Automatic Coin Collector

Group Members

Abu Naser [15.02.07.102]

Md. Rafi Chowdhury [15.02.07.117]

Khondokar Rabby [15.02.07.129]

Faysal Hossain Bappy [14.01.07.089]

Course Name: Product Design and Development Sessional

Course No.: IPE 3104

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL & PRODUCTION ENGINEERING

AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

 Alternative Manufacturing Process Selection by Weighted
Average Method

Manufacturing Process Selection:

For the manufacturing of our Automatic Coin Collector, we have decided to purchase mild steel
for base and collector, hopper, power panel, sorting panel, vibrator DC motor and main slot. For
this reason, we are going to purchase mild steel sheet metal. Further manufacturing of these raw
materials in our production facility will result in desired shape and size for different parts of the
product. We have identified several manufacturing processes for our product. They are given
below,

1. Cutting of mild steel for base and collector

2. Mechanical Joining
i) Permanent Joining
ii) Temporary Joining
3. Finishing Process
4. Coloring
5. Purchasing Decisions
Cutting of Mild steel for Base and Collector:

Figure 1: Base and Collector

(All dimensions are in cm)
In table 2 we calculated scaled property and weighted score for Gas Cutting, Shearing and Laser
Cutting. Gas and Laser cutting is costly than Shearing. So we rated Shearing 4, Gas and Laser
cutting 2. Laser cutting is more accurate than Shearing and Gas cutting. So we rated Laser
cutting 5, Shearing and Gas cutting 4. In Shearing material wastage is less so we rated Shearing
5, Laser cutting 4 and Gas cutting 3.

Table 2: Calculation of the Performance Index

Gas Cutting Shearing Laser Cutting

Weighing Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted

Goals Factor Property β Score Property β Score Property β Score
αβ αβ Αβ

Cost 0.267 66.67 17.8 100 26.7 50 13.35

Dimensional
0.133 80 10.64 80 10.64 100 13.3
Accuracy

Material
0.200 25 5.00 100 20 50 10
Wastage

Power
0.067 33.33 2.23 100 6.7 25 1.675
Requirement

Surface
0.267 80 21.36 60 16.02 100 26.7
Finish

Metallurgical
0.067 33.33 2.23 100 6.7 50 3.35
Change

Material
Performance 59.26 86.76 68.375
Index, γ

[5=very high, 4=high, 3=medium, 2=low, 1=very low]

Shearing need less power than Gas and Laser cutting so we rated Shearing 5, Laser cutting 4 and
Gas cutting 3. In Laser cutting surface finishing is more than Shearing and Gas cutting. So we
rated Laser cutting 5, Shearing 3 and Gas cutting 4. In Shearing metallurgical structure change is
more so we rated shearing 5, Laser cutting 4 and Gas cutting 3.

Result:
Material Performance Index is greatest for shearing (86.76). So we should select shearing for
the cutting of mild steel for Base & Collector.
In table 4 we calculated scaled property and weighted score for Arc welding, TIG welding and
MIG welding. TIG and MIG welding is costly than Arc welding. So we rated Arc welding 5,
TIG and MIG welding 2. TIG is much more accurate than Arc and MIG welding. So we rated
TIG 5, Arc 4 and MIG 3. Arc welding is more available than TIG and MIG. So we rated Arc 5,
TIG 4 and MIG 3. We need more power in TIG and MIG than Arc welding.
Table 04: Calculation of the performance index

TIG
Arc Welding Welding MIG Welding
Selection Weighing
Criterion Factor Weighted
Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted Scaled
Score
Property β Score αβ Property β Score αβ Property β
Αβ

Cost 0.133 100 13.3 50 6.65 50 6.65

Dimensional
0.267 80 21.36 100 26.7 60 16.02
Accuracy

Availability 0.067 100 6.7 80 5.36 60 4.02

Power
0.067 100 6.7 80 5.36 80 5.36
Requirement

Strength 0.33 80 26.4 60 19.8 100 33.0

Metallurgical
0.133 100 13.3 75 9.975 60 7.98
Change

Material
Performance 87.76 73.845 73.03
Index, γ

[5=very high, 4=high, 3=medium, 2=low, 1=very low]

So we rated Arc welding 4, TIG and MIG 5. Strength: MIG has more strength than Arc and TIG
welding. So we rated Arc welding 4, TIG 3 and MIG 5. Metallurgical Change: In MIG welding
metallurgical structure change more so we rated Arc welding 3, TIG welding 4 and MIG welding
5.

Result:
Material Performance Index is greatest for Arc welding (74.43). So we should select Arc
Welding for permanent joining.
In table 6 we calculated scaled property and weighted score for Rivets and Nut-bolts. Nut-bolts
joining is more strength than Rivets joining. So we rated Nut-bolts 5 and Rivets joining 4 Nut-
bolts joining is more available than Rivets joining. So we rated Nut-bolts 5 and Rivets joining 4.
The longevity of Nut-bolts joining is more than Rivets joining. So we rated Nut-bolts 5 and
Rivets joining 4.
Table 06: Calculation of the performance index
Rivets Nut-bolts
Weighing
Goals Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted
Factor, α
Property, β Score, αβ Property, β Score, αβ

Cost 0.133 100 13.3 100 13.3

Strength 0.200 80 16 100 20

Availability 0.067 80 5.36 100 6.7

Longevity 0.267 80 21.36 100 26.7

Surface Finish 0.067 100 6.7 80 5.36

Design Flexibility 0.267 80 21.36 100 26.7

Material
Performance 84.08 98.76
Index, γ

[5=very high, 4=high, 3=medium, 2=low, 1=very low]

Nut-bolts joining is less surface finish than Rivets joining. So we rated Nut-bolts 4 and Rivets
joining 5. The design flexibility of Nut-bolts joining is more than Rivets joining. So we rated
Nut-bolts 5 and Rivets joining 4.

Result:
Material Performance Index is Greater for Nut-bolts (98.76). So we should select Nut-bolts for
temporary joining.
In table 8 we calculated scaled property and weighted score for Precision Grinding, Non-
Precision Grinding and Polishing. Here precision Grinding is costly than Non-Precision
Grinding and Polishing. So we rated Precision Grinding 3 and Non-Precision Grinding 4.
Precision Grinding is less available than Non-Precision Grinding and Polishing. So we rated
Precision Grinding 3 and Non-Precision Grinding 4. Longevity: The longevity of Precision
Grinding is more than Non-Precision Grinding and Polishing. So we rated Precision Grinding 5
and Non-Precision Grinding 4. Material

Table 08: Calculation of performance index

Precision Non-Precision Grinding and

Grinding
Polishing
Weighing

Goals
Factor, α Scaled Weighted Scaled Weighted
Property, β Score, αβ Property, β Score, αβ

Cost 0.200 75 15 100 20

Smoothness 0.267 100 26.7 100 26.7

Availability 0.067 75 5.025 100 6.7

Longevity 0.133 100 13.3 80 10.64

Material
0.267 100 26.7 80 21.36
Wastage
Time Duration 0.067 100 6.7 80 5.36

Material

Performance 93.425 90.76

Index, γ

The material wastage of Precision Grinding is less than Non-Precision Grinding and Polishing so
we rated Precision Grinding 5 and Non-Precision Grinding 4. The duration of time of Precision
Grinding is more than Non-Precision Grinding and Polishing so we rated Precision Grinding 5
and Non-Precision Grinding 4.

Result:
Material Performance Index is Greater for Precision Grinding (93.425). So we should select
Precision Grinding for the finishing process
In table 10 we calculated scaled property and weighted score for Color Spray and Heat Print by
Color Powder. Here Color Spray is less costly than Heat Print Color Powder. So we rated Color
Spray 5 and Heat Print Color Powder 4. Color Spray is less durable than Heat Print Color
Powder. Therefore, we rated Color Spray 3and Heat Print Color Powder 4. Color Spray need
less power than Heat Print Color Powder. There forth we rated Color Spray 5 and Heat Print
Color Powder 4. Color Spray is more available than Heat Print Color Powder. Hence we rated
Color Spray 5 and Heat Print Color Powder 4.

Table 10: Calculation of performance index

Color Spray Heat Print by Color Powder

Weighing
Goals
Factor, α Scaled Weighted Weighted
Scaled
Property, β Score, αβ Property, β Score, αβ

Cost 0.20 100 20.0 60 12.0

Durability 0.27 75 20.25 100 27

Power
0.07 100 7.00 80 5.6
Requirement

Availability 0.33 100 33.0 80 26.4

Wastage of
0.07 75 5.25 100 7.00
Color

Smoothness 0.07 100 7.00 80 5.6

Material
Performance 92.5 83.6
Index, γ

[5=very high, 4=high, 3=medium, 2=low, 1=very low]

Wastage of Color: Wastage of Color in Color Spray is more than Heat Print Color Powder.
That’s why we rated Color Spray 3 and Heat Print Color Powder 4. Smoothness: Color Spray is
smooth than Heat Print Color Powder. For this reason, we rated Color Spray 5 and Heat Print
Color Powder 4.

Result:
Material Performance Index is Greater for Color Spray (87.4). So we should select Color Spray
for coloring process.
Purchasing Decision:

It is not possible or feasible to manufacture all the parts from their raw materials. Therefore, we
are going to buy several parts. Their name and required units are given below:

Table 11: Parts name and required units

Name of the Part No. of Pieces per Unit

Motor 1

Switch 1

Wire As much as needed

Nut-Bolt 10

Spring 3