20239 – ESC101 – Engineering Science Praxis I – Lecture 04

Requirements and
DfX
Studio Debrief
DfX Example
Argument in Action
Profs. Roger Carrick, Rob Irish, Morgan Hooper, and Jenny Lofgreen
 The “Welcome to Praxis” survey is now active
Welcome to Praxis Survey token = UTORid + right(student number, 6)

leeterry567890

Last 6 digits of your student number

Your UTORid
Teardown!
 Teardown!

Great
Documentation!
 Model
World As It Is World As
{I,We} Perceive It

World {I,We} World As

Create {I,We} Dream It

Build
Reality Theory
(Technology) (Science, Math, Humanities)
Reverse Engineering LEC 02
LEC 03
Lecture 03
LEC 03
Repairability Maintainability
Design for Testing
Assembly the Environment
Safety Accessibility
Durability
Reliability Manufacturing
Recycling Logistics
Usability A ordability
ff
 Design for X (DfX)
DfX Principles help us define specific requirements around
common High Level Objectives

Based on ways of achieving the desired outcome (objective)

DfX Principles are often

codified in Handbooks
Design for
Reliability
What does reliability mean in a
design context?
 Three Reliability Considerations
1 Mean Time to Failure (MTTF)
How long will a component work before failing?

2 Mean Time Between Repairs (MTBR)

How long will a component work before needing work?

3 Mean Time to Repair (MTR)

When it breaks how long will it take to x?

Rp = R1 x R2 x R3 … Rn
Reliability of the device is the product of
the reliabilities of its components
fi
How “good” is
this source?
 This writer puts
DfManufacturability
before DfExcellence

Makes the case for

DFX generally
 Even chapter
subheadings give
clues about
“manufacturability”
Principles
 Design for
Assembly

Design for the

Environment

Design for Quality

Design for Usability

Design for Reliability

 172 The Dimensions of DFX

Ratings Weighted Ratings

1
Table to help
Alternative Alternative
Factor Weight I 1 112 #l 1#2 I
I I I
How well h a s the design been simplified.
I
DfReliability
especially w i t h respect t o the reduction in the
number of parts? 4
I

and design approaches being used in all

possible instances? 5

I 1 I I / I I I

ted against environmental

moisture, etc. that could

tHas derating [we of generous factors of I I I i i I I

safety) been employed for those components

likely to affect the product's useful Me? 5 I
similar protective devices been incorporated in

Has maintainability of the product been

improved so that failure of critical elements
can be delayed or, if necessary. they can be
easilv reolaced?

Figure 15.2 A sample matrix-evaluationsystem to help designers rate the suitability of

a product design concept for potential high reliability. "'he component or product with
the highest score is deemed to have the best potential reliability.

James G. Bralla, Design for Excellence, 1996

 I
How well h a s the design been simplified.
especially w i t h respect t o the reduction in the
↓ parts
↑ reliability I
number of parts? 4
I

and design approaches being used in all proven components

possible instances? 5↑ reliability

I 1 I I / I

ted against environmental

moisture, etc. that could
tHas derating [we of generous factors of I I I i i

safety) been employed for those components

likely to affect the product's useful Me? 5 I
similar protective devices been incorporated in
fail safe devices
↑ reliability

Has maintainability of the product been

improved so that failure of critical elements
can be delayed or, if necessary. they can be
easilv reolaced?
 I
Is the product designedto minimize the effects
Of COrrOSiOn? 3
I

↑ prevention
↑ reliability
1. The design can be simplified as much as possible. If the design pro-
vides for full operation under the specified conditions, the design
with the least complexity will generally be the most likely to exhibit
Simplify design
reliability of operation. (This excludes, however, designs which are
more complex due to redundant elements.)
2. The reliability of the individual components that make up the prod-
uct can be improved.
Use Reliable components
3. The product can be designed with redundancy, duplicate or backup
systems t h a t continueBuild the in Redundancy
operation of the product if a primary
device should fail.
4. Component derating (see below) can be used to improve the ratio of
load to capacity of the components used.
5. Steps can b e taken Protect
to reduce from
the Environment
adverse effects of the environment
in which the product must operate.
6. The system can be designed for easier service, both regular mainte-
nance and repair. This Accessible
will either for
enhance Repair
the reliability of
uct or make failures of some component less critical to the product’s
the prod-

~ p e r a t i o n,7. ~
 1. The design can be simplified as much as possible. If the design pro-
vides for full operation under the specified conditions, the design
Didwith
youtheobserve any of these
least complexity will generally be the most likely to exhibit
DfReliability Simplify design
principles
reliability of operation. (This excludes, however, designs which are
implemented
more complexin dueyour devices?
to redundant elements.) Model
2. The reliability of the individual components that World
make As Itup
Is the prod-
Use Reliable components
World As
{I,We} Perceive It
uct can be improved.
What
3. Thedoes
productthat tell
can be you about
designed with redundancy, duplicate or backup
intention
thedevice Build
systems t h a t continue the in
(objective) Redundancy
operation
of of the product if a primary
should fail.
the designer? World {I,We}
4. Component derating (see below) can be used to improve
Create
the ratio of
World As
{I,We} Dream It

load to capacity of the components used. Build

What does
5. Steps can bthat tell
Protect
e taken to you
reduce about
from
the Environment
adverse effects Reality
of the environment Theory
in which the product must operate. (Technology) (Science, Math, Humanities)
the how the designer LEC 02
6. The system can be designed for easier service, both regular mainte-
perceived the needs of the
nance and repair. This
uct orstakeholders?
Accessible
will either for
enhance Repair
the reliability of
make failures of some component less critical to the product’s
the prod-

~ p e r a t i o n,7. ~
 Toulmin’s Structure of Argument

Ground Claim Acceptance

Justi cation Evidence

Quali er

Counterclaim
fi
fi
 Ways to Support Claims
for facts
1 Research for previous design
for codes, standards, or guidelines
for approaches and processes
for cognate concepts and theories
2 Testing, calculating, modelling

3 Sketching, low- delity prototyping

for proof of concept
fi
 Toulmin’s Structure of Argument

Ground Claim Acceptance

This is
a great pen
Acceptance

Rejection
What do I need to do
to prevent rejection?

See textbook chapter 2

 Toulmin’s Structure of Argument

This is
Ground Claim
a great pen
Acceptance

Justi cation Evidence

See textbook chapter 2

fi
 Toulmin’s Structure of Argument

This is
Ground Claim
a great pen
Acceptance

The pen enables neJusti

lines while
cation Evidence
still making strong blacks for contrast

This is called
argument by example

What is an
obvious weakness
to this approach?
fi
fi
 Toulmin’s Structure of Argument

This is
Ground Claim
a great pen
Acceptance

The pen enables neJusti

lines while
cation Evidence
still making strong blacks for contrast

I used your pen

Counterclaim
and this was all I
could draw Argument by example is
vulnerable to counter-examples
fi
fi
 Toulmin’s Structure of Argument

This is
Ground Claim
a great pen
Acceptance

The pen enables neJusti

lines while
cation Evidence
still making strong blacks for contrast

For a reasonable
Quali er artist
I used your pen
Counterclaim
and this was all I
could draw Argument by example is
vulnerable to counter-examples
fi
fi
fi
 Toulmin’s Structure of Argument
Ground

Quali er For a reasonable artist

Acceptance
Claim This is a great pen because

Justi cation The pen enables ne lines while

still making strong blacks for contrast
as shown by
Evidence
fi
fi
fi
 Toulmin’s Structure of Argument
and maybe in the
Ground nature of the claim
Claim This is a great pen because
Acceptance
Justi cation The pen enables ne lines while
still making strong blacks for contrast

Quali er For a reasonable artist

as shown by
Evidence Key change will be
in the evidence
What if I wanted to make this
an engineering argument?
fi
fi
fi
… and, of course, that leads us to Aristotle
 binary thinking, hyper-rationalism
three types of appeal Making an argument
using an appropriate authority
logos enhances your ethos
reasonable pure reason
compassion trustworthy
reasoning

Which of these What will give me

dominates balanced authority in engineering?
argument
requirements?
engineering?
pathos ethos
emotional trust in
connection persona
manipulation celebrity
emotionalism popularity cult

personal empathy
Textbook pp. 31-37
 binary thinking, hyper-rationalism
typical
Note that
engineering this says
logos arguments typical
reasonable pure reason
compassion trustworthy
reasoning

Why or when
balanced
do we still need argument
to consider pathos?
pathos ethos
emotional trust in
connection persona
manipulation celebrity
emotionalism popularity cult

personal empathy