Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 495 – 499

MMaMS 2012

Morphological matrix applied within the design project of the

manipulator frame
Oskar Ostertaga*, Eva Ostertagováb, Róbert HuĖadya
a
Technical University of Košice, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Applied Mechanics and Mechatronics, Letná 9, 042 00 Košice, Slovak
Republic
b
Technical University of Košice, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Department of Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, B.
NČmcovej 32, 042 00 Košice, Slovak Republic

Abstract

In this paper we are dealing with the morphological matrix applied at the selection of the most appropriate solution of the manipulator
travel frame design projection. The morphology enables to analyze all the solutions that may occur during both the development and the
construction of the equipment. In particular it is useful at the machine and the mechanics constructions. The morphology concerns the
analysis and the permutations of any possible solutions of the construction element development. This method is characterized by creation
of the prognosis and the partial data matrix formations. Based on the permutations and the combinations of the respective elements
characteristics the general characteristic is resulting. The morphological analysis consists of several phases. Initially it is necessary to
make the exact description of the examined task. Following is the determination of the characteristic attributes thus the attributes and their
combinations what the solution is depending on. Moreover are considering the impact and the effect of the respective parameters and the
same their combinations regarding the most applicable solution.
© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Branch Office of Slovak Metallurgical Society at
Selection
Faculty of and/or peer-review
Metallurgy under
and Faculty responsibility
of Mechanical of the Branch
Engineering, Office
Technical of Slovak
University Metallurgical
of Košice Society
Open access underatCC
Faculty of Metallurgy
BY-NC-ND license. and
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Košice.

Keywords: morphology, stiffness, MKP, frame

Nomenclature
Rp tensile strength (Pa)
Re yield strength (Pa)

1. Introduction

Within the paper is performed the project of the manipulator travel frame adherent to both the strength and the stiffness
analyses. Based on given and specified parameters there were presented several varieties of the frame. With the project we
emphasized its stiffness. It was conditioned by the demand of the high exactness of the manipulator activity. The last but not
least criterion was the stress analysis. The optimal alternative was selected according to the point evaluation. The evaluation
was made on the basis of the morphological matrix.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +421-55-602-2460;

E-mail address: oskar.ostertag@tuke.sk.

1877-7058 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Branch Office of Slovak Metallurgical Society at
Faculty of Metallurgy and Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Košice Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2012.09.544
496 Oskar Ostertag et al. / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 495 – 499

2. Analysis of the task

With its design solution the frame has to provide the activity of the manipulator and to the full range of its movement and
with the sufficient precision. This activity consists of the steps as follows:
• clamping of the load,
• the load transportation from the operating unit to the control point,
• turning and tilting of the load and its removal on the rotating platform.
Above mentioned working positions of the manipulator are specific for the loading process of the frame.
The manipulator activity is externally influenced both statically and dynamically as follows:
• maximum loading by the load (including the manipulator) is 1 kN,
• vertical speed of the manipulator movement is 80 mm/s,
• horizontal speed of the manipulator movement is 350 mm/s,
• speed of throwing out the jaws is 30 mm/s.
As the significant condition of the frame design project was the demand of maximum vertical deformity (1 mm) and
maximum horizontal deformity (1.2 mm). With regard to the demands we approach the proposal of three principal physical
models. 3-D models of the frame were designed and also numerically resolved through the finite element method.
The models were created of two fundamental bodies with mutual geometrical connection according to the real state. The
share design element of the regarded solutions, marked with the numbers 1, 2, 5, was the prop prepared from two
longitudinally welded „U“ shapes. In two cases (1, 2) the beams were longitudinally welded of two „U“, or „L“ shapes
(Fig. 1, 2). In case No. 5 we regarded „H“ shape (Fig. 3). The beams 3 and 4 were of the rectangular cross section. The
guide rails of the manipulator were longitudinally welded or screwed to the beams. The beams were connected with the
props through the weld and through the screws. By regarding the various design solutions of the frame it was probable to
approach the required stiffness. Basic dimensions of the frame, specified by the submitter of the task, are shown in the
Fig. 2. Regarded spacing between the props was 3 m.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1. (a) prop and beam of 2xU shape, (b) prop and beam of 2xL shape, (c) prop and beam of H shape

3. Frame components selection through the morphological matrix

The given problem features arranged to specific configurations − matrices are the principles of the method applying the
morphological matrix. According to the type of the problem it is probable to apply either two-dimensional (2-D tables) or
three-dimensional (3-D cubes, blocks) matrices. The aim is to find the vertical combinations of the design, shown in the
rows and representing an optimum and complex solution. The feature configurations stated in the matrices are resulting into
the general problem solving. The originated combinations may be divided in to two groups:
• known and existing solutions,
• not existing solutions till now (considerably more extensive group in quantity).
Essentially the matrix is a table where the first vertical column consists of the general characters, features and attributes
of the solved subject (parts, functions etc.) which are relevant to the problem and are indicating what the subject has to be or
what it must include (to have). The horizontal row of the Table 1 shows the special features regarding each general attribute
[1].
 Oskar Ostertag et al. / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 495 – 499 497

Table 1. Notation of the general morphological matrix

general features special features (elements of solution) number of elem.

Z1 p11 p12 p13 p1 = 3
Z2 p21 p22 p23 p24 p2 = 4
Z3 p31 p32 p33 p34 p35 p3 = 5
Z4 p41 p42 p4 = 2
Z5 p51 p52 p53 p54 p55 p5 = 5
Z6 p61 p62 p63 p6 = 3

Nevertheless 2-D morphological matrix is not too substantive the number of the permutations is large. The construction
of the matrix is connected with exactly specified aim and with regard to both the solved problem and objectively applicable
state of the art means.
First the technically contradictory solutions are eliminated through the sequential selection and then by another selection
based on progressive application of various criteria, the number of variety of the solutions are narrowing the final resolution.
After realization of the analysis the technical criterion enables the elimination of apparently contradictory solutions and the
same the analysis of the remaining solutions in term of the technical features. An economical criterion enables the
elimination of economically inefficient solutions and the analysis of remaining ones regarding their economic effectiveness.
The complex analysis is of a complex nature not only in term of the overall comparison of technical and economical impact
of proposed solutions and also through the administration of various all-society and economic or corporate interests [2-3].
The configuration of the morphological matrix needs the steps as follows [4-5]:
1. Exact analysis and the definition of the problem.
2. Specification of the parameter through which the problem may be correctly sectionalized and divided into partial
fields (it is convenient for us to be limited in 2 essential parameters).
3. List of terms.
4. Specification of zero fields (i. e. unknown, unrealistic combinations of terms).
5. Specification of fields with already known solutions.
6. The emphasis of interesting blank fields (there exists either null solution or are existing only a few solutions),
which will be examined further.
The morphological matrix is not only a very useful tool of the direct solution and it also excellently fits with the initial
phases of the problem solving process since it may be aimed at finding the interesting problematic for processing and the
same at the line of research and at the chances and the probabilities [6].
Thus at the selection we did obey the morphological matrix with our aim to examine the choice of the type of frame and
its applicability for specific use. The informative numeric calculation by which in particular we made the monitoring of
specified stiffness of the frame was the part of any version of the proposal too [7]. So that to reach this aim various materials
and cross-sectional features of the frame were chosen.

Table 2. Design elements characteristics

stress acc. to von Mises maximum deformation in dir. x, y, z weight

design element
[MPa] [mm] [kg]
beam 1 36.2 0.647; −0.648; 0.028 156
beam 2 74.0 1.983; −3.376; 0.086 165
beam 3 36.2 0.640; −0.648; 0.023 142
beam 4 36.1 1.764; −1.784; 0.076 53
beam 5 54.9 1.049; −1.087; 0.035 231
steel prop −− −− 126
cast iron prop −− −− 115
cast iron prop −− −− 43
Tab. 2 shows respective design elements, maximum reduced stresses according von Mises, maximum deformations in
direction of respective axes x, y, z (Fig. 2) and the weight of both the beams and the prop. The strength and yield strength of
applied steel is Rp = 517 MPa, Re = 207 MPa, of the cast iron Rp = 414 MPa, Re = 276 MPa and the alloy Rp = 689 MPa,
Re = 275 MPa.
498 Oskar Ostertag et al. / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 495 – 499

Operational principles of the respective solutions are within the morphological table 3 and represented by relevant
figures of the design elements.

Table 3. Morphological matrix of the frame choice

o. n. partial function operational principles

beam closed closed open open
1 cross - section 2xU 2xL H
shape 1 3 4 2 5

2 beam material structural steel cast iron alloy Al

1 2 5 3 4

longitudinal weld
beam fabrication
3 1 of 2xU, 2xL 2 rolled cast drawn
technology
rolled rods 5 3 4

prop closed closed

4 cross - section 2xU
shape 1 2 5 3 4

5 prop material structural steel cast alloy Al

1 2 5 3 4

longitudinal weld
prop fabrication
6 1 of 2xU 2 5 cast drawn
technology
rolled rods 3 4

beam and prop

7 by welding by screws
connection
1 2 5 3 4

4. Choice of the optimum alternative

The selection of the frame optimum alternative was based on the evaluation resulting from the output information of the
numerical solution regarding the stiffness of the system and the extension of the distributed stresses. In case of more number
of places of increased concentration or higher stress value of respective design elements, the system was assigned with less
number of points. On the other hand the highest value was assigned with the frame of the highest stiffness. Another criterion
was the weight. Due to nonsufficient number of information the manufacturing costs were not included into the evaluation.
Table 4 shows the evaluation of the respective frame alternative.

Table 4. Evaluation of the frame alternatives

alternative 1 2 3 4 5 weight ideal

deformation 4 1 5 2 3 4 20
criterion

stress 3.5 1 3.5 5 2 3 15

beam and prop weight 3 2 4 5 1 1 5
expected price rank 5 3 2 1 4 2 10
total summary evaluation 39.5 15.0 27.5 30.0 27.0 −− 50
total standardized evaluation 0.79 0.30 0.55 0.60 0.54 −− 1
overall order 1 5 3 2 4 −− −−

5. Analysis of the solution

As to the choice of the most appropriate solution we regarded three criteria. The most important was the stiffness of the
structure as a complex and next was the maximum stress according to von Mises. The weight of the structure reached the
minimum item evaluation. Due to instability of both the material price and the labour the economical criterion stayed
regardless by us. Based on the analysis we decided to choice the frame 1 of maximum vertical deformation − 0.648 mm
and horizontal deformation of 0.647 mm. This type of frame was the most suitable to the stiffness specified by the submitter
 Oskar Ostertag et al. / Procedia Engineering 48 (2012) 495 – 499 499

of the task. Maximum stress within mentioned frame reached the value of 36.2 MPa according to von Mises. In this case the
theorem of the stiffness was performed at very high degree of safety. Comparable values of the stiffness were reached with
the frame 3 (0.640 mm − 0.648 mm) however the applied material was more expensive and more demand regarding the
connection and from that reason this solution reached the third place. Remaining solutions did not satisfy the criterion of the
stiffness. With increased stiffness it would be necessary to affect the dimensions of the beam structure and then the
condition of the submitter of the task would be failed. On the other hand the rate of safety was also very much exceeded in
this case.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper are grateful for financial support from GA VEGA, Project No. 1/0289/11 and this contribution
is the result of the project implementation: Center for research of control of technical, environmental and human risks for
permanent development of production and products in mechanical engineering (ITMS:26220120060) supported by the
Research & Development Operational Programme funded by the ERDF.

References
[1] Kolíbal, Z., Knoflíþek, R., 2000. Morphological analysis of structure of industrial robot (in Czech). Vienala, Košice.
[2] Ostertagová, E., Kováþ, J., Malega, P., 2011. Application of morphological analysis by selection of material flow structure and storage allocation to
production system. Proceedings of the 4th international conference Modelling of Mechanical and Mechatronical Systems 2011, Košice, Slovakia, pp.
374-379.
[3] Ziekle, U., 1995. Montagestrukturplanung für variantenreiche Serienprodukte. Springer Verlag Berlin.
[4] Kováþ, J., Ostertagová, E., 2009. Designing of assembly systems based on the basis on using the morphological analysis (in Slovak). Manufacturing
Engineering 3/2009, pp. 75-77.
[5] Ostertagová, E., Kováþ, J., 2008. Morphological approaches in assembly and disassembly systems planning (in Slovak). Trends in Business
Management Systems, Košice, pp. 653-659.
[6] Ostertagová, E., 2008. Selection of material flow structure and storage allocation to assembly system (in Slovak). Transfer of innovation, 12/2008, pp.
163-167, Technical University of Košice.
[7] Laš, V., Kroupa, T., Bartošek, J., Zemþik, R., 2011. Impact force reconstruction for structural health monitoring of composite beam. Acta Mechanica
Slovaca No.2/2011, pp. 6-12, ISSN 1335-2393.