Concept Evaluation & Selection

1. Concept Evaluation & Selection UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

2. Concept Selection (Evaluation) Concept selection is one of the most critical decision-making exercises in a product development. To make decisions effectively, one must basically carry out two steps. • Minimize the possibility of misrepresenting a solution that may be effective. Engineer is not familiar with the technology. • Fully consider the different ramifications of a decision. For example, not considering the costumer’s need may lead to the product failing in the marketplace. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

3. Concept Selection • Design Evaluations Occurs at all phases of product evaluation, from concept to detailed design phases. Structured decision-making methods are needed. • Quality of Information Low quality of information - how well each alternative design would meet criterion cannot be fully understood. High quality of information - The alternative solutions are well understood. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

4. Estimating Technical Feasibility What separates a skilled engineer from a novice is the ability to effectively estimate. Estimating skill depends on familiarity with dimensional units and familiarity of different values along the dimensions. Example: let’s consider a book When asked to estimate the thickness, all will have little trouble. When asked to estimate the weight of the book, most will have little trouble. When asked to estimate the energy released if the book is burned, many do have trouble. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

5. Derived Units Energy is not directly perceived, we cannot visualize 1 J or 100 J. Energy is a derived unit of directly perceived units. Estimating Technical Feasibility • Perceived Dimensional Units Size and weight are directly perceived, we can see the difference between 1 cm and 1 m. • Engineers should become familiar with the derived units by associating them to known units. 2000 Watts is 3 hp, lawnmower engine. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

6. Some Reference Values Length, SI system (English system) Human hair thickness 30 x 10-6 m (.0012 in.) Book cover thickness 2 mm (.08 in.) Person’s height 2 m (6’-7”) Width of a small town 5 km (8 mile) San Jose to LA 700 km (435 miles) Earth to Moon 3.84 x 109 m (2.4 x 106 miles) UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

7. Some Reference Values Velocity, SI system (English system) Speed of tide rising from low to high 0.1 mm/s (.004 in/s) 1 mm/s (.04 in/s) Tip speed of a wrist watch minute hand Walking speed 1.5 m/s (3.35 mi/h) Highway speed 30 m/s (67 mi/h) Jetliner speed 250 m/s (560 mi/h) 1 km/s (.62 mi/s) 3 times the speed of sound Voyager 1 traveling in space 17 km/s (10 mi/s) Speed of light in vacuum 3 x 108 m/s (670 x 106 mi/h) UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

8. Acceleration , SI system (English system) Some Reference Values Fast car 3 m/s2 (118 in/ s2) Hard braking car 7 m/s2(275 in/ s2) Earth gravity at sea level 9.81 m/s2 (32.2 ft/ s2) Humans blackout 40 m/s2(4 g-force) • Belly flopping in water from 10 m diving board, causing broken bones 100 m/s2 (10 g-force) Head-on car collision occupant acceleration 10,000 m/s2(2730 ft/ s2) Bullet fired from a rifle 60,000 m/s2 (16,400 ft/ s2) Centrifugal acceleration of light trapped in a black hole 2 x 1013 m/s2 (550 x 1013 ft/s2) UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

9. Force, SI system (English system) Some Reference Values Attraction between electron and proton in hydrogen 0.08 μ N (.018 μ lb.) Weight of piece of paper 0.04 N (.14 ounce) Weight of small apple 1 N (.22 lb.) Finger force for appliance 7 N (1.6 lb.) Weight of bag of potatoes 100 N (22.5 lb.) Weight of two small people 1.5 kN (337 lb.) Thrust of Boeing 747 1 MN (224, 820 lb.) Space shuttle thrust 0.2 GN (45 million lbs.) UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

10. Some Reference Values Mass - kg (lb.) 1” x 1” piece of paper 40 x 10-6 kg Grape 10 g Penny 3 g Average person 70 kg (150 lb.) Mid-size car 1300 kg (2,800 lb.) Elephant 5000 kg (11,000 lb.) 747 fully loaded 300,000 kg (660,000 lb.) Ocean liner 107 x 106 kg (235 x 106 lb.) UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

11. Some Reference Values Pressure, SI system (English system) Moon surface 0.13 x 10-9 MPa (1.88 x 10-8 psi) 0.8 x 10-8 MPa (1.16 x 10-6 psi) Mars atmosphere 16 x 10-3 MPa (2.32 psi) Blood pressure 1 MPa (145 psi) 25 ft under water Engine compression pressure 1.3 MPa (188 psi) Pressure to create a diamond 5,000 MPa (725 ksi) Center of Earth 0.40 x 106 MPa (58 million psi) Center of the Sun 20 x 109 MPa (2.9x 1012 psi) UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

12. Some Reference Values Power (watts) Ant crawling up the wall at 1 cm/s 33 μW (4.4 x 10-8 hp) LED 40 mW Small flashlight 10 W Household light bulb 40, 60, 100 W Household appliance 100-1000 W Small lawnmower engine 2000 W (2.7 hp) Electrical power to a small town 1 MW Electrical power plant 1 GW UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

13. Some Reference Values Energy (Joules) Moving 5 g snail 0.45 μJ kinetic energy Bee in flight 2 mJ kinetic energy Small apple falling 1 m 1 J kinetic energy (8.85 lb-in) 90 mile/hr fast ball 114 J kinetic energy (1000 lb-in) • Energy extracted from a AA and D size battery 1 kJ and 80 kJ Car traveling at 60 mph 1 MJ kinetic energy (9 x 106 lb-in) Car battery 5 MJ USS Nimitz, 91,400 tons, traveling at 30 knots 9.9 GJ kinetic energy (88 x 109 lb-in) UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

14. Estimation The estimation process should be used to eliminate concepts that are not technically feasible. • Imagine the concept to estimate • Construct a simple model • Use the model to provide a comparison with a known quantity • Judge whether the estimated quantity compares with the known quantity UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

15. Example – can crusher Alternate concept – dropping a weight on the can Imagine the concept: flow of energy Simple model: F = (mass)(acceleration) + weight Known quantity: 200 lb of force needed to crush the can (from a simple crush test) Choose 30 lb weight, and calculate the height needed to exert 200 lbs to crush the can 5 inches. V 2 = 2gH, a = V 2/2S, F = WH/S + W = 200, Height = 28.33 “ Judge: is the height practical? UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

16. Concept Selection (Evaluation) • Technology Readiness Assessment If a technology is to be used as part of a product design, it must be mature enough that its use is a design issue, not a research issue. • GO/NO-GO screening Each concept must be compared to the customer requirements in an absolute fashion. Each customer need must be transformed into a question to be addressed to each concept. The questions should be answerable as either yes or maybe (go), or no (no-go). This evaluation will weed out concepts quickly and will help generate new ideas. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

17. Concept Selection • Based on the Decision-Matrix (Pugh’s method) The method is very effective for comparing concepts that are not refined enough for direct comparison with the engineering requirements. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

18. Concept Selection – Pugh’s Method The method is an iterative evaluation that tests the completeness and understanding of requirements, quickly identifies the strongest concept. The method is most effective if each member of the design team performs it independently. The results of the comparison will usually lead to repetition of the method, with iteration continued until the team reaches a consensus. • Step 1 – Select the Criteria for Comparison The list of criteria must be developed from the customer needs and engineering specifications. All team members should contribute in making the list. The list then should be debated until consensus is reached. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

19. Concept Selection – Pugh’s Method • Step 2 – Select the Concepts to be Compared These alternatives should be those that proceed from the concept generation. It is important that all the concepts to be compared be at the same level of abstraction. • Step 3 – Generate the Score A favorite concept should be selected as a datum. All other designs are compared to it relative to each customer needs. For each comparison, the concept being evaluated is judged to be either better than (“+” score), about the same (“s” score), or worse than the datum (“-” score). UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

20. Concept Selection – Pugh’s Method • Step 4 – Compute the total score Three scores are generated, the number of plus scores, the number of minus scores and the total. If a concept has a good overall score or a high “+” score, it is important to notice what strengths it exhibits, that is, which criteria it meets better than datum. Same for “-” score. If most concepts get the same score on a certain criterion, examine that criterion closely. More knowledge may have to be developed in the area of the criterion. Or, it may be ambiguous, is interpreted differently by different members. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

21. Bike Splashguard Concepts UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

22. Pugh’s Method – Example Bike splashguard Initial decision matrix Best overall score, design II (5), should be used as a datum concept for the next step. Concepts IV and V are rated as next best designs. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

23. Pugh’s Method – Example Bike splashguard Second decision matrix UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

24. Pugh’s Method – Example Bike splashguard attachment subsystem Initial decision matrix UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

25. Pugh’s Method – Example Coffee mill redesign concepts for cleanability UC Berkeley, ME Dept.

26. Summary • Estimation is a critical skill to develop and can help in quickly eliminating weak concepts • The feasibility of the concepts is based on the design team’s knowledge. It is often necessary to augment this knowledge with research and development of simple models. • In order for a technology to be used in a product, it must be ready. • A go/no-go screening based on customer needs helps to eliminate some of the concepts quickly. • The decision matrix (Pugh’s method) provides means of comparing and evaluating concepts. The method gives insight into strong and weak areas of the concepts. UC Berkeley, ME Dept.