MME2259 - Product Design and Development

Stabilizer Device Design Process

Team name: Pilots

Brandon Kuo
Domenic Quiquero
Matthew Soldo
Sumeet Thukral
 1

Table of Content
Executive Summary – 3
Introduction – 4
Specific Development
Assess Customer Needs - 4
Problem Statement - 4
Quality Function Development - 5
Product Design Specification – 5
Scope Planning and Scheduling
Resource Estimation - 6
Gantt & Critical Path -6
Work Breakdown Structure - 6

Design Process – 6
Concept Generation
Brainstorming: Long Useful Life – 7
Brainstorming: Other Considerations – 8
Functional Decomposition and Morphological Analysis – 8
TRIZ Analysis – 8
Concept Selection
Technological Readiness – 9
Go/No-Go Screening – 9
Feasibility Judgement – 10
Weighted Concept Decision Matrix – 10
3-D Modelling on CAD – 10
DFM & DFA – 12

Conclusion – 12
 2

Recommendations – 13
Recommendations for the design process – 13
Recommendations for the design – 13

References – 15
Appendix A (Figures) – 16
Appendix B (Tables) - 18
 3

Executive Summary
Operating on uneven or rough terrains can be dangerous for people using heavy machinery,
whether it is a construction site, or farm. It is critical that these machines be supported by added
stabilizers, either two on each side, or four, one on each of the corners, and sometimes three.
This design report outlines major measures taken during the design process, and a final design
for a functional stabilizer.
The goal was to build an adjustable stabilizer that stows within the vehicle wheelbase when
retracted. Measures taken to achieve our goal are outlined below:

• Certain constraints were used to make sure that the design is completely functional. The
final stabilizer had to be able to extent two meters away from the wheelbase during
operation and must pack itself back in after operation.
• Certain customers are targeted to sell this product to, which include: construction
companies, warehouse directors, agriculture workers, trade companies, and other heavy
machinery owners.
• Customer requirements are used to optimize our design, and have it appeal more to
buyers, requirements include cost efficiency, maximum useful life, ease of cleaning, ease
of storage, ease of maintain and repair, and maximum operational safety.
• After main concepts are decided, measures are taken to choose the most efficient
concept. For our design, we had four different concepts, from which one was choses using
technological readiness, go/no-go screening, feasibility judgement, and a weighted
decision matrix.
Concept Generation: During this process in the design process, ideas were brainstormed, making
sure that all constraints are met, as well as customer requirements are met. These constraints
and customer requirements were met by several different concepts. Using a functional
decomposition tree, the main functions of a stabilizer were analysed, and diverse ways of
providing functionality was established. By the end of this, we had four unique design concepts.
Concept Selection: Prior to this step during in our design process, we had established four
concepts that all provided the functionality and qualities we needed. During this step, concept
selection, measures were taken to choose one design from the four different deigns. Starting
from technological readiness, no new innovations were made. Simple methods such as pins,
joints, and pneumatics systems were used. The four designs were weighed in a go/no-go table
where points were given to the more efficient and ideal designs, and finally a single concept was
elected.
After these crucial steps, parts were individually created in CAD, Solid works, and assembled to
form our final product.
 4

Introduction
The MME 2259 final design project was to prepare a heavy vehicle stabilizer system. This
stabilizer system is to be used to provide stability for heavy machinery in operating environments
on rough and uneven terrains. These stabilizers would be mounted on the machine for long term
use to save time and labor on the worksite.
We spoke to a local London construction company before beginning the project help us
generate design motivations. Appendix Figure A-1 shows the stabilizer operating on their
vehicles. The worker explained that the vehicle drives around worksite with the stabilizer
attached and is adjusted between being in contact to the ground to being parallel with the ground
when needed. Once the use of this component is finished, it would then be adjusted to be vertical
to the machine and is rotated via a join at the end. He explained that this was one of the several
designs that have been used among construction companies around the city.
We had learned that the design we were focused on was used for heavy cranes, and he
found them as “mobile crane stabilizer.” The constraints given for our design were to have the
stabilizer inside the heavy machine, and be pulled out during operation, like as shown in Appendix
Figure A-2. A large part of these stabilizer systems are outrigger pads. These pads are meant to
be at the end of the system on the contact point with the ground, with the purpose to distribute
the load over a larger surface area to help with stabilization. This and many other components
must be properly integrated for our final design, such as hydraulic or pneumatic systems,
member arms, and the design interface to control the system. We used our research from outside
2259 to develop modern design concepts that will be discussed in this report.

Specification Development
Assess Customer Needs
Customer needs are important to consider they will be the deciding factor customers
consider when purchasing. To make sure our product stands out when being compared to
competitor products, factors such as useful life, cost, and ergonomics need to be considered
during our design process.
Problem Definition
Our goal was to build an adjustable stabilizer to provide additional stability when
operating on uneven ground. The main goal to evaluate the functionality of the device is the
stability provided; this was quantified by the resulting normal force, and a decrease in moment
of the stabilizer. Certain constraints were essential to make sure this design was completely
functional: the stabilizing arms will extend beyond the wheelbase by a minimum of two
meters on each side and pack within the vehicle wheelbase when retracted. These constraints
helped to make sure that the final product is safe to operate and can provide a benchmark for
the size of the device.
 5

Quality Function Deployment

The next major step we took was to decide the relationship between demanded
characteristics and quality requirements. The demanded characteristics where the aspects of the
device are the metrics customers evaluate a product on; these include cost efficiently, useful life,
ease of cleaning, ergonomics, storage, and safety. The quality characteristics are design features
that will contribute to improving the product; some of these include maximizing stabilizing force,
maximizing stabilizer reach, and minimizing machine weight. Setting our ideal outcome for each
quality characteristic (i.e., maximizing, minimizing, or target value) helped give us an idea of how
to approach each feature when generating concepts for customer needs. By providing a weighted
value to each demanded quality, we were able to identify which quality characteristics to
prioritize because of their significance to the overall design. We found that maximizing stabilizer
reach, minimizing machine size, and maximizing the range of temperatures for operation had the
strongest correlation with our customer’s demanded characteristics.
Product Design Specification
We used the product design specification to find more quality characteristics/ functional
requirements for our product associated with each aspect of its operation. Starting from the
constraints, as mentioned before, the stabilizers need to be able to extend two meters away from
the wheelbase, and then retract back in. It is important that the product can work in any type of
operating environment, we assumed that we are working in Canada and set our operating
environment between -40 degrees to 40 degrees Celsius. From this specification, hydraulics
might not be the best use in our design as the fluid becomes tackier in the cold. When taking in
account to materials, it is important to as cost efficient as possible, using lightweight materials
that still supply functionality, low ductility, and anti-corrosive material would be ideal. The
materials will be heat treated for maximum toughness. Making sure this product is ergonomically
correct is especially important as we do not want to cause any injuries and avoid disorders such
as carpal tunnel. The design for our product should not involve unmounting for repairs, or post
operation for ease of use. Once the product is mounted, it needs to be possible to conduct all
internal repairs from on the machine. Since it is not being unmounted, long useful life is
important, at least five years which can be evoked by making sure the correct mechanical
measures are made in the design, as well as proper surface finish. To make sure the product can
support heavy machinery, it needs to have enough Normal Force, as well as making sure it is as
light weight the resulting product is estimated to cost about $2500, with a minimum doubled
retail price of at least $5000. Finally, it is important to make sure any existing patents do not
overlap with our product to avoid lawsuits. Once we developed a better sense of the bounds of
our product design, we moved onto the next steps of scope and planning.

Scope Planning and Scheduling

 6

Resource Estimation
The first thing we did to make our design more cost efficient was review the final design
and eliminated nonessential mechanical components. Reducing the complexity of the design
with simple structures saved on material costs. Features such as small shafts, unnecessary bolts,
and complex components were kept out of first designs. We also found that a pneumatics system
is more cost efficient than a hydraulics system. The first cost of hydraulics is also extremely high,
due to the amount extraordinarily strong parts that help deliver a massive amount of power from
hydraulics. Another trade-off for a hydraulics system was the expensive fluid associated with
them that usually consist of elevated temperature, fire-resistant fluid, which are more prone to
failure for a stronger stabilizing force. Pneumatic systems are more cost efficient less prone to
failure due to their dependence on air and gasses. Pneumatics systems have a much lower cost
than hydraulics and do not have a lot of hidden fees that hydraulics have from the use of energy
and fluid.
Once these parts were eliminated, our second approach to minimize costs was to
minimize the mass of small components. The change in mass and keeping its strength can be
achieved by using varied materials after testing the strain and stress. We identified that our
design should use pins instead of mechanical locks as they are less complex to forge,
and simpler to reproduce. If the stabilizer is built for manufacturing, the cost can be reduced
significantly. By making sure maintenance is regular, huge repair expenses can be prevented as
parts will wear out less due to maintenance.
Gantt & Critical Path
As a group, we created a timeline to keep us on track to complete the project by the end
of the semester. There were three phases on this timeline. Phase one was the concept generation
step. In this phase we brainstormed ideas, created a functional decomposition, and did the
feasibility judgment. Once this was over, phase two consisted of concept selection. We chose our
final design from using a go/no go screening as well as a decision matrix. Finally, the last phase
consisted of creating parts and assemblies on Solidworks.
Work Breakdown Structure
We broke down our steps into three phases mentioned above and broke down each
deliverable component within each phase. We used Monday.com as an outline to track our
completion as well as breakdown which members completed which tasks throughout the project.

Design Process
We broke down our design process into three main phases: concept generation, concept
selection, and concept building. In concept generation, we focused on organizing ourselves and
identifying the key objectives for this project before developing rough sketches and ideas for
various components. Concept selection was necessary for organizing these ideas and evaluating
 7

them against one another to settle on our final design. Concept building was our last step where
we executed on our designs and drew final sketches and a 3D model for our design. The following
will go more in-depth on how we did so:

Concept Generation
Our goal was to build an adjustable stabilizer that stows within the vehicle wheelbase
when retracted. We identified the key function of the stabilizer to provide additional stability to
heavy machinery when operating on uneven grounds or rough terrains by increasing the normal
force and decreasing the moment. There were additional constraints imposed on the project as
well: the stabilizers should extend at least 2 meters beyond the wheelbase, and the stabilizer
functions well between a temperature range of -30 to 30 degrees Celsius. We generated our
concepts based on these ideas from the problem statement.
We also developed customer requirements that would be used to optimize the design for
the customer’s needs. We used the Product Design Specification to generate necessary customer
requirements: maximize cost efficiency, maximize useful life, maximize ease of cleaning,
maximize ease of storage, maximize ease of maintain and repair, and maximize operational
safety. Our targeted customers would be construction companies, warehouse directors,
agriculture workers, trade companies, and other heavy machinery owners.
Brain Storming: Long Useful Life
When designing our concepts, we wanted to design with a long useful life in mind. A big
reason a lot of systems wear out over time is mechanical surface degradation, some smaller
reasons are accidents and obsolescence. A common examples of mechanical surface degradation
is corrosion and mechanical wear. Corrosion occurs when the material is exposed to the
environment for an extended period and is a resultant of chemical reactions between the surface
of the material and the environment. Corrosion can be prevented by selecting the right metal
type, protective coating, taking environmental measures, and sacrificial coatings. Protective
coating could be applied such as paint coating, or dry powder coating, but it is always more
beneficial to use sacrificial coatings. Sacrificial coatings are additional metals that the material
could be coated with depending on the material which can include tin, zinc, or metal oxide.
Although a protective coating is cheaper, it might need multiple coats, multiple times a year,
using a sacrificial coat will be more cost efficient and will ensure a longer useful life. In our design
we used a “hot blackening surface finish, allowing us turn the surface into a to a metal oxide.
Mechanical wear can occur due to several reasons: vibrations, impact, friction between
components, and parts sliding against each other to cause tear. In order to increase the useful
life of the stabilizer, enough lubricants will need to be implemented to avoid reasons for the
mechanical wear. Stabilizer might need to be checked semi-annually to check for wear, lubricant
replacements, and for cleaning. To maximize safety, once the prototype is complete, the
stabilizer might need to be tested in multiple environments and scenarios to make sure it can
 8

keep the heavy machinery stable and safe. Finally, taking small measures such as protecting the
system from the environment when not in use, and cleaning it often will help avoid wear.
Brain Storming: Other Considerations
It is important that using this system does not cause any long-term injuries to operators.
These long-term injuries can be causes by bad posture, overuse of joints, uncomfortable
positions, and making it uncomfortable to operate this system. The use of multiple button
controls and button-controlled angles allow our device to ergonomically correct. This will also
make it safe to operate, and less uncomfortable. Making sure that the system is simple, and easy
to store will help make it easy to store, which is essential to protect the stabilizer from the
environment to avoid surface degradation. Having a straightforward design concept will help
make it easy to repair and maintain, reducing labour costs during maintenance.
Functional Decomposition and Morphological Analysis
Once we developed our design philosophy for the project, we started generating tangible
solutions. Found on Appendix Figure A-3, the functional decomposition shows how the project
branches out to its necessary actions (i.e., provide support for the vehicle, extend/retract beyond
wheelbase, etc.). The necessary actions were broken down to their core problem, and we then
performed the morphological analysis and listed 2-5 viable solutions. The functional
decomposition and morphological analysis formed the core of concept generation, as it created
a set of concepts that we evaluated over a series of various lenses to determine the best
outcomes. Of the miscellaneous concepts generated, we sorted and created four assorted
designs (found in Appendix Table B-1) that could have potential as a final design.
TRIZ Analysis
The TRIZ analysis is an exercise to relate a specific problem to a general problem, then
relating that general solution to the specific solution. With this process we can design certain
aspects instead of designing concepts. Take this problem for example: as we increase the stabilizer
reach, it becomes more difficult to store underneath the wheelbase. The general problem is that the larger
a structure becomes, the more difficult it is to maneuver. The general solution for that problem is to use
a mediator to reduce the size of another object. We can relate that to a solution specific to our project:
use joints to fold the arms into themselves. The following are some of the others TRIZ analysis we
performed:

Specific Problem: As we increase the flexibility of the arms, the strength of the stabilizer will decrease

General Problems: Separation in structure- Some elements of the system have property A while other
element of the system have (has) property A.

General Solution: mediator b) temporarily connect an object with another (easily separable) object.
 9

Specific Solution: Include a pin locking mechanism for the joints to allow for both flexibility and strength
at the appropriate times.

Specific Problem: As we increase the length of the arm reach, we increase the weight of each arm.

General Problem: Separation in material: For one purpose, the material has property A; for another
purpose, it has property not A.

General Solution: 14 Use of pneumatic or hydraulic constructions - Use gaseous or fluid parts instead of
fixed parts in an object: parts that can be blown up or filled with hydraulic fluid, aircushions, hydrostatic
or hydro-reactive parts.

Specific Solution: Include the use of pneumatics to eliminate the need for a counter- weight, reducing the
weight of the stabilizer.

Concept Selection
Using our generated concepts and designs, we needed to evaluate to decide on our final
design. There were four main methods of evaluating our designs: technological readiness, go/no-
go screening, feasibility judgement, and a weighted decision matrix.
Technological Readiness
Technological Readiness considered how ready our designs were for production. If our
design were to include modern technologies, it could lead to a competitive edge against other
manufactures. Additionally, immature concepts could lead to an overall poor design. When
analyzing the stabilizer project, there is little technological advantages one can achieve. Most of
the components of the stabilizers are members, and the extension system is limited to only a few
alternative mechanical systems revolving around hydraulics and pneumatics. The main
technological innovation would come with material type, as the weight of the stabilizers is a large
component of cost efficiency and usability. The manufacturing operations, safety requirements,
controllability, and life cycle are all readily available for production.
Go/No-Go Screening
Go/No-Go Screening compares each design against the set of chosen customer
requirements in an absolute fashion. This is done to see where each design could use
improvement. For our Go/No-Go Screening (Appendix Table B-2) we found that most of our
designs were positive, meaning all had a go rating. However, Design #4 was almost perfect across
the board, with the exception being its ease of storage. Among the other design concepts, the
ability for ease of storage was either no, or maybe. The Go/No-Go Screening outlined the need
for specific detail on the material and attachment mechanism necessary for easy storage in our
final design.
 10

Feasibility Judgement
The Feasibility Judgement is an analysis to check if any of the generated concepts are
unreasonable given the project timeline. However, since the components of a machine stabilizer
is simple, there were no concepts that were unreasonable, and some that would prove to be
challenging (Appendix Table B-3). The analysis shows that Design #4 may be the most complex
among our generated concepts, however none of the concepts it uses are unreasonable. Thus,
any concept should be considered for a final weighted matrix.
Weighted Concept Decision Matrix
The Weighted Concept Decision Matrix is the most important analysis tool for this project.
The other analysis tools shed insight into the overall design and how it could be improved.
However, the weighted concept decision matrix evaluates the concepts individually to arrive at
a conclusion as to what the best overall design is. Starting with a base of Design #4 (Appendix
Table #3), each other alternative concept for each functional action is compared. As predicted by
the Go/No-Go Screening, concept #4 proved to be successful. The exception made were changing
to a pneumatic system, using bolt lock to attach to the system, and using separate arm lever
control for rotation. This modified Concept #4 selected from the weighted concept decision
matrix will be our final design.
This concept was decided via a go/no-go screening where we made sure we could
maximize qualities and customer requirements. This concept allowed us to be cost efficient,
maximize safety and useful life, make sure it is easy to store, easy to clean, easy to
maintain/repair, maximize a long storage life, and make it ergonomically correct. Our unique
design concepts are outlined in the appendices.

3-D Modelling on CAD

When we started to consider the 3-D model of our stabilizer, the first requirement we
focused on was the two-meter reach. We found a list of dimensions for a John Deere 495D
excavator seen in Appendix Figure A-4. We were able to use the height of the wheelbase along
with the requirement of a two-meter reach to determine the minimum length of one side of our
stabilizer. The minimum reach was designed to be 2.2 meters. We left extra room for error by
having the arms start 0.5 meters away from the center point of the wheelbase to ensure our
design would meet this requirement.
To get the rest of the dimensions we compared our design to the United States Patent
and used relativity to find the lengths of each part as seen in Appendix Figure A-5. We decided to
visualize the stabilizer arm in two parts; the main strut which attached the foot and the multi-
member arms. From this we were able to divide the total arm length of 2.2 meters by 2 to
allowing us to identify each part as being 1.1 meters. To find the length of the foot, we estimated
that it was 1/5 of the main strut. Using this foot length, we found a thickness that would give an
appropriate contact area between the foot and the ground. We were then able to create the
 11

thickness of each part relative to each other starting from the foot to ensure that the connecting
parts were able to be fit in their corresponding slots. The next step was to decide how the parts
would be connected. From Table B-1 under design 1 we determined that free joints were a
feasible option for connecting the different components of our stabilizer. We decided to use
25mm diameter Steel Dowel pins from McMaster-Carr due to their affordability and simplicity.
We were able to adjust the length of these pins relative to the thickness of components they
would be joining together.
While making the assembly, distance mates were used to stop parts from moving in the
wrong direction relative to each other. For example, a distance mate was used on the push rod
and the pneumatic cylinder to ensure that the push rod would not extend in the wrong direction
while also keeping the rod from moving too far relative to the cylinder.
We decided to use the sheet metal to act as a wire holder on the pneumatic cylinder.
Since sheet metal is very weak, we did not want to use it to provide any structural support for
the stabilizer as it would fail easily. Using it as a wire holder would help to increase the safety of
the stabilizer as there would not be any loose wires hanging that could result in injury.
Additionally, the sheet metal provides an extra layer of protection to the pneumatic cylinder to
keep it from being punctured while in use.
The weldment was used as a connection between the front and back panel of the
attachment to the base of the machinery. The weldment has a hollow top allowing the user to
reach through the weldment to access the bolt attachment to the machinery. This allows for easy
mounting and dismounting of the stabilizer. Since the weldment is a component that is under a
large amount of stress, 2 additional trusses were added to the sides and top of the part as well
as 4 gussets on each face.
Problems that occurred during the designing of the assembly in Solidworks originated
from the specific track shape on the face of the front weldment attachment in which the pins
slot through. The shape of the track did not allow for restriction of the pin's movement easily.
Furthermore, in the motion study portion of the project, the motion of the pins through the
track was difficult to implement correctly. The size of the piston cylinders was also a significant
issue. Due to the shape of the front plate of the assembly and the diameter of the piston
cylinder, there were many issues involving clipping between these two parts. To fix this
problem we made an extruded cut following the path of the pin slot to make more room for the
cylinder to move through. Other challenges that were encountered in the designing of the
stabilizers arms was making each part to the correct specifications such that when mated
together, they matched and were at the pre-determined length.
To collaborate on the 3-d modelling process, a google drive was made where we would
put our finished parts and drawings to be used in the assembly. We were also able to take
advantage of the remote-control function on Zoom to work on the same part or assembly
together if needed.
 12

DFM & DFA

The parts comprising the assembly was machined out of 1020 steel. 1020 Steel was
selected because 1020 steel is commonly used in construction and agricultural equipment.
Additionally, 1020 Steel has a high tensile strength, good ductility, and lends itself well to a
variety of machining operations as well as welding operations. 1020 Steel can also be
carburized in sections requiring higher strength and hardness. Machining was selected to shape
the parts because this process results in good dimensional accuracy, surface finish, and better
control over the strength of the material than other forming processes. Casting was briefly
considered but was decided against due to lesser control over the strength of the casting and
poorer surface finish.
The pneumatic cylinder was created using a variation of forging called swaging. The
advantage of swaging is that you can make a reduced diameter neck out of 1 piece of steel
without a single weld or joint in it. Swaging is typically used to create steel compressed gas
cylinders to ensure there are minimal defects (welds or joints) as the pressure from inside the
cylinder is constant at all points. This would be a useful application when making a pneumatic
as the cylinder would not have any weak points.
The stabilizer was be assembled automatically by robotic assembly and has been
designed in a simple manner such that the manufacturing process was straightforward and
would not require many decisions or adjustments. The entire design consisted of nine parts.
This reduced number of parts resulted in fewer processing steps, tolerance stack-up problems,
material control problems, and assembly fixtures. Each part was attached simply by 25mm
diameter pins which further increased the ease of assembly. Robotic assembly was selected
because the construction is undemanding and can be done more cost effectively by robots than
by workers and robotic assembly is better suited for higher rates of production.

Conclusion
Provided our motivations, and research, we were able to produce a design a feasible
heavy machine stabilizer that met customer requirements. The stabilizer had to supply support
to the heavy machine, as well as be able to pack inside a storage system after an operation. A
few constraints were recognized and met in our final design. Customer requirements were
important because meeting those requirements would allow the customer to feel comfortable
while buying our product. Four design concepts were generated with different methods of
operation and features, and after weighing the four, a single design was chosen to pursue to
make sure customer requirements were satisfied. Some of the more important requirements
included cost efficiency and long useful life, as well as being ergonomically correct. We produced
solutions for both.
 13

Recommendations
For a project like this, two types of recommendations can be made by our group. Firstly,
recommendations about the design process, and secondly, recommendations about the design
itself. These recommendations can be combined and used to make sure time is used efficiently,
as well as changes that can be, made to the design after our experience in making it to the end.

Recommendations for the design process

As a group, we produced multiple measures to help us through the design process. We
had a deadline, as there will be in the real world. As a group, to help keep us on track for the
project, we used a detailed timeline which helped us make sure we are not falling behind.
Keeping a strong timeline is strongly recommended, especially in a project like this when it is
supposed to be done over the course of 2 months. Organization is key to a project like this. To
organize our files, we used Microsoft teams. With Microsoft teams, we were able to
communicate with each other, as well as edit documents at the same time. We sorted out
documents into two main folders, a working documents folder, and a final documents folder. This
way we were able to separate rough copies and final copies and stay organized. To sum up, our
three main recommendations for the design process not only for this project, but for any project
is to keep up with a detailed timeline, and make sure that group communication and organization
becomes into an important routine.

Recommendations for the design

Once completing the design for our stabilizer on CAD, we had realized many changes that
could be made in order stabilizer more efficient. Firstly, we relied on simplicity for this project.
Simplicity is great as it can help make our design more cost efficient, but sometimes complex
concepts are important to make sure the design supplies its functionality. We had used a pin lock
for the locking mechanism to base, this way we could cut down on costs, as well as supply
functionality. Upon creating the design, we realized that it may have not been the best idea. A
much more complex feature, such as a mechanical lock might have been better as its complex
features are ideal to supply the functionality we need.
When setting up dimensions, it is important that multiple factors are taken into
consideration to make sure the product is durable. One of the biggest factors is maximum
allowable bearing pressure for when designing the foot. Bearing pressures can range from 40kPa
to 500kPa depending on the terrain, and using that pressure, the surface area of the foot can be
calculated. The surface area of the foot will have vertical forces that include gravity, and force
caused from the allowable bearing pressure. It is recommended that bearing pressure of 150kPa
be used, which includes dense or compact sand or gravel. From that, the thickness of the foot
could also be found. Other than the bearing pressure, it is important to consider other factors
such as buckling in the arms. The arms should be designed to buckle by an exceedingly small
 14

factor. The purpose of this intentional buckling will help be the product be flexible and avoid
strain.
 15

References
“Rime,” What is it and how can we prevent wear? 25-Nov-2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.rime.de/en/wiki/wear/. [Accessed: 03-Dec-2020].

S. by R. Media, “How to Prevent Corrosion,” Metal Supermarkets - Steel, Aluminum, Stainless, Hot-
Rolled, Cold-Rolled, Alloy, Carbon, Galvanized, Brass, Bronze, Copper, 20-Dec-2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.metalsupermarkets.com/how-to-prevent-corrosion/. [Accessed: 03-Dec-
2020].

S. T. E. V. E. LUDWIG and J. O. H. N. PRITCHARD, “10 Principles of Sustainable, Cost-Effective Design:

Building a Safer, More Efficient Machine,” Control Engineering, 12-Oct-2010. [Online]. Available:
https://www.controleng.com/articles/10-principles-of-sustainable-cost-effective-design-building-
a-safer-more-efficient-machine/. [Accessed: 03-Dec-2020].

B. Henneberry, “What's the Difference between Hydraulics and Pneumatics?” Thomasnet® - Product
Sourcing and Supplier Discovery Platform - Find North American Manufacturers, Suppliers, and
Industrial Companies. [Online]. Available: https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/machinery-tools-
supplies/hydraulic-vs-pneumatic-whats-the-difference/. [Accessed: 03-Dec-2020].

J. Fitch, “How and Why Machines Wear Out,” Machinery Lubrication, 02-Sep-2002. [Online]. Available:
https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/389/machines-wear-out. [Accessed: 03-Dec-2020].

“BuildingCode.Online,” The Ontario Building Code | Allowable Bearing Pressures, 2017. [Online].
Available: http://www.buildingcode.online/1253.html. [Accessed: 08-Dec-2020].

“John Deere 495D Mid-size Excavator,” John Deere. [Online]. Available:

https://www.deere.ca/assets/pdfs/common/products/excavators/excavators-wheeled-495d.pdf.
[Accessed: 08-Dec-2020].

Alpha Detroit, “The Anti-Corrosion Benefits of Black Oxide Coating,” Alpha Detroit, 06-Oct-2016.
[Online]. Available: https://alphadetroit.com.au/the-anti-corrosion-benefits-of-black-oxide-
coating/. [Accessed: 08-Dec-2020].
 16

Appendices
Figure A-1: Currently deployed heavy machine stabilizers

Figure A-2: Sketch of ideal heavy machine stabilizers

Figure A-3: Functional Decomposition and Morphological Analysis

 17

Figure A-4: John Deere 495D excavator Dimensions

Figure A-5: United States Patent for Model Stabilizers

 18

Table B-1: Concept Generation Table

 19

Table B-2: Go/No-Go Screening

 20

Table B-3: Fisability Judgement

 21

Table B-4: Weighted Concept Decision Matrix