Going Green in Ahwatukee's Workplace

frethot's roles in green energy and environmentally smart product development were mentioned in a recent Ahwatukee Newspaper:

http://www.frethot.com/files/ahwatukee.pdf

Validate Your Design Using Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

Introduction

So you have your product designed and it is ready to prototype. Does the design function properly? Will it survive under full load/usage? Is it overdesigned? Are the optimum materials being used? Are wall thicknesses appropriately sized? Can additional costs be squeezed out of the design? Can the number of parts be reduced? What are the margins of safety on the product?

There are a couple possible options available to the developer. The first could be to prototype the design as is, test the system and update the design based upon the results. Assuming that the perfect design was the initial one, this method makes sense. However in reality most initial designs are not the final produced design. Every iteration of a design that is prototyped can be expensive in terms of financial costs and development time. Not only can it be expensive but producing another design does not guarantee that the design will be improved.

Many times the preferred alternative is to use Finite Element Analysis (FEA) or the Finite Element Method (FEM) to optimize the design prior to prototyping or manufacturing the product. Several iterations of a design can be run without a single prototype being produced. If there are multiple possible design solutions, FEA can help select the preferred design. This in many ways is a method to virtually prototyping a design.

What is Finite Element Analysis? (1)

FEA consists of a computer model of a material or design that is stressed and analyzed for specific results. It is used in new product design, and existing product refinement. A company is able to verify a proposed design will be able to perform to the client's specifications prior to manufacturing or construction. Modifying an existing product or structure is utilized to qualify the product or structure for a new service condition. In case of structural failure, FEA may be used to help determine the design modifications to meet the new condition.

There are generally two types of analysis that are used in industry: 2-D modeling, and 3-D modeling. While 2-D modeling conserves simplicity and allows the analysis to be run on a relatively normal computer, it tends to yield less accurate results. 3-D modeling, however, produces more accurate results while sacrificing the ability to run on all but the fastest computers effectively. Within each of these modeling schemes, the programmer can insert numerous algorithms (functions) which may make the system behave linearly or non-linearly. Linear systems are far less complex and generally do not take into account plastic deformation. Non-linear systems do account for plastic deformation, and many also are capable of testing a material all the way to fracture.


How Does Finite Element Analysis Work? (1)

FEA uses a complex system of points called nodes which make a grid called a mesh. This mesh is programmed to contain the material and structural properties which define how the structure will react to certain loading conditions. Nodes are assigned at a certain density throughout the material depending on the anticipated stress levels of a particular area. Regions which will receive large amounts of stress usually have a higher node density than those which experience little or no stress. Points of interest may consist of: fracture point of previously tested material, fillets, corners, complex detail, and high stress areas. The mesh acts like a spider web in that from each node, there extends a mesh element to each of the adjacent nodes. This web of vectors is what carries the material properties to the object, creating many elements.

Why Should I Consider Validating My Design with FEA?

• Design Optimization: An engineer can minimize or maximize mass, volume, temperature, stress, strain, displacement, reaction loads, velocities, and accelerations. The FEM process also allows the engineer to minimize part counts, processing, and material costs (material selection assistance).


• Reduction of Development Time and Costs Associated: The number of prototypes fabricated and tested along with the labor involved can be significantly reduced using FEA.


• Design Comparison/Selection: If multiple strong candidates exist, FEA may show that one concept has advantages over another.


• Verify Design Function and Intent: Verify that the design functions and deforms under use as desired and intended.
  

What Are the Limitations of FEA?

• Method is approximate. Due to the fact that that the geometry is approximated by the mesh, the finer the mesh, the closer the results will be to the theoretical solution. However the finer the mesh, the longer the run time. There must be a balance struck between accuracy and minimizing run time. This can sometimes be accomplished starting with a coarse mesh, run the analysis, decreasing mesh size and rerun. Once the results stabilize and do not change significantly between analyses, the appropriate balance has been struck.


• FEA assumes a theoretically perfect model and environment. However in reality there are other considerations that may affect performance (Some advanced packages may handle these cases): crack propagation, material degradation due to environment (UV light, rain, snow, hail, wind, harsh chemicals, temperature cycles, etc), improper or unintended use


• FEA is an engineering tool. An engineering level insight into failure and material characteristics and engineering decisions is required based on the results. The results of even a properly constructed simulation are not always what they seem. Data reported by a finite element solution requires interpretation and this is a skill that goes beyond one’s ability to use the software. A user that denies or shirks responsibility for understanding the product, material, and/or software specific variability in any given scenario probably shouldn’t be using analysis. Simply learning the software isn’t enough.
  

This article was written in part by Jon S. Ash, MSE, a Sr. Mechanical Engineer with frethot llc, located in Phoenix, Arizona. For further information about the product design, mechanical design, engineering (including FEA and wind load development), and design for manufacturing services offered visit frethot's website at http://www.frethot.com/.

References
1. Introduction to Finite Element Analysis, Peter Widas, http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/num/widas/history.html, 4/8/97.

Bio-Inspired Wind Turbine

Frethot completed this conceptual design for Green Wavelength, a start-up company focused on bio-inspired alternative energy sources. This innovative wind-mill concept is based on the hovering patterns of birds and insects. This is the world’s first ever flapping wind mill to generate clean power from the wind. We’re still in the prototyping and optimization stages but please check back for updates for when this product will be available. All design work including product design, layout and logo was performed by frethot.

Honorable Mention- LG Design the Future Competition

Announcement

7/20/09

frethot Wins

Honorable Mention-

LG Design the Future Competition

Hey All,

Just wanted to announce that we received an Honorable Mention Award in the "LG Design the Future" cell phone competition. We won $1000 smackers and took 11th place. Not too far away from first:). We believe there were over 1000 entries for this competition.

Due to my NDA with LG I am unable to show the design online but can show it in my printed portfolio. If you'd like to check out my design send an email my way requesting a peek at the LG phone of the future. (info@frethot.com)

Thanks for you support,

Shawn J. Meine

info@frethot.com

602-228-2051

frethot

Keys to New Product Success Part 2

Part 2 of Previous Article...

While making any product or solution strategy, product managers should think along two dimensions to understand the premises of customer need, that is, Product evolution stage & degree of separation. Windermere Associates (San Francisco), Clayton Christensen (‘SEEING WHAT’S NEXT) and Geoffrey Moore (Crossing the Chasm) have brought this out with similar underlying logic. The contextual nature of customer need, based on underlying basic need & product lifecycle should be looked at, in an integrated fashion. This is like telling that you should take advantage of your day in the sun before next day renders you obsolete. The customer needs should be looked as “Windows of Opportunity” & rather shifting windows along life cycle stages.

Product Evolution Stages: Most products go through a life cycle that is quite similar. Briefly, new products go through following stages before getting commoditized & later obsolete.

Stage 1; Functional: Initial customer response would be “Is the product has all functions necessary to satisfy the basic need for which I have paid for?” For example, is mobile phone has necessary functions for user to speak & take calls, when he is mobile. During this stage, performance can be inferior, but the basic drivers for product success can be innovation, status/life style, niche application etc. This stage is largely driven by “technology push” & with almost no competition.

Stage 2; Performance Optimization & Reliability: As technology matures to satisfy basic functions & as both customers, competitors get some awareness about product, performance optimization, reliability & non-core functions would be major driving factor. For example, in mobile industry, how large is the coverage? Are highways/rail lines covered? Can I use it as a pager? Can I save address & phone nos.? How much battery life? How much reliable? etc.

Stage 3; Safety, Convenience & User experience: Windermere Associates (Christensen, 1997) find that when vendors have improved their product to the point that they satisfy functionality and reliability, the basis of competition shifts to convenience & user experience. Like how sleek is the cell phone? How large the buttons & display? Colors, user interface, friendliness etc. Customers become more demanding & competition intense. The product improvement becomes incremental & most new features added either to retain existing customer base & or make product viable for new users.

Stage 4; Customization, Personalization & further market segmentation: This is the phase where competition is maximum, technology is mature & all basic needs as above are satisfied. Now products & solutions shall start targeting asymmetries in the market based on over served & under served market segments (explained below) & new users. Well tuned products are offered for all homogeneous segments with specific needs. There are lots of small & medium players, along with leaders, each addressing various niche segments.

Stage 5; Commoditization: If further product differentiation is not possible, then product becomes commoditized & vendors compete on price. Firms stay competitive either by cost cutting or migrating to next generation of products with completely different value proposition.

Degree of Separation: Both Clayton Christensen and Geoffrey Moore argue that every customer cares about certain feature & performance irrespective of an early adopter or mainstream customer, utility or status buyer, customized or cost sensitive buyer. This particular function or set of functions are satisfying fundamental problem financially, productivity wise, convenience or emotionally & is the reason for which customer is buying. That is normally the basis of competition for that particular customer.

For example, for a naïve user of computers, friendly UI is critical whereas for a designer of a real time control system, speed is most critical & for a multimedia programmer, new & creative functions are important & so on. Some buyers may buy for status & then success of the product depends on the ability to satisfy the ego. No matter what customers’ value, based on the degree of separation between critical functions & ability of products to satisfy those set of critical functions, customers can be classified as

Underserved Customers: These customers demand more than vendor’s current offerings & this segment is the target for sustainable/incremental improvements. Vendors will be able to decide how next generation products should look like if they could correctly understand underlying demand dimension. This trajectory helps in moving the product features along its life cycle.

For example, PC manufacturers targeting high end multimedia market with 3D graphics, require faster & faster systems at an attractive value proposition. Typical PCs & servers, when not offering solution at an appropriate price, is ‘under serving’ the segment & is a case for sustainable innovation.

Over served Customers: According to Seeing What’s Next, companies continue to improve the products to a point where they eventually over serve the customers. Normally companies innovate faster than customers’ lives change. What people are looking to get done remains remarkably consistent, but products always improve. Eventually products become too good & customers stop paying further improvements in performance & is the driver behind commoditization. Normally vendors target combination of emotions, price, safety & environment impact, reliability etc in a complex proportion & try to define new value proposition. For a example, for a normal word processor user, using it to write letters & preparing some presentations, latest Microsoft word shall over serve, with not even using 20% of its full capability.

Non-consumers: People who lack the ability, wealth, feasibility ($) or access to solve some of their problems using offered product. Or they fail to associate emotionally with the product. This can be attractive segment to target by next generation of products & solutions. While deciding features for next releases for an ongoing product, this will be an attractive segment to maintain or improve revenue stream.

The Keys to New Product success (Part – 1)

Here's an interesting article I came across....

New product success rates are rare: The success rates of new products are less than 10% & consume significant portion of financial, management & technical resources of companies. Though definition of success is a relative term, there is no doubt that survival of many companies depends upon the success of their new products. There may be many reasons for failure like discontinuous macro-economic, industrial, technological, customer & competitive changes; there is consistency with few companies who routinely come on top with significantly higher success rates.

The 80:20 Rule applies here. More than 90% of overall successes comes from few handful of companies & large number of companies together contributes to less than 10% of new product success. The successful companies are approaching new product development differently from others. Strategic & technology choices based on customer’s current needs as well as future evolution of needs is an important factor for new product success.

Customer Need Identification – Traditional Approach: Traditionally companies depend upon the sales, distribution channels, customer support & current customers for data collection. The data & ratings are then aggregated, mapped & prioritized. During formal & informal interactions with end users, buyers, decision makers & beneficiaries, these teams make efforts to understand problems, see if some thing is inefficiently managed that existing offerings can improve, assess gaps in existing offerings etc. The data typically collected are through reactions from current customers & focused exclusively on current offerings.

Such VOC is inadequate & some times irrelevant: That brings us back the basic question, that is, what is the most important & fundamental driver for collection of VOC?

Let us ask few questions?

Does VOC helping the organization in prioritizing the technologies that have solid grounding in customer needs?
Does the data give necessary information about future product/technology strategy that requires long term prioritization decisions?
Does it help in predicting the customer need evolution over next 3-5 years with reasonable assumptions on technology trajectory?
Can we understand customer’s organizational & financial constraints with the data?
Have we understood what makes the customer win in his business? What functions & features help?

Traditional VOC is about current products, today’s problems, about gaps in current offerings. It fails to give insight into customer’s unarticulated needs. The products & solutions that are conceptualized based on problems/opportunities of today fails to address the same 2-3 years later when products actually makes it to market. Existing customers are good at telling what next generation features the current products should have. This will only sustain current offerings better with no significant revenue benefits.

Ultimately, what separates successful ones is the ability to see the underlying customer needs that competition could not see. Rules & success factors for tomorrow would be different than today. Challenge is to do VOC in a way to prodict what it would be tomorrow. In next couple of parts, I intend to write about VOC collection for technology companies that can help in making strategic choices for technology prioritization with solid grounding on customer needs Written by, N. Rao

The Top 10 Mistakes Inventors Make

Here's a great Top 10 List of Mistakes Inventors Make from Yanko Design.

• Do everything yourself
Leverage. Don’t try to do everything yourself. Do what you do best and rely on others to do what they do best. These days you can get access to resources around the world as easily as around the corner.
• Focus on patents
Don’t overly rely on patents. Patents only give you the right to sue, and rarely prevent others from selling a product that’s just like yours. Remember that patents can take a few years to issue, while many products will have come and gone in that time. Even if you have an issued patent, it can take millions to defend it, money better spent on your next product. A small company in the right can be put out of business by a large company with a big legal department.
• Worry about others stealing your invention
Don’t waste time worrying. Just because you tell someone about your idea doesn’t mean they will copy it. After all the idea is only 5% of the work. The best defense against competition is getting your product widely distributed before others can respond. When they come to market with a copy you’ll be far along on your next model.
• Hire one of those invention submission companies and let them do the work
They typically charge you thousands of dollars to present your product to industry. At the worst they’re a scam costing you many thousands of dollars, and at best they rarely can do the job you can do with a little guidance. You’ll usually do a better job because of the passion you have for the product. They’re not in business to sell your product to industry, only to sell their services to you. If you have a great idea you don’t need to pay someone to shop it around.
• Spend your money fine-tuning and perfecting your design
Too many inventors keep trying to perfect their product time after time before gaining market feedback and going out and finding a customer. There’s often a fear of hearing what others think about your baby. But, an early prototype is often good enough to gain valuable information. So save your money for marketing and selling; that usually costs a lot more than designing and engineering. While it might be painful, test your inventions early. Talk to the retailers who would be selling your product. Ask them how well it would sell. Ask them how much it should cost. Ask the tough questions even though you might not like the answers.
• If you build it they will come
Just because you have what you think is a great invention or spectacular design, it’s tough to get interest from others. Inventing the product is just the beginning and a small part of the overall effort. Expect and budget for a lot more activities after the product is developed.
• Price your product as low as possible
Many inventors don’t understand the impact that the channels of distributions have in determining the product’s price. There are often 3 or 4 levels between what you pay to make the product and what the customer is asked to pay. Existing business models establish the channels and margins, so don’t expect you can change them because your product is so special. Just remember the retail price is often 3 to 5 times your cost. So an item costing $20 could retail for $100. A corollary is your product needs to provide value and be competitive based on the actual selling price, not based on your cost.
• Don’t speak with large companies to take on your productl they’ll steal your ideas
Rarely can a tiny company with a single product match their influence with distributors and retailers. Few large companies will sign NDAs so don’t expect it. Proceed cautiously, but do proceed. They often are your best opportunity for success.
• Once your product gets into the big chains your success is assured
Getting your product into large retailers rarely guarantees success. They’ll return your product if it doesn’t sell, they’ll pay late, and they may require you to spend thousands of dollars to help them sell it. And don’t think these stores will want to carry the products that are best for their customers; they’ll carry the product that makes them the most money.
• Believe your own hype
It’s easy to get excited by your own product and become immersed in the great publicity and reviews. But that’s a mistake. Think like your competitors and don’t become complacent.