1. Concept Selection and DFMEA Heidi Ploeg Associate Professor Mechanical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering

2. Design Process Flowchart 6/18/2016Page 2 1. Develop problem statement and design specifications 2. Devise potential solutions and select most promising alternatives 3. Develop selected alternatives and evaluate potential 4. Refine and prepare final design 5. Validate final design 6. Communicate design in detail

3. Outline Models in evaluation Design concept selection –Absolute Criteria –Decision matrix –Pugh’s Concept Controlled Convergence DFMEA 6/18/2016Page 3

4. Models in Evaluation Analog: rep. unfamiliar with familiar concepts e.g. circuits and thermo Symbolic: e.g. mathematical, FBD, FEA Prototypes: –Proof-of-concept –Form Study –User Experience –Visual –Functional 6/18/2016 Page 4

5. Outline Models in evaluation Design concept selection –Absolute Criteria –Decision matrix –Pugh’s Concept Controlled Convergence DFMEA 6/18/2016Page 5

6. Morphological Chart: Beverage Container 6/18/2016Page 6 Function/ Attribute 1234 Contain Beverage CanBottleBagBox Provide Access to Beverage Pull TabStrawScrew CapUnzip MaterialAluminumPlasticGlassCardboard 4x4x4 = 64 solutions?

7. Power Wheelchair Safety System 6/18/2016 Page 7

8. 6/18/2016 Page 8

9. Begin Selection with Absolute Criteria Judgment of functional feasibility Assessment of technology readiness Elimination of designs that don’t meet constraints or technical specifications 6/18/2016 Page 9

10. Assess remaining concepts with measurement scales Nominal Scale: yes or no –Are categories the same or not? Ordinal Scale: ranking Interval Scale: ranking with value Ratio Scale: cardinal numbers, e.g. technical metrics like weight, strength,… 6/18/2016 Page 10

11. Nominal Scale Concept Reseal- able? Recycl- able? Break- able? AYYY BNYN CNNN 6/18/2016 Page 11 Glass Aluminum Plastic

12. Ordinal Scale, Ranking ConceptABCTotal A-011 B1-12 C00-0 Total number of comparisons, N=n(n-1)/2=3 6/18/2016 Page 12 Glass Aluminum Plastic

13. Interval Scale 12345678910 CAB 6/18/2016 Page 13

14. Decision Matrix Weight Factor ABC WF x A WF x B WF x C aesthetics 2 5311062 low cost 5 13551525 low weight 5 155525 durable 2 3536106 resealable 3 515153 recyclable 4 54120164 Sum617577 Ranking321 6/18/2016 Page 14

15. Decision Matrix Weight Factor ABC WF x A WF x B WF x C aesthetics 5 53125155 low cost 2 1352610 low weight 5 155525 durable 2 3536106 resealable 3 515153 recyclable 4 54120164 Sum737565 Ranking213 6/18/2016 Page 15

16. Pugh’s Concept Controlled Convergence Develop conceptual designs, create small sketches Create a matrix with column for each design concept and row for each key criterion from technical and customer requirements Choose one concept as datum to compare others against with +,-,= Total scores, discuss, iterate 6/18/2016 Page 16

17. Pugh’s Concept Controlled Convergence Chart Datum ACE aesthetics=-- low cost-++ low weight=++ durable=+- resealable+=+ recyclable==- + 133 - 113 6/18/2016 Page 17

18. Pugh’s Concept Controlled Convergence Chart Datum ABCDEF aesthetics=----- low cost-+++++ low weight=+++++ durable=++--- resealable++==+= recyclable===--- + 143232 - 111333 6/18/2016 Page 18

19. Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (DFMEA) Preventative, systematic approach to design development –Cause = reason for failure –Failure Mode = how it fails –Effect = adverse consequence on customer Ranking of risks associated with product failure modes Prioritizing and addressing highest risks 6/18/2016 Page 19

20. Benefits of DFMEA Systematic process that focuses design on failure modes Provides –a record of preventative action –a record for failure investigations –a list of critical characteristics –criterion based prioritization –new ideas for improvements 6/18/2016 Page 20

21. Basic Concepts Failure Model: Risk Concept: –Severity: of consequences for customer –Occurrence: probability of failure mode –Detection: risk that failure mode is not detected 6/18/2016 Page 21 Root Cause Effect on Customer Failure Mode

22. Basic Concepts Pareto’s 80/20 Rule: 80% of Effects are due to 20% of the Causes Therefore, prioritize and reduce risks! Continuous Improvement, “Kaizen” Loop 6/18/2016 Page 22

23. Basic Tools Bill of Materials, BOM –Detailed list of all components, quantities, and functions Brainstorming –for potential Failure Modes Root Cause Analysis Why? Apparent Cause Why? Root Cause Late for class Slept in Alarm didn’t work Batteries dead Forgot to charge Didn’t plug phone in

24. Process Outline – Part 1 Create a component list  BOM –Identify functions –Identify Failure Modes  Brainstorming Describe the Effects –Assign a Severity Ranking, SR Identify Root Cause  Root Cause Analysis –Assign a Occurrence Ranking, OR Identify current control –Assign a Detection Ranking, DR

25. Process Outline – Part 2 For each Failure Mode calculate Risk Priority Number (RPN) –RPN = SR x OR x DR Sort RPN’s from high to low Take action on high risk items  80/20 rule Recalculate RPN’s and repeat until remaining risk is acceptable  Kaisen Loop 6/18/2016 Page 25

26. Types of Corrective Action Severity Improvement –Change the mode of failure –Performance monitoring –Redundancy 6/18/2016 Page 26

27. Types of Corrective Action Occurrence Improvement –Change the design to fix the problem –Choose an alternative/better design –Add more (e.g. material) –Add more reliable components 6/18/2016 Page 27

28. Types of Corrective Action Detection Improvement –Increased Testability, K.I.S.S. –Quality at Source Everyone is responsible for quality control –Stronger Quality Control 6/18/2016 Page 28

29. 6/18/2016 Page 29