This paper compares the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) and Axiomatic Design (AD). Both AD and TRIZ are briefly reviewed and their possible . Abstract: Axiomatic design (AD) and theory of inventive problem solving of the differences and similarities between AD and TRIZ. 2 Review of AD and TRIZ. reviewing the use of axiomatic design (AD) within a TRIZ framework and making based on application similarities and differences found in the literature.

Author: Naran Mikagami
Country: Sri Lanka
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 6 April 2009
Pages: 145
PDF File Size: 2.98 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.71 Mb
ISBN: 568-2-38136-173-1
Downloads: 57124
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mazuru

It is self-evident that symmetrical parts are easier to manufacture and easier to orient in assembly. This approach also provides a consistent framework from which the metrics of design alternatives can be quantified.

On the other hand, if the tolerance is too large, then the error in assembly may accumulate such that FR cannot be satisfied. During the mapping process, one should not violate the independence axiom described above. The knowledge base tools are different from analytical tools in that axiomztic suggest the ways for transforming the system in the process of problem solving while analytical tools help change the problem statement [7].

The PVs specify the manufacturing methods that produce the DPs.

Line Mo-Bi-Poly reflects that Mono-function products evolve into bi-function or poly-function products through integration of physical embodiments. Corollary 7 Uncoupled Design with less Information Seek an uncoupled design that requires less information than coupled designs in satisfying a set of FRs.

A Comparison of Triz and Axiomatic Design – Semantic Scholar

A physical contradiction might be solved by separation principles. Seek an uncoupled design that requires less information than coupled designs in satisfying a set of FRs. But where this idea could be found? The two axioms can be stated as follows: This corollary is a comparsion of Axiom 1 and 2.

Since it becomes increasingly difficult to manufacture a product as the tolerance is reduced, more information is required to produce parts with tight tolerances. Support us If you like the TRIZ Journal, please help us by donating towards domain space, admin and technical support. A substance may be a article or tool and the field may be some form of energy.


There are two types of contradictions: Corollary 4 Use of Standardization Use standardization or interchangeable parts if the use of these parts is consistent with FRs and constraints. This means that two or more dependent FRs should be replaced by one equivalent FR. Corollary 6 Largest Tolerance Specify the largest allowable tolerance in stating functional requirements. Submit an Article Contact us.

Invention Machine Lab 2. Thus, the conclusion was that an idea of a design solution to new problem might be already known. This Standard Solution states: At each layer of the hierarchy, two axioms are used to assess design solutions.

Decisions made during the each step of design process will profoundly affect product quality and manufacturing productivity. It states that a good design maintains the independence of the functional requirements.

A Comparison of Triz and Axiomatic Design

TRIZ analytical tools, which include ARIZ, substance field analysis, contradiction analysis and required function analysis, are used for problem modeling, analysis and transformation. Hierarchical desigj in one domain cannot be performed independently of the other domains, i.

These patterns indicate that there tgiz basic laws for engineering system development, and understanding them enhances ones ability to the design problem solving. Thus z is not obvious how or where to apply TRIZ knowledge base tools to aid the problem solving. To aid design decision making, Axiomatic Design theory has been developed in the last decade.

It states there is always an uncoupled ccomparison that involves less information than a coupled design. Very early in his research, Altshuller recognized that given a difficult problem, the ideality and ease of implementation of a particular solution could be substantially increased by utilizing various physical, chemical and geometric effects, thus a large vast of database has been developed.

To satisfy the Independence Axiom, matrix [A] and [B] must be either diagonal or triangular. Corollary 2 states comparisn as the number of functional requirements and constraints increases, the system become more complex and thus the information content is increased. Studies of patent collections by Altshuller, the founder of TRIZ, indicated that only one per cent of solutions was truly pioneering inventions, the rest represented the use of previously known idea or concept but in a novel way [2].

A given set of FRs must be successfully mapped to a set of DPs in the physical domain prior to the decomposition of the FRs. The mapping between the customer and functional domains is defined as concept design; the mapping between functional and physical domains is product design; the mapping between the physical and process domains corresponds to process design. IFR helps an engineer to focus on concepts that minimize requirements in substance, energy and complexity of engineering product and process.


Consequently, a comprison design solution must be sought. In general, any properly functioning system anc be modeled with a complete triangle as shown in figure 5. Corollary 2 Minimization of FRs Minimize the number of functional requirements and constraints.

In this case, enhancing Su-field model axikmatic required to improve the system functions. The needs of the customer are identified in customer domain and are stated in the form of required functionality of a product in functional domain. A technical contradiction might be comparidon by using contradiction table that identifies 39 characteristics most frequently involved in design process.

Furthermore, Su-field analysis and dseign function analysis may not be applied directly in some situations. Figure 3 is a graphic interpretation of the general mapping process between functional and physical domains, and between physical and process domains.

Decouple or separate parts or aspects of a solution if FRs are coupled or become interdependent in the proposed design. No Patterns, principles or tools correspond to this corollary.

Figure 6 is the structure of ARIZ [5]. The standard solution is a recommendation as to what kind of system transformation should be made to eliminate the deslgn. This corollary is a consequence of both Axiom 1 and Axiom 2. Any problem solving process involves two comparoson Thus, the design axioms are used to determine acceptable design solution. Figure 4 illustrates the basic structure of TRIZ. The probability of success is the function of both the design range that the designer is trying to satisfy, and the capability of the proposed solution, which is called the system range.