See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235555071

Using axiomatic design principles for designing a simple and innovative

product: a case study

Article in International Journal of Design Engineering · January 2008

DOI: 10.1504/IJDE.2008.023766

CITATIONS READS

5 4,176

3 authors, including:

Pantelis Botsaris Olympia Demesouka

Democritus University of Thrace Democritus University of Thrace
83 PUBLICATIONS 856 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 480 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pantelis Botsaris on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

300 Int. J. Design Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2008

Using axiomatic design principles for designing a

simple and innovative product: a case study

P.N. Botsaris*, K.P. Anagnostopoulos and

O. Demesouka
Department of Production Engineering and Management,
Demokritos University of Thrace,
School of Engineering, Kimmeria Campus
67100, Xanthi, Greece
Fax: +302541079878
E-mail: panmpots@pme.duth.gr
E-mail: kanagn@civil.duth.gr
E-mail: odemesou@pme.duth.gr
*Corresponding author

Abstract: In the last decade axiomatic design has been proved to be a valuable
methodology for designing complex products and systems. However, axiomatic
design methodology may be of great worth even for simple products. This
paper demonstrates as a case study its effectiveness in the design of an
innovative product – an industrial hinge of four degrees of freedom. By setting
the independence axiom as guideline throughout the analysis, we present step
by step the design matrices, which represent the mapping relationships between
functional requirements and design parameters.
Keywords: axiomatic design; AD; design principles; mechanical product
design; innovative product; case study.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Botsaris, P.N.,
Anagnostopoulos, K.P. and Demesouka, O. (2008) ‘Using axiomatic design
principles for designing a simple and innovative product: a case study’, Int. J.
Design Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.300–315.
Biographical notes: Pantelis N. Botsaris is an Assistant Professor of
Mechanical Design in Production Engineering and Management Department,
School of Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace. He has published
numerous technical papers (over 30) on various aspects of diagnostics and
prognostics of mechanical systems design theory and modelling methodology,
tool wear analysis and a book in co-generation (250 pages in Greek – ISBN
960-418-003-7). He is also patentee of two national patents.
Konstantinos P. Anagnostopoulos, Civil Engineer-Economist, DEA, Ms, PhD,
is an Associate Professor of Project Management in Production Engineering
and Management Department, School of Engineering, Democritus University
of Thrace. He has published over 130 journal papers, book chapters and
conference proceedings on decision support systems and information system
design, twelve research reports, six books and numerous newspapers articles.
He is also co-developer of three Microsoft Project and Excel add-ins.
Olympia E. Demesouka graduated from Production and Management
Engineering Department, School of Engineering, Democritus University of
Thrace (2006). She is a PhD candidate with focus on decision support systems.

Copyright © 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Using axiomatic design principles 301

1 Introduction

In today’s highly competitive manufacturing world, companies are forced to develop and
deliver high-quality products manufactured at low costs with shorter cycle. Since
unsatisfactory design results in a great number of process iterations, the effectiveness of
design can be of great value for improving performance and quality of manufacturing and
of service to customers. To reduce the probability of design failures, systematic
approaches have been proposed in recent decades (Ulrich and Eppinger, 1995). As one of
the representative methodologies, axiomatic design (AD) has been suggested to
methodically design products and systems and has gained wide recognition in both the
research and industrial communities.
Developed by N.P. Suh and his associates, AD offers a systematic approach to
manage interactions between elements of the design and functions the design must fulfil
(Suh, 1990; Suh, 2001; Suh and Lee, 2006). Based on two axioms that provide a solid
scientific foundation for design, AD theory helps to overcome the shortcomings of
trial-and-error approach to product design and development. These axioms convey the
basic idea that the specification of more functional requirements (FRs) than necessary can
lead to over-design and attendant costs, while specification of fewer FRs than necessary
to achieve design objectives can lead to unacceptable solutions.
Many AD applications have appeared in the literature, including process and product
development (Cha and Cho, 1999; Gebala and Suh, 1992; Gonçalves-Coelho and
Mourão, 2007; Gunasekera and Ali, 1995; Park et al., 1996; Suh, 2001; Sung and Gyung,
2001; Tseng and Jiao, 1997), manufacturing systems (Suh et al., 1998), structural design
in civil engineering structures (Albano and Suh, 1992) and design for environment (Chen,
2001; Wallace and Suh, 1993). Cochran et al., (2000) convert a complex production
system into small, flexible and decentralised production segments, using lean principles
in conjunction with segmentation and AD principles. Chen et al. (2000) propose a
knowledge-based decision support system using the independence axiom in order to
improve cell performance. Houshmand and Jamshidnezhad (2002) also propose a lean
manufacturing production system design model based upon the organisational
capabilities, technological capabilities and value stream analysis. Kulak et al., (2005)
provide a framework and a road map for transforming a production system from process
orientation to cellular orientation, based on AD principles. In addition, many studies in
the last decade have persuasively shown the benefits of AD in solving a variety of design
problems. AD principles have been used to software and quality system design (Kim et
al., 1991; Chen, 1998; Suh, 1995). Durmusoglu and Kulak (in press) develop a
methodology for designing an efficient office operation and Lo and Helander (2006)
formalise AD principles into a framework for analysing the complexity of human –
machine systems. Xue et al. (2006) introduce a systematic approach for configuration
design considering the impact of design changes on downstream processes by using AD
matrices to model the relationships between design configurations and their
implementation processes. As a measure for evaluating safety in nuclear power plants,
Heo and Lee (2007) propose an AD based methodology to examine the design process of
emergency core cooling systems.
Often simple things or products are not given the attention they should, compared
with the seriousness of the problem they could solve. AD is a valuable methodology for
designing complex systems. Actually, it is a general design framework, rather than a
302 P.N. Botsaris et al.

design theory. In addition to the axiomatic approach to design, there are many other
methods that are based on an algorithmic approach to design such as systematic design
(VDI), Taguchi method, design for assembly or disassembly (DFA, DFD) etc. In
algorithmic design, the design process is identified or prescribed so that it leads the
designer to a specific solution that satisfies the design goals.
However, AD may be of great value even for simple products. In this spirit, the
present paper illustrates the use of the axiomatic approach in the design and analysis of
an innovative product from the field of applied engineering (IPO, 2006). The case
concerns an industrial door hinge with four degrees of freedom. The current design is
described in detail and attention is made to analyse the mechanical basis of the product's
design. Since one of the difficulties in learning the axiomatic approach has been the
process of applying the axioms in actual design activities (Gebala and Suh 1992), we
hope also that this case may be useful in teaching AD.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 discusses the AD principles
and analyses the main steps of a common design process. Section 3 approaches the
product design using the AD theory. Finally, Section 4 presents the conclusions.

2 The AD process

According to N.P. Suh, the design process takes place in four domains (Figure 1):
customer, functional, physical and process. These domains create demarcation lines
between four different kinds of design activities (Suh 1990). The number of domains
always remains at four, but the nature of the design elements in each domain changes
depending on the field of the problem (Gebala and Suh 1992). Associated with each
domain are the design elements: customer attributes (CAs) or needs which are satisfied
by selecting an appropriate set of FRs and constraints (Cs), which in turn are embodied
into design parameters (DPs). These (DPs) are achieved by a set of process variables
(PVs) that provide control over the physical parameters.

Figure 1 The four domains of the design process (see online version for colours)

The first task in designing a product or a system is to determine the customer

requirements, since products and systems are created with a customer in mind. Once the
CAs are established, the appropriate FRs, i.e. ‘a minimum set of independent
requirements that completely characterises the functional needs of the product in the
functional domain’ and Cs of the system in the functional domain are determined to
 Using axiomatic design principles 303

satisfy the customer needs. The FRs must be determined in a ‘solution neutral
environment’ – defining FRs without thinking about the solution – so as to come up with
creative ideas. The Cs should be stated in the customer domain but they can also be stated
during the whole design process. The next task is to conceive artifacts in the physical
domain with specific DPs, i.e. ‘the key physical variables in the physical domain that
characterise the design that specifies the FRs’ [Suh, (2001), p.14], which can satisfy the
FRs. This mapping from the FRs to DPs is the ‘product’ design. Finally, designers must
go to the process domain to come up with a manufacturing process in the case of product
design. DPs determine, but also can be affected by, the PVs.
The basic postulate of the axiomatic approach to design is that there are fundamental
axioms that govern the design process. Two axioms were identified by examining the
common elements that always are present in good designs:
Axiom 1 (independence axiom) maintain the independence of the FRs
Axiom 2 (information axiom) minimise the information content of the design.
The independence axiom states that the independence of FRs must always be maintained.
The functional independence enables each FR to be satisfied without affecting any of the
other FRs and the design remains as uncomplicated as possible.
AD is based on a ‘divide-and-conquer’ logic. The decomposition process begins with
the decomposition of the overall functional requirement into sub-requirements. As the
system is decomposed into hierarchical levels, it is necessary to specify a set of FRs,
move to the physical domain by the conception of a design solution and specification of
DPs for the same hierarchical level and then proceed back to the functional domain as
required. This ‘aller-retour’ between the functional and physical domains and from a
general to a detailed description, is called zigzagging. Zigzagging also involves the other
domains and is repeated until it is possible to construct the system from the information
contained in the system architecture.
At each level of the design hierarchy, the relationships between the FRs and the DPs
can be written in the form of ‘a design equation’ as:
{FR} = [ A ] * {DP} (1)

where the design matrix [A] characterises the product design. It is common for the
elements of the matrix, Aij to be represented with an ‘X’ if there is an effect of DPj on FRi
and a ‘0’ otherwise. A similar design equation may be written for the process design as:
{DP} = [ B] *{PV} (2)

where the matrix [B] defines the characteristics of the process design and is similar in
form as [A].
Depending on the type of resulting design matrix [A], three types of designs exist:
uncoupled, decoupled and coupled.
⎧ FR1 ⎫ ⎡ X 0 0 ⎤ ⎧ DP1 ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ FR2 ⎬ = ⎢ 0 X 0 ⎥⎥ ⎨ DP2 ⎬
⎪ FR ⎪ ⎢ 0 0 X ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩ DP3 ⎪⎭
⎩ 3⎭ ⎣
304 P.N. Botsaris et al.

⎧ FR1 ⎫ ⎡ X 0 0 ⎤ ⎧ DP1 ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ FR2 ⎬ = ⎢ X X 0 ⎥⎥ ⎨ DP2 ⎬
⎪ FR ⎪ ⎢ X X X ⎦⎥ ⎪⎩ DP3 ⎪⎭
⎩ 3⎭ ⎣

⎧ FR1 ⎫ ⎡ X X X ⎤ ⎧ DP1 ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ FR2 ⎬ = ⎢ X X X ⎥⎥ ⎨ DP2 ⎬
⎪ FR ⎪ ⎢ X X X ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩ DP3 ⎪⎭
⎩ 3⎭ ⎣
In order the independence axiom to be satisfied, the matrix [A] must be diagonal or
triangular. When each FR is satisfied by exactly one DP, the resulting matrix is diagonal,
the design equation has an exact solution and the DPs may be set in any order (uncoupled
design). A triangular matrix represents a decoupled design. For correct implementation of
such a design, it is necessary to set the value of DP1 before setting the value of DP2 and
the value of DP2 before setting the value of DP3. If the matrix [A] is neither diagonal nor
triangular, the design is coupled and the FRs cannot be satisfied independently. A
coupled design can be decoupled, for example, by adding components to carry out
specific functions.
The second axiom, the information axiom, states that the design with the fewer
information content is the best design approach (Suh, 2001). Since this axiom provides a
quantitative measure of the merits of a given design, it is useful in selecting the best
among the designs which satisfy the independence axiom. The information in AD is
defined in terms of the logarithmic probability of satisfying the FRs. The information
content of a system can be computed by summation of the individual information
contents of all DPs only if the latter are probabilistically independent.

2.1 Analysis of a design process

When the AD is applied, the design process can be summarised in the following steps:
1 determine the CA
2 describe the FRs and DPs for the conventional design process
3 construct the design matrix
4 find out the coupling source (if there is)
5 provide the solution for decoupling the matrix
6 determine the FRs, DPs and design matrix for the new design process
7 decompose the FR-DP tree
8 use the newly defined process.
Steps 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not needed for a brand new design process. Step 4 is the most
important since it is very difficult to provide new solutions without finding the drawbacks
of the conventional design. If a conventional design process is defined with the axiomatic
axioms the decoupling problem can be found more easily.
 Using axiomatic design principles 305

3 Case study of an industrial hinge

3.1 Customer attributes

Often simple things or products are not given the attention they should, compare to the
seriousness of the problem they could solve. As the Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (Hungarian
biochemist 1893) said: ‘Invention is you see something that everyone sees and you think
something that no one has thought before’. An example of that kind of product invention
is the presented door hinge.
Both in the domestic and especially in the industrial sector, the problem of the
adjustment of a door is appeared. This adjustment may be caused from the frequent use of
the door, environmental impacts, e.g. humidity and/or constructional tolerances. The
adjustment procedure success depends on two basic factors:
a the door’s weight
b the persons that can contribute to the door’s adjustment the time of the adjustment.
The adjustment’s process of conventional hinges requires the door’s removal. Only then
the hinge can be adjusted, e.g. with the addition (or removal) of gaskets and possibly with
the smoothing of the door’s frame. After that the door can be repositioned. The problem
is that all this process demands at least the contribution of two persons; the adjustment
may not be achieved with the first try and may not be fixed again.
The conventional design process of a hinge is analysed from the AD viewpoint. The
customers attributes (CAs) come from the analysis of the previous paragraph and
summarised as follows:
• low cost
• easy maintainability.

3.2 Calculations of hinge’s parts

The external dimensions of the hinge are calculated according to a model that is
widespread to the market and it has mainly industrial applications. According to that
model, the manufacturing material for the screws is St50 and for the screw nuts is alloy
of CuSn.
If it is assumed that the hinge is applied to a door with mass of 300 kg approximately
(Assumption no. 1), supported by three hinges and g is the acceleration due to gravity
(g=9,807 m/sec2) then according Newton’s second law the axial total force FT (or
weight) applied in the hinges is:
FT = B = m *g ≅ 3,000 N (3)

As long as the door is supported by three hinges and the total axial force is equal to FT,
the sheared axial force that corresponds to each hinge assumed that is equal to
(Assumption no. 2):
3, 000 N
Fhinge ≅ ≅ 1,000 N (4)
3
306 P.N. Botsaris et al.

A power screw (for each hinge) can be used for raising this weight. The weight, into
which the supporting screw is threaded, can be raised or lowered by the rotation of the
screw No. 7 (Figure 4). It is, of course, assumed that the weight is prevented from turning
when the screw rotates with the insertion of the metal ball No. 6 (Figure 4) (Assumption
no. 3). An expression will now be derived for finding the value of the torque needed to
raise each hinge’s load (Fhinge).
The total force on the threads can be represented by a single force Fn, which is normal
to the thread surface (Figure 2). Force Fn has two components. The first component, the
projection of Fn into an axial plane through the bolt, is inclined at θ or half the included
thread angle. The second lies in a plane tangent to the pitch cylinder. The projection of Fn
into this plane is inclined at the helix angle α, calculated at the pitch radius of the screw.
The length of this component is Fncosθ. It has a vertical and a horizontal component also.

Figure 2 Force acting on a power screw when raising a weight

Source: Spotts and Shoup (1998)

The developed helix of a screw becomes merely an inclined plane with angle α equal to
the helix angle of the screw. The lower triangular block thus represents the thread, which
raises the weight when it is pushed to the left by a force e.g. F.
The total friction force along the thread is μ1Fn, where μ1 is the coefficient of thread
friction. Force μ1Fn has a vertical and a horizontal component also.
The upward reaction at the base is equal to weight Fhinge. During motion there is a
resisting friction force μ1 Fhinge, where μ2 is the coefficient of friction for the base or
collar.
The total force on the threads Fn, is given by the equation 5:
Fhinge
Fn = (5)
cos θn cos α − μ1 sin α

All thread forces, as well as the pushing force e.g. F, act at the pitch radius of the thread
rt. The force of the collar friction acts at radius rc to the midpoint of the collar surface.
The torque required to raise the load is found by multiplying the horizontal forces by the
appropriate radii. Hence,
 Using axiomatic design principles 307

T = Frt = rt ( Fn cos θn sin α + μ1 Fn cos α) + rc μ 2 Fhinge (6)

Substitution of this value for Fn gives:

⎛ cos θ n sin α + μ1 cos α ⎞ (7)
Traise = Fhinge⎜⎜ rt + rc μ 2 ⎟⎟
⎝ cos θ n cos α − μ1 sin α ⎠

Equations (6) and (7) give the value of the torque required to raise the load when friction
for both thread and collar are included. Sometimes the collar consists of an antifriction
bearing, in which case μ2 may be sufficiently small to be neglected. The equations then
contain the μ1 terms only.
According the previous equations the untightening force required for a single screw
bolt like Tr12 is founded equal to 78.8 N-mm, whereas for the doubled-treaded is
estimated to 395.75 N-mm.
The necessary circular cross section area Ak of the core’s thread would be
Ak=10 mm2, with classical considerations of the material’s tensile strength. According
the threads standardisation a screw thread as Tr12 (part No. 7, Figure 4) with double bolt,
seems to satisfy the considerations. It is noticed that screw No. 7 according Figure 4
regulates the door’s adjustment in Z axis.
According the classical design estimations, the maximum compressive stress that is
provided by the Tr12 screw, is greater than the maximum allowed by the hinge.
During the hinge’s operation, intensive torsional stresses are removed, because of the
addition of a metal ball (part No. 6), which is between the screw (part No. 7) and the
shaft (part No. 4) of the two main parts (parts No. 2) of the hinge (Figure 4).
Screw’s nominal diameter is equal to 12 mm and compared to its chosen length, equal
to 16 mm, it is found that control in buckling is not required.
The length of the screw’s nut is calculated to absorb the forces applied to the screw.
Mainly the load applied on the nut is the surface pressure. The length of the screw nut is
calculated equal to 30 mm (l=30 mm), satisfactory for the present design considerations.
The efficiency of the screw is (nn) [Budynas-Nisbett, (2008), p.402–403], with the
rest 42% of the output dissipated as friction among the tangential parts.
In the case of the presented hinge, between the two main parts there is a dowel
(connective shaft, part No. 4)). The dowel toggles the two main parts of the hinge and is
chosen to manufacture with St50.
The circular dowel mainly is strained by compression and bending forces. The
existence of the bending load may cause the distortion of the shaft under the form of a
deflection. In the case of the hinge:
a the existence of a hollow cylindrical part almost equal to the circular cross section of
the dowel (part No 2)
b the relationship between the length of the dowel and its circular cross section
attenuates the distortion presentation.
The forces analysis of the hinge has showed that the bending load is much greater than
the compressive one. A cross section for the dowel greater than 8 mm is considered
adequate to satisfy the existing bending and compressive load, for a door with 300 kg
mass. Screws No. 10 and 12, that regulate the door’s adjustment in X and Y axes
respectively, have the same design considerations as the presented screw No. 7.
308 P.N. Botsaris et al.

3.3 The axiomatic approach into a conventional hinge design process

Commercial or common hinges are characterised by two degrees of freedom, longitudinal
and rotational movement around an axis, e.g. the Z axis. Figure 3 shows some shapes of
conventional hinges.
A computer aided design process is divided into steps as:
• hinge request: basic data offered
• rough drawing using CAD
• 3-D shape generation
• strength analysis
• drawing generation.
The first step in the design process is to receive the basic data for the product from the
customer such as the hinge manufacturer. Such data are:
• degree of freedom (for a common hinge the two degrees of freedom are considered
as default)
• hinge specifications
• opening size
• drawings.
Usually all these data are given at the initial level. However, most product requests
consist of one or two of them. The next step is to check the accuracy of these data. The
CAD program is utilised, beside the generation for 3-D shape, to check the accuracy and
collect the data for the next level. Therefore, the designer draws the new product at the
initial level and if mismatches are found he tries to fix them manually using the CAD
program. The third step is the 3-D shape generation and the according equations. These
data constitute the input for the forth step, the strength analysis. Finally, there are the
analytical mechanical drawings, which include various details and tables such as
tolerances, measuring points for manufacturing etc.

Figure 3 Shapes of conventional hinges with two degrees of freedom

 Using axiomatic design principles 309

To approach the design process for a conventional hinge from the AD viewpoint, the FRs
and DPs which represent the process itself should be defined. After that, the design
matrix between FRs and DPs should be determined for identifying the relationship
between them. The functional requirement for the conventional hinge design process is
defined as:
FR1 = construct basic information of the hinge
DP1 = A set of basic data
FR 2 = establish the hinge shape
DP2 = 3-D shape structure
FR 3 = verify the characteristics
DP3 = strength analysis
FR 4 = generate the hinge drawing
DP4 = A set of drawing data

Then the design equation is defined as:

⎧ FR1 ⎫ ⎡ X 0 0 X ⎤ ⎧ DP1 ⎫
⎪ FR ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 2⎪ ⎢ X X 0 X ⎥⎥ ⎪ DP2 ⎪
⎨ ⎬= ⎨ ⎬ (8)
⎪ FR3 ⎪ ⎢ X X X 0 ⎥ ⎪ DP3 ⎪
⎪⎩ FR4 ⎪⎭ ⎢⎣ X X 0
⎥
X ⎦ ⎪⎩ DP4 ⎪⎭

where X represents a non-zero element and 0 represents a zero one. An X element means
that a design activity is present. If a designer wants basic information of the hinge (FR1),
he needs a set of basic data (DP1) and drawing data (DP4). Equation (8) shows that the
rough drawing and 3-D shape generation functions depend upon the final mechanical
drawing. Therefore, the design has to spend time back and forth in this manner. The
design is coupled and inefficient.

3.4 The axiomatic approach into an innovative hinge design process

Equation (8) gives the possibility to decouple the design process and further more
reinforce for the increasing of the hinge’s efficiency by adding two more degrees of
freedom. If the design process does not have the upper elements (E) such as E14 and E24,
it can be uncoupled or decoupled design which satisfies the independence axiom.
For all the above, it is designed and recommended the manufacturing of a brand new
innovative mechanical hinge, which will allow, except of course the typical operation of
the door, rotation round the Z axis (1st degree of freedom), the possibility of linear
adjustment to the three axes X, Y, Z (2nd, 3rd, 4th degree of freedom) with the aid of
three suitably modulated screws. The adjustment of the three screws from only one
person, without the need of removing the door; it will be achieved easy, quickly and with
safety. In addition, because of the four degrees of freedom, it is not required any
treatment in the door’s material, for example smoothing, so the probability of damage is
minimised.
Now the CAs for the new hinge can be summarised into the following constraints:
310 P.N. Botsaris et al.

• increased efficiency, more degrees of freedom

• keep the conventional way of design and manufacture.
The recommended hinge applied in many applications, mainly in the industrial sector and
it will be used not only in doors, but also in windows, garages and in a wide spectrum of
metallic or non-metallic constructions generally. Such a door’s mechanism with the
above attributes solves an everyday problem; however it does not exist in the market. It
has low cost of production and promotion, it does not demand new techno structure and it
can be developed from any small to medium-sized enterprise of that kind. An overview
of the proposed hinge is presented in Figure 4.
Now, according the previous analysis is to map the FRs of the functional domain into
the physical domain – conceiving a design embodiment and identifying the DPs. DPs
must be so chosen that there is no conflict with the underlying Cs. Once the DPs are
chosen, designers must go to the process domain and identify the PVs. When existing
machines are to be used, the PVs are given and therefore, PVs act as Cs since we are not
free to create new processes and choose new PVs. By zigzagging between the two
domains, FRs and DPs are decomposed developing the hierarchical tree structure. The
decomposition process for the hinge design process is as follows:

Figure 4 innovative hinges with four degrees of freedom (see online version for colours)

st
Rotation (1 )

nd
X-axis (2 )
th
Z-axis (4 )

rd
Y-axis (3 )

First level analysis

The FRs for the new hinge design process are defined as:
FR1 = construct the database of the hinge

DP1 = A set of data

FR 2 = establish the hinge shape

DP2 = 3-D shape structure

FR 3 = verify the characteristics

 Using axiomatic design principles 311

DP3 = strength analysis

FR 4 = generate the hinge drawing

DP4 = a set of drawing data

The design equation is defined as:

⎧ FR1 ⎫ ⎡ X 0 0 0 ⎤ ⎧ DP1 ⎫
⎪ FR ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 2⎪ ⎢ X X 0 0 ⎥⎥ ⎪ DP2 ⎪
⎨ ⎬= ⎨ ⎬ (9)
⎪ FR3 ⎪ ⎢ X X X 0 ⎥ ⎪ DP3 ⎪
⎪⎩ FR4 ⎪⎭ ⎢⎣ X X 0
⎥⎪
X ⎦ ⎩ DP4 ⎪⎭

DP1 is selected to satisfy FR1. DP2 satisfies FR2, does not conflict FR1 and creates an
uncoupled design. The design matrix is triangular at this level.

Second level analysis

Since the relationship between FRs and DPs at the first level is not detailed enough to
provide the desired result, further decomposition of the FRs is required.
The FRs and DPs for this level are defined as:
FR11 = define the degree of freedom
FR12 = construct a set of data for the hinge
FR21 = check the degree
FR22 = calculate the subparts
FR23 = consider manufacturability
FR41 = represent the shape of the hinge
FR42 = display the accessory of the drawing

Third level analysis

DPs are now selected to satisfy the 2nd level FRs. The DP11 and DP12 are selected in the
same manner as explained in Level 1 as follows:
DP11 = representative degree
DP12 = a set of specific data
The design matrix is as follows:

⎧ FR11 ⎫ ⎡ X 0 ⎤ ⎧ DP11 ⎫
⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎨ ⎬ (10)
⎩ FR12 ⎭ ⎣ X X ⎥⎦ ⎩ DP12 ⎭

The DPs that can control FR21, FR22 and FR23 may be selected as:
DP21 = rotational and/or axial
DP22 = dimensioning of parts
312 P.N. Botsaris et al.

DP23 = a set of data for cutting/drilling process

The design matrix is uncoupled as follows:
⎧ FR21 ⎫ ⎡ X 0 0 ⎤ ⎧ DP21 ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ FR22 ⎬ = ⎢ X X 0 ⎥⎥ ⎨ DP22 ⎬ (11)
⎪ FR ⎪ ⎢ X X X ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩ DP23 ⎪⎭
⎩ 23 ⎭ ⎣
For FR41 and FR42 the DPs are defined as:
DP41 = a set of drawing data
DP42 = a set of data for accessory
And the design equation is defined as:

⎧ FR 41 ⎫ ⎡ X 0 ⎤ ⎧ DP41 ⎫
⎨ ⎬=⎢ ⎨ ⎬ (12)
⎩ FR42 ⎭ ⎣ 0 X ⎥⎦ ⎩ DP42 ⎭

Fourth level analysis

FR23 is decomposed for the selected DP23 as:
FR231 = define the characteristics of the subparts No. 1,2,3,4,5,8,9 and10 according
the Figure 4
FR232 = define the characteristics of the subparts No. 11, 12 according the Figure 4
FR233 = define the characteristics of the subparts No. 6, 7 according the Figure 4

Fifth level analysis

The selected set of DPs for 4th level FRs may be stated as:
DP231 = plates dimensions (No. 1 and 3), dowel length and diameter (No.3 and 4),
ring diameter (No. 5), hole diameter (No. 8 and 9) and screw thread (No.
10) according the Figure 4 (1st and 2nd degree of freedom)
DP232 = Hole diameter (No. 11), screw thread (No.12) according the Figure 4 (3rd
degree)
DP233 = Ball diameter (No. 6), screw thread (No.7) according the Figure 4 (4th
degree)
⎧ FR231 ⎫ ⎡ X 0 0 ⎤ ⎧ DP231 ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ FR232 ⎬ = ⎢ X X 0 ⎥⎥ ⎨ DP232 ⎬ (13)
⎪ FR ⎪ ⎢ X X X ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩ DP233 ⎪⎭
⎩ 233 ⎭ ⎣
The present FRs need not be composed any further, so they form the terminal nodes of
the hierarchical tree, as Figure 5 shows.
In this research, only the 1st Axiom (independence axiom) of AD is used. The 2nd
axiom (information axiom) is not applied here because there is no other solution that
satisfies the independence axiom. Only one solution has been found in this design.
 Using axiomatic design principles 313

Figure 5 FRs and DPs hierarchical tree (decomposition process) (see online version for colours)
314 P.N. Botsaris et al.

4 Conclusions

The case study of the hinge of four degrees of freedom, which is presented above is
intended to demonstrate that the design process can be better understood if it is
approached systematically. The AD method provides a structured scientific approach that
guides the synthesis of designs by forcing engineers to specify what they want to achieve
and how they will achieve it.
The first part of this paper refers to the analysis of a simple product design, a
conventional hinge and the second to an innovative one with four degrees of freedom.
During the analysis process a coupling source of the conventional hinge is found and a
new more efficient and decoupled hinge redesign is implemented. The two approaches
are applied using the AD theory and specifically the independence axiom. The
information axiom (2nd axiom of axiomatic theory) is not applied here because the
solution for the new hinge was unique.

References
Albano, L.D. and Suh, N.P. (1992) ‘Axiomatic approach to structural design’, Research in
Engineering Design, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.171–183.
Budynas-Nisbett (2008) ‘Design of mechanical elements’, Shigley’ Mechanical Engineering III,
pp.402–403, McGraw Hill.
Cha, S.W. and Cho, K.K. (1999) ‘Development of DVD for the next generation by axiomatic
approach’, CIRP Annals, Vol. 48, p.85.
Chen, K.Z. (1998) ‘Integration of design method software for concurrent engineering using
axiomatic design’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 9,
pp.242–252.
Chen, K.Z. (2001) ‘Development of integrated design for disassembly and recycling in concurrent
engineering’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 12,
pp.67–79.
Chen, S.J., Chen, L.C. and Lin, L. (2000) ‘Knowledge-based support for simulation analysis of
manufacturing cells’, Computers in Industry, pp.4433–4449.
Cochran, D.S., Eversheim, W., Kubin, G. and Sesterhenn, M.L. (2000) ‘The application of
axiomatic design and lean management principles in the scope of production system
segmentation’, Int. J. Prod. Res., Vol. 38, No. 6, pp.1, 377–1,396.
Durmusoglua, M.B. and Kulakb, O. (in press) ‘A methodology for the design of office cells using
axiomatic design principles’, Omega.
Gebala, D.A. and Suh, N.P. (1992) ‘An application of axiomatic design’, Res Eng Des, Vol. 3,
pp.149–162.
Gonçalves-Coelho, A.M. and Mourão, A.J.F. (2007) ‘Axiomatic design as support for
decision-making in a design for manufacturing context: a case study’, Int. J. Production
Economics, Vol. 109, No. 1–2, pp.81–89.
Gunasekera, J.S. and Ali, A.F. (1995) ‘A three-step approach to designing a metal-forming
process’, JOM, pp.22–25.
Heo, G. and Lee, S.K. (2007) ‘Design evaluation of emergency core cooling systems using
axiomatic design’, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 237, pp.38–46.
Houshmand and Jamshidnezhad (2002) ‘Conceptual design of lean production systems through an
axiomatic approach’, Proceedings of ICAD2002 Second International Conference on
Axiomatic Design, June 10 and 11, Cambridge, MA.
 Using axiomatic design principles 315

Industrial Property Organization (IPO) of Greece (2006) Utility Model Certificate No. 2002661,
10/30/2006, Athens, Greece, available at: www.obi.gr.
Kim, S.J., Suh, N.P. and Kim, S. (1991) ‘Design of software systems based on AD’, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.243–255.
Kulak, O., Durmusoglu, M.B. and Tufekci, S. (2005) ‘A complete cellular manufacturing system
design methodology based on axiomatic design principles’, Computer and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 48, pp.765–787.
Lo, S. and Helander, M.G. (2006) ‘Use of axiomatic design principles for analysing the complexity
of human-machine systems’, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, pp.1–23 (preview
article).
Park, C.B., Baldwin, D.F. and Suh, N.P. (1996) ‘Axiomatic design of a microcellular filament
extrusion system’, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 8, pp.166–177.
Spotts, M.F. and Shoup, T.E. (1998) Design of Machine Elements, Prentice Hall.
Suh, N.P. (1990) The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, New York.
Suh, N.P. (1995) ‘Designing-in quality through axiomatic design’, IEEE Transactions on
Reliability, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp.256–264.
Suh, N.P. (2001) Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Suh, N.P. and Lee, D.G. (2006) Axiomatic Design and Fabrication of Composite Structures,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Suh, N.P., Cochran, D.S. and Paolo, C.L. (1998) ‘Manufacturing system design’, Annals of the
CIRP, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp.627–639.
Sung, H.D. and Gyung, J.P. (2001) ‘Application of design axioms for glass bulb design and
software development for design automation’, Journal of Mechanical Design ASME, Vol. 123,
pp.322–329.
Tseng, M.M. and Jiao, J. (1997) ‘A module identification approach to the electrical design of
electronic products by clustering analysis of the design matrix’, Computer and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp.229–233.
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (1995) Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Wallace, D.R. and Suh, N.P. (1993) ‘Information-based design for environmental problem solving’,
Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 42, pp.175–179.
Xue, D., Sy, C. and Gu, P. (2006) ‘Configuration design considering the impact of design changes
on downstream processes based upon the axiomatic design approach’, Journal of Engineering
Design, pp.1–22.

View publication stats