Introduction to

Engineering Design
Processes
XYZ – 487 Senior Design
School of Engineering
Mercer University

Loren Sumner
Refs:
ABET Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs 2012-13, criterion 5
Haik and Shahin, Engineering Design Process, 2nd ed., CENGAGE Learning, 2011.
Kroll, Condoor, and Jansson, Innovative Conceptual Design, Theory and Applications of
Parameter Analysis, Cambridge, 2001
A Design process seeks a
preferred solution
 Design problems are open ended and typically complicated
 Open-ended problems have many possible feasible solutions
 Problems involve many different needs and performance
characteristics (various measures of success)
 A Design process seeks a preferred solution in some way
 This requires more than an educated guess among feasible alternatives
but a credible and substantiated better solution.
 A Design process constitutes a series of
questions, investigations, and decisions
Engineering Design applies
engineering principles
 It is a decision-making process leading to the specification
of a (device, system, and/or process) that meets stated
functionality and performance objectives.

 It applies knowledge of the

 basic sciences,
 mathematics, and
 engineering
to optimally convert resources for a desirable solution
Refs: ABET Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs 2012-13,
criterion 5
Haik and Shahin, Engineering Design Process, 2nd ed.,
CENGAGE Learning, 2011.
Possible Deliverables of
Engineering Design
 Computer Software Files, Data files, Written Programs, etc
 Prototype, instrumentation, tools, etc
 Documentations,
 Working drawings
 Detailed set of specifications of final product and components
 Recommendations, Substantiated Decisions
 Explanations (needs analysis, performance predictions, etc)
 Report of background research (technology review)
 Findings (from analyses, technology reviews, etc)
 Graphics of results, concepts, budget, etc
 Interpretation of Findings
 Instructions and/or hardware manuals
 IDENTIFY MARKET
NEEDS

A PRELIM.
GOALS &
CRITERIA

Design GATHER INFO

THE
WORLD

Process
TO EACH BOX
REVISE
GOALS &
CRITERIA

BRAINSTORM
DESIGN
IDEAS KNOWLEDGE BASE

SCIENCE
ART
FEASIBILITY ENGINEERING
STUDY LAW
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
DEFINE CORPORATE PLANS
PRELIM. POLITICS
DESIGNS ETC.

ANALYZE
PRELIM.
DESIGNS

APPLIED EVALUATE
RESEARCH DESIGNS

BUILD & TEST

DESIGN

MODELS

DEVELOP
PRODUCTION
DESIGN
PRODUCTION

QUALITY PRODUCTION
CONTROL

MARKET
MARKETING
Another
Design
Process
 Typical
Design
Processes
Background research
Creating a high-quality idea
Brainstorming

Merit Analysis
Engineering Analysis –
predictions, calculations, etc.
leading to final specs
Details for clear definition

Realizing a high-quality device Final Specs (PDR) – end 487

Prototyping(Testing) - XYZ 488

Kroll, Condoor, and Jansson, Innovative Conceptual Design, Theory and

Applications of Parameter Analysis, Cambridge, 2001
Needs Identification and
Analysis
 Discovering/verifying the “real” needs
 Find and remove preconceptions
 Analyze the needs as to not preclude solutions due to a
biased understanding
 Effectiveness of the conceptual design depends on how
well the need is understood
 Important to overtly ensure objectivity in the early stages
 Develop engineering requirements and objectives for the
project
 Plan a design process to arrive at a preferred solution
Engineering: Demonstrated application of
what you’ve learned at MUSE
 Analog Filter Design  Heat Transfer
 Bioremediation  Human Factors Engineering
 Biological Fluids  Instrumentation/ Data acquisition
 Biomechanics  Manufacturability
 Chemical Processes  Materials
 Diagnostic Imaging  Mirocomputer Fundamentals
 Digital Logic and Comp.  Probability and Statistics
Organization  Power Electronics
 Dynamics  Robotics
 Electrical Fundamentals/ Circuits  Signal Processing
 Electromagnetic Field Theory  Solid Mechanics/ Structural analysis
 Engineering Design  Quality Control
 Engineering Economy  Statics and Solid Mechanics
 Ergonomics  Thermodynamics
 Feedback Controls  Vibrations
 Fluid Mechanics/ Hydraulics

Topics are comparable with all accredited engineering schools across the country.
Basics of Decision Making
1. Clarify the issue needing a specific solution
2. Generate alternatives
3. Develop criteria to evaluate alternatives
4. Identify criteria importance
5. Evaluate
6. Decide next step
a. Refine, add, alternatives
b. Refine criteria and evaluation
c. Choose an alternative to invest resources
 Design Criteria
 Developed from performance specifications
 Ensure compliance with client’s requirements
 Use to discriminate between design ideas
 Choose the idea to develop (w/ engineering
analysis) into a specific device
 Two Types
 Feasibility Criteria - Eliminate infeasible ideas
 Merit Criteria - Compare merit of feasible ideas
 Feasibility Criteria
 Factors that limit the scope of a project
 Normally expressed as constraints
 unit must weigh less than 100 lbs.
 unit must accelerate to a velocity of 60 mph in less
than 10 seconds.
 Go / No-Go Criteria (Feasible / Not-Feasible)
 Project requirements are a primary source
Feasibility Analysis
 Eliminate some of the design concepts
 Reveal ways that other alternatives may
overcome their limitations
 Produces at least two feasible alternatives
 In practice, this will not always occur
 For your projects – probably should
 A single table comparing each design to the
feasibility criteria with pass/fail ( or X) notation
is a common approach
 Good visual of why designs are succeeding of failing
Merit Criteria
 Specific while still providing a basis for
choosing between alternatives
 Examples include:
 low unit production cost, low shipping cost, low
storage cost, etc.
 high acceleration, high velocity, high efficiency,
etc.
 Relate closely to performance specs
 Contribute to overall project goals
Merit Analysis
Which concept is the most meritorious?

 Provide a logical method for selecting an

alternative to develop
 Reference merit criteria – quantifiable
factors that promote discrimination between
FEASIBLE design alternatives.
 Should be presented in a form which will
facilitate the decision making process
 Substantiates & facilitates good decisions
Lots of decision making tools
 Principal-based decision making
 PMI (Plus/Minus/Implications)
 Probabilistic Risk Assessment & Risk- Based
 Pareto Analysis
 Cost/Benefit
 Grid Analysis
 Paired Comparison
 Decision trees
 Six Thinking Hats
 Force Field
 …
 The Decision Matrix – Pugh’s Method
Weight Alt #1 Alt #2 Alt #3
Merit Total Merit Total Merit Total
(%) Features Factor Merit Features Factor Merit Features Factor Merit
Functionality 40 7 7 280 9 9 360 8 8 320
Production cost 30 $1000/unit 6 180 $500/unit 8 240 $750/unit 7 210
Operating cost 15 $2.00/hr 6 90 $4.00/hr 2 30 $3.00/hr 4 60
System weight 10 60 lbs 6 60 70 lbs 2 20 50 lbs 10 100
Aesthetics 5 10 3 15 50 7 35 25 5 25
Total 100 625 685 715

Functionality Production Cost Operating Cost

12 12
12
10 10 10

Merit Factor
Merit Factor

Merit Factor
8 8 8
6 6 6
4 4 4
2
2 2
0
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1000 2000 3000 0 2 4 6

Functionality Cost (dollars) Cost (dollars)

System Weight Aesthetics Merit Com parison

12 740
12
10 720
10
Merit Factor
Merit Factor

700
8 8
680
6 6

Merit
660
4 4
640
2
2
620
0
0 600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 50 100 150
580
Weight (lbs) Aesthetics A lt # 1 A lt # 2 A lt # 3