Fluid Coupling Development using a Systematic Innovation ...732147/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Fluid Coupling Development using a Systematic Innovation Method Tim Johansson Mann Gabriel Kuyumcuoglu

EXAMENSARBETE INOM MASKINTEKNIK,

Innovation och Design, högskoleingenjör 15 hp SÖDERTÄLJE, SVERIGE 2014

Fluid Coupling Development using a Systematic Innovation Method

Tim Johansson Mann Gabriel Kuyumcuoglu

SKOLAN FÖR INDUSTRIELL TEKNIK OCH MANAGEMENT

INSTITUTIONEN FÖR TILLÄMPAD MASKINTEKNIK


av

Tim Johansson Mann Gabriel Kuyumcuoglu

Examensarbete TMT 2014:38

KTH Industriell teknik och management

Tillämpad maskinteknik

Mariekällgatan 3, 151 81 Södertälje

Examensarbete TMT 2014:38

Utveckling av tankkoppling med tillämpning av en systematisk innovationsmetod

Tim Johansson Mann

Gabriel Kuyumcuoglu

Godkänt

2014-06-17

Examinator KTH

Ola Narbrink

Handledare KTH

Dr. Mark W. Lange

Uppdragsgivare

ELAFLEX

Företagskontakt/handledare

Achim Aehle

Sammanfattning Denna rapport beskriver utvecklingen av en Camlock-tankkoppling genom tillämpning av en Systematisk Innovationsmetod (SI). Tankkopplingen har ett problem, dess låsarmar kan oavsiktligt öppna sig under användning. Vanligtvis beror detta på att kopplingen utsätts för vibrationer eller att den stöter i yttre föremål. Detta innebär en risk för skador på miljö och människor samt att det även kan orsaka finansiella förluster. ELAFLEX efterfrågar en Camlock-koppling med en unik teknisk lösning för dessa risker. Den tekniska lösningen bör vara patenterbar samt uppfylla ELAFLEX krav på hög kvalité, vilket innefattar ergonomi, användarvänlighet samt en design i enlighet med en europeisk standard. Projektets första huvudmål var att finna en sådan lösning. Under projektgruppens utbildning inom innovation och design har olika metoder tillämpats för att

generera tekniska lösningar. Mestadels är dessa metoder erfarenhetsbaserade trial and error-metoder. Projektets andra huvudmål var att istället praktisera systematisk innovation samt utvärdera om en SI med verktyget TIPS (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving), underlättar skapandet av unika tekniska lösningar. Projektet var uppdelat i fyra faser som innefattade konceptutvecklingen. Fas ett fokuserade på att definiera och utveckla SI och en QFD (Quality Function Deployment) med kundkrav samt även en studie av TIPS genomfördes. I fas två genomfördes SI upprepade gånger. Under första iterationen användes funktionsanalys och morfologi vilket resulterade i 23 unika koncept. Under den andra iterationen tillämpades TIPS-verktyget och Pughs beslutsmatris vilket resulterade i fem mer utvecklade koncept. Den tredje fasen fokuserade på utvärdering och illustration av två slutkoncept för vilka CAD och QFD användes. Den sista fasen bestod av en sammanställning av projektets resultat. Gruppen genomförde också ett studiebesök under projektet för att utöka förståelsen för kopplingens egenskaper. SI med TIPS visade sig vara överlägsen trial and error-metoden vid utveckling av unika tekniska lösningar och gruppen anser sig ha blivit bättre innovatörer efter projektarbetet.

Nyckelord Tankkoppling, Produktutveckling, Konceptkonstruktion, TRIZ, TIPS, Innovation

Bachelor of Science Thesis TMT 2014:38


Tim Johansson Mann

Gabriel Kuyumcuoglu

Approved

2014-06-17

Examiner KTH

Ola Narbrink

Supervisor KTH

Dr. Mark W. Lange

Commissioner

ELAFLEX

Contact person at company

Achim Aehle

Abstract This report concerns the development of a Camlock coupling using a Systematic Innovation Method (SIM). Camlock couplings have a flaw in their design that lead to its lever arms inadvertently opening during use due to vibration or being struck by objects in the vicinity of the coupling. This flaw can lead to human safety risks, environmental pollution, and can also generate financial losses. ELAFLEX has requested a unique technical solution of a Camlock coupling that minimizes these risks. The solution should be patentable and meet ELAFLEX requirements for high quality in regard to ergonomics, usability and be designed in accordance to a European standard. The projects first main goal was to develop a unique technical solution. Most of the group’s education in innovation practice and theory has been provided through various types of experience based trial and error methods. Consequently, the project's second main goal was to practice systematic innovation, and evaluate if a systematic innovation process approach with TIPS (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) facilitates the generation of unique technical solutions. The project was executed in four distinct phases that addressed the development of a product concept. Phase one was focused on the definition and development of SIM. Activities included QFD (Quality Function Deployment) with desired customer requirements and a study of the TIPS theory. Following was a phase that iteratively applied the SIM by using function modelling and morphology resulting in 23 unique concepts in the first interaction and then five refined concepts through a second interaction using the TIPS tool, and Pugh decision matrix. The third phase focused on the evaluation and illustration of two potentially interesting product concepts, using CAD and QFD. A final phase was dedicated to the realization of documentation for the assessment of the project results and presentation at the projects final review. The group also performed a study visit at a chemical company in order to gain a deeper understanding of the properties of the coupling. SIM and the use of the TIPS tool proved to be superior to the trial and error method in developing unique technical solutions, and made the group become better innovators. Key-words Fluid Coupling, Product Development, Concept Design, TRIZ, TIPS, Innovation

Preface This thesis covers a ten week project which was conducted in 2014 at the headquarters of the

production and trading company ELAFLEX in Hamburg, Germany. The project is worth 15

ECTS and is the last course of the Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering- Innovation

and Design program at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Campus Telge, in Södertälje,

Sweden.

We would like to thank the engineer and TRIZ teacher Åke Ottoson at Ariadne Engineering AB

for his support and valuable tips during the project and the Operation Assistant Mr. Bühring for

letting us visit at the A.F.P chemical company in Lüneburg, Germany. The visit gave us a better

understanding and insight of the use of Camlock couplings.

We would also like to thank the Pre-sales Engineer Fiona Huang at IWINT, INC for allowing us

to use their software Pro/Innovator and also the Software Engineer Jeroen Verhoest at Aulive

for giving us access to their web based patent search and analysis software PatentInspiration.

Pro/Innovator has helped us understand the TRIZ tool and PatentInspiration has facilitated the

patent research and analysis.

We would like to give a special thanks to Mr. Achim Aehle, Technical Manager at ELAFLEX

and Dr. Mark W. Lange Lecturer at KTH for their guidance and commitment during this project.

The Appendix has been excluded in this thesis in order to not disclose sensitive information.

Hamburg, June 2014

Tim Johansson Mann

Gabriel Kuyumcuoglu

Nomenclature An – Annotation

CAD – Computer Aided Design

Contradictions – The conflict between incompatible functional properties of a product

FBD – Free Body Diagram

Fig – Figure

FMEA – Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

JPO – Japan Patent Office

PD-Process – Product Development Process

Prior art – Anything published, printed, sold, or publicly used anywhere in the world prior to the

date a patent application is filed

QFD – Quality Function Deployment

SIM – Systematic Innovation Method

SIPO – State Intellectual Property Office

TIPS – Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, English acronym for TRIZ

TRIZ – Russian language, “Teorija Rechenija Izobretatel’skich Zadac”

USPTO – United States Patent and Trademark Office

UF – Useful Function

HF – Harmful Function

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem definition ............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Requirement specifications ............................................................................... 4

1.4 Goals ................................................................................................................. 5

1.5 Methodology and design theory ........................................................................ 6

1.6 Project limitations ............................................................................................ 10

2. Presentation of ELAFLEX and the Camlock coupling ..................................... 11

2.1 ELAFLEX ........................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Camlock coupling ............................................................................................ 12

3. Development ....................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Execution ........................................................................................................ 13

3.2 ELAFLEX’s PD-Process .................................................................................. 13

3.3 The Project’s process ...................................................................................... 13

3.4 The applied PD-Process ................................................................................. 14

4. Research and study............................................................................................ 17

4.1 Systematic innovation ..................................................................................... 17

4.2 What is TRIZ ................................................................................................... 17

4.3 Product decomposition .................................................................................... 21

4.4 Reverse engineering ....................................................................................... 21

4.5 Function analysis ............................................................................................ 21

4.6 Patent and market research ............................................................................ 24

4.7 Benchmarking ................................................................................................. 29

5. Systematic Innovation Method .......................................................................... 41

5.1 Process of applied Systematic Innovation Method .......................................... 41

5.2 Brainstorm ....................................................................................................... 41

5.3 Morphology ..................................................................................................... 42

5.4 Concept development ..................................................................................... 43

5.5 Decide which concept to develop. ................................................................... 50

6. Final concepts .................................................................................................... 51

6.1 Virtual prototyping ........................................................................................... 51

6.2 Final Concept 1, function description .............................................................. 52

6.3 Description of use ........................................................................................... 52

6.4 Final Concept 2, function description .............................................................. 52

6.5 Description of use ........................................................................................... 53

6.6 Quality evaluation of the final concepts ........................................................... 53

6.7 The patentable solution ................................................................................... 55

7. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 57

7.1 Project planning .............................................................................................. 57

7.2 Project and PD-Process .................................................................................. 57

7.3 Patent research ............................................................................................... 58

7.4 Systematic innovation ..................................................................................... 59

7.5 Decision methods and fulfilment of company goals ........................................ 61

8. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 63

8.1 The project ...................................................................................................... 63

8.2 The product ..................................................................................................... 63

9. Recommendation ............................................................................................... 65

9.1 Further development of the project ................................................................. 65

9.2 Recommended methods ................................................................................. 66

10. References ........................................................................................................ 67

1

1. Introduction This chapter presents the background and a detailed definition of the problem. The requirement specifications,

goals, project limitations, methodology and design theory are then described.

1.1 Background Industrial companies worldwide are focusing on sustainable development, employees’ safety and

environmental awareness. Increased environmental awareness, a safety mind-set and more focus

on sustainability among industrial companies today makes them more likely to invest in higher

quality products that reduce risks to human safety and environmental pollution (Aehle, 2014).

Many companies during the previous decades have invested in installations of Camlock couplings

for handling many various types of medium, for example diesel and dissolvent. Although there

are other types of quick connecting couplings on the market which are safer, companies want to

continue to use Camlock couplings because they are cost effective, easy to clean and the users are

familiar with its operation. Furthermore, a higher investment would be required in changing from

a Camlock coupling system to another system instead of renewing the current product (Aehle,

2014).

Industrial companies that already use Camlock couplings have a strong demand for high product

and user safety and are therefore willing to pay up to ten times more for products that fulfill the

requirements. At some workplaces, it has even become an internal standard to use safer types of

Camlock couplings. The market for high quality, safe Camlock couplings is relatively competitive

and a variety of different solutions are protected through patents (Aehle, 2014).

For ELAFLEX the main product is not Camlock couplings, therefore they have not yet put any

resources into developing a product internally. ELAFLEX are now selling Camlock couplings

from a third party producer and now desire to develop their own unique Camlock coupling

(Aehle, 2014).

1.2 Problem definition The Camlock coupling currently sold by ELAFLEX has a flaw in its mechanical design, which

can result in the unwanted disengagement of its two main adapters-coupling parts (Fig 1.1, An 1

and 2) while medium is flowing through it. The reason for this effect is believed to be that the

coupling lacks the function of resisting the freedom of movement of its securing lever arms (Fig

1.1, An 3). The outcomes are risk of human safety and environmental pollution which can result

in financial waste.

The problem definition is divided into three parts; the first part presents the design of the

coupling and how it is used. The second part presents the securing forces and the last part

presents a more detailed description of the causes and effects.

1.2.1 The design of the coupling

The main construction of the coupling is the adapter (male part) (Fig 1.1, An 2) assembled into

the coupler (female part) (Fig 1.1, An 1). There are two locking levers that secure the two parts

2

(Fig 1.1, An 3). The male part has a radius shaped slot on its outside (Fig 1.1, An 5). The male

part is slid into the female part until it reaches a gasket (Fig 1.3, An 6). When the male and female

parts are connected (Fig 1.3), the user rotates the lever arms round the pin axel (Fig 1.3, An 4)

which makes a cam of the lever arms engaging the slot (Fig 1.5, An 3). The coupling is then

retained and tightened by the gasket and the force of the cam (Fig 1.5, An 5 and 6). When the

coupling is secured, the system is ready for transporting medium (Fig 1.5).

Figure 1.2 – Disassembled

Figure 1.3 – Assembled, drawing Figure 1.4 – Assembled

Figure 1.1 – Disassembled, drawing

3

1.2.2 The forces which secures the coupling

The force 𝐹2 between the cam and the slot secures the coupling (Fig 1.7 and Fig 1.8). The

operator first inserts the male part into the female part, then apply a force 𝐹1 on the lever arms.

The force makes the lever rotate around the pin, and applies a force 𝐹2 between the cam and the

slot. The distance 𝐿1 is greater than the distance 𝐿2 of the cam. The length difference amplifies

the operators applied force 𝐹1 to the force 𝐹2 between the cam and the slot. The force 𝐹4

tightens the gasket, and prevents leakage. The friction force 𝐹𝑓 is the main force that inhibits

rotation of the lever arm, and that force is too small to prevent inadvertent rotation caused by

vibrations or by being struck by objects in the vicinity of the coupling. Note that since the forces

appearing on the two lever arms are mirrored, the other arm is excluded from the FBDs.

Figure 1.6 – Secured

Figure 1.7 – Lever arm, FBD Figure 1.8 – Male part, FBD

Figure 1.5 – Secured, drawing

4

1.2.3 Causes and effects

While medium is flowing through the coupling the levers can accidently move from their secured

positions by rotating around the pin’s axes. The causes of the movement are external vibrations

or mishandling by a human being. While the levers rotate, the force between the cams and the

slot decreases. If the force decreases, the tightening on the gasket can decline and medium can

leak. If the lever arms continues to rotate, the force between the cams and slot disappears and the

coupling is then unsecured. The male and female part has no force that join them and the

pressure of the medium can therefore make them decouple. The medium will then leak

uncontrolled and as there are often aggressive chemicals passing, there is a risk of damaging

surrounding property, equipment and injure human beings. The result will be financial loss for

the company.

1.3 Requirement specifications The European standard EN 14420-7 is an element of the requirement specification. Parts of the

standard are listed below, but the readers are referred to the document for a full detailed list of

requirements (CEN, 2010). The most important measurement requirements are the interfacing

surfaces between the coupler and adapter, while other parts like the lever arm can be modified if

needed (Aehle, 2014). ELAFLEX demanded additional requirements and the group has also

defined additional requirements for the project. The notes after the requirements indicate who

demanded them.

1.3.1 Functional requirements

Lever and dimensions of the sealing rings must be harmonized so that rotation of the

hose or vibration during operation does not lead to leakage (EN 14420-7).

The lever must be proper to work without the benefit of tools (EN 14420-7).

1.3.2 Product quality requirements

A requirement is that the coupling should be in accordance to ELAFLEX definition of a high

quality Camlock coupling (Fig 1.9). The requirements are usability-, ergonomic-, and robust-

design (Aehle, 2014). Usability design for this product means that a first time user is able to

operate without any prior experience or training. Ergonomic design for this product means that

an adult with normal movement capabilities should be able to use the coupling. Robust design

has three subcategories; external factors, internal durability and unit to unit. The external factors

include the sustainability against misuse by human, vibration, pulses, dust, dirt and against a

variety of temperature and humidity. The internal durability is sustainability against aging of

materials and wear of the machine. Unit to unit are how well the coupling’s parts are interacting.

The product should be designed in accordance to the EN 14420-7.

5

Figure 1.9 – High Quality concept decomposition using a mind mapping form of illustration

Based on ELAFLEX view on high quality (Fig 1.9), the group had a brainstorming session to

generate customer requirements for the Camlock coupling, and translated them into measurable

attributes that satisfied those demands (See Appendix A). The customer demands and attributes

were inserted in a QFD (See Appendix B). The 30 percent attributes with the highest technical

importance rating was selected and used as a requirement of high quality. The remaining

attributes were not requirements but were used as criteria in evaluating the final results.

The 30 percent attributes with the highest technical importance:

1. Needed force applied (in any direction) on levers to unsecure them.

2. Area of exposure of trigger.

3. Volume of grip of trigger for locking function.

4. Mechanical strength of weakest exposed component.

5. a. Number of components.

b. Number of moving components.

c. Open levers with few directions of movement.

1.4 Goals The project’s aim is to develop a unique technical solution of a Camlock coupling. Furthermore;

determine if SIM (Systematic Innovation Method) and the TRIZ tool simplify the identification

of a unique technical solution that fulfils the specific requirements.

1.4.1 Internal goals

Internal goals are goals that concern the project group’s process.

Access a TRIZ Software during phase 2.

6

Apply the TRIZ tool during phase 2.

Use at least one evaluation model to identify two final concepts.

Use at least one decision model to choose two final concepts.

Discuss if a systematic innovation approach with the TRIZ tool simplifies the

development of unique technical solutions.

1.4.2 Goals

Goals are aimed to fulfil the company’s requested goal.

The company request at least one unique technical solution that fulfils the project

requirement specification in a time limit of ten weeks. The group set the goal to identify

five different unique technical solutions that fulfil the project requirement specification.

The five unique technical solutions will be presented semantically, using graphical

illustrations and models.

The five technical solutions should not infringe current patents or publications.

From the five unique technical solutions identify two solutions for additional

development.

Evaluate if the two unique technical solutions are of higher quality than currently

manufactured technical solutions.

1.5 Methodology and design theory In this section, descriptions of all the methods used during the project are presented. Relevant

books have been searched in order to get an insight of different methods and tools that could be

used to solve the problems. The main books have been systematic innovation and introduction

to TRIZ (Terninko et al., 1998), the mechanical design process, (Ullman, 2010), Inventive

thinking through TRIZ: a practical guide (Orloff, 2006), and Simplified TRIZ (Rantanen and

Domb, 2008).

1.5.1 Innovation tools and methods

TRIZ

TRIZ is a tool that supports the systematic generation of new technical solutions. The problem is

defined by different technical and physical contradictions. When one product attribute is

improved another is worsen and the tool support generation of solutions that solve the

contradictions (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 65). For a more detailed description see Chapter 4.2.

Software: Pro/innovator

The software is an innovation supporting tool created by the Chinese company

IWINT, Inc. It guides strategic thinking by integrating TRIZ, ontology, modern

design methodologies, natural language technique and is connected to patent

databases (IWINT, 2011).

The group mainly used its TRIZ tool to simplify the understanding of TRIZ

generation during the innovation process. For a more detailed description see

Chapter 4.2.3.

7

The TRIZ tool and the software were applied during the project in order to support the

generation and development of technical solutions.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a technique for smaller groups or individuals to generate as many ideas as

possible, focusing on a specific function. The group members verbalize their ideas and document

the discussion. Choose one secretary in the start of the session to record all ideas. When one of

the group members comes up with an idea, it usually triggers ideas to another group member. By

thinking of the impossible and ridiculous, useful ideas can be produced. An important thing

during the brainstorm session is that there should not be any criticizing or evaluating of ideas

(Ullman, 2010, p. 190).

Brainstorm was used to generate desired customer product properties, and to generate different

shapes for sub-functions to be combined in morphology.

Morphology

This method called morphology can be used to identify conceptual ideas on function-based

problems. A main function of a product is divided into sub-functions to simplify the generation

of concepts. There are three steps to follow;

Step 1: Divide the main function into sub-functions.

Example:

Main function: A bar clamp gets tightened by one-handed force.

Sub-functions: Collect force/motion, Transform force/motion, Move bar, Amplify force.

Step 2: Generate concepts for each sub-functions and keep the concept for the sub-function

abstract. Draw a rough sketch of each generated idea.

Step 3: Combine different concepts from the sub-function that was generated into design

proposals (Ullman, 2010, p. 204-208).

Morphology was used to generate concepts for unique technical solutions.

Product decomposition

The Product decomposition method helps the user to understand how a product is built and can

often serve as a starting point in a PD-Process. The decomposition also gives a better

understanding of the products function. All parts of the product are disassembled and registered

in a table with its name, quantity, material and manufacturing method (Ullman, 2010, p. 41).

The group did a product decomposition to get better understanding of the couplings interfaces

and functions.

Reverse engineering

Reverse engineering is a method of understanding a product’s functions. The first step in the

method is to define the product’s interfaces with other objects, then disassemble the product and

remove each component for a more detailed study. The last step is to identify all the interfaces in

8

the product and the flow of energy, material and information which often appears between them

(Ullman, 2010, p. 178-180).

The group made a reverse engineering to gain a deeper understanding of the functions which

occurred between the interfaces. The activity was a preparation for a function analysis.

Function modelling

Function modelling (also called function analysis) is made to get a detailed understanding of the

functions of the product; its flow of energy, material, and information. The function modelling

technique is useful in developing new technical solutions. The first step of making a function

model is to define the overall function. Then divide the main function into sub-functions and put

them in order. The last step is to refine the sub-function into even more detailed descriptions

(Ullman, 2010, p. 181-188).

The function was done by the group to get an understanding and overview of the product’s

functions and to investigate which functions that were possibly of concern.

Problem formulation process HF-UF

The HF-UF function analysis is a formulation process defining products harmful functions (HF)

and useful functions (UF). The analysis is visualised with a cause and effect graph. Start with

either a primary harmful function or a primary useful function and formulate the cause and effect

relationship of all related problems. The graph gives the user a useful overview of the chains of

HFs and UFs, and simplifies the identification of what function to eliminate in order to solve the

primary harmful function (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 47).

The group used the HF-UF analysis together with the function analysis to identify what functions

the technical solution should and could concern in order to solve the primary harmful function.

The group also modified the graphs to make it more clear for the reader to understand what

functions were added and why.

1.5.2 Database research

KTH Databases

The group made searches in the KTH library databases to find relevant literature, theses and

articles about systematic innovation, TRIZ and related subjects. The main databases used were

Compendex and DIVA which the group had access to from KTH library accounts.

Web based search engine

The search engine Google has been used during the market research in order to find prior arts.

Patent databases

Searches in patent databases have been made to find different technical solutions that concern

Camlock couplings and the defined problem. Ideas from current patents have been researched to

inspire and restrict the concept generation.

Patent databases that were used:

o Espacenet (European Patent Office)

o USPTO (The United States Patent and Trademark Office)

9

Software: PatentInspiration

A web based patent analysing software connected to Espacenet.

The patent search was performed in order to identify prior arts, and the analysis was made to

clearly demonstrate the result for the reader.

1.5.3 Interviews

Regular meetings were held with the technical manager at ELAFLEX to confirm that the

company and the group had the same point of view of the problem and the project goals.

1.5.4 Study visit

The group went on a study visit at the A.F.P chemical company in Lüneburg, Germany, to get a

better understanding and insight of the industrial use of Camlock couplings.

1.5.5 Evaluation and decision models

Several different evaluation models have been used to determine which of the generated concepts

are best suited, and how to improve the design.

FMEA

This technique can be used during the whole PD-Process. The purpose of this method is to

identify potential product failures and errors and how to reduce the risks of them to occur. The

idea is to plan preventing action and to show what actions really have been performed when a

failure has occurred.

When making a FMEA, the first step is to identify functions that can fail. The second step is to

identify what the failure mode is. The third step is to identify the consequences of the failure. The

fourth step is to list causes of the failure and at the last is to define responsible persons for each

function, recommended action and what action was taken (Ullman, 2010, p. 350-352).

A FMEA of the project’s risks was made during the initiation of the project.

Pugh

Pugh’s decision matrix is used when evaluating and selecting concepts and by comparing

concept’s fulfilment of criteria. The approach is to first identify criteria related to the concepts

and then give the criteria importance rates. One concept will be chosen as a datum and all the

other concepts will be compared to it. By considering the criteria and the datum, a legend will be

put in the column for each concept. The legends are; + (plus, better than chosen datum), -

(minus, worse than chosen datum), 0 (zero, same as chosen datum) (Ullman, 2010, p. 221-226,

Pugh, 1990, p. 76-77).

A Pugh matrix has been used to select and evaluate concepts for further development. Every

selection has been performed in two iterations with different datum each time, in order to

confirm the results.

10

QFD

QFD is a method that helps to define desired product properties based on customer

requirements. The QFD is often used in a diagram having the shape of a house (See Appendix

B).

Initiated by identifying who the costumers are and what they want, an importance rate can then

be determined for each costumer requirement. The customer requirements are then translated

into measurable product properties. An example could be the customer requirement “easy to

open door” and a measurable property could then be “A pull force of 20 N is needed to open the

door” (Ullman, 2010, p. 145-168).

The centre of a QFD diagram consists of a matrix were customer requirements relationships with

the measurable attributes should be defined. The relationship between them can be; strong often

demonstrated as 9, medium often demonstrated as 3 or weak often demonstrated as 1. In the

bottom is the technical importance of the measurable product properties. The technical

importance is calculated by summing the multiplication of the relationships and the importance

rate for customer requirements. The last step is to define the conflict between each attribute in

the roof of the QFD. QFD often have diagram parts were the user can compare competitors

fulfilment of customer or measurable properties. (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 1-2, Ullman, 2010, p.

150-168).

The group used QFD to identify desired product properties, and as an evaluation tool in

comparing the results to the competitors fulfilment of the attributes.

1.5.6 Illustrations and modulation

To demonstrate and model the mechanics of the concepts, illustrations have been performed

with 3D modulation software.

CAD: Creo 2.0 Parametric

KeyShot 4.0

1.6 Project limitations

No technical solutions will be documented in a physical form.

The group will not do physical testing of any of the product concept developed during

the project.

The group will not prepare patent application for any of the product concepts developed

by the project.

The group will not determine a detailed final manufacturing cost of any product concepts

developed.

The group will not do a comprehensive user-survey of the products users, though shorter

interviews and surveys may be conducted.

11

2. Presentation of ELAFLEX and the Camlock coupling In this chapter the company and the history of the Camlock coupling will be presented.

2.1 ELAFLEX ELAFLEX is a family owned company and has its origin date back to 1923. It has developed

from being a technical distributor for the navy and shipyards to an internationally leading

specialist in refuelling. ELAFLEX is now a producer of a wide range of equipment for liquid

handling, and their strategic position is high-end quality products. The company is divided into

two parts, ELAFLEX - Gummi Ehlers GmbH and ELAFLEX HIBY Tanktechnik GmbH &

Co. KG (Fig 2.1).

Figure 2.1 – Company structure, adapted from (ELAFLEX-Group)

HIBY has its origin date back to 1913 and their technology is based on aluminium, bronze and

gunmetal sand castings as well as mechanical processing and assembly of modules (ELAFLEX-

HIBY, 2010). ELAFLEX HIBY Tanktechnik GmbH & Co. KG EHT department’s main

products are refuelling nozzles, petrol pump hoses and refuelling accessories.

This project was held at the Gummi Ehlers GmbH EGE department. Their main products are

hose assemblies, rubber expansion joints and fittings for suction and discharge of fuels, chemical

products and other liquids. They are a leading manufacturer of Rubber Expansion joints and

supplier of aircraft refuelling hoses throughout the world. (ELAFLEX, 2010).

12

2.2 Camlock coupling Camlock couplings are hose couplings used to rapidly connect and disconnect hoses and piping

(Fig 2.2). It was originally designed for military use, and has been manufactured since the mid-

20th century and Fig 2.3 shows what the group believes is the patent of the original Camlock

coupling filed in 1946. According ELAFLEX it is a simple coupling which is cheap to produce.

Camlock couplings are manufactured in different materials, from steel to plastics and are used

worldwide for handling a great diversity of different mediums. Examples of mediums are

dissolvent, paint, glue, water and leaching solution. One advantage of the Camlock coupling is

the low risk of its coupling halves getting stuck together due to adhesion when glue and paint

medium are distributed.

Figure 2.2 – Coupling in use

Figure 2.3 – Coupling patent, adapted from (Krapp T, 1946)

13

3. Development This chapter starts with a presentation of the theoretical framework that was needed to carry out the project. The

other sections present the company’s PD-Process and the project and PD-Process which the group used.

3.1 Execution The group’s knowledge and skills are majorly based on the education in mechanical engineering

from KTH. The education has given the attendants a substantial knowledge about mechanics and

strength, industrial design and skills in CAD modelling and project management. Basic

understanding about intellectual property management has also been acquired from an intensive

course from Luzern University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland. The communication

between the group and the technical manager and employees at ELAFLEX has been in English.

3.2 ELAFLEX’s PD-Process ELAFLEX uses a PD-Process based on the ISO 9001 standard (See Appendix C). The process

consists of eight parts; specify task, define requirement, find solutions, realization of components,

implement series requirement, use information, production details and ends with sales support.

The innovation part is defined as “find solution” and is based on the trial and error method for

which the personal experiences of the engineers on staff play a key contribution.

3.3 The Project’s process The overall project process was based on KTH’s standard process (Fig 3.1). The process is

divided into four different phases; preliminary study, research, implementation and report and

presentation. Follow-up meetings were held between the phases with the tutor from KTH, to

evaluate the previous phases and decide if next phase could be entered or if refinements had to

be done.

At the start of the project a Gantt time schedule was created (See Appendix D) to plan all

activities concerning both the academic focused project process and the company focused PD-

Process (See Appendix E). A FMEA concerning the project was also created, defining potential

risks, its cause and consequences. Planned and taken actions were then defined to prevent failures

of the project (See Appendix F).

14

Figure 3.1 – The Project’s Process

3.4 The applied PD-Process The group chose to use a different PD-Process (See Appendix G) than the company uses (See

Appendix C). The reason was that the group wanted to focus on the innovation process of the

project. The chosen PD-Process (Hubka et al., 1988, p. x) was considered more detailed and the

innovation part was more circumstantially defined than ELAFLEX process, making the chosen

process more suitable for the project.

The PD-Process is like the project’s process divided into different phases ended with toll gates

(Fig 3.2). The figure below (Fig 3.2) demonstrates how the PD-Process and the project process

have concurrently appeared during the project. When the group entered a toll gate a decision had

to been made. The current work situation had to be evaluated to decide if the project should

proceed to next phase or if improvement has to be done. The group often went back in the

design loop demonstrated by arrows (Fig 3.2) to compare with criteria and work previously made,

and to identify if improvement of a previous path had to be done.

The six phases of the PD-Process defines the way from the problem statement all the way to a

production ready machine system (see Appendix G). The PD-Process was ended in the fourth

design phase “establish preliminary study” demonstrated by the red line (Fig 3.2), excluding

deeper analysis in manufacturing methods and choosing materials. The project process ends with

the implementation phase (Fig 3.2), and the sequential project process phase ”report writing and

presentation” does not concern the PD-Process.

15

Figure 3.2 – The Design and Project Process, adapted from (Hubka et al., 1988, p. x, Eriksson, 2011, p. 11)

16

17

4. Research and study This chapter presents the projects most essential theories and research activities.

4.1 Systematic innovation Today just like thousands of years ago new inventions are created by using the trial and error

method. The trial and error method is an untrusted method applied by guessing solutions for

problems and very few of the ideas are successful (Orloff, 2006, p. 2). “Would it not be more

logical to learn from success?!” This was said by a man named Genrich Altshuller who is the

founder of the TRIZ Theory (Orloff, 2006, p. 2).

4.2 What is TRIZ Genrich Altshuller was born 1926 in the former Soviet Union. He worked for the Navy as an

inspector of inventing; Altshuller who was interested in innovation saw the work as an

opportunity to help inventors find creative solutions to technical problems (Terninko et al., 1998,

p. 7). By analysing tens of thousands of patents, Altshuller identified patterns frequently used in

inventions. In 1946 he decided to create a new science for the theory of invention. Because the

revolution of invention was a process of governed defined law, it could be taught (Terninko et

al., 1998, p. 7). Altshullers theory replaces the unpredictable experience based trial and error

method with a systematic approach of solving problems, based on the patterns of invention

(Terninko et al., 1998, p. 7). When Altshuller analysed patents he realized the difficulty for

scientist to think outside their field of reference, since it involves thinking with a different

technology which they have no experience in. The purpose of the TRIZ theory is that by using

the patterns of invention a deep experience in the technologies is not needed. TRIZ is considered

a qualitative theory, not a mathematical or quantitative one; it supports the thinking, making the

inventor less experience dependent, although it will never replace thinking (Terninko et al., 1998,

p. 2, 4, IX).

Genrich Altshuller separated the invention into five different categories:

1. Apparent or conventional solution: 33 percent (Solution by method well known within

the speciality.

2. Small invention Inside Paradigm: 45 percent (Improvement of existing system, usually

with some compromises).

3. Substantial Invention Inside Technology: 18 percent (Essential improvement of existing

system).

4. Invention Outside Technology: 4 percent (New generation of design using science not

technology).

5. Discovery: 1 percent (Major discovery and new Science).

It is only the inventions not the problems that were ranked and divided into different levels

(Terninko et al., 1998, p. 13). Every technical invention consists of a technical system which

belongs to a super-system and a subsystem. A light-bulb in a car is a subsystem to the car, and the

car industry is a super-system to the car. Any change in a system affect the whole chain of

systems. Therefore it is important to consider interests not of just the system, but also the

subsystem and super-system (Altshuller et al., 1996, p. 31-32). TRIZ was created in the mid-20s

18

century and has since then been modified into different genres, although the origin theory

originates from the classical TRIZ (Fig 4.1). Different kinds of algorithms to define and solve the

problems with the TRIZ tool have also been developed, and supporting software which

simplifies and supports the use of the TRIZ tool (Orloff, 2006, p. 36, 41, 43).

Figure 4.1 – History of TRIZ, adapted from (Orloff, 2006, p. 36, 43).

19

4.2.1 How does TRIZ work

According to the TRIZ theory, inventing means removing contradictions (Orloff, 2006, p. 91).

From Genrich Altshullers study of innovation patterns the contradictions can appear between 39

technical engineer properties, and there are 40 different principles that are used to solve the

contradictions (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 4). The 40 principals are based on the study of patents

and pattern of evolution, and in a larger sense the study of how people solve problems (Rantanen

and Domb, 2008, p. 18). A contradiction is often divided into technical or physical contradictions

(sometimes called inherent contradictions). When there are conflicts between the 39 technical

properties it is defined as a technical contradiction. When the technical contradictions are

identified, principles for solving it can be found in a contradiction matrix (Terninko et al., 1998,

p. 180). If the matrix does not give a convenient support for solving the problem, the technical

contradiction can be changed into a physical contradiction. A physical contradiction is when a

property requires mutual exclusive states. An example of a technical contradiction could be when

the weight of a moving object increases the speed of it decreases, and an example of a physical

contradiction could be a property which has to be present in order to perform an UF and

concurrently the same property has to be absent not to perform a HF (Terninko et al., 1998, p.

78). To solve physical contradictions four principles are used: separation in time, separation in

space, separation within a whole and its parts, and separation upon condition (Terninko et al.,

1998, p. 78).

TRIZ works in another way compared to the commonly used brainstorm method. With TRIZ

the inventor first defines the ideal final result. Ideality = all useful effects/ all harmful effects

(Terninko et al., 1998, p. 95). By defining the desired attributes of the invention, contradictions

can be clarified and TRIZ tool used to eliminate conflicts and generate ideal solutions.

4.2.2 Systematic innovation versus trial and error

Systematic innovation means that sequential activities are performed repeatedly to generate a

desired result (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 2). Many great inventions have been generated with the

unsystematic trial and error method. Thomas Edison was an advocate of the method and he often

needed as many as 50,000 trials for an invention and had hundreds of assistants helping him with

the experiments. When an inventor lacks resources and have a stricter time frame for the project,

a trial and error method could appear as unreliable (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 4). The brainstorm

method which is a more structured type of the trial and error method is used to directly generate

ideas from experience (Fig 4.2), while in the TRIZ method, an ideal final result is first defined

and contradictions are then used to systematically generate ideas (Fig 4.3).

Figure 4.2 – The Brainstorm method, adapted from (Orloff, 2006, p. 5).

20

Figure 4.3 – TRIZ Tool, adapted from (Orloff, 2006, p. 5).

The old way of inventing is based on the inventor’s expertise in the field adding resources and

compromises useful attributes of the inventions. The new way of inventing with the TRIZ theory

is not dependent of the inventor’s expertise in the field and consist of working systematically,

defining an ideal final result and clarify any contradiction that appear (Fig 4.4) (Rantanen and

Domb, 2008, p. 7).

Figure 4.4 – Old and new way of inventing, adapted from (Rantanen and Domb, 2008, p. 7).

4.2.3 TRIZ software

The group has been in contact with a few TRIZ Software developers and was given access to

three different programs; Pro/Innovator, TechOptimizer and Contrasolve. They were evaluated

by criteria relevant for the projects tasks (Table 4.1).

The group chose to use Pro/Innovator because it had most of the desired features.

TechOptimizer and Contrasolve were also trial versions and therefore limited. The group had to

install Windows XP on a virtual machine to use Pro/Innovator, because the software was not

compatible with Windows 7/8.

Pro/Innovator TechOptimizer Contrasolve

Full Version X - -

Patent Database X - -

Principle animation X - -

TRIZ Matrix X X X

Compatibility with Windows 7/8 - - X

Table 4.1 – Comparison of TRIZ Software

21

Pro/Innovator guides strategic thinking by integrating TRIZ, ontology, modern design

methodologies and natural language technique (IWINT, 2011). The group took advantage of the

program’s TRIZ tool support and its main function was that the user could define contradiction

and the software then demonstrated the principles in a pedagogic way, by using animations and

patents. The user could also create reports containing cover pages, project descriptions, problem

statements, concept evaluations and make patent applications. A function analysis could also be

made and a patent search was connected to the four different patent databases; Espacenet,

USPTO, JPO and SIPO. After finalizing a project, the software create reports that can be saved

locally or printed.

4.3 Product decomposition The Camlock coupling was decomposed to get a better understanding of the product’s parts

arrangement and its assembled form. The product’s parts were compiled in a table with material

taken from the EN standard (see Appendix H).

4.4 Reverse engineering The product decomposition was extended to a reverse engineering to get a better understanding

of the interfaces (see Appendix I). This method helped the group to understand the functions

between the interfaces of inner parts of the coupler and adapter. Reverse engineering was a

preparing activity and simplified the function analysis which was an essential part of the project.

4.5 Function analysis The group made a function analysis of the Camlock coupling in order to get a clearer view of the

primary causes of the problem. The analysis of the functions was done in three different levels;

top level, sublevel and refinement of sublevel. The function analysis was limited to the system,

excluding comprehensive analysis of the super-system which would include the whole

transporting of medium from one location to another.

The group started to develop a function analysis of the top-level function of the coupling. The

top-level function demonstrates the most important function of the product (Fig 4.5). The group

then divided the top-level function into different sub-functions from level 1 to level 4 (Fig 4.5).

Each sub-functions where then decomposed into more refined sub-functions (see Appendix J).

Level 1 describes the preparation when the user lifts the hose, and assembles the male and female

parts. Level 2 describes when the user secures the coupling and level 3 when the user unsecure

the coupling. Level 4 describes when the user disassembles the male and female part (Ullman,

2010, p. 181-189).

22

Figure 4.5 – Top-level function and sub-functions

The group then developed a HF-UF function analysis (Fig 4.6) to get an overview of the

products functional relationships and where the root of the problem was. The analysis defines

which HF that causes the problem, and the co-relations between the HFs and the UFs. The term

“function” in this analysis describes both functions and events concerning the products and its

environment (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 47).

By analysing the flow chart of the HF-UF with the prior function analysis, the group could

identify which harmful functions they should consider for further study. It is important to

identify the core problem to be able to solve the problem properly, otherwise just shallow

improvements will be made (Ottoson, 2014). The HF-UF analysis supports the identification of

which function to eliminate in order to solve the causes of the problem. The best way is to have a

direct solution for the core problem, but it is often not possible because of boundaries and

requirements.

23

Figure 4.6 – HF-UF chart

A review of the prior function analysis, projects limitations, requirement specifications and

criteria from the QFD (see Appendix B) was done to define which harmful effects could be

concerned. Some functions were not possible for the group to concern because of the limitations.

Pressure in the hose is an example of a HF that could not be concerned by the group. The

pressure in the hose belongs to the super-system which the Camlock coupling just is a part of,

and the group’s project was limited to the system, which is the coupling.

By analysing the HF-UF functions, the group could determine that the harmful function “leak”

was the major HF of the core problem “risk of safety, env poll, eco waste”. The “leak” was

spread out by two independent tracks. Those two tracks had to be eliminated in order to solve

the “leak” and therefore solve the core problem. After the investigation of the project

requirements and criteria, the two HF that was most effective to eliminate was “moving cams”

and “user don’t know when closed properly”. Those two functions were two HFs that could be

eliminated in order to solve the core problem. An example of the importance of eliminating the

accurate HF’s could be if the HF “vibration of Camlock coupling” was eliminated. The track

with “human’s accidently open levers” would still exist and therefore just a part of the problem

would be solved.

After the investigation of the charts two extra functions were added (Fig 4.7). The function “lever

lock” and “indication when closed” were added with the aim to eliminate the chain of HFs and

therefore solve the core problem. The graph with purple signs for added useful functions is a

modification of the original HF-UF analysis (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 47).

24

Figure 4.7 – HF-UF chart, added UF

4.6 Patent and market research The group studied patent theory, and then performed a patent research and analysis. Market

research of the Camlock was also made to build a summary of prior arts.

4.6.1 What is a patent?

A patent is an agreement between the inventor and the government, and gives the inventor right

to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing the invention. A patent is effective

only in the countries which it is applied for. A US patent is valid for 20 years after a the

application has been filed in the patent office (Kennedy et al., 2012, p. 1).

4.6.2 Patentability To be able to patent an invention three criteria has to be satisfied; usefulness (U), novelty (N) and

unobviousness (U´). The Criteria can be demonstrated by an equation. Innovation (I)=U+N+U´

(Fig 4.8) (Kennedy et al., 2012, p. 28-29). The easiest criterion to satisfy is often usefulness,

followed by novelty. The criteria unobviousness is often the most difficult to satisfy. The figure

(Fig 4.8) demonstrates the innovators challenge to satisfy all the three criteria.

25

Figure 4.8 – Patentability, adapted from (Kennedy et al., 2012, p. 29).

Usefulness: the invention is useful if it can perform useful functions. The usefulness is inherent

in mechanical inventions and thus not need a high degree elaboration (Kennedy et al., 2012, p.

31).

Novelty: The invention shall never been disclosed in prior arts, or publicly used, which is use of

the invention in front or by people not bound to confidentiality (Kennedy et al., 2012, p. 31).

Unobviousness: The difference between the invention and prior arts cannot be obvious before

the filing date for a person having ordinary skills in the art. That person is called PHOSITA. A

PHOSITA for engineering would have a master degree in the field. A PHOSITA knows the

entire prior arts and is “ordinary creative” which means that he can combine prior arts to solve

problems. Courts have explained that for an invention to be unobvious the whole must in

surprising matter exceed the sum of individual parts. An example of an unsurprising invention

would be if an eraser was placed on a pencil, the invention as whole lacks surprising features

(Kennedy et al., 2012, p. 35-37).

4.6.3 Patent analysis

ELAFLEX had performed patent research and identified six patents. The group extended the

patent research in order to improve the knowledge and collection of prior arts. The patent

searches were done in patent databases, especially the worldwide database Espacenet and the

American database USPTO. Eleven hours where used searching and 45 patents concerning

Camlock couplings and lock of its lever arms could be identified (see Appendix K).The main

tactic to identify similar patents that solve the issue of “lock lever arms” was to start to find a

known solution by searching the patent number and then look for cited patents. The following

analysis of the 45 patents were done by using PatentInspiration which is connected to the

Espacenet database (Espacenet, 2014, USPTO, 2014, PatentInspiration, 2014). The analysis was

made to give an overview of the invention history of the problem and to give the company and

the reader of this report a better understanding of the degree of the project’s challenge.

26

Patents published from mid-20th century until today was discovered during the research (Fig 4.9).

Figure 4.9 - Numbers of patents per year, adapted from (PatentInspiration, 2014)

The 45 patents were from different nationalities although the majority of the patents were from

the United States of America (Fig 4.10).

Figure 4.10 - Country of patent, adapted from (PatentInspiration, 2014)

27

The filing applicants were also mostly from the United States of America and secondly from

China (Fig 4.11).

Figure 4.11 - Countries of filing applicants, adapted from (PatentInspiration, 2014)

28

Some inventors have during the past invented more than one unique technical solution of lever

arm lock (Fig 4.12).

Figure 4.12 - Patents published by inventors, adapted from (PatentInspiration, 2014)

4.6.4 Market research

A market research was made by searching the web for Camlock coupling sellers, in order to find

products with the technical solutions of lever arm locks, and therefore identify prior arts. Around

six products was found and investigated (see Appendix L).

29

4.7 Benchmarking The group found more than 40 patented technical solutions (see Appendix K) for the problem,

but chose to study four of them in physical form. The four products were obtained by

ELAFLEX, which had done a market and patent- research. The group chose to analyse the

products that ELAFLEX provided, and excluded the other patents found during patent research.

The reason why just the four products were used for benchmarking was because they were

perceived as having a significant importance since ELAFLEX had obtained them. According to

the technical manager, product A (Fig 4.14) is the best technical solution yet (Aehle, 2014).

The benchmarking is divided into two main parts; the first part starts with a short function

description followed by personal reflections by the group focusing on usability and ergonomics.

The products were then compared and rated in the QFD using the non-measurable customer

requirements. In the second part, an evaluation of how each product satisfied the measurable

attributes in the QFD (see Appendix B). The strong and weak fulfilment of the properties was

then demonstrated. By combining the analysing with both measurable attributes and personal

reflection a broader and better understanding was perceived.

The graph (Fig 4.13) shows the scoring of customer requirements fulfilment from the QFD (see

Appendix B). The product A which is of high quality according to the technical manager has the

most stabile fulfilment of customer requirements with mostly marks of 4 and 5. The other

products fluctuated more in the fulfilments. The positive fulfilment of properties has marks of 5

and the negative have marks under 4. The grading with the QFD is based on the group’s internal

knowledge and experience.

30

Insensitive to impact by tools

User easily understands how to

unlock.

User knows when it’s locked

User easy recognise when the lock is

broken

Short time needed to secure/unsecure

coupling.

Just one hand needed to lock/unlock a

lever

Not too bulky

Not too heavy

Ergonomic grip to lock/unlock.

Ergonomic motion to lock/unlock

Dust and dirt does not influence the

function

Icing does not disturb the function.

Not sensitive to be dragged on the

ground

Vibration/pulses do not unsecure

levers

Low risk that surrounding objects

accidently unsecure levers

Outside Temperature/humidity does

not disturb the function

51 2 3 40

Product A

Product B

Product C

Product D

Figure 4.13 – Scoring of customer requirements fulfilment in the QFD

31

4.7.1 Group reflection and customer requirements

Product A

Figure 4.14 – Product A

When the lever arm has rotated to the closing position a pin which is assembled in the lever arms

slid into a hole in the female part. To unlock the levers, the user must pull the ring and rotate the

levers concurrently (Fig 4.15). The ring has a function to flex back to its original position after it

has been bent (Fig 4.16). A spring gives the function of locking automatically when the arms are

closed.

The indication when locking is not significant, it is quite hard to register the sound when levers

are locked and it is not possible to see it because of non-exposed components. The group tried to

couple and thought that it was easy to understand how to lock and unlock the coupling. The

motion to unlock is not very ergonomic since the ring has to be pulled in one direction and

concurrently pull the lever arms sideways. The design feels very robust and the locking system

was well covered so it is hard for dirt and dust to get in and disturb the locking mechanism,

although harder to clean.

Figure 4.15 – Function of Product A, adapted from (Waterson, 1994)

Figure 4.16 – Ring, adapted from (Waterson, 1994)

32

The table below (Table 4.2) shows the fulfilment of customer requirements. Positive means that

the product has a strong fulfilment of the properties and the negative a low fulfilment of the

properties.

Product B

Figure 4.17 – Product B

To unlock the lever arms the user has to pull the ring in the same direction as opening the lever

arms. The ring is attached to a metal component which then rotates around a pin and a hook is

moved out of an opening in the female part. A spring is attached to the metal component making

it lock automatically when closing the levers. The sound of the function when locking is very

sublime and is often hard to register. It is also very hard to see if it is locked. The ring has a

function to flex back to its original position after is has been bent (Fig 4.18).

Positive Negative

Just one hand needed to lock/unlock a lever User knows when it’s

Not too bulky User easy recognise when

the lock is broken

Not too heavy Short time needed to

secure/unsecure coupling.

Vibration/pulses do not unsecure levers

Low risk that surrounding objects accidently

unsecure levers

Outside Temperature/humidity does not

disturb the function

Table 4.2 – Customer requirements for Product A

33

Figure 4.18 – Function of Product B, adapted from (Richard, 1997)

The function is quite user friendly, because the motion is in the same direction as opening the

levers. In the unlocked position the rings are a not located in line with the lever arms which make

the pull motion a bit less ergonomic. The design is not very intuitive, and the group did not

directly understand how to unlock. When the unlocking motion is in the same direction as

opening the levers the group believe that the risk is higher that surrounding objects accidently

trigger an opening. The lever arm and the components do not look as robust as Product A. The

components are also more exposed. Those two reasons make it more sensitive to impact by

tools, dirt and icing.



properties.

Positive Negative

Just one hand needed to lock/unlock a lever User easily understands how to

unlock.

Not too bulky User knows when it’s locked

Not too heavy Dust and dirt does not influence

the function

Outside Temperature/humidity does not

disturb the function

Icing does not disturb the

function.


Not sensitive to be dragged on

the ground



Table 4.3 – Customer requirements for Product B

34

Product C

Figure 4.19 – Product C

There is a pin which rotates around a pivot in the lever arm, and sideways slide into a “pocket”

and then inhibits the levers from moving. To open the levers the user must pull the levers in two

different directions (Fig 4.20). A spring gives the function of locking automatically when the arms

are closed.

Figure 4.20 – Function of Product C, adapted from (Tsan-Jee, 2010)

The lever’s locking system was asymmetric so it was a bit hard in the beginning to understand

how to unlock; therefore it is not intuitive designed. The ergonomic use of it is not very good,

because pull motions in two different directions is needed to unlock. One advantage of the

complexity to unlock it is that there is a low risk that surrounding objects accidently unlock the

levers. The exposed components of the locking system do not look robust, making it sensitive for

impact by tools. The group also noticed that the locking system was not well covered exposing it

to dirt and dust.

35



properties.

Product D

Figure 4.21 – Product D

To disassemble the male and female part the user first needs to rotate the lever arms into an

unsecured position, then push a button. When the button is pressed, it rotates around a pin and a

hook releases its grip of a hole of the male part. The lock does not work automatically when the

two main parts are joined and the user has to manually push the button in order to lock. No

patent was found of this technical solution.

It is easy to see when this coupling is locked because the parts are exposed to the user. The

function is not considered user-friendly, because the user often needs two hands to unlock the

Positive Negative

Not too bulky User easily understands how to

unlock.



Vibration/pulses do not unsecure

levers

Ergonomic motion to

lock/unlock



Dust and dirt does not influence

the function

Outside Temperature/humidity does

not disturb the function


function.



the ground

Table 4.4 – Customer requirements for Product C

36

coupling and it is not ergonomic to open the button and concurrently disassemble the female and

male parts. The components look robust, but are very exposed to surrounding objects. This

solution also demands a design change on both the male and female part which is strong

weaknesses.



properties.

Positive Negative



Insensitive to impact by tools Just one hand needed to

lock/unlock a lever


the ground

Ergonomic grip to lock/unlock.

Vibration/pulses do not

unsecure levers

Ergonomic motion to lock/unlock

Outside Temperature/humidity

does not disturb the function

Dust and dirt does not influence

the function


function.

Table 4.5 – Customer requirements for Product D

37

4.7.2 Measurable properties

The products were compared by measurable attributes and the Product A did not fluctuate as

much as the other alternatives (Fig 4.22). It seemed like Product A had a high average fulfilment,

with few weaknesses, appearing as rather stable in meeting the attribute requirements based on

the QFD scoring.

Den

sit

y o

f m

ate

ria

l

Str

en

gth

/resis

tan

ce o

f th

e m

ate

ria

l

Needed f

orce a

ppli

ed (

in a

ny d

irecti

on

) on

levers t

o

un

secu

re t

hem

Area o

f exposu

re o

f tr

igger

Nu

mbers o

f m

ovin

g c

om

pon

en

ts i

n c

ou

pli

ng

Mech

an

ical

str

en

gth

of

weak

est

exposed

com

pon

en

t

Tota

l le

ngth

of

han

d m

oti

on

to l

ock

/un

lock

▼ ▲

Volu

me o

f n

on

-sta

ndardiz

ed c

om

pon

en

ts

Tota

l w

eig

ht

of

non

-sta

ndardiz

ed c

om

pon

en

ts

Th

e t

rig

ger m

oti

on

is i

n t

he s

am

e d

irecti

on

as

open

ing t

he l

evers

Volu

me o

f grip

of

trig

ger f

or

lock

ing f

un

cti

on

Wh

en

lock

ed i

t giv

es a

vis

ual/

sou

nd/p

hysic

al

feeli

ng-i

ndic

ati

on

Nu

mber o

f com

pon

en

ts

Open

levers w

ith

few

dir

ecti

on

s o

f m

ovem

en

t (f

or

exam

ple

ju

st

on

e p

ush

, or p

ull

)

Lock

/un

lock

-trig

gers p

er l

ever

Force a

ppli

ed b

y u

ser t

o l

ock

/un

lock

cou

pli

ng

▲ ◇ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▲ ▼ ▲▼ ▼▼ ▼◇

Figure 4.22 – Measurable properties

38

Product A

The Table 4.6 below shows Product A’s fulfilment of desired properties. Positive means that the

product has a strong fulfilment of the properties and the negative a low fulfilment of the

properties.

Product B

The Table 4.7 below shows Product B’s fulfilment of desired properties. Positive means that the


properties.

Product C

The Table 4.8 below shows product C’s fulfilment of desired properties. Positive means that the


properties.

Positive Negative

Low area of exposure of trigger When locked it gives a

visual/sound/physical feeling

indication

High Mechanical strength of

weakest exposed component

High force applied needed (in

any direction) on levers to

unsecure them

Density of material

Strength/resistance of the

material

Positive Negative

The trigger motion is in same

direction as opening the levers

When locked it gives a

visual/sound/physical feeling

indication

Low number of components

Open levers with few directions

of movement (for example just

one push, or pull)

High force applied needed(in


unsecure them

Density of material


material

Table 4.6 – Desired properties for Product A

Table 4.7 – Desired properties for Product B

39

Product D

The Table 4.9 below shows product D’s fulfilment of desired properties. Positive means that the


properties.

Positive Negative

Low number of components The trigger motion is in same




Open levers with few

directions of movement (for

example just one push, or pull)



unsecure them

Area of exposure of trigger

Density of material Mechanical strength of

weakest exposed component


material

Positive Negative

Low number of components Volume of grip of trigger for

locking function

Few lock/unlock-trigger per

lever



Mechanical strength of weakest

exposed component

Force applied by user to

lock/unlock coupling

Short Total length of hand

motion to trigger the

lock/unlock



unsecure them

Density of material


material

Table 4.8 – Desired properties for Product C

Table 4.9 – Desired properties for Product D

40

41

5. Systematic Innovation Method According to KTH’s project handbook three to five concepts should be selected for further development (Eriksson,

2011, p. 27). From the preliminary study of the TRIZ tool the group estimated that it is possible to identify five

different unique technical solutions that fulfil the project’s requirement specifications. This chapter contains the

activities and documentations of the projects innovation process. Some illustrations in this section are distorted in

order to not disclose intellectual property.

5.1 Process of applied Systematic Innovation Method The Fig 5.1 illustrates the process of SIM. SIM have been applied in two iterations. The first

iteration loop included a generation of 23 unique concepts. The second iteration loop included

the development of five concepts.

Different kinds of tools and simulations were applied during the iterations of the SIM. During

the first iteration brainstorming, function analysis, Pugh decision matrix and morphology were

applied. During the second iteration the TRIZ tool was applied followed by a Pugh decision

matrix. At the end of each loop the group had to decide if the new round had to be repeated in

order to refine the properties of the concepts.

5.2 Brainstorm After analysing the core problem of the existing Camlock coupling the functions identified that

need to be solved were; 1) fasten the lever arm 2) to give an indication to the user when they are

locked. The group started to study how others have solved the problems by inspecting the four

products. After the benchmarking the group identified that the other technical solutions had the

functions of lock the lever arms, locking automatically when the arms are secured, and to use a

trigger to unlock the lever arms. Some did also more or less give a sound or a visual indication

when the arms were secured.

Figure 5.1 – Process map of applied SIM

42

The three different sub-functions (Fig 5.2) “fasten lever arms”, “lock automatically” and

“indication when locked” and the feature “trigger” was generated in different shapes in a

brainstorming session (See Appendix M). The mission was then to combine these functions in

one technical solution.

Figure 5.2 – Functions of technical solution

5.3 Morphology By having the QFD criteria in mind as guideline for wanted properties the group combined sub-

functions and generated 23 different concepts (Ullman, 2010, p. 204-208, Hubka et al., 1988, p.

79).

Below is an example of how the group combined one concept (Fig 5.3). The box shows the

derivations of combinations of the four sub-function from the morphology. The four sub-

functions, Trigger, attachment, indication and store energy are combined into one concept. See

Appendix N for a presentation of all 23 concepts and a guidance of their combinations.

43

Figure 5.3 – Morphology example

5.4 Concept development A Pugh matrix was used to decide which 5 of the 23 different concepts to use for further

development (see Appendix O). Since the 23 concepts were to abstract to evaluate with

measurable properties and because the properties would change after using the TRIZ tool, the

group used the customer requirements from the QFD as evaluation criteria. The importance rate

from the QFD were also used in the PUGH matrix adding the criteria “none similarity to prior

arts” to separate the concepts which cannot be patented. The group used discussion how well the

abstract concepts fulfilled the properties compared to each other.

Early in the project the group studied university theses in product development using the TRIZ

tool, and recognised that it appeared as a powerful tool in generating unique technical solutions

based on functional problems (Johansson and Persson, 2007, Andersson et al., 2002, Hallberg,

2002, Aga, 2013).

Initially the group defined wanted improvements of parts of the five concepts. The problem was

then dissected into positive and negative properties concerning the defined improvement. The

conflict between the improved properties and worsening properties was then defined as technical

contradictions. Technical contradictions were then put in a TRIZ-matrix to identify TRIZ

principles. The group then compiled the principles in smaller matrixes (see Appendix P). Lists of

the appearing principles were made and the three which appeared in highest quantity was used to

generate ideas. The idea of using the three most frequently appeared principles was taken from a

former Bachelor Thesis, using the TRIZ tool (Johansson and Persson, 2007). The group used the

TRIZ software Pro/Innovator to support the understanding of the principles, to get ideas from

patents, and simplify the idea generation (Terninko et al., 1998, p. 180).

44

5.4.1 The technical contradictions

The following pages contain documentation of the TRIZ process. The first illustrations are the

origin hand drawings of the five chosen concepts and the following illustrations are hand

drawings of the results, after they had been developed by the TRIZ tool. The principles that were

used for the development are mentioned between the illustrations.

The readers are referred to Appendix P for a more detailed insight of the process. It presents the

defined problems of the concepts parts and the appearing technical contradictions. Compilations

of the principles appearing in highest quantity are also demonstrated under each problem. Some

principles did not give any support of generating ideas, but the group documented the principles

that really were used in generating the ideas.

Concept 2

Figure 5.4 – Concept 2

The TRIZ principles that were used to develop this concept: Segmentation, Spheroidality,

Dynamicity, universality.

45

Figure 5.5 – Final design of concept 2

Concept 5


The TRIZ principles that were used to develop this concept: Segmentation, Inversion,

Spheroidality, universality.

46


Concept 7


The TRIZ principles that were used to develop this concept: Segmentation, Inversion,

Replacement of mechanical system.

47


Concept 8


The TRIZ principles that were used to develop this concept: Segmentation, Universality,

Spheroidality, Nesting.

48


Concept 15


The TRIZ principles that were used to develop this concept: Nesting, Feedback, Universality.

49


50

5.4.2 The mistake

During the TRIZ-development of the five concepts, the group came up with an extra function

for the technical solution. This function was not derived to any desired property or generated by

any engineering tool. The following description can be a good example of using a non-

engineering method for generating ideas, and its consequences. The added function was to fasten

the lever arms in an open position (Fig 5.7), making the assembly of the male and female part

more ergonomic. The idea was rejected after a coupling test during the study visit (see Appendix

Q) and the reason being: there were no ergonomic problems when the product was mounted

with freely moving arms. The lever arms do not jam the assembling of the male and female parts

if they are in a closed position, they will automatically open due to the applied force on the cams.

If the additional function had been added, the HF-UF graph could look like the figure below (Fig

5.14). The graph demonstrates unnecessary features added to the product, resulting in even more

HFs. The challenge is to identify which product properties are desired and which are not, to be

able to generate an ideal product.

Figure 5.14 – Added UF causes HF

5.5 Decide which concept to develop. A Pugh decision matrix was used to determine which two of the five concepts to further develop

(see Appendix R). The measurable properties from the QFD (see Appendix B) were used as

criteria in the selection of the two final concepts. The importance rates of the properties in the

Pugh matrix were taken from the “Technical importance rate” in the QFD.

51

6. Final concepts Below are two of the final concepts visualised, together with the four competitors (Fig 6.1). In this chapter the final

concepts are illustrated with solid models with function descriptions. Parts of the illustrations are distorted and

parts of the function descriptions are excluded in order to not disclose intellectual property. Quality comparison

between the concepts and the competitors will also be demonstrated and the section ends with a presentation of an

alternative solution which was generated later in the project based on company insight.

Figure 6.1 – Final concepts

6.1 Virtual prototyping The two selected concepts were modelled using CREO Parametric to illustrate the physical

arrangement of the technical solution concepts. During the concept modelling modulation the

group identified physical issues which had not been understood from the hand drawings. The

ears had to be increased more in Final Concept 1 (Fig 6.2) than expected in order for the lock to

work properly. The pin and spring parts used more space than expected and the arms had to be

thickened on both concepts. Further design modification had to be done from the earlier hand

drawing for mechanical interfaces to work. Exploded drawings were also made to present all the

parts used in the product concepts and to demonstrate how they could be assembled (see

Appendix S).

52

6.2 Final Concept 1, function description A pin is assembled inside the lever arm and connected to a crossing pin. The pit shields the pin

and disables movement of the lever arm. A spring mounted on the pin gives an axial force to the

crossing pin which maintains the crossing pin’s position in the pit (Fig 6.2). When the lever arm

is in a secured position, the spring provide a pull-force on the ring which gives the function that

the ring flex back to its original position after is been bended.

Figure 6.2 – Final Concept 1

6.3 Description of use To unlock the lever arm the user pulls the ring and the crossing pin compress the spring which

then moves out of the pit (Fig 6.2). The lever arms are then enabled to rotate. The spring absorbs

energy which gives the function of locking the arms automatically when they are closed.

6.4 Final Concept 2, function description The extended pin blocking rotation and disables movement of the lever arm (Fig 6.3). When the

lever arm is in a locked position, the spring provides a pull-force of the ring which gives the

function that the ring flexes back to its original position after is been bended.

53

Figure 6.3 – Final Concept 2

6.5 Description of use To unlock the movement of the lever arm the user pulls the ring and an attached plate

compresses the spring and forces the pin to slide. When the pin is shielded in the lever arms, the

arms are enabled to rotate (Fig 6.3). The spring absorbs energy which gives the function of

locking the arms automatically when they are closed.

6.6 Quality evaluation of the final concepts A comparison of the concepts and the four competitors were made to evaluate the quality. The

evaluation was made with a Pugh decision matrix with the quality requirements criteria (see

Appendix U). An additional comparison was also used to compare how many useful functions

the products and concepts had. Additional functions were not a requirement but the group

included them to be discussed in the evaluation of the concepts (see Appendix U). The two

concepts were then compared in the QFD to get a graphical overview of the fulfilment of all

measurable properties (Fig 6.4 and Fig 6.5).

6.6.1 Final Concept 1

The Final Concept 1 shared the first place with Product A in fulfilment of quality requirements.

The only attribute that was superior by a competitor was “mechanical strength of weakest

exposed component” which Product D satisfied (see Appendix U). Final Concept 1 had one

additional useful function “visual indication when locked” compared to the competitor with the

most useful functions (see Appendix U). The Final Concept 1 was also rated in the QFD with

desired properties to get an overview of the satisfaction (Fig 6.4). The concept was pretty stable

in fulfilment of the properties, with no significant weak fulfilment. A property with high

54

fulfilment was “When locked it gives a visual/sound/physical” which the Final Concept 1

satisfied more than the competitors.

Figure 6.4 – Final Concept 1, properties fulfilment

6.6.2 Final Concept 2

The Final Concept 2 did like the Final Concept 1 share the first place with Product A in

fulfilment of quality attributes. The only attribute that was superior by a competitor was

“mechanical strength of weakest exposed component” which Product D satisfied (see Appendix

U). Final Concept 2 also had one more additional useful function compared to the competitors

with the most useful function (see Appendix U).

The Final Concept 2 was then rated in the QFD (see Appendix B) using required properties to

get an overview of the satisfaction (Fig 6.5). The concept was pretty stable in fulfilment of the

properties, with no specific weak fulfilment. The significant fulfilment was “When locked it gives

a visual/sound/physical” which the Final Concept 2 satisfied more than the competitors.

▼ ▼ ▼ ▲ ▼▲ ◇ ▼ ▼ ▼◇ ▲▼ ▼

Volu

me o

f n

on

-sta

ndard

ized c

om

pon

en

ts

Tota

l w

eig

ht

of

non

-sta

ndard

ized c

om

pon

en

ts

Th

e t

rigger

moti

on

is

in s

am

e d

irect

ion

as

open

ing

the l

evers

volu

me o

f gri

p o

f tr

igger

for

lock

ing f

un

ctio

n

Wh

en

lock

ed i

t giv

es

a v

isu

al/

sou

nd/p

hysi

cal

feeli

ng-i

ndic

ati

on

nu

mber

of

com

pon

en

ts

Open

levers

wit

h f

ew

dir

ect

ion

s of

movem

en

t (f

or

exam

ple

ju

st o

ne p

ush

, or

pu

ll)

Lock

/un

lock

-tri

ggers

per

lever

Forc

e a

ppli

ed b

y u

ser

to l

ock

/un

lock

cou

pli

ng

Nu

mbers

of

movin

g c

om

pon

en

ts i

n c

ou

pli

ng

Mech

an

ical

stre

ngth

of

weak

est

expose

d

com

pon

en

t

Tota

l le

ngth

of

han

d m

oti

on

to l

ock

/un

lock

▼ ▲

Are

a o

f exposu

re o

f tr

igger

den

sity

of

mate

rial

stre

ngth

/resi

stan

ce o

f th

e m

ate

rial

Needed f

orc

e a

ppli

ed (

in a

ny d

irect

ion

) on

levers

to

un

secu

re t

hem

55

Figure 6.5 – Final Concept 2, properties fulfilment

6.7 The patentable solution The group was informed by the technical manager that it may be a substantial risk that the final

concepts were not unique enough to be patentable. The group went back in the PD-Process, (see

Appendix G) to the previous phase of the 23 concepts, and identified the concepts that were

sufficiently unique. Several concepts were unique enough but did not fulfill the required

properties of quality, mostly because the design of their trigger functions. Therefore, the group

went back to the documented brainstorming and identified a new trigger principle which was

missing from the morphology. The new trigger principle was successfully combined with the

unique concept, and appeared to have potential of fulfilling the quality requirements and be

unique enough to be patentable. The identification was in the late part of the PD-Process and

therefore no time for evaluating and developing the new technical solution (see Appendix V).

den

sit

y o

f m

ate

ria

l

str

en

gth

/resis

tan

ce o

f th

e m

ate

ria

l

Needed f

orce a

ppli

ed(i

n a

ny d

irecti

on

) on

levers

to u

nsecu

re t

hem

Area o

f exposu

re o

f tr

igger

Nu

mbers o

f m

ovin

g c

om

pon

en

ts i

n c

ou

pli

ng

Mech

an

ical

str

en

gth

of

weak

est

exposed

com

pon

en

t

Tota

l le

ngth

of

han

d m

oti

on

to l

ock

/un

lock

▼ ▲

Volu

me o

f n

on

-sta

ndardiz

ed c

om

pon

en

ts

Tota

l w

eig

ht

of

non

-sta

ndardiz

ed c

om

pon

en

ts

Th

e t

rig

ger m

oti

on

is i

n s

am

e d

irecti

on

as

open

ing t

he l

evers

volu

me o

f grip

of

trig

ger f

or

lock

ing f

un

cti

on

Wh

en

lock

ed i

t giv

es a

vis

ual/

sou

nd/p

hysic

al

feeli

ng-i

ndic

ati

on

nu

mber o

f com

pon

en

ts

Open

levers w

ith

few

dir

ecti

on

s o

f m

ovem

en

t

(for e

xam

ple

ju

st

on

e p

ush

, or p

ull

)

Lock

/un

lock

-trig

gers p

er l

ever

Force a

ppli

ed b

y u

ser t

o l

ock

/un

lock

cou

pli

ng

▲▼ ▼◇ ▼ ▲ ▼▲ ◇ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼

56

57

7. Discussion The discussion concerns the parts of the project, which need to be highlighted and a focus lies on the SIM and tools

used during the project.

7.1 Project planning A Gantt chart time schedule was created in the beginning of the project in order to plan the

entire project. The group discussed which activities would be needed during the project phases

and estimated the required time for each activity. The four phases of the project with its activities

were distributed over a total time of 800 hours. The detailed time schedule gave a clear overview

of the project and helped keeping track of the process and activities (see Appendix D).

Since most of the project’s general theories and methods have never before been studied or

applied through course work, the group had limited knowledge of required time. The group’s

challenges included learning the TRIZ theory, function analyses, morphology, QFD, intellectual

property management and managing the cultural and language differences. The limited

knowledge caused some fault in the estimation of required time for some activities and additional

methods had to be added during the execution of the project. The function analysis and

morphology were two activities which both needed more time than estimated (Fig 7.1).

The FMEA (see Appendix F) concerned the project’s risks and was helpful in preventing delays

of critical tasks. The preparation by defining “taken action” gave the group better time margins

and resulted in that no deadline was exceeded. An FMEA concerning product failures can be

done later in the PD-Process in order to decrease the concepts risk of failure and improve

product design.

7.2 Project and PD-Process The chosen PD-Process proved to be suitable for working with the SIM. The innovation process

parts were more clearly defined than the process used by ELAFLEX and helped novice engineers

Figure 7.1 – Percentage of extra time required, adapted from Appendix D

58

to systematically structure the innovation. It was a new experience for the group to work after a

PD-Process since it has not been explicitly practiced during the education. The project process at

KTH which has been practiced during the education did not have any detailed defined product

development phases (Fig 3.1).

The KTH’s project process and the concurrently used PD-Process were structured slightly

different (Fig 3.2). The main difference between them is that KTH’s project process is more

suited for fictitious projects while the PD-Process is more suited for an actual product

development. The KTH’s project process is made as a template for diverse engineering projects

and it might have been more effective to have just one structure, adjusted for product

development projects and another other engineering projects.

There are activities such as report writing, which do not concern the product development, and

therefore the report phase of the project process was excluded from the PD-Process. The

concurrent work has been manageable, although it did not fully overlap. Two phases of the PD-

Process appeared in one phase of the project process and an extra tollgate appeared during one

of the project phases, making the two processes a bit incompatible and ineffective. The design

loop (see Appendix G) was helpful in the process, especially when the group had to go back,

review and evaluate former criteria and activities. Reviewing during the process simplified the

improvement and made the decision making more accurate.

The organised documentation of the tasks became helpful when mistakes were made and

required corrections appeared during the process. An example was when the technical manager

wanted improvement of the uniqueness property of the concepts. The group then went back to

the 23 generated concepts and discussed with the manager which ones, according to him, was

unique enough. By analysing the 23 concepts using the morphological matrix the group could

identify which trigger function that was missing. The combination had potential to fulfil the

required quality properties. The reviewing and improvement would never been able to be

completed without a systematic PD-Process with organised documentation. The group annotated

a lot of their hand drawings and CAD renderings during the innovation process, which enhanced

the presentation to the technical manager. Annotating had not explicitly been practiced during

the group’s education, and the group had not until this project understood its importance.

7.3 Patent research It is hard to tell if the patent research of 11 hours was enough to identify prior arts. Instead of

searching by cited patents could the tactic of searching been different, for example by searching

by patent codes or synonymous key words. It is also hard to say if it was enough to just use the

database Espacenet for searching patents from diverse countries having other characters than the

Latin alphabet. A more comprehensive patent search could have be done, using more databases

such as the Japanese patent database JPO and the Chinese database SIPO, but the groups limited

language skills prevented the search. By using those databases a higher quantity of unique patents

could have been identified and therefore have a more accurate knowledge of prior arts.

59

7.4 Systematic innovation

7.4.1 Innovation process

After the function analysis the group could confirm that there is a serious design flaw in the

current Camlock coupling, since a new function had to be added. The two main determined

harmful functions, which the technical solutions was developed for, could have been eliminated

by the origin design of the coupling. A well-designed product should have the risk of failure

eliminated through its conceptual synthesis.

From the problem definition and the function analysis the core problem could be identified.

Because of the specific requirements the group could not do any changes of the main design and

function of the Camlock coupling.

Early in the implementation project part of the project the group was very focused on working in

alliance with the TRIZ theory. At one point the group became stuck and was unable to use the

TRIZ tool in order to generate solutions of the existing Camlock coupling. The group tried to

put up contradictions but found they were confused. The group then decided to step out of the

theory of TRIZ to try another tool in order to continue the process. After the function analysis

the group used brainstorming combined with morphology in order to generate concepts. After

generating 23 concepts and choosing five that fulfilled the required properties the group could go

back to the TRIZ Theory and define contradictions on the five concepts and use the TRIZ tool

to develop them.

Morphology was a new method for the group and initially it was found to be a difficult method

to understand, but it turned out to be easier than expected. It was a powerful tool enabling

generation of different technical solution concepts for functions. By documenting the

morphological combination of sub-functions in a small matrix the group could easily go back in

the process and regenerate and combine concepts.

7.4.2 Reflection about systematic innovation

According to the group, systematic innovation is a superior way compared to the trial and error

method in identifying unique technical solutions. Most of the innovation processes during the

engineering education has been based on the trial and error method and the group also

experienced it during the project time.

The main advantages of using a systematic approach experienced by the group during the

innovation process:

It helps the identification of the core problem.

It helps to identify which function should be the focus of the problem solving activity.

It supports the innovator to get an overview of the problem, its causes and consequences

and reducing the risk of getting tunnel vision and a too narrow vision of the problem.

It supports the generation of a high quantity of concepts with high quality for functional

problems, regardless the inventor’s experiences.

By defining required properties to an ideal final result, the generation of concept can be

directed and increase the chances of meeting those requirements.

60

By defining required properties concepts with undesired attributes can easily be identified

and discarded during the selection processes.

The organized documentation makes it easy to go back in the process and refine or

regenerate concepts.

The organized documentation makes a project easier to hand over, and reduces time

required for proceeding with the PD-Process.

The disadvantages of using a systematic approach experienced by the group during the

innovation process:

Might appear as a time consuming process.

Learning time of new methods.

Requires structured documentation and therefore a rather disciplined inventor.

The function analysis was a challenge to master, mainly because the terminology never been

taught during the education. While the TRIZ tool and function analysis proved to be the most

challenging to learn, the morphology proved to be a much easier method to practice than initially

expected. The TRIZ terminology was in English and that was a challenge for the group to

master, since none of the members native languages are English. The TRIZ software

Pro/Innovator simplified the understanding of TRIZ principles by demonstrating them in

comprehendible animations and patents.

The TRIZ tool proved to be a powerful tool in thinking “outside the box” and solving problems

in ways the group never would be able to do by just using a brainstorming session. It was not

only during the idea generation the TRIZ theory helped the creativity. By having the TRIZ theory

in mind during the whole project the creativity level were increased and supported the problem

solving outside the groups field of expertise and experiences.

In the short term, SIM is more time-consuming because it involves additional steps and

documentation, but it is more time-effective in the long term considering the total required time

of developing high quality technical solutions, which fulfil the required properties. A systematic

process appears time-consuming although the chances to generate ideal results during a limited

time period are significantly higher than using a non-systematic trial and error approach. A non-

systematic approach is unsure and makes the required time to generate high quality concepts

range from a few minutes to years.

The project has changed the group’s view of innovation and problem solving. Before the project

the group had almost no knowledge about systematic innovation. Initially the TRIZ theory

appeared as very abstract and difficult to understand and although the group did not become

experts in the field, enough was learned in order to use the tool in future projects. The group will

use the obtained skills and knowledge’s in systematic innovation in their future professional

challenges, and believes that they after the project have become better engineers.

61

7.5 Decision methods and fulfilment of company goals The evaluation of the two final concepts indicated that both of them gave similar result in

fulfilment of desired attributes as the Product A. According to ELAFLEX Product A was the

best competitor and the benchmarking also confirms that it has the properties that are required

for high quality (see Appendix B). One reason why the final concepts had similar attribute

fulfilment could be because the development was directed towards a final ideal result defined by

the desired attributes. The final concepts are not really the same in absolute comparison, which

means that they have slightly different properties in reality. The comparisons in the Pugh’s

matrixes had its limitations since the attributes were mostly not measured in quantitative

comparison, just measured by the group’s qualitative comparison. For example the two attributes,

”mechanical strength of weakest exposed component” and ”Needed force applied (in any

direction) on levers to unsecure them”, could have been compared quantitatively through

simulations by making CAD- models and FE-analyses of the competitors’ products. Though

other attributes such as the ”Number of components” could be compared more quantitatively

through measured values. If more accurate comparisons were performed the evaluation would

have been more detailed and a significant difference between the final concepts quality fulfilment

could have been demonstrated. But because of the time limitation of the project such a detailed

comparison was excluded.

The two final concepts had an extra useful function compared to the competitors (see Appendix

U). The extra functions of visual indication were not a requirement for high quality and can

therefore not be used as a direct argument of the requirement of high quality of the products,

although it might be considered a reasonable improvement.

The technical manager had doubts about the two final concepts and if they were unique enough

to be patented, although they meet the other specific requirements. Of the five chosen concepts

there were three that were more unique, according to the technical manager. Those three were

not chosen for further development in the evaluation process for the reason that they did not

fulfil the requested properties as much as the two final concepts. Concept 8, which came in third

place in the Pugh’s matrix evaluation, was unique enough according to the technical manager,

although the property robust design was not sufficiently met. Concept 7, which was ranked

fourth, was also unique enough but too difficult to produce and too uncertain whether the design

would be robust enough. Concept 2 was unique according to technical manager, but was

considered too complex with too many moving parts, which increases the risk of function errors

and generally having a low level of quality.

The criteria, ”non similarity to prior arts”, could have had higher rating weight in the Pugh’s

matrix during the selection of the five concepts. The criteria were just one out of five others

influencing the selection and therefore did not significantly affect the selection process. One

reason for not weighting the criteria higher was because of the group’s limited knowledge of

patentability and intellectual property management.

62

63

8. Conclusion The conclusion is divided in two different parts. The first part concerns the execution of the project, and the second

part the fulfilment of the project goals.

8.1 The project The project execution has mainly been in accordance to the initial planning with no exceeding of

deadlines. Overtime work was needed, resulting in an exceeded total project time (see Appendix

D). The main reason was the underestimation of time required to learn Systematic Innovation

Methods not introduced during course work, namely function analysis, morphology, and TRIZ

theory.

The internal goal of accessing TRIZ software during the second project phase was met and the

applying of the TRIZ tool could start in the end of the same phase. Both the evaluation model

QFD and the Pugh’s decision matrix were iteratively used in defining desired product properties,

concept selection and comparison.

8.2 The product The Systematic Innovation Methods outline applied during the project proved to be superior to

the trial and error methods in defining unique technical solutions that fulfil required specifications.

By using the systematic approach the group could define the core problem, define unique

technical solutions and easily evaluate them to specified criteria. It simplified the improvement of

concepts by allowing reviewing of former parts of the innovation process documentations.

The TRIZ theory made the group aware of the importance of understanding the desired and

undesired properties of a product, and the level of abstraction of a technical solution. By

specifying the concepts as ideal final results contradictions of properties could be defined and the

TRIZ tool applied. TRIZ supported the generation of ideas which the group believe they never

would have been able to have done by using an experienced based approach.

The group could identify five technical solutions that fulfilled the required specifications,

although the uniqueness criteria appeared to be more abstract to fulfil than earlier expected. At

least three of the five selected concepts were unique enough according to the technical manager.

Although it is unsure if the final two developed concepts that were modelled in CAD are unique

enough to be patented.

Regarding the quality criteria, the two final concepts were evaluated against the four currently

manufactured solutions. It showed that the quality of the two final concepts were at the same

level in comparison to each other as the existing solution of highest quality, though an extra

useful function was added to the two concepts.

64

65

9. Recommendation The recommendations are divided into two main parts; Further development of the project and recommended

methods. Further development of the project describes the group’s recommendations for continuing the product

development, and the recommended methods are tools and methods which the group recommends ELAFLEX and

KTH to emphasize.

9.1 Further development of the project The group have three different recommendations for continuing the project:

1. Proceed with the PD-Process and develop the two final concepts, but let a patent

attorney investigate the current drawings in order to validate the uniqueness and therefore

the patentability confirmed.

a) If they are patentable, continue the PD-Process from where the project ended

(see Appendix G). The project was finalized during the design phase “establish

preliminary layout” and the next step within that phase would be to refine the

design. Then investigate which material and manufacturing methods to choose.

Investigate recyclability opportunity of used products and its environmental

effects. Continue with the next two design phases in the process, including

establish dimensional layouts and detailing. The product should then be ready to

be manufactured in a limited quantity.

b) If they are not unique enough to be patented; perform a function analysis of the

final concepts. Use the TRIZ tool to change the trigger parts to make it more

unobvious and therefore more unique. Then proceed with the PD-Process (see

Appendix G).

2. Continue the PD-Process and develop the “unique” concept (see Appendix G). Go back

to the “establish concept phase” and use the TRIZ tool to improve its properties,

developing it towards an ideal final result. Make selection with the Pugh’s decision matrix

and then proceed the PD-Process.

3. Go back to the start of the PD-Process (see Appendix G). Make a more comprehensive

costumer research to get an even more accurate understanding of the desired product

attributes. Conduct additional interviews with users and buyers and study how the

products are used at different industries. Then refine the requested customer properties

and the measurable properties in the QFD. Generate concepts with morphology and use

Pugh’s decision matrix to select five concepts. The criteria “none-similarity to prior arts”

should be more weighted in the selection process in order to increase the chances of

identify enough unique concepts. Extend the patent and market research to an even more

accurate collation of prior arts. Then continue the product development in the PD-

Process.

66

9.2 Recommended methods The group would recommend ELAFLEX to use the systematic innovation approach when

developing new technical solutions. Although their engineers have a great experience and

expertise in their field, the systematic approach would, with the function analysis, morphology

and the TRIZ tool allow them to reduce time to identify technical solutions having desired

attributes. Systematic innovation simplifies changes early in the PD-Process, reducing the design

changes required later in the process. The morphology and the TRIZ tool supports engineers

with limited experiences to generate ideas, which they never would have done with the trial and

error method. An experienced engineer can generate and develop a higher quantity of concepts

and more accurately identify the concept’s desired properties, than he would have with trial and

error.

The group also recommend KTH to emphasise a systemic innovation process. Many innovations

are based on finding principles for product functions and it can appear as inefficient letting

students use their own limited experience to directly generate functions based technical solutions.

By analysing the wanted functions, the problem can be divided into sub-functions and students

can more easily generate ideas for single sub-functions. The ideas can then be combined in

morphology matrixes, and by comparing the concepts with desired attributes generate high

quality concepts.

The TRIZ tool would support the students in solving more difficult and abstract problems than

they would have been able to do with just their own experience. By using the tool they would be

able to define difficult and abstract technical problems into property conflicts and then solve the

contradictions. The TRIZ Theory helps the students to see the problem as a part of a system

taking its level of abstraction in consideration when making changes. The awareness will make

the students become better engineers, developing products that are environmentally and

economically sustainable. The students do not need a deep knowledge of the TRIZ theory to be

able to use its tool and solve contradictions. The essential of theory is to understand the basics of

product properties and technical contradictions. By practice the TRIZ tool students would be

able to solve more difficult problems, thus making them better innovators.

67

10. References AEHLE, A. 2014. Technical Managing Director. In: MANN, T. J. & KUYUMCUOGLU, G.

(eds.). ELAFLEX - Gummi Ehlers GmbH.

AGA, A. E. 2013. Fuel supply investigation for an externally fired microturbine based micro CHP

system Master of Science, Royal Institute of Technology.

ALTSHULLER, G., SHULYAK, L. & RODMAN, S. 1996. And suddenly the inventor appeared :

TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving, Worcester, Mass., Technical Innovation Center.

ANDERSSON, T., BÖRJESON, G. & NORDÉN, N. 2002. Låsning/Indexering av vändskär.

Bachelor Degree, Högskolan Trollhättan/Uddevalla.

CEN 2010. Rubber and plastics hoses and hose assemblies. prEN 14420-7:2010. Technical

Committee CEN/TC 218.

ELAFLEX, G. E. G.-. 2010. Profile about ELAFLEX [Online]. Available:

http://www.elaflex.de/english/aboutus/profile.asp [Accessed 31 March 2014].

ELAFLEX-GROUP. About us [Online]. Available:

http://www.elaflex.de/English/aboutus/group.asp [Accessed 5 April 2014].

ELAFLEX-HIBY, T. G. A. C. K. 2010. Modern and innovative - the traditional enterprise Hiby [Online].

Available: http://www.hiby.de/cms/index.php?lang=en [Accessed 31 March 2014].

ERIKSSON, T. 2011. Projekthandbok 2011, KTH Södertälje, Tillämpad maskinteknik.

ESPACENET. 2014. Patent search [Online]. Available:

http://www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html [Accessed 5 April 2014].

HALLBERG, M. 2002. Förbättring av värmeugn. Bachelor Degree, Högskolan

Trollhättan/Uddevalla.

HUBKA, V., MYRUP ANDREASEN, M. & EDER, W. E. 1988. Practical studies in systematic

design, London, Butterworths.

IWINT, I. 2011. TRIZ Software: Pro/Innovator [Online]. Available:

http://www.iwint.com/en/products/pro_innovator-20081208-211930.html [Accessed 5

April 2014].

JOHANSSON, T. & PERSSON, A. 2007. Utveckling av spjäll till plattvärmeväxlare. Bachelor

Degree, Högskolan i Jönköping.

KENNEDY, J. P., WATKINS, W. H. & BALL, E. N. 2012. How to invent and protect your invention :

a guide to patents for scientists and engineers, Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.

KRAPP T, J. 1946. Coupling. United States patent application US2518026A-1.

ORLOFF, M. A. 2006. Inventive thinking through TRIZ : a practical guide, Berlin ; New York,

Springer.

OTTOSON, Å. 2014. Engineer. In: MANN, T. J. & KUYUMCUOGLU, G. (eds.). ARIADNE

Engineering AB.

PATENTINSPIRATION. 2014. Search and analyse patent [Online]. Available:

http://www.patentinspiration.com/ [Accessed 5 April 2014].

PUGH, S. 1990. Total design : integrated methods for successful product engineering, Wokingham, Addison-

Wesley.

RANTANEN, K. & DOMB, E. 2008. Simplified TRIZ

new problem solving applications for engineers and manufacturing professionals. 2nd ed. New

York: Auerbach Publications,.

http://www.elaflex.de/english/aboutus/profile.asp

http://www.elaflex.de/English/aboutus/group.asp

http://www.hiby.de/cms/index.php?lang=en

http://www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html

http://www.iwint.com/en/products/pro_innovator-20081208-211930.html

http://www.patentinspiration.com/

68

RICHARD, F. L. 1997. Pivotal lock for coupling cam arms. United States, Ohio patent application

US6015168A.

TERNINKO, J., ZUSMAN, A. & ZLOTIN, B. 1998. Systematic innovation : an introduction to TRIZ ;

(theory of inventive problem solving), Boca Raton, St. Lucie Press.

TSAN-JEE, C. 2010. Tubular connection structure. Taiwan, Taipei patent application

US2012043753A1.

ULLMAN, D. G. 2010. The mechanical design process, Boston, McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

USPTO. 2014. Search for Patents [Online]. Available:

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/index.jsp [Accessed 5 April 2014].

WATERSON, C. 1994. Tube connecting device. Taiwan patent application US5435604A.

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/index.jsp

Documents

Fluid Coupling Development using a Systematic Innovation ...732147/FULLTEXT01.pdf · Fluid Coupling Development using a Systematic Innovation Method Tim Johansson Mann Gabriel Kuyumcuoglu