ESCUELA TÉCNICA SUPERIOR DE INGENIERÍA/ICAI

GRADO EN INGENIERÍA ELECTROMECÁNICA

ESPECIALIDAD MECÁNICA

PROYECTO FIN DE GRADO

Study of a highly integrated approach

for lightweight climbing carabiner design by
multi-objective material selection and CAE tools
AUTOR: PABLO BARRIGA RUIZ

DIRECTOR: F AB R I Z I O D’ E R R I C O

MILÁN, Agosto de 2015

AUTORIZACIÓN PARA LA DIGITALIZACIÓN, DEPÓSITO Y
DIVULGACIÓN EN ACCESO ABIERTO (RESTRINGIDO) DE
DOCUMENTACIÓN

1º. Declaración de la autoría y acreditación de la misma.

El autor D. PABLO BARRIGA RUIZ, como ALUMNO de la UNIVERSIDAD PONTIFICIA

COMILLAS (COMILLAS), DECLARA

que es el titular de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, objeto de la presente cesión, en relación
con la obra Proyecto Fin de Grado: “Study of a highly integrated approach for lightweight
climbing carabiner design by multi-objective material selection and CAE tools”1, que ésta es una
obra original, y que ostenta la condición de autor en el sentido que otorga la Ley de Propiedad
Intelectual como titular único o cotitular de la obra.

En caso de ser cotitular, el autor (firmante) declara asimismo que cuenta con el consentimiento
de los restantes titulares para hacer la presente cesión. En caso de previa cesión a terceros de
derechos de explotación de la obra, el autor declara que tiene la oportuna autorización de dichos
titulares de derechos a los fines de esta cesión o bien que retiene la facultad de ceder estos
derechos en la forma prevista en la presente cesión y así lo acredita.

2º. Objeto y fines de la cesión.

Con el fin de dar la máxima difusión a la obra citada a través del Repositorio institucional de la
Universidad y hacer posible su utilización de forma libre y gratuita ( con las limitaciones que
más adelante se detallan) por todos los usuarios del repositorio y del portal e-ciencia, el autor
CEDE a la Universidad Pontificia Comillas de forma gratuita y no exclusiva, por el máximo plazo
legal y con ámbito universal, los derechos de digitalización, de archivo, de reproducción, de
distribución, de comunicación pública, incluido el derecho de puesta a disposición electrónica, tal
y como se describen en la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual. El derecho de transformación se cede a
los únicos efectos de lo dispuesto en la letra (a) del apartado siguiente.

1
Especificar si es una tesis doctoral, proyecto fin de carrera, proyecto fin de Máster o cualquier otro trabajo
que deba ser objeto de evaluación académica
3º. Condiciones de la cesión.

Sin perjuicio de la titularidad de la obra, que sigue correspondiendo a su autor, la cesión de

derechos contemplada en esta licencia, el repositorio institucional podrá:

(a) Transformarla para adaptarla a cualquier tecnología susceptible de incorporarla a internet;

realizar adaptaciones para hacer posible la utilización de la obra en formatos electrónicos, así
como incorporar metadatos para realizar el registro de la obra e incorporar “marcas de agua” o
cualquier otro sistema de seguridad o de protección.

(b) Reproducirla en un soporte digital para su incorporación a una base de datos electrónica,
incluyendo el derecho de reproducir y almacenar la obra en servidores, a los efectos de garantizar
su seguridad, conservación y preservar el formato. .

(c) Comunicarla y ponerla a disposición del público a través de un archivo abierto institucional,
accesible de modo libre y gratuito a través de internet.2

(d) Distribuir copias electrónicas de la obra a los usuarios en un soporte digital. 3

4º. Derechos del autor.

El autor, en tanto que titular de una obra que cede con carácter no exclusivo a la Universidad por
medio de su registro en el Repositorio Institucional tiene derecho a:

a) A que la Universidad identifique claramente su nombre como el autor o propietario de los

derechos del documento.

b) Comunicar y dar publicidad a la obra en la versión que ceda y en otras posteriores a través de
cualquier medio.

c) Solicitar la retirada de la obra del repositorio por causa justificada. A tal fin deberá ponerse en
contacto con el vicerrector/a de investigación (curiarte@rec.upcomillas.es).

d) Autorizar expresamente a COMILLAS para, en su caso, realizar los trámites necesarios para
la obtención del ISBN.

2
En el supuesto de que el autor opte por el acceso restringido, este apartado quedaría redactado en los
siguientes términos:
(c) Comunicarla y ponerla a disposición del público a través de un archivo institucional, accesible de modo
restringido, en los términos previstos en el Reglamento del Repositorio Institucional
3
En el supuesto de que el autor opte por el acceso restringido, este apartado quedaría eliminado.
d) Recibir notificación fehaciente de cualquier reclamación que puedan formular terceras
personas en relación con la obra y, en particular, de reclamaciones relativas a los derechos de
propiedad intelectual sobre ella.

5º. Deberes del autor.

El autor se compromete a:

a) Garantizar que el compromiso que adquiere mediante el presente escrito no infringe ningún
derecho de terceros, ya sean de propiedad industrial, intelectual o cualquier otro.

b) Garantizar que el contenido de las obras no atenta contra los derechos al honor, a la intimidad
y a la imagen de terceros.

c) Asumir toda reclamación o responsabilidad, incluyendo las indemnizaciones por daños, que
pudieran ejercitarse contra la Universidad por terceros que vieran infringidos sus derechos e
intereses a causa de la cesión.

d) Asumir la responsabilidad en el caso de que las instituciones fueran condenadas por infracción
de derechos derivada de las obras objeto de la cesión.

6º. Fines y funcionamiento del Repositorio Institucional.

La obra se pondrá a disposición de los usuarios para que hagan de ella un uso justo y respetuoso
con los derechos del autor, según lo permitido por la legislación aplicable, y con fines de estudio,
investigación, o cualquier otro fin lícito. Con dicha finalidad, la Universidad asume los siguientes
deberes y se reserva las siguientes facultades:

a) Deberes del repositorio Institucional:

- La Universidad informará a los usuarios del archivo sobre los usos permitidos, y no garantiza ni
asume responsabilidad alguna por otras formas en que los usuarios hagan un uso posterior de las
obras no conforme con la legislación vigente. El uso posterior, más allá de la copia privada,
requerirá que se cite la fuente y se reconozca la autoría, que no se obtenga beneficio comercial, y
que no se realicen obras derivadas.

- La Universidad no revisará el contenido de las obras, que en todo caso permanecerá bajo la
responsabilidad exclusiva del autor y no estará obligada a ejercitar acciones legales en nombre
del autor en el supuesto de infracciones a derechos de propiedad intelectual derivados del depósito
y archivo de las obras. El autor renuncia a cualquier reclamación frente a la Universidad por las
formas no ajustadas a la legislación vigente en que los usuarios hagan uso de las obras.

- La Universidad adoptará las medidas necesarias para la preservación de la obra en un futuro.

b) Derechos que se reserva el Repositorio institucional respecto de las obras en él registradas:

- retirar la obra, previa notificación al autor, en supuestos suficientemente justificados, o en caso

de reclamaciones de terceros.

Milan, a 27 de Julio de 2015

ACEPTA

Fdo: Pablo Barriga Ruiz

 Proyecto realizado por el alumno/a:

PABLO BARRIGA RUIZ

Fdo.: Fecha: 26 / 07 / 2015

Autorizada la entrega del proyecto cuya información no es de carácter confidencial

EL DIRECTOR DEL PROYECTO

FABRIZIO D’ERRICO

Fdo.: Fecha: ……/ ……/ ……

Vº Bº del Coordinador de Proyectos

JESÚS RAMON JIMÉNEZ OCTAVIO

Fdo.: Fecha: ……/ ……/ ……

RESUMENES
Study of a highly integrated approach for lightweight
climbing carabiner design by multi-objective material
selection and CAE tools

Author: Barriga Ruiz, Pablo

Director: D’Errico, Fabrizio

PROJECT SUMMARY

In rock climbing and mountaineering there is a strong focus on reducing the weight of all the
equipment. By reducing the weight of equipment, a climber will expend less energy working
against gravity and thus be able to climb further and faster. The mechanical piece of this work is
a climbing carabiner. In a simplified way consists in a metallic ring with an openable side: his
task is to connect/combine two different objects in an easy, fast and reversible way. In other
words, we can define a carabiner as a loop-shaped mechanism equipped with a spring-loaded
opening latch or gate that is vital to climbers for connecting climbing ropes to harnesses and other
safety gear. Mountain climbers essentially use them to protect themselves from injury or death in
the event of a fall. In the event of a fall, the rope will catch the climber as it becomes taught and
pulls against the anchor. It is important for climbers to know when a carabiner should be retired
in order to avoid failure, which can lead to serious injury, or, in some cases, death.

This project explores the different materials that can be used for a climbing carabiner, selecting
the one which supplies better all the customer’s requirements, and therefore is the most suitable
for this application, by a total selection material approach that combines the actual material
selection strategies. At the same time, we will not only select the most suitable material four or
case of study, we will also determine which is the optimal form (shape and section) that respects
the operating conditions and bears the loads established by international official regulations by a
topology optimization.

In the first chapter, we see that in material selection strategies exist two main possible approaches:
the explicit and the implicit methods.
The explicit or quantifying methods , that point out optimization functions using mathematical
relationships, graphs and curves, are precise, effective and based on a verifiable relationship,
which, when the objectives and constraints are clear and agreed on, are not at the discretion of
any single individual. However, they are in reality restrained to a limited decision-making “space”
(only two main objectives).
The implicit or non-quantifying method, that are based on making correlations between what is
required, is expected and what it is necessary to put into a product in order to satisfy such requests
by doing it better than the competitors, are suitable for analyzing multiple conflicting aspects
without any restraint in their number.
Non-quantifying methods do not do all these things, but complementarily they are suitable for
analyzing multiple conflicting aspects without any restraint in their number. Actually, the QFD
matrix based method can break the problem of optimization into small pieces, comparing and
assessing solutions that have already been developed and then re-assembling them all into a final
simple number, the Total Weighted Score, but QFD is just a tool, sometimes a software tool that
is easy-to-use, but it does not do the job for you.

At this point, in order to take into account both methods, we stablish the QFD4mat total approach.
It combine the elements of both methods to arrive to an optimal solution that verifies the implicit
and explicit conditions in order to maximize and make the most of the advantages of each
approach, and at the same time mitigate their respective drawbacks.
Subsequently, we applied this total explicit-implicit approach to our case of study: a climbing
carabiner, after previously analyze the main features and functionalities of the object and the
various component parts, in order to establish the costumers’ requirements and the main key
factors to take into account in the selection material strategy. From comparing all of the product
requirements, material properties, and performance categories stabilized in base of the costumers’
opinion, we obtain that the Aluminum 7075-T6 is the material that is best suited to supply all the
described necessities.
Nevertheless, this procedure has some limits that impoverish this approach and make it less
reliable, because it did not take into account the object geometry, and it generalize with the simple
geometry stabilized in the Ashby Indexes.

In order to modify and correct this “error”, in the next sections we stablish the optimal form
(structure, shape and section) of the climbing carabiner by a topology optimization. Then, with
the final optimized design, we analyze the tree candidate materials by a fem analyze in order to
determine new parameters, such as weight, maximum Von Mises stress or maximum deformation
when we apply the standard loads stabilized by regulation. But previously, in the second chapter
we explain the bases of the topology optimization and how to apply in our case of the climbing
carabiner, taking into account of the existing standard types and the possible influence of the
manufacturing process.

In fact, throughout the successive chapter we first develop the basis of a Multi-disciplinary Design
Optimization (MDO) with the two main resolution methods: the Gradient-based methods and the
Non-gradient-based methods.
The Constrained Minimum or gradient methods, unique to the MDO community derive from the
combination of optimality criteria with math programming: is the combination of the derived
recursive formulas based on the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) necessary conditions for an
optimal design and the classical gradient-based methods to structural optimization problems.
Whereas the Unconstrained Minimum or non-gradient-based methods, evaluate the global
properties: it is a random search improved by adding some logic procedures as the example of the
DOE search with limits on movements ( it is known as a structured random search). The
gradient methods require the existence of continuous first derivatives of the objective function
and possibly higher derivatives (if further approximations are needed), but requires a much
smaller number of design cycles to converge to an optimum compared to the non-gradient based
methods that have a high computational cost. However, the convergence is only guaranteed to a
local minimum: there are no other subsequent convergent points. While in the non-gradient based
methods, to obtain the optimum point we only evaluate the objective function: the Gradient and
Hessian of the objective function are not needed. This method, we may be able to find global
minimum, BUT it requires a large number of design cycles.

Then we explain the main aspects of the topology optimization, with the possible manufacturing
constraints. The topology optimization is based on an automated algorithm that determines the
optimal distribution of the material in the given space of the project (in which the real structure
to be designed must be contained), loads and boundary conditions: it assigns a “quality or
importance factor” to each element and varies it during the optimization. Note that in reality the
objective function is not no minimize the quantity of material but minimize the compliance of a
structure to increase the structural stiffness. The compliance is defined has the elasticity of the
material. The condition of minimizing the mass is only a constraint. So actually, the topology
optimization is based on maximizing the stiffness ( minimize the compliance) with the
constrain of minimum used mass: the objective function is defined as the sum of the values of
'compliance' associated with the considered static load conditions. In other words, it can be also
considered as determine the minimum quantity of material that maximize the stiffness and bear
the applied loads. It is a powerful tool but in some cases, proposals from a topology optimization,
although optimal, may be expensive or infeasible to manufacture. These challenges can be
overcome using manufacturing constraints in the topology problem formulation, which yields
engineering designs that would satisfy practical manufacturing requirements.

Subsequently we develop the different standard types of carabiners followed by the loads and
constraints, stablished by official regulations, which need to bear and respect by each carabiner.
In fact, each type of carabiner has its specific application and can bear more or less quantity of
load in function of his shape and section. The most recommended have been the type B and D
carabiners because they direction the rope to the ends: this distribute the loads through the
carabiner’s spine which is the more resistant part and we evite problems related to failure before
arriving to the maximum loads that could happen in type H carabiners. This has allowed us to
stablish a preliminary idea of the possible workspace to optimize by topology because we have
seen the operating limits (strength, minimum opening) and the main trends in the carabiners’
geometry. We explain in detail the workspace selected to optimize in the third chapter.

Finally, we do an approach to the manufacturing processes that need to be done to obtain a

climbing carabiner with particular attention to the heat treatment processes for any material
chosen and in the anodizing in the case of making a climbing carabiner in aluminum. We have
focused on this aspects because the climbing carabiner will be expose to extreme operational
condition, so it need to be well treated in order to support all of the different adversities. From the
manufacturing approach, no special conditions should be taken into account during the topology
optimization because the carabiner manufacturing process does not include the phases of
extrusion and casting. This observation will be very important when we make the topology
optimization in our case of study for obtain the optimized CAD model that will allow us to
confront the three candidate materials in the fourth chapter.

After in the first part of the third chapter we make a preliminary finite element method (FEM)
analyze, in a carabiner CAD model obtained in base of a commercial standard model, to verify
the affirmations that we have made in the previously chapters in relation to the important failure
methods and parameters to consider during the material selection. In fact the objective of this first
analyze before doing the topology optimization, is to verify if the Ashby indexes, that we have
selected for the first QFD4Math, were appropriated.
The obtained results have confirmed the preliminary suppositions that we have done in the first
QFD4Mat: the climbing carabiner will essentially work with traction forces and it would have a
behavior during operational conditions similar as a sub-loaded ties subjected to tensile strut. At
the same time, as we expected, the spine zone is the most loaded part. This confirm us that our
suppositions are correct. It is important to say again that as we said in the last part of the first
chapter, by using these indexes for a generic object (different from the ones that are used in the
index) we are doing an approximation to the real situation. So they are useful for make a
preliminary analyze but not for further studies were precision is required.

Subsequently we perform the topology optimization for our climbing carabiner. The considered
workspace for the topology has been established in function of the requirements that we are
looking for. To this large workspace, we apply the necessary restrictions to reach the best possible
result taking in to account the loads that need to bear the carabiner. At the same time, during all
the process we evaluate the influence of different factors such as the form of the selected
workspace or the value of the applied forces or simply the variation of the topology parameters
such as the target mass.
In general, we see that, despite the modifications of the factors and parameters, the main parts as
the spine or the contact zones with the gate are maintained. So this zones have been considered
has the most important to supply the requirements when we perform our 3D CAD model. In each
topology, the global optimal configuration will depend on the chosen parameters but the parts that
should be maintained as the spine will not be modified and will be graduate with the highest
density (= 1). Note that if we analyze the influence of varying the value of the applied load, we
do not observe significant changes: we can assume that varying the value of the applied load, we
do not modify the results from the topology optimization. However, if we change the application
load point, the topology changes: this result is logical because we are changing the operational
conditions and the material distribution obviously is not going to be the same.
The final objective has been to obtain an optimized CAD model from the optimization resulting
form. From the different topology analyzes, it results that the optimized carabiner model should
have a similar shape to the obtained in the reference case with mas target 0.1, and variable section
with bigger sections at the ends as we have obtain from the reference configuration with mas
target 0.4. Taking as reference the obtained results from those two cases, we develop an optimized
climbing carabineer model. However, instead of making the carabiner with the variable section
that we have described, we decide to consider a configuration with constant I-beam section, due
to the fact that the real carabiner sections are usually constant, and as we have said in the second
chapter the I-beam section is actually considered the most efficient section.

After, we perform a second FEM to the obtained optimized model applying the three different
candidate materials. In each case, we obtain the values of weight mass, maximum deformation
and maximum Von Mises stress, in order to introduce them as new key-factors in the modified
QFD4Math in the next chapter. Is important to note, that with the obtained FEM results in both
analyzes, the climbing carabiner should be broken in the cases of aluminum and steel because
their ultimate tensile strengths are inferior to the obtained Von Mises stresses when we applied
the considered loads. These results suggests that the FEA analysis is overestimating the stress in
the carabiner may be due to the fact that we have forced the system to be static imposing the
condition of fixed point for the middle section. Once configured correctly this analysis could be
used to correctly make a FEM analyze and to correctly optimize the carabiner proposed design.
However, this is beyond the scope of this report.
Finally, in the last chapter we firstly modify the preliminary QDF4Math matrix that we have
obtain from the first chapter, and we perform the final analyze. As we have previously explain,
the modification have been made to correct the possible errors that introduce the addition of the
Ashby Indexes in QFD4Mat the by the Global Performance index. In fact, by using the Ashby
indexes in the matrix, we are simplifying all the functional aspects that are base in the object
geometry: we have never considered the real geometry of the object.
To correct those potential problems, we remove the Ashby indexes parameters that do not
consider the geometry, and other parameters that do not play an important role ( they have low
values of the relative importance). In parallel we introduce the values of the weight mass, the
maximum deformation and the safety factor obtained from the second FEM analyze for the
optimized carabiner shape for each candidate material: they have represented our new matrix key-
factors.
Then we analyze the result of the modified QFD4Math matrix and we obtain similar result to the
first analyze: the Aluminum 7075-T6 is the material that is best suited from comparing all of the
product requirements, material properties, and performance categories stabilized in base of the
costumers’ opinion.

Subsequently we expose the new QFD4Math online software, detailing step by step the various
stages of the projects using as example our case study of the climbing carabiner. In fact, we make
the same analyze but using the online QFD4Math software and we find more or less the same
results as the QFD4Math Excel analyze, being the Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 the material most
suitable to use for a climbing carabiner as is supplies all the costumer’s requirements.

In fine, in the last section of this project, we perform a brief economical approach to the
production of a climbing carabiner. We suppose to make a production of 20000 standard
carabiners with their C-shape part constituted by a bent bar with a double T section. In parallel,
we consider a wire-gate locking system in AISI 316 stainless steel and the Aluminum alloy 7075-
T6 (Ergal) as the material for the “C” body because has been the obtained optimal material result
from the preliminary analyzes.
We have obtained a final price of 2.3015 €, which is quite reasonable. Usually the considered
carabiner model has a market price of about 7-10 €. In that case, we have a potential benefit of 5
– 8 € for each carabiner, value which is quite adequate. So the described procedure has been made
with a good approach to the real possible values of manufacturing costs.
Estudio del diseño de un mosquetón ligero para escalada
mediante la selección de materiales multi-objetivo, el uso
de herramientas CAD, programas de análisis por elementos
finitos y optimización

Autor: Barriga Ruiz, Pablo

Director: D'Errico, Fabrizio

RESUMEN DEL PROYECTO:

En escalada, montañismo y alpinismo actualmente todas las mejoras se han centrado en reducir
el peso de todo el equipo y material necesario para practicar sendas actividades. Como es lógico,
reduciendo el peso del material, el escalador necesita menos energía al ejercer menos trabajo
contra la gravedad, pudiendo por lo tanto subir a una cota más alta de forma más rápida y
eficaz. El elemento mecánico analizado en este proyecto es un mosquetón de escalada. De manera
simplificada, consiste en un anillo metálico con una apertura lateral: su función es conectar dos
objetos diferentes de forma fácil, rápida y reversible. En otras palabras, podemos definir un
mosquetón de seguridad como un mecanismo en forma de lazo, equipado con un pestillo con
resorte de apertura o un gatillo, que es vital para escaladores para conectar todos los elementos
del equipo entre si y conectarse a él mismo a la cuerda mediante el arneses y otros equipos de
seguridad. Los escaladores lo usan esencialmente para protegerse de lesiones o muerte en caso de
caída. En caso de una caída la cuerda se tensionará evitando la completa caída de este,
tensionando al mismo tiempo el anclaje de la pared el cual está compuesto por mosquetones de
seguridad. Hay que tener en cuenta cuando es adecuado retirar un mosquetón para evitar posibles
roturas, que puedan a su vez conducir a lesiones graves, o, en algunos casos, la muerte.

En este proyecto se analizan los diferentes materiales que pueden utilizarse para fabricar un
mosquetón de escalada, seleccionando aquel que mejor cumple todos los requerimientos del
cliente y que por lo tanto es el más adecuado para esta aplicación, mediante un procedimiento de
selección materiales global que combina las diferentes estrategias de selección de material
existentes actualmente. Al mismo tiempo, no seleccionamos simplemente el material más
adecuado para nuestro caso de estudio, sino que también mediante una “topology optimization”
(optimización topológica) determinaremos cuál es la forma de mosquetón óptima (forma y tipo
de sección) que respeta las condiciones de funcionamiento y soporta las cargas establecidas por
la normativa internacional.
En el primer capítulo, se ven y explican las dos posibles estrategias de selección de materiales
que existen y se emplean en la actualidad: los métodos implícitos y los métodos explícitos.
Por una parte los métodos de cuantificación o explícitos, que establecen las funciones de
optimización utilizando curvas, gráficos y relaciones matemáticas, son precisos, eficaces y están
basados en relaciones verificables. Sin embargo, están restringidos a una toma de decisiones con
“espacio” de decisión limitado (únicamente se pueden considerar dos objetivos principales para
maximizas y/o minimizar).
Por otra parte los métodos implícitos o no cuantificables, que se basan en establecer correlaciones
entre lo que se requiere, se espera y lo que es necesario considerar en un producto para satisfacer
los requisitos de los clientes, son adecuados para el análisis con múltiples objetivos que entren en
conflicto entre si ya que no tienen ninguna restricción sobre el número de objetivos a tener en
cuenta a la hora de maximiza y/o minimizar.
Actualmente, el método implícito QFD basado en la matriz de relaciones entre requisitos de los
consumidores (product requirements) y parámetros descriptivos (key-factors) puede dividir el
problema de selección del material en trozos pequeños, comparando y evaluando soluciones que
ya se han desarrollado para esos problemas más simples. Combinando posteriormente todos los
resultados, se obtiene un único parámetro de comparación “the Total Weighted Score”. Sin
embargo la matriz de relaciones QFD es simplemente una herramienta de software fácil de
utilizar, pero que en ningún momento va hacer el trabajo de forma automática y requiere

En este punto, para tener en cuenta ambos métodos, establecemos un enfoque total de selección
de materiales: el QFD4Mat el cual combina los elementos de ambas estrategias para llegar a una
solución óptima. La combinación se hace de tal modo que se verifiquen tanto las condiciones
implícitas como las condiciones explícitas con el fin de maximizar y aprovechar al máximo las
ventajas de cada enfoque y al mismo tiempo mitigar sus respectivos inconvenientes. El método
está basado principalmente en el análisis de gráficos (Bubble Maps y el Value Curves – Grafico
de “burbujas” y las “curvas de valor”) obtenidos en base a una matriz de relaciones entre los
product requirements y los key-factors.
Posteriormente, aplicamos este enfoque combinado explícito-implícito total a nuestro caso de
estudio: un mosquetón de escalada, tras previamente analizar las principales características y
funcionalidades y los diversos componentes de los mosquetones, con el fin de establecer
requisitos de los clientes y los principales factores clave a tener en cuenta en la estrategia de
selección material. Partimos inicialmente con tres materiales candidatos para ser utilizados como
materiales para el mosquetón. Comparando todos los requisitos del producto, propiedades de los
materiales y las categorías de requerimientos establecidas en base a la opinión de los clientes,
mediante el método QFD4Math total, obtenemos que el Aluminio 7075-T6 es el material que
mejor se adapta a suministrar todas las necesidades descritas.
Sin embargo, este procedimiento tiene algunos límites que lo empobrecen y lo convierten en poco
fiable, ya que en ningún momento se tiene en cuenta la geometría del objeto sobre el cual estamos
llevando a cabo el proceso de selección. Simplemente se generaliza la geometría y se asume que
tiene un comportamiento tensional similar a alguna de las geometrías utilizadas en el método
Ashby a la hora de calcular los coeficientes de dependencia.

Con el fin de modificar y corregir este "error", en las siguientes secciones se determina la forma
óptima (estructura, forma y sección) del mosquetón de escalada mediante una “topology
optimization”. Luego, con el diseño final optimizado, analizamos los tres materiales candidatos
mediante un análisis FEM para determinar nuevos parámetros, tales como peso, tensión máxima
de Von Mises o deformación máxima cuando aplicamos las cargas estándar establecidas por el
reglamento, que nos permitan sustituir los índices Ashby de la matriz de relaciones y aquellos
parámetros con poco peso relativo de modo a ser más coherentes con la aplicación del
proceso. Previamente, en el segundo capítulo explicamos las bases de la topology optimization y
cómo aplicarla en el caso del mosquetón de escalada, teniendo en cuenta los tipos de mosquetón
estándar actuales y la posible influencia del proceso de fabricación.

Como acabamos de decir, a lo largo del capítulo segundo explicamos las bases de la optimización
de diseño multidisciplinario (MDO) y los dos métodos principales existentes resolución: los
métodos basados en el gradiente y los métodos no basados en el gradiente.
Los métodos de gradiente, derivan de la combinación de criterios de optimalidad con
programación matemática: es la combinación de las fórmulas recursivas basadas en las
condiciones de Karush – Kuhn – Tucker (KKT) para un diseño óptimo y los métodos clásicos
basados en gradiente para problemas de optimización estructural. Mientras que los métodos no
basados en el gradiente, evalúan las propiedades globales: es una búsqueda al azar mejorada
mediante la adición de límites de movimientos ( se trata una búsqueda aleatoria
estructurada). Los métodos de gradiente requieren la existencia de derivadas primeras continuas
de la función objetivo y posiblemente de más derivadas (en el caso de necesitar más
aproximaciones), pero requieren de un menor número de ciclos de diseño para que el resultado
converja con un grado óptimo en comparación con los métodos que no están basados en el
gradiente, los cuales tienen un alto costo computacional. Sin embargo, la convergencia está
garantizada solamente a un mínimo local: no hay otros puntos convergentes posteriores. Mientras
que en los métodos no basados en el gradiente, para obtener el punto óptimo solamente se evalúa
la función objetivo: el Hessiano y el Gradiente de la función objetivo no son necesarios a
diferencia del otro caso. Mediante este método, podemos ser capaces de encontrar el mínimo
global, pero tenemos un mayor costo computacional al ser necesarios un gran número de ciclos
de diseño para que el resultado converja.

A continuación, se explican los principales aspectos de la topology optimization, con las posibles
limitaciones debidas a los procesos de fabricación empleados. La topology optimization está
basada en un algoritmo automático que determina la distribución óptima del material en el espacio
del proyecto (en el cual debe estar contenida la verdadera estructura a ser diseñada), en función
de las cargas y condiciones de contorno: se asigna un "factor de calidad o importancia" a cada
elemento el cual varia a lo largo de la optimización. Hay que tener en cuenta que en realidad la
función objetivo no es la de reducir al mínimo la cantidad de material necesaria para cumplir con
las condiciones de contorno y soportar las cargas aplicadas, si no la reducir al mínimo “la
compliance” (definida como la elasticidad que posee el materia) de una estructura para aumentar
la rigidez estructural. La condición de reducir al mínimo la masa es sólo una restricción. Por lo
tanto, la topology optimization se basa en maximizar la rigidez ( minimizar la “compliance”)
con la condición de minimizar la cantidad de material utilizado: la función objetivo se define
como la suma de los valores de 'compliance' asociado a las condiciones de carga estática
considerada. En otras palabras, el proceso seguido se puede también considerar como determinar
la cantidad mínima de material que maximiza la rigidez, soportando las cargas aplicadas. Es una
herramienta poderosa pero sin embargo, en algunos casos, las propuestas y resultados de la
optimización, pueden ser caros o inviables de fabricar. Estas posibles contradicciones pueden ser
superadas utilizando restricciones de fabricación en la formulación de la optimización, de modo
a obtener diseños que satisfagan necesidades prácticas de fabricación.

Posteriormente explicamos los diferentes tipos de mosquetones existentes seguido de las cargas
y limitaciones que cada mosquetón debe soportar y respetar, las cuales están establecidas por las
normativas internacionales oficiales. De hecho, cada tipo de mosquetón tiene su aplicación
específica y puede soportar más o menos cantidad de la carga en función de su forma y
sección. De la comparativa entre los diversos tipos obtenemos que los más recomendados son los
mosquetones del tipo B y D ya que direccionan la cuerda a los extremos de modo a distribuir las
cargas a través del eje central del mosquetón que es la parte más resistente, evitando posibles
problemas relacionados con roturas antes de llegar a ser expuestos a las cargas máximas como
podría suceder en los mosquetones de tipo H. No obstante como cavamos de decir cada tipo de
mosquetón tiene un uso y una aplicación diferentes. Aun así, esto nos da una idea preliminar de
la forma y disposición de la posible área a optimizar mediante la topology.

Por último, hacemos un acercamiento a los procesos de fabricación que son necesarios para
obtener un mosquetón de escalada con especial atención a los tratamientos térmicos para cualquier
material elegido y en concreto el anodizado en el caso de utilizar aluminio. Nos hemos centrado
en estos aspectos ya que el mosquetón de escalada está normalmente expuesto a condiciones
operativas extremas, por lo que son necesarios buenos tratamientos térmicos para hacer frente a
las diversas adversidades. De este acercamiento sacamos que no será necesario tener en cuenta
ninguna condición especial de manufactura a la hora de la topology optimization debido a que
para la elaboración del mosquetón no son necesarias fases de extrusión y/o fundición en
molde. Esta observación es muy importante como acabamos de decir de cara a la optimización
topológica en nuestro caso de estudio para obtener el modelo CAD optimizado que nos permitirá
comparar a los tres materiales candidatos en el cuarto capítulo.

En la primera parte del tercer capítulo hacemos un análisis preliminar mediante elementos finitos,
sobre un modelo CAD de mosquetón obtenido en base a un modelo estándar comercial, para
verificar las afirmaciones que hemos hecho en los capítulos anteriormente en relación con los
mecanismos principales de fallo durante funcionamiento y parámetros a tener en cuenta en la
selección del material. Más en concreto, el objetivo de este primer análisis, antes de hacer la
optimización de topología, es el de verificar si son apropiados de los índices de Ashby, que hemos
seleccionado en el primer análisis mediante el método QFD4Math.
Los resultados obtenidos han confirmado las suposiciones preliminares: durante el
funcionamiento y el uso del mosquetón en escalada, el mosquetón trabajará esencialmente con
fuerzas de tracción y tendrá un comportamiento durante condiciones operativas similar al
escogido en acorde según los criterios Ashby. Al mismo tiempo, como esperábamos, la zona del
eje principal del mosquetón es la parte más cargada, lo que confirma que nuestras suposiciones
preliminares eran correctas. Es importante volver a decir tal y como ya señalamos al final de la
última parte del primer capítulo, que mediante el uso los índices Ashby para un objeto genérico
(distinto de los que se establecidos a la hora de determinar y evaluar los índices) estamos haciendo
una aproximación de la situación real: los índices son útiles para hacer un análisis preliminar pero
no para de cara a estudios posteriores donde se requiera una alta precisión.

Después realizamos la topology optimization para el mosquetón de escalada. El área de trabajo

considerado para la topología viene establecido en función de los requisitos que estamos
buscando. En este espacio de trabajo, se aplican las restricciones necesarias para alcanzar el mejor
resultado posible teniendo en cuenta las cargas que debe soportar el mosquetón. Al mismo tiempo,
durante todo el proceso evaluamos la influencia de diversos factores como la forma del área de
trabajo seleccionada o el valor de las fuerzas aplicadas o simplemente la variación de los
parámetros de topología como el “target mass” ( cantidad de material que decidimos mantener
tras la optimización).
En general, se observa que, a pesar de las modificaciones de los factores y parámetros, se
mantienen las partes principales como el eje principal o las zonas de contacto con el sistema de
cierre con forma de gatillo. Estas zonas se consideran como las más importantes, y por lo tanto
son las que se deben tener en cuenta cuando realizamos nuestro modelo de CAD 3D
optimizado. En cada análisis topológico, la configuración óptima global depende evidentemente
de los parámetros elegidos pero estas las partes que deben mantenerse, no se modifican, y se
gradúan con el factor de importancia más elevado (densidad = 1). Analizando la influencia de la
variación del valor de la carga aplicada, no observamos cambios significativos: podemos suponer
que variando el valor de la carga, no se modifican los resultados de la optimización. Sin embargo,
si cambiamos el punto de aplicación, la topología cambia: este resultado es lógico porque estamos
cambiando las condiciones de operación y la distribución de material obviamente no va a ser el
igual.
El objetivo final tal y como se ha mencionado con anterioridad, es el de obtener un modelo CAD
optimizado a partir de la “topology optimization”. De los diferentes análisis llevados a cabo,
resulta que el modelo optimizado del mosquetón debe tener una forma similar a los obtenidos en
el caso de referencia con target mass 0.1, y sección variable con secciones más grandes en los
extremos como hemos obtenemos de la configuración de referencia con target mass 0.4. Tomando
como referencia los resultados obtenidos de los dos casos, se desarrolla un modelo optimizado de
mosquetón. No obstante, en vez de hacer el mosquetón con la sección variable, consideramos una
configuración con sección del tipo “I-beam” constante, debido a que actualmente las secciones
de mosquetón son generalmente constantes, y como ya hemos dicho en el segundo capítulo, el
tipo de sección “I-beam” se considera como la sección más eficiente.

A continuación, realizamos un segundo análisis FEM para el modelo optimizado obtenido

aplicando los tres diferentes materiales candidatos. Para cada caso, obtenemos los valores de la
masa del mosquetón, de la deformación máxima y de la tensión máxima de Von Mises, para
introducirlos como nuevos factores clave en el QFD4Math modificado del último capítulo. Es
importante señalar, que con los resultados de tensiones máximas obtenidos en ambos análisis
FEM, el mosquetón debería de haberse roto en los casos del aluminio y acero debido a que sus
fuerzas de resistencia últimas a la tracción son inferiores a las tensiones de Von Mises obtenidas
cuando se aplicaron las cargas consideradas. Estos resultados sugieren que el análisis FEA
sobreestima la tensión aplicada en el mosquetón, sobreestima que puede ser debida a que hemos
forzado a que el sistema se comporte de forma estática al imponer la condición de punto fijo para
la sección media del eje principal. Una vez configurado correctamente este análisis podrían
utilizarse para hacer correctamente otro análisis FEM de modo a analizar y optimizar
correctamente el mosquetón. Sin embargo, esto está más allá del alcance de este proyecto.

Finalmente, en el último capítulo, modificamos la matriz de relaciones QDF4Math obtenida en el

primer capítulo y realizamos de nuevo el análisis, el cual será ya el análisis final. Como
previamente hemos explicados, las modificaciones se han hecho para corregir los posibles errores
que genera introducir los índices de Ashby en el QFD4Mat mediante el “Global Performance
Indexes” ya que estamos simplificando los aspectos funcionales basados en la geometría del
objeto: en ningún momento se ha considerado en el primer análisis la geometría del objeto real.
Para corregir esos problemas potenciales, quitamos los índices de Ashby, así como otros
parámetros que no juegan un papel importante ( tienen bajos valores de importancia relativa en
las curvas de valor del QFD4Math). En paralelo se sustituyen los valores mencionados
anteriormente y se introducen los valores de la masa del mosquetón, la deformación máxima y el
factor de seguridad obtenidos para cada material candidato a través el segundo análisis FEM sobre
la forma optimizada. Estos nuevos valores representan nuestros nuevos factores claves de la
matriz.
A continuación, se analizan los resultados de la matriz de relaciones modificada de y obtenemos
un resultado similar al primer análisis. Al comparar todos los requisitos del producto, propiedades
de los materiales y categorías de rendimiento establecidas en base de la opinión de los clientes, y
analizando los gráficos resultantes, el aluminio 7075-T6 es el material que mejor se adapta.

Posteriormente describimos el principio de funcionamiento del nuevo software QFD4Math online

que se está actualmente desarrollando, describiendo las diferentes etapas que se deberán seguir
en cada proyecto utilizando como ejemplo nuestro caso de estudio del mosquetón de escalada:
realizamos el mismo análisis que mediante la matriz anterior pero utilizando el software
QFD4Math online. Al final obtenemos más o menos los mismos resultados que mediante la matriz
de relaciones QFD4Math del formato Excel, siendo la aleación de aluminio 7075-T6 el material
más adecuado para utilizar en un mosquetón de escalada.

Por último, en la última sección de este proyecto, realizamos un breve estudio económico de la
producción de un lote de mosquetones de escalada. Suponemos una producción de 20000
unidades de mosquetones standard con la parte del cuerpo central a forma de “C” constituido por
una sección “I-beam”, considerando como material la aleación de aluminio 7075-T6 (Ergal) al
ser el resultado obtenido de la optimización. En paralelo, consideramos que el sistema de cierre
es del tipo “wire gate” en acero inoxidable AISI 316.
En el estudio evaluamos los costes de cada una de las operaciones del proceso de manufactura,
estableciendo los costes unitarios individuales y posteriormente uniéndolos. Al final se estable un
precio unitario de 2,3015 €, el cual es bastante razonable. Generalmente el modelo mosquetón
considerado tiene un precio de mercado de unos 7-10 €, por lo que en nuestro caso obtendríamos
un beneficio potencial de entre 5 y 8 € por cada mosquetón, valor que es bastante realista, por lo
que podemos asumir que el procedimiento descrito se ha hecho de forma bastante apropiada,
obteniendo unos posibles de costes de fabricación bastante razonables.
 INDEX
Introduction and purposes ......................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Material Selection strategy by the QFD4Mat approach ......... 3
I. The Material Selection methodologies: the “free-search” by Ashby approach and expert
survey approach ....................................................................................................................... 4
Derivative method for material selection strategy: The “free-search” by Ashby approach. . 5
The “free-search” by Ashby approach. ............................................................................. 5
Main steps in the Ashby method ....................................................................................... 6
Non-derivative methods for material selection strategy: The expert survey strategy (implicit
method). .............................................................................................................................. 14
The expert survey strategy: implicit method. ...................................................................... 15
II. The multi-objective optimization analysis in material selection ..................................... 17
Decision-making in problems with multiple conflicting objectives using the “explicit”
approach .............................................................................................................................. 18
Basis of the explicit method for in multiple conflicting objectives with multiple constraint
material selection problems ............................................................................................. 18
The penalty and trade-off curves as a graphic method for the explicit approach to material
selection........................................................................................................................... 22
The “implicit” approach using the Quality Function Deployment matrix .......................... 26
Origins ............................................................................................................................. 26
Analyze of the implicit approach: procedure and main steps.......................................... 27
Technical Competitive Assessment: rating the engineering characteristics .................... 30
Analyse of a study case: example of the bike saddle [3] ..................................................... 32
What we have seen until now? ........................................................................................ 40
III. The QFD4Mat method in preliminary material screening out .................................... 42
The assessment of material candidates by Graphic Analysis .............................................. 42
• The Value Curve of products ...................................................................................... 45
The Bubble Maps graphic tool ............................................................................................ 48
Limit of value curves....................................................................................................... 48
Origin in brief ................................................................................................................. 49
IV. The scope of work: material optimization by refined QFD4MAT method for case study:
hook climber............................................................................................................................ 54
Introduction and Purpose .................................................................................................... 54
Main parts and elements of climbing carabiners ................................................................. 55
Noses ............................................................................................................................... 55
Gate types ........................................................................................................................ 58
 Locking Mechanisms: ..................................................................................................... 60
Preliminary material overview ............................................................................................ 63
Product Requirements and Explanation of the Customer Importance Value ...................... 65
Performance .................................................................................................................... 65
Cost ................................................................................................................................. 66
Receptiveness .................................................................................................................. 66
Further Considerations .................................................................................................... 67
Material Key Properties ...................................................................................................... 68
Justification of the different matrix correlations between the key factor and the product
requirements ( key-product features) .............................................................................. 70
Final Selected Candidate Materials ..................................................................................... 72
Aluminum alloy - 7075-T6: Ergal ................................................................................... 72
Stainless Steel - AISI 316L ............................................................................................. 72
Titanium alloy - Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700) .......................................................... 73
Note about a composite possible material: VICTREX® PEEK 90HMF40 .................... 73
V. The preliminary QFD4Mat analysis on candidate materials for a CLIMBLING
CARABINER .......................................................................................................................... 74
Analysis of the QFD4.mat excel worksheet ........................................................................ 74
Analysis of the Bubble Maps graphic ................................................................................. 75
Analysis of the Value Curves graphic ................................................................................. 76
Overall impression .............................................................................................................. 77
Limits and constraints of preliminary QFD4Mat analysis .................................................. 78
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 79
Chapter 2 –Modern computer aided approaches for optimal geometry: topology
optimization ............................................................................................................................... 80
I. Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) ............................................................ 80
Optimization problem statement ......................................................................................... 81
Minimization of functions of a single variable ................................................................... 82
Constrained Minimum: Gradient-based methods, Kuhn-Tucker Conditions for optimality
............................................................................................................................................. 83
General aspects................................................................................................................ 83
Mathematical resolutions ................................................................................................ 84
Brief note about numerical identification of the design constraints: Sensitivities .......... 88
Unconstrained Minimum: Non-gradient-based methods .................................................... 89
General aspects................................................................................................................ 89
Mathematical resolutions ................................................................................................ 89
II. Topology optimization .................................................................................................... 91
Introduction to Topology optimization: general concepts................................................... 92
Optimization problem statement ......................................................................................... 94
Problem statement ........................................................................................................... 95
The problem of shape constraints by manufacturing approach ........................................... 96
Real life example iterative shape refinement: Arm of a packaging mechanism ................. 98
Finite element model generation ..................................................................................... 98
Optimization Process definition: Topology .................................................................. 101
Analysis of the results .................................................................................................. 101
Effect of the manufacturing constraints ........................................................................ 105
General observations ......................................................................................................... 107
III. Topology optimization for shape definition of a Climbing Carabineer .................... 108
Types of carabiners: forms, characteristics and applications. ........................................... 108
Load, constraints and geometry free space ....................................................................... 114
Load and constraints: Certification and Standards ........................................................ 114
Geometry free space ...................................................................................................... 116
General notes about the process and alternative manufacturing procedures ..................... 120
Individual manufacturing processes analyze ..................................................................... 121
Cutting ........................................................................................................................... 121
Bending ......................................................................................................................... 122
Heating .......................................................................................................................... 123
Stamping ....................................................................................................................... 124
Trimming (Stamp Burr’s Cut) ....................................................................................... 125
Heat Treatments ............................................................................................................ 126
Tumbling: Polished finishing ........................................................................................ 126
Drilling .......................................................................................................................... 127
Anodizing ...................................................................................................................... 128
Construction of the locking system ............................................................................... 129
Assembly and heading process of the end of the wire .................................................. 129
Controls and testing....................................................................................................... 129
Laser marking................................................................................................................ 130
Periodical inspections and maintenance ............................................................................ 131
Visual Inspection ........................................................................................................... 131
Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 132
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 133
Chapter 3 –Refinement of optimal shape by FEM analysis and Topology Optimization 134
I. Preliminary FEM analysis ............................................................................................. 134
Brief introduction to FEM analysis: .................................................................................. 134
Fundamental concepts ................................................................................................... 135
Typical FEA Procedure by Commercial Software ........................................................ 136
Advantages and disadvantages of the FEM .................................................................. 138
FEM analyze in a commercial climbing carabiner ............................................................ 139
Main steps ..................................................................................................................... 139
Analyze results and possible interpretations ................................................................. 147
Justification of the Ashby Indexes ................................................................................ 149
Further considerations ................................................................................................... 151
II. Design of Experiment for candidate materials on HOOK CLIMBER for topology
optimization........................................................................................................................... 152
Definition of the workspace .............................................................................................. 152
Description of the main steps of the Topology optimization in the case of study: climbing
carabiner ............................................................................................................................ 153
Import the workspace model ......................................................................................... 153
Definition of the material and properties ...................................................................... 154
Meshing ......................................................................................................................... 155
Loads and boundary conditions..................................................................................... 156
Analyze: Topology optimization ................................................................................... 158
Results ........................................................................................................................... 161
Analyze and presentation of the results ............................................................................. 162
First result with the FEM configuration ........................................................................ 162
Influence of different configurations of boundary conditions ....................................... 163
Influence of the loads .................................................................................................... 167
Influence of the workspace ........................................................................................... 169
Influence of the mass target parameter (FRMASS) ...................................................... 171
III. CAD Design of a climbing carabiner from the topology optimization, and final FEM
analyze on the obtained CAD model for each candidate materials ....................................... 174
CAD model obtained from the topology optimization ...................................................... 174
Final FEM analyze on the obtained CAD model for each candidate materials ................ 177
Analyze results and possible interpretations ................................................................. 183
Further considerations ................................................................................................... 184
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 186
Chapter 4 – Refinement of QFD4Mat analysis: final results and discussions ................... 188
I. Translation of Performance Index by FEM results: implementing the Key-Material
Factors and QFD4Mat matrix revision.................................................................................. 188
Elimination of less important parameters .......................................................................... 190
Justification of the different matrix correlations between the key factor and the product
requirements ( key-product features) ............................................................................ 191
II. Update graphic solutions by Bubble Maps and Material Value Curves........................ 192
Analysis of the QFD4.mat excel worksheet ...................................................................... 192
Analysis of the Bubble Maps graphic ............................................................................... 193
Analysis of the Value Curves graphic ............................................................................... 194
Overall impression ............................................................................................................ 196
III. Material selection by QFD4Math Software: revision of the QFD4Math Excel results
197
Main steps of the Software material selection procedure .................................................. 197
IV. Brief economical approach: Productions of a climbing carabiner in Aluminum alloy
7075-T6 ................................................................................................................................. 204
Costs description of the main manufacturing operations .................................................. 204
Material cost .................................................................................................................. 204
Cutting rod cost ............................................................................................................. 204
Bending ......................................................................................................................... 205
Pre-heating before the stamping phase.......................................................................... 205
Stamping ....................................................................................................................... 206
Shearing / Trimming (Stamp Burr’s Cut)...................................................................... 209
Heat Treatments ............................................................................................................ 211
Tumbling: Polished finishing ........................................................................................ 211
Drilling .......................................................................................................................... 211
Anodizing ...................................................................................................................... 212
Cutting and Bending of the Wire-Gate.......................................................................... 212
Assembly and heading process of the end of the wire .................................................. 212
Testings ......................................................................................................................... 213
Visual Controls.............................................................................................................. 213
Laser marking................................................................................................................ 213
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 215
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 216
ANEXES .................................................................................................................................. 221
I. Tables of Chemical Composition and Mechanical Properties of the considerate candidate
materials ................................................................................................................................ 222
II. Ashby coefficients ......................................................................................................... 223
III. FEM Results .............................................................................................................. 223
First FEM analyze ............................................................................................................. 223
Second FEM analyze ......................................................................................................... 224
IV. Table of figures ......................................................................................................... 226
V. International official standard regulations for climbing carabiners .............................. 234
Introduction and purposes
In rock climbing and mountaineering there is a strong focus on reducing the weight of all the
equipment. By reducing the weight of equipment, a climber will expend less energy working
against gravity and thus be able to climb further and faster. The mechanical piece of this work is
a climbing carabiner. In a simplified way consists in a metallic ring with an openable side: his
task is to connect/combine two different objects in an easy, fast and reversible way. In other
words, we can define a carabiner as a loop-shaped mechanism equipped with a spring-loaded
opening latch or gate that is vital to climbers for connecting climbing ropes to harnesses and other
safety gear. Mountain climbers essentially use them to protect themselves from injury or death in
the event of a fall. In the event of a fall the rope will catch the climber as it becomes taught and
pulls against the anchor. It is important for climbers to know when a carabiner should be retired
in order to avoid failure, which can lead to serious injury, or, in some cases, death.

This project explores the different materials that can be used for a climbing carabiner, selecting
the one which supplies better all the customer’s requirements and therefore is the most suitable
for this application by a total selection material approach that combines the actual material
selection strategies. At the same time, we will not only select the most suitable material four or
case of study, we will also determine which is the optimal form (shape and section) that respects
the operating conditions and bears the loads established by international official regulations by a
topology optimization.

Therefore, in the first chapter we will explain the main selection material strategies that actually
exist, and we will expose the total material selection approach, which combines all the actual
strategies, and that we will use in our project. After explaining the basis of our total approach we
will apply it to our case of study ( the climbing carabiner) taking in to account a set of detailed
requirements such has toughness capacity, damage tolerance or corrosion resistance, that have
been previously defined based on international safety standards, geometrical criteria,
environmental resistance criteria and customer’s requirements.

Afterwards, in the second chapter, we will explain how it works the topology optimization by
stating the bases of the main optimization methods. At the same time, we will expose the possible
workspace for the topology optimization taking into account the actual carabiner configurations
and the conditions imposed by the official regulations. In parallel, we will develop the overall
manufacturing processes that need to be carried out for make a climbing carabiner, to the possible
potential limits that it could impose to the topology optimization.

Subsequently in the third chapter we will perform two FEM analyzes and a topology optimization.
The first FEM analyze is applied to a standard CAD model carabiner and it will be aim to justify
the possible considerations that we have considered in the preliminary material selection by the
QFD4Math matrix and the selection of the Ashby Indexes. The topology optimization will allow
us to acquire the optimized carabiner model that need the less material quantity in orther to bear
the requested loads. The second FEM will be done after the topology optimization, to the
optimized CAD model obtained from the topology, and it will allow us to obtain parameters that
are related to the geometry of our climbing carabiner in order to correct the possible induced
errors for adding the generic Ashby indexes.

1
Finally in the fourth chapter we will made the final material selection by the modified QFD4Math
matrix in which we will removed the Ashby indexes and we will introduced dependent
geometrical parameters that have been obtained from the second FEM analysis. Then we will
make a short presentation about the QFD4Math Software that is actually being developing to
speed up the processes and obtain a quickly general overview of the possible candidate materials
for the application in which we are interested. To conclude our project with a brief economical
approach to the production cost of a climbing carabiner with the optimal candidate material.

2
Chapter 1 – Introduction to Material Selection
strategy by the QFD4Mat approach
Firstly it‘s important to said that when we start a material selection process, we talk in terms of
“strategy”. We talk about “strategy”, because the scope of material selection is not only related to
define a selection method, in reality is enlarged to define plans and actions that will have on a
long-term a substantial impact on the success of a product on the market, and consequently on the
success of firms and enterprises. These made material selection a complex and multifaceted
challenge.
In general aspects we can said that a material selection strategy is performed having in account
tree main consequential tasks:

– the translation of customer or user needs (i.e. external analysis) for the product,
influenced by material features into technical and non-technical requirements (i.e.
internal analysis);
– on the basis of a technical and non-technical set of requirements, namely the material
key-features inventory, as developed in 1) the formulation of performance metrics to
measure how well a material matches a set of requirements;
– a search procedure, namely a structured material selection method, in order to:

o explore a solution-space
o identify materials that meet the constraints and
o rank them by their ability to meet the requirements.

In fact, a selection strategy works by defining how it is possible to convert a set of inputs or
“requirements” of the product, in to a set of outputs. In other words, material selection strategy
research the way of satisfy the costumers and users by accomplishing the requirements and
satisfying the expectations. A process that is called in material selection strategy the translation
of needs (or external) requirements into technical (or internal) requirements guarantees this
phenomenon. It should be the conversion of the customer requirements in to the engineering
needs: we pass from the common to the technical domain where we introduce internal metrics
and targets in order to rank and screen various candidates. From that list, we will select the one
that matches the targets and respects the technical (ex: safe behavior) and non-technical (ex: price)
constrains.
It´s important to highlight that we have to make choices in a scarcity environment, because in the
vast majority of the cases, we have fixed resources such as the cost budgeted or the manufacturing
time etc… which reduce the possibility of materials. Therefore, we need to seek the optimal
solution as the most efficient and powerful compromise between all the aspects we define as
important, not just a high performance solution regarding a few of these aspects. The best way to
keep in mind all the features product materials should satisfy is to consider them as various aspects
of a multifaceted problem. However, in all the cases we need to work with the same
methodologies in order to stablish what aspects are important or not for arrive to the optimal
solution which fulfill at the best all the request.

3
 I. The Material Selection methodologies: the “free-search” by Ashby
approach and expert survey approach 4

As we just said in the previous paragraph, material selection methodologies in engineering design
are devoted to giving support to decisions often made in uncertainty in response to satisfy and
manage multiple conflicting criteria. At the same time material selection methodologies are thus
constructed to seek out the optimum choice of materials throughout a combination of certain key-
factors ( controlled independent variables or design parameters) which permit to obtainment a
product characterized by a number of desired properties (dependent variables, quality response
characteristics, functional requirements). In general, the used planning structure is based as
already mentioned into making decisions by Multi Objective Optimization5 (or, MOO) problems.
We define a decision-making problem as multi objective if its solution consists in identifying
multiple objectives that somehow have to be combined in order to yield one final solution.
Obviously, there is not a single solution which simultaneously maximizes all the technical or non-
technical objectives. As we said before, in order to realize a competitive product, engineers are
generally asked to pursue some macro objectives such as minimizing mass or minimizing volume
having less material with a certain number of constraints. At this point, for make the choice of a
specific material among varieties that can simultaneously fulfill all the macro objectives and
respect all the constraints, we should consider that:

- The properties of different materials are in conflict with each other, and that we cannot
simultaneously optimize all of them;
- Beyond a certain trade-off, we arrive at the improvement of one feature of interest at the
expense of worsening another and;
- The search for balance is reached by optimizing the resolution of the trade-offs that exist
between features and also by excluding solutions that are not respectful of constraints.

The above boundaries are typical for a multi-objective optimization problem. We discuss in the
following paragraphs the two main approaches or methods that are applied to material selection
strategy problems, dividing them into two macro groups:

a) The derivative, or explicit, methods, which is the approach followed by an expert

survey approach.
b) The non-derivative or implicit methods, where we will explain the Ashby approach.

4
Freely adjusted from the original book “Material Selection by Hybrid Multi-Criteria Approach”, chapter “The Material
Selection Strategy”, courtesy of author of the book Fabrizio D’Errico, academic tutor at Politecnico di Milano of this thesis
work
5
Multi-objective optimization (also known multi-criteria optimization) developed in the broad area of Multiple Criteria
Decision Making also known as Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). MCDA is a sub-discipline of Operations
Research methodology founded in the UK during World War II explicitly to consider multiple criteria in decision-making
high complex environments like the military. Generalizing the Operational Research and derivative methods further
developed concerns with mathematical optimization problems involving more than one objective function to be optimized
simultaneously, so that decision makers can pursue the best choice.

4
Derivative method for material selection strategy: The “free-search” by Ashby approach.

As we said before, a derivative method, or explicit method, for material selection starts from
translating product requirements and needs into an objective function in the technical domain. For
example, a reasonable objective function for a bike it should be minimizing the weight as long as
the frame structure supports the external loads (torsion and a bending state of stress in the frame
tubes) who appears when the biker is cycling. At the same time for this example, the elastic
deflection of the tubes has to be minimized, since the higher the elastic deflection during cycling,
the lower the energy transferred to gear and wheel. This is a further constraint as regards the
supporting load.
An explicit method thus starts from the objective function and expresses itself in terms of material
features such as density, elasticity module and other parameters that depend on design.
Generalizing, this method consist in writing out the explicit form of the objective function in order
to show how it depends on the material variables that can be used to rank the candidate materials.

In other words, this method is defined as explicit or derivative because we derived the objective
(ex: minimum mass among alternatives) by variables that depend in some way on materials and
design geometry. Recognizing and applying proper design constraints (ex: if we want to reduce
weight onboard a vehicle by substituting panels, a possible constraint is the maximum thickness
of new panel; panel must resist to the base load), a general calculation procedure can be defined
to screen two alternative candidate materials for reducing the mass of the part. The method used
takes into account how the component works and how new materials contribute to the targeted
reduction in weight.

This method is used in the Ashby approach that we will develop in the next paragraph.

The “free-search” by Ashby approach.

Classified as a derivative method for material selection strategy, the Ashby approach is
recognized as the most generalized efficient and relatively user-friendly method with which to
perform quantitative analysis for material selection in engineering cases. In the following, the
key-steps of the Ashby approach are outlined in order to introduce readers with a non-technical
background to its peculiarities, so that they can acquire sufficient awareness on the matter.

As already illustrated in a previous section, derivative methods carry out quantitative analysis that
begins by translating the product requirements and needs into an objective function. More
precisely, the aim of the analysis consists in introducing a disciplined approach to a selection
problem by identifying its distinguishing key features: what function the component will have,
what constraints to take into account, what objectives to target and which free variables to steer
through in order to accommodate optimized solutions. Firstly, the analysis process starts from a
consideration of the component’s function. Many simple engineering functions can be described
in single words or short phrases, unless we need to explain the function in detail. For example, in
designing a new lightweight panel for the exterior of a vehicle, the objective function in common
language would be defined as: “find me a material and a proper thickness for a panel of length L
and width a to support a bending load momentum Mf safely and to make it as light as possible”.
In engineering words, this means: as the geometry constraints of the panel, namely the surface
dimensions, have been fixed by the design (the pan has primarily to fit the body chassis), the
optimal choice of material will be the one that satisfies the major objectives: to resist an external

5
load and keep the pan as light as possible. Seeing as the thickness of pan is a free variable, the
screening process can actually count on two types of free-variables, some pertaining to material
features and only one – the thickness a – to geometry [1].
Main steps in the Ashby method
The Ashby method is based on four basic steps [2]:

1. Translation: express design requirements express design requirements as constraints &

objectives as constraints & objectives
2. Screening: eliminate materials that cannot do the job
3. Ranking: find the materials that do the job best
4. Supporting information: explore pedigrees of top of top-ranked candidates
 The free-search strategy: the material indexes on charts

Going a bit more in detail at every stage

a. First Step: Translation

In this step, we express the design requirements as constraints and objectives that the objet should
respect and accomplish. Usually we use the design requirements for analyzing four items:

- Function: What does the component do?

 We research a component that it don’t limit options by specifying
implementation w/in function
- Objective: What essential conditions must be met?
 In what manner should implementation excel?
- Constraints: Which parameters or aspects should be maximized or minimized?
 Differentiate between binding and soft constraints
- Free variables: Which design variables are free?
 Which can be modified ?
 Which are desirable ?

E.X: If we analyses for example the materials for a light and strong tie we obtain:
- Function: Support a tension load
- Objective: We want to minimize the effective
mass
- Constraints: we distinguish between
o Geometrical: it has a specific length
o Design: Carry load F, w/o failure Fig: 1 Example of a Light and strong tie loaded [2]
- Free variables: In this case we can modify the
cross section area and the material

As in any derivative method, we have to start firstly from an equation describing our, namely to
minimize its mass. We can express the mass as reported here below:

𝑚 =𝐴·𝐿·𝜌 (𝑒𝑞. 1)

This equation targets our objective, so we call it the objective function of the problem.

6
The design load constraint that requires the tie to resist safely to the traction force can therefore
be expressed by a relationship that states that the strength of material σf, the stress to failure, shall
be higher than the maximum stress applied to the tie σappl when it is supporting the external
traction load F.
𝐹
𝜎𝑓 ≥ 𝜎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙 → 𝜎𝑓 ≥ (𝑒𝑞. 2)
𝐴
That is the same thing as:

Combining the design failure constraint equation with the objective function, we express eq.1 as
the function of material free variables, strength σf and density ρ and two assigned design
constraints, the force F Mf and the tie length L. At this point we can rewrite equation 1 as the
following:

𝜌
𝑚 ≥𝐹·𝐿· (𝑒𝑞. 3)
𝜎𝑓

It is the new form of the objective function.

It’s an expression of what was stated above: find a material, that is, act in choosing a specific
material that can reduce the mass of the tie while respecting design constraints like the force
applied, F, and geometry constraints, the length L, by screening materials that have as low a ratio
as possible between density ρ and the strength of the material σf .
For Ashby, the objective function (also known as the performance equation) can conveniently be
written in three parentheses:
- the first parenthesis contains the load constraints for the case, namely the function the
component will have in carrying out its work;
- the second parenthesis contains the specified and assigned geometry
- and the last one the material free-variables that influence the objective function for the
study case.
That is:
𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝑒𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑀𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝑚 = [𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠,] [𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠] [𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠;]
𝐹 𝐺 𝑀
In the case of the example we applied the following procedure.

The length L of the panel is specified by design, but we are free to choose the cross-section area
since the area A is a free variable. The objective is to minimize the mass of the tie, m. We thus
write an equation for m (cf. eq. 1), which is the objective function we want to minimize. But there
is a constraint: the tie must carry the traction load F without yielding in traction. Use this
constraint (cf. eq. 2) to eliminate the free variable A and read off the combination of material
properties in the last parenthesis to be minimized (cf. eq.3).

Ashby calls the term in the final parenthesis, i.e., the one dependent on material properties, as the
material index I of the problem that has to be minimized. Anyway, since it is most usual to think
of a material index in a form by which when a maximum is sought, an optimum condition is
achieved, Ashby prefers to invert the material properties in (eq.3) and define the material index I
to maximize as:
𝜎𝑓
𝐼=
𝜌
7
We notice that each combination of function, constraints, objectives and free variables has a
characterizing material index

One enormous advantage introduced by Ashby’s approach is that the three groups of parameters
in eq.10 are multiplied together, and can thus be considered separable. This fact implies firstly
that the optimum subset of materials can be identified without solving the complete design
problem – or even knowing all the details of F and G – and secondly that the overall performance
is always maximized by maximizing the material indexes.

Different combinations of function, objective and constraint lead in different engineering cases to
different material indexes. Although we applied the method to a specific case study, (a tie that
needs to be as light as possible while it carries a traction force), the Ashby derivative method is
general. Therefore, the material performance index I is characteristic of the proper parameter
combination, and the function that the component performs, but it can be calculated in a wide
range of problems. Some problems and the equations to derive and to elaborate in the general
procedure here described are more complex than the study case we use, and can be of rather
greater complexity, even for specialists. Fortunately, Ashby has studied wide categories of
engineering functional problems as master cases. Engineers who need to select the correct
material performance index for their specific case should refer to a fuller catalogue of indices that
Ashby has provided in Appendixes in M.F.Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design,
Third Editon, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 2005.

b. Second Step: Screening

In this phase, we eliminate materials that cannot do the job. We need to follow an effective way
of evaluating large range of material classes and properties, in order to be in grade to decide which
material candidate can be used to accomplish the objectives, in base of the constraints that we had
stablished in the previous step.

Fig: 2 Classification of the different materials’ types [2]

8
There are two ways for comparing material properties:

o Through the material bar charts, which are good for elementary selection, i.e.
select or analyze only in base a one property (e.g., find materials with large
modulus)

Fig: 3 Example of an elementary selection by material bar charts [2]

o Through the material property chart, which material chart plots one property
against another

Fig: 4 Example of a material property chart [2]

E.X: If we analyze the case of a heat sink for power electronics

9
 Fig: 5 Scheme of ha sink power electronics [2]

In this case, we have:

- Function:
o Heat sink, in order to avoid overheating in electronic components (chips).
- Constraints:
o Maximum service temperature > 200 C
o Should be an quite good electrical insulator  R > 1020 µohm·cm
o Also a quite good thermal conductor  T-conduct. λ> 100 W/m K
o And not heavy  Density < 3 Mg/m3
- Free Variables:
o Materials and Processes

If we plot now the material bar chart representing the maximum service temperature, and the
material property chart representing the thermal conductivity vs electrical resistivity, we can
distinguish which materials are suitable for our requirements.

Fig: 6 Material bar chart for the maximum service temperatures in the
example case [2]

Fig: 7 Material chart plot representing thermal conductivity against

electrical resistivity for the example case [2]

10
At the end we obtain that for our requirements and constrains, Ceramic materials should be use
for making heatsinks in electronic components.

c. Third Step: Ranking

In this section, we find the materials that do the job best, in other words, we select the material
from those obtained after the screening. This material should have the best properties in relation
a what we are looking for.

At this moment, some questions appear:

 How we proceed if multiple materials are selected after screening? Which one is best?
What we should do if there are multiple material parameters for evaluation?

For arriving to a final solution, we use the material index that we describe in the first section

In a preliminary approach, we can work out a comparison of alternative solutions and baseline
scenarios using a very general derivative method to calculate the material substitution factor; thus
we recalculated a mass of alternative scenarios against the baseline scenario. Assessing the final
weight saved onboard by alternative solutions, we can find provisory optimal solution for the case
study. At this point, we can rank different materials to assess which is the best solution for our
constraint problem.
The Ashby method does the same, but in a more efficient way. It is not necessary to calculate
material substitution factors, material by material: the optimal solution is the one characterized
by the highest material index I calculated for the specific case.
Such indices, which are associated to maximize some aspect of performance and provide criteria
that respect the design constrains assigned, permit a quick ranking of materials in terms of their
ability to perform well in the case of study. Therefore, what we did at this point was to screen
candidates that are capable of doing the job, rank them and identify those among them that will
function in the best possible way.
The above method really is powerful since it allows for the screening of various candidates using
an absolute quantifying approach. But, as we said before, how can we select such candidates?
In the cases of studies that we illustrated, the specialists, who had sufficient confidence with
lightweight design, were aware of specialized literature indications and knew a lot about the basic
features of different classes of materials, selected the possible candidates. But Ashby wanted his
method to be an “open” approach that could be followed by non-specialists as well. If I succeed,
he probably thought, such a method would be used both by people who are not experts in materials
(which is the typical approach of a good teacher) and also by those who are competent and want
to screen among further unexplored solutions (which is typical of someone who wants to facilitate
innovation).

11
To solve this problem, Ashby introduced the method by using indices of materials on material
charts, as described below.

d. The free-search strategy: explore pedigrees of top of top-ranked candidates by using indices
of materials on material charts

It’s a way of optimizing the material selection and focalize in the best solution.
The material chart plots one property against another (e.x: strength vs density), mapping out area
occupied by each material class and the sub-fields occupied by individual materials. By
coordinates in terms of each property (e.x: coordinates in strength and density), we can plot point
inside each class of three materials.

We illustrate the procedure with an example where we want to design a new lightweight panel
for the exterior of a vehicle [1]. We obtain that the material performance index was σ½/ρ, so we
plot a strength σ against a density ρ in the material char, obtaining the following figure:

Fig: 8 Material plot chart for the example case with strength is plotted σ
against a density ρ [1]

As we just said, by coordinates in terms of strength and density, three points have been plotted
inside each class of three materials

The dotted line is a guideline for plotting lines with slope 2 on the log scale diagram that intercept,
as regards each line a subset of materials with a constant value of material performance index
σ½/ρ. The higher the line with slope 2 is, the higher the material index investigated. By moving

12
as the arrow depicts from the baseline solution, the more efficient solutions can be explored by
using a free-search

The material index σ½/ρ = C can be written by taking logarithms of the first and second member:

𝐿𝑜𝑔 𝜎 = 2 𝐿𝑜𝑔 𝜌 + 2 𝐿𝑜𝑔 𝐶 (𝑒𝑞. 4)

This equation is a family of straight parallel lines of slope 2 on the plot of Log (σ) against Log (ρ)
and each line corresponds to a certain value of the constant C.

The above figure shows the 2 slope guideline and the three parallel lines that intercept the three
points in the chart identified by the approximately coordinates (125 MPa;1.81 kg/dm3), (220
MPa;2.74 kg/dm3) and (450 MPa;7.85 kg/dm3). They are the three points in the plot
corresponding respectively to the magnesium ZW30 type, the aluminum AA7050 type and the
AISI 4140 steel. Each lines corresponds to three different values of the σ½/ρ index. It is now easy
to screen by plotting the subset materials that optimally maximize performance for the case study.
Note that for in depth studies of other specific cases that Ashby illustrates for varying loading
geometries and objective functions, refer to the charts with proper straight parallel guidelines
(Ashby, 2005).
All the materials intercepted by a line of constant σ½/ρ are of equal performance as a light and
safe panel. Those above the line are better, those below, worse, since the former accounts for a
higher material performance index and the latter accounts for a lower one.
The procedure to rank out candidate materials is quick and robust, aspects that represent big
advantages for this generalized procedure with respect to other common derivative methods.

We can refer to the vast number of resolved cases in component optimization (Ashby, 2002), thus
applying the proper material performance index to our case. If we have already selected potential
candidates, by just comparing the material performance indexes we can rank out the best material
for the case study among those selected. But it is possible to widen the selection of candidates
starting from the baseline scenario, namely a specific point in the plot and then tracing the line of
the proper well-defined slope to explore which materials are possible further candidates,
considering the area above the line. This approach follows what we call a free-search procedure.

Generally such a wide screening out has to be conducted carefully, taking into account other
limitations and drawbacks of the candidate materials that are not directly pointed out by the
specific chart. For example, from the precedent plot, if we do too free a search, we could end up
considering ceramics as the optimal material for producing a thin-pan for an automobile.
Obviously brittleness, cost and manufacturing issues have to be kept in mind to restrict our free-
search to suitable materials, as for example to carbon fiber reinforced polymers or hybrid
materials with metallic foams.

13
Non-derivative methods for material selection strategy: The expert survey strategy
(implicit method).
A non-derivative method or implicit method does not derive from a specific objective function in
order to calculate the optimum. In the previous examples, the objective remains, but it is not
known how the mass of the part can be expressed in terms of the resistance of materials, external
load, and part geometry.
The most recognized is the weight-sum method. It consists in:
1. Identifying the key-features of a material that can affect the main objectives. For example, in
the case of the lightweight panel discussed at the end of the previous paragraph, the mass of
the part and the cost of the material are among the desired key features. The choice of material
can impact on both themes; particularly, the specific strength;
2. Assigning weight-factors to each key-factor by creating a qualitative rating (e.g. weak
importance= 1, medium importance =3, high importance =5); in this step a quantifying
judgment is made on the relative importance of product key features for the product in
alignment with customer/user requirements;
3. Quantifying a numerical value that scales the key-feature values for candidate materials to a
simplified rank (e.g. weak = 1, medium =3, high =5). For example, let us consider the three
materials for the automotive panel that we obtain from the Ashby procedure, the 4140 steel,
the 7075 aluminum alloy and the ZW30 magnesium alloy. We deliberate on their specific
strength, namely the material limit resistance versus density. A simply calculation leads to 69.1,
80.3 and 57.2 (MPa·dm3·Kg-1) respectively for the magnesium alloy, the aluminum alloy and
the steel. Thus, these three values can be scaled to a simplified rank from 0 to 5 in two main
different ways:

▪ Rate by the largest value: we divide the material values by the largest of the pool
and we obtain the normalized values in a scale 0-1; thus multiply these normalized
values for the maximum simple scale value, namely 5. At the end, we obtain the
final quantifying values on a simplified 0 to 5 rank.
In the case of study, we firstly obtain the three normalized values 0.86, 1 and 0.71,
and the final quantifying values on a simplified 0 to 5 rank are therefore: 4.30, 5.00
and 3.60;
▪ Rate by the average value: We calculate for the values the mean value. Now If we
consider that on a simply 0 to 5 rank, 3 is the average value. By similitude between
average value on a real scale and a simplified scale, the unknown ranked value can
be calculated on the simplified scale as:
𝑥 = 3 · (𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ)/(𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ)
This formula basis on a simple proportion as (unknown value) : 3 = (real value):
(real average value).
In the example, for the three values to 69.1, 80.3 and 57.2 MPa·dm3·Kg-1, the mean
value is 68.8 MPa·dm3·Kg-1. We obtain, after calculation that the three specific
strengths of materials leads to 3.01, 3.50 and 2.49.
We need to said that this method is sometimes considered inherently unstable and sensitive to
alternatives (Ashby, 2004).
On the other hand, one major advantages of such a method is the possibility of taking into account
various aspects that are not exclusively related to material properties. For example, it is possible
to include the evaluation of production costs, as composed of the cost of materials, machining
cost and surface protection. This leads to an extended analysis.
This feature makes the non-derivative methods particularly simple and quick to use by a

14
multidisciplinary team, where engineers join with non-engineers to discuss a strategy for the
success of the product on the market.
This method is used in the expert survey approach that we will develop in the next paragraph
The expert survey strategy: implicit method.
In selecting a material for a product or a component, the primary concern of engineers is to match
material properties to the functional requirements of the component. Experts must know what
material-related variables can significantly influence product function, including the type of
material, material toughness, hardness, and fatigue resistance. The type of material used for a
component, in turn, determines the manufacturing process, as well as all manufacturing process
dimensions, such as machinability, formability, weldability, and assemblability. Depending on
the specific manufacturing process involved in component fabrication, one or more process
variables need to be tested for component and product functionality to be optimal.
These variables may include cutting speed and feed, the depth of the cut, the temperature, the
presence or absence of lubricants, the duration of machining, the rate of cooling / heating, current
density and voltage, and the type and amount of solvent used.
The methodology focuses on the development of guidelines based on determining the
relationships between product functionality criteria and design and manufacturing variables that
are impacted by the choice of material.
Questionnaires can be used to guide the selection of materials, and processes are outlined by
documenting the ways in which experts do their work. Information gathered in this way is called
‘capture from expert’, and such a method is based on the arrangement of a subset of specific
questions in order that the expert can provide specific answers.
It is an implicit method since it is not based on a rigorous process that expresses general
relationships between the features of materials and their performance, quantifying such
relationships using certain values, scoring some candidates in base of this relationship and ranking
out others. Moreover, it is a method that strongly depends on having access to competent experts.
Since experts, however, tend not to agree unanimously in their answers, guidelines would help in
making sure the job can be done more efficiently. We will focus on an illustration of the general
methodology to be adopted.

The overall scope of the methodology consists in checking with the experts which key-features
of a material can ensure product functionality by controlling the design and manufacturing
variables that greatly influence the features of the product. Secondly, once such a subset of
material key-features has been defined, candidate materials can be scored in a suitability order. A
matrix-scoring model is useful in situations where a number of options are available and the very
best must be chosen. Table 1 shows how the matrix-scoring model works.
The scoring scale used in the Table 1 ranges from 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) and is somewhat
arbitrary, since a 5-point scale, a 7-point scale, or one with a greater or a smaller number of
gradations can be used. A larger scale with more gradations increases the sensitivity of the
evaluation process. The weights chosen for different criteria indicate the relative importance of
criteria in comparison one to the other (one can use a 10-point total or a 100-point total). The final
score per each option to be ranked is calculated by the sum of the score per each criteria (5 in the
example of Table 1) multiplied by the weight assigned for each criteria category (3 for
performance, 4 for reliability, 2 for quality, etc.).

The expert fills out the matrix by assigning a weight per category and scoring material options.
Thus, the results are strictly dependent on his knowledge of the subject and the quality of the

15
information he is equipped with concerning the response of each option to the assessment criteria.
A good general practice used to reduce the non-objectivity and variability of such an assessment
consists in breaking down each of the five (or more, if need be) general criteria into sublevels. In
order to consider a broad and adequate set of selecting criteria it is useful if the experts’ survey
can evaluate candidate materials in base on their own relative impact on product functionality.
That is on the capability of the product to do something in a safe, reliable, user-friendly and a
high-quality manner, taking into account product manufacturability and the environment
friendliness of product life.

Table: 1 Example of a matrix score for assessment of options on general relevant criteria for
product functionality [1]

The assumption is that the proper choice of a material can positively affect each criterion; thus,
the expert should be able to highlight the important key features of the materials that can control
overall product functionality.
It’s possible to illustrate a sample list - within each criterion - of the important key factors that
can be effective as regards product functionality. Once a subset of sub-criteria for the
enhancement of product functionality has been outlined, the expert can proceed by
surveying the candidate materials on their relative ability to influence each feature of
product functionality.
One main drawback of this method is that it implies implicit knowledge on the expert’s part.
For example, the relative score that the expert assigns for type classes of steels in the “surface
hardness criteria” depends on the knowledge he or she has acquired in carburizing, nitriding and
surface hardened steels. As well as that, he must know how different heat treatments act on the
steel part in terms of the high risk of distortion that components can undergo during the heat
treatment stages, which could compromise the subsequent finishing operation. Thus requiring the
product to be given a non-conformity classification or even, in the very worst cases, to be
discarded completely. Note that however, despite the fact that this survey process is not always
carried out in a formal way, it is usually conducted when a company’s R&D service starts the
auditing process for the selection of suppliers.

16
 II. The multi-objective optimization analysis in material selection6

In real cases concerning authentic products to be optimized in order to compete on the market,
we cannot focus exclusively on performance features. Maximizing performance to surpass
competitors does not necessarily mean succeeding on the market. In order to compete and trade
on the global market, modern enterprises that are leaders get ahead by surpassing their customer’s
expectations. Instead of thinking about how to make their own products into technical
benchmarks, competitive companies consider any other changes, including material-driven
adjustments as opportunity sources for differentiation and for promoting business that can evolve
locally – conscious, as they are that social aspects and environment preservation are unavoidable
today as factors where competition is intense. What emerges is that multiple conflicting objectives
have to be taken into account. Saving weight on your car is a frequent goal, as it is on your portable
and compact devices, on your sports clothing and the accessories you buy in order to achieve
greater performance. Equally frequent is the fact that such a goal is concurrent with minimizing
volume, minimizing the cost and minimizing the impact of the product on the environment. There
are four objectives (i.e. reducing weight, increasing strength, reducing volume, reducing carbon
footprint) that are usually considered, and which are in conflict one with the other. As we have
seen, engineers seek to minimize weight primarily by changing materials and their shape. Usually,
however, the lighter the material is, the lower its resistance strength becomes, and that forces
designers to “add” a volume section at critical points, which in turn is of course a countermeasure
that conflicts with volume reduction. Finally, light alloys are energy intensive materials especially
during the extraction stage, with the result of increasing the final carbon footprint of the product.
We call such cases multiple conflicting objectives problems, and they have usually multiple
constrains. The solution to them is based on a compromise to be sought: not just by optimizing
one single objective, but also by researching their optima as well as possible, considering their
mutual reliance.
But, what procedure can we follow when we must take decisions on candidate materials so as to
arrive at the best compromise? And how can mass, volume, cost and environmental impact be
compared?
We will now expose the two different approaches in relation to multiple conflicting objectives.

6
Freely adjusted from the original book “Material Selection by Hybrid Multi-Criteria Approach”, chapter “Multi-objective
optimization in engineering design” courtesy of author of the book Fabrizio D’Errico, academic tutor at Politecnico di Milano
of this thesis work

17
Decision-making in problems with multiple conflicting objectives using the “explicit”
approach

We need to look at how a decision model is usually structured in such cases. The basic assumption
is that when a multiple conflicting objective arises decision-making is always restrained by the
“decision space”: we must make purposeful choices with limited resources. The resources of a
material can be, for example, that it might be lighter, but this is limited by the fact it cannot be
stronger; as well as that, we look for a material that is both lighter and stronger, but we are limited
by the increase in its cost. Economists have developed an operational approach that allows us to
assess the public’s choice in multiple conflicting objective problems, depending on their own
varying preferences. There are different items among a set of alternatives that conflict with each
other: you can usually chose to purchase more goods, but you need to devote more day hours to
your work to earn the money to purchase these goods; then, the hours you spend at work diminish
the leisure time you have to enjoy what you have bought. [3]
Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923) was probably the first economics researcher whose work might
formally be classified as the explicit multi objective decision making approach. As an economist,
he was the first (or at least one of the first) to carry out mathematical studies on the aggregation
of conflicting criteria into a single composite index in order to quantify decision-making
assessments. A brief overview of Pareto’s basic concepts helps to speed up our comprehension of
the explicit method we can apply in multiple conflicting objectives with multiple constraint
material selection problems.
Basis of the explicit method for in multiple conflicting objectives with multiple constraint material
selection problems
Consumers have varying tastes and preferences for some goods relative to others. And they
normally have limited resources – what the economists call a budget - to satisfy their individual
needs and desires. Different preferences imply different choices for the total allocation of
purchased goods. One person might prefer pizza and coke for his lunch hour, while another prefers
salad and lemonade for his healthy break. Economists call “utility” the fact that individuals prefer
one item to another. Generally speaking, if activity A is preferred to alternative B, we then say
the utility from A is greater than the utility from B.
If we consider a general case, in which you are deciding how many kilos of bananas and kiwis to
buy with your money for your afternoon frozen shake. If you want, the decision would represent
the satisfaction level you reach by mixing – in the way you desire – a different combination of
bananas and kiwis. Now observe Table 2. It reports the number of grams of bananas listed
vertically on the left outside the box, from 0 up to 1,000 grams, while the number of grams of
kiwis is listed horizontally below the box, from 0 to 1,000 grams. The entries inside the box show
the utility you get from consuming bananas and kiwis together. Thus, the number of boxes at each
intersection of a row and a column means the utility number for the consumption and the mixing
of a specific combination of bananas and kiwi. For example, if an individual consumes 200 grams
of bananas and 200 grams of kiwis, the number in the box states that the utility is 18. Utility is
just a numerical indicator of preferences, but it does not matter what units you use to measure –
the fact is that economists have no way of measuring utility. The only rule is that the higher the
utility, the stronger the preference. For this reason, it is very helpful to explore combinations in
the box and rank alternative consumptions. According to table 2, the fans of banana and kiwi
frozen shakes seem to prefer a mixed combination of 800 grams of kiwis and 200 grams of
bananas to a combination of 200 grams of bananas and 400 grams of kiwis in that the utility of
the former (28) is greater than the utility of the latter (21) [3].

18
Thus, by maximizing utility, the consumer is making decisions that lead to the best outcome from
his or her point of view. In this way, utility maximization implements the assumption that people
make purposeful choices to increase their satisfaction.

Table: 2 Example of utility from bananas and kiwis. The numbers inside the box give the utility from consuming the amounts
of bananas and the amounts of kiwi shown outside the box. [3]

At the same time, and generally speaking, consumers are limited in how much they can spend
when they choose between goods A o B. In the example case, consumers are limited in how much
they can spend when they choose between bananas and kiwis (and other goods). This limit on
total spending is called the budget constraint. In function of the combinations, we stablish the
different expenditures of each variant, and we distinguish which are inside of the budget constraint
and the one which are outside (i.e. much more expensive than the stablished budget).
Usually, instead of express the different combinations through a table like with table 2,
economists prefer to express the data by reporting the different value of utility for the varying
combinations of possible preference choices in a diagram chart.
For our example case, as shown in Fig.9, the axes report the same information about the lines and
rows of the matrix in Table 2, namely: x-axis reports the quantity of kiwis, y-axis the quantity of
bananas you chose to mix for your weekly shakes. Note the chart reports the family curves that
interpolate points at the same level of utility (refer once again to the values reported in the cells
in Table 12, and thus compare the points shown in the chart in Fig.9). [3]

Fig: 9 Indifference curves represented on a chart diagram show the utility values of the example in Table 2 [3]

19
What we have done is to transfer to a bi-dimensional char the satisfaction for varying combination
of each good (utility), and add curves that interpolate points with the same level of utility.
We call those curves indifference curves. All the points on each curve correspond to different
combinations of the quantity of each good (in our case quantity of bananas and kiwis). But we
can obtain each combination by moving along a specific curve that leaves the consumer
indifferent to his choice, because in all of the cases the utility level will be the same.
In our example, in Fig.9, points A and B represent two possible choices for mixing bananas and
kiwis that have the same utility for the consumer, so he is indifferent to the choice of either
combination A or combination B because he will be equally satisfied.

Moreover, for taking into account the budget limit that we had stablished, we can add further
family lines called budget constraint family curves as shows figure 10. The meaning is simple:
you may buy varying combinations of each good to your own satisfaction, but you are limited by
your budget. At the same time you can decide to save money from your budget, choosing a
combination with a lower budget line than the maximum budget line. However, this would mean
that you are not maximizing your willingness to allocate up to your maximum weekly budget to
take satisfaction from your objective (in our example the frozen shakes). For that reason, the
problem of defining the quantity of goods that optimize your budget constraint is solved by
selecting any point belonging to the maximum budget line in the chart diagram.
The optimized solution among all the points on the budget line is the one that matches the highest
utility curve among many. At this point we can define a point that corresponds to the quantity of
goods that satisfy both the budget constraint and the maximum utility objective.

Fig: 10 When the budget line is tangent to the indifference curve, the consumer cannot do any better. Compared to the other
points of intersection between the indifferent curves and the budget line “$3”, this point can maximize utility for the consumer:
in fact the maximum utility (35) is obtained among the indifference curves that can match the maximum budget the consumer
can spend. This intersection point therefore defines the optimal allocation of bananas and kiwis in respect to quantity. Note
that, if you reduce the consumer’s budget – e.g. for $1.1 to spend –, the budget line moves on right-bottom corner and thus
the indifference curve that allow maximum utility changes accordingly. [3]

It is possible to demonstrate, but it is out of our scope, that the utility curves that are illustrated
in Fig.10 can be also analytically represented by the Cobb-Douglas7 family of curves:
𝑈 (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑥 𝑎 · 𝑦 𝑏 (𝑒𝑞. 5)

7
In the 1920s the economist Paul Douglas was working on the problem of relating inputs and output at the national aggregate
level. A survey by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that during the decade 1909–1918, the share of output
paid to labor was fairly constant at about 74%, despite the fact the capital/labor ratio was not constant. He enquired of his
friend Charles Cobb, a mathematician, if any particular production function might account for this. This gave birth to the
original Cobb–Douglas production function = 𝐴 ∙ 𝐾1⁄4 ∙ 𝐿3⁄4, where K is factor capital, L is labor and A is a constant that
represents productivity efficiency (Cobb, C. W. and P. H. Douglas, 1928).

20
There is no specific reason for using such an analytic form instead of the other one. Such curves
were introduced first of all in economics, in that they were easy-to-handle interpolating functions.
More often, they are used in their logarithmic form:
𝑢 (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑈 (𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑎 · 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑥 + 𝑏 · 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑦 (𝑒𝑞. 6)
Where a and b constant depends on the optimal interpolation of utility levels for a specific case.
Furthermore, by solving the generalized analytic expression we achieved in eq.6 for the utility
curves, it is possible to demonstrate that the solution P of Fig.10 has a generalized structure like:
𝑎 𝐵
𝑥= ·
𝑎 + 𝑏 𝑝𝑥
𝑏 𝐵 (𝑒𝑞. 7)
𝑦= ·
{ 𝑎 + 𝑏 𝑝𝑦 }

where B is the budget constraint for the budget family of curves:

𝑝𝑥 ∙ 𝑥 + 𝑝𝑦 ∙ 𝑦 = 𝐵 (𝑒𝑞. 8)
The Cobb-Douglas curves are particularly manageable when the optimization problem regards
more than two variables. If we consider more than two elements, the optimization problem cannot
be illustrated by a diagram chart (we cannot deal with more than two variables), but it can easily
be settled by the Cobb-Douglas indifference family curve by adding further elements as shows
(eq.9):
𝑢 = 𝑎 · 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑞1 + 𝑏 · 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑞2 + 𝑐 · 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑞3 + 𝑑 · 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑞4 + ··· (𝑒𝑞. 9)
The new coefficients c, d and any others you might consider will be assessed by re-evaluating the
changes to consumer utility when new ingredients are included, since the original utility values
in the initial matrix represent the level of satisfaction from a possible combination of only two
ingredients. [3]
Now we have finally set out some of the basics in the theory of multi objective decision making,
how can we use it to the advantage of a multiple objectives material selection problem?
The next step is having an in-depth look through what Ashby proposes.

21
The penalty and trade-off curves as a graphic method for the explicit approach to material
selection
If we apply the method that we have just describe to an explicit material selection approach, we
will follow a similar procedure and we will proceed in the same way to obtain useful results.
We consider the example case that we develop before which consist in choose a material for a
lightweight but affordable cost panel. This problem could be classified as a double conflicting
objectives problem: minimizing both the mass and the cost, taking into account that the greater
the performance of the material, the higher its costs goes. Our scope is to seek out a material
among the various candidates that will not necessarily be optimal as regards either of the
objectives, but which maximizes our utility.
As we do for the previous case of the frozen shake, we graphically represent the diagram plotting
mass against cost which shows the three alternative solutions using the information contained in
the property Table 13. Each bubble describes a possible solution as coming from the results
summarized in Table 13.

Table: 3 The same results shown in Table 2 to select optima material for a light, stiff strong panel with further information
about the cost of the part made of magnesium, aluminum or steel [3]

Fig: 11 Indifference curves represented on a chart diagram shown

for the utility values of the example [3]

This plot could be sufficient to identify which bubble represents the optimal solution in the case
of single-objective problem: if minimizing the mass is the sole objective, magnesium is the final
choice. When cost is the dominant criteria, steel is the best solution. But such plot is ineffective
when we consider the optimization of both criteria – mass and cost.

22
To taking into account both features, we proceed in a similar way as in the previously section.
Assume we know the utility level for each bubble as illustrated in Fig.12. It is important to note
that in that case, the increase of utility for any choices is achieved when both mass and cost
decrease, whereas in the previous case was the opposite. The arrow identifies the direction of the
increase in utility for any indifference curve that has been plotted.

In that case, the optimum solution “P” is

here graphically sought by checking the
tangency point between the budget
constraint line and the maximum utility
curve. Like in the previous case, the best
optimization solution here derives from
the tangent point between the minimum
utility curve available and a line that
corresponds to our constraint.

Fig: 12 Indifference curves represented on chart diagram

We now have to solve two kind of problems:

- The first, how can we actually plot the indifference curves for choices in material on the
chart itself?
- Once we have succeeded in solving this, we can face the second problem: how can we
define and plot a constraint line that we need in order to seek its tangent point with lowest
indifference curve we have drawn for the candidate material?

Is important to said that actually the first problem is not easy to solve as it is not possible to
determine indifference curve for a choice of material: the curves could be analyzed, but in a
complicated procedure, which is not effective for us.
In in a simplified way, we firstly locate all the candidates we want to assess by plotting the chart
“mass versus cost” as we previously done, then we draw the interpolating line that represents the
lower bound limit of the existing solution called the trade-off line. Finally, we select the solutions
that are on or near the trade-off line because they offer the best compromise, rejecting the rest of
the candidates

Fig: 13 Trade-off lines helps to single out candidate materials with the best compromise ( maximum utility)

23
 To select the optimal solution among the candidates that are nearest to the tradeoff line we need,
two different approaches are possible:
- • reformulate one of the two objectives, for
example the cost, as a fixed constraint we can set
at $80 the cost limit that you do not want to
surpass ( budget limit)

Fig: 14 Trade off line considering a limit in the budget [3]

- introduce an additional element in the plot similar to

the budget constraint line, called the penalty line, or
penalty function.

Fig: 15 Identification of the zones where the best

solutions are located [3]

The first one is a simple procedure, but it is not actually a true optimization: if we want further to
refine the selection among the candidates that are nearest the trade-off line, we penalty line. The
penalty function is the way to aggregate the various objectives, into one single objective function
formulated in such a way that his minimum corresponds to the most favored solution.

Generally speaking, the penalty function Z aggregates as many objectives as we want to minimize
or maximize for arriving to a complete analyze and realize a useful study, and has the following
form:
𝑍 = 𝑎0 + 𝛼1 · 𝑎1 + ⋯ + 𝛼𝑛 · 𝑎𝑛 (𝑒𝑞. 10)

Where 𝛼𝑖 are constants that allows you to homogenize the units of the different objectives 𝑎𝑖 in
base of the units of the referent objective 𝑎0 usually the cost C
In our example, the penalty function Z aggregates two objective functions, the mass m and the
cost C to be minimized, as follows:
𝑍 = 𝛼 ∙ 𝑚 + 𝐶 (𝑒𝑞. 11)

Where 𝛼 is a constant that allows you to convert the mass function expressed in kg into the cost
as expressed in a currency, for example the $; thus the unit measure of α is expressed in $/kg.
It is important to say that, exchange constants measure the increase in penalty for a unit increment
in a given performance metric like mass, volume, environmental impact (all others being held
constant). For example, in eq.25 if the exchange constant of the mass m is -2$ /kg, this means that
for each kg reduced, the cost of the component increases by 2$

24
The exchange constant 𝛼𝑖 allows us to quantify in a single unit of measurement (the currency) the
monetary effect of unitary changes made on optimization variables.
Finally we obtain a (theoretical) best solution that is represented by the coordinates of the tangent
point P. The tangent point between the trade-off line and the penalty function family curve
identifies the zone where the best solutions are located. Actually here we are dealing with real
materials and a suitable solution; for this reason we are not interested in the theoretical
optimization problem but in singling out which – among the real, possible solutions represented
by the bubbles – is the nearest to what is theoretically the optimal one.
In the example case, from the plot in Fig.15, aluminum is the best candidate material because
pursues the objective of minimizing the mass and the cost at a fixed exchange constant value, and
respects the design constraints in terms of maximum deformation and inner stress under load.
We notice that the selected solution depends very much on the exchange constant value that we
choose as we saw with the next figures assuming different values for the constant, in the case
panel project:

Fig: 16 Changes in solutions driven by the slope of the penalty function: change in the exchange constant for mass produces
a consistent variation in the penalty function slope and therefore the variation of tangent point P. [3]

We see that lower value of the exchange constant for mass (second case) shows that conventional
(steel) is still the best solution and no changes in product are considered.

By using the graphic method, it is possible to find more precise solutions to articulated problems
that deal with two objectives and multiple constraint problems. Uncertainties are thus restrained
at one’s own discretion: in a project, you would put more emphasis on either the cost or the
performance as a lightweight objective. This makes the solutions vary to three different levels of
importance, depending on what is assigned to the exchange constants in the penalty function.
Thus, since the values assigned to exchange constants have such a great influence on the final
selection of the material, how can we take the right decision on their values?
And, even in cases where we are lucky enough to not have any doubts when deciding such
constant values, and in consideration of the fact that the method described above is well settled
and defined for no more than 2 conflicting objectives, how can we find a solution to a real problem
when we have more than two conflicting criteria to consider?
We will deal with this type of two-tier problem after exposing the implicit approach for multi-
objective optimization using the Quality Function Deployment.

25
The “implicit” approach using the Quality Function Deployment matrix

Origins
In the late 60s at Mitsubishi’s Kobe Shipyard, Yoji Akao and Shigeru Mizuno were working on
the potential relationships between the customer needs and what technical requirements to target
in order to match these needs. Originally they developed as a simple matrix that put the customer
demands on the vertical axis and the methods with which they would be met on the horizontal
axis. Later, further improvements were brought to bear in the early ‘70s leading to the definition
of a well-structured tool called in English Quality Function Deployment or QFD, which was
recognized almost immediately as a major breakthrough.
The term Quality Function Deployment is a loose translation from the Japanese name for this
methodology, hin shitsu (quality), ki nou (function), ten kai (deployment). In Japanese,
‘deployment’ refers to an extension or broadening of activities and hence ‘Quality Function
Deployment’ means that the responsibilities for producing a quality item must be assigned to all
parts of a corporation. It is sometimes referred to as the most advanced form of Total Quality
Control, Japanese style.
One very important thing we that we need to highlight is that, on account of its own structure,
QFD is an explicit method for designing a product or service which is based on customer demands
and that can involve all members of the organization. The general scope of the QFD matrix is the
formation and structuring of a creative engineering process that aims effectively to translate the
customer’s needs into technical requirements. As such, therefore, QFD is a technique used in
order to facilitate the process of converting the customer’s requirements, into a product design. If
we are engineers and managers, we are usually so close to our product that our level of expectation
and our values are far removed from those of the average customer. What frequently happens is
that a high performance product is launched, but it does not meet customer expectations simply
because the technical features that characterize the product are not fully perceived by the
customer. Or, some added features put there to differentiate the product and so to compete in the
market are not decisive in targeting the customer’s final choice. A general rule used by QFD is
that we should not speak for the public, but that we must listen to the “voice of the customer”, or
VOC by gathering the requirements that make their needs more explicit.
A QFD methodology flow is depicted in Figure 17, but the best way to fully comprehend how a
method works is obviously to experience it. For this reason, we will discuss how to construct a
QFD matrix for one case study in the next sections, but first we will describe the full process,
focusing in each step.

Fig: 17 Scheme of the QFD matrix. Because of its shape, it is also usually called the “House of Quality” [3]
26
Analyze of the implicit approach: procedure and main steps
Through this section we will expose the global procedure and the main steps that compound it.
Later in the subsequent section, we will illustrate the procedure by a case of study.
As we say before, the process that we need to focus on, starts from customers’ needs and
requirements, which we want to satisfy more completely than our competitors, and find the key
technical features that need to be controlled and adjusted in order to influence our customers’
evaluation of our product in a positive way.
Note that product competes and is successful on the market when such an engineering process
finally manages to get on the customer’s wavelength and communicate this message: “Buy me!
Buy me, since I’m the best!”
Theoretically speaking, such a closed loop is simple:
- Gather the customers’ needs,
- Identify the technical and engineering features that will ensure the customer perceives
that our product can satisfy his needs
- Control the relevant key engineering features in order to surpass those of our competitors.

After making this study and having a deeper look in our case, we can group and summarize all
the requirements that have expressed the costumers. We need to manage to organize all the
preliminary customers’ requirements, into some groups of associated data to simplify using the
QFD charts we will be dealing with at a later stage. Because the customer requirements are listed
in the language of the customer, the process of organizing the data allows the QFD team to reach
a common understanding of what customers want. In organizing, the customer requirements there
are three categories into which they can be put that are:
- Primary: The very basic customer wants. At this level all the requirements should give
an overall product view. For example: ‘looks light at first glance’, ‘comfortable to ride’,
‘durable’, etc.
- Secondary: These requirements are the primary level in more detail and are in fact the
headings for groups of tertiary level requirements
- Tertiary: These are the requirements at their most detailed level.
We will now expose in detail all the steps that we need to perform with the QFD matrix in order
to arrive at a complete analyze
Entering the Customer Requirements onto the QFD Chart

Once all the requirements have been gathered and organized, they can be entered on the QFD
chart on the left hand side as shown in the diagram in Fig.17.
Establishing Customer Importance Ratings & Customer Competitive Comparisons

After we have gathered the customer requirements, we deal with quantifying:

– The relative importance of each of the characteristics you put in the previous table as the
customer rates them.
– The score that a customer assigns to our company on each of his/her requirements against
the best of our competition.

Once again, note that we cannot go in depth with market research methods, but what it is important
to highlight is that whatever survey technique is used to gather customer importance ratings and
comparisons with the competition, it is necessary to have both of the above pieces of information.

27
Generally, a 0 to 5 scale is used to simplify. Usually we commonly make questionnaires for
customer in order to obtain the customer opinion.
The questionnaires are collected and analyzed by entering the information on the QFD chart. We
put in the left-hand shoulder the Degree of Importance for the Customer and in the right hand
shoulder the Customer’s Comparisons Assessment with the competition (see again diagram in
Fig.18).
Establish Engineering Characteristics
We need now to determine the Engineering Characteristics, which must be optimized to assure
customer satisfaction. The marketing domain tells us what to do; the engineering domain tells us
how to do it. Engineering Characteristics should describe the product in measurable terms and
should directly affect customer perceptions. This translation of Customer Requirements into
language that will be meaningful to a designer is a very important step in QFD: when it is not
performed correctly, the major scope of the study ( i.e., creating a product aligned with the
customer’s expectations) will be lost.
It is possible to stabilize a summary this translation in a table that shows some of the major
engineering issues determining the product characteristics that can affect, either positively or
negatively, the perception of the costumers who will actually use the object. We group these ideas
under the three major headings, performance, cost and safety, in line with the VOC subsection
that is usually the left side of table. For each customer requirement which emerged at either the
secondary or tertiary sublevel in the data information grouping, the Team has tried to make a
causal link with at least one functional requirement by which the customers’ perception can be
influenced. At the same time, per each functional requirement identified, at least one, possibly
measurable, engineering characteristic has been established to allow the engineers to proceed with
the optimization process and assure customer satisfaction.
Once the Engineering Characteristics are established, they can be entered along the top of the
QFD chart, while the Metrics is entered along the bottom of the central Relationship Matrix,
following the diagram in Fig.18.
Engineering Characteristics Conflict Matrix
This stage involves filling in the Relationship Matrix in the main body of the chart and the
triangular Conflicts Matrix at the top of the chart. The objective is to highlight relationships
between Customer Requirements and Engineering Characteristics, and conflict/supporting
relationships amongst the Engineering Characteristics. Let us start from the Relationship Matrix.
For each Customer Requirement, namely for each row of the matrix, the Team try to establish the
level of causal relationship that can exist with each “Engineering Characteristic”, namely the
columns of the matrix. In other words, in product development language, the Team did research
into how strong the relationship is between the technical features of the product and the
customers’ specific requirements.

The scoring of the strength level is conventionally made at a 0-9 discrete scale, in accordance
with the original QFD matrix developed by Akao and Mizuno:
- 9, for a strong relationship (alternatively, we use the symbol “●” );
- 3, for a medium relationship (alternatively, we use the symbol “○”);
- 1, for a weak relationship, (alternatively, we use the symbol “ ”);
- 0, no relationship, no symbol.

28
Conflicts Matrix

This is the triangular matrix at the top of the chart: is used to highlight further supporting or
conflicting relationships between two Engineering Characteristics. The relationships betweem
engineering characteristics are stablished in base at two possible grades:
- “▼” means that the engineering characteristic in this case must decrease if we are to
move in the direction of improvement
- “▲” has the opposite meaning.

All this information is symbolically summarized in the top triangular matrix. Symbols are used
to indicate whether two engineering features are correlated by a positive supporting relationship
or a negative conflicting relationship:
- For a supportive relationship, the symbol “+”;
- For a conflicting relationship, the symbol “-”.

Negative symbols show where a tradeoff situation exists, which must be resolved.
These will be considered in the next stage when the target values for the Engineering
Characteristics are established.
Technical Competitive Comparisons

The next step is to work on the bottom part of the QFD matrix, namely the box below “Metrics”,
which is indicated as “Technical Targets” and “Competitive Comparisons”. Firstly, we clarify the
final scope of this crucial step: compare how your product performs in comparison to the most
serious competitors. But to make a technical comparison between your product and those of the
competitors, you need:
- a basis of comparison to decide if, as regards that specific engineering characteristic, your
product is either better or worse than that of the competitors;
- such a basis of comparison to be as measurable as possible, to facilitate comparison.

The second issue has already been resolved since in the previous step Establish Engineering
Characteristics we have pointed out the engineering features and their metrics. Thus we focus on
the basis of comparison, which is called in QFD language the Technical Targets.
Note that some engineering characteristics need to be consider as measurable even it is not true
in order to quantify them and allow us to compared the different candidates. For the ones wo are
measurable we need to take precise measurements.

Now we need a procedure to compare the competitors’ products on a simplified semi-qualitative

1-5 scale, and thus to identify at what level we want to position our product in relation to the
specific engineering characteristics. In the previous section we already discussed two types of
methods that help us to transform quantified values (by measurement or calculation) into a
simplified scale, for example a 1-5 scale, in order to speed up the comparison process. We now
focus just on the scoring-by-mean method and we apply it to this example. Thus, when we want
to transform the data that has been gathered into a simplified scale, we need to proceed as follows:

- identify the average value of the gathered data;

- set that value correspondent to the mean value of the 1-5 scale, i.e. “3”;
- transform the quantity measured into a 1-5 score value using the similitude above.

29
Before proceeding, it is important to highlight that when the values to convert are judged better
as they increase, the relationship by similitude of average values is direct:
𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 = ( )·3 (eq. 12 )
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
If we apply this relation to our data, in some cases it would result in false scores, since some
features would achieve a higher score on 1 to 5 scale. We therefore have to use the inverted
relation, which is:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒 = 3 − (𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 − 3) (eq. 13 )
The above relationship simply allows us to invert the score in cases where we are dealing with
lower quantified values to be highly scored. Eq.13 allows us to convert the engineering
characteristics values in a 1-5 scale. In addition, we identify technical targets: setting the targeted
scores on a 1-5 scale for each engineering characteristic, we can inversely translate the simplified
score we assign into original metrics values.
Now take some time to assimilate the above steps and pay attention to what is your main scope
when you are constructing a QFD matrix for a product. So far you have defined the “Technical
Targets” in the bottom part of the QFD chart (refer to Fig.18) for the engineering characteristics
that the product you are developing should have in order to effectively answer the customers’
needs and requirements. Now we have the quantified values at our disposal, which we want to
target in order to be successful on the market against our competitors. The last two steps in
constructing the QFD chart therefore shall consist in:
- assessing our product and our competitors’ product by comparing how close their
respective engineering characteristics really are to such targeted values;
- rating our product and the competitors’ using a method that can sum up in a proper way
all the score values we obtained for the engineering characteristics assessed so far.

Technical Competitive Assessment: rating the engineering characteristics

A combination of the customer importance rating and the strength of the relationships between
the customers’ requirements and the engineering characteristics is here established. As stated, the
central relationship matrix (refer again to Fig.18 that partly shows the Relationship Matrix)
gathers the correlation of symbols describing strength level, and numerical values are associated
to these symbols: 9 for strong relationship, 3 for medium relationships, 1 for weak relationships,
0 in cases where there is no relationship.
The ratings are calculated by running down each column, summing the product of the customers’
importance rating and the value assigned to the correlation symbol.
The last and most crucial step is the final scoring of our product and those of our competitors. We
will follow the calculation procedure in the next part:
- for each product to compare and for each column of the Relationship Matrix, multiply
each value in the Technical Competitive Assessment grid by its correspondent Relative
Weight value expressed in a percentage;
- sum all the results from the above multiplication.

Having carried out the above double-operations, we achieve for each product considered the
results gathered in the “Total Weighted Score” box.

30
The analysis of results

The data accumulated is finally organized in the QFD chart.

An analysis of the chart is outside the scope of this chapter; in fact, the analysis of a traditional
QFD chart applied to product development is outside the project. Some short notes are however
useful since we will now be dealing with some general QFD analysis topics, when a special QFD
matrix will be developed to support the material selection strategy.
Despite its rigorous method of construction, there are no set procedures for analyzing the chart.
However, what even novices immediately recognize is that adopting QFD during the decision
making process gives them greater lucidity when in the final matrix they have to identify:

- The points which would improve, sometimes included in the product’s specific engineering
characteristics, but which are still missing despite all the competitors’ efforts; the suggestion
can sometimes rationally emerge that some expensive engineering features should be
downgraded, because they are not relevant - or are not very cost-effective – in the customers’
perception.
- The most effective engineering characteristics, namely those that impact greatly on the
customers’ perceptions.

It can be easily used by a multidisciplinary Team that can really work together confronting each
other in free and open discussions.

31
Analyse of a study case: example of the bike saddle [3]
Let us introduce our study case. Assume we are working in a company that produces bike saddles,
and we are in a multidisciplinary team concerned with product development. In particular, the
team has to seek for a solution to improve the competitiveness of the company’s top product, and
it has been commissioned to develop new and distinctive features in the product – road-bike
saddles (Fig.18).
As we say before, the process that we need to focus on, starts from customers’ needs and
requirements, which we want to satisfy more completely than our competitors, and find the key
technical features that need to be controlled and adjusted in order to influence our customers’
evaluation of our saddle in a positive way.

Fig: 18 Major features of road-bike saddle [3]

In our example case, our scope is to talk with expert bikers, and try to understand what they need,
what they consider relevant, what they absolutely hate in a bike saddle, and what a saddle should
and should not do. After making this study and having a deeper look in our case, we can group
and summarize all the requirements that have expressed bikers in the figure 18 and in the
following table.

Table: 4 Bike saddle example in organizing requirements

Thanks to this table, we have actually managed to organize all the preliminary customers’
requirements, into the three main categories: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary categories.
We start now the analyze of each part in detail all the steps that we need to perform with the QFD
matrix in order to arrive at a complete analyze

32
 - Entering the Customer Requirements onto the QFD Chart

We introduce all the gathered and organized requirements on the QFD chart on the left hand side.
- Establishing Customer Importance Ratings & Customer Competitive Comparisons

As we have explain to quantify the relative importance of each of the characteristics you put in
the previous table as the customer rates them, and the score that a customer assigns to our
company on each of his/her requirements against the best of our competition we follow diverse
survey techniques. In Fig.19 an example questionnaire is shown, made to collect data on bike
saddles: the 0 to 5 scale is used to simplify

Fig: 19 Example questionnaire for gathering information data from customers relevant for the QFD matrix. [3]

The above questionnaires are collected and analyzed by entering the information on the QFD
chart for our bike saddle example
- Establish Engineering Characteristics

As we have previously said, in this step determine the Engineering Characteristics which must be
optimized to assure customer satisfaction, namely is the translation of Customer Requirements
into engineering language that will be meaningful.
Table 5 shows some of the major engineering issues determining the product characteristics that
can affect, either positively or negatively, the perception of the bikers who will actually use the
saddle.

33
34
 Table: 5 Main key-engineering issues obtained by translation of major bikers’
requirements for bike saddles.

- Engineering Characteristics Conflict Matrix

We establish the relationships between the costumer’s requirements and the engineering
characteristics, that we have previously develop, by filling the conflict matrix. We establish the
level of the casual relationship in function of the 4 possible grades of relation establishes by Akao
and Mizuno. In Fig. 20 there is an extract from the bike saddle study.

Fig: 20 Establishing a link relationship matrix extract from the bike saddle study. [3]

- Conflicts Matrix

As we have said before this triangular matrix, that it is at the top of the matrix, is used to highlight
further supporting or conflicting relationships between two Engineering Characteristics. For
example, if we look at Engineering Characteristics n.2 “cross-section thickness” in Fig.22, we
note it is identified on the top line by the symbol “▼”, while some others are identified by symbols
“▲”. This depends on the fact we want the cross-sections of the saddle to be at the same time as
thin as possible and to decrease in weight. However, the thinner they are, the more deformable
the saddle, and this is also in contrast with customer requirement n.2 “the saddle should be rigid”.
The thickness of the cross-sections is thus an engineering characteristic that must decrease to
reduce the weight mass, but this can influence negatively on another engineering characteristic
that we identified – n.1 “Maximum displacement produced by vertical force F”. Thus, we can
state that when it decreases the n.2 engineering feature “cross-section thickness”, is:
- Conflicting with the n.1 “Maximum displacement produced by vertical force F ” that
should be decreased;
- Supporting of the n.3 “weight mass” that should be decreased.

35
Below in Fig.21 is an extract from the bike saddle study.

Fig: 21 Correlation matrix for the bike saddle study. [3]

- Technical Competitive Comparisons

As we have mentioned, in this step works with the “Technical Targets” and “Competitive
Comparisons” box in order to compare how your product performs in comparison to the most
serious competitors.
As previously said, we focus on the basis of comparison (Technical Targets) considering that
the engineering characteristics are measurable, fact that is true for example in the cases of
engineering characteristics n.2 and n.3 in the bike saddle case study, respectively the cross-section
thickness and the weight mass.
Assume your engineering department has taken precise measurements for these two technical
features on competitors’ products A, B and C. The results are summarized in column 4 of Table
6. In column 5 the average values for the data gathered are reported thus.

Table: 6 Competitive comparisons on 1-5 scale and identification of suitable target values for n.2 and n.3 engineering
characteristics for the bike saddle case study. [3]

36
Then we compare the competitors’ products on a simplified semi-qualitative 1-5 scale, to identify
at what level we want to position our product in relation to the specific engineering characteristics.
Note that, as we said before, we need to use the inverted relation to our data instead of the direct
relation because if we apply the direct relation to our data in Table 6, it would result in false
scores, since the thicker cross-sections would achieve a higher score on 1 to 5 scale. This depends
on the fact the driving force is to minimize the thickness, and thus the lower this value, the higher
the score.
The Eq.13 allows us to complete the data in column 6 of Table 6, reporting the final converted
values. Technical targets have been identified in the last column, Column 7, of Table 6; setting
the targeted scores on a 1-5 scale for each engineering characteristic, (they are 3.5 and 3.8
respectively for engineering features n.2 and n.3 in the table), we can inversely translate the
simplified score we assign into original metrics values.

Now take some time to assimilate the above steps and pay attention to what is your main scope
when you are constructing a QFD matrix for a product. So far you have defined the “Technical
Targets” in the bottom part of the QFD chart (refer to Fig.18) for the engineering characteristics
that the product you are developing should have in order to effectively answer the customers’
needs and requirements. Now we have the quantified values at our disposal, which we want to
target in order to be successful on the market against our competitors.
Now we proceed to assessing our product and our competitors’ product by comparing how close
their respective engineering characteristics really are to such targeted values, which is the first
step of the last two steps in constructing the QFD. We consider the extract from the QFD chart of
the case study that is given in Fig.22. The bottom part shows the row filled in with the “Technical
Targets” and the rows (a piece of the chart diagram) relative to the “Technical Competitive
Assessment” we carried out comparing each engineering characteristic of our product and those
of our competitors with these technical values. The simplified 1-5 scale has been used and, lastly,
a detailed assessment for each engineering characteristic has been performed for our product and
those of our competitors. For the rating, we can proceed therefore to the next.

37
 Fig: 22 Technical importance rating for a number of engineering characteristics for the bike saddle study [3]
- Technical Competitive Assessment: rating the engineering characteristics

As we have explained before, in these step it is established a combination of the customer

importance rating and the strength of the relationships between the customers’ requirements, and
the engineering characteristics.
As an example, if we consider the second engineering characteristic (second column of the
engineering Relationship Matrix in the Fig.22) and we calculate the ratings by running down each
column, summing the product of the customers’ importance rating and the value assigned to the
correlation symbol we obtain:
- the absolute importance rating of 141 is calculated from:
→ (5 x 9) + (5 x 9) + (4 x 9) + (5 x 3) = 141.
- the relative value in the cell just below is simply the absolute value expressed as a
percentage of the total.

Again, if you consider the third column of the Relationship Matrix:

- the absolute value 60 is calculated from:
→ (5 x 9) + (3 x 5) = 60
- and its relative value, expressed as a percentage of the total, is reported in the
correspondent cell below.

As previously mentioned. the final scoring of our product and those of our competitors is
calculated multiplying each value in the Technical Competitive Assessment grid by its
correspondent Relative Weight value expressed in a percentage, and finally summing all the
results from the above multiplication.
Having carried out those double-operations, we achieve for each product considered the results
gathered in the “Total Weighted Score” box, on the right of Fig.23.
For example, for the “our product”, the Total Weighted Score is calculated as:

38
 → (3 x 5%) + (2 x 15% ) + (4 x 6%) + … + (2 x 7%) + = 2.7

Fig: 23 Calculation of Total Weighted Score for three competing products in the case studied [3]

- The analysis of results

Finally Fig.24 shows the QFD chart of the bike saddle case study with all the data organanized.
As we have mentioned we identify the important aspects such as:
- the points which would improve, sometimes included in the product’s specific
engineering characteristics, but which are still missing despite all the competitors’ efforts;
the suggestion can sometimes rationally emerge that some expensive engineering features
should be downgraded, because they are not relevant - or are not very cost-effective – in
the customers’ perception. It is an old story: young researchers in the R&D department
sometimes push for improvements, desiring to change the product and use materials
which give higher performance and are lighter in weight, while the their boss tells them:
“Cool it! But nobody will notice. Nobody will pay out good money for this kind of
change: they can’t even see it!”. Thus, what do you think about the brake calipers in sport
cars, which, although they are of course functional objects, are more and more frequently
left uncovered by the wheels, painted in bright colors and undergo research to give them
captivating shapes?

39
 - the most effective engineering characteristics, namely those that impact greatly on the
customers’ perceptions. Take another look to Fig.23, and more precisely the row
Technical Importance Rating, at the bottom of the matrix: remember that the values in
each cell of this row represent a number that takes into account the strength of the causal
relationship between the engineering features and customer satisfaction, weighted on the
customers’ relative importance. Thus we found that out of 16 different engineering
characteristics defined to answer customer needs, a pair of them, the second and the fifth
cover about 26% of the customers’ requirements.

Fig: 24 Global Example of QFD matrix for the bike saddle case study [3]

What we have seen until now?

There are two approaches to the decision making process in several disciplines, and that is also
true as for engineering material selection:
 quantifying methods ( explicit methods) that point out optimization functions
using mathematical relationships, graphs and curves.
 and non-quantifying methods ( implicit methods) that are based on making
correlations between what is required, is expected and what it is necessary to put into a
product in order to satisfy such requests by doing it better than the competitors.

At this point what should I do? In other words, what approach/method I should take in my material
selection strategy
The quantifying methods are precise, effective and based on a verifiable relationship, which, when
the objectives and constraints are clear and agreed on, are not at the discretion of any single
individual. On the other hand, they are in reality restrained to a limited decision making “space”.

40
Explicit methods of optimization can manage a couple of conflicting objectives using diagram
charts. As a remark, we note that theoretically at least, we can determine the optimum among
more than three objectives by employing a specific method based on the Cobb-Douglas curves
that we had previously explain. The problem here, and it is by no means a trivial one, is how to
define such curves in a solution of three or more space dimensions in order to accomplish the
objectives.
Non-quantifying methods do not do all these things, but complementarily they are suitable for
analyzing multiple conflicting aspects without any restraint in their number. Actually, the QFD
matrix based method can break the problem of optimization into small pieces, comparing and
assessing solutions that have already been developed and then re-assembling them all into a final
simple number, the Total Weighted Score.
As well as that, we have to take into account the investment we need to make in flexibility, in
terms of the high level of discretion left to users. QFD is just a tool, sometimes a software tool
that is easy-to-use, but it does not do the job for you. Namely, it forces the Team to set target
values for engineering characteristics in order to assure customer satisfaction, and it is able to
show how you can influence with your choices and which leverages appear more advantageous,
but it certainly does not tell you how to do the job. In other words, it is flexible, but, if it is to be
precise, it requires that all the experts that are competent in all the issues relevant to the customers’
requirements and needs should join up and sit around the table it has laid out for them. In addition,
since materials specialists sit at that table with all the others, why should they not bring some of
the results they have obtained using implicit methods into discussion as well?
QFD can act as a common language among all the diversities of a multi-discipline team that wants
to take the product design as a whole, but why we shouldn’t bring some of the results that maybe
we have obtained using implicit methods for the same case of study?
In the next paragraph, we will expose a total explicit-approach, where we take in account the
different results that we obtain by both methods and we combine them to make a uniform and
homogeneous solution.

41
III. The QFD4Mat method in preliminary material screening out8

The assessment of material candidates by Graphic Analysis

It’s possible to build up a tool that can embed the advantages of the implicit and explicit methods,
thus mitigating their respective drawbacks. Generally it is based in the QFD tool used in the
implicit approach.
Actually what distinguishes the QFD for material selection, which for simplicity and quick
reference we will be calling QFD4Mat in future, is how the product requirements are identified
and thus ordered in the matrix.
If we compare both matrix we see that instead of having the tree categories, Primary, Secondary
and Tertiary for classify the key-requirements, we used the categories Performance, Cost and
Receptivity that are properly broken down into subsets. In the matrix, the first column of Product
Requirements identifies the Performance features of the product, and the following columns
reports the subset of Performance features that would impact on product functionality, particularly
product lifespan and functional objectives and constraints. In figure 25 we can see portion the
new matrix.

Fig: 25 Link relationship matrix extract from the study case of a crankshaft [4]

It is important to say that the new matrix is based on the use of a Root Cause Failure Analysis
where key features related to lifespan are referred to the possible ways of causing the failure of
our considered object such as fatigue, fast fracture or wear. At these failure mechanisms
automatically correspond some technical key features.
The levels of correlations in the matrix are stablished with the same scale as the QFD with the
tree symbols: “●”, “○”, “ ”, and blanc, respectively for high, medium, low an no correlation.

8
Freely adjusted from the original book “Material Selection by Hybrid Multi-Criteria Approach”, chapters “The total explicit-
implicit approach: the special QFD matrix for material selection” and “The use of QFD4Mat and graphic tools for the material
screening in product development processes”, courtesy of author of the book Fabrizio D’Errico, academic tutor at Politecnico
di Milano of this thesis work

42
At the same time, the new matrix, allow you to include the potential Ashby parameters by
following the bellow 7 steps [4]
- Switch each indicator that has a positive trend in the functions optimization into its
reciprocal (see second box in figure 26);
- Convert the reciprocal indicators of box 2 into a 0 to 5 scale of values by using the
equation that we have seen previously (eq.12) (results are shown in box 3 figure 26);
- Define for each indicator, the weight factors indicator (box 4 figure 26): it depends on
what your engineers decide in terms of the relative importance of one objective over the
others;
- Multiply the weight factors by the converted indicators (box 5 figure 26);
- Calculate for each material (each row of box 4) the sum of the logarithmic values of the
previous results applying the equation 𝑈 = ∑𝑖 𝐿𝑜𝑔 (𝐼𝑖") (equal to the eq.9), with 𝐼𝑖" the
result of the previous step. In this way, we introduce the "explicit" component of the
explicit approach, by using the Cobb-Douglas curves to obtain the weighted solution. The
main advantage of using the Cobb-Douglas equation in logarithmic form consists in the
possibility it gives of introducing more than two variables as those manageable by using
the general equation:

U = ∑ Log (I𝑖 ′′ ) (eq 14)

𝑖

The most optimized solution is researched for the minimum value of U. (box 6 figure 26);
- Finally, for each material candidate, convert U into a 0 to 5 scale of values, P, by using
eq.13. Because we want to set things in such a way that the higher P is, the higher the
performance of the product, we need to calculate values on a 0 to 5 scale by using the
inverting relation we met in eq.13;
- The Global Indices “P” take into account the impact of weight factors. (box 7 figure 26).
Thy are finally introduced it into the QFD4Mat in order to complete the analysis;

43
 Fig: 26 The flow chart for the calculation the Global Index P (box 7) for three candidate materials [4]
For
reference, Figure 27 shows a possible matrix for material selection customized for the case of
study of a vehicle crankshaft.

44
 Fig: 27 The customized QFD4Mat for the crankshaft case study [4]

Among the several ways of visualizing data, we need something that maintains the high quality
of information provided by an image, which can be intuitively comprehensible without requiring
any specific skills. Therefore, we need a rapid visualization, just an “image”, which can
summarize a lot of information that we acquire by the QFD4Mat. Two methods of visualization
will therefore be illustrated here that can reply to such needs.
The first method we borrow from what Kim and Mauborgne, two management strategy scholars,
recently proposed, which they call the Value Curve of products, services and processes (Kim and
Mauborgne, 1997 and 2005). Here we focus specifically on products.

• The Value Curve of products

A Value Curve is a diagram used to compare products over a range of factors by rating them on
a qualitative scale, from low to high. Such factors can be product features, product benefits or
ways in which a product is distributed or consumed. Here we are interested in the product features
related to materials. The combination of these various features defines a product, distinguishing
it from the other competitors that may have different Value Curves. Multiple Value Curves can
be drawn and superimposed to create a very user-friendly visual comparison among competitive
products and to unearth possible gaps in the market. By investigating the feasibility of these gaps,
Kim and Mauborgne warn it may be possible to identify changes to the product that significantly
alter the value proposition and enhance the receptiveness of users.
Let us proceed in creating our product Value Curve using the QFD4Mat results per whatever
example. In Fig.28, in the next three areas highlighted, we can recognize [5]:
▪ Area 1 contains the “N” material key-factors identified in QFD4Mat as
influencing the desired product requirements (the VOC features in the left side of matrix);
▪ Area 2 contains the relative weights of “N” material key-factors, in percentage;
▪ Area 3 contains the assessment by a 0-5 non-dimensional scale of the material
candidates through the “N” key-features.

45
 Fig: 28 Relevant portions of QFD4Mat constructed for a general case of study with 20 key features [5]

Simply reorganizing the data in Area 1, Area 2 and Area 3, we can draw our Value Curves for 4
materials.
We can proceed as follows:
▪ Organize the “N” columns of the key-features (i.e. Area 1) by horizontally sorting
them ascending from lower to higher values in the row highlighted in Area 2; the data in
Area 3 will be sorted accordingly;
▪ Plot a diagram with the y-axis ranging between 0 to 5 value and the “N” key-
features on x-axis;
▪ Plot onto such a diagram the data on the 4 materials contained in Area 3.

If you follow the three-step procedure listed above, the result is that shown in Fig.29 – the Value
Curves of the 4 candidate materials along with the “N” key features organized from the least
important (on the left) to the higher relative importance (to the right) as also illustrated by the
dotted line “Relative Importance”

Fig: 29 The Value Curve visualizing the final results of QFD4Mat [5]

46
It is worth noticing that the Value Curves graph we constructed from the QFD4Mat data
elaborated for a general case is an immediate snapshot of such key features that have been
researched and then prioritized in order to get an answer to the information in the left hand side
matrix, the Voice of Customer requirements.
To fully exploit Value Curve theory we want to apply it to the material key features for a new
product. There are 4 key questions we need to ask in order to challenge and resolve the trade-off
between differentiation and low cost and to create a new value curve:
 Which key-features that a particular sector takes for granted should be eliminated?

This question forces decision makers to consider those features that reply to the
requirements which companies are competing for, but which actually have a low or even
no impact at all on product value;

 Which key-features should be reduced well below the industry’s standard?

Some product features do not add value to the product, or they are overdesigned. This is
for example the case of an oversized depth of casehardened layers on linear guides. Deep
hardened surface layers are provided by critical induction hardening treatment conducted
on very high carbon steel. In several cases the effective hardened depth can be
substantially reduced below the usual sector standards, and induction hardening treatment
can be substituted by a less critical gas nitriding process;

 Which key-features should be raised well above the industry’s standard?

Quality appearance, image and impact resistance by use of light metal alloys in
electronics, for example laptop covers, are today made of machined aluminum instead of
the cheaper injection molding polymers, which give greater formability;

 Which key-features should be created, responding to unexplored product requirements

for the sector, which the industry has never offered?

This forces us to seek out solutions that break out of the industry’s sector boundaries, to
explore new offer contexts. In the past, but also in contemporary architecture, resistance
to the environment, formability and strength as regards wide panels that are both thin and
light led to the introduction in buildings of stainless steel to create value. A historic
example is the Chrysler Building in New York, one of the 20th century’s architectural
trophies. A classic embodiment of the Art Deco style with its distinctive top
ornamentations of austenitic stainless steel, which could be free-modeled with features
used on Chrysler automobiles. It was the first large, high-profile stainless steel application
in the world.

As stated, no tool you use will do the job for you, that is, it does not whisper the solution that will
be successful into your ears. But a tool can help you in acquiring high-quality, multifaceted
information, which is what the QFD4Mat aims to do, and to condense a huge quantity of
information codified in a non-dimensional 0-5 scale into a visual image that allows you to group
technical key-features all together. The tool will do the first part of the job – creativity in solutions
is up to the engineer who uses it.

47
The Bubble Maps graphic tool
The Value Curves visualizing tool is simple and quick to construct. But it is not the only way to
summarize the QFD4Mat results with a high-quality information content. The second tool, the
Bubble Maps, presented as follows sets out to be as simple for any user as the Value Curves, and
it can overcome one limit of the Value Curves graph. Let us focus firstly on that very limit.
Limit of value curves
With a little insight you might have observed in the final passage of the previous paragraph how
we have underlined that the Value Curve can summarize and visualize competition on the key-
features that are considered relevant in that they impact on product requirements. Specifically in
our example, we deal with “N” = 20 key features that have been selected on top of the QFD4Mat
matrix, which aim to answer the “M” = 12 product requirements, the left shoulder of the matrix.
The Value Curve is finally elaborated considering the “importance mix” resulting from the “causal
links” established between technical key-features (top roof of QFD4Mat matrix) and product
requirements (or VOC, the left shoulder of QFD4Mat matrix).
In general, the common belief is that a company that leads and develops new products must
anticipate the problems of (targeted) individuals, who will be the ultimate adopters of that product.
But a robust information-exchange network is necessary inside the company so as to reduce the
gap between the actual answers that the product wishes to provide and the users’ real needs, for
this is a key issue influencing the New Product Design (NPD) process. Fig. 30 illustrates in a
simplified model, an adaptation of the Gaps Model of Service Quality (Parasuraman et all., 1991),
how the evaluation of product performance forms into adopters. [5]

Fig: 30 Simplified gap model for a new tangible product [5]

If we analyze “Gap 1” and “Gap 2”: they are respectively those misalignments that are given form
respectively during the translation of the product requirements as expressed in the voice of the
customer. Thus by the identification of such material key-features that are thought to be capable
of determining the final positive experience of users over and above their original product

48
expectations.
Due to the fact that we have construct the Value Curves by ordering the assessment of technical
key-features for material candidates, they produce possible misalignments between VOC and the
final user experience of key-features that try to translate VOC into a tangible product. In other
words they embed “Gap 1” and “Gap 2” in the Value Curves creation. If we want to reduce such
misalignments, we can therefore use another visualizing tool that we call the “Performance-Cost-
Receptiveness Customer Oriented Diagrams”, or in a more friendly expression “PCR bubbles
maps”. We will explain them in the next paragraph, but firstly we need to understand the origin
of the PCR bubbles maps diagram.

We start again from the assumptions regarding innovation drivers and the present market context:
the challenge today for companies is to compete by acknowledging customers preferences and
perspectives, sometimes being able to jump over and perceive what is a not yet clearly expressed
as a need. The main scope of strategy analysis for starting a NPD should therefore be to map the
competitors’ relative position as it responds to customers’ actual and, if possible, latent needs. In
such cases, be warned that the semi-quantitative benchmarking of key-features can result in an
intrinsically high risk of “Gap1-to-Gap 2” type misalignments (see again Fig.30).
Let us construct our model and then our visualization graphics. At this point, we have all the data
information at our disposal: once again, as for the Value Curves construction, all that we need has
been provided by the QFD4Mat tool we used for our general case of study.

Before proceeding with the construction of our graphic tool, the next section is devoted to a
general comprehension of how we should group information from the QFD4Mat.

Origin in brief

Product character is the result of important features, particularly those that differentiate the
product. Also known as product language, it is defined as the product’s ability to communicate
information about itself actively in the market by product language. In other words, it is a very
heterogeneous form of expression communicated through dimension, form, structure of the
physical surface, movement, quality of materials, functions, colors, surface and sounds, all of
which have a strong effect – positive or negative – on potential buyers. Around the product scope
and its main function, the character of a product can be dissected into a subset of feature categories
(Ashby, 2005) [5]:
▪ the context defines the intentions or ‘‘mood’’ by exploring possible answers to
the five “Wh” questions (Who? Where? When? Why? What?) aiming to define
the context and habits of product usage;
▪ the materials and processes create the architecture, the hardware of the product;
▪ the usability determines the interface with the user;
▪ the personality of the product, addressed by the aesthetics, associations and
perceptions that the product creates in the user’s emotions (mainly architectural,
like shape, surface finishing, opacity or transparency of surface, colors, etc.).

Whatever category they belong to, the product features contribute to building up the resulting
product character. They can be reorganized into the three main categories [5]:
▪ Performance or P, which includes all the features related to technical and
functional issues that determine the relative advantage of the product technology,
the capability to translate ideas into tangible tasks and actions;

49
 ▪ Cost or C, which includes all aspects related to the business and economic aspects
of the product;
▪ Receptiveness or R, which groups all those features more related to “Product
Psychology”37 (e.g. usability, trialability, complexity, emotions, image, etc.).

We need to note the difference between “Product Physiology” and “Product Psychology”. A sharp
definition that gathers the material and processes categories into a broader class of features that
is called “Product Physiology”, while the usability and personality categories, namely those
features that have the closest relationships with users, are merged into the class called “Product
Psychology” (Ashby, 2005).
Depending on the “side” from which we want to study these product features, namely:
a) the side of demand, pertaining to choices and preferences (needs), experience and
the final comparison with the expectations (customer satisfaction) of consumers;
b) the side of supply, pertaining to research through consumer needs and their
translation/codification into tangible products;

The three categories P, C and R address respectively to:

a) product requirements
b) product features;
The latter aims to supply the best answers to the fully expressed or latent questions in the former.
A general scheme for representing the above PCR model is shown in Fig.31.

Fig: 31 Scheme of model to represent as regards the demand and supply sides all product requirements
and product features developed to answer to requirements expressed by VOC. [5]

50
We previously explain that when using semi-quantitative methods, like a QFD matrix, any
requirements and features - measurable or not - can be converted into a simplified 0 to 5 scale. So
therefore, we can gather the non-dimensional 0 to 5 values obtained for product requirements
(demand side) and product features (supply side) into P, C and R parameters. As a last task, we
therefore plot onto the same diagram for the supply-side and the demand-side two circles with
their centers of coordinates, respectively, P and C, and with their diameters R. Since a drawing is
better than words, Fig.32 shows the two resulting bubbles. The ideal situation is obviously when
the PCR bubble representing the supply-side completely matches the demand-side PCR bubble
[5].

Fig: 32 Construction of PCR bubbles for the supply side and the demand-side [5]

In the graph in Fig.32, for example, the two circles do not match; in this simplified example, this
depend on:
 Too great a “distance” existing between the “center coordinates”, namely the fact
that the positioning of P and R features evaluated onto the product features supplied
by the company is too far away from the P and C requirements on the product
supplied by users;
 The R parameter is too low. This is the diameter of the circles that graphically
explains on a simplified scale:

o how receptive the consumer is to the requirements of the specific product;

o to what extent the designed product features “cover” the product
requirements expressed by the consumer.

Fig.33 shows how the rise of the R parameter can affect the potential matching of the two bubbles.

51
 Fig: 33. P and C coordinates are fixed, R parameter
increases. [5]

Instead, Fig. 34 shows the supply-side PCR

bubble that partially covers the demand-side
bubble. A relative portion of the consumers’
bubble schematically (remember that it is a
graph constructed in a semi-qualitative scale)
represents consumer’s needs expressed in the
form of product requirements. We call this
bubble the Voice of Customers’ (VOC)
bubble.
When the VOC bubble is partially covered by
the material key-features’ bubble, it means
the product value that the suppliers propose
partially fits in with the consumers’
expectations.

Fig: 34 The two PCR bubbles match: the product feature proposal
regarding supply partially covers the demand expectations [5]

Fig.35 summarizes various situations in

which the supplying bubbles are positioned
outside the demand bubble, but with
different results in terms of NPD process
results.
The supplying bubbles positioned outside
the demand bubble imply the different
efficiency of the NPD process.

Fig: 35 The supplying bubbles positioned outside the demand bubble

imply the different efficiency of the NPD process [5]

52
Finally Fig. 36 represents a graphic visualization of a benchmarking analysis of market position
conducted by the use of PCR bubbles.

Fig: 36 Benchmarking and market positioning: the market competition

visualization by PCR bubbles. [5]

53
IV. The scope of work: material optimization by refined QFD4MAT
method for case study: hook climber

Introduction and Purpose

The mechanical piece of this work is a climbing carabiner. In a simplified way consists in a
metallic ring with an openable side: his task is to connect/combine two different objects in an
easy, fast and reversible way. Usually one end of the carabiner is clipped around a piece of
webbing that is attached to the mountainside, and the other end of the carabiner is clipped around
a rope that is attached to the climber (Figure 37). Often carabiners come in pairs referred to as
quickdraws (a quickdraw is two carabiners attached together via a nylon sling): one end of the
quickdraw is clipped into the anchor and the other is clipped into the rope. At the same time, we
can define a carabiner as a loop-shaped mechanism equipped with a spring-loaded opening latch
or gate that is vital to climbers for connecting climbing ropes to harnesses and other safety gear.
Mountain climbers essentially use them to protect themselves from injury or death in the event of
a fall. In the event of a fall the climber will be caught by the rope as it becomes taught and pulls
against the anchor. It is important for climbers to know when a carabiner should be retired in
order to avoid failure, which can lead to serious injury, or, in some cases, death.

Fig: 37 Functionality scheme of a D-shaped carabiner [58]

In the next sections, we will describe the parts and elements that compose the climbing carabiner
for see the main difference between the various types of elements in order to value the vantages
and disadvantages of each type. This brief analyze will help us for the topology optimization that
we will develop in the second chapter.

54
Main parts and elements of climbing carabiners
Noses
Carabiners get their strength by sharing the load between the body and the gate. To get this
strength, they have to be able to transfer force at the “nose” area where the open end of the gate
meets the body [6]. In general, carabineers will use either a hook nose or key nose for this transfer.
Pull test show little difference in the strength of the two, but as a general rule, manufactures
generally prefer key nose when making locking carabiners, and hook noses when using simpler
closing methods, though this is far from a universal rule. The photos below show a key nose (left)
and a hook nose (right).

Fig: 38 Key nose [11] Fig: 39 Hook nose [11]

The noses of carabiners will affect how easily the carabiner can be removed from bolts or
protection. With a key lock nose, the carabiner will not snag upon removal. This is largely a
matter of personal preference. So it is not fair to judge the snag-free merits of a carabiner based
solely on whether it is keylock or not. There are more design features to consider, particularly the
curvature of the nose. It is also possible to get near-keylock performance with some shrouded
nose carabiners, depending upon the details of the nose design. Although the keylock design is
the easiest way to quickly judge a carabiner’s ability to limit snagging, it is necessary to evaluate
the entire nose design to ensure top performance. We analyze a little bit more in detail the key
lock nose.
As we have previously said, “Keylock” refers to the design of the carabiner gate-to-nose interface.
Instead of utilizing a pin in the gate, keylock carabiners use a jigsaw-puzzle-like feature on the
nose that fits into a corresponding cavity in the gate. Simply put, if there is no notch for the gate
pin to rest in, it is a keylock carabiner. If there is a notch (or “hook”) it is not a key lock design.
Generally outlining the advantages and disadvantages, we note that:
- The lack of a hooked nose means there is significantly less snagging on other gear or bolts
a dramatic improvement (main benefit)
- Given that they’re more complicated to manufacture, keylock designs often come at a higher
price (main drawback)

Officially, keylock carabiners have a very specific technical implementation. The “key” feature
on the nose of the carabiner fits within the corresponding keyhole or “lock” in the gate. The
keylock design is the same on both locking and non-locking carabiners.

55
 Fig: 40 The keylock design on the left, and the traditional hooked-nose design on the right [6]

It is important to note that a keylock nose itself does not ensure snag-free clipping. The severity of
the nose angle has a significant impact on whether it will catch, particularly while clipping bolts.
The more continuous and smooth the curve of the basket-to-nose interface, the less catching and
ultimately the easier the carabiner is to clip and unclip.

. Fig: 41 The smoother the curve and flatter the arc, the lower the snag potential [6]

Knowing that a dramatic nose angle can be a downfall, keylock or not, we cannot simply endorse
all keylock carabiners across the board. The technology is wonderful and worth consideration
when implemented with other design considerations such as nose angle.
At the same time, although wire gate carabiners may not have the “keylock” design, increasingly
they are incorporating keylock functionality through a fully-shrouded nose, which effectively
recesses the hook within a hood to prevent snagging (the right-most carabiner below).
Yet we still tip our hats to those wire gates that add shrouding via a flared nose, that
reduces snagging during your handling of the carabiner and also reduces accidental gate
opening when the gate is rubbed against rocks.
Here is what it looks like from the traditional unshrouded design to some shrouding to
fully shrouded (the rightmost carabiner creates a totally clean nose and is considered to have
keylock functionality):

56
Fig: 42 traditional unshrouded design to some Fig: 43 traditional unshrouded design to some
shrouding to fully shrouded in front view [6] shrouding to fully shrouded in back view [6]

Generally speaking, the more pronounced the flare, the more it will help to prevent snagging and
accidental gate openings. We have found that even a slightly shrouded nose; can have a dramatic
effect on reducing snags.

But the story doesn’t end there. There are many different hook designs from super aggressive to
quite miniscule. Often, the deeper and larger the notch, the more likely it will snag. Although,
hook snag is also influenced significantly by the carabiner nose angle as discussed above.

Fig: 44 Deeper notches are definitely a warning flag of potential snagging [6]

Virtually all solid gates on the market today are “keylock.” Instead of a pin on the end of the gate
that latches on a notch in the nose, now the nose itself latches on a groove in the barrel of the gate.
Since it does not have that notch in the nose, a keylock design will not snag on your rope when
unclipping, or catch your gear or bolt. One rare, but dangerous scenario that can occur with a
notched nose is a “nose clip.” This occurs when a carabiner is not clipped on the bolt properly to
begin with, or if it shifts as the climber moves past it, leaving the carabiner’s notch hooked
precariously onto the lip of the bolt. While rare, this can result in gear failure at loads of less than
10% of the closed gate strength (<2 kN.) This small amount of force is easily reached in a fall or
even a bounce test. In part to help avoid this scenario, most sport-climbing specific quickdraws
now have keylock carabiners at least on the top, and often on the bottom too.

57
Gate types
Improving gate technology has always been a top engineering concern for manufacturers, and
climbers. The enhanced designs of the last few decades have created safer, lighter, and snag-free
gates. The two main types of gate are solid or bar stock gates, and wire gates, we can distinguish
four types of gates that have been developed over the years [7] [8] [9]:
- Solid Gate: They tend to weigh more, and are quickly being remplaced by wire gates.
Weight is not the only reason though, there is an inherent design flaw to solid gate
carabiners. During a fall, vibrations run through your carabiners upon full-loading. This
causes the solid gate carabiners to open and close rapidly, due to the mass of the gate. If
that happened under load on a climb, it’s possible for the vibration to open it enough for
generating the risk that the rope escaping through the gate, especially in a cross-loading
situation.

- Wire gates (Fig. 46): Are the lightest type, with a strength
roughly equal to the others, allowing more to be carried for a
given weight. Wire-gate carabiners use a loop of stainless steel
wire for a gate that is connected to a hook nose. This wire loop
creates its own spring mechanism as it pivots, decreasing
overall weight and eliminating the need for extra parts found in
conventional gates: it can shave 7 grams or more off the total
weight. Less mass in the gate and not being as prone to
vibration are the factors in prevention. This also reduces
weight, which makes sense when you are carrying multiple
Fig: 45 Example of wiregate [9]
carabiners.

At the same time since the wire is much narrower than the bar, they also have a larger
gate opening than a similarly sized solid gate model, and a wider opening is also useful
when climbing with gloves on. Wire gate designs also allow larger gate openings.
Another important advantage is that they are less prone to icing up than solid gates, which
represent an advantage in Alpine mountaineering and ice climbing. This represent a
tremendous benefit to wire gate carabiners because there are no moving parts to break,
get stuck, or freeze. Solid gates have an internal spring within the gate, which makes them
prone to failure. In addition, the reduced gate mass makes their wire bales less prone to
‘gate flutter’, which can lead to carabiner failure. The ‘Gate Flutter’ phenomena, is a
dangerous condition created by irregular impact forces generated by the climbing rope or
contact with hard surfaces in a fall which momentarily opens the gate (and both lowers
the breaking strength of the carabiner when open and potentially allows the rope to
escape). But foremost, a wire gate prevents the aforementioned problem with the solid
gate carabiners opening and closing during full-loading.

The downside of a wire gate is that on the vast majority of the models there is still an
exposed notch in the nose that the wire latches on, just like the old-style solid gates. More
and more companies are devising ways to eliminate this notch, effectively creating
wiregate/keyock hybrids, which is the best of both worlds. Wild Country has buried the
notch in the nose of its Helium carabiner, and Black Diamond has developed a stainless
steel wire hood that is swaged around the notch of its Oz and LiveWire models, protecting
the notch from catching on anything. Another advantage to these hooded designs is that
they protect the wiregate from scraping open against the rock. We should note, however,
58
 that it can be difficult to fit these noses in tight situations, like bolts stuffed with rappel
slings or pitons with narrow openings.

- Straight gates (Fig 48): they are the most easy gate type to find in the market, in fact
there are the standard gates in carabiner. They are strong, they can be used with either
hook or key noses: is the most versatile of the bunch, and can be used anywhere unless a
locker is needed. So in general, Standard straight gates are by far the most common and
are used on protection, bolts and quickdraws. They have a trusted design and not prone
to the dangers of bent gates, which we will explain below. At the same time, they are
perfectly straight from pivot point to end. Like most other types, they are spring-loaded
to open easily when pushed, but close automatically when released
Note that most wire gates are also straight gates, but there are bent wire-gates
manufactured (see figure 46)

Fig: 47 Example of bent wiregate [7] Fig: 46 Example of straight gate

- Bent gates: Are typically only found on quickdraws. They give you a large gate opening
allowing you to use a smaller sized carabiner to hook a larger sized object. Bent gates can
be built with any style of locking mechanism, but most commonly are found without any
locking mechanism system.
These have a concave gate designed to make clipping a rope into it easier. The bent-gate
design does not significantly affect strength or weight. But, if not used properly, bent-
gate carabiners can unclip from your rope. As with any other kind of climbing equipment,
you must learn how to use bent-gate carabiners correctly in order to be safe. In fact bent-
gate carabiners should only be used on the end of the quickdraw or runner which the rope
clips into, so we never clip them directly to the protection.

Fig: 48 Example of bent gate [9]

59
 - Bent vs. Straight

Both solid and wiregates can be straight or bent. Most climbers tend to find bent gates
easier to clip than straight gates, and that is why you’ll find them on the rope end of a
quickdraw, but according to Petzl there is a higher risk that the rope will become
unclipped from a bent gate model in a fall.

Another step forward for safety can be obtained using a twin gate type system (opposite and
opposed; Figure 49) making it quite impossible the accidental spill of rope or any other device
inserted into the carabiner. [10]

Fig: 49 Example of twin gate type [10]

60
Locking Mechanisms:
Carabiners can be made with, or without locking systems (screw or auto locking), which are the
tree main families of locking mechanism.
Non- locking carabiners cannot be “locked” shut. In general, most of your carabiners will be non-
locking. There are lighter and cheaper than locking carabiners, and they offer the possibility to
have solid or wire gate.
At the same time, the screw lock is the most common locking type. They are lighter and cheaper
than auto-locking, but more expensive and heavier than non-locking. You open or close the screw
gate locking carabiner by screwing the gate. We will explain after that they have a small potential
gate, which could open accidently.
In parallel Auto-Locking Carabiners ensures that the carabiner is going to be always locked (as
soon as you let go of the gate it locks), but you need to take into account that is the heaviest and
most expensive option. We need to add that they cannot come undone by accident and that is
unusual to have multiple auto-lockers connected.

Fig: 50 Example of the tree main existing locking systems: non-locking, screw locking, and auto-locking

Analyzing carabiners with locking mechanism, we note that there are two main locking systems:
twist-lock and screw-gate [11].
- Twist Locks
A twist-lock carabiner is an auto-locking carabiner: is the fastest to lock and unlock
because you can take it off and on with just one motion of your hand. In reality, it requires
two distinct actions to be done in sequence to unlock an open the gate, but they can be
done with just one hand motion. For this reason they are ideal for gym climbing if you
want to save time

- Screw Locks
Screw lock carabiners are a manual locking carabiner. They are a step up from non-
locking carabiners, but take more turns to close than twist lock carabiners and you must
remember to close them (twist-lock carabiners have a spring and close on their own). The
gate cannot be opened while the screw lock is engages. Screw locks must be hand tight
and always be positioned with the screw lock down to prevent vibrations from unlocking
the carabineer unexpectedly. However, a screw-gate carabiner can feel more secure in an
anchor because it is less likely that the gate can open accidentally if the carabiner is moved
into an awkward position. This problem occurs in some carabiners that use a ball-lock
mechanism that we will explain below.

61
Fig: 52 Screw Lock Fig: 51 Twist lock

Screw-gate carabiners are usually 25 percent less expensive and lighter in weight. In general,
twist-lock carabiners are best for belaying and rappelling and screw-gate carabiners are better for
everything else. When you buy a screw-gate carabiner, you need to consider how many twists it
takes to open and close the gate. Generally, carabiners that take fewer twists are more suitable
because you save time. However, as we previously said some people may feel safer if a carabiner
takes more twists to open and close. Also, when carabiners are brand new, some gates will be
more fluid.

Other commons auto-locking systems are the tree stages lock, the ball lock, and the magnet lock
carabiners.
The tree stages lock carabiners are locking carabiners that requires three distinct actions (pull
down toward palm, twist and open) to unlock and open the gate (3-stage mechanism) instead of
the two distinct actions (spin gate downward and open) of the screw lock (2-stage mechanism)
[12]

Fig: 53 Schemes of the different locking stages for the different locking mechanisms [12]

In parallel, ball lock carabiners are a version of a triple lock carabiner technology patented by
Petzl. The mechanism will only release if the green ball (see figure below) is pushed in, the gate
is twisted an then pushed in. Ball locks are highly acclaimed for their easy use and ruggedness.
Finally, the magnet locks are another form of triple lock carabiners. Strong magnets pull small
steel pins out from the body and into the gate, preventing it from twisting. This design gives you
two independent locks that have to be disengaged simultaneously in order to be able to twist and
release the gate. Magnet locks have only been available since 2011, so they do not yet have the
long track records of the other locking mechanisms. [13]

Fig: 54 Example of a tree stage, a ball lock and magnet lock carabiners respectively from left to the right [12] [13]

62
Preliminary material overview

If we take deeper look into the main requirements that should have carabiner, we can put them
into three general categories: loading, environmental and geometrical.
Minimum load requirements for climbing connectors have been established by international and
European standards, which we will describe in the next chapter. During normal use, a carabiner
is likely to be dropped onto hard surfaces: carabiners should sustain minor surface indentations
and scratches from these impacts and continue to hold falls without failure. The drop height could
vary from less than 1 m to hundreds of meters, although a carabiner is unlikely to be reused after
a drop of that distance.
Environmental considerations are important. Carabiners can be exposed to harsh temperature
ranges; from -40°C at the summit of Everest to +80°C or higher due to frictional heating whilst
abseiling. In addition, it is pertinent to know the effects of a change in environmental pH, UV
light and general chemical resistance properties of the carabiner material.
There are geometrical and other design requirements on a carabiner due to the existing framework
of interactions between items of rock climbing protective equipment. Some of these are set out in
the EU and UIAA standards (see second chapter) [14] [15]. Nevertheless, we need to consider
that the geometry has to be such that the load is concentrated in the spine part; compatible with
anchors and belay devices; and at the same time easy usable and easily manipulated.
The following table contains a summary of the design considerations mentioned above.

Table: 7 A summary of important factors affecting carabiner design

Generally, when we need to evaluate the material for a carabiner, the choice comes down to
aluminum or steel. Usually we use aluminum when weight is an issue, or when the carabiner that
we are analyzing is, consider as a superior product that should have special requirements.
Whereas, in cases where weight is not an issue and the carabiner should not have special
requirements because it is not going to have an unusual application ( fixed anchors), we chose
steel. Namely with an equal choice between both materials, we chose steel as the default option.
The next few paragraphs will take you through some of the factors that we need to consider during
the carabiner’s material and shape selection [11]
The strength is often raised as a concern in carabiners. The strength ranges for aluminum and steel
are respectively 22-36 kN and 22-45 kN, so in general both have enough high strength for use in
climbing. At the same time, heat tolerance is also often raised as a concern with carabiners.
Aluminum and steel carabiners are usually respectively able to withstand 1000 ºC and 2000 ºC of
heat before being compromised by the temperature. In general this kind of heat isn´t seen in

63
climbing, so there is not a special preference for one or another material. However, in other areas,
such as firefighter’s rescues in fire-exposed areas, we should take into account this factor when
we choose the material.
The weight is also one of the most important issues in climbing. Aluminum carabiners have a
high strength-to-weight ratio, whereas steels carabiners have a low strength-to-weight ratio.
However, the same strength part in aluminum will weight 35-45% less than the steel part. In
climbing, we have some applications where the extra weight of steel is a hindrance, some
applications where it is not, and still other application where the added weight is a benefit.
Another important issue that you will have to take into account is the material fatigue. Both
materials, aluminum and steel, will not noticeably fatigue under static loads that are under the
material plastic limit. Nevertheless, Aluminum will fatigue faster and more quickly than steel
under cycling and high vibration loading that are respectively close to the plastic range and to the
plastic limit of the material. So in general aspects, it seems that we need to make sure we are using
steel carabiners for applications where load is constantly under high tension (e.g. tight wire), or
where we are cyclically loading the carabineer close to its plastic limit.
At the same time, ductility ( Plastic Range) is often cited as a concern carabiners. The plastic
point is the spread between the yield point (where the metal begins to bend) and its ultimate
braking point. Practically speaking this means that a steel part will bend more than an aluminum
part before it breaks. If you do not know how to inspect aluminum, it is better to use steel.
It’s also very important to analyze the hardness and wear because they are major concerns in
climbing applications. Steel and aluminum carabiners, respectively have a Mohs hardness rating
between 7.7 – 8 and between 6 and 9,4 (for aluminum oxide carabiners although most are in the
6 to 7,5 range). In general, when aluminum parts are connected directly to steel, the aluminum
will wear out faster. Note that a gum rubber tube can be put over the contact zone of the carabiner
between the end of this one and other body of the carabiner: it will last a long time, but it will
wear out before either of the metals will.
Finally if we talk about fragility, both materials (steel and aluminum) carabiners are made by
using multi-ton forges – that is, they are stamped out using multi-ton presses. If such stamping
does not damage them, dropping one will not break it. Indeed, pull test have been performed on
both material types dropped from heights of up to 30’. Those test have shown, that those
carabiners break at about the same point as a brand new control. The bottom line is that if you
drop carabiner, or one otherwise takes a hit, you need to do a complete inspection on it (see section
on inspections in chapter II) evaluating if we take it out of service or if it can be safely used.

64
Product Requirements and Explanation of the Customer Importance Value
In base at the previous analyze that we have done in the above section, the product requirements
(PR) for the climbing carabiner have been broken down into 3 categories: performance, cost, and
receptiveness. Below, each of the different requirements are explained and are later related to
material key properties in the following sections.
Performance
 Plastic deformation is a PR because the carabiner is not allowed to work out of the elastic
region, as it may break from overloading. It should be also a material that will have a safe
response against unexpected high stresses from climber falls.
 Corrosion resistance is important because the climbing carabiner may experience extreme
weather conditions. It has been designated as level 4 importance because the climbing
carabiner is directly expose and there is not any element who protects it from the
environment influence.
 Wear is a very important failure mechanism in the carabiner behavior because there is a
constant contact and high friction mainly with the climbing rope, but also any other
element which is connected to the carabiner.
 Fast fracture is mapped to a high value of 4 because the component must be extremely
resistant to this type of fracture. If fast fracture occurs, then catastrophic failure of the
climbing carabiner will result in dangerous climbing conditions and consequently the life
risk. An example of fast fracture initiation could result from shocks and impacts against
the rock (mountain) when the climber is rising the wall or another unexpected impact that
creates a crack in the climbing carabiner.
 Fatigue and Surface fatigue. In a first approach, we can think that we do not need to
consider considered them in the analysis because the carabiner it is not apparently
subjected cyclical moments of torsion. At the same time, we can think that we have not
relative cyclical movements between the carabiner and the climbing rope. But in real life,
fatigue is a very important failure mechanism in the climbing carabiner because it is
subjected to “cyclical” stress conditions when the climber is rising the mountain: if it falls
down, the carabiner will be load; whereas if the climber is climbing normally, the
carabiner is not under load. Surface fatigue is also as quite as important since there are
relative “cyclical” movements between the carabiner and the rope or other connection
element.
 Creep rupture is not considered as a product requirement for the climbing carabiner
because the carabiner is not expose to high operation temperatures. However, for other
operations where we have high operation temperatures such as firefighters rescue
operations, where the presence of fire rise the operating temperatures.
 Cold toughness has a medium-high valuation. It is common to climb in conditions where
we have low temperatures such as climbing in winter in the mountain, climbing a glacier,
or just simply climb in countries where we have very low temperatures. In those cases,
the anti-roll bar could be exposed to the DBTT phenomena, which may result in cracking.
 Stiffness is given the maximum importance, as it directly relates to the maximum amount
of stress allowed on the climbing carabiner. As we said before, when researching the
needs of the climbing carabiner, there are minimum loads values that it has to bear.
Additionally, customers identify the stiffness of the climbing carabiner as its most
important contribution.
 Toughness is required to avoid breaking with low impacts. Therefore, it has a fairly high
importance for carabiner distributors and customers.

65
  Lightness could be a main issue for product performance. The volume of the carabiner is
not large in comparison with other climbing elements, such as the rope or the ice ax, so
we can think that improvements in the material density will not significantly reduce the
overall weight of the carabiner and the full equipment. But in the full equipment, the
number of carabiner it is very high as it is an essential element in climbing: we use it for
any action.
 Global Performance Index – We include 2 ASHBY indices. They are relate to stiffness,
length specified, section area free, in the cases of stiffness and strength limited design at
𝐸 𝑓
minimum mass so the parameters to maximize are respectively: and . They are
 
suitable for sub-loaded ties subjected to tensile strut as the climbing carabiner when is in
use.
Initially we include a third one relate to the Minimum contact area, maximum bearing
3𝑓
load, and uses: 2 , which is suitable for knife edges and pivots due to the fact that the
𝐸
climbing carabiner effectively takes on the job of a pivot during the climbing supporting
the forces. But finally we decide to reject it because it represents an increase of the
complexity.

Cost
 Direct variable cost is given a high value as it is the main material cost.
 Restoring cost for non-conformities is valued as minimally important as there is almost
no wasted material in creating the climbing carabiners.
 Cost for shaping processes is at a medium value as the cutting and bending of the rod, the
forging hot (380 ° C ca), and the shearing processes are not too complex, but still play a
part in the overall expense of the carabiner.
 Cost of heat treatments is at 4 because of the high costs associated to the energy required
to develop the material correctly.
 Machining costs are medium, as the climbing carabiner is defined well enough following
basic processing processes, but it is exposed to many friction points, reason why we need
to make a tumble finishing. At the same time, the component is in part is finished for
uniformity to avoid cracks, but also for aesthetic quality, as it is constantly seen by the
customer. In addition, we need to make a drilling in order to assembly the locking system.

Receptiveness
 Process cycle complexity is of medium high, as the carabiner follows some
straightforward and simple processes which are not complicated but numerous (cutting
and bending of the rod, hot forging, and shearing) fact that increases the
complexity. Manufacturing of the part is reviewed more in depth in the next chapter of
this project.
 Delivery time is of medium importance so that the customer can receive their order in a
timely fashion. It is important to be able to climb, so it is medium rated.

66
Further Considerations
Below are figures from a simulation conducted in a multilinear model with kinematic hardening
to see the material response in order to show the stresses and displacements present inside a
climbing carabiner [16]. Figures show the model mesh and strain results for a closed gate
carabiner subjected to a monotonic load (single pull tensile test) loaded through a pair of rigid
pins.

Fig: 55 Image of the model mesh for the climbing

carabiner

Fig: 56 Strain results for a closed gate carabiner subjected

to a monotonic load

As shown in figures the maximum stress in the model (marked in red) is found at the nose,
corresponding with the observed failure location in real life. We need to say that, strain rate and
dynamic effects are ignored, assuming instead quasistatic equilibrium conditions. Notable sources
of error in this analysis are the lack of realism in using rigid pins in place of dyneema sling to
apply the load, errors in reproducing the geometry, the linear elastic model used to for the steel
gate and error in capturing the plastic stress strain behavior for the aluminum alloy. The model is
however useful for analyzing the effects of sharp and blunt damage by altering the geometry and
conducting stress intensity calculations on both closed and open gate carabiners. In fact, t hese
stress/displacements analyses allow us to conclude that the climbing carabiner certainly
will fail due to stress and fatigue in the contact zone between the carabiner and the rope
( at the nose). Therefore, fatigue is important in material selection.
Another recommendation to the customer is to perform a periodic strass and fatigue
failure check and surface crack analysis to avoid a possible catastrophic collapse of the
component.
 We will see a global FEM analyze at the beginning of the chapter 3

67
Material Key Properties
This section relates to the properties that the project team aims to include in the climbing carabiner
material selection process.
In general, once you have chosen a failure mode, certain properties should be absolutely included
in order to realize a correct analysis. The following table groups the key-factors required in
function of the failure damage mode that we have chosen.

Table: 8 Correlation among failure modes and key-features of materials that have mitigating
effects on damage mechanism [4]

In our case, we need to consider as key factor the following properties:

 As primary related key factors:

▪ Ultimate tensile Stress, UTS [MPa]

▪ Corrosion rate, K [mpy]
▪ Hardness [HV or HRC]
▪ Endurance Stress ( fatigue strength), Se [MPa]
▪ Surface Hardness [HV]
▪ Fracture toughness, Kic [Mpa·m^(1/2)]

 As secondary related key factors:

▪ Yield Strength, YS [MPa]

▪ Notch toughness, KV - Charpy test [J]

68
In addition for taking into account other product requirements we consider the following key
factors:
▪ DBTT [ºK]
▪ Specific Strenght, 𝑅𝑠 [kN·m/kg]
▪ Young Modulus, E [MPa]
▪ Density, ρ [kg/m^3]
▪ Quenchability
▪ Workability [%]
▪ Material Cost [€/kg]
▪ Productivity
▪ Global Performance Index

As we just said this other key-factors that are not impose by the chosen failure modes, but allow
us to taking into account the contribute of the other chosen product requirements, in order to fill
the correlation matrix

69
Justification of the different matrix correlations between the key factor and the product
requirements ( key-product features)
As we describe in the general procedure, in order to fill up the matrix, for the Key-Factors we
identified:
▪ the Direction of Improvement (“▲” or “▼”)
▪ the category of the key-factors (P, C, and R)
▪ in the cells that build the correlation matrix space, define the type of correlation
( “●”,“○”,“▽” or left empty) between the key-Factor of material you defined and
the Key-Product features defined previously.

As we said before, we note that a multiple correlation is possible, since each key-factor (i.e.
correlation matrix column) can be linked to multiple product key-features (i.e. correlation matrix
rows).
We justify now the correlations that we have adopted in the matrix

- Plastic deformation and break by overload.

The material needs high toughness to avoid breaking, a high yield strength (YS) to avoid
plastic deformation, and a high Ultimate Tensile Strength to avoid necking. Having a low
ductile to brittle transition temperature (DBTT) allows for a material to handle big stresses
or impacts at lower temperature without failing.

- Corrosion.
To avoid corrosion, material selection and surface treatments are employed. A good surface
treatment (e.g. nitriding or in our case the anodizing) provides a smoother surface finish and
a protection film against corrosion. If the surface roughness of a material is high, then there
are more possible voids where dirt and other unwanted particles could be accumulated and
would then increase corrosion.

- Fatigue
For higher YS, the persistent slip bands (PSB) phenomenon is constrained. If a material has
a higher endurance limit, then the climbing carabiner can be subjected to higher work stresses
repeatedly without failing.

- Surface fatigue
Surface fatigue is initiated by small defects on the surface of a material, where high corrosion
rates can motivate the appearance of surface defects. High surface hardness protects against
possible micro impacts, which could produce surface defects. This will provide a higher
endurance limit, which again lets a material sustain higher stresses over a long period of
time.

- Fast fracture.
High toughness is required to avoid fast fracture. Fast fracture is produced when the K>KIC
and KIC is directly proportional to E. It is favorable if E is high because KIC is high and the
endurance of the material is higher.

70
- Cold toughness.
The DBTT represents the temperature below which the material presents a brittle behavior,
so a low DBTT implies cold toughness.

- Stiffnes.
The stiffness is directly proportional to the Young’s modulus because a higher stress is
needed to deform elastically at the same rate as a stiffer material.

- Toughness.
For the same transversal section quenchable material, the martensite grain formed is smaller
than the martensite grains formed in a non-quenchable material so the toughness is higher.

- Lightness.
𝑈𝑇𝑆
The specific strength is defined as 𝑅𝑠 = . A material with high specific strength for the
𝜌
same stress and work conditions requires less mass, so it can be lighter. At the same time
a material with reduced density is lighter than other one with higher density.

- Direct variable cost.

There is a direct and strong relationship between the material cost [€/kg] and the direct
variable cost. On the other hand, the productivity, in general, decreases when the costs
increase so this last relationship is inverse.

- Restoring cost for non-conformities.

The cost of unused material, or the wasted material in fabrication processes, is directly
related to the material cost [€/kg]. As said before, the productivity decreases when costs are
increased, but in this case, the correlation is not as important as in the direct variable cost.

- Cost for shaping processes.

A good workability simplifies all the manufacturing processes (cutting and bending of the
rod, hot forging, shearing), so these costs are reduced.

- Cost of heat treatments.

Heat treatment and surface treatment, like anodizing, cost are directly related. Moreover, a
good quenchability simplifies the tempering processes applied after quenching, which then
reduces the total cost of the complete heat treatment “T”.

- Machining costs.
The higher the surface roughness of the steel is, the more complete and involved the
machining (e.g. polishing) processes become.

- Process cycle complexity.

If the material has a good workability, the process cycle complexity is lower because fewer
and simpler processes are needed. Moreover, the high complexity of the process cycle
decreases the producibility of the anti-roll bar.

- Delivery time.
If the material has a good workability it will have a simpler manufacturing process, so it
could be delivered in less time. It is important to have a reasonable delivery time in order to
reach a good productivity rate and this can also be a strong, customer-driven goal.

71
Final Selected Candidate Materials
Climbing carabiners are mostly made of different types of aluminum. However, in this project we
will consider different steel and titanium alloys, and high strength composites in order to acquire
an overall point of view of the different possible candidates. Pure iron is too heavy, so we can
discard it from the beginning. Different alloys allow engineers to change the steel titanium
compositions to achieve the desired characteristics. At the same time, we can easily modifie the
composites element to improve their mechanical properties
Initially we have considered an aluminum alloy, a steel alloy, a titanium alloy and a special
composite, for being candidates in order to satisfy the imposed design goals. However, in the case
of the especial composite, we did not found the complete datasheet about the global properties
such as mechanical and composition properties, that we absolutely need for complete the
QFD4mat so we decide to discard the option of the composite materials. We will only make a
brief reference to a possible composite candidate to evaluate in further studies.
The tree materials that were chosen for further analysis are listed below.
Aluminum alloy - 7075-T6: Ergal
The first 7075 was developed by the Japanese company Sumitomo Metals, in 1936. It is an
aluminum alloy with zinc as the primary alloying element.
The 7000 series alloys such as 7075 are often used in transport applications, including marine,
automotive and aviation, due to their high strength-to-density ratio. Their strength and lightweight
is also desirable in other fields. Rock climbing equipment, bicycle components, inlineskating-
frames and hang glider airframes are commonly made from 7075 aluminum alloy.
Due to its high strength, low density, thermal properties and its ability to be highly polished, 7075
is widely used in mold tool manufacture [17] [18]. This alloy has been further refined into other
7000 series alloys for this application, namely 7050 and 7020.
It is strong, with a strength comparable to many steels, and has good fatigue strength and average
machinability, but is not weldable and has less resistance to corrosion than many other Al alloys.
Its relatively high cost limits its use to applications where cheaper alloys are not suitable.
Typically is conducted to different heat treatments obtaining the 7075-O, 7075-T6, 7075-T651
types, which are the main categories. [19] [20]
Stainless Steel - AISI 316L
316L is an 8 austenitic stainless steel enhanced with an addition of 2.5% Molybdenum, to provide
superior corrosion resistance to type 304 stainless steel [18]. It classified as the low carbon version
of 316. The 316 stainless steel has improved pitting corrosion resistance and has excellent
resistance to sulphates, phosphates and other salts.
316L is similar to Type 316 for superior corrosion resistance, but also has superior resistance to
intergranular corrosion following welding or stress relieving. It has good corrosion resistance to
most chemicals, salts, and acids and molybdenum content helps resistance to marine
environments, and high creep strength at elevated temperatures. The low carbon content of 316L
reduces the possibility of in vivo corrosion for medical implant use. In fact the control of the
carbon to a maximum of 0.03% minimizes the problem of carbide precipitation during welding
and permits the use of the steel in the as-welded condition in a wide variety of corrosive
applications The 316L stainless steel has similar fabrication characteristics to Types 302 and 304.
Commonly applications are: biomedical implants, chemical processing, food processing,
photographic, pharmaceutical, textile finishing, marine exterior trim, pumps, valves, fasteners,
paper and pulp machinery, and petro chemical equipment. [21] [22]

72
Titanium alloy - Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700)
In general, it a heat-treatable, high strength Ti alloy with superior strength and exceptional hot
and superplastic formability compared to Ti-6Al-4V, combined with good ductility and fatigue
resistance [23] [24].
The Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe alloy is a β - rich α + β titanium alloy, which is also known as SP-700
from its excellent superplasitcity at 700 ºC. It was designed to improve super-plasticity and lower
the operating temperature to reduce production cost, as compared with traditional Ti-6Al-4V
alloy. Other properties, such as heat-treatability, cold bendability and fatigue properties of Ti-
4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe are superior to those of the Ti-6Al-4V alloy. After solution heat treatment,
this alloy demonstrates a fast response to age-hardening. The Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe alloy has
higher β - stabilizing element content, which modifies the transformation of the β phase and
suppresses the diffusional transformation during cooling and quench delay. Among the β-
stabilizing elements in the alloy, Fe is an effective strengthener and Mo refines the microstructure
and retards grain growth during superplastic forming and heat treatment. Other alloying elements,
such as Al and V, are used to adjust the β -transit temperature (Tβ) which can have a significant
influence on the superplastic temperature of Ti-4.5Al-3V- 2Mo-2Fe. It exhibits a wide variety of
microstructures depending on heat treatment conditions. [25]
Is commonly applicate in aerospace components, metal wood heads, metal balloons, tools,
automotive components, wrist watch casing, and in mountain-climbing equipment [18]

Note about a composite possible material: VICTREX® PEEK 90HMF40

 Victrex® PEEK 90HMF40 Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), 40% Carbon Fiber
It is well known that the carbon fiber (CF) reinforced polyether ether ketone (PEEK) polymer
composites (CF/PEEK) possess extraordinary specific strength and stiffness along the
longitudinal (or fiber) direction, as compared with steel, Al or Ti alloys. The CF/PEEK composite
appears to be a shining star among all PEEK composites, and is being considered as the candidates
to replace the conventional epoxy based composites for aerospace applications. [26]
The PEEK 90HMF40 is a high performance thermoplastic material, 40% carbon fibre reinforced
PolyEtherEtherKetone (PEEK) that has a semi crystalline structure and black color. At the same
time, it posed granules for injection moulding (easy flow).
It has excellent wear resistance, low coefficient of friction and low coefficient of thermal
expansion. In addition is chemically resistant to aggressive environments. [27]
Is typically applied in areas with complex geometries with thinner cross sections or longer flow
length where superior strength in a static or dynamic system is required. [18]
It should be noted that a few companies have been working on the development of other
composites materials for carabiners. These include carbon matrix (carbon fiber), carious polymers
and even ceramic matrix carabiners. These carabiners are being developed to meet specific
requirements. However, as we said before, this option has been rejected in our study.

73
 V. The preliminary QFD4Mat analysis on candidate materials for a
CLIMBLING CARABINER

In these section we will expose the final results that we have obtain from the QFD4Mat analyze
for our case of study.
We will divide our analyze in tree main parts in function of the tree different forms of analysis of
the result that we can carry out with the QFD4Mat process: le excel work sheet, the Bubble Maps,
and the Value Curves

Analysis of the QFD4.mat excel worksheet

The QFD4MAT excel worksheet has been employed in order to review the candidate materials
and select the best material for the climbing carabiner manufacturing and use.
The finale weighted score provided by the QFDMat excel page for each candidate material is:

Table: 9 Results of the excel worksheet

Therefore, the global matrix analysis selects the Titanium alloy Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700)
as the most suitable for the climbing carabiner as it has the highest final weighted score with 3,6
out of 5. Ranking below we found the aluminum alloy 7075 with a 3.3 of the relative total weight.
The last of the possible candidates is the stainless steel AISI 316L with 2.9 of the relative weight
Below we analyze the two different interpretations of the material selection matrix driven from
product requirements and importance that we can do for the material selection.

74
Analysis of the Bubble Maps graphic

Fig: 57 Bubble graph comparing candidate materials

As we have said in the previous section, the center of the bubble is the cost and performance of
the individual candidate materials, and the diameter of each bubble corresponds to the
receptiveness of each material. The target of the bubbles is to match the black circle for the center
location and diameter because it represents the opinion of de consumers (VOC).
The red bubble is nearly identical and has almost the same location than the black circle: it has a
little more high cost and performance. However, it does not contain the black circle: its
receptiveness is inferior than the receptiveness for the VOC. So it is not able to satisfy all the
needs and requirements from consumers, and in will become a potential candidate to refute as
material for the climbing carabiner.
At the same time if we analyze the blue bubble we observe that if perfectly contain the black
circle: it meets all the costumers requirements. However, is center, which represents the cost and
performance of the candidate material, is quite distant from the center of the black circle: it has
high cost and less performance. Therefore, even if it guarantees al the costumers’ requirements,
it is quite far away from the ideal material that should have more performance an reduced price.
Finally if we analyze the green bubble we observe similar results as the blue bubble because, it
perfectly contains the black circle, but also in these case the centers of the both green and black
circle are closer. In the green case, not only all consumer requirements are met, but also the cost
and performance are very similar to those expected by consumers: it has a little inferior
performance and cost than the ones that the consumers are waiting.
In summary comparing the three curves at the same time: the blue and green circles show a higher
receptiveness, but both circles cover well the target area, making them more favorable to the red
that it does not cover the entire black circle. Additionally, the performance increases as the green
circle has a higher center, and the cost decreases as it is centered to the left of the blue bubble,
matching almost perfectly its center with the black bubble center. So it will be more suitable the
green bubble.
From the bubble graph, the selected material is the Aluminum 7075-T6
75
Analysis of the Value Curves graphic

For material selection, we must take into consideration many variables, so it is necessary to use
additional graphs to draw conclusions. Below is a value curve setup: we compare individual
materials based on the categories in the columns above them. The overall impact of each category
increases from left to right and is denoted by the black line at the bottom of the graphs: for each
category, it is shown its respective contributions. The graph shows the value curves where each
individual component assessed is exposed for each of the candidate materials. The larger the
differences between points on each vertical line represent the differences in performance, cost or
receptiveness depending on changing the material.

Fig: 58 Value curve for comparison with key differences circled in orange and purple

The overall impact of the categories increases from left to right (direction of increase of the black
line), so quenchability, with inverted direction of improvement, is not as important to the overall
result as the toughness of the material. The colored circles showcase the categories where there
was a significant variability between the materials being reviewed.

We have subdivides the analyze in two different categories: key properties that are related to
performance (orange circles), and key properties that are related to cost and receptiveness (dark
red circles).
Firstly, we take a global look to the general performances of the diverse curves. We observe that:
the red line has the general highest performance; the blue curve has an average performance and
in some cases is the one that has the best perform; le green line shows a low performance in the
key properties with high impact, but suitable for aspects related to cost an receptiveness.

76
The low performance of the green material throughout the final sections of the graph shows that
it is not a favorable material for becoming the climbing carabiner material, so it will be suitable
to refute is as a candidate material.
Comparing the red and blue curves in the orange sections, we observe that red curve has the
highest performance for specific strength, yield and ultimate tensile strengths, hardness and
surface hardness, while the curve shows average performance. However for the other key factors
of these sections such as density, corrosion rate and the ductile o brittle transit temperature, the
blue curve performs the best, while the red has the lowest perform even lower than the green
curve.
Although red has most of the top values in the circled orange areas, related to important key
factors, blue does above average throughout the entire properties of the graphic.
At the same time in relation to cost and receptiveness, the blue curve shows reduces cost that
generate greater receptiveness, while the red curve shows high cost and reduced receptiveness.
So we from the value curve, the blue curve wins out, so again we selects the Aluminum alloy
7075-T6.

Overall impression
The bubble graph provides a quick tool to inspect a few categories of the material selection
process, and it is augmented in this case by the more complete analysis given by the value curves.
The material that is best suited from comparing all of the product requirements, material
properties, and performance categories explained in this first study is the Aluminum 7075-T6.
This analysis is not surprising, as this aluminum alloy is the most common material for climbing
carabiners. In fact climbing carabiners are mostly made of this type of aluminum because it has
quite good mechanical properties, especially the ones that are related to lightness and corrosion
resistance, and at the same time is quite cheaper than the titanium, aspect that represent a major
vantage in relation of the costumers receptiveness.

77
Limits and constraints of preliminary QFD4Mat analysis

In the above sections, we have evaluated and determined, by the total explicit-implicit approach
of QFD4Mat, which would be the most appropriate material for use in developing climbing
carabiners.
As we have described before this method is based in the explicit and implicit material selection
methodologies: it combine the elements of both methods to arrive to an optimal solution that
verifies the implicit and explicit conditions in order to take into account the vantages and
disadvantage that have each method. Is a way to obtain a tool where we maximize and make the
most of the advantages of each approach, and at the same time mitigate their respective
drawbacks. We have obtained a powerful tool that allow us to make an optimal material selection
for a specific object or element in base of the main consumers request and the use of the Root
Cause Failure. However, it presents some limits.

As we have seen before, the QFD4Mat introduces influence of the Ashby Indexes through the
Global Performance index after having performed a multiple - objective optimization in base to
the Ashby indexes that have been considered.
Nevertheless, those indexes, which we have introduce in the matrix, have been stablished for
simple geometries such as beams, plates or other simple geometries. Therefore, at any time, it is
been consider the real object geometry. In our example, we have considered the behavior of the
climber carabiner equal as the behavior of a tie ( tensile struct) in one case for the first index
with stiffness, length specifies and free section area, and for the second index with strength, length
specifies and free section area. We can assume, in base of the functioning of the climbing
carabiner that its behavior could be similar to the behavior of a tensile strut during operation time,
but obviously, it will not be the same because the geometry is not the same. By using the Ashby
indexes in the matrix, we are simplifying all the functional aspects that are base in the object
geometry.

Our objective in the successive sections will be to research a way of introducing an take into
account the object geometry in the QFD4Mat method. In other words we need no remove the
Ashby parameters that do not consider the geometry, and other parameters that do not play an
important rule, in order to simplifying the matrix and directly introduce the parameters that are
directly related with the geometry.

78
Conclusions

We have seen that in material selection strategies exist two main possible approaches: the explicit
and the implicit.
The explicit or quantifying methods , that point out optimization functions using mathematical
relationships, graphs and curves, are precise, effective and based on a verifiable relationship,
which, when the objectives and constraints are clear and agreed on, are not at the discretion of
any single individual. However, they are in reality restrained to a limited decision-making “space”
(only two main objectives).
The implicit or non-quantifying method, that are based on making correlations between what is
required, is expected and what it is necessary to put into a product in order to satisfy such requests
by doing it better than the competitors are suitable for analyzing multiple conflicting aspects
without any restraint in their number.
Non-quantifying methods do not do all these things, but complementarily they are suitable for
analyzing multiple conflicting aspects without any restraint in their number. Actually, the QFD
matrix based method can break the problem of optimization into small pieces, comparing and
assessing solutions that have already been developed and then re-assembling them all into a final
simple number, the Total Weighted Score, but QFD is just a tool, sometimes a software tool that
is easy-to-use, but it does not do the job for you.
At this point, in order to take into account both methods, we have stablished the QFD4mat total
approach. It combine the elements of both methods to arrive to an optimal solution that verifies
the implicit and explicit conditions in order to maximize and make the most of the advantages of
each approach, and at the same time mitigate their respective drawbacks.
Subsequently, we have applied this total explicit-implicit approach to our case of study: a
climbing carabiner, after having analyzed the main features and functionality of the object and
the various component parts, in order to establish the costumers’ requirements and the main key
factors to take into account in the selection material strategy. We have obtained that the
Aluminum 7075-T6 as the material that is best suited from comparing all of the product
requirements, material properties, and performance categories stabilized in base of the costumers’
opinion.
Nevertheless, as we just have said, this procedure has some limits that impoverish this approach
and make it less reliable, because it did not take into account the object geometry an generalize
with the simple geometry stabilized in the Ashby Indexes.
In order to modify and correct this “error”, in the next sections we will stablish the optimal form
(structure, shape and section) of the climbing carabiner by a topology optimization. Then, with
the final optimized design, we will analyze the tree material candidates by a fem study in order to
devaluate new parameters, such as weight, stiffness, deformation and strength when we apply the
standard loads stabilized by regulation.

Firstly, in the next chapter we will explain the bases of the topology optimization and how to
apply in our case of the climbing carabiner, taking into account of the existing standard types and
the possible influence of the manufacturing process.

79
Chapter 2 –Modern computer aided approaches
for optimal geometry: topology optimization
Before focusing on the topology optimization (which is the kind of optimization that interests us),
we need to define what is a “Design Optimization”.

I. Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization (MDO)9

Generally, a Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) is a field of engineering that

uses optimization methods to solve design problems incorporating a number of disciplines. In
other words, they are automated modifications of the analysis model parameters to achieve a
desired objective while satisfying specified design requirements. It is also known as
multidisciplinary optimization and multidisciplinary system design optimization (MSDO).

Product development is rife with trade-offs between contradicting attributes of cost, weight,
manufacturability, quality and performance. As design and development teams strive to improve
products by incorporating new customer requirements, they also are under pressure to save on
development and material costs. Engineers often rely on team’s empirical expertise to achieve
incremental design improvements, which is not only time consuming and resource intensive, but
also unreliable as it is often hard to account for all the design constraints and responses.
MDO allows designers to incorporate all relevant disciplines simultaneously. The optimum of the
simultaneous problem is superior to the design found by optimizing each discipline sequentially,
since it can exploit the interactions between the disciplines. However, including all disciplines
simultaneously significantly increases the complexity of the problem. [28]

These techniques have been used in a high number of fields, including automobile design, naval
architecture, electronics, architecture, computers, and electricity distribution. However, the
largest number of applications have been in the field of aerospace engineering, such
as aircraft and spacecraft design. For example, the proposed Boeing blended wing body (BWB)
aircraft concept has used MDO extensively in the conceptual and preliminary design stages. The
disciplines considered in the BWB design are aerodynamics, structural analysis, propulsion,
control theory, and economics. [28]
For having a schematic idea we can list the following field of application [29]:

 Structural design improvements

o Minimize thickness
o Hence weight
 Generation of feasible designs from infeasible designs
o Original model violates stress
 Preliminary Design
o Candidate designs from topology, topometry, topograpy optimization
 Model matching to produce similar structural responses
o Frequency response
o Modal test

9
Freely adjusted from the original slides from the seminary “Design Optimization”, courtesy of author of the slides Ing.
Mauro Linari, Senior Project Manager at MCS Software S.r.l.

80
  Sensitivity evaluation
o Identify which regions of the model are most “sensitive” to design
changes or imperfections
o System parameter identification

Optimization problem statement

When we want to do a design optimization, the problem formulation is normally the most difficult
part of the process. It is the selection of design variables, constraints, objectives, and models of
the disciplines. A further consideration is the strength and breadth of the interdisciplinary
coupling in the problem. [28]

A design variable is a specification that is controllable from the point of view of the designer. For
instance, the thickness of a structural member can be considered a design variable. Another might
be the choice of material. Design variables can be continuous (such as a wing span), discrete (such
as the number of ribs in a wing), or boolean (such as whether to build a monoplane or a biplane).
Design problems with continuous variables are normally solved more easily. Design variables are
often bounded, that is, they often have maximum and minimum values. Depending on the solution
method, these bounds can be treated as constraints or separately.

A constraint is a condition that must be satisfied in order in order to make the design feasible. An
example of a constraint in aircraft design is that the lift generated by a wing must be equal to the
weight of the aircraft. In addition to physical laws, constraints can reflect resource limitations,
user requirements, or bounds on the validity of the analysis models. Constraints can be used
explicitly by the solution algorithm or can be incorporated into the objective using Lagrange
multipliers.

An objective is a numerical value that is to be maximized or minimized. For example, a designer

may wish to maximize profit or minimize weight. Many solution methods work only with single
objectives. When using these methods, the designer normally weights the various objectives and
sums them to form a single objective. Other methods allow multi-objective optimization, such as
the calculation of a Pareto front.

The designer must also choose models to relate the constraints and the objectives to the design
variables. These models depend on the discipline involved and they may be empirical models,
such as a regression analysis of aircraft prices, theoretical models, such as from computational
fluid dynamics, or reduced-order models of either of these. In choosing the models, the designer
must trade off fidelity with analysis time.
The multidisciplinary nature of most design problems complicates model choice and
implementation. Often several iterations are necessary between the disciplines in order to find the
values of the objectives and constraints. As an example, the aerodynamic loads on a wing affect
the structural deformation of the wing. The structural deformation in turn changes the shape of
the wing and the aerodynamic loads. Therefore, in analyzing a wing, the aerodynamic and
structural analyses must be run a number of times in turn until the loads and deformation
converge.

The standard form will be similar to [29]:

▪ Design Variables:
 Find {X} = { X1, X2, …, XN }

81
 • e.g., thickness of a panel, area of a stiffener

▪ Objective Function:
 Minimize F(X)
• e.g., weight
▪ Subject to:
o Inequality constraints
 Gj (X) < 0 j = 1,2,….,L
 Design Criteria and margins

o Side constraints:
 XiL < Xi < XiU i = 1,2,….,N
 Gage allowables

We need to say that in a Structural Optimization, a ‘Brute Force’ coupling of an analysis program
and an optimization program suffers from:

▪ Too many design variables

▪ Too many design constraints
▪ Too many detailed analysis

So we need to be careful when we stabilize the selection of all the parameters in other to have no
problems during the coupling os an analysis program and an optimization program.
In fact, the previous Approximate Model that we has just stablished acts as the interface between
the analysis and the optimizer. It contains inexpensive and easily computed yet high quality,
explicit approximations of the objective function and all retained constraints.

Minimization of functions of a single variable

We consider the following function of a single variable X

𝐹 = 𝐹(𝑋)

An extremum is defined for X* at which

𝑑𝐹
=0
𝑑𝑥

The numerical optimizer ‘samples’ this continuous function and uses this data to estimate an
extremum. For example, if the following information is available:

(𝑋0 ; 𝐹0 ), (𝑋0 ; 𝐹0 ′ ), (𝑋1 ; 𝐹1 )

We could use a quadratic polynomial approximation of the form:

𝐹̃ (𝑋) = 𝑎0 + 𝑎1 𝑋 + 𝑎2 𝑋 2

To construct three equations in three unknowns:

82
 Therefore:

And we obtain: - A minimum in X* if a2 > 0 - A minimum in X* if a2 < 0

Arrived at this point we can apply two different minimization methods to evaluate the minimum

▪ Gradient-based methods (Constrained minimum)

▪ Non-gradient-based methods (Unconstrained minimum

Fig: 59 Graphic examples of a constrained minimum problem (left) and an unconstrained minimum problem (right) [29]

The existence of these two different methods is due to the different approaches that have been
developed through many years.

Constrained Minimum: Gradient-based methods, Kuhn-Tucker Conditions for optimality

General aspects
Within the gradient-based methods two schools of structural optimization practitioners:
optimality criteria and mathematical programming.
The optimality criteria school derived recursive formulas based on the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker
(KKT) necessary conditions for an optimal design. The KKT conditions were applied to classes
of structural problems such as minimum weight design with constraints on stresses,
displacements, buckling, or frequencies to derive resizing expressions particular to each class.
The mathematical programming school employed classical gradient-based methods to structural
optimization problems. The method of usable feasible directions, Rosen’s gradient projection
(generalized reduce gradient) method, sequential unconstrained minimization techniques,
sequential linear programming and eventually sequential quadratic programming methods were
common choices. Schittkowski et al. reviewed the methods current by the early 1990s.
The gradient methods unique to the MDO community derive from the combination of optimality
criteria with math programming, first recognized in the seminal work of Fleury and Schmit who
constructed a framework of approximation concepts for structural optimization. They recognized
that optimality criteria were so successful for stress and displacement constraints, because that
approach amounted to solving the dual problem for Lagrange multipliers using linear Taylor
series approximations in the reciprocal design space. In combination with other techniques to
improve efficiency, such as constraint deletion, regionalization, and design variable linking, they
succeeded in uniting the work of both schools. This approximation concepts based approach

83
forms the basis of the optimization modules in modern structural design software Altair -
Optistruct, ASTROS, MSC.Nastran, Genesis, I-DEAS, iSight.
Approximations for structural optimization were initiated by the reciprocal approximation Schmit
and Miura for stress and displacement response functions. Other intermediate variables were
employed for plates. Combining linear and reciprocal variables, Starnes and Haftka developed a
conservative approximation to improve buckling approximations. Fadel chose an appropriate
intermediate design variable for each function based on a gradient matching condition for the
previous point. Vanderplaats initiated a second generation of high quality approximations when
he developed the force approximation as an intermediate response approximation to improve the
approximation of stress constraints. Canfield developed a Rayleigh Quotient approximation to
improve the accuracy of eigenvalue approximations. Barthelemy and Haftka published a
comprehensive review of approximations in 1993. [28]

Mathematical resolutions
Kuhn-Tucker conditions for optimality follow directly from a generalization of Lagrange
multipliers [29].

An optimum design is at hand if:

1. X* is feasible

2. we verified:

3. and

→
Fig: 60 Graphical idea of the mathematical resolution [29]

Note that λ k + m is unrestricted in sign, but is not used in MSC Nastran (software that we will use
for realize the topology optimization).

If we analyze the following example where we consider a beam and we want to minimize its
volume respecting certain deformation conditions

Fig: 61 Scheme of the proposed beam example [29]

84
If we stablish the objective function and the deformation constraints:

At the end we obtain the following theoretical solution:

As we previously said actually, function gradient information can be used to construct first-order
Taylor Series approximations in order to arrive to an optimal solution by combination of the
optimality criteria and mathematical programming.
If we develop a generic Taylor Series we obtain:

We say that is an "approximation" because we obtain the final result with some error. This error
decrease as we increase the order of approximation.

Appling a first-order approximation to our example, with H and B the design variables we obtain:

at (B0 , H0) = (6,45)

85
And we obtain the following linear approximation:

We observe that, the approximate optimum violates some of the true constraints. However it
forms a good starting point for the next iteration. This is the basis of a ‘sequential linearization’
method of solution.
In generally terms the sequential linear programming (SLP) follow an iterative process consisting
of the following steps:

▪ linearize the problem:

▪ solve this linear approximate problem using Simplex or other optimizer

▪ re-linearize and repeat to convergence.

Fig: 62 Graphical idea of the optimization process [29]

86
Another possible resolution method it will be the “the method of feasible directions”.
In contrast with SLP, the method of feasible directions treats active, nonlinear constraints directly,
in other words:

▪ Usable search direction:

▪ Feasible search direction:

Fig: 63 Graphic illustrations of the method of feasible directions [29]

The problem with the method is that it may tend to zigzag between active and inactive constraints
as the optimum is approached. In structural applications, unnecessary function evaluations must
be kept to a minimum.
Note that a faster convergence can usually be obtained if the constraint surfaces are ‘followed’ to
the optimum.

Fig: 64 Illustrations of the zigzag problem with the method of feasible directions [29]

87
Brief note about numerical identification of the design constraints: Sensitivities

When we evaluate the influence of the

constraint conditions in the optimization
problem we consider that:

• Gj (X) is inactive if Gj (X) < CT

• Gj(X) is active if CT ≤ Gj (X) ≤ CTMIN

• Gj (X) is violated if Gj (X) > CTMIN

Fig: 65 Influence of a constrain condition [29]

Note that design Sensitivity terms are calculated only for the selected design constraints

→
Fig: 66 Idea of the sensitivities [29]

In conclusion, gradient-based methods requires the existence of continuous first derivatives of the
objective function and possibly higher derivatives (if father approximations are needed), but
requires a much smaller number of design cycles to converge to an optimum compared to the non-
gradient based methods. However, the convergence is only guaranteed to a local minimum: there
are no other subsequent convergent points.
Note that the simple gradient-based methods only require the gradient of the objective function
but usually requires N2 iterations or more where N is the number of design variables. Nevertheless,
methods that use the Hessian (Quasi-Newton) generally only require N iterations. [30]

88
Unconstrained Minimum: Non-gradient-based methods
General aspects
Non-gradient based optimization algorithms have gained a lot of attention recently due to the facts
that are easy to program ( easy to implement), no require the gradient information and we
evaluate the global properties. It does not move from one design point to the next: it makes use
of a population of design points. They are simplest than the gradient based methods as it is a
random search. This random search is improved by adding some logic procedures as the example
of the DOE search with limits on movements: it is known as a structured random search. However,
they have a high computational cost. [31]
They are typically based on some physical phenomena. As a referent, they are usually based on:

▪ Genetic algorithms
▪ Simulated annealing
▪ Particle swarm optimization

Those characteristics allow us to classified this method as a structured random search. At the same
time, the powerful mathematical approach make it numerically robust.
Note that it increases the changes of finding global or near global optimum designs: it provides a
number of good designs instead of a single optimum.

In the recent years, some evolutionary methods, such as the random number method (based in
Genetic Algorithm, Simulated annealing, Ant colony optimization techniques), that we have just
expose, came into existence. Nowadays number of person involving in research filed are
practicing for creation of best mode and method for different problem like impact damages,
dynamic failure and real time analysis, for this purpose they are using Multi-objective multi-
criteria design methods.

Mathematical resolutions
In non-gradient-based methods we can follow two different resolutions [29]:

▪ The Steepest Descent method

Reductions in the objective function are sought by searching in a direction given by the
negative of the gradient

Note that this method is intuitively attractive, but inefficient.

▪ The Conjugate direction method

Reductions in the objective function are sought by searching in a direction given by the
negative of the gradient
This method is easy to code and is a dramatic improvement over the Steepest Descent

Fig: 67 Graphical representation of the Conjugate direction method

89
We analyze the following example about the equilibrium of two-spring system

Fig: 68 Illustrations of the example case: spring-system equilibrium

Applying the law of conservation of energy, the theoretical solution, will be:

For this equilibrium equation, the minimum occurs at:

The corresponding two-variable design space is

illustrated below

In conclusion, in that case, to obtain the optimum point we only evaluate the objective function:
the Gradient and Hessian of the objective function are not needed. With this method, we may be
able to find global minimum, BUT it requires a large number of design cycles.
As we previously said, the non-gradient methods are based in methods using: genetic algorithms,
grid searchers, stochastic, nonlinear simplex, etc. Note that, in the case of Genetic Algorithms,
the evaluations of the objective function of an initial set of solutions starts the design process.
Initial set is typically very LARGE.
Whit this method we are able to handle integer variables such as number of vertical tails, number
of engines and other integer parameters. And at the same time we are able to seek the optimum
point for objective functions that do not have smooth first or second derivatives. [30]

90
 II. Topology optimization

With the rapid advancement of computing technology and mathematical modeling, computer
simulations have become common methods for the design of complex systems. Effective
utilization of computational simulations in place of expensive and time-consuming experimental
tests enables engineers to achieve better designs with reduced cost and design cycle time. To
exercise these models intelligently and eliminate the burden of manual iteration, manipulating
inputs and reviewing outputs, optimization strategies are applied in a simulation-based design
environment. These strategies search for designs that minimize or maximize design goals or
objectives while satisfying all design requirements or constraints. Commonly the assignment of
one material rather than another determines the introduction of different stiffness parameters and
strength limits. Once the mathematical model has been built, with the assistance of a computer
the designer can carry out different types of both static and dynamic analysis, concerning both the
in linear and non-linear behavior of the material. Several responses like displacements, velocities,
accelerations, forces, tensions, deformations, and others are investigated. If there is no satisfactory
solution, the designer can act in two ways:

• Locally modifying the geometry of the structure in order to ensure that during the
subsequent analysis, the internal stresses in the critical areas "fall" into acceptable values.
• Changing the material in order to use one that permits the raising of the threshold limit
for allowable stress.

Both solutions aim to minimize as much as possible the stress values calculated for the regions,
thereby reducing the values of critical stress or deformation. This is the step when the shape and
material are optimized, which is crucial for the success of the project phase and verification. Shape
changes or material modification inevitably involves an impact on production costs. This method
has a limit in the strong dependence of the final result on the geometry initially chosen. Sometimes
only a radical change in geometry, which is something very difficult to reach starting from the
original geometry, could permit the use of a less durable, but cheaper material.
To get over this limitation, new automated methodologies have been emerging in recent decades.
Among these, topology optimization is the most commonly used.

91
Introduction to Topology optimization: general concepts

In the tough international competition, companies can only survive if, besides highly innovative
power, they can provide strongly cost optimized products. Therefore, in new procedures like the
Simultaneous Engineering the calculation engineer is already integrated in the concept phase of
the product development process. Efficient methods of working require powerful optimization
algorithms to be provided in addition to the discrete methods (FEM/BEM) that proved worthwhile
to support the calculation engineer in the draft and design phase. Almost all FEM codes have
integrated sizing optimization capabilities to support the calculation engineer.

In this context, new optimization criteria and control strategies for sizing, shape and topology
optimization were found at the Institute of Machine Design of the University of Karlsruhe,
Germany, in 1991. Based on these new strategies the computer program CAOSS (Computer
Aided Optimization System Sauter) was developed at the institute in cooperation with FE-
DESIGN, Karlsruhe, Germany. In 1994 the program was awarded the European Academic
Software Award by the European Commission, DG XIII, to be the best program in the field of
mechanics. This formed the basis for the product which is now known as MSC/CONSTRUCT
with it’s options TOPOLOGY and SHAPE and is licensed to MSC on a worldwide basis since
1997.

Topology optimization is based on the definition of the “design space”, that region within which
the preliminary shape of the component that is to be built should be determined. Generally
speaking is a mathematical approach that optimizes material layout within a given design space,
for a given set of loads and boundary conditions such that the resulting layout meets a prescribed
set of performance targets. Namely, in its simplest form, the topology optimization method solves
the problem of distributing a given amount of material in a design domain subject to load and
support conditions, such that the stiffness of the structure is maximized.
It is used at the concept level of the design process to arrive at a conceptual design proposal that
is then fine-tuned for performance and manufacturability. This replaces time consuming and
costly design iterations and hence reduces design development time and overall cost while
improving design performance, allowing engineers to find the best concept design that
accomplish the design requirements. In other words, the application of the topology optimization
method in various fields of engineering may significantly improve design cost and quality which
is important in global competition.
Since its introduction by Bendsøe and Kikuchi (1988), the method has gained widespread
popularity in academia and industry and is now being applied to the design of automotive and
airplane structures as well as in materials, mechanism and MicroElectroMechanical Systems
(MEMS) design. In general aspects, it has been implemented through the use of finite element
methods for the analysis (FEM analysis), and optimization techniques based on the method of
moving asymptotes, genetic algorithms, optimality criteria method, level sets, and topological
derivatives. [32]
In some cases, proposals from a topology optimization, although optimal, may be expensive or
infeasible to manufacture. In other words, a possible problem in topology optimization is that the
design concepts developed are very often not manufacturable. These challenges can be overcome
using manufacturing constraints in the topology problem formulation, which yields engineering
designs that would satisfy practical manufacturing requirements. In some cases, additive
manufacturing technologies are used to manufacture complex optimized shapes that would
otherwise need manufacturing constraints.

92
Another possible concern is that the solution of a topology optimization problem can be mesh
dependent, if we do not take an appropriate measure.

Topology optimization is distinct from sizing and shape optimization since typically shape
optimization methods work in a subset of allowable shapes, which have fixed topological
properties, such as having a fixed number of holes in them. For both, sizing and shape
optimization a first design proposal, which is used as the start design, must exist, while the
objective of general structural optimization methods, such as topology optimization, is to provide
even this first design proposal. The designer creates only the design space which includes the
future component. Subsequently the functionally required boundary conditions are applied. The
efforts for the modeling and preparation are extremely low. The optimum structural shape with
the appropriate topology is calculated utilizing a FEM program and issued as a design proposal
which might be refined by the designer. Therefore, topology optimization is used to generate
concepts and shape optimization is used to fine-tune a chosen design topology.

However, compared with the sizing and shape optimization the numerical efforts of this iterative
process strongly increase. Therefore currently only components with 15.000 to a maximum of
30.000 elements could be calculated, even when using powerful workstations. Due to the high
number of iterations (typically between 20 to 30 iterations) and the fact that approx. 90 to 95% of
the CPU time is used by the FEM program for the analysis, the performance and the resource
requirements of the FEM program are of particular importance [33].

There are various methods used to perform topology optimization such as Solid Isotropic Material
with Penalization (SIMP), Evolutionary Structural Optimization (ESO), or Topological
derivatives.

I think that it would be useful to spread the concept and ideas of topology optimization among
designers and students, allowing them to try the topology optimization approach on their own
specific problems.

93
Optimization problem statement

An automated algorithm determines the optimal distribution of the material in the given space of
the project (in which the real structure to be designed must be contained), loads and boundary
conditions. [34]

Referring to texts and specialized articles dealing with topology optimization for more details,
what is important to understand in principle is the way in which the software conducts the
analysis: it performs several cycles of automated optimization (in the place of the designer) and,
on the basis of simple relations, it builds a map over the design space. In all cases, this map shows
the value of a parameter calculated for each element of the mesh (variable in the range from 0 to
1) which can represent the higher or lower importance of each element in collaboration with the
global behavior of the structure. Therefore, the software assigns a “quality or importance factor”
to each element (generically defined as “element density”). Proceeding with the automated
optimization process – and depending on the element density factors – the two design variables
on which the software operates – Young modulus and mass density – vary on the basis of the
elements, assuming values that are lower or at most equal to those initially defined.

Fig: 69 Topology Optimization of a bike frame: from the design space to the suggested shape
for a bridge structure for achieving a smoothed FEM and preliminary geometry. [29]

Based on the results calculated by the solver and by the minimum threshold value defined by the
user, the post-processor is able to suggest where to remove material inside the design space. Thus,
the preliminary shape of the component remains identified. Additional constraints due to
manufacturing processes such as extrusion and casting (with one or two dies) or geometric
features like their (even cyclic) symmetry can be taken into account by algorithms. In Fig.71 we
can see an example of the whole optimization process by topology optimization.

94
 Fig: 70 Topology Optimization within the design process

Problem statement
In MSC Nastran software for the topology optimization, we use the density approach which is
alternatively called the Power Law approach or Artificial Material approach. It is based on the
idea of convexification where a homogeneous artificial material is used, and we have that [29]:

▪ The density of the artificial material can vary between 0 and 1

▪ The generalized material parameters are simply taken to be proportional to the relative
density
▪ A power law is used to relate the density with the material property

At the same time, the design variable x is normalized with respect to the nominal density and
Young’s modulus as:
𝜌 = 𝜌0 · 𝑥

𝐸 = 𝐸0 · 𝑥 𝑝

Where “p” is a penalty factor to enforce x to be close to 0 or 1 when p>1, and usually: 2 < 𝑝 < 4
(per default p=3). Each element is a DESVAR (density) which is “ideally” a discrete variable (0
or 1). A set of density values is obtained by optimization, which means the design domain is
separated into solid and void regions. This has the effect of redistributing material from regions
that do not require material to those that require.

In topology optimization, two response types (RTYPE) were specifically added:

- COMP: compliance of structures (i.e. equivalent to total strain energy 

elasticity)
- FRMASS: fractional mass. Designed mass divided by mass if all design variables
are =1.0

Note that we can have a separate response for each property region.
Generally speaking, a typical topology optimization statement:

- minimize the compliance (RTYPE=COMP)

- limit the mass to a certain percentage of the maximum allowable amount
(RTYPE=FRMASS)

95
Note that in reality the objective function is not no minimize the quantity of material but minimize
the compliance of a structure to increase the structural stiffness. The compliance is defined has
the elasticity of the material. The condition of minimizing the mass is only a constraint. So
actually, the topology optimization is based on maximizing the stiffness ( minimize the
compliance) with the constrain of minimum used mass: the objective function is defined as the
sum of the values of 'compliance' associated with the considered static load conditions. In other
words, it can be also considered as determine the minimum quantity of material that maximize
the stiffness and bear the applied loads.

The problem of shape constraints by manufacturing approach

As we have seen in the introduction paragraph, manufacturing constraints have an important rule
because in some cases, proposals from a topology optimization, although optimal, may be
infeasible to manufacture. Therefore, we need to introduce manufacturing constraints in the
topology problem formulation, which yields engineering designs that would satisfy practical
manufacturing requirements. In some cases, additive manufacturing technologies are used to
manufacture complex optimized shapes that would otherwise need manufacturing constraints.
There is an special motivation for manufacturing constraints since the topology optimized designs
may require major modifications for production or are not producible at all. However there are
big amount of common elements with unrestricted topology optimization such as thin beams,
cavities which are not achievable by casting or machining process, tapered sections,
unsymmetrical design even when loads, boundary conditions and design are fully symmetric, etc.

Usually, the most common manufacturing constraints that we take in to account are [29]:

▪ Minimum Member Size:

- To control the size of members in a topology optimal design
- Enhances simplicity of design, hence its manufacturability
▪ Casting Constraints (Draw Direction):
- To prevent hollow profiles
▪ Extrusion Constraints
- Constant cross-section along a given direction
- Essential for designs manufactured by a extrusion process
▪ Mirror Symmetry Constraints
- Symmetry Constraints force a symmetric design in all cases
- Support regular or irregular mesh

To select a topologically designable region, the user needs to specify a group of elements. All the
elements referencing to a given property ID are made topologically designable with the Bulk Data
entry TOPVAR referencing that property ID. At that point topology design variables are
automatically generated with one design variable per designable element. Then manufacturability
constraints are then applied on all elements referencing the given property ID.

96
97
Real life example iterative shape refinement: Arm of a packaging mechanism10

For acquire a global idea and a general overview about the topological optimization process we
will now explain in a simplified way the iterative shape refinement that follows the MSC Nastran
topology optimization process by the example of a packaging mechanism arm.
First of all we need to generate the finite element model generation and then describe the topology
optimization process.

Finite element model generation

For generate the FEM model we need to:

• Imported the geometry of the component into Patran work space

Fig: 71 Imported geometry [29]

• Create the base surfaces

In that case, the finite element model can be obtained by extruding a mesh generated on
one of the side sections of the arm

Fig: 72 Side section geometry generation by extracting a side face of the solid [29]

At the same time, the arm section is symmetric with respect to the straight line passing
through the centers of the holes so we can create the straight curve and the break surface
by the generated curve.

10
Freely adjusted from the original slides from the seminary “Design Optimization”, courtesy of author of the slides Ing.
Mauro Linari, Senior Project Manager at MCS Software S.r.l.

98
 Note that the regions of the surface around the holes should not be modified. In order to
obtain a better finite element model we need to create circular regions around the holes
and some other subdivisions

1. A point is created in each of the hole on the symmetry axis at a distance from the
center higher than the hole radius. “Translate point“ functionality is used
2. A curve is created around each of the hole as 180°arc which center is the center of
the specific hole.
3. These curves are used to break the original surface
4. The surfaces generated in the step 3a are broken in order to create circular sectors in
the two ends regions. They are broken by using vertical planes or curves passing
through the centersof the holes

• Create the mesh ( FEM creation)

In the example, a 2D mesh is created on the surface and the 3D finite element model is
created by extrusion
- A specific number of elements is assigned to each of the surfaces edges. Note
that for parametric surfaces it is sufficient to define the edge subdivision in one
of the oppositeedges (Mesh Seed)

Fig: 73 Creation of the number of finite elements in the surface region [29]:
- A mesh is generated in each of the surfaces. Equivalence functionality is used to
eliminate duplicated nodes at the common surfaces edges

Fig: 74 Creation of the mesh in each surfaces [29]

- The complete mesh over the solid end face is generated by mirroring the half
surface mesh with respect to the axis of symmetry. Also in this case
equivalencingfunctionality is used to eliminate duplicated nodes along the axis
of symmetry

99
 Fig: 75 Completing the 2D mesh [29]

- The 2D mesh is extruded for a distance equal to the axial lenght of the arm (A
number of internal subdivisions is properly defined)

Fig: 76 Extrusion of the 2D mesh to obtain the complete 3D mesh [29]

• Define the properties. The design space is defined by listing the properties of the elements
that are part of the region we are interested to modify taking into account that properties
are properly defined in order to identify the design space

As we said before, in that case, the cylindrical regions around the holes should not be
modified

Fig: 77 Definition of the regions that should not be modified [29]:

• Define the loads and boundary conditions

100
Optimization Process definition: Topology
Once you have defined and successfully created the FEM model we proceed to define the
topology. We need to enter in the Analyze section an select in action the Toptomize section.

Then you should define:

▪ the objective and constraints: section where we select

the topology optimization process

▪ the optimization control parameters

▪ the design domain: it’s the section where we can define the manufacturing constraints
▪ the direct text input
▪ and finally the selected subcase

Finally, we applied the analysis, obtaining a MSC Nastran input file with all the information about
the topology optimization.

To analyze the results we select the output file that we interest our study. The results consists of
a factor (artificial material density) assigned to each element that varies from 0.0 to 1.0: lower the
factor is, less the element is important. This output data are stored in a file which extension is
‘des’. Choosing a specific threshold for this factor it is possible to display all the element to which
calculated value is higher.

Analysis of the results

As we just said, the results from a topology can be displayed by using the Display Results option
in the Design Study/Post-Process Tool: we only need to select a result case, take into account that
a threshold value must be defined for the factor associated to each element by the optimization
process.
The distribution for this factor in the design space can be displayed by a “fringe representation”
where a specific color is associated to each subrange of values for the factor in the global range
from 0.0 to 1.0, as we see in the following figures. For a primary approach is suitable to choose
the Standard Results.

101
 Fig: 78 Fringe plot representation of the topology optimization for a packaging mechanism arm [29]

This is first possible representation useful for acquire an initial idea about the zones in the studied
piece that are important and are necessary to accomplish he load conditions in order to ensure an
optimal mechanical performance.

However, a much more comprehensive representation can be done by erasing all these elements
that calculated factor is lower than a specified threshold. This representation can be classified by
a element ‘deletion’ representation.

The results for the example case of study results using for this type of representation are shown
below in function of the different specific threshold varying it from 0.1 to 1:

102
Fig: 79 The different element ‘deletion’ representations that we obtain by varying the threshold from 0.1 to 1 [29]

The last threshold provides the most important elements but the proposed configuration should
take into account all the intermediate solutions in order to build a structure that is realistic. We
need to consider that should exists a continuity in the structure, so no flying parts should exist.

Taking into account all the solutions obtained for the several threshold a possible configuration
has been identified (different views)

Fig: 80 Possible optimal configuration taking into account the obtaining results from the topology optimization [29]
103
Then, as show the next figures, we can obtained a smoothed mesh in order to try to obtain a CAD
geometry

Fig: 81 Smoothed refines mesh and CAD geometry model obtained from the optimal result form [29]

To obtain the smoothed FEM model we use the proper option in the Design Study/Post-Process
Tool. Generally, it is useful to try obtaining an approximate geometry of the chosen configuration
in other to get import it in a CAD program for finally determine the real geometry of the structure.
For export the geometry, the first operation to be done on the smoothed FEM is the ‘skin
extraction’, namely a 2D model is created considering all the free face of the solid element
representing the FEM. To create the skin elements, a specific utility is available in Patran,
represented by the ‘Skin Solid Element’ tool in the FEM Elements Utilities Library. The skin
finite element model can be used in two ways in Patran:

- to create a surface by mesh: the success for this approach is related to the
goodness of the finite element model
- export the geometry by using the FEM in STL format: it is the simplest way
exporting geometry in this specific case

If we decide to export the geometry by the STL format we need to know that the STL format
contains only 3-node elements.
The 2D finite element model created for the skin of the structure, can be done by 4-node and/or
3-node elements. The utility in Patran can consider a generic 2D finite element model allowing
the simultaneous selection of both types of elements. The only possible problem is that their
definition in the databox can be done in two steps (a selection error can be possible).
Considering that in any case 3-node type elements are created, in this specific example we
transform all the 4-node elements in 3-node elements.

We obtain the following skin fine element

104
 Fig: 82 Skin fine element obtained from the topology optimization [29]
Effect of the
manufacturing constraints
We want to take a brief look about the effect of the manufacturing constraints in the topology
optimization.
We firstly start, supposing that the arm it’s made by a casting manufacture [29]. We consider the
different optimization result when one single and two dies are used.

On one hand, if only a single die it’s used, considering that it slides in the given draw direction,
we obtain:

Results from which we can propose two possible optimized solutions:

- First solution

105
 - Second solution

If we consider now that the arm it’s made by an extrusion manufacture [29].

We observe that, there is an important influence of the manufacturing constraints on the final
shape obtained after topology optimization considering all the constrain conditions, and the loads
and boundary conditions of the FEM model.

106
General observations
In conclusion, if we consider now a possible subsequent step in the optimization process, we
should point out that the designer can analyze the shape that has been identified, and, according
also to his experience, elaborated in order to build a geometry much more realistic and
technologically feasible solution.
In topology optimization, stress distribution cannot be considered as a constraint: the parameters
of the material in the design space are distributed with discontinuities creating an unrealistic stress
distribution.
The further steps in the design process are relative to the stress/fatigue analysis of the structure.
In that way, shape optimization could be one of the tools to refine the detail (fillet radius for
example). In fact, shape optimization is the only possibility for optimizing the structure modeled
by 3D solid elements. Following the same idea, shape sensitivity is another tool useful in case of
structure modeled by 2D elements

Limits in topological optimization of shape consist in the possibility of creating a component by

adding, not only removing, material. This limit has been surpassed by the topometry optimization
method, a related approach that allows you to vary the thickness of the elements in the design
domain in order to determine the optimal layout of a structure. This is different from conventional
sizing optimization in the sense that in sizing optimization, the thickness of the whole part is
changed, but in topometry optimization thickness is changed “element by element” thus giving
greater design freedom. These methods are particularly promising since they can be key up for
Additive Layer Manufacturing approaches which are rapidly developing because of the
impressive advancements in 3D printers for materials (which might permit the generation of some
of the shapes identified without the manufacturing constraints).

In a different way both topometry and topography optimization try to solve the same issues
regarding the effective use of materials. In fact, while the latter is only able to "flatten" the primary
shape provided by the definition of a design space, topometry optimization allows for the
redistribution of the mass and stiffness by increasing these characteristics in some areas and
reducing them in others. In contrast, topographic optimization changes the structure by modifying
the shape (creating beads) according to the geometrical criteria defined by the designer. In
practice, these two optimization methods can be considered as the automation, respectively, of
"sizing" and “shape” optimization.

107
 III. Topology optimization for shape definition of a Climbing Carabineer

In this section, we will describe how we can reduce the carabiner forms, maintaining at the same
time the main the required characteristics and load conditions. We will describe the different
carabiner types, and in each case, we will see the which limits that they have in function of the
geometry. Namely see vantages and disadvantages of each type and see how influence the form
in the applications and in the general requirements. Then we will see the load and generally
constraints in each case, for finally take a look about the geometry free space to see what
modifications are possible and what could be the preliminary form to optimize by topology
optimization.

Types of carabiners: forms, characteristics and applications.

In real life for carabiners, we have so many different forms such as applications. Some versions
are versatile, while others have an exclusive use for a specific activity. The following paragraphs
describe the main forms, types and applications.

In general terms we have 7 different carabiner’s types, each one with is own form an particular
application, but we can make an initial distinction in function of the general form between
symmetric and asymmetric carabiners [35]:

▪ symmetric carabiners:

As its name suggests, they have the same shape and features at the ends of
their shafts. They are designed for use in anchors, knots of application, hoists
and pulleys.

The two principal design ways are oval (figure A) and the square, which is a
variation of the oval form with a significant curvature radius reduction at the
Fig: 83 Symmetric shape ends.
of carabiners [35]

▪ asymmetric carabiners

The vast majority of the carabiner models that are manufactured in the market have this form.
They are used in specific applications, and it is not recommended to use it for different design
tasks. They have large opening and high tensile strength. The most commonly used forms are:

▪ H or HMS type (Figure B)

▪ Pear-shaped (Figure E)
▪ Way asymmetric D and D (Figures C and D resp.)

Fig: 84 Asymmetric shapes of climbing carabiners [35] 108

We will now explain in detail the overall carabiner’s shapes and the respectively different
characteristics and applications [11] [28] [36]:

a) Type A: carabiner for specific anchor

It is a carabiner with automatic closing system specifically designed to be directly joined at an

specific anchor type as we see in the second image. Only the Italian manufacturer Kong, has in
the market two carabiners for sportive use that refer to this type of carabiner.

Fig: 85 Type A carabiner joined to an

specific anchor type [36]

Fig: 86 Carabiner Type A [36]

Type B: Basic carabiner.

Is a carabiner with automatic* closing system and adequate resistance for being used in the vast
majority of climbing conditions and as a principal connector in any moorage element (Fig 88).

*The automatic closing system is define in the regulation UNE_EN 12275 as a closing that
automatically moves to the closed position when released at any opening position

We can distinguish between two different type B carabiners:

▪ The symmetrical B type:

Generally offer the highest breaking strengths, and give you a lot of
room inside, that is to said that we dispose more space inside of the
carabiner, fact that improves maneuverability.

Note that a very few symmetrical B type carabiners are rated for
pulling in 3 directions, so we need to be careful when we use it with
various ropes in different directions.

Fig: 87 Carabiner Type B – Symmetrical [36]

109
 ▪ the “A-symmetrical B” type:

Also known as a “modified B” carabiner, offers a high breaking

strength (generally not quite as high as a Symmetrical D), and its
designs allows the mouth to open larger than many other designs.
This is perhaps the most common carabineer body style in use.

Fig: 88 Carabiner Type B – Asymmetrical [36]

In general, B and B asymmetric types are the most resistant: they are used in the main anchor and
in zones where we need additional security. In fact their forms conduct the main loads and stresses
to the spine, which is the most resistant part of the carabiner avoiding overload around the elbow
and the gate

b) Type D: Directional carabiners

It is a carabiner with automatic closure or combination of one or more

carabiners with quickdraws or slings. It is designed to ensure the load
in a certain direction. This type of carabiner is a good concept, because
it delimits the possibility that the load moves to a position at the
transverse axis, fact that would limit its resistance.

Fig: 89 Carabiner Type D [36]

c) Type H: Halbmastwurf sicherung (HSM) carabiner

It is an automatic close system carabiner usually with “pear” form. Is commonly used for making
as a dynamic knot: specific climbing knot widely used due to the big advantages of its
reversibility, that is, which can be tensioned on both ends of the rope, without losing their blocker
functions. The pear shape allows this “reversibility”, fact that cannot be possible in carabiners
with symmetric shape.
They are suitable for connecting to structures and anchor due to the big opening.

110
These carabiners are an excellent choice in circus acts that involve spinning, but are generally
more expensive and harder to find than other styles. Is a modification on the oval shape that tries
to give you the strength and large basket of an Asymmetrical B type, while giving you the same
even spinning properties of an oval.

Fig: 90 Carabiner Type H used to make a dynamic knot [36]

Fig: 91 Carabiner Type H (HMS) [36]

Note that we should limit its use to situations in which they may suffer a high fall factor risk and
where they can produce a pulley effect, because its shape can have a tendency to place the load
away from the carabiner main axis and in its minor axis or transverse axis and thus reduce the
resistance of the carabiner.
In the first case, it will fail to load less than the measurement obtained on the test axle principal

Fig: 92 Limits of use for the Carabiner Type H [36]

d) Type K: Klettersteig or “via ferrata” carabiner

111
 It is a carabiner with automatic closure, used to hitch the climber to a
“via ferrata” anchoring system. To facilitate this type of connection,
they are endowed with higher opening of the closure with respect to the
other types of carabiners. A the same time they have higher strength
requirements in its main axis.

It is always suitable to use it with an automatic closure system, due to

the fact that makes the climbing through the different “vías ferraras”
more safety and faster

Fig: 93 Carabiner Type K (Klettersteig) [36]

e) Type Q: Quick link or “maillón rapide”

It is a carabiner that is closed by a screw cap.

The screw cap is the carabiner part that bears
the total load that acts to the carabiner when it
is fully screwed. These features makes them
much stronger, lighter and cheaper than the
other types of carabiners with automatic
closure ( the ones with trigger).
In the market, we can find them in a lot of
different forms.
The upper carabiner on the right image is the
most used in climbing, as carabiner to leave if
Fig: 94 Carabiner Type Q: (Quick Link) [36]
it is necessary

f) Type X: Oval shape carabiners

This was the shape of the first carabiners. The resistance limitations due to
the type of carabiners design and the traditionally uses of them, have resulted
in lower regulatory requirements.
They are automatic closure carabiners that have been design for low loads
conditions, that have not been design for to give full protection in case of the
climber fall. They are typically weaker than B shaped carabiners Although
they are very useful due to their oval shape for being used as pulleys of side
plates, of certain blockers an of certain specific braking device.

Fig: 95 Carabiner Type X: Oval Shape [36]

We have seen that each type of carabiner has specific application in climbing in function of the
shape, material and section form that they have. Shapes that guide the rope to the ends, such as
carabiners with shape B or D, are recommended because in that way the loads are concentrated
in the spine which is the part most resistant. In the next paragraph we will make a preliminary
approach to the possible configuration to optimize and the possible optimize result in base at the
loads and constraints acting on the climbing carabiner

112
113
Load, constraints and geometry free space

Load and constraints: Certification and Standards

Climbing carabiners are used in any kind of natural environment: operating temperatures vary
between +50° C to -60° c. Such equipment must be able to withstand and bear sudden dynamic
and static loads as the load originate when the climber falls after losing grip or the climber's
weight during the descent. There exist a few standards that regulating the load an constraint
condition that carabiners need to bear.

In Europe, there exist three related standards [11].

The first is the CE EN 12275:1998. CE (from the French term “Conformité Européenne”,
meaning “European Conformity”) adopted the UIAA which proposed the EN 12275:1998
“Mountaineering equipment – Connectors -Safety” in 1998. These manufacturer standards set
some minimum bases for connectors. Is a mandatory standard for anyone selling connectors in
the European Economic Area. All carabineers that certify to this standard will have the “CE”
mark on them.
The second standard in Europe is the European Union Personal Protective Equipment [PPE]
Directive 89/686/EEC. This directive sets some minimum standards for PPE. Devices conforming
to this standard will have “0120CE” marked on them.
The third standard in Europe is the UIAA Safety Labels. The UIAA (Union of International
Alpinists Associations) is a body that promotes the safety and interests of all parties involves in
mountaineering and related activities worldwide, although the focus is mostly European. The
UIAA publish standards for mountaineering equipment, which supplement the requirements of
the corresponding European Standards mentioned above. The UIAA standard is followed by some
manufacturers, but not others, making it a less useful standard.

In the USA, they are other three different standards that apply to carabiners:

- OSHA standard 1910.66 App C

- ANSI Z359.1-2007
- NFPA standard 1983 (Lite and General)

We will not enter in to detail about the USA regulations and we will make our study in base of
the European certification and standards

As we have just seenn, in order to guarantee the maximum quality, climbing manufacturers have
to make their carabiners in accordance with International Climbing and Mountaineering
Federation (UIAA) regulations [37]. For climbing carabiners there is an specific regulation the
EN 12275, which previews the limit breaking load in function of the carabiner’s type. At the same
time previews the minimum gate opening and the minimum gate opening force. We obtain the
following stress and opening ranges for the different types of carabiner:

- Strength limit [37]:

▪ Longitudinal tensile strength ( main direction) with gate close: 18-25 kN
▪ Longitudinal tensile strength with gate open: 5-7 kN
▪ Transversal tensile strength: 7-10 kN

114
 - Opening limit [37]: 15-21mm

- Gate opening force limit [37]: 5 N at 10mm from the upper part of the gate.

Fig: 96 Figures illustrating the strength, opening, and gate opening force limit by the UIAA regulations [37]

The complete regulation sheet about loads carabiners, the EN 12275, is attached in the annexes.

115
Geometry free space
In rock climbing and mountaineering there is a strong focus on reducing the weight of all
equipment. By reducing the weight of equipment, a climber will expend less energy working
against gravity and will thus be able to climb further and faster. In modern alpine climbing this
has been taken to extremes, with climbers carrying minimal food and water, inadequate sleeping
equipment and a reduced amount of fall protection equipment [38]. The drive for weight reduction
has led to incremental developments in climbing fall protection. Carabiner manufacturers have
reduced weight by removing material whilst modifying their designs to maintain strength and
stiffness. The result is a general design trend moving from solid oval or circular cross sections to
‘I-beam’ style cross sections, where material has been removed near the neutral axis.

Fig: 97 Weight reduction has been attained by reducing material; strength and stiffness are maintained
by using an ‘I-beam’ style of design. Left: 85 g Right: 52 g.

It is important to consider existing carabiners in order to determine a reasonable goal for the
weight of a composite carabiner. Carabiner manufacturers have employed a combination of
methods to reduce the weight of their products, tweaking alloying ingredients, re-designing to
remove material where it is not needed and simply reducing the overall size. In 1995 Black
Diamond popularized the wiregate carabiner with their Hotwire, previously most carabiner gates
were made from the same material as the main body, in a wiregate carabiner the aluminum gate
is replaced with a smaller diameter steel ‘wire’. This gave a weight saving of around 6g compared
to previous carabiners [39].

Since the inception of the wiregate, the next major weight reduction came from using I-beam
designs. Several companies have produced smaller carabiners as a weight reduction method; but
this can have a negative affect on usability. As we have seen, the EN standard for carabiners
defines a minimum gate opening distance (15 mm), however this criterion alone is not sufficient
to judge how the size of a carabiner affects its usability, particularly as most carabiners
comfortably exceed this value and yet still have varying degrees of usability. Table 10 and figure
100 show the lightest carabiners currently available [40] [41]. The carabiners are divided into two
categories; ‘full size’ and ‘reduced size’. It is difficult to strictly define criteria to make this
distinction – it should be noted that carabiners in each category are by no means all of identical
size, for example the Black Diamond Oz is significantly smaller than the DMM Phantom. The
lightest full size carabiners make use of I-beam designs.

116
 Table: 10 Comparing various lightweight carabiners

Fig: 98 A selection of the lightest carabiners currently available. Left to right: DMM Phantom, Wild Country
Xenon Lite, Camp Nano, Black Diamond Oz, DMM Spectre [40] [41]

If we want to analyze the geometry free space, the EN standard defines in more detail the required
clearances and other geometrical properties that enable carabiners to function correctly when used
with climbing ropes; some aspects are not defined strictly and instead come as recommendations.
For example, it is recommended that carabiners are designed such that when loaded, most of the
force is taken by the spine because Carabiners are inevitably weaker on the gated side due to
stress concentrations where the gate connects to the body.

There is also no strict standard for the shape of the surface that the rope slides over, this is an
important characteristic – if the radius of curvature is too small then there is a danger of cutting
the rope. The UIAA standard recommends the radius of curvature to be at least 4.5 mm with a
contact angle of not less than 120°. Despite these recommendations, the standards are not
exhaustive. Carabiners must also be compatible with anchors and belay devices and the standards
do not include guidance for this. Generally, most carabiners are compatible with belay devices
and anchors, exceptions include some carabiners that have a large cross sectional diameter and
do not fit through the hole in some pitons. Another aspect of the carabiner is that it must be easily
usable and easily manipulated by hand so that a climber can clip his rope whilst in a demanding
situation [39].

In the successive chapter, we will make a topology optimization to a climbing carabiner in order
to identify which will be the optimal shape and section that need the less quantity of material,
but firstly we need to make some remarks in base a what we have just said.
If we consider in a preliminary approach, a square as the workspace, to which we are going apply
the tensile loads specified in the standards and regulations, and then perform the topology
optimization, the result that we will possibly obtain, it will be that the square is simplified to a bar
(beam) with a certain section. The result is quite logical, since point that are located in remote

117
parts from the application load points, will be progressively eliminated during optimization, being
reduced the workspace to a bar loaded in tension.

Therefore, for the topology optimization that we will make in the next chapter, we will consider
as workspace a semi hollow square: one side of the squares has been modified and we have design
the C-shape carabiner form, in order impose the condition that these region should not be
modified. In that way we guarantee that after the optimization, we will not obtain a bar loaded in
tension. The ultimate goal is to achieve a similar shape as the standards for the “C” body with an
I-beam section design, as it is supposed to be the section that need less material to achieve the
requirements.

118
IV. The manufacturing approach

In this section, we will analyze the overall manufacturing processes that need to be carried out for
make a climbing carabiner.

We will consider a general carabiner, where the C-shape part is constituted by a bent bar with a
double T section. This section offers a resistance equal to the full rectangular section and reduces
the total amount of used material. At the same time, we will consider an Aluminum alloy 7075
(Ergal) which offers excellent mechanical properties maintaining low weight and a high resistance
to external agents (ambient effects). Also, among the various models of existing locking
mechanism system that we have describe in the previous section, we will consider a wire-gate
locking system, as it guarantees:

- lightness (it is a hollow body),

- simplicity (as it is a folded steel wire)
- a continuous use and constant without any maintenance
- lower assembly costs (there are no springs, magnets ...)
- the absence of third-parts that need to be include in the junction with the main body (the
wire is unity to the main body by clinching the wire extremes)
- high security in case of high rope vibrations (whiplash)
- impossibility of obstruction in the connection “body-lever” (when ice and debris are
present)

Figure 99, represents the considered carabiner for the manufacturing analyze. However, for any
type climbing carabiner, material and gate locking system, the overall manufacturing process, that
we describe below, is similar and is more or less constituted of the same steps.

The creation cycle of the C-shaped body is structured as:

- Cutting an Ergal rod of 210 mm (diameter of 11mm)*

- Bend the rod with a special matrix
- Hot Forging (at 380 ° C)
- Shearing
- Heat treatments (usually artificial ageing)
- Rumble finishing
- Drilling (to allow the gate fitting)
- Anodizing (usually only for aluminum materials)

*Note that the dimensions that we will adopt, have as reference the common values for carabine
dimensions. However, we assume average general values

Regarding the closure system elaboration, the manufacturing cycle is constituted by the following
operations:

- Cutting steel wire measuring 100mm (diameter 2mm)

- Bending
- Assembly in the C-shaped body
- Fixing by riveting the extremes

119
 Fig: 99 The C-shaped body and the wire gate locking mechanism system considered [10]

General notes about the process and alternative manufacturing procedures

As we have just said, the manufacturing cycle for a carabiner in aluminum alloy 7075, is
constituted in a series of machining operations that involve bending, molding, heat treatment and
assembly, all of them necessary for the realization of our product. Some of these operations will
be carried out outside the company by specialized companies in the specific sector.

One of the fundamental processes in order to give shape to the carabiner is the molding operation.
For the forging process, the choice was twofold, as, for light alloys, it can be performed either by
hot or cold forging. Cold forging is the original method of making carabiners whereby the rod of
aluminum is bent into the desired shape and then stamped in a die at room temperature. In the hot
forging process, the rod and forge dies are heated before stamping, which typically allows a
manufacturer to create a lighter product with a more intricate design. If you compare a cold-forged
vs. a hot-forged model, it is easy to determine which is hot-forged as it will have a more details.
With cold forging costs are reduced due to the absence preheating the material and the matrix. In
that way we obtain pieces with the best mechanical strengths but we increase the risk of possible
cracks. We need to add that with this process the molds/matrix are subjected to a fatigue and
greater wear. Whereas, hot stamping allows realizations of objects with more complex geometry
and requires less expensive machines because they don’t need to be as powerful as in cold forging,
and we have less risk of imperfections. In hot forging there is a material and matrix preheating:
that improves the deformability and therefore we require less energy to deform the material.
For our product (and in general), we preferred the hot forging at 380 ° C as in the C-shaped body
we have complex geometries that need a considerable material fluidity to be carried out. Our
choice intends to favor the latter described option in base a what we have just pointed out, and
also for the number of pieces that we pretend to produce, (as e.g. 20,000 units), which should lead
to more productive and economic advantages for the use of a single mold.

Based on the simplest carabiner form, we can have alternative technologies for the production of
the C-shaped body. Besides the stamping, the work piece can be hypothetically achieved by
machining using a CNC milling machine machining or even an EDM (Electrical discharge
machining) due to the high hardness of the Ergal. The choice fell on the forging as compared to
the other processes mentioned, is able to guarantee a better and homogeneous distribution of
grains within the piece, obtaining the best mechanical properties, essential for a product that must
withstand high tensile loads. Furthermore the molding operation has hourly costs and especially
the productive times lower than the CNC milling or the EDM.

We will now analyze in detail the individual processes that we have mentioned in the provided
according to a logical sequence

120
Individual manufacturing processes analyze
Here there is a general scheme of the manufacturing climbing carabiner process

Fig: 100 general scheme of the manufacturing climbing carabiner process

Cutting
The Aluminum is usually sold in round or sheet of standard dimensions. In our example case, we
consider bars of 11mm diameter with length of 6m, that need to be sheared in lengths of 210 mm
to be subsequently bended and assume the typical C-shape of the carabiner. This is done in simple
automated shearing punch; in fact, being a primary operation, there are not necessary othe
performant technologies such as laser cutting or water-jet that are able to offer neat finishes in the
cut area.
The cutting force is given by the formula:

A = sezione tondino = (5,52 ) ∗ π = 95, 03 mm2

𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐴 · 𝜎 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ { 4 }
𝜎 = Rm = 448 MPa
5

𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 42 575 N

121
Bending
The bending operation is required to recreate the elemental "C" form of the carabiner (Fig 101),
in order to minimize, after the forging step, the amount of waste material present in the deburring.
This element will be deformed by a EuroMAC bending machine branches [42]and in particular
the Digibend 400 model (Fig.), which is adapted to our needs: it forecast the use of rotating cams,
an internal array and a fixing system to bend the rounds. This elements, which constitute the
bending machine, and the working parameters are interchangeable and modifiable, so it is possible
to produce different types of carabiners in the same bending machine (Fig 101-3).

The initial positioning of the material will be effected manually, while the expulsion will be
automatic.

Fig: 101 Photos of the different steps in bending phase and possible carabiners

As a reference, we add the information regarding the EuroMAC bending machine and in particular
the characteristics about the Digibend 200, 400 and 600 models

Fig: 102 Digibend EuroMAC 400 CNC [42]

122
 Table: 11 Technical data sheet for the Digibend EuroMAC 400 CNC [42]

Heating
The heating, for the operation of hot stamping, is carried out in a rotating hearth electric furnace
(Fig 104) or in an electric belt furnace (Fig 103): we consider the model Nabertherm N 650/45
AS [43], in order to guarantee uniformity of temperature according to standards DIN17052 and
the piece transport until the next station. In fact, for the exit of the furnace, logistically, it must be
positioned close to the stamp in order to allow the operator to manually extract the body and place
it on the matrix, when it is still in temperature. The heating will be carried out at a temperature of
380 ° C, the optimal value for our material.

Fig: 103 Electric belt furnace [43] Fig: 104 Rotating hearth electric furnace [43]

123
 Stamping
For the hot pressing operation, we can consider a SOV / 3 FP
Mecolpress model with a capacity of 3000 KN [44] compatible with
what is required for our processing. In fact, the overall pressing
strength is given by the formula:

𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐾𝑝 · 𝑌𝑓 · 𝐴

Where Kp is an empirical constant dependent on the geometry and

the presence of burrs. Yf represents the value of the flow stress and
for the 7075 aluminum at about 400 ° C varies is value between 30
and 35 MPa. The parameter A is the area in the comprehensive plan
of burrs.

Fig: 105 SOV / 3 FP Mecolpress model [44]

Considering a Kp value of 14,72 for our piece and a burr thickness of 1.5 mm, that is equivalent
to have an area in the comprehensive plan of burrs, A, equal to 4484 mm2 we get a value of Fmax
of 2115 kN, which is less than the 3000 maximum kN of the chosen stamp.

As a reference, we add the “technical data sheet” regarding the SOV / 3 FP model Mecolpress
press and a reference scheme for the measures

Technical data sheet: SOV/3-FP

Mecolpress model

Capacity 3000 kN

Dimension 'E' 4000 mm

Dimension 'F' 2200 mm

Dimension 'G' 2200 mm

Table: 12 Technical data sheet for SOV/3-FP Mecolpress model [44]

For the stamping operation, we have to use a stainless steel X40CrMoV51 stamp. Figure shows
the chemical composition of the X40CrMoV51 stainless steel alloy. This material has excellent
toughness, wear resistance (up to temperatures close to 600 °C), and is not affected by the
phenomenon of thermal shock.

Table: 13 Chemical composition of the stainless steel X40CrMoV51 that we have used for the stamp [18]

124
The stamp, consisting of two symmetrical parts, in base of the given geometry of our piece, is
realize by milling or alternatively by EDM (Electrical discharge machining). Subsequently is
coated with a first layer of TIN, which will improve the surface hardness, and with a second layer
of lubricant, which will facilitate the sliding of the malleable Ergal in the matrix cavity. It will
also have isotropic behavior due to the effect of the preliminary deformation processes.

Specialized companies of the sector will perform mold construction and its cost will comprise the
material, EDM machining, heat treatment and coating.

Trimming (Stamp Burr’s Cut)

The shearing operation has the aim to eliminate the burrs produced from the stamping. We can
use for this purpose a shearing/trimming machine: for example from the Mecolpress (company)
[44], we can use the S4 / V model. But to make a good selection of the shearing machine, we need
to take into account that the total required force to shear the burrs of the carabiner is given by the
formula:

𝐹 = 𝑃·𝑆·𝜏

Supposing for example the following values un function of the common

dimension of a climbing carabiner:

P = perimetro = 390mm
{ S = spessore delle bave = 2,7mm }
τ = resistenza di taglio = 4/5 Rm = 448MPa

We get a shearing force value of 𝐹 = 471 𝑘𝑁

So we can choose a S4 / V Mecolpress model with a maximum capacity

of 600 kN sufficient to perform the shearing operation (𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 =
471 𝑘𝑁 ≤ 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 600 𝑘𝑁)
Fig: 106 S4 / V Mecolpress model [44]

Equal as before, as a reference, we add the “technical data sheet” regarding the S4/V model
Mecolpress shearing machine and a reference scheme for the measures

Technical data sheet: S4 / V

Mecolpress model
Maximum Capacity 600 kN
Max Stroke 200 mm
Engine Power 11 kW
Maximum operating pressure 210 bar
Average cycle time 3s
Approach speed 4,5 s
Work speed 1 m/s
Return speed 12 m/s

Table: 14 Technical data sheet for SOV/3-FP

Mecolpress model [44]

125
Also for the shearing/trimming operation you will need a matrix made of the previous stainless
steel X40CrMoV51, while the punch will be realized in high speed steel (HSS) X80WCo1810.

Heat Treatments
Subsequently to the shearing operation, we submit the batch of products to a necessary heat
treatment in order to:

- restore the characteristics of the crystal grain of the piece, which have been altered as a
result of bending operations, stamping and shearing,
- for an improvement of mechanical properties and corrosion resistance.

The costs of such treatments are calculated by specialized firms or according to the object surface
that needs to be treated (€ / mm2), or according to its weight (€ / kg). Therefore, we will carried
out the heat treatments after the removal of the burrs because this results in a costs reduction.
The work piece is subjected firstly to a solution treatment, aimed to achieve a microstructure as
homogeneous as possible by dissolving all the alloying elements present within the piece [45]. In
our example case, based on the Ergal 7075 composition, is suitable to choose a treatment
temperature of T = 470 ° C with a residence time of 150 minutes.

The solution treatment in order to be effective must be followed by a quenching and aging, which
can be natural or artificial. The quenching consists in a rapid cooling, which is performed in
mineral oils or salts (water not recommended → risk of embrittlement). It allows us to stop the
diffusion processes (we obtain a martensitic structure), while the aging determines the formation
of fine precipitates that block the movement of dislocations (increasing the mechanical
properties). In our example case for the alluminium 7075, we chose a type of natural aging for a
period of 72 h at room temperature: we eliminate hypothetical reheating costs present in artificial
aging processes.

Tumbling: Polished finishing

The tumbling is a technique for smoothing and polishing a rough surface on relatively small parts.
In the field of metalworking, a similar process called barreling, or barrel finishing, works upon
the same principles. For tumbling of rocks as a lapidary technique, a plastic or rubber-lined barrel
is loaded with a consignment of rocks, all of similar or the same hardness, some abrasive grit, and
a liquid lubricant. The process is equal for small objects. Silicon carbide grit is commonly used,
and water is a universal lubricant. The barrel is then placed upon slowly rotating rails so that it
rotates. The optimal speed of rotation depends on the size of the tumbler barrel and materials
involved.
The process of polished finishing allows us to:

- eliminate imperfections and residues arising from the forging

- remove scale and oxidation caused by heat treatments
- get the desired surface characteristics.

This process occurs in machines which consist of tumblers (barrels) into which we introduce the
work pieces together with Ceramic polyurea conical inserts of 12mm diameter and height
(Fig.107). The barrel vibrates and rotates: deburring and polishing occurs by the shocks and the
rolling. The permanence times vary according to the roughness that it need to be obtained.

126
In our example case, we can use a tumbling Avatec TE 60 A (Fig.108 ) [46] and a process time
of 12 hours required to obtain roughness of
0.4 Rm.

Fig: 107 Ceramic polyurea conical inserts

Fig: 108 Tumbling Avatec TE 60 A [46]

Drilling
In order to assemble the locking system, we will need to make two holes with a specific diameter.
In our case a wire-gated locking system, we will need to make two holes with a diameter of 3mm.
For hard alloys such as 7075, we use twist hard drills with short pitch, with recommended cutting
speed of 100m / min and pitch of 0.05 mm / rev. The number of turns for a Vt of 100m / min and
a diameter of 3 mm is about 10000g / min (Table 15) [47]. But, if we use industrial drills, the
maximum turn number that they have is about 4000g / min. As a consequence, for not having to
use a much more expensive CNC that will be able to work with higher rpm speed, we will adopt
a lower cutting speed and therefore increase the production times.

Table: 15 Data of recommended cutting speeds in function to the considered material [47]

127
For our case of study, we can operate the drilling with a KNUTH SBT 35
drill (Fig 109) [48] whose number of revolutions is 3650 rpm with a
maximum power of 2,1 kW, which far exceeds the required power for the
carabiner drilling which is only of a few Watts. Note that the operation will
be performed with external continues refrigeration.

The carabiner will be placed on a movable mask, which will assume, in

sequence with a simple movement, the two positions necessary for the
realization of the two holes, ensuring the needed speed and accuracy for
positioning.

Fig: 109 KNUTH SBT 35 drill [48]

Anodizing
The last processing stage of relative to the carabiner body "C", is the anodization. It is a non-
spontaneous electrochemical process, typical of aluminum and its alloys, where the work piece is
coated with an oxide layer with a protective and esthetics functions.
The process is called anodizing because the part to be treated forms the anode electrode of
an electrical circuit. Anodizing increases resistance to corrosion and wear, and provides better
adhesion for paint primers and glues than those bare metal. Anodic films can also be used for a
number of cosmetic effects, either with thick porous coatings that can absorb dyes or with thin
transparent coatings that add interference effects to reflected light [28].
Anodizing is also used to prevent galling of threaded components and to make dielectric films
for electrolytic capacitors. Anodic films are most commonly applied to protect aluminum alloys,
although processes also exist for titanium, zinc, magnesium, niobium, zirconium, hafnium,
and tantalum.
Anodization changes the microscopic texture of the surface and changes the crystal structure of
the metal near the surface. Thick coatings are normally porous, so a sealing process is often
needed to achieve corrosion resistance. Anodized aluminum surfaces, for example, are harder
than aluminum but have low to moderate wear resistance that can be improved with increasing
thickness or by applying suitable sealing substances. Anodic films are generally much stronger
and more adherent than most types of paint and metal plating, but also more brittle. This makes
them less likely to crack and peel from aging and wear, but more susceptible to cracking from
thermal stress. So in general, aluminum alloys are anodized to increase corrosion resistance and
to allow dyeing (coloring), improved lubrication, or improved adhesion. However, anodizing
does not increase the strength of the aluminum object.

Generally, for climbing carabiner we consider that it is going to be expose to extreme weather
conditions: we will adopt a thickness anodizing of at least 20μm.
It is important to note that

128
Construction of the locking system
Considering a wire gate as the locking system, it will be constituted by a wire of stainless steel
AISI 316 of 100 mm long and 2 mm diameter, and it will be entirely realized on a
bending/shearing machine numerically controlled universal: the Repute 3D Wire Bending
Machine [49]. The wire of steel, which is is stored in coils of 200 m, before being bended, it will
pass through a rollers system, which ensure the linearity. Subsequently it is bended by a motorized
cam and then sheared by a movable punch in function of the shape and characteristics imposed to
the CNC system. The use of these machines is advantageous since it allows to speed up the
production and to minimize labor costs, due to the fact that is a fully automated procedure.

Fig: 110 3D CNC wire bending machine

Table 16 3D CNC wire bending machine

specifications [49]
Assembly and heading process of the end of the wire
The assembly of the closure system is manual, and it will be completed by a cold heading of the
wire ends to forbidden the wire escape from the hole. Simple cam machinery (or hydraulic) can
be used for this operation.

Controls and testing

Each piece will be subjected to longitudinal tensile test (Fig.111)
with gate closed: we applied a load of 10 kN, which is less than
that imposed by law (18-25 KN). This check is to determine a
value of real elongation of the carabiner that need to be lower
than the theoretical value previously calculated. Subsequently,
an attendant will visually inspect the piece, to check for possible
defects and a correct operation of the gate.

Fig: 111 Longitudinal Tensile test

129
Laser marking
Once the test has been completed and the carabiner meets the load and constraints requirements,
it is marked by laser. The regulation impose that the load values that have been applied to the
work piece during the drive-test and the approval symbol, need to be written and market in the
carabiner surface. For this operation, it is possible to choose a Gravograph LS100Ex machine
(Fig.112) [50], which is a laser machine with optic fiber: is ideal for high-volume production,
thanks to the wide load floor that allows you to mark several objects in one operation.

Fig: 112 Gravograph LS100Ex machine [50]

Fig: 113 Laser marking in a climbing carabiner

We attach an overview of the different transformations of material along the entire manufacture
process

Fig: 114 Transformations during the manufacturing process

130
Periodical inspections and maintenance
It is convenient to carry out progressive inspection to avoid potential problems related with wear,
fatigue or other possible effects

Visual Inspection
Visual inspection should be performed on an ongoing basis. The following description could be
a standard visual inspection procedure. We will need to adapt our inspection in function of the
use of the carabiners [11]:

- Carabiner body inspection. We look for.

• Excess wear. Depending on the manufacturer, usually they stablish a maximum

percentage of wear. As a reference, the carabiner need to be remplaced if we have
a diameter wear of 5% or more for aluminum and 10% or more for steel
carabiners respect to the original diameter.
• Alteration of original shape. Any bending, warping, denting or other changes to
the shape of the carabineer are indications to remove it from service. You may
need to compare the used one to an unused control carabiner to determine if it
has changed from its original shape.
• Surface cracks. Any surface cracks indicate the carabiner need to be removes
from service.
• Sharp edges. If your carabiner has developed any sharp edges, they need to be
corrected or the carabiner removed from service.
• Burrs. If burrs are found, they need to be removed by sanding 220-400 grit
sandpaper. After sanding the burrs, re-check that body area for possible wear.
• Corrosion. On steel carabiners this will appear as a red dust, indicating corrosion
of the base metal. In aluminum carabineers, corrosion will be evident by pitting
or scaling. If the body shows signs of rust or other corrosion, completely
remove/clean the corrosion and then check for possible wear.
• Heat damage. Heat damage is usually evident as a darkened discoloration of the
metal surfaces of both steel and aluminum.

- Inspect the nose of the carabiner for excess damage

• Check the shape of the nose to make sure it meets original specifications.
• Check the hook/key for signs of excess wear at contact point.

- Inspect the gate of the carabineer

• Look for any signs of excess wear or damage to the hinge pin. If the pin is
missing, bent, broken or otherwise damaged, remove the carabineer from service.
In general for any signs of excess wear or damage, follow the same steps above
as you did to inspect the body
• As we have just said, inspect the gate-body attachment for signs of excess wear.
For hook carabiners, inspect the steel pin. If the pin is missing, bent or loose, take
the carabiner out of service.
For key-lock carabiners, inspect the pocket for signs of excess wear using the
131
 same criteria as for inspecting the body. If excess wear is present, take the
carabiner out of service.
• Inspect the gate of the carabiner to make sure it functions properly. Specifically,
for locking carabiners, make sure the locking mechanism functions correctly, and
does not stick. For all carabiners, make sure the gate fully opens as per its original
specification and make sure that all of the spring mechanisms function properly.
• Make sure the gate rotates and opens easily, and closes and locks when released
• If the mechanism of your carabiner does not function properly, make sure to
perform the proper maintenance on it.

Maintenance
Carabiners do not need a lot of maintenance: they only need to be cleaned and lubricated on a
regular basis to keep them protected from corrosion and to keep the mechanism operating
properly.
Carabiners cleaning should be done with water, a mild soap and a brush. Make sure to completely
rinse the soap from the carabiner, and then dry thoroughly.
Carabiners need to be oiled regularly to keep them working. Many locking carabiners stop
working simply because they were not or not properly oiled. Different manufacturers use different
oils: some manufacturers use penetrating oil, others use silicone lubricants, and others still use
graphite [11].

In a general overview to the whole process, we can said that no special conditions should be
taken into account during the topology optimization because the carabiner manufacturing process
does not include the phases of extrusion and casting. This will be an important factor when we
will perform the topology optimization to our climbing carabiner.

132
Conclusions

Throughout this chapter we have develop first the basis of a Multi-disciplinary Design
Optimization (MDO) with the two main resolution methods: the Gradient-based methods and the
Non-gradient-based methods.
The Constrained Minimum or gradient methods, unique to the MDO community derive from the
combination of optimality criteria with math programming: is the combination of the derived
recursive formulas based on the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker (KKT) necessary conditions for an
optimal design and the classical gradient-based methods to structural optimization problems.
Whereas the Unconstrained Minimum or non-gradient-based methods, evaluate the global
properties: it is a random search improved by adding some logic procedures as the example of the
DOE search with limits on movements ( it is known as a structured random search). The
gradient methods require the existence of continuous first derivatives of the objective function
and possibly higher derivatives (if further approximations are needed), but requires a much
smaller number of design cycles to converge to an optimum compared to the non-gradient based
methods that have a high computational cost. However, the convergence is only guaranteed to a
local minimum: there are no other subsequent convergent points. While in the non-gradient based
methods, to obtain the optimum point we only evaluate the objective function: the Gradient and
Hessian of the objective function are not needed. This method, we may be able to find global
minimum, BUT it requires a large number of design cycles.
Then we have explain the main aspects of the topology optimization, with the possible
manufacturing constraints. The topology optimization is based on an automated algorithm that
determines the optimal distribution of the material in the given space of the project (in which the
real structure to be designed must be contained), loads and boundary conditions: it assigns a
“quality or importance factor” to each element and varies it during the optimization. In some
cases, proposals from a topology optimization, although optimal, may be expensive or infeasible
to manufacture. These challenges can be overcome using manufacturing constraints in the
topology problem formulation, which yields engineering designs that would satisfy practical
manufacturing requirements.
Subsequently we have develop the different standard types of carabiners followed by the loads
and constraints, stablished by official regulations, which need to bear and be respected by each
carabiner. In fact, each type of carabiner has its specific application and can bear more or less
quantity of load in function of his shape and section. The most recommended have been the type
B and D carabiners because they direction the rope to the ends: this distribute the loads through
the carabiner’s spine which is the more resistant part and we evite problems related to failure
before arriving to the maximum loads that could happen in type H carabiners. This has allowed
us to stablish a preliminary idea of the possible workspace to optimize by topology because we
have seen the operating limits (strength, minimum opening) and the main trends in the carabiners’
geometry. We will explain in detail the workspace selected to optimize in the next chapter.
Finally we have done an approach to the manufacturing processes that need to be done to obtain
a climbing carabiner with particular attention to the heat treatment processes for any material
chosen and in the anodizing in the case of making a climbing carabiner in aluminum. We have
focused on this aspects because the climbing carabiner will be expose to extreme operational
condition, so it need to be well treated in order to support all of the different adversities.

In the next chapter we will firstly realize a FEM analyze to justify the Ashby indexes chosen to
introduce in the Global Performance Index for the QFD4Mat material selection. Subsequently we
will make a topology optimization in our case of study for obtain an optimized CAD model that
will allow us to confront the three candidate materials in the fourth chapter.

133
Chapter 3 –Refinement of optimal shape by FEM
analysis and Topology Optimization
As we have previously said, in this chapter, we will realize a topology optimization for a climbing
carabiner starting from a large workspace. To this large workspace, we will apply the necessary
restrictions to reach the best possible result. The final objective will be to obtain an optimized
CAD model from the optimization resulting form. Subsequently we will carry out to the obtained
model a second FEM analyze where we will apply the tree different materials in order to
determine for each case. the weight mass, the main stresses and the main deformations. These
new parameters will be introduced as key factors in the new QFD4Mat matrix in the sucesive
chapter.
But firstly, we will make a preliminary finite element method (FEM) analyze, in a CAD model
obtained in base of a commercial standard model of a climbing carabiner, to verify the
affirmations that we have made in the preliminary chapters in relation to the important failure
methods and parameters to consider during the material selection.

I. Preliminary FEM analysis

Through this section, we will study the different stresses and deformations that we obtain in a
commercial climbing carabiner when is loaded with the critical loaded forces that we had
stablished in the previous chapter. The first approach will allow us to determine the regions of
mayor stresses to which the carabiner is subjected and verify if those zones coincide with the
regions that we have said in the two previous chapters. At the same time, we will verify if the
main stresses correspond to traction stresses as we have affirm in the first chapter during the
selection of the Ashby Indexes and important parameters that we should take into account for the
choice of the failure mechanism. Finally, we will evaluate the different stresses and deformations
that we obtain varying the material in order to see the main dereferences.
Firstly, lets us make a brief introduction to the finite element method, to see how to proceed to
analyze in our case of study.

Brief introduction to FEM analysis:

The term finite element was first coined by Clough in 1960. In the early 1960s, engineers used
the method for approximate solutions of problems in stress analysis, fluid flow, heat transfer, and
other areas. The first book on the FEM by Zienkiewiczand Chung was published in 1967. In the
late 1960s and early 1970s, the FEM was applied to a wide variety of engineering problems.
Finally, most of the actual commercial FEM software packages were originated in the 1970s.
(Abaqus, Adina, Ansys, etc.)

In mathematics, the finite element method (FEM) is a numerical technique for finding
approximate solutions to boundary value problems for partial differential equations. It uses
subdivision of a whole problem domain into simpler parts, called finite elements, and variational
methods from the calculus of variations to solve the problem by minimizing an associated error
function. Analogous to the idea that connecting many tiny straight lines can approximate a larger
circle, FEM encompasses methods for connecting many simple element equations over many
small subdomains, named finite elements, to approximate a more complex equation over a
larger domain. In other words, FEM cuts a structure into several elements (pieces of the structure),
then reconnects those cut elements at “nodes” as if nodes were pins or drops of glue that hold
elements together, and finally results in a set of simultaneous algebraic equations. It is important
134
to note that in FEM, the number of degrees-of-freedom (DOF) is finite (this is the origin of the
name, Finite Element Method) contrary to Continuum analysis. [28] [51]

Fundamental concepts
A typical work out of the method involves (1) dividing the domain of the problem into a collection of
subdomains, with each subdomain represented by a set of element equations to the original problem,
followed by (2) systematically recombining all sets of element equations into a global system of
equations for the final calculation. The global system of equations has known solution techniques, and
can be calculated from the initial values of the original problem to obtain a numerical answer.

In the first step above (1), the element equations are simple equations that locally approximate
the original complex equations to be studied, where the original equations are often partial
differential equations (PDE). To explain the approximation in this process, FEM is commonly
introduced as a special case of Galerkin method. The process, in mathematical language, is to
construct an integral of the inner product of the residual and the weight functions and set the
integral to zero. In simple terms, it is a procedure that minimizes the error of approximation by
fitting trial functions into the PDE. The residual is the error caused by the trial functions, and the
weight functions are polynomial approximation functions that project the residual. The process
eliminates all the spatial derivatives from the PDE, thus approximating the PDE locally with

- a set of algebraic equations for steady state problems,

- a set of ordinary differential equations for transient problems.

These equation sets are the element equations. They are linear if the underlying PDE is linear,
and vice versa. Algebraic equation sets that arise in the steady state problems are solved
using numerical linear algebra methods, while ordinary differential equation sets that arise in the
transient problems are solved by numerical integration using standard techniques such as Euler's
method or the Runge-Kutta method.

In step (2) above, a global system of equations is generated from the element equations through
a transformation of coordinates from the subdomains' local nodes to the domain's global nodes.
This spatial transformation includes appropriate orientation adjustments as applied in relation to
the reference coordinate system. The process is often carried out by FEM software
using coordinate data generated from the subdomains.

FEM is best understood from its practical application, known as finite element analysis (FEA).
FEA as applied in engineering is a computational tool for performing engineering analysis. It
includes the use of mesh generation techniques for dividing a complex problem into small
elements, as well as the use of software program coded with FEM algorithm. In applying FEA,
the complex problem is usually a physical system with the underlying physics such as the Euler-
Bernoulli beam equation, the heat equation, or the Navier-Stokes equations expressed in either
PDE or integral equations, while the divided small elements of the complex problem represent
different areas in the physical system.
FEA is a good choice for analyzing problems over complicated domains (like cars and oil
pipelines), when the domain changes (as during a solid state reaction with a moving boundary),
when the desired precision varies over the entire domain, or when the solution lacks smoothness.
For instance, in a frontal crash simulation it is possible to increase prediction accuracy in
"important" areas like the front of the car and reduce it in its rear (thus reducing cost of the
simulation). Another example would be in numerical weather prediction, where it is more

135
important to have accurate predictions over developing highly nonlinear phenomena (such
as tropical cyclones in the atmosphere, or eddies in the ocean) rather than relatively calm areas.

Typical FEA Procedure by Commercial Software

Fig: 115 Main FEA procedure steps by commercial

It can be divide in 8 mainsoftware
steps:
- Preprocess
o Select analysis type (Structural Static, Modal, Transient Dynamic etc…).
o Select element type to use to divide the main object, and it can be.
 2D o 3D
 Linear or Quadratic
 Truss, Beam, Shell, Plate or Solid form
o Material properties (E, ν, ρ, α etc.…).
o Make nodes.
o Build elements by assigning connectivity.
o Apply boundary conditions and loads.

- Process
o Solve the boundary value problem.

- Postprocess
o See the results (Displacement, Stress, Strain, Natural frequency etc…).

Let us illustrate this method by the following example [52]

As we have said, many engineering phenomena can be expressed by “governing equations” (

Differential equations) and “boundary conditions” as for example a Vertical machining center
used in manufacturing processes for machining or assembling.

As we can see, it has a very complex geometry, and is behavior

during operantional conditions it can be expressed by:

- governing equations
𝐿(𝜙) + 𝑓 = 0
- boundary conditions
𝐵(𝜙) + 𝑔 = 0

We kwon all if these equations, but we cannot solve it by hand.

Fig: 116 Vertical machining center model [52]

136
We solve them by FEM analyze in order to obtain an approximated solution, namely a set of of
simultaneous algebraic equations at the defined nodes, that allows us to evaluated the machine
performance.

The final equations can be as follows:

[𝐾]{𝑢} = {𝐹}

Where we define have define one matrix K an two vectors, containing each one:

𝐾 = 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦
{𝑢 = 𝐵𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑟 (𝑒𝑥: 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑠) → 𝑂𝑈𝑅 𝑈𝑁𝐾𝑁𝑂𝑊𝑁𝑠}
𝐹 = 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑒𝑥: 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑)

equations that can be expressed in the following form:

{𝑢} = [𝐾]−1 {𝐹}

that allow us to determine our unknowns {𝑢}

Grafically in our example case we can made the following table that links the 3 parameters in
each behavior aspect:

Table 17 Link table between the main parameters involved in the FEM process [52]

We can formulate for each type of problem the respective associated equation.

But, it is very difficult to make the algebraic equations for the entire domain. So we divide the
domain into a number of small, simple elements, and we applied the above equations ad each
element. Then a field quantity is interpolated by a polynomial over an element in order to connect
each element and obtain the original structure. We note that adjacent elements share the DOF at
connecting nodes that’s to said:

Fig: 117 Domain division into a number of small and simple elements, and interpolation of the field quantity [52]

137
At this point we obtain the algebraic equations for each element, that is easier than obtain the
equations for the entire body, and we put all the element equations (containing each one the
behavior of each element under the applied load) together

Fig: 118 Assembling of the different behavior equations of each element [52]

Finally we solve the equations, obtaining the unknown variables at the nodes.

Fig: 119 Obtaining unknown variables after solving the equations [52]

In summary, the FEM method uses the concept of piecewise polynomial interpolation: by
connecting elements together, the field quantity becomes interpolated over the entire structure in
piecewise fashion, and finally we obtain a set of simultaneous algebraic equations at nodes that
are more simple to resolve than if we apply them to the entire object.

Advantages and disadvantages of the FEM

We have seen that is a powerful resolution method that it has four main advantages [52]:
- Can readily handle very complex geometry: The heart and power of the FEM
- Can handle a wide variety of engineering problems such as solid mechanics,
dynamics, heat problems etc…
- Can handle complex restraints that allow us to solve indeterminate structures can be
solved.
- Can handle complex loading: Nodal load (point loads), Element load (pressure,
thermal, inertial forces), Time or frequency dependent loading
However, as in any mathematical method, it has a certain number of drawbacks that need no be
consider. Firstly, a general closed-form solution, which would permit one to examine system
response to changes in various parameters, is not produced, so in each case we can have different
responses, not only one homogeneous. At the same time, as we have described, the FEM obtains
only "approximate" solutions so it has "inherent" errors and we will never obtain the exact / real

138
solution: we will obtain an approximated solution with high level of performance but it is not the
ideal. We need to note that user’s mistakes such as chose the wrong element type for the analyze
(Shell elements are used where solid elements are needed), have insufficient supports to prevent
all rigid-body motions or simply not be coherent with the units (e.g. E=200 GPa, Force = 100
lbs), can be fatal.

FEM analyze in a commercial climbing carabiner

Main steps
We will describe step by step the procedure followed for the realize the FEM analyze

 Previous indication about the units

Before any FEM analyze is necessary to choose the units that we want to work to evite possible
problems . As is logical the selected units need to be coherent and have the same reference system.
In our case we have decide to work with:

- Newtons as force unit : N

- Grams as mass unit: g
- Millimeters as distance unit : mm

In that way we will obtain the stress results in Mega Pascale (1 MPa = 1 N/mm) and displacements
in Millimeters

 Commercial climbing carabiner CAD model

We have choose an standard symmetrical B type carabiner with solid straight gate

Fig: 120 Images of the 3D complete carabiner model used for the FEM analyze
analyze

139
We have only considerer the analyze for the “C” body part (Fig.120)
and not for the global assembly (“C” body + straight gate) (Fig 119)
because if we consider both solids, the complexity of the analyze
increases. For our study is sufficient to analyze the carabiner in is open
gate configuration in order to see the influence of each material in
deformations and main stresses. The study of the complete
configuration allow us to make a more precisely analyze about the
stresses and deformations that take place in the carabiner under load
conditions, and have an overall impression about the behavior of the
climbing carabiner during the operational conditions (climber fall).
However, this is beyond the scope of this brief analyze
Fig: 121 “C” body of the climbing carabiner

We import the solid model to Patran in the parasolid format by the command import (Fig.121)

Fig: 122 Images of the importation of the CAD model to the Patran domain

It’s important to note that we need to re scale our model because when it is imported, Patran
modify its dimensions, so we scale the solid in the section “geometry” with the command
“Transform  Scale”. Note that we work in the YZ plane

140
 Fig: 123 Commands used to scale the Solid
 Materials and Properties definition

We proceed now to generate the tree materials by the command “Properties  Isotropic” (Fig.
123) and to assign those properties to the main body (Fig 124).

Fig: 124 Commands used for to create the material

Fig: 125 Definition of the main properties for each material

For each
E [MPa]
Poisson ratio [-] Density [g/mm^3]
Aluminum alloy - 7075-T6 71700 0,33 0,00281
Titanium alloy - SP 700 110000 0,32 0,00454
Stainless Steel - AISI 316L 193000 0,3 0,008
material we introduce Table: 16 Material properties to introduce in Patran [18] the young modulus,
the poison ratio and the density according to
the values of the Table 16.

Then we assign those materials to the carabiner through the definition of the properties using the
command “Properties  Solid”. We fill the properties and we select the application region

141
 Fig: 126 Main parts of the assignation of the properties to the studied solid
 Loads and
constraints

The loads are stablished by the UIAA regulations: for types B e D carabiners the minimum load
that need to bear for open gate conditions is 7 kN. We apply due nodal forces of 7 kN in each of
the ends as is stablished in the normal testing.

As constraints we will consider that the middle section of the spine as a fixed section with all the
translational movements forbidden: we fix the three orthogonal axes to represent a fixed pin
contact. We need to assume this condition in order to fix our solid and be able to make a linear
static analyze, because if there is not any fixed region in the geometry, we cannot evaluate the
main stresses and deformations as it is a mobile structure. In a normal Pull testing, there is not a
fixed point [53], so probably our results will be conditioned to the constraint condition that we
have impose.

We stablish the loads and constrains respectively by the commands “Load / Boundary Conditions
 Force” and “Load / Boundary Conditions  Displacement”.

Fig: 127 Commands used to create the loads and boundary conditions

142
We introduce the values for the force and we fix the medium section by annulling the translations
in the tree main directions

Fig: 128 Definition of the load and boundary conditions: nodal forces in the ends of the carabiner and
middle section fixed

Note that for the second force applied in the down end, we need to change the sign an put it as
negative because is opposed to the Y direction.

We obtain the results show in Fig. 128

Fig: 129 Results obtained from the loads and constraints: Nodal force and a fixed section

143
  Mesh: Finite elements

To create the mesh (linked set of nodes which simulate the behavior of our solid)
we use the command “Meshing  Solid” as we can see in the Fig 129.

In our analyze, we decide to use the elements with a topology Tet10 that is the
standard. The Tet 10 type of elements are destined to Linear Static analyses,
while the other elements ( Tet 4 and Tet 16) are destined to other types of
analyze. At the same time we use a Global Edge length of 15 that allow us to
make a mesh with 2254 nodes.
It is important to say that with the Students License Version of MSC Nastran we
have an upper limit of 2500 nodes. So we will approximate the mesh to the upper
limit. We need to take into account that increasing the number of elements we
improve our results, because we simulate a model that it is closer to the real solid.
At the same time is useful to make after the mess an equivalence to eliminate
possible nodes that have been duplicated during the mesh

The obtained mesh is shown on Fig. 130

Fig: 130 Commands used for the meshing

Fig: 131 Obtained mesh and number of

elements created.
 Analyze

After the mesh we are prepared to do the analyze using the commands “Analyze  Entire
Model” as we see in Fig. 131.

Fig: 132 Commands used for the analyze

144
 We choose the type of analyze (in our case “Linear Static”) and the Subcases Fig 132. The
section subcases, contains the Output Request that allow us to select the results that we want
to obtain such as Element Stresses or The Applied loads. Usually the main output request are
element stresses and displacements in in order to analyze
the results and make
conclusions
about stresses and
deformations.

Fig: 133 Selection of the type of analyze and the output to visualize in the results

The analyze is done by Nastran. When we launch the analyze we send the set of informations to
Nastran that makes the analyze in function of the variables, geometry, loads and constraints that
we have define in Patran

Fig: 134 Analyze made by Nastran

 Attach the file

145
 The obtaining results from the Nastran analyze are contained in a new file that we need to
attach to our configuration to finally visualize the results

Fig: 135 Commands used to attach the file to the carabiner body
 Results

To display the results in Patran, there are several possible alternatives as show Fig 135

Fig: 136 All the possibilities that we have to represent the results

There are tree common ways that in general are the most used:

- the type "fringe plot" usually used to show the different stress fields indicating the
maximum and minimum values. We normally represent the Von Mises stresses as the
resultant of the combination of all of the stresses in the main directions X, Y and Z.
- the type “deformation plot” essentially used to see an estimation of the deformed body
( deformated) and the displacement of the most significant points, in particular the one
the point with maximum displacement.
- the type quick plot “Fringe + Deformations” in which we show at the same time the
deformated and the "fringe" showing the main stresses

Note that it is also usual to display the displacement results a “fringe plot” in displacements where
we show the resultant of the displacements in the tree main directions X, Y and Z.

The following figures shown the four main ways of result representations collected from the
climbing carabiner with Aluminum 7075-T6 as the material.

146
Fig: 137 Figures shown the four main ways of result representations that are commonly done (from up to down):
Fringe plot of stresses; Deformated; Quick plot of Stress in Fringe mode and Deformated; Fringe plot of displacements

Analyze results and possible interpretations

Each time that we make a mesh to the studied body the created nodes are different due to the fact
that the node selection in absolutely random. Even if the number of nodes is equal, each time that
we make a new mesh, we will stablish a different node configuration and the analyze results will
be different. To avoid possible problems related to this we will stablish tree different analyzes
with the same number of nodes for each candidate material. That is to say, we will stablish tree
different mesh and for each mesh we will analyze the response in terms of stresses (Von Mises
and the tree components) and deformations (Resultant and the tree components) for the tree
studied materials. Subsequently we will calculate the averages values for each case. In the report
we will only include the final table with the average values: in the annexes are included the
complete tables.

147
We obtain the following results:

Analyzed Parameters
Displacements [mm]
AVERAGE RESULTS
Components
Resultant
X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 0,259 2,634 2,068 2,773
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 0,005 1,720 1,363 1,809
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,003 0,974 0,772 1,043
Table: 17 Average displacement results for the tree main directions and the resultant

If we analyze the displacements, that is equal to evaluate the deformation we observe that
aluminum is the material most deformed, followed by the titanium and finally the steel is the less
deformed. This results are completely logical due to the fact that the young modulus of the steel
(193 GPa) is the highest and the one for the aluminum is the lowest (71,7 GPa), so for the same
applied load we will have higher deformations in the case of the aluminum than in the steel. The
titanium with a middle young modulus (110 GPa) between the one of the aluminum and the steel
so it has a middle deformation and displacements.

Analyzed Parameters
Stress Tensor [MPa]
AVERAGE RESULTS
Components Von
X direction Y direction Z direction Mises
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 317,333 748,333 264,333 779,333
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 299,333 746,667 248,667 780,667
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 266,000 748,000 221,667 783,000

Table: 18 Average stress results for the tree main directions and the combined in the Von Mises

In general, we observe that we obtain more or less the same results for the main combined stress
of Von Mises in the tree cases. This results are logical because we should obtain the same results
in all three cases for the Von Mises stress due to the fact that the main stresses depend only in the
geometry (more specifically in the section) they do not depend on the material characteristics.
Comparing the tree main components, we observe that the mayor stresses are in the Y direction,
and the stresses in the other directions X and Z are inferior. It is logical due to the fact that the
applied forces are in the Y direction.
When we analyze the main stresses, we should obtain the same results when we change the
material because the stresses depend on the considered section of the geometry and they do not
depend on the material. The observed differences may be due to calculation errors and
approximations that may have made the program. However, in our case we will consider the
results as correct.

In a general overview, we have applied two forces of 7 kN, in the direction of the spine, on the
two ends of the climbing carabiner. A simulation was run and this resulted in maximum stresses
at the loaded points and stresses of a similar magnitude on the inner surface where the arms
connect to the spine. This shows some agreement with the tensile tests performed as initial
yielding occurred at the test pin contact points and then breakage occurred at the arm/spine
connecting point [39] . However, the stress at this point were respectively estimated as 779,333
MPa, 780,667 MPa, and 783,000 MPa for the aluminum, titanium and the steel. The D and B type

148
carabiners have an open gate strength rating of 7 kN, and the carabiner materials have an ultimate
tensile strength respectively of 572 MPa, 960 MPa and 515 MPa for the aluminum, titanium and
the steel [18]. With these results the climbing carabiner should be broken in the cases of aluminum
and steel because the ultimate tensile strength is inferior to the applied load during operational
conditions. This results suggests that the FEA analysis is overestimating the stress in the carabiner
maybe due to the fact that we have forced the system to be static imposing the condition of fixed
point for the middle section. Once configured correctly this analysis could be used to optimize
the carabiner design proposed. However, this is beyond the scope of this report.
Note that comparing with other fem studies about climbing carabiners [39] we have seen that is
common to have strength results where the resultant Von Mises is superior to the ultimate tensile
strength, fact that announce an imminent failure of the considered system.

Justification of the Ashby Indexes

In the first chapter, for the material selection process by the QFD4Mat, we have introduce two
different Ashby Indexes: they are relate to stiffness, length specified, section area free, in the
cases of stiffness and strength limited design at minimum mass, considering that they are suitable
for sub-loaded ties subjected to tensile strut. This selection has been made in base of the working
principle of a carabiner: we have suppose that during operational conditions it need to essentially
bear traction forces in the direction of the application forces. Namely, in the directions of the
ropes (vertical from the ends). We will now verify this supposition by the results of the Fem
analyze

If we represent the main stresses, not with the Von Mises condition, but each component (X, Y
and Z) we obtain the following figures:

149
 Fig: 138 Representation of the main stresses in Fringe plots per each component (respectively from left to
right and from up to down): X stress component, Y stress component, Z stress component for a general case
with steel as the considered material.

Seeing the previous images (Fig 137) and taking into account the information obtained about
stresses from each analyze in each case for tree different mesh, we can said that the main stress
component is in the Y direction. As we have said this results is completely logical due to the fact
that the external loads that simulate the limit loads in testing are in this direction. Also because
during operational conditions the action of the rope will be a traction force that acts in the same
way as the considered loads for the analyze.

At the same time, focusing in the Y stress component, we observe that the interior side of the
spine loaded in traction (positive strengths and red tonalities), while the external side of the spine
is loaded in compression (negatives strengths and blue tonalities). This result is completely logical
because during operational conditions the interior parts of the spine suffer a force that stretch it
in the force application direction while the exterior zones are compressed by the loads actions.

This observations will confirm the preliminary suppositions that we have done in the first
QFD4Mat that the climbing carabiner will essentially work with traction forces and it would have
a behavior during operational conditions similar has a sub-loaded ties subjected to tensile strut,
so it has been a correct supposition. Note that as we said in the last part of the first chapter, by
using this indexes for a generic object, different to the ones used in the index, we are doing an
approximation to the real situation: it is useful for making a preliminary analyze but not for further
studies that need to be more precise.

150
Further considerations
If we analyze the mass in each case a compare each carabiner “model” with the command “Tools
 Mass Properties” we obtain the following results (the results are displayed in grams):

- Aluminum 7075-T6

- Titanium alloy – SP 700

- Stainless steel – AISI 316L

As it is logical we obtain that the mass is greater in the case of steel, followed by the case of
titanium and aluminum as finally the element with less mass. This has sense because the
aluminum is the lightest material with the lowest density, while the steel is the heaviest material
with the highest density. The titanium with medium density has a mas value between the two
other materials. This brief comparison will be very useful in the final chapter were we will
introduce new parameters in the matrix that take into account the geometry such as the mass in
order to compare the different materials.

151
 II. Design of Experiment for candidate materials on HOOK CLIMBER
for topology optimization

As we have said in the second chapter, in this section we will make a topology
optimization to a climbing carabiner in order to identify which will be the optimal shape
and section that need the less quantity of material and bear the applied loads and external
forces.
The ultimate goal is to achieve a similar shape that will be similar to the standards
carabiner shapes for the “C” body, with an I-beam section design, as it is supposed to be
the section that need less material to achieve the requirements. Nevertheless, we will
develop our analyze in 2D dimensions so we will not real appreciate the optimal section
form, only the parts that should have a bigger section. Therefore, we will especially
concentrate in the optimal shape supposing for further analyzes that the optimal section
is the I-beam section design.
From the conclusion of the topology optimization we will obtain the optimal carabiner
form: we will make a possible CAD model and we will compare the tree materials throw
a new FEM analyze obtaining the mass, maximum deformation, and maximum stress in
each case as we have dove in the previous analyze. Subsequently, in the final chapter,
those three parameters will be included in the QFD4Mat matrix substituting the Ashby
Indexes. In that way, we will take into account the carabiner geometry in our material
selection and we will not base our decision in approximations based in a generic geometry
of a tie bar loaded in traction.
We will now expose the topology optimization step by step.

Definition of the workspace

As we have explain in the second chapter, we will consider as workspace a semi hollow square:
one side of the squares has been modified and we have design the C-shape carabiner form, in
order impose the condition that these region should not be modified (see Fig. 194). In that way
we guarantee that after the optimization, we will not obtain a bar loaded in tension. However, to
analyze the influence of the workspace in the topology we will test other possible configuration
for the hollow form: a hollow in form of a square (Figure 195) and a hollow in a configuration of
oval carabiner (Figure 196).

152
 Fig: 139 Considered workspace with an hollow form of a “C” body carabiner

Fig: 140 Square workspace

Fig: 141 Oval workspace

Note that near to the hollow we have created individual surfaces (Figure 138 right, in dark color)
in order to improve the future mesh and the final results.

Description of the main steps of the Topology optimization in the case of study: climbing
carabiner
Import the workspace model
We import the geometry to Patran, with the command “File  Import” in the IGES form (in that
way we don’t need to rescale) and we start the analyze.

Fig: 142 Imported geometry in Patran

153
Definition of the material and properties

First of all we need to define the material and the properties for the configuration. It is important
to note that the material will not influence in the topology optimization due to the fact that is
based on a fictional material. In fact, it creates a fictional material in the objet, and ad each
iteration it modifies is density the design and the Young modulus in order to maximize the
stiffness ( minimize the compliance), so the properties will not really affect to the topology.
However we need to define a set of properties to associate to the mesh and subsequently make
the optimization.
At that point we define Aluminum as the material with the command “Properties  Isotropic”
defining:

E = 71700 MPa
𝑔
{𝜌 = 0.00281 }
𝑚𝑚3
𝜇 = 0.33

Fig: 143 Material creation

In that case for the properties we define it as shell properties due to the fact that we are working
in 2D dimensions and the considered workspace is a shell type. We use the command “Properties
 2D  Shell”.
In properties we need to define a shell thickness. This parameter will not influence in the topology
optimization, so we will consider that we perform our study in a shell with 1mm of thickness

Note that units need to be coherent as we have explained in the previous section

Fig: 144 Definition of the properties: material and considered thickness, and the application region

154
Meshing
For the mesh we have different possibilities in function of the type of element that we what to use
and the possible division that we make of our workspace. There are three main types of mesh:
IsoMesh, that works with undeformed squares or triangles; Paver, that works with deformed
squares or triangles; and Hybrid that works by combination of deformed triangles and squares.
Note that IsoMesh is only for bi-parametric surfaces.

As we have just said, we have created specific small surfaces around the hollow space in function
of the type of geometry in order to improve the mesh in those zones. We need to perform the
mesh in those regions because it is the region that it is supposed to be maintained in other to obtain
a better result from the topology.

It is important to said that with the student license we have a maximum limit of 5000 nodes and
5000 elements. We need to signal this fact because this limitation influence us in the maximum
nodes that we can create for make the mesh, and therefore in the performance of the mesh. The
more nodes has the mesh, better will be the results of the topology. At the same time we need to
consider that this limitation is not only for the mesh in a general limitation for the program: if
further action will need to create more nodes this limitation will affect them to. In fact, some
problems have appear when we need define the optimized geometry, because we need to create a
new defined smooth geometry with more nodes to be able to import the obtained geometry to
CAD software’s and redefine it to form the optimal model.

In our case, we make to different meshes: one IsoMesh for the surfaces that we have create around
the hollow space, and one Hybrid for the rest of the workspace. We have done this division
because in those zone the quantity of material that will be removed during the optimization
process it is supposed to be minimal, so we want to have more precision. The rest of the workspace
is also important but less than those regions. In the small surfaces the surfaces are bi-parametric
so we can do an IsoMesh. For the other zones of the workspace we will need to make a hybrid
mesh because the surface is not bi-parametric so we cannot do an IsoMesh. In both cases the
number of nodes and elements created was:

155
 - IsoMesh: 373 nodes and 195 elements with a global edge length of 1

Fig: 145 IsoMesh of the surfaces around the hollow

- Hybrid: 4610 nodes and 4557 elements with a global edge of 1.305

Fig: 146 Hybrid Mesh of the main surface. Final obtained mesh

The final obtained mesh is shown in the above Figure 145

Note that we need to associate some properties to this mesh in other to be coherent in the
successive analyze

Loads and boundary conditions

Initially we consider the same conditions that we have assume in the fem analyze

- Two opposed loads of 7000 N applied in the ends of the carabiner (minimum traction
load stablished by the official regulations) (Figure 147)

156
 - Middle point fix to force the system to be static. In that case we consider also that the
rotation are forbidden (Figure 146)

Equal as before, if we don’t consider the middle point as a fix point, we will not obtain results
because the system will be dynamic and we need to evaluate as a static system. After we will
consider the variation of those parameters, and we will see how influence the topology
optimization.

Fig: 147 Definition of the Boundary Coditons: fixed 123456

Fig: 148 Definition of the applied loads: Fsup and Finf

Note in the figures that in topology optimization the boundary and load constraints need to be
applied to the mesh (FEM) and not to the geometry

157
We obtain the following final configuration:

Fig: 149 Final configuration after define the Loads and Boundary Conditions
Once defined boundary
conditions and loads we can create a load case with those conditions. This allow us to preserve
those load and boundary conditions for later use in other analyzes even if we modify the force or
displacement constraints.

Fig: 150 Creation of a Load Case

Analyze: Topology optimization

For make the topology we use the command “Analyze 
Toptomize”. When we want to carry out a topology optimization
we need to define some parameters in order to obtain a useful
optimization: we want to obtain a result that can be correctly
interpreted. We need first to define the Objectives & Constraints,
the Optimization Control Parameters, the Design Domain, and
finale to select out load and displacement Subcase

Fig: 151 Selection of the Toptomize Analyze

158
In the section Objectives & Constraints, we fix our
objective function and the constraints. I our case as we
have explain in the second chapter, the objective function
will me minimize the compliance ( elasticity), namely
to maximize the stiffness, with the constrain of minimum
used mass: the objective function is defined as the sum of
the values of 'compliance' associated with the considered
static load conditions.
This section allow us to modify the quantity of material we
want to have when the optimization will be finished
through the parameter FRMASS. As an example, if we
make the analyze with FRMASS = 0.4, we are imposing
that at the end of the optimization we want to remain with
the 40% of the initial mass, in other words, we will remove
the 60% of the original material. So reducing the FRMASS
coefficient, the optimization will leave us with the most
important parts of the original system. Those remaining
material zones are the necessary to respect, comply and
bear the loads from the operating conditions.
Fig: 152 Definition of the Objective Funtion and the
constraint target
In order to evaluate the influence of this coefficient for the optimal configuration, we will make
a comparison of tree cases (FRMASS = 0,6; FRMASS = 0.4, and FRMASS = 0,1) for the logical
configuration.

The Optimization Control Parameters section allow us to modify other parameters of the
optimization.
The parameter TCHECK is used to turn on a filtering
parameter that is used to prevent a checkerboard pattern
from being produced. The default value of 1 turns on the
filtering and is recommended. TCHECK=0 turns off
filtering.
The other parameter, TDMIN, is used to achieve mesh
independent solutions and control the size of members in
the topology optimized design; that is, to prevent
achieving a final design that is characterized by thin
disjoint fibers that are impractical from a manufacturing
standpoint. Note that the value of TDMIN is problem-size
dependent but not mesh-size dependent. The default for
TDMIN is 0.0 (no filtering) taking into account that is a
dimensional quantity with a guideline that it should be set
to at least three times a representative element dimension.

A penalty factor p is introduced in the relation between

topology design variables and element Young's modulus
to enforce the design variable to be close to a 0-1 solution
when p>1.0. The penalty factor p usually takes values
between 2 and 5 (Real > 1.0; Default = 3.0; 2.0 < POWER
< 5.0 is recommended) Fig: 153 Definition of the Topology
parameters

159
The user can also specify the values for maximum number of design cycles (DESMAX), move
limit (DELXV) and convergence tolerance (CONV1).
A maximum design cycle DESMAX=30 (as default) is often required to produce a reasonable
result. More design cycles may be required to achieve a clear 0/1 material distribution, particularly
when manufacturability constraints are used. Fractional change allowed for the design variable
during approximate optimization. (Real > 0.0; Default = 0.2).
The parameter CONV1 is used to test for overall design cycle convergence. These parameters are
used in connection with tests for both hard and soft convergence. Tests for Convergence,
describes the types of convergence testing as well as the convergence decision logic.

In our cases we will suppose the default values and we will only modify de FRMASS parameter.

In the Design Domain we chose the domain

where we want to carry out the optimization.
We need to select the preliminary properties
that have been created in the properties’
section that refers to the carabiner shell
geometry.
At the same time in this section we can
impose the possible manufacturing
constraints, they can be added by clicking the
Define Manufacturing Constraints tab and
filling up the form which appears. A large
number of manufacturing constraints are
available to ensure manufacturability, such as
symmetry constraints, including cyclic
symmetry, extrusion constraints for uniform
thickness along draw direction, and single
and two die casting constraints prevent
cavities along die movement. Fig: 154 Defining the topology optimization domain

In our case we do not need to include manufacturing constraints. As we have explain in the second
chapter the climbing carabiner in made by forging so we cannot impose manufacturing conditions
related to casting or extrusion.

Finally we select the created load case that we need to consider

for our analyze and we apply.

Note that the Default subcase is the current configuration that

has been stablished in the Loads/Bcs section.

Fig: 155 Selection of the created Load Case

160
As equal than in the FEM analyze, all the information is sent to Nastran that will done all the
calculus

Fig: 156 Nastran calculations

Results
MSC Nastran produces a file with .des extension which
contains the resulting optimal element density distribution.
This file can be directly read in Patran to display the
Topology Optimization results. Patran supports read and
display of topology results, the smoothing / remeshing of a
topology design proposal for a new reanalysis and the
generation of IGES files for a topology design proposal for
CAD systems. To have access to this output data we select
from the Main Menu, “Tools  Design Study 
Postprocess” (Figure 156).
Fig: 157 Commands to acces to the results

Then in the Post-Process form select Read Results, then click the Select Results File tab to Browse
through the list of available .des files, select the required file (Figure 157)

Fig: 158 Commands to attach the Nastran results to our model

The results consists of a factor (artificial material density) assigned to each element that varies
from 0.0 to 1.0. Lower the factor is, less the element is important. Choosing a specific threshold
for this factor it is possible to display all the element to which calculated value is higher.

161
Finally to display and see the optimization results we select
“Display Results” and the required design cycle from Select
Result Case list box. We input a Threshold limit (density value
below which the density will be treated as 0 or void), and we
select the Fringe check box if we desire to see the density
contours. Note that a threshold value must be defined for the
factor associated to each element by the optimization process.

In the fringe representation, a specific color is associated to

each subrange of values for the factor in the global range from
0.0 to 1.0

Fig: 159 Displaying Commands

Analyze and presentation of the results
First result with the FEM configuration
In our case if we plot a fringe representation for the case of study, for a threshold of 0 we obtain:

Fig: 160 Fringe representation for the case of the climbing carabiner with real loads, spine middle point fix and a
threshold of 0

This configuration is very useful because, even if it do not remove the material that is not needed
(threshold 0), it allow us to identify which parts will be immediately removed in the case of
choosing a higher threshold and highlight the zones that absolutely will not be removed. The parts
that will be removed are the parts with low density (white color  density factor = 0), while the
parts that will be maintained have high density factor (dark red  density factor = 1).
In our case we observe that the parts that are near to the Spine part will be maintained, but the rest
of the parts will be removed. This result is completely logical due to the fact that the spine part is
the most requested part. As we have seen in the FEM analyze it need to bear the highest loads.

If we display the results for 4 different threshold we obtain the following results:

162
 Fig: 161 Four different results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1

NOTE: in all the cases we observe that the middle bottom part has a different aspect. Is due to the
fact that the graphic resolution of the computer cannot support all the divisions: the bottom zone
should be divided in the same way as the upper part. This visual graphic problem will be present
in all of the image result that we will expose in the next paragraphs

We observe the results that we have described before: the spine part is maintained, and as we
increase the threshold, we have less quantity of remained material. The last threshold provides
the most important elements but the proposed configuration should take into account all the
intermediate solutions in order to build a structure that is realistic, so a continuity should exists in
the structure: no flying parts should exist.
As we have said, this solutions are logical due to the fact that the spine is the most important part
os the carabiner (is the part that bear the loads) but we cannot make a climbing carabiner with this
shape. This solution is not practical due to the fact that it need to have a similar configuration to
the standard carabiners, that to said, it should have a similar shape to the commercial carabiners.
This result probably is due to have consider only the C body in the analyze and because we have
not impose to not change the hollow interior zones.

Influence of different configurations of boundary conditions

In order to obtain a practical result, we need to research a new configuration where the interior
hollow remains unchanged. For that we impose that this part should not be removed imposing a
more appropriate restrictions settings.
We chose two possible other configuration for value the results:

- One with tree fixed points: the spine middle point fix to force the system to be static, and
two fixed points in the contact zones between the gate and the “C” body to impose to
maintain unaltered those zones (Figure 161).
- One with two fixed points: we consider only the two fixed points in the contact zones
between the gate and the “C” body, that also force the system to be static (Figure 162).

163
Fig: 162 Configuration with three fixed Fig: 163 Configuration with two fixed
points: one in the middle of the spine, and points in the contact zones between the
the orther two in the contact zones between “C” body and the gate
the “C” body and the gate

The topology optimizations results in each case were:

- First configuration: three fixed points

164
Fig: 164 Fringe representation for the case of the climbing carabiner with real loads, spine middle point fix, contact
points between the “C” body and the gate fix, and a threshold of 0

- Second configuration:
Fig: 165 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1,
in the case of tree point fix
two fixed points

165
 Fig: 166 Fringe representation for the case of the climbing carabiner with real loads and contact points between the
“C” body and the gate fix, and a threshold of 0

Fig: 167 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3, 0.6,
1, in the case of 2 point fix

Through the Fringe diagrams, we observe that in both cases the interior hollow shape will be more
or less maintained with little modifications, but in general both configuration could be suitable to
use for the next analysis. At the same time we remark that in both situations the remained material
quantity in the ends of the climbing carabiner is quite big. This can be due to the fact that the
considered loads (7000 N) are very huge because we are considering the minimum bear loads
stablished by regulation , that are for extreme conditions.
Comparing the two results from the optimization.

So for the rest of the analyze we will consider the second configuration because the resulting form
of the topology is the most similar to a carabiner standard shape.

In the next few paragraphs we will notice the influence of the different parameters of the topology
optimization such as loads or workspace, considering the above configuration and varying each
time one of the parameters.

166
Influence of the loads
We analyze now the influence of the loads, varying is value in the case of interest with the two
contact points between the “C” body and the gate. We consider 2 different loads: 70 N and 700
N (Figure 221) and we compare the obtained results with the previous obtained results for the
load case with 7000 N.

Fig: 168 The Different caseloads configurations considered in our study

With 700N we obtain the following image results:

Fig: 169 Fringe representation for the case of the climbing carabiner with 700 N and contact points between the “C”
body and the gate fix, and a threshold of 0

Fig: 170 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1,
0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix and 700 N
167
 With 70N we obtain the following image results:

Fig: 172 Fringe representation for the case of study with 70N and contact points between the “C” body and the gate
fix, and a threshold of 0

Fig: 171 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3,
0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix and 70 N

In general, if we compare this two results with the reference situation with 7000 N, we do not
observe significant changes. In an overall impression, we can assume that varying the value of
the applied load, we do not modify the results from the topology optimization. However, if we
change the application load point, the topology changes: this result is logical because we are
changing the operational conditions and the material distribution obviously is not going to be the
same.

We will now value the influence of the consider workspace.

168
Influence of the workspace
When we need to choose the workspace for the topology optimization we have several
possibilities. The final selection depends on the considered criteria and load conditions. Usually
we assume a similar workspace to the real life configuration of the analyze object, and the load
and boundary conditions the stablished by law.
In our case, we analyze the influence of the considered workspace with two different
configurations (Figure 172): one with the hollow part with oval shape, and the other one with
square shape. The oval shape is inspire from the shape of the oval carabiners, while the square
shape is simple a new configuration that was used before for quick links.

Fig: 173 The two configurations used to value the influence of the chosen workspace

As we can see in the above figures we do the analyze in the same conditions as the stablished
reference configuration, with the real loads and the contact points between the “C” body and the
gate fix

In the case of the oval shape we obtain the following results:

Fig: 174 Fringe representation for the case of study with real loads, contact points between the “C” body and the gate
fix, a threshold of 0 and a workspace in oval form.

169
 Fig: 175 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1,
in the case of 2 point fix and real load, with a workspace in oval form

While in the case of the square shape we obtain

Fig: 176 Fringe representation for the case of study with real loads, contact points between the “C” body and the gate
fix, a threshold of 0 and a workspace in square form.

Fig: 177 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3,
0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix and real load, with a workspace in square form

170
Analyzing the two cases we obtain similar results to the standard configuration. The interior shape
is maintained and in the ends of the carabiner we found high quantity of material that has been
distributed to this zones. In both cases, if we observe the fringe diagram, the spine is maintained
and in general the final configurations are more or less the same except for the interior form of
the hollow. This final difference is logical because this configurations have been different from
the beginning. This two configuration allow us to say that there is an influence of the workspace
in the final optimization result because if we stablish an initial workspace the optimal form will
be influence by this initial workspace. However the main parts as the spine or the contact zones
with the gate are maintained. So the optimal configuration will depend on the chosen workspace
but the parts that should be maintained as the spine will not be modified and will be graduate with
the highest density (= 1).
Evaluating different configurations we can see what zones should be not modified and
consequently need to be present in the refined CAD model that we will extract from optimization.

Influence of the mass target parameter (FRMASS)

Finally we value the influence of the mass target. We consider two different mas target for the
reference configuration (contact points between the “C” body and the gate are fix): 0.6 e 0.1

In one hand, in the case of 0,6 of mass target, that is equivalent to remain with the 60% of the
initial mass quantity, we obtain the following results:

Fig: 179 Fringe representation for the case of study with real load and contact points between the “C” body and the
gate fix, for a target mass equal to 0.6 and a threshold of 0

Fig: 178 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1,
in the case of 2 point fix, real loads and a target mass of 0.6

171
In the other hand, in the case of 0,1 of mass target, that is equivalent to remain with the 10% of
the initial mass quantity, we obtain the following results:

Fig: 180 Fringe representation for the case of study with real load and contact points between the “C” body and the
gate fix, for a target mass equal to 0.4 and a threshold of 0

Fig: 181 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1,
in the case of 2 point fix, real loads and a target mass of 0.4

As we have explain in the previous section varying the FRMASS factor we modify the quantity
of material that we want to have when the optimization will be finished. In those cases, making
the analyze with FRMASS equal to 0.6 and 0,1, we are imposing that at the end of the optimization
we want to respectively remain with the 60% and 10% of the initial mass. In other words, we will
remove the 40% and 90% of the original material.
In the case of FRMASS = 0,6, we observe that we obtain a similar shape to the reference case but
with a main difference: we have more material behind the spine at the bottom part. This is due to
the fact that we have impose to maintain a higher quantity of material. We observe that when we
increase the threshold this part tends to be removed and disappear obtaining a similar result as in
the case with FRMASS=0,4.

172
Reducing the FRMASS coefficient, the optimization will leave us with the most important parts
of the original system. Those remaining material zones are the necessary to respect, comply and
bear the loads from the operating conditions. In fact as we can see in the fringe diagram of the
case of FRMASS=0,1 the remaining red line, determines the most important parts. Those parts
should be present in the CAD model that we will establish in the next section
Comparing the obtained shape in the with the standard carabiners (Figure 181) [54] [55] [56] we
observe that the final results it seems to the real carabiner shapes, so the recovered results from
topology are quite good

Fig: 182 Different types of climbing carabiners that have similar shapes to the obtained by the topology
optimization [54] [55] [56]

In conclusion, considering the obtained results in the above paragraphs, the parameters that most
influence the topology optimization are: the chosen workspace, the applied load points and the
stablished boundary conditions, and the topology parameters as the mass target. For a stablished
workspace and boundary conditions, the variation of the applied load do not affect the
optimization results.
The configurations with the real loads, the contact points with the gate fixed and a mass target of
0.1, allow us to obtain the line that is the most important in order to bear the loads in the stablished
conditions. At the same time, the same configuration with a mas target equal to 0.4 indicate us
that the end zones should have a bigger section than the other parts, and in all the cases the spine
part is maintained.
This observations will be our reference for our new 3D CAD model that we will develop in the
next section.

173
III. CAD Design of a climbing carabiner from the topology optimization,
and final FEM analyze on the obtained CAD model for each candidate
materials

CAD model obtained from the topology optimization

As we have just said, taking as reference the obtained results from the topology optimization, we
will develop a climbing carabineer model with a shape similar to the obtained in the reference
case with mas target 0.1 and variable section with bigger sections at the ends as we have obtain
from the reference configuration with mas target 0.4.
However, instead of making the carabiner with the variable section that we have described, we
will consider a configuration with constant I-beam section, due to the fact that the real carabiner
sections are usually constant, and as we have seen in the second chapter the I-beam section is
actually considered the most efficient section.

First of all, we will export the result by creating a new surface from a new smooth Mesh that we
have obtain from the case of mas target 0,1, in order to stablish the reference dimensions.

To make a new mesh from the topology optimization results we use the command
“ToolsDesign Study  Post process  FEM Smooth”. Note that previously we have read the
results for the case in which we are interested, to be able to highlight in the “Result Case” box the
case that we have read. At the same time we select the threshold that we are interesting: in our
case 0,1. Then we select all the elements with a rectangular selection and we click to Apply.

Fig: 184 Commands to obtain Fig: 183 FEM Smooth obtained in th

the FEM Smooth case of a mass target of 0.1 and a
threshold 0.1

Subsequently we create a surface form the mesh by the command “Geometry  Create 
Surface  by Mesh”. Finally we erase the FEM to visualize only the created geometry by the
command “Erase FEM” and “Smooth Shaded”. We will export this geometric surface to IGES
(or STEP, Parasolid, etc.) using the command File >Export in order to determine the new
dimensions.
However, some problems appear with this configuration. In fact, we could not create the surface
because the new FEM Smooth it consisted of two different surfaces, so we could not form a
174
unique new surface.
We decide to take as reference the obtained figure from the topology optimization made with a
mass target of 0,2 and a threshold of 0,3. The obtained results were similar as it can be appreciated
in the following figures:

Fig: 185 In the right side the result of the topology optimization in the case of mass target of 0.2 and a
threshold 0.3. In the middle, the resulting FEM Smooth from the mentioned optimization. At the left the final
surface obtained from the FEM Smooth

Subsequently we export the obtained surface to a CAD software. This surface will be the base for
the design of the optimized climbing carabiner shape

175
 Fig: 186 Images of exportation of the optimized surface
Taking in account the observations and the
obtained results, the final CAD model that we will consider for the final FEM analyze is the
following:

As we have said before we have considered more or less the obtained shape from the topology
optimization, and taking in to account the actual standards types and classes of climbing
carabiners. At the same time we have considered constant section even if from the topology we
have seen that it should vary through the shape of the carabiner, because actually the vast
majority of the climbing carabiners have constant I-beam section.

176
Final FEM analyze on the obtained CAD model for each candidate materials
We will now expose the results of the FEM analyze that we have realize to our new 3D CAD
model varying the material in function of our three candidate materials. The procedure that we
have followed is the same as the procedure described in the first part of this chapter when we have
made the first FEM analyze. We will only expose the results and some images of the principal
steps

Firstly we import the solid form the CAD program in Parasolid format and we properly scale it
to obtain the right dimensions. This step is necessary because when we import a solid in Parasolid
form it did not conserve the original dimensions, so it is necessary to scale it to obtain the original
dimensions.

Fig: 187 Commands to import the optimized CAD model

Then, we create the tree candidate materials introducing the same properties as in the first analyze,
namely the density, young modulus, and poisson ratio, and then we associate these materials to
the properties. Each time that we make an Analyze we will modify the properties and we will
select by turns the tree different material in order to stablish tree different analyze with the
resulting deformations and Von Mises stresses.

Fig: 188 In the right, the creation of the tree candidate materials and definition of the “C” body properties. In the left
the commands to modify the properties each time that we want to modify the applied material

177
After we stablish the loads and boundary conditions. We stablish the
same conditions that we impose in the first analyze: two point forces of
7000 kN respectively applied in the ends and with oppose sense ( limit
conditions stablished by regulation), and the middle spine section fixed,
in order to make fix the structure ( static analyze)

Fig: 189 Final Loads and Boundary Conditions configuration

Fig: 190 Images of the load an BC creation conditions

Subsequently we create the mesh around the solid body. We use

elements with “Tet” shape and topology “Tet10”.
With a global edge length of 20 we create:

- 4988 nodes
- 2612 elements

Fig: 191 Obtained Mesh

178
Finally we launch the analyze previously choosing in the section Subcases the type of outputs that
we want to obtain.

Fig: 192 Definition of the Analyze parameters and the Output Request

179
If we expose the results of the Von Misses stresses for the tree materials, in one of the considered
cases, we obtain the following figures:

Fig: 193 Fringe representation of the resultant Von Mises stresses in the 3 cases varying the applied
material: (from up to down): Aluminum alloy, Titanium alloy, Stainless Steel.
We observe again that the spine in the part that supports the main load, and we observe that in
that case the middle upper part of the spine supports higher loads than the middle bottom part.
This is probably due to the asymmetry that exist in the carabiner: in the first analyze, the carabiner
was more or less symmetric ( B symmetrical shape), while in this case we have an asymmetric
shape that is similar to the H type carabiners ( pear shape)

180
In fact analyzing for example the Z stress component in the case of the aluminum:

Fig: 194 Fringe plot of the Z stress component in the case of Aluminum allot 7075-T6

We observe that the interior side of the spine loaded in traction (positive strengths and red
tonalities), while the external side of the spine is loaded in compression (negatives strengths and
blue tonalities). This result is completely logical because during operational conditions the
interior parts of the spine suffer a force that stretch it in the force application direction while the
exterior zones are compressed by the loads actions.

At the same time the deformation results are exposed in the below images: we have represent the
value of the deformations in a fringe plot, and we have ploted the deformated shape

181
 Fig: 195 Fringe representation of the Resultant component of the Translational Displacements for the 3
cases varying the applied material: (from up to down): Aluminum alloy, Titanium alloy, Stainless Steel.

We observe that in those cases the deformations are larger than in the first case. This result is
quite logical because in this second case we obtain average Von Mises stresses that are inferior
to the first case, so it we have applied the same loads, necessarily the deformations should be
bigger in the second case

Finally as an indication we plot only the deformation diagram where we can see the undeformed
body and the resultant deformated shape

Fig: 196 Deformation plot representing the deformated shape in the case of the Aluminum alloy 7075-T6

182
Analyze results and possible interpretations
As we have said in the first analyze, each time that we make a mesh to the studied body the created
nodes are different due to the fact that the node selection is absolutely random. Even if the number
of nodes is equal, each time that we make a new mesh, we will stablish a different node
configuration and the analyzed results will be different. As equal to the first analyze, to avoid
possible problems related to this we will stablish tree different analyzes with the same number of
nodes for each candidate material, analyzing in each case the response in terms of stresses (Von
Mises and the tree components) and deformations (Resultant and the tree components). The
results will be exposed in average values: in the annexes will be included the complete tables.

We obtain the following results:

Analyzed Parameters
Deformations [mm]
AVERAGE RESULTS Components
Z Resultant
X direction Y direction direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 1,92 0,06266667 4,7 4,75666667
trade name: Titanium alloy - SP 700 1,62 0,04133333 3,09 3,13
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,92666667 0,02336667 1,78 1,8
Table: 19 Average displacement results for the tree main directions and the resultant

If we analyze the displacements, that is equal to evaluate the deformation. We obtain similar result
as the first analyze: we observe that aluminum is the material most deformed, followed by the
titanium and finally the steel is the less deformed. Results that are completely logical as we have
explained before.

Analyzed Parameters
Stress Tensor [MPa]
AVERAGE RESULTS
Components
Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 257,333333 140,333333 597,333333 602,333333
trade name: Titanium alloy - SP 700 258 136 602 608,666667
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 258,666667 129,666667 607 615,333333
Table: 20 Average stress results for the tree main directions and the combined in the Von Mises

In general, we observe that we obtain more or less the same results for the main combined stress
of Von Mises in the tree cases, but we get lower values compared to the first analyze. As we have
said in the first analyze, this results are logical because we should obtain the same results in all
three cases for the Von Mises stress due to the fact that the main stresses depend only in the
geometry (more specifically in the section) they do not depend on the material characteristics.
Comparing the tree main components, we observe that the mayor stresses this time are in the Z
direction, and the stresses in the other directions X and Y are inferior. It is logical due to the fact
that in that case the applied forces are in the Z direction, while in the first case the applied forces
were in the Y direction.
When we analyze the main stresses, we should obtain the same results when we change the

183
material because the stresses depend on the considered section of the geometry and they do not
depend on the material.

At the same time we can follow the same reasoning as in the first analyze: we have applied two
forces of 7 kN, in the direction of the spine, on the two ends of the climbing carabiner, obtaining
that the maximum stresses are located at the loaded points and we obtain stresses of a similar
magnitude on the inner surface where the arms connect to the spine, results that are logical as we
have already explained in the first analyze. However, the stress at this point were respectively
estimated as 602,333MPa, 608,666MPa, and 615,333MPa for the aluminum, titanium and the
steel. The D and B type carabiners have an open gate strength rating of 7 kN, and the carabiner
materials have an ultimate tensile strength respectively of 572 MPa, 960 MPa and 515 MPa for
the aluminum, titanium and the steel after the respective heat treatments. With this results the
climbing carabiner should be broken in the cases of aluminum and steel because the ultimate
tensile strength is inferior to the applied load during operational conditions. This results suggests
that the FEA analysis is another time overestimating the stress in the carabiner, maybe is due to
the fact that we have forced the system to be static imposing the condition of fixed point for the
middle section. Once configured correctly this analysis could be used to optimize the carabiner
design proposed. However, this is beyond the scope of this report.

Nevertheless in this second FEM analyze, we obtain stress magnitudes that are inferior to the
preliminary. This makes us think that the adopted configuration / model for the carabiner is more
appropriate than the one from the preliminary case.

Note again that comparing with other fem studies about climbing carabiners [39] we have seen
that is common to have strength results where the resultant Von Mises stress is superior to the
ultimate tensile strength, fact that announce an imminent failure of the considered system.

Further considerations
As equal as in the first analyze, we determine the mass in each case an compare each carabiner
“model”, obtaining the following results (the results are displayed in grams):

- Aluminum 7075-T6

- Titanium alloy – SP 700

184
 - Stainless steel – AISI 316L

We obtain similar results as in the preliminary analyze. The mass is greater in the case of steel,
followed by the case of titanium and aluminum as finally the element with less mass. As we have
said before, this has sense because the aluminum is the lightest material with the lowest density,
while the steel is the heaviest material with the highest density. The titanium with medium density
has a mass value between the two other materials. However, in that case we observe that for the
tree materials the mass of the carabiner is higher. This is due to the fact that the dimensions are
bigger: the volume of the designed carabiner is bigger, so is logic to obtain higher masses. We
will introduce this values in the new matrix by creating a new key factor: climbing carabiner mass.

185
Conclusions

In the first part of this chapter we have make a preliminary finite element method (FEM) analyze,
in a carabiner CAD model obtained in base of a commercial standard model, to verify the
affirmations that we have made in the previously chapters in relation to the important failure
methods and parameters to consider during the material selection. In fact the objective of this first
analyze before doing the topology optimization, has been to verify if the Ashby indexes, that we
have selected for the first QFD4Math, were appropriated.
The obtained results have confirmed the preliminary suppositions that we have done in the first
QFD4Mat: the climbing carabiner will essentially work with traction forces and it would have a
behavior during operational conditions similar has a sub-loaded ties subjected to tensile strut. At
the same time, as we expected, the spine zone is the most loaded part. This confirm us that our
suppositions are correct. It is important to say again that as we said in the last part of the first
chapter, by using these indexes for a generic object (different from the ones that are used in the
index) we are doing an approximation to the real situation. So they are useful for make a
preliminary analyze but not for further studies were precision is required.

Subsequently we have performed the topology optimization for our climbing carabiner. The
considered workspace for the topology as ben established in function of the requirements that we
are looking for. To this large workspace, we will apply the necessary restrictions to reach the best
possible result taking in to account the loads that need to bear the carabiner. At the same time,
during all the process we have evaluated the influence of different factors such as the form of the
selected workspace or the value of the applied forces or simply the variation of the topology
parameters such as the target mass.
In general, we have seen that, despite the modifications of the factors and parameters, the main
parts as the spine or the contact zones with the gate are maintained. So this zones have been
considered has the most important to supply the requirements when we have perform our 3D CAD
model. In each topology, the global optimal configuration will depend on the chosen parameters
but the parts that should be maintained as the spine will not be modified and will be graduate with
the highest density (= 1). Note that if we analyze the influence of varying the value of the applied
load, we do not observe significant changes: we can assume that varying the value of the applied
load, we do not modify the results from the topology optimization. However, if we change the
application load point, the topology changes: this result is logical because we are changing the
operational conditions and the material distribution obviously is not going to be the same.
The final objective has been to obtain an optimized CAD model from the optimization resulting
form. From the different topology analyzes, it results that the optimized carabiner model should
have a similar shape to the obtained in the reference case with mas target 0.1, and variable section
with bigger sections at the ends as we have obtain from the reference configuration with mas
target 0.4. Taking as reference the obtained results from those two cases, we have develop an
optimized climbing carabineer model. However, instead of making the carabiner with the variable
section that we have described, we have decided to consider a configuration with constant I-beam
section, due to the fact that the real carabiner sections are usually constant, and as we have seen
in the second chapter the I-beam section is actually considered the most efficient section.

Finally we have performed a second FEM to the obtained optimized model applying the tree
different candidate materials. In each case, we have obtained the values of weight mass, maximum
deformation and maximum Von Mises stress, in order to introduce them as new key-factors in the
modified QFD4Math in the next chapter.

186
Is important to note again, that with the obtained FEM results in both analyzes, the climbing
carabiner should be broken in the cases of aluminum and steel because their ultimate tensile
strengths are inferior to the obtained Von Mises stresses when we applied the considered loads.
This results suggests that the FEA analysis is overestimating the stress in the carabiner maybe due
to the fact that we have forced the system to be static imposing the condition of fixed point for
the middle section. Once configured correctly this analysis could be used to correctly make a
FEM analyze and to correctly optimize the carabiner proposed design. However, this is beyond
the scope of this report.

187
Chapter 4 – Refinement of QFD4Mat analysis:
final results and discussions
I. Translation of Performance Index by FEM results: implementing the
Key-Material Factors and QFD4Mat matrix revision

As we have seen before, the QFD4Mat introduces the influence of the Ashby Indexes through the
Global Performance index after having performed a multiple - objective optimization in base to
the Ashby indexes that have been considered.
Nevertheless, as we have highlight at the end of the first chapter, those indexes, which we have
introduce in the matrix, have been stablished for simple geometries such as beams, plates or other
simple geometries. Therefore, at any time, it is been consider the real object geometry. In our
example, we have considered the behavior of the climber carabiner equal as the behavior of a tie
( tensile struct) in one case for the first index with stiffness, length specifies and free section
area, and for the second index with strength, length specifies and free section area. We can
assume, in base of the functioning of the climbing carabiner that its behavior could be similar to
the behavior of a tensile strut during operation time, but obviously, it will not be the same because
the geometry is not the same. By using the Ashby indexes in the matrix, we are simplifying all
the functional aspects that are base in the object geometry.

Our objective in the two previous chapters (2 and 3) has been to research a way of introducing an
take into account the object geometry in the QFD4Mat method to remove the Ashby parameters
that do not consider the geometry. At the same time we have research other parameters that do
not play an important rule, in order to simplifying the matrix and directly introduce the parameters
that are directly related with the geometry. Finally after the topology and FEM analyze we have
obtain the values of weight, von Mises stress and deformation for the optimized carabiner shape.
Those obtained parameters will represent our new key-factors instead of the Global performance
Indexes and other less important factors because their values have been stablished, for each
candidate material, from the optimized geometry and therefore take into account the climbing
carabiner’s geometry.

Analyzed Parameters
Max. Von Max.
Properties post topology
Density Weight Mises Stress Deformation
[kg/m3] [g] [MPa] [mm]
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 2810 43,82 602,33 4,756
trade name: Titanium alloy - SP 700 4540 70,8 608,66 3,13
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 8000 124,8 615,33 1,8

Table: 21 Preliminary new parameters to introduce to the modified QFD4Math matrix

So in the next sections we will made a new QFD4Math analyze modifying the preliminary
developed matrix buy substituting the mentioned parameters by these new ones, but firstly, we
need to remove other key-factors.

188
 But firstly we need to do a remark about considering the Von Misses stress as a key-factor that
will allow us to compare each material.

As we have said in the previous chapter in both FEM analyzes we should obtain the same results
for the main Von Mises stresses when we change the material because the stresses depend on the
considered section of the geometry and they do not depend on the material. The observed
differences may be due to calculation errors and approximations that may have made the program.
So we cannot consider the stresses as a comparative factor, because we obtain the same results
for the tree cases. In fact when we introduce the Von Mises values for the tree materials in the
table conversions to obtain the results in a 0-5 scale we obtain the same values of 3 for each
material.
To consider the influence of the stresses, we will introduce the safety factor as a comparative
parameter. This factors depends on the Von Misses stress and in the Yield Strength or in the
Ultimate Tensile Strength.
In fact we have the following relations

𝜎𝑉𝑜𝑛 𝑀𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝜎𝑉𝑜𝑛 𝑀𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠

𝑐. 𝑠 = [−] 𝑜𝑟 𝑐. 𝑠 = [−]
𝑌𝑆 𝑈𝑇𝑆

Normally we should have obtain from the FEM analyze values for the Von Misses stress inferiors
than the YS if we do not consider plastic deformation, and inferiors than the UTS for not having
break by over load. We cannot obtain safety factors that are superior to 1.
As we have said this results suggests that the FEA analysis is overestimating the stress in the
carabiner maybe because we have forced the system to be static imposing the condition of fixed
point for the middle section. Once configured correctly this analysis could be used to optimize
the carabiner design proposed. However, this is beyond the scope of this report, and even if we
obtain safety factor values superior than 1 they will help us to compare the materials between
them.

So the parameters that we will consider in our new modified QFD4Mat matrix are:

Analyzed Parameters
Max.
Properties post topology
Density Weight Safety Factor Deformation
[kg/m3] [g] [-] [mm]
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 2810 43,82 1,053 4,756
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 4540 70,8 0,634 3,13
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 8000 124,8 1,195 1,8
Table: 22 Finally new parameters to introduce to the modified QFD4Math matrix

189
Elimination of less important parameters
Firstly, we need to remove other key-factors that we have introduce in the first analyze because
we only can introduce 20 different key features. In the first analyze we have introduce the
maximum of 20 key factors, and now we need to introduce four more. Note that in the first analyze
we have already introduce the key factor “density”, so presumably we would need to remove only
tree key factors. However, in that case we need to introduce the deformation with direct and invert
direction of improvement because it is related in both direction with some of the considered
product requirements. Therefore, at the end we need to eliminate four of the previously considered
key factors.
Taking into account the obtained results from the first analyze we decide to remove the key factors
with less relative importance in the matrix such as quenchability with inverted direction of
improvement or the DBTT.
If we analyze again the obtained value curve graphic in the first analyze with the Figure X we can
determine which key factors are potential candidates to be removed from the matrix.

Fig: 197 Obtained value curve results for the first analyze

As we have just said we will remove the key factors with the lowest relative importance.
Observing the value curves we decide to eliminate the two quenchability (direct and invert
direction of improvement) and the DBTT. We decide to maintain the workability because is a key
factor that appertains to the “costs” category, while the other factors are in the “performance”
category. As we introduce three parameters associated with the “performance”, it seems logical
to eliminate three parameters belonging to this category, since in the matrix we have introduced
few parameters associated to the “costs” category.

190
Justification of the different matrix correlations between the key factor and the product
requirements ( key-product features)
As we describe in the general procedure and in the first analyze, in order to fill up the matrix, for
the Key-Factors we identified:
▪ the Direction of Improvement (“▲” or “▼”)
▪ the category of the key-factors (P, C, and R)
▪ in the cells that build the correlation matrix space, define the type of correlation
( “●”,“○”,“▽” or left empty) between the key-Factor of material you defined and
the Key-Product features defined previously.

As we said before, we note that a multiple correlation is possible, since each key-factor (i.e.
correlation matrix column) can be linked to multiple product key-features (i.e. correlation matrix
rows). We justify now the correlations that we have adopted in the matrix for the four new
introduces key-factors.
- Density
As we have said in the first chapter, density is strongly related to lightness because a
material with reduced density is lighter than other one with higher density.

- Deformation
Is strongly directly related with plastic deformation, wear, and toughness product
requirements. As it is logical, increasing the percentage of deformation we increase the
possibility of have plastic deformation and break by overload, and the possibility to have
wear due to the friction between the rope and the carabiner. At the same time, increasing the
the ability of a material to absorb energy and plastically deform without fracturing, is
equivalent to increase the toughness, so increasing the deformation we increase the
toughtness. In parallel deformation is also medium directly related to fatigue because the risk
of fatigue failure increases as the deformation increases during the cycles. In addition if we
consider deformation with inverted direction of improvement, it is strongly related to fast
fracture and stiffness due to the fact that increasing deformation reduces the possibility of
have a failure by fast fracture and reduces the material stiffness.

- Safety Factor
The safety factor is strongly related with plastic deformation and break by overload, fatigue
and fast fracture and stiffness. This four product requirements increase as increases the safety
factor: the risk of failure by plastic deformation (break by overload), fatigue and fast fracture
increases as the safety factor increase ( as the applied Von Misses stress increase); and at
the same time, the stiffness increases as the safety factor increase.

- Weight mass
As it is absolutely logical, weight mass with inverted and direct direction of improvement,
are respectively strongly related with the lightness and the direct variable cost, as increasing
the weight mass increase the direct variable cost (for the same volume we have higher mass
so we pay more for the same quantity of material  €/kg ) and reduces the lightness.
However, we will only consider in the matrix the relationship with the lightness because we
have already consider the influence of the €/kg in the material cost key-factor.

Note that for the key-factors that have not been removed from the matrix, the relationships will
be the same

191
 II. Update graphic solutions by Bubble Maps and Material Value Curves

As equal as in the first material selection analyze, in these section we will expose the final results
that we have obtain from the modified QFD4Mat after introducing the main changes.
We will divide again our analyze in tree main parts in function of the tree different results forms
that we can carry out with the QFD4Mat process: le excel work sheet, the Bubble Maps, and the
Value Curves

Analysis of the QFD4.mat excel worksheet

The QFD4MAT excel worksheet has been employed in order to review the candidate materials
and select the best material for the climbing carabiner manufacturing and use.

The finale weighted score provided by the QFDMat excel page for each candidate material is:

Table: 23 Results of the excel worksheet

Therefore, the global matrix analysis selects the Titanium alloy Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700)
and the Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 as the most suitable for the climbing carabiner as it has the
highest final weighted score with 3,3 out of 5. The last of the possible candidates is the stainless
steel AISI 316L with 2.9 of the relative weight.

Comparing the obtained results with the results from the firs QFD4Mat analyze we observe that
we obtain the same classification with the Titanium alloy but in that case we found also in the
first position the Aluminum alloy as the most suitable followed by the Stainless Steel. However,
we observe that the final weighted score are inferior in the cases of the titanium, with weight
reduction of 0.3, while for the aluminum and the stainless steel they maintain their values at 3.3
and 2.9 respectively. This new results highlights that the aluminum as the same final weight score
as the titanium, so from the analyze of the excel worksheet we can say than both material are
potential candidates to be the selected material for the climbing carabiner.

Note that the reduction weight of the titanium is due to the modifications that we have done in to
the matrix. We have removed the parameters with less relative importance and we have added the
ones obtained from the fem analyze that have higher relative importance such as the deformation.
This new parameters have strong relations with the product requirements and allow us to
determine which material is more suitable for the climbing carabiner.

Below we analyze the two different interpretations of the material selection matrix driven from
product requirements and importance that we can do for the material selection.

192
Analysis of the Bubble Maps graphic

Fig: 198 Bubble graph comparing candidate materials

As we have said in the previous analyze, the center of the bubble is the cost and performance of
the individual candidate materials, and the diameter of each bubble corresponds to the
receptiveness of each material. The target of the bubbles is to match the black circle for the center
location and diameter because it represents the opinion of de consumers (VOC).

If we observe the tree bubbles obtained from the bubble map for the tree candidate materials we
see that we obtain more or less the same results as in the first analyze.
The red bubble is nearly identical and has almost the same location than the black circle: it has a
little more high cost and performance, and a little less receptiveness. However, it does not contain
the black circle: as we have just said, its receptiveness is inferior to the receptiveness for the VOC.
So it is not able to satisfy all the needs and requirements from consumers, and in will become a
potential candidate to refute as material for the climbing carabiner. In relation to the first QFD,
the result are equal, only we can appreciate a higher performance of the red bubble in the second
case respect to the first one.
At the same time, if we analyze the blue bubble, we observe that if perfectly contain the black
circle: it meets all the costumers’ requirements. However, is center, which represents the cost and
performance of the candidate material, is quite distant from the center of the black circle: it has
high cost and less performance. Therefore, even if it guarantees al the costumers’ requirements,
it is quite far away from the ideal material which should have more performance and reduced
price. In that case we obtain also the same results than in the first QFD4Math.
Finally, if we analyze the green bubble, we observe similar results as the blue bubble case because,
it perfectly contains the black circle, but also in these case the centers of the both green and black
circle are closer. In the green case, not only all consumer requirements are met, but also the cost

193
and performance are very similar to those expected by consumers: it has a little inferior
performance and cost than the ones that the consumers are waiting. Comparing with the first
analyze, in that second case the green and blue bubble centers match almost perfectly so there are
better results than in the firs analyze.
In summary comparing the three curves at the same time: the blue and green circles show a higher
receptiveness, but both circles cover well the target area, making them more favorable to the red
that it does not cover the entire black circle. Additionally, the performance increases as the green
circle has a higher center, and the cost decreases as it is centered to the left of the blue bubble,
matching almost perfectly its center with the black bubble center. So it will be more suitable the
green bubble.
From the bubble graph, the selected material is the Aluminum alloy 7075-T6

Analysis of the Value Curves graphic

As we have explained in the first analyze, for material selection, we must take into consideration
many variables, so it is necessary to use additional graphs to draw conclusions. Below is a value
curve setup: we compare individual materials based on the categories in the columns above them.
The overall impact of each category increases from left to right and is denoted by the black line
at the bottom of the graphs: for each category it is shown its respective contributions. The graph
shows the value curves where each individual component assessed is exposed for each of the
candidate materials. The larger the differences between points on each vertical line represent the
differences in performance, cost or receptiveness depending on changing the material.

Fig: 199 Value curve for comparison with the new key differences circled in orange

194
The overall impact of the categories increases from left to right (direction of increase of the black
line), so workability, with direct direction of improvement, is not as important to the overall result
as the toughness of the material or the deformation and stresses that presents the material during
operational conditions. The colored circles showcase the categories where there was a significant
variability between the materials being reviewed.

In that second analyze we have only highlight (orange circles) the new parameters that we have
introduce into the matrix: all of the new key-properties belong to the performance. Nevertheless,
if we take into account the old parameters that we have not modify we can arrive more or less at
the same conclusions.

Firstly, we take a global look to the general performances of the diverse curves. We observe that:
the red and blue lines have both the general average high performances. The red curve has the
highest performances for key-factors with middle-low relative importance, while the blue curve
has the highest performance for key-factors with middle-high relative importance. In general, for
the entire graphic, the blue and red curves have a high average performance, but the blue one
performs better in an overall impression. At the same time, the green line shows a low
performance in the key properties with high influence, but suitable for aspects related to cost and
receptiveness.

The low performance of the green material throughout the final sections of the graph for the key
factors with higher relative importance shows that it is not a favorable material for becoming the
climbing carabiner material, so it will be suitable to refute is as a candidate material.

Comparing the red and blue curves in the orange sections, we observe that red curve shows
average performance for all of the highlighted key-factors and only in the case of deformation
with inverted direction of improvement (6% of relative weight) has higher performance than the
blue curve. In fact, for the other key factors of these sections such as deformation with direct
direction of improvement, density, weight mass the blue curve performs the best, while the red
has lower perform (the green curve shows the lowest performs)

Although red has most of the top values in most key-parameters, related to important new key
factors that are in the orange circles, blue does the highest performance and does above average
throughout the entire properties of the graphic.

At the same time in relation to cost and receptiveness, the blue curve shows reduces cost that
generate greater receptiveness, while the red curve shows high cost and reduced receptiveness.

So we from the value curve, the blue curve wins out, so again we selects the Aluminum alloy
7075-T6.

195
Overall impression
The bubble graph provides a quick tool to inspect a few categories of the material selection
process, and it is augmented in this case by the more complete analysis given by the value curves.
The material that is best suited from comparing all of the product requirements, material
properties, and performance categories explained in this second study is also the Aluminum
7075-T6. This results coincide with those obtained in the first analyze, fact that reinforce the
obtained results. As we have said in the first analyze, this results are not surprising, as this
aluminum alloy is the most common material for climbing carabiners. In fact climbing carabiners
are mostly made of this type of aluminum because it has quite good mechanical properties,
especially the ones that are related to lightness and corrosion resistance, and at the same time is
quite cheaper than the titanium, aspect that represent a major vantage in relation of the costumers
receptiveness. So in conclusion the Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 will be the optimal material for the
climbing carabineer requirements.

196
III. Material selection by QFD4Math Software: revision of the
QFD4Math Excel results

As we have said in the first chapter, the procedure that we have expose combines the implicit and
explicit approached of a material selection strategy. The QFD4Math Excel matrix is a powerful
tool that allow us to make a total approach in the material selection combining the vantages of
each method and minimizing the potential disadvantages. However, the developed Excel model
tool is a little bit rudimentary due to the fact that is not as obvious at it seems and it takes too
much time to fulfil the matrix and arrive to some graphic results in order to make a preliminary
approach. At the same time, as we have seen in our case, the Excel tool has the limitation of 20
key-factors, fact that forbids us to make a detailed analysis, which determines the obtaining
results. So, it is a potential useful tool but it needs to be modified to become more efficient because
our final objective is to have by this tool, a faster and good preliminary approach about potential
candidate materials.

For solving those problems, actually it is being developed a software through online platform,
which will speed up the process, getting results in a quickly and efficiently way. The platform is
still under construction and it is expected that it will be functional at the beginning of October

We will now expose the material selection procedure by using the new QFD4Math online
Software in our case of study of our climbing carabiner. In that way, we will have a parallel study
that we expect it will confirm the obtained results from the Excel QFD4Math analyze

Note that as we have just said the program is still in development, so the results presented and the
modality of the platform will not be exactly the same at what is supposed to be in October when
the platform will be finished. The results probably would not coincide will the ones obtained
previously but we hope that it will be similar.

Main steps of the Software material selection procedure11

The selection material software acctualy is an online platform that is still in development.
The user, once registered in the system, he will recive a username and a password that will allow
him access to the program as you can see in the Figure 200

Fig: 200 Image of the logging system

11
All the images are courtesy of Ferdinando Cecchini actual Software Developer of the QFD4Math software, in order to have
a brief idea about the aspect of the new platform

197
Then the in the screen will appear the section of available projects (Figure 201)

Fig: 201 Project section in the online software

In this section will appear all of the current projects that are actually in process or that you have
previously developed. At the same time it offers you the possibility to creat new projects and add
to them a brief description about what they talk about

Once selected or created the project on which you want to work, the at the screen will appear the
material section (Figure 202).

Fig: 202 Material section in the online software

In this section, we will be able to create or modify (if the they have already been created and the
project is in process) the considered candidate materials for our project.

During the material creation, as you can see in

the Figure 203, it is possible to associate our
material to a reference material category. For
example in our case, when we introduce the
Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 it will be useful to link
it with the reference material “Aluminum
alloys”. After, when we will assess the materials
for each key factor, if we have associate the
candidate material to a reference material, the
software will show us, as a reference, the
typically values for the reference family in order
to analyze if our information, about for example
the UTS, is correct for the material that we want
to analyze. So it will be very useful to determine
if our values are correct.
Fig: 203 Possible Reference Materials that offers the software

198
In the next step we define the product requirement (Figure 204) and the key-factors that we are
going to consider in our analyze (Figure 205).

In both cases we observe that there are some product requirements (PR) and key-factors (KF) that
are pre-selected. In fact, the green product requirements and key-factors (red circles in the images)
are common to all of the projects and correspond to the failure modes and their relative associated
key factors: all of them are pre-selected and will be present in the selection material analyze. In
fact for the PR that are automatically included, they are also automatically associated the KF that
are strongly related to them. For example for the failure mode “plastic deformation” that is pre-
selected, it has automatically associated the KF: KV, Sy and UTS.
In the case, that we do not want to take into account one of the PR or KF, we only need to mark
the costumers importance as null (correspond to the zero of the Excel version) for the PR, and to
put 0 for all the materials during the assessment for the respective KF that we do not want to
analyze.
In parallel, the PR and KF that are nor pre-established that we have introduced, appear in grey
color (blue circles in the images). For each new PR we need to define the customers importance
(scale from 0 to 5) and the category to which it belongs (performance, costs or receptiveness),
and for each new KF we need to define also the category to which it belongs and the direction of
improvement (maximize or minimize).

Fig: 204 Selection or creation of the product requirements

199
 Fig: 205 Selection or creation of the key-factors

At the same time, as we have already announce, in a third sub step we define the existing relations
between the selected product requirements and the related key-factors (Figure 206), in order to
obtain the “Relations Grid” ( equivalent to our relationships matrix of our Excel version).

Fig: 206 Pre-selected PR have automatically associated their KF and their respective grade of relationship

Note that for the PR that are automatically included, we have said that they are also automatically
associated the KF that are strongly related to them. But also are automatically established their
respective grade of relationship (weak, moderated, or strong). This is very useful because for the
principal existing failure modes all the relations are already pre-established and we speed up the
procedure. Note that it is possible to create other relations between PR that have been pre-selected
with new created KF or vice versa

200
Subsequently when we have define all the considered relationships between PR and KF,
automatically appears in the next section the “Relations Grid”. Figure 207 shows the resulting
grid for our case of study.

Note that in this case we have considered more KF than in the case of the Excel version. In fact
with the software we do not have the limitation of the maximum 20 KF, so it allow us to made
more sophisticated and precise selections if we want to take into account a big number of KF. It
is one of the potentialities of the software, because we can work with a greater number of variables
without limitations.

Fig: 207 Relations Grid in the case of the climbing carabiner

After that we need to assess the materials by fulfilling the below table. With the software we do
not need to make the conversion to the 0-5 scale as we need to do with the Excel version: you can
automatically introduce the values for each material in relation to the considered KF and the
software automatically does the conversion. At the end we obtain as equal as in the excel
worksheet the final weights scores

Fig: 208 Assessment of the candidate materials, and final weight results

In we analyze the results we see that are practically equal to the ones found in the Excel previous
analyze. We obtain that the Aluminum 7075-T6 is the most suitable material to be used to made
a climbing carabiner as it has the highest final weight value with 3.3. It is nearly followed by the

201
titanium with a weight mas of 3.2, and in the last position remains the stainless steel with a final
weight value of 2.9.
This results confirm what we have obtained in the last QFD4Math analyze where we have seen
that the titanium loses weight and influence with respect to the other two materials which
maintain their values.

At the same time the Software offers us the possibility of visualizing the data through the bubble
map and value curves analyzes

We analyze the bubble maps for out case of study. The interpretation and analysis is identical to
what we have described in the previous analyzes. In that case, the VOC bubble appears in green
color instead of the black circle, the stainless steel appears with the blue bubble, while the
aluminum and the titanium appears will orange bubbles.
Note that the software gives us also the information about each curve in relation to the
performance, cost and receptiveness parameters, so it gives us the information about the position
of the bubble centers with the P and C coordinates, and about the bubble radius with the R value.

Fig: 209 Obtained value bubble map for the case of study of the climbing carabiner

We observe similar results to the obtained in the last analyze. We remark that in this second case
the stainless steel do not bears with any consumer requirement due to the fact that the VOC bubble
and the Steel curve do not coincide. As we have said before, from this result the steel can be
classified as a potential candidate for remove four our candidate materials because it do not satisfy
any costumers condition / requirement.

The results for the other two candidate material are almost equal than in the precedent case. We
see that the titanium satisfy some of the VOC requirements but is elevated costs displace it to the
right side, and it does not completely cover all requirements. However, the aluminum perfectly

202
covers all the VOC circle, so again it becomes the most suitable candidate to be chose for made
the climbing carabiner

Finally as we have said we can also visualize the value curves diagram.

Fig: 210 Obtained value curve for the case of study of the climbing carabiner

We obtain the same results as in the last QFD4Math analyze. In fact the stainless steel behaves
the worst through all of the diagram exception with the KF with less relative importance where
it acquires the highest values but for the KF with high relative importance it has the worst values.
At the same time for the titanium we observe that it behaves quite good through all the graphic,
even acquiring the highest values for some of the analyzed key factors but also acquires the lowest
values for some cases.
In relation to the aluminum we observe that even if in some cases could show the lowest value,
as for example the case of the young modulus, in an average overview it behaves quite good
through all of the graphic: we can said that it has even better average values than the titanium. In
addition, it shows the highest values for the KF with high relative importance.
So again from the value curve, in an overall overview we can said that the aluminum is the most
suitable material for our case of study.

In general we have obtain the same results as in the precedent analyzes. This allow us to said that
the software is a potential instrument that speed up and simplifies the analyze and giving us quite
good results. In fact is allow us to have a quick general opinion of which material we should
consider for developing a certain product.

In the last section of this chapter and of this project we will expose a brief economic analyze
where we have evaluate the total production cost for a climbing carabiner, giving at the end an
average value of the total manufacturing cost per unit.

203
IV. Brief economical approach: Productions of a climbing carabiner in
Aluminum alloy 7075-T6

In this section, we will briefly expose an economical approach to the production costs of a
climbing carabiner.

This economic analysis is taken from a class project work that we have done this year in the
course of "Studi di Fabricazione" taught by the Professor Franco Lumini at the Politecnico of
Milano. We will simply highlight the main cost related to the production of a climbing carabiner.
For further information all the results are exposed in detail in the original project work that is also
constituted by two Excel worksheets that determines two spreadsheet that automatically
determine the forging cost.

We suppose to make a production of 20000 carabiners. At the same time, as equal than in the
manufacturing approach of the second chapter, in this section we suppose a general carabiner,
where the C-shape part is constituted by a bent bar with a double T section (see Figure 99). In
parallel, we will consider an Aluminum alloy 7075 (Ergal) because has been the obtained optimal
material result from the preliminary analyzes. Also, among the various models of existing locking
mechanism system that we have describe in the chapter one, we will consider a wire-gate locking
system in AISI 316 stainless steel.

Costs description of the main manufacturing operations

Material cost
- For the “C” body corp we have that the volume of the rod is 19957 mm3, the density is
2800 kg/m3 and the material cost per kilogram is 4,2 €/kg, so the total material cost for
the “C” body corp will be:
19957
𝐶"C" 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ( ) · 2800 · 4.2 = 0.234 €
10003
- For the wire gate we have a gate length of 10 mm and the cost of a coil of 200 m and 3
mm of diameter is 90€, obtaining a total material cost for the wire gate of:
90
𝐶𝑤𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = · 0.1 = 0.045€
200

Cutting rod cost

First we need to value the total operation time that is composed by: the set-up time (preparation
time of the bars automatic notching machine  needed time to been able to make the operation),
the passive times (positioning of the 6 m bar, blocking and advancement), and the machining time
(when we are cutting the bars). Those tree times are respectively estimated in:

- Set-up time: 10 min

- Passive time: 3.3s
- Machining time: 0,8

60
Being the total time: 𝑡𝐶𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 = (10 · 2000) + 3.3 + 0.8 = 4.13 𝑠

Considering that we have an hourly cost for the cutting machine equal to 33€/h obtain that the
cutting total cots are:

204
 4.13 · 33
𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑂𝑇 = = 0.038 €
3600

Bending
As equal than in the cutting operation we estimate the tree main operational times. They were
estimated in:

- Set-up time: 30 min

- Passive time (positioning, centering and automatic locking): 6.8 s
- Machining time: 1.7 s

60
Being the total time: 𝑡𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑂𝑇 = (30 · )+ 6.8 + 1.7 = 8.59 𝑠
2000

Considering that we have an hourly cost for the DIGIBEND EUROMAC 400 CNC bending
machine equal to 40€/h, we obtain that the bending total cots are:

8.59 · 40
𝐶𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 = = 0.095 €
3600

Pre-heating before the stamping phase

The stamping machine requires 15 sec for make each piece (bottle neck type). This means that
every 15 sec, a cut rod will be extracted from the belt furnace; considering daily work shifts of 8
hours, every day we will preheat 1.920 pieces.

We suppose that we that the furnace has a heating surface equal to 23 000 cm2. At the same time
the space occupied by a carabiner is approximately: Lplt*Wplt = 45.59 cm2, so the furnace
capacity will be 500 pieces (rounded value).

At the same time, the needed heat for the heating of each carabiner will be

𝑄 = 𝑚 · 𝐶𝑝 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑚 · (𝑇𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 ) = 18575 𝐽

Considering that
𝑚 = 0.056 𝑘𝑔
{𝐶𝑝 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑚 = 915 J/(kg · K)}
𝑇𝑓 − 𝑇𝑖 = 380 − 20 = 36ºC

Considering a Nabertherm N 650/45 AS furnace with 60 W of electric power and an efficiency

of the 80% we can determine the time that we need to maintain the carabiners in the furnace to
arrive to the required pre-heating.

𝑄
𝑡𝑃𝑟𝑒−𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 = · 500 𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠 = 193 𝑠
𝑃 · 0.8

If we consider daily work shifts of 8 hours and one hour of pre-heating (to arrive to the 380ºC at
the furnace), it is possible to estimate the daily energy consumption and therefore the energetic
cost of each piece, taking into account the fact that the average energy price for industrial use is
equal to 0,22 € / kWh. We obtain that:

205
Daily energy consumption: (8 + 1) · 60 = 540 𝑘𝑊 · ℎ

540·0,22
Energy cost for each carabiner: 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 1920
= 0.061€

At the same time in the pre-heating cost we need to consider a labor cost (T = 2 daily work hours;
labor cost per hour = 22 € / h) and the amortization cost of the furnace.

€
2 ℎ·22
ℎ
Labor cost: 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 = 1920 𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠 = 0.023 €

𝐶𝑓 ·(1+0,03)𝑛 𝑇𝑙𝑎𝑣
Amortization cost: 𝐶𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = [ · 96000] · = 0.019 €
𝑛 𝑁𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑠

With Cf = furnance cost = 33000 € and n = 5

Finally the total pre-heating cost will be:

𝐶𝑃𝑟𝑒−𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐 + 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 + 𝐶𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.061 + 0.023 + 0.019 = 0.103 €

Stamping
First of all we need to determine the Energy Capacity of our stamp, that is expressed by the
following equation:

𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝐴𝑝 · 𝛼𝑚 · 𝛼𝑠 = 460,06 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚

With Ap the projected area in the burr’s plane (including the burrs) (= 4484 mm²), αm the material
load factor (= 0.054), and αs the shape load factor (= 1.9)

It is important to said that αs it depends on the Fcc factor (complexity form factor) that is
𝐿·𝑊·𝑇
determined by: 𝐹𝑐𝑐 = = 2.62 with L, W, T and V the length, the width, the height and the
𝑉
volume of the work piece

The following tables expose the values of the load factors αm and die life factors βm in function
of the considered material, and the values of the shape load factors αs and shape die life factors
βs in function of the complexity form factor

206
 Table: 25 Loads factors αm and die life factors βm values in function of the considered material [57]

Table: 24 Shape load factors αs and shape die life factors βs values in function of the complexity form factor [57]

From the value of the Energy Capacity is possible to obtain the necessary tonnage for the
operation and the CPR (Relative Cost Operation), which vary according to the press type selected
(mechanical, hydraulic, hammer). In our case we opted for a mechanical press of 210 tons which
corresponds to a CPR = 0.4573

We proceed to calculate the operational cost that is determined by:

𝐶𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝐶𝑝𝑟 ∗ 𝐶𝑜 = 0.068 €

With Co the cost of a single operation equal to 0.15 €

Now we determine the set-up costs. Firstly we need to determine the set-up time of the stemping
machine that is done by the following expression: 𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑡 = 0,3925 · 𝐸𝑓0,28 = 2.18 ℎ

Considering that we have an hourly cost for the SOV / 3 FP Mecolpress stamping machine equal
to Ch = 45 €/h, we obtain that the stamping set-up total cots are equal to:

𝐶ℎ
𝐶𝑠𝑒𝑡−𝑢𝑝 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑡−𝑢𝑝 · = 0.005€
20000

207
In that case, we need to take into account also the unit costs of the stamping machine. We divide
them in to categories: material cost and the production costs of the stamping tool.

- Stamping tool material costs

The volume of the stamp is equal to: 𝑉𝑏𝑙𝑘 = 𝑊𝑏𝑙𝑘 · 𝐿𝑏𝑙𝑘 · 𝑇𝑏𝑙𝑘 = 523200 𝑚𝑚3
Note that for the calculation of length, width and depth of the mold we have used the
mentioned spreadsheet when we have done the work class project.

With a stamp steel ( X40CrMoV51) cost of 20 €/kg (Csteel) and ρ = 7,9 kg/cm³, the total
stamp tool material cost is:
𝐶𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑝 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝑉𝑏𝑙𝑘 ∗ ρ ∗ 𝐶𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 ∗ 2 = 165.33 €

- Stamping tool production costs

We value all of the times related to the stamping tool production. We have that:

- Block Preparation Time: 𝑇𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑝 = 𝑇𝑏𝑡 + (0,0078 · 𝑊𝑏𝑙𝑘 · 𝐿𝑏𝑙𝑘 ) = 6.24 ℎ

With Tbt the base time equal to 4h if Ffc < 2 or to 5h if Ffc > 2 (in our case = 4h)

- Layout Time: 𝑇𝑙𝑎𝑦 = 0,008 · 𝑁𝑐 𝑚 · 𝐴𝑝 · 𝐹𝑓𝑐 · 𝑆𝑐 · 𝑆𝑙𝑘 = 4.12 ℎ

With Nc the punch number per cycle (=1), m the multicavity index (= 0,7), Slk the lock
standard (=1), Sc the cavity standard (=1,4).

Note that the Sc coefficient is determine by Sc=0,6(Nfn + Nsf) + 0,4(Nsb + Nblk + Nbnd +
Nedg + Nf1 + Nf2).

The N Coefficients for the calculation of the size of the mold have been stablished
considering the case of one shot per cycle and only one piece for the mold [57]. And
are equal to: Nbd = Nsf = Nf2 = 0, and Nbk = Nfin = Nsb = Nf1 = Nedg = 1.

- Milling Time: 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙 = 0,155 ∗ 𝑁𝑐 𝑚 · 𝐴𝑝 · 𝑆𝑚𝑙 · 𝑆𝑐 · 𝑆𝑙𝑘 = 6.37 ℎ

With Sml the milling standard (=0.2)

- Bench Work Time: 𝑇𝑏𝑤 = 𝑁𝑐 𝑚 · 𝑆𝑐 · 𝑆𝑏𝑛 · 𝑆𝑙𝑘 = 6.37 ℎ

With Sbn the bench standard that is determined by: Sbn = Bo + 0,26 (Fins-15) = 2.898

Note that the Bo coefficient is evaluated by the next table

Dav ≤ 12,7 12,7 < Dav ≤ 22,86 Dav > 22,86

B0 1,008 4,1058 3,1899

Table: 26 Values of the Bo coefficient in function of the Dav [57]

𝑝 𝐴
At the same time the Fins coefficient is determined by 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑠 = 6,64 + 0,5 · 𝑁𝑠 with Ns=7

208
 - Planing Time: 𝑇𝑝𝑙 = 0,008 · 𝑇𝑐𝑎𝑣 1,5 = 0.54 ℎ with 𝑇𝑐𝑎𝑣 = 𝑇𝑙𝑎𝑦 + 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙 + 𝑇𝑏𝑤 =
10.5 ℎ

- Dowel Time: 𝑇𝑑𝑙 = 3 ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑉 < 4260 𝑜𝑟 𝑇𝑑𝑙 = 4 ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑉 > 4260, in our case is equal
to 3h

- Flash Gutter Time: 𝑇𝑓𝑙 = 0.8 ℎ

- Finish-polish Time: 𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑙 = 𝑁𝑐 · [1 + (𝐹𝑓𝑐 − 1) · 0,6] = 1.97ℎ

So the final total time for the stamping tool production is

𝑇𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑇𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑝 + 𝑇𝑙𝑎𝑦 + 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙 + 𝑇𝑏𝑤 + 𝑇𝑝𝑙 + 𝑇𝑑𝑙 + 𝑇𝑓𝑙 + 𝑇𝑝𝑜𝑙 = 28.94ℎ

Considering that we have an hourly production cost for the stamping tool equal to Chblk = 45
€/h, the stamping tool production cost will be:

𝐶𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑝 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝑇𝑡𝑜𝑡 · 𝐶ℎ𝑏𝑙𝑘 · 2 = 2604 €

Before determining the total stamping cost, we need to value the stamp life.

The life of the dies is estimated by 𝐿𝑑 = (𝑁𝑟𝑠 + 1) ∗ 𝑄𝑟𝑠 = 180000 with Nrs the number of
possible resink (= 5).
In parallel, the die resink quality (Qrs) is determined by 𝑄𝑟𝑠 = 𝑄𝑟𝑏 · 𝛽𝑠 · 𝛽𝑚 = 30000 with Qrb the
basic resink quality (= 4000), βs the shape die life factor (= 0.75), and βm the material die life
factor (= 1).

So with a Qrs of 30000 pieces, inferior to the supposed production batch, they will not be necessary
additional resink operations.

 Finally the total stamping cost per unit produced is

𝐶𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑝 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 + 𝐶𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑝 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝐶𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝐶𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 + 𝐶𝑠𝑒𝑡−𝑢𝑝 +
20000
= 0.211 €

Shearing / Trimming (Stamp Burr’s Cut)

As equal than in the prelaminar operations, we estimate the tree main operational times. They
were estimated in:

- Set-up time (set-up of the shearing machine): 40 min

- Passive time (positioning of the piece, drive of the machine, automatic removal): 5.9 s
- Shearing time: 3.1 s

So the Shearing total time will be:

60
𝑡𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = (40 min · ) + 5,9 s + 3,1 s = 9,12 𝑠
20000

209
Considering that we have an hourly cost for the S4 / V Mecolpress shearing machine equal to 40
€/h, we obtain that the drilling total cots are:
9,12s €
𝐶𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛− 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ( ) · 40 = 0.101 €
3600 h

As equal as in the case of the stamp cost, in that case, we need to take into account also the unit
costs of the trimming machine. We divide them in to categories: material cost and the production
costs of the trimming tool.

- Trimming tool material costs

We have that:

𝑇
- Matrix volume: 𝑉𝑡𝑟𝑑 = 1,2 · 𝐿𝑝𝑙𝑡 · 𝑊𝑝𝑙𝑡 · = 28880 mm³
2
- Stamp volume: 𝑉trp = 𝐿𝑝𝑙𝑡 · 𝑊𝑝𝑙𝑡 · 𝑇 = 36472 mm³
P𝑟 0,5
- Profile complexity factor: F𝑐 = 2
· (π · A𝑝 ) = 2.34
 Taking into account that Pr is the piece perimeter and Ap is the surface in the burr’s
plane respectively equal to 390 mm and 2550 mm2

- Cost of the steel for the matrix and stamp (Cm): 20 €/kg

So the final total tool material costs, with ρ = 7,9 kg/cm³ are:

𝐶𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = Ctrm = (V𝑡𝑟𝑑 + V𝑡𝑟𝑝 ) · ρ · (C𝑚 ) = 10.32 €

- Trimming tool production costs

We firstly value the needed production times for the matrix and the stamp

- The matrix production time is established by:

𝑇𝑟𝑑 = 𝑇𝑖𝑛𝑡 + (𝐴𝑜 + 𝑀𝑝 · 𝐴𝑡𝑏 ) = 11,27 h
Where Tint is the initial time allowance hours (= 4 h), Ao the base time (= 5.08 h), Mp the
block area factor (= 0.0168 h/cm2) and Atb the die block area (= 130.8 cm2).

- The stamp production time is established by:

𝐴𝑝𝑏 – 𝐴𝑝
𝑇𝑝 = (0,004 · 𝐴𝑝𝑏 + 0,33) + 0,05 + [ ] + [(14 · 𝐹𝑐 – 13) · 𝐹𝑙𝑐𝑘 ]
6,56
+ (0,005 · 𝐴𝑝 · 𝐹𝑓𝑘 ) = 5.115 h

Where Apb is the stamp surface (45.59 cm2) and Flck the lock factor (0.06)

Considering that we have an hourly production cost for the trimming tool equal to 45 €/h,
the total trimming tool production costs will be:
𝐶𝑡𝑟𝑜 = (𝑇𝑟𝑑 + 𝑇𝑡𝑝 ) ∗ 𝐶ℎ = 737,325 €

So unit costs of the trimming machine will be

210
 𝐶𝑡𝑟𝑜 + C𝑡𝑟𝑚
𝐶𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 = = 0.037 €
20000

Finally the total cost for Trimming the burrs are:

𝐶𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 𝐶𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 + 𝐶𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 0.138 €

Heat Treatments
As we have described in the manufacturing approach, the work piece is subjected firstly to
solution treatment, aimed to achieve a microstructure as homogeneous as possible by dissolving
all the alloying elements present within the piece followed by a quenching and aging, which can
be natural or artificial. We have that:

- Cost of solution treatment and quenching (heating 470° C and maintaining during 150
min, and after mineral oil quench) per unit surface: 9 €/m2
- Natural aging cost (stay in a controlled atmosphere chamber for 72h at room
temperature) per unit surface: 1.5 €/m2

Considering that we have a workpiece surface of 0,00896 m^2, the final total heat treatments cost
are:

€ €
𝐶𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡−𝑇𝑜𝑡 = (9 2
+ 1,5 2 ) · 0,00896 𝑚2 = 0.094 €
𝑚 𝑚

Tumbling: Polished finishing

For the polished finishing we proceed by a Tumbling. The estimate operational time to arrive the
optimal finishing is about 12h. Supposing that we have an hourly cost for the tumbling equal to
3€/h, and that the tumbling has a capacity of 500 pieces, the total tumbling cost are:
€
(12 ℎ · 3 )
𝐶𝑇𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ℎ = 0.072 €
500

Drilling
As equal than in the cutting and bending operations, we estimate the tree main operational times.
They were estimated in:

- Set-up time (positioning and tool change): 20 min

- Passive time (positioning piece in the mask, movement of the mask, lifting of the
mandrel between the two drillings): 6 s
- Machining time, with speed rotation N=3600 rpm, stroke=8mm, extra stroke=20mm,
drilling speed: 0.05mm/rev and 2 fori da fare, we obtain

(8 𝑚𝑚 + 20 𝑚𝑚)
𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 = (( 𝑚𝑚 ) · 2) · 60 = 18.6 𝑠
0,05 𝑔𝑖𝑟𝑜 · 3600 𝑟𝑝𝑚

So the Drilling total time will be:

60
𝑡𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑂𝑇 = (20 min ∗ ) + 18,6 s + 6 s = 24.678 𝑠
20000

211
Considering that we have an hourly cost for the KNUTH SBT 35 drill machine equal to 26 €/h,
we obtain that the drilling total cots are:
€
26
𝐶𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ( h ) · 24,678 s = 0.178 €
3600

Anodizing
The last processing stage of relative to the carabiner body "C", is the anodization. It is a non-
spontaneous electrochemical process, typical of aluminum and its alloys, where the work piece
is coated with an oxide layer with a protective and esthetics functions. In general, aluminum
alloys are anodized to increase corrosion resistance and to allow dyeing (coloring),
improved lubrication, or improved adhesion.

Considering that we have a workpiece surface of 0,00896 m^2 and taking into account that
anodizing cost per unit surface is about 54 €/m2 the total cost of anodizing are:

€
𝐶𝐴𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 = 0,00896 m2 ∗ 54 = 0.483 €
m2

Cutting and Bending of the Wire-Gate

Taking into account that the coil length is 200 m, and the length of the wire-gate is 0.1 m, for each
coil we can made 200/0,1 = 2000 pieces

In this case the tree main operational times are estimated in:

- Set-up time (CNC settings, coil load): 50 min

- Passive time: 0 s (continuous process)
- Machining time: 8 s

So the wire-gate Cutting and Bending Drilling total time will be:
60
𝑡𝑊𝑖𝑟𝑒 − 𝐶𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 & 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = (50 min · ) + 8 s = 8.15 𝑠
20000

Considering that we have an hourly cost for the Repute 3D Wire Bending Machine equal to 40
€/h, we obtain that the cutting and bending total cots are:

€
40
𝐶𝑊𝑖𝑟𝑒 − 𝐶𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 & 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ( h ) · 8.15 s = 0.0905 €
3600

Assembly and heading process of the end of the wire

In this case we have not exactly the tree main operational times as in the previous cases. In this
operation we have:

- Set-up time (setting time of the riveting machine): 10 min

- Manual assembly times: gate introduction into the corresponding positioning holes of
the mask body, rotation of 180 ° and repositioning: 10.9s
- Riveting time, 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 4 𝑠 · 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑠 = 4 𝑠 · 2 = 8𝑠

212
So, the Assembling total time will be:
60
𝑡𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑂𝑇 = (10 min · ) + 10,9 s + 8 s = 18.93 𝑠
20000

Considering that we have an hourly cost of assembling equal to 30 €/h, we obtain that the
assembling total cots are:

€
30
𝐶𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ( h ) · 18,93 s = 0.158 €
3600

Testings
As equal than in the precedent operations, estimating the tree main operational times we obtain
that:

- Set-up time (set-up of the universal tensile test machine): 30 min

- Passive time (positioning the piece in the work-station): 8 s
- Traction time: 15 s

So, the Testing total time will be:

60
𝑡𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = (30 min · ) + 8 s + 15 s = 23.09 𝑠
20000

Considering that we have an hourly cost of the universal traction testing machine equal to 30 €/h,
we obtain that the assembling total cots are:

€
30
𝐶 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ( h ) · 23,09 s = 0.192 €
3600

Visual Controls
Assuming that the time of a single visual inspection and performance test is about 7 s, and
considering that we have an hourly cost for inspections equal to 20 €/h, we obtain that the total
cost of the visual control operation will be:

€
20
𝐶𝑉𝑖𝑠𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ( h ) · 7 s = 0.038 €
3600

Laser marking
As equal than in the precedent operations, estimating the tree main operational times we obtain
that:

- Set-up time: 15 min

- Passive time (positioning the piece in the work-station): 1.5 s
- Machining time: 9 s

So, the Laser marking total time will be:

213
 60
𝑡𝐿𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = (15 min · ) + 1,5 s + 9 s = 10.545 𝑠
20000

Considering that we have an hourly cost Gravograph LS100Ex machine equal to 45 €/h, we
obtain that the assembling total cots are:

€
45
𝐶𝐿𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 = ( h ) · 10,545 s = 0.132 €
3600

Finally the total cost of a climbing carabiner with “C” body shape, I-beam section, in aluminum
alloy 7075-T6, and wire gate locking system in stainless steel AISI 316 is approximately equal
to:

𝐶𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 − 𝑇𝑂𝑇 = 𝐶"C" 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 + 𝐶𝑤𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 + 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑂𝑇
+ 𝐶𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 + 𝐶𝑃𝑟𝑒−𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑇𝑜𝑡 + 𝐶𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡 + 𝐶𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
+ 𝐶𝑇𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝐶𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝐶𝐴𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝐶𝑊𝑖𝑟𝑒 − 𝐶𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 & 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
+ 𝐶𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝐶 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝐶𝑉𝑖𝑠𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝐶𝐿𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑟 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔
= 2.3015 €

This final obtained price is quite reasonable and is approaching the possibles values of
manufacturing costs because usually the described model has a market price of about 7-10 €

214
Conclusions

In this chapter we have firstly modify the preliminary QDF4Math matrix that we have obtain from
the first chapter, and we have done the final analyze. As we have previously explain, the
modification have been made to correct the possible errors that introduce the addition of the
Ashby Indexes in QFD4Mat the by the Global Performance index. In fact, by using the Ashby
indexes in the matrix, we are simplifying all the functional aspects that are base in the object
geometry: at any time, it is been consider the real object geometry.
To correct those potential problems, we have removed the Ashby indexes parameters that do not
consider the geometry, and other parameters that do not play an important rule ( they have low
values of the relative importance). In parallel we have introduce the values of the weight mass,
the maximum deformation and the safety factor obtained from the second FEM analyze for the
optimized carabiner shape for each candidate material: they have represented our new matrix key-
factors.
Then we have analyze the result of the modified QFD4Math matrix. We have obtained similar
result to the firs analyze being the Aluminum 7075-T6 the material that is best suited from
comparing all of the product requirements, material properties, and performance categories
stabilized in base of the costumers’ opinion.

Subsequently we have expose the new QFD4Math online software, detailing step by step the
various stages of the projects using as example our case study of the climbing carabiner. In fact
we have made the same analyze but using the online QFD4Math software and we have find more
or less the same results as the QFD4Math Excel analyze, being the Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 the
material most suitable to use for a climbing carabiner as is supplies all the costumer’s
requirements.

Finally, in the last section of this chapter, we have performed a brief economical approach to the
production of a climbing carabiner. We have supposed to make a production of 20000 standard
carabiners with their C-shape part constituted by a bent bar with a double T section. In parallel,
we have consider a wire-gate locking system in AISI 316 stainless steel and the Aluminum alloy
7075-T6 (Ergal)as the material for the “C” body because has been the obtained optimal material
result from the preliminary analyzes.
We have obtained a final price of 2.3015 €, which is quite reasonable. Usually the considered
carabiner model has a market price of about 7-10 €. In that case we will have a potential benefit
of 5 – 8 € for each carabiner, value which is quite adequate. So the described procedure has been
made with a good approach to the real possible values of manufacturing costs.

215
Bibliography

[1] F. D'Errico, "The Material Selection Strategy," in Material Selections by a Hybrid

Multi_criteria Approach, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 6-42.

[2] J. Gregory, "MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials," 2005. [Online].
Available: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/materials-science-and-engineering/3-080-economic-
environmental-issues-in-materials-selection-fall-2005/lecture-notes/lec_ms1.pdf.

[3] F. D'Errico, "Multi-objective optimization in engineering design," in Material Selections by

a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Approach, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 2015,
pp. 42-76.

[4] F. D'Errico, "The total explicit-implicit approach: the special QFD matrix for material
selection," in Material Selections by a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Approach, Switzerland,
Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 76-106.

[5] F. D'Errico, "The use of QFD4Mat and graphic tools in product development processes," in
Material Selection by a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Approach, Switzerland, Springer
International Publishing, 2015, pp. 107-128.

[6] (Unattributed), "WeighMyRack Blog," 17 September 2014. [Online]. Available:

http://blog.weighmyrack.com/are-keylock-carabiners-always-better-than-nonkeylock-
carabiners/. [Accessed 20 June 2015].

[7] The ITS Crew, "Imminent threat solutions," ITS TACTICAL, 30 September 2009. [Online].
Available: http://www.itstactical.com/. [Accessed 15 July 2015].

[8] Mountain Equipment Co-operative, "MEC," MEC - Mountain Equipment Co-operative,

2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.mec.ca. [Accessed 21 July 2015].

[9] J. Eiselt, "REI," REI - Recreational Equipment, Inc., 05 05 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.rei.com. [Accessed 21 July 2015].

[10] Grivel Mont Blanc, "WeighMyRack," WeighMyRack, 2013. [Online]. Available:

http://www.weighmyrack.com/. [Accessed 21 July 2015].

[11] S. Santos, Introduction to Rigging Lyras and Trapeze Bars, Hardcover, 2013.

216
[12] Rock Exotica Equipment, "Rock Exotica: Gear for the Z axis," Rock Exotica, 2013.
[Online]. Available: http://www.rockexotica.com/pirate/. [Accessed 21 July 2015].

[13] Black Diamond, "Black Diamond Equipment SHOP - Magnetron Gridlock Carabiner,"
Black Diamond Equipment SHOP, 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://blackdiamondequipment.com. [Accessed 21 July 2015].

[14] British Standards Institution, "EN 12275, Mountaineering equipment – Connectors – Safety
requirements and test," British Standards Institution, London, 1998.

[15] UIAA, "UIAA 121 - Mountaineering and Climbing Equipment - Connectors," Union
Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme, 2004.

[16] S. Welsh, "The effect of damage on the strength of climbing carabiners," University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, 2013.

[17] Alacer Mas, "Alacer Mas," [Online]. Available: http://www.alacermas.com. [Accessed 24

July 2015].

[18] MatWeb, "MatWeb - Material Property Data," [Online]. Available:

http://www.matweb.com. [Accessed 25 July 2015].

[19] Aluminios y Metales Unicornio,, "Aluminios y metales Unicornio," 2013. [Online].

Available: http://www.aluminiosymetalesunicornio.com. [Accessed 24 July 2015].

[20] J. Cortes, "delmetal.com," [Online]. Available: http://www.delmetal.com. [Accessed 24

July 2015].

[21] Multimer S.A, "Multimer S.A - Aceros Inoxidables," [Online]. Available:

http://www.multimet.net. [Accessed 25 July 2015].

[22] A. S. Metals, "AZO Materials," 18 February 2004. [Online]. Available:

http://www.azom.com. [Accessed 25 July 2015].

[23] M. Shulimson, "North American Alloys," 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.northamericanalloys.com. [Accessed 25 July 2015].

[24] RTI International Metals, "RTI International Metals," January 2000. [Online]. Available:
http://www.rtiintl.com. [Accessed 25 July 2015].

217
[25] Wei-Chih Chung, Leu-Wen Tsay and Chun Chen, "Microstructure and Notch Properties of
Heat-Treated Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe Laser Welds," in Materials Transactions, Vol. 50, No.
3, Japan, The Japan Institute of Metals, 2009, p. 544 to 550.

[26] M. C. Kuo, J. C. Huang, M. Chen and M. H. Jen, "Fabrication of High Performance

Magnesium/Carbon-Fiber/PEEK Laminated Composites," in Materials Transactions, Vol.
44, No. 8, Japan, The Japan Institute of Metals, 2003, p. 1613 to 1619.

[27] Victrex, "Victrex - High Performance Polymers," [Online]. Available:

http://www.victrex.com/en/datasheets. [Accessed 25 July 2015].

[28] J. W. a L. Sanger, ""Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"," Wikipedia, [Online]. Available:

https://es.wikipedia.org. [Accessed 26 July 2015].

[29] M. Linari, Design Optimization, Milan: MSC Sof tware S. r. l ., 2015.

[30] Institute for Mathematical Sciences, "National University of Singapore - Institute for
Mathematical Sciences," [Online]. Available: www.ims.nus.edu.sg. [Accessed 28 July
2015].

[31] G. Venter, "UF - University of Florida - Department of Mechanical and Aerospatial

Engineering," [Online]. Available: http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/. [Accessed 28 July 2015].

[32] Topology Optimization research group, "TopOpt Research Group," [Online]. Available:
http://www.topopt.dtu.dk/?q=node/5. [Accessed 30 July 2015].

[33] MSC Software, "4 CAD Group," [Online]. Available: http://www.4cad.fr/files/ds_msc-

nastran-optimization_ltr_w.pdf. [Accessed 30 July 2015].

[34] MCS Software Corporation, "MCS Software," [Online]. Available:

http://www.mscsoftware.com/assets/3154_NA2004NOVZTOPZLTDAT.pdf. [Accessed
30 July 2015].

[35] I. A. Hernández, "Extremos," 27 August 2007. [Online]. Available:

http://www.extremos.org.ve/El-Mosqueton.html. [Accessed 02 August 2015].

[36] ASAC Manager, "Asac Formación | Conocimiento, Técnica y Seguridad.," 5 September

2014. [Online]. Available: http://asacformacion.com/.

218
[37] The International Climbing and Mountain Federation, "International Climbing and
Mountaineering Federation," 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.theuiaa.org/.
[Accessed June 2015].

[38] M. Twight, Extreme Alpinism: Climbing Light, Fast, and High, The Mountaineers, 1999.

[39] V. Scott, "Carabiner development - Tracking developments in rock climbing technology,"

September 2013. [Online]. Available: http://crabdev.blogspot.com.es/. [Accessed 6 July
2015].

[40] RockRun, "RockRun," [Online]. Available: http://www.rockrun.com/. [Accessed 02

August 2015].

[41] Needle Sports, "Needle Sports," [Online]. Available: http://www.needlesports.com/.

[Accessed 03 August 2015].

[42] Euromac, "Euromac: Punching & Bending Machines," Euromac S.p.A, [Online]. Available:
http://www.euromac.com/php/page.php?lingua=eng&tipo=digibend400. [Accessed 5
August 2015].

[43] Nabertherm, "Nabertherm: More tha Heat," Nabertherm, [Online]. Available:

http://www.nabertherm.com. [Accessed 05 July 2015].

[44] Mecolpress, "MecolPress: Dellavia osterwalder," Mecolpress S.p.A, [Online]. Available:

http://www.mecolpress.com. [Accessed 05 August 2015].

[45] Bodycote, "Bodycote," Bodycote, [Online]. Available: http://www.bodycote.com.

[Accessed 06 July 2015].

[46] AVAtec, "AVAtec," AVAtec GmbH, [Online]. Available: http://www.avatec.de/.

[Accessed 06 August 2015].

[47] F. Lumini, Lezioni ed esercitazioni del corso di Studi di Fabbricazione, Milan: Politecnico
di Milano, 2015.

[48] Knuth, "Knuth: Machine Tools," Knuth, [Online]. Available: http://www.knuth-

machinetools.com/. [Accessed 06 July 2015].

[49] Repute Industries, "Repute Industries," Repute Industries, [Online]. Available:

http://www.reputeindustries.com. [Accessed 06 August 2015].

219
[50] Gravograph, "Gravograph," Gravograph, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.gravograph.com. [Accessed 07 August 2015].

[51] J. W. a. L. Sanger, "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," Wikipedia, [Online]. Available:

https://es.wikipedia.org.

[52] Prof. Olivier de Weck and Dr. Il Yong Kim, "Massachusetts Institute of Technology," MIT,
12 July 2014. [Online]. Available: http://web.mit.edu/16.810/www/16.810_L4_CAE.pdf.
[Accessed 03 August 2015].

[53] Vertical Device Solutions, "Pruebas de Caida y Resistencia Mosquetones de Aluminio -

Mosquetones ISC en México," Vertical Device Solutions, 26 September 2013. [Online].
Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNa__J0hl80. [Accessed 09 August 2015].

[54] Alibaba Group, "Alibaba.com: Global trade starts here," Alibaba Group, 1995-2015.
[Online]. Available: http://spanish.alibaba.com. [Accessed 14 August 2015].

[55] Forum Sport, "Forum Sport," FORUM SPORT, S.A, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.forumsport.com. [Accessed 15 August 2015].

[56] Hamacamania, "Hamacamania," Hamacamania, 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://hamacamania.com. [Accessed 15 August 2015].

[57] G. Boothroyd, P.Dewhurst, W.A. Knight, Product Desing for Manufacture and Assembly,
USA: CRC Press, 2002.

[58] (Unattributed), "Simply Circus," Simply Circus, 2012. [Online]. Available:

http://www.simplycircus.com. [Accessed 2015 July 7].

220
ANEXES

221
 I. Tables of Chemical Composition and Mechanical Properties of the considerate candidate materials

Chemical Composition of the selected materials %

Designation or trade name C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo V Cu Fe Ti Zn Mg Al
Aluminum 7075-T6 - ≤ 0,3 ≤ 0,4 0,18 -0,28 - - - 1,2 - 2 ≤ 0,5 ≤ 0,2 ≤ 5,1 - 6,1 2,1 - 2,9 87,1 - 91,4
Titanium alloy Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700) ≤ 0,8 - - - - 1,8 - 2,2 2,5 - 3,5 - 1,7 - 2,3 8,7 - - 4,0 - 5,0
AISI Type 316L Stainless Steel, annealed bar ≤ 0,03 ≤ 2,0 ≤ 1,0 16 - 18 10,0 - 14,0 2,0 - 3,0 - - 61,9 - 72 - - - -

Chemical Composition of the selected materials %

Designation or trade name Nb N H O Y S P
Aluminum 7075-T6 - - - - - - -
Titanium alloy Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700) 6,5 - 7,5 ≤ 0,05 ≤ 0,01 ≤ 0,15 ≤ 0,005 - -
AISI Type 316L Stainless Steel, annealed bar - - - - - ≤ 0,03 ≤ 0,045

Mechanical Properties after the considered heat treatments

Hardenes, Hardenes, Hardenes Charpy V- Izod Charpy
Designation or trade name UTS [MPa] YS[MPa] E [GPa] Elongation [%]
Brinell Rockwell B Vickers notched (CVN) Impact [J] Impact [J]
Aluminum 7075-T6 572 503 150 87 175 71,7 62 kJ/m2 22 22 11
Titanium alloy Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700) 960 900 - - 315 110 - - 130 10
AISI Type 316L Stainless Steel, annealed bar 515 205 149 80 155 193 - 150 103 60

Mechanical Properties after the considered heat treatments

Kic Density Specific Strenght Price Machinability Corrosion Fatigue strengh, Poisson
Designation or trade name
[Mpa·m^(1/2)] [kg/m^3] [kN*m/Kg] [€/kg] [%] rate (mpy) Se [MPa] ratio
Aluminum 7075-T6 20 2810 203,559 12,167 72 7,02 159 0,33
Titanium alloy Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700) 70 4540 211,454 17,69 54 0,2 0,32
AISI Type 316L Stainless Steel, annealed bar 90 8000 63,375 5,728 60 0,647 0,3

𝑁𝑂𝑇𝐸: 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑤𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 4 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑏𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠,
𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑄 + 𝑇 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠
222
 II. Ashby coefficients

ASHBY Indexes
E/ρ [MPa / kg/m³] σf / ρ [MPa / kg/m³] σf^3/E^2 [MPa^(3/2)]
Designation or trade name Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
Rapport Rapport Rapport
(E) (ρ) (σf ) (ρ) (σf^3) (E^2 )
Aluminum 7075-T6 71700 2810 25,516 503 2810 0,179 1,273E+26 5,141E+21 24755,155
Titanium alloy Ti-4.5Al-3V-2Mo-2Fe (SP-700) 110000 4540 24,229 900 4540 0,198 7,290E+26 1,210E+22 60247,934
AISI Type 316L Stainless Steel, annealed bar 193000 8000 24,125 205 8000 0,026 8,615E+24 3,725E+22 231,285

III. FEM Results

First FEM analyze

Analyzed Parameters
ANALYZE nº 1 Global edge length 15 Deformations [mm] Stress Tensor [MPa]
Number of elements 2294 Components (max absolut) Components (max absolut)
Magnitude Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 0,759 2,62 2,06 2,76 302 747 233 761
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 0,0048 1,71 1,35 1,8 286 747 219 762
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,00257 0,974 0,767 1,03 257 746 195 764

Analyzed Parameters
ANALYZE nº 2 Global edge length 15 Deformations [mm] Stress Tensor [MPa]
Number of elements 2294 Components Components
Resultant Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 0,00862 2,65 2,08 2,79 336 750 304 801
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 0,00543 1,73 1,38 1,82 317 746 287 802
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,00289 0,975 0,77 1,06 284 747 257 804

223
 Analyzed Parameters
Deformations [mm] Stress Tensor [MPa]
ANALYZE nº 3 15:2294
Components Components
Resultant Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 0,00802 2,633 2,065 2,77 314 748 256 776
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 0,00512 1,72 1,36 1,807 295 747 240 778
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,00269 0,974 0,778 1,04 257 751 213 781

Analyzed Parameters
Deformations [mm] Stress Tensor [MPa]
AVERAGE RESULTS
Components Components
Resultant Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 0,259 2,634 2,068 2,773 317,333 748,333 264,333 779,333
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 0,005 1,720 1,363 1,809 299,333 746,667 248,667 780,667
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,003 0,974 0,772 1,043 266,000 748,000 221,667 783,000

Second FEM analyze

Analyzed Parameters
Deformations [mm] Stress Tensor [MPa]
ANALYZE nº 1
Components Components
Resultant Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 1,92 0,0622 4,7 4,75 259 142 599 604
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 1,63 0,0409 3,09 3,13 260 138 604 610
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,936 0,0235 1,78 1,8 261 131 609 616

224
 Analyzed Parameters
Deformations [mm] Stress Tensor [MPa]
ANALYZE nº 2
Components Components
Resultant Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 1,89 0,0598 4,68 4,73 269 152 609 614
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 1,56 0,0385 3,06 3,1 270 148 614 620
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,902 0,0197 1,75 1,77 271 141 619 626

Analyzed Parameters
Deformations [mm] Stress Tensor [MPa]
ANALYZE nº 3
Components Components
Resultant Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 1,95 0,066 4,72 4,79 244 127 584 589
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 1,67 0,0446 3,12 3,16 244 122 588 596
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,942 0,0269 1,81 1,83 244 117 593 604

Analyzed Parameters Analyzed Parameters

Deformations [mm] Stress Tensor [MPa]
AVERAGE RESULTS
Components Components
Resultant Von Mises
X direction Y direction Z direction X direction Y direction Z direction
Designation or Aluminum alloy - 7075 T6 1,9200 0,0627 4,7000 4,7567 257,3333 140,3333 597,3333 602,3333
trade name: Titanuim alloy - SP 700 1,6200 0,0413 3,0900 3,1300 258,0000 136,0000 602,0000 608,6667
material Stainless steel - AISI 316L 0,9267 0,0234 1,7800 1,8000 258,6667 129,6667 607,0000 615,3333

225
IV. Table of figures

Fig: 1 Example of a Light and strong tie loaded [2]................................................................................ 6

Fig: 2 Classification of the different materials’ types [2] ........................................................................ 8
Fig: 3 Example of an elementary selection by material bar charts [2] .................................................... 9
Fig: 4 Example of a material property chart [2] ...................................................................................... 9
Fig: 5 Scheme of ha sink power electronics [2] .................................................................................... 10
Fig: 6 Material bar chart for the maximum service temperatures in the example case [2] ................... 10
Fig: 7 Material chart plot representing thermal conductivity against electrical resistivity for the example
case [2] .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Fig: 8 Material plot chart for the example case with strength is plotted σ against a density ρ [1] ........ 12
Fig: 9 Indifference curves represented on a chart diagram show the utility values of the example in Table
2 [3] ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
Fig: 10 When the budget line is tangent to the indifference curve, the consumer cannot do any better.
Compared to the other points of intersection between the indifferent curves and the budget line “$3”,
this point can maximize utility for the consumer: in fact the maximum utility (35) is obtained among the
indifference curves that can match the maximum budget the consumer can spend. This intersection point
therefore defines the optimal allocation of bananas and kiwis in respect to quantity. Note that, if you
reduce the consumer’s budget – e.g. for $1.1 to spend –, the budget line moves on right-bottom corner
and thus the indifference curve that allow maximum utility changes accordingly. [3] ......................... 20
Fig: 11 Indifference curves represented on a chart diagram shown for the utility values of the example
[3] .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Fig: 12 Indifference curves represented on chart diagram .................................................................... 23
Fig: 13 Trade-off lines helps to single out candidate materials with the best compromise ( maximum
utility) .................................................................................................................................................... 23
Fig: 14 Trade off line considering a limit in the budget [3] .................................................................. 24
Fig: 15 Identification of the zones where the best solutions are located [3] ......................................... 24
Fig: 16 Changes in solutions driven by the slope of the penalty function: change in the exchange constant
for mass produces a consistent variation in the penalty function slope and therefore the variation of
tangent point P. [3] ................................................................................................................................ 25
Fig: 17 Scheme of the QFD matrix. Because of its shape, it is also usually called the “House of Quality”
[3] .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Fig: 18 Major features of road-bike saddle [3]...................................................................................... 32
Fig: 19 Example questionnaire for gathering information data from customers relevant for the QFD
matrix. [3] ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Fig: 20 Establishing a link relationship matrix extract from the bike saddle study. [3] ........................ 35
Fig: 21 Correlation matrix for the bike saddle study. [3] ...................................................................... 36
Fig: 22 Technical importance rating for a number of engineering characteristics for the bike saddle study
[3] .......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Fig: 23 Calculation of Total Weighted Score for three competing products in the case studied [3] ..... 39

226
Fig: 24 Global Example of QFD matrix for the bike saddle case study [3] .......................................... 40
Fig: 25 Link relationship matrix extract from the study case of a crankshaft [4] ................................. 42
Fig: 26 The flow chart for the calculation the Global Index P (box 7) for three candidate materials [4]
............................................................................................................................................................... 44
Fig: 27 The customized QFD4Mat for the crankshaft case study [4] ................................................... 45
Fig: 28 Relevant portions of QFD4Mat constructed for a general case of study with 20 key features [5]
............................................................................................................................................................... 46
Fig: 29 The Value Curve visualizing the final results of QFD4Mat [5]................................................ 46
Fig: 30 Simplified gap model for a new tangible product [5] ............................................................... 48
Fig: 31 Scheme of model to represent as regards the demand and supply sides all product requirements
and product features developed to answer to requirements expressed by VOC. [5] ............................. 50
Fig: 32 Construction of PCR bubbles for the supply side and the demand-side [5] ............................. 51
Fig: 33. P and C coordinates are fixed, R parameter increases. [5]....................................................... 52
Fig: 34 The two PCR bubbles match: the product feature proposal regarding supply partially covers the
demand expectations [5]........................................................................................................................ 52
Fig: 35 The supplying bubbles positioned outside the demand bubble imply the different efficiency of
the NPD process [5] .............................................................................................................................. 52
Fig: 36 Benchmarking and market positioning: the market competition visualization by PCR bubbles.
[5] .......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Fig: 37 Functionality scheme of a D-shaped carabiner [58] ................................................................. 54
Fig: 38 Key nose [11] ............................................................................................................................ 55
Fig: 39 Hook nose [11].......................................................................................................................... 55
Fig: 40 The keylock design on the left, and the traditional hooked-nose design on the right [6] ......... 56
Fig: 41 The smoother the curve and flatter the arc, the lower the snag potential [6] ............................ 56
Fig: 42 traditional unshrouded design to some shrouding to fully shrouded in front view [6] ............. 57
Fig: 43 traditional unshrouded design to some shrouding to fully shrouded in back view [6] ............. 57
Fig: 44 Deeper notches are definitely a warning flag of potential snagging [6] ................................... 57
Fig: 45 Example of wiregate [9]............................................................................................................ 58
Fig: 46 Example of straight gate ........................................................................................................... 59
Fig: 47 Example of bent wiregate [7] .................................................................................................... 59
Fig: 48 Example of bent gate [9] ........................................................................................................... 59
Fig: 49 Example of twin gate type [10] ................................................................................................. 60
Fig: 50 Example of the tree main existing locking systems: non-locking, screw locking, and auto-locking
............................................................................................................................................................... 61
Fig: 51 Twist lock ................................................................................................................................. 62
Fig: 52 Screw Lock ............................................................................................................................... 62
Fig: 53 Schemes of the different locking stages for the different locking mechanisms [12] ................ 62

227
Fig: 54 Example of a tree stage, a ball lock and magnet lock carabiners respectively from left to the right
[12] [13]................................................................................................................................................. 62
Fig: 55 Image of the model mesh for the climbing carabiner ............................................................... 67
Fig: 56 Strain results for a closed gate carabiner subjected to a monotonic load .................................. 67
Fig: 57 Bubble graph comparing candidate materials ........................................................................... 75
Fig: 58 Value curve for comparison with key differences circled in orange and purple....................... 76
Fig: 59 Graphic examples of a constrained minimum problem (left) and an unconstrained minimum
problem (right) [29] ............................................................................................................................... 83
Fig: 60 Graphical idea of the mathematical resolution [29] .................................................................. 84
Fig: 61 Scheme of the proposed beam example [29] ............................................................................ 84
Fig: 62 Graphical idea of the optimization process [29] ....................................................................... 86
Fig: 63 Graphic illustrations of the method of feasible directions [29]................................................ 87
Fig: 64 Illustrations of the zigzag problem with the method of feasible directions [29]....................... 87
Fig: 65 Influence of a constrain condition [29] ..................................................................................... 88
Fig: 66 Idea of the sensitivities [29] ...................................................................................................... 88
Fig: 67 Graphical representation of the Conjugate direction method ................................................... 89
Fig: 68 Illustrations of the example case: spring-system equilibrium ................................................... 90
Fig: 69 Topology Optimization of a bike frame: from the design space to the suggested shape for a
bridge structure for achieving a smoothed FEM and preliminary geometry. [29] ................................ 94
Fig: 70 Topology Optimization within the design process.................................................................... 95
Fig: 71 Imported geometry [29] ............................................................................................................ 98
Fig: 72 Side section geometry generation by extracting a side face of the solid [29] ........................... 98
Fig: 73 Creation of the number of finite elements in the surface region [29]: ...................................... 99
Fig: 74 Creation of the mesh in each surfaces [29] ............................................................................... 99
Fig: 75 Completing the 2D mesh [29] ................................................................................................. 100
Fig: 76 Extrusion of the 2D mesh to obtain the complete 3D mesh [29] ............................................ 100
Fig: 77 Definition of the regions that should not be modified [29]:.................................................... 100
Fig: 78 Fringe plot representation of the topology optimization for a packaging mechanism arm [29]
............................................................................................................................................................. 102
Fig: 79 The different element ‘deletion’ representations that we obtain by varying the threshold from
0.1 to 1 [29] ......................................................................................................................................... 103
Fig: 80 Possible optimal configuration taking into account the obtaining results from the topology
optimization [29] ................................................................................................................................. 103
Fig: 81 Smoothed refines mesh and CAD geometry model obtained from the optimal result form [29]
............................................................................................................................................................. 104
Fig: 82 Skin fine element obtained from the topology optimization [29] ........................................... 105
Fig: 83 Symmetric shape of carabiners [35]........................................................................................ 108

228
Fig: 84 Asymmetric shapes of climbing carabiners [35]..................................................................... 108
Fig: 85 Type A carabiner joined to an specific anchor type [36] ........................................................ 109
Fig: 86 Carabiner Type A [36] ............................................................................................................ 109
Fig: 87 Carabiner Type B – Symmetrical [36] .................................................................................... 109
Fig: 88 Carabiner Type B – Asymmetrical [36] .................................................................................. 110
Fig: 89 Carabiner Type D [36] ............................................................................................................ 110
Fig: 90 Carabiner Type H used to make a dynamic knot [36] ............................................................ 111
Fig: 91 Carabiner Type H (HMS) [36] ................................................................................................ 111
Fig: 92 Limits of use for the Carabiner Type H [36] .......................................................................... 111
Fig: 93 Carabiner Type K (Klettersteig) [36] ...................................................................................... 112
Fig: 94 Carabiner Type Q: (Quick Link) [36] ..................................................................................... 112
Fig: 95 Carabiner Type X: Oval Shape [36] ....................................................................................... 112
Fig: 96 Figures illustrating the strength, opening, and gate opening force limit by the UIAA regulations
[37] ...................................................................................................................................................... 115
Fig: 97 Weight reduction has been attained by reducing material; strength and stiffness are maintained
by using an ‘I-beam’ style of design. Left: 85 g Right: 52 g. .............................................................. 116
Fig: 98 A selection of the lightest carabiners currently available. Left to right: DMM Phantom, Wild
Country Xenon Lite, Camp Nano, Black Diamond Oz, DMM Spectre [40] [41] ............................... 117
Fig: 99 The C-shaped body and the wire gate locking mechanism system considered [10] ............... 120
Fig: 100 general scheme of the manufacturing climbing carabiner process ....................................... 121
Fig: 101 Photos of the different steps in bending phase and possible carabiners................................ 122
Fig: 102 Digibend EuroMAC 400 CNC [42] ...................................................................................... 122
Fig: 103 Electric belt furnace [43] ...................................................................................................... 123
Fig: 104 Rotating hearth electric furnace [43] .................................................................................... 123
Fig: 105 SOV / 3 FP Mecolpress model [44] ...................................................................................... 124
Fig: 106 S4 / V Mecolpress model [44] .............................................................................................. 125
Fig: 107 Ceramic polyurea conical inserts .......................................................................................... 127
Fig: 108 Tumbling Avatec TE 60 A [46] ............................................................................................ 127
Fig: 109 KNUTH SBT 35 drill [48] .................................................................................................... 128
Fig: 110 3D CNC wire bending machine ............................................................................................ 129
Fig: 111 Longitudinal Tensile test....................................................................................................... 129
Fig: 112 Gravograph LS100Ex machine [50] ..................................................................................... 130
Fig: 113 Laser marking in a climbing carabiner ................................................................................. 130
Fig: 114 Transformations during the manufacturing process.............................................................. 130
Fig: 115 Main FEA procedure steps by commercial software ............................................................ 136
Fig: 116 Vertical machining center model [52] .................................................................................. 136
229
Fig: 117 Domain division into a number of small and simple elements, and interpolation of the field
quantity [52] ........................................................................................................................................ 137
Fig: 118 Assembling of the different behavior equations of each element [52] ................................. 138
Fig: 119 Obtaining unknown variables after solving the equations [52] ............................................ 138
Fig: 120 Images of the 3D complete carabiner model used for the FEM analyze analyze ................. 139
Fig: 121 “C” body of the climbing carabiner ...................................................................................... 140
Fig: 122 Images of the importation of the CAD model to the Patran domain .................................... 140
Fig: 123 Commands used to scale the Solid........................................................................................ 141
Fig: 124 Commands used for to create the material ............................................................................ 141
Fig: 125 Definition of the main properties for each material .............................................................. 141
Fig: 126 Main parts of the assignation of the properties to the studied solid ...................................... 142
Fig: 127 Commands used to create the loads and boundary conditions .............................................. 142
Fig: 128 Definition of the load and boundary conditions: nodal forces in the ends of the carabiner and
middle section fixed ............................................................................................................................ 143
Fig: 129 Results obtained from the loads and constraints: Nodal force and a fixed section ............... 143
Fig: 130 Commands used for the meshing .......................................................................................... 144
Fig: 131 Obtained mesh and number of elements created................................................................... 144
Fig: 132 Commands used for the analyze ........................................................................................... 144
Fig: 133 Selection of the type of analyze and the output to visualize in the results ............................ 145
Fig: 134 Analyze made by Nastran ..................................................................................................... 145
Fig: 135 Commands used to attach the file to the carabiner body ...................................................... 146
Fig: 136 All the possibilities that we have to represent the results ..................................................... 146
Fig: 137 Figures shown the four main ways of result representations that are commonly done (from up
to down): Fringe plot of stresses; Deformated; Quick plot of Stress in Fringe mode and Deformated;
Fringe plot of displacements ............................................................................................................... 147
Fig: 138 Representation of the main stresses in Fringe plots per each component (respectively from left
to right and from up to down): X stress component, Y stress component, Z stress component for a general
case with steel as the considered material. .......................................................................................... 150
Fig: 139 Considered workspace with an hollow form of a “C” body carabiner ................................. 153
Fig: 140 Square workspace ................................................................................................................. 153
Fig: 141 Oval workspace..................................................................................................................... 153
Fig: 142 Imported geometry in Patran................................................................................................. 153
Fig: 143 Material creation ................................................................................................................... 154
Fig: 144 Definition of the properties: material and considered thickness, and the application region 154
Fig: 145 IsoMesh of the surfaces around the hollow .......................................................................... 156
Fig: 146 Hybrid Mesh of the main surface. Final obtained mesh ....................................................... 156
Fig: 147 Definition of the Boundary Coditons: fixed 123456............................................................. 157
230
Fig: 148 Definition of the applied loads: Fsup and Finf ..................................................................... 157
Fig: 149 Final configuration after define the Loads and Boundary Conditions .................................. 158
Fig: 150 Creation of a Load Case ........................................................................................................ 158
Fig: 151 Selection of the Toptomize Analyze ..................................................................................... 158
Fig: 152 Definition of the Objective Funtion and the constraint target ............................................... 159
Fig: 153 Definition of the Topology parameters ................................................................................. 159
Fig: 154 Defining the topology optimization domain ......................................................................... 160
Fig: 155 Selection of the created Load Case ....................................................................................... 160
Fig: 156 Nastran calculations .............................................................................................................. 161
Fig: 157 Commands to acces to the results ......................................................................................... 161
Fig: 158 Commands to attach the Nastran results to our model .......................................................... 161
Fig: 159 Displaying Commands .......................................................................................................... 162
Fig: 160 Fringe representation for the case of the climbing carabiner with real loads, spine middle point
fix and a threshold of 0 ........................................................................................................................ 162
Fig: 161 Four different results for four different thresholds (from left to right): 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1 ........ 163
Fig: 162 Configuration with three fixed points: one in the middle of the spine, and the orther two in the
contact zones between the “C” body and the gate ............................................................................... 164
Fig: 163 Configuration with two fixed points in the contact zones between the “C” body and the gate
............................................................................................................................................................. 164
Fig: 164 Fringe representation for the case of the climbing carabiner with real loads, spine middle point
fix, contact points between the “C” body and the gate fix, and a threshold of 0................................. 165
Fig: 165 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right):
0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of tree point fix ......................................................................................... 165
Fig: 166 Fringe representation for the case of the climbing carabiner with real loads and contact points
between the “C” body and the gate fix, and a threshold of 0 .............................................................. 166
Fig: 167 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right):
0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix ............................................................................................. 166
Fig: 168 The Different caseloads configurations considered in our study .......................................... 167
Fig: 169 Fringe representation for the case of the climbing carabiner with 700 N and contact points
between the “C” body and the gate fix, and a threshold of 0 .............................................................. 167
Fig: 170 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right):
0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix and 700 N............................................................................ 167
Fig: 171 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right):
0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix and 70 N.............................................................................. 168
Fig: 172 Fringe representation for the case of study with 70N and contact points between the “C” body
and the gate fix, and a threshold of 0 .................................................................................................. 168
Fig: 173 The two configurations used to value the influence of the chosen workspace ..................... 169

231
Fig: 174 Fringe representation for the case of study with real loads, contact points between the “C” body
and the gate fix, a threshold of 0 and a workspace in oval form. ........................................................ 169
Fig: 175 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right):
0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix and real load, with a workspace in oval form ..................... 170
Fig: 176 Fringe representation for the case of study with real loads, contact points between the “C” body
and the gate fix, a threshold of 0 and a workspace in square form. .................................................... 170
Fig: 177 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right):
0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix and real load, with a workspace in square form ................. 170
Fig: 178 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right):
0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix, real loads and a target mass of 0.6 ..................................... 171
Fig: 179 Fringe representation for the case of study with real load and contact points between the “C”
body and the gate fix, for a target mass equal to 0.6 and a threshold of 0 .......................................... 171
Fig: 180 Fringe representation for the case of study with real load and contact points between the “C”
body and the gate fix, for a target mass equal to 0.4 and a threshold of 0 .......................................... 172
Fig: 181 Four different topology optimization results for four different thresholds (from left to right):
0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1, in the case of 2 point fix, real loads and a target mass of 0.4 ..................................... 172
Fig: 182 Different types of climbing carabiners that have similar shapes to the obtained by the topology
optimization [54] [55] [56] .................................................................................................................. 173
Fig: 183 FEM Smooth obtained in th case of a mass target of 0.1 and a threshold 0.1 ...................... 174
Fig: 184 Commands to obtain the FEM Smooth ................................................................................. 174
Fig: 185 In the right side the result of the topology optimization in the case of mass target of 0.2 and a
threshold 0.3. In the middle, the resulting FEM Smooth from the mentioned optimization. At the left the
final surface obtained from the FEM Smooth ..................................................................................... 175
Fig: 186 Images of exportation of the optimized surface .................................................................... 176
Fig: 187 Commands to import the optimized CAD model ................................................................. 177
Fig: 188 In the right, the creation of the tree candidate materials and definition of the “C” body
properties. In the left the commands to modify the properties each time that we want to modify the
applied material ................................................................................................................................... 177
Fig: 189 Final Loads and Boundary Conditions configuration ........................................................... 178
Fig: 190 Images of the load an BC creation conditions ...................................................................... 178
Fig: 191 Obtained Mesh ...................................................................................................................... 178
Fig: 192 Definition of the Analyze parameters and the Output Request............................................. 179
Fig: 193 Fringe representation of the resultant Von Mises stresses in the 3 cases varying the applied
material: (from up to down): Aluminum alloy, Titanium alloy, Stainless Steel. ................................ 180
Fig: 194 Fringe plot of the Z stress component in the case of Aluminum allot 7075-T6 ................... 181
Fig: 195 Fringe representation of the Resultant component of the Translational Displacements for the 3
cases varying the applied material: (from up to down): Aluminum alloy, Titanium alloy, Stainless Steel.
............................................................................................................................................................. 182
Fig: 196 Deformation plot representing the deformated shape in the case of the Aluminum alloy 7075-
T6 ........................................................................................................................................................ 182

232
Fig: 197 Obtained value curve results for the first analyze ................................................................. 190
Fig: 198 Bubble graph comparing candidate materials ....................................................................... 193
Fig: 199 Value curve for comparison with the new key differences circled in orange ....................... 194
Fig: 200 Image of the logging system ................................................................................................. 197
Fig: 201 Project section in the online software ................................................................................... 198
Fig: 202 Material section in the online software ................................................................................. 198
Fig: 203 Possible Reference Materials that offers the software .......................................................... 198
Fig: 204 Selection or creation of the product requirements ................................................................ 199
Fig: 205 Selection or creation of the key-factors ................................................................................ 200
Fig: 206 Pre-selected PR have automatically associated their KF and their respective grade of
relationship .......................................................................................................................................... 200
Fig: 207 Relations Grid in the case of the climbing carabiner ............................................................ 201
Fig: 208 Assessment of the candidate materials, and final weight results .......................................... 201
Fig: 209 Obtained value bubble map for the case of study of the climbing carabiner ........................ 202
Fig: 210 Obtained value curve for the case of study of the climbing carabiner .................................. 203

233
V. International official standard regulations for climbing carabiners

234
235
236
237
238