05 Concept evaluation and Product architecture - Q-div-Engg-Exploration-2026-27-Odd/Repo-8 GitHub Wiki
PUGH CHART - CONCEPT EVALUATION.
| Design Objective | Weight | Design 1 | Design 2 | Design 3 (Datum) | Design 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | 9 | 0 | + | Datum | - |
| Cutting Efficiency | 8 | 0 | + | Datum | + |
| Ease of Use | 7 | - | + | Datum | 0 |
| Portability | 6 | - | 0 | Datum | + |
| Hygiene & Easy Cleaning | 8 | - | + | Datum | 0 |
| Cost | 6 | - | 0 | Datum | + |
| Score (+) | - | 0 | 32 | 0 | 20 |
| Score (-) | - | -27 | 0 | 0 | -9 |
| Total Weighted Score | - | -27 | 32 | 0 | 11 |
5.1 Justifications for score given
| Design No. | Objective | Score Allocated | Justification for the Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design 1 | Safety | 0 | Provides a controlled cutting arrangement, but safety is approximately comparable to the datum. |
| Cutting Efficiency | 0 | The cutting arrangement provides performance comparable to the datum design. | |
| Ease of Use | - | The mechanism is more complex and may require more user handling than the datum. | |
| Portability | - | The larger frame and mechanical arrangement make it comparatively difficult to move and store. | |
| Hygiene & Easy Cleaning | - | More enclosed and interconnected components make the food-contact areas harder to access for cleaning. | |
| Cost | - | The larger structure and additional mechanical components are expected to increase fabrication cost. | |
| Design 2 | Safety | + | Gravity feeding and the enclosed reciprocating cutting region reduce direct user contact with the blade. |
| Cutting Efficiency | + | The DC geared motor and crank-driven reciprocating blade provide controlled and consistent cutting. | |
| Ease of Use | + | Gravity feeding, IR fruit detection and automatic cutting reduce manual handling during operation. | |
| Portability | 0 | The overall frame and motor arrangement give portability approximately comparable to the datum. | |
| Hygiene & Easy Cleaning | + | The separate feed chute, cutting region and collection container provide better access for cleaning. | |
| Cost | 0 | Although additional sensing and crank components are used, the overall construction cost is expected to remain comparable to the datum. | |
| Design 3 (Datum) | Safety | 0 | Reference design used as the basis for comparison. |
| Cutting Efficiency | 0 | Reference design used as the basis for comparison. | |
| Ease of Use | 0 | Reference design used as the basis for comparison. | |
| Portability | 0 | Reference design used as the basis for comparison. | |
| Hygiene & Easy Cleaning | 0 | Reference design used as the basis for comparison. | |
| Cost | 0 | Reference design used as the basis for comparison. | |
| Design 4 | Safety | - | The loading and cutting arrangement may require greater user interaction near the cutting section than the datum. |
| Cutting Efficiency | + | Multiple feeding arrangements and the cutting chamber can support efficient processing of produce. | |
| Ease of Use | 0 | The loading and discharge arrangement provides approximately similar ease of operation to the datum. | |
| Portability | + | The relatively simple and compact frame arrangement makes the design easier to move. | |
| Hygiene & Easy Cleaning | 0 | The cutting chamber and trays provide cleaning accessibility broadly comparable to the datum. | |
| Cost | + | The simpler mechanism and reduced sensing/control requirements can lower the overall construction cost. |
5.2 Selected Design
Design 2 is selected as the final concept because it obtained the highest weighted score of +32. Compared with the datum (Design 3), Design 2 provides better safety, cutting efficiency, ease of operation, and ease of cleaning, while maintaining comparable portability and estimated cost.
5.3 Product Architecture
5.4 Function Clustering
5.5 Interaction betweeen subsystems
The selected concept (Design 2) is divided into three major subsystems:
- Feeding & Positioning System
- Cutting & Drive System
- Sensing, Control & Collection System
Subsystem Interaction Matrix
| Type of Interaction | Subsystem 1 ↔ Subsystem 2 | Subsystem 1 ↔ Subsystem 3 | Subsystem 2 ↔ Subsystem 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spatial | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Data | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Material | ✓ | ✓ |
Interaction Details
| Subsystems | Interaction Details |
|---|---|
| Subsystem 1 ↔ Subsystem 2 | The gravity-feed chute guides and positions the fruit directly into the cutting region. The fruit is physically transferred from the feeding system to the cutting system. |
| Subsystem 1 ↔ Subsystem 3 | The IR sensor detects the presence of fruit in the feeding chute and sends a signal to the control system to initiate the cutting operation. |
| Subsystem 2 ↔ Subsystem 3 | The control system activates the DC geared motor and crank mechanism to operate the cutting blade. After cutting, the fruit pieces fall into the collection container, where the ultrasonic sensor monitors the fill level. |
Overall System Interaction
Fruit Input → Gravity Feed & Positioning → IR Detection → Control Signal → DC Geared Motor & Crank → Cutting Blade → Cut Fruit → Collection Container → Ultrasonic Level Detection