18. Illumination
operation
operation
14. Strength
21. Power
12. Shape
object
object
10. Force
9. Speed
What should be improved? What should be improved?
1. Weight of a movable object 15 8 29 17 29 2 2 8 8 10 10 36 10 14 1 35 1. Weight of a movable object 28 27 5 34 6 29 19 1 25 12 13 36 6 2 5 35 10 24 10 35 3 26

29 34 38 34 40 28 15 38 18 37 37 40 35 40 19 39 18 40 31 35 4 38 32 34 31 18 31 34 19 3 31 35 20 28 18 31
2. Weight of a stationary object 10 1 35 30 5 35 8 10 13 29 13 10 26 39 2. Weight of a stationary object 28 2 2 27 28 19 35 19 18 19 15 19 18 19 5 8 10 15 10 20 19 6
29 35 13 2 14 2 19 35 10 18 29 14 1 40 10 27 19 6 32 22 32 28 1 18 22 28 15 13 30 35 35 26 18 26
3. Length of movable object 8 15 15 17 7 17 13 4 17 10 1 8 1 8 1 8 3. Length of movable object 8 35 19 10 15 32 8 35 1 35 7 2 4 29 1 24 15 2 29 35
29 34 4 4 35 8 4 35 10 29 15 34 29 34 19 24 35 39 23 10 29
4. Lenght of a stationary object 35 28 17 7 35 8 28 10 1 14 13 14 39 37 4. Lenght of a stationary object 14 1 3 35 3 25 12 8 6 28 10 28 24 26 30 29
40 29 10 40 2 14 35 15 7 35 28 26 35 38 18 24 35 14
5. Area of movable object 2 17 14 15 7 14 29 30 19 30 10 15 5 34 11 2 5. Area of movable object 3 15 6 3 2 15 15 32 19 32 19 10 15 17 10 35 30 26 26 4 29 30
29 4 18 4 17 4 4 34 35 2 36 28 29 4 13 39 40 14 16 19 13 32 18 30 26 2 39 6 13
6. Area of stationary object 30 2 26 7 1 18 10 15 2 38 6. Area of stationary object 40 2 10 35 39 17 32 17 7 10 14 30 16 10 35 2 18
14 18 9 39 35 36 36 37 19 30 38 30 18 39 4 18 40 4
7. Volume of movable object 2 26 1 7 29 4 15 35 6 35 1 15 28 10 7. Volume of movable object 9 14 6 35 34 39 10 13 35 35 6 7 15 36 39 2 22 2 6 29 30
29 40 4 17 38 34 36 37 36 37 29 4 1 39 15 7 4 10 18 2 13 18 13 16 34 10 34 10 7
8. Volume of stationary object 35 10 19 14 35 8 2 18 24 35 7 2 34 28 8. Volume of stationary object 9 14 35 34 35 6 30 6 10 39 35 16 35 3
19 14 2 14 37 35 35 40 17 15 38 4 35 34 32 18
9. Speed 2 28 13 14 29 30 7 29 13 28 6 18 35 15 28 33 9. Speed 8 3 3 19 28 30 10 13 8 15 19 35 14 20 10 13 13 26 10 19
13 38 8 34 34 15 19 38 40 18 34 1 18 26 14 35 5 36 2 19 35 38 38 2 19 35 28 38 29 38
10. Force 8 1 18 13 17 19 28 10 19 10 1 18 15 9 2 36 13 28 18 21 10 35 35 10 10. Force 35 10 19 2 35 10 19 17 1 16 19 35 14 15 8 35 10 37 14 29
37 18 1 28 9 36 15 36 37 12 37 18 37 15 12 11 40 34 21 14 27 21 10 36 37 18 37 40 5 36 18 36
11. Stress or pressure 10 36 13 29 35 10 35 1 10 15 10 15 6 35 35 24 6 35 36 35 35 4 35 33 11. Stress or pressure 9 18 19 3 35 39 14 24 10 35 2 36 10 36 37 36 10 14
37 40 10 18 36 14 16 36 28 36 37 10 36 21 15 10 2 40 3 40 27 19 2 10 37 14 25 3 37 4 36
12. Shape 8 10 15 10 29 34 13 14 5 34 14 4 7 2 35 15 35 10 34 15 33 1 12. Shape 30 14 14 26 22 14 13 15 2 6 4 6 14 35 29 14 34 36 22

29 40 26 3 5 4 10 7 4 10 15 22 35 34 18 37 40 10 14 18 4 10 40 9 25 19 32 32 34 14 2 3 5 10 17
13. Stability of the object’s 21 35 26 39 13 15 37 2 11 39 28 10 34 28 33 15 10 35 2 35 22 1 13. Stability of the object’s 17 9 13 27 39 3 35 1 32 3 13 19 27 4 32 35 14 2 2 14 35 27 15 32
composition 2 39 1 4 1 28 13 19 39 35 40 28 18 21 16 40 18 4 composition 15 10 35 35 23 32 27 15 29 18 27 31 39 6 30 40 35
14. Strength 1 8 40 26 1 15 15 14 3 34 9 40 10 15 9 14 8 13 10 18 10 3 10 30 13 17 14. Strength 27 3 30 10 35 19 19 35 35 10 26 35 35 28 29 3 29 10
40 15 27 1 8 35 28 26 40 29 28 14 7 17 15 26 14 3 14 18 40 35 40 35 26 40 10 35 28 31 40 28 10 27
15. Durability of 19 5 2 19 3 17 10 2 3 35 19 2 19 3 14 26 13 3 15. Durability of 27 3 19 35 2 19 28 6 19 10 28 27 10 20 10 3 35
a movable object 34 31 9 19 19 30 5 16 27 28 25 35 a movable object 10 39 4 35 35 18 35 38 3 18 28 18 10 40
16. Durability of a 6 27 1 40 35 34 39 3 16. Durability of a 19 18 16 27 16 10 28 20 3 35
stationary object 19 16 35 38 35 23 stationary object 36 40 18 38 10 16 31
17. Temperature 36 22 22 35 15 19 15 19 3 35 35 38 34 39 35 6 2 28 35 10 35 39 14 22 1 35 17. Temperature 10 30 19 3 19 18 32 30 19 15 2 14 21 17 21 36 35 28 3 17
6 38 32 9 9 39 18 40 18 4 36 30 3 21 19 2 19 32 32 22 40 39 36 40 21 16 3 17 17 25 35 38 29 31 21 18 30 39
18. Illumination intensity 19 1 2 35 19 32 19 32 2 13 10 13 26 19 32 30 32 3 18. Illumination intensity 35 19 2 19 32 19 32 1 32 35 32 19 16 13 1 1 6 19 1 1 19
32 32 16 26 10 19 6 27 6 35 19 1 15 1 6 26 17
19. Use of energy by moving 12 18 12 28 15 19 35 13 8 35 16 26 23 14 12 2 19 13 19. Use of energy by moving 5 19 28 35 19 24 2 15 6 19 12 22 35 24 35 38 34 23
object 2 8 31 25 18 35 21 2 25 29 17 24 object 9 35 6 18 3 14 19 37 18 15 24 18 5 19 18 16 18
20. Use of energy by stationary 19 9 36 37 27 4 20. Use of energy by stationary 35 19 2 28 27 3 35
object 6 27 29 18 object 35 32 18 31 31
Figure 4.4: TRIZ contradiction matrix.Continued. Figure 4.5: TRIZ contradiction matrix. Continued.
Copyright 2006
77 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 78
31. Harmful effect caused by

29. Manufacturing precision
30. Harmful action at object
4. Lenght of a stationary object

28. Measurement accuracy

38. Degree of automation
7. Volume of movable object

32. Ease of manufacture
37. Measurement or test
13. Stability of the object’s

36. Device complexity
2. Weight of a fixed object
5. Area of movable object
8. Volume of fixed object

33. Ease of operation
3. Length of fixed object
6. Area of fixed object

34. Ease of repair
11. Stress or pressure

39. Productivity
complexity
35. Adaptation
27. Reliability
composition
object
12. Shape
10. Force
9. Speed
What should be improved?
3 11 1 28 27 28 35 22 21 22 35 27 28 35 3 2 27 29 5 26 30 28 29 26 35 35 3 What should be improved?

27 35 26 26 18 18 27 31 39 1 36 2 24 28 11 15 8 36 34 26 32 18 19 24 37 21. Power 8 36 19 26 1 10 19 38 17 32 35 6 30 6 15 35 26 2 22 10 29 14 35 32
2. Weight of a stationary object 10 28 18 26 10 1 2 19 35 22 28 1 6 13 2 27 19 15 1 10 25 28 2 26 1 28 38 31 17 27 35 37 13 38 38 25 2 36 35 35 2 40 15 31
8 3 28 35 17 22 37 1 39 9 1 32 28 11 29 26 39 17 15 35 15 35 22. Waste of energy 15 6 19 6 7 2 6 38 15 26 17 7 7 18 7 16 35 36 38 14 2
3. Length of movable object 10 14 28 32 10 28 1 15 17 15 1 29 15 29 1 28 14 15 1 19 35 1 17 26 14 4 19 28 18 9 6 13 7 17 30 30 18 23 38 39 6
29 40 4 29 37 17 24 17 35 4 10 1 16 26 24 26 24 24 16 28 29 23. Loss of substance 35 6 35 6 14 29 10 28 35 2 10 18 1 29 3 39 10 13 14 15 3 36 29 35 2 14
4. Lenght of a stationary object 15 29 32 28 2 32 1 18 15 17 2 25 3 1 35 1 26 26 30 14 23 40 22 32 10 39 24 10 31 39 31 30 36 18 31 28 38 18 40 37 10 3 5 30 40
28 3 10 27 7 26 24. Loss of information 10 24 10 35 1 26 26 30 26 30 16 2 22 26 32
5. Area of movable object 29 9 26 28 2 32 22 33 17 2 13 1 15 17 15 13 15 30 14 1 2 36 14 30 10 26 35 5
32 3 28 1 18 39 26 24 13 16 10 1 13 26 18 28 23 34 2 25. Waste of time 10 20 10 20 15 2 30 24 26 4 10 35 2 5 35 16 10 37 36 37 4 10 35 3
6. Area of stationary object 32 35 26 28 2 29 27 2 22 1 40 16 16 4 16 15 16 1 18 2 35 23 10 15 37 35 26 5 29 14 5 5 16 17 4 34 10 32 18 36 5 4 34 17 22 5
40 4 32 3 18 36 39 35 40 36 30 18 17 7 26. Quantity of substance 35 6 27 26 29 14 15 14 2 18 15 20 35 29 35 14 10 36 35 14 15 2
7. Volume of movable object 14 1 25 26 25 28 22 21 17 2 29 1 15 13 10 15 29 26 1 29 26 35 34 10 6 2 18 31 18 35 35 18 29 40 4 29 34 28 3 14 3 17 40
40 11 28 2 16 27 35 40 1 40 30 12 4 16 24 34 27. Reliability 3 8 3 10 15 9 15 29 17 10 32 35 3 10 2 35 21 35 8 28 10 24 35 1
8. Volume of stationary object 2 35 35 10 34 39 30 18 35 1 1 31 2 17 35 37 10 40 8 28 14 4 28 11 14 16 40 4 14 24 24 11 28 10 3 35 19 16 11
16 25 19 27 35 4 26 10 2 28. Measurement accuracy 32 35 28 35 28 26 32 28 26 28 26 28 32 13 28 13 32 2 6 28 6 28 32 35
9. Speed 11 35 28 32 10 28 1 28 2 24 35 13 32 28 34 2 15 10 10 28 3 34 10 18 26 28 25 26 5 16 3 16 32 3 32 3 6 32 24 32 32 13
27 28 1 24 32 25 35 23 35 21 8 1 13 12 28 27 26 4 34 27 16 29. Manufacturing precision 28 32 28 35 10 28 2 32 28 33 2 29 32 28 25 10 10 28 28 19 3 35 32 30 30 18
10. Force 3 35 35 10 28 29 1 35 13 3 15 37 1 28 15 1 15 17 26 35 36 37 2 35 3 28 13 18 27 9 29 37 10 29 32 18 36 2 35 32 34 36 40 30 18
13 21 23 24 37 36 40 18 36 24 18 1 3 25 11 18 20 10 18 10 19 35 37 30. Harmful action at object 22 21 2 22 17 1 1 18 22 1 27 2 22 23 34 39 21 22 13 35 22 2 22 1 35 24
11. Stress or pressure 10 13 6 28 3 35 22 2 2 33 1 35 11 2 35 19 1 2 36 35 24 10 14 27 39 13 24 39 4 33 28 39 35 37 35 19 27 35 28 39 18 37 3 35
19 35 25 37 27 18 16 35 37 35 37 31. Harmful effect caused by 19 22 35 22 17 15 17 2 22 1 17 2 30 18 35 28 35 28 2 33 35 1 35 40
10 40 28 32 32 30 22 1 35 1 1 32 32 15 2 13 1 1 15 16 29 15 13 15 1 17 26 the object 15 39 1 39 16 22 18 39 40 40 35 4 3 23 1 40 27 18 27 39
12. Shape
16 1 40 2 35 17 28 26 29 1 28 39 32 34 10 32. Ease of manufacture 28 29 1 27 1 29 15 17 13 1 16 40 13 29 35 35 13 35 12 35 19 1 28 11 13
13. Stability of the object’s 13 18 35 24 35 40 35 19 32 35 2 15 35 30 2 35 35 22 1 8 23 35 15 16 36 13 13 17 27 26 12 1 40 8 1 1 37 13 27 1
composition 18 30 27 39 30 10 16 34 2 22 26 39 23 35 40 3 25 2 6 13 1 17 1 17 18 16 1 16 4 18 18 13 28 13 2 32 15 34 32 35
14. Strength 11 3 3 27 3 27 18 35 15 35 11 3 32 40 27 11 15 3 2 2 13 27 3 15 29 35 13 15 1 25 13 12 13 16 15 39 35 15 39 31 34 35 12 29 28 30
16 37 1 22 2 10 32 28 2 3 3 28 15 40 10 14 34. Ease of repair 2 27 2 27 1 28 3 18 15 13 16 25 25 2 1 34 9 1 11 13 1 13 2 35
15. Durability of 11 2 3 3 27 22 15 21 39 27 1 12 27 29 10 1 35 10 4 19 29 6 10 35 17 35 11 35 11 10 25 31 32 35 11 10 2 4
a movable object 13 16 40 33 28 16 22 4 27 13 29 35 39 35 14 19 35. Adaptation 1 6 19 15 35 1 1 35 35 30 15 16 15 35 35 10 15 17 35 16 15 37 35 30
16. Durability of a 34 27 10 26 17 1 22 35 10 1 1 2 25 14 1 20 10 15 8 29 16 29 2 16 29 7 29 14 20 1 8 14
stationary object 6 40 24 40 33 6 35 16 38 36. Device complexity 26 30 2 26 1 19 26 14 1 6 36 34 26 1 16 34 10 26 16 19 1 29 13 2 22
17. Temperature 19 35 32 19 24 22 33 22 35 26 27 26 27 4 10 2 18 2 17 3 27 26 2
15 28 34 36 35 39 26 24 13 16 6 28 35 28 15 17 19
3 10 24 35 2 2 24 16 27 16 35 31 19 16 35 37. Measurement or test 27 26 6 13 16 17 26 2 13 2 39 29 1 2 18 3 4 36 28 35 36 27 13 11 22
11 15 3 32 15 19 35 19 19 35 28 26 15 17 15 1 6 32 32 15 2 26 2 25 complexity 28 13 28 1 26 24 18 17 30 16 4 16 26 31 16 35 40 19 37 32 1 39 39 30
18. Illumination intensity
32 32 39 28 26 19 13 16 19 13 10 16 38. Degree of automation 28 26 28 26 14 13 23 17 14 35 13 28 10 2 35 13 35 15 32 18 1
19. Use of energy by moving 19 21 3 1 1 35 2 35 28 26 19 35 1 15 15 17 2 29 35 38 32 2 12 28 18 35 35 10 28 17 13 16 1 13
object 11 27 32 6 27 6 30 17 28 13 16 27 28 35 39. Productivity 35 26 28 27 18 4 30 14 10 26 10 35 2 6 35 37 28 15 10 37 10 10 35 3
20. Use of energy by stationary 10 36 10 2 19 22 1 4 19 35 1 6 24 37 15 3 28 38 26 7 34 31 17 7 34 10 10 2 10 36 14 34 40 22 39
object 23 22 37 18 16 25
Figure 4.7: TRIZ contradiction matrix. Continued.

Figure 4.6: TRIZ contradiction matrix. Continued.
Copyright 2006
79 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 80
15. Duration of moving object’s
19. Energy expense of movable

16. Duration of fixed object’s
31. Harmful effect caused by

29. Manufacturing precision
20. Energy expense of fixed
30. Harmful action at object

28. Measurement accuracy
26. Quantity of substance
38. Degree of automation

32. Ease of manufacture
37. Measurement or test

24. Loss of information
36. Device complexity

23. Loss of substance

22. Waste of energy
25. Waste of time
34. Ease of repair

17. Temperature
18. Illumination
39. Productivity
complexity
35. Adaptation
27. Reliability
the object
operation
operation
14. Strenght
object
object
21. Power
What should be improved? What should be improved?
21. Power 26 10 19 35 16 2 14 16 6 16 6 10 35 28 27 10 19 35 20 4 34 21. Power 19 24 32 15 32 2 19 22 2 35 26 10 26 35 35 2 19 17 20 19 19 35 28 2 28 35

28 10 38 17 25 19 19 37 38 18 38 10 6 19 26 31 2 31 2 18 34 10 10 34 34 30 34 16 17 34
22. Waste of energy 26 19 38 1 13 3 38 35 27 19 10 10 18 7 18 22. Waste of energy 11 10 32 21 22 21 35 35 32 2 19 7 23 35 3 2 28 10
7 32 15 2 37 32 7 25 35 35 2 2 22 1 15 23 29 35
23. Loss of substance 35 28 28 27 27 16 21 36 1 6 35 18 28 27 28 27 35 27 15 18 6 3 23. Loss of substance 10 29 16 34 35 10 33 22 10 1 15 34 32 28 2 35 15 10 35 10 35 18 35 10 28 35
31 40 3 18 18 38 39 31 13 24 5 12 31 18 38 2 31 35 10 10 24 39 35 31 28 24 31 30 40 34 29 33 2 24 34 27 2 28 24 10 13 18 10 23
24. Loss of information 10 10 19 10 19 19 10 24 26 24 28 24. Loss of information 10 28 22 10 10 21 32 27 22 35 33 35 13 23
28 32 35 23 1 22 15
25. Waste of time 29 3 20 10 28 20 35 29 1 19 35 38 1 35 20 10 5 35 18 24 26 35 38 25. Waste of time 10 30 24 34 24 26 35 18 35 22 35 28 4 28 32 1 35 28 6 29 18 28 24 28
28 18 28 18 10 16 21 18 26 17 19 18 10 6 18 32 10 39 28 32 18 16 4 28 32 28 18 34 18 39 34 4 10 34 10 32 10 35 30
26. Quantity of substance 14 35 3 35 3 35 3 17 34 29 3 35 35 7 18 6 3 24 28 35 38 26. Quantity of substance 18 3 3 2 33 30 35 33 3 35 29 1 35 29 2 32 15 3 3 13 3 27 8 35 13 29
34 10 10 40 31 39 16 18 31 25 10 24 35 18 16 28 40 28 29 31 40 39 35 27 10 25 10 25 29 27 10 29 18 3 27
27. Reliability 11 28 2 35 34 27 3 35 11 32 21 17 36 23 21 11 10 11 10 35 10 28 10 30 21 28 27. Reliability 32 3 11 32 27 35 35 2 27 17 1 11 13 35 13 35 27 40 11 13 1 35
3 25 6 40 10 13 27 19 26 31 35 29 39 4 40 3 11 23 1 2 40 40 26 40 8 24 1 28 27 29 38
28. Measurement accuracy 28 6 28 6 10 26 6 19 6 1 3 6 3 6 26 32 10 16 24 34 2 6 28. Measurement accuracy 5 11 28 24 3 33 6 35 1 13 1 32 13 35 27 35 26 24 28 2 10 34
32 32 24 28 24 32 32 32 27 31 28 28 32 32 1 23 22 26 39 10 25 18 17 34 13 11 2 10 34 32 28 10 34 28 32
29. Manufacturing precision 3 27 3 27 19 26 3 32 32 2 32 2 13 32 35 31 32 26 32 30 29. Manufacturing precision 11 32 26 28 4 17 1 32 25 10 26 2 26 28 10 18
40 2 10 24 28 18 1 10 36 34 26 35 23 18 18 23 32 39
30. Harmful action at object 18 35 22 15 17 1 22 33 1 19 1 24 10 2 19 22 21 22 33 22 22 10 35 18 35 33 30. Harmful action at object 27 24 28 33 26 28 24 35 2 25 35 10 35 11 22 19 23 19 33 3 22 31
37 1 33 28 40 33 35 2 32 13 6 27 22 37 31 2 35 2 19 40 2 34 29 31 2 40 23 26 10 18 2 28 39 2 22 31 29 40 29 40 34 13 24
31. Harmful effect caused by 15 35 15 22 21 39 22 35 19 24 2 35 19 22 2 35 21 35 10 1 10 21 1 22 3 24 31. Harmful effect caused by 24 2 3 33 4 17 19 1 3 2 21 2 22 35
the object 22 2 33 31 16 22 2 24 39 32 6 18 18 22 2 34 29 39 1 the object 40 39 26 34 26 1 27 1 18 39
32. Ease of manufacture 1 3 27 1 35 16 27 26 28 24 28 26 1 4 27 1 19 35 15 34 32 24 35 28 35 23 32. Ease of manufacture 1 35 24 2 2 5 35 1 2 13 27 26 6 28 8 28 35 1
10 32 4 18 27 1 27 1 12 24 33 18 16 34 4 1 24 12 18 13 16 11 19 15 1 11 1 1 10 28
33. Ease of operation 32 40 29 3 1 16 26 27 13 17 1 13 35 34 2 19 28 32 4 10 4 28 12 35 33. Ease of operation 17 27 25 13 1 32 2 25 2 5 12 26 15 34 32 25 1 34 15 1

3 28 8 25 25 13 1 24 24 2 10 13 2 24 27 22 10 34 8 40 2 34 35 23 28 39 12 1 32 1 16 12 17 12 3 28
34. Ease of repair 1 11 11 29 1 4 10 15 1 15 1 15 10 15 1 2 35 32 1 2 28 34. Ease of repair 11 10 10 2 25 10 35 10 1 35 1 12 714 35 1 34 35 1 32
2 9 28 27 13 28 16 32 2 32 19 34 27 10 25 10 25 1 16 13 2 16 11 10 26 15 16 13 11 7 13 10
35. Adaptation 35 3 13 1 2 16 27 2 6 22 19 35 19 1 18 15 15 10 35 28 3 35 35. Adaptation 35 13 35 5 35 11 1 13 15 34 1 16 15 29 1 27 34 35 28
32 6 35 3 35 26 1 29 13 29 1 2 13 15 8 24 1 10 32 31 31 1 16 7 4 37 28 35 6 37
36. Device complexity 2 13 10 4 2 17 24 17 27 2 20 19 10 35 35 10 6 29 13 3 36. Device complexity 13 35 2 26 26 24 22 19 19 1 27 26 27 1 13 29 15 15 10 15 1 12 17
28 28 15 13 13 29 28 30 34 13 2 28 29 27 10 1 10 34 32 29 40 1 13 9 26 24 28 37 37 28 28
37. Measurement or test 27 3 19 29 25 34 3 27 2 24 35 38 19 35 19 1 35 3 1 18 35 33 18 28 3 27 37. Measurement or test 27 40 26 24 22 19 2 21 5 28 2 5 12 26 1 15 15 10 34 21 35 18
complexity 15 28 25 39 6 35 35 16 26 16 16 10 15 19 10 24 27 22 32 9 29 18 complexity 28 8 32 28 29 28 11 29 37 28 24
38. Degree of automation 25 13 6 9 26 2 8 32 2 32 28 2 23 28 35 10 35 33 24 28 35 13 38. Degree of automation 11 27 28 26 28 26 2 33 2 1 26 1 12 1 35 27 4 15 24 34 27 5 12
19 19 13 27 18 5 35 30 32 10 34 18 23 13 34 3 13 1 35 10 25 35 26
39. Productivity 29 28 35 10 20 10 35 21 26 17 35 10 1 35 20 28 10 28 10 13 1 35 38 39. Productivity 1 35 1 10 32 1 22 35 35 22 35 28 1 28 1 32 1 35 12 17 35 18 5 12
10 18 2 18 16 38 28 10 19 1 38 19 10 29 35 35 23 5 23 10 38 34 28 18 10 13 24 18 39 2 24 7 19 10 25 28 37 28 24 27 2 35 26
Figure 4.8: TRIZ contradiction matrix. Continued. Figure 4.9: TRIZ contradiction matrix. Continued.
Copyright 2006
81 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 82
4.3.1. 39 design From the patents studied, Altshuller extracted 39 design • To scare birds from buildings and airports, reproduce the sound of
parameters parameters that cause conflict. These 39 parameters are a scare bird using a tape recorder.
listed in table . To effectively use these parameters, it is • Hovercraft.
necessary to find those two that are cause of conflict in a given design. Consider
for example that a non-moving mechanical component needs to be lighter but 3. Principle of local quality
remain as strong. From the 39 design parameters, find the principle that
needs to be changed, in this case, “Weight of stationary object” (principle #2). • Change the structure of the object or environment from homoge-
Then find the parameter that is negatively affected, in this case, “Strength” neous to non-homogeneous.
(principle #14). Then, using the contradictions matrix shown in figure 4.9, • Have different parts of the object carry out different functions.
find those inventive principles that are candidates to solve the conflict. From
• Place each part of the object under conditions most favorable for
the contradictions matrix, the inventive principles that solve the contradiction
its operation.
between “Weight of a stationary object” and “Strenght” are 2, 10, 27 and 28.
Examples:
4.3.2. Forty inventive Once the matrix has been used to find those inventive
principles principles candidates to solve the engineering contra- • Fuselage skin of commercial airplanes.
diction, they can be applied to generate solutions for • Stapler. A pencil and an eraser in one unit.
the problem at hand. These inventive principles can also be used indepen-
dently of the contradiction matrix as a source of ideas to solve conflicts. The 4. Principle of asymmetry
forty TRIZ design principles to solve engineering conflicts are:
• Make an object asymmetrical.
• Increase the object asymmetry.
1. Principle of segmentation
Examples:
• Divide an object into independent parts that are easy to disassem-
ble. • Eccentric weight on motor creates vibration.
• Increase the degree of segmentation as much as possible. 5. Principle of joining
Examples: • Merge homogeneous objects or those intended for contiguous (ad-
jacent) operations.
• Sectional furniture, modular computer components, folding wooden
ruler, food processor. • Combine in time homogeneous or contiguous operations.
• Garden hoses can be joined together to form any length needed. Examples:
Drill shafts.
• TV/VCR, Cassette tape heads.
2. Principle of removal
• The working element of a rotary excavator has special steam nozzles
• Remove the disturbing part or property of the object. to defrost and soften frozen ground in a single step.
• Remove the necessary part or property of the object. 6. Principle of universality
Examples: • Let one object perform several different functions.
Copyright 2006
83 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 84
• Remove redundant objects. • Set up the object such that they can perform their action immedi-
ately when required.
Examples:
Examples:
• Sofa which converts from a sofa in the daytime to a bed at night.
Fingernail clipper. • Cutter blades ready to be snapped off when old.
7. The nesting principle • Correction tape.
• Place one object inside another, which in turn is placed in a third, 11. Principle of introducing protection in advance
etc. • Compensate for the low reliability of an object by introducing pro-
• Let an object pass through a cavity into another. tections against accidents before the action is performed.
Examples: Examples:
• Telescoping antenna, stacking chairs. • Fuses, electric breakers. Shaft couplers.

• Mechanical pencil with lead stored inside. • Shoplifting protection by means of magnetized plates in products.
8. Principle of counterweight 12. Principle of equipotentiality
• Compensate for the weight of an object by joining it with another • Change the conditions such that the object does not need to be
object that has a lifting force. raised or lowered.
• Compensate for the weight of an object by interaction with an en- Examples:
vironment providing aerodynamic or hydrodynamic forces.
• Pit for change oil, Loading dock, airport gate.
Examples:
13. Principle of opposite solution
• Boat with hydrofoils, hot air balloon.
• Implement the opposite action of what is specified.
• Rear wings in racing cars to increase the pressure from the car to
the ground. • Make a moving part fixed and the fixed part mobile.
• Turn the object upside down.
9. Principle of preliminary counteraction
Examples:
• Perform a counter-action to the desired action before the desired
action is performed. • Abrasively cleaning parts by vibrating the parts instead of the abra-
sive.
Examples:
• Lathe, Mill.
• Reinforced concrete column or floor. Reinforced shaft.
14. Principle of spheroidality
10. Principle of preliminary action
• Switch from linear to curvilinear paths, from flat to spherical sur-
• Perform the required action before it is needed. faces, etc.
Copyright 2006
85 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 86
• Make use of rollers, ball bearings, spirals. • A computer mouse where a 2D screen is transformed into a hori-
• Switch from direct to rotation motion. zontal mouse pad.
• Use centrifugal force. • A composite wing where loads are in only one direction per layer.
Examples: 18. Use of mechanical vibrations
• Computer mouse. • Make the object vibrate.
• Screw lift. • Increase the frequency of vibration.

• Use resonance, piezovibrations, ultrasonic, or electromagnetic vi-
15. Principle of dynamism brations.
• Make the object or environment able to change to become optimal Examples:
at any stage of work.
• Make the object consist of parts that can move relative to each • Vibrating casting molds.
other. • Quartz clocks.
• If the object is fixed, make it movable.
19. Principle of periodic action
Examples:
• Use periodic or pulsed actions, change periodicity.
• A flashlight with flexible neck. • Use pauses between impulses to change the effect.
• Bicycle drivetrain and derailer.
Examples:
16. Principle of partial or excessive action
• Hammer drill.
• If it is difficult to obtain 100% of a desired effect, achieve somewhat • Emergency flashing lights.
more or less to greatly simplify the problem.
20. Principle of uninterrupted useful effect
Examples:
• Keep all parts of the object constantly operating at full power.
• Raincoats, snowboards.
• Remove idle and intermediate motions.
17. Principle of moving into a new dimension
Examples:
• Increase the degrees of freedom of the object.
• Steam turbine, mechanical watch.
• Use a multi-layered assembly instead of a single layer.
• Incline the object or turn it on its side. 21. Principle of rushing through
• Use the other side of an area. • Carry out a process or individual stages of a process at high speeds.
Examples: Examples:
Copyright 2006
87 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 88
• Cutting thin wall plastic tubes at very high speeds so cutting action • Nail resistant tires.
occurs before deformation.
26. The copying principle
22. Principle of turning harm into good
• Instead of unavailable, complicated or fragile objects, use a simpli-
• Use harmful factor to obtain a positive effect. fied cheap copy.
• Remove a harmful factor by combining it with other harmful factors. • Replace an object by its optical copy, make use of scale effects.
• Strengthen a harmful factor to the extent where it ceases to be • If visible copies are used, switch to infrared or ultraviolet copies.
harmful.
Examples:
Examples: • Rapid prototyping. Crash test dummies.
• Medical defibrillator. Use of high frequency current to heat the • Measure shadows instead of actual objects.
outer surface of metals for heat treatment.
27. Cheap short life instead of expensive longevity
23. The feedback principle
• Replace an expensive object that has long life with many cheap
• Introduce feedback. objects having shorter life.
• If feedback already exists, reverse it. Examples:
Examples: • Inkjet printer heads embedded in ink cartridges. Cardboard box.
• Air conditioning systems. 28. Replacement of a mechanical pattern

• Noise canceling devices. • Replace a mechanical pattern by an optical, acoustical or odor pat-
tern.
24. The go between principle
• Use electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields to interact with
• Use an intermediary object to transfer or transmit the action. the object.
• Merge the object temporarily with another object that can be easily • Switch from fixed to movable fields changing over time.
taken away. • Go from unstructured to structured fields.
Examples: Examples:
• Gear trains. • CD player.
25. The self service principle • Microwave oven. Crane with electromagnetic plate.
• The object should service and repair itself. 29. Use of pneumatic or hydraulic solutions
• Use waste products from the object to produce the desired actions. • Replace solid parts or an object by gas or liquid.
Examples: Examples:
Copyright 2006
89 4.3 TRIZ 4.3 TRIZ 90
• Power steering. Bubble envelopes. • Once a part has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer necessary, it
should automatically be discarded or disappear.
30. Using flexible membranes and fine membranes
• Parts that become useful after a while should be automatically gen-
• Replace customary constructions with flexible membranes and thin erated.
film.
Examples:
• Isolate an object from outside environment with thin film or fine
membranes. • Multistage rockets. Bullet castings.
Examples: 35. Changing the aggregate state of an object
• Dome tent. High Altitude Balloon. • Change the aggregate state of an object, concentration or density,
the degree of flexibility or its temperature.
31. Using porous materials
Examples:
• Make the object porous or use porous elements.
• If the object is already porous, fill the pores in advance with some • Heat packs. Light sticks.
useful substance. 36. The use of phase changes
Examples: • Use phenomena occurring in phase changes like change of volume
• Running shoe soles. Air filters. and liberation or absorption of heat.
32. The principle of using color Examples:
• Change the color or translucency of an object or its surroundings. • Fire extinguisher.
• Use colored additives to observe certain objects or processes. 37. Application of thermal expansion
• If such additives are already used, employ luminescence traces. • Use expansion or contraction of materials by heat.
Examples: • use materials with different thermal expansion coefficients.
• Transparent bandage. Roadway signs. Examples:
33. The principle of homogeneity • Thermometers. Bimetallic plates.
• Interacting objects should be made of the same material, or material 38. Using strong oxidation agents
with identical properties.
• Replace air with enriched air or replace enriched air with oxygen.
Examples: • Treat the air or oxygen with ionizing radiation.
• Shaft and bushing. • Use ionized oxygen or ozone.
34. The principle of discarding and regenerating parts Examples:
Copyright 2006
91 4.4 The morphological chart 4.4 The morphological chart 92
• Metal forming ovens. Torch cutting. Convert

Electrical Energy to Rotary motor with Rail gun
Linear Motor Solenoid
Translational Energy transmission
39. Using an inert atmosphere
Accumulate
• Replace the normal environment with an inert one. Energy
Spring Moving mass
• Carry out the process in a vacuum.

Apply
Translational Simgle impact Multiple impacts Push nail
Examples: Energy to Nail
• Aluminum cans for beverages. Arc welding.

Figure 4.10: Morphological table for a hand-held nailer. Adapted from Ulrich
40. Using composite materials & Eppinger (2000).
• Replace a homogeneous material with a composite one. 2. For each feature or function, list the means by which it may be achieved.
Examples: These lists will be the columns of the chart. Lists might include new
ideas as well as known solutions.
• Steel belted tires. Tennis racquets. High performance aircraft
wings. 3. After the chart has been filled out, identify feasible combinations of sub-
solutions. Each combination will be a possible solution to identify.
Figure 4.10 shows an example of a morphological chart for a hand nailer pre-
sented by Ullrich & Eppinger (2000). The rows in the table correspond to
4.4 The morphological chart the functions identified by the design team: convertion of electrical energy to
translational energy, acummulation of translational energy and application of
The aim of the morphological chart is to generate a complete range of alter- translational energy to the nail. The entries in each column correspond to
native design solutions for a product widening the search for potential new possible solutions for the function at hand.
solutions. It is based on the use of identified functions to foster ideas and
It is important to notice that in order for the chart to be most useful, the
has two parts. First, to generate as many concepts as possible. Second, to
items in the list of functions should all be at the same level of generality, and
combine the individual concepts into overall concepts that meet all functional
they should be as independent of each other as possible. The list should not
requirements.
be too long, however, and no more than 10 functions should be considered.
The procedure to create and use a morphological chart is quite simple and can Some authors advice to use no more than 4 functions at a time. If some func-
be summarized as follows: tions are to be disregarded for this matter, the development team must clearly
understand the risks and tradeoffs of not taking them into consideration.
1. List the features or functions that are essential to the product. Each It is also advisable to arrange solution principles so that the columns create
function will be a row of the chart. The list of functions should contain logical grouping, for example, of mechanical type, of electrical type, etc. Also,
all the features that are essential to the product, at an appropriate level sketches should be used whenever possible to convey as much information as
of generalization. If a QFD procedure has been already performed, the possible. Finally, consideration should be given only to solutions that meet
list of customer requirements can be used as the list of functions. the estimated engineering specifications.
Copyright 2006
Once the chart is filled with solutions to all the specific functions listed, the Convert
Rotary motor with
next step is to consider combinations from the range of all possible solutions. Electrical Energy to
transmission
Linear Motor Solenoid Rail gun
Translational Energy
Usually a large number of combinations is possible, although restrictions apply
as not all combinations of solutions are possible, for example, combinations Accumulate
Spring Moving mass
that have intrinsic incompatibilities should be discarded. Energy
It is essential to analyze very carefully each option before rejecting it. The Apply
design team must have in mind that, initially many combinations may not Energy to Nail
seem to provide a practical solution to the problem at hand, specially to the
inexperienced designer. 111111
000000
000000
111111
000000
111111
111111
000000
000000
111111
111111
000000
000000
111111
000000
111111
000000
111111
In the example shown in figure 4.10, 24 combinations can be found from the 000000
111111
000000
111111
concepts generated ( 4×2×3). Figures 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 show the sketch of
four possible solutions arising from the combination of concepts. The first so-
000000
111111
000000
111111
000000
111111
000000
111111
000000
111111
111111
000000
000000
111111
111111
000000
lution, shown in figure 4.11, is due to the combination the concepts “solenoid”,
“spring” and “Multiple impacts”. The second solution, shown in figure 4.12, 000000
111111
results from the combination of “rotary motor with transmission”, “spring” Figure 4.11: Concept 1. Solenoid compressing a spring which is then released
and “multiple impacts”. The third, fourth and fifth solutions, shown in figure repeatedly in order to drive the nail with multiple impacts. Adapted from
4.13, arise from the combinations of concepts “rotary motor with transmis- Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
sion”, “spring” and “single impact”.
Convert
Electrical Energy to Rotary motor with Rail gun
Linear Motor Solenoid
Accumulate
Spring Moving mass
Energy
Apply
Energy to Nail
11111
00000
00000
11111
00000
11111
00000
11111
1
0
1
0
00000
11111
00000
11111
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).
Copyright 2006
Feature Means
Air
Support Wheels Track Slides Pedipulators
cushion
Driven Air Moving Linear

Propulsion
wheels thrust cable induction
Bottled
Power Electric Petrol Diesel Steam
gas
Convert Gears and Flexible

Rotary motor with Transmission Belts Chains Hydraulic
Electrical Energy to Linear Motor Solenoid Rail gun shafts cable
Turning Air
Steering Rails
wheels thrust
Accumulate Reverse
Spring Moving mass Stopping Brakes Ratchet
Energy thrust
Hydraulic Rack and Chain or
Lifting Screw
Apply ram pinion rope hoist
Seated at Seated Standing Walking Remote
Energy to Nail Operator
front at rear control
1111
0000 11111111
00000000 Figure 4.14: Morphological chart for a forklift truck, with one possible combi-
1
0 nation of sub-solutions picked out by the dashed line (After Cross, 1994).
0
1
0
1
0
1 00
11
MOTOR
0
1 11
00 11
00
00
11
Two examples of morphological charts are presented by Cross (1994). The first
1
0 0
1 00
11
00 11
11 00
one is concerned with finding alternative versions of the conventional forklift
0
1
0
1 0
1 TRIGGER truck used for lifting and carrying loads. In the second one, alternatives for
0
1 0
1
0
1
the design of a welding positioner are explorer.
CAM Regarding the finding of alternative versions of a lifting truck, the essential
features of the truck are:
1. Means of support which allows movement.

Figure 4.13: Concept 3, 4 and 5 showing possible combinations of a motor 2. Means of moving the vehicle.
with a transmission, a spring and a single impact. The motor winds a spring,
3. Means of steering the vehicle.
accumulating potential energy which is then delivered to the nail in a single
hit. Adapted from Ulrich & Eppinger (2000). 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 figure
4.14 where one possible solution is highlighted. It is interesting to note that
Copyright 2006
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 Action Principles / Families of Function carriers
position are explored. Figure 4.15 shows the morphological chart for this
Partial Functions 1 2 3 4 5 6
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 ENABLE Force locking (friction)
connection Form
chart. with interlocking mechanical
workpiece screw or bolt wedge pneumatic hydraulic magnetic
Rotational
ENABLE guidance
References rotational
movement sliding journal
bearing rolling bearing
cylinder sphere fulcrum pin hang from

ENABLE position above
1. Altshuller, G. S. (1984) Creativity as an exact science. Gordon and Breach tilting
11111
00000 0000
1111
Science Publishers, New York, U.S.A. 00000
11111 0000 000
1111 111
movement
2. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons. 000
111
1010
screw thread lever
ENABLE
3. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse height
straight line mechanism
guidance
Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall. adjustment
10 11
00
bearing, sliding or rolling
hold directly
00
11
Second Ed. Springer. LOCK by hand,
form interlocking force locking (friction)
screw
5. Ullman, D. (2001) The Mechanical Design Process. Third Ed. McGraw- state weight of
workpiece hole − pin
ratchet within screw with wedge,
mechanism guidance washer brake block
Hill.
6. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Second DRIVE
with mechanical advantage device
Direct gear wheel band, lever
Ed. Irwin McGraw-Hill. (by hand)
pair
rack and helical gears worm and rope, eccentric
pinion (crossed) worm−wheel chain cam
CONTROL through through

of drive locking
movement mechanism (ratchet)
Show mechanical
optical electronic mechanical
position stop
line scale pointer scale
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).
Copyright 2006
100
Concepts
Design Final
Brief Concept
Generation Screening Screening Development
Feasibility and and
Generation and and Testing
Judgment Screening Testing
Scoring Scoring
CHAPTER 5
Concept Selection Figure 5.1: Concept selection is an iterative process that goes through different
phases and is closely related to concept generation and concept testing.
In the previous chapter some methods to generate potential solutions for a

design problem where reviewed. Normally, a design team should generate tens
The last to steps are usually done in an iterative fashion, where concepts
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 are discarded and some other are combined to generate new concepts. After
to say which concept is best. In concept selection the goal is to expend the sufficient iterations have been carried out, the team goes to the next stage:
concept testing. Figure 5.1 depicts the above procedure.
least amount of time and resources on deciding which concepts have the best
chances to become a successful product. The iterative behavior of the design cycle is perhaps better represented by the
Concept selection requires the evaluation, of concepts with respect to some design-build-test cycle shown in figure 5.2. In the diagram, two different design
cycles are represented by the inner and outer loops. The first loop represent
criteria comparing their relative strengths and weaknesses in order to select
the design cycle when new or complex technologies are being use. In this case,
one or more concepts for further evaluation and testing. Here, evaluation
should be understood as the process of comparison and decision making. The building a physical model and testing it is the only approach possible.
concept selection phase usually requires at least three steps: The outer loop represent a more common approach where no physical de-
vices are build until the very end of the process. Here, the time and expense
1. Estimate the technical feasibility of the concepts. All those con- of building physical models is eliminated by developing analytical models and
cepts that are regarded as not feasible or ill-conceived are quickly dis- simulating the concept before anything is build. All the iterations occurs with-
carded. out building any prototypes as all ideas are represented by means of analytical
models and graphical representations, usually with the help of computers.
2. Concept screening. Concepts are compared roughly in relative terms
against a common reference concept. Those that do not offer any advan- Regardless of which design path is chosen, several benefits arises when a struc-
tage or fail to fulfill the requirements of the customer are discarded. tured approach is followed to select concepts. Probably the most most im-
portant is that because concepts are compared against customer needs, the
3. Concept scoring. A more detailed comparison is carried out including selected concept is likely to be focused on the customer. Other benefits may
more information about the concepts for finer resolution. include a reduced time to product introduction and effective decision making.
Copyright 2006
101 5.1 Estimating Technical Feasibility 5.1 Estimating Technical Feasibility 102
DESIGN
Simulatable represent a problem to estimate as different people will give values that can
technology
Design
vary by orders of magnitude.
prototypes Iterate
What allows an engineer to become more familiar with derived dimensions is
Analytical models to associate them with known values. For example, one might realize that
Iterate and graphical drawings
BUILD to refine concept 2000W is 3hp, the common power for a lawnmower; or that 0.1MPa is 1atm,
and product the atmospheric pressure at sea level. It is said that a skilled engineer will
Build prototypes Test physical have at least three readily understood reference levels for every dimensional
with each closer protoypes
to the final product unit such as power, energy, pressure, force, acceleration, etc. Table 5.1 shows
TEST some approximated values for different units to be used as reference.
Build final
product The “gut feeling” reactions to the generated concepts are worth exploring since
they have different implications and may induce the individual or design team
to discard potentially good ideas or adapt potentially dangerous ones.
Figure 5.2: Design evaluation cycles. After Ullman (2003). It will never work. Before discarding concepts that appears to be infeasible
or unworkable, consider it briefly from different points of view before reject it.
5.1 Estimating Technical Feasibility As a guideline, before rejecting the concept answer the following questions:
• Why it is not technologically feasible?

When concepts are generated, members of the design team may experience
• Does it meet the requirements of the customer?
feelings about the idea that can be grouped in three main reactions:
• Is the concept different from the rest?
1. It will never work • Is the concept an original idea?
2. It may work depending on something else

To answer the first two cases, where more attention is deserved, the methods
3. It is an idea worth considering 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
The above judgments regarding technical feasibility are based on the expe- “not invented here” syndrome.
rience of the design team and the individual engineers and their ability to It may work depending on something else. This reaction is product of
estimate correctly. In general, it is safe to say that the more experience, the a doubt in the design team due to internal or external requirement that may
more chances the decision will be reliable at this point. Fortunately, estimating be judged to be either non-existent or not ready for consideration. Typical
is a skill that any person can learn and cultivate to a very good degree. question to be made in order to get insight of this reaction are:
According to Otto and Wood (2001), the estimating skill of an engineer is
dependent mainly on familiarity with dimensional units and with the differ- • Is the technology needed available?
ent values along the dimensions. This familiarity takes place in two different • Is the technology ready for production?
levels of abstraction. First, perceived units like length or mass usually repre- • Is all information needed readily available?
sent no problem as everyone can associate their dimensions with day-to-day
experiences. On the other hand, derived units like energy or power, usually • Is is dependent on other parts of the product?
Copyright 2006
Power Energy Mass Force Pressure Acceleration Velocity Length
(W) (J) (kg) (N) (MPa) (m/s2 ) (m/s) (m) 103
−6
10 Ant crawling up Moving 5g snail: 1” × 1” piece Electrostatic attraction Moon surface: 0.13 × Centripetal acceleration of Tip speed of a wrist watch Human hair
−9
a wall at 0.56μJ kinetic of paper: 40 between electron and 10 MPa a regular clock hour hour hand: 20μm/s. 10’ thickness:
1cm/s: 33μW energy ×10−6 kg proton in hydrogen hand: 0.3μm/s2 snow accumulation rate 30μm
atom: 0.08μN over 2 winter months:
0.1μm/s
10−3 LED: 40mW Bee in flight: Grape: 10g Piece of paper, weight: Blood pressure: 16 × Centripetal acceleration of Tip speed of a wrist watch Book cover
2 mJ kinetic Penny: 3g 0.04N 10−3 MPa. Mars a regular clock minute minute hand: 1mm/s thickness: 2mm
2
energy atmosphere: 0.8× hand: 1 mm/s Speed of tide rising from
10−3 MPa low to high: 0.1 mm/s
c
1 Small flashlight: A small apple Small meal or a Small apple, weight: 1N 10m underwater: 0.10 MPa Fast car acceleration: Falling body after 1/10s: Person’s height:
Copyright 2006
10W lifted 1m in large snack: Finger force for 1atm = 0.10MPa 3m/s2 . Hard braking 1m/s. Walking speed: 2m
gravity: 1J. 1kg appliance buttons: 7N Piston engine car: 7m/s2 . Earth gravity 1.5m/s
A small apple compression pressure: at sea level: 9.8m/s2
falling 1m: 1J 1.3 MPa
kinetic energy
100 Bright light 140km/hr fast ball: Average Bag of potatoes, weight: Piston engine firing Humans black out: 40 Highway speed: 30m/s Soccer field
bulb: 100W 114J kinetic person: 100N pressure: 3.5MPa m/s2 . Belly flopping Jetliners: 250m/s length: 100m
Typical energy 70kg hard in water from a 10m Height of the
household diving board jump, Statue of
appliance: causing broken bones: Liberty: 93m
2
100-1000W 100m/s .
103 Small lawn Energy effectively Mid-sized car: Two small people, Pressure to create a Marble dropped from 1m 3 times the speed of Width of a small
mower extractable 1300kg weight: 1.5kN diamond: 5GPa stopping in sand, sound: 1km/s town: 5km
engine: from a AA Elephant: Deep ocean trench: Head-on car collision
2000W battery: 1kJ 5000kg 0.11GPa occupant deceleration:
D-sized battery: 10km/s2 . Bullet fired
80kJ from a rifle: 60km/s2
6
10 Electrical power Car @ 130km/h: A 747 fully Boeing 747: 1MN Center of the Earth: 0.40× Projectile fired from a rail Voyager 1 traveling in Dallas, TX to
to a small 1 MJ kinetic loaded: thrust. 106 MPa gun: 800km/s2 outer space: 17km/s Denver, CO or
town: 1MW energy 300,000kg Boston MA to
Automotive Ocean liner: Pittsburgh PA:
Battery: 5MJ 107×106kg 1000km
Dr. José Carlos Miranda. Todos los derechos reservados.

109 Electrical power USS Nimitz Aircraft carrier: Saturn V or Space Center of the sun: Centrifugal acceleration of Speed of light in Earth to moon:
plant: 1GW 91,400 tons @ 0.5×109kg Shuttle: 20 ×109 MPa light trapped in a black vacuum: 3.84×109m
30 knots: 9.9 0.2 GN thrust hole: 2×1013 m/s2 3×108m/s
GJ kinetic energy
Table 5.1: Approximate reference values on different dimensions (adapted). After Otto & Wood (2001).
5.1 Estimating Technical Feasibility
5.2
design process.
c
5.2 Concept screening
5. Rate the concepts.
Copyright 2006
6. Rank the concepts.
concepts whenever possible.
4. Prepare the selection chart.
8. Select one or more concepts.

Concept screening
1. Choose the criteria for comparison.
7. Combine and improve the concepts.

2. Choose which concepts will be evaluated.
Concept screening is based on the following steps:
3. Decide on a reference concept to be used as a datum.

develop a deeper knowledge about the concept in order to evaluate it.
in the last case, it should be pondered if other parts of the product could be
Step 1: Choose the criteria for comparison. To start, it is necessary

see if it is available and if it is already mature or can be by the time the product
to know the basis on which the different concepts will be compared with each
the concepts between themselves based on common criteria and to improve the
Concept screening is a technique based on a method developed by Stuart Pugh
evaluate, since knowledge and experience are an important part for the evalu-
modified to accommodate the intended design without causing a delay in the
In the first two cases, the technology needed should be carefully examined to
ation of its feasibility. The methods described later in the chapter will help to
It is an idea worth considering. This is generally the hardest case to
reach production. In the third case, serious consideration should be given to
104
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
decide if it is worth waiting for more information to become available. Finally,
105 5.2 Concept screening 5.2 Concept screening 106
other. During QFD, an effort was made to develop a set of customer require- Concepts
ments. This requirements are generally well suited to be used as a criteria for
Datum Concept Concept Concept Concept Concept
comparison. In some cases, when the concepts are well refined, engineering B C D E F
Selection Criteria
targets may be used instead.
Criterion 1
Step 2: Choose which concepts will be evaluated. After concept gen- Criterion 2
eration several options where available. These options where narrowed down Criterion 3
discarding those concepts that were not technically feasible. From the options Criterion 4
left, choose the group to be evaluated. If more than 12 concepts are to be
Criterion 5
considered, the design team can vote to select the 12 concepts that will be
Criterion 6
compared.
Criterion 7
Step 3: Decide on a reference concept to be used as a datum. To Sum +’s
select a reference concept or datum, the design team can follow several ap- Sum 0´s
proaches. If the company already has a current product, it may serve well as Sum −’s
a well understood concept. Other option is to use a competitive product that
Net Score
the team wish to superpass. Pugh (1990) recommends using as a datum the
Rank
concept that the team vote best.
Continue?
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 Figure 5.3: Template for the Pugh selection chart.
step is to prepare the selection chart. For that purpose the template shown in
figure 5.3 can be of help.
Ullman (2003):
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 • If a concept or group of similar concepts has a good overall total score
is better than the datum for the current criterion, a − if the concept is worse or a high + total score, it is important to notice what strengths they ex-
than the datum and a 0 or an S (“same”) if the concept is judged to be about hibit, that is, which criteria they meet better than the datum. Likewise,
the same as the datum or there is some ambivalence. If the decision matrix is groupings of − scores will show which requirements are especially hard
carried out in a spreadsheet use +1, 0 and −1 for scoring. It is advisable to to meet.
to rate every concept on one criterion before moving to the next.
• If most concepts get the same score on a certain criterion, examine that
Step 6: Rank the concepts. After all the concepts have been rated for criterion closely. It may be necessary to develop more knowledge in the
each one of the criterion, four scores are generated: the number of +’s, the area of the criterion in order to generate better concepts.
number of −’s, the number of 0’s 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. 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
Step 8: Combine and improve the concepts. After the concepts have the following questions:
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
• Is there a generally good concept which is degraded by one bad feature?
Copyright 2006
107 5.2 Concept screening 5.2 Concept screening 108
• Can a minor modification improve the overall concept and yet preserve
Removable Removable Removable
a distinction from the other concepts? Washable Scraper Unit
Chamber Blade
• 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 se-
lection chart and ranked along the original concepts.
Selection Criteria
Step 9: Select one or more concepts. Once the above steps have been Cost 0 + _ + 0
carried out, and the design team is satisfied with their understanding of each
Store Grinder 0 + + + 0
concept, its strengths and weaknesses, it is time to decide which concepts _ _
Put in Beans 0 0 0
should be selected for further refinement and analysis. The design team should
Take Out Coffee 0 _ _ _ _
also clarify if issues need to be investigated further before a final decision can
be made. In addition, decisions should be made if the screening matrix has Power Setup 0 0 0 0 0
provided enough resolution and if another round of concept screening should be Cleanable 0 _ 0 _ 0
performed. If concept screening has not provided enough resolution, concept Development Risk 0 + _ + 0
scoring should be applied next. la An example of a Pugh chart for the redesign Sum +’s 0 3 1 3 0
of a coffee grinder is shown in figure 5.4. In this example, presented by Otto & Sum 0´s 7 2 2 1 6
Wood (2001), the goal was to evaluate different concepts all restricted to the
Sum −’s 0 2 4 3 1
use of a chopper. Several ideas were developed to improve the grinder, focusing
Net Score 0 1 −3 0 −1
on cleaning functions. The criteria for the redesign evaluation gathered directly
from customer needs and engineering specifications are as follows: Rank 2 1 4 2 3
Figure 5.4: Pugh chart for coffee mill redesign concepts regarding cleanability.
• Cost: unit manufacturing cost (development and delivery costs were not Adapted from Otto & Wood (2001).
considered). Measured in $.
• Store grinder: facility to put away in a cabinet out of sight. Measured • Cleanable: Time or steps needed from the point where the coffee has
in cm3 . been taken out until the point of being spotless. Measured in number of
steps or seconds.
• Put in beans: Time elapsed between the beans are in a bag until the • Development risks: Difficulty getting a working alpha prototype. Mea-
chopper switch can be activated. Measured in seconds. sured in number of potential faults or difficulties.
• Take out coffee: Time elapsed between removing all grounds until all
the coffee is poured into a coffee maker. Measured in seconds. 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
• Power setup: Time elapsed between the grinder is plugged in until the same. Therefore, although it was an important criterion for the product, it
switch can be activated. Measured in seconds. 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
Copyright 2006
109 5.3 Concept scoring 5.3 Concept scoring 110
candidate for further development. Concepts
Datum B C D
5.3 Concept scoring Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted
Selection Criteria Weight Rating Rating Rating Rating
Score Score Score Score
Ease of use
Concept scoring is a technique very similar to concept screening and it is used Readability of settings
when increased resolution will better differentiate among concepts. In this Ease of handling
method, the teams weight the relative importance of the selection criteria and Dose metering accuracy
Durability
focuses on more refined comparisons with respect to each criterion. The steps
Ease of manufacture
to use the method are as follows: Portability
Total Score
Rank
1. Choose the criteria for comparison. Continue?
2. Choose which concepts will be evaluated.

Figure 5.5: Template for a concept scoring matrix.
3. Decide on whether only one concept will be used as a datum or, if dif-
ferent concepts will be used as reference for different criteria.
4. Prepare the selection chart and decide the weight for each criterion. it will be seen later. For this reason, many times different concepts are used
5. Rate the concepts. as reference for different criteria.
6. Rank the concepts. Step 4: Prepare the selection chart and decide the weight for each
7. Combine and improve the concepts. criterion. The selection charts for the scoring method is very similar to Pugh
8. Select one or more concepts. 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 figure 5.5. The weight for each
As most of the steps are identical to the concept screening ones, only those criterion is usually defined as the percentage of importance that the criterion
different will be discussed next. has relative to the other criteria. Each percentage is defined such that the sum
of all different percentages is 100%. An example illustrating the use of weights
Step 3: Decide on whether only one concept will be used as a datum is shown in figure 5.6 where three different cars are compared in base to four
or if different concepts will be used as reference for different criteria. different criteria: fuel consumption, cost of spare parts, simplicity of servicing
Although a single reference concept can be used for the comparative ratings of and comfort. Each criterion has its own weight defined by some chosen rules:
all criteria as in the screening method, this is not always appropriate. Unless fuel consumption weight is 50%, the cost of spare parts has a weight of 20%,
by pure coincidence the reference concept is of average performance relative easy to maintain 10% and finally, comfort 10%. It is easy to see in this example
to all criteria, the use of the same reference concept for the evaluation of that the sum of all weights is 100%.
each criterion may lead to what is known as the “scale compression effect”.
Consider, for example, that the reference concept to be used as datum is In many ocassions, the selection of the right weighting factors can be a cum-
better than the rest in 1 criterion. If this is the case, all the concepts could bersome task, specially if many different criteria have to be taken into account.
be evaluated only as “same as” or “worse than”, effectively compressing the One alternative is to use a objectives tree that includes weighting for each cri-
evaluation scale to 2/3. This effect applies independently of the scale used, as terion. To show how objectives trees are constructed, consider the objective
Copyright 2006
Car A Car B Car C 1
Selection Criteria Weight Parameter Value Rating Score Value Rating Score Value Rating Score 1.0 1.0
Low fuel Miles per
consumption 50% galon 33 2 1.0 40 4 2.0 36 3 1.5
Low cost of Cost of 5

spare parts 20% typical parts £18 7 1.4 £22 5 1.0 £28 2 0.4
11 12 13
Simplicity Very Com−
Easy to maintain 10% of servicing simple 5 0.5 plicated 2 0.2 Average 3 0.3
0.25 0.25 0.60 0.60 0.15 0.15
Comfort Very
High comfort 20% rating Poor 2 0.4 good 5 1.0 Good 4 0.8
Total Score 3.3 4.2 3.0

Rank 2 1 3
121 122 131 132
Figure 5.6: Scoring matrix for three alternative motorcars. Adapted from 0.75 0.45 0.25 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.70 0.11
Cross (1994).
1211 1212
tree in figure 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 0.50 0.22 0.50 0.22
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 first would
be represented by the number 11, the second by the number 12, the third by
1.0 = 0.25 + 0.22 + 0.22 + 0.15 + 0.05 + 0.11
the number 13, an so on. If the second criterion, number 12 has two criterions
that must be considered, then the first one will be identified by the number Figure 5.7: An objetive tree with weighting factors.
121 and the second one by the number 122. If the criterion identified by the
number 121 has to be divided into two different criteria, then the first 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 for 0.25, mechanical behavior for 0.60 and cost of manufacturing for 0.15.
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 Mechanical behavior was divided in two criteria, first, strenght (121) which
criterion to the total 100%. accounted for 0.75 of the original 0.60 specified for mechanical behavior, and
second, freedom from resonance (122) which accounted for 0.25 of the original
This procedure is better explained through an example. The above objectives 0.60. It is important to stress at this point that the sum of weights of factors
tree was constructed to aid in the selection of weighting factors for the se- which have the same parent and are at the same level must be 1.0 or 100% (here
lection of a mechanical component. The main factors for the selection of the 0.75 + 0.25 = 1.0). It was considered to divided strenght further into two more
component were specified as how safe the component was (criterion 11), its specific criteria, both with the same weight, stiffness (1211) and maximum
mechanical behaviour (criterion 12) and and its cost of manufacturing (crite- allowable stress in the component (1212). Carrying out the products, the final
rion 13). Since these three factors must add 100%, or 1 for short, then 1.0 weight for stiffness is 0.22, which is the same value for the maximum stress
have to be divided between these factors. It was decided that safety accounted criterion.
Copyright 2006
TEST RIG CONCEPTS Renuzit

Do Baking Cedar Vented Activated
BOTTOM−RIGHT HINGE Nothing Air Soda Chips Walls Carbon
SCORING MATRIX Reference B C D Freshner
Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted Selection Criteria Weight Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
Performance
(olfactory distance − ft) 50% 0 0 70 35 70 35 80 40 20 10 90 45
Safety 0.25
Stiffness 0.22 Cost 25% 100 25 52 13 76 19 84 21 100 25 20 5
Max. allowable stress 0.22
Ease of replacement 13% 100 12.5 70 9 90 11 40 5 100 13 20 3
Freedom from resonance 0.15
Frequency of
Cost of tooling 0.05 12% 100 12.5 0 0 50 6 67 8 100 13 67 8
Replacement
Cost of materials 0.11
Total
Score 50 57 71 74 61 61
Total Score
Rank Rank 6 5 2 1 3 4
Continue?
Figure 5.9: Concept scoring matrix for the selection of odor control alterna-
Figure 5.8: An objetive tree with weighting factors. tives. Adapted from Otto & Wood (2001).
Finally, the cost of manufacturing was divided into two more specific 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 Sometimes a 10 or more levels scale is used, but its use is discouraged as it
tooling final weight is 0.05 and the final weight for cost of materials is 0.11. requires more time and effort. For example, figure 5.10 presents a scoring ma-
trix for an outpatient syringe where four different concepts are been evaluated.
As final observation about objectives trees, it is important to notice that the Note that in this example a 5 levels scale is being used and that different con-
sum of weights of each level is always 1 as shown in figure 5.7 for the final cepts serve as datum for different criteria. This example is different from the
level. In figure 5.8 the final template for the scoring matrix for this problem one presented in figure 5.6 where a 10 levels scale is used.
is presented.
Step 6: Rank the concepts. Once the ratings have been specified for each
Step 5: Rate the concepts. Similar to the procedure followed in the screen- criterion, the weighted score is obtained multiplying the rating for the weight
ing method, here each concept is rated using a simple comparative scale. As of the criteria. The total score for each concepts is simply the sum of all
more detail is needed, a more detailed rating scale is generally used. A common weighted scores. Finally, each concept is given a rank corresponding to its
option is to use a 5 levels scale: total score.
Another example showing a more elaborated scoring matrix is presented by

Otto & Wood (2001). The matrix, shown in figure 5.9, helped the design
Relative performance Rating team to evaluate between different alternatives to control the odors in a cat
Much worse than reference 1 litter box. The careful reader should notice that the rating scale used in
Worse than reference 2 this example goes from 0 to 100, which at first sight may look unnecessary.
Nevertheless, in this case a 0-100 scale was chosen as the team had high-quality
Same as reference 3
information about the relative performance of each concept regarding each one
Better than reference 4 of the criteria. This high-quality information is usually gathered directly from
Much better than reference 5 testing and experimentation, and it is not influenced by the opinion of the
design team members.
Copyright 2006
115 5.4 Concept Testing 5.4 Concept Testing 116
5.4 Concept Testing • Which of several alternatives should be pursued?
• How the concept may be improved to better meet customer needs?

In the concept selection process, it is very likely that some form of customer’s
response will be needed in order to further discuss the possibilities of the • Approximately how many units are likely to be sold?
proposed concepts. In order to communicate the idea of the concept and to • Should development be continued?
measure the response of the customer, in some cases simple verbal descriptions
or drawings will suffice. 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 5.4.2. Choosing a survey It is necessary to define the number of possible
feasibility of the concepts and the sales potential of the product. population customers to survey and in what market segments
they will be. This selection is carried out in a
Concept testing is carried out to facilitate decision-making during final concept similar fashion as the selection of customers in the “Identifying customer needs
selection stages, generally after some detailed design has been done. Concept phase”. It is important, however, to have in mind that concept testing is a
testing is not necessary when: much more expensive activity.
The most important question to answer is how large the survey population
• time required to test the concept is large relatively to the product life should be. Some useful guidelines are outlined next.
cycle.
Factors favoring a smaller sample size:
• cost of testing is large relative to the cost of actually launching the prod-
uct.
• Test occurs early in the concept development process.
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) presents a 6 steps methodology for testing product • Test is primarly intended to gather qualitative data.
concepts:
• Surveying potential customers is relatively costly in time and money.
1. Definition of the purpose of the concept test. • Required investment to develop and launch the product is relatively
small.
2. Choosing of a survey population.
• A relatively large fraction of the target market is expected to value the
3. Choosing of a survey format.
product.
4. Communication of the concept.
Factors favoring a larger sample size:
5. Measurement of customer response.
6. Interpretation of results. • Test occurs later in the concept development process.
• Test is primarily intended to assess demand quantitatively.

5.4.1. Concept testing In this initial step, the design team should clarify
purpose what questions they want to answer with the test. It • Surveying customers is relatively fast and inexpensive.
is essential to define what the test or experiment is
for. Some typical questions are: • Required investment to develop and launch the product is relatively high.
Copyright 2006
117 5.4 Concept Testing 5.4 Concept Testing 118
• A relatively small fraction of the target market is expected to value the 5.4.5. Measure customer Most concept test surveys first communicate the
product. response product concept and then measure customer re-
sponse. Although is good practice to include ques-
Concept tests can be done in the early stages of the development process to tions to measure customer response to product concepts, in many occasions
solicit feedback on the basic concept. concept test generally attempt to measure purchase intent. A useful scale to
measure purchase intent may be:
5.4.3. Choosing a survey The following formats are commonly used in con-
format cept testing: • Definitely would buy
• face-to-face interaction • Probably would buy
• telephone • Might or might not buy

• postal mail • Probably would not buy
• electronic mail • Definitely would not buy
• internet
5.4.6. Interpreting results Usually interpretation is straightforward if the
It is important to realize that each of these formats presents risks of sample design team is just comparing two or more con-
bias. cepts. It is important, though, to be sure that customers understood the key
differences among concepts.
5.4.4. Communicating the The way in which the concept will be surveyed,
concept is closely related to the way in which the concept
will be communicated. Communication of the References
concept can be carried out by the following means:
• verbal descriptions 1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons.
2. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse
• sketch Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall.
• photos and renderings 3. Pugh, S. (1990) Total Design, Addison Wesley.
4. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process, Third Edition. McGraw-
• storyboard Hill.
• video 5. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Irwin
McGraw-Hill.
• simulation
• interactive multimedia
• physical appearance models
• working prototypes
Copyright 2006
119 5.4 Concept Testing
CHAPTER 6
Concepts
Embodiment design
A B C D
Master Cylinder Lever Stop Swash Ring Dial Screw
Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted

As a design task, concept embodiment is perhaps the one that is most identified
Ease of use 5% 3 0.15 3 0.15 4 0.2 4 0.2
Readability of settings 15% 3 0.45 4 0.6 4 0.6 3 0.45
with engineers as in this phase of the design process the choice of components,
Ease of handling 10% 2 0.2 3 0.3 5 0.5 5 0.5 interfaces, materials, dimensions, shapes, tolerances, surface finishes, union
Dose metering accuracy 25% 3 0.75 3 0.75 2 0.5 3 0.75 methods, manufacturing and assembly processes, etc., are carried out.
Durability 15% 2 0.3 5 0.75 4 0.6 3 0.45
Ease of manufacture 20% 3 0.6 3 0.6 2 0.4 2 0.4 In order to make wise choices, engineers should be able to understand throughly
Portability 10% 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3
Total Score 2.75 3.45 3.10 3.05
the design, its functionality, objectives and constraints. Is in this stage
Rank 4 1 2 3 where engineers apply their skills in mathematics and basic science.
Continue? No Develop No No Regardless of size, complexity or cost, products must be effectively modeled,
tested and, whenever possible, refined. Methods for concept embodiment must
Figure 5.10: Concept scoring matrix for an outpatient syringe. The reference aid in this process.
points for each criterion are signified by bold rating values. Adapted from
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000).
6.1 Product Architecture
Product architecture is the the definition of the layout of systems, sub-systems

and components according to their functional purposes. This definition 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
refinement.
Copyright 2006
121 6.1 Product Architecture 6.1 Product Architecture 122
Product Architecture
Product Architecture for the Product and Common Derivatives Pros Cons
Type Product Derivatives Type Characteristics Improves device reconfigurability May make devices look too similar
Handheld vegetable peeler Fisted vegetable peeler Fixed unsharing Shares no common components Increases the device variety and speed of Makes imitation of device easier by competitors
Integral Wooden pencil #1, #3 lead pencils Modular platform Differing lead hardness introduction for new devices
Kitchen knife Kitchen knife set Modular platform Parametric handle size Improves maintainability and serviceability Reduces device performance
Modular architecture
Swiss Army Knife Complex knives Modular platform Expanding width of device
PC computer More RAM, devices Adjustable for purchase Standard interfaces
Decouples development tasks (and Modular design may be more expensive than
Modular Black and Decker cordless VersaPak line of power Common battery
Modular platform manufacturing to some extent) integral design
drill tools Common motor
Standard interfaces
Tinkertoys Theme sets Adjustable for use Harder for competitors to copy design Hinders change of design in production
Component variety
Tighter coupling of team with less interface Reduces the variety of devices that can be
Integral architecture problems produced
Figure 6.1: Product architecture examples. After Otto & Wood (2001). Increases system performance
Possible reduction in system cost
Product architecture is also related what is called portfolio architecture. Port- Figure 6.2: Comparison of modular and integral architectures. After Otto &
folio Architecture relates to a group or family of products, where design strat- Wood (2001).
egy revolves around how to share components or subsystems across products
in the portfolio. Figure 6.1 shows some examples of product and portfolio
architecture. types: slot, bus and sectional. These three types, shown in figure 6.3, are
explained next.
6.1.1. Types of product In general terms, product architecture can be di- Slot-modular architecture. Each of the interfaces between modules in a
architecture vided in two main types: integral architecture and slot-modular architecture is of a different type from the others, so that the
modular architecture. Each type has its own ad- various modules in the product cannot be interchanged. An example of this
vantages and disadvantages as shown in figure 6.2. 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 fit in only one
A product has an integral architecture when no attempt is made to divide place.
functions into components or systems resulting in on a very small number of
physical elements carrying out all functions of the product. Integral architec- Bus-modular architecture. In a bus-modular architecture, there is a com-
ture is common for high-volume products where cost is not reduced through mon bus to which the other modules connect via the same type of interface.
sharing components but through easiness of assembly. This results in products An example of bus-modular architecture are the floppy drive, DVD, CDRW
with fewer components but much function sharing. and battery that connects to a bay in a laptop using the same interface.
Modular product architecture is the result of dividing product functions into Sectional-modular architecture. In a sectional-modular architecture, all
a similar number of blocks or modules that perform a limited set of func- interfaces are of the same type, but there is no single element to which all the
tions. Ideally, a one-to-one correspondence between modules and functions is other modules attach. The assembly is built up by connecting the modules
achieved. In practice, modularity is not strict, and generally speaking, prod- each other via identical interfaces. An example may be modular office furniture
ucts are neither fully modular or fully integral. Rather, a given product will that can be arrange in different ways depending on the modules used.
present more or less modularity than another comparative product.
Slot-modular architectures are the most common type of modular architecture
According to Ulrich (1995), modular architecture can be classified in three because for most products, different modules require different interfaces to
Copyright 2006
Product variety
Product variety refers to the amount of different products that any given com-
pany can manufacture over a period of time. Product variety generally respond
Slot−Modular Bus−Modular Sectional−Modular
Architecture Architecture Architecture 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.
Figure 6.3: Three types of modular architectures. After Ulrich & Eppinger An example is Swatch watches, where hundreds of different combinations can
(2000) be achieved choosing different components during assembly.
accommodate unique interactions with the rest of the system.

Component standardization
6.1.2. Implications of the Even when the architecture of a product is ini-

Component standardization is the use of the same components or modules in
architecture tially defined, at least informally, since the con-
multiple products. This standardization allows the manufacturer to minimize
cept generation stage, formal decisions are made
cost and increase quality through the production of larger volumes and the
during the embodiment design phase. Product architecture is one of the devel-
refined design of such common components. An example are cars within same
opment decisions that plays a major impact in the ability to deliver a variety of
or sister companies that share many parts and subsystems.
products with standard components that allows better product performance,
manufacturability and maintenance.
Product Performance
Product change
Product performance is related to how well the final product meets customer
requirements in terms of intended functions. Some examples of typical per-
Modules are the building blocks of the product and the architecture defines how formance measures are speed, acceleration, efficiency, life, accuracy and noise.
this blocks relate to the function of the product and how the blocks interact Here, architecture can facilitate the optimization of performance characteris-
with each other. If each module is responsible for certain isolated functions, it tics by means of integration and function sharing. Function sharing refers to
would be possible to replace or change any given module without affecting the the implementation of multiple functions through a single module or compo-
rest of the product. The contrary is true for an integral architecture, where nent. Function sharing can help to optimize a design, but trade offs in the
changing one part of the product may have an influence in the functions carried advantages of modular architecture have to be considered by the design team.
out by the rest of it. Some of the motives for product change are:
• Upgrades Manufacturability
• Add-ons
As discussed above, product architecture can influence the manufacturing cost
• Adaptation through product variety and component standardization. In addition, many
• Wear decisions regarding the architecture of a product influence the easiness of man-
ufacturing as many complicated modules can be produced in larger volumes
• Consumption
to reduce cost or many functions can be implemented in a single module to
• Flexibility in use and reuse. reduce either parts or manufacturing operations.
Copyright 2006
6.1.3. Establishing the Due to the importance of product architecture in

architecture subsequent steps of the product design process, it
should be throughly discussed by the team design
and established in a cross-functional fashion. At the end of this step, an ap-
proximate geometric layout of the product, description of the major modules
and documentation about the interaction between modules should be obtained. Enclose
Printer
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) suggest to follow a four steps approach that will be
illustrated using a DeskJet printer as an example. The four recommended Print
Cartridge
steps are: Provide
Structural
Support
1. Create a schematic of the product. Position Accept
Display
Cartridge User
2. Cluster the elements of the schematic. in X−Axis Inputs Status
3. Create a rough geometric layout.

4. Identify the fundamental and incidental interactions. Position
Store
Output Paper
in Y−Axis
Step 1: Create a schematic of the product. A schematic is a diagram Control
showing the constituent elements of a product as understood by the design Printer
team. It is important that the schematic reflects the best understanding of the Store
"Pick"
Blank
team, although great detail is not necessary at this step. For the purpose of Paper Supply
Paper
DC
establishing product architecture, some authors recommend to aim for fewer Power
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.
Communicate
Command
Flow of forces or energy with
In figure 6.4 The schematic for a DeskJet printer is shown. Many elements in Host
Printer
Flow of material
the schematic represent physical components such as the print cartridge, while
Flow of signals or data
other elements represent functional elements such as store output. Functional
Connect
elements are those that have not yet been reduced to physical concepts or to
components, requiring further discussion by the design team in order to achieve Host
a final decision about how they will be implemented. On the other hand,
components that have been reduced to physical components are generally those Figure 6.4: Schematic of the DeskJet printer. Note the presence of both
that are central to the basic product concept that the team has generated and functional elements (e.g., “Store Output”) and physical elements (e.g., “Print
selected. Cartridge”). For clarity, not all connections among elements are shown. After
Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
Step 2: Cluster the elements of the schematic. In this step, the objective
is to assign the different elements in the schematic into specific modules. As
in the previous step, the assignment of elements into modules is not unique,
and the design team will be faced with different viable alternatives that can
range from the few to the hundreds.
Copyright 2006
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:
Enclosure • Geometric integration and precision. In some cases, it is convenient

to cluster elements that control certain functions that are related between
Enclose
Printer themselves. Elements requiring precise location or close geometric inte-
Print gration can often be best designed if they are part of the same module.
Cartridge In the case of the DeskJet, this principle would suggest clustering the
Provide elements associated with positioning the cartridge and the paper.
Structural User Interface Board
Support
Position Accept
User Display • Function sharing. When a single device can implement several differ-
Chassis Cartridge
Inputs Status ent functions, it is best to cluster the related components together. For
in X−Axis
the DeskJet it was believed that that the status display and the user
controls could be incorporated into the same component.
Store Position
Output Paper
in Y−Axis • Capability of vendors. If a specific vendor is know for its capacity
Control
Power Cord
in developing and manufacturing certain components, it is best if those
Printer
Store and "Brick" components are cluster together. This will help the vendor to integrate
"Pick"
Blank more efficiently the said components.
Paper Supply
Paper
DC
Power
Paper Tray Print • Similarity of design or production technology. When two or more
Mechanism components are designed or manufactured using the same or similar tech-
nology is best to cluster them in order to save costs. An typical example
Communicate
Command of the application of this principle is the clustering of several electronic
Flow of forces or energy with
Host
Printer devices into a single circuit board.
Flow of material
Flow of signals or data Host Driver
Software • Localization and change. If the design team anticipates that a com-
Connect
to
ponent will suffer several changes over time, it is best to isolate that
Host component into its own module. In the case of the DeskJet, the engi-
Logic Board neers decided that the printer would suffer cosmetic shape modifications
and decided to isolate the enclosure into its own module.
Figure 6.5: Clustering the elements into modules. Nine modules make up this
• Accommodate variety. If some components of the product will be
proposed architecture for the DeskJet printer. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
changed to satisfy different 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 different
parts of the world with different power standards.
Copyright 2006
• Enabling standardization. When a component or components can be User interface board

used in different products, it is best to isolated them in separate module
or modules. This allows the higher production of the elements in the
Logic
module. An example of this standardization is the printer cartridge in board
the DeskJet printer.
print
• Portability of the interfaces. Some interactions are more easily trans- cartridge Paper tray
mitted 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 fluid connections.
As a result, it is easier to separate elements with electronic and fluid
Print
interactions. In the case of the DeskJet, the flexibility of electrical in- mechanism Chassis
teractions 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
Enclosure
handling mechanism.
Logic board
Step 3: Create a rough geometric layout. Print cartridge
The next step once the general components have been arranged in modules, is Roller/guide
to generate a general geometric layout to analyze if the proposed distribution is Paper
physically possible. This rough sketch can be made out of foam or cardboard, Paper tray
or even as a rough 3-D computer model, as it is not necessary to include
Chassis
great detail. Nevertheless, it should be sufficient to decide whether component
and interface distributions are possible. An example of a geometric layout for Figure 6.6: Geometric layout of the printer. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000)
the DeskJet printer is shown in figure 6.6. In this example, the design team
realized that there was a trade off between the height of the machine and how
much paper could be stored in the paper tray. According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) there are two types of interactions
In many cases, the design team may decide that the geometric layout or the between modules. First, fundamental interactions are those corresponding
clustering chosen are not feasible. In this cases, components may be assigned to the lines on the schematic that connect the chunks to one another (see
to different modules. 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
Step 4: Identify the fundamental and incidental interactions. particular geometric or physical implementation of modules. In the Deskjet
example, the vibration from the actuator in the paper tray could interfere with
It is common practice to divide the design so each module can be assigned the precise location of the print cartridge in the x−axis.
to an specific person or team. Since the different modules interact in one
way or another, different persons or teams have to constantly coordinate their Even when the principal interaction between modules were described in the
activities and exchange information. To facilitate this interaction, interactions schematic, incidental ones should be documented apart. When the system
between modules have to be identified. includes a reasonable small number of incidental interactions (less than 10),
Copyright 2006
131 6.1 Product Architecture 6.2 Geometry and layout refinement 132
Enclosure
User Interface
Board
6.2 Geometry and layout refinement
Styling
In the quest of creating a robust product, two main activities take place once
Thermal rough concepts have been generated and selected:
Vibration Print Distortion Host Driver
Paper Tray Logic Board
Mechanism Software
Thermal Distortion 1. refining the geometry and architecture of the product,

RF Shielding RF Interference
2. systems modeling toward detail design.
Power Cord
Chassis
and "Brick"
Take for example the electric wok presented by Otto & Wood (2001) shown in
figure 6.8. In this case the design team was faced with the task of improving an
Figure 6.7: Incidental interaction graph. After Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) existing product. As shown, the original concept of the wok evolved to a new
one that included more advanced controls and configurations accommodating
improved product cleaning and storage. As a result of the embodiment design
an incidental interaction graph is convenient. Figure 6.7 shows an example of
phase, components, parts, assemblies and interfaces were clearly defined, from
an interaction graph regarding the DeskJet example. This graph shows that
both geometrical, and functional points of view. Another example of the result
vibration and thermal distortion are two incidental interactions that may affect
of embodiment design is shown in figure 6.9, where an exploded view of the
the performance of the print mechanism. The design team should be careful
PrestoTM hot air popcorn popper is shown.
to address these issues.
In any case, the embodiment process include the following tangible documen-
To define the interactions between modules, flows in material, energy and
tation:
signals must be investigated and refined at each module boundary. These
flows usually define the interactions and the boundaries define the interfaces.
According to Cutherell (1996), four types of interactions are typically investi- • detailed drawings,
gated: • exploded views,
• assembly diagrams,
1. Material interactions: solid, liquids, or gases that flow from one module • tool designing,
to the next. • manufacturing process plans,
• tolerance design,
2. Energy interactions: energies that must be transmitted or shielded be- • packaging,
tween modules. • maintenance and warranty information and
• user’s manual.
3. Information interactions: signals (tactile, acoustic, electrical, visual, etc.)
that must be processed from one module to the next, and
In order to generate the above documentation, some guidelines described next
may be followed. The main objective of these guidelines is to transform a
4. Spatial interactions: geometrical dimensions, degrees-of-freedom, toler- concept sketch into refined geometry and material choices focusing on the
ances, and constraints that must be maintained between modules. functional performance of the product, including all relevant engineering spec-
ifications.
Copyright 2006
133 6.2 Geometry and layout refinement 6.2 Geometry and layout refinement 134
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, specific layouts and parameters are generated
in order to logically chose a given concept from a number of solution alterna-
tives that have been developed. Ideally, the result of this phase is a single
developed concept, in its definitive form, for the product or each subsystem
defined including:
• geometric layout
• material composition
• quality and manufacturability issues
• economics
Figure 6.9: Embodiment example of the PrestoTM hot air popcorn popper.
In practice, the design team may be faced with the situation that further After Otto & Wood (2001)
refinement of the selected concepts is needed before commitment for a single
solution occurs.
Copyright 2006
In this situation, parallel development of the concepts should be carried out.

It is important to try to select one final concept as soon as possible in order
to direct more resources for the development of the final product.
Without doubt, the main challenge of embodiment design is that when param-
Prepare parts lists (BOM), assembly drawings,

eters in the different subsystems or modules change, they usually affect other
Evaluate against customer, technical, robust,
Engineer the dimensions of components
part drawings, product process plans

subsystems or modules, they propagate. This behavior is the result of hav-
Check for robustness and errors

Complete form design with detailed drawings
safety, and business case criteria
3. Preliminary Layout
ing parameters that are highly coupled between product subsystems/modules.
4. Definitive Layout
This scenario means that embodiment design activities of the different sub-
systems/modules must be carried out simultaneously and iteratively. As one
change is made, its effects in the other subsystems/modules are studied and, if
acceptable, the change is approved and its effects 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 refine the geometry and
layout of a product from an abstract form to a well-defined one. Figure 6.10
illustrates this general process.
The process begins defining customer needs and the engineering specifications
that fulfill them. Critical specifications/requirements that will drive the em-
bodiment process are identified. Some examples of critical specifications are:
Define the spatial form with preliminary scale drawings
Develop possible layouts for supporting functions

Select and effective layout for module placement
Inventory required supporting functionality

Develop preliminary layouts possibilities
• size and geometric specifications
Identify the main functional modules

Using the engineering specifications,
• material specifications
identify crucial requirements
Select an effective layout

Fill in the spatial form with scale drawings
for the module placement
• arrangement specifications
2. Concept Layout
1. Concept
After critical specifications 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 Figure 6.10: A general process for concept embodiment. After Pahl & Beitz
• installation paths (1996)
• general arrangement of components relative to one another.
Copyright 2006
Once the sketches have been completed, it should be verify that each product Embodiment Checklist issue
Function Are the customer needs satisfied, as measured by the target values?
subsystem, module, part or assembly fulfills its intended function completely. Is the stipulated product architecture and function(s) fulfilled?
Also, the different sketches should be checked for possible geometry simplifi- What auxiliary or supporting functions are needed?
cations and function sharing. Working principles Do the chosen form solutions (architecture and components per function) produce the desired effects
and advantages?
What disturbing noise factors may be expected?
Based on the results, alternative sketches should be generated if needed. Next,
What byproducts may be expected?
ranges of geometric, materials, and other variables should be established and Layout, geometry Do the chosen layout, component shapes, materials, and dimensions provide
listed for each subsystem/module. Also, decisions regarding the possible use of and materials minimal performance variance to noise (robustness),
standard components in each subsystem/module should be made. This process adequate durability (strength),
efficient material usage (strength-to-mass ratio),
stage is finished by choosing between alternative layouts using the product suitable life (fatigue),
specifications. The scale drawings are updated with the choices made. permissible deformation (stiffness),
adequate force flows (interfaces and strength concentrations),
As the next stage, additional functions that may be needed to carry out sup- adequate stability,
impact resistance,
port and auxiliary requirements should be identified. Then, rough layouts for
freedom from resonance,
these additional functions should be developed ensuring the compatibility of unimpeded expansion and heat transfer, and
all subassembly interfaces. This task usually requires the use of standards, acceptable corrosion and wear with the stipulated service life and loads?
Energy and Do the chosen layout and components provide
mathematical models, design guidelines and experimentation in order to de-
kinematics efficient transfer of energy (efficiency),
termine all appropriate parameters. At the same time, the product should be adequate transient and steady state behavior (dynamics and control across energy domains), and
evaluated against customer, technical, robust, safety an economic criteria and appropriate motion, velocity and acceleration profiles?
the layout should be checked to estimate potential faults. Safety Have all of the factors affecting the safety of the user, components, function, operation, and the
environment been taken into account?
Ergonomics Have the human-machine relationships been fully considered?
The embodiment process concludes with the testing of physical prototypes and Have unnecessary human stress or injurious factors been predicted and avoided?
the design of appropriate tooling. Has attention been paid to aesthetics and economic analysis of the production process, capability, and
suppliers?
Quality control Have standard product tolerances been chosen (not too tight)?
6.2.1. Embodiment A second method to supplement the general embod- Have the necessary quality checks been chosen (type, measurements, and time)?
checklist iment process, is the application of the embodiment check- Assembly Can all internal and external assembly operations be performed simply, repeatedly, an in the
list developed by Pahl & Beitz shown in table 6.1. This correct order (without ambiguity)?
Can components be combined (minimize part count) without affecting modular architectures
table provides a systematic approach to apply proven design principles dur- and functional independence of the product?
ing the embodiment phase. The objective of the list is to ensure robustness, Transport Have the internal and external transport conditions and risks been identified and solved?
clarity, simplicity and safety in a product. Have the required packaging and dunnage been designed?
Operation Have all of the factors influencing the product’s operation, such as noise,
vibration, and handling been considered?
The checklist involves categories of possible engineering specifications, where
Life cycle Can the product, its components, its packaging be reused or recycled?
each category has a set of basic questions that should be exhaustively applied to Have the materials been chosen and clumped to aid recycling?
the product and the different subsystems/modules as they are being detailed. Is the product easily disassembled?
Maintenance Can maintenance, inspection, repair, and overhaul be easily performed and checked?
It should be noted that mathematical models or physical prototypes may be
What features have been added to the product to aid in maintenance?
needed to effectively answer each of the questions. Costs Have the stipulated cost limits been observed?
Will additional operational or subsidiary costs arise?
Schedules Can the delivery dates be met, including tooling?
What design modifications might reduce cycle time and improve delivery?
Table 6.1: Checklist for embodying a product concept. Adapted from Pahl &
Beitz (1996).
Copyright 2006
139 6.3 Trends for the design process 6.3 Trends for the design process 140
6.3 Trends for the design process Market Specifica-

tions
Concept
Design
Detail
Design Manufacture Sell
Iterations
In the last decades technology has brought profound changes in the way en-
gineers design. Computational tools together with methods to increase the Figure 6.11: Depiction of concurrent engineering in the design process. After
communication with all parts involved in the life cycle of a product have short- Pugh (1991).
ened significantly the amount of time needed to put a initial concept or idea
into the market as a final product. From all the techniques that are or have
been applied, concurrent engineering and computer aided tools have been most
significant. Life cycle means that all aspect of the product, such as design, development,
production, distribution, use, disposal, and recycling, are considered simulta-
neously. The basic goals of concurrent engineering are to reduce changes in a
6.3.1. Concurrent Traditionally, design, manufacturing and marketing ac- product’s design and engineering to reduce the time and costs involved in tak-
engineering tivities have taken place sequentially rather than concur- ing the product from its design concept to its production and its introduction
rently or simultaneously. The designer team would spend into the marketplace. Figure 6.11 shows a simple design process models that
large amounts of time analyzing components and preparing detail drawings for makes emphasis in the interaction between phases due to the use of concurrent
a new product. After the design was considered satisfactory, the design team engineering principles.
forwarded the information to the manufacturing team who would, once more,
spend large amounts of time figuring out how to manufacture the product ac-
cording to design specifications. After facilities and manufacturing processes 6.3.2. Design for As discussed above, while designing a product,
were ready for production, the marketing team began to prepare a marketing manufacture and assembly several disciplines must be taken into account.
strategy based on the product features. One of those disciplines that is specially bounded
to the design process is manufacturing. Many times new products have been
Although may seem logical at first, this linear scheme proved to be inadequate. designed only to find out that the technology needed for its manufacturing was
In many occasions the design team ended up with a product that was difficult not readily available.
to manufacture and even difficult to sell. Great efforts were wasted (and some-
times still are) doing re-designs to improve manufacturing and to add features Hence, each component of the product must be designed not only to fulfill
to improve the marketing of the product. engineering requirements but also to be easily and cheaply manufactured. This
emphasis is called design for manufacture, and it groups selection of materials,
To avoid the previous problems it is best to include members of the manu- manufacturing methods, planning, assembly, testing and quality assurance.
facturing and marketing divisions into the design team from the conceptual
stages of the design process. The inclusion of the members will help to achieve The design team must be capable of evaluating the impact that design changes
a better decisions to avoid design features that are difficult to manufacture have in manufacturing processes.
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 After the individual parts have been manufactured, they usually have to be
Concurrent Engineering. assembled to make the final product. The importance of the assemblies can-
not be understated, in many products assembly takes the largest time of the
Kalpakjian & Schmidt (2001) define Concurrent Engineering as a systematic manufacturing process. Much can be done during the design phase to make
approach integrating the design and manufacture of products, with a view the assembly as simple and fast as possible. Figure 6.12 shows some good and
towards optimizing all elements involved in the life cycle of the product. bad design practices regarding assemblies.
Copyright 2006
141 6.3 Trends for the design process 6.3 Trends for the design process 142
111111
000000 111111
000000 1111
0000
000
111
000
111 1111
0000
Material Material Waste
000000
111111 000000
111111
Manufacturing Use
00
1100
11
000
111
000
111 00
11
0011
00
extraction Processing managment
000000
111111 000000
111111 0011
1100
000
111
000
111 1100
11
Bad
000000
111111 000000
111111 00
1100
11
000
111
000
111 00
11
000000
111111
000000
111111 000000
111111
000000
111111 0011
1100
000
111
000
111 0011
1100
00
11
000000
111111Bad 000000
111111
Good
0011
1100
000
111
000
111Bad
0011
1100
Good Good
Recycle Remanufacture Reuse
Figure 6.12: Design considerations for assembly.

Figure 6.13: Stages of a product life cycle. After Otto & Wood (2001).
6.3.4. CAD, CAM, CAE Nowadays, computers are an integral part of the
and CIM conceptual, refinement, evaluation and production
phases of the design process either as engineering
6.3.3. Design for the During the centuries the impact that humans have in or management tools. The use of computers has greatly simplified the rep-
environment the environment has grown steadily as both, popula- resentation, study and construction of analytical models through Computer
tions and its needs, increase. In the last decades, the Aided Design (CAD), Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) and Computer
awareness about the consequences of extracting resources and dumping waste Aided Manufacturing (CAM).
without control has modified the way engineers design.
These tools use computer software to assist in the creation and revision of
If populations is to keep enjoying the advantages of technological advances and engineering drawings and models (CAD), manufacturing (CAM), and analysis
higher standards of living for the centuries to come, products must have little (CAE) of new products.
or no impact in the environment. Design for environment (DFE) is a product
design approach for reducing the impact of products on the environment. The use of CAD/CAM/CAE tools avoids the need of making costly illus-
trations, models and prototypes, shortening the time needed to bring a new
Most of the times, the impact of products into the environment is thought of product from concept to production. Although these tools may be applied in
in terms of their disposal. Nevertheless, products have an impact during all of different parts of the design process, they are better suited for certain parts of
its life cycle from the extraction of the materials it is made from up to their the process (see figure 6.14).
disposal (see figure 6.13).
Regarding Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), Egan and Greene (1989)
Products can have adverse impact on the environment during their manufac- state that the appearance of CIM is based on the recognition that steps in the
ture through the use of polluting processes, the use of high amounts of raw development of a manufactured product are interrelated and can be accom-
materials, or the need of high quantities of energy. They can also have dif- plished effectively and efficiently by using computers.
ferent 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 figure 6.13 there CIM provides a mean to integrate all the steps in the manufacturing process
are many opportunities for recycling, remanufacturing and reuse to reduce en- taking into account processes, specifications, instructions and data that need
vironmental impact. Unfortunately, products that are designed without this to be controlled and organized.
vision in mind are difficult to remanufacture, reuse or even recycle. Design-
ers must use all their knowledge and creativity to create products that are
environmentally friendly products throughout their manufacture, packaging,
transportation, use and disposal.
Copyright 2006
143 6.3 Trends for the design process 6.4 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis 144
Definition of product need;

marketing information
6.4 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
The notion of a reliable product comes from two different parts. First, there is
Conceptual design and evaluation; the minimization of performance variation across different environments and
feasibility study
user conditions. Second, is the assurance that the product will work as in-
tended, without falling short of a given set of customer expectations. The first
Computer Aided part is achieved through customer quality. The second part is achieved through
Design analysis; codes/standards review; Design
physical and analytical models (CAD)
the more fundamental engineering quality. With the latter, it is ensured that
the product has adequate strength, reliability and failure prevention. Tradi-
Computer Aided
Engineering tionally, reliability has been achieved through extensive testing at the end of
(CAE)
Prototype production; testing the design process. A better idea is to design from the early design stages
and evaluation incorporating the concepts of quality and reliability.
Historically, engineers have not been very good at designing with reliability and
Production drawings; quality. In most occasions, engineers use a safety factor as a way of making
instruction manuals
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.
Material specification; process Computer Aided
and equipment selection; safety review Manufacturing
(CAM) Unfortunately, as stated in the Mechanical Engineering magazine:
Computer Aided
Process Planning A large safety factor does not necessarily translate
Pilot production (CAPP) into a reliable product. Instead, it often leads to an
overdesigned product with reliability problems.
Production Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is an analytical methodology used
Computer Integrated
Manufacturing as means for analyzing potential reliability problems early in the product de-
(CIM)
sign process, where it is easier and cheaper to take corrective actions. FMEA
Inspection and quality assurance is used to identify potential failure modes, determine their effect on the use
of the product, and identify counter-actions to correct them. FMEA focuses
on the entire product and not just in the different components and interfaces,
Packaging; marketing and although failure modes may be related to specific components or interfaces.
sales literature
6.4.1. Types of FMEA There are several types of FMEAs, each one with its
own focus and objectives. Independently of the task
Product
at hand, FMEA should always be used whenever failures would mean potential
harm or injury to the user. The types of FMEA are:
Figure 6.14: The use of computer aided tools in the different steps of the design
process (after Kalpakjian & Schmid, 2001). • System FMEA: focuses on global system functions
Copyright 2006
145 6.4 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis 6.4 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis 146
• Design FMEA: focuses on components and subsystems • Capture engineering/organization knowledge
• Process FMEA: focuses on manufacturing and assembly processes • Emphasizes problem prevention
• Service FMEA: focuses on service functions • Documents risk and actions taken to reduce risk
• Software FMEA: focuses on software functions • Provide focus for improved testing and development
• Minimizes late changes and associated cost

6.4.2. FMEA Usage According to the Society of Automotive Engineers (2002),
FMEA supports the product development process in re- • Catalyst for teamwork and idea exchange between functions
ducing the risk of failure by:
In order to effectively apply FMEA, the greatest challenge that the design team
• aiding in the objective evaluation of design requirements and design al- faces is to anticipate what might go wrong with a product. While anticipating
ternatives every possible failure mode is almost always impossible, the development team
should generate a detailed list of potential failures. Some questions that may
• aiding in the initial design for manufacturing and assembly requirements help in this task are (Stamatis, 1995):
• increasing the probability that potential failure modes and their effects
on system operation have been considered in the design/development 1. What does the product do and what are its intended uses?
process
2. How does the product perform its function?
• providing additional information to aid in the planning of through and
efficient design improvements and development testing 3. What raw materials and components are used to build the product?
• providing an open issue format for recommending and tracking risk re- 4. How, and under what conditions does the product interface with other
ducing action products?
• providing future references to aid in analyzing field concerns, evaluating 5. What by-products are created by the product or by the use of the prod-
design changes, and developing advanced designs uct?
6. How is the product used, maintained, repaired, and disposed of at the

Properly used, FMEA provides the engineer with several benefits that include end of its useful life?
(Crow, 2002):
7. What are the manufacturing steps in the production of the product?
• Improve product/process reliability and quality 8. What energy sources are involved and how?
• Increase customer satisfaction 9. Who will use or be in the vicinity of the product, and what are the
capabilities and limitations of these individuals?
• Early identification and elimination of potential product/process failure
modes
The above questions should be aimed to gather information in order to address
• Prioritize product/process deficiencies six basic questions:
Copyright 2006
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 specifications?
3. What circumstances could cause the failure?
4. To what extent might it fail? List of example failure modes
5. What are the potential hazards produced by the failure? Corrosion Ingress Delamination
Fracture Vibrations Erosion
6. What steps should be implemented to prevent the failure?
Material Yield Whirl Thermal shock
Electrical short Sagging Thermal relaxation
6.4.3. Step by step Design The use of FMEA is straightforward consisting
FMEA Analysis of a series of steps. Following the procedure sug- Open Circuit Cracking Bonding failure
gested by Otto & Wood (2000), the 10 steps pro- Buckling Stall Starved for lubrication
cedure is explained in what follows. Resonance Creep Staining
Step 1: List each subassembly and component number, along with the basic Fatigue Thermal expansion Inefficient
functions or function chains of the component. The component numbers may Deflections or deformations Oxidation Fretting
be referenced from a product’s bill of materials. Likewise, the component Seizure UV deterioration Thermal fatigue
functions should be consistent with the functional models and architecture
developed for a product. Any functions listed for a component should concisely Burning Acoustic noise Sticking
represent the design intent. Environmental and operational parameters, such Misalignment Scratching and hardness Intermittent system
as temperature, humidity, and pressure ranges, should be listed to clarify this operation
intent.
Stripping Unstable Egress
Step 2: Identify and list the potential failures for each product component. Wear Loose fittings Surge
Simple prototype models and brainstorming techniques can aid in identifying Binding Unbalanced
potential failure modes. Likewise, sketches, storyboards, free-body diagrams,
force-flow diagrams, and process-flow diagrams can help in understanding the Overshooting Enbrittlement
physics of a failure mode. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 should be used to check for typical Ringing Loosening
problems with components and product systems. For any listed failure mode, Loose Scoring
the idea is that the failure could occur, but not that will necessarily occur for
Leaking Radiation damage
the product under consideration.
Table 6.2: Abbreviated list of example failure modes. After Otto & Wood
Step 3: List possible potential causes or mechanisms of the failure modes. Ex- (2000).
ample 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 preven-
tive measures that might be adopted.
Copyright 2006
Step 4: List the potential effects of the failure, including impact on the envi- 1 Almost certain
ronment, property, or hazards to human users. Example effects include noise,
2 High
poor appearance, flying debris, unpleasant odor, erratic operation and so forth.
3 Moderate
Step 5: Rate the likelihood of occurrence (O) of the failure. The ratings 4/5/6 Moderate – most customers are annoyed
should be on a scale of 1-10 as given by:
7/8 Low
9/10 Very remote to absolute uncertainty
1 No effect Step 8: Calculate the Risk Priority Number (RPN). An RPN prioritizes the
2/3 Low (relatively few failures) relative importance of each failure mode and effect on a scale of 1-1000. It can
4/5/6 Moderate (occasional failures) be calculated with the following relation:
7/8 High (repeated failures) RPN = (S) × (O) × (D)
9/10 Very high (failure is almost inevitable)
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.
Step 6: Estimate the potential severity (S) of the failure and its effect. Again, Rating above “100” will occur, whereas ratings below “30” become reasonable
a 1-10 scale should be used. The following meanings are associated with this for typical applications. It is important to notice that the RPN scale is non-
scale: linear in risk.
Step 9: Develop recommended actions for the failure modes, assign respon-
sibilities to appropriate parties and team members, and set a schedule for
implementing the actions. Corrective actions should be first developed for
the highest ranked failure modes based on the RPN. Example actions include
1 No effect revised component or subassembly design, revised test plan or material spec-
2 Very minor (only noticed by discriminating customer) ification, design of experiments and prototypes, etc. These actions should be
3 Minor (affects very little of the system; notice by average customer) specific.
4/5/6 Moderate (most customers are annoyed) Step 10: Implement the corrective actions, update the S-O-D ratings, and
7/8 High (causes a loss of a primary function; customers are dissatisfied) recalculate the RPN for the updated design.
9/10 Very high and hazardous (product becomes inoperative; customers are The process and results of the FMEA should be documented, perhaps with
angered; the failure may result in unsafe operation and possible injury) the help of a template like the one shown in figure 6.15.
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:
Copyright 2006
References
1. Cross, N. (1994) Engineering Design Methods, John Wiley & Sons.
D RPN
2. Crow, K. (2002) Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), DRM Asso-
Improved situation
ciates, www.npd-solutions.com. 3. Cutherell, D. (1996) Product Architecture.
O S
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.
By (Name/Department/Telephone)
Applied
(2001) Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, fourth ed., Prentice-Hall.

steps
5. Otto, K. & Wood, K. (2001) Product Design - Techniques in Reverse Engi-

Suggested remedial
neering and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall.

Component name

measures
Second Ed. Springer.

7. Pugh, S. (1990) Total Design, Addison Wesley.
8. SAE (2002) Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Design (Design
D RPN
FMEA) and Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Manufacturing

and Assembly Processes (Process FMEA) and Effects Analysis for Machinery
Current situation
O S
(Machinery FMEA). SAE Standard J1739.

FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS
9. Stamatis, D. H. (1995) Failure Mode and Effect Analysis - FMEA from

Proposed test
Process FMEA
Theory to Execution. ASQ Quality Press.

10. Ullman, D. (2003) The Mechanical Design Process, Third Edition. McGraw-
steps
Hill.
Name/Department/Supplier/Telephone
Failure
11. Ulrich, K. (1995) “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing

Cause
firm”. Research Policy, 24, 419-440.

12. Ulrich, K. & Eppinger, S. (2000) Product Design and Development. Irwin
Consequence
McGraw-Hill.
Design FMEA
Failure
Failure
Type
Failure Location
Figure 6.15: FMEA Template.
Copyright 2006
CHAPTER 7
Design of Experiments using the Taguchi

Method
Part II
Techniques for robustness,

7.1 Basics of Design of Experiments
reliability and optimization
When a person is faced with the task of solving a problem which answer is not
know, many different 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 find a satisfactory solution, if one is ever found! Third, it
is difficult 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 find a solution.
From the above, it is obvious that trial and error procedures are not well suited
for scientific purposes. Hence, a structured, reliable and efficient methodology
to carry out tries or experiments is needed. The discipline of Design of Exper-
iments, or DoE for short, is responsible for answering this question.
Copyright 2006
155 7.1 Basics of Design of Experiments 7.1 Basics of Design of Experiments 156
In order to carry a designed experiment it is recommended to follow a simple Experiment Factors

procedure:
1 2 3
1 1 1 1
1. Define the problem.
2 2 1 1
2. Design the experiment. 3 1 2 1
3. Setup the experiment. 4 2 2 1
4. Gather data. 5 1 1 2
5. Analyze data. 6 2 1 2
7 1 2 2
These steps will be analyzed next.
8 2 2 2
7.1.1. Define the problem In this step the problem to be solved is clearly Table 7.1: 23 factorial design table.
understood. The variables, or factors, that affect
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 In a factorial design the response to all possible combinations of factor levels
critical part of a designed experiment. In many ocassions it is difficult not is measured. The number of all possible combinations of k factors, each with
only to determine which factors are relevant and which not, but also what is n different levels to be tested, is nk .
the required output, or response, for the experiment.
Consider for example a problem that has three different factors and it is desired
Whenever possible, attempts should be made to solve the problem analyti- to test the response of the system when each factor is varied between two
cally. Even when too many assumptions and/or simplifications were needed different values. Since there are three different factors to take into account,
to solve it analytically, the formulas used can of great help providing, first, an k = 3. Furthermore, since each factor will take only two different values, n = 2.
insight into the nature of the problem and second, an idea of around where the Hence, the number of experiments to run is 23 = 8. Table 7.1 shows all the
solution should be found. This would help the scientist to determine factors required runs representing the low value of any factor by the number “1” and
and numerical values to be used in order to reduce the number of experiments its higher value by the number “2”.
to run.
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
7.1.2. Design the Once the problem has been fully understood, the next chosen, then making it a 2k factorial design, the response of the system will
experiment step it to design the experiment. Here, design the ex- be forced to be linear. If three levels are chosen (a 3k experiment), then the
periment involves the determination of what factors and response will be forced to be quadratic, and so on. It is responsability of the
values should be varied during the experiments and what response or responsed person designing the experiment to choose the right number of levels needed in
will be measured. It also involves the selection of how the experiment will be order to mimic the nature of the response of the problem. If the response of the
carried out: it will be done numerically using methods like Finite Elements or problem is thought to be of cubic nature, then four levels should be considered
Boundary Elements, it will be done experimentally, using a full size test rig, for each factor. Figure 7.1 shows graphically the different in response from a
a combination of both approaches, etc. Next, it is necessary to define how 2k and a 3k experiments.
many runs will be carried out and how the inputs (factors) will be varied. One
simple and effective albeit long approach, is to use a factorial design. One of the main advantages of carrying out factorial designs, is that all possible
Copyright 2006
157 7.1 Basics of Design of Experiments 7.1 Basics of Design of Experiments 158
quadratic response experiments which will be discussed in detail in the next section. The inter-
estimated with 3 ested reader is encourged to consult the references by Montgomery (1997) or
2 factor levels (1−2−3)
Response variable
Berger and Maurer (2002) to review other methods.
3
b
7.1.3. Setup the In this step the experiment is prepared either by means
experiment of existing equipment, a test rig or a numerical simulation.
linear response The experiment should be isolated as much as possible from
1 estimated with 2
a factor levels (a−b)
all possible external influences. Also, care must be given to ensure that any
factor can be modified without interfering with the others and that the re-
sponse variable can be measured effectively. It is of great importance that
Factor Level the response variable is always something that can be quantified by just one
number, as it will make the analysis more much easier. If by the nature of the
Figure 7.1: Difference in the response variable between a two-level factor and problem, the response variable cannot be represented by just one number, it
a three-level factor. is strongly recommended to find an alternative way to quantify it.
Consider for example that the neck of aluminum cans wrinkle during its man-
interactions between factors —the effect of one factor depending on the value ufacturing process as shown in figure 7.2. As it is an undesirable feature, a
of some of the other factors— are taken into account. Their main disadvantage engineering team is assigned to determine its probable causes and to modify
is the number of experiments that have to be done, consider for example, six the process to reduce it. The team decides to design an experiment using the
factors with 3 levels each: 36 = 729 experiments to run! 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
As the number of experiments needed for a factorial design increases rapidly final shape of the neck deviates from a perfect circle, the more the wrinkling.
as the number of factors increases, an alternative is needed in order to make In this case the team decided to use the difference in the arc length between
complex experiments managable. Full nk factorial designs allow the estimation the final shape and a circle of the average radius along the neck. If there are no
of all main effects —effects that depend on only one factor— as well as 2- wrinkles, the difference would be zero. On the other hand, the more wrinkling,
way interactions, 3-way interactions and so on until n-way interactions. Here the greater the difference.
interaction means interdependece between two or more main effects. One way
to reduce the number of experiments needed is to give up the ability to estimate As it shown in the example, there are times when the person or team designing
interactions, especially higher order, by confounding them with each other.
Confounding two or more factors means that the effects of these factors on a
response variable cannot be distinguished from one another. Factorial designs Wrinkled can
where not all runs are performed are called fractional factorial designs.
Confounding higher order interactions significantly reduces the number of ex-

periments 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
specified in such a way that desired effects are not affected by interactions and
undesired effects are confounded with each other. Many alternatives exists to Desired shape
answer this question. One alternative that has become increasingly popular
for its simplicity and effectivness is the use of Taguchi’s Method for designed Figure 7.2: Wrinkled neck in an aluminum can.
Copyright 2006
159 7.1 Basics of Design of Experiments 7.2 Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs 160
Experimental Factors Mean 3

1 2
Run A B C D Response Response
1 1 1 1 1 y11 y12 y13 y1 Figure 7.3: Linear graph for L4 array.
2 1 2 2 2 y21 y22 y23 y2
• Which factor’s values will give the best response?
3 1 3 3 3 y31 y32 y33 y3
4 2 1 2 3 y41 y42 y43 y4
In the following sections the methodology used to answer these and other
5 2 2 3 1 y51 y52 y53 y5
questions will be discussed in detail.
6 2 3 1 2 y61 y62 y63 y6
7 3 1 3 2 y71 y72 y73 y7
8 3 2 1 3 y81 y82 y83 y8 7.2 Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs
9 3 3 2 1 y91 y92 y93 y9
Table 7.2: Layout of gathered data for an experiment with 4 factors (A, B and Taguchi showed that if experimental runs are chosen appropriately, there is no
C) and 3 repetitions based on the L9 orthogonal array. need to run full factorial experiments. The basis for Taguchi’s 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
the experiment must figure out how to measure and/or quantify the response few runs that are vital for the analysis.
variable. There is no magic formula and one form will have always advantages
and disadvantages over others. It is important when desiging experiments to Table 7.3 shows the most common experimental design orthogonal arrays.
clearly understand the problem and the tradeoffs of decisions taken. 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
7.1.4. Gather data Once the setup for the experiment is ready, the experi- n represents the number of rows in the array. As usual, each row represent an
mental runs are carried out, each one with the factor lev- experiment to carry out and each column represent the factors (or interactions)
els specified in the experimental design matrix. The output in every response of interest.
variable of interest is registered on each case. If the experimental design re- The simplest orthogonal array, the L4 array, is shown in table 7.4. This or-
quires repetitions, they are carried out until all experiments have been run and thogonal is suitable to run a 3 two-level factors experiment. As it can be seen,
registered. After all experimentation is finished, all the information gathered it requires only 4 runs, compared to a full 23 factorial design that would require
can be conveniently arranged as shown in table 7.2. 8 runs. Only half the work! As experiments become more large and complex,
the use of orthogonal arrays becomes more convenient. Consider for exam-
7.1.5. Analyze data The final step is to analyze the data gathered from the ple a design to study the effects of 15 two-level factors. An orthogonal array
experimental runs. The analysis typically answers the suited for this study, the L16 requires 16 experiments whereas a full factorial
following questions: design would require 32,768 experiments! A design to study the effects of 13
three-level factors using orthogonal arrays would require 27 runs using the L27
• How the factor levels affect the response? array; a full factorial design would require 1,594,323 experiments.
• Is there any relevant interaction between factors? An orthogonal array is a fractional factorial experimental matrix that is or-
• How can the response be predicted from factor’s values? thogonal and balanced. Here, the balance property has two meanings. First it
Copyright 2006
161 7.2 Orthogonal arrays and linear graphs 7.3 Investigating effects 162
Array Description Experiment Factors

3 1 2 3
L4 (2 ) 3 two-level factors
7
L8 (2 ) 7 two-level factors 1 1 1 1
11
15
L9 (34 ) 4 three-level factors Table 7.4: L4 (23 ) Orthogonal Array.

L18 (21 × 37 ) 1 two-level and 7 three-level factors
L27 (3 ) 13
13 three-level factors (or left blank as it will be discussed later) to the interaction AB.
L36 (211 × 312 ) 11 two-level and 12 three-level factors Linear graphs can also be of help choosing the right array for a given experi-
L36 (23 × 313 ) 3 two-level and 13 three-level factors mental setup. As shown in table 7.3, the number of standar orthogonal arrays
is limited and as such, may seem very limited as not all experimental designs
L32 (21 × 49 ) 1 two-level and 9 four-level factors may fit exactly into one of the Ln arrays available. Although it is possible to
L16 5
(4 ) 5 four level factors create new arrays from the standard ones, in most ocassions there is no need
to do so.
L25 (56 ) 6 five level factors
Consider for example a experimental design with 4 two-level factors. In this
L50 (2 × 5 )
1 11
1 two-level and 11 five-level factors case, the L4 is limited to 3 factors and the L8 is designed for seven two-level
Table 7.3: Common orthogonal arrays factors. In this case, the L8 array can be used. Looking at the linear graphs
shown in figure 7.11, 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
means that every column is balanced, that is, each level of the factor appears
the 4 factors. It is important to notice that if a factor is assigned to a column
the same number of times. For example, in the L4 array any column will have
reserved for interactions, its main effect cannot be estimated independently
2 “1” levels and 2 “2” levels. The second meaning is that any two columns
from the other factors. Nevertheless, If there is the certainty that there are no
in the array are also balanced, having the same number of combinations of
possible interactions between factors, then they can be assigned to any column
levels. The reader is encouraged to check both balance properties with any
independently if they are reserved for interactions or not.
of the orthogonal arrays presented in section 7.6. Other important property
of orthogonal arrays is that any two columns of an orthogonal array form a
two-factor complete factorial design.
7.3 Investigating effects
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 be-
tween columns. Figure 7.1 shows the linear graph for the L4 array, where dots It has been said that the strategy behind design of experiments is to gather the
represent factors and lines connecting them represent interactions. In this most valuable data with the least amount of experimental runs. In the Taguchi
sense, the linear graph for the L4 array shows that columns 1 and 2 should be methodology, the analysis of information gathered from the experiments can
assigned to factors, let’s say A and B, and that column 3 should be assigned be carried out in four steps:
Copyright 2006
163 7.3 Investigating effects 7.3 Investigating effects 164
Estimation of effects where the effect that factors have in the average re-
Average response
Average response
Average response
sponse are studied.
Factor influence where the amount of influence that each factor has on the
response is quantified.
Analysis of interactions where the amount of interaction between factors
is investigated.
Prediction where a mathematical model of the experiment is developed and A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3
the optimal values of factors for a given response are obtained.
No significant effect Linear effect Non−linear effect
7.3.1. Estimation of effects Taguchi recommends to start analyzing the ex- of factor A of factor A of factor A
periment results using means and plots to keep
simplicity. The first step of the analysis should be to calculate the average of Figure 7.4: Effect of factor on response variable.
the response variable for a given factor level. Consider for example the exper-
iment shown in table 7.2. For this case, the mean response, or main effect,
when factor A is at level 1 can be found as: over the response. The second possibility is that the values for the average
response forms a line with slope different from zero. In this case, factor A
A1 = (y1 + y 2 + y3 )/3 (7.1) has a linear effect 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,
as the factor A takes the low level at experimental runs 1, 2 and 3. a non-linear function. In this case the effect of factor A on the response is
Similarly, the main effect when factor A is at level 2 can be found through non-linear.
the responses y 4 , y5 and y 6 as this factors takes the intermediate level at The different types of responses call for different criteria to select what factor
experimental runs 4, 5 and 6: level may be better. When the factor has no significant effect, the optimum
level may be selected in terms of cost or convenience. When the effect is linear,
A2 = (y4 + y 5 + y6 )/3 (7.2)
the factor can be used to shift response towards a target. Finally, if the effect
is non-linear, the value chosen may be around the flat part of the curve, so
The main effect of any factor at any level can be found likewise. For example, small changes in the value of the factor do not affect the overall response.
the mean response when factor C is at level 3 is calculated as
The above criteria assumes that interactions between factors are insignificant,
C 3 = (y3 + y5 + y 7 )/3 (7.3) so changing the value of one factor has no effect on the others. When inter-
actions are presumed to be present, it makes no sense to change the value of
as the factor C takes the level 3 at runs 3, 5 and 7. factors independently. In such a case, it is necessary to study how interactions
Once the mean response of the different factors at the different levels has affect the average response.
been obtained, it is possible to determine the significance of each factor. To
determine the significance of a factor it is only necessary to plot the main 7.3.2. Factor influence From the above discussion, it is clear that different
effects of each factor versus the values of its levels. Figure 7.4 shows the three responses represent different strategies towards ob-
possible types of effect of factor A on the average response. The first possibility taining a given target for the response variable. The question of how factors
is that the value for the average response remains almost constant along the affect the response has been answered, but the question of how strong the
different levels of factor A. In this case, factor A has no appreciable effect effect is has been not. For example, it may be irrelevant that a factor has a
Copyright 2006
non-linear effect over the response, if let say, that said factor affects the re- where Yi is the response for the i-th experiment.
sponse in just 1%. Hence, it is important to see the percent influence of each
factor. The fourth step is to obtain the factor sums of squares for each one of the
factors using the formula
To show the procedure to obtain the percent influence of each factor consider

NL
Fl2
the example results shown in table 7.5. Sf = − CF (7.7)
l=1
NF l
Experiment Factors
where Sf is the sum of squares for the factor f , N L are the number of levels
A B C Response for the factor, Fl is the total effect of factor F for the level l and NF l is the
1 1 1 1 6 number of experiments ran with factor F at level l. For the example at hand,
2 1 2 2 8 A21 A2
SA = + 2 − CF
3 2 1 2 12 NA1 NA2
4 2 2 1 10 142 222
= + − 324 (7.8)
Table 7.5: L4 sample experiment. 2 2
= 98 + 242 − 324
The first step is to calculate the total effects of factors. The total effect of a
= 16
factor is obtained by adding the results containing the effects of the factor at
each level. For the example being studied, B12 B2
SB = + 2 − CF
A1 = 6 + 8 = 14 A2 = 12 + 10 = 22 NB1 NB2
B1 = 6 + 12 = 18 B2 = 8 + 10 = 18 (7.4) 182 182
C1 = 6 + 10 = 16 C2 = 8 + 12 = 20 = + − 324 (7.9)
2 2
= 162 + 162 − 324
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 = 0
as C12 C2
T2 36 × 36 SC = + 2 − CF
CF = = = 324 (7.5) NC1 NC2
N 4
where T is the sum of all results (6 + 8 + 12 + 10) and N is the total number 162 202
of experiments. = + − 324 (7.10)
2 2
The third step is to compute the total sum of squares using the formula = 128 + 200 − 324

N = 4
ST = Yi2 − CF
i=1
Finally, the percent influence of the factor Pf , can be obtained as the ratio
= (62 + 82 + 122 + 102 ) − CF (7.6) between the factor sums of squares and the total sum of squares
= 344 − 324 Sf
= 20 Pf = × 100 (7.11)
ST
Copyright 2006
where for the example being studied are B3
Average response
Average response
Average response
B3 B1
SA B2
PA = B2
ST B2
B1 B1
16
= × 100 (7.12) B3
20
= 80% A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3
SB No interaction Synergistic Antisynergistic

PB = interaction interaction
ST
0 Figure 7.5: Possible types of interaction.
= × 100 (7.13)
20
= 0% normally. After the values of the response are available, a simple procedure
can be followed to detect if there are any interactions of interest.
SC
PC = To detect the interactions, lets say between factors A and B, the average
ST response of factor B at the different levels are plotted against the values of
4 factor A. Depending on the experiment, one of three different cases may
= × 100 (7.14) appear. These different cases are shown in figure 7.5. The first case is when
20
there is no interaction between the two factors. In this case the lines plotted
= 20%
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
As expected PA + PB + PC = 100%. The above results show that factor A has parallel although they never intersect. Here the interaction at least gives some
the most impact on the response and factor B has no impact whatsoever on idea of its tendency. In the third case, an antisynergistic interaction appears,
the response. and there is no clear idea of how the interaction behaves. In this case, further
study of the interaction is necessary.
7.3.3. Analysis of By design orthogonal arrays are unable to study all poten- To explain the above procedure, consider that an experiment based on the L8
interactions tial interactions between the different factors. Specially, array shown in table 7.2, has been carried out. Furthermore, consider that the
third-way interactions are completely neglected. It is the experiment has been done with 4 factors and that all interactions have been
responsability of the person designing the experiments to identify any interac- neglected.
tions that may be of interest. This selection of interactions may be a conse-
quence of prior experience or pure engineering judgment. 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
It is best when interactions are identified before the experiment, nevertheless there is any interaction between the two.
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 Consider for example, that the interactions between factor A and factor C are
reason, Taguchi suggest to neglect all interactions and run the experiment to be explored. To plot the average response of factor C with respect to factor
Copyright 2006
C1 C2 C3 Experiment A B AB Response
A1 y1 y2 y3 1 1 1 1 y1
A2 y6 y4 y5 2 1 2 2 y2
A3 y8 y9 y7 3 2 1 2 y3
4 2 2 1 y4
Table 7.6: Interactions AC.
Table 7.8: L4 orthogonal array with 2 factors and 1 interaction.
D1 D2 D3
C1 y1 y6 y8 As the interaction does not play a part in the setup and run of the experiment,
C2 y9 y2 y4 some people recommend to leave all interaction columns blank to avoid any
possible confusions.
C3 y5 y7 y3
To estimate the effects of the interaction AB, the same procedure used to
Table 7.7: Interactions CD. estimate main effects can be used. For example, the main effect when AB is
at level 1 can be obtained as
A, it is necessary to check the response of the different levels of factor C to
AB 1 = (y1 + y 4 )/2 (7.15)
the different levels of factor A. From table 7.2, 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 Similarly, the average response when AB is at level 2 can be found as
when factor A is at level 3 is y8 .
AB 2 = (y2 + y 3 )/2 (7.16)
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 7.6.
The main effects of AB can be plotted against its levels in a similar manner as
Then the average responses are plotted against each other to obtain a plot
the main effects of factors are plotted. If the plot is a horizontal line, then the
similar to the ones shown in figure 7.5. The same steps are followed to check
effect of the interaction between A and B is not significant. On the other hand,
for any possible two-way interaction. The reader is encouraged to review the
if the plot resembles a linear or non-linear effect, then the optimum values of
interaction matrix between factors C and D.
A and B have to be determined based on the combined effect of both.
As mentioned before, in some cases it is necessary to study a given interaction
in more detail. To explain how interactions are studied following Taguchi’s 7.3.4. Prediction In most occasions the objective of a design of experiments
approach, consider now a very simple experiment consisting of two factors, is to estimate optimum values for the factors given a de-
namely A and B, each one with two levels each. Furthermore, consider that sired level of the response variable. For that matter, it is necessary to obtain
the interaction between the two factors, AB is of interest. For this case, the a matematical model of the experiment. Typically, this is done through a
L4 orthogonal array seems adequate as from the linear graph shown in figure multiple linear regression by least squares.
7.3 column 3 may be used to estimate interactions. Hence, the experiment can
be carried out using table 7.8. 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
For this problem, the experiment would be carried out normally, varying the described by:
levels of factors A and B and registering the values for the response variable. y = β0 + β1 A + β2 B + β3 C + β4 D + ε (7.17)
Copyright 2006
where βi are coefficients that must be found from the experimental data and The previous equations can be simplified and extended into
ε is the error in the model.

n
n
n
n
Since the previous equation should approximate all the observations done, the nβ̂0 + β̂1 Xi1 + β̂2 Xi2 + ··· + β̂k Xik = yi
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
above model can be applied to any run i of the experiment,

n n
n
n
n
β̂0 Xi1 + β̂1 2
Xi1 + β̂2 Xi1 Xi2 + · · · + β̂k Xi1 Xik = Xi1 yi
yi = β0 + β1 Ai + β2 Bi + β3 Ci + β4 Di + εi (7.18)
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
.. .. .. .. ..
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 coefficients are
n
n
n
n
n
constants and do not change since only one equation should be used to model β̂0 Xik + β̂1 Xik Xi1 + β̂2 Xik Xi2 + · · · + β̂k 2
Xik = Xik yi
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
the experiment.
In general, for k factors, the matematical model can be described by the equa- The above equations can be expressed in matrix form as
tion ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ n ⎤
n n n
yi = β0 + β1 Xi1 + β2 Xi2 + β3 Xi3 + · · · + βn Xik + εi (7.19) ⎢ n Xi1 Xi2 · · · Xik ⎥ ⎢β̂0 ⎥ ⎢ yi ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ i=1 ⎥
k ⎢ n i=1 i=1 i=1 ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ n ⎥
⎢ n n n
⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
= β0 + βj Xij ⎢ X X 2
X X · · · X X ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ X y ⎥
⎢ i1 i1 i1 i2 i1 ik ⎥ ⎢β̂1 ⎥ ⎢ i1 i ⎥
j=1 ⎢ i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ i=1 ⎥ (7.22)
⎢ . . . . ⎥⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥
⎢ .. .. .. . .. .. ⎥⎢ . ⎥ ⎢
. .. ⎥
where Xi is the i-th factor. ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ n
n n n ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ n ⎥
⎣ .. 2 ⎦ ⎣β̂k ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
The least squares method consists of choosing the β’s in such a way that the Xik Xik Xi1 Xik Xi2 . Xik Xik yi
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
sum of squares of the errors εi is minimized. The least squares functions L is
described as
If the matrix multiplications are carried out, the previous equations are ob-

n
tained. The careful reader will notice that the coefficient matrix is symmetric
L = ε2i (7.20)
i=1
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 cross-
n
k
= Yi − β0 − βj Xij products of factors.
i=1 j=1
The above matrix system can be solved to obtain the values of the β̂k coeffi-
cients. Once these values are available, the regression model is given by
The least squares function must be minimized with respect to β0 , β1 , . . . , βk .
Therefore, the least squares estimations β̂0 , β̂1 , . . . , β̂k must satisfy,
k
ŷi = β0 + βj Xij i = 1, 2, . . . , n (7.23)

n k
∂L j=1
= −2 yi − β̂0 − β̂j Xij = 0 (7.21)
∂β0 β̂0 ,β̂1 ,...,β̂k j=1 j=1
The difference between the observation yi and the adjusted value ŷi is called

∂L n k residual and is usually represented by the letter e
= −2 yi − β̂0 − β̂j Xij Xij = 0 j = 1, 2, ..., k
∂βj β̂0 ,β̂1 ,...,β̂k j=1 j=1 ei = yi − ŷi (7.24)
Copyright 2006
173 7.4 Examples 7.4 Examples 174
Factor Low High problem is as follows. For the injection pressure, factor A,
A: Injection pressure (MPa) 1.75 2.25
A1 = (2.5 + 3.2)/2 = 2.85
◦
B : Mold temperature ( C) 85 105 A2 = (2.7 + 2.9)/2 = 2.80 (7.25)
C : Cycle time (seconds) 25 35
For the mold temperature, factor B,
Table 7.9: Factors and levels for the problem of strenght of bumpers.
B 1 = (2.5 + 2.7)/2 = 2.60
The residuals are a very effective way to check the quality of the regression B 2 = (3.2 + 2.9)/2 = 3.05 (7.26)
since the larger the residual, the poorer the quality of the model.
For the time cycle, factor C,
C 1 = (2.5 + 2.9)/2 = 2.7

C 2 = (3.2 + 2.7)/2 = 2.95 (7.27)
7.4 Examples
The plots of the main effects for each factor are shown in figure 7.6. From the
plots is easy to see that the injection pressure has practically no effect over
7.4.1. Strenght of bumpers A manufacturer of automotive bumpers is try-
the specific energy absorbed by the bumper. On the other hand, the mold
ing a new material to increase the energy ab-
temperature has the larger effect followed by the cycle time. Both factors
sorbed by the bumper during a crash. Although
increase the energy absorbed as the their values increase.
the manufacturing process for the new material behaves different from others
known by the company, it is believed that from the different factors affecting The next step is to obtain the percent influence of each one of the factors.
the process, the three that are controllable and critical are: injection pressure Following the procedure shown in 7.3.2, the percent influence can be computed
(MPa), mold temperature (◦ C) and cycle time (seconds). As this is a first from the next steps:
approach into the problem, it has been decided to neglect interactions. The
response variable has been selected as the specific energy absorption of the A1 = 2.5 + 3.2 = 5.7 A2 = 2.7 + 2.9 = 5.6
bumper in kJ/kg. B1 = 2.5 + 2.7 = 5.2 B2 = 3.2 + 2.9 = 6.1 (7.28)
It has been decided to carry a 2 level experiment with the above factors. C1 = 2.5 + 2.9 = 5.4 C2 = 3.2 + 2.7 = 5.9
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 Experimental Injection Mold Cycle Specific
95◦ C and a cycle time of 30 seconds. The selected high and low levels of each
run pressure temperature time energy absorbed
factor are described in table 7.9.
1 1.75 85 25 2.5
With the above information the matrix for the experiment is shown in ta- 2 1.75 105 35 3.2
ble 7.10. Note that the low and high values for the experiment have been
substituted and the results of the experiment are included. 3 2.25 85 35 2.7
4 2.25 105 25 2.9
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 effects for this Table 7.10: Experimental matrix for the problem of strenght of bumpers.
Copyright 2006
T2 11.3 × 11.3
CF = = = 31.9225 (7.29)
N 4 3.4
Specific energy absorbed (kJ/kg)

ST = (2.52 + 3.22 + 2.72 + 2.92) − 31.9225 (7.30) 3
= 0.2675
2.6
5.72 5.62
SA = + − 31.9225 (7.31)
2 2 2.2
= 0.0025
1.75 2.25
Injection Pressure (MPa)
5.22 6.12
SB = + − 31.9225 (7.32)
2 2
= 0.2025 3.4

3
5.42 5.92
SC = + − 31.9225 (7.33) 2.6
2 2
= 0.0625 2.2
0.0025 85 105
PA = × 100 (7.34) Mold temperature (C)
0.2675
= 0.94%
3.4

0.2025
PB = × 100 (7.35)
0.2675 3
= 75.70%
2.6
0.0625
PC = × 100 (7.36)
0.2675 2.2
= 23.36%
25 35
Cycle time (sec)
From the percent influence, the temperature mold clearly is the factor of major
Figure 7.6: Plot of the main effects of the three factors for the problem of
influence in the process. As mentioned, it is always important to check for
strength of bumpers.
interactions.
Copyright 2006
80
70 3.4 Mold temperature 1
Mold temperature 2

60
Influence (%) 50 3
40
30 2.6
20
10 2.2
0
A B C 1.75 2.25
Injection Pressure (MPa)
Factor
Figure 7.7: Percent influence of injection pressure (factor A), mold temperature
Cycle time 1
(factor B) and cycle time (factor C). 3.4
Cycle time 2

Figure 7.8 shows the interactions plots between injection pressure and mold 3
temperature (interaction AB), mold temperature and cycle time (interaction

BC), and injection pressure and cycle time (interaction AC). From the plots it 2.6
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
2.2
other hand, there is interaction between the injection pressure and the mold
temperature and there is a strong interaction between the injection pressure 85 105
and the cycle time. Therefore, the problem should be studied further including Mold temperature (C)
interactions AB and AC.
The final step of the analysis is to obtain a prediction model for the problem 3.4 Cycle time 1
Cycle time 2

using a least squares regression. As there are only four factors, the mathemat-
ical model for the experiment will have the form
3
ŷ = β̂0 + β̂1 A + β̂2 B + β̂3 C (7.37)

2.6
The least squares regression can be performed using either a purpose-specific

software as MINITAB or a spreadsheet program such as Excel, OpenOffice or 2.2
Gnumeric. The reader is encourage to read and learn to use any of this software
1.75 2.25
to do regressions. Injection Pressure (MPa)
Figure 7.8: Plot of the interactions AB, BC and AC for the problem of
strength of bumpers.
Copyright 2006
From the regression analysis, the following values for the β coefficients are Experiment A B AB C AC AD D
obtained: β̂0 = 0.1375, β̂1 = −0.1, β̂2 = 0.0225 and β̂3 = 0.025. Hence, the
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
model for the experiment is given by
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
ŷ = 0.1375 − 0.1 A + 0.0225 B + 0.025 C (7.38) 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
remembering that A is the injection pressure, B is the mold temperature and 4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
C is the cycle time. 5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
The above model fits perfectly the data of the problem, that is, the residual 6 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
of between the estimated and real responses is zero. This is a consequence of 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
having just one observation and considering only a linear behavior, which the 8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
linear least squares regression is capable of estimate without error.
Table 7.11: Experimental matrix for the example of disk brake ingredients
The above analysis shows that the best response is obtained when the value including interactions. Factor A is filler type, factor B is fiber type, factor C
for the injection pressure is kept at its lowest possible value and the mold is lube and factor D is the abrasive used. Data taken from Dunlap, Riehle and
temperature and cycle time are kept at their maximum possible values. Longhouse (1999).
7.4.2. Disk brake noise The data for this problem was taken from Dunlap, placed in column 7 so the interaction filler×abrasive is set in column 6. The
Riehle and Longhouse (1999). Disk brake noise con- experimental matrix is shown in table 7.11.
tinues to be a problem in the automotive industry. After some use, the brakes
are prone to produce different types of sounds during breaking. One of the low To carry out the experiment is necessary to set every factor to the correspond-
frequency noises occurring during decelaration is groan. To better understand ing level according to the experimental matrix. The results in the response
the interaction of raw materiales on sustained groan, Delphi Chassis Systems variable are shown in table 7.12. Once the information is available, then the
engineers carried out designed experiments. One of the objectives was to find influence of the different factors and interactions on the response can be quan-
the percent influence of the different factors on the response. tified.
The experiment was carried out taking into account four factors: filler, fiber, As explained before, the first step to quantify the percent influence is to cal-
lube and abrasive. The response variable was chosen as the average number culate the main effect of all factors and interactions. For example, the main
of stops with caliper acceleration level greater than 1g. Although the origi- effects of factor A and interaction A × B can be found from the experimental
nal design included the full factorial experiment, consider here that only the matrix shown in table 7.11 as
interactions filler×fiber, filler×lube and filler×abrasive are of interest. A1 = y 1 + y2 + y 3 + y4 = 8.5
Since the experiment has four factors and three interactions, and each factor A2 = y5 + y 6 + y 7 + y 8 = 31
has two levels, the L8 array seems appropriate. From the corresponding linear
graphs, shown in figure 7.11, the option would be to set the four factors in AB1 = y1 + y 2 + y7 + y 8 = 31
columns 1, 2, 4 and 7. Since the filler is part of the three interactions of AB2 = y 3 + y4 + y 5 + y6 = 8.5
interest, it should be set in column 1. If the type of fiber is set in column 2,
then the interaction filler×fiber, should be placed at column 3. Similarly, if The main effects of all other factors and interactions can be calculated similarly
lube is placed at column 4, then the interaction between lube and filler should and are: B1 = 2, B2 = 37.5, C1 = 20, C2 = 19.5, D1 = 28, D2 = 11.5,
be set in column 5. Finally, the last factor, the type of abrasive, must be AC1 = 12.5, AC2 = 27, AD1 = 18.5, AD2 = 21.
Copyright 2006
181 7.4 Examples 7.5 Comments about Taguchi’s approach 182
50
Experimental A B C D
45
run Filler Fiber Lube Abrasive Response 40
35
Influence (%)
1 1 1 1 1 0.5
30
2 1 1 2 2 0.5 25
3 1 2 1 2 0.25 20
15
4 1 2 2 1 7.25 10
5 2 1 1 2 0 5
0
6 2 1 2 1 1 A B C D AB AC AD
7 2 2 1 1 19.25 Factor
8 2 2 2 2 10.75
Figure 7.9: Percent influence of factors and interactions for the disk brake
Table 7.12: Experimental matrix for the example of disk brake ingredients noise problem. Factor A is the filler, factor B is the fiber, factor C is the lube
excluding interactions. and factor D is the abrasive.
As before, the correction factor and the total sum of squares are obtained from influence of all factors and interactions can be computed. The final results are
T2
39.5 × 39.5 shown graphically in figure 7.9. From the results, the fiber type has the greatest
CF = = = 195.03 (7.39) influence on the response, followed by the filler and the interaction between
N 8
fiber and filler. Also, the lube has no effect whatsoever as the filler×abrasive
ST = (0.52 + 0.52 + 0.252 + 7.252 + 02 + 12 + 19.252 + 10.752) interaction.
−195.03 (7.40)
= 345.22
7.5 Comments about Taguchi’s approach
The sums of squares for every factor and interaction are computed accordingly,
for example,
The Taguchi approach to design of experiments, albeit very convenient, is
8.52 3.12 not perfect. The simplicity of its approach comes for a price. In previous
SA = + − 195.03 (7.41)
4 4 discussions it has brought to the attention of the reader that orthogonal arrays
= 63.28 neglect third-way interactions and confound two-way interactions with main
effects. This confounding can lead to inaccuracies as the significance of main
312 8.52 effects depends on the interactions. Hence, conclusions drawn from orthogonal
SAB = + − 195.03 (7.42) array requires that interactions effects are insignificant. In this regard, help
2 2
can be obtained from the use of linear graphs. Linear graphs provide an easy
= 63.28 way to identify how factors, and interactions between them, should be assigned
to the different columns in the orthogonal array. If the assignment of factors
The sums of squares for all the other factors and interactions are: SB = 157.53, and interactions to columns in the array is chosen carefully, then two-way, and
SC = 0.03, SD = 34.03, SAC = 26.28, SAD = 0.78. From these values, the even sometime three-way interactions, can be studied.
Copyright 2006
183 7.5 Comments about Taguchi’s approach 7.6 Common orthogonal arrays 184
Taguchi suggests to drop the study of interactions, especially if their behavior 7.6 Common orthogonal arrays
is not known in advance, at the first stages of the experiment. The rationale
behind this suggestion being that interactions are in most occasions difficult
to quantify and the effort is better spent if more factors are included rather
than interactions. If interactions are found to be significant, then more de-
tailed experiments can be carried out. Taguchi also emphasizes the use of a
Experiment Factors
confirmation run to verify that the optimal values chosen for the experiment
are indeed optimal. 1 2 3
1 1 1 1
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 2 1 2 2
occasions, pure fractional matrices are sometimes smaller with the advantage 3 2 1 2
that main effects can be kept from confounding. Unfortunately, many engineers 4 2 2 1
find difficult 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 Table 7.13: L4 (23 ) Orthogonal Array.
experimental design done, that an optimal one that is not carried out!
As with many engineering methods, judgment should be the first 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 3
1 2
1. Berger, P.D. and Maurer, R.E. (2002) Experimental Design with applications Figure 7.10: Linear graph for L4 array.
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.
Copyright 2006
185 7.6 Common orthogonal arrays 7.6 Common orthogonal arrays 186
Experiment Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Experiment Factors
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4
2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
4 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 3
5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 3
6 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 5 2 2 3 1
7 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 6 2 3 1 2
8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 7 3 1 3 2
Table 7.14: L8 (27 ) Orthogonal Array. 8 3 2 1 3
9 3 3 2 1
Table 7.15: L9 (34 ) Orthogonal Array.
1
2
3
3 5 5
7 1 4
6
2 6 4 7 3,4
1 2
(1) (2)
Figure 7.12: Linear graph for L9 array.
Copyright 2006
Experiment Factors
Experiment Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
4 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 5 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
5 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
6 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 7 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
7 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 8 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
8 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
9 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 10 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
10 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 11 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
11 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 12 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
12 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 13 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
14 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
Table 7.16: L12 (211 ) Orthogonal Array. The interaction between any two
15 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
columns is partially confounded with the rest. Do not use if interactions must
be estimated. 16 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Copyright 2006
15 7 8
1 Experiment Factors
3
1 2 3 4 5
14 14 9
9 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 13 15 1
13 11 2 1 2 2 2 2
12 10
11 3 1 3 3 3 3
6 5 7 3 5 4 1 4 4 4 4
5 2 1 2 3 4
10
6 2 2 1 4 3
4 12 8 2 6 4
7 2 3 4 1 2
(!) (2) 8 2 4 3 2 1
9 3 1 3 4 2
7 1 13 11 3 1 15
10 3 2 4 3 1
6 12 2 14
5 13
11 3 3 1 2 4
3 9 15 14
7 11 12 3 4 2 1 3
4 12
9 13 4 1 4 2 3
10 4 5 6
2 8 10
8 14 4 2 3 1 4
15 4 3 2 4 1
(3) (4)
16 4 4 1 3 2

1 4 5 7 6 8
9 4
6
10 11 1 2
3 12 15 14 13 3
12 13 7
5
15
2 8 10 9 11 14 3,4,5
(5) (6) 1 2

Copyright 2006
Experiment Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3,4,5,6
1 2
4 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3
5 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 1
6 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 2
7 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 3
8 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 1
9 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 2
10 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1
11 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 2
12 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 3
13 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 2
14 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 3
15 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 1
1 2
16 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 2 3,4
17 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 9 10 12 13 6,7 5
18 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 1 3,4 6,7 1
9,10 8
Table 7.19: L18 (21 ×37 ) Orthogonal Array. Interaction between columns 1 and
2 is orthogonal to all columns and can be estimated without sacrificing any 2 8,11 5 12,13
11
column. Interaction between any other pair of columns is confounded partially
with the remaining columns. (1) (2)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Copyright 2006
Experiment Factors
Experiment Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 1 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 1 3 3 3 3 3
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
4 1 4 4 4 4 4
5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
5 1 5 5 5 5 5
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
6 2 1 2 3 4 5
7 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2
7 2 2 3 4 5 1
8 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3
8 2 3 4 5 1 2
9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
9 2 4 5 1 2 3
10 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
10 2 5 1 2 3 4
11 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1
11 3 1 3 5 2 4
12 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2
12 3 2 4 1 3 5
13 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2
13 3 3 5 2 4 1
14 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3
14 3 4 1 3 5 2
15 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1
15 3 5 2 4 1 3
16 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1
16 4 1 4 2 5 3
17 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 2
17 4 2 5 3 1 4
18 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3
18 4 3 1 4 2 5
19 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2
19 4 4 2 5 3 1
20 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3
20 4 5 3 1 4 2
21 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1
21 5 1 5 4 3 2
22 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 1
22 5 2 1 5 4 3
23 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2
23 5 3 2 1 5 4
24 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 3
24 5 4 3 2 1 5
25 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3
25 5 5 4 3 2 1
26 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 1
6
Table 7.20: L25 (5 ) Orthogonal Array. To estimate the interaction between 27 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2
columns 1 and 2, all other columns must be empty.
Copyright 2006
Experiment Factors
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
195
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 1
2 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
3 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 2
4 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
5 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 2 2
6 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 1 1
7 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 1
c
8 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 2 2 2
9 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 1 1 2 2
Copyright 2006
10 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 1 1 2 2 1 1
11 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1
12 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
13 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 2 2 1 1
14 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
15 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2
16 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
17 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 1 2 1 2
18 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
19 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
20 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
21 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 2 2 1 2 1
22 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
23 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 ] 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
24 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
25 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 1 1 2 2 1
26 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2
27 2 2 1 1 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
28 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
29 2 2 1 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

30 2 2 1 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
31 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
32 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

7.6 Common orthogonal arrays
c
Copyright 2006
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
7.6 Common orthogonal arrays
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
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
i
Experiment Factors
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
3 4
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
5
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
3
4
2
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
6 7
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
2
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
8
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
4
3
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
2
1
4
3
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
2
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
4
3
2
1
9 10
Table 7.23: L32 (21 × 49 ) Orthogonal Array.

196
Experiment Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Experiment Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 1 1 1 1 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 6 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1
7 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3
6 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
8 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1
7 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3
8 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 9 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2
9 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 10 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2
10 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 11 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 3
11 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 12 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 1
12 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 1
13 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 2
13 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 2
14 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 3
14 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 3
15 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 1
15 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 1
16 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 2 1 16 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 2 1
17 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 2 17 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 2
18 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 3 18 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 3
19 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 19 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 3
20 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 1
20 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 1
21 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 2
21 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 2
22 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 2
23 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 22 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 2
24 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 23 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 3
25 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 24 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 1
26 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 25 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 2
27 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1
26 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 3
28 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 3
27 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1
29 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 1
30 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 2
28 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 3
31 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 29 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 1
32 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 30 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 2
33 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 31 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1
34 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 32 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 2
35 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 2
33 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 3
36 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 3
34 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 3
11 12 35 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 2
36 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 3
Copyright 2006
199 7.6 Common orthogonal arrays
Experiment Factors
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
7
8
1
I
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
2 CHAPTER 8
9 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
10 1 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
11 1 3 1 3 5 2 4 4 1 3 5 2
12 1 3 2 4 1 3 5 5 2 4 1 3
13 1 3 3 5 2 4 1 1 3 5 2 4 Robust Design
14 1 3 4 1 3 5 2 2 4 1 3 5
15 1 3 5 2 4 1 3 3 5 2 4 1
16 1 4 1 4 2 5 3 5 3 1 4 2
17 1 4 2 5 3 1 4 1 4 2 5 3
18 1 4 3 1 4 2 5 2 5 3 1 4
19 1 4 4 2 5 3 1 3 1 4 2 5
20 1 4 5 3 1 4 2 4 2 5 3 1
21
22
1
1
5
5
1
2
5
1
4
5
3
4
2
3
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
5
1
8.1 Quality through design
23 1 5 3 2 1 5 4 1 5 4 3 2
24 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 2 1 5 4 3
25 1 5 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 4
26 2 1 1 1 4 5 4 3 2 5 2 3 The main philosophy of quality engineering is that quality can be built into a
27 2 1 2 2 5 1 5 4 3 1 3 4 product during its design phase rather than controlled during its manufactur-
28 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 5 4 2 4 5
29 2 1 4 4 2 3 2 1 5 3 5 1 ing process. The fundamental stone behind this philosophy is Robust Design.
30 2 1 5 5 3 4 3 2 1 4 1 2 Robust Design is an engineering methodology whose objective is to create
31 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 2 4 5 5 4
high-quality, cost-effective products that perform well during its useful life in-
32 2 2 2 3 2 4 4 3 5 1 1 5
33 2 2 3 4 3 5 5 4 1 2 2 1 dependently of how and under which circumstances are used. These external
34 2 2 4 5 4 1 1 5 2 3 3 2 circumstances that are outside the control of the design engineering are called
35 2 2 5 1 5 2 2 1 3 4 4 3
noise. Robust design increases the quality of products minimizing the effect of
36 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 5 5 4 2 4
37 2 3 2 4 4 2 3 1 1 5 3 5 noise on the performance of the product. The robust design methodology relies
38 2 3 3 5 5 3 4 2 2 1 4 1 on two powerful tools: orthogonal arrays to carry out designed experiments,
39 2 3 4 1 1 4 5 3 3 2 5 2
40 2 3 5 2 2 5 1 4 4 3 1 3
and signal-to-noise ratios to measure quality.
41 2 4 1 4 5 4 1 2 5 2 3 3
42 2 4 2 5 1 5 2 3 1 3 4 4 Since robust design is a tool inteded to increase quality of products, it is impor-
43 2 4 3 1 2 1 3 4 2 4 5 5 tant to discuss what quality means here. To give a clearer idea of how quality
44 2 4 4 2 3 2 4 5 3 5 1 1
45 2 4 5 3 4 3 5 1 4 1 2 2
should be measure, consider the next case. At the end of the ’70s, consumers
46 2 5 1 5 2 2 5 3 4 4 3 1 in the United States showed a preference for televisions sets made by Sony
47 2 5 2 1 3 3 1 4 5 5 4 2 Japan over those ones made by Sony America in San Diego. The preference
48 2 5 3 2 4 4 2 5 1 1 5 3
49 2 5 4 3 5 5 3 1 2 2 1 4
seemed strange at first since both plants worked with exactly the same designs
50 2 5 5 4 1 1 4 2 3 3 2 5 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
1 11
Copyright 2006
201 8.1 Quality through design 8.2 Quality loss function 202
on meeting the target seems to be a better alternative to measure quality of

products. In order to do so effectively, the concept of quality loss must be
Sony Japan studied.
Sony USA 8.2 Quality loss function
From the previous example it is clear that when the objective characteristic
Color from a given product deviates from a target value m, it will loss some perfor-
m−5 m m+5 Density mance. Consider for example a connecting rod which objective function is to
Grade have a nominal diameter. It is clear that if the diameter is too small compared
D C B A B C D 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 fit. Also, as the diameter of
Figure 8.1: Distribution of color density in television sets. (From the Asahi, the rod deviates from its target value, it may require a larger effort to make it
April 17, 1979). work when assembled.
Hence, everytime a the objective characteristic y of a product deviates from its

level of color density of sets made by Sony Japan and Sony America. Color target value, some financial loss L(y) will occur. As engineering specifications
density was chosen as the objective function as it is commonly used to quantify are always written as m ± Δ0 , one may be tempted to feel that while the
the quality of TV sets. The plot, reproduced in figure 8.1, showed that the objective characteristic is between the range (m − Δ0 ) and (m + Δ0 ), there is
color density distribution of TV sets were very different. Sony Japan had an no financial loss as the product is equally good for the customer, independently
almost normal distribution around the target value m with approximately 0.3 on the deviation from the target m. This representation of quality loss can be
percent of TV sets out of tolerance limits. On the other hand, Sony America represented as a step function as shown in figure 8.2,
had a uniform distribution around tolerance limits with no TV sets out of
tolerance limits. 0 if |y − m| ≤ Δ0
L(y) = (8.1)
A0 otherwise
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 where A0 is the cost of replacement or repair.
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, The step function is unable to quantify the quality loss when an objective
TV sets are ranked as grade A, if color densitiy is within m ± 1, and ranked B, characteristic of a product deviates from its target value but is still within
C and D as color density deviated progressively from target m. From figure tolerance limits. As shown in the example of Sony TVs, this model is faulty
8.1 it is clear that Sony Japan shipped much more grade A TV sets and far and should be avoided.
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 Consider now the following approach suggested by Taguchi. When y meets
for sets from Sony Japan. the target value m, the loss L(y) will be at minimum. Under ideal conditions,
the financial loss can be assumed to be zero under this circumstance
The above example shows the difference between being focused on meeting tol-
erances rather than being focused on meeting the target. Cleary, being focused L(m) = 0 (8.2)
Copyright 2006
203 8.2 Quality loss function 8.2 Quality loss function 204
Quality The above view of quality loss is shown in figure 8.2. As the objective function
L(y)
Loss ($) deviates from its target, the quality loss increases, independently of if the
objective characteristic is within or out of tolerances. Of course, if the objective
A0 characteristic is outside tolerance limits, the product should be considered
defective.
Now, it is only necessary to define the constant k. Taguchi suggests to compute

y it in terms of the replacement or repair cost, A0 , and the magnitude of the
m −Δ 0 m m + Δ0 deviation from the target value Δ0 , as
A0
Quality k= (8.7)
L(y) Δ0
Loss ($)
Consider once more the example of the transmission shaft where the target
A0 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
12
L(y) = (y − 300)2 = $ 6(y − 300)2 (8.8)
2
y
m −Δ 0 m m + Δ0 From the above equation it is clear that even when the shaft has a deviation
of ±1, and is within tolerance, a financial loss occurs as L(301) = $ 6.
Figure 8.2: Models for quality loss functions: step function (top) and quadratic
function (bottom).
8.2.1. Other types of loss The quadratic loss function discussed above is called
functions nominal–the–best and is only useful when the qual-
As the financial loss will be at a minimum, then the value of the first derivative ity characteristic y has a finite target value and
of the function should also be zero at this point the quality loss incurred when y deviates from the target m is the same on
L (m) = 0 (8.3) either side of the target, i.e. the function is symmetrical.
In many ocassions the quality loss function must accommodate situations dif-
If the loss function is expanded through a Taylor series expansion around the ferent from the above. In that case, other type of functions different from
target value m, the following equation is obtained nominal–the–best are needed. Other commonly used loss functions are ex-
L (m) L (m) plained next and shown in figure 8.3.
L(y) = L(m) + (y − m) + (y − m)2 + · · · (8.4)
1! 2!
or taking into account that L(m) = 0, L (m) = 0 and neglecting high-order Smaller–the–better This type of characteristic is useful for those situations
terms when the characteristic function can never take negative values, its ideal
L (m) value is equal to zero and as its value increases its performance becomes
L(y) = (y − m)2 (8.5)
2! progressively worst. An example of this behavior is the pollution from an
automobile or the leak of fluid in a reservoir tank. This type of function
Thus, the loss function can be written as a squared term multiplied by a is obtained from equation (8.6) substituting m = 0,
constant k
L(y) = k(y − m)2 (8.6) L(y) = ky 2 (8.9)
Copyright 2006
205 8.2 Quality loss function 8.3 Noise factors 206
L(y) L(y) cases, two different constants k can be specified and the quality loss
A0
A0 function could be approxmated as

k1 (y − m)2 , y > m
L(y) = (8.12)
k2 (y − m)2 , y ≤ m
y y
m −Δ 0 m m + Δ0 0 Δ0
(a) Nominal − the − best (b) Smaller − the − better

8.3 Noise factors
L(y) L(y)
As mentioned before, the goal of robust design is to create product that per-
A0 form well under all circumstances, despite external and internal uncontrollable
influences, that is, despite noise.
Noise factors can generally be classified in three groups:

A0
y y
Δ0 m −Δ 0 m m + Δ0 Outer noise or external noise, groups all environmental factors such as hu-
(c) Larger − the − better (d) Asymmetric midity, temperature, pressure, dust, magnetism, vibration, supply volt-
age, electromagnetic interference and human error during operation of
Figure 8.3: Different quality loss functions. the product.
Inner noise or deterioration, refers to changes within the product during its
Larger-the-better Some characteristics, like the durability of a mechanical useful life due to wear, tear, etc.
component, do not take negative values, their worst value is zero and
as it becomes larger, its performance is progressively better. Its ideal Product noise or unit-to-unit variation refers to the inevitable variation that
value is zero and reach the point of zero loss at infinity. This behavior is exists between one unit and the next when manufactured.
inversely proportional to the smaller–the–better type. Hence, the quality
loss function for this type of problems is obtained substituting y by 1/y In table 8.1, the strategies to deal with the three different class of noise at
in function 8.9 different levels of the organization is shown. The table indicates, for example,
1 that the effect of all types of noises can be reduced during the system design
L(y) = k (8.10)
y2 but only manufacturing imperfection can be reduced by the manufacturing
In this type of problems, Δ0 is taken as the limit below which the product department.
will fail and A0 is the repair or replacement cost, then the constant k, is It is important to notice that not only components or products must be robust
determined by to withstand noise. Manufacturing processes should also be robustly designed
k = A0 Δ20 (8.11) to make them resistant to external noise, inner noise (tool wear) and product
noise.
Asymmetric loss functions Sometimes the deviation of a quality charac-
teristic on one direction makes more harm than in the other. In those
Copyright 2006
207 8.3 Noise factors 8.4 Signal–to–noise ratios 208
Table 8.1: Sources of noise and the corresponding strategies for managing the noise in each department. (After
8.4 Signal–to–noise ratios
Manufacturing
imperfections
X
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
In the field of communication engineering, a common performance ratio is
the signal-to-noise ratio. A ignal–to–noise ratio, or S/N ratio, combines a
performance characteristic with its sensitivity to noise factors to measure the
(deteriorative effects)
quality of a design. Because of this characteristic, signal–to–noise rations are

ideal to measure quality loss when noise factors are to be taken into account.
N: Although the effects of this type of noise can be reduced, it is not recommended to do so at this stage.
One of the main contributions of Taguchi was to extend the use of signal–
Inner
X: The effects of this type of noise cannot be reduced in this department using the strategy indicated.
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
R
R
to–noise ratios to non-communication engineering. As it will be shown next,
R: The effects of this type of noise can be reduced in this department using the strategy indicated.
Noises
all signal–to–noise 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.
(environmental effects)
As with quality loss functions, three diferent S/N ratios have been developed
to use depending on its intended behavior: nominal–the–best, smaller–the–
better and larger–the–better. These three S/N ratios are computed from the
Outer
X
X
X
X
X
X
R
R
following formulas:
Nominal–the–best
μ2
S/N = 10 log (8.13)
σ2

2. Product management
(yi /n), σ 2 = 1/(n − 1) (yi − μ)2 and n is the number of

1. Process management
where μ =
2. Parameter design
2. Parameter design
observations.
1. After-sale service
1. Tolerance design
3. Tolerance design
1. System design
1. System design
Smaller–the–better

1
S/N = −10 log yi2 (8.14)
Strategy
Modify:
Modify:
Modify:
Development and design Modify:
Larger–the–better

Production Technology
Technology departments
1 1
S/N = −10 log (8.15)
On-line departments
n yi2
Manufacturing
Taguchi, 1993).
The key characteristic of the S/N ratios is that maximizing them will in all
Marketing
Department
cases minimize the quality loss function L(y).
Copyright 2006
209 8.5 Parameter design 8.5 Parameter design 210
Factors Replicates S/N Input
Experiment A B AB ··· 1 2 ··· n η
1 1 1 1 ··· y11 y12 ··· y1n η1

2 1 2 2 ··· y21 y22 ··· y2n η2
3 1 3 3 ··· y31 y32 ··· y3n η3 Design Factors Noise Factors
(controllable) Product/System (uncontrollable)
4 2 1 1 ··· y41 y42 ··· y4n η4
.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .
N 4 4 1 ··· yN 1 yN 2 ··· yN n ηN Quality
Characteristics
Table 8.2: An experimental setup using S/N ratios. Smaller−the−better
Larger−the−better
Nominal−the−best
Consider for example the experimental setup shown in table 8.2. In this exam-
ple the experiments have been replicated and several different responses yN n
have been recorded. Instead of using the average response as a measure of the
Output
output of the experiments, a suitable signal–to–noise ratio may be selected.
Once more, remembering that maximizing the S/N ratio will minimize the
Figure 8.4: The Taguchi robust parameter design.
corresponding quality loss function.
description of the Taguchi method is shown in figure 8.4.

8.5 Parameter design
The first 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
Robust design involves ensuring that a given design will perform as expected an appropriate orthogonal array in exactly the same way as it has been done
regardless of the noise factors that may affect it. One answer to this problem until now. This orthogonal array of design factors receives the name of inner
may be to isolate the product from noise. This option may be either expensive or design array.
or even impossible as isolating some products like cars or other types of vehi-
cles. Other option may be to compensate for the noise, for example, including Next, the technique suggests to select those noise factors that are believed to
in the product control systems. Although this option is more real, is still ex- affect the design the most and assign numeric values in a range as it is done
pensive and not applicable to all cases. One third option, the one that Taguchi with design (controllable) factors. Depending on the number of noise factors
suggest, is to minimize the effect of noise in the product. The question now and the levels of interest, a suitable orthogonal array has to be selected as if
remains how to include those noise factors in the design. the experiment consisted only of noise factors. This orthogonal array receives
the name of outer or noise array.
Taguchi suggested that noise factors can be managed similarly to design fac-
tors, including their effect in the experimental setup through an orthogonal ar- Once the inner and outer orthogonal arrays have been selected, both arrays
ray. This technique, called Taguchi robust parameter design allows to explore are coupled in a single designed experiment as shown in table 8.4. Each replica
the effect of noises in the design in a efficient and simple way. A graphical of the experiment will involve including certain levels of each one of the noise
Copyright 2006
211 8.5 Parameter design 8.5 Parameter design 212
Outer (Noise) Array Outer L4 Array
Experiment Experiment
1 2 ··· M Noise 1 2 3 4 Noise
1 1 ··· 2 P 1 1 2 2 E
..
1 2 ··· 2 . 1 2 1 2 F
Inner (factors) Array 1 2 ··· 1 R Inner L9 Array 1 2 2 1 G
Control Factors Control Factors
Experiment A B AB ··· S/N Experiment A B C D S/N
1 1 1 1 ··· y11 y12 ··· y1m η1 1 1 1 1 1 y11 y12 y13 y14 η1

2 1 2 2 ··· y21 y22 ··· y2m η2 2 1 2 2 2 y21 y22 y23 y24 η2
3 1 3 3 ··· y31 y32 ··· y3m η3 3 1 3 3 3 y31 y32 y33 y34 η3
4 2 1 1 ··· y41 y42 ··· y4m η4 4 2 1 2 3 y41 y42 y43 y44 η4
.. .. .. .. .. 5 2 2 3 1 y51 y52 y53 y54 η5
. . . . .
N 4 4 1 ··· yN 1 yN 2 ··· yN m ηN 6 2 3 1 2 y61 y62 y63 y64 η6
7 3 1 3 2 y71 y72 y73 y74 η7
Table 8.3: Experimental setup using inner and outer arrays.
8 3 2 1 3 y81 y82 y83 y84 η8
9 3 3 2 1 y91 y92 y93 y94 η9
factors selected as specified by the inner array. Overall, if there are N design
factors and M noise factors, then M × N experiments must be run. Table 8.4: Experimental setup using a L9 inner array and a L4 outer array.
Consider for example a designed experiment involving 4 independent factors,

namely A, B, C and D, each one with three levels. Furthermore, consider that factors. One advantage of measuring the response through S/N ratios is that
the design is affected by mainly by three noise factors, E, F and G, and that since the S/N ratio is computed for each experiment of the inner array, a higher
2 levels are to be considered on each. S/N ratio will indicate less sensitivity to the effects of noise factors.
As there are 4 design factors, each one with three levels, a L9 array seems Once the experiments have been carried out, the selection of optimal values for
appropriate. On the other hand, for the three two-level noise factors, an L4 the design factors can be carried out as done before but remembering that if
array is sufficient. The resulting setup for the experiment with these two arrays signal–to–noise ratios are used, then optimal values will be found maximizing
is shown in table 8.4. the response independently of the S/N formula used. The selection of factor
levels that maximize the response can be done as usual from main-effects plots.
From the setup of the experiment, as each experiment of the inner array is Nevertheless, it is of extreme importance to select the S/N ratio formula that
carried out multiple times, each one with a different combination of factors, fits the response of the problem at hand, either nominal–the–best, smaller–
the variation among the responses yn1 to yn4 must be caused by the noise the–better or larger–the–better.
Copyright 2006
213 8.5 Parameter design 8.6 Examples 214
4. For factor that have no or little effect on S/N and the mean function,
choose any level that is more convenient from the point of view of other
Reduce Variation considerations, such as other quality characteristics and cost.
(a) Although the above methodology provides some insight into the optimization
problem, it requires the finding of a factor that has little or no effect on the
m m S/N but has at the same time a significant effect on the mean.
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.
Shift mean to target
(1983) have suggested the following two steps strategy:
(b) 1. Separately determine the control factors and their optimum levels cor-
responding to each response variable. if there is a conflict between the
m T m=T optimum levels suggested by the different repsonse variables, use engi-
neering judgment to solve the conflict.
Figure 8.5: Steps to reduce the quality loss.
2. Select a factor that has the smallest effect or no effect on the S/N ratio
As of now, the discussion about robust design have been centered in minimiz- for all response variables but has a significant effect on the mean levels.
ing the effects of noise in the design. For that purpose, the S/N ratio has been This is called mean adjustment/signal factor. Then, set the level of
selected as a convenient choice to minimize the quality loss. From the concept adjustment factor so that the mean responses are on target.
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 graph- As it can be observed the above strategy is not very different from the one-
ically in figure 8.5a. But what can be done when the reduction in variation response optimization strategy. Nevertheless, it requires much more careful
is done around the wrong target? This case, shown in figure 8.5b, calls for a application.
different strategy.
In order to reduce variability in the product and keep the mean in target,
Phadke (1989) suggest the following strategy: 8.6 Examples
1. Evaluate the effects of the control factors under consideration on average 8.6.1. Use of plastics in (Antony et al., 2001) A company wants to investi-
response and S/N. braking systems gate the possibility of using lightweight plastics in a
2. For factors that have a significant effect on S/N, select the levels that modern braking system and decided to carry out a
maximize S/N. Taguchi’s experiment. The production process con-
sists of a heated die, which is then forced down by air pressure onto a valve
3. Select any factor that has no or little effect on S/N but has a significant body forming a plastic lip into which a retaining ring is inserted. A schematic
effect on the mean function as an adjustment factor. Use the adjustment view of the process is shown in figure 8.6. The purpose of the experiment was
factor to bring the mean function on target. to obtain the parameters of the process that maximized the pull-out strenght.
Copyright 2006
11111
00000
00000
11111
Pre−heated die Force Run B A C D E B×E y1 y2 y3 y S/N
00
11 00
11
Metal insert
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.18 2.10 2.14 2.14 6.61
00
11
00 11
00 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2.68 2.65 2.67 2.67 8.52
Thermoplastic
11 00
11 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2.46 2.57 2.52 2.52 8.01
moulding 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2.92 2.59 2.76 2.76 8.78
5 1 3 1 1 2 2 2.83 2.74 2.79 2.79 8.90
6 1 3 2 2 1 1 3.61 3.22 3.42 3.42 10.64
Servo valve body 7 1 4 1 1 2 2 3.31 3.40 3.36 3.36 10.52
8 1 4 2 2 1 1 4.02 3.98 4.00 4.00 12.04
Figure 8.6: Schematic view of the industrial process.
9 2 1 1 2 1 2 3.08 3.14 3.11 3.11 9.85
10 2 1 2 1 2 1 3.07 2.97 3.02 3.02 9.60
From the many variables affecting the process, five were selected as critical. 11 2 2 1 2 1 2 3.35 3.15 3.25 3.25 10.23
The choice of control factors and levels is described in table 8.5. As the objetive 12 2 2 2 1 2 1 3.46 3.21 3.34 3.34 10.45
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. 13 2 3 1 2 2 1 3.42 3.81 3.62 3.62 11.14
14 2 3 2 1 1 2 3.56 3.70 3.63 3.63 11.19
As temperature was the most critical factor, the engineering team working on
15 2 4 1 2 2 1 4.33 4.90 4.62 4.62 13.25
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 fit the experiment 16 2 4 2 1 1 2 4.77 4.70 4.74 4.74 13.51
needs was the L16 . Nevertheless, it had to be modified to fit a four-levels
factor. A common technique to fit a column with more levels is to merge two Table 8.6: Experimental layout for the study.
or more columns in the array.
The first 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
Level
a four-levels factors has three degrees of freedom. In order to maintain the
Control factor Units 1 2 3 4 balance in the array, to fit a four-levels column, three two-levels columns have
to be merged. In that way, three one-degree-of-freedom columns are merged
◦
Die temperature (A) C 180 200 220 240 to fit one three-degrees-of-freedom column.
Hold time (B) sec 5 15 – –
For the problem under study, it was decided to merge columns 2, 4 and 6. If
Batch no. (C) 1 2 – – these columns are isolated, each row will fall in one of the following combina-
Maximum force (D) kN 6 7 – – tions: 1-1-1, 1-2-2, 2-1-2 or 2-2-1. Each combination can be now assigned to
Force application rate (E) kN/sec 5 1 – – 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.
Table 8.5: Design factors for the Taguchi experiment.
Copyright 2006
60 61.01
50
Influence (%)
12.5 40
12 28.59
30
Signal−to−noise ratio
11.5
20
11
10 4.78 3.97
10.5 1.53
0.11 0.01
10 0
A B C D E BE Error
9.5
Factor
9
8.5 Figure 8.9: Percent influence of the design factors.

A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2
Factors
Figure 8.7: Factor effects on the signal–to–noise ratio.
The experimental setup from the modified orthogonal array and its results are
shown in table 8.6. 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
Average pull−out strength (kN)
4.2 in such a way that the maximum pull-out strength is achieved together with
4 the minimum variation. Hence, optimal condition is achieved selecting the
3.8 levels of each factor that yields the highest S/N ratio. Figure 8.7 shows the
3.6
response in the S/N ratio for the different factors. From the plot, it is clear
that factors A and B have the most influence in the S/N response and that
3.4
optimal levels based on S/N are obtained with A4 , B2 , C2 , D2 , and E1 .
3.2
3 For this problem, the same conclusions can be drawn from plots of main effects
2.8
in average response, shown in figure 8.8, as the levels that maximize the average
pull-out strength, remains A4 , B2 , C2 , D2 , and E1 .
2.6
A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2
Factors To complete the analysis is always recommendable to check the percent influ-
ence of factors. For this problem, the percent influence in the singal-to-noise
Figure 8.8: Factor effects on the average response. ratio is shown in figure 8.9. As expected, factors A and B has the most influ-
ence with 61% and 29% percent, respectively. Factors C and D have a very
small influence with 4.8% and 4%, and factor E and the interaction B×E have
a negligible influence as their contribution is respectively 0.11 and 0.01%.
Copyright 2006
8.6.2. An injection (Modified from Reddy et al., 1998) A company manufac-

moulding process tures a large range of plastic mouldings from household
to large industrial products. The company has experi-
Level
mented some complaints from customers regarding an agitator used in washing
machines. The agitator, depicted schematically in figure 8.10, is respnsible for Control factor Units 1 2
the movement of clothes inside the washing tub. The product is moulded in
◦
polypropylene and is fitted on to a serrated shaft spline and locked in position Mould temperature (A) C 35 50
with a screw. Injection pressure (B) kg/cm2 110 150
After some initial investigation, it was observed that the problem was mainly Hold-on pressure (C) kg/cm2 70 120
due to lack of keeping dimensions, specifically in the outer-diameter and pull- Injection time (D) sec 30 50
out strength. It was decided to use Taguchi’s parameter design methodology Hold-on time (E) sec 23 33
to bring the process on target. To ensure success, three response variables
were taken into account: outer diameter, height and pull-out strength. Cooling time (F) sec 50 100
Fill time (G) sec 7 17
The engineering team dealing with the problem identified seven control factors
relevent to the investigation. These seven factors are: mould temperature (A), Table 8.7: Control factors and their levels for the agitator experiment.
injection pressure (B), hold-on pressure (C), injection time (D), holding time
(E), cooling time (F) and fill 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 figure 8.7. Also, the team decided to
neglect interactions for the sake of simplicity and use instead confirmation or
verification experiments to avoid misleading conclusions.
Outer diameter Height Pull-out force
Exp. Mean S/N Mean S/N Mean

washer tub
11
00 1 329.30 65.88 113.21 52.99 3.00
2 329.41 65.08 114.07 58.83 1.66
1111
0000 3 329.45 64.02 113.20 43.29 1.69
0000
1111
0000
1111
0000
1111
0000
1111
4 329.48 66.89 113.54 45.17 2.12
0000
1111 5 329.48 60.29 113.88 47.79 2.77
0000
1111
0000
1111
00
11
0000
1111 6 329.45 67.89 114.05 50.21 1.48
00
11
0000
1111
height
00
11 (114 mm) 7 329.43 72.12 113.85 52.21 2.13
8 329.60 69.57 113.72 52.75 2.58
1
0
00
11
0
1
00
11
outer−diameter Table 8.8: Summary of responses for the agitator experiment.
Figure 8.10: Washing machine agitator.
Copyright 2006
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 different operators, two shifts, and raw materials
40
from two different vendors. As all noise factors had two levels, a L4 array was
35 32.69
appropriate as noise array.
Influence in S/N (%)

30
The recorded response from the experiments is described in table 8.8. As the 25 22.18
20.81 20.39
objective of the experiment was to minimize variance and bring the process 20
mean on target for the outer diameter and height responses, the nominal-the- 15
best case was selected to compute the S/N ratio for these quality characteris-
10
tics. Although it was desirable to minimize the pull-out force, it was decided
5 3.98
to deal with this response after the previous two had been optimized.
0
From the results obtained, the percent influence or percent contribution for A B C G Error
each factor on each response, either average or in terms of the S/N ratio, were Factor
calculated. The results are presented in figures 8.11 and 8.13 for the outer
diameter. For the height, the results are presented in figures 8.15 and 8.17 for Figure 8.11: Percent of influence of control factors in the S/N ratio for the
the S/N ratio and the average response, respectively. For the pull-out force, outer diameter. Factors D, E and F were pooled.
the percent influence of factors in the average response is shown in figure 8.19.
In all cases all those factors with a small contribution were pooled into error
to avoid misleading results with the ANOVA.
The main effects plots for the outer diameter in terms of the S/N ratio and
the average response are shown in figures 8.12 and 8.14, respectively. For the
height, the main effects plot in terms of the S/N ratio is shown in figure 8.16 68.5
and in terms of the average response is shown in figure 8.18. Finally, the main 68
effects plot for the average pull-out force is shown in figure 8.20. 67.5
From the results for the outer diameter it can be concluded that for the S/N 67
ratio, factors B and C have a moderate effect and contributes around 20% 66.5
each. Factor G, fill time, has the most influence with a 22.18%. From the 66
main effects plot for the S/N ratio, factor G has again the most influence. 65.5
The optimum levels for the most significant factors are B2 , C1 and G1 . For
65
the average response, factor A, mould temperature, and the fill time have the
64.5
most significant effect with a contribution of around 30% each. Factors C and A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
F have a moderate effect and factor E has the least influence on the response. Factors
From the main effects plot, factors A, B, D and G cause all a relatively large
change in the average response. Figure 8.12: Plots of main effects for the outer diameter using S/N.
Copyright 2006
From the above results, factors B, C and G can be treated as control factors
as they have a relatively large influence in the S/N response. Factors A and
40 F are the best candidates as adjustment or signal factors since they cause an
35
34.38 important effect on the average response but have a little effect on the S/N
29.27 ratio.
30
Influence (%)
25 Analyzing the results for the height, it can be observed that for the S/N
20 ratio, factor C, hold-on pressure, has by far the largest percent contribution
15 12.50 12.50 with almost 67%, follow by factor B, injection pressure with almost 20% and
10 factor D, injection time, with almost 8%. All other factors have a very small
7.18
5
4.17 contribution. From the main effects plot for the S/N ratio, factors B and C
have most influence in the S/N ratio and have both level 1 as their optimal.
0
A C E F G Error
Regarding the average response for the height, factor A has a relatively high
Factor influence with 32.5%. Factors D and E have a moderate influence of around
20%. Factors B and F have a small influence of around 10%. From the main
Figure 8.13: Percent of influence of control factors in the average response for
effects plot, factor A has the most influence and factor C the least.
the outer diameter. Factors B and D were pooled.
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 influence with almost 70%. Factors C and D have a relatively small
329.5
contribution of 10 and 17%. All other factors have almost no contribution.
Average outer diameter (mm)
From the main effects plot it can be observed that a change in the cooling
329.48
time causes a large change in the average force required to remove the agitator
329.46
from the shaft.
The above analyses show that factors B, C and G can be used as control
329.44
factors while factors A and F can be used as adjustment factors for the problem
329.42
considering that all three responses, outer diameter, height and pull-out force
have to be considered. The final selection of levels have to be carried out taking
329.4 into account the above results and considering the nature of the industrial
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2 process when contradictory results are at hand.
Factors
Consider for example the injection pressure (factor B). In terms of the S/N
Figure 8.14: Plots of main effects for the outer diameter using the average ratio, factor B has to be at level 2 for optimal response in the outer diameter.
response. 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.
Copyright 2006
80 40
70 66.62 35 32.53
Influence in S/N (%)
60 30
Influence (%)
50 25 22.73
19.47
40 20
30 15 11.37
19.22 9.67
20 10
7.95 4.23
10 2.93 5
1.25 2.03
0 0
B C D E F Error A B D E F Error
Factor Factor
Figure 8.15: Percent of influence of control factors in the S/N ratio for the Figure 8.17: Percent of influence of control factors in the average response for
height. Factors A and G were pooled. the height. Factors C and G were pooled.
55 113.9
54 113.85
Average height (mm)

53
113.8
52
113.75
51
113.7
50
113.65
49
48 113.6
47 113.55
46 113.5
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Factors Factors
Figure 8.16: Plots of main effects for the height using S/N. Figure 8.18: Plots of main effects for the height using the average response.
Copyright 2006
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
80 may increase the vulnerability of the parts to the wear and tear of daily use.
69.86 If high pressure is exerted on the material and released too soon, some of the
70
material will move out of the mould into the runners and sprue, owing to relief
60
Influence (%)
from the state of compression resulting in still greater final shrinkage”. As

50
shrinkage will increase the necessary force to retire the agitator, it was decided
40 to set the injection pressure at level 1.
30
20 16.97 From similar analyses the engineering team found the following final results:
9.86
10
1.10 2.21
0 • Mould temperature (A) = 50◦ C (level 2).
A C D F Error
Factor • Injection pressure (B) = 110 kg/cm2 (level 1).
Figure 8.19: Percent of influence of control factors in the average response for • Hold-on pressure (C) = 70 kg/cm2 (level 1).
the pull-out force. Factors B, E and G were pooled. • 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).

Average pull−out force (kg/cm²)
2.7
2.6
The above combination of factors is not in the array of experimental runs, so
2.5
verification experiments were carried out yielding good results both in terms
2.4
of getting target values and reducing variability. The interested reader is en-
2.3
2.2
couraged to read the full paper for more details.
2.1
2
1.9 References
1.8
1.7
A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2
Factors
1. Antony, J., Warwood, S., Fernandes, K. & Rowlands, H. (2001) Process
optimisation using Taguchi methods of experimental design. Work Study, 50,
Figure 8.20: Plots of main effects for the pull-out force using the average pp. 51-57.
response.
2. Fowlkes, W.Y. & Creveling, C.M. (1995) Engineering methods for robust
product design. Using Taguchi Methods in Technology and Product Develop-
ment. Addison-Wesley.
Copyright 2006
229 8.6 Examples
3. Phadke, M.S., Kackar, R.N., Speeney, D.V. & Grieco, M.J. (1983) Off-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) Taguchi’s method-

ology for multi-response optimization. A case study in the Indian plastics CHAPTER 9
industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15, pp.
646-68.
6. Roy, R.K. (2001) Design of experiments using the Taguchi approach. 16 Response Surface Method
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. 9.1 Overview of the method
From the previous chapters, Taguchi methodology presents itself as a very

attractive methodology to effectively 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 finds that the factor level that maximizes
the response is 3 (see figure 9.1a). To be sure, he or she finds a interpolated
function by means of a least-squares regression and finds that effectively, the
optimum level for the control factor is 3, as shown in the figure 9.1b. 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 figure
Copyright 2006
231 9.2 Steepest ascent method 9.2 Steepest ascent method 232
y y y
False False True
optimum optimum optimum
interpolated False
response optimum
x x x
x1 x2 x3 x1 x2 x3 x1 x2 x3
(a) (b) (c) 0.75
0.5
Figure 9.1: Missing an optimal point in a single factor experiment. 0.25
0
9.1c. The engineer/scientist goes home happy thinking that he/she found the 2
1.5
true optimal, not realizing that the true optimal has not been found yet. 1
0.5
−2 −1.5 0
The above story shows one disadvantage of using discrete values for design −1 −0.5 −0.5
0 0.5 −1
1 −1.5
factors: the true optimum may be missed. To solve this problem, one option 1.5 2−2
is to try to use continuous values for the design factor. Albeit not as efficient
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 efficient possible way. The name response surface comes from the fact 2
that it is possible to represent responses as surfaces, where then a maximum 1.5 1

0.9
or minimum can be looked for. In many ocassions, analysis is carried out using 0.8
1 0.7
two factors at a time, in such a way a three-dimensional surface can be plotted 0.6
or represented by a contour map (see figure 9.2). 0.5 0.5
0.4
0.3
0 0.2
0.1
−0.5 0
9.2 Steepest ascent method −1
−1.5
9.2.1. Single factor The process of searching for an optimal solution can be
−2
problem illustrated using a single factor, single response problem.
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
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 no-
tation, in the following example the response y will be a function of a single
Figure 9.2: Three-dimensional response surface and corresponding contour
factor X1 .
map.
Copyright 2006
y maximum
y
X steepest
X
1−0
ascent
Figure 9.3: A response curve with an initial condition X1−0 . X
X X 1-n
1−0
y
Figure 9.5: Looking for a maximum point in the steepest ascent direction.
If the slope at condition X1−0 is positive, that means that the maximum is at
slope the right, since the response increases in that direction. This direction that
intercept points to the condition of maximum response is called the direction of steepest
X ascent. When the slope is negative, then the condition of maximum response
X 1−0
will be at the left. In general, this slope will only be accurate in the vecinity
of the condition X1−0 , but is good enough to show which direction to follow.
Figure 9.4: Tangent line at initial condition X1−0 .
Once the direction of steepest descent has been found, the following step is to
run an experiment with a new condition X1−1 = X1−0 ± ΔX1 , where the sign
Since one of advantages of the Response Surface Methodology is that it can
depends on the direction to follow.
be applied to a running system without having to stop production, consider
that the system is running at some initial condition X1−0 as shown in figure The above procedure is repeated several times until the response stops increas-
9.3. The objective of the procedure is to find the point of optimal response ing as shown in figure 9.5. If the response stops increasing, it is because we
which in this case is the maximum response. The standard approach in RMS are at the optimum, or near it. If the new computed slope differs in sign from
is to find for points of maximum response. When the point of interest is a the previous ones, then the point of maximum response is between the last
minimum, then the response is simply multiplied by −1. two chosen conditions. In this case, small increments of X1 can used to hunt
for the point of maximum response.
Starting from the initial condition X1−0 , in this simple problem the maximum
is either at the right or left. To find which side to go, consider that the
process is varied slightly to find the values of the responses in the vecinity of 9.2.2. Two factors problem The above example, although simple in nature,
X1−0 . These additional points, represented by crosses in figure 9.4, allows the presents how RMS works toward finding an op-
calculation through linear regression analysis of the slope at point X1−0 . It is timum point and the procedure followed can be applied regardless of the num-
important to remember that the response curve is not known in advance and ber of factors. Consider now a more complicated problem with two factors. In
that several observation may have to be carried if there is scatter in the data. this case, the response is not a curve but a surface.
Copyright 2006
1 1
y 0.5 0.5
Steepest
0 0 ascent
X2−0 X2−0
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
-1 -0.5 0 X1−0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 X1−0 0.5 1
x x
Figure 9.6: A response surface with an initial condition (X1−0 , X2−0 ). Figure 9.7: Additional sample points at the vecinity of condition (X1−0 , X2−0 )
and steepest ascent vector.
As in the single factor problem, starting point of the procedure is an initial
condition, in this case, (X1−0 , X2−0 ) since two factors namely, X1 and X2 , are • If the slope with respect to factor X2 is positive, then the direction of
considered. Figure 9.6 shows this starting point representing the unknown steepest ascent is to the top.
response surface as a contour map.
• If the slope with respect to factor X2 is negative, then the direction of
Next, it is necessary to find the steepest ascent direction, which in this case is steepest ascent is to the left.
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 Since the two slopes with respect to X1 and X2 are available, then it is possible
of (X1−0 , X2−0 ) as shown in figure 9.7, and computing a multiple-variable linear to find not only the direction of steepest ascent but the vector of steepest
regression analysis. Since this case involves a two-factor problem, at least three ascent. This vector will point in which direction the maximum appears to
additional points are required for the linear regression analysis to work. From be. Naturally, this direction will be accurate only in the vecinity of the of
the linear regression, two slopes will be found, one with respect to factor X1 (X1−0 , X2−0 ).
and one with respect to parameter X2 .
From the direction found, a new set of conditions (X1−i , X2−i ) must be found
The direction of steepest ascent can be found from the slopes as follows: until the response stops increasing as sketched in figure 9.8. When two or
more factors are taken into account, the direction of the increments taken to
• If the slope with respect to factor X1 is positive, then the direction of generate the new condition, in this case (X1−1 , X2−1 ), has to agree with the
steepest ascent is to the right. vector of steepest ascent. In order to do that, increments for the factors must
be chosen accordingly.
• If the slope with respect to factor X1 is negative, then the direction of
steepest ascent is to the left.
Copyright 2006
1
75
70
y 0.5
65
X1− , X 2−
n n
60
0
X2−1
X2−0 55
-0.5 50
45
-1 0.5 1 y
-0.5 0 0
-1 0.5 1 -1 -0.5
X1−1 0 X1−0 0.5 X1 X2
-1 -0.5 1
x
x
Figure 9.8: Tangent line in the direction of steepest ascent and the new con- Figure 9.10: The climber analogy.
dition (X1−1 , X2−1 ) found.
In order to obtain the increments for the factors, typically the factor with the
largest magnitude of slope is chosen first and a desired value for the increment is
1 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,
Steepest
y 0.5
ascent an increment ΔX1 will be chosen taking into account the characteristics of
the process and the corresponding increment ΔX2 will be calculated. In this
X 2−n fashion, new conditions (X1−i , X2−i ) can be generated. Once the response
0 stops increasing, then it is necessary to find a new vector of steepest ascent
and repeat the procedure to hunt of the optimum as shown in figure 9.9.
-0.5 9.2.3. The climber analogy In many occasions, the Response Surface Method
of finding maximums is compared to a climber
that wants to reach the top of a mountain that is covered by dense fog. As
-1
-1 X1−n -0.5 0 0.5 1
the climber does not know exactly where the top is, he or she needs to rely
in his/her instruments to find the way. If the climber has an altimeter and a
x
compass, he/she measure the altitute in some points around his/her current
Figure 9.9: Steepest ascent vector at condition (X1−1 , X2−1 ). 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 di-
Copyright 2006
rection until he/she notices that altitude is not gained anymore. With the where ΔX is the increment in physical units and ΔX̂ is the selected increment
help of the altimeter, the climber takes several measurements of altitude in in coded units.
points nearby. With this information, the climber finds once more the direc-
tion where the altitude increases the most and starts to climb again following 9.2.5. Finding the vector As explained above, two of the key points of the
that direction until he/she notices that altitude fails to increase. and increments of steepest Response Surface Method are to find the vector
ascent of steepest ascent and to obtain the chosen in-
Repeating the procedure, the climber will eventually reach the top. Although
crement in the same direction. Fortunately, once
one may argue that the procedure is not very efficient, it is important to notice
the results of the regression analysis are available, these two key points are easy
that surely is faster than trial and error and somehow guarantees that a peak
to carry out.
(maximum) will be found. At this point is important to mention that as an
expert climber will observe, to find a peak does not necessarily means that one Considering a two-factors problem, after the regression analysis is performed,
has reached the top of the mountain as another higher peak may be close by. an equation of the form
9.2.4. Coded variables In the procedure described above, it is necessary to ŷ = β0 + β1 X̂1 + β2 X̂2 (9.3)
carry out a regression analysis to find the direction
of steepest ascent. As explained above, this regression is performed on selected
is available. Mathematically speaking, the β1 and β2 factors are the slopes
points laying on the vecinity of a condition (X1−i , X2−i ). Unfortunately, the
with respect to X̂1 and X̂2 ,
regression may contain factors of very different units and ranges, reason for
which it is not convenient to perform the regression in the raw data. Instead, ∂y ∂y
all data must be normalized before the regression analysis is done. = β1 = β2 (9.4)
∂X1 ∂X2
It is convenient to normalize data in the range −1 to +1 so all factors affect
the response in the same way. To convert any factor X into a coded variable and therefore the vector of steepest ascent would be described by
X̂, the simple following formulas may be used:
∂y ∂y
, (9.5)
X − Xmid-value ∂ X̂1 ∂ X̂2
X̂ = 2 (9.1)
Xmax − Xmin
Now, it is necessary to choose the desired increment based on both experience
where Xmid-value = (Xmax − Xmin )/2 and Xmax and Xmin is the maximum and and the process itself. Assuming that the largest slope is in factor X1 , then it
ˆ as base increment. To keep the increment
is convenient to select a given ΔX1
minimum values for factor X to consider.
vector in the same direction as the vector as steepest ascent, the increment in
As it has been discussed, once the regression has been carried out and the any other factor Xn can be calculated from
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. (∂y/∂ X̂n)
ΔX̂n = ΔX̂1 (9.6)
Nevertheless, it will be necessary to transform the increment in terms of coded (∂y/∂ X̂1)
variables into an increment in terms of the original physical units in order to
setup the next experiment. This backwards transformation is given by
Since these increments are in coded variables, it is necessary to transform them
Xmax − Xmin into increments in physical variables. This transformation can be carried out
ΔX = ΔX̂ (9.2) accordingly using equation (9.2).
2
Copyright 2006
241 9.3 Local exploration method 9.3 Local exploration method 242
As sometimes the selection of the magnitude of the increments is not easy, Region found by
some authors suggest to follow the next strategy. Suppose that from linear the steepest
ascent method
regression the following linear model can be established:
y
y = β0 + β1 X1 + β2 X2 + · · · + βk Xk (9.7)
From the above model, the next coordinate to analyze can be obtained as
βi
Xinew = Xiold + ρ (9.8)
k
2
β X
k
j=1
Figure 9.11: Region of the response where the maximum lays.
where Xiold is the current value for the Xi factor, Xinew is the next value for
In general, three different types of designed experiments are preferred for local
Xi after one increment and ρ is the step length. When no better choice for the
exploration: Central Composites Designs (CCD), Box-Behnken designs and
step length is available, ρ = 1 is a common selection.
From the above formula,
k
D-Optimal designs. In some occasions, Taguchi arrays may also be used due
2
it is clear that the increment is given by βi / j=1 k . It is left to the reader
β to their simplicity. In what follows, CCD and Box-Behnken designs will be
to study the equivalence of this procedure to the one shown earlier. discussed.
9.3.1. Central Composite Central Composites Designs (CCD) are a combi-

9.3 Local exploration method Designs nation of factorial or fractional factorial designs
with a group of centerpoints and a group of sec-
ondary points that allows the estimation of second order effects. The points
After a search for the point of maximum point using the steepest ascent method belonging to the to the secondary group receive the name of axial points. If
has been carried out, and the engineer/scientist feels that the optimum point the factorial design points are usually at a distance ±1 unit from the center of
should be close by, then the method of local exploration may be a better choice. the design, axial points are at a distance ±α where |α| < 1. The exact value
of α depends on the specific factorial design choosen.
Consider figure 9.11. In the case depicted, the steepst ascent method would
require to obtain a new direction of steepest ascent, to select an increment, and The layout of a CCD experiment is shown in figure 9.1. The first part of the
advance looking for the point where the response starts to diminish. This pro- layout consists of N F factorial design points. Here, full factorial or fractional
cedure can become both tedious and long, specially for problems with multiple factorial designs may be used. In the second part, N C centerpoints are spec-
factors. When the maximum point is near, the method of local exploration is ified. The number of centerpoints in the design depends on the number of
better suited to find it in a quick and effective way. repetitions required to obtain a predition of the error in the model. In gen-
eral, the more centerpoints are selected, the lower the prediction error will be.
The method of local exploration requires to carry out a designed experiment Finally, the number of axial points, N A, is always twice the number of factors.
to fit 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 The CCD layout may be represented graphically as depicted in figure 9.12 for
and calculus techniques may be used to find the optimum point. a two factors design. As shown, the CCD layout is a combination of factorial
Copyright 2006
Factors
Point type Experimental Point X1 X2

X2 X2
Factorial 1 −1 −1
Design 2 1 −1 +α
.. +1
Points . −1 1
NF 1 1
Centerpoints 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 0
.. .. ..
. . . −1
NC 0 0 −α
X1 X1
Axial 1 −α 0 +1 −α 0 +α
Points 2 α 0 Factorial design Axial points

.. with centerpoints
. 0 −α
NA 0 α
X2
Table 9.1: Layout of Central Composite Designs.
+α
+1
points, centerpoints and axial points.
The value of α 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 0
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
direction in the experiment’s prediction. Since there is no knowledge on in −1
what direction the maximum point may be, it is desirable not to set by design −α
a direction of preference. Rotatables design, are therefore, a better choice. X1
−α −1 0 +1 +α
To have a rotatable central composite design, the value of α is a function of Central Composite Design
the number of experimental runs in the factorial portion of the design,
1 Figure 9.12: Central Composite Design (CCD).
α = (N F ) 4 (9.9)
Values for α for designs including two to six factors are shown in table 9.2.
Copyright 2006
Number of factors Factorial design α

X1 X2 X3
2
2 2 1.414
−1 −1 0
3
3 2 1.682
−1 1 0
4 24 2.000
1 −1 0
5 25−1 2.000
1 1 0
5 25 2.378
−1 0 −1
6 26−1 2.378
−1 0 1
6 26 2.828
1 0 −1
Table 9.2: Values for α for different factorial designs. 1 0 1
0 −1 −1
One disadvantage of rotatable central designs is that they require to consider 0 −1 1
five levels for each factor: −α, −1, 0, +1, +α. In many cases, this requirement −1 1 0
makes CCD designs difficult to implement or carry out. One alternative is to
0 1 −1
set α = 1 to reduce the number of levels involved in the experimental design.
These designs are called face-centered central composite designs. Although 0 1 1
this type of setup requires only three levels for each factor, it looses the CCD 0 0 0
rotatable property. For these cases, Box-Benhken designs provide another .. .. ..
. . .
convenient alternative.
0 0 0
9.3.2. Box-Behnken Box-Behnken designs are quadratic independent designs Table 9.3: Box-Behnken design for three factors.
Designs that do not contain an embedded full or fractional fac-
torial design. Hence, in this design, experimental runs
are at the center and at midpoints of edges of the design space. Figure 9.13
shows graphically a Box-Behnken design for three factors. The levels for each
one of the factors are specified in table 9.3. 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 9.4 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.
Figure 9.13: Graphical representation of a Box-Behnken design for three fac-

tors.
Copyright 2006
247 9.3 Local exploration method 9.4 Examples 248
9.3.3. Single response Once the experimental design layout has been choosen,
X1 X2 X3 X4 model creation and the experimental runs have been carried out, it is
time to create a quadratic model that can be analyzed
−1 −1 0 0 in order to find the optimum response point.
−1 1 0 0
In general, a quadratic model can be described as:
1 −1 0 0
1 1 0 0
k
k
y = β0 + βi xi + βii x2i + βij xi xj + ε (9.10)
−1 0 −1 0
i=1 i=1 i<j
−1 0 1 0
1 0 −1 0 The above equation can be rewritten in matrix form as:
1 0 1 0
y = Xβ + ε (9.11)
−1 0 0 −1
−1 0 0 1 where y is the response vector, X is the factor or information matrix and β is
1 0 0 −1 the coefficent vector.
1 0 0 1 In order to find the coefficient vector β, a least-squares fit for multiple linear
0 −1 −1 0 regression can be obtained from
0 −1 1 0
β̂ = (XX)−1 X y (9.12)
0 1 −1 0
0 1 1 0
Once coefficients are found, the model is complente and can be analyzed using
0 −1 0 −1 standard calculus techniques in order to find the point of maximum yield.
0 −1 0 1
0 1 0 −1
0 1 0 1 9.4 Examples
0 0 −1 −1
0 0 −1 1 9.4.1. Chemical process (Yang & El-Haik, 2003). In a given chemical pro-
0 0 1 −1 response cess, the two most important factors are temper-
ature and reaction time. The response surface method
0 0 1 1
is selected to obtain the point that maximizes yield.
0 0 0 0 To carry out experiments, a central composite layout is used where α = 1.414.
.. .. .. .. The summary of experimental runs is shown in table 9.5.
. . . .
0 0 0 0 From the experimental results, the information matrix in coded variables X̂
and the response vector y are
Table 9.4: Box-Behnken design for four factors.
Copyright 2006
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
1 −1 −1 1 1 1 64.33
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 −1 1 1 −1 ⎥ ⎢51.78⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 −1 1 1 1 −1 ⎥ ⎢77.30⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ⎥ ⎢45.37⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢62.08⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢79.36⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
X̂ = ⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ y = ⎢75.29⎥ (9.13)
Coded variables Natural variables ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢73.81⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
X1 X2 Temperature, C Reaction Time, min Yield ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢69.45⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
−1 −1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
170 300 64.33 ⎢ 1 −1.414 0 2 0 0 ⎥ ⎢72.58⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
+1 −1 230 300 51.78 ⎢ 1 1.414 0 2 0 0 ⎥ ⎢37.52⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
−1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
+1 170 400 77.30 ⎣ 1 0 −1.414 0 2 0 ⎦ ⎣54.63⎦
+1 +1 230 400 45.37 1 0 1.414 0 2 0 54.18
0 0 200 350 62.08
where the information matrix is given by the column vectors
0 0 200 350 79.36

0 0 200 350 75.29 X̂ = 1 X̂1 X̂2 2 2
X̂1 X̂2 X̂1 X̂2 (9.14)
0 0 200 350 73.81
0 0 200 350 69.45 Solving the system (X̂ X̂)−1 X̂ y, the coefficient vector β̂ is
−1.414 0 157.58 350 72.58
β̂ = [72.0 − 11.78 0.74 − 7.25 − 7.55 − 4.85]T (9.15)
+1.414 0 242.42 350 37.42
0 −1.414 200 279.3 54.63 Hence, the prediction model is described by the quadratic equation
0 +1.414 200 420.7 54.18
ŷ = 72.0 − 11.78X̂1 + 0.74X̂2 − 7.25X̂12 − 7.55X̂22 − 4.85X̂1X̂2 (9.16)
Table 9.5: Experimental layout for the chemical process example.
The response surface predicted by the model is shown in figure 9.14.
In order to find the point that either maximizes or minimizes the predicted
response, it is necessary to find the point where all partial derivatives ∂ ŷ/∂ X̂k
are equal to zero.
The first partial derivative is

∂ ŷ
= −14.5X̂1 − 4.85X̂2 − 11.78 (9.17)
∂ X̂1
Copyright 2006
The final step is to convert the coded temperature and reaction time to physical
variables,
X1 high + X1 low X1 high − X1 low
X1 = + X̂1
2 2
80
230 + 170 230 − 170
= + (−0.9285) = 172.14 (9.22)
70 2 2
60
50
40
30
X2 high + X2 low X2 high − X2 low
X2 = + X̂2
20 2 2
10 300 + 400 400 − 300
1.5
= + (0.3472) = 367.36 (9.23)
1
2 2
0.5
−1.5 0
−1
−0.5
0
−0.5 Hence, the conditions that maximize the yield are a temperature of 172.14 C
0.5 −1
1 −1.5 and 367.36 minutes of reaction time.
1.5
References
Figure 9.14: Predicted response surface for the chemical reaction problem.
The second partial derivative is 1. Berger, P.D. and Maurer, R.E. (2002) Experimental Design with applications
in management, engineering and the Sciences. Duxbury Thomson-Learning.
∂ ŷ
= 0.74 − 15.1X̂2 − 4.85X̂1 (9.18)
∂ X̂2 2. Montgomery, D.C. (2000) Design and Analysis of Experiments. 5th Edition.
Wiley Text Books, New York.
Hence, the system of equations to solve is:
3. Myers, R.H. & Montgomery D.C. (1995). Respose Surface Methodology.
−14.5X̂1 − 4.85X̂2 − 11.78 = 0 Process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley series in
0.74 − 15.1X̂2 − 4.85X̂1 = 0 (9.19) Probability and Statistics.
Solving for X̂1 and X̂2 yields
Development. McGraw-Hill.
X̂1 = −0.9285 X̂2 = 0.3472 (9.20)
Subsituting these values into the predicted response model yields the maximum
response:
ŷ = 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 (9.21)
Copyright 2006
10.1 Optimum design 254
Good design Optimal design
work as intended
CHAPTER 10 work as intended vs

minimizes cost
maximizes performance
Optimum design
Figure 10.1: Difference between a good design and an optimal design.
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 Design variables
the condition where a certain characteristic or group of characteristics are at Problem Formulation Objective/Cost function equalities
its best. As it has been discussed previously, a good design is a design that
Design constraints inequalities
will work as intended, fulfilling customer’s expectations. But a design that
satisfy the needs of the customer may not necessarily be one that minimizes domain of solution
cost or maximizes certain desired characteristic. Such a design is called optimal
design. The difference between these two types of designs is shown graphically
in figure 10.1.
Standard model/ constrained
Optimization is a branch of applied mathematics and in this chapter, some
Mathematical model unconstrained
optimization techniques will be applied to maximize/minimize desired charac-
teristics in engineering designs.
10.1 Optimum design

Graphical method
Optimization Analytical methods
In order to optimize a given problem, three steps are needed. First, the prob-
lem must be thoroughly understood. Second, it is necessary to formulate the Numerical methods
problem in order to create a model that can be subject to optimization. Third,
Figure 10.2: Path to optimization.
using an optimization technique, the selected characteristic(s) are maximized
or minimized.
Copyright 2006
255 10.2 Problem formulation 10.2 Problem formulation 256
In figure 10.2, a brief conceptual map of the path to optimization is presented. h

First during the problem formulation, design variables, those variables that
l
will be changed in order to maximize/minimize the desired characteristic are
s/2 α
identified. Then, the characteristic to be optimized is expressed in mathemati-
cal form. The resultant mathematical expression is called objective function or
design function. In this step, design constraints are also identified. A design α
s/2
constraint is a condition that limit the possible values that design variables may
l
take in order to consider physical or technical limitations. Design constraints
may come in the form of solution domain limitation, equalities or inequalities. W
The second step is to use all the above equations to create a model that can be Figure 10.3: A truss problem.
optimized. This model is usually constructed as the union of design variables,
objective functions and constraints. F1
α
The final step is to optimize the problem using a given technique. Simple
problems involving one, two or even three variables can be optimized using a
α
graphical method. More complicated models are optimized using numerical
techniques such as Newton-Rhapson, Simplex or Steepest descent methods. F2
Figure 10.4: Body forces diagram for the truss problem.

10.2 Problem formulation
From the figure
s/2 h
In order to show how problems may be formulated, four different examples will sin α = cos α = (10.3)
l l
be shown. The examples include simple problems of structural optimization.
Solving equations (10.1) for F1 and F2 yields
10.2.1. Truss optimization Consider the problem of a truss structure with
W Wl W Wl
two members shown in figure 10.6. The opti- F1 = = F2 = − =− (10.4)
mization problem is to design the structure in 2 sin α 2s 2 sin α 2s

order to minimize its weight. The structure must avoid yield and buckling. where l = h2 + (s/2)2.
As with any truss problem, the first step is to sketch the free-body diagram To specify the design, it is necessary to choose a cross-sectional shape for each
and perform summation of forces in both x and y directions. From the diagram member. Although the choice of a standard shape like the ones shown in figure
shown in figure 10.7, summation in forces become 10.8, limits the generality of the solution, it helps to maintain the complexity
of the problem to a minimum.
F1 cos α + F2 cos α = 0
Suppose that cross-section (3) is selected for both members. Since weight must
−F1 sin α + F2 sin α = −W (10.1)
be minimized, then the mass of the structure can be specified as the objective
(10.2) function which value must be at a minimum. Hence, the objective function for
Copyright 2006
Considering the calculation of areas, the above restrictions become

t Wl
d (b1 t1 − 2d1 t1 + t21 ) < σYt
2s
Wl
− (b2 t2 − 2d2 t2 + t22 ) < σYc (10.8)
d 2s
di b
do It is necessary to state that all dimensions defining the cross sectional areas
(1) (2) (3) cannot be zero or negative. Hence, the next restrictions arise
b b bi > 0 (10.9)
di > 0 (10.10)
t1 ti > 0 and ti < b/2 (10.11)
d t1 d d bi ≥ di (10.12)
(10.13)
b t2 t2
As the lower member is subject to compression, it is necessary to check for
(4) (5) (6) buckling. The critical load for a column with pinned ends is
Figure 10.5: Some cross-sectional areas for structural members. π 2 EI

Pcr = (10.14)
L2
the problem is where E is the Young Modulus of the material and I is the moment of inertia.
mass = density × volume From the critical load formula, the buckling condition restriction becomes
= ρ × A1 × l + ρ × A2 × l π 2 EI

= ρ × (b1 t1 − 2d1 t1 + t21 ) × h2 + (s/2)2 (10.5) F2 < (10.15)
L2
+ ρ × (b2 t2 − 2d2 t2 + t22 ) × h2 + (s/2)2
For the cross-sectional area selected, a rectangular tube, the moment of inertia
(10.6) can be computed as follows
where ρ is the density of the material, Ai is the cross-sectional area, bi , di and bd3
ti are the width, height and thickness of the cross-section for the i-th member. I= − (b − 2t)(d − 2t)3 12 (10.16)
12
As the structure must withstand yield, then Hence, the restriction becomes

F1 A1 < σYt bd3 (b − 2t)(d − 2t)3
π2E −
F2 A2 < σYc (10.7) 12 12
F2 < s 2 (10.17)
where σYt is the yield stress at tension and σYc is the yield stress at compression. h2 +
2
Copyright 2006
Finally, the problem can be stated as: The can capacity should be 400ml (400 cm3 ). Do not consider the top of the
can.
Minimize:
As the surface area should be minimized, it is necessary to consider the surfaces
S = ρ × (b1 t1 − 2d1 t1 + t21 ) × h2 + (s/2)2 covering the cylinder and bottom of the can. Hence, surface area can be

+ ρ × (b2 t2 − 2d2 t2 + t22 ) × h2 + (s/2)2 calculated from
π
S(d, h) = d2 + πdh (10.18)
subject to: 4
where d is the diameter of the can and h is its height. Now, the volume of the
bi > 0 can must also be considered as it has to be equal to 400 cm3 . The volume of
di > 0 a cylinder is given by
π
ti > 0 V (d, h) = d2 h (10.19)
4
ti < b/2 With the above equations and the restrictions stated, the optimization problem
bi ≥ di can be formulated as:
Wl Minimize:
(b1 t1 − 2d1 t1 + t21 ) < σYt π 2
2s S(d, h) = d + πdh
4
Wl subject to:
− (b2 t2 − 2d2 t2 + t22 ) < σYc
2s
3 d ≥
3.5
bd (b − 2t)(d − 2t)3 d ≤
8.0
2
π E −
12 12 ≥
s 2 < F2 h 8.0
h2 + h ≤
18.0
2 π 2
V (d, h) = dh
4
10.2.2. Beverage can A company want to verify that the aluminum bever-
10.2.3. Tubular column Consider the design of a tubular column completely
optimization age can that they manufacture is optimal from the
fixed at its lower end. The design objective is to
cost point of view. Since most of the production cost
minimize the weight of the column. To design a column is necessary to consider
is associated to the material needed to manufacture the can, it has been de-
failure by yielding and failure by buckling. Failure by yielding occurs when the
cided that an optimal can would have the least material which in turn translate
compression stress is larger than the yielding stress of the material. Failure
into having the least possible surface area.
by buckling occurs when the compression force acting on the column is larger
In order to use current production and handling facilities, the can must fulfill than the critical load for the beam.
the following restrictions (Arora, 1989):
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
• The diameter of the can should be more than 3.5 and less than 8 cm. beam is given by
• The height of the should be more than 8 cm and less than 18 cm. mass = ρhπ(Ro2 − Ri2 ) (10.20)
Copyright 2006
where ρ is the density of the material, h is the height of the column and Ro 10.2.4. Rectangular beam As another example, consider now that a beam
and Ri are the outer and inner radius of the column. of solid rectangular cross-sectional area subject
to shear and bending forces must be optimized (Arora, 1989). The bending
Since the column must withstand yield, then and shear stress in the beam can be computed from
F 6M
< σY (10.21) σ= (10.24)
π(Ro2 − Ri2 ) bd2
where F is the force that the column must support and σY is the yield stress 3V
for the material. τ= (10.25)
2bd
where σ is the bending stress, τ is the shear stress, M and V are the moment
Now, since the critical load of the column must not be exceeded, it is necessary
and shear force acting on the beam and b and d are the base and depth of the
to fulfill in the design
rectangular cross-section. Another restriction is that the depth of the beam
F < Pcr must not exceed twice its base.
π 2 EI The above problem can be easily formulated as follows. First, as the beam
F < (10.22)
4h2 must have a minimum cross-section, the objective function becomes
π
π 2 E (Ro2 − Ri2 ) cross-section = b × d (10.26)
F < 4
4h2
where E is the Young Modulus of the material and I is the moment of inertia Second, since the beam must withstand a bending stress M , then
of the cross-sectional area. 6M
σa > (10.27)
bd2
Finally, the inner radius Ri must be greater than zero and less than Ro
where σa is the maximum allowable bending stress for the beam.
Ri ≥ 0
Third, since the beam must also withstand shear stress, then
Ro > Ri (10.23)
3V
τa > (10.28)
Hence, the optimization problem can be formulated as: 2bd
where τa is the maximum allowable shear stress for the beam.
Minimize:
S(Ro , Ri ) = ρhπ(Ro2 − Ri2 ) With the above information, the problem can be summarized into minimize:
subject to: S(b, d) = bd
Ri ≥ 0 subject to:
Ro > Ri
d < 2b
F 6M
< σY
π(Ro2 − Ri2 ) σa >
bd2
π
π 2 E (Ro2 − Ri2 ) 3V
4 τa >
> F 2bd
4h2
Copyright 2006
263 10.3 Solution by the graphical method 10.3 Solution by the graphical method 264
10.3 Solution by the graphical method 18
One simple yet effective method to solve optimization problems is the so called 16
graphical method. This method relies in plotting the restrictions and objec-
tive function to determine regions, curves and points of optimal solution. The Feasible region
height [cm]
method is one of the best ways to gain insight of the problem at hand. Unfor- 14
tunately, as it relies on plotting all the different functions and restrictions, it
is only of practical use with two-variables problems and in some cases three-
variable problems. 12
To explain how the graphical method works, the last three optimization prob-
lems shown in the last section will be solved by this method. 10 r5
S=250 cm²
S=315 cm²
10.3.1. Beverage can From the previous section, the beverage can problem S=400 cm²
8
problem can be formulated as: 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Minimize: diameter [cm]
π 2
S(d, h) = d + πdh (10.29)
4 Figure 10.6: Graphical solution of the beverage can.
subject to restrictions r1 to r5 :
plotted as a function of d
r1 = d ≥ 3.5 (10.30) 400
h(d) = π (10.35)
r2 = d ≤ 8.0 (10.31) d2
4
r3 = h ≥ 8.0 (10.32)
r4 = h ≤ 18.0 (10.33) From figure 10.6 it can be seen that the restriction divides the domain window
π in two parts. Below the curve r5 lay all the possible solution where volume is
r5 = 400 = d2 h (10.34)
4 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
The first step towards the solution of an optimization problem is to identify more than 400cm3, the feasible region for the solution is the region to the right
the variables that will be used to plot. For this problem, diameter will be of the r5 curve. If, on the other hand, the can must have exactly a volume of
used as the abscissas axis (x-axis) and height will be used as the ordinates axis 400cm3 , then all possible solutions lay on the curve r5 .
(y-axis).
The third step is to plot different possible solutions that fulfill the objective
The second step to solve an optimization problem graphically is to plot all the function S(d, h). In order to plot possible solutions, it is necessary to assume
restrictions involved in the problem. In this case, restrictions r1 to r4 are limits a given final surface area. The objective function 10.29 can be plotted as
to the solution domain. Hence, any possible solution must be in the windows π 2
3.5 ≤ d ≤ 8.0 and 8.0 ≤ h ≤ 18.0. Such solution domain is shown in figure S− d
h(d) = 4 (10.36)
10.6. The last restriction r5 , which sets a volume restriction of 400cm3 , can be
πd
Copyright 2006
where S is the value chosen as a guess for the final surface.

0.1
In figure 10.6, chosen values of S = 250, S = 315 and S = 400 where chosen as
possible solutions. As all these curves represent solutions to the optimization
0.08
problem, it is necessary to check which curve give values of d and h that are in
outer radius [m]

the feasible region and are closer to the restriction curve r5 . For this problem, Feasible region
it seems like the point d = 8 and h = 8 give a possible solution as it lays on 0.06
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

0.04
volume equation. Using equation 10.19, it can be verified that the volume
gives 402cm3 , which closely satisfy the volume restriction. These two values r1
give a final surface area of 251cm2 . 0.02 r2
r3
If the proposed solution is not accurate enough, then more accurate values for S=10 kg
the diameter and the height can be obtained plotting the area near point (8,8). S=20 kg
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
10.3.2. Tubular column Consider the tubular column problem described in inner radius [m]
problem the previous section. Furthermore consider that the
column must have a height of 5m, support a load Figure 10.7: Graphical solution of the tubular column.
of 50kN and that it will be build from steel having the following properties:
E = 110GPa, σY = 120MPa and ρ = 2700 kg/m3 . system. If plotted, the r1 restriction will draw a 45◦ from (0,0) limiting the
As stated in the previous section, this problem can be stated as: Minimize: feasible region to the upper part of the quadrant as shown in figure 10.7.
The r2 and r3 restrictions will further limit the solution domain, although the
S(Ro , Ri ) = ρhπ(Ro2 − Ri2 ) (10.37)
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.
subject to:
Restrictions r2 and r3 can be plotted respectively as
r 0 = Ri ≥ 0 (10.38)
F
r 1 = Ro > Ri (10.39) Ro (Ri ) = + Ri2 (10.42)
πσY
F
r2 = < σY (10.40)
π(Ro − Ri2 )
2 4 16F h
2
Ro (Ri ) = + Ri4 (10.43)
π 3
π E
π 2 E (Ro2 − Ri2 )
r3 = 4 >F (10.41) Finally, curve lines for solutions S = 10 and S = 20 were plotted to look for
4h2
points of optimal solution. These two solutions are shown in figure 10.8 where
only the area of interest is shown.
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 From the plots it can be observed that the optimal solution must lay between
restrictions limit the solution domain to the first quadrant of the coordinate 10 and 20kg since both curves cross the curve of restriction r3 . Hence, the
Copyright 2006
0.03 1
r1
Feasible region r2
0.025 r3
0.8 S=0.1 m²
outer radius [m]
S=0.2 m²
0.02
depth [m]
0.6
0.015 Feasible region
0.4
0.01 r1
r2
r3 0.2
0.005 S = 5 kg
S = 10 kg
S = 20 kg
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
inner radius [m] width [m]
Figure 10.8: Area of interest for the tubular column problem. Figure 10.9: Graphical solution of the rectangular beam.
optimal value for the inner radius must be between 0.02 and 0.04 meters and As both base and width must be positive, then the solution domain is restricted
for the outer radius between 0.02 and 0.04 meters. Further plots of S with to the first quadrant of the coordinate system, which in this case was selected
values for the inner radius slightly smaller than 10kg would help to find the to have the width in the abscissas and depth as the ordinates. The first
point of optimal solution. restriction, d < 2b, draws a straight dividing line limiting the feasible region
to the lower part of the quadrant as shown in figure 10.10. The second and
10.3.3. Rectangular beam The problem of finding the minimum cross-sectional third restrictions, plotted as
problem area of a rectangular beam subject to a bending
moment and shear force can be formulated as 6M
d(b) = (10.48)
σa b
S(b, d) = bd (10.44)
and
subject to: 3V
d(b) = (10.49)
r1 = d < 2b (10.45) τa 2b
6M further limit the region of feasible solution.
r2 = σa > 2 (10.46)
bd
Consider now the values of M = 40×103 Nm, V = 150×103N, σa = 10×106Pa
3V and τa = 2 × 106 Pa. After plotting the three restrictions, the feasible solution
r3 = τa > (10.47)
2bd is bounded first by r1 . Then, it is bounded by r3 until it crosses the curve of
as it was discussed in the previous section. r2 where the latter becomes the limit of the feasible region.
Copyright 2006
269 10.4 Lagrange multipliers 10.4 Lagrange multipliers 270
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 figure 10.10. The bold line shows the intercep-
tion between the surfaces f (x, y) = xy 2 and g(x, y) = x2 + 2y. The extremum
of f subject to g can be found finding the directions of the gradients of f and
6 g.
0 To show how Lagrange multipliers work, consider a simple example in two
−6 2 dimensions. In order to minimize a function f (x, y) it is necessary to set its
1.5 partial derivatives to zero
1
0.5 ∂f ∂f
−2 0
−1.5 =0 =0 (10.50)
−1
−0.5
−0.5 ∂x ∂y
0 −1
0.5 −1.5
1
1.5
and solve simultaneously the two equations to find the point (x, y) that maxi-
−2
mize 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

Figure 10.10: Intersection between f (x, y) = xy 2 and g(x, y) = x2 + 2y. plane. The problem is to find find the maximum/minimum f along g.
The point that maximizes/minimizes f subject to g has two properties:

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
• The gradient ∇f is perpendicular to the line of constant g(x, y) since f
holds all possible solutions for the problem between the crossings with r1 and
is stationary here.
r2 . Any point (b, d) laying in this curve between these two crossing will be a
point of optimal solution. • The gradient ∇g is also perpendicular to the line of constant g(x, y) since
by construction g(x, y) = 0.
10.4 Lagrange multipliers Hence, if ∇f and ∇g may have different magnitudes but must point in the
same direction, therefore it is possible to write
Lagrange multipliers or Lagrangian multipliers are a very powerful method to ∇f = −λ∇g (10.51)
deal analytically with mathematical optimization problems with constraints.
Consider that it is necessary to find the local maximum or minimum point of a where λ is a proportionality constant called Lagrange multiplier.
function of several variables subject to one or more constraints. In order to find The expression ∇f + λ∇g = 0 is usually expressed as
this local extrema, the method introduces an unknown scalar variable, called
the Lagrange multiplier, for each one of the constrains. These new variables ∇F = 0 (10.52)
are used to generate a linear system of equations that can be solved to find
the local extremum. since ∇F = 0, then all partial derivatives of F are zero.
Copyright 2006
271 10.4 Lagrange multipliers 10.4 Lagrange multipliers 272
In order to solve the problem it is just necessary to set 10.4.1. Inequalities and In many occasions, constraints come in the form of
Lagrange multipliers an inequality. Lagrange multipliers can also accom-
∂F
= 0 modate these common cases when a constraint is
∂x
∂F given in the form
= 0 g(x) ≤ 0 (10.60)
∂y
∂F
= 0 (10.53) For these cases, it is possible to transform an inequality to an equality using
∂λ
what is called a ’slack variable’. Slack variables transform the constraints into
and solve simultaneously these three equations.
When there is more than one restriction, ∇F becomes gi + s2i = 0 (10.61)
∇f + λ1 ∇g1 + λ2 ∇g2 + · · · + λn ∇gn = 0 (10.54)

where s2 takes care of the fact that s2 must be always non-negative since the
constraint is of the form g(x) ≤ 0.
To solve the problem, the derivatives become
There is an additional necessary condition for the Lagrange multipliers of the
∂F form ”” given as
= 0
∂xi
∂F λj 0 (10.62)
= 0 (10.55)
∂λj
where λj is the Lagrange multiplier for the jth inequality constraint. If the
As an example, consider that the function constraint is inactive at the optimum, its associated Lagrange multiplier is
zero. If it is active (gi = 0) then the associated λj must be non-negative..
f (x1 x2 ) = (x1 − 1.5)2 + (x2 − 2)2 (10.56)
Consider now the function used in the previous example
wants to be minimized subject to the condition
g(x1 x2 ) = x1 + x2 − 2 = 0 (10.57) f (x1 , x2 ) = (x1 − 1.5)2 + (x2 − 1.5)2 (10.63)
For the above functions, F is given by
In this occasion it is desired to minimize f subject to the inequality
F = (x1 − 1.5)2 + (x2 − 2)2 + λ(x1 + x2 − 2) (10.58)
g(x1 , x2 ) = x1 + x2 − 2 ≤ 0 (10.64)
and the partial derivatives are therefore
∂F
= λ + 2x1 − 3 = 0
∂x1 Using the slack variable s, the constraint g can be expressed as
∂F
= λ + 2x2 − 4 = 0
∂x2 g(x1 , x2 ) = x1 + x2 − 2 + s2 ≤ 0 (10.65)
∂F
= x1 + x2 − 2 = 0 (10.59)
∂λ and therefore F becomes
The above three equations can be solved simultaneously yielding x1 = 0.75
and x2 = 1.25 with λ = 1.5. F (x1 , x2 ) = (x1 − 1.5)2 + (x2 − 1.5)2 + λ(x1 + x2 − 2 + s2 ) (10.66)
Copyright 2006
273 10.4 Lagrange multipliers 10.5 Examples 274
The partial derivatives of F with respect to xi , λ and s are 10.5 Examples

∂F
= λ + 2x1 − 3 = 0 10.5.1. Beverage can Consider once more the beverage can problem dis-
∂x1 cussed in the previous sections. The problem can be
∂F formulated as minimizing:
= λ + 2x2 − 4 = 0
∂x2
π 2
∂F S(d, h) = d + πdh (10.70)
= x1 + x2 − 2 + s2 = 0 4
∂λ
∂F subject to restrictions r1 to r5 :
= 2λs = 0 (10.67)
∂s
r1 = d ≥ 3.5 (10.71)
r2 = d ≤ 8.0 (10.72)
Solving the above system of equations yields the following solution
r3 = h ≥ 8.0 (10.73)
λ = 1.5; s2 = 0; x1 = 0.75; x2 = 1.25 (10.68) r4 = h ≤ 18.0 (10.74)

π
r5 = 400 = d2 h (10.75)
4
From the above example, the solution procedure can be stated as finding 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 specific case, f and g become
∂F
= 0 π 2
∂xi f := d + πdh (10.76)
∂F 4
= 0
∂λj π 2
g := 400 −
dh (10.77)
∂F 4
= 0 (10.69)
∂sn As F = f + λg, the partial derivatives of F are
∂F πd πdhλ
and then solve the resultant system of equations. = + hπ −
∂d 2 2
For problems involving inequalities it is important that the Kuhn-Tucker (K- ∂F πd2 λ
= πd −
T) necessary conditions are fulfilled including that f and gi are functions with ∂h 4
continuous first partial derivatives along the curves gi = 0 and ∇gi = 0 at any ∂F πd2 h
point on the curve. These conditions ensures that the solution of the Lagragian = 400 − (10.78)
∂λ 4
multipliers is a minimum or maximum.
One very useful property of Lagrange multipliers is that the larger the value Solving the above equations for d, h and λ gives d = 10.06cm and h = 5.03cm
of λ, the larger the effect on the objective function optimum. for a total surface of 238.50cm2. Although this surface is less than the minimum
Copyright 2006
of 251cm2 found with the graphical method, the value for the diameter is not subject to:
suitable for a beverage can.
Taking into account the restriction that the diameter of the can cannot be r1 = d < 2b (10.84)
larger than 8 cm, the problem can be re-formulated in terms of two restrictions 6M
g1 and g2 r2 = σa > (10.85)
bd2
π
g1 := 400 − d2 h (10.79) 3V
4 r3 = τa > (10.86)
2bd
g2 := 8 − d + s22 (10.80)
where s2 is the slack variable that considers the inequality in restriction r2 . Using the above formulation and Lagrange multipliers the problem can be
expressed as
With these restriction, F becomes
∇f + λ1 ∇g1 + λ2 ∇g2 + λ3 ∇g3 = 0 (10.87)
F = f + λ1 g1 + λ2 g2 (10.81)
where
and its derivatives are given by
∂F πd πdhλ1 f = bd
= − λ2 + hπ −
∂d 2 2 6M
g1 = σa − + s21
∂F 2
πd λ1 bd2
= πd −
∂h 4 3V
g2 = τa − + s23
∂F πd2 h 2bd
= 400 −
∂λ1 4 g3 = 2b − d + s23 (10.88)
∂F
= s22 − d + 8 Hence, the partial derivatives of F become
∂λ2
∂F
= 2λ2 s2 (10.82) ∂F 6M λ1 3V λ2
∂s2 = d + 2λ3 + + 2
∂b b2 d2 2b d
Solving the above equations yields d = 8 and h = 25/π = 7.96 for a total ∂F 12M λ1 3V λ2
surface of 250.26cm2 which is the same value found with the graphical method. = b − λ3 + +
∂d bd3 2bd2
∂F 6M
10.5.2. Rectangular beam Consider now the problem of finding the mini- = σa + s21 − 2
∂λ1 bd
problem mum cross-sectional area of a rectangular beam
subject to a bending moment and shear force. As ∂F 3V
= τa + s22 −
discussed before, the problem can be stated as ∂λ2 2bd
∂F
S(b, d) = bd (10.83) = 2b − d + s23
∂λ3
Copyright 2006
277 10.6 Solving problems with Excel 10.6 Solving problems with Excel 278
∂F
= 2λ1 s1
∂s1
∂F
= 2λ2 s2
∂s2
∂F
= 2λ3 s3 (10.89)
∂s3
Solving for b and d using the values M = 40 × 103 Nm, V = 150 × 103 N,
σa = 10 × 106 Pa and τa = 2 × 106 Pa yields b = 0.2371m and d = 0.4743m for
a total cross sectional area of 0.1125m2.
10.6 Solving problems with Excel Figure 10.11: Data for the optimization problem of a beverage can.
Simple optimization problems can be solved quickly and easily using a spread-
sheet with a Solver tool as the one integrated to Microsoft Excel .
c In this
function, minimize it or make it equal to a given value. Next, the values that
section, the problems of the beverage can and the rectangular beam will be
the solver can change must be specified. In the problem at hand, that is the
solved using this tool. In Excel, the solver must be activated on the Tools
cells containing the values of d and h, that is, cells B7 and B8. Finally, the
menu under Complements. After the solver has been activated, it will appear
solver must be made aware of the restrictions for the problem.
directly on the same Tools menu.
In order to add restrictions to the solver, it is necessary to click the Add button
10.6.1. Beverage can In order to solve the problem, the first step is to add at the right of the restrictions field. When clicked, a figure like the one shown
the data to Excel as it done normally. For clarity it in figure 10.13 will appear. To add a restriction is necessary to specify in what
is recommended to define separately the objective function, the variables and cell is the value that computes the restriction and the cell where the value of
the restrictions as shown in figure 10.11. the restriction has been entered and the relation between them. For example,
for the volume restriction, π/4d2 h = 400, the volume from the values of d and
As the objective function for this problem is S(d, h) = π/4d2 + πdh, then the h is computed in cell B11 whereas the value of the restriction, 400, is specified
value of cell B4 will be =B7*B8. Note that cells B7 and B8 have at this time in cell D11. As this restriction is an equality, the sign = must be selected from
initial guesses for b and d. Restrictions R1 to R5 must also be computed from the drop-down menu between the cell fields.
cells B7 and B8 as the solver will check that the values of these cells fulfills
their corresponding restriction. 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
Once the spreadsheet has been constructed, the next step is to call the solver the values of d and h until it finds a minimum value for the objective function.
tool. When selected, the Solver windows will appear as shown in figure 10.12.
The solver requires four pieces of information in order to solve a problem. First, In this case the solver finds the values of d = 7.97cm and h = 8cm for a
it needs to know which cell contains the objective function, in this case B4. total surface area of 250.53cm. This value is consistent with with the solutions
Second, it needs to now if the solver must maximize the value of the objective found through the graphical and Lagrange multipliers methods.
Copyright 2006
279 10.6 Solving problems with Excel 10.6 Solving problems with Excel 280
Figure 10.14: Data for the optimization problem of a rectangular beam.
Figure 10.12: Solver window with all the information needed to solve the 10.6.2. Rectangular beam The optimization of the cross-sectional area of the
problem of the beverage can. problem rectangular beam can be carried out in a similar
fashion as the beverage can optimization prob-
lem. The spreadsheet for this problem is shown in figure 10.14. 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 (10.84) in
cells D13, D14 and D15, the problem is ready to solve.
Figure 10.15 shows the solver windows with all the information of the problem.
With the above information, Excel finds 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.
Figure 10.13: Adding a restriction for the problem. References
1. Arora, J.S. (1989) Introduction to optimal design. McGraw-Hill interna-

tional editions.
Copyright 2006
281 10.6 Solving problems with Excel
CHAPTER 11
Fracture Mechanics
Figure 10.15: Solver window for the problem of a rectangular beam.
2. Papalambros, P.Y. & Wilde, D.J. (2000) Principles of optimal design. Mod-
eling and computation. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
Failure by fracture is theoretically limited by the ultimate strength of the
3. Yang, L. & El-Haik, B. (2003) Design for Six Sigma. A roadmap for Product material σu . Nevertheless, many products fail by fracture even if the stress
Development. McGraw-Hill. part never reaches, by design, yield. The answer to this question is that small
cracks in the product due to material, manufacture or use develop, lowering
the resistance of the material.
In 1921 Griffith established the foundations of fracture mechanics using the so-
lution for the stress field around an elliptical flaw in an infinite plate developed
by Inglis in 1913.
Consider the elliptical flaw in an elliptical plate shown in Figure 11.1. For this
case, the maximum stress occurs at (±a, 0) and is given by
a
σymax = 1 + 2 σ (11.1)
b
If a = b, the ellipse becomes a circle and the maximum stress becomes 3σ. For
a fine crack b/a → 0 and σ → ∞.
To explain Griffith findings consider Figure 11.2. If a plate of unit thickness

and containing a crack such that b/a ≈ 0 is loaded, its load-deformation curve
would follow the line OAB.
Assuming that when the load reaches Pc the deformation remains fixed and
the crack grows such that a becomes a + da, then the cross section of the
Copyright 2006
283 284
plate decreases and hence the load decreases to point D in order to keep the
y displacement fixed.
σ
Since the area below the curve is equal to the strain energy in the plate, then
the extension of the crack causes a release of strain energy equal to the area
OAD.
Griffith criterion states that the energy released in extending the crack must
be sufficient to provide the energy required to create the new surfaces of the
a x propagating crack.
If the energy (work) necessary for crack growth is Wf and the strain energy is
b denoted by u, the condition for crack growth is given by
d dWf
(W p + u) (11.2)
da da
where the condition of fixed deformation has been removed and Wp denotes
σ the work due to the applied load.
Figure 11.1: Elliptical flaw in an infinite plate The previous equation is usually expressed as
GR (11.3)
where G is the energy release rate and R is the rate energy for crack growth
called crack resistance force.
Applied Load
B
It has been shown that crack growth is stable until dG/da = dR/da, where
A
111111111
000000000
PC stable means that the crack will grow in a stable, slow manner.
000000000
111111111 Unstable crack growth occurs when G R and dG/da = dR/da. Here unsta-
000000000
111111111 ble means that growth will be fast.
000000000
111111111
E
000000000
111111111 From Inglis equations, Griffith found the energy release rate per crack to be
000000000
111111111
D
πσ 2 a
000000000
111111111 G= (11.4)
000000000
111111111
E
O 111111111
000000000 Deformation Griffith’s theory is in well accordance to experimental work with brittle materi-
C
als where the energy release upon crack formation exceeds the energy necessary
Figure 11.2: Griffith’s diagram. The line OAB represents the deformation– to form the crack surface.
applied curve before deformation. The line ODE represents the curve with a
For ductile materials, where the energy needed to perform plastic deformation
crack extension da.
at the crack tip is more critical than the energy needed to create new surfaces,
Griffith’s theory needs some corrections.
Copyright 2006
285 11.1 Crack Modes 11.2 Stress intensity factor 286
y y y y
σ
x x dxdy
x
z z r, θ
z x
2a
Mode I Mode II Mode III

Tension, Opening In-Plane Shear, Sliding Out-of-plane Shear, Tearing
σ
Figure 11.3: Three fracture modes. Figure 11.4: Mode I crack model.
11.1 Crack Modes

11.2 Stress intensity factor
There are three modes of crack propagation which depends on the loading and
the crack surface displacements. The three cases are: Consider the Mode I crack model shown in Figure 11.4. It has been shown
that the stress field on a dxdy element in the vecinity of the crack tip is given
by the following expressions
Mode I or opening mode, when the crack faces are pulled apart.

a θ θ 3θ
Mode II or Sliding mode, when the crack surfaces slide over each other. σx = σ cos1 − sin sin
2r 2 2 2

a θ θ 3θ
Mode III or Tearing mode, when the crack surfaces move parallel to the σy = σ cos 1 + sin sin
2r 2 2 2
leading edge of the crack and relative to each other.
a θ θ 3θ
τxy = σ sin cos cos (11.5)
2r 2 2 2
⎧
The three modes are shown in Figure 11.3. Since the most common mode ⎨ 0 if plane stress
found in engineering applications is Mode I, this mode will be consider in σz =
what follows. Similar developments can be done for modes II and III. ⎩
ν(σx + σy ) if plane strain
Copyright 2006
287 11.2 Stress intensity factor 11.3 Crack growth 288
The stress near the tip when θ = 0 is therefore given by σ

a
σy |θ=0 = σ (11.6)
2r b
It is common practice to define a factor KI , called stress intensity factor. This

factor defines the magnitude of the local stresses aroud the crack tip and its 2a
given by √
KI = σ πa (11.7)
√ √
where KI has units of Pa m or kpsi in.
σ
The stress intensity factor depends on factors such as the loading conditions, √
KI = C1 σ πa
the size of the crack, the crack shape and the geometric boundaries of the
surrounding material. It is important that the reader do not confuse the stress C1 = (1 − 0.1η 2 + 0.96η 4 ) sec(πη)
intensity factor KI with the static stress concentration factor Kt .
Figure 11.5: Plate in tension with center crack.
With the stress intensity factor definition, equations (11.5) can be rewriten as

KI θ θ 3θ As an illustration, figures 11.5 to 11.8 show four of the most common Mode
σx = √ cos 1 − sin sin
2πr 2 2 2 I crack cases. Each case state the value of its stress intensity factors. In all
cases η = a/b.
KI θ θ 3θ
σy = √ cos 1 + sin sin
2πr 2 2 2
KI θ θ 3θ
τxy = √ sin cos cos (11.8)
2πr 2 2 2 11.3 Crack growth
and equation (11.4) can be expressed as
As mentioned before, stress intensity factors depend on the geometry of the
K2 component, size and shape of the crack and the loading acting on the part.
G= I (11.9)
E The Mode I cases shown prove this dependency.
From the figures and the values of KI , one can compute the value when the
From the above equation it is clear that the Griffith energy release rate G is
crack growth will become unstable by comparing KI with the critical stress
proportional to the stress intensity factor KI .
intensity factor KIc .
11.2.1. Some Mode I stress Some mode I stress intensity factors are read- The critical stress intensity factor KIc is a material property that depends on
intensity factors ily available for a variety of loading conditions the crack mode, material, temperature, loading rate and the state of stress
and crack geometries. The principle of super- at the crack. Some valies for KIc are given in the table above for different
position can be applied to stress intensity factors of the same loading mode. materials at room temperature. The critical stress intensity factor is also
Hence, stress intensity factors of the same mode can be added algrebraically. called the fracture toughness of the material.
Copyright 2006
289 11.3 Crack growth 11.3 Crack growth 290
M
σ
b
b
a a a
σ
√ M
KI = C2 σ πa √ 6M
tan(πη) KI = C4 σ πa σ=
C2 = [1 − 0.122 cos4 (πη)] tb2
πη
Figure 11.6: Plate in tension with double-edge crack. 0.923 + 0.199 [1 − sin (πη/2)]4 2 πη
C4 = × tan( )
cos (πη/2) πη 2
Figure 11.8: Plate of thickness t in bending with a single-edge crack.
σ
The fracture toughness for plane strain is normally lower than that for the
plane stress. For this reason KIc is usually termed ”mode I, plane strain
fracture toughness”. As plane stress conditions always exists on the free surface
b perpendicular to the crack surface, it is always necessary to check if plane stress
or plane strain conditions will dominate.
a The ASTM recommends for plane strain conditions that the thickness, t, is
such that 2
KIc
t 2.5 (11.10)
σY
σ Consider for example the values for σY and K√

Ic for the aluminum alloy 2014-
√ T6. Considering an average KIc = 24 MPa· m, the thickness required for
KI = C3 σ πa
plane strain conditions to dominate is
0.752 + 2.02η + 0.37 [1 − sin (πη/2)]3 2 πη
C3 = × tan 2
cos (πη/2) πη 2 KIc
t 2.5
σY
Figure 11.7: Plate in tension with single-edge crack. √
24 MPa · m
t 2.5 = 0.136 m (11.11)
440 MPa
Copyright 2006
291 11.3 Crack growth 11.3 Crack growth 292
√
Material σY (MPa) KIc (MPa· m) Consider first the problem of finding the highest load P . Since inestable crack
growth begins when KI = KIc
Carbon steel 245 >225 √
◦
4340 (205 temper) 1600 44-66 KIc = C1 σ πa
√
◦
4340 (425 temper) 1400 79-91 where C1 = (1 − 1.01η 2 + 0.96η 4 ) sec πη and η = a/b.
Ti-GAL-4v-25n 800 110 Solving for σ
2014-T6 440 18-30 KIc
σ= √
C1 πa
Table 11.1: Typical KIc values at room temperature.
and substituting numerical values
60
or 136 mm. A large value indeed! σ= √ = 47.90 ksi
0.9993 π0.5
If the thickness of the material is less than the t found by the previous equa- where the value of C1 = 0.9993 was previously calculated.
tion, then plane stress conditions will arise causing yields at the crack tip. If
appreciable yielding occurs at the crack tip, then the value for the actual stress The highest load can be found from P = σA,
intensity factor may be quite large compared to the original KIc . P = σ(6 × 0.06) = 17.24 kpi
If plane stress conditions are present, the effective fracture toughness can be
aproximated by The critical crack length acr can be found from the relationship KIc = KI .
4 Considering a plate in tension with a central crack, it is possible to write
1.4 KIc
KIceff = KIc 1 + 2 (11.12) √
t σY C1 σ πacr = KIc
√
where for this case C1 = [1 − 0.1η 2 + 0.96η 4 ] sec πη and η = acr /b.
It is also necessary to check that the plastic zone is small comapared to the
crack length. The crack size limitation is given by the same requiremnent for The equation resultant from substituting C1 into KIc = KI is
the thickness 2 a 2 a 4 a √
KIc cr cr cr
a 2.5 (11.13) KIc = 1 − 0.1 + 0.96 sec π σ πacr
σY b b b
which must be solved for acr .
If this relationship is not fulfilled, then the value of KIc may be larger than
the actual value. The above equation nannot be solved analytically and must be solved√through
iterations supposing a given acr and verifying if KIc is equal to 60 ksi in. The
process can be carried out esily with the help of a solver application such the
11.3.1. Example A plate of whith b = 6 in and thickness t = 0.06 in is made
one integrated in most spreadsheets.
√ of aluminum 7075-T651 (σY = 70 ksi and KIc for plane
√
stress 60 ksi in). Estimate: Using the problem’s data σY = 0.75(70) ksi, b = 6 in, and KIc = 60 ksi in,
acr = 0.4067 in
a) The highest load P that can be applied without causing unstable crack
growth considering a central crack of 2a = 1 in.
If the above above result is substituted back into the equation for KIc , a value
b) The critical crack length a if σ = 0.75σY . of 60 k arises, verifying the solution obtained.
Copyright 2006
293 11.4 Plastic zone correction 11.4 Plastic zone correction 294
in terms of principal stresses:

KI θ θ
y σ1 = √ cos 1 + sin
2πr 2 2

rp ∗ σ2 = √
KI
cos
θ
1 − sin
θ
2πr 2 2
⎧
θ ⎪
⎨ 0 if plane stress
a z σ3 = KI θ (11.14)
x ⎪
⎩ 2ν √ cos if plane strain
Free surface 2πr 2
Free surface
To find rp ∗ consider first the case of plane stress. Applying von Mises criteria,
enlarged view
yield occurs when

KI 3
√ 0.5 1 + sin2 θ + cos θ = σY (11.15)
2πr 2
Figure 11.9: Plastic zone at crack tip.
Solving for r gives the extent of the plastic zone as a function of θ resulting in
2
1 KI 3
rp ∗ (θ) = 1 + sin2 θ + cos θ (11.16)
4π σY 2
11.4 Plastic zone correction
When θ = 0 the above equation simplifies to
2
1 KI
rp ∗ = (11.17)
2π σY
As discussed before, equations based on the mode I crack model predict an
infinite stress at the crack tip. The infinite stress does never occur in reality
as materials will experience plastic deformation once the stress reach the yield The above procedure can be repeated for plane strain conditions giving
point. 2
1 KI 3 2
Consider the plastic zone diagram shown in Figure 11.9. The extent of the rp ∗ (θ) = sin θ (1 − 2ν)2 (1 + cos θ) (11.18)
4π σY 2
plastic zone is given by the vector rp ∗ (θ). Although at the free surfaces a
state of plane stress exists, within the plate a state of plane strain dominates
if the plate is thick enough. Because of this change of conditions, rp ∗ (θ) will If θ = 0 and assuming ν = 1/3, rp ∗ for plane strain conditions simplifies to
simplifies to
vary along the thickness of the plate. 2
1 KI
In order to find the extent of rp∗ it is convenient to express equations (11.8) rp ∗ = (11.19)
18π σy
Copyright 2006
295 11.4 Plastic zone correction 11.4 Plastic zone correction 296
The above expression can lead to some interesting results. Using equations Remembering that aeff = a + rp ∗ and since plane strain conditions apply
(11.14) for plane strain at θ = 0, σ2 becomes equal to σ1 and σ3 = 2νσ1 . 2
1 KI
aeff = a +
Substituting these results and ν = 1/3 into von Mises equation given by 6π σy
2
1" # 1 60
σY = (σ1 − σ2 )2 + (σ2 − σ3 )2 + (σ3 − σ1 )2 (11.20) = 0.5 +
2 6π 70
the result = 0.5 + 0.0389 = 0.5389
3σY = σ1 (11.21)
arises predicting that σ1 will be three times the yields stress at the time of The stress at which unstable crack growth begins is
yielding.
KIc
σ= √
As plane stress conditions must occur at the free inner surface independently C1 πaeff
of other conditions, σ1 = σY at θ = 0. Nevertheless, as r increases, the stress √
where C1 = (1 − 0.1η 2 + 0.96η 4) sec πη with η = aeff /b.
rises to 3σY very quickly. As the average stress in the plastic zone will be
something between σY and 3σY , it has been suggested to use for plane strain Substituting numerical values
the following expression 2 60
1 KI σ= = 44.32178 ksi
rp ∗ = (11.22) 1.0404 π(0.5389)
6π σY
and from P = σA
Once rp∗ has been estimated, the effective crack length used for the determi- P = 44.3218(6 × 0.06) = 15.956 kpi
nation of stress intensity factors becomes
aeff = a + rp∗ (11.23) The initial crack length for σ = 0.75σY can be found from
√
KIc = C1 σ πaeff
11.4.1. Example Consider once more the plate of thickness t = 0.06 in and
with b = 6 in made of aluminum 7075-T651. Estimate: where aeff indicates that the plastic zone correction has been considered.
From the above formula 2

a) The highest load P that can be applied without causing unstable crack 1 KIc
growth considering a central crack of 2a = 1 in taking into account the aeff =
π C1 σ
plastic zone correction.
and substituting the values for the problem yields
b) The critical length a if σ = 0.75σY taking into account the plastic zone 2
1 60
correction. aeff = = 0.4157
π 0.75 × 70
c) Compare results with those obtained without the plastic zone correction.
Since aeff = a + rp ∗, then a = aeff − rp∗
As in the previous example, unstable crack growth begins with KI = KIc . 2
1 60
When plastic deformation is being taken into account, the previous equation a = aeff −
6π 0.75 × 70
transforms into
√
KIc = C1 σ πaeff = 0.4157 − 0.0693 = 0.3464
Copyright 2006
297 11.4 Plastic zone correction
From this result, unstable crack growth will begin when σ = 0.75σY if the
crack has a length of 0.3464 in.
With these results it is possible to compare the behavior of the crack in brittle
and ductile materials. In the case of the highest load that can be applied,
in the case of brittle materials this would be of 17.24 kpi whereas for ductile
materials it would be of 15.95 kpi or 16.3% less force. For the critical crack
lenght if σ = 0.75σY , for brittle materials it would be of 0.4067 in whereas for
ductile materials it would be of 0.3464 in or 44.5% shorter.
From the above results it can be said that for the same load brittle materials
will withstand larger cracks, and consequently, for the same crack size brittle
materials will support a larger crack.
References
1. Arora, J.S. (1989) Introduction to optimal design. McGraw-Hill interna-

tional editions.
2. Papalambros, P.Y. & Wilde, D.J. (2000) Principles of optimal design. Mod-
eling and computation. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.
Development. McGraw-Hill.
Copyright 2006

PD 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PD 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

It is widely recognized that to develop successful products, systems or services it

José Carlos Miranda

The Engineering Design Process

In the scope of the previous deﬁnition, functional requirements (FRs) respond

Another, less technical, deﬁnition of design is the one promulgated by ABET

1. Establishment of need or realize there is a problem to be solved.

While it is possible to see design as problem solving, it is important to realize

cost analysis / redesign

Acceptance testing Production

Independently of the model, it is generally agreed that the design process

According to Ulrich & Eppinger (2000) the process of identifying customer

0 Begin Release for Time

100 integration between diﬀerent engineering disciplines involved on the design

4. Selection of machines to be used in production.

7. Establishment of tool cutting parameters, such as speed, depth and feed

The QFD technique uses six steps to do this translation:

1 3. Determining relative importance of the requirements.

Heuristic classiﬁcation. Although the overall design problem may be ill-structured,

John Wiley & Sons.

If a new or redesign product is to be successful, it should fulﬁll the needs of the

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 speciﬁcation.

4. Create an archival record of the needs activity of the development pro-

5. Ensure that no critical customer need is missed or forgotten.

6. Develop a common understanding of customer needs among members of

The main purpose of identifying customer needs is to create a direct informa-

In order to satisfy customers, a given product must fulﬁll customer expecta-

• Be alert for surprises and the expression of latent needs. If a customer

ments. Every customer comment or observation as expressed in the customer

• Express the need as speciﬁcally as the raw data. Needs can be

A more correct approach, is to include in the ranking the importance state-

Nevertheless, it is diﬃcult to avoid making concessions reducing the scope

1. Prepare a list of design objectives.

3. The expanded list of objectives and sub-objectives is grouped roughly

Absorb/remove Dissipate Release

9. Function structures should be kept as simple as possible, so as to lead to

4. Match inputs and outputs in the functional decomposition.

A famous example of understanding the competition is that of Xerox Corpo-

• help in the concept generation stage providing best-in-class concepts

7. Plot industry trends • the products and related products

• the functions they perform

Market Share Reporter Published every year by International Thomson

To identify speciﬁcations, the table 3.3 devised by Franke (1995) provides a

1. Compile speciﬁcations and constraints and label them accordingly. Start

demand or wish. 3 1,3 Maximum value from the Monster 5 g

are technically and economically feasible. 7 5 Rake oﬀset 3 mm

1. The speciﬁcations of the product.

2. Determine the requirements of the customers.

Specification category Description 3. Determine the relative importance of the requirements.

Table 3.3: Categories for searching and decomposing speciﬁcations (After

To relate the requirements of the customers to engineering speciﬁcations, the

each cell represents how an engineering speciﬁcation relates to a customer

Temperature of water in sleeping basket

Hottest temperature outside container

Max accel on 2.5 cm standard pothole

Energy transmitted on standard road

Amount of change in spring rate

West Bend Iced Tea Maker

Amount of change in damping

# number of tools to adjust